SNCO Aircrew
 

The RM also have JNCO Aircrew.

sargs, I think you are partially right. However the aircrew in WW2 were prone to capture and it is possible that they were made SNCOs as they could expect better treatment than airmen.

Then more recently we have example of other rank inflation with numbered sqns commanded by wg cdrs, flts by sqn ldrs. Similarly VC10 captains used to be made up to sqn ldr. And an all officer pilot/nav cadre originally because of the responsibility attached to nuclear release.

One reason has been to give them the appropriate pay for the job when a sharp payrise in current rank would be divisive in the service an dpolitically unacceptable outside.

Less obvious is that you might accept being b***** around mor eif the pay is better.:}

As for policy, there will have been carefully argued papers that justify this rank inflation and not one would mention any of the reasons given.

The last SNCO aircrew in pilot/nav branches were phased out around 1961 with master pilots only disappearing with the Anson stn flts. Those that were not commissioned often became operations officers, CSRO or sim instructors or airmanship instructors.

Are the RM not part of the RN?

I was always under the impression it was so they had the rank and the authority behind it, as a means to carry out any task required for a mission or looking after the airframe. (I don't mean that in a nasty way).

I thought the RAF already has (had?) NCA who aren't SNCOs?

I thought some junior ranks (stewards?) operated as cabin crew on VC-10s and Tristars?

I also thought that at one stage there were some of them on Herc Sqns. There was a legal requirement for there to be more than one person in the back once there were more than so many pax (50?). Rather than take two loadmasters it was considered more cost effective to take one loadmaster and some air stewards.

I'm not sure if either of these is still the case today.

IIRC, the last Master Pilot was a Wessex driver in the late seventies.`
NCA, formally NCO Aircrew does have its origins in WWII and the Geneve Convention, after all they were all statistically likely to be shot down through no fault of their own. To create a career spine that includes Cpls has been tried since and was unsucessfull being universally opposed. That the other services have JNCO Aircrew does not make it right. Amongst the many reasons for retention of SNCO status is the need to maintain recruitment, and the introduction of WSOp first, specialisation second has reduced the remuster from trade cadre of experienced airmen.
Another reason is the need to command authority (on behalf of the Captain) within an airframe at a time when the Captain has other priorities. With the best will in the world, a Cpl or below would be unfairly challenged at providing the authority that may be required on occasion.

AAC do not emply their gunners in anyway near the skill set of the RAF which is without doubt a waste of resource. The RM/Navy can forward a logical argument for their JNCO aircrew but they do not need Air Electronics Operators, Flight Engineers, or Loadmasters, and the RAF are not obliged to price match the lowest common denominator.

Technically I believe you are right. Personally, I like to think of them as the '4th emergency service' as the old ad went. I think they've earnt their own reputation and don't stand in anyones shadow.

Biggus

Stewards are not Aircrew

sargs

neither are FC, AT or IA

Does make you ask the question though, if so many ground trades are now in the rear of aircraft operating and maintaining sensors, do we still need AEops? Couldn't they be replaced with suitablely trained ground trades as per the E-3D and Sentinal.

I was once infomed that a large part of NCA remaining SNCO's is to do with customs forms having to be signed by a SNCO or above, not sure how accurate that is?

The current FC rank and conditions of service were laid down in a DCI that was published around 1990. I think I still have a copy but the SNCO rank was partly to encourage people to the job partly to reward them and also partly to give responsibilty a rank. Also the punishments for SNCO were/are far greater than those given to Airmen or JNCO's.
One of the reasons was that the FC has to deligate part of the job to an Assistant so making the FC a higher rank allowed them to give orders and not requests.

But then again I've been out for a number of years now and its probably changed

It would be interesting to know the reasons behind it though, as the RNZAF have JNCO Aircrew.

(As long as they don't think its a better idea and demote me)!

Are the RM not part of the RN?

In a word yes, and there was quite an interesting thread thoroughly amplifying this issue not long back.

Not too sure about MGD's simplistic view of the RM being the fourth emergency service, especially since the RM themselves would be the first to say that that honour belongs more properly to the RNLI, the Coast Guard, and the Mountain Rescue Service .... with the AA a long way behind, bless them!:ok:

Jack

Actually both the RFC and RNAS used NCO aircrew in WW1. Initially in 2 seat aircraft the pilot (or driver) was often an NCO and the Observer, ie the chap who had the hard bit to do, was an officer. The top brass of the time thought that as you wouldn't get an officer to drive a car or lorry with an NCO in the back, why would you do it with an aeroplane? Things soon changed, of course, but it strikes me that the system had its merits ;).

By the way I have seen a WW2 group of medals with the Aircrew Europe Star named to an Able Seaman RN, a Fairey Swordfish Gunner as I recall.

Sideshow. Wouldn't your point be just as valid to replace an Air Eng with more qualifed Grd Engineers?

Thanks for the replies so far, some food for thought. I think I understand the need for aircrew who are SNCOs, at least as far as the RAF is concerned - authority, recruitment and retention being among the reasons.

I also accept that these reasons are equally valid for the airborne FC / AT / IA SNCOs, but what I really want to know is where is it written down? Trap one thinks it might be in a DCI from around 1990, any more details? Somebody somewhere decided that these trades would be represented by SNCOs when flying, surely that decision was written down to provide the authority for selection onto the E-3 or Sentinel?

FACT:

The answer you seek was writen down in a document that was locked in the safe of the director of the CIO in 1991. The document is still there today. Its cryptic text includes references to an ancient portal and an unknown location underground. The document also contains the phrase ''It's buried out there somewhere.''

All the organizations that you may encounter in your quest for the true reason why NCA are SNCOs either exist or have existed in the past, including the Freemasons, Main School, the No.2 Sgt's Mess, Gatehouse and The Bird & Bastard.

:ok:

rockiesqiud

Under the Air Navigation Order, Air Engineers are dispensated their licences only if they have completed a CAA recognised military training course.

What makes you think a ground engineer are more qualified when most Air Engineers are ground engineers who have received further training and they have completed the required flying course equivelent to a civilian licence?

What training have ground engineers had in airmanship and flying regulations?

Have actually any idea what qualifying for a Flight Engineers licence entails?

As for sensor operators, I don't think there are actually any licence requirements, but if anyone knows different I await your reply.

Sideshow The airmanship training applies to all NCA training. Ground crew can become sensor operators, just apply for aircrew as many of us did. Or have you a downer on AEOps?

No downer on AEops, just a valid question. If we can employ ground trades as sensor operators, as we do on the E-3D and Sentinal, at a less long term cost than a NCA, then why do we need AEops?

At least I don't make up ridicules arguments about thing I know nothing about. ;)