Navigators in the 21st Century

[Epsilon minus]

Now that we are trying to save some money and that there is some pretty good kit around, isn't it time to bin the navigators?

[Future Hunter]

I assume from that post you're not a Navigator or ever had the good fortune to use one? (fnar fnar).

A GPS is all well and good - but sh*t in, sh*t out, I'm afraid to say! I think I would rather have a mandraulic system and a machine for gross error checking- especially in a tactical aircraft or for fine-cutting oceanics trips.
Also - most aircraft that carry a Nav are the legacy fleets - how easy is it to get a mod through the IPT these days - cutting holes in pressure shells for cables for a GPS aerial is likely to get through well after the OOS date for the platform.

Interesting choice of words 'bin' - I'd be a little careful as there are now a lot of Navs (not just the old and bold) off a certain MPA who have an uncertain future that may involve redundancy and other bad words.

Just remember these guys are professionals as well as the Pilots.
Slightly ranty, but some of my best mates are Navs...:8

[Epsilon minus]

Not sure about the Garbage (better word than Sh*t seeing as how sensitive Navs are). Since Navs disappeared from civilian airliners in the 70s and engineers too for that matter the number of incidents/accidents attributable to the software is minor in comparison to the number of flights without Navs/Flt Engs.
So should we still be carrying these chaps? How much do Navs cost the RAF each year? And the Navy too?

[Epsilon minus]

By the way. Who put HMS Astute on the rocks?

[anotherthing]

The Navy doesn't have Navigators in aircraft, they are Observers. The difference in job spec between a FAA Rotary Obs and an RAF rotary Nav are huge.

[sense1]

Mmm, of all the issues going on in defence post SDSR this one is rather, erm, irrelevant/childish/ a wind up?! .... delete as required!

But to humour such a question.... in order to get rid of the navigators - or Weapon Systems Officers as they are now called (take note of the name - it gives a clue as to how much navigating the back seaters do nowadays!) - you would have to do one of the following....

- Take the GR4 out of service
- Complete a major modification to the GR4 fleet (and I can only imagine how major!) to remove all the systems from the back seat and put em in the front or...
- Just keep things as they are for the next few years until you have a force of Typhoon and JSF as is the plan and then the issue is resolved.

I think that those who are bored enough to read your post - as I am sitting waiting on the snow to melt such that I can escape my house - will go for the latter, as is the plan at the moment anyway.

Innit :ok:

[99 Change Hands]

My GPS's lookout is poor at best and it has never even offered to buy me a beer.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Mmm, of all the issues going on in defence post SDSR this one is rather, erm, irrelevant/childish/ a wind up?! .... delete as required!

But to humour such a question.... in order to get rid of the navigators - or Weapon Systems Officers as they are now called (take note of the name - it gives a clue as to how much navigating the back seaters do nowadays!) - you would have to do one of the following....

- Take the GR4 out of service

What tosh, take the Nav's out and replace them with the many pilots we have looking for places post SDSR, if Nav's can do the job then your avarage pilot will manage it with one hand tied behind his/her back.

- Complete a major modification to the GR4 fleet (and I can only imagine how major!) to remove all the systems from the back seat and put em in the front or...

No need if you put a pilot in the back, plus if they swap between front and rear we double our crewing options whilst getting them up to speed for future platforms.

- Just keep things as they are for the next few years until you have a force of Typhoon and JSF as is the plan and then the issue is resolved.

There is no place for the WSO in the future of aviation so lets start forward thinking now bin the lot of them and move pilots into the few flying posts that Nav's fill at the mo

I think that those who are bored enough to read your post - as I am sitting waiting on the snow to melt such that I can escape my house - will go for the latter, as is the plan at the moment anyway.

Innit :ok:

Doubt it will happen but it's not a difficult concept :ok:

[Wrathmonk]

SFFP

You're right, not a difficult concept (and with tongue firmly in cheek)....

No need if you put a pilot in the back, plus if they swap between front and rear we double our crewing options whilst getting them up to speed for future platforms

In that case shouldn't we get rid of WSO(LM) [or whatever they call it these days] on the C130 / C17 / RW fleets and replace them with pilots so that we increase our crewing options even more.....? Granted a bit more expensive but means we have many more future CAS / AOCs in the system to choose from!;)

There is no place for the WSO in the future of aviation so lets start forward thinking now bin the lot of them and move pilots into the few flying posts that Nav's fill at the mo

If all future manned FJ aircraft are likely to be single seat, and we're buying reduced numbers, then doesn't it make sense to get rid of the excess (Harrier;);)) pilots now and keep the navs doing the job they were trained for otherwise when the GR4 fleet finally folds we will still have an excess of pilots with no single seat cockpits to go to.:ok:

PS - Excellent thread Epsilon! You could have tied it in with the fitness test failures and/or who 'draws' more allowances should get the push and you would have got a full house! And you forgot to mention that anyone drawing CEA should also be shown the door;). All money saving ideas ....

[albatross]

Navigator
The scene is some time in the old era when cockpits had round dials plus flight engineers and navigators. The crusty old-timer captain is breaking in a brand new navigator.

The captain opens his briefcase, pulls out a .38 and rests it on the glare panel. He asks the navigator, "Know what this is for?"

"No, sir," replies the newbie.

"I use it on navigators that get us lost," explains the captain, winking at his first officer.

The navigator then opens his briefcase, pulls out a .45 and sets it on his chart table.

"What's THAT for?" queries the surprised captain.

"Well, sir," replies the navigator, "I'll know we're lost before you will."

[Pontius Navigator]

In 1988 I was on the FJ Navigator Sub-Committee. Our man in the Ministry asked the question, "What is the future of the Navigator branch in the RAF?"

As it was, we thought, his job we were staggered. Now 22 years on Epsilon Minor has repeated the question.

The option for putting pilots into back seats could be seen as akin to 2nd and 3rd pilots in CA. They would need a little bit of enhanced training but not much. Pilots and navs on the F4 in the 60s did the same ground school so what is different?

Sense missed the point, no need to turn GR4s in to single seaters.

Many MPA pilots made a good fist of a tactical plot without the benefit of a tac display.

And the cost saving? Well 55 Sqn could be disbanded. I heard that it is likely that the Dominie will go out of service next year, so the answer is yes, now is probably the time to terminate the WSO specialisation.

[Geehovah]

Cards on the table. Navigator and proud of it.

If the technology works the days of the Navigator are over. No harm in that. We had fun and did a good job in our day. All I'd ask is when will industry deliver a mature weapons system which does what it says in the spec on day 1. Until that happens, 2 people (call them what you will) help fix the problems. OK it'll never happen.........

And before I get the Navigator jokes, bear in mind I spent my life "baby sitting"..... just joshing!

[Epsilon minus]

Navigators
You are all past your sell by date - move on and let the Defence Secretary and the nation save the money and put it towards more hardware ( more pilots?)
I am aware that the Navy doesn't have navigators on aircraft ( though they will soon have aircraft carriers without aircraft) I was thinking about ships.

[Pontius Navigator]

E-, an accurate description now that you are being rude.

[chinook240]

Hey I know - let's send the navs to SH! Oh no, that's right, we already tried that once, didn't last long.

[charliegolf]

Navs and SH- you need at least one to do the compass swings!

CG

Whilst I never asked, just in case, I always thought- how hard can it be?

[Brian 48nav]

Talking to No1 son recently, he told me a mate had said 'your father must be very proud of you'.

'No'says No1.

'Why's that?' says mate.

'I've never captained The Arsenal and played for England' says rugby loving (the swine!) No1.

'But you were a 'Jag Mate' and Test Pilot' says mate.

'Yes, but I never flew with a nav' says No1.

'Ah' I see his point' says mate!!!

[Geehovah]

Of course I could play devils advocate and say with Predator, Global Hawk, The Easy Jet Proposals and UCAV the days of the pilot are numbered.............

So Epsilon Minus, nail your colours to the mast.

[Epsilon minus]

Rude; no. Harsh; yes. It cannot be nice for one to realise that technology has enforced their obscelsence. Yet many have had to bite this bullet and redirect their career paths.
The real nub of this debate, now that it has momentum, is the cockide shape that the 3 services have been left in, whilst operational, as a result of the SDR and that serious consideration should be given to cost savings that could be realised by the replacement of humans with computers.

No offence is intended but serious debate on this subject will be welcomed
EM

[Geehovah]

A weak raise I'd say. Whats your role in life?

[Epsilon minus]

Raise? This isn't a game of cards!
Please confine yourself to the question. Thank you.

[Willard Whyte]

E-

How much to upgrade the flight deck of an E-3D and the GRs?

How much to pay navs to continue in service to fly them?

Which is cheaper?

Of course, this doesn't allow for the time the frames would spend off the flight line.

Anyhoo, a pilot mate once told me he thought the best person to 'fly' a UAV was a nav. I believe a significant proportion of the 'incidents' to date have been due to pilot error on landing, once that duty has been handed over to a black box it might solve that little problem!

[Epsilon minus]

WW
Good point re the cost though it only addresses the now and not the future. As for error I do not agree.

[Geehovah]

Raise? This isn't a game of cards!
Please confine yourself to the question. Thank you.

I'd say if you question my role in life I have right to know your background. Or is this a one sided discussion?

I'd say I made my view reasonably clear.

[Epsilon minus]

G
Oh come on. This concerns the role - the job - not the person. Objectivity please!

[Geehovah]

I'd say someone is somewhat hesitant in being honest

EDIT:
OK I'll guess. Student Pilot or Journalist

[Frustrated....]

If you got rid of all navigators, the pilots would have to do some work pre-flight instead of drinking tea & coffee.

How many pilots can remember how to write a flight plan?

Seriously though, the writing has been on the wall for a while now and once the GR4 fleet is withdrawn, it will not be cost effective to train the odd nav to fly the E3 which will be the only thing left with a nav seat so I guess the job will be done by a 3rd pilot.

[Ivan Rogov]

WW interesting point (relatively) on UAV manning, but surely in these times of hardship the RAF should be using a more cost efficient aircrew option? :}

[Geehovah]

I think the issue is what is a Navigators role?

As a FJ Nav I monitored, supported, worked the weapons system, looked out at the world, called the odd bad guy, stopped us running into other aircraft, supervised, trained..... In a modern airliner that type of role is called the First Officer (minus weapons).

You can train any aircrew chap to do any role including flying the jet. You just need to structure the training. Look at Apache. How much stick time does the front seat guy get? Not much.

Never did use my sextant skills in F4s or F3s. Shame really.

[Epsilon minus]

G
Student pilot - ah happy days.
Journalist :yuk:
I am not the issue here.

[Geehovah]

Like pulling teeth

I assume you've flown with a Nav? This is not a difficult question. Credibility chap!

[Herod]

I was always taught never to look down on navigators, but to ensure my daughter didn't marry one. ;)

[Epsilon minus]

Very good. I married the daughter of one! Not that this fact has influenced the debate!

[Brian 48nav]

You've hit on something I could never understand - by the way I was never a 'dyed in the wool,fully paid up member of the Nav Union' - why did BOAC get rid of Flt Navs in 1963,only to replace them with frustrated pilots sitting in the nav seat? When the VC10 and 707 went out of service late 70s/80 there was a huge surplus of pilots because the aircraft that replaced them only needed 2 pilots. Some of my ex-Herc mates were 'grounded' for 3 years, waiting for their next type! Had they kept navs this would not have happened. Who knows what they,BOAC, spent training reluctant pilots (including exHerc captains) to be navs?

At Lyneham in the early 70s I must have been regarded,certainly by the nav union, as a traitor - I couldn't see why a squadron of 21 crews needed 21 navs. We were only necessary on flights across the Atlantic,Indian Ocean, Pacific etc.In the transport world of those days it would have been much more cost effective to have a cadre of navs trained on all types ie Herc,VC10,Brit,Comet etc and only used on flights within the 'Flight navigator' areas.
I could understand the need for navs in Coastal and on the V-Force, and in the latter case the 'Black Buck' missions of the Falklands War proved that.

As for Astro,once the periscopic sextant came into use no particular skill was needed,provided the calculations were correct.

No 1 son told me he lost count of the number of times he 'bounced', or whatever modern terminology is,a Tornado - nav or no-nav!

Its an interesting subject; I've often heard civil pilots complaining about their workload in a busy ATC environment,and my suggestion that what is needed is a third crew member to monitor,maybe a cross between a nav and a flight engineer, is met with incredulity.

I also find it strange that long haul airliners now have 4 pilots to perform the task (all logging the hours,even in the bunk, I suppose!), where the early 747s etc made do with a crew of 3 - OK i know its because of crew-duty hours - but it doesn't seem a forward step.

Back to my beer, Brian W

[Pontius Navigator]

As for Astro,once the periscopic sextant came into use no particular skill was needed,provided the calculations were correct.

The skill required for a V-Force 5-7-9 shot fix was rather more than a 3-star point and shoot. Both navs worked pretty steadily with the shooter checking the calculations of the plotter both before and after the shots.

A casio mini-computer OTOH did away with all that once programmed.

Back to the debate though, most nav functions can be done by a pilot. No need to rebuild a GR4 or E3, just make sure the GIB as a full set of wings. They may get frustrated but no more than a copilot.

But Epsilon while a navigators day has about gone, the pilots will not be what it was soon either. Truck drivers to take the UAVs out and even fly a UAV operator, but your stick jockey's days are numbered too.

[sense1]

Epsilon minus...

I never fail to be entertained by threads such as these, and usually I just peruse them with a bit of a grin on my face :) But what the hell - I'm bored so I shall throw in a few thoughts.

It strikes me that (and forgive me for winding you up but...) you seem really quite excited about this issue, I thought I would inquire as to why you give a s**t about this?! Now, harsh you have admitted to being but I am gonna throw my hand out there (do you like the continuation of the card game theme?!) and guess that you are either a tad frustrated in the old bing bang wollop side of life or you are a Harrier pilot, oops I meant used to be a Harrier pilot and are jealous that navigators, WSOs, whatever went flying in jets today and you didn't??! :}

I can't wait for you to confirm or deny.....:E

[Union Jack]

By the way. Who put HMS Astute on the rocks?

Another thing that is not the issue here, E Minus, is that, contrary to your implication, my understanding is that Special Sea Dutymen were not closed up in ASTUTE and that, therefore, the Navigator (aka "Pilot" in the original meaning of the word) was probably not responsible.:ok:

So, until proved otherwise, perhaps it would be best if you confine your rant to the matter of light blue type navigators .......:)

Jack

[Epsilon minus]

PN
Spot on. But Airforces wholly equipped with unmanned aircraft is a long way off. Putting an unmanned aircraft onto the deck of a pitching aircraft carrier will be a challenge! But what about the interim? Should we not move now to realise the huge cost savings of automating the role of the military navigator both in the air and on the sea?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Epsilon minus...

or you are a Harrier pilot, oops I meant used to be a Harrier pilot and are jealous that navigators, WSOs, whatever went flying in jets today and you didn't??! :}

I can't wait for you to confirm or deny.....:E

I have no idea what he is or was but if he was a Harrier pilot do you seriously think he is even remotely jealous that he did not go flying as a Nav today........................now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house :p

[Justanopinion]

Geehovah

Epsilon minus is something to do with flight ops/flight dispatcher in the civilian world (impressive eh?).

Epsilon minus in answer to your question - a small amount of research would reveal that the navigator branch no longer exists. As for saving money on WSO training - yep, in the future it will be a saving.

[Epsilon minus]

UJ
I guess we should wait for wikileaks to disclose the facts on this particular navigational error. :bored:

[kitwe]

As a former fast jet nav, I agree that advances in avionics have meant that the navigator's role in the future RAF will disappear. What E- appears not to have considered, in the case of the GR4, is that the queue of pilots wanting to fill the back seats of GR4s is likely to be rather short. Since most GR4s are single-stick, the rear seat pilots would, presumably, not be permitted to log their flying as pilot hours. How popular would that be?

[charliegolf]

SFFP,

Time for you to wise up mate. If E- was a Harrier jock, he'd have told us by now!:ok:

CG

[Justanopinion]

Seldomfitforpurpose

I have no idea what he is or was but if he was a Harrier pilot do you seriously think he is even remotely jealous that he did not go flying as a Nav today........................now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

As an ALM at Brize Norton your seat isn't exactly the best seat in the house is it? At least the 'nav' has a better view out of the window, jealous or not.

[Justanopinion]

Really annoyed

At 53 years old i doubt it ......

[airpolice]

If E- was a Harrier jock, he'd have told us by now


Very good, very good indeed.


:D:D:D:D:D

[Wrathmonk]

Geehovah

Judging by his post history E- is not current mil (and may never have been but like he says its not about him!) .... used to fly for BCal ..... they ceased operations over 20 years ago .... assuming he's still working it may be that he's in flight ops these days ....:E And I know, I need to get a life!

Still, he's getting some good nibbles - and I'd love to be a fly on the wall were the Harrier jocks were ever to be told they are being re-roled as GR4 navigators!!!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Really annoyed

At 53 years old i doubt it ......


At 53 and on PA not sure I really need to have a future on all types :p:p:p

[alisoncc]

So what happens when the Global Positioning System goes to La-La land. In any major conflict it would take very very little to render the whole system unuseable. Going by recent reports relating to Chinese computers and PLC's running the UK's and US's power distribution networks, what's the betting they are also being used to control the GPS satellites. One internet packet from Beijing and all the satellites switch off. What then?

[bast0n]

Navy - Observers - Crabs - Navigators


Is there a difference?

Looking up Observer in the OED it states "Interested bystander" and one of those words is clearly wrong........................:O

[threeputt]

This is from his web site.

Epsilon Minus is Bogart Shwadchuck.
My name's Bogart, I live in Canada, and I make things with computers. In grade school, I played guitar. In high school, I started messing with mod trackers. I picked up a drum machine, a couple of synths, a 4-track, and started messing around. Eventually, I ended up making EBM dance tracks. In 2000, I hooked up with Jennifer Parkin and wrote an album (Epsilon Minus). Released it on Alfa Matrix in 2002. We began working on a second album (Mark II), and I decided 1/4 way through to go on alone. It was still EBM dance, but experimented with alternate directions. Finished the album, released it on Alfa Matrix in 2003.
I've just finished my third album, Reinitialized. It completes a transition out of formula EBM dance into Trance/Techno/IDM territory, but maintaining some elements of EBM. Collaborations with guest vocalists infuse the singles with fresh energy. Reinitialized features vocals by:
Kristy Venrick of The Azoic on "Forever More"
Martha M. Arce of Distorted Reality on "Shattered"
Eric Oehler of Null Device on "The Road To Hell"
Ned Kirby of Stromkern on "Burden"
The instrumentals explore various approaches to beat-driven electronica. Elements of psytrance, techno, breakbeat, IDM, ambient, and synthpop combined in densely packed arrangments. Some focus on rhythmic progression, others on intricate melodies. All are extremely conducive to jumping around and doing the nasty. The album is due out on Alfa Matrix in early 2004.
I work with Macintosh computers. I am currently wringing new sounds out of Reason, Metasynth, ReBirth, Live, Cubase 5, SonicWORX PowerBundle, VocalWriter, and T-RackS. On the hardware end, I use a Yamaha AN1x, and Roland V-Drums. I monitor with Tannoy Reveals, and input/output via 2 Behringer MX602A mixers. My Mac is a Blue/white G3 tower. My microphone is a Rode NT-2.
With the exception of the recording of vocals by collaborators, all of whom I work with entirely via internet, all aspects of Epsilon Minus are my work. Songs, sounds, programming, recording, mixing, mastering, artwork, website, etc.



3P:ok:

[Wrathmonk]

3P

The website (and the photos) don't tie in with his "airline history". Suspect that may be his son (or grandson:E) instead ...... or even someone completely random!

[Willard Whyte]

Good point re the cost though it only addresses the now and not the future.

Well it does if one compares the cost difference between paying navs to fly and paying them a pension against the cost of an avionics upgrade, both spread over the expected life of the frame in question.

Finding the money up front for an upgrade could be tricky though, and would, I suspect, take several years to reach service.

How many years has Tonka got left? 10 at a push? Could take 5 years for a fully capable avionics upgrade to hit the streets. Ain't gonna happen methinks.

Maybe they should pitch it to the current or next aerosystems course for their end-of-term presentation?

The E-3 should soldier on until '25. Again I doubt whether an upgrade would be in the offing unless it's extended beyond that date, which will probably happen but not get the green light for several years.

I'm pretty sure that a pilot could be trained on an ocu to do the job of a nav, certainly on E-3s, but there would be little to be gained, and much to be lost, by replacing existing navs with them.

[Bob Viking]

Whether on GR4, E3 or any aircraft with navigators, putting a pilot in their seat could be beneficial. Having a flexible system whereby a guy can turn up for work and be programmed to fly in either seat is not only good for increasing awareness of the aircraft systems but could also mean that anyone could do each job and therefore increase crew availability. This could mean a net decrease in the number of personnel and the abolition of an entire training system.
I'm just amazed we haven't done it sooner!
BV:oh:
PS. While we're discussing flying pay on other threads is it sensible to pay pilots and navigators the same?;)

[Willard Whyte]

They don't get paid the same above a certain level of PA-ness.

[Biggus]

BV,

No, but the pilots would object if they got paid less than the navs!;)

WW,

After the last AFPRB your comments are only partly correct! :=

[Willard Whyte]

Owt to do with the presence of a scraper?

I pretty much ignore that kind of thing.

[Biggus]

WW,

I believe legacy rules apply, i.e. if you're already in the system the old rules will apply if you would be penalized under the new ones, and no doubt you are old enough for this not to be an issue for you personally, however......


My understanding of the new PAS pay spine is that Flt Lt pilots (as well as navs) will in future be limited to level 30, with Sqn Ldr Navs being able to reach level 33 and only Sqn Ldr pilots getting to the very top of the spine.

[Biggus]

To reply to the initial comment from E-, navs are being binned by the RAF, just maybe not as fast as he would like.

Like Air Eng, it is now pretty much a dead trade. In a few years time the C-130K and VC-10 will have gone, and the only navs left (IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS) will be on GR4, E-3D and the training system. Of these:

GR4 will be gone in the next 5-10 years, if manning get their act right they will ensure there are already enough FJ navs in the system to last that long.

E-3D might last a bit longer, with a few navs if they have not been replaced by technology, or a 3rd pilot(I believe a US E3 mid life update took out the nav many years ago - but am willing to be corrected).

Training. Either training will go to the civil sector under MFTS, or the RAF will decide it already has enough navs in the system to meet its requirements for the next 10 years. After all, Air Eng training has stopped, and there are still Air Engs on the E-3D for the next 10 years (replaced by a 3rd/4th pilot?). I believe the RAF has only been recruiting navs on short service commissions for some time now.

Whichever way you look at it, the RAF requirement for navs will be almost non existant in 10 years, with a marked drop (i.e. "binning") well before then.

So E-, to return to my original comment in this post, the RAF will be "binning" its navs in the near future - just maybe not as fast as you would like!

Oh yes, and for what it is worth, they are supposedly now WSOs not Navs. :=

[heights good]

"How many pilots can remember how to write a flight plan?"

I am sure if a crewman can manage it then a pilot will cope :E

[heights good]

"now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house "

They have stopped commissioned crewmen now, only the chosen few non-commissioned can get the best seat in the house :p

50' on the ramp..... Nothing comes close :E

[charliegolf]

50' on the ramp..... Nothing comes close

Wouldn't 40', or 35' or ... you get my drift, be closer?

CG

[FireAxe]

Sorry CG but it would be 40 then 30 as we all know there is no 35 in VM!
Ok I'll get my windproof(coat) ;)

[Geehovah]

"now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house ....."http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

I tried. Having just retired I've reverted to private flying after a 30+ year gap. Sadly the taxiway from the flying club (at a well known ISTAR hub in Lincolnshire) is blocked. the runway may be clear but no puddle jumpers approved.

[iRaven]

OK I've resisted posting for long enough!

What a load of drivel I've seen posted. Yes, Pilots could do the back-seat job after an OCU (where's the saving in that?) and on some ISTAR types a bit of mission systems training (like EW beeps and squeeks - oddly enough they don't get that going through Pilot training!).

I would argue that with about 50-100hrs on Tucano learning the "close-formation stuff" most FJ Navs could turn their hand to flying Tornado/Typhoon - again after an OCU for their chosen type. The F3 force learned this in the mid-90s when they took some 2nd tour Navs and gave them some dual-check assessments - they could fly the jet jest fine but when it came to close-formation they were a flipping liability! In fact I've seen Navs in twick stickers (Hawks, Tornado and Typhoon) wax some pretty good FJ Pilots in my time at live-flying ACM. To become a co-pilot on a ME type would take a similar 50-100hrs of ME-type trg and then onwards to an OCU (isn't that a MEXO or Multi-Eng Crossover in old money?).

But, why bother? We will have quite a few jobs for Navs (read WSOs) on the following for the foreseeable future (ISD to OSD in brackets):

Tornado GR4 (1982? - 2018) As WSOs and currently Sqn Cdrs!
MQ-9 Reaper (2007 - end of Op Herrick 2015 but expect gap-filler to SCAVENGER) WSOs as some Sensor Operators (mix WSO/WSOp) and currently Sqn Cdr!
Project SCAVENGER UAS/RPAS (2017+ to 2030+) WSOs expected in as yet selected type (either as pilots or sensor ops!) and Sqn Cdrs
RC-135 RIVET JOINT (2011 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - new Sqn Cdr will be a WSO!
Sentry AEW1 (1992 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - OCU Sqn Cdr is WSO!
Sentinel R1 (2007 - 2015?) WSOs as Mission Commanders and currently Sqn Cdr
Shadow R1 (2009 - 2015+) WSOs as some Sensor Operator (WSO/WSOp mix)
MRA4 Capability Replacement (????) Expect that this may come under SCAVENGER but if not then will need WSOs.

Now here's another thing. If we end canx JCA order for F-18 then it will probably be the F-18E/F/G and two of these are 2 seat - it would make a lot of sense to buy these as the "F" is far better for night IMC strike and the "G" is 2 seat for a reason as the "GROWLER" mission is too complex for one person (ask a lot of CJ drivers when things get busy!).

In summary, I wouldn't rule out the WSO just yet...it's just that we won't be training Vulcan Navigators as we have been doing on the dear old Dominie T1 for the past 30 years!

iRaven

[Lima Juliet]

iRaven

To pick up on your post

To become a co-pilot on a ME type would take a similar 50-100hrs of ME-type trg and then onwards to an OCU (isn't that a MEXO or Multi-Eng Crossover in old money?).


Isn't that the same as the JAR/EASA MPL(A)? See this link in the latest CAA LASORS http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%20K%20-%20MULTI-CREW%20PILOT%20LICENCE.pdf

Why not train WSOs to fly in the right hand seat of ME types with the 30-90 hours of flying for MPL(A)? Now that really is a cost saving over the standard Pilot route!

Finally, before all the ME dudes throw their hands up in horror, the CAT world is beginning to embrace the idea of MPL(A) in order to save money as well - take a look at this thread http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/372922-flybe-mpl-oxford-commences-1-september-2009-a.html

Things are a changing, so move with the times.

LJ :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

I don't know why WW keeps harping on about upgrades (degrades?) etc when as I said and BV agreed, a pilot could simply be seated in the old Nav/WSO seat.

[The B Word]

PN

If only it were that simple! The pilots would still need an OCU to "Simply be seated in the old Nav/WSO seat".

Unless of course you really did mean "Simply"!!!

The B Word

[Willard Whyte]

Well, Pontius, the original post mentioned replacing navs with "kit". Whilst this may refer to a person named Kit the impression is that the op meant black-box type kit, and not of the Nicole Scherzinger variety.

I would add that the value of a trained navigator became apparent when the E-3 planning system went a bit pete tong a while back, they finally had to fall back on some core skills, those that had them anyway.

Anyhoo, if you read my post I would draw your attention to the last para, where I wrote:

I'm pretty sure that a pilot could be trained on an ocu to do the job of a nav...

So don't tell me to "stop harping on" and get back in yer pine box.

[Montrealguy]

Since Navs disappeared from civilian airliners in the 70s and engineers too for that matter

You forgot the Radio Operators. I knew and old guy in my early days in aviation who had been a morse code radio operator on a military piston. He would Morse Code the aircraft's position reports on long flights........

[Brian 48nav]

I think the Dominie was first used to train navs in 1966; if its still there I reckon that's 44 years.

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, apologies.

Brian, yes, I was there :)

On the OASC thread an ex-wannabee has put up a signpost to the end.

[Epsilon minus]

Good afternoon,
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup ?
Regards
EM or E- (as you prefer)

[Justanopinion]

Good afternoon,
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup

E - Nav branch no longer exists and the WSO branch will eventually go - as per my previous post.

Perhaps writing to your local MP may help answer your questions ref defence cuts as we, the current serving members of the military, haven't a scooby.

[Tankertrashnav]

When we graduated from 2ANS (Varsities) to 1ANS (Dominies) the impression we gained was that we were moving from the past in the form of the old, slow, noisy Varsities to the future, represented by shiny new Dominies (1969 in my case, so only 3 years old).

Its chastening to realise that those same Dominies are still flying (as far I can tell) and are now more than twice as old as those "ancient" Varsities we left behind at Gaydon and which had only a few years left to fly.

Cant see what all the fuss is about retraining navs as pilots - I managed it ok. After all if you can fly a Cessna 172 I'm sure a Typhoon shouldn't be much of a problem ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

E-, your antecedents are important as journalists have been know to get information under pretext and then distort it. It is not aimed at you but applied in general.

Your American cargo operator obviously felt it could release its FEs cheaply and save money in conversion. Aside from the regular redundancy programmes, I have lost count, it in unusual (I have never heard of it) to get rid of a particular job by modifiying out of it. C130K->C130J is a simple new aircraft programme deleting the nav on the way.

To remove navs from legacy aircraft by modifying the aircraft may seem an obvious move but the cost for modifying a Tornado and paying redundancy is probably more expensive than withdrawing the aircraft in 10 years time.

You mentioned the GR4-GR9 issue. In another post I suggested that retention of the GR9 made far more sense as the WSO(N) could be removed root and branch. While we retained the GR4 it would seem the WSO(N) training system, as we know it, might disappear within a year.

[Ivan Rogov]

E- it is understandable that the Navs may feel threatened after your opening remarks

Now that we are trying to save some money and that there is some pretty good kit around, isn't it time to bin the navigators?

maybe it would be fairer to ask if we were manning all our platforms efficiently with the appropriate ranks and trades, or are we still trying to sustain certain branches instead of doing the right thing?

[Pontius Navigator]

The B Word, I was not implying no OCU for pilot backenders simply (:)) that they could do the OCU when the supply of WSO petered out.

Simply in the sense that the poster posts them there. It could actually be a real money saver as pilots that can fly but not that well could gain additional post FTS training.

Without naming names, the Vulcan was often described as a 4-engined Jet Provost that could bring copilots on to become responsible adults. There were a number where that did not work :}

[tarbaby]

Just like to say that there is a fair degree of arrogance shown by saying that a navigator had to have been a chopped pilot, T'aint necessarily so.

[airpolice]

I think the word "chopped" here is possibly the problem with the statement.

I am confident that most people offered a job in the front seat with a stick would prefer that to sitting in the back with a map/ weapon console/ radar display/ interactive suite of comms devices.

There may well be some who have joined the RAF in order to carry out that role, but I suspect that most people offered that job of nav/wso were not offered Pilot as well. In the event of being offerd both, I don't see a lot of people chosing Nav instead of Pilot.

I am confident that this is a common view, right or wrong. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would make such a choice at the AFCO or in the early stages of training. Being told you can not be a Pilot, but can still fly in fast jets, would be the way to keep people in the system and fill the seats that did need filled at the time.

When I joined up at 16½ I was nowehere near good enough for a Commission so the idea of being either was never raised. That does not make me a chopped pilot, but does put me lower down the "public perception pecking order" of aviators, just like Navigators.

[Tankertrashnav]

I think you've got it bang on, Airpolice, I was turned down for pilot training because of eyesight, so went down the nav route instead. Must admit I was somewhat peeved a few years later when on my one and only flight in a Lightning T4 the pilot reached into his pocket at the holding point and put on a pair of specs!

Not that I'm saying I'd have hacked Lightnings, mind you, but it would have been nice to have been given a crack at pilot training in the first instance. Never mind, Cessnas are fun :ok:

[airpolice]

TTN, I know what you mean. I was sure my eyesight would be an issue so I suspect it was the nice let down forth AFCO staff to tell me I could not be a Pilot because of that rather than tell me I was not the right sort of chap. (This was in 1973 remember)

A few years into my service I worked with an ex lightining guy who was teaching on 4FTS and his eyesight had just gone, overnight, and the medics got him specs. He only wore them for flying, what fun we had with students and a white stick for the QFI.

One day he spoke to the SMO for me and got me Aircrew specs with the tinfoil legs, so I could wear them under a bone dome while flying.

Terry G, where are you now?

[KeyPilot]

I have just been to the RAF recruitment website for the first time ever (where they have images of the GR9!).

I noticed that WSO is not listed as a "job" now. Has the RAF formally stopped recruiting, as this suggests? If so, is there a date for the Nav training (Dominies etc.) to be wound down? And - how is it proposed to fill the (small) requirement for navs on the legacy platforms which will still need them long into the future, as a past post indicated?

[Pontius Navigator]

Airpolice, I disagree with TTN. I was offered pilot but pushed instead for nav. My nav scores were higher as well.

When I ran my nav course I had just 7 studes. Five were chopped pilots; two were straight through navs. Only the straight through navs passed straight through and only one of the chopped pilots after a recourse. The straight through navs were, when I last heard gp capt and wg cdr. The Chopped pilot/nav left 15 years ago as a flt lt.

Also the two straight through navs were the only ones out of 6 that had been awarded preliminary flying badges.

[airpolice]

As I said,

There may well be some who have joined the RAF in order to carry out that role, but I suspect that most people offered that job of nav/wso were not offered Pilot as well. In the event of being offerd both, I don't see a lot of people chosing Nav instead of Pilot.


So..... at the start of your course, most of the Nav Students were chopped Pilots.

Having had a taste for it and then been chopped, I'd expect their motivation to be sapped. Straight through, dyed in the wool Navs on the other hand would be living the dream and therefore mentally in a better place to succeed.


Your course may or may not be representative of RAF over the years, but I think the offer of nav to those not quite good enough for Pilot has been consistent all along.

So it is easy to see why some people would think that all Navs are failed Pilots. In a random group of Navs, there may well be a statistical probability that they would be failed, or chopped, Pilots.

Let me just emphasise that being so would not make them bad people.

[Pontius Navigator]

AP, I see where you are coming from (typical nav trait? :)). It was true in the 60s too with, at a guess, 30% of the course being comprised of chopped pilots and probably correctly, by your reckoning, a number that did not have the aptitude at the outset.

[Tankertrashnav]

There was a guy on our nav course who was a chopped pilot, and who subsequently got chopped from the nav course as well. He subsequently joined the FAA as a pilot, then the Israeli Air Force, the R. Rhodesian Air Force and then ventured into a career as a mercenary. He probably ended up as one of the most experienced combat pilots in the world - certainly the only pilot I know who has flown Mirages, Mig 21s, Hueys and Vampires in combat (among many others)! No doubt those responsible for chopping him at both FTS and Nav school had their reasons, but I cant help thinking that the system must have been imperfect to have let a pilot like that slip through the RAF's hands.

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, OQs spring to mind.

Would Bader have passed today?

[Geehovah]

Its a fair point about how we ended up in the back seat

In my case it was supply and demand although I had no idea at the time. I joined after the cull in the early 70s. As I went through training I had no idea that many experienced aircrew had just been made redundant although that wasn't the term used at the time. I went through Henlow. Of my Officer entry which was 80 strong, there were 2 pilots and 6 navs, one of whom was me. One of the pilots became CINC Air Cmd and the other led the Reds. The remainder were ground trades. At that time I didn't question the balance although within a few years, although smaller entries, the numbers were almost 50/50. As I moved through Nav training, 80% went heavies. As we went through the mill quite a few "chopped pilots" joined the course. Again I had no yardstick so it seemed normal. Without labouring the point, the system looks at the numbers it needs; it looks at the aptitude of people coming through and allocates slots. Some cast iron "pilot aces" may not even make the grade if the system has a backlog at the time. Simple supply and demand.

Do we need a comprehensive Nav training programme for the future? No. The advice I've given the two local youngsters who are now going through training as pilots was hang out for what you want.

In my case do I have regrets? Hell no. I was probably a much better fast jet Nav than I would ever have achieved in the front of a fast jet. Even if I'd made it through Chivenor! No sour grapes. Loved what I did but I would never recommend my former profession for a youngster now.

[Pontius Navigator]

is there a date for the Nav training (Dominies etc.) to be wound down? And - how is it proposed to fill the (small) requirement for navs on the legacy platforms which will still need them long into the future, as a past post indicated?

A photog who frequents these boards has told me, from a reliable source, that the Dom goes next year.

The Dom output, as you correctly state, is dedicated to legacy platforms in particular the Tornado. The F3 is all but gone and the GR4 has plenty of navs in the system. You can guess that they won't be in the redundancy bracket.

Similarly C130K, VC10 and E3 will have enough in the short term. In the longer term for the E3 a suitable enhanced training course could equip a pilot to have his brains reamed out for flying small circles in the sky.

There have been many examples where post-graduate training has started with an elaborate training system before ending up as a simply enhanced OCU. I am thinking initially of the 12-month NBS course for V-Force Nav rads that became 4-months and involved 70 odd hours in the Hastings before finally direct employment on the Vs, and ultimately on the Victor where one nav did the lot.

An expensively trained pilot can be trained to operate the nav kit on the legacy platforms and operate the GR4 to its full capability.

RIP Navs

[PURPLE PITOT]

21st century navs are not trained. They are manufactured by honeywell/garmin et al.

[Wensleydale]

In the longer term for the E3 a suitable enhanced training course could equip a pilot to have his brains reamed out for flying small circles in the sky


Indeed, at Geilenkirchen, some of the "navigators" posted to the E-3A from certain NATO Nations are pilots - navs not being trained as such.

[BEagle]

I am thinking initially of the 12-month NBS course for V-Force Nav rads that became 4-months and involved 70 odd hours in the Hastings before finally direct employment on the Vs, and ultimately on the Victor where one nav did the lot.

Flying a V-bomber with someone who'd done the NBS course gave the crew a distinct edge if there was a partial NBS failure.

It was only after about 1977 that the NBS courses ended, mainly because of the cost of supporting the Hastings used on the flying part of the course, if I recall correctly.

A single nav was only ever adopted in the Victor tanker - there was never any proposal to fly single nav for the Vulcan's low level bombing role and it always took a brace of them to keep the steaming black dustbins happy.

It will be interesting to see how FSTA copes, given some of the rumours going around about the manning proposed for the ARO's seat.

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, agree. In the short term, while we still have pilots :}, I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.

I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.

Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.

Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.

[Tankertrashnav]

TTN, OQs spring to mind.




Yes you're probably right, he was a very clever chap who didnt suffer fools - not always the best policy for a PO dealing with a wing commander!

Re the single nav on Victor Tankers just to clarify this only happened quite late on, sometime in the 80's, I think. One difference on tankers was that the navs periodically swapped seats for a sortie, principally so that the nav rads' nav skills (such as they were) didn't get too rusty. Dont think this happened on tin triangles, but I stand to be corrected.

[Brian 48nav]

As I said on the thread 'I honestly didn't want to be a pilot', I wanted to be a navigator. I was told by my South Cerney Flt Cdr,after I had asked,that my nav aptitude was very high and my pilot aptitude only just acceptable (Biggin told him the results), so was happy to go the nav route.
I was on 88 course and to the best of my recall, from 82-94 courses there was only one chopped pilot, who IIRC had also been chopped from 'Towers' as had a 'nav' student.
I heard on the grapevine that several navs on succeeding courses later trained as pilots in the RAF including Graham Finch,Alex Nash and Arthur Lofthouse - Graham and Arthur became airline captains.
Several navs on earlier courses left the RAF and gained CPLs - Doug Marshall,John Morgan, my school chum Dave Bryant (74 course) who finished his career as a Singapore 747 skipper.
To say every navigator is a chopped or frustrated pilot is as erroneous as the idea that all airframe drivers are frustrated FJ jockeys.In the early days of the Herc I knew of many pilots who right from FTS had made it clear they wanted to fly transports, as they intended to take their 8 year options (the old DEC B commission) - a couple had even threatened to resign if their Valley/Gnat posting wasn't changed to Oakington/Varsity!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BEagle, agree. In the short term, while we still have pilots :}, I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.

I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.

Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.

Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.

Sorry but if you were to visit a modern day 2 man flight deck and see just how much spare capacity the two pilots have you would very quickly see just how out of date your notions are.

[StopStart]

On the off chance that we (the RAF) ever start taking the more "esoteric" aspects of TacAT flying a little more seriously then I do believe that there may well come a time that we would benefit from having an additional person on the flightdeck (sorry SFFP!). AFSOC are procuring their MC130Js with additional crew stations on the flightdeck and rightly so. I don't see them being traditional navigators in the turn-left-here/I-stink-of-wee sort of way but, as PN says, more a mission systems operator. Weapon systems, EO kit and a bit of mission co-ord would all be better run from a third crew station.

The important thing with something like the J, however, is that it is designed as a 2 man flightdeck - once you start overly tinkering around with the fundamentals of the 2-person dynamic thats when things start to come apart at the seams a bit. I've done plenty of very high workload operational TacAT flying as part of a 2 person flightdeck crew and it's all perfectly do-able. Once additional systems and mods come in however it would be foolish to think that the workload would remain manageable. The 2 person concept works through systems integration and effective presentation of information to the crew. As a realist I know full well that any new systems we procure will generally be the usual crap bodges of screens and panels stuck randomly around the flightdeck and will be about as integrated an Englishman living in Spain. To safely manage that we will probably need an extra set of hands and eyes of the flightdeck (be that Pilot, WSO or WSOp). How his/her workload is delineated is important and would be very different to that of say, a nav on the K.

As I said though, this is all a little moot. Until the Typhoon can carry a couple of 7 tonne MVs into an unlit dirt strip or dispatch 50 troops from 25000ft 20 miles from their DZ the RAF will not entertain a grown up attitude towards the more esoteric aspects of TacAT. And because of that, I don't imagine a third flight deck position will ever get funded on our Js. :hmm:

[BEagle]

Most modern airliners are certificated for 2 pilot operation in a benign IFR environment whilst carrying the great unwashed to holiday destinations or to carry rubber dog-poo out of Hong Kong. They usually manage this without hitting each other or the ground.

Modern large military transports, such as C-17 and C-130J add the requirements of combat tactical air operations to this. Given a well-trained crew plus good kit with well-designed HMI, again, probably not a great problem.

However, the problem comes in the AAR world with managing the unexpected whilst still getting on with the original mission. You cannot have one pilot head-in re-programming the mission system and the other refuelling the receivers, with no-one looking out of the cockpit (remember La Grand Riviere, 1 Aug 1994?), minding the ECAMs or keeping an ATC watch..... Of course, if everything goes as planned, there are no delays, no tanker or receiver unserviceabilities, no ATC problems, the weather is benign throughout and there's plenty of fuel available, then you probably could manage with just 2 pilots and a good Mission Computer System.

But that isn't always the case......

Fortunately, the Atlas is fitted with a 3rd crew position. For all the good reasons Stoppers states.

Who would I suggest for the FSTA ARO seat? From the experience of others, an ex-FJ backseater or an ex-C130 tactical navigator, either of whom normally has sufficient skill and enthusiasm for a new role and has a sound background in air navigation and systems monitoring. Would an ex-Air Eng be capable? Most probably yes, but additional navigation training might be needed first - and the RAF doesn't seem to be keen to do that for much longer. An ex-ALM? From what other nations very soon learned, frankly I doubt it. The right person, perhaps - but finding him/her wouldn't be easy.

[cazatou]

SFFP

If you had been able to visit the 2 pilot Flight Deck of a mid to late 1970's 32 Sqn HS125 that was without any of today's modern Nav aids, just ADF, VOR/DME and Doppler, you would have found that a fairly busy environment as well, particularly in some of the foreign CTZ's they used to visit.

The rear crew member would be an SAC or SACW (Acting Cpl) to look after the VIP's (although they generally supervised refuelling as well as organising Catering/Customs Clearance etc).

[Cannonfodder]

The FSTA MSO seat WILL be filled by an NCA WSOp.
This is a fact that ACOS manning and the respective SO2 desk officers are aware of.
It does not matter what the old crustys on this forum think of putting an ALM/ENG/AEOp in the MSO seat. In my experience they are just as capable if not more so that many Navs out there.

[camelspyyder]

CF
That isn't exactly what was said last month around the time of the WSOp Ldrs Conference.
I think the exact quote was "AT LEAST the first 7 slots on A330 are being filled by WSO's...":hmm:

CS

[airpolice]

Guys, Last month we had a plan.... this month we have a new plan ...whatever.

By the time the aircraft gets cancelled they will have made it a job for an SAC acting (unpaid) SGT, with Flying Pay and there will have been loads of applicants who will then need to have jobs found for them.

Wherever they end up, they can be sure to have an ex-nav as their boss.

Cannonfodder, are you referring to Lord Beagle as an Old Crusty?:ooh:

[Geehovah]

But don't forget you can train anyone to do any job (including flying an aircraft) if you give enough hours. In my time the issue wasn't whether you could get someone through the syllabus, it was how much flex the system allowed for remedial. Sad but true. You can train a monkey.............. Some monkeys then require a tad more supervision. This relates to pilots, navs, AEOs or whoever.

[Pontius Navigator]

SFFP, I would agree that a T* is not a modern 2-man cockpit but I was there on a first mission sortie as a mission specialist. OK?

[KeyPilot]

To try to make sense of some earlier information:

- Ab initio nav training ends 2011 (source: PN's source)
- GR4 OSD 2018 (source: an earlier poster; seems reasonable)
- GR4 OCU stands down 2016 (source: KeyPilot assumption - platform OSD minus 2 years)

=> where does the supply of new navs to the GR4 OCU come from during 2011-2016? Thoughts?

[Pontius Navigator]

KP, what has happened before with V-force nav rads when their bombing school closed they were posted directly to the OCU. On the Javelin in the 50s they had a trade of Radar Operator with, I believe, direct entry to the cockpit.

It might be feasible to post someone directly to the GR4 out of Cranwell. However there will be sufficient fast-jet navs in the system for them to be employed or transferred to the GR4. It might be a racing certainty that there willbe few compulsory redundancies amongst fast-jet navs. There will also be the 'resting' instructors on 55.

[Tankertrashnav]

Reluctant as I am to correct such a highly experienced (and venerable ;)) navigator as PN, I think the correct term for the guys that sat in the back of Javelins was Radar Observer. These chaps wore the 'RO' brevet, which had first been introduced during WW2, and which is frequently misidentified as 'Radio Operator', an aircrew category which never existed under that name. The scheme was fairly short lived, and those who could pass the nav course were reclassified as navigators and switched to the 'N' brevet

[goudie]

These guys wore the 'RO' brevet,

Recall seeing three Sergeants wearing this Brevet, in a pub in Cambridge, in the early '60's.
They were from Waterbeach

[Pontius Navigator]

I think the correct term for the guys that sat in the back of Javelins was Radar Observer.

Flattery will get you anywhere, you are of course correct, in mitigation it was 50 years ago.

The scheme was fairly short lived, and those who could pass the nav course were reclassified as navigators and switched to the 'N' brevet

We had one on our course. He had had the most attrocious Brummie accent and had been told the only way to get commision was to speak proper like. He had elocution lessons; certainly worked. He was commissioned and then did the nav course, 39 or 40 at a guess. I met him years later when we organised an airshow. He was a spec aircrew sqn ldr.

Also on our initial course we had a chap with an M brevet as well as a couple of S. The former was Chalky White but I think he went pilot as I never saw him again.

[Brian 48nav]

Jefford's book 'Observers and Navigators' pg 214 refers to 'radio observers',some 100 of whom were trained in 56/57.
I met 2 of them in civil ATC.

[Tankertrashnav]

Jefford's book 'Observers and Navigators' pg 214 refers to 'radio observers'


Committing an error to print does not mean it ceases to be an error, I'm pretty sure the correct term was 'radar observer'.

However I don't think I should labour the point - the prospect of two elderly navs arm wrestling to settle it is not an appealing one ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

I found the following which sorts out the Radio Operator bit; it was a secret blind for the real job of radar operator.

The Royal Air Force 1939-45 - Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iHzWAjDrlb0C&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=what+was+the+raf+ro+brevet&source=bl&ots=Z8x3k5NuOQ&sig=yARrwK5PlWJCR2OtampIz612mrU&hl=en&ei=yKIETaazGZKGhQf2m7zvBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=what%20was%20the%20raf%20ro%20brevet&f=false)

I am not sure whether there was a direct swap RO to N brevet as then RO could certainly not navigate to the standard then require for a general navigator. I might try and see if I can contact then RO I knew although the trail is 20 years old.

[Pontius Navigator]

From ORAC's post on another thread:

The Tornado fleet is currently scheduled to retire in 2021. The government recently announced a reduction in the number of Tornados required to sustain ongoing operations, known as force elements, from 40 to 18 by 2015.

For 40 aircraft you would need 60 operational navigators with a small number in command appointments. In Just 4 years that number would appear to be reduced to 27. That number should easily be sustained by current in-service aircrew.

When I speculated no FJ Nav redundancies I suspect that was off the mark.

[sense1]

In this months Air Forces Monthly there is a report that the Dominie is being removed from service this week (apologies if this has already been mentioned earlier in the thread). So, navigator training up to and including the Dominie course is now finished leaving just those nav/WSO students who are on the Hawk T1 at 100 Sqn and the GR4 OCU. Unless they are just gapping the nav/WSO training until MFTS provides the next generation of it then it would seem that we are now relying on the already trained aircrew on the frontline to keep platforms with a nav/WSO going until their OSDs.

Sense1

[Pontius Navigator]

Sense, makes sense, and it also squares the circle.

The GR4 was the more sensible option for disbandment than the GR9 as it meant the Nav Tucano, Dom, and Hawk could all go too. What they would appear to be doing is pulling the plug early and hoping the bath water doesn't run out too quickly.

The only problem with that GR4 solution would be the ME Navs. They solved that by disbanding the Nimrod so you have a large pool from which to draw 130K/E3 Navs as well.

Though it be madness there is method in it.

As I said of a 1989 Nav Conference, the question of the future of the navigator branch was questioned but never addressed. And when I advised people not so long ago not to go WSO(N) I was tld to wind my neck in, well . . .

[KeyPilot]

For how long have 100 sqn been involved in nav training?

[sense1]

Whilst this is strictly speaking going against the title of this thread, I was wondering what the effect of SDSR is on the pilot branch. Obviously the requirement for RW and ME pilots has not decreased but I would imagine that future intakes at Linton and Valley will be set to plummet.

From the 'RAF to 6 Fast Jet Sqns' thread I see that next year we are set to lose 4 fast jet squadrons. Combine that with the many Harrier mates who must be after Typhoon and GR4 slots I imagine that there won't be many students now leaving EFT who are getting streamed jets, and that some of those currently at Linton or Valley may be unceremoniously re-streamed. This is assumption and conjecture on my part - anyone out there in the know care to shed some light...??

[Pontius Navigator]

KP, a long time.

I also note from the RAF website that the Hawk 128 will be in increasing use form 2008. That didn't happen either.

[iRaven]

Pontius

How could shelving the GR4 be the "more sensible option" than the GR9? Even the government got it right in the SDSR:

The current, limited carrier-strike capability will be retired. We must face up to the difficult choices put off by the last Government. Over the next five years combat air support to operations in Afghanistan must be the over-riding priority: the Harrier fleet would not be able to provide this and sustain a carrier-strike role at the same time. Even after 2015, short-range Harriers – whether operating from HMS Illustrious or HMS Queen Elizabeth – would provide only a very limited coercive capability. We judge it unlikely that this would be sufficiently useful in the latter half of the decade to be a cost-effective use of defence resources.

The GR9 fleet was/is in pretty poor shape these days and the GR4 is far more able to strike against a high-end warfighter with Storm Shadow - I doubt if Jump Jet Fanny and Her Hawker Siddley Tw@t could even lift one!

Anyhoo, back to the thread

Top rumour is that Dominie will be gone by end Jan 11 and that some basic WSO stuff will be done on King Air before going on to Tucano then Hawk (if we need to train any more).

iRaven

[revised_estimate]

It is very sad indeed, to read of the imminent demise of the WSO specialisation in the RAF. Thankfully, the RAAF hasn't had to suffer the same indignant demise !

In 2007, the RAAF graduated the last dedicated 'Navigator' course.
Subsequent to this - all Navigators'; Air Electronics Officers' and Air Defence Officers' (Fighter Controllers) were re-categorised into one specialisation. This amalgamated category was named: "Air Combat Officer" (ACO).
The 'School of Air Navigation' (SAN) was renamed 'School of Air Warfare' (SAW) and the syllabus rewritten to reflect a movement towards developing mission and battle space commanders.

SAW also trains all 'Observers' and Instructors for the Royal Australian Navy and Air Warfare Officers/Instructors for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The role of Air Combat Officer (ACO) today is highly specialised and thankfully, in no immediate threat of 'extinction'. More over, the category is both "evolutionary" and representative of a genuine & stable career path.

With platforms such as the F/A-18F (Super Hornet); AEW&C (Wedgetail); AP-3C Orion (to be replaced by P-8 Poseidon ?) & UAV's ramping up in the RAAF inventory - the role of ACO is set to become ever increasingly dependant.

ACO's also perform the traditional 'NAV' role onboard our C-130H platforms; however, these are due for retirement over the next few years and along with that, comes the demise of the ACO/NAV from Hercules operations. (RAAF C-130J's do not carry NAV or FE aircrew.)

So, I guess in terms of RAAF operations - the ACO is here to stay ! :)

[Pontius Navigator]

iRaven, I didn't repeat what I said pre-SDSR. The GR4 was the more sensible disbandment option if the need was to save money and virtually the whole Navigation training system could be disestablished and most navigators made redundant.

Elsewhere on Pprune the GR9 defence covers the disparity in costings.

Capabilities OTOH is something else. In a way they have managed to cut the cake, keep what they want, and pay less at the same time.