Chinook240 tapped gently away: "That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots."
[1] There are insufficient officer recruits of the right calibre and there always has been. Similarly there is a shortage of NCO recruits of the right calibre but the difference being that there is a bigger pool of resource to choose from with NCO's.
[2] As pointed out earlier, an NCO pilot often becomes a career pilot to retirement. Of course many leave to civie street but far more stay in to pensionable point. More NCO's stay in the saddle than do officers.
[3] Why not?.......if you look back a bit you might find a reference to 'Flying Soldiers' which is pretty descriptive and accurate in defining the requirement of the force to be supported. The army does not want a young officer who has not the faintest clue about what is going on on the ground and has no ability to empathise with the people he is there to provide support to. Unfortunately, there are few career officers who remain as line pilots long enough to gain the experience of their SNCO counterparts. Those that are able to do so and have no ambition for command usually end up as very well respected appointment holders for many years and provide continuity. The rest disappear.
But the AAC has changed significantly and so will its make up no doubt. But one thing is for sure as proven thus far, it does not require an officer to command a battlefield aircraft. Weight up the cost of differing career paths prior to flight training up to the natural termination point of service between officer and SNCO and see which gives best value for money. [clue for the same flight training cost - how many flight hours can you get per pilot.]
IME...[33 years] out of all the officer pilots I have encountered only a dozen or so served past 6 years, none served as line crew for more than 2 and greater than 25% were total to$$ers.
Best wishes
