A flying Air Trafficer!!!!?????

[proper_brevet]

Could anyone please enlighten me? I heard on the grapevine that they have appointed an ATC officer to a surveillance role on the E3D fleet. If this is the case have PMC or whoever made this descision gone completely mad? I thought in the current climate of leaning and saving money etc, that to start having to pay out more flying pay, as well as all the other additional expenses it costs to put people in the air, is a bit hypocritical.
As aircrew myself I know that their are loads of properly trained, not to mention selected, guys sat about in pointless ground tours chomping at the bit to get back flying. He's been trained as an air trafficer so if he feels the need to go flying then he should do what thousands have done before him. Put in his paperwork and go to Cranwell. I'm sure that his branch aren't not too pleased either having lost a bod as well.
If this descision happens to be true it will surely bolster the desire for more NCA to jump ship. Well done RAF:ok:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

PB,
Please refer, todays reading:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/fightercontrolofficer.cfm

Unless of course this is some new form of surreal Banter?

[London Mil]

Don't know whether your statement is true or not. However, if you think of some of the roles that E3s do, maybe you could argue that an air traffiker has the skills necessary to do some of the stuff down the back. There is a recognisable overlap between some of the FC and ATC tasks (standing by for a load of abuse here).

That said, I can't imagine said individual harping on about getting a brevet and flying pay. :rolleyes:

[FormerFlake]

There is room on the E3D for the extra dougnut requirements too.

[proper_brevet]

London Mil, I agree that ATC an FC are very similar jobs with perhaps ATC being more demanding. I have nothing whatsover against ATC (especially as I'm ex TG9). What does annoy me and the rest of the NCA Cadre, I should imagine, is that an aircrew post has been filled by someone from completely outside the aircrew world whilst be wait, fingers crossed, hoping that we might get sent to E3's rather than having to spend more time in Kinloss which ultimately= more time in the Gulf. You could argue then about TG12 doing the Surveillance job but for better or for worse they have been doing it for some time, much to the disappointment of many Aeops. Airmanship in the back of any aircraft, without properly trained operators, will suffer, it's a well known fact. I would imagine anyone in the RAF could do the surveillance job but when it comes to airmanship that's a different kettle of fish.

[bracketsew]

can you believe it. they will be sending supply officers next.

what ever happened to putting aircrew on an aircraft. you know the people that do a flying training school and are selected to be aircrew. People with a brevet.

another belter from the COMPONENT

[bracketsew]

having flown on several aircraft types including the e-3 it is quite amazing how the aircraft operates. nothing like it anywhere. the crew are treat like passengers. the seatbelt light that the crew have to obey its every command when ever it is on. not allowed to think for then selves. but then again most on the mission crew are not aircrew.

i know for a fact that aircrew when they see what it is like are absolutely shocked and cannot believe the way the crew are actually just passengers that operate the kit.

i know of highly expirienced aircrew that have been on gaywacs to be treated like a young sac down the bunker with no regard of his previous flying expirience what so ever.

[proper_brevet]

Bracketsew, If that's the case, why on Earth do some qualify for flying pay then? If they are treated like passengers and act like passengers then surely they warrant no extra reward i.e flying pay and a brevet. Air stewards and Aero medics get a nice little set of wings on their sleeves and from first hand experience they work hard and as a crew. Some of them, especially Aero Meds are on the front line in undesirable places which I need not mention. Through no fault of their own E3's don't go anywhere near the front line. I don't want to get into a slagging match as I'm sure FC do a very important job:hmm: but returning to my original query,about posting other trades into a flying job, I'm just annoyed that other trades are whittling done precious slots.

[proper_brevet]

Ps Bracketsew

Get a dictionary :p

Banter Banter

Please tell me you are allowed Banter on e3's!!! :oh:

[SidHolding]

Clear Right, Px Good. Your link is to Fighter Control Officer, I think the debate is about an Air Traffic Control Officer......

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/airtrafficcontroller.cfm

Also, the original post states that the ATC Officer is to be a Surveillance Operator not a Controller. Seems odd to me and I can agree with the comments on NCA. AEOps/WSOps are trained very highly in airborne comms, radar and EW (notably ESM).

Maybe the E3 fleet (where I have held for a while and has many top guys on the Sqns) needs leaning. SO's are Sgt's, Leaders positions are FS, and then empowered MACR/WO as SC?!? The Controller side is equally specialised so yeah, stick TG12/FC/ATCO.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:hmm:

[trap one]

Gents as some one who has left the RAF but spent 8.5 years on E3's when we were supporting both FJ and all other assets on ops, I might be able to help. The ATC role that was continually talked about was the routing of aircraft up and down the ACO's, on the safe side of the fence. Coupled with controlling the AARA's. All jobs that the Area ATC controller is familiar with and capable of doing. The problem was training the ATC controller to do all the AD/Mud/CSAR/TST/Recce/Package controlling.
The problem of placing "proper brevet" wearing personnel into the seats on the E3 was the fact that the old 8 Sqn shacks gave out control tickets to the crew. This was unfortunately against the NATO STANAG that allowed the NATO, USAF, FAF and RAF E3's to control in any NATO country as long as they held a ground controllers ticket in their home country. The RN and USN do things slightly different and have further restrictions on where and what service they can apply.
The solution always was to get "aircrew" a ground ticket and certainly this was done in the initial days of converting from Shacks to E3's. But I have to say with not as great a success as expected/anticipated.
Whilst the Shack controllers didn't come up to full expectations neither was it an automatic "go to OCU, pass OCU get flying pay" for the cround controllers.
I know that before I left there were 4 "aircrew" who went through the School of Fighter Control on what was a short course. To try and get them into the back of the E3D. Now for various reasons including Promotion to WC I believe that only 2 made it to Waddo and passed out of the OCU.
I believe that these individuals were done a dis-service by rushing them through and told all 4 that to their faces and no I didn't hide it from my senior officers.
To me and a lot of people it was the different back ground of the crews, that enabled us to give a what we believe was a high level of service. (I have not talked to my friends that are left at Waddo about the apparent lack of respect that a lot of PPruners seem to hold for the E3D these days as for me the hanger doors are well and truly shut.)
One of the most effective crews I was ever crewed up with consisted of the following
2x F4/F3 Nav
Jag/Gr1 pilot
Ex Vc10 Engineer
C130 Nav from SF
4 AEOPs 3 from Kipper 1 from Cranwell
1 FC FL who subsequently went through the FULL Nav course as a over 38 year old SL and made it to the F3's and got CR.
Add a previous RN FC who crossed over to light blue and the mix made with the AT's without whom it really was a 707 that was a waste of space.
Now as for the allegations the E3 doesn't go into harms way, I'll say a number of things that you can check up on.
DASS
MAWS
Chaff
Flares
RHWR
None of which is a BEDWINDOW as it's all open source info.
However I have been the wrong side of the fence in an E3D and flow through the turbulence generated by a Missile going off co-alt 2-3 miles on our nose.
As for the practice of sitting down and strapping in the E3 has a relatively small coffin corner in certain conditions and at least on 3 occassions an E3D has stalled out.
I also know of an instance when one of the AT's was lugging boxes around and the skipper pulled 2 G's to effect a tanker join. A forth right debrief was held on landing.

[proper_brevet]

trap one, I agree that a crew made up 'aircrew' from a different variety of backgrounds is a good thing as it obviously brings a whole wealth of experience of different situations. I also understand the point about an ATCO doing the AARA controlling etc this, I presume, was during when the FC were busy controlling FJ's etc. My original query was that the rumour I heard was of an ATCO doing the surveillance job hence taking an aircrew pic away. It wouldn't make a difference if he was a ATCO or a cook the fact of the matter is that the airforce are putting people into 'aircrew' slots whilst trained professional aviators with lots of hours, experience, time on operations and the desire to fly are sat around languishing in, quite frankly, low moral menial jobs. I thought the RAF had addressed this problem with the introduction of the Ops Support Branch which ATC is part of. Instead they appear to be doing the opposite which is going to be expensive as well as having a knock on effect to all aircrew stuck in ground tours.

[airwaverider]

Gents, there will be an ATC officer on the next course later on in the year and he will be trained in the surveillance role and there's no plan to train him as a controller. By right this slot should go to TG12, I've no idea what PMA are playing at!!!!

[Avtur]

Trap one; if you are suggesting the E3-D doesn't go into harms way because it has no DASS, you need to take a close look at the only operational ISTAR asset at Waddo and note that it also has no DASS, but spends in excess of 6 months of the year in such environments.

[proper_brevet]

Thanks airwave rider,
So the rumour was true!! All I can say is that it will infuriate a lot of other people. Why bother working hard through selection and training when valuable slots are just given away to other trades. Good luck to him, however, it's not his fault just the baffoons in PMA.

Whether or not Mr airwaverider it should have been a TG12 slot is irrelevant, the whole situation however is pretty worrying for your trade I should think. Obviously PMA think any Tom, Dick and Harry can do the job so your days on "The Jet" are numbered. An Air Trafficer today, a policeman tommorrow (at least he can look after the S and C downroute). At least us WSOP's have other options even if it does mean more desert time. Nevermind eh? Bunkers aren't that bad..............are they?:ok:

[PPRuNeUser134364]

I'd be interested to know where all these aircrew are that are sitting around on ground tours whilst there is a front line manning shortage. There aren't enough AEOps on SAR for radop posts and I believe there was a thread recently about training LMs and AEs to cover the AEOp shortage in the 'mighty hunter' fleet. There are still plenty of aircrew slots available for those that want them.

[proper_brevet]

SAR bloke,
Please come and look round Kinloss and Waddington Ops. You'll be amazed! I've been on a ground tour for almost two years, I was above average in the air and A1 Z1 G1 and I'm continually asking the poster for a flying job. Mate, like you I didn't become aircrew to shuffle paperclips around whilst ATCO go flying hence why I am so annoyed about the above and perhaps looking on getting out. At least there I wouldn't have to put up with this hypocrisy.

[MAD Boom]

Proper bloke,
Would be interested to know which post you are currently filling, and why PMA are reluctant to post you out of it.
It seems rather odd that someone who is contuously asking for a flying tour is being denied it; unless, perhaps, you are an absolute superstar in your current post. :confused:
Most likely you are being a tad selective in your choice of flying post.

[proper_brevet]

Mad Boom,
You are right, perhaps I am being a Tad selective about what flying post I want to go to. However, I don't want to open another can of worms about being picky etc etc. The fact is that our choices of flying post are being made smaller when you take a WSOP out and put a ATCO in. I don't think that it's unreasonable to want to move away from Maritime and try something different especially in the current climate. Their are plenty of WSop's who have been South for some time (some who haven't even been North). As my tenth time in the Gulf approaches I would like to taste the forbidden fruits of other ISTAR platforms. That said it still doesn't detract from the fact that their are still lots of WSops on ground tours.

[London Mil]

pb, you could always try and be an air traffiker for a few years. :) I personally know of four people with 'proper' brevets who did it whilst retaining their flying pay.

[Fatjoff]

I fail to see how this rumour has proved to be true, (just because waverider says so?) and I frankly don't believe it, and can't see why, proper brevet, you are getting so upset. If it happens, then get upset, but it hasn't and probably won't. Air tragic is air tragic and surveillance controllers belong to the FC branch. We don't have a very good track record in doing each others' jobs.

[London Mil]

fatjoff, sorry to wee on your Kellogg's but I must admit that I have heard something similar. Also, it isn't too great a secret that there is yet another study going on looking at common competencies across the trades/specialisations.

[Widger]

I am laughing my socks of at some of the parochial comments on here. This thread shows all the worst aspects of the RAF.
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet, branch, service, creed or colour. Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!:ok:

[proper_brevet]

Widger, Blimey, I think you have misunderstood what I was getting at. Sorry that we have managed to rattle you on a lovely, sunny Monday morning. I fully agree best man for the job, however if you read back most of the comments you will find that the annoyance and concern stems from the fact that it costs the RAF to put extra people in the air......fact. It also costs the RAF to keep paying flying pay to aircrew on the ground......fact. I've tried not to diverse from the original question I posed however sometimes it's unavoidable. I hate having to say that we are in hard times at the moment but unquestionably we are. I hate to see the precious resources we have squandered when it could be spent on helping less fortunate members of the RAF in far from glamorous situations. As for your opinion on this thread being parochial (bracketsew if you haven't bought a dictionary yet, that means narrowminded oops Banter again:rolleyes: ), yes I agree but all I did was ask a simple question. I disagree though, with your comment on this showing the worst aspect of the RAF. Obviously sir, you might have been out of the loop for a while and a quick glance at the tristar thread might change your mind.

Have a good day sir.

Ps thanks guys for answering my parochial question.

[SidHolding]

Have to agree with proper_brevet there. Refer back to my previous post on leaning and empowerment.

Sid.

[Widger]

Proper Brevet,

No offence taken. However, I would not consider getting someone airborne in a "frontish line" aircraft a waste of resources. That is exactly where the money should be going.

As regard to aircrew getting pay whilst on the ground, well that's another issue which would fill a thread of it's own. My own opinion? Well yes it is perverse but, if you withdraw it, you will hemorrhage even more valuable people.

As for cross-dressing within branches, if you are against it, you will probably lose the argument against Darth Vader!

[MAD Boom]

At the risk of sounding that I am on side with PMA (trust me, I'm not!), I can see where they are coming from with this kind of move.

33B gets to keep one more WSOp at Kinloss by using someone from ATC who they perceive as the best man for the job on the E3. It makes sense to PMA, who are desperate to keep the Kipper fleet stocked up on a dwindling supply of WSOps keen to get away from their 20 weeks a year holiday in the sand.

I can sympathise with proper brevet, as well as many guys and girls who have done their fair share of time away (and yes, so have I), deserve a break, and would give their right arm for a tour at Waddo. However, I can see (but do not agree with) the use of 'non aircrew-trained' bodies in flying posts becoming more of a trend as our numbers continue to dwindle away.

If PMA continue to send these guys to flying tours, why stop at E3's- send them north as well!!

[The Swinging Monkey]

Widger

The problem about flying pay on ground tours is really quite a simple one. Most AIRCREW (like pb) don't want to be stuck in a crappy ground job, they want to be flying! Do you think its fair therefore to further finish them off by cutting their pay?? I don't. If aircrew don't want to fly, then there is a case for stopping flying pay, but nothing else.

The fact is, there are lots of aircrew, filling ground jobs that don't want to. When they see 'non-aircrew' filling seats in aircraft, its obviously going to hack them off and they are justified to voice their concerns.

If ground tradesmen want to be aircrew then that's fine - go off and get selected like the rest of the real aircrew world, and join a sqn. But too many people have 'wormed' their way onto the E-3 fleet who frankly, shouldn't be there! They have then left the fleet, keeping their flying pay, and returned several years later, several ranks higher!

As for your comment:
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet clearly shows you know absolutely nothing about the E-3 fleet. Up until fairly recently, the position of TD, FA and SC HAD to be filled by a commissioned officer. Anyone who has spent any time at all on the fleet knows only too well, that some of them at best are poor and at worse are incompetant. It is not about best person for the job at all, it's all about RANK! I know its now starting to change, but for the first 14 years of the E-3 that's the way it was.

Kind regards
TSM

[Fatjoff]

"sorry to wee on your Kellogg's but I must admit that I have heard something similar. Also, it isn't too great a secret that there is yet another study going on looking at common competencies across the trades/specialisations"



In almost 24 years as an ATCO, I have lost count of the number of times the RAF has studied the issue of cross training/amalgamation of the ATC/FC branches. I'll believe it when I see it. Don't get me wrong, i'm actually in favour of amalgamation of the 2 branches - and not from any misguided wish to sit in the back of an areoplane all day long so that I can get to wear a brevet (someone else can do that bit), but having seen how other nations have made it work, I see no reason why we shouldn't do likewise.

Call me a bit of a cynic, but like I said, I'll believe when I see it.

cheers

[London Mil]

Various threads here.

ATC/FC amalgamation - well I don't think we should waste any more time on that one for now.

The role of E3 rear crew - does it really require some super-human being with a brevet or is it really just a mobile ops room? What 'airmanship' is required?

What would ATC bring to the party? Is there a problem with supplying suitably skilled (note I didn't say qualified) personnel from within?

Protectionism - demonstrated by TSM. It would appear that there are those that believe the mantra 'aircrew first, specialist second' whilst there are others with a more circumspect view. What are we putting in the back of Sentinel?

PS. 20+ years as an air traffiker, no inclination to do endless orbits over Yorkshire/East Anglia and no real view on whether the whole thing is a good idea or just pie-in-the-sky.:O

[trap one]

Avtur
I was not Impunning the R1 by any means as those guys were always in the same place or up threrat from us was just trying to make the point that the
E3 is just a 707 with nothing but YG with only 1 Bloke spending about half his time listening to the relevant whistles and bleeps. Now there is always the risk element being weighed against actual threat, but it seems that there are very few people who are aware of the lack of DASS or any self protection equipment on our ISTAR assets.
If I have offended you in any way then I apologise, but if you are R1 crew then I suspect you know the need for R1 and the need for an E3 in either Sandpit at the moment.

[Wensleydale]

There appear to be quite a few threads which this post may refer to - I am using this thread for obvious reasons.

The strength of the E-3D is the diverse nature of the operators down the back - as "proper" aircrew on the E-3 I can pass on my knowledge about radar etc, while the FCs can bring a knowledge of air defence procedure and data link to the party. Goodness me, there are even Naval Types down the back, plus the odd tame German and American who can help when flying with certain foreign assets. We even have a few ex-fast jet types down the back, but they tend to be a bit "punchy" rather than knowlegeable about procedure. The question is - what will an air-trafficer bring with him/her?

By joining the surveillance team, the ATC operator will NOT be allowed to talk to aircraft - this was stopped during Afghanistan 1 in 2003 because a surveillance type was helpful (if not strictly legal) to a UN truckie and gave advisory information as to the whereabouts of another aircraft, and indirectly caused an airprox. "Threat Broadcast" was stopped forth-with. Therefore, what will our "new Brevet" do? Unless there is another attempt to "legalise" threat broadcast by the surveillance team, but an instructor is required for the qualification needed - hang on!

Whilst talking of Afghanistan 1, I seem to remember that the Taleban was defeated by the use of airpower by the "Coalition" together with Afghan troops. This answers one thread at the moment about how useful air power is in anti-insurgent ops. However, we had more that 7 Harriers and a couple of helicopters then, plus a major ISTAR C3 unit was running the show. Hum...

The Blue on Blue thread running at the moment shows the need for competent C3 in theatre with better comms. Not withstanding the capability of our SNCO/WO crews, I am a firm believer that Officers are paid to make decisions and SNCOs ensure that these orders are carried out. It would be interesting to see the affect on our gung-ho SNCOs if it was one of them responsible for the mis-ID of a target that turned out to be friendly, together with the subsequent witch hunt by the media at an inquest. My morale of the story - you need Officers to take the responsibility of these decisions. If SNCOs want the responsibility then they can alwys disappear to Cranwell for a few months to earn it. It is surprizing how many SNCOs want the kudos of an officers' job without the will to take on the full responsibility of a commission.

Finally - the DAS debate. The E-3D was on continuous operations from early 1992 to the end of Iraq 2 in 2003. Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it (plus lots of operations time from hotels it has to be said). NATO is in charge of Afghanistan - and of us: we are a NATO assigned Unit. The NATO Force Commander has decreed that none of his aircraft will deploy to trouble spots until DAS' are fitted. End of story.

The E-3D Component is in need of an Operation again - we have not been involved for over 3 years now (not including the ever popular Hi-visibility events). As well as bringing the operational edge back to the personnel (and the "new boys") it would bring a little more treasury money back to the fleet. Please do not banter us about our non-involvement - its not our fault or desire.

I await comments with baited mouse.

[proper_brevet]

Wensleydale,
First of all I agree completely with the diversity of an E3 with regards to fast jet, other allied exchange etc etc. However, an air trafficer that can't speak to any aircraft is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard with regards to what he can bring to the party (even though his knowledge may be beneficial). In essence (going back to my original post) it's costing a lot more to sit him in the seat than it is an already trained aircrew guy.

London Mil, I know you mean well but the surveillance role does contain a large percentage of ESM work, it's not just about radar work which I'm sure all ATCO are au fait with. Wsop (ew) are already trained in EW to an exceptionally high level. As with regards to airmanship well this is paramount on any platform even though (someone told me, honest:O ) it is lacking on E3's in comparison to say a MR2 or C130.

Wensleydale, one thing I thought was a little bit unfair was your
"Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it".

Most crews on MR2's are in double figures if not just short of it with regards to how many times they have deployed into theatre. These deployments now go beyond two months at a time meaning that on average most crews have spent nearly two years in the "sand-pit" as you call it. This time is split between a portacabin in a bad place and a tent in an even worse, dangerous place. If you think about it this is not even in the same ball park as sitting in a nice hotel in Italy enjoying a nice bottle of red, in fact it's not even the same sport and let us not forget the SH boys who have it ten times worst than us. I appreciate though that it is not your fault or desire that you are not utilized more.

[SidHolding]

here here proper_brevet!!!

Do I know you from my days at Kinloss?

Sid.

[London Mil]

pb, you make a very valid argument. However, I think there are some mis-conceptions about what air traffikers are already doing, albeit on the ground. I just think that in today's, 'lean', RAF we need to make best use of what we have got. Do I have faith in the decision makers? Well let me go and ponder that one for a little longer. Sure as eggs are eggs, this 'experiment' will either work or not; there will be no grey area.

[Wensleydale]

PB,I was having a sly dig at those postees who think that Waddington is a cushy posting just because we have limited deployments for the time being - it was not always so. Yes, most of our ops tours during the 90s were in a lovely part of Italy - however the prospect of 5-6 months a year away from home - even here - was not ideal. Some personnel logged over 900 hours flying a year, (one pilot had to stop flying for a while as he threatened to hit the maximum 1,000 hours in a year) whilst my own best tally was 198 hours in my first 6 weeks of a tour (5 of them deployed). The Chickens came home to roost with Afghanistan and Iraq when the supplies of red wine dried up, and an unsympathetic non-Waddington DAG ran the det (but that's just another thread). The bottom line is - what goes around comes around. The E-3D crews were mighty relieved to get their first break from deployed live ops for 11 years after Iraq 2003 (and there have been only 9 crews realistically available during this time - the busy time over Bosnia was covered by just 6 complete surveillance teams available to the Component: 3 weeks deployed with 2 weeks home became the norm) - its just unfortunate that we haven't been properly used since. The difference it makes to individuals/crews performance by dropping from about 800 hours to less than 200 hours a year, combined with no operational edge does not have to be imagined. I am sure that the Kinloss crowd will feel the same when they are suddenly not utilised as they should be.

[bracketsew]

Widger,
Sorry about this but i have to go back to your earleir comment.

Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!

Unfortunately i couldnt let this one go. I think the waking up and smelling the coffee is something you need to do. If you think that is all being aircrew on an aircraft is all about then i suggest you take your self on an airmanship and CRM course. I disagree with the mentality on E3's as it is very different from all other aircraft and in my eyes not conducive to CRM or airmanship, but this does not mean that an operator down the back should just sit there fat dumb and happy infront of his screen. that definately is not all he is there for.

(ps. cheers for the english tips proper brevet)

[Yeller_Gait]

PMA have said that an ATC Officer will take one of the 3 places on the next Sentry course in April, fact.

The next course is an "extra" course, and as such there is not time for the PET course at Cranwell for those with a non-aircrew background. As far as I am aware, there are no ATs on the next course, and I am not sure about the controllers, (re-treads possibly?).

I do question what an air trafficer can do as a surveillance operator; they do not necessarily have the skills that a TG 12 or NCA operator has.

Where PMA have got the manning completely wrong, and continue to do so despite Waddington telling them so, is that we need NCO surveillance operators far more so than commissioned operators. Officers are being upgraded to SC often within a year of graduating as an SO, and there is now a severe lack of experience on the SO side of the aircraft. What is the point in spending 6 months teaching an officer to operate YG when after a year or so they will never need to operate it again?

finally back to the air trafficer on the next course, although he is no longer aircrew since being commissioned .........


Y_G

[NutLoose]

At least he will be able to talk himself down ;)

[London Mil]

... or do an intercept within complex CAS.:)

[Widger]

Bracketsew, Sorry your argument does not hold water. We are not talking about a bagger here who sits and assists the pilot on takeoff, landing and is then responsible for the navigation and tactical employment of the airframe.
We are talking about a portable ops room, with a whole host of specialists to look after the airframe itself.

Yes, it is a valuable asset and I understand totally the comments about those post re employment. However, I still contend that you are all being parochial. Not one person has posted a valid reason why this person cannot do the job. He is British, a crab, an aviation specialist and probably very good if PMA is sending him to do this task.

It is no different to ATCOs in 1ACC, or ATCOs on a ship, or ATCOs in the CAOC, or ATCOs Iraqistan. Different platform, same old sh!t. It depends totally on the calibre of the individual, not the colour of their uniform or the shape or style of their brevet.:ok: :ok:

Come on Ireland!

[The Swinging Monkey]

This just goes to show how completely out of touch those incompetant fools at PMA really are. Obviously, this guy has a 'guiding light' somewhere high up for this to happen, but it nothing short of disgraceful.
The guy is NOT aircrew, and he will (almsot certainly) not have gone through aircrew selection - disgraceful and unfair to both him and his contempories alike. Likewise, he won't have to do the same survival courses or other training that ALL real aircrew have to go through and have to pass before they are able to continue, irrespective of their dicipline.
If people, from any background want to become aircrew, then they should be given all the encouragement, support and help possible in their quest. For someone like this to sneak in through the back door is shameful, and I just hope that he fails, not so much for him and the rest of us, but so that the lunatics down at the PMA assylum finally understand that the OASC at cranwell is there for a reason! And a reason that has worked for many years (and at Biggin prior to that!)
I'm boiling and need to take some medication!
TSM

[Vim_Fuego]

From a comment earlier on in this thread I've a sneaky feeling I might know this person...poss LO at this point...But say he actually had a brevet from his life before being ATC and being commissioned and had never stopped wearing it would that makes peoples blood boil any less?

As an aside I'm posted into the AWACS world soon 'ish' and many of you are making it sound about as attractive as a steaming s**t sandwich with references to lack of CRM and rearcrew appreciation (I don't mean a lack of rounds of applause...just what we actually do!)...

[Wensleydale]

SM,

I am afraid that you are out of touch - all ab-initio E-3D personnel have to carry out pre-employment aircrew training at Cranwell before arriving at Waddington. This training includes the 2 week survival training course (including "moor-trek") that we all have had to do as aircrew. You will also find, if "yeller-gait" is to be believed, that the air trafficer in question is ex-aircrew but moved following commissioning. Now if you think that NCA training does not prepare an individual for the Sentry, then.......

There apears to be a lot of instinctive hot air and a lack of thought on this subject. PMA are trying something out. If it works, all well and good - if it doesn't then I am sure that the E-3D Component will have words on the matter and the experiment will cease. I speak as the subject of an "experiment" in the 1980s, when only FC ground qualified personnel were entitled to fly on NAEW (and I wasn't). (Now there are several people who know me who claim that this experiment failed), however the result is that AEO/AEOps and Navs as well as FC/TG12 are used as surveillance mission crew on the E-3D. Perhaps we should see how this next experiment works before blowing yet more hot air from our boiling tops. You never know but it may well work!

[Wensleydale]

VF,

There are a few hot heads spouting off without much thought at the moment. Whilst not perfect and starting to show its age, the E-3D is still a cracking piece of kit, and we may have ended up with Nimrod AEW which certainly was not. In these days of traditionally knocking everything in sight, I consider myself to have been fortunate to be a "Mushroom Farmer" during many live operations. Having been airborne during many important episodes (fall of Sebrenica springs to mind) I knew exactly what was happening as part of the C3 network during the crucial phase of the operation. (I don't have to rely upon the gutter press to know what actually happened).

There are lots of things hppening in the background at Waddington as the business ethos and leaning starts to take hold. However, this does not change the fact that the E-3 is a major piece of C3 kit and you will definately be involved should the pace of operations pick up. (Not cost effective to send E-3 out East with only 7 Harriers and a few Helos in theatre - risk/expense not worth it without DAS).

If you want to PM me, I can get in touch to allay any fears that you may have about joining the fleet. I have enjoyed myself for many years at Waddington and I see no reason for you to think otherwise despite one or 2 changes now taking place. In which other platform could you be copying down the coordinates to dump a JDAM into a certain dictator's favourite restaurant?

Enjoy!!

[Sentry Agitator]

Folks.....hang on a mo. Is this thread about slagging those of us on the E-3D or having a debate about PMA and who should or shouldn't be allowed the chance at the SO slot? Yes, yes, I am on said frame and yes, you will be right in thinking I am not 'real' aircrew (whatever that means) in that I'm an FC! (Weapons of course)

However, I feel that because I have gone through the 'mill' and have accumulated 3.5k hours in all major Op areas allows me to join your thread and pass comment, maybe even enlighten.

For TSM - I suggest that you PM me and I can arrange for a little visit for you to see what the conversion course actually entails.

First off - The 'studes' now do pre-employment trg at the college of knowledge (not at Waddo). They cover all aspects of airmanship, survival drills, radar theory, EW, navigation etc. I am not aware of the Apr Cse not doing so but will certainly enquire. My understanding is that it is to be an additional 'full' SCC too but again I will certainly check before jumping to conclusions that they are making it up as they go along! I also understand that 'the studes' even get to fly at the college......in fact they do pretty much everything that an ab-initio WSO would get in fact. It's just that by the time we get them they tend to have been around the block for some considerable time and so don't need to redo all that 'out in the field carrying pinepoles stuff' and learning how to iron shirts again.

Secondly - Give those that are selected a little bit of credit folks.....yes they may be missing an eagle with their rank badge but they have an equally important range of experiences that can be passed on. They don't just turn up and learn how to use the kit whilst sitting down the back without a care in the world. They should be and are an integrated part of the team with diverse skills that allow us to provide a service to other air, sea and land forces.

We are not just 'goats' who bleat and eat as most seem to think of us!
The problem is that we are short of skilled personnel...and I know that that is an issue across the board. Yes, we would like more WSOs of SNCO and O rank to join us. As most of you have quite rightly pointed out, your fleets are working very hard at present and I for one sympathise with you all. Trust me when I say I'm not happy sitting on the sidelines.

But whilst your fleets are working harder than most, I can see why PMA would not want to drain those manpower reserves further....I'm not saying its right! I'm also not convinced that a qualified controller should be going SO...we are short of controllers too. However, I have heard that the individual chosen may have some maritime background and that he is a good trg risk prior to the finalisation of the ATC/FC study that is on going. Perhaps we'll then see ATC forcing me back to my hole in the ground and losing my flying pay! I don't keep mine because I'm not 'real' aircrew.

Lastly - regardless of whether it's right or wrong of PMA to offer up a slot normally taken by WSOs or FC/TG12, surely it cannot be right for any professional aviator to HOPE that the individual fails!!!!! now that is unprofessional

SA

[SirToppamHat]

Sorry in advance about slight thread drift.

Don't have all the gen about the April Cse, but I believe 2 of the FCs (one FA, one WC) on the cse are ex E-3D, so should need the bare minimum of PET; can't speak for the others though.

As someone who was never sufficiently special to be given the opportunity for E-3D duties (despite asking many times) I speak as a long-term bunker dweller.

Many of the comments here are rather disappointing and echo past lines from 'proper aircrew' that I honestly hoped had been put to one side. At the end of the day, we must put people with the necessary skill sets in the correct place to be most effective; I have heard this called 'effects-based posting'! I have no snags with people having to complete appropriate PET, but having spoken to many victims, some of this seems to be based on jumping through hoops as much as it is about meeting genuine trg objectives; certainly SA sums this up when he says:
by the time we get them they tend to have been around the block for some considerable time and so don't need to redo all that 'out in the field carrying pinepoles stuff' and learning how to iron shirts again.


The thing that irks me somewhat is that we are very short of FCs, and with the current low rate of E-3D employment, I wonder how long we can continue keeping FCs on the ground at Waddo whilst FJs can't get GCI - especially when the individuals concerned could be at a CRC (or even 1ACC) in the same time as it takes from 'brakes-off' to 'On-Stn' in UK5. Then again, no-one could get the E-3D WCs to use the MASE when it was at Waddo, so perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath;) .

Blue Touch-paper lit, retires to get coat!

[The Gorilla]

Actually I wasn't going to post on this, knowing how emotive the non-aircrew issue is on E3D's. However I consider I have more experience that some of the drivel writers on here because before I became a Spec Aircrew Plastic Sgt (Air Eng A) I spent 14 long years as an L Tech AD. I worked in the bunker environment with a number of Officers and SNCO's some of whom eventually became my crew mates on 8 and 23 Sqn's. I served at such wonderful places as Bishops Court, Staxton Wold and Boulmer as well as some not so nice places. I have always had the utmost admiration and respect for any one who controls from within a bunker environment, the chop rate to get there is amongst the highest in the RAF and with a daily portion of crap to match it.

I have always viewed the "you are not real aircrew" debate with a great deal of interest and at times sadness. The bottom line is that the rear end of an E3D is not much different to the R3 at Boulmer; it exists to perform the C3 function but in an AEW environment. It doesn't matter who sits in the individual seats as long as they are Qualified and Competent to fulfil those roles. Whether the seat is occupied by an Aeop, Nav, FC brevet or ATC with an FC brevet matters not one Iota, except maybe to some sadly over inflated egos.

As with everything in life there are good guys and not so good guys. Some E3D mission crew behave like real aircrew some do not. A lot of the time I found it was the real aircrew (I hate that expression!) who behaved like ground crew temporarily filling a flying post. As for the comment that mission crew are treated no better than passengers which may be true sometimes, I learnt my lesson early on when I decided that mission crew could be trusted to have situational awareness re the seatbelt sign. On one of my early trips into Aviano after what was then at any rate a long ten hour flight, I switched the seatbelt sign off before the steps were in. Big mistake as the weapons row went into schoolboys at the going home bell mode.

As others have alluded to, one of the E3’s strength is the fact it has such a rich and diverse gene pool of different trades to draw from. If the ATC experiment doesn’t work out then so be it but you have to at least give it a try. Is it any different from the proposal to put a Loadmaster on the next SCC and convert him to a Flight Engineer?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Sentry Agitator,

Perhaps in hindsight, to hope that the individual fail was out of order, but I did explain that it was so PMA could see that what they were doing is wrong.

I respect your comments and views, but I disagree with them. There is a perfectly good tried and proven system for the selection of aircrew, irrespective of whether you like it or not, and that is via OASC.
Its their job! Its what they do! They don't just sit there all day for the fun of it, they select RAF, AAC and RN aircrew and have an immense amount of experience in doing that. They are respected world-wide, hence why many other Air Forces etc use them. They know what they are looking for, and more importantly what they are NOT!

My concern is that they have been taken out of the loop, and that is wrong, both for them and those real aircrew they are joining.

I have seen it happen on the E-3 fleet since day one, even out at GK it happened. You can imagine the problems out there can't you? At least in the RAF you know (knew) that all the aircrew you fly with have achieved at least the same standard as you have in everything from airmanship, to survival to personal stability and temperement. I think that it is important, for all concerned.

Those 'non aircrew' have got there by whatever method, and irrespective of whether they are good or bad (and there are some damned good ones, I readily agree) they have by-passed the tried and proven system for aircrew selection. As an experienced E-3 FC in the past couple of years, you will be aware of one fairly serious event that took place. One of those involved frankly should never have gotten on to the fleet, but he did. He got there because of the 'old boy' network, and you know thats how it happens as well as I do. I would suggest that the individual would have been 'weeded out' at OASC if only............

Listen, I have nothing against these people on a personal level, and I'm sure they are all good guys and some will make good aviators. My concern is that this is the thin end of the wedge, and should stop forthwith. If they want to be aircrew, then go off and become aircrew, like the rest have done.

The majority of FCs think its a 'cushy life' but who are the ones doing all the bleating? Even in Aviano? Oh it was hell for us all, living in hotels, on rates, absolute hell wasn't it? They want to try life on a Nimrod sqn for a few months, then they would see what hell is really like. And whilst we are on about it, do you remember when Thumrait kicked off? it was a joke, the PVR rate amongst FCs went thru' the roof didn't it? As for female FCs, Oh dear, thats another forum!!

Standing by for the flak, kind regards
TSM

[London Mil]

Old Swingy, you're having a laugh aren't you?

all the aircrew you fly with have achieved at least the same standard as you have in everything from airmanship, to survival to personal stability and temperement

Some of the most temperementally unstable, non-team playing, selfish unstable individuals I have ever met have a badge on their left brest :}

Looking at OASC, many, many, many ATC and FC have passed exactly the same tests. Why are they not aircrew? Well, it could have been for a plethora of reasons: arms to long/short, eyesight, very limited intake, no inclination to be a winch-weight etc etc.

So, trying to keep the discussion on track, can someone please explain to this non-aircrew 'mate', exactly what part of 'airmanship' is required to operate from the back of an E3? I only ask because there appears to be some well-informed people on this thread who don't have a problem with the concept. :confused:

[MAD Boom]

"In which other platform could you be copying down the coordinates to dump a JDAM into a certain dictator's favourite restaurant?"
....errrm, how about the other UK ISTAR asset(s) that watch him go into the restaurant in the first place?
Must be great flying on such an important platform. I do envy you, I really do, no really, honest, a-ha, yep, great.

[London Mil]

PS. There are already air traffikers actring as Stormshadow 'drivers'.

[AJ39]

Having read through this thread, I couldn't stop myself from reactivating my PPRUNE account after a few years in the wilderness.

Lots of hot air being thrown around by "Real Aircrew" unhappy with flying airtraffikers. I mean come on.. do people really need to get so wound up:rolleyes: Surely if he/she does his PET the OCU, EW, NAV,SERE etc etc training, the other airmanship qualities will surely be gained with experience.

Whether it be a PMA, Trade Grp or an RAF issue. The chap in question is there for a reason, for the skills he has and what he can bring to the party.

Enjoyed the piece by Sentry Agitator, who managed to put it in clear, plain English. As for people talking about JDAM co-ords, STORMSHADOW, people walking into restaurants, can't you just leave that to the TG14 specialists, you know, those chaps filling the back seats of SENTINEL sat with "Real Aircrew" (who have done the Imagery courses) yet working as one team.

As for Sebrenica?? Cant remember that one! Must have been important though :zzz:

Come on chaps: Lets work together, its a damn small Air Force and getting smaller! Last thing we need is a them and us attitude. We all strive to be professional, whatever background. :D

[threepointonefour]

Trap One: One of the most effective crews I was ever crewed up with consisted of the following

Jag/Gr1 pilot
Do be real.

[I've_got a traveller]

Having read this thread through twice, I can't believe that so many of you have managed to completely miss the point that was originally raised.

It's not about who can or can't do the job, I'm sure that anyone with half a brain cell can eventually grasp the surveillance job, as I'm lead to believe it's not that arduous. But, that said, London Mil the job is in the air and airmanship is always a factor when things go wrong and they often do. The ability to react to situations and emergencys in the air is the priority of everyone. Sentry agitator, to say PET at Cranwell is on par with Wsop training is frankly insulting to all of those who have done the Wsop course or AEOp course. It's entirely different.

I think the point PB was making that there is a host of aircrew trades sat in ground tours, trained and prepared to go flying again. All this taking people out of their ground enviroments , putting them through the system costs money!!!!

I can't believe though the bickering and slagging off that has been on this thread about a platform that is effectively redundant at the moment, it seems like a horrible place to work. The only good thing I've read about it is that it doesn't go away to the Gulf!!!

[London Mil]

traveller, I'll just get back in box then and not do anything that requires decisiveness or dealing with anything that goes wrong, including airborne emergencies.

Now where are my slippers? I fancy a Horlicks. :ugh:

[Jaguar Pilot]

THREEPOINTONEFOUR

Please explain "do be real"

[threepointonefour]

It was a joke.

I know the man in question and wanted to get a rise ... although I don't think he even has a computer with the ability to display graphics ...!

[airwaverider]

Traveller, I think you'll find that the PET at Cranwell has been very successful. This along with the wealth of experiance some of the students bring from the ground prepares them extremley well for the OCU.

This course has been needed for a long time and addresses areas that have been missed in the past. This has narrowed the gap between aircrew and "non-aircrew" and the only difference now is flying pay!!!

[Dukeyboy]

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding what the issue is. Surely this individual has been reccommended for the post. Surely it has been established that it might be a good idea to have a bit more experience on board (perhaps what's needed is a bit more "vanilla" controlling ability and understanding of airspace instead of an FC's take on things - I don't know) Either way, SOMEONE has decided that the extra experience might be a good thing, and I'm sure this guy can be trained to do the job. I notice it's only one chap so far, so perhaps it's a bit of an experiment, who knows. Maybe, just maybe, people already hard at work down the back of an E-3 are frightened that this controller might put a few of them to shame? :oh:

[Yeller_Gait]

Dukeyboy,

It is pma that have nominated said individual to be a surveillance operator (not controller), without any consultation whatsoever with Waddington. He will not be controlling, little interest in airspace (controllers again), and it is only because he is ex-NCA, therefore no need for the PET course (that is not available for the next course).

Yes, most people could be trained to be a surveillance operator, it is not always the most demanding job on the E-3, but the fact remains that there are aircrew filling ground posts that would welcome the chance to fly on the E-3. I would also re-iterate my earlier post that what the E-3D needs is NCO surv ops right now, not commissioned. PMA TAKE NOTE!!!

AFAIK said Air Trafficer was not even aware that he had been nominated for the course before it became (semi) public knowledge who he was.

Y_G

[Dukeyboy]

Y_G,

All understood, in that case, sounds like another case of PMA versus the manpower dartboard.

[Yeller_Gait]

Dukey,

As you say, all pma are interested in is numbers, they are not concerned about getting the right person in the right post. This is not the only instance of pma "technically" doing the right thing, but if they would consult the experts perhaps they might come to a better decision.

Chances of that????

Y_G

[ProcATCO]

Having read this thread with great interest, being ex Maritime aircrew, I feel that I have to clarify details about the ATCO who will be on the course in April.
He is a fully qualified ATCO who also holds an AEOp brevet with some 3000+ flying hours (sorry I dont have access to his logbook!!). He has trained AEOps in the past before going ATC, and has done his time in "the sand pit" of Afganistan. He is a great guy with a family and I have known him since we joined Kipper Fleet in the early 80's. In fact he was my best man at my first wedding!!
He has really missed flying and this would seem to be the ideal posting for him and from a PMA point of view seems to tick all the boxes. I realise that the debate may rumble on regarding the role on the aircraft, but in my humble opinion the right man for the job, and I wish him well!! I wish I could get back in the mob and flying - still miss it dreadfully!!
Hope this clarifies things for all and sundry!!
UP THE KIPPER FLEET!!
:D :ok:

[Zhivago]

As an outsider looking in I think you should all grow up, work as a team and get the job done, If someone is qualified to do the job be it on a plane or on the ground let him do it, I don't see a problem, as long as you have a pilot to fly it I and a navigator to tell you where to go. I don't see the difference from the inside of a plane to the inside of a building.
:bored:
Sorry!!

[TheWizard]

Except for the fact that buildings don't have mid-air emergencies or potentially go down behind enemy lines or fly in formation with other buildings or worry about evading hostile threats or have to make instant life threatening decisions...............

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The Silly Monkey,

Have you read the very eloquent post from ProcATCO above. Contrast the INFORMED info he gives with your dribblings from 11th Feb at 12:39 :rolleyes:

He KNOWS the guy in question in the same sort of way I know Caz from another thread, amazing how a little bit of KNOWLEDGE can be useful:ok:

"This just goes to show how completely out of touch those incompetent fools at PMA really are. Obviously, this guy has a 'guiding light' somewhere high up for this to happen, but it nothing short of disgraceful.
The guy is NOT aircrew, and he will (almsot certainly) not have gone through aircrew selection - disgraceful and unfair to both him and his contempories alike. Likewise, he won't have to do the same survival courses or other training that ALL real aircrew have to go through and have to pass before they are able to continue, irrespective of their dicipline.
If people, from any background want to become aircrew, then they should be given all the encouragement, support and help possible in their quest. For someone like this to sneak in through the back door is shameful, and I just hope that he fails, not so much for him and the rest of us, but so that the lunatics down at the PMA assylum finally understand that the OASC at cranwell is there for a reason! And a reason that has worked for many years (and at Biggin prior to that!)
I'm boiling and need to take some medication!
TSM"

Do we hear an apology from the rest of you who agreed with TSM ??????????

Tsk Tsk Tsk stupid boy pike :=

[I've_got a traveller]

Seldom,

My, my you truly are annoying aren't you. If you would have taken the time to read through this thread you would have gleaned that this is in no way similar to the thread on 'Caz' or whoever she is.

No one is attacking the ATCO in question! This is not a barrage of insults on a serving officer in the RAF. This is simply people questioning why an ATCO has been put into an Aircrew pic therefore keeping trained aircrew personnel behind desks, dropping pencils (as 'Caz' would have put it). It is questioning PMA Whilst I admit that some posts have deviated from the original question posed the main point still far out weighs these 'stray rants'. As a matter of fact a lot of people know the ATCO in question and he is a good egg but that doesn't excuse PMA for making this descision.

I suggest that you read through the thread again until you have grasped this very simple concept.:ok:

[Zhivago]

That's why you have a pilot! and if you go down behind enemy lines you all know what to do, just like all people caught up in war..

I also believe the ATCO man has a brevet so that suggests to me that he has done your specialist training as you call it. Maybe you are just worried he may show you up!!!!

[The Swinging Monkey]

SFFP,
Have you heard of the 'Letherman'? - enuf said.
You really must try and learn to read what is written and NOT what you want to read or what you think is written.
IGAT has pretty much summed it all up, so I won't waste any more time on your pathetic bleatings. Get back in that Hercules or whatever you fly, and do us all a favour and head off into the wide blue yonder of Basra or wherever. You do look a fool.
As for my comments about the flying air trafficker, I would just suggest once again that you read all of what I said, and not take it 'out of context' like you feel the rest of us are doing with your girlie co-pilot. You would then have read that it is my belief that where ever possible, aircrew should fill aircrew slots, NOT retrain Air Traffickers.
TSM

[Wee Jock McPlop]

I was a RAF ATCO until a couple of years ago and would have loved the opportunity to have had a flying tour on the E3D or similar platform. That was never to be because I did not have the correct skill-sets and would never get the chance to acquire them - fair enough. However, this gentleman is ex-aircrew (whatever the definition of that is), has a bucket load of aircrew experience (3000hrs +) and just happens to now be an air trafficker. Maybe, just maybe, this guy brings the precise skill-sets that they (PMA) are looking for and is the best man for the job at this point in time.

Some of the more passionate aircrew responses beg the question: that if you are taking the "but he's not aircrew" approach to this guy, then the same must apply the other aircrew who have been away on multiple ground tours, then return to the fold? Where do you draw the line?

The bottom line is maybe this guy is indeed the best man for the job and deserves his place on the course, ATCO or not. I do not know the individual, but wish him all the best, because if some of the responses are anything to go by, it appears he may be in for a hard time. A triffle unfair if he is a good operator and comes up with the goods.

WJMcP

[Zhivago]

I still can not see the problem with this one. This ATCO guy has 3000+ hours probably more then some aircrew.. HAS A BREVET! can do the same job on the ground and in the air.

The only problem I see is that he may show you up!!!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Crikey TSM,

Even I didn't think you would have the front to reply with so much hostility having been caught with your pants down in the most embarrassing of fashions:p

You said

"This just goes to show how completely out of touch those incompetent fools at PMA really are"..................still think they are out of touch?

"The guy is NOT aircrew, and he will (almsot certainly) not have gone through aircrew selection "........Ex AEop with over 3000 hrs surely he must have gone through Biggin Hill or Cranwell for selection, do you still stand by your assertion?

" Likewise, he won't have to do the same survival courses or other training that ALL real aircrew have to go through and have to pass before they are able to continue, irrespective of their dicipline"............ Having completed AIC to go onto to qualify as an AEop then fly for over 3000 hours I reckon he must have done all the pre requisite survival training as his, and this is so priceless in the pompous way you say it, REAL Aircrew counterparts, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong:rolleyes:

"For someone like this to sneak in through the back door is shameful, and I just hope that he fails, not so much for him and the rest of us, but so that the lunatics down at the PMA assylum finally understand that the OASC at cranwell is there for a reason! And a reason that has worked for many years (and at Biggin prior to that!)"..........I think if we are to believe ProcATCO's post that Lunatics at PMA may and I stress may have got it spot on!

IGAT,
I apologise fully if it appears on the face of it I was trying to hi jack this thread or even offer an opinion on a matter I have no trade knowledge about. With my trade specialisation I have absolutely nothing to offer with regards this particular debate however I was trying to directly question TSM with regards to his style of "shoot first questions later" posting.

Whilst some sort of acknowledgment from him as to the obvious error of his ways would be appreciated I fully expect a few more lines of insult from him rather than answers to the simple and pretty direct questions I have asked of him here. I will not bother you good folks again and leave you to debate this trade specific matter in peace.

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

With apologies to Private Eye and tongue firmly in cheek, I recently received a document entitled "The Militant Voice" that I thought I would share....
Author: Flt Lt Dave Spart (Co-chair, Lincolnshire Chapter of the Socialist Allied Mission Crew and Weapons Systems Officers' Union):
Once again the reactionary fascist forces of the so-called Personnel Administration Agency have proved their willingness to undermine the industrial rights of the brothers within the Union to conduct their legitimate interests on behalf of themselves. By accepting a so-called Air Traffic Officer with the skills and ability to control aircraft …er…undermines the fundamental requirement to carry pine poles around Cranwell and thereby demonstrate the ability to think clearly and have proper airmanship. The fact that this individual may have alarmingly accrued..er…3000 hours of experience in a previous role totally undermines the right of the fellow union members to claim flying pay whilst being criminally detained in a non-flying job. We have decided to take this reprehensible case to the court of arbitration where we expect to be represented by the solicitor who previously acted successfully for Mr D Robinson in the car workers' dispute and Mr A Scargill in his glorious defeat of Thatcherism in the 1980s. This is the thin end of the wedge and smacks of similar dangerous precedents such as the derrick versus crane operators dispute that involved our brothers in the dockworkers union and the various successful printworkers disputes. All these actions were glorious successes hailed as overwhelming defeats of capitalism by the international fraternal socialist brothers, led by Mr F Castro. Our rights to exclude other non-Chapter members were undermined firstly by bringing in qualified fighter controllers and now this, qualified air traffic controllers. We expect to call on flying pickets from across the country to voice our displeasure at this disgraceful initiative. At this time of budgetary pressure, it is our duty to complain and whinge and do everything we can to undermine progress, innovation or lateral thinking. If we don’t block this, the next thing we know, the Army will be doing without us by buying UAVs and using satellites that would not be operated by legitimate aircrew. What do you mean that they are planning it already?
{Flt Lt Spart continues in this vein whilst frothing at the mouth for some time….}

[The Swinging Monkey]

SFFP
Now don't try to be too clever here Dumbo. Up until a page ago, you, like me and the rest of us had no idea this guy was an ex AEOp, so calm down for goodness sake. As I've said to you before, you must learn to read the whole story, and with that I still stand by my comment about aircrew in AIRCREW slots, not groundcrew or otherwise.

So yes, I apologise because I didn't know he was ex aircrew and with hindsight I can see perehaps why PMA are 'experimenting' with him. However, there are still lots of AEOps stuck in ground jobs that want to get back to flying, as there are at ISK who would love a change, but cannot because of things like this.

See how easy it is to say 'sorry' when you make a mistake? Pas it on to Caz, unless of course.........................................you are Caz!!

TSM
ps any chance of you answering any of the questions put to you on a certain other topic or are you just going to ingnore them and hope they go away?

[Zhivago]

Can I ask if the ground crew feel the same as the aircrew, what with all these aircrew in ground crew jobs that are desperate to go flying again or are they just short of manpower in these areas that they need help from aircrew for a short period. After a ground crew job do you have to have specialist training again to go flying.

[London Mil]

There are those who would say that this whole thread is about a bunch of plastic sgt sour grapes. Others have a far more circumspect view on the whole thing. My only further observation (FWIW as I have finished my Horlicks) is that I doubt PMA declared this one on their own. I'm pretty sure that various trade sponsors and people in the ISTAR side of the house would have been consulted.
Friday - off to the pub.

[Zhivago]

I agree as an outsider it reads more like children throwing tantrums, then the professional airmen that are supposed to be in the airforce.. Does it really matter at the end of the day as long as the job in hand gets done.

[Captain Ratpup]

Following on from this now somewhat tired debate, I'd be grateful for a piece of advice...

If you had to make a choice of either or, would you choose FC or ATC?
This is the choice I'm trying to make at the moment. FC offers a slim chance of some up in the air Waddo time but arguably naff tours between a handful of places 'up north'. There's also the prospect of 1ACC and some lovely green makeup. However, ATC get postings pretty much anywhere with a long strip of concrete and seem as a branch to be a bit more 'secure' and 'needed'. Pros and cons aside, both seem good in different ways to me but I can't make my mind up!
Please save me from flipping a coin. Also, I'm up in Boulmer on a fam mid-April and would welcome the chance to buy a pint in the mess to anyone willing to share their thoughts.
Ratpup

[Number2]

What I saw of 1 ACC was a bunch of FCs pretending to do an ATCOs job.

[Sentry Agitator]

Captain Ratpup

Check your PMs as what you ask will thin the focus of this subject even further!!

SA

[I've_got a traveller]

Once you've visited Boulmer, you'll be firmly on the side of ATC me thinks:ok: .

If you want to go flying why not apply for aircrew!?

[SidHolding]

Put all this bitching to one side.........

The SO job on an E3 involves ESM and Airborne Radar. This job is carried out by AEOps and TG12, mostly non-commissioned (as it should be). I think the main points (bitching aside) to this thread are that AEOps can't get posted out of ground tours and back to flying, and filling a SNCO's job with an Officer also seems to be a waste of money (especially in this day and age).

Yes this guy is an ex-AEOp (as am I) and I'm sure he's more than capable of the task. But you wouldn't send an ex Techie back to the line if he'd been commissioned?!?

Sid.

[bracketsew]

AMEN, E-3's are already massively top heavy, and with all this career mentality that there is, officers are being upgraded quite often less than six months after being made CR. surely this is not conducive to both expirience and good leadership.

[airwaverider]

Traveller,

Oh yes I forgot FCs aren't "real aircrew" on the E3!!!:ugh: :ugh:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Come on,

And there was me thinking that we were all on the same side, how naive.

A SAM won't differentiate between an FC brevet, or an AEOp Brevet. The hours will be the same whether you have a WSOp Badge or an AT Badge. You will all end up eating the same pies from the same oven. And the beers will taste just as good over stories of Eton and Cranwell, as they will over Scarborough Comp and Boulmer Naafi.

Most importantly, whatever cadre you may be from, you will never ultimately be rememered for how pretty your mess dress looked at the last Christmas Ball, but for the actions that you performed when times were tough, and the friends you made along the way.

Stop being pathetic, and work together, "real aircrew" or not.

CRPxGood :ugh:(Real Aircrew to the Shallow)

[The Gorilla]

Clear Right
Hear hear well said Sir! What is it the Navy say? The Team Works!
:)

[I've_got a traveller]

Oh dear me Airwave Rider you are a tadge insecure me thinks.

I was simply giving some friendly advice to a poor chap/chapess who is at a crossroads in their career. Frankly I don't care what you FC's call yourself. I have bigger fish to fry (as does the rest of the RAF).

Captain Ratpup if you still have the option I would recommend ATC, but if you still can look into aircrew.

Ps FC's aren't aircrew. ( Helmet on, aruuga aruuga, incoming).=banter

For Bracketsew :- Banter n.good-humoured joking. v. joke thus. (Oxford Dictionary):{

[London Mil]

ratpup, FWIW, I would go ATC. Not because of the usual arguments but I think that this has more longevity both inside and outside of the services. I'm sure FC is a fine job, they certainly have some extremely capable operators and staff officers, it just seems a bit stovepiped (standing by for abuse regarding 3rd man, Air C2 etc etc). But the bottom line is that, as a junior, you will spend the vast majority of your career sitting in a CRC at either Boulmer or Scampton. Anyway, I supsect that in a few years time we will all be part of the same branch and, frankly, whatever direction you go in, it will be you , and not your branch, who decides how much you make of it.

[Wyler]

The only 'aircrew' on an E3D are those directly responsible for keeping the bloody thing airborne. That means the pilots and associated flight deck types. Everyone else is 'Mission Crew'. Therefore, said chap who is ATC/AEO will bring far more to the party with his ATC skills rather then the years spent looking for submarines.
Last time I was on an E3D for a ride I seem to remember the FRC's for the Mission Crew were more or less 'Sit down, strap in and wait for the Captains Instructions', just like any other airliner.
I really hope we never go back to the Shackleton days when walking into the crew room was like walking into the waiting room at an Orthopaedic Clinic. Right person for the right job, whether that be ATC, FC, FJ or AEO.

And just to clarify my personal position, FC's are not, and never will be, Aircrew. The grown ups among them, and there are plenty, know this. The few who think they are will, inevitably, come down to earth with a bump soon enough (no Pun intended).

Ratpup.

PLEASE do not make your mind up based on the stuff written on here (inc mine!). Wait and see for yourself.

[SirToppamHat]

Ratpup
Firstly, I have to agree with Wyler - do not decide on the basis of what you read here. Get yourself to Boulmer, Scampton, LATCC, Swanwick and a busy tower (depending where you live) and make your own mind up. If you are a genuine candidate, the AFCOs should be able to sort this out for you.
Secondly, much of what London Mil says makes sense, but I am not convinced by the line about ATC:
this has more longevity both inside and outside of the services.
Neither the RAF ATC nor FC 'tickets' are transferrable to civvy street. However, if you do decide to go CAA ATCO, a background in either of these specialisations will get you the waiver for the upper age limit (even Surveillance Officer FCs get this), as it's relevant experience. Essentially, if you can read a radar picture you are already ahead of the ab initios.
As for the merger of FC/ATC this has been talked about since Pontious was a pilot, and whilst I agree that there are some shared skills, and there could be more shared training, the 2 jobs are very different. Also, both jobs deploy (FC more than ATC I believe) so they will both need blue suiters for the foreseeable future. For what it's worth, in my personal opinion, each of the specs would benefit from the occasional exchange - I know several ATCOs and FCs who agree with me on this.
STH

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Wyler,
Last time I was on an E3D for a ride I seem to remember the FRC's for the mission crew were more or less 'sit down, strap in and wait for the captains instructions', just like any other airliner


I suggest that the next time you get an invite to fly, pay attention. As a CREW everyone has checks that they are responsible for, may I suggest that you were unaware that they were going on? As a Pax you were probably not even on headset, or if you were, only at the last moment.

[airwaverider]

Well said Fire n Forget!!

All members of the crew have important roles within the E3, from the Flight deck through to the ATs!

[The Gorilla]

Indeed some of the best bacon butties I have ever had were made by my favourite RT's!:}

[MAD Boom]

Wyler
The only 'aircrew' on an E3D are those directly responsible for keeping the bloody thing airborne. That means the pilots and associated flight deck types. Everyone else is 'Mission Crew'.
So what you are saying is that the Non-Commissioned Aircrew down the back are not aircrew?
What part of the phrase 'Non-Commissioned Aircrew' do you not get?

[Wyler]

In that role yes, they are not functioning purely as 'aircrew'. They are part of the team that delivers the capability of the platform. In this case, a function that can be carried out as well, and in some instances, better by other specialists who are not part of the 'normal' aircrew cadre.

Hence my point that the ATC skills of the chap in question will probably be more use than his previous flying on the MPA fleet.

Whether this remains the same in the future as things evolve and change, remains to be seen.

[tailchase]

ASACS - Airborne Surveillance and Control System
ADGE - Air Defence Ground Environment

The newly revamped RAF Website shows the above 2 terms in the glossary. One should be consigned to history and the other is blatantly incorrect and contradicts itself againt individual units bios.

How will FC and TG12 ever come out of the cold war view engendered by others if the basics do not seem to be understood by others.

Wyler - top marks for your 'non-biased' view on this thread which was degenerating about as fast as any other when considering the nature of the bait!

[Confucius]

It's true that the mission crew are indeed involved in checks 'down the back'.

It's also true that a crew of 5: 2 Pilots, 1 Engineer, 1 Navigator and 1 Coms person could safely, legally and competently fly an E3 around the world with no input from anyone else should they happen to be on board. The other 13-odd folk on board can be crew, but they are not actually needed until the mission starts.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Yep I agree Confucius, likewise, apart from the T/O and landing unless the 'Autopilot' kicks off are they needed once the mission starts? hehe :ok: :eek:

[Confucius]

Once the mission starts I'd be only too pleased to parachute safely to terra firma. It wouldn't be so bad if after flying for 8+ hours one ended somewhere with an Outback or some other place that served steaks with lobsters on top.

[trap one]

Well Said Gorilla/Wyler/Airwaverider
The point my estemed Ex-colleague (Gorilla) is trying to make is that the whole 18/17 men/women on board the E3 have to work together as a CREW. Be it as NCA, Officer Aircrew, AT;s, FC's or AT's. The end product that goes off the jet is the result of the TEAM work that goes on the jet. Now if that involves Making Butties, collecting paper work, prompting the pilot about the course he is flying, or putting out a fire on the aircraft, it is all TEAMWORK.
I have flown with some very good operators, that goes for all the seats from nose to tail and I've flown with some not so good operators.
When it comes down to the wire all the members of a crew will be in the aircraft and therefore subject to exactly the same risks That is why they are paid the same. Now once the non aircrew types leave the job then the Flying pay stops, for the simple reason they have not gone through the Fyningly/Cranwell mill. I was summonded back after 18 months on the ground without flying pay and requalified within 6 weeks to then deploy to Afganistan. I went not to get the extra money but because I was a serving member of the RAF.

RATUP
I'll echo the thoughts of the above and STH, DON't decide on what you read here, journey far and wide get as much exposure to all the jobs you even think you might like and then make your own decision.

Trap One :ok:

[The Swinging Monkey]

Trap One,
May I point out to you that you are incorrect about your comment: "That is why they are paid the same. Now once the non aircrew types leave the job then the Flying pay stops" I can assure you that, for many FCs, the money does not stop. I can name several FCs who have gone back to the ground but have retained their flying pay because they ahve been able to put a case forward for possibly 'having a need' in the furture to 'return to flying duties'. I have sen it from Flt Lt all the way up to at least one Wg Cdr. Indeed, it even happened to one AT, although it was soon stopped when the rest of the ATs tried to jump on the bandwagon and PMA finally woke up!

As for being 'paid the same' perhaps you could enlighten me here? Many was the time when the CT, straight out of STS was earning MORE than the 'proffessional' CO sitting next to him! The same could often be said for the FO FC on the back row earning more than a FS AEOp who has done a couple of tours already. I'm afraid you are wrong again there Sir.

This thread is NOT about teamwork or any other rubbish like that. It is about PMAs decision to put a 'Non-Aircrew' bum into an aircrew seat, when there are many 'aircrew' who, through no fault of their own cannot get back to flying.

I have no problem flying with anyone, but I do think that this kind of thing should only happen as and when all the aircrew, who are filling crap ground slots, that want to get back to flying, are back on a squadron doing their primary job.

TSM

[Grumpy106]

TSM

Check your facts, the flying pay attracting 'flying-related' posts stopped about 3 yeras ago. Only FCs in flying tours attract flying pay these days. Indeed, most of those in receipt of it in ground tours were told to pay it back!!!:eek:

[The Swinging Monkey]

Grumps,
Are you categorically saying that other than on an actual flying squadron tour, FCs do NOT get flying pay? Want to bet on that? Would you like me post a couple of names for you?
What about the other stuff about all being paid the same?

TSM

[trap one]

TSM
My comment about being paid the same is that we or in my case was in reciept of the appropriate rate of flying pay. However re your CT/CO or SO vs AEOp I could raise you a FE Sgt on Master Eng pay/rates, the fact was we were/are in reciept of the right level of pay for the job.
The arguement of the FC recieving pay as they might come back to flyig duties is IMHO never has been valid. Certainly all the SNCO's who returned as ERS only recieved the flying pay for the time thet were on ERS and when ERS finished stone dead at the end of GW2 then so did the flying pay. As an aside it wasn't until the Sept after that the idiots finally sorted out my Flying pay. If you know better I'll defer to you as I am now EX-RAF. But the arguement for the FC's recieving the Flying pay was that they were in Flying related posts. E.G. the AWACS tasker/liasion at JMOTS. So therefore had to be current as per the job discription and returned to fly to maintain currency/knowledge.
I know most of the FC's who were recieving Flying Pay on these Ground tours had to pay back the "over pay" and when I last raised it with one of them they were still trying to get it written off but still faced a hefty bill.
Although the thread was not started with team work as a point it has certainly crept into the comments of some of the posters and whilst I have already admitted to being an Ex member of the E3 community I will still defend it against detractors.
Trap One

[Grumpy106]

TSM

There are certain posts at Waddington only which attract flying pay when the incumbents of those posts remain current and fly missions in the role they filled whilst on the Flying Sqns. So, the answer to your question is no, not only personnel on the Sqns receive flying pay, but no FCs outside Waddington in posts such as JMOTS, PJHQ and Force Command receive flying pay any more. As for your arguement about the right pay for the job, I know several Flt Lt TDs on middle rate flying pay who had Wg Cdr SOs on top whack flying pay working for them, how about that for the right pay for the job!

Either way, the thread was set up about having an ATCO in the SO role. Why not, if he can pass the Course, good luck to him. He can only add to the already diverse mix of E-3 Mission Crew which makes the platform so successful. And as for 'all those real aircrew stuck in ground jobs', maybe they are victims of their own success by having to fill those specific roles (such as in the AWC). I dare say some of them are quite happy to stay there, with their flying pay, rather than have to work too hard back on a Sqn.

[Captain Ratpup]

Many thanks to all who contributed their thoughts or PM'd me on the issue of choosing between FC and ATC. Some very valuable, honest and unbiased feedback which I am very grateful for...

Even though I previously mentioned I'm up to Boulmer for a fam mid-April and offered free booze to anyone willing to share their thoughts, there have been no takers! I obviously need to reassess this choice of branch. Perhaps the FC types are too busy in their bunkers to have time for a drink :sad: I can hardly tell OASC I chose ATC over FC as they seemed to like drinkypoos more. Or maybe I can...:8

[Bunker Mentality]

Ratpup,
You are probably nearer the truth than you know, but most places in the Service are pretty busy these days. 'Mid April' is bit vague, and is still a month away - many people won't have a clue whether they'll be free to take you up on your offer or not. Are you coming to Boulmer as part of an RJP, or independently? Either way, I'm sure you'll be well looked after when you get here.
Sir Topham Hat knows what he's talking about. Keep an open mind until you've seen for yourself. Be especially aware that stuff on here that looks authoritative can, in fact, be utter drivel - and often is.
BM

[Lomon]

At a risk of being stoned here, maybe PMA are bending to the will of the MOD who want to see fewer instances of of Fighter Controllers attempting to weld fast jets with civil airliners. ATC on the ground cannot co-ordinate with a fighter controller in an E3, and maybe having someone on board who's job it is to keep a/c 5 miles apart instead of trying to get them as close together as possible. The UK's airspace is becoming increasingly complex, having someone on board who can point out some of the more intricate rules may do some good.

The fact that the individual is (rumoured to be) ex aircrew is a clever idea, you don't have to spend more money sending someone on all the aircrew courses, and all the other aircrew types can't get uptight about having a non member of the club playing with their toys.

And if the experiment fails then it hasn't cost the MOD very much at all. Besides if the MOD get their way TG9 and 12 will end up merged in the next few years anyway. So then we could all end up anywhere.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Lomon,
You make me laugh mate, you try controlling 45+ aircraft in an exercise like CQWI, around the north sea then overland. What you are not probably aware of is that we have to give the fast jets freedom to turn/climb/descend without asking for tactical training, Its up to us to notice that they are doing it and then make the 'radar service' fit the situation and let them continue or not. Its a situation that most ATC cannot comprehend.
As for your maybe having someone on board who's job it is to keep a/c 5 miles apart instead of trying to get them as close together as possible
He wont be anywhere near controlling a/c, and as such will have no input about controlling during the mission.
having someone on board who can point out some of the more intricate rules may do some good
We all know the rules or we would not be allowed to control in UK airspace !! JSP552 etc is there for us all.
ATC on the ground cannot co-ordinate with an E3
Same, the FC on the E3 cannot co-ordinate with ATC either, and as mentioned above they still allow the jets the freedom to get on with the training. So the E3 does not require someone to show what 5 miles is !:ugh:
Back on topic, let him go to the jet, he seems an experienced guy and as such must bring something to the party. However, he has had an opportunity that would not normally arise due to his current job, and his current job will not help with the roles he will learn on the E3.

[London Mil]

FnF

Its a situation that most ATC cannot comprehend.

I think you underestimate us somewhat. Who tends to do the ingress/egress, runs half the towlines and, as happened a couple of weeks back, marshalled the whole bleedin' lot in the 323 complex whilst you guys finished briefing.

Don't try and create a greater divide between us. As someone has already said, there is a certain inevitability about being joined-up.

[SidHolding]

I thought the ATC guy was going into the SO position, so will therefore not control aircraft, but raise a radar plot and operate the ESM sensor.

[I've_got a traveller]

SO's (apparently) aren't even allowed to talk on the radio!! As they are not trained to do so!!!!:eek: But, don't quote me on that a suppressed fellow Aeop (EW) on the "Component",whatever that means, told me.

[lokiukuk]

FC is NOT a Brevet it's a flying badge!!!!!!!!!!!

[tailchase]

You were either having a very bad start to your nightshift or had a long day, when you dropped your bait into last night's contribution.
However, fact, FC's don't fly the jets (so are not deliberately trying to 'weld' them to anything or anyone, nor are the aircrew) both branches treat flight safety as the highest priority....the airspace and mission type will dictate the appropriate radar service that the FC like yourself must/can/or even is not permitted to apply, often, due to radar/comms coverage and number of aircraft involved. This is more likely to result in an information service at best than strict 5 miles (long live radar control etc etc for the arduous task of nice long straight and level flight - FC are just not 'requested/briefed' to do that). The airspace can often be adjacent to or even underneath an element of more regulated airspace or simply open FIR and this is where I sense that your comments are aimed, especially if you and other ATC are trying to route traffic through this 'shared' airspace, perhaps even traffic that is not ideally suited to being there by virtue of its performance envelope but equally has a right because the airspace class permits it. However, for the sake of a well thought out turn of perhaps 20 degrees away for a handful of miles, everyone ends up in the middle of the same piece of sky. I know, I know. The airline operators and Joe Public alike want to get from A to B as quickly and fuel efficiently as possible, so your hands are tied even if you make the suggestion to the pilot or the FC if he is looking a hundred miles ahead, sees the chance for the request. Believe me, in an ideal world, ATC and FC alike would not have to share airspace quite so intimately and the tactical side (and trg reqts alike lets not forget) of the Fast Jet and FC's world could be achieved without the continuing debate of this nature -not going to happen though is it as airspace continues to change/evolve?

Perhaps you should visit an airfield and a CRC (ideally both) and see the level of work and preparation that goes into these exercises from all areas (hence the need for the prolonged briefings). FCs visiting the area or approach guys alike to explain doesn't quite have the same impact as watching a complex CQWI mission unfold first hand. That said, FC do need to do this but that is to better understand your job.

Have you ever thought about how much safer the sky actually is for ATC and FC both giving whatever form of service to aircraft as opposed to everyone flying about in their own little world under VFR. without ATC or FC Now the latter part of that question really does scare me.

FC and ATC do different jobs - surely this was pointed out at the careers office to you. Go and seek wisdom and understanding. You never know, a piece of everyone's jigsaw might just fall into place for the face-to-face interaction (I think it is still called liaison). This often makes the post-debate beer all the more enjoyable as well. Furthermore, maybe you will then be making a push yourself to persuade PMA to part with some flying pay. Afterall, at least the E-3D has some windows!!

London Mil is starting to use language such as 'marshalled' - you'll be writing papers on amalagmation if you are not careful.

[Lomon]

However, fact, FC's don't fly the jets (so are not deliberately trying to 'weld' them to anything or anyone, nor are the aircrew) both branches treat flight safety as the highest priorityI know that, it was a tongue in cheek comment :rolleyes:

I have visited the CRC, and seen how the FC guys work. And in return we have hosted FC from Boulmer and Scampton, and even studes from the FC school.

FC and ATC do different jobs - surely this was pointed out at the careers office to you. Go and seek wisdom and understanding. You never know, a piece of everyone's jigsaw might just fall into place for the face-to-face interaction (I think it is still called liaison).I know FC and ATC do different jobs too. I wasn't trying to upset the ladies and gentlemen of the FC branch, but from all the FC's I have spoken too, and some recent minor incidents, there is room for improvement. Nobody can remember every little rule from the JSP's, AIP's, CAP's etc etc.

The point was that maybe someone of the ATC persuasion could fill those little gaps in the knowledge that exist because of a lack of understanding between 2 branches that MOD sees as so close already that the subject of merging them rears it's head at every mention of reductions in defence spending.

Afterall, at least the E-3D has some windows!!So does the office, but you might have a better view;)

[Yeller_Gait]

Lomon,

For the umpteenth time, an air trafficker who is going to be a surveillance operator on the E-3D will have absolutely nothing to do with controlling and will have no more than a passing interest in airspace, particularly in his early time on the aircraft when he will be busy learning the SO role.

By the time he has spent 5-6 months on the SCC and a further 6 months or so getting to CR standard once on the squadron I guess that he will no longer be current on UK airspace procedures anyway, never mind the fact that we routinely fly in several European countries on training missions.

What is more worrying for me is that I find myself in agreement with FC's on this thread, I must go and have a lie down, or maybe a G&T!

Can we get the thread back to subject please, I still think it is wrong that we are putting a non-flying person into a flying post when there are enough people willing to fly, and perhaps even more importantly, it is experienced SNCO's we need( as SO), not more officers.

Y_G

[tailchase]

Lomon - I think we have reached an agreement on the points raised.
I suspect that whilst this thread has been very much a collection of individual and often almost hysterical rants (it's a pity that the forum cannot recreate the dark corner of the bar after happy hour/midnight when full use of the hands to demonstrate what is being discsused with full consequence of spilled beer etc). The fact is that no matter who fills them, somebody or somewhere has ultimately paid a lot of money to decide where the core skills of the basic role lie whether it is on the E-3D or any platform or the ground(when will this become an issue with Sentinel - will that become a tri-service debate when we light blue all seem to stick together - or, will we be appalled at our green colleagues taking our rightful place etc etc, or perhaps even think jointery is the way forward).
In this case, back to the thread, the posts would have been established as TG12 within each E-3D crew. I used to be able to recount which post was which in each posn from my past employment. However, the majority of replies here seem to agree that the mission crew often enjoys a better balance when it has a full cross section of different branches and trades and, importantly, experience - dare I even ask whether it could be conceivable for a mission crew to perform its duties at least to an acceptable standard without anyone of 'aircrew' persuasion - blimey!
We prove that we can all work together whether in adversity or otherwise and it is perhaps time for innocent bystanders and those seeking a career to take that impression home with them. Of course there are always going to be individuals of higher capabilities and apptitudes than others but isn't that what selection and subsequently promotion (rank and meritocracy alike) sort out. That said, I would rather have had 2 average operators than one loose cannon who brings his sandbag to the conversation each time the barrack room lawyer pitches up.

[Lomon]

For the umpteenth time, an air trafficker who is going to be a surveillance operator on the E-3D will have absolutely nothing to do with controlling and will have no more than a passing interest in airspace, particularly in his early time on the aircraft when he will be busy learning the SO role.

By the time he has spent 5-6 months on the SCC and a further 6 months or so getting to CR standard once on the squadron I guess that he will no longer be current on UK airspace procedures anyway, never mind the fact that we routinely fly in several European countries on training missions.Obviously intelligent discussion is forbidden here. The thread started as a speculative rumour, this is the rumour network isn't it? The guys who routinely fly E3 sorties were speculating on what skills an Air Traffic Controller would bring to to an E3 crew.

I provided a tongue in cheek reply, after all light hearted banter is part of service life, (or are you not allowed a sense of humour here any more?)

Can we get the thread back to subject pleaseThe topic of the thread was "A flying Air Trafficer!!!!?????" Where did I go off topic? I was merely voicing an opinion within the context of the thread title.

If discussion is not the point of the forum, then why bother having one?

[I've_got a traveller]

Lomon and tail chase, I believe you both have very valid arguments and I'm not going to disagree with you.............but, one thing we can all agree on is that money and morale (perhaps not on E3's) is in very short supply within the RAF at the moment and we are being stretched to breaking point. SF fleets, Herc and especially Nimrod fleets are experiencing problems that the E3 wouldn't be able to comprehend at this moment in time. Let's face it the E3's are living the dream compared to the majority of platforms. So ,what annoys us Aircrew, is when money is spent on putting people from outside the aircrew cadre into the air. It costs thousands upon thousands to kit them out,train them and then give them flying pay. And whilst all this extra expenditure takes place aircrew of all trades from Navs to Aeops are sat in meaningless ground trades twiddling their thumbs and getting flying pay! You have to agree that this is pure waste. Frankly, I think that anyone from most trades in the RAF could do the SO job and they could contribute something from their respective pasts wether it be an ATCO, TG12. PMA are not thinking this through as what they need on E3's is not more officers (see Yellow gait's posts) but more operators.

Just think of all the money they could save!

You do the Math!!!!!

[Yeller_Gait]

Lomon,

You are quite right, this is a rumour network, it says so at the top of the page.

Obviously intelligent discussion is forbidden here. The thread started as a speculative rumour, this is the rumour network isn't it? The guys who routinely fly E3 sorties were speculating on what skills an Air Traffic Controller would bring to to an E3 crew.

I think you will find that the guys (and gals) who fly the E-3 were not speculating about what, if anything, an ATCO can bring to the aircraft as a Surveillance Operator. They already know that as an SO he will have no controller type function, so the main experience he will bring to the aircraft will be as an ex dryman on Nimrods. Perhaps in time his ATCO experience will be of benefit as an SC or TD, but as an SO it is very limited. It is the others that are speculating what he will bring to the aircraft.


IGAT

Frankly, I think that anyone from most trades in the RAF could do the SO job

The dogs maybe, but not their handlers



Y_G

[I've_got a traveller]

You're right Yellowgait!! Imagine if you put an Rock on the crew you'd probably be able to get CCS out of the way whilst on task!!!! Instead of it taking about a week nowadays!!

I must stop this banter:cool: or I might get told off by Samurai Matt!!

[Fire 'n' Forget]

I've_got a Taveller
Navs to Aeops are sat in meaningless ground trades twiddling their thumbs and getting flying pay! you have to agree this is pure waste
LOL watch what you say mate, PMA might be watching and take you at your word! ATC taking jobs on E3, SAR going civvy, MR4, reduced crews, Army Door gunners getting x-trained maybe the future isn't so bright :eek: Maybe PMA will think 'save money' and stop recruiting/re-engaging NCA for a while...................:\

[I've_got a traveller]

F and F, I hope PMA are listening!!!

You hit the nail on the head when you said about the future not being so bright. I think PMA know exactly how many people are in ground trades, what I'm sure though, is that they haven't fully grasped how s##t morale is at the moment amongst NCA. They won't have to worry about a saturation of us NCA believe me as most will leave on their own accord if things continue as they have been doing. PMA can't afford to stop recruiting NCA but they can save money by using their already trained assets more wisely!

[London Mil]

tailchase, if not writing, certainly reading.:eek:

There are those of us who have kicked around this air force for long enough to see how much overlap there is. I will swear here: "Leaning". If a consultancy firm came and looked at the whole organisation (as opposed to the snippets we choose to give them), they would have a field day. So many of the skills (not all) are entirely transferrable. Why don't we get out of our stavepipes and actually do something productive instead? To those NCA who are stuck bleating away on ground tours, welcome to the RAF. Have you ever thought that exposure to something other than your 'prime' role may actually make you, and the Service, a better rounded person/organisation? If not, there is a nice little video somewhere of an AAC staff sgt being in the thick of things as part of a cobbled-together platoon in Afghanistan. To me, that is a true professional - someone who thinks a little further than his comfort zone.

[I've_got a traveller]

London Mil,
What drivel !!!!! Comfort zone!!!!!!???? Try spending six months every year for the last four in a tent in Basra. It's a lot different and a lot more uncomfortable than you could ever possibly imagine. I'm not saying that you've not gone out of area or been employed in other roles LM. Obviously you must have, to come up with the logical, rounded and sensible statements you seem to come up with from time to time.
You need to read up a bit more and see where us NCA aircrew are employed you will find it interesting reading. I'm not even going to start telling you where I have been employed in the past as I believe it not to be professional, I too have been around. However, If you can't see that leaving aircrew on the ground whilst putting groundcrew in the air is completely absurb not too mention massively expensive, then you are obviously a yes man sir!!

[tailchase]

London Mil - pressing need to fill up on beer and curry called - sorry.
Your points noted - I worked and lived alongside many ATC frends and colleagues in the past. Good times and good banter.

[London Mil]

then you are obviously a yes man sir!!
Ha ha ha. IGT thanks for bring some light to my otherwise boring day. You couldn't be further from the truth. That said, maybe my comments yesterday were a little alcohol induced although I would stand by the sentiments. :p