Followed by a 6 month Puma OCF, the merlin and CH47 OCUs are around 7 months. Dont confuse fixed wing ALMs with there rotary counterpart, our job focuses on different areas. In Puma SOPs the pilot responsibilities is summed up in 6 lines. The LHS has around 8 lines while the crewman has almost a page and a half. Incidently after all that training the only time we touch the GPMG is two weeks from the end.

Most of which are done on the back of the pilots course, hence the 34 weeks. However, those in the know will know that is going to change.
Ditto for most OCU/Fs.
Fact: Pilots take longer to train (not for capacity reasons :} )but require the rest of the crew to be able to achieve such training. Therefore Crewmen and Navigators do the same length of course as the pilots.
As for navigation:
Q1: When one front seat is concentrating on the physical flying and the other is concentrating on the defensive aids suite, FLIR, radios, IFF and every other function of a modern (OK, fairly modern in some cases!) cockpit, who do you think is in the capacity seat?
A1: Yes, you got it, the Crewman.
Oh but there are computers for that I hear you shout. Great if they work correctly, have the right information input into them and don't suffer a power supply failure.
Q2:What happens if they fail?
A2:See A1

Moving about in the cabin, oh no!
 

The Wizard previously commented on a passenger being allowed to move about in the cabin of a NI ops Lynx during flight. He is right, the patrol commander should have been strapped tightly into to his seat. Well, he would have been had there been any straps or seats fitted to the Lynx in that role. Patrol commanders were encouraged to come forward and meet the aircrew and pass on relevant int. That is how we operated and it proved successful too. Ever been there Wizard or were you molly coddled by your rear crewman who had better things to do like watch out the door and fire when being engaged! Thus saving your butt!

So Wizard, how do aircraft with only 1 or 2 crew manage? Or are the pilots of a higher standard and with more capacity?

Must be why the Army have AH and not the RAF then if the RAF pilots seem to have limited capacity and need an extra bloke in the back to hold their hand. :hmm:





http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com...-3-grenade.gif

They manage because they DON'T HAVE THE EXTRA SPACE:ugh:
Or once again because there are only two seats?
Is it such a difficult concept to grasp that if you have extra resources then you use them? Or is your life geared around making things as difficult as possible for yourself?:rolleyes:
So Patrol Commanders were encouraged to come forward etc.... yes, still a common practice...but not with the door open whilst in a spiral descent. CRM and communication being my point, not the procedure.
Well done on your powers of deduction Bobo, but back to detective school for you. If you had bothered to read a bit more of this thread, you would realise that I would be the one molly coddling YOU up the front whilst looking out of the door and returning fire whilst being engaged AND map reading and telling YOU to stop arseing around thus saving YOUR butt!:} :)
Anyhow this is getting really tedious and away from the original thread.
I shall leave you to enjoy your memories of the past.

What happens if there isn't rearcrew available and the cab goes out training? Do the crew have to get a 'training fix' or are they escorted by another aircraft with the required map reading skills??

It doesn't. Goodnight.

It doesn't go out flying if the rearcrew aren't there or it never flies without one??


Sounds a bit limiting if it's the former. Can't see much point in rearcrew for IF.

You have to think outside the bubble Wg and ask your self why there is a minimum crew for each aircraft type................think red card drills for example :rolleyes:

With your reasoning, you are saying the Puma or Chinook 'has' to have at least three crew to cover FRC actions?

I would say it's a nice thing to have an extra set of eyes for some actions but certainly not a 'must have'.

Going back to my question regarding IF training. Are you saying you cannot fly if you don't have a rearcrewman? What FRC drills can the two front seaters not carry out?

It's that bubble thing again dude, not a dig but think how BIG a chinny/merlin/puma is compared to anything you guys fly............then have a think about where some of the emergency controls might be for some hydraulic/under carriage/mag chip etc etc problems.................now unless your the rubber geezer from the Fantastic4 who do you think is going to reach them :ok:

So........if a 1 or 2 crew aircraft can manage, why can't an RAF SH?
The ALM training can then concentrate on ALM disciplines and not navigating and servicing the aircraft.
As a consequence of this, training time can be reduced, thus saving money.
34 weeks and 105 hours of basic training followed by 6 months OCU training is ridiculous.
Or have all the 'extra' things been introduced to provide evidence of an enhanced role, possibly as a means of up banding pay?

I know lets sort this one out once and for all. Crewmen and Gunners all meet up in some pub car park, drink loads of ale, have a big scrap and the last one standing wins it for their cap badge :ok:

I think we all know the RAF rearcrew trade has made themselves indispensable and have quite frankly adjusted the trade and job spec to reflect this. I say good on 'em. If you can get away with it, why not? The RAF on the whole is quite good at that. If you can afford the resources, why not make maximum use of them.

Some of the reasoning on here has, to be honest been a little bit 'justifying their existance' though. No need for it really. We all know a Puma or Chinook can fly quite safely without the chaps in the back so don't try and bluff it. :ok:






I think that one is a foregone conclusion.

Crab rearcrew make Julian Clary look butch :p

Dummy - the CH47 cannot fly without rearcrew as some of the gauges/captions are at the back of the ac and need to be interpreted with what's showing in the front. Might not be a great design, unlike the Garage Door PLC thing that you have flown....but that's how it is.

Trust me when I say that an extra crew member proficient in nav/comms/tactics can be rather helpful when the chips are down - if you have any doubts, ask one of the many AAC guys who have been on exchange or who have jumped ship. The great majority of SH crewman are better at nav than the navs, but then again, the navs on SH are usually rubbish:suspect:

SDF

Now then Wg you started off sensibly now you are starting to sound a bit silly :rolleyes:

"We all know a Puma or Chinook can fly quite safely without the chaps in the back so don't try and bluff it.............quite correct until of course you have any sort of emergency that requires someone to move/switch/pump something in the cargo compartment........or are you really trying to tell us that emergencies don't happen whilst conducting IF/GH and the like :rolleyes:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the distinct lack of DG's actually posting here, just a few TWA pilots with the usual axe to grind :)

The thread of late has descended into the usual so I elected to follow suit. :}

I've actually learned a bit about the trade from some of the fellows on here and have found it quite useful.

What does strike me as amusing is the comments from some regarding 'how the aircraft can't fly if it wasn't for us in the back'.

Just a quick question. How do the civvy Pumas operate? With or without rearcrew?

Depends on what job they are doing. However, the ones I have seen on ops (Op BARWOOD) had at least one rearcrew if not 2. The Pumas that fly to and from the rigs don't have any, and your point is.......:confused:

My point is they seem quite happy to fly without the chap in the back 'just in case some very important switches need to be flicked in the event of an emergency'.....unless of course the rig blokes are all up to speed on the FRC actions. :rolleyes:



Sam. I never said it was a 'non job'. I just feel that some on here are making the job out to be 'Space Shuttle Payload Specialist'.

Why do they pay them in excess of 50k? Maybe a similar reason why the RAF have a gzillion 'Air' Officers.