How long to train a Army Pilot? [Archive]

jayteeto

1st Oct 2007, 19:11

Being ex-RAF, I have been in a few inter-service arguments, but I support the AAC here. When DHFS was set up, the army pilots were taking longer time to get to the front line. Weeks and weeks longer was actually causing shortages at the front line. When the command structure tried to bin any fixed wing flying and tried to shorten the course (ideally withdraw from Shawbury), they were given a hard time because DHFS was 'the way ahead'. Don't get me wrong, the school does a great job, but individual service training units did a better job!! The problem????????? Of course........ MONEY. There is always a negative when you save cash.

[email protected]

2nd Oct 2007, 06:26

Jay - but under the old system the AAC pilots were sent out to front-line only having ever flown at Wallop.

The AAC also had no independent validation of their quality since grading/instruction and examination was all in-house. if you wanted to chop someone and the powers that be needed a bum-on-a-seat then more often than not they passed.

Some of the first female AAC pilots only got to front-line because the system was so parochial.

Are there any figures for the 3 services re chop rate at DHFS?

struggle

2nd Oct 2007, 06:38

DHFS chop rate 8%

MightyGem

2nd Oct 2007, 07:55

AAC chop rate 50% on my course! :eek:

teeteringhead

2nd Oct 2007, 09:41

jaytee, I have to agree with crab@ here. DHFS has improved the Army product, as much as anything else by early exposure to the other services. (And vice versa before I cause offence)

I was in MoD when DHFS was being set up, and we had difficulty getting a "level playing field" for output standards as the AAC then claimed they could get a pilot CR in about an hour-and-a-half (I exaggerate greatly for effect). So my RN opposite number and I decided on the killer question - you will recall we were just getting into the Bosnia thing, and all 3 services were involved.

So the "equivalence" question was posed: How long after type training (OCU, 707 or whatever) would a new pilot be deemed competent to captain a singleton on a non-tactical ac changeover between UK and Split? RAF and Junglie answers were the same, about 6-9 months out of OCU at most ..... the AAC answer was a good deal longer ...... ;)

I also think you miss some of the point on the "losing the FW" plot of the AAC. IIRC the plot was to go straight to DHFS (or Wallop for that matter) and start flying training there. It wasn't the lack of flying that mattered, as much as the complete lack of any aviation groundschool.

Can you imagine a poor abo arriving at 660, not only never having flown, but with no met, no airmanship and no P of F instruction to use as a foundation......

But that was then and this is now - the system is good now (still not sure what DAAvn does and why it and Wallop are not part of JHC :ok:) and is being proved daily in the 'Stan with different rotary forces working superbly together - particularly the Wokka/Apache combo (not in any way to denigrate other types and theatres, where the same is true).

It's good to know the system is robust, when you've not only got mates flying out there, but nowadays the sons of mates too.......

timex

2nd Oct 2007, 10:24

Jay - but under the old system the AAC pilots were sent out to front-line only having ever flown at Wallop.

Crab, yes they did. However remember the flying done at the time was on the AAC's Operational aircraft (Gazelle or Lynx) so no need to go elsewhere. RAF chaps went off to Benson or Odiham to do type conversions, RN went to VL or Portland unless you stayed on the Grey SK fleet then you remained at Culdrose.

The AAC also had no independent validation of their quality since grading/instruction and examination was all in-house. if you wanted to chop someone and the powers that be needed a bum-on-a-seat then more often than not they passed.

So what independant checks did the other services have? If you were RN you were checked by RN standards at the end of your course likewise for the RAF. ALL instructore were checked by Tri service standards annually ISTR?

Some of the first female AAC pilots only got to front-line because the system was so parochial.

Any different for the other services I wonder? Also some of the female Pilots were very good.

The main reason for the swiftness of the AAC pilots course was that it was all done in one place, no fannying around on holdover waiting for other courses to finish. (9 months got you to frontline but the Command side of life was usually 2 yrs).

Shaun

hihover

2nd Oct 2007, 13:07

Teet,

I'm not sure which Army product you think has been improved by DHFS!! The Army product that was achieved in the 9 months (no fannying about, so eloquently described) was a decent product. 60 hours Chippie and 140 hours Gazelle qualified you as a competent captain on the Gazelle.

Of course, Theatre Qualification then meant further training, and with close supervision/guidance/development you were in the right seat of a single pilot helicopter doing your job at about the one year point - still very closely supervised.

Crab - why would we want/require policing from any outsider? We always had a good smattering of well respected Crabs in our training system and at operational level - we didn't need them, we wanted them.

The Army training system evolved due to various factors, some were -

Economy - In striving to cut the chop rate, flying grading was introduced. Initially on the Chipmunk at MW. It was working just fine until the end of the Chippie's reasonable working life. Then instead of replacing our Chippie's at MW, we broke the system and started sending our pilots elsewhere.

CREST - Crew restructuring, someone had the brilliant idea that two pilots flying an aircraft certified as "single pilot," was better.

DHFS - just as we were getting the upper hand on the two pilot system, MOD came up with the brilliant idea of centralisation for helicopter training.

Of course, we all evolve, and so we should, some of the evolutionary stages are difficult but necessary, however, please don't be under the misapprehension that the 9 month Army Pilot needed improvement. He was capable and well trained. He also suited the needs of the Army and his career and capability progression was very straight forward. I doubt if that is still the case.

tam

Clockwork Mouse

2nd Oct 2007, 17:31

Hihover
I agree. We did OK.
When I joined the Air Platoon of an Infantry Battalion in 1969 from MW as an infantry officer pilot, we were well trained and effective in the aircraft of the day and for the requirements of the day. I remember flying a Sioux solo on Salisbury Plain, tactically at tree-top level (if there had been any trees), directing artillery shoots, map reading, looking out, pulling up to spot fall of shot, locating it on the map, sending grid refs and corrections, using the radios with BATCO, with both hands and both feet busy on the controls and all the needles approximately in the green. All in a days work. How the hell did we do it?

jayteeto

2nd Oct 2007, 19:05

I wasn't putting down DHFS, early exposure to other services is priceless, people make good contacts for the future. However, I stand by what I said (as a through and through RAF man), that the AAC got the product THEY WANTED, faster than the present system. Faster was the critical word a few years ago, they were very very short of pilots because the new system took longer. If the pilot couldn't captain an aircraft to Split, so what? They generally used a P2 system that worked for them. I think the RAF/RN system produced a slightly better product, but it took me a hell of a lot longer to get to the front line. My first 6 months on 33 Sqn are still a blur, I was so maxed out, we needed the extra training. Horses for courses, train what YOU need for the front line, as fast as possible.
PS. CFS checked the army regularly, other than wearing the wrong uniform, they were as good as us.....:ok:

serf

3rd Oct 2007, 07:24

Mmm.

I was a product of the old system and it worked fine.

I was also at MW when the new system started, at shop floor level we were expecting a fantastic product from Shawbury, it did'nt work out like that!

The ground school standard was far better than when I went through, some of the flying skills were better but the vast majority was the same or worse, RT in particular was appalling considering they had done 6 months or so at Barkston Heath and 6 months at Shawbury.

A lot of students who should have been chopped at Shawbury were sent on to MW, and were eventually chopped there.

Crab, you talk sh$te at times.

SunderlandMatt

4th Oct 2007, 17:25

Too long!

Join as an Officer and you can expect your mates you went though RMAS with, to be leaving after they've done their thousand days.

Once the training's done though, you'll be doing one of the best jobs in the forces. Frustrating but worth it.

[email protected]

5th Oct 2007, 09:03

Serf, if I had a pound for every time I was told at MW that a Cpl pilot in a Gazelle could do all the same stuff just as well as a Flt Lt in a Puma/Seaking/Chinook, I would be a rich man. The problem was that all the guys who believed this had never seen what the RAF/RN do and assumed that bimbling around Salisbury plain was all that was needed.

The previous AAC system was efficient in that the flash to bang time for producing a driver, airframes was under a year - but, whilst the top end of the product was generally capable, the lower end could be pretty sh*te and it was very difficult to chop them when bums on seats were needed.

The AAC could have had a better product out of DHFS but insisted on keeping 670 and duplicating some of the DHFS syllabus when all that was actually needed was a few Gazelles to teach the tactical/observation skills. If students were not chopped at DHFS and sent to MW then it was often because the AAC insisted on it (again driven by bums on seats).

serf

5th Oct 2007, 14:59

At that time crab, I only had experience of one RAF student, and you're right he did stand out from the crowd.....................mind you he did have 350 hours when he started at Wallop.

[email protected]

5th Oct 2007, 17:47

Serf, I think that was the one who had been chopped by the RAF but had friends, especially daddy's, in high places and got himself on the APC through the back door.

wg13_dummy

5th Oct 2007, 17:58

Serf, if I had a pound for every time I was told at MW that a Cpl pilot in a Gazelle could do all the same stuff just as well as a Flt Lt in a Puma/Seaking/Chinook, I would be a rich man.

You are quite right, crab. An Army Cpl in a Gazelle couldn't do the same stuff as a Flt Lt in a Puma, Seaking or Chinook. For a start, he couldn't pick up 12+ blokes at A and drop them somewhere near B and then nearly get back to the vicinity of A. He'd only be able to do a bit of Obs and Recce, AOP, FAC, low level tac flying with a bit of regard for the tactical situation and a couple of other minor tasks other than bus driving.

Oh, and he'd still be able to do Gd 2/ic, organise a BBQ, look after the baby DE officers and still get paid less than rear baggage on the Puma/Seaking/Chinook.

:ok:

serf

5th Oct 2007, 20:03

eerrrrrr, he was still in the RAF and was on chinnie the last I heard.

Two's in

6th Oct 2007, 01:37

Glad to see the investment in DHFS has produced a cohesive and mutually respected tri-service pilot product. I remember when it was nothing but a bunch of inter service "scratch your eyes out" name-calling by big girls' blouses.

Good job everybody.

[email protected]

6th Oct 2007, 05:38

Serf - yes, but he got his wings on the APC and never actually passed out at Shawbury like every other RAF helicopter pilot. He is probably quite competent now but he played the system and got a helicopter slot that was therefore denied to someone else who hadn't already failed training.

Bizarrely I believe he wears RAF not AAC wings.

Wg13, but the RAF Flt Lt didn't have to go back to Wallop for further trg before being allowed to be Ac Comd - as soon as the OCU was finished he was ready to rock.

As for tactics - could you remind me when the AAC started EW trg? The SH force had been doing it for years which is why we were allowed to play in GW1.

Things are different now, the AAC has had to raise its game significantly to operate the Apache - but who were the first guys to go on AH? All the A2 QHIs, then the B1 QHI's and eventually when they had run out of beefers, the senior line pilots.....any Cpl pilots amongst them? No, didn't think so.

ralphmalph

6th Oct 2007, 07:16

Some interesting comments here about output standards!.

Tactics...
EW although very important cannot be a substitute for tactical awareness and understanding of the ground picture. There are some aircrew in the AAC where that skill is often to be found wanting, but by and large the army tend to take and active interest in the army. I have more than often seen RAF crews pay lipservice to the tactical scenario because it suits them, something that would go against the grain for a teeny weeny operator.

As far as being able to command an aircraft from the off. Well yes I think that most aircrew on completion of CTT would be able to perform that role. Especially as the guys at Wallop "pretend" to be solo pilot throughout the latter stages of OTP (Something the other two services dont do!..apart from the Junglies I suspect).

The track history of the Puma fleet at the moment has proven that experience is required..not everyone is capable of jumping out of CTT and onto ops. The mechanism in the army ensures that new aircrew fully understand their role and allows for the suitable checks and balances before giving command. There have been many instances where a guy/girl has passed the pilots course but has never made command.

What checks do the RAF have and if ever has anyone ever been chopped because they were **** at commanding an aircraft???

Russell Sprout

6th Oct 2007, 09:08

What’s with the rank thing????? Great CRM subject that i know more about than most as an ex DHFS best student CPL pilot. Since when was the level of skill and competency based on a person’s rank?

Didn't we have a thread not so long ago regarding the Battle of Britain being won by NCO aces?

[email protected]

6th Oct 2007, 10:07

Ralph, the track history of the Puma shows only one thing - it bites and bites hard, even to experienced guys working hard under pressure. Dilute the experience on the front line and you have accidents in the making. The shame on the RAF is that despite several BoI recommendations, the Pumas still haven't been fitted with anticipators (planned soon allegedly).

The intimate knowledge of what the tankies, infantry and arty are up to is nice to have but not essential since few SH wander round the battlefield looking for business. Obs and recce and AH work is different, I guess that's why it is given to the Army.

As for tactical scenarios, NI was a real one and while we flew either at 50' or above 2000', many AAC were quite content to bimble around at 200' -500' wondering why they were the ones getting shot at.

I instructed for 5 years at Shawbury and 7 years at MW - sufficient I believe to discern the comparable levels of ability in those days. As I said the AAC have raised their game since then as a result of getting AH.

I can't speak for SH but we (22 Sqn Sarboys) chopped one pilot in the last couple of years for not achieving Operational Captaincy. If you want to see what we demand of our first tourists on SAR then come and have a look, the learning curve is steep and without good quality input, many would fail.

Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.

AHQHI656SQN

6th Oct 2007, 10:46

Mate, it is not often that I feel the need to correct you, but I must on this occasion.
Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.
Mate, the reason that the AAC increased the number of DE Officer pilots was because they were doubling the number of flight commander posts (4 per Sqn instead of 2). This has however caused problems. DE officer pilots will not serve long enough in an Apache Sqn to make the investment worthwhile. Now the wheel is round again and I believe we are going back to 2 flights per Sqn. The best investment for Apache is the Sgt pilot from the council estate, just like me! We can fly tour after tour, without the need for lengthy tours on the Mahogany Bomber Mk2.
I'll see you around when I return from the sandpit, next time you're at UW we'll have a beer. :ok:
Tom

ralphmalph

6th Oct 2007, 10:55

Crab,
I have close friends in the SAR world and am under no illusion as to the difficulty of acheiving Op Captaincy on a SAR flight. I think with the Op tempo as it is today aircrew from all 3 services are being thrown into the fire quicker than ever before. I think if we could the army would try and reduce the pipline even further, probably a mistake!.
Within the SH fleet and in particular the Puma are some very young crews. I know that when I was fresh out of the box I was very gratefull to have my time as a Buckshee pilot with a Senior to hold my hand. Indeed I was under no illusion as to my status and capability.
The notion that a Flt Lt fresh from the OCU would be ready to rock is a dangerous one!. Although you do say that the AAC has "raised its game", I gained wings 5 years ago and knew some pretty **** pilots who scraped the course from all services.
The system utilised by the army generally works well and weeds out any trouble cases!....usually!.

The SAR force has some very stringent checks and balances to ensure quality (and to get rid of pilots who dont flying in the mountains at night!), and quite rightly so.

BTW the tripling of officers into the AAC has more to do with the short sighted planning of a couple of SO1's in influential places rather than an AH "masterplan". The problem then arises when you have more officers flying than ever before and there is no career profile for them!. Meanwhile the bones of the AAC flying fraternity(the SNCO's) are marginalised.

Ralph

HEDP

6th Oct 2007, 10:57

Ah yes J,

But having recruited all the officers we now find ourselves desperatly short of young SNCO's and are striving to redress the balance.

I have had the pleasure of flying with some SAR guys and gals and was astounded at the lack of ability in anything other than an A to B scenario, tactics was beyond them, is this a factor in the apparent once a SAR boy always a SAR boy mentality?:E

There are good and bad operators on all sides of the fence and to characterise this as rank related is folly, all undergo the same selection process and I know of many young AAC Cpls who achieved the score to go fast jet but didn't want to.

You are correct that those in the AAC now have raised their game and I have to say that the system has also. It is the case that you no longer have visibility of this however.

parabellum

6th Oct 2007, 12:54

I doubt very much that the pass level at initial selection for pilot training varies at all between the three services.

I went through Biggin Hill in 1964 and what we discovered then was that the line was drawn at exactly the same place on the list for everyone.
The big question was, "does this candidate have the potential to become a pilot within the amount of budget we are prepared to allow"

As to whether one went on to fly fighters, four engined transport or helicopters or anything at all would be decided further down the track during initial flying training. In the case of the Army, in 1964, with a couple of exceptions, everyone went rotary. I hope it hasn't changed but the Army requirement at Biggin Hill in 1964 was no less than the RAF's, it was only a measure of potential.

Door Slider

6th Oct 2007, 13:42

The pass mark for RAF rearcrew is the same as AAC pilots, 90. But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF.

serf

6th Oct 2007, 13:48

Really?.............so they can remain fat, dumb and happy.

parabellum

6th Oct 2007, 13:51

"The pass mark for RAF rearcrew is the same as AAC pilots, 90. But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF".

Think you may just find yourself out in the wilderness on this one Door Slider, I started out on the Bell47G Sioux and finished my career with ten years in command on a B747-400, would that kind of career path have been open to the rearcrew in the RAF?;)

charliegolf

6th Oct 2007, 14:15

Parabellum, it's simpler than that: the option simply wasn't (isn't?) there. You couldn't join the AAC as an nco pilot. I might have. I'd like to hear from any loadies who would not rather be a pilot in any uniform.

Mark Terry went AAC from 33 in the 80s. Whatever happened to him?

CG

Picture the Army Careers Tent camped outside the Cranwell (Biggin in my day) main gate on OASC day. Banner: "PASSED NCA? COME AND FLY ARMY AH". Takers, you reckon?

chcoffshore

6th Oct 2007, 14:56

Mark Terry finished as a Major and now fly's for one of the airlines! Door Slider..................I needed a good laugh thanks hahahaha.:rolleyes:

Chicken Leg

6th Oct 2007, 20:57

But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF.

Really Door Slider, are you sure? Inter Service and trade banter is one thing, but you've got to make your points either funny or plausible. I suppose yours fits into the first category.

Crab
I'm surprised by your stated opinions on this thread. As someone who worked with you during your 7 yrs with the AAC (and had great respect for you both professionally and socially) I thought you were above this type of pi55ing match. If we were so bad and you (crabs generally) were so good, why were you so content to keep extending your tour with us and therefore play a part in our poor standards?

I agree with earlier comments. We produced pilots that were good at doing what we needed them to do and yes we did raise our game with Apache. So much so that I would say that the first Apache Sqn were probably the best trained aviation unit that either service had ever produced (a big call, I know). The training was exceptional and as a result, so were the pilots.

serf

7th Oct 2007, 14:10

They did'nt want him back!

[email protected]

7th Oct 2007, 19:13

Chickenleg - I am not dissing all AAC pilots just highlighting that although the old system gave you what you wanted, the quality was not always as it should have been. I'm not saying that the RAF or the RN produced top quality with every graduation but that overall, at the point when wings were awarded and guys were sent out to front-line, the RAF/RN output was of a better ability as guys were trained to be captain/ac comd and were not then subject to further selection/courses for this level.

Parabellum - the score required on the aptitude tests is lower for AAC.

Tom and Ralph - we knew the career profile for the AAC officers was always going to be a problem - I think a few hoped that the directorate would fight a suitable case with Glasgow for a different structure for AAC in AH but it clearly hasn't happened. The fact remains that the AAC had a good go at making AH an officers club (true blue or LE). The quality of the first AH Sqn was as a result of the high calibre of the blokes in it but they weren't first tourists or Cpl pilots.

Another problem was that many of the original LE apache guys who formed the backbone of the first Sqn have had enough and left; that coupled with slow throughput of the CTT/CTR seems to be leaving you with some serious manning issues.

I don't think any RAF rearcrew would turn their nose up at a pilot's course, AAC or not.

Door Slider

7th Oct 2007, 19:54

"I don't think any RAF rearcrew would turn their nose up at a pilot's course, AAC or not"

Of course not but at least you had a laugh during a thread that was becoming a pi55ing contest as per usual.:}

serf

7th Oct 2007, 20:49

Nice 1 door slider!

wg13_dummy

7th Oct 2007, 21:15

at the point when wings were awarded and guys were sent out to front-line, the RAF/RN output was of a better ability as guys were trained to be captain/ac comd and were not then subject to further selection/courses for this level.

10+ years ago, the 'front line' consisted of NI and the Balkans.

Yep, youre right, your chaps were better.

Not really a challenge being a bus driver back then was it? Not exactly tough captaincy especially when you also had a rearcrewman who, as has been discussed in other threads, does 33% of the job on the cab. TWO grownups to hold his hand.

Hardly a wonder there was no need for further courses. **** all required after wings/OCU.

:E

linbhunt

7th Oct 2007, 22:28

How long to train a Army Pilot?

To what?

Front Seater

8th Oct 2007, 10:06

I really do not want to get involved in the current thread of my willy is bigger than your willy, but for what it is worth:

Once a true 'steady state' has been achieved then we will be able to assess and evaluate the true merits (or failings) of an Army Training system in order to establish exactly how long it takes to train an Army pilot.

I have received some polite messages requesting that I remove the content of my post for various reasons (I do have courage of my convictions, just may have caused offence - which was never my intent) - therefore I am happy to oblige. I have left the first and last paragraphs so that the general idea can be obtained

Chicken Leg, your post below is correct (to a point) at time of writng - but I think you will find that it includes many that are not QHIs - it is just that those that were on the later time bars couldn't PVR, but it is now recognised that once their time bars are up (in the near future) then many will be off (unless re-time barred on other qualifications - e.g. QHI).

No names - no pack drill and maybe I have got it completely wrong and those threatening are truly bluffing their ticket with their CO - in which case if this is steady state and the Army Pilot Training system is in steady state then the answer to this question (and to many others posed on Prune) on how long to train an Army Pilot is visible to all after a simple google search.

Chicken Leg

8th Oct 2007, 13:19

Front Seater
Some excellent points there, most of which I agree with, but I have to correct you on one point:

My point is, if you cannot retain people - as the RN and the RAF seem to do more efficiently

Absolutely wrong! Whatever most of us may think from wandering around our Sqn's, the AAC has it's full compliment of pilots. That's because most of us don't leave early; even when were 5hat on with flying pay etc (see other threads). Both the RN and RAF have FRI, we don't for that very reason.

Contrary to what has been said, I haven't seen many of the pilots from the first Op Sqn leave. Sure, loads of the first bunch of QHI's have, but that was inevitable considering most of them were already pensionable when they did the courses in the States 5-7 years ago.

MaroonMan4

9th Oct 2007, 10:26

Chicken Leg,

I am not sure that I understand or agree with your last post:

Sure, loads of the first bunch of QHI's have, but that was inevitable considering most of them were already pensionable when they did the courses in the States 5-7 years ago.

Dont you think that any trained and experienced individual not having his or her services retained by an organisation (QHI or non QHI) is a waste. With 38 being the pension point, then it is a real pity (and loss of experience) that your Corps has obviously failed to identify - whereas we are more than happy (and actively 'head hunt') our experienced aviators in order to provide a balanced Squadron and look after the young aircrew when they arrive. No one is irreplaceable agrred, but in the same breath you cannot grow a 15 year (or longer) 2500 hour pilot over night, whatever the cutting of corners, reduction in standards or rapid turning of taps take place in the training pipeline.

But your loss is our gain and I think with the advent of more SH and less teeney weeney aircraft that we will need every pilot that your system pushes out the door - looking at the RAF transfer list it could be argued that Middle Wallop is becoming another RAF training establishment :)

timex

9th Oct 2007, 18:49

MM,

But your loss is our gain and I think with the advent of more SH and less teeney weeney aircraft that we will need every pilot that your system pushes out the door - looking at the RAF transfer list it could be argued that Middle Wallop is becoming another RAF training establishment

Probably true, but thats because you too are bleeding aircrew hand over fist.

Shaun

AH Veteran

9th Oct 2007, 19:49

Chicken Leg,

If I may correct you on one point, also:

Contrary to what has been said, I haven't seen many of the pilots from the first Op Sqn leave.

7 of the original Sqn have left or are in the process of leaving, either runnning out their service or via PVR. Three Officers and 4 WO1s. This is over a third (7/19) of 656 Sqn, at full strength. Even more worrying is that there are only five of the original 19 currently filling front line seats, including 2 QHIs - only two remain in 656 Sqn itself! Of all the others:

4 have been promoted and/or posted to desk jobs
2 have gone on QHI course (necessary, I grant you)
1 posted to AMTAT (equally appropriate)pouring ab initio pilots out of CTR will not replace the experience lost from that lot!

AHV

wg13_dummy

9th Oct 2007, 20:16

pouring ab initio pilots out of CTR will not replace the experience lost from that lot!

Email that to DAAvn.

They are having trouble with the sums at the moment. :rolleyes:

ralphmalph

9th Oct 2007, 23:09

DAAvn are not having problems with figures.....they are just really out of touch with the Corps.

Perhaps they are too involved in day to day paper pushing/management...or

guys in the regiments are not being honest!.

I suspect that it is a combination of the two!

Either way.....

Something needs to be done!

Chicken Leg

10th Oct 2007, 17:31

Maroon,

The bunch of QHI's that have left have done so on their accord; they weren't pushed. The Corps is bad at that sort of thing, but their not that stupid!

HEDP

10th Oct 2007, 19:41

The question to be asked is how many have passed AH CTT/CTR in UK and how many are filling line pilot or AH QHI LSNs now?

What is the delta and is it due to acceptable (to the taxpayer) wastage or could more have been done to retain those that have moved on at a cost of £3 million each to train?

If the answer is that more could have been done then why was it not?

9 Regt, 42/43 trained and only 14ish left................

Lingo Dan

11th Oct 2007, 06:09

WTF is "the delta?" 21-st century Management-Speak?:bored:

Thud_and_Blunder

11th Oct 2007, 07:47

Lingo,

I suspect the "delta" is a reference to its symbolism in maths and engineering, ie "change". The AAC would've been familiar with the expression ever since they did groundschool on the Gazelle - Aerospatiale and subsequently Eurocopter have always loved including delta measurements in engine/instrumentation parameters.

Mind you, it does come over in this context as a bit of "exclusive", management-styleeee jargon.

charliegolf

11th Oct 2007, 09:41

Apollo 13, Swigert: They've given us too much delta v; we gonna skip off the atmosphere right into space", or something like that.

Thud- my first thought was 'scientisty' rather than 'managementy'. Ho hum.

CG

Lingo Dan

11th Oct 2007, 10:34

It was early in the morning when I wrote that - and sorry for going a bit off-topic!

Now that you explain, I recall there's a "Delta P" switch in a hydraulic system I once knew something about. :)

LD

HEDP

11th Oct 2007, 11:08

I do soooo apologise........

for Delta read difference.

i.e. how many have we lost?

[email protected]

11th Oct 2007, 17:38

Gazelle engine governing system - Delta P unit

hihover

11th Oct 2007, 18:13

Sounds like a secret code...D = difference!!!

Well, I'm going to go down the papa, sit on my alpha and have a bravo or two and see if I can figure this one out.

tam

Two's in

12th Oct 2007, 04:05

It's not management speak - the delta is part of Mathematical Differentiation. You either did calculus or you didn't, hardly the stuff of elitism.

[email protected]

12th Oct 2007, 05:52

Also sounds a bit like the very punchy, operational RT I heard recently from an Apache - "Lima Charlie"............Takes longer to say (4 syllables v 3) than Loud and Clear which is what they meant as they were doing radio checks:)

Gnd

12th Oct 2007, 15:24

HEDP,

Just out of interest all the 43 have left 9AAC, it's all Lynx now.

Quite fun I am sure

AH Veteran

18th Oct 2007, 20:32

7 of the original Sqn have left or are in the process of leaving, either runnning out their service or via PVR. Three Officers and 4 WO1s. This is over a third (7/19) of 656 Sqn, at full strength. Even more worrying is that there are only five of the original 19 currently filling front line seats, including 2 QHIs - only two remain in 656 Sqn itself! Of all the others:

4 have been promoted and/or posted to desk jobs
2 have gone on QHI course (necessary, I grant you)
1 posted to AMTAT (equally appropriate)

I would add to that the two AH pilots who have now been posted to 8 Flt and Fixed Wing training next year. I can't say I blame them, having spent four years at the AH coalface - it is a hard slog. They will, hopefully, come back to the programme in a few years, refreshed and re-invigorated.

HEDP - in answer to your question, by December next year, I anticipate that there will be no original members of 656 Sqn left in a front line seat. Seems a crying shame, especially when I know that some of the original aircrew would possibly have stayed, given the chance.

I'm looking forward to a new job!:ok:

MightyGem

19th Oct 2007, 22:14

I anticipate that there will be no original members of 656 Sqn left in a front line seat
Nothing changes. When I left 659 in 1997, we had 24 aircrew, for our 8 Lynx, 23 of who were Cat 1 NVG. 18 months later probably about 80% were gone.

Front Seater

20th Oct 2007, 05:09

Mighty Gem,

You are right, nothing changes, except that cost of training crews has gone up considerably and there wasn't so much investment in a Detmold Night Hawk crews (which in those days was some of the best trained AAC crews) as there is now with the AMTAT/LCR pipeline.

HEDP

20th Oct 2007, 13:18

AH Vet,

Is that a job near me then?

:ok:

HEDP

Jeep

20th Oct 2007, 15:17

Greetings

After 4 years, why should there be many aircrew left out of the original 656 Sqn? There is now a good mix of experience in each of the AH units and in particular there is a good mix of experience and other talents in the operational units. Getting 4 years out of each AH pilot would be a great feat; you should really be complaining as tax payers about the AH pilots that do not do 4 years before going onto a desk job.

In these days of a buoyant civilian flying market, it is always going to be a struggle to entice aircrew to stay, particularly as there is a high operational tempo. From what I see in the AAC, and I get a privileged overview of the whole thing, we continue to produce the goods required to our number one customer, the squaddie.

The jobs within the JHC and aviation in general are opening up. When Wessex pilots can become kingair pilots, AH pilots can go to 8 Flt, and our desk johnnies that want to continue flying can remain in the services by going Blue, it would appear that there are a lot of variety and challenges in service flying to be had.

The need to retain experience on our types is obvious, but it is no where near as dire as some posters might like us to believe. Mr Ab initio is producing the goods and the sausage machine is working well, as it always has in the services.

On another note, I attended the CFS conference this week. There was a lot of chat about QHI/QFI pay. All very encouraging.

Jeep