Naval Pilots
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was one of the issues in the NAO report into Battlefield helicopters in 2004. They said:
Ministry of Defence - Battlefield Helicopters - National Audit Office
Almost two-thirds of the Army's aircrew are non-commissioned officers, whereas the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force use only officer pilots and navigators/observers. Historically, the perceived complexity of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters has supported this position. However, Army noncommissionedofficers are now flying the complex Apache Mk1. In addition, other forces, for example in the United States, use non-commissioned officers to fly Apache, and also aircraft such as the Chinook, which are exclusively flown by officers in the United Kingdom. The bringing together of helicopters into one command throws these issues into sharp relief. Separately, in its Report on the Apache,1 the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that the Department examine the possibility of using non-commissioned officers as aircrew across all three Services.
Aircrew ranks should be reviewed
3.28 The Army Air Corps employs a mix of noncommissioned and officer pilots whereas the RoyalNavy and Royal Air Force use only officer pilots. With the formation of the Joint Helicopter Command and the introduction into the Army Air Corps of increasinglycomplex and powerful helicopters, this position is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
3.29 The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have not always excluded non-officer pilots. The policy was introduced in the 1950s when the two Services assumed responsibility for delivering nuclear weaponry, although only fixed-wing aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters actually carried such weapons. It was assumed that only an officer would have the requisite decision-making abilities and authority to drop nuclear munitions. The phasing out of the Royal Navy's nuclear depth charges and the Royal Air Force's nuclear bombs has, however, removed this rationale for excluding other ranks from becoming pilots.
3.30 The distinction in aircrew ranks between the Services has also partly been justified on the grounds that the helicopters of the Army Air Corps have been less complex to fly. This argument, however, does not appear to have the same strength with the introduction into service of the Apache Mk1, which is a highly complex helicopter. The ratio between non-commissioned and commissioned officers in an Apache regiment will be 62:38.
3.31 In addition, it is difficult to see why a non commissioned officer could not fly a larger support aircraft, such as the Chinook. Indeed, the Joint Helicopter Command has experimented with this in the "Templar" exchange programme where a senior non-commissioned officer from the Army Air Corps was seconded to a squadron flying Chinooks. Moreover, Puma and CH-53 support helicopters are piloted by non-commissioned officers in France and Germany, respectively.
3.32 The question of the variation of front-line aircrew ranks was last addressed by the Department in 1996. The Department concluded that the status quo should remain. Moreover, it concluded that no significant cost savings would arise from using non-commissioned officer pilots because of the differences in individual Service training costs, rates of pay, and time spent in the various ranks. It also noted that there was little scope to harmonise aircrew ranks because the Services operated their helicopters differently. However, the work that informed the establishment of the Joint Helicopter Command suggested that the issue should be reexamined once the Command had "bedded in".
Furthermore, in considering the introduction into service of the Apache, the Committee of Public Accounts has recommended that the Department should examine the possibility of using non-commissioned officers as aircrew across all three Services.
3.28 The Army Air Corps employs a mix of noncommissioned and officer pilots whereas the RoyalNavy and Royal Air Force use only officer pilots. With the formation of the Joint Helicopter Command and the introduction into the Army Air Corps of increasinglycomplex and powerful helicopters, this position is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
3.29 The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have not always excluded non-officer pilots. The policy was introduced in the 1950s when the two Services assumed responsibility for delivering nuclear weaponry, although only fixed-wing aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters actually carried such weapons. It was assumed that only an officer would have the requisite decision-making abilities and authority to drop nuclear munitions. The phasing out of the Royal Navy's nuclear depth charges and the Royal Air Force's nuclear bombs has, however, removed this rationale for excluding other ranks from becoming pilots.
3.30 The distinction in aircrew ranks between the Services has also partly been justified on the grounds that the helicopters of the Army Air Corps have been less complex to fly. This argument, however, does not appear to have the same strength with the introduction into service of the Apache Mk1, which is a highly complex helicopter. The ratio between non-commissioned and commissioned officers in an Apache regiment will be 62:38.
3.31 In addition, it is difficult to see why a non commissioned officer could not fly a larger support aircraft, such as the Chinook. Indeed, the Joint Helicopter Command has experimented with this in the "Templar" exchange programme where a senior non-commissioned officer from the Army Air Corps was seconded to a squadron flying Chinooks. Moreover, Puma and CH-53 support helicopters are piloted by non-commissioned officers in France and Germany, respectively.
3.32 The question of the variation of front-line aircrew ranks was last addressed by the Department in 1996. The Department concluded that the status quo should remain. Moreover, it concluded that no significant cost savings would arise from using non-commissioned officer pilots because of the differences in individual Service training costs, rates of pay, and time spent in the various ranks. It also noted that there was little scope to harmonise aircrew ranks because the Services operated their helicopters differently. However, the work that informed the establishment of the Joint Helicopter Command suggested that the issue should be reexamined once the Command had "bedded in".
Furthermore, in considering the introduction into service of the Apache, the Committee of Public Accounts has recommended that the Department should examine the possibility of using non-commissioned officers as aircrew across all three Services.
Last edited by XV277; 29th Oct 2012 at 11:12.
The R.A.F. re-introduced N.C.O. pilots (and navs) in the early 60's. There were 4 sergeant pilots on the same course as I was at 5 F.T.S. Oakington (Varsities) at the beginning of '64, one of whom was then on the same Shack course as me. To my knowledge 2 of them were still N.C.O.s as late as '68. I believe they were all commisioned shortly afterwards.
I think the " sunshine " issue had something to do with it, as Coastal Command's sunshine was supplied by the septics.
I think the " sunshine " issue had something to do with it, as Coastal Command's sunshine was supplied by the septics.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting.
Can someone in the know post if the ratio (as described above) is 68 : 32 in both front and back seats of an AH?
Am I right that the front seater is what I would think of as 'Aircraft Captain'?
Also, would a sideways 'NCO entrant' scheme work or are the formative years prior to Pilot's Course actually critical?
Can someone in the know post if the ratio (as described above) is 68 : 32 in both front and back seats of an AH?
Am I right that the front seater is what I would think of as 'Aircraft Captain'?
Also, would a sideways 'NCO entrant' scheme work or are the formative years prior to Pilot's Course actually critical?
...or are the formative years prior to Pilot's Course actually critical?
Last edited by diginagain; 29th Oct 2012 at 14:32.
Surely the actual reason is that the average pongo officer is such a dimwitted inbred that he requires a competent NCO to complete any task more demanding than sitting on a horse? Flying an aircraft would be beyond the skill set of most of them, so those more intelligent are chosen....
Yup, pretty well sums up the pedigree of the average Woopert of the Wedgiment.....
(And no, of course I'm not being serious! Not that serious, I should add.)
'Somewhere outside Saffron Walden there's an uncle who is seven feet tall with no chin and an Adam's apple that makes him look as if he's constantly trying to swallow a ballcock.'
(And no, of course I'm not being serious! Not that serious, I should add.)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the answer, but those figures are 8 years old (at least) so may not take into account operational experience of the AH.
Last edited by XV277; 29th Oct 2012 at 14:56.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are those that have the skills required of aircrew, and those that have the skills required of officers. Given the excessive number of utter throbbers in the RAF aircrew officer corps, the two appear to have been confused. It must be considerably cheaper to put a recruit through officer training than aircrew training, so perhaps it's a numbers game, with inevitable results - often not manifested until they acquire higher rank.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: uk
Age: 67
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's in a title?
I joined the Army Air Corps in 1975 as an Airtrooper, (private soldier) bowser driver, after 3 yrs I became a Corporal Observer/Airgunner, (co-pilot in effect, front left seat, dual controls etc), 3 yrs after that I completed a 12 month pilots course, and quailfied as a Sergeant pilot.
6 years later I left the Army Air Corps, because of the habit of making officers senior pilots and flight commanders, not on abillity or experiance, but purely on the basis "rank".
When I subsequently started flying with a civil helicopter company, I started as a 2nd officer, then 1st officer, senior 1st officer, Captain. My point is, dispite the use in the civil aviation world of the word "officer", is that all aviators, in all services, should be in the job they are in, because of abillity, not because of perceived "rank".
So why not have all aviators in the milliary use the civil system
6 years later I left the Army Air Corps, because of the habit of making officers senior pilots and flight commanders, not on abillity or experiance, but purely on the basis "rank".
When I subsequently started flying with a civil helicopter company, I started as a 2nd officer, then 1st officer, senior 1st officer, Captain. My point is, dispite the use in the civil aviation world of the word "officer", is that all aviators, in all services, should be in the job they are in, because of abillity, not because of perceived "rank".
So why not have all aviators in the milliary use the civil system
Last edited by luckyrat; 31st Oct 2012 at 18:58.
