Commissioned Rearcrew - Will it/Should it Start Again?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commissioned Rearcrew - Will it/Should it Start Again?
It's been some time now since "Empowered" Masters took the reins. How's it going?
A success, or should the lobby for commissioning into the NCA Branches push harder again?
Would it make a difference?
Are there any real horror stories?
Is it time the best NCA stopped bolstering the Ops Spt Branch and started benefitting it's own once more?
It's a while since this buoy was gone around on these forums - does that mean it's working or is there an air of resignation?
A success, or should the lobby for commissioning into the NCA Branches push harder again?
Would it make a difference?
Are there any real horror stories?
Is it time the best NCA stopped bolstering the Ops Spt Branch and started benefitting it's own once more?
It's a while since this buoy was gone around on these forums - does that mean it's working or is there an air of resignation?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I don't think your question is radical enough. The basic aptitude to be a pilot is independent of intelligence or education. Both these latter two are necessary to be a successful military pilot. For (current) NCA duties, the latter two are arguably more important than aptitude. The commission attendant with pilot training (at least in the RAF), seems to blur the issue somewhat. I find it somewhat disagreeable in modern society that the class distinctions and prejudices of years gone by are perpetuated. Why should officers have to buy uniform? Why are the dining tables in the Offrs and Sgts messes different?
Surely it is time the forces modernised and rid themselves of this oppressive way of doing business, and commissioned those worthy of it, based upon objective assessment of how they perform in the early stages of their career. This would stop all those who ought to be MT drivers from being commissioned on the basis that they have a degree, and allow those who can perform as leaders to be such.
How many years service does it take to become a Master? About 20? Probably 15 of those years spent not being as productive as they might have been had they been commissioned after 5. Contrast with Flt Lt Airfix Boy who gets his 5 GCEs and has reached his career ceiling after 5 years.
Sorry if this wasn't the answer you're looking for, but it might stop spineless leadership at MOD eventually. Rant off
Surely it is time the forces modernised and rid themselves of this oppressive way of doing business, and commissioned those worthy of it, based upon objective assessment of how they perform in the early stages of their career. This would stop all those who ought to be MT drivers from being commissioned on the basis that they have a degree, and allow those who can perform as leaders to be such.
How many years service does it take to become a Master? About 20? Probably 15 of those years spent not being as productive as they might have been had they been commissioned after 5. Contrast with Flt Lt Airfix Boy who gets his 5 GCEs and has reached his career ceiling after 5 years.
Sorry if this wasn't the answer you're looking for, but it might stop spineless leadership at MOD eventually. Rant off
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to raise the issue about working harder at school, but...
The basic aptitude to be a pilot is independent of intelligence or education.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Why should officers have to buy uniform?
This was a stupid answer as we buy them from stores anyway. If they only provision enough 'free-issue' items for the airmen and officers buy some then it follows there will be a shortage and a small number of special order items will cost more. Doh!
The tax relief an officer gets for uniforms exactly matches the cost of daily wear for 5 years.
Officers should not have to buy daily wear clothing - then they may stop wearing CS95 and Flying Suits.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Is it time the best NCA stopped bolstering the Ops Spt Branch and started benefitting it's own once more?
The first non-aircrew commissioned NCA I worked with a Nimrod FE commissioned into the Flt Ops branch. Without him the other 3 cross threads, in all senses, would have been an even bigger disaster. He made sqn ldr in short order and a job at the school.
I know another commissioned ALM but I think he is still in branch. So far he seems to be shaping up better than his Nav predecessors. So, no disasters.
A possibility, 'bolstering the Ops Spt Branch' for just one tour and then 'benefitting it's own once more'.
Yes, how about commissioning into the Flt Ops branch for one Ops tour as both a rest-tour and a career broadening move? In that tour retain flying pay then return to flying duties.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a far better question is why do we have commissioned Pilots? The argument that they were the ones who carried the nuclear option does not hold water today. THe NCO pilots in the AAC flying Apache are, I think you will agree, doing a fantastic job (I speak from personal experience of these fine people). The Battle of Britain would not have been won without the heroism of NCO pilots.
So, yes, lets stop this elitist rubbish and reintroduce non commisssioned pilots and Navs. I think the idea of all commissioned crew is, quite frankly, rediculous, needless and bloody expensive. A percentage of non commissioned flight decks would also shrink the pyramid as the RAF would have to stop 'inventing' careers for all those on ground tours.
As to different perks based on rank, it's the way of the world and we are not nearly as bad as the Private Sector. If you make everyone the same then there is no incentive to better yourself. Plus, if I am expected to take on a far heavier workload and more responsibility than a SNCO, I have every right to expect a better 'package'.
I take issue with the fact that a SNCO with 20 years experience automatically makes a better commissioning candidate than 'airfix boy'. Some (not all) are very fixed in their ways, reluctant to change and have an approach not unlike some Shop Stewards I have met (the sort who use childish jibes like Airfix Boy). The best SNCO's I have ever had the pleasure of working with have not needed membership of the Officers Mess to make their presence felt.
So, yes, lets stop this elitist rubbish and reintroduce non commisssioned pilots and Navs. I think the idea of all commissioned crew is, quite frankly, rediculous, needless and bloody expensive. A percentage of non commissioned flight decks would also shrink the pyramid as the RAF would have to stop 'inventing' careers for all those on ground tours.
As to different perks based on rank, it's the way of the world and we are not nearly as bad as the Private Sector. If you make everyone the same then there is no incentive to better yourself. Plus, if I am expected to take on a far heavier workload and more responsibility than a SNCO, I have every right to expect a better 'package'.
I take issue with the fact that a SNCO with 20 years experience automatically makes a better commissioning candidate than 'airfix boy'. Some (not all) are very fixed in their ways, reluctant to change and have an approach not unlike some Shop Stewards I have met (the sort who use childish jibes like Airfix Boy). The best SNCO's I have ever had the pleasure of working with have not needed membership of the Officers Mess to make their presence felt.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A (further?) chance to display my ignorance here and I have no intention of causing offence.
'When I was a lad' 20 years ago, about 10-15% of the population did a degree-level course. Young graduates, as opposed to those taking degree the hard way (OU etc) later in life, wanting a military career usually sought commissions; some were up to the mark and some were not and selection/training system sorted that out with some degree of success. There were plenty of high-quality non-graduates, who just didn't want to spend another 3-4 years in education, who also were commissioned, became NCA or joined the trades, and lots subsequently obtained degrees (the hard way).
In a few years, the Government plans to have 50% of school leavers go on to tertiary education. I would have imagined that the majority of the RAF would come from people in this 'top half' even given that some people just dont get on with 'academics'. Are young people with a degree wanting to become NCA or join demanding trades? If not, where are we going to get the right sort of people?
'When I was a lad' 20 years ago, about 10-15% of the population did a degree-level course. Young graduates, as opposed to those taking degree the hard way (OU etc) later in life, wanting a military career usually sought commissions; some were up to the mark and some were not and selection/training system sorted that out with some degree of success. There were plenty of high-quality non-graduates, who just didn't want to spend another 3-4 years in education, who also were commissioned, became NCA or joined the trades, and lots subsequently obtained degrees (the hard way).
In a few years, the Government plans to have 50% of school leavers go on to tertiary education. I would have imagined that the majority of the RAF would come from people in this 'top half' even given that some people just dont get on with 'academics'. Are young people with a degree wanting to become NCA or join demanding trades? If not, where are we going to get the right sort of people?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Why do we have commissioned pilots?
Well, if not, the higher ranks would be non-pilots.
Supply Officers could then easily run the whole show, supplying pilots out of a box (unclothed, of course).
Well, if not, the higher ranks would be non-pilots.
Supply Officers could then easily run the whole show, supplying pilots out of a box (unclothed, of course).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it is time the forces modernised and rid themselves of this oppressive way of doing business, and commissioned those worthy of it, based upon objective assessment of how they perform in the early stages of their career. This would stop all those who ought to be MT drivers from being commissioned on the basis that they have a degree, and allow those who can perform as leaders to be such.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shytorque
I said a percentage, not all, should be non commissioned. Those commissioned would be the ones to move on upward into policy type jobs later on. The rest would be compensated by having more time flying and less time on ground jobs.
Your throw away comment on Suppliers highlights another issue. This belief that only aircrew, and usually FJ, can run the RAF. Some of the people who spout this on PPRUNE are the very same ones who then slag off the RAF as broken, crap and poorly led. Ironic really.
Your throw away comment on Suppliers highlights another issue. This belief that only aircrew, and usually FJ, can run the RAF. Some of the people who spout this on PPRUNE are the very same ones who then slag off the RAF as broken, crap and poorly led. Ironic really.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEB, while your argument is not without merit:
the problem is we can never go back.
It is often seductive to think that old ways were better and that we should recognise mistakes or change and revert. (I am not just talking service but of everything).
Human nature calls for change.
Now let us consider not your AAC NCO but your mixed rank Tornado flight of 4 with a couple of flt lts, experienced master pilots and sgt navs etc. As the latter were selected for aptitude and not officer qualities it follows that the leadership gene pool is rather smaller than before.
The Hodgekinson Report (about 1968) introduced overborne sqn ldrs to increase the senior officer gene pool and Spec Aircrew to absorb those whose flying skills were needed but who had no potential or desire for higher rank.
Then you say that all commissioned aircrew is bloody expensive. Why should NCA be a cheaper option? You train them to fly, you offer them job comparability with civil aviation; they would expect pay comparability too or they will leave.
No, the experienced aircrew officer pool is probably getting too small already, especially in the face of commercial competition. To reduce it still further would have a potentially adverse effect many years down the line.
So, yes, lets stop this elitist rubbish and reintroduce non commisssioned pilots and Navs. I think the idea of all commissioned crew is, quite frankly, rediculous, needless and bloody expensive
It is often seductive to think that old ways were better and that we should recognise mistakes or change and revert. (I am not just talking service but of everything).
Human nature calls for change.
Now let us consider not your AAC NCO but your mixed rank Tornado flight of 4 with a couple of flt lts, experienced master pilots and sgt navs etc. As the latter were selected for aptitude and not officer qualities it follows that the leadership gene pool is rather smaller than before.
The Hodgekinson Report (about 1968) introduced overborne sqn ldrs to increase the senior officer gene pool and Spec Aircrew to absorb those whose flying skills were needed but who had no potential or desire for higher rank.
Then you say that all commissioned aircrew is bloody expensive. Why should NCA be a cheaper option? You train them to fly, you offer them job comparability with civil aviation; they would expect pay comparability too or they will leave.
No, the experienced aircrew officer pool is probably getting too small already, especially in the face of commercial competition. To reduce it still further would have a potentially adverse effect many years down the line.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wader 2.
Fair points.
Questions: Is the same level of leadership required to fly an E3D? Does the system stream those pilots to that type due to a perceived lack of some abilities? If so, do you need commissioned 'leaders' to fly those kind of aircraft.
I am not trying to rock the boat or be peurile. The question was asked about commissioning NCA. I think the counter argument in not commissioning some aircrew has equal merit, especially in these times of cutbacks and, as has been identified, some obsolete aircrew jobs.
Fair points.
Questions: Is the same level of leadership required to fly an E3D? Does the system stream those pilots to that type due to a perceived lack of some abilities? If so, do you need commissioned 'leaders' to fly those kind of aircraft.
I am not trying to rock the boat or be peurile. The question was asked about commissioning NCA. I think the counter argument in not commissioning some aircrew has equal merit, especially in these times of cutbacks and, as has been identified, some obsolete aircrew jobs.
Gents
The argument for NCO pilots is dead and buried, regardless of their contribution to WWII. It's not about "class"! It's not about educational qualifications!! The RAF is haemorrhaging pilots. Recruiting NCO pilots is likely to fix a non-problem for a very short period, once qualified they will be subject to as many push factors as officer pilots - only on an even lower (military) wage. Even the AAC with NCO pilots are finding that lots are leaving for better paid, and safer, jobs outside.
Please try to get this topic back on track. It was a question about commissioning rear crew (not including WSOs who are already commissioned). I have worked with many commissioned rear crew over the years and most have been bl**dy good at their job. As for empowered masters I cannot comment as I have been too long away from the front-line. What I do know is that there are many within the NCA branches who are complaining about their ceiling now being Master!!
Only current option for better pay? Get commissioned (in a different branch)! Good use of resources? Probably not!
BEB
To answer you question about the E3 captain. Leadership qualities definitely required, large crew, large ac with handling vices. The reason the pilot may have ended up on E3s was a perceived lack of handling ability when younger and thrashing around at low level and 420 kts. Not everyone can cope with that which is why the RAF streams pilots to either FJ, ME or RW.
The argument for NCO pilots is dead and buried, regardless of their contribution to WWII. It's not about "class"! It's not about educational qualifications!! The RAF is haemorrhaging pilots. Recruiting NCO pilots is likely to fix a non-problem for a very short period, once qualified they will be subject to as many push factors as officer pilots - only on an even lower (military) wage. Even the AAC with NCO pilots are finding that lots are leaving for better paid, and safer, jobs outside.
Please try to get this topic back on track. It was a question about commissioning rear crew (not including WSOs who are already commissioned). I have worked with many commissioned rear crew over the years and most have been bl**dy good at their job. As for empowered masters I cannot comment as I have been too long away from the front-line. What I do know is that there are many within the NCA branches who are complaining about their ceiling now being Master!!
Only current option for better pay? Get commissioned (in a different branch)! Good use of resources? Probably not!
BEB
To answer you question about the E3 captain. Leadership qualities definitely required, large crew, large ac with handling vices. The reason the pilot may have ended up on E3s was a perceived lack of handling ability when younger and thrashing around at low level and 420 kts. Not everyone can cope with that which is why the RAF streams pilots to either FJ, ME or RW.
Total Aviation Person
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Essex United Kingdom
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former Sgt Pilot on Javs, I agree with everybody. That is what NCO aircrew are supposed to do ....... innit? (see, can't even talk proper)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEB,
Having some little experience of E3, I have been chauffered in 3 type of them, I suggest that they do need a commissioned leader.
The Tactical Director has quite enough on his plate organising and running the mission.
The Flight Director, drivers airframe, or whatever has a much less demanding job - on orbit. OTOH the task of Captaincy, looking after the well-being of the crew, really comes to the fore on the ground. To lead such a large crew as on an E3 requires leadership skills.
It is true that the second pilot does not need any of these skills and could be a NCA. However the E3 Captaincy gene pool is already small. To remove the copilot feeder stream would require suitable ME pilots to be fed in from other types who would also have fewer able candiates as their training pool would also have dried up.
Put bluntly, quite probably.
Not everyone has the aptitude to fly the most demanding aircraft. Even those that do may lose that ability later on in life. Eyes dim, reactions slow, medical conditions may intervene.
One of the first ex-Lightning pilots I met had served 12 years on the Lightning and enjoyed every minute of it. He was now enjoying every hour as a Britannia captain.
No, as I said, different air force. Lots of units - Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Javelin - lots of pilots - large gene pool.
In the early 1960s the aircrew pool had an intake of 1200 per year of which perhaps 1000 were would be pilot and this did not include the Cranwell intakes of career officers. Many of these aircrew were on SSC of 5 or 8 years with the rest on 12/16-38. They were the ones that could have been NCOs.
What is the pilot requirement now?
With an aircrew intake of about one tenth the number of potential leaders will be much slimmer. If that was further reduced to 30 or so with the balance from NCA then we really would be putting lots of eggs in one basket and the hands of the recruiters.
Questions: Is the same level of leadership required to fly an E3D? . . . If so, do you need commissioned 'leaders' to fly those kind of aircraft.
The Tactical Director has quite enough on his plate organising and running the mission.
The Flight Director, drivers airframe, or whatever has a much less demanding job - on orbit. OTOH the task of Captaincy, looking after the well-being of the crew, really comes to the fore on the ground. To lead such a large crew as on an E3 requires leadership skills.
It is true that the second pilot does not need any of these skills and could be a NCA. However the E3 Captaincy gene pool is already small. To remove the copilot feeder stream would require suitable ME pilots to be fed in from other types who would also have fewer able candiates as their training pool would also have dried up.
Does the system stream those pilots to that type due to a perceived lack of some abilities?
Not everyone has the aptitude to fly the most demanding aircraft. Even those that do may lose that ability later on in life. Eyes dim, reactions slow, medical conditions may intervene.
One of the first ex-Lightning pilots I met had served 12 years on the Lightning and enjoyed every minute of it. He was now enjoying every hour as a Britannia captain.
No, as I said, different air force. Lots of units - Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Javelin - lots of pilots - large gene pool.
In the early 1960s the aircrew pool had an intake of 1200 per year of which perhaps 1000 were would be pilot and this did not include the Cranwell intakes of career officers. Many of these aircrew were on SSC of 5 or 8 years with the rest on 12/16-38. They were the ones that could have been NCOs.
What is the pilot requirement now?
With an aircrew intake of about one tenth the number of potential leaders will be much slimmer. If that was further reduced to 30 or so with the balance from NCA then we really would be putting lots of eggs in one basket and the hands of the recruiters.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
BEB,
Why try reinventing the wheel? The RAF ceased the recruitment of NCO pilots because it wanted officers and leaders first, and pilots second.
As someone has already pointed out, the "Specialist Aircrew" cadre was brought in to fulfil the role you suggest, namely to retain a core of highly experienced pilots who wished to continue flying aircraft rather than desks.
During my career I worked quite closely with the army (NCO pilots of course) and watched time and time again as their good advice was ignored or over-ruled by their own less experienced officers above them. On one occasion very early in my RAF time my pilot colleague and I felt obliged to stand up to one career (non-aircrew) VSO who thought it quite acceptable to put his crews in a situation that might well have killed them, in peacetime, for the sake of his exercise. It caused a hell of a stink but we were right and I never forgot that.
I obviously touched a raw nerve about non-pilots running the air force. Sorry, but I stand by my rather tongue in cheek comment. However, I have never "slagged off" the RAF or accused it of being "broken, crap and poorly led". That's what the NAVY is for.
Why try reinventing the wheel? The RAF ceased the recruitment of NCO pilots because it wanted officers and leaders first, and pilots second.
As someone has already pointed out, the "Specialist Aircrew" cadre was brought in to fulfil the role you suggest, namely to retain a core of highly experienced pilots who wished to continue flying aircraft rather than desks.
During my career I worked quite closely with the army (NCO pilots of course) and watched time and time again as their good advice was ignored or over-ruled by their own less experienced officers above them. On one occasion very early in my RAF time my pilot colleague and I felt obliged to stand up to one career (non-aircrew) VSO who thought it quite acceptable to put his crews in a situation that might well have killed them, in peacetime, for the sake of his exercise. It caused a hell of a stink but we were right and I never forgot that.
I obviously touched a raw nerve about non-pilots running the air force. Sorry, but I stand by my rather tongue in cheek comment. However, I have never "slagged off" the RAF or accused it of being "broken, crap and poorly led". That's what the NAVY is for.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was commissioned rear crew for 26 of my 35 years. Why did I apply for a commission...because I wanted to set my sights higher than running a section, better pay and pension, better messing (still had Batting Staff) and maybe a say in the running of part of my life; in a word "Aspiration".
The guys who are being "empowered" today are those that would have probably been commisioned anyway, unfortunately they will never taste the rewards that were on offer, even with spine TOS, (although I hear the pension might be a little better).
In my latter years I saw a host of very able guys getting commisioned, especially from the rotary fleet. Some were well educated with creditable degrees, others because they had proved themselves involved. Unfortunately this time of enlightenment came after a long period when a number of makeweights got commissioned on the back of the CASWO scheme or various management initiatives born from the "feedback tours", or by having held an "A" Cat for so long that some misguided Pilot/Nav Flt Cdr decided they would make a good officer despite the fact they probabaly hadn't done anything in the office for 20 years. (Gasp! Takes a breath and calms down)
We also had a good number of bright young things that are now denied opportunity and have to re-badge or wait for someone to die before they get a chance to be the boss.
Military service is an elitist heirarchy, undemocratic and ridden with bigotry and long may it survive without being undermined by the "tree-huggers" who want to make it fair and fluffy. What's wrong with having all pilots commisioned? There's got to be something to attract the b**gers towards the light. At the same time I believe the same opportunity has got to be offered across the board, I never heard anyone pull rank in the air in all my years but I do remember as a SNCO not being invited to the table when important stuff was being dished out.
There is a danger that you end up with the second string as your "empowered" SNCO's because all the good guys saw the light and bailed out after the honeymoon period was over. I just don't see an intelligent operator staying as a Master for upwards of 15 years going around the same old buoys while pilot/WSO decide the policy of his/her specialisation at grown up level.
Best of luck to all those still serving from a Grumpy Old Sod!
The guys who are being "empowered" today are those that would have probably been commisioned anyway, unfortunately they will never taste the rewards that were on offer, even with spine TOS, (although I hear the pension might be a little better).
In my latter years I saw a host of very able guys getting commisioned, especially from the rotary fleet. Some were well educated with creditable degrees, others because they had proved themselves involved. Unfortunately this time of enlightenment came after a long period when a number of makeweights got commissioned on the back of the CASWO scheme or various management initiatives born from the "feedback tours", or by having held an "A" Cat for so long that some misguided Pilot/Nav Flt Cdr decided they would make a good officer despite the fact they probabaly hadn't done anything in the office for 20 years. (Gasp! Takes a breath and calms down)
We also had a good number of bright young things that are now denied opportunity and have to re-badge or wait for someone to die before they get a chance to be the boss.
Military service is an elitist heirarchy, undemocratic and ridden with bigotry and long may it survive without being undermined by the "tree-huggers" who want to make it fair and fluffy. What's wrong with having all pilots commisioned? There's got to be something to attract the b**gers towards the light. At the same time I believe the same opportunity has got to be offered across the board, I never heard anyone pull rank in the air in all my years but I do remember as a SNCO not being invited to the table when important stuff was being dished out.
There is a danger that you end up with the second string as your "empowered" SNCO's because all the good guys saw the light and bailed out after the honeymoon period was over. I just don't see an intelligent operator staying as a Master for upwards of 15 years going around the same old buoys while pilot/WSO decide the policy of his/her specialisation at grown up level.
Best of luck to all those still serving from a Grumpy Old Sod!
Last edited by Klingon; 30th Jan 2007 at 19:04.