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
My oh my AC Ovee. If I didn't know better I'd say you were a troll.
Your arguments just don't hold water. Your view that WSOps should not be commissioned as they "dilute the gene pool" is utter bunkum. If that is true, why commission anyone other than pilots? You argue that no non-pilot will become CAS so why waste your time. You, my friend, haven't a clue.
What about leadership? Are not other branches entitled to have their own leaders with full knowledge of the intricacies of their particular branch? To think that WSO leaders have no impact at execs is wrong. A good, young Flt Lt will be as credible as a stuck in the mud, crusty and bitter old Flt Lt or Sqn Ldr. Often his views will be more relevant to the young guys he represents and more progressive.
By your reckoning, only AEOps should be commissioned. Given your comments re only pilots making it to CAS, why is that, exactly? Why should they be different? Is it leadership? I think that may be your rationale. The MR2 sqns have many more commissioned guys than their SH or AT cousins, as more leaders are required on Maritime due to the crew compositions. Why couldn't a MAEOp do their job? Is it because a MACR doesn't have the ability? Or is it because of the officer/officer interface between the crew "execs". If it is the latter (as I think it is - whether you admit it or not) then your arguments, sir, are blown out of the water.
Your views are ill thought out and you contradict youself from paragraph to paragraph. If you want to raise such inflammatory points, they have to be well constructed and thought through, not full of holes as your arguments are. I wasn't sure if your comments warranted a reply, but even after allowing my simmering blood to cool, I couldn't leave it alone.
I really do hope that you never have NCA serving under you as I would fear for their ultimate well-being.
Your arguments just don't hold water. Your view that WSOps should not be commissioned as they "dilute the gene pool" is utter bunkum. If that is true, why commission anyone other than pilots? You argue that no non-pilot will become CAS so why waste your time. You, my friend, haven't a clue.
What about leadership? Are not other branches entitled to have their own leaders with full knowledge of the intricacies of their particular branch? To think that WSO leaders have no impact at execs is wrong. A good, young Flt Lt will be as credible as a stuck in the mud, crusty and bitter old Flt Lt or Sqn Ldr. Often his views will be more relevant to the young guys he represents and more progressive.
By your reckoning, only AEOps should be commissioned. Given your comments re only pilots making it to CAS, why is that, exactly? Why should they be different? Is it leadership? I think that may be your rationale. The MR2 sqns have many more commissioned guys than their SH or AT cousins, as more leaders are required on Maritime due to the crew compositions. Why couldn't a MAEOp do their job? Is it because a MACR doesn't have the ability? Or is it because of the officer/officer interface between the crew "execs". If it is the latter (as I think it is - whether you admit it or not) then your arguments, sir, are blown out of the water.
Your views are ill thought out and you contradict youself from paragraph to paragraph. If you want to raise such inflammatory points, they have to be well constructed and thought through, not full of holes as your arguments are. I wasn't sure if your comments warranted a reply, but even after allowing my simmering blood to cool, I couldn't leave it alone.
I really do hope that you never have NCA serving under you as I would fear for their ultimate well-being.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And havent the most recent bunch proved beyond all doubt that we need to get way from this kind of selection. A bigger bunch of spineless wasters could anyboby have to suffer under. Why would a CAS turn up at an AT base and spend the whole time dodging the issues whilst trying to prove that Typhoon is a great platform.
So glad Im out of it now.
5d2d
So glad Im out of it now.
5d2d
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roland the thread was about commisioning rearcrew, not all Rearcrew are masters! some are Sergeants who get much less pay than a flt lt!
I just don't see ANY benefit at all! the people pushing for it are thinking selfishly and aren't genuine believers that it is of benefit to the service.
We have too many bloody commisioned ranks as it is, far too top heavy! why add to that?
Secondly tell me one other trade that allows the subjects to continue doing their same job commisioned as the job they do non commisioned? other than perhaps Regiment.
I just don't see ANY benefit at all! the people pushing for it are thinking selfishly and aren't genuine believers that it is of benefit to the service.
We have too many bloody commisioned ranks as it is, far too top heavy! why add to that?
Secondly tell me one other trade that allows the subjects to continue doing their same job commisioned as the job they do non commisioned? other than perhaps Regiment.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly tell me one other trade that allows the subjects to continue doing their same job commisioned as the job they do non commisioned? other than perhaps Regiment.
NCA in years to come will be a very shallow one, unless of course Cpl or even Junior Rank aircrew appear over the horizon, and that hornets nest could well be the long term plan. Assuming of course that anybody in this mans air force looks beyond next weekend.
Sorry todd, I obviously misunderstood your argument. I thought you meant that because paying commisioned officer aircrew would cost more than paying an NCO aircrew, commissioning wouldn't happen.
So just to get this straight:
A/Sgt aircrew on appointment (Cpl Higher Rate) £24.5K
Fg Off on appointment £13.8K
Substantive Sgt £29K
Level 7 Sgt £33K
Level 1 Flt Lt £33.8K
Therefore money is not the deciding factor on commissioning!
In answer to you other question, Ops Support, Fighter Control, Police, ATC to name but a few!!
I happen to agree with commissioned rearcrew, I know quite a few. What other branch in the RAF stops career progression at WO?!?!?!
So just to get this straight:
A/Sgt aircrew on appointment (Cpl Higher Rate) £24.5K
Fg Off on appointment £13.8K
Substantive Sgt £29K
Level 7 Sgt £33K
Level 1 Flt Lt £33.8K
Therefore money is not the deciding factor on commissioning!
In answer to you other question, Ops Support, Fighter Control, Police, ATC to name but a few!!
I happen to agree with commissioned rearcrew, I know quite a few. What other branch in the RAF stops career progression at WO?!?!?!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Financial Incentive
Roland,
Come on, dont forget the flying pay, there certainly is financial incentive, but without a doubt - no immediate financial incentive for taking a groung commission!
CRPxGood
Come on, dont forget the flying pay, there certainly is financial incentive, but without a doubt - no immediate financial incentive for taking a groung commission!
CRPxGood
So what is the point of striving for a Commission as aircrew if you know it won't be in a flying career? We may as well invent a "Commissioned" branch who have no background or expertise in any branch/trade, but who are complete experts at talking the empty psuedo-businness speak that the current Staff College Graduates now spout (and with an MA in bolloux to make their Station photo and post-nominals look more important)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of these posts are way too emotive, you need to stop thinking about "rights". The service is not a democratic charity and in the end must structure itself to meet its cost and manpower limitations.
On the other hand, statements that it isnt policy to support aspirational career patterns are utter rubbish! Why then are all pilots commisioned if it isn't to let the most politically devious rise to the highest rank? Why can't Ground Engineers or ATC become Stn Cdrs of flying units? I never understood how a Regiment Officer could be OC Ops but not the Stn Cdr?
There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD. Even as a SO2 I was virtually told to "shut up" whenever I broached the subject so God only knows what an empowered MAcr would have achieved.
Please excuse Beagle! He was but a poor Tanker W**k*r whose disinterest for his CS was legendary. Beagle old boy, you must realise that not all rearcrew are there to shove tea and sandwiches in your face and listen to your cynical racetrack stories of "There I was at ...with my RB's on telling the lady Nav how good I was and blow me we gave away 5 tonnes of fuel!"
I repeat myself by saying boldly that not all commissioned rearcrew were the best choice and I have publicly always lambasted those who seemed to think they should continue in the same role as they had as a SNCO. However; they were becoming few and far between, the majority of the latest crop of young persons had a cleverness that equalled most of the pilot fraternity and would have given them a run for their money in open competition.
I do think that commisioned rear crew should be removed from their direct operational role occasionally, it's necessary to be involved in wider aspects of the service. I do not, however; think that the flt cdr WSOps should be a first second or even third tourist pilot/Nav in circumstances where an empowered MAcr is in residence. How much support are you going to get from someone who considers you a secondary duty? How often are your views and aspirations going to be aired if they think they might rock the boat? This isn't Hollywood and with promotion so speculative, a young thing isn't going to create too many waves. An officer who knows from the outset that they aren't going to make much above SO2 though.....well thats another thing!
For the service it's not about saving money! Its about another initiative that got someone promoted! The fact that it proved to be pants isn't a problem, the instigator is two ranks higher and safe from persecution. Meanwhile the flotsam has to put up with yet another disruption that has de-stabilised and demoralised. See AA TOS 1989, JPA, LEAN etc, etc.
Hope I haven't been too negative!
On the other hand, statements that it isnt policy to support aspirational career patterns are utter rubbish! Why then are all pilots commisioned if it isn't to let the most politically devious rise to the highest rank? Why can't Ground Engineers or ATC become Stn Cdrs of flying units? I never understood how a Regiment Officer could be OC Ops but not the Stn Cdr?
There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD. Even as a SO2 I was virtually told to "shut up" whenever I broached the subject so God only knows what an empowered MAcr would have achieved.
Please excuse Beagle! He was but a poor Tanker W**k*r whose disinterest for his CS was legendary. Beagle old boy, you must realise that not all rearcrew are there to shove tea and sandwiches in your face and listen to your cynical racetrack stories of "There I was at ...with my RB's on telling the lady Nav how good I was and blow me we gave away 5 tonnes of fuel!"
I repeat myself by saying boldly that not all commissioned rearcrew were the best choice and I have publicly always lambasted those who seemed to think they should continue in the same role as they had as a SNCO. However; they were becoming few and far between, the majority of the latest crop of young persons had a cleverness that equalled most of the pilot fraternity and would have given them a run for their money in open competition.
I do think that commisioned rear crew should be removed from their direct operational role occasionally, it's necessary to be involved in wider aspects of the service. I do not, however; think that the flt cdr WSOps should be a first second or even third tourist pilot/Nav in circumstances where an empowered MAcr is in residence. How much support are you going to get from someone who considers you a secondary duty? How often are your views and aspirations going to be aired if they think they might rock the boat? This isn't Hollywood and with promotion so speculative, a young thing isn't going to create too many waves. An officer who knows from the outset that they aren't going to make much above SO2 though.....well thats another thing!
For the service it's not about saving money! Its about another initiative that got someone promoted! The fact that it proved to be pants isn't a problem, the instigator is two ranks higher and safe from persecution. Meanwhile the flotsam has to put up with yet another disruption that has de-stabilised and demoralised. See AA TOS 1989, JPA, LEAN etc, etc.
Hope I haven't been too negative!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chippenham, Wilts
Age: 75
Posts: 297
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's late but, please it's always been "however," ( i.e comma not semi colon)
Pedantic of Wiltshire
Pedantic of Wiltshire
Last edited by threeputt; 4th Feb 2007 at 21:41. Reason: It's somewhere in the middle
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, typed it in the dark!
I also missed out some essential punctuation at the beginning and I think there was at least one spelling mistake. Long learnt skills atrophied by Mr Gates magic spellcheck!
I also missed out some essential punctuation at the beginning and I think there was at least one spelling mistake. Long learnt skills atrophied by Mr Gates magic spellcheck!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Kilngon:
"There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD."
Thought it was decided that the MSO position WILL be a WSOp?
Don`t tell me the Navs have managed to get their greasy little hands on the MSO job on the new tanker...........
"There is more than a grain of truth in the notion that the Nav empire is on a mission of self preservation. I personally witnessed the manic panic over the FSTA MSO posistion when it was suggested that all the skill sets could be accomplished by a WSOp; who just happened to also do "other" duties down the back. Instead the Navs just threw in more and more "Nav" duties until it was evident that they had a job; so much for a 2 man FD."
Thought it was decided that the MSO position WILL be a WSOp?
Don`t tell me the Navs have managed to get their greasy little hands on the MSO job on the new tanker...........
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may very well be now! It's 18 months since I eased springs in that arena but at that time it HAD to be someone who could run the trail, stream the hoses, work out how to get from A to A and so on. Of course this meant that you would need skills akin to the trail co-ord and give briefings to officers, who wouldn't take very kindly to listening to a SNCO, so it would have to be an officer and...BTW, there just happens to be a forecast surplus of ?????
When I suggested that the aircraft would be AOG for the lack of its promised future proof automated guidance system or that the hoses were a simple switch to "Hose out... fuel flows...Hose in!" it was greeted with an awful lot of derision.
Fortunately the Nav who took over at 2 Grapes had a more pragmatic viewpoint than his predecessor and agreed that it was slightly over-egging the pudding.
For goodness sake, the FSTA FD is ergonomically designed to be operated by two pilots and if you need a third hand on deck then increase the establishment to use another pilot, or if its not too bothersome , "Loadie!....Stream the hoses while we nosh on the sandwiches!" Why would you train a parasympathetic FD lurker who has no skills anywhere else?
When I suggested that the aircraft would be AOG for the lack of its promised future proof automated guidance system or that the hoses were a simple switch to "Hose out... fuel flows...Hose in!" it was greeted with an awful lot of derision.
Fortunately the Nav who took over at 2 Grapes had a more pragmatic viewpoint than his predecessor and agreed that it was slightly over-egging the pudding.
For goodness sake, the FSTA FD is ergonomically designed to be operated by two pilots and if you need a third hand on deck then increase the establishment to use another pilot, or if its not too bothersome , "Loadie!....Stream the hoses while we nosh on the sandwiches!" Why would you train a parasympathetic FD lurker who has no skills anywhere else?
Level 28,
A point of fact is that a RN Observer is currently being trained as a cmn on the Me3 OCU. Does this mean he will assume the duties of Cmn Ldr in the absence of any other JO ALM?
A point of fact is that a RN Observer is currently being trained as a cmn on the Me3 OCU. Does this mean he will assume the duties of Cmn Ldr in the absence of any other JO ALM?
Klingon, I don't know where you got your nonsense from, but never were the terms 'navigator', 'air engineer' or 'loadmaster' ever used in initial FSTA work assessment - it was always Mission System Operator.
When researching FSTA skill sets, I asked a senior sqn ALM which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward. He couldn't come up with a single one - so the RNethAF KDC-10 'Operator/Loadmaster' concept looked a definite possibility for FSTA - with the cabin staff being all air stewards when needed for AT pax duties.
But if the navigators have now shown that they have more of the relevant skill sets, then I wouldn't be surprised at all. It's happened in other recent tanker types.
And as for your libellous comments about my attitude towards cabin crew, you can bloody go and get stuffed! Although I do recall having to persuade a certain loadmaster to stop mincing about and lend the MAMS people at hand at Freetown.... And another, at the same place, who was trying to find a rule to stop us taking a RFA matelot back with us, was told not to bother - the guy was coming back!
When researching FSTA skill sets, I asked a senior sqn ALM which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward. He couldn't come up with a single one - so the RNethAF KDC-10 'Operator/Loadmaster' concept looked a definite possibility for FSTA - with the cabin staff being all air stewards when needed for AT pax duties.
But if the navigators have now shown that they have more of the relevant skill sets, then I wouldn't be surprised at all. It's happened in other recent tanker types.
And as for your libellous comments about my attitude towards cabin crew, you can bloody go and get stuffed! Although I do recall having to persuade a certain loadmaster to stop mincing about and lend the MAMS people at hand at Freetown.... And another, at the same place, who was trying to find a rule to stop us taking a RFA matelot back with us, was told not to bother - the guy was coming back!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle old chap! (Covers mouth with hand and stage whispers) "Your God status is showing through!"
I know you were always an inspiring captain and got the best out of the serfs whenever you could but please, don't purport to have the inside edge on all things FSTA.
Frankly the "views" of the senior ALM on the squadron were hardly the skill sets that were acceptable at 2 Gp; you can always ask a question and get the answer you want if you phrase it correctly. I mean seriously, "which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" asked of a 101 Sqn or even a C130K ALM. What answer did you expect? Perhaps the question " which of his specific before flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" would have got a more relevant answer. The problem is that a big chunk of the bidding drivers took the answer to your question to be all the Job Analysis that was needed to push their bid forward. As to wether they were going to be called MSO or not, it was a fact for quite some time they were all going to be re-trained Navs wearing a different dress.
Be real, you remember what trails were like, pure hysterical farse the second the task left home base. Even with downlinking and up to the minute technology you will never replace the human interface in the tactical management environment. How long before MAMS need to have a presence on the aircraft to ensure its loading compliance iaw JAR-Ops 1. Are you telling me that the super MSO (Nav) is going to get himself trained up on loading and DAC and then get all sweaty in the holds or that we should train the senior air steward to do the DAC and cargo inspections, raise the manifests etc all in the 2 hrs before flight.
If the service used the aircraft like the RNethAF it might just work, however, the RNethAF is far more constricted by JAR compliance than I believe we would wish to be and they have a union that says the captain isnt allowed to beat the galley slaves.
I expect a robust reply but I rather enjoyed that!
Sorry the thread has been hijacked butI believe the response from Beagle justifies the argument for return of commissioned rearcrew!
I know you were always an inspiring captain and got the best out of the serfs whenever you could but please, don't purport to have the inside edge on all things FSTA.
Frankly the "views" of the senior ALM on the squadron were hardly the skill sets that were acceptable at 2 Gp; you can always ask a question and get the answer you want if you phrase it correctly. I mean seriously, "which of his specific in flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" asked of a 101 Sqn or even a C130K ALM. What answer did you expect? Perhaps the question " which of his specific before flight tasks couldn't be performed equally well by a senior steward" would have got a more relevant answer. The problem is that a big chunk of the bidding drivers took the answer to your question to be all the Job Analysis that was needed to push their bid forward. As to wether they were going to be called MSO or not, it was a fact for quite some time they were all going to be re-trained Navs wearing a different dress.
Be real, you remember what trails were like, pure hysterical farse the second the task left home base. Even with downlinking and up to the minute technology you will never replace the human interface in the tactical management environment. How long before MAMS need to have a presence on the aircraft to ensure its loading compliance iaw JAR-Ops 1. Are you telling me that the super MSO (Nav) is going to get himself trained up on loading and DAC and then get all sweaty in the holds or that we should train the senior air steward to do the DAC and cargo inspections, raise the manifests etc all in the 2 hrs before flight.
If the service used the aircraft like the RNethAF it might just work, however, the RNethAF is far more constricted by JAR compliance than I believe we would wish to be and they have a union that says the captain isnt allowed to beat the galley slaves.
I expect a robust reply but I rather enjoyed that!
Sorry the thread has been hijacked butI believe the response from Beagle justifies the argument for return of commissioned rearcrew!
Last edited by Klingon; 6th Feb 2007 at 11:00.
Guest
Posts: n/a
News from a secret Hampshire Airbase is that we have commissioning, just not the sort it used to be. Guys who went off to become Navs/FC etc are now poised to return as commissioned crewman to balance the manning deficit. Not sure if it is a good move or not, but several are mates from old and I'll be glad to see a couple of them.
Not sure how some of the more recent arrivals will view the arrival of a bunch of Flt Lt's onto the wing, when commissioning isn't an option for them.
I fear dissent.
Not sure how some of the more recent arrivals will view the arrival of a bunch of Flt Lt's onto the wing, when commissioning isn't an option for them.
I fear dissent.