OCU and Flying Training

[ExRAFRadar]

Hi all,

Having read Courtney's excellent website about his experiences in the RAF as a Phantom pilot one thing has raised my interest that I would like to know more about.

As a bit of a dreamer I always thought that OCU was, and here I expect to be flamed, a bit of a tick box experience

By that I mean that after a few years and millions already spent on pilot training OCU was a mere transition phase and not a 'Training' phase.

I now see that it was by no means a given that the young pilot would go on to a Squadron, and still faced the chop even at such a late stage.

And in that vein how much did the Hawk prepare you for the big beasts ?

I think it was Courtney's site that I read the Hunter seemed to prepare pilots for the more demanding front line jets and the Hawk, being so easy to fly, left a bit to be desired. My words by the way not Courtney's.

Any thoughts ?

[APG63]

I can't comment on the Hunter v Hawk question (before my time), but you have reached the right conclusion about OCU training in that it is by no means a given. In fact, I would go further and say that new guys and gals on the squadrons still aren't really there until they finish the squadron quals. Although I don't think we lose as many these days on the OCU and squadron as in Courtney's time. We must have better intructors these days!

[Exmil]

Graduating from the OCU was not a foregone conclusion; my course of 8 on the F4 OCU had one pilot and one nav chopped. The hawk was a reasonable prep, but working as a crew and with a radar was different. At this stage of training you are moving away from learning to fly to becoming operators of a weapon system.
It then took 6 months to become QRA qualified and another 6 months to become combat ready (and again you could be chopped at any stage).

[Backwards PLT]

People did, and do, get chopped from OCUs but I think that the rate is far lower than for earlier stages of flying training. After all you should only get there if the prevous course thought you would pass!

In my experience of going from hawk to F3 in the mid 90s, I found the hawk to be very poor prep - basic ACT was taught poorly and there were no systems in a hawk - it was still very much based around flying around at LL doing visual nav with a few other bits tacked on. The F3 was far more about kit and SA in a vastly bigger bubble than the hawk, as well as the 2-seat piece. (Also no moveable wings in a hawk - the bane of many a baby Tornado pilot!!)

In terms of training quality I think that we have moved on in leaps and bounds, on both the hawk and OCUs, since the mid 90s. At that time I would rate Valley as poor with far too mny old school types and the F3 OCU as OK. Some of the stories from my contemporaries on other FJ fleets are horrendous. Would be interested to know what rotary and ME training was like back then?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

F3 OCU Boss intro speech.

"Good to see you. Don't recognise many of you...Dxxx, where do I know you from?"

"You chopped me off the Phantom OCU ten years ago Sir"


...and he chopped him again!
(rightly)

[BEagle]

It then took 6 months to become QRA qualified and another 6 months to become combat ready (and again you could be chopped at any stage).

Indeed! After graduating from Chiv with the Viking Trophy (for best overall live weapons) in Mar 1981, it was another year before I'd phinished the F-4 OCU, been posted to Suphpholk's phinest Phantom squadron and had been invited to drink the Op Pot of 'green lemonade' in Pheb 1982. I was then Op. for a further 16 months but, after a rather piss-poor performance at ACMI Decimomannu (which I'm sure wasn't helped by taking copious quantities of Diocalm to stave off chronic gastroenteritis), I was binned with 488 hours on the jet to my name. However, the parting was quite amicable and they did their best to secure the best posting they could for me, so after a summer in Wg Ops, I did a Jetstream 'refresher' course at Finningley (of which I loathed every minute...) and then was in at the start on the VC10K. I was even asked back to be dined-out, which I thought was very kind of the squadron

So although I was sad to have been binned me from 56(F), I did subsequently have a great time for most of the next 20 years on the '10!

[Tashengurt]

Istr a squadron leader getting chopped from 43. Can't remember if it was on Phantoms or Tornadoes. Is this likely or is my memory playing tricks?

[Pontius Navigator]

An ab initio aircrew used to have to complete the post-OCU opqual and serve for 6 months on the sqn before his brevet was confirmed. I cannot remember whether that was consecutive or concurrent.

It was also a point that a sqn badge was not awarded until you were opqualfied. Some sqn cdrs tended to insist on badges being worn immediately.

[fade to grey]

Oh well BEagle you have 488hrs on the F4 more than me.......
That canadian series about the F18 training, they called one of the last parts of the course 'dream killer', seems an apt name.

[Pontius Navigator]

ExRadar, the Vulcan OCU was rather gentle when I went through each time. It seemed much more an aircraft conversion unit than an operational one.

OTOH the other OCUs went through the whole range of optasks before you were unleashed on the sqn as non-op and then underwent a sqn conversion.

On the Vulcan, after the OCU, we had to do the nuclear weapons bit, low level conversion, fighter evasion, and TFR conversion. It was presumably more cost effective employing you as lim-op on the sqn rather than lengthen the OCU which was 4 months. The other OCUs were usually a shade under 6 months thus disbarring you from getting a quarter.

[ExRAFRadar]

Thanks all for the replies. Much appreciated

[Stuff]

ExRadar asks whether the training aircraft is sufficient to prepare students for front-line types. I think it is more apt to ask if the length of time you spend flying those aircraft is sufficient to prepare pilots for Ops.

It's an easy option to cut half an hour here and an hour there or drop a flight in favour of a sim to save on costs. Since it's almost impossible for anyone to say that it was the 20 minutes you skipped at the end of AD3 that eventually led you to fail the OCU it'll keep happening.

Perhaps someone with the figures to hand could work it out but I always wonder, for ever flex hour on the GR4 how many hours Tucano could you get? Same thing for C130 vs Kingair etc etc... I bet you could reconstruct METS, BFJT and the like to be a really, really good course if only you could throw 40-50 more hours at each of them.

I left University with over 150 hours (4 year degree and didn't go to all that many lectures) before starting out on the BFJT, AFT, Tac Weapons, OCU route. I now see many ME pilots rock up to OCU with 140 hours or less.

[Tankertrashnav]

The thread has mainly concentrated on pilots' experiences on OCU's, but they were by no means a 'tick-box' for navs, or indeed other aircrew categories. On my OCU I went through 232 as a Victor K1 nav radar. Posting straight from nav school into the V Force plotter role was not common and was reserved for those passing out near the top of their course (unlike me!). This was the case with the guy who I was paired with who had done very well at Finningley, but nevertheless struggled on the Victor and was chopped towards the end of the course. I think he went on to Bassets, so at least he retained his aircrew category.

[Dominator2]

I was lucky enough, or old enough, to fly the Hunter at both Valley and TWU. It did provide a good grounding for the Mighty Phantom, I would believe much better than the Hawk. Even so, on our Welcome Speach at Coningsby OC 228 told us that the F4 was the most difficult and dangerous aircraft to fly in the RAF. At least one of us "may" have an accident before the end of the course. A great welcome for a Below Average 1st tourist. So it was no surprise that on the second week of flying a crew from my course ejected over Skegness with a Double Utils Failure.
I went on to be lucky enough to fly the Phantom for 2500 hrs in both air-to-air and air-to-ground. Only the F15E and later, the Super Hornet have so far surpassed the Mighty F4.
A friend of mine who is a Hawk child used to tell how great the Hawk is. The BAe propagada must have been good. Then one day, in later life, he went solo in a F6 Hunter. When he landed the smile on his face stretched from coast to coast.
I am led to believe that the Hawk T2 is a good lead in to Typhoon and future aircraft. To my mind it costs a lot of £ for a jet with such poor performance.

[Courtney Mil]

All the above, Mate. 1980s we lost at least a crew from every F4 OCU course, quite a few from the Sqn (maybe not as many as we should have) and had a few recourses and returns to the OCU.

During my time as SO1 Trg at 1 Gp, we were losing a little less, but still a significant number. I also authorized a lot of extra flex for people the GR4 and F3 OCUs that weren't quite there yet, but the OCU guys figured they could get up to speed.

Stuff, makes a very good point. Cuts at the bottom end of the training system have always been a bugbear of mine. When instructing at Chiv, we had the biggest TWU flying course for many years either side of the 80s. All the studendts did the full course (inc all the AD and GA). Our output had a really good success rate. Again, years later as SO1 Trg, the hours had been cut, students streamed and the OCUs' chop rate went back up. Of course there's a link.

As for the Hawk/Hunter question. The Hunter was a bit more challenging than the Hawk, but I believe that the syllabus at TWU when I went through Brawdy was so full-on and challenging (with a lot of hours compared to now), that I found myself as well prepared as one can be for the mighty F4.

As others have said here, it a massive step up. But the three years that went before was the thing that enabled us to get through.

Courtney

If I'd had my way...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As well as flex, many instructors were kind enough to let me in on their SCT flying for which I was deeply grateful. I had a problem with currency, and with all the holds this was a career saver. Not to mention the UAS attachments where you got backseat rides in Hawks, Wessex, Jags, even a Lightning. They even let you plan it and fly most of it in those days, which was excellent prep for OCU/ frontline.

I came good in the end.

I guess much of this 'gash' flying has gone by the board too.

[Courtney Mil]

It certainly has. It was always a real treat for me to take peeps on my SCT sorties. Good to see guys get so much out of flying with the preasure off.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Yup. Very pleasurable taking up an SAC sootie who's just changed an engine for you.

..Two minutes after take-off

SAC Sootie "Can we go supersonic, Sir?"
Self "We are."

[BEagle]

I was lucky enough to have completed TWU courses on both the Hunter (234 Sqn, RAF Brawdy) and the Hawk (63 Sqn, RAF Chivenor).

Both aircraft had their advantages. The Hunter GGS was great for air-to-air, less so for mud moving. Whereas it was the other way round in the Hawk. The GGSR camera in the Hunter required a lot of work, juggling with film magazines, defog and sighter bursts and the mags had to be changed in flight. Between Brawdy and Worms Head you had to check each mag in the GGSR, then prepare them for your range session. You also had to set the lens speed. Whereas the Hawk had a much better system, which was all looked after by the photo-mechs.

The Hunter was more stable during 10-15° air-to-mud, whereas the Hawk was bunt-unstable until BWoS extended the fin trailing edge fillet.

The Hunter had a fuel system which required considerable system knowledge to comprehend. The Hawk just had a pump and a gauge and worked far better; unlike the Hunter, it also had a gauge which actually worked under G.

The Hunter had a reliable G4F compass, the pre-AHARS Hawks I flew had an abysmal compass system which went tits-up after the first turn of more than 2G.

The Hunter was 'supersonic in a shallow dive'. Or rather in a very steep dive from FL-nosebleed. The Hawk wasn't. Whereas it had a far less fuel thirsty engine than the Hunter with rather more range.

Throttle response in the Hunter was vastly better than that in the Hawk, so formation flying in the Hunter was dead easy.

As for the course itself, the main difference I noticed on the Hawk TWU was in the ACM and A/A phases. 'Free and enaged' had replaced 'stick, search and report' in ACM and in A/A we faffed with a circular towed pattern against the Hunter, rather than a 'straight towed' pattern against Puddy in the Meatbox on the Hunter TWU. We also did level bombing in the Hawk instead of 15° SNEB in the Hunter. SAP phase was just as demanding on both courses though!

Our Hunters (all bar the 2 ex-Valley GT6s with TACAN) had Eureka as the only nav aid, apart from the 9s which also had a coffee grinder ADF (which we only used for music!) and just one radio apart from 243.8 on a standby box. Whereas all Hawks had UHF and VHF radios, plus TACAN - but, unlike the Gnat, no offset box (why????).

The Hunter bang seat was very old and also pretty uncomfortable - whereas the Hawk had a comfy rocket seat.

Fit the Hunter with offset TACAN, a better fuel gauging system, a GGS video recorder and it would be superb.

My favourite of the two? Despite its foibles, it would have to be the Hunter F(GA) Mk 9 - the fighter pilot's first true love! For the Hawk was a trainer used for lead-in fighter training, whereas the Hunter was a proper fighter adapted to the training role. And it made a much better noise!!

[Geehovah]

Can I push my book again? In this one just life on the Phantom OCU:

Chapter 3 Operational Conversion
Chapter 9 Life as an Instructor

Anyone who thought it was easy was misguided.

Royalties supporting The RAF Memorial Trust and The RAF Museum

The Phantom in Focus: A Navigator's Eye on Britain's Cold War Warrior: Amazon.co.uk: David Gledhill: Books

[Courtney Mil]

Geehovah. Good plug. I'll be on it.

Beags, excellent analysis.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Hey up, Geehovah.
Get your publishers to put it on Kindle.

[Stevewearing]

Hey Beags!

What an excellent reminisce!

Was the first all Hawk guy onto the mighty Jaguar, them went back to Brawdy to instruct on both Hawk and Hunter ( at the same time).

Privilege to fly both types, so your assessment of the aircraft made my day to remember each aircraft's foibles!

Do post again and dislodge those redundant brain cells!

Steve

[ExRAFRadar]

All I use these days

[Courtney Mil]

I asked the Kindle question a few weeks back, but I think it may be too graphics-heavy for that format. As I said at the time, I'll have to learn how to work a book again. An uncharitable soul on 'VisageLivre' (Ooh, I've found a way to get that word past the name police), replied that I'd have to learn to read first!

[BEagle]

Hi Stevewearing,

Glad you enjoyed it!

Had they finally given up with radar ranging on the Hunter when you did the ciné phase? It was often going U/S and a number of sorties during my first TWU were DNCO'd because we had to use radar ranging during low level ciné weave, if I recall correctly.

"Track, track, throttle back....roll, airbrake....power!"

Another joy of the Hunter was the racket made by even a single 30mm Aden. Lots of noise and vibration and a faint smell of cordite. Whereas on the Hawk it was like the morning after a bad curry - rumbling, vibration and release from somewhere behind you....:(

After being posted to 58 Sqn at Wittering (last RAF pilot ever to be posted to a non-TWU Hunter squadron!), I had the joy of returning to Brawdy for most of the Summer of '76 as both 45 and 58 folded as soon as they knew I was coming, I guess...:\

So a couple of trips each day, usually in a single seater, plus the odd backseat Meteor 7 trip and some FAC-fun with the JFCATSU JP4 guys. Not a bad way to while away the weeks waiting for an OCU!

Back at Chiv, after finishing the course I was tasked with taking the SNavO (M*** P****r) over to Brawdy for a meeting. Whilst there, I chatted with a QWI chum and he told me that they were considering binning SNEB in favour of level bombing. I was asked to do a range check on the way home and vaguely remembered the old Caldy Gap procedure. Off we went, then I told them that the weather was fine for level bombing, but the cloudbase was too low for 10° or 15° mud moving. So Chive had Pembrey to itself for the rest of the day. But I was perplexed at why the Caldy Gap procedure hadn't seemed familiar - until it dawnwd on me that you weren't supposed to fly it at 250 ft! Still, no-one complained and the SNavO was none the wiser....

I went to Brawdy again a couple of years later on an exercise task. Whilst waiting for the QWI(L) to have the tyre he'd burst changed, I looked at the weapons league table on the wall and saw that they had indeed switched to levle bombing. An ex-Cranwell colleague explained that the QWIs had finally perfected the "Art of aiming at f*** all with f*** all", as he put it. He also told me that the first course who did their T7 trips OK then went off in the F6A / FGA9 and came back with horrendous scores. The QWIs went into the "clack, clack, clackityy, clack....out of range!" ciné room and took a look at the films...."You dangerous little buggers, why were you flying so f*****g low?", they queried. For indeed the team had been down amongst the tree tops when blasting their way to the bombing circle.

Then up spoke a QFI..."Did you lot allow for the different pressure error correction of the single seater?"

Collapse of stout party. Some back of a fag packet sums and a rebrief and all was fine again.

Such fun times. But do I hear that TWU live weaponry is likely to be a thing of the past with the Hawk T2? That'd be awful - it would be like watching porn rather than having sex!

The joys of coming back from the range with flashing Bingo lights and a good set of scores, rounded off with a blue note run-in and break perhaps a little too fast and a little too low will be something the synthetic weaponry thing will never be able to replicate correctly...:hmm:

[LateArmLive]

But do I hear that TWU live weaponry is likely to be a thing of the past with the Hawk T2?

It is a thing of the past as the T2 won't carry any weapons. But, and it is a big but, the weapons sighting picture that the student sees is actually representative of what he will use on the frontline, something the T1 could never replicate. It does pain me as a QWI to know that the first time students drop a bomb or fire a gun will be on the OCU, but I do believe the students will be much better prepared for a modern cockpit after TWU on the T2 rather than the T1.


Now imagine if we had the technology to put actual releasable stores on the T2...

[BEagle]

It does pain me as a QWI to know that the first time students drop a bomb or fire a gun will be on the OCU

So rather than learn actual, non-simulated weaponry on the dime-a-dozen Hawk, they'll do so on the cosmically expensive Typhoon?

Riiiiiiiiiiight - that'll save a few pennies, won't it?

No doubt in a few years time when the first few Typhoons start having airframe fatigue issues through OCU range work, someone will suggest gun pods and 4kg beer-can practice bombs on the Hawk again, but with a representative sighting system....:(

Hawk T3?

[HTB]

Right Beags - if only we had been allowed to drop the "real" thing instead of the the synthetic WRS, that would have been some big bang...:cool:

On topic: when I went through the TWCU course (1983-4), I found the nav instrutors to be generally of a destructive disposition, rather than in teaching mode. Most of them were from the B Force (the one that I recall from F-4s was actually OK), and the instructional technique consisted of "this is how to do it, get it wrong and we may give you one more chance, then you're (on review) chopped". Woe betide anyone who did not accept the doctrine unquestioningly; marked you out as bolshie, not a team player, not on my squadron, thanks.:(

The p(r)ick of the bunch was the senior nav inst, D*** K***.:mad:

Fortunately I learned quickly to say as little as possible and scraped through the course, to then undergo a more demanding op work up on a squadron. In a reversal of the TWCU scenario, the senior navs were fine, but some of the pilots not so. I recall vividly my first (famil to Germany) sortie; the briefing with the pilot leader started "three things I don't like: garlic, dog**** and navigators". I had been eating garlic the night before and was obviously a navigator; oh what fun we had.

Despite the discouraging start (I would happily have gone back to the V Force if there had still been one), I achieved CR status in the accepted time frame and went on to be a 4-ship lead, auth, programmer. Squeezed in a sim instrutor tour and a further GR1A tour in the Fatherland (in fact, stayed in the same MQ for just over 8 years).

Mister B

[Alan Africa]

Our NRL was binned from 43 Sqn in 1977. Sqn Ldr Berty Southcombe by name.

[27mm]

Our NRL on 92 in '81/82, subsequently OCB, should have been.....:*

[newt]

Beags. I was at Brawdy when we started the level bombing. It was great fun but I seem to recall we had to calibrate all the Hawk altimeters almost daily to make sure we were not flying toooooooo low!! A radio alltimeter would have done the job but no cash for mods!!

The seagulls at Pembrey got a bit of a shock too!!:ok:

[noprobs]

Since we're straying down memory lane to the hard old days on the OCUs, here are a few of my recollections.

I had the benefit of doing both AFT and TWU in the Hunter. (Arriving at Valley to fly Gnat or Hunter, my height made me too tall for the Gnat. When I went back as an instructor to fly Hunter or Hawk, my height made me too tall for the Hunter!) I certainly felt that the experience of swept-wing handling was a benefit at that stage, the 70s, for the OCUs we faced. With a Valley Hunter course behind me, I still found it challenging to start up and taxy as quickly as the TWU instructors. However, having been role-disposed to the Harrier from the Valley course, off to Wittering I eventually went.

233 OCU still had elements of the old (hard) school about it, and I struggled to keep up. The classic QWI style was evident to me on a dual sortie which included an FRA strafe attack. The 2 guns were each loaded with 30 rounds of ball. The QWI, flying from the back seat, ran in to the range at 250ft, pulled up, tipped in, fired and got a score of 28. Impressive though that was, he then requested to stay in the pattern for 1 academic run, in order to fire out. He did so, fired 1 round and scored 1 hit. Descending back to 250ft, he cleared from the range, saying "OK Bloggs, your turn next, you have control." Before the end of the course, with me still struggling, one of the better students decided it was all too difficult, and so withdrew from the course, and left the RAF.

Arriving on my first squadron as a fg off, after the arrival procedures, it was straight off to Deci for an APC. Still as the iffy JP, I looked forward to the final weapons competition with some trepidation. However, it actually seemed to go quite well. This was confirmed by the first view of the scores (nothing was called by the RSO), which then led to a serious QWI closed-doors gathering in the cine room, leading to the disqualification of my best SNEB score and my relegation down the table. They could not, however, dislodge the FRI who, to their chagrin, took the prize. (I know that one of those QWIs contributes here, but that is how I remember it.)

Shortly after that, the next OCU course produced a new sqn ldr flt cdr for my flight. He didn't make it to CR before being chopped on the sqn, which didn't do a lot for my confidence. In the end, I got through all of this, and hopefully it made me a more understanding instructor and supervisor in later years.

Regarding the permanence of sqn membership after arrival, on another sqn, new first tourist would have to wear the name badge FNG until it was sure that they were staying.

As an OCU instructor in the early 80s, I remember a Fast Jet Training Steering Committee (?) meeting at which the Phantom representative was bemoaning the quality of pilots coming their way, while the Harrier seemed to be getting the top students. I explained the failure of the experiment of our taking the mid-level students the year before, which led to a huge chop rate. The F4 man was getting little sympathy from the chairman, who asked how many the OCU had chopped in the previous 6 months. He knew the answer to be zero, so there was little proof of the problem. No doubt trying to break the impasse, the Tornado man produced a stunned silence when he declared "If there is a problem, send them to us. We have a relatively simple aircraft to fly."

Going back to the original question, it should not be forgotten that beyond the OCU, aircrew face an ongoing series of assessments that could jeopardise their career at any stage. There are PMEs (with more add-ons as age increases), supervisory checks, QFI checks, IRTs, QWI checks, trappers' visits, sim checks and many special-to-role checks every year, and at every level. While confidence levels may increase, you can never sit back and assume that you've totally hacked it.

[BEagle]

Since we're straying down memory lane to the hard old days on the OCUs...

Then there was 237 OCU, RAF Honington. A truly appalling unit at the time, with an institutional hatred of students, or so it seemed to us. We sucked the hind one at every level, whether being accommodated in wretched wartime huts behind the OM (whilst the bean stealers had the real rooms) or being generally treated as dirt by the OCU staff.

I recall one notice which went up:

Officers' Mess Ladies Night seats are limited. So the following order of preference will apply:
1. Those who didn't go last time.
2. Those who did go last time.
3. Students.

When they couldn't find enough people wanting to go, one of the staff pilots came down to the planning room we used as our student crew room and asked whether anyone wanted to attend. Fortunately one of our number (in the end he was the only pilot who finished he course) took no prisoners and told him in words of one syllable that it was clear we weren't welcome, so perhaps he should Foxtrot Oscar!

It was a breath of fresh air to be back amongst normal aircrew when I was binned off the course and following Biggin Hill Aircrew Reselection and a subsequent merry time at SORF Leeming, found myself at 230 OCU RAF Scampton.

[LateArmLive]

So rather than learn actual, non-simulated weaponry on the dime-a-dozen Hawk, they'll do so on the cosmically expensive Typhoon?

Riiiiiiiiiiight - that'll save a few pennies, won't it?


I'm not trying to defend the polished turd that is the T2 but, as there is no way you are going to be able to drop a laser/GPS weapon or fire a Brimstone from a Hawk T2, you would be stuck with dropping something like a 3kg. Since the Typhoon doesn't carry those weapons of moss destruction (and will be extremely unlikely to ever be cleared to release an unguided bomb), what is the point of learning to drop 3kg bombs? Even the Tornado will lose that capability soon.

[jindabyne]

BEagle

Not again FCS! Chip, chip :*

[ex-fast-jets]

This was confirmed by the first view of the scores (nothing was called by the RSO), which then led to a serious QWI closed-doors gathering in the cine room, leading to the disqualification of my best SNEB score and my relegation down the table. They could not, however, dislodge the FRI who, to their chagrin, took the prize. (I know that one of those QWIs contributes here, but that is how I remember it.)

Are you now submitting a public appeal against fair decisions made under difficult conditions by hard-working QWIs some 35 years ago??:=

Anyway, being nice to FRIs reaped huge rewards during subsequent recce competitions!!:O

[BEagle]

Sorry, jinda', but that's how it was at the time.... Honest!

But using 100% of their hours to graduate 30% of their students meant that, after investigation, things apparently changed for the better in subsequent years....

[Easy Street]

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising, but it still amuses me how much tradition/character/dysfunction/whatever is passed from OCU to OCU as aircraft types enter service and old ones disappear. TWCU inherited a great deal from the Bucc OCU - I recognise a lot of what BEags referred to from my experiences there (not as extreme, but definitely a parallel!). Many of the older navs saw definite shades of the Vulcan course as well. There are probably bits of both cultures still in existence up at Lossiemouth! From what I understood, the F3 OCU owed a lot to the Phantom course as well.

Regarding practice weapons, it's unlikely that you will see front-line types dropping many, if any practice bombs during an OCU course. Modern weaponry such as EPW2, PW4, Dual Mode Brimstone etc is all entirely assessable from video recordings of practice passes, which can be conducted on- or off-range. Essentially, the range is only required for hot strafe passes, which are still performed and scored as ever. The only requirement for practice bombs now is to provide hot passes for FAC training, as the NATO STANAG requires FACs to control xx hot passes to qualify - no such requirement for the aircrew themselves!

[Pontius Navigator]

a Fast Jet Training Sub-Committee .

the next OCU course produced a new sqn ldr flt cdr for my flight. He didn't make it to CR before being chopped on the sqn

In the early 80s it not unusual for flt cdrs and sqn cdrs to arrive in post with practically no ground tours under their belts simply because the old and knackers (35-40 years old) could not learn or refresh if they had been off flying for more than a couple of years.

I knew one sqn ldr nav, ex-F4, who then did a couple of tours the last of which was at the ministry. He had the age, appearance, and behaviour of an embittered 40 year old and according to him he withdrew from training as all hs potential subordinates were a generation younger than him. Personally, I don't think he could hack it.

[HTB]

Beags and Easy man

That about sums up what my post was saying - the Bucc mafiosi on the TWCU at Honington (particularly the navs) were not in the least orientated to teaching.

Interesting to note that on my fist GR1 sqn, the former Jag pilots seemed to accept the two seat principle rather more readily than others - although they were occasionally discombobulated when they received a reply to their single seat monologues.

Postscript to that first sortie famil - the same pilot (ex Lightning) was giving a mass brief for live 1000lb bombing at Garvie Island. He asked (what he assumed would be a rhetorical question) if anyone had dropped a live 1000lb before; dramatic pause - well, says I, I did drop 21 of them on Quail Island AWR (Northern Territories - Ex Sunflower late 1974)...collapse of stout party (but aware that 6 now open season for at least one WIWOL).:E

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

Mister B

[Willard Whyte]

Are MEXOs still 'recommended' for those pointy types who finally see the light, realising that flying with a cup of tea & three course meal is rather civilized?

[Melchett01]

A fascinating thread, but out of interest, what made OCUs of the day particulalry good or bad? The Bucc OCU seems to have a very particular place reserved for it in that sense. Was it the aircraft being difficult to fly, the mission profiles or just the personalities involved?

And with respect to the Bucc OCU, how did the Dark Blue cope? I assume they had their own OCU, was that thought of in the same low regard as appears to be the case for the Light Blue OCU?

[noprobs]

PN,

Sub-committee is what I wrote first, then I couldn't think of any main committee, so half changed my mind and added the question mark.

Bomber,

Are you now submitting a public appeal against fair decisions made under difficult conditions by hard-working QWIs some 35 years ago??

Anyway, being nice to FRIs reaped huge rewards during subsequent recce competitions!!

Fair decisions? Hard working? Were we on the same island? It was almost 37 years ago - October '75. Those years must have mellowed you, so much that you can now use the phrase "being nice to FRIs."

On the subject of recce competitions, I particularly remember one involving a certain OCU QFI who really fancied himself as a recce pilot. Having been handed the multiple target maps shortly before takeoff, he did not spot the spoof 50 thou (or was it 1 inch then?) in the middle. Reaching the IP, he flew the first half of the run meticulously (he later reported), but on reaching the fold, turned over, only to find a mirror image map running back to the IP. He seemed rather unamused when he landed. What a shame.:\

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

How hard were the recce targets back then?
At TWU in 1987, I was given a "comms facility" in a wooded valley with a run only possible across the valley. Turned out to be an RAC phonebox.

[noprobs]

Ah, recce targets! Time to dust off the old photo collection to remind myself of the times the results got me into trouble.

There was one in Scotland that I spotted a bit late, on the wrong side for the PFO (port facing oblique) camera. I brought back a good picture, but then someone spotted that the blanked area and cutout that appeared on PFO shots was at the bottom of the print rather than the top. OK, so I overbanked a little...

Then again I suffered disqualification from a small recce comp in Belize due to the size of the image of the altar on top of the temple in the jungle at Altun Ha. It was a good picture, but didn't show much of the temple.

I also suffered a Boss's talking to in week 1 of my second tour for doing someone a favour. Arriving as a fg off FRI, I was asked by one of the sgt PIs to get a photo of the tower at the Warsteiner brewery for presentation during a forthcoming visit. I produced the requisite image, but unfortunately the PI was handed the print while he was looking at the films from another sortie with the pilot, my Boss. On hearing that the new fg off had taken the picture, he invited me to his office for a short discussion of brewery locations, LFA boundaries and the focal length of various cameras. I lost that one, but did get a share of the free Wobbly. :=

[charliegolf]

What's an 'FRI'? Ta.

CG

[Biggus]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned SARTU yet.

Never a world I was part of, but I've read quite a few anecdotal comments on pprune over the years about a time when there was an instructor mafia (mainly rearcrew it must be said) that had already decided that some students weren't going to pass before they even arrived, irrespective of their actual ability.



CG - Everyone knows that it's a Financial Retention Incentive, wake up at the back......

[Waddo Plumber]

HTP, I was on that Sunflower. I remember the tropical storm that was a precursor to Typhoon Tracey that destroyed Darwin (and I also remember the big Aussie nurses in the Officers Mess)

[charliegolf]

Ta Biggus- I do live a sheltered life!

Sooooo... mentioned in this context becauuuuuse? Even more reason to want to chop a loaded fecker? Did buddies of QWIs get an easy ride?

CG

[noprobs]

FRI in this context = fighter reconnaissance instructor.

[Tom Bell-Weed]

Here's a couple of quotes that have stayed with me, one from the F3 OCU, one from (someone else's) CR work-up:

Instructor to student (after a trip that even your own mother would struggle to class as a DCO), using that most under-stated of euphimisms. 'I think you'd benefit from seeing that one again, laddie'.

USAF exchange officer trying to console a JP who'd just failed a 2v2 Radar - DACT trip, a notorious stumbling block for front-seaters. 'This ain't rocket science. But it ain't far off'

[Pontius Navigator]

NP, on reflection you might be right, OTOH there was a similar committee for navs, one for FJ and one for ME, if there were similar committees for FJ, ME and RW that could make 5 sub committees.

I recall possibly the last one I attended when the quesion was asked: "What is the long-term policy for the navigator branch?".

This was 1990 and there was a deafening silence. Then the chairman asked of the person who had posed the question, "I thought you would have known that as you are from PMC" (as was).

[Peter Carter]

I know it seems almost traditional to 'bash' 237 OCU on this forum, but I can only say that when I went through, in the early/mid 70s, it was great fun.
Sure, there were a few 'strong' personalities and, if you were a bit of a wilting flower, the debriefs were pretty direct (T.O. in particular would draw a series of ZZZZs against your name on the chalkboard if you were a bit slow picking up the bounce on a STRIPRO sortie); but overall, when I reached the squadron, I felt pretty well prepared for the job and some of the ingrained BC-induced habits probably made me a safer pilot.

[jindabyne]

For what my penny's worth, I was a staff pilot at Chiv 'n Valley for six years, and a stude on four OCU's. On all there were good, mediocre and bad experiences. I think that to use a broad IT assessment brush for those and other training units is perhaps misleading, and that a finer one would be more appropriate, but not here: ie character assassination. I'd like to think that this applied elsewhere. After all, the system then, and now, delivered an excellent across the board Air Force; with, of course, fine-tuning once on the squadron - but, at times, that process was likewise not perfect.

There I go, fence-sitting again :eek:

edited to add - but then I really don't care

[BEagle]

....some of the ingrained BC-induced habits probably made me a safer pilot.

Very probably. Notwithstanding other views I have expressed about 237 OCU, 'BC' was an excellent instructor, whose experienced guidance was one of the few high points of the course.

His expression for Air Traffic Control stayed with me for the rest of my time in the RAF - the 'Flying Prevention Branch'.

Last seen in South Wales, I hope he's enjoying a well-deserved retirement.

There I go, fence-sitting again..:eek:

Never saw you as a Lib Dem, jinda'.....;)

[ex-fast-jets]

Almost drifting back to thread......................

I completed the Harrier OCU in 1972 as one of the first first-tourists onto type.

The staff were superb! They set high standards, and they were quite excellent in helping you to achieve them. They gave the necessary guidance, instructed properly, and were fun to be with. But if you stepped over the line, or went wrong, then you knew it!!

Everyone worked hard and played hard. It was a great environment in which to grow up, and set the scene for transfer to an operational squadron.

I then completed a short Jag OCU conversion in 1977, and I thought that the staff there were - mostly - also excellent, giving good instruction and guidance, helping when necessary, beating when appropriate, and chopping when hope was well gone!

If other OCUs were different, then please don't paint all with the same brush.

As an aside, if the "BC" referred to previously is the same "BC" who drove a Deux Chevaux rather than a fashionable and trendy BMW, and with whom I shared an office at CTTO in 1981/2, then I am not surprised that he offered good guidance which has stood the test of time!!

[Pontius Navigator]

How about the Swift at a garage in Herefordshire? The Hunter at the "greasy spoon" in The Fens

Ah, it that what the T10 is just south of Woodhall Spa?

Not THE Jenks -20 sqn?

[Easy Street]

I think PN's referring to the single-seater by the A17 at Fleet Hargate, just east of Holbeach. In very good nick for a private 'gate guardian'.

[Pontius Navigator]

ES, not at all. I am refering to a crappy, strange green and grey one, no canopy and no nose cone, balanced on a load of pallets.

Someone should put it out of its misery.

[Easy Street]

PN, apologies! Ahem.. there is a very nice Hunter by the A17 near Holbeach! :O

[Pontius Navigator]

And a big willy waving phallic symbol next to it.

Of course, just down the road from Woodhall is a well maintained Lightning and an pretty white Bloodhound missile sans boosters.

[Courtney Mil]

Whining aside, aren't OCUs supposed to be hard? We could have fluffy OCUs to prepare our warriors for fluffy wars, I suppose.

Tin hat on.

[Waddo Plumber]

Holbeach Hunter at 52°48'23.94" N 0°03'34.54" E

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN mentioned the multi OCUs as well.

Who on 230 in the late '60s early '70s could ever forget THAT nav radar, ex-Lincolns, ex-GSU, with a voice like a foghorn :)

[ExRAFRadar]

From Courtney
"Whining aside, aren't OCUs supposed to be hard? We could have fluffy OCUs to prepare our warriors for fluffy wars, I suppose."

Interesting.

I saw something earlier about 30% success rate for an OCU. Does that reflect badly on that OCU or in the Training System that came before the OCU.

What has disheartened me a little is the attitude of 'If your face fits' that seems to be prevalent at some period in some OCU's.

I always thought we looked after each other, some dickheads aside, and in all honestly I would have expected that even more from Officers who had been through the grinder themselves.

Or am I being too sensitive :confused:

[Pontius Navigator]

Ex Radar, it was not only OCUs that could be hard. The SFC was not known for its leniency, but unlike aircrew where it is your neck on the line, with FCs it is someone else's neck.

[blaireau]

Faces have to fit. (hopefully skilled faces)

Talented arseholes can be very disruptive!

[Courtney Mil]

ExRAFRadar,

No, don't misunderstand me. The whole training system needs to be challenging. And I agree, we did all need to look after each other and I think, in the main that has always happened - excepting a few nobs. There have never been enough hours to do everything we wanted, so we have always had to make do. The hardness is part of preparing folk for the worst of times in the future. Not nastiness for its own sake. Hardness.

Courtney

[BEagle]

Courtney, surely the OCU course should be designed so that the average student should be able to complete the course to a satisfactory standard without requiring 'flex hours'?

A 'training needs analysis' should identify the knowledge-based and skill based elements necessary to bridge the training gap between the input standard and the desired output standard. It should also recommend the necessary training media - will chalk 'n talk do, or will CBT be more effective? Is a simulator needed, or will a part-task trainer suffice for some of the training?

The main problems with OCU training were constant fiscally-driven training cut-backs, ever greater demands from the receiving squadrons - and many members of staff who simply didn't want to be there.....

[Bill Macgillivray]

Must have been lucky, all OCU's from 1961 until 1978 were excellent! Yes, you had to accept different levels of experience in both student and instructor and different levels of teaching/learning (accepting that maybe you might know better - so what?) I personally felt that it was a good system which helped me in all ways. I still think that we do it best (and I am NOT out of touch with today's Royal Air Force!) :ok::ok:

[Courtney Mil]

My experience would make me agree with that. And I think they were bloody good in the rest of my time. Apart from a bit more fluffiness. :E

[Easy Street]

'Face fits' is largely gone. The training system and OCUs are much more tightly regulated than in the past, and any student who is meeting the course objectives will pass, regardless of how much of a kn*b he is. Any student not meeting the course objectives should receive additional training within the constraints laid down by the course documents; if such training was withheld or given half-heartedly because the guy was a kn*b then he would have legal recourse because everything has to be written down in black and white! It can and has happened, and suspension boards have been known to re-instate chopped students because the paperwork didn't stack up, something that was entirely unheard of in my day.

Yes, there are more kn*bs at the front line as a result, and yes sqn cohesion isn't what it once was. On some sqns anyway.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Fluffy?
The Germans have no word for Fluffy.

Maybe I should have been a bit more of a bastard to you in the F3 Sim then Courtney?

[Melchett01]

The SFC was not known for its leniency

I know a few FCs (or whatever they are going by these days) from my IOT days and they would agree with that statement. By all accounts, even up until the late 90s it wasn't uncommon for entire courses to be chopped and sent back to OASC for reselection. Not sure whether such high failure rates is a damning indictment of the aptitude system which sent them there or the course and the way it was taught. Whatever the answer, to chop an entire course should have set alarm bells ringing.

[orca]

Before I embarked upon my first 'OCU equivalent' one of my instructors gave me some sage advice. "Try to see it as getting to the frontline despite 899!" I remember my first day well, an instructor threw his coffee dregs onto our office floor!

I have done three of the festering things now. Sadly/ realistically they are a bean counter's nightmare for the very reason that they are a culmination of all things that you have been taught. The net must tighten and like it or not some will be found wanting. There is always a bit of flex in a decision to send someone from elementary to basic and onwards to jets - because we all develop and learn at different rates. Some struggle from the get go but struggle all the way to the frontline. Some ace the early stages but hit a wall later that is insurmountable.

I was priveleged to serve as the flight commander responsible for the final stages of an OCU once and had a fairly stringent filter to apply. If I couldn't send my mates on the frontline someone who I'd be prepared to go into combat with myself - he didn't go. The flex had gone, they either made the grade, or they didn't.

And if that means that a chap who has been training for five years goes to another aircraft type at great expense to the taxpayer then so be it. Far better that than a chap who you've personally given 'the laying on of hands' runs out of capacity at the moment critique over Helmand.

[BEagle]

By all accounts, even up until the late 90s it wasn't uncommon for entire courses to be chopped and sent back to OASC for reselection.

Ah yes indeed! Whilst holding at Biggin following my pre-Vulcan Buccaneer course :\ it was rather fun to have a fresh batch of young, moist fighter controllerettes arriving at regulal intervals.....:E

The Germans have no word for fluffy.

Ah, but they do! They've even developed a new breed of dwarf fluffy bunny to dispel this myth:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Teddywidderkaninchen.jpg

Ein Teddywidderkaninchen

[Courtney Mil]

Beags,

Sorry, going back to your point about course design. You are, of course, absolutely spot on, the course should be taylored for the average student and include all the skills required for Bloggs' arrival on his or her first squadron. If a little extra can get a low or below average mate through, then that too is a good thing. If there are high ave studes, there must be low ave ones too.

My point about never enough hours was more about the final stages of pre-OCU training, where hours have been progressively stripped over the years. Big mistake.

Yes, we've all seen the bitter and twisted instructors, but in the main I think most do the job pretty well. Actually, even the complete b'stards did OK by
me in retrospect.


Fox 3,

You mean you weren't???? :ok:


Ein Teddywidderkaninchen - scoop two out and they would make a lovely pair of slippers.

I still say training should be challenging.

[exMudmover]

Beags et al

Having spent some 12 years of my flying career on the staff of fast-jet OCUs (probably too long), between the 70s and 90s, I feel there is something not mentioned in the correspondence here. That item is Honest Grading of student sorties .

At some time in the 70s the old classified (i.e. the studes didn’t see the write-ups) system was changed so that studes could see everything that was written about them by instructors. In my view the system was degraded at a stroke.

Human nature dictates that the average non-sociopath does not like aggravating his fellow man by brutally pointing out his weaknesses to his face. Hence many instructors were reluctant to be totally honest in their write-ups (and grades), knowing that the student would see it all. This soon led to Grade Inflation, where the Average became High Average or better. Because of this, many students had an over-inflated idea of their abilities, leading to feelings of being hard done by when they were suspended.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh my God! You mean those grades of mine I saw were over-inflated? You've just shattered my self image! :{

Seriously, though, I'm sure there's something in that. I like to think that I was always pretty honest in my marking as an instructor, but I take your point about human nature.

Courtney.

[Pontius Navigator]

ExMud, not entirely in agreement.

I was once accused at Nav School of copying another Nav's previous write-up as I had used the same wording. What had happened was we all used to listen in during Sims and perhaps unconsciously pick up the same phrases.

What I had done was write up a Safety Altitude bust. The stude pointed out my plagarism :) thus highlighting that this was the second bust. When the reviewers went through his write ups they discovered this was his third offence and he was chopped with no remedial training offered.

I think we were pretty fair in the nav systems as all trips were debriefed in fine detail from the time I went through on 42 course :).

[jindabyne]

Ex-Mud,

Again, not entirely in agreement.

Human nature dictates that the average non-sociopath does not like aggravating his fellow man by brutally pointing out his weaknesses to his face. Hence many instructors were reluctant to be totally honest in their write-ups (and grades), knowing that the student would see it all.

Does it thus follow that face to face debriefs are similarly less than honest - I would imagine not. The write-up should be an accurate reflection of the spoken debrief, albeit perhaps with some 'hidden and discreet' clarification elsewhere (spoken or written) for the benefit of others in the training loop. As a supervisor, I don't recollect there being any less integrity among instructors with regards to open reporting.

Didn't ACR's adopt a similar approach? Too long ago :sad:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I cannot remember any instructor pulling their punches with me, ever.
I can only recall one instructor "having it in for me", but this was balanced by another instructor who was aware of the bias and fought my side behind the scenes.

I do recall that the BFTS debrief sheet had a backside that the student did not get a copy of. I also recall that the students knew the combination of the cabinet in which these confidential sheets were kept. One duty student, call him John, doing the lock-up was in dire straits flying-wise, and could not resist the temptation to open up the cabinet and peek at his most recent confidential trip sheet. It began with the words "Do not read this John, it will depress you..."

Turned out the combination had been known to students ever since that QFI was a student.

[jindabyne]

Nice story, tee hee!

[Courtney Mil]

Nah. In my experience, debrief, both verbal and written were conducted with great honesty and frnakness. Who the would it serve to do it any onther way? There weren't too many people unwilling to tell it how it is in my time. Any other course of action would have been serious LMF.

[Easy Street]

There must be a reason why aircrew sometimes refer tongue-in-cheek to poor performances as "distinctly average". I wonder if that phrase existed before open reporting!

[Pontius Navigator]

ES, not air related but my old man wrote on one report that this particular man had a screw slack. The man who first language was not English was ever so pleased going around telling everyone he was 'screw slack.'

I am sure 'distinctly average' was entirely descriptive even in pre-open reporting. Really it says everything - a safe pair of hands with not a spark of initiative or flash of brilliance.

[BBadanov]

Oh my God! You mean those grades of mine I saw were over-inflated? You've just shattered my self image! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif
Courtney.


Courtney Mil, u are not by any chance a helo retread that became a Jag mate?

[BEagle]

That is doubly insulting to Courtney!

Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-00.htm) .

Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....:yuk:

[Courtney Mil]

Hmmm. I think I understand what you're saying, BB. As Beags has kindly pointed out, no, neither. Not a Harrier mate either - or were their grades really good?

Thanks, Beags.

:cool:

[Lmnav]

'It was decided to defer this officer's success on this sortie'

[Scruffy Fanny]

Having done the F4 OCU, ADV OCU and a single seat fighter OCU in. Foreign language nothing but nothing was as hard as the Lightning OCU - and rightly so what with hindsight I now find upsetting is the way we were treated as students. It bore striking similarities of get some in the tv programme about national service. In fact the SAC who manned the ops desk was treated better than us. The course was based it seemed on how many cups of tea you made the staff and how to make a bacon butty. I guess with most of the staff getting divorced or having PVRd didn't help. Flying has come a long way and I'm sure today the RAF have some brilliant teachers - sadly the days of - I can do it - the aeroplane can do it - why the F**k can't you!! Seemed to rule. I could bore you all with the way Air Combat was taught but I'm sure you'd rather not hear it.

[BBadanov]

That is doubly insulting to Courtney!
Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-00.htm) .
Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Oh, sorry Courtney. No insult intended.

BEags, is there a problem mentioning helos? After all, I have read in the rich tapestry of these pages that some people were associated with the VC-10 ! Who would have thought...

P.S. I haven't raised to your bating of 237 OCU instructors. :=

[Scruffy Fanny]

Im not sure you would have reached the steps up to a Wessex cockpit Courtney !!!:D:D
Seriously - as someone who flew 3000 Hrs fast jet my greatest respect is for some of my Helicopter mates- landing a chinook into a Baghdad football stadium at night before gulf war 1 - flying me to Warton IMC in a Gazelle WTF??? The Attitude indicator never stayed still- Or being rescued by Charlie Rathbone at 2Am in the morning down the side of a Cliff near Spadeadam in his Seaking- Helo pilots you have my respect

[Courtney Mil]

I could have stood on a box!

Actually, I agree with your point about helo pilots. Two short trips in the mighty Chinook in ther Falklands impressed me. One night low level from Byron to MPA on the gogs and the other landing that massive assemblage on the back of the Rangatira. Hats off.

[Moe Syzlak]

The best OCU write up I ever saw was:

"He was almost as good as me-so that makes him exceptional"

Mark 6/6.


The lucky recipient was an experienced refresh student but even so.

[foldingwings]

Pardon my absence, I know you've been expecting me, but I have just returned from a very pleasant week in The Algarve! I'm afraid, also, that I am slightly disinclined to read all 5 pages assiduously but, since my alma mater has come in for some considerable bashing once again (oh, BEagle, just get over it), I feel it only appropriate to make some form of comment in order to explain, perhaps, the training rationale for any (not just 237) OCU in MHO! My experience is, I'm afraid, based on only 2 types however: that of the Buccaneer and my own personal passage through TTTE and TWCU somewhat later (and more experienced) in life.:E

Let me give you some background first. I was very fortunate to be the first ever RAF first-tourist navigator to be trained by 237 OCU when it formed. The course was designed and run by RAF types with RN types on the staff to assist and train those new RN types who no longer had 736 Sqn available at Lossie to convert them to the Bucc and, particularly, to deck landing practice. The 237 OCU course (long or short) was very much based on the previous 736 Sqn course where all previous RAF Bucc aircrew had been trained in the 60s. So, for whoever it was who asked that question the answer is dead easy - 237 OCU, when it formed in 1971 and in the main, adopted the syllabus and style of its dark blue predecessors initially.

I managed to 'navigate' all the hurdles required of me to reach a sufficient standard on my OCU course to meet its exit standard which, by any TNA and course design philosophy, is always the entry standard as laid down by the receiving command; in the case of the Buccaneer that was by HQ STC for crews destined for 12 Sqn (at the time) and by HQ RAFG for those, like me, destined for XV Sqn (at the time). This is, always has been and always will be the role of any OCU! I admit, that I wasn't a perfect student on my OCU course but I did meet the output standard and, as my driving examiner said when I passed my driving test at the first attempt, when I left for Germany I knew that I had passed but that I had a lot to learn! That learning was undertaken as part of the squadron work-up process to get crews qualified LCR (ie into Strike QRA) and CR, which took approximately another 6 months.

All that stated, the Buccaneer was renowned as a very difficult aircraft to operate, particularly off and to the deck, where many of my RAF contemporaries went to bolster the reducing RN FJ numbers (as also happened on the F4 OCU). The Bucc was even more deadly in the circuit as I learned when I was invited, as a 237 OCU staff navigator now on my third Bucc tour (1978-81 - did we meet BEagle?), to climb aboard with a student pilot on his 2nd ever trip on the jet, he having flown only one trip with a QFI beforehand (remember the Bucc has never ever had a second stick!).

Thus, the attitude and environment on the Bucc Force (not just the OCU) whether it was RN, RAF or even SAAF (many of whom I know personally) was that of a hard school. There was no room for training risks and there was certainly no room for underachievers! We flew the Bucc hard, low and at the edge of its envelope. Debriefs were harsh, personal, rankless (within limits as I learned to my cost when I criticised the Boss publicly for leading a six-ship, in a descent, through 8/8ths low cloud, in close formation to attack a ship in The Minch - I say led - only his 2 wingmen followed him as my pilot and I, leading the 2nd 3-ship, decided to close no further for the attack as the 3 up front disappeared through cloud!). But there was never ever any animosity after the debrief and we executed them in such a way to ensure that we all learned of the many pitfalls for the unwary when flying the Bucc - we always repaired to the bar to ensure that any flesh wounds might quickly heal! So, in short, the standard on the squadron was high, no prisoners were ever taken and the OCU reflected that in ensuring that the exit standard of it matched the entry standard for the squadrons.

We flew hard, we fought hard and we played hard. We were (and I make no apology for this next statement) members of a very small and exclusive club who were, certainly in the RAF, regarded as second-class citizens - remember, we had replaced the cancelled F-111, which had been planned to replace the TSR-2 (maybe we were third class citizens). We often had to fight for our very existence against their airships who publicly stated that we were 'an interim' measure - an interim measure that served the RAF for 25 years! So, if our exclusivity meant that if your face didn't fit then we showed you the door then, whilst that might seem harsh, from my end of the telescope it was the right decision. I have 485 surviving members of the Buccaneer Aircrew Association on my books that tell me that we made the right choices. Many of these people meet regularly for dinner biennially and, annually, significant numbers gather in London to bond once more at The Blitz. We keep together with a biannual 20 page glossy newsletter and own XX901 and more air-to-surface weapons than perhaps the RAF has on its books today - certainly more by sample if not total quantity - we even possess our own WE177C (you can see them all at YAM)! Not many aircraft can boast such fellowship!

Right, I've banged on long enough. For those who stuck with it, thanks for listening! For those who gave up at Foldie's wailings, you will never know what it was really like to be a Bucc Man!

Foldie;)

PS. I suspect that many OCUs and squadrons were similar too it was just that we weren't, perhaps, quite so tactful for those whose skin was just a little softer than the rest! C'est la Vie!:{

[BEagle]

...as a 237 OCU staff navigator now on my third Bucc tour (1978-81 - did we meet BEagle?)

No, we didn't.

Your DVD is excellent, I have to say though!

[Scruffy Fanny]

Theres you problem Foldie if you'd been an air defender flying a six ship in close would have been a walk in the park!!!:D:D
I was privileged to fly a Bucc not that long ago (2007 or 8 ) and I admit it seemed a complex aircraft if not treated with respect- The Tornado had no vices to speak of and was pretty simple to fly- My lasting impression of the Bucc was how uncomfortable it was in the back seat - unless you were a short ar se it can't have been comfy- I stand to be corrected but I think there was a dual control Bucc at Franborough? Used in the Night Bird trials - anyone. Certainainly the last three XW98s at West Freugh were single sticks .
I'd be interested in an honest opinion of Tornado GR1vs Bucc with no BS- I did hear that during the Tornado development Bucc fitted withnGR1 kit performed very well prompting the phrase - Build more Buccs

[CharlieJuliet]

Re 2 stick Buccs. There was a 2 stick capable one at RAE Farnborough - XV344 called the Nightbird Buccaneer. I think that the rear stick was put so that a safety pilot could pull up in the event of the front seat pilot losing it during night LLTV operations. NVGs then appeared, and I don't think the aircraft was flown on trials with 2 sticks? Certainly it hadn't up to the time I left in Jul 85.

[SkidMX]

Courtney is indeed well skilled in the rotary arena..

His ability to stop ceiling fans in Cyprus using only his head was second to none.:D

Plenty of blood & headaches from others who dared try :=

Skid

[t7a]

Absolutely nailed Foldie! It even seems to have wound BEagles neck in somewhat!

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, Skid. I was trying to get that taken on as an Olympic event. They said it would have to be in the Paralympics.. Not sure what they meant. :ok:

[jindabyne]

Absolutely nailed Foldie!

Nonsense t7 - listen to those that matter, ie THGITF, always!

[jindabyne]

Sorry t7 - that meant to come across somewhat differently!

[BBadanov]

Nonsense t7 - listen to those that matter, ie THGITF, always!

Always then Jindy? DFGA no time for the GIB?
Reminds me of the Bucc pilot that had two [repeat 2] navs bang out on him!

Now I know it wasn't you - but it could have been !! :E

[Wensleydale]

The SFC was not known for its leniency


The SFC was extremely proud of the high failure rate.... Their attitude appeared to be to find all the weaker ones and get rid of them asap rather than to teach the weaker ones to be better. Evaluation rather than positive instruction seemed to be the flavour of the month.

[jindabyne]

BB

Not a chance! ;)

Almost time for your ovaltine?

[foldingwings]

BB,

He's been to the pub again, I reckon! He always slurs badly and defocusses when he's been to the pub!

Eh, jindy?

Foldie:ok:

[jindabyne]

You were an excellent teacher old chap!!

[Wallah]

The SFC was extremely proud of the high failure rate.... Their attitude appeared to be to find all the weaker ones and get rid of them asap rather than to teach the weaker ones to be better. Evaluation rather than positive instruction seemed to be the flavour of the month.

Certainly, that was my experience of the SFC in the mid-90's, the foundation course was a 6 week assessment exercise. Once you were chopped you were, quite literally, thrown off the station. Following the final interview of the Friday you had to be off the station by the Saturday so you didn't "contaminate" the next course arriving on the Sunday. Given that the chop rate averaged well over 60% there were a lot of people frantically trying to sort out somewhere to go at very short notice (helped by copious notes left by those unfortunates from previous courses).

Looking back, as gutted as I was at being chopped, I've had a much more varied career that the few of my mates that made it though. I even had the pleasure of working with BEagle; though as a fully paid up member of the "telephone answering branch" I doubt he'll remember me (even if he did sign my leaving print TWICE!).

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, that has always been a seriously hard school, Wallah.

[BEagle]

Wallah, go on, give me a clue?

Sorry if I messed up your leaving print - but at least you were given one...:(

It was a shame that so many keen young folk were binned off the SoFC courses back in the 1970s - but commiserating with them at Biggin did at least have some advantages....:E

Then there was the ridiculous navigator course at Finningley. There were so mant recourses that it was once proved that most baby navigators did something like 1.4 x the normal course. "So why not make the normal course 1.4 x its current length and save yourselves all that paperwork?", I once asked a staff navigator...

But then again, they were only half-wing half-brains.....:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

Make your mind up....

On the one hand you generally slag Navs off as being rubbish. Now you're complaining that they did 1.4 x the normal course length. Surely, given your low opinion of them, you should logically have been advocating that they all did the training course at least twice in the hope of improving their ability!

[Courtney Mil]

Biggus,

Maybe there's a link between being rubbish and needing 1.4 X the course? :E

[Wrathmonk]

it was once proved that most baby navigators did something like 1.4 x the normal course

But at least they then got through their FJ OCU and managed to retain CR status on the front line beyond their first tour.:E

[johnfairr]

Nothing like a spot of BEagle-baiting, eh, Wrathmonk . . . . . :D:D

[Courtney Mil]

A noble sport, I'm sure. Are we laughing at someone not completing a phase of training. I always thought that was one of the Junior Srvice's taboos. Still, as you see fit.

EDIT: And before you say they was what he was doing, I don't think that was the case. If I understood correctly, the point was the the COURSE wasn't up to the job.

[Wrathmonk]

I will no doubt pay for it with a severe keyboard lashing about the standards and etiquette of the yoof of today (of which, of course, I am not one!).;)

Edited to add - not laughing at all Courtney. Just pointing out that if 1.4 of the course meant a higher pass rate at the OCU / sqn then perhaps that should have been the norm in more than just nav training ......

Edited again : Bu88er - crossed post!!

[Courtney Mil]

Nor I, sadly.

[foldingwings]

BEagle,

You have so many ferkin chips on your shoulder that I fear that you have now become completely unbalanced!

Just go look in a mirror and analyse your career (which you have taken the unqualified delight in exposing on here for more years than I can remember) before others do it for you publically!!

From what I can gather, everybody who was streamed FJ GD/P in the time-scales that you expose for yourself was, at some stage, permitted to fly a single seat jet! Those who were good were allowed to continue to do so further on in their careers. Others, perhaps less fortunate in their own career optimism, flew FJ with a Nav in the back seat! You failed twice at that, then went on to fly with Navs for the rest of your operational days (I don't include QFI as Op)!

So I wouldn't start slagging off Navs or Nav School as, without them, you'd never have got airborne!

I was beginning to forgive you about some of the previous unadulterated bigoted claptrap that you have spouted on PPRuNe before but I'm feeling disinclined to continue to do so right now!

Apology accepted (if and when it comes!)

Foldie:E

[Justanopinion]

The worst instructors I found throughout flying training (Linton/Valley)were those that had not done very well themselves or/and had something to prove.

Perhaps thats why the Harrier and SHAR OCU (one of the hardest aircraft to operate), as well as the Harrier QWI course, were hard work but without any of the unneccessary grief.

[Courtney Mil]

Dear God, Foldie.

That has to be the most vitriolic post I've seen here. I must have missed the posts that touched such a raw nerve. Is it necessary?

[Geehovah]

Its sad that a thread on OCUs degenerated into a pilots vs navs argument.

I guess its a fact that those who struggled on an OCU or a squadron - and I know having seen both sides that many did - find recourse in internet banter. Many who struggled went on to excel given help from the other cockpit. That was the strength of 2 seat aircraft. I could think of quite a few aircrew who became QWIs who passed OCU chop rides.

[BEagle]

Then there was the ridiculous navigator course at Finningley. There were so mant recourses that it was once proved that most baby navigators did something like 1.4 x the normal course. "So why not make the normal course 1.4 x its current length and save yourselves all that paperwork?", I once asked a staff navigator...

But then again, they were only half-wing half-brains.....

Do read things more carefully, foldie! The point being that the poor baby navs suffered because the course wasn't up to the mark - the average nav ended up being recoursed, most likely because of the lousy course design. A frankly absurd state of affairs, as was confirmed by one of my navigator chums some years later.

Also 'they' referred to the boneheads who wouldn't accept that their course was inadequate for their students. 'They' were indeed half-wing half-brains - the baby navs wouldn't actually have had a brevet at that stage, of course and I'm surprised you didn't realise that.

The most ridiculous (but true) 'navigator' story I ever heard was recounted by en ex-Nimrod chum of mine. Once upon a time, he'd just wrestled the jet down the approach one filthy wet night at Kinloss, only to go around at minima. Then the other pilot had a go, still with no luck. As they went round the second time, their navigator captain piped up "Couldn't you go a bit lower next time?". Cue flurry of straps from the 1st pilot, who stormed down to the navigators' desk to announce "Right! All yours it is then, I'll be in the back drinking coffee!"..... And off they went to their diversion!

Feel free to apologise for your vitriol, foldie, should you be so inclined.

[foldingwings]

Nope!

Despite your protestation of innocence, by using the term 'they' you deliberately wrap us all under the one banner of 'half-wing half-brains', which is derogatory and very insulting. But then I have read your 'shooting from the hip' comments, for more years than I care to remember, about how you disagree with this and disagree with that and how nobody could ever be more perfect than you or how much better you'd have run the RAF. You criticise aspects of the RAF that you are well removed from in both time and space and, I suspect, have an over-inflated ego bigger than Everest!

Everybody is, I am happy to say, entitled to an opinion but yours has reached boundaries well beyond the average man.

So no apology from me, BEagle, you've overstepped the mark this time.

Foldie:E

[Courtney Mil]

I think it was very clear that the comment was about the course, not the navs on it. I can't see how anyone could think a dual/multi-crew man would have anything but good thoughts about fellow crew members. Isn't this getting a bit silly.

Again, did I miss something?

[Gericault]

Ladies, ladies,

Back to the thread, I thought 226 OCU was a great place to learn a trade. Good mates, a great station and a thoroughly enjoyable jet. Guess I was lucky...;)

[Pontius Navigator]

In the very late 80s we introduced an entirely new basic nav syllabus in the basic phase. Once the course had settled down its output continued to meet the input needs for the next phase. The first time success rate again recovered its previous pattern (well slightly better).

The course pattern saw each of the first 5 sorties practised in the sim twice. most studes completed that part of the basic phase successfully. The next 5 sorties were practised in the sim once only. It was usually at the first of this 2nd phase of basics that the first studes fell. Some continued after a re-fly and others were given a remedial package. I guess some 10% overall were washed out in the first phase.

A significant number washed out had previously failed pilot training. In contrast most selected nav at the outset would get through the whole course first time.

But then again, they were only half-wing half-brains

For a signifcant part of my tour the CNI was an ex-Bucc man and gave far more flex hours than Group thought he should and the second CNI was an ex-F4 man. Both did everything they could to get the studes through and were both instrumental in modifying the course and ultimately introducing the Tucano.

Also, I believe unlike pilot training, stude navs were supervised by a variety of pilots and navs rather than one on one for a whole phase.

Now tell me it was a staff problem and not a selection problem.

[Courtney Mil]

All of us that went to an OCU were lucky, Gericault. Not knowing any better and being totally institutionalised (sp? can't be bothered) I though all my OCU courses were just fine. Hard, but fine. But who was I to judge?

That's not to say that everyone always had a completely fair ride.

[BEagle]

In the very late 80s we introduced an entirely new basic nav syllabus in the basic phase.

Which was indeed the solution!

[Courtney Mil]

Which I think was your point?

[ralphmalph]

Each sortie practised in the Sim twice? We are now back to the old, I'll show you......you do......

Now you have been shown.

(does not produce an expert, but demonstrates capability to replicate instruction, capacity, and considerabe stability)

Course design today does not structure things that way any longer.....no money.

Yet I imagine that standards are lower in initial phases of training as a result. People still get chopped, but there are so many safeguards to ensure fair process.....some get through when if the honest opinion was asked of instructors....they would be gone in a heart beat.

[Pontius Navigator]

ralph, very true. The phrase at the time was brief-monitor-debrief.

if the honest opinion was asked of instructors....they would be gone in a heart beat

I met the students on my course for welcome drinks on the Sunday night. We chated to them and eventually left.

As soon as I could out of the car park Mrs PN and I wrote down our assessments of who would pass and who would fail. We also put them in order. There was no conferring and we sealed the lists in an envelope.

Of 7 only 3 passed all phases. Mrs PN never served but her assessments from a couple of hours in the bar were identical with mine and we were spot on.

I think in the 70s an Army psychiatrist reported on this phenomenon: that experienced instructors could identify successful students and spent far more time proving that the other students could not meet the grade.

[Courtney Mil]

Well of course the other 4 failed if you'd already decided to damn them in the first 30 minutes of the course. Or did I accidentally misunderstand? :E

[Wallah]

BEagle. I was the first non-aircrew Ops officer on the Shiney fleet, and I must say what a thoroughly excellent time I had. Long hours, particularly as for 6 months I had no Ops Staff (Fitzy, if you ever read this you were worth your weight in gold). The crews were spot on with some excellent guys, happy to fill my brain with all things fun bus before firing me off down route on a crew trainer. I was even trusted to answer the phone on my own and make decisions! We didn't even mind when you tanker boys came across to join us (though it did mean we had to paint the half the corridors a different colour!). However, I crossed to the dark side not long after and went to the tri-motors across the road.

If it helps, you didn't spoil my print I just have a wry smile every now and then when I look at it on the toilet wall.

Morale of the story: being chopped is sh*t, but things generally work out ok in the end!

Rgds

Rem acu tangere

[BEagle]

Which I think was your point?

It was indeed, mate. But if foldie wishes to believe otherwise, that's up to him...:rolleyes:

"Drift please, nav?"

:(

[Scruffy Fanny]

Its a bit sad that all these Forums seem to degenerate Into mud slinging by page6-
Foldie - was I married to you for 15 years? You sound very much like Mrs SF mk1 !!!
PN - I had hoped your story of getting back to the car park with Mrs PN would lead to a spot of rumpy pumpy or a bit of dogging in Bawtry !
Bloody hell if I knew the two of you were re enacting strictly scoring baby navs I'd have PVR'd sooner !!!! In the words of Mr E Blackadder "those winter evenings on 6 FTS must have just flown by"
Any chance of sticking to the script and recounting stories of daring do?
Amusing ditties like when I was doing ACT in an F4 with the Major in the front who unbriefed snatched 7 g at the merge and managed to wedge my head in the radar for 5 minutes- I knew wearing my Mk1 bone done was a bad idea :D

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think PN has a point.
The demo Biggin Hill Interview tape used on the Aircrew Instructor Course was of a chopped pilot going for another branch. Just from his mannerisms on the tape, all the pilots (FJ and ME) on my course agreed he'd probably been chopped at BFTS Spin/Aeros...and it turned out we were right!

[ExRAFRadar]

As a mere enlisted ScopeDope I loved the idea of working in War Rooms with big Tote boards, watching the raids come in and our valiant blue line race up to fend them off. "Bring 56 to Readiness 15 please, all available aircraft" and all that.
When I told the Sargent at the initial interview one of my hobbies was Wargaming (sad I know) he Said "If you like wargaming you going to love being an ASoP."

I only ever spent 2 weeks at Boulmar doing the job I had trained for, rest of the time was spent in LFA13, firing Smokey Sams, scoring Baby F111 crews bomb Haltwhistle, watching all manner of mainly 1 Group aircraft rip the sky apart.

Would not have swapped it for all the Bears coming down the gap.

But when I was told my eyesight was too bad to go for ALM (After Biggin Hill, had a place on training, but they sent me for a 'Special' eye check') I was asked if I fancied Fighter Control.

Hearing on here about the SoFC failure rate I am more surprised than I was about the OCU's.

What was it that was so challenging about it ?

Maybe I should ask elsewhere, if anyone can point me in the right direction.

[Courtney Mil]

was I married to you for 15 years? You sound very much like Mrs SF mk1 !!!

That IS funny!

[HTB]

Re Beagle’s observation on 6 FTS nav recourse rates – this is not a picture that I recognise. I started my nav course in the latter part of 1972 (167 cse) and recall losing only one of our number quite early on, chopped, not recoursed; the remaining dozen or so went on to complete the course in regulation time. The courses in front and behind also went through unscathed.

There were no FJ postings, mainly V-force or Nimrods (although one bound for Hercs managed to blag himself into an F-4 slot shortly after role disposal).

There were no FJ nav instructors (pre-LLTS), staff being mainly drawn from Kipper Fleet or Truckies, including maritime Shacks. The CNI looked like, and was given the name, "Tojo" – only met him once when he bollocked me for having too big a bar bill (fortunately my expenditure on chits was mainly for crisps and tomato juice – the other stuff was paid for in cash – so I was able to mount a good defence, and the bar staff were also very discreet).

Mister B

[Pontius Navigator]

Or did I accidentally misunderstand? :E

You did indeed. They way the system worked there was no scope for a course commander to fail or set up a fail. Indeed one stude actually got through to the second phase despite his own best efforts not to succeed. It might have been better off had I let him fail earlier. He became a Provost Officer.

We never set out to prove failures but to get them through if we could. There was one exception, not on my course, who should never have got out of Cranwell. He eventually failed on professional grounds but should have been chopped on OQs before that.

Another did really well in Basics getting 100% for one trip but failed 2 or 3 phases further on.

HTB, as far as I know, around 360 course, there had been no qualified record of success rates. I set about creating a moving average to assess who got through and who failed. The bar graph was pretty steady. IIRC we lost 5% through medical, 35% were recoursed and 60% got through first time. I think of the 35% recoursed, and here it is a bit dim and distant past, about half of these ultimately failed. I didn't separate out ex-pilots from straight through navs but from subjective evidence the chopped pilots did less well than straight through navs.

[Courtney Mil]

The same mentality during my time at Chiv, PN.

[Uncle Cumulus]

I went through the RN SFC in 2000, and the staff there were not shy with the axe either. However, I vaguely remember being shown a video of the RAF SFC which painted in glowing terms its policy of recoursing (unknown in the D school at the time), synthetic training, helping students etc, in contrast to our own trial by fire (live control through A25 on Day 3:eek:, eek for the pilots and LATCC as much as us, simulated A control on s-l-o-w primary radar with no data, only primary returns, and of course the liquids-only diet). Our staff were very impressed, as I recall. Had there been a revolution at Boulmer? Or did sending guys to the Ident branch not count as chopping?;)

Ref the spotting failures in advance, might not general maturity be the unconscious clue? I went back and had a look at the Fighter Pilot series after the recent thread, and I thought it was pretty obvious that the first guy was going to get chopped while the steady Eddie would end up flying a mighty naval jet. If they'd given out marks for the tying of shoelaces he (the JP chopee) probably would have failed at that, simply because of his overall wibble level.

[blagger]

As a civvy FI and FE I've flown with a lot of RAF pilots for civvy ratings and they are often so wound up it often takes them a few trips to calm down and realise they are not about to get slated for every little issue and that I am there to help and teach them. It sounds like the instruction in some elements of training is still a 'I can do this why can't you?' mentality. Only an outsiders observation of course, I'm sure the strong candidates will always do well and there are some that are so naturally good it never fails to impress!

[Pontius Navigator]

Ref the spotting failures in advance, might not general maturity be the unconscious clue?

No! I went as a deputy course commander to a meet and greet. One stude was slightly aloof. I asked him "Where's the farm then?" Shropshire he said. That was another that didn't make it through.

It is no self-fulling prophesy for, as I have said, it was not a question of one on one instruction failing.

Of my course 6 our of 7 were mature. Do as we could however the young non-university guy, ex-pilot, remained a lost cause.

[Uncle Cumulus]

Sorry, I meant immaturity. I've got nothing against old people! I just thought that this guy and others (I joined at 18 and failed plenty of things, although not the freddying) might have had a better chance if he'd waited a couple of years. In fact, I even asked a QHI if recruiting older folks might not be an advantage- he reckoned yes, but they'd never be fool enough to sign up...

[johnfairr]

I was a couple of courses behind you, 169, and we only had one guy dip out and that was on medical grounds. We'd played rugby against Sleaford Tech in the RAF Cup and this chap, Charlie Ensor, from Belfast, was a bloody good flanker. He got concussed, (we learned later), carried on playing, then subsequently collapsed in the air on a trip in the Varsity a day or so later. I only remember this so clearly because it was the first time I had scored three tries in a game. :ok::ok: Mind you, I only ran about 12 yards in total for the lot of them. The strange thing was, the Officer i/c rugby, and thus the captain, was a S/L MO, who played full-back!!

The guy who moved from potential Hercules to the F4, IIRC, held at Boscombe Down and racked up 100+ hours in the Bucc prior to his change of posting. I also think he later banged out over Leuchars, practising a Canadian Break??

Small world.

The only FJ-ish Nav Instructor there at the time was on the 12 hour JP interlude between Varsitys and the Dominie. The Janet & John course on map folding and fablon covering after you've put all the info on, not before . . . :\:\ He makes a guest appearance in the fine description of 228 OCU shenanigans written by Courtney Mil.

F-4 Phantom FGR2, 228 Phantom OCU, RAF Coningsby and RAF F4 Phantom XV436 (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-05.htm)

It's worth reading the whole lot of his writing; excellent, evocative, funny, deffo non-PC, exactly how it should be. Naturally, IMO, ;);)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My Graduate Entry to BFTS, 10 guys with 100+ hours Bulldog.
Result: 6 FJ pilots, 3 ME pilots, 1 FJNav.

Next Direct Entry, 14 guys
Result: after Phase 1 Basic, 1 guy left. He made FJ.

[Pontius Navigator]

The only FJ-ish Nav Instructor there at the time was on the 12 hour JP interlude between Varsitys and the Dominie. The Janet & John course on map folding and fablon covering after you've put all the info on, not before .

How things changed.

A hundred or more courses earlier almost all the basic (2ANS) instructors were FJ with only the specs, astro etc, from the heavies. At 1ANS the navs were the true pencil and paper types ex trucks and Shacks.

As for map folding, after one or two efforts misplotting airways and danger areas and screwing up the fablon we would bung the flt plan cpl and SACW 10/- and they would use the light table and copy a chart for us with the right colours and then fablon it :)

[jindabyne]

F-4 Phantom FGR2, 228 Phantom OCU, RAF Coningsby and RAF F4 Phantom XV436 (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-05.htm)

And self-edifyingly, boring ! Sorry Mil, but that's how I find it. I would imagine that most of us that have been there, especially those before you, may be of same mind. RoW though will be impressed.

If not , I'll be humble and p**s off, and leave you to your newly found Forum.

No doubt you'll post a pithy response.

Good luck with the sea stuff.

[BEagle]

jinda', that's a bit b£oody harsh, mate.

Don't forget that Courtney wrote his journal for the genpub, not for ex-FJ mil aircrew.

I think it's very well written and conveys a lot about that era in a readily understandable form. Much nicer to read than in-jokes and mysterious acronymish....

[HTB]

JF

I remember Charlie Ensor well, great sense of humour and comic timing - did he not have a relative who played International (Tony Ensor) or was he just BSing? We must have played on the same team at some time, I was usually on the wing, unless the full back was otherwise engaged. I did stand in for RAB Binnie on one occasion when he was flying (damned inconvenient, eh); I think it was a Faville Trophy match, and even managed a lucky try.

I shared a room in the proper mess with the F4 crossover; didn't much like him then, and even less 23 years later when he pitched up at Ramstein as a wg cdr. He was caught doing naughty things with tax-free motor cars and ended up CM and out.

Now, do you recall when Jasper Carrot played in the No 2 mess? Supporting act for me and Dick Yates....:E

Mister B

[jindabyne]

Self promotion I'd call it. And with that, I'm off. AH&N will now be my place.

As with Foldie I suspect, you can stick it ----- Mil Aircrew that is

[BEagle]

Oh well, that'd be a shame.

[500N]

Jindabyne

I disagree.

A record of Courtney's life from go to wo that is well written,
easy to read and as BEagle said, easy for non mil or non flying
ex mil to understand.

It is written by the person who did it so it may look like self promotion
but I don't think it comes across that way at all and certainly doesn't say
he was the best at everything but it does give someone a very good record
of his RAF service life in that era and his FJ life overall.

When I first saw it, I enjoyed it and read the whole thing from top to bottom
and it was time well spent IMHO.

.

.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, I'm gutted that you didn't fall for my thinly diguised attempt to make myself out to a bloody huge he-man hero, jindabyne. Tell you what. I think you're probably right so I'll just delete the whole site. It was worth a try, though.

Apart from that, thanks for the good wishes for the 'sea stuff'. We're off on the next trip next week, so your good wishes are well received.

Courtney


P.S. Thank you guys, for your kind comments.:ok:

[Scruffy Fanny]

The site is a gem ! Bloody excellent - for those who flew the F4 it jogs memories and I bet 1000s of people who loved the F4 relish it
CM - ignore the knobs in the world - they are bitter and twisted individuals - jealousy is a bad thing
Keep up the good work
Jinda - thought you were going to piss off?

[Scruffy Fanny]

Cot -toys - of- out
Re arrange

[Courtney Mil]

Strange bloke. I wonder what we did wrong?

Ooh. He deleted his last post.

Thanks SF. It's just a bit of self edifying fun!

[Fortissimo]

I have to agree with SF. I liked what you wrote, which jogged plenty of memories for me (though I could have done without the photo of Sinders...). I don't know what was in there that blew Jinda's stack, but can only diagnose a stuck nozzle (open). :ok:

[jindabyne]

There you go again Mil --- not strange, if you knew of me.

Leave it there shall we? I'm off

If you're in the RAFC on 6 Dec, beers

[BEagle]

Tell you what. I think you're probably right so I'll just delete the whole site. It was worth a try, though.

Please don't delete it, old chap - it's one of the most interesting and well-written accounts of the Life and Times of a fast jet pilot that I have ever seen.

I regret jindabyne's departure and at something of a loss to understand why he chose to use quite such harsh words. I hope he will reconsider his decision.

[Courtney Mil]

Fair enough, J.

[Courtney Mil]

Naaa. I'll just take out the big words and equations, Beags. It'll do then.

I'll try to be in the Club on the 6th

[Fortissimo]

Oh please don't take out the big words and equations - I never had enough time to understand them before, so it would be nice to have a go in slowmo!

[Courtney Mil]

Hey, remeber it took me 30 years to work them out and write them down.

[Courtney Mil]

/thread drift

[jindabyne]

Final Post

Thank you to those who have sent supportive PM's

[Scruffy Fanny]

Just because 1 person takes issue with your site CM doesnt mean 1000 others like it - Let him buy you a beer or perhaps a shandy then your up on the deal!:ok:

[Scruffy Fanny]

Sorry Jinda for someone who said he's going you seem to still be here ??
Byeeeee

[500N]

Jinabyne
"Thank you to those who have sent supportive PM's"

Don't worry, CM's in box got plenty more:O

.

[Wander00]

PN - Ref 134. As a flt cdr on IOT early 80s I was (second time) single, but it was rumoured that after the first night "meet and creep" flt cdrs' wives put name of those that would pass/fail in an envelope to be opened after Black Monday. It was suggested that there was about a 98% correlation between the wifely predictions and the results. Hence, when asked by a well known sheep farming DDIOT how we might save money, I suggested that we shorten the course to a week - Meet and Creep Monday, open the envelopes Wednesday and have the Graduation on Friday. I took my hat and coat.

[jindabyne]

SF.

I said 'Final' , twit. No doubt you'll have a last word though

[Courtney Mil]

Jin, I'll buy you a beer in the Club.

Time to move on. Wander00 is putting us back on thread.

[Scruffy Fanny]

Not at all - I'm sure reading both your PMs is keeping you busy

[Scruffy Fanny]

Ok I'll buy a beer as well - as an olive branch
Back to OCU japes

[Fortissimo]

It would be a shame if the mods closed this excellent thread, but not a surprise.

[Courtney Mil]

No they won't. It's all over now. Nothing to see here. Move along.:ouch:

As SF says, back to the stories.

[BEagle]

Having once had the task of trying to fathom out some of the squadron history of the days 20 years before I joined the squadron, it became clear to me that details of even the most mundane (at the time) activities of the crews of those days would have been of considerable interest to those who followed them in later years.

Which is perhaps why Courtney's journal is such a gem.

jinda', your account (elsewhere) of your Hunter incident in 1965 is a classic description of RAF activity in a theatre which, even now, is largely forgotten.

Remember how 'I learned about flying from that' was one of the more popular sections of 'Air Clues', when the RAF could still afford that excellent publication?

In earlier days, there were many well-written anecdotes about life in the RAF of yore. Sadly, few people seem to bother with such things these days....

Those who would write about their personal lives in the RAF should be encouraged, rather than ridiculed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, back to the topics of OCUs.

After completing a JP refresher following my sojourn at RAF Biggin Hill, I turned up at 230 OCU RAF Scampton with a feeling of uncertainty. Book in to the OM, then the arrival brief with the chaps who I'd met at RAF North Luffenham a week or so earlier....

What a gentlemanly world then followed! Groundschool was reasonably simple, then the simulator phase at RAF Finningley with an aged ex-Lincoln pilot teaching us how to fly the Vulcan. His tales of the late 1940s and early 1950s were a fascinatin insight into a little-known world though.

When we moved to the flying phase, I once remarked "You know, we've met all the 'soft' men, I'm still waiting for the 'hard' man to show his face and tell us we're all useless!". But he never did appear. They were happy for students to live out whilst on the course, so I had an extremely pleasant laid-back summertime in a shared house with 3 other mates in a nearby village. After the OCU, life on the squadron was equally enjoyable and I think I can honestly say that the lifestyle of a 'VFW' (as some termed us) was probaly the best I ever had in the RAF.

[Scruffy Fanny]

My time on 228 OCU brings back memories of the ground school exam which I failed twice - my final report said "Pilot Officer xxxx understands the answers but doesn't understand the questions"! I'm forever in debt to Tony Down who conducted my systems exam orally - stopping sniggering Courtney

[Courtney Mil]

But it's such a great line, SF. How could I not?

Now TD. There's a name.

[Scruffy Fanny]

Beagle - I think we've agreed the following
CMs site is the dogs danglies
And someone is having a bad day and has now been forgiven after a bit of mild AD banter !:=

[Scruffy Fanny]

You would be sniggering Courtney if I told you what TD did to that Nurse in block 101 in Cyprus - I guess she worked on the theory of large nose large.....

[BEagle]

Block 101 could tell so many such tales, if only it could talk!

And it was so kind of the RAF to install those rotary hand fire alarm bells around the block, which were so perfect for opening Keo beer bottles!

[Scruffy Fanny]

Thank the sweet baby Jesus it can't! - the worst story I heard involves the aged Cypriot cleaner- a Squadron mates room - and a picture of his misses
The louvred glass windows I also seem recall didn't offer an officer quite the privacy one deserved after a squadron party !
My lasting memory of block 101 was deploying to Gulf War1 via Akrotiri night stop last chance to drink myself into oblivion - before operation certain death in BAes Bristol Bluebottle - only to find some middle aged Nimrod Scopie had pinched my bed but worse his totally naked body ( BMI around 45) was face down on my pillow - thank goodness senior matron took pity on me :mad:

[Wrathmonk]

Good job there weren't mobile phones and social media in those days. Can you imagine the poo hitting the rotary air cooler when holders of the Queens Commission, possibly even bachelors, were seen to be (possibly) getting naked with single members of the opposite sex in the privacy of their room. Oh the horror. I hope they were all forced to resign immediatly :E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Can't have been that great.
I distinctly remember a first tourist on my squadron trying to throw a naked lady out of his Block 101 room.

She protested that she was the Senior Matron and that he was in the wrong building entirely, but he was having none of it.
Unlike the brandy sours, of which he'd had quite a lot.



p.s. that Matron got about a lot that year didn't she?

[BSweeper]

OK lets change the thread name to:

Sex, Block 101 and Akrotiri.

Pull pin, throw grenade and wait for >>>>>>>>>



The sweep

[Ali Qadoo]

OK lets change the thread name to:

Sex, Block 101 and Akrotiri.


BSweeper, in my capacity as senior legal counsel at Messrs Sue, Grabbett and Runne, I should advise you that your post constitutes an incitement to brother officers to commit offences under the Detachment Rules Act (1977), as amended by the Ten West Act (1980) and the Dodgy Dorris act (1982).

Have you no shame, sir? :E

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

In an attempt to drag the thread back on topic, Detachments, and how to conduct oneself thereon, were an integral part of flying training in the '80s. I benefited enormously from Group Captains demo'ing 3am kitchen raids through the roof skylight, and knarled old Flight Lieu'es showing the finer points of "whale-dodging" at nurses' parties. The only course without one was the OCU - time I think was the reason.


p.s. what about Two Tacans From Home Act (1979) ?