There are issues with the culture of Army aircrews, however only a minority. The Army ethos can be at odds with a safe aviation culture and this is a major point of difference between AAvn and the RAAF.
The senoir ranks of the Army don't see aviation as a core capability
.
Trojan, spot on, we are caught in the grey zone between infantry soldier and air ace, we just have to make it work on the day. When push comes to shove I am almost certain most Army aircrew would put themselves in harms way to help out our ground dwelling brothers. Training is a different story, we can't throw ourselves at the ground every day for our soldiers (who don't understand our lack of commitment) for obvious reasons.
And lets face it, AAvn has not deployed to a free for all battlefield (with quality air to air as well as surface to air threats) for a long time.
Yep, fair cop, it is a free for all at the lower level but not with the dreaded SAM threats. Mind you a hail of RPG's and 7.62 will still ruin your day in a low level environment. Your right about the RAAF / Army issue, I wonder why poeple fail to grasp the concept of being on the same team.
The RAAF refused to supply support to evacuate the wounded, dying and dead and it was left to the Armys 161 Recce Flight using their Bell 47s and US Army Hueys to do the job. Once again the RAAF not permitted to expose themselves to possible hostile action. Of course all this is a result of policy made at a high level and is no reflection on the aircrew at the coal face.
Brian, great post our history is certainly very important and we should bear that in mind. From what I have read we should not discount the efforts of some of the RAAF 9 Sqn troops and pilots, I beleive our 'Bushrangers' were born out of 9 Sqn over some beers and some sketches of how to fit some guns to the Huey (feel free to correct me its been a while since I brushed up)
