Officer pilots in RAF/RN

[Alison Conway]

Can someone tell me why all pilots in the RAF/RN are officers, when during the WWI and WWII they were a mix of both officers and SNCOs?

[AdanaKebab]

Responsibility for nuclear weapons release on the V Force is one answer ... stand by for many more.

[8-15fromOdium]

Lots of good stuff on this matter on this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/287720-non-commissioned-pilots.html

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

The same question was asked of a VSO some years ago when some aircrew were asking for a "dedicated" aircrew stream. This was before the "specialist aircrew" was born. His answer..."We do, but we call them Flight Lieutenants now!":E Have things changed?:rolleyes:

[Alison Conway]

Thank you 8-15, it's an interesting thread. What happens to all those officers that are commissioned and then go to flying training and fail?

[In Support of Ops]

:E They re-role as Navigators

[Pontius Navigator]

:E They re-role as Navigators

then fail and re-role as Provost or Regiment :}

or if unsuited to other roles become plain Mr and can wear jeans at any time.

From the time you apply to the time that you are declared operational on a squadron can be 5 years. 40 years ago you could get a commission for just 5 years. In the 50s you could be taught to fly, get your wings, and do some time on a sqn, all in the two years of national service (IIRC).

[soddim]

AC asks an interesting question - why is it that one has to be an officer to fly aircraft in the RAF/RN. Is there something about a commission that helps in the performance of this task?

Apart from the advantage of selecting an individual with the requisite personal qualities there is no reason to insist on selection of a candidate who can be commissioned. However, in the past there was some relaxation of those qualities in recruiting in order to obtain the required numbers with the skills to do the job - that was a mistake and it resulted in an adverse effect on standards of behaviour and the reputation of the officer corps in general.

If the RAF is faced with similar recruiting problems again I sincerely hope they will re-introduce NCO aircrew to fill the gap.

[XV277]

Read the NAO report on the SH force for an interesting perspective.

[soddim]

Thankyou, XV277, for that reference. It reinforces my view that more NCO pilots in the RAF would be no bad thing. More years ago than I like to remember I taught air cadets to glide and relieved the tension of a long ground tour. Many of the young men and women we sent solo moved mountains to glide in their spare time and their level of motivation was extremely high.

Unfortunately, many of these talented individuals had little chance of attaining the requisite paper educational qualifications or preferred university degree to join as officer aircrew and the RAF recruited instead far less motivated people intent on the shortest short service commission they could get. We wasted millions of the taxpayers money training them.

Most of the motivated individuals would have stayed just to fly as I did and the taxpayer would have got much better value for the training costs.

[L J R]

Have a look at what a 35 level PA spine pilot gets paid. There is some form of retention measure inherant in the price, and maybe the rank might help - just a thought.

[Al R]

Thank you 8-15, it's an interesting thread. What happens to all those officers that are commissioned and then go to flying training and fail?


Some of those who weren't good enough to fly fighters I suppose, got the choice of opting for bombers where things were more leisurely, where the workload was spread out with others and where the demands and skills set were slightly less exacting.

Although not at the top of their tree, they were still part of the team mind! :)

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

bombers where things were more leisurely, where the workload was spread out with others and where the demands and skills set were slightly less exacting.

Careful Al R, you're about to upset a lot of people. Best stick to rockape subjects.:)

[BEagle]

The prejudiced attitude towards 'Bombers' has always existed - even if grossly incorrect.

When 208 Sqn flew the Buccaneer, they'd include 'DFGA tactics' in their flying programme....'Day Fighter' Ground Attack :rolleyes: !!

The few ex V-force folk who were posted to the Tornado used to wind up the pointy heads by referring to the aircraft as a 'bomber'. And the Luftwaffe still use the term 'Jagdbombergeschwader' (fighter bomber squadron) for their Tornado squadrons. E.g. JaboG 31 at Nörvenich*.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg


*Of whom it's said "It's tough to be a n*gg*r, but tougher still to be a Nörvenich-er!"

[soddim]

That's not surprising, Beags, because the mud moving Tornado is a bomber. Thing that always gripped me was that the main difference between the aircrew in various roles was attitude. There were lots of people with the fighter pilot attitude who never flew fighters.

[NutLoose]

Alison, there was the odd NCO pilot still flying up until the late 70's, we had a Master Pilot on the Wessex OCU at the time ( Warrant Officer) who was the last flying, though their were some still in other branches that they had transferred into.

[corsair]

Could the real reason be similar to the one I was told about in relation to the Irish Air Corps. During the WW2, NCO pilots were recruited. At the end of it all the Sergeant pilots all went straight to Aer Lingus. By the time the officers caught up with them. They were all Captains and outranked their former superiors. Which must have made for some interesting CRM. :p

Did something similar happen in the RAF?

[Al R]

Romeo Oscar Golf: Careful Al R, you're about to upset a lot of people. Best stick to rockape subjects.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

:eek: Whoops, I didn't mean to offend!

I was trying (badly, obviously) to amplify on Pontious's assertion that there was a pecking order with Rockapes somewhere down the list. There is, sure, a hierarchy. But whereas Rockapes are at the top of their chosen career path in the RAF, there will always be those who strive to achieve perfection but alas not always sufficient space within each particular tier to keep everyone happy.

[EnigmAviation]

Good man Soddim, well said. Having served toegther, with your no b****** methods, I see where you're coming from. Really, the debate should be not so much whehter they are Commissioned or not, more whether they have all the qualities required for the primary task - and , as you state correctly the right motivation.

The airlines have suffered from the same "degree in under water basket weaving" requirements culture where young entrants have entered the company for the glamour and cash rather than their genuine love for all matter aviation. I know more than one 4 ringer who has expressed concern about some of the young FO's feeding through.

Degrees only make a good candidate better, they don't make a poor candidate automatically better. Aptitude and motivation provide lots of miles per gallon !

Good on yer,Soddim, good to see you are still keeping a finger on things in your Lincolnshire retreat - Home counties subversives still active !

[Pontius Navigator]

To suggest that paper qualifications, or lack of, is preventing suitable candidates from becoming pilots as pilots also have to be officers to silly.

In the 60s the only difference between an officer and NCO aircrew, as far as recruitment was one GCE. The only changes now are that 2 A-levels have been added to the officer requirement. Once could ask if that is because the standard has been changed or because the standards the same.

The educational qualification now is low enough as it is. Any lower and you would be taking people with no proven ability to learn. True some gifted individuals may have supreme aptitude and motivation, which may carry them far, but how much would it cost to test that theory?

It used to be the case (rumour has it) that some borderline candidtates were let through OASC. They might have been unfairly assessed at OASC and thus given the benefit of the doubt.

In the 80s only some 50-60% of student navs got through the course in the prescribed time. 2-3% were washed out for medical reasons and maybe 15-20% were chopped completely. Many, including those who were chopped completely, were ex-student pilots. Did they fail for lack of motivation, lack of skill or lack of aptitude? Yes some undoubtedly did. Many simply because their mathematical skills and situational awareness where inadequate when under pressure.

I realise this is not firm evidence that NCOs would not have passed but an objective yardstick is needed and from experience the 5 GCE/5GCSE 2A levels is a good indicator.

Drifting slightly, you could argue that a graduate has demonstrated a lack of motivation and confidence by delaying entry to the RAF.:} OTOH the RAF expressed a desire for graduates who could be taught to understand the modern advanced systems.:bored: