Just a question

[insty66]

Having read "Flying Pay" and many other threads and having some really good conversations at work. I want to ask a question.
Why do we still need to recruit Officers who are pilots rather than concentrating on getting the pilot first and the seeing what else he/she might become?
The saving in wages & training surley cannot be ignored.
You can have a much larger intake of people and be even more ruthless in the selection policy. A very high standard can there fore be maintained without the needless search for qualities that may never be used.

Don't take this as a dig at those in or those that have served, it is just a question and I would like to hear what opinions exist.


Regards Insty

[Radar Riser]

Very simple. The RAF is run by officers.

A pilot in the RAF is an officer first and a pilot second, hence that is why pilots are GD branch, general duties. I can see your argument but it will never catch on.

[keithl]

RR may be, sadly, right - "It'll never catch on".

When I asked the RAF if I could join as a pilot (nearly 40 years ago!!) they said, "You'll have to be an officer to do that". The rejoinder "wha'ever" was not in vogue then, but it was what I meant. I'd have done anything..

Trouble was, every so often they'd try and hold me to the bargain. Secondary duties, Boards of Inquiry, etc, etc. Spec Aircrew was a progressive step, but not quite far enough.

Spent 32 years dodging the "Officer" bit, as those who know me will testify, but I enjoyed the piloting...

It's a good question, insty, but it'll never catch on.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

RR,

Not quite true. The RAF is run by pilots, and to a certain extent by those who failed pilot and ended up as Nav's:E All other "O's" are second string and have no real say in the bigger picture.

So , even though your argument has great merit, what pilot in his right mind is ever going to sign away all that power, pay and pension by bringing back NCO's in the driving seat:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced