Aircraft "Captain"

[flash8]

From the RAF recruitment site:

A WSO Says: ‘As the aircraft captain I’m responsible for everybody on board. In some respects, a Nimrod crew is like a sports team on tour, especially when we’re overseas. As the team captain, I have to organise accommodation, transport, local currency and so on. The camaraderie, the banter and the professionalism are terrific – I have a great crew.’

Now the guy starts off as the "Aircraft Captain".. I might be retarded here... or missing the point (not unusual!) but I always thought that the Captain usually occupies the LHS at the pointy end.

Whats the world coming to? Or was that a typo (as I suspect)?

[Edited for typo]

[BEagle]

A number of navigators (and AEOs) have been appointed as 'Captain' for many years in the Nimrod fleet. So a WSO 'Captain' is nothing new.

I'm not sure about any other ME fleets in the RAF, apart from the AT/AAR world where the Captain is invariably the LHS occupant (except during flying training sorties), but it is a relatively commonplace practice in the kipper fleet.

[Human Factor]

No controls, no vote. :E

[Radar Riser]

Human Factor from Galley. Would you like special sauce with that?:E :E

[kippermate]

'Back end captains'.

I never had a problem.

Pointy end had responsibility for ensuring that the ac is in the right place at the right time etc

TacNav/AEO (or WSO 1 and 2 ?) were responsible for the tactics.

Captain had the deciding vote.

The operators made sure that the TacNav had all the information required to determine appropriate tactics.

No snags.

kipper.

Although the big badge sqn did have a Society Against Back End Captains (SABEC)

;)

[Impiger]

A couple of related thoughts:

If a Nav or AEO could be a Kipper Kaptain and fight the aircraft why couldn't a Nav or Tactical Director be captain of the E3D (perhaps because when it entered Service it was in 11 Gp and they'd never concede that anyone other than the pilot could be skipper)

Knew a nav who went on exchange with the German Air Force flying Transalls. Apparently their norm was for the senior man on board to be captain of the aircraft - something of a novelty for our bold Ascoteer on exchange - hmm wonder what Innsworth made of all those 'captain' hours recorded on his 1369?

It really doesn't matter who is the 'captain' provided each crew member knows his role and responsibilities.

[donpizmeov]

Remember one Nav CAPTAIN from 201. Cost a cartoon for beers if his name was ever mentioned in public!!! Remember when guesting on his crew for a hard working static display at some euro airshow, his famous advise that we should do a very careful control check before departure. Wise words indeed. Think I said I would if he would check that his pencils were nicely sharpened.
Only two backenders I know of really did the job properly. One be dimmer switch, and the other that deaf dumb and blind kid that moved to Oz.
Still, it is really like when branters's mrs gives you a kiss goodbye.....just not right!!!

Don

[BEagle]

Or, as described to me once by a Nimrod pilot....

"It's like driving your car with your b£oody mother-in-law in the back nagging at you all the damn time! But try to get the old bat to read the map for you and she cocks it up"

:rolleyes:

[Engineer]

Surely the Captain is responsible for buying you loads of beer, keeping you out of fights and paying the bill.

Ahhhhhhhh that lovely expression " the captain will pay!" :ok:

[sonicstomp]

Impiger - A TD on the E3 could indeed be an a/c captain if you apply the same rationale used on the Kipper fleet.

Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.

IMHO the TD - Captain (senior pilot) system works very well.

The TD "directs the tactics" and the Captain retains overall command and right of veto.

In practice, a TD & skipper who work closely together provide the best solution in achieving safe and effective mission accomplishment.

TD training would have to be significantly expanded to enable them to become a/c commanders and IMHO they are busy enough chaps as it is!!

A good TD will know enough about the air vehicle to make the prudent tactical decisions that affect the 'mission' and a good Captain (pilot) will know enough about the conduct of the mission to best optimize the sensors, effect a safe self-defence posture and ultimately ensure the mission is a success. (oh, and fly the friggin thing!)

Incidentally, I have never detected a ground-swell of opinion from E3 rear-crew to challenge the current system. The success of the fleet on live ops (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan & Iraq) would suggest the "system works".

Thoughts anyone?

[Pontius Navigator]

In the mighty V the 1st Pilot was the captain with the casting vote but 'operational control' moved around the crew stations depending on the stage of the mission.

'twas a foolish man that did not follow the guidance experts advice especially as the pilots only controlled the ILS and the V/UHF radios and even there the AEO had a vote.

I have flown with one pillock who was captain and acted the part. The same part as Orson Welles portrayed on the good ship Bounty and it didn't half show!

[rivetjoint]

So who would be the aircraft commander on Air Force 1?

[sonicstomp]

RJ - Good point - How does it work when your 'animated freight' is your commander-in-chief??? As Captain do you still have the ultimate veto??

Royal Sqn - any comment??

[BEagle]

Orson Welles in the 'Mutiny on the Bounty'?

He acted in a radio version in 1939 - did you really hear that, PN? Or did you mean Charles Laughton in the role of Capt Bligh in the 1935 version?

One thing the V-force did have right was the "First, Co, Rad, Plot, AEO" crew response on intercomm. And if things were serious, then "Captain to Crew" raised the level of attention appropriately! Much easier than the truckie force where the U/T captain is called 'Captain' even if he/she isn't, with the real Captain, the QFI, sitting in the co-pilot's seat!

[foldingwings]

Not again, for God's sake! We did this subject to death about a month ago! The same old opinions and bigotted views are just being repeated!

[Magic Mushroom]

In almost 5000 hrs on AWACS - mostly as a TD - as sonicstomp says, I've never viewed the capt-TD relationship an issue.

The flt deck are very reliant upon the mission crew for tactical SA, and us goats have no flt instruments or windows. Moreover, during the mission, the TD will almost certainly not be listening to an ATC radio. IMHO, it's largely a matter of semantics: place the right guy in the capt (left or right!) and TD seats and things work fine. I've never had one of my decisions countermanded by the capt and I've never felt the need to question a capt. As stomp says, actions (during ops) speak louder than words and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!' Likewise however, I feel that the TD should always have retrograde authority...

..which brings me onto the JSTARS who have a very strange system with an extra 'decision layer'. Here the capt is always the Aircraft Commander (AC or 1st pilot) and the Mission Crew Commander (MCC=TD) is in charge of the mission. However, the nav acts as the Defensive Systems Officer and makes decisions regarding retrogrades! Whilst the E-8C nav does sit down the back and has a mission display (unlike on AWACS), I've yet to meet a JSTARS AC or MCC who is comfortable with this system.

Incidentally, I think the RN have a rear crew (or in the case of the Lynx, left hand seat) captain system (they certainly do on the Sea King ASaC7).

Regards,
M2

[reynoldsno1]

The USN VP squadrons used to use the terms Mission Commander and PPC (Pilot Plane Commander) - they could be the same person. It worked pretty much like the Nimrod fleet in practice, but seemed to satisfy the ego/emotive wrangling issue...:uhoh:

[baffy boy]

Captaincy = Leadership…………not just sitting in the LHS

The Nimrod Maritime fleet has a long history of appointing (in the main) the best officer for the position of captain. The task of leading a Nimrod crew has nothing to do with where you sit. Some people are better leaders than others. Nimrod captains are generally above average operators with at least a couple of years experience under their belts. I have flown with, and known, poor through excellent captains of every flavour. Don’t believe that pilots have not been at the poorer end either. Sitting at the front does not automatically make you a good leader of a 12 body crew.

For doubters like flash8, the Nimrod captain takes responsibility for the whole shooting match, including signing for the aircraft. In this way you have one person in charge, there is no delineation between plane commander and mission commander, the captain carries the can. The line MR Nimrod crew is a constituted team with one designated leader. If the captain is a back ender the first pilot is responsible to him/her for the safe operation of the aircraft and should be able to put up with the occasional daft comment (suggesting that a closer look at everything after a weekend on static might not be that daft actually). If the captain is a pilot he expects the first nav to get the mission done as effectively as possible with the odd helpful interjection of tactical brilliance from the flight deck (have you tried barra, could it be down slope enhancement and other gems).

Donpizmeov shows his narrow field of view by stating that he has only known of 2 backenders that ‘did the job properly’ and judging by what he said they were both AEO’s. What absolute rubbish. I reckon that, conservatively, there must have been at least 300 back end captains at Kinloss in just the last 20 years. Don only knows of 2 that did the job properly? Dull statement Donnie. I bet the AEO captain of the Fincastle winning crew this week would respect your balanced point of view.
Bit rude about Mrs Branters as well. Comments like that don’t give you much cred as far as I am concerned.

The Royal Air Force’s Long Range Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force has been doing its business for decades as well as, if not better than in many respects, any comparable force in the world. Its methods work. Most of you seem to have no understanding of those methods. Why don’t we all stick to what we know and avoid hearsay and drivel? Those of you from the MPA community should not be too self deprecating either; you might end up down the same dead end as the Dutch.

There have been a couple more posts since I started this. Reynoldsno1. The P3 has a mission commander and plane commander. The plane commander is always a pilot. Big difference from the Nimrod.
E3D TD/Nimrod WSO. No comparison as far as I’m concerned. The E3 back end is operating a radar system that happens to be airborne. A good chunk of the crew are not actually aircrew. The flight deck is toting a radar station round the sky in circles. Again, different from the Nimrod MR doing maritime stuff.
By the way, Human Factors, your comment makes your nickname something of an oxymoron doesn't it?
Folding Wings. Sorry, didn’t see the other stuff.

[reynoldsno1]

Reynoldsno1. The P3 has a mission commander and plane commander. The plane commander is always a pilot. Big difference from the Nimrod.
Errr., that's what I said - I have operated on both. In practice it don't make a hill o'beans of difference....

[Oggin Aviator]

We did go round the buoy on this a month or so ago however to add to MM's comment in the RN the senior officer aboard (pilot or observer) is normally the aircraft captain. This will not be the case in certain instances of specific training (with a QHI or QOI the a/c captain) OR if the Authoriser wishes to nominate someone else as a/c captain. The pilot will always sign for the aircraft in the 700 - if the observer is the a/c captain this is a delegated task to the pilot.

Right or wrong that is the way it is done.

Oggin

[sonicstomp]

Baffy Boy - Hear what you are saying about Maritime - I quite agree that regardless of specialisation Captaincy is about leadership and crew management.

I don't know enough about MPA ops to comment, but I do think the E3 system works as it currently is.

Incidentally, on all but the most canned peace-time missions the E3 doesn't just float around as an airborne radar head in circles.

On ops good and effective whole crew coordination is required in order to 'fight' the platform. The air vehicle is often reacting dynamically in order to achieve optimization of sensors and comms connectivity. This was particularly true in Afghanistan and indeed in Telic (acting in the TST role in the Western Desert). Add in regular AAR (with large fuel uplifts) and very long missions, make it a 'challenging' job for the front-end. There is a myth that all we do is fly around in circles for hours and land back at Waddo (admittedly there are missions like that :D )!!

[moggiee]

"Captain" is derived from the Latin "Capo" or "head".

It seems to make a great deal of sense to give the leadership for a particular task to the person most suited to that task.

Therefore, the Flight Safety Captaincy should go to flightdeck crew with the view out of the window, the direct liaison with ATC and all the dials, screens, knobs and buttons that relate to the flying of the aeroplane.

Tactical/Mission leadership should eb given to the person with the best tactical view - and on a Nimrod or Sentry (and the ASTOR jobbie whose name escapes me right now) that is likely to be one of the folks down the back with the big telly and lots of computer power.

This sort of contingency or task orientated leadership is surely just a matter of common sense.

[Magic Mushroom]

Moggiee,
ASTOR=Mission Controller.

Nimrod R1= Mission Supervisor.

Regards,
M2

[DP Harvey]

I've flown on the kipper fleet for long enough to have an opinion on this. Until recently, I supported the concept of the back end captain, based on the view that he was a leader of men/right man for the job, etc, etc,

But now, I'm not so keen on it.

Over the years there have been quite a few events where the 1st pilot, had he been the captain, would have been in the $hit due to errors directly related to the handling of the aircraft in which he was flying. On the occasions I have in mind the B/E captain was clearly in no position to "have a vote" in what the flight deck were about to do. And because B/E captains have that protection, they cannot be made responsible for the cock ups. On the other hand, when things go well for the crew, viz a viz Fincastle, etc, the B/E captain is deemed responsible and receives all the praise. This is clearly an unbalanced principle. If a pilot captain didn't win Fincastle, or his crew lost contact with a sub, it would his name in big writing on the top of the crew list and he would not be able to claim, "no CTS screen, no vote". It is this inequality that pi$$es me off. Pilot captains take full responsibility for absolutely everything, but B/E captains are protected against that full responsibity.

Here's a typical well worn path in the kipper fleet: The sqn boss has a captaincy vacancy on the horizon. He peruses the faces on his rogues gallery and his best non-captain pilot is a reasonably experienced P1, whom he feels he cannot justify giving captaincy to, at the moment...a bit more experience, together with a displayed improvement in tactical matters and he will be competitive the next time round. So, in the meantime lets choose a more experienced (hrs in the air) B/E officer as his new captain and together they will provide a safe combination. Looks good. But, on close examination of the new B/E captain we have an individual who might be a tactical genius but he doesn't know diddly squat about his aircraft and needs to go the OCU for a "captains course for back enders". Whereas, the guy in the front seat has already demonstrated captaincy by his existing appointment as P1. Which of those two guys should take full responsibility for the crew and the jet?

It is interesting that the Navy adhere to the concept that captaincy means what it says. The skipper of Nottingham wasn't even on the boat when it hit the rocks but he still took and accepted responsibilty.

If you cannot take the $hit when things go wrong in the handling dept then you should not have your name in the F700 and be put in charge of the jet. Hard but fair.

There are other ways to assess leadership and manage the careers of our B/E brethren (oh fcuk, I just gave the game away.....).

[Yeller_Gait]

Baffy Boy,

Good post up to the point where you said

E3D TD/Nimrod WSO. No comparison as far as I’m concerned. The E3 back end is operating a radar system that happens to be airborne. A good chunk of the crew are not actually aircrew. The flight deck is toting a radar station round the sky in circles.

You also said



Most of you seem to have no understanding of those methods. Why don’t we all stick to what we know and avoid hearsay and drivel?

Suggest that you stick to what you preach.

Having flown on both aircraft types, what works for the MR2 is fine, and what works for the E3D is also good, but to try and have a "one size fits all" is not good. The intercom/radios setup on the Nimrod allows a pilot captain to be fully involved in the decision making processes as far as fighting the aircraft goes, but that does not work with the E3D.


And as for your comments

A good chunk of the crew are not actually aircrew. The flight deck is toting a radar station round the sky in circles.

I suggest that you come flyig with us sometime, I think you will find that the D is equally as professional as the MR2, and does a bit more than carry a radar around the sky.

And yes, I know, I have bit, but if that is all you were after ........ (can't be bothered to write any more)

[baffy boy]

Yeah, sorry Yeller_Gait, I can't be bothered to post anything half the time 'cos it's obvious some folks make comment on stuff they know not much about. Then I go and do it myself as a throw away line.
I have actually spent a few hours on the E3D. I might have sounded a bit rude but my point is that without the (AEW) radar the E3D is mostly an airliner with lots of radios. The radar is the heart and soul of the system. It's the only reason to have the aircraft in the first place. How many of your flying hours have been spent while the system is brought up and taken down? What do most people do while that is happening or when it breaks?
The Nimrod IS the system and is able to operate as soon as it gets airborne. The crew forms an integral part of the system, it can still fight with all sorts of sensor bits going TU, and it carries it's own weapons. I guess I was just trying to say that the TD is not in any way in as good a position as the AEO for example, to be the captain. Not his fault it's just a completely different set up. That's why it does not happen, it would not work.
I know full well that the E3D operators are as professional as anyone, I just said a chunk of them aren't aircrew. They don't need to be. OK, I didn't mean circles, I should have said racetracks. Or maybe slow weavy type lines. Or straight ones. There I go again..........
The E3D Nimrod part of this lot is a red herring anyway. It was the original Aircraft "Captain" caption that suckered me in. It ain't "Captain", it's Captain.
DP Harvey. Sorry, you are not completely correct. I have very personal experience of a back end Captain taking responsibility for the (not very bright) aircraft handling actions of his first pilot. In fact he nearly lost his captaincy. It goes with the territory. Other people were in a better position to put P1 straight at the time and maybe they would have if the Captain had a different way of doing things overall. I know Nimrod pilot captains who are remembered as Fincastle winning captains and deservedly so, the leader gets recognized for getting his team across the finish line. It probably wasn't just what happened in the competition, it was the way the Captain led and developed his team in the months before. One team, one leader.
Reynoldsno1. Think about it. The difference is not all that subtle. (I have 1500 hrs P3 hrs, there are no non-pilots in the captain column of my log book)
Enough, I'm off to the Med tomorrow and I'm not coming back here for a while.
Not until I know what I'm talking about. I could be away for some time..........................................

[Impiger]

Surely the RFC had it right.

The captain was the officer and he sat in the front (observer). The NCO was the driver and he sat in the back and flew the pesky machine. BEagle you were there that's right isn't it Old Bean

[YellowBelly]

As indicated previously, the E-3D TD is no position to undertake captaincy due to him being effectively divorced from the operation of the air vehicle once the mission system is powered down (apart from what he can lean from the intercom, which is really only sufficient for controlling the guys down the back). And even with the system powered up, the displays available to him still only give him SA regarding position and horizontal/vertical motion, and proximity to other ac and/or threats. He has no aircraft system indications and, importantly, precious little training about these factors and their implications, and all of the other factors associated with flying an aircraft. Indeed, his job is busy enough as it is without giving him more work to do.

And yet, we can still give mission crew flight commanders (TDs or lower) an authoriser's ticket. This is an extremely dubious practice in my view, particularly for the FCs (but I would include some of the "WSOs" in that category as well). Unfortunately, its a classic case of "they don't know what they don't know" (my Rumsfeld impersonation). And yet being made an authoriser is seen simply as having a good knowledge of the regulations, and having completed (hopefully) an "authorisers' course for back-enders" (is there a syllabus for this course by the way - I anticipate an answer from M2!). What they fail to realise is that most brand new co-pilots have a far more instinctive feel (ie. experience) towards aircraft operations and associated regs than they do. So why does the system permit them to have this "laying on of hands"?

Rant over - must go and have a rest.....

[Impiger]

Oooh ....... Authorisation of flights now there's a can of worms to open!

New thread perhaps but I never could quite get my head around some of the nonsenscical rules I was paid to enforce - still am - bu@@er perhaps I should retire to my usual corner of the bar.

[Magic Mushroom]

Auths...ugh...let's not go there...oh all right then!!!

Firstly YB, there has been an awful lot of rubbish spouted by the likes of baffy boy et al who clearly has very little understanding of how the E-3D works. Mission system power up is often one of the busiest times for the TD in particular. Even without the systems, considerable work is done via radios with external units. Additionally, when the mission comms are not selected, the mission crew have a transit commplan with ATC etc. To say that the radar is the only reason to have the aircraft there in the first place is ludicrous. The E-3D's many data link and ABCCC duties often do not rely on having sensor data, and we are often little more than a glorified comms platform.

Whatever their brevet, and whether people view FC and AT badges as being brevets in the first place is virtually ignored at Waddington. They are all treated as aircrew and FCs, Navs, and AEOs are all judged on an equal basis for upgrades. Some may be a little surprised at the relevant success rates for the various branches in trg and upgrades!

Currently FCs are not allowed powers of authorisation. I have to say that there is a strong argument for authorisers only being pilots on the E-3D (IMHO). In my experience, most E-3D pilots disagree with the concept of mission crew auths. Interestingly however, equally most pilots say that - if there are mission crew auths - then FCs should not be excluded. Fair comment stomp?

Many FCs have spent the majority of their careers flying and have many thousands of hrs under their belts (the high time FC is currently a 22 year 8500+ fg hr man (Shacks, Nimrods, E-3A, E-3D). An increasing number of FCs are CFS agents. Many have proved very capable flt cdrs. The Boss of the OCU is an FC. The Boss of the OEU is an FC. The Boss of STANEVAL has been, and many of his guys still are. From this year, FCs will also under go virtually the same course as WSOp(L) have been for years at 55 Sqn. This has been an aspiration for sometime but one blocked by costs, the capacity of 6 FTS/55 Sqn, and some branch politics.

However, personally, I'd love to sit down beside an AEO or Nav and take an exam on E-3D performance, flying regs etc and be confident in more than holding my own.

Maybe they're too scared to be shown up?:E Although I do acknowledge that being an effective auth is one of those black arts that is not just about knowledge of books.

Many said that FCs would never make TDs/flt cdrs or cope with the E-2C. In the early days of the Tornado GR1, navs were blocked from 4-ship lead or ACT instructor posts by the ex-Jag mafia. In my experience, if you judge people purely on ability, it is often surprising how effective individuals can be when placed in positions of repsonsibility.

Such subjects are always emotive. I stand by for incoming!!!

Regards,
M2

[ORAC]

Going back to the original ad. :rolleyes: As the aircraft captain.. I have to organise accommodation, transport, local currency and so on. :confused:

[YellowBelly]

M2 - many thanks for your views - comprehensive as always. My comments on FCs were aimed purely at their potential powers of authorisation, certainly not their performance in crew positions for which they have clearly proved their worth. Interested to hear you say that mission crew are not currently permited to be authorisers. This has not always been the case, so was this an edict from Group or is it down to the whims of local management? Regardless, it appears that common sense may be winning through (well, that's the kiss of death then...).

[Magic Mushroom]

YB,
TVM...I do need to get out more!

Mission crew ARE allowed to be authorisers (although in practice most are flt deck) but FCs are not.

Regards,
M2

[donpizmeov]

Baffy boy,
Seems your arguemant is a little isothermal!

Hmmmm...seem to remember the mighty hunter just being an airliner with a bunch of radios, radar, ESM kit, and some acoustic kit nicely arranged as to not effect the Cof G too much. I guess one of the major differences between the E3 and the Nimrod is that the E3 was based on a more sucessful airliner design.

The only thing that makes the Nimrod work so well, is the bunch of fellas in the back of it. As operators they are pretty much as good as they get. However, you must agree that they are this good because they specialise in one area, be it wet, dry, Nav or pilot. Never really worked out what an AEO does...but apparently a good one is worth his weight in gold...must be the way they block the sunlight from the TacNavs screen!

So since the pilot has been taught from day 1 of his training how to be an airplane captain, and because the rest of the crew have not, I say he is the man for the job. Just as the wet team should listen to the bouys, and the dry guys take a glimpse at the radar. But they all work as a team,

On old fashioned MPA like the Nimrod, which have no screen up the front for the pilots, it makes sense that the TacNav, or AEO be mission commander. And if you want make the senior officer/best man for the job whatever the crew captain as well...all good stuff. But, the Aircraft captain should be the man making all the airplane like decisions up the front with the yoke , sidestick, or porn mag!!

Here endith the lesson.


Don

[totalwar]

Mission crew ARE allowed to be authorisers (although in practice most are flt deck

Does that suggest that to authorise thr sortie you have to be in the aircraft? In the RN you don't even need to be aircrew to authorise sorties.

Would (or does) the RAF allow Non-Aircrew to authorise sorties?

[16 blades]

***OLD JOKE WARNING***

What's the difference between E-3 passengers and VC-10 passengers?




VC-10 passengers don't wear headsets......

16B