Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
RC26MSO

Dual Qual different positions

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to find any "case law" against being qual'd as a pilot in one airframe and a nav (or cso) in another platform. They are located on the same base and I have both sets of wings and have been qual'd previously on both. Pilots on the same base have been approved for dual qual, but its to pilot both. AFI11-202v1 para 2.6 says its up the majcom, but doesnt specifically say anything about different crew positions. Thanks for any help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Guard by the way. I'm just investigating if its possible. What i've dug out so far has nothing specifically saying its not allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just sounds like a lot of ass-pain trying to maintain currency as a nav without (what looks to me) any benefit, being that the nav hours are worthless outside the military.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not worried about outside the military and not looking for an opinion on the subject, just possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you talked to any of the Washington ANG dudes? I know some of them are dual qual’d in both the RC-26 and KC-135. Dunno if any -135 pilots fly as a CSO on the -26, but they’d be the resource for this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a few people on base are currently dual qual'd, but its pilot to pilot. I have both sets of wings, well, one is a 18x wing, so that's why i cant go pilot on both.  I know anything can be waived, a pilot in Florida did both crew positions, pilot and cso for the 26. But that was a one time waiver. I'm thinking that since i have both sets of wings and have been qual'd on both, I just need the one waiver to be dual quald. Then I can get a TX-3 course for the RC-26, and maintain both. Flying both and managing orders is another story, but 1st things 1st.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not so much flying both but if you’re looking at maintaining CMR/MR status in both that’s going to be super hard, if not impossible depending on training events for both MWS. If you are MR in one and BMC in the other, maybe. Edwards is another place that does weird stuff with dual quals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The currencies for MSO for RC-26 are pretty simple to maintain. Guard is set up for a part timer to maintain currencies in aircraft, so full time is definitely possible. And again, I'm just trying to see if its possible, its up to me to make it work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen this in active duty. Didn’t sound complicated there. Maybe a waiver from MAJCOM.

Don’t Guard units have a hierarchy with someone in charge of answering questions like this? Being Guard-curious, I’m wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I wondered when this would happen.  Do you have to go through pilot training?  Let me be more clear, have you been to USAF pilot training?

It sounds like he went through RPA training and nav training.

I'm sure that will open another can of worms because he's not actually a pilot, he's an RPA-only pilot.

So he wants to be able to fly preds and actually get in the air as a CSO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That’s what I thought, no, you must go to USAF pilot training, for airplanes that have people in them.  #1 reason the wings should be different, people pulling this shit.  You want to waive the entry requirement for TX, that being UPT?  Maybe the SecDef.

Edited by matmacwc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God damn this thread is a dumpster fire.  How about if you don't have an answer to the man's question, or at least a piece of information that could lead to an answer, you don't comment?

It's easier if it's not necessary to wade through a metric shit-ton of rambling, incoherent, responses to find the person with a rational thought who's posting to be helpful rather than just to hear the sound of their own voice.  May God have mercy on your souls.

And yes, I'm aware that I just violated this advice.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would start with AFI 11-402.  A glance on my phone didn’t yield a quick answer, but I suspect if you dig deep enough you will find verbiage about the priority of aeronautical orders.

For example, I stopped earning credit toward my Senior Navigator rating the month I entered UPT, even though I was still a rated, current and qualified EWO.

Edited by Bergman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mark1 said:

God damn this thread is a dumpster fire.  How about if you don't have an answer to the man's question, or at least a piece of information that could lead to an answer, you don't comment?

It's easier if it's not necessary to wade through a metric shit-ton of rambling, incoherent, responses to find the person with a rational thought who's posting to be helpful rather than just to hear the sound of their own voice.  May God have mercy on your souls.

And yes, I'm aware that I just violated this advice.

The OP isn’t clear and is dodging around topics, so we are left to guess.  Probably on purpose because I suspect I’m correct.

The situation presented to us dictates.

Edited by matmacwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

The OP isn’t clear and is dodging around topics, so we are left to guess.  Probably on purpose because I suspect I’m correct.

The situation presented to us dictates.

Like someone else previously stated I think he wants to be a RPA Pilot and a RC-26 MSO. If that's the case, who cares if he did traditional UPT or not if he just wants to do manned flying as a RSO? That position is manned by Pilots and CSO's in other RC-26 units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it's a personal agenda by the OP and not an actual operational requirement or necessity. Take my advice, just because the AFI says you can/can't do a thing doesn't mean jack-shit to the approving authority. What's the shortfall from not having this unique ability to fly in multiple crew positions? What's the risk to mission/force? What is the justification? It will need to be strong to get approval up the entire chain, because again, this doesn't exist anywhere else.

Good luck in your effort to get the Guard pay more money to train you for a position you won't be full time in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...