Talk:Auxiliary Pilot Badge

Liaison Pilot

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)

• • Actually, Maclir2001, the individuals holding the Service Pilot rating were not "civilians" but rather full-fledged members of the AAF appointed into their pilot duties on the basis of having gained their piloting credentials and experience through civil sources. Very big difference. You seem to be psychologically equating them with the WASPs, who were in fact an "auxiliary" and who were not actually in the AAF, but only worked for the AAF. Male AAF personnel holding the Service Pilot rating, by the way, outnumbered the WASPs by almost 11 to 1.

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: . 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)

• • Actually, Service Pilots were qualified on the basis of experience and ratings acquired in civil life, but they were not "civilians". Any of them! Read Tunner's autobiography!

I fully concur with Maclir2001 on this point. It is long overdue that this article be re-named for the reasons cited already. I've done a considerable amount of editing during the past few days as my time allowed, as well as having added a considerable amount of additional material, supported by citations from the period.

WS-G (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

All right, BilCat, I know that was you!

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.

Not Obsolete

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)

Actually, this is only authorized for USAFA cadet instructors for the duration of their time at the Academy. It is not awarded as an aeronautical rating in the same sense as its original purpose, and is not approved for permanent wear.WS-G (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Suggested split

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)

Yes, I'm serious. Granted, you've done a lot of work of the article, but much more work needs to be done to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, which much of your editing has not followed.

I was planning on adding explanations of the tags yesterday, but real life intervened, and I wasn't able to do so. I'll try to address the reasons for these tags in the next few days, but please stop removing. Just because you don't understand why I added them doesn't mean they don't need to be there. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and no one individual owns any articles. The tags are intended to draw the attention of editors whose can help to address the specific areas that best fits their editing skills. Removing them will make that process take much longer.

Some of these issues, such as focus and confusion, would be addressed with an article split. Others issues, such as Refimprove and original research, will take more time. While there are sources in the article, some sections and paragraphs remain without inline citations. If you'd rather that I tag those individually so you know better what needs to be addressed, I can do that, but it will make the article even more cluttered than it already is. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Frankly, the initial disputation of neutrality I felt was unwarranted and I'll admit I found that a bit... irritating. However, I get the impression that you really are trying to help overall. As I stated previously, I do think that splitting this thing into three separate articles is a good idea. I've done a modest amount of further editing in preparation for doing precisely that at some point during the next several weeks. I'm still sorting out the keystroke sequences do doing everything up in Wikipedia's own preferred format, so I do plan to clean some of the references up insofar as readability is concerned. As a matter of personal opinion, I consider all three of these aeronautical ratings from the WW2 era to have their own unique importance in military aviation history and that they ought not be relegated to being merely all-but-forgotten curiosities. --WS-G (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I have also gotten a draft article started under the title USAAF Service Pilot to cover that section of the original article. I'd like to do some more editing on that before that section gets chopped from this article altogether. There is already a "Glider Pilot Badge" article on the English-language Wikipedia, however the content is limited to being an English-language translation of an article on the old Luftwaffe rating of the same period. My personal preference would be to leave that one alone and start a fresh article focused exclusively on the USAAF Glider Pilot rating, allowing the former to remain a German-focused article. Otherwise there would be the same issue of that one growing like the mythic hydra regenerating its heads. --WS-G (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, an article under the title "Liaison pilot" already exists. Its content is minimal, however it does make a start and what information is does contain appears to be accurate and focused on the US Army Liaison Pilots of the WW2 era. I'd like to propose merging the Liaison Pilot information from the article here with that one. Also, re-titling the existing "Liaison pilot" article to "USAAF Liaison Pilot" to avoid any potential for it growing into a multinational juggernaut — a lot of non-U.S. forces also maintained analogous pilot/observer musterings with similar missions. (EDIT TO ADD: I just rechecked the "Liaison pilot" article and noted that of the two references cited, both are dead links. Total content consists of only two paragraphs, which appear to be pasted verbatim from another past article online) --WS-G (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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)