...manpower footprint...
What a wonderful example of staff-speak wanquewords!
When a certain air force was about to introduce tankers into service, they initially decided that an 'operator' would suffice. So they did a trial; one chap did OK, the others didn't. Then the aircraft was fitted with a mission system - it was clear that the person operating it needed an air navigation background. So they changed their minds and used ex-Tornado and (a few) ex-F4 WSOs, who had sufficient capacity to offload some of the tasks more normally the responsibility of the pilots, such as formation management. That worked very well and the 3-person environment has enabled them to gain high respect for their work from NATO allies.
Their colleagues in another country with the same aircraft decided to use ex-C130 navs; again, that went OK but their pilots do more of the formation control etc. They also have the respect of NATO allies.
So when another air force was about to introduce a 3-person tanker, they were advised that at least 3 other nations had tried to use ALMs etc. for the task and that hadn't been successful. But no, they decided that they had to know better.....
The reason? To save on salary costs....
I gather that the decision is now being reviewed.
Wensleydale wrote:
"if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission".
As one of our QFI captains once said to an air engineer (holder of a PPL) who kept badgering him to allow him to try landing a VC10. "Certainly, no problem. But first you have to apply for a commission, then you have to pass Cranwell, BFTS and AFTS, then if you are selected for the VC10, pass the OCU groundschool and simulator sessions.
Then I'll let you try a landing!"
Why do 'manning' not listen to the opinions of those with experience in the roles in question? Too often they just seemed to want to justify the ar$e decision of some thrusting SO/VSO who wouldn't listen to reason....
