nfo2b
Well, not anymore... :(
After reading some posts in a couple of AirWarriors "Best Threads" that I feel were, well, to put nicely, opportunistic, I thought I'd pick some more AirWarriors' brains. I've seen a couple people here express their contemptuous feelings for the "Naval Officer first, Naval Aviator second" maxim. How many of you feel that this is not the case, or should not be the case in your careers?
My humble opinion:
Perhaps I'm a bit biased by my prior enlisted service or the fact that I'm a career man wether they let me fly or not, but I strongly believe this. I've read a couple of posts stating that all you really cared about was flying, and if you couldn't do that, then you would leave the Navy. And this may indeed be a popular sentiment among Naval aviators. But this is what puzzles me: if all you want to do is fly and not much else, then why do it in the Navy? I mean, there are ways to fly combat aircraft without having to deal with the politics/nuisances/annoyances/hinderances/chooseyourissues of being a Naval Officer. Like the Air Force. They place MUCH less emphasis on the whole officer thing and concentrate on flying. When's the last time you heard "He's an Air Force Officer," instead of "He's a fighter/bomber pilot in the Air Force."? I live in integrated housing (E's next door to O's) on a rather large Air Force base, and none of my AF neighbors ever use the term "Air Force Officer" except in cases of extreme formality. (No offense to any AF guys on this forum--I'm not saying that you're unprofessional, just that you place much less focus on the commission than you do on the wings in day to day life). However the term "Naval Officer" is practically colloquial. That is, it's a regular part of many American's vocabulary, in and out of the service. Then there's the Army, where you can fly some really cool helo's with little more than an associates degree and a warrant commission. Yeah, warrants are ususally the military's "red-headed stepchildren," (but we love them so
), but at least if you're a CWO Apache pilot you can train your gun turret with your head!
Again, I guess I'm biased by my enslisted experience, but I want the officers above me to have us, their troops/sailors, at the top of their priority list when the helmet is off. Someone gave an example about a DH saying "Not now, I have a brief to attend," but this is not a case of being an "Aviator first, Officer second," it's simply responsibility and time management. If the comment is made in response to a trivial request, then it's justified, and it's being a responsible officer. But what if you're a DivO/BranchO (still don't know what that is) or even a DH, and your chief comes in and tells you, "Hey, AK1 just got in a car wreck and is in the hospital." I don't think many people here would say "Not now, I have a brief to attend." In fact, I believe (hope??) many would try their best to be temporarily absolved of their aviator duties and check on their sailor. Granted, I realize that this isn't always feasible, especially in tactically sensitive times, but for the most part, I believe that you should never forsake your duties and responsibilities as an officer for the mere sake of being an aviator.
To me, forsaking the "Officer first" principle is not only self-serving and inconsiderat, but detrimental to the overall mission and goals of the Navy as a whole. I'll save an explanation and expansion of this statement for later (no time now--2yr old waking from nap), but I'll leave these final thoughts on the table next to this open can of worms:
The words "Naval Aviator" were nowhere in your Oath of Commission."
You obtained your commission prior to your wings.
Only the President has the authority to commission you, but lower authorities may wing you.
Rhetorical question: When you're shot down over enemy territory and thrown into a POW camp, are you still an aviator first, officer second?
My humble opinion:
Perhaps I'm a bit biased by my prior enlisted service or the fact that I'm a career man wether they let me fly or not, but I strongly believe this. I've read a couple of posts stating that all you really cared about was flying, and if you couldn't do that, then you would leave the Navy. And this may indeed be a popular sentiment among Naval aviators. But this is what puzzles me: if all you want to do is fly and not much else, then why do it in the Navy? I mean, there are ways to fly combat aircraft without having to deal with the politics/nuisances/annoyances/hinderances/chooseyourissues of being a Naval Officer. Like the Air Force. They place MUCH less emphasis on the whole officer thing and concentrate on flying. When's the last time you heard "He's an Air Force Officer," instead of "He's a fighter/bomber pilot in the Air Force."? I live in integrated housing (E's next door to O's) on a rather large Air Force base, and none of my AF neighbors ever use the term "Air Force Officer" except in cases of extreme formality. (No offense to any AF guys on this forum--I'm not saying that you're unprofessional, just that you place much less focus on the commission than you do on the wings in day to day life). However the term "Naval Officer" is practically colloquial. That is, it's a regular part of many American's vocabulary, in and out of the service. Then there's the Army, where you can fly some really cool helo's with little more than an associates degree and a warrant commission. Yeah, warrants are ususally the military's "red-headed stepchildren," (but we love them so
), but at least if you're a CWO Apache pilot you can train your gun turret with your head!Again, I guess I'm biased by my enslisted experience, but I want the officers above me to have us, their troops/sailors, at the top of their priority list when the helmet is off. Someone gave an example about a DH saying "Not now, I have a brief to attend," but this is not a case of being an "Aviator first, Officer second," it's simply responsibility and time management. If the comment is made in response to a trivial request, then it's justified, and it's being a responsible officer. But what if you're a DivO/BranchO (still don't know what that is) or even a DH, and your chief comes in and tells you, "Hey, AK1 just got in a car wreck and is in the hospital." I don't think many people here would say "Not now, I have a brief to attend." In fact, I believe (hope??) many would try their best to be temporarily absolved of their aviator duties and check on their sailor. Granted, I realize that this isn't always feasible, especially in tactically sensitive times, but for the most part, I believe that you should never forsake your duties and responsibilities as an officer for the mere sake of being an aviator.
To me, forsaking the "Officer first" principle is not only self-serving and inconsiderat, but detrimental to the overall mission and goals of the Navy as a whole. I'll save an explanation and expansion of this statement for later (no time now--2yr old waking from nap), but I'll leave these final thoughts on the table next to this open can of worms:
The words "Naval Aviator" were nowhere in your Oath of Commission."
You obtained your commission prior to your wings.
Only the President has the authority to commission you, but lower authorities may wing you.
Rhetorical question: When you're shot down over enemy territory and thrown into a POW camp, are you still an aviator first, officer second?
