WT Forums

Any of you guys think the AF should reinstate Warrant Officers? How about flying Warrants like the Army?

Flying Warrant sounds good, all the perks and none of the responsibilities of an officer.

Warrant officer aviators do not work in the Airforce

I am a firm believer that the investment made by the DOD to make Competent pilots should not be wasted on individuals that dont meet the current standards or do not strive to raise the bar educationally and competitively. Above all anyone that cant delegate responsibility or required to bear leadership.

I also would not want to serve under a non Flight rated Puke, as an aviator.

I prefer combat experianced leaders. No Logistical Bean counter types.

Haveing warrant officers works well in the Army Combined arms team mission, Where is experianced Infantry NCO's have the opportunity upon completion of the required academics have an opportunity to fly and prosecute a battle action for an infantry commander. This works well becasue they are growing and investing in their warfighting capabilities. I wish that we could invest in doing allot of these activities for our enlisted personell that are a valuable asset that wish to contribute more to the defense of our nation.

Warrant officers to me hold more value as seasoned proven performer Enlisted rank personell that can outweigh and perform the technical duties than say a 2ndLt that is just cutting his Teeth.

I can see them as Aircrew Members, however why create an WO position when we have great Confident SNCO's that I personally would rather have in a multicrewed airplane such as a AC-130 or a Pavehawk to still have a leadership ability.

IF you dont have a leadership bone in your body or not expected to exercise it, your just another useless peice of FOD on the Flightline.

The only warant officer i want to run into on a flightline is a crusty seasoned 22 year former SNCO that knows how to make shit happen. These are the people that keep the tradition and the workethics and knowledge base solid in our service. But even this is really not required because the civillian sector is takeing over much of these responsebilites with retired veterens.

The Airforce is one great big Bean Counting machine. Warrant Officers will never factor into the grand scheme of things.

Back in WWII...People like General Yeager didn't go to college...He actually got in the Army Air Corp in what was called the "Flying Sargeant program" then earned his commission in the skies over Europe...He came from rural West Virginia, and his ROTC program was the University of ETO...

In this day and age, the military offers you so many opportunities to advance, whether that be through the ranks, online college classes, on base college campuses..or underway classes on the larger surface warships...The Navy's seaman to admiral program has produced some very noteworth leaders, and example of which is the late Admiral and CNO Jeremy Boorda....
So if your not willing to take advantage of what the military can do for you in terms of advancement and going from the enlisted ranks, to the commissioned officer ranks...What qualifies you to command a multi-million dollar aircraft, and or flight crew. Like Mudd said, the army is a different story..and they have a solid program, I dont think it fits in todays USAF or Navy.



"Enuff jibba jabba sucka F-14's are helluva tough like me" :Mr. T 2003

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jul 10 2003 01:11 AM

Actually chad it has worked very well in the Navy and MArine Corps being that Special operations teams or Commanders have a Tecnical Asset as a resource or mission commander that technically can fullfill leadership of the mission on scene.

The USMC has a "GUNNER" program that utilises warrant officers in an Infantry leader advisor capacity, an expert in the warfighting arts. These personel are GySGTS and above that apply to the MArine Corps "Gunner" Warrant officer program. They provide a vital asset to a MEU (SOC) Commander or a Battalion Commander conducting operations. The Navy and the Army utilise this effectively in the special operations community.


In the Airforce our structure and the way we manage buisness doesnt require a warrant officer anymore. Our Technical SNCO's are very hands on in accomplishing a Squadrons Mission. They make it happen. They dont require a Techie opinion, becasue they are to well educated and experianced in the profession.

[quote]
Back in WWII...People like General Yeager didn't go to college...He actually got in the Army Air Corp in what was called the "Flying Sargeant program" then earned his commission in the skies over Europe...----------

I flew with the last Naval enlisted pilot in 1981. Old NAP Jones, retired as a MasterChief.

The Navy during Nam allowed 2 year degrees for folks and they were allowed into the filght program.

In reality it's supply and demand for pilots. If they need more pilots they lower the standards in education.

One area the Forces could do something about. Allow pilots to be pilots their whole careers. If you don't want to go into being a CO and just fly your whole career what the hell. RAF and the Canuks allow this.

Jack

The IAF also allows it, but they only have a few who agreed to do it.

"Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI

WO are becomming a rare commodity in the Navy, and for the reasons mentioned they are usually in the spec-opps community. Your right in that regard mudd, I was refering to WO aviators in the Navy.

"Enuff jibba jabba sucka F-14's are helluva tough like me" :Mr. T 2003

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jul 11 2003 3:31 PM

They seem to grow on trees in the Army.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

You can't beat Army Aviations High School to Flight School program, good way to get helo's if you have the necessary foucus and apptititude and a young age.



"Enuff jibba jabba sucka F-14's are helluva tough like me" :Mr. T 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Warrant officer aviators do not work in the Airforce

I am a firm believer that the investment made by the DOD to make Competent pilots should not be wasted on individuals that dont meet the current standards or do not strive to raise the bar educationally and competitively. Above all anyone that cant delegate responsibility or required to bear leadership.

IF you dont have a leadership bone in your body or not expected to exercise it, your just another useless peice of FOD on the Flightline.

The only warant officer i want to run into on a flightline is a crusty seasoned 22 year former SNCO that knows how to make shit happen. These are the people that keep the tradition and the workethics and knowledge base solid in our service. But even this is really not required because the civillian sector is takeing over much of these responsebilites with retired veterens.

The Airforce is one great big Bean Counting machine. Warrant Officers will never factor into the grand scheme of things.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mudd,

Are you saying that anyone without a college degree, or otherwise not an officer, doesn't have the ability to fly Air Force planes? If so, I'd have to raise the BS flag on that one. And so what if someone wishes to only fly and not work up the chain of the Corporate Air Force? What's so wrong with having a program similar to the Navy's LDO program? One where a pilot can choose to only fly if he wants to, yet won't go above O-4 since he doesn't wish the "professional development" route. WOs could easily perform this function if these "USAF LDOs" aren't seen to walk the path worthy of being an officer.

It's the same crap I see with the way guys who aspire to fill their USAF committment, then leave to fly civilian, are treated at their squadrons, perception-wise. If a guy doesn't feel like making the AF a career, is there something wrong with that? What the hell ever happened to the time where a guy does his job well during his pilot committment, gets out of the AF on the day that committment is up, and is given a handshake and told "thanks" for the job well done and appreciate you meeting your end of the bargain? Guys, at least in my unit, seem afraid to admit what their future plans are if it doesn't involve making the AF a career; fearful that if someone finds out, they're instantly the next Predator UAV candidate or ALO candidate come assignment time, or they'll be bypassed for upgrades. It shouldn't have to be this way, but it is; and that's a bunch of BS.

And by the way, speaking of leadership and pilots, how many average squadron level pilots actually exercise any form of officership in the sense of commanding anybody? And I'm not talking about the flight commander who cuts and pastes OPR bullets on formflow for the pilots in his flight, but the number of pilots that actually have troops under their command? Next to none. So the only leadership they normally exercise is inflight leadership/discipline; something any WO who has wings should be capable of, just as any officer should. I've seen some WOs with far better leadership ability than a number of my fellow officers could ever dream of having, both higher and lower ranking. Hell, the majority of pilots I know can't even name 3 enlisted that work on their own aircraft, much less anything about their families/lives/etc.

Saying that WOs are somehow incapable or incompetent of flying Air Force aircraft and executing the AF mission, just because they don't have a ring to knock or some degree from some 4 year institution that they never use, is elitest crap.

[quote]
Hell, the majority of pilots I know can't even name 3 enlisted that work on their own aircraft, much less anything about their families/lives/etc.

-----------

I can safely say in the Navy, the above is true. It's actually far worse in the surface Navy.

We put chimps into orbit first before men in the US. It ain't hard to fly. It takes real leadership to aim your troops.

Ring kockers abound in the Forces and their only goal is to advance in rank and damn the troops.

Those Perfumed Princes in the Pentagon really blew the post War problems in Iraq and Afghan. Guess who pays the price?

Jack

Boy this thread went down hill in a hurry and I feel it could get real ugly if not stopped soon by a MOD.

Fender
Hands clear. All switches off, safe or normal. Gun hot or cold? No limit, you bet.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Boy this thread went down hill in a hurry and I feel it could get real ugly if not stopped soon by a MOD.

Fender
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Curiously, how so? Though I may not agree with everything everyone has to say, I still respect the opinions themselves; nothing against the person, ever. On this issue, I disagree with Mudd. I agree with him on many other thread topics; and I've never had any problem with him or anyone else on this forum; everyone I've dealt with has been professional and cordial. Just good, robust debate with differing viewpoints, that's all. That's the beauty of this place. It's been seemingly rare that threads turn into anything personal around here as compared to some other message boards I've seen.

So up to this point (and through the life of this thread), I hope there's nothing the Mods would feel they need to expend brain bytes on, other than their own contributions.

Regards,

Type 7

I dont have an issue with a man speaking his mind in a open discussion Enlisted or Commisioned. So I take no offense on what was said above.


On the topic of a "degreed" aviator versus a "HS diplomed" aviator is simply this. Very few Officers have the G2 to make it as an aviator to begin with, There are specifics required and tests to evaluate aviator canidates. Those that do make the grade still have to perform in a very rigid and fast paced curriculm and flight sylabus, Several rock out and fail to be retrainable. it amazes me there are those that dumb or that lazy <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>.

We are not flying F-86's, even Col. Grabetzky threw in his wings and retired because he admitted he didnt have what it takes intellectually to do it anymore, and he was our Korean War Era Ace.


Anyone can wiggle a stick and kick some rudder. The problem is when everything goes wrong and you have to get your aircraft back, or yourself back alive. Academics is the only thing that will save you.

The complexity of Modern Aircraft, Structuraly, Avionics, Powerplants, and physics. Thats allot to jumble on an individual that doesnt have a calculator in his hand or physics, aeronautics theory in his head to fully evaluate his outcome, and make a decision that means the differnce between a returned jet, or one that is given back to the taxpayers as a pile of scrap.

Better yet, your buddy that took a hit and is "system blind" and needs all his faculties keeping his airframe in the air, well guess what partner, your intellectually planning his emergency procedures, and doing the intellectual work for him. at the same time managageing your self and coordinateing the work load. You have to be so far ahead of the jet intellectually to even think about being effective with its purpose. You need pilots that have the ability to multi task, coordinate, exhibit leadership and make a plan and execute it. Got no time for a helmet fire over "Badguy Land."

You can raise your little BS FLAG and wave it around blameing those in the pentagon that make policy all ya want. They set the standard. We have to live by it.

You dont have what is required to do the job or conduct the mission. IF you think you do, I suggest you pick up the pencil, buy the books and Get yourself a first class education, and make yourself usefull to the Officer aviator community. Id love to see an arrogant head strong guy like yourself in the cockpit, very few men/women anymore have the warrior-hunter instinct in them or the balls to initiate leadership in a combat enviroment. I've plucked more than a few senior officers feathers more than once and ill do it in a heartbeat if they slip up.

This is what I did at 16. Graduated Highschool, began my college and enlisted in the Marine Corps reserve. Sucked the GI bill dry, worked a fulltime job, and graduated at age of 20, was in my first Squadren at 21 with a bunch of old gummer majors and LtCol retreads from the vietnam era busting Broncos, because they didnt have what it takes to fly higher performace aircraft. All I wanted was a helo to go mow jungles with. AirForce thought diferently and kept me in fighters. Hate to be blunt with ya, but theirs nothing in USAF inventory that and enlisted HS Diplomed individual can fly anymore. Those enlisted personal that operate in the UAV programs, are required to have an FAA PPL single engine land/sea Certification.

As far as the crybaby sandbagging zeros that dont like spending time in a UAV squadron, They are fools, and they should suck up that experiance and make themselves useful. The airforce makes it easy for them and they can short tour it. Its a good opportunity and the experiance is highly valuable, especially in mission planning, and joint operations. "you will get noticed by those that make policy"

I dont like lazy people even more than you do Type 7 or those that waste their opportunities away. Nobody likes a pussy or a slacker.

So what you going to do? Bitch and moan like the shitbirds you despise. Or are you going to channel that energy into investing in yourself and earning the right to be a Military aviator?

Thanx for the heads up Fender, but so far no fireworks.

Everyone has discussed the matter in a well disciplined military manner...amazing for officers.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jul 21 2003 7:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

You dont have what is required to do the job or conduct the mission. IF you think you do, I suggest you pick up the pencil, buy the books and Get yourself a first class education, and make yourself usefull to the Officer aviator community. Id love to see an arrogant head strong guy like yourself in the cockpit, very few men/women anymore have the warrior-hunter instinct in them or the balls to initiate leadership in a combat enviroment. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Curious what makes you think I don't have what is required to do the job? As a military pilot myself, I'm simply pointing out the crap I see, and I think everyone sees, but no one wants to do anything about, hence they be seen as one that "rocks the boat", so to speak.

I saw guys with degrees in Aero Engineering bust out of UPT for zero SA, while guys with degrees in Psychology and a little aptitude to pick up the job passed. IMO, it's not just the degree one holds in their hands that makes them able to understand the systems, the mission, the environment (it helps); but it's the guy with the drive to get what he wants that will ultimately be successful. And on that note, not all WOs are GED holders. You can't tell me that flying an Apache for the Army like many of these WOs do is easy systems-wise. These guys can easily encounter the same perils of combat that you outline in your post example. Agree that anyone can wiggle a stick and rudder, but even you've got to admit that these guys have come along way since the days of the UH-1. Would your average WO have the aptitude for TPS? Maybe, maybe not. But then again, not all officers would either.

My point is, don't knock someone simply because of the rank they hold. Being a WO is by no means a measure of some lack or skill or aptitude. I can understand your example of the CWs you worked with in your time, but I don't believe the aviator WOs of today are the same as those of yesterday. I'm sure a good many WOs could not only be trained to fly, but could employ as the weapons system it's designed to be, the A-10. It's a simple aircraft to understand systems-wise, and the mission isn't rocket-science to understand. Hell, the Apache is more complicated systems-wise. Like any officer, the same WO would have to hit the books, have the hands and the SA, and spend the time in the vault in order to be successful in learning their trade.

Going back to the original question. Do I think WOs could pilot USAF aircraft? I say yes. Do I think they'll find a place in the USAF hierarchy? Probably not. On the officer side, it seems that those higher up have no room for someone that wants to only fly; which again, I find no problem with. On the enlisted side, the E-8s and E-9s, especially the ROADs, (IMO) potentially see a job security problem management-wise that don't want to deal with. In any event, there'd be a lot of change requiring a lot of $$$, which we're short of right now anyway.

Regards the UAVs. Sure they're the wave of the future, but would you volunteer for one? I personally don't see ANY pilots jumping at the chance for the (now) 3-year assignment, nor have I seen anyone put this anywhere near the top of their PW. (How can you short UAVs? Both Predator and Global Hawk are standard 2yr 8 month tours last I checked, though I haven't checked recently). Could they all be misinformed? And on the same subject, why are rated officers required to pilot the RQ-1 anyway? Army with the Hunter and Marines with the Pioneer UAVs have enlisted pilots flying them. With the retention problems of today, there could possibly be a good retention tool for mid-level enlisted or even Warrants.

Regards,

Type 7

I seen this issue come up once before and not in cyber space but in real life. A young 2nd Lt (prior enlisted no less)opened his over zealous mouth about W.O.'s. How if you want to become a "real officer" you should go to school and get the 4 year degree like he did. He is flying somewhere in the USAF but I care not where. If you guys have been in as long as I think you have you remember the hopla in the A.F. times. I know the issue here is can W.O.'s be as good avaitors as commisioned officers but I was afraid it would spiral down into a bad debate like that issue did. Sorry if I offended anyone. Gentlemen press with the issue.

Fender
Hands clear. All switches off, safe or normal. Gun hot or cold? No limit, you bet.

My apologies,

I had made an assumption that you were an upset enlisted personality that felt they didnt need to meet the requirements set forth for us. I have no bigoted attitudes towards enlisted folks, only those that are shitbirds enlisted or commissioned its open season for them<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> Which is interesting why someone didnt stop Mudd from going rogue <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle> Ive been getting away with it for 18 years, and the chairforce is getting serious ROI, nobody screws with a proven performer with a pattern of success. I have nothing to fear.

I simply have no respect for those that chose not to carry the weight and responsebility of being an nco, snco or officer in the U.S. Military aviation community. <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

Im a guy that has always been strong willed enough to speak my mind to those that dont want to hear it. I dont need to stand twice to cast a shadow, theres no reason to go hide in one. You can set the example of leadership amongst your peers or you can stow away and follow the poor leadership trying to get by one avoidance at a time.

Its all really subjective. I have no problem with a guy that has the aptitude to do the job. But I do have a problem with a guy that dont want to be an asset to his command and bring up the standards and performance of your unit.

If their DNIF assignment is picking their nose and profileing all day like Elvis, maybe you should go kick that chair out from under there ass and give them a little taste of gravity. Their is always something that needs to get squared away, updated, fixed or changed.

I dont like to be surrounded by folks that are consumed with luxury while others suffer from the workload. maybe its the mavrik in me.

I dont believe in haveing positions that are not accountable to leadership performance of their duties.

The army is doing well with their WO's becasue they have proven performers performing a mission they know very well. Its an investment in their warfighting knowledge.

We have nothing from the tarmac up that provides the enviroment for a right of passage WO' program. If we did I would be all for it.

The reason being is this for example. this would be my ideal use of an USAF WO Program for aviation.

SRA serves a couple years bending wrenches, he changes trade to working with ordnace, another year goes buy and hes workin in ops, he puts forth some off duty personal time to invest in himself academicly, he starts to get noticed, has some pattern of good decision makeing, he performs all his duties well. Its decided this guy is our future. WE miracle his ass to Warrant officer canidate school, he succeeds and moves on to FLight training. a Year later hes in a squadron with his lead sled. This individual is fully capable of carrying out "competent understandings and leadership" of all aspects of duties that is around him. That is a proper use of a warrant officer program for aviatiors. He can make shit happen in the air or on the flightline.

The truth is as you say, allot of guys want to jackoff and get by. we have no use for them....



Edited by - mrmudd on Jul 21 2003 8:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I know the issue here is can W.O.'s be as good avaitors as commisioned officers but I was afraid it would spiral down into a bad debate like that issue did. Sorry if I offended anyone. Gentlemen press with the issue.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think this has been one of very few discussions that have popped up on this site. That have any merit for discussion.

We are suffering bad in the military, Stop loss has been instituted, through the years commitment requirements slowly have been extended. With a volunteer military we need to keep and invest in those that want to make it a career, Its a serious ROI for us.

Unfortunately there is very few incentives or opportunities for those that wish to climb the warfighting ladder and perform higher level duties.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I seen this issue come up once before and not in cyber space but in real life. A young 2nd Lt (prior enlisted no less)opened his over zealous mouth about W.O.'s. How if you want to become a "real officer" you should go to school and get the 4 year degree like he did. He is flying somewhere in the USAF but I care not where. If you guys have been in as long as I think you have you remember the hopla in the A.F. times. I know the issue here is can W.O.'s be as good avaitors as commisioned officers but I was afraid it would spiral down into a bad debate like that issue did. Sorry if I offended anyone. Gentlemen press with the issue.

Fender

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No offense taken at all. At least you're looking out for the forum by simply being a "good neighbor" and pointing out potential conflicts based on past events. And I can appreciate that.

The WO issue is a touchy one, I'll admit. To bring in WOs in the first place would be not only a huge administrative endeavor, but require $$$ to incorporate. On the plus side, much of the infrastructure such as pay charts, insignia, etc already exist, though those are probably small potatoes in the overall concept.

Aside from the admin hurdles of having WOs back in the USAF, the argument arises of their qualifications and capabilities. I think a lot of the dislike of WOs being pilots in the AF (referring to aviatior WOs here only) is sour grapes among many of my fellow pilots. Sour grapes in the sense of questions such as "Why did I have spend 4 years at the AF Academy in order to get a pilot slot, when this UPT classmate of mine with 1-2 years of college, and 9 weeks of Warrant Officer school has the same opportunity as me?" Granted, the whole concept of (aviator) WOs is to have guys who's sole job is to specialize in the art of flying the mission, but won't be burdened with seeking command, management schools and other PME, tons of additional duties (they'd have some), etc. Like in the Army, the commissioned officers are around to run the aviation unit as the Platoon Leaders, Company Commanders, etc; while the majority of their pilots are WOs, who are the professional aviators. Yes, the commissioned aviators fly and keep current, but they have many other duties and responsibilities to look after too. Neither side of the spectrum, IMO, is better or worse than the other; it just depends on what the particular person seeks in their career.

Now lets apply this to the AF in theory, and aside from the administrative points mentioned above. Say you have an A-10 squadron with many warrants and a few officers to be the few other line pilots, and also Flt commanders, DO, CC etc. You could then have WOs whose sole concentration is to be the professional pilots, that's all they'd do. Problem is, I think there'd be possible fear of a "Warrant mafia" or something like that, in the sense that it'd be a severe culture shock for the Air Force pilot fraternity, which prides itself on it's pilots all being officers. I'm amused already picturing how it'd be grudgingly accepted by some of the guys in my own squadron.

I've met very capable WOs out there. Retention-wise, IMO, it could help the AF by giving junior NCOs an opportunity to do some things in the AF that they may not have had the chance to do before. For instance, a WO UAV pilot could be a job aspiration for that NCO who, due to factors such as limited funds/time for college, finishing college late, over age limits, etc, would finally be able to accomplish a goal that he/she had been desiring, but had been unable, for whatever reason, to attain. The desire and drive has been there, but the opportunity hasn't, until now. That's just one example for the retention side of the question.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
My apologies,

I had made an assumption that you were an upset enlisted personality that felt they didnt need to meet the requirements set forth for us. I have no bigoted attitudes towards enlisted folks, only those that are shitbirds enlisted or commissioned its open season for them<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> Edited by - mrmudd on Jul 21 2003 8:31 PM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No problem at all, Mudd. And I agree with your points made in your last post. Stop Loss, and other programs are hurting us a lot. As a former enlisted myself, I see opportunities and incentives for the enlisted force becoming fewer and fewer. I just look for some ways to help those guys out; perhaps even a WO maintenance officer program would have some merit, perhaps not.

All around, even with all the merits of a program, I don't have the working knowlege nor brain bytes admin-wise to be able to work the details of implementing such a change.

Appreciate the civil discussion and good exchange of ideas in this thread. As usual, I learned some things I hadn't considered before, and some other good new information.

That's what makes this forum a cut above others.

Regards,

Mike

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> 90% of all Viper drivers will do an ALFA tour at some point in their career. We have generally avoided sending ALFA-complete pilots to second ALFA tours involuntarily. However, to be able to do so, all non-ALFA-complete pilots should expect to go ALFA early—typically in their second or third assignment. In general, ALFA-bound Viper drivers are as likely to go to an ALO or UAV as a white jet.

Be realistic on your PW. If you have never done an ALFA…put down your choices. If you don’t prefer an Alfa tour, put in the officer’s comments section that “I don’t prefer an Alfa tour now, however if selected for one, my preferences are…” If you want to avoid an ALFA, you may express a preference for other assignments, but you may still be needed to fill ALFA requirements. Without your inputs and your commander’s recommendations, we will choose when and where you complete your ALFA tour.

You may want consider an ALO or UAV tour over a white jet. For non-remote ALOs, expect us to pull you out after 24 months post training. This equates to about 26 to 27 months out of the Viper--versus 39 months for a white jet. You may prefer to live in Las Vegas (UAV) or Europe (ALO). Additionally, we must fill Jump ALO billets with volunteers, so we will load an advance assignment for Jump ALO volunteers. For remote-complete Jump ALO volunteers, we’ll load the advance assignment to the base of your choice. For non-remote complete Jump ALO volunteers, we’ll load an advance assignment to their CONUS base of choice. For an Alfa tour, the quickest turn back to the Viper is a remote ALO. Its only a year long, and fills the Alfa square and Remote square all in one. For follow-on assignments, we’ll give “increased consideration” for Remote ALO volunteers. For more info see the links below:

<font color=red>UAV Update: Predators are rapidly growing in numbers and therefore the requirements that we are directed to fill are increasing. Starting in the Summer 03 AFAS cycle (January 03 match) pilots selected for the Predator will be placed on a 3 year assignment from date arrived station (previously the assignment was 2 years post training). In addition we give ALFA credit for UAVs, however the UAV tour is not an ALFA tour. What that means is we don't need you to volunteer for a second ALFA tour to select you for a UAV. </font id=red>

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Wow they must of changed this in the past 6 months, Gotta love Uncle Rumsfield for that one! Glad Ive done my alpha tours long ago...

[quote]
I know the issue here is can W.O.'s be as good avaitors as commisioned officers ----------

Not well known is the amount of former Army WOs from Nam, that went to college received their degrees and ended up flying in the Navy. Probably had well over 10% of the 73-74 rated Naval Aviators from the Army. These dudes were very excellent stick and rudder. Generally ranked at the top of their class. What upset the powers to be, many times they had their pick of aircraft and many went the C-9 route to be setup for the airlines.

Army didn't need so many WOs following the peak of Nam and gave many of them an early out.

The IAF has no problem training them as pilots right out of High School.

Regarding old Gabby. In his Korean War tour, he never used the F-86 far out gunsight. He just put a dot on the canopy and used that to hose down the Mig-15s. Apparently many of the 86 aces did the same. Think 25% of the Korean War Aces were also aces from WW2. Experience always helps.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Problem is, I think there'd be possible fear of a "Warrant mafia" or something like that, in the sense that it'd be a severe culture shock for the Air Force pilot fraternity, which prides itself on it's pilots all being officers.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We already have a CMSgt mafia in the maintenance world. That is one reason why W.O.'s would get the cold shoulder on the ground. The Chiefs run the maintenance world and let the MXG/CC and his officers think they do. I could see problems with W.O's on both sides, Aviation and Maintenance.

Fender
Hands clear. All switches off, safe or normal. Gun hot or cold? No limit, you bet.

I enlisted as an acft mechanic after high school, and as soon as I hit the flight line, I knew I wanted to be a pilot. In order to reach my goal, I went to school in my off time, and eventually received a ROTC scholarship…. Two years later, I’m a 2LT at UPT.

My point is this: had there been a warrant officer program, I definitely would have gone for it (at one point I actually considered becoming an Army WO and fly helos). But, now that I’ve completed my commissioning program, I realize the importance of a solid education, and I wouldn’t want to give that up for anything (I’m sorry, the CCAF doesn’t cut it). Also, there are tons of opportunities to go from E to O and get a pilot slot, you just have push yourself, everyday.

My experience leads me to believe that if you want to become a military pilot, you should suck it up, pay your dues, and get a commission. It will all be worth it at the end of the day. But that’s just my $.02.