Army Door Gunners to be Re-Streamed.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nco Fri
Tiger Mate, and all others :
Best I nip this one in the bud !
The FRI that the previous post refered to was directed at the AAC. The post refers to information taken from one of the previous years pay reviews for the AAC and nobody else.
The post was an answer to a comment from somebody, this comment obviously directed to the army.
I have no information of this years AFPRB, and didn't mean to cause confusion.
Best I nip this one in the bud !
The FRI that the previous post refered to was directed at the AAC. The post refers to information taken from one of the previous years pay reviews for the AAC and nobody else.
The post was an answer to a comment from somebody, this comment obviously directed to the army.
I have no information of this years AFPRB, and didn't mean to cause confusion.
Last edited by Clear Right,Px Good!; 11th Feb 2007 at 10:11.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ratty posted
1. No, Mrs P is in hospital
2. Read several years ago in The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexual Behavior, probably more now with an increase in World population.
Enough now, this is way off topic, but perhaps better than the way this thread has gone.
So were you at the point you posted your message. Were did you get the 17 million people number from?
2. Read several years ago in The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexual Behavior, probably more now with an increase in World population.
Enough now, this is way off topic, but perhaps better than the way this thread has gone.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MN
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unclassified
As a U.S. Army Crewchief on the UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter.
I have had this same conversation about the addition of door gunners not trained to the same level as a crewchief, we have recently made similar changes to our program. The number of recent aircrew casulties in Iraq and Afganistan highlight the immediate need for additional crewmembers.
The level of training re-enforcments have is a worry but for now its baptism by fire.
Strength and Honor
SSGT Rock
I have had this same conversation about the addition of door gunners not trained to the same level as a crewchief, we have recently made similar changes to our program. The number of recent aircrew casulties in Iraq and Afganistan highlight the immediate need for additional crewmembers.
The level of training re-enforcments have is a worry but for now its baptism by fire.
Strength and Honor
SSGT Rock
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I have been reading this thread with interest. Some AAC Aviation Crewman (ACM) facts:
The AAC has 4 ACM roles. ADG, Bell 212, Spec Liaison and FW.
Air Door Gunners are primarily responsible for aircraft defence with the Crew Served Weapon (CSW) and, as a secondary duty, carry out voice marshalling although this would become a primary responsibility in benign operations. The Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances. Although highly trained in these specialist fields they do not carry out C of G calcs, or sign for any detail in the F 700, though in my experience they are more than capable. This is because it is not in their job description and the training would significantly increase the 7 weeks they currently complete. There is also the poor return of service of 2 years for ACM on average. This will remain until a Career Employment Group (CEG) is established.
Bell 212 ACM are employed as Winch Operators in Belize and Brunei. They are primarily concerned with Voice Marshalling and management of the 212's cabin, not to mention operating the Winch and extracting casualties from very small jungle holes using 200' of cable. Exacting stuff. Again, the Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances.
Spec Liaison is something I refuse to comment on here, enough said on the matter!
Fixed Wing ACM are more 'front seat specialised operators and ordinarily carry out the duties of a FW P2 in 'old-money'. Their duties will involve flight planning, operating cockpit systems such as nav equipment and specialist user equipment.
All these specialisations are not necessarily inter-related and, as previously mentioned, the small return of service means there is no requirement for one trade-master of all. This decision will be revisited if a CEG is established.
Regarding the debate, recent operational experience has proved that the 'benign' rear crew duty of checking the tail clear etc is somewhat omitted when approaching a hot LZ and the requirement to return fire is necessary. This has led to the RAF requiring ADG trained personnel to operate the CSW whilst ALM Voice Marshall and clear the aircraft, a task for which they are culpable for, especially considering the larger size of the aircraft they operate. AAC ACM are more than adequately trained to operate the CSW and with the new ADG Sim established at MW the AAC are probably the service leaders in the employment of 'door gunners'. The RAF (and RN) ALM are experts in the field of rear cabin activities, including voice marshalling, C of G calcs, including servicing the aircraft. In my opinion, there is no argument. One does not threaten the other, rather we are specialists in different fields and should utilise the knowledge from across the three services to get the best possible product.
Feel free to PM me for more information.
h.
I have been reading this thread with interest. Some AAC Aviation Crewman (ACM) facts:
The AAC has 4 ACM roles. ADG, Bell 212, Spec Liaison and FW.
Air Door Gunners are primarily responsible for aircraft defence with the Crew Served Weapon (CSW) and, as a secondary duty, carry out voice marshalling although this would become a primary responsibility in benign operations. The Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances. Although highly trained in these specialist fields they do not carry out C of G calcs, or sign for any detail in the F 700, though in my experience they are more than capable. This is because it is not in their job description and the training would significantly increase the 7 weeks they currently complete. There is also the poor return of service of 2 years for ACM on average. This will remain until a Career Employment Group (CEG) is established.
Bell 212 ACM are employed as Winch Operators in Belize and Brunei. They are primarily concerned with Voice Marshalling and management of the 212's cabin, not to mention operating the Winch and extracting casualties from very small jungle holes using 200' of cable. Exacting stuff. Again, the Aircraft Commander is responsible in all circumstances for clearances.
Spec Liaison is something I refuse to comment on here, enough said on the matter!
Fixed Wing ACM are more 'front seat specialised operators and ordinarily carry out the duties of a FW P2 in 'old-money'. Their duties will involve flight planning, operating cockpit systems such as nav equipment and specialist user equipment.
All these specialisations are not necessarily inter-related and, as previously mentioned, the small return of service means there is no requirement for one trade-master of all. This decision will be revisited if a CEG is established.
Regarding the debate, recent operational experience has proved that the 'benign' rear crew duty of checking the tail clear etc is somewhat omitted when approaching a hot LZ and the requirement to return fire is necessary. This has led to the RAF requiring ADG trained personnel to operate the CSW whilst ALM Voice Marshall and clear the aircraft, a task for which they are culpable for, especially considering the larger size of the aircraft they operate. AAC ACM are more than adequately trained to operate the CSW and with the new ADG Sim established at MW the AAC are probably the service leaders in the employment of 'door gunners'. The RAF (and RN) ALM are experts in the field of rear cabin activities, including voice marshalling, C of G calcs, including servicing the aircraft. In my opinion, there is no argument. One does not threaten the other, rather we are specialists in different fields and should utilise the knowledge from across the three services to get the best possible product.
Feel free to PM me for more information.
h.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"AAC ACM are more than adequately trained to operate the CSW and with the new ADG Sim established at MW the AAC are probably the service leaders in the employment of 'door gunners'."
Not a dig but I think, based on the scant info I have, that a very large proportion of SH crewmen are, very sadly no doubt, able to strongly contest that suggestion
Not a dig but I think, based on the scant info I have, that a very large proportion of SH crewmen are, very sadly no doubt, able to strongly contest that suggestion
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wg,
You misunderstand me, Helidrivers well thought out post appeared, well to me anyway, too allude to the fact that you guys have all the current expertise when it comes to putting rounds down range whereas the scant info I have is that the majority of the SH guys have, the almost certainly unwanted distinction of being extremely bloody good at it as well
Not willy waggling just a very sad observation.
You misunderstand me, Helidrivers well thought out post appeared, well to me anyway, too allude to the fact that you guys have all the current expertise when it comes to putting rounds down range whereas the scant info I have is that the majority of the SH guys have, the almost certainly unwanted distinction of being extremely bloody good at it as well
Not willy waggling just a very sad observation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been the RAF for 19 years and have taught crewmen of both the RAF and RM at both Shawbury and Odiham.
I have just returned from 'The Stan' (It's out in the East Tiger) where I can honestly say we enjoyed a good working relationship with the AAC.
So I do speak with some authority when I say that door gunners could be employed on the Chinook....providing they do the same training as everyone else.
I only speak for myself, but I am sure even the crewmen on other types will agree that there isn't the space/wt or interest in carrying someone just to man a gun. He/she needs to be able to VM/Operate the Winch/Service the aircraft/Load WMIK etc/Navigate and so on. At present, DG training is not up to that by a long chalk.
If a DG has the potential, there is a route for them to become NCA and fulfil all duties expected of them.
As for not cleaning our weapons, quite right, that's why we employ armourers. Having just spent the night window flying day into night into day, I could of course get back, clean out the aircraft, return IW and SES, debrief, massage the following days program and then sit down with the M60. But then sleep has a nasty habit of working it's way into the equation, fatigue management and all that guff some elements of the AAC seem to think it's manly to ignore.
SASLESS- Normally you seem like a sensible chap, but you seem a bit confused by this thread. I am sure Vietnam was great fun, and you regard the US Crew Chief system the pinnacle of aviation, but facts are facts. They do things differently to us. That is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh city.
I have just returned from 'The Stan' (It's out in the East Tiger) where I can honestly say we enjoyed a good working relationship with the AAC.
So I do speak with some authority when I say that door gunners could be employed on the Chinook....providing they do the same training as everyone else.
I only speak for myself, but I am sure even the crewmen on other types will agree that there isn't the space/wt or interest in carrying someone just to man a gun. He/she needs to be able to VM/Operate the Winch/Service the aircraft/Load WMIK etc/Navigate and so on. At present, DG training is not up to that by a long chalk.
If a DG has the potential, there is a route for them to become NCA and fulfil all duties expected of them.
As for not cleaning our weapons, quite right, that's why we employ armourers. Having just spent the night window flying day into night into day, I could of course get back, clean out the aircraft, return IW and SES, debrief, massage the following days program and then sit down with the M60. But then sleep has a nasty habit of working it's way into the equation, fatigue management and all that guff some elements of the AAC seem to think it's manly to ignore.
SASLESS- Normally you seem like a sensible chap, but you seem a bit confused by this thread. I am sure Vietnam was great fun, and you regard the US Crew Chief system the pinnacle of aviation, but facts are facts. They do things differently to us. That is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh city.
As a cr@b working for WG_13s lot, with previous RAF SH experience I find this debate tedious. There are massive diffrences between the two jobs as I am sure any AAC / RAF 'crewman' will tell you. No disrespect to any AAC guys here, but your crewmen aren't trained to anywhere near the same standard that our guys are, although I understand that it's a case of horses for courses.
At a secret Hants AB it is rumoured that Army DGs will be re-streamed to take on the role of ramp-rats on the CH47 and Me3; therefore, releasing cmn to man other platforms. Anyone care to expand?
Other platforms being SK (SAR and CHF) and the Puma.
Other platforms being SK (SAR and CHF) and the Puma.
By the way the wets were great, and no I never saw a DG rimming your helmets...much!
Why do crewmen have to navigate, that is the job of the front end crew - service the aircraft, again someone else can do that.
In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained, it is a simple job that has been turned into a black art by the RAF, a 3 week course could do the job and the crewmen could be JNCOS.
In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained, it is a simple job that has been turned into a black art by the RAF, a 3 week course could do the job and the crewmen could be JNCOS.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A DG saved my butt!
As has been expressed here loads of time the AAC Rear crewmen (hope the title is correct) are a top breed. One Door Gunner on NI ops saved my butt. I had just picked up an infantry patrol who had been in the sticks for a week and the commander asked me to throw the lynx around to cheer up his guys. Of course thinking on the prospect of a Board of inquiry following a crash, I told him it was illegal. His head dissapeared from between the two fronts seat and I decided that what I could do legally, was to do a very tight decsending turn to look at that that 'suspected' illegal VCP on the road beneath us. Well basically, at 500ft the patrol commander fell out the open door. Moose, bless you mate, grabbed him on the way past! 
Yep, I was a prat!
Yep, I was a prat!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=serf;3136025]Why do crewmen have to navigate, that is the job of the front end crew - service the aircraft, again someone else can do that.
In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained.
Mmm it must be wonderful to be so simple and narrow minded. You have obviously never had any real contact with SH. Serf, perhaps we could stop jets doing low level they dont need to do it. Lets bin the paras, ops almost forgot why have 2 pilots in a herc, surely 1 could do it. Fool
In my opinion, RAF [I]helicopter [I]crewmen are vastly overated and trained.
Mmm it must be wonderful to be so simple and narrow minded. You have obviously never had any real contact with SH. Serf, perhaps we could stop jets doing low level they dont need to do it. Lets bin the paras, ops almost forgot why have 2 pilots in a herc, surely 1 could do it. Fool
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had just picked up an infantry patrol who had been in the sticks for a week and the commander asked me to throw the lynx around to cheer up his guys. Of course thinking on the prospect of a Board of inquiry following a crash, I told him it was illegal. His head dissapeared from between the two fronts seat and I decided that what I could do legally, was to do a very tight decsending turn to look at that that 'suspected' illegal VCP on the road beneath us. Well basically, at 500ft the patrol commander fell out the open door.
Nice try Serf. If it was as simple as that then even you could have achieved something better....possibly
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redundancy maybe ?
Or do you think it should be 1 person 1 job....
Sorry pilot mate I can't help you to find the HLS, I was too busy staring out of the door watching the world go by to worry about where we were going!
Or is it that the ALM need to map read because they need to know where they are because they know the best places to eat and drink in?
... probably a bit of both
MS
Or do you think it should be 1 person 1 job....
Sorry pilot mate I can't help you to find the HLS, I was too busy staring out of the door watching the world go by to worry about where we were going!
Or is it that the ALM need to map read because they need to know where they are because they know the best places to eat and drink in?
... probably a bit of both
MS
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends how good a job the ALM did of securing the freight and pax in the first place? obviously when carrying an USL is when I would errr to agree that the ALMs attention would be better focused on the freight.
But.... sortie and crew responsibilities vary depending on the task so if the ALM has the capacity to look as well as see then the training in map reading will be useful to getting the aircraft where it needs to be possibly in marginal or testing conditions or would it be preferable to have 1 less seat for a passenger filled by someone who has the capacity to help map read as well as protect the aircraft and keep an eye on the freight but not the training?
But.... sortie and crew responsibilities vary depending on the task so if the ALM has the capacity to look as well as see then the training in map reading will be useful to getting the aircraft where it needs to be possibly in marginal or testing conditions or would it be preferable to have 1 less seat for a passenger filled by someone who has the capacity to help map read as well as protect the aircraft and keep an eye on the freight but not the training?