A flying Air Trafficer!!!!?????

[trap one]

Well Said Gorilla/Wyler/Airwaverider
The point my estemed Ex-colleague (Gorilla) is trying to make is that the whole 18/17 men/women on board the E3 have to work together as a CREW. Be it as NCA, Officer Aircrew, AT;s, FC's or AT's. The end product that goes off the jet is the result of the TEAM work that goes on the jet. Now if that involves Making Butties, collecting paper work, prompting the pilot about the course he is flying, or putting out a fire on the aircraft, it is all TEAMWORK.
I have flown with some very good operators, that goes for all the seats from nose to tail and I've flown with some not so good operators.
When it comes down to the wire all the members of a crew will be in the aircraft and therefore subject to exactly the same risks That is why they are paid the same. Now once the non aircrew types leave the job then the Flying pay stops, for the simple reason they have not gone through the Fyningly/Cranwell mill. I was summonded back after 18 months on the ground without flying pay and requalified within 6 weeks to then deploy to Afganistan. I went not to get the extra money but because I was a serving member of the RAF.

RATUP
I'll echo the thoughts of the above and STH, DON't decide on what you read here, journey far and wide get as much exposure to all the jobs you even think you might like and then make your own decision.

Trap One

[The Swinging Monkey]

Trap One,
May I point out to you that you are incorrect about your comment: "That is why they are paid the same. Now once the non aircrew types leave the job then the Flying pay stops" I can assure you that, for many FCs, the money does not stop. I can name several FCs who have gone back to the ground but have retained their flying pay because they ahve been able to put a case forward for possibly 'having a need' in the furture to 'return to flying duties'. I have sen it from Flt Lt all the way up to at least one Wg Cdr. Indeed, it even happened to one AT, although it was soon stopped when the rest of the ATs tried to jump on the bandwagon and PMA finally woke up!

As for being 'paid the same' perhaps you could enlighten me here? Many was the time when the CT, straight out of STS was earning MORE than the 'proffessional' CO sitting next to him! The same could often be said for the FO FC on the back row earning more than a FS AEOp who has done a couple of tours already. I'm afraid you are wrong again there Sir.

This thread is NOT about teamwork or any other rubbish like that. It is about PMAs decision to put a 'Non-Aircrew' bum into an aircrew seat, when there are many 'aircrew' who, through no fault of their own cannot get back to flying.

I have no problem flying with anyone, but I do think that this kind of thing should only happen as and when all the aircrew, who are filling crap ground slots, that want to get back to flying, are back on a squadron doing their primary job.

TSM

[Grumpy106]

TSM

Check your facts, the flying pay attracting 'flying-related' posts stopped about 3 yeras ago. Only FCs in flying tours attract flying pay these days. Indeed, most of those in receipt of it in ground tours were told to pay it back!!!

[The Swinging Monkey]

Grumps,
Are you categorically saying that other than on an actual flying squadron tour, FCs do NOT get flying pay? Want to bet on that? Would you like me post a couple of names for you?
What about the other stuff about all being paid the same?

TSM

[trap one]

TSM
My comment about being paid the same is that we or in my case was in reciept of the appropriate rate of flying pay. However re your CT/CO or SO vs AEOp I could raise you a FE Sgt on Master Eng pay/rates, the fact was we were/are in reciept of the right level of pay for the job.
The arguement of the FC recieving pay as they might come back to flyig duties is IMHO never has been valid. Certainly all the SNCO's who returned as ERS only recieved the flying pay for the time thet were on ERS and when ERS finished stone dead at the end of GW2 then so did the flying pay. As an aside it wasn't until the Sept after that the idiots finally sorted out my Flying pay. If you know better I'll defer to you as I am now EX-RAF. But the arguement for the FC's recieving the Flying pay was that they were in Flying related posts. E.G. the AWACS tasker/liasion at JMOTS. So therefore had to be current as per the job discription and returned to fly to maintain currency/knowledge.
I know most of the FC's who were recieving Flying Pay on these Ground tours had to pay back the "over pay" and when I last raised it with one of them they were still trying to get it written off but still faced a hefty bill.
Although the thread was not started with team work as a point it has certainly crept into the comments of some of the posters and whilst I have already admitted to being an Ex member of the E3 community I will still defend it against detractors.
Trap One

[Grumpy106]

TSM

There are certain posts at Waddington only which attract flying pay when the incumbents of those posts remain current and fly missions in the role they filled whilst on the Flying Sqns. So, the answer to your question is no, not only personnel on the Sqns receive flying pay, but no FCs outside Waddington in posts such as JMOTS, PJHQ and Force Command receive flying pay any more. As for your arguement about the right pay for the job, I know several Flt Lt TDs on middle rate flying pay who had Wg Cdr SOs on top whack flying pay working for them, how about that for the right pay for the job!

Either way, the thread was set up about having an ATCO in the SO role. Why not, if he can pass the Course, good luck to him. He can only add to the already diverse mix of E-3 Mission Crew which makes the platform so successful. And as for 'all those real aircrew stuck in ground jobs', maybe they are victims of their own success by having to fill those specific roles (such as in the AWC). I dare say some of them are quite happy to stay there, with their flying pay, rather than have to work too hard back on a Sqn.

[Captain Ratpup]

FC or ATC choices...

Many thanks to all who contributed their thoughts or PM'd me on the issue of choosing between FC and ATC. Some very valuable, honest and unbiased feedback which I am very grateful for...

Even though I previously mentioned I'm up to Boulmer for a fam mid-April and offered free booze to anyone willing to share their thoughts, there have been no takers! I obviously need to reassess this choice of branch. Perhaps the FC types are too busy in their bunkers to have time for a drink I can hardly tell OASC I chose ATC over FC as they seemed to like drinkypoos more. Or maybe I can...

[Bunker Mentality]

Ratpup,
You are probably nearer the truth than you know, but most places in the Service are pretty busy these days. 'Mid April' is bit vague, and is still a month away - many people won't have a clue whether they'll be free to take you up on your offer or not. Are you coming to Boulmer as part of an RJP, or independently? Either way, I'm sure you'll be well looked after when you get here.
Sir Topham Hat knows what he's talking about. Keep an open mind until you've seen for yourself. Be especially aware that stuff on here that looks authoritative can, in fact, be utter drivel - and often is.
BM

[Lomon]

At a risk of being stoned here, maybe PMA are bending to the will of the MOD who want to see fewer instances of of Fighter Controllers attempting to weld fast jets with civil airliners. ATC on the ground cannot co-ordinate with a fighter controller in an E3, and maybe having someone on board who's job it is to keep a/c 5 miles apart instead of trying to get them as close together as possible. The UK's airspace is becoming increasingly complex, having someone on board who can point out some of the more intricate rules may do some good.

The fact that the individual is (rumoured to be) ex aircrew is a clever idea, you don't have to spend more money sending someone on all the aircrew courses, and all the other aircrew types can't get uptight about having a non member of the club playing with their toys.

And if the experiment fails then it hasn't cost the MOD very much at all. Besides if the MOD get their way TG9 and 12 will end up merged in the next few years anyway. So then we could all end up anywhere.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Lomon,
You make me laugh mate, you try controlling 45+ aircraft in an exercise like CQWI, around the north sea then overland. What you are not probably aware of is that we have to give the fast jets freedom to turn/climb/descend without asking for tactical training, Its up to us to notice that they are doing it and then make the 'radar service' fit the situation and let them continue or not. Its a situation that most ATC cannot comprehend.
As for your

maybe having someone on board who's job it is to keep a/c 5 miles apart instead of trying to get them as close together as possible

He wont be anywhere near controlling a/c, and as such will have no input about controlling during the mission.

having someone on board who can point out some of the more intricate rules may do some good

We all know the rules or we would not be allowed to control in UK airspace !! JSP552 etc is there for us all.

ATC on the ground cannot co-ordinate with an E3

Same, the FC on the E3 cannot co-ordinate with ATC either, and as mentioned above they still allow the jets the freedom to get on with the training. So the E3 does not require someone to show what 5 miles is !
Back on topic, let him go to the jet, he seems an experienced guy and as such must bring something to the party. However, he has had an opportunity that would not normally arise due to his current job, and his current job will not help with the roles he will learn on the E3.

[London Mil]

FnF

Its a situation that most ATC cannot comprehend.

I think you underestimate us somewhat. Who tends to do the ingress/egress, runs half the towlines and, as happened a couple of weeks back, marshalled the whole bleedin' lot in the 323 complex whilst you guys finished briefing.

Don't try and create a greater divide between us. As someone has already said, there is a certain inevitability about being joined-up.

[SidHolding]

I thought the ATC guy was going into the SO position, so will therefore not control aircraft, but raise a radar plot and operate the ESM sensor.

[I've_got a traveller]

SO's (apparently) aren't even allowed to talk on the radio!! As they are not trained to do so!!!! But, don't quote me on that a suppressed fellow Aeop (EW) on the "Component",whatever that means, told me.

[lokiukuk]

ATC

FC is NOT a Brevet it's a flying badge!!!!!!!!!!!

[tailchase]

Poor Lomon

You were either having a very bad start to your nightshift or had a long day, when you dropped your bait into last night's contribution.
However, fact, FC's don't fly the jets (so are not deliberately trying to 'weld' them to anything or anyone, nor are the aircrew) both branches treat flight safety as the highest priority....the airspace and mission type will dictate the appropriate radar service that the FC like yourself must/can/or even is not permitted to apply, often, due to radar/comms coverage and number of aircraft involved. This is more likely to result in an information service at best than strict 5 miles (long live radar control etc etc for the arduous task of nice long straight and level flight - FC are just not 'requested/briefed' to do that). The airspace can often be adjacent to or even underneath an element of more regulated airspace or simply open FIR and this is where I sense that your comments are aimed, especially if you and other ATC are trying to route traffic through this 'shared' airspace, perhaps even traffic that is not ideally suited to being there by virtue of its performance envelope but equally has a right because the airspace class permits it. However, for the sake of a well thought out turn of perhaps 20 degrees away for a handful of miles, everyone ends up in the middle of the same piece of sky. I know, I know. The airline operators and Joe Public alike want to get from A to B as quickly and fuel efficiently as possible, so your hands are tied even if you make the suggestion to the pilot or the FC if he is looking a hundred miles ahead, sees the chance for the request. Believe me, in an ideal world, ATC and FC alike would not have to share airspace quite so intimately and the tactical side (and trg reqts alike lets not forget) of the Fast Jet and FC's world could be achieved without the continuing debate of this nature -not going to happen though is it as airspace continues to change/evolve?

Perhaps you should visit an airfield and a CRC (ideally both) and see the level of work and preparation that goes into these exercises from all areas (hence the need for the prolonged briefings). FCs visiting the area or approach guys alike to explain doesn't quite have the same impact as watching a complex CQWI mission unfold first hand. That said, FC do need to do this but that is to better understand your job.

Have you ever thought about how much safer the sky actually is for ATC and FC both giving whatever form of service to aircraft as opposed to everyone flying about in their own little world under VFR. without ATC or FC Now the latter part of that question really does scare me.

FC and ATC do different jobs - surely this was pointed out at the careers office to you. Go and seek wisdom and understanding. You never know, a piece of everyone's jigsaw might just fall into place for the face-to-face interaction (I think it is still called liaison). This often makes the post-debate beer all the more enjoyable as well. Furthermore, maybe you will then be making a push yourself to persuade PMA to part with some flying pay. Afterall, at least the E-3D has some windows!!

London Mil is starting to use language such as 'marshalled' - you'll be writing papers on amalagmation if you are not careful.

[Lomon]

However, fact, FC's don't fly the jets (so are not deliberately trying to 'weld' them to anything or anyone, nor are the aircrew) both branches treat flight safety as the highest priority

I know that, it was a tongue in cheek comment

I have visited the CRC, and seen how the FC guys work. And in return we have hosted FC from Boulmer and Scampton, and even studes from the FC school.

FC and ATC do different jobs - surely this was pointed out at the careers office to you. Go and seek wisdom and understanding. You never know, a piece of everyone's jigsaw might just fall into place for the face-to-face interaction (I think it is still called liaison).

I know FC and ATC do different jobs too. I wasn't trying to upset the ladies and gentlemen of the FC branch, but from all the FC's I have spoken too, and some recent minor incidents, there is room for improvement. Nobody can remember every little rule from the JSP's, AIP's, CAP's etc etc.

The point was that maybe someone of the ATC persuasion could fill those little gaps in the knowledge that exist because of a lack of understanding between 2 branches that MOD sees as so close already that the subject of merging them rears it's head at every mention of reductions in defence spending.

Afterall, at least the E-3D has some windows!!

So does the office, but you might have a better view

[Yeller_Gait]

Lomon,

For the umpteenth time, an air trafficker who is going to be a surveillance operator on the E-3D will have absolutely nothing to do with controlling and will have no more than a passing interest in airspace, particularly in his early time on the aircraft when he will be busy learning the SO role.

By the time he has spent 5-6 months on the SCC and a further 6 months or so getting to CR standard once on the squadron I guess that he will no longer be current on UK airspace procedures anyway, never mind the fact that we routinely fly in several European countries on training missions.

What is more worrying for me is that I find myself in agreement with FC's on this thread, I must go and have a lie down, or maybe a G&T!

Can we get the thread back to subject please, I still think it is wrong that we are putting a non-flying person into a flying post when there are enough people willing to fly, and perhaps even more importantly, it is experienced SNCO's we need( as SO), not more officers.

Y_G

[tailchase]

Aircrew or TG12

Lomon - I think we have reached an agreement on the points raised.
I suspect that whilst this thread has been very much a collection of individual and often almost hysterical rants (it's a pity that the forum cannot recreate the dark corner of the bar after happy hour/midnight when full use of the hands to demonstrate what is being discsused with full consequence of spilled beer etc). The fact is that no matter who fills them, somebody or somewhere has ultimately paid a lot of money to decide where the core skills of the basic role lie whether it is on the E-3D or any platform or the ground(when will this become an issue with Sentinel - will that become a tri-service debate when we light blue all seem to stick together - or, will we be appalled at our green colleagues taking our rightful place etc etc, or perhaps even think jointery is the way forward).
In this case, back to the thread, the posts would have been established as TG12 within each E-3D crew. I used to be able to recount which post was which in each posn from my past employment. However, the majority of replies here seem to agree that the mission crew often enjoys a better balance when it has a full cross section of different branches and trades and, importantly, experience - dare I even ask whether it could be conceivable for a mission crew to perform its duties at least to an acceptable standard without anyone of 'aircrew' persuasion - blimey!
We prove that we can all work together whether in adversity or otherwise and it is perhaps time for innocent bystanders and those seeking a career to take that impression home with them. Of course there are always going to be individuals of higher capabilities and apptitudes than others but isn't that what selection and subsequently promotion (rank and meritocracy alike) sort out. That said, I would rather have had 2 average operators than one loose cannon who brings his sandbag to the conversation each time the barrack room lawyer pitches up.

[Lomon]

For the umpteenth time, an air trafficker who is going to be a surveillance operator on the E-3D will have absolutely nothing to do with controlling and will have no more than a passing interest in airspace, particularly in his early time on the aircraft when he will be busy learning the SO role.

By the time he has spent 5-6 months on the SCC and a further 6 months or so getting to CR standard once on the squadron I guess that he will no longer be current on UK airspace procedures anyway, never mind the fact that we routinely fly in several European countries on training missions.

Obviously intelligent discussion is forbidden here. The thread started as a speculative rumour, this is the rumour network isn't it? The guys who routinely fly E3 sorties were speculating on what skills an Air Traffic Controller would bring to to an E3 crew.

I provided a tongue in cheek reply, after all light hearted banter is part of service life, (or are you not allowed a sense of humour here any more?)

Can we get the thread back to subject please

The topic of the thread was "A flying Air Trafficer!!!!?????" Where did I go off topic? I was merely voicing an opinion within the context of the thread title.

If discussion is not the point of the forum, then why bother having one?

[I've_got a traveller]

Lomon and tail chase, I believe you both have very valid arguments and I'm not going to disagree with you.............but, one thing we can all agree on is that money and morale (perhaps not on E3's) is in very short supply within the RAF at the moment and we are being stretched to breaking point. SF fleets, Herc and especially Nimrod fleets are experiencing problems that the E3 wouldn't be able to comprehend at this moment in time. Let's face it the E3's are living the dream compared to the majority of platforms. So ,what annoys us Aircrew, is when money is spent on putting people from outside the aircrew cadre into the air. It costs thousands upon thousands to kit them out,train them and then give them flying pay. And whilst all this extra expenditure takes place aircrew of all trades from Navs to Aeops are sat in meaningless ground trades twiddling their thumbs and getting flying pay! You have to agree that this is pure waste. Frankly, I think that anyone from most trades in the RAF could do the SO job and they could contribute something from their respective pasts wether it be an ATCO, TG12. PMA are not thinking this through as what they need on E3's is not more officers (see Yellow gait's posts) but more operators.

Just think of all the money they could save!

You do the Math!!!!!