Does aviation MOSs have relaxed grooming standards?

With her helmet in front of her on the floor it is apparent she is about to go fly. Females can’t wear buns with the helmet on. Why have her put it in a bun if she is just going to put it down five minutes later to go fly. My rule of thumb is if I am passed the airfield gate and in flights I am on “flight standards”. Anywhere outside the airfield I’ll blouse my stuff, headgear, etc etc.

No but they are pretty boys and pretty girls.

There are no separate standards just because you’re going to fly. The flight helmet does have some comfort concerns, but that doesn’t supersede regulations. In addition, hair as long as pictured poses concerns for safety where the hair could get snagged by machinery or be a further hazard in the event of fire. This may be better addressed by the unit 1SG or CSM rather than a Warrant in front of his formation (you brought the concern, you have the picture, better to address it as a unit standards issue at a more appropriate time).

I then say that female aviators have short hair, just as the male aviators. One standard.

Hey come on, it LOOKS cool. All that matters.... LMAO

You can't fit a flight helmet on your head if your hair is in a bun.
Also, in aviation there are grooming standards that are mostly overlooked or ignored for different reasons, like blousing your boots. In my decade of aviation experience the general attitude has seemed to be "we already have a stressful job so we're not going to sweat the petty stuff."

You were not wrong for correcting the soldier, but your petulance over the outcome is a different matter. If you didn't like the response from her immediate supervisor, you could take the matter further up their chain of command. I'm sure at some level you would eventually have found someone who would have published a memo clearly stating "We'll have no more of that." (flyers will recognize the reference).

Bringing up the matter here is mostly just a child throwing a temper tantrum screaming "But I Was Right!" and looking for someone to pat you on the head to tell you "Yes, you were right and everyone else was wrong."

It's not just aviators (although they do provide most of the examples). Every part of the military that uses specialized equipment and especially who wear PPE rather than standard uniforms will exhibit some appearance that looks like it violates AR 670-1. I still recall decades ago when various NCOs (much like you) would have heart attacks while trying to "correct" tank crews for wearing the woodland camo BDU cap together with their solid sage green nomex shirt and pants.

Likewise, it has always been common for commanders to ignore AR 670-1 when they thought they had a better idea -- whether that better idea was a locally developed patch, non-standard accouterments like a branch scarf with insignia added, or epaulets added to uniforms that didn't have them so finance clerks could wear combat leader tabs.

You were correct bringing the issue to her attention and to her immediate supervisor. After that it is entirely up to you to decide if that is the hill you want to die on. But either way, it is a matter for her chain of command -- not a public referendum.

The regulation for grooming are the same throughout the Army or they were when I got out regardless of MOS. There may be exceptions but not because of MOS. As for addressing the issue with her, why, she doesn't report to you, it's none of your business.

Perhaps it's because she couldn't get her hair under a flight helmet if it were worn "up" in a bun. But, to answer your question, no, Aviation does not have relaxed grooming standards as a branch, all branches must abide by the same grooming standards. Relaxed grooming is allowed for certain kinds of missions, including covert or investigative missions when military grooming might compromise the identity of the individual and endanger mission success.

Yes her hair is not standard to AR 670-1, not to mention that she does not have her headgear on.