Why navy aviators consider them as better than pilots?

[Pawelk198604]

I noticed that both American US Navy and  in Russian Navy their pilots consider himself as better on than regular jet pilots.

[tater]

Because regular runways don't move while you are trying to land on them.

[Scotius]

More than that - air bases do not change location between the start and the landing of the plane. Aircraft carriers do.

[Tex Mechs Robot]

But knowing how to do it doesn't inherently make them better. Just means they've learned how. So Navy pilots may be better at carrier landings. They've done it a lot more. That doesn't make them better pilots.

[Stone Blue]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Because regular runways don't move while you are trying to land on them.

Regular runways are also 100 times LONGER, and usually 2 or 3 times wider...

47 minutes ago, Tex Mechs Robot said:

That doesn't make them better pilots.

Hehehe.... Yeah?.... Just ASK one of them...

 

Also, I dont know about the Russian Navy, but the US Navy pilots, I think, have a wider spectrum of mission architecture they need to know/perform...

The US Navy pilots have to know/perform:

Dogfighting
Air-to-Air attacks
Air-to-Ground attacks
Close-in Ground attacks for troop suppport
Bombing
Electronic countermeasures

...and probably more stuff I cant think of right now...

Basically Navy & USMC pilots do LOTS of stuff, where Air Force & Army air forces seem to be more specialized at what they do...

Edited March 1, 2016 by Stone Blue

[RizzoTheRat]

The US Navy started the "Top Gun" school as a result of poor performance of missile engagements over Vietnam, with the additional training their kill ratio rocketed while the USAF's actually got worse, so I'd guess it would stem from there.

Sadly the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm doesn't have any combat fast jets since the withdrawal of the Harrier in 2010.  Not sure if the F35's when we get them will actually be Navy or if they'll be some form of joint force.

[tater]

It's not just "moving" in the sense of translating over a plane (the ocean), CV decks pitch and roll, sometimes substantially. 

[razark]

1 hour ago, Pawelk198604 said:

I noticed that both American US Navy and  in Russian Navy their pilots consider himself as better on than regular jet pilots.

I think the main reason is because they are pilots, complete with ego.

 

Quote

You can always tell a Gunner by his greasy hands and vacant stare - and
You can always tell a Bombardier by his manners debonair - and
You can always tell a Navigator by his pencils books and such - and
You can always tell a Pilot - but you can never tell him much.

 

[Tex Mechs Robot]

13 minutes ago, razark said:

I think the main reason is because they are pilots, complete with ego.

How does a pilot change a light bulb?

 

He just holds it in the socket because the world revolves around him.

[SSgt Baloo]

Navy pilots have to stick the landing on a postage stamp or die (or, at the very least, return home after dangling from a parachute and treading water for an indeterminate amount of time). Land bases offer a lot more viable options when you have a missed approach. On the other hand, I used to guess (correctly, most times) which service the pilot served in just by their landing style. Navy pilots hit the ground harder and slam on the brakes quicker*, while Air Force pilots tend to just grease it in, all other things being equal. 

* I assume that's because the folks who've been trained to fly from carriers never really believe there will be enough runway until they've come to a complete stop, but the USAF has plenty of long runways, and will lengthen them, if they aren't long enough. After all, concrete slabs are much less expensive than steel ships with runways on their decks. 

[Tex Mechs Robot]

4 minutes ago, SSgt Baloo said:

Navy pilots have to stick the landing on a postage stamp or die (or, at the very least, return home after dangling from a parachute and treading water for an indeterminate amount of time). Land bases offer a lot more viable options when you have a missed approach. On the other hand, I used to guess (correctly, most times) which service the pilot served in just by their landing style. Navy pilots hit the ground harder and slam on the brakes quicker*, while Air Force pilots tend to just grease it in, all other things being equal. 

* I assume that's because the folks who've been trained to fly from carriers never really believe there will be enough runway until they've come to a complete stop, but the USAF has plenty of long runways, and will lengthen them, if they aren't long enough. After all, concrete slabs are much less expensive than steel ships with runways on their decks. 

You are correct in your assessment (as I see it anyway). However, this isn't to say that you couldn't train an AF pilot to do the same. They aren't worse pilots, they just have higher tolerances in their landing requirements.

[SSgt Baloo]

The consequences for "missed the runway" are a bit more severe when your runway is bounded on all four sides by deep ocean, and not flat(tish) grassland.

[Tex Mechs Robot]

7 minutes ago, SSgt Baloo said:

The consequences for "missed the runway" are a bit more severe when your runway is bounded on all four sides by deep ocean, and not flat(tish) grassland.

I still don't disagree. Only that assuming only Navy pilots are capable of this. Put AF pilots through the same training and they'll be capable as well.

[SSgt Baloo]

My point is, unless you're going to be flying off of postage stamps in the middle of an ocean, the additional training is wasted effort.

 

[Tex Mechs Robot]

16 minutes ago, SSgt Baloo said:

My point is, unless you're going to be flying off of postage stamps in the middle of an ocean, the additional training is wasted effort.

Point taken. And agreed.

My point is that just because Navy pilots have need for the training and have taken it, they aren't better pilots. They are just better at carrier landings.

[Kozak]

so many salty posts. Natrually they are always going to be better in scenarios they've trained for.

leave it at that pls fam

[SSgt Baloo]

And they (Navy pilots) seem to boast about their flying prowess more, or perhaps I never heard much from AF pilots because AF enlisted were more likely to reply with "Yes, sir, I have heard how great a pilot you are. Every day. Ad infinitum." 

 

[Bill Phil]

Landing at full throttle on a tiny runway....

[JetJaguar]

2 hours ago, razark said:

I think the main reason is because they are pilots, complete with ego.

 

This right here.  I'm an aerospace engineer and have worked defense programs for all of the services at one time or another, and I'm currently with the Navy (though mainly work on Marine programs at the moment).  I've dealt with pilots from all the services, plus RAF pilots from the UK, and they all think they're the best.  In fact, they're trained to think that way.  You don't want a pilot going into combat with any self-doubt.

[Stone Blue]

^^
That... I used to have some interaction with some maintenance guys from the Blue Angels... And THEY are just about as bad...

[RizzoTheRat]

12 hours ago, razark said:

You can always tell a Gunner by his greasy hands and vacant stare - and
You can always tell a Bombardier by his manners debonair - and
You can always tell a Navigator by his pencils books and such - and
You can always tell a Pilot - but you can never tell him much.

How do you tell a pilot in the bar? 

You don't need to, he'll tell you.

[GoSlash27]

They regularly land their aircraft on pitching carrier decks at night, which is generally considered to be the most difficult feat in aviation. That's why they consider themselves to be the best pilots.

Now... that is not to say that they necessarily *are* the world's best pilots. Just sayin' that it why they think they are.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited March 3, 2016 by GoSlash27

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

They regularly land their aircraft on pitching carrier decks at night, which is generally considered to be the most difficult feat in aviation. That's why they consider themselves to be the best pilots.

Now... that is not to say that they necessarily *are* the world's best pilots. Just sayin' that it why they think they are.

Best,
-Slashy

They're also doing that at full throttle...

[GoSlash27]

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

They're also doing that at full throttle...

Bill Phil,

 And more importantly no divert fields possible.

 I have years of experience and thousands of traps doing this exact thing in FSX (exactly IAW NATOPS) during my stint as the XO and chief instructor pilot at FSXCarrierOps, and even simulating it is freakin' hard. It's gotta be way worse with the spatial disorientation and stress that comes with doing it for real. IFR and pitching decks combined is a nightmare.

 Still and all, I'm sure there are better pilots (overall) out there, even if they don't regularly do something that demanding. There pretty much has to be.

Best,
-Slashy

[razark]

5 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

And more importantly no divert fields possible.

What're you talking about?  There's plenty of open spots to set her down!

Those guys are just afraid of getting a little water on their planes.

Edited March 4, 2016 by razark