Now its all in one computer log book. An example of what we do was my latest project: installation of Extended Stores Support System (ESSS). Coordinated delivery of two sets of wings stores from PMs office, 12 tanks to be distributed to three states, bits and parts for installation, W&B for new configuration, and training on the use of the system. As an IP and the lead MTP/ME I also play a major role in training other pilots and setting SOP for the use of the "new" system. It's a lot of time in the books, on the phone and sending emails. But I do get to do a lot of flying too.
The Army views aviation and treats their aviators much differently than the other three services. Their maintenance knowledge reflects that, where they are strong in that area they are very weak in others. It is not necessarily a bad thing, just very different than the other services. Their extensive maintenance knowledge is a reflection of that, just like the systems knowledge nerds in VP.
I agree for the most part. Having been in the Navy and done a tour on a CCDG staff, I find it amazing how unfamiliar my Army peers are with what happens at higher levels. But I use the word unfamiliar as opposed to weak. You could say weak if there was some expectation of knowledge in that area. Aside from the warrant officer advanced course or staff course, there is NO expectation of knowledge outside flying the aircraft and their track. That is the realm of the "regular" officers, which I am sad to say do a poorer job of that than their Navy counterparts.
And to clarify, not all Army aviators are up on systems knowledge. It's mostly just the MTPs and some IPs. The other tracks are equally experts in their arenas.