RAF Observers
OC Admin at Watton '67-'68 ish wore an "O" brevet. Cannot remeber his name. Big chap, and a few years later worked with his son when I was at Marshall of Cambridge and he was at CIBA - trying to make bonded noise attenuation panels for the carbon-fanned RB 211.
I never knew there was any such animal as a Radar Observer.
I bet there are are some WSO's who have declined the new badge and continue to wear their 'N' and 'AE' brevets. Same thing, really.
Also, I think it is dreadful that RAF stores no longer keep the older brevets in stock. I've heard of Navs going on e-bay to buy their brevets. In 1952 did they cease stocking King's Crown Pilot's brevets - I doubt it!
If you read the book in post #2 (there's a copy in the RAF Club library) there is a big section on the new WSO brevet. Originally, it was planned to be a 2-winged brevet for Navs that flew in the boot of Tornado, Phantom and Buccaneer. But when some of the other fleets got wind of it (Nimrod, E3 and Truckies) they wanted 'in' and so it went back to the current debacle. I know a Nav who went from Tornado to E3 at the time of the change of brevet - he said that it was madness that he had flown 12 years as a Nav on a Tornado with weapons and now he was a Weapons Systems Officer (Nav) he flew the E3 with no weapons!!!
Finally, ACM Sir Simon Bryant was a Nav and he never changed to the new WSO brevet. He was the first, and probably only, 4 star Nav.
LJ
PS. The older brevets are here: RAF Flying Badges_U
And the current ones are here: RAF Flying Badges_U
What is really odd is that we have, since the instigation of WSO brevets, invented new ones for Image Analysts to go with Airborne Techs and Fighter Controllers (or Air Battlespace Managers as they are now known) - what a cluster!
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 21st Jul 2012 at 08:45.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
What is really odd is that we have, since the instigation of WSO brevets,
invented new ones for Image Analysts to go with Airborne Techs and Fighter
Controllers (or Air Battlespace Managers as they are now known) - what a
cluster!
I was one of those Navs who continued to wear the old badge rather than WSO. I had been awarded that badge after much sweat and tears - I was not going to give it up for something different! (The AE bretheren probably want to wear something with more taste - hence the larger uptake of the WSO/WSOp badge for them).
Barksdale Boy
I was reaching to log-in to correct you until I noticed you had rectified your post.
I was 'naving' once, down in Oz I think, when a Group Captain appeared on the flight deck and lo and behold it was Grp Capt Knight sporting a dog collar.
I believe the sequence of Stn Cdrs' names at 2ANS was Chamberlain,Knight,King.
I vaguely recall several O badges being sported at Gaydon, not sure if Harry King's was one of them.
I guess he was the Harry King who was the only survivor of Flt Lord's Dakota crew at Arnhem. He parachuted from the burning aircraft and was captured.After repatriation he made his report and Lord was posthumously awarded the VC.
I was 'naving' once, down in Oz I think, when a Group Captain appeared on the flight deck and lo and behold it was Grp Capt Knight sporting a dog collar.
I believe the sequence of Stn Cdrs' names at 2ANS was Chamberlain,Knight,King.
I vaguely recall several O badges being sported at Gaydon, not sure if Harry King's was one of them.
I guess he was the Harry King who was the only survivor of Flt Lord's Dakota crew at Arnhem. He parachuted from the burning aircraft and was captured.After repatriation he made his report and Lord was posthumously awarded the VC.
obnoxio
30 Sqn had 2 engineers doing co-pilot tours; including training they must have been at least 4 years away from their 'trade'.
IIRC they were Bob Katon and ???? Dennett.
We also had 2 former WIWOLS as co-pilots, Chris Horsley and Chris Cureton - both very nice guys...for ex-single seaters
IIRC they were Bob Katon and ???? Dennett.
We also had 2 former WIWOLS as co-pilots, Chris Horsley and Chris Cureton - both very nice guys...for ex-single seaters
Threeputt
Good spot, me old, I'd forgotten about Peachy and the 4-star Jt Force Comd job.
I'm guessing that Osby might be in with a shout in the future? A man that could lead and inspire me to almost anything.
LJ
Good spot, me old, I'd forgotten about Peachy and the 4-star Jt Force Comd job.
I'm guessing that Osby might be in with a shout in the future? A man that could lead and inspire me to almost anything.
LJ
Leon,
Regarding the relative take up of the new WSO brevet by the old trades of Nav and AEO, I'll offer a few comments. Some are facts, some my own opinion, and some possibly contentious....
First of all, I am a Nav, with a similar outlook to Wensleydale. Why should I wear a brevet (WSO) that I am not entitled to? I haven't done any training that qualifies me as a WSO - are they just giving away the WSO brevet now? I attended an Air Navigation School, where, as part of a particular Air Navigation Course, I qualified as an "Air Navigator" (that's what it says on the certificate in my log book). Like Wensleydale I put considerable time (how long is the AEO training course?) and effort into the qualifying process. I keep wearing the old Nav brevet not out of nostalgia or loyalty but because I consider I am entitled to - personally I would feel a fraud wearing a WSO brevet.
As for AEOs, well here comes the contentious bit. In my opinion, by embracing the WSO brevet the AEO branch got a boost in status, by bringing themselves up to the equivalent of nav (what was the highest ever ranking AEO? Gp Capt?). This opened up new career opportunities for AEOs (now able to do jobs previously "nav" annotated as opposed to limited to the small pool of AEO jobs), and also improved their financial status....
People may question my last comment. Well, when Nav and AEO were separate branches they topped out on the PA payspine two levels apart. By creating the WSO branch PA AEOs (whatever brevet they chose to wear) eventually benefited by about £2,000 a year.
Thus I believe AEOs were much more likely to embrace the WSO concept in all aspects, including wearing the brevet.
It is often difficult to judge the tone of a written piece. If the above sounds like sour grapes, or me having a dig at the AEO branch, it was not so intended. My own thoughts and feeling reference wearing the nav brevet are just that. My relative comments on AEOs are my own opinions, but I have tried to keep them dispassionate and explain how I reached them. I count myself lucky to have had the privilege of of working with some good AEOs over the years, fine operators and decent human beings.
Regarding the relative take up of the new WSO brevet by the old trades of Nav and AEO, I'll offer a few comments. Some are facts, some my own opinion, and some possibly contentious....
First of all, I am a Nav, with a similar outlook to Wensleydale. Why should I wear a brevet (WSO) that I am not entitled to? I haven't done any training that qualifies me as a WSO - are they just giving away the WSO brevet now? I attended an Air Navigation School, where, as part of a particular Air Navigation Course, I qualified as an "Air Navigator" (that's what it says on the certificate in my log book). Like Wensleydale I put considerable time (how long is the AEO training course?) and effort into the qualifying process. I keep wearing the old Nav brevet not out of nostalgia or loyalty but because I consider I am entitled to - personally I would feel a fraud wearing a WSO brevet.
As for AEOs, well here comes the contentious bit. In my opinion, by embracing the WSO brevet the AEO branch got a boost in status, by bringing themselves up to the equivalent of nav (what was the highest ever ranking AEO? Gp Capt?). This opened up new career opportunities for AEOs (now able to do jobs previously "nav" annotated as opposed to limited to the small pool of AEO jobs), and also improved their financial status....
People may question my last comment. Well, when Nav and AEO were separate branches they topped out on the PA payspine two levels apart. By creating the WSO branch PA AEOs (whatever brevet they chose to wear) eventually benefited by about £2,000 a year.
Thus I believe AEOs were much more likely to embrace the WSO concept in all aspects, including wearing the brevet.
It is often difficult to judge the tone of a written piece. If the above sounds like sour grapes, or me having a dig at the AEO branch, it was not so intended. My own thoughts and feeling reference wearing the nav brevet are just that. My relative comments on AEOs are my own opinions, but I have tried to keep them dispassionate and explain how I reached them. I count myself lucky to have had the privilege of of working with some good AEOs over the years, fine operators and decent human beings.
Last edited by Biggus; 21st Jul 2012 at 11:30.
Ahem!
...as a very old former AEO may I add that the most senior were Alan Hicks and Mike Butler both whom were Air Commodores. Both were squadron commanders in the maritime force, (42 and 120 respectively).
I actually passed on my No6 and a not-much-worn No1 to a newly commissioned AEOp before he set off on his first commissioned tour. He was well pleased that they both had the AE brevet.
I didn't realise that there was a potential financial penalty in sticking with the brevet one was initially qualified to wear.
I was always very pee'd off that AEOs were shut out out of the back seat of the Bucc - I'd have loved that job. When, many years later, I did get a backseat ride from Lossie with a large red haired flt cdr (who did his damndest to make me throw up) I remarked to the squadron boss afterwards that "that's what I should have been doing for the last 25 years". I loved it!
The Ancient Mariner
I actually passed on my No6 and a not-much-worn No1 to a newly commissioned AEOp before he set off on his first commissioned tour. He was well pleased that they both had the AE brevet.
I didn't realise that there was a potential financial penalty in sticking with the brevet one was initially qualified to wear.
I was always very pee'd off that AEOs were shut out out of the back seat of the Bucc - I'd have loved that job. When, many years later, I did get a backseat ride from Lossie with a large red haired flt cdr (who did his damndest to make me throw up) I remarked to the squadron boss afterwards that "that's what I should have been doing for the last 25 years". I loved it!
The Ancient Mariner
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St Albans
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIGGUS
.... few points about your comments to Leon.
1. The AEO course was 13 months - ie longer than the pilot and nav courses
2. Pilots, Navs and AEOs were not separate branches but were aircrew categories within the GD flying Branch. All, in theory, had the same career prospects and were paid the same. Are you saying that the system changed and that commissioned aircrew in the three categories were once on different pay scales?
3. '....bring themselves up to the status of navs' !!! BIGGUS, tell me it's a put on, PLEASE
4. '..... working with some good AEOs, fine operators and DECENT HUMAN BEINGS. Phew! that must have been a relief. I know it's well meant, BIGGUS but you shouldn't patronise
.... few points about your comments to Leon.
1. The AEO course was 13 months - ie longer than the pilot and nav courses
2. Pilots, Navs and AEOs were not separate branches but were aircrew categories within the GD flying Branch. All, in theory, had the same career prospects and were paid the same. Are you saying that the system changed and that commissioned aircrew in the three categories were once on different pay scales?
3. '....bring themselves up to the status of navs' !!! BIGGUS, tell me it's a put on, PLEASE
4. '..... working with some good AEOs, fine operators and DECENT HUMAN BEINGS. Phew! that must have been a relief. I know it's well meant, BIGGUS but you shouldn't patronise
1. The AEO course was 13 months - ie longer than the pilot and nav courses
We tried some AEOs in Tornado in the early days. Yes, they could work the kit, but they did not have the skills to do the planning and airborne navigating. Yes, you could have trained them, but why bother when they would need to do the bulk of the Navs course. In fact, some AEO/AEOps did a Pilot or Nav crossover and turned into very fine aviators indeed; as have Navs doing a Pilot crossover. There are also many experienced Navs that have whooped qualified Pilots in ACT in either a twin-sticker or Hawk in the past.
So I guess it comes down to training and/or experience. After "you can teach monkeys to fly better than that!"
iRaven
Last edited by iRaven; 21st Jul 2012 at 16:31.
Ron,
Point 1 - Incorrect, as has already been pointed out!
Point 2 - Yes, on the PA spine they were paid different amounts, in that they had different ceilings on the pay spine that they could reach, so their pay topped out at different amounts.
Point 3 - Compare rank ceilings, job opportunities, etc of Navs vs AEOs. In the latest round of redundancies they were looking for 2 Wg Cdr AEOs. There were currently 8, yes 8, in the RAF. How many Wg Cdr Navs in the RAF? It's not a pi**ing contest, but the Nav branch was much bigger, offered a wider range of opportunities and the prospect of greater advancement. In an RAF generally run by FJ pilots, most of whom had never ever met an AEO, the Nav branch had more impact, visibility, and effectively status. Officer aircrew were generally labelled as pilot, nav and rearcrew officer, the latter term encompassing commissioned LM, AEs and AEOs in one group. I'm not boasting, simply telling it as it was - live with it!
Point 4 - I'll try not to patronize if you try to get your facts right (see points 1-3 above)
Have a nice day!
Edited to add - My comments were (I would like to think obviously so) in relation to the relative proportions of Navs/AEOs who changed to the WSO brevet. We are therefore talking about the situation pertaining in approx. 2002, and the people who were in the RAF at the time. Lengths of training courses in the 40's, 50's and 60's are therefore irrelvant, as nobody of the that vintage (well there may have been the odd one from the late 60's) was still in to make the maintain/change brevet decision. Lengths of training course in the 70's and beyond would be relevant.
Point 1 - Incorrect, as has already been pointed out!
Point 2 - Yes, on the PA spine they were paid different amounts, in that they had different ceilings on the pay spine that they could reach, so their pay topped out at different amounts.
Point 3 - Compare rank ceilings, job opportunities, etc of Navs vs AEOs. In the latest round of redundancies they were looking for 2 Wg Cdr AEOs. There were currently 8, yes 8, in the RAF. How many Wg Cdr Navs in the RAF? It's not a pi**ing contest, but the Nav branch was much bigger, offered a wider range of opportunities and the prospect of greater advancement. In an RAF generally run by FJ pilots, most of whom had never ever met an AEO, the Nav branch had more impact, visibility, and effectively status. Officer aircrew were generally labelled as pilot, nav and rearcrew officer, the latter term encompassing commissioned LM, AEs and AEOs in one group. I'm not boasting, simply telling it as it was - live with it!
Point 4 - I'll try not to patronize if you try to get your facts right (see points 1-3 above)
Have a nice day!
Edited to add - My comments were (I would like to think obviously so) in relation to the relative proportions of Navs/AEOs who changed to the WSO brevet. We are therefore talking about the situation pertaining in approx. 2002, and the people who were in the RAF at the time. Lengths of training courses in the 40's, 50's and 60's are therefore irrelvant, as nobody of the that vintage (well there may have been the odd one from the late 60's) was still in to make the maintain/change brevet decision. Lengths of training course in the 70's and beyond would be relevant.
Last edited by Biggus; 22nd Jul 2012 at 07:57.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
'Air Bomber/NAV II' This was his rank. In order to serarate the ground NCOs from the NCA of the time, a new rank structure was developed together with new rank badges and independent messes.
The rank had classes plus the aircrew position. (eg Pilot 1; Navigator II etc). Aircrew started as Aircrew Cadet then moved on to Aircrew 1/II (Corporal); Aircrew III (Sgt); Aircrew IV (FS) then Master Aircrew (WO). Only the latter remains in regular RAF - the others were abolished in 1949(?)
ps. If anyone has one of the old NCA rank badges (except Master) the Waddington Heritage centre could do with some examples! Please pm me.
'Air Bomber/NAV II' This was his rank. In order to serarate the ground NCOs from the NCA of the time, a new rank structure was developed together with new rank badges and independent messes.
The rank had classes plus the aircrew position. (eg Pilot 1; Navigator II etc). Aircrew started as Aircrew Cadet then moved on to Aircrew 1/II (Corporal); Aircrew III (Sgt); Aircrew IV (FS) then Master Aircrew (WO). Only the latter remains in regular RAF - the others were abolished in 1949(?)
ps. If anyone has one of the old NCA rank badges (except Master) the Waddington Heritage centre could do with some examples! Please pm me.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St Albans
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven
Length of Nav course.
On another current thread (58 Nav course), ICM posted that the Nav course 'was all done inside 12 months'. He gave as an example No 72 course at Hullavington which ran from Jan to Dec 1965.
I have just called a nav chum from those days who dug out his records. They showed that his nav course ran from 1 Sep 59 to 30 Aug 60. I make that 12 months. So if these two navs are right, the nav course was one month shorter than the AEO course. I'm checking the pilots course duration in the early 60's
I think the discrepancy lies in the different eras involved. My comments about course length clearly referred to the 1960s when the AEO course was extant. You, I imagine, are talking about more recent times.
As for your attempt at a little dig at the end - well, I'm tempted, but I am far too old to get involved in a PPRuNe type slanging match.
Length of Nav course.
On another current thread (58 Nav course), ICM posted that the Nav course 'was all done inside 12 months'. He gave as an example No 72 course at Hullavington which ran from Jan to Dec 1965.
I have just called a nav chum from those days who dug out his records. They showed that his nav course ran from 1 Sep 59 to 30 Aug 60. I make that 12 months. So if these two navs are right, the nav course was one month shorter than the AEO course. I'm checking the pilots course duration in the early 60's
I think the discrepancy lies in the different eras involved. My comments about course length clearly referred to the 1960s when the AEO course was extant. You, I imagine, are talking about more recent times.
As for your attempt at a little dig at the end - well, I'm tempted, but I am far too old to get involved in a PPRuNe type slanging match.
I started Nav trg at Finningley in early Sep and finished late Feb in the 2nd year - no holds or fails, so that is 18 months. Plus then I needed the Fast Jet lead in at Brawdy that was a further 4 months including groundschool, single seat sea survival and then the 14 trips or so. Total 22 months prior to starting the Tornado OCU.
My mates going through Pilot trg that I went through officer trg joined me on the Sqn about 2-4 months later.
Sorry, me old, but Nav trg in the 80s/90s for Group 1 Fast Jet was a lot longer than your chaps in the 60s.
iRaven
My mates going through Pilot trg that I went through officer trg joined me on the Sqn about 2-4 months later.
Sorry, me old, but Nav trg in the 80s/90s for Group 1 Fast Jet was a lot longer than your chaps in the 60s.
iRaven
Last edited by iRaven; 21st Jul 2012 at 21:43.
These days it takes 103 weeks to train a FJ Pilot to the input standard for a FJ OCU. For a WSOp Linguist it takes 95 weeks (including the 72 week language school), 40 weeks for a Multi-Eng Crewman and 65 weeks for a Rotary-Wing Crewman - all graduate as WSOps and go direct to OCU after these times.
So in aircrew trg time, the Pilots take 30-40 weeks longer than most WSOps and even WSOp Linguists who have to complete a 72 week Defence Language School course as part of their 95 weeks.
As Biggus said earlier, it takes longer to train "front end" crew than "rear end" crew - sadly the "front end" navs are now drying up and I suspect that at some point in the future we will relearn the exceptional value of a 2-man crew in a high-end threat saturated combat environment. But for now we are going back towards single seat ops on our FJ fleets for the foreseeable future.
LJ
So in aircrew trg time, the Pilots take 30-40 weeks longer than most WSOps and even WSOp Linguists who have to complete a 72 week Defence Language School course as part of their 95 weeks.
As Biggus said earlier, it takes longer to train "front end" crew than "rear end" crew - sadly the "front end" navs are now drying up and I suspect that at some point in the future we will relearn the exceptional value of a 2-man crew in a high-end threat saturated combat environment. But for now we are going back towards single seat ops on our FJ fleets for the foreseeable future.
LJ
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
My Dad was a Flight Leiutenant at the time
However, if I may correct myself, I got the equivalences wrong in my earlier posts... in fact Aircrew I was the FS rank while Aircrew IV was for the corporal. The confusion comes from the number of stars in the rank badge. Aircrew 4 has one star while aircrew III has 2 stars and aircrew II has 3 stars. Aircrew 1 has a crown over the 3 stars. In effect, the stars replaced the ground trades chevrons... no wonder it didn't catch on!