Air Force vs. Navy flying

[SIG600]

This message is hidden because DaveGriffin is on your ignore list.

Life is good!

 

[navigatro]

Being a Navy guy you've had quite a few in your mouth.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't swallow.

 

[learherkjay]

Back on topic...here are some observations about AF vs. Navy. First off, Navy regs are less onerous because the majority of Navy flying is over open water. That's why initial Pcola guys learn mostly VFR flying. Yes, the Navy does fly around the world; but the general focus of their flying is over water in and around the carrier. Not much to be stated when the focus of your ops is such. AF ops tends to be more focused on airfields. Thus the focus on airspace and flying regulations. Besides fighter ops, the Navy doesn't put large airplanes in formation to drop things or pass gas or coordinate. Missions like that necessitate a little more "rules."
Second thought, Naval aviation is a "component" of the Navy. We all know that it is "surface" guys who get all of the attention and command. Well, all the AF does is fly stuff. So, imagine the BS and minutia that the surface guys go through and that is what you get in the AF. AF flying doesn't get the benefit of being a secondary mission that Naval flying gets - so things tend to be a bit more controlled. Not right or wrong - but different...

 

[SIG600]

Back on topic...here are some observations about AF vs. Navy. First off, Navy regs are less onerous because the majority of Navy flying is over open water. That's why initial Pcola guys learn mostly VFR flying. Yes, the Navy does fly around the world; but the general focus of their flying is over water in and around the carrier. Not much to be stated when the focus of your ops is such. AF ops tends to be more focused on airfields. Thus the focus on airspace and flying regulations. Besides fighter ops, the Navy doesn't put large airplanes in formation to drop things or pass gas or coordinate. Missions like that necessitate a little more "rules."
Second thought, Naval aviation is a "component" of the Navy. We all know that it is "surface" guys who get all of the attention and command. Well, all the AF does is fly stuff. So, imagine the BS and minutia that the surface guys go through and that is what you get in the AF. AF flying doesn't get the benefit of being a secondary mission that Naval flying gets - so things tend to be a bit more controlled. Not right or wrong - but different...

There's a lot wrong with this statement. Mainly, no one ever gets introduced to boat flying until they actually go to the boat. We don't even fly the same break (unless you get luck, and can get a carrier break at the field). And as a matter of fact OPNAV specifically directs that pilots SHALL file IFR to the max extent possible.

We pass gas every day at the boat. The tanker will pass gas to as many as a dozen jets, all comm out. Ohbytheway, the majority of NA's will never fly around the carrier. P-3, E-6, a lot of Helo communitys, VR, etc. No boat time.

You are correct though in the fact that Naval Aviation is a cog in a bigger machine.

 

[learherkjay]

Your missing my point. I didn't say boat flying, I said "open water" flying. Yes, I know the Navy flies IFR to the max extent - but the origination of NATOPS is based on open water flying. That is the precursor to Navy training (yes it has changed slightly over the years). Yes, the Navy passes gas, but not with multiple tankers in trail over vast spaces to build an air bridge. Does that mean that the AF is worse because it regulates it more or that the Navy is better because they can "comm" out gas pass? No, it means that the AF tends put a lot more iron in the sky in a lot more airspace than Naval aviation. Not better or worse; just a different focus. E-6, P-3, and helos - focus of mission is open water flying. I am not knocking it, it is the mission of the Navy; hence the difference in "focus" of NATOPS vs AF Regs.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Life is good!

I knew it....NFO.