Newly Released Information Regarding RAF Officer, WSOp and NCO ATC Recruitment

Scroll to see replies

It's disapointing to see these changes implemented but understandable with the current economic climate the way it is. Does this mean 2 years worth of pilot applications are going to be squeezed into 1 year of training in 2012 or is it just only half of a years requirement of pilots being accepted each year (if that makes sense).

On a side note what happens to pilots who are of an operational age still but the aircraft they fly are being decommisioned?

Less Pilots will be taken overall - the number of a/c is coming down drastically, so should the number of people available to fly them. 2 years of next-to-no recruitment of pilots ought to help the numbers reflect the current reality.

And, tbh, I don't think it's that disappointing. The new academic changes are very reasonable. Lets be honest, how many people who do have Maths at a lower standard make it through the application/training process anyway? The good people at OASC may well have sat and looked at all the data and realised that over the last few years all the people -or at least the vast majority- they've accepted have had grade B or better, so they're making that stick. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Reply 21

craglyboy

As I said it's understandable, it's disapointing from a personal view as I am at university but not with A levels to the standard the RAF now want so even if I get my degree I can't apply again (if I need to apply again). But as you say Drewski the majority of successful applicant have over and above those new requirements anyways.

Reply 22

*NuckingFuts*

Well, people now have to consider whether they're prepared to wait around another couple of years for the chance of getting into the RAF, or whether they want to get on with life and take another direction.

Original post by craglyboy

If you did need to apply again - would you not consider re-sitting an A-level?

Reply 23

craglyboy

They don't do the A levels I took anymore so I would have to take completely new ones

Reply 24

Mr. Vice

Original post by Tommmo

Anyone have any idea when the next EFT course is due to start? Is that too likely to be 2012?

What this information means is that they currently have enough Pilots sitting at some stage between the start of IOT and Pre-EFT to fill the required number of EFT slots until 2012. The current Pilots waiting to start EFT were all recruited a long time before the SDSR and since then the numbers required have dropped. The RAF have over recruited pilots and need to thin the system out however EFT will still continue up until 2012 as normal.

On a side note, those graduating from IOT in the near future can expect quite a long hold to say the least!

Mr. Vice

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 25

Ben5560

Still, going to continue my application (interview Thursday). I went to OASC last December and was encouraged to return within a year (common for serving members).

I don't care how long i have to wait! Long as it doesnt take me past 26!

Reply 26

Rooster523

I think 'oh poo' pretty much sums things up right now.

As sad as it is, it's all very justifiable; luckily I've got youth on my side and should be able to reapply when the spaces start opening up again.

Reply 27

Tommmo

Original post by Mr. Vice

On a side note, those graduating from IOT in the near future can expect quite a long hold to say the least!

This is why I ask! Just trying to gauge how long my hold might be.

Reply 28

WILSON92

I just looked on the RAF Careers website and noticed that WSO has now been removed from the Aircrew jobs section.

Has this been like this since the new announcement? If it has I am incredibly sorry for being slow!!.

Reply 29

Mr. Vice

Tommo,

I would not be suprised, in my own opinion if you get something in the region of a 6-12 month hold. When do you graduate?

Mr. Vice

Reply 30

Schleigg

Original post by WILSON92

55(R) Sqn is being closed down, according to news this morning the RAF has no more need for WSOs (Pilots can do any job a Navigator can) and there are enough WSOps for now, apparently!

Reply 31

WILSON92

Schleigg, Thanks for all your up to date news.

Thats really **** news!!.

Can't believe how much the RAF is shrinking!!

Most likely a silly question? Do you think WSO's will ever be needed again, I know the RAF are going UAV, but Manpower (Not is the sexist way) is always needed incase a UAV goes tits up.

Reply 32

Law123mus

What about sqa highers?

EDIT: I'm not actually joining the raf, I trying for marines officer. I just was curious.

Reply 33

Captainusa

Original post by WILSON92

What airframes would need a wso? Nimrod is gone, F3's are being phased out and the GR4s will have to be retired at some point. There are enough WSOs kicking around the system to make do.

Reply 34

Ben5560

Helis apparently might take some WSOs, but again that job is usually done by Pilots.etc.

WSO was a dying branch anyway

Reply 35

Mr. Vice

Original post by Ben5560

WSO was a dying branch anyway

That's because the MRA4 never needed any? The branch died when the MRA4 was scrapped and the earlier than planned GR4 out of service date announced, along with the reduction in overall GR4 numbers. I wouldn't say that pre-SDSR the WSO was a dying branch.

Mr. Vice

Reply 36

Drewski

WSO was a shadow of it's former self though, even if we allow for the Tornado and MRA4 fleets that are no longer/never were. Gone are the days when all but the sole front-line-single-seat-ego-day-tripper had WSOs, it had become a legacy post. And really, does/did the MRA4 really need WSOffs? Could it not have more than capably operated with WSOps?

Even in the best case [hereafter known as the 'Pre-SDSR plan'] had the GR4 as leaving service in 2020 when the FOAS came into being - the WSO's days were numbered either way.

This is a completely different point, but I don't see why we need officers flying at all. How much money, if any, would it save if all Pilots were NCOs? Could have an 'NCA (P)' and 'NCA (C)' [Crewperson].

Reply 37

WILSON92

This is a completely different point, but I don't see why we need officers flying at all. How much money, if any, would it save if all Pilots were NCOs? Could have an 'NCA (P)' and 'NCA (C)' [Crewperson].

A very good point though Drewski, If I remember correctly, don't the AAC recruit SNCO & NCO Helicopter Pilots and Co-pilots/ Gunners?

Correct me for my stupidity if I it is wrong, but, presumably AAC SNCO Pilots, if they joined the AAC as a ground crewman may not nessecarily have the quals for Aircrew, yet they can join up later in their career?

Reply 38

Schleigg

Wilson: AFAIK the AAC does not recruit NCO Pilots directly, you need to have served a minimum of 2 years in either the AAC or another Regiment/ Corps and have attained the rank of Corporal before you apply for a transfer to the AAC for pilot training.

Drew: Interesting point, why do we need ATC officers or indeed any form of professionally qualified officer? Why not just have the Officer branch where all officers are just generic managers and take no interest in anything their troops are doing save the man-management of it all? If pilots were NCOs I'd probably still have joined the RAF as an NCO pilot! The only issue I could foresee (and this is coming from the ME/ multicrew world) is what happens if you have a FS/ MACR Crewman butting heads with a Cpl/Sgt Captain/ Pilot? All the gradients would be messed up, whereas at least the APO Pilot can legally tell the MACR to get back in his box in any given situation!

Reply 39

craglyboy

I have to agree with Schleigg view with regards to pilots being officers, you need to have that command. Also you need that accountability/responibility when handling equipment worth millions upon millions of pounds. You can't have a pilot devoid of that responsibility.