NCO pilots in the RAF?

[left one o clock]

A cheap quality solution to a desperate manning situation? Or, not viable and wouldn't fit in with the RAF's commisioned pilot ethos?
The army do it. Should the light blue persue it? So 2 speak.

[STANDTO]

they dont't have anything that costs fifty million if you blunt it - NCO isn't accountable enough. He told me to do it sir!

By the way, this is a well hammered thread, but welcome anyway

[rotor head]

:mad:
So here we go again, opening up the same old can of worms. How many times does this have to be discussed in this forum.
As always the simple truth is that the RAF are too pompous to accept that NCO's are just as capable of doing the job as their commisioned brethren. We only have to look at the AAC to see that the combination not only works, but flourishes.
As for the argument that the NCO isn't accountable for a fifty million pound piece of hardware, I would like you to show me anyone that has been held culpable, and responsible, for refunding the cost of damages incurred in writing off an aircraft.
So, in summary, let us move on from the dark ages and embrace, not shy away from, the future.

[greenwizard]

The RAF has plenty of forgotten history of NCO pilots.
Shame on the wheels who just dont want them. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Ivor Bigwan]

Yes but then there's the problem of having to have HP sauce bottles on the table at dinner and all those extra copies of the Sun in the Ante Room.

[JimNich]

You can rag Standto all you want but the simple truth is that his stance (or the one he suggests)epitomises the attitude of the Upper Echelons. Unfortunately they have a million arguments just like this to convince themselves that NCO Pilots in the RAF just wouldn't work (trust me I've heard them all).

Even when faced with the fact there used to be Non-commissioned Lightening Pilots (how much did they cost in todays money?) you'll still get the same old lines.

Shame really, I reckon it'd do the trade good to have a different side to the cadre other than the usual Uni/UAS guys.

[The Gorilla]

The real answer why is so very simple.

If I were an NCO pilot no Wing Commander or Group Captain would EVER be able to bully me into breaking the rules in a peace time environment. And yes, the current operation IS still governed by our peacetime rules. Although you wouldn't know it!! Bend? no sir it snapped!!

But when a Ruperts career caption comes on under pressure from a senior, well flt Safety can be compromised in order to complete the impossible.

Yes gentlemen, NCO's as well we all know, tend to have more back bone and spinal tissue. Wouldn't fit well in the scheme of things would it!!


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[64av8or]

A very old thorny subject for the RAF. It would only take a level headed study to reveal that there is little diference between a Flt Lt and an Army Snco Pilot in either ability or aptitude. It makes me laugh when I hear of sums like 50 million squid come into the argument, the Apache is well on the way to that value and the responsibility for its well being in flight is not shirked by the Snco pilots that fly it.
I can only add that there are a number of serving RAF officers that were either Army Sncos or LE Officers, seems like it's a no brainer to me! (excluding AJ of course) ;)

[TalkingBallast]

Random thoughts...
I thought the Ops Support Branch was formed because we didn't have enough aircrew officers to fill all the staff jobs! Some folk I know whinge about OSB lacking the experience/quality/savvy of aircrew and would much rather have staff officers and ops officers who are aircrew(as long as its not them!) The sad truth is that most staff in HQs (particularly when light blue works in head-sheds with khaki & dark blue) need to be officers otherwise they just get ignored! Where do we get staff officers from? The front line, which is a very small pool to fish in these days! My point is this: dilute the pool even further by filling slots with SNCOs and you'll lose even more aviator-input in areas such as policy, plans, equipment, warfighting etc. etc. I'm not sure that's a good thing. But then, that's why we have a General Duties Branch, isn't it? :(

[JimNich]

TB,

Yeah, can't argue with that. However, wouldn't a turning jump shot be to get rid of Officer Spec Aircrew. You could cut it up like this: All those taking commissions are in it for the long haul whether they like it or not (and sure, some won't make it far), and those with non-commissions effectively become what is now Pilot Spec Aircrew(saving the dear old tax payer an effing mint).

Okay, very old ground. I know we've been through it a gizillion times but I just find it more interesting than whether we should retain saluting or not. :rolleyes:

[bad livin']

It seems a lot of very capable NCO aircrew end up commissioned in General Duties anyway (with recent examples passing out top of their IOT intake), perhaps further strengthening the argument for NCO pilots / navs - does IOT make them more capable?

[jayteeto]

stop whinging and inter service slagging and start putting reasoned arguments, you might get further with this VERY GOOD idea. write REAL letters to the powers to be, for a while they will be 'soft and absorbent', maybe, just maybe, people will listen.......................

[Blacksheep]

Its been a wee while since I wore a Blue suit so do forgive me for butting in.

In the twenty-first century, what exactly would be the difference between an NCO pilot and a Commissioned pilot? Wouldn't both have to get through the aircrew selection process, demonstrating the necessary physical coordination, mental agility, a correct psychological profile and all that stuff before being let lose on the taxpayers' expensive flying machines?

So, its a class distinction thing then? Are the Army still class conscious and that is the reason why non-commisioned pilots are nowadays all brown-jobs?

Actually as an ex-sergeant myself I consider that all pilots should be NCO's. Officers are all right in their way, but if you want a job done properly its the Sergeants and Chiefy's that the military rely on to get it done :p:

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[gbzza]

:mad: I'm an ex blue, as of 9 months ago, but not an NCO, and it really hacks me off to see this kind of negative response to NCO's, I'm an ex tg12 (scopie) and we have plenty of very capable Snco's as fighter controllers, they actually tell the jet jockey's what to do!! Just think how much the Government would save, instead of having to train, pay, and then pension the ruperts (officers).

[peterward]

oooo, it's all getting very heated! In my humble opinion, I don't think this has got anything to do with "the class thing" at all. I'm not qualified to comment on the AAC being a light blue suiter, but I'm sure it is a system that works very well. However, the service that seems to get the biggest hard-on about the whole class thing is the Army, whether it is the Ruperts going to their black-tie dinners once a week or the NCO's who are constantly telling us that Officers are not real people and they were all born with a silver spoon and nanny to sing sweet songs in the nursary. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the case, certainly in the RAF anyway. The whole Officer/NCO argument boils down to one thing-people, on both sides of the fence have pre-conceived ideas about the other, probably because somewhere along the line they were offended in some way by someone from the "otherside". The RAF chooses to have Officer pilots. Now I suspect that if you asked an 18 year old if he wanted to fly fast jets, but there were no Officer slots left and he had to join as an NCO, he wouldn't give two hoots. However, the RAF has chosen this way, because it can afford to. There are so many people who want to join as a pilot, by setting this entry criteria (i.e. Officer/added entry requirements/IOT etc) you have to go that extra mile to prove that you really want this job. That's NOT saying that you need acedemics to fly, far from it. It just goes to prove your commitment to the career that you are pursuing. Flying in HM Forces IS a privilage, whatever the cynical whingers in the bar may say, and flying in the RAF is the primary existance for it, as opposed to the Army I belive you join first and then decide what you want to do. So come on guys (gals), we're all on the same side after all-who cares what rank slide you wear. The system works just fine for each service, just accept it and don't judge a chap solely on the mess that he eats in.

[Al Titude]

Well said Beermonkey! Really annoys me when people write a load of absolute crap about the 'class struggle' here.

I have no doubt that what rank you wear makes no difference to how good your flying is. The issue here is the entry requirements to the service that the RAF sees as the minimum for academic success in pilot training. If an potential NCO is capable of flying a Typhoon, like most guys joining aspire to do, then all he has to do is get two A-levels before he joins and pass IOT instead. Not really that difficult as entry requirements go! (The tricky bit as we all know being the selection against other candidates of similar qualifications and streaming etc etc.)
There is no General Melchett type 'hairy's couldn't do the job' attitude that some seem to think, it is simply that the RAF has laid down its requirements (as the Navy has.) If you are good enough, you will be selected. So get the academic results before you join or try for a cross over once you're in!
Rant over!

[Les Hurst]

The turning point in moving to all officer aircrew in the RAF came with the introduction of the V-Bombers. Someone declared that the V's should be an all commissioned crew and with there being a slot for an Air Electronics Officer (AEO)the only source was the Maritime/Tranport world and a bunch of NCO Signallers were sent for Officer training. Unfortunately they did themselves no good by for ever complaining about their Mess bills in the Officers Mess, with comments like 'I only paid ten bob in the Sgts Mess and now I'm being charged £5.

[JimNich]

Beer Monkey,

I agree with the sentiment regarding the reverse snobbery prevelant amongst some in the Ranks. There's no place for it, it is totally unnecessary and those that espouse it are usually failed commissioned applicants anyway.

What I don't agree with is this "its all the same anyway" viewpoint. The thrust of my argument is that NCOs and Officers necessarily have two very different career progression ladders. On the NCO front he will be judged very much on his proffessionalism, competence and ability. The Officers however have another dimension to contend with. They have to walk the assesment tightrope, choosing the correct path in every decision they make. One false move and they may well foul any chance of a significantly senior position further on in their careers.

To achieve high Office Officers must fill suitable posts early on so that they gather the necessary credentials vital to command and manage. The NCO is and always will be a "front line first" beast and can remain in flying or training posts for the entirety of his enlistment.

So for my money, NCO pilots make sense on two fronts, First they're slightly cheaper and secondly they come in a colourful jacket with the words "Don't Panic" written in big friendly letters on the front.

[STANDTO]

Blimey, I was only joking!

As far as I'm concerned, do the same job, get the same money. Also, the 'go that extra mile argument is probably dead in the water'.

As Jez Clarkson demonstrated, any clown can fly the typhoon, so why are we spending squillions on pilot training when we could just set up a load pf PS2's at OASC and see which pimply faced youth get the top score. Following that, bang a set of stripes on their shoulder and strap them into an aircraft which, if its computers go wrong, it IS going to drop out of the sky. Could even save the cost of installing a bang seat as the driver would clearly be expendable.

(if that doesn't get em going.........)

Seriously though, the whole rank thing is so complex that I don't think it is unravellable any more. Without a complete clean sheet, we are stuck with it.

[peterward]

Jim N-Front line first isn't limited to our NCO bretheren. Not coming from that World, I'm afraid I cannot comment on the NCO career path. As an officer, you're not obliged to follow the standard career path of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the vain hope of being CAS one day. There are quite a few spec aircrew Flt Lts/Sqn Ldrs who are content to remain on flying duties, so the option to remain at the sharp end is there as an officer. But I take the point that in order to progress, there is normally a "character building tour" somewhere along the way. Slice of lemon in your G&T sir?! :p

[Doctor Cruces]

I'm ex blue suit as well, NCO to boot.

The reason it will never happen is that in my 22 years in the mob I came to be shown one very strong image and that is that The RAF is run BY officers FOR the benefit of other officers. As long as these folks are in charge, NCO pilots will never happen.

I expect flak for this one. To divert some I will say thet there are many fine officers in the forces (all branches) but once they get above S/L level they become institutionalised and seem to forget what happens in the real world. It's not just in the services either, same applies out here.

[A7E Driver]

In the French Navy, they used to have NCO fighter pilots. Without exception, they were far superior in flying skills/judgement than the officers (of whom I was one). The reason being that the officers had lots of admin responsibiities, and rotated to different jobs every two years or so. The NCOs were not distracted by admin tasks or attending "staff college" courses to get checks in the career advancement boxes. They just became the best damn fighter pilots in the service. However, some scrambled egg officers decided that this was not good (having NCOs show up Academy grads), so the practice has sadly ceased.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Much as I admired someNCO pilots I flew with in the '50s, I can see no point in going back to them now. If you paid them enough to attract/retain them in face of competition from civil aviation you would make a nonsense of the pay scales. The hankering for NCO pilots seems to come from the grunts, who do not regard the ability to understand a complex piece of technology without relying on the advice of an "expert" waiting in attendance as an officerlike quality. During my time with the sappers (for whom I have a profound admiration)I learnt that the officers with real expertise (ie, the graduate engineers with membership of one of the professional institutes) reached a ceiling at around Major/Lt Col. The "high flyers" were the ex-Sandhurst ruperts with a quick course in "minefield clearance".
:)

[Helmut Visorcover]

Flat, please ellaborate on your statement;

The hankering for NCO pilots seems to come from the grunts, who do not regard the ability to understand a complex piece of technology without relying on the advice of an "expert" waiting in attendance as an officerlike quality.

Being a thick grunt, I'm not sure which end of the stick your holding?!?

:confused:

[left one o clock]

Well, it might be a well worn thread, but judging by both the number of replies posted in such a short time, and by the vehemence with which some of them were presented, it's obviously a topic that may warrant attention.

Thanks 4 the input.

;)

[Ron Fenest]

The pay argument is a poor one. A Warrant Officer Class 1 pilot on top whack flying pay can afford a much bigger house than your non flying Lt Col. Also a Sgt pilots pay is comparable to a Capt/Flt Lt..check the scales. (not including Daddies money of course)

I know 2 Cpl pilots (and there arent that many around) doing OU degrees and nearly every NCO pilot that I work with has at least 2 A levels (re requirements for selection), others have ATPL A/H etc etc.

I'm not arguing for or against here because quite frankly as an NCO pilot I couldn't care less..but..in 2 years time when i am commissioned, albeit not in a flying role..will it really make me a better person ? I think I might just be exactly the same..brown sauce and all (no warts yet).

We are all just people who managed to get through a selection process, we do the same 6 monthly's and the same IRT's..the only discrepancy on standards is possibly the AC comds check ride where an Officer can get lost, trash airspace, nearly kill the QHI and still pass (he NEEDS to command) and the NCO will fail for going round once on a wishy washy confined area.

Just out of interest..who teaches our Officers to fly ? who writes the reports on their ability ?

Oh..that will be the SNCO QHI's...Nuff said i fink.

[Bervie]

"who teaches our officers to fly, who writes reports on their ability"
That would be a QFI, flt commander and sqn exec (all officers) - in the RAF. Which is the topic of this thread incidentally.
As was said earlier in the thread, Im sure NCOs would be just as capable pilots as any officer, but to be a pilot in the RAF, one of the requirements IS to be commisioned.
So if you are just as capable as the officers, why not become one and get "easy" check rides because this is a topic that is never going to be sorted on here.

:cool:

[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Bervie ]

[Al Titude]

Ron Fenest

Think you have succinctly identified why NCO pilots are a good idea in the Army but not in the RAF.
Difference in ideologies basically - correct me if I'm wrong, but most Army Officer pilots are infantry First, pilot Second. Their flying tour is a couple of years then back to the desk/field. So little wonder why an NCO with 20 years experience has got better hands than a Capt with a few hundred hours total.
RAF pilots are in the job for years, many flying from the age 18 to when they retire at 55! So there can be no comparison here.

By the way, of all the guys on my squadron, none live off 'Daddies money', or have ever been instructed by an NCO!!
:cool:

[peterward]

Daddy never had any money! Probably stole a few silver spoons though....... :p

[Helmut Visorcover]

Bev, I think one of the answers would be 'why go from being king of the 5h!t5 to becoming 5h!t of the kings'.

As many have said, this debate will never be settled here, or anywhere.

Good for moral though as some honest answers and opinions come out.

On the whole, regardless of background, wodney or untermench, the opinion tends to be that in our job of poling there is very little difference in ability required. I think the main gap being that of future employment. Being a pilot is a means to an end in that it's a stepping stone for higher command. For example, what’s the main difference between a Major/Sqn Ldr and above in a ground trade to the equivalent who fly’s. In my opinion, ****** all. From this stage it becomes a management thing, not particularly a job spec thing, if he's a good pilot, it's a bonus. I don't know but once a bloke goes above staff college level (comprihensive school in the RAF), the specific job/skill is not the point but aimed more towards 'the bigger picture' of command.
May I push an example, a mate of mine has an OC who has been out of flying for about ten years, he has just returned to command a flying(ish, in AAC world!) sqn. He appears to be a damn good OC because of the command/management experience he has gained in that time out of flying, no doubt he is streamed for higher things. The point is, I think, and I hate to say it, that to become an officer (senior) requires something above that which an NCO would generally be able or has proved or wants to achieve. Nuts and bolts level, an NCO can be the same or better than his commissioned brethren but I feel this is not what them above recruit for. Tarquin Snodgrass-Blythe is not sponsored to go to Sandhust/Cranwell because he will make a damn fine pilot/platoon commander, he's recruited because he will make a top, tow the party line Brig/Wng Cmd and above. Seats being limited, the RAF, I believe cannot afford to spare these places.

Again, I don't know but how many of you RAF types applied to be an officer and said 'Mmmm, RAF officer, yes, that’s for me, can I have a spec aircrew commission please' to the selection board? If you did, you be shown the Navy recruiting office.

BTW, I'm a pongo, SNCO pilot and like being a SNCO pilot. I have no plans to move messes whether asked or not. Does that make me an underachiever?

The only benefits I see would be bigger house on the patch, better pension and me mates saluting me.

The down sides would be, bigger mess bill, having to talk proper without swearing, me mates who salute me never speaking to me again, being put in charge of the pony club and having to wear those damn silly pink cords with the dress sense of a Geography teacher.

Sorry for being so polite but I'm not pissed yet.

:eek:

[DP Harvey]

For the RAF to be as successful (or least disastrous; whichever) as it can be, it needs good leadership from the very top (CAS) down to Sqn Cdr level. Below that point people are not making operational policies that make a difference to the RAF as a whole. I'm not talking about administrators and engineers who can make far ranging policies at some very low(ish) ranks.

So, to best enable the RAF to get the best people at the top (eventually) the best have to start somewhere in the middle. A bright spark at age 18 in the junior ranks is not going to get far unless he leap frogs quickly.

The people who really matter (whether they are any good is another issue) at the top of the RAF were all pilots/navs in their younger days because, lets face it, would you accept an ex supplier in the heart of NATO's tactical ops? So, that is where the pool of excellence where recruits for the top will remain....at junior officer level in the GD(P)/GD(N) branches. Notice that the branch is not "P/GD".

The best army generals didn't fly aircraft, they fought in the fields....and that is where they pool their future generals....piloting aircraft can be achieved by properly qualified people of any supervisory rank and there is no thought for what is best for the army in the long term...its the same with the Navy and sailing ships.

To dilute the recruitment pool with anybody who, on induction, hasn't a chance to get to the top is eroding the possibilities of making the RAF the best it can be.

Thats the theory. Of course there are complete cock ups at OASC and not all recruits want to be CAS, but thats not the issue :(

[I.P Stop]

I could have not said it better my self, Ron.
I fink that you have your finger on the pulse
with regards to the truth behind NCO pilots.
One thing I have noticed is that Army NCO CPL/SNCO pilots actually like flying, while the Officer pilots like to tell people that they are a pilot.(i.e the quodos)
AM I WRONG? What **sses me off is the RAF trolley dollies/ talking baggage in the back, strutting around at every opportunity talking about how many hours they got this mth!! Yeh nice one.
NO STICKS NO VOTE!
All said and done I have flown with many good Officers and NCO pilots, if the AAC had the Admin backup like the RAF then the cmd structure would run like clockwork, the AAC
needs to prioritise whether the main effort is ITDs or flying. :cool:

[pitotheat]

If we can't attract people in with a commission with all the benefits, both monetary and status, this has how are we going to pull them in as NCOs?

[sdoyle]

Simple, offer them a contract to fly right up to the age of 55 or even 60. This is what the Army cannot (or will not) offer.
You do not have to pay them any more or give them bigger houses. :)

[jiffni]

We have plenty of NCO pilots in the Rotary Air Farce, they just wear the rank of Flt/Lt.

SH rank structure:

FO/PO = Cpl
Flt/lt = Sgt/SSgt
Spec Aircrew Flt/Lt = WO2/WO1
Spec Aircrew S/L = LE Capt/Maj

If it flies like an SNCO, dresses like a SNCO and ticks like an SNCO, its a SNCO

[Flatus Veteranus]

Helmut

Sorry to be slow coming back; LineOne seems to have become LineNone over the last few days.

Read in Der Vaterland, I can imagine my post was puzzling. You write from the land of technicians, where the title "Engineer" draws instant respect, if not veneration. In England they are regarded as little more than tradesmen. In the schools from which British army officers were traditionally drawn, the education was based on Latin and Greek poetry with a bit of sanitized history and a dose of Kipling. Any interest in things mechanical or technical was regarded as unhealthy, subversive, indicative of unmentionable activities behind the Fives court, and cured by cold showers and plenty of ruggah! It thus became fashionable for officers to disclaim any competence in matters technical and to depend on advice from competent NCOs. Hence stories circulated like the one about the Vulcan pilot showing his Army brother around the cockpit and being asked whether he really had to learn about all these knobs and switches; surely he had a qualified NCO around to advise him? And, of course, Bomber Harris's legendary remark about the British Army's inability to understand tanks "because they do not eat hay and fart". Perhaps he would substitute "Apaches" for "tanks" in this day and age!
On my first station in the early '50s (a Meteor AFS) I suppose about half the QFIs were SNCOs. (Even by then the stus were all ossifers). Because the Squadron pilots were thus divided between two messes we had to hold our parties in a nearby pub. If any stranger had been asked to guess who were the ossifers and who the NCOs I believe he would have got it nearly 100% wrong. The NCOs were better dressed, generally older, equally well-spoken and drove better cars.
In the Army's culture I do believe that there is still an undercurrent that flying aircraft is not an officerlike function. Too much technical matter just has to be learned. From the RAF's viewpoint, what would be the point of reintroducing NCO aircrew? It would merely split the squadrons between two (or three) messes again.

Edited to add big grin :D

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Flatus Veteranus ]

[I.N. Balance]

jiffni has hit the nail on the head; I don't know why the RAF get so worked up about the issue of only allowing 'officer material' to fly. They appear, judging by current officers, to have been commissioning NCOs for years and allowing them to fly. In many cases the non-officer loadmaster gets to do most of the work anyway. Grow up RAF and realise it does not matter what rank one wears; if someone has the ability to be a pilot they have the ability to be a pilot.

[Al Titude]

I.N. Balance

Are you for real?
1. If it matters not what rank a pilot is, why your problem with Officers?
2. I wasn't aware of many loadies on GR7 Sqns.

Crap sweeping generalisations about the standard of junior officers do not help the cause and credibility of pathetic posts like yours!
Regards

:cool:

[Vortex_Generator]

Enjoyable thread with some good points and well reasoned arguments. Just to add a little twist, why do the RAF continue to make all non-commisioned aircrew SNCOs? Historically, I believe it came about during 't war to get aircrew off guards, fire piquet etc, but is it still necessary in these modern times. I don’t think the arguments used in this thread are valid on this one.

[Blacksheep]

I've been civilianised for long enough now to wonder why the military have Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers anyway. Why not a single graded structure; those entering with better qualifications doing so at a suitably higher level? The dual career path arrangement is distinctly odd.

When I joined the air force, enlisted personnel were themselves split into two paths - command path and technician path. Command path NCOs wore their stripes point down while technicians wore their stripes point up. Technicians got higher pay, non-technical got higher status. By the time I finished training, common sense had prevailed and everyone wore their stripes the same way up. Its the twenty-first century now, about time to do away with the distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned once and for all in all three arms of the services.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[peterward]

Vortex_gen, a few points to your comment; Your point about the history behind SNCO aircrew is correct in that they would have better treatment if shot down etc. However, after consultation with an ex-ALM friend of mine (who incidently is now a stinking orifice pilot type) some valid points were raised about why SNCO aircrew are necessary. Firstly, you need some command authority when dealing with certain tasks, eg airdropping. I can't imagine 50 paras down the back of a herc paying much attention to an SAC barking orders at them! If you're an AEng, it helps when dealing with groundcrew etc. Also, unlike the Army where you get Q pay, the RAF pays according to rank. So in order to get the same people to do the job as SAC's, you'd have to re-organise the entire rank/pay structure. Plus, who wants to be an SAC when they can be a SGT?

Blacksheep-if you're going to start suggesting things like that, maybe we should start having jeans and T-shirt days on the Sqn, have an OIC flower arranging and have disabled access ramps up to the jets (helos if that's your game). Either it's a wind up, or you work for the European commission!!! :p

[Bervie]

I concur with Al Titude. I N Balance, thats the worst thought out post I think I have had the misfortune to see. All the military flying that is done does not revolve around the "all god like" loadmaster/door slider types doing all the work. Some aspects of military flying (FJ) revolve around highly motivated and highly trained junior officers in the majority, working alone in cockpit. If this was a thread about purely rotary issues then SOME of the arguments hold true but I thought it was "NCO pilots in the RAF"! If the thread is going to revolve purely around the rotary side of flying then rename the post, otherwise accept the fact that RAF pilots will be officers for the foreseeable future. If you want to be an NCO pilot join the AAC. This thread is battering an old topic to death IMHO.
;) :cool: ;)

[RAF Rupert]

Am I mistaken, or is this a Professional Pilots network, and since only Officers can be pilots in our Air Force, there should be no need for bleating and chimping by NCO 'aircrew'.
You don't find me waxing the lyrical on www.shouldhavetriedharderatschool.com/NCOs (http://www.shouldhavetriedharderatschool.com/NCOs)

So cut out this non-commissioned ill informed working class tish, that's an order.

Anyone up for tiffin', what?

[I.P Stop]

RAF Rupert confirmed- you really are an arse www.hopeyoudiesoon.com/unob (http://www.hopeyoudiesoon.com/unob)

[RAF Rupert]

I.P

Tried to visit that website but couldn't get the silly computer to work. Could you suggest another site? Thank you ever so much.

Light the fires...kick the tires...I didn't realise there was so much morale on the firefly fleet. up up and away, what?

[Mad_Mark]

Well, having read through this thread from the start I thought I'd like to reply to a few of the arguments made so far.

Accountability - not valid. SNCO's are perfectly accountable to be able to hold cash imprests of tens of thousands of pounds on deployments. As previously mentioned, how are officer pilots held accountable for their aircraft in a way that a SNCO would not be?

Ops Support Argument - A contradiction? If we allowed for SNCO's to fill the pilot shortage we have it would actually free up more officer pilots to take their aviator-input to those higher ranked areas responsible for policy, plans, equipment, etc, not dilute it.

If you want to be a pilot you should pass OASC/IOTC - OASC look at candidates for GD(P) not only on their potential ability as a pilot, but on their potential for promotion to senior rank. Many candidtaes that could make CR(A) pilots may be being turned away because they lack OQ's.

The anti-"Who trains our officers to fly?" argument - Amazing narrow-minded response! This was an example of NCO pilots succeeding in another environment. The RAF maybe the topic of this thread, but we should not close our eyes to other services successes on the same subject.

In this day and age of a shortage of pilots in the RAF, the introduction of SNCO pilots could be hugely beneficial. The SNCO's could concentrate on flying leaving the officers (well most of them) to get on with worrying about pleasing the boss, promotion and their future careers. The anti-NCO pilot thing is more about elitism than anything else. Many current NCO's hold civilian pilot licences and degrees, so ability is not a problem. It is about time their Airships stopped wanting to keep the two winged master-race in the O's Mess and started wanting to fill those ejector seats with good pilots, regardless of rank.

Mad Mark :mad:

[Sloppy Link]

I can not fail to notice that our bretheren in the Senior Service are keeping out of this one....especially as they have just Commisioned all their Royal Marine NCO Pilots...who were trained by the Army! I am not certain but did not the Royal Navy have NCO Pilots in days gone by? If we are now in the realms of majorities then the Army's stance is in the minoroty and should be bought in line with the other two Services. One outlook that hasn't been discussed is cost in that recruiting a Pilot from within your own organisation is cheaper than getting one from outside it as the basics have been covered (military knowledge etc) and you can always put him on back burner if your quota is full and bring back later when ther is a space. Generally, soldiers who fail Aircrew Selection do not leave the Army as they were relatively happy in their original job in the first place. Geting a future Pilot from the outside is a gamble as he is not a known commodity and has not been in the "system" for any length of time therefore a decision has to be made on an individual after a short space of time at the OASC. To assist in this, proof of known qualities help this decision to be made ie degrees and the like. NCO's get their degrees from the university of life and by the time they decide to go flying they have served six years plus in the system they are going to fly in and therefore, the selectors have this proof of known qualities ie rank achieved, confidential reports and the like. The end result is a Pilot. Just a different way of achieving it.

[I.N. Balance]

Dear Altitude & Bervie,

Wrong... not an NCO; just an officer with some standards ;) Nice to see you get so worked up though.

[twistgrip]

As a comparative newcomer to pprune I’ve missed the previous threads on this subject.

My experience is in the rotary world but the basic issues cover all types.

There is absolutely no difference between commissioned and non-commissioned aircrew regarding ability to fly. There are excellent pilots and there are average pilots and occasionally some w@nkers.

As an ex SNCO QHI in the military I trained both types – normally side by side. Ie 2 students, one commissioned and the other non-commissioned. Pure flying ability was about equal. As the training was geared towards tactical flying (the basic stuff having been covered by civilian instructors) there was obviously a requirement for decision making/leadership skills/airmanship (now called CRM) and plain common sense. Whether there was a pip or a stripe in the other seat, these processes too, were about equal.

The difference of course was that commissioned aircrew normally went on to command a flight or a squadron. The additional skills involved in that process call for man management, administrative competence (staff work) and powers of command – not normally skills associated with flying an aircraft.

The military system obviously limits pilot NCO’s in the full employment of these additional skills – but the majority do have them. Likewise the majority (but my no means all) of commissioned personnel have them and by virtue of their training and experience apply them more naturally.

I now run a fairly large flying operation for one of the major players in the civilian world. There are number of ex military personnel (both NCO’s and commissioned) from all the services involved in this and other operations. When those additional skills mentioned above are required for whatever reason – Chief Pilot, Commercial decision, Client liaison, organising search and rescue etc – there is little difference between ex commissioned personnel or non-commissioned. What is apparent is the difference between the non-military and ex military – but that’s another story.

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that military pilots, of whatever description, possess at least some of the qualities mentioned above or they wouldn’t be flying in the first place.


:)

[JimNich]

Twist Grip

Nicely put, good to have some perspective from the other side of the fence.

However, I get the idea that we're straying from the thrust of the argument here. We're all agreed (or nearly all) that history and The AAC prove that it doesn't matter what you wear on your shoulder to keep an aircraft airborne. The nub of the post I feel is whether NCO pilots are PRACTICAL in todays airforce and whether they could co-exist with their commissioned brethren.

Now like it or lump it but some of the "against" crew have a few pretty good arguments and it is those we should be trying to overcome. The "dilution" one is winner really and however inappropriate you might think it is ('cos we're REALLY short of senior Officers in The Airforce you know)the size of the GD/P trade is nowhere near the size it was when we had NCO pilots in The Service. So, trying to rationalise another tier (albit lower) of seniority, promotion ladders and payscales within an already shrinking trade can never be seen as an easy option to those that manage higher up the pecking order.

Now, you have to excuse me for taking some wild liberties with a few of these grandiose ideas but I talk from the standpoint of realising that the RAF will probably NEVER EVER have NCO pilots again. That said though, if there ever is to be a chance it can never succeed by just puffing out our chests and saying "we're just as bloody good as you you know".

If there is to be a chance at all IMHO the people who sponsor the trade higher up (old commissioned pilots) have to be convinced
that the cadre just can't do without NCO pilots any longer.

I have no idea how you could possibley go about doing that..... Shame really :(

[Jetscream 32]

But just to Pi$$ on all your fires did you realise the RAF actually had an NCO PILOT in 1998 - best you start digging around and find a young lad who used to drive crew buses @ Brize then transfered to the AAC to drive Gazelles's and was awarded wings still wearing an RAF NCO Beret!

Toodle Pip! :D

[Shackman]

JS32 - Correct of course. But if my info is correct, why is he now leaving said haven of NCO pilots? Is it something to do with the treatment of said NCO pilots by 'the system'? :confused:

[Jetscream 32]

Negative,

Just the lure of the big lights in the widebody world. DF is a good lad, and the very first day i took him to the airfield, i came home thinking - somehow i think this is going to carry on - and that was 15 years ago! :rolleyes: Doh!