Apache/Tornado navs

[neilk]

So do you fly any better with a commission now?, It makes no difference is my point. AAC Aircrewmen when used properly are more than able to use the Apache systems in my humble opinion, I mean it's not as if the US Army requires a degree to fly it! To continue the "we should have the Apache thread" by subtle or other means is quite funny, espec when by the EX AAC "grass is greener on the other side".
brigade.


MORE BANTER PLEASE

[neilk]

And to slag off the standard of AAC pilots when you were on once.........SAD
and having had the task of training those Pilots as a QHI, pretty Sad, or is this more of a reflection on QHI'S and their low(tri service skills)

DISCUSS

[HeliAviator]

FRDJ, chap the phrase "Silk purses from pigs ears" springs to mind. I left because I was unhappy with the standard. Whereas your shooting down the other side of the fence from what perspective/experience?

Badger

[tgrendl]

Both seats in the aircraft can do both jobs but it is optimized to fly from the back and shoot/nav from the front.

I'm sure there are really excellent tornado navs that could go through the training and take up the front seat in the Apache.

But being able to operate some EW equipment does not an attack helicopter pilot make.

The more important aspect of this pilot is that he can fight the aircraft.

I believe that can only come from experienced helo pilots with the time, background and experience.

[Megaton]

The AAC does not have a history of operating sophisticated weaponry and I would suggest that it would be easier to teach a fast jet nav to stick/throttle an AH-64 than a cab driver to operate a modern wepaons system. True, the US Army employs NCOs in their Apaches but that doesn't neccessarily mean they've got it right. In a previous existence, I was around when the AAC approached the RAF to discuss supporting the ac's EW kit. They had envisaged a team of two to support the numerous parts of the DASS. We pointed out that it took far more to support the less complex Tornado and they were shocked. They were clueless as to the complexity of the systems that they were to inherit.

There is, of course, no reason why a properly trained, educated and skilled NCO should not fly from the front seat. The AAC's approach to flying does not however, IMHO, offer the most efficient or effective use of this platform.

[fone_effect]

This has turned into a right old Ex AAC v Present AAC bun fight come on, put your handbags away.

By the way, Chinook you were a to55er then and you still are.

[rigid_rotor]

Lot of grumpy peeps here! Just how many here are commenting from a knowledgeable position with regard to what a nav could do and what the WAH could do? Surely only someone with that background could comment confidently on the topic? And I dont mean what you have read about the WAH but what you know from having flown it.

Just wondered

[Rotah]

I think that you have all missed the point. We seem to have Navs that are hung up on how competent they really are, honest.... and AAC NCOs who seem to like twisting the AH knife. It isn't about purely delivering HE, or the hands-on flying skills involved, it's about understanding the land environment and then fighting the machine as part of that land battle. Why have the RAF dithered in and out of CAS? Because to gain the situational awareness necessary to provide effective close support, you generally have to understand what is happening around you and then hang around long enough to orientate yourself... one is what the RAF are not educated in, no criticism intended, and the latter is difficult to do at xxx's kts.

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Rotah ]

[KentBrockman]

Ive been reading this with interest, and I agree with Rotah's comments. Its not just a case of zooming in and pressing the tit, and getting back in time for tea and medals. The army fight a land war and the AH is there to fight/support that land war. I was told at wallop that you can teach a monkey to fly given the time, it will be the same with a few buttons. Anyway are'nt we the playstation generation, who better to have firing the bullets and stuff.
I am also unaware of a surplus of Navs in the RAF, or any who would give up there fluffy suits and long careers(last time I heard, they were all banging out cos the RAF was crap), do they think the Army is going to be any better. Less pay, dig in not check in, train them up, three year tour, fly a desk, some career move that will be, imagine how fast they will leave after that. As for heli aviator, Traitor! if you were unhappy with the standard, you should have stayed and improved it, read your comment about a pigs ear etc, perhaps a reflection of your teaching skill? By the sounds of it you have always been a crab, but started off in green. good riddance to bad rubbish.

edited cos i can (and i hate saying that)

[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: KentBrockman ]

[kbf1]

You could always give John Nichol a call, he's not up to much these days

Lots of cross slagging going on, nobody has mentioned aptitude selection and retraining of pilots who volunteer for the programme regardless of rank. Wishful thinking I know, but in time I am sure that aptitude tests will be done to assess future front seaters for AH at OASC and through training, with perhaps a stream dedicated to AH WSO.

[64av8or]

As a recently retired Apache Instructor of some experience on both Alphas and Longbows I feel I have the cred to put to rest some of the bull$hit eminating from the darker blue jobs. Heliaviator you are so far out of touch its laughable! Young AAC Pilots today are of a much higher calibre than as recently as 5 years ago. They have an aptitude that suits the modern 3 dimensional battlefield perfectly and do you know what, rank means nothing today as far as ablility and aptitude is concerned; they are all from the same technical generation. So quit the sour and sad grapes its quite pathetic.
The AH training and fielding is proceeding quietly, professionally and will produce high calibre modern AH crews who can operate the Ac effectively from either seat. Fast jet Navs who aspire to upgrade to the AH need to be Pilots first and arguably the reason they are Navs is that they didn't make the grade. Someone correct me if that isn't the case and I will retract.
Time will tell!

[fone_effect]

64av8or
We hear a lot about the diminishing moral within the QHI longbow fraternity. Is this true? If so why?

[You Aint Seen Me. Roit!]

Well said 64 (how is it out there? (MM))

Badger

It seems you havn't changed since you went over to the dark blue side. In other words you're still a to55er.

Speaking as a serving AAC QHI, I'm astounded that you are so happy to openly critisise the standard of AAC Pilots. I have no knowledge or experience of the capabilities of a Fast Jet Nav, so I will not comment on their suitability to move across to the AH, but you are wrong to imply that todays AAC pilot is lacking in ability. How quickly you forget your roots.

You say that you left the Army for the RAF because you had had enough. I thought it was because the AAC wouldn't commision you whereas the crabs would!

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: You Aint Seen Me. Roit! ]

[neilk]

Here's an idea, lets use AAC aircrew to fly Support Helo's, after all it's all just ash & trash, after all we can use tornado navs then can't we, or am I reinventing a well worn subject, it needs saying tho, then you could stay in the AAC to fly big stuff and there would be nowhere to defect to.

Ding Ding seconds out!!!!!!

[HeliAviator]

Dear You Ain't seen me....big words from someone so small as to hide their identity. And as if you would know..........Pathetic!

I do not for one second doubt the need for quality pilots in the Corps especially for the AH64 However explain how all but two new blood arrivals from the "school" to Wattashame were graded below average or worse whilst I was there. That is what I base my critisms on. The AH64 is a potent weapon much needed by todays Army, It need however the very best aircrew to get the best out of a limited resource.

As to the small mindedness of SH only flying "ash and trash", DJ, you always were one for a good hook and windup But for those that wish to jump in on what SH can or can't do bandwagon, please reseach the subject. To help you out here are just a few disciplines that are regulary carried out:
Internal loads
Single/tandem/triple underslung loads
Proceedural Instrument Flying
Low flying (naturally - we all do)
Tac fmn
NVG tac fmn
Ship ops
Desert ops
Snow ops
Jungle ops
Winching
Gunnery
ECM
1v1 / 2v1 / 2v2 Fighter evasion

This list in not exhaustive, but he point is you the AAC are good at what you do in your own small sphere of aviation. We are good at what we do in a much larger aircraft in a much larger sphere. Touche!

Badger

[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: HeliAviator ]

[neilk]

You must have better QHI'S then.....Rember that given enought time and a limitless amount of bananas.......

[neilk]

And there is only tandem loads, fighter evasion to learn......oh so that's a conversion course then!

[You Aint Seen Me. Roit!]

HeliAviator

I've no need to hide behind an alias

My initials are MM
I'm a SNCO QHI
I'm based at MW
My extension number is 4416

I stand by what I said. What is pathetic is how quickly you forget your roots.

The inferior pool of pilots that you refer to is the same pool that produced you. I would expect you to show loyalty to the RAF, they are after all your employers nowadays, but that does not give you leave to question the ability of those of us that are still here. Or those that are new to the trade.

I wonder how good you were when you started.

[Fishbones]

I gather that an ex Tornado Nav was recently teaching EW & Tactics at Tactics Wing, Wallop with a view to transfering to the AAC, but was prevented by his medical cat. As I understand it he is now flying the Chinook as a pilot.

How do the guys who have been working with the AAC at wallop view this debate? Also, how do the AAC boys who have worked alongside these Navs feel they have helped?

I'm sure that once we dig deeper than single service loyalty and banter, we'll find that a little cross fertilisation can only help. After all, we all work for the same boss. And we would like to be in the best position should any of us be called into action in the near future.

[You Aint Seen Me. Roit!]

Fishbones

I agree whole heartedly. I would imagine that there is an awful lot that we could learn from experienced Navs. Weapons delivery and EW spring to mind as do many other aspects.

The argument here is that at the present moment AAC policy is to operate with two qualified pilots. I have no doubt that there are many Navs who would make excellent pilots, but until they are trained as pilots its a none starter.

I also have little doubt that it won't be long until jointery means that we will all be working together and this debate will gather pace.

Ooh er, imagine that. HeliAviator having to work with us less skilled and less capable Army boys.

[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: You Aint Seen Me. Roit! ]