Army Door Gunners to be Re-Streamed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't necessarily think that it would be good to just put them on an OCF with the rest of the RAF crewmen. The RAF crewmen have an in-depth knowledge of the principles of restraint etc etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking away anything from the AAC lads, but the level of trg the 2 services receive before OCU is quite different.
WG13 - The RN Cdo aircrewmen have been going through the same cse as the RAF crewmen since last year as JNCOs so I would suggest they are far more likely to be "the thin end of the wedge" than the AAC guys.
I would suggest that all rearcrew are given the same trg at DHFS (as the system's already bi-service, it's easier to make it tri-service) so there is a common output standard to OCF/OTP etc, especially if they are to work alongside current RAF SH crewmen on Ch/Me/Pu.
WG13 - The RN Cdo aircrewmen have been going through the same cse as the RAF crewmen since last year as JNCOs so I would suggest they are far more likely to be "the thin end of the wedge" than the AAC guys.
I would suggest that all rearcrew are given the same trg at DHFS (as the system's already bi-service, it's easier to make it tri-service) so there is a common output standard to OCF/OTP etc, especially if they are to work alongside current RAF SH crewmen on Ch/Me/Pu.
Let's get real here...it is not exactly rocket science these folks are going to have learn. Rank alone has nothing to do with one's ability to learn and perform.
The tasks the poor ol' Army guy/RAF guy/RN guy has to learn to crew the back end of a Chinook, Merlin, or Lynx hauling people, internal or external cargo is pretty simple.
Specialized tasks such as running Anti-sub equipment and the like does take extensive training.
Perhaps there is some turf protection going on here?
The tasks the poor ol' Army guy/RAF guy/RN guy has to learn to crew the back end of a Chinook, Merlin, or Lynx hauling people, internal or external cargo is pretty simple.
Specialized tasks such as running Anti-sub equipment and the like does take extensive training.
Perhaps there is some turf protection going on here?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would suggest that all rearcrew are given the same trg at DHFS (as the system's already bi-service, it's easier to make it tri-service) so there is a common output standard to OCF/OTP etc, especially if they are to work alongside current RAF SH crewmen on Ch/Me/Pu.
(Send the crabs down to Wallop
)
Perhaps there is some turf protection going on here?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK, m o s t l y
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't join straight in as NCO pilot.
Minimum rank for starting the course is Cpl with recommendations for Sgt.
Chaps who start the course tend to have at least 5 years experience under their belt. Thats usually the minimum. Par is about 9 years.
Minimum rank for starting the course is Cpl with recommendations for Sgt.
Chaps who start the course tend to have at least 5 years experience under their belt. Thats usually the minimum. Par is about 9 years.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official line is recommend for Sgt. Not always the case with the new system we have unfortunately.
Chaps who are Cpls on the course, get substansive on completion of CTT.
I have to say, we need to filter a bit better seeings how we are making these chaps up to Sgt. Potentially L/Cpl>Sgt in 18 months. Some good, some not.
Chaps who are Cpls on the course, get substansive on completion of CTT.
I have to say, we need to filter a bit better seeings how we are making these chaps up to Sgt. Potentially L/Cpl>Sgt in 18 months. Some good, some not.
Last edited by wg13_dummy; 8th Feb 2007 at 15:54.
Surely all NCA are employed as Wsop's in the RAF so they can be posted to any type be it Helicopters, transport or anti-submarine so they all need the same level of intelligence on joining.
Same level of intelligence at Joining?
Sooooo...which is the correct comparative ratings.....by service?
RAF, RN, RM, Army is that it?
Does that mean in the old days when there were Sgt. Pilots they were less bright than real officers?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The RAF crewmen have an in-depth knowledge of the principles of restraint etc etc etc
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tasks the poor ol' Army guy/RAF guy/RN guy has to learn to crew the back end of a Chinook, Merlin, or Lynx hauling people, internal or external cargo is pretty simple.
We live in a tree hugging society in which Captains have a duty of care to the soldiers/pax. They depend on their crew to ensure rules are adhered to. An SH crewman may be the master of no individual aspect of helicopter operations, but the scope of his experience and ability, and therefore value, is extensive. They may be many things, but a professional 'gunner' is not one of them.
Do not compare an RAF Crewman with a US Army crewman, their training and areas of responsibility are very differant.
*Accountable in any Board of Enquiry*
Tiger,
Seems odd that a US Army Chinook crew can fly in the same area using the same aircraft and do the same missions as the British Chinook crews are doing in the same aircraft in the same AO and each seem to accomplish their tasks.
If all of what you say is true....then why would the UK forces allow their people to be transported by any Chinook besides those owned by the RAF? It does seem a bit odd to see the Army without the Chinook as it would appear to be an integral part of Army operations. It is not a C-130 after all.
Now just what is the "difference" between crew duties from your side and mine?
I am having lunch today with three of my guys and I will pass your summary to them and see if they agree.
Seems odd that a US Army Chinook crew can fly in the same area using the same aircraft and do the same missions as the British Chinook crews are doing in the same aircraft in the same AO and each seem to accomplish their tasks.
If all of what you say is true....then why would the UK forces allow their people to be transported by any Chinook besides those owned by the RAF? It does seem a bit odd to see the Army without the Chinook as it would appear to be an integral part of Army operations. It is not a C-130 after all.
Now just what is the "difference" between crew duties from your side and mine?
I am having lunch today with three of my guys and I will pass your summary to them and see if they agree.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless. Its an age old argument.
Why has the RAF got Chinook, Puma and Merlin?
Army assets flown by crabs.
I suppose if they were taken off them, all they would have left would be a handful of Typhoon, some Tonkas and a couple of old knackered airliners. Hardly an 'Air Force'.
Why has the RAF got Chinook, Puma and Merlin?
Army assets flown by crabs.
I suppose if they were taken off them, all they would have left would be a handful of Typhoon, some Tonkas and a couple of old knackered airliners. Hardly an 'Air Force'.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit off thread I suppose, but I've never really understood why NCA pass out from training as SNCOs. I see the point in RAFP having A/Cpl rank - they may have to charge people. I don't profess to know much about the training NCA undergo, but I did a 3-year technical apprenticeship (remember them?) which I assume is longer than NCA training and required at least as much if not more intellectual application. I passed out as a J/T and although I was promoted to Cpl. and Sgt. within a year and 4 years respectively after passing out, promotion to Sgt. at least was contingent on above average assessments (including spec recs).
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mids - it's so that they have some authority to make people form an orderly queue when they are making tea in the galley.
Seem to remembr at Odiham in past that RAF Regt gunners manned third gun on Chinooks?
Seem to remembr at Odiham in past that RAF Regt gunners manned third gun on Chinooks?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most obvious differance USA/UK that I am led to believe is in the depth to which the US guy is engineer trained. If our aircraft go into the shed for servicing of any depth, no crewman has any responsibility for it. It may be an incorrect perception over here, but rumour has it that US crewmen are responsible for a particualr airframe and will oversee maintenance of it. More akin to a Crew Chief. Being british, I cannot speak of first hand experience here, but I did the USMC/RAF exercise exchange in 96, and that appeared to be the case there. The numerous nations use their crewmen in different ways, the Portugese crewmen start/stop the engines and have no in flight role out of the jump seat. Some nations do not involve the crewman in any mission management, nor even brief them of the task (I have seen this at first hand). The RAF Crewman is fully integrated into the operation of the aircraft, is expected to oversee nav and mission planning, and is expected to speak up when errors are made, or a more efficient method can be seen. He is the eyes and ears for the handling pilot, and with methodical use of key words will talk the aircraft to a specific point. The best examples of this concern underslung loads (USL) onto base frames or SAR survivor recovery where the pilot cannot physically see what is happening below the aircraft.
I saw a newsreel a little while ago of a South African civvie Hip dropping a USL, and then turning the tail into an advertisement boarding, the subsequent crash killing those on board. This simply would not happen with the CRM prevelent amongst an RAF Crew.
I have no wish to promote a "My dicks bigger than yours" thread which is already far too common here, but comments made from uninformed sources, that belittle a job that I have enjoyed for over 2 decades really **** me off. As I said on my initial post early in the thread, the army mates have much to offer, but only if they receive the knowledge and training the RAF boys get, for none of it is superfluous.
The times and procedures have changed. My early years were 2 crew, pilot and crewman. If the crewman could not navigate the aircraft got lost, because a Decca based TANS would invariably wonder. The third crewmember was introduced to save the navigators brevet, and subsequently an acceptance that pilots are suceptable to ground fire and so a second pilot was deemed essential (Gulf War 1). Though responsibilities are shared between more individuals, overlap of duties remain.
Perhaps if nothing else, this thread demonstrates the need for crewmen as well as pilots to have the opportunity of international exchange. Even within the UK, the chiefs must desire a time when all 3 service helicopters are operated by individuals sharing a common standard, techniques and procedures. The lack of supervision and accountable responsibility IMHO justifys the rank that goes with the job. I would prefer that there be no Cpl pilots/gunners/aircrewmen and all share SNCO rank then listen to the unnecessary bleatings by my countries aviators regarding RAF SH. The AAC pilots in particular do seem to have an axe to grind. Chill fella's, trying to put us down does nothing to improve your own status in life, and every leader of men that ever thought so was invariably a complete tosspot.
I saw a newsreel a little while ago of a South African civvie Hip dropping a USL, and then turning the tail into an advertisement boarding, the subsequent crash killing those on board. This simply would not happen with the CRM prevelent amongst an RAF Crew.
I have no wish to promote a "My dicks bigger than yours" thread which is already far too common here, but comments made from uninformed sources, that belittle a job that I have enjoyed for over 2 decades really **** me off. As I said on my initial post early in the thread, the army mates have much to offer, but only if they receive the knowledge and training the RAF boys get, for none of it is superfluous.
The times and procedures have changed. My early years were 2 crew, pilot and crewman. If the crewman could not navigate the aircraft got lost, because a Decca based TANS would invariably wonder. The third crewmember was introduced to save the navigators brevet, and subsequently an acceptance that pilots are suceptable to ground fire and so a second pilot was deemed essential (Gulf War 1). Though responsibilities are shared between more individuals, overlap of duties remain.
Perhaps if nothing else, this thread demonstrates the need for crewmen as well as pilots to have the opportunity of international exchange. Even within the UK, the chiefs must desire a time when all 3 service helicopters are operated by individuals sharing a common standard, techniques and procedures. The lack of supervision and accountable responsibility IMHO justifys the rank that goes with the job. I would prefer that there be no Cpl pilots/gunners/aircrewmen and all share SNCO rank then listen to the unnecessary bleatings by my countries aviators regarding RAF SH. The AAC pilots in particular do seem to have an axe to grind. Chill fella's, trying to put us down does nothing to improve your own status in life, and every leader of men that ever thought so was invariably a complete tosspot.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T_M
Nice one Centurion
The crux is that all personnel operating as crewmen should have the same level of training, regardless of service, especially if operating the same ac type. The desire would obviously be to have everyone receiving the most comprehensive training (the RAF and RN DHFS course would be the one to go for), but alas this costs the most money too.
Having crewmen as SNCOs is important as the rank carries more credence down the back if you've got 40+ troops on. The fact that the crewman could have the same rank as his AAC ac commander is irrelevant as everyone on board should know their place as Captain/Co-Pilot/Crewman, and it is the former with whom the buck stops and who is the final arbitrator should any differences of opinion remain.
If one argues that on 2 crewmen ac such as Me/Ch, you could have an RAF SNCO crewman and a lesser (read "less comprehensively trained" before you get on your soapboxes) trained AAC JNCO crewman, that wouldn't work either, as both crewman do subtly different roles on the aircraft (and they are all able to fill both positions). Organising the manning plots for dets and attachments etc would be made even more of a headache. And we wouldn't want to get into a "Sorry sir, I'm just ramp up/ramp down" scenario either.
Please, feel free to have AAC crewmen manning RAF aircraft, but train them the same, give them the same SNCO status (all RAF guys start as A/Sgt) and treat them the same.
SASLess
As Tiger Mate said, all nations operate differently and see their way as being as effective as they need, and others as being too complex or too simple. We say "tomartow", you say "t'mayda" (if you're from Brooklyn). And it will always be thus. Those that criticise the way you do/did it without the experience of how you do it, aren't worth listening to. A man of your experience will know that anyhoo. I have first-hand experience of watching both US Army and USN "SH" aircrews operate Black/Sea Hawks and whilst their MOs were different to ours in many ways, they were intrinsically the same in many others. The crewmen/crew chiefs perform a different role to our (air)crewmen, but the aircraft were none the less effective for it...
Nice one Centurion
The crux is that all personnel operating as crewmen should have the same level of training, regardless of service, especially if operating the same ac type. The desire would obviously be to have everyone receiving the most comprehensive training (the RAF and RN DHFS course would be the one to go for), but alas this costs the most money too.
Having crewmen as SNCOs is important as the rank carries more credence down the back if you've got 40+ troops on. The fact that the crewman could have the same rank as his AAC ac commander is irrelevant as everyone on board should know their place as Captain/Co-Pilot/Crewman, and it is the former with whom the buck stops and who is the final arbitrator should any differences of opinion remain.
If one argues that on 2 crewmen ac such as Me/Ch, you could have an RAF SNCO crewman and a lesser (read "less comprehensively trained" before you get on your soapboxes) trained AAC JNCO crewman, that wouldn't work either, as both crewman do subtly different roles on the aircraft (and they are all able to fill both positions). Organising the manning plots for dets and attachments etc would be made even more of a headache. And we wouldn't want to get into a "Sorry sir, I'm just ramp up/ramp down" scenario either.
Please, feel free to have AAC crewmen manning RAF aircraft, but train them the same, give them the same SNCO status (all RAF guys start as A/Sgt) and treat them the same.
SASLess
As Tiger Mate said, all nations operate differently and see their way as being as effective as they need, and others as being too complex or too simple. We say "tomartow", you say "t'mayda" (if you're from Brooklyn). And it will always be thus. Those that criticise the way you do/did it without the experience of how you do it, aren't worth listening to. A man of your experience will know that anyhoo. I have first-hand experience of watching both US Army and USN "SH" aircrews operate Black/Sea Hawks and whilst their MOs were different to ours in many ways, they were intrinsically the same in many others. The crewmen/crew chiefs perform a different role to our (air)crewmen, but the aircraft were none the less effective for it...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was led to believe the SNCO status was a throw back from the war. In the event of the cab buying the farm, a SNCO was presumed to get better treatment by his captors than a junior rank.
The argument re SNCO having more credence down the back end is, I believe a non starter. JNCO's have been able to carry out their duties without the added 'weight' of rank. 40 or 6 pax makes little difference if you have one awkward titrash. I don't think I have ever heard of a JNCO rearcrewman being userped because of his rank or lack of it.
I think what you are saying Tigs is that all NCO aircrew; Army, RAF, RN, RM should be SNCO therefore allowing those who are presently not, the ability to be promoted.
Remember, the AAC used to (and is moving back towards), Aircrewman who occupy the left seat. A L/Cpl would have map reading skills that were at times better than his pilot counter part, a tactical grasp of the battlefield that would put many staff officers to shame and have the ability to fire the weapon system onto a target that he could recognise on goggles/thermal out to a distance of 4K's and 9/10 hit it first time. He could operate all the aircraft systems, operate the tac radios along with being able to decifer BATCO. As well as being able to fly the aircraft should the pilot become incapacitated.
We stopped using them because some felt it wasn't correct a L/Cpl leading a Battle Group formation!
Cheap labour but it proves the point a JNCO is actually quite capable of doing jobs other services reserve for SNCOs or commisioned officers.
The argument re SNCO having more credence down the back end is, I believe a non starter. JNCO's have been able to carry out their duties without the added 'weight' of rank. 40 or 6 pax makes little difference if you have one awkward titrash. I don't think I have ever heard of a JNCO rearcrewman being userped because of his rank or lack of it.
I think what you are saying Tigs is that all NCO aircrew; Army, RAF, RN, RM should be SNCO therefore allowing those who are presently not, the ability to be promoted.
Remember, the AAC used to (and is moving back towards), Aircrewman who occupy the left seat. A L/Cpl would have map reading skills that were at times better than his pilot counter part, a tactical grasp of the battlefield that would put many staff officers to shame and have the ability to fire the weapon system onto a target that he could recognise on goggles/thermal out to a distance of 4K's and 9/10 hit it first time. He could operate all the aircraft systems, operate the tac radios along with being able to decifer BATCO. As well as being able to fly the aircraft should the pilot become incapacitated.
We stopped using them because some felt it wasn't correct a L/Cpl leading a Battle Group formation!
Cheap labour but it proves the point a JNCO is actually quite capable of doing jobs other services reserve for SNCOs or commisioned officers.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wg13
I don't think anyone was decrying AAC crewmen (most RAF SH crewmen could do the same given the same trg as the AAC guys - in fact in Tiger Mates formative years, that's EXACTLY what they did (though many crewmen couldn't hit the water if they fell out of a boat)), just demanding parity for all, and when faced with the threat of one's job being "down-ranked" (is that proper English like?), one will always defend the current structure to the hilt. All 3 services bring different abilities to the table and there will no doubt be a tri-service basic course followed by single service type conversions.
I don't think anyone was decrying AAC crewmen (most RAF SH crewmen could do the same given the same trg as the AAC guys - in fact in Tiger Mates formative years, that's EXACTLY what they did (though many crewmen couldn't hit the water if they fell out of a boat)), just demanding parity for all, and when faced with the threat of one's job being "down-ranked" (is that proper English like?), one will always defend the current structure to the hilt. All 3 services bring different abilities to the table and there will no doubt be a tri-service basic course followed by single service type conversions.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. We've proved that we can have a standardised joint pilot course so why not go the whole hog and do the same with rearcrew.
It may lead to us having a 'pool' of correctly trained guys who, with just a CTT/OCU, could fit into any role within JHC. Now there's a thought! We could even do it with pilots! Why can't Army SNCO pilots exchange on Puma, Chinook or Merlin?
Flexibility.
It may lead to us having a 'pool' of correctly trained guys who, with just a CTT/OCU, could fit into any role within JHC. Now there's a thought! We could even do it with pilots! Why can't Army SNCO pilots exchange on Puma, Chinook or Merlin?
Flexibility.