This was one of the issues in the NAO report into Battlefield helicopters in 2004. They said:
Almost two-thirds of the Army's aircrew are non-commissioned officers, whereas the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force use only officer pilots and navigators/observers. Historically, the perceived complexity of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters has supported this position. However, Army noncommissionedofficers are now flying the complex Apache Mk1. In addition, other forces, for example in the United States, use non-commissioned officers to fly Apache, and also aircraft such as the Chinook, which are exclusively flown by officers in the United Kingdom. The bringing together of helicopters into one command throws these issues into sharp relief. Separately, in its Report on the Apache,1 the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that the Department examine the possibility of using non-commissioned officers as aircrew across all three Services.
Aircrew ranks should be reviewed
3.28 The Army Air Corps employs a mix of noncommissioned and officer pilots whereas the RoyalNavy and Royal Air Force use only officer pilots. With the formation of the Joint Helicopter Command and the introduction into the Army Air Corps of increasinglycomplex and powerful helicopters, this position is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
3.29 The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have not always excluded non-officer pilots. The policy was introduced in the 1950s when the two Services assumed responsibility for delivering nuclear weaponry, although only fixed-wing aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters actually carried such weapons. It was assumed that only an officer would have the requisite decision-making abilities and authority to drop nuclear munitions. The phasing out of the Royal Navy's nuclear depth charges and the Royal Air Force's nuclear bombs has, however, removed this rationale for excluding other ranks from becoming pilots.
3.30 The distinction in aircrew ranks between the Services has also partly been justified on the grounds that the helicopters of the Army Air Corps have been less complex to fly. This argument, however, does not appear to have the same strength with the introduction into service of the Apache Mk1, which is a highly complex helicopter. The ratio between non-commissioned and commissioned officers in an Apache regiment will be 62:38.
3.31 In addition, it is difficult to see why a non commissioned officer could not fly a larger support aircraft, such as the Chinook. Indeed, the Joint Helicopter Command has experimented with this in the "Templar" exchange programme where a senior non-commissioned officer from the Army Air Corps was seconded to a squadron flying Chinooks. Moreover, Puma and CH-53 support helicopters are piloted by non-commissioned officers in France and Germany, respectively.
3.32 The question of the variation of front-line aircrew ranks was last addressed by the Department in 1996. The Department concluded that the status quo should remain. Moreover, it concluded that no significant cost savings would arise from using non-commissioned officer pilots because of the differences in individual Service training costs, rates of pay, and time spent in the various ranks. It also noted that there was little scope to harmonise aircrew ranks because the Services operated their helicopters differently. However, the work that informed the establishment of the Joint Helicopter Command suggested that the issue should be reexamined once the Command had "bedded in".
Furthermore, in considering the introduction into service of the Apache, the Committee of Public Accounts has recommended that the Department should examine the possibility of using non-commissioned officers as aircrew across all three Services.
Ministry of Defence - Battlefield Helicopters - National Audit Office