Navy types and Marine ECMO's go in the FRS at the end, paired with a student Pilot
Marine WSO's don't go to the boat unless they stand duty for the CQ det
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Summary of NFO flight school
- Thread starter Pat1USMC
- Start date
Marine WSO's don't go to the boat unless they stand duty for the CQ det
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
All tailhook NFO studs now fly the T-39. You leave VT-10 at the conclusion of the T-6 syllabus (Forms) and check into VT-4 for 5 Airnavs, 4 Low Levels, and a composite checkride. The way they have it set up now it's two weeks of T-39 gs followed by two weeks of flying everyday and then I-Grad/selection Monday of the fifth week.
Thread revival...
I've lost track of what the AF is doing for Nav (or is it called "CSO"?) training now. It has moved around quite a bit over the past 20 years. Mather, Randolph, P-Cola,...
Are they still at P-Cola? Are they a separate training program from Navy NFO training? Is some of it done at Randolph AFB?
If any of you can enlighten on AF Nav training, I'd appreciate it.
I've lost track of what the AF is doing for Nav (or is it called "CSO"?) training now. It has moved around quite a bit over the past 20 years. Mather, Randolph, P-Cola,...
Are they still at P-Cola? Are they a separate training program from Navy NFO training? Is some of it done at Randolph AFB?
If any of you can enlighten on AF Nav training, I'd appreciate it.
When I left P'Cola in 2010, the AF had moved all of their CSO training there, combining the training at Randolph and the joint training at Pensacola into one pipeline. They have two training squadrons that share a sim building and hangar, which is completely separate from the Navy SNFO facilities. I have no clue how their pipeline works, but I do know that they start the CSO studs out in the T-6 and then switch over to the T-1 at some point in the syllabus. They were sending the very last AF studs through Navy training when I winged (mid 2010), and were completely out of the joint business shortly thereafter.
I'd be curious to hear how their syllabus works though. Any recent CSO grads lurking?
I'd be curious to hear how their syllabus works though. Any recent CSO grads lurking?
I used to be an Instructor CSO there before doing an IST to the Navy. There is no training accomplished at Randolph anymore and the term "Nav" is pretty much dead in favor of the CSO (Combat Systems Officer) concept.
The entire training pipeline morphed and moved to Pensacola in late 2009. The syllabus consists of primary in T-6s, which is similar to the Navy T-6 syllabus but with half the hours. The students then move on to the T-25 simulator which is used to teach radar fundamentals and electronic warfare. There is no intermediate phase per se, but the T-25 training is broken up by high level flights in the T-1 (very similar to Navy intermediate). The T-1 has been modified to include 2 aft stations (student and instructor) and the low level flying profiles involve electronic warfare and the 2 students working together to complete a more complex mission. I left before they actually started putting students through the new syllabus with the modified aircraft, but was involved in some of the development/instructor spin up.
Bottom line, the training is very different from Randolph which is a good thing, because that training was very archaic and not relevant to what CSO's currently do in the aircraft. That being said, it is a work in progress. In trying to get the program up and running there was a lot of turmoil between all the communities and the original draft syllabus was very electronic warfare centric. The current syllabus is better than the draft, though I think the concept of a "one size fits all" CSO is not the way to go. There is currently no track system in place, so everyone has a fair shot at any aircraft (depending on their performance and needs of the Air Force of course), but most instructors want to bring back the track system. I imagine the program will continue to evolve as all the communities give feedback on the Pensacola product.
The entire training pipeline morphed and moved to Pensacola in late 2009. The syllabus consists of primary in T-6s, which is similar to the Navy T-6 syllabus but with half the hours. The students then move on to the T-25 simulator which is used to teach radar fundamentals and electronic warfare. There is no intermediate phase per se, but the T-25 training is broken up by high level flights in the T-1 (very similar to Navy intermediate). The T-1 has been modified to include 2 aft stations (student and instructor) and the low level flying profiles involve electronic warfare and the 2 students working together to complete a more complex mission. I left before they actually started putting students through the new syllabus with the modified aircraft, but was involved in some of the development/instructor spin up.
Bottom line, the training is very different from Randolph which is a good thing, because that training was very archaic and not relevant to what CSO's currently do in the aircraft. That being said, it is a work in progress. In trying to get the program up and running there was a lot of turmoil between all the communities and the original draft syllabus was very electronic warfare centric. The current syllabus is better than the draft, though I think the concept of a "one size fits all" CSO is not the way to go. There is currently no track system in place, so everyone has a fair shot at any aircraft (depending on their performance and needs of the Air Force of course), but most instructors want to bring back the track system. I imagine the program will continue to evolve as all the communities give feedback on the Pensacola product.
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
Agree - definitely better than the Randolph schoolhouse nav-wise. The biggest issues (at least from the B-1 side) that we see in students coming out of there are airsense (being able to talk on 2 radios at once, navigate, stay task saturated, etc) and airsickness both of which probably stem from the fewer actual flight hours than the old Pensacola strike syllabus. The new sims are good for teaching tactical skills but there are some things that only being in the seat of a real airplane can develop.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Glad you asked Huggy and cfam... It's exactly as described. We went thought IFS out in Pueblo and Water survival prior to starting in Pensacola. We were the second class to graduate under the "new syllabus" with the aft station working in the T-1. The T-6 syllabus has changed since I went through...eliminating formation and I think a contact ride. Our syllabus was 3 or 4 contact rides, 1 formation, around 8 instrument, and 6ish low levels. The instrument and low levels are the only ones that have check rides. In between T-6 and high level T-1s there is one T-25 sim phase, En Route Navigation. There are 4 high level rides in the T-1 and a check ride. After that it's back to the T-25 for Electronic Support (RJ type stuff), Strike / Self Protect (B-1 type stuff). After that you move to 6 Low Level rides in the right seat (acting as a Nav) and 6 low level rides in the back seat (acting as a defensive / offensive WSO) with 2 check rides, respectively. It's a fake radar that will overlay terrain features. The low levels incorporate threat reactions as well. Upon completion (or possibly prior to - depending on the weather and class timing), there is small portion for Air Intercepts (F-15 type stuff). Sprinkled throughout are Air Defense Systems academics (ADS), Electronic Attack (EA), labs, and a corresponding academic class for each sim phase. It takes 11 months from the start of UCT until getting winged.
Three weeks from graduation everyone will 'drop' their follow-on aircraft. We had 4 F-15Es, 1 B-1B, MC-130, 2 AC-130s, 2 RJs, JSTARS, B-52, u-28 and 2 Guard C-130s. No track select.
I'm about to go to Randolph for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals for 2.5 months, and then onto the F-15 B-course.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
I feel like I lost a little bit of "air sense" during the program than I started with in civilian flying... but that's entirely subjective and probably varies from person to person. One thing to note is that the program brings a lot of diversity in instructors. You may learn how to navigate the airways with a B-52 EWO and then learn to drop bombs with a Rivet Joint Nav. The ICSOs seem to be learning to be the jack of all trades CSO, while coming from a specific skill set background. Many are great instructors who legitimately care for the students, but it is tough to teach experience in a new area. Many students leave VERY confused. It seems like a very challenging instructor assignment.
Congrats dude.....I figured you would do well!
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
That is a problem for a lot of WSOs; especially under the old program. Guys would get sick maneuvering in the back of a T-39 during reattacks (while the other studnet was up front). They would then associate airsickness with "fighter stuff" since it was reattacks and go B-1s only to find themselves in... the back of a maneuvering airplane with tiny windows. When we do 3 pilot pros (to rotate pilots in and out of the seat for pattern hops, tanker currency, etc) a lot of pilots get sick in the back since they aren't used to moving without seeing what's going on outside.
Not trying to fan the flames (although this will undoutably do so), but has anyone heard anything to the effect of a lessening demand for NFOs in the future? I have a great friend who was a F-14D and F/A-18F NFO who said that the community is shifting in a big way soon with the upcoming retirement of the T-39 and the gradual elimination of the EA-6B from Navy service (USMC will continue to fly it I believe).
I was under the impression that the Navy was managing the draw down by simply letting current Prowler folks transition to other platforms and then lengthening the current NFO pipeline, so his comments surprised me. Does anyone have any hard numbers on historic NFO hiring trends or more current gouge on the topic?
Anyway, sorry if this is the wrong place for the discussion..
I was under the impression that the Navy was managing the draw down by simply letting current Prowler folks transition to other platforms and then lengthening the current NFO pipeline, so his comments surprised me. Does anyone have any hard numbers on historic NFO hiring trends or more current gouge on the topic?
Anyway, sorry if this is the wrong place for the discussion..
