Non-Commissioned Pilots

[jacketp]

Hello,

I am hoping that this will provoke some serious comments rather than a general moan.

Why is it that the RN/RAF do not have non-commissioned pilots? I am a civvie and thought that you all did the same thing in the military.
Do you think it will change in the future?

Please post your comments as I am interested.
JP

[jayteeto]

It is a valid question as the army have great success with non commissioned aircrew. Historically, it was decided that only officers should fly with nuclear weapons on board. As the RN and RAF generally recruited all pilots for potential fast jet, they were all officers!! Nowadays the majority of pilots (if not all?? PS. remember secrets and all that stuff) do not have to carry these weapons. This means they COULD recruit NCO pilots again.
But....... Why should they do that? There is not a shortage of suitable qualified applicants, the services prefer as many qualifications as possible in addition to the ability to fly and fight. In short, there is no need to change. I know many many people who could easily have transferred to pilot branch and probably done well, but if it ain't broke, why fix it???
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Army do not directly recruit NCO pilots off the street. This means that you often get a more 'mature' person, who has a limited number of potential flying tours.

[ZH875]

If the RAF changed and accepted NCO pilots, all they will achieve is a greater outflow of trained pilots to the airline companies.

How could they justify the different pay scales, as NCO pilots would have to be paid less the the officer equivalent, and I cannot see them accepting that situation for more months than is necessary, so to protect the airline jobs for the officer corps, NCO pilots is a non starter.

Besides, NCO's make better engineers than the officers, so lets keep the best guys for maintenance. (well you can train a monkey to ride a bike, but can it fix it!)

[PlasticCabDriver]

Jayteeto's comments are entirely valid, and all the RAF/RN aircrew are nodding their heads saying "of course!"

If however you pose the same question here:

ARRSE

you will get a completely different, and probably much more vitriolic, response.

The main thrust seems to be financial, as obviously NCO pilots will be cheaper than all those overpaid officers, with their pensions etc etc. This work has been done, I read the paper on a while ago, the difference will be less than might first be thought - the paper indicated that the total savings would be in the very low single millions, and was therefore not worth it.

[teeteringhead]

the paper indicated that the total savings would be in the very low single millions, and was therefore not worth it.

.. and that was at the very best - within the margins of errors of calculation it was possible that no savings at all would be made ....

.... the core difference then was that the SNCO pilot "return-of srvice" was much less - ie, it cost the same to train, you paid them less but they left earlier, so you had to replace them sooner.

It's all about pay and status - if you can't get 'em to join for £Xk, you won't get 'em for £X-Yk .... and then ask 'em to be guard commander too!!

And remember, you can't (I'm 99% sure) join t'Army directly from outside as an SNCO pilot, so you sign on the dotted line in the hope you will et a pilots' course later on hmmmmmmm??

In all it's a very complicated system with many variables - it ain't broke (much) so do we need to fix it??

[serf]

.................So why cant the RAF stream as pilots NCOs who apply for aircrew selection?

[dagowly]

So why cant the RAF stream as pilots NCOs who apply for aircrew selection?

because they'll have applied for a specific career already as NCO Aircrew.

[PlasticCabDriver]

the core difference then was that the SNCO pilot "return-of srvice" was much less - ie, it cost the same to train, you paid them less but they left earlier, so you had to replace them sooner.

and you therefore needed more of them.

The total numbers of NCO aircrew that was sustainable was much less than you might think (120 springs to mind but I stand to be corrected), as the RAF would still need to maintain a suitable pool of officers from which to draw the future command chain.

The other big issue ISTR was how far down the ranks do you go for pilots. The army has Cpl pilots, but given the grief that some of our junior crewman get from their non-aircrew brethren (plastic Sgts, "ex-corporal nights" in the mess etc) I cannot believe that Cpl pilots would get any less.

[Two's in]

You might want to see the pay slip of a Long Service WO/SNCO on max rate flying pay/FRI before assuming it's "cheaper" to have NCO pilots.

[PlasticCabDriver]

Deliverance, apologies, I failed to read your link before I posted! 156, not 120, not too far off for my failing memory.

Sums it up quite neatly:

In costing the impact of the introduction of 156 NCO pilots, the study identified potential savings of approximately £1.25 million; total savings being limited by the relatively small difference in capitation rates between junior officers and SNCOs, and the fact that specialist flying pay is paid to aircrew based on experience not rank. Additionally, the study identified that in view of the lower return of service of RAF/RN NCOs compared with officers, the employment of 156 NCO pilots would require the training of one additional pilot each year to maintain manning levels, effectively negating the £1.25M capitation savings.

and

In summary, the introduction of NCO pilots to the RAF and RN, while possible to a limited extent, would carry operational and structural penalties, without providing significant financial savings to the Department.

[timex]

Bear in mind "most" NCO pilots will have done a bit of time before going flying and they will probably stay until the 22 yr point (if not longer), so you could get an NCO flying for 12yrs plus. On the other hand "most" Officers will fly for 8yrs then leave for the civvy market, if the Officer is in the AAC he will do possibly 1 full tour. The NCO will fly from the day of wings until he departs..value for money? Sadly retention is the big problem no matter what rank..

[chinook240]

Why is it that the RN/RAF do not have non-commissioned pilots?

Jacketp,

Perhaps the question should be "Why does the AAC have NCO pilots when the majority of major air forces in the world have commissioned pilots?"

I'd be interested in that answer, and before anyone says the US Army have NCOs they don't, they're CWO or commissioned warrant officers.

[ZH875]

Originally Posted by chinook240

they're CWO or commissioned warrant officers.

And we still won't salute them.

[serf]

Perhaps CWO is the way ahead then, for all 3 services. They can be selected and trained in the same way that the RAF currently deal with direct entrant NCA.

[timex]

Why? Every other airforce in the world seems to have agreed with the same system that the RAF/RN uses. Or is this just the normal anti-officer/green-eyed bs again?

Not really, just that the AAC looks to use its Officers in a management/Pilot role but leaves the majority of the Flying to the SNCO's. The Army does not have the abundance of Officers available to go Flying, how many Units would want to lose experienced Officers or SNCO's in todays climate?

[wokkameister]

My irrelevence buzzer is going...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

We have had this debate over and over and over and over.

Lets not do it again....please

WM

[chinook240]

So it looks like the RAF/RN have got it right, as demonstrated by all the other airforces of the world which do the same.

That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots.

the AAC looks to use its Officers in a management/Pilot role but leaves the majority of the Flying to the SNCO's.

The US Army does the same but rewards their pilots with a status similar to the world's major air forces. Turning the question around, why doesn't the AAC reward/recognise its pilots?

[wetdreamdriver]

Hey, doesn't it also have to do with the way that the army employs its a/c or are they just airborne landrovers? In the RN the aircrew also have to be flight commander's on little ships and be able to fight their corner with the other ship's officer or the captain.

Rank parity must make that easier.

WDD

[Croqueteer]

I remember late 1961 as an ex-Locking Brat being called into the adj's office at RAF Norton in Sheffield, to be told by a very condecending Flt/Lt "You have not been selected for officer training, (pause) however you will be traing as a Sgt Pilot. That will be all." I left the office on ground effect.

[psyan]

Chinook240 tapped gently away: "That's my point entirely - it's not the RAF/RN system that needs to be questioned but why the AAC has hung on to the WW2 system of NCO pilots."

[1] There are insufficient officer recruits of the right calibre and there always has been. Similarly there is a shortage of NCO recruits of the right calibre but the difference being that there is a bigger pool of resource to choose from with NCO's.

[2] As pointed out earlier, an NCO pilot often becomes a career pilot to retirement. Of course many leave to civie street but far more stay in to pensionable point. More NCO's stay in the saddle than do officers.

[3] Why not?.......if you look back a bit you might find a reference to 'Flying Soldiers' which is pretty descriptive and accurate in defining the requirement of the force to be supported. The army does not want a young officer who has not the faintest clue about what is going on on the ground and has no ability to empathise with the people he is there to provide support to. Unfortunately, there are few career officers who remain as line pilots long enough to gain the experience of their SNCO counterparts. Those that are able to do so and have no ambition for command usually end up as very well respected appointment holders for many years and provide continuity. The rest disappear.

But the AAC has changed significantly and so will its make up no doubt. But one thing is for sure as proven thus far, it does not require an officer to command a battlefield aircraft. Weight up the cost of differing career paths prior to flight training up to the natural termination point of service between officer and SNCO and see which gives best value for money. [clue for the same flight training cost - how many flight hours can you get per pilot.]

IME...[33 years] out of all the officer pilots I have encountered only a dozen or so served past 6 years, none served as line crew for more than 2 and greater than 25% were total to$$ers.

Best wishes