Army announces plan to open special ops aviation positions to women

Jester2138 · May 29, 2014

Of course we've all known about this for a while but it's nice to see updates on the progress.

http://www.army.mil/article/126662/

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

Note, MOS 153A is not there.

Velocity173 · May 30, 2014

Note, MOS 153A is not there.

That's because it isn't a special ops MOS.

apacheguy · May 30, 2014

On a related note, officials released plans today to dissolve the US Army Special Operations Aviation Command.

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

That's because it isn't a special ops MOS.

What about the 160th? I thought all of those guys were special ops.

And how is 151A special ops and not 153A?

The only thing I can think of is that there are already female pilots in the 160th.

rharris · May 30, 2014

151A is an Aviation Maintenance Technician Warrant MOS.

Note that no positions made available include pilots.

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

151A is an Aviation Maintenance Technician Warrant MOS.

Note that no positions made available include pilots.

I am aware, and that was my point, why is 151A a special ops MOS and not 153A?

Why would you have a tech if you are not going to have the helicopters and the pilots?

Regardless, allowing women in special operations is long over due.

Ardo09203 · May 30, 2014

Because the aircraft are different? Notice that all Special Ops helicopters start with "M" (MH-60, MH/AH-47, MH-6). I'm assuming that is why there is a need for a "spec ops" tech.

Velocity173 · May 30, 2014

I am aware, and that was my point, why is 151A a special ops MOS and not 153A?

Why would you have a tech if you are not going to have the helicopters and the pilots?

Regardless, allowing women in special operations is long over due.

153A is a nonspecific aircraft MOS (flight school) When you get assigned to 160th you're MOS changes to something like 153E (MH-60). Right now it does appear that none if the 160th type pilot MOSs are open to women.

I agree, it's long overdue to get women into 160th flying positions.

Jon B. · May 30, 2014

Regardless, allowing women in special operations is long over due.

Women have been in "Special operations" for years. It's when people can't make the distinction between "combat arms" and "special operations" that the arguments start.

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

153A is a nonspecific aircraft MOS (flight school) When you get assigned to 160th you're MOS changes to something like 153E (MH-60). Right now it does appear that none if the 160th type pilot MOSs are open to women.

I agree, it's long overdue to get women into 160th flying positions.

Cool stuff, I had no idea that the MOS for the 160th pilots was any different, but it makes sense, they are probably flying the latest and greatest after all.

Velocity173 · May 30, 2014

Cool stuff, I had no idea that the MOS for the 160th pilots was any different, but it makes sense, they are probably flying the latest and greatest after all.

It changes for all airframes after flight school, not just 160th. For instance, a UH-60 pilot becomes MOS 153D. If you become an IP, it's 153DC.

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

It changes for all airframes after flight school, not just 160th. For instance, a UH-60 pilot becomes MOS 153D. If you become an IP, it's 153DC.

My n00b is showing, what it IP?

Velocity173 · May 30, 2014

My n00b is showing, what it IP?

Not a problem. IP means instructor pilot. It's one of 4 tracks you'll take after you've been flying for awhile. Once you track you get an MOS modifier.

A-aron · May 30, 2014

What are the other tracks?

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

^What he said.

Plus, I heard that Rucker is using the UH-72 Lakota for training and the ARMY is starting to use it as a general purpose helicopter, what my friend found is that they want to replace the Kiowas and have a frame than can go from a weapons platform to a transport platform by just adding and removing parts for mission specific roles, basically in line with the MH-6s found in the 160th.

Now the question is, is it true?

Velocity173 · May 30, 2014

^What he said.

Plus, I heard that Rucker is using the UH-72 Lakota for training and the ARMY is starting to use it as a general purpose helicopter, what my friend found is that they want to replace the Kiowas and have a frame than can go from a weapons platform to a transport platform by just adding and removing parts for mission specific roles, basically in line with the MH-6s found in the 160th.

Now the question is, is it true?

After you have a couple of years flying under your belt, or basically until your unit has an opening or need, you should be tracking. It's not a requirement, and in the old days you could get away with not tracking but unless you don't want to get promoted, you've got to track. You can go MTP or maintenance test pilot, safety, TAC Ops, or IP. If you want details about those tracks, I'm sure there's a thread on it here somewhere.

Yes, the LUH will be replacing the 67s at Rucker. No, they won't be replacing the 58 with them. It was in the running to do that along with the 58F and the AH-6. That program was scrapped in interest of saving money. The Army believes that a few more Apaches working with UAVs will suffice. There's an extensive thread on that subject as well so I won't give an opinion on that.

Diesel5187 · May 30, 2014

After you have a couple of years flying under your belt, or basically until your unit has an opening or need, you should be tracking. It's not a requirement, and in the old days you could get away with not tracking but unless you don't want to get promoted, you've got to track. You can go MTP or maintenance test pilot, safety, TAC Ops, or IP. If you want details about those tracks, I'm sure there's a thread on it here somewhere.

Yes, the LUH will be replacing the 67s at Rucker. No, they won't be replacing the 58 with them. It was in the running to do that along with the 58F and the AH-6. That program was scrapped in interest of saving money. The Army believes that a few more Apaches working with UAVs will suffice. There's an extensive thread on that subject as well so I won't give an opinion on that.

Thanks for the info.

We kindda derailed this thread...

brackac · May 31, 2014

I like cake.

brackac · May 31, 2014

Note, MOS 153A is not there.

Some nasty undertones here.

Diesel5187 · May 31, 2014

Some nasty undertones here.

When reading off the web, you take stuff the way you want to, I just made an observation.

But to be clear, women can be mechanics(151A) but not pilots? I don't think it's right.

A-aron · May 31, 2014

Are women allowed to be crew chiefs or any other role that has them flying on the aircraft?

Joe_P148 · May 31, 2014

When reading off the web, you take stuff the way you want to, I just made an observation.

But to be clear, women can be mechanics(151A) but not pilots? I don't think it's right.

.

Wrong, all flight jobs are open to women enlisted and officer.

If you have any more questions regarding the 160th or USASOC units refer to

http://www.sorbrecruiting.com/160th.htm

Or a 160th recruiter

In the future I'd refrain from listening to people in this forum who speculate about the units. There is a lot of false information floating out there.

Velocity173 · May 31, 2014

.

Wrong, all flight jobs are open to women enlisted and officer.

If you have any more questions regarding the 160th or USASOC units refer to

http://www.sorbrecruiting.com/160th.htm

Or a 160th recruiter

In the future I'd refrain from listening to people in this forum who speculate about the units. There is a lot of false information floating out there.

Come on man. You've never speculated or put out information that wasn't completely true? It's the internet. It happens.

Yes, it does appear that women have been allowed to serve in 160th for about a year now. Haven't heard of any getting accepted yet. I would think that would be big news.