Commissioned Crewman Leaders
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does This Help
The Balloonist
A woman in a hot air balloon realised she was lost.
She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted: 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am..'
The man below replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.'
'You must be an Engineer,' said the balloonist.
'I am,' replied the man, 'how did you know?'
'Well,' answered the balloonist, 'everything you have told me is probably technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've delayed my trip by your talk.'
The man below responded, 'You must be in Management.'
'I am,' replied the balloonist, 'but how did you know?'
'Well,' said the man, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my ****ing fault.
A woman in a hot air balloon realised she was lost.
She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted: 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am..'
The man below replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.'
'You must be an Engineer,' said the balloonist.
'I am,' replied the man, 'how did you know?'
'Well,' answered the balloonist, 'everything you have told me is probably technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've delayed my trip by your talk.'
The man below responded, 'You must be in Management.'
'I am,' replied the balloonist, 'but how did you know?'
'Well,' said the man, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my ****ing fault.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From where I sit
The RAAF after the war decided that crewman such as Gunners, flight engineers etc would not be able to progress past WO and remain in their mustering. The strange thing is this happened when our chief was a private who worked his way up in the ranks. Even though all aircrew positions could and were officers.
Those who did not like this move were invited to move on. We could debate the merits of this change, what it did do was deprive the RAAF of some really good people who had outstanding leadership values.
If you were General duties such as pilots or navigators then you again were invited to become an officer and if no invitation was extended then in due course you were discharged.
It seemed to me that it was a deliberate move to keep what could be top jobs for the officers.
When the RAAF started operating the C130 a problem arrived in that the flight engineers who had served on Liberators and Catalinas continued to wear their WW2 brevet but those who were newly trained recieved nothing. Many of the Loadmasters were ex WW2 signals people who continued to wear their old bevets which had nothing to do with their current role. They did not hang around long and by 1965 all had gone.
There was a need to convert the FE badge to Queens crown and to develope
the loadmaster brevet, all seemed to take a long time and they were eventually issued I believe in 1964. However neither of these positions were general duties which stopped promotion past WO.
So out of 34 crews that the RAAF had we only were established for two WO's and two F/SGT which certainly cut back career prospects.
It was only in the late 70's that FE and LM became a proper mustering and I believe that in the 80's one could be promoted up to WO.
So from 1969 through to the 80's hundreds of men left, what a waste of talent and training.
There are people from these two groups who have been given officer status but they have to come off flying and find another path to follow.
During WW2 we had an equally stupid situation where and aircraft could be commanded by a LAC and the gunner was a Flt/Lt.
Looking at the RAF today whilst not as restrictive as the RAAF it is still very hard for NCO's to climb the ranks.
Makes me sad to see that good people are being held back
Regards
Col
Those who did not like this move were invited to move on. We could debate the merits of this change, what it did do was deprive the RAAF of some really good people who had outstanding leadership values.
If you were General duties such as pilots or navigators then you again were invited to become an officer and if no invitation was extended then in due course you were discharged.
It seemed to me that it was a deliberate move to keep what could be top jobs for the officers.
When the RAAF started operating the C130 a problem arrived in that the flight engineers who had served on Liberators and Catalinas continued to wear their WW2 brevet but those who were newly trained recieved nothing. Many of the Loadmasters were ex WW2 signals people who continued to wear their old bevets which had nothing to do with their current role. They did not hang around long and by 1965 all had gone.
There was a need to convert the FE badge to Queens crown and to develope
the loadmaster brevet, all seemed to take a long time and they were eventually issued I believe in 1964. However neither of these positions were general duties which stopped promotion past WO.
So out of 34 crews that the RAAF had we only were established for two WO's and two F/SGT which certainly cut back career prospects.
It was only in the late 70's that FE and LM became a proper mustering and I believe that in the 80's one could be promoted up to WO.
So from 1969 through to the 80's hundreds of men left, what a waste of talent and training.
There are people from these two groups who have been given officer status but they have to come off flying and find another path to follow.
During WW2 we had an equally stupid situation where and aircraft could be commanded by a LAC and the gunner was a Flt/Lt.
Looking at the RAF today whilst not as restrictive as the RAAF it is still very hard for NCO's to climb the ranks.
Makes me sad to see that good people are being held back
Regards
Col
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Nutloose
Secondly, my comments based on the RAF career structure and therefore
Quote:
I know / knew Engineers in the RAF that hold licences and degrees but are not commissioned
does not hold water. May I direct you to:
Engineering and technical - Engineering and technical careers - RAF Careers
It would seem to the casual observer that you both have issues with professional standing, name wise, and with your (ex) superior officers i.e. commissioned ones. That is entirely your affair so I won’t even mention chips on shoulders etc.
Secondly, my comments based on the RAF career structure and therefore
Quote:
I know / knew Engineers in the RAF that hold licences and degrees but are not commissioned
does not hold water. May I direct you to:
Engineering and technical - Engineering and technical careers - RAF Careers
It would seem to the casual observer that you both have issues with professional standing, name wise, and with your (ex) superior officers i.e. commissioned ones. That is entirely your affair so I won’t even mention chips on shoulders etc.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the nicest possible way the old adage of "should have done better at school" really does explain an awful lot.
Add to that that whatever your specialty if you are not in possession of Two Wings on your jumper you will never be in charge, you will simply always answer to someone who does have Two Wings on his jumper, and the use of "his" is quite deliberate
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I remember the most reviled ALM officers were the ones that entered by the ‘back door’ i.e. commissioning outside the branch because they didn’t measure up in the ALM competition and then sneaking back into the branch thereby stealing a place on the next competition.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
...just because one holds a Commision means nothing when It comes to knowledge and professionalism, you can have good and bad in all ranks, to say because a person is commissioned that they are better is simply not the case.
As to your point about knowledge and professionalism, a good Officer will always recognise where to go for detailed or specialist knowledge to support a broader decision, and that is usually the tradesman and technicians performing the tasks on a daily basis.
So not so much better, just taking a different view of the issues.
Lots of good comments here amongst the usual dross - I was particularly interested in the RAAF experience.
There are several commissioned ALMs at Odiham/Benson who have done quite well over the years - I think the COS at Benson and an Acting sqn Boss at Odiham are Loadies, so they can't all be bad. That said, I have had some shocking Crewman Ldrs, but not all and not for a long time.
Empowered Masters was always a crock. But I don't think the blame for the outcome of the AASS in 02/03 is entirely at the feet of the Officers - I know that at least one MAcr on that study had made it his mission to chin off ALM Ldrs - not sure why, although I could guess.
The comment about the 2-winged master race is entirely correct; we will always answer to them, and quite rightly so I suppose. But that doesn't mean that there are not dozens of guys and gals in the NCA ranks who would make excellent officers at SO3, SO2 and SO1 level. Not sure if they could/should/want to progress further mind. But I believe that the option should be there. How many good guys have we "lost" to Flt Ops, Admin Ed, Supply etc over the years?
There are several commissioned ALMs at Odiham/Benson who have done quite well over the years - I think the COS at Benson and an Acting sqn Boss at Odiham are Loadies, so they can't all be bad. That said, I have had some shocking Crewman Ldrs, but not all and not for a long time.
Empowered Masters was always a crock. But I don't think the blame for the outcome of the AASS in 02/03 is entirely at the feet of the Officers - I know that at least one MAcr on that study had made it his mission to chin off ALM Ldrs - not sure why, although I could guess.
The comment about the 2-winged master race is entirely correct; we will always answer to them, and quite rightly so I suppose. But that doesn't mean that there are not dozens of guys and gals in the NCA ranks who would make excellent officers at SO3, SO2 and SO1 level. Not sure if they could/should/want to progress further mind. But I believe that the option should be there. How many good guys have we "lost" to Flt Ops, Admin Ed, Supply etc over the years?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Not so much "better" as quallified to lead. We all know the examples where Officers are followed only out of a sense of curiousity, but in general, those selected for a commission have passed, or been assessed as, having the personal qualities and attributes required to lead. Service training reinforces and develops those skills, but the individual needs to demonstrate they have the potential in the first place.
As to your point about knowledge and professionalism, a good Officer will always recognise where to go for detailed or specialist knowledge to support a broader decision, and that is usually the tradesman and technicians performing the tasks on a daily basis.
So not so much better, just taking a different view of the issues.
As to your point about knowledge and professionalism, a good Officer will always recognise where to go for detailed or specialist knowledge to support a broader decision, and that is usually the tradesman and technicians performing the tasks on a daily basis.
So not so much better, just taking a different view of the issues.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
NutLoose,
We seem to go around the "Officers vs Men" buoy quite regularly, and the AAC's use of NCO pilots illustrates one aspect of that wider discussion.
Flying an aircraft is the ultimate example of detailed or specialist knowledge. Assuming you can pass the 'pat your head and rub your tummy test", it's just another specialist course to pass. The fact that the RAF choose to combine that with its Officer assessment is probably historic from the nuke era, but the system seems to work. But just because it works doesn't mean that aircrew always need any great leadership abilities, and I would argue that CRM is not leadership, almost the opposite in fact. The AAC see the value of having a career option where relatively young and very incentivised NCO's can undertake highly specialized training in order to operate the Army's aircraft - without the need to commission everyone. That approach also seems to work very well for them.
Back to the thread (!) you would need to understand how Crewman Leaders would benefit from being commissioned to make a decision about wether it's a good idea or not. What day to day tasks require a leadership component as well as specialist knowledge. Maybe somebody knows.
We seem to go around the "Officers vs Men" buoy quite regularly, and the AAC's use of NCO pilots illustrates one aspect of that wider discussion.
a good Officer will always recognise where to go for detailed or specialist knowledge to support a broader decision
Back to the thread (!) you would need to understand how Crewman Leaders would benefit from being commissioned to make a decision about wether it's a good idea or not. What day to day tasks require a leadership component as well as specialist knowledge. Maybe somebody knows.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about ability, it's about representation!!
As someone already mentioned, if you wanted to be included in decisions at Exec level then being MACr usually didn't work. S03/SO2 on the other hand.....
As someone already mentioned, if you wanted to be included in decisions at Exec level then being MACr usually didn't work. S03/SO2 on the other hand.....
Good to see that we are getting back to the thread, after all it's about our branch and our people. Dare I say that percentage wise that there are/were probably as many good or bad Masters as there were commissioned Leaders, over to you, tail clear!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will always be the man with 2 wings who will make the decision
....and you would allow a decision that you know to be wrong / unfair / bullying / illegal to proceed without challenge. You would fly with a pilot you believe to be intoxicated because he is a pilot.
Actually we live in a world were every boss has a boss to whom he/she must answer to. .....and a coroner.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Who knows where this week.......
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect most of us are agreed that there is no requirement for a commissioned officer to run a squadron section, certainly not when based on numbers and the routine admin involved. As for representation, the involvement at squadron level has, (purely in my personal experience), been more based on ability/character/personality than rank. Whilst I may be an interloper from another NCA trade, the basic requirements remain the same. However the SO3 level involvement is surely a necessary stepping stone for promotion, and it is the more senior officers that will then have the duty to represent the trade at PMA and to fight the case for numbers, pay banding etc etc. By the nature of their normal duties, MAcr tend to be limited in their variety of work experience. I mean this with no disrespect, but changing aircraft type or the odd O.O.A detachment does not gain the exposure to 'bigger picture' that tends to be available to commissioned posts. As the only mainstream NCA trade with an ongoing long term role, I would have thought that the ALM/Crewman fraternity would seek to nurture the (infrequent) commissioning opportunities that are open to them. Now as for choosing suitable candidates.............
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaders - One wing or two.
This discussion seems to have some who pre-suppose that only those with a Commission can lead. In any particular field of endeavour the best "tradesman" may not be the best to lead. I know any number of people who were expert in their field but who could never be given the responsibility of "Leadership" and some were commissioned and some were not. I have never fathomed why a pilot or navigator should have to hold a commission whilst the flight engineer and loadmaster could not. That said, not everyone seeks to be commissioned. In my case when it was suggested that I might accept a commission, which would necessitate going off flying and becoming an Engineering Officer, I politely declined. By dint of being a military service we all understand that the rank structure dictates that we follow the leader. Sometimes we do so with reservations, sometimes we do so with complete trust and confidence. Some of us even had the temerity to voice our concern when our "Leader" was seen to be putting our backside in undue peril. It is all water under the bridge for me but I still believe there is no good reason for the system which is in place.
Having been out in "the real world" for the last 7 years, I have also seen the travesty of when someone who has been good at their job being promoted to management level and making a complete horlicks of it. Come on guys, surely it's not about the position, it's about the quality of the individual.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the ability to commission in branch as a crewman has temporarily ceased, I believe starting it back up again once the nav branch naturally dies in years to come will benefit the career stream for high calibre rear crew whilst assisting the RAF fill many of the SO3/2 jobs left behind.
As for it always being the 2 wing master race making the key decisions I'm sure that will always be the case at the highest level and rightfully too, however at station level I'm sure the COS at Benson would disagree!
Unfortunately the RAF don't seem to want to develope 'leaders' there seems to be far too much emphasis on 'management' for my me.
As for it always being the 2 wing master race making the key decisions I'm sure that will always be the case at the highest level and rightfully too, however at station level I'm sure the COS at Benson would disagree!
Unfortunately the RAF don't seem to want to develope 'leaders' there seems to be far too much emphasis on 'management' for my me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For my money Isaneng and Q-Ski are bang on. We need to move away from the protectionism issues exhibited by MAcr and focus on the longer term aspiration of nurturing WSO (Cmn) through to SO2 level (and beyond?). This will allow proper and sustainable representation for the cadre at the higher levels which, as already stated, cannot be achieved at MAcr rank, however much that hurts egos. However, to achieve this a number of factors need to come together. Firstly, the system needs to select the right individuals. Certainly wasn't always the case in years gone by. More recently - has the ratio between good and bad improved? I guess we all have an opinion on that. Secondly, a clear path for JOs to advance along to achieve SO2 (as a minimum) needs to be thrashed out, and I mean outside of the traditional ldr role. Like it or not the system has enough MAcr to fill those posts. Where else can the service get something back for throwing PAS at all and sundry in the early years? The onus lies with the hierarchy on all the Sqns - they need to wake up and realise that if there is a requirement to have Commissioned representation at the higher levels then they need to be developed over a number of years. Those already at that rank will not be around for ever, and the building blocks therefore need to be in place for the future. As an aside those at SO2 should be helping the new breed not pulling the trapdoor up behind them!