|
Shortage of Navs
Navs? (or WSOs :yuk:) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?
Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig... So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening? LJ |
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
(Post 9004752)
Navs? (or WSOs :yuk:) apparently we're short of them and the PVR time is now the same as pilots. Even SO2 Navs, that have traditionally propped up the SO1/SO2 aircrew staff jobs. Is there a new FRI in the offing? Or will NEM skill based pay be higher?
Uh, oh, there goes a flying pig... So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening? LJ We don't need Navs, we will need WSOs; where can we get them from? Well how about selecting from WSOps? |
What WSOps? Many were redunded, PVR's are up again, and recruiting/training is very slow.
I know there are lots of them with talent to be great WSOs, but would the existing fleets be able to get sufficient new blood in to replace them? |
CS
Are you so sure that all the current ISR platforms are going to make it post SDSR15 ? |
See my post on the P8 thread. The answer is that the RN will provide officer rear crew...this pipeline has remained open and the only rear crew training ties place at Culdrose.
|
GR4 WSOs
You could always start putting pilots in the back. As a concept it has proven pedigree.
BV:eek::E |
Bob, I said that years ago.
|
PN
I think anyone with half a brain (even me) can see it makes sense. Which is why it'll never happen!
BV:rolleyes: |
Bismark
I'm not so sure, 750 will have quite a job keeping the Merlin and Wildcat Observer pipeline topped up as well as the new RAF WSOp Sensor airborne training; even before the extra load of P8 Observers. RAF WSOs if selected from the ranks of WSOps may well not need 750's services p.s. Culdrose may well be the only place training officer rear crew. But it's certainly not the only place training rear crew. |
BV
That reminds me of how the Italian Air Force established the crewing for their leased Tornado F3s in the mid 90s. The initial pilots were ex F104 drivers, some with masses of experience and ability, but irrespective of this, if they weren't academy graduates, they were selected for the back seat! Needless to say this didn't go down too well with Italian pride! It seems the majority of 'navs' tolerated their time on 56(R) Sqn, perfected their english language skills while on the course, and then bailed out as soon as they could for a job with Alitalia. And LJ, if you're reading this, do you still have a copy of the bespoke FRCs from 'The Irrigator'? You'll know what I mean! |
Circle Kay
Nope, it's Navs that I'm hearing that are in short supply - any old WSO just won't do. 'Run on of legacy fleets' is the excuse I'm hearing and seeing as E3D, RJ, Reaper, Shadow and GR4 all use Navs and are running on then the broader skill set of Navs is still needed over a retread WSOp. As for pilots in the boot - once they stop sulking they usually make lousy systems operators as if they were any good at it they would probably be flying single seat! LJ |
|
As for pilots in the boot - once they stop sulking they usually make lousy systems operators
Agreed, that does not work...Yanks tried it years ago with their nav shortage as P(WSO)s sat in F-111s and F-4s. RAAF could probably assist with WSO training, or as our navs are now called, ACOs (Air Combat Officers). Similar to many years ago during Vietnam War, RAF trained pilots for us due to greater requirement. We have ongoing ACO needs for F/A-18F, P-3/P-8, E-7. |
LJ, now that's service!
|
LJ
Of your list of 5 current types the first 2 (E3D and RJ) require Navs on the Flight Deck. The GR4 will of course require Navs till it's OSD. But Even if Nav School started on Monday the graduates wouldn't get to the front line in time (on current time scales). But the other 2 do not require Navs to man, but you could argue the Sqns require rear crew execs. |
LJ
I was going to continue but for OPSEC reasons I shall stop now. I've never operated with a Nav and have never done the job of a Nav so am probably not adequately qualified to comment anyway.
BV:confused: |
Here is an interesting book that I thumbed through last time in the RAF Club (waiting for the pub to open...).
Observers and Navigators and Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF Part I traces the rise of the first generation of non-pilot aircrew, the observers, aerial gunners/gunlayers and kite balloon observers who flew with the RFC, RNAS and latterly the RAF between 1914 and 1919. Part II examines the way in which the peacetime RAF rapidly dispensed with its observer officers and spent the next fifteen years attempting to make do by misemploying airmen as air gunners on a part-time basis. This inadequate practice is contrasted with the very positive attitude towards non-pilots that prevailed within the Royal Navy. The story continues with the reinstatement of observers in 1934, albeit still as part-time corporals until 1939. Wartime experience soon revealed that the omnipotence of pilots was a myth and by the summer of 1940 all observers and gunners were at least sergeants and increasing numbers were being commissioned. Part II goes on to examine the proliferation of non-pilot aircrew categories until 1942 when the system was substantially reorganised, the observer being supplanted by the air bomber and a variety of specialised types of navigator. This section ends with a summary of wartime training. Part III covers the rest of the century, including the last two years of WW II and the ill-conceived '1946 Aircrew Scheme'. Following the latter's demise in 1950, the RAF adopted an all-officer policy for its pilots and navigators, the fact that they were to have equal career prospects having been announced as early as 1948. Part III examines the way in which this policy of equality has actually been applied while continuing to trace the rises and falls in the fortunes of all non-pilot categories to date. What emerges, along with a much clearer impression of the crucial importance of non-pilots to the RAF, is a discriminatory attitude towards them. The author demonstrates that this attitude had its roots in the RFC where it became so institutionalised that its effects are still detectable today. by Wing Commander C. G. Jefford |
A worrying thought occurred to me (don't do it often so don't worry). If the rumours about buying P8 have any foundation in fact, the funding will have to come from somewhere in SDSR 2015. If Typhoon is now taking on a lot of AG roles and weapons, where might that leave Tornado?
I truly hope my fears are unfounded. Thing is, from an MoD/Government perspective, that would free up some Navs/WSOs for P8. This sort of thing has been done before, as previous posters have shown. It's been done in the RAF. In these brutal times I just wonder. Please come up with a thousand reasons why I'm wrong. It will make me feel better. |
One wonders if any redunded navs will get a call? I know of an FE that returned to the fold a while after 1-9-12.
Count me out, by the way. |
Are the Navs still streamed into Gp1 and Gp2? (until they stopped training of course). If so, then would WSO FJ have the appropriate background for WSO P8? Just a thought (speaking as a Gp1 nav who specialised in AEW and Radar and never navigated anything since the end of Nav School).
|
Why does the title of this thread remind me of the time I left Valley after my Gnat course to go to Canberras - in June 66!!
|
Nimrod navigators may have been Gp 2 so as to grapple with legacy kit like the Kollsman sextant, Loran, and log on chart work, but were said to be really Gp 1.
I knew at least one Nimrod nav that went to GR 1 and another to SK. I have a vague idea of a FJ nav going Nimrod after losing his bang seat cat. With a new maritime aircraft I suspect the ability to do a manual airplay and 3-star fix will be a distant memory for even the oldest still serving. |
I repeat, the most sensible thing is to expend the RN Obs pipeline on the King Air at Culdrose. As far as I am aware the Avenger flies with a radar emulator console so it should be configurable to any rear seat simulation. As the RAF have ceased the Nav Officer pipeline the RN should provide this maritime role, after all 6 or so P8s shouldn't need a huge cadre of Officer Navs. Also I don't think it would take long for a Merlin or Lynx Obs to convert to the FW MPA role.
|
Are you saying the RN has a surplus, Bismark? If so, you'd better hope the Chancellor doesn't read this. If not, who will fill their shoes? If the RN has a secret pipeline running with a capability greater than its requirement, watch out for SDSR2015.
No announcements have even been made yet. If decisions have been made, we don't know about them yet. The biggest problem is that you and I see buying P-8 as re-establishing a long-standing capability. In Government funding terms it is now, effectively, introducing a new capability with all the other expensive stuff that involves. There will have to be trade-offs and the Navy, sadly, is likely to have to give up its share of "other stuff" in order to maintain/secure the funding for the carriers, aircrew for F-35, support issues, existing programmes, etc, etc. I would love it to be joint, and I hope it may well be, but there is no slack left. I suspect, if it does become an RAF role again, the Air Force will have to give up something else. Nothing is free these days. |
As has been said or intimated, putting a Pilot in the boot would, at first glance anyway, seem to relieve the shortage of WSO/Navs. I think there'd be a rush for the door from a Pilot branch perspective if that were the case. Few signed up to that, flying tours are now like gold dust and it isn't where most Pilots would wish to find themselves (note I said "most" not all) It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul at the end of the day. The system incorrectly took the saving a few years back, probably on "risk" and will pay for it as it comes back to bite their proverbial behinds. Such is life; we all make mistakes and hardly ever learn from them.
CM, I was thinking the same thing as you. The money has to come from somewhere but at the same time CAS doesn't want to see any further reduction in his combat aircraft numbers which are already barely more than Sweden's! The Chancellor has, yet again, unscrupulously set another bar for Defence to find money in-year and seems to forget that although we stopped spunking money at the Afghanistan problem, the ISIS one is still very much right at the front of the RAF's mission. All this against a backdrop of ageing platforms (GR4) that require a replacement within the next SDSR period. |
GR4 WSOs You could always start putting pilots in the back. As a concept it has proven pedigree. BV |
Scorpion,
I think the Luftwaffe proved that won't work not all that long ago. And, yes, the guys would leave. |
Originally Posted by scorpion63
(Post 9005822)
Worked OK on the Canberra PR9!
:ok: |
Pilot sin the back seat
I didn't say anything about it being a full tour. You just schedule a pilot to be in the back for a trip. The next day he can be in the front. Much like how a QFI (or an OCU instructor if flying a twin sticker) can fly in either seat. Rather than limiting their flying they will actually get much more airborne time. They will just need to get over the fear of not having a stick and letting someone else fly them. I'm not saying I'd enjoy it but then I'm not a Tornado pilot.
Pilots won't PVR just because they have to do a few back seat trips. They would be understandably miffed to have to do it for a full tour though. Of course there will be those that say it'll take far too long to train a pilot to do the job of a WSO. Let's bear in mind though that we are talking GR4. In 2015. Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible. After all, who better to speak to a pilot than another pilot. They will know what each other are thinking since they have been trained in the same way. It may not be perfect and I expect the Nav mafia to brand me an infidel in due course but I have been reliably informed it has worked in the not so distant past. Can anyone who operates or has operated the GR4 back this up or should I just crawl back into my lair? BV:E |
Bob,
You don't usually do this, but today you have just come up with a complete bucket of poo. Sorry, buddy, but that is just so wrong in almost every respect. I hardly know where to start. Firstly, the squadrons don't have twice as many pilots as they need. You work the rest out regarding that one. Next, no pilot can just jump in the back seat, where many have never even been before, and automatically work all the kit - let alone become practiced and proficient to the degree where they could be declared operational. QFIs, QWI pilots, IREs, etc, fly in the back seat. Experienced people with additional back seat training. So, you going to take a junior pilot, still working up or at very least getting good at what we need him to do and now tell him he's got to get proficient in tha back seat too? Remember that all the time he's in the back seat, he's not available to fly in his own seat, therefore his progression slows by 50%. They will not get more airborne time, it's just that half of it will be in the wrong place. And as for this... Once the guy learns the switches surely he could cope. He may not immediately do the job in the same way as a WSO but he wouldn't be terrible. You see how rediculous your post is or would further explanation help? |
CM
As I said I have never flown the Tornado and of course it is pure speculation on my point.
Partially it was intended to get a rise from some of the nav mafia. Failed. Partially it was to enquire if it was feasible. Probably failed. However, it is partially based on the fact that I know a guy who, as a pilot, has flown as a WSO in the back of a GR4. He was a creamie who was posted to the GR4. During his first 18 months he flew in the rear seat. It wasn't just a local jolly either. Anyway, I respect your opinion so will just let it lie. I didn't even get so much as a nibble. BV:( |
There was also an attempt to put a fighter controller in the back seat of the F3 which failed miserably.
|
As an aside, snr navs were in various positions to make a case for keeping WSO Nav trg going, or at least extending the pipeline. They were also in a position to retain light blue dedicated rear-crew trg, did they............... No they were more interested in getting a foot in the door with Voyager, and bumping the NCA out of the crew equation. You reep what you sow!
|
Could that be the Last,
You are very badly informed. Cases were made on all sides. Do you really think that it would just be navs fighting for navs? Do you think there is a special line of command that just deals with navs? Now, just out of interest, you tell us all who those navs were, what positions they were in and what they could have possibly done to change things. Then tell me what magic spells they cast to get themselves onto Voyager and which NCAs were bumped. Or was your entire statement just conjecture? Your call. |
What exactly will a Nav or Observer bring to the party that a fully swept-up FMS coupled with glass cockpit systems couldn't manage itself?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Circle Kay that certain fleets will probably not survive an SDSR and could easily provide the MMA platform with highly skilled and proficient mission managers from their Non-Commissioned WSOp cadre. Now if there's a dimmer switch that needs operating, that changes things completely.......:) |
MAD Boom,
All fine, but this they'd isn't about rear crew for anything in particular. The RAF doesn't need Navs for two pilot airliners. The shortage is showing up in the fast jet force with no replacements likely. So you've jumped from fast jet WSOs to NCA rear crew. A bit of a disconnect. |
So with the new P8 rumour going from strength to strength, when is the Nav School reopening? LJ Nice that you agree we don't necessarily need them for P8 though. |
CM,
At the time decisions were being made, and you are obviously informed, Navs not WSOs were in the decision loop, or at least providing the info to the VSOs on what savings etc could be made! Wrt the MSO v WSOp on Voyager, what trade was the branch sponsor at the time.......? As with most things in Defence, but more so with the RAF there seems to very little strategy, or, more importantly, a plan! |
Mad,
I see your point. I saw the P8 reference as something that was just going to exacerbate the shortage. But, given the fact, as you rightly say, modern multicrew ac don't need navs, I supposed that the discussion was more about legacy fj. Courtney |
MAD Boom, Observers in the RN do not just navigate, they are the airborne Principal Warfare Officer; the mission commander or mission systems/ weapon system manager- navigation is just a small part of their role, but I'm sure you knew that.
Don't Apache Aircrew swap roles between being the Pilot one mission and the Gunner the next? Too simplistic a comparison? Hmmm, so is calling the Observer "a navigator". And no, I am not an Observer! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.