NCO pilots in the RAF?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vortex_gen, a few points to your comment; Your point about the history behind SNCO aircrew is correct in that they would have better treatment if shot down etc. However, after consultation with an ex-ALM friend of mine (who incidently is now a stinking orifice pilot type) some valid points were raised about why SNCO aircrew are necessary. Firstly, you need some command authority when dealing with certain tasks, eg airdropping. I can't imagine 50 paras down the back of a herc paying much attention to an SAC barking orders at them! If you're an AEng, it helps when dealing with groundcrew etc. Also, unlike the Army where you get Q pay, the RAF pays according to rank. So in order to get the same people to do the job as SAC's, you'd have to re-organise the entire rank/pay structure. Plus, who wants to be an SAC when they can be a SGT?
Blacksheep-if you're going to start suggesting things like that, maybe we should start having jeans and T-shirt days on the Sqn, have an OIC flower arranging and have disabled access ramps up to the jets (helos if that's your game). Either it's a wind up, or you work for the European commission!!!
Blacksheep-if you're going to start suggesting things like that, maybe we should start having jeans and T-shirt days on the Sqn, have an OIC flower arranging and have disabled access ramps up to the jets (helos if that's your game). Either it's a wind up, or you work for the European commission!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Land that time forgot
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur with Al Titude. I N Balance, thats the worst thought out post I think I have had the misfortune to see. All the military flying that is done does not revolve around the "all god like" loadmaster/door slider types doing all the work. Some aspects of military flying (FJ) revolve around highly motivated and highly trained junior officers in the majority, working alone in cockpit. If this was a thread about purely rotary issues then SOME of the arguments hold true but I thought it was "NCO pilots in the RAF"! If the thread is going to revolve purely around the rotary side of flying then rename the post, otherwise accept the fact that RAF pilots will be officers for the foreseeable future. If you want to be an NCO pilot join the AAC. This thread is battering an old topic to death IMHO.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Hall
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I mistaken, or is this a Professional Pilots network, and since only Officers can be pilots in our Air Force, there should be no need for bleating and chimping by NCO 'aircrew'.
You don't find me waxing the lyrical on www.shouldhavetriedharderatschool.com/NCOs
So cut out this non-commissioned ill informed working class tish, that's an order.
Anyone up for tiffin', what?
You don't find me waxing the lyrical on www.shouldhavetriedharderatschool.com/NCOs
So cut out this non-commissioned ill informed working class tish, that's an order.
Anyone up for tiffin', what?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Hall
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I.P
Tried to visit that website but couldn't get the silly computer to work. Could you suggest another site? Thank you ever so much.
Light the fires...kick the tires...I didn't realise there was so much morale on the firefly fleet. up up and away, what?
Tried to visit that website but couldn't get the silly computer to work. Could you suggest another site? Thank you ever so much.
Light the fires...kick the tires...I didn't realise there was so much morale on the firefly fleet. up up and away, what?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having read through this thread from the start I thought I'd like to reply to a few of the arguments made so far.
Accountability - not valid. SNCO's are perfectly accountable to be able to hold cash imprests of tens of thousands of pounds on deployments. As previously mentioned, how are officer pilots held accountable for their aircraft in a way that a SNCO would not be?
Ops Support Argument - A contradiction? If we allowed for SNCO's to fill the pilot shortage we have it would actually free up more officer pilots to take their aviator-input to those higher ranked areas responsible for policy, plans, equipment, etc, not dilute it.
If you want to be a pilot you should pass OASC/IOTC - OASC look at candidates for GD(P) not only on their potential ability as a pilot, but on their potential for promotion to senior rank. Many candidtaes that could make CR(A) pilots may be being turned away because they lack OQ's.
The anti-"Who trains our officers to fly?" argument - Amazing narrow-minded response! This was an example of NCO pilots succeeding in another environment. The RAF maybe the topic of this thread, but we should not close our eyes to other services successes on the same subject.
In this day and age of a shortage of pilots in the RAF, the introduction of SNCO pilots could be hugely beneficial. The SNCO's could concentrate on flying leaving the officers (well most of them) to get on with worrying about pleasing the boss, promotion and their future careers. The anti-NCO pilot thing is more about elitism than anything else. Many current NCO's hold civilian pilot licences and degrees, so ability is not a problem. It is about time their Airships stopped wanting to keep the two winged master-race in the O's Mess and started wanting to fill those ejector seats with good pilots, regardless of rank.
Mad Mark
Accountability - not valid. SNCO's are perfectly accountable to be able to hold cash imprests of tens of thousands of pounds on deployments. As previously mentioned, how are officer pilots held accountable for their aircraft in a way that a SNCO would not be?
Ops Support Argument - A contradiction? If we allowed for SNCO's to fill the pilot shortage we have it would actually free up more officer pilots to take their aviator-input to those higher ranked areas responsible for policy, plans, equipment, etc, not dilute it.
If you want to be a pilot you should pass OASC/IOTC - OASC look at candidates for GD(P) not only on their potential ability as a pilot, but on their potential for promotion to senior rank. Many candidtaes that could make CR(A) pilots may be being turned away because they lack OQ's.
The anti-"Who trains our officers to fly?" argument - Amazing narrow-minded response! This was an example of NCO pilots succeeding in another environment. The RAF maybe the topic of this thread, but we should not close our eyes to other services successes on the same subject.
In this day and age of a shortage of pilots in the RAF, the introduction of SNCO pilots could be hugely beneficial. The SNCO's could concentrate on flying leaving the officers (well most of them) to get on with worrying about pleasing the boss, promotion and their future careers. The anti-NCO pilot thing is more about elitism than anything else. Many current NCO's hold civilian pilot licences and degrees, so ability is not a problem. It is about time their Airships stopped wanting to keep the two winged master-race in the O's Mess and started wanting to fill those ejector seats with good pilots, regardless of rank.
Mad Mark
I can not fail to notice that our bretheren in the Senior Service are keeping out of this one....especially as they have just Commisioned all their Royal Marine NCO Pilots...who were trained by the Army! I am not certain but did not the Royal Navy have NCO Pilots in days gone by? If we are now in the realms of majorities then the Army's stance is in the minoroty and should be bought in line with the other two Services. One outlook that hasn't been discussed is cost in that recruiting a Pilot from within your own organisation is cheaper than getting one from outside it as the basics have been covered (military knowledge etc) and you can always put him on back burner if your quota is full and bring back later when ther is a space. Generally, soldiers who fail Aircrew Selection do not leave the Army as they were relatively happy in their original job in the first place. Geting a future Pilot from the outside is a gamble as he is not a known commodity and has not been in the "system" for any length of time therefore a decision has to be made on an individual after a short space of time at the OASC. To assist in this, proof of known qualities help this decision to be made ie degrees and the like. NCO's get their degrees from the university of life and by the time they decide to go flying they have served six years plus in the system they are going to fly in and therefore, the selectors have this proof of known qualities ie rank achieved, confidential reports and the like. The end result is a Pilot. Just a different way of achieving it.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a comparative newcomer to pprune I’ve missed the previous threads on this subject.
My experience is in the rotary world but the basic issues cover all types.
There is absolutely no difference between commissioned and non-commissioned aircrew regarding ability to fly. There are excellent pilots and there are average pilots and occasionally some w@nkers.
As an ex SNCO QHI in the military I trained both types – normally side by side. Ie 2 students, one commissioned and the other non-commissioned. Pure flying ability was about equal. As the training was geared towards tactical flying (the basic stuff having been covered by civilian instructors) there was obviously a requirement for decision making/leadership skills/airmanship (now called CRM) and plain common sense. Whether there was a pip or a stripe in the other seat, these processes too, were about equal.
The difference of course was that commissioned aircrew normally went on to command a flight or a squadron. The additional skills involved in that process call for man management, administrative competence (staff work) and powers of command – not normally skills associated with flying an aircraft.
The military system obviously limits pilot NCO’s in the full employment of these additional skills – but the majority do have them. Likewise the majority (but my no means all) of commissioned personnel have them and by virtue of their training and experience apply them more naturally.
I now run a fairly large flying operation for one of the major players in the civilian world. There are number of ex military personnel (both NCO’s and commissioned) from all the services involved in this and other operations. When those additional skills mentioned above are required for whatever reason – Chief Pilot, Commercial decision, Client liaison, organising search and rescue etc – there is little difference between ex commissioned personnel or non-commissioned. What is apparent is the difference between the non-military and ex military – but that’s another story.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that military pilots, of whatever description, possess at least some of the qualities mentioned above or they wouldn’t be flying in the first place.
My experience is in the rotary world but the basic issues cover all types.
There is absolutely no difference between commissioned and non-commissioned aircrew regarding ability to fly. There are excellent pilots and there are average pilots and occasionally some w@nkers.
As an ex SNCO QHI in the military I trained both types – normally side by side. Ie 2 students, one commissioned and the other non-commissioned. Pure flying ability was about equal. As the training was geared towards tactical flying (the basic stuff having been covered by civilian instructors) there was obviously a requirement for decision making/leadership skills/airmanship (now called CRM) and plain common sense. Whether there was a pip or a stripe in the other seat, these processes too, were about equal.
The difference of course was that commissioned aircrew normally went on to command a flight or a squadron. The additional skills involved in that process call for man management, administrative competence (staff work) and powers of command – not normally skills associated with flying an aircraft.
The military system obviously limits pilot NCO’s in the full employment of these additional skills – but the majority do have them. Likewise the majority (but my no means all) of commissioned personnel have them and by virtue of their training and experience apply them more naturally.
I now run a fairly large flying operation for one of the major players in the civilian world. There are number of ex military personnel (both NCO’s and commissioned) from all the services involved in this and other operations. When those additional skills mentioned above are required for whatever reason – Chief Pilot, Commercial decision, Client liaison, organising search and rescue etc – there is little difference between ex commissioned personnel or non-commissioned. What is apparent is the difference between the non-military and ex military – but that’s another story.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that military pilots, of whatever description, possess at least some of the qualities mentioned above or they wouldn’t be flying in the first place.
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twist Grip
Nicely put, good to have some perspective from the other side of the fence.
However, I get the idea that we're straying from the thrust of the argument here. We're all agreed (or nearly all) that history and The AAC prove that it doesn't matter what you wear on your shoulder to keep an aircraft airborne. The nub of the post I feel is whether NCO pilots are PRACTICAL in todays airforce and whether they could co-exist with their commissioned brethren.
Now like it or lump it but some of the "against" crew have a few pretty good arguments and it is those we should be trying to overcome. The "dilution" one is winner really and however inappropriate you might think it is ('cos we're REALLY short of senior Officers in The Airforce you know)the size of the GD/P trade is nowhere near the size it was when we had NCO pilots in The Service. So, trying to rationalise another tier (albit lower) of seniority, promotion ladders and payscales within an already shrinking trade can never be seen as an easy option to those that manage higher up the pecking order.
Now, you have to excuse me for taking some wild liberties with a few of these grandiose ideas but I talk from the standpoint of realising that the RAF will probably NEVER EVER have NCO pilots again. That said though, if there ever is to be a chance it can never succeed by just puffing out our chests and saying "we're just as bloody good as you you know".
If there is to be a chance at all IMHO the people who sponsor the trade higher up (old commissioned pilots) have to be convinced
that the cadre just can't do without NCO pilots any longer.
I have no idea how you could possibley go about doing that..... Shame really
Nicely put, good to have some perspective from the other side of the fence.
However, I get the idea that we're straying from the thrust of the argument here. We're all agreed (or nearly all) that history and The AAC prove that it doesn't matter what you wear on your shoulder to keep an aircraft airborne. The nub of the post I feel is whether NCO pilots are PRACTICAL in todays airforce and whether they could co-exist with their commissioned brethren.
Now like it or lump it but some of the "against" crew have a few pretty good arguments and it is those we should be trying to overcome. The "dilution" one is winner really and however inappropriate you might think it is ('cos we're REALLY short of senior Officers in The Airforce you know)the size of the GD/P trade is nowhere near the size it was when we had NCO pilots in The Service. So, trying to rationalise another tier (albit lower) of seniority, promotion ladders and payscales within an already shrinking trade can never be seen as an easy option to those that manage higher up the pecking order.
Now, you have to excuse me for taking some wild liberties with a few of these grandiose ideas but I talk from the standpoint of realising that the RAF will probably NEVER EVER have NCO pilots again. That said though, if there ever is to be a chance it can never succeed by just puffing out our chests and saying "we're just as bloody good as you you know".
If there is to be a chance at all IMHO the people who sponsor the trade higher up (old commissioned pilots) have to be convinced
that the cadre just can't do without NCO pilots any longer.
I have no idea how you could possibley go about doing that..... Shame really
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But just to Pi$$ on all your fires did you realise the RAF actually had an NCO PILOT in 1998 - best you start digging around and find a young lad who used to drive crew buses @ Brize then transfered to the AAC to drive Gazelles's and was awarded wings still wearing an RAF NCO Beret!
Toodle Pip!
Toodle Pip!
JS32 - Correct of course. But if my info is correct, why is he now leaving said haven of NCO pilots? Is it something to do with the treatment of said NCO pilots by 'the system'? 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negative,
Just the lure of the big lights in the widebody world. DF is a good lad, and the very first day i took him to the airfield, i came home thinking - somehow i think this is going to carry on - and that was 15 years ago!
Doh!
Just the lure of the big lights in the widebody world. DF is a good lad, and the very first day i took him to the airfield, i came home thinking - somehow i think this is going to carry on - and that was 15 years ago!
Doh!
