Warrant officers as Navy pilots

[Mike]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm

New pilots
The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
a message from the chief of naval operations. New warrant officers
must, on receiving their wings, sign up for at least eight years'
service. The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
radars. A selection board will pick 16 enlisted personnel this July and
14 others next year. All must complete flight training and fleet
qualifications before being promoted to senior warrant officer. Capt.
Mark Guadagnini, division director for aviation personnel at Navy
Personnel Command, said tapping the enlisted ranks does not mean the
Navy has a pilot shortage. In fact, he told us, there are 12,500 pilots
on active duty and more waiting in line. The new policy is being
adopted for somewhat complicated reasons. It has to do with freeing up
a backlog of junior pilots who need to spend time as squadron
department heads in order to be promoted. The problem is not new, Capt.
Guadagnini said. It's just that someone thought of this new way to
solve it. "The Navy is always looking for better ways of doing
business," the test pilot said. He said the fighter community will not
necessarily stay off-limits to enlisted personnel forever. "If it
works, and then there is a requirement to change the way we are doing
personnel business, we can put them in any community," he said.

[Larry Cauble]

[QUOTE=Mike]
The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
radars.
[QUOTE]

Their take on this is a bit off; according to the GENADMIN, the warrants will fly the H-60, P-3 and both flavors of VQ (not VAQ) which means EP-3 and E-6.

[John Weiss]

"Mike" > wroteom...
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
>
> The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
> transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
> planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
> pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
> program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
> chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
> a message from the chief of naval operations.

Looks like a rehash of the Aviator LDO program of the 80s, substituting Warrants
for LDOs. That one never got very popular, but who knows, this time around...

[pe.rhodes]

Reading this puts me in mind of a brief experience in Marine Corps boot
camp, San Diego, 1964, a Drill Sgt reads off a list of names, saying "Sound
off when you hear yours" and it was for the MARCad (Marine Aviation Cadet)
Program. Unbelievably, I hears my name! I stands up, and for an instant, I
was gonna fly jets off of carriers! And the Sgt looks up, sees I'ma wearing
glasses, and yells, "SIT DOWN"! But just for one brief instant..... and it
was a short list.

Phil

"Mike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
>
> New pilots
> The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
> transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
> planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
> pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
> program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
> chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
> a message from the chief of naval operations. New warrant officers
> must, on receiving their wings, sign up for at least eight years'
> service. The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
> will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
> and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
> radars. A selection board will pick 16 enlisted personnel this July and
> 14 others next year. All must complete flight training and fleet
> qualifications before being promoted to senior warrant officer. Capt.
> Mark Guadagnini, division director for aviation personnel at Navy
> Personnel Command, said tapping the enlisted ranks does not mean the
> Navy has a pilot shortage. In fact, he told us, there are 12,500 pilots
> on active duty and more waiting in line. The new policy is being
> adopted for somewhat complicated reasons. It has to do with freeing up
> a backlog of junior pilots who need to spend time as squadron
> department heads in order to be promoted. The problem is not new, Capt.
> Guadagnini said. It's just that someone thought of this new way to
> solve it. "The Navy is always looking for better ways of doing
> business," the test pilot said. He said the fighter community will not
> necessarily stay off-limits to enlisted personnel forever. "If it
> works, and then there is a requirement to change the way we are doing
> personnel business, we can put them in any community," he said.
>

[Dave in San Diego]

"pe.rhodes" > wrote in
:

> Reading this puts me in mind of a brief experience in Marine Corps boot
> camp, San Diego, 1964, a Drill Sgt reads off a list of names, saying
> "Sound off when you hear yours" and it was for the MARCad (Marine
> Aviation Cadet) Program. Unbelievably, I hears my name! I stands up, and
> for an instant, I was gonna fly jets off of carriers! And the Sgt looks
> up, sees I'ma wearing glasses, and yells, "SIT DOWN"! But just for one
> brief instant..... and it was a short list.
>
> Phil

Gee, amazingly similar to GLakes, 1969. My CC told me to get my ass over to
some classroom NOW, "since you're already late". I got there just as they
were turning out the lights to show "Ring of Gold", narrated by Robert
Taylor. I watched it, for the umpteenth time, and when the lights came back
up, I went over to check in.

The PO2 at the desk looked up and asked, "What are you doing here?" I
responded that I had been sent by my CC and would he check my name off on
the list. He asked if I knew why I was there, and I responded, "probably
some Academy offer", followed very quickly by "I already know my glasses
are disqualifying, so check me off and I'll go back to my company." He
complied, and we were done. My CC was slightly amused by the story.

Dave in San Diego

[Yofuri]

John Weiss wrote:
> "Mike" > wroteom...
>
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
>>
>> The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
>>transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
>>planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
>>pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
>>program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
>>chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
>>a message from the chief of naval operations.
>
>
> Looks like a rehash of the Aviator LDO program of the 80s, substituting Warrants
> for LDOs. That one never got very popular, but who knows, this time around...
>
>
Same song, second verse, same reasoning, crappy deal for enlisted
personnel, same program future.

Senior enlisted personnel and current warrants and LDO's will talk the
best candidates out of it and send the dreaming drifters who just want
to fly into the program.

Rick

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/3/06 9:24 AM, in article
om, "Mike"
> wrote:

> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
>
> New pilots
> The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
> transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
> planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
> pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
> program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
> chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
> a message from the chief of naval operations. New warrant officers
> must, on receiving their wings, sign up for at least eight years'
> service. The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
> will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
> and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
> radars.

That quote by the Times is wrong. It should read E-6A/B (as in Tacamo). No
CV-based, fixed-wing aircraft are part of the program.

This program is PURELY a money-saver for the Navy. That's the only reason
it's around. Most enlisted folks I know aren't interested because jets
aren't on the table.

--Woody

[Mike Weeks]

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 2/3/06 9:24 AM, in article
> om, "Mike"
> > wrote:
>
> > http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
> >
> > New pilots
> > The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
> > transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
> > planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
> > pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
> > program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
> > chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
> > a message from the chief of naval operations. New warrant officers
> > must, on receiving their wings, sign up for at least eight years'
> > service. The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
> > will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
> > and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
> > radars.
>
> That quote by the Times is wrong. It should read E-6A/B (as in Tacamo). No
> CV-based, fixed-wing aircraft are part of the program.
>
> This program is PURELY a money-saver for the Navy. That's the only reason
> it's around. Most enlisted folks I know aren't interested because jets
> aren't on the table.

Isn't the E-6 Mercury a jet, based on the 707-320 model?

Is it possible the program would include the warrants being qualified
to fly the EA-6B of those squadrons which not not assigned to CVWs --
VAQ-133, -134, and -142?

MW

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
>>On 2/3/06 9:24 AM, in article
om, "Mike"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-114314-4356r.htm
>>>
>>>New pilots
>>> The Army long has relied on warrant officers to pilot attack and
>>>transport helicopters. Now the Navy is going to give it a try. Navy
>>>planes and helicopters are piloted by line officers who serve as
>>>pilots. Other officers serve as naval flight officers . Under a pilot
>>>program, the Navy is asking "hard-charging sailors" to apply to become
>>>chief warrant officers and be among 30 selected for flight school, says
>>>a message from the chief of naval operations. New warrant officers
>>>must, on receiving their wings, sign up for at least eight years'
>>>service. The Navy plans to keep fighter jets off limits for now, but
>>>will open up four aircraft: two types of helicopters, a patrol plane
>>>and the venerable EA-6B electronic jammer that targets enemy tracking
>>>radars.
>>
>>That quote by the Times is wrong. It should read E-6A/B (as in Tacamo). No
>>CV-based, fixed-wing aircraft are part of the program.
>>
>>This program is PURELY a money-saver for the Navy. That's the only reason
>>it's around. Most enlisted folks I know aren't interested because jets
>>aren't on the table.
>
>
> Isn't the E-6 Mercury a jet, based on the 707-320 model?


Yes, but when naval aviators say "jets" they mean "fast jets," not
converted airliners.


> Is it possible the program would include the warrants being qualified
> to fly the EA-6B of those squadrons which not not assigned to CVWs --
> VAQ-133, -134, and -142?

I doubt it. The Navy wants to get out of the expeditionary EW squadron
business in a few years anyway.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/5/06 3:08 PM, in article
. com, "Mike Weeks"
> wrote:

>>
>> This program is PURELY a money-saver for the Navy. That's the only reason
>> it's around. Most enlisted folks I know aren't interested because jets
>> aren't on the table.
>
> Isn't the E-6 Mercury a jet, based on the 707-320 model?
>
> Is it possible the program would include the warrants being qualified
> to fly the EA-6B of those squadrons which not not assigned to CVWs --
> VAQ-133, -134, and -142?
>
> MW

Mike,

Sorry about the "jet" mix-up. I meant to say, TACAIR.

The message traffic is quite clear about the communities for the flying
CWO's. VAQ, VF, VFA, VAW... i.e. CV fixed-wing... are not included. VP,
VQ, HS, HSL, and VT are among the possibilities.

--Woody

[José Herculano]

> The message traffic is quite clear about the communities for the flying
> CWO's. VAQ, VF, VFA, VAW... i.e. CV fixed-wing... are not included. VP,
> VQ, HS, HSL, and VT are among the possibilities.
>
> --Woody

Sounds like a bad deal for a Navy career, but a sweet deal for some to (VP,
VT) get trained for the airlines.
_____________
José Herculano

[Mike Weeks]

Thanks for the clarification on communities Woody.

[Yofuri]

José Herculano wrote:
>>The message traffic is quite clear about the communities for the flying
>>CWO's. VAQ, VF, VFA, VAW... i.e. CV fixed-wing... are not included. VP,
>>VQ, HS, HSL, and VT are among the possibilities.
>>
>>--Woody
>
>
> Sounds like a bad deal for a Navy career, but a sweet deal for some to (VP,
> VT) get trained for the airlines.
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>
Present enlisted service plus eight year's obligation after winging
drops an ugly floater into that punchbowl.


Rick

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/6/06 9:47 PM, in article , "Yofuri"
> wrote:

>>
>>
>> Sounds like a bad deal for a Navy career, but a sweet deal for some to (VP,
>> VT) get trained for the airlines.
>> _____________
>> José Herculano
>>
>>
> Present enlisted service plus eight year's obligation after winging
> drops an ugly floater into that punchbowl.
>
>
> Rick

Rick,

Perhaps not.

Enlist at 19.
Seven years or less enlisted (26).
2 years for wings (28).
8 years of obligation.

You've got a 36-year-old potential airline pilot with military multi-engine
PIC... With 17 years of service. Stick for one more set of orders, you can
retire as a W-3/4 with 20 years at 39 and pick up 21 additional years of
airline work. I know a few 50-year-olds that got picked up by the majors.
No problem.

Not optimal, but certainly workable, and several airlines stopped requiring
college educations. One less hurdle to jump.

By the NPC website, a W-4 with nearly 20 years approaching retirement and
living in (for instance) Whidbey Island would be pulling down about $72K.
Might be about the same as an FO in the future for many airlines... Not to
mention the military retirement retainer. All in all, not a bad deal
potentially.

--Woody

[Yofuri]

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> On 2/6/06 9:47 PM, in article , "Yofuri"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Sounds like a bad deal for a Navy career, but a sweet deal for some to (VP,
>>>VT) get trained for the airlines.
>>>_____________
>>>José Herculano
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Present enlisted service plus eight year's obligation after winging
>>drops an ugly floater into that punchbowl.
>>
>>
>>Rick
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Perhaps not.
>
> Enlist at 19.
> Seven years or less enlisted (26).
> 2 years for wings (28).
> 8 years of obligation.
>
> You've got a 36-year-old potential airline pilot with military multi-engine
> PIC... With 17 years of service. Stick for one more set of orders, you can
> retire as a W-3/4 with 20 years at 39 and pick up 21 additional years of
> airline work. I know a few 50-year-olds that got picked up by the majors.
> No problem.
>
> Not optimal, but certainly workable, and several airlines stopped requiring
> college educations. One less hurdle to jump.
>
> By the NPC website, a W-4 with nearly 20 years approaching retirement and
> living in (for instance) Whidbey Island would be pulling down about $72K.
> Might be about the same as an FO in the future for many airlines... Not to
> mention the military retirement retainer. All in all, not a bad deal
> potentially.
>
> --Woody
>
Good analysis.

Thanks,

Rick