'Non-Traditional' Aircrew
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”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 -
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?
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
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?
Looks like what you’ve just described is a Loadmasters’ job? There’s already plenty of those ... who wear a flying badge... no need to steal their jobs you know.
Arketip - you may have noticed that the origins of this thread refer to the changes to the flying badges worn by members of the Royal Air Force. You should also be aware that the RAF is one of the branches of Her Majesties Armed Forces. Not sure if you have ever been exposed to any form of military service but one of the tenets is to wear a specific uniform for a specific occasion, whether that be a day to day flying suit or perhaps your Numbet 1 uniform for a formal event. They key though is ‘UNIFORMITY’, as laid down in an appropriate document. If the thought of wearing a regulation uniform is unpalatable to you, then perhaps you are talking to the wrong people?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Talk about thread drift. Ever since post 3 this has been heading off at at tangent from the OP. Non-Traditional Aircrew are mission specialists such as FC, IA or AT, nothing to do with stewards or movers. They have done at least a course in Aviation Fundamentals at Cranwell alongside the Generic WSOp students before specialist training on type. Since the established rear crew trades were all amalgamated into WSOp, should there be a one size fits all Mission Specialist flying badge too? Or since they are so different, maybe keep them separate and let some of the old badges make a comeback - N, AE, LM for instance?
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not aircrew.
Talk about thread drift. Ever since post 3 this has been heading off at at tangent from the OP. Non-Traditional Aircrew are mission specialists such as FC, IA or AT, nothing to do with stewards or movers. They have done at least a course in Aviation Fundamentals at Cranwell alongside the Generic WSOp students before specialist training on type. Since the established rear crew trades were all amalgamated into WSOp, should there be a one size fits all Mission Specialist flying badge too? Or since they are so different, maybe keep them separate and let some of the old badges make a comeback - N, AE, LM for instance?
They created a brevet that isn’t recognised by QR206 and wear it unofficially because they think they are aircrew, yet their trade is a ground trade.
Lots of trades who’s ‘brevet’ should be a trade qualification badge that they’ve made into a pseudo brevet.
This thread takes me back to the pre internet 70's and the lengthy discussions via 'letters to Air Clues' regarding the introduction of brevets on 'woolly pullies'! I seem to recall cursing and swearing after having spent an hour trying to sew my wings on so that they were horizontal, discovering that the front of the woolly pully was now joined to the back :-(
Specaircrew wrote:
Which were originally intended to be a joke, but someone actually took them seriously so we ended up with the cloth moth on woolly pullies - which looks daft.
The 'Sweater cashmere, with moleskin facings' mess kit woolly pully was a much better spoof in 1980-ish! Courtesy of 115 Sqn, I understand.
This thread takes me back to the pre internet 70's and the lengthy discussions via 'letters to Air Clues' regarding the introduction of brevets on 'woolly pullies'!
The 'Sweater cashmere, with moleskin facings' mess kit woolly pully was a much better spoof in 1980-ish! Courtesy of 115 Sqn, I understand.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
I am minded of the leather flying jacket issued to the USAF aircrew back in the 80s. As a so called retention benefit, USAF aircrew were issued with a leather flying jacket - however, the AWACS mission crew were not allowed to have one because they were not "real" aircrew: there was certainly some leather envy going on with the American AWACS people at Geilenkirchen! As a result, it was suggested that the rear crew be issued with goat leather flying helmets to keep them happy....real goat mind you because synthetic goat leather would make them look cheap!!
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn’t give a toss. It seems that it is only pee-stained keyboard warriors with nothing better to worry about that do.
Of primary concern is ‘can they do their job? Do they perform the role correctly?’
Maybe you dinosaurs should be more concerned about the ever-increasing girth of the RAF serviceman and officer. There are some shockers. And the beard thing just looks scruffy.
Of primary concern is ‘can they do their job? Do they perform the role correctly?’
Maybe you dinosaurs should be more concerned about the ever-increasing girth of the RAF serviceman and officer. There are some shockers. And the beard thing just looks scruffy.
As scruffy as a navy matelot who’ve been allowed to have beards for like 400- 500 years?
yeah- that’s totally different.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 99 Likes
on
70 Posts
Didn't AG's suffer the same myopia for many years, being ground trades, with a winged bullet badge, before being finally ( due to circumstances beyond the RAF's control ) elevated to brevet status....despite being more than a bit useful as part of a crew irrespective of the form of insignia to designate their role. No doubt there's some equally arcane AP reference for the period 1923-1939 available.......
Didn't AG's suffer the same myopia for many years, being ground trades, with a winged bullet badge, before being finally ( due to circumstances beyond the RAF's control ) elevated to brevet status....despite being more than a bit useful as part of a crew irrespective of the form of insignia to designate their role. No doubt there's some equally arcane AP reference for the period 1923-1939 available.......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From MAA Master Glossary: Aircrew - Persons having duties concerned either with operating or the flying of Air Systems or with passengers or cargo when in flight.
Fairly clear isn’t it? Cabin Crew fall into the definition of Aircrew.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOT a Flying Badge
So the attempt to encourage you to see Cabin Crew as primarily performing the role of a safety critical crewmember and not as catering function was not successful. Perhaps the MAA definition might help?
From MAA Master Glossary: Aircrew - Persons having duties concerned either with operating or the flying of Air Systems or with passengers or cargo when in flight.
Fairly clear isn’t it? Cabin Crew fall into the definition of Aircrew.
From MAA Master Glossary: Aircrew - Persons having duties concerned either with operating or the flying of Air Systems or with passengers or cargo when in flight.
Fairly clear isn’t it? Cabin Crew fall into the definition of Aircrew.
Its clear in terms of the MAA , yes- as its a role in the air.
Its also clear according to QR206 that they are not awarded a flying badge, as "CC" badge is NOT a flying badge.
And according to AP1358 the badge they wear is a Trade Qualification Badge, not a Flying Badge- therefore not authorised to wear it in the same position of uniform as a Flying Badge. Fairly Clear isnt it? - yes AP1358 is.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Urcal (Almeria)
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair Play ?
Re Chugalug #51 Was not the same nonsense repeated when machine guns were mounted on helicopters ? First we used RAF Rgt gunners,or failing them,armorers. Then when those drawing flying pay tried to get it for the MG operators, the answer was NO,additional cost of life insurance notwithstanding. Eventually the duty fell to AQMs.
additional cost of life insurance notwithstanding.
additional cost of life insurance notwithstanding.
cs, sounds par for the course certainly. Just remembered our 30 Sqn a/g was on Battles not the Wellesley, the first being deemed front line, the latter not in 1940. Both were totally obsolete of course by then.
Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?
Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....
Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?
Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOT a Flying Badge
cs, sounds par for the course certainly. Just remembered our 30 Sqn a/g was on Battles not the Wellesley, the first being deemed front line, the latter not in 1940. Both were totally obsolete of course by then.
Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?
Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....
Must admit I find the discussion re RAF Cabin Crew as being a ground trade rather confusing. Are they not deemed aircrew? If not, why not? They share the same awesome responsibilities as their civilian counterparts, to safely evacuate their passengers on command and within mere seconds, to cope with inflight emergencies such as explosive decompression, cabin fires, medical emergencies, etc, etc. How can those duties be considered a ground trade?
Whether the parsimonious bean counters pay them flight pay or the badge snobs deny them a brevet I'm prepared to believe the worst in both cases, but are they not an integral part of the flight crew and trained and considered as such? Does CRM not include them too, the eyes and ears of the flight deck? If not then I would expect that retention for them is a real issue, never mind those up front....
Indeed they ARE deemed aircrew (airborne role) by the MAA. - I dont think anyone has disputed that here at all.
They are not an aircrew branch, they are a trade- nor are they paid RRP (Fly) or authorised to wear a Flying Badge on the left breast as per QR206.
They are deemed aircrew by the MAA, and authorised to wear their trade qualification badge (AS , now CC) on their right upper arm as per AP1358. They are NOT authorised to wear it like a Flying Badge IAW QR206 because it is NOT one. << that fact right there can be debated IF they trade qualification gets re-branded as a Flying Badge IAW QR206. (which it hasn't).
So in summary:
1. YES the are deemed aircrew by the MAA and have completed a Cabin Crew course for on board roles, airborne roles that- of course they are deemed part of the crew and incorporate any in flight duties and crew cohesion as an equal member of the crew.
2. NO they are not authorised to wear the TRADE QUALIFICATION BADGE on the left breast (as if it were a Flying Badge IAW QR206) , as AP1358 stipulates..... it must be worn on the right upper arm. Wearing it on left breast insinuates to others it is a Flying Badge (which it is NOT). Therefore they have not qualified in the eyes of QR's to wear their trade qualification badge as if i were a Flying badge.
Ill provide some context:
If I were to walk into a Parachute Regiment HQ with Para wings on my left arm- i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear an All Arms Commando course dagger in the incorrect place on my uniform, i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear my beret badge upside down , i'd expect a redress.
If I were to wear my Aeromedical qualification Nurse, Nursing officer or other / Mountain rescue team / Bomb disposal team qualification badge on the left breast of my No.1 jacket, No.2 jumper, No.5 jacket or flying suit ....id expect a redress. Why should CC trade qualification badge be any different?
You can search for AP1358 Chapter 7 : Pages 23,24,25 clearly outlines what Flying Badges can be worn, and where.
Para 0719 clearly states : Cabin Crew Badge. The badge design is a pair of wings in light blue silk with a central motif of the letters 'CC'. It is to be worn on the right sleeve of No 1 SD. No 2 SD jersey and 6 SD (when issued), centrally positioned, with the top of the central motif 4" (10.2 cm) below the shoulder seam.
Nope, that reference only states the uniforms on which the Cabin Crew Badge must be worn and where it must be positioned on those uniforms.
There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
KBW10101, the zeal with which you keep quoting AP1358 makes it appear that you have a dog in this race. The constant churning of flying badge regs recently suggests that far from being written in stone, each new flying badge is but another amendment list away. They are aircrew but not an aircrew branch? Humbug, as our great leader might say! As has been already pointed out, this is deja vu all over again. The last solution was to bump up all aircrew to Sergeant rank at least, and award them an appropriate flying badge. Given the essential life saving role of cabin crew that would seem an equitable solution and resolve this anomaly. Unless of course the RAF is content to get its cabin crew on the cheap...
BEagle, it may not really matter to you but has anyone asked if it matters to them?
BEagle, it may not really matter to you but has anyone asked if it matters to them?
Nope, that reference only states the uniforms on which the Cabin Crew Badge must be worn and where it must be positioned on those uniforms.
There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
There is nothing to state that a combined squadron name / crew role badge must not be worn on whatever a flying suit is called these days.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
You also say “it doesn’t really matter” but I have read many a thread with your two-penneth about flying badges on jumpers, aircrew leather jackets, Oxford pattern shoes, stable belts and Officer No 1 SD hats (you seem to have an aversion to the Field Service Cap that many aircrew wear). So if “it doesn’t really matter”, then why have an opinion? I would offer, that it does matter as many on here arguing the toss has proven on this matter and others proves?
What I think matters is that RAF Cabin Crew be fully acknowledged as aircrew, not only by the MAA but by the entire RAF. Comments in this thread would appear otherwise. It is important that they be seen to have the authority required when dealing with life threatening emergencies and for which they are presumably fully trained and regularly tested. They cannot be assumed to have such authority while they are in this anomalous half way house of being aircrew but within a ground trade only. They need to be clearly and visibly aircrew, both by branch and by rank.
At the moment it would seem they are of SAC rank and above, when all other aircrew are of Sergeant rank and above. At the moment it would seem that they are seen as ground trade aircrew only. That combination seems to me to be potentially fatal if the commands they give to full aircrew pax are questioned or even rejected. ALL Pax (from CAS downwards) need to carry out such instructions to the full. That is far more likely I would suggest if all RAF Cabin Crew are clearly and identifiably aircrew, ie holding the rank and status of aircrew (ie Sergeant and above, wearing an Aircrew Brevet).
That is what I mean by 'it'.
wearing an Aircrew Brevet
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/th...rd-brevet.html
PS. On a less flippant tack... The way that PJIs got around this, that may also be JNCOs, is to be deemed ‘Honorary Aircrew’ as per various King’s and Queen’s Regulations. That way, they could be deemed as Aircrew as the ‘Commander in Chief’ (HMTQ) has deemed it so. However, we then get into MERTs and Aeromed personnel that should also deserve such recognition too for operating equipment on an aircraft in a particular role fit??