Commissioned Rearcrew - Will it/Should it Start Again? [Archive]

Roadster280

30th Jan 2007, 00:34

I don't think your question is radical enough. The basic aptitude to be a pilot is independent of intelligence or education. Both these latter two are necessary to be a successful military pilot. For (current) NCA duties, the latter two are arguably more important than aptitude. The commission attendant with pilot training (at least in the RAF), seems to blur the issue somewhat. I find it somewhat disagreeable in modern society that the class distinctions and prejudices of years gone by are perpetuated. Why should officers have to buy uniform? Why are the dining tables in the Offrs and Sgts messes different?
Surely it is time the forces modernised and rid themselves of this oppressive way of doing business, and commissioned those worthy of it, based upon objective assessment of how they perform in the early stages of their career. This would stop all those who ought to be MT drivers from being commissioned on the basis that they have a degree, and allow those who can perform as leaders to be such.
How many years service does it take to become a Master? About 20? Probably 15 of those years spent not being as productive as they might have been had they been commissioned after 5. Contrast with Flt Lt Airfix Boy who gets his 5 GCEs and has reached his career ceiling after 5 years.
Sorry if this wasn't the answer you're looking for, but it might stop spineless leadership at MOD eventually. Rant off :)

Tiger_mate

30th Jan 2007, 06:14

Sorry to raise the issue about working harder at school, but...

There are many NCA with university degree's, and not 'sociology' either. So apart from your comment demonstrating immaturity and arrogance, it is also complete bollox.

The basic aptitude to be a pilot is independent of intelligence or education.

This is probably fair comment, but the educational element is a hurdle to cross before you can prove it.

Pontius Navigator

30th Jan 2007, 07:20

Why should officers have to buy uniform?

I asked this very question of the Roadshow Team. Because we cannot afford to stock uniforms for officers.

This was a stupid answer as we buy them from stores anyway. If they only provision enough 'free-issue' items for the airmen and officers buy some then it follows there will be a shortage and a small number of special order items will cost more. Doh!

The tax relief an officer gets for uniforms exactly matches the cost of daily wear for 5 years.

Officers should not have to buy daily wear clothing - then they may stop wearing CS95 and Flying Suits.

Pontius Navigator

30th Jan 2007, 07:28

Is it time the best NCA stopped bolstering the Ops Spt Branch and started benefitting it's own once more?

I have met several commissioned ALMs and we had a tranche on the Nimrods many of whom got commissions. Fair does.

The first non-aircrew commissioned NCA I worked with a Nimrod FE commissioned into the Flt Ops branch. Without him the other 3 cross threads, in all senses, would have been an even bigger disaster. He made sqn ldr in short order and a job at the school.

I know another commissioned ALM but I think he is still in branch. So far he seems to be shaping up better than his Nav predecessors. So, no disasters.

A possibility, 'bolstering the Ops Spt Branch' for just one tour and then 'benefitting it's own once more'.

Yes, how about commissioning into the Flt Ops branch for one Ops tour as both a rest-tour and a career broadening move? In that tour retain flying pay then return to flying duties.

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 07:31

I think a far better question is why do we have commissioned Pilots? The argument that they were the ones who carried the nuclear option does not hold water today. THe NCO pilots in the AAC flying Apache are, I think you will agree, doing a fantastic job (I speak from personal experience of these fine people). The Battle of Britain would not have been won without the heroism of NCO pilots.
So, yes, lets stop this elitist rubbish and reintroduce non commisssioned pilots and Navs. I think the idea of all commissioned crew is, quite frankly, rediculous, needless and bloody expensive. A percentage of non commissioned flight decks would also shrink the pyramid as the RAF would have to stop 'inventing' careers for all those on ground tours.
As to different perks based on rank, it's the way of the world and we are not nearly as bad as the Private Sector. If you make everyone the same then there is no incentive to better yourself. Plus, if I am expected to take on a far heavier workload and more responsibility than a SNCO, I have every right to expect a better 'package'.
I take issue with the fact that a SNCO with 20 years experience automatically makes a better commissioning candidate than 'airfix boy'. Some (not all) are very fixed in their ways, reluctant to change and have an approach not unlike some Shop Stewards I have met (the sort who use childish jibes like Airfix Boy). The best SNCO's I have ever had the pleasure of working with have not needed membership of the Officers Mess to make their presence felt.

BluntedAtBirth

30th Jan 2007, 08:46

A (further?) chance to display my ignorance here and I have no intention of causing offence.

'When I was a lad' 20 years ago, about 10-15% of the population did a degree-level course. Young graduates, as opposed to those taking degree the hard way (OU etc) later in life, wanting a military career usually sought commissions; some were up to the mark and some were not and selection/training system sorted that out with some degree of success. There were plenty of high-quality non-graduates, who just didn't want to spend another 3-4 years in education, who also were commissioned, became NCA or joined the trades, and lots subsequently obtained degrees (the hard way).

In a few years, the Government plans to have 50% of school leavers go on to tertiary education. I would have imagined that the majority of the RAF would come from people in this 'top half' even given that some people just dont get on with 'academics'. Are young people with a degree wanting to become NCA or join demanding trades? If not, where are we going to get the right sort of people?

ShyTorque

30th Jan 2007, 08:53

Why do we have commissioned pilots?

Well, if not, the higher ranks would be non-pilots.

Supply Officers could then easily run the whole show, supplying pilots out of a box (unclothed, of course).

Talking Radalt

30th Jan 2007, 09:11

Surely it is time the forces modernised and rid themselves of this oppressive way of doing business, and commissioned those worthy of it, based upon objective assessment of how they perform in the early stages of their career. This would stop all those who ought to be MT drivers from being commissioned on the basis that they have a degree, and allow those who can perform as leaders to be such.

Huh! What next? Give women the vote? Get real. :rolleyes:

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 09:29

I said a percentage, not all, should be non commissioned. Those commissioned would be the ones to move on upward into policy type jobs later on. The rest would be compensated by having more time flying and less time on ground jobs.
Your throw away comment on Suppliers highlights another issue. This belief that only aircrew, and usually FJ, can run the RAF. Some of the people who spout this on PPRUNE are the very same ones who then slag off the RAF as broken, crap and poorly led. Ironic really.

Wader2

30th Jan 2007, 12:38

BEB, while your argument is not without merit:

So, yes, lets stop this elitist rubbish and reintroduce non commisssioned pilots and Navs. I think the idea of all commissioned crew is, quite frankly, rediculous, needless and bloody expensive

the problem is we can never go back.

It is often seductive to think that old ways were better and that we should recognise mistakes or change and revert. (I am not just talking service but of everything).

Human nature calls for change.

Now let us consider not your AAC NCO but your mixed rank Tornado flight of 4 with a couple of flt lts, experienced master pilots and sgt navs etc. As the latter were selected for aptitude and not officer qualities it follows that the leadership gene pool is rather smaller than before.

The Hodgekinson Report (about 1968) introduced overborne sqn ldrs to increase the senior officer gene pool and Spec Aircrew to absorb those whose flying skills were needed but who had no potential or desire for higher rank.

Then you say that all commissioned aircrew is bloody expensive. Why should NCA be a cheaper option? You train them to fly, you offer them job comparability with civil aviation; they would expect pay comparability too or they will leave.

No, the experienced aircrew officer pool is probably getting too small already, especially in the face of commercial competition. To reduce it still further would have a potentially adverse effect many years down the line.

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 12:53

Wader 2.

Fair points.

Questions: Is the same level of leadership required to fly an E3D? Does the system stream those pilots to that type due to a perceived lack of some abilities? If so, do you need commissioned 'leaders' to fly those kind of aircraft.

I am not trying to rock the boat or be peurile. The question was asked about commissioning NCA. I think the counter argument in not commissioning some aircrew has equal merit, especially in these times of cutbacks and, as has been identified, some obsolete aircrew jobs.

Roland Pulfrew

30th Jan 2007, 13:20

Gents
The argument for NCO pilots is dead and buried, regardless of their contribution to WWII. It's not about "class"! It's not about educational qualifications!! The RAF is haemorrhaging pilots. Recruiting NCO pilots is likely to fix a non-problem for a very short period, once qualified they will be subject to as many push factors as officer pilots - only on an even lower (military) wage. Even the AAC with NCO pilots are finding that lots are leaving for better paid, and safer, jobs outside.
Please try to get this topic back on track. It was a question about commissioning rear crew (not including WSOs who are already commissioned). I have worked with many commissioned rear crew over the years and most have been bl**dy good at their job. As for empowered masters I cannot comment as I have been too long away from the front-line. What I do know is that there are many within the NCA branches who are complaining about their ceiling now being Master!!
Only current option for better pay? Get commissioned (in a different branch)! Good use of resources? Probably not!

BEB

To answer you question about the E3 captain. Leadership qualities definitely required, large crew, large ac with handling vices. The reason the pilot may have ended up on E3s was a perceived lack of handling ability when younger and thrashing around at low level and 420 kts. Not everyone can cope with that which is why the RAF streams pilots to either FJ, ME or RW.

Skytrucker87

30th Jan 2007, 13:23

As a former Sgt Pilot on Javs, I agree with everybody. That is what NCO aircrew are supposed to do ....... innit? (see, can't even talk proper)

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 13:26

ABIW.

Thanks. You helped make my point beautifully.

:D :D

Wader2

30th Jan 2007, 13:26

BEB,

Questions: Is the same level of leadership required to fly an E3D? . . . If so, do you need commissioned 'leaders' to fly those kind of aircraft.

Having some little experience of E3, I have been chauffered in 3 type of them, I suggest that they do need a commissioned leader.

The Tactical Director has quite enough on his plate organising and running the mission.

The Flight Director, drivers airframe, or whatever has a much less demanding job - on orbit. OTOH the task of Captaincy, looking after the well-being of the crew, really comes to the fore on the ground. To lead such a large crew as on an E3 requires leadership skills.

It is true that the second pilot does not need any of these skills and could be a NCA. However the E3 Captaincy gene pool is already small. To remove the copilot feeder stream would require suitable ME pilots to be fed in from other types who would also have fewer able candiates as their training pool would also have dried up.

Does the system stream those pilots to that type due to a perceived lack of some abilities?

Put bluntly, quite probably.

Not everyone has the aptitude to fly the most demanding aircraft. Even those that do may lose that ability later on in life. Eyes dim, reactions slow, medical conditions may intervene.

One of the first ex-Lightning pilots I met had served 12 years on the Lightning and enjoyed every minute of it. He was now enjoying every hour as a Britannia captain.

No, as I said, different air force. Lots of units - Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Javelin - lots of pilots - large gene pool.

In the early 1960s the aircrew pool had an intake of 1200 per year of which perhaps 1000 were would be pilot and this did not include the Cranwell intakes of career officers. Many of these aircrew were on SSC of 5 or 8 years with the rest on 12/16-38. They were the ones that could have been NCOs.

What is the pilot requirement now?

With an aircrew intake of about one tenth the number of potential leaders will be much slimmer. If that was further reduced to 30 or so with the balance from NCA then we really would be putting lots of eggs in one basket and the hands of the recruiters.

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 13:43

Wader 2.

Many thanks.

ShyTorque

30th Jan 2007, 13:54

BEB,

Why try reinventing the wheel? The RAF ceased the recruitment of NCO pilots because it wanted officers and leaders first, and pilots second.

As someone has already pointed out, the "Specialist Aircrew" cadre was brought in to fulfil the role you suggest, namely to retain a core of highly experienced pilots who wished to continue flying aircraft rather than desks.

During my career I worked quite closely with the army (NCO pilots of course) and watched time and time again as their good advice was ignored or over-ruled by their own less experienced officers above them. On one occasion very early in my RAF time my pilot colleague and I felt obliged to stand up to one career (non-aircrew) VSO who thought it quite acceptable to put his crews in a situation that might well have killed them, in peacetime, for the sake of his exercise. It caused a hell of a stink but we were right and I never forgot that.

I obviously touched a raw nerve about non-pilots running the air force. Sorry, but I stand by my rather tongue in cheek comment. However, I have never "slagged off" the RAF or accused it of being "broken, crap and poorly led". That's what the NAVY is for. :p

BellEndBob

30th Jan 2007, 14:29

Shytorque.

Many thanks for replying. Again, fair points.

Will now retire and let ABIW light his pipe, swing the light and take centre stage.

Klingon

30th Jan 2007, 17:34

I was commissioned rear crew for 26 of my 35 years. Why did I apply for a commission...because I wanted to set my sights higher than running a section, better pay and pension, better messing (still had Batting Staff) and maybe a say in the running of part of my life; in a word "Aspiration".
The guys who are being "empowered" today are those that would have probably been commisioned anyway, unfortunately they will never taste the rewards that were on offer, even with spine TOS, (although I hear the pension might be a little better).
In my latter years I saw a host of very able guys getting commisioned, especially from the rotary fleet. Some were well educated with creditable degrees, others because they had proved themselves involved. Unfortunately this time of enlightenment came after a long period when a number of makeweights got commissioned on the back of the CASWO scheme or various management initiatives born from the "feedback tours", or by having held an "A" Cat for so long that some misguided Pilot/Nav Flt Cdr decided they would make a good officer despite the fact they probabaly hadn't done anything in the office for 20 years. (Gasp! Takes a breath and calms down)

We also had a good number of bright young things that are now denied opportunity and have to re-badge or wait for someone to die before they get a chance to be the boss.
Military service is an elitist heirarchy, undemocratic and ridden with bigotry and long may it survive without being undermined by the "tree-huggers" who want to make it fair and fluffy. What's wrong with having all pilots commisioned? There's got to be something to attract the b**gers towards the light. At the same time I believe the same opportunity has got to be offered across the board, I never heard anyone pull rank in the air in all my years but I do remember as a SNCO not being invited to the table when important stuff was being dished out.
There is a danger that you end up with the second string as your "empowered" SNCO's because all the good guys saw the light and bailed out after the honeymoon period was over. I just don't see an intelligent operator staying as a Master for upwards of 15 years going around the same old buoys while pilot/WSO decide the policy of his/her specialisation at grown up level.
Best of luck to all those still serving from a Grumpy Old Sod!:hmm:

ProfessionalStudent

30th Jan 2007, 18:06

Klingon

Thanks for an erudite and balanced reply that finally got the thread back on track.

I think the issue of ambition is very important. I commissioned out of the branch (still flying) as at the age of 27 and having just got my Crown, I had 28 years to push having already instructed and examined and just one promotion to make. Staying as a NCO would have been sole destroying and I would have become bitter and cynical (stand fast...!). There seem to be more talented guys in the branch these days getting promoted to FS quickly, leaving themselves in the same position as me. Unfortunately for them, their only chance of commissioning and taking up the new challenge that brings, is to leave the Branch. Sad for them (and financially unattractive) and damaging for the Branch.

Ambition is one thing, but in an officers' world (and we all know it is) there needs to be an officer branch specialist to fight the guys' corners. One who understands NCA and the issues they face. Even a pilot with exemplary CRM skills will not have the same empathy and understanding as a branch specialist officer. At the moment there are a lot of S/L rearcrew around as they've all had to go on a promotion push to stay in past there 38 points, and as a result the NCA corner is defended to a greater or lesser degree. But for how much longer will this be the case.

BellEndBob

Although I'd like to think the NCO pilot issue has been knocked on the head (at least in this thread I hope), your summation that NCOs would be cheaper that officers is not as true as you may think. Look at the payscales (bearing in mind NCO pilots get the same flying pay scales as officers) and you'll see there's not all that much difference. Trust me. I know.

Roadster280

30th Jan 2007, 20:48

Prof Stude -

I apologise for subverting your thread; it wasn't my intention. I simply wished to raise the alternatives. Some very fair points have been raised here.

During my service, (Army), I served on a couple of RAF Stns, and interacted with RN and many foreign nations. One can only speak of one's own experiences, and in general, I believe that there are many lessons to be learned from other forces and nations. The Germans, for instance generally commission their officers after they prove themselves as 'officers' under training. IIRC, they are effectively a Cpl for 3 years. In the US, a degree is 90% of the battle. The 'us' and 'them' attitude is simply a destructively divisive policy IMHO.

In this modern, all-informed world, I believe the forces will find recruitment and retention an increasingly difficult task without reform of some archaic practices.

My time in the military has passed; but I still have time and thought for those that serve. We all bat for the same team. Keep safe gents.

ProfessionalStudent

30th Jan 2007, 21:59

Roadster

That, in effect, is how it was done with the rearcrew branches. It was not possible to commission straight from the streets and one had to prove one's worth "on the job" as it were. That's why (latterly at least, as pointed out by Klingon) most of the guys being commissioned were of a pretty high quality.

As for the NCO pilot thing, I can't see the RAF changing it's policy, especially since the Navy got rid of its knocker pilots some years ago. The RAF is run by pilots FOR pilots. The Army is run by soldiers FOR soldiers. Pilots are JUST "driver-airframes". If I'm correct, even the AAC introduced Rank/Officer status stipulations for AH front/rear seat occupants (please forgive my ignorance if this has now changed). As I said earlier, it's not much cheaper either.

SaddamsLoveChild

31st Jan 2007, 17:27

It is clear that since the demise of rearcrew leaders per se that the majority of empowered masters have either not 'stood up to the plate' or been shouted down or undermined by either the Commissioned master races or their own peers who were jealous of their position, 28 SQn was a prime example of the latter. It is time for commissioning from the rearcrew to be brought back as there is no 'grown up' voice to defend or discuss matters inside or outside of the sqn environment (mess bar, where whether we like it or not some work gets done and problems are solved informally).

As for Pontius's comment regarding giving them a rest tour in the Ops spt branch, why would that branch or any for that matter want them in for a rest. :ugh:, would they then not go on a 4 month OOA, and why would the branches want them! as the Ops Spt branch is now promoting its direct entrant officers to Sqn Ldr and clearly standing on its own two feet.

So in answer to the original question, yes, bring back commissioning for the rearcrew in their own/WSO branches and give them something to aim for and a voice at the table that is heard. It is also time for those that are commissioned in all the WSO (NCA aircrew branches) to continue to make their collective voice heard or the individuals that can get a commission elsewhere, will do so and do very well as they are doing now, and the Sqns will continue to run short of a valuable aircrew asset.:*

toddbabe

31st Jan 2007, 19:58

Roland Pulfrew

1st Feb 2007, 07:28

what is the benefit to the service? they will have to be paid more.
That is the end of the argument as far as the RAF is concerned, it won't make anyone do their job any better it will just cost more:ugh:
Don't see any benefits!

toddy, toddy.

Level 7 Warrant Officer/MAcr £41672 PA
Level 9 Captain/Flt Lt £40190 PA

Actually someone from the senior non commissioned ranks is likely to have to
stand still to allow their JO pay to catch up!!

AFPRB Report 2006

ProfessionalStudent

1st Feb 2007, 14:06

Roland

Very true. I went on to mark time pay for 4 years on commissioning.

Roger

Yes, I'd heard about the 2 guys moving across (and that's part of why I started the thread), but I don't think this is the way ahead. It's not in the service's (or the individual's) interest to train them in another role knowing that they'll leap out of that branch as soon as the opportunity arises. I believe these guys have been picked as a short term defecit has been indentified and there is insufficient time to select and train people. They will no doubt be given grief buy the jealous few who will believe they have "come in by the back door" but needs must, and sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time. In all the previous cases where people have commissioned out of the WSOp branches only swap back again, the service has approached the individual, not the other way round. Show me a man who would refuse the offer and I'll show you a fool.

Saddamslovechild

I think the issue of representation is key. Like it or not, having an officer going into bat at sqn execs is still very important. You and Roger are right in saying that there is lots of dead wood that fails to pull its weight (sometimes considerable weight too) once empowered and does the rearcrew no good at all at exec level. As this dead wood floats off into retirement, the issue will disappear and the young thrusters of the "new" generation will come to the fore, but I fear by then that the damage will have been done by the kind of old-school masters we all know are out there.

R 21

1st Feb 2007, 14:36

Prof

Totally agree there have been cases of previous ALM's coming back to be WSOP's after commissioning but only after failing other courses such as ATC and they, as you rightly say were right place right time.

PS I hope its not the individuals I think it is returning to the flying world as we where glad to get rid of them out of branch when we did !!!!

ProfessionalStudent

1st Feb 2007, 16:14

R21

They didn't ALL fail courses!

PM me for more if you want...

SaddamsLoveChild

1st Feb 2007, 16:21

A certain master from up north who commissioned into Ops Spt got redundancy from said branch and is now back in the rotary world as an auxiliary crewman with the rank of Master.....all power to his elbow. To be honest good luck to all of them the rearcrew rotary world is in a dire position for crewpersons and with one giving 30 days notice and walking at the secret hampshire base and 5 others PVR'ing in the SAR world last month - it aint going to get better.

If there are others jumping from branches to fill gaps then the masses of NCOA have a right tio grumble if they dont have the opportunity to commission into their own branch, nowt to do wiv me tho.;)

ProfessionalStudent

1st Feb 2007, 16:34

SLC

I don't think they're jumping so much as being pushed (OK, gently prodded in the right direction). If they're good guys (and I happen to know that at least one of them IS) then the NCA branches have nothing to worry about. In the short term, them coming across is a good thing, pending OASC being able to fire up the selection procedure again. Despite some useless buggers being picked up years ago (as alluded to by Klingon), OASC pretty much got things right in latter years (at least in the SH world). It would be great if the whole commissioning thing fired back up again, if only because the competition is healthy.

R 21

1st Feb 2007, 17:07

Prof

sorry didnt mean to say that all are failures, just a high percentage ha ha. I am all for more commissioned WSOP's whatever the state they are in. It will be far better than a first tourist pilot or Nav looking after the lads!!

SaddamsLoveChild

1st Feb 2007, 17:54

Prof stude: Sorry my dear chap I is a little confuzzled! The ones that are PVR ing are bloody good blokes, they are the latest in a long line of rearcrew who are fed up of either the stan or basra, having vertebral degradation through heavy lifting in poor conditions and the operational strain on their families, not to mention getting paid more if they get their feet on the ground with CHC, Bristows etc and having a quality of life that the Mrs will approve of. As for the SARbuoys, they have been sold down the swanny by their lords and masters and will be a thing of the past (all bar 60 blokes/ladies and there is an 18 month moratorium on SH crossovers to SAR so what are the bright NCOA going to do if they cant get a commission in their own branches. Shovel shi-ite in the back of a rotary target/herc/Nimrod or have the stability of 8 to 5 once the novelty of taking the colonel his newspaper at 4 am/delivering bog rolls and plastic knives and forks has worn off.

I know what is needed and so do the the NCOA, yes bring back WSOP Commissions and keep the standards that were maintained in the latter part of past with the exception of the odd one or two they got it right.

Clear Right,Px Good!

1st Feb 2007, 18:03

It seems to me that the way things are shaping up at the moment within the NCA cadre, the Air force is going to have to dangle more and more carrots to the guys, just to keep the limited resources that they do have airbourne.

If that means money...fair enough, that may entice some, however I am sure that there are a great number of guys and gals out there that are keen to further their careers in more traditional ways.....ie commissioning within their branch.

As far as I am concerned, if someone is of both the ability and has the right attitude to fullfil their role within the airbourne environment, then the powers that be should realise that allowing this to occur will in the long run benefit the greater cause. It seems that the Air Force is only to good at seeing the smaller picture and not the bigger and one day in the not too distant future this is going to bite them in the arse.... Big Time !:ooh:

changeitnot

1st Feb 2007, 23:52

Without the opportunity for commission in branch, and the possibility of the career structure that goes with it, for NCA, then the system looses too many able people. Some just don't want it, but some do. Many have left to seek their fortunes in the civilian world. We all know folks (ex NCA) who are now in senior positions in the civil aviation world. How many would have stayed if the oportunity to progress was available? People apply for aircrew because they have ambition!

baffy boy

3rd Feb 2007, 00:47

In my opinion we should bring back the commissioning of NCA ASAP. The Australians did away with it and have now brought it back big time. They realised the whole set up became poorer by not allowing the NCA that wanted to fulfill their full potential to do so. Why don’t we learn from others mistakes? We have been emaciated by someone in PMA who I only imagine is a navigator and has a vested interest in the continuance of his breed. The whole WSO issue has been a bit of a farce for most of us but, I believe, was initiated to protect the navigator cadre. It means they won’t actually be called navs anymore but it was worth the sacrifice. The nav branch was dying out. There will be a few nav jobs left around but the main seats for the future will be in MRA4 (where the pilots do the navigating). The MR2 currently has 2 WSO (nav) and a WSO (AEO). The WSO (AEO) is former NCA 99% of the time. These guys are worth their weight in gold in the main (the odd one or two poorer ones got through but that was a problem with OASC criteria). Currently they are in the majority as aircraft commanders at Kinloss, they have the experience and maturity that most first or second tourist WSO (navs) or pilots don’t. They go on to Sqn Ldr posts elsewhere around the Air Force in the same positions as other commissioned aircrew (but not on as much pay!). Several are Wing Commanders. Several have become pilots and navs on fleets across the board, at least two have commanded sqns recently. The first boss of 5 Sqn ASTOR used to be an AEOp. On the MR2 sqns empowered masters have taken over the leadership and admin roles that the AE ldr used to have but they are still masters. No disrespect there, it’s just that sometimes it’s better to have a sqn ldr being able to support you than a master if the going gets tough at a senior level. Better to have someone who has been in your shoes then got commissioned and commanded a crew and become a sqn ldr writing your report than a nav who (probably) has no real idea what it’s like to be NCA.. In addition the masters are not employed on the aircraft as WSO’s and the tap for WSO (AEO) has been turned off. Now we have a manning problem because the
MR2 is staying in service for longer and we’re running out of WSO (AEO’s). When the MRA4 comes in the potential for having a bright, experienced ex operator in one the TACCO positions has been taken away, thus removing the chance for our best operators to progress and denying them a career in their chosen/ordained path. They will have to retread as WSO (nav) to stand a chance of getting back into what they really know. Why? It’s stupid and may well reduce the potential effectiveness of the MRA4. Remind me again why we went to WSO/op when we still have to identify what type of WSO/op they are? Basically we got stitched in a money saving gambit that was designed to give pilots and navs more flying pay at our expense and to protect the future of direct entry WSO’s. The very term rear crew is derisory. The MR2, for example, cannot fly without ‘rear crew’. Taking flying pay off ‘rear crew’ and sharing it out among WSO (navs) and pilots is derisory and cynical. Remember when the new brevet was supposed to come in almost overnight and was suddenly stopped. That was because there was an announcement on FRI that would have meant giving all WSOs extra money. The re-titling was delayed so that navs could be given one rate and others could be given less. Once that was done the change to WSO could happen, with WSO (nav) fast jet on one rate, WSO (nav) multi engine on another rate and then the scum ex ranker rear crew hoy poloy on another. Dirty game chaps.

By the way, it is obvious that some of you have no appreciation of what our NCA really do. How professional they are as aircrew and what a talent pool they provide. The training they go through to earn their chevrons is tougher by some stretch than that required to gain a commission, or it used to be. The system turns out some very capable people. The reference by BEagle not so long ago about the Nimrod and doughnut scoffing teenagers was particularly ill informed and insulting. Does he have any idea for example how many thousands of hours the crew of XV 230 had and what the average age of the operators was? 40 + years of age, decades of service? How dedicated and professional they were? Obviously not.

Some of out NCA may have been empowered, but more have been embittered by a system with as little understanding of who they are as BEagle, and that’s sad. Lets hope someone has the balls to reverse a poor decision, and sooner rather than later.

Clear Right,Px Good!

3rd Feb 2007, 03:45

" By the way, it is obvious that some of you have no appreciation of what our NCA really do. How professional they are as aircrew and what a talent pool they provide. The training they go through to earn their chevrons is tougher by some stretch than that required to gain a commission, or it used to be. The system turns out some very capable people. "

Baffy Boy,

Bravo........You dont fancy a job in PMA do you, not that it's my decision, however I would be happy with you fighting my corner!

CRPxGOOD:D

Avtur

3rd Feb 2007, 06:27

You wouldn't happen to be an ex-master, current NCA desk officer with a completely unbiased support for your mates on a certain helo background?... or is your detailed information with regards to the current predicament one of luck rather than insight?

If you are that man, could you please push for the reinstatement of Commissioning for NCA without limitation on age or detraction of an individuals current TOS where favourable (eg age 55 versus 18/40 or current PAS). Ta.

The Ivory towers location is suspicious! ...My apologies if you are not.

Pontius Navigator

3rd Feb 2007, 06:57

The WSO (AEO) is former NCA 99% of the time. These guys are worth their weight in gold in the main.

(the odd one or two poorer ones got through but that was a problem with OASC criteria

They go on . . . elsewhere around the Air Force . . . Several are Wing Commanders. Several have become pilots and navs on fleets across the board, at least two have commanded sqns recently. The first boss of 5 Sqn ASTOR used to be an AEOp.

and one became an Air Commodore, but we don't talk about that.

what our NCA really do. How professional they are as aircrew and what a talent pool they provide. The training they go through to earn their chevrons is tougher by some stretch than that required to gain a commission, or it used to be. The system turns out some very capable people.

Is there perhaps an analogy with Halton apprentices? We know many were commissioned and many rose to higher places? The road to experienced NCA is no less exacting.

AC Ovee

3rd Feb 2007, 10:18

Hi Guys,
There are a few things that need to be cleared up here.

Firstly, the RAF will not provide a commissioning route within the rear crew cadre solely to serve the ambition and development of the individual. So, if you are a 40 year old MACR with no further advancement ahead of you in the next 15 years then, sadly, thats life. Enjoy the PA spine and look forward to a good pension (if you took the option) at age 55. I'll explain below why you should not be commissioned unless you are an AEOp [which is easier to write to than WSOP(EW) or WSOP(Acc)], which is a very special case.

The RAF as a whole must benefit from developing many young officers into a small band of very senior air officers. CAS must leave the RAF at Age 55. To get to ACM rank before age 53, he would have passed through 7 ranks between Flt Lt and ACM. Obviously, only 1 person in every 2 years' worth of officer recruits is destined to go the very top. Everyone else is an also ran, and this where it gets tricky for them, particularly the pilot cadre. We need all pilots to be commissioned officers to create the biggest gene pool possible so that we give ourselves the best chance of getting the best blokes/girls in the most important jobs at the very top. And, if anyone believes that the CAS could be anything but a pilot, please leave now. Most pilots at Wg Cdr rank will not make it Gp Capt, let alone ACM, so their palms are read and they are given a choice: fly a desk TFN or leave. Wg Cdrs (without sqns) flying aircraft in the RAF is not an option.

In previous years, prior to the decision to stop rear crew commissions, most senior pilots withour a career ahead of them (Wg Cdr and above) remained in the RAF rather than leave. They filled desk jobs all over the Cmmd HQs and MOD, because the airline industry did not want 40 year old co-pilots. The commissioned rear crew were not considered to be a part of the rat race to the top, so they circulated around the front line as section leaders. The occasional ALM/Eng Ldr who didn't want to remain in a flying role could chase a career up the greasy pole but, for the reasons outlined above, there was a cap on non-pilot progress. Then, someone realised that old rear crew Flt Lts and Sqn Ldrs were having a laugh on their station carousels and so the commissioning was stopped. And, in my opinion, rightly so. The young ALM/Air Eng officer was never going to get above Wg Cdr, so why clutter the gene pool at the outset with also rans.

As an aside about representation, someone mentioned the concept of the Ldr going into bat for the lads with the Sqn Cdr. Yes, that did happen if the Ldr was a crusty old Flt Lt or Sqn Ldr without a career ahead of him. A young Fg Off, wanting a career, will always be mindful of his reporting chain. Swap Old Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr for MACR and the batting bit is maintained at sqn level and I don't buy the bit about officers mess bar/dining room chat. If you believe RAF business can only be achieved with a beer in hand, leave now. If the MACR Ldr wants to do business with his boss, he can do it on the sqn in the proper manner. Any boss who discusses business, that should include his NCA rear crew leaders, while having lunch in the Offrs mess deserves to be shot.

AEOps need to be commissioned because of the need for AEOs. Unless, of course, the plan for the rear crew on the MRA4 changes such that all rear crew on that jet are to be WSOps. Then there will be no need to pollute the pilot gene pool for operational reasons.

Any young person desirous of a commission and a long career in the higher echelons of the RAF: go get a commission as a pilot. If you can't be a pilot, you have no chance of ever becoming an AVM, so set your sights lower and choose another branch.

Our problem today is that many Wg Cdr pilots failing to make the grade for a long career in the air ranks are not now remaining to fly desks. They see the career spine, with temporary flying pay, as a joke compared to the PA spine with its good pension deal. Regional airlines are sprouting up all over the UK and they see the benefits of employing ready made co-pilots for a few years at a time and retired senior RAF pilots are ideal material. Those guys are now leaving huge gaps behind them in the HQs, where quality people are needed to do intelligent and efficient staff work and on the front line where we have taken quality pilots to fill important jobs in the HQs. Navs are the first choice to fill those gaps, but they are becoming fewer, so we are left with.....no-one.

So, we are now back to commisioning rear crew, as publicly stated by the Air Sec at the CAS Conference for WOs on 1 Feb. It is not an open door across all the branches and its one step at a time. One thing is for sure; they will be looking for young people who are prepared to do one tour as a front line leader then leave flying behind them as they try to progress up the greasy pole before age 38, moving from desk to desk on the Career Spine, taking the desk jobs that used to be filled by pilots. A rear crew commission will be not be a flying career.

dessert_flyer

3rd Feb 2007, 12:30

Now I know why there are so many NCA leaving

ProfessionalStudent

3rd Feb 2007, 13:04

My oh my AC Ovee. If I didn't know better I'd say you were a troll.

Your arguments just don't hold water. Your view that WSOps should not be commissioned as they "dilute the gene pool" is utter bunkum. If that is true, why commission anyone other than pilots? You argue that no non-pilot will become CAS so why waste your time. You, my friend, haven't a clue.

What about leadership? Are not other branches entitled to have their own leaders with full knowledge of the intricacies of their particular branch? To think that WSO leaders have no impact at execs is wrong. A good, young Flt Lt will be as credible as a stuck in the mud, crusty and bitter old Flt Lt or Sqn Ldr. Often his views will be more relevant to the young guys he represents and more progressive.

By your reckoning, only AEOps should be commissioned. Given your comments re only pilots making it to CAS, why is that, exactly? Why should they be different? Is it leadership? I think that may be your rationale. The MR2 sqns have many more commissioned guys than their SH or AT cousins, as more leaders are required on Maritime due to the crew compositions. Why couldn't a MAEOp do their job? Is it because a MACR doesn't have the ability? Or is it because of the officer/officer interface between the crew "execs". If it is the latter (as I think it is - whether you admit it or not) then your arguments, sir, are blown out of the water.

Your views are ill thought out and you contradict youself from paragraph to paragraph. If you want to raise such inflammatory points, they have to be well constructed and thought through, not full of holes as your arguments are. I wasn't sure if your comments warranted a reply, but even after allowing my simmering blood to cool, I couldn't leave it alone.

I really do hope that you never have NCA serving under you as I would fear for their ultimate well-being.

500days2do

3rd Feb 2007, 13:50

And havent the most recent bunch proved beyond all doubt that we need to get way from this kind of selection. A bigger bunch of spineless wasters could anyboby have to suffer under. Why would a CAS turn up at an AT base and spend the whole time dodging the issues whilst trying to prove that Typhoon is a great platform.

So glad Im out of it now.

5d2d

toddbabe

3rd Feb 2007, 14:19

Roland the thread was about commisioning rearcrew, not all Rearcrew are masters! some are Sergeants who get much less pay than a flt lt!
I just don't see ANY benefit at all! the people pushing for it are thinking selfishly and aren't genuine believers that it is of benefit to the service.
We have too many bloody commisioned ranks as it is, far too top heavy! why add to that?
Secondly tell me one other trade that allows the subjects to continue doing their same job commisioned as the job they do non commisioned? other than perhaps Regiment.

Tiger_mate

3rd Feb 2007, 15:14

Secondly tell me one other trade that allows the subjects to continue doing their same job commisioned as the job they do non commisioned? other than perhaps Regiment.

Lets roll the dice and time wharp 20 years. All of the commisioned exNCA have been pensioned off. Now tell me any other trade that does not have commisioned representation in its chain of command. I had the exact same conversation in the crewroom yesterday, and apparently the answer is cook/chef, although there is always a catering officer.

NCA in years to come will be a very shallow one, unless of course Cpl or even Junior Rank aircrew appear over the horizon, and that hornets nest could well be the long term plan. Assuming of course that anybody in this mans air force looks beyond next weekend.

Roland Pulfrew

3rd Feb 2007, 16:16

Sorry todd, I obviously misunderstood your argument. I thought you meant that because paying commisioned officer aircrew would cost more than paying an NCO aircrew, commissioning wouldn't happen.

So just to get this straight:

A/Sgt aircrew on appointment (Cpl Higher Rate) £24.5K
Fg Off on appointment £13.8K

Substantive Sgt £29K
Level 7 Sgt £33K
Level 1 Flt Lt £33.8K

Therefore money is not the deciding factor on commissioning!

In answer to you other question, Ops Support, Fighter Control, Police, ATC to name but a few!!

I happen to agree with commissioned rearcrew, I know quite a few. What other branch in the RAF stops career progression at WO?!?!?!

Clear Right,Px Good!

3rd Feb 2007, 20:04

Roland,

Come on, dont forget the flying pay, there certainly is financial incentive, but without a doubt - no immediate financial incentive for taking a groung commission!
CRPxGood

Avtur

4th Feb 2007, 03:05

So what is the point of striving for a Commission as aircrew if you know it won't be in a flying career? We may as well invent a "Commissioned" branch who have no background or expertise in any branch/trade, but who are complete experts at talking the empty psuedo-businness speak that the current Staff College Graduates now spout (and with an MA in bolloux to make their Station photo and post-nominals look more important)

St Johns Wort

4th Feb 2007, 18:31

Can anyone point me in the direction of the policy document that actually spells out what empowerment is?

Klingon

4th Feb 2007, 19:49

Some of these posts are way too emotive, you need to stop thinking about "rights". The service is not a democratic charity and in the end must structure itself to meet its cost and manpower limitations.

On the other hand, statements that it isnt policy to support aspirational career patterns are utter rubbish! Why then are all pilots commisioned if it isn't to let the most politically devious rise to the highest rank? Why can't Ground Engineers or ATC become Stn Cdrs of flying units? I never understood how a Regiment Officer could be OC Ops but not the Stn Cdr?

There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD. Even as a SO2 I was virtually told to "shut up" whenever I broached the subject so God only knows what an empowered MAcr would have achieved.

Please excuse Beagle! He was but a poor Tanker W**k*r whose disinterest for his CS was legendary. Beagle old boy, you must realise that not all rearcrew are there to shove tea and sandwiches in your face and listen to your cynical racetrack stories of "There I was at ...with my RB's on telling the lady Nav how good I was and blow me we gave away 5 tonnes of fuel!"

I repeat myself by saying boldly that not all commissioned rearcrew were the best choice and I have publicly always lambasted those who seemed to think they should continue in the same role as they had as a SNCO. However; they were becoming few and far between, the majority of the latest crop of young persons had a cleverness that equalled most of the pilot fraternity and would have given them a run for their money in open competition.

I do think that commisioned rear crew should be removed from their direct operational role occasionally, it's necessary to be involved in wider aspects of the service. I do not, however; think that the flt cdr WSOps should be a first second or even third tourist pilot/Nav in circumstances where an empowered MAcr is in residence. How much support are you going to get from someone who considers you a secondary duty? How often are your views and aspirations going to be aired if they think they might rock the boat? This isn't Hollywood and with promotion so speculative, a young thing isn't going to create too many waves. An officer who knows from the outset that they aren't going to make much above SO2 though.....well thats another thing!

For the service it's not about saving money! Its about another initiative that got someone promoted! The fact that it proved to be pants isn't a problem, the instigator is two ranks higher and safe from persecution. Meanwhile the flotsam has to put up with yet another disruption that has de-stabilised and demoralised. See AA TOS 1989, JPA, LEAN etc, etc.

Hope I haven't been too negative!:rolleyes:

threeputt

4th Feb 2007, 21:39

I know it's late but, please it's always been "however," ( i.e comma not semi colon)

Pedantic of Wiltshire

Klingon

4th Feb 2007, 22:57

Sorry, typed it in the dark!

I also missed out some essential punctuation at the beginning and I think there was at least one spelling mistake. Long learnt skills atrophied by Mr Gates magic spellcheck!:zzz:

Cannonfodder

5th Feb 2007, 13:45

Quote from Kilngon:
"There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD."

Thought it was decided that the MSO position WILL be a WSOp?
Don`t tell me the Navs have managed to get their greasy little hands on the MSO job on the new tanker...........:ugh:

Klingon

5th Feb 2007, 17:14

It may very well be now! It's 18 months since I eased springs in that arena but at that time it HAD to be someone who could run the trail, stream the hoses, work out how to get from A to A and so on. Of course this meant that you would need skills akin to the trail co-ord and give briefings to officers, who wouldn't take very kindly to listening to a SNCO, so it would have to be an officer and...BTW, there just happens to be a forecast surplus of ?????
When I suggested that the aircraft would be AOG for the lack of its promised future proof automated guidance system or that the hoses were a simple switch to "Hose out... fuel flows...Hose in!" it was greeted with an awful lot of derision.
Fortunately the Nav who took over at 2 Grapes had a more pragmatic viewpoint than his predecessor and agreed that it was slightly over-egging the pudding.
For goodness sake, the FSTA FD is ergonomically designed to be operated by two pilots and if you need a third hand on deck then increase the establishment to use another pilot, or if its not too bothersome , "Loadie!....Stream the hoses while we nosh on the sandwiches!" Why would you train a parasympathetic FD lurker who has no skills anywhere else? :rolleyes:

Could be the last?

5th Feb 2007, 18:28

If the Navs are wangling WSOps jobs, then surely they can hump and dump down the back of a CH47 or Me3? Or is that to vocational for them?:=

Level 28

5th Feb 2007, 18:43

Ouch! "Stand fast 'Could be the Last?'!" You'll give certain people ideas, we're trying to phase them out......:cool:

Could be the last?

5th Feb 2007, 21:36

Level 28,

A point of fact is that a RN Observer is currently being trained as a cmn on the Me3 OCU. Does this mean he will assume the duties of Cmn Ldr in the absence of any other JO ALM? :=

BEagle

5th Feb 2007, 22:28

Klingon, I don't know where you got your nonsense from, but never were the terms 'navigator', 'air engineer' or 'loadmaster' ever used in initial FSTA work assessment - it was always Mission System Operator.

When researching FSTA skill sets, I asked a senior sqn ALM which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward. He couldn't come up with a single one - so the RNethAF KDC-10 'Operator/Loadmaster' concept looked a definite possibility for FSTA - with the cabin staff being all air stewards when needed for AT pax duties.

But if the navigators have now shown that they have more of the relevant skill sets, then I wouldn't be surprised at all. It's happened in other recent tanker types.

And as for your libellous comments about my attitude towards cabin crew, you can bloody go and get stuffed! Although I do recall having to persuade a certain loadmaster to stop mincing about and lend the MAMS people at hand at Freetown.... And another, at the same place, who was trying to find a rule to stop us taking a RFA matelot back with us, was told not to bother - the guy was coming back!

Klingon

5th Feb 2007, 23:11

Beagle old chap! (Covers mouth with hand and stage whispers) "Your God status is showing through!"

I know you were always an inspiring captain and got the best out of the serfs whenever you could but please, don't purport to have the inside edge on all things FSTA.

Frankly the "views" of the senior ALM on the squadron were hardly the skill sets that were acceptable at 2 Gp; you can always ask a question and get the answer you want if you phrase it correctly. I mean seriously, "which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" asked of a 101 Sqn or even a C130K ALM. What answer did you expect? Perhaps the question " which of his specific before flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" would have got a more relevant answer. The problem is that a big chunk of the bidding drivers took the answer to your question to be all the Job Analysis that was needed to push their bid forward. As to wether they were going to be called MSO or not, it was a fact for quite some time they were all going to be re-trained Navs wearing a different dress.

Be real, you remember what trails were like, pure hysterical farse the second the task left home base. Even with downlinking and up to the minute technology you will never replace the human interface in the tactical management environment. How long before MAMS need to have a presence on the aircraft to ensure its loading compliance iaw JAR-Ops 1. Are you telling me that the super MSO (Nav) is going to get himself trained up on loading and DAC and then get all sweaty in the holds or that we should train the senior air steward to do the DAC and cargo inspections, raise the manifests etc all in the 2 hrs before flight.

If the service used the aircraft like the RNethAF it might just work, however, the RNethAF is far more constricted by JAR compliance than I believe we would wish to be and they have a union that says the captain isnt allowed to beat the galley slaves. :=

I expect a robust reply but I rather enjoyed that!:ok:

Sorry the thread has been hijacked butI believe the response from Beagle justifies the argument for return of commissioned rearcrew! :cool: