Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Restricted ATP for NFOs? >

Restricted ATP for NFOs?

Search

Notices
Military Military Aviation

Restricted ATP for NFOs?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-12-2019, 06:30 PM
  #111  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,389
Default

Originally Posted by allover
Resurrecting an old thread for some informative discussion points.

First thing to note, I’m a former Navy NFO turned pilot. I did fly a Navy aircraft in which the TCDS required two pilots. The NATOPS lists the NFO as a required crew member with a co-pilot checkride and refers to the NFO as an SIC. Training took place with FSI and training program mirrors FAR 61.55 for a SIC. And the PIC was not Navy either but instead a civilian contractor!

Here’s another thing that’ll get many panties in a bunch...a few of us NFO pilot types got type ratings added too!

To my original point, after seeing FE’s get credit for 500 hours towards their R-ATP I’d like to start talking to the right people, getting some support, and seeing if I might be able to help out the NFO/WSO in the same manner as a military FE. I sure would have liked the credit!
As has been said, act of congress, and there're probably not enough backseaters who vote to get the attention of congress.

Originally Posted by allover
After working my way up, it didn’t take long to realize that a guy with 1000 hours in Cessna was far more dangerous than a WSO with 500 traps and 2500 hours in Navy aircraft plus all the other aviation based training that goes along with it.
Your judgement is better than his. But his XW landing instincts are better, and that's really why they'll take an experienced ASEL cessna pilot over helo drivers, backseaters, FE's, boomers, etc. Judgement, systems management, ADM are all great but at the end of the day you always have to land the plane.

When regionals accept helo drivers with low FW time, if they struggle (not all do) it's with basic airplane maneuvers and landings.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-12-2019, 06:34 PM
  #112  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Allover -

Don’t be cryptic....what aircraft?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be cryptic. I was referring to the T-39. My time there goes back over 15 years but I believe they may have finally retired that aircraft.

As I read through this entire thread, and for the record, I never claimed any of my time in the aircraft but I do know several who have and never had a problem, it is a strange spot. As far as I know, its the only Navy aircraft that TCDS requires two pilots that uses an NFO in the right seat.

So to answer those who look down their noses at NFO’s, no, that aircraft cannot go flying without another guy in the right seat be it another contractor or gasp, a qualed NFO.

Again though, not my intention here. I’m just doing some research and reading to see if I can find the driving factor in get FE’s a leg up and who/why/how it was done. In my old ass age, it gives me something to do.
allover is offline  
Old 01-12-2019, 07:34 PM
  #113  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 310
Default

Originally Posted by allover
After working my way up, it didn’t take long to realize that a guy with 1000 hours in Cessna was far more dangerous than a WSO with 500 traps and 2500 hours in Navy aircraft plus all the other aviation based training that goes along with it.
Of course the Cessna pilot is more dangerous, he’s the one flying the plane!

Originally Posted by allover
I already have the time but I always wondered why an FE gets a break but not an NFO/WSO.
Might have something to do with FE being a required position in old civilian airliners and the position (Second Officer) where Airline Pilots started in?
Phoenix21 is offline  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:16 PM
  #114  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 807
Default

I just want to point out that, back in the dawn of time, USAF F-4s and F111s utilized two pilots instead of a pilot and nav/wso. These pilots would log co-pilot time.

Note: I am not saying that this alone makes it OK for a nav to log flight time in these aircraft.

What would, I believe make it OK to log flight time would be if the PIC is an FAA rated instructor, (and preferably a military rated instructor also), and the nav has a civil multiengine certificate and logs the time as student pilot, and all appropriate logs are properly filled out by the instructor.

Joe
joepilot is offline  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:01 PM
  #115  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 659
Default

Originally Posted by allover
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be cryptic. I was referring to the T-39. My time there goes back over 15 years but I believe they may have finally retired that aircraft.

As I read through this entire thread, and for the record, I never claimed any of my time in the aircraft but I do know several who have and never had a problem, it is a strange spot. As far as I know, its the only Navy aircraft that TCDS requires two pilots that uses an NFO in the right seat.

So to answer those who look down their noses at NFO’s, no, that aircraft cannot go flying without another guy in the right seat be it another contractor or gasp, a qualed NFO.

Again though, not my intention here. I’m just doing some research and reading to see if I can find the driving factor in get FE’s a leg up and who/why/how it was done. In my old ass age, it gives me something to do.
The Navy/Marines require two pilots in C-12’s but NFO’s can be qualified second pilots. It’s all still special crew time for them though.
Peacock is offline  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:41 PM
  #116  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Default

I'm still having trouble with the type rating from FSI.
I'll have to look into it a little further, but from what I have seen of the big P142 schools with people that have shown up to get an rating, you wouldn't have had the requirements to complete the paperwork. I see Peacock answered what I was thinking. Special Crew Time. Hummmmm....interesting.
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 01-15-2019, 06:46 AM
  #117  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Default

When the USAF started flying the F-4 there was no requirement to even have a back-seater. We used to send out cross -country flights all the time with a single pilot. So, in ordinary bombing training on the range and ACM training over the Gulf of Mexico, if the back-seater (which were initially all rated USAF pilots) was not receiving instruction and not manipulating the controls (which he had in the back) he could not log any pilot time? Is that what some of you people are saying?
F4E Mx is offline  
Old 01-15-2019, 07:13 AM
  #118  
Permanent Reserve
 
navigatro's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,684
Default

Navs are only good for three things:

designated driver

snacko

Star Trek trivia
navigatro is offline  
Old 01-15-2019, 07:17 AM
  #119  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
Default

Similar to the Original Posters question...

Would the Restricted ATP (given to military trainined pilots at 750 hours vice 1500 hours) be given to someone who trained in the military but never got their wings? I went to flight school with the Navy back in 2015 and flew the T-6 then flew the TH-57 in advance. I did my best but still couldn't make it through. I'm currently finishing up my IFR rating at a local flight school while serving the remainder of my time. I am looking to make it to the airlines someday. I'm pretty sure the restricted ATP requirements only apply to winged aviators but I just want to be sure since I have about 175hrs flying in the navy. Either way I will be moving forward with an airline career. Thanks in advance.
Jax24 is offline  
Old 01-15-2019, 07:45 AM
  #120  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,197
Default

FAR 61.160 paragraph a(2) says you have to have been “winged”.


Gf
galaxy flyer is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DaCat1989
Hiring News
15
09-03-2014 11:09 PM
Bumper
Flight Schools and Training
7
01-21-2014 10:06 AM
Zona Pilot 1830
Aviation Law
3
12-17-2013 04:21 PM
Crazy Canuck
Career Questions
2
10-08-2013 03:13 AM
Planespotta
Flight Schools and Training
9
06-20-2007 08:19 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices