Return of the AP !

[Greasy Rider @ invalid.com]

(sorry about the all caps "yelling": but it was too involved to
correct.)

(The last of the enlisted pilots were gone by the late 50's to the
best of my knowledge.)



R 191820Z JAN 06 ZYB MIN ZYW PSN 793597K40 FM CNO WASHINGTON
DC//N1NT// TO NAVADMIN RHMFIUU/CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1NT// RUENAAA/CNO
WASHINGTON DC//N1NT// BT UNCLAS //N01500// NAVADMIN 031/06
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N1NT/JAN// SUBJ/FY-06 ACTIVE DUTY
FLYING CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER (CWO) PILOT /PROGRAM APPLICATION//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/
1. THE NAVY IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FROM HIGHLY-QUALIFIED AND
HARD-CHARGING SAILORS (E-5 THROUGH E-7) FOR A PILOT PROGRAM TO PLACE
CHIEF WARRANT OFFICERS (CWO) IN COCKPITS AS PILOTS AND NAVAL FLIGHT
OFFICERS. AS PART OF CNO'S STRATEGY FOR OUR PEOPLE, THIS PILOT
PROGRAM WILL HARNESS THE STRENGTHS OF OUR SAILORS TODAY AND SHAPE THE
NAVY OF TOMORROW. AS A PILOT PROGRAM, 30 QUALIFIED PERSONNEL WILL BE
SELECTED, COMMISSIONED AS CWO2 PRIOR TO LDO/CWO INDOCTRINATION, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY UNDERGO FLIGHT TRAINING.
2. THE NEWLY WINGED AVIATORS WILL RECEIVE FLEET REPLACEMENT SQUADRON
(FRS) TRAINING AND THEN REPORT TO THE FLEET. TARGETED COMMUNITIES ARE
VP, VQ (P), VQ (T), HSC, AND HSL. THE INTENT IS TO CREATE FLYING
SPECIALISTS UNENCUMBERED BY THE TRADITIONAL CAREER PATHS OF THE
UNRESTRICTED LINE (URL) COMMUNITY. AS SUCH, FLYING CWO'S WILL ROTATE
BETWEEN TRADITIONAL SEA/SHORE ROTATIONS (OPERATIONAL SQUADRONS TO
SHORE PRODUCTION SOURCES, E.G. TRACOM, FRS, NSAWC, WEAPON SCHOOLS).
APPLICATIONS ARE DUE TO COMNAVPERSCOM
(PERS-432M) NO LATER THAN 31MAR06.
3. SPECIFIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS: A. MUST BE COMMISSIONED BY 27TH
BIRTHDAY. B. ENLISTED PERSONNEL FROM SEAL, SWCC, EOD, DIVER, NUCLEAR,
AND MA COMMUNITIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM. C. MUST POSSESS
AN ASSOCIATES DEGREE OR HIGHER. D. MUST BE PHYSICALLY QUALIFIED FOR
AVIATION DUTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NAVY MANUAL OF MEDICINE. E. MUST
MEET AVIATION STANDARD TEST BATTERY (ASTB) MINIMUMS. F. MUST MEET
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT FOR A SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE.
4. INDIVIDUAL CAREER CONSIDERATIONS: A. UPON WINGING, SELECTEES WILL
INCUR AN 8 YR MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENT (MSR) FOR PILOTS, 6 YR MSR
FOR NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICERS. B. TOUR LENGTHS: SEA 36 MONTHS, SHORE 33
MONTHS. C. ELIGIBLE ASSIGNMENTS: VP, VQ (P), VQ (T), HSC, HSL AND
ASSOCIATED FRS, TRACOM, NSAWC, AND WEAPON SCHOOLS. D. SELECTEES ARE
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPARTMENT HEAD (DH) TOURS AND WILL FILL JUNIOR
OFFICER (JO) BILLETS ONLY. THE INTENT IS FOR FLYING CHIEF WARRANT
OFFICERS NOT TO FILL JO BILLETS THAT ARE NORMALLY CONSIDERED CAREER
MILESTONES FOR URL OFFICERS. E. ORDERS WILL BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE
COGNIZANT PERS-43 ASSIGNMENTS OFFICER.
5. ATTRITION: A. ATTRITES EITHER IN THE TRAINING COMMAND, FRS OR
FLEET THAT HAVE LESS THAN 3 YEARS OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE WILL REVERT
BACK TO THEIR PREVIOUS RANK AND RATE. B. THOSE IN EXCESS OF 3 YEARS
COMMISSIONED SERVICE WILL BE DETAILED TO NON-FLYING BILLETS WITHIN THE
AVIATION COMMUNITY.
6. REFER TO THE OPNAVINST 1420.1A FOR CWO ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN
ADDITION TO REQUIREMENTS CITED IN PARAGRAPH 3. INDIVIDUAL GRADE AND
TIME-IN-SERVICE WAIVERS FOR E-5/E-6 PERSONNEL ARE NOT REQUIRED. A
GROUP GRADE AND TIME-IN-SERVICE WAIVER FOR E-5/E-6 PERSONNEL IN THE
PILOT PROGRAM WILL BE SUBMITTED BY PERS-4.
7. APPLICATIONS SHOULD INCLUDE FLIGHT PHYSICAL DOCUMENTATION, ASTB
RESULTS, AND SECURITY CLEARANCE ELIGIBILITY. SAMPLE APPLICATION WITH
ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT
WWW.NPC.NAVY.MIL/OFFICER/LDOCWOCOMMUNITY, CLICK ON THE NEWS TAB. FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE FLYING CWO PROGRAM, CONTACT THE HEAD
AVIATION PLACEMENT OFFICER, CDR STEVEN KNOTT AT (901) 874-4944/DSN 882
OR ASSISTANT LDO/CWO ASSIGNMENTS OFFICER LCDR AL WOOTEN AT (901)
874-3948/DSN 882. FOR APPLICATION QUESTIONS CONTACT COMNAVPERSCOM
(PERS-4801G) CWO2 MCGALLAGHER OR MR. DAWSON AT (901)874-3172/DSN 882
OR EMAIL AT .
8. RELEASED BY VADM J. C. HARVEY, JR., N1/NT.// B





Ride Safe!
Greasy Rider SLOB-6
'97 FLHTCI Lehman trike
53 years of motorcyling
(This line intentionally left blank)

[St. John Smythe]

Greasy Rider @ invalid.com wrote:
> (sorry about the all caps "yelling": but it was too involved to
> correct.)
>
> (The last of the enlisted pilots were gone by the late 50's to the
> best of my knowledge.)

And there aren't about to be any more, according to VADM Harvey's
announcement.

--
St. John

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> (sorry about the all caps "yelling": but it was too involved to
> correct.)
>
> (The last of the enlisted pilots were gone by the late 50's to the
> best of my knowledge.)

According to NavAir History:

"30 April 1973: The last Marine NAP (enlisted Naval Aviation Pilot)
retired. He was Master Gunnery Sergeant Patrick J. O'Neil, who enlisted
during World War II and completed over 30 years of active duty."

IIRC, NavAir News had some articles, during the Vietnam War era, of
Navy NAPs flying transports in-country.

MW

[John Weiss]

<Greasy Rider @ invalid.com> wrote...
>
> (The last of the enlisted pilots were gone by the late 50's to the
> best of my knowledge.)
>
> 1. THE NAVY IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FROM HIGHLY-QUALIFIED AND
> HARD-CHARGING SAILORS (E-5 THROUGH E-7) FOR A PILOT PROGRAM TO PLACE
> CHIEF WARRANT OFFICERS (CWO) IN COCKPITS AS PILOTS AND NAVAL FLIGHT
> OFFICERS.

Sounds like a rehash of the Aviator LDO program (early 80s?). Not too many
takers/successes, and the program died quickly.

[Yofuri]

John Weiss wrote:
> <Greasy Rider @ invalid.com> wrote...
>
>>(The last of the enlisted pilots were gone by the late 50's to the
>>best of my knowledge.)
>>
>>1. THE NAVY IS SEEKING APPLICATIONS FROM HIGHLY-QUALIFIED AND
>>HARD-CHARGING SAILORS (E-5 THROUGH E-7) FOR A PILOT PROGRAM TO PLACE
>>CHIEF WARRANT OFFICERS (CWO) IN COCKPITS AS PILOTS AND NAVAL FLIGHT
>>OFFICERS.
>
>
> Sounds like a rehash of the Aviator LDO program (early 80s?). Not too many
> takers/successes, and the program died quickly.
>
>
>
This one will die the same death for the same reason. It's not a good
commissioning opportunity for Charlie Whitehat. It's a cheap way not to
use plowbacks in the training command and destroy URL career paths, not
to hire Civil Service or contract training instructors and utility
pilots, and to put Warrant Officers into sea duty billets that have a
high failure rate for aviation URL JO's (V-1, -2 and -3 Division, etc.).

I got called on various command carpets many times in the late 70's and
early 80's for declaring that the then-enlisted-to-aviator program was a
career trap for good enlisted personnel. No senior ever faced me down
on the subject after hearing the facts.

Rick Yount
Former CWO-2
LCDR (Retired)Aviation Maintenance LDO

[WaltBJ]

I think it all depends on how bad you want to fly. If you want to get
to flag rank, then, no. If all you want to do is fly (fighters, of
course!) then it looks good. But cutting them off at W4 is weird and
keeping them from Squadron CO slots is stupid because that's where you
need a top-notch leader and pilot. A super warrant rank equal to O5
would fit the bill but that will never happen in the mighty USN. I
presume in the USN one must fill the CO square to become a CAG and then
command a CV on the way to a flag. (Pardon my ignorance in such
matters.) In the USAF DCS/Personnel rates 'career progression' over
flying performance. USAF operators have looked at and pushed LDO for
quite a few years (personal communications from guys with stars here)
and have always been shot down by the personnel weinies. So - just
about when a pilot gets really sharp in fighters he is given a desk.
I've only been in one squadron (out of eleven) where at least 90% of
the guys were what I would call truly prepared to meet any eventuality
and prevail. The average fighter (!) time in that outfit at that time
was about 2400 hours. The skill doesn't come easy - you have to want to
and you have to work at it - continually. Problem is the DCS/P types
think winged personnel are fungible - one is just as good as the next
one. Hell, civil aviation has amply disproved that concept time and
again. Greek 737, anyone?
Walt BJ

[Yofuri]

WaltBJ wrote:
> I think it all depends on how bad you want to fly. If you want to get
> to flag rank, then, no. If all you want to do is fly (fighters, of
> course!) then it looks good. But cutting them off at W4 is weird and
> keeping them from Squadron CO slots is stupid because that's where you
> need a top-notch leader and pilot. A super warrant rank equal to O5
> would fit the bill but that will never happen in the mighty USN. I
> presume in the USN one must fill the CO square to become a CAG and then
> command a CV on the way to a flag. (Pardon my ignorance in such
> matters.) In the USAF DCS/Personnel rates 'career progression' over
> flying performance. USAF operators have looked at and pushed LDO for
> quite a few years (personal communications from guys with stars here)
> and have always been shot down by the personnel weinies. So - just
> about when a pilot gets really sharp in fighters he is given a desk.
> I've only been in one squadron (out of eleven) where at least 90% of
> the guys were what I would call truly prepared to meet any eventuality
> and prevail. The average fighter (!) time in that outfit at that time
> was about 2400 hours. The skill doesn't come easy - you have to want to
> and you have to work at it - continually. Problem is the DCS/P types
> think winged personnel are fungible - one is just as good as the next
> one. Hell, civil aviation has amply disproved that concept time and
> again. Greek 737, anyone?
> Walt BJ
>
You've got the picture, almost precisely. Naval aviators "screen for
command" at O4. No one who fails to screen is going to be selected for
O5. Many of the best and brightest will not screen because of quantity
limitations (there are tremendously more O4 than O5 billets; I don't
know the ratio). Those whose careers have been outside the norm of
their contemporaries are going to be left in the shavings. The more
non-flying or non-fleet or logistic assignments, the more the hazard of
non-screening.

Your first four sentences tell the real tale: Warrant accession pilots
will NEVER be considered top-flight leaders and pilots. The intent to
exclude fighter/attack squadrons from the career path of warrants rings
the bell on that. They're intended to be low-paid equipment operators.

Rick

[WaltBJ]

Glad to see I was on the track, or close. I stayed in the USAF to fly
fighters and was lucky enough to do so to the end. (Minus 4 years at a
desk in USAFE after Nam) Thus I spent a lot of time 22 years - in
fighter squadrons. Even up at wing I was able to fly 250 hours a year
in the F4. As a result I got a real close and personal look at a lot of
fighter pilots. Most were where they wanted to be and worked at at
getting good and staying good. Some - 10% or so, 3-4 in a normal
squadron - were time-servers. A few COs weeded these guys out. either
to improve readiness or from fear they'd crash and ruin the CO's chance
for O-6. And there were a few square-fillers who thought that would
look peachy on their score card. But - a big but - when Nam started at
first TAC wanted to hog all the fighter slots. Their rule - you
couldn't go unless you had a TAC background. Then after their guys
started going back again TAC decided to 'share the wealth'. Then
DCS/Personnel got in teh act and nobody went back a second time until
all rated personnel had been once. This got funny, to me, at least. I'd
go into the Patrick AFB O Club and there'd be guys with wings moaning
about ho valuable their experience was and now it'd be wasted going to
Nam. My private thoguht was 'you got those wings, use em or lose em.'
BTW Patrick is Cape canaveral and all those guys were semi-scientists
by then. Of course DCS/Personnel's actions put a lot of inexperienced
guys in fighter cockpits. The worstc ase i knew of was an O5 who'd come
to the Homestead RTU from Lawrence Livermore national Labs. he had a
PH. D in physics and had been working on nukes. Even if he had been
good in an F4 (he wasn;t) he couldn't have gone overseas because he
knew too many nifty nuke items. Dumb move, DCS/P! The result was as
evidenced in my squadron (390 TFS, F4s, 71-72) I had more fighter time
than the five ACs in C flight had total time. The 366 Wing was hurting
for flight leaders - my 390th had four (4) including me. At the same
time there were at least 8 sharp fighter types I personally knew stuck
in command posts - Two or three of them would have really helped us
out. (But then I got to fly a lot which was pretty good, too.) It
really doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me to pay 25 to100
million for a fighter and then put a second lieutenant in it. My first
week in USAFE after Nam (I volunteered for Europe so as to not go to
Fort Fumble) a brown bar ejected from an F15 after losing it trying to
fly IFR. My instant response was WTF, over. Next, not more than a
couple weeks later a 141 crew at night, letting down VFR into a Spanish
base, hit a ridge and killed themselves and about 25 dependents. Seems
to me a good evaluation/weeding out program plus LDO pilots kept in the
cockpit would save us a hell of a lot of lives and airplanes - and be
damned effective, too.
Walt BJ