The Tank Will Never Replace the Horse!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sparecrew,
As I alluded to there are many things that we can learn from you guys.
EW is one of them (probably the major one), it is something that we are only just starting to worry about in any real form.
My life just does not consist of hiding behind trees and waiting for the baddies to go away. The ARP even with its limited equipment capabilities is an influential asset to the force commander if the crews are up to speed in what is required. If the ARP can integrate itself into the force commanders plan (working with Recce, Milan and the likes). Also it is a major player in the control of direct and indirect fire assets. This is what we do best (although not as well as we could….read Soldiers first posted yesterday). The details are quite a lot more than just hiding behind trees. The modern battlefield is not an easy place to work anymore due to its fluidity, what I was trying to say was that greater co-ordination between all concerned is required.
Bush Cat
You are right with what you say about us being behind the drag curve in respect to the AH. We at Sqn level should have started being given stuff to get our teeth into quite a while back. You are right it is going to be a major smack in the face.
Reg
I do understand them I was not saying that our crew duty time is the right one. What I was saying is that it is Barking that we have different rules.
Ref Ex on SPTA yes the SH were fully briefed but chose to do it their way L
I agree JHC is a major step in the right direction long may it continue J
As for having to ask for info on AH crap……..This information should be made readily available so that we can be best prepared for the imminent SMACK in the face. It is the AAC through and through the passage of information on many subjects is garbage unless it is things like IIP or health and safety. We have to fight to get info, and if people have info and want to present it they can’t because there is no IT equip to use. We are but playing at the moment and attitudes must change fast. One way is to supply the info so those who are interested in AH (more than will admit) can start the process from within of preparing for the wee beasties to arrive.
As I alluded to there are many things that we can learn from you guys.
EW is one of them (probably the major one), it is something that we are only just starting to worry about in any real form.
My life just does not consist of hiding behind trees and waiting for the baddies to go away. The ARP even with its limited equipment capabilities is an influential asset to the force commander if the crews are up to speed in what is required. If the ARP can integrate itself into the force commanders plan (working with Recce, Milan and the likes). Also it is a major player in the control of direct and indirect fire assets. This is what we do best (although not as well as we could….read Soldiers first posted yesterday). The details are quite a lot more than just hiding behind trees. The modern battlefield is not an easy place to work anymore due to its fluidity, what I was trying to say was that greater co-ordination between all concerned is required.
Bush Cat
You are right with what you say about us being behind the drag curve in respect to the AH. We at Sqn level should have started being given stuff to get our teeth into quite a while back. You are right it is going to be a major smack in the face.
Reg
I do understand them I was not saying that our crew duty time is the right one. What I was saying is that it is Barking that we have different rules.
Ref Ex on SPTA yes the SH were fully briefed but chose to do it their way L
I agree JHC is a major step in the right direction long may it continue J
As for having to ask for info on AH crap……..This information should be made readily available so that we can be best prepared for the imminent SMACK in the face. It is the AAC through and through the passage of information on many subjects is garbage unless it is things like IIP or health and safety. We have to fight to get info, and if people have info and want to present it they can’t because there is no IT equip to use. We are but playing at the moment and attitudes must change fast. One way is to supply the info so those who are interested in AH (more than will admit) can start the process from within of preparing for the wee beasties to arrive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well then....Did you think, or just write without thinking.
So will our future leaders of the AH era have to be LEs then??? Best we start commisioning all the 'fullscrews' to ensure we have a decent lot of thinking Officers. And there I was thinking that they earned all that money!!
As for their jobs after 55, well...was that a stab or a loke? Funny either way.
So will our future leaders of the AH era have to be LEs then??? Best we start commisioning all the 'fullscrews' to ensure we have a decent lot of thinking Officers. And there I was thinking that they earned all that money!!
As for their jobs after 55, well...was that a stab or a loke? Funny either way.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Davey Emsey - as they say in France .... L'idiot!
what Spaceman is saying is - do you want the man or woman that is leading you into battle to be one of the most inexperienced people in the Sqn as he's spent the last few years serving tea to a faceless bureaucrat in MOD Main Building?
.....but I digress... thank you all for your replies on what I feel is one of the most serious issues facing the AAC in the near future, i.e. how are we going to shape the leaders of the future. Like it or not we will be commanded by officers - many SNCOs could do a better job in many circumstances and will do so I have no doubt, but the fact remains that a lot of patrol leaders will be young officers in their first tour, or officers who have been honing their pen-pushing skills in a job unrelated in any way to flying through no fault of their own.
This needs to change.
We haven't fought a major war in many many years, and those we have fought have mainly consisted of us helping the yanks to severely kick the @rse of a totally inferior opponent.
Success in battle is a cr@p teacher.
Now what happens when China decides to annex Taiwan and in we go with Uncle Sam?
I'll tell you what - we get a fair few WAH-64s blown out of the sky is what.
Make no mistake - AH will be the spearhead, the scalpel, the vanguard, the pre-emptive strike - do we want to be led by someone who does this in between staff jobs?
I don't expect things to change overnight, but why for christ's sake are we sending them off to totally unrelated jobs like SO2G1/G4? We need Specialist NCO's led by Specialist Officers.
Nuff said on that one.
Jointery - nice idea but it HASN'T GONE FAR ENOUGH!
My colleagues in NI (where the JHF is alive and, er, well...) inform me that at coalface level it works fine - AAC and RAF, we fly, we get the job done in our own little ways, generally no prob.
The problem is once again in command - The RAF Sqn Comds are Wing Commanders (Lt Col). The AAC Sqn OCs are Majors. Bugger. slight problem there. The infighting is apparently quite tedious - and unfortunately for the Army, slightly one-sided.
All I want to know is this: Why don't we just grab the bull by the horns and start from scratch. And make a JHF which encompasses all the rotary Lift and offensive capability with dedicated personnel who are given the time within their careers to excel at airborne mayhem.
The Ship is drifting my friends, and the hands on the tiller are old, weak and indecisive. I'm not against Senior officers - I'm just against the ones that don't see a need for radical change.
We need firm and proper leadership, not geriatric meandering from visionless technophobes with one eye on an OBE and one foot in the grave.
------------------
Christopher Robin
[This message has been edited by ChristopherRobin (edited 30 March 2000).]
what Spaceman is saying is - do you want the man or woman that is leading you into battle to be one of the most inexperienced people in the Sqn as he's spent the last few years serving tea to a faceless bureaucrat in MOD Main Building?
.....but I digress... thank you all for your replies on what I feel is one of the most serious issues facing the AAC in the near future, i.e. how are we going to shape the leaders of the future. Like it or not we will be commanded by officers - many SNCOs could do a better job in many circumstances and will do so I have no doubt, but the fact remains that a lot of patrol leaders will be young officers in their first tour, or officers who have been honing their pen-pushing skills in a job unrelated in any way to flying through no fault of their own.
This needs to change.
We haven't fought a major war in many many years, and those we have fought have mainly consisted of us helping the yanks to severely kick the @rse of a totally inferior opponent.
Success in battle is a cr@p teacher.
Now what happens when China decides to annex Taiwan and in we go with Uncle Sam?
I'll tell you what - we get a fair few WAH-64s blown out of the sky is what.
Make no mistake - AH will be the spearhead, the scalpel, the vanguard, the pre-emptive strike - do we want to be led by someone who does this in between staff jobs?
I don't expect things to change overnight, but why for christ's sake are we sending them off to totally unrelated jobs like SO2G1/G4? We need Specialist NCO's led by Specialist Officers.
Nuff said on that one.
Jointery - nice idea but it HASN'T GONE FAR ENOUGH!
My colleagues in NI (where the JHF is alive and, er, well...) inform me that at coalface level it works fine - AAC and RAF, we fly, we get the job done in our own little ways, generally no prob.
The problem is once again in command - The RAF Sqn Comds are Wing Commanders (Lt Col). The AAC Sqn OCs are Majors. Bugger. slight problem there. The infighting is apparently quite tedious - and unfortunately for the Army, slightly one-sided.
All I want to know is this: Why don't we just grab the bull by the horns and start from scratch. And make a JHF which encompasses all the rotary Lift and offensive capability with dedicated personnel who are given the time within their careers to excel at airborne mayhem.
The Ship is drifting my friends, and the hands on the tiller are old, weak and indecisive. I'm not against Senior officers - I'm just against the ones that don't see a need for radical change.
We need firm and proper leadership, not geriatric meandering from visionless technophobes with one eye on an OBE and one foot in the grave.
------------------
Christopher Robin
[This message has been edited by ChristopherRobin (edited 30 March 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with CR as I believe most people at grass roots do, and to raise the stakes a little how long do we expect to see the AAC last after AH is introduced and mistreated, where it will still play second fiddle to "soldiering" requirements. Are JHC really going to let it all go horribly wrong or put pressure on the powers that be to rethink our daily priorities before we let "Smythers and Carstairs" get to have a go!
Not being a retread it pains me to say that in the AH era Flying squadrons might benefit from not having integral groundcrew, i.e. a regiment would consist of a support squadron encompassing all AAC grouncrew trades, and Flying squadrons would consist of Flyers !
Before Capt Tercrue follows on from his "soldiers first" thread, there is animosity between Ground SSM's ( who at some point failed a pilots course) and Aircrew who don't appreciate being at his beck and call, because he feels we're his man power pool and not the groundies because they are busy dusting down the signals kit, that hasn't seen the outside of the store for 6 months.It may not be P.C. but its reality a WO 2 groundy feels its his duty to get one over on the Cpl pilot when he's 1/2 an inch away from his cab on the ground!! If we need administering by anyone let it be a "Flight Sergeant Major" and " Flight Commander" from the Aircrew who have a greater knowledge of our working and shirking practices. Then when it all goes wrong we'll only have ourselves to blame....
Not being a retread it pains me to say that in the AH era Flying squadrons might benefit from not having integral groundcrew, i.e. a regiment would consist of a support squadron encompassing all AAC grouncrew trades, and Flying squadrons would consist of Flyers !
Before Capt Tercrue follows on from his "soldiers first" thread, there is animosity between Ground SSM's ( who at some point failed a pilots course) and Aircrew who don't appreciate being at his beck and call, because he feels we're his man power pool and not the groundies because they are busy dusting down the signals kit, that hasn't seen the outside of the store for 6 months.It may not be P.C. but its reality a WO 2 groundy feels its his duty to get one over on the Cpl pilot when he's 1/2 an inch away from his cab on the ground!! If we need administering by anyone let it be a "Flight Sergeant Major" and " Flight Commander" from the Aircrew who have a greater knowledge of our working and shirking practices. Then when it all goes wrong we'll only have ourselves to blame....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spaceman, CR
Maybe I didn't put it very well, but I stand by my last post.
How would you define Spec Air Crew?
I would say they are Aircrew who are percieved as not going on to staff officer/Senior Officer rank/positions, but who's experience is seen as invaluable to the service. I would also say that most NCO Aircrew (Army) could be described - using the above definition - as the Army's equivalent to Spec Aircrew.
I certainly was not suggesting that we do not need to keep our Officer experience and if you have read other threads on this forum you will already know my views on the subject.
Maybe I didn't put it very well, but I stand by my last post.
How would you define Spec Air Crew?
I would say they are Aircrew who are percieved as not going on to staff officer/Senior Officer rank/positions, but who's experience is seen as invaluable to the service. I would also say that most NCO Aircrew (Army) could be described - using the above definition - as the Army's equivalent to Spec Aircrew.
I certainly was not suggesting that we do not need to keep our Officer experience and if you have read other threads on this forum you will already know my views on the subject.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Goodness me! Having met a few of you chaps and worked with you on occasions I honestly hope that it is not as bad as this forum would suggest. If my eyes were rather tainted before they are being well and truly opened now, or is it just a few dissenters?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Christopher Robin, It seems your loyalty to our illustrious Corps is dubious, so have you considered the other options?.... transfer in rank to either the RAF or RN and stay flying, as this is obviously what you want to do. (& probably 90% of all Capts in the AAC)..
P.S. If you do decide to go let DAAvn know why!
P.S. If you do decide to go let DAAvn know why!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jemima - nothing wrong with my loyalty - you obviously haven't read the rest of the thread - I want to stay in the AAC - I just think that we need an all ranks spec aircrew system for AH. If All I wanted to do was fly then yes I would go elsewhere. My point is that the complexity of AH, plus the fact that DAAvn want officers to fly it means that we can't have those officers bogging off for staff jobs! thanks for the tip though! 
------------------
Christopher Robin
------------------
Christopher Robin
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ex True Blue and now out. Although unemployed have ATPL(H) and CPL(A)/IR and looking forward to a job sooner or later. Leaving the AAC best thing I have done. If you stay in my advice is take the money and dont worry about how s**t it is, as you will never improve the AAC.Dont work to hard for your money as it makes no difference - there is no performance related pay. Remember if it gets to hard in civi street the AAC will probably take you back, but I would prefer the RAF or Fleet Air Arm.
PS if you want to fly leave the AAC
PS if you want to fly leave the AAC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Christopher, If you allude to spec aircrew for the AH, what about those officers, who:
a. do not want AH
b. Do not get AH
c. are too old for AH
are their careers tiered in a different way, or are they consigned to the standard Soldiers 1st, Aviators 2nd policy.
Can the system cope with 3 tiers of officer career?
a. do not want AH
b. Do not get AH
c. are too old for AH
are their careers tiered in a different way, or are they consigned to the standard Soldiers 1st, Aviators 2nd policy.
Can the system cope with 3 tiers of officer career?
Guest
Posts: n/a
SAG
It sounds to me that we're well rid of you!
The Corps has just about had it's fill of people with your attitude. It's time that those members of the Blue Beret Club realised that the only way forward is to put as much in as they expect to get out. The days of self serving individuals is over. I am by no means a pontificating kowtowing a*se licker, just someone who would like to see the Corps develop and evolve in this new era, the only way it can happen is if we all share a common purpose and yes, put in that extra effort. Surprisingly it does get noticed and also benefits the individual as well as those around us.
We've all seen on these pages about how little flying there is in units. Amazingly there are people who are flying all the hours God sends, for whose benefit? Not their own but those who they are training. Yes I am a QHI and yes I work my butt off trying to do the best I can to help those in my care. I don't get a penny more than my non-QHI contempories. But, at the end of the week I know that maybe, just maybe, I may have contributed to helping prevent some poor bug*er winding up in a heap of smoking wreckage.
That to me is a reasonable method of trying to improve the AAC.
If you want performance related pay join a f**cking trade union,or better still join the RAF or the FAA, not that they'd be remotely interested in someone with your attitude.
PS. I wonder why you're still unemployed, problems with the interviews!
PPS. You are right about one thing, leaving the AAC was the best thing you've ever done.
It sounds to me that we're well rid of you!
The Corps has just about had it's fill of people with your attitude. It's time that those members of the Blue Beret Club realised that the only way forward is to put as much in as they expect to get out. The days of self serving individuals is over. I am by no means a pontificating kowtowing a*se licker, just someone who would like to see the Corps develop and evolve in this new era, the only way it can happen is if we all share a common purpose and yes, put in that extra effort. Surprisingly it does get noticed and also benefits the individual as well as those around us.
We've all seen on these pages about how little flying there is in units. Amazingly there are people who are flying all the hours God sends, for whose benefit? Not their own but those who they are training. Yes I am a QHI and yes I work my butt off trying to do the best I can to help those in my care. I don't get a penny more than my non-QHI contempories. But, at the end of the week I know that maybe, just maybe, I may have contributed to helping prevent some poor bug*er winding up in a heap of smoking wreckage.
That to me is a reasonable method of trying to improve the AAC.
If you want performance related pay join a f**cking trade union,or better still join the RAF or the FAA, not that they'd be remotely interested in someone with your attitude.
PS. I wonder why you're still unemployed, problems with the interviews!
PPS. You are right about one thing, leaving the AAC was the best thing you've ever done.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Amen to that!
Jemima its simple m8 - not all officers want to fly as you correctly pointed out - so let them continue up the chain to do the jobs that you have to do to get to be a CO etc. At the minute the AAC tries to put everyone on a regular commission through the same hoops. Now they have a golden opportunity to stream people to their best abilities i.e: people who want to fly and are good at it to remain so, people who have a thirst for higher command and get a kick out of gold braid weighing their brains down to continue up the chain. I personally feel that the RAF do this in a reasonably sane way and I can't shake the feeling that the only reason the AAC aren't is because they are reluctant to align themselves with our illustrious colleagues in light blue. Besides - look at the marines at the minute: no more NCO aircrew - that just leaves the army as the odd men out and I don't think we'll resist for too much longer, so you never know Jemima, you could be in line for a promotion to 2Lt soon - come up to my mess....and you'll soon see who the daddy is!
[This message has been edited by ChristopherRobin (edited 07 April 2000).]
Jemima its simple m8 - not all officers want to fly as you correctly pointed out - so let them continue up the chain to do the jobs that you have to do to get to be a CO etc. At the minute the AAC tries to put everyone on a regular commission through the same hoops. Now they have a golden opportunity to stream people to their best abilities i.e: people who want to fly and are good at it to remain so, people who have a thirst for higher command and get a kick out of gold braid weighing their brains down to continue up the chain. I personally feel that the RAF do this in a reasonably sane way and I can't shake the feeling that the only reason the AAC aren't is because they are reluctant to align themselves with our illustrious colleagues in light blue. Besides - look at the marines at the minute: no more NCO aircrew - that just leaves the army as the odd men out and I don't think we'll resist for too much longer, so you never know Jemima, you could be in line for a promotion to 2Lt soon - come up to my mess....and you'll soon see who the daddy is!
[This message has been edited by ChristopherRobin (edited 07 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having read this thread through, I agree wholeheartedly with Chris Robin on virtually all his points. And if SAG hated the AAC so much, why didn't he join his own country's Forces? As for the implementation of AH and the general state of the Corps, although I'm in it for as long as I can persuade the powers that be to keep me, and I'm determined to do my bit for the future, I can't help feeling that we're all being cordially invited to a Gateaux and Derrier Soiree (bring a bottle of something strong!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
To all , I enjoyed the AAC , but please take off the "Rose coloured specs". I was not a QHI but one of the mortals who tried to keep current in all respects of flying, and was reasonably successful. I was it is granted disillusioned when I left. This due to the fact that several questions I and most of the pilots/groundies had about the future of the AAC were not answered in a satisfactory manner. Namely
1. Does the AAC have a creditable logistic plan to support the AH?
2. Does the AAC have or plan to have sufficient ground equipment to operate AH?. Think how many "Bowsers are on line in the Regiments.
3. Due to Army retention problems do you think the AAC will be able to retain sufficient "Ground Personel" to operate AH?. They havent at the moment.
4. Have you heard about any pre AH Aircrew/Signals/Weapons/EW training in the pipeline to prepare pilots/Groundcrew for the huge leap from Lynx/Gazelle onto Apache?.
5. Does it make economic sense to continue with the present "Officer structure" if they are going to do one tour on the beast and then move into Staff Work?. Thoughts on binning the SSC?.
6. What about communications training ie "Bowman" and the transition into the Digital battlefield?.
7. To those in Regiments have YOU had any answers to these questions?.
Finally do you have any indication that the Army has the money and will to successfully implement the AH into the All Arms Battle?.
PS. How long will this take 5-10 years or longer?.
No offense is intended but I would like to hear from those who have heard the answers.
[This message has been edited by SouthAfrican Git (edited 16 April 2000).]
1. Does the AAC have a creditable logistic plan to support the AH?
2. Does the AAC have or plan to have sufficient ground equipment to operate AH?. Think how many "Bowsers are on line in the Regiments.
3. Due to Army retention problems do you think the AAC will be able to retain sufficient "Ground Personel" to operate AH?. They havent at the moment.
4. Have you heard about any pre AH Aircrew/Signals/Weapons/EW training in the pipeline to prepare pilots/Groundcrew for the huge leap from Lynx/Gazelle onto Apache?.
5. Does it make economic sense to continue with the present "Officer structure" if they are going to do one tour on the beast and then move into Staff Work?. Thoughts on binning the SSC?.
6. What about communications training ie "Bowman" and the transition into the Digital battlefield?.
7. To those in Regiments have YOU had any answers to these questions?.
Finally do you have any indication that the Army has the money and will to successfully implement the AH into the All Arms Battle?.
PS. How long will this take 5-10 years or longer?.
No offense is intended but I would like to hear from those who have heard the answers.
[This message has been edited by SouthAfrican Git (edited 16 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To all , I enjoyed the AAC , but please take off the "Rose coloured specs". I was not a QHI but one of the mortals who tried to keep current in all respects of flying, and was reasonably successful. I was it is granted disillusioned when I left. This due to the fact that several questions I and most of the pilots/groundies had about the future of the AAC were not answered in a satisfactory manner. Namely
1. Does the AAC have a creditable logistic plan to support the AH?
2. Does the AAC have or plan to have sufficient ground equipment to operate AH?. Think how many "Bowsers are on line in the Regiments.
3. Due to Army retention problems do you think the AAC will be able to retain sufficient "Ground Personel" to operate AH?. They havent at the moment.
4. Have you heard about any pre AH Aircrew/Signals/Weapons/EW training in the pipeline to prepare pilots/Groundcrew for the huge leap from Lynx/Gazelle onto Apache?.
5. Does it make economic sense to continue with the present "Officer structure" if they are going to do one tour on the beast and then move into Staff Work?. Thoughts on binning the SSC?.
6. What about communications training ie "Bowman" and the transition into the Digital battlefield?.
7. To those in Regiments have YOU had any answers to these questions?.
Finally do you have any indication that the Army has the money and will to successfully implement the AH into the All Arms Battle?.
PS. How long will this take 5-10 years or longer?.
No offense is intended but I would like to hear from those who have heard the answers.
1. Does the AAC have a creditable logistic plan to support the AH?
2. Does the AAC have or plan to have sufficient ground equipment to operate AH?. Think how many "Bowsers are on line in the Regiments.
3. Due to Army retention problems do you think the AAC will be able to retain sufficient "Ground Personel" to operate AH?. They havent at the moment.
4. Have you heard about any pre AH Aircrew/Signals/Weapons/EW training in the pipeline to prepare pilots/Groundcrew for the huge leap from Lynx/Gazelle onto Apache?.
5. Does it make economic sense to continue with the present "Officer structure" if they are going to do one tour on the beast and then move into Staff Work?. Thoughts on binning the SSC?.
6. What about communications training ie "Bowman" and the transition into the Digital battlefield?.
7. To those in Regiments have YOU had any answers to these questions?.
Finally do you have any indication that the Army has the money and will to successfully implement the AH into the All Arms Battle?.
PS. How long will this take 5-10 years or longer?.
No offense is intended but I would like to hear from those who have heard the answers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
well, so would we all my colonial and strange-accented friend! that's what the whole post is about! - the main problem remains - PERSONNEL! and the answer remains....elusive.
Please please PLEASE don't make me a shiny-@rse! let me at least aspire to being a professional aviator! is my cry of silly optimism and then I remember the answer given to this plea by the AH Briefing team when asked by a colleague. Do you know what the Colonel in charge said?
"If you wanted to fly you should have joined the RAF"
?????????????????????
That, I promise you is a direct quote. Please God make them see sense - or do I have to join the RAF in order to fly AH-64 on an exchange tour while all my ex-colleagues languish in "totally necessary for your career" jobs like SO3 G4 in Hohne?
It'll happen - but it isn't too late!
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE JHC, SEE SENSE!
....
------------------
Christopher Robin
Please please PLEASE don't make me a shiny-@rse! let me at least aspire to being a professional aviator! is my cry of silly optimism and then I remember the answer given to this plea by the AH Briefing team when asked by a colleague. Do you know what the Colonel in charge said?
"If you wanted to fly you should have joined the RAF"
?????????????????????
That, I promise you is a direct quote. Please God make them see sense - or do I have to join the RAF in order to fly AH-64 on an exchange tour while all my ex-colleagues languish in "totally necessary for your career" jobs like SO3 G4 in Hohne?
It'll happen - but it isn't too late!
FOR CHRIST'S SAKE JHC, SEE SENSE!
....
------------------
Christopher Robin
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, I've read this one for long enough and its time to add my sixpen'th!
First I agree with Reg that we are well rid of anyone who holds or held the views expressed by SAG!
I also agree with the majority of CR's posts and the overall theme that runs through this thread. I have one major disagreement, however... I really don't think that spec aircrew is the answer and here is why.
The vast majority of AAC officers (re-treads and true blue) want to fly a lot more than they want to do any shiny *rse jobs. I've done both and believe me there ain't no doubt in my mind about which seat I would rather spend my work time in!
We employ our officers to command. I realise that a statement like that may cause some consternation amongst those who feel they have been commanded by officers who they feel have not done the job properly, but it nevertheless remains the case. If we do not allow - and use - our officers to command then why bother paying them more then the NCOs; it would be unfair to both sides. Also someone has to be in charge and we have a rank stucture to support that necessity which, for better or worse requires someone to do the dirty work.
This has led us to one big problem. Our commanders are not allowed sufficient experience to enable them (or some/many of them) to perform the tasks they are asked and paid to do. Will the introduction of spec aircrew solve this problem? I don't think so; in fact it would probably make it worse. We would simply put in place a mechanism which further divided the authority (which surely we would agree someone has to exercise) from the experience needed to do it. A lot of good guys would go spec aircrew and then we would have even fewer officers with any experience in the command positions (which are not going to go away).
So what's my solution? Obvious really - and I suspect one that our sister service came to terms with about 40 years ago... uprank the officer jobs in an AAC sqn. OC as a Lt Col, Flts commanded by Majors (pre-staff college), other officers (pilots, aircraft commanders and patrol leaders) as various Capts, Lts and 2Lts. Make the Sqn 2IC and Ops jobs equivalent to Adjt and Ops jobs in terms of reporting. Separate the sqns. Split the Regt resources up amongst them or centralise as necessary. At each of our bases make the new boss a full Col - I know, we could call him the station commander couldn't we... I don't know about anyone else but this structure is starting to look familiar to me. It exists and works very successfully in our sister service and by the way Wallop doesn't exactly look that diferent.
Advantages? By the time an AAC officer becomes a Flt Commander then he will be about 33 and have had more years to attain relevant experience. He is likely to have spent 8-10 years at front line - and all of them in the relatively recent past and on type and in role (I'm thinking AH here but the principle applies).
Disadvatages? Cost is the primary arguement which is likely to be raised but... The actual capitation rate increases required are likely to be pennies as part of the overall scheme; there will be a significant reduaction in the training bill (and considering the cost of AH hrs this is important!) as people will need much less refresher training as they are likely to be allowed to stay at front line longer; I suspect fewer officer pilots will leave as they will see the possibility of longer flying careers (definately up to major, maybe as Lt Cols and a very few Cols) and so we should save the very considerable throughput costs which are incurred every tme that someone leaves and we have to retrain his replacement.
A few final thoughts: there might be some downside in that AAC officers would have to be on longer terms of service (like the crabs) again to ensure that they get better return of service and to fund all this. As that time would be spent flying then I suspect that it would not be a problem, however - it would also encourage people to take a stake in the organisation and not be the kind of short-timer, amateur, free-loaders who are just in for what they can get.
So whaddaya think???
First I agree with Reg that we are well rid of anyone who holds or held the views expressed by SAG!
I also agree with the majority of CR's posts and the overall theme that runs through this thread. I have one major disagreement, however... I really don't think that spec aircrew is the answer and here is why.
The vast majority of AAC officers (re-treads and true blue) want to fly a lot more than they want to do any shiny *rse jobs. I've done both and believe me there ain't no doubt in my mind about which seat I would rather spend my work time in!
We employ our officers to command. I realise that a statement like that may cause some consternation amongst those who feel they have been commanded by officers who they feel have not done the job properly, but it nevertheless remains the case. If we do not allow - and use - our officers to command then why bother paying them more then the NCOs; it would be unfair to both sides. Also someone has to be in charge and we have a rank stucture to support that necessity which, for better or worse requires someone to do the dirty work.
This has led us to one big problem. Our commanders are not allowed sufficient experience to enable them (or some/many of them) to perform the tasks they are asked and paid to do. Will the introduction of spec aircrew solve this problem? I don't think so; in fact it would probably make it worse. We would simply put in place a mechanism which further divided the authority (which surely we would agree someone has to exercise) from the experience needed to do it. A lot of good guys would go spec aircrew and then we would have even fewer officers with any experience in the command positions (which are not going to go away).
So what's my solution? Obvious really - and I suspect one that our sister service came to terms with about 40 years ago... uprank the officer jobs in an AAC sqn. OC as a Lt Col, Flts commanded by Majors (pre-staff college), other officers (pilots, aircraft commanders and patrol leaders) as various Capts, Lts and 2Lts. Make the Sqn 2IC and Ops jobs equivalent to Adjt and Ops jobs in terms of reporting. Separate the sqns. Split the Regt resources up amongst them or centralise as necessary. At each of our bases make the new boss a full Col - I know, we could call him the station commander couldn't we... I don't know about anyone else but this structure is starting to look familiar to me. It exists and works very successfully in our sister service and by the way Wallop doesn't exactly look that diferent.
Advantages? By the time an AAC officer becomes a Flt Commander then he will be about 33 and have had more years to attain relevant experience. He is likely to have spent 8-10 years at front line - and all of them in the relatively recent past and on type and in role (I'm thinking AH here but the principle applies).
Disadvatages? Cost is the primary arguement which is likely to be raised but... The actual capitation rate increases required are likely to be pennies as part of the overall scheme; there will be a significant reduaction in the training bill (and considering the cost of AH hrs this is important!) as people will need much less refresher training as they are likely to be allowed to stay at front line longer; I suspect fewer officer pilots will leave as they will see the possibility of longer flying careers (definately up to major, maybe as Lt Cols and a very few Cols) and so we should save the very considerable throughput costs which are incurred every tme that someone leaves and we have to retrain his replacement.
A few final thoughts: there might be some downside in that AAC officers would have to be on longer terms of service (like the crabs) again to ensure that they get better return of service and to fund all this. As that time would be spent flying then I suspect that it would not be a problem, however - it would also encourage people to take a stake in the organisation and not be the kind of short-timer, amateur, free-loaders who are just in for what they can get.
So whaddaya think???
Guest
Posts: n/a
If SAG is who I think he is I hate to agree with him. However,to all the boys in green I say don't worry, Once the airforce adopt the AAC you will all be able to fly for as long as you like and the lands will be replete with milk and honey! (and anyone who thinks that a harrier johnny wouldn't make a half decent Apache pilot is living in a dream world!!)