Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

'Non-Traditional' Aircrew

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

'Non-Traditional' Aircrew

Old 2nd Nov 2019, 14:18
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 8
NOT a Flying Badge

Originally Posted by beardy View Post
That would be an interesting risk assessment and justification.

Yet it happens.... routinely.
KBW10101 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 15:33
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,655
An historical perspective from owning and reading a complete run of Queen's and King's Regulations of the Army from Wellington's times {I do military history!] and the subsequent amendments demonstrates that many a clerical error is made, only to be corrected. Until that correction, the writ runs.
"For $hit read shot" indeed.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 18:36
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 246
Voyager AAR sorties require a crew of 3:

2x Pilots
1x Mission Systems Operator (WSO or WSOp)

However, if pax are carried during an AAR sortie the crew will also include:

1x cabin crew for up to 18 pax
5x cabin crew for up to 105 pax
8 x cabin crew for anything greater than 105
Door Slider is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 20:39
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post
”Hostie”, “Air Hostess”, “Stewardess” etc are inappropriate terms that carry the implication that such personnel are onboard mainly for the delivery of “hospitality”.

The reality is contrary to this misconception. The primary duties of Cabin Crew are safety-critical and they deserve to be respected for their role. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following competencies:

Immediate Care (First Aid)
Abnormal and Emergency procedures, including -
  • Firefighting onboard aircraft
  • Ditching / Forced Landing
  • Emergency Evacuation
  • Decompression
  • Operation of all Emergency Equipment
  • Pilot incapacitation
Aviation Security
CRM
Human Performance
SMS
Fatigue Management
Survival and Rescue (Land and Sea)

Arguably, Cabin Crew are more directly involved in the operation of aircraft than some of the other trades. Perhaps Cabin Crew ought to be brought into the scope of this review and be awarded an equivalent ‘proper’ brevet?
Are cabin crew employed on C-130, C-17 or A400 if it's a safety thing?
heights good is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 20:42
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by heights good View Post


Are cabin crew employed on C-130, C-17 or A400 if it's a safety thing?
Do they carry passengers who require the safety expertise of Cabin Crew?
beardy is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 21:40
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Do they carry passengers who require the safety expertise of Cabin Crew?

They CAN carry over 100 passengers ( near 200 in c17) yet they do not require cabin crew. Just one ALM.
( up to a specificities number then 2x ALM etc)


They are briefed on the exits and how to use them in an emergency.

The difference is on a Voyager, you’re not letting passengers open their own exits. 7 or so cabin crew to open the doors for you would be the difference using their door opening expertise.

KBW10101 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2019, 22:01
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 48
Posts: 1,759
Originally Posted by Door Slider View Post
Voyager AAR sorties require a crew of 3:

2x Pilots
1x Mission Systems Operator (WSO or WSOp)

However, if pax are carried during an AAR sortie the crew will also include:

1x cabin crew for up to 18 pax
5x cabin crew for up to 105 pax
8 x cabin crew for anything greater than 105
Unlike the 737 (with 8 exits) which I commute on each week, which has 3 cabin crew for a mix of 139 men, women, children, non-ambulant passengers. Someone is gilding a lilly....
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2019, 11:46
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,201
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat View Post
Unlike the 737 (with 8 exits) which I commute on each week, which has 3 cabin crew for a mix of 139 men, women, children, non-ambulant passengers. Someone is gilding a lilly....
There should be one member of cabin crew available to man each exit equipped with a slide, dependent on pax numbers. The Voyager has 8 such exits and hence the need for max 8 cabin crew. The 737 ISTR has four such exits and hence should have 4 cabin crew to man them (again dependent on pax numbers). Perhaps someone has a somewhat tarnished lilly? I would add that the Purser/ Cabin Supervisor/ No. 1 is deemed Cabin Crew for this purpose.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2019, 19:07
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,503
The 'one per exit' rule seems to be some old Transport Command thing...

When studying Air Law for my R/BCPL/FI so that I could provide remunerated flight instruction on Cherokees, I learned that the civil world requires one CC per 50 pax or fraction thereof, whenever one or more passengers are carried. One of the more irrelevant parts of the Air Law syllabus for PPL instructors...

So in a CAT aeroplane with 149 seats and half a dozen passengers, the same 3 CC are required as for 149 passengers. There will probably be 8 emergency exits on such aircraft, so if you're travelling in an overwing window seat in an emergency exit row, you should be given a brief from the CC about how to operate the overwing exit. The last time I flew in such circumstances with Lufthansa, I was given a very professional brief from a most efficient young lady CC, including the specific PA announcement which would precede evacuation.

8 CC in a Voyager with 106 passengers does seem to be rather OTT?

Lufthansa used to carry more CC than JAR-OPS required, but that was back in the halcyon pre-Apr 2004 days before the LoCos dumbed airline travel down to its current dire level, so that those of us lucky enough to be travelling in biz class could enjoy a high quality service. Birmingham to Frankfurt meant a large gin and tonic and some almonds shortly after the belt signs were extinguished, followed by a 3-course hot meal with as much wine as one wished, then coffee and brandy plus a couple of choccie truffles. Those were the days!
BEagle is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2019, 20:07
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,904
Originally Posted by longer ron View Post
If I may quote myself from the 'Observer' thread in 2012


Interestingly MOD call the Pilots wings a 'Badge' and the rear crew wing a 'Brevet'
That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (my bold added):

206. Flying Badges - wearing of
Sponsor: UCPSM Cer & Pol

(1) Flying badges are divided into two categories, those in current issue, for which aircrew are qualified under the terms of paras J727 and 728 and those no longer issued, for which members of the RAF qualified under regulations in force from time to time. These badges are:

(a) Current issued:

Pilot
Weapon Systems Officer (WSO)
Weapon Systems Operator (WSOp)
Fighter Controller (FC)
Airborne Technician (AT)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Pilot), UAS personnel only. See para 728.

(b) Previously in issue:

Navigator(N)
Air Electronics Officer(AE)
Air Electronics Operator(AE)
Air Engineer(E)
Air Signaller(S)
Air Loadmaster(LM)
Air Observer (O)
Air Bomber (B)
Wireless Operator (air) (S)
Wireless Operator Mechanic (air) (S)
Meteorological Air Observer (M)
Observer (Radio) (RO)
Air Gunner (AG)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Pilot)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Navigator)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Signaller)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Engineer)
The Preliminary Flying Badge (Gunner)

The preliminary flying badges listed in clause (1)(b) above, were previously awarded to personnel of the RAFVRand WRAFVRentered for flying duties who successfully completed the basic stage of training and passed the prescribed tests and examinations.

(2) A flying badge, being a qualification badge, is not to be regarded as either a decoration or the equivalent of a regimental badge. Service personnel are not to wear any of the badges listed in clause (1) unless authority for them to do so has been granted in accordance with the regulations prescribed from time to time by the Defence Council.

(3) Personnel who qualified for the award of the flying badge or Observers Badge under regulations in force in the RAF prior to the 3rd September 1939, or under regulations in force from time to time in the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Naval Air Service, may wear the RAF pilot badge or air observer badge, provided that the qualification appears in the official records of officers and airmen held by the MOD. Any cases of doubt should be referred to HQ PTC.

(4) An officer, on ceasing to be employed on flying duties and an airman on being remustered to a ground trade, may elect to wear any of the badges for which he has been previously qualified.

(5) A foreign flying badge is not to be worn with RAF uniform. This regulation does not preclude RAFpersonnel from accepting the presentation of a foreign flying badge.

(6) Entitled and authorized flying badges are to be worn in accordance with RAF Dress Regulations.
Note, no mention of Air Steward or Cabin Crew badges as they are not Aircrew...

Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2019, 21:48
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (myNote, no mention of Air Steward or Cabin Crew badges as they are not Aircrew...

Nor any mention of the QM Badge which preceded the LM Badge .
NRU74 is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2019, 22:38
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: northofwhereiusedtobe
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
That Sir, is an error that has been up for amendment for 2 years or so. The quote is from AP1358 that is subservient to Queen’s Regulations (QRs); and in particular QR206 that states (my bold added):
Fairy Snuff Sir - but my point was that it had been known as a 'Brevet' so not surprising perhaps that some might refer to it as that (I had only quickly checked for any updates online and had not found anything post 2015) .
I have never used 'brevet' myself - a 'Half Wing' perhaps.
longer ron is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2019, 00:51
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,201
It seems that the 1 for every 50 seats (not pax) as described by BEagle is the norm. However wide bodied aircraft (like the Voyager) require I CC for every door exit (rather than window o/wing exits) or 1 for every 50 seats, whichever is the greater. Hence the 8 required for Voyager.

There are some aircraft that require more than these minimum numbers, each type having the certificated requirement stated. The 737 mentioned earlier has a minimum of 3 or 4 depending on seat numbers (B737-400/3, B737-800/4). These numbers can vary with the country of registration.

LJ, of course QR's don't list Cabin Crew Flying Badges, because the RAF doesn't award them yet. Hence this lengthy thread! We still have the anomaly whereby the military regulator (the MAA) describes Cabin Crew as aircrew, to which Flying Badges are normally awarded, but the RAF doesn't recognise them as aircrew, preferring to characterise them as a Ground Trade and to which it is presently recruiting :-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/r...ground-steward
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2019, 07:37
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: one side of la Manche
Posts: 140
LJ et al
I have no skin in this fight, but for the sake of a balanced argument on brevet vs badge, QR434 (2) as at AL41 of Jun 2016, muddies the water by stating:

434. Training of Personnel in Parachute Jumping Instructor Duties.
Sponsor: OC ADW


(2) (PJI) brevets will be awarded to personnel who satisfactorily complete the PJI course. Following

productive employment as a PJI, personnel may continue to wear the brevet on reversion to other

employment, on transfer to another Branch, or on remustering to another Trade. The badge confers

honorary aircrew status without affecting basic conditions of service.


Even if now amended further, it certainly shows that there is/was confusion around the definitions of brevet and badge.

Regards
Batco


BATCO is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 07:06
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 473
The “Department of all things Flying” in the MoD ( the MAA) classifies Cabin Crew as aircrew, but the “Department of Badges and Hats” takes primacy.

I can accept that this situation just ‘came about’ and wasn't designed, but if a review of “non traditional” aircrew is taking place then surely Cabin Crew must be in scope? It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained ,particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 08:04
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,201
Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post
The “Department of all things Flying” in the MoD ( the MAA) classifies Cabin Crew as aircrew, but the “Department of Badges and Hats” takes primacy.

I can accept that this situation just ‘came about’ and wasn't designed, but if a review of “non traditional” aircrew is taking place then surely Cabin Crew must be in scope? It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained ,particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.
Excellent post, BP. The many different initials that have appeared within the laurel leafed half wings worn by RAF aircrew from its very inception have come and gone, but ALL members of RAF aircrew have worn them eventually, if not at first. Now it is the turn of RAF Cabin Crew. They are legally aircrew, because the regulator says so. Time for the RAF to swallow its pride along with its prejudices and allow its Cabin Crew the same recognition extended to the rest of its aircrew, ie an aircrew brevet (amendment to follow...).
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 09:17
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,215
It would be shame if the status-quo were maintained, particularly if the reasons were fundamentally those of ingrained snobbery and (misplaced) elitism regarding rank/trade/branch that some posters are exhibiting.
It’s not elitist or snobbish to say that cabin crew is a role which can and should be carried out by junior ranks, if that’s what you’re implying. Unlike some trades (e.g. aircraft technicians) the pay and status of junior RAF cabin crew is in the same ballpark as their civilian counterparts (and probably substantially better when housing, pension etc is considered). In today’s highly technical service there are seriously well-educated and accomplished individuals to be found at every rank. It’s an elitist view to say that junior cabin crew should hold higher rank simply because they fly, when they are supervised (by the purser) to the same extent as any other junior rank. So perhaps the most appropriate answer to the regulatory conundrum would be to remove the requirement for aircrew to be SNCOs.

But I can see why this could be perceived as the thin end of the wedge, especially for some (e.g. ISTAR mission crew) where the ‘unsupervised’ argument isn’t as clear and obvious as for others (e.g. loadmasters). Plus it needs to be borne in mind that there have been sensitivities over the lower-than-expected pay banding of NCO aircrew, which is going for review in the near future. The politics of that are complicated: ISTAR mission crew roles are highly technical, but then so are intelligence-related ground trades. Opening the opportunity for MOD job assessors to solve the problem at neutral cost by moving the trade up a pay band while down-ranking junior roles is probably not high on the trade sponsor’s to-do list. As ever, the plot is more complex and political than it appears. As ever, careful what you wish for...

Last edited by Easy Street; 5th Nov 2019 at 10:25.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 12:34
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,198
It’s an elitist view to say that junior cabin crew should hold higher rank simply because they fly, when they are supervised (by the purser) to the same extent as any other junior rank.
They used to be acting corporals and were drawn from the Stewards trade and could be posted back to their ground based trade after their tour / posting ended. The rank of acting Cpl was given to them to help them carry out their duties over the likes of bolshy pongoes and "infer" a bit of authority in the cabin.
The trouble I used to find was they often used to think they were above themselves, I had one tried to order me to get off her aircraft! pretty impressive considering I was doing a hot turnaround with the pax kicked off while I uplifted fuel for it to continue on its way.. She soon learnt the error of her ways.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 12:39
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,198
If the MAA demanded that the cabin carpets be hoovered in flight and required a "Flight Cleaner" as part of every crew then that Cleaner would be Aircrew; headscarf, drooping fag, Nora Batty stockings, and all. Aircrew isn't a status, it's a description, and RAF Aircrew are identified by the wearing of a Brevet. So give CC a Brevet.
So part of my job used to involve carrying out airtests on Chinooks, therefore as an Enginner required to fly on airtests and carry out adjustments etc, would you then award them a Brevet too? I seem to remember that flying pay was granted.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2019, 18:28
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,201
Nutty, I think we've been round this buoy already. There are many personnel who are temporarily attached to a crew for various reasons, ground engineers as you mention, PJIs for paradrops, Air Despatchers for supply drops, etc. They all have one thing in common, they are not part of a regular crew, ie they are not aircrew (though some we learn are honorary).

Cabin Crew are clearly Aircrew and yet not awarded a Brevet. That is an anomaly that needs resolving. As to their rank, that is a matter for the RAF. Anticipating a Catch-22 response that they can only be aircrew if they are Sgts, then my response is to then make them Sgts. If it is not necessary then let them retain their present ranks, acting or substantive. Either way they are RAF Aircrew and should thus wear an RAF Aircrew Brevet.

Finally Nutty, if it is of any comfort to you I overheard a civvie member of cabin crew giving orders to a ground engineer, simply because he was in overalls and his hands were dirty. Like you, I corrected her misunderstanding...

AL1. Please amend the word "Brevet" above to read "Badge" in all cases. I thank you.
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.