Navigators in the 21st Century
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house "
They have stopped commissioned crewmen now, only the chosen few non-commissioned can get the best seat in the house
50' on the ramp..... Nothing comes close
They have stopped commissioned crewmen now, only the chosen few non-commissioned can get the best seat in the house
50' on the ramp..... Nothing comes close
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"now turn that question round and ask yourself how many Nav's (read failed pilot) went flying today and wished with all their heart they had been good enough to be in the best seat in the house ....."
I tried. Having just retired I've reverted to private flying after a 30+ year gap. Sadly the taxiway from the flying club (at a well known ISTAR hub in Lincolnshire) is blocked. the runway may be clear but no puddle jumpers approved.
I tried. Having just retired I've reverted to private flying after a 30+ year gap. Sadly the taxiway from the flying club (at a well known ISTAR hub in Lincolnshire) is blocked. the runway may be clear but no puddle jumpers approved.
OK I've resisted posting for long enough!
What a load of drivel I've seen posted. Yes, Pilots could do the back-seat job after an OCU (where's the saving in that?) and on some ISTAR types a bit of mission systems training (like EW beeps and squeeks - oddly enough they don't get that going through Pilot training!).
I would argue that with about 50-100hrs on Tucano learning the "close-formation stuff" most FJ Navs could turn their hand to flying Tornado/Typhoon - again after an OCU for their chosen type. The F3 force learned this in the mid-90s when they took some 2nd tour Navs and gave them some dual-check assessments - they could fly the jet jest fine but when it came to close-formation they were a flipping liability! In fact I've seen Navs in twick stickers (Hawks, Tornado and Typhoon) wax some pretty good FJ Pilots in my time at live-flying ACM. To become a co-pilot on a ME type would take a similar 50-100hrs of ME-type trg and then onwards to an OCU (isn't that a MEXO or Multi-Eng Crossover in old money?).
But, why bother? We will have quite a few jobs for Navs (read WSOs) on the following for the foreseeable future (ISD to OSD in brackets):
Tornado GR4 (1982? - 2018) As WSOs and currently Sqn Cdrs!
MQ-9 Reaper (2007 - end of Op Herrick 2015 but expect gap-filler to SCAVENGER) WSOs as some Sensor Operators (mix WSO/WSOp) and currently Sqn Cdr!
Project SCAVENGER UAS/RPAS (2017+ to 2030+) WSOs expected in as yet selected type (either as pilots or sensor ops!) and Sqn Cdrs
RC-135 RIVET JOINT (2011 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - new Sqn Cdr will be a WSO!
Sentry AEW1 (1992 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - OCU Sqn Cdr is WSO!
Sentinel R1 (2007 - 2015?) WSOs as Mission Commanders and currently Sqn Cdr
Shadow R1 (2009 - 2015+) WSOs as some Sensor Operator (WSO/WSOp mix)
MRA4 Capability Replacement (????) Expect that this may come under SCAVENGER but if not then will need WSOs.
Now here's another thing. If we end canx JCA order for F-18 then it will probably be the F-18E/F/G and two of these are 2 seat - it would make a lot of sense to buy these as the "F" is far better for night IMC strike and the "G" is 2 seat for a reason as the "GROWLER" mission is too complex for one person (ask a lot of CJ drivers when things get busy!).
In summary, I wouldn't rule out the WSO just yet...it's just that we won't be training Vulcan Navigators as we have been doing on the dear old Dominie T1 for the past 30 years!
iRaven
What a load of drivel I've seen posted. Yes, Pilots could do the back-seat job after an OCU (where's the saving in that?) and on some ISTAR types a bit of mission systems training (like EW beeps and squeeks - oddly enough they don't get that going through Pilot training!).
I would argue that with about 50-100hrs on Tucano learning the "close-formation stuff" most FJ Navs could turn their hand to flying Tornado/Typhoon - again after an OCU for their chosen type. The F3 force learned this in the mid-90s when they took some 2nd tour Navs and gave them some dual-check assessments - they could fly the jet jest fine but when it came to close-formation they were a flipping liability! In fact I've seen Navs in twick stickers (Hawks, Tornado and Typhoon) wax some pretty good FJ Pilots in my time at live-flying ACM. To become a co-pilot on a ME type would take a similar 50-100hrs of ME-type trg and then onwards to an OCU (isn't that a MEXO or Multi-Eng Crossover in old money?).
But, why bother? We will have quite a few jobs for Navs (read WSOs) on the following for the foreseeable future (ISD to OSD in brackets):
Tornado GR4 (1982? - 2018) As WSOs and currently Sqn Cdrs!
MQ-9 Reaper (2007 - end of Op Herrick 2015 but expect gap-filler to SCAVENGER) WSOs as some Sensor Operators (mix WSO/WSOp) and currently Sqn Cdr!
Project SCAVENGER UAS/RPAS (2017+ to 2030+) WSOs expected in as yet selected type (either as pilots or sensor ops!) and Sqn Cdrs
RC-135 RIVET JOINT (2011 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - new Sqn Cdr will be a WSO!
Sentry AEW1 (1992 - 2025+) WSOs on Flt Deck and as Mission Crew - OCU Sqn Cdr is WSO!
Sentinel R1 (2007 - 2015?) WSOs as Mission Commanders and currently Sqn Cdr
Shadow R1 (2009 - 2015+) WSOs as some Sensor Operator (WSO/WSOp mix)
MRA4 Capability Replacement (????) Expect that this may come under SCAVENGER but if not then will need WSOs.
Now here's another thing. If we end canx JCA order for F-18 then it will probably be the F-18E/F/G and two of these are 2 seat - it would make a lot of sense to buy these as the "F" is far better for night IMC strike and the "G" is 2 seat for a reason as the "GROWLER" mission is too complex for one person (ask a lot of CJ drivers when things get busy!).
In summary, I wouldn't rule out the WSO just yet...it's just that we won't be training Vulcan Navigators as we have been doing on the dear old Dominie T1 for the past 30 years!
iRaven
iRaven
To pick up on your post
Isn't that the same as the JAR/EASA MPL(A)? See this link in the latest CAA LASORS http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Sectio...%20LICENCE.pdf
Why not train WSOs to fly in the right hand seat of ME types with the 30-90 hours of flying for MPL(A)? Now that really is a cost saving over the standard Pilot route!
Finally, before all the ME dudes throw their hands up in horror, the CAT world is beginning to embrace the idea of MPL(A) in order to save money as well - take a look at this thread http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...er-2009-a.html
Things are a changing, so move with the times.
LJ
To pick up on your post
To become a co-pilot on a ME type would take a similar 50-100hrs of ME-type trg and then onwards to an OCU (isn't that a MEXO or Multi-Eng Crossover in old money?).
Why not train WSOs to fly in the right hand seat of ME types with the 30-90 hours of flying for MPL(A)? Now that really is a cost saving over the standard Pilot route!
Finally, before all the ME dudes throw their hands up in horror, the CAT world is beginning to embrace the idea of MPL(A) in order to save money as well - take a look at this thread http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...er-2009-a.html
Things are a changing, so move with the times.
LJ
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I don't know why WW keeps harping on about upgrades (degrades?) etc when as I said and BV agreed, a pilot could simply be seated in the old Nav/WSO seat.
PN
If only it were that simple! The pilots would still need an OCU to "Simply be seated in the old Nav/WSO seat".
Unless of course you really did mean "Simply"!!!
The B Word
If only it were that simple! The pilots would still need an OCU to "Simply be seated in the old Nav/WSO seat".
Unless of course you really did mean "Simply"!!!
The B Word
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Pontius, the original post mentioned replacing navs with "kit". Whilst this may refer to a person named Kit the impression is that the op meant black-box type kit, and not of the Nicole Scherzinger variety.
I would add that the value of a trained navigator became apparent when the E-3 planning system went a bit pete tong a while back, they finally had to fall back on some core skills, those that had them anyway.
Anyhoo, if you read my post I would draw your attention to the last para, where I wrote:
So don't tell me to "stop harping on" and get back in yer pine box.
I would add that the value of a trained navigator became apparent when the E-3 planning system went a bit pete tong a while back, they finally had to fall back on some core skills, those that had them anyway.
Anyhoo, if you read my post I would draw your attention to the last para, where I wrote:
I'm pretty sure that a pilot could be trained on an ocu to do the job of a nav...
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Operators
Originally Posted by Epsilon Minus
Since Navs disappeared from civilian airliners in the 70s and engineers too for that matter
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WW, apologies.
Brian, yes, I was there
On the OASC thread an ex-wannabee has put up a signpost to the end.
Brian, yes, I was there
On the OASC thread an ex-wannabee has put up a signpost to the end.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good afternoon,
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup ?
Regards
EM or E- (as you prefer)
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup ?
Regards
EM or E- (as you prefer)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good afternoon,
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup
To my detractor see the "Merchant of Venice" Morocco Act2 Scene 7. Since you are all so inquisitive I started my aviation career as a flight dispatcher, a job that my father helped me obtain, he was a single seat FJ pilot (RAF). I have moved on a long way since then and I am so grateful to my father for the good advice (some of it concerned navigators) and a fantastic start.
What concerns me here is the preoccupation with the motive for my question and then my eligibility to ask it?
Neither my eligibility or credibility has the slightest to do with my ability to ask the question nor should it demean its authenticity.
As an ex military man I am concerned that those that are engaged in operations are properly equipped to give them the best chances of survival and winning in battle. After the damaging affects of Gordon ("those bast***s in the miltary) and now the deep cuts to the defence budget, now would seems like a good time to ask if the cuts are being made in areas of cost through the eradication of obsolescence.
An American cargo operator converted its aircraft so as to remove the F/E (the nav position was not included in the original design of the aircraft). There was clearly a business justification for this - could it be applied to current British military ships and aircraft?
Is this budget requirement skewed by those with a vested interest?
When the RAF gets the A330 (another cocked up Gordon deal) there will be no nav seat.
Should we keep the Harrier and get rid of the Tornado?
These are serious questions and as a tax payer I have a right to ask them. So there is no need to dwell on who I am, what do I do, am I jealous - for all you know I could have been the one who poured the tea for Marshal of the RAF/Field Marshal Stirrup
Perhaps writing to your local MP may help answer your questions ref defence cuts as we, the current serving members of the military, haven't a scooby.
When we graduated from 2ANS (Varsities) to 1ANS (Dominies) the impression we gained was that we were moving from the past in the form of the old, slow, noisy Varsities to the future, represented by shiny new Dominies (1969 in my case, so only 3 years old).
Its chastening to realise that those same Dominies are still flying (as far I can tell) and are now more than twice as old as those "ancient" Varsities we left behind at Gaydon and which had only a few years left to fly.
Cant see what all the fuss is about retraining navs as pilots - I managed it ok. After all if you can fly a Cessna 172 I'm sure a Typhoon shouldn't be much of a problem
Its chastening to realise that those same Dominies are still flying (as far I can tell) and are now more than twice as old as those "ancient" Varsities we left behind at Gaydon and which had only a few years left to fly.
Cant see what all the fuss is about retraining navs as pilots - I managed it ok. After all if you can fly a Cessna 172 I'm sure a Typhoon shouldn't be much of a problem
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
E-, your antecedents are important as journalists have been know to get information under pretext and then distort it. It is not aimed at you but applied in general.
Your American cargo operator obviously felt it could release its FEs cheaply and save money in conversion. Aside from the regular redundancy programmes, I have lost count, it in unusual (I have never heard of it) to get rid of a particular job by modifiying out of it. C130K->C130J is a simple new aircraft programme deleting the nav on the way.
To remove navs from legacy aircraft by modifying the aircraft may seem an obvious move but the cost for modifying a Tornado and paying redundancy is probably more expensive than withdrawing the aircraft in 10 years time.
You mentioned the GR4-GR9 issue. In another post I suggested that retention of the GR9 made far more sense as the WSO(N) could be removed root and branch. While we retained the GR4 it would seem the WSO(N) training system, as we know it, might disappear within a year.
Your American cargo operator obviously felt it could release its FEs cheaply and save money in conversion. Aside from the regular redundancy programmes, I have lost count, it in unusual (I have never heard of it) to get rid of a particular job by modifiying out of it. C130K->C130J is a simple new aircraft programme deleting the nav on the way.
To remove navs from legacy aircraft by modifying the aircraft may seem an obvious move but the cost for modifying a Tornado and paying redundancy is probably more expensive than withdrawing the aircraft in 10 years time.
You mentioned the GR4-GR9 issue. In another post I suggested that retention of the GR9 made far more sense as the WSO(N) could be removed root and branch. While we retained the GR4 it would seem the WSO(N) training system, as we know it, might disappear within a year.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E- it is understandable that the Navs may feel threatened after your opening remarks
maybe it would be fairer to ask if we were manning all our platforms efficiently with the appropriate ranks and trades, or are we still trying to sustain certain branches instead of doing the right thing?
Now that we are trying to save some money and that there is some pretty good kit around, isn't it time to bin the navigators?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The B Word, I was not implying no OCU for pilot backenders simply () that they could do the OCU when the supply of WSO petered out.
Simply in the sense that the poster posts them there. It could actually be a real money saver as pilots that can fly but not that well could gain additional post FTS training.
Without naming names, the Vulcan was often described as a 4-engined Jet Provost that could bring copilots on to become responsible adults. There were a number where that did not work
) that they could do the OCU when the supply of WSO petered out.Simply in the sense that the poster posts them there. It could actually be a real money saver as pilots that can fly but not that well could gain additional post FTS training.
Without naming names, the Vulcan was often described as a 4-engined Jet Provost that could bring copilots on to become responsible adults. There were a number where that did not work
Chopped Pilots
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the word "chopped" here is possibly the problem with the statement.
I am confident that most people offered a job in the front seat with a stick would prefer that to sitting in the back with a map/ weapon console/ radar display/ interactive suite of comms devices.
There may well be some who have joined the RAF in order to carry out that role, but I suspect that most people offered that job of nav/wso were not offered Pilot as well. In the event of being offerd both, I don't see a lot of people chosing Nav instead of Pilot.
I am confident that this is a common view, right or wrong. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would make such a choice at the AFCO or in the early stages of training. Being told you can not be a Pilot, but can still fly in fast jets, would be the way to keep people in the system and fill the seats that did need filled at the time.
When I joined up at 16½ I was nowehere near good enough for a Commission so the idea of being either was never raised. That does not make me a chopped pilot, but does put me lower down the "public perception pecking order" of aviators, just like Navigators.
I am confident that most people offered a job in the front seat with a stick would prefer that to sitting in the back with a map/ weapon console/ radar display/ interactive suite of comms devices.
There may well be some who have joined the RAF in order to carry out that role, but I suspect that most people offered that job of nav/wso were not offered Pilot as well. In the event of being offerd both, I don't see a lot of people chosing Nav instead of Pilot.
I am confident that this is a common view, right or wrong. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would make such a choice at the AFCO or in the early stages of training. Being told you can not be a Pilot, but can still fly in fast jets, would be the way to keep people in the system and fill the seats that did need filled at the time.
When I joined up at 16½ I was nowehere near good enough for a Commission so the idea of being either was never raised. That does not make me a chopped pilot, but does put me lower down the "public perception pecking order" of aviators, just like Navigators.