I can't find this man in CWGC. Anybody able to turn up anything before I post to non-comms?

The Times, Friday, Jul 21, 1916
AIRMAN KILLED IN THANET
Flight Sub-Lieutenant Douglas Whitter, a Canadian,
aged about 24 years, while flying a Bristol scout
one-seater aeroplane, was killed in Thanet yesterday.
When at a great height the pilot appeared to be
attempting to loop the loop, but the machine suddenly
descended in spirals and crashed into a cornfield.
The pilot was killed instantly, and the machine was
completely smashed.


Martin

Can't help with the non Comm aspect but training accidents with Bristol Scouts appear to have been very common, one sensitive Brig Gen complaining about the number of rotary engines written off as a result!

He is there. His surname is WHITTIER. Flying Scout Type C Ser. 1245 out of Manston.

Ah, thanks Horatio. I had tried WHITT 1916 but narrowed it down to Air Force, forgetting he could have been, and indeed was, RNAS. Trap for young players.

Martin

FSL D H Whittier, from Vancouver BC, was flying Bristol Scout Type C No 1245 from No 3 Wing RNAS at Manston on 20 July 1916 when he lost control in a loop at 1500 feet, side-slipped and went into a spinning nose dive.

Gareth

Navy had Sub Lts army had 2nd Lts

Service records:
ADM 273/7 Page 198: Douglas Whittier. RNAS Officers Service 1914-1918
ADM 273/30 Page 287: Douglas Whittier. RNAS Officers Service 1914-1918

A Sub Lieutenant was the equivalent to an army lieutenant.

It is disappointing that he can't be found by searching CWGC using Air Force; the RNAS were just as much a part of the eventual Air Force as the RFC. The RFC was an army unit, not a separate entity.

He was in fact somewhere between an army 2nd Lt and and army 1st Lt. The army had in fact once had the rank of Sub Lt
and a Sub Lt Tribe of the 9th Lancers appears to have been the first army officer to be commissioned after the abolition of the purchase system. Hansard records Cardwell answering a question about him in the House. At some point the army sub Lt became a 2nd Lt. In practical terms Sub Lt Whittier equated to an army 2nd Lt

He did not, this was only the case on the formation of the RAF and was achieved by ignoring the rank of Midshipman. A Naval Lieutenant was equivalent to an Army Captain. Just like Flight Lieutenant, when it was later introduced.

Yes but a Navy Lt was before, the RAF, higher than an army first Lt but lower than a Captain (in the same way that a sub Lt was higher than a 2nd Lt but lower than a first. Rather than effectively demote a lot of officers (and demotovate them as well) the ranks were equalised up wards when the RAF was formed. At the time of the acident our unfortunate Sub Lt was not the full equivalent of a 1st Lt

"our unfortunate Sub Lt was not the full equivalent of a 1st Lt".

Yes he was. I agree with PA-PM-PT. A lieutenant RN is and always has been, the direct equivalent of a captain in the army/RM. That is why RND Lieutenants wore captain's 'pips' as well as lieutenant's stripes. Sub lieutenant = army lieutenant. Midshipman = army 2nd lieutenant.

On passing out from OTC, RND naval officers were commissioned as sub lieutenants. Army officers were commissioned as mere 2nd lieutenants. That is probably why so many ex-army OTC new officers chose to be commissioned into the RND - they got paid more.

No he hasn't - see for example the Navy list 1879 which makes it very clear that only Navy Lts ranked as 'Navigating Lts' are equivalent to captain in the army. Lts below this (usually with under 8 years service) are senior to army lts but junior to army captains. The same rules apply to sub lts - snr to 2nd lts but junior to 1st lts unless they are 'navigating sub lts' As I said this was all swept away in 1918/19 and the above statement is correct only from this date.

You are incorrect here also, Naval officers were demoted on the formation of the RAF.

Much too simplistic. The rank of Naval Lt depending upon qualifications and length of service stretched in effect from below captain to somewhere close to major. Some got 'promoted' and a few (but not many) got demoted.

Do you have the statistics or information from primary sources to back this comment?

As Horatio points out the equivalent ranks were well established for Naval officers interacting with the Royal Marines, let alone the army. centurion please quote the relevent section from Kings Regulations 1913 to clarify your statements.

Lets take the example of an RN Lt and simplify a bit. He could be a Lt with under 8 years seniority and no special qualifications in which case he was regarded as senior to an Army 1^st Lt but junior to an army captain we’ll call him a type 1 Lt. He could be a Lt who had qualified as a master (a navigating Lt) or in some other area of speciality (guns, torpedoes etc) or who had simply achieved 8 years seniority with at least five of those at sea. He was regarded as being on a par with an army captain and for the purposes of this discussion we can label him as a type 2 Lt. Then we had the man with over 15 years seniority, with a fair proportion at sea who was regarded as above an army captain but below a major and we’ll call him a type 3 Lt. When they all got lumped together as equivalent to a Captain (Flying Officer) type 1 Lts were effectively promoted, type 2 stayed where they where and poor old type 3s were demoted. Given that in any hierarchical organisation there are always more juniors than seniors then is pretty obvious that there will be many more promoted than demoted.

I believe that different rules apply as to UK and Commonwealth countries, and indeed Commonwealth countries are not exactly the same.
It was my understanding that (post WW2) that a Sub-Lieutenant was equivalent to an army Lieutenant and the rank of 2nd Lieutenant was
not carried in the navy. A midshipman was an officer cadet with no permanent commission until he completed his training.
During the 8 year period as a Lieutenant he was required to specialize in various disciplines i.e. navigation, communications, gunnery etc
and after 8 years he would automatically become a Lieutenant-Commander. From there on promotion was by selection.
Ranks coma and go, when I was in the navy there was a rank (from the lower deck) of Commisioned Bosun - half ring on sleeve and
Senior commissioned Bosun - full ring on sleeve. These ranks have now been abolished and on commissioning from the lower deck a man
becomes a Sub-Lieutenant.
David

I conclude that you don’t have any statistics relating to how many RNAS officers were demoted, promoted or remained the same relative rank on the formation of the RAF. Quite how this paragraph relates to that question is a bit of a mystery to me.

Is what you wrote based on the 1879 Navy List you mentioned previously? Possibly you have not noticed that this is not the Zulu War Forum, but one dealing with the Great War. The change from men who qualified as Masters to being Navigation Lieutenants occurred in 1867, so for any of them to be in service in 1918 would mean they’d have over 40 years seniority as a Lt! From the research I’ve conducted, they are more likely to have been promoted to Staff Commander or retired from the service years before; even those who were promoted to Staff Captain (and therefore more competent than such a long time as Lt would imply) they were retired on age grounds – there was no further progression possible. Furthermore, the separate Navigation branch was phased out with no new entries after 1883. From then on all officers were required to know navigation; so even if a Nav Lt had entered then and was still active on the Navy List, by 1918 he’d have 30+ years seniority.

How many RNAS officers came into each of the types you outline? Particularly those outlined as type 3, just how many RNAS officers (let alone Lts) do you think had fifteen years seniority in 1918 and where did they come from? There were 138 officers in the RNAS on 15 August 1914; by 15 March 1918 this had risen to 5,378 (figures from Roskill ‘Documents relating to the Naval Air Service 1908-1918’). I would venture to suggest that there would be few officers with approaching four years seniority as most of the recruits were for ‘Hostilities Only,’ Even if there were so many long serving officers in the RNAS, if I’ve read your conclusions correctly: these officers with fifteen years seniority were the ones who were demoted on the formation of the RAF, which contradicts what you wrote about his effective rank and seems a ludicrous waste of experience. Aside from that possible confusion, your explanation overlooks the rank of Lieutenant Commander (Army equivalent rank Major) and the fact that Naval Lts with eight years seniority were promoted to the said rank during WWI so in 1918 Lts on the active list with 15 years seniority were scarce if not none existent.

Similarly this isn’t the Post WW2 Forum. In 1918 there wasn’t a Commonwealth and few of the Dominions had their own navies. Australia did, but it was in its infancy and most of the senior ratings were on loan or transferred from the Royal Navy. In the RN at this time it was possible for ratings to be promoted to commissioned rank in most disciplines. Some examples: seamen gunners (which included torpedo gunners) after reaching Gunner’s Mate (Chief Petty Officer) could be promoted to a Gunner (Warrant), a Chief Gunner (equivalent to a Sub Lieutenant), a Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and by 1918 to Commander. A Chief Yeoman of Signals could be promoted to Signals Boatswain (Warrant), Chief Signals Boatswain (equivalent to a Sub Lt), a Lt (Signals Lt from 1918), Lt Cdr (Signals Lt Cdr from 1918) and by 1918 a Signals Cdr. A CPO Telegraphist could be promoted to Warrant Telegraphist, a Commissioned Telegraphist (equivalent to a Sub Lt), a Telegraphist Lt, and Telegraphist Lt Cdr by 1918.

Douglas Whitter's Royal Aero Club Aviators’ Certificate was number 1866, his test was on 6th October 1915 at the Curtiss School, Toronto, Canada on a Curtiss biplane. There was no photo on his card.

The discussion on relative rank has highjacked the original post. I have opened a new topic in 'Other' to continue our rant.

PerA,
Thank you for your generally correct statements but may I advise you that in 1918 there was a Commonwealth of Australia, it was formed in 1901

David

David,

You are correct
and, certain of the original states of the USA also refer to themselves as 'Commonwealths'
However, I believe that PA etc was referring to what is generally known today as the British Commonwealth

best regards
Michael

As Michael so rightly says I was referring to the British Commonwealth as opposed to the British Empire as it was known during the period we are discussing. As you mentioned Commonwealth countries plural it is clear that you were referring to the same rather than just Australia.