All Army aviators should pursue single-engine fixed-wing ratings

An interesting premise. I don't know a durn thing about aviation but it makes sense to me

The Lieutenant is discussing a subject that I'm sure the Army and Air Force have spent many hours analyzing. Both of those services have decided to designate their pilot candidates into either a rotary or fixed wing training pipeline prior to any flight experience. Navy flight training, on the other hand, assigns student pilots to rotary or fixed wing training subsequent to basic fixed wing training similiar to the single engine land FAA requirements he advocates. Which is better? Obviously the Army and Air Force feel there is no significant safety or other experience advantage to the Navy methodology, and in defense of the Army/AF method, I do not recall ever reading an accident report that cited the lack of single piloted flight experience as a contributing factor, I do recall many reports citing lack of crew coordination as a factor in multi-piloted aircraft, so perhaps training in crew coordination is more pertinent than the single piloted aircraft experience. Navy justification for their method during my training was that the initial fixed wing training for all gave more flexibility in later transitions and a deeper understanding of aerodynamic principles. I personally profited from that as I did transition between fixed and rotary wing aircraft during my career at the unit level according to unit requirements.