Non-Commissioned Nimrod Air Electronics Officers (II)

[Gulf Flyer]

If the only source of 'AEOs' is from the NCA cadre - and there are no more commissions, then restructure the way you do business. You can't hang on to a system that is in terminal decline.

I agree with a previous post, most suitable FS/MACR would jump at the chance - then wait until the next job evaluation is carried out for Air Manning (WSOps) to formalise the posts/conditions of service.

GF

[circle kay]

Ok I'll ask the obvious question that 80% of people on visits to the Tac Area ask, "but what does the AEO actually do"?

Good luck to the guys, all have just come off 'empowered' postings, so a bit of a rest by the Martell window will be welcomed.

They will, I'm sure, make top notch AEOs; a post who everyone who has spent time on the kipper fleet is well aware, that a good one is worth his weight in gold; a bad one, well, replacement by an extra bottle of tomato sauce is always a fair swap!

[TheSmiter]

They will, I'm sure, make top notch AEOs

Hear hear ck, the calibre of the 3 chaps you're talking about puts them firmly in the gold dust category rather than the ketchup side (which is quite a high valuation for some of the O2 thieves we could have been lumbered with). Anyone who's been away from Kipper Airways more than 6-7 years would find it difficult to keep up with the current crop of Comms managers, even though they are mostly northern tikes.

Going back to Hugh's point, has anybody asked the 3 AEO's-to-be, what they're getting out of the deal other than helping Manning out of a tight spot?

Anyway, message to PMA



An AEO is for life.

Feed em the odd biscuit and they'll drool all over you
Treat em bad, and they'll bite you in the 'erss.


(Nice pic Anita - wish my pet AEO looked that cute!)

[Hugh S]

Going back to Hugh's point, has anybody asked the 3 AEO's-to-be, what they're getting out of the deal other than helping Manning out of a tight spot?

At the moment it's nothing more than a pat on the back and the promise of a window seat on the MRA4.

[getsometimein]

Look at it from the other side...

I believe the NCA-AEO's have been offered comms manager positions on the MRA4... This now obviously leaves a lovely way for the current AEO's to transfer through to MRA4 with minimal training and without having to effectively remuster as navs...

[Strato Q]

There will not be any AEOs in the Information Manager's seat (nee Comms Op) - it is an NCA post. AEOs will fill one of the Tacco posts as will Navs - or should I say WSOs.

[Hugh S]

AEOs will fill one of the Tacco posts

Although there are quite a few sharp AEOs on the fleet who will have no problem slotting into the role of Tacco, there are also a few that struggle to tie their shoelaces!

[Roger the cabin boy]

Back to Commissioning

(Forgive the old money)

There is fairly positive talk of the re-introduction of commissioning for Loadies, although I don't know if that is just within RW, or for FW too. Last I heard, it was for re-introduction next year.

What I also don't know if is this is being looked at for the other NCA trades - but AEOps would seem have a good argument. Particularly when you look at the number of AEOps now serving on helos as Crewmen. It would be very interesting if Crewman A (Loady) could get commissioned but Crewman B (AEOp) could not.

Anyone in the know care to comment?

[EdSett100]

I, too, have heard about the commissioning possibility within a targetted area of the RW ALM cadre. I understand that is not to provide a Sqn ALM Ldr but to provide an ALM in the staff officer area of the RW world, with a view to moving up the food chain and taking hands-on experience to an appropriate level. I don't suppose there will be many volunteers for this. In many respects it is a different concept to the AEOp to AEO role change.

For many years I have listened to the AEOps, quite rightly, commenting that many MAEOps (and some FS AEOps) could do as well as many AEOs on the Nimrod. That opportunity has now arrived and should be grabbed and taken forward. We should forget about the pay disparity between the MACR and the old AEOs on PAS Band Ridiculous. A MEng does exactly the same job on the jet as a PAS Sqn Ldr Eng. The same goes for the ALMs (or it did a few years ago). This has always been the case since we had commissioned rear crew sitting in the same seat as the NCOs, doing the same job in the air. A more appropriate pay comparison, today, should be between the MACR on PAS versus what a young, ex NCA, Fg Off AEO/Eng/ALM would be paid with flying pay, if we continued to commission them.

Its not my area but, from an outsider's perspective, I think that overall this is good move, warts and all.

Ed Sett

[NP20]

Subs Pay

Not an Adminer myself, but I thought Substitution Pay was paid only in those situations where someone was doing their boss's job at the same time at their own?

This changed a few years ago, and unless it has changed back in the last 12 months, you no longer have to be doing your own job plus that of a higher rank to qualify for subs pay; just doing a job established at a higher rank than your own will attract subs pay.

Though I don't think that MACRs would get the old Branch rates of subs pay that used to make it worthwhile, and there may be a time limit on how long you can be in receipt of subs pay.

[Sideshow Bob]

As Edsett pointed out earlier, I think there is no case for an MAeop to claim substitution pay for carrying out a Flt Lt job. Other NCA have been doing the same job as their Commissioned Aircrew for some time (including MEng and MAlm acting as leaders and Flt Lt and Sqn Ldrs acting as just crewmen). I understand that there are some subtle differences with the Aeops, ie it is not quite the same job, but is this not just the same as an MAcr taking a posting in an SO2 role?

[Hoots]

There are sufficient numbers of AEO's around in ground posts, so why don't we send them back to where they are required. If they threaten to PVR then let them. They do get flying pay or are PAS after all, so primary task or desk job that is the question.

[AQAfive]

In my last (MACR) post before retirement, I applied and got substitition pay as my Sqn Ldr Engineer (ground) was on a course. He was a new Sqn Ldr and I got paid more than he, (he left his pay chit on his desk, whether to keep away from wife or impress the lads was never determined!), I was therefore unsure what I was due.

I seem to remember there was a complex formula involving the renumeration of engineering branch officers, but I did get a pay rise for that month, although it took a while for it to appear. And as some have said, the rules have (or had prior to JPA) changed, you only have to have a boss away on a course for at least a month (I think, not sure) and not on leave. By default you probably do his and your own job anyway.

If the posts become established, then the question of substitution pay does not arise. The moral issue, however, will remain. They will probably become a FO/MACR post anyway, that will cover PMA backs. As you can probably tell, my last post turned me into an admin nut, lost all my siggy credibility, (if I ever had any!)

Back to the original thread, I remember the AE Ldr complaining to the captain of our jet, a pilot, that used the lead dry as the AEO on an SAR sortie because the AEO went sick just prior to call out. There was much complaining, mainly, one felt, that if the precident was set someone might question the need for the AEO, after all the original requirement for one had long been lost.

The last all knocker crew on Shacks was back in the 60's, not 80's. The captian, a smooth looking guy, was later commissioned and was I think a Wg Cdr. Can't remember his name but if anyone with the time cares to trawl CXX sqn history, you will find all the details there with a picture of the crew, and train? can't remember.

[Mr Point]

We should forget about the pay disparity between the MACR and the old AEOs on PAS Band Ridiculous. A MEng does exactly the same job on the jet as a PAS Sqn Ldr Eng.

But they don't have the same comparable role on the ground do they? Either have all AEOs as MACR, in the same way as Crewman Leaders and WSOp Leaders are now MACR, or a mixture of commissioned and non-commissioned AEOs all on the same PAS level - they ARE carrying out the same overall roles in the air and on the ground.

I agree that this situation has potential benefits for the WSOp trade but if a Flt Lt was filling an SO2 PIC due to a lack of Sqn Ldrs, I am fairly sure he wouldn't be content to stay on Flt Lts' pay.

[Sideshow Bob]

Mr Point
Do you mean in the same way we all get the same rate flying pay for carrying out the same duties airborne?

[Hugh S]

Do you mean in the same way we all get the same rate flying pay for carrying out the same duties airborne?

Does that make it right? The fact that commissioned rear-crew have historically been given more flying pay does not mean that a MACR carrying out the same role should get less.

The fundamental difference is this: a Flt Lt pilot's top rate of flying pay is £35.84. An AAC Non-Commissioned aircraft commander's top rate of flying pay is also £35.84. They are both doing the same job with similar retention problems.

I accept that the PAS for non-commissioned pilots is disproportionate but traditional flying pay is not.

This is the only case I can thing of where a MACR is carrying out exactly the same role as a Commissioned Officer in the air AND on the ground.

[davejb]

A Nimrod MACr AEO, unless a crew captain, is going to be doing the same job as a Flt Lt Nimrod AEO, surely, except that the Flt Lt is potentially selectable as crew captain, while the MACr is not?

Seems to me that (A) is doing the same as (B), and there ought to be a measure of financial compensation to reflect this - otherwise ehy not have an SAC acting as Station Commander when that worthy is on leave? Pay should reflect the expertise brought to a role, and the responsibility shouldered, and MACr AEO's are going to be delivering on both counts.

Alternatively dig AEOs out of ground posts and stick them in Martel - some, in my day at least, went from comissioning to ground tour without going to a sqn along the way. (In one case PVRing when the sqn tour became inevitable).

Fast track comissions sound okay - a mate of mine went for one, and was quizzed about the aerials on the E3D at his (failed) interview... 'how would you tell an RAF E3D from a NATO one?' the question ran, the answer being aerial related (why somebody from the kipper fleet should give a toss I am still trying to work out - do AWACS types get asked about Nimrods?) - my mate's answer "I think the bloody great roundels on the fuselage would be a giveaway" apparently wasn't in accord with the official answer sheet.

[Sideshow Bob]

This is the only case I can thing of where a MACR is carrying out exactly the same role as a Commissioned Officer in the air AND on the ground.

Not really, an Empowered MEng or MAlm, carrys out the same job, in the air AND on the ground, as a commissioned AEng or Alm. Commissioned AEng can be aircraft commanders also. There is no extra pay in either of these cases so why should it be different for Aeops.

[Mr Point]

The SAR Force the crewman leader posts are filled by MACR but used to be manned by a Flt Lt. I believe SH has gone this way as well. I was under the impression that ALM and AEng Flt Lts were being replaced by MACR in the vast majority of rearcrew leader posts across the RAF.

Commissioned AEng can be aircraft commanders also.

Excuse my ignorance but which aircraft type has a commissioned AEng as aircraft commander?

[PingDit]

All seems an obvious and sensible way ahead. At least we'll get the job done properly.