There is also the question of who the future leaders are going to be. At least some of them probably need to have been at the sharp end.

Many NCO Pilots/Aircrew in WW2 were drawn from the ranks of ex-Halton Apprentices. Many were, in due course, commissioned; many did not survive........

HB

The R.A.F. re-introduced N.C.O. pilots (and navs) in the early 60's. There were 4 sergeant pilots on the same course as I was at 5 F.T.S. Oakington (Varsities) at the beginning of '64, one of whom was then on the same Shack course as me. To my knowledge 2 of them were still N.C.O.s as late as '68. I believe they were all commisioned shortly afterwards.
I think the " sunshine " issue had something to do with it, as Coastal Command's sunshine was supplied by the septics.

Very interesting.

Can someone in the know post if the ratio (as described above) is 68 : 32 in both front and back seats of an AH?

Am I right that the front seater is what I would think of as 'Aircraft Captain'?

Also, would a sideways 'NCO entrant' scheme work or are the formative years prior to Pilot's Course actually critical?

From the Army's perspective I'd suggest 'highly-desirable' rather than critical. By the time a prospective applicant has reached the minimum rank required, he/she will have hopefully achieved an appreciation of the way the Army operates, and will usually bring a useful skillset with them, even if they've served in a support rather than a teeth role.

Surely the actual reason is that the average pongo officer is such a dimwitted inbred that he requires a competent NCO to complete any task more demanding than sitting on a horse? Flying an aircraft would be beyond the skill set of most of them, so those more intelligent are chosen....

Yup, pretty well sums up the pedigree of the average Woopert of the Wedgiment.....







(And no, of course I'm not being serious! Not that serious, I should add.)

I don't know the answer, but those figures are 8 years old (at least) so may not take into account operational experience of the AH.

There are those that have the skills required of aircrew, and those that have the skills required of officers. Given the excessive number of utter throbbers in the RAF aircrew officer corps, the two appear to have been confused. It must be considerably cheaper to put a recruit through officer training than aircrew training, so perhaps it's a numbers game, with inevitable results - often not manifested until they acquire higher rank.

What's in a title?
 

I joined the Army Air Corps in 1975 as an Airtrooper, (private soldier) bowser driver, after 3 yrs I became a Corporal Observer/Airgunner, (co-pilot in effect, front left seat, dual controls etc), 3 yrs after that I completed a 12 month pilots course, and quailfied as a Sergeant pilot.
6 years later I left the Army Air Corps, because of the habit of making officers senior pilots and flight commanders, not on abillity or experiance, but purely on the basis "rank".

When I subsequently started flying with a civil helicopter company, I started as a 2nd officer, then 1st officer, senior 1st officer, Captain. My point is, dispite the use in the civil aviation world of the word "officer", is that all aviators, in all services, should be in the job they are in, because of abillity, not because of perceived "rank".

So why not have all aviators in the milliary use the civil system;)