Bring Back the Flying Warrants

In 1973, four enlisted Marine Corps pilots retired from active duty. The departure of these master gunnery sergeants marked the end of the era of the enlisted Naval Aviation Pilots, the “flying sergeants” who served with distinction across the wars of the early and middle 20th century.¹

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps need pilots, and the Sea Services should once again create a path for enlisted personnel to become naval aviators. The Navy tried to do so in 2006: It established a “flying chief warrant officer” program that gave an opportunity for enlisted service members to become pilots or naval flight officers. But the program was canceled in 2013.²

Warrant officers and chief warrant officers (referred to throughout as WOs) would bring skill and professionalism to the cockpit. The technical expertise of WOs is known across the U.S. military, and a majority of Army pilots are WO aviators. Moreover, unlike unrestricted line officers, WOs are not asked to fill command-track billets, such as joint-duty assignments and staff duty. This means they would have substantially more time to hone their skills as pilots.

WO naval aviators would enhance the lethality of the Navy and Marine Corps and fulfill the promise to improve how the Sea Services manage skilled personnel. This structure modification would align with the purpose of WOs and reduce costs. For the Marine Corps, it also would be in lockstep with the service’s Talent Management 2030.

Skill and Continuity

Marine Corps WOs are specialists who train other Marines in their field and support commands using their expert knowledge. Many specialties draw WOs from related enlisted specialties, and aviation is no different. Naval aviation appoints WOs in communities such as avionics, aviation supply, aviation maintenance, and aviation ordnance. Each of these WO specialties is filled by personnel with prior experience supporting naval aviation—yet WOs are not naval aviators.

Unrestricted line officers are required to fill milestone billets to be eligible for promotion, and these assignments remove them from the pilot’s seat. Pilots serve as officers in charge of numerous sections/divisions throughout a squadron, and they are rotated through headquarters billets to fulfill requirements for command.

Pilots filling senior nonflying staff billets often have more flying experience than pilots in squadrons. Filling these billets means they take their substantial experience out of the cockpit. Because WOs are not required to fill command-track billets, their focus remains the tactical employment of their aircraft. Commander Paul Campagna in 2014 recalled the Navy’s CWO flight program, which had been canceled the previous year, writing that the program’s goal was to “create aviation technical experts who could serve full careers without the requirements of unrestricted line officer progression.” Further, Campagna wrote, “technical expertise bolsters our warfighting capability, prime among the CNO’s tenets.”³ Campagna was making a specific proposal in his article: to allow junior commissioned officers an opportunity to compete for a CWO position and continue to fly for the remainder of their careers. But his argument identifies a broader need and suggests the fundamental question of why pilots need to be commissioned officers at all. There is no bachelor’s degree requirement to acquire an FAA pilot’s license. Why is this standard still enforced for all naval aviators?

Throughout history, the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy have proven pilots do not have to be commissioned officers to be lethal. Even now, Army WO aviators are respected for their tactical prowess, expertise, and ability to employ their aircraft.

Then-Commander Sean Maybee, executive officer for Training Squadron 6, hoped in 2010 that the “CWO program will enhance the tactical level of the squadrons, allowing them to have a greater experience base across the fleet.”⁴ He foresaw a future in which WOs would be “go-to” aviators. The program no longer exists, but it remains the case that WOs would offer crucial continuity to balance the frequent turnover of aviators at O-1 rank and higher. As specialists in their field, WOs would be well placed to serve as pilot instructors, weapons instructors, tactics instructors, and platform experts.

Building From A Known Model

Army aviation has a proven model for molding WOs into pilots. Commissioned officers are pilots while also filling critical command billets. WOs are the technical experts, with thousands of flight hours and many thousands more in the simulator. They serve as in-house trainers to increase the tactical savvy of less-experienced pilots. This model is sound and replicable—the Sea Services would not need to stand up untested systems of their own. WO candidates would be required to meet all current prerequisites and complete approved initial training. They also would continue to meet all currently mandated physical and aptitude requirements to become naval aviators.

Former Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger asserted that: 

In this current era of heightened global competition, the Marine Corps requires a vehicle for rapidly recruiting mature, seasoned experts. We can no longer afford the cost in time—measured in years, and sometimes decades—to train and educate all our technical leaders, particularly given the extraordinary pace of technological change.⁵ 

In that context, the Marine Corps knows it needs to shift its mindset away from the idea that a Marine’s rank or position determines the weight of his or her possible contributions. Talent Management 2030 acknowledges the necessity of such changes. Among other measures, the report discusses the concept of lateral entry—allowing industry professionals in areas such as cybersecurity to enter the Marine Corps in an enlisted paygrade commensurate to their position in a civilian organization. If the Marine Corps is willing to invest in someone with no prior military experience and to confer a title and position that would take the average Marine 10–15 years to attain, then the service also should invest in someone who has proven they can succeed through the rigors of being a Marine. To be appointed as WOs, Marines must prove themselves as possessing sound moral judgment, dedicated to the expertise of the profession of arms.

It’s Not The Rank On The Collar

Aviators delivering combat power from above determined the outcome of many decisive naval battles, and they proved in the process that the rank on the collar does not make the pilot. Numerous Marine Corps sergeants without formal flight training flew hundreds of combat hours and downed countless enemy aircraft during the wars of the 20th century. And as Campagna wrote, flying WOs would allow the Sea Services to “reap the benefits of technical expertise as originally envisioned, while keeping the focus on warfighting.” Naval aviators advance their tactical prowess through substantive time in the cockpit. Allowing service members with a passion for flying to fly without the extra burdens placed on unrestricted line officers will improve aviator retention.

In Talent Management 2030, General Berger notes, “A Marine turns their talents into strengths, aptitudes, and skills through dedicated study, repetition, and hard work—a process accelerated by their curiosity, passion, interests, and desire for excellence.” This is exactly why talented enlisted service members should have a path to becoming WO aviators. Pilots are not leaving active duty because they are tired of flying combat missions. They are leaving because they want to fly but are pulled out of the seat. Flying WOs could fill those seats with skilled aviators the Sea Services need in the cockpit.