Army OKs women as spec ops aviators

Flymh47 said:
Flying is one part of the job. What happens when the flight comes to an unexpected end? That's where the difference lies, with regards to conventional vs. SOF aviation.
Click to expand...

I was going to post this but didn't for fear of sounding ignorant. As a civilian looking at the 160th SOAR from the outside in, it seems like a majority of your guys' flying is insertion and extraction of spec ops assets into places where the U.S. may or may not officially be, making a conventional rescue operation more difficult either logistically or politically should something go wrong. At that point, should your flight come to a premature end, you are basically "one of the bearded guys" on the ground and will be held to the same physical standards and training expectations to get yourself out of that situation (and I'm willing to bet it's a bit more involved than your average SERE school).

Disclaimer: I've probably seen too many Hollywood movies and played too many video games, but I've also been acquainted with some folks in the spec ops community.

In any case, thank you very much for your post and your service.
 
One of our mods is married to a Marine. I would suggest not crossing swords with her .

I don't think gender reflects someone's suitability for the mission because some women can be much more fierce than their male counterparts.

And vice versa of course.
 
Derg said:
One of our mods is married to a Marine. I would suggest not crossing swords with her .
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'm not alone in that I've already felt the sting of the point of one of her swords!! :D

Also, with all due respect to her Marineship, my wife has a Masters in Music but that doesn't mean I can play the tuba or march with the band. I can certainly talk the talk though.
Derg said:
I don't think gender reflects someone's suitability for the mission because some women can be much more fierce than their male counterparts. And vice versa of course.
Click to expand...
Not going to argue a woman's "fierceness" level but it isn't always a factor in mission suitability.
 
Speaking of these kinds of things:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-american-women-register-selective-service/Q5FR42WJ

Require American women to register for Selective Service.

Women have proven themselves to be valuable military assets in both combat and support roles. However, that adult women are not required to register for Selective Service alongside men means they receive preferential, rather than equal, military consideration.

With women included in the Selective Service registry, were the draft to be reinstated in a time of military crisis the increased human resources would mean more qualified personnel for combat and support roles and more flexibility to deny service to those who are less physically or psychologically fit and who might therefore pose a threat to others (including soldiers).

Women are equally capable pilots, leaders, warriors, and administrative officials, and their service would be invaluable to the nation's defense.
Click to expand...
 
dustoff17 said:
Not going to argue a woman's "fierceness" level but it isn't always a factor in mission suitability.
Click to expand...

New to the conversation but - I don't think anyone has made that argument. What is a factor is skill and ability - and, depending on the mission, physical strength. (A big, strong woman can carry more people off the field than a tiny little man.) Isn't the most important factor who can do the job, regardless of genitalia?
 
SeatClutcher said:
New to the conversation but - I don't think anyone has made that argument. What is a factor is skill and ability - and, depending on the mission, physical strength. (A big, strong woman can carry more people off the field than a tiny little man.) Isn't the most important factor who can do the job, regardless of genitalia?
Click to expand...

Derg said:
One of our mods is married to a Marine. I would suggest not crossing swords with her .

I don't think gender reflects someone's suitability for the mission because some women can be much more fierce than their male counterparts.

And vice versa of course.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, I see - his comparing a man and a woman's ferocity equated in your mind to a discussion of the military value of a woman's fierceness.

I understood the first to mean "men and woman can be equally fierce warriors," and yours to isolate women and their more general "fierceness," which has nothing to do with the military. First: both men and women. Second (yours): Just women.

The argument being made was not the argument you addressed.
 
To clarify, I heavily doubt if gonads or a preponderance of gender-specific hormone levels have anything to do with suitability for a mission other than their preferred restroom at TGI Fridays on a weekend night.

Probably not even that! ;)
 

No, I'm not a Marine nor married to a Marine. Derg was talking about one of the other mods.
 
Former 160th MH-60 pilot. My wife was a UH-1 pilot. When OH-58Ds were opened up she was the second female OH-58D pilot and the first female KW Cav troop commander and from what the other pilots said about her she could put a rocket into a coke can. The first gunnery range they had the last of the critics shut their pie holes as she smoked them. She is now an orthopeadic surgeon. Ironically after serving as a line -58D pilot and troop commander she was told she could not serve in a Cav Squadron staff as they were coded as combat positions. Might get hurt, ya know. Typical Army logic. She could fly an aircraft well forward of the FLOT, but could not serve on a staff in the rear.

I heard the same crap about females not flying -58Ds. She would not be able to carry a crew member from a burning aircraft, yada yada. Of course most of the guys who said this could not carry another crew member as well. The more important part of the job description is getting customers or metal on target, on time, +-30 seconds. Give me someone who can do this on a consistent basis and I will give up the ability to bench 200 lbs.

I know of no standard in the 160th for pilots to carry a 120 lbs can of ammunition. If shot down I really doubt anyone would carry that full can as they probably could not carry anything else if they did. Heck, most of the pilots I flew with in the 160th would have a hard time doing this. This is just some made up, nonexistent standard that no one meets but is used to try and say the standards have been relaxed.

There are other standards for the 160th, but they are not something a squared away female could not meet. Personally I think it will open up the recruiting process to a larger group making it more competative and hopefully getting an even better crop of pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top