Why no takers for an AAC exchange?

[Stitchbitch]

Okay, clue may be in this threads title, but why aren't there many exchange officers flying for the AAC? Is it because of Operational tempo (i.e no one left to fill the gap) or do you all think an exchange with the womens auxilluary balloon corps is more appealing? I only ask as there must be a front seat slot up for grabs at Gutersloh? And whats this rumour that the door 'gurners' are to become pro aircrew and get paid as such? WG13 where are you...:}

[Horror box]

Actually there are currently a number of exchange officers with the AAC, including RN, RM, RAF, Australian AAvn, US Army, RCAF. One of those exchanges is actually at Gutersloh at the moment, so not quite sure what exactly you are getting at.

[Stitchbitch]

Realy? Ah well. Perhaps I should have said 'why no RAF exchange officers at Gutersloh. As far as I am aware it's in Germany and LOA still exists...:ok:

[wokkameister]

Mate of mine about to exchange from CH47 to Apache. Not sure where this thread is going. There may not be an exchange pilot at Gutersloh (ah...happy years there!) but we are overrun with them at Odius. 1 Cloggy, 1 RM, 1 AAC and 1 RN.
As for the door gunners, about time they were treated properly!

WM

[RODF3]

Realy? Ah well. Perhaps I should have said 'why no RAF exchange officers at Gutersloh. As far as I am aware it's in Germany and LOA still exists... If there is no RAF exchange post established at Gutersloh you don't get to go there. You don't always get to chose where they send you.

[Release-Authorised]

Wishing to broaden our horizons, we tried to set up an exchange for one of the AWACS fighter controllers, but sadly the Army refused to part with their Regimental Goat.:*

[althenick]

Just out of interest I assume that Army pilots end up flying in RAF RN etc squadrons. If this is the case then would these pilots be Non Commissioned? if this is indeed the case then it puts holes in all the arguments that the FAA and RAF have made to justify Aircrew being commissioned.

[AH Veteran]

althenick,

As far as I am aware, only Commisioned Aircrew can apply for exchanges, thereby plugging those aforementioned holes...

AHV

[Wiretensioner]

In the early eighties a WO1 did an exchange to the Puma fleet (Tiger Tiger).
I did his first solo when he went through the OCU, the first all SNCO Puma crew. I think he is now an civvy instructor at Benson on the simulators.
However not long after arriving at Gutersloh he was commisioned.:cool:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Just out of interest I assume that Army pilots end up flying in RAF RN etc squadrons. If this is the case then would these pilots be Non Commissioned? if this is indeed the case then it puts holes in all the arguments that the FAA and RAF have made to justify Aircrew being commissioned.

The RAF and FAA have officers as pilots because in the good old days of the Cold War when lobbing nukes via aircraft was a very real prospect it was deemed that only an officer could be trusted with such a task.

[Release-Authorised]

There has always been a difference.

In the Army, the officers send the men out to fight
In the Navy, the officers and men all go out to fight together
In the RAF, the men send the officers out to fight

Perhaps the RAF officers havn't worked things out quite right, but the men have.

[teeteringhead]

RAF and RN generally also operate much more independantly in the earlier part of their careers than do the Hairy Arm Corps....

...... a generalisation yes ..... and all generalisations are inaccurate! ;);)

[Rocket2]

"In the Army, the officers send the men out to fight
In the Navy, the officers and men all go out to fight together
In the RAF, the men send the officers out to fight"

Similar but;

In the Army the officers lead their men into war
In the Navy the officers take their men into war
In the Air Force the men pat their officers on the top of their head & tell them to fight their own f:mad:ing war

[wokkameister]

In the Army the officers lead their men into war
In the Navy the officers take their men into war
In the Air Force the men pat their officers on the top of their head & tell them to fight their own f:mad:ing war


Actually, in the RAF, the engineer tasked with the BF has been leaned, there are no spares, the squippers have been threatened with a charge if they sew velcro patches on for the aircrew, the centralised messing has poisoned half the crew and ATC have closed due to only having '90%' manning.
The aircrew just get on with it.

And please, no thread creep to the merits of non-commissioned pilots. Even my non-commissioned stomach can't take that argument yet again!!!

WM

[Union Jack]

Careful! You'll have Chief Two involved next .....

Jack

[Stitchbitch]

Awww you spoilt my next bit wokkameister.:}
So how has lean gone down at Odius?

[Gnd]

Too Far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:uhoh:

[Jeep]

Althenik,

Our present exchange to Fort Rucker is a Warrant Officer. We used to send Warrant Officers to the RAF Exchange but none ever came back. The Aussie Blackhawk Exchange is also not an officer.

Jeep

[Front Seater]

Lets not deceive ourselves on this - the reason why the Fort Rucker exchange has gone to a WO1 and why the Aussie Blackhawk exchange is the same is for the simple reason that the Corps does not have enough Captains to send on these exchange tours and fulfill the numerous Adjutant, Ops Officer and other Staff jobs.

Complete false economy that the Air Corps hierarchy has never really grasped in that these Captains and Majors all leave because they want a balanced flying career and ultimately some credability when/if they command a Squadron. The young officers in the Corps seeing these 'fun' and different tours going to the WO/SNCOs just makes the situation worse as all they see is desk job after desk job.

This is by no means a dig at the SNCOs and WOs that ultimately become HQ DAAvn's flexible manpower (which other threads have highlighted he can do pretty much what he likes with their Terms and Conditions) but what I continue to be amazed at when I see good quality AAC officers transfer to the other Services or go abroad is that why doesn't DAAvn actually retain these Captains and Majors by giving them a flying career (we are not talking PAS but behind a desk - we are talking in cockpit on Squadrons). Just think of all those gapped positions on a Squadron (that we supposedly do not have) that could be filled, just think of the increase in experience levels to have third, fourth and fifth tourists. Just think of the balance that an experienced SNCO/WO/LE and DE Regiment would have compared to the current situation where young officers are synomonous with the term 'newbie' or 'fresh out the box'.

The crux of this thread is that the Corps has always had exchange appointments, AH (3 years isn't really long enough)and the drawdown of Germany, NI and 9 Regt have meant that exchange locations have been up in the air.

[Chief_Two]

Our present exchange to Fort Rucker is a Warrant Officer

Which shouldn't be a problem as he'll be one of many Warrants at Fort Rucker.

[The Helpful Stacker]

We don't salute ours though. In fact we don't salute yours either.:p

[Two's in]

Front Seater,

Agree entirely, with the proviso that I think the problem is much wider. It is the ethos of the Army's Officer Corps as much as the Army Air Corps that wholly abhors the idea of a regular officer being a specialist at anything. Because of this there appears to be a complete dichotomy over the experience required to be an effective Squadron Commander, where candidates who generally excel at the staff work can easily lose credibility over lack of relevant flying experience and knowledge. I don't think the Gunner/Cavalry mafia are quite ready to accept any Helicopter as a "tool of the trade", never mind something as capable and effective as an Apache.

Whilst using WO's and SNCO's in the "Specialist Aircrew" role gives them some structure and motivation (and stops a complete draining of a superb resource), it merely adds to the lie that the role of Officers in the AAC is as a kind of "bolt-on" adminstrative extra required to simply to sign off manning and training reports to DAAVn. Whatever their faults (too many to list here) at least the RAF understand that the correct and effective operation of strategic battle winning assets requires the use of professionals who are experts in their field. In their case it is an Officer Corps, but RAF Spec Aircrew is the mechanism by which they achieve the skill and experience levels required without penalising the career of those specialists (financially anyway).

Sad to see that in 2007 the Army still imbibes the principles of leadership it first used in 1914, but it will be difficult for any "lions" in the AAC (if there are any left) to win this battle with the "donkeys" in command.

[Chief_Two]

The solution for the British Army Air Corps might be a separate Warrant Officer Corps with opportunities for civilian as well as enlisted entry.

[chafford5]

The solution for the British Army Air Corps might be a separate Warrant Officer Corps with opportunities for civilian as well as enlisted entry.


A technical warrant officer scheme was planned for army pilots and medics a fews years back. Once fully qualified they were to be WO1 (Conductors), the senior WO1 army appointment.

I haven't heard anything recently about this though.

[[email protected]]

No - the solution is for DAAvn to push hard enough to make the rest of the green Army realise the AAC is different now and needs a different (and strangely similar to the RAF) career path for Officers.

This was obvious 10 years ago as AH was en route - now it is costing money and capability because Glasgow can't see the problem.

[Front Seater]

Or - wait for it - we could go properly Joint in the Battlefield Helicopter arena and all fight for the same company/organisation, with the same uniform, same Terms and Conditions, same career aspirations and options.

From the shop floor it would be so easy - it is only how the Genrals and Admirals sort out their one star career paths that would take some work.

As to what to do with the SNCOs and WOs - I think that the Fisheads had the right idea with 847 and run them all through an RCB/Officer selection equivalent - those that made the grade got commissioned, those that weren't up to it or didn't want the frontal lobotomy just 'timed out' on their careers and were natural wastage.

Just think of the pool of manpower and retention positive measures you would have then - no need for FRIs, or ill feeling because of different Terms and Conditions.

Once this was done then the Joint Helicopter officer can chose - if he wants a full on career, then standby for some Staff jobs (and lets be honest there are some very good and also experienced aviators (normally Crab/Fishead I am embarrassed to admit) that have the credibility to do shuffle paper work around Main Building and also command and lead their men on operations from the cockpit. If he wants a career solely in the cockpit then standby for many tours away and the usual squadron life (your life, you chose it, so stop whingeing) and then there is the 'bit of this and bit of that' B team that float in and out of staff/flying jobs - not thrusters, but still essential to the whole staff effort to get helicopters airborne and also giving them (and their families) a rest from the numerous op tours and exercises.

And if it is the rest of the green army that is stopping this transition or individuals looking at their future careers stopping (because funny old thing true Jointery will reduce the staff officers required, especially at the higher levels -then it is a pity as so much could be done so easily (I think the staff world call it a 'quick win'?).

And before people recount the Canadian experience then lets study their transition and see why it had its 'speed bumps' and lets look at the Aussies and see if theirs is truly working. With any luck we dont have to make the same mistakes that they did - and lets be honest with JHC already in place we are virtually there.

I would also be interested to hear from the Harrier boys and see if their Jointery has reduced operational effectiveness - it certainly solved the Harrier retention issue that started this whole FRI issue going back in the late 90s. But apart from RN ethos and history - all very important stuff - have the Sqns still produced the goods.

Whatever happens, whatever uniform we end up wearing, wherever we go - true jointery should not destroy ethos and tradition - a Joint Amphib Wing will always be commanded by someone that has pedigree in Amphib and therefore things like Taranto will always happen, the same goes for the RAF SH guys, whatever the uniform they will always have their Mess habits, Battle Britain pi$$ ups etc.

So what are we frightened of? From a bean counters perspective (and rarely do I put accountancy into any of my threads!) and also from operational capability - why aren't we becoming truly joined up?

[Two's in]

why aren't we becoming truly joined up?

I would suggest that it is simple as petty inter-service rivalry and obsessive parochialism. I worked with very few senior officers who would be prepared to sacrifice any territorial aspects of their own service's Aviation operational domain (despite all the good works of JHC), and even if they were, there would be little (if any) support from above. Without some inspired leadership from the 1* and above this will be difficult to change. Even in the MoD you can try and push manure uphill, but it's a lot easier to roll it down.

[Jeep]

FS

I think you are going to get your wish. The next step to the RFC re-forming again is 1 April when MW HQs comes under the JHC. It is only a matter of time.

Jeep

[chafford5]

It is the ethos of the Army's Officer Corps as much as the Army Air Corps that wholly abhors the idea of a regular officer being a specialist at anything.

Which is why they'll resist introducing an all-commissioned corps of pilots.

[wokkameister]

Sorry mate,

When I walked past the Army/RN CIO's in 1988, I missed the door marked 'worst of all 3 services'.
If you think Jointery is a good idea, you obviously spend your days in a staff job at Wilton and not on the O boat.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong!

WM

[chafford5]

Ths Aussies as usual are ahead of the game:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/default.asp?p=947

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

Hi Jeep - you are right, it is just a matter of time....before JHC become 3 Group under Air Cmd. Makes complete sense if you ask me. Put a rotational 2star in as the Comd/AOC and there is no real change from the JHC. If the Army still aren't happy, let the AAC fill the top slot more frequently. Shouldn't really matter beacuse we all serve in the same **** holes under the same (well nearly) rules. I think you will find that you might actually get an SH/BH/AH Force that is better resourced if its not competing with Green army stuff fromthe LAND TLB.

For me - I'm leaving the RAF and joining the Army.......:ugh:

HPT

[Front Seater]

Wokka,
We might not agree but I would be very interested to hear why you are so adamant that Jointery is wrong. Are you talking in general or specific incidents/experiences that have influenced your opinion?

And no I am not in a Staff job (dont make me laugh!) and if you are referring to the O boat being the RN helicopter carrier, then no that was one of the other AH Sqns (but I think they found the whole experience very rewarding and actually were saddened not to be doing more of the Fishead stuff).

And if you dont see Jointery as the way forward, what is your proposal, ideas and suggestions?

:confused:

[wokkameister]

JHC was set up to standardise procedures across the 3 services. Has it done this?
They have skimmed round the periphery in the greatest traditions of Nu Labour without actually solving any problems. Most of the major issues are still unresolved.
The JHC flying order book is sacrosant even though much of it is ass covering.
Examples.

Enter JHC in 2000, the swim test becomes annual (like I have forgotten how to swim in 12 months).

The Arctic Survival Training we used to do under the direction of the Pathfinders becomes difficult, as the RN have written into the FOB that a JWI/AWI must carry out such trg.

It is, in short, a self licking lillipop full of many meaningless SO2 posts. This is not an Army/RN rant, as many of our own (RAF) SO2's are just as zealous at imposing meaningless directives.

WM

[Jeep]

HPT,

How the devil are you old chap? Did you know Army Standards has a fishead inbound? How about that for progress? Who knows, perhaps a crab on AH next. Small steps but still a march towards the RFC.

Wokka,

Small beer mate. All those regs you dont like can be changed if they are ****e, just follow the correct process.

If you really want something to moan about, explain why the future lynx wont be able to ground taxi even though its got wheels. Would you want a wheeled helicopter without the ability to ground taxi? Imagine having the capability to do a running takeoff but having to hover into position first.

Could some fishy type explain to this poor pongo why you would need to castor and harpoon at the same time? Genuinely interested in that one.

Jeep

[mutleyfour]

Yes its odd that the Army buy more Future Lynx than the Navy and yet it seems to suit a life on the ocean wave much better than that of the old landlubber!

Not much use on our present engagements unless you wish to anchor your assets of Kuwait.

[chafford5]

Lets not deceive ourselves on this - the reason why the Fort Rucker exchange has gone to a WO1 and why the Aussie Blackhawk exchange is the same is for the simple reason that the Corps does not have enough Captains to send on these exchange tours and fulfill the numerous Adjutant, Ops Officer and other Staff jobs.

Not an ideal situation where SNCOs go on exchange to all-officer corps.

[Two's in]

Imagine having the capability to do a running takeoff but having to hover into position first

Come on Jeep, when was the last time we procured a helicopter with MAUM issues from its ISD onwards?

[Stitchbitch]

Strange seeing 'future' and 'Lynx' in the same sentence. Why not buy some NH-90 or even Augustas to replace the MK.9 'wheezing wheely bins' rather than shoring up wastelands and getting another half assed product.
On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ? That way the RAF can concentrate on providing fast air and AT and can spend the pitiful helo budget on a VC10/tanker/ replacement and some more predators?:ugh:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ?"

Because to the "Brown" powers that be all air assets are simply a variation on a four tonner......ergo they would simply f@ck it up.

And purple is merely a shade of green :}

[Jeep]

Seldom,

reminds you of that joke about the italians running the trains, the english doing the cooking and the french running the army, or something like that. imagine the army running all helicopters, yikes.

All helicopters, one capbadge, admin/personnel by RAF, engineered by navy and flown by the aircrew of the JHC. Lets call it the Royal Flying Corps, cracking name.

Any brass out there with the balls to make it happen?

Jeep

[Jobza Guddun]

"On another note, and this is something normally 'discussed' over a few wets :why not let the Army operate all Helicopters ? That way the RAF can concentrate on providing fast air and AT and can spend the pitiful helo budget on a VC10/tanker/ replacement and some more predators?"

The way I see it, if the RAF gave it's helis to the Army, the funding also would pass so we'd be no better off. Also, I daresay if you tried to move X amount of aircrew and groundcrew to the Army, you'd have a goodly amount of PVR's. I'd surmise there's the two main reasons why the RAF won't give up their assets without getting something back.

[Door Slider]

Land pay for the RAF rotary assests not the RAF, thats why SH gets no money, because JHC is skint.
Rotary all RAF that way they can fund aviation!!!! and Land can fun troops on the ground, sound logical???

[timex]

Rotary all RAF that way they can fund aviation!!!! and Land can fun troops on the ground, sound logical???

Yeah right, and you have any money left over from Typhoon, MR4 replacement and your AT fleet. Lets not forget you've all got to have your dinky day sacks and trainers, money well spent.

Does that mean Land also funds the RAF Regiment?

[Door Slider]

Lets not forget you've all got to have your dinky day sacks and trainers, money well spent.

The trainers were being sold, not given away. The rucksacks cost peanuts, perhaps we should do away with regimental dress and have 1 uniform for the army, that would save alot

Anyway back to the thread........

[mutleyfour]

The trainers were being sold, not given away. The rucksacks cost peanuts, perhaps we should do away with regimental dress and have 1 uniform for the army, that would save alot

We have only one uniform, its called Desert clothing! :}

[The Helpful Stacker]

We have only one uniform, its called Desert clothing!

What, even those horsey chaps and those jolly bearskinned fellows who are defending London from attacks by Roundheads?