![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My understanding of the issuance of "liaison pilot" wings was that it was based on flying liaison aircraft, and not being a military liaison officer from a foreign country. I'll try to find a specific cite before changing the article, but can anyone find a cite for the foreign liaison issuance? Could be both for all I know. McNeight 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Maclir2001 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)You are correct in your understanding, see http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1603 .
Further, the whole category of "auxiliary pilot badge" is spurious. These badges are qualification badges for different classes of aircraft or service. For example, the Glider Pilot wings are for combat-qualified military glider pilots. Period. No "auxiliary" duty there. Liaison pilots flew liaison missions. They may be military pilots or civilian pilots, during the war. Service pilots the same, flying service (mainly delivery) missions, and were mostly civilian pilots. Maclir2001 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It's time to REMOVE the term "AUXILIARY" FROM THIS ARTICLE. The soldiers who earned these were not "auxiliary", these were regular soldiers mostly serving in order-of-battle units. They earned Military Occupational Specialties in the US Army, not an auxiliary organisation See the reference: [1]. Some qualified service pilots were civilian, but these wings were for soldiers of the USAAF. The difference between regular service and auxiliary is fundamental, and you're shorting the holders of these badges by calling them "auxiliary". -- Maclir2001 ( talk) 07:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
WS-G ( talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I separated the Service Pilot paragraphs as a draft for a separate article a number of months ago, and now find that the draft has been completely obliterated from Wikipedia content, as if it never existed in the first place. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's backside about your so-called "medical problems" -- I expect you to grow a spine, be a man about it and answer up for why you censored my article. If you have a problem with my taking you to task overt this issue -- which does in fact constitute censorship -- then I submit that you have a problem! WTF??? How about it, scumbag? I really don't know what your issue isw, but you'd best have a very sound explanation for yourself.
The Glider Pilot Badge is still issued to USAFA people who are in their sport glider program. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
References
Another Wikipedia user has recently suggested splitting this article into three separate ones. Actually, I agree this is a good idea and I plan to do so as my limited spare time permits.
While I'm not the originator of this article (that individual appears to have been gone from this site for more than a decade at this time), I do happen to have access to considerable historical information on the three aeronautical rating of the era and took the effort as my time allowed to (1) correct some points which the original poster had gotten wrong, (2) expand with additional historic information and references. Why that same individual took it upon himself to post the following additional tags without supporting them with any specifics remains a mystery however:
(1) The POV tag.... This individual has failed to state why he challenges the article's neutrality; he merely challenges it a priori. If you're going to challenge something, please develop your point(s) of contention, and again, please be specific with each, don't just state it as if speaking ex cathedra. For the record, I have stated nothing in this article which is not historically factual.
(2) The so-called "confusing" tag. My question for that person is this: What do you find confusing?
(3) The "essay-like" tag.... So you dislike actual content vs. shallow snippets of non-information? Now I'm confused!
(4) The "original research" and "refimprove" tags. Obviously this person wasn't paying attention. The article is extensively referenced from original source documentation. Please take the time and effort to follow the footnotes and read the references.
(5) The "tone" and "unfocused" tags.... I'm shaking my head and trying not to laugh at those. Are you flaming serious? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WS-G ( talk • contribs)
Some of the background information on the three ratings discussed in this article is the same for each of the three individually, or at least substantially similar, e.g.: the differing administrative procedure for pilot procurement, as well as the fact of each having had a relaxed set of medical standards in contrast to the more conventional AAF pilot training pipeline. I believe these items, together with the references supporting them, ought to be retained as a matter of historical interest. These items may be better presented in an article of their own, with links provided where appropriate. Differing opinions? Alternate suggestions? -- WS-G ( talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My understanding of the issuance of "liaison pilot" wings was that it was based on flying liaison aircraft, and not being a military liaison officer from a foreign country. I'll try to find a specific cite before changing the article, but can anyone find a cite for the foreign liaison issuance? Could be both for all I know. McNeight 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Maclir2001 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)You are correct in your understanding, see http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1603 .
Further, the whole category of "auxiliary pilot badge" is spurious. These badges are qualification badges for different classes of aircraft or service. For example, the Glider Pilot wings are for combat-qualified military glider pilots. Period. No "auxiliary" duty there. Liaison pilots flew liaison missions. They may be military pilots or civilian pilots, during the war. Service pilots the same, flying service (mainly delivery) missions, and were mostly civilian pilots. Maclir2001 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It's time to REMOVE the term "AUXILIARY" FROM THIS ARTICLE. The soldiers who earned these were not "auxiliary", these were regular soldiers mostly serving in order-of-battle units. They earned Military Occupational Specialties in the US Army, not an auxiliary organisation See the reference: [1]. Some qualified service pilots were civilian, but these wings were for soldiers of the USAAF. The difference between regular service and auxiliary is fundamental, and you're shorting the holders of these badges by calling them "auxiliary". -- Maclir2001 ( talk) 07:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
WS-G ( talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I separated the Service Pilot paragraphs as a draft for a separate article a number of months ago, and now find that the draft has been completely obliterated from Wikipedia content, as if it never existed in the first place. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's backside about your so-called "medical problems" -- I expect you to grow a spine, be a man about it and answer up for why you censored my article. If you have a problem with my taking you to task overt this issue -- which does in fact constitute censorship -- then I submit that you have a problem! WTF??? How about it, scumbag? I really don't know what your issue isw, but you'd best have a very sound explanation for yourself.
The Glider Pilot Badge is still issued to USAFA people who are in their sport glider program. Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
References
Another Wikipedia user has recently suggested splitting this article into three separate ones. Actually, I agree this is a good idea and I plan to do so as my limited spare time permits.
While I'm not the originator of this article (that individual appears to have been gone from this site for more than a decade at this time), I do happen to have access to considerable historical information on the three aeronautical rating of the era and took the effort as my time allowed to (1) correct some points which the original poster had gotten wrong, (2) expand with additional historic information and references. Why that same individual took it upon himself to post the following additional tags without supporting them with any specifics remains a mystery however:
(1) The POV tag.... This individual has failed to state why he challenges the article's neutrality; he merely challenges it a priori. If you're going to challenge something, please develop your point(s) of contention, and again, please be specific with each, don't just state it as if speaking ex cathedra. For the record, I have stated nothing in this article which is not historically factual.
(2) The so-called "confusing" tag. My question for that person is this: What do you find confusing?
(3) The "essay-like" tag.... So you dislike actual content vs. shallow snippets of non-information? Now I'm confused!
(4) The "original research" and "refimprove" tags. Obviously this person wasn't paying attention. The article is extensively referenced from original source documentation. Please take the time and effort to follow the footnotes and read the references.
(5) The "tone" and "unfocused" tags.... I'm shaking my head and trying not to laugh at those. Are you flaming serious? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WS-G ( talk • contribs)
Some of the background information on the three ratings discussed in this article is the same for each of the three individually, or at least substantially similar, e.g.: the differing administrative procedure for pilot procurement, as well as the fact of each having had a relaxed set of medical standards in contrast to the more conventional AAF pilot training pipeline. I believe these items, together with the references supporting them, ought to be retained as a matter of historical interest. These items may be better presented in an article of their own, with links provided where appropriate. Differing opinions? Alternate suggestions? -- WS-G ( talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)