'Non-Traditional' Aircrew

[MRAF]

I have heard on the rumour vine (reliable source) that there is imminently to be a change to the Brevets/Flying Badges (whichever way you want to call it) that so called non-traditional aircrew / airborne specialists will be awarded. E.G.: FC / IA / AT etc...

I'm told that they are getting rid of the trade specific half wings and replacing it with a new badge for all. Not 100% sure what it will be but expected to be similar to the WSO/WSOP RAF half wing but without the crown. I would imagine grandfather rights to the old badges will remain for those who earned them.

Apparently, it was provisionally approved (not sure if at Air Force Board or with Monarch) 2 weeks ago but has not yet been formally announced or issued.

Does anyone else know anything about this or heard similar?

[Lima Juliet]

Yes and please wait out...

[sharpend]

Is this no just another example of 'dumbing down' ? Should an air steward wear the same wings as single seat fighter pilot. Just asking.

[NutLoose]

I can see it now, "we decided to take the crown orf Ma'am as we didn't want to be left with obsolete stock when one kicks orf"

[NutLoose]

Isn't she wearing one?


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x500/raf_apprentice_kirsty_ascroft_800x500_c_ca388e9022b752de6699 da98b7eb824e72f93f48.jpg


RAF | The Apprenticeship Guide (http://www.apprenticeshipguide.co.uk/raf-3/)

[Party Animal]

MRAF - your rumour summary is absolutely correct noting it is a flying badge and not a brevet.

Sharpend - pilots wings are and always will be for pilots only. Everyone else will have a single wing with a crown for WSO’s/WSOp’s and no crown for the rest.

[Lima Juliet]

Sharpie

The Air Steward and the later Cabin Crew badge is nothing like RAF Pilot Flying Badges - a LOT smaller, the wings are a different shape, it has the monogram ‘AS’ or ‘CC’ and they are worn on the sleeve (or they should be). It is only weak leadership on the shiney 10 (ie. your old fleet), Tristar, 125, 146 and now Voyager that has allowed them to, outside of the AP1358 Dress Regs, wear them on their left breast of their FACS, flying suits or cold weather jackets. It is a Trade badge and should be worn on the right sleeve like the picture that Nutty kindly shared.

This picture from eBay gives you an idea of the tiny size of the badge.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1680x1312/09ce36ca_b65e_4ed2_b7e5_0cfa3b01e292_7a062bcc222d365a341ac4c af1466a0a0c2cc876.jpeg

[alfred_the_great]

Sharpie

The Air Steward and the later Cabin Crew badge is nothing like RAF Pilot Flying Badges - a LOT smaller, the wings are a different shape, it has the monogram ‘AS’ or ‘CC’ and they are worn on the sleeve (or they should be). It is only weak leadership on the shiney 10 (ie. your old fleet), Tristar, 125, 146 and now Voyager that has allowed them to, outside of the AP1358 Dress Regs, wear them on their left breast of their FACS, flying suits or cold weather jackets. It is a Trade badge and should be worn on the right sleeve like the picture that Nutty kindly shared.

This picture from eBay gives you an idea of the tiny size of the badge.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1680x1312/09ce36ca_b65e_4ed2_b7e5_0cfa3b01e292_7a062bcc222d365a341ac4c af1466a0a0c2cc876.jpeg

i assume every time you've seen someone incorrectly dressed you've stopped, informed them of their error, and given them a time to report back to you correctly dressed.

[flighthappens]

i assume every time you've seen someone incorrectly dressed you've stopped, informed them of their error, and given them a time to report back to you correctly dressed.

yawn. SOP pprune.

Squabbling about this stuff when the RAF struggle to effectively man the front line. Witness the posts on the back end of the XX204 from Typhoon pilot and Bob Viking.

Or look at the well publicised issues with A400 or E-3 serviceability; or the output of the CRUs or MFTS.

There are better, more important things to talk about!

Seriously, ladies. Handbags at dawn!

[Lima Juliet]

i assume every time you've seen someone incorrectly dressed you've stopped, informed them of their error, and given them a time to report back to you correctly dressed.

Yup, I even pulled up a Gp Capt this week for wearing his Field Service Cap incorrectly - a quiet word, Sir, the badge goes upwards, not downwards...

[ian16th]

There are better, more important things to talk about!

Seriously, ladies. Handbags at dawn!

So discipline doesn't matter any more in the modern military?

[charliegolf]

I always thought Lex Brown was a bit non-traditional!:E

CG

[BEagle]

Flying in an RAF Voyager a few weeks ago, I think that it was entirely appropriate for the cabin crew member to have been wearing the standard squadron name badge on his flying suit, including his Air Steward mini-wings.

Which he wore with considerable pride - and why ever not?

Whoever worries about such things?

[Lima Juliet]

BEagle

Which he wore with considerable pride - and why ever not?

I would agree if the Cabin Crew wings were worn in the correct place - ie. on the right hand sleeve. The left chest/breast is reserved for RAF Flying Badges and Medals - that is all. The Cabin Crew badge is not a de facto Flying Badge (ie. it is not listed in QR 206) and so should not be worn on the left breast/chest. It’s a pretty simple rule, really. :ok:

[BEagle]

Medal ribbons are never worn on flying suits! 'Op' badges were once worn on the upper shoulder on some squadrons once the wearer had achieved CR status and others wore national flags. Generic aircraft badges were once quite popular, as were '10 bear' badges. Eventually some guidance appeared, requiring uniformity of squadron flying suits and if I recall correctly, limited the number of badges to one per shoulder.

'Squadron' name badges with role specialisation engender squadron spirit and look smart - long may they continue!

[WASALOADIE]

Unless of course you were MAMS when you would wear a multitude of badges, wherever you wanted on your coveralls - I'll get me coat

[NutLoose]

I used to wear the hammer and sickle on my overalls way back in the 70's and 80's and no one said a word.

[Lima Juliet]

BEagle

I think you are missing the point old bean. Of course you would never wear medal ribbons on your FACS or flying suit, but you do tend to wear the normal badges in the correct places where they appear on other forms of uniform - flying badges on your left chest/breast are a classic example where some sqns wear them on their own with a name badge on the other side, and others in a combined name/flying-badge badge. The Cabin Crew should be doing something similar - a name badge on their chest with the separate cabin crew badge on their sleeve. There is no intent to damage sqn spirit and the wearing of a sqn badge is perfectly fine by all.

On liney’s overalls, I don’t believe that it is a formal Dress standard? So effectively it is managed locally, but the flying gear is No 14 Dress as laid down in AP1358 Ch 6.

[BEagle]

The Cabin Crew should be doing something similar - a name badge on their chest with the separate cabin crew badge on their sleeve.

Perhaps - but apart from you, does anyone really give a $hit?

[Lima Juliet]

Perhaps - but apart from you, does anyone really give a $hit?

It seems your fellow VC-10 mate does as he asked the original question?

[aloominumtoob]

Oh, Wazza Loadie, d'you need a saucer of milk? Are you talking when MAMS were MAMS, or after everyone joined in? In my day, some 38 years ago, it was Union Flag on shoulder and name and UKMAMS on front name patch

[Ascoteer]

Sharpie

The Air Steward and the later Cabin Crew badge is nothing like RAF Pilot Flying Badges - a LOT smaller, the wings are a different shape, it has the monogram ‘AS’ or ‘CC’ and they are worn on the sleeve (or they should be). It is only weak leadership on the shiney 10 (ie. your old fleet), Tristar, 125, 146 and now Voyager that has allowed them to, outside of the AP1358 Dress Regs, wear them on their left breast of their FACS, flying suits or cold weather jackets. It is a Trade badge and should be worn on the right sleeve like the picture that Nutty kindly shared.



I bet you’re the kind of guy that would describe himself as “Senior Flight Lieutenant”

[NutLoose]

Wings on a hostie is like lipstick on a pig.. it is what it is, no matter how they dress it up.
Still, it must be a good moral booster for service retention and induction, a bit like allowing pilots to buy a leather jacket and wear it.

[cafesolo]

NutLoose #23 I've nothing against leather jackets -- provided that they are finished in Disruptive Pattern Camouflage !

[langleybaston]

One of my hobbies is military history, British Army, Victorian to Great War period, and specialising in dress/clothing and the badges attached.
One theme recurs: the regulations often follow practice, rather than the converse.
I prefer the rules to be obeyed in our armed services, but if there is sufficiently good [or bad] reason to diverge from them, perhaps the regs might change.

Not that I have a dog in the fight as a retired weather guesser.

[Lima Juliet]

I bet you’re the kind of guy that would describe himself as “Senior Flight Lieutenant”

Touched a nerve, did I? :E

[langleybaston]

I can see it now, "we decided to take the crown orf Ma'am as we didn't want to be left with obsolete stock when one kicks orf"

The services badges with Queen Victoria's crown were still being worn by some veterans in the Great War. Mostly so highly polished that they were nearly featureless.
]the badges, not the veterans].

[Al-bert]

I always thought Lex Brown was a bit non-traditional!:E

CG
Ah, good old Lex - not heard or seen his name in print this century.
Mad as a box of frogs but an essential part of Wessex/Puma banter mid 1970's SHDNI. :}:ok:

[Brain Potter]

Wings on a hostie is like lipstick on a pig..

”Hostie”, “Air Hostess”, “Stewardess” etc are inappropriate terms that carry the implication that such personnel are onboard mainly for the delivery of “hospitality”.

The reality is contrary to this misconception. The primary duties of Cabin Crew are safety-critical and they deserve to be respected for their role. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following competencies:

Immediate Care (First Aid)
Abnormal and Emergency procedures, including -

Firefighting onboard aircraft
Ditching / Forced Landing
Emergency Evacuation
Decompression
Operation of all Emergency Equipment
Pilot incapacitation

Aviation Security
CRM
Human Performance
SMS
Fatigue Management
Survival and Rescue (Land and Sea)

Arguably, Cabin Crew are more directly involved in the operation of aircraft than some of the other trades. Perhaps Cabin Crew ought to be brought into the scope of this review and be awarded an equivalent ‘proper’ brevet?

[BEagle]

The VC10K didn't originally carry 'passengers', they were referred to as 'role support personnel'. We didn't have established ALMs or 'cabin crew' to look after them but would take it in turns to do so - as it usually meant a trip to somewhere nice.

When acting as 'cabin supervisor', the nickname for such a task was 'Trolley Tart'. That came from (rather a memorable :E) time with a ba TriStar crew in Bermuda, one of whom (a very classy young lady) told us that her parents used to hold quite a few posh cockers Ps at which her father would introduce her to his guests as "My daughter the Trolley Tart". She didn't mind at all!

RAF Cabin Crew do indeed deserve more respect than is often forthcoming. Their tasks and responsibilities extend far beyond handing out those delightful white boxes.

[minigundiplomat]

An explanation of how the term 'trolley tart' originated, immediately followed by a statement of 'RAF Cabin Crew do indeed deserve more respect than is often forthcoming' is a strange juxtaposition, but I guess its all contextualised by a history lesson.

Tell me, who loaded the catering? was it coolies, or chai walla's? or did it depend on which pink part of the map you were sipping G&T's in?

[minigundiplomat]

Brain - I am assuming that is a fishing expedition?

[chevvron]

The VC10K didn't originally carry 'passengers', they were referred to as 'role support personnel'. We didn't have established ALMs or 'cabin crew' to look after them but would take it in turns to do so - as it usually meant a trip to somewhere nice.

When acting as 'cabin supervisor', the nickname for such a task was 'Trolley Tart'. That came from (rather a memorable :E) time with a ba TriStar crew in Bermuda, one of whom (a very classy young lady) told us that her parents used to hold quite a few posh cockers Ps at which her father would introduce her to his guests as "My daughter the Trolley Tart". She didn't mind at all!

RAF Cabin Crew do indeed deserve more respect than is often forthcoming. Their tasks and responsibilities extend far beyond handing out those delightful white boxes.
Always thought the title was 'Trolley Dollys'; never heard of 'Trolley Tarts' which to me seems a derogatory term.

[BEagle]

At Brize, VC10K catering was delivered to the aircraft by 'In-flight' and checked by the Cabin Supervisor. Quite often away from base the in-flight rations were bought in a local supermarket, then loaded by the Cabin Supervisor - who would also do the cooking. Most of us took turns in doing so.

[NutLoose]

Always thought the title was 'Trolley Dollys'; never heard of 'Trolley Tarts' which to me seems a derogatory term.

Plus Spoons and Coffee Jockeys on the VC10's

[sharpend]

Always thought the title was 'Trolley Dollys'; never heard of 'Trolley Tarts' which to me seems a derogatory term.
Chevron, have you never flown with elderly BA Pursers who were called Wagon Dragons?

[langleybaston]

as we are well into a digression, why is the wagon always between me and the khazi when I need relief, and the dragons keep me waiting, standing like a twerp, until we hit turbulence and then its "seat belts on"?

[Lima Juliet]

Cabin Crew Safety Brief Oz Style...
https://youtu.be/K5jRcHFBlZE

[KBW10101]

BEagle



I would agree if the Cabin Crew wings were worn in the correct place - ie. on the right hand sleeve. The left chest/breast is reserved for RAF Flying Badges and Medals - that is all. The Cabin Crew badge is not a de facto Flying Badge (ie. it is not listed in QR 206) and so should not be worn on the left breast/chest. It’s a pretty simple rule, really. :ok:


Agreed LimaJuliet,

Its not a Flying Badge IAW AP1358 therefore CANNOT be worn on left breast. A name badge, fine- with CC "trade qualification badge" ( as per AP1358) on right arm. In addition QR206 doesn't recognise it as a Flying Badge either.

It's a clever flout of the dress regulations in the name of "crew cohesion" - clever play by CC branch to make people believe they have been awarded a Flying badge.

In addition- pretty sure RLC Dispatchers wear their Dispatchers badge on right arm..

Not sure what's next, the trade "Create" a Flying Badge with "CC" in middle? no worres- go to Cranwell and complete a CFS approved course of flying training then. Othersie move it to the right arm of FACS where there's a velcro portion already there for it.

[arketip]

You all sound like Hells Angels and other dumb MC clubs, whining about who can wear what and where:rolleyes:

[KBW10101]

”Hostie”, “Air Hostess”, “Stewardess” etc are inappropriate terms that carry the implication that such personnel are onboard mainly for the delivery of “hospitality”.

The reality is contrary to this misconception. The primary duties of Cabin Crew are safety-critical and they deserve to be respected for their role. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following competencies:

Immediate Care (First Aid)
Abnormal and Emergency procedures, including -

Firefighting onboard aircraft
Ditching / Forced Landing
Emergency Evacuation
Decompression
Operation of all Emergency Equipment
Pilot incapacitation

Aviation Security
CRM
Human Performance
SMS
Fatigue Management
Survival and Rescue (Land and Sea)

Arguably, Cabin Crew are more directly involved in the operation of aircraft than some of the other trades. Perhaps Cabin Crew ought to be brought into the scope of this review and be awarded an equivalent ‘proper’ brevet?


Looks like what you’ve just described is a Loadmasters’ job? There’s already plenty of those ... who wear a flying badge... no need to steal their jobs you know.

[Party Animal]

Arketip - you may have noticed that the origins of this thread refer to the changes to the flying badges worn by members of the Royal Air Force. You should also be aware that the RAF is one of the branches of Her Majesties Armed Forces. Not sure if you have ever been exposed to any form of military service but one of the tenets is to wear a specific uniform for a specific occasion, whether that be a day to day flying suit or perhaps your Numbet 1 uniform for a formal event. They key though is ‘UNIFORMITY’, as laid down in an appropriate document. If the thought of wearing a regulation uniform is unpalatable to you, then perhaps you are talking to the wrong people?

[camelspyyder]

Talk about thread drift. Ever since post 3 this has been heading off at at tangent from the OP. Non-Traditional Aircrew are mission specialists such as FC, IA or AT, nothing to do with stewards or movers. They have done at least a course in Aviation Fundamentals at Cranwell alongside the Generic WSOp students before specialist training on type. Since the established rear crew trades were all amalgamated into WSOp, should there be a one size fits all Mission Specialist flying badge too? Or since they are so different, maybe keep them separate and let some of the old badges make a comeback - N, AE, LM for instance?

[KBW10101]

Talk about thread drift. Ever since post 3 this has been heading off at at tangent from the OP. Non-Traditional Aircrew are mission specialists such as FC, IA or AT, nothing to do with stewards or movers. They have done at least a course in Aviation Fundamentals at Cranwell alongside the Generic WSOp students before specialist training on type. Since the established rear crew trades were all amalgamated into WSOp, should there be a one size fits all Mission Specialist flying badge too? Or since they are so different, maybe keep them separate and let some of the old badges make a comeback - N, AE, LM for instance?

IA’s aren’t aircrew. They are a ground based imagery analysis trade. Therefore not aircrew.

They created a brevet that isn’t recognised by QR206 and wear it unofficially because they think they are aircrew, yet their trade is a ground trade.

Lots of trades who’s ‘brevet’ should be a trade qualification badge that they’ve made into a pseudo brevet.

[Specaircrew]

This thread takes me back to the pre internet 70's and the lengthy discussions via 'letters to Air Clues' regarding the introduction of brevets on 'woolly pullies'! I seem to recall cursing and swearing after having spent an hour trying to sew my wings on so that they were horizontal, discovering that the front of the woolly pully was now joined to the back :-(

[BEagle]

Specaircrew wrote: This thread takes me back to the pre internet 70's and the lengthy discussions via 'letters to Air Clues' regarding the introduction of brevets on 'woolly pullies'!

Which were originally intended to be a joke, but someone actually took them seriously so we ended up with the cloth moth on woolly pullies - which looks daft.

The 'Sweater cashmere, with moleskin facings' mess kit woolly pully was a much better spoof in 1980-ish! Courtesy of 115 Sqn, I understand.

[Wensleydale]

I am minded of the leather flying jacket issued to the USAF aircrew back in the 80s. As a so called retention benefit, USAF aircrew were issued with a leather flying jacket - however, the AWACS mission crew were not allowed to have one because they were not "real" aircrew: there was certainly some leather envy going on with the American AWACS people at Geilenkirchen! As a result, it was suggested that the rear crew be issued with goat leather flying helmets to keep them happy....real goat mind you because synthetic goat leather would make them look cheap!!

[KBW10101]

I couldn’t give a toss. It seems that it is only pee-stained keyboard warriors with nothing better to worry about that do.

Of primary concern is ‘can they do their job? Do they perform the role correctly?’

Maybe you dinosaurs should be more concerned about the ever-increasing girth of the RAF serviceman and officer. There are some shockers. And the beard thing just looks scruffy.


As scruffy as a navy matelot who’ve been allowed to have beards for like 400- 500 years?

yeah- that’s totally different.

[Krystal n chips]

Didn't AG's suffer the same myopia for many years, being ground trades, with a winged bullet badge, before being finally ( due to circumstances beyond the RAF's control ) elevated to brevet status....despite being more than a bit useful as part of a crew irrespective of the form of insignia to designate their role. No doubt there's some equally arcane AP reference for the period 1923-1939 available.......

[Chugalug2]

Didn't AG's suffer the same myopia for many years, being ground trades, with a winged bullet badge, before being finally ( due to circumstances beyond the RAF's control ) elevated to brevet status....despite being more than a bit useful as part of a crew irrespective of the form of insignia to designate their role. No doubt there's some equally arcane AP reference for the period 1923-1939 available.......

It wasn't only the brevet issue that upset them. We had an ex Wellesley a/g in the 30 Squadron Association. The ocifers up front both got gongs for pressing home an attack on the Albert Canal bridges, he got nothing. When he complained that his Lewis Gun barrel was overheating while repelling 109 attacks the advice was, "Well don't fire it so much then!". He nursed these grievances until he sadly passed away a few years ago.

[Brain Potter]

..... Non-Traditional Aircrew are mission specialists such as FC, IA or AT, nothing to do with stewards or movers. They have done at least a course in Aviation Fundamentals at Cranwell alongside the Generic WSOp students before specialist training on type......

So the attempt to encourage you to see Cabin Crew as primarily performing the role of a safety critical crewmember and not as catering function was not successful. Perhaps the MAA definition might help?

From MAA Master Glossary: Aircrew - Persons having duties​ concerned either​ with operating​ ​or the​ flying of​ Air​ Systems​ or​ with passengers or​ cargo when in flight.

Fairly clear isn’t it? Cabin Crew fall into the definition of Aircrew.

[KBW10101]

So the attempt to encourage you to see Cabin Crew as primarily performing the role of a safety critical crewmember and not as catering function was not successful. Perhaps the MAA definition might help?

From MAA Master Glossary: Aircrew - Persons having duties​ concerned either​ with operating​ ​or the​ flying of​ Air​ Systems​ or​ with passengers or​ cargo when in flight.

Fairly clear isn’t it? Cabin Crew fall into the definition of Aircrew.


Its clear in terms of the MAA , yes- as its a role in the air.

Its also clear according to QR206 that they are not awarded a flying badge, as "CC" badge is NOT a flying badge.
And according to AP1358 the badge they wear is a Trade Qualification Badge, not a Flying Badge- therefore not authorised to wear it in the same position of uniform as a Flying Badge. Fairly Clear isnt it? - yes AP1358 is.

[cafesolo]

Re Chugalug #51 Was not the same nonsense repeated when machine guns were mounted on helicopters ? First we used RAF Rgt gunners,or failing them,armorers. Then when those drawing flying pay tried to get it for the MG operators, the answer was NO,additional cost of life insurance notwithstanding. Eventually the duty fell to AQMs.









additional cost of life insurance notwithstanding.

[Chugalug2]

cs, sounds par for the course certainly. Just remembered our 30 Sqn a/g was on Battles not the Wellesley, the first being deemed front line, the latter not in 1940. Both were totally obsolete of course by then.

Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?

Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....

[KBW10101]

cs, sounds par for the course certainly. Just remembered our 30 Sqn a/g was on Battles not the Wellesley, the first being deemed front line, the latter not in 1940. Both were totally obsolete of course by then.

Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?

Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....



Indeed they ARE deemed aircrew (airborne role) by the MAA. - I dont think anyone has disputed that here at all.

They are not an aircrew branch, they are a trade- nor are they paid RRP (Fly) or authorised to wear a Flying Badge on the left breast as per QR206.

They are deemed aircrew by the MAA, and authorised to wear their trade qualification badge (AS , now CC) on their right upper arm as per AP1358. They are NOT authorised to wear it like a Flying Badge IAW QR206 because it is NOT one. << that fact right there can be debated IF they trade qualification gets re-branded as a Flying Badge IAW QR206. (which it hasn't).


So in summary:

1. YES the are deemed aircrew by the MAA and have completed a Cabin Crew course for on board roles, airborne roles that- of course they are deemed part of the crew and incorporate any in flight duties and crew cohesion as an equal member of the crew.

2. NO they are not authorised to wear the TRADE QUALIFICATION BADGE on the left breast (as if it were a Flying Badge IAW QR206) , as AP1358 stipulates..... it must be worn on the right upper arm. Wearing it on left breast insinuates to others it is a Flying Badge (which it is NOT). Therefore they have not qualified in the eyes of QR's to wear their trade qualification badge as if i were a Flying badge.


Ill provide some context:
If I were to walk into a Parachute Regiment HQ with Para wings on my left arm- i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear an All Arms Commando course dagger in the incorrect place on my uniform, i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear my beret badge upside down , i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear my Aeromedical qualification Nurse, Nursing officer or other / Mountain rescue team / Bomb disposal team qualification badge on the left breast of my No.1 jacket, No.2 jumper, No.5 jacket or flying suit ....id expect a redress. Why should CC trade qualification badge be any different?

You can search for AP1358 Chapter 7 : Pages 23,24,25 clearly outlines what Flying Badges can be worn, and where.

Para 0719 clearly states : Cabin Crew Badge. The badge design is a pair of wings in light blue silk with a central motif of the letters 'CC'. It is to be worn on the right sleeve of No 1 SD. No 2 SD jersey and 6 SD (when issued), centrally positioned, with the top of the central motif 4" (10.2 cm) below the shoulder seam.

[BEagle]

Nope, that reference only states the uniforms on which the Cabin Crew Badge must be worn and where it must be positioned on those uniforms.

There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

[Chugalug2]

KBW10101, the zeal with which you keep quoting AP1358 makes it appear that you have a dog in this race. The constant churning of flying badge regs recently suggests that far from being written in stone, each new flying badge is but another amendment list away. They are aircrew but not an aircrew branch? Humbug, as our great leader might say! As has been already pointed out, this is deja vu all over again. The last solution was to bump up all aircrew to Sergeant rank at least, and award them an appropriate flying badge. Given the essential life saving role of cabin crew that would seem an equitable solution and resolve this anomaly. Unless of course the RAF is content to get its cabin crew on the cheap...

BEagle, it may not really matter to you but has anyone asked if it matters to them?

[Lima Juliet]

Nope, that reference only states the uniforms on which the Cabin Crew Badge must be worn and where it must be positioned on those uniforms.

There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

BEags, it is not mentioned in Chapter 6 of AP1358 either, which is the Flying Clothing section. Although termed No 14 dress most aircrew call them flying suits, flying coveralls or FACS (the latest Future Aircrew Clothing System - which is an array of flame retardant garments).

You also say “it doesn’t really matter” but I have read many a thread with your two-penneth about flying badges on jumpers, aircrew leather jackets, Oxford pattern shoes, stable belts and Officer No 1 SD hats (you seem to have an aversion to the Field Service Cap that many aircrew wear). So if “it doesn’t really matter”, then why have an opinion? I would offer, that it does matter as many on here arguing the toss has proven on this matter and others proves?

:ok:

[Chugalug2]

I would offer, that it does matter as many on here arguing the toss has proven on this matter and others proves?

:ok:

I would offer the same LJ, but it all revolves on what we mean by 'it'.

What I think matters is that RAF Cabin Crew be fully acknowledged as aircrew, not only by the MAA but by the entire RAF. Comments in this thread would appear otherwise. It is important that they be seen to have the authority required when dealing with life threatening emergencies and for which they are presumably fully trained and regularly tested. They cannot be assumed to have such authority while they are in this anomalous half way house of being aircrew but within a ground trade only. They need to be clearly and visibly aircrew, both by branch and by rank.

At the moment it would seem they are of SAC rank and above, when all other aircrew are of Sergeant rank and above. At the moment it would seem that they are seen as ground trade aircrew only. That combination seems to me to be potentially fatal if the commands they give to full aircrew pax are questioned or even rejected. ALL Pax (from CAS downwards) need to carry out such instructions to the full. That is far more likely I would suggest if all RAF Cabin Crew are clearly and identifiably aircrew, ie holding the rank and status of aircrew (ie Sergeant and above, wearing an Aircrew Brevet).

That is what I mean by 'it'.

[Lima Juliet]

wearing an Aircrew Brevet

But why would they wear a patent, certificate, ticket or diploma? :E

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/french-word-brevet.html


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/454x640/image_59cb4c132ef474ddd9a64272fd306541c598960f.jpeg

PS. On a less flippant tack... The way that PJIs got around this, that may also be JNCOs, is to be deemed ‘Honorary Aircrew’ as per various King’s and Queen’s Regulations. That way, they could be deemed as Aircrew as the ‘Commander in Chief’ (HMTQ) has deemed it so. However, we then get into MERTs and Aeromed personnel that should also deserve such recognition too for operating equipment on an aircraft in a particular role fit??

[Chugalug2]

Sigh. We all know that the official name is Badge not Brevet, because the pedants are for ever telling us so. Yet we persist in calling it a Brevet. Horses and Water I guess. What can you do?

There are a lot of specialist personnel who carry out there roles in aircraft it is true. That is different to being a constituent part of the basic crew. They are aircrew. Nothing Honorary about it. If you could apply yourself to my basic argument that RAF Cabin Crew need recognition by the rest of the RAF that they are indeed aircrew and should thus be accorded the same status as all other aircrew, ie an Aircrew Badge (you see now what you've made me do?) and appropriate rank (ie Sgt and above) then the importance of their job and their effectiveness in that job (ie saving lives) would be greatly assured. What we have now is an underlying sense of patronising and sniggering superiority that won't play well in dire circumstances. Time to change perhaps?

[Easy Street]

Chug,

How much respect do you think a young acting sgt cabin crew member would get from a planeload of squaddies? I suspect even less than acting cpl PTIs get from their RAF colleagues, and that ain’t much. Heck, senior members on here have even written about the credibility issues faced by transport captains when they held acting sqn led rank.

But frankly I don’t see the relevance of rank for cabin crew. Saving lives is no reason. Where does that leave firefighters and medics? Many of the crew on RAF Voyagers are civilians employed by AirTanker; can their instructions be safely ignored? No, but there will always be idiots who try it on, and that would remain the case even if all cabin crew were commissioned officers. In fact that would probably make it worse! More generally, abuse of rank has declined massively during my time in service and the minority who try it from time to time are viewed with disdain. ‘Standing’ is needed as well as ‘seniority’ before orders can given and our youngsters are very well attuned to that, a sign of the times no less.

[Chugalug2]

ES, it's not the squaddies that concern me most for they at least can be dealt with in the traditional ways. It is on the contrary the underlying theme throughout this thread that concerns me. They are aircrew because the MAA says they are, but plainly the RAF doesn't think so or they would be accorded the status of aircrew which is manifested in the wearing of an aircrew brevet (there, that didn't last long did it?). If it isn't appropriate for CC to be Sergeants and above, why is it then appropriate for other aircrew?

As has been said before, air gunners, radio operators, etc, have all had to face this same struggle to join the hallowed status of aircrew. I believe we have Hermann Goering to thank for their success, as SNCOs and Officers would fare better as POWs. Whatever the background, all RAF aircrew are SNCOs or Commissioned Officers with the exception of cabin crew. How well that works in practice for the crews, never mind their pax, one has to wonder. A crew needs to be a tightly knit unit if it is to function safely, and when it isn't things become very unsafe, witness Kegworth. If the cabin crew had queried with him the Captain's PA about the Stbd engine when clearly the problem was with the Pt one, then aircraft, crew, and pax could all have survived. They didn't and bad things happened.

I'm not interested in rank, I'm not interested in 'Stinkin Badges'. I am interested in all aircrew being clearly acknowledged as such for safety's sake if no other. In the RAF that means the Brevet and Sgt Stripes it seems to me.

[Lima Juliet]

then the importance of their job and their effectiveness in that job (ie saving lives) would be greatly assured

Chugalug2 from that quote above, then you would imply that the primary role of cabin crew above all others is passenger safety? I would argue that is a secondary role and that the primary role is passenger service, comfort and ensuring the passengers are compliant for the journey ahead. It’s a bit like saying that the primary role of the Aircrew (see what I did there?) is the safety of the passengers, when actually the primary role (or even dare I say ‘Aim’) is to get the aircraft from A to B and just one of the objectives is to get there safely. Otherwise, if we take your definition, we could get from A to B with our aircraft Aircrew, Cabin Crew and passengers but claim it is ineffective because one of the passengers had a heart attack and died despite the best efforts to save them?

Finally, I have flown many flights as a passenger in an aircraft too small to have Cabin Crew, or with too few passengers to require Cabin Crew, so if the aircraft can fly without the Cabin Crew and complete its desired mission what does that really say about the importance of the job or their effectiveness to me? Personally, I would be content to fly on a flight in any aircraft without Cabin Crew as a passenger if everyone else knew what to do and behaved like me. So really, that primary role is passenger service, comfort and ensuring the passengers are compliant for the journey ahead and the rest is secondary effect. That is why, at best like the PJI, they should be seen as ‘honorary aircrew’ for increased med screening and priority treatment. But other than that, they are from the respective ground trade and trained to operate around an aircraft, rather than operate it for the purpose of being airborne (and I don’t mean turn the galley on, dishing out in flight or operating the cabin lights!).

As for MAA definition, they also mentioned the dreaded ‘B Word’ until recently until someone put in an amendment to change it. The definition of Aircrew can also easily be amended. They are, after all words with variable context (but the context is the important bit).

[Krystal n chips]

Chugalug2 . So really, that primary role is passenger service, comfort and ensuring the passengers are compliant for the journey ahead and the rest is secondary effect. bit).

Is it really .......? being awarded a G.C for doing her primary role isn't what you would call an everyday occurrence....doesn't make one scrap of difference if the operator is civilian or military because, as she tragically, and heroically, demonstrated, when it all goes horribly wrong, then, and only then, does the primary role come to the fore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jane_Harrison

[KelvinD]

As an ex-soldier, this topic has long been fascinating to me. One thing that never appeared on my uniform was a trade badge. On number 2 dress, there were stripes (or not) indicating rank., with the Corps badge (Mercury aka Jimmy for Royal Signals) and, if applicable, medal ribbons on the left breast, all topped off by the Royal Signals blue lanyard on the left shoulder. (Had to be left side to distinguish us from Royal Engineers). Combat kit bore only rank stripes and working dress had the same, rank stripes and nothing else. There were no trade badges. If someone turned up in my workshop and saw me repairing a radio, they would recognise immediately that I was one of the various radio technician trades. In addition, there sometimes Divisional Flashes. If you were posted to a unit with,for example, 7Div, you would end up wearing the Desert Rat flash on the upper arm. Generally, when anything 'different' was happening, the dress would be laid out in Orders. I think we were proud that we understood the definition of "uniform".
And then we used to gaze upon our colleagues in the R.N. and R.A.F., wondering what all the badges were about. And when it came to pilots (drivers, air frame) the whole thing took on a circus like appearance, with big round, gaily coloured circular cloth badges adorning the flying suit.

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug2 from that quote above, then you would imply that the primary role of cabin crew above all others is passenger safety? I would argue that is a secondary role and that the primary role is passenger service, comfort and ensuring the passengers are compliant for the journey ahead......

Finally, I have flown many flights as a passenger in an aircraft too small to have Cabin Crew, or with too few passengers to require Cabin Crew, so if the aircraft can fly without the Cabin Crew and complete its desired mission what does that really say about the importance of the job or their effectiveness to me? Personally, I would be content to fly on a flight in any aircraft without Cabin Crew as a passenger if everyone else knew what to do and behaved like me. So really, that primary role is passenger service, comfort and ensuring the passengers are compliant for the journey ahead and the rest is secondary effect.

As for MAA definition, they also mentioned the dreaded ‘B Word’ until recently until someone put in an amendment to change it. The definition of Aircrew can also easily be amended. They are, after all words with variable context (but the context is the important bit).

LJ, you make my case far more persuasively than I ever could and for which I must thank you. I leave your comments quoted above (edited down only to make their thrust the more apparent) to speak for themselves. As to you finding yourself minus cabin crew in small aircraft, the same applies for civilian aircraft. The ratios of cabin crew required v pax numbers v a/c type are spelled out by the CAA. I am sure that they are similarly spelled out by the MAA. If it were not so then passengers would be advised to board with copious amounts of change to operate the many vending machines bolted to the cabin bulkheads! :E

I most certainly do repeat my claim that the primary role of cabin crew is passenger safety. Passengers left to themselves to evacuate a crashed and burning aircraft would die in their droves, be they military or civilian. A speedy but orderly evacuation can only be achieved by trained cabin crew manning the exits and ensuring a continuous flow of pax down the slides. Practice, practice, and yet more practice is the key, an experience not open to their pax of course.

Knc linked us to the bravery of BOAC's Mary Jane Harrison who gave her life aged 22 saving her passengers evacuating the inferno of a B-707. The only peacetime George Cross awarded to a woman (posthumously in her case sadly). I would also mention the MBE awarded (in life!) to Dan-Air's Elizabeth Cowe, whose HS 748 ditched on take off from Sumburgh, in assisting 26 of her passengers to safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan-Air_Flight_0034

KD, you have my sympathy. If it is of any consolation, the British Army was always a known unknown to me. What ever I learned by rote of Companies, Battalions, Corps, Regiments, etc, etc, required for passing promotion exams, was soon forgotten. Thank heavens though that HM Services differ so wildly. Long may they do so! :ok:

[Wrathmonk]

I think we were proud that we understood the definition of "uniform".

I'll bite! Army and "uniform". Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one! Even within certain regiments no two officers are allowed to dress the same on any given day. Can't even decide on sleeves up or sleeves down on combat dress ffs! Cap badges, beret colours, DZ flashes, bits of string around your armpit, the number of buttons on your service dress - these define your role/specialisation and no different to trade badges in the RN and RAF (who at least have a standard uniform....don't get me started on red tunics, black tunics, shiny metal breast plates, big bushy hats, hankies on the mess dress dating back to when officers put tar in their pony tails etc. etc.).

If someone turned up in my workshop and saw me repairing a radio, they would recognise immediately that I was one of the various radio technician trades.

Awesome, I'll just pop down the road to Marham and jump in the cockpit of one of those nice shiny F35's. Every one will immediately recognise that I was one of the pilots. Good show.

[KelvinD]

I shall reiterate: there are (or at least, not in my time) badges, flashes etc in the Army that define one's role or specialisation.
As for red tunics, black tunics etc, that comes about as a result of tradition. Centuries of it. And on that basis, the RAF don't come into it. At least, in the Army, nobody went to work dressed like a refugee from a Vaudeville act with gaily coloured badges showing various scenes of aeroplanes in full "whoosh" mode.

[alfred_the_great]

I shall reiterate: there are (or at least, not in my time) badges, flashes etc in the Army that define one's role or specialisation.
As for red tunics, black tunics etc, that comes about as a result of tradition. Centuries of it. And on that basis, the RAF don't come into it. At least, in the Army, nobody went to work dressed like a refugee from a Vaudeville act with gaily coloured badges showing various scenes of aeroplanes in full "whoosh" mode.

well, I'm afraid to break it to you...

[Bob Viking]

Would you like some ketchup with that chip?

BV

💣

[Union Jack]

Chug,

How much respect do you think a young acting sgt cabin crew member would get from a planeload of squaddies? I suspect even less than acting cpl PTIs get from their RAF colleagues, and that ain’t much. Heck, senior members on here have even written about the credibility issues faced by transport captains when they held acting sqn led rank.

But frankly I don’t see the relevance of rank for cabin crew. Saving lives is no reason. Where does that leave firefighters and medics? Many of the crew on RAF Voyagers are civilians employed by AirTanker; can their instructions be safely ignored? No, but there will always be idiots who try it on, and that would remain the case even if all cabin crew were commissioned officers. In fact that would probably make it worse! More generally, abuse of rank has declined massively during my time in service and the minority who try it from time to time are viewed with disdain. ‘Standing’ is needed as well as ‘seniority’ before orders can given and our youngsters are very well attuned to that, a sign of the times no less.
I did wonder how long it would be before the old saw, "Are you a real squadron leader or a VC10 captain?, would be raised.....

On a more positive side, good to see two of the cabin cabin crew on the BBC One O'Clock news, quietly getting on with collecting for the RBL Poppy Appeal.

Jack

[langleybaston]

How on earth can a soldier tell "acting" corporal or "acting" sergeant from substantive?
The badges are very similar ..........................

We read that the new 1940 sergeant aircrew, LAC armourer one day, sergeant the next, were not well received in the Mess. I am fairly sure that when the casualties mounted, even a hairy ars@d SWO formed a better opinion.

[Easy Street]

How on earth can a soldier tell "acting" corporal or "acting" sergeant from substantive?
The badges are very similar ..........................


Any sergeant looking under 25 years of age would obviously be taken as ‘acting’. That would undermine the rank of their older substantive colleagues unless a scheme similar to NCA was adopted, with higher entry standards and an enhanced initial training package to justify the rank being worn. Which would be total overkill for a role which is perfectly adequately carried out by junior ranks under the supervision of a NCO (in the form of the purser).

[langleybaston]

Any sergeant looking under 25 years of age would obviously be taken as ‘acting’. That would undermine the rank of their older substantive colleagues unless a scheme similar to NCA was adopted, with higher entry standards and an enhanced initial training package to justify the rank being worn. Which would be total overkill for a role which is perfectly adequately carried out by junior ranks under the supervision of a NCO (in the form of the purser).

That may be true but fails to address the issue of the acting corporal, and fails to address the acting sergeant older than 25 years.

[topgas]

Why is it set in stone that aircrew must have a minimum rank of Sgt?

[Door Slider]

The role, skill sets, entry requirements and depth/length of training for NCA and RAF Cabin Crew are entirely different. It’s completely inappropriate to compare rank between the two trades.

RAF Cabin Crew do not attend OASC nor do they complete MAGS. In addition, Voyager cabin crew training is only 3 weeks, does this make them “aircrew”? Especially given that it’s still a ground trade with an airborne role however, this is slowly changing as the ground role is phased out. That said, the vast majority are professionals and are good in the role, I don't think people will be serious in calling them aircrew until its a pure aviation role without the ground element.

The wearing of their CC “trade” badge is iaw dress regs and worn on their arm, I personally don’t have a problem with it being worn on their left shoulder in the form of a name badge on a flying suit.

The captain has ultimate authority over all pax and the Senior Cabin Crew Member is a SNCO, having all further 7 cabin crew hold SNCO tank is inappropriate, unnecessary and overkill. Squaddies get on a Voyager (as they have done for 7 years or so) eat, sleep and get off. Passengers are well aware of the fact they are to follow all commands given by the crew, if they don’t the SCCM will step in, I’m not sure why some people think that passengers require three strips and a big stick to keep them in line.

[Chugalug2]

DS, could you spell out for me the significance of "A ground trade with an airborne role"? What does that mean? What ground trade do they practice? It seems to me all this is a way of having cabin crew who aren't really aircrew. Well I'm afraid that they are, and if the tick boxes require that RAF aircrew attend OASC, complete MAGS, and have more than 3 weeks training for Voyager CC (sounds like a good idea!) then so be it. While that is being tweaked, perhaps the requirement for RAF aircrew to be SNCOs/WOs/Commissioned Officers might be looked at again, so that CC can be aircrew with junior ranks, if Sgt stripes are a chevron too far. I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is this concept that they are crew but not aircrew. They are aircrew, and I don't think that the MAA will be changing their mind about that anytime soon.

I agree that pax know they are to carry out all crew instructions, the issue rather for RAF CCs is with the patronising attitudes expressed by their fellow aircrew as within this very thread. They are not there to feed and water you (though no doubt will willingly do so). They are there to save your life, and in doing so will no doubt risk theirs. You should get away swiftly from the foot of the slide (unless instructed otherwise). They stay behind onboard until every other pax is accounted for.

Time now for the RAF to acknowledge unambiguously that its cabin crew are indeed aircrew and award them an aircrew brevet accordingly!

[downsizer]

They are a ground trade because they work in service messes behind the bar and whatnot.

[beardy]

They are a ground trade because they work in service messes behind the bar and whatnot.

That's an appalling use of Cabin Crew.

[langleybaston]

For anyone with a taste for history and irony, the above very public debate is but a continuation of all the other debates regarding broadening the issue of flying badges. For a very entertaining and informative read, please see Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-Pilot ... (https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22550662932&cm_sp=Searchmod-_-NullResults-_-BDP) C. G. Jefford.
In my opinion it deserves a place on the bookshelf of everyone interested in the Royal Air Force.
There are several editions, the most recent is significantly updated [and may need a further update by the looks of the debate].

[downsizer]

That's an appalling use of Cabin Crew.

Historically they were recruited into the ground role primarily, and some volunteered to become CC. Now in efforts to aid recruitment, and with the creeping contracterising of messes, they are being pushed more into the CC role and that is how the RAF sells the role.

[Lima Juliet]

They are not there to feed and water you (though no doubt will willingly do so). They are there to save your life, and in doing so will no doubt risk theirs.

Absolute b0ll0x, there is nothing, yes nothing, that Cabin Crew could do for me to save my life over other human beings - this would be First Aid if I take a funny turn and there will be people that are equally First Aid trained amongst the Aircrew and other passengers have. They are entirely there to feed, water and keep the passengers calm - that is their primary role, everything else is secondary. Many passengers may well be way more qualified in medical matters and sea survival than someone that has done a dinghy drill and a few weeks of Cabin Crew training. Now I get Babs Harrison getting a GC but there are also countless others that receive GCs for their bravery in similar circumstances - it is not the fact she was a Flight Attendant, it is the fact that she was an incredibly brave woman. Here is another GC, awarded to a passenger on a Sunderland Flying Boat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Gillett. So really it is the act of bravery and not the fact of whether you are a Flight Attendant, Air Steward or Cabin Crew or not.

[Chugalug2]

Once again you illustrate my point better than I can, LJ. Once again thank you. It is little wonder that such attitudes exist when it is common knowledge that recruitment is from amongst Messing Staff. The difference between a Mess and an aircraft should be clear enough to aircrew at least. One moves with very considerable speed and contains large quantities of highly inflammable fuel, the other is for tearing to pieces and paying for the damage on your Mess Bills. Mess Staff are indeed for feeding and watering you, and clearing up the Mess later (see what I just did there?). Cabin Crew are for saving your life, particularly in an emergency evacuation, whether you want them to or not. When they are not doing that they can indeed feed and water you.

The logic of your posts suggest that you are in denial, but then it seems so is the RAF. You are welcome to your own opinions, the RAF is not. It needs to abide by the mandated instructions of the Regulatory Authority which annoyingly insists that Cabin Crew are Aircrew. Aircrew are awarded Brevets so that there is no doubt that they are Aircrew. It seems there is much doubt on that score. It needs to be corrected.

Cabin Crew are Aircrew! Get used to the idea!

[KBW10101]

DS, could you spell out for me the significance of "A ground trade with an airborne role"? What does that mean? What ground trade do they practice? It seems to me all this is a way of having cabin crew who aren't really aircrew. Well I'm afraid that they are, and if the tick boxes require that RAF aircrew attend OASC, complete MAGS, and have more than 3 weeks training for Voyager CC (sounds like a good idea!) then so be it. While that is being tweaked, perhaps the requirement for RAF aircrew to be SNCOs/WOs/Commissioned Officers might be looked at again, so that CC can be aircrew with junior ranks, if Sgt stripes are a chevron too far. I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is this concept that they are crew but not aircrew. They are aircrew, and I don't think that the MAA will be changing their mind about that anytime soon.

I agree that pax know they are to carry out all crew instructions, the issue rather for RAF CCs is with the patronising attitudes expressed by their fellow aircrew as within this very thread. They are not there to feed and water you (though no doubt will willingly do so). They are there to save your life, and in doing so will no doubt risk theirs. You should get away swiftly from the foot of the slide (unless instructed otherwise). They stay behind onboard until every other pax is accounted for.

Time now for the RAF to acknowledge unambiguously that its cabin crew are indeed aircrew and award them an aircrew brevet accordingly!


Im sure the RAF Would he happy to award them a brevet,

1. Once they have the requisite qualifications ( academically) equal to non commissioned aircrew at present or an equivalent entry standard to aircrew branches.

2. Attend OASC ( like all other non commissioned aircrew do )

3. Pass a CFS accredited flying course to be awarded a flying Badge IAW with QR206 ( like all other non communised aircrew do)


The “awarding” of a brevet retrospectively would have zero merit. Im sure the MAA could try and persuade 22 group and the Central Flying School otherwise but all it would do is de- Value the existing cadre of aircrew brevets if awarded for doing merely nothing.

[MPN11]

I will just note that BA Cabin Crew initial training is 6 weeks.

[deltahotel]

I’ve been out of the RAF for too long to have a valid opinion on badges/brevets/aircrew qualifications etc. I make the assumption that Voyager’s passenger compartment is pretty much the same in terms of seating, doors, slides, safety eqpt etc as similar civilian ac.

Do I assume then that when LJ goes on hols and hears someone from the flight deck say ‘welcome aboard. The CC are here for your comfort but primarily your safety .......’. LJ says ‘nah that’s a load of bollox. I’m sure we could manage to get out of this thing if it turned into a burning wreck without any help from these purveyors of sandwiches and water’.

Of course it gets played down a bit because we don’t want people to think it might really happen, but when a 777 crashes in Dubai because of some poor automation design and a bit of an aircrew cock up it’s the glamorous young boys and girls who have to put the trolleys away and get 282 pax out of an ac that’s about to explode in quick time. Of course they have a comfort/feeding/watering role but primarily it’s about safety safety safety.

[Brain Potter]

Absolute b0ll0x, there is nothing, yes nothing, that Cabin Crew could do for me to save my life over other human beings - this would be First Aid if I take a funny turn and there will be people that are equally First Aid trained amongst the Aircrew and other passengers have. They are entirely there to feed, water and keep the passengers calm - that is their primary role, everything else is secondary. Many passengers may well be way more qualified in medical matters and sea survival than someone that has done a dinghy drill and a few weeks of Cabin Crew training. Now I get Babs Harrison getting a GC but there are also countless others that receive GCs for their bravery in similar circumstances - it is not the fact she was a Flight Attendant, it is the fact that she was an incredibly brave woman. Here is another GC, awarded to a passenger on a Sunderland Flying Boat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Gillett. So really it is the act of bravery and not the fact of whether you are a Flight Attendant, Air Steward or Cabin Crew or not.

LJ , I hope you have never operated a passenger-carrying aircraft - because your attitude towards the role of other crew-members would be a CRM nightmare.

[Lima Juliet]

LJ , I hope you have never operated a passenger-carrying aircraft - because your attitude towards the role of other crew-members would be a CRM nightmare.

Brian, I am not questioning that they are part of a team, I’m just contesting their proposed definition as Aircrew. They perform stewarding duties in an aircraft and mimic safety briefs to the passengers. Their training for safety is pretty superficial (3 weeks or 6 weeks - either way, that falls well short of the training that Aircrew receive). They are called Cabin Crew - others call them Air Stewards (we used to), Air Hostesses, Flight Attendants and other such - the clue is normally in the title! They also receive RRP(FC) - for Flying Crew - whereas Aircrew receive RRP(F) - for Flying - as Aircrew. The rates are different due to the complexity of the role and the employment opportunities outside.

As for Chugalug - keep smoking whatever you’re smoking fella, if it keeps your world in focus for you... :ugh:

[langleybaston]

Time for bed, said Zebidee.

[Chugalug2]

LJ, you illustrate entirely why RAF Cabin Crew should be aircrew and wear an appropriate Brevet. You see them as airborne waiters, the various appellations that you list underline to you your view of them. What would you have them called then? The Emergency Response Team? Airlines or Air Forces alike don't wish to over egg the possible emergencies that pax might be confronted with, so a familiar emergency brief (so familiar that many ignore it), a mention of the seat back emergency information sheet, and that's it.

It isn't for the Cabin Crew. They must be prepared on every take off for an Abandon at V1 followed by the safe rapid evacuation of all pax. They must expect to deal with Toilet Fires (infamous for rapidly spreading smoke and lethal fumes if someone has dropped their illicit butt into the waste bin there). They must know what to do if there is a loud bang, the cabin fogs out, and the ubiquitous rubber jungle appears. They must know what to do in a hundred other such scenarios in the midst of dolling out meals, drinks, landing cards, whatever. In other words they have to be properly trained for their primary role of saving lives. They also need to know all about the routine stuff of course, and how all that can be learned in 3 weeks is a puzzle. I can only suppose it to be a very intense course!

Many civvie pax also see airline cabin crew as simply there to wait upon them, it is true. But they have the excuse that they are not aircrew themselves. Aircrew should know better and I sincerely trust that your attitude is the exception rather than the RAF norm, fella.

[Chugalug2]

Im sure the RAF Would he happy to award them a brevet,

1. Once they have the requisite qualifications ( academically) equal to non commissioned aircrew at present or an equivalent entry standard to aircrew branches.

2. Attend OASC ( like all other non commissioned aircrew do )

3. Pass a CFS accredited flying course to be awarded a flying Badge IAW with QR206 ( like all other non communised aircrew do)


The “awarding” of a brevet retrospectively would have zero merit. Im sure the MAA could try and persuade 22 group and the Central Flying School otherwise but all it would do is de- Value the existing cadre of aircrew brevets if awarded for doing merely nothing.

It seems pretty clear that the RAF would not be happy to award CC an Aircrew Brevet, but happy or not, CC are aircrew, the Regulator says so! You say that CC must jump through the various paper hoops demanded to become RAF aircrew and it would appear that they do not do so now. Thus they do not qualify as trained aircrew, as required by the RTS of the various a/c they man. Therefore all such aircraft are being operated outside of their RTS and should be grounded until fully trained aircrew are available to man them. All this because an obdurate operator will not submit to the mandated rules of the Regulator!

All it needs is for the RAF to recognise its Cabin Crew as Aircrew iaw the MAA regulations. It really is that simple. All this tosh about de-valuing the "existing cadre of Aircrew Brevets" is just that, utter tosh. A Pilot is not a Navigator, is not an ALM, is not Cabin Crew. The are all different (and should indeed have their own Brevets) but they are all aircrew.

If the MAA demanded that the cabin carpets be hoovered in flight and required a "Flight Cleaner" as part of every crew then that Cleaner would be Aircrew; headscarf, drooping fag, Nora Batty stockings, and all. Aircrew isn't a status, it's a description, and RAF Aircrew are identified by the wearing of a Brevet. So give CC a Brevet.

[beardy]

They are entirely there to feed, water and keep the passengers calm - that is their primary role, everything else is secondary.

That's not true and it may be the root of your misunderstanding.

When carrying passengers :
Can Voyager despatch with an unserviceable galley and no refreshments : yes
Can Voyager despatch without cabin crew : no

[Lima Juliet]

That's not true and it may be the root of your misunderstanding.

When carrying passengers :
Can Voyager despatch with an unserviceable galley and no refreshments : yes
Can Voyager despatch without cabin crew : no

No cabin crew on a Voyager AAR sortie... even if carrying passengers to watch the jousting.

[Lima Juliet]

Chug, your insistence to keep calling a flying badge a ‘brevet’ just reinforces your errant point of view. A brevet is a certificate, ticket or diploma - and I suspect that Cabin Crew already do get a course completion certificate. As for your gender stereotyping of cleaning staff - shame on you.

[BEagle]

No cabin crew on a Voyager AAR sortie... even if carrying passengers to watch the jousting.

Nonsense! When around 18 of us went flying on a Voyager AAR trip a couple of months ago, there certainly were cabin crew. One was a Cpl Air Steward and the other was our host. For take-off and landing we were constrained to sit in a certain area and both adjacent doors were manned. MAA rules sanction the number of cabin crew required for such flights.

[Chugalug2]

Chug, your insistence to keep calling a flying badge a ‘brevet’ just reinforces your errant point of view. A brevet is a certificate, ticket or diploma - and I suspect that Cabin Crew already do get a course completion certificate. As for your gender stereotyping of cleaning staff - shame on you.

Your insistence on repeatedly correcting the word Brevet for Flying Badge and your reversion to PC mode shows that you've run out of argument. Hardly surprising given the thinness of it...

[beardy]

No cabin crew on a Voyager AAR sortie... even if carrying passengers to watch the jousting.
That would be an interesting risk assessment and justification.

[longer ron]

Chug, your insistence to keep calling a flying badge a ‘brevet’ just reinforces your errant point of view. A brevet is a certificate, ticket or diploma - .

If I may quote myself from the 'Observer' thread in 2012


Interestingly MOD call the Pilots wings a 'Badge' and the rear crew wing a 'Brevet' https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif


Qualification Badges
0712. Flying & Parachute Badges. This section deals with those flying badges (QR J727 & 728) and Parachute badges (QR 434 – 436)
currently in issue
BADGE DESCRIPTION
Pilot. Wings of drab silk embroidery with monogram 'RAF' in centre, surrounded by laurel leaf of brown silk and
surmounted by a crown – on dark blue melton cloth.
Navigator. The letter 'N' of drab silk surrounded by a laurel leaf of brown silk with an outspread drab silk wing 2½" (6.35 cm)
long – on dark blue melton cloth.

Air Electronics Officer ]
or Operator (AE) ] As for Navigator, but with alternative letters, in brackets. (See Note)
Air Engineer (E) ]
Air Loadmaster (LM) ]

Note. With effect 1 Apr 03 the range of 5 aircrew brevets for rear crew personnel were replaced by the single rear crew brevet (see below).
Those aircrew who were already qualified to wear old style individual brevets can opt to wear the new brevet or retain the old style but there will
be no further provisioning of the current brevet.
Rear Aircrew Brevet. The monogram ‘RAF’ in drab silk surrounded by a laurel leaf of brown silk, surmounted by a crown with an
outspread drab silk wing 2½" (6.35 cm) long – on dark blue melton cloth. Introduced 1 Apr 03 to replace
Navigator, Air Electronics Officer/Operator, Air Engineer and Air Loadmaster. (See Note Above).
Fighter Controller (FC). The letters ‘FC’ of drab silk surrounded by a laurel leaf of brown silk with an outspread drab silk wing 2½" (6.35
cm) long – on dark blue melton cloth.
Airborne Technician (AT). The letters ‘AT’ of drab silk surrounded by a laurel leaf of brown silk with an outspread drab silk wing 2½" (6.35
cm) long – on dark blue melton cloth.

[KBW10101]

Nonsense! When around 18 of us went flying on a Voyager AAR trip a couple of months ago, there certainly were cabin crew. One was a Cpl Air Steward and the other was our host. For take-off and landing we were constrained to sit in a certain area and both adjacent doors were manned. MAA rules sanction the number of cabin crew required for such flights.



There are NO Cabin Crew on an AAR sortie.

Crew composition is as follows:

2x Pilots
1x MSO /WSOp/ Non- commissioned Aircew / whatever you'd like to call them.

Therefore the Voyager CAN dispatch without cabin crew.

[KBW10101]

That would be an interesting risk assessment and justification.


Yet it happens.... routinely.

[langleybaston]

An historical perspective from owning and reading a complete run of Queen's and King's Regulations of the Army from Wellington's times {I do military history!] and the subsequent amendments demonstrates that many a clerical error is made, only to be corrected. Until that correction, the writ runs.
"For $hit read shot" indeed.

[Door Slider]

Voyager AAR sorties require a crew of 3:

2x Pilots
1x Mission Systems Operator (WSO or WSOp)

However, if pax are carried during an AAR sortie the crew will also include:

1x cabin crew for up to 18 pax
5x cabin crew for up to 105 pax
8 x cabin crew for anything greater than 105

[heights good]

”Hostie”, “Air Hostess”, “Stewardess” etc are inappropriate terms that carry the implication that such personnel are onboard mainly for the delivery of “hospitality”.

The reality is contrary to this misconception. The primary duties of Cabin Crew are safety-critical and they deserve to be respected for their role. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following competencies:

Immediate Care (First Aid)
Abnormal and Emergency procedures, including -

Firefighting onboard aircraft
Ditching / Forced Landing
Emergency Evacuation
Decompression
Operation of all Emergency Equipment
Pilot incapacitation

Aviation Security
CRM
Human Performance
SMS
Fatigue Management
Survival and Rescue (Land and Sea)

Arguably, Cabin Crew are more directly involved in the operation of aircraft than some of the other trades. Perhaps Cabin Crew ought to be brought into the scope of this review and be awarded an equivalent ‘proper’ brevet?

Are cabin crew employed on C-130, C-17 or A400 if it's a safety thing?

[beardy]

Are cabin crew employed on C-130, C-17 or A400 if it's a safety thing?

Do they carry passengers who require the safety expertise of Cabin Crew?

[KBW10101]

Do they carry passengers who require the safety expertise of Cabin Crew?


They CAN carry over 100 passengers ( near 200 in c17) yet they do not require cabin crew. Just one ALM.
( up to a specificities number then 2x ALM etc)


They are briefed on the exits and how to use them in an emergency.

The difference is on a Voyager, you’re not letting passengers open their own exits. 7 or so cabin crew to open the doors for you would be the difference using their door opening expertise.

[minigundiplomat]

Voyager AAR sorties require a crew of 3:

2x Pilots
1x Mission Systems Operator (WSO or WSOp)

However, if pax are carried during an AAR sortie the crew will also include:

1x cabin crew for up to 18 pax
5x cabin crew for up to 105 pax
8 x cabin crew for anything greater than 105

Unlike the 737 (with 8 exits) which I commute on each week, which has 3 cabin crew for a mix of 139 men, women, children, non-ambulant passengers. Someone is gilding a lilly....

[Chugalug2]

Unlike the 737 (with 8 exits) which I commute on each week, which has 3 cabin crew for a mix of 139 men, women, children, non-ambulant passengers. Someone is gilding a lilly....

There should be one member of cabin crew available to man each exit equipped with a slide, dependent on pax numbers. The Voyager has 8 such exits and hence the need for max 8 cabin crew. The 737 ISTR has four such exits and hence should have 4 cabin crew to man them (again dependent on pax numbers). Perhaps someone has a somewhat tarnished lilly? I would add that the Purser/ Cabin Supervisor/ No. 1 is deemed Cabin Crew for this purpose.

[BEagle]

The 'one per exit' rule seems to be some old Transport Command thing...

When studying Air Law for my R/BCPL/FI so that I could provide remunerated flight instruction on Cherokees, I learned that the civil world requires one CC per 50 pax or fraction thereof, whenever one or more passengers are carried. One of the more irrelevant parts of the Air Law syllabus for PPL instructors...

So in a CAT aeroplane with 149 seats and half a dozen passengers, the same 3 CC are required as for 149 passengers. There will probably be 8 emergency exits on such aircraft, so if you're travelling in an overwing window seat in an emergency exit row, you should be given a brief from the CC about how to operate the overwing exit. The last time I flew in such circumstances with Lufthansa, I was given a very professional brief from a most efficient young lady CC, including the specific PA announcement which would precede evacuation.

8 CC in a Voyager with 106 passengers does seem to be rather OTT?

Lufthansa used to carry more CC than JAR-OPS required, but that was back in the halcyon pre-Apr 2004 days before the LoCos dumbed airline travel down to its current dire level, so that those of us lucky enough to be travelling in biz class could enjoy a high quality service. Birmingham to Frankfurt meant a large gin and tonic and some almonds shortly after the belt signs were extinguished, followed by a 3-course hot meal with as much wine as one wished, then coffee and brandy plus a couple of choccie truffles. Those were the days!

[Lima Juliet]

If I may quote myself from the 'Observer' thread in 2012


Interestingly MOD call the Pilots wings a 'Badge' and the rear crew wing a 'Brevet' :)

That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (my bold added):

206. Flying Badges - wearing of
Sponsor: UCPSM Cer & Pol

(1) Flying badges are divided into two categories, those in current issue, for which aircrew are qualified under the terms of paras J727 and 728 and those no longer issued, for which members of the RAF qualified under regulations in force from time to time. These badges are:

(a) Current issued:

Pilot
Weapon Systems Officer (WSO)
Weapon Systems Operator (WSOp)
Fighter Controller (FC)
Airborne Technician (AT)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Pilot), UAS personnel only. See para 728.

(b) Previously in issue:

Navigator(N)
Air Electronics Officer(AE)
Air Electronics Operator(AE)
Air Engineer(E)
Air Signaller(S)
Air Loadmaster(LM)
Air Observer (O)
Air Bomber (B)
Wireless Operator (air) (S)
Wireless Operator Mechanic (air) (S)
Meteorological Air Observer (M)
Observer (Radio) (RO)
Air Gunner (AG)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Pilot)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Navigator)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Signaller)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Engineer)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Gunner)

The preliminary flying badges listed in clause (1)(b) above, were previously awarded to personnel of the RAFVRand WRAFVRentered for flying duties who successfully completed the basic stage of training and passed the prescribed tests and examinations.

(2) A flying badge, being a qualification badge, is not to be regarded as either a decoration or the equivalent of a regimental badge. Service personnel are not to wear any of the badges listed in clause (1) unless authority for them to do so has been granted in accordance with the regulations prescribed from time to time by the Defence Council.

(3) Personnel who qualified for the award of the flying badge or Observers Badge under regulations in force in the RAF prior to the 3rd September 1939, or under regulations in force from time to time in the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Naval Air Service, may wear the RAF pilot badge or air observer badge, provided that the qualification appears in the official records of officers and airmen held by the MOD. Any cases of doubt should be referred to HQ PTC.

(4) An officer, on ceasing to be employed on flying duties and an airman on being remustered to a ground trade, may elect to wear any of the badges for which he has been previously qualified.

(5) A foreign flying badge is not to be worn with RAF uniform. This regulation does not preclude RAFpersonnel from accepting the presentation of a foreign flying badge.

(6) Entitled and authorized flying badges are to be worn in accordance with RAF Dress Regulations.


Note, no mention of Air Steward or Cabin Crew badges as they are not Aircrew...

:ok:

[NRU74]

That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (myNote, no mention of Air Steward or Cabin Crew badges as they are not Aircrew...

:ok:

Nor any mention of the QM Badge which preceded the LM Badge .

[longer ron]

That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (my bold added):


Fairy Snuff Sir - but my point was that it had been known as a 'Brevet' so not surprising perhaps that some might refer to it as that (I had only quickly checked for any updates online and had not found anything post 2015) .
I have never used 'brevet' myself - a 'Half Wing' perhaps.

[Chugalug2]

It seems that the 1 for every 50 seats (not pax) as described by BEagle is the norm. However wide bodied aircraft (like the Voyager) require I CC for every door exit (rather than window o/wing exits) or 1 for every 50 seats, whichever is the greater. Hence the 8 required for Voyager.

There are some aircraft that require more than these minimum numbers, each type having the certificated requirement stated. The 737 mentioned earlier has a minimum of 3 or 4 depending on seat numbers (B737-400/3, B737-800/4). These numbers can vary with the country of registration.

LJ, of course QR's don't list Cabin Crew Flying Badges, because the RAF doesn't award them yet. Hence this lengthy thread! We still have the anomaly whereby the military regulator (the MAA) describes Cabin Crew as aircrew, to which Flying Badges are normally awarded, but the RAF doesn't recognise them as aircrew, preferring to characterise them as a Ground Trade and to which it is presently recruiting :-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/logistics/air-ground-steward

[BATCO]

LJ et al
I have no skin in this fight, but for the sake of a balanced argument on brevet vs badge, QR434 (2) as at AL41 of Jun 2016, muddies the water by stating:

434. Training of Personnel in Parachute Jumping Instructor Duties.Sponsor: OC ADW


(2) (PJI) brevets will be awarded to personnel who satisfactorily complete the PJI course. Following

productive employment as a PJI, personnel may continue to wear the brevet on reversion to other

employment, on transfer to another Branch, or on remustering to another Trade. The badge confers

honorary aircrew status without affecting basic conditions of service.


Even if now amended further, it certainly shows that there is/was confusion around the definitions of brevet and badge.

Regards
Batco

[Brain Potter]

The “Department of all things Flying” in the MoD ( the MAA) classifies Cabin Crew as aircrew, but the “Department of Badges and Hats” takes primacy.

I can accept that this situation just ‘came about’ and wasn't designed, but if a review of “non traditional” aircrew is taking place then surely Cabin Crew must be in scope? It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained ,particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.

[Chugalug2]

The “Department of all things Flying” in the MoD ( the MAA) classifies Cabin Crew as aircrew, but the “Department of Badges and Hats” takes primacy.

I can accept that this situation just ‘came about’ and wasn't designed, but if a review of “non traditional” aircrew is taking place then surely Cabin Crew must be in scope? It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained ,particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.

Excellent post, BP. The many different initials that have appeared within the laurel leafed half wings worn by RAF aircrew from its very inception have come and gone, but ALL members of RAF aircrew have worn them eventually, if not at first. Now it is the turn of RAF Cabin Crew. They are legally aircrew, because the regulator says so. Time for the RAF to swallow its pride along with its prejudices and allow its Cabin Crew the same recognition extended to the rest of its aircrew, ie an aircrew brevet (amendment to follow...).

[Easy Street]

It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained, particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.

It’s not elitist or snobbish to say that cabin crew is a role which can and should be carried out by junior ranks, if that’s what you’re implying. Unlike some trades (e.g. aircraft technicians) the pay and status of junior RAF cabin crew is in the same ballpark as their civilian counterparts (and probably substantially better when housing, pension etc is considered). In today’s highly technical service there are seriously well-educated and accomplished individuals to be found at every rank. It’s an elitist view to say that junior cabin crew should hold higher rank simply because they fly, when they are supervised (by the purser) to the same extent as any other junior rank. So perhaps the most appropriate answer to the regulatory conundrum would be to remove the requirement for aircrew to be SNCOs.

But I can see why this could be perceived as the thin end of the wedge, especially for some (e.g. ISTAR mission crew) where the ‘unsupervised’ argument isn’t as clear and obvious as for others (e.g. loadmasters). Plus it needs to be borne in mind that there have been sensitivities over the lower-than-expected pay banding of NCO aircrew, which is going for review in the near future. The politics of that are complicated: ISTAR mission crew roles are highly technical, but then so are intelligence-related ground trades. Opening the opportunity for MOD job assessors to solve the problem at neutral cost by moving the trade up a pay band while down-ranking junior roles is probably not high on the trade sponsor’s to-do list. As ever, the plot is more complex and political than it appears. As ever, careful what you wish for...

[NutLoose]

It’s an elitist view to say that junior cabin crew should hold higher rank simply because they fly, when they are supervised (by the purser) to the same extent as any other junior rank.

They used to be acting corporals and were drawn from the Stewards trade and could be posted back to their ground based trade after their tour / posting ended. The rank of acting Cpl was given to them to help them carry out their duties over the likes of bolshy pongoes and "infer" a bit of authority in the cabin.
The trouble I used to find was they often used to think they were above themselves, I had one tried to order me to get off her aircraft! pretty impressive considering I was doing a hot turnaround with the pax kicked off while I uplifted fuel for it to continue on its way.. She soon learnt the error of her ways.

[NutLoose]

If the MAA demanded that the cabin carpets be hoovered in flight and required a "Flight Cleaner" as part of every crew then that Cleaner would be Aircrew; headscarf, drooping fag, Nora Batty stockings, and all. Aircrew isn't a status, it's a description, and RAF Aircrew are identified by the wearing of a Brevet. So give CC a Brevet.

So part of my job used to involve carrying out airtests on Chinooks, therefore as an Enginner required to fly on airtests and carry out adjustments etc, would you then award them a Brevet too? I seem to remember that flying pay was granted.

[Chugalug2]

Nutty, I think we've been round this buoy already. There are many personnel who are temporarily attached to a crew for various reasons, ground engineers as you mention, PJIs for paradrops, Air Despatchers for supply drops, etc. They all have one thing in common, they are not part of a regular crew, ie they are not aircrew (though some we learn are honorary).

Cabin Crew are clearly Aircrew and yet not awarded a Brevet. That is an anomaly that needs resolving. As to their rank, that is a matter for the RAF. Anticipating a Catch-22 response that they can only be aircrew if they are Sgts, then my response is to then make them Sgts. If it is not necessary then let them retain their present ranks, acting or substantive. Either way they are RAF Aircrew and should thus wear an RAF Aircrew Brevet.

Finally Nutty, if it is of any comfort to you I overheard a civvie member of cabin crew giving orders to a ground engineer, simply because he was in overalls and his hands were dirty. Like you, I corrected her misunderstanding...

AL1. Please amend the word "Brevet" above to read "Badge" in all cases. I thank you.

[Haraka]

Just for a laugh. Can anybody tell me under what circumstances the Preliminary Flying Badge ( Budgie wings) could ever have been worn? When issued after FHT on a UAS it was seemingly destined immediately for a back pocket as it was generally looked upon as a bit inappropriate beyond University (reservist) days.

[KBW10101]

Nutty, I think we've been round this buoy already. There are many personnel who are temporarily attached to a crew for various reasons, ground engineers as you mention, PJIs for paradrops, Air Despatchers for supply drops, etc. They all have one thing in common, they are not part of a regular crew, ie they are not aircrew (though some we learn are honorary).

Cabin Crew are clearly Aircrew and yet not awarded a Brevet. That is an anomaly that needs resolving. As to their rank, that is a matter for the RAF. Anticipating a Catch-22 response that they can only be aircrew if they are Sgts, then my response is to then make them Sgts. If it is not necessary then let them retain their present ranks, acting or substantive. Either way they are RAF Aircrew and should thus wear an RAF Aircrew Brevet.

Finally Nutty, if it is of any comfort to you I overheard a civvie member of cabin crew giving orders to a ground engineer, simply because he was in overalls and his hands were dirty. Like you, I corrected her misunderstanding...

AL1. Please amend the word "Brevet" above to read "Badge" in all cases. I thank you.


If you’re handing out flying badges to cabin crew retrospectively, without an appropriate aircrew course or even selection and promoting them all to Sgt, does that mean you’ll award GE’s flying badge too? - as they operate in an airborne role and already qualify for RRP ( FC).

They’ll of course then qualify for RRP (Fly) not RRP (FC) - quite a bit of staff work there involved; good luck.


So whilst the MAA acknowledges their aircrew role, how do you propose the instant elevation in rank to sgt tor all cabin crew and the uplift in RRP be laid for? Who would you choose to lose out in order to pay for this endeavour?

It’s a fantastic idea you’ve put forward and defended for every post, but the costs involved I feel you’re side- stepping but it merits equal vigour from your end if you feel so strongly about it.

who would you ‘select’ to take an RRP cut or pay cut to afford to pay for the uplift in wages on rank and uplift of RRP ( fly)? Or do you believe they shouldn’t be paid as aircrew, once elevated to flying badge aircrew status.

Just a question, as I’m sure you’ve thought of the answer :):ok:

[Easy Street]

Just for a laugh. Can anybody tell me under what circumstances the Preliminary Flying Badge ( Budgie wings) could ever have been worn? When issued after FHT on a UAS it was seemingly destined immediately for a back pocket as it was generally looked upon as a bit inappropriate beyond University (reservist) days.

In my day it was awarded for passing the Pilot Navigation Test, so you got to wear it for your last 6 months to a year on the UAS, on flying kit and No1 jacket. Not permitted for wear in any other circumstance AFAIK and there was certainly no question of it being worn after UAS.

I imply from your last comment that there was an earlier practice of doing so by some misguided individuals? I’d have loved to have seen the reaction to that by the RAF College Warrant Officer on parade at IOT!!

[BEagle]

Well, Haraka, I was awarded my 'budgie wings' in July 1972 and wore them on my uniform, flying suits and cold weather jacket until I left ULAS for RAFC in autumn '73. Including for the university degree ceremony where I was parade commander of our unruly mob in front of HM the Queen Mum.

The occasional chap turned up at RAFC still wearing his 'budgie wings' as no-one had told him not to. But they came off that evening.

[dragon166]

Don't forget that the badge was originally for use by the RAuxAF, when they still had flying Squadrons, and was accompanied by preliminary badges for the aircrew cats of Navigator, Air Signaller, Air Engineer and Air Gunner. They would have worn it all the time until fully qualified in their specialisation.

[Chugalug2]

If you’re handing out flying badges to cabin crew retrospectively, without an appropriate aircrew course or even selection and promoting them all to Sgt, does that mean you’ll award GE’s flying badge too? - as they operate in an airborne role and already qualify for RRP ( FC).

They’ll of course then qualify for RRP (Fly) not RRP (FC) - quite a bit of staff work there involved; good luck.


So whilst the MAA acknowledges their aircrew role, how do you propose the instant elevation in rank to sgt tor all cabin crew and the uplift in RRP be laid for? Who would you choose to lose out in order to pay for this endeavour?

It’s a fantastic idea you’ve put forward and defended for every post, but the costs involved I feel you’re side- stepping but it merits equal vigour from your end if you feel so strongly about it.

who would you ‘select’ to take an RRP cut or pay cut to afford to pay for the uplift in wages on rank and uplift of RRP ( fly)? Or do you believe they shouldn’t be paid as aircrew, once elevated to flying badge aircrew status.

Just a question, as I’m sure you’ve thought of the answer :):ok:



I won't be handing out flying badges, sgts chevrons, or even Brevets, as you well know. If the RAF has got itself into a corner where it is handing out aircrew badges to those who perform their duties from the ground while withholding them from those who perform them in the air and as part of a crew, then it is for the RAF to resolve this absurdity, not me. As to the cost, it can be merely the cost of the badges. Unless of course the RAF decides more must be spent. That would then be its decision, not mine.

Again and again we get patronising and superior posts all sharing the same theme; that cabin staff are airborne waiters and waitresses and not fit to be recognised as aircrew. That is not only wrong, it undermines their role and is not helped by recruiting them into a ground trade, from which they are alternately posted to air and ground duties.

The reason there are 8 of them on a Voyager isn't because the cabin service requires that number, it is because each one of them is allocated to one of 8 exits from which at a moments notice they must evacuate all the passengers, of which there can be as many as 291. In those frantic seconds the only supervision that counts is what they have learned and practised in training. If those that they are desperately trying to save have an attitude about their status, ability, or fitness to perform those duties then that compromises both their role and Flight Safety.

What is needed is an unambiguous sign that they are full members of the crew and share that unique RAF mark of being aircrew, the aircrew badge. Until then they will be seen by the ignorant and prejudiced as being mere airborne waiters and waitresses. That is no doubt convenient for the bean counters, for staffing, and for those who simply view them with disdain. Those people won't necessarily be onboard though come the time that a Voyager packed full of pax has a major fire emergency culminating in a mass evacuation down the slides. But you might be, so let's give them the training, the support, and the recognition that enables that day to be viewed in retrospect as a vindication of having recognised this latest addition to the varied lists of aircrew, by awarding them an aircrew badge.

[NutLoose]

But they only do one tour in the air, the rest of their service is / or can be ground based, the first tour is obviously simply a sweetener to get them into what is a mundane job

After your first flying tour, unless you transfer to 32 (TR) Sqn, you will be employed on the ground, for at least one tour; supporting unit food services with our industry partners or as a member of 3 Mobile Catering Sqn, at RAF Wittering, providing military field catering on Operations and Exercises worldwide. Returning to Cabin Crew duties, after a ground tour, will be voluntary or to meet the need of the Service.

Even the trade description makes it clear they are not totally air orientated.Air & Ground Steward

[charliegolf]

Beards and brevets, 6 pages each; pensions 3 pages. Nice.

CG

[KBW10101]

But they only do one tour in the air, the rest of their service is / or can be ground based, the first tour is obviously simply a sweetener to get them into what is a mundane job



Even the trade description makes it clear they are not totally air orientated.Air & Ground Steward


Sounds very similar to the Imagery Analysis Branch who wear an "IA" brevet when on airborne duties, but keep wearing it when the majority of the trade is ground based tours. Probably the same would happen here with CC in ground tours if awarded.

[KBW10101]

Beards and brevets, 6 pages each; pensions 3 pages. Nice.

CG
Possibly because the average airman wont even receive a pension worth debating, as the NEM will have them out at the 12 year point, and if they stayed in to LOS20 it would be a pittance. But I get your point, those type of people probably arent even on here in the first place..

6 pages each yes, but you could remove a couple of pages off each for 1970's/80's nostalgia / reminiscence / irrelevance about beards and brevets when we had 150,000 people and 8x Fast Jet fleets. So near enough a match :)

[Chugalug2]

But they only do one tour in the air, the rest of their service is / or can be ground based, the first tour is obviously simply a sweetener to get them into what is a mundane job
Even the trade description makes it clear they are not totally air orientated.Air & Ground Steward

Couldn't agree more Nutty. That's the problem. The RAF recruits its Cabin Crew into a Ground Trade, offering them one, perhaps two, flying tours, the remaining service being in ground waitering. The real elephant in the room here is the RAF's attitude to Cabin Crew, never mind those here who have contemptuously said that they won't be dependant on anyone else in an airborne cabin emergency! Nice! This is an accident that has already found a place to happen. Cabin Crew need to be fully trained in their primary role, which is saving lives. I wonder how that can be the case here given the present situation.

If an airline also owned a chain of fast food outlets and rotated its Cabin Crew between one and the other, would you be keen to fly your family on holiday with them? Would the CAA be keen to renew their AOC annually? This casual attitude to Flight Safety says a lot about the RAF, the MAA, and the MOD, but then so does every fatal accident thread on this Forum.

[Door Slider]

Cabin Crew need to be fully trained in their primary role, which is saving lives. I wonder how that can be the case here given the present situation.

If an airline also owned a chain of fast food outlets and rotated its Cabin Crew between one and the other, would you be keen to fly your family on holiday with them? Would the CAA be keen to renew their AOC annually? This casual attitude to Flight Safety says a lot about the RAF, the MAA

RAF cabin crew are fully trained for the role, they receive exactly the same training as the Air Tanker civilian crew as per EASA requirements. In fact, it can be argued that post the Thales cabin crew course, the RAF then give them more training (airborne) which Air Tanker don’t give their cabin crew.

Would you want to go on holiday with an airline that posts its PILOTS to and from ground roles?? Oh but the RAF do that!!

i don’t think it’s a casual attitude to flight safety, whether you’re a pilot, NCA or cabin crew, we can all do flying tours interspersed by ground tours, no one gets back into an aircraft without the appropriate training.

Plenty of people in the civil sector have breaks in flying and return to it.

[Chugalug2]

Door Slider, thanks for the reassurance that RAF Cabin Crew training is as good as if not better than Air Tanker civil training. If that is as good as, if not better, than other civil airline training then we cannot expect more. Time as ever will be the judge.

So RAF cabin crew are fully trained for their aircrew role. If the RAF has any other hoops for them to jump through before it gives them their rightful recognition as aircrew then it should in all justice get on with it. The lack of that recognition adversely affects their acceptance as being fully trained and competent. That is unjust.

As for a fast food outfit running an airline, you fly with them by all means, I'd much prefer to fly with a Cabin Crew who are both fully trained and have progressively built up their experience and confidence over the years. The same goes for pilots in my view, but that's perhaps for a different thread...

[KBW10101]

“If the RAF has got itself into a corner where it is handing out aircrew badges to those who perform their duties from the ground while withholding them from those who perform them in the air and as part of a crew, then it is for the RAF to resolve this absurdity, not me.”


Which branch / trade are you referring to here chugalug- who you believe perform duties from the ground but are awarded an aircrew badge I wonder?

[longer ron]

“If the RAF has got itself into a corner where it is handing out aircrew badges to those who perform their duties from the ground while withholding them from those who perform them in the air and as part of a crew, then it is for the RAF to resolve this absurdity, not me.”


Which branch / trade are you referring to here chugalug- who you believe perform duties from the ground but are awarded an aircrew badge I wonder?

RPAS Operators I would think !

[KBW10101]

RPAS Operators I would think !


Chugalug surely can’t mean those operators, as they’ve completed a course of flying training and pass EFT before getting anywhere near an RPAS. Loose argument there.

I’d still love to hear chugalug’s reasoning if indeed that is to what the comment refers, as it implies they should not be awarded a flying badge / it’s absurd they be awarded in the first place....

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug surely can’t mean those operators, as they’ve completed a course of flying training and pass EFT before getting anywhere near an RPAS. Loose argument there.

I’d still love to hear chugalug’s reasoning if indeed that is to what the comment refers, as it implies they should not be awarded a flying badge / it’s absurd they be awarded in the first place....

LR guessed right, I was referring to RPAS operators. The only point I am making is that if aircrew badges are awarded to those who perform their duties from the ground while denying them to aircrew who perform their duties in the air then that is patently absurd. I don't imply either of the options you attribute to me, I simply point out the illogical dead end that the RAF has got itself into. It's Deja Vu all over again of course. Here is how it all started:-

https://onenightindecember.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/8-crew-roles-the-wireless-operator/

[KBW10101]

LR guessed right, I was referring to RPAS operators. The only point I am making is that if aircrew badges are awarded to those who perform their duties from the ground while denying them to aircrew who perform their duties in the air then that is patently absurd. I don't imply either of the options you attribute to me, I simply point out the illogical dead end that the RAF has got itself into. It's Deja Vu all over again of course. Here is how it all started:-




I understand now- so to make it all comparable across the board- award anyone with an airborne role a Flying Badge, and pay them appropriately, and possibly promote them as required? reasonable....

AGE's, Cabin Crew, Air Dispatchers now all be awarded Flying Badges and RRP (Fly)- sounds like a great idea (even if just the badge award as you point out, doesn't have to be pay!)

I 100% agree with AGE's being awarded for the record.
Cabin Crew are aircrew according to the regulator as you quite rightly point out.

I imagine some Pay and Policy experts from HW might be observing this thread and may just do that as a retention inventive possibly :)

whilst we are at it- Movements operators, RAFP and RAF Regt regularly fly with crew in AM- shall they be awarded too? not to mention Aeromed qualified personnel.

Right! lets just give everyone a Flying Badge unless PAX! not sure where you drawl the line here- Chugalug any ideas? or are you just in the CC corner on this one I wonder?

[Chugalug2]

I understand now- so to make it all comparable across the board- award anyone with an airborne role a Flying Badge, and pay them appropriately, and possibly promote them as required? reasonable....

AGE's, Cabin Crew, Air Dispatchers now all be awarded Flying Badges and RRP (Fly)- sounds like a great idea (even if just the badge award as you point out, doesn't have to be pay!)

I 100% agree with AGE's being awarded for the record.
Cabin Crew are aircrew according to the regulator as you quite rightly point out.

I imagine some Pay and Policy experts from HW might be observing this thread and may just do that as a retention inventive possibly :)

whilst we are at it- Movements operators, RAFP and RAF Regt regularly fly with crew in AM- shall they be awarded too? not to mention Aeromed qualified personnel.

Right! lets just give everyone a Flying Badge unless PAX! not sure where you drawl the line here- Chugalug any ideas? or are you just in the CC corner on this one I wonder?

I don't doubt that you understand all too well, KBW10101, but are determined to remain obtuse. I am only interested in those personnel whose duties require them to fly as part of a normally constituted crew, you know, aircrew!

It is important that all members of a normally constituted crew be accepted by all as aircrew so that they act together as a team despite their varying specialities. That is especially important when faced with emergency, which is the raison d'etre for having cabin crew.

At the moment the recruiting and badging of RAF Cabin Crew signifies that they are not aircrew despite the military air regulator insisting that they are. Such a dichotomy speaks volumes about the RAF's attitude to Air Safety. The MAA is already in thrall to the MOD and fatally compromised by its acceptance of Haddon-Cave's "Golden Period of Airworthiness". The combination of a dysfunctional military air regulator and an obdurate operator is illustrated clearly in this case of military aircrew who are ignored as such by the RAF.

[MRAF]

Sounds very similar to the Imagery Analysis Branch who wear an "IA" brevet when on airborne duties, but keep wearing it when the majority of the trade is ground based tours. Probably the same would happen here with CC in ground tours if awarded.

1. There is no such thing as Imagery Analysis Branch.
2. Branches are for Officers, there is no Intelligence Branch Officer with the IA Flying Badge (Brevet)
3. The Intelligence Analyst Trade are eligible for the IA Flying Badge, provided:
a. They are a qualified Imagery Analyst having complete the 4 month Phase 3 UKAIC Course.
b They have passed the Pre-Aircrew selection board
c They have passed a generic Aircrew Ground School at Cranwell (Airmanship, CRM, Emergency Drills etc...)
d Aeromedical
e. They then start rear crew training as an Airborne IA.
f. They are awarded the flying badge at award of LCR
g . They are confirmed to retain the Flying badge upon award of CR.

[Krystal n chips]

"non traditional aircrew "......and, worse still, he's only had the audacity to be wearing a badge / brevet !.....shurely there's some obscure A.P. reference relating to the flying status of "Bears: Teddy " ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-50558581

[ACW418]

KnC,

That sums up perfectly how we should be treating this subject!

ACW

[WASANAIRSTEWARD]

Air Stewards were created in the 1960s on the introduction of the VC10 because there were not enough AQM/ALM available. At the time and until 1997 the criteria to become one was to be a substantive corporal or to be recommended for promotion, when an Air Steward was promoted to the rank of SAC Special Acting Corporal (Paid)
On completing a flying tour a steward would revert to being an SAC, unless they had been promoted to the substantive rank of Corporal.
I was also told that during the 1st Gulf War due to the numbers of passengers required in the middle east theatre of operations, C130 Hercules transports were often used and again, because there were not enough ALMs available, some Air Stewards were sent to Lyneham and after training worked on the Hercules for passenger safety reasons.
I did two tours on 10 Sqn, the first as Acting Corporal, and I was promoted just before the end of my tour. I returned four years later in the substantive rank and completed another three years before taking redundancy. From that point the trade changed as all stewards were employed on flying duties from day one and the rank structure also changed, SAC stewards stayed in their rank, but corporals who previously would have to return to ground duties on promotion to Sgt now could continue flying. The ALM role changed on large transport aircraft, so the whole cabin was run by stewards (cabin crew)