I didn't realise there were civvy Pumas in the current UK plc Middle Eastern AOO :eek:

230 Sqn...........

BORING!

Each branch of the services has their niche. The RN move the booties around to good effect (as long as it's near some water), the AAC are good at making stuff go bang. If people have a problem with the way the SH Force do business, then 30 years downstream is a bit late to start raising the issue.
The RAF have the Puma, Merlin and mighty Wokka to complete the task and so it is up to them to decide their crewing.
In answer to the question do rotary need a crewman to navigate, my answer is definately no. It's a nicety, but I will say it's all very well two stick chimps flying it to point B, but how do they control a triple load pick up or load an internal wmik?

I'm not saying I (as a wokka crewman) am indespensible(I'd rather wave the pilots off for 3 hours IF) but you cannot utilise the aircraft effectively without a crewman. The Yanks, Aussies, Cloggies etc agree. They may call the people different names, but it's still a crewman.

Thank you, wokka. At last an honest answer!!

sam. The thread has run it's course so, as usual, the final flings are banter. Sorry if it upsets you. I'll mark my posts with a 'banter' caption in future.

Dummy - stop throwing stones at us Crabs please.

Why don't you go for a flight at Odiham/Benson and actually see what the RAF crewman bring to the party. You could also go take a look at 657 and see what AAC avn crewmen can do when they are under the command of forward thinking individuals who are not afraid to challenge the DAAvn role model of how crewmen should be employed and invest time and training in order that the crewmen's skill sets are brought closer to those at the other end of the building.

Finally, if the AAC have got it so right, why have DAAvn asked for 6 crewmen to be trained at 55 Sqn for FW ops?? I'm pretty sure that in 2 years time avn crewmen will be trained from ab initio alongside their RN and RAF peers.

SDF

Sub. I for one do not suggest that the AAC has got it right or we are the 'leaders' in this field. As I said in previous posts, we are only just now recognising this as a trade and are trying to work out the best way of using the resource.

It would be nice to see jointry working properly. By this I mean we chuck our guys towards the RAF rearcrew training system (and hopefully your system can look at how we do business).

I totally agree re your remark regarding 657. It would be good if the Corps uses that as a template. Trouble is, you have people who are too busy furnishing their climb up the ladder so feel the need to 'invent' new ideas so they can sign their own name at the bottom of the letter.


SH rearcrew do a sterling job. That there is no doubt. :ok:

Did you say go to Benson or Odiham and go for a fly.... :D you'd be better off going abroad surely

Forward thinking individuals... good one, they are just giving the customer what he wants, its not rocket science and I doubt you'd have any of the blokes saying they are trying to get their skill set closer to their blue cousins at the other end of the hangar! Its not for here, but the 2 roles are poles apart.

Serious. SH rearcrew do do a sterling job. I don't think I've said on here they haven't or don't. They do sometimes sound like they are trying to justify their existance though. I don't think they need to, to be honest.

You've not grasped this idea of 'jointry' have you?

Sam - WG is playing with you. It's called Banter. Though if your still on the french paraffin budgie you probably don't get much practice.

Tiger, Tiger, Meaow

Sams rearcrew in a big Gazelle is he? Explains a lot then. :hmm:








(72 were sooo much better.....)

Wg,

Not one to bite but are you seriously telling us the ARMY have grasped the jointery principle? 30 plus years of experience tells me for the Army there is only ONE way and that's the Army way..........I mean look at how you are trying to convince us we are wrong with our rearcrew policy whilst your DG plans are the way ahead :rolleyes:

Seldom does raise a good point there mate. The AAC does need to invest some money if they want a better end product.

I'm not suggesting our policy is the way ahead, Seldom.

Jointry is a term based on which side of the fence you sit I suppose. When it comes to the SH force, I suppose the Army does drive it. Maybe because they 'own' it?




Youre telling me!!

When it comes to the SH force, I suppose the Army does drive it. Maybe because they 'own' it?


I think you'll find thats JHC (with a capital J). Not splitting hairs or anything!

And what use does the RAF have for JHC helicopters?

Apart from a few pretty pics on newsletters - None/Zip/Zilch...but then we don't profess to own JHC or AH, or even SH these days.

Sam - Good banter recce. All those years on the self ferrying gate guardian haven't been wasted:D

I dont conclude that the Army own the SHF but most of the blokes in green at Wilton do. :ok:

Indeed. WG it is a pleasure fencing with you, but I must rest my weary head. Laters

Sam - I believe highlife boy is waiting for you on the airsteward thread....run along sweetie. You don't want him sweating away there on his own.:=

And you too, wokka. Stay safe mate.

Indeed it is not rocket science..............................but the course is longer:hmm: