Wouldn't it make sense to allow soldiers to earn their wings through DOD Civillian Schools run by Vets?

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:28:53 -0400

Wouldn't it be a value add to allow soldiers who couldn't get a slot for Ft. Benning to go to a DOD approved Civillian school run by Veterans (special forces, rangers, 101st) and earn their wings there? They could then be tested after 5 jumps on their knowledge to be allowed to get the asi. There would be the benefit of more qualified soldiers, more knowledge, more experience, it would cost the Army less (paid by the soldiers who want to go), and still offer the same sense of pride. There is also the added benefit you wouldn't have to go to one place to get this training you could go to more locations and earn the wings.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2021 8:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 20:00:01 -0400

If there was enough demand for Airborne qualified Soldiers that could be done. I don't see it happening.

Response by LTC Eugene Chu made Mar 27 at 2021 8:10 PM

LTC Eugene Chu — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 20:10:09 -0400

It would not be feasible. The military regulations and civilian laws about what defines a school to be official is complicated. Liability, certification and cost are among the factors. Private companies that train uniformed personnel hold specific government contract

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2021 9:42 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:42:26 -0400

Who's going to fly them up. Who's going to repack the parachutes?

If the Army needed more, there would be more put behind training openings.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2021 9:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:43:42 -0400

Response by SGT Mark Halmrast made Mar 27 at 2021 11:06 PM

SGT Mark Halmrast — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 23:06:17 -0400

101st is not an airborne unit.
You are in Intelligence?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2021 11:14 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 23:14:28 -0400

The Army needs about 60,000 Soldiers on airborne status, and the school has the capacity to put through over 18,000 per year.
We have enough seats.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Mar 28 at 2021 12:16 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 00:16:12 -0400

My answer is NO, the Army has done a great job getting people of the Army as well as other services jump qualified. I doubt anyone else could do better or cover the subject as well and jump from the same sort of aircraft they would be use in any combat or other Military Operations. Even on packing parachutes with maximum safety applied. This is something that isn't broken and needs no fixing and has worked well for decades.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2021 12:16 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 00:16:30 -0400

Are you asking this so you can get a badge? It would be a terrible idea. It is also against regulation for a Soldier to conduct any military airborne operations when they don't have airborne wings. There would be no control over the enforcement of policies and then when a Soldier gets injured there wouldn't be anyone to conduct the investigation to what happened. It should never happen.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 28 at 2021 12:28 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 00:28:12 -0400

No we tried the crap years ago- almost every major post had Jump training (FBGA, FBNC, Alaska, Italy) there were 2 or 3 Air Assault places, and many post had Recondo or sniper schools. All with their own curriculum. It was an absolute mess. And everybody was paying for those schools out of their own post funds. They are set up now, not to make life easier for folks, or easier to get into but to have 1 master reporting to 1 HQ, with the funds to du it right.It w

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Mar 28 at 2021 1:59 PM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 13:59:13 -0400

There are alot of assumptions and areas of gray in this.

Is the Army currently under mission for meeting quotas for Airborne qualified individuals? Why would we need to put the cost on the individual going? For an Officer cost may not be a concern but for E5's and below that could be a unnecessary burden. I don't understand the requirement to go through the hoops of establishing outsourced jump schools. Sounds like a slick way for non-airborne folks to earn some wings on the side to gussy up their uniform. Especially those with some rank and expendable income. Tradition and culture play a big part in everything in the Military does. Especially benchmark schools like Jump School. It just seems like an unorthodox solution to an non existing problem.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2021 3:06 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 15:06:50 -0400

Disagree with —> civilian school option for most of the reasons stated by others.
Agree with —-> should always be looking at options that are “cost effective” and “cost (the Army) less.”

BAC 01-86, Fort McCoy, WI. Set up back in the day to primarily accommodate Reserve and Guard that only used to get *two weeks* off from their employer for AT. Ground Week and Air Week (No Tower Week)

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Mar 28 at 2021 4:30 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:30:44 -0400

I don't see the practical need for more Soldiers to be jump qualified. I think the concept of airborne operations are outmoded. High Altitude personnel air drops may be useful for insertion of Special Operations personnel, but the traditional airdrops at 500-1500 feet are not practical on the modern, high-tech, battlefield. The transport aircraft are not viable in a moderate to high threat air combat environment. The number of aircraft that would be lost in a non-permissive air environment during something like a battalion air drop would be prohibitive. High altitude cargo (CDS) air drops may remain useful for emergency resupply. Fun and exciting as they may be, I just don't think there's a demand for hundreds of extra jump qualified people.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Mar 29 at 2021 1:51 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:51:38 -0400

I think it would be beneficial for NCOs to qualify for flight school. Possibly if older.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2021 3:14 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 15:14:48 -0400

What civilian places do static line drops?
Airborne is barely even relevant in modern warfare anyway....

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 29 at 2021 5:34 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:34:04 -0400

There isn't enough of a need to justifiy outsourcing the course. The current Airborne pipeline is more than capable of meeting the current personnel requirements AND training tons of personnel that won't be going to Airborne assignments "just because they wanted to go".