Naval Aviator Slots- HELP!!

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:26:44 -0700, Bill Baker
wrote:


An engineering degree would have no bearing on selection for flight training.

In peacetime, when there are few flight school slots available and the
services are being really picky, is that strictly true?

Actually it is true. Degree does not seem to matter. Back in the 80's
when I was working on a masters, I was also a contract simulator
instructor at my old training base (Chase) and did an analysis for my
statistics class of degrees vs completions. What I found was that
there was absolutley no correlation between the type of degree and the
succsess (or failure) of the prospective naval aviator.

This was also a time when there was a relative surplus of pilots, so
they could be choosy. What I found was that while there was an
expectedly high percentage of "hard science" degrees, the recruiters
did not seem to care - there appreared to be something more in the
prospects background that got them selected. However, that was not the
focus of my study and I did not have data to go in that direction.

John Alger USN(ret)
1972-1997 // 1310,1320
TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B

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.

"John Carrier" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Baker" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-17 18:31:15 -0700, John said:

I honestly have never heard of any aviators that came this route, even
when I was in the NAVAIR Training Command in the 70's and 80's when
the need for pilots was greater than now. Not that it does not happen,
just have not known anyone.

We have one in strike training right now. Female, solid student, MMA
grad.

Why would someone even go the Merchant Marine route in the first place if
they were dreaming of a career as a naval aviator? The Navy looks down
their collective nose at the merchant marine sailors, always have. He
would probably had a better shot for a pilot slot by getting his BS in
aeronautical engineering at someplace like Purdue via the NROTC route.

Perhaps that was the appointment offered? It varies year to year, but
competition for an appointment at one of the service academies is fierce.
So, you may go for USNA (USMA, USAFA, whatever) and your congressman says,
"Sorry, can't make it work. How about MMA?"

To the original post. How did our MMA guy do on the flight physical?
When I did mine (back when Moby Dick was a minnow) they culled the USNA
grads by making the physical (particularly the eye exam) a high hurdle.
OTOH, I've seen students lately who showed up wearing glasses to get to
20/20 corrected.

R / John

Ah yes..... the old eye test trick. If you had too many with obviously
better than 20-20 vision, the "color perception" test was brought into play.

But you can't blame the NAVY they spent all that money teaching naval
engineering, strategy and tactics just so everyone that wanted to could
zooming around the sky.

The same thing often happened to NAVCAD's/MARCAD's. The programs were often
used as a recruiting tool to get highly qualified people.

....And since most paper routes are today the province of adults above the flight training cut-off age, many of whom in my neck of the woods are also recent immigrants, I wonder what the "prime indicator of success" might now be?

--
Mike Kanze (teenage newspaper carrier for the Alameda Times-Star)

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

- Tyrone Power

"Boomerang" wrote in message ...
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.

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.

J.McEachen wrote
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......

I remember him well......

Bob Moore
Class 12-58
PanAm (retired)

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.

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.

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.

In the previous article, Harriet and John
wrote:
(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.)

Lasix is a medication for people with high blood pressure and other
cardiovascular problems. LASIK is an acronym for a popular eye
surgery to correct vision. LASIK will disqualify you absolutely and
irrevocably from any kind of military aviation.

The Navy, at the moment, is performing PRK, a completely different and
much older kind of eye surgery on some candidates who are then
eligible for SNA status if correction to 20/20 is successful.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / |to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------