- In Issue 36 of “Air Clues, The RAF Total Safety Magazine”, the Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) sets out a “refresh of the RAF strategy 2021”, providing “5 Strategic Objectives, one of which commits to ‘operating safely; delivering output efficiently; and to act professionally’.”
- Having mentioned “aviators” within his text, CAS goes on to say:
“‘Aviators’. By the way, if that’s the first time you’ve heard the term ‘aviator’ in that way, then get on board. No longer does it mean just aircrew, but the term ‘aviator’ has now replaced the generic term of ‘airman’ to bring right up to date the way we should describe all of our personnel in a modern and appropriate manner. So, it’s no longer ‘Soldiers, Sailors & Airmen’ but ‘Soldiers, Sailors & Aviators’. Watch out for TV commentators getting used to that.”
- This suggestion by CAS must be seen as a poorly disguised attempt to misinform the public. It ignores the existence of the Army Air Corps and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm by suggesting subliminally that all aviators/aircrew are part of the Royal Air Force and that all RAF personnel are aviators. And it ignores the major distinction between aircrew and ground crew within the RAF itself.
- The redefinition of the term “airman” with “aviator” by a Single Service, hopefully without the approval of Army and Royal Navy Chiefs or indeed the Chief of Defence Staff, does not smack of balanced military thinking. Instructing readers to “watch out for TV commentators getting used to that” would appear to suggest a hidden agenda. Is it Cult Wokery at play? You must judge that whilst I try to provide some logic and common sense to it all.
- Throughout my time in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy I have been thoroughly impressed with the pride that individuals feel for their own contribution to the defence effort. This applies equally to non-commissioned and commissioned personnel, each of whom have a specialist and important role to play in our national security. Within my squadrons, all my personnel from Junior Naval Airman to Executive Officer earned and deserved my complete trust and respect – and were enormously proud of their Unit and of the role they played in it. To suggest that they should all have the same anonymous title regardless of their trade and specialist contribution is, in my view, demeaning and insulting. We are what we are and what we have chosen to be. That does not lessen any of us in the eye of the beholder and nor should we or do we want to be summarily classified inappropriately and with a broad brush.
- Practically all definitions of an aviator to date speak to “a pilot of a manned aircraft”: someone who controls the aircraft in flight in all its modes and who has demonstrated the right aptitude and received specialist training for that job. In the military world and especially the fighter world, that training is extremely lengthy and demanding. In decades past, two-seat fighter aircraft have been the order of the day with the need for a Weapon Systems Operator to share the high workload represented particularly by earlier radar and air to air/air to ground systems. These aircrew, known variously as Observers, Navigators and Radar Intercept Officers also receive much specialist training and have earned the classification, aviator.
- In contrast, thousands of people are able to play sophisticated video games on a computer or fly a drone with a handheld controller without any specialist training. That is a far cry from the demanding job of flying and fighting a manned aircraft and should not be confused with the same. It does not convey upon them the expertise needed to be called an aviator. It takes some years in the frontline following training before a fighter pilot achieves true excellence in all forms of air combat. The air war victory in the Falklands is testament to that and could not have been achieved with drones controlled from a distant location by personnel without full air warfare and airmanship training.
- Reading between the lines, I would guess that CAS may now try to persuade ministers and the public that unmanned fighter aircraft/drones controlled by relative amateurs are an operationally effective alternative to manned aircraft. (There is of course an important role for both drones and manned aircraft in a combat zone, but the 2 roles should not and must not be conflated by whimsical thinking at high level.)
- This would fit snugly with his initiative to have us refer to all RAF personnel as aviators including engineers, aircraft maintainers, chefs, stewards, physical training instructors, etc.
- Will he be allowed to get away with it? If he does, we can expect 30,000 RAF personnel to be swaggering into their local pubs throughout the UK, assuming the mantle of a pilot/aviator and telling gullible locals how they won different air wars. This would be a major propaganda coup for our PR-savvy Air Force.
- If the above does not disturb you, you may wish to see CAS’ comments concerning a Net Zero RAF by 2040. How is it that the RAF has enough spare cash to devote personnel (or he would say aviators) to nefarious projects such as “countering global warming” and “inventing noncarbon aviation fuels”?
- See: A Net Zero RAF by 2040
- All things to all men, it would appear! “Affirmative Action” strikes again!