Shortage of Navs
Could be the Last,
Lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds informed the debate. The, so called, decision loop took place way above that level. Decisions way above anyone that was looking for a place on Voyager. You may know something I don't about this. If you do, inform the debate with that. Like who did what you claim?
Lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds informed the debate. The, so called, decision loop took place way above that level. Decisions way above anyone that was looking for a place on Voyager. You may know something I don't about this. If you do, inform the debate with that. Like who did what you claim?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the badge, you just need someone with the requisite experience of mission/sensor managing.
Thread Starter
Just to clarify. I was talking about more than P8 and the POTENTIAL of a buy of this airframe will only make the situation worse.
For what its worth I've seen quite a few FJ Navs re-role into E3, R1, VC10, MQ-9, C130, Sentinel, Shadow and PR9 by just doing an OCU. The other way around for ME Navs, NCA and other rear crew normally involved at least a cross-over or a full-on Nav course to sit in the boot of a FJ OCU. I remember they trialled a Fighter Controller and a couple of AEOs on F3 in the 90s with a total failure of the course. So they obviously taught something at Finningley/Cranwell that the others just did not get.
Finally, throwing a pilot in the boot and expecting them to 'cope', BV, is not going to work. I've seen experienced QWIs/QFIs have a pretty torrid time in the boot on the simplest missions due to their lack of familiarity. I also know a few Navs that passed a 'dual check' in the front seat of a F3 but their close formation was dreadful - again due to a lack of familiarity with that particular exercise, but could fly an instrument approach to a good standard.
Horses for courses?
LJ
For what its worth I've seen quite a few FJ Navs re-role into E3, R1, VC10, MQ-9, C130, Sentinel, Shadow and PR9 by just doing an OCU. The other way around for ME Navs, NCA and other rear crew normally involved at least a cross-over or a full-on Nav course to sit in the boot of a FJ OCU. I remember they trialled a Fighter Controller and a couple of AEOs on F3 in the 90s with a total failure of the course. So they obviously taught something at Finningley/Cranwell that the others just did not get.
Finally, throwing a pilot in the boot and expecting them to 'cope', BV, is not going to work. I've seen experienced QWIs/QFIs have a pretty torrid time in the boot on the simplest missions due to their lack of familiarity. I also know a few Navs that passed a 'dual check' in the front seat of a F3 but their close formation was dreadful - again due to a lack of familiarity with that particular exercise, but could fly an instrument approach to a good standard.
Horses for courses?
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry LJ I think I've missed something somewhere.
So apart from Flight Deck Navs on 2 current ISR platforms and GR4 Navs (OSD 2019), where are all these posts that require filling? Because I'm under the impression that all other rear crew seats are currently any flavour WSO/WSOp.
So apart from Flight Deck Navs on 2 current ISR platforms and GR4 Navs (OSD 2019), where are all these posts that require filling? Because I'm under the impression that all other rear crew seats are currently any flavour WSO/WSOp.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Mentioned before, the man from Barnwood (1989) asked the question at the MOD Navigation Training sub-committee, "what is the long term future of the navigator branch,?"
It was becoming obvious 25 years ago that fewer would be needed. The nub therefore was 'when'. What is now apparent, and was really apparent when training stopped, is that they stopped too soon.
With a GR4 OSD. of 2025 a new nav could have expected a full flying career to the 38/16 option point. Older navs could serve to 55 so job done and training could stop.
Of course that ignored the fact that navs could PVR too.
It was becoming obvious 25 years ago that fewer would be needed. The nub therefore was 'when'. What is now apparent, and was really apparent when training stopped, is that they stopped too soon.
With a GR4 OSD. of 2025 a new nav could have expected a full flying career to the 38/16 option point. Older navs could serve to 55 so job done and training could stop.
Of course that ignored the fact that navs could PVR too.
Once the sextant and LORAN C were taken out and I no longer had to collect a chicken from in-flight catering to sacrifice before three star astro shots, I developed the role into 'crew entertainments officer' and organised the knobbly knees contests on the flight deck and games of quoits in the freight bay for the first-class passengers.
Thread Starter
I read it today in an IBN:
"Extensions in the use of certain air platforms have disrupted forward planning for the WSO cadre; this requires stabilising."
"OF2 WSO manning levels are taut."
"The increased manpower footprint required to support certain air platforms has brought WSO manning levels under close scrutiny. In order to ensure continued operational output and to stabilise forward planning for the WSO cadre, an increase in minimum waiting time from 6 to 12 months is required. This change was discussed and agreed by all parties at the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel held at Air Command on 15 Apr 15"
So I guess that the situation described by GGII of "all these posts that need filling" has been warranted the IBN and this action from Manning?
The phrase 'porked it' comes to mind and thus the recent Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review and the shedding of traditional aircrew jobs to non-aircrew serves to give a somewhat bleak outlook. Furthermore, I notice that the most recent MAA External Audit Panel (MEAP) has reported on the difficulty in getting Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) into the required MAA posts that has made for significant comment in the MEAP2014 report.
So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.
IMHO of course...
LJ
"Extensions in the use of certain air platforms have disrupted forward planning for the WSO cadre; this requires stabilising."
"OF2 WSO manning levels are taut."
"The increased manpower footprint required to support certain air platforms has brought WSO manning levels under close scrutiny. In order to ensure continued operational output and to stabilise forward planning for the WSO cadre, an increase in minimum waiting time from 6 to 12 months is required. This change was discussed and agreed by all parties at the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel held at Air Command on 15 Apr 15"
So I guess that the situation described by GGII of "all these posts that need filling" has been warranted the IBN and this action from Manning?
The phrase 'porked it' comes to mind and thus the recent Officer Aircrew Sustainability Review and the shedding of traditional aircrew jobs to non-aircrew serves to give a somewhat bleak outlook. Furthermore, I notice that the most recent MAA External Audit Panel (MEAP) has reported on the difficulty in getting Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs) into the required MAA posts that has made for significant comment in the MEAP2014 report.
So, yes, I think that WSO training was turned off too early. I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2. So the use of other WSO/WSOp to do the traditional staff tours that Navs had done previously has probably worsened the situation as some rear-crew are less 'aircraft flyers' and more 'kit operators' in certain key posts that require experience with specific flying, safety and regulation backgrounds that some WSO/WSOps just don't have.
IMHO of course...
LJ
the 1* Recognised People Picture Review Panel
Maybe budget cuts are no longer the major threat to the UK's armed forces.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Leon Jabachjabicz;9006234
I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2.
LJ[/QUOTE]
And where might I add does the average OF-2 learn how to do 'quality' staff work?
9 months at Sleaford Tech and JOD certainly don't do much in the way of staff training.
Any MAcr could fulfil an OF-2 post in his sleep.
I also think the other current barking mad idea is expecting NCA to be good staff officers - and sending MACRs to ICSC is not going to allow them to do staff work to the same quality as an OF-3 or OF-2.
LJ[/QUOTE]
And where might I add does the average OF-2 learn how to do 'quality' staff work?
9 months at Sleaford Tech and JOD certainly don't do much in the way of staff training.
Any MAcr could fulfil an OF-2 post in his sleep.
Shortage of Navs
LJ.
You will see that I very deliberately said GR4. I had never suggested it would work in the F3. The point is moot though since I have already conceded.
However, since all I ever hear from GR4 mates is that they hardly have any serviceable airframes when at home base I had based my suggestion on this bleak picture. Maybe that was embellishment on their behalf.
Still firmly in my box though.
BV
You will see that I very deliberately said GR4. I had never suggested it would work in the F3. The point is moot though since I have already conceded.
However, since all I ever hear from GR4 mates is that they hardly have any serviceable airframes when at home base I had based my suggestion on this bleak picture. Maybe that was embellishment on their behalf.
Still firmly in my box though.
BV
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
Thanks, your last paragraph helps me understand your thinking on the subject.
I will not comment further as my 'Baldrick' like lack of experience or proper training make make me incapable of an analytical reply.
p.s. In Private Plane (s4e4) isn't Baldrick the Nav?
Thanks, your last paragraph helps me understand your thinking on the subject.
I will not comment further as my 'Baldrick' like lack of experience or proper training make make me incapable of an analytical reply.
p.s. In Private Plane (s4e4) isn't Baldrick the Nav?
Last edited by Guernsey Girl II; 10th Jun 2015 at 06:11.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAD Boom
Are you having a bit of a class war moment?
I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.
Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.
It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.
If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.
Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.
Are you having a bit of a class war moment?
I know it's not PC to say it nowadays, but Officers and NCA are different. That is why there are more stringent recruiting procedures for officers.
Officers go through a more stringent recruitment and then have a lot more money spent training them.
It is accepted universally, though not explicitly nowadays, that Officers do a better job.
That is why they are employed despite the significant extra cost.
If this interferes with your socialist worker moment then tough.
Are the best of the NCA superior to the worst of the Officers?
Certainly.
Is the average NCA more suited to run the military/aircraft than the average Officer?
No. Not outside of television shows.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
I suffered much "Why does it have to be an officer - NCA could do your job" in the back of the E-3. My answer was - and remains - "if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission". It is surprizing how many wanted the job but were not prepared to accept the added responsibility that went with it!
Tourist - it's the standard NCO vs officer diatribe that one gets in the RAF. 'Navigators always get lost, are only there to carry the bags' vs 'Salt of the earth, only people on the ac who work hard'. It gets really testing (especially as I once spent 2 years as the only navigator on a sqn of pilots and crewmen), but you get used to it. One of the reasons why the crew room became a place to avoid.
You're very correct!
You're very correct!
...manpower footprint...
When a certain air force was about to introduce tankers into service, they initially decided that an 'operator' would suffice. So they did a trial; one chap did OK, the others didn't. Then the aircraft was fitted with a mission system - it was clear that the person operating it needed an air navigation background. So they changed their minds and used ex-Tornado and (a few) ex-F4 WSOs, who had sufficient capacity to offload some of the tasks more normally the responsibility of the pilots, such as formation management. That worked very well and the 3-person environment has enabled them to gain high respect for their work from NATO allies.
Their colleagues in another country with the same aircraft decided to use ex-C130 navs; again, that went OK but their pilots do more of the formation control etc. They also have the respect of NATO allies.
So when another air force was about to introduce a 3-person tanker, they were advised that at least 3 other nations had tried to use ALMs etc. for the task and that hadn't been successful. But no, they decided that they had to know better.....
The reason? To save on salary costs....
I gather that the decision is now being reviewed.Wensleydale wrote:
"if you believe that you can do the job and want to do the job then apply for a commission".
Why do 'manning' not listen to the opinions of those with experience in the roles in question? Too often they just seemed to want to justify the ar$e decision of some thrusting SO/VSO who wouldn't listen to reason....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see your viewpoint and respect your opinion, but we 'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I wasn't referring to the 'average' NCA, but the MAcr cadre who I have the privilege to work with every day. I wouldn't describe any one of them as average.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAD
I have also worked with MAcr.
They were frankly excellent.
Excellent at their role.
Their role was specialised. That is the point.
None of them pretended otherwise.
A lot of RN observers are ex aircrewmen. A lot of them are mates of mine. Many have said something along the lines of "I kept sitting alongside this Officer who seemed to have an easier job than me so I thought I'd give it a go"
Most of those good enough to be given the chance pass BOC. Very few of them have quite the same opinion of how easy the Officers job is afterwards.
A good NAV WSO Observer may make it look easy, but that doesn't mean it is.
I have also worked with MAcr.
They were frankly excellent.
Excellent at their role.
Their role was specialised. That is the point.
None of them pretended otherwise.
A lot of RN observers are ex aircrewmen. A lot of them are mates of mine. Many have said something along the lines of "I kept sitting alongside this Officer who seemed to have an easier job than me so I thought I'd give it a go"
Most of those good enough to be given the chance pass BOC. Very few of them have quite the same opinion of how easy the Officers job is afterwards.
A good NAV WSO Observer may make it look easy, but that doesn't mean it is.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ice station kilo
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has gone down a predicable path that I bet any O or SNCO from a Battle of Britian or a Bomber Offensive Sqn would recognise. However, back to now, we are becoming (in terms of aircrew at least) a 'pilot centric airforce' where the requirements for the Nav specelisation will become very soon, very niche.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the WSO tasks that remain (even if/when P8 arrives) should become SNCO posts. The right people will be selected from the ranks of WSOps to become Os.
Now the only other issue is the claim that a non Nav WSO is not as broad an O as a Nav, that surely, just as with Navs is purely on the individuals experience and ability, any other attitude is now as relervent as Sight Reduction Tables.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the WSO tasks that remain (even if/when P8 arrives) should become SNCO posts. The right people will be selected from the ranks of WSOps to become Os.
Now the only other issue is the claim that a non Nav WSO is not as broad an O as a Nav, that surely, just as with Navs is purely on the individuals experience and ability, any other attitude is now as relervent as Sight Reduction Tables.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Tourist. The RAF gave up Nav/WSO training because there was no justification for keeping it going given the OSDs of Nav/WSO capable aircraft. There is no way (in my opinion) that a restart of the RAF Nav cadre could be justified if (and only if) the MPA role is reinstated. As an ex "Manner" such a small cadre would not be sustainable in career terms. So, if officer back seaters are required they will have to be supplied by the RN FAA, who can offer a full career structure to the Observer cadre.
For CM re compensating reductions (or not). This is the role of SDSR. If MoD want to reintroduce the capability it will either be at the expense of something else or they will have to convince the Treasury to agree to an uplift in manpower. I am sure a similar arguement has/is been going on re manning the 2nd QE class after the PM announced, and continues to announce, we would run both. I suspect an RN uplift in manpower is in the offing in SDSR, possibly at the expense of the other 2 Services.
For CM re compensating reductions (or not). This is the role of SDSR. If MoD want to reintroduce the capability it will either be at the expense of something else or they will have to convince the Treasury to agree to an uplift in manpower. I am sure a similar arguement has/is been going on re manning the 2nd QE class after the PM announced, and continues to announce, we would run both. I suspect an RN uplift in manpower is in the offing in SDSR, possibly at the expense of the other 2 Services.