So, I'm in the process of applying to the Army for either WOFT or OCS. I've taken my MEPS physical and am scheduled to take the AFAST next week. My recruiter says that I can apply for either program because I have a degree and PPL. I'm kind of confused about the differences between a WO and an Officer though. From what I understand, WOs are primarily skill-focused, while Aviation Officers are command-focused. But everything I've been reading about WOs says that they have significant leadership roles and take part in mission planning, assigning, and even training. So, if WOs and Officers both have leadership roles, and they both fly as well, what is the real difference between them aside from the paycheck? I like the idea of WOFT because of the guaranteed flight training, but I like the idea of leadership experience as well. Any input would be most appreciated. Thanks!
I know it's difficult at your stage to try and envision your career 20 years down the road, but it really comes down to two choices; do you have goals of someday being a battalion (squadron ) commander, or would you rather have less responsibility and stay in the cockpit for your career? That's really as basic as you can make it when trying to distinguish the difference between warrant and commsisoned offficers. As mentioned, there is pay differences as well. Some guys are just fine flying and not interested in being in charge of anything (outside flight duties). But you might be the guy who has aspirations of making a difference as a commander where you saw shortcomings as a junior officer. The Army can squelch that kind of idealism pretty fast. The Army is currently experiencing massive drawdowns like the rest of the military, and Army Aviation is no different. I would recommend whichever program you believe gives you the best chance of success. If flying is really all you're going to be happy with, I've seen dozens of hopeful pilot candidates go through OCS only to find themselves at Ft Benning, GA driving a Striker, or at Ft Bliss, TX as a platoon leader in a CBR or artillery unit...needs of the Army, just sayin'. MR-
Thanks for all of the info. Much appreciated. Do you think that, if i went to OCS, that the Army would take my PPL into consideration on branching day? I know that OCS performance is the main thing, but would the Army give a pilot slot to someone else who can run a little faster than me even if they've never flown a plane or helo in their life? (I have my fixed-wing license along with around 20 helicopter hours)
The only thing I know about the Army is that they only fly helos (is that what you want?). Also, a great question to ask someone that's "been there, done that" is when the selection for aviation happens, either before you step foot at WOFT (sp?) or if after a certain amount of time at WOFT you are ranked against your peers based on athleticism, test scores, etc and granted an assignment. Your previous pilot experience might be a tie-breaker, but no more. Navy generally selects you as a pilot/nfo and assumes that if you are medically qualified, you will be given the chance to enter flight training. Also, navy flies fixed AND rotary. Another piece of knowledge that I've gleaned is that warrant officers can be in leadership positions almost as much as line (normal commissioned?) officers. I'm not sure on the exact wording, but I do know that warrant officers are limited in terms of their future opportunities. Whereas a normal commissioned officer could someday become a skipper, the warrant officer will not. (Anyone who knows more on this, please feel free to correct me).
I actually did apply to Navy OCS two years ago, right after I completed my Bachelor's. I had my BA and flight experience but i got sixes on my ASTB and they said i needed to have sevens. I put down pilot first and NFO second. Now I'm 29 though and they said I'm too old. The army moved the age limit up to 33, so I said Awesome!
I don't believe you can get a definitive answer to that question (and it has been asked many times on AW with varying opinions). I know nothing about Army preferences, but in the Navy, you are required to fly The Navy Way. There is a school of thought in the Training Command who feel that a PPL or 'some' private flight time gives the SNA a slight leg up on the learning curve. There is another group of Flight Instructors who believe that previous flight time is an impediment in the early stages of primary, as some procedural habit patterns have to be broken before learning 'the Navy way'! In my experiencc, most primary FIs I've queried about this, have preferred a "clean slate" on previous flight time. In the end, it's up to the selection boards, so who knows??? I do feel that lt does not carry the weight that most applicants think it does, or that it's worth 4 or 5 figure $$$ to invest in getting maybe a slight edge in the selection process (unless Daddy is rich). BzB BzB
I can understand the thing about breaking bad habits. I flew with a Marine pilot once, and he was showing me stuff that I'd never try in a Cessna (haha). But shouldn't having the PPL at least show the selection boards that you are someone who is capable of completing some flight training successfully? And also that you are someone with initiative and can accomplish goals?
First, I said procedural habits...they're not necessarily 'bad', just not the Navy way. Secondly, each selection board has different people who may have different views on the subject. They are near unpredictable. That's why I stated previously, that while we can offer opinions, I don't think we can give you a definitive answer. Again, how much in $$$ is it worth/or can one afford... to [possibly] give them a slight edge? It's a gamble! In your case, you already have the PPL, so it's moot. Just give it a go and keep your fingers crossed. BzB
Well, from a flight standpoint, the Warrant Officer has benefits. If you are accepted into the WOFT program, you will be an aviator (if you pass everything.) There is no guarantee at OCS. Drop both packets, and then decide. When I was applying in 2009, it was much harder to get selected for WOFT than OCS. I know a guy who applied and was a non-select twice for WOFT, and went to OCS (and branched aviation). Prior flight experience will be a plus on your WOFT packet, along with good PT scores, a killer AFAST, and six killer LORs. Good luck.
Oh, cool, I didn't realize that I could apply for both. Thanks for the great input everyone. My next step will be the AFAST and then passing the flight phys. If I do the OCS route then at least ill have those 2 things completed already.
I would apply for the one you really want first, and then try the other. A good friend of mine went to the same recruiter as I did. He went OCS, and I went WOFT. Before he went to OCS he already had his AFAST done and his flight physical. He said that helped him when it came to branch selection. Be aware that the Army is dumping the AFAST for another test, called the SIFT I believe. I would still get the AFAST scheduled and studied for, but be prepared to have to take a different test when the time comes.
Oh snap. A new test? I wonder if theyll just take the AFAST score. Well ill still take it because I've studied already for it, but I guess ill just have to see. Thanks for the heads up
Gents, I'm new to this site. Registered after reading some really funny misperceptions about Army warrant officers and Army aviation. I flew both USAF and US Army so I have a pretty good feel for both worlds. That said, I've been out of the game for a few years. Passed the torch to the next generation, etc. Army WO history. Prior to 1987, all Army WO's were appointed. This included W-1 thru W-4. CW2-CW4 were commissioned in 1987 to bring them into line with the other services. W-5 added to the mix in the 1990s. Army WOs were managed by the Warrant Officer Branch and were part of the Warrant Office Corps until integrated into their respective branches (Aviation, Transportation, etc). While the aviation warrant officer remains in the role of 'professional aviator'/technical expert, warrant officers often hold command positions. During my time, I saw CW3/CW4 platoon leaders and company/troop commanders. Usually these are interim positions due to shortages of LT/CPTs but some were permanent assignments. As for aircraft, Army WOs fly both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. There is no exclusion of WOs from the fixed wing community. The reality is that the Army has a heck of a lot more helicopters than it does fixed wing aircraft so there just aren't that many fixed wing slots available in the aviation system. This applies to both commissioned officers and warrant officers. In the 1980s, it seemed like a lot of women aviators were put into the fixed wing community but that's just my two-cent opinion. Internally, commissioned types are referred to as RLO's (roll-o's) or Real Live Officers. The biggest difference between the COs and WOs is that by the time a CO makes O-3/CPT, he can generally expect staff assignments to take him out of a frontline flying slot. WOs will generally fulltime pilots with additional staff duties -- sliding into Flight Standards (IP), maintenance, armament, or safety fields.
Welcome to the site! Sounds like you're out of the Army, but do you still fly? What did you fly in the USAF and USA? We've got a few other USAF/USA-types here on here; it's awesome to hear their perspective on things. We all share the same airspace as we fight the same fight - I think you'll enjoy mixing it up with us.
Thanks for the welcome. I still fly but not commercially. Mostly light aerobatics in piston-powered aircraft. As for service flying, I flew A-10s and AH-64s.
My only question is why you went to the Army to fly helos, when you were already in the AF flying the coolest jet ever designed?
Well. At the time (early 1980s), the 'coolest jet ever designed' was viewed very differently. The AF really didn't want to do the CAS mission. I did a fair amount of work with Army attack helicopters (AH-1 Cobras) via JAAT (Joint Air Attack Team) and thought the helo's were better suited to the role. At the time, A-10 pilots probably had more in common with their Army attack helo counterparts than they did with the USAF fighter community. So, when my time was up, I signed on with the Army. I was very fortunate in that the AH-64 was just coming into service and I did well enough to get selected. Plus the AH-64 is the coolest attack helicopter ever designed. When I left active duty, there were no AH-64 units in the northeast so I went ANG and back into A-10s for a few years.
My old man flew A-10s with the Syracuse unit in the 80s. You weren't around that unit in that time frame were you?
No. I was never with the 174th. They traded their Hogs for F-16s pretty quickly and were out of them before the first Gulf War.
