New Flying Badges

[alfred_the_great]

Amazed to see there's not mass uproar over the new flying badges.

I'd attach pics, but on wrong device...

[charliegolf]

Amazed to see there's not mass uproar over the new flying badges.

I'd attach pics, but on wrong device...

If it take 7 years to get one, who'll know?

CG

[Wensleydale]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/387x482/badges_03ca4a53ceb23285e81e38b42eace26b397620fb.jpg

[Wensleydale]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/946x671/flying_badges_687494132b803c242e3227530ca05d2ca5ec0daf.jpg

[Wensleydale]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/736x537/badges2_95517a397a7577bb2df3a5624a1e91a203c3dd33.jpg

[WingsofRoffa]

Amazed to see there's not mass uproar over the new flying badges.

I'd attach pics, but on wrong device...

Makes sense imo.

Still gripes me to my bones seeing Air Cadet adult volunteers wearing glider wings in the mess, achieved after a week of gliding around Nottinghamshire, surrounded in the mess by stressed future pilots still in the training pipeline.

[Corporal Clott]

Looks sensible to me.

By the way, the glider pilot wings are for Qualified Gliding Instructors - a bit more than a week of gliding, I’m afraid! There is also a standard CFS upgrade route of B2, B1, A2 and A1 through the normal CFS process. It might not be the same achievement of getting CR on a FL type, but it isn’t given away with a packet of cornflakes either. :ok:

12-18 months of graft over their weekends to get B2: https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/want-to-join/join-as-an-adult-volunteer/join-as-a-volunteer-gliding-squadron-instructor/

[trim it out]

Still gripes me to my bones seeing Air Cadet adult volunteers wearing glider wings in the mess, achieved after a week of gliding around Nottinghamshire, surrounded in the mess by stressed future pilots still in the training pipeline.
Two different things there.

One is wearing a badge they are entitled to wear in accordance with policy, having completed the requisite course.
The other is carrying out the necessary training required in order to wear a different badge.

[The B Word]

It makes sense to use the RAF’s pattern for our wings. Prior to this, the QGI flying badge looked way too Army for my liking. Here are the Army flying badges:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x750/museum_of_army_flying_6_37018633d7cbcfc0dda742eb60079b89b785 b2c2.jpg


Glider Pilot Regiment Pilot wings. At first all Glider Pilots were awarded the Army Flying Badge (top). From 1944 new pilots were initially trained as Second Pilots and awarded the Second Glider Pilot Badge (middle). Successful completion of a Heavy Glider Conversion Course qualified Second Pilots for the Army Flying Badge. This system operated until 1950 when glider training ceased. In 1946 a smaller pattern of the Army Flying Badge was adopted (bottom). (Source: https://juleswings.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/the-museum-of-army-flying-uk/#jp-carousel-378)

So I think the flying badge posted by Wensleydale for the “Reserve Pilot (Gliding)” is spot on. Different enough (blue laurel with a ‘G’) from the traditional RAF Pilot flying badge but close enough to look like it belongs on an RAF uniform. The previous was way too pongo!

The RAF ‘VR’ badge used by 500hrs+ AEF civil qualified Pilots has been around for a while now (first presented to OC 12 AEF at RAF Turnhouse, I believe, in the early 90s). Again, this takes the familiar RAF shape of wings. Also renamed from something like “Senior Instructor Badge” to “Reserve Pilot (Air Experience”, which again makes sense. Wearers need a CQT on the Tutor with a QFI to qualify. Here is a picture I found on the 10 AEF Twitter page of a RAFVR(T) officer being presented with his badge (note the gold VRT lapel badges):


https://twitter.com/10aef/status/1198143027421892608?s=21

Finally, getting rid of the IA, FC and AT badges for a common one in the same way as the WSO/WSOp flying badge did, also makes sense.

No need to dabble now until we get our first astronauts??? :ok:

BZ, I say. :D

[Herod]

Do I gather from this that civil pilots can now become AEF pilots? I flew Chipmunks (dates me) for the AEF, originally while still on regular service, and later after retirement. I was flying commercially at that stage, but it was a requirement that anyone flying for the AEF, as a VR(T) pilot, had to be, or have been, a qualified regular.

[trim it out]

The Royal Artillery have introduced a flying badge for qualified Watchkeeper drivers.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1587588201_2241d6b7e7d0972f4cb41a1526fb1b186bad2bb9.jpeg

Resembles the old Air OP badge worn by Gunner aircrew.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/290x143/army_pilot04_4797889d2d8d8ce1bf8fee2a8b2201606aeac764.jpg

[The B Word]

Do I gather from this that civil pilots can now become AEF pilots? I flew Chipmunks (dates me) for the AEF, originally while still on regular service, and later after retirement. I was flying commercially at that stage, but it was a requirement that anyone flying for the AEF, as a VR(T) pilot, had to be, or have been, a qualified regular.

There have been a few since the Tutor came in. I know of one at RAF Leuchars, and one that used to fly at RAF Benson, who were both F4/F3 Navs with a CPL. Also, since the VGSs folded up, then QGIs have been able to crossover to AEFs. Not many have, but there are a few. There is again a RAF Engineering Officer, who happens to be a CAA FI/FE and also an ex A2 QGI - he still flies AEF. So there are certainly a good handful out there. Normally, minimum civvy flying time is 500hrs.

[WB627]

Do I gather from this that civil pilots can now become AEF pilots? I flew Chipmunks (dates me) for the AEF, originally while still on regular service, and later after retirement. I was flying commercially at that stage, but it was a requirement that anyone flying for the AEF, as a VR(T) pilot, had to be, or have been, a qualified regular.

Are there not enough retired RAF pilots willing to fly for an AEF, like my dad, that we need civilian pilots? My dad was with 1 AEF from 1958 to 1982 having previously been a QFI with No 1 RFS from 1948 and was eternally grateful to HMQ for paying for his flying for all that time, not to mention subsidising his Sunday lunch (and mine for a while) in the Officers Mess and paying his travel expenses as well.

[The B Word]

WB627 , they have been doing this for the past 28 years or more. Where have you been? Finding people with spare weekends these days becomes more and more of a struggle, as we become more and more time poor...

[Fareastdriver]

Finding people with spare weekends

One has to think about those that leave the service and take up a civilian flying career. They have to follow the flight and duty limitations of their employer so they cannot jeopardise that by weekend flying.

[622]

Back to the gliding badges, I see they have annotated VGS Pilots/Instructors badges 'Reserve Pilot'. I thought (and probably wrongly as I have been pout of the loop for a while) that the AC officers were no longer VR(T) and were 'Air Cadet' branded now...why are they called Reserve Pilots....have the manning levels got that bad!
:O

[99 Change Hands]

I'm not sure I ever got over the disappointment of when, as a stude on the UAS in 1978, I was told that the Navigator's Preliminary Flying Badge had been discontinued.

[Asturias56]

Jeez -this thread sounds like the "Blood Donor"

Hancock - " something small, of course, perhaps as badge ... with "HE GAVE THAT OTHERS MIGHT LIVE"........

[Vortex Hoop]

So have I got this right? An RPAS operator will now be awarded a full set of wings for completing 40 hours on the Tutor/Prefect followed by sim training in a portacabin?

[pr00ne]

But what about the Air Stewards?

[thunderbird7]

Just reading a book about the Rhodesian SAS. There was a bit of a hoo-ha with the air force over badge wearing when the SAS made the wearing of jump wings on the left breast a special award and a mark of recognition within the regiment. In that context, it seemed a worthy award. One might get ones knickers in a twist about RPAS operators wearing wings but then again there's more important things to worry about just now. Which begs the question, doesn't OIC badges have anything better to do just now? He'll have to change the crown in a few years time - lets hope he/she has some worthwhile secondary duties to tide themselves over with in the meantime...

But what about the Air Stewards?

...you forgot the bar stewards....

[Herod]

One has to think about those that leave the service and take up a civilian flying career. They have to follow the flight and duty limitations of their employer so they cannot jeopardise that by weekend flying.

It may have changed ( I stopped Chipmunk flying in '91), but back then the AEF flying, not being for remuneration, and not part of any civilian organisation, didn't impinge on the crew duty/crew rest regulations.

[Wensleydale]

Just reading a book about the Rhodesian SAS. There was a bit of a hoo-ha with the air force over badge wearing when the SAS made the wearing of jump wings on the left breast a special award and a mark of recognition within the regiment. In that context, it seemed a worthy award. One might get ones knickers in a twist about RPAS operators wearing wings but then again there's more important things to worry about just now. Which begs the question, doesn't OIC badges have anything better to do just now? He'll have to change the crown in a few years time - lets hope he/she has some worthwhile secondary duties to tide themselves over with in the meantime...



...you forgot the bar stewards....


To be fair, it needed sorting out. The correct process for the awarding of flying badges has not been followed since after the AE badge was authorised, and so technically many RAF personnel have been wearing unauthorised badges and so have been incorrectly dressed for most of their careers! (Much to the amusement of the other services). A new process was designed for the RPAS pilot badge, but having published a new process, even that was not followed at the time. This work has been going on for some time, and the correction of the RAF's heritage errors with uniform as finally been made and tied in with a new set of properly and officially authorised FLYING BADGES (not Brevets). All that needs to happen now is the educate the Top Brass who "The Few" actually were in Churchill's speech at the end of the Battle of Britain and hope that that error is finally nipped in the bud.

[Chugalug2]

But what about the Air Stewards?
Here here Pr00ne. It is an indication of the winged gods syndrome that pervades this forum and the present day RAF that they are not aircrew but a ground trade. The inspiring comment by one member on a subject threat that he wouldn't be taking orders from anyone if a passenger in an airborne emergency or ground evacuation said it all. They are aircrew, even according to the 'independent" MAA, but not by the RAF. Go reckon....

[muppetofthenorth]

Back to the gliding badges, I see they have annotated VGS Pilots/Instructors badges 'Reserve Pilot'. I thought (and probably wrongly as I have been pout of the loop for a while) that the AC officers were no longer VR(T) and were 'Air Cadet' branded now...why are they called Reserve Pilots....have the manning levels got that bad!
:O
Everybody who doesn't fly are "RAFAC" officers with a "Cadet Forces Commission".
Everybody who does fly is a VR(T) officer with an RAF commission.

Nothing like treating equal volunteers differently to help the morale.
​​

[Door Slider]

But what about the Air Stewards?


The IBN “Rationalisation of RAF Flying Badges” did not include Cabin Crew as part of the changes.

It focussed on flying and parachute badges which are awarded iaw QR J727/728 and QR 434-436.

The Cabin Crew badge is not listed as an aircrew badge but is listed under “other qualification badges” and is not issued iaw a QR, it was reviewed and updated fairly recently. The trade has also had a recent name change, they are now known as Air Ground Stewards.

[622]

Everybody who doesn't fly are "RAFAC" officers with a "Cadet Forces Commission".
Everybody who does fly is a VR(T) officer with an RAF commission.

Nothing like treating equal volunteers differently to help the morale.
​​

Is that pukka!...I thought VGS Officers were RAFAC

[Sloppy Link]

It may have changed ( I stopped Chipmunk flying in '91), but back then the AEF flying, not being for remuneration, and not part of any civilian organisation, didn't impinge on the crew duty/crew rest regulations.
The flying hours all count towards the annual total although there is a weight threshold but duty hours do not. Regardless, need to be adequately rested prior to undertaking flying duties is a handy catch all, my organisation is 12 hours prior.

[muppetofthenorth]

Is that pukka!...I thought VGS Officers were RAFAC
God knows. Feels like it changes every 30 seconds.

AEF pilots are definitely VRT

[Treble one]

So if you have been awarded your flying badge as an RAF regular and have left the service, but still fly, say, RAFAC cadets as an AEF pilot, you have to wear the Reserve Pilot badge?

[ExAscoteer2]

Which begs the question, doesn't OIC badges have anything better to do just now? He'll have to change the crown in a few years time

Not necessarily.

The idea that there is a 'King's Crown' and a 'Queen's Crown' is false. They are, respectively, the 'Tudor Crown' and the 'St Edward's Crown'.

It is up to the Monarch to choose what he or she wants symbolically.

[622]

So if you have been awarded your flying badge as an RAF regular and have left the service, but still fly, say, RAFAC cadets as an AEF pilot, you have to wear the Reserve Pilot badge?

I assume as you earnt your RAF 'regular' wings then you would keep them...or have the option to swap if you preferred!

What about a service helper (non flying regular) who is a part time VGS Instructor ...does he/she wear glider wings on their week day uniform?

[ExAscoteer2]

Everybody who doesn't fly are "RAFAC" officers with a "Cadet Forces Commission".
Everybody who does fly is a VR(T) officer with an RAF commission.

Nothing like treating equal volunteers differently to help the morale.
​​

For those of us who were Regular Officers and who took up VR Commissions to become VR(T) Officers, the enforced removal of the Commission and transfer onto the pathetic Cadet Forces Commission was a kick in the teeth. IMO it was unnecessary and down to people clogging the Redress of Grievances system with petty matters - all that was needed was a change to QR 1000.

With the crossover, Cadet Forces Commissions are no longer subject to QRs whereas VR Commissions are.

The reason AEF Pilots retain their VR Commissions is down to accountabilty given that they are responsible for RAF assets.

[ExAscoteer2]

I assume as you earnt your RAF 'regular' wings then you would keep them.

Correct. QR (RAF)J727 is quite clear on this.

[622]

My old No.1s are becoming more obsolete by the minute....VRT pins, old Glider Wings...all they need to do now is change the rank braid to pink with yellow piping and that will be it! :E

[Asturias56]

astonishing that someone is employed to think about badges........... it was never an option my careers master ever mentioned........ nor was it ever on those Posters "Join the RAF - become a trained badge designer..."

[622]

astonishing that someone is employed to think about badges........... it was never an option my careers master ever mentioned........ nor was it ever on those Posters "Join the RAF - become a trained badge designer..."

...and what badge would they wear? :E

[Asturias56]

Oh I'd guess a quill pen with extra wings.....................

[Treble one]

Correct. QR (RAF)J727 is quite clear on this.

Thank you ExA. And although its sod all to do with me, quite right too.

[teeteringhead]

The idea that there is a 'King's Crown' and a 'Queen's Crown' is false. They are, respectively, the 'Tudor Crown' and the 'St Edward's Crown'.

It is up to the Monarch to choose what he or she wants symbolically. Exactly so. However, as the last Queen Regnant (Victoria) chose St Edward's and all subsequent Kings chose Tudor it is not surprising that they are mis-called sometimes; assisted by their use on the VC and the GC.

What is more worrying is that the chart at Post 4 above calls it the "QE II Cypher". No it ain't; the cypher is the "postman's badge" of E II R as any ful kno, not the Crown.

[ACW418]

622,

I thought you knew not to make flippant jokes about rank braid colours. There is probably someone in MOD feverishly looking into it as we speak!

Wenslydale,

Are you sure about the dates for the RO Badge. I shared a room during BFTS at Syerston with an ex ex RO from Javelins in 1963 and he had come via South Cerney straight from 33Sqn so the badge was in use in 1962. Was it that it was last awarded in 1958?

ACW

[Wensleydale]

I have nothing to do with the charts - I just posted them up from an RAF briefing note. However, aircrew have been allowed to wear the flying badge type that they were first awarded rather than move to a new badge, so it may be that your chap was one of the last to be presented with the RO badge before it ceased to be presented.

[Vortex Hoop]

I suppose the Aeromedical ‘staff and serpent’ badge is in the same league as the bar-stewards as it also does not appear on the ‘road map of badge heraldry’?!

[charliegolf]

astonishing that someone is employed to think about badges........... it was never an option my careers master ever mentioned........ nor was it ever on those Posters "Join the RAF - become a trained badge designer..."

There was that one...

"If Met have got this right, we'll be able to inspect our badges above 20,000 feet."

That's how I recall it.:E

CG

[Tingger]

I assume as you earnt your RAF 'regular' wings then you would keep them...or have the option to swap if you preferred!

What about a service helper (non flying regular) who is a part time VGS Instructor ...does he/she wear glider wings on their week day uniform?

Non flying service regular personnel could already wear glider pilot badge on day uniform, the IBN for that was out several years ago.

[Tingger]

Everybody who doesn't fly are "RAFAC" officers with a "Cadet Forces Commission".
Everybody who does fly is a VR(T) officer with an RAF commission.

Nothing like treating equal volunteers differently to help the morale.
​​

All VGS staff are RAFAC CFC or SNCO none of them are treated differently to any other RAFAC staff. There is a slack handful amongst the 2fts HQ civil servants who remain VRT so they can fly the Robin tug

[longer ron]

Are you sure about the dates for the RO Badge. I shared a room during BFTS at Syerston with an ex ex RO from Javelins in 1963 and he had come via South Cerney straight from 33Sqn so the badge was in use in 1962. Was it that it was last awarded in 1958?

ACW

Hi ACW

The original 'RO' half wing during the war was replaced with the 'N' Half Wing by 1943.
The 'RO' Badge was then reintroduced for a time in the 1950's for Radar Operators to fill the back seats of Meteors/Javelins etc.

[longer ron]

ACW -

According to the Jefford book,only about 100 NCO RO's were successfully trained in 1955 to 57,and most had either demobbed/reverted to trade or been commissioned as Navs by the mid 60's.Not a successful experiment then !

[alfred_the_great]

I suppose the Aeromedical ‘staff and serpent’ badge is in the same league as the bar-stewards as it also does not appear on the ‘road map of badge heraldry’?!

FMO and FNOs still have their badges, but I think they're very different to Flying Badges - worn in very different places to start.

[Union Jack]

Last month , in https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/630907-raf-squadrons-receive-battle-honours-her-majesty-queen.html you wrote, "I think its (sic) bizarre at this particular moment - no doubt someone deep int he UK MoD is beavering away on these important task", following which I asked, "Bizarre in what particular respect, dare I ask? Good news is surely good news, irrespective of the timing and perhaps particularly at present, and it seems likely that, rather than put them on ice, DSSec had recently passed on HM's approval of these honours for publication for the benefit of those who justly earned them."

In the same thread, you subsequently said, "Working on handing out honours is a bit of luxury at any time I'd have thought.................", following which Rheinstorff said, "You couldn’t be more wrong. Recognising gallantry, dedication, determination, fortitude etc is a very worthy activity. It inspires others to do incredible things too. All part of military (fighting) ethos.", then I wrote, "Firstly "bizarre" and now a "bit of a luxury" - perhaps I'm misinterpreting the guidance at the top of the page, but that's certainly bizarre in my view...." and finally Herod wrote, "Tell me, Asturias, have you ever been under enemy fire?".

For some reason, and as far as I can see, you don't appear to have responded to any of these points and now you say:
astonishing that someone is employed to think about badges........... it was never an option my careers master ever mentioned........ nor was it ever on those Posters "Join the RAF - become a trained badge designer..."

I should therefore be most grateful if, as well as responding to posts instead of just firing them sarcastically into the air in the Military Aviation forum, you could kindly explain exactly what it is that you have against honours and tri-service uniform matters, both of which are considered important to those who serve or have served in uniform, and the resulting staff work of this nature which is necessarily carried out in both cases by exactly by the same departments in the MOD, coordinated finally by ACDS (Personnel Capability) in his capacity as Defence Services Secretary, before submission for the approval of HM The Queen?

Jack

[Lima Juliet]

Union Jack - well said old chap...

I should therefore be most grateful if, as well as responding to posts instead of just firing them sarcastically into the air in the Military Aviation forum, you could kindly explain exactly what it is that you have against honours and tri-service uniform matters, both of which are considered important to those who serve or have served in uniform, and the resulting staff work of this nature which is necessarily carried out in both cases by exactly by the same departments in the MOD, coordinated finally by ACDS (Personnel Capability) in his capacity as Defence Services Secretary, before submission for the approval of HM The Queen?

These changes were indeed passed up to Her Majesty and she graciously approved them on 13 Sep 19 (so this started well before CV-19 and was due for release before 1 Apr 20, but CV-19 held it up). DS(Sec) and his team were involved as was the RAF’s senior leadership nearly a year ago. So spot on matey :ok:

In answer, to other questions, Pilot (ISR) RPAS have been entitled to wear the traditional RAF Pilot Flying Badge since 1 Apr 2019 (yes, over a year ago). There was also much hand wringing from the old and bold then too. The RAF is undergoing change, it always has done, and always will as a high-technology Service. Campaign ASTRA is the latest such change initiative as we move well into the 21st Century. The Next Generation Aviators now in the system will be in their 40s when the final parts of ASTRA are enacted and many of us will be pushing up daisies, or dribbling into our blankets in our electric bath chairs. When the Radio Observer Flying Badge came out in the early 1940s for airborne RADAR operators, many in the RAF, let alone the country had any idea what a RADAR was (it was called Radio Direction Finding for a start!). But the high-technology RAF presented a badge to those qualified to do so, the same is happening today as we develop new tech and use our people in different ways than we did before. The Nav will soon be employed on only the Rivet Joint, whilst conducting a role similar to the Air Eng at the same time, and the Air Eng will be gone within 2 years when Sentry is replaced by Wedgetail. The Crewman and Air Loadmaster remain too, but now have far more responsibility on their aircraft before - many of the roles done by Navs and Air Engs are now shared between them and the co-pilot. The AEO/AEOp role has also changed with more responsibility on Reaper, Shadow, D4K, RJ, P8 and soon E7. Hence the Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) and the Weapon Systems Operator (WSOp) title for all Mission Aircrew is now correct for the 21st Century as we leave the old roles behind.

As for Cabin Crew, yes they have changed too. No longer employed as a Mess Steward, they are all contractors in Messes these days, they are employed primarily as Cabin Crew now and have become an essential part of the Voyager and 146 capabilities. The WSOp (ME) ALM still act as the senior supervisor off of the flight deck, as a Chief Purser on the Voyager, working with the rest of the crew - Pilots and Cabin Crew. Then some of the WSO/WSOp (ME) also conduct the Mission Systems Operator (MSO) on the Voyager too - running the fuel plan on AAR and the kit on the Voyager, again splitting the legacy tasks of the Nav and Air Eng with the Co-Pilot. So this is another change. Do I think that Cabin Crew should be entitled to wear the new Airborne Specialist badge on successful completion of the Voyager and BAe 146 OCUs - yes, on thinking about it, I do. Maybe that is for the future.

Most of those that will wear the Reserve Pilot badges will be FTRS, ADC, VERR and PTVR. There may be a very small minority RAFAC types that will also, as well as a few AVO1s. All need to get a Certificate of Qualification on Type (CQT), and the Gliding Instructors their B2, to be awarded these Reserve Pilot badges. So as others have said, not the same level as a Front Line (FL) Pilot getting LCR and then CR (or equivalent like BMQ, etc...), but certainly an achievement all the same. That is also why the badges look subtly different to the main FL badges for the Aircrew and Honorary Aircrew on the FL aircraft types and trainers.

Whilst on the subject of Honorary Aircrew, the Parachute Jump Instructors (PJIs) have been such since 1945. So it made sense to do the same for the new Airborne Specialist cadre, who are also drawn from the Ground Branches and Trades to be employed helping operate the aircraft, its loads and its passengers on its mission. The Honorary status is really an admin exercise so that they get access to improved medical treatment like normal Aircrew and also so they do not get put down as ‘pax’ in the Auth Sheets when conducting their airborne duties. It gives them nothing more than that.

As others have said, we have had non-Service Pilots flying AEF for many a year. Indeed, I believe that Coffman Starter (sadly no longer with us) was one such? It is nothing new, it’s just that there has always been so few that many have never realised!!

As for who is in charge of policy for badges, uniform and insignia - that task falls to A4 clothing, and the CASWO, and they are assisted by the various Branch and Trade Advisors (B&TAs) that also deal with all sorts of other Branch & Trade matters like pay, med standards, recruitment policy, post requirements, job specs, Branch morale, career pathways, Branch transfers, extensions, promotions, PAS matters, re-joiners, current workforce structures, future workforce structures, monitor training pipeline outputs, visiting units and answering anyone within their Branch/Trade with a particular query - all reporting directly to their Head of Branch (which for Aircrew is AOC 11Gp - who is also busy orchestrating the RAF’s assistance to CV-19 right now in his main day job). So there is no ‘pencil sucking blotter jotter’ sitting there writing badge policy - it is one duty of very many, hence it gets looked at once or twice every couple of years or so. ASTRA has meant that this was a good time to roll out such changes to rationalise them for future plans.

I hope that answers a few questions on the matter for those that no longer serve but seem overly concerned what is happening. :ok:

[MG]

Lima Juliet, great post.
Are you able to elaborate on Campaign Astra? I left 5 years ago so I’m not up to speed on that. Or is it largely as you describe above?

[Asturias56]

"you could kindly explain exactly what it is that you have against honours and tri-service uniform matters, both of which are considered important to those who serve or have served in uniform"

I applaud the recognition of bravery with medals etc

I do not believe people should be rewarded for doing their day job - and especially not the way that the higher your rank the higher your honour

I do not believe it improves the efficiency of any armed service when an SO automatically gets an honour just because he's climbed a couple of grades.

I do not believe that what colour braid you wear has any influence on your contribution to the nation's defence

I believe far too much time and effort is expended on issues such as badges when the armed forces are in desperate need of savings

I believe the armed forces should concentrate on fighting efficiency ( or rather efficiency in fighting :ok:) rather than on fripperies

I hope I make myself clear - I try to be consistent.

[Bob Viking]

You do realise that you are still going to face the oft repeated question of ‘have you ever served in the military’, even after that last post don’t you?

You say you don’t agree with time being wasted on badges etc. Fine, that’s your view but it is an opinion based on zero experience.

I believe you work in industry. Well, what if I said that I believe that time spent on union activity is wasted and I think unions are a stupid idea. That would be a claim from me based on zero personal experience.

What I’m getting at is that opinions are fine, but it doesn’t mean you are right. Opinions can only become informed opinions when you have some first hand experience to base them on.

Just as I wouldn’t show up at a union meeting saying I think it’s all a waste of time, maybe you should reconsider showing up on a military forum stating that you think military traditions are all a waste of time.

Food for thought perhaps?

BV

[Vortex Hoop]

So have I got this right? An RPAS operator will now be awarded a full set of wings for completing 40 hours on the Tutor/Prefect followed by sim training in a portacabin?

So that is a ‘yes’ then! ;)

[ACW418]

Longer Ron,

Thanks for your input. I was not aware that there had only been 100 RO's awarded. My colleague started out as a Sgt RO and died in service as an experienced Wg Cdr pilot so for him it was not a failure!

ACW

[Maxibon]

40 hours to get a pair of wings? I had about 125 hours on JPs before be reassigned to the rear seat. Perhaps I could wear both?!

[Bob Viking]

Do we collectively think it’s time to put the whole RPAS wings thing to bed now?

I qualified as a single seat FJ pilot so my training and time to wings was longer than most.

I have no desire to ever operate an RPAS.

I do however believe that the RPAS pilots are entitled to wear wings once they have completed the requisite course. They are pilots that operate an RAF asset and so should wear the appropriate badge. I bear them no ill will whatsoever.

If it’s jealousy, get over it. If you think they haven’t earned it go and give it a go and see if you still think that.

Nobody has ever said an RPAS pilot could walk into a Typhoon Sqn and take one for a spin. In fact in order to make the crossover (should the service need ever require it, which I strongly doubt) they would be required to complete the requisite training beforehand just like a multi engine or rotary pilot would if they were to tread that path.

You are entitled to disagree with me but currently the RAF of 2020 would disagree with you.

I know what I did to earn my wings and seeing an RPAS pilot wearing the same badge does not cause me to lose a single wink of sleep.

BV

[charliegolf]

Do we collectively think it’s time to put the whole RPAS wings thing to bed now?

I qualified as a single seat FJ pilot so my training and time to wings was longer than most.

I have no desire to ever operate an RPAS.

I do however believe that the RPAS pilots are entitled to wear wings once they have completed the requisite course. They are pilots that operate an RAF asset and so should wear the appropriate badge. I bear them no ill will whatsoever.

If it’s jealousy, get over it. If you think they haven’t earned it go and give it a go and see if you still think that.

Nobody has ever said an RPAS pilot could walk into a Typhoon Sqn and take one for a spin. In fact in order to make the crossover (should the service need ever require it, which I strongly doubt) they would be required to complete the requisite training beforehand just like a multi engine or rotary pilot would if they were to tread that path.

You are entitled to disagree with me but currently the RAF of 2020 would disagree with you.

I know what I did to earn my wings and seeing an RPAS pilot wearing the same badge does not cause me to lose a single wink of sleep.

BV

Like button, where's the like button?

CG

[Union Jack]

Well, Asturias, Bob Viking has thoughtfully and carefully illustrated, in a very practical way, the problem you face. I have, however, to agree with your contention that you are indeed consistent, at least inasmuch as your apparently rather rushed response to my post still begs the question on the significant omission BV mentions, coupled with the fact that you somehow still can't help yourself, namely by referring to the matters concerned as "fripperies". As BV succinctly and politely suggests, the word "traditions" is the word most of us would use, many of them established over hundreds of years of proud service and usage by members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

Jack

[Herod]

Union Jack: Agreed, and my original question still stands.

[Lima Juliet]

So that is a ‘yes’ then! ;)

Nope, that is hoop - they do the same ground-school followed by about 40 hours on a glass cockpit single engine, followed by a USAF Reaper Formal Training Unit, normally there is a live weapons event too, followed by a 54 Sqn OCU, then they get their wings, followed by LCR/CR - probably around 2 years since starting. They also get far more operational experience than others in their first tour - in fact, I can’t think of another platform that generates that exposure to ops so quickly. The mental strain is high, the physical strain can be bad too with odd shift patterns, and whilst you may not have your pink body on the line, there are a number of folks who would like to bump you off if they could find you. So it is different to the Lancaster Bomber crews of the 40s, but then again so is much of our live flying these days. :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Lima Juliet, great post.
Are you able to elaborate on Campaign Astra? I left 5 years ago so I’m not up to speed on that. Or is it largely as you describe above?

Hi MG

ASTRA is the campaign to build our Next Generation Royal Air Force. The fourth Industrial Revolution, a rapidly changing geostrategic context, the new domains of Cyber and Space, and the demands of a new generation of people mean that the status quo is not an option. We must adapt at pace, in depth and across our Service. We need to be ready and able to act faster, for longer and with greater precision and weight in more places around the world simultaneously than today. We require substantial changes to our way in warfare, how we command and how we are structured if we are to protect, engage, constrain and fight successfully.

The 2020 RAF Strategy has five objectives:

Meet our Operational Requirements.
Build a Workforce Fit for the Future.
Design and Deliver the Next Generation Air Force.
Operate Safely, Deliver our Output Efficiently, Act Professionally.
Support Global Britain.

ASTRA will define how we deliver decisive air and space power effect in the highly contested environments of the future. ASTRA will establish a blueprint for that future – nominally the RAF of 2035. It will embrace networks and data, mobilise space and cyber, modernise our bases, transform our way in warfare, and supercharge our interoperability with other warfighting domains, Services and allies. The core themes of ASTRA are people, training, infrastructure & support, and equipment, underpinned by a conceptual element.

I’ll give you an idea of some of the things within the ASTRA core themes (some with links):

Conceptual
Form the ‘Trenchard Group’. https://www.raf-ff.org.uk/news/the-raf-trenchard-group-inspiring-the-next-generation/
Get after the Space domain. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/01/15/former-fighter-pilot-picked-to-lead-british-militarys-space-command/
Develop ‘Theory of Command’.

Personnel
The rationalisation of the sub-branches and specialisations, plus badges and uniform. (this is what this thread is about!!)
By 2025-30 expect to have 10x “Employment Fields” vice the 30+ Branches and Trades.
Expect to see more portfolio careers – leavers to commercial sector, re-joiners and lateral entrants.
Exploit ‘Coders’, ‘Information Advantage’ and Space to the RAF’s advantage.

Equipment
Poseidon/Wedgetail entry into service. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/wedgetail-to-be-rafs-new-early-warning-radar-aircraft/
Protector entry into service, plus potentially expanding role outside of persistent armed-ISR overland. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/9/12/raf-considering-maritime-version-of-protector-drone
Reduce the number of ISR types, with the long term goal that ‘every platform has a sensor’.
Directed Energy Weapons. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/07/09/uk-shoots-for-new-laser-weapons-against-drones-missiles/
Swarming Drones and Loyal Wingmen development. https://www.aerosociety.com/news/raf-to-form-first-swarming-drone-squadron-in-april/
Tempest development and entry into service. https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/team-tempest/

Training
Increase the synthetic to live flying mix – some platforms can only do what they do for real on Ops or in the synthetic environment.
SOCRATES/MERCURY – reduction of overtraining. More modular so that common elements between Basic Recruit Training, SNCO training and Initial Officer Training can reduce the time to train on promotion.
Accreditation of training – both ways, into and out of the Service.

Support & Infra
Programme HYDRO seeks to finally get after the issue of poor heating/hot water on our estate. Info here: https://www.raf-ff.org.uk/news/programme-hydro-recovery-of-heating-and-hot-water-across-the-air-estate/
WiFi is already being rolled out that can be used for business purposes in public work space areas (including HQ Air).
Reduce the ~50 airfields to around half that number, but make sure they are properly resourced, in the best possible condition and able to support carbon-neutral energy objectives.
Eradication of Grade 3 and 4 accommodation.


These are but a few. The key word here is “Campaign” in that it is a long-haul programme of improvements and changes over 15 years designed to get the RAF fit for 2035. As ever, there will be dissenters, but many of us, even the old and bold, know that we have to get firmly behind this to make it a success. Expecting a kid to accept an RAF that is more at home with “Get Some In” than it is to today’s world just isn’t going to work.

When the RAF formed in 1918, it was something that many had no idea would ever thrive as it does today. Trenchard had the vision to get us through the first 100 years, and it is now time for a new vision towards the next 100 years. Campaign ASTRA takes us on that journey. Exciting times if you can cope with change! :ok:

For those that like “Get Some In” then you can reminisce here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ_qRM1WOXY

[Door Slider]

As for Cabin Crew, yes they have changed too. No longer employed as a Mess Steward, they are all contractors in Messes these days, they are employed primarily as Cabin Crew now and have become an essential part of the Voyager and 146 capabilities. The WSOp (ME) ALM still act as the senior supervisor off of the flight deck, as a Chief Purser on the Voyager, working with the rest of the crew - Pilots and Cabin Crew. Then some of the WSO/WSOp (ME) also conduct the Mission Systems Operator (MSO) on the Voyager too - running the fuel plan on AAR and the kit on the Voyager, again splitting the legacy tasks of the Nav and Air Eng with the Co-Pilot.

Almost correct, personnel from the Air Ground Steward trade (cabin crew) are still employed in messes, on MSCU and a couple of other ground roles, but over the next few years the number of ground posts will reduce but not disappear altogether.

All WSOp (NCA) are qualified in both MSO and Purser roles on the Voyager, the MSO role takes primacy and the vast majority of their time is spent as an MSO on AAR tasks than as a Purser conducting AT.

[Vortex Hoop]

Nope, that is hoop - they do the same ground-school followed by about 40 hours on a glass cockpit single engine, followed by a USAF Reaper Formal Training Unit, normally there is a live weapons event too, followed by a 54 Sqn OCU, then they get their wings, followed by LCR/CR - probably around 2 years since starting. They also get far more operational experience than others in their first tour - in fact, I can’t think of another platform that generates that exposure to ops so quickly. The mental strain is high, the physical strain can be bad too with odd shift patterns, and whilst you may not have your pink body on the line, there are a number of folks who would like to bump you off if they could find you. So it is different to the Lancaster Bomber crews of the 40s, but then again so is much of our live flying these days. :ok:
errrr, haven't you just written a more detailed version of what I said?: 40 hours in a SEP followed by sim trg? So, FTU syllabus and CR tick boxes aside, I am right.

I get it. It's fun to laugh at the oldies and be all modern and embrace this new data-linked world. But let us still call a spade a spade.

[longer ron]

Longer Ron,

Thanks for your input. I was not aware that there had only been 100 RO's awarded. My colleague started out as a Sgt RO and died in service as an experienced Wg Cdr pilot so for him it was not a failure!

ACW
Sorry to hear about your colleague ACW,he did extremely well to progress to pilot .

[Lima Juliet]

Thanks Doorslider. I was led to believe that Air and Ground Stewards conduct Voyager as a first tour, then some may go to 32 Sqn for BAe 146 for a second flying tour, or to MCSU for a ground tour. They can volunteer to go back to flying duties, or stay on the ground in other catering management roles, after their ground tour, depending on where their career is taking them?

I also thought that WSOp (ME) ALMs train as Pursers first and then later into the MSO role. I understood that the MSO was an upgrade later? That was explained to me very recently at BZN, my apologies if that was misunderstood. I’ll need to go ask again.

[Lima Juliet]

Vortex Hoop - maybe you should try the training to see if you have got the right stuff to do it? :rolleyes:

[Door Slider]

Lima Juliet

I’ve PM you.

[Chugalug2]

Vortex Hoop - maybe you should try the training to see if you have got the right stuff to do it? :rolleyes:
Always the sign of a weak argument, going for the person rather than the point he is making. The point is, Lima Juliet, that the RAF is awarding Flying Badges to personnel that operate from the ground while denying them to aircrew who carry out their duties while airborne as part of a constituted crew, ie aircrew! That may make sense to you in your Brave New World but it doesn't make sense to me or others here.

[Vortex Hoop]

The point is, Lima Juliet, that the RAF is awarding Flying Badges to personnel that operate from the ground while denying them to aircrew who carry out their duties while airborne as part of a constituted crew, ie aircrew! .
Thanks for articulating my point better than I did! here's to the long-suffering purveyors of white horror-boxes.

I remember training on 3 different types to get my wings and was too busy with a career on SH to think about crossovers to other fleets. Thanks for the offer though.

[Bob Viking]

Let’s not forget though, as a rotary pilot, only your EFT was completed on a proper aircraft before you went off to fly those strange whirly contraptions.

Maybe your badge should have had extra wings to reflect the heretical nature of your chosen platform.

I make the point light heartedly but surely a pilot is a pilot? There would be uproar if we wasted money and training hours on pilots that don’t need them. We don’t send rotary and multi guys to fly the T6 or Hawk (likewise we don’t teach FJ students to fly helos) so why bother sending Reaper guys? Why waste time doing things that don’t need to be done?

As I said previously, if a Reaper guy were to crossover that would be the time do the extra bits. If they then failed that course they would be chopped like anyone else and could return to Reaper.

A multi crossover guy who gets chopped at Valley doesn’t cease to be a pilot so why would a Reaper guy?

I realise some people will never come round to the modern way of thinking which is their prerogative but if those of us serving can cope maybe just let it slide. It won’t affect your life one iota.

Final thought. If you were to chat to a person with wings on their uniform what would be the first question you might ask? Probably what do they fly. How you judge them after that is up to you. But they are still an RAF pilot regardless.

BV

[BEagle]

The RAF cannot afford the cost of aerodromes, aircraft, QFIs or flying time of the old days - such as when every pilot did the same Jet Provost course to Wings level. Then they were streamed Gnat, Varsity or Whirlwind.

Which is a pity.

But I suppose that's it.

[teeteringhead]

Have to agree with you BV. I always - well from a very early stage of training - wanted to go rotary, but had to prove myself in a JP upside down at FL ridiculous and warp factor snot at low level (the latter was great fun).

The argument being that "You are a pilot and could fly anything."

Strangely the posting to the Reds never came through.....

.... of those that did cross over, many came back. Some found that promotion came - predicated on their rotary performance - with insufficient FJ time to be credible in an exec post. [Mogwi did pretty well though!!]

And I wouldn't have swapped.......

But agree with BEags that the wider experience made one a more rounded operator - and not just physically!

[Chugalug2]

Fast Jet, Multi, Helicopter; they all have one thing in common, they fly! UAVs fly also, but their crews do not. The crews of Fast Jet, Multis, Helicopters do fly, and therefore they are aircrew, including their cabin crew (though not many in FJ I'll allow). By classing RPAS crews as aircrew and denying that classification to those who do fly in constituted flying crews is illogical, cruel, and I suspect based on snobbishness.

It has been said rightly that the origins of RAF aircrew began with such snobbishness but in the end the RAF had to bite the bullet. Time for it to do so again. Why? Because the purpose of Cabin Crew is to safeguard the lives of their passengers, be it in the air or on the ground. Without being eligible for a Flying Badge they are seen by some as mere airborne waiters and waitresses (their secondary role) and so the authority they need to ensure compliance to their instructions in emergency situations is much diminished. Be they SACs or Cpls, they must be in charge when evacuation, donning oxygen masks, donning LJs, remaining strapped in, or simply attending to their safety briefs is called for.

The Military Air Regulator, the MAA, says they are aircrew but the Military Air Operator, the RAF, says they are not. Yet another indicator of the ambivalent attitude prevalent in the modern RAF to Air Safety!

[Lima Juliet]

Chug, calm down dear... they have a badge right now that they wear:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x800/image_004b88e523d10fe6e950bd772bb02644d2a2bacb.jpeg
Who knows, maybe in the future, they will transition to the new Airborne Specialist badge too. Let’s wait and see, shall we...:ok:

[Chugalug2]

CChug, calm down dear... they have a badge right now that they wear:
Who knows, maybe in the future, they will transition to the new Airborne Specialist badge too. Let’s wait and see, shall we...:ok:
I'll calm down when all RAF Aircrew are recognised as such LJ. So let's not wait for another fatal accident thread in this forum, this time stemming from certain passengers challenging their Cabin Crew instructions when seconds count, because they are 'just waiters'. MAA regulations require Cabin Crew in various numbers to be present on certain RAF aircraft dependent on the pax numbers, such Cabin Crew to be Aircrew. So are they Aircrew or not?


The badge you illustrate is issued to certain members of an RAF Ground Trade. What Blazing Saddles might have referred to as a 'Stinkin Badge'. You know full well that I am asking for a Flying Badge for them, as issued to all RAF Aircrew. They are RAF Aircrew (check with your Air Regulator). So give them the Flying Badge that is their right!

[trim it out]

I think you're perhaps over estimating the power of the badge Chugalug.

I doubt pax would not listen to cabin crew because they don't have a badge. It's quite obvious they are in a position of authority on a military flight because they're the ones in flying suits running the show up and down the aisles.

[heights good]

So have I got this right? An RPAS operator will now be awarded a full set of wings for completing 40 hours on the Tutor/Prefect followed by sim training in a portacabin?

It might help your understanding if you research the RPAS training a little more.

[heights good]

errrr, haven't you just written a more detailed version of what I said?: 40 hours in a SEP followed by sim trg? So, FTU syllabus and CR tick boxes aside, I am right.

I get it. It's fun to laugh at the oldies and be all modern and embrace this new data-linked world. But let us still call a spade a spade.

Not quite.... here is an approx break down spread out over approx 2.5-3yrs.

40 hrs EFT
100 hrs OCU (probable live weapon drop)
50 hrs NCR to LCR (100% operational flying)
150 - 250 hrs LCR to CR Advanced (100% operational flying).

At this point a pilot is deemed fully qualified

These hours are an average and don't take into account previous types or experience.

Oh and its worth noting there are no circuits, no take-offs, landings or Instrument Flying required so pretty much all hours are about fighting the aircraft. How much of conventional OCUs and flying training is covering those basics?

That is another 5 months of training to cover that off...

[Bob Viking]

HG

With that in mind maybe someone could let us know what a ME pilot has to do in order to get their wings.

Maybe they should have different wings to everyone else?!

Pulls pin, releases the fly-off handle and rolls the grenade into the room whilst quietly retiring to enjoy his Saturday night.

BV

[Chugalug2]

I think you're perhaps over estimating the power of the badge Chugalug.

I doubt pax would not listen to cabin crew because they don't have a badge. It's quite obvious they are in a position of authority on a military flight because they're the ones in flying suits running the show up and down the aisles.
Perhaps you are underestimating it. All manner of people can wear flying suits but only aircrew wear Flying Badges. That is the key indicator that you are aircrew, be it a Pilot, Navigator, ALM, whatever. RAF Cabin Crew are aircrew and yet are denied the Flying Badge. Rather than question the effectiveness or otherwise of the badge they should just be given it. Common justice calls for that.

Imagine the effect if a QR came out that in order to rationalise the many aircrew specialities that have evolved over the years, in future only pilots (incl RPAS Pilots of course!) would be entitled to wear their Flying Badge
on the left breast. Henceforth all other aircrew would wear sleeve badges similar to those now worn by Cabin Crew. Do you think the resulting outcry could be mollified by them being told that the power of badges is much over estimated?

[trim it out]

Perhaps you are underestimating it. All manner of people can wear flying suits but only aircrew wear Flying Badges. That is the key indicator that you are aircrew, be it a Pilot, Navigator, ALM, whatever. RAF Cabin Crew are aircrew and yet are denied the Flying Badge. Rather than question the effectiveness or otherwise of the badge they should just be given it. Common justice calls for that.

Imagine the effect if a QR came out that in order to rationalise the many aircrew specialities that have evolved over the years, in future only pilots (incl RPAS Pilots of course!) would be entitled to wear their Flying Badge
on the left breast. Henceforth all other aircrew would wear sleeve badges similar to those now worn by Cabin Crew. Do you think the resulting outcry could be mollified by them being told that the power of badges is much over estimated?
I don't wear my flying badge when I'm flying, does that mean I'm not a pilot?

[Herod]

Ah, the joys of being a long-retired member of the "Two-winged Master Race" (qualification page dates 13.5.66). I can read all this lot with a satisfying sense of detachment.

Having said that, I agree with Chugalug

Oh, and BV: ME pilots extra training is to do a specialised course in either reading or writing. You knew that was the reason for the two-man crew of course.

[SwitchMonkey]

Chugalug,

I’m intrigued why you feel the need to tilt at this particular windmill? If I am to believe your profile you left the RAF in 1973 - why is the dress standard or status of currently serving members so important to you?

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug,

I’m intrigued why you feel the need to tilt at this particular windmill? If I am to believe your profile you left the RAF in 1973 - why is the dress standard or status of currently serving members so important to you?

You believe or disbelieve my profile as you please SM. I'm not particularly interested in the dress standard of current serving members. Whatever gave you the idea that I might be? I am however interested in Air Safety, which in my book means preserving the fighting status of the RAF and not whittling it away in avoidable needless accidents. I'm also interested in natural justice. Shortly after becoming a PPRuNe member I became involved in the Hitting Back thread (3rd one of the series by then) and the glaring injustice perpetrated by two BoI Reviewing Officers upon the reputations of two deceased Chinook Pilots. At the time I had no idea of the high level illegality and Gross Negligence that would be revealed thanks to the blatant lies and attempts at cover up of that same Gross Negligence and illegality by RAF VSOs. If that all sounds a bit OTT then I recommend searching out that thread, the Parliamentary Questions one, and the Nimrod down one. Alternatively start reading the books by David Hill. Red 5 is the latest. Change out of 4 quid and the proceeds (after Amazon have taken their cut) go to charity. Don't take my word, read the reviews:-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/RED-investigation-Flight-Lieutenant-Cunningham-ebook/dp/B07VTN8NVZ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Red+5+David+Hill&qid=1587851267&sr=8-1

What has all this to do with RAF Cabin Crew and their aircrew status? Everything!

[trim it out]

Chugalug, please correct me if I have misunderstood, but your issue is with the legal status of cabin crew (aircrew, supernumerary or pax)? My point is merely that the badge doesn't maketh the person.

[SwitchMonkey]

Chugalug, apologies if I have bitten off an insignificant element of your argument.

The thread title is about badges and your comment “Rather than question the effectiveness or otherwise of the badge they should just be given it” also appeared to be focusing on badges.

You can see my confusion.

So if it isn’t about badges, and nobody here is suggesting Cabin Crew are anything other than suitably trained and competent at their job, what is your point?

[Chugalug2]

tio, I very much doubt you have misunderstood anything.

SM, Which insignificant bit?

[SwitchMonkey]

Badges, which is coincidentally the subject of the thread.

I wondered why you cared about which badges people wore so much. You said you didn’t and you cared about air safety. Which we all do.

I’m confused about your point about Cabin Crew if it isn’t about badges

[trim it out]

tio, I very much doubt you have misunderstood anything.
Ok, so you want CC to be recognised by the Service as Aircrew should there be an inquiry (as you have mentioned the MAA and RAF recognising them as different?) and they already have a badge so it's the official Aircrew tick you would like to see?

[Chugalug2]

Badges, which is coincidentally the subject of the thread.
I wondered why you cared about which badges people wore so much. You said you didn’t and you cared about air safety. Which we all do.
I’m confused about your point about Cabin Crew if it isn’t about badges

OK SM I'll bite. The thread is about Flying Badges, all right, new Flying Badges. Fairly early on a pic was posted of an RAF Cabin Crew Member in No1's. On her sleeve is her Cabin Crew trade badge. Being a Ground Trade she is not entitled to a Flying Badge as the RAF does not recognise her as Aircrew. The MAA, the RAF's Air Regulator, states that she is Aircrew. Indeed, if she were not aircrew the RAF would not be operating in accordance with the a/c RTS when she is on duty as part of her constituted crew iaw the RTS. That is how we got to here.

New readers please read all the preceding posts or alternatively troll at your discretion....

[heights good]

Cabin crew do not complete a recognised aircrew flying course. As inconvenient as that is, they are a role fit much the same as Air Despatchers, GE etc.

[SwitchMonkey]

OK SM I'll bite. The thread is about Flying Badges, all right, new Flying Badges. Fairly early on a pic was posted of an RAF Cabin Crew Member in No1's. On her sleeve is her Cabin Crew trade badge. Being a Ground Trade she is not entitled to a Flying Badge as the RAF does not recognise her as Aircrew. The MAA, the RAF's Air Regulator, states that she is Aircrew. Indeed, if she were not aircrew the RAF would not be operating in accordance with the a/c RTS when she is on duty as part of her constituted crew iaw the RTS. That is how we got to here.

New readers please read all the preceding posts or alternatively troll at your discretion....

Bite away old boy, I’ve just gone back through the whole thread and there are no photos of Cabin Crew here. Unless you are suggesting that “New Readers” need to read the entire bulletin board before they are allowed to ask a question?

Are you suggesting the RAF are operating in an unsafe manner? If so please do give specifics and I’ll pass your worries on to the MAA.

[MG]

Of course he’s suggesting that the RAF operates in an unsafe manner, that’s all he ever does. Every single thread ends up getting back to accidents, particularly the Chinook. This is an internet forum, that’s all, it’s not as if it’s a parliamentary committee with some power.

[Asturias56]

It strikes me that questions of uniform and badges are very much a peacetime concern- I don't recollect anyone being too concerned when the bullets are flying

IIRC some of the great leaders and fighting men fought in very non-standard uniforms. R E Lee fought the whole of the US Civil War in a simple coat with Colonel's badges, Grant was notoriously "badly" if not "awfully" dressed, Wellington fought in civies and Montgomery in battle dress. Mussolini on the other hand.......

And that applies to the front-line as well - the last "well turned out" British unit that saw action was probably the Light Brigade under Cardigan - tho I don't think their uniforms had much impact on either their bravery or the result. There was even the fashion for "Zouaves" in the US Civil War, the Franco German War of 18970 and the First World War - but that normally lasted up to the point they met the enemy.

[BEagle]

I recall there being much animosity from those who'd been through the Airman Aircrew course at Finningley when the 'FC' brevet first appeared. The people who wore them had only minimal training (in those days) and were simply carrying out their ground skills in an airborne environment.

One 'FC' wearer appeared on our flight deck at some airshow static. The badge was quite new, so one of the groundcrew asked what it was. Whereupon our Air Eng quipped "He flies on the AWACS and fixes things - hence the 'Fuse Changer' badge".

Which was a little harsh, I guess?

I was fortunate enough to fly on a Voyager AAR sortie last September. Looking after our small group were a Voyager pilot and an air steward. Both looked very smart and both wore 'squadron' name badges with relevant insignia. For the pilot that meant 'Wings' and for the steward the 'CC' badge.

Pedants and keyboard SWOs will doubtless fulminate about dress standards, but I don't give a bugger. Both carried out their duties efficiently and were a delight to have met.

[Wensleydale]

I recall there being much animosity from those who'd been through the Airman Aircrew course at Finningley when the 'FC' brevet first appeared. The people who wore them had only minimal training (in those days) and were simply carrying out their ground skills in an airborne environment.



The first two "FC" flying badges were awarded to an officer and a SNCO who had completed the Shackleton training course on 8 Sqn at Lossiemouth. For my part, as a Group 1 Navigator, who also did the Shackleton mission crew training course, perhaps the two fighter controllers were better prepared for the role than I. I was capable of three position line manual air plot and could navigate a Domine by looking at a weather radar while facing backwards, but none of this really helped in sitting behind a 1940s radar screen while reporting contacts and pointing fighters about the sky. The mix of flying badges however gave everyone a good grounding to bounce ideas off the rest of the crew - we all had a different set of specialist skills despite often carrying out the same task with the same bit of kit, and the mix worked (and still did on the Sentry, but that's a different story). Yes, there was lots of banter and sometimes a bit of points scoring, but generally it was good natured.

However, one of the FC branch "new boys" was posted direct to the Nimrod AEW Training Course Design Team at Waddington before they had an aircraft....he was presented with a flying badge for flying 3 sorties as a passenger in a maritime Nimrod MR2! (It was he who was presented with a cornflakes packet with the FC badge inside as a free gift at one beer call).

[Chugalug2]

Ok, so you want CC to be recognised by the Service as Aircrew should there be an inquiry (as you have mentioned the MAA and RAF recognising them as different?) and they already have a badge so it's the official Aircrew tick you would like to see?

No, I want to avoid Inquiries by avoiding the avoidable accidents that lead to them. By employing full time professional Cabin Crew who are recognised by the RAF as Aircrew, even if an accident cannot be avoided, its toll if any might at least be greatly reduced. If all it takes for them to be so recognised is a tick, so yes, I would like to see a tick. If not, then whatever else is needed for them to be so recognised by the RAF and hence awarded their Flying Badges as RAF Aircrew.

[Chugalug2]

Bite away old boy, I’ve just gone back through the whole thread and there are no photos of Cabin Crew here. Unless you are suggesting that “New Readers” need to read the entire bulletin board before they are allowed to ask a question?

Are you suggesting the RAF are operating in an unsafe manner? If so please do give specifics and I’ll pass your worries on to the MAA.
I'm suggesting that RAF Cabin Crew are de facto Aircrew because they are so deemed by the MAA and so required by the RTSs of the aircraft concerned.

Re the pic of the young lady concerned, my apologies. I had thought her to be in this thread but had confused it with a very similar thread. To satisfy your curiosity, and those others like you, here she is:-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626419-non-traditional-aircrew.html

[teeteringhead]

ME pilots extra training is to do a specialised course in either reading or writing. You knew that was the reason for the two-man crew of course But who looks after the two intellectuals!

[Surplus]

But who looks after the two intellectuals!
On a multi engine A/C, it would be a SNCO/WOFF, who having signed for the Junior Officers, would be required to make sure that underwear was under the flying suit and to restrain them from licking the power outlets.

[trim it out]

No, I want to avoid Inquiries by avoiding the avoidable accidents that lead to them. By employing full time professional Cabin Crew who are recognised by the RAF as Aircrew, even if an accident cannot be avoided, its toll if any might at least be greatly reduced. If all it takes for them to be so recognised is a tick, so yes, I would like to see a tick. If not, then whatever else is needed for them to be so recognised by the RAF and hence awarded their Flying Badges as RAF Aircrew.
In which case I agree that it would be nice to have full time CC. It must be a bit of a let down to go from jet setting around in a grow bag to dishing up the core menu in the Mess. They already have a badge but do they get flying pay when they are on a flying Sqn?

[Chugalug2]

tio, if I've wetted your appetite and the thought of becoming RAF CC appeals to you, then full details for applying are here:-

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

No mention of flying pay though. I imagine Catch-22 being that they are not classed as RAF Aircrew, only MAA Aircrew (who don't employ them). Hence the trade badge rather than a flying badge. Hence the two threads!

[Bob Viking]

Nobody gets flying pay any more. It’s RRP (recruitment and retention pay).

Whether CC get it would depend on whether there is a shortage within their trade.

BV

[trim it out]

tio, if I've wetted your appetite and the thought of becoming RAF CC appeals to you, then full details for applying are here:-

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

No mention of flying pay though. I imagine Catch-22 being that they are not classed as RAF Aircrew, only MAA Aircrew (who don't employ them). Hence the trade badge rather than a flying badge. Hence the two threads!
Thanks, I'm on the back slope to the IPP now so have little interest in re-trading (again) :)

Bob, of course you are technically correct, but it is still referred to as flying pay in conversation as RRP(F) doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily :E

[Chugalug2]

Nobody gets flying pay any more. It’s RRP (recruitment and retention pay).

Whether CC get it would depend on whether there is a shortage within their trade.

BV
Thanks BV. Sounds like good news from the point of view of CC being accepted as Aircrew by the RAF then. If there is no remuneration uplift involved that only leaves changing certain peoples attitudes to the idea. Should be a breeze, wouldn't you say?

[heights good]

Thanks BV. Sounds like good news from the point of view of CC being accepted as Aircrew by the RAF then. If there is no remuneration uplift involved that only leaves changing certain peoples attitudes to the idea. Should be a breeze, wouldn't you say?

Cabin crew are not aircrew.

If they want to be recognised by the RAF then get to OASC, pass the 4 days of testing which the vast majority fail, complete the 6 months of leadership training, the 3-7yrs of flying training and then they can say they are.

Completing a 4 week course that any mess steward can attend without a robust, scientifically designed selection process is just not the same, no matter what way you skin it.

Until then, they will have to suck it up and accept they are a role fit for the aircraft and nothing more. Sorry.

[charliegolf]

Cabin crew are not aircrew.

If they want to be recognised by the RAF then get to OASC, pass the 4 days of testing which the vast majority fail, complete the 6 months of leadership training, the 3-7yrs of flying training and then they can say they are.

Completing a 4 week course that any mess steward can attend without a robust, scientifically designed selection process is just not the same, no matter what way you skin it.

Until then, they will have to suck it up and accept they are a role fit for the aircraft and nothing more. Sorry.

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG

[Chugalug2]

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG
Indeed CG, and following in the footsteps of their forefathers, or come to think of it their grandfathers. 30 Squadron Association boasted an ex SAC Fairey Battle Air Gunner who served in the BEF Air Component. For pressing home an attack against the Albert Canal bridges and overwhelming odds the crew were rightly decorated. The pilot and the navigator that is. He received nothing of course, and when he complained that his gun had overheated while repelling repeated 109 attacks he was advised that he shouldn't fire it so much in future. As heights good so eloquently puts it he had to suck it up, but was bitter about it right up until he sadly passed away.

Isn't there something about those who never learn from history being doomed to repeat it?

HG :-
Cabin crew are not aircrew.

But they are. That's the whole point I'm afraid and the ridiculous dead end that the RAF has managed to navigate itself into.

[heights good]

Indeed CG, and following in the footsteps of their forefathers, or come to think of it their grandfathers. 30 Squadron Association boasted an ex SAC Fairey Battle Air Gunner who served in the BEF Air Component. For pressing home an attack against the Albert Canal bridges and overwhelming odds the crew were rightly decorated. The pilot and the navigator that is. He received nothing of course, and when he complained that his gun had overheated while repelling repeated 109 attacks he was advised that he shouldn't fire it so much in future. As heights good so eloquently puts it he had to suck it up, but was bitter about it right up until he sadly passed away.

Isn't there something about those who never learn from history being doomed to repeat it?

HG :-


But they are. That's the whole point I'm afraid and the ridiculous dead end that the RAF has managed to navigate itself into.

A sentence in an MAA by document does not make Cabin Crew aircrew in the conventional sense. They are crew, sure, but they know nothing about flying or aviation. There is a reason that actual aircrew do extensive ground school and Ph2 training. All of this after 4 days of selection with a really high failure rate.

[heights good]

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG

IOT and NCA (3 months)

[Chugalug2]

A sentence in an MAA by document does not make Cabin Crew aircrew in the conventional sense. They are crew, sure, but they know nothing about flying or aviation. There is a reason that actual aircrew do extensive ground school and Ph2 training. All of this after 4 days of selection with a really high failure rate.

Much the same could be said for 30's SAC a/g. His day job was as Ground Crew in much the same way as Voyager CC's is as Mess Staff. The a/g's became aircrew in their own right and the ground trades they left behind had to be filled by others. I couldn't agree more that professional aircrew need to be professionally trained. Indeed CC could be but the start of a career in other RAF Aircrew specialities, but first and foremost they start as Aircrew in their own right.

In the meantime the RAF is once again out of kilter with its own Air Regulator, a position that seems to fit quite comfortably in some peoples minds but graphically illustrates the powerlessness of the MAA. A Regulator should regulate and have its Regulations fully complied with. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made outwith and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable accidents and needless deaths will continue to happen.

[Door Slider]

No mention of flying pay though

Air Ground Stewards who are employed in flying roles on either 10/101 and 32 Sqns are paid RRP (flying crew) upon award of LCR status. They are paid at the lower rate only.

[heights good]

Much the same could be said for 30's SAC a/g. His day job was as Ground Crew in much the same way as Voyager CC's is as Mess Staff. The a/g's became aircrew in their own right and the ground trades they left behind had to be filled by others. I couldn't agree more that professional aircrew need to be professionally trained. Indeed CC could be but the start of a career in other RAF Aircrew specialities, but first and foremost they start as Aircrew in their own right.

In the meantime the RAF is once again out of kilter with its own Air Regulator, a position that seems to fit quite comfortably in some peoples minds but graphically illustrates the powerlessness of the MAA. A Regulator should regulate and have its Regulations fully complied with. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made outwith and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable accidents and needless deaths will continue to happen.

AG during a world war that millions died and bomber crews were especially hit hard is a far stretch to a mess steward now serving food at FL350 in an air conditioned cabin in peacetime!

You may also note that this role is now obsolete as it was no longer required and professional aircrew and technology now fill those roles where required.

chugalug if you want to be recognised as aircrew, get to the careers office and apply.

Until then, cabin crew are NOT and never should be aircrew, thankfully the RAF recognises this in exactly the same way as GE, Air Dispatchers, MAMS, MICs, Aeromed etc arent.

They are more qualified by orders of magnitude compared to what are essentially waitresses in the sky. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way. I am trying to emphasise that they perform ZERO aircrew functions. Are they part of a crew, absolutely, are they aircrew? Not. Even. Close.

you can take aircrew of any flavour and they will all understand airspace, RT, aircraft tech, air law, principles of flight, ATC, emergency procedures (FRCs) etc put 99% of cabin crew on a flight deck and they would not have a clue and would be no use to aircrew if their input was asked for. I have never flown or operated a C-17, Typhoon, or Chinook, but put me into a cockpit right now and we could fly anywhere in the world and I would be 75% up to speed to get us there safely, albeit not 'fight' the aircraft at the max of its ability.

That is the difference....that is why the RAF doesn't recognise cabin crew as they are just that, crew for the cabin.

[Herod]

heights good: I was out of this thread, but your attitude demands a response. I assume, in the event you were involved as a passenger in a civil aircraft crash, you wouldn't want any assistance from the cabin CREW? After all, they are just"trolley dollies"

As to your comment that you could operate a C17, Typhoon or Chinook, would your other user name be Walter Mitty?

[Chugalug2]

AG during a world war that millions died and bomber crews were especially hit hard is a far stretch to a mess steward now serving food at FL350 in an air conditioned cabin in peacetime!

You may also note that this role is now obsolete as it was no longer required and professional aircrew and technology now fill those roles where required.

chugalug if you want to be recognised as aircrew, get to the careers office and apply.

Until then, cabin crew are NOT and never should be aircrew, thankfully the RAF recognises this in exactly the same way as GE, Air Dispatchers, MAMS, MICs, Aeromed etc arent.

They are more qualified by orders of magnitude compared to what are essentially waitresses in the sky. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way. I am trying to emphasise that they perform ZERO aircrew functions. Are they part of a crew, absolutely, are they aircrew? Not. Even. Close.

you can take aircrew of any flavour and they will all understand airspace, RT, aircraft tech, air law, principles of flight, ATC, emergency procedures (FRCs) etc put 99% of cabin crew on a flight deck and they would not have a clue and would be no use to aircrew if their input was asked for. I have never flown or operated a C-17, Typhoon, or Chinook, but put me into a cockpit right now and we could fly anywhere in the world and I would be 75% up to speed to get us there safely, albeit not 'fight' the aircraft at the max of its ability.

That is the difference....that is why the RAF doesn't recognise cabin crew as they are just that, crew for the cabin.

Thanks Herod, the temptation is to ignore but he does serve a purpose insomuch as it shows what we and the MAA are up against.

hg, so much pent up anger, I hope at least that having got that lot off your chest you do feel rather the better for it. As to the aircraft you quote I have no knowledge of them either, but I have to tell you I wouldn't want you on any aircraft I have flown, let alone on its Flight Deck. You are a walking CRM disaster! I have flown with cabin crew both in the RAF and the Airlines. In the RAF it was always a one man CC; my ALM. In the airlines it could be up to six (and rather prettier than the ALMs, or can one say that these days?). In both cases their primary duty was to ensure the safety of their passengers, in the air, on the ground, even in the sea. All of them were highly trained and all of them took their duties very seriously indeed. They were all aircrew and totally part of a fully integrated crew.

Thankyou for the gratuitous history lesson. Armed Forces are honed in war (especially ones in which millions die). It is then that stark reality cuts in rather than the esoteric policies of committees that decide that the 'Bomber will always get through' or the Colonel Blimps that bemoan their horses being replaced by noisy tractors tearing up their battlefields. I would suggest that Blimp is alive and well and promoted to Air Marshal these days if the RAF thinks as you do.

Aviation is rather like Covid19. It isn't interested in you 'being more qualified by orders of magnitude' than the CC in the aircraft you are pax in. If it picks you out your number is up, unless your life can be spared by getting you out of that conflagration and down a slide to safety. You won't manage that on your own. To try to do so would hazard others. You will be saved by a trained CC member carrying out their primary role, saving your life (I thought to precede that with an adjective but that would be churlish).

[heights good]

heights good: I was out of this thread, but your attitude demands a response. I assume, in the event you were involved as a passenger in a civil aircraft crash, you wouldn't want any assistance from the cabin CREW? After all, they are just"trolley dollies"

As to your comment that you could operate a C17, Typhoon or Chinook, would your other user name be Walter Mitty?

I have at no point said CC dont have a legitimate role to play. As I said previously GE, MIC, AD, AIA, Aeromed all have an airborne role, but they are not aircrew.

Regarding Walter Mitty, I am in no way saying I would be operating in the Staneval expected way, but I could make sure the aircraft got to its destination. CC would fail in the simple task of getting start up clearance, never mind navigation, RT, pressure settings, procedures, rules of the air... you know, those things taught in basic aircrew training.

This argument could drag on forever, the fact remains QRs and the RAF Board do not recognise CC as aircrew.

CC do not do ANY form of aircrew training.

There is a well recognised route for those wishing to become aircrew, just do 4 days of selection and 3-7 yrs of training to get to the frontline.

If you dont like the system then you only really have three choices - suck it up, apply to OASC or leave. For all other options take it up with the adults in Air.

[heights good]

Thanks Herod, the temptation is to ignore but he does serve a purpose insomuch as it shows what we and the MAA are up against.

hg, so much pent up anger, I hope at least that having got that lot off your chest you do feel rather the better for it. As to the aircraft you quote I have no knowledge of them either, but I have to tell you I wouldn't want you on any aircraft I have flown, let alone on its Flight Deck. You are a walking CRM disaster! I have flown with cabin crew both in the RAF and the Airlines. In the RAF it was always a one man CC; my ALM. In the airlines it could be up to six (and rather prettier than the ALMs, or can one say that these days?). In both cases their primary duty was to ensure the safety of their passengers, in the air, on the ground, even in the sea. All of them were highly trained and all of them took their duties very seriously indeed. They were all aircrew and totally part of a fully integrated crew.

Thankyou for the gratuitous history lesson. Armed Forces are honed in war (especially ones in which millions die). It is then that stark reality cuts in rather than the esoteric policies of committees that decide that the 'Bomber will always get through' or the Colonel Blimps that bemoan their horses being replaced by noisy tractors tearing up their battlefields. I would suggest that Blimp is alive and well and promoted to Air Marshal these days if the RAF thinks as you do.

Aviation is rather like Covid19. It isn't interested in you 'being more qualified by orders of magnitude' than the CC in the aircraft you are pax in. If it picks you out your number is up, unless your life can be spared by getting you out of that conflagration and down a slide to safety. You won't manage that on your own. To try to do so would hazard others. You will be saved by a trained CC member carrying out their primary role, saving your life (I thought to precede that with an adjective but that would be churlish).

Fancy words, do not an argument make.....

Nobody is highly trained after a 6 week course, regardless of specialisation. Aircrew train for 3-7 yrs, then, and only then do they start to learn their craft properly. To become highly trained will take the same timescale again at the very least.

Any able-bodied person can unstrap, walk to the exit and jump down a slide. I do not need CC to direct me to live, my survival instinct will kick in without your help, I promise, I am good.

Disagreeing with your argument does not make me a CRM disaster. I will leave the AIRCREW instructors and peers I fly with to be the judge of that...

Whether you would like on your aircraft is a pointless statement as CC are under the authority of the ac Captain and as such their word is final :)

Are you seriously comparing strategic lessons from world wars as an argument for CC to be recognised as aircrew?

Giving you a badge in NO WAY changes the job you are doing, so your argument... well, isnt really. A badge wont change your role, which is serving food, looking after pax and assisting in an emergency.

Just a thought, if the MAA remove the one sentence you are hanging an entire argument on, does that longer make you aircrew?

[Chugalug2]

hg:-
Any able-bodied person can unstrap, walk to the exit and jump down a slide. I do not need CC to direct me to live, my survival instinct will kick in without your help, I promise, I am good.


You could be just one of 290 others, it could be at night, the cabin full of smoke with flames burning their way into the cabin and up to half the exits thus unavailable. But you'll be good, right? At the cost presumably of the other pax in your way, coming in the opposite direction, packing out the remaining exits and slides (are they deployed properly anyway, and who deployed them anyway?). The CC of course would be useless and have to be rescued by those like you who are orders of magnitude more qualified. Pity about the majority who died because of the lack of direction by qualified aircrew getting the aircraft fully evacuated, but at least you are good!

I've no idea what your day job is, but I repeat you would not be welcome on my aircraft and, yes, my word would be final!

I'm suggesting that the genesis of a fully constituted air force crew being jointly manned by aircrew was war. Destroy that notion and you open up a can of worms. With pax attitudes like yours a major in-flight emergency could quickly become needlessly un-survivable. That is where the difference between civil and military pax a/c cuts in. Civvie pax may well be orders of magnitude more qualified than the CC but will usually do as instructed in an emergency. With military pax you now have crew and pax from the same Service or possibly other Services. Either way they will hold ranks that may be less than, equal to, or exceed those of the CC managing an emergency. Previous discussions here suggested that problems would emanate from 'squaddies'. I am beginning to think that the real problems might come from opinionated aircrew such as your self :-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626419-non-traditional-aircrew.html

especially as comments similar to your own were posted there.

As to the selection standards required, the courses imposed, ranks awarded; all that is up to the operator, ie the RAF. As to the regulator, the MAA, every word is gospel, or bloody well should be!

[trim it out]

With military pax you now have crew and pax from the same Service or possibly other Services. Either way they will hold ranks that may be less than, equal to, or exceed those of the CC managing an emergency. Previous discussions here suggested that problems would emanate from 'squaddies'.
Where are you going with this? Are you trying to say a military passenger would try and pull rank on a member of the cabin crew in an emergency (highly unlikely, people respect the difference between rank and authority in my experience in war and peace)? How does this support your argument of making CC Aircrew anyway? If someone wants to argue with CC they aren't going to be interested in their crew status.

[heights good]

hg:-


You could be just one of 290 others, it could be at night, the cabin full of smoke with flames burning their way into the cabin and up to half the exits thus unavailable. But you'll be good, right? At the cost presumably of the other pax in your way, coming in the opposite direction, packing out the remaining exits and slides (are they deployed properly anyway, and who deployed them anyway?). The CC of course would be useless and have to be rescued by those like you who are orders of magnitude more qualified. Pity about the majority who died because of the lack of direction by qualified aircrew getting the aircraft fully evacuated, but at least you are good!

I've no idea what your day job is, but I repeat you would not be welcome on my aircraft and, yes, my word would be final!

I'm suggesting that the genesis of a fully constituted air force crew being jointly manned by aircrew was war. Destroy that notion and you open up a can of worms. With pax attitudes like yours a major in-flight emergency could quickly become needlessly un-survivable. That is where the difference between civil and military pax a/c cuts in. Civvie pax may well be orders of magnitude more qualified than the CC but will usually do as instructed in an emergency. With military pax you now have crew and pax from the same Service or possibly other Services. Either way they will hold ranks that may be less than, equal to, or exceed those of the CC managing an emergency. Previous discussions here suggested that problems would emanate from 'squaddies'. I am beginning to think that the real problems might come from opinionated aircrew such as your self :-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626419-non-traditional-aircrew.html

especially as comments similar to your own were posted there.

As to the selection standards required, the courses imposed, ranks awarded; all that is up to the operator, ie the RAF. As to the regulator, the MAA, every word is gospel, or bloody well should be!

You have a great point.

I might point this out to Airbus,

They could perhaps have slides that automatically deploy when the doors open and the cabin crew can "disarm and cross-check" before opening inadvertently....

Oh, oh, oh I have a great idea, what about putting some "lighting on the floor that will lead you to an exit" and when you get to an exit it is another colour, genius or what?!

"In the unlikely event of landing on water" we could have life jackets to hand, say under passenger seats and as an added bonus they "have a light and a whistle for attracting attention!"

Hhhhmmmm how do we get around the fire over the wing dilemma.....? I got it, install transparent panels that you can look through before opening the door.

thats a lot to think of, pax should probably be briefed on this before every flight as it is important stuff. Why dont we have a video that could be shown before every flight! Man, I am a genius.

I might pitch this on Dragons Den...

As an aside, your argument has now shifted from CC being aircrew to justifying CC which do provide an essential role.

Enjoy wallowing in your inferiority complex. Your viewpoint is nonsensical.

Have an amazing day....

Just in case you want to apply for aircrew https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/apply

[alfred_the_great]

In the meantime the RAF is once again out of kilter with its own Air Regulator, a position that seems to fit quite comfortably in some peoples minds but graphically illustrates the powerlessness of the MAA. A Regulator should regulate and have its Regulations fully complied with. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made outwith and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable accidents and needless deaths will continue to happen.

Chugalug2 - I’d be grateful on some guidance. You seem convinced that the MAA have defined Cabin Crew as Aircrew. That prompted me to go to the MAA website, and check the RAs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/maa-regulatory-publications

The RA defining Aircrew is relatively simple to find, it is RA 2100 series, that defines “Aircrew qualifications and competency”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/2000-series-flying-regulations-fly#2100-series:-aircrew-qualifications-and-competency

RA 2101 is the RA that defines what an Aircrew is, and says


Entitlement to Conduct Flying Duties
2101(1) To fly or operate ►Air Systems governed by the MRP,◄ Aircrew shall be qualified.
Entitlement to Conduct Flying Duties
1. Aviation Duty Holders (ADH) and Accountable Managers (Military Flying) (AM(MF)) should promulgate in orders the criteria for the award, or recognition of Aircrew qualifications.
2. UK Military Registered Air Systems. In order to fly or operate UK military registered Air Systems, Aircrew should be qualified in accordance with (iaw) at least one of the following criteria:
a. ►They are◄ in possession of, or ►have◄ previously been awarded, ►one of the following◄:
(1) The appropriate UK military flying badge►1◄;
(2) A UK military or AM(MF) approved Remotely Piloted Air System
(RPAS) pilot/operator qualification;
(3) A UK military or AM(MF) approved non-Pilot Aircrew qualification. b. ►They are◄ undergoing an ADH or AM(MF) approved training course
and the duties to be authorized form part of ►the◄ course of training; c. ►They are◄ part of a recognized foreign exchange programme
approved by single-Service chiefs;
d. ►They possess the◄ appropriate civil licence; ►◄
e. ►They are in possession of, or have previously been awarded, a foreign
military qualification that has been approved as equivalent by the ADH or AM(MF).◄


Thus, by the RA, the non-award of a Flying Badge for a role means that that individual is not Aircrew.

It goes on to say


Entitlement to Conduct Flying Duties
4. ►Definition of Aircrew can be found in MAA022.◄
5. A UK military flying badge ►◄ is awarded by a single-Service Approving
Officer following achievement of an appropriate standard on an approved training course ►iaw Queen’s Regulations3.◄
6. A UK military or AM(MF) approved RPAS pilot/operator or non-Pilot Aircrew qualification is awarded by a single-Service Approving Officer or AM(MF) following achievement of an appropriate standard on an approved training course.
7. Approved Training Course. For the purposes of this Regulation an approved training course is one that has been assured by an Independent Body that is suitably qualified and experienced, prior to overall approval by the appropriate ADH or AM(MF).
8. Flying Instruction. Where an approved training course leads to award of a flying badge ►◄, RPAS or non-Pilot Aircrew qualification, Aircrew must be given flying instruction by an appropriately Qualified Aircrew Instructor (Qualified AI), ►iaw RA 21254.◄
Certificate of Qualification on Type
2101(2) To fly or operate ►Air Systems governed by the MRP,◄ Aircrew shall be in possession of a valid Certificate of Qualification on Type (CQT) for that type.
Certificate of Qualification on Type
9. A CQT should only be awarded on completion of an approved training course by ►one of the following◄:
a. ►The appropriate◄ ADH;
b. ►The appropriate◄ AM(MF) or Flight Operations post-holder; ►◄
c. ►An appropriately◄ Qualified AI, empowered by orders.
10. A CQT should be documented in a formal record, such as an Aircrew logbook.


Thus, to cross check, MAA 02 (the master glossary) says

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779751/MAA02_Issue_8.pdf


Persons having duties concerned either with operating or the flying of Air Systems or with passengers or cargo when in flight.


Perhaps some mild confusion here - two different versions of what aircrew might mean, however, RA 2340 Supernumerary Crew and Passengers does help here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835174/RA2340_Issue_6.pdf


Definitions Relevant to this RA
1. For the purpose of the authorization of flights on military registered Air Systems, the following definitions apply:
a. Aircrew. Persons authorized to conduct duties concerned with: operating or flying the Air System or; with the management of Passengers or cargo when in flight; and who are also qualified in accordance with (iaw)
RA 21011.
b. Supernumerary Crew. A Supernumerary Crewmember is an individual, military or civilian, who is employed on an Air System and authorized to carry out a specific duty (that does not require an Aircrew qualification) while in flight or ground taxiing. This specific duty is to have an active role in achieving the purpose of the authorized flight and may involve the operation of Air System equipment/systems or authorized Equipment Not Basic to the Air System (ENBAS)2 under the supervision of the Air System’s Aircrew.


It seems to me that having not met the definition of Aircrew IAW RA2101, that someone such as Cabin Crew (or Aeromedical personnel etc) sit firmly under the banner of “Supernumerary Crew”.

Even more helpfully, the MAA02 also defines Supernumerary Crew


Supernumerary Crew are not classed as passengers. A supernumerary crewmember is an individual, Military or civilian, who is temporarily attached to an air system crew for the purpose of carrying out a specific duty not involved with flying/operating the air system, as authorised by the appropriate aviation duty holder or accountable manager (military flying).


Given all that, unless you can point me to a part of the RAs I’ve missed, I’d suggest that

a - the Cabin Crew, whilst vitally important, are not Aircrew, and therefore not entitled to a Flying Badge.
b - that the RAF is acting entirely within the guidance of the MAA, and thus operating as you consistently demand.

[heights good]

Chugalug2 - I’d be grateful on some guidance. You seem convinced that the MAA have defined Cabin Crew as Aircrew. That prompted me to go to the MAA website, and check the RAs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/maa-regulatory-publications

The RA defining Aircrew is relatively simple to find, it is RA 2100 series, that defines “Aircrew qualifications and competency”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/2000-series-flying-regulations-fly#2100-series:-aircrew-qualifications-and-competency

RA 2101 is the RA that defines what an Aircrew is, and says



Thus, by the RA, the non-award of a Flying Badge for a role means that that individual is not Aircrew.

It goes on to say



Thus, to cross check, MAA 02 (the master glossary) says

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779751/MAA02_Issue_8.pdf



Perhaps some mild confusion here - two different versions of what aircrew might mean, however, RA 2340 Supernumerary Crew and Passengers does help here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835174/RA2340_Issue_6.pdf



It seems to me that having not met the definition of Aircrew IAW RA2101, that someone such as Cabin Crew (or Aeromedical personnel etc) sit firmly under the banner of “Supernumerary Crew”.

Even more helpfully, the MAA02 also defines Supernumerary Crew



Given all that, unless you can point me to a part of the RAs I’ve missed, I’d suggest that

a - the Cabin Crew, whilst vitally important, are not Aircrew, and therefore not entitled to a Flying Badge.
b - that the RAF is acting entirely within the guidance of the MAA, and thus operating as you consistently demand.

Awkward....:ooh:

I guess that is that argument put to bed....

if Carlsberg did Aviation Authorities, for everyone else there is https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/aircrew (https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/aircrew/pilot)

[langleybaston]

heights good: I was out of this thread, but your attitude demands a response. I assume, in the event you were involved as a passenger in a civil aircraft crash, you wouldn't want any assistance from the cabin CREW? After all, they are just"trolley dollies"

As to your comment that you could operate a C17, Typhoon or Chinook, would your other user name be Walter Mitty?

Is he still going on and on and on?

As mere occasional SLF I do like the idea of a constituted CREW if at all possible.

[Wensleydale]

At the end of the day, perhaps we should perhaps look at our own achievements and pride in our flying badges and try not to belittle other people who also have the same badge but received it by a different route. I know what I did to get mine - who cares about what everyone else did - it doesn't matter.

[Chugalug2]

ATG, Welcome to the fray! You have researched the issue most assiduously and I commend your effort but must sadly, though perhaps predictably, politely disagree with your conclusions. The difference between aircrew and supernumerary crew is that the former is required to operate the aircraft normally, to include CC with passengers (or without CC if just Freight/Empty/AAR), whereas supernumerary crew are not. Thus PJIs are required to drop Paras but are not required simply to fly them (and yes, I know they are Honorary Aircrew anyway). Ditto Despatch Crews for Supply Dropping. Just positioning the kit they aren't needed but to drop it they are. Ditto Gnd Engs for down route support etc.

Of course RAF CC are not said to be Aircrew, I know that and it is what most of this thread has occupied itself with. I still insist though that they are Aircrew by definition (and thank you for the link!) :-

Aircrew.... Persons having duties concerned either with operating or the flying of Air Systems or with passengers or cargo when in flight.

Ipso Facto as Anthony Hancock might say!

[alfred_the_great]

ATG, Welcome to the fray! You have researched the issue most assiduously and I commend your effort but must sadly, though perhaps predictably, politely disagree with your conclusions. The difference between aircrew and supernumerary crew is that the former is required to operate the aircraft normally, to include CC with passengers (or without CC if just Freight/Empty/AAR), whereas supernumerary crew are not. Thus PJIs are required to drop Paras but are not required simply to fly them (and yes, I know they are Honorary Aircrew anyway). Ditto Despatch Crews for Supply Dropping. Just positioning the kit they aren't needed but to drop it they are. Ditto Gnd Engs for down route support etc.

Of course RAF CC are not said to be Aircrew, I know that and it is what most of this thread has occupied itself with. I still insist though that they are Aircrew by definition (and thank you for the link!) :-



Ipso Facto as Anthony Hancock might say!

no - wrong.

That is not the entire definition of Aircrew. And you know it.

I suspect you you need to stop tilting at this windmill.

[622]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/387x482/badges_03ca4a53ceb23285e81e38b42eace26b397620fb.jpg
...back to the badges.
Who is the preliminary flying badge aimed at?

[muppetofthenorth]

...back to the badges.
Who is the preliminary flying badge aimed at?

University Air Squadrons

[622]

Aha, thanks for the reply....another school day for 622!

[Asturias56]

who would have ever thought that such strong feelings could be held by some about aircrew? I have learnt a great deal here ................

[pr00ne]

How about calling them drivers, and conductors? You know, like bus crews...

[Chugalug2]

Nerves having clearly been touched Asturius! At least this dichotomy has been brought out into the open now.

ATG:-
no - wrong.
That is not the entire definition of Aircrew. And you know it.
I suspect you you need to stop tilting at this windmill.

Are the windmills again! Never far away. Your previous post requested guidance but it seems you need none as your mind, like others here, is clearly already made up. So I won't offer you guidance but simply repeat that RAF CC are part of a basic crew when passengers are carried. When those passengers require additional specialist attention, such as on casevac flights, then supernumerary crew (in this case probably RAF Medical Branch and PMRAFNS personnel) are added to that basic crew. You still need the core basic crew defined by the MAA as Aircrew (though not it seems by the RAF). That's what I know ATG!

[ExAscoteer2]

...back to the badges.
Who is the preliminary flying badge aimed at?

In my day, if you qualified for the PFB you went straight to Cranditz on the Short, 75hr course (to BHT pre-streaming).
However, you couldn't wear the PFB once you left the UAS.

[heights good]

Nerves having clearly been touched Asturius! At least this dichotomy has been brought out into the open now.

ATG:-


Are the windmills again! Never far away. Your previous post requested guidance but it seems you need none as your mind, like others here, is clearly already made up. So I won't offer you guidance but simply repeat that RAF CC are part of a basic crew when passengers are carried. When those passengers require additional specialist attention, such as on casevac flights, then supernumerary crew (in this case probably RAF Medical Branch and PMRAFNS personnel) are added to that basic crew. You still need the core basic crew defined by the MAA as Aircrew (though not it seems by the RAF). That's what I know ATG!

Except.... the MAA DOESNT define CC as aircrew, scroll up and your entire smoking gun was blown out of the water.

CC are a role fit.

[Herod]

CC are a role fit.

I hate to mention this, but so are pilots.:=

[heights good]

Except.... the MAA DOESNT define CC as aircrew, scroll up and your entire smoking gun was blown out of the water.

CC are a role fit.

Not correct I am afraid. You may have been out of the military flying game too long.

A role fit is something that is fitted or used for a specific role i.e. Aeromed, Para, pax, Airdrop, gunnery etc.

ALL aircraft need pilots to fly them REGARDLESS of the role :p

[Finningley Boy]

But what about the Air Stewards?
How about a Coffee pot encompassed by Laurels with a single wing?

FB

PS

Or in keeping with the preference for initials, how about STD surrounded by laurels and single wing?

[Foxtrot-Yankee]

So I won't offer you guidance but simply repeat that RAF CC are part of a basic crew when passengers are carried. When those passengers require additional specialist attention, such as on casevac flights, then supernumerary crew (in this case probably RAF Medical Branch and PMRAFNS personnel) are added to that basic crew. You still need the core basic crew defined by the MAA as Aircrew (though not it seems by the RAF).

How many CC are required on a Voyager AAR sortie? Rhetorical question, it’s zero. When passengers are carried, as they require extra specialist attention, supernumerary crew (in this case RAF air and ground steward) are added to that basic crew. You still need the core basic crew defined by the MAA as Aircrew, which as pointed out above, does not include CC.

[wiltshireman]

Couldn't agree more. Need to concentrate on the important stuff rater than more bureaucracy.

[charliegolf]

Couldn't agree more. Need to concentrate on the important stuff rater than more bureaucracy.

In the great scheme of things, who does or doesn't get a badge..........

CG

[ACW562]

Got My A2 after many long hard years.Hard won wings. Wish they didnt keep changing the rules. But out of uniform, and not wearing a flying jacket and or a flying suit in civy flying, its of no use any way. Plus I found in BGA gliding you got the piss taken out of you behind your back. (Wearing wings.)

[ifylofd]

Can someone clarify/confirm that this is a thread 140 posts long about a badge?
I hope, as a taxpayer, I am not paying to train Badge Specialists. Is there a badge for a, well, 'Badge Specialist' award? (BSa)

Thanks.

[Busta]

I always thought there was only one "Flying badge", all the others were brevets.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[trim it out]

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.
+1

Ten characters

[Asturias56]

Can someone clarify/confirm that this is a thread 140 posts long about a badge?
I hope, as a taxpayer, I am not paying to train Badge Specialists. Is there a badge for a, well, 'Badge Specialist' award? (BSa)

Thanks.
Careful - I was sentenced to be shot at dawn about 100 posts ago for suggesting they were "fripperies" :uhoh:

Thank god I never mentioned Cabin Crew......................

[Union Jack]

Can someone clarify/confirm that this is a thread 140 posts long about a badge?
.
Yes

I hope, as a taxpayer, I am not paying to train Badge Specialists.



No, you are not
Is there a badge for a, well, 'Badge Specialist' award? (BSa)



No


Thanks.

Glad to help!:D

Jack

[Vortex Hoop]

Not correct I am afraid. You may have been out of the military flying game too long.

A role fit is something that is fitted or used for a specific role i.e. Aeromed, Para, pax, Airdrop, gunnery etc.

ALL aircraft need pilots to fly them REGARDLESS of the role :p

Two thoughts come to mind. Does this mean that RPAS operators are not really aircrew as they are not on board their aircraft? Are they lower than airborne CC in the pecking order?

And harking back to the fighter controller, lurking in his bunker, acting as the 3rd pair of eyes for an F3...he didn't need a flying badge. All part of the ground trade: getting weapons to target remotely while the aircrew followed his cues. How is a ground-based RPAS operator different to an FC?

As you can operate a Typhoon or any aircraft you care to look at, I'm sure you can tell us!😂

[pr00ne]

Vortex Hoop

"How is a ground-based RPAS operator different to an FC?"


They are flying the aircraft and and are the aircraft captain.

I would suggest that is a huge difference.

[Vortex Hoop]

But neither are aboard yet both are key for ops. Sounds pretty similar to me. And where do the LRE fit into this? Are they the true captains as they do SUTTO and landing?

[pr00ne]

Aircraft Captain is aircraft Captain, full stop. The take off and landing folk are obviously key, as are numerous other folk. But you have only one Captain.

[Herod]

My brain hurts!!

[teeteringhead]

Aircraft Captain is aircraft Captain, full stop. The take off and landing folk are obviously key, as are numerous other folk. But you have only one Captain. I have to agree. ISTR the Maritime world had a number of Nav captains, and even - correct me if I'm wrong - AEO captains (there was at least one AEO Sqn Cdr).

So being captain does not necessarily have anything to do with flying the aircraft???

[ifylofd]

Yes

No, you are not


No


Glad to help!:D

Jack

Thanks for your help JackO.
Appears there are a few here who qualify for the BSa.

[KBW10101]

Awkward....:ooh:

I guess that is that argument put to bed....

if Carlsberg did Aviation Authorities, for everyone else there is "aircrew recruitment link"



Its sadly a matter of time before somebody hands the CC trade an Honorary Aircrew Flying badge though- NO OASC , NO NCAITC, No flying training. Like you said previously- you're not aircrew unless you've passed at least 'Officer and AIRCREW Selection Centre' course.

But give it 1-2 years or less, they'll be wearing the flying badge without the need to change the QR's to reflect or MAA RA's. They'd have circumvented the whole lot and the Trade advisors at HW would have handed them the Flying badge (without the aircrew prerequisites ) on a plate.


I hope i'm wrong Heights Good- but the cynic in me says the people who want to defend the standard of aircrew and Flying Badges are powerless to stop it. Maybe Aircrew could go and buy the CC wings and wear them without the prerequisites of a trade badge? at least it has TWO wings instead of only one

Watch this space - Chugalug will be overjoyed, he'll be straight back with pictures. Even if the MAA RA's don't support his argument.

[heights good]

Its sadly a matter of time before somebody hands the CC trade an Honorary Aircrew Flying badge though- NO OASC , NO NCAITC, No flying training. Like you said previously- you're not aircrew unless you've passed at least 'Officer and AIRCREW Selection Centre' course.

But give it 1-2 years or less, they'll be wearing the flying badge without the need to change the QR's to reflect or MAA RA's. They'd have circumvented the whole lot and the Trade advisors at HW would have handed them the Flying badge (without the aircrew prerequisites ) on a plate.


I hope i'm wrong Heights Good- but the cynic in me says the people who want to defend the standard of aircrew and Flying Badges are powerless to stop it. Maybe Aircrew could go and buy the CC wings and wear them without the prerequisites of a trade badge? at least it has TWO wings instead of only one

Watch this space - Chugalug will be overjoyed, he'll be straight back with pictures. Even if the MAA RA's don't support his argument.

Perhaps....I will be very much a mister by that point and too civilian to care 😀

[KBW10101]

ATG, Welcome to the fray! You have researched the issue most assiduously and I commend your effort but must sadly, though perhaps predictably, politely disagree with your conclusions. The difference between aircrew and supernumerary crew is that the former is required to operate the aircraft normally, to include CC with passengers (or without CC if just Freight/Empty/AAR), whereas supernumerary crew are not. Thus PJIs are required to drop Paras but are not required simply to fly them (and yes, I know they are Honorary Aircrew anyway). Ditto Despatch Crews for Supply Dropping. Just positioning the kit they aren't needed but to drop it they are. Ditto Gnd Engs for down route support etc.

Of course RAF CC are not said to be Aircrew, I know that and it is what most of this thread has occupied itself with. I still insist though that they are Aircrew by definition (and thank you for the link!) :-



Ipso Facto as Anthony Hancock might say!


For Clarity chugalug: So your cut off link witht he rest of the RA missing is genuinely intersting, that youve omitted the facts in the RA that doesnt support your argument. Ive provided you witht th two relevant RA's that.RA2340

a. Aircrew. Persons authorized to conduct duties concerned with: operating or flying the Air System or; with the management of Passengers or cargo when in flight; and who are also qualified in accordance with (iaw) RA 21011.


b. Supernumerary Crew. A Supernumerary Crewmember is an individual, military or civilian, who is employed on an Air System and authorized to carry out a specific duty (that does not require an Aircrew qualification) while in flight or ground taxiing. This specific duty is to have an active role in achieving the purpose of the authorized flight and may involve the operation of Air System equipment/systems or authorized Equipment Not Basic to the Air System (ENBAS)2 under the supervision of the Air System’s Aircrew.



RA2101 (1)

Entitlement to Conduct Flying Duties
2101(1) To fly or operate ►Air Systems governed by the MRP,◄ Aircrew shall be qualified.
Entitlement to Conduct Flying Duties
1. Aviation Duty Holders (ADH) and Accountable Managers (Military Flying) (AM(MF)) should promulgate in orders the criteria for the award, or recognition of Aircrew qualifications.
2. UK Military Registered Air Systems. In order to fly or operate UK military registered Air Systems, Aircrew should be qualified in accordance with (iaw) at least one of the following criteria:
a. ►They are◄ in possession of, or ►have◄ previously been awarded, ►one of the following◄:
(1) The appropriate UK military flying badge►1◄;
(2) A UK military or AM(MF) approved Remotely Piloted Air System
(RPAS) pilot/operator qualification;
(3) A UK military or AM(MF) approved non-Pilot Aircrew qualification. b. ►They are◄ undergoing an ADH or AM(MF) approved training course
and the duties to be authorized form part of ►the◄ course of training; c. ►They are◄ part of a recognized foreign exchange programme
approved by single-Service chiefs;
d. ►They possess the◄ appropriate civil licence; ►◄
e. ►They are in possession of, or have previously been awarded, a foreign
military qualification that has been approved as equivalent by the ADH or AM(MF).◄



By the fact they do not possess a flying badge (YET- they will get one, as the new flying badge especially mission specialist published above will be gifted to CC in due course according to other offical forums).

So for NOW- the highlighted RA's state they are supernumary crew and not aircrew. The Regulator is pretty clear I would say.

[KBW10101]

Perhaps....I will be very much a mister by that point and too civilian to care 😀


I can feel the demise / amalgamation of the WSOp Cadre quite soon, starting with the award of our Flying Badge to ground based trades. (or handing them a Flying Badge minus a crown).. its a matter of time before you have MAMS doing ALM jobs and CC doing MSO jobs. not sure whod muscle in on the RW Cmn role though... hookers? /TSW?

>> Coastguard are recruiting, if that floats your boat? :)

[Null Orifice]

Does this apply to Ground Engineers /Crew Chiefs (i.e. those who fly with the aircraft) - a 'flying spanner' badge with r without a crown (substitute a nut/ bolt/ or wiggly amp thingy?
Who actually needs to have their ego polished by the award of a badge?

[Herod]

Who actually needs to have their ego polished by the award of a badge?

ME!! I'm a retired member of the two-winged master-race. and proud of it.

[Chugalug2]

KBW, I've no idea why this issue has suddenly flared up again, but you seem to suggest that RAF CC are soon to be awarded 'our' flying badge, by which I assume you mean the WSOp one. If that is so I can understand your concern and empathise with you. At no time have I called for that. My only demand has been that RAF CC be recognised as aircrew, ie:-

Persons authorized to conduct duties concerned with: operating or flying the Air System or; with the management of Passengers or cargo when in flight

As you so rightly point out, in the RAF that requires the award of an appropriate flying badge, which to date they have yet to receive. Coming from an era of Navigators, Air Engineers, Signallers, Load Masters, etc, the solution could have been a winged CC flying badge worn on the left breast. That the RAF has seen fit to replace them with a one size fits all (OK, some trades no longer exist of course) is yet another corner it has boxed itself into and needs to find its own way out of. That isn't my concern, which is to see them recognised as aircrew and not as so much role equipment!

The explanation that they are not aircrew because they are not needed on Voyager if no pax are carried is specious. The same goes for any aircraft, civil or military. Civil positioning flights only require a flight deck crew, the CC they leave behind are however still aircrew!

[Lima Juliet]

I can scotch that rumour right now. There are no plans to award the WSO/WSOp Flying Badge to Cabin Crew. There is, however, a discussion ongoing whether they should join the Airborne Specialist cadre - if they did they would forfeit their Cabin Crew qualification badge. However, nothing is decided. Currently Airborne Specialists are drawn from Air Ops, TG7, TG1, Int and TG11 branches and trades. There is also consideration ongoing whether Flight Test Engineers should join them too - they complete the ~1 year long ETPS course and run airborne trials and operate airborne trials equipment.

Hopefully, this info puts this one to bed?:ok:

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for the update LJ, I'm sure that it will come as a relief to WSOp aircrew. For my part, the flying badge selected to show RAF CC to be aircrew is immaterial. All that is important is that they be recognised as RAF aircrew and are awarded an appropriate badge to confirm that. In my view that would be a major contribution to RAF Flight Safety and should happen without delay.

[KBW10101]

I can scotch that rumour right now. There are no plans to award the WSO/WSOp Flying Badge to Cabin Crew. There is, however, a discussion ongoing whether they should join the Airborne Specialist cadre - if they did they would forfeit their Cabin Crew qualification badge. However, nothing is decided. Currently Airborne Specialists are drawn from Air Ops, TG7, TG1, Int and TG11 branches and trades. There is also consideration ongoing whether Flight Test Engineers should join them too - they complete the ~1 year long ETPS course and run airborne trials and operate airborne trials equipment.

Hopefully, this info puts this one to bed?:ok:


A fair point,except the Airborne specialist badge IS the WSO/WSOp Flying badge- its blatantly been ripped off to look like it, and had the crown removed. You might as well go full tilt and leave the crown in place in order to devalue the WSO/WSOp Flying badge even more.

What next? dont bother giving WSOp's a job evaluation like the rest of the entire military, and leave them with a lower trade score than RAFP/Regt/Movs? oh wait... that happenned already.

If CC can wear the awarded Flying Badge (approved by branch sponsor of course) then will the CC trade sponsor allow MSO/Purser aircrew to wear their CC wings without completing any CC pre requiiste courses prior to Voyager academy? I think not.
Well played CC.

If youre going to roll in test engineers to that cadre- then why on earth would you omit GE's ? they complete pre -requisite courses, hold BCR's... and perform an airborne role on numerous AM platforms. But are they getting conisdered? of course not.

[charliegolf]

If I were CC, I'd rather have flying pay (in old money- see what I did there?) than a badge. Do they get that?

CG

[Lima Juliet]

A fair point,except the Airborne specialist badge IS the WSO/WSOp Flying badge- its blatantly been ripped off to look like it, and had the crown removed. You might as well go full tilt and leave the crown in place in order to devalue the WSO/WSOp Flying badge even more.

What next? dont bother giving WSOp's a job evaluation like the rest of the entire military, and leave them with a lower trade score than RAFP/Regt/Movs? oh wait... that happenned already.

If CC can wear the awarded Flying Badge (approved by branch sponsor of course) then will the CC trade sponsor allow MSO/Purser aircrew to wear their CC wings without completing any CC pre requiiste courses prior to Voyager academy? I think not.
Well played CC.

If youre going to roll in test engineers to that cadre- then why on earth would you omit GE's ? they complete pre -requisite courses, hold BCR's... and perform an airborne role on numerous AM platforms. But are they getting conisdered? of course not.

The question is, do the GEs have a role whilst the aircraft is aloft? I don’t just mean assist the flight crew, but be required to operate equipment on the aircraft whilst it is airborne in a bespoke role. We already have Airborne Techs who come from TG1 that are now classified as Airborne Specialists too. They operate equipment on the E3D and Rivet Joint having, most importantly, completed an OCU to do so as part of the crew operating the aircraft. If you are saying that GEs do complete an OCU (I’m pretty sure they don’t) then they would be worth consideration too.

As for the Flight Test Engineers (FTEs), I believe all are currently Engineering Officers, bar one that is a WSO (with their own flying badge), They complete the entire 50 week Empire Test Pilots’ School (ETPS) syllabus. They run airborne trials and test plans, operate trials equipment on board the aircraft, they are jointly responsible for the safety of the aircraft with the Test Pilot and pre-flight are responsible for constructing the test plan. That is certainly comparable to an OCU for the rest. That is what is being considered (rightly so, in my opinion).

On the CC badge - it is one or the other. If the CCs do become Airborne Specialists they will forfeit their CC badges. Now as a WSOp, if you want to trade in your WSOp Flying Badge for a CC one then go ahead - you can also go and serve tea and stickies in the Mess during your ground tour too. :p

The Airborne Specialist to WSO/WSOp to Pilot Flying Badges makes a natural progression. From now on the ground branches and trades employed on flying duties have a flying badge without a Crown, the WSO/WSOp (as Officer Aircrew and Non-Commissioned Officers (NCA)) get a flying badge with a Crown, then the Pilots (who can these days only be the Captain of the aircraft) get a second wing to their flying badge with Crown. It’s all very neat and obvious when you look at all 3 side by side.

Finally, not sure about your “RAFP/Regt/Movs” quote. They are all in the same pay-supplement as NCA - Pay Supplement 2. The NCA were placed in Supplement 2 because their previous Job Eval (JE) was too out of date and there wasn’t time to do a full one for PAY16. Pay Supp 2 or 3 was probably where they should have placed according to most - so really the difference is about a couple of quid a day. But don’t forget that none of the “RAFP/Regt/Movs” get at least £8/day extra RRP(F) (flying pay for the old and bold) nor do they get access to a specialist pay spine like PAS. Also, the “RAFP/Regt/Movs” will take at least 12 years of service to reach OR6 Sgt. Finally, a Herculean JE is just about to wind up soon with huge amounts of involvement by the NCA. So if the NCA score the same this time around, then maybe the evaluation was correct all along? If not, they will go to Pay Supp 3.

[Wensleydale]

The question is, do the GEs have a role whilst the aircraft is aloft?

On the E-3, the GEs get (or at least did when I was there) an aircraft safety course which qualifies them as Supernumerary Crew. This means that they do not require the same amount of briefing, and probably more important, crew escorts when flying with a crew on to a deployment. They can also operate the galley and the basic equipment such as light switches and of course, they know what to do and where to go in an emergency.

[cynicalint]

So all of us Crusties with an N, AE, LM, E, QM, S etc brevet who cannot wear the WSO/WSOp brevet for whatever reason will, to the uninitiated and to all intents and purposes. wear the same badge as an 'Airborne Specialist', rather than Qualified Aircrew?

[Lima Juliet]

On the E-3, the GEs get (or at least did when I was there) an aircraft safety course which qualifies them as Supernumerary Crew. This means that they do not require the same amount of briefing, and probably more important, crew escorts when flying with a crew on to a deployment. They can also operate the galley and the basic equipment such as light switches and of course, they know what to do and where to go in an emergency.

Which is not an OCU that qualifies you and also operating light switches/galley/toilet is not the same. Otherwise, I’m ‘qualified’ on every airline flight type I’ve ever flown on! Also, swing it around, just because I’m qualified to do an aircrew turn around doesn’t make me a ground engineer (and nor should it).

[Lima Juliet]

So all of us Crusties with an N, AE, LM, E, QM, S etc brevet who cannot wear the WSO/WSOp brevet for whatever reason will, to the uninitiated and to all intents and purposes. wear the same badge as an 'Airborne Specialist', rather than Qualified Aircrew?

They are all entitled to wear the WSO/WSOp Flying Badge should they wish. All legacy GD(Air) flying badge holders are. Also, the FC, AT and IA Flying Badges all look like the legacy badges anyway, so no difference really.

[Chugalug2]

Lima Juliet, as you seem to be both knowledgeable and prepared to share your knowledge (a rare and admirable trait if I may say so!) could you please dot some i's for me? If, as you suggest, there is a possible move to grant RAF Cabin Crew an Airborne Specialist Flying Badge, would that mean that they are then acknowledged by the RAF as Aircrew? If the answer is self evident then I apologise but I find nothing in this maelstrom to be self evident. The badge is irrelevant in my view, what is relevant is that RAF Cabin Crew are Aircrew and are recognised as such, especially by other crew members and by their passengers.

Can we simply take it as read that all that are opposed to such a proposition remain as adamant as ever? I would just like to know what the RAF's intentions are in regard to recognising their cabin crew as aircrew.

[Lima Juliet]

Lima Juliet, as you seem to be both knowledgeable and prepared to share your knowledge (a rare and admirable trait if I may say so!) could you please dot some i's for me? If, as you suggest, there is a possible move to grant RAF Cabin Crew an Airborne Specialist Flying Badge, would that mean that they are then acknowledged by the RAF as Aircrew? If the answer is self evident then I apologise but I find nothing in this maelstrom to be self evident. The badge is irrelevant in my view, what is relevant is that RAF Cabin Crew are Aircrew and are recognised as such, especially by other crew members and by their passengers.

Can we simply take it as read that all that are opposed to such a proposition remain as adamant as ever? I would just like to know what the RAF's intentions are in regard to recognising their cabin crew as aircrew.

As they are a Ground Trade employed on airborne duties then in my humble opinion they should be ‘Honorary Aircrew’ as per QRs. Originally, only Parachute Jump Instructors (PJIs) were afforded this in QRs (it goes back to 1945). The whole intent is to afford them that status so that they get access to improved medical screening and that they can be put in the Auth Sheets as Crew rather than Pax. Cabin Crew are already afforded both the medical screening and the fact that they appear as Crew in the Auth Sheets. So really, it is but in name.

Prior to 1 Apr 20, then Airborne Fighter Controller (FCs), Airborne Technicians (ATs) and Airborne Image Analysts (IAs) were also similar to the Cabin Crew but with different FC, AT and IA flying badges. They again are all drawn from a Ground Branch or Trade but employed in the live operation of the aircraft systems. This is also true of Mission Intelligence Coordinators (MICs) that operate the Reaper, and its SAR/GMTI in a similar way to the IAs on Sentinel, along with the Pilot and WSO or WSOp operating the rest of the aircraft and its systems. So on 1 Apr 20 the FCs, ATs, IAs and MICs were also given ‘Honorary Aircrew’ status, like the PJIs, and were collectively termed ‘Airborne Specialists’ to keep things tidy. Unfortunately, to keep it really tidy the Flight Test Engineers (FTEs) and Cabin Crew should have been included to keep everything neat.

So here are the revised flying badges, with their titles, in one shot. Flying Branch Officer Aircrew and Non-Commissioned Aircrew on the left, the only personnel permanently employed as aviators, and the ‘Honorary Aircrew’ on the right that are drawn from the Ground Branches and Trades.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1586x543/abf8de70_ac97_4923_b130_81ca63459941_2327b4d1cc419250faf3037 6ef65ea397ca3c458.jpeg

[Chugalug2]

Thanks for coming back with that info, LJ, I really appreciate it! So they remain a ground trade, even though we are told that their duties are becoming ever more airborne? That is an anomaly that one hopes will resolve itself eventually, but in the meantime honorary aircrew with a flying badge is a great improvement on Mess Steward with a CC ground trade badge. I hope that this plan succeeds, but it won't be an easy sell as witnessed by the hostility expressed on this thread and the 'Non-Traditional Aircrew' one :-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626419-non-traditional-aircrew.html

So I can only wish it well and urge all who might be as disturbed as I by the opposition to any notion that RAF cabin crew be seen as anything other than airborne waiters to support this initiative. Feeding and watering is the least of the duties of any CC, civil or military. Their role is to safeguard the lives of their passengers, and they are trained and practiced to do just that. They need to be accepted as an integral part of an aircraft crew to fulfil that role. They need to be accepted as aircrew!

Honorary they may be, but Aircrew they already most definitely are!

[Union Jack]

Amazed to see there's not mass uproar over the new flying badges.

I'd attach pics, but on wrong device...

In time-honoured fashion, is it too soon to ask Alfred if the thread is going the way he intended?:D

Jack

[heights good]

Thanks for coming back with that info, LJ, I really appreciate it! So they remain a ground trade, even though we are told that their duties are becoming ever more airborne? That is an anomaly that one hopes will resolve itself eventually, but in the meantime honorary aircrew with a flying badge is a great improvement on Mess Steward with a CC ground trade badge. I hope that this plan succeeds, but it won't be an easy sell as witnessed by the hostility expressed on this thread and the 'Non-Traditional Aircrew' one :-

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/626419-non-traditional-aircrew.html

So I can only wish it well and urge all who might be as disturbed as I by the opposition to any notion that RAF cabin crew be seen as anything other than airborne waiters to support this initiative. Feeding and watering is the least of the duties of any CC, civil or military. Their role is to safeguard the lives of their passengers, and they are trained and practiced to do just that. They need to be accepted as an integral part of an aircraft crew to fulfil that role. They need to be accepted as aircrew!

Honorary they may be, but Aircrew they already most definitely are!

we have ascertained that the documents dont support your hopes and dreams of mess stewards being aircrew. They are indeed waiters in the air who have also been given a bit extra training.

just let it go and accept your opinion is not based on fact, common sense or rational thought.

cabin crew are a role fit, end of discussion.

[alfred_the_great]

In time-honoured fashion, is it too soon to ask Alfred if the thread is going the way he intended?:D

Jack

as expected, frankly!

[Lima Juliet]

Just to close off Chug’s query. They are Trade Group (TG) 19 amongst the Ground Trades and they are entitled “TG19 Air & Ground Stewards”. The deal is that after joining they will all do an OCU and complete at least 1x flying tour, then they may well be employed on Mobile Catering Support Units (MCSUs) or work in the Messes or in other Catering roles. So the Cabin Crew role is very much one of many roles within their TG that they will be employed in during their career. When employed as Cabin Crew they do get access to enhanced medical screening, avmed trg, flying kit and also appear in the auth sheets as part of the Crew of the aircraft (only used on Voyager and BAe 146). So they are treated as part of the crew for passenger carrying roles on the aircraft - the terminology of Aircrew in the RAF is nuanced slightly in that only Officer Aircrew and Non-Commissioned Aircrew (NCA) of the Flying Branch are de facto Aircrew within the RAF. Which is why the term ‘Airborne Specialist’ has been chosen and probably should apply to them too (in my opinion). It also important to note that NCA are not a TG like the Other Rank Trades. They are a unique cadre in themselves and there legacy in regulations and KRs/QRs goes back to 1939 and the ill-fated 1947 Aircrew Scheme (of which only Master Aircrew rank badges survive!). They have unique terms of service and pay structures too.

You might like this little video on Cabin Crew conducting their role - they seem justifiably proud of it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skeKftrHUi8

[KBW10101]

Just to close off Chug’s query. They are Trade Group (TG) 19 amongst the Ground Trades and they are entitled “TG19 Air & Ground Stewards”. The deal is that after joining they will all do an OCU and complete at least 1x flying tour, then they may well be employed on Mobile Catering Support Units (MCSUs) or work in the Messes or in other Catering roles. So the Cabin Crew role is very much one of many roles within their TG that they will be employed in during their career. When employed as Cabin Crew they do get access to enhanced medical screening, avmed trg, flying kit and also appear in the auth sheets as part of the Crew of the aircraft (only used on Voyager and BAe 146). So they are treated as part of the crew for passenger carrying roles on the aircraft - the terminology of Aircrew in the RAF is nuanced slightly in that only Officer Aircrew and Non-Commissioned Aircrew (NCA) of the Flying Branch are de facto Aircrew within the RAF. Which is why the term ‘Airborne Specialist’ has been chosen and probably should apply to them too (in my opinion). It also important to note that NCA are not a TG like the Other Rank Trades. They are a unique cadre in themselves and there legacy in regulations and KRs/QRs goes back to 1939 and the ill-fated 1947 Aircrew Scheme (of which only Master Aircrew rank badges survive!). They have unique terms of service and pay structures too.

You might like this little video on Cabin Crew conducting their role - they seem justifiably proud of it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skeKftrHUi8




Im sure theyll be thrilled as a trade to lose one of the wings and lose their "CC" identifier to be replaced with an RAF Airborne Specilaist Flying Badge...

Mind you - at least that theyd be wearing the new aircrew Flying Badge in the correct place on their uniform then- instead of where their current Trade Badge should be worn (left arm), but isnt.

Before Chugalug spools up: This is not CC bashing- this is the steady demise of the aircrew Flying Badge and status in itself. As soon as you start handing them out to more and more trades who aren't aircrew (every trade in the Airborne specialist) and haven't attended OASC/IOT/NCAITC/CFS Fg Trg/ OCU's you immediately devalue the merit of the original Flying Badge. Removing the crown and pretending its not essentially the same Flying Badge is utterly ludircous.


How about you award the CC trade a Pilot's Flying badge with TWO wings, then just simply remove the Crown- it looks a LOT like the current trade badge doesnt it? but no. You and I both know the Pilots wouldnt have would they? and why should they. The Pilots Flying Badge would never be altered or handed to another trade for the very same reasons ive stated above.

[Harley Quinn]

The Pilots Flying Badge would never be altered or handed to another trade for the very same reasons ive stated above.

Isn't that exactly what happened when UAVs or UASs or whatever started having ab initio pilots?

[KBW10101]

Isn't that exactly what happened when UAVs or UASs or whatever started having ab initio pilots?

No, becuase they were pilots and completed OASC/IOT/EFT/ Adv Fg Trg. They are still pilots.

[alfred_the_great]

No, becuase they were pilots and completed OASC/IOT/EFT/ Adv Fg Trg. They were still pilots.

brave Sir, brave.

[KBW10101]

brave Sir, brave.

Brave calling them Pilots? (which they are) or some other sarcastic Bravery intention ive missed? Do tell...

[Harley Quinn]

Kbw101010101, you may bluster all you like; UAV the pilots badge deliberately differentiated between them and 'real pilots' as the thread that ran on here showed at the time.
In case anyone has forgotten the laurel leaves were a different colour.
Heres the teddies being thrown out of the cot first time round. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/511584-rpas-pilots-awarded-wings.html)

[alfred_the_great]

Kbw101010101, you may bluster all you like; UAV the pilots badge deliberately differentiated between them and 'real pilots' as the thread that ran on here showed at the time.
In case anyone has forgotten the laurel leaves were a different colour.
Heres the teddies being thrown out of the cot first time round. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/511584-rpas-pilots-awarded-wings.html)

no longer - same badge now.

KB - that response is why you were brave!

[Lima Juliet]

KBW10110011011010101

You and I both know the Pilots wouldnt have would they? and why should they. The Pilots Flying Badge would never be altered or handed to another trade for the very same reasons ive stated above.

Any Branch or Trade can qualify for the VR or G flying badges? Also, the RPAS(P) badge was a b@stardised version of the original badge too. So, I’m afraid you are wrong on that...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1457x240/9f4c8929_6e72_4d6e_83dd_42b36ef92e47_814b7eb283514fca50e645b 545f56084df22bd52.jpeg

[KBW10101]

KBW10110011011010101



Any Branch or Trade can qualify for the VR or G flying badges? Also, the RPAS(P) badge was a b@stardised version of the original badge too. So, I’m afraid you are wrong on that...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1457x240/9f4c8929_6e72_4d6e_83dd_42b36ef92e47_814b7eb283514fca50e645b 545f56084df22bd52.jpeg

I was referring to full time pilots - apologies I didn’t make that clear. Not reserve pilots or VR or even glider pilots. But full time regular pilots.

Plus as stated the RPAS pilot wings blue laurels were changed back - the reasons for which I’m sure are debated elsewhere on here but the fact remains they altered it to suit a particular skill set: and then funnily enough.... changed it right back....

Hence my original statement of “they wouldn’t dare alter the pilot wings/ nor would they get away with it” or words to that affect.

If that weren’t the case - the laurels would still be blue. But they are not.

Altering flying badges / yet again altering well established flying badges to suit a particular career objective of someone in a staff job is ludicrous. Not only is it wasteful in hours spent staffing the paperwork- but also in the cost of manufacture of new flying badges and the hours wasted in Tailoring.

As long as the OJAR narrative is strong enough for the SO to get the next rank up it’s all good I suppose. Nothing had changed there....

[RAFEngO74to09]

OMG - standby for many more pages on PPRuNe !

(6) Justin Wall on Twitter: "Ok. That’s enough!!! I can’t find anywhere else I’m allowed to sew on the new Airborne Specialist flying badge. Mission completed. #veryproud #lifeswork #royalairforce https://t.co/rLqxo1SVPZ" / Twitter