nsplayr Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Its kind of humorous actually. Many studs down here still say "nav" school. Instructors from the various platforms have to catch themselves from not saying, EWO, WSO or nav. I think they think its dumb, and most of the students down here do as well. That makes sense since none of the instructors there have ever been called CSOs in their airframes. We have an understanding that the training we're going through is a universal CSO program, but when we get out of here we will be called whatever 12xxxers have been called forever. And that's great, but realize that in some platforms that will be CSO. To me, CSO ties all the 12xxers together, but obviously within individual communities there's gonna be some variance because of the problem of having more than one nav/ewo/etc. on board. I dont think anyone but higher leadership is getting butthurt over the situation (or lack thereof...) of who calls who what. It seems to me from an outside perspective that changing the name of a nav/EWO/WSO to a CSO is more about the ego of the leadership. I really don't think anyone at all is butthurt. I for one think it's just an interesting change. Anyone who cares what you call them doesn't have their priorities straight. What was wrong with the universal term of Navigator??? You're right. Somebody got an OPR bullet from it... That's about it. I don't know if they've figured it out down there yet, but from what I heard from legacy P-Cola instructors before and after I left, standing up that new program was a sh*t show... Because there have been EWOs and WSOs and FCOs for some time so it was never universal. Before that there were bombadiers and etc. The Navy has it right IMHO just calling everyone NFOs but it's kind of hard to go back and change history. It'll probably take a while but my money is on that by time I retire every 12xxer will be a CSO in reality versus in name only the way it is now. It's just easier to group people into one large group rather than numerous smaller ones. Your comment about nav school @ p-cola is true, but it has more to do with lack of resources, leadership, and putting the cart before the horse WRT the new syllabus than anything about the concept of combining all 12xx training in one location. The problems being experienced there now would exist no matter what you call the school, it's growing pains and it will get figured out just like any new program eventually stabilizes a little bit.
theSituation Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 What was wrong with the universal term of Navigator??? You're right. Somebody got an OPR bullet from it... That's about it. I don't know if they've figured it out down there yet, but from what I heard from legacy P-Cola instructors before and after I left, standing up that new program was a sh*t show... It still kind of is. We're getting good training, but you can tell theres a whole lot of 'why are we doing this this way?'. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future and how the FTUs react to the new guys coming out of here.
08Dawg Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 It still kind of is. We're getting good training, but you can tell theres a whole lot of 'why are we doing this this way?'. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future and how the FTUs react to the new guys coming out of here. That's the $50,000 question. How are the communities going to adapt, especially communities like the Buff, the AFSOC-type Hercs, and to a lesser extent the RJs, where you have at least two (and many times more) dudes wearing the same wings but doing very different jobs. How do you pick/designate/select who sits in what seat? The Buff FTU was talking about making guys dual qualed as navs and EWs and upgrading to RN later, but in my mind, that's a nightmare waiting to happen. EWs and Offenders have very unique and different skills sets, and blurring the line is, to me at least, asking for a lack of effectiveness in both seats. For jets like an AWACS, a slick Herc, or a JSTARS with a single nav-type on board, it won't be that big a deal. The FTU might have to work just a little harder to make you the kind of aviator that platform needs.
magnetfreezer Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The Buff FTU was talking about making guys dual qualed as navs and EWs and upgrading to RN later, but in my mind, that's a nightmare waiting to happen. EWs and Offenders have very unique and different skills sets, and blurring the line is, to me at least, asking for a lack of effectiveness in both seats. Bones merged OSO/DSO quals years ago; seat swapping seems to work fine for knocking out beans if necessary. Don't know if the crew coordination would be harder since y'all don't sit right next to each other. 1
08Dawg Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Bones merged OSO/DSO quals years ago; seat swapping seems to work fine for knocking out beans if necessary. Don't know if the crew coordination would be harder since y'all don't sit right next to each other. That, and our defensive suite is alot older and takes alot more man in the loop to make it effective, hence, a more specialized type of aviator.
Guest Dkale Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 Hello All, Just a post for those that will be heading to NAS Pensacola for CSO training. We are starting a CSO specific site so that we can upload common files and gouge that is geared just for students. The link is https://www.pensacolacso.com/ Much of the gouge is only open once you start class, but some like Bold Face and Ops limits and Housing etc is open to everyone. Head on over. https://www.pensacolacso.com/
Guest burner Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 That makes sense since none of the instructors there have ever been called CSOs in their airframes. And that's great, but realize that in some platforms that will be CSO. To me, CSO ties all the 12xxers together, but obviously within individual communities there's gonna be some variance because of the problem of having more than one nav/ewo/etc. on board. I really don't think anyone at all is butthurt. I for one think it's just an interesting change. Anyone who cares what you call them doesn't have their priorities straight. Because there have been EWOs and WSOs and FCOs for some time so it was never universal. Before that there were bombadiers and etc. The Navy has it right IMHO just calling everyone NFOs but it's kind of hard to go back and change history. It'll probably take a while but my money is on that by time I retire every 12xxer will be a CSO in reality versus in name only the way it is now. It's just easier to group people into one large group rather than numerous smaller ones. Your comment about nav school @ p-cola is true, but it has more to do with lack of resources, leadership, and putting the cart before the horse WRT the new syllabus than anything about the concept of combining all 12xx training in one location. The problems being experienced there now would exist no matter what you call the school, it's growing pains and it will get figured out just like any new program eventually stabilizes a little bit. I am very interested in how the USN NA-NFO team works, when compared to the USAF Plt-CSO team: Far less consternation on the USN team, perhaps since Sqn leadership alternates between the two specialities; another reason may be due to USN crews flying OCONUS more often, and over water. My point being that a few times at ACSC (99-00), I've heard 130 & 52 plts speak to AR helo plts about "not needing navs", and never hearing same from any USN NAs from EA-A6, F/A-18, P-3s. This perspective may be chiefly from USAF training for CONUS-flying, and insular views. The most critical USN NA comment I was told was from an F/A NA (95), who emphasized that two cockpits made sense if they were "de-coupled", that's it; but he never bashed NFOs. Just recently, one O3 NA told me that they are officers first, and NFOs make it to the top. The USAF is a winning team, but competition and "inherent subordination", in which Plt usually are senior ranking, influence this.
Disco_Nav963 Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Hm... I've never felt discriminated against as a nav, by pilots anyway (I felt some prejudice from ABMs!). I've now had three squadron commanders who were navs (five if you count nav school, but I don't), two Ops Group commanders who were navs, and a wing commander who was a nav. Could it be an AFSOC thing? I am very interested in how the USN NA-NFO team works, when compared to the USAF Plt-CSO team: Far less consternation on the USN team, perhaps since Sqn leadership alternates between the two specialities; another reason may be due to USN crews flying OCONUS more often, and over water. My point being that a few times at ACSC (99-00), I've heard 130 & 52 plts speak to AR helo plts about "not needing navs", and never hearing same from any USN NAs from EA-A6, F/A-18, P-3s. This perspective may be chiefly from USAF training for CONUS-flying, and insular views. The most critical USN NA comment I was told was from an F/A NA (95), who emphasized that two cockpits made sense if they were "de-coupled", that's it; but he never bashed NFOs. Just recently, one O3 NA told me that they are officers first, and NFOs make it to the top. The USAF is a winning team, but competition and "inherent subordination", in which Plt usually are senior ranking, influence this.
nsplayr Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 Could it be an AFSOC thing? I think so. I agree that in my community we're pretty equal and at HRT we've had several 12XX in the chain of command recently. Have heard this is not the case in AMC primarily. Hell, a lot of former AMC navs who are now in my squadron have recognized that they weren't exactly mission critical to some of their former platforms (i.e. tankers, RC-135, AWACS, etc.) and that's exactly why they came down here.
lazlo Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 It still kind of is. We're getting good training, but you can tell theres a whole lot of 'why are we doing this this way?'. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future and how the FTUs react to the new guys coming out of here. Yeah. I distictly remember hearing about a curriculum meeting where the B-1 instructors were explaining how low-level navigation should be taught, and some RC-135 Nav's had a hissy-fit over how they thought it should be...
Guest burner Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Hm... I've never felt discriminated against as a nav, by pilots anyway (I felt some prejudice from ABMs!). I've now had three squadron commanders who were navs (five if you count nav school, but I don't), two Ops Group commanders who were navs, and a wing commander who was a nav. Could it be an AFSOC thing? Good point, AFSOC has improved prospects. I left HRT in 93, and have been in Joint assignments since. I enjoyed MCs. I think so. I agree that in my community we're pretty equal and at HRT we've had several 12XX in the chain of command recently. Have heard this is not the case in AMC primarily. Hell, a lot of former AMC navs who are now in my squadron have recognized that they weren't exactly mission critical to some of their former platforms (i.e. tankers, RC-135, AWACS, etc.) and that's exactly why they came down here. Glad that AFSOC has progressed. I recall many navs from AMC who were happy to get to MC/ACs. Now I work with an MC nav, who prefers the E model over the H; he also said the last E model retires in 2014. I think so. I agree that in my community we're pretty equal and at HRT we've had several 12XX in the chain of command recently. Have heard this is not the case in AMC primarily. Hell, a lot of former AMC navs who are now in my squadron have recognized that they weren't exactly mission critical to some of their former platforms (i.e. tankers, RC-135, AWACS, etc.) and that's exactly why they came down here. Glad that AFSOC has progressed. I recall many navs from AMC who were happy to get to MC/ACs. Now I work with an MC nav, who prefers the E model over the H; he also said the last E model retires in 2014.
theSituation Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Bump. Any word from the FTUs as to how students are doing coming out of the new CSO program? Ive heard rumors, but nothing has been confirmed. An example being that there is a serious lack of manual mission planning capability at KLIT. (that's probably the best ICAO identifier ever). Also, BUFF guys are figuring out whether they're going nav or EWO at the school house. Same with RC-135s.
skinny Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 I have heard from multiple sources that the folks that got picked up for dark greys are having a hard time in IFF. They all said that this program did not come close to preparing them for that environment. Pretty sure that's part of the reason some of the Columbus IFF IPs came down a couple of weeks ago to check things out. I'm sure they'll make it through and I wish them all the best but it sucks to hear that the CSO program wasn't quite up to par for that course. Haven't heard anything else in regards to other aircraft. I'm sure for the most part, people are just now starting IQT in their respective MWS.
theSituation Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 We had 2 weeks from being syllabus complete and graduation. That two weeks could have been spent with each student getting a crash course in what to expect in their future platform. I hope that happens someday. It'll make the FTUs feel more confident in the product they're getting and students will be more prepared for the ftu.
discus Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Strange. I have heard much the same rumors from a couple of heavy platforms that they have no idea how to use a DR kit and basic navigation fundamentals such as log work have been lost in favor of a more fighter-centric way of doing things, and way too much focus on EWO tactics. Which conflicts with the reports of problems in IFF. I'm sure there will be many growing pains, and only time will tell. I just feel sorry for the studs coming out during the growing period that are taught to be a jack of all trades and master of none. It's gonna put a lot more responsibility (Read asspain) on the FTU's.
skinny Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 jack of all trades and master of none. It's gonna put a lot more responsibility (Read asspain) on the FTU's. I've said the exact same thing since this program started.
theSituation Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Strange. I have heard much the same rumors from a couple of heavy platforms that they have no idea how to use a DR kit and basic navigation fundamentals such as log work have been lost in favor of a more fighter-centric way of doing things, and way too much focus on EWO tactics. Which conflicts with the reports of problems in IFF. I'm sure there will be many growing pains, and only time will tell. I just feel sorry for the studs coming out during the growing period that are taught to be a jack of all trades and master of none. It's gonna put a lot more responsibility (Read asspain) on the FTU's. What's a DR kit? Logwork?
OregonHerc Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Strange. I have heard much the same rumors from a couple of heavy platforms that they have no idea how to use a DR kit and basic navigation fundamentals such as log work have been lost in favor of a more fighter-centric way of doing things, and way too much focus on EWO tactics. Which conflicts with the reports of problems in IFF. I'm sure there will be many growing pains, and only time will tell. I just feel sorry for the studs coming out during the growing period that are taught to be a jack of all trades and master of none. It's gonna put a lot more responsibility (Read asspain) on the FTU's. From LIT, the DR kit work and log work was a bit of a learning curve to start out. The Lockheed instructors are aware that we don't have these skills. They're attempting to create a sort of a "pre-NIQ" course for two weeks prior to your actual class start in order to get us up to speed before the actual phase 1 academics start. In a bit of a silver lining, we do have a grasp of the basic airmanship skills/monitoring approaches etc.
FlyingBull Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 They are constantly tweaking the syllabus and rewriting the training manual. The 'product' produced from one class to the next is likely to be different at least until the 12 series classes start graduating. My understanding is that some of the ass pain/inconsistencies those of us in the 11 series went through is fixed for those in the next fiscal year. Well that's what we've been told anyhow...
GO BIG BLUE Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 I have heard from multiple sources that the folks that got picked up for dark greys are having a hard time in IFF. They all said that this program did not come close to preparing them for that environment. Pretty sure that's part of the reason some of the Columbus IFF IPs came down a couple of weeks ago to check things out. I'm sure they'll make it through and I wish them all the best but it sucks to hear that the CSO program wasn't quite up to par for that course. Haven't heard anything else in regards to other aircraft. I'm sure for the most part, people are just now starting IQT in their respective MWS. There's only been one guy from this new course who has completed IFF and one girl who is currently going through it at Columbus. Sample of one, with a second to follow. Not much to gain from that IMHO. Especially considering how much the first and second classes were babysat. I'm in total agreement though that this course is not preparing us for IFF or the FTU. 40hrs total over the course of a year is not near enough flight time to prepare me for what I'm going to be expected to know and do while at IFF. Oh well, it will be a learning experience and flying the T38, and strike eagle for that matter, is going to be sick---hard work be damned!
OregonHerc Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Heard a rumor that class patches are now verboten back in Pensacola. True? False?
Odium Posted August 26, 2011 Posted August 26, 2011 Heard a rumor that class patches are now verboten back in Pensacola. True? False? False
Guest cody6766 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Yup, False...unless classes with class patches are grandfathered. I never saw/heard any guidance about them.
SemperSicEm Posted September 8, 2011 Posted September 8, 2011 Thread revival! Does anyone know if I have a pilot slot right now out of AFROTC and I signed the memo saying I would elect to attend Strike Nav training, will they consider me at the board? I really don't want to give up my pilot slot, but I found out I am a little under the standing height requirement so much so they won't let me track T-38s out of SUPT. I know I might not even get fighter/bomber if I wasn't red for measurements anyway, but the CSO strike track is a little more definite in knowing what I would be flying in. Do you have to be able to fly the T-38/F-15 to be a strike Nav i.e. if your pilot is incapacitated for some reason and you are responsible for landing the aircraft?
HerkNav Posted September 8, 2011 Posted September 8, 2011 Thread revival! Does anyone know if I have a pilot slot right now out of AFROTC and I signed the memo saying I would elect to attend Strike Nav training, will they consider me at the board? I really don't want to give up my pilot slot, but I found out I am a little under the standing height requirement so much so they won't let me track T-38s out of SUPT. I know I might not even get fighter/bomber if I wasn't red for measurements anyway, but the CSO strike track is a little more definite in knowing what I would be flying in. Do you have to be able to fly the T-38/F-15 to be a strike Nav i.e. if your pilot is incapacitated for some reason and you are responsible for landing the aircraft? Tri, Not sure what you mean by would they consider you at the board. Which board? As for the Strike Eagle backseat slot, you aren't guaranteed anything at training as of this point. You have to compete against the other studs in your class at Pensacola and you will get your aircraft based on your performance and needs of the AF. And only 1% of the dudes/dudettes are getting strike eagles as it is. Once you get to that point you can start to be concerned with how much stick time you are going to get. From how it sounds now I would stick with your UPT slot if you want to drive. You would be definitely rolling the dice on the chances of getting a F-15E Cheers, Matt
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now