Preview of things to come.....

[2-Bit Speed]

At least since the industrial revolution, military service has not been synonymous with combat service. There have always been rear-echelon troops who were not intended to see combat, but whose contributions were yet vital to the success of the frontline troops in combat. An AWACS pilot is an aviator and is in the military, thus I can see no argument against the eligibility of an AWACS pilot for a Military Aviator award.

The point of contention in this thread has been with the term Aviator, not Marine.

As I expressed in post 52, up until this point, aviators have always been understood as having to face the dangers associated with air travel at a minimum. This would be the first time an RC pilot was considered an aviator. I fly RC aircraft, am I an aviator based on that?

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that these servicemen shouldn't be recognized for their contributions, just that there are probably more appropriate awards or that more appropriate awards should be created.

 

[Llewtrah381]

If this award, which is not explicitly a combat award, incentivizes innovation in warfighting that increases our effectiveness while decreasing our risk, what’s the downside? And it sounds like the guy didn’t even know he was a serious contender for it.

Meanings change over time. Change is hard but we can do hard things.

 

[Salty]

It was in reply to the statement “Tell that to those that have been shot down, were pows or surviving family of the above.” No, I categorically don’t believe in the participation award model. My point was there are ways to properly recognize wartime accomplishments for all who accomplish them when warranted and this award was for something different - in the context of that statement.

Successfully flying the exact same mission sitting in air conditioned safety is not the same as doing it with the actual risks of those things happening to you. It isn’t about actually being harmed, it’s about being able to perform even when the risks of being harmed are there. Not to mention the difference in physical toll. It’s disrespectful to even compare the two jobs IMO.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Successfully flying the exact same mission sitting in air conditioned safety is not the same as doing it with the actual risks of those things happening to you. It isn’t about actually being harmed, it’s about being able to perform even when the risks of being harmed are there. Not to mention the difference in physical toll. It’s disrespectful to even compare the two jobs IMO.

In which branch did you serve?

 

[Salty]

In which branch did you serve?

What brand of sunglasses are you wearing?

 

[Half Fast]

OK - not aviators.

How about the AWACS pilot, who’s basically the chauffeur for the people doing the real war fighting and who stays at a safe distance typically over friendly territory? Maybe even the Poseidon pilot out dropping sonobuoys. Their risk is marginally higher than the drone pilot’s and about the same as an airline pilot (who I agree is an aviator but one without exceptional risk to their job).

Again, sincerely not trying to be argumentative - just encouraging us all to think through our assumptions. I admit calling a drone pilot a “military aviator” didn’t sit right with me at first (as a 24-year Air Force officer) but I at least understand the reasoning.

View attachment 128190

I didn’t say anything about risk. I merely said an aviator is an aircraft pilot in the cockpit. Might be a fighter jock in an F16, might be a student in a Cub.

 

[Half Fast]

If this award, which is not explicitly a combat award, incentivizes innovation in warfighting that increases our effectiveness while decreasing our risk, what’s the downside?

The downside is that it may insult and disincetivize others. Why wouldn’t a separate award accomplish your stated objective without the downside?

 

[Llewtrah381]

The downside is that it may insult and disincetivize others. Why wouldn’t a separate award accomplish your stated objective without the downside?

Like a manned aircraft aviator of the year? Sure - if they think it’s worth making the distinction. And I’m sure there are some fighter pilots who think airlift, tanker, AWACS, and other manned aircraft aviators should be excluded too.

I served at a time when only physicians could command hospitals in the Air Force. When they changed from “best qualified physician” to “best qualified medical officer”, as a physician I thought the world would collapse. In the end, it actually opened Command positions up to many more very qualified people, many of whom had actually led large numbers of people before the role, compared to most physicians who had not. It actually incentivized those physicians interested in leadership to take on roles and responsibilities for larger leadership positions rather than just having the system find the least-worst fish in the barrel.

Kind of on the flip side, we’re going through a time when “doctor” is getting watered down. In several places - military and civilian - I’ve seen nurses in particular publicly use the term “Doctor Smith” when they have a PhD in Nurse Administration or similar (and often a non-direct-patient-care degree). That’s why in the medical circles you’ll see “physician” awards for MD/DOs and “provider” awards for the broader category to include PAs, NPs, etc. and “clinician”, which is a bit more vague, including nurses, etc. Would I be upset seeing a PA as Physician of the Year? Yes. As Provider of the Year? No. So, again, if the definition of Aviator includes drone pilots, it includes drone pilots. If that wasn’t the intent, they should clarify.

We should probably remember - not our monkeys, not our circus. If PoA wants to come up with an award, cool: they can define the terms and criteria.

 

[Half Fast]

Would I be upset seeing a PA as Physician of the Year? Yes. As Provider of the Year? No.

Exactly. So why upset aviators? Why not keep the aviator award for aviators, and create a new award for drone pilots?

We should probably remember - not our monkeys, not our circus.

The heck it ain't. You and I and every other taxpayer own that circus. And let's remember that one of the best features of the US is that the military is under civilian authority.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Not a Marine, but I spent a year assigned to them, and several years directly supporting MARSOC as a contractor. They are warriors without apology. I trust their leaders to know what is best for their organization, including who they give awards to.

 

[Llewtrah381]

The heck it ain't. You and I and every other taxpayer own that circus. And let's remember that one of the best features of the US is that the military is under civilian authority.

There’s a process for that. Write or call your Congress member. I worked on the other side of that fence for six years in two different jobs, dealing with complaints about medical benefits, etc., among other policy roles.

Otherwise, this is just yelling at clouds. Which is entertaining for some, I guess, but not really effective.

 

[Salty]

There’s a process for that. Write or call your Congress member. I worked on the other side of that fence for six years in two different jobs, dealing with complaints about medical benefits, etc., among other policy roles.

Otherwise, this is just yelling at clouds. Which is entertaining for some, I guess, but not really effective.

Yet you're doing the same thing only targeting a bunch of random people on the internet.

 

[Half Fast]

There’s a process for that.

True, but that doesn't mean it isn't our circus and our monkeys, contrary to your statement. And we do have a vested interest in how well our monkeys fight. All that certainly gives us a right to discuss the matter as we please.

Otherwise, this is just yelling at clouds. Which is entertaining for some, I guess, but not really effective.

Haven't heard anyone yelling, and you seem to be participating in the discussion as much as anyone else.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Haven't heard anyone yelling, and you seem to be participating in the discussion as much as anyone else.

It’s a figure of speech. Nobody has mentioned clouds yet either.

And, yes, I’m participating in the discussion by bringing in a different perspective colored by my past personal experience with military awards (nominating people for them, seeing people get them, etc.). It just seems there are several people not comfortable reassessing their assumptions which, often, includes me.

 

[wanttaja]

This thread reminds me of a Bill Mauldin cartoon from WWII:

(Note that the admin corporal is wearing a combat infantryman badge, which meant HE got combat pay...)

The War Department actually started giving medics combat pay not long after this cartoon was published.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Half Fast]

And, yes, I’m participating in the discussion by bringing in a different perspective colored by my past personal experience with military awards

I don't believe I, or anyone else, has objected to awards. It's simply my opinion that giving an aviator award to a drone pilot is similar to giving a physician award to a NP, a practice you said you would object.

 

[Half Fast]

This thread reminds me of a Bill Mauldin cartoon from WWII:
View attachment 128192
(Note that the admin corporal is wearing a combat infantryman badge, which meant HE got combat pay...)

The War Department actually started giving medics combat pay not long after this cartoon was published.

Ron Wanttaja

Mauldin was a good guy. I've enjoyed a couple of his books.

 

[Bob Noel]

Hey, if people want to call REMFs "warriors" have at it. Doesn't make them warriors, but knock yourself out.

(of course, the important thing is for them to get their "I-was-there" ribbons.)

 

[2-Bit Speed]

manned aircraft aviator

Redundancyredundancy

 

[Llewtrah381]

Hey, if people want to call REMFs "warriors" have at it. Doesn't make them warriors, but knock yourself out.

(of course, the important thing is for them to get their "I-was-there" ribbons.)

So…the B2 pilots who flew their bombardiers from Whiteman AFB, MO and dropped their bombs from well above the range of any known AA stuff were “warriors” but the UAV operators embedded with a unit in Kandahar and subject to attacks from the ground for the months they were deployed were not?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Hmm...

So…the B2 pilots who flew their bombardiers from Whiteman AFB, MO and dropped their bombs from well above the range of any known AA stuff were “warriors” but the UAV operators embedded with a unit in Kandahar and subject to attacks from the ground for the months they were deployed were not?

No comment.

So…the B2 pilots who flew their bombardiers from Whiteman AFB, MO and dropped their bombs from well above the range of any known AA stuff were “aviators” but the UAV operators embedded with a unit in Kandahar and subject to attacks from the ground for the months they were deployed were not?

Yes.

 

[Bob Noel]

So…the B2 pilots who flew their bombardiers from Whiteman AFB, MO and dropped their bombs from well above the range of any known AA stuff were “warriors” but the UAV operators embedded with a unit in Kandahar and subject to attacks from the ground for the months they were deployed were not?

The definition of REMF precludes being subject to attacks.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Hmm...



No comment.



Yes.

And the guys who fly Air Force 1 and all of the Special Airlift King Airs, etc., same thing? But the guy piloting the drone and making literally life and death decisions isn’t?

This makes me think of IFR flying. We all know that for most of the flight in IMC what our brains tell us is happening aligns with the instruments but if we rely on what we feel like the plane is doing when that’s at odds with what the instruments are saying, very bad things can happen, especially if we insist our senses must be right because it’s what we want to believe. I’m happy to recalibrate if someone can show me a Marine Corps definition of Marine aviator that doesn’t include their drone pilots or even a nuance within the Webster definition I posted above that doesn’t.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

And the guys who fly Air Force 1 and all of the Special Airlift King Airs, etc., same thing? But the guy piloting the drone and making literally life and death decisions isn’t?

Yes.

This is like calling the operator of a remote undersea drone a submariner.

 

[Velocity173]

So…the B2 pilots who flew their bombardiers from Whiteman AFB, MO and dropped their bombs from well above the range of any known AA stuff were “warriors” but the UAV operators embedded with a unit in Kandahar and subject to attacks from the ground for the months they were deployed were not?

Well the threat to those operating UAVs on the major FOBs in theater was minimal. A civilian contractor working as a cook in the chow hall in Kandahar has the same level of expose as a drone operator there. Once you leave the gates and go into “bad guy” territory, you’ve just elevated yourself to a whole new level of risk.

Even then though, on the aviation side, a FW lift pilot operating out of Kandahar can’t even come close to the level of risk of a RW attack / lift pilot operating out of a small FOB / COP. The accident rates prove that. Like in Vietnam, not a lot of books on the exploits of C-141 pilots operating out of Saigon but there’s a crapload of books from the tactical guys who flew into harms way.

As far as the award, I agree it has nothing to do with risk. This is an award for an overall contribution to USMC Aviation and nothing to do with being in harms way. Sounds like this Major excelled at his job and warrants the honor of the award.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

This is an award for an overall contribution to USMC Aviation and nothing to do with being in harms way. Sounds like this Major excelled at his job and warrants the honor of the award.

Are maintainers eligible for this award?

 

[Llewtrah381]

Are maintainers eligible for this award?

Does the USMC define them as Marine Aviators? Not sure but I doubt it. If so, their game, their rules. It’s not a People’s Choice Award.

 

[Velocity173]

Are maintainers eligible for this award?

No they have a separate award for maintenance personnel.

But, I imagine what you’re getting at is the definition of “Marine Aviator” not applying to a piloting a drone. While I used to think it’s best to just call one (manned aircraft) a pilot and the other (unmanned aircraft) an operator, I don’t think that’s necessary anymore. It’s really nothing more than location. A pilot can be physically in the aircraft controlling it from A to B and a pilot can be remotely controlling an aircraft doing the same.

If comparing combat aircraft do I add more weight to validity of the pilot in the aircraft vs the pilot not in the aircraft? Sure I do. Being exposed to not only risk but the physically aspects (Gs, high altitude, temp, etc) of flight is much more taxing physically than being remotely located. And while those who have expressed the mental hardship of a drone pilot seeing death and going home afterwards, I’d much rather have that luxury to be able to decompress. Those that are down range don’t get to hop in a car and put the war behind them. They go back and each chow, hit the rack, go back out again the next day and with family problems back home that you can’t do anything about because you’re 10,000 miles away. In most cases you can’t even drink a beer (Gen Order # 1) to ease the burden.

So yeah, there’s distinctions that can be made between the two types of pilots. Another thing, can’t believe anyone hasn’t stated the obvious yet. There are no Marine Aviators, they’re all Naval Aviators. Always thought that was a stupid saying.

 

[nauga]

So yeah, there’s distinctions that can be made between the two types of pilots.

Just as there are distinctions between pilots with different missions, deployed vs. training command, T&E, etc. In terms of the criteria for Marine Aviator of the year they are distinctions without difference. I have no problem with that.

Nauga,
who questions motivations as often as authority.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Presumably those talking tough and labeling others have been further out on the tip of the spear themselves.

 

[Salty]

Presumably those talking tough and labeling others have been further out on the tip of the spear themselves.

Oddly, it almost seems like the opposite is occurring.

But, it always bugs me when somebody combines an ad hominem, appeal to authority, and credentials fallacy to attempt to “win” an argument.

 

[Half Fast]

So yeah, there’s distinctions that can be made between the two types of pilots.

I have no problem calling drone operators "pilots." There are all sorts of pilots: airplane pilots, RC pilots, sim pilots, drone pilots, harbor pilots, riverboat pilots, TV pilots,.... "Pilot" is a much more generic term. But to me, "aviator" means a pilot who is aviating, someone who has "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."

 

[Velocity173]

I have no problem calling drone operators "pilots." There are all sorts of pilots: airplane pilots, RC pilots, sim pilots, drone pilots, harbor pilots, riverboat pilots, TV pilots,.... "Pilot" is a much more generic term. But to me, "aviator" means a pilot who is aviating, someone who has "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."

Oh in the Army most of the time we didn’t even refer to ourselves as aviators. We used pilot most of the time. Interchangeable terms.

Now I do agree with a quote from one of my favorite movies though. “They call them aviators in the Navy…they say they’re better than pilots.”

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

I have no problem calling drone operators "pilots." There are all sorts of pilots: airplane pilots, RC pilots, sim pilots, drone pilots, harbor pilots, riverboat pilots, TV pilots,.... "Pilot" is a much more generic term. But to me, "aviator" means a pilot who is aviating, someone who has "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."

Go tell the Marines they're wrong, then.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

So did machine guns. And rifles before them. And bows and arrows before them. They all seemed “less gallant and gentlemanly” than the mode they beat. It’s the nature of warfare history.

I’m not going to take sides in the debate. I think it would be a TOS violation to have any meaningful discussion. I will however make one small point. Drones are a fundamentally different paradigm than any of your examples. In all of your examples the person was still exposed to some meaningful risk. The political costs of war were a real thing on the home front. Peoples family members were on the battlefield and some did not come home. War had a tangible cost other than money and dead enemy’s.

With drones that is no longer the case.

The moral equation and costs are very different.

Whether or not it is good or bad and how that influences policy is a discussion for another forum.

But claiming drones are no different than any other advances in military technology is just not truthful. They are also not the only military tech that has existed on a different philosophical level.

This is a discussion that has happened before and I’m sure will happen again.

Just not here.

 

[Half Fast]

The moral equation and costs are very different.

But claiming drones are no different than any other advances in military technology is just not truthful.

Morals are a personal thing. Personally, I don't see how what you described in your post is much different than launching an ICBM from a silo in North Dakota, or dropping a cruise missile off the wing of a plane a thousand miles from the enemy.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

No they have a separate award for maintenance personnel.

Huh... Maybe they could do that for the drone pilots...

 

[Llewtrah381]

But claiming drones are no different than any other advances in military technology is just not truthful. They are also not the only military tech that has existed on a different philosophical level.

I respect the points in your post (as I do in all of the others, including ones with which I disagree).

For this observation, consider missiles (especially ballistic and cruise), V1 and V2 rockets, and even long-range artillery in certain circumstances. Stand-off capability has been around for a while. “Drones” have at least the capability of requiring very clear, active participation in targeting right up to the time of impact - by a thoroughly trained, well-educated human assessing the situation in the moment.

Circling back to the OP, it sounds like the recipient did some significant things to spread expertise among UAV pilots across the military spectrum. Would there have been as much “controversy” if it had been a Marine 1 pilot or some other pilot in a non-combat role? A tanker pilot who came up with a more efficient way to do their job? In any case, it’s kind of a shame the achievements of an apparently talented officer serving his country with distinction are being lessened by the peanut gallery - through absolutely no fault of his own.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Would there have been as much “controversy” if it had been a Marine 1 pilot or some other pilot flying in a non-combat role?

No

 

[Half Fast]

Would there have been as much “controversy” if it had been a Marine 1 pilot or some other pilot in a non-combat role? A tanker pilot who came up with a more efficient way to do their job?

Nope. Those folks are aviators.

In any case, it’s kind of a shame the achievements of an apparently talented officer serving his country with distinction are being lessened by the peanut gallery....

Not lessening his accomplishments at all, and I want to see such accomplishments rewarded. I just think that an award for aviators is not the way to do it.

As @2-Bit Speed wrote above, should the operator of a remote submersible vehicle get an award designed for submariners? I hope not.