Jag pilots to be airborne FC's?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr B,
Last I heard, they were doing fine and should be starting the E-3D OCU in Oct.
In terms of 'big picture' understanding from the FC Branch hierarchy...I'll make no comment!!
Regrettably for many very sharp FC guys out there, the branch has consistently shot itself in the foot ever since the first FC brevet was awarded 21 years ago.
Regards,
M2
Last I heard, they were doing fine and should be starting the E-3D OCU in Oct.
In terms of 'big picture' understanding from the FC Branch hierarchy...I'll make no comment!!
Regrettably for many very sharp FC guys out there, the branch has consistently shot itself in the foot ever since the first FC brevet was awarded 21 years ago.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of spoiling a potential inter-branch slagging match 
I say good luck to them on the jet - they will add much to the party....
What keeps the E3D top of its tree is the diversity of experience on the jet - Fast Jet, Maritime, FC etc...
I say good luck to them on the jet - they will add much to the party....What keeps the E3D top of its tree is the diversity of experience on the jet - Fast Jet, Maritime, FC etc...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonicstomp,
Couldn't agree more!! The nice thing at Waddo is that the majority are blind to brevet and rank.
Regrettably, some individuals outside the Component are not so open minded.
Regards,
M2
Couldn't agree more!! The nice thing at Waddo is that the majority are blind to brevet and rank.
Regrettably, some individuals outside the Component are not so open minded.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Deepest Lincolnshire
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of WSO/WSOps (nine MR2 crews and an F3 sqn) soon to be looking for flying jobs. Will this address the planned increase in the number of E-3D crews? Indeed, will it accelerate a move towards an E-3D mission crew consisting entirely of aircrew branches/trades vice Ops Spt FCs and TG12? Not saying its a good thing, as logic dictates a good mix of experience (as discussed above), and I know its an old chestnut. However, this time, there will be a lot of aircrew looking for new airborne careers.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YB,
The loss of the F3 and Nimrod units will not entirely address the build up in E-3D crews. However, I think that the presence of OSB(FC), SNCO FC and TG12 on the E-3D are indeed numbered in both surveillance and weapons specialisations. Notwithstanding plans to finally sort the status of FC and ATs by their inclusion in MFTS, I can't see them being there post approx 2010.
Regards, M2
The loss of the F3 and Nimrod units will not entirely address the build up in E-3D crews. However, I think that the presence of OSB(FC), SNCO FC and TG12 on the E-3D are indeed numbered in both surveillance and weapons specialisations. Notwithstanding plans to finally sort the status of FC and ATs by their inclusion in MFTS, I can't see them being there post approx 2010.
Regards, M2
Dear Non fast-jet, esp Mr Bridger!
having spent 3000 hrs as a fast jet (GR1/4) NAV, i'm not a WSO of non-descript brevert - you "non pilot" / "non navs" are the biggest bunch of !@#$%%^ around! I really can't see what you have to do down the back there, please tell me!
having spent 3000 hrs as a fast jet (GR1/4) NAV, i'm not a WSO of non-descript brevert - you "non pilot" / "non navs" are the biggest bunch of !@#$%%^ around! I really can't see what you have to do down the back there, please tell me!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Deepest Lincolnshire
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2250
(At the risk of biting) - Clearly you need to expand your horizons beyond your own specialisation and come and see for yourself. Considering we provide a service to all players during a conflict (indeed, if we're not there, you don't go anywhere 'hot') its often disappointing how few aircrew from other roles come flying with us. Not only would it help you appreciate our capabilities and limitations, it may also help us to develop the services we provide. So, take the blinkers off and come for a ride....and the curry is free...
(At the risk of biting) - Clearly you need to expand your horizons beyond your own specialisation and come and see for yourself. Considering we provide a service to all players during a conflict (indeed, if we're not there, you don't go anywhere 'hot') its often disappointing how few aircrew from other roles come flying with us. Not only would it help you appreciate our capabilities and limitations, it may also help us to develop the services we provide. So, take the blinkers off and come for a ride....and the curry is free...
sorry everybody, was late night, was pissed
lesson is don't try to join an argument when you log-on late after closing time!
the moring after I can't think what my point was anyway.
not sure what a brevert is either!
please accept apologies
lesson is don't try to join an argument when you log-on late after closing time!
the moring after I can't think what my point was anyway.
not sure what a brevert is either!
please accept apologies
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word on the street is that the WSOs on the FC cse up at Boulmer at the mo may not be doing that well. Rumours are that one of them has been known to be rather vocal in how they are really not enjoying the cse and are not looking forward to going to Waddo.
This certainly does not bode well for the future!
GB
This certainly does not bode well for the future!
GB
Last edited by gadgetbent; 3rd Aug 2004 at 16:39.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance,
I think that you are maybe trying to get a rise out of FCs with those unqualified comments.
If that really is a genuine slap aimed at FCs then at least come up some justification!!
GB
I think that you are maybe trying to get a rise out of FCs with those unqualified comments.
If that really is a genuine slap aimed at FCs then at least come up some justification!!
GB
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not trying set myself up as a shining example of moderation and wisdom, but I would counsel against posting comments referriing to personnel who may be easily identifiable ("normal" personnel that is, and not our glorious leaders) and who may be undergoing a course of training with career implications. This could lead at the very least to teddies exiting cot and possibly to more.
Now, back into normal slander mode....
Now, back into normal slander mode....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTD,
I do agree that it is unfair to post info that can lead to somebody being identified. But on the flip side it is also unfair on the FC Branch, which is struggling at the best of times, to be gaining people who have absolutely no interest in the job and who happily slander the branch knowing very little about it.
I will move on and apologise for causing offence.
GB
I do agree that it is unfair to post info that can lead to somebody being identified. But on the flip side it is also unfair on the FC Branch, which is struggling at the best of times, to be gaining people who have absolutely no interest in the job and who happily slander the branch knowing very little about it.
I will move on and apologise for causing offence.
GB
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
Would a WSO or N end up with a FC brevet if they ended up the back end of the E3?
In fact, are WSOs "streamed" to go straight to the jet or will they do their time underground like everyone else? It would seem extremely unfair if "proper" FCs are denied fair competition!
JTD
Would a WSO or N end up with a FC brevet if they ended up the back end of the E3?
In fact, are WSOs "streamed" to go straight to the jet or will they do their time underground like everyone else? It would seem extremely unfair if "proper" FCs are denied fair competition!
JTD
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jess
Direct to E-3D once they reach the CQ standard. This will require a period in the CRC for live trg.
At the last count, Weapons Controller Trg consisted of 5 phases. IIRC:
1. Sim at SFC Boulmer.
2. Live (and Sim) at CRC (up to 2v2, subordinate WC for split freq).
3. CR Course (FT at SFC)
4. Trg to LCR (QRA, AAR, multi-ship, FM/MM etc etc)
5. Trg to CR (large scale exercises etc).
If what I hear is correct, the WSO candidates will go to E-3Ds after Phase 2. This is a pretty basic standard to reach, and I wonder whether it will increase the burdon on the E-3D Conversion Course. Previously, for FC candidates at least, the required standard was to have completed Phase 5, and preferably more than one tour!
Some people believe 2 years spent in the CRC would be a waste for those with previous experience in the air (see MagicMushroom's previous comments). For what it's worth. I think that going straight after Phase 2 is likely to be problematic for other reasons. How about a middle way, perhaps a year in the CRC and then an E-3D course?
One final thing; what will happen to WSOs taking this route if they fail to reach the WC CQ standard? Back from whence they came? Re-stream Surveillance? I guess time will tell.
Good luck to anyone trying it.
Direct to E-3D once they reach the CQ standard. This will require a period in the CRC for live trg.
At the last count, Weapons Controller Trg consisted of 5 phases. IIRC:
1. Sim at SFC Boulmer.
2. Live (and Sim) at CRC (up to 2v2, subordinate WC for split freq).
3. CR Course (FT at SFC)
4. Trg to LCR (QRA, AAR, multi-ship, FM/MM etc etc)
5. Trg to CR (large scale exercises etc).
If what I hear is correct, the WSO candidates will go to E-3Ds after Phase 2. This is a pretty basic standard to reach, and I wonder whether it will increase the burdon on the E-3D Conversion Course. Previously, for FC candidates at least, the required standard was to have completed Phase 5, and preferably more than one tour!
Some people believe 2 years spent in the CRC would be a waste for those with previous experience in the air (see MagicMushroom's previous comments). For what it's worth. I think that going straight after Phase 2 is likely to be problematic for other reasons. How about a middle way, perhaps a year in the CRC and then an E-3D course?
One final thing; what will happen to WSOs taking this route if they fail to reach the WC CQ standard? Back from whence they came? Re-stream Surveillance? I guess time will tell.
Good luck to anyone trying it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with the comments made by SirToppamHat.
It is potentially going to cause a lot of problems. The WSOs are doing a very curtailled Phase 2 when they go down the Bunker in a few weeks. How can they be expected to learn all the tools needed to control in a bunker and then continue on a considerably more difficult E3 conversion cse immediately after? Surely a spell of consolidation would be sensible.
What if they do fail? Perhaps the E3 cse will be another auto-grad situation?! The FC branch has to hope not!!
Deliverance,
Agreed, it is a massive lottery as to how good the control you get is. The bunkers have a massive problem with experience so the odds are severely against you getting a competent experienced and relaxed controller. Half the time you get a baby controller who has little experience of controlling anything other than 2v2 in the MDAs.
A few of us try to keep the standards up!!
GB
It is potentially going to cause a lot of problems. The WSOs are doing a very curtailled Phase 2 when they go down the Bunker in a few weeks. How can they be expected to learn all the tools needed to control in a bunker and then continue on a considerably more difficult E3 conversion cse immediately after? Surely a spell of consolidation would be sensible.
What if they do fail? Perhaps the E3 cse will be another auto-grad situation?! The FC branch has to hope not!!
Deliverance,
Agreed, it is a massive lottery as to how good the control you get is. The bunkers have a massive problem with experience so the odds are severely against you getting a competent experienced and relaxed controller. Half the time you get a baby controller who has little experience of controlling anything other than 2v2 in the MDAs.
A few of us try to keep the standards up!!
GB
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTD,
The WSOs in question will keep their original brevets just as the nav and AEO WC personnel that we've had at Waddo for many years have. This is because they will still be WSOs, albeit WSOs who have passed the WC course; they will not be branch changed nor have their terms of service altered.
As far as the validity of time in the CRCs goes, Sentry Trg Flt are currently trying to cope with personnel who largely graduated as WCs after the BQ standard was lowered considerably (and such essential items as close control etc were binned from the syllabus). As a result, STF are now often instructing at a level that would have been considered far below BQ standard only 4 years ago. Therefore, what the WSOs will lack in CRC control experience, they will gain from operational aircrew background. Although they will offer different trg challenges to an OSB(FC) with 12-18 months CRC experience, they will in my opinion be no worse a trg risk.
Additionally, much of the CRC CR syllabus is irrelevant to E-3D ops (a classic example being Maritime Marshall). The average CRC WC has - to an extent - to be 'de-trained' in certain aspects of CRC methodology when arriving at Waddington (eg he has to plan far more rather than rely on coordination with ATC). Before anyone starts screaming 'elitism', I am in no way suggesting that E-3D personnel are better than those in the CRCs. My comments are merely a reflection that the requirements of E-3D mission crew differ considerably from those of ground based units because their jobs are very different.
If anything, I believe that the length of time being stipulated by the SFC for WSOs undergoing WC trg is overly conservative. Certainly a year of 'time in the bunker' would (IMHO) be nugatory effort.
Regrettably, many in the FC branch have long viewed the E-3D as 'their' right and I have heard many senior FCs stating that people need to be rotated through the jet to give others 'a break from the CRCs' and that 'we must remain focused upon what is best for the (FC) branch'.
However, what is good for the FC branch in terms of E-3D manning may not necessarily be what is good for the wider Service. Getting a far more cosmopolitan mix of E-3D WC background (eg GR4, Tac/SF AT, SH and AAC) would be a major advantage for the E-3D in modern ops.
Regards,
M2
The WSOs in question will keep their original brevets just as the nav and AEO WC personnel that we've had at Waddo for many years have. This is because they will still be WSOs, albeit WSOs who have passed the WC course; they will not be branch changed nor have their terms of service altered.
As far as the validity of time in the CRCs goes, Sentry Trg Flt are currently trying to cope with personnel who largely graduated as WCs after the BQ standard was lowered considerably (and such essential items as close control etc were binned from the syllabus). As a result, STF are now often instructing at a level that would have been considered far below BQ standard only 4 years ago. Therefore, what the WSOs will lack in CRC control experience, they will gain from operational aircrew background. Although they will offer different trg challenges to an OSB(FC) with 12-18 months CRC experience, they will in my opinion be no worse a trg risk.
Additionally, much of the CRC CR syllabus is irrelevant to E-3D ops (a classic example being Maritime Marshall). The average CRC WC has - to an extent - to be 'de-trained' in certain aspects of CRC methodology when arriving at Waddington (eg he has to plan far more rather than rely on coordination with ATC). Before anyone starts screaming 'elitism', I am in no way suggesting that E-3D personnel are better than those in the CRCs. My comments are merely a reflection that the requirements of E-3D mission crew differ considerably from those of ground based units because their jobs are very different.
If anything, I believe that the length of time being stipulated by the SFC for WSOs undergoing WC trg is overly conservative. Certainly a year of 'time in the bunker' would (IMHO) be nugatory effort.
Regrettably, many in the FC branch have long viewed the E-3D as 'their' right and I have heard many senior FCs stating that people need to be rotated through the jet to give others 'a break from the CRCs' and that 'we must remain focused upon what is best for the (FC) branch'.
However, what is good for the FC branch in terms of E-3D manning may not necessarily be what is good for the wider Service. Getting a far more cosmopolitan mix of E-3D WC background (eg GR4, Tac/SF AT, SH and AAC) would be a major advantage for the E-3D in modern ops.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
What? The CQ is already very limited. Reducing time still further must surely mean that Nav candidates are trained to an even lower level? Or perhaps you are suggesting that they should undertake a more intense course. Whichever, I stand by my view that the existing plan is short-sighted.
If you want to train these people as controllers, then let them complete the whole course. If they bring so much to the party, they will have no trouble qualifying and even less completing the OJT and FT to CR. I have no problem with their being guaranteed E-3D duties (they are already receiving flying pay), albeit after a necessary (but much reduced) period in a CRC.
If the reason for re-training is to get these people onto the E-3D just because of their wider experience, then why bother training as a WC - surely it would be far simpler to put them through Surveillance Trg?
IMHO, the way the current plans are shaping up, graduates from this bastardised course will be neither one thing nor the other. Hardly fair to them, their instructors, the E-3D Force or in the 'Wider Service Interest'.
STH
If anything, I believe that the length of time being stipulated by the SFC for WSOs undergoing WC trg is overly conservative.
If you want to train these people as controllers, then let them complete the whole course. If they bring so much to the party, they will have no trouble qualifying and even less completing the OJT and FT to CR. I have no problem with their being guaranteed E-3D duties (they are already receiving flying pay), albeit after a necessary (but much reduced) period in a CRC.
If the reason for re-training is to get these people onto the E-3D just because of their wider experience, then why bother training as a WC - surely it would be far simpler to put them through Surveillance Trg?
IMHO, the way the current plans are shaping up, graduates from this bastardised course will be neither one thing nor the other. Hardly fair to them, their instructors, the E-3D Force or in the 'Wider Service Interest'.
STH
Last edited by SirToppamHat; 2nd Aug 2004 at 13:55.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM,
A lot of your views are valid and in principal many FCs have no problem with WSOs being "fast tracked" to the Jet.
I do have a couple of issues that I do want to take you to task for!
1) Maritime Marshall is not on the WC CR Trg Syllabus and has not been for several years. Not knowing this clearly shows an elitist disregard for the current SFC WC Trg Syllabus.
2) We both know that FJ aircrew have a very crude and often misinformed understanding of radar services. The crash cse that the WSOs are being subjected to can hardly equip them with all the tools needed to operate safely in the Jet.
3) I agree that the current CQ standard is very low. What does STF expect the WSOs to be qualified to do when they arrive - 1v2s or 4v4s- just a slight difference!
I do wish the WSOs the best of luck and recommend that they stop slagging of the FC Branch when they clearly have no idea what it does.
GB
p.s. Being a Direct Entrant and not having the pleasure of a Uni ed - what the f*** does "nugatory" mean?!
A lot of your views are valid and in principal many FCs have no problem with WSOs being "fast tracked" to the Jet.
I do have a couple of issues that I do want to take you to task for!
1) Maritime Marshall is not on the WC CR Trg Syllabus and has not been for several years. Not knowing this clearly shows an elitist disregard for the current SFC WC Trg Syllabus.
2) We both know that FJ aircrew have a very crude and often misinformed understanding of radar services. The crash cse that the WSOs are being subjected to can hardly equip them with all the tools needed to operate safely in the Jet.
3) I agree that the current CQ standard is very low. What does STF expect the WSOs to be qualified to do when they arrive - 1v2s or 4v4s- just a slight difference!
I do wish the WSOs the best of luck and recommend that they stop slagging of the FC Branch when they clearly have no idea what it does.
GB
p.s. Being a Direct Entrant and not having the pleasure of a Uni ed - what the f*** does "nugatory" mean?!
Last edited by gadgetbent; 2nd Aug 2004 at 19:53.