NCO Pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NCO Pilots
In these days of financial stringency is there a role for the return of NCO pilots? In my youth I had an NCO instructor and he was great, also was in the Battle of Britain in his youth. When I got my wings I had to entertain him off base as he wasn't allowed in the Officers mess.
Financially, less pay same job.
Financially, less pay same job.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army pilots
Very good positive article on this very subject in the latest issue of Soldier; well worth a read.
Soldier - Magazine of the British army
Soldier - Magazine of the British army
Less pay, same job? Depends on how you handle promotions and starting pay, I would have thought.
A newly-qualified NCA Sgt earns £32 756, according to the latest AFPRB report. A newly-qualified A/Plt Off earns £24 615. Even looking along the typical career path, the officer isn't likely to get more than about £10k per annum more than his NCO colleague. That saves what, £3M a year or so?
I think the savings would be negligible looking along a typical career path; especially as nowadays, no-one is going to accept "less pay same job!"
A newly-qualified NCA Sgt earns £32 756, according to the latest AFPRB report. A newly-qualified A/Plt Off earns £24 615. Even looking along the typical career path, the officer isn't likely to get more than about £10k per annum more than his NCO colleague. That saves what, £3M a year or so?
I think the savings would be negligible looking along a typical career path; especially as nowadays, no-one is going to accept "less pay same job!"
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ro...pilots1939.jpg Rating Pilots donning flying kit by swordfish with folded wings -Here are seen two ratings qualified or qualifying as air pilots donning their flying kit. Since the Admiralty took over complete control of the Fleet Air Arm, naval ratings have been eligible to qualify as air pilots. They are selected mainly from the seaman, signal and telegraphist branches of the Service, and must be between the ages of 21 and 24. They are given a thorough training ashore for a year, followed by eight weeks in a training aircraft carrier, during which time able seamen are rated as acting leading seamen. As soon as the full period of training has been successfully completed, they are advanced to the rating of petty officer.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect it has nothing to do with capitation and more to do with the relationship between the following:
- Qualities required to flying modern combat air, strat lift and RW have significant overlap with those required to be an officer (I am not saying they are exclusive or that these flying tasks could not been done by NCA - just that there is commonality).
- With a limited number of flying opportunities, the RAF has no problem recruiting officer aircrew (we may well have problems training aircrew and retaining them, but not getting them through the door).
- Like it or not, RAF top-end career structure drives the configuration of the lower-level officer establishment, ie. you need x number of flt lts to get y number of sqn ldrs to ultimately get z 4*s. Since we remain predicated to the upper echelons being aircrew (separate argument) and with limited cockpits, the establishment cannot afford to give opportunities away to NCA.
- This argument is compounded when you consider how many officer aircrew we need to populate the overall Service task, not just flying aircraft around. Which ties in to the need to circulate aircrew (greatly more so with officers than NCA) through flying related staff appointments.
- Qualities required to flying modern combat air, strat lift and RW have significant overlap with those required to be an officer (I am not saying they are exclusive or that these flying tasks could not been done by NCA - just that there is commonality).
- With a limited number of flying opportunities, the RAF has no problem recruiting officer aircrew (we may well have problems training aircrew and retaining them, but not getting them through the door).
- Like it or not, RAF top-end career structure drives the configuration of the lower-level officer establishment, ie. you need x number of flt lts to get y number of sqn ldrs to ultimately get z 4*s. Since we remain predicated to the upper echelons being aircrew (separate argument) and with limited cockpits, the establishment cannot afford to give opportunities away to NCA.
- This argument is compounded when you consider how many officer aircrew we need to populate the overall Service task, not just flying aircraft around. Which ties in to the need to circulate aircrew (greatly more so with officers than NCA) through flying related staff appointments.
Gentleman Aviator
"Through life" costs have to be considered too - generally speaking occifers stay in longer (about 5 years on average) which also skews the figures concerning replacement costs....
Like 4Greens I was trained by an NCA, a Master Pilot. Excellent chap. There were many more of his ilk in those far off days. No reason IMHO why they shouldn't return. As for the need of z aircrew 4*s, some of those produced these days the RAF could perhaps well do without. Perhaps x engineer 4*s would be a better requirement. I only mention that in view of the allegations that a fair formation/flock/wing of the z's (what is a polite collective term?) were complicit in the deliberate flouting of UK Military Airworthiness Regulations leading to unairworthy aircraft being in RAF service, leading in turn to some 62 deaths. Thread hijack? What's that then?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the watter...
Age: 77
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back when young Molemot was a sprog, he went through Officer training with several NCO, Sergeant Pilot....er....pilots! Since then he has encountered some very senior and competent NCO pilots from the Army Air Corps. During training he was ..exposed?.. to some Polish NCO pilots left over from the Last Major Unpleasantness. Great chaps, all of them!
Let us not forget that the majority of Bomber Command aircrews in WW2 were captained by non commissioned aircrew......
Let us not forget that the majority of Bomber Command aircrews in WW2 were captained by non commissioned aircrew......
Since then he has encountered some very senior and competent NCO pilots from the Army Air Corps.
Until the advent of the Apache, AAC assets were, in the Army battlespace thinking, not much more than Land Rovers with a fan on top (or a couple of planks on the side).
The Apache is obviously a far more advanced weapon system, more akin to an RAF or FAA aircraft, and may have changed that way of thinking. Moreover, some in the Army regard the RAF's relative retreat from investment in the CAS role in favour of Air Defence as an opportunity. It will be interesting to see if, as Apache assumes an increasingly important role, if the AAC aligns itself with RAF and FAA policy.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 9th May 2010 at 19:35.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Apache is obviously a far more advanced weapon system, more akin to an RAF or FAA aircraft,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused about the post that an Apache is more advanced. This does not gel with the relative skills of NCO pilots and Officer pilots, or is it a thread drift?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, - but I dont understand the difference here. Am I to assume that Officer pilots are more intelligent than NCO pilots? Ok - if so - how do we reach this conclusion? Having been in the RN on P/T contract and worked for the MoD for several years (i'm cured of this now!) I can tell you this. All of the Pilots I have met (RAF and RN - no AAC unfortunately) aint the sharpest tools in the box, in fact i'd say most of them were downright thick (and full of ****. But they were obviously really enthusiastic about what they did - Especially the wafoos ) however the Austrailian Shiraz is making me drift a little. So here is the question I want to ask...
If Officer and NCO/SR pilots were given the same training then which would be more viable and why? Assuming that both were paid (a) comensurate with their rank and (b) Given sufficient incentive to go for a full career.
Sorry if I've wondered and talked utter garbage but this is rather good bootle of wine
No disrepect intended 
If Officer and NCO/SR pilots were given the same training then which would be more viable and why? Assuming that both were paid (a) comensurate with their rank and (b) Given sufficient incentive to go for a full career.
Sorry if I've wondered and talked utter garbage but this is rather good bootle of wine
No disrepect intended