I'm in a dilemna - Pilot or WSO?

[Guest ggg308]

Good Afternoon,

I'm currently at Pensacola in Nav/WSO training. I just finished API (both pilots and navs go through this together), and I have at least 3 weeks off before I start Primary Nav training. I was originally selected for OTS as a pilot but was DQed for PRK pre-op being out of limits so I was redesignated as a Nav. The AF just changed the reg so my PRK pre-op is now well within limits. I've thought on this for nearly a week now and I can't decide whether to pursue getting my original assignment of pilot back or not. I'm THRILLED at the chance to be a WSO. On the other hand, I've always wanted to be a pilot. I'm age-critical (prior-enlisted) so I don't have a realistic chance of going nav to pilot down the road.

My dilemna is I don't know whether to give up a sure thing that I would be VERY happy with (being a WSO), for a shot at fulfilling my ultimate dream of being a fighter-pilot. I THINK I would be happier being a WSO than being a pilot of a non-tactical aircraft. On the other hand, I know I would give it my all in pilot training (as I would in WSO training) and I will be proud of whatever plane I am priveleged to fly. There is also my family...as a WSO I know that (right now anyways) my deployment rate is relatively low. This, plus the tactical nature of the WSO lean me toward staying in the WSO training pipeline. However, it seems like Navs always play 2nd fiddle to pilots. This makes me lean back towards being a pilot. I'm a laid back Type A personality (if you can imagine such a thing) so all the ridicule in the world for being a Nav/WSO won't bother me, but not having equal opportunity (or close to it at least) for command positions will bother me. I became an officer to lead, and I take the study of leadership as seriously as I take flying so this point is important to me. However, having just turned 30, maybe I'm coming into this game so late that I won't ever be competitive for command whether or not I'm pilot (in which case my choice would be stay a WSO)?

Ultimately I must make this decision on my own (and soon), but any comments you have will help. Thank you!

Edited May 21, 2007 by ggg308

[Guest Exho]

I'm THRILLED at the chance to be a WSO.

I would be VERY happy with (being a WSO), for a shot at fulfilling my ultimate dream of being a fighter-pilot. I THINK I would be happier being a WSO than being a pilot of a non-tactical aircraft.

There is also my family...as a WSO I know that (right now anyways) my deployment rate is relatively low. This, plus the tactical nature of the WSO lean me toward staying in the WSO training pipeline.

I am pretty sure you answered your own question.

You seem really thrilled to be in the air. I would too.

On the family side of things if you are correct about what you have said, than NAV's get the better side of things.

Go with your gut instinct dont second guess. Do what is best for you

Hey I might be 16 but I know some stuff. =)

-Nick

[matmacwc]

Are you both kidding me? Go be a pilot, fighter...heavy....helo. Be in charge, fly the damn airplane. We are not put on this earth to take the easy way out..........

As far as the deployment thing? Pilots and WSO's are gone at the same rate, get over it, airplanes that take both...TAKE BOTH! Age may be an issue, but there are waivers for everything!

[joe1234]

You know, reading this post was interesting.

This, plus the tactical nature of the WSO lean me toward staying in the WSO training pipeline. However, it seems like Navs always play 2nd fiddle to pilots. This makes me lean back towards being a pilot. I'm a laid back Type A personality (if you can imagine such a thing) so all the ridicule in the world for being a Nav/WSO won't bother me, but not having equal opportunity (or close to it at least) for command positions will bother me. I became an officer to lead, and I take the study of leadership as seriously as I take flying so this point is important to me. However, having just turned 30, maybe I'm coming into this game so late that I won't ever be competitive for command whether or not I'm pilot (in which case my choice would be stay a WSO)?

So you're worried about playing 2nd fiddle? I mean, is your primary motivation here penis envy? You say you like the tactical nature of WSO, but you apparently have a problem with limited command opportunties and not being in charge of the jet. You say you became an officer to lead, but you picked one of the few officer jobs that offers the least capacity for leadership (as opposed to a Mx guy who's in charge of a 100-man flight).

It seems to me that you need to figure out what your priorities are, because many of them are conflicting. You obviously understand the risks and ramifications of either decision, and you'll have to live with it for the rest of your life because you really don't get anymore shots at it. The best thing you can do is research your options and find out what you really want from your Air Force career based on your priorities. Once you understand what your priorities are, then the decision is easier because you just simply pick the most compatible choice.

Oh yeah, and type A personalities are not laid back. That goes against the very definition of a type A personality.

[brickhistory]

Re command, both pilots and WSOs can, depending on the MWS, of course, command if you get the opportunity and are good enough; it's not just a game for pilots.

However, this is one of those questions will you second guess yourself in five years?

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm neither pilot or WSO so you may opt to cease reading as of now, but given a choice, I'd recommend pilot - both in and out of the USAF, it gives you, generally, more options.

Finally, if you go pilot and, God forbid, don't make it, would you have the option to reattack as a WSO considering the age?

Good luck.

[cmdro]

brickhistory,

I think since he is age-critical if something did go wrong with him switching to pilot it might keep him out of any rated position.

ggg308,

Personally I would keep the "for sure" position if it is something you can see yourself doing and enjoying. If you weren't age critical I would take the chance, but I can only assume there are going to be a lot of people in situations like yours looking into the switch with the new rules (I have no proof of this, just a guess). But, take my advice with a grain of salt, I'm just an OTS select waiting on my FC1 to be signed off on, there are many people (aka almost everyone) on this board with much more informed advice then me.

Best of luck with whatever you do!

[Guest Hoser]

Why do you think WSO training is a sure thing? Just becuase you are there doesn't mean that you won't wash out.

As for Pilot or WSO, I say go for it if you are able. I'm not sure of the process (or the ability) of trying to get into one formal training program while already in another formal training program. You will fail 100% of the time that you don't try.

Cap-10

[Guest rapier01]

The AF just changed the reg so my PRK pre-op is now well within limits

What are the new regs?

[LJ Driver]

Dude, are you kidding? Flying anything as a pilot is 10 times better then being a passenger in any capacity. A so-called type A personality would know that.

[HerkDerka]

I THINK I would be happier being a WSO than being a pilot of a non-tactical aircraft.

No matter what aircraft you fly, you will think it is the best.

It sounds to me you may have already made your decision. One route is a gamble, one route is the safer play. Either way, make it through training and you will be flying aircraft for a living. No one can make this decision for you.

A relevant story, one time when I was a copiglet, I got out of the seat for a second and went to the back. A few minutes later, I returning to the flight deck and saw the nav reaching over my seat and flying the turn to the next waypoint. I casually asked what was up and the scruffy old WIC-grad nav said "Co, there are lots of people who would love to be in your shoes." I thought for half a second and replied, "Nav, there are lots of people who love to be in your shoes too."

The point here being, there are tons of people who didn't get picked up for OTS, are medically unqualified to be a rated officer or lack the aptitude to be aircrew, etc. Always remember that and you'll never regret the path you choose.

HD

Edited May 22, 2007 by HerkDerka

[Rocker]

No matter what aircraft you fly, you will think it is the best.

Not always true.

The point here being, there are tons of people who didn't get picked up for OTS, are medically unqualified to be a rated officer or lack the aptitude to be aircrew, etc. Always remember that and you'll never regret the path you choose.

Very good point and easy to forget. That might be the best take on things in the thread so far.

But if you want to be a pilot - then go be a pilot. Just make sure that if you do stick with where you're at that you take pride in your work and don't be bitter about what could have been. No one likes navigators who act bitter or regretful about being navigators instead of pilots.

[HuggyU2]

So, if you stay as a WSO, what aircraft are your choices (in a "perfect" world)?

Also, what's a "non-tactical aircraft", in your eyes?

[Stiffler]

Be a WSO. Leave the pilot slot for someone who sees flying the jet as a passion, not a better opportunity for command. It maybe difficult to make it through pilot training with that attitude.

IMHO

[Guest salokin]

Be a WSO. Leave the pilot slot for someone who sees flying the jet as a passion, not a better opportunity for command. It maybe difficult to make it through pilot training with that attitude.

IMHO

I seriously doubt his main reason for wanting to be a pilot is "better opportunity for command." He made it pretty obvious that if the age/gamble circumstances were different...there wouldn't even be a decision to make. Seems to me he's just examining all aspects of a tough choice on a tight timeline, don't gotta be so nitpicky man.

Deployment rate, whatever it may be, shouldn't be part of your equation...plenty of pilots have families.

The age sucks, the gamble sucks, but I'd go for it. Not that being a WSO wouldn't be great, but you'll always have that what-if in the back of your mind.

[Guest ggg308]

Thanks for all the responses, and I hope to get more. Anything to help me think this through. Here's a little history to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

When I originally applied for OTS, I wanted to be a pilot or a non-rated officer. I didn't want to be a Nav at all because I was just stupid back then. I felt I would be bitter as a Nav, as Rocker alluded to, so at that time if it was up to me I'd have taken a non-rated slot over Nav because there's a ton of leadership stuff to do in non-rated work as Joe1234 pointed out. Well, I got the pilot slot, but ended up being med DQ for ALL rated positions and my attempts to fight it were futile. I was bummed and ended up asking the AF to reclassify me to whatever non-rated job they needed the most. Well, they told me they didn't need non-rated officers and took away my OTS slot. I wasn't done fighting the DQ, however, so I kept pressing the flight docs until finally two years later I got the DQ overturned...but I was still DQ for FCI because of the PRK pre-op limits. It was good enough for Nav though and with the help of my commander I got my OTS slot back as a Nav.

At this point I realized how fortunate I was to have the opportunity to fly and be an officer, whether as a Nav or a Pilot, as HerkDerka pointed out (especially since my brother also recently got med DQ for all rated). Instead of being bitter about being a Nav, I was elated, did well at OTS and got selected to go through WSO training. I'm here and I'm loving it. That's what makes the decision so hard...I am totally happy with what I'm doing now and having been DQ I appreciate each day of training that much more. On the other hand, will I look back upon this 5,10 years from now and wish I had tried the pilot route? That's my biggest fear, I don't want to regret whatever decision I make. If I do pick the pilot route, there's a chance I can get DQ at Brooks (probably not, but I'm paranoid of docs now), I could wash out of training (same for WSO, but bigger chance I think for pilot...sorry Hoser, didn't intend to sound in original post as if I presumed I would finish training), or end up flying something that I'm not as excited about as, say, being an F-15E WSO. That being said, I can tell I set my standards higher than most of my peers in API (32 pilots and 11 navs) and have accordingly outperformed most of them (finished in top 10%). Whether that will hold under the stress of the cockpit remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be tempted to go for pilot if I didn't think I was going to do well.

So, in a nutshell, HerkDerka is right, it's the safebet vs. the gamble, and only I can decide. I'm trying to determine if the risk is worth the benefit, given that I'm happy already. What ARE the benefits and what do they mean to me...that's what I'm really struggling with. Putting this out here and hearing your opinions helps me to see things more clearly. I know there are many who would kill to be in the same dilemna, so I feel priveleged just to have a say in the matter. Thanks for bearing with the long post.

[Guest ggg308]

What are the new regs?

-8.00 diaptors I believe pre-op. It's under the vision changes post in the Aviation Medicine forum.

[Guest ggg308]

Dude, are you kidding? Flying anything as a pilot is 10 times better then being a passenger in any capacity. A so-called type A personality would know that.

Before I was DQed I thought the exact same thing. It took not having a chance to be on a plane at all to make me realize all crew members carry out the mission and that pride of service comes from fulfilling the mission, not flying the plane. That's why I have no problems with being a Nav.

Be a WSO. Leave the pilot slot for someone who sees flying the jet as a passion, not a better opportunity for command. It maybe difficult to make it through pilot training with that attitude.

IMHO

This is a good point. A few days ago, I told myself I was going to stay a WSO and I was content and happy with that. But today I climbed into the front seat of a T-6A static cockpit to familirize myself with the layout and to go over procedures (Navs at Pensacola fly in the front seat and act as a pilot for the first 6 flights so that they can appreciate what a pilot does). It was at this time I started second guessing myself...I knew that when the time came to move to the back seat I just wouldn't want to do it. But I don't know how strong that passion is until I actually fly the T-6A, at which time it will be too late to switch pipelines. On the other hand I'd still be happy being a Nav for the reason above. Also, I see lots of pilot-selects (ok, some) who THINK they have a passion for flying until they actually do it.

As for trying to be a pilot just to get better opportunity for command, I didn't mean it like that. I don't want a glass ceiling over me just because I'm a nav.

[Guest ggg308]

So, if you stay as a WSO, what aircraft are your choices (in a "perfect" world)?

Also, what's a "non-tactical aircraft", in your eyes?

WSOs are limited to F-15Es, B-1s, and B-52s. Right now, there are lots of F-15E slots (what I want), a few B-1 slots, and some B-52 slots here and there. You can also do a tour with the Navy in the EA-6B, but that's not common.

A non-tactical craft in my eyes is one that doesn't get told, here are your targets, destroy them. I'd be happy with other aircraft too as they all contribute to the destruction of the enemy in the end. I just want to be as close to the pointy tip as possible.

[Guest ggg308]

Oh yeah, and type A personalities are not laid back. That goes against the very definition of a type A personality.

You are right. To be more accurate, I'm laid back most of the time, but I'm very Type A when the situation calls for it, unlike most Type As who feel a need to be dominent all the time.

[drewpey]

take 20 minutes and watch this.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97

[Guest VIPER_STUD]

I see that in your original post you wrote that you had just turned 30, so unless you can get an age waiver, which I heard are rather hard to get, your dream is already over bro.

[Nanook]

Having BTDT for a long time and tried just about every method known to man to get to UPT from the nav chair I wonder why you think you'd be reclassified just because the rules changed. Not trying to kick you around, but Big Blue generally doesn't do that. When I was a lad the requirements were age 26 and 20/20 vision...that changed to 29 and 20/70 when I was 29 with 20/25 in one eye so I figured I could just reapply and it would all be good...NOT. Plus, you're in training and unless you're ARC in a unit converting to pilot-only aircraft I doubt they'd let you just leave to go to UPT. Unless you have good information that definitely provides you with an opportunity to reapply, then I believe your decision is already made. On the other hand if you have the chance to reapply, then JUMP!!!!!!!!!! My point: if you're thinking about it now, then you'll always wonder later. PM me if you want to talk offline.

[brabus]

I have a pretty good feeling that the second you get into the air and fly the T-6 for the first time, you're going to regret not trying for pilot. It'll probably be one of the coolest things you've done in your life, to realize you're getting paid to do it, and then 6 rides later it's taken from you. I don't see how that couldn't affect you. I agree that being a WSO in a strike eagle is an awesome job and much better than any other non-rated job, but like others have said here before, regardless of what you fly, you'll love it (majority speaking)...and in most of our opinions, flying anything is better than being in the backseat of anything, regardless if it's a strike eagle. You say you want to command, well go for pilot, become an aircraft commander...sounds like it's right up your alley. As Hoser said, you fail 100% at the things you don't try.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Look down the road. Since you're prior-E, it may not be long to you're eligible for retirement. Then what will you do? There are no WSO jobs on the outside. Whether you stay in the military or not, you'll open a heck of a lot more doors of opportunity in the future with the pilot gig than the WSO gig.

That is only true if you want to be a pilot after you retire. There are lots of jobs other than pilot out here. There was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal last week about the sad state of morale among airline employees. They quoted a 56 year old AA captain who is only making $140K/yr (down from $175K) who is planning to retire early saying "An airline career isn't worth it anymore. It's a very different profession than it was 23 years ago when I sarted."

Most civilians would be far more impressed if you told them you flew as a WSO in an F-15E than if you said you flew a C-130. Not saying it is right or wrong, that's just the way people out here think.

[Guest ggg308]

Having BTDT for a long time and tried just about every method known to man to get to UPT from the nav chair I wonder why you think you'd be reclassified just because the rules changed. Not trying to kick you around, but Big Blue generally doesn't do that. When I was a lad the requirements were age 26 and 20/20 vision...that changed to 29 and 20/70 when I was 29 with 20/25 in one eye so I figured I could just reapply and it would all be good...NOT. Plus, you're in training and unless you're ARC in a unit converting to pilot-only aircraft I doubt they'd let you just leave to go to UPT. Unless you have good information that definitely provides you with an opportunity to reapply, then I believe your decision is already made. On the other hand if you have the chance to reapply, then JUMP!!!!!!!!!! My point: if you're thinking about it now, then you'll always wonder later. PM me if you want to talk offline.

Yeah, I think normally there is no chance, I just happen to be in the only place where it can happen easily if the AF wanted it to happen. I already started training, so I don't need an age waiver. At Pensacola, pilots and navs train together for the first 6 weeks. Afterwards, there is a short break in training as pilots get assigned to a training squadron at Whiting Field (40 minutes away) and navs get assigned to a training squadron at Sherman Field (on NAS Pensacola). Right now, I'm in that short break, so the AF could just say, OK, go to Whiting Field instead. I think I have shot because I was designated as a Pilot to begin with, but was switched to Nav because I couldn't meet FCI standards. Those standards have changed, I meet them now, so if they choose they can give me my pilot slot back without PCSing me or taking me out of training or anything...it would be completely seamless. I'd simply go to Whiting instead of Sherman. If I had already started at Sherman, then yeah, I don't see it happening. I just don't want to go to my chain of command and ask them to help me out unless I'm committed to trying to make it happen. I'm still on the fence, but everyone's comments are helping me to think about what my priorities are. Thanks for all your input.