Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
I do not have any specific examples and I’m not about to waste a single second trying to find any.
In fact my point about the ‘high level’ briefing was largely hypothetical as well in an attempt to illustrate a point. You seem to want to pick my ‘straw man’ argument to pieces so feel free. I won’t waste too much thought or energy countering you.
In broad terms the Chief of the Air Staff needs an extensive working knowledge of his/her assets. That comes from operating them. You don’t need to be a pilot and you don’t need to have flown every platform but the multitude of considerations and levels of knowledge that need to be possessed to understand the implications and capabilities of air power are extremely unlikely to come from an individual who has never flown.
The non aircrew VSO may well be an incredible leader of people (and I understand the argument in your article) but when you need to direct people into harms way in aircraft and make decisions and representations about what assets are required it will definitely help if you have some experience in the field of aviation.
This argument will basically fall on one of two sides. Those who think CAS should be aircrew (probably mostly consisting of aircrew) and those that think CAS need not be aircrew (probably mostly by those who are not aircrew).
If I’m honest I’m not sure I really care either way and BV’s opinion will not affect things one bit. I’ll call CAS Sir/Ma’am regardless and my life won’t really be affected much regardless of their branch.
BV
Come come BV. I know it would irk you, just as much as it would irk me, if the CAS wasn’t aircrew; I’m happy to say that. I suspect you can’t be bothered with more of AtG....
