Aircraft "Captain"
Thread Starter
Aircraft "Captain"
From the RAF recruitment site:
A WSO Says: ‘As the aircraft captain I’m responsible for everybody on board. In some respects, a Nimrod crew is like a sports team on tour, especially when we’re overseas. As the team captain, I have to organise accommodation, transport, local currency and so on. The camaraderie, the banter and the professionalism are terrific – I have a great crew.’
Now the guy starts off as the "Aircraft Captain".. I might be retarded here... or missing the point (not unusual!) but I always thought that the Captain usually occupies the LHS at the pointy end.
Whats the world coming to? Or was that a typo (as I suspect)?
[Edited for typo]
A WSO Says: ‘As the aircraft captain I’m responsible for everybody on board. In some respects, a Nimrod crew is like a sports team on tour, especially when we’re overseas. As the team captain, I have to organise accommodation, transport, local currency and so on. The camaraderie, the banter and the professionalism are terrific – I have a great crew.’
Now the guy starts off as the "Aircraft Captain".. I might be retarded here... or missing the point (not unusual!) but I always thought that the Captain usually occupies the LHS at the pointy end.
Whats the world coming to? Or was that a typo (as I suspect)?
[Edited for typo]
Last edited by flash8; 28th Feb 2005 at 09:22.
A number of navigators (and AEOs) have been appointed as 'Captain' for many years in the Nimrod fleet. So a WSO 'Captain' is nothing new.
I'm not sure about any other ME fleets in the RAF, apart from the AT/AAR world where the Captain is invariably the LHS occupant (except during flying training sorties), but it is a relatively commonplace practice in the kipper fleet.
I'm not sure about any other ME fleets in the RAF, apart from the AT/AAR world where the Captain is invariably the LHS occupant (except during flying training sorties), but it is a relatively commonplace practice in the kipper fleet.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: near the squirrel sanctuary
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Back end captains'.
I never had a problem.
Pointy end had responsibility for ensuring that the ac is in the right place at the right time etc
TacNav/AEO (or WSO 1 and 2 ?) were responsible for the tactics.
Captain had the deciding vote.
The operators made sure that the TacNav had all the information required to determine appropriate tactics.
No snags.
kipper.
Although the big badge sqn did have a Society Against Back End Captains (SABEC)
I never had a problem.
Pointy end had responsibility for ensuring that the ac is in the right place at the right time etc
TacNav/AEO (or WSO 1 and 2 ?) were responsible for the tactics.
Captain had the deciding vote.
The operators made sure that the TacNav had all the information required to determine appropriate tactics.
No snags.
kipper.
Although the big badge sqn did have a Society Against Back End Captains (SABEC)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of related thoughts:
If a Nav or AEO could be a Kipper Kaptain and fight the aircraft why couldn't a Nav or Tactical Director be captain of the E3D (perhaps because when it entered Service it was in 11 Gp and they'd never concede that anyone other than the pilot could be skipper)
Knew a nav who went on exchange with the German Air Force flying Transalls. Apparently their norm was for the senior man on board to be captain of the aircraft - something of a novelty for our bold Ascoteer on exchange - hmm wonder what Innsworth made of all those 'captain' hours recorded on his 1369?
It really doesn't matter who is the 'captain' provided each crew member knows his role and responsibilities.
If a Nav or AEO could be a Kipper Kaptain and fight the aircraft why couldn't a Nav or Tactical Director be captain of the E3D (perhaps because when it entered Service it was in 11 Gp and they'd never concede that anyone other than the pilot could be skipper)
Knew a nav who went on exchange with the German Air Force flying Transalls. Apparently their norm was for the senior man on board to be captain of the aircraft - something of a novelty for our bold Ascoteer on exchange - hmm wonder what Innsworth made of all those 'captain' hours recorded on his 1369?
It really doesn't matter who is the 'captain' provided each crew member knows his role and responsibilities.
Remember one Nav CAPTAIN from 201. Cost a cartoon for beers if his name was ever mentioned in public!!! Remember when guesting on his crew for a hard working static display at some euro airshow, his famous advise that we should do a very careful control check before departure. Wise words indeed. Think I said I would if he would check that his pencils were nicely sharpened.
Only two backenders I know of really did the job properly. One be dimmer switch, and the other that deaf dumb and blind kid that moved to Oz.
Still, it is really like when branters's mrs gives you a kiss goodbye.....just not right!!!
Don
Only two backenders I know of really did the job properly. One be dimmer switch, and the other that deaf dumb and blind kid that moved to Oz.
Still, it is really like when branters's mrs gives you a kiss goodbye.....just not right!!!
Don
Or, as described to me once by a Nimrod pilot....
"It's like driving your car with your b£oody mother-in-law in the back nagging at you all the damn time! But try to get the old bat to read the map for you and she cocks it up"
"It's like driving your car with your b£oody mother-in-law in the back nagging at you all the damn time! But try to get the old bat to read the map for you and she cocks it up"
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impiger - A TD on the E3 could indeed be an a/c captain if you apply the same rationale used on the Kipper fleet.
Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
IMHO the TD - Captain (senior pilot) system works very well.
The TD "directs the tactics" and the Captain retains overall command and right of veto.
In practice, a TD & skipper who work closely together provide the best solution in achieving safe and effective mission accomplishment.
TD training would have to be significantly expanded to enable them to become a/c commanders and IMHO they are busy enough chaps as it is!!
A good TD will know enough about the air vehicle to make the prudent tactical decisions that affect the 'mission' and a good Captain (pilot) will know enough about the conduct of the mission to best optimize the sensors, effect a safe self-defence posture and ultimately ensure the mission is a success. (oh, and fly the friggin thing!)
Incidentally, I have never detected a ground-swell of opinion from E3 rear-crew to challenge the current system. The success of the fleet on live ops (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan & Iraq) would suggest the "system works".
Thoughts anyone?
Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.
IMHO the TD - Captain (senior pilot) system works very well.
The TD "directs the tactics" and the Captain retains overall command and right of veto.
In practice, a TD & skipper who work closely together provide the best solution in achieving safe and effective mission accomplishment.
TD training would have to be significantly expanded to enable them to become a/c commanders and IMHO they are busy enough chaps as it is!!
A good TD will know enough about the air vehicle to make the prudent tactical decisions that affect the 'mission' and a good Captain (pilot) will know enough about the conduct of the mission to best optimize the sensors, effect a safe self-defence posture and ultimately ensure the mission is a success. (oh, and fly the friggin thing!)
Incidentally, I have never detected a ground-swell of opinion from E3 rear-crew to challenge the current system. The success of the fleet on live ops (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan & Iraq) would suggest the "system works".
Thoughts anyone?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In the mighty V the 1st Pilot was the captain with the casting vote but 'operational control' moved around the crew stations depending on the stage of the mission.
'twas a foolish man that did not follow the guidance experts advice especially as the pilots only controlled the ILS and the V/UHF radios and even there the AEO had a vote.
I have flown with one pillock who was captain and acted the part. The same part as Orson Welles portrayed on the good ship Bounty and it didn't half show!
'twas a foolish man that did not follow the guidance experts advice especially as the pilots only controlled the ILS and the V/UHF radios and even there the AEO had a vote.
I have flown with one pillock who was captain and acted the part. The same part as Orson Welles portrayed on the good ship Bounty and it didn't half show!
Orson Welles in the 'Mutiny on the Bounty'?
He acted in a radio version in 1939 - did you really hear that, PN? Or did you mean Charles Laughton in the role of Capt Bligh in the 1935 version?
One thing the V-force did have right was the "First, Co, Rad, Plot, AEO" crew response on intercomm. And if things were serious, then "Captain to Crew" raised the level of attention appropriately! Much easier than the truckie force where the U/T captain is called 'Captain' even if he/she isn't, with the real Captain, the QFI, sitting in the co-pilot's seat!
He acted in a radio version in 1939 - did you really hear that, PN? Or did you mean Charles Laughton in the role of Capt Bligh in the 1935 version?
One thing the V-force did have right was the "First, Co, Rad, Plot, AEO" crew response on intercomm. And if things were serious, then "Captain to Crew" raised the level of attention appropriately! Much easier than the truckie force where the U/T captain is called 'Captain' even if he/she isn't, with the real Captain, the QFI, sitting in the co-pilot's seat!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In almost 5000 hrs on AWACS - mostly as a TD - as sonicstomp says, I've never viewed the capt-TD relationship an issue.
The flt deck are very reliant upon the mission crew for tactical SA, and us goats have no flt instruments or windows. Moreover, during the mission, the TD will almost certainly not be listening to an ATC radio. IMHO, it's largely a matter of semantics: place the right guy in the capt (left or right!) and TD seats and things work fine. I've never had one of my decisions countermanded by the capt and I've never felt the need to question a capt. As stomp says, actions (during ops) speak louder than words and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!' Likewise however, I feel that the TD should always have retrograde authority...
..which brings me onto the JSTARS who have a very strange system with an extra 'decision layer'. Here the capt is always the Aircraft Commander (AC or 1st pilot) and the Mission Crew Commander (MCC=TD) is in charge of the mission. However, the nav acts as the Defensive Systems Officer and makes decisions regarding retrogrades! Whilst the E-8C nav does sit down the back and has a mission display (unlike on AWACS), I've yet to meet a JSTARS AC or MCC who is comfortable with this system.
Incidentally, I think the RN have a rear crew (or in the case of the Lynx, left hand seat) captain system (they certainly do on the Sea King ASaC7).
Regards,
M2
The flt deck are very reliant upon the mission crew for tactical SA, and us goats have no flt instruments or windows. Moreover, during the mission, the TD will almost certainly not be listening to an ATC radio. IMHO, it's largely a matter of semantics: place the right guy in the capt (left or right!) and TD seats and things work fine. I've never had one of my decisions countermanded by the capt and I've never felt the need to question a capt. As stomp says, actions (during ops) speak louder than words and 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it!!' Likewise however, I feel that the TD should always have retrograde authority...
..which brings me onto the JSTARS who have a very strange system with an extra 'decision layer'. Here the capt is always the Aircraft Commander (AC or 1st pilot) and the Mission Crew Commander (MCC=TD) is in charge of the mission. However, the nav acts as the Defensive Systems Officer and makes decisions regarding retrogrades! Whilst the E-8C nav does sit down the back and has a mission display (unlike on AWACS), I've yet to meet a JSTARS AC or MCC who is comfortable with this system.
Incidentally, I think the RN have a rear crew (or in the case of the Lynx, left hand seat) captain system (they certainly do on the Sea King ASaC7).
Regards,
M2
The USN VP squadrons used to use the terms Mission Commander and PPC (Pilot Plane Commander) - they could be the same person. It worked pretty much like the Nimrod fleet in practice, but seemed to satisfy the ego/emotive wrangling issue...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: On The Road
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captaincy = Leadership…………not just sitting in the LHS
The Nimrod Maritime fleet has a long history of appointing (in the main) the best officer for the position of captain. The task of leading a Nimrod crew has nothing to do with where you sit. Some people are better leaders than others. Nimrod captains are generally above average operators with at least a couple of years experience under their belts. I have flown with, and known, poor through excellent captains of every flavour. Don’t believe that pilots have not been at the poorer end either. Sitting at the front does not automatically make you a good leader of a 12 body crew.
For doubters like flash8, the Nimrod captain takes responsibility for the whole shooting match, including signing for the aircraft. In this way you have one person in charge, there is no delineation between plane commander and mission commander, the captain carries the can. The line MR Nimrod crew is a constituted team with one designated leader. If the captain is a back ender the first pilot is responsible to him/her for the safe operation of the aircraft and should be able to put up with the occasional daft comment (suggesting that a closer look at everything after a weekend on static might not be that daft actually). If the captain is a pilot he expects the first nav to get the mission done as effectively as possible with the odd helpful interjection of tactical brilliance from the flight deck (have you tried barra, could it be down slope enhancement and other gems).
Donpizmeov shows his narrow field of view by stating that he has only known of 2 backenders that ‘did the job properly’ and judging by what he said they were both AEO’s. What absolute rubbish. I reckon that, conservatively, there must have been at least 300 back end captains at Kinloss in just the last 20 years. Don only knows of 2 that did the job properly? Dull statement Donnie. I bet the AEO captain of the Fincastle winning crew this week would respect your balanced point of view.
Bit rude about Mrs Branters as well. Comments like that don’t give you much cred as far as I am concerned.
The Royal Air Force’s Long Range Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force has been doing its business for decades as well as, if not better than in many respects, any comparable force in the world. Its methods work. Most of you seem to have no understanding of those methods. Why don’t we all stick to what we know and avoid hearsay and drivel? Those of you from the MPA community should not be too self deprecating either; you might end up down the same dead end as the Dutch.
There have been a couple more posts since I started this. Reynoldsno1. The P3 has a mission commander and plane commander. The plane commander is always a pilot. Big difference from the Nimrod.
E3D TD/Nimrod WSO. No comparison as far as I’m concerned. The E3 back end is operating a radar system that happens to be airborne. A good chunk of the crew are not actually aircrew. The flight deck is toting a radar station round the sky in circles. Again, different from the Nimrod MR doing maritime stuff.
By the way, Human Factors, your comment makes your nickname something of an oxymoron doesn't it?
Folding Wings. Sorry, didn’t see the other stuff.
The Nimrod Maritime fleet has a long history of appointing (in the main) the best officer for the position of captain. The task of leading a Nimrod crew has nothing to do with where you sit. Some people are better leaders than others. Nimrod captains are generally above average operators with at least a couple of years experience under their belts. I have flown with, and known, poor through excellent captains of every flavour. Don’t believe that pilots have not been at the poorer end either. Sitting at the front does not automatically make you a good leader of a 12 body crew.
For doubters like flash8, the Nimrod captain takes responsibility for the whole shooting match, including signing for the aircraft. In this way you have one person in charge, there is no delineation between plane commander and mission commander, the captain carries the can. The line MR Nimrod crew is a constituted team with one designated leader. If the captain is a back ender the first pilot is responsible to him/her for the safe operation of the aircraft and should be able to put up with the occasional daft comment (suggesting that a closer look at everything after a weekend on static might not be that daft actually). If the captain is a pilot he expects the first nav to get the mission done as effectively as possible with the odd helpful interjection of tactical brilliance from the flight deck (have you tried barra, could it be down slope enhancement and other gems).
Donpizmeov shows his narrow field of view by stating that he has only known of 2 backenders that ‘did the job properly’ and judging by what he said they were both AEO’s. What absolute rubbish. I reckon that, conservatively, there must have been at least 300 back end captains at Kinloss in just the last 20 years. Don only knows of 2 that did the job properly? Dull statement Donnie. I bet the AEO captain of the Fincastle winning crew this week would respect your balanced point of view.
Bit rude about Mrs Branters as well. Comments like that don’t give you much cred as far as I am concerned.
The Royal Air Force’s Long Range Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force has been doing its business for decades as well as, if not better than in many respects, any comparable force in the world. Its methods work. Most of you seem to have no understanding of those methods. Why don’t we all stick to what we know and avoid hearsay and drivel? Those of you from the MPA community should not be too self deprecating either; you might end up down the same dead end as the Dutch.
There have been a couple more posts since I started this. Reynoldsno1. The P3 has a mission commander and plane commander. The plane commander is always a pilot. Big difference from the Nimrod.
E3D TD/Nimrod WSO. No comparison as far as I’m concerned. The E3 back end is operating a radar system that happens to be airborne. A good chunk of the crew are not actually aircrew. The flight deck is toting a radar station round the sky in circles. Again, different from the Nimrod MR doing maritime stuff.
By the way, Human Factors, your comment makes your nickname something of an oxymoron doesn't it?
Folding Wings. Sorry, didn’t see the other stuff.
Reynoldsno1. The P3 has a mission commander and plane commander. The plane commander is always a pilot. Big difference from the Nimrod.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did go round the buoy on this a month or so ago however to add to MM's comment in the RN the senior officer aboard (pilot or observer) is normally the aircraft captain. This will not be the case in certain instances of specific training (with a QHI or QOI the a/c captain) OR if the Authoriser wishes to nominate someone else as a/c captain. The pilot will always sign for the aircraft in the 700 - if the observer is the a/c captain this is a delegated task to the pilot.
Right or wrong that is the way it is done.
Oggin
Right or wrong that is the way it is done.
Oggin