It is true; the pilots don't get the sort of training that actually makes an infantry officer, for example, or a flight deck officer, or even a quartermaster officer, a particularly good general officer - or civilian military leader - later.

Pilots are officers for the same reasons that lawyers are officers - you couldn't convince them to accept enlisted pay and status, given their special skills, high risk, and extensive training. They wouldn't stand for it.

However, they aren't officers in the same way that someone who holds XO and CO positions - or even staff positions - regularly will be an officer. Officers who are distinguished by their ability to lead, dealing with NCOs, logistics, UCMJ, and the rest, get tested for a set of skills that are similar to those of high powered entrepreneurs or factory managers - if those managers had to deal with diverse volunteers from some pretty unusual backgrounds, rarely involving much education, handling deadly weapons in difficult and life-threatening circumstances. Well, ok, maybe the quartermaster won't have to deal with live ammo in motion as much - but still, a stressful day at the office is pretty tough when it comes to arranging all the equipment for a mechanized infantry unit about to deploy. He has to rely on, train, and lead his troops. It might be considered good training for becoming a leader in other circumstances; but nobody would think that being a pilot is particularly great training for command, as much courage, skill and fortitude as it might take.

Being a POW... well, that's a whole other thing. I can't speak to how well it prepares one to lead, but it might very well.

Have you ever served in an aviation unit in the military?

What I've been told about McCain is that the Vietnamese were going to release him when they found out his father was a vip, but he asked if his men were going to go as well, they said "no" and he decided to stay in the pow camp with them.

That is a pretty heroic act IMO.

Damn right its heroic. I am repeatedly stunned when I hear of the depredations suffered by our POWs, and the fact of McCain's heroism when he could have saved himself is doubly amazing, and worthy of extreme respect and gratitude from all of us. Personal heroism however, while an extremely admirable trait, is not high on my list of Presidential qualifications. Given the embarrasing behavior of the current occupent, real humility would serve us far better.

It is true? When does this training take place? I'd like to sign up for those courses since every leadership course the military put me through occurred back in school, back with all those pilots and NFOs. And just who are those flight deck officers? From the little time I spent on a flight deck during flight ops, I seem to recall that EVERY commissioned officer on, or controlling the action on that deck was a pilot or an NFO, in addition to both the CO and XO.

It seems to me good leadership is born from a combination of learning (of all kinds), natural abilities, and most importantly, practice.Every pilot has more than enough opportunities to practice good leadership if he desires. Who do you think becomes the COs and XOs of squadrons, air wings, and aircraft carriers? Pilots and NFOs, the good ones at least. And from there they can move on to battle groups, combatant commands (even CENTCOM), or even Chairman of the Joint Cheifs (the current Vice is a Marine NFO).

If we do consider this "good training for becoming a leader in other circumstances," then also consider this: a certain Naval Aviator running for President reached the rank of 0-6 and held a shore command, where had had to "[deal] with NCOs, logistics, UCMJ, and the rest" before leaving the Navy.

Not true. Absolutely not true. Pilots (in the Navy, at least) are what we call "unrestricted line" officers. That is to say that they can assume combatant command roles. Supply, medical, JAG, chaplains, etc. are called "restricted line" and they can't. It might surprise you to know that senior Navy pilots command not just squadrons, but also aircraft carriers. They can and do become commodores and admirals and assume command of surface action groups, expeditionary strike groups and carrier strike groups. Not all of them, mind you. They have to screen for XO and CO just like I will in the all-too-near future.

Whether or not they should another matter. I belong to the surface warfare community, which, like submarine warfare, is another subdivision of the unrestricted line. My career path is aimed towards command of a warship at sea, most likely a cruiser or destroyer. I have always found pilots to be somewhat lacking in the subtle nuances of seamanship when they drive ships, but without training and experience, I imagine I'd make just as poor a showing in the cockpit of a Hornet, so I try not to judge.

Anyway, I agree that McCain's wartime experiences do not qualify him to be President of the United States (and I personally have no intention of voting for him), but I had to correct your factual errors. With regard to the ability of Navy pilots to assume major command roles, you're 180 degrees off. As officers go, there is absolutely no difference between a pilot and a surface warfare officer with the exception of the machinery they operate more frequently. If my next ship is a CVN, my CO will be an aviator.

It's interesting. My experience is definitely more distant than yours; reading, watching Carrier, seeing the big ships in action...

So, it seemed that yes, pilots would have near-peers like wingmen and such, but mostly until they led a squadron, they were not in a command position; and that while on occaision they might make the jump to command, they didn't have that sort of 'platoon leadership' experience that one might ascribe to the leader of a substantial team of enlisted. After all, there is no rate that allows one to be a pilot.

Officers don't have rates, we have numeric designators. It means roughly the same thing. Mine is 1110, for example. In Army language, I suppose it would be like the MOS. It doesn't show up in one's title like an enlisted person's, but it's there nonetheless.

And, as much as I enjoy baiting the "brownshoes", they have similar responsibilities to an officer of the surface Navy. They're in charge of people and a certain amount of equipment. They have administrative paperwork just like everyone else. The specific number of personnel and type of equipment can vary. My first division had more than 40 personnel and was responsible for a large portion of the ship's engineering equipment. My second division had a paltry six people and owned almost no equipment, but I was the Navigator, so my pound of flesh was taken in other ways. I'm sure it's much the same for a pilot. On a CRUDES ship, the "air det" is rather small. On a carrier, it is much larger. The meat and potatos of my fitness reports has a lot to do with how well I stand watches on the bridge and in CIC. For a pilot, it's how well he handles his aircraft. Everybody has to get qualifications and stand watches and make sure maintenance is getting done. The fundamentals really are the same. I float, they fly.

Nobody gets a free ride, and every officer and chief is in a leadership position over both personnel and materiel. I'm sure it's a different experience than leading BOTGs, but we're all officers and we're all expected to assume a leadership role. Even pilots.

Pilots get crew rest, though. A mandatory eight hours in the rack prior to flying. When my ship is underway, I'm lucky to sleep two or three times a week. I admit that is a bit annoying. :-)

Well, I was aware there was paperwork, sure... it's the military. It's interesting to hear about some of these things. I try to learn what I can, but there is nothing like experience to find out what a navy officer really does daily.

Nope. The thread has continued in a way I found educational. I see that pilots often graduate from being a pilot to a command position - and I'm still trying to grasp the relationship between the pilot and the team that manages aircraft maintenance and such.