U.S. starts training enlisted pilots.

[Al R]

Will we follow? (£££)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/07/08/air-force-selects-first-enlisted-airmen-pilot-training-wwii.html

[glad rag]

Drones???Nothing wrong with that mind if it's bringing the hammer down.

[switch_on_lofty]

Leaving aside the fact that we (as in the UK) already have enlisted RPAS and helicopter pilots...

I don't know of any plans for the RAF/RN to start NCO pilot training. To answer the OP, yes NCOs are paid less (but not that much for a SNCO compared to a JO given slower JO progression now compared to say 8 years ago). And specialist pay rates are by job, (unless you're in the AAC when no-one knows how the Spec Pay is banded until you get a bill for £££.)
BUT
Aircraft are really expensive and valuable to Defence and the nation. You want good people to fly them so they do the job (important) and don't crash (a lot more expensive than a bit of PAYE). These people will need to be good at maths, english, communication skills, hand eye etc. Call this a minimum A-level requirement with decent leadership potential/ability and good ethics you have pretty much described a JO who has passed his/her FATs.
As far as I know the current system of Off Pilots and WSOs (out of area of knowledge on exact terminology here), SNCO/JNCO crewies works pretty well so why change it?
Or you could go the Army way and give it to the artillery. "Say you there, yes you are pretty handy with that 105mm, want to have a go with a Watchkeeper?" :ugh:

[teeteringhead]

Surely the thread title should read USAF starts .....

The Army (and USMC?) have been doing it for yonks surely.

Apart from Lofty's cogent arguments, I understand - also probably out of date - that Officers' Return of Service os better than SNECs on average.......

[Heathrow Harry]

I never understood why we equate flying skills with academic achievement ............ I can see why you might want your decison takers and SO's to have a decent education but flying??

[charliegolf]

Harry, is it not a weeding out bar, set at whatever height which seems reasonable at the time?

CG

[ShotOne]

Because it's not just flying skills that are needed, HH. All the flying ability in the world isn't much use without the ability to grasp complex technical and operational issues and communicate effectively.

[Danny42C]

Al R,
....U.S. starts training enlisted pilots. Will we follow? (£££)...
It's all been done before ! Seventy years and more ago, the RAF set up a simple and more direct system (I went through it myself). Volunteers for aircrew training were required to have a good School Certificate (Credits in English and Maths). This, in effect, restricted entry to ex-Grammar School candidates.

We went before a Selection Board, who decided (1) whether we were aircrew material at all and (2) if so, for which duty. I was enlisted as an airman for training as "Pilot/Air Observer" (this gave them the option of training me as a Navigator if I failed as a Pilot - and if I failed aircrew entirely, they still had an airman to use on ground duties).

I then went through my training as a Pilot for six months (in the US, as it happened, by the US Army Air Corps under the "Arnold Scheme" - but that is irrelevant) as an airman. Graduated in Class 42C and awarded Air Corps Pilot's wings.

Only then did the RAF decide whether to commission me, or not. The answer (in common with about 80% of my fellows) was "not". I was promoted to the rank of Sergeant-Pilot and served in that rank for almost a year until commissioned on my squadron in India.

This arrangement served very well for the whole period of the war, everybody understood it and there is no reason why it should not do so again. "£££"? - very debatable. As a Sgt-Pilot on 13/6 pd ('42) with no exs, I was immeasurably better off than any newly commissioned Pilot Officer.

Danny42C.

[Heathrow Harry]

I think you're right Charliegolf - if we needed 800 pilots they'd be a lot more flexible

[dctyke]

Because it's not just flying skills that are needed, HH. All the flying ability in the world isn't much use without the ability to grasp complex technical and operational issues and communicate effectively.

You're not wrong there, sometimes I've just given up trying to get a reasonable snag debrief from some aircrew. Works both ways ShotOne ; - )

[trim it out]

As far as I'm aware educational standard isn't a deciding factor when it comes to non commissioned aircrew selection?

[Willard Whyte]

All the flying ability in the world isn't much use without the ability to grasp complex technical and operational issues and communicate effectively.

Like wot an flight engineer an' loadie, wot is baldrics, done do?

[MPN11]

We launched a Direct Entry Sgt ATCO scheme some years ago. I am informed that the uptake is not meeting the targets. Now is that pay-scales, career prospects, or the shift in societal issues? I have no idea what the answer is, other than numerous A-Levels and an irrelevant degree.

[Danny42C]

trim it out (#11),
...As far as I'm aware educational standard isn't a deciding factor when it comes to non commissioned aircrew selection? ...

Had a pukka public schoolboy, a real Hooray Henry, but a right good type, on my course (we were all LACs then), with Matriculation and all the Certificates in the book. On Graduation, the Selection Board beamed down on him: "Why do you want a Commission, my boy ?"......"To be able to wear a decently fitting pair of slacks, Sir !"

Another Sergeant-Pilot went back with the rest of us hoi-polloi back to Canada. !