WSOp's/WSO's at Kinloss, what does the future hold?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, if you actually decide that it's okay to recruit the majority of pilots for their pole waggling skills, and to (perhaps) just ensure sufficient good eggs enter as officers to provide the future leadership, then there's no reason why NCOs can't fly aircraft.
I know that Cpls and Sgts do all of the above (apart from pole-waggling) as team and section leaders in the Army. However a single aircraft is at least the equivalent of a platoon in terms of firepower, area of influence, and potential for scrutiny if screwups occur - and platoons are commanded by officers. The fact that the AAC use NCO aircrew is a reflection on a different command structure whereby the aircraft can be considered to be under command of an officer on the ground.
I agree on one point though, which is about the number of 'eggs' that we currently test to find the 'good eggs' that will rise ever upwards. We train far too many aircrew; hence we end up with aircrew officers all over the place in instructional or made-up staff posts. We should be bolder in identifying the 'stars' early and getting them moving up, leaving the 'others' stable on the front line and giving productive service rather than attempting to 'broaden' them in the name of career progression. Perhaps something like the Navy's twin-track officer progression?
VR,
But you can only get PA after spending 15-20 years 'pretending' to be interested in a career. For right or wrong, in the early days of an FJ career, those who express no interest in career development are quickly put out to grass to make room for new 'eggs' in the 'good egg' hunt. PA have historically also been amongst the first guys to get the boot when more room is needed.
But you can only get PA after spending 15-20 years 'pretending' to be interested in a career. For right or wrong, in the early days of an FJ career, those who express no interest in career development are quickly put out to grass to make room for new 'eggs' in the 'good egg' hunt. PA have historically also been amongst the first guys to get the boot when more room is needed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentleman Aviator
But you can only get PA after spending 15-20 years 'pretending' to be interested in a career.
Originally Posted by Easy Street
The fact that the AAC use NCO aircrew is a reflection on a different command structure whereby the aircraft can be considered to be under command of an officer on the ground.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I might make 2 comments...
EGDG - As far as I can see SFFP said 'because I was nowhere near good enough' which would appear, at least to me, to be a rather humble position to take, especially considering he made it as an ALM which basically means he passed most of the selection process...he failed (if he went for pilot/nav, some go straight for NCO) on officer like qualities and/or leadership. Suggesting he has a chip on his shoulder suggests, to me at least, that the chip is actually on yours.
Easy Street - J***** H C***t, you need to get out more and see what NCOs are capable of, that's the most arrogant load of complete twaddle I ever heard. On a multi crew aircraft like Nimrod (where we mere mortals tended to go) NCA would be a significant part of the loop, fully aware of ROE's (and unlike SOME officers quite capable of deciding whether we were complying with them or not without having to ask Mummy) and quite capable of making decisions. MAEOP's terms of service include the requirement to shepherd and guide junior officers - an acknowledgement of what any decent officer knows, ie that an NCO or WO with significant years under their belts has a bloody good grasp of the RAF and their job, and is more than capable of making a part time officer (you know, the ones who leave by age 38) look a prat if required.
In fact the realisation of the above leads a fair number of us to **** off into civvy street where we tend to do rather well, last time I bothered checking my 12 man NCA course produced at least one FJ station commander, I recently spent 10 mins in the pub chatting as a result of a chance encounter to a fireman... sorry, now a Squadron boss.... another is a civvy airline pilot... ALL people who were, in my view, incorrectly filtered by OASC. Others go to civvy St and tend to do rather well.
Sorry to be so blunt and aggressive, but that was the most patronising load of drivel I've read on here in a long time. I'll back my decision making skills and intelligence against yours any day - as an ex NCA I am THAT confident.
Dave
EGDG - As far as I can see SFFP said 'because I was nowhere near good enough' which would appear, at least to me, to be a rather humble position to take, especially considering he made it as an ALM which basically means he passed most of the selection process...he failed (if he went for pilot/nav, some go straight for NCO) on officer like qualities and/or leadership. Suggesting he has a chip on his shoulder suggests, to me at least, that the chip is actually on yours.
Easy Street - J***** H C***t, you need to get out more and see what NCOs are capable of, that's the most arrogant load of complete twaddle I ever heard. On a multi crew aircraft like Nimrod (where we mere mortals tended to go) NCA would be a significant part of the loop, fully aware of ROE's (and unlike SOME officers quite capable of deciding whether we were complying with them or not without having to ask Mummy) and quite capable of making decisions. MAEOP's terms of service include the requirement to shepherd and guide junior officers - an acknowledgement of what any decent officer knows, ie that an NCO or WO with significant years under their belts has a bloody good grasp of the RAF and their job, and is more than capable of making a part time officer (you know, the ones who leave by age 38) look a prat if required.
In fact the realisation of the above leads a fair number of us to **** off into civvy street where we tend to do rather well, last time I bothered checking my 12 man NCA course produced at least one FJ station commander, I recently spent 10 mins in the pub chatting as a result of a chance encounter to a fireman... sorry, now a Squadron boss.... another is a civvy airline pilot... ALL people who were, in my view, incorrectly filtered by OASC. Others go to civvy St and tend to do rather well.
Sorry to be so blunt and aggressive, but that was the most patronising load of drivel I've read on here in a long time. I'll back my decision making skills and intelligence against yours any day - as an ex NCA I am THAT confident.
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP has in the past expressed some opinions, many have annoyed me so - if annoyed enough - I replied to say,
what he posted here did not deserve your comment.
Yes I'm the past, I have a decent brain, I'm not afraid of decision making, and when it all goes south I acknowlege it with a self deprecating joke for the most part.
I'm not the best guy on the planet by a long chalk, but I don't think I'm all that bad overall. I consider your post unworthy frankly, as I was in support of NCOs becoming pilots and objecting to those who seemed to believe that NCOs wre incapable of making difficult decisions or handling the technical side.
Or to put it another way,
you muppet.
Dave
what he posted here did not deserve your comment.
Yes I'm the past, I have a decent brain, I'm not afraid of decision making, and when it all goes south I acknowlege it with a self deprecating joke for the most part.
I'm not the best guy on the planet by a long chalk, but I don't think I'm all that bad overall. I consider your post unworthy frankly, as I was in support of NCOs becoming pilots and objecting to those who seemed to believe that NCOs wre incapable of making difficult decisions or handling the technical side.
Or to put it another way,
you muppet.
Dave
...hence we end up with aircrew officers all over the place in instructional or made-up staff posts...
BEags,
The UK-based HQs have indeed been downsizing over the past few years. The made-up staff posts can be found in the various Expeditionary Air Wings and Group (nothing like writing useless service papers in a dusty office in the desert to enhance your promotion prospects!). And the reason why we keep needing new pilots to be trained is that we post guys away from the front line after only 2.5 to 3 years - generally to be QFIs! Self-licking lollipop is a phrase that springs to mind.
davejb,
I fully acknowledge the role played by NCO aircrew as members of the airborne team, especially in the maritime role. However you would (rightly) expect the officers to carry the can if you (for example) torpedoed the wrong submarine. You can educate me here - were there ever any situations where you could have released a weapon without the consent of one of the officers on board?
My point was that assets as "strategic" as aircraft should be held accountable at least the same rank level as an army platoon, which means being under the command of an officer. By "strategic" here I mean scarce, wide-ranging and high-impact. In the days of the NCO pilot, aircraft were not scarce in the modern sense, and individual airframes had nothing like the destructive or intelligence-gathering powers of today's platforms.
And finally, with tongue firmly in cheek, if pilots could be NCOs, why couldn't rearcrew be SACs? There are plenty of SACs out there with highly specialised technical training, after all!
The UK-based HQs have indeed been downsizing over the past few years. The made-up staff posts can be found in the various Expeditionary Air Wings and Group (nothing like writing useless service papers in a dusty office in the desert to enhance your promotion prospects!). And the reason why we keep needing new pilots to be trained is that we post guys away from the front line after only 2.5 to 3 years - generally to be QFIs! Self-licking lollipop is a phrase that springs to mind.
davejb,
I fully acknowledge the role played by NCO aircrew as members of the airborne team, especially in the maritime role. However you would (rightly) expect the officers to carry the can if you (for example) torpedoed the wrong submarine. You can educate me here - were there ever any situations where you could have released a weapon without the consent of one of the officers on board?
My point was that assets as "strategic" as aircraft should be held accountable at least the same rank level as an army platoon, which means being under the command of an officer. By "strategic" here I mean scarce, wide-ranging and high-impact. In the days of the NCO pilot, aircraft were not scarce in the modern sense, and individual airframes had nothing like the destructive or intelligence-gathering powers of today's platforms.
And finally, with tongue firmly in cheek, if pilots could be NCOs, why couldn't rearcrew be SACs? There are plenty of SACs out there with highly specialised technical training, after all!
Last edited by Easy Street; 6th Nov 2010 at 23:33.
Originally Posted by Easy Street
And finally, with tongue firmly in cheek, if pilots could be NCOs, why couldn't rearcrew be SACs? There are plenty of SACs out there with highly specialised technical training, after all!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On the V-bombers control of the bomb doors could be given to the Nav Rad but only with the consent of the pilots. In fact control wasn't so much as given to the Nav Rad as to the computer.
AFAIK it is similar in the fast-jets, only one weapons selector panel and only one jettison switch - certainly in the F4.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street
However you would (rightly) expect the officers to carry the can if you (for example) torpedoed the wrong submarine. You can educate me here - were there ever any situations where you could have released a weapon without the consent of one of the officers on board?
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
No, the pilots controlled the bomb doors - end of story.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: u.k.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that assets as "strategic" as aircraft should be held accountable at least the same rank level as an army platoon, which means being under the command of an officer. By "strategic" here I mean scarce, wide-ranging and high-impact. In the days of the NCO pilot, aircraft were not scarce in the modern sense, and individual airframes had nothing like the destructive or intelligence-gathering powers of today's platforms.