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.
Well, that's really true right there. I was always pretty disgusted about the general "fear" of IMC and class B flying from combat aviators. I remember planning training flights from Campbell in IMC down to BNA and back... I'd always get big push back. "We can't go to BNA... it's too busy!" I'd explain I was flying a C152 out of BNA on the weekends and they'd be shocked. AT a Guard interview recently they wanted to make sure I knew I'd be flying in three of the busiest Class B airspaces in the country... it was a big deal to them that I was okay with that. After explaining I flew piston twins into those airspaces and into the primary airports at times they were overly impressed.
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.
No, I understand. I just don't agree. I do agree it takes more to build an aviator as opposed to an Infantry officer, but the day-to-day ground fight is an incredibly complex thing. The myriad of tasks and split second decision making a leader on the ground has do do is incredible. And the "machines" they're operating is a lot more complex than our machines. Their machines are 30 individual soldiers in a fluid, dynamic environment.
Actually, I wouldn't say one job is more complex than the other - I'd say they are not even comparable.
Am talking all the BS details and additional duties that CAN be handled by a non-aviator, should be.
I'd be great to not have to do that stuff... I just don't know how this could practically be accomplished.
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.
But I'm not talking about driving or shooting vs. employing aviation assets. I'm talking about
leading each. My task of flying a helicopter is much more complex than using an M4. My task of leading a single or multiship mission is comparable to leading a convoy or patrol. My tasks of managing the maintenance of the helicopters, taking care of my soldiers, and managing the logistics for the mission separate me from an AF pilot.
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?
Ha! Seriously though, that's a very typical mindset for an AF officer. As a pilot you expect to fly. Some officers are of course going to have to lead your units and do staff work. There's a disconnect between command track and straight pilot types with the associated animosity.
In the Army I don't have a choice. I will lead a platoon, command a company, and serve on staff, as will all my peers. The only thing I can do to further my career is try to get the hardest commands and the hardest staff positions. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed up.
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.
Don't get me started. My "so what" comments on the uniform and the wings were a pragmatic view of that specific thing. My overall thoughts about the Army uniform process are different... no time for that now though.
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".
No... they don't do that stuff to stick it to the aviators. They do it because the Army believes in uniformity (not saying that's a good thing here) and when people come to briefings the boss wants them to be in the same uniform. Stupid, yes, but it isn't a case of trying to make aviators feel less so. They don't care if they are aviators are not. You see, as I've already explained, we're not special.
Thats why its an interesting discussion. I don't think there's really any "winner" here, per se.
Agreed. Like I said, this conversation would be better over beers. There would be less facts, more ribbing, and probably some whale-tales. Oh, and there'd be beer.
