Future of Officer Aircrew?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by rushmere, May 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Here is a question for you guys from someone on the outside looking in.

    What is the future for Officer Aircrew?

    Will the AAC go down the route of commisioned professional aviators similar to the RAF or will commisioned aircrew disappear into the ether?

    I'm sure there will be some strong views on this!
  2. Dont think anything will change, it works fine, on the whole.
  3. So does Preparation H..... :wink:
  4. Maybe I should elobrate further........

    Does the introduction of more complicated airframes i.e Apache mean that Officers might suffer continuity and currency issues?
  5. Rushmere,

    Are you a just another Crab looking to pick holes in the AAC's ability to operate Apache? If so, f**k right off. If not, please accept my apologies.
  6. Doesnt really matter so long as we continue to have lots and lots of SNCO pilots.

    If an officer decides to be a career bloke, the experience gained on AH will be worthwhile when he is mixing it with the all arms fodder around the bird table.

    Whats your angle, rushmere?
  7. Officer aircrew will continue to be the minority. Any experience gained will most likely be constrained to the desk job that is inevitable until MCM realise that they are wasting potential and talent.

    Army Air Corps solution to manning and Officer retention?: STOP RECRUITING OFFICERS.

    1) Those that want to stay have a second flying tour.

    2) Those with experience that want to be senior officers can STILL DO IT.

    3) The money saved from training people that will leave would mean improvements in a bunch of areas.
  8. TEMPORARILY, or at least restrict the flow.......for a short while.

    Allow some capable people to stay ,not just those that want a career for the sake of it.
  9. Not sure where your going with that Quickstop? I havent seen any evidence of the Corps running down its Officer training, indeed quite the reverse. Have a look in the Corps directory at the lists of those passing the APC's over the last 2 years, not very many NCO's.

    Furthermore, with regard to Officer Aircrew and career profiles, I know several AH trained officers whom are being career fouled because their bottoms are needed in the aircraft at the moment. Indeed they all want a full and fruitful career but are being overlooked in order to maintain the Aircraft Operability. This is unfair as we stand to lose some very good and swept up people in the long term if it isnt resolved.

    But if this thread is supposed to throw up a them and us then I won't be party to it, there are as always will be good blokes along with bad, thats human nature.
  10. absolutely not meant to divide the two; I have to admit I have never heard of people being fouled by being kept in the aircraft, though I can see that it is ncessary with AH.

    There are a lot of Officers that choose to leave at their first opportunity, meaning that the experience they have is gone; all the training and development effectively removed. Some remain and go on to do the staff jobs for command. However, there is a massive deficit of Captains in the AAC because of those that leave, hence the large number of LEs we bring in. Before this gets started, I think most LEs are brilliant and love working with them, so I'm not bashing them either.

    If Officers were recruited less, then they would not have to be shoved so quickly into the desk jobs/SO3 posts etc that they try so hard to avoid. A large number of them would have the chance to do a second flying tour and consolidate on flying AND command experience ( as 2ics / Sqn Ops / Det Command). If MCM said to all the Captains due to leave in the next 12 month "you have another 3 years of flying" then how many do you think would stay? The important thing is that the ones that really want the career can still go for the SO3 posts and get all the ticks for command!

    The resultant saving in terms of training would be huge and those resources could be diverted to some particularly needy areas of the Corps - applications on a postcard here....

    The current policy is akin to filling a broken dam with more water. This just pushes more water out. You are actually much better of plugging the holes.
  11. Thats interesting to here. The reason I'm asking the question is that I was speaking to an ex AAC Officer who was of the opinion that the Army would have to offer more flying tours to its junior Officers to keep a certain amount of piloting skill and knowledge within the Officer Cadre. It seemed like a logical argument from what he was saying but equally I can see the benefit of completely removing Officers from the loop on this one.


    I never write on these forums to cause arguments or wind up anyone here. Just very interested in what people in the know have to say about issues like this.
  12. Went to a RAeS event recently where the Commandant, SAAvn took great delight in ribbing the RAF for ONLY recruiting officers to become pilots/WSO's.


    Would there be any benefit in the AAC recruiting DE officers to perform a Flight Operations / Mission Manager type (i.e. non-flying) function ? The FLT OPS syllabus would have some elements in common with the RAF course, but would also include HELARM / ISTAR tactics, comms, MPS training, FARP'ing etc. Said officers would be very much cheaper to train, so not so costly to lose to the wider army / staff postings. Using them would also lessen the requirement for LE's from other Corps.
  13. Interesting that you should mention MPS Training.... OK you have my attention.

    Having now left the fold, I was always of the belief that the Corps should have DE officers in the Ground role. Most of my OC's were flyers, and all of the others were LE from another Corps. Unfortunately they had little knowledge of ground crew, or in the latter case little knowledge of the AAC.

    Of course I only will mention how it was, but I do hope that the Corps makes the change – Though could I ask that you lay of the MPS Training as I need a job!!


    (edited to correct my cr@p use of the english language - Well tht's my excuse)
  14. If an officer wants a career as a soldier then picking the AAC is a bit of a mistake.

    How many current senior officers are there within the MOD (Army) that did two or more tours as an Junior Officer in an AAC Sqn?

    I find it hard to understand that AH is having an effect on a poor officers career or are they trying to making you feel sorry for them since turning their back on their Original Unit would have an effect on their career until they recap to AAC or return to parent unit just like any other rank, why would CO of X and X Regt keeps his post open while Lt Biggles f%^& Off and plays with toys?

    CO of X and X Regt has to keep his post open and his officers under strength while Lt Biggles thinks about a transfer to the AAC or not.

    If he should return to his former unit he will be of some extra value to them since he would be able to maximise AH support with their their assists, then he can tell you that having done pilots course has effected his career because in combined ops, his boss always puts him in a coordinator role.

    If the officer is on an SSC think you will find like the guys on the ground they are in the mood to p%^& off just about the same time some Tom's are thinking of becoming pilot's having reached the ranks (no coincidence then).

    And like everyone wants something for the long term which can be used after their six year SSC or even after a service career what could be better in civil street than one’s career as an officer and a pilot and boy it makes an impression at the airline interview much better trained than an OR pilot that has a dam site more experience in many cases.

    Didn’t the Corps have this when the High-Tech Lynx was introduced?

    MPSman like you I have also left the fold and during my time this was also a bone in which may teeth did sink, what I found was when new commissioned officer (some where real D^$^h^%ds) joined us they tried to bring 20+ years of the Inf or ROAC or RCT or some others way of do things, as a result there was a lot of ON THE BUS OFF THE BUS within a HQ Sqn, however very few flying Sqn had this officer introduction programme so did not get this sort of fun we did.

    Correct me if I am wrong but do not all DE pilots do attachment with another unit then the pilot’s course?

    If this is the case what is the difference between say a DE Quartermaster and Pilot in relation to their initial training and building of key military skills?

    Would an AAC trained Quartermaster be any different to a RLC Quartermaster or MTO?

    Would an AAC trained Signals officer be any different to a Royal Signals Officer?

    If the answer is NO then why can’t the Corps have DE officer?

    I recall was the introduction of P1/P2 done the same time as the JNCO pilot was introduced of did I just dream that?

    Was it not the RAF that had questions raised in the House as to why they had to have Officer pilots when the Army was looking into JNCO pilots and the Navy was looking at the lowering of their pilots ranks to PO.

    Okay there many be a few good officer that fly in and with the Corps but there are and have been some that I would not give the steam of my pooh bear too even today.

    Sgt, SSgt or even a WO2 and may be a WO1 can do the job better than many officers so leave it at that.

    Dam I didn't care about this when I was in why oh why do I now?
  15. I have often wondered why the Corps never went along the route of having DE ground officers but I think I may have an answer. Said DE ground officer (supposing he never went aircrew) could probably never get above the rank of Maj. Im sure the AAC would not want a non aircrew officer as the Commanding Officer of a flying regiment so it sort of limits his ceilling. What job is he going to do above SO2? Whats the point? As most DE officers will tell you, they are selected with the view that they will 'go to the top'. Most dont really want to and most wont, I know but thats the way it is in the Officer Corps...regardless of cap badge.

    To sponsor and accept a chap who will be career capped at Maj even before he's joined his first Regt is not exactly a sound investment or good use of limited spaces at RMAS. Ok, some may say the putting a DE through pilots course, CTT etc is a huge waste of money due to him possibly having a limited flying career but I have to disagree. The investment is in where that chap may end up at staff level. The flying bit of the future staff officers career is akin to Pl Comd/Tp Comd. Its where he cuts his teeth. It just so happens that our chaps cost a little more to train.

    Remember, we are still fairly new in comparison to the traditional duffers within Whitehall; Inf, Tanks, Arty. Our top chap at present is Comd JHC. Its still going to take a few years for the investment to filter up with all the younger blood currently doing 'short tours' flying. As Ive previously said, I dont think its terribly important that our DE's are 'Above Average pilots' and have flying qualifacations up the ying yang. As long as they have a sound foundation within Aviation, thats all that counts. Its the SNCO's who should be the subject experts on flying and operating the machines. The balance is right IMHO. Our LEs may need a bit of a tweek but thats not for me to say. ;)

    If you are on about flying then so they should. An officers job is to lead, a SNCOs job is to make it happen.

    I also know quite a few SNCOs who are not exactly worthy of their pay. 8O