Thoughts on AF flight engineers

MikeD said:
That's a very good point, for the EF-111 guys. I guess the G model F-4 guys may be able to make the argument (they're EWOs as opposed to WSOs), as well as the AF F-4 guys in general who were WSOs.

Weird thing is, and I guess different from NFOs, but I'm not certain since there's been a lot of changes over time with Nav training in the USAF; is that when AF Navs track in training, the guys who go EWO seem to stop focusing on aviation related stuff, and moreso focus on the technical stuff related to their job of countering threat systems, threats themselves, etc. As an example, I used to fly with a fellow A-10 guy who had become a pilot late, as he had spent 3 years as a B-52H EWO. In his own words, he "merely wore" the Navigator wings, as his knowledge of anything actually navigation related was fairly non-existant or only very basic, since when he tracked EWO track, their focus in training completely changed. He basically said that besides wearing the same wings, he as an EWO had next to nothing in common with, say, a "table Nav".....the classic Navigator you'd find on a C-130 or formerly on a KC-135 for instance (and vice versa). Or anything in common with an F-4/F-15E WSO, for that matter.

I'm not sure if this philosophy is the same with NFOs when they track to ECMO.
Click to expand...

I would bet EWO's would have even a tougher time. The thought of having controls and flight training doesn't really work either, because FE's have neither, and yet 61.159 exists. I imagine it was probably written for the "pilot FE" roles of old, not necessarily the "systems FE" that we have today.
 
MikeD said:
I'm not sure if this philosophy is the same with NFOs when they track to ECMO.
Click to expand...
I once got a surprised look from an AF Nav when I told him that it's common for NFO's to do a preflight instead of the pilot. The AF just has a different philosophy. For carrier aircraft, NFO's are responsible for the same aircraft knowledge as pilots. My NATOPS has pilot and NFO wings on the cover and once you open it there is no division of required knowledge, including things like out-of-control recoveries - that's piloting stuff.

As far as Prowler ECMO's, I'm sure that J.O.'s spend more time in the back with their heads down, but they get their turns up front where they are more involved in piloting tasks and mission leadership roles.

Talk to Legacy Hornet guys, they all wish they had a buddy to help them get home and back aboard.
 
MikeD said:
That's a very good point, for the EF-111 guys. I guess the G model F-4 guys may be able to make the argument (they're EWOs as opposed to WSOs), as well as the AF F-4 guys in general who were WSOs.

Weird thing is, and I guess different from NFOs, but I'm not certain since there's been a lot of changes over time with Nav training in the USAF; is that when AF Navs track in training, the guys who go EWO seem to stop focusing on aviation related stuff, and moreso focus on the technical stuff related to their job of countering threat systems, threats themselves, etc. As an example, I used to fly with a fellow A-10 guy who had become a pilot late, as he had spent 3 years as a B-52H EWO. In his own words, he "merely wore" the Navigator wings, as his knowledge of anything actually navigation related was fairly non-existant or only very basic, since when he tracked EWO track, their focus in training completely changed. He basically said that besides wearing the same wings, he as an EWO had next to nothing in common with, say, a "table Nav".....the classic Navigator you'd find on a C-130 or formerly on a KC-135 for instance (and vice versa). Or anything in common with an F-4/F-15E WSO, for that matter.

I'm not sure if this philosophy is the same with NFOs when they track to ECMO.
Click to expand...

You're right to say they have nothing in common. Unfortunately, the current AF undergraduate program does not have a track system set up. Every community seems to be complaining about that.
 
ryan1234 said:
You're right to say they have nothing in common. Unfortunately, the current AF undergraduate program does not have a track system set up. Every community seems to be complaining about that.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I haven't kept up with all the myriad of changes the Nav program went through following moving from Mather AFB to Pensacola, then later to Randolph. But yeah, lots of changes apparently, and I didn't know about the nonexistance of a track anymore. Is that when the whole CSO thing came out?
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I once got a surprised look from an AF Nav when I told him that it's common for NFO's to do a preflight instead of the pilot. The AF just has a different philosophy. For carrier aircraft, NFO's are responsible for the same aircraft knowledge as pilots. My NATOPS has pilot and NFO wings on the cover and once you open it there is no division of required knowledge, including things like out-of-control recoveries - that's piloting stuff.

As far as Prowler ECMO's, I'm sure that J.O.'s spend more time in the back with their heads down, but they get their turns up front where they are more involved in piloting tasks and mission leadership roles.

Talk to Legacy Hornet guys, they all wish they had a buddy to help them get home and back aboard.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it is in other AF aircraft, but in the F-15E B course there is no knowledge division for WSOs and Pilots including everything from sensors, out-of-control recoveries, BFM, ACM, etc, etc. You are both responsible for each and every thing that happens on the jet equally, although you may have different duties at times. Both generally preflight the jet, the WSO usually spends more time on weapons and the pilot on the aircraft - but only by a small amount. If the pilot makes an aircraft control mistake, both will hook the sortie.
 
MikeD said:
Admittedly I haven't kept up with all the myriad of changes the Nav program went through following moving from Mather AFB to Pensacola, then later to Randolph. But yeah, lots of changes apparently, and I didn't know about the nonexistance of a track anymore. Is that when the whole CSO thing came out?
Click to expand...

Yes. Supposedly, they're making small changes towards a track system. Who knows how it all will pan out.
 
ryan1234 said:
I'm not sure how it is in other AF aircraft, but in the F-15E B course there is no knowledge division for WSOs and Pilots including everything from sensors, out-of-control recoveries, BFM, ACM, etc, etc. You are both responsible for each and every thing that happens on the jet equally, although you may have different duties at times. Both generally preflight the jet, the WSO usually spends more time on weapons and the pilot on the aircraft - but only by a small amount. If the pilot makes an aircraft control mistake, both will hook the sortie.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly pleased to hear that things aren't too different in the world of blue. I think my encounter was with a non-tacair guy, which makes more sense.

While I understand that segregation of responsibilities is the trend outside of tacair, I'm pleased to hear that this isn't the case in your community. I'm glad that my experience and @MikeD 's observations were exceptional.
 
Last edited:
Talk to Legacy Hornet guys, they all wish they had a buddy to help them get home and back aboard.[/QUOTE]

Really? I have never met one.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I'm pleased to hear this. While I understand that segregation of responsibilities is the trend outside of tacair, I'm pleased to hear that this isn't the case in your community. I'm glad that my experience and @MikeD 's observations were exceptional.
Click to expand...

B-1s is where I've noticed a definite division between the front end and the back end. Was fairly apparent during my investigation of a mishap regarding one of their birds. Wasn't anything unsafe, just a distince division of duties between the ends.
 
I just finished talking to my local FSDO, and he didn't believe there was any way to use navigator flight time towards experience requirements for the ATP. Does anyone know someone personally who was able to do this and drop me a message? I'd appreciate it!
 
I can't believe I started this thread over a year ago. Holy hell Uncle takes his time. My flight physical was just approved. I have a PT test in two weeks then I can FINALLY get a school date. I am just beyond frustrated with this process.
 
Hawks said:
I can't believe I started this thread over a year ago. Holy hell Uncle takes his time. My flight physical was just approved. I have a PT test in two weeks then I can FINALLY get a school date. I am just beyond frustrated with this process.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the military is right on schedule...
 
NewYorkophile said:
I just finished talking to my local FSDO, and he didn't believe there was any way to use navigator flight time towards experience requirements for the ATP. Does anyone know someone personally who was able to do this and drop me a message? I'd appreciate it!
Click to expand...
If you were a 727 FE would it be a problem applying the time?

What if you got a turboprop FE rating and just started logging it as L-382 time? This would keep the FSDO from having to make a risky interpretation.
 
MercFE said:
Sounds like the military is right on schedule...
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say. It has been this really long holding pattern. It has greatly affected my civilian work. I know there are laws preventing occurrences such as this. But when I am forth coming and say "I am waiting to go to FE school..." I usually get the thanks but no thanks email or phone call. I really wanted an Alaska gig I applied for. I flew for the first time yesterday at one of my gigs a month after I was hired. It is a nice plane, a turbo mooney. But the schedule has been plagued with broken airplanes and contract negotiations. In the mean time I am left to fend for my self, I am back cramming nylon at the dropzone to make a few bucks. I peod them off when I jumped ship for what I thought was a better opportunity to fly, XC, instrument, decent pay etc etc etc.

Now FE school is slowly becoming more a reality I wish it would come sooner. I don't plan on getting rich on AD but it will allow me to get caught up and to be a large airplane nerd.
 
Hawks said:
I don't even know what to say. It has been this really long holding pattern. It has greatly affected my civilian work. I know there are laws preventing occurrences such as this. But when I am forth coming and say "I am waiting to go to FE school..." I usually get the thanks but no thanks email or phone call. I really wanted an Alaska gig I applied for. I flew for the first time yesterday at one of my gigs a month after I was hired. It is a nice plane, a turbo mooney. But the schedule has been plagued with broken airplanes and contract negotiations. In the mean time I am left to fend for my self, I am back cramming nylon at the dropzone to make a few bucks. I peod them off when I jumped ship for what I thought was a better opportunity to fly, XC, instrument, decent pay etc etc etc.

Now FE school is slowly becoming more a reality I wish it would come sooner. I don't plan on getting rich on AD but it will allow me to get caught up and to be a large airplane nerd.
Click to expand...
Congrats. How stringent was the medical? Also did they give you a time frame on how long training would be?
 
Champcar said:
Congrats. How stringent was the medical? Also did they give you a time frame on how long training would be?
Click to expand...

They tested everything. The smallest thing will hang you up. Training for the C-5 FE from start to finish should be about 20 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top