New Flying Badges

[teeteringhead]

ME pilots extra training is to do a specialised course in either reading or writing. You knew that was the reason for the two-man crew of course

But who looks after the two intellectuals!

[Surplus]

Originally Posted by teeteringhead

But who looks after the two intellectuals!

On a multi engine A/C, it would be a SNCO/WOFF, who having signed for the Junior Officers, would be required to make sure that underwear was under the flying suit and to restrain them from licking the power outlets.

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

No, I want to avoid Inquiries by avoiding the avoidable accidents that lead to them. By employing full time professional Cabin Crew who are recognised by the RAF as Aircrew, even if an accident cannot be avoided, its toll if any might at least be greatly reduced. If all it takes for them to be so recognised is a tick, so yes, I would like to see a tick. If not, then whatever else is needed for them to be so recognised by the RAF and hence awarded their Flying Badges as RAF Aircrew.

In which case I agree that it would be nice to have full time CC. It must be a bit of a let down to go from jet setting around in a grow bag to dishing up the core menu in the Mess. They already have a badge but do they get flying pay when they are on a flying Sqn?

[Chugalug2]

tio, if I've wetted your appetite and the thought of becoming RAF CC appeals to you, then full details for applying are here:-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/r...ground-steward

No mention of flying pay though. I imagine Catch-22 being that they are not classed as RAF Aircrew, only MAA Aircrew (who don't employ them). Hence the trade badge rather than a flying badge. Hence the two threads!

[Bob Viking]

Chugalug

Nobody gets flying pay any more. It’s RRP (recruitment and retention pay).

Whether CC get it would depend on whether there is a shortage within their trade.

BV

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

tio, if I've wetted your appetite and the thought of becoming RAF CC appeals to you, then full details for applying are here:-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/r...ground-steward

No mention of flying pay though. I imagine Catch-22 being that they are not classed as RAF Aircrew, only MAA Aircrew (who don't employ them). Hence the trade badge rather than a flying badge. Hence the two threads!

Thanks, I'm on the back slope to the IPP now so have little interest in re-trading (again)

Bob, of course you are technically correct, but it is still referred to as flying pay in conversation as RRP(F) doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by Bob Viking

Nobody gets flying pay any more. It’s RRP (recruitment and retention pay).

Whether CC get it would depend on whether there is a shortage within their trade.

BV

Thanks BV. Sounds like good news from the point of view of CC being accepted as Aircrew by the RAF then. If there is no remuneration uplift involved that only leaves changing certain peoples attitudes to the idea. Should be a breeze, wouldn't you say?

[heights good]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

Thanks BV. Sounds like good news from the point of view of CC being accepted as Aircrew by the RAF then. If there is no remuneration uplift involved that only leaves changing certain peoples attitudes to the idea. Should be a breeze, wouldn't you say?

Cabin crew are not aircrew.

If they want to be recognised by the RAF then get to OASC, pass the 4 days of testing which the vast majority fail, complete the 6 months of leadership training, the 3-7yrs of flying training and then they can say they are.

Completing a 4 week course that any mess steward can attend without a robust, scientifically designed selection process is just not the same, no matter what way you skin it.

Until then, they will have to suck it up and accept they are a role fit for the aircraft and nothing more. Sorry.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by heights good

Cabin crew are not aircrew.

If they want to be recognised by the RAF then get to OASC, pass the 4 days of testing which the vast majority fail, complete the 6 months of leadership training, the 3-7yrs of flying training and then they can say they are.

Completing a 4 week course that any mess steward can attend without a robust, scientifically designed selection process is just not the same, no matter what way you skin it.

Until then, they will have to suck it up and accept they are a role fit for the aircraft and nothing more. Sorry.

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG

Indeed CG, and following in the footsteps of their forefathers, or come to think of it their grandfathers. 30 Squadron Association boasted an ex SAC Fairey Battle Air Gunner who served in the BEF Air Component. For pressing home an attack against the Albert Canal bridges and overwhelming odds the crew were rightly decorated. The pilot and the navigator that is. He received nothing of course, and when he complained that his gun had overheated while repelling repeated 109 attacks he was advised that he shouldn't fire it so much in future. As heights good so eloquently puts it he had to suck it up, but was bitter about it right up until he sadly passed away.

Isn't there something about those who never learn from history being doomed to repeat it?

HG :-

Cabin crew are not aircrew.

But they are. That's the whole point I'm afraid and the ridiculous dead end that the RAF has managed to navigate itself into.

[heights good]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

Indeed CG, and following in the footsteps of their forefathers, or come to think of it their grandfathers. 30 Squadron Association boasted an ex SAC Fairey Battle Air Gunner who served in the BEF Air Component. For pressing home an attack against the Albert Canal bridges and overwhelming odds the crew were rightly decorated. The pilot and the navigator that is. He received nothing of course, and when he complained that his gun had overheated while repelling repeated 109 attacks he was advised that he shouldn't fire it so much in future. As heights good so eloquently puts it he had to suck it up, but was bitter about it right up until he sadly passed away.

Isn't there something about those who never learn from history being doomed to repeat it?

HG :-


But they are. That's the whole point I'm afraid and the ridiculous dead end that the RAF has managed to navigate itself into.

A sentence in an MAA by document does not make Cabin Crew aircrew in the conventional sense. They are crew, sure, but they know nothing about flying or aviation. There is a reason that actual aircrew do extensive ground school and Ph2 training. All of this after 4 days of selection with a really high failure rate.

[heights good]

Originally Posted by charliegolf

I'd be interested to know who does a 6 month leadership course. CC aircrew would surely be airman aircrew?

CG

IOT and NCA (3 months)

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by heights good

A sentence in an MAA by document does not make Cabin Crew aircrew in the conventional sense. They are crew, sure, but they know nothing about flying or aviation. There is a reason that actual aircrew do extensive ground school and Ph2 training. All of this after 4 days of selection with a really high failure rate.

Much the same could be said for 30's SAC a/g. His day job was as Ground Crew in much the same way as Voyager CC's is as Mess Staff. The a/g's became aircrew in their own right and the ground trades they left behind had to be filled by others. I couldn't agree more that professional aircrew need to be professionally trained. Indeed CC could be but the start of a career in other RAF Aircrew specialities, but first and foremost they start as Aircrew in their own right.

In the meantime the RAF is once again out of kilter with its own Air Regulator, a position that seems to fit quite comfortably in some peoples minds but graphically illustrates the powerlessness of the MAA. A Regulator should regulate and have its Regulations fully complied with. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made outwith and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable accidents and needless deaths will continue to happen.

[Door Slider]

No mention of flying pay though

Air Ground Stewards who are employed in flying roles on either 10/101 and 32 Sqns are paid RRP (flying crew) upon award of LCR status. They are paid at the lower rate only.

[heights good]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

Much the same could be said for 30's SAC a/g. His day job was as Ground Crew in much the same way as Voyager CC's is as Mess Staff. The a/g's became aircrew in their own right and the ground trades they left behind had to be filled by others. I couldn't agree more that professional aircrew need to be professionally trained. Indeed CC could be but the start of a career in other RAF Aircrew specialities, but first and foremost they start as Aircrew in their own right.

In the meantime the RAF is once again out of kilter with its own Air Regulator, a position that seems to fit quite comfortably in some peoples minds but graphically illustrates the powerlessness of the MAA. A Regulator should regulate and have its Regulations fully complied with. Unless and until UK Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation is made outwith and independent of the MOD and of each other, avoidable accidents and needless deaths will continue to happen.

AG during a world war that millions died and bomber crews were especially hit hard is a far stretch to a mess steward now serving food at FL350 in an air conditioned cabin in peacetime!

You may also note that this role is now obsolete as it was no longer required and professional aircrew and technology now fill those roles where required.

chugalug if you want to be recognised as aircrew, get to the careers office and apply.

Until then, cabin crew are NOT and never should be aircrew, thankfully the RAF recognises this in exactly the same way as GE, Air Dispatchers, MAMS, MICs, Aeromed etc arent.

They are more qualified by orders of magnitude compared to what are essentially waitresses in the sky. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way. I am trying to emphasise that they perform ZERO aircrew functions. Are they part of a crew, absolutely, are they aircrew? Not. Even. Close.

you can take aircrew of any flavour and they will all understand airspace, RT, aircraft tech, air law, principles of flight, ATC, emergency procedures (FRCs) etc put 99% of cabin crew on a flight deck and they would not have a clue and would be no use to aircrew if their input was asked for. I have never flown or operated a C-17, Typhoon, or Chinook, but put me into a cockpit right now and we could fly anywhere in the world and I would be 75% up to speed to get us there safely, albeit not 'fight' the aircraft at the max of its ability.

That is the difference....that is why the RAF doesn't recognise cabin crew as they are just that, crew for the cabin.

[Herod]

heights good: I was out of this thread, but your attitude demands a response. I assume, in the event you were involved as a passenger in a civil aircraft crash, you wouldn't want any assistance from the cabin CREW? After all, they are just"trolley dollies"

As to your comment that you could operate a C17, Typhoon or Chinook, would your other user name be Walter Mitty?

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by heights good

AG during a world war that millions died and bomber crews were especially hit hard is a far stretch to a mess steward now serving food at FL350 in an air conditioned cabin in peacetime!

You may also note that this role is now obsolete as it was no longer required and professional aircrew and technology now fill those roles where required.

chugalug if you want to be recognised as aircrew, get to the careers office and apply.

Until then, cabin crew are NOT and never should be aircrew, thankfully the RAF recognises this in exactly the same way as GE, Air Dispatchers, MAMS, MICs, Aeromed etc arent.

They are more qualified by orders of magnitude compared to what are essentially waitresses in the sky. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way. I am trying to emphasise that they perform ZERO aircrew functions. Are they part of a crew, absolutely, are they aircrew? Not. Even. Close.

you can take aircrew of any flavour and they will all understand airspace, RT, aircraft tech, air law, principles of flight, ATC, emergency procedures (FRCs) etc put 99% of cabin crew on a flight deck and they would not have a clue and would be no use to aircrew if their input was asked for. I have never flown or operated a C-17, Typhoon, or Chinook, but put me into a cockpit right now and we could fly anywhere in the world and I would be 75% up to speed to get us there safely, albeit not 'fight' the aircraft at the max of its ability.

That is the difference....that is why the RAF doesn't recognise cabin crew as they are just that, crew for the cabin.

Thanks Herod, the temptation is to ignore but he does serve a purpose insomuch as it shows what we and the MAA are up against.

hg, so much pent up anger, I hope at least that having got that lot off your chest you do feel rather the better for it. As to the aircraft you quote I have no knowledge of them either, but I have to tell you I wouldn't want you on any aircraft I have flown, let alone on its Flight Deck. You are a walking CRM disaster! I have flown with cabin crew both in the RAF and the Airlines. In the RAF it was always a one man CC; my ALM. In the airlines it could be up to six (and rather prettier than the ALMs, or can one say that these days?). In both cases their primary duty was to ensure the safety of their passengers, in the air, on the ground, even in the sea. All of them were highly trained and all of them took their duties very seriously indeed. They were all aircrew and totally part of a fully integrated crew.

Thankyou for the gratuitous history lesson. Armed Forces are honed in war (especially ones in which millions die). It is then that stark reality cuts in rather than the esoteric policies of committees that decide that the 'Bomber will always get through' or the Colonel Blimps that bemoan their horses being replaced by noisy tractors tearing up their battlefields. I would suggest that Blimp is alive and well and promoted to Air Marshal these days if the RAF thinks as you do.

Aviation is rather like Covid19. It isn't interested in you 'being more qualified by orders of magnitude' than the CC in the aircraft you are pax in. If it picks you out your number is up, unless your life can be spared by getting you out of that conflagration and down a slide to safety. You won't manage that on your own. To try to do so would hazard others. You will be saved by a trained CC member carrying out their primary role, saving your life (I thought to precede that with an adjective but that would be churlish).

[heights good]

Originally Posted by Herod

heights good: I was out of this thread, but your attitude demands a response. I assume, in the event you were involved as a passenger in a civil aircraft crash, you wouldn't want any assistance from the cabin CREW? After all, they are just"trolley dollies"

As to your comment that you could operate a C17, Typhoon or Chinook, would your other user name be Walter Mitty?

I have at no point said CC dont have a legitimate role to play. As I said previously GE, MIC, AD, AIA, Aeromed all have an airborne role, but they are not aircrew.

Regarding Walter Mitty, I am in no way saying I would be operating in the Staneval expected way, but I could make sure the aircraft got to its destination. CC would fail in the simple task of getting start up clearance, never mind navigation, RT, pressure settings, procedures, rules of the air... you know, those things taught in basic aircrew training.

This argument could drag on forever, the fact remains QRs and the RAF Board do not recognise CC as aircrew.

CC do not do ANY form of aircrew training.

There is a well recognised route for those wishing to become aircrew, just do 4 days of selection and 3-7 yrs of training to get to the frontline.

If you dont like the system then you only really have three choices - suck it up, apply to OASC or leave. For all other options take it up with the adults in Air.

[heights good]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

Thanks Herod, the temptation is to ignore but he does serve a purpose insomuch as it shows what we and the MAA are up against.

hg, so much pent up anger, I hope at least that having got that lot off your chest you do feel rather the better for it. As to the aircraft you quote I have no knowledge of them either, but I have to tell you I wouldn't want you on any aircraft I have flown, let alone on its Flight Deck. You are a walking CRM disaster! I have flown with cabin crew both in the RAF and the Airlines. In the RAF it was always a one man CC; my ALM. In the airlines it could be up to six (and rather prettier than the ALMs, or can one say that these days?). In both cases their primary duty was to ensure the safety of their passengers, in the air, on the ground, even in the sea. All of them were highly trained and all of them took their duties very seriously indeed. They were all aircrew and totally part of a fully integrated crew.

Thankyou for the gratuitous history lesson. Armed Forces are honed in war (especially ones in which millions die). It is then that stark reality cuts in rather than the esoteric policies of committees that decide that the 'Bomber will always get through' or the Colonel Blimps that bemoan their horses being replaced by noisy tractors tearing up their battlefields. I would suggest that Blimp is alive and well and promoted to Air Marshal these days if the RAF thinks as you do.

Aviation is rather like Covid19. It isn't interested in you 'being more qualified by orders of magnitude' than the CC in the aircraft you are pax in. If it picks you out your number is up, unless your life can be spared by getting you out of that conflagration and down a slide to safety. You won't manage that on your own. To try to do so would hazard others. You will be saved by a trained CC member carrying out their primary role, saving your life (I thought to precede that with an adjective but that would be churlish).

Fancy words, do not an argument make.....

Nobody is highly trained after a 6 week course, regardless of specialisation. Aircrew train for 3-7 yrs, then, and only then do they start to learn their craft properly. To become highly trained will take the same timescale again at the very least.

Any able-bodied person can unstrap, walk to the exit and jump down a slide. I do not need CC to direct me to live, my survival instinct will kick in without your help, I promise, I am good.

Disagreeing with your argument does not make me a CRM disaster. I will leave the AIRCREW instructors and peers I fly with to be the judge of that...

Whether you would like on your aircraft is a pointless statement as CC are under the authority of the ac Captain and as such their word is final

Are you seriously comparing strategic lessons from world wars as an argument for CC to be recognised as aircrew?

Giving you a badge in NO WAY changes the job you are doing, so your argument... well, isnt really. A badge wont change your role, which is serving food, looking after pax and assisting in an emergency.

Just a thought, if the MAA remove the one sentence you are hanging an entire argument on, does that longer make you aircrew?

[Chugalug2]

hg:-

Any able-bodied person can unstrap, walk to the exit and jump down a slide. I do not need CC to direct me to live, my survival instinct will kick in without your help, I promise, I am good.

You could be just one of 290 others, it could be at night, the cabin full of smoke with flames burning their way into the cabin and up to half the exits thus unavailable. But you'll be good, right? At the cost presumably of the other pax in your way, coming in the opposite direction, packing out the remaining exits and slides (are they deployed properly anyway, and who deployed them anyway?). The CC of course would be useless and have to be rescued by those like you who are orders of magnitude more qualified. Pity about the majority who died because of the lack of direction by qualified aircrew getting the aircraft fully evacuated, but at least you are good!

I've no idea what your day job is, but I repeat you would not be welcome on my aircraft and, yes, my word would be final!

I'm suggesting that the genesis of a fully constituted air force crew being jointly manned by aircrew was war. Destroy that notion and you open up a can of worms. With pax attitudes like yours a major in-flight emergency could quickly become needlessly un-survivable. That is where the difference between civil and military pax a/c cuts in. Civvie pax may well be orders of magnitude more qualified than the CC but will usually do as instructed in an emergency. With military pax you now have crew and pax from the same Service or possibly other Services. Either way they will hold ranks that may be less than, equal to, or exceed those of the CC managing an emergency. Previous discussions here suggested that problems would emanate from 'squaddies'. I am beginning to think that the real problems might come from opinionated aircrew such as your self :-

'Non-Traditional' Aircrew

especially as comments similar to your own were posted there.

As to the selection standards required, the courses imposed, ranks awarded; all that is up to the operator, ie the RAF. As to the regulator, the MAA, every word is gospel, or bloody well should be!