NavAir CWO graduates first class

[Mike Weeks]

IIRC, the announcement of this program awhile ago generated a few
comments.

Here's the first graduation of CWOs, as written up by NNS:

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26860

NNS061204-15. NAS Pensacola Sailor Commissioned Into First Group of
Aviator
CWOs

By Megan Kohr, Naval Air Station Pensacola Public Affairs

PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola commissioned
its
newest Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Dec. 1.

Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Robert Reyes, along with 13
other Sailors Navywide, received his CWO bars as part of the Flying
Chief
Warrant Officer Pilot program. Ten pilots and four naval flight
officers
(NFO) were selected for the 2006 trial run of the program, and 10
pilots and
six NFOs will be chosen in 2007.

The program allows enlisted Sailors the opportunity to fly in patrol
squadrons, helicopter sea combat squadrons and helicopter
anti-submarine
squadrons light. Applicants must have an associates degree or higher,
they
must be commissioned before their 27th birthday and be physically
qualified
for aviation duty. Selectees will have a to serve a minimum of eight
years
for pilots and six years for naval flight officers.

"The CWO program is intended to create flying specialists unencumbered
by
the traditional career paths of the unrestricted line (URL) community,"
Vice
Adm. John C. Harvey said in a naval message in January 2006.

At the cradle of naval aviation, NAS Pensacola Commanding Officer,
Capt.
Peter S. Frano said he was pleased to learn that one of the selectees
was
from NAS Pensacola and couldn't be more proud that Reyes, "the hometown
kid"
was chosen.

"It's a wonderful program for the Navy, and Reyes is a wonderful
example of
how he and the Navy will benefit from this program," Frano said. "The
initial group was handpicked and had to go through a tough selection
process, so this means the best of the best were chosen."

According to the Flying CWO Pilot program's board, 69 applications were
submitted for the pilot's slot and only 42 were fully qualified, and
there
were 48 applications submitted for the NFO and only 25 were fully
qualified.
Four of the 14 selected had their civilian pilot's license and 7 out of
14
were naval air crew.

Reyes, an air crew rescue swimmer attached to the Helicopter Support
Unit
aboard NAS Pensacola, said he is excited about his new adventure and
has
high hopes for the program. He advises Sailors who are interested to
start
early and don't procrastinate.

The next board will be held June 16-20, 2007.

For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.

-USN-

[[email protected]]

What a great idea..will these gents then be used as ship's company
types for their second sea tour, like cat officers and the like?

Mike Weeks wrote:
> IIRC, the announcement of this program awhile ago generated a few
> comments.
>
> Here's the first graduation of CWOs, as written up by NNS:
>
> http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26860
>
> NNS061204-15. NAS Pensacola Sailor Commissioned Into First Group of
> Aviator
> CWOs
>
> By Megan Kohr, Naval Air Station Pensacola Public Affairs
>
> PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola commissioned
> its
> newest Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Dec. 1.
>
> Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Robert Reyes, along with 13
> other Sailors Navywide, received his CWO bars as part of the Flying
> Chief
> Warrant Officer Pilot program. Ten pilots and four naval flight
> officers
> (NFO) were selected for the 2006 trial run of the program, and 10
> pilots and
> six NFOs will be chosen in 2007.
>
> The program allows enlisted Sailors the opportunity to fly in patrol
> squadrons, helicopter sea combat squadrons and helicopter
> anti-submarine
> squadrons light. Applicants must have an associates degree or higher,
> they
> must be commissioned before their 27th birthday and be physically
> qualified
> for aviation duty. Selectees will have a to serve a minimum of eight
> years
> for pilots and six years for naval flight officers.
>
> "The CWO program is intended to create flying specialists unencumbered
> by
> the traditional career paths of the unrestricted line (URL) community,"
> Vice
> Adm. John C. Harvey said in a naval message in January 2006.
>
> At the cradle of naval aviation, NAS Pensacola Commanding Officer,
> Capt.
> Peter S. Frano said he was pleased to learn that one of the selectees
> was
> from NAS Pensacola and couldn't be more proud that Reyes, "the hometown
> kid"
> was chosen.
>
> "It's a wonderful program for the Navy, and Reyes is a wonderful
> example of
> how he and the Navy will benefit from this program," Frano said. "The
> initial group was handpicked and had to go through a tough selection
> process, so this means the best of the best were chosen."
>
> According to the Flying CWO Pilot program's board, 69 applications were
> submitted for the pilot's slot and only 42 were fully qualified, and
> there
> were 48 applications submitted for the NFO and only 25 were fully
> qualified.
> Four of the 14 selected had their civilian pilot's license and 7 out of
> 14
> were naval air crew.
>
> Reyes, an air crew rescue swimmer attached to the Helicopter Support
> Unit
> aboard NAS Pensacola, said he is excited about his new adventure and
> has
> high hopes for the program. He advises Sailors who are interested to
> start
> early and don't procrastinate.
>
> The next board will be held June 16-20, 2007.
>
> For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
>
> -USN-

[Mike Weeks]

wrote:
> What a great idea..will these gents then be used as ship's company
> types for their second sea tour, like cat officers and the like?

The question makes me ask this; has it been policy that no-CV type
aviators and NFOs would get CV billets such as cat officer? What if
your experience was VP for example, would you/could you get a tour on a
CV doing something which wasn't part of your aviation experience? Just
wondering.

> Mike Weeks wrote:
> > IIRC, the announcement of this program awhile ago generated a few
> > comments.
> >
> > Here's the first graduation of CWOs, as written up by NNS:
> >
> > http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26860
> >
> > NNS061204-15. NAS Pensacola Sailor Commissioned Into First Group of
> > Aviator
> > CWOs
> >
> > By Megan Kohr, Naval Air Station Pensacola Public Affairs
> >
> > PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola commissioned
> > its
> > newest Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Dec. 1.
> >
> > Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Robert Reyes, along with 13
> > other Sailors Navywide, received his CWO bars as part of the Flying
> > Chief
> > Warrant Officer Pilot program. Ten pilots and four naval flight
> > officers
> > (NFO) were selected for the 2006 trial run of the program, and 10
> > pilots and
> > six NFOs will be chosen in 2007.
> >
> > The program allows enlisted Sailors the opportunity to fly in patrol
> > squadrons, helicopter sea combat squadrons and helicopter
> > anti-submarine
> > squadrons light. Applicants must have an associates degree or higher,
> > they
> > must be commissioned before their 27th birthday and be physically
> > qualified
> > for aviation duty. Selectees will have a to serve a minimum of eight
> > years
> > for pilots and six years for naval flight officers.
> >
> > "The CWO program is intended to create flying specialists unencumbered
> > by
> > the traditional career paths of the unrestricted line (URL) community,"
> > Vice
> > Adm. John C. Harvey said in a naval message in January 2006.
> >
> > At the cradle of naval aviation, NAS Pensacola Commanding Officer,
> > Capt.
> > Peter S. Frano said he was pleased to learn that one of the selectees
> > was
> > from NAS Pensacola and couldn't be more proud that Reyes, "the hometown
> > kid"
> > was chosen.
> >
> > "It's a wonderful program for the Navy, and Reyes is a wonderful
> > example of
> > how he and the Navy will benefit from this program," Frano said. "The
> > initial group was handpicked and had to go through a tough selection
> > process, so this means the best of the best were chosen."
> >
> > According to the Flying CWO Pilot program's board, 69 applications were
> > submitted for the pilot's slot and only 42 were fully qualified, and
> > there
> > were 48 applications submitted for the NFO and only 25 were fully
> > qualified.
> > Four of the 14 selected had their civilian pilot's license and 7 out of
> > 14
> > were naval air crew.
> >
> > Reyes, an air crew rescue swimmer attached to the Helicopter Support
> > Unit
> > aboard NAS Pensacola, said he is excited about his new adventure and
> > has
> > high hopes for the program. He advises Sailors who are interested to
> > start
> > early and don't procrastinate.
> >
> > The next board will be held June 16-20, 2007.
> >
> > For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
> >
> > -USN-

[John Weiss[_1_]]

"Mike Weeks" > wrote...
>
> The question makes me ask this; has it been policy that no-CV type
> aviators and NFOs would get CV billets such as cat officer? What if
> your experience was VP for example, would you/could you get a tour on a
> CV doing something which wasn't part of your aviation experience?

Lots of VP (and other) types got Cat Officer and other CV jobs. Not a lot
of discrimination in that regard...

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> wrote:
> > What a great idea..will these gents then be used as ship's company
> > types for their second sea tour, like cat officers and the like?
>
> The question makes me ask this; has it been policy that no-CV type
> aviators and NFOs would get CV billets such as cat officer? What if
> your experience was VP for example, would you/could you get a tour on a
> CV doing something which wasn't part of your aviation experience? Just
> wondering.

When I was still in VP as well as the LDO aviators did get these jobs.
I always thought it a huge waste of experience to have a fleet aviator
be a cat officer.
>
> > Mike Weeks wrote:
> > > IIRC, the announcement of this program awhile ago generated a few
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > Here's the first graduation of CWOs, as written up by NNS:
> > >
> > > http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26860
> > >
> > > NNS061204-15. NAS Pensacola Sailor Commissioned Into First Group of
> > > Aviator
> > > CWOs
> > >
> > > By Megan Kohr, Naval Air Station Pensacola Public Affairs
> > >
> > > PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola commissioned
> > > its
> > > newest Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Dec. 1.
> > >
> > > Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Robert Reyes, along with 13
> > > other Sailors Navywide, received his CWO bars as part of the Flying
> > > Chief
> > > Warrant Officer Pilot program. Ten pilots and four naval flight
> > > officers
> > > (NFO) were selected for the 2006 trial run of the program, and 10
> > > pilots and
> > > six NFOs will be chosen in 2007.
> > >
> > > The program allows enlisted Sailors the opportunity to fly in patrol
> > > squadrons, helicopter sea combat squadrons and helicopter
> > > anti-submarine
> > > squadrons light. Applicants must have an associates degree or higher,
> > > they
> > > must be commissioned before their 27th birthday and be physically
> > > qualified
> > > for aviation duty. Selectees will have a to serve a minimum of eight
> > > years
> > > for pilots and six years for naval flight officers.
> > >
> > > "The CWO program is intended to create flying specialists unencumbered
> > > by
> > > the traditional career paths of the unrestricted line (URL) community,"
> > > Vice
> > > Adm. John C. Harvey said in a naval message in January 2006.
> > >
> > > At the cradle of naval aviation, NAS Pensacola Commanding Officer,
> > > Capt.
> > > Peter S. Frano said he was pleased to learn that one of the selectees
> > > was
> > > from NAS Pensacola and couldn't be more proud that Reyes, "the hometown
> > > kid"
> > > was chosen.
> > >
> > > "It's a wonderful program for the Navy, and Reyes is a wonderful
> > > example of
> > > how he and the Navy will benefit from this program," Frano said. "The
> > > initial group was handpicked and had to go through a tough selection
> > > process, so this means the best of the best were chosen."
> > >
> > > According to the Flying CWO Pilot program's board, 69 applications were
> > > submitted for the pilot's slot and only 42 were fully qualified, and
> > > there
> > > were 48 applications submitted for the NFO and only 25 were fully
> > > qualified.
> > > Four of the 14 selected had their civilian pilot's license and 7 out of
> > > 14
> > > were naval air crew.
> > >
> > > Reyes, an air crew rescue swimmer attached to the Helicopter Support
> > > Unit
> > > aboard NAS Pensacola, said he is excited about his new adventure and
> > > has
> > > high hopes for the program. He advises Sailors who are interested to
> > > start
> > > early and don't procrastinate.
> > >
> > > The next board will be held June 16-20, 2007.
> > >
> > > For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
> > >
> > > -USN-

[Mike Weeks]

Thanks. Now I understand why the question was asked. <g>

[fudog50]

Aviators also do dissassociated tours in OPS on CVN's and then theres
the TACRON thing on the Gators too.The other hat they wear is DIVO in
V1 or V3. That is the hardest part, being a DIVO for the 75-100 18-19
year olds, and actually having to lead people!

But my understanding for this flying CWO thing is that the "concept"
is for them to fly only and free up the URL's for really being Naval
Officers (as DIVO's and the like,,,leading people imagine that!)

Its a great idea from that standpoint, it is a bad idea in many
others.

For one reason, (and there are many, too many to sit and type for a
week), is that now you have a CWO that has never been a Chief, young
24-27 year old young man with no experience in leadership or flying
sitting next to the seasoned 18-30 year service initiated CWO in the
Wardroom. Completely 180 degrees out from the reason the Navy has
CWO's!

I can't believe that now there will be doubt about any individual that
is wearing the CWO bars if they were ever a Chief! This is ludicrous!

This is completely degrading and smells like the Army, it doesn't do
the Navy CWO or any community any favors, in other words the pitfalls
far outweigh the benifits. We have discussed this at length in the
wardroom (URLS, SWO's, LDO's, CWO's, Aviators, Nukes, etc) till we are
blue in the face and the landslide consensus is this is a bad idea.

Hopefully this turns out to be just another "experiment".



On 5 Dec 2006 17:57:51 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>Thanks. Now I understand why the question was asked. <g>

[fudog50]

Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:

The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)

God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!

You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.





On 4 Dec 2006 16:35:05 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>IIRC, the announcement of this program awhile ago generated a few
>comments.
>
>Here's the first graduation of CWOs, as written up by NNS:
>
>http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26860
>
>NNS061204-15. NAS Pensacola Sailor Commissioned Into First Group of
>Aviator
>CWOs
>
>By Megan Kohr, Naval Air Station Pensacola Public Affairs
>
>PENSACOLA, Fla. (NNS) -- Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola commissioned
>its
>newest Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Dec. 1.
>
>Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Robert Reyes, along with 13
>other Sailors Navywide, received his CWO bars as part of the Flying
>Chief
>Warrant Officer Pilot program. Ten pilots and four naval flight
>officers
>(NFO) were selected for the 2006 trial run of the program, and 10
>pilots and
>six NFOs will be chosen in 2007.
>
>The program allows enlisted Sailors the opportunity to fly in patrol
>squadrons, helicopter sea combat squadrons and helicopter
>anti-submarine
>squadrons light. Applicants must have an associates degree or higher,
>they
>must be commissioned before their 27th birthday and be physically
>qualified
>for aviation duty. Selectees will have a to serve a minimum of eight
>years
>for pilots and six years for naval flight officers.
>
>"The CWO program is intended to create flying specialists unencumbered
>by
>the traditional career paths of the unrestricted line (URL) community,"
>Vice
>Adm. John C. Harvey said in a naval message in January 2006.
>
>At the cradle of naval aviation, NAS Pensacola Commanding Officer,
>Capt.
>Peter S. Frano said he was pleased to learn that one of the selectees
>was
>from NAS Pensacola and couldn't be more proud that Reyes, "the hometown
>kid"
>was chosen.
>
>"It's a wonderful program for the Navy, and Reyes is a wonderful
>example of
>how he and the Navy will benefit from this program," Frano said. "The
>initial group was handpicked and had to go through a tough selection
>process, so this means the best of the best were chosen."
>
>According to the Flying CWO Pilot program's board, 69 applications were
>submitted for the pilot's slot and only 42 were fully qualified, and
>there
>were 48 applications submitted for the NFO and only 25 were fully
>qualified.
>Four of the 14 selected had their civilian pilot's license and 7 out of
>14
>were naval air crew.
>
>Reyes, an air crew rescue swimmer attached to the Helicopter Support
>Unit
>aboard NAS Pensacola, said he is excited about his new adventure and
>has
>high hopes for the program. He advises Sailors who are interested to
>start
>early and don't procrastinate.
>
>The next board will be held June 16-20, 2007.
>
>For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
>
>-USN-

[Mike Weeks]

fudog50 wrote:
> Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:
>
> The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
> ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)
>
> God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!
>
> You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
> people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
> path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.

Could it be due to the ALDO being commissioned, and the CWO is not?
Don't have to pay as much for example? It's almost as if they brought
back the NAPs (flying Chief's), just give them the CWO rate instead as
well as limited type flying-only duty. Again, just a question.

[fudog50]

Mike,

Trying to be as respectful and tactful as I can, hopefully this
answers those 2 questions:

1.) I was permanantly commissioned the day I swore the oath, as are
the rest of my CWO brothers and sisters. LDO's are not permanant
commissioned until after thier second year as a LT, (6 years
commissioned). They are asked at that point if they want to go
permanant, if not they revert back to enlisted or can go home. By the
way CWO's can NOT revert back because of the fact they are permanantly
commissioned from day 1.

*that "non-commissioned" comment smells like Army, ;)

2.) I got the payscale sitting right here. Next year ( July 07) as a
CWO4 I make 6220 base pay, after 8 years commissioned. A LT LDO (same
8 years commissioned) tops out at 5715. 0-4's make 6250, so they make
30 bucks more, wow. However, a CWO5 after 12 years commissioned makes
6850. So they lose money by making ACWO's vice ALDO's. Look at 2007
payscale and see for yourself.

Compare CWO2 to O1E with over 8 its the same advantage for CWO. Also
CWO3 to 02E, CWO's simply make more money with the same amount of
years commissioned, with one exception. It takes only 2 years for an
ENS to make JG and 3 years from CWO2 to CWO3, so for that 1 year
period, the LDO makes more. After that its all over except the crying!



Its simply a bad idea, no one yet has convinced any of my fellow
LDO/CWO's otherwise. Sure there are some good points, but again the
bad far outweighs them!

Anyway they should start these guys out as W-1's like Army,(simply a
warrant officer, NOT a Chief Warrant Officer. That would fix a lot of
the whole problems.

For example, not to many sane persons would go from Chief to W-1.
Thats why the Navy has no W-1. You go from Cheif to CWO2. This new
program allows a dozen or so E-5 or E-6 straight to CWO2!!!


On 6 Dec 2006 12:39:24 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:

>
>fudog50 wrote:
>> Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:
>>
>> The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
>> ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)
>>
>> God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!
>>
>> You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
>> people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
>> path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.
>
>Could it be due to the ALDO being commissioned, and the CWO is not?
>Don't have to pay as much for example? It's almost as if they brought
>back the NAPs (flying Chief's), just give them the CWO rate instead as
>well as limited type flying-only duty. Again, just a question.

[Mike Weeks]

Thanks for the explanation(s); had forgotten about there being the W-1,
W-2, etc.

Am I to understand that an ALDO can not go above LT? Can any LDO,
regardless the specility, go above LT?


fudog50 wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Trying to be as respectful and tactful as I can, hopefully this
> answers those 2 questions:
>
> 1.) I was permanantly commissioned the day I swore the oath, as are
> the rest of my CWO brothers and sisters. LDO's are not permanant
> commissioned until after thier second year as a LT, (6 years
> commissioned). They are asked at that point if they want to go
> permanant, if not they revert back to enlisted or can go home. By the
> way CWO's can NOT revert back because of the fact they are permanantly
> commissioned from day 1.
>
> *that "non-commissioned" comment smells like Army, ;)
>
> 2.) I got the payscale sitting right here. Next year ( July 07) as a
> CWO4 I make 6220 base pay, after 8 years commissioned. A LT LDO (same
> 8 years commissioned) tops out at 5715. 0-4's make 6250, so they make
> 30 bucks more, wow. However, a CWO5 after 12 years commissioned makes
> 6850. So they lose money by making ACWO's vice ALDO's. Look at 2007
> payscale and see for yourself.
>
> Compare CWO2 to O1E with over 8 its the same advantage for CWO. Also
> CWO3 to 02E, CWO's simply make more money with the same amount of
> years commissioned, with one exception. It takes only 2 years for an
> ENS to make JG and 3 years from CWO2 to CWO3, so for that 1 year
> period, the LDO makes more. After that its all over except the crying!
>
>
>
> Its simply a bad idea, no one yet has convinced any of my fellow
> LDO/CWO's otherwise. Sure there are some good points, but again the
> bad far outweighs them!
>
> Anyway they should start these guys out as W-1's like Army,(simply a
> warrant officer, NOT a Chief Warrant Officer. That would fix a lot of
> the whole problems.
>
> For example, not to many sane persons would go from Chief to W-1.
> Thats why the Navy has no W-1. You go from Cheif to CWO2. This new
> program allows a dozen or so E-5 or E-6 straight to CWO2!!!
>
>
> On 6 Dec 2006 12:39:24 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
>
> >
> >fudog50 wrote:
> >> Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:
> >>
> >> The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
> >> ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)
> >>
> >> God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!
> >>
> >> You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
> >> people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
> >> path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.
> >
> >Could it be due to the ALDO being commissioned, and the CWO is not?
> >Don't have to pay as much for example? It's almost as if they brought
> >back the NAPs (flying Chief's), just give them the CWO rate instead as
> >well as limited type flying-only duty. Again, just a question.

[M. B.]

>
> Am I to understand that an ALDO can not go above LT? Can any LDO,
> regardless the specility, go above LT?
>

Yes, they can. Our Maintenance Officer (LDO-type) was an O-5 / CDR.

[fudog50]

Just to clarify, there is no such thing as an ALDO anymore, they
stopped that program in the late 80's.

And yes, LDO's can go up to Admiral, we finally got one last year.

There are all kinds of Captain LDO SWO's, Aviation types, Blackshoes,
etc. Most communities have at least one 0-6 LDO, some have a handfull.

Navy just started CWO5 3 years ago and the end strength I think right
now is about 70.

Marine Corps has had CWO5 for some time.


On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 04:44:59 GMT, "M. B." > wrote:

>>
>> Am I to understand that an ALDO can not go above LT? Can any LDO,
>> regardless the specility, go above LT?
>>
>
>Yes, they can. Our Maintenance Officer (LDO-type) was an O-5 / CDR.
>

[[email protected]]

Mike Weeks wrote:
> fudog50 wrote:
> > Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:
> >
> > The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
> > ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)
> >
> > God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!
> >
> > You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
> > people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
> > path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.
>
> Could it be due to the ALDO being commissioned, and the CWO is not?

Warrants are commissioned officers...


> Don't have to pay as much for example? It's almost as if they brought
> back the NAPs (flying Chief's), just give them the CWO rate instead as
> well as limited type flying-only duty. Again, just a question.

[[email protected]]

'Worked' for a Master Chief when I was a brand new O-4, Red Larson, not
a finer CPO in existence at the time in my experience. He was so good,
I asked him about becoming an LDO...trade 'Master Chief' for O-1/2 or
whatever and he laughed at me...He 'splained' why, why trade going from
the top to one of the herd....

fudog50 wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Trying to be as respectful and tactful as I can, hopefully this
> answers those 2 questions:
>
> 1.) I was permanantly commissioned the day I swore the oath, as are
> the rest of my CWO brothers and sisters. LDO's are not permanant
> commissioned until after thier second year as a LT, (6 years
> commissioned). They are asked at that point if they want to go
> permanant, if not they revert back to enlisted or can go home. By the
> way CWO's can NOT revert back because of the fact they are permanantly
> commissioned from day 1.
>
> *that "non-commissioned" comment smells like Army, ;)
>
> 2.) I got the payscale sitting right here. Next year ( July 07) as a
> CWO4 I make 6220 base pay, after 8 years commissioned. A LT LDO (same
> 8 years commissioned) tops out at 5715. 0-4's make 6250, so they make
> 30 bucks more, wow. However, a CWO5 after 12 years commissioned makes
> 6850. So they lose money by making ACWO's vice ALDO's. Look at 2007
> payscale and see for yourself.
>
> Compare CWO2 to O1E with over 8 its the same advantage for CWO. Also
> CWO3 to 02E, CWO's simply make more money with the same amount of
> years commissioned, with one exception. It takes only 2 years for an
> ENS to make JG and 3 years from CWO2 to CWO3, so for that 1 year
> period, the LDO makes more. After that its all over except the crying!
>
>
>
> Its simply a bad idea, no one yet has convinced any of my fellow
> LDO/CWO's otherwise. Sure there are some good points, but again the
> bad far outweighs them!
>
> Anyway they should start these guys out as W-1's like Army,(simply a
> warrant officer, NOT a Chief Warrant Officer. That would fix a lot of
> the whole problems.
>
> For example, not to many sane persons would go from Chief to W-1.
> Thats why the Navy has no W-1. You go from Cheif to CWO2. This new
> program allows a dozen or so E-5 or E-6 straight to CWO2!!!
>
>
> On 6 Dec 2006 12:39:24 -0800, "Mike Weeks" > wrote:
>
> >
> >fudog50 wrote:
> >> Sorry I forgot on my last winded reply:
> >>
> >> The Navy already had a prgram like this in the past it was called,
> >> ALDO, (Aviator Limited Duty Officer)
> >>
> >> God only knows why the higher ups didn't just resurrect this program!
> >>
> >> You would be drawing from the same pool of highly motivated, smart
> >> people and wouldn't have to completly bypass the entire CWO career
> >> path the rest of us have gone through and will continue to do.
> >
> >Could it be due to the ALDO being commissioned, and the CWO is not?
> >Don't have to pay as much for example? It's almost as if they brought
> >back the NAPs (flying Chief's), just give them the CWO rate instead as
> >well as limited type flying-only duty. Again, just a question.

[John Weiss[_1_]]

> wrote in message...
>
> Warrants are commissioned officers...

....except for the Army WO1.

[Jim[_10_]]

fudog50 wrote:
> Just to clarify, there is no such thing as an ALDO anymore, they
> stopped that program in the late 80's.
>
> And yes, LDO's can go up to Admiral, we finally got one last year.
>
> There are all kinds of Captain LDO SWO's, Aviation types, Blackshoes,
> etc. Most communities have at least one 0-6 LDO, some have a handfull.
>
> Navy just started CWO5 3 years ago and the end strength I think right
> now is about 70.
>
> Marine Corps has had CWO5 for some time.
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 04:44:59 GMT, "M. B." > wrote:
>
>>> Am I to understand that an ALDO can not go above LT? Can any LDO,
>>> regardless the specility, go above LT?
>>>
>> Yes, they can. Our Maintenance Officer (LDO-type) was an O-5 / CDR.
>>
>
Any listings of the O6 and above LDO's? Or former LDO's if they
augmented.

[[email protected]]

John Weiss wrote:
> > wrote in message...
> >
> > Warrants are commissioned officers...
>
> ...except for the Army WO1.

Sing along now....I was ...."in the Navy".....USN doesn't have a WO1,
correct??

I think the warrant program in the USN, where you commission really
good senior CPOs, and then they continue to work in their area of
expertise, like as branch or division officers, is a great idea. Our
'Gunner', AO branch officer, in all the squadrons I was in, is a prime
example.

[John Weiss[_1_]]

> wrote...
>
>> > Warrants are commissioned officers...
>>
>> ...except for the Army WO1.
>
> Sing along now....I was ...."in the Navy".....USN doesn't have a WO1,
> correct??

As I was...

You are correct: Only the Army uses the WO1 rank. However, there are a few
Army guys roaming around here, and the discussion of flying WOs will always
get around to the Army way of doing things... :-)


> I think the warrant program in the USN, where you commission really
> good senior CPOs, and then they continue to work in their area of
> expertise, like as branch or division officers, is a great idea. Our
> 'Gunner', AO branch officer, in all the squadrons I was in, is a prime
> example.

I agree that the WO/LDO programs are good ones. I still can't quite figure
out why the Navy continues with both, though. It seems to me that either
one serves the purpose in the Navy. The Air Force eliminated the WO program
a while back, and the Army uses it in a different, specific manner that
suits their goals (e.g., of getting Helo pilots right out of high school).

I might even propose a change to the program so that the WO program
completely replaces the LDO program through O4, and allows a shift to an LDO
or EDO track at the O5 level (e.g., WO5 to O5) for those who "screen" for
high-level billets like AIMD Officer and other significant "commands."

[[email protected]]

Interesting! For you not so old salts the Navy Warrant Officers were
supposed to be replaced by Senior and Master Chiefs in the early 60s.
For some reason it never happened. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's
been a long time, weren't WO2s and 3s non-commissioned?

Walt

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:43:37 -0800, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

> wrote...
>>
>>> > Warrants are commissioned officers...
>>>
>>> ...except for the Army WO1.
>>
>> Sing along now....I was ...."in the Navy".....USN doesn't have a WO1,
>> correct??
>
>As I was...
>
>You are correct: Only the Army uses the WO1 rank. However, there are a few
>Army guys roaming around here, and the discussion of flying WOs will always
>get around to the Army way of doing things... :-)
>
>
>> I think the warrant program in the USN, where you commission really
>> good senior CPOs, and then they continue to work in their area of
>> expertise, like as branch or division officers, is a great idea. Our
>> 'Gunner', AO branch officer, in all the squadrons I was in, is a prime
>> example.
>
>I agree that the WO/LDO programs are good ones. I still can't quite figure
>out why the Navy continues with both, though. It seems to me that either
>one serves the purpose in the Navy. The Air Force eliminated the WO program
>a while back, and the Army uses it in a different, specific manner that
>suits their goals (e.g., of getting Helo pilots right out of high school).
>
>I might even propose a change to the program so that the WO program
>completely replaces the LDO program through O4, and allows a shift to an LDO
>or EDO track at the O5 level (e.g., WO5 to O5) for those who "screen" for
>high-level billets like AIMD Officer and other significant "commands."
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Weiss[_1_]]

> wrote...
> Interesting! For you not so old salts the Navy Warrant Officers were
> supposed to be replaced by Senior and Master Chiefs in the early 60s.
> For some reason it never happened. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's
> been a long time, weren't WO2s and 3s non-commissioned?

I suppose it's another of those "great Quaker Life debates" that will change
every generation or 2, but not as often as the uniform... ;-)

CWO2 - CWO5 have been Commissioned ranks as long as I've known (CWO5 more
recently, of course).

[fudog50]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:07:32 -0800, "John Weiss"
<jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:

> wrote...
>> Interesting! For you not so old salts the Navy Warrant Officers were
>> supposed to be replaced by Senior and Master Chiefs in the early 60s.
>> For some reason it never happened. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's
>> been a long time, weren't WO2s and 3s non-commissioned?
>
>I suppose it's another of those "great Quaker Life debates" that will change
>every generation or 2, but not as often as the uniform... ;-)
>
>CWO2 - CWO5 have been Commissioned ranks as long as I've known (CWO5 more
>recently, of course).
>


Fer cryin out loud!

Just like sitting at a dept head meeting!!!

Just like the dept heads don't listen or comprehend then ask the same
questions already answered,,,, y'all don't read or comprehend very
well.

I refuse to repost what I already posted, but every single comment
after that was already answered in my posts.

Again, I AM A CWO, AND I AM COMMISSIONED SINCE DAY ONE!!!

Please go back and read what I typed for the love of god!!!!

Thank you!!!

[[email protected]]

I don't really know what you're raving about. So you're a WO. Don't
they teach you guys to be civil any more. FYI This message is the only
one from you in this news group. Or at least on mine.

Walt

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:39:47 -0800, fudog50 >
wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:07:32 -0800, "John Weiss"
><jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:
>
> wrote...
>>> Interesting! For you not so old salts the Navy Warrant Officers were
>>> supposed to be replaced by Senior and Master Chiefs in the early 60s.
>>> For some reason it never happened. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's
>>> been a long time, weren't WO2s and 3s non-commissioned?
>>
>>I suppose it's another of those "great Quaker Life debates" that will change
>>every generation or 2, but not as often as the uniform... ;-)
>>
>>CWO2 - CWO5 have been Commissioned ranks as long as I've known (CWO5 more
>>recently, of course).
>>
>
>
>Fer cryin out loud!
>
>Just like sitting at a dept head meeting!!!
>
>Just like the dept heads don't listen or comprehend then ask the same
>questions already answered,,,, y'all don't read or comprehend very
>well.
>
>I refuse to repost what I already posted, but every single comment
>after that was already answered in my posts.
>
>Again, I AM A CWO, AND I AM COMMISSIONED SINCE DAY ONE!!!
>
>Please go back and read what I typed for the love of god!!!!
>
>Thank you!!!
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[fudog50]

I was being civil, I even said thank you!

And your info is correct in your posting. Thanks for adding to the
thread.

Next time I'll try to be a little more tactful and politically correct
for those with thin skins and newservers with less than 3 days
retention.

I posted 5 times now to this thread in the last 3 days. They show up
on my newserver.

And no, being taught to be civil has never been part of the CWO
training track.

So how about a big hug and lets kill this thread?



On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:18:12 -0700, wrote:

>I don't really know what you're raving about. So you're a WO. Don't
>they teach you guys to be civil any more. FYI This message is the only
>one from you in this news group. Or at least on mine.
>
>Walt
>
>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:39:47 -0800, fudog50 >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:07:32 -0800, "John Weiss"
>><jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote:
>>
> wrote...
>>>> Interesting! For you not so old salts the Navy Warrant Officers were
>>>> supposed to be replaced by Senior and Master Chiefs in the early 60s.
>>>> For some reason it never happened. And correct me if I'm wrong, it's
>>>> been a long time, weren't WO2s and 3s non-commissioned?
>>>
>>>I suppose it's another of those "great Quaker Life debates" that will change
>>>every generation or 2, but not as often as the uniform... ;-)
>>>
>>>CWO2 - CWO5 have been Commissioned ranks as long as I've known (CWO5 more
>>>recently, of course).
>>>
>>
>>
>>Fer cryin out loud!
>>
>>Just like sitting at a dept head meeting!!!
>>
>>Just like the dept heads don't listen or comprehend then ask the same
>>questions already answered,,,, y'all don't read or comprehend very
>>well.
>>
>>I refuse to repost what I already posted, but every single comment
>>after that was already answered in my posts.
>>
>>Again, I AM A CWO, AND I AM COMMISSIONED SINCE DAY ONE!!!
>>
>>Please go back and read what I typed for the love of god!!!!
>>
>>Thank you!!!
>>