Joint Helicopter Command........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by timex
Sorry to tell you but aviation has moved on in the last 37 yrs.
Why in this largely NVG world do we have to maintain RNF approach currency? Why do we have to fly at night every month to maintain operational effectiveness?
The whole currency debacle smacks of the rantings of a senior officer (with probably only a single flying tour under his belt) making changes for changes sake in the effort to increase his eventual pension plan.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hurrah! - the thread's on its' way again......
Thanks timex
I didn't say 1hr per 90 days made anyone 'competent' or 'capable' what I hoped I was implying was that the bottom limit was there if you needed it but you'd be stoopid to only do that minimum per 90 days. The Supervisors would soon sort that out, the whole point was that it was there if you were desperate. This new limit puts more people on the wrong side of the line and is currently p1ssing everyone off.
Thanks WIWO Wessex
I couldn't agree more mate.........
I didn't say 1hr per 90 days made anyone 'competent' or 'capable' what I hoped I was implying was that the bottom limit was there if you needed it but you'd be stoopid to only do that minimum per 90 days. The Supervisors would soon sort that out, the whole point was that it was there if you were desperate. This new limit puts more people on the wrong side of the line and is currently p1ssing everyone off.
Thanks WIWO Wessex
I couldn't agree more mate.........
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very wisely the RN have kept their 'arbiter' such that 'if it doesn't suit the RN interest' then they don't do it!! The Army has Gavan (?) which does the same thing. The RAF seemingly has bugger all!
Last edited by LFFC; 25th Aug 2006 at 16:41.
This all reminds me of the training requirements on SH up to the mid 80's, when all aircrew had to do dedicated training sorties - for instance 1 hour's TST (Tactical Support training), which was moving a netted load from one side of Odiham to the other, or to pretend move troops from Grid A to Grid B, and until you were 'current' you couldn't go tasking. However, because it was TRAINING it couldn't be done on task, and task hours couldn't be counted towards it. So tasking was frequently cancelled to enable us to do the training so we could then do the tasking - but by then we had run out of hours on the aircraft!!!!!
So what is the training bill for a Squadron's worth of night currency? Assume 15 crews (give or take) @ 4.5 hours per 3 months = 67.5 hours. Even if some of that is done on task that is still extra flying on a desperately stretched fleet. Apart from the b*****ation factor on the air and groundcrew, it is still the prime user - the troops on the ground - who wonder where or when 'their' lift will appear, and as usual blame the very people who want to get the job done.
Once again it strikes of people with little or no modern rotary experience (a la 38 Gp pre 80's) imposing a rigid 'peacetime' mentality on an extremely hard working and flexible fleet (and I mean the whole JHC fleet).
PS Wait till the new non single pilot-nav trained pilots arrive - I wonder what the training bill will be then?
So what is the training bill for a Squadron's worth of night currency? Assume 15 crews (give or take) @ 4.5 hours per 3 months = 67.5 hours. Even if some of that is done on task that is still extra flying on a desperately stretched fleet. Apart from the b*****ation factor on the air and groundcrew, it is still the prime user - the troops on the ground - who wonder where or when 'their' lift will appear, and as usual blame the very people who want to get the job done.
Once again it strikes of people with little or no modern rotary experience (a la 38 Gp pre 80's) imposing a rigid 'peacetime' mentality on an extremely hard working and flexible fleet (and I mean the whole JHC fleet).
PS Wait till the new non single pilot-nav trained pilots arrive - I wonder what the training bill will be then?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Odiham
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just A Thought
A good and timely thread made irrelevant at times by some very immature and niave comments.
Whatever the perceptions are in Single Service ivory towers, Jointery is alive and well on the shop floor - where it really counts - on operations. I have recently returned from Afghanistan where Joint RAF CH47 and Army AH missions were led and flown by more than capable RN WAFUs in each type, with rounds going both way target end. From that perspective I genuinely believe that JHC has managed to produce a far more joined up rotary community than was ever experienced with Gutersloh back in the late 80's where Army and RAF very rarely met - and the RN only occasionally in Norway.
However, I do echo many of the sentiments contained in this thread - and if we ask the question we are to blame - too busy back biting or sniping to unite and be a true force to be reckoned with. Too busy with inter service rivalry that we eat ourselves up - if our lords and masters took the plunge then we would get heard in town and receive more resources as it is now widely recognised that although Air Manoeuvre is a lovely concept it is just too expensive - but air mobility is still essential in all operations (not just Iraq/Afghanistan).
Currently JHC is toothless as it has to pander to Fleet, Gavan (I like it!) and Strike and therefore can't really do any command. It is also not deployable - so again the word 'command' is a misnomer. Also, all of its rules and regulations - who is really policing, enforcing, standardising and checking them - again JHC does not have the resources to do that. So it is in effect a mail box, a sorting office, a J1-J9 building, a Joint Helicopter Management location - not a Joint Helicopter Command.
What I am trying to say is that the youth/operators of the community genuinely want 'best practice' and now that AH has proven itself on Ops, then I beleive that the other 2 Services are willing for a little bit of pain to allow the wheezy boy at the back (the AAC) some time and resources to catch up in order to improve the helicopter capability in the whole and not bespoke little fleets.
Afghanistan has shown me that our current capabilities are superb (AH/CH47 mix - very effective and we have done things that previously would never have been contemplated) and with the right commanders (3 Para CO at Bastion really did embrace Avn, unlike melchett and his team of powerpoint gurus at Kandahar that struggled to bring aviation into any sentence).
So lets take it forward - lets really go Joint - who cares what it is called, which uniform (and I genuinely believe that we on the shop floor dont care) and lets provide a strong coherent and worthwhile command that produces the goods to the customer - who whether we like it or not, is the Army.
Then we will get the recognition from said customer (as 3 Para have done) which will mean that we will get listened to in town, which will mean funding, resources, proper exercises, flying hours and a proper JHF/JHC Command and not a haphazard (no lessons brought forward from Bosnia or Iraq) - oooh, its Odihams turn, or go on Pongos, you have go. We all know that the moment the Army boys leave we (the light blue) will make some significant changes to the HQ. Now wouldn't it be nice if JHC could provide a trained, correctly manned and resourced deployable HQ (or at least the important players) to plug andf play where the need arises around the world?
Now is the time to change, but sadly I think that those people who can really effect change are too busy watching their next job, or career to make such a bold step forward and we will just muddle along in a way that is working, but not as we all know, not as operationally efficient as we all know it could be.
Whatever the perceptions are in Single Service ivory towers, Jointery is alive and well on the shop floor - where it really counts - on operations. I have recently returned from Afghanistan where Joint RAF CH47 and Army AH missions were led and flown by more than capable RN WAFUs in each type, with rounds going both way target end. From that perspective I genuinely believe that JHC has managed to produce a far more joined up rotary community than was ever experienced with Gutersloh back in the late 80's where Army and RAF very rarely met - and the RN only occasionally in Norway.
However, I do echo many of the sentiments contained in this thread - and if we ask the question we are to blame - too busy back biting or sniping to unite and be a true force to be reckoned with. Too busy with inter service rivalry that we eat ourselves up - if our lords and masters took the plunge then we would get heard in town and receive more resources as it is now widely recognised that although Air Manoeuvre is a lovely concept it is just too expensive - but air mobility is still essential in all operations (not just Iraq/Afghanistan).
Currently JHC is toothless as it has to pander to Fleet, Gavan (I like it!) and Strike and therefore can't really do any command. It is also not deployable - so again the word 'command' is a misnomer. Also, all of its rules and regulations - who is really policing, enforcing, standardising and checking them - again JHC does not have the resources to do that. So it is in effect a mail box, a sorting office, a J1-J9 building, a Joint Helicopter Management location - not a Joint Helicopter Command.
What I am trying to say is that the youth/operators of the community genuinely want 'best practice' and now that AH has proven itself on Ops, then I beleive that the other 2 Services are willing for a little bit of pain to allow the wheezy boy at the back (the AAC) some time and resources to catch up in order to improve the helicopter capability in the whole and not bespoke little fleets.
Afghanistan has shown me that our current capabilities are superb (AH/CH47 mix - very effective and we have done things that previously would never have been contemplated) and with the right commanders (3 Para CO at Bastion really did embrace Avn, unlike melchett and his team of powerpoint gurus at Kandahar that struggled to bring aviation into any sentence).
So lets take it forward - lets really go Joint - who cares what it is called, which uniform (and I genuinely believe that we on the shop floor dont care) and lets provide a strong coherent and worthwhile command that produces the goods to the customer - who whether we like it or not, is the Army.
Then we will get the recognition from said customer (as 3 Para have done) which will mean that we will get listened to in town, which will mean funding, resources, proper exercises, flying hours and a proper JHF/JHC Command and not a haphazard (no lessons brought forward from Bosnia or Iraq) - oooh, its Odihams turn, or go on Pongos, you have go. We all know that the moment the Army boys leave we (the light blue) will make some significant changes to the HQ. Now wouldn't it be nice if JHC could provide a trained, correctly manned and resourced deployable HQ (or at least the important players) to plug andf play where the need arises around the world?
Now is the time to change, but sadly I think that those people who can really effect change are too busy watching their next job, or career to make such a bold step forward and we will just muddle along in a way that is working, but not as we all know, not as operationally efficient as we all know it could be.
Last edited by wokkawokka; 25th Aug 2006 at 19:10.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wokkawokka
Now is the time to change, but sadly I think that those people who can really effect change are too busy watching their next job, or career to make such a bold step forward and we will just muddle along in a way that is working, but not as we all know, not as operationally efficient as we all know it could be.
As you said, the main problem is that the people in the position to make the change won't do because by rocking the already unsteady boat, they will get their feet wet and will not feel the steel of Her Majesty's sword on their shoulders.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post wokkawokka............
Blimey!
I am delighted that the services are beginning to gel effectively in some theatres (well done AH and RN WAFUs).
However given the increased frequency of these ops and the very real possibility of wearing lead, it's only going to take one Melchett to order an aircraft captain into the air cos he thinks it's a 4-tonner, the captain to exercise his right as captain to say 'NO' and before you know it we'll all be shot at dawn with a less than evens chance of being pardoned 100 yrs later........I am still deeply suspicious.
Until the RAF has some seriously powerful backing with an equal voice in the right places we will be rail roaded again - it must not happen!
I am delighted that the services are beginning to gel effectively in some theatres (well done AH and RN WAFUs).
However given the increased frequency of these ops and the very real possibility of wearing lead, it's only going to take one Melchett to order an aircraft captain into the air cos he thinks it's a 4-tonner, the captain to exercise his right as captain to say 'NO' and before you know it we'll all be shot at dawn with a less than evens chance of being pardoned 100 yrs later........I am still deeply suspicious.
Until the RAF has some seriously powerful backing with an equal voice in the right places we will be rail roaded again - it must not happen!
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 26th Aug 2006 at 06:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
serf........
I wouldn't want to elaborate as it would probably start another p1ssing contest..........
...just...if he says...'No' for good 'captain' reasons and there could be many of those......
...just...if he says...'No' for good 'captain' reasons and there could be many of those......
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Least there was thanks in the end...
Heaven forbid that one day a desk-jockey tells a helo captain that 'he is lacking in moral fibre' oh, too late....
oh, too late....
Last edited by right chopper; 26th Aug 2006 at 09:54.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of those Pongo 'chinless wonders' (negative mustard chords, black lab, half of Yorkshire) I thought that I would add to some of the posts on this thread.
Wokkawokka - you are spot on and I totally agree.
Right Chopper, Dundiggin et al - from my experiences I have seen the CH47 crews been placed in some pretty tight situations, but when they say yes or no to a mission - then their advice is taken. Again from experience, the refreshing thing is that regularly the RAF boys do say no or tooooo risky - but they always come back with, 'how about this instead', or 'we could try it this way' - which goes down a real treat.
Wokkawokka has obviously been there, read the book, got the T-Shirt (and new underpants from all accounts) and I would be interested if at any stage his advice was ever roughshod by the Pongo commanders?
As to NCO aircrew. Why doesn't the other 2 Services go for NCO only aircrew. The answer is that the NCO aircrew are superb pilots, as they are allowed the time and career profile to hone their skills to perfection (providing servoceability/availibility of aircraft allows!). However, there are not many NCO flight commanders, tactics instructors, Ops Officers etc as the recruiting of officers (by its very nature) requires greater intelligence (academic results), mental dexterity (RCB) and staff and leadership training (Sandhurst, Shrivenham,MK etc). Therefore, NCO aircrew maybe cheaper, but the 'bang for buck' is less.
I can fly and I have also been trained in all of the tactics, command and staff - so I can do both. I am not saying for one moment get rid of the NCOs - far from it, you need that continuity and expertise - but you also need the officers.
What amazes me is that in the AAC career profile why can't I become a Regtl QHI, or HWI or remain in flying duties. Why is the Corps run at Regtl level by so many ex SNCO QHIs that have so much influence over the CO's and OC's that haven't seen a cockpit for up to 8 years and feel out of place in a cockpit and hardly ever fly?
Why not balance it - provide AAC Capts with a dual career path - one Command and Staff and the other a mix of flying and staff - with individuals making a choice at around the 30 year point as by then they have a pretty good idea of where their career is going. On the current plan I am leaving (as our many of my colleagues) because we cannot pursue a flying career (SO2 Bogs and Drains, DLO or DPA is no way to keep those with a passion for flying in the Service).
And when people say cost - and look at the US model of Commissioned Warrants, they miss the point - the Captains are leaving anyway, the Crown has just spent millions training them and then is happy to see them leave rather than opt for the specialist flying career (not in RAF Spec aircrew terms, but more like RN flying job, staff job rotation). This is not new and you only has to look at the other 2 Services that have gained from the AAC's inability to retain its aviation focussed young officers as many transfer out of the AAC to remain flying or very close to it).
This would also provide those career orientated OC's and CO's with a balance in a Regt of Direct Entry and Late Entry QHIs/Weapon Instructors/EWIs/Tactics etc - rather than pure NCOs/LE aircrew that may have had years of pure flying experience but have not benefitted from the many young officer tactics, command and non-flying related courses, training that provide a truly rounded and military broadened aviator. There is also something to be said for youth - wouldn't Standards Branch/673 Sqn benefit from a young, DE QHI fresh from operations.
Therefore, if I were allowed to continue with a flying orientated career then I believe that I would bring more to the Regt than just years of flying (but with time, that would increase on a par to the LEs) and what makes me employable is that I can also dip into to the 'not so popular/ career enhancing' SO3/SO2 Avn jobs when required.
So I like Wokkawokkas suggestion as I would like to have a Joint career profile like the RAF's or RN's and just stay flying a bit longer, and then bounce between flying and staff jobs. If not, then I am outta here - not to daddies estate or company, but to the Rigs, PAS or some other avenue where I will be allowed to continue my enthusiasm for aviation.
Wokkawokka - you are spot on and I totally agree.
Right Chopper, Dundiggin et al - from my experiences I have seen the CH47 crews been placed in some pretty tight situations, but when they say yes or no to a mission - then their advice is taken. Again from experience, the refreshing thing is that regularly the RAF boys do say no or tooooo risky - but they always come back with, 'how about this instead', or 'we could try it this way' - which goes down a real treat.
Wokkawokka has obviously been there, read the book, got the T-Shirt (and new underpants from all accounts) and I would be interested if at any stage his advice was ever roughshod by the Pongo commanders?
As to NCO aircrew. Why doesn't the other 2 Services go for NCO only aircrew. The answer is that the NCO aircrew are superb pilots, as they are allowed the time and career profile to hone their skills to perfection (providing servoceability/availibility of aircraft allows!). However, there are not many NCO flight commanders, tactics instructors, Ops Officers etc as the recruiting of officers (by its very nature) requires greater intelligence (academic results), mental dexterity (RCB) and staff and leadership training (Sandhurst, Shrivenham,MK etc). Therefore, NCO aircrew maybe cheaper, but the 'bang for buck' is less.
I can fly and I have also been trained in all of the tactics, command and staff - so I can do both. I am not saying for one moment get rid of the NCOs - far from it, you need that continuity and expertise - but you also need the officers.
What amazes me is that in the AAC career profile why can't I become a Regtl QHI, or HWI or remain in flying duties. Why is the Corps run at Regtl level by so many ex SNCO QHIs that have so much influence over the CO's and OC's that haven't seen a cockpit for up to 8 years and feel out of place in a cockpit and hardly ever fly?
Why not balance it - provide AAC Capts with a dual career path - one Command and Staff and the other a mix of flying and staff - with individuals making a choice at around the 30 year point as by then they have a pretty good idea of where their career is going. On the current plan I am leaving (as our many of my colleagues) because we cannot pursue a flying career (SO2 Bogs and Drains, DLO or DPA is no way to keep those with a passion for flying in the Service).
And when people say cost - and look at the US model of Commissioned Warrants, they miss the point - the Captains are leaving anyway, the Crown has just spent millions training them and then is happy to see them leave rather than opt for the specialist flying career (not in RAF Spec aircrew terms, but more like RN flying job, staff job rotation). This is not new and you only has to look at the other 2 Services that have gained from the AAC's inability to retain its aviation focussed young officers as many transfer out of the AAC to remain flying or very close to it).
This would also provide those career orientated OC's and CO's with a balance in a Regt of Direct Entry and Late Entry QHIs/Weapon Instructors/EWIs/Tactics etc - rather than pure NCOs/LE aircrew that may have had years of pure flying experience but have not benefitted from the many young officer tactics, command and non-flying related courses, training that provide a truly rounded and military broadened aviator. There is also something to be said for youth - wouldn't Standards Branch/673 Sqn benefit from a young, DE QHI fresh from operations.
Therefore, if I were allowed to continue with a flying orientated career then I believe that I would bring more to the Regt than just years of flying (but with time, that would increase on a par to the LEs) and what makes me employable is that I can also dip into to the 'not so popular/ career enhancing' SO3/SO2 Avn jobs when required.
So I like Wokkawokkas suggestion as I would like to have a Joint career profile like the RAF's or RN's and just stay flying a bit longer, and then bounce between flying and staff jobs. If not, then I am outta here - not to daddies estate or company, but to the Rigs, PAS or some other avenue where I will be allowed to continue my enthusiasm for aviation.
Last edited by Capt Chaos; 26th Aug 2006 at 16:53.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dundiggin'
Blimey!
I am delighted that the services are beginning to gel effectively in some theatres (well done AH and RN WAFUs).
However given the increased frequency of these ops and the very real possibility of wearing lead, it's only going to take one Melchett to order an aircraft captain into the air cos he thinks it's a 4-tonner, the captain to exercise his right as captain to say 'NO' and before you know it we'll all be shot at dawn with a less than evens chance of being pardoned 100 yrs later........I am still deeply suspicious.
Until the RAF has some seriously powerful backing with an equal voice in the right places we will be rail roaded again - it must not happen!
I am delighted that the services are beginning to gel effectively in some theatres (well done AH and RN WAFUs).
However given the increased frequency of these ops and the very real possibility of wearing lead, it's only going to take one Melchett to order an aircraft captain into the air cos he thinks it's a 4-tonner, the captain to exercise his right as captain to say 'NO' and before you know it we'll all be shot at dawn with a less than evens chance of being pardoned 100 yrs later........I am still deeply suspicious.
Until the RAF has some seriously powerful backing with an equal voice in the right places we will be rail roaded again - it must not happen!
Do you believe that the Aircraft Captain has the right to decline a tactical mission just because he thinks it may be dangerous?
What about the Infantry commander who knows that he is taking his boys into danger every time they leave the camp on patrol. Does he have the right to refuse an order just because he thinks he or one of his boys may lose their life?
The responsibility of the Aircraft Commander is to ensure that the aircraft is flown safely, tactically, and within the Rules of the Air. The Commander will make the decision to send the aircraft on a mission having balanced risk against benefit of success. Your predecessors who flew in the Battle of Britain knew that the risk was high, but the risk of not doing something was even worse. So, a "Melchett" is entitled to order an aircraft on a mission, and the Ac Comd is there to make sure that the mission is flown as successfully as possible.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the AAC - if you really knew much about the JHC you would realise that its staff are from all services and jointly contribute to its decision making process. Then again, if you are a Puma crewman I would not expect much more. You seem to think that the only requirement for an Army commission is a title and some land. Tosser.
Wokkawokka - well said.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Wokkawokka - You are clearly a man amongst ankle-biters. Top post and congrats for raising this urine tossing thread back to real issues that should be addressed.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out Page 24 regarding the debate on Officer/NCO Airecrew from the NAO's Report on Battlefield Helicopters laid before Parliament in 2004. Exact Para Numbers are 3.28 to 3.32. Also a bit about command levels - Paras 3.33 to 3.35. Did many get to see or hear of this review??
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...04/0304486.pdf
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...04/0304486.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that people are missing one big point regarding who has the final say about a mission going ahead or not. Surely it's the authorising officer! He has a vote, and lets face it, if it is a risky mission, then it should be the Squadron boss who puts his signature to the mission, though only after a full risk assessment has taken place. Cos lets face it, to lose a CH47 full of soft pink fleshy things would not go down well in anybodies books.
Fly-Friendly
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around the middle
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right chumsI may have had a few too much red wines but I thought this thread was about JHC not how great teeny weeny airways was not about currency issues. Itr may have been started by a Plastic Puma Puke but lets not deviate.JHC is more expensive than a single service option, it is non deployable ( left to JHFHQ) and run by a bunch of chinless wonders not in touch with the shop floor!!!Heads down in coming!!Fly Friendly
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onto this thread late - perhaps the RAF should do what the RAAF did many years ago - hand over the helos to the Service that can best manage them from a C and C perspective.
GAGS E86
GAGS E86