Army National Guard Pilot

One other thing.
The 759 does not automatically import a pilot's civilian flight time. It requires a pilot to physically go to operations and provide proof of this time.
Unless things have changed at Ft Rucker, at no time were students asked about prior flight time to be entered into their 759 and I would venture to guess that the majority of students at Rucker with no prior aviation service don't even know what a 759 is until they outprocess and are given their records to take to their gaining unit.
So I'm throwing the bull flag on several things.
1. The odds are that students at Rucker with prior civilian time do not have it on their 759s.
2. The IPs don't see the students' 759s. Or at least did not when I was there. Heck, the 759s were kept on main post not the airfields back then.
3. There is no place that I am aware of in training records for civilian flight time/experience.
So the only way an IP would know about a student's prior civilian flight experience would be if the student talked about it.
 
O.K., @Blackhawk let’s all back up just a little here. I never stated that a 759 at Ft Rucker reflected civilian hours and I'm seriously not sure where you're getting all of this hostility. If I were able to go back and adjust my first post in this thread, I really would leave out whatever word(s) or statement(s) that set us at odds. I’ve read back through and must state that I truly am not sure what I wrote that got us to this point. By whatever means I have offended or irritated you, I apologize.

One thing I did not include in my previous post that might help you to understand is the experience of the Hughes 300 pilot. He took his initial training in the Hughes 300, it was the only aircraft he had ever flown at that time, he had flown it for almost four years, and had well over 600 hours in that aircraft. This is more than enough time to gain muscle memory. Army flight candidates, on the other hand left the TH-55 portion of the course with what,…20 hours of total time in helicopters? It is understandable to me how the first guy could (and did) have some limited issues with the transition while others, with much, much less experience would not.

NEXT SUBJECT:

@Flyinhigh728 , I read through your original post and I provided the best answer I could, based on my personal and professional experience. I know for a fact that others, in a different situation and circumstance, may not (or could not) experience the same.

As for my background, I have held several duty positions, germane to this conversation are the following: I flew UH-1s, OH-58s, and two different fixed-wing. I was an Instructor Pilot (BlackHawks), both a unit and Battalion Standardization Instructor Pilot, Battalion Training Officer, I was literally one signature away from a tour of duty with Army DES, and I was an Army Aviation Support Facility Commander (acting Commander while the “real one” was deployed). In the capacity of these positions, I have been involved in the initiation of flight candidate application packet, processing said packets, made recommendations to the State Aviation Officer with regards to selection for flight training, and held a seat on the Selection Board. I’m not bragging and I’m certainly not the first or only person to hold these duty positions; I’m letting you, @Flyinhigh728 , know from where my knowledge is based.

I realize that as the Guard goes, every State is different. I am not in a position now to question the input of others that have posted, I was simply trying to offer advice based on your inquiry and my previous experience. I made (and make) no claims that what I have stated here is the absolute gospel according to the Army.
 
Thanks for all of the replies! I appreciate and respect all of the extremely knowledgeable and experienced posters on here. It's good to see some helo guys on here too!

@dustoff17, you certainly did give a very good response. I appreciate all of the great advice. I will definitely be looking more into it and deciding if it's something I want to pursue.
 
dustoff17 said:
O.K., @Blackhawk let’s all back up just a little here. I never stated that a 759 at Ft Rucker reflected civilian hours and I'm seriously not sure where you're getting all of this hostility. If I were able to go back and adjust my first post in this thread, I really would leave out whatever word(s) or statement(s) that set us at odds. I’ve read back through and must state that I truly am not sure what I wrote that got us to this point. By whatever means I have offended or irritated you, I apologize.

One thing I did not include in my previous post that might help you to understand is the experience of the Hughes 300 pilot. He took his initial training in the Hughes 300, it was the only aircraft he had ever flown at that time, he had flown it for almost four years, and had well over 600 hours in that aircraft. This is more than enough time to gain muscle memory. Army flight candidates, on the other hand left the TH-55 portion of the course with what,…20 hours of total time in helicopters? It is understandable to me how the first guy could (and did) have some limited issues with the transition while others, with much, much less experience would not.

NEXT SUBJECT:

@Flyinhigh728 , I read through your original post and I provided the best answer I could, based on my personal and professional experience. I know for a fact that others, in a different situation and circumstance, may not (or could not) experience the same.

As for my background, I have held several duty positions, germane to this conversation are the following: I flew UH-1s, OH-58s, and two different fixed-wing. I was an Instructor Pilot (BlackHawks), both a unit and Battalion Standardization Instructor Pilot, Battalion Training Officer, I was literally one signature away from a tour of duty with Army DES, and I was an Army Aviation Support Facility Commander (acting Commander while the “real one” was deployed). In the capacity of these positions, I have been involved in the initiation of flight candidate application packet, processing said packets, made recommendations to the State Aviation Officer with regards to selection for flight training, and held a seat on the Selection Board. I’m not bragging and I’m certainly not the first or only person to hold these duty positions; I’m letting you, @Flyinhigh728 , know from where my knowledge is based.

I realize that as the Guard goes, every State is different. I am not in a position now to question the input of others that have posted, I was simply trying to offer advice based on your inquiry and my previous experience. I made (and make) no claims that what I have stated here is the absolute gospel according to the Army.
Click to expand...

My problem is that you perpetuated an urban legend- that civilian flight training will hurt someone when they train in the military. Then you tried to say your statement was substantiated in training records- something that obviously can not be true as training records do not document any previous non-military flight time.
The only thing that will hurt a student is thinking that they already have all the answers and know all there is to know, but this applies to all the students, be they former airborne rangers, students with prior civilian flight time, or high school to flight school types.
It is also the same when applying to a unit. Most units look at the entire package of the person and what they will bring to a unit, ability to make it through military training and flight school. I have never heard any board talk about previous flight training itself being a detriment to a person's selection.
 
Blackhawk said:
Funny- I thought the 759 was Individual Flight Records and the training record was the 7120 series. Has that changed? If not where is that information on the 7122?
As an IP at Rucker I never saw a students 759. Heck, even in line units that was in operations not standards so I never saw them.
Click to expand...

It certainly is in the IFRF. I was just being snarky. I have no intention of getting into this purse fight between separated (for years!) army aviators. Especially about something so important. ;)

For the record, grandpas, all the records are digital now. My IPs and I can pull up a 7122 or a 759 right on our computers.
 
Blackhawk said:
My problem is that you perpetuated an urban legend- that civilian flight training will hurt someone when they train in the military. Then you tried to say your statement was substantiated in training records- something that obviously can not be true as training records do not document any previous non-military flight time.
The only thing that will hurt a student is thinking that they already have all the answers and know all there is to know, but this applies to all the students, be they former airborne rangers, students with prior civilian flight time, or high school to flight school types.
It is also the same when applying to a unit. Most units look at the entire package of the person and what they will bring to a unit, ability to make it through military training and flight school. I have never heard any board talk about previous flight training itself being a detriment to a person's selection.
Click to expand...
Actually I didn't state either one of these points you've made here.....you might want to re-read.....
That's one of the points of my last post, you've misread, either way your immediate defense and in-your-face response is misplaced. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 
My point is to dispel this myth that somehow flight training in and of itself is bad. It is not the training itself that is harmful (unless the instructor is bad), but the receptiveness (or readiness), of the student to new learning.
Civilian flight training is different from military flight training which is different from airline flight training. Does this mean one should avoid training because you are selected for military flight training? Not at all. You just need to realize that each will have a different approach and will teach different things, but each can build upon the other and give you things the others can not.
As an example, Army flight training is (or at least was), horrible at teaching combat maneuvers and energy management necessary for combat maneuvers. No surprise that we lost multiple crews and airframes to "meeting engagements with the ground" both in combat and in training. Crews did not understand the basic concept that an airframe with a mass of 20,000 lbs in a 60 degree level turn weighs 40,000 lbs. This is a concept a private pilot has to understand to pass a check ride, yet "commercial RW" Army pilots don't seem to grasp.
Everything I learned about this I learned from aerobatics and from reading, not from Army IPs. I ended up teaching combat maneuvering for my Guard unit since I had a background in aerobatics and the first thing I had to teach pilots straight out of flight school was a steep turn of 60 degrees. To them anything beyond a 30 degree bank was a steep turn and was scary.
Now is an SU-29 the same as a UH-60? Of course not. But the concepts of energy management are the same. Roll into a steep turn or perform some other combat maneuver and you had better have some kind of energy to make up for the increased weight of the airframe or you will give a spectacular example of the conservation of energy as you impact the ground.
Instrument flying is another general area of weakness in most Army pilots. My Guard unit operated in a Class B airspace and whenever we had DES visit their pilots were nervous about operating there. I even had one DES pilot insist that I could not list a Class B airport as an alternate. And that stupid habit of trying to put down the ICS switches and play ATC... pretty stupid in Class B airspace.
Each step of my aviation career I have learned new things, from gliders (which the Germans used to train their pilots), to aerobatics, to helicopters. In every case I can think of things I learned in one facet that helped me in others. When I went from the military to 135 flying I did not dump everything I learned in the Army, yet I adjusted to 135 rules and flying. When I went to 121 flying I carried with me the previous lessons learned but did things the airline way. When I went to Guard flying I did not dump the lessons I learned in 135 and 121, but I did things the Guard way. I think the vast and varied experience level of my Guard unit (almost all of us were 121, 135 or police/medivac pilots), showed in combat where our mission completion rate far exceeded those of comparable active duty units while not losing any airframes.
So my point to the OP is to not be afraid or ashamed of your previous training, but also be humble about it. Be honest with yourself and others that you still have much to learn, but you also have much to contribute. Whenever I go for training and encounter a CFI who somehow seems impressed with my flying background I tell them, "I am just another pilot trying to kill you."
 
MikeFavinger said:
It certainly is in the IFRF. I was just being snarky. I have no intention of getting into this purse fight between separated (for years!) army aviators. Especially about something so important. ;)

For the record, grandpas, all the records are digital now. My IPs and I can pull up a 7122 or a 759 right on our computers.
Click to expand...
What is this "digital" thing of which you speak?
 
The 3/126 AVN has a sim, I'm not sure if it's a Mike model or not. The IP there is one of the best, nice, relaxed training environment.
 
Flyinhigh728 said:
Hey guys, I have a question about the Army National Guard. I'm very familiar with the WOFT process as I started the process a few years ago. I'm currently a commercial hell pilot working on my CFI. From what I've been able to gather, to fly in the national guard you must first enlist and then apply for Flight School later on. Is this correct? Is there any way to go into the National Guard and go directly to WOCS and then flight school? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Erik, DEANG? Let me know if you need some numbers....
 
I went in as a street-to-seater with a fixed-wing CFI/CFII/MEI/ATP. It made flight school much easier for me than those with no experience. During academics I only had to study for systems and Army specific (AR 95-1, etc) subjects. Also I was already comfortable being in the front of an aircraft so I didn't have to deal with the "holy crap I'm actually controlling this thing" jitters. From what I could tell the other trainees with prior flight time had similar experiences.

My 759 had nothing in it showing my prior flight time, but at the start of IERW we had to fill out surveys for our IPs that included education and flight experience information.
 
Sometimes you gotta pay to play. Is it bad enough to stay away? How much queep is there when you only show up and fly?
 
No. Absolutely do *not* stay away. M-Day is still pretty good. If you can get into a good unit it's definitely worth it. The furlough protection, retirement cushion and tri-care reserve select (if needed) alone is enough to pursue it.

The best explanation I was told is that "It's a full time job with part time pay."

Queep is subjective and changes unit to unit. Too many variables. You can get saddled with a lot of BS duties in a small unit, or skate by doing nothing in a large company.

With upcoming draw drowns it is getting worse. OSAA (C-12) units will reduce manning with no change in Admin requirements. Meaning you will pull several times the Admin load. Being average joe hanging low in a 10 ship Assault Company can offer the ability to Heisman things like Safety, ALSE, or Hearing Conservation Officer. OER's will become important in the next few years IMHO as budgets and manning tighten up to stage 5 uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top