Navigator/CSO future

[Guest elroy]

Word I got two days ago from a Major (NAV/EWO type) heading for UAVs in a couple of months. He said that the 17XX AFSC is on its way. Also, the commercial part is waiverable. And lastly, those requirements are per the FAA, because you will be operating in civilian airspace. I know, I know - pilots didn't get thier instrument and commercial...but damn close.

Alot of that is going to change apparently - to include the moving of the UAV school house to Randolph in a year or two.

[ 17. August 2006, 07:43: Message edited by: ElRoy ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I'm thinking there would be plenty of Navs happy to fly the MQ-1 and shoot some hellfires and drop some GBU-12s.

UAVs suck but you do have the opportunity to kill the enemy. That is a good thing.

Am I wrong?

[Guest elroy]

Personally I think that it would be a cool opportunity down the road, especially when a UCAV (with inherent combat abilities) comes online, like the X45c.

Think about it, you sit in a new metal container WITH amenities or you sit in a old one at FL-something or another, away from home for 4 months, doing the same job (think BUFFs and Bones).

[ 17. August 2006, 12:29: Message edited by: ElRoy ]

[Guest Arborist]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

I'm thinking there would be plenty of Navs happy to fly the MQ-1 and shoot some hellfires and drop some GBU-12s.

UAVs suck but you do have the opportunity to kill the enemy. That is a good thing.

Am I wrong?

I'm supposed to graduate Nav School in a few months. IMO, it would be good to go UAV's and have a chance to kill the enemy, but I'd rather actually be in an airplane for a while first, even without the chance to directly kill the enemy. For me, UAV's would be a sweet option later on vs. a different desk job. But several in my class have said they would be happy with it right out of Nav training (if they ever did make that an option.)

[Guest C-130 Nav]

I've never understood the constant argument about whether Navs are necessary or not. Obviously there are lots of factors to consider, for example the mission and the weapon system. Some aircraft don't require a Nav to perform their mission; others do. Will that be the case in the future? Who knows? As new technology develops, the need for traditional navigation is changing and, in some instances, fading away. But there are many functions that a Nav/CSO/EWO/WSO can effectively do to accomplish the mission. Are they all going to be replaced eventually? Probably. Perhaps one day we won’t even have pilots in the cockpit. Or maybe we'll have just one, even on heavies.

But what I don't get is, why does some pilots insist on getting rid of Navs or minimizing their work? The way I see it, that's an extra crewmember assisting the pilot in accomplishing the mission. In fact, in many cases Navs take leading roles at all levels of command. For example, a few years ago my wing commander was a Nav. My former squadron commander was also a Nav. And so was the DO, chief of tactics, chief of Stan/Eval, Plans & Programs, and Current Ops. The Sq/CC and DO of the 35EAS (Coronet Oak) are both Navs, and so are most of their Mission Commanders. My point is that Navs are as important as pilots or other crewmembers. We're all doing our jobs. Again, are Navs going to fade away in tomorrow’s Air Force? Probably. But until then, we’ll continue doing a fine job in today’s Air Force.

[Guest clouddawg]

It probably stems from the way pilots start training with the single seat mentality in phase I and II of UPT. Even in T-1's on checkrides it was in some ways very much single seat. I don't think it is a conscience hatred toward Navs, for some of use younger guys more of a question of what can they do for us that we haven't been trained to do for ourselves.

[Guest C-130 Nav]

I see your point and respect it, but think about this... Of the approximately two years of training that a pilot has to undergo, how much of that is in actual navigation? Most, if not all, of the airlift pilots I know don't even know how to prepare a CARP using PFPS, much less manually. Can they be train? Of course...but the fact is they're not. In fact, if a C-130J has a computer failure during a drop, the pilot aborts the mission. On the C-130E/H, if the computer fails we still drop. Look, I'm not against technology and I don't feel my career/job security is being threatened. I just think we all have an important role in this Air Force. Maybe some pilots enjoy doing the entire mission planning, while others have no problem with us Navs taking care of that. I'll tell you this, the last time I had a pilot help me build a chart/map on PFPS, well, lets just say I had to re-do the whole thing. Nothing against pilots; we obviously can't go anywhere without them. Oh, and lets not forget that if it wasn't for Navs, there would be a lot more pilots flying desks for a living.

You know what’s funny though; pilots in my unit (we fly C-130E) are always joking about getting the J-model which don’t require Navs or FE. Well, I’ll be transferring soon to the 53WRS, flying the WC-130J, which does have a Nav station. It seems that I’ll be flying in a J model a lot sooner than they will. Go figure! :D

[ 26. August 2006, 23:43: Message edited by: C-130 Nav ]

[Guest hockeymv]

When I showed up at Little Rock and realized the Nav's did so much planning for the low levels, I thought it was great. After busting my ass to learn PFPS and build charts down in Corpus, it was definitely a welcome change.

Is it possible to do things without Navs? Yeah, with the right cockpit/system design. Would I trade my nav in my E model Herk? No way! They definitely decrease the pilots' workload and are another set of eyes on the flight deck. Pretty helpful if you ask me.

[slacker]

Originally posted by C-130 Nav:

Most, if not all, of the airlift pilots I know don't even know how to prepare a CARP using PFPS, much less manually. Can they be train? Of course...but the fact is they're not. In fact, if a C-130J has a computer failure during a drop, the pilot aborts the mission. :D

Every airdrop pilot in the J can use PFPS/CAPS/TASM for CARP planning, it's not like it's that hard. I could show someone in 2 hours all they would need to crush a RAM in the J-model.

In the E-H model what happens if the nav chokes on a chicken bone or gets sick? Do you still drop? I've seen that before- the nav filling bags on the run-in. You know something I haven't seen in 2000 hours on the J model- a computer failure that kept me from dropping. Go figure.

I'm not throwing jabs at navs, some of my good friends are navs.

My point is that Navs are as important as pilots or other crewmembers.

Fill a plane with pilots- see if it can get airborne.

Fill a plane with navs- you get the point.

[Toasty]

Originally posted by JVBFLY:

Also, I agree that the nav career field needs to morph from "old-school navigation" to more systems/mission type duties.

You mean, kind of like a Systems Operator? Or a...Combat Systems Operator?

[JVBFLY]

Originally posted by toastychicken:

...kind of like a Systems Operator? Or a...Combat Systems Operator?

ummm....yeah. IMHO AETC made the right move, but the follow-on airframes need to change the job/duties as well. I really can't say about all the airframes, but RC community has been to slow to morph from old ways to more technologically advanced MO.

[Guest clouddawg]

Almost every crew position will need to do some morphing when newer airplanes come online and more automation is developed. Right now it is the nav position, possibly in the future it will only be the loadmaster out watching the machines fill up the plane and he will come back in for coffee while the plane takes off full of cargo but no people on board

[Guest why]

All you have to do is read the AF Times ( and all its usefull factiods :D ) to get your bag in a bunch. The JSF is supposedly able to be unmanned........ and its cheap.....and T Mike can already see wave after wave of unmanned JSFs heading into the teeth of the AD

[discus]

Cross feed from CSAF debate. The quote is Slacker's response to my suggestion that Nav's are put back on every heavy aircraft. I thought it was more appropriate to move that discussion here so as not to muddle the CSAF thread.

that is retarded and I hope you do not make CSAF.

Is it me or does it seem that every thread on the board somehow spins in to a nav or whatever they call them today debate?

Hell, at least my first move would not be to put everyone in their blues on Monday! Apparently, according to you, my staff failed me when they offered that suggestion, but I'm not convinced. Care to expand on that? I have always been a huge fan of the crew concept. I love having folks up front to back me up, BS with on the long missions, and generally increase SA. Granted, some Nav's are not the best in the world, but then again, some AC's/Co's are not the best, either. (I have never met a bad Eng, so I can't speak to that). You do the same thing with all these people - Either tune them out, or double check everything they have to say. I do believe that that is the exception rather than the rule. I think that their training pipeline is really screwed up right now, and the individual FTU's have to do extra work to build a good Nav, who is able to do what they want from the product Randolph produces.

On a side note, is there a separate "To Nav or not to Nav" thread out there?

that is retarded and I hope you do not make CSAF.

[Guest Boom]

So flying without a Nav is not flying with a "crew?" You don't need to have a full "party" bus to have a crew.

I've flown with a Nav a few times and it was usually more a hinderance than anything.

[discus]

So flying without a Nav is not flying with a "crew?" You don't need to have a full "party" bus to have a crew.

I've flown with a Nav a few times and it was usually more a hinderance than anything.

Agreed, "Crew" is subject to definition. I have a mental image from AWACS of AC, Co, Nav, Eng, so forgive me there...

As far as the tankers go, once again, I must plead limited experience. I had two rides on 135's out at Red Flag, so I'll admit that does not give me much basis for your airframe. I can also see how flying with them would be a hinderance. Even at IAB where the 135's still have Nav's, they don't fly with them all the time. You throw an extra crew member on board "As needed" and it's going to result in huge SA suck. I think the "Occasional Nav" is the worst idea ever. You need to either have the body on the plane all the time so you're used to working with him, or off the plane all together.

What I did see on my two flights was the Boom taking care of all the paperwork that could/should have been taken care of by a Nav. I also saw two sets of pilots get almost sent into "The container" by the AWACS controllers (Damn them). One caught it early, the others caught it at the last second as they were busy talking to 4 different flights of aircraft and figuring out who was getting gas since a 2 ship of F-15's who were to get the gas had to ground abort. To put it mildly those guys were BUSY trying to un-F-ck everything and fly the jet at the same time. A Nav could have handled keeping the jet where it needed to be, or the radios, or getting the track set up in the computer while the pilots did what they are there to do...Keep the damn jet in the air safely.

I think the reduction of work load provided by a Nav in jets that have plenty of space for one (Hence my "All heavy aircraft" law from CSAF thread) is more than worth it. When you have crews doing the deployment rates we have now, along with the length of the missions for most heavies, a Nav would be a welcome SA enhancer.

On the ground, consider that when you have 6 to 9 CBT's that have to be done each week, and all the other queep required to remain current, it never hurts to have someone "In charge" of the paperwork and planning... And another body in the squadron to help out since they took CSS and every damn thing else away from us is always welcome.

That's all I got, and my reasoning behind wanting to put a Nav back on the jets. I don't think that you can change peoples minds on the topic. Everyone I have run into seems to be clearly "For" or "Against" the Nav... But it sure does make a good topic of discussion! B

[BQZip01]

So flying without a Nav is not flying with a "crew?" You don't need to have a full "party" bus to have a crew.

I've flown with a Nav a few times and it was usually more a hinderance than anything.

If it were on a tanker, quite frankly the nav isn't needed much for day-to-day ops anymore. The advent of GPS kinda eliminated the need for celestial and grid navigation. That said, an expert in tactical planning is quite useful in the low-level realm, IMHO (yes, I realize 3000 ft AGL isn't what some of you would consider "low-level", but when you are limited in maneuverability because of weight & Gs, there is much less tolerance for error when you're flying between mountain peaks).

[FallingOsh]

All you have to do is read the AF Times ( and all its usefull factiods :D ) to get your bag in a bunch. The JSF is supposedly able to be unmanned........ and its cheap.....and T Mike can already see wave after wave of unmanned JSFs heading into the teeth of the AD

Doubt that.

[slacker]

My point was- there is not a need or a place for a nav on many heavy aircraft. Putting more, unnecessary crewmembers on aircraft does not enhance CRM. Putting Navs on aircraft where there is no requirement or need is dumb.

Don’t take my post as Nav-hatin’, it’s not. There are many aircraft that NEED and require a nav to get the mission done, keep the nav there.

[Guest cain1683]

Nobody has mentioned the F-15E. That aircraft wouldnt function without both members of the crew. And we all know its the AF's premier fighter...

It will be a cold day in hell before the community refers to the WSO as a "CSO".

[nsplayr]

Holy thread-bump batman...

Edited January 22, 2011 by nsplayr

[Guest burner]

When I finished UNT in 86, and then EWOT in 87, I went to MC-130Es. Now that AC is supposed to ret in 2014. I crossed to MC-130H in 92. When these AF AC go to war, some will have different types of CSOs on them: AC-130s and 52s will have 3 types. Operational need will overide money concerns when it comes to staffing these crew positions. The Bone was able to co-qual their CSOs, but that won't happen soon in MC/ACs or 52s.

When I was invited to join C-130Hs at Maxwell in 2000, there was fear that FMS would end the Nav, but I don't think it did that yet; defer to anyone else on this.

Edited June 24, 2011 by burner

[Guest burner]

Rocker, SoNotToSpeak,

Um, we do. There isn't anything we don't hand fly. There's a lot to do in every mission. Nobody has a copyright on "busy". Tell yourself whatever you need to to sleep better at night. Physical location of controls aside, you should be able to fly your airframe without the need of a Nav or a R.O, or someone to look at your FLIR and JOG for you. What on earth do the pilots do while not changing radios, looking at the FLIR, giving route updates on hazards from the JOG, or updating the Nav system?

I'm sorry, but we don't have a Nav, or a RO, and somehow, we still seem to get the job done. That just blows my mind that the AFSC of RO even exists!

I was on MC-130E with an RO, and those will be operating until 2014; many vets in that AC liked having them for numerous reasons related to the CEOI (comms). The HC-130s have ROs, and they work with helo formations for CSAR, SOF, airland/drop etc. The C-135 have the CommSO position. In my AF years, nothing is given for free, and each crew position is usually needs based, especially since the PACER CRAG upgrades to KCs.

[C-130Hoya]

Alright, here's the deal. Im a nav on C-130s and as most of you know, we are being edged out by the J-models. The reason behind this is not that the FMS has made the Nav obsolete, but because the C-130 mission has changed. As a nav I feel next to useless on high-level and overwater missions these days. At 250A on the other hand, I feel like a fairly indispensible member of the crew. The mission of the 130s is changing however, and while our original intent was to be able to terrain mask our way out of trouble, flying low in the current AORs only puts us within arms reach of the bad guys. That being said, as a graduate from NAS Pcola, I consider myself a CSO, and as such have a thin but solid foundation in order to switch to weapons systems that still need CSOs (AC-130s, MC-130s, U-28s, F-15Es). I was initially disappointed to hear that Id have to stop being a Nav on the 130--it really is a great plane--but I am excited to see where I get moved next.

[Disco_Nav963]

Is there actually an AD crossflow plan being worked for the masses of H-model navs or is this speculation?