SNCO Aircrew

[kilwhang]

Carnt spel.

I have a feeling that this 'gentleman' has probably suffered one or all of the following:

a) Failed OASC
b) Failed the Station Board prior to attempting OASC
c) Found the application form too difficult
or
d) Had his wife/girlfriend/mother/sister/cousin etc well and truly 'influenced' by an Aircrew SNCO (possibly an Air Eng).

[Pontius Navigator]

POWs

Touching back on the POW bit. I recall that under the Geneva Convention POWs were threated as 3 separate groups by the enemy.

ORs were obliged to work for the enemy on non-military or war works, tending a woodmill for instance.

SNCOs were obliged to work but only as supervisors. It followed that a Stagluft would have had plenty of chiefs and no indians.

Officers were not obliged to work but could volunteer if they wished.

You may recall that other classic war film "The Password is Courage" based on Sergeant-Major Charles Coward's true story. I read the book first

[BEagle]

Did you recall that from personal experience, Pontius

This rather pointless "why carnt i fly like wot the zobs do" nonsense springs up from time to time. The current system works, there is no need for change.

A rather pushy Air Engineer once asked an Instructor Cpatain if he could 'have a go' at landing the mighty Vickers FunBus - he had a PPL, after all...

"Certainly", said the Captain - and made no move to ask the co-pilot to give up his seat.

"Well, can I swap seats, then?" asked our hero.

"Of course", said the Captain, "Just as soon as you've been accepted for a commission, passed Cranwell, graduated from flying training and started the VC10 OCU. Then you can have a landing....!"

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, of course it was.

[trap one]

Pingdit
There are sometimes legal requirements that mean that the "Rearcrew" are not "Aircrew" The case in point is the FC Controller. Because the E3's from NATO USAF FAF and RAF, control in all types of airspace throughout NATO and other countries airspace they have to have passed the control ticket in their own country. In the UK this normally means 6 weeks aptitude testing 13-16 weeks simulator training then 16 weeks plus to do live and simulator training before they are then checked and if competent given a ticket to control limited types of sortie under a supervisor who is monitoring up to 4 similar controllers. Add in a minimum of 2 years to get CR and then be eligible for posting to E3's.
The FAA controllers in the Seaking ASacs are not allowed to give the full range of control services as they don't pass the full control course.
Having done the E3 OCU before the introduction of the Cranwell phase I can say I learnt a lot but would have loved to get R/H seat qualified.
As for the PAX handling Firefighting and various other parts of the OCU that were covered at Waddo rather than elsewhere I was happy with my level of knowlege and so were Staneval.

I am not insulting any "aircrew" when I say that some of them do not have the aptitude or ability to control, I know because I watched some of the Shack controllers fail to pass the full control test. They had worked on a similar system as the FAA does today for the Seaking ASacs. Conversely I've seen FC's remuster and pass the airman AEOp course (Nimrod) and the FJ Nav (F3). I also believe that the mix on the E3D made it a much better platform that the other E3's.

In summary personally I'd have loved to be paid "flying pay" once qualified but I accepted that I'd only get flying pay when I was actually posted to Waddo. But as our Lords and Masters had to have controllers on board then I believe that they would only pay for the usual cheap option, as having WSOp's do the FC course and then maybe fail would be wasting too much money.
Before you say what about the Navs who went to do the FC course well of the 2 who went both passed. One was promoted to Wing Cdr and the other stayed on the ground. I left in 2005 and know nothing of any other Navs who went after that time.
Regards
Trap One

[Wader2]

trap one, the key is aptitude (and a desire to do it). Some can Nav, some can FC and some can do both. I know several Navs who pre-E3 all did full tours down the hole. You would probably remember JG in the sim, NB who was an FC on 8 and others. There was also a number that transfered at their 38 point, Kip Smith who made Gp Capt, SM ex-maritime, who passed out as one of the top FC, or one R W-F who was parachuted in from F4s as a wg cdr (Never really understood what happened there but that. one was not, by all accounts, a success).

In my case I had no desire to fly in the black hole and willingly stepped back to 10 course before ceding my plave when I pulled the age card

[trap one]

Wader2.
Agree the key is aptitude and as you said the desire. The Nav to FC or vice a versa is not hard just needs time to accomplish both courses which usually is not a player.
Would their lordships pay for a FJ Nav to go and do the full FC course. The answer was no they wanted to pay for only the sim and live/sim and then send the guys/girls straight to E3's missing out the CR portion of the course. The gents you mentioned AFAIK all did a full tour on thje ground and AFAIK had either come to the end of the aircraft they FJ Nav'd in or as you said 38 point. Yes and some came from Vulcan and maritime to do tours in the holes but as they were already on flying pay and in some cases couldn't go back FJ it was a saving of flying pay to get them in the E3.
I taught both of the Navs who were selected to go Nav-FC-E3 and they were both very sharp cookies. As I said at the time to the SL who was promoted I believed they would be doing themselves a diservice by not spending time controlling on the ground and getting comfortable with the new job.
I was on 9 course and had a whole 6 weeks post OCU before I ended up with another 9 Cse WC and a brand new FA flying Green Ink missions for Deleberate Forge in the September. I very much doubt I would have been able to provide the same service if I had not had 3 years of controlling in between Qualifying and OCU.
I also went through FC training with "Scuba" a real gent who was the perfect Spec aircrew FC.

Regards
Trap One

[The Gorilla]

Just wandered in again I see it hasn't changed much. Beagle is still banging on with his anti nco flight deck. Others who should have worked harder at skool chip in as well bless them.

FE Hoppy and I were on the same course, prior to leaving he chose to have an FE Licence I chose not too. It's fair to say we are doing alright now thank you. I am grateful to the RAF, for what I did as an Air Eng has made me far more employable in my current role.

I agree with trap ones comments, the E3 is nothing more than a flying R3 bunker. Only the ground guys have the true experience and background to do that kind of work.

However all this childish bickering about who should be in which seat is soon to irrelevant. You aren't going to have any seats/ roles/missions or aircraft to play with from around june of next year.

[sargs]

The thread intitially was asking the question why you have to be a SNCO or above to fly in the RAF, and there have been some very interesting replies. I'm not grinding any particular axe, but Beags, there was (until you started it) nothing about "why I can't fly like the zobs do". Personally, as suitably qualified rearcrew, I was trained to, and allowed to, fly the yellow Sea King "throughout the flight envelope" - at least, until the rules changed after the Nimrod in Toronto accident. Not because I "wanted to do what the zobs did" but because you could never find two pilots willing to give up a precious day off to deliver a/c between bases - it was usually one pilot / one rearcrew. I had no problem with that, it gave me more awareness of (and more respect for) what the pilots did. Many of my rearcrew mates wanted to get up the front, and went through selection / commissioning / training so that they could. The envy you allude to, Beags, simply did not happen in my experience, at least in the way you describe.

Back to the thread - anybody out there know why ATs on the E-3D are SNCOs? Is it the same with their US and NATO counterparts?

[Fortissimo]

Gorilla, I don't believe trap one said that the E3 was just a flying R3 bunker. It is capable of more than that, albeit it is limited in scale, and the arrival of IP-based communications for the platform opens up a whole new range of potential tasks viz use of imagery, application of ROE, control of UAVs (already demo'd from Wedgetail), airborne command element etc. Agreed though, people should not be controlling unless they are suitably trained.

Sargs, back to thread, the NATO ATs are all SNCOs but the US can employ more junior enlisted. I think the UK logic related to the degree of responsibility and the self-supervision bit, which in turn led to SNCO-level experience requirements.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sards, in answer to your new question, the answer is probably the modern equivalent of the earlier one. One simple one is the administrative of reducing the different accommodations needed at landaways. Who shares rooms etc.

I am sure BEags will tell you of the female AS Cpl or SAC who had better accommodation than the officers .

Other reason are probably to do with experience and incentive. Where a Cpl is 'lowest level of management' there is probably a definition of a Sgt's skill levels.

[[email protected]]

Trapone - you must have forgotten the Aircraft Captains course that the FC seem to have done - they way they go on you would think they really are flying the E3

[BEagle]

As regards accommodation away form base, if it was arranged by the station (e.g. Akrotiri), we insisted on 'accommodation commensurate with home base entitlement' - but that was all. If they didn't have enough rooms, then they would put us up off base and rooms would be as per STC Accounting Instructions.

Some truckies did try it on though, for instance insisting on staying off-base 'for operational reasons'. Oddly enough when we used to fly with a GE+4 in the back to Akrotiri, there were several JNCOs. Yet if it was a trip to the US, it was often all SNCO groundcrew.... Although they did use our late-lamented States Trainers to train up their U/T GEs - an excellent arrangement which suited everyone.

I don't know why you think I'm 'anti SNCO' flightdecks, I am far from it. I used to describe our Air Engineers as providing a 'reality check' for the eager thrusting Flt Cdrs out to redesign the wheel. "Sir, that was tried 5 years ago and didn't work then, so it probably won't now!". They were like a top temp control on the young thrusters' engines and would moderate their activities with the benefit of experience.

[Pure Pursuit]

Perhaps, as the F3 fleet stands down gracefully in the not too distant future, there will be more Navs coming through the ABM route. I have not experienced any negatives with this arrangement in the past, infact, the last ex F3 mate I worked with has recently migrated to the E3 & will be missed on the ground. An encyclopedia of knowledge about missiles, tactics, late nights out in Vegas and a bloody good bloke to boot!

Not sure about AEOps coming through to work on the jet as WCs. The last one I remember coming through did very well for himself however, he was not streamed into the controller side of the house. In fairness, his knowledge of data links, radars etc probably made him an outstanding candidate for the secondary, sorry surveillance stream.

As for Beags suggesting that NCO Aircrew are mostly wannabe zobs, I would argue that I have not met a wokka crewman who is not bloody proud of what he does (quite rightly so) and does not suffer from envy, jealousy or cravings to be saluted! Would many of them want to swap jobs & pilot VC10s... I doubt it!

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by BEagle

Yet if it was a trip to the US, it was often all SNCO groundcrew.... Although they did use our late-lamented States Trainers to train up their U/T GEs - an excellent arrangement which suited everyone.

All airmen attached to RAF Det Offutt were made up to acting SNCO for accommodation and status reasons. Nuff said.

[The Gorilla]

Forty

It was a generalisation from someone who was an E3D Air Eng AND an ex L TECH AD on linesman (HF200 R12) and IUKADGE (ECPO R3). I even got to fly with and make tea for the guys who used to torment the life out of me and my staff by continually pressing the no height button with their heels whilst reading the sun newspaper, FC's are so multi functional!

[Vie sans frontieres]

"Just as soon as you've been accepted for a commission, passed Cranwell, graduated from flying training and started the VC10 OCU. Then you can have a landing....!"

Surely it should read..."been chopped from fast jets, then been chopped from helicopters and eventually have one last throw of the dice on multis"

At least the SNCO Aircrew have passed courses to get where they are today.

[nice castle]

Well said chap. Beagle's comment about the put down on the flight deck does little to enhance the reputation of that fleet wrt either levels of decent banter or general CRM. To put it bluntly, that chap Beagle referred to sounds to me a bit like the prat down the pub who people gradually move away from.

The pomposity of the 'this old one keeps coming round' type comment left a sour taste as well.

If the issue is continually raised, then there is probably something to discuss. The defence of commissioning pilots (and I am a commissioned pilot, by the way) should be open, justifiable and based on solid, sound logic.

'It's always been this way, so sod off and try your chances at OASC' is a thicko's line, and clearly open to be shot down.

In my job, which is quite specialised, I could cite occasions where a solid officer running the show has been of paramount importance, but there have also been times when I have concluded that there is no reason why a suitably switched on, trained and qualified SNCO could not do the job.

It's all food for thought, and nothing will change quickly, certainly not in my career span, but to be so dismissive is poor form in my opinion.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by nice castle

In my job, which is quite specialised, I could cite occasions where a solid officer running the show has been of paramount importance, but there have also been times when I have concluded that there is no reason why a suitably switched on, trained and qualified SNCO could not do the job.

As an absolute generalisation I would agree that any suitably qualfied SNCO can do any job with a defined set of rules whereas a suitably trained and experienced can write those rules. That is not to say that the SNCO cannot advise the officer.

There is also that cross-over in experience between junior officer and senior non-commissioned officer.

The hang up really is over pay and retention and to a lesser extent recruitment and TOS.

[Sentia]

I think the UK logic related to the degree of responsibility and the self-supervision bit, which in turn led to SNCO-level experience requirements.

Fortissimo

I may be misunderstanding what you are suggesting, but what SNCO experience does an ab-initio NCA have?