What are thoughts; should pilots be officers or should enslited be able to fly too?

[Skyviper 1,101]

I've read some articles about pilot shortages, etc and some branches have rolled out experimental programs to allow enlisted personnel to fly aircraft. My question is this. Is it really that important for a 4 year degree to be a needed requirement to become officer material? I met a B-52 pilot whose degree was Art History. Last time I checked Rembrandt wasn't in the cockpit of a B-52 ... now the air frame itself is a work of art. She had to learn how to fly that aircraft and know everything about it inside and out. Could it be about the maturity needed for leadership? I've had a lot of "educated" managers do the dumbest shit in the civilian world. I'm pretty sure plenty of servicemen and women had to follow idiotic commanders too. (Captain America USMC 1st Recon comes to mind. Smart guy who made a  lot of ignorant decisions)

The adage "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians"  comes to mind too. Isn't the ASVAB a good tool for that? Wouldn't that offer a level playing field? I'm getting off track. I get the need for standards. Quality leadership, pilots, etc can come from anywhere. Look at the people that play DCS... yes, most are overweight, etc my point is it didn't take a 4 year degree to learn those modules. Being physically fit, etc its down right common sense. Or is the cool jobs like that an added bonus for joining the military? "Hey you got a shiny new four degree ... how 'about serving the military? No? Well sure you can 4 times as much money in the private sector ... but can you do do barrel rolls in a super fast jet and be labeled an ultimate badass while sitting at a desk? Sounds good? Great! Step into our flight school...after a quick stop at OCS"

I know there some officers and enlisted both active and retired on this forum that can explain things better than some article riddled with ads. I look forward to knowing what you all think.

[Viggen 644]

Well the majority of the Army's pilots are Warrant Officers, not Commissioned.

[+logan4 847]

I think the main point of having officers versus enlisted is, the bunch that chose and fit to be a pilot (based on current requirements) most likely will stay for that 15-20-25 years period that they can fly, the enlisted will only stay for that 1-2 year they sign up for or "have to be" in uniform.
Physical fitness is something you need to most likely not to become an other point/value in statistics. Also there are several other factors, like you are fit and can do the job, yet your family talks you out of even applying for it or if you are still "minor" then not sign the papers required and by the time you can choose on your own, your life took an other turn that keeps you away from application. 
Probably a war on the scale of ww1&2 would change attitudes and requirement (lets not hope for one, I do like peace better)
Also as a factor that could play than having a degree, one is the ability to follow orders, brass think its important, yet if someone constantly disobey them then they could not depend on these personnel in critical times, some "suicide" missions probably not flown unless the person has the sense of "greater goods" and does it on its own. On the other hand there would be no blood bath of civilians, only those few whom propagate war or financially gaining from it or actually the mastermind of new conflicts to undermine peaceful living/handling of situations (not talking about tyrannical dictators).

I think with UAV-s there could be a place for using those whom got the talent, but not the fitness. And if there was a system that would keep the "privet" flying like a mercenary even after their terms ended, most likely they would continue. 

I did met those situations where people with "papers" did more damage then ordinary "uneducated" ones fared way better. I think it is true for all professions and parts of life, that those who can do the job equally or better might never get near to it to even try or show their true skills and abilities.

[Gatling20 753]

I am reading the Martin Middlebrook book "The Battle of Hamburg - the Firestorm Raid" July 1943 at the moment, and just came across some figures about this for RAF Bomber Command.

Of the aircrew who flew on this raid in 1943, 77% were NCOs (flight sergeant or sergeant), 1% were warrant officers, and 22% were officers. This is said to be typical for Bomber Command.

The USAAF WW2 practice was different, I think, with all pilots being officers.

[+dtmdragon 2,704]

Requiring pilots to be Officers is historically related to having an over supply of suitable candidates so thus the Armed Force in question has the luxury to make a Commission part of the requirements of the role. This helps with creating a smaller pool to recruit from initially and from the Armed Force's perspective provides an individual that (as a Commisioned Offcer) can be used in upper management roles in the future. That is why the RAF with a shortage of pilots in WWII used NCO pilots but post war shifted this to an Officer only role. It's worth noting that the RAF and most Commonwealth based Armed Forces do not require Officers to have a degree but undertake 'in house' selection with requirements based on leadership aptitude etc.

Edited April 19, 2019 by dtmdragon