What will the RAF do with it's Flight Engineers?

[Ginger Beer]

Hi Chaps. A bit of a ramble, not a whinge, but query for you nonetheless.

When I were a lad wanting to be a Flight Engineer, I knew that the long term prospects were to phase out the ageing aircraft that had FE's but that there was a so called "contract" on offer i.e. 8 years which became 12 then 22, then 47 and 55 years of age, because those aircraft's replacements all slipped to the right and the service need was to retain the FE's. So, I obviously did join and here I still am.

We are very close to the end now. The branch will be reduced to a requirement of about 85 in 18 months time as the MR2/R1 OSD hits. E3's are to lose one of two Squadrons and the VC10 and Trimotor days are numbered while FSTA drags on, but there are only x amount of slots for the brethren at BZN.

I know that as a modern WSOp (post 2003) there are other service needs that can accomodate a change and "some" of the FEs who fancy a change or do not want to leave will move. But, what about those guys who were recruited as Non Commissioned Aircrew in the 80's and 90's into a specific branch of Air Eng. What will happen if they do not fancy being a WSOp Sensor/Acc, Cman SH or Cman FW. What will the service do with them? After all, many of them joined as NCA specifically to be Air Eng, unlike todays recruits who are streamed after a generic phase of training. Just because the service has changed to generic WSOps who are able to swap roles at the behest of the service now, it wasn't what many old sweats agreed to do.

Does that mean an Air Eng who was recruited into branch before the all encompassing WSOp world came into being, and who was asked to extend their service to the right as platform ISDs also moved to the right, do they HAVE to change roles now that it suits the service? After all, I know many guys who wanted to change to be LMs after being Air Engs for a while, but they were not able due to the need for Air Engs.

Can the service FORCE this change, do the Air Engs HAVE to be something they didn't join to be? What is the legal standpoint?

I'm sure some individuals will willingly change when the time comes however, for the Air Eng who is on to 55 with several years to run, if he doesn't want to change, can he be forced to change or forced to leave? As the RAF extended them in service due to the need for Air Engs, does the service owe them paid employment as an Air Eng until the end of their current terms or should they offer redundency to those who do not wish to role change?

Any barrack room lawyers out there :confused:

[Lima Juliet]

Ginge

The words "Service Need" encompass all and that could see FEs posted to staff jobs, ops jobs or trade-ranged posts under this umbrella scheme. PVR is an option and also the redundancy mentioned on the other thread.

Rather than waiting for a "Service Need" posting I have always done my desk-officer's job and come up with options that I fancied. :ok:

Hope this helps

LJ

[minigundiplomat]

I guess you will go where the need is greatest. The RAF will offer you a choice, you can choose Benson or Odiham.

If you don't like the choices, you can take the same option as those who have been on SH for years and aren't being allowed to leave as long as they have a med cat - leave.

Three choices, can't say the RAF aren't giving you options.

[Ginger Beer]

LJ

"Service need" is no doubt the agrument in waiting.

Mini

There certainly are choices available, some within and some outside, I'm not debating that point. My question really boils down to "employment law". As an analogy - If you joined as a Pilot and the RAF became a fleet of UAVs flown by WSOps. Would the service be able to say that you "are" to go e.g. Ops Spt to finish your time, if there were a "service need"? "A job", Like it or leave- is that legal?

Ginge

[NP20]

Most of the Simulator Technicians, Clerk Caterers & other trades that were disbanded weren't given an option to switch trades & were made redundant; some (based on age & aptitude) were offered alternatives but Service need was the driver. Many of these guys/girls were loyal, committed, proud to serve & had signed up intending to serve until Age 55 & suddenly found themselves looking for a new job on the outside.

I would have thought that there isn't a case under employment law to be able to serve in a trade/branch that the Service no longer has a need for. Should the RAF extend the OSD of certain aircraft types so that a few Air Engs can see their time out? Of course not, as I'm sure you'll agree.

As LJ said look for something that you wish to do & jump before you are pushed (either outside, or within the RAF). I'm surprised that you haven't sussed by now that the RAF doesn't owe you a living & that loyalty only goes one way.

[Ginger Beer]

SimTech's are a good analogy too. "Redundency" would hopefully be a fair option to consider in the mix however, I have heard no official muttering along those lines, yet.

There are brethren who have made the choice to change early, in many cases though, they were the people who had always wanted to change roles but the service need wouldn't allow it until relatively recently.

There certainly are other roles within the NCA cadre however, where do you stand if they don't interest you or your personal situaton won't allow them?

No-one can force you to PVR to save a possible redundency payout.

[Pontius Navigator]

NP20's point is true however that was part of a very large force downsizing and there were no billets to move them to. Some sim tech were actually technical crew on the E3 and had only just qualified. Their branch went, they went.

The demise in air eng billets is no different from the demise of NCA navs and pilots. Many shuffled off to ops or sim slots or station flights.

Under new rules you would possibly lose flying pay but there may be some 'aircrew' slots somewhere. Is commissioning out of the question?

[NP20]

Another consideration is that by the time Air Engs are no longer required the redundancy payouts will be far less favourable than they are at the moment.

[Buster Hyman]

We could always use them to help us test a few nukes out at Woomera...

[Ginger Beer]

PN

Agree about NCA Pilots and Navs however, back then many would have found jobs which were flying related (Ops) and therefore had their cake and eat it, flying pay for no flying, sweet. But it's not such a fluffy service anymore. Ask for a ground tour now and your FP quickly begins to be reduced.

In todays letigious society, is it legal to ask/force the change when you "contracted" individuals for a period of time who were recruited into a specific role?


NP

The Rod boys both R1 and MR2 start drawing down in Q2 next year and the branch will be about 60 overborne just 12 months after that. There could be a case for redundencies (is it ..den or dan..:confused:) in the next FY.

[c130jbloke]

Instead of rooting around here, why don't you just call you know who at Air manning and get (this week's) official line on what is going to happen. Bottom line is that you need to start thinking about it now.

[Blacksheep]

Nothing new. In the sixties, nearly all the squadron discip NCOs wore an AG wing, and quite a few SWOs as well. If you want to stay in, you take whats on offer or else you leave.

[Pontius Navigator]

GB, I realise that however it depends.

I was not suggesting that you asked for a non-associated ground tour but that there may well be billets open to your poster to slot redundant AE into.

Are you adaptable and employable in associated roles? Initial training of NCA? How about combat survival? I suspect that there are many training billets that are 'aircrew' slots as opposed to specific ones.

Really is is a question of digging. How about at an embassy? A career move to P3?

[StopStart]

is it legal to ask/force the change when you "contracted" individuals for a period of time who were recruited into a specific role?

I'll bet you that your "contract" says somewhere that your employment in that "specific role" is subject to the whims and exigencies of the Service. If the RAF no longer needs the FE then that's that. You'll be offered a change across to another WSOp (retain flying pay), ground ops job (lose flying pay) or PVR. I don't see redundancy being an option as they have offered alternate employment at the same rate of pay (ALM).

[collbar]

Why don't they help out in Ops Support....lol

[Juan Tugoh]

When BA finally retired its last FE fleet, some of them left - others became stewards! If it's good enough for Concorde FEs surely it should work out for the Nimrod guys ;)

[A and C]

I should think that the FE's at BA would have found the other cabin crew a little easier on the eye than the RAF has to offer!

But on a more serious note a lot of the BA FE's got a right hand seat job, most of the others who stayed with the company went to the planning side of ground engineering.

[Arty Fufkin]

There you go then, make them all co-pilots. You'd have to make them officers first though (as was settled on a previous thread.):}

[BEagle]

It will be a pity if these detachment moose-magnets are not offered re-employment worthy of their considerable experience.

Some of the RAFs future large aeroplanes will be used in environments where pilots must maintain 'eyes-out' for safety reasons - AAR being the prime example.

One hopes that the designers won't try to make these new aircraft so 'pilot-centric' that the rear seat member has insufficient situational awareness for the aircraft to be operated safely.....

"Tartan 39, do you have any spare fuel?"

"Tartan 39, standby"...OK, head-in, look at the electric meal try, find the right page, peck in the question.....

"Tartan 39 coming left about"

Peck, peck, bugger, exit, refresh.....

BANG!!

"Tartan 39, radio check.......??"

"Bluntishead, Turkey 1, Tartan 39 has collided with Turkey 3!"

Anyone designing a system which requires pilots to spend excessive time 'head in' during AAR should certainly think again - it's too bl**dy dangerous. Even worse at night.

Contrast the above with:

"Tartan 39, do you have any spare fuel"

"Captain from MSO, delta fuel is currently 8500 kg on the present plan."

"Tartan 39, affirm, 8500 kg. If we stay an extra 30 minutes, we can offer you about 6000 kg for any on call players"

"Tartan 39, roger, we'll pass that on"

"Tartan 39 coming left about.....HEADS UP, Turkey 3 and 4!!"

Given a little basic navigation training, any good Air Engineer would make a good AAR Mission System Operator. But he will need to be given commensurate levels of SA if the aeroplane is to be operated safely in the AAR environment.

And, of course, he'll still keep the mooses off the two-winged master race on detachments!

[collbar]

Oh dear... Sound like your putting those redundant Flight Engineers in direct competition with all those redundant Navs!!!

[StopStart]

And in the meantime, those of us operating busy two person flightdecks will continue to not fall out of the sky at the first sign of any workload over and above driving and looking out the window :hmm:

[BEagle]

Which is all fine and dandy when you're on your little pie-eating ownsome or operating in a SKE package.....

I'm talking about the situation with, for example, LHS pilot head down wrestling with Marcel Le Bus' electronic tea tray to obtain basic information when the RHS pilot starts a left turn. No-one available to check that the pair in loose echelon left....sorry, 'observation' :yuk: left are turning with the tanker.....

The current obsession with gucci displays for airliners and trash haulers must have a prudent limit when the aeroplane will be operating with half a dozen receivers in close proximity. The simplest way is to make sufficient information available to the MSO so that he can support the safe operation of the aeroplane.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Beags,

Just because you think you would lack the capacity to cope does not mean that Stoppers and the like couldn't manage quite nicely indeed, and I have no doubt's that they could :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

SFFP, so age and experience gives way to computers. There is a very active discussion about over reliance on computers in a benign civil aviation environment with just the weather as a factor.

[BEagle]

The point is that the design must allow even the most distinctly 'average' crew to operate the thing safely, both by day and night. I don't give a toss about whether above average or exceptional pilots could cope, I consider that primarily the lowest common denominator on a black wet night should be considered - both in the tanker and in the receivers......

If Stoppers is actually l00king out of the window these days, then I must have taught him at least something those 20 years ago! :ok:

As for 'MSO' crewing? Whether ex-Air Engineer or ex-Navigator matters not a jot if the aeroplane has been correctly designed. But whether a certain antipodean air force still thinks that C cat loadmasters would be suitable, I look forward to finding out with much interest.

[Art Field]

In my, not inconsiderable, experience albeit now some time ago, there was no doubt that the crews that provided the best AAR service were the ones that had a bit of spare capacity, were able to combine as a team to provide a full understanding of the task and had a strong sense of spacial awareness. A computer may help with the number crunching but it does not help a receiver on his first sortie or a trail guy who can not make contact or a sudden rush of customers. To my mind the absolute minimum experienced crew for a tanker sortie is three, it is a serious business and should be treated as such.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Art,

I concur fully :ok:

[Spurlash2]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd247/spurlash2/Beaglelookout.jpg

[BEagle]

Nice photo! Saw the arrival on Sky News earlier this afternoon - welcome home to the Harrier mates!

No doubt the trail was conducted with traditional 101 Sqn efficiency and I hope you all had a good trip!

I've just realised that it's 20 years since I did the first ever 'plastic' Harrier trail - a week in Dubai after trailing the GR5 to the Dubai Air Show with ZA142, one of 101's first K2s. It was hell...;) Then we brought it (there was only 1!) back to Wittering on 6 Feb 1989 after an epic nightstop in Akrotiri!

Art Field has, of course, a very sage view - what he doesn't know about AAR isn't worth knowing. But my point is that the workload on a 3-person flight deck must be sensibly balanced. As it certainly is in the A310MRTT and the CC150T. But from what I saw at ARSAG, I'm not convinced that they've got it right for the A330MRTT.....

[shandydrinker]

When I was still operating the throttles for the two winged master race on the 10 the Sqn boss at the time was adamant that the new tanker would have mission specialist on board and that the obvious choice would be an ex tanker Engineer.
No doubt his vision has been lost over the last 4 years.

[Juan Tugoh]

It is also worthy of note that the current training in a certain Big Airline is to underline the potential loss of SA that the modern glass cockpit operator has over a traditional dials and gauges pilot and how to combat these issues. The reason being that with dials and gauges the pilot has to build their own mental model of the world, with glass cockpit a model is presented to you. This is fine if the computer model is accurate - which it generally is, until things start changing rapidly and the FMC/FMGC needs to be changed - fine in a low workload environment, not so good in a highly dynamic one.

The computer generated displays and interfaces can be compelling, as BEagle pointed out there are periods in a flight when heads in is not conducive to a safe operation, yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.

[downziser]

yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.

Which guys and on what airframe type?

[StopStart]

At the risk of meandering the thread even further away from the original topic....

As long as the crew members are trained properly and thoroughly in the use of their FMS and understand how and why errors can occur in it then "fiddling about" with an FMS is no more capacity sapping than, say, retuning an ILS.

heads in is not conducive to a safe operation, yet you still see guys playing with the computer below SA, in a hilly environment, in cloud.

I've seen people changing radio freqs, looking up ILS plates, checking charts, balancing fuel panels etc etc all whilst below SA, near hills, in cloud without an dramas. These are all things that sometimes have to be in those conditions. As is "playing" with the computer. I'm not suggesting one would do any of these things without a radar service or without being on a published or recognised procedure but there is no reason at all why the FMS should sap all your capacity in these situations or be an excuse for cock ups. General Airmanship trumps all other cards here.

BEags - your what-if example of the maxxed out copilot heads-in battling the FMS whilst the LHS gently rolls into one of the receivers would perhaps be an issue if the co-pilot was inadequately trained in FMS usage and the captain couldn't manage his 2-person flightdeck properly. The alternate scenario is the receivers request extra gas, the non-flying pilot flicks straight to the correct FMS page and reads out the appropriate, accurate, dynamic figure in a matter of seconds. If during this fantastic fingerwork the captain decides it's time to turn right then the co is redirected away from the FMS task to the more important safety issue of lookout.

I've been operating a 2 person FMS based flightdeck now for about 7 years and I do find it a tad tiresome having to trot out the same old mantra to the non-believers. The run-of-the-mill flying I (and many other crews at the secret Wiltshire airbase) do and teach is not flight level nosebleed to Akrotiri or autopilot coupled SKE at FL100 but instead low-level, NVG, 2-ship airdrop and TALO in -10 mlx and barely legal weather. This is achieved with two blokes at the front working in concert to make the FMS and computers work FOR them whilst at the same time maintaining lookout, SA and general good airmanship. A well managed 2-person flightdeck can be as (if not more) safe and efficient than a 3,4 or 5 person one. The key is education, simple as that. The only people that fear the FMS etc are those that do not understand it.

PS. Juan, why is heads-in, in a cloud "playing" with the FMS dangerous? There's certainly nothing to see out the window. It's just as "dangerous" as retuning and identing the ILS. You can quite happily keep monitoring the aircraft flightpath etc whilst doing what you need to do on the FMS. Unless of course the individual concerned hits the capacity buffers at strapping in AND breathing at the same time in which case perhaps he or she shouldn't be doing the job.....

[BEagle]

Stoppers, whilst much of what you say is true, the problem isn't one of using existing FMS, ECAM multi-screen displays (no head up display though), it's a problem of even more displays and terminals being added to an existing 2-person AAR flight deck.

There will be 3rd occupant on the future tanker; the problem I foresee is that although this Mission Specialist will always be carried on AAR flights, he may not be provided with the SA systems he needs (he might not have even heading and height, for example) - so he could end up being nothing more than an irritating pump attendant whilst CM1 and CM2 work their butts off.

Why irritating? Because the poor chap will have to keep pestering his pilots in order to be kept fully in the loop.

My preference is for a better balance of flight deck workload which maximises pilots' head-out time - not to cast any doubt on routine 2-person flight deck operation.

The A310MRTT and CC150T already achieve this; from what I saw at ARSAG2009, I'm not convinced that this concept is being applied to the FSTA.

[14greens]

"Given a little basic navigation training, any good Air Engineer would make a good AAR Mission System Operator. But he will need to be given commensurate levels of SA if the aeroplane is to be operated safely in the AAR environment."

Beags! interesting comment
What the heck do you think the TriMotor 3 man loop involves?
commensurate levels of SA!!!! bit of a cheek, any violation that occurs on any flight deck i am on, then i am deemed to be as responsible as the 2 winged master race sat in front of me!
As for a little basic navigation! take as much part in calculating: joins, timings etc etc etc same as the 2 blokes (or girls) in the front, so think you will find Air engs already operate in that role quite happily


As for the first thread question, pah, dont worry they will extend the 10 for another 15 years yet

[BEagle]

The TriShaw flight deck is not directly comparable, because it still has a number of aeroplane systems monitoring and control requirements allocated to an Air Engineer.

Take a TriStar flight deck and re-allocate all 'aircraft systems' except the AAR system to pilot ECAM monitoring and you have already increased pilot workload slightly - although the architecture will have been designed with this in mind and the aeroplane will undoubtedly be more reliable, being from a later generation. The Air Engineer is now a pump attendant.

Add automated AAR mission planning and management, particularly for multi-hose trails. If you lump this onto the pilots, the workload increases considerably. Particularly if the mission management system is embedded in yet another system, rather than within the FMS. The Air Engineer cannot contribute to mission management effectively - forget about primitive methods such as 'RAPS' - without having the relevant data available with which to work. Any 'assistance' to busy pilots will simply be a distraction, so the Air Engineer will become a food-powered pod control panel.

Instead, locate the automated mission planning and management system to the 'Air Engineer'. He now becomes a mission specialist and substantially reduces pilot workload. The tanker commander still makes the decisions and directs the overall mission, but the mission specialist provides the precise information upon which the tanker commander can make such decisions. That's the way the new German and Canadian tanker crews work and it is an extremely effective solution. The mission specialist needs some navigation knowledge not for calculating turn ranges etc (the mission computer does that automatically for the RV B, C and D), but so that he can be aware if there's a garbage in-garbage out solution from the computer. Has 10W been entered instead of 10E - and is that obvious, for example.

Having spent 6 years developing crew SOPs and the Mission Computer System for the A310 - and having heard all the pros and cons, plus end user requirements, my conclusion is very much that you will need a Mission Specialist in the back seat of the FSTA, not a pump attendant.

[Arty Fufkin]

Sounds to me like the navs have got the FSTA thing sown up. Will they be acting as CSD / Purser on the majority of (non AAR) sectors?

[BEagle]

No need to carry the Mission Specialist on basic pax-and-trash trips, so the cabin crew staffing level will merely need to meet JAR-OPS requirements...

Sounds to me like the navs have got the FSTA thing sown up.

Not necessarily. In all Future Tanker work I was ever involved with since 1994, the term 'Support Panel Operator' or 'Mission System Operator' was used quite deliberately to avoid any presumption about the preferred aircraft manning requirements. Or womanning, Loretta...

MSO training can easily include relevant navigation training as required. And don't forget that one of the RAF's longest serving AARCs was an Air Engineer by profession.

[Arty Fufkin]

Fair enough. Just seems to make sense to have the third crewmember able to run the cabin on those days when AT is required not AAR. Loadies fulfill the task at the moment. It would seem to be more efficient to have one Wsop section on the squadron with all of them able to fly any of the Sqn's tasks rather than loadies for AT and a nav/eng hybrid (horrible thought) on days when AAR is needed. Furhtermore, they could help out with the service by doing a round with a trolley every now and again.

The thought of some of the navs / engs I've flown with over the years doing a tea service to 200 pax......priceless!!:)

[BEagle]

Crew manning levels will be interesting, I agree.

You can't just have a small pool of MSOs who are only required for AAR sorties as you will always need to have enough to meet TTW AAR needs.

I'm not sure why an ALM would be required on any basic pax-and-bags flight, wouldn't a Sgt steward be equally suitable as an 'In Charge'? ALM skills are rather greater than the skills needed by airline cabin crews, in my opinion. I once delivered some Army DAC (in a box smaller than a cabin-compatible suitcase) to Calgary - we were treated like lepers by both Keflavik and Calgary and I was very glad indeed to have the ALM's expertise of rules and regs on that particular occasion.

During early FSTA work, I asked an ALM (it wasn't 'Tac Loadie!') to tell me which specific in-flight activities required an ALM's skills rather than a Sgt steward's skills. Checking the security of freight loading and lashing and completing the load distribution and trim sheet were pre-despatch tasks, he couldn't really come up with a specific in-flight item. Except, of course, that where an aircraft can be used for more than basic pax-and-bags transport, ALM skills are probably needed, so it makes sense to use ALMs on any AT flight rather than duplicating manning effort.

As for carrying any DAC on a civil-owned, military operated flight - well, that'll be fun for AirTanker to resolve....:ooh:

Carrying a small number of pax on an FSTA could be awkward if the full JAR-OPS requirements have to be met. The aircraft has something like 225 seats, so with a single passenger you would need 5 cabin staff under JAR-OPS. I suppose the rear cabin could be blocked off under such circumstances?

Could an ALM be used as MSO? Well, the Dutch KDC-10 flies with a boom operator / loadmaster, so with sufficient training, would an ALM be capable of fulfilling the role of MSO?

[aw ditor]

Its' EU-OPS now!

[Arty Fufkin]

Beags,

Each door must be manned that bounds an occupied compartment; that rings a bell, so full manning is not always required.

The Sgt steward on pax AT is something I've pondered many a time. The conclusion I've come to is that provided you have a reliable dispatch setup (we don't) and stewards who were recruited as, joined as, and were promoted as proffesional cabin crew (we don't): then you could get away without an ALM.
As it is, we have a movements setup which last week were adrift in my aircraft's ZFW by 8 tons at 10 mins to doors (no duff), and cabin crew who are promoted for their suitability as deputy mess managers (not their fault I know.) So as it is, give me a loadie or some other sort of Wsop every time.

ALMs: They sort the Sh*t so you don't have to. I'd still like to see them do the odd tea service though! :ok:

[BEagle]

Yes, I fully understand your comments regarding reliable despatch systems and the consequent need for ALMs. Also I agree entirely with your view regarding a professional air steward trade.

The old 'manned compartment' bit probably doesn't apply to aircraft such as FSTA which is certified under EU-OPS to carry passengers and will have the commensurate number of exits. Cabin crew requirement is then if any passengers are carried (no matter how few), then 1 cabin crew member per 50 seats fitted or fraction thereof must be carried.

The RAF is a lot more insistent on proper safety briefs etc than any other air force whose large aircraft I've flown in. On an Italian 707 I wasn't even shown where I should sit, let alone where the lifepreservers or pax masks lived... But it was in VVIP fit, so for most of the trip I occupied Il Presidente's throne which was upholstered in soft grey Italian leather! At one stage a loud bell started ringing and there was a lot of running around for a few minutes - no-one said what was going on. After landing I learned that it had been a smoke warning....:hmm:

[Blighter Pilot]

Could an ALM be used as MSO? Well, the Dutch KDC-10 flies with a boom operator / loadmaster, so with sufficient training, would an ALM be capable of fulfilling the role of MSO?


Certainly could - a lot of ALMs are actually also fully trained in navigation, aircraft maintenance tasks, combat first aid, air to ground gunnery, flight planning and performance over and above the basic ALM skillsets.

Why not utilise the pool of very experienced WSOps on the FSTA? One section qualified for all the tasks of the aircraft, greater redundancy and abilty to re-task at short notice.

Perhaps Navs just need to realise their time is up in the AT/ME world:ok:

[Biggus]

Blighter,

I think you'll find most Navs know that.......

[Arty Fufkin]

Loadies, Air Engs, Navs, whatever. I though a Wsop was a Wsop was a Wsop. Let em all have a bash I say. Might even be worth putting a dorsal mounted GPMG in the back seat of a Tornado like on the Stuka!! (Photoshop anyone?) That way, Loadies, renamed Tornado Crewmen, could do that too. Brilliant. :}

Actually, I wouldn't mind which sort of Wsop worked the laptop and trailed the hoses on FSTA. But as the majority of its tasking will be AT, it would be a shame if an Ex Nav country club formed to take all the trails, leaving the rest to do the real work.

Me, I'd love to fly the A330, but not for my current employer!!:(

[BEagle]

Forget WSOps....

This was tried by another nation; due to the 50% failure rate they experienced, they $hitcanned the idea and went with ex-FJ navs instead.

As more EuropHoons come into service, presumably there'll be an increasing number of ex-FJ back seaters available to become MSOs in FSTA?

There's rather more to it than 'working the laptop and trailing the hoses'.

Tasking primarily AT? I don't think so......

[Arty Fufkin]

Not primarily AT? Well, AT is what the Sqns are doing most of right now, I guess it will be the priority when all those VC10s and TriStars are retired. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, but please explain your working.:confused:

Cheers

[Blighter Pilot]

Tasking primarily AT? I don't think so......


I do think so actually.

Currently the AT fleet can't cope which is why we are utilising civvy charter for pax and cargo moves to and from theatre(s).

Can't see many trails being required - F3's retired, Harriers going the same way, GR4s in AFG TFN and Typhoons doing the airshow circuits.

I'll give you one AAR frame required in-theatre, one in MPA(?) and maybe one holding QRA/UK towline duties.

As FSTA hasn't been fragged to refuel rotary assets I can't see them doing that many AR tasks.

Maintaing the airbridge to AFPAK for the next 20 years will be the mainstay of FSTA tasking:ok: