iscover
The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld, made an announcement at RAAF’s centenary dinner on 31 March that can finally be made public.
From now on, the Air Force will replace the term ‘airmen’ with ‘aviators’ to mark its transition into its second 100 years.
“Of all the work that has been done in developing our Air Force culture, the most challenging dilemma has been fully explaining who we are,” AIRMSHL Hupfeld said.
“We understand well enough what we are and what we do – but have never quite managed to successfully articulate who we are. We are all aviators.
“As an Air Force, we are born of the air and space. It is our home, and the place from which we serve our nation. Our trade is aviation.
“In everything that we do, we are aviators first and foremost. All of us, by virtue of what we do and what we believe. It is what binds us together.”
He added that the public shouldn’t confuse the role of pilots with all of the Air Force’s common purpose, “to think, act and imagine from the perspective of the skies and space above us”.
Last week, RAAF celebrated its centenary with an ambitious flypast over Canberra that featured 60 warbirds and modern aircraft such as the Spitfire, Caribou, C-130J and F/A-18 Hornet.
AIRMSHL Hupfeld spoke then about the Air Force’s evolution from basic biplanes to boasting a fleet characterised by high-tech capabilities including space and cyber.
“In our first 100 years, in conflict, peacekeeping, search and rescue, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, Air Force developed a reputation within our nation and among our global partners for courage, perseverance and overcoming adversity. We consistently deliver air power well above the weight of an air force our size,” he said.
“More than 350,000 Australians have served in Air Force since 1921 and 11,191 have died in service during that time — we will always remember their service and sacrifice.
“Today, Air Force works with Navy, Army, Defence civilians, other government departments, defence industry and our international partners. These relationships have always been important for our success and will be crucial as we face the strategic challenges of an increasingly complex and competitive environment.
“As we commence our second century, it is our duty to preserve our proud legacy and to maintain our enduring commitment to supporting Australia.”
On 31 March 100 years ago, the Australian Air Force was formed, and five months later, its Royal designation was added to create the Royal Australian Air Force.
It was only the second “Royal” air arm in the British Commonwealth, following the formation of the RAF.
To celebrate, Australian Aviation released a special RAAF 100 In Focus digital edition to mark the big occasion.
It features an exclusive interview with the AIRMSHL Hupfeld; an introduction from Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price; as well as some of the best features from Australian Aviation’s history, examining the inner workings of the RAAF.
Click this link to subscribe and read.
Allan J Pickering
says:This must surely be some kind of joke, or have our Air Force leaders “lost the plot”? An aviator is someone who flies, not a cook, clerk, paper shuffler or Air Force medical staff. All the support jobs in the RAAF are important, but they are NOT aviators, simply because they do not fly. This silly decision needs to be revisited!
Warwick
says:This is yet another example of the idiotic PC’ism that’s taking over the world.
Never thought our RAAF would stoop to such low standards!
Allan, above, is 100% correct, in saying an ‘aviator’ FLIES a plane! That’s what its’ derivation means.
Gross stupidity to the nth degree.
Evan
says:Agree with Pickering. Hupfeld’s blatherings are ScoMo at his best. ‘Aviators’ are flyers. The term ‘airman’ used to mean that too, but was obviously borrowed as a generic one designed to cover a raft of Air Force roles, including the corporate. If there’s a problem with the gender implications, they should think a little deeper. This is simplistic stupidity!
RJW Shannon
says:What utter blathering, arrant, nonsense!! Aviators work in a cockpit with a control column, instruments and throttle. Aviators FLY aeroplanes. Other trades support that flying effort in various ways, but no way, even in semantic hell, are they ‘aviators’, too. I’m an Ex-radiotech and I would never countenance being termed an’aviator’…I can’t fly an aeroplane! Just another instance of misplaced Political Correctness in this namby-pamby nanny-state we are now forced to live in. I never even voted Labour!! (They were the ones who started this PC rubbish in order to garner votes from the minorities because they couldn’t get into power any other way in 1974 [?}. A lot of people alive today have never heard of that shameful business, though.)
TailEndCharlie
says:On a commercial airliner, the Pilot Flying is the Aviator.
In the passenger cabin, the Chief Purser is not an aviator.
The only person QUALIFIED to be called an Aviator, is an aircraft Pilot, no one else.
Back in the day, when there was just a few women flying ‘planes, they were called ‘an Aviatrix’.
Fred
says:That is a stupid a calling a chairman a chair (men and women have 2 legs, chairs have 4) and a Police Force a Police Service. Once again it seems like we have the wrong people at the top.
Neale Horrocks
says:For about 25 years I was an “airman”. What a lot of rot to change – Aviator means a pilot – not a fire truck driver or a forklift driver., or a storeman or clerk. If they have a gender problem, and I’m sure that they don’t among the serving airmen and women, go and look for someother title. ERKS used to be the name we all understood.
Neale Horrocks
micheal halse
says:How stupid. PC at its worst. I heard a retired US Army soldier refer jokingly to the USAF chairforce recently because they changed fitness tests from running to walking! Another US PC was dropping term ‘master bedroom’ to ‘primary bedroom’ because, you know its slaveish! Then anotherUS govt change under Biden is to drop term “mothet” and refer to them as ‘birthing person’!
I thought Australia was above such stupidy. If the CAS wanted to honour the foundation of the RAAF he should have kept Point Cook. Army retained Duntroon. Why did past CASs rollover and selloff our heritage. I was an AC who made CPL and WGCDR and proud of each rank. And I was not a pilot or aviator for 30 years!
David Thomas
says:I am both an ex-Air Force “airman” and an “aviator” because, after my RAAF service, I learnt to fly. But there is no way that I would refer to my RAAF service as being an “aviator” … I was a SigsOp and proud of the super secret job I did for 9 years as part of the longest standing, fully operastiuonal unit of the RAAF – 3TELU. But, never once in that 9 years, did I consider myself an “aviator” … Wake up Air Staff and get real … we were, and are, all proud airmen and airwomen!
Jules
says:Every dictionary I can get my hands on has one definition for ‘aviator’ and one definition only; that is, ‘an aircraft pilot’. Clearly, I’m not the only one to have noticed this. And we all know what a pilot is and is not.
Is the RAAF just ignoring the English definition or is it attempting to change it?
Support personnel, as integral and indispensable as they are to airforce operations, are not aviators. Likewise other aircrew – Weapon Systems Officers, Electronic Warfare Officers, Maritime Patrol and Response Officers, Air Battle Managers, Air Mobility Officers, Airborne Electronics Analysts, and Loadmasters – are not, by definition, aviators (though no one would dispute the critical operational nature of their roles as aircrew).
In wanting a sort of ‘one name fits all’ like its sister services; i.e. ‘sailor’ in the navy and ‘soldier’ in the army, the RAAF hierarchy has not found it in the term aviator; they might as well call everyone in the RAAF pilots. What was wrong with the term ‘airman’ anyway? Perhaps the ‘woke’ PC generation now considers that term to be gender-specific and so it is to be cast off. Are we not all human? Is it not gender-neutral to be human? Airman is equally gender-neutral; or at least it used to be and still should be.
Interestingly the RAN doesn’t seem to have a problem with its ranks of seaman, able seaman, and leading seaman being applicable to both men and women (and why should it?). While the RAF and RNZAF have the ranks of aircraftman and leading aircraftman regardless of gender, the RAAF has long held onto aircraftwoman, and leading aircraftwoman for females. Why? Perhaps the RAAF should also update the AC and LAC ranks to be gender-neutral and leave the W out of it for women.
In any case, whatever the motive for wanting to introduce an alternative term for ‘airman’, ‘aviator’ is not it; it doesn’t make sense, any more than it would make sense to call all RAAF personnel ‘pilots’. Frankly, it should be an insult to everyone who is not a pilot as if to suggest that only pilots matter in the RAAF.