SNCO Aircrew

[sargs]

In the process of carrying out some research at work into NCO Aircrew, the following question has some of us puzzled. Whilst it could be argued that Air Ministry Order A746/42 is the root from which modern NCA sprung, where is it actually written that NCA should be SNCOs? Also, where, if anywhere, does it say that FC / AT / IA should be SNCOs? I have a feeling from discussions round the bazaars that “it’s that way because it is”, but if anyone could supply a reference I would be grateful. By the way, I know that the RN and AAC have JNCO aircrew, but that’s a separate discussion…..

[minigundiplomat]

The RM also have JNCO Aircrew.

[Pontius Navigator]

sargs, I think you are partially right. However the aircrew in WW2 were prone to capture and it is possible that they were made SNCOs as they could expect better treatment than airmen.

Then more recently we have example of other rank inflation with numbered sqns commanded by wg cdrs, flts by sqn ldrs. Similarly VC10 captains used to be made up to sqn ldr. And an all officer pilot/nav cadre originally because of the responsibility attached to nuclear release.

One reason has been to give them the appropriate pay for the job when a sharp payrise in current rank would be divisive in the service an dpolitically unacceptable outside.

Less obvious is that you might accept being b***** around mor eif the pay is better.:}

As for policy, there will have been carefully argued papers that justify this rank inflation and not one would mention any of the reasons given.

The last SNCO aircrew in pilot/nav branches were phased out around 1961 with master pilots only disappearing with the Anson stn flts. Those that were not commissioned often became operations officers, CSRO or sim instructors or airmanship instructors.

[Triple Matched TQ]

Are the RM not part of the RN?

[Dan Gerous]

I was always under the impression it was so they had the rank and the authority behind it, as a means to carry out any task required for a mission or looking after the airframe. (I don't mean that in a nasty way).

[Biggus]

I thought the RAF already has (had?) NCA who aren't SNCOs?

I thought some junior ranks (stewards?) operated as cabin crew on VC-10s and Tristars?

I also thought that at one stage there were some of them on Herc Sqns. There was a legal requirement for there to be more than one person in the back once there were more than so many pax (50?). Rather than take two loadmasters it was considered more cost effective to take one loadmaster and some air stewards.

I'm not sure if either of these is still the case today.

[Tiger_mate]

IIRC, the last Master Pilot was a Wessex driver in the late seventies.`
NCA, formally NCO Aircrew does have its origins in WWII and the Geneve Convention, after all they were all statistically likely to be shot down through no fault of their own. To create a career spine that includes Cpls has been tried since and was unsucessfull being universally opposed. That the other services have JNCO Aircrew does not make it right. Amongst the many reasons for retention of SNCO status is the need to maintain recruitment, and the introduction of WSOp first, specialisation second has reduced the remuster from trade cadre of experienced airmen.
Another reason is the need to command authority (on behalf of the Captain) within an airframe at a time when the Captain has other priorities. With the best will in the world, a Cpl or below would be unfairly challenged at providing the authority that may be required on occasion.

AAC do not emply their gunners in anyway near the skill set of the RAF which is without doubt a waste of resource. The RM/Navy can forward a logical argument for their JNCO aircrew but they do not need Air Electronics Operators, Flight Engineers, or Loadmasters, and the RAF are not obliged to price match the lowest common denominator.

[minigundiplomat]

Are the RM not part of the RN?


Technically I believe you are right. Personally, I like to think of them as the '4th emergency service' as the old ad went. I think they've earnt their own reputation and don't stand in anyones shadow.

[Sideshow Bob]

Biggus

Stewards are not Aircrew

sargs

neither are FC, AT or IA

Does make you ask the question though, if so many ground trades are now in the rear of aircraft operating and maintaining sensors, do we still need AEops? Couldn't they be replaced with suitablely trained ground trades as per the E-3D and Sentinal.

[Spam_UK]

I was once infomed that a large part of NCA remaining SNCO's is to do with customs forms having to be signed by a SNCO or above, not sure how accurate that is?

[trap one]

The current FC rank and conditions of service were laid down in a DCI that was published around 1990. I think I still have a copy but the SNCO rank was partly to encourage people to the job partly to reward them and also partly to give responsibilty a rank. Also the punishments for SNCO were/are far greater than those given to Airmen or JNCO's.
One of the reasons was that the FC has to deligate part of the job to an Assistant so making the FC a higher rank allowed them to give orders and not requests.

But then again I've been out for a number of years now and its probably changed

[Spam_UK]

It would be interesting to know the reasons behind it though, as the RNZAF have JNCO Aircrew.

(As long as they don't think its a better idea and demote me)!

[Union Jack]

Are the RM not part of the RN?

In a word yes, and there was quite an interesting thread thoroughly amplifying this issue not long back.

Not too sure about MGD's simplistic view of the RM being the fourth emergency service, especially since the RM themselves would be the first to say that that honour belongs more properly to the RNLI, the Coast Guard, and the Mountain Rescue Service .... with the AA a long way behind, bless them!:ok:

Jack

[Tankertrashnav]

formally NCO Aircrew does have its origins in WWII

Actually both the RFC and RNAS used NCO aircrew in WW1. Initially in 2 seat aircraft the pilot (or driver) was often an NCO and the Observer, ie the chap who had the hard bit to do, was an officer. The top brass of the time thought that as you wouldn't get an officer to drive a car or lorry with an NCO in the back, why would you do it with an aeroplane? Things soon changed, of course, but it strikes me that the system had its merits ;).

By the way I have seen a WW2 group of medals with the Aircrew Europe Star named to an Able Seaman RN, a Fairey Swordfish Gunner as I recall.

[rockiesqiud]

Sideshow. Wouldn't your point be just as valid to replace an Air Eng with more qualifed Grd Engineers?

[sargs]

Thanks for the replies so far, some food for thought. I think I understand the need for aircrew who are SNCOs, at least as far as the RAF is concerned - authority, recruitment and retention being among the reasons.

I also accept that these reasons are equally valid for the airborne FC / AT / IA SNCOs, but what I really want to know is where is it written down? Trap one thinks it might be in a DCI from around 1990, any more details? Somebody somewhere decided that these trades would be represented by SNCOs when flying, surely that decision was written down to provide the authority for selection onto the E-3 or Sentinel?

[OHP 15M]

According to the Bestselling author of THE MORSE CODE

MAcr Dan Brown

FACT:

The answer you seek was writen down in a document that was locked in the safe of the director of the CIO in 1991. The document is still there today. Its cryptic text includes references to an ancient portal and an unknown location underground. The document also contains the phrase ''It's buried out there somewhere.''

All the organizations that you may encounter in your quest for the true reason why NCA are SNCOs either exist or have existed in the past, including the Freemasons, Main School, the No.2 Sgt's Mess, Gatehouse and The Bird & Bastard.

:ok:

[Sideshow Bob]

rockiesqiud

Under the Air Navigation Order, Air Engineers are dispensated their licences only if they have completed a CAA recognised military training course.

What makes you think a ground engineer are more qualified when most Air Engineers are ground engineers who have received further training and they have completed the required flying course equivelent to a civilian licence?

What training have ground engineers had in airmanship and flying regulations?

Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?

As for sensor operators, I don't think there are actually any licence requirements, but if anyone knows different I await your reply.

[rockiesqiud]

Sideshow The airmanship training applies to all NCA training. Ground crew can become sensor operators, just apply for aircrew as many of us did. Or have you a downer on AEOps?

[Sideshow Bob]

Sideshow The airmanship training applies to all NCA training. Ground crew can become sensor operators, just apply for aircrew as many of us did. Or have you a downer on AEOps?

No downer on AEops, just a valid question. If we can employ ground trades as sensor operators, as we do on the E-3D and Sentinal, at a less long term cost than a NCA, then why do we need AEops?

Wouldn't your point be just as valid to replace an Air Eng with more qualifed Grd Engineers?

At least I don't make up ridicules arguments about thing I know nothing about. ;)

[carnt spel]

What training have ground engineers had in airmanship and flying regulations?


Can you train for airmanship? Do you receive airmanship classes during flying training?
As for flying regulations well what training do WSOps receive? Learn this GASO, SOP, LAO, FOB, JSP550, etc and there will be a test. I am sure any Grnd Eng is capable of reading a book for an exam.

why do we need AEops?

The RAF don't have AEOps. They are all WSOps now and can change aircraft and specialisation types.

At least I don't make up ridicules arguments about thing I know nothing about.

But you don't appear to know anything about how to spell Ridiculous or construct a coherent sentence.

Stewards are not Aircrew


So why do they hold Combat Ready cats on the Hercules fleet, and why are they examined by the Loady examiners? Sorry, WSOp Cmn (FW) examiners?

I take it sideshow that you are a disgruntled ground tradesman who failed at OASC and now hate all WSOps.

[rockiesqiud]

sorry carnt spel. Sideshow is aircrew.

[Union Jack]

According to the Bestselling author of THE MORSE CODE ......

OHP 15M - Well, I liked it, even though it may have been too cryptic for some!

Jack

[carnt spel]

Thank you rockiesquid. I see what is going on here now. It's not AEOps, sorry WSOps something to do with EW stuff, he has a downer on it's GE's who think they are Air Engs. The difference is, is that GE's have a future in the RAF. He can't take it that he has been replaced by a computerised warning system on the latest RAF AT. Heck, even the Loadies, sorry WSOp Cmn (FW) carry out initial systems checks and deal with the fuel panel on the C130J. From what I have heard it isn't exactly rocket science, as why would you let a white butty box dispenser do the checks?

Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?But what is the point in holding one of those licences? It's about as much use as applying for a black and white TV licence. Still you could be an assistant manager to the Navs, sorry WSO's in Maccy dees.

[AQAfive]

I believe the origins go back to WWII and the Geneva Convention. There were LAC air gunners at the time as well as NCO pilots. It was decided that treatment of SNCO’s and officers as POW’s was better than for erks and so all aircrew were SNCO’s.

That continued post war and has I dare say been continued for recruitment and retention as much as anything else, but I have no idea if it is the case.

The case for flying groundcrew is interesting. Technical knowledge is never the issue, however, as all aircrew will tell you airmanship is the unquantifiable part. You may be able to operate equipment, but can you do it at 0400 at 400ft pulling a few G whilst your opo is throwing up because the ac is being thrown around by the wx? You have three or four tasks to be completed all at the same time, can you prioritise under pressure and still get them all done. That’s what aptitude and selection is all about, professional aircrew are always the best option, if you can afford it.

Remember, the only reasons Pilots and Navs were commissioned was due to the bucket of sunshine. It was considered too restrictive to have a mixture. Tradition in Bomber Command was to have a pilot and a flight engineer who could fly and land the ac if the pilot was injured or killed. When the V Bombers came along there were not enough commissioned engineers and so the co-pilot was born and the flight engineers job, in part, (electrics) done by the AEO.

I am led to believe that pre WWII, Sgt Pilots were expected to have come from public school and the Officers from university, not sure if true but it sounds as if it could be.

Interestingly, (well to me), my father was trained to fly in Florida. His selection was done at Blackpool in a big hangar. He told me there was a hangar full of guys and they were instructed to leave two gaps such that the assembled throng were divided into three groups. Then the main man walked in front of each group in turn and explained, “You're Pilots, you're Navigators and you're WopAG’s”, some selection procedure.

I guess the answer to all is that the reasons are lost in the past and there is no reason to change it. As for the RN, well unless your an officer you don't matter so who cares what rank you are. (And yes I have worked with the RN). As for the Army, well I have never understood their methods, I think they still believe it to be part of the cavalry.

[OHP 15M]

UJ,

I take it you also got MAcr Brown's book last week.

Cheers,

OHP

:ok:

[rockiesqiud]

I for one am glad that Aircrew are SNCOs. When I applied there was no chance of promotion in my trade even for the lads who had two 8's and a spec rec(not that I'd ever know). So not only would I get to fly but also I'd have 3 stripes on my arm. Maybe the reason for SNCO Aircrew is lost in the annuals of time but I believe it's a major incentive for ex-ranks remustering.:}

[Pontius Navigator]

Technical knowledge is never the issue, however, as all aircrew will tell you airmanship is the unquantifiable part. You may be able to operate equipment, but can you do it at 0400 at 400ft pulling a few G whilst your opo is throwing up because the ac is being thrown around by the wx? You have three or four tasks to be completed all at the same time, can you prioritise under pressure and still get them all done. That’s what aptitude and selection is all about, professional aircrew are always the best option, if you can afford it.

Aye, once gave a C/T radar fitter the chance of a bombing run in a Vulcan. It was a simple one and we started when the target became visible at about 140 miles and 20 minutes out. He was still not hacking it 20 miles passed the target.

He was obviously technically competent but wholly untrained in the operational sequence. No reason to suppose he could not have been trained but how about all the unquantifiable additional information?

That was in pre-SATs days where we had information thrown at us that may or may not have been useful but we had these little pearls to fall back on.

[philrigger]

;)

I will have to do a bit of digging but I am certain that in 1940(?) Winston Churchill mandated that all airman aircrew were to be Sergeant or above.


Philrigger.

[The Oberon]

' orses for courses, P.N. Both sides had their pearls.

As an ex C/T NBS Fitter, I was amazed at how little time the Nav. Rad. had from a cold switch on to release as detailed in Vulcan 607. I would have been in a complete flap.

Equally, at their request, I once stood back and watched a pair of Navs. attempt to diagnose and rectify a " no picture " fault on H2s. After a couple of hours and 2 IND/WFG changes, I pointed out that the clue was in the faint glow visible in the S.W. quadrant which suggested it was a power unit. Any self respecting NBS fitter would have cleared it in about 20 mins.

[PingDit]

Groundcrew flying as aircrew? Not a good idea me thinks, with one exception; the carrying of the crew chief and his merry men to overcome problems whilst on detachment. It was asked earlier if NCA were taught 'airmanship' in flying training. It most certainly is taught. As for 'using' groundcrew as the 'cheaper option'; if you can spare their absence for 2 years from their main trade to undergo training in: Airmanship, navigation, R/H seat safety pilot training, sensors, pax handling and everything else that is involved in flying for a living, why not? There again, after all that, they'd be qualified aircrew.

[rockiesqiud]

Ref Groundcrew doing an AEops/Aircrew job. I would'nt have thought many groundies would do it without the flying pay and rank so I don't think it'd be cheaper. But then again mine is just a "ridicules" argument!:ugh:

[moosemaster]

Yes there was (and possibly still is) Cpl stewards on the C130 fleet, but in VERY small numbers.

They were placed on all sqns, but quickly removed from south side because of their limited usefullness. There were a very unsubtle cost saving measure that did little to help the issues associated with 2 LM ops. Yes they were examined by LM Examiners, but then again, who else could you get to examine them, movers?

I know in my last years on the fleet it was becoming increasingly frustrating for all concerned trying to get the guys some useful trips in which to remain current. Seriously, as a sqn boss would you rather have 11 guys who can do everything, or 9 guys who can do everything and 3 who can only do 10%. (percentages picked out of thin air, but you get the point)

As for replacing NCA with GC, specifically GEs, GEs are a great bunch and incredibly useful and helpful, so I'm not against them, but practically speaking it takes a lot longer to create a GE than it does an Air Eng. Air Eng on entry can be any rank/trade. GE's must be Sgts already (or as near as damn it) so min 10 years service these days??

Couple that with the fact that groundcrew operate to different working hours legislation (which would mean pilots and "others" on different regimes) means it would be impractical. Pilot hours are CAA approved, meaning GE comes to pilot system, and hey presto, your groundcrew have become aircrew.


On the original topic, I was always told LMs (and therefore all other NCA) were Sgts because of the rotary fleet and their interaction with army types. As we all know, SNCOs are much more respected within the army than in the RAF, making a crewman's job easier and less confrontational.

Only what I was told, and I've never seen it in writing. Not that it affects me, I only ever fly a desk now :ok:

[Wader2]

On the original topic, I was always told LMs (and therefore all other NCA) were Sgts because of the rotary fleet and their interaction with army types. As we all know, SNCOs are much more respected within the army than in the RAF, making a crewman's job easier and less confrontational.

The ALMs evolved from AQMs which in turn pre-dated helicopters that could actually carry a crewman :}.

That they needed interaction with Army types however was true for they worked extensively onthe ST and TT of the time - Hastings, Beverley etc especially when it came to disembarking the troops at the half-way point. :)

[sitigeltfel]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the future when more reliance is be placed on UAVs. What rank/status will be given to the console bound jockeys and operators?

[FE Hoppy]

carnt spel
Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 20
Posts: 2
Thank you rockiesquid. I see what is going on here now. It's not AEOps, sorry WSOps something to do with EW stuff, he has a downer on it's GE's who think they are Air Engs. The difference is, is that GE's have a future in the RAF. He can't take it that he has been replaced by a computerised warning system on the latest RAF AT. Heck, even the Loadies, sorry WSOp Cmn (FW) carry out initial systems checks and deal with the fuel panel on the C130J. From what I have heard it isn't exactly rocket science, as why would you let a white butty box dispenser do the checks?

Quote:
Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?
But what is the point in holding one of those licences? It's about as much use as applying for a black and white TV licence. Still you could be an assistant manager to the Navs, sorry WSO's in Maccy dees.

I got one of those useless Flight Engineers licenses when I left and now gross twice what I did in the RAF thanks to it. When I hire people for my team an FE or ATP license are a minimum requirement and we don't even fly!:ok:

[carnt spel]

If the outlook is that good for FE's on the outside, why aren't all the Air Engs leaving the RAF to earn the big bucks with the freight companies as ther are the only operators that usually fly the older generation aircraft that operate with valves and string and selotape? Hmmm sounds just like the VC10, E3D and Tristar fleet.:bored:

I got one of those useless Flight Engineers licenses.........................and we don't even fly Point proved.;)

[sargs]

I work on a type where for both intra-RAF and inter-service political reasons, we have a mix of NCA and non-flying background rearcrew - just what some Air Engs on this thread suggest as a good idea. Some of these operators are good, at least as good as (and possibly better than) some NCA. However, they are in a minority, and overall it's an unnecessary experiment gone sadly wrong.

On the other hand, we have replaced our Air Engs, not with ground engineers as some WSOps suggest, but with a microchip. I have to say that personally, I preferred the presence of an Eng on the flight deck - when our electric jet goes wrong a third set of eyes, set back from the action, would be very comforting.

So, sadly, I agree with everyone! :rolleyes:

[Pure Pursuit]

carnt spel,

I bet you are a pleasure to work with...

Not sure which of the specialisations you work in however, I suspect that you are a jobs worth. :ugh:

[carnt spel]

Pursuit Not sure which of the specialisations you work in however I am an ex Tristar GE now working for Virgin Trains as a driver/instructor, and yes I do insist that the job is done correctly as many lives are on the shoulders of our drivers, so if that makes me a "jobsworth" then so be it.

[kilwhang]

I have a feeling that this 'gentleman' has probably suffered one or all of the following:

a) Failed OASC
b) Failed the Station Board prior to attempting OASC
c) Found the application form too difficult
or
d) Had his wife/girlfriend/mother/sister/cousin etc well and truly 'influenced' by an Aircrew SNCO (possibly an Air Eng).

[Pontius Navigator]

Touching back on the POW bit. I recall that under the Geneva Convention POWs were threated as 3 separate groups by the enemy.

ORs were obliged to work for the enemy on non-military or war works, tending a woodmill for instance.

SNCOs were obliged to work but only as supervisors. It followed that a Stagluft would have had plenty of chiefs and no indians.

Officers were not obliged to work but could volunteer if they wished.

You may recall that other classic war film "The Password is Courage" based on Sergeant-Major Charles Coward's true story. I read the book first :)

[BEagle]

Did you recall that from personal experience, Pontius :p

This rather pointless "why carnt i fly like wot the zobs do" nonsense springs up from time to time. The current system works, there is no need for change.

A rather pushy Air Engineer once asked an Instructor Cpatain if he could 'have a go' at landing the mighty Vickers FunBus - he had a PPL, after all...:hmm:

"Certainly", said the Captain - and made no move to ask the co-pilot to give up his seat.

"Well, can I swap seats, then?" asked our hero.

"Of course", said the Captain, "Just as soon as you've been accepted for a commission, passed Cranwell, graduated from flying training and started the VC10 OCU. Then you can have a landing....!"

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, of course it was.

[trap one]

Pingdit
There are sometimes legal requirements that mean that the "Rearcrew" are not "Aircrew" The case in point is the FC Controller. Because the E3's from NATO USAF FAF and RAF, control in all types of airspace throughout NATO and other countries airspace they have to have passed the control ticket in their own country. In the UK this normally means 6 weeks aptitude testing 13-16 weeks simulator training then 16 weeks plus to do live and simulator training before they are then checked and if competent given a ticket to control limited types of sortie under a supervisor who is monitoring up to 4 similar controllers. Add in a minimum of 2 years to get CR and then be eligible for posting to E3's.
The FAA controllers in the Seaking ASacs are not allowed to give the full range of control services as they don't pass the full control course.
Having done the E3 OCU before the introduction of the Cranwell phase I can say I learnt a lot but would have loved to get R/H seat qualified.
As for the PAX handling Firefighting and various other parts of the OCU that were covered at Waddo rather than elsewhere I was happy with my level of knowlege and so were Staneval.

I am not insulting any "aircrew" when I say that some of them do not have the aptitude or ability to control, I know because I watched some of the Shack controllers fail to pass the full control test. They had worked on a similar system as the FAA does today for the Seaking ASacs. Conversely I've seen FC's remuster and pass the airman AEOp course (Nimrod) and the FJ Nav (F3). I also believe that the mix on the E3D made it a much better platform that the other E3's.

In summary personally I'd have loved to be paid "flying pay" once qualified but I accepted that I'd only get flying pay when I was actually posted to Waddo. But as our Lords and Masters had to have controllers on board then I believe that they would only pay for the usual cheap option, as having WSOp's do the FC course and then maybe fail would be wasting too much money.
Before you say what about the Navs who went to do the FC course well of the 2 who went both passed. One was promoted to Wing Cdr and the other stayed on the ground. I left in 2005 and know nothing of any other Navs who went after that time.
Regards
Trap One

[Wader2]

trap one, the key is aptitude (and a desire to do it). Some can Nav, some can FC and some can do both. I know several Navs who pre-E3 all did full tours down the hole. You would probably remember JG in the sim, NB who was an FC on 8 and others. There was also a number that transfered at their 38 point, Kip Smith who made Gp Capt, SM ex-maritime, who passed out as one of the top FC, or one R W-F who was parachuted in from F4s as a wg cdr (Never really understood what happened there but that. one was not, by all accounts, a success).

In my case I had no desire to fly in the black hole and willingly stepped back to 10 course before ceding my plave when I pulled the age card :}

[trap one]

Wader2.
Agree the key is aptitude and as you said the desire. The Nav to FC or vice a versa is not hard just needs time to accomplish both courses which usually is not a player.
Would their lordships pay for a FJ Nav to go and do the full FC course. The answer was no they wanted to pay for only the sim and live/sim and then send the guys/girls straight to E3's missing out the CR portion of the course. The gents you mentioned AFAIK all did a full tour on thje ground and AFAIK had either come to the end of the aircraft they FJ Nav'd in or as you said 38 point. Yes and some came from Vulcan and maritime to do tours in the holes but as they were already on flying pay and in some cases couldn't go back FJ it was a saving of flying pay to get them in the E3.
I taught both of the Navs who were selected to go Nav-FC-E3 and they were both very sharp cookies. As I said at the time to the SL who was promoted I believed they would be doing themselves a diservice by not spending time controlling on the ground and getting comfortable with the new job.
I was on 9 course and had a whole 6 weeks post OCU before I ended up with another 9 Cse WC and a brand new FA flying Green Ink missions for Deleberate Forge in the September. I very much doubt I would have been able to provide the same service if I had not had 3 years of controlling in between Qualifying and OCU.
I also went through FC training with "Scuba" a real gent who was the perfect Spec aircrew FC.

Regards
Trap One

[The Gorilla]

Just wandered in again I see it hasn't changed much. Beagle is still banging on with his anti nco flight deck. Others who should have worked harder at skool chip in as well bless them.

FE Hoppy and I were on the same course, prior to leaving he chose to have an FE Licence I chose not too. It's fair to say we are doing alright now thank you. I am grateful to the RAF, for what I did as an Air Eng has made me far more employable in my current role.

I agree with trap ones comments, the E3 is nothing more than a flying R3 bunker. Only the ground guys have the true experience and background to do that kind of work.

However all this childish bickering about who should be in which seat is soon to irrelevant. You aren't going to have any seats/ roles/missions or aircraft to play with from around june of next year.

:\

[sargs]

The thread intitially was asking the question why you have to be a SNCO or above to fly in the RAF, and there have been some very interesting replies. I'm not grinding any particular axe, but Beags, there was (until you started it) nothing about "why I can't fly like the zobs do". Personally, as suitably qualified rearcrew, I was trained to, and allowed to, fly the yellow Sea King "throughout the flight envelope" - at least, until the rules changed after the Nimrod in Toronto accident. Not because I "wanted to do what the zobs did" but because you could never find two pilots willing to give up a precious day off to deliver a/c between bases - it was usually one pilot / one rearcrew. I had no problem with that, it gave me more awareness of (and more respect for) what the pilots did. Many of my rearcrew mates wanted to get up the front, and went through selection / commissioning / training so that they could. The envy you allude to, Beags, simply did not happen in my experience, at least in the way you describe.

Back to the thread - anybody out there know why ATs on the E-3D are SNCOs? Is it the same with their US and NATO counterparts?

[Fortissimo]

Gorilla, I don't believe trap one said that the E3 was just a flying R3 bunker. It is capable of more than that, albeit it is limited in scale, and the arrival of IP-based communications for the platform opens up a whole new range of potential tasks viz use of imagery, application of ROE, control of UAVs (already demo'd from Wedgetail), airborne command element etc. Agreed though, people should not be controlling unless they are suitably trained.

Sargs, back to thread, the NATO ATs are all SNCOs but the US can employ more junior enlisted. I think the UK logic related to the degree of responsibility and the self-supervision bit, which in turn led to SNCO-level experience requirements.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sards, in answer to your new question, the answer is probably the modern equivalent of the earlier one. One simple one is the administrative of reducing the different accommodations needed at landaways. Who shares rooms etc.

I am sure BEags will tell you of the female AS Cpl or SAC who had better accommodation than the officers :).

Other reason are probably to do with experience and incentive. Where a Cpl is 'lowest level of management' there is probably a definition of a Sgt's skill levels.

[[email protected]]

Trapone - you must have forgotten the Aircraft Captains course that the FC seem to have done - they way they go on you would think they really are flying the E3:)

[BEagle]

As regards accommodation away form base, if it was arranged by the station (e.g. Akrotiri), we insisted on 'accommodation commensurate with home base entitlement' - but that was all. If they didn't have enough rooms, then they would put us up off base and rooms would be as per STC Accounting Instructions.

Some truckies did try it on though, for instance insisting on staying off-base 'for operational reasons'. Oddly enough when we used to fly with a GE+4 in the back to Akrotiri, there were several JNCOs. Yet if it was a trip to the US, it was often all SNCO groundcrew.... Although they did use our late-lamented States Trainers to train up their U/T GEs - an excellent arrangement which suited everyone.

I don't know why you think I'm 'anti SNCO' flightdecks, I am far from it. I used to describe our Air Engineers as providing a 'reality check' for the eager thrusting Flt Cdrs out to redesign the wheel. "Sir, that was tried 5 years ago and didn't work then, so it probably won't now!". They were like a top temp control on the young thrusters' engines and would moderate their activities with the benefit of experience.

[Pure Pursuit]

Perhaps, as the F3 fleet stands down gracefully in the not too distant future, there will be more Navs coming through the ABM route. I have not experienced any negatives with this arrangement in the past, infact, the last ex F3 mate I worked with has recently migrated to the E3 & will be missed on the ground. An encyclopedia of knowledge about missiles, tactics, late nights out in Vegas and a bloody good bloke to boot!

Not sure about AEOps coming through to work on the jet as WCs. The last one I remember coming through did very well for himself however, he was not streamed into the controller side of the house. In fairness, his knowledge of data links, radars etc probably made him an outstanding candidate for the secondary, sorry surveillance stream.;)

As for Beags suggesting that NCO Aircrew are mostly wannabe zobs, I would argue that I have not met a wokka crewman who is not bloody proud of what he does (quite rightly so) and does not suffer from envy, jealousy or cravings to be saluted! Would many of them want to swap jobs & pilot VC10s... I doubt it!

[Pontius Navigator]

Yet if it was a trip to the US, it was often all SNCO groundcrew.... Although they did use our late-lamented States Trainers to train up their U/T GEs - an excellent arrangement which suited everyone.

All airmen attached to RAF Det Offutt were made up to acting SNCO for accommodation and status reasons. Nuff said.

[The Gorilla]

Forty

It was a generalisation from someone who was an E3D Air Eng AND an ex L TECH AD on linesman (HF200 R12) and IUKADGE (ECPO R3). I even got to fly with and make tea for the guys who used to torment the life out of me and my staff by continually pressing the no height button with their heels whilst reading the sun newspaper, FC's are so multi functional!
:}

[Vie sans frontieres]

"Just as soon as you've been accepted for a commission, passed Cranwell, graduated from flying training and started the VC10 OCU. Then you can have a landing....!"

Surely it should read..."been chopped from fast jets, then been chopped from helicopters and eventually have one last throw of the dice on multis"

At least the SNCO Aircrew have passed courses to get where they are today.

[nice castle]

Well said chap. Beagle's comment about the put down on the flight deck does little to enhance the reputation of that fleet wrt either levels of decent banter or general CRM. To put it bluntly, that chap Beagle referred to sounds to me a bit like the prat down the pub who people gradually move away from.

The pomposity of the 'this old one keeps coming round' type comment left a sour taste as well.

If the issue is continually raised, then there is probably something to discuss. The defence of commissioning pilots (and I am a commissioned pilot, by the way) should be open, justifiable and based on solid, sound logic.

'It's always been this way, so sod off and try your chances at OASC' is a thicko's line, and clearly open to be shot down.

In my job, which is quite specialised, I could cite occasions where a solid officer running the show has been of paramount importance, but there have also been times when I have concluded that there is no reason why a suitably switched on, trained and qualified SNCO could not do the job.

It's all food for thought, and nothing will change quickly, certainly not in my career span, but to be so dismissive is poor form in my opinion.:=

[Pontius Navigator]

In my job, which is quite specialised, I could cite occasions where a solid officer running the show has been of paramount importance, but there have also been times when I have concluded that there is no reason why a suitably switched on, trained and qualified SNCO could not do the job.

As an absolute generalisation I would agree that any suitably qualfied SNCO can do any job with a defined set of rules whereas a suitably trained and experienced can write those rules. That is not to say that the SNCO cannot advise the officer.

There is also that cross-over in experience between junior officer and senior non-commissioned officer.

The hang up really is over pay and retention and to a lesser extent recruitment and TOS.

[Sentia]

I think the UK logic related to the degree of responsibility and the self-supervision bit, which in turn led to SNCO-level experience requirements.

Fortissimo

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting, but what SNCO experience does an ab-initio NCA have?

[Sideshow Bob]

Can you train for airmanship? Do you receive airmanship classes during flying training?

Eh, yes, but then again you wouldn't know would you. You never made it that far. What's a matter mate, did you fail the OASC?

By the way I am not a WSop, I am an Air Eng(B) until I assimilate.

I'm sorry my English and spelling are not up to your standard, but then again I am just a big thick northern monkey. I did manage to pass OASC, AAITC and the Air Eng course in one go though. I even managed to get an above average cat on the Tristar.

I am an ex Tristar GE

Explains a lot! :ugh:

BTW stewards are not aircrew.

[rockiesqiud]

I found that airmanship developed through experiance and not in a classroom. Oh and by the way Sideshow can you answer my question? Why can you ask if AEOps can be replaced by groundcrew but AEngs cannot(they could gain the licences if needed)? Not a ridiculous question I think but then I am only a thick Northern Monkey/AEOp.:ugh:

PS What's an Air Eng(B)?:rolleyes:

[isaneng]

What's an Air Eng(B)?

He be unemployed soon...........

And I is one!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

What's an Air Eng(B)?

He be unemployed soon...........

And I is one!

Not if you remuster to ALM, plenty of room for you guys. Those that have are, in my experience, top guys and we could do with a few more like it.

Anyone else on here get the feeling that maybe a certain ex Captain has had the grass mowed out from underneath him by us baldric's maybe one or two times too many, would explain a few things :ok:

[Sideshow Bob]

I found that airmanship developed through experiance and not in a classroom.

That would explain the 13 dominee exersizes I did on applied flight then.

they could gain the licences if needed

Wouldn't that make them a Flight Engineer?

What's an Air Eng(B)?

Air Eng(A) Pre 1986 TORs
Air Eng(B) Post 1986 TORs

I'm not unemployed till 2023 thanks. :)

[The Gorilla]

Sideshow
Pre 89
Post 89

TG!

[rockiesqiud]

Sideshow

You've still not answered my question? And 13 flights on applied flight does not make you an expert on airmanship. I had 15 and still c£"k up!
As for Air Eng A and B, please for my benefit enlighten me to the tors!

[Sideshow Bob]

Thanks TG,

Contaminated cabin air must be working it's magic on my memory.

rockiesqiud

AP3392 or whatever the JPA equivalent is. Feel free to look it up. The A & B was user to distinguish between those on the old terms and those on the new terms way before WSops were thought of.

By the way, are you telling me you had received airmanship training from your flying instructor? Very Odd, perhaps that's why you needed 15 flights.

[BEagle]

To put it bluntly, that chap BEagle referred to sounds to me a bit like the prat down the pub who people gradually move away from.

He was a bit of a grouch at times - now an A3-something-0 captain.

As one of the relatively few drivers (airframe) who could be ar$ed to spend a fair while talking through snags with the squadron groundcrew, it was always very rewarding when we could pin down a snag and get it sorted as a result.

Unlike 'Thrombo' who once wrote 'Autopilot U/S' without any detailed debrief.....:hmm: Quite what the techies were supposed to make of that....

Mind you, he did get his comeuppance once. Wrestling with some elusive crew-in snag, the exasperated techie announced - "Sorry, it's f*cked!"
"What sort of a debrief do you call that, corporal", Thrombo demanded, "be more specific!"
"The f*ck*ng f*ck*er's well f*ck*d, SIR!" came the reply.
"Right, I will talk to SEngO when I get back!"

A few hours later....

Ring, ring..."Hello, Sqn Ldr (Thrombo) speaking!"
"Ah, Thrombo, just thought you'd like to know that we looked further into your snag and I can report that the f*ck*ng f*ck*er was indeed f*ck*d. Totally, in fact. And my corporal's diagnosis was entirely accurate - now, get f*ck*d yourself!".

Re. airmanship and/or 'Threat and Error Management', I think it's reasonable to assume that the basics can be taught, including the methodology, but that experience further enhances airmanship. Fair enough?

[Pontius Navigator]

Re. airmanship and/or 'Threat and Error Management', I think it's reasonable to assume that the basics can be taught, including the methodology, but that experience further enhances airmanship. Fair enough?

Aye, I once had a snag on the Dominie. It was indeed f*****d. 25 years later I experienced the same fault; no problems, straight into reversionary, no messing.

No amount of classroom talk and chalk could have prepared mme for a fault that would reoccur 25 years on.

[nice castle]

^^^Again, logic defeats an argument, not volume! so stop being offensive.

Beagle, thanks for the reply - the chap obviously was the type of individual I alluded to earlier then:ok:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I bet 10 minutes for the thread he started but I guess the MOD's have not seen this post, it's rather rude but I have some sympathy with the sentiment :p

Bugger the MOD's are bloody sharp on here :ok:

[Wessex Boy]

Training and experience are key elements of airmanship, but the most important is attitude.

You have to want to inhabit and display good airmanship, it doesn't happen by accident....

Oh and being rude to the Ground crew isn't reserved for the officers, although I became very polite to them after I spent a long, lonely hour trying to put the blade-tip tie-downs on a Wessex in a howling Blizzard with a large audience in the warm and dry crew-room - Lesson learnt!:O

[sargs]

Being obnoxious to the groundcrew resulted in a winchman being re-educated in the Falklands, one Christmas Day. They got hold of him, stripped him down, and bodge-taped him to an aluminium ladder. He spent the rest of the day accompanying the GCs to all the parties the other sections threw, mostly propped up in a corner. The boys had thought it through - there was even a "Modesty Hatch" in the front of the tape in case the lad needed to, er, "go".........

[rockiesqiud]

Sideshow. I needed 15 flights because I c"£$ed up a few HF flights. But please feel free to avoid answering my question:ok:. AEOp(S)(B)(desk jockey).

[Sideshow Bob]

rockiesqiud

Morning mate, look at post 18 and post 65, if a GE gained the required licence or completed a recognised flying course to gain dispensation from the ANO and to conform with JSP 550, he would then be an Air Eng, the same as the rest of the ex Techies who are now Air Eng including me (F**ked Back desk Jockey):ok:

[cheesedoff]

Sideshow,

Your argument lacks substance and more importantly, the subtle approach!

He He he

[Sideshow Bob]

I don't think my argument lacks substance; people in the front of plane require licences in civvy street therefore they are required to be aircrew. Passengers in the back of the plane don't need licences in civvy street therefore don't need to be aircrew. Simple really :E

[rockiesqiud]

we're not in civvy street.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

we're not in civvy street.

It's only a matter of timer :ok:

[Sideshow Bob]

It's only a matter of timer

Only another 14 years to go :ok:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Only another 14 years to go :ok:

3 for me then PA 20 and...............................retire :ok:

[14greens]

ahh dont think we have to worry too much
Will have a change of govt in a wee while, they will cut all the procurement stuff thats going on at the mo
FSTA will drop to lets see yeah 3 airplanes, they will extend the VC10 for another 30 years
same with Trimotor and probably buy a couple out of storage in the sand

as for qualifications to be NCA, go do the course if you think you have what it takes!
And yep I did the licence route as well, in fact if its that easy, why not just go straight in the pilots seat, obviously flying is easy from what some people have written on here

[wahwah64]

Well this will shock you......the powers that be have decidced to revert in rank 3 snco's from the AAC, so we now have 3 corporal pilots on the AH programme....how's that for a pat on the back for a job well done in the 'stan!!
:ugh:
And all because they were unable to complete the required course in a 2 year window. A window that included a 9 month CTT, an 8 month CTR, PDT and then 2 Op deployments on Herrick....:eek:

[airborne_artist]

Staff motivation at its best.

Beatings will continue until morale improves. All week-end leave is cancelled.