Navigators in the 21st Century
I think you've got it bang on, Airpolice, I was turned down for pilot training because of eyesight, so went down the nav route instead. Must admit I was somewhat peeved a few years later when on my one and only flight in a Lightning T4 the pilot reached into his pocket at the holding point and put on a pair of specs!
Not that I'm saying I'd have hacked Lightnings, mind you, but it would have been nice to have been given a crack at pilot training in the first instance. Never mind, Cessnas are fun
Not that I'm saying I'd have hacked Lightnings, mind you, but it would have been nice to have been given a crack at pilot training in the first instance. Never mind, Cessnas are fun
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTN, I know what you mean. I was sure my eyesight would be an issue so I suspect it was the nice let down forth AFCO staff to tell me I could not be a Pilot because of that rather than tell me I was not the right sort of chap. (This was in 1973 remember)
A few years into my service I worked with an ex lightining guy who was teaching on 4FTS and his eyesight had just gone, overnight, and the medics got him specs. He only wore them for flying, what fun we had with students and a white stick for the QFI.
One day he spoke to the SMO for me and got me Aircrew specs with the tinfoil legs, so I could wear them under a bone dome while flying.
Terry G, where are you now?
A few years into my service I worked with an ex lightining guy who was teaching on 4FTS and his eyesight had just gone, overnight, and the medics got him specs. He only wore them for flying, what fun we had with students and a white stick for the QFI.
One day he spoke to the SMO for me and got me Aircrew specs with the tinfoil legs, so I could wear them under a bone dome while flying.
Terry G, where are you now?
I have just been to the RAF recruitment website for the first time ever (where they have images of the GR9!).
I noticed that WSO is not listed as a "job" now. Has the RAF formally stopped recruiting, as this suggests? If so, is there a date for the Nav training (Dominies etc.) to be wound down? And - how is it proposed to fill the (small) requirement for navs on the legacy platforms which will still need them long into the future, as a past post indicated?
I noticed that WSO is not listed as a "job" now. Has the RAF formally stopped recruiting, as this suggests? If so, is there a date for the Nav training (Dominies etc.) to be wound down? And - how is it proposed to fill the (small) requirement for navs on the legacy platforms which will still need them long into the future, as a past post indicated?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Airpolice, I disagree with TTN. I was offered pilot but pushed instead for nav. My nav scores were higher as well.
When I ran my nav course I had just 7 studes. Five were chopped pilots; two were straight through navs. Only the straight through navs passed straight through and only one of the chopped pilots after a recourse. The straight through navs were, when I last heard gp capt and wg cdr. The Chopped pilot/nav left 15 years ago as a flt lt.
Also the two straight through navs were the only ones out of 6 that had been awarded preliminary flying badges.
When I ran my nav course I had just 7 studes. Five were chopped pilots; two were straight through navs. Only the straight through navs passed straight through and only one of the chopped pilots after a recourse. The straight through navs were, when I last heard gp capt and wg cdr. The Chopped pilot/nav left 15 years ago as a flt lt.
Also the two straight through navs were the only ones out of 6 that had been awarded preliminary flying badges.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said,
So..... at the start of your course, most of the Nav Students were chopped Pilots.
Having had a taste for it and then been chopped, I'd expect their motivation to be sapped. Straight through, dyed in the wool Navs on the other hand would be living the dream and therefore mentally in a better place to succeed.
Your course may or may not be representative of RAF over the years, but I think the offer of nav to those not quite good enough for Pilot has been consistent all along.
So it is easy to see why some people would think that all Navs are failed Pilots. In a random group of Navs, there may well be a statistical probability that they would be failed, or chopped, Pilots.
Let me just emphasise that being so would not make them bad people.
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.
Having had a taste for it and then been chopped, I'd expect their motivation to be sapped. Straight through, dyed in the wool Navs on the other hand would be living the dream and therefore mentally in a better place to succeed.
Your course may or may not be representative of RAF over the years, but I think the offer of nav to those not quite good enough for Pilot has been consistent all along.
So it is easy to see why some people would think that all Navs are failed Pilots. In a random group of Navs, there may well be a statistical probability that they would be failed, or chopped, Pilots.
Let me just emphasise that being so would not make them bad people.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
AP, I see where you are coming from (typical nav trait? 
). It was true in the 60s too with, at a guess, 30% of the course being comprised of chopped pilots and probably correctly, by your reckoning, a number that did not have the aptitude at the outset.
). It was true in the 60s too with, at a guess, 30% of the course being comprised of chopped pilots and probably correctly, by your reckoning, a number that did not have the aptitude at the outset.
There was a guy on our nav course who was a chopped pilot, and who subsequently got chopped from the nav course as well. He subsequently joined the FAA as a pilot, then the Israeli Air Force, the R. Rhodesian Air Force and then ventured into a career as a mercenary. He probably ended up as one of the most experienced combat pilots in the world - certainly the only pilot I know who has flown Mirages, Mig 21s, Hueys and Vampires in combat (among many others)! No doubt those responsible for chopping him at both FTS and Nav school had their reasons, but I cant help thinking that the system must have been imperfect to have let a pilot like that slip through the RAF's hands.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a fair point about how we ended up in the back seat
In my case it was supply and demand although I had no idea at the time. I joined after the cull in the early 70s. As I went through training I had no idea that many experienced aircrew had just been made redundant although that wasn't the term used at the time. I went through Henlow. Of my Officer entry which was 80 strong, there were 2 pilots and 6 navs, one of whom was me. One of the pilots became CINC Air Cmd and the other led the Reds. The remainder were ground trades. At that time I didn't question the balance although within a few years, although smaller entries, the numbers were almost 50/50. As I moved through Nav training, 80% went heavies. As we went through the mill quite a few "chopped pilots" joined the course. Again I had no yardstick so it seemed normal. Without labouring the point, the system looks at the numbers it needs; it looks at the aptitude of people coming through and allocates slots. Some cast iron "pilot aces" may not even make the grade if the system has a backlog at the time. Simple supply and demand.
Do we need a comprehensive Nav training programme for the future? No. The advice I've given the two local youngsters who are now going through training as pilots was hang out for what you want.
In my case do I have regrets? Hell no. I was probably a much better fast jet Nav than I would ever have achieved in the front of a fast jet. Even if I'd made it through Chivenor! No sour grapes. Loved what I did but I would never recommend my former profession for a youngster now.
In my case it was supply and demand although I had no idea at the time. I joined after the cull in the early 70s. As I went through training I had no idea that many experienced aircrew had just been made redundant although that wasn't the term used at the time. I went through Henlow. Of my Officer entry which was 80 strong, there were 2 pilots and 6 navs, one of whom was me. One of the pilots became CINC Air Cmd and the other led the Reds. The remainder were ground trades. At that time I didn't question the balance although within a few years, although smaller entries, the numbers were almost 50/50. As I moved through Nav training, 80% went heavies. As we went through the mill quite a few "chopped pilots" joined the course. Again I had no yardstick so it seemed normal. Without labouring the point, the system looks at the numbers it needs; it looks at the aptitude of people coming through and allocates slots. Some cast iron "pilot aces" may not even make the grade if the system has a backlog at the time. Simple supply and demand.
Do we need a comprehensive Nav training programme for the future? No. The advice I've given the two local youngsters who are now going through training as pilots was hang out for what you want.
In my case do I have regrets? Hell no. I was probably a much better fast jet Nav than I would ever have achieved in the front of a fast jet. Even if I'd made it through Chivenor! No sour grapes. Loved what I did but I would never recommend my former profession for a youngster now.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Dom output, as you correctly state, is dedicated to legacy platforms in particular the Tornado. The F3 is all but gone and the GR4 has plenty of navs in the system. You can guess that they won't be in the redundancy bracket.
Similarly C130K, VC10 and E3 will have enough in the short term. In the longer term for the E3 a suitable enhanced training course could equip a pilot to have his brains reamed out for flying small circles in the sky.
There have been many examples where post-graduate training has started with an elaborate training system before ending up as a simply enhanced OCU. I am thinking initially of the 12-month NBS course for V-Force Nav rads that became 4-months and involved 70 odd hours in the Hastings before finally direct employment on the Vs, and ultimately on the Victor where one nav did the lot.
An expensively trained pilot can be trained to operate the nav kit on the legacy platforms and operate the GR4 to its full capability.
RIP Navs
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
In the longer term for the E3 a suitable enhanced training course could equip a pilot to have his brains reamed out for flying small circles in the sky
I am thinking initially of the 12-month NBS course for V-Force Nav rads that became 4-months and involved 70 odd hours in the Hastings before finally direct employment on the Vs, and ultimately on the Victor where one nav did the lot.
It was only after about 1977 that the NBS courses ended, mainly because of the cost of supporting the Hastings used on the flying part of the course, if I recall correctly.
A single nav was only ever adopted in the Victor tanker - there was never any proposal to fly single nav for the Vulcan's low level bombing role and it always took a brace of them to keep the steaming black dustbins happy.
It will be interesting to see how FSTA copes, given some of the rumours going around about the manning proposed for the ARO's seat.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BEagle, agree. In the short term, while we still have pilots 
, I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.
I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.
Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.
Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.
, I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.
Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.
Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.
TTN, OQs spring to mind.
Re the single nav on Victor Tankers just to clarify this only happened quite late on, sometime in the 80's, I think. One difference on tankers was that the navs periodically swapped seats for a sortie, principally so that the nav rads' nav skills (such as they were) didn't get too rusty. Dont think this happened on tin triangles, but I stand to be corrected.
As I said on the thread 'I honestly didn't want to be a pilot', I wanted to be a navigator. I was told by my South Cerney Flt Cdr,after I had asked,that my nav aptitude was very high and my pilot aptitude only just acceptable (Biggin told him the results), so was happy to go the nav route.
I was on 88 course and to the best of my recall, from 82-94 courses there was only one chopped pilot, who IIRC had also been chopped from 'Towers' as had a 'nav' student.
I heard on the grapevine that several navs on succeeding courses later trained as pilots in the RAF including Graham Finch,Alex Nash and Arthur Lofthouse - Graham and Arthur became airline captains.
Several navs on earlier courses left the RAF and gained CPLs - Doug Marshall,John Morgan, my school chum Dave Bryant (74 course) who finished his career as a Singapore 747 skipper.
To say every navigator is a chopped or frustrated pilot is as erroneous as the idea that all airframe drivers are frustrated FJ jockeys.In the early days of the Herc I knew of many pilots who right from FTS had made it clear they wanted to fly transports, as they intended to take their 8 year options (the old DEC B commission) - a couple had even threatened to resign if their Valley/Gnat posting wasn't changed to Oakington/Varsity!
I was on 88 course and to the best of my recall, from 82-94 courses there was only one chopped pilot, who IIRC had also been chopped from 'Towers' as had a 'nav' student.
I heard on the grapevine that several navs on succeeding courses later trained as pilots in the RAF including Graham Finch,Alex Nash and Arthur Lofthouse - Graham and Arthur became airline captains.
Several navs on earlier courses left the RAF and gained CPLs - Doug Marshall,John Morgan, my school chum Dave Bryant (74 course) who finished his career as a Singapore 747 skipper.
To say every navigator is a chopped or frustrated pilot is as erroneous as the idea that all airframe drivers are frustrated FJ jockeys.In the early days of the Herc I knew of many pilots who right from FTS had made it clear they wanted to fly transports, as they intended to take their 8 year options (the old DEC B commission) - a couple had even threatened to resign if their Valley/Gnat posting wasn't changed to Oakington/Varsity!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, agree. In the short term, while we still have pilots , I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.
I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.
Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.
Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.
, I see a need for 3 men on the flight deck of larger aircraft, or more properly 3 seats. I know the B2 only has a 2 man crew and is perhaps the ultimate military flying machine in terms of range and cpability.I see the need for an office manager who has the time and space needed to browse the mass of ATOs and other essential data. I recall one exercise where we had the correct up to date complan issued by the Navy but they didn't. It was made worse because it was the ship that issued the complan that was off freak.
Only because we had the signals file with us and someone with the space and capacity to trawl through the signals were we able to sort things out.
Route flying - one on one off will work. Tactical or non-routine and the work load can rise dramatically. But the need is for a mission officer and not a sun gunner.
Champagne anyone...?
On the off chance that we (the RAF) ever start taking the more "esoteric" aspects of TacAT flying a little more seriously then I do believe that there may well come a time that we would benefit from having an additional person on the flightdeck (sorry SFFP!). AFSOC are procuring their MC130Js with additional crew stations on the flightdeck and rightly so. I don't see them being traditional navigators in the turn-left-here/I-stink-of-wee sort of way but, as PN says, more a mission systems operator. Weapon systems, EO kit and a bit of mission co-ord would all be better run from a third crew station.
The important thing with something like the J, however, is that it is designed as a 2 man flightdeck - once you start overly tinkering around with the fundamentals of the 2-person dynamic thats when things start to come apart at the seams a bit. I've done plenty of very high workload operational TacAT flying as part of a 2 person flightdeck crew and it's all perfectly do-able. Once additional systems and mods come in however it would be foolish to think that the workload would remain manageable. The 2 person concept works through systems integration and effective presentation of information to the crew. As a realist I know full well that any new systems we procure will generally be the usual crap bodges of screens and panels stuck randomly around the flightdeck and will be about as integrated an Englishman living in Spain. To safely manage that we will probably need an extra set of hands and eyes of the flightdeck (be that Pilot, WSO or WSOp). How his/her workload is delineated is important and would be very different to that of say, a nav on the K.
As I said though, this is all a little moot. Until the Typhoon can carry a couple of 7 tonne MVs into an unlit dirt strip or dispatch 50 troops from 25000ft 20 miles from their DZ the RAF will not entertain a grown up attitude towards the more esoteric aspects of TacAT. And because of that, I don't imagine a third flight deck position will ever get funded on our Js.
The important thing with something like the J, however, is that it is designed as a 2 man flightdeck - once you start overly tinkering around with the fundamentals of the 2-person dynamic thats when things start to come apart at the seams a bit. I've done plenty of very high workload operational TacAT flying as part of a 2 person flightdeck crew and it's all perfectly do-able. Once additional systems and mods come in however it would be foolish to think that the workload would remain manageable. The 2 person concept works through systems integration and effective presentation of information to the crew. As a realist I know full well that any new systems we procure will generally be the usual crap bodges of screens and panels stuck randomly around the flightdeck and will be about as integrated an Englishman living in Spain. To safely manage that we will probably need an extra set of hands and eyes of the flightdeck (be that Pilot, WSO or WSOp). How his/her workload is delineated is important and would be very different to that of say, a nav on the K.
As I said though, this is all a little moot. Until the Typhoon can carry a couple of 7 tonne MVs into an unlit dirt strip or dispatch 50 troops from 25000ft 20 miles from their DZ the RAF will not entertain a grown up attitude towards the more esoteric aspects of TacAT. And because of that, I don't imagine a third flight deck position will ever get funded on our Js.
Most modern airliners are certificated for 2 pilot operation in a benign IFR environment whilst carrying the great unwashed to holiday destinations or to carry rubber dog-poo out of Hong Kong. They usually manage this without hitting each other or the ground.
Modern large military transports, such as C-17 and C-130J add the requirements of combat tactical air operations to this. Given a well-trained crew plus good kit with well-designed HMI, again, probably not a great problem.
However, the problem comes in the AAR world with managing the unexpected whilst still getting on with the original mission. You cannot have one pilot head-in re-programming the mission system and the other refuelling the receivers, with no-one looking out of the cockpit (remember La Grand Riviere, 1 Aug 1994?), minding the ECAMs or keeping an ATC watch..... Of course, if everything goes as planned, there are no delays, no tanker or receiver unserviceabilities, no ATC problems, the weather is benign throughout and there's plenty of fuel available, then you probably could manage with just 2 pilots and a good Mission Computer System.
But that isn't always the case......
Fortunately, the Atlas is fitted with a 3rd crew position. For all the good reasons Stoppers states.
Who would I suggest for the FSTA ARO seat? From the experience of others, an ex-FJ backseater or an ex-C130 tactical navigator, either of whom normally has sufficient skill and enthusiasm for a new role and has a sound background in air navigation and systems monitoring. Would an ex-Air Eng be capable? Most probably yes, but additional navigation training might be needed first - and the RAF doesn't seem to be keen to do that for much longer. An ex-ALM? From what other nations very soon learned, frankly I doubt it. The right person, perhaps - but finding him/her wouldn't be easy.
Modern large military transports, such as C-17 and C-130J add the requirements of combat tactical air operations to this. Given a well-trained crew plus good kit with well-designed HMI, again, probably not a great problem.
However, the problem comes in the AAR world with managing the unexpected whilst still getting on with the original mission. You cannot have one pilot head-in re-programming the mission system and the other refuelling the receivers, with no-one looking out of the cockpit (remember La Grand Riviere, 1 Aug 1994?), minding the ECAMs or keeping an ATC watch..... Of course, if everything goes as planned, there are no delays, no tanker or receiver unserviceabilities, no ATC problems, the weather is benign throughout and there's plenty of fuel available, then you probably could manage with just 2 pilots and a good Mission Computer System.
But that isn't always the case......
Fortunately, the Atlas is fitted with a 3rd crew position. For all the good reasons Stoppers states.
Who would I suggest for the FSTA ARO seat? From the experience of others, an ex-FJ backseater or an ex-C130 tactical navigator, either of whom normally has sufficient skill and enthusiasm for a new role and has a sound background in air navigation and systems monitoring. Would an ex-Air Eng be capable? Most probably yes, but additional navigation training might be needed first - and the RAF doesn't seem to be keen to do that for much longer. An ex-ALM? From what other nations very soon learned, frankly I doubt it. The right person, perhaps - but finding him/her wouldn't be easy.
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Dec 2010 at 14:07.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP
If you had been able to visit the 2 pilot Flight Deck of a mid to late 1970's 32 Sqn HS125 that was without any of today's modern Nav aids, just ADF, VOR/DME and Doppler, you would have found that a fairly busy environment as well, particularly in some of the foreign CTZ's they used to visit.
The rear crew member would be an SAC or SACW (Acting Cpl) to look after the VIP's (although they generally supervised refuelling as well as organising Catering/Customs Clearance etc).
If you had been able to visit the 2 pilot Flight Deck of a mid to late 1970's 32 Sqn HS125 that was without any of today's modern Nav aids, just ADF, VOR/DME and Doppler, you would have found that a fairly busy environment as well, particularly in some of the foreign CTZ's they used to visit.
The rear crew member would be an SAC or SACW (Acting Cpl) to look after the VIP's (although they generally supervised refuelling as well as organising Catering/Customs Clearance etc).