SNCO Aircrew
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What training have ground engineers had in airmanship and flying regulations?
As for flying regulations well what training do WSOps receive? Learn this GASO, SOP, LAO, FOB, JSP550, etc and there will be a test. I am sure any Grnd Eng is capable of reading a book for an exam.
why do we need AEops?
At least I don't make up ridicules arguments about thing I know nothing about.
Stewards are not Aircrew
I take it sideshow that you are a disgruntled ground tradesman who failed at OASC and now hate all WSOps.
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you rockiesquid. I see what is going on here now. It's not AEOps, sorry WSOps something to do with EW stuff, he has a downer on it's GE's who think they are Air Engs. The difference is, is that GE's have a future in the RAF. He can't take it that he has been replaced by a computerised warning system on the latest RAF AT. Heck, even the Loadies, sorry WSOp Cmn (FW) carry out initial systems checks and deal with the fuel panel on the C130J. From what I have heard it isn't exactly rocket science, as why would you let a white butty box dispenser do the checks?
But what is the point in holding one of those licences? It's about as much use as applying for a black and white TV licence. Still you could be an assistant manager to the Navs, sorry WSO's in Maccy dees.
Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the origins go back to WWII and the Geneva Convention. There were LAC air gunners at the time as well as NCO pilots. It was decided that treatment of SNCO’s and officers as POW’s was better than for erks and so all aircrew were SNCO’s.
That continued post war and has I dare say been continued for recruitment and retention as much as anything else, but I have no idea if it is the case.
The case for flying groundcrew is interesting. Technical knowledge is never the issue, however, as all aircrew will tell you airmanship is the unquantifiable part. You may be able to operate equipment, but can you do it at 0400 at 400ft pulling a few G whilst your opo is throwing up because the ac is being thrown around by the wx? You have three or four tasks to be completed all at the same time, can you prioritise under pressure and still get them all done. That’s what aptitude and selection is all about, professional aircrew are always the best option, if you can afford it.
Remember, the only reasons Pilots and Navs were commissioned was due to the bucket of sunshine. It was considered too restrictive to have a mixture. Tradition in Bomber Command was to have a pilot and a flight engineer who could fly and land the ac if the pilot was injured or killed. When the V Bombers came along there were not enough commissioned engineers and so the co-pilot was born and the flight engineers job, in part, (electrics) done by the AEO.
I am led to believe that pre WWII, Sgt Pilots were expected to have come from public school and the Officers from university, not sure if true but it sounds as if it could be.
Interestingly, (well to me), my father was trained to fly in Florida. His selection was done at Blackpool in a big hangar. He told me there was a hangar full of guys and they were instructed to leave two gaps such that the assembled throng were divided into three groups. Then the main man walked in front of each group in turn and explained, “You're Pilots, you're Navigators and you're WopAG’s”, some selection procedure.
I guess the answer to all is that the reasons are lost in the past and there is no reason to change it. As for the RN, well unless your an officer you don't matter so who cares what rank you are. (And yes I have worked with the RN). As for the Army, well I have never understood their methods, I think they still believe it to be part of the cavalry.
That continued post war and has I dare say been continued for recruitment and retention as much as anything else, but I have no idea if it is the case.
The case for flying groundcrew is interesting. Technical knowledge is never the issue, however, as all aircrew will tell you airmanship is the unquantifiable part. You may be able to operate equipment, but can you do it at 0400 at 400ft pulling a few G whilst your opo is throwing up because the ac is being thrown around by the wx? You have three or four tasks to be completed all at the same time, can you prioritise under pressure and still get them all done. That’s what aptitude and selection is all about, professional aircrew are always the best option, if you can afford it.
Remember, the only reasons Pilots and Navs were commissioned was due to the bucket of sunshine. It was considered too restrictive to have a mixture. Tradition in Bomber Command was to have a pilot and a flight engineer who could fly and land the ac if the pilot was injured or killed. When the V Bombers came along there were not enough commissioned engineers and so the co-pilot was born and the flight engineers job, in part, (electrics) done by the AEO.
I am led to believe that pre WWII, Sgt Pilots were expected to have come from public school and the Officers from university, not sure if true but it sounds as if it could be.
Interestingly, (well to me), my father was trained to fly in Florida. His selection was done at Blackpool in a big hangar. He told me there was a hangar full of guys and they were instructed to leave two gaps such that the assembled throng were divided into three groups. Then the main man walked in front of each group in turn and explained, “You're Pilots, you're Navigators and you're WopAG’s”, some selection procedure.
I guess the answer to all is that the reasons are lost in the past and there is no reason to change it. As for the RN, well unless your an officer you don't matter so who cares what rank you are. (And yes I have worked with the RN). As for the Army, well I have never understood their methods, I think they still believe it to be part of the cavalry.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Odiham
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one am glad that Aircrew are SNCOs. When I applied there was no chance of promotion in my trade even for the lads who had two 8's and a spec rec(not that I'd ever know). So not only would I get to fly but also I'd have 3 stripes on my arm. Maybe the reason for SNCO Aircrew is lost in the annuals of time but I believe it's a major incentive for ex-ranks remustering.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Technical knowledge is never the issue, however, as all aircrew will tell you airmanship is the unquantifiable part. You may be able to operate equipment, but can you do it at 0400 at 400ft pulling a few G whilst your opo is throwing up because the ac is being thrown around by the wx? You have three or four tasks to be completed all at the same time, can you prioritise under pressure and still get them all done. That’s what aptitude and selection is all about, professional aircrew are always the best option, if you can afford it.
He was obviously technically competent but wholly untrained in the operational sequence. No reason to suppose he could not have been trained but how about all the unquantifiable additional information?
That was in pre-SATs days where we had information thrown at us that may or may not have been useful but we had these little pearls to fall back on.
' orses for courses, P.N. Both sides had their pearls.
As an ex C/T NBS Fitter, I was amazed at how little time the Nav. Rad. had from a cold switch on to release as detailed in Vulcan 607. I would have been in a complete flap.
Equally, at their request, I once stood back and watched a pair of Navs. attempt to diagnose and rectify a " no picture " fault on H2s. After a couple of hours and 2 IND/WFG changes, I pointed out that the clue was in the faint glow visible in the S.W. quadrant which suggested it was a power unit. Any self respecting NBS fitter would have cleared it in about 20 mins.
As an ex C/T NBS Fitter, I was amazed at how little time the Nav. Rad. had from a cold switch on to release as detailed in Vulcan 607. I would have been in a complete flap.
Equally, at their request, I once stood back and watched a pair of Navs. attempt to diagnose and rectify a " no picture " fault on H2s. After a couple of hours and 2 IND/WFG changes, I pointed out that the clue was in the faint glow visible in the S.W. quadrant which suggested it was a power unit. Any self respecting NBS fitter would have cleared it in about 20 mins.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Groundcrew flying as aircrew? Not a good idea me thinks, with one exception; the carrying of the crew chief and his merry men to overcome problems whilst on detachment. It was asked earlier if NCA were taught 'airmanship' in flying training. It most certainly is taught. As for 'using' groundcrew as the 'cheaper option'; if you can spare their absence for 2 years from their main trade to undergo training in: Airmanship, navigation, R/H seat safety pilot training, sensors, pax handling and everything else that is involved in flying for a living, why not? There again, after all that, they'd be qualified aircrew.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Odiham
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Groundcrew doing an AEops/Aircrew job. I would'nt have thought many groundies would do it without the flying pay and rank so I don't think it'd be cheaper. But then again mine is just a "ridicules" argument!
Last edited by rockiesqiud; 21st Sep 2009 at 18:52. Reason: Spelling again
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there was (and possibly still is) Cpl stewards on the C130 fleet, but in VERY small numbers.
They were placed on all sqns, but quickly removed from south side because of their limited usefullness. There were a very unsubtle cost saving measure that did little to help the issues associated with 2 LM ops. Yes they were examined by LM Examiners, but then again, who else could you get to examine them, movers?
I know in my last years on the fleet it was becoming increasingly frustrating for all concerned trying to get the guys some useful trips in which to remain current. Seriously, as a sqn boss would you rather have 11 guys who can do everything, or 9 guys who can do everything and 3 who can only do 10%. (percentages picked out of thin air, but you get the point)
As for replacing NCA with GC, specifically GEs, GEs are a great bunch and incredibly useful and helpful, so I'm not against them, but practically speaking it takes a lot longer to create a GE than it does an Air Eng. Air Eng on entry can be any rank/trade. GE's must be Sgts already (or as near as damn it) so min 10 years service these days??
Couple that with the fact that groundcrew operate to different working hours legislation (which would mean pilots and "others" on different regimes) means it would be impractical. Pilot hours are CAA approved, meaning GE comes to pilot system, and hey presto, your groundcrew have become aircrew.
On the original topic, I was always told LMs (and therefore all other NCA) were Sgts because of the rotary fleet and their interaction with army types. As we all know, SNCOs are much more respected within the army than in the RAF, making a crewman's job easier and less confrontational.
Only what I was told, and I've never seen it in writing. Not that it affects me, I only ever fly a desk now
They were placed on all sqns, but quickly removed from south side because of their limited usefullness. There were a very unsubtle cost saving measure that did little to help the issues associated with 2 LM ops. Yes they were examined by LM Examiners, but then again, who else could you get to examine them, movers?
I know in my last years on the fleet it was becoming increasingly frustrating for all concerned trying to get the guys some useful trips in which to remain current. Seriously, as a sqn boss would you rather have 11 guys who can do everything, or 9 guys who can do everything and 3 who can only do 10%. (percentages picked out of thin air, but you get the point)
As for replacing NCA with GC, specifically GEs, GEs are a great bunch and incredibly useful and helpful, so I'm not against them, but practically speaking it takes a lot longer to create a GE than it does an Air Eng. Air Eng on entry can be any rank/trade. GE's must be Sgts already (or as near as damn it) so min 10 years service these days??
Couple that with the fact that groundcrew operate to different working hours legislation (which would mean pilots and "others" on different regimes) means it would be impractical. Pilot hours are CAA approved, meaning GE comes to pilot system, and hey presto, your groundcrew have become aircrew.
On the original topic, I was always told LMs (and therefore all other NCA) were Sgts because of the rotary fleet and their interaction with army types. As we all know, SNCOs are much more respected within the army than in the RAF, making a crewman's job easier and less confrontational.
Only what I was told, and I've never seen it in writing. Not that it affects me, I only ever fly a desk now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the original topic, I was always told LMs (and therefore all other NCA) were Sgts because of the rotary fleet and their interaction with army types. As we all know, SNCOs are much more respected within the army than in the RAF, making a crewman's job easier and less confrontational.
.That they needed interaction with Army types however was true for they worked extensively onthe ST and TT of the time - Hastings, Beverley etc especially when it came to disembarking the troops at the half-way point.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future when more reliance is be placed on UAVs. What rank/status will be given to the console bound jockeys and operators?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carnt spel
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 20
Posts: 2
Thank you rockiesquid. I see what is going on here now. It's not AEOps, sorry WSOps something to do with EW stuff, he has a downer on it's GE's who think they are Air Engs. The difference is, is that GE's have a future in the RAF. He can't take it that he has been replaced by a computerised warning system on the latest RAF AT. Heck, even the Loadies, sorry WSOp Cmn (FW) carry out initial systems checks and deal with the fuel panel on the C130J. From what I have heard it isn't exactly rocket science, as why would you let a white butty box dispenser do the checks?
Quote:
Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?
But what is the point in holding one of those licences? It's about as much use as applying for a black and white TV licence. Still you could be an assistant manager to the Navs, sorry WSO's in Maccy dees.
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 20
Posts: 2
Thank you rockiesquid. I see what is going on here now. It's not AEOps, sorry WSOps something to do with EW stuff, he has a downer on it's GE's who think they are Air Engs. The difference is, is that GE's have a future in the RAF. He can't take it that he has been replaced by a computerised warning system on the latest RAF AT. Heck, even the Loadies, sorry WSOp Cmn (FW) carry out initial systems checks and deal with the fuel panel on the C130J. From what I have heard it isn't exactly rocket science, as why would you let a white butty box dispenser do the checks?
Quote:
Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?
But what is the point in holding one of those licences? It's about as much use as applying for a black and white TV licence. Still you could be an assistant manager to the Navs, sorry WSO's in Maccy dees.
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the outlook is that good for FE's on the outside, why aren't all the Air Engs leaving the RAF to earn the big bucks with the freight companies as ther are the only operators that usually fly the older generation aircraft that operate with valves and string and selotape? Hmmm sounds just like the VC10, E3D and Tristar fleet.
Point proved.
I got one of those useless Flight Engineers licenses.........................and we don't even fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work on a type where for both intra-RAF and inter-service political reasons, we have a mix of NCA and non-flying background rearcrew - just what some Air Engs on this thread suggest as a good idea. Some of these operators are good, at least as good as (and possibly better than) some NCA. However, they are in a minority, and overall it's an unnecessary experiment gone sadly wrong.
On the other hand, we have replaced our Air Engs, not with ground engineers as some WSOps suggest, but with a microchip. I have to say that personally, I preferred the presence of an Eng on the flight deck - when our electric jet goes wrong a third set of eyes, set back from the action, would be very comforting.
So, sadly, I agree with everyone!
On the other hand, we have replaced our Air Engs, not with ground engineers as some WSOps suggest, but with a microchip. I have to say that personally, I preferred the presence of an Eng on the flight deck - when our electric jet goes wrong a third set of eyes, set back from the action, would be very comforting.
So, sadly, I agree with everyone!
Registered User **
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a dictionary
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pursuit
I am an ex Tristar GE now working for Virgin Trains as a driver/instructor, and yes I do insist that the job is done correctly as many lives are on the shoulders of our drivers, so if that makes me a "jobsworth" then so be it.
Not sure which of the specialisations you work in however