The Navigator in Military Aviation
LM
I am sure you have "met" a number of times - VC10Ks and Lightnings were joined at the hip for most of the "Frightning's" service life
Beags - I had no idea you have had such a wide portfolio and I always had you down as a "Tomb" driver that went to Tankers (we did meet in the FIs in the 90s many years ago). There were a bunch of us who rumbled your "nom de plume" at that time.
LJ
I am sure you have "met" a number of times - VC10Ks and Lightnings were joined at the hip for most of the "Frightning's" service life
Beags - I had no idea you have had such a wide portfolio and I always had you down as a "Tomb" driver that went to Tankers (we did meet in the FIs in the 90s many years ago). There were a bunch of us who rumbled your "nom de plume" at that time.
LJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tying to get back on track ...
This is not (and cannot be) a pilot vs Nav issue.
Nor is it an issue of that much extra fuel for Mostafa, who would probably be well advised to carry it anyway just in case he got lost ...
The pilot is indispensable (UAVs apart), the navigator is not.
But the NAVIGATIONAL FUNCTION is indispensable.
While it can be handled by the pilot on a large variety of aircraft/ missions,
on some missions it is still operationally necessary for a second person in the cockpit to handle the navigational function.
In military operations it is simplistic to think of navigation merely in terms of position finding. Pontius' "straight navigator' does not belong in the cockpit of a modern combat aircraft, he has to be much more.
This is not (and cannot be) a pilot vs Nav issue.
Nor is it an issue of that much extra fuel for Mostafa, who would probably be well advised to carry it anyway just in case he got lost ...
The pilot is indispensable (UAVs apart), the navigator is not.
But the NAVIGATIONAL FUNCTION is indispensable.
While it can be handled by the pilot on a large variety of aircraft/ missions,
on some missions it is still operationally necessary for a second person in the cockpit to handle the navigational function.
In military operations it is simplistic to think of navigation merely in terms of position finding. Pontius' "straight navigator' does not belong in the cockpit of a modern combat aircraft, he has to be much more.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
VN, I think hat is what we are trying to say, the straight navigator is a dying breed. There is a need for a weapons systems operator in certain legacy platforms - Tornado F3 for instance - but also in certain tactical roles where you need someone to actually operate the kit, particularly in the SEAD or DEAD roles.
In roles where you need perhaps higher levels of skills than a 'straight pilot' enjoys.
Ex-Jaguar pilots excepted.
In roles where you need perhaps higher levels of skills than a 'straight pilot' enjoys.
Ex-Jaguar pilots excepted.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Second star on the left
Posts: 124
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey PN,
what are you trying to say, the straight navigator is a dying breed!!!!!!!! I will have you know that not all navigators are gay. I know a couple of straight ones.
As I understood it, in days of yore, the officer would decide that he wanted to blast away at the bally old hun with his trusty service revolver. Having a man to do everything for him, he would get his MT driver to fire up the stick and wire charriot so that he could get in some target practice. Now in my book that makes a pilot a glorified MT driver, somehow they have got the idea that they are important and the blighters even want to be allowed in the Officer's Mess. Modern society !!!!!! And they have the temerity to slag of Navigators
Head down, look out for the flack!
what are you trying to say, the straight navigator is a dying breed!!!!!!!! I will have you know that not all navigators are gay. I know a couple of straight ones.
As I understood it, in days of yore, the officer would decide that he wanted to blast away at the bally old hun with his trusty service revolver. Having a man to do everything for him, he would get his MT driver to fire up the stick and wire charriot so that he could get in some target practice. Now in my book that makes a pilot a glorified MT driver, somehow they have got the idea that they are important and the blighters even want to be allowed in the Officer's Mess. Modern society !!!!!! And they have the temerity to slag of Navigators
Head down, look out for the flack!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigator Captains
For those of us who were fortunate to spend all of our RAF careers flying Shacks & Nimrods, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Maritime was always ahead of the rest of you because we have Navigator captains! I was even trusting enough to allow members of the 2 winged master race to carry the imprest, but only after extended training serving coffee!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigator Captains, a rather quaint notion but as has been explained to me before by some well balanced ex Nimrod pilots when the chips were really down "No stick No vote" was what actually applied
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand I've heard it argued that the backseater may still be needed because the ability of the sensors to acquire info has grown faster than the ability of the displays (even in Dave) to present them to one person. This also reflects the ability of an AESA to multi-task. The result could be a situation where the GIF dodges SAMs and deals with the Sukhois while the GIB finds, ID's and plinks the ground movers.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply To Seldomfitforpurpose
'Seldomfitforpurpose'.
Your source was probably one of our bitter failed single seater jocks who just never understood the complexities & subtleties of operating on a multi crew aircraft. No doubt he got his comeuppance by being served a tea bag sandwich at 0200 on a dark & dirty morning over the North Atlantic. They were always better behaved after that.
Your source was probably one of our bitter failed single seater jocks who just never understood the complexities & subtleties of operating on a multi crew aircraft. No doubt he got his comeuppance by being served a tea bag sandwich at 0200 on a dark & dirty morning over the North Atlantic. They were always better behaved after that.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stude pilot requested a TNS.
Couldn't find the tea so gave him coffee. As his taste buds were not prepared for the cafeine hit the instrument panel got sprayed instead.
Funny old thing, he never asked ahain.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Seldomfitforpurpose'.
Your source was probably one of our bitter failed single seater jocks who just never understood the complexities & subtleties of operating on a multi crew aircraft. No doubt he got his comeuppance by being served a tea bag sandwich at 0200 on a dark & dirty morning over the North Atlantic. They were always better behaved after that.
Your source was probably one of our bitter failed single seater jocks who just never understood the complexities & subtleties of operating on a multi crew aircraft. No doubt he got his comeuppance by being served a tea bag sandwich at 0200 on a dark & dirty morning over the North Atlantic. They were always better behaved after that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply To Seldomfitforpurpose
Oh dear, toys out of the pram already. 
Life as an above average Nav was a much happier & rewarding existence than filling the right hand seat of a Nimrod, nursing a chip for what might have been. Luckily I retired into my equally successful 2nd career before the awful term WSO came into being.
Life as an above average Nav was a much happier & rewarding existence than filling the right hand seat of a Nimrod, nursing a chip for what might have been. Luckily I retired into my equally successful 2nd career before the awful term WSO came into being.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toys 
not a pilot this end so what on earth would prompt me to get all hissy, I just like to giggle at the notion that some folk actually believe that
"Life as an above average Nav was a much happier & rewarding existence than filling the right hand seat of a Nimrod"
not a pilot this end so what on earth would prompt me to get all hissy, I just like to giggle at the notion that some folk actually believe that"Life as an above average Nav was a much happier & rewarding existence than filling the right hand seat of a Nimrod"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius
Re the "straight navigator', perhaps I should try to elaborate the point I made in #81: "Navigation and piloting are distinct and irreducible functions of flight; and often a division of labour becomes operationally necessary."
Piloting is essentially an inward-looking function. It is focused on the state of the aircraft, its responses to the forces acting on it, and the relation between it and the medium through which it is moving. Except in the landing phase, the outer world largely does not figure in the piloting function.
The navigator, on the other hand, has an outward-looking function. He is concerned with the changing relationship of the aircraft - represented by a set of coordinates: x,y,z and t - with the external world. He has to manage the trajectory represented by this changing set of coordinates so as to conform to the mission plan. This external world also includes the tactical situation and the presence of hostile elements in the air. The WSO's function is fully in keeping with the navigational function; and there is no reason for a change of nomenclature - except, perhaps, for reasons of 'professional ecology'.
The two functions are complementary yet, to some extent, antithetical, involving different aptitudes and abilities. Still, the most cost-effective solution is to develop technologies that can enable a single pilot to perform both tasks. Till then, there is no harm in giving the navigator his due.
In any case, UAVs may soon take both functions away from most cockpits.
Re the "straight navigator', perhaps I should try to elaborate the point I made in #81: "Navigation and piloting are distinct and irreducible functions of flight; and often a division of labour becomes operationally necessary."
Piloting is essentially an inward-looking function. It is focused on the state of the aircraft, its responses to the forces acting on it, and the relation between it and the medium through which it is moving. Except in the landing phase, the outer world largely does not figure in the piloting function.
The navigator, on the other hand, has an outward-looking function. He is concerned with the changing relationship of the aircraft - represented by a set of coordinates: x,y,z and t - with the external world. He has to manage the trajectory represented by this changing set of coordinates so as to conform to the mission plan. This external world also includes the tactical situation and the presence of hostile elements in the air. The WSO's function is fully in keeping with the navigational function; and there is no reason for a change of nomenclature - except, perhaps, for reasons of 'professional ecology'.
The two functions are complementary yet, to some extent, antithetical, involving different aptitudes and abilities. Still, the most cost-effective solution is to develop technologies that can enable a single pilot to perform both tasks. Till then, there is no harm in giving the navigator his due.
In any case, UAVs may soon take both functions away from most cockpits.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vee En, let me kill you before you get slaughtered.
Seriously I suspect it is a poor choice of words.
I would suggest the pilot is essentially a tactical function, maintaining a high situational awareness, operating the weapons system in the immediate.
The navigator, while assisting in operating the weapons system and maintaining situational awareness has a more strategic function. In that role he is monitoring fuel, diversions, future contacts, escape routes etc.
In a single-seater, enjoying autonomous operations the tactical and strategic functions fall to one man. In an integrated battle an airspace battle manager in a radar unit or AWACS can perform the strategic function. Clearly a 2-man cockpit is better when the platform is being used for interdiction and autonomous operations. That second man does not have to be a navigator. He does not even have to be a weapons system operator although he might be operating the weapons system; he could be a pilot.
The only reasons for having a 'navigator' in that spare seat are: lack of sufficient suitable pilots or they are cheaper.
Piloting is essentially an inward-looking function. It is focused on the state of the aircraft, its responses to the forces acting on it, and the relation between it and the medium through which it is moving.
The navigator, on the other hand, has an outward-looking function. He is concerned with the changing relationship of the aircraft - represented by a set of coordinates: x,y,z and t - with the external world.
The navigator, on the other hand, has an outward-looking function. He is concerned with the changing relationship of the aircraft - represented by a set of coordinates: x,y,z and t - with the external world.
I would suggest the pilot is essentially a tactical function, maintaining a high situational awareness, operating the weapons system in the immediate.
The navigator, while assisting in operating the weapons system and maintaining situational awareness has a more strategic function. In that role he is monitoring fuel, diversions, future contacts, escape routes etc.
In a single-seater, enjoying autonomous operations the tactical and strategic functions fall to one man. In an integrated battle an airspace battle manager in a radar unit or AWACS can perform the strategic function. Clearly a 2-man cockpit is better when the platform is being used for interdiction and autonomous operations. That second man does not have to be a navigator. He does not even have to be a weapons system operator although he might be operating the weapons system; he could be a pilot.
The only reasons for having a 'navigator' in that spare seat are: lack of sufficient suitable pilots or they are cheaper.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wader2. I agree with you that the second person does not have to be a navigator. But chances are that he will be performing the navigational function. The two-pilot crew is certainly an option some people will recommend.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could