aircraftman

13:21 May 23, 2017 

Initially, I was just tryng to convey for Asker's benefit an idea of the level of the rank involved; not being any more familiar with forces' ranks in FR, I felt that the translation offered by R+C was a good starting point, inasmuch as it does convey very much the lowly level of the person concerned ('2nd class') without adding or subtracting any nuance of level or skill/speciality — in that sense, it is a perfect rendering of the source term. In my naïve ignorance, I assumed that the FR term I suggested, not being too specific in its apparent sense (in the way that 'wing commander' or 'rear-admiral' would be, for example) might be suitable for use with a slightly informal tone, bearing in mind that the overall connotation here is along the lnes of 'bloke'.
My Dad was in the RAF — not long after it was formed, in fact! — and I have a pretty good 'feeling' for the way the term is being used her in EN, and in the context of the period. Sorry I can't be more help on the FR side.

13:11 May 23, 2017 

Do not forget that it is supposed to take place during WW2.

12:55 May 23, 2017 

Ce que je ne comprends pas, c'est la logique de votre raisonnement. Vous proposez comme réponse initiale : « soldat de deuxième classe (de l'armée de l'air) », une réponse qui cherche à reproduire l'intitulé d'un grade, même si elle n'est pas entièrement satisfaisante, puis vous nous dites, en commentaire de la réponse d'un confrère qui applique la même méthodologie que la vôtre : I think the FR text needs in some way to reflect this [=informal] register, rather than getting bogged down in the niceties of forces' ranking. <p>Mais ça n'a aucune importance...

12:00 May 23, 2017 

Ah, but you are completely misunderstanding my query; I accept all that you say, and obvisouly your knowledge of FR is infinitely more comprehensive than my own.
Al I was eager to point out was that the source text, without going into details of RAF hierarchy, simple notes this was 'an ordinary airman' (using the official title of his rank, as would be normal in everyday usage) — and note it specifically does NOT use any of the official terms for this job that are likewise available in EN; all the writer is attmepting to say, in a light, throwaway fashion, is that 'there was a bloke frantically waving some bats around' — and I think the FR text needs in some way to reflect this register, rather than getting bogged down in the niceties of forces' ranking.
My only quibble with using the official term for the equivalent rank is simply that, unlike the EN term, this is ambgiguous in FR — as you point out in your own ref. , and as Philippe acknowledges in his response to my peer comment. Given there is nothing in the text to warn the reader we are suddeny talking about some specific rank, they could be forgiven for initially reading it as simple 'aviateur' in the everyday sense.

11:38 May 23, 2017 

Ma Doué, vous ratissez large ! Selon vos réponses ou commentaires, vous allez de « pilote » à « soldat de deuxième classe de l'armée de l'air » (qui ne se dit pas et s'écrit encore moins). Ça laisse une sacrée marge ! Il semble hautement improbable qu'un pilote d'une quelconque armée de l'air se livre au genre d'activité décrit (elle aussi de toute manière une affaire de spécialiste). Les termes proposés par Philippe (« aviateur », « parqueur », auxquels on aurait pu ajouter « marshaller », même en français apparemment, cf. la vidéo suivante) ne laissent place à aucune ambiguïté puisque ce sont en l'occurrence les termes utilisés par les autorités concernées. Outre les sources de l'armée de l'air déjà données en référence, cf. ce doc émanant de l'armée de terre (force aérienne légère) : http://www.alat.fr/ALAT 2008 (1).pdf et cette vidéo parlant du guidage au sol des appareils civils ou militaires :http://www.aeronewstv.com/fr/lifestyle/comment-ca-marche/153... Aucune ambiguïté là-dedans. Mais, bon, vous aimez avoir le dernier mot, hehe, donc j'arrête là et on ne saura jamais, de toute façon, le fin mot de l'histoire...

19:12 May 22, 2017 

Il ne s'agit pas d'un pluriel, mais du génitif saxon. Noter toutefois que selon Wikipedia (fiable ?), The spellings "aircraftsman" and "aircraftswoman", despite being occasionally seen even in official documents, are incorrect in any air force. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraftman). Le fait est que l'OED l'écrit sans « s » (cf. la réf. ci-dessous).

19:08 May 22, 2017 

Ah yes, this is not a plural of 'aircraft', but a kind of genitive case — like 'draughtsman', and a very few other words, like 'craftsman' (which could plausibly have been a plural, but isn't!) Cf. 'homme d'affaires' in FR, where we see the logic of a genitive (or possessive)

17:18 May 22, 2017 

I'm a little bit surprised... I thought that aircraft was invariable.

15:19 May 22, 2017 

It's often (usually?) 'aircraftsman', I think you'll find, which might help you in your researches!