I was talking to a friend who posed an interesting question. I do know we have discussed inter-service transfer boards and such for "regular officers" but not specifically for special circumstances. I remember reading that "warrant officers" were not eligible for the IST on the recent publications. So the person I know is a Cwo-3 and Ah-64 guy. He had a BS prior to going WOFT and wanted to go the OCS route but decided like many to go WOFT to be sure to fly. I think he is roughly about 35 presently and his time is coming up. Considering he is by definition a "Commissioned Officer" but yet a WO would he be going the OCC route (assuming ignoring all the age waiver impossibilities) ? I do realize that Lt's and Capt's in the Army just go through TBS and could fly for the USMC as the age thing really doesn't apply to those folks.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Army Aviator (Warrant Officer) to Marine Aviator?
- Thread starter lawilm
- Start date
So....what's your question, then?
60dude
New Member
So I guess there is NO way judging by the number of responses.
Jerry Curl
New Member
Just an FYI Sir, on www.marineocs.com there is an active OSO Officer that recently joined, and would be able to answer your question. After an introduction, post under the OCC forum. I am interested to see how this all works out for you regarding an IST to another branch. I have always thought the WOFT program was a good deal; if you are successful, hopefully that would bode well for future Warrant Officer IST applicants.
The OSO is Gatorbama, btw.
The OSO is Gatorbama, btw.
60dude
New Member
The WOFT program is definitely a good deal. Flying experience is absolutely where the army excels at, the only problem here is that there's a definite line of segregation between Regular O grades and Warrant Officers that is almost comparable to the Enlisted. A grown adult can only be treated like a child for so long.
As far the Marines go, I've read that Warrant Officers are a no go for IST. Plus I'm tired of being out in the field, time for some sea time.
As far the Marines go, I've read that Warrant Officers are a no go for IST. Plus I'm tired of being out in the field, time for some sea time.
I had two former Army winged WO's in squadrons I served in. In both cases they had to go thru OCS, TBS, and flight school like everyone else. This was a long time ago FWIW.
OUCH! Definitely not the same going the other way (Navy to Army). No OCS or WOCS. No TBS or Basic. No flight school. It was still a bit of overkill when I had to attend the Blackhawk AQC with 1400 Seahawk hours under my belt. Six years in the National Guard and I am STILL trying to learn the Army way and unlearn the Navy way.
Navy = Higher minimum level of expertise, more professionalism, more tradition, unchanging rules, more rules
Army = Some very high expertise and flight experience (upper warrant community), very broad experience, frequent reinventing of the wheel, rules written and equipment fielded because of stupidity (Cyclic mounted stabilator slew up switch), more freedom (more rope to hang yourself), training and rules geared to a lower denominator
The Navy tends to encourage professionalism and exertise through generous doses of humiliation. The Army embraces "suckage" and often takes pride in seeing how long they can bang their heads against a wall. Different appraches to different end goals.
I did the Navy helo thing with a small deck and a carrier deployment. ASW was still important and the ASST missions weren't bad. But even flying into Somalia during an invasion as a Navy pilot was relatively safe compared to the Army flying I've done. The Navy tends to (overly?) protect its helos from threats. The Army, not so much. Which is better? I like them both for different reasons.
Army = Some very high expertise and flight experience (upper warrant community), very broad experience, frequent reinventing of the wheel, rules written and equipment fielded because of stupidity (Cyclic mounted stabilator slew up switch), more freedom (more rope to hang yourself), training and rules geared to a lower denominator
The Navy tends to encourage professionalism and exertise through generous doses of humiliation. The Army embraces "suckage" and often takes pride in seeing how long they can bang their heads against a wall. Different appraches to different end goals.
I did the Navy helo thing with a small deck and a carrier deployment. ASW was still important and the ASST missions weren't bad. But even flying into Somalia during an invasion as a Navy pilot was relatively safe compared to the Army flying I've done. The Navy tends to (overly?) protect its helos from threats. The Army, not so much. Which is better? I like them both for different reasons.