The most obvious differance USA/UK that I am led to believe is in the depth to which the US guy is engineer trained. If our aircraft go into the shed for servicing of any depth, no crewman has any responsibility for it. It may be an incorrect perception over here, but rumour has it that US crewmen are responsible for a particualr airframe and will oversee maintenance of it. More akin to a Crew Chief. Being british, I cannot speak of first hand experience here, but I did the USMC/RAF exercise exchange in 96, and that appeared to be the case there. The numerous nations use their crewmen in different ways, the Portugese crewmen start/stop the engines and have no in flight role out of the jump seat. Some nations do not involve the crewman in any mission management, nor even brief them of the task (I have seen this at first hand). The RAF Crewman is fully integrated into the operation of the aircraft, is expected to oversee nav and mission planning, and is expected to speak up when errors are made, or a more efficient method can be seen. He is the eyes and ears for the handling pilot, and with methodical use of key words will talk the aircraft to a specific point. The best examples of this concern underslung loads (USL) onto base frames or SAR survivor recovery where the pilot cannot physically see what is happening below the aircraft.
I saw a newsreel a little while ago of a South African civvie Hip dropping a USL, and then turning the tail into an advertisement boarding, the subsequent crash killing those on board. This simply would not happen with the CRM prevelent amongst an RAF Crew.
I have no wish to promote a "My dicks bigger than yours" thread which is already far too common here, but comments made from uninformed sources, that belittle a job that I have enjoyed for over 2 decades really **** me off. As I said on my initial post early in the thread, the army mates have much to offer, but only if they receive the knowledge and training the RAF boys get, for none of it is superfluous.
The times and procedures have changed. My early years were 2 crew, pilot and crewman. If the crewman could not navigate the aircraft got lost, because a Decca based TANS would invariably wonder. The third crewmember was introduced to save the navigators brevet, and subsequently an acceptance that pilots are suceptable to ground fire and so a second pilot was deemed essential (Gulf War 1). Though responsibilities are shared between more individuals, overlap of duties remain.
Perhaps if nothing else, this thread demonstrates the need for crewmen as well as pilots to have the opportunity of international exchange. Even within the UK, the chiefs must desire a time when all 3 service helicopters are operated by individuals sharing a common standard, techniques and procedures. The lack of supervision and accountable responsibility IMHO justifys the rank that goes with the job. I would prefer that there be no Cpl pilots/gunners/aircrewmen and all share SNCO rank then listen to the unnecessary bleatings by my countries aviators regarding RAF SH. The AAC pilots in particular do seem to have an axe to grind. Chill fella's, trying to put us down does nothing to improve your own status in life, and every leader of men that ever thought so was invariably a complete tosspot.