I have often wondered why only officers are allowed fly aircraft. I know enlisted personal are allowed to serve various crew roles but flying as always been a officers job. Same thing in the Navy. why is this?

It sort of has to do with several things.
The cost of the aircraft.
Having something for lower ranked officers to do.
What it takes to get officers to enroll in the military.
The "Esprit De" of the first world war pilots.
It's interesting that when things get nasty, pilots have been replaced/augmented with senior enlisted or warrants in all the flying services; at least for the duration.

Many years ago, I was eligible to train (short course) for either a Helicopter pilot, Spotter pilot, or boat captain (river rats, Vietnam). The drawbacks were the short life expectancy, and the fact that the rate I was in was also in short supply, so the navy would have had to grant a release, which they were not about to do.

Had I done so, and survived, it's doubtful that I would have had anything to do with the military after active duty in Vietnam was completed. Since there were few if any paying billets in the reserves for non commissioned pilots, the situation I eventually ran into would have occurred much sooner. I left the reserves after ten years, because the next step was warrant, and there were no paying billets at the time for my specialty. (Which had been "frozen" for transfer to others while I was on active duty.)

It's just the way things are – and it is not just fighters, it is all aircraft. The Air Force has the ability to be selective of its aviators. Right now, the program works well the way it is. It is an honorable position to hold and it is reserved for officers. For most nations, nowadays, to be a pilot/nav/abm is reserved for officers – so we are not any different.

There are many reasons for this. For the most part, they have proven that they are responsible finishing their degree and completing flight training. They have a few more years under there belt. Not to say that an enlisted individual couldn’t do just as well or even better. Down the road when an officer is in for a leadership position such as squadron commander of a flying squadron, the individual should have been an aviator. Right now the Air Force is not strained for pilots/navs/abms. There is simply no need for enlisted flyers in those fields.

Other issues – an enlisted aviator in our Air Force today, could never be more than a co-pilot or wingman. Hypothetically, with Officers flying along side, they could never take a leadership position in the air for command and rank structure reasons. They could never progress in aviation positions. It could create issues on crew platforms that have rated aviators in the back – Navs/EWO/WSO/ABM.

I would not be opposed to having well qualified senior NCOs or warrants flying if we really needed them, but we don’t. In the future there may be opportunities for enlisted pilots on UAVs, but I doubt we will ever see enlisted in rated positions again.

It's because of the silly idea possession of a baccalaureate is the same as being a leader It’s because having a commission supposedly means having good character and good judgment. Part of the reason is officer is considered a career officer of government (the military commission) and enlisted is considered a work force. Leadership and command authority differ. Command authority is a legal instrument conferred by government authority that can be given to a chimpanzee as it is not character trait as leader ability is. The last time I checked the NCO is expected to be a leader. The difference is the authority of command is not extended by authority of government to the NCO.

Flying an airplane is not considered work and since it is not work it is the pampered privilege of the sons and daughters of the wealthy elite who can afford a higher education or those families who have political connection to get into a service academy to fly aircraft.

The system is what it is (certainly not perfect), and I don't imagine they are going to change it anytime soon. You obviously see several problems with the way things currently are. I know you have vast amounts of experience (life/military). What would you propose we do to the system? Are you in favor of enlisted rated flyers? How would your ideal program work? Would they start right out of basic? If not, when would they be able to cross-train and what qualifications should the have? I'm just curious what you would employ. I'm sure this has be discussed many times before, so it is nothing new.

quote:

Originally posted by maxon:
You obviously see several problems with the way things currently are.

Perhaps, but my comment was more directed at “Down the road when an officer is in for a leadership position such as squadron commander of a flying squadron, the individual should have been an aviator.” Specifically why is this truth of life for the Air Force? It was also a make fun of “It is an honorable position to hold and it is reserved for officers.” AND “For the most part, they have proven that they are responsible finishing their degree and completing flight training.”

Although leading, commanding, and military commission have similarities leading isn’t domain limited to having military commission or having command authority. It is the command authority and not leadership that puts emphasis on the rated flying jobs requiring a commission and one of several causes for why enlisted is limited and restricted from doing such jobs. The enlisted shall not do this job doesn’t result from the rated aviation position being honorable.

The education and development of the military officer is for qualification for appointment of command and having command authority to determine direct and order military operations and missions to happen. Leadership is certainly desirable but command exists for reasons of being the agent of government deciding the better military actions that should or should not happen.

It is combat command authority to order and instruct units to conduct and accomplish military operations and missions that is the truth behind the rated aviator should be a commissioned officer in the Air Force. It is the aircraft, missiles, and UAV destructive capability rather than boots on the ground and fleets of ships that conduct and accomplish combat operations. Consequently, the purpose for putting persons of military commission in rated positions is for the gaining of experience to fill combat commander positions and to be on headquarter staffs to work strategies and plans, and other military policy matters such as why the F-22 needs to be replaced so soon by the F-35.

What about being pilot results in it being an honorable position to hold compared to other military occupations that it demands only a person holding a military commission do such work? It certainly has nothing to do with honor, unless pampered privilege is on the table for determining what an honorable occupation is or is not.

A pilot rating has no more stronger connection to the trait of character a military commission requires and being a leader than any other occupation or work skill.

The trait of character for eligibility for commission is established by the U.S. Congress is of good moral character. This of good moral character is not a requirement for being conscripted to serve an enlisted term of military obligation or to voluntarily serve an enlisted term of service. This required trait of character, not level or degree of academic achievement is the primary distinguishing difference between enlisted and commissioned

quote:

10USC532
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, an original appointment as a commissioned officer (other than as a commissioned warrant officer) in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps may be given only to a person who--
(1) is a citizen of the United States;
(2) is able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before his sixty-second birthday;
(3) is of good moral character;
(4) is physically qualified for active service; and
(5) has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe by regulation.

Also

quote:

10USC603

(a) In time of war, or of national emergency declared by the Congress or the President after November 30, 1980, the President may appoint any qualified person (whether or not already a member of the armed forces) to any officer grade in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, except that appointments under this section may not be made in grades above major general or rear admiral. Appointments under this section shall be made by the President alone, except that an appointment in the grade warrant officer, W-1, shall be made by warrant by the Secretary concerned.
(b) Any appointment under this section is a temporary appointment and may be vacated by the President at any time.

So, I certainly can be in favor of enlisted rated flyers right out of basic if we are only talking about the work of flying an aircraft. The AFSC would be managed just like any other enlisted AFSC. Not a problem to implement such an enlisted AFSC.

In my world this question is akin to what qualifies a CEO to be a CEO. Unfortunately all too often the answer is nothing, or that they were in the right place at the right time. Leadership ability is not taught in college. Nor is common sense for that matter. Presumably if one is smart enough to get through flight school and have a flying career without crashing they are at least somewhat competent at flying, although it doesn't prove anything else. Hopefully those who become leaders are chosen for their leadership abilities rather than their azz kissing abilities, but I wouldn't count on it.

I can't begin to tell you how many hours of my life have been wasted by Sr. Executive boneheads. Of course, I was getting paid for it so it wasn't a total loss. Some of them had MBAs from prestigous universities, so they were your highly educated idiots. The hardest part was not giving any indication of what I really thought about them. I was not always successful (to my detriment).

What David Hackworth described as the military's main problems always struck me as being universal.

“Down the road when an officer is in for a leadership position such as squadron commander of a flying squadron, the individual should have been an aviator.” Specifically why is this truth of life for the Air Force? – For me personally, while deployed / and even at home, I would prefer a squadron commander who is not only a flyer, but a flyer in my MWS. I know there are plenty of great leaders out there who can command a squadron. I’m just saying that I would want that individual to be an expert or at least very knowledgeable in our aircraft and mission. I would not call this a truth, just a highly desirable situation. And you are right, “the purpose for putting persons of military commission in rated positions is for the gaining of experience to fill combat commander positions and to be on headquarter staffs to work strategies and plans.”

*REAL WORLD ACCOUNT* An Intel Officer was assigned to command our deployed squadron. The first day on the job, and the deployed Group Commander told the Intel Officer that he would not allow a non-rated flyer command his Recon Squadron, and a new commander was put in place. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but that is what happened, and goes to show the Air Force’s philosophy.

I completely agree that command authority and leadership are separately. Obviously you can have one or the other, or both – or neither. Yes command authority comes with rank, but leadership can exist at any level. I know officers who could not lead there way out of the latrine, that happen are in charge of entire shops. I also know plenty of NCO’s and even airmen that could take charge of any project or mission assigned to them and do great things managing and leading.

I never said that any other career field, officer or enlisted, was not honorable. Every field is. I admit it was worded poorly. That being said, I want it to be known that while I am a rated aviator, but am not a pilot. I’m an Electronic Warfare Officer – which is a split field from Navigator. It so happens that in the Marines, they use enlisted navigators which works out quite well. So it is clearly possible and does work for the Marines. Maybe the Air Force sticks with Officers out of tradition. Enlisted aviators have typically been the exception to the rule. I’m sure the Air Force could make it work, but I doubt Big Blue is willing to change its ways.

So in the end, it is possible, but highly unlikely that the Air Force will ever swing in this direction again.

Look at it this way.... If the Officers aren't flying planes, they would have to be doing something.... And I sure as hell aint having a gunho captain or major out on an aircraft as a load team member trying to load cargo.

No offense to Officers.

There is some interesting discusion going on about a very similar topic under the Gates article and his UAV comments.

http://www.military.com/news/article/pentagon-boss-slam...orce-war-effort.html

quote:

Originally posted by maxon:
I never said that any other career field, officer or enlisted, was not honorable.

If you had I would have chosen different wording and not made it clear I was poking fun at. However, the Air Force has all of its top leadership dependant on being a rated officer and as the force structure shrinks and strategic deterrence is being sold away and readiness for fighting a conventional war abandoned, the preference that rated experience is required is slowly but surely disconnected from the purpose of why the rated position requires the person in the position to hold a military commission.

The referenced article reveals the Achilles heal of purpose for requiring rated positions having a military commission. There is growing belief the Air Force as separate military service has out lived its usefulness. The rated military officer in the Air Force needs to consider why they have a commission and begin to step up to the plate with doing other non-flying duties and responsibilities in the joint arena.

The Army is pushing very hard for ownership of the last tactical mile. Meaning C-130 troop transport, Helicopter troop transport, special operations aircraft (do away with AFSOC as it owned by USSOCOM anyway), get control of all UAV both tactical and long range surveillance, etc. The referenced Gates article is just the tip of the already published articles suggesting the hand writing to be on the wall.

Some of the greatest pilots in Air Force history have been enlisted flyers. Chuck Yeager, Frank Hurlburt, Gerald Adams, and some 200 other fighter pilots from WW2 to include ten of the twenty four aces from the 82nd Fighter Group. After WW2 they were either quickly shown the ground jobs, or given commisions. In my opinion this was done so that flying records would show officers were the ones who flew the combat missions of WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by maxon:

*REAL WORLD ACCOUNT* An Intel Officer was assigned to command our deployed squadron. The first day on the job, and the deployed Group Commander told the Intel Officer that he would not allow a non-rated flyer command his Recon Squadron, and a new commander was put in place.

If it was a flying organization and the commissioned Intel officer was not occupying an active flying position the cause for removal was the following policy.

quote:

AFI 51-604 APPOINTMENT TO AND ASSUMPTION OF COMMAND:

5.1. Only Line of the Air Force crewmembers occupying active flying positions can command flying organizations.

Since the Air Force as a total organization is a flying organization this pretty much says the rated officer will hold the top combat commander and top functional positions. Functional area such as Security Forces may have a non-rated General officer in charge of functional decisions, but when it comes to combat operations the mission of the Air Force is to fly and fight by employing flying organizations. Thus the rated officer owns the top combat commander positions within the Air Force organization and the combat chain of command.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: johca,

It seems to me the actions and deeds of enlisted personal are often overshadowed by the officers appointed over them.

That's how it normally rolls.... Officer takes the credit when the work is good, but when something bad happens they go straight to the source.

quote:

Originally posted by TeamAmerica:
I have often wondered why only officers are allowed fly aircraft. I know enlisted personal are allowed to serve various crew roles but flying as always been a officers job. Same thing in the Navy. why is this?

Having been someone who served 10 years enlisted, got the degree, and pursued a flying slot, here are a couple of thoughts..

As others have eluded, it's the defined standard. A good lawyer can argue the need for a fully empowered/authority rank (officer). But I think the ultimate answer is a bit simpler. If everyone could be a pilot, everyone would be. Even with an engineering degree, the flight training environment kicked my ass, and is not something we can afford to offer every yahoo that walks into a recruiting office. The standard has to be high at the very start.

If you really, really want to be a pilot/nav, there are plenty of programs and opportunities available to get you there - but you need to work for it.

If you're enlisted and want to step up to the next level, you've got TA, the new and improved MGIB, and several versions of AECP to choose from. You have no excuse to whine about not having the opportunity(ies).

If you're civilian, you've got ROTC, an enlisted tour to get you those things mentioned above, and even OTS. College is the base requirement. There will be more.

Throughout my years, I've given this response to every individual who has voiced the old "why do officers get XXXX" whine. I hated hearing it as an airman because it was usually followed by some more whining about how they didn't get the break they were due, yadda, yadda. I now hate hearing it as an officer. You should know better.

Bottom line, NO ONE serving enlisted can (IMHO)complain that they have not had opportunity to become an officer. The standard starts with a degree and goes from there.

Furthermore, if the glory and rank is why you want to do it, come back some other time when you've thought on it some more. You better be prepared for an enourmous responsibility. It aint all flyin' jets and drinkin beer.

And if you really think that, it's pretty obvious you've got some "issues" or you don't know squat about what you're spouting.

Just my $0.02 thoughts...

quote:

Originally posted by Desertengineer:
As others have eluded, it's the defined standard. A good lawyer can argue the need for a fully empowered/authority rank (officer). But I think the ultimate answer is a bit simpler. If everyone could be a pilot, everyone would be. Even with an engineering degree, the flight training environment kicked my ass, and is not something we can afford to offer every yahoo that walks into a recruiting office. The standard has to be high at the very start.

The connection of military pilot and commission isn’t functional fitness and ability to fly an aircraft. The connection of rated pilot to commission is driven by The Constitution of the United States has been the basis of the commissioned officer’s legal authority, his power to exercise command, as well as his position within the military hierarchy of rank that gives him authority over warrant officers and enlisted to include noncommissioned officers. The Air Force decided pilot in command of aircraft was similar to command of a battleship and command of troops to order and direct into battle. Concurrent with this was the choice of possession of a baccalaureate degree being the least class conscious eligibility of being appointed leader of military units rather than being of family having nobility titles or wealthy member of the aristocrat families. The original intent was free movement from the enlisted ranks to commission based on demonstrated command potential.

The qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer of--(1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before his sixty-second birthday; (3) is of good moral character; (4) is physically qualified for active service; and (5) has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe by regulation—has become focused on the singular requirenent of must have a baccalaureate. The belief is baccalaureate strengthens and ensures the person is of good moral character and has the technical and other cognitive abilities to perform military duties having the highest responsibility or moral competencies. This is why rated military pilots must hold a commission. The exceptrion being the Helicopter pilot which as all real fighter and bomber pilots know is less an aircraft than a glider or a hot air ballon. Of course they quickly change their attitude when they need to be rescued.

quote:

Originally posted by johca:
The exceptrion being the Helicopter pilot which as all real fighter and bomber pilots know is less an aircraft than a glider or a hot air ballon. Of course they quickly change their attitude when they need to be rescued.

E-Force 2 tha rescue!

Consider another aspect -

There are significant resources invested into pilot training in order to train and retain qualified pilots. Do we show a HS recruit a brochure at the recruiter's office and upon his/her promise to "try their best" go ahead and make such an investment in them? Or do you go with he college graduate -- all other things being equal. The leadership aspects come later as the competence and confidence grow with responsibility of the next rank.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule -- but as a rule the practice of commissioned officer aviators has served the AF well. Especially in the absence of warrant officer ranks contained in the other services. The stronger case is made for re-instituting them into the AF as opposed to the notion of NCO aviators...IMHO.

Whether or where we need commissioned officers can be debated. However, the criteria should not be confused with holy scripture...we can change it when it suits the nation's interest to do so.

So then do we:

- Broaden the criteria for who can obtain a commission?
- Eliminate the "commission" requirement as an AF aviator pre-requisite?

Note: as it currently stands -- the path toward commission and acceptance to flight training is clear and up front to all interested. It does require devout determination and much hard work...but there are many precedents. Choices must be made and prices must be paid!

So why the requirement for Navigators to be Rated Officers? They are not in control so to speak.