Coulda sworn it was VT-10, but you know what I mean. At my age, I confuse kids with their dads and granddads every so often....
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message . ..
beginning with VT-10 in about '60 or '61

Very small niggle: VT-10 as a command by that name was not established until 1968. Prior to that time it was Basic Naval Aviation Officers School (BNAO School, "Banana School").

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...navy/vt-10.htm

The change came during a ~5 year period which saw the retitling of Naval Aviation Observers (NAOs) as Naval Flight Officers (NFOs), NFOs becoming eligible for command of aviation units (squadrons, carriers, etc.), and the change in the wings to the current double-fouled anchor design. ("Takes twice as much to hold us down!")

--
Mike Kanze

"The secret of charm is bull****."

- Tyrone Power

"Harriet and John" wrote in message ...
I vowed I'd stay out of this, but the second paragraph of your post makes
the good point that the institution of the NAO community, beginning with
VT-10 in about '60 or '61, substantially changed the 1310 pipeline. I did a
Department Head tour in VP in 63-65 with the 1310s carrying the NavBag but
the new term "TACCO" for the 1320 NAOs slowly entering the lexicon. Later,
in my command tour of the first P3C outfit, "NAO power" had become reality
and the community had come into its own, as it had in VAH, VQ and in the
tailhook outfits you mention. (I'm given to understand that nowadays
another factor in the pipeline "input and throughput" - Training Command
jargon - is the impact of Lasix surgery eyesight correction which
substantially increases the pool of 20-20 candidates.) Remains to be seen
whether this post or the previous ones help the initial poster but it's good
to have a real Naval Aviation thread once in awhile.


"J.McEachen" wrote in message
. ..
In pre-flight 1959 (OI-23-59) a pt instructor on the trampoline was a
sun-bleached blonde, older man (60's?) in terrific shape who told us that
he had kept records for upward of 10 years, and he found that performance
on the trampoline was a good predictor of success in the training command.
Some may remember the two seaplane hangars used as gyms, the western-most
one had the trampolines in the seaward side, the eastern one was the gym.
Who could forget running "figure-8's" around those two hangars with
Antietam parked down the seawall.

Student intake seemed to be about 2,000/year with OI classes weekly, and
AOC classes alternating weekly with MARCAD/NAVCAD classes - the latter
being a quick way to increase (or decrease) input. But it must be
remembered that nugget NA's in VP/VW/VR/VAH/ZP would serve as navigators
or bombardiers, there being no NFO programs yet. In Heavy Attack A-3's,
the officially (Douglas) labeled "bombardier-assistant pilot" could be a
nugget NA, an NAO(B) (both trained by the RAG,) or an enlisted Aircrewman
bombardier also trained by the RAG in Sanford or Whidbey. The first "true"
NAO/NFO slot was the "Phantom Pherret" of the F4H-2/F-4B Phantom II, also
RAG trained (first combat deployment of the Phantom was VF-74 Bedevilers
with CAG-8 on Forrestal, Med cruise departing 8/62; replacing VF-102 F4D
Skyrays.)
J. McEachen VAH-5

Boomerang wrote:
As a career Naval Aviator with experience, albeit dated, in both the
Training Command and OPNAV, I've watched this thread spin out with some
interest. As the Director of Research at the National Defense University
in one of my prior incarnations, I was privy to a study substantiating
your remarks. When launched on a quest to find the "Prime Indicator of
Success" - the Holy Grail of the Nugget Watchers - the study I am most
familiar with came up with the revolutionary but counterintuitive
conclusion that it was not being an Eagle Scout or a BS in AE or the kind
of a baby that quit nursing every time an airplane flew over but whether
or not the candidate - get this - had a paper route.