Future of SH Navigators
Tim C
Yes, Navs also fly on Chinooks. As aircrew and several executive roles too.
There are only 3 or 4 navs on each op sqn, with NO MORE being trained. So they are the last of their kind on SH.
The fact that you are more interested in Nimrods sounds more stupid than your original question.
Are you actually wanting to live in the frozen North, waiting to fly an Mk 4 that may never come?
There are only 3 or 4 navs on each op sqn, with NO MORE being trained. So they are the last of their kind on SH.
The fact that you are more interested in Nimrods sounds more stupid than your original question.
Are you actually wanting to live in the frozen North, waiting to fly an Mk 4 that may never come?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky,
I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of navs on the old Chinny, we have to find jobs for the emerald isle ejectees - sadly, we'll have to continue flying 54 troops with only one pilot up front.
I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of navs on the old Chinny, we have to find jobs for the emerald isle ejectees - sadly, we'll have to continue flying 54 troops with only one pilot up front.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not understand why the NAV was placed in the LHS of SH helicopters to begin with, why dont the RAF follow the AAC lead on this subject.
A. This beast would have already gone through years of expensive flying training.
B. Almost ineviatably be a commissioned officer.
Solution: Simple/ Take an NCO & put him through the old Army Aircrewman sylabus at MW. You will then end up with a product that is significantly less expensive than the commissioned LHS crew member the RAF currently produce.
A. This beast would have already gone through years of expensive flying training.
B. Almost ineviatably be a commissioned officer.
Solution: Simple/ Take an NCO & put him through the old Army Aircrewman sylabus at MW. You will then end up with a product that is significantly less expensive than the commissioned LHS crew member the RAF currently produce.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR
Thanks for your answer. It's something that I have never come across before. Dunno why coz I'm a bit of a spotter.
So why were navs put on SH sqns in the first place? To make up for a lack of pilots and/or as specialists to help in planning etc? Why get rid of them now?
As for Nimrods, I've flown in one (once) and I've never been in any helicopter let alone a mil one. Also I'm only medically fit for AEOp/AirEng/Sig due to slightly ropey eyesight and long legs . Anyway, I quite liked it up north 
.
Thanks for your answer. It's something that I have never come across before. Dunno why coz I'm a bit of a spotter.
So why were navs put on SH sqns in the first place? To make up for a lack of pilots and/or as specialists to help in planning etc? Why get rid of them now?
As for Nimrods, I've flown in one (once) and I've never been in any helicopter let alone a mil one. Also I'm only medically fit for AEOp/AirEng/Sig due to slightly ropey eyesight and long legs
. Anyway, I quite liked it up north .
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc,
The question you ask was asked by the ALM fraternity at the time. Bearing in mind nearly all crewman at that time had had massive exposure to the LHS, had operated exclusively in the single pilot role, been responsible for low level nav etc etc there would have been no real training requirement for the guys to move into the LHS.
However the implication of a "baldrick" in a driving seat in an RAF aircraft, bearing in mind you guys are crewed the way you are, was too politically sensitive.........would it have led to a harder look at NCO pilots..who knows.
SH needed someone for the LHS and Navs were in abundance at that time. As I have said before on the whole they were top geezers but I will always regret not being afforded the chance the situation offered.
However now happy in Wilts on the J which gives me time to come in here and swap banter with other fellow pruners
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
The question you ask was asked by the ALM fraternity at the time. Bearing in mind nearly all crewman at that time had had massive exposure to the LHS, had operated exclusively in the single pilot role, been responsible for low level nav etc etc there would have been no real training requirement for the guys to move into the LHS.
However the implication of a "baldrick" in a driving seat in an RAF aircraft, bearing in mind you guys are crewed the way you are, was too politically sensitive.........would it have led to a harder look at NCO pilots..who knows.
SH needed someone for the LHS and Navs were in abundance at that time. As I have said before on the whole they were top geezers but I will always regret not being afforded the chance the situation offered.
However now happy in Wilts on the J which gives me time to come in here and swap banter with other fellow pruners
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim C,
The answer to your question lies in a paper written in the early 90s by an air officer called Harding, ex-SH and well respected. His case was based on the fact that SH survivability in the modern ie post-cold war, world would be based on the way the aircraft was 'fought' not 'flown'. This coincided with the post-cold war force reductions and a glut of ready trained Tornado navs who were offered an alterbative career in SH. Always-Broken-in- Wilts is correct in that LSH, Puma and Wessex, had used c'men in the LHS for simple sorties, but fails to mention that when the going got hairy, they always put 2 double winged master race in the front. C'men did not have massive exposure to the LHS, as the Chinny always used 2 pilots, save for a very small number of navs.
Why? Because one of the main threats to SH has always been MANPADS and smallarms. He former strikes so fast it, there is little a nav or anyone else can physically do and the latter can only be countered by armour and redundancy, ie another pilot.
The SH force remains unique in the world carrying large numbers of troops in a hostile environment with only a single pilot up front.
The answer to your question lies in a paper written in the early 90s by an air officer called Harding, ex-SH and well respected. His case was based on the fact that SH survivability in the modern ie post-cold war, world would be based on the way the aircraft was 'fought' not 'flown'. This coincided with the post-cold war force reductions and a glut of ready trained Tornado navs who were offered an alterbative career in SH. Always-Broken-in- Wilts is correct in that LSH, Puma and Wessex, had used c'men in the LHS for simple sorties, but fails to mention that when the going got hairy, they always put 2 double winged master race in the front. C'men did not have massive exposure to the LHS, as the Chinny always used 2 pilots, save for a very small number of navs.
Why? Because one of the main threats to SH has always been MANPADS and smallarms. He former strikes so fast it, there is little a nav or anyone else can physically do and the latter can only be countered by armour and redundancy, ie another pilot.
The SH force remains unique in the world carrying large numbers of troops in a hostile environment with only a single pilot up front.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB,
Aggree with all you say and apologies if I was over painting the crewmold picture.........that was not my intention. You are quite right, as Gulf episode 1 showed two "drivers airframe" is without doubt the way ahead.
The point I was trying to make was that at the time, 10 years or so ago, the feeling among the crewman brethren who were well supported by an awful lot of pilots , I can only speak for the Puma world, felt that the job the Nav was being employed to do they could have done at virtually no cost to the tax payer. No one would argue with the fact that an extra man was needed in the cockpit the only bone of contention was who it should be.
As regards the Wokka I was always under the impression that it was the difficulty of flying the beast that meant it was exclusively 2 pilots, hence crewmold's very very rarely got a go, so was as surprised as everyone else when Nav's were sent that way as well.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Aggree with all you say and apologies if I was over painting the crewmold picture.........that was not my intention. You are quite right, as Gulf episode 1 showed two "drivers airframe" is without doubt the way ahead.
The point I was trying to make was that at the time, 10 years or so ago, the feeling among the crewman brethren who were well supported by an awful lot of pilots , I can only speak for the Puma world, felt that the job the Nav was being employed to do they could have done at virtually no cost to the tax payer. No one would argue with the fact that an extra man was needed in the cockpit the only bone of contention was who it should be.
As regards the Wokka I was always under the impression that it was the difficulty of flying the beast that meant it was exclusively 2 pilots, hence crewmold's very very rarely got a go, so was as surprised as everyone else when Nav's were sent that way as well.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The introduction of LHS Navs (as opposed to the few that were trained as "crewmen") coincided with the demise of the "V" Force that left many unemployed Navs looking for a seat to park in. The Gulf War signaled the end to vacant left hand seats, and yes any crewman worth his salt could have occupied that seat and done the mission management well.
However it was also a political move to try and save the "N" brevet, and it will not be missed too much when in April 03(ish) it dies a death.
Like any trade there are good, bad and very strange navs, but that also applies to the other SH trades. I personally can live with or without them, and I do not envy the RAF Officer without portfolio that has been created by recent announcements. Recruitment of SH Navs should stop right now (or rather last week) rather then bringing young and impressionable folk into a dead end job with no light at the end of the tunnel. There are still (a few) positions for them, and that is where they should be headed.
Merry Christmas
However it was also a political move to try and save the "N" brevet, and it will not be missed too much when in April 03(ish) it dies a death.
Like any trade there are good, bad and very strange navs, but that also applies to the other SH trades. I personally can live with or without them, and I do not envy the RAF Officer without portfolio that has been created by recent announcements. Recruitment of SH Navs should stop right now (or rather last week) rather then bringing young and impressionable folk into a dead end job with no light at the end of the tunnel. There are still (a few) positions for them, and that is where they should be headed.
Merry Christmas
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot 4,"........to try and save the "N" brevet, and it will not be missed too much when in April 03(ish) it dies a death. "
Thanks for insulting those currently wearing the N brevet and those who gave their lives in the last 60 years wearing the N brevet. It does mean something to some people.......
Thanks for insulting those currently wearing the N brevet and those who gave their lives in the last 60 years wearing the N brevet. It does mean something to some people.......
