Which one for Naval Aviator?

<p>With the T-34B, one had around 12 flights and then they selected. With the T-34C and it’s IFR capability, between 60 or so flight hours and another 20 or so simulator hours, student pilots have had a much greater opportunity to demonstrate their abilities prior to selection. With the old syllabus, those who picked things up more quickly were able to select jets. They were not necessarily better pilots just quicker learners. With the new system, jet selectees were indeed the better sticks and conversely the prop and helo community began to suffer with inferior pilots. Both of these communities raised a red flag and the pro-rated selection process was instituted. My memory is hazy but I don’t think it lasted too long.</p>

<p>USNA84- referring to your comments in post 34, that is the story I have heard as well. Seems there are more than a few in each company that were selected to at least interview for subs, even some that did not have it as one of their “6” choices. Truth be told, I heard it was quite the callenge to come up with 6 “top” choices that danced around subs.</p>

<p>Not sure why the kids are turned off to subs- our mid came back from his PROTRAMID block and said subs were “fun,” but he didn’t like the idea of “not seeing the sun” for months at a time… he liked the “breach” they did, had him hanging off a ladder at some extreme angle, said the food was “really good” but the “smell” was “really bad.” That was about the extent of it. When it came time for service selection, he did not put it on his list. Seems he put SWO down at least 3 times, in various capacities, after air choices. Never realized there were that many SWO options!!!</p>

<p>oh well-
by now everyone is pretty settled in on where they are headed. Know of one female firstie that is biting at the bit to get on SUBS. THAT should be interesting. </p>

<p>As for air selections- doesn’t one’s body measurements play a role in what type of aircraft you get to select? I mean, some of those cockpits seem pretty tight!</p>

<p>

:confused: :(</p>

<p>Seems you’ve aksed the key question …and answered it in one breath. As mine noted, “only one office w/ a window …and ensigns don’t get it.” :eek:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>and finally, an answer to the long-ago asked question.</p>

<p>glad you are [finally] out of the closet, oh navy dad.
:cool:</p>

<p>I lied to make a point. Lessons from …</p>

<p>My brother told me. No, I mean my cousin. No, I meant my nephew. No, it’s me, Admiral Fowlerupper. I just write w/ a pen name.</p>

<p>nope, caught you red-handed, fair and square!
Too late!!!
Methinks the whistlepiglet doth protest too much.</p>

<p>tag- your it! :)</p>

<p>Duh, really? Please …do tell us it didn’t take a mere 3,000 posts or so. Please. :eek:</p>

<p>"but the “smell” was “really bad.”
If only he knew! THe only reason I drive a diesel pick up is for the nostalgia it creates when I refuel. :-)</p>

<p>Submarines are a great career. They do some pretty exciting stuff. It is especially rewarding for the technical types because it is probably the most advanced complex piece of machinery in the world. Downside is that since the demise of the Cold War, it is less exciting. It is no longer as ‘cool’ as it once was. The spotlight is no longer on it. Consequently, it is a much more austere force than it once was. Still, I would imagine that the majority of those selecting subs from USNA listed it as their first choice. It takes a special type personality to thrive on a boat which is why it has always been a volunteer service. Back in the day, I had the right major, good enough grease, passed the Adm Rickover interview, and was selected for subs. Did a five day cruise out of New London spring break first class year. Swore I would never set foot on another submarine so long as I lived unless it was being rescued when my plane went in the water. Went back to USNA, unvolunteered, got aviation, and never regretted it.</p>

<p>The situation at USNA is a very complex issue. Memphis9489 is correct. They are in a position where they perhaps need the ones who have worked the hardest and succeeded the most to do other than their first choice. And honestly, other than anecdotal evidence, we have no idea what is going on. Perhaps, this is once that the Academy should lift its normal veil of secrecy and post the actual policy. But then again, it might cause mids to ‘game’ the system. And then again also, women in subs has been on the front burner for a while and I expect that they feel this will solve the issue. Actually, this very issue has been why women on subs has been on the front burner for a while.</p>

<p>So, a class comes up for selection. Of course all who select subs as first choice who also meet the academic profile and pass the board are selected. Then I would suspect they start down the list. Second choice, third choice, etc. all the way to last. Any mid smart enough to be in the running for subs should realize this and be forewarned of the consequences of placing subs anywhere on their preference sheet.</p>

<p>So now, apparently at least for some years, the quota is still not filled. The easy thing to do which, in the grand scheme of things is not that expensive and I do not understand why it hasn’t been done, is to increase the bonus. Secondly, they could lower the standard. This would result in a higher failure rate at Nuclear Power School and, again, cost more money. Additionally, it would probably sidestep a few careers. Thirdly, they can (use your choice of ‘draft’, ‘voluntell’, ‘cajole’, ‘ask’ here) additional candidates. The downside of too much pressure is a disgruntled ‘five and dive’ officer corps. Obviously, either the numbers are so small or the selectees are not so dissatisfied since we have not heard of the disintegration of the submarine force due to poor leadership. They also seem to be meeting their retention goals.</p>

<p>How does the administration, knowing that a disgruntled graduate is detrimental to the mission of the Academy, select these additional volunteers? We have no idea. An argument could be made that we should but I doubt if we ever will. Does the senior submarine board member ask the senior aviation board member for names? Probably. So the high OOMs/low ASTB scores are passed to the sub board. Does he ask the company officers? Probably. So those who the company officer feels is amicable to submarines but might need a little positive assurance is passed on. There are only a few each year. However, their legend grows on forums such as this until suddenly all first class who are at the O’club on Friday night are shanghaied through a trap door in the basement and whisked off in chains to nuclear power school. </p>

<p>Bottom line, I will continue to repeat. Not to rationalize the administration as Bill has surmised, but to educate the candidates. Submarines are an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Any undue coercion otherwise is a misuse of position and rank and is not tolerated.</p>

<p>Is it sumariners who do exciting stuff or the Seals who are carried on the sub who do the exciting things? Submariners are essentially bus drivers who carry tactical cargo. Essential? Absolutely! Dangerous? Theoretically! Technical? Absolutely!</p>

<p>I would imagine that if right now you walked into one of the CinC’s Command rooms and looked up at the status board as to the present location of all the underway boats, you would surmise that they still do exciting stuff.</p>

<p>Quite the contrary; but YOU said submariners do “exciting stuff.” I made no reference to surface personnel.</p>

<p>

Me neither.</p>

<p>“Dangerous? Theoretically!”</p>

<p>If only I had known the Jpse were only theoretically trying to kill us I probably would have felt much better.</p>

<p>Based on current circumstances; the Navy was a MUCH more dangerous service 60 years ago.
How many sub deaths (U.S.) have been recorded in the last twenty years? Compared, for example, to some other communities.
Certainly still possible but the high standards required of the equipment and the personnel have certainly lessened, not the threat, but eh probability of a loss.
This does not lessen the value of the service, just an acknowledgment of facts. Theoretically, commercial air travel is very dangerous.</p>

<p>subvet …yours gave me a real chuckle. :DNot buying that, huh? :eek:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>sad, but true.</p>

<p>What was difficult to reconcile was the amount of erroneous and misleading information often included in your posts that, one would assume, would not be there IF the poster had personal [first hand] knowledge/experience with the system and processes. It is puzzling.</p>

<p>I will add- most posters are very forthcoming with their affiliation/relationship with USNA. That you evaded the question on several occassions, by several posters, was equally as puzzling. Still not fully appreciating why that “was” over the couse of “a mere 3,000 posts or so.” </p>

<p>No need to explain. In the big scheme of things, it matters little.</p>

<p>If I were enamored with the opportunity to interact with technology, I would think being at the controls of an F/A-18 would fit the bill much more so than to be on a submarine. Flying modern, high-performance aircraft and making it do EXACTLY as you command is infinitely a more rewarding experience than the dull maintenance of a nuclear power plant.</p>

<p>Of course, that’s just my extremely biased opinion. :)</p>

<p>I’m an old A-7 Corsair driver.</p>

<p>Even some of the equipment the Marines use, these days, is very high tech. Monitoring, managing, overseeing a nuclear reactor is something that might SOUND exciting (although, it doesn’t to me), but I would guess it is actually quite boring. And how could it be more exciting and invigorating to be locked in a tin can beneath the ocean surface than it would be to soar amongst the clouds and look down upon the world?</p>

<p>It’s not an accident that “Air” is, by far, the most popular choice amongst midshipmen.</p>

<p>My Naval Academy roommate wanted to fly so bad that he got a commission into the Air Force, because the Air Force would give waivers for correctable vision that the Navy would not budge on. Unfortunately, he flunked the Air Force’s hearing test and never flew but he still went ahead and got his commission in the Air Force.</p>

<p>navy2010 said:

</p>

<p>Actually, the modern day aircraft are much more accommodating than many of the older (and no longer flying) tactical jets.</p>

<p>Anthropometric measurements are taken of each air candidate. If he has a severely disqualifying dimension (i.e. sitting height), he may not be permitted to go Air. At worst, some Student Naval Aviators are restricted from flying certain aircraft.</p>

<p>For instance, in my case, although I am not super tall (6’3"), I have an unusually “tall” torso dimension. I was restricted from flying F-4’s and A-7’s because of this dimension. At the time, it was nearly impossible to get assigned to F-14’s and I really did not want to fly an A-6. Those were the only tactical jets. I didn’t want to fly the S-3 or A-3 in the WORST way!</p>

<p>While still a Student Naval Aviator in Kingsville, Texas - I noticed one day that an A-7 was parked in our flight line. I quickly called the base flight surgeon on the phone and he met me at the aircraft. I sat in the cockpit and he examined me for a “safe ejection.” He wrote up the paperwork and I got a waiver to fly the A-7. That’s what I ended up flying although, technically, I was not “safe” for ejection. Fortunately, I never got the opportunity to test that out. (Although I <em>did</em> eject from a TA-4 when I was a Sergrad in Kingsville, later that same year.)</p>

<p>I had the same sitting height issue, and I’m only 6’ 1". Didn’t want to be an NFO “on the boat” anyway, so it didn’t really hurt my feelings to go P-3’s. “Money for nothin’ and chicks for free…” :)</p>

<p>If I’d been pilot qualified (had bad eyes) I’d still have wanted to pick P-3’s. You’ll never be CNO, but the mission in the 80’s was a blast. Hunting Russian subs was the most fun you could have with clothes on - as my Department Head used to say. If TACAIR was all going upside down and turning and burning, that would be great, but I had a lot of friends flying Combat Air Patrol making racetrack patterns in the sky for hours. Not a lot of fun…especially if you’re just along for the ride.</p>