Officer aircrew
Discussion
I think you will find that most Air Forces and Navies have Officer pilots (certainly the Western ones), it's only the Armies that don't.
Historically it's down to the level of responsibility for offensive weapons, specifically nuclear weapons.
In the RAF from the 1950's onwards it was felt that it was unfair on an NCO to be expected to deploy nuclear weapons, hence all pilots (and navigators) were selected as Officers first.
These days it's down to the cost of the weapons systems.
Historically it's down to the level of responsibility for offensive weapons, specifically nuclear weapons.
In the RAF from the 1950's onwards it was felt that it was unfair on an NCO to be expected to deploy nuclear weapons, hence all pilots (and navigators) were selected as Officers first.
These days it's down to the cost of the weapons systems.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Friday 31st October 18:07
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
These days it's down to the cost of the weapons systems.
D'you mean the cost of the airframe or the cost of the whizz bang stores?Either way, there are plenty of roles where non-commissioned working class aircrew or (shudder) ground crew have just as much responsibility.
Light blue SH for example is one area where NCO pilots/aircraft captains could fit in very well, and yet the idea is seen as preposterous.
Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Crossflow Kid said:
D'you mean the cost of the airframe or the cost of the whizz bang stores?
I mean bothCrossflow Kid said:
Either way, there are plenty of roles where non-commissioned working class aircrew or (shudder) ground crew have just as much responsibility.
Sorry Crossflow but that is utter B/S in terms of Flying and Flying Supervision. You are showing the chip on your shoulder there mate.Crossflow Kid said:
Light blue SH for example is one area where NCO pilots/aircraft captains could fit in very well, and yet the idea is seen as preposterous.
Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Not at all. Given that RAF Pilot training is based around Fast Jet, not around SH, and OASC accepts Pilot students based upon that premise, just how would the RAF open up NCO Pilot?Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Hey blogs, you can be a Pilot but you are not good enough to be an Officer, tell you what young man you can go and fly helos.
Personally I doubt that would work.
I further doubt, given the autonomous nature of much of the SH operations (and the self authorisation and supervision required), that a non Officer Captain would be in any way right in terms of the (dire) responsibility vs rank equation.
I do recall that when I went to Biggin (showing my age here) for an attempt to attain a university bursary, after all the tests I had the interviews...
I was actually asked the question "What would you feel if we wanted to make SNCO's aircrew again?" (as in pilot and nav), my answer was that I felt it would be a good idea as they possibly let some people go, as whilst they could make great pilots, they may not make great 'Officer material'.
Trust me, that raised an eyebrow
I didn't get the bursary.......but I did get a flying scholarship and my PPL.
I was actually asked the question "What would you feel if we wanted to make SNCO's aircrew again?" (as in pilot and nav), my answer was that I felt it would be a good idea as they possibly let some people go, as whilst they could make great pilots, they may not make great 'Officer material'.
Trust me, that raised an eyebrow
I didn't get the bursary.......but I did get a flying scholarship and my PPL.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Either way, there are plenty of roles where non-commissioned working class aircrew or (shudder) ground crew have just as much responsibility.
Sorry Crossflow but that is utter B/S in terms of Flying and Flying Supervision. You are showing the chip on your shoulder there mate.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Crossflow Kid said:
D'you mean the cost of the airframe or the cost of the whizz bang stores?
I mean bothCrossflow Kid said:
Either way, there are plenty of roles where non-commissioned working class aircrew or (shudder) ground crew have just as much responsibility.
Sorry Crossflow but that is utter B/S in terms of Flying and Flying Supervision. You are showing the chip on your shoulder there mate.Crossflow Kid said:
Light blue SH for example is one area where NCO pilots/aircraft captains could fit in very well, and yet the idea is seen as preposterous.
Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Not at all. Given that RAF Pilot training is based around Fast Jet, not around SH, and OASC accepts Pilot students based upon that premise, just how would the RAF open up NCO Pilot?Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Hey blogs, you can be a Pilot but you are not good enough to be an Officer, tell you what young man you can go and fly helos.
Personally I doubt that would work.
I further doubt, given the autonomous nature of much of the SH operations (and the self authorisation and supervision required), that a non Officer Captain would be in any way right in terms of the (dire) responsibility vs rank equation.
As for recruitment simple, do you want to be a helicopter pilot in the RAF? then be an NCO aircrew.
Also an Apache is £35million before you start putting ammunition on it. Which is more expensive than any RAF helicopter.
Official report said:
The use of helicopters differs in each of the three Services. RN helicopters are operated primarily in small numbers, embarked as an integrated element of naval operational capability, which includes warships, submarines and aircraft. In the Army, helicopters are a Combat Arm, fighting alongside Infantry and Armour, and their operations are integrated closely with brigade, division and corps plans. In the RAF, helicopters primarily operate in support of land operations but in view of the limited number available and the high demand for their use, they are normally assigned at the highest command level, operating across brigade and divisional boundaries.
These differing roles have driven the policies of each Service, which have evolved to reflect both the specialist demands of the individual helicopter forces and the wider command and leadership requirements of the parent Service. Within the Army Air Corps (AAC), officers are employed and trained to become the commanders, executive officers and staff officers of the Corps and the wider Army. In their flying duties they operate as mission commander. NCO pilots are almost exclusively employed in flying appointments and they form the core of AAC aircrew experience. In the RN, helicopter aircrew are required to act as both independent flight commanders and specialist warfare officers, responsibilities that require the experience, military and command judgement of commissioned rank. RAF helicopter pilots are required to operate their aircraft autonomously at strategic distances, in multi-national/joint scenarios, where a thorough understanding of higher command intent, threat assessment and enemy capabilities is essential. They are also a vital component of the Service's Flying Branch, playing their full part in command appointments and staff duties at all levels within a Service which depends upon its aircrew to provide its senior commanders and warfighters.
Following detailed examination of the competencies required, the study found that it would be possible for NCO pilots to operate in a small number of RN and RAF helicopter roles. However, the requirement to maintain a minimum number of officers to provide the necessary command and control element of the forces, both on the ground and in the air, limited the maximum number of NCO pilots the RAF and RN could support to a combined total of 156. There was also a serious risk that the requirement for officer leadership on deployed and embarked operations, could reduce this number still further. The study found that the introduction of this relatively small number of NCO pilots would reduce flexibility of the forces involved and would have a negative impact on the overall rank structure and development of commissioned warfighters in the individual Service.
In costing the impact of the introduction of 156 NCO pilots, the study identified potential savings of approximately £1.25 million; total savings being limited by the relatively small difference in capitation rates between junior officers and SNCOs, and the fact that specialist flying pay is paid to aircrew based on experience not rank. Additionally, the study identified that in view of the lower return of service of RAF/RN NCOs compared with officers, the employment of 156 NCO pilots would require the training of one additional pilot each year to maintain manning levels, effectively negating the £1.25M capitation savings.
In summary, the introduction of NCO pilots to the RAF and RN, while possible to a limited extent, would carry operational and structural penalties, without providing significant financial savings to the Department.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/...
Hansard records that it was policy from 1948, confirmed by a Air Ministry Order in 1950, that pilots and navigators, in general, should be commissioned officers. Pay and recruitment reportedly played a role as the most junior NCO pilot rank was, with flying pay, earning more than a Ground Branch Flight Lieutenant and there were recruitment issues in the Ground Branch.These differing roles have driven the policies of each Service, which have evolved to reflect both the specialist demands of the individual helicopter forces and the wider command and leadership requirements of the parent Service. Within the Army Air Corps (AAC), officers are employed and trained to become the commanders, executive officers and staff officers of the Corps and the wider Army. In their flying duties they operate as mission commander. NCO pilots are almost exclusively employed in flying appointments and they form the core of AAC aircrew experience. In the RN, helicopter aircrew are required to act as both independent flight commanders and specialist warfare officers, responsibilities that require the experience, military and command judgement of commissioned rank. RAF helicopter pilots are required to operate their aircraft autonomously at strategic distances, in multi-national/joint scenarios, where a thorough understanding of higher command intent, threat assessment and enemy capabilities is essential. They are also a vital component of the Service's Flying Branch, playing their full part in command appointments and staff duties at all levels within a Service which depends upon its aircrew to provide its senior commanders and warfighters.
Following detailed examination of the competencies required, the study found that it would be possible for NCO pilots to operate in a small number of RN and RAF helicopter roles. However, the requirement to maintain a minimum number of officers to provide the necessary command and control element of the forces, both on the ground and in the air, limited the maximum number of NCO pilots the RAF and RN could support to a combined total of 156. There was also a serious risk that the requirement for officer leadership on deployed and embarked operations, could reduce this number still further. The study found that the introduction of this relatively small number of NCO pilots would reduce flexibility of the forces involved and would have a negative impact on the overall rank structure and development of commissioned warfighters in the individual Service.
In costing the impact of the introduction of 156 NCO pilots, the study identified potential savings of approximately £1.25 million; total savings being limited by the relatively small difference in capitation rates between junior officers and SNCOs, and the fact that specialist flying pay is paid to aircrew based on experience not rank. Additionally, the study identified that in view of the lower return of service of RAF/RN NCOs compared with officers, the employment of 156 NCO pilots would require the training of one additional pilot each year to maintain manning levels, effectively negating the £1.25M capitation savings.
In summary, the introduction of NCO pilots to the RAF and RN, while possible to a limited extent, would carry operational and structural penalties, without providing significant financial savings to the Department.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/...
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Either way, there are plenty of roles where non-commissioned working class aircrew or (shudder) ground crew have just as much responsibility.
Sorry Crossflow but that is utter B/S in terms of Flying and Flying Supervision. You are showing the chip on your shoulder there mate.The whole idea that it takes a commissioned officer to make so-called difficult decisions is simply another symptom of the archaic class system so rife in the military. Non-Commisioned types can actually think for themselves, difficult to believe though that may be.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Light blue SH for example is one area where NCO pilots/aircraft captains could fit in very well, and yet the idea is seen as preposterous.
Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Not at all. Given that RAF Pilot training is based around Fast Jet, not around SH, and OASC accepts Pilot students based upon that premise, just how would the RAF open up NCO Pilot?Less to do with costs and more to do with jobs for the boys and the officer corp not wanting to give up its crown.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I further doubt, given the autonomous nature of much of the SH operations (and the self authorisation and supervision required), that a non Officer Captain would be in any way right in terms of the (dire) responsibility vs rank equation.
You need to spend some time on an SH sqn then, where MACR duty authorisers are now common place.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 1st November 18:06
ecsrobin said:
Crossflow Kid said:
You need to spend some time on an SH sqn then, where MACR duty authorisers are now common place.
On one Sqn anyway. Think the desk is permanent MACR with just regular toilet breaks for the old boys covered by an officer. 
kers that hump and dump stuff, as opposed to the Army's Attack Helicopters that blow stuff up)Crossflow Kid said:
ecsrobin said:
Crossflow Kid said:
You need to spend some time on an SH sqn then, where MACR duty authorisers are now common place.
On one Sqn anyway. Think the desk is permanent MACR with just regular toilet breaks for the old boys covered by an officer. Read the topic, there is the odd well meant reply and then a series of somewhat poorly judged other posts. To the OP, here are a couple of points from someone who has flown, and is still flying, for 19 years straight on helicopters on the odd operation or so, has been an Authoriser for 14 years, done the Flying Supervisors course, worked closely alongside all the other services and other nations. Oh and been an instructor for 10 years as well, so here are my thoughts:
Ginetta G15 is right about the change post war from a mix of NCO aircrew to officer only front enders (pilots,navs) which was based on the 'perception' that increased technology and nuclear release was better placed in the officer branch. The navy followed this plan as well.
The Army Air Corps did not fly as complex aircraft at the time and continued with most pilots being NCOs. Its cheaper and the Army view was/is that a helicopter is just an overly complex and expensive truck.
These positions have become extremely well entrenched over the last 60 odd years and the report quoted above about cost vs reward of having some NCO pilots in the RAF seems to make sense.
The arguments about responsibility, authorisation and recruitment made by Crossflow and ECS are passionate but lack some details.
On only wanting to join as a helicopter pilot and so being an NCO. It is sensible to put the best pilots in the best aircraft and we only know who are the best pilots after a series of in depth flying training, not just a quick aptitude test. There are some pilots who have joined, wanting to be Chinook pilots, who have been streamed fast jet after early flying training because they are very talented. Should they not go fast jet because they joined as an NCO? We should not loose the flexibility in our system.
It has only been recently (last few years) that authorisation has been opened up to Senior NCOs in the RAF and only, I think, on helicopters. Both in training command and Joint Helicopter Command there is much less appetite for self authorisation and the idea is for most sorties to be authorised by a suitably qualified and trained person and to be fair that seems to work well with both junior officers and the odd Master Aircrewman doing a good job on the RAF Sqns.
So there was a seemingly sensible reason why it was done and some equally sensible reasons why it has not been worth the extra hassles of going back to an NCO and officer system. However not sure my Grandfather, who started as an NCO Hurricane pilot in WW2 and finished as a Flt Lt Mosquito pathfinder would agree!!
I will keep my views on fast jet domination of the RAF and 'archaic'class system very short. True and going to stay true for the first and really don't think so for the second!
Ginetta G15 is right about the change post war from a mix of NCO aircrew to officer only front enders (pilots,navs) which was based on the 'perception' that increased technology and nuclear release was better placed in the officer branch. The navy followed this plan as well.
The Army Air Corps did not fly as complex aircraft at the time and continued with most pilots being NCOs. Its cheaper and the Army view was/is that a helicopter is just an overly complex and expensive truck.
These positions have become extremely well entrenched over the last 60 odd years and the report quoted above about cost vs reward of having some NCO pilots in the RAF seems to make sense.
The arguments about responsibility, authorisation and recruitment made by Crossflow and ECS are passionate but lack some details.
On only wanting to join as a helicopter pilot and so being an NCO. It is sensible to put the best pilots in the best aircraft and we only know who are the best pilots after a series of in depth flying training, not just a quick aptitude test. There are some pilots who have joined, wanting to be Chinook pilots, who have been streamed fast jet after early flying training because they are very talented. Should they not go fast jet because they joined as an NCO? We should not loose the flexibility in our system.
It has only been recently (last few years) that authorisation has been opened up to Senior NCOs in the RAF and only, I think, on helicopters. Both in training command and Joint Helicopter Command there is much less appetite for self authorisation and the idea is for most sorties to be authorised by a suitably qualified and trained person and to be fair that seems to work well with both junior officers and the odd Master Aircrewman doing a good job on the RAF Sqns.
So there was a seemingly sensible reason why it was done and some equally sensible reasons why it has not been worth the extra hassles of going back to an NCO and officer system. However not sure my Grandfather, who started as an NCO Hurricane pilot in WW2 and finished as a Flt Lt Mosquito pathfinder would agree!!
I will keep my views on fast jet domination of the RAF and 'archaic'class system very short. True and going to stay true for the first and really don't think so for the second!
Something I gleaned from my mk6 chinny Q recently was it's pretty simple to actually fly it. To operate it though, another matter entirely!
My view is simply that an Officer is needed purely on the need for accountability in a tactical situation to deliver mass ordnance. I know on the ground, a soldier can kill the enemy too but in a mistake or incident, it's his officer in charge who take overall responsibility and command accountability.
My view is simply that an Officer is needed purely on the need for accountability in a tactical situation to deliver mass ordnance. I know on the ground, a soldier can kill the enemy too but in a mistake or incident, it's his officer in charge who take overall responsibility and command accountability.
Madness60 said:
It is sensible to put the best pilots in the best aircraft and we only know who are the best pilots after a series of in depth flying training, not just a quick aptitude test. There are some pilots who have joined, wanting to be Chinook pilots, who have been streamed fast jet after early flying training because they are very talented. Should they not go fast jet because they joined as an NCO?
Well that was kinda my point. Talented aviators who want to fly first, and be an officer very much second.And yet still we're stuck with a system that says a candidate has to be a good officer in order to be a good pilot based purely on the fact they may end up on fast jets, based in turn on the outdated idea that a FJ pilot must be an officer.
In answer to your closing question, a good Air Force should stream its pilots based on their ability, not which mess they dine in.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff