Non-Commissioned Pilots

[jacketp]

Hello,

I am hoping that this will provoke some serious comments rather than a general moan.

Why is it that the RN/RAF do not have non-commissioned pilots? I am a civvie and thought that you all did the same thing in the military.
Do you think it will change in the future?

Please post your comments as I am interested.
JP

[jayteeto]

It is a valid question as the army have great success with non commissioned aircrew. Historically, it was decided that only officers should fly with nuclear weapons on board. As the RN and RAF generally recruited all pilots for potential fast jet, they were all officers!! Nowadays the majority of pilots (if not all?? PS. remember secrets and all that stuff) do not have to carry these weapons. This means they COULD recruit NCO pilots again.
But....... Why should they do that? There is not a shortage of suitable qualified applicants, the services prefer as many qualifications as possible in addition to the ability to fly and fight. In short, there is no need to change. I know many many people who could easily have transferred to pilot branch and probably done well, but if it ain't broke, why fix it???
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Army do not directly recruit NCO pilots off the street. This means that you often get a more 'mature' person, who has a limited number of potential flying tours.

[ZH875]

If the RAF changed and accepted NCO pilots, all they will achieve is a greater outflow of trained pilots to the airline companies.

How could they justify the different pay scales, as NCO pilots would have to be paid less the the officer equivalent, and I cannot see them accepting that situation for more months than is necessary, so to protect the airline jobs for the officer corps, NCO pilots is a non starter.

Besides, NCO's make better engineers than the officers, so lets keep the best guys for maintenance. (well you can train a monkey to ride a bike, but can it fix it!)

[PlasticCabDriver]

Jayteeto's comments are entirely valid, and all the RAF/RN aircrew are nodding their heads saying "of course!"

If however you pose the same question here:

ARRSE (http://www.arrse.com/cpgn2/index.php)

you will get a completely different, and probably much more vitriolic, response.

The main thrust seems to be financial, as obviously NCO pilots will be cheaper than all those overpaid officers, with their pensions etc etc. This work has been done, I read the paper on a while ago, the difference will be less than might first be thought - the paper indicated that the total savings would be in the very low single millions, and was therefore not worth it.

[teeteringhead]

the paper indicated that the total savings would be in the very low single millions, and was therefore not worth it. .. and that was at the very best - within the margins of errors of calculation it was possible that no savings at all would be made ....

.... the core difference then was that the SNCO pilot "return-of srvice" was much less - ie, it cost the same to train, you paid them less but they left earlier, so you had to replace them sooner.

It's all about pay and status - if you can't get 'em to join for £Xk, you won't get 'em for £X-Yk .... and then ask 'em to be guard commander too!!

And remember, you can't (I'm 99% sure) join t'Army directly from outside as an SNCO pilot, so you sign on the dotted line in the hope you will et a pilots' course later on hmmmmmmm??

In all it's a very complicated system with many variables - it ain't broke (much) so do we need to fix it??

[serf]

.................So why cant the RAF stream as pilots NCOs who apply for aircrew selection?

[dagowly]

So why cant the RAF stream as pilots NCOs who apply for aircrew selection?

because they'll have applied for a specific career already as NCO Aircrew.

[PlasticCabDriver]

the core difference then was that the SNCO pilot "return-of srvice" was much less - ie, it cost the same to train, you paid them less but they left earlier, so you had to replace them sooner. and you therefore needed more of them.

The total numbers of NCO aircrew that was sustainable was much less than you might think (120 springs to mind but I stand to be corrected), as the RAF would still need to maintain a suitable pool of officers from which to draw the future command chain.

The other big issue ISTR was how far down the ranks do you go for pilots. The army has Cpl pilots, but given the grief that some of our junior crewman get from their non-aircrew brethren (plastic Sgts, "ex-corporal nights" in the mess etc) I cannot believe that Cpl pilots would get any less.

[Two's in]

You might want to see the pay slip of a Long Service WO/SNCO on max rate flying pay/FRI before assuming it's "cheaper" to have NCO pilots.

[PlasticCabDriver]

Deliverance, apologies, I failed to read your link before I posted! 156, not 120, not too far off for my failing memory.

Sums it up quite neatly:

In costing the impact of the introduction of 156 NCO pilots, the study identified potential savings of approximately £1.25 million; total savings being limited by the relatively small difference in capitation rates between junior officers and SNCOs, and the fact that specialist flying pay is paid to aircrew based on experience not rank. Additionally, the study identified that in view of the lower return of service of RAF/RN NCOs compared with officers, the employment of 156 NCO pilots would require the training of one additional pilot each year to maintain manning levels, effectively negating the £1.25M capitation savings.

and

In summary, the introduction of NCO pilots to the RAF and RN, while possible to a limited extent, would carry operational and structural penalties, without providing significant financial savings to the Department.

[timex]

Bear in mind "most" NCO pilots will have done a bit of time before going flying and they will probably stay until the 22 yr point (if not longer), so you could get an NCO flying for 12yrs plus. On the other hand "most" Officers will fly for 8yrs then leave for the civvy market, if the Officer is in the AAC he will do possibly 1 full tour. The NCO will fly from the day of wings until he departs..value for money? Sadly retention is the big problem no matter what rank..

[chinook240]

Why is it that the RN/RAF do not have non-commissioned pilots?

Jacketp,

Perhaps the question should be "Why does the AAC have NCO pilots when the majority of major air forces in the world have commissioned pilots?"

I'd be interested in that answer, and before anyone says the US Army have NCOs they don't, they're CWO or commissioned warrant officers.

[ZH875]

they're CWO or commissioned warrant officers.

And we still won't salute them.:p

[serf]

Perhaps CWO is the way ahead then, for all 3 services. They can be selected and trained in the same way that the RAF currently deal with direct entrant NCA.

[timex]

Why? Every other airforce in the world seems to have agreed with the same system that the RAF/RN uses. Or is this just the normal anti-officer/green-eyed bs again?


Not really, just that the AAC looks to use its Officers in a management/Pilot role but leaves the majority of the Flying to the SNCO's. The Army does not have the abundance of Officers available to go Flying, how many Units would want to lose experienced Officers or SNCO's in todays climate?

[wokkameister]

My irrelevence buzzer is going...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

We have had this debate over and over and over and over.

Lets not do it again....please

WM

[chinook240]

So it looks like the RAF/RN have got it right, as demonstrated by all the other airforces of the world which do the same.


That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots.

the AAC looks to use its Officers in a management/Pilot role but leaves the majority of the Flying to the SNCO's.

The US Army does the same but rewards their pilots with a status similar to the world's major air forces. Turning the question around, why doesn't the AAC reward/recognise its pilots?

[wetdreamdriver]

Hey, doesn't it also have to do with the way that the army employs its a/c or are they just airborne landrovers? In the RN the aircrew also have to be flight commander's on little ships and be able to fight their corner with the other ship's officer or the captain.

Rank parity must make that easier.

WDD

[Croqueteer]

:)I remember late 1961 as an ex-Locking Brat being called into the adj's office at RAF Norton in Sheffield, to be told by a very condecending Flt/Lt "You have not been selected for officer training, (pause) however you will be traing as a Sgt Pilot. That will be all." I left the office on ground effect.

[psyan]

Chinook240 tapped gently away: "That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots."

[1] There are insufficient officer recruits of the right calibre and there always has been. Similarly there is a shortage of NCO recruits of the right calibre but the difference being that there is a bigger pool of resource to choose from with NCO's.

[2] As pointed out earlier, an NCO pilot often becomes a career pilot to retirement. Of course many leave to civie street but far more stay in to pensionable point. More NCO's stay in the saddle than do officers.

[3] Why not?.......if you look back a bit you might find a reference to 'Flying Soldiers' which is pretty descriptive and accurate in defining the requirement of the force to be supported. The army does not want a young officer who has not the faintest clue about what is going on on the ground and has no ability to empathise with the people he is there to provide support to. Unfortunately, there are few career officers who remain as line pilots long enough to gain the experience of their SNCO counterparts. Those that are able to do so and have no ambition for command usually end up as very well respected appointment holders for many years and provide continuity. The rest disappear.

But the AAC has changed significantly and so will its make up no doubt. But one thing is for sure as proven thus far, it does not require an officer to command a battlefield aircraft. Weight up the cost of differing career paths prior to flight training up to the natural termination point of service between officer and SNCO and see which gives best value for money. [clue for the same flight training cost - how many flight hours can you get per pilot.]

IME...[33 years] out of all the officer pilots I have encountered only a dozen or so served past 6 years, none served as line crew for more than 2 and greater than 25% were total to$$ers.

Best wishes:rolleyes:

[Sospan]

When was the lst time the Army got in line with the RAF ?
It always seems to be vice-versa !

[PlasticCabDriver]

My bolds as way of response.


Chinook240 tapped gently away: "That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots."

[1] There are insufficient officer recruits of the right calibre - in the Army perhaps - and there always has been - perhaps if you allowed your officers to fly for a full career rather than dragging them off to SO3/SO2 appointments they don't want, more would join. Similarly there is a shortage of NCO recruits of the right calibre but the difference being that there is a bigger pool of resource to choose from with NCO's.

[2] As pointed out earlier, an NCO pilot often becomes a career pilot to retirement as do many RAF/RN officers - its called PA. Of course many leave to civie street but far more stay in to pensionable point - as they do in the RAF/RN, but ours can also remain until they are 55, way beyond IPP. More NCO's stay in the saddle than do officers in the Army.

[3] Why not?.......if you look back a bit you might find a reference to 'Flying Soldiers' which is pretty descriptive and accurate in defining the requirement of the force to be supported. The army does not want a young officer who has not the faintest clue about what is going on on the ground and has no ability to empathise with the people he is there to provide support to - so train him properly then. Unfortunately, there are few career Army officers who remain as line pilots long enough to gain the experience of their SNCO counterparts - again, perhaps if you allowed your officers to fly for a full career rather than dragging them off to SO3/SO2 appointments they don't want, more would get that experience. Those that are able to do so and have no ambition for command usually end up as very well respected appointment holders for many years and provide continuity - as do many RAF/RN officers - its called PA. The rest disappear.

But the AAC has changed significantly and so will its make up no doubt. But one thing is for sure as proven thus far, it does not require an officer to command a battlefield aircraft. Weight up the cost of differing career paths prior to flight training up to the natural termination point of service between officer and SNCO and see which gives best value for money - see Deliverance's link above, changing officers for NCOs would make no appreciable difference in cost [clue for the same flight training cost - how many flight hours can you get per pilot.]

IME...[33 years] out of all the officer pilots I have encountered only a dozen or so served past 6 years none served as line crew for more than 2 ,- whereas in mine, only 17 years though, (all officer, all pilot, all of the time), pilots have to do a minimum of 6 years post OCU, all of which is as pilot. A few (but the numbers are growing daily I concede) PVR then, most will stick it for a bit longer, many will wait until 16 years for the pension, and a good number stay for many years beyond that. - and greater than 25% were total to$$ers - you may have a point there though, that is not exclusive to the AAC!

Best wishes:rolleyes:


Your perspective is, understandably, very AAC-centric. The RAF and RN do not drag their pilots away to career enhancing staff jobs just as they are finally getting some experience, we allow ours to fly for a full career if they so wish.

Until the rest of the British Army stops regarding flying as some sort of hobby for a young officer to go and have a play at for a bit until he comes to his senses and gets on with his real job, you will continue to suffer with exactly the same problems you have outlined above.

Just because your officers do not stick around/are not allowed to stick around is no reason to change the very successful systems the other 2 services have in place.

Regards

PCD

[ralphmalph]

Todays AAC is vastly different from the Corps that people of the past may know. Yes Officers are principally employed as managers and fly less than many SNCO pilots. However today the days of one flying tour for an officer are over!.....only because of Apache!.

The army does not want a young officer who has not the faintest clue about what is going on on the ground and has no ability to empathise with the people he is there to provide support to - so train him properly then.

Oh my god!...yes we do produce some chinless wonders.....however!.

The base level is one of a year of physical and mental training at Sandhurst for the army.....what can be said for the tactical understanding of an junior RAF officer from IOT and flying training.

At the moment they do almost the same job!

[BRASSEMUP]

so to protect the airline jobs for the officer corps, NCO pilots is a non starter.

Besides, NCO's make better engineers than the officers, so lets keep the best guys for maintenance. (well you can train a monkey to ride a bike, but can it fix it!)

I would use the words chinless and :mad: but i won't.

Luckily i've worked with a few great RAF chaps so i know there not all like you!

Hey if your lucky you could get a job with a charter airline flying the chav's when you leave hmmmm.

[ZH875]

I would use the words chinless and :mad: but i won't.

Luckily i've worked with a few great RAF chaps so i know there not all like you!

Hey if your lucky you could get a job with a charter airline flying the chav's when you leave hmmmm.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't do too well at school, and am just a plain old engineer, I make a good cuppa, and can answer the phone rather well.

I take it you don't recognise groundcrew banter too well?

[BRASSEMUP]

Ok Sorry:ouch:, but some people actually do think that way.........

[Wensleydale]

A theory - the AAC came about from the Glider Pilot Regiment of WW2. You didn't want to waste an officer driving a glider one way into battle and so SNCOs were recruited. (The glider pilots who survived became "ordinary" soldiers once on the ground). I suggest that the AAC used the same recruiting principle once the gliders had been replaced by helicopters. (The SNCO Mafia strikes again).

Its just a theory - I await the flak shortly.

[PlasticCabDriver]

The base level is one of a year of physical and mental training at Sandhurst for the army.....what can be said for the tactical understanding of an junior RAF officer from IOT and flying training.

At the moment they do almost the same job!

Only some of them do. The RAF/RN is not going to spend time and money it doesn't have instilling this level of knowledge in student aircrew who may very well end up on Tristars or BA146s or ASaC Sea Kings. It certainly won't happen on IOT - potential OC Supply flights really have no need!

The point is made for SH crews, although there are those who will argue that as SH is effectively "go to Grid A, troops get on, go to Grid B, troops get off, repeat ad nauseum", what requirement is there for a deep level of tactical understanding of ground manoeuvre? (This clearly does not apply to Apache crews, for whom this level of knowledge must be bread and butter).

We can brief and lecture the subject all we like, but until crews can routinely get onto exercises where this level of knowledge needs to be exercised, it will wither. With the pressure on the training system from constant op commitments, it is unlikely that that level is exposure is likely in the near future.

[Matt Skrossa]

On my first tour at Prestwick we were chatting in the crewroom about this subject and the question was asked 'why don't we have rating pilots?' The Senior Observer ( a very posh General List officer who rose to 2 star rank) said 'We have, they are called Supplementary List Officers'.

Very drole, and as a true SL Shag quite close to the mark I thought!

[airborne_artist]

MS - however, the SL P shags from that era who got into BA (eg Tony B***) are now enjoying a 2* (or better) salary and a very good pension scheme, so I'm not certain the GLs have been the winners overall.

[Chief_Two]

Perhaps the question should be "Why does the AAC have NCO pilots when the majority of major air forces in the world have commissioned pilots?"

I'd be interested in that answer, and before anyone says the US Army have NCOs they don't, they're CWO or commissioned warrant officers.

Warrant Officers are appointed at WO1 and commissioned at CW2. The ranks are:

WO1 - Warrant Officer 1
CW2 - Chief Warrant Officer 2
CW3 - Chief Warrant Officer 3
CW4 - Chief Warrant Officer 4
CW5 - Chief Warrant Officer 5

[samuraimatt]

Oh no the mad yank warrant officer is back. Is anybody going to salute him? ............Anybody? Come on somebody must respect his rank.......oh well.

[ZH875]

Warrant Officers are appointed at WO1 and commissioned at CW2. The ranks are:

WO1 - Warrant Officer 1
CW2 - Chief Warrant Officer 2
CW3 - Chief Warrant Officer 3
CW4 - Chief Warrant Officer 4
CW5 - Chief Warrant Officer 5

It's almost like McDonalds, their badges go up in ones as well.:p

[hihover]

Doesn't evolution play a huge part in answer to the initial thread question? If the Army is managing to do a sterling job with NCOs, why change it or why even question it? Similarly, if the RN/RAF are meeting their aircrew requirements and doing a sterling job too, why the questions?

It appears that cost/cost saving is not a factor, therefore, IMO ability to get the job done has to be over-riding.

Army, RAF and RN jobs are quite different. Levels of interaction with fighting forces on the ground are quite different too and the greatest level of interaction with ground forces is by the AAC. They need to be able to speak the same language and the background of those soldiers who now fly for the Corps is absolutely invaluable and I for one, hope it is never changed.

tam

[HEDP]

Perhaps in the great scheme of things we ought to ask not only why no NCO's but also why does a Sqn Ldr not lead a Sqn and why does a Flt Lt not lead a flight. If you were to apply these ranks to their appropriate station and level combined with some NCO's for the Flt Lt's to command then how would that affect the affordability question?

HEDP

[HEDP]

Not quite,

A Sqn Ldr as Major equivalent is effectively a flt comd i.e. Army = Captain

A Wg Cdr as Lt Col equivalent is effectively a Sqn Comd i.e. Army = Major

On that basis the tax payer is funding all appointments in the RAF at one rank above what is required.

I take it you will state it is a 'bone question' to ask why, and what the saving would be in paying all RAF officers at the rank commensurate with the appointment? Or, to widen the original question, is the RAF right and all appointment holders in the other services should be promoted with the attendant cost?

If it were wrapped up in an overarching review and combined with the introduction of NCO pilots to the RAF/RN then I am merely advocating that the affordability issue might take on another dimension.

A thought, no more, no less,

HEDP

[PlasticCabDriver]

HEDP, if you consider the rank breakdown of a typical squadron (well mine anyway):

Engineering:

About 120 (I think, in my case) engineers from LAC to WO in a typical rank pyramid, commanded by 2 JOs and a Sqn Ldr. Compare this to an infantry company (from Wiki):

Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_%28military_unit%29) of about 100 soldiers, typically in three platoons, commanded by a major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major).

Rough parity there.

Flying:

2 Op flights, each with about 10 to 12 JOs and about 6/7 crewmen.

If you were to take any military sub-unit that includes 10 to 12 2nd Lts/Lts/Capts, a WO, couple of SSgts and 4 or 5 Sgts, a major seems like a perfectly suitable rank to command that.

1 Trg flight, with fewer personnel, perhaps about 6 or 7, but this time all at Capt/WO/SSgt level, again not unreasonable to be commanded by a major. Most battalions have a trg major?

HQ Flight. Commanded by the 2ic. Includes the adjt, sqn admin staff, ops officer, ops assistants, GLO, etc.

A battalion HQ company is commanded by a major in much the same way, so rough parity there?

To summarise:

A unit, comprising 5 sub-units, each (not unreasonably, given the breakdown of the officer and SNCO ranks in the sub-units) commanded by a major.

What rank would you have to command that?

what the saving would be in paying all RAF officers at the rank commensurate with the appointment?

On that basis the tax payer is funding all appointments in the RAF at one rank above what is required.

None, because the tax payer is already funding them at exactly the right level.

Or, to widen the original question, is the RAF right and all appointment holders in the other services should be promoted with the attendant cost?

I believe, though I am prepared (as always) to be corrected, that the RN is doing just that, and appointing Cdrs to be OC Sqns.

Regards

PCD

[PlasticCabDriver]

Deliverance,

It can't be long until there are more civil servants in the MOD than serving uniformed personnel.

I heard the other day that there are more ATC cadets than regulars in the RAF now!

[HEDP]

It would appear that you are drawing the rank comparisons between a Battalion (850 strong unit) and an RAF squadron; rather than a Sqn (sub-unit) and an RAF Sqn. This appears to quadruple the importance of an RAF sqn size! It also kind of emphasises that a Sqn Ldr in no way leads a sqn, hence the original question.................
By your logic, because the RAF equivalent of army SNCOs are junior officers, the people who command flights therefore need to be Sqn Ldrs and the people who command squadrons need to be Wing Commanders.
By my logic reduce the junior officers to NCOs, the flights to be commanded by Flt Lts and the squadrons to be commanded by 'Leaders of Squadrons'.
I have no doubt that my simplistic view will label me a buffoon but I must confess it leaves me with this nagging doubt........

[Airborne Aircrew]

Boy... Could a hornet's nest be stirred up here...

Suffice it to say I've seen more than enough "less than average" pilots and sufficient SNCO Aircrew that were exceedingly competent that you could easily juxtapose a few and no-one would notice.

But the pilots are going to tell you a lot different right now...

[Papa Whisky Alpha]

Why does the rank matter, surely it is the ability to do the job which counts. In the past I have flown with a number of NCO pilots on multi engined aircraft, they were professionals in the truest sense of the word. The Army have had non-commissioned pilots flying twins in recent years, successfully. Until WWII the RAF had Corporal pilots and those 'down the back end' were often aircraftsmen. The top scoring Battle of Britain fighter pilot (ours) was a SNCO (who was commissioned when his score started creeping up). To finish - the first DFM of WWII was won by an LAC wireless operator.
MY GOD I DO FEEL OLD!

[Airborne Aircrew]

As is the nature of this world... Those who got there, often without reason, stay there and those that started "lower" find it to be a handicap later on. As it is some of those didn't "stay put"... But some of those "less than average" pilots seem to still be hanging around as Flt. Lts and maybe Sqn Ldrs after 20+ years...

... and your offensive attitude implies you are still in, or served a long time and reached the all hallowed rank of [Fill in your rank below Wing Commander here] thus proving my point.

Hint: Good officers don't get offensive right off the bat... :rolleyes:

[Airborne Aircrew]

'your' pilots abilities

Nice try... My piloting abilities are irrelevant. Just like your crewing abilities are, similarly, irrelevant. We both know that, as pilot or crew, we both know who are the good pilots, (in my case), and the good crew, (in your case). We are both well aware that there are good and bad in both trades. The difference is, almost uniquely, that the pilots _tend_ towards the arrogance of their rank... IOW, They _think_ they are better than others... Whether or not that is true...

BTW, the "all mouth, no trousers" was the offensive and typically juvenile comment if you need your inability to communicate effectively with others pointed out to you. It goes most of the way to proving my point actually, so I thank you for it.

[Two's in]

Jacketp,

I am hoping that this will provoke some serious comments rather than a general moan.


Welcome to the world of crushing disappointment...

[Blacksheep]

Just got my 'Flight International' yesterday morning. There's more than a hundred UAV types in production or design now: they don't carry crew but they need an 'operator.' Some of these machines are sophisticated jet powered stealth aircraft carrying smart weapons. Will we need Flying Officers and Flight Lieutenants to fly them - with a Squadron Leader to organize them of course? Or would a team of NCOs or even - dare I say it - airmen/airwomen coordinated and organized by a Flight Lieutenant be sufficient?

[Goer Round]

When I was on the directing staff at IOT Cranwell we were busily graduating commissioned pilots - they had, of course, about the same officer qualities as the lads that were undergoing their 6 weeks initial training at nearby Swinderby.

They were graduated on the understanding that the flying training schools would "iron out" the (very) rough edges. The flying training schools were of the opinion that if Cranditz said that they were good enough to be commissioned officers then who were they to say different.

And the system ground ever onwards............

And now some of these people are in senior wg cdr/gp capt/star appointments making decisions which affect the whole of the RAF.

And there are people posting on here who wonder why the RAF appears to be going to hell in a handbasket!! Strewth!

[PlasticCabDriver]

It would appear that you are drawing the rank comparisons between a Battalion (850 strong unit) and an RAF squadron; rather than a Sqn (sub-unit) and an RAF Sqn. This appears to quadruple the importance of an RAF sqn size!

No I didn't. I pointed out that the org of a typical RAF Sqn contains a number of flights each commanded by a Sqn Ldr by virtue of the number of JO and SNCO ranks contained within them. A military unit that contains a number of sub-units each commanded by a Sqn Ldr/Major/Lt Cdr would, I suggest, be not unreasonably commanded by a Wg Cdr/Lt Col/Cdr.

By my logic reduce the junior officers to NCOs, the flights to be commanded by Flt Lts and the squadrons to be commanded by 'Leaders of Squadrons'.

I'm sure we could do that. However, it would give little, if any, cost savings, cause vast disruption to a long established and working system, and we will not do it simply to satisfy the clamourings of those who are unable to make the distinction between the rank of Sqn Ldr, and the appointment of Squadron Commander.

[Wensleydale]

I understood that battalion strength was being reduced to under 500 fighting troops with the introduction of the new army structure. Does this mean that in the future a Company will be commanded by a "Minor"? :)

[PTR 175]

Deliverence quoted:

"As for UAVs, CAA regs require a qualified pilot to be in command when they fly outside of danger areas, so I don't see much of cost saving there".

Out of interest what pilot qualifications are required by the CAA ? For example could a LAC/Pvt/Leading Hand with a PPL qualify or would a CPL be required.

[6Z3]

Deliverence quoted:
.
The current system works, if you read the link I posted on the first page you will find no benefit to changing over to the army system. Case closed.
.
Debate? Bah. I've had my say, I'm right, nothing more to say.
.
Are you sure it is not your own inadequacies and insecurities that you are highlighting when you label all pilots as arrogant?
.
Now where does the guy label ALL pilots as arrogant? He implies that some are, and in my experience they make themselves abundantly apparent, usually with a high pitch whine - rather like tinnitis but much more persistent and annoying - which remains long after any sortie. In the FAA at sea it is usually cured with a bout of night flying, after which they're quieter, paler and with a much less chisseled jawline.
.
Unfortunately in the RAF there is no cure. Left unchecked they usually reach Air rank, from where they proceed to perpetuate the species.

[airborne_artist]

Out of interest what pilot qualifications are required by the CAA ? For example could a LAC/Pvt/Leading Hand with a PPL qualify or would a CPL be required.

RN/RAF/AAC pilots do not attain civilian qualifications during training. The MoD sets its own standards for pilot qualification. See the UKMFTS (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/UKMFTS/UkmftsCurrentFlyingTraining.htm) info.

[6Z3]

Out of interest what pilot qualifications are required by the CAA ? For example could a LAC/Pvt/Leading Hand with a PPL qualify or would a CPL be required.
I'm sure, PTR 175, you know the answer to your question. Of course a LAC/Pvt/Leading Hand with a PPL would be qualified to fly his a/c outside a Danger Area.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Are you sure it is not your own inadequacies and insecurities that you are highlighting when you label all pilots as arrogant?There you go again, trying to go off topic and make the discussion personal. You need to be redirected back on task during sex don't you?


And are you not being arrogant when you suggest that you could replace some of your 'less than average' pilots with rear-crew and not notice the difference.Now, had you thought for one millisecond before you started typing you might have considered the fact that several rear-crew have made the change from rear to front and, assuming that a qualified pilot can be expected to be able to carry out rear-crew tasks with the minimum of training then my statement is 100% correct.

Methinks one of two things happened when you read and started typing:-

1. Your arrogance and misguided feelings of superiority came glaringly to the forefront, or
2. Your "stupid gene" kicked in per your nick.

You decide whether it was number one or "here piggy, piggy, piggy?... :eek:

The point being made is that the RAF is top-heavy in it's lower rank structure amongst aircrew with Flt Lt being the "default" rank which, in turn results in higher costs. Before you start saying that people won't work for FO wages I'd maintain they would if they are also paid on a sliding scale of flying pay per their experience. Then we can have Flt Lt's in charge of a flight and Sqn Ldr's in charge of squadrons rather than a gaggle of Flt Lt's standing around with no commensurate responsibility yet bathing in the glow of the undeserved rank.

Better yet, and the thing that seems to rankle you, is that the front crew could equally well be SNCO's. The argument that one can't trust SNCO's with nuclear weapons is, frankly, downright insulting. I'd measure the loyalty and reliability of SNCO's against officers any day and wager there is no discernible difference. If front crew were, largely SNCO, we could, again see proper manning in the rank structure within units and again save money. (Funny how a Sergeant Pilot will work for Sergeant's pay but a Flt Lt of three years won't work for a FO's wages yet the nuclear weapons issue implies a greater level of commitment on the part of Officers isn't it?).

The only reason why the RAF don't want SNCO pilots is because it "degrades" the officer pilot's position on the basis that, really, "anyone" can do it.

[Bertie Thruster]

After commissioning into the RAF from NCO Army pilot, I commanded a Flight as a flight lieutenant and then commanded a Squadron (78 Sqn) as a squadron leader.

I was commissioned as a flying officer (not officer cadet) into the RAF 6 months before being discharged as a sergeant from the Army! (My discharge sheet stated "Primary trade; avionics technician. Secondary employment; pilot")

I received both Army and RAF pay for those six months but was told to save the lower salary (the RAF one!) until the Army discharged me!

I found that commissioning did not improve my distinctly average flying ability in any way! :)

[Wensleydale]

Its surprising how many SNCOs say that they could easily do an officer's job yet when offered a commission they turn it down. There is a little word called responsibility that several SNCOs do not want to accept yet they want the "fun" part of the job. Sounds a bit selfish to me......

[Wiley]

I haven't read every post, so apologies if this had been said before.

I'm also not sure if, with the increasingly different cultures of the two countries - (or "kulchur", as we say in the Antipodes) - the same applies to the RAF as did/does to the RAAF. However, harking back to my RAAF days, I think a first tour as a Sgt pilot after getting their wings would be a major learning experience, as well as giving young officers-to-be an invaluable insight into how "the System" works by having them mix closely with the people who have always really made the Air Force work.

I imagine it would also go a long way towards sorting the sheep from the goats.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Ahh.. It was the "here piggy, piggy, piggy" after all... :p

[Heimdall]

As for UAVs, CAA regs require a qualified pilot to be in command when they fly outside of danger areas, so I don't see much of cost saving there.

Perhaps it's time that the current RAF requirement for a highly trained military pilot to be in command of a UAV is addressed, particularly as employment in Nevada flying Predator invariably takes the individual away from a fast-jet front line aircraft where there is usually a shortage of qualified aircrew.

The Army have just taken delivery of the Hermes 450 for operations in Iraq and probably later in Afghanistan. These UAVs will be flown by personnel from 32 Regt Royal Artillery, who deployed to Iraq to operate the Desert Hawk UAV.

As far as I am aware, none of the 32 Regt personnel who will fly the Hermes 450 will be military pilots in the traditional sense, they will simply be personnel who are trained and qualified on type by the Army and remain with the regiment, rather than moving on after a 3 year tour.

Perhaps the UAV only stream would be a cost-effective way of re-introducing NCO pilots? Either way, I remain to be convinced that the current RAF system is particularly cost-effective or ideal for retaining the appropriate experience on 39 Sqn who currently operate the Predator UAV.

Heimdall

[Shack37]

1966, 206 Sqn, 2 x Sgt pilots, Nuclear Depth Charges.
History rewritten?
s37

[rigidrotor]

Ability is ability whatever rank or service. Responsibility come with the job, respect is earned not awarded whatever the colour of the uniform. The difference in the roles may dictate what rank and experience may be required.

This subject has been and will continue forever

[AHQHI656SQN]

Ralph, regarding your statement regarding what I assume is DE Officers doing more than one flying tour because of Apache, I beg to differ.
In my experience while serving with the first Attack Sqn only one of the Capt's who was a flight commander has been posted into a second flying tour. One went to become an Adj, one went on to become the Regt'l Ops Offr (now a LUH Regt) and the one Capt (now Maj) who got a second flying tour, will be moved from his flying tour at AMTAT on promotion (heaven forbid that an officer with operational experience be allowed to pass that on to new officers graduating through CTR).
I guess that one of the reasons the manning levels on Attack Sqns are as low as they are because DE Officers must adhere to Army career profiles, not Army Air Corps desirable profiles and therefore must move on when their year of birth dictates they must in order that they be given the opportunity to reach the rank of General.

[Climebear]

Its surprising how many SNCOs say that they could easily do an officer's job yet when offered a commission they turn it down.

How many SNCOs in the RAF are 'offered a commission'? Excluding those who are commissioned through the Commissioned Warrant Officer scheme all others are only 'offered' the Queen's commission once they have succesfully passed OASC then IOT; I am not sure that there are that many who would go through that lot just to turn the offer down!

Or did you mean offered the opportunity to compete for a commission?

[philrigger]

;)

Shack37

1966, 206 Sqn, 2 x Sgt pilots, Nuclear Depth Charges.
History rewritten?
s37

Are you sure the dates are correct ?
I thought NCO pilots ceased being recruited in the mid 1950's. I do remember Master Pilots flying the Pembroke and similar in the 1960's. And I think I am right in saying that a welsh Master Pilot was still flying helicoptors from the OCU at Odiham in the 1970's.








We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[Rossian]

Philrigger
When I went through the Shack MOTU in 1964/5 one Sgt Pilot was sent away for a few days to get sorted out with a new uniform and came back as an officer. G.... Y... where are you now?
Further when I arrived at BallyKelly and joined 210 the co-pilot on my first crew was a Sgt. He was pressurised into going for a comission but turned it down and left to fly for BEA/BOAC. We didn't get the boomers until the PhaseIII version of the Shacks came into service in (consults log-book)about the back end of 1966, and I'm pretty sure there were no NCO pilots or navs at BKY by that time.
The Ancient Mariner
Oh and PS most of my flying training was spent with FS and Master pilots and navs (as well as Fred Reeves)

[Shack37]

Philrigger,
I was on 206 fron 1962 to 1966 and we had 2 sgt pilots.
There was a gap mid/63 to mid/64 when I was away on a course so it's possible it was 62/63 but certainly not as early as the mid 50's.
From then on through 37Sqn, (66,67) and BK (68/71) there were no NCO pilots on Shacks that I'm aware of which fits with Rossian's version.

The phase three's were operational at St. Mawgan when I left there in June 66.

s37

[Wensleydale]

Climebear:

I refer to the oportunity to apply for a commision. Forgive me - I did not consider the pedants when adding my previous post!:ugh:

[Airborne Aircrew]

Wensleydale:

Your "theory" discounts those who, when it is suggested they should apply for a commission, chose not to simply because they like the people they currently associate with and don't wish to be a part of the "boyish high spirits" that take place in the Officers Mess.

Don't tell me, I already know... All your pals where totally spiffing chaps, mature, fun to be with, not arrogant or overbearing in the least and generally all round "bon oeufs". It's such a shame that 99% of the OR's never got to serve with your pals... :rolleyes:

[Airborne Aircrew]

Deliverance:

Funnily enough, of the four people in my AAITC course that I know their resulting situations, two are now officers, one is a Master ALM and one is a successful civilian earning six figures in the computer industry. To my knowledge, each one of them is very happy with their position.

The fact that each is happy where they are is indicative that not everyone aspires to the same things you do. The fact that some officers think that others should aspire to be like them is indicative of the arrogance I alluded to earlier.

Whether you like it or not choosing not to be an officer is not indicative of an inability to do the job, nor is it indicative of not wanting the responsibility. It is, plain and simply, a wish to do what we want to do not what others may feel "is best for us". Had I done that in my career I can assure you I would not be in the position I am now in and I most certainly would not have been as happy.

As you accurately noted there are good Officers, bad Officers, good SNCO Aircrew and bad SNCO Aircrew. I'm past caring what most officers think of me yet there are many I respect and some that are friends. What gets lost by many officers, and especially pilot types, is that the OR's, in more cases than you care to think of or care about, are equally hard working, loyal, reliable, trustworthy and yes, talented and intelligent as a large proportion of the officer cadre.

So, I'm prepared to sit here and "poison" flight crews while I see blatant arrogance and misplaced superiority being spouted by those that suffer from such "ailments".

Cry all you like about what I say... I'm just the mirror of many of the men you deal with daily... except I'm sufficiently anonymous and removed in this medium to be able to say it to your face, so to speak.

Edited in order to avoid spelling Nazis.

[Blacksheep]

As for UAVs, CAA regs require a qualified pilot to be in command when they fly outside of danger areas, so I don't see much of cost saving thereWhat the CAA require is that when sharing airspace with civilian traffic there should be a human operator - trained and qualified on type - in control of the UAV. They don't want autonomous UAVs controlled by artificial intelligence, mixing with civilian traffic. Some UAVs would require better qualified operators than others, but most long endurance surveillance models have very simple controls and could be operated by the average spotty faced teenager, trained on M/S Flight Sim.