Guy
Well-Known Member
Ask him what two plus two is. If he answers "what would you like it to be", he is a real ORSA.
Army WO packet, advice
- Thread starter SpiraMirabilis
- Start date
Ask him what two plus two is. If he answers "what would you like it to be", he is a real ORSA.
No, what I mean by "move on" is moving to a staff position or a non-operational position. Sure you'd retain the quals but you'd be worthless as an IP.
I really understand where you are coming from. I do. If I were an AF Officer I'd think the same way. In the same light, Army officers probably wonder what you do with all your time if all you do is fly. LTs and CPTs are PCs in the Army and we manage to lead soldiers and do countless other tasks as well. We also manage to command a helicopter and flights of helicopters fairly well. When we get pulled to staff we don't fly all that much, but when we go back to the line we get trained back up and do it all over again.
He's not a place-holder, Mike. That's where green aviation officers cut their teeth. He's got to somehow figure out how to lead a unit of pilots and mechanics while he himself is progressing to FMC and trying to become good enough to become a PC. This experience is one of the building blocks that makes great future company commanders.
If you say you've seen a lot of RLOs reverting I believe you, but you know I've been around for a few years as well and since pinning on wings in 2001 I've seen only one revert.
Can a CWO be a PL or CDR? Sure. But they'd end up doing exactly what we RLOs are doing now but for less money. I don't think you have a firm grasp on the multiple levels of complexity it takes to run an Army aviation unit. I think you don't have that understanding because in the AF it is all done for you. You are not concerned about maintenance, soldier issues, weapons ranges (ground), convoys, logistics, or security because someone does all of that for you. We do it all ourselves. (And trust me, that was not said snarkily.)
I suppose we could separate pilots from everything else and run it like the AF, but we would need a ton more manpower to make it happen. Think of when you deploy... where to you stay? Who set up the tents? Who supplies the chow? Who manages the fuel? Who set up your flight ops? Where did all that equipment come from? Who managed the whole logistics piece? How did all of that get tied in to your operation? All those extra people you have doing that we'd need to mimic your culture. And then consider all of us aviation officers who fill battalion, brigade, division, and above staff positions over our careers. Where will they come from? When the 2nd Infantry Brigade, 101st Abn needs aviation LNOs to help coordinate their air assault missions, who will have the expertise to do that?
I feel like I'm rambling here. Mike, let me tell you why I don't mind making more money than my WO comrades. I take ride in doing all that other stuff and being as good, or better, in the helicopter as they are. And that's me... me and WOs on JC can tell you about RLOs who they were embarrassed to fly with... but I know for a fat it is possible to be just as good as the "full-time" pilots and do all the other RLO stuff pretty okay as well.
In the end, the Army is far from perfect, as is the AF based on your own posts on the subject. But when you're flying a jet dropping ordinance next to me delivering troops on the ground as we did in A-stan, we do a pretty good job of it no matter the issues.
But that's what I'm saying, being the IP gives the cred of knowing you can do the flying/employment part of the job well, again IMHO. I can't say that I've ever really seen an O as an SFE, but that's with a limited look.
The difference is that the AF pilot's job is to fly.......actually, I should caveat that, it should be his job to fly and do the leading from the front. (I say should, because we've been doing a poor job of even that lately, but that's another conversation entirely). Now that said, AF pilots/crew do have their own additional duties, they don't just only fly. Most of those duties revolve around the squadron/group/wing though, and are more staff oriented than they are leading troops oriented; but you get the point.
Why is it then that the vast majority of Army helos I see where an RLO and a WO are flying together, I'd say 8 times out of 10, the RLO is the co-pilot? And how often does an Army officer "go back to the line" post-staff? I've seen very few O-4s and above actually flying who weren't in direct command positions or specifically part of an aviation Brigade or higher. I've seen a good number of them wearing wings who haven't flown in a long time though. And I think that the Army doing that doesn't really set that O up for success as a goto leader of aviation assets into combat in terms of wealth of hands-on experience and hours of experience, as compared to an equivilent CWO. Granted, I understand that the aviation WO's sole job is to fly, I just don't think that Big Green is helping their RLOs get the same opportunity to be at that level, that they could be. It's why I'm amazed when I see an O-3 Army aviator who has 600 TT. I was a senior O-3 IP actively flying at the time, while also attached to an Army Battalion as an ALO/FAC and training with them for about 5 days or so a month, and still managed to have over 1300 hrs in the jet. And thats with short sorties in jets on average. I don't fault the individual Army Officer Aviator, I just think that Big Green doesn't understand that not only flying, but employing an aviation asset as the weapon its designed to be, isn't the same as driving a HMMWV.
Let me use a better choice of words to describe this. Of course, what you write above is the same challenge that any other O-1 or O-2 would have in his respective branch as a new PL.....take an infantry PL for example. And I fully understand that. But I still find aviation to be far more to it than being a PL of an infantry/armor/arty platoon. The green aviation Lt not only has to lead, but has far more to learn and become proficient on than just firing an M-16, coordinating over a PRC-77, and maneuvering a few squads of grunts. The concept is the same, but the actual knowledge and ability needed to execute is far different, again IMHO.
8 to be exact. 9 if you include our own user Blackhawk here, who did the exact same thing. The reasons are all the same, guys wanted to do their jobs as aviators, not work their way up the corporation and focus primarily on that. They wanted to be soldiers of the skies, not administrative heads of soldiers of the skies.
Believe me, having things run for you is in many respects worse than having control of it yourself. Take maintenance for example. The AF has gone through the iterations of having a separate maintenance organization, and having the flying unit commander "owning" the maintenance. With the squadron owning the maintenance, the commander had command over his own maintainers, but it was a double-edged sword: with the need to run a now FAR larger group of people, it took away from his being able to effectively lead from the front, as most of his time was taken up with administrative functions. With maintenance separate from the flying squadron, he could focus on the main mission far more, but lost the direct control of being able to influence the maintenance practices.....he was merely a "customer" again. So yes, the AF does have to deal with certain issues as you describe, but I agree not necessarily to the extent the Army does. My question for that would be, why doesn't an aviation unit commander have an XO who handles the admin BS of the unit.....doesn't even have to be an aviator.
Part of the difference is, again, how aviation is treated. Since (as Big Green sees it) the Army helo is nothing more than a HMMWV, and the Army aviator is nothing more than an infantry guy who's wearing funny wings, they have no problem parking helos in a hastily-built FARP, regardless of how that may or may not cause maintenance issues.......the aircraft and crews are just no different than the grunt with the rifle. There's no special treatment or consideration needed, so far as the Inf Div/Brigate/Batallion ground pounder commander is concerned. You yourself are no more than a grunt driving a 5-Ton truck that has rotors, again in their view. While part of this is operationally driven I fully understand, this lack of distinction leads to a lack of understanding of special needs that aviation assets, especially high tech ones, require. The difference comes in that most AF aviation assets simply require more infrastructure........last plane we had that could remotely even operate off of austere locations was the A-10. And even today, it really can't what with how high-tech it's become.
Again, I'm not faulting individual RLOs at all for anything. I'm faulting the culture of the Army, and why it's a large reason that the AF got rid of the Army in 1947
. As with anywhere, AF or Army, there's good and bad pilots.....so that's not in any argument. Although, I've got to say, as directionless and lacking identity that the AF is becoming and has been, who knows? We may be part of the Army again sometime down the road. 
The Army, as a whole, just doesn't seem to know what to do with aviation, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should have aviation. In fact, if I were king for a day, I'd give the Army two distinct things:1. C-27s. The Army needs their own intratheatre airlift capability so they're not dependant on AF C-130s for every little small thing they need to carry. The Army used to have this capability with the C-7 Caribou back in the 1960s, but the AF took it away.
2. A-10s. Let the Army do their own CAS for their own troops, just like Marine Air does for the MAGTF. Won't have to bother with relying on the AF for it anymore. And since the AF doesn't really value CAS anyway, they can wash their hands of it and instead focus on air superiority, space, strategic/tactical airlift, bombers/tankers, and nuclear ops.
Oh good....whew!...I thought I was going to have to mail you a large supply of the finest Kool Aid there for a minute Ian....
Btw....you're not rambling, at least I don't think so. It's a really good doctrinal discussion, IMHO. Lots of good info from both sides of the fence.
Btw, has Kristen joined the Officer Spouse's Club yet?
Why do you have to write so much Mike? This would be so much easier over some IPAs.
I'll have to tackle the bulk of your post tomorrow or the next day.
Yup, excellent discussion, and I swear to you I'm not on the koolaid... call me a realist who focuses on optimism.
As for Kris, I'm sure the next time I overfly the house at 500ft and rattle the windows off the house she'll be putty in my hands.
I'll have to tackle the bulk of your post tomorrow or the next day.
Oh good....whew!...I thought I was going to have to mail you a large supply of the finest Kool Aid there for a minute Ian....
Btw....you're not rambling, at least I don't think so. It's a really good doctrinal discussion, IMHO. Lots of good info from both sides of the fence.
Btw, has Kristen joined the Officer Spouse's Club yet?
Yup, excellent discussion, and I swear to you I'm not on the koolaid... call me a realist who focuses on optimism.
As for Kris, I'm sure the next time I overfly the house at 500ft and rattle the windows off the house she'll be putty in my hands.
Ollie
Well-Known Member
OP, I was in a very similar situation to you about six years ago. I had just graduated college, had about 2,500 hours from instructing and flying 135, wanted to fly helos, and was excited by the military option. After doing some shopping around, I learned of the WOFT program and signed up.
Before you decide to go the active duty Army route, you need to ask yourself what your priorities are. I know it's difficult but try to keep the financial aspects out of your thought process. Do you have a passion for aviation and a love for flying? If so, I can unequivocally state that the active Army is NOT for you. Please research the Guard route before you make your final decision.
In the Guard, you can choose which airframe you want to fly and get to personally know the individuals with whom you will be working, flying, and deploying BEFORE you even swear in. That's a huge advantage over the active Army. You'll also have the opportunity to switch airframes and acquire more professional qualifications in the Guard. Many of the Guard aviators I know actually fly more on an annual basis than do their AD counterparts. As a Guard aviator you'll still get the ability to deploy and serve your country and state but you'll be able to pursue a normal life and keep your civil currency by working a normal civilian job. One more plug for the ARNG then I'll quit. If you're considering attending graduate studies following your bachelor's degree, you can go away to WOCS/IERW/AQC then come right back to school and go to class on Uncle Sam's dime using tuition assistance and/or the Montgomery GI Bill.
Carefully consider your options before you sign on that line. Seven or eight years of your twenties is a long time that you'll never get back. On AD, you'll likely spend every other year deployed to some God forsaken hole. If you'd like more info, please PM me and I'll talk your ear off.
Before you decide to go the active duty Army route, you need to ask yourself what your priorities are. I know it's difficult but try to keep the financial aspects out of your thought process. Do you have a passion for aviation and a love for flying? If so, I can unequivocally state that the active Army is NOT for you. Please research the Guard route before you make your final decision.
In the Guard, you can choose which airframe you want to fly and get to personally know the individuals with whom you will be working, flying, and deploying BEFORE you even swear in. That's a huge advantage over the active Army. You'll also have the opportunity to switch airframes and acquire more professional qualifications in the Guard. Many of the Guard aviators I know actually fly more on an annual basis than do their AD counterparts. As a Guard aviator you'll still get the ability to deploy and serve your country and state but you'll be able to pursue a normal life and keep your civil currency by working a normal civilian job. One more plug for the ARNG then I'll quit. If you're considering attending graduate studies following your bachelor's degree, you can go away to WOCS/IERW/AQC then come right back to school and go to class on Uncle Sam's dime using tuition assistance and/or the Montgomery GI Bill.
Carefully consider your options before you sign on that line. Seven or eight years of your twenties is a long time that you'll never get back. On AD, you'll likely spend every other year deployed to some God forsaken hole. If you'd like more info, please PM me and I'll talk your ear off.
I can vouch this. On active duty, after WOCS when you goto flight school some airframes are unavailable so you your choices are limited to the needs of the army. If there are airframes to choose from its usually first come first serve starting at the top of the class. Usually there are always openings for UH60's, 47's and 58's. The tough is obviously the 64. I can't speak from experience about the guard, but I've only heard good things about it.
The Army takes great pride in being Army different regarding Army aviation. Not only do they wear two piece flight suits, they can't even wear their pilot wings (metal) while conducting aerial flight (safety issue). Of course, they are prohibited from wearing cloth wings. They are even forced to look like their Infantry brothers including wearing war paint while flying. Half the time, you can't even tell if they are pilots when they are wearing their AACUs. Too much effort in removing and pinning on the metal wings, remember no cloth wings aloud.
In the past, the Army even requested an exemption in paying ACIP for their RLOs if flying wasn't a priority in the Commanders eyes. Army aviators have been told for at least the last 60 years that they must prove their worth to their earth bound members. As one Army commander said, the pilots earn their flight pay, it's their base pay they don't earn. They aren't considered a part of the real Army. They are always crying about crew rest and $Bil in support. (Rangers only get 3 hours of sleep a night in training) The aviation branch in their eyes is a big sucking money machine. The recent Army CoS, made the decision to transfer the C-27J to the AF without a fight. Of course, he was non rated. The money can be better spent elsewhere.
The Army will not make an exception for aviation units in the grooming of their aviator RLOs. They must meet the same requirements in their career development as their non flying contemporaries. If you're a Lt, you have a plt, if a Capt you must command of a company in being competitive in promotions.
While the other services requires a O-5 billet for commanding a squadron for the most part, the Army will stick with their system. It works for them apparently. I would imagine that most Army aviators would want the system of the other services. But, it's not going to happen and there's no need in holding ones breath. In the Army, it's called enjoy the big suck and get the job done, hooah.
In the past, the Army even requested an exemption in paying ACIP for their RLOs if flying wasn't a priority in the Commanders eyes. Army aviators have been told for at least the last 60 years that they must prove their worth to their earth bound members. As one Army commander said, the pilots earn their flight pay, it's their base pay they don't earn. They aren't considered a part of the real Army. They are always crying about crew rest and $Bil in support. (Rangers only get 3 hours of sleep a night in training) The aviation branch in their eyes is a big sucking money machine. The recent Army CoS, made the decision to transfer the C-27J to the AF without a fight. Of course, he was non rated. The money can be better spent elsewhere.
The Army will not make an exception for aviation units in the grooming of their aviator RLOs. They must meet the same requirements in their career development as their non flying contemporaries. If you're a Lt, you have a plt, if a Capt you must command of a company in being competitive in promotions.
While the other services requires a O-5 billet for commanding a squadron for the most part, the Army will stick with their system. It works for them apparently. I would imagine that most Army aviators would want the system of the other services. But, it's not going to happen and there's no need in holding ones breath. In the Army, it's called enjoy the big suck and get the job done, hooah.
Welcome to JC. Are you still in the service?
Lefty
Well-Known Member
+1
Sadly there are a lot of true statements ringing in your post Ollie.
One thing I will contribute to the OP:
Almost everyone on this forum became a pilot because they had a legit passion for aviation. Sadly, it has been my experience that this mentality just doesn't exist in Army aviation. A majority of our pilots took the advancement because it was a step up from chewing dirt and payed more. 90% of our pilots never flew in a small plane (or helicopter for that matter) prior to arriving at flight school. That has been one of the hardest things for me to adapt to.
The guard route would be a very great option for your scenario because it would allow you to get the best of both worlds. I am also aware of a few units that operate multiple airframes, such as the C-12 and the UH-60 for example.
The Army has changed dramatically in the last few years. Just be careful what you get yourself into.
Seth
No, actually retired a number of years ago. But, have been actively involved in the Army recruiting program since retirement. It's interesting to note that the Navy commissioned their first Warrant Officer Pilots in 2006. They are selected in the grades of E-5 to E-7 with 2 years of college. Max age is 29 and can't fly any ship borne aircraft other than helos. Land based fixed wing and helo aircraft only. Still need to be an RLO to be a Top Gun. It's a test program and they graduate approx 10-15 per year so far. Has the Navy seen the light? The Navy RLOs don't like where this is going. The Command level wants to give the RLOs better promotion opportunities. Sound familiar?
Seems vaguely familiar......
I know of the USN WO aviators, and username //AMG can attest to having seen them in training. The Marines used to have WO aviators, though I think they may have only been NFOs, but that ended post-Vietnam. I do wonder if the USN WOs can be NFOs?
Now that the USN has gone to WO aviators, I'm surprised that he USA hasn't tried to one-up them by restoring the days of non-commissioned aviators...
Back in the 80s the US Army thought just that, doing away with the WO aviator position. Today, the British & German Army Air Corp have NCO pilots flying their helos.
I have already made that statement and caught hell.
Ollie
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure about the USA, but I know the last active duty USN NCO aviator retired in 1981. It's not that distant of a memory and I'm betting there are still some higher-ups that remember those days.
Sure, it gives you the cred, but it is different in the Army. If an RLO is an active PIC and is flight lead qualed, that earns respect. Because no one reasonably expects an RLO to be an IP there is no respect to lose there. An IP qual is just a school anyway. Sure RLOs could go and they’d pass like the WOs, but they would have very limited use of that rating. It doesn’t make sense to take a school slot from a WO who will be a full-time IP for the rest of his career.
A couple reasons…
- The RLO is going through progression, same as his WO counterparts
- The RLO is FMC and is building experience to be a PIC, same as his WO counterparts
- The RLO is a FAC 2 staff aviator who is simply getting his minimums
- The RLO is a dirtbag who will never be PIC, same as his WO counterparts
Back to the line post staff as a CPT – often. As an O-4 – almost never. There are very few command positions as a Major – most are XOs and S3s or are rotting away on a Division staff. (This doesn’t even count positions we have to fill outside an MTOE unit.) As a LTC – only if they are a BN commander. As a COL – only as a Brigade Commander.
I don’t know… what you suggest makes conventional sense, but reality tells a different story. Army LNOs attached to our customer units do a great job coordinating, explaining, and acting as the SMEs for aviation assets. Aviation Battalion Commanders typically take command after a few years of staff time outside the cockpit. They do a tremendous job employing aviation assets and typically get requaled as PCs in short order.
I disagree quite a bit on this one. The knowledge and skills needed to lead an infantry platoon in combat, manage a unit’s logistics, or command a tank company are highly involved, complex, and in many cases are more difficult than being an aviator.
We talking company or Battalion level here? For a company he does have an XO, and he certainly does need to be an aviator. For a battalion there is a sizeable staff of mostly aviation officers, and some non-aviators for specialty areas. (S2, SIGO, CHEMO, BMO, etc.)
And that’s the big difference in our opinions. Aviators are not special. They are not different. They are soldiers who have the skill of employing aviation assets. Like in civilian aviation, the only people who think pilots are special are pilots.
You know the range of helicopters… if we were limited to operations where only a thorough infrastructure was in place we would be useless. If such infrastructures were feasible early on in operations, who would secure and defend them? The big AF base that used to be in BIAP – the one with all the really nice air-conditioned tents, gyms, DFACs, and state of the art flight planning facilities – all of which were off-limits to transient Army crews… who secured and defended that location?
The Army operates out of austere locations because that’s where our customers are. We can no more support infantry on the ground in Mosul from Arifjan than we could put an AF-quality infrastructure wherever we need to operate.
Agreed.
This is purely dependent on the needs of the Army at the time and the “mood” of a particular flight school class which can vary widely based on numerous factors. As an example, in my class all four airframes were available equally. The picks by order of merit were - #1 – 64, #2 through #6 – 47s. The rest of the 64s went to the bottom of the class.
I guess my question would be… so what? The Army made a decision going with ACUs and pin on badges which had nothing to do with aviation. A second order effect was that pin on badges are a safety risk when pre-flighting. Why should they authorize a sew-on badge just so aviators can feel special? It’s not like they authorized pin-ons just to spite pilots.
No, wearing face paint is not authorized while crewing an Army aircraft.
Again, so what? What is so important about being recognized as a pilot?
I appreciate your service.
No, you haven’t “caught hell.” Some of us have (very) respectfully disagreed with your assessment.
Well, if the average Army aviator doesn't agree with my assessment and has no problem with it, then I guess we chalk that up to a cultural impasse. If it works for the Army with no problems, then I'm in no position to argue it. Fair.
Fair answer
Kind of sucks, since that's what makes the soldier/aviator far more a soldier than anything near an aviator. Again, if thats how the Army wants to roll, then that's their deal. But making aviation completely secondary explains alot on why so many Army aviators I come across find things like flying in IMC or entering a Class B airspace to be MAJOR things to have to deal with, and oftentimes things that are better left avoided. The lack of comfort with some of these things that many other service pilots find to be a daily walk in the park, is apparent often. And I suspect its not just the fault of aircraft not equipped for such, but moreso guys who's aviation background is dictated to be a grunt at 25' AGL, versus any sort of pilot. The Army way, I suppose. Not a slam, just a first-hand observation at how the Army sees things, as seen by me.
Going from staff time to a BN/CC or any aviation unit commander, after a quick requal course and likely lower total time than one's subordinates, is a tough way to do business putting a guy in charge. Just my opinion though.
You're missing what I'm saying. When I say aviator, I'm not talking sitting in the cockpit and pushing buttons, or the day to day basics of flying. I'm talking employing the aviation asset as the weapon its designed to be, as well as the tactics involved in multiple assets being employed in the 3rd dimension. That, as well as everything that goes with simply being qualed to fly and everything else, has a fair amount more complexity than what an infantry PL has to deal with, just in a different sense.
Am talking all the BS details and additional duties that CAN be handled by a non-aviator, should be.
Ian, if you don't think there's anything different or more difficult with being an aviator and employing as-such, overall-speaking, than other types straight-leg soldiers, then you need to toss your wings. It's not a matter of special, its a matter of recognizing that an aviation asset is a little bit more complicated than driving a HMMWV around, or toting an M-4. There's a little bit more to it. Yes, the other skill sets of driving and infantry have their respective challenges and dangers, and I'm certainly not taking that away from them in any way. Of course, the Army won't and can't see it that way, and that is a big part of why they lost their major aviation assets (the Air Corps) in 1947, as they were incapable of separating (and still seem to be) and understanding how airpower differs from ground-based power.
Oh man......I do need to mail out the Kool Aid quick. You sure you're not setting yourself up for some cushy O-6 staff gig somewhere with the corporate answers you're feeding me?
Thats simply an operational difference. And btw, the AF facilties being off-limits to the Army, I find that to be a total BS of a policy the AF makes. Last I checked, we were all on the same team. And the AF needs to stop the elitism they demonstrate here, that only makes them moreso the butt of jokes of the other services.
I think the Army operates mostly operates out of austere locations, as well as some built-up ones. As much as the AF operates out of some austere locations (helos) as well as mostly built-up ones. Agree overall.
I often wonder why the Army wasted the money for ACUs, just as I wonder why the AF wasted the money for the ABUs, that are carbon-copies of the ACUs. Army already had the 2-piece woodland camo flightsuit as well as the 2-piece tan ones; all of which seemed to work fine.
Thats what I thought, as I've seen aircrews having to don/doff facepaint, LBE and helmets when taking part in ops briefings/debriefings before and after flying. More stupid Army BS of not wanting non-aviators to feel less than aviators (which is their own problem), and to make aviators have to endure more idiotic infantry suck for no other reason than "just because". The same briefing I was at, btw, where the idiot S-2 was briefing "SA-7 sites" and their locations and orientation, as if these MANPADS were somehow fixed SAM sites ala SA-2s or such, when in reality they're just a guy carrying a tube. Hey Army, if you can't even get the terminology straight, then let someone who actually knows how do deal with an enemy IADS, do so.