20 replies to this topic

[CPT Q.Simmons]

Afternoon,

 

Ladies and Gents I am bringing a suggestion to bring the 15 Series MOS into the unit. Now most of you are wondering "What the hell is a 15T/U?" and to answer you they're helicopter mechanics but also have a specialize job to become door gunners and crew chief. Since Arma don't have a mechanic ability (that I know of) it can also bring a mixture of MOS's in the unit, so to break down which aircraft is which the 15T is specialized in repairing and modding UH-60's in theater and at home while the 15U specialize in the CH-47 repair. Now this is only a suggestion and also give those the opportunity to fly without being pilots but to be the ones to assist the pilots in landing (since we fly mostly in 1stPerson) and assaulting an area without taking away infantrymen, not only will they assist the pilots but be another set of eyes for evac's and medevacs. Door gunners/Crew chiefs do go through a training called Ariel Gunnery or just Gunnery training to practice their skills to successfully shoot from a moving helicopter and hitting static targets or moving targets. Again troops this is only a suggestion so if you guys like the idea then talk about it and discuss between each other and if not then no worries.

[S.Schwabenbauer]

Couldn't this be tasked with the co-pilot of the bird? Instead of taking away boots on the ground. Aviation is a secondary aspect of this unit. Just food for thought.

 

You can also have your WOC's do this as they are not yet fully qualified to fly 

[SPC T.Ellzey]

Lt, I was an actual 67T (nowadays is called 15T) in the Army.   I had a great time as a Crew Chief/Gunner on the Blackhawk.  

[T.Coffman]

in past experience, though the position is needed and would be good, finding people to fill that slot often doesnt work in ArmA as its not as high speed as people would like for a video game. If we can make it work though i think itd be awesome!

[CPT Q.Simmons]

Couldn't this be tasked with the co-pilot of the bird? Instead of taking away boots on the ground. Aviation is a secondary aspect of this unit. Just food for thought.

 

You can also have your WOC's do this as they are not yet fully qualified to fly 

That we are doing but for future reference when numbers grow but again just a ideal suggestion.

[CPT Q.Simmons]

Lt, I was an actual 67T (nowadays is called 15T) in the Army.   I had a great time as a Crew Chief/Gunner on the Blackhawk.  

 

yeah that was a long time ago I believe. Army phased out a lot of old MOS Series.

in past experience, though the position is needed and would be good, finding people to fill that slot often doesnt work in ArmA as its not as high speed as people would like for a video game. If we can make it work though i think itd be awesome!

 

That's what I was thinking as well. Not being able to be in the fight 100% of the time could be an issue but at the same time it could be enjoyable.

[J.Drake]

I think just a rotation with your WOCs should suffice. However I have also seen that when a squad is transported the CLS' are often asked to get on the door guns.

In a real life situation it might be a lot of fun but this is a game we are playing. Who wants to sit 4-hours/week on a gun that is only in combat for a very small amount of time each event?

 

It's not a bad idea but I doubt that there will be any long term interest in the position. Some might enjoy it for the first couple of weeks but it will get tedious and boring after a longer period.

[CW2 J.Lex]

WOC's won't WOC forever. Placing "Pilots in training" in those slots would be a temporary solution at best. It will also subtract time from our "OTJT" (On The Job Training) which will decrease our total experience gain at the end of the course. 

 

As SFC Drake says, a pure gunner slot may be a bit too boring for most players. Using AI's may be a viable alternative, though I doubt it would be an acceptable one. Perhaps you can combine the gunner role with a rotation through other positions that won't require flight training. Some examples that come to mind are flying paramedic, Apache gunner, scout observer (sensor pod operator), Flying ATC, UAV operator, Pathfinder, ALO/TACP, or flying mechanic (when/if Motorized/Mechanized forces are in the OPORD). A bit of variety can turn a dull detail into a shiny new tool. 

[CPT A.Cantu]

I think its a great idea. Would probably just go with 15T, most of our missions use the UH60 correct? Could just be a multi-role MOS that includes any duties of 15U when necessary. 

 

I have seen several posts on reddit in the past months where people were specifically looking for these types of roles, or to join simply to be pilots, not wanting to do infantry at all. We could make it a requirement of being PFC before being able to apply for Flight School. This could give potential recruits something to do in the aviation department without forcing them to do infantry first. They would of course need to attend BCT, and AIT could be tailored specifically for this MOS covering Basic Medical, Aircraft Maintenance, Arial Gunnery, Pilot Support (how to help with landing operations, medevac, evacs etc) and anything else necessary. 

 

I would think basic medical should be required for all soldiers, as far as medics on the aircraft, 68Ws could be assigned to flight detachment specifically if there is interest in that.

 

Much like the 19D, we would need to make sure anyone applying for this MOS knows, hey this is probably going to be boring most of the time. People sign up for it, they know what they are getting into.

 

I don't think it would be an appropriate use of WOC's time to fill these duties regularly as they should be learning to fly and getting as much practice and flight time in as possible.

[1SG C.Bedlam - 173rd]

If I may add my 2 cents. Over in the 173rd we have our Pilots, Crew Chiefs, and WOCs. Now the WOCs will eventually train up to be a pilot or crew chief. A regular job for the crew chief would be manning the guns assisting the pilot in landing / navigation / communication or repairing the bird. We use the regular tool kits that come with the bird to repair when damaged. We make excellent use of our crew chiefs and love every second they are on the bird.

[T.Worrall]

I think Captain is right; if our main issue is de-motivation from these soldiers, then we should ensure that those who apply for the position are already sufficiently motivated and are aware of the process which will need to occur before they can be promoted from the position.

 

In fact, it may be an idea to restrict those wanting to enter flight to become a door gunner before entering flight school. This also allows us to raise the minimum required rank to enter Flight School as well, ensuring those who enter it will dedicated enough - with a good knowledge of the average day of a pilot in the 3rd ID to boot.

[CW2 J.Lex]

In fact, it may be an idea to restrict those wanting to enter flight to become a door gunner before entering flight school. This also allows us to raise the minimum required rank to enter Flight School as well, ensuring those who enter it will dedicated enough...

 

It seems to me that some of the main challenges of keeping a healthy pilot program in the 3rdID are attrition, and time-to-proficiency. Adding more requirements, and a higher time investment may complicate the present challenge without offering a measurable benefit.

 

As designed, the "pilot training" program already includes 6 weeks of training plus a 4 week probationary period.

[J.Hill]

It seems to me that some of the main challenges of keeping a healthy pilot program in the 3rdID are attrition, and time-to-proficiency. Adding more requirements, and a higher time investment may complicate the present challenge without offering a measurable benefit.

 

As designed, the "pilot training" program already includes 6 weeks of training plus a 4 week probationary period.

 

A longer investment time in training is, more often than not, a good thing. 

 

I often wished when I was in the 15thMEU flight training program that I had a shorter flight school, until I was actually in a combat scenario on my own after the fact. We had a minimum of 3 months there til we were even allowed to be qualified on our airframe and fly them in operations, and I was thankful for that because it made me a better pilot in the long run. A longer investment in training is going to weed out the people that actually want to be and have a drive to be a pilot, rather than someone that just wants to "try it out". Plus, there is a ton of information that a pilot should be able to recite by knowledge rather than read off of a piece of paper. 

To this day, I can still check in my aircraft on station and understand, copy and read back a 9 Line CAS call to an RTO calling for support without having to look at a reference. Being able to do this will make you a better pilot and better as a support unit for the elements on the ground. 

[J.Hill]

I also agree that Gunners and Chiefs would be beneficial to other operations of the airframe as well, repairs, refuel, landing assistance, etc. But as mentioned they would have to be forewarned that it would most likely be incredibly boring most of the time just hovering near an AO

[CPT A.Cantu]

It seems to me that some of the main challenges of keeping a healthy pilot program in the 3rdID are attrition, and time-to-proficiency. Adding more requirements, and a higher time investment may complicate the present challenge without offering a measurable benefit.

 

As designed, the "pilot training" program already includes 6 weeks of training plus a 4 week probationary period.

 

The flight program here is unique in that it is the longest training program we have, excluding leadership which is a tiered program, that also has the least amount of upward mobility granted upon completion. Once appointed a Warrant Officer, it takes at least 6 months to gain a Commission. From there promotions have large TIG requirements, and are pretty limited due to lack of size of the flight program as well. 

Its important to make sure the people applying for Flight understand these limitations. Often we find that pilots end up leaving the program or the unit because they can't commit to the length of the program or the lack of movement. 

 

In addition to this, our WOCs are held to the standards of an E-5, so we expect them to be squared away soldiers who are knowledgeable, proficient, level headed, able leaders, etc. Giving soldiers an opportunity to gain some rank before committing to the program I think would be beneficial. I don't know that someone who has only been in the unit for a few weeks has proven that they are here for the long haul. Our instructors devote a lot of time and effort into training, only to often have a majority drop out.

[SPC S.Fisher]

My two cents are that only being a door gunner/medic only etc can turn out to be very boring. Pilots don't do much as it is and sitting around for a few hours every weekend on a gunner seat rarely shooting at things, and only occasionally healing people isn't very exciting. One thing is wanting to be realistic, but one has to turn down some realism in favour for gameplay. It's nice having a extra set of eyes to help you land but a experienced pilot should be able to land regardless of first or third person. Sure you may occasionally hit a tree, or die due to some arma bug but i don't think having designated roles for helicopters will help much in improving the pilot program. Brawlers have for a long time suffered due to the very long training times, and how little pilots get to do. 

 

But i get that it isn't easy doing things that make helicopters always have something to do. Thus they end up becoming a glorified taxi service. Imo flight school length and rank requirement should be way less, and that you much earlier get to fly other aircrafts than transports. It's not so much that you shouldn't prove you are dedicated, which i guess is the idea of the lengthy school - But i think we'd go a long way in improving flight if it become more incorporated into activites in game rather than just being there because we need someone to fly us from A to B and occasionally giving air support. As it is now, or at least was when i was in was that we sat around on airfields doing nothing for 3 hours for the most part, but at least you'd get to fly sometimes whereas crew members would not do any of that really.  I also think that one factor is that you can't really progress much in brawlers, though that is likely just due to the size of it. Had it grown much more that would probably have happened. But right now you spend six months as a trainee, then you become a WO1, maybe CW1 eventually. and that's it unless you become the leader or second in command. 

[CW2 J.Lex]

There are a number of very interesting training and retention concerns in the last few posts. I'd love to touch on them, but I wouldn't want to sidetrack the topic too much. I'll just say that the best return of investment on training is to train to standard, and not to time. In other words, pick apart your collective METL (Mission essential task list) and get to the other end as efficiently as possible. That will cut your "time to proficiency", solidify collective _and_ individual performance, as well as allow the unit to start fulfilling its operational requirements (bring it on-line, or validate) faster. It may, as a bonus, increase retention, since you're keeping the trainee focused on what they want to do.

 

Going back to the topic at hand, the gunner's seats in the Blackhawks and Chinooks have a viewpoint limitation. Although they can see the rotor, they can't see the tail (even with Track IR). That limits their usefulness as spotters for the pilot. That's not a problem in open ground, but help from the ground is still useful when performing constricted landings. Particularly at night, when depth perception is even more compromised. That's the reason why I suggested cross-training as pathfinders, and perhaps adding something like (this) to the toolbox.

[J.Hill]

There are a number of very interesting training and retention concerns in the last few posts. I'd love to touch on them, but I wouldn't want to sidetrack the topic too much. I'll just say that the best return of investment on training is to train to standard, and not to time. In other words, pick apart your collective METL (Mission essential task list) and get to the other end as efficiently as possible. That will cut your "time to proficiency", solidify collective _and_ individual performance, as well as allow the unit to start fulfilling its operational requirements (bring it on-line, or validate) faster. It may, as a bonus, increase retention, since you're keeping the trainee focused on what they want to do.

 

The problem with training to standard and not to time in a gaming situation is that you have people of different ages, skill-sets, and intelligence levels. There's a time allotment set that allows for everyone an equal opportunity with no perception of favoritism or special treatment due to gaining the knowledge faster. It's like that in real life and it's like that here. So unfortunately we can discuss this all we want, but it's not going to change the standard.

 

If they're running their aviation training properly, 6 weeks plus 4 probation is a fair amount of training time in order for you to learn the skill sets that they require. 

[CW2 J.Lex]

Agreed. My argument is that extra time spent doing unrelated duties will not add to your METL skills and will not help either, the unit or the trainees to reach their goals. 

[T.Worrall]

Locked.

 

Under CStaff consideration.