Army Door Gunners to be Re-Streamed.

[Could be the last?]

At a secret Hants AB it is rumoured that Army DGs will be re-streamed to take on the role of ramp-rats on the CH47 and Me3; therefore, releasing cmn to man other platforms. Anyone care to expand?
Other platforms being SK (SAR and CHF) and the Puma.

[wg13_dummy]

If true, it sounds like a great idea.
(L/Cpl doing a Flt Sgt/Master Aircrewman job ;) )

[Tiger_mate]

AAC Doorgunners have been underused, and underpaid for years. With the minimum of training they will be good SH Crewmen on medium/heavy lift helicopters and they will get respect that they are not used to from AAC frontenders.

I am not a troll though it may sound like I am fishing, but I am SH who has worked in a joint environment that included cross pollination of expertise. ....and I was very impressed with some of the AAC guys that I worked with, whilst appalled at the way they were treated from within. Give them flying pay, give them a job in the crew environment, and see how much more efficient the crew can operate, and perhaps most important of all, SAFER!!

The only thing that disappointed me about 1 guy in particular, is that his loyalty to his service exceeded his flying ambition and desire for rank.

[wg13_dummy]

they will get respect that they are not used to from AAC frontenders


Whooa Tiger!

You'll find the front enders give the chaps the utmost amount of respect. The people who haven't in the past were the brass. Not paying them and generally using and abusing them.

We have finally made it a proper trade within the Corps at long last. Hopefully the days of a chap doing one day as an ADG and the next back on the bowser park are gone.

[SASless]

How can anyone flying in combat...do anything but forge a bond with the other guys flying around in the same coffin with them?

You may eat in different messes...but if all goes to crap one day....you will be together in the pile of scrap metal.

No class differences there.

Course....while you are stretched out on yer bunk, those guys are cleaning weapons, maintaining the aircraft, standing guard, and other duties.

Give'em a break when you can.

[brickhistory]

Since he's 'been there and done that,' I'd let him go if I were you.

[JNo]

inimum of training they will be good SH Crewmen

I hope you're not still a tiger mate, otherwise you may find something a touch cheesy in your next in flights rats....:\

[vortexadminman]

If you rely on your crew to serve you lunch mate I would be checking yours if I were you. This is not BA (well not yet)

[JNo]

No but the rations bin bag lives in the cabin when the flying goes on doesn't it???? Duh.

[SASless]

Ratty,

I have friends made almost 40 years ago when we flew combat missions in Vietnam and Cambodia. Despite the rank differences, over time we developed a bond that transcends military formality requirements. I remained an Officer and they remained enlisted soldiers but it was not rank alone that engendered the strong trust and repect we felt for the other while serving together. I looked to these folks as being professionals, good at what they did and someone I could rely upon to maintain the aircraft, crew the aircraft, and in the worst of cases stand shoulder to shoulder with me if confronted with a need to fight on the ground.

These men earned my deepest respect and trust because of who they were, how they performed their duties, and their good spirits when we all faced the same dangers together as a crew. We faced the same risks, ate the same food, drank from the same tin cup sometimes but we did so as a crew not individuals.

I am going to have lunch with four of them this coming Friday....and I look to them as brothers not as subordinates from past times. We will certainly talk about old times...laugh at the funny things....re-live some of the exciting times....talk of old friends that are no longer with us.

Shared risk brings people close together. Bonds forged in combat remain strong.

I was lucky to serve with some very good people, quite ordinary most of them until a need for a special act arose then they became extra-ordinary in their response.

A young Flight Engineer in my unit got out of a crashed Chinook carrying a large number of Vietnamese soldiers. He realized the aircraft was on fire and would be consumed quickly. He made repeated trips into the burning aircraft and dragged many injured people out of the burning aircraft. He continued to do so until the aircraft exploded and he burned to death inside the wreckage.

One can only admire brave men like that and I consider myself to be very fortunate to have been allowed to fly with men of that quality.

[Level 28]

SASless.

:D :D :D

[HEDP]

Getting back to the initial thread,

What a cracking idea. JNCO's doing what is currently the preserve of SNCO and WO NCA.

Next we might achieve SNCO pilots doing the job of comissioned RAF pilots. Then we would truly have a joint system with a proper rank pyramid. Arent there already army WO's in RAF/Joint posts? (CFS(H))

Careful or it might catch on. :D

HEDP

[Level 28]

[QUOTE][Next we might achieve SNCO pilots doing the job of comissioned RAF pilots. Then we would truly have a joint system with a proper rank pyramid. Arent there already army WO's in RAF/Joint posts? (CFS(H))[QUOTE]

HEDP,

As a 'young' SNCO in 1984 I was part of a 2-man crew on a Puma that had a WO1 pilot. Also, not that long ago, we saw the last Wessex MPilot retire from flying duties (1979?).

The RAF's pilot selection process is still geared around recruiting FJ wannabees for the reasons that have hitherto been mentioned in other threads. It'll happen one day, market forces will see to that.

:ok:

[Tiger_mate]

He wasnt a WO1 Puma pilot for long though, his commisioning certificate was in the post. Top pilot though, I flew the 'Dambuster' route with him starting overhead Soest and concluding with flying past/through/ over the twin towers of the Mohne Dam at about :mad: feet. Was winter, and not too many folk around, a memorable sortie.
The best of times, never to be repeated with 3 crew Ops.

[PTC REMF]

Night triple underslung loads might prove a bit interesting.

[wg13_dummy]

Why, PTC REMF?

[PTC REMF]

Just curious as to what stage of SH crewmen training the army door gunners would be expected to join.

[wg13_dummy]

Conversion to type would sound like a plan as there is not much need for Night triple underslinging on Lynx.

Remember, they are Army Rear Crewman now, not 'just' Door Gunners.

Are RAF NCA a little concerned their 'kingdom' may be invaded by mere JNCO's?

Could it spell the slippery slope for SNCO rearcrew if it is proven that AAC Rearcrew are just as capable for probably half the pay?

[wg13_dummy]

Which is why I said 'Conversion to type would be a good start'. Ie, they will be trained on specifics that they have not covered before on the new type.

If a brand spanking new plastic Sgt can do it, why not an experienced NCO? :rolleyes:

[wg13_dummy]

Tongue in cheek re the plastic Sgt comment. I know quite a few NCA are blokes who have spent a number of years in ground trades. A throw back from my father who was a plumber Warrant. He saw them as 'back door mess members. ;)

Some of the best people I ignore are crab SNCO aircrew. :p



You can't join straight in as NCO pilot.

Minimum rank for starting the course is Cpl with recommendations for Sgt.
Chaps who start the course tend to have at least 5 years experience under their belt. Thats usually the minimum. Par is about 9 years.


I don't think anyone was implying that AAC rearcrew would just jump onto the SH force without undergoing some sort of conversion.

[wg13_dummy]

Armourer; yes.


Ramp rat? Is that a term for DG only? I dunno.

[ProfessionalStudent]

I don't necessarily think that it would be good to just put them on an OCF with the rest of the RAF crewmen. The RAF crewmen have an in-depth knowledge of the principles of restraint etc etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking away anything from the AAC lads, but the level of trg the 2 services receive before OCU is quite different.

WG13 - The RN Cdo aircrewmen have been going through the same cse as the RAF crewmen since last year as JNCOs so I would suggest they are far more likely to be "the thin end of the wedge" than the AAC guys.

I would suggest that all rearcrew are given the same trg at DHFS (as the system's already bi-service, it's easier to make it tri-service) so there is a common output standard to OCF/OTP etc, especially if they are to work alongside current RAF SH crewmen on Ch/Me/Pu.

[SASless]

Let's get real here...it is not exactly rocket science these folks are going to have learn. Rank alone has nothing to do with one's ability to learn and perform.

The tasks the poor ol' Army guy/RAF guy/RN guy has to learn to crew the back end of a Chinook, Merlin, or Lynx hauling people, internal or external cargo is pretty simple.

Specialized tasks such as running Anti-sub equipment and the like does take extensive training.

Perhaps there is some turf protection going on here?

[wg13_dummy]

would suggest that all rearcrew are given the same trg at DHFS (as the system's already bi-service, it's easier to make it tri-service) so there is a common output standard to OCF/OTP etc, especially if they are to work alongside current RAF SH crewmen on Ch/Me/Pu.

Quite agree.

(Send the crabs down to Wallop :hmm: )



Perhaps there is some turf protection going on here?

Quite agree also. ;)

[JNo]

You can't join straight in as NCO pilot.

Minimum rank for starting the course is Cpl with recommendations for Sgt.
Chaps who start the course tend to have at least 5 years experience under their belt. Thats usually the minimum. Par is about 9 years.

That's interesting. On my Shawbury course we had 2 acting Cpls who were getting substantive on completion of Wallop (might have been completion of EGOS). Hardly think that either of them had Sgt recommends.

[wg13_dummy]

The official line is recommend for Sgt. Not always the case with the new system we have unfortunately.

Chaps who are Cpls on the course, get substansive on completion of CTT.

I have to say, we need to filter a bit better seeings how we are making these chaps up to Sgt. Potentially L/Cpl>Sgt in 18 months. Some good, some not.

[SASless]

Surely all NCA are employed as Wsop's in the RAF so they can be posted to any type be it Helicopters, transport or anti-submarine so they all need the same level of intelligence on joining.


Same level of intelligence at Joining?

Sooooo...which is the correct comparative ratings.....by service?

RAF, RN, RM, Army is that it?

Does that mean in the old days when there were Sgt. Pilots they were less bright than real officers?

[Two's in]

The RAF crewmen have an in-depth knowledge of the principles of restraint etc etc etc

Is that not a Military Police training objective, hardly rocket surgery...

[Tiger_mate]

The tasks the poor ol' Army guy/RAF guy/RN guy has to learn to crew the back end of a Chinook, Merlin, or Lynx hauling people, internal or external cargo is pretty simple.


Comment borne of ignorance. For it it were so, students of proven aptitude would never fail the course. Having ensured that the 'character' is right is basic training, academic training common to several rear crew trades is the second 'filter'. Only then are students streamed rotary, where as has been alluded to, dangerous goods and correct weight and balance, load and restraint are taught at great length*. This is before the practical aspects of being a helicopter crewman, with extensive overlap of front crew skills regarding mission management and navigation. Engineering knowledge and basic engineering skills is another aspect for which a front line crewman is qualified.

We live in a tree hugging society in which Captains have a duty of care to the soldiers/pax. They depend on their crew to ensure rules are adhered to. An SH crewman may be the master of no individual aspect of helicopter operations, but the scope of his experience and ability, and therefore value, is extensive. They may be many things, but a professional 'gunner' is not one of them.

Do not compare an RAF Crewman with a US Army crewman, their training and areas of responsibility are very differant.

*Accountable in any Board of Enquiry*

[R 21]

Here here TM :D

[Faithless]

Where did all this come from?

[SASless]

Tiger,

Seems odd that a US Army Chinook crew can fly in the same area using the same aircraft and do the same missions as the British Chinook crews are doing in the same aircraft in the same AO and each seem to accomplish their tasks.

If all of what you say is true....then why would the UK forces allow their people to be transported by any Chinook besides those owned by the RAF? It does seem a bit odd to see the Army without the Chinook as it would appear to be an integral part of Army operations. It is not a C-130 after all.

Now just what is the "difference" between crew duties from your side and mine?

I am having lunch today with three of my guys and I will pass your summary to them and see if they agree.

[wg13_dummy]

SASless. Its an age old argument.


Why has the RAF got Chinook, Puma and Merlin?

Army assets flown by crabs.

I suppose if they were taken off them, all they would have left would be a handful of Typhoon, some Tonkas and a couple of old knackered airliners. Hardly an 'Air Force'. :rolleyes:

[midsomerjambo]

A bit off thread I suppose, but I've never really understood why NCA pass out from training as SNCOs. I see the point in RAFP having A/Cpl rank - they may have to charge people. I don't profess to know much about the training NCA undergo, but I did a 3-year technical apprenticeship (remember them?) which I assume is longer than NCA training and required at least as much if not more intellectual application. I passed out as a J/T and although I was promoted to Cpl. and Sgt. within a year and 4 years respectively after passing out, promotion to Sgt. at least was contingent on above average assessments (including spec recs).

[Blakey875]

Mids - it's so that they have some authority to make people form an orderly queue when they are making tea in the galley.
Seem to remembr at Odiham in past that RAF Regt gunners manned third gun on Chinooks?

[Tiger_mate]

The most obvious differance USA/UK that I am led to believe is in the depth to which the US guy is engineer trained. If our aircraft go into the shed for servicing of any depth, no crewman has any responsibility for it. It may be an incorrect perception over here, but rumour has it that US crewmen are responsible for a particualr airframe and will oversee maintenance of it. More akin to a Crew Chief. Being british, I cannot speak of first hand experience here, but I did the USMC/RAF exercise exchange in 96, and that appeared to be the case there. The numerous nations use their crewmen in different ways, the Portugese crewmen start/stop the engines and have no in flight role out of the jump seat. Some nations do not involve the crewman in any mission management, nor even brief them of the task (I have seen this at first hand). The RAF Crewman is fully integrated into the operation of the aircraft, is expected to oversee nav and mission planning, and is expected to speak up when errors are made, or a more efficient method can be seen. He is the eyes and ears for the handling pilot, and with methodical use of key words will talk the aircraft to a specific point. The best examples of this concern underslung loads (USL) onto base frames or SAR survivor recovery where the pilot cannot physically see what is happening below the aircraft.

I saw a newsreel a little while ago of a South African civvie Hip dropping a USL, and then turning the tail into an advertisement boarding, the subsequent crash killing those on board. This simply would not happen with the CRM prevelent amongst an RAF Crew.

I have no wish to promote a "My dicks bigger than yours" thread which is already far too common here, but comments made from uninformed sources, that belittle a job that I have enjoyed for over 2 decades really **** me off. As I said on my initial post early in the thread, the army mates have much to offer, but only if they receive the knowledge and training the RAF boys get, for none of it is superfluous.

The times and procedures have changed. My early years were 2 crew, pilot and crewman. If the crewman could not navigate the aircraft got lost, because a Decca based TANS would invariably wonder. The third crewmember was introduced to save the navigators brevet, and subsequently an acceptance that pilots are suceptable to ground fire and so a second pilot was deemed essential (Gulf War 1). Though responsibilities are shared between more individuals, overlap of duties remain.

Perhaps if nothing else, this thread demonstrates the need for crewmen as well as pilots to have the opportunity of international exchange. Even within the UK, the chiefs must desire a time when all 3 service helicopters are operated by individuals sharing a common standard, techniques and procedures. The lack of supervision and accountable responsibility IMHO justifys the rank that goes with the job. I would prefer that there be no Cpl pilots/gunners/aircrewmen and all share SNCO rank then listen to the unnecessary bleatings by my countries aviators regarding RAF SH. The AAC pilots in particular do seem to have an axe to grind. Chill fella's, trying to put us down does nothing to improve your own status in life, and every leader of men that ever thought so was invariably a complete tosspot.

[ProfessionalStudent]

T_M
Nice one Centurion:D
The crux is that all personnel operating as crewmen should have the same level of training, regardless of service, especially if operating the same ac type. The desire would obviously be to have everyone receiving the most comprehensive training (the RAF and RN DHFS course would be the one to go for), but alas this costs the most money too.
Having crewmen as SNCOs is important as the rank carries more credence down the back if you've got 40+ troops on. The fact that the crewman could have the same rank as his AAC ac commander is irrelevant as everyone on board should know their place as Captain/Co-Pilot/Crewman, and it is the former with whom the buck stops and who is the final arbitrator should any differences of opinion remain.
If one argues that on 2 crewmen ac such as Me/Ch, you could have an RAF SNCO crewman and a lesser (read "less comprehensively trained" before you get on your soapboxes) trained AAC JNCO crewman, that wouldn't work either, as both crewman do subtly different roles on the aircraft (and they are all able to fill both positions). Organising the manning plots for dets and attachments etc would be made even more of a headache. And we wouldn't want to get into a "Sorry sir, I'm just ramp up/ramp down" scenario either.
Please, feel free to have AAC crewmen manning RAF aircraft, but train them the same, give them the same SNCO status (all RAF guys start as A/Sgt) and treat them the same.

SASLess

As Tiger Mate said, all nations operate differently and see their way as being as effective as they need, and others as being too complex or too simple. We say "tomartow", you say "t'mayda" (if you're from Brooklyn). And it will always be thus. Those that criticise the way you do/did it without the experience of how you do it, aren't worth listening to. A man of your experience will know that anyhoo. I have first-hand experience of watching both US Army and USN "SH" aircrews operate Black/Sea Hawks and whilst their MOs were different to ours in many ways, they were intrinsically the same in many others. The crewmen/crew chiefs perform a different role to our (air)crewmen, but the aircraft were none the less effective for it...

[wg13_dummy]

I was led to believe the SNCO status was a throw back from the war. In the event of the cab buying the farm, a SNCO was presumed to get better treatment by his captors than a junior rank.

The argument re SNCO having more credence down the back end is, I believe a non starter. JNCO's have been able to carry out their duties without the added 'weight' of rank. 40 or 6 pax makes little difference if you have one awkward titrash. I don't think I have ever heard of a JNCO rearcrewman being userped because of his rank or lack of it.

I think what you are saying Tigs is that all NCO aircrew; Army, RAF, RN, RM should be SNCO therefore allowing those who are presently not, the ability to be promoted.


Remember, the AAC used to (and is moving back towards), Aircrewman who occupy the left seat. A L/Cpl would have map reading skills that were at times better than his pilot counter part, a tactical grasp of the battlefield that would put many staff officers to shame and have the ability to fire the weapon system onto a target that he could recognise on goggles/thermal out to a distance of 4K's and 9/10 hit it first time. He could operate all the aircraft systems, operate the tac radios along with being able to decifer BATCO. As well as being able to fly the aircraft should the pilot become incapacitated.

We stopped using them because some felt it wasn't correct a L/Cpl leading a Battle Group formation!

Cheap labour but it proves the point a JNCO is actually quite capable of doing jobs other services reserve for SNCOs or commisioned officers.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Wg13

I don't think anyone was decrying AAC crewmen (most RAF SH crewmen could do the same given the same trg as the AAC guys - in fact in Tiger Mates formative years, that's EXACTLY what they did (though many crewmen couldn't hit the water if they fell out of a boat)), just demanding parity for all, and when faced with the threat of one's job being "down-ranked" (is that proper English like?), one will always defend the current structure to the hilt. All 3 services bring different abilities to the table and there will no doubt be a tri-service basic course followed by single service type conversions.

[wg13_dummy]

Totally agree. We've proved that we can have a standardised joint pilot course so why not go the whole hog and do the same with rearcrew.
It may lead to us having a 'pool' of correctly trained guys who, with just a CTT/OCU, could fit into any role within JHC. Now there's a thought! We could even do it with pilots! Why can't Army SNCO pilots exchange on Puma, Chinook or Merlin?
Flexibility. :cool:

[Tiger_mate]

operate the tac radios along with being able to decifer BATCO
BATCO
Do you want the rations or dont you!! So we accept SNCO pilots on exchange with the RAF and you promote (and train) all your door gunners. Sounds like a deal.........So............er........It'll never happen:E
Which is a shame, because it is the way ahead

Note to CAS..........

SNCO aircrew was originated in WWII with the Geneve Convention in mind. However our common Fo/Foagh/Fow/Fough......enemy these days does not much care about western war rules. Ref: Authority of rank, a common contempary perception which does have some credance. The simple fact is that JNCO and below do not hold the authority of a SNCO. I recently convinced the stn hierarchy to allow an SAC (Private) to hold a secondary duty that I knew he would be good at. He constantly called for support to advice uncle Tom Cobbly and all that he was operating on behalf of the stn cdr, as nobody took him seriously.

Look beyond rank and see the experience / Street wise / World wise but unfortunately they do go hand in hand.
You may have an immature, baby faced (with acne) 18 year old virginal kid pineing for his mother, but if he has a Pilot Officer stripe, people will either obey him, or use tact and diplomacy to 'guide' him. No soldier / airman will tell him where to get off. An SAC on board an SH helicopter would be a liability, and not one considered to be accountable for his actions, but one considered to require supervision.

[wg13_dummy]

So an NCA Sgt has spent most of his time in training then?

What makes him different from a shiny new zob? (Apart from if you swipe his rank with a bar code reader he'll be worth 5p).

[MINself]

wg13_dummy I think the answer to that one is the more money it will cost and the empires it will destroy because of the 'jointary' required to go down that particular road. 1 person for a joint service role over dozens of single servce personnel all pulling in different directions for the percieved good and benefit of their own service, in the knowledge that they only have 2/3 years before they are posted elsewhere :ugh:

I believe the RAF rearcrew training course is some months in length including time at OCU, where as the AAC Rearcrew course is some weeks in length and although there has been alot of headway recently (and not before time) for the recognition of AAC Rearcrew trade. Mainly to do with pay, having a career structure and not alternating flying on high temp operations with sitting around the vehicle park painting landrovers when back in blightey. There is still a long way to go with getting the recgonition of this trade by a few dinosaurs.

[wg13_dummy]

.......in a training environment. :rolleyes:

[Level 28]

The best of times as a crewman for me was flying single pilot missions in Belize, the UK and continental Europe - especially on AMF exercises, both North and South. Great days, some aircraft had not been modified yet and the decometers were our primary nav aid. We, as crewmen, felt ‘invincible’, with the HP duly occupied, we were co-pilots/navs/engs/alms all rolled into one. Op Banner was the only environment, at the time, where we flew 2 pilot ops within the mainstream of day-to-day SH flying.

Then something ‘strange’ happened. Society changed rapidly; there was empirical evidence to show that the pilot output standard from Shawbury no longer reflected what had hitherto been the case. We were getting a different calibre of pilot coming through the system. Pilots found that the skills that were being asked of them - as they progressed through the OCU - too demanding.

At around about the same time, the Harding report appeared (the RAF’s attempt to convince our political masters that the Apache would be better housed within the SH Force), this was followed by the Curry report. This report attempted to address the aircrew manning of the SH force, as a result of the comments hitherto made. What has evolved since then is what we have today.

IMHO a different world - demands now placed on our crews and hardware that no one could of imagined during that earlier period. We were still flying profiles to deter the 3rd Shock Army after all.

We have seen many changes, and as I come to the end of my career as a SH crewman, I am confident that those who are stepping forward today are more capable than I was at each stage of their training, but in different ways.

Let them know they have our support; I have always admired the quality of RN crewmen, as I have admired the AACs ‘crewmen’ albeit for different reasons.

There are too many over-generalizations been made on this thread, which is very frustrating for some, I am sure. This medium, quite rightly, prevents its readers getting a full picture of the diverse roles our SH crewmen are being asked to perform.

The RN, RAF and the AAC perform unique functions in the rotary world; let us focus on the positives. We have a long journey ahead of us to achieve a tri-service force, there are those at the top who do not wish it, let us prove them wrong. Maybe MFTS will be the catalyst.

[wg13_dummy]

Crikey, Level, I was expecting to hear the Star Wars theme tune playing in the background as I read your post!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

As I was expecting to hear the "Dad's Army" theme accompany yours Wg.. ker:rolleyes:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Why can't Army SNCO pilots exchange on Puma, Chinook or Merlin?


Because if a non-commissioned pilot was ever to take the controls of an RAF aircraft they might do something silly like drop a nuke or something.

Whats that? We don't have nukes anymore? Then why don't we have non-commissioned pilots again, they seemed to work pretty well in the past?

:rolleyes:

[wg13_dummy]

As I was expecting to hear the "Dad's Army" theme accompany yours Wg.. ker

WG...ker?

How mature.

Nothing to add to the discussion?

I'm sure the others on this thread will see the banter in between the debate.

[TheWizard]

So an NCA Sgt has spent most of his time in training then?


At least he/she doesn't spend his whole life on this forum. Perhaps if you spent more time in the real world you would know what the real differences between the jobs were!
When was the last time you saw an AAC Rearcrew/door gunner or whatever their latest title is, pick somebody up form the middle of a minefield whilst on the end of a 150 ft wire cable?? Not saying they couldn't do it, BUT that is just one element of the training they would NEED to do to work on an RAF helicopter as a Crewman.
If the perception is that all you need to do is open or shut a door and tie some stuff to the floor, then there are any number of people at Benson or Odiham who would be happy to show you or anyone else the reality.:)
Incidentally, yes, with the right appropriate training there could be some cross polination as the RN Crewmen/Observers are proving at the moment. However, even they have had to do a crossover course at Shawbury and are finding a big difference to the way the different Services operate.:rolleyes:

[R 21]

I may sound old and synical but... hell I am. In my experience the AAC DOOR GUNNERS will always envy the RAF SH CREWMEN and the SH lads will be scared of any competion from the AAC. A new fairer system must be found to offer the lesser trained the same chance as every other CREWMAN regardless of the colour of beret worn.

Me thinks the J in JHC only works when it suits the individual services!!

:ugh:

[wg13_dummy]

Who are you on about, Wizard?

I'm sure if Army Lynx were fitted with winches, the rear chaps would be more than happy to carry out the task.

In Brunei and Belize, Army cabs seem to be fairly happy plucking chaps from the jungle....all be it minus the minefields.

Willy fight; sword stowed.




R21
I may sound old and synical but... hell I am. In my experience the AAC DOOR GUNNERS will always envy the RAF SH CREWMEN and the SH lads will be scared of any competion from the AAC. A new fairer system must be found to offer the lesser trained the same chance as every other CREWMAN regardless of the colour of beret worn.

Me thinks the J in JHC only works when it suits the individual services!!


Totally agree!

[TheWizard]

RTFQ!!!:ugh:
Not saying they couldn't do it, BUT that is just one element of the training they would NEED to do to work on an RAF helicopter as a Crewman.

[wg13_dummy]

I did RTFQ. But you asked;

When was the last time you saw an AAC Rearcrew/door gunner or whatever their latest title is, pick somebody up form the middle of a minefield whilst on the end of a 150 ft wire cable??


Substitute minefield for jungle.

They do it when the task requires and they have been trained to do it.

In a similar but equally pointless vein, I could ask when does an RAF rearcrewman clean his own weapon?

I think most of us are in agreement that a more joint approach to rear crew training 'could' be helpful for all services.


But as R21 suggests, the AAC envy the training and established trade, the RAF are scared of the security of the present rank structure possibly being eroded and as usual, the Navy go off whistling their own tune as they are happy. :}

[midsomerjambo]

<quote>As I was expecting to hear the "Dad's Army" theme accompany yours Wg.. ker</quote>

Oh SFFP - what wit! Fast forward 15 or 20 years in your mind and take a look back.

Again and a wee bit off thread, I'm not sure I agree about the gravitas provided by a 20 year old RAF sergeant before a bunch of battle hardened grunts, but let that one go (I was only 24 when I got my third and looking back 24 years, I'm not sure how much gravitas, if any I had). But correct me if I'm wrong, all NCA pass out as sergeants do they not, and I've yet to see why a loadie on a C130 or a scopie on a Nimrod needs to start his/her career as a SNCO, notwithstanding what you might think SH crewmen need to fulfil their role. However, maybe I'm just bitter ex-groundcrew (and an ex-fairy to boot - ah no, I admitted it and unsolicited too! :uhoh:)

[wg13_dummy]

I think RAF NCA always get a bit defensive about the rank issue. Especially when reminded JNCO's in both the other services can do a similar job.

Some would say it devalues the rank allowing such youngsters into the WO and Sgts Mess. Some would also ask what SNCO qualities do they have?

I of course wouldn't because I respect how they've managed to keep their trade how they have.

[TheWizard]

Substitute minefield for jungle.
They do it when the task requires and they have been trained to do it.

OK, I never suggested they weren't trained on their own types. However, to get back to the original thread, we were talking about AAC Gunners on RAF aircraft so therefore they would have to be re-trained in Voice Marshalling a large aircraft in a potentially confined area whilst controlling a 'live' hoist in a four crew environment.
Once again, not beyond anyone, but not a simple swap from one Service to another as has been alluded to and that is just one example.
In a similar but equally pointless vein, I could ask when does an RAF rearcrewman clean his own weapon?
:hmm:
Yes,yes, that old chestnut. I will have to remember that next time I fire and return the GPMG to the Armoury(if they are not on a tea break) before I go to the Mess for a cup of tea
I think most of us are in agreement that a more joint approach to rear crew training 'could' be helpful for all services.
Correct :D
the AAC envy the training and established trade, the RAF are scared of the security of the present rank structure possibly being eroded and as usual, the Navy go off whistling their own tune as they are happy.
Today 21:21

On the whole very true, but I don't think the correct word is 'scared' here. Apprehensive maybe, but personally I think the rank thing is well establised and it is more likely for the Army to go up in rank rather than the other way round.
As far as the whole 'authority down the back bit' goes, that is only partially the reason.
Consider this- an RAF aircraft (mainly helicopters but not exclusive) can self deploy without engineer support. Quite often it is the Crewman/Loadie and sometimes FE on fixed wing) who services the aircraft whilst the drivers go off for flight planning etc. It needs a minimum of a Senior NCO to sign off the servicing certificate and checks in the Form 700.
Not sure what the rules are for the AAC or RN.
Finally to clarify, all NCA come out of training as Acting Sergeants.

[TheWizard]

Some would say it devalues the rank allowing such youngsters into the WO and Sgts Mess. Some would also ask what SNCO qualities do they have?

and some say it brings a bit of life into the place. Visit a Mess with NCA members and one without and tell me which has more going on? :)
You don't have to be old and grumpy to be a member of the Mess. :}
Some of the best and busiest ones I have lived in/been a member of/visited are those with a large membership of mixed age groups and trades. In the RAF generally now, there are not to many Mess dinosaurs left. Most SNCOs on Operational stations where there are NCA have not known any different so just get on with their life. There is always going to be exceptions to the rule on both sides of the equation. Old farts and young gobby whipper snappers!
Now, an Army Mess is a different proposition altogether!! :ouch:

[Tiger_mate]

In Brunei and Belize, Army cabs seem to be fairly happy plucking chaps from the jungle....all be it minus the minefields.

Not without incident; but I guess that one is a stone thrown inside a greenhouse.

The rank issue will also involve recruitment and retention. Something that the RAF are close to losing after the Navy have already lost it. The wheels may not like it in an open forum, but the bottom line is that we are willfully short of manpower. There has to be some carrot to compensate for the inevitable divorce-separation-OOA-realisation that your kids are now adults but when did they grow up?

If the MOD wants the small group of helicopter aviators regardless of trade to continually play Tonys game of world politics, then there has to be something it it for the players. The US have lost 5 helicopters in 3 weeks (RIP) which is hardly an incentive to join SH.

Appreciation (read rank) and salary may address the balance a little. But this is not enough for the many who have voted with their feet. It is ESSENTIAL that motivated people are attracted to the role of helicopter aircrew, lets not undermine that by suggesting we try and do it on the cheap.

[wg13_dummy]

A good post, Wizard and has opened it up a bit more.

Apprehensive is probably the better term to use. With the way cost slashing is going in the forces, any 'bright' idea to reduce costs is quite often taken above any actual operational benefit. Bin SNCO's and replace with a lower rank would be seen as a 'massive' saving as opposed to trimming the top of the tree first.

I can see the point re crewman signing 700's etc which in turn releases the front crew to crack on with the job in hand. The front seaters in the AAC (or if a tech is along for the ride; doubtful if it's sharp) service and sign off. Although with our system, a class 1 tech (REME Cpl usually) or those signed up for the signatures can sign off a 700. When we had Cpl pilots, they too could carry out this task. Not beyond the realms to allow a Cpl to do it in a future scenario possibly?

I for one am undecided which way this whole thing should go. We have only very recently acknowledged the trade of rear crewman and are still in the early days of establishing it to its fullest extent.

I am wary about allowing our rear crew to be SNCOs by default and I can see the RAF NCA would be rather unwilling to cede their system too.

A L/Cpl who may be an excellent rear crew member in every respect may not necessarily have the qualities of a SNCO yet. We still have to think about the rank structure when not in the cab. I don’t mean that in the 'Army blinkered' fashion but more his experience, leadership and management skills that we expect all SNCO's to have.

With the forces as a whole being strimmed to the bone, a compromise has been forced upon us meaning we have to share a lot more. We can't rely on the past individual force buffer zones that we used to unfortunately.

I'm sure it won't be too long in the future when some bright spark after an MBE will decide to try out a complete cross pollination of rear crew. It will, as with most efficiency measures we are facing be a kick in the swingers for all concerned.




ratty. An old crusty QHI once taught me; 'if you have f**k all to say, say f**k all'. :oh:

[midsomerjambo]

Ratty, not sure I see your point. I think we all of us deal (dealt with) all ranks and sorts of people in our service career. I guess you're right that if the service offers it and people take it up, those of us us that didn't can't really complain. To be honest though matey, I'm really not that bitter lol!

[wg13_dummy]

Full of people like WG13 dummy I reckon...........................

Its hard for an old grunt to learn new tricks sometimes...............

Tiger. The retention issue and the wants of Bliar are on different levels unfortunately. The bungee will shortly break I think and Bliar will be confused at why the only people left in the Forces are like those that surrounded Hitler in Berlin at the close of WWII. There are quite a few comparisons to him and his lack of tactical and strategic understanding given by his Generals.



ratty. It would be interesting to see what you actually add with any of your posts on Pprune?

I think a set of binos would be needed though.


BTW where did the teeny weeny airways thread go?

Dunno. Why don't you ask admin or start it up again?

[TheWizard]

A L/Cpl who may be an excellent rear crew member in every respect may not necessarily have the qualities of a SNCO yet. We still have to think about the rank structure when not in the cab. I don’t mean that in the 'Army blinkered' fashion but more his experience, leadership and management skills that we expect all SNCO's to have.


Perhaps you are close to hitting the proverbial nail there WG. The old saying of 'In the Army, you are a soldier first..' etc is still true according to my brown job friends. This has never been the ethos adopted by the RAF.
We are 'specialists' in our respective trade areas and will only be employed on secondary duties when absolutely required. Hence, why the training is generally so much longer (not talking front end here). NCA are giving a comprehensive training course on becoming an NCO and what it can entail. Whilst this does not account for so called 'life experience', when did 4 months at Cranwell or Sandhurst ever supply that to an eighteen year old Officer Cadet and yet they soon go on to lead whole sections or flights?
Quite simply, an Army SNCO has a very different role to an RAF SNCO in many respects. It is not all about who can shout the loudest!!:bored:

[Tiger_mate]

The bungee will shortly break

I heard that same line in an afterdinner speech recently, and the orator was anything but a dummy although he has WG13 background and works for JHC.

mmmmmmmmm...............

Ratty: You are a dick who insists on wasting webspace. Get a life.

[midsomerjambo]

Missing the point Wizard - RAF SNCOs outside of NCA are expected to have every bit as much ability, life experience etc. as their Army compadres and why not? However, you expect a F/O fresh out of training to need a bit of hand holding I guess and I suppose the same is probably true of a sergeant with an eagle between his stripes. Still i don't know 'cos I never worked with sergeant aircrew - all the loadies I worked with down south were F/S or Masters - jeez, that was a long time ago!

[wg13_dummy]

Wizard, the whole Army 'Soldier First' thing has been misquoted by so many in the past. Mainly by senior army officers. There is a definate misunderstanding to the whole thing.

What it doesn't mean is the ability for anyone, whatever trade or job in the Army to be an infanteer.

What it does mean is everyone in the Army should be able to look after themselves when the going gets tough. They should be able to fire their weapon (meaning they should know how it works and how to keep it working), be fit enough not to become a burden to others around them and be able to keep their kit and themselves in good working order when out of barracks on ops.

In the Army, we just can't afford to be so 'specialised' that the basics go out of the window. We need that extra flexibility that our blokes can function when taken out of thier comfort zone or specific trade. I'm not suggesting that RAF NCA are softy walters who would cry if they were taken out of the aircraft. I know most are quite capable operating outside thier zone. But, I have to say, if put in a position were my cab was downed and I had to revert to old school, I'd rather have an AAC DG/Rearcrew bloke covering my six than an RAF one. Based on the fact he has wont hinder me too much. A sweeping statement I know but my blokes still have the 'soldier first' concept in them. I wont need to wipe his arse.

Credit where credit is due. RAF rear crew do a fine job in that role due not in any small part to the comprehensive training they have recieved.

I dont think an RAF SNCO should have such a different role to an AAC SNCO to be honest. In the JHC/SH role, there shouldn't be that much difference. We work in the same hole.



ratty, yet again, youve proved me right.

[wg13_dummy]

Re the Cranwell/Sandhusrt arguement.


We dont allow our young officers a choice until they are at least a snr Capt or Major. They are escorted by a JNCO all the way. ;)

That would quite frankly, be as mad as a mad thing.

[TheWizard]

[Based on the fact he has wont hinder me too much. A sweeping statement I know but my blokes still have the 'soldier first' concept in them. I wont need to wipe his arse.

Normally the other way round!! :}
Sorry couldn't resist!
Please correct me if I am wrong, but does the AAC still not send a lot of its officers back to their Regiments after a tour or two? Is that not a case of 'Soldier first'?
The specialisation is not at the expense of the basics in the RAF. It is never been part of the RAF skill set to be combat troops (not Infanteers which I accept is specialised) with the exception of the RAF Regiment of course. However, I agree, all military personnel need to be able to look after themselves and those that do find themsleves in the brown stuff generally can. A DG/Rearcrew is undoubtedly more skilled in 'soldiering' but in this day and age the level of training for getting away we all recieve (talking about SH as that is my area) is pretty high. Would you have the same faith in a L/Cpl to organise the evacuation and egress of 40 odd passengers in downed bird environment as you would in letting him get stuck in with the rearguard defence while you legged it? (nothing derogatory implied there)
All I am saying is what you have already hinted at. There are different levels of training for different roles but ultimately we are trying to achieve the same aim!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Wg,

I think your crusty old QHI probably really meant if you have f%ck all "informed" to say, then best say f%ck all, and as you appear to have very little grasp of the workings of RAF NCA perhaps you should heed that valuable advice:rolleyes: ..............but if I was a betting man I would have my house on you bleathering on:bored:

You asked ratty to contribute to this thread and he has with his last post, now without wishing to denigrate the capabilities of your Aircrewman do you seriously wish to tell us that each and everyone of them, bearing in mind our move to the NCA cadre and the supposition that we CAN with training all do each others jobs, can assimilate the skill sets to fill all the NCA posts Ratty lists..................be honest now:=

[SASless]

Tiger,

Having read your response and taking a bit of time to think about it.....one question pops up prompted by your statement......

he RAF Crewman is fully integrated into the operation of the aircraft, is expected to oversee nav and mission planning, and is expected to speak up when errors are made, or a more efficient method can be seen.

I cannot believe you mean the shaved apes in the back of the bus "supervise" Nav and Mission planning.

Perhaps you actually mean is included as part of the team and fully briefed by the Aircraft Commander, Troop Commander, and/or pilot and is encouraged to speak up when becoming aware of something that might endanger the aircraft, mission, or crew and passengers.

Yes, our crew chiefs and flight engineers are trained as "mechanics/engineers" and are capable of doing first and second echelon maintenance on the aircraft. The Gunner (if not CE or FE) qualified does grunt work and weapons maintenance. Gunners are allowed to do on the job training and can move up to Crew Chief qualifications.

The concept of having folks trained to crew "any" aircraft doesn't make sense at all. If that were the case.....pilots would be able to swap about without any specialized training.

Are you trying to convince me a crewmember from a Tristar can walk across the ramp and operate a winch without any training then turn right around and rig a Herc for a parachute drop. Well maybe rig the Herc because he will have four years to get it right before the next drop.

I am afraid I will have to accept our crewmembers carry out both engineering and flight crew duties and yours do flight crew duty alone.....which sounds a bit less capable than in our system.

[wg13_dummy]

Totally agree to be honest, Wizard.

Horses for courses as it were.

I have every faith that an AAC rear crew chap would be capable of doing what you suggest, despite only being a L/Cpl. Thankfully we select and recruit blokes who tend to have that certain something. One hopes an advantage should our guys supliment the SH force.

I think at present we have parallel lines. The SH rear crew have qualities and so do ours. It would be nice if we could mix the two without losing the ingredients that make each good.

Our guys are currently trained to do what they need to do and I'm sure, if required, they could work just as well in the SH side of life.


AAC officers or more so pilot trained officers of other cap badges. This is were the crux of the matter comes in. An army officer is still required to be an officer first. Whether that be a tankie, grunt or pilot. Despite the high cost of training a pilot, the officer still needs to jump the hurdles the army sets out in front of him.

The SNCO's are still concidered the 'professional aircrew' because thats what they do for their whole career (if they are lucky) after flying course. An officer is lucky if he gets a full flying tour in before he has to poke off doing such interesting things as SO3 Paper Clip Procurement. If he wants promotion, he still needs to get the ticks in the box at various command levels. That includes an Apache trained officer.

We tend not to send non AAC officers back to thier Corps or Regt (unless they are a complete biff but that sometimes doesn't prevent a full and distinguished career in the AAC ;) ) because it increases the 'outside' knowledge of the Corps and means the cronically short staff officer jobs can be filled.

This is where we sometimes fall down compared to the RAF. Our officers may have a full grounding in all arms doctrine and coffee making up to 3* level but have very little actual aviation experience.

For example, we have just sent a newly qualified officer Aircraft Commander to Iraqistan as a watchkeeper for six months! He's been out of the box for about a year. In an ideal world, he would consolidate his experience as a commander flying. I don't think the army will allow us to change this much to the frustration of the AAC.




ratty. You can shout as much as you like but we will still ignore you.

[TheWizard]

I cannot believe you mean the shaved apes in the back of the bus "supervise" Nav and Mission planning.

and that is where you are soooooooo WRONG.
Every year there is a Tri service course for Helicopter Tactics Instructors.
The last two years, the top student has been an RAF Non Comissioned Aircrew. Each of these students plans and runs a full CAMAO package.
So, not bad for a 'shaved ape'. I bet half of your jockeys would struggle to achieve that.
I am afraid I will have to accept our crewmembers carry out both engineering and flight crew duties and yours do flight crew duty alone.....which sounds a bit less capable than in our system.
Once again, WRONG.
If you had bothered to read some of the earlier posts you would see that we also carry out both engineering and flight crew duties
So, if you are basing your knowledge on what you knew from 'back in the day', best you don't advertise your ignorance and listen to those of us that actually do know what we are talking about.
As it is a Friday night I will put a lot of this down to alcohol fuelled Brit baiting. If so, well done it worked:rolleyes:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

SAS,

"I cannot believe you mean the shaved apes in the back of the bus "supervise" Nav and Mission planning."

I have often found you stupid and ill informed on this means and am saddened but not surprised to see you portraying your usual dull as dishwater persona:rolleyes:

"The concept of having folks trained to crew "any" aircraft doesn't make sense at all"

Who said that:ugh:

"Are you trying to convince me a crew member from a Tristar can walk across the ramp and operate a winch without any training then turn right around and rig a Herc for a parachute drop."

Who said that:ugh:

"I am afraid I will have to accept our crew members carry out both engineering and flight crew duties and yours do flight crew duty alone.....which sounds a bit less capable than in our system."

Have you actually read any of the posts from the SH folks:ugh:

I offer advice to all informed posters in hear to please post in CAPITALS for SAS and the other hard of hearing:rolleyes:

[wg13_dummy]

Seldomfit;

Wg,

I think your crusty old QHI probably really meant if you have f%ck all "informed" to say, then best say f%ck all, and as you appear to have very little grasp of the workings of RAF NCA perhaps you should heed that valuable advice ..............but if I was a betting man I would have my house on you bleathering on

You asked ratty to contribute to this thread and he has with his last post, now without wishing to denigrate the capabilities of your Aircrewman do you seriously wish to tell us that each and everyone of them, bearing in mind our move to the NCA cadre and the supposition that we CAN with training all do each others jobs, can assimilate the skill sets to fill all the NCA posts Ratty lists..................be honest now

Last time I looked, the AAC didn't operate C130's, Tri* or Nimrods so I dont think there would be any point wasting money training our guys on them.

Unless of course you work in mainbuilding and can see another way of chucking money in the bin for no reason whatsoever?

Can RAF NCA's operate in Lynx or Islander without training?

Wouldn't have thought so because there is no need to.


Are you related to ratty by chance? Maybe your sisters and mothers are the same person?

Grow some swingers and join the convo when you are ready.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

SASless,

" I cannot believe you mean the shaved apes in the back of the bus "supervise" Nav and Mission planning. "

In general, I would bet that there were more Degrees in the pockets of those "Shaved Apes" than you would find on the ground amounst a large proportion of the commissioned cadre within a great chunk of the military. OK thats by the by, what does that prove, however your assumption that the rearcrewmen are not involved with more far reaching aspects of the flight operations is catagorically incorrect.
The crewmen within the SH fleet ARE involved with the navigation, correct though - not in a supervisory role, they DO understand the mechanical functions of the aircraft, and they ARE expected to at times operate outside their remit using the INITIATIVE expected of a SNCO.

Your comments are unfair, you have obviously been disturbed in some way, wether it be through loyalty or disgust at the shear stupidity of one or two threads. I bear no grudge and I certainly dont rule out the possibility that many of the AAC crewmen would fill the role in a manner that does their servive proud.

WG 13 has provided a balanced view and has even conceded that he holds the RAF crewmen in high regard, with regards to Rattys comments - I dont believe anyone ever mentioned training these guys as Electronics Operators on an AWACS, and it certainly isnt true that any NCA could do any job within NCA, they are still screened for the role that they carry out and trying to fool yourself that it could be any other way is absolute madness.

Guys, if you want to try it out, go to Cranwell, prove that you can do it, and maybe peoplw will notice!

CRPxGood

[wg13_dummy]

At least me, ratty and Seldomfit are agreed on one thing. ;)

[TheWizard]

At least me, ratty and Seldomfit are agreed on one thing.
You were saying.............

OK, it seems the Army Door Gunners thread has reached a finale.
How about "ratty1 versus wg13_dummy"
I'll take any odds at the moment!!:}

[wg13_dummy]

The UN would step in I'm afraid.

A battle of wits against an unarmed man is unfair and against RoE. :rolleyes:

[SASless]

Clear Right....

I had lunch today with two of my "shaved apes" from Vietnam days. Last time I saw them was in 1970.....they were remarkable people back then....and still are. I have said it before that I feel honored to have served with Men as they are.

[Spurlash2]

SASless

Now you have wound me up. Good skills.

As a "shaved ape", I have been a navigation instructor, tactics instructor, gunnery instructor, EW instructor. I have navigated helicopters hundreds of miles over the sea by DR to and from fixed and moving points. BTW, I have also supervised ab-initio pilots low level navigation, and flown the a/c while the young man in the RHS wallpapers the cockpit. I have also operated radar and all the other bumf that goes with being a Crewman in the British Armed Forces.

The skill set of a Brit Crewman is far advanced from your "shaved ape" that you flew with.

Yes, I have completed training courses prior to aquiring each skill set, but I have had the nous to be able to do that.

2 nations divided by SASless.

[wg13_dummy]

SASless

Now you have wound me up. Good skills.

As a "shaved ape", I have been a navigation instructor, tactics instructor, gunnery instructor, EW instructor. I have navigated helicopters hundreds of miles over the sea by DR to and from fixed and moving points. BTW, I have also supervised ab-initio pilots low level navigation, and flown the a/c while the young man in the RHS wallpapers the cockpit. I have also operated radar and all the other bumf that goes with being a Crewman in the British Armed Forces.

The skill set of a Brit Crewman is far advanced from your "shaved ape" that you flew with.

Yes, I have completed training courses prior to aquiring each skill set, but I have had the nous to be able to do that.

2 nations divided by SASless.

But your not actually a pilot, right? :hmm:

[TheWizard]

had lunch today with two of my "shaved apes" from Vietnam days.
As I thought, one too many Budweisers for lunch!? :yuk:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Spurlash,

Well said, I have to agree. SASless, as I said before I hold no grudges and I am sure that the men you had lunch with certainly are amoungst the finest, but you miss my point.

After all, we are talking about the difference between military powers -one of which has Airframes Techs, Engine Techs and Avionics Techs, the other has L/H Wheel Tech, R/H wheel Tech, Front Five Access Panel Tech and so on.......
CRPxG

[wg13_dummy]

Budweisers?

I couldn't get my Hamster pissed on that cack.

I can see this thread will go like every other thread on Pprune.

A yank v brit UFC tournament.

Not that I have a problem with that of course..................

[TheWizard]

But your not actually a pilot, right?
Nah, he probably couldn't afford to take a pay cut;)

[wg13_dummy]

Speak for yourself........;)

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Probably couldnt afford to take a pay cut.....What!

Obviously that doesnt include the £50,000 FRI then?


Sorry,

£30,000 for NCOs

[TheWizard]

Obviously that doesnt include the £50,000 FRI then?

You mean the one that everyone is suddenly eager to know how to pay back because they now want to get out?? :ugh:

[wg13_dummy]

50k is fcuk all compared to a quality of life. ;)

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

WG13,

Couldn't have put it better myself, there are some that say money is everything, theyre tw*ts and dont we know it.

Time for bed, take care whoever you are!

CRpxGood

[wg13_dummy]

May the force be with you..........

[SASless]

Actually it was two pints of Guinness.:E


Only Chav's and the frustrated drink Budweiser. :=

After all drinking Bud is like making love in a canoe.....fecking near water.:{

[wg13_dummy]

...And of course the rest of the US beer breweries are top notch?


I remember doing an exchange with Illesheim Apache guys at 6/6 many years ago and we took a Lynx full of Boddingtons down with us. We presented a crate to them on the first night and we couldnt understand why they all fell over within 60 minutes of drinking a couple of cans.

We realised later that the reason was because they were a bunch of shandy swilling poofters who spent most of their time high fiving each other and touching each others bottoms.


It really fcuked them the next day when we showed them the envolope of the Lynx. :)


US Army aviators? Faggots.

I'd rather drink with a load of crab haver bag operatives.

[Faithless]

Im sorry to say boys and girls, Brits and spams but it seems to be working with a certain fixed wing sqn at the mo. It employs all 3 services from Army LCpls, RAF SNCOs & Officers and at the mo Navy Officers. All seems to be going very well. The Army lads & Lasses are greatful in the knowledge to other two services are providing.

Please lets be real here Im sure 60 to 70% of ADGs could do an excellent job in the back of SH. there will always be some that are not up to the job! They are not all LCpls. They employ Cpls and Sgts SSgts.

The seniors have to qualify to become ADGIs HWI/CSW. That means another 14 weeks of courses. thats on top of the normal new 8 week Aviation rear crewmen course.

After all the are some massive diferences between Army Aviation and SH isnt there?

[Python21]

A few days ago when I read the first post in this thread I thought give it a week and it will have degenerated into 'Mines bigger than yours' topic. It didn't take that long and there must be better things to do in life.
Right now, as you read this, 17 Million people are having sex - And look at you, you're on the bloody computer!!!!

[midsomerjambo]

Yeah, but so are you Python. Still, she'll be back from shopping shortly ;)

[ShyTorque]

"After all the are some massive diferences between Army Aviation and SH isnt there?"
Reminds me of a story...

A colonel, AAC, was being flown in the cabin of a Puma. He attempted to attract the attention of the Flight Sergeant crewman: "Staff.....Staff. I say, STAFF!"

Eventually the crewman said: "Sir - are you addressing ME?"

"Of course, I am, STAFF!"

"Well sir, I'm not a Staff Sergeant, I'm a Flight Sergeant.... so I respond to 'Flight' ".

"Well - Flight Sergeant, if you were in the ARMY you would be a STAFF Sergeant!"

"SIR!", Said the crewman. "If I were in the ARMY, I would probably have made Brigadier by now!!" :rolleyes:

[toddbabe]

Where is this 30k fri for nco's then?

[Faithless]

Shy Torque :yuk: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

I have sent you a PM, nothing contentious, just some info!

CRPxGood

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Tiger Mate, and all others :

Best I nip this one in the bud !

The FRI that the previous post refered to was directed at the AAC. The post refers to information taken from one of the previous years pay reviews for the AAC and nobody else.

The post was an answer to a comment from somebody, this comment obviously directed to the army.

I have no information of this years AFPRB, and didn't mean to cause confusion.

[Python21]

Ratty posted So were you at the point you posted your message. Were did you get the 17 million people number from?
1. No, Mrs P is in hospital
2. Read several years ago in The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexual Behavior, probably more now with an increase in World population.

Enough now, this is way off topic, but perhaps better than the way this thread has gone.

[Blackhawk Crew chief]

As a U.S. Army Crewchief on the UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter.
I have had this same conversation about the addition of door gunners not trained to the same level as a crewchief, we have recently made similar changes to our program. The number of recent aircrew casulties in Iraq and Afganistan highlight the immediate need for additional crewmembers.
The level of training re-enforcments have is a worry but for now its baptism by fire.

Strength and Honor
SSGT Rock

[helidriver]

Gentlemen,

I have been reading this thread with interest. Some AAC Aviation Crewman (ACM) facts:

The AAC has 4 ACM roles. ADG, Bell 212, Spec Liaison and FW.

Air Door Gunners are primarily responsible for aircraft defence with the Crew Served Weapon (CSW) and, as a secondary duty, carry out voice marshalling although this would become a primary responsibility in benign operations. The Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances. Although highly trained in these specialist fields they do not carry out C of G calcs, or sign for any detail in the F 700, though in my experience they are more than capable. This is because it is not in their job description and the training would significantly increase the 7 weeks they currently complete. There is also the poor return of service of 2 years for ACM on average. This will remain until a Career Employment Group (CEG) is established.

Bell 212 ACM are employed as Winch Operators in Belize and Brunei. They are primarily concerned with Voice Marshalling and management of the 212's cabin, not to mention operating the Winch and extracting casualties from very small jungle holes using 200' of cable. Exacting stuff. Again, the Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances.

Spec Liaison is something I refuse to comment on here, enough said on the matter!

Fixed Wing ACM are more 'front seat specialised operators and ordinarily carry out the duties of a FW P2 in 'old-money'. Their duties will involve flight planning, operating cockpit systems such as nav equipment and specialist user equipment.

All these specialisations are not necessarily inter-related and, as previously mentioned, the small return of service means there is no requirement for one trade-master of all. This decision will be revisited if a CEG is established.

Regarding the debate, recent operational experience has proved that the 'benign' rear crew duty of checking the tail clear etc is somewhat omitted when approaching a hot LZ and the requirement to return fire is necessary. This has led to the RAF requiring ADG trained personnel to operate the CSW whilst ALM Voice Marshall and clear the aircraft, a task for which they are culpable for, especially considering the larger size of the aircraft they operate. AAC ACM are more than adequately trained to operate the CSW and with the new ADG Sim established at MW the AAC are probably the service leaders in the employment of 'door gunners'. The RAF (and RN) ALM are experts in the field of rear cabin activities, including voice marshalling, C of G calcs, including servicing the aircraft. In my opinion, there is no argument. One does not threaten the other, rather we are specialists in different fields and should utilise the knowledge from across the three services to get the best possible product.

Feel free to PM me for more information.

h.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"AAC ACM are more than adequately trained to operate the CSW and with the new ADG Sim established at MW the AAC are probably the service leaders in the employment of 'door gunners'."

Not a dig but I think, based on the scant info I have, that a very large proportion of SH crewmen are, very sadly no doubt, able to strongly contest that suggestion:(

[wg13_dummy]

SH rear crew being 'Door Gunners' you mean?

I didn't think that CSW op was their primary role?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Wg,

You misunderstand me, Helidrivers well thought out post appeared, well to me anyway, too allude to the fact that you guys have all the current expertise when it comes to putting rounds down range whereas the scant info I have is that the majority of the SH guys have, the almost certainly unwanted distinction of being extremely bloody good at it as well:(

Not willy waggling just a very sad observation.

[wg13_dummy]

Fair one. Agree with what you suggest. :ok:

ADG's have had a fair bit of two way range days too.

[wokkameister]

I have been the RAF for 19 years and have taught crewmen of both the RAF and RM at both Shawbury and Odiham.
I have just returned from 'The Stan' (It's out in the East Tiger) where I can honestly say we enjoyed a good working relationship with the AAC.
So I do speak with some authority when I say that door gunners could be employed on the Chinook....providing they do the same training as everyone else.
I only speak for myself, but I am sure even the crewmen on other types will agree that there isn't the space/wt or interest in carrying someone just to man a gun. He/she needs to be able to VM/Operate the Winch/Service the aircraft/Load WMIK etc/Navigate and so on. At present, DG training is not up to that by a long chalk.
If a DG has the potential, there is a route for them to become NCA and fulfil all duties expected of them.
As for not cleaning our weapons, quite right, that's why we employ armourers. Having just spent the night window flying day into night into day, I could of course get back, clean out the aircraft, return IW and SES, debrief, massage the following days program and then sit down with the M60. But then sleep has a nasty habit of working it's way into the equation, fatigue management and all that guff some elements of the AAC seem to think it's manly to ignore.

SASLESS- Normally you seem like a sensible chap, but you seem a bit confused by this thread. I am sure Vietnam was great fun, and you regard the US Crew Chief system the pinnacle of aviation, but facts are facts. They do things differently to us. That is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh city.

[Stitchbitch]

As a cr@b working for WG_13s lot, with previous RAF SH experience I find this debate tedious. There are massive diffrences between the two jobs as I am sure any AAC / RAF 'crewman' will tell you. No disrespect to any AAC guys here, but your crewmen aren't trained to anywhere near the same standard that our guys are, although I understand that it's a case of horses for courses.

[timex]

At a secret Hants AB it is rumoured that Army DGs will be re-streamed to take on the role of ramp-rats on the CH47 and Me3; therefore, releasing cmn to man other platforms. Anyone care to expand?
Other platforms being SK (SAR and CHF) and the Puma.

Thought the whole Idea was to make life a bit easier for the RAF crewies by them manning the Gun (the bit they know well, they also know how to patter a cab down too)...oh well crack on!

By the way the wets were great, and no I never saw a DG rimming your helmets...much!:D

[serf]

Why do crewmen have to navigate, that is the job of the front end crew - service the aircraft, again someone else can do that.

In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained, it is a simple job that has been turned into a black art by the RAF, a 3 week course could do the job and the crewmen could be JNCOS.

[Hoveronly]

As has been expressed here loads of time the AAC Rear crewmen (hope the title is correct) are a top breed. One Door Gunner on NI ops saved my butt. I had just picked up an infantry patrol who had been in the sticks for a week and the commander asked me to throw the lynx around to cheer up his guys. Of course thinking on the prospect of a Board of inquiry following a crash, I told him it was illegal. His head dissapeared from between the two fronts seat and I decided that what I could do legally, was to do a very tight decsending turn to look at that that 'suspected' illegal VCP on the road beneath us. Well basically, at 500ft the patrol commander fell out the open door. Moose, bless you mate, grabbed him on the way past! :ok:

Yep, I was a prat!

[Door Slider]

[QUOTE=serf;3136025]Why do crewmen have to navigate, that is the job of the front end crew - service the aircraft, again someone else can do that.
In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained.
Mmm it must be wonderful to be so simple and narrow minded. You have obviously never had any real contact with SH. Serf, perhaps we could stop jets doing low level they dont need to do it. Lets bin the paras, ops almost forgot why have 2 pilots in a herc, surely 1 could do it. Fool

[TheWizard]

I had just picked up an infantry patrol who had been in the sticks for a week and the commander asked me to throw the lynx around to cheer up his guys. Of course thinking on the prospect of a Board of inquiry following a crash, I told him it was illegal. His head dissapeared from between the two fronts seat and I decided that what I could do legally, was to do a very tight decsending turn to look at that that 'suspected' illegal VCP on the road beneath us. Well basically, at 500ft the patrol commander fell out the open door.
...and what was the DG doing allowing the pax to move about unstrapped with a door open at 500ft? What does that tell you?:rolleyes:


Nice try Serf. If it was as simple as that then even you could have achieved something better....possibly:ugh:

[serf]

So, why do aircrewmen, ALM, on helicopters, need to navigate?

[MINself]

Redundancy maybe ?

Or do you think it should be 1 person 1 job.... :ugh:

Sorry pilot mate I can't help you to find the HLS, I was too busy staring out of the door watching the world go by to worry about where we were going!

Or is it that the ALM need to map read because they need to know where they are because they know the best places to eat and drink in?

... probably a bit of both :ok:

MS

[serf]

Of course you should worry about where you are going, but you should be more worried about defending yourself and looking after the freight and pax!

[MINself]

Depends how good a job the ALM did of securing the freight and pax in the first place? obviously when carrying an USL is when I would errr to agree that the ALMs attention would be better focused on the freight.

But.... sortie and crew responsibilities vary depending on the task so if the ALM has the capacity to look as well as see then the training in map reading will be useful to getting the aircraft where it needs to be possibly in marginal or testing conditions or would it be preferable to have 1 less seat for a passenger filled by someone who has the capacity to help map read as well as protect the aircraft and keep an eye on the freight but not the training?

[serf]

34 weeks and 105 hours at Shawbury followed by how long ? on the OCU

[Door Slider]

34 weeks and 105 hours at Shawbury followed by how long ? on the OCU
Followed by a 6 month Puma OCF, the merlin and CH47 OCUs are around 7 months. Dont confuse fixed wing ALMs with there rotary counterpart, our job focuses on different areas. In Puma SOPs the pilot responsibilities is summed up in 6 lines. The LHS has around 8 lines while the crewman has almost a page and a half. Incidently after all that training the only time we touch the GPMG is two weeks from the end.

[TheWizard]

34 weeks and 105 hours at Shawbury followed by how long ? on the OCU
Most of which are done on the back of the pilots course, hence the 34 weeks. However, those in the know will know that is going to change.
Ditto for most OCU/Fs.
Fact: Pilots take longer to train (not for capacity reasons :} )but require the rest of the crew to be able to achieve such training. Therefore Crewmen and Navigators do the same length of course as the pilots.
As for navigation:
Q1: When one front seat is concentrating on the physical flying and the other is concentrating on the defensive aids suite, FLIR, radios, IFF and every other function of a modern (OK, fairly modern in some cases!) cockpit, who do you think is in the capacity seat?
A1: Yes, you got it, the Crewman.
Oh but there are computers for that I hear you shout. Great if they work correctly, have the right information input into them and don't suffer a power supply failure.
Q2:What happens if they fail?
A2:See A1

[Hoveronly]

The Wizard previously commented on a passenger being allowed to move about in the cabin of a NI ops Lynx during flight. He is right, the patrol commander should have been strapped tightly into to his seat. Well, he would have been had there been any straps or seats fitted to the Lynx in that role. Patrol commanders were encouraged to come forward and meet the aircrew and pass on relevant int. That is how we operated and it proved successful too. Ever been there Wizard or were you molly coddled by your rear crewman who had better things to do like watch out the door and fire when being engaged! Thus saving your butt!

[serf]

So Wizard, how do aircraft with only 1 or 2 crew manage? Or are the pilots of a higher standard and with more capacity?

[wg13_dummy]

Must be why the Army have AH and not the RAF then if the RAF pilots seem to have limited capacity and need an extra bloke in the back to hold their hand. :hmm:





http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/images/smilies/newhouse-smilie-3-grenade.gif

[TheWizard]

Today 19:09
serf So Wizard, how do aircraft with only 1 or 2 crew manage? Or are the pilots of a higher standard and with more capacity?

They manage because they DON'T HAVE THE EXTRA SPACE:ugh:
wg13_dummy Must be why the Army have AH and not the RAF then if the RAF pilots seem to have limited capacity and need an extra bloke in the back to hold their hand.

Or once again because there are only two seats?
Is it such a difficult concept to grasp that if you have extra resources then you use them? Or is your life geared around making things as difficult as possible for yourself?:rolleyes:
Today 18:52
Boboutofkenya The Wizard previously commented on a passenger being allowed to move about in the cabin of a NI ops Lynx during flight. He is right, the patrol commander should have been strapped tightly into to his seat. Well, he would have been had there been any straps or seats fitted to the Lynx in that role. Patrol commanders were encouraged to come forward and meet the aircrew and pass on relevant int. That is how we operated and it proved successful too. Ever been there Wizard or were you molly coddled by your rear crewman who had better things to do like watch out the door and fire when being engaged! Thus saving your butt!

So Patrol Commanders were encouraged to come forward etc.... yes, still a common practice...but not with the door open whilst in a spiral descent. CRM and communication being my point, not the procedure.
Well done on your powers of deduction Bobo, but back to detective school for you. If you had bothered to read a bit more of this thread, you would realise that I would be the one molly coddling YOU up the front whilst looking out of the door and returning fire whilst being engaged AND map reading and telling YOU to stop arseing around thus saving YOUR butt!:} :)
Anyhow this is getting really tedious and away from the original thread.
I shall leave you to enjoy your memories of the past.

[wg13_dummy]

What happens if there isn't rearcrew available and the cab goes out training? Do the crew have to get a 'training fix' or are they escorted by another aircraft with the required map reading skills??

[TheWizard]

Today 19:57
wg13_dummy What happens if there isn't rearcrew available and the cab goes out training?


It doesn't. Goodnight.

[wg13_dummy]

It doesn't go out flying if the rearcrew aren't there or it never flies without one??


Sounds a bit limiting if it's the former. Can't see much point in rearcrew for IF.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

You have to think outside the bubble Wg and ask your self why there is a minimum crew for each aircraft type................think red card drills for example :rolleyes:

[wg13_dummy]

With your reasoning, you are saying the Puma or Chinook 'has' to have at least three crew to cover FRC actions?

I would say it's a nice thing to have an extra set of eyes for some actions but certainly not a 'must have'.

Going back to my question regarding IF training. Are you saying you cannot fly if you don't have a rearcrewman? What FRC drills can the two front seaters not carry out?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

It's that bubble thing again dude, not a dig but think how BIG a chinny/merlin/puma is compared to anything you guys fly............then have a think about where some of the emergency controls might be for some hydraulic/under carriage/mag chip etc etc problems.................now unless your the rubber geezer from the Fantastic4 who do you think is going to reach them :ok:

[serf]

So........if a 1 or 2 crew aircraft can manage, why can't an RAF SH?
The ALM training can then concentrate on ALM disciplines and not navigating and servicing the aircraft.
As a consequence of this, training time can be reduced, thus saving money.
34 weeks and 105 hours of basic training followed by 6 months OCU training is ridiculous.
Or have all the 'extra' things been introduced to provide evidence of an enhanced role, possibly as a means of up banding pay?

[Faithless]

I know lets sort this one out once and for all. Crewmen and Gunners all meet up in some pub car park, drink loads of ale, have a big scrap and the last one standing wins it for their cap badge :ok:

[wg13_dummy]

I think we all know the RAF rearcrew trade has made themselves indispensable and have quite frankly adjusted the trade and job spec to reflect this. I say good on 'em. If you can get away with it, why not? The RAF on the whole is quite good at that. If you can afford the resources, why not make maximum use of them.

Some of the reasoning on here has, to be honest been a little bit 'justifying their existance' though. No need for it really. We all know a Puma or Chinook can fly quite safely without the chaps in the back so don't try and bluff it. :ok:






I know lets sort this one out once and for all. Crewmen and Gunners all meet up in some pub car park, drink loads of ale, have a big scrap and the last one standing wins it for their cap badge

I think that one is a foregone conclusion.

Crab rearcrew make Julian Clary look butch :p

[SubdiFuge]

Dummy - the CH47 cannot fly without rearcrew as some of the gauges/captions are at the back of the ac and need to be interpreted with what's showing in the front. Might not be a great design, unlike the Garage Door PLC thing that you have flown....but that's how it is.

Trust me when I say that an extra crew member proficient in nav/comms/tactics can be rather helpful when the chips are down - if you have any doubts, ask one of the many AAC guys who have been on exchange or who have jumped ship. The great majority of SH crewman are better at nav than the navs, but then again, the navs on SH are usually rubbish:suspect:

SDF

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Now then Wg you started off sensibly now you are starting to sound a bit silly :rolleyes:

"We all know a Puma or Chinook can fly quite safely without the chaps in the back so don't try and bluff it.............quite correct until of course you have any sort of emergency that requires someone to move/switch/pump something in the cargo compartment........or are you really trying to tell us that emergencies don't happen whilst conducting IF/GH and the like :rolleyes:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the distinct lack of DG's actually posting here, just a few TWA pilots with the usual axe to grind :)

[wg13_dummy]

The thread of late has descended into the usual so I elected to follow suit. :}

I've actually learned a bit about the trade from some of the fellows on here and have found it quite useful.

What does strike me as amusing is the comments from some regarding 'how the aircraft can't fly if it wasn't for us in the back'.

Just a quick question. How do the civvy Pumas operate? With or without rearcrew?

[Could be the last?]

Depends on what job they are doing. However, the ones I have seen on ops (Op BARWOOD) had at least one rearcrew if not 2. The Pumas that fly to and from the rigs don't have any, and your point is.......:confused:

[wg13_dummy]

My point is they seem quite happy to fly without the chap in the back 'just in case some very important switches need to be flicked in the event of an emergency'.....unless of course the rig blokes are all up to speed on the FRC actions. :rolleyes:



Sam. I never said it was a 'non job'. I just feel that some on here are making the job out to be 'Space Shuttle Payload Specialist'.

Why do they pay them in excess of 50k? Maybe a similar reason why the RAF have a gzillion 'Air' Officers.

[MINself]

I didn't realise there were civvy Pumas in the current UK plc Middle Eastern AOO :eek:

[wg13_dummy]

I didn't realise there were civvy Pumas in the current UK plc Middle Eastern AOO


230 Sqn...........

[wokkameister]

BORING!

Each branch of the services has their niche. The RN move the booties around to good effect (as long as it's near some water), the AAC are good at making stuff go bang. If people have a problem with the way the SH Force do business, then 30 years downstream is a bit late to start raising the issue.
The RAF have the Puma, Merlin and mighty Wokka to complete the task and so it is up to them to decide their crewing.
In answer to the question do rotary need a crewman to navigate, my answer is definately no. It's a nicety, but I will say it's all very well two stick chimps flying it to point B, but how do they control a triple load pick up or load an internal wmik?

I'm not saying I (as a wokka crewman) am indespensible(I'd rather wave the pilots off for 3 hours IF) but you cannot utilise the aircraft effectively without a crewman. The Yanks, Aussies, Cloggies etc agree. They may call the people different names, but it's still a crewman.

[wg13_dummy]

Thank you, wokka. At last an honest answer!!

sam. The thread has run it's course so, as usual, the final flings are banter. Sorry if it upsets you. I'll mark my posts with a 'banter' caption in future.

[SubdiFuge]

Dummy - stop throwing stones at us Crabs please.

Why don't you go for a flight at Odiham/Benson and actually see what the RAF crewman bring to the party. You could also go take a look at 657 and see what AAC avn crewmen can do when they are under the command of forward thinking individuals who are not afraid to challenge the DAAvn role model of how crewmen should be employed and invest time and training in order that the crewmen's skill sets are brought closer to those at the other end of the building.

Finally, if the AAC have got it so right, why have DAAvn asked for 6 crewmen to be trained at 55 Sqn for FW ops?? I'm pretty sure that in 2 years time avn crewmen will be trained from ab initio alongside their RN and RAF peers.

SDF

[wg13_dummy]

Dummy - stop throwing stones at us Crabs please.

Why don't you go for a flight at Odiham/Benson and actually see what the RAF crewman bring to the party. You could also go take a look at 657 and see what AAC avn crewmen can do when they are under the command of forward thinking individuals who are not afraid to challenge the DAAvn role model of how crewmen should be employed and invest time and training in order that the crewmen's skill sets are brought closer to those at the other end of the building.

Finally, if the AAC have got it so right, why have DAAvn asked for 6 crewmen to be trained at 55 Sqn for FW ops?? I'm pretty sure that in 2 years time avn crewmen will be trained from ab initio alongside their RN and RAF peers.

SDF


Sub. I for one do not suggest that the AAC has got it right or we are the 'leaders' in this field. As I said in previous posts, we are only just now recognising this as a trade and are trying to work out the best way of using the resource.

It would be nice to see jointry working properly. By this I mean we chuck our guys towards the RAF rearcrew training system (and hopefully your system can look at how we do business).

I totally agree re your remark regarding 657. It would be good if the Corps uses that as a template. Trouble is, you have people who are too busy furnishing their climb up the ladder so feel the need to 'invent' new ideas so they can sign their own name at the bottom of the letter.


SH rearcrew do a sterling job. That there is no doubt. :ok:

[MINself]

Did you say go to Benson or Odiham and go for a fly.... :D you'd be better off going abroad surely

Forward thinking individuals... good one, they are just giving the customer what he wants, its not rocket science and I doubt you'd have any of the blokes saying they are trying to get their skill set closer to their blue cousins at the other end of the hangar! Its not for here, but the 2 roles are poles apart.

[wg13_dummy]

Serious. SH rearcrew do do a sterling job. I don't think I've said on here they haven't or don't. They do sometimes sound like they are trying to justify their existance though. I don't think they need to, to be honest.

As for the RAF looking towards the Army Air corps to see how you do business, why should they when the training system is already set up to produce a competent crewman for the Puma, Merlin or Chinook.

You've not grasped this idea of 'jointry' have you?

[wokkameister]

Sam - WG is playing with you. It's called Banter. Though if your still on the french paraffin budgie you probably don't get much practice.

Tiger, Tiger, Meaow

[wg13_dummy]

Sams rearcrew in a big Gazelle is he? Explains a lot then. :hmm:








(72 were sooo much better.....)

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Wg,

Not one to bite but are you seriously telling us the ARMY have grasped the jointery principle? 30 plus years of experience tells me for the Army there is only ONE way and that's the Army way..........I mean look at how you are trying to convince us we are wrong with our rearcrew policy whilst your DG plans are the way ahead :rolleyes:

[wokkameister]

Seldom does raise a good point there mate. The AAC does need to invest some money if they want a better end product.

[wg13_dummy]

I'm not suggesting our policy is the way ahead, Seldom.

Jointry is a term based on which side of the fence you sit I suppose. When it comes to the SH force, I suppose the Army does drive it. Maybe because they 'own' it?



The AAC does need to invest some money if they want a better end product


Youre telling me!!

[wokkameister]

When it comes to the SH force, I suppose the Army does drive it. Maybe because they 'own' it?


I think you'll find thats JHC (with a capital J). Not splitting hairs or anything!

[wg13_dummy]

And what use does the RAF have for JHC helicopters?

[wokkameister]

Apart from a few pretty pics on newsletters - None/Zip/Zilch...but then we don't profess to own JHC or AH, or even SH these days.

Sam - Good banter recce. All those years on the self ferrying gate guardian haven't been wasted:D

[wg13_dummy]

I dont conclude that the Army own the SHF but most of the blokes in green at Wilton do. :ok:

[wokkameister]

Indeed. WG it is a pleasure fencing with you, but I must rest my weary head. Laters

Sam - I believe highlife boy is waiting for you on the airsteward thread....run along sweetie. You don't want him sweating away there on his own.:=

[wg13_dummy]

And you too, wokka. Stay safe mate.

[serf]

Indeed it is not rocket science..............................but the course is longer:hmm:

[Stitchbitch]

Having coerced some doorgurners into giving away their job spec this afternoon, it would apear that they do 'mission planning' but only in peace time, and that in NI they fly the Defender whilst the pilot sleeps/ plays his PSP / reads the paper (Mirror...?) although in the 'bonk equipped wheely bin widdow maker' they usually sleep or act as doormen/stewards/steely eyed killers. All expressed a wish to be paid as much :ok: as loadies, however not many of them wanted to swap over to the RAF:\ ...unlike (suprisingly) the pilots...:uhoh: