Re-introduction of Commissioning opportunities for NCA

[Old Fella]

Pilots - What difference to their skill level does a Commission make?

Truckkie questions the capacity of a SNCO pilot to act as the Captain of aircraft such as the A400M, which is still not on any inventory and may yet "die on the vine", and also the C17. Just what extraordinary flying capabilities does being commissioned confer on an individual? Truckkie also says "We are all Officers first and Pilots/Navs second". What a pompous comment and certainly not one which is indicative of a team player. Truckkie, how do you feel about having a female pilot appointed as the Commanding Officer of a squadron at the time of the introduction of the C17 into service? We may only be Colonials out here in Oz, but we are way ahead of those with your mind set, so back to your O's Mess bar and sip on a few more chardonnay's, Pip Pip Old Boy!

[Gnd]

Camel,

You!
Read all the post s before thinking you are clever and adding nothing to the thread - hope your profile is accurate as mine might need amending - think on before you make assumptions!!! Never trust things at face value.

[Biggus]

Old Fella

I don't want to get into a p*ssing contest with you, but feel I should amplify/respond to the "..Officer first, aircrew second..." comment made by Truckkie which you consider "pompous" and not indicative of being a team player.

First of all I should point out that this is not (necessarily) Truckkie's personal view - rather it is the formal RAF approach/line.

Although it is a long time ago for me, when I went to OASC applying for Officer Aircrew I was very much told I would be an Officer first (with all the accompanying responsibilities) and aircrew second. Like most young men who just wanted to fly I nodded sagely, and gave back the answers I thought would sound best and hoped/looked forward to getting on to flying.

Then off to IOT, where officers of all trades are trained together, and the mantra "Officer first, pilot/nav/supplier/engineer....etc second" is drilled into everyone, responsible for those underneath you, etc, etc...

And so on generally throughout ones career, until fairly recent. At that point you can now criticise Truckkie, as he has indeed got it wrong.

It is now WARFIGHTER first, Officer second, Aircrew third.

So, if you still consider Truckkies comments pompous and not indicative of being a team player, which you are perfectly entitled to do, remember to have a go at the entire upper echlons of the RAF (all Officers) as it, with the Warfighter amendment, is the party line. Which doesn't necessarily make it right (although now unfortunately, as an older and wiser individual, and a Flt Cdr responsible for people's welfare/career development, I think it is...)

Indeed, are RAF NCA given the mantra SNCO first, aircrew second, during their initial training? I would suspect it might well be the case. No doubt someone will shortly enlighten me......(timing)....!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Old Fella

Truckkie questions the capacity of a SNCO pilot to act as the Captain of aircraft such as the A400M,

Just what extraordinary flying capabilities does being commissioned confer on an individual?

Truckkie also says "We are all Officers first and Pilots/Navs second". What a pompous comment and certainly not one which is indicative of a team player.

Old Fella, you are off the mark here.

The first bit - capacity and captain - are both hall marks of a pilot but there is no guarantee that any pilot, commissioned or not, has the capacity or captaincy skills to command an A400 or any other aircraft with an exacting role. The Captain is actually responsible for his passengers until such time as they can be handed over to a system. If the aircraft were to divert to some unusual airfield it falls to the Captain to negotiate with a handling agent or whoever parking, fuel, services, transport, accommodation etc.

By virtue of previous training the selected captain will be capable of these non piloting duties. If your SNCO was capable of all this then he would have been recommended for a commission to match the responsibilities of this enhanced role.

As for officer first, pilot second, sorry, you are way off beam. This is doctrine and taught from day one. It is aimed squarely at the wanabee who thinks that OASC, IOT, FTS and an OCU lead straight to a green growbag and a life exclusively at the sharp end.

You mentioned women, an irrelevancy in this argument.

To sum up, of course some SNCOs etc would make very capable pilots.
Some officers might also be best suited to the SNCO Pilot role.
Aircraft Captaincy of large passenger aircraft is an extension of a pilot's role and not one that all pilots can aspire to without lots of experience and capacity beyond piloting skills.

As an aside I remember a commercial pilot diverting to a military airfield. The taxi arrived and the crew departed with scarely a glance at the hundred or so passengers abandoned on the military airfield. That was poor captaincy.

[Old Fella]

Officer first etc etc

Biggus In the 23 years of sevice I had most of the Pilots and Navigators I flew with were "Team" players first and foremost. The Officer aspect was rarely pushed to the fore which, in my humble opinion, went a long way to promoting harmony in the crew and did nothing to reduce the respect we had for those of senior rank. Rarely did the "I'm an Officer and you are not" be an issue. As a Warrant Officer I think I had the best of both worlds. I still keep in contact with many of my former crew mates, both commissioned and non-commisioned. Thankfully, rank is never discussed, just good memories of time spent working and having time off together. I accept that the mantra "Officer first" is drummed into those at OTS, however some take it far too literally. As for a commission being required to be a good captain, that I think is bunkum. As others have said, in the era of NCO pilots many were great Captains and could still be if given the opportunity.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Old Fella

most of the Pilots and Navigators I flew with were "Team" players first and foremost.

Rarely did the "I'm an Officer and you are not" be an issue.

Thankfully, rank is never discussed, just good memories of time spent working and having time off together.

I accept that the mantra "Officer first" is drummed into those at OTS, however some take it far too literally.

in the era of NCO pilots many were great Captains and could still be if given the opportunity.

Team player - that is stressed too - "there is no I in teamwork".

"I'm an officer . . . " Quite. Good leadership does not require rank pulling.

In the NCO era these great Captains should perhaps have been granted commissions unless they did not wish to accept the trivia jobs that do go with a commission - OIC Wives Club for instance.

I was lucky to meet my uncle once at Amberley. He had been a Digger and had the idea that we would get out of our aircraft, swagger sticks and riding boots, and rest in the shade of a parasol, sipping tea, while our engineer (two Crew Chiefs) serviced the might beast.

He was surprised when we all mucked to, opening panels, plugging in power, connecting fuel etc etc.

Bottom line, officer pilots are no different from NCO pilots when operating the aircraft. The difference comes in application of air power. The commissioned equivalent of NCO pilots in the RAF was created in the 1950s and 60s with creation of direct entry commissions - the difference was in the educational entry requirements and assessed leadership.

[Biggus]

Old Fella,

I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that officers should go around with some stuck up, toffee nosed, "I'm an Officer and you're not" type attitude!

I was simply pointing out that the RAF expects, and treats, its Officer Aircrew as Officers first, in terms of career development, staff courses, postings, etc.

As a WO would you walk past some airmen acting improperly simply because you are aircrew, and not really a WO, or do something about it?

I have been in for nearly 30 years, on ME aircraft, and generally rate many of the NCA I have met as better aircrew, and dare I say nicer people, than some of the officers. I consider it has been a privilige to have flown with NCA.

I differientiate between somebody being an Officer, and being a career driven individual out to climb the greasy pole, looking down on those beneath them. One should not necessarily mean the other, (neither should officers not be team players) if in your experience it does then you have been unfortunate!

[Old Fella]

Some airman acting improperly.

Biggus Is the inference that only airmen act improperly? To answer you question, if the situation dictated that I should make an issue of "improper behaviour" it would not, indeed did not, make one ounce of difference to me whether the individual concerned was an airman, a NCO or an Officer. By the same token, my whole point is that being granted a Commission does not necessarily make an individual any better than one without a Commission, whether it be in relation to flying skill or organisational ability. I am also intrigued by your line "simply because you are aircrew, and not really a WO". You might like to expand on that for me. As I said before. most of the Pilots and Nav's I flew with were team players first and foremost", so I feel fortunate to have known and worked with them. Every team has to have a Captain and that was accepted by all. Those that were not part of the team, whether Commissioned or not, I couldn't care less about.

[Pontius Navigator]

being granted a Commission does not necessarily make an individual any better than one without a Commission

I disagree with this although concede you need to define better.

Accepting that there will be even better indidivuals without commissions and some poorer ones with commissions, that's life. There will be others who, solely because they hold a commission will step up to the plate and accept responsibility.

You could see this on multi-crew aircraft will an all officer crew. Most will happily stand back and let the captain take responsibilty and give leadership - even sqn ldrs who will happily let a flt lt captain get on with it. This is team work in action as well with them practising followership. Without that commission many officers would possibly be happy to stand back in the crowd. Indeed on Myers-Briggs tests about 90% of the officers taking the test are natural followers not leaders.

[c130jbloke]

PN,

Bugger, you beat me to it with a very well written post .

Having SNCO pilots - good luck but I cannot ever see it happening. If it does come in, then it spells the end of SNCO rear crew. Why then have the same rank grade doing 2 dispirate roles on the ac and what is then to stop the RAF doctrine of down delegation and have JNCO (or SAC ) NCA and SNCO pilots instead ?

Just a thought.

PS Any NCA reading this and thinking about applying, my advice is DO IT, It was the best thing I ever did in my RAF career. As for the line about you have to be a good operator to be the leader - cr@p.

[Len Ganley]

c130jbloke

Why then have the same rank grade doing 2 dispirate roles on the ac

So why have commissioned back-enders then? Surely the same argument applies in both cases?

[c130jbloke]

They were the chief for that particular tribe of indians and took care of the admin / ACRs / bollockings, etc. You are correct, but they were the exception and were expected to take on a lot more than the line NCA guys/ girls ( more cash too though ). Then in 2004 somebody thought it was rubbish and stopped it.

And now its coming back.







Funny old world

[Len Ganley]

c130jbloke,

I am well aware of the functions of commissioned rearcrew, I was hoping you would elaborate on your argument that having SNCO pilots would mean the end of SNCO rearcrew, as there would be no justification for having the same rank grade carrying out differing functions on an aircraft.

Surely this already happens?

Certainly did when I was flying.

Pilot and Nav springs immediately to mind.

[c130jbloke]

OK.

I see what you mean about Pilot / Nav ( both officer positions ), but my point is this and I am going to be blunt as I am looking at this from a political + cost aspect:


Pilot - get that, is in charge, has all the responceability and the greatest potential for screwing up, killing everybody and trashing a very expensive bit of kit.

NCA - does not have all of the above and ( to be blunt ) the status of the pilot - so why give them the same shiny badge (and cash, which is what this is all about) ?

Right now, BA and VA are not headhunting in crewrooms but that day will return. So the MoD has an interest in retaining its very best (ie from a trg + replacement cost / experience aspect) and in this senario that means pilots.

Now, if they do downgrade the pilot role /status to SNCO (and again there is a business case if they can save cash ) then the logical progression is to extend that to the aircrew who don't sign the F700 for accepting the ac and downgrade their status (+ pay too). IMHO, if you want to drive the bus, take the pain and do IOT.

Before anybody looks to flame me about dissing NCA..


I was proud to be one for a long time.

Now with being in the hard arse commercial aviation market, I know for a god given fact that no senior manager (= polititian) will pay more than absolutey necessay to get the product / effect required and will always look to undercut if they can (and NCA don't have the luxury of a union ) so this was not about being nice, but being brutally honest.

75% rates ring any bells ?

To finish, if you want somebody to fight for all of this, then get some officers........

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by Len Ganley

elaborate on your argument that having SNCO pilots would mean the end of SNCO rearcrew, as there would be no justification for having the same rank grade carrying out differing functions on an aircraft.

Can I jump in? End of some SNCO rearcrew maybe, like the stewards on the ST perhaps?

To add an historical persepective, at the start of WW2 there were certainly JNCO aircrew, usually WOpAG or telegAG if I am correct, essentially ground trades pressed into aircrew service to put bums on seats.

Later all aircrew were either promoted to SNCO or commissioned. That is probably the start of the rank creep and intended to compensate for the extra hazards and responsibilities associated with operations. The army might have made similar arguments for tank crews but they didn't.

If we accept down ranking from commissioned to SNCO pilot then you might argue by extension that you don't need all SNCO rearcrew either. Indeed it might make sense for sensor operators to be SAC/Cpl, in much the same roles at ATC or Air Space Management assistants on the ground, with a Sgt team leader and FS/WO above that.

But what about pay? Do you then have to pay additional pay to attract and retain suitable personnel? If you do, is there a cash saving?

Then we have a slightly weak argument of the accommodation and messing issues on detachments. The greater the rank spread - SAC to wg cdr - the greater the separation on the ground and the loss of crew adhesion. At least with an MPA crew they are only split into two messes or one hotel.

So really SNCO as a base rank will help crew adhesion whereas adding JNCO and airmen could create dissention.

[c130jbloke]

W2

Fair point(s).

One thing though, if you were alluding to the AS on 101 / 216, then they are not classified (from the RAF perspective) as aircrew. They are a ground trade currently assigned to a flying / flying related role - hence their crew pay as opposed to flying pay ( another can of worms when you look at PJI vs low seniority WSOp (ALM)).

[Len Ganley]

c130jbloke,

you appear to be indicating that all pilots should be officers because they sign for the aircraft and take all the responsibilities. This certainly isn't true on every aircraft type (I'm thinking kipper fleet here) and we know from long threads here that not every nation ( or even every branch of the British military) requires their pilots to be officers. I, like many others, have met individuals who could be held up as examples for both sides of the 'Could NCA make aircraft captains or do you need a commission to handle it?' argument.


When you mention retention, why do you think that the situation would be any different between officer and NCA pilots?

Now with being in the hard arse commercial aviation market, I know for a god given fact that no senior manager (= polititian) will pay more than absolutey necessay to get the product / effect required and will always look to undercut if they can (and NCA don't have the luxury of a union ) so this was not about being nice, but being brutally honest.

So there goes your argument for having only commissioned pilots. If NCA are cheaper, then why not?

To finish, if you want somebody to fight for all of this, then get some officers........

Precisely why commissioning opportunities in branch for NCA should be re-introduced and why people should go for it (although the bigger pension might have an impact as well)

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by c130jbloke

if you were alluding to the AS on 101 / 216, then they are not classified (from the RAF perspective) as aircrew. They are a ground trade currently assigned to a flying / flying related role -

I was and I was making no distinction as the WOp/AG early in the war were not classified as aircrew either. On the Mighty Hunter the case could have been made for a professional telegraphist to operate the comms suite rather than 'mis-employing' one of the sensor team. On rotation one of the dry team, and occasionally the wet team, would provided a communicator.

At the time, the AEOp had to create a perf tape off-line before sending a RATT message whereas a professional teleg could have transmitted online. The AEOp, OTOH, was fully trained in tactical voice comms but there was no reason why a teleg could not be brought up to speed there too.

The crux is crew pay, tiered flying pay, PA, FRI and flying instructional pay as was. Everytime trying to parr back to the least amount of money that can be used to buy the services of the willing.

Imagine a Harrier or Typhoon pilot giving up flying pay for the priviledge of flying those FJ

[c130jbloke]

So there goes your argument for having only commissioned pilots. If NCA are cheaper, then why not?

Because at the end of the day, the RAF is a (commissioned ) pilot centric force with its top level management diminated by..... Furthermore, as for looking at it from a commercial sense, forget it which in someways is correct as the RAF is about flying and fighting. Also, this is as much about status as it is money and with ever fewer numbers of pilots you can afford to keep the "quality". Last of all don't forget the (flawed) arguement that CAS has to be a pilot - tosh.


Perhaps its been tried before, but prior to the staffwork getting to a desk that would make the decision on NCA pilots, it would have to get past a lot of filters and at the end, the top guy from day one has always been a..... and a....







Quote:

To finish, if you want somebody to fight for all of this, then get some officers........

Which is just what the pilot cadre has, lots of them.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Because at the end of the day, the RAF is a (commissioned ) pilot centric force with its top level management diminated by"........................

Bit like this thread then, which was supposed to be all about NCA commissioning chances, no real surprises with the hijacking then