Treatment of NFOs in the fleet

[wink]

Even tho the S-3 had a NFO in front it was considered dual piloted for approach limitations. That is, of course, the case for the Hummer as there are two single anchor guys up front to begin with. (Does that mean togather they equal one NFO?)
As mentioned, the Prowler is dual piloted for approach along with the old Intruder. The point wasn't that there was actually someone to takeover the controls, but someone with an equally good look out front of the aircraft. Hence the side by side NFO crewed aircraft were considered dual piloted. The NFO can take a peak outside approaching mins while the pilot stays on the gages. If the NFO sees the runway/ball and calls it, the pilot should have the same view as the NFO/copilot when he comes of the gages.

I'm not so sure the back of the helo will ever go NFO. The AWs run a pretty good program there and they are cheeper then NFOs. Remember, the Hoover frequently had two AWs in back, replaceing a TACCO, before they lost the ASW mission.

 

[eddie]

Why the nicknames Hoover and Hummer? Yes I could "Google" it, but something tells me I wouldn't find it.

 

[SteveG75]

From OPNAV 3710.7T:

Single-piloted aircraft that are configured for and assigned all-weather missions with side-by-side seating occupied by the pilot in command and an assisting NFO may operate within the same filing, clearance, and approach criteria specified above for multipiloted aircraft provided:

(1) The assisting NFO is instrument qualified in accordance with this instruction and NATOPS qualified in the model aircraft in which NFO duties are being performed.

(2) Cockpit configuration is such that the assisting
NFO can:

(a) Monitor the pilot flight instruments

(b) Monitor and control communication

(c) Assist the pilot in acquiring the runway
visually.

The "Intruder" waiver. :icon_smil

 

[nittany03]

Why the nicknames Hoover and Hummer? Yes I could "Google" it, but something tells me I wouldn't find it.

Apparently the S-3 sounds like a vacuum cleaner. Having heard a few fly by in my short time, it's not too far off the mark.

Funny, little-known corollary to the nickname: The local high school for the town where the vacuums (not the planes, the real ones) are made was adjacent to mine, and is called (naturally) Hoover High. Their nickname is the Hoover Vikings. Go figure . . .

 

[Brett327]

Does that mean three ECMOs equal one pilot??

I know, I know, its a perch slap to Wink's post, but I had to do it.

Nope, just one The two in back are too busy making farting noises over ICS or fighting over which radio station to listen to.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Why the nicknames Hoover and Hummer? Yes I could "Google" it, but something tells me I wouldn't find it.

Named after the respective sounds they make when they're running.

 

[Flash]

There was serious talk about a NFO in the SH-60 when it frist came around. Talk was that the aircraft was eaier to fly then the SH-2 and there would be a greater mission orientation for the copilot, so turn him into a NFO. The VS community did that when it went from S-2 to S-3. Of course the HSL NFO never happened and it seems that was the right path. I expect you will see helo NFOs as technology develops to the point that the work load of a helo pilot is reduced to where he can get by with someone simply monitoring the flying and working the comms for him while concentrating fully on the mission, ie NFO.

BTW, add my name to the list of NFOs that never felt like a second class citizen. I'm sure the NFO dominance of the mission drives some of that. But I wonder if it is a TACAIR thing, inspite of the big heads of many ointy nose pilots.

The Royal Navy has Observers (what they cal their NFO's) fly in the front of their helos. I knew a VP NFO who did an exchange tour with them and had a blast.

Here is a link: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/8994.html

And a quote: Observers sit beside the pilots and spend up to 9 months at RNAS Yeovilton learning secondary roles, how to navigate and fight the aircraft and, as for the Merlin training, culminates in an embarked phase where everything is drawn together on a ship at sea.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Yeah, we had a few German students running around VT-4 who were going to be FOs in the Sea King...

 

[USN99]

BTW, add my name to the list of NFOs that never felt like a second class citizen. I'm sure the NFO dominance of the mission drives some of that.

Add my name to the list too. When I was selecting out of NROTC I had the same question on my mind - but that was in the post-Vietnam era and we had NROTC instructor NFOs with combat time. They were among the first NFOs, having entered service after NAOs were converted.

I rarely ran into a pilot who had a bad attitude about NFOs. Of those very few, they were typically ignorant tools whose entire frame of reference was limited by the stick between their legs. Admiral "Fox" Fallon, I think he's CincPAC now (I knew him when he was only an A-6 squadron skipper) should answer any and all misgivings about the viability of the NFO in naval aviation.

I will offer this perspective about NFOs in general. From a statistical frame of reference, average NFOs are under-represented. My experience has been that NFOs tend to be mostly above average or below average, with the former clearly more numerous than the latter. They are a bell curve with average NFOs being the majority. Pilots, however, are a bell curve, with the typical statistical distribution, i.e., most are average. Curious perspective.

New topic:
What's this about an NFO in the front seat of an E-2? Is this serious?
My take is this: The mission load on the E-2 NFOs is probably reaching a critical mass such that a 4th operator is required. And the A-6 had an NFO in the front seat; S-3s also. But isn't the E-2 tough to land given its wing span? This would suggest to me the need for a second pilot. But having said that, only one pilot lands the thing. The other is a safety back-up - hugely important - during the trap. Something tells me that this is either not a serious proposal or somehow wiser head will prevail - on whatever is decided.
Curious ambivalence.

 

[Goober]

What's this about an NFO in the front seat of an E-2? Is this serious?
My take is this: The mission load on the E-2 NFOs is probably reaching a critical mass such that a 4th operator is required. And the A-6 had an NFO in the front seat; S-3s also. But isn't the E-2 tough to land given its wing span? This would suggest to me the need for a second pilot.

Amen to that...seems like every week makes for a new mission area. Personally I wouldn't mind passing some lower-pri items to the front when it's busy (tanker mgmt, passing TST coordinates, etc.), but I'm a bit partial to flying with two pilots. Say what you will about the utility of a 4th operator up front, but additional mission areas completed during the flight mean nothing if you're counting engines on the stand in the AIMD jet shop from the tube (minus wings, gear, and dome) as you pass them on the would-be trap. Two pilots up front, please.