Is RAF training all it's cracked up to be...?

[Crashed&Burned]

The RAF is very selective in who it recruits, especially for officer and aircrew. Candidates are usually pretty fit, well educated and with useful team and leadership skills. Potential aircrew have to have 'flying aptitude' and are tested for that skillset. Maybe 1 in 20 applicants gets through.

Of those selected for aircrew, maybe 1 in 10 completes the course and reaches operational standard.

If the selection process is valid then why are 90% of those who 'pass' failing? Is it to do with poor quality training?

Having lit the blue touchpaper, I shall now retire to a safe distance...

[Bob Viking]

If you tell us where you got the 10% pass rate from then maybe we'll give you the answers you seek!
BV:hmm:

[Just This Once...]

It is a bit odd to start a thread with an unsupported statement of failure rate and then 'retire to safe distance'.

From that distance can you hear us all shout something about you making the statistics up???

[lj101]

Some totally useless stats link used to be below;

[ShotOne]

Well the figures are a matter of record rather than opinion. No doubt someone will produce them here.

...although that someone isn't lj; thanks but no thanks for your link. You're right, it doesn't support the OP's assertion but, to save anyone else scanning all those tables, it doesn't disprove it either, or indeed shine any useful light on the subject.

[Ken Scott]

Not exactly statistically significant, but on my own course at BFTS (old system circa 80s) there were 6 of us, one vw'd, the rest all completed training & became operational, not necessarily FJ but on something. So a long way from 90% failure, but perhaps the 10% figure is referring to the FJ stream only?

Whilst RAF training has been cut back significantly in recent years & is no longer 'training for excellence' I do believe that the original hypothesis

Is RAF training all it's cracked up to be...?

is overly pessimistic.

[racedo]

It should be that selective and hard that require people to give their all to be there.

Frankly that is better than having a wishy washy group of people who only in their position because affirmative action and gender quotas.

When I see an RAF aircraft I want to know that person flying it worked their :mad: off to get there.

I want to respect the people doing it because they are the best of the best, not the best of the mediocre selected to meet a quota.

[NutLoose]

i met a few that were far from the best of the best too. As in all walks of life, standard vary.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Similar to Ken, my BFTS course of 10 (Graduates, so 100+ hrs Bulldog already) yielded 6 FJ pilots, 3 truckie pilots and an FJ Nav QWI. The guy chopped was, by his own admission, lazy. A fault he promptly remedied on Nav training. I had 3 guys chopped off my AFTS, all of whom were glad as it stopped them killing themselves due to lack of capacity. They all qualified as ME pilots. The pilot chopped off my OCU course was for lack of aggression, which he acknowledged. He went back to ME (it was the second time he'd been chopped on an FJ OCU, so they gave him a fair chance).
All in all, I thought it a fantastic training system. It certainly made me what I am now. I am now a qualified instructor/teacher/lecturer in 5 different fields, rated exceptional in all of them, and I draw on my RAF experiences every day.

[Whopity]

The RAF is very selective in who it recruits, especially for officer and aircrew. Primarily it is looking for people who will pass the training with the minimum number of extra training sessions and therefore not pose a training risk which associated costs.

Having been part of the training system, albeit a few decades ago, the thought of only 10% of those selected finally graduating whould have lead to a major overhaul of the selection process. Such an ubsubstantiated figure is highly improbable.

[Courtney Mil]

C&B,

Quite an aggressive opening post. Perhaps if you were to offer a little honesty about your intent I might be able to help, as others here have already done. I was an instructor in the system and, later, SO1 Training at Group. Happy to help if I understand the question you're asking.

Best regards,

Courtney

[smujsmith]

Can some self loading freight chuck in a penny worth chaps ? I spent 5000+ hours on various variations of Hercules operations, all, being driven by aircrew for whom I had the highest respect, as to capabilities. As I hope they had for my ability to mend the beast when they broke it. Particularly during operations in Bosnia and Iraq, where, the meaning of crew and professionalism came to the fore. I doubt there are many Air forces who apply such rigid demands to their trainee aircrew, and I for one could never knock the system, although like many, I met a few (of a all ranks) during my time who may have had "personality" problems. OK maybe it was me all along. I think the intent of the OP is valid in querying if such streaming is valid in an age where many will be flying their aircraft from a desk in Nevada, or Waddo, but in the RAF I served in, I believe that the correct people were occupying the correct seats in Auntie Bettie's Aircraft.

Smudge:ok:

[TomJoad]

Well I think I will follow in the same spirit as the OP's tenuous linkage to stats:


I was utterly brilliant in my service career. The RAF's training regime must have been outstanding:p

Tom (tongue firmly in cheek)

[ShyTorque]

Yes, it must have been damned good to get me through, to a standard where I was good enough for almost two decades of military flying. I never did a ground tour.

I never been in a ground job since, as a civvie, for the last eighteen years, nor have I ever been unemployed.

[Heathrow Harry]

the pass rate is driven by the number of aircrew required - if we needed to have a 1000 bomber force a lot of the people who currently fail would pass

if we finish up with 5 F-35's it's going to be very very competitive...................

[Dave Wilson]

I was utterly brilliant in my service career. The RAF's training regime must have been outstanding

We must have had the same instructors! I was mainly involved with FJ's as a techy but I can't ever remember thinking that any of the crews were incompetent. A tiny number weren't the greatest people as in any walk but I would never knock their skills.

I've never looked at it that way, that the guys who finished up poleing the Harrier, Lightning et al were the cream of the crop but I suppose they must have been. Well done you lot.

[ShotOne]

Delighted to hear it, Dave, but the quality of the end product is not in dispute (even by the rather punchy OP). What has been questioned is the wastage rate to achieve that.

Great to see that low self-esteem (..."rated exceptional in all of them") isn't a serious problem in the modern Air Force!

[Dave Wilson]

The RAF has never been known for its lack of self confidence.

People can't be right all of the time of course but luckily for the forum I am and part of my role is to correct those who aren't..:)

[More lookout]

The "failure" rate was also influenced by economics as well. Just ask the trainees who were shown the redundancy door. Go back to early nineties for some, there was no option if they didn't make the grade for FJ.

[Party Animal]

I'm a product of the 80's aircrew training system. At a guess, I would say about 35% were chopped between day one and combat ready status. Some of these were at IOT, then basics, then advanced, then OCU. Generally, there would be a remedial package of training followed by a recourse. Two strikes of failure put individuals on a very fine knife edge between further training or out.

My impression was that this process softened during the 90's. The OASC selection process was deemed to be faultless and therefore failures in training were not due to students not being capable, it was the fault of the training package. The result was to keep training people until they eventually passed.

As a former OCU instructor, I have to honestly say that some of the newly badged students coming through would not have made it in my day. The very real threat of being chopped ultimately led to survival of the fittest. Once the word 'chop' was removed from the training lexicon, students relaxed far too early. Of course, there were many quality students who would have always made the grade - but there were a few who ultimately were always going to struggle.

[A2QFI]

In the 60s, when I did pilot training, it was alleged that some people, graded "F" on an A to F scale during the selection process, were put through training anyway, to test and validate the selection mechanism. The worst banter you could give anyone was to ask if they were "An Experimental F"!

[small_dog]

I vaguely remember reading in an autobiography that the author subsequently found out that they were put through the training system with the expectation that they would fail (the experimental F?). However in their case, they went on to be an instructor on the GR3 Harrier (and did an exchange tour on the F-104)!

[4Greens]

If you were a regular Naval Officer in the 50's and you went flying and trained with the RAF without any selection process. Short service pilots did the full bit. The failure rate for regulars was far less. Weird

[AR1]

I imagine if there were 400 jets to be filled the pass rate would go up. But as what proportion vs applicants I cant be sure.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Having been involved in the flying training pipeline in various guises during my career (selection, training and management) then I would strongly suggest that your statistics are made up. Either that or you need to explain the background behind them.

90% failure rate I might accept if that includes those individuals making their first application to a careers office who might fall at the very first hurdle. If it is from selection to Initial Officer Training then your figures are dubious and if they are from entering the start of flying training then they are simply wrong.

[charliegolf]

That said Roland, I would be interested to know the percentage across all aircrew trades, who made it from the street (CIO initial interview which I certainly don't recall) to a squadron.

So if you're not busy... :ok:

CG

[Courtney Mil]

I quite agree, Roland. It's also important to define what's meant by pass/fail. Given the policy that everyone is Group 1 until proven otherwise, do the people that don't end up FJ count as failure?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

There are several big issues within the OP's question.
'Is the selection process valid?' assumes we have a validity test. We don't. No one knows just how to spot FJ aircrew from a selection of teenagers, mainly because it's not like anything they've already done. It would be a lot easier if we did know.
Next is the assumption that what is required is constant but it most likely isn't. The combination of required motor skills, awareness, technical knowledge etc has varied over time and between aircraft types and roles. In simple terms, FJ aircrew personal requirements are a moving target and this means previous experience of selection and training may not be usable.
Then there's the financial aspect. It may seem like failing a large proportion is indicative of a faulty system, but that may not be the case economically. How much flex do you give students, and when?
Lastly, there's standards. As many have commented, a pass today may be a fail a decade hence, and v.v., and from the point of view of national defence, they may both be right.

[ORAC]

On the other hand, if you were talking FC training back in the early 70s - when everyone was a controller and before they split the branch and introduced Systems Officers etc - the percentage is about right.

They never seemed to be able to find an aptitude test that gave any kind of accurate forecast of who'd pass or fail.

[Herod]

Is RAF training all it's cracked up to be...?

In a word, YES!!;).

Well, at least back in the sixties. Wings course on the JP. Twenty-two started, one medical drop-out, one medical re-course. We picked up two from the previous course, so twenty-two graduated. Having said that, there was, I'm sure, a huge loss from initial application through OATC and basic training.

The earliest drop-out I came across was at South Cerney. Sworn in about 18:00 day one, shouted at on day two, he was gone by lunch.

[Wander00]

Herod - can beat that - 1983, new IOT entry arrives Sunday night. Monday morning a vacant bed with a £10 or £20 note (cannot recall which) pinned to the pillow and a note apologising "for any trouble caused", but this was not for him...............

[Tankertrashnav]

I suspect the "chop" rate in pilot training has always been higher than for other aircrew specialisms, if only because the physical skills required are difficult to assess until they are actually put to the test, but I cant believe 90% or anything like it.

On my own nav course of 12 in 1969-70 we had two chopped pilots, as did most courses at that time. These usually went on to qualify as navs, and in fact our actual failure rate, leaving aside the odd re-course) was quite low, probably around 10-15% at the most overall.

As an aside I was never offered pilot training after my initial assessment which in the event was a good decision, as although I subsequently learned to fly to PPL level, I took so flipping long to go solo I'd have been out on my ear at a much earlier stage had this been at an FTS!

[INT_QRU]

Leaving aside the professional training, the 'life skills' I learnt as Nimrod NCO aircrew have been invaluable to me in the past 20 years in the civvy world. I have no doubt that I owe where I am now to the RAF. No doubt at all.

Rich

[goudie]

I knew two Nav's who were chopped as pilots but went on to fly big jets.
With the broad spectrum of pilot skills, was it ever possible for a pilot to have a career purely as a co-pilot and never actually gain a captaincy?

[racedo]

I quite agree, Roland. It's also important to define what's meant by pass/fail. Given the policy that everyone is Group 1 until proven otherwise, do the people that don't end up FJ count as failure?

Aptly put.

Fact that some people are suited to different disciplines should never be seen as failure.

Ambition to be something is positive, ambition measured v ability should enable people to find the right position.

[Rossian]

.....waiting for the bus to South Cerney at Cirencester station in the rain. Bus arrives, Ned Sparkes bellows "Get a bloody move on gentlemen I'm getting wet". Chap beside me makes a sort of whimpering noise and goes off and gets back on the train!

What did he say when he went home....????

We started with 70 and for years I thought that 40 had graduated but at a 50th anniversary this year I found it was 28!! OOer missus!

To pick up on a point that someone made further up about whether a wash out from FJ training was regarded as a failure? Having served on a ME OCU for quite a while (as a non-pilot) it was noticeable that THEY regarded themselves as failures, not all, but a high percentage. Often the first job of the QFI was rebuilding that confidence. They often went on to be excellent pilots of a big aircraft and often to be good captains which is a different skill. Some didn't.

The Ancient Mariner

[Bob Viking]

I find it very interesting that the OP has yet to reply to his own thread. He really has retired to a very safe distance.
Personally (clearly getting very sceptical in my old age) I wouldn't humour him any further until he has the decency to explain the reason for his question or where he got his, quite plainly ridiculous, figures from.
BV:hmm:

[clicker]

In a similar manner described by Heathrow Harry I remember the words passed to me when they told me I had failed an eyesight test.

"As the air force is smaller than it was a few years ago we can be more selective and pick the best ones available. We don't need cannon fodder in 1970."

So in today air force which is much much smaller than 1970 their can afford to pick the top few per cent.

[Samuel]

I doubt there are many Air forces who apply such rigid demands to their trainee aircrew,

Hmmm.....You're pulling on a long bow there Mate.I can name at least two other air forces whose standards are every bit as high!:) Namely RNZAF/RAAF

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The RNZAF selection criteria is particularly hard. They have had no-one pass as a FJ pilot for years.

[Old Fella]

Samuel

Spot on mate, and probably a lot more fun that the RAF!!!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The RCAF has around a 90/40/30/10 % pass rate.

90 % who walk in the door of the recruit centre and say "I want to be a pilot" get washed out right away.

40 % who make the initial cut don't actually finish recruit training

30 % who show up on the flight line get cut on the initial flying phase

10 % get cut in the next phases and don't get their wings.

[Party Animal]

Flying training was relatively easy compared to the Military Chefs Course.....


for which no-one has ever passed! ;)

[teeteringhead]

do the people that don't end up FJ count as failure? ... a tricky one ....

..... best you ask CAS, or AMP, or the Air Sec, or the Comdt Cranwell, or AOC 2 Gp, or AOC 22 Gp, or AOC 22 Gp (Desig) .... etc etc etc ;););)

[charliegolf]

The RCAF has around a 90/40/30/10 % pass rate.

90 % who walk in the door of the recruit centre and say "I want to be a pilot" get washed out right away.

40 % who make the initial cut don't actually finish recruit training

30 % who show up on the flight line get cut on the initial flying phase

10 % get cut in the next phases and don't get their wings.

So about 2% then? I recall THAT figure being touted as, "Aircrew, top 2% of the population!" Aircrew being pilots, natch.

Drift: I once had a letter published in Air Clues having a dig at a VSO who had penned an article about aircrew, but actually meant pilots. It was sent on to me after I left!

CG

[Heathrow Harry]

Surely the toughest test was the old RN submarine "perisher" course...

one chance and if you fail you're out of that branch for good

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Depends what you mean by tough - I don't think anyone died on the 'Perisher'.

[ExAdvert]

In answer to the OP's question:

Yes, it is.

End of :)

[Heathrow Harry]

"Depends what you mean by tough - I don't think anyone died on the 'Perisher'."

training & examination that kills the trainee is by definition somewhat non-optimum

[radar101]

On the other hand, if you were talking FC training back in the early 70s - when everyone was a controller and before they split the branch and introduced Systems Officers etc - the percentage is about right.

They never seemed to be able to find an aptitude test that gave any kind of accurate forecast of who'd pass or fail.


I was involved in FC training in the early 90s and even then an aptitude test at OASC escaped us.
Some rather suspect stats said the best chance of passing were if you were a lager-drinking, left-handed, rugby-playing catholic!

OC School of Fighter Control was quoted as saying "give me the candidates in the bar for a night and I'll tell you if they will pass FC training" or words to that effect.

[just another jocky]

So in today air force which is much much smaller than 1970 their can afford to pick the top few per cent.

I have no knowledge of the selection process but your statement above rings true. You would certainly hope that the small numbers that do make it through to Elementary Flying Training are the "best of the best", whatever the criteria are for that.

Does anyone have any figures on through-training chop-rates? I certainly don't recall any UK students failing EFT but don't know how successful they are beyond that.

Anecdotally I can say that I don't think I would have made it through today. :sad:

And on my BFT Course at Fenton, 33 started, 6 went Fast Jet, all 6 made it to the front line.

[Wander00]

Radar101 - funny that - I STR saying to Aunty Joan once had she noticed how many FCs were left handed. Something to do with left and right side of brain and spacial awareness.


Also when a flt cdr at IOT suggested to Booby Robson (when they were looking for savings) that best bet was to remember that wives used to predict which of their husband's studes would pass IOT after they met them at the first night "meet and creep". Apparently the wives' predictions were astonishingly accurate, so I suggested a one week course. arrive Sunday, "meet and creep" Monday, "Black Monday" to become "Black Tuesday" on the basis of wives' predictions, and graduation on Friday. Simples.

[A2QFI]

At a time when we had a huge flying training system, 4 FTSs for a start, there were a few really astute basic QFIs who could spot potential in students who were struggling. A colleague of mine was given something close to 20 hours to get solo in the Piston Provost and went on to become Commandant ETPS.

[AR1]

Expanding a little to ground training, whilst acknowledging the systems investment in the Airman, there were fairly harsh terms.
Shock to someone used to Civilian examination systems, there were no grades. You either passed >60% or you failed. Fail twice and depending on your performance thus far get re-coursed or look for another job. Fail again, look for another job, or in the event of a further trainee RTU.

I spent 18 months of trade training suffering disturbed sleep and stress with the fear of failure. I never came anywhere near the chop, but god only knows how those that walked the tightrope felt.

Perhaps I should claim compensation.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

training & examination that kills the trainee is by definition somewhat non-optimum

That ain't necessarily so. Non-optimal for the trainee admittedly, but not so for the defence of the Nation, or even economically.

[Archimedes]

"Depends what you mean by tough - I don't think anyone died on the 'Perisher'."

training & examination that kills the trainee is by definition somewhat non-optimum


"Death is nature's way of telling you that you've failed SAS selection" - Attributed to John 'Lofty' Wiseman....

[Davita]

The topic 'is the RAF training etc..etc'
The answer.... of course...that's why we were called 'The Brylcream Boys' :ok:

[Manandboy]

Flying training was relatively easy compared to the Military Chefs Course.....

Very slight thread drift - but still relevant, honest! Mrs M'n'B recently returned from a lunch where one of the puddings on offer was (really) "Eaten Mess"!

Reminded me of an evening meal at Cranwell in the 70s where the menu described the fish of the day as "Fillet of Sole Manure". In fairness, it was absolutely excellent fish, so no reflection on the chef - the menus were typed, using one finger but not necessarily any spelling brain cells, by the duty Hall Porter. A great opportunity to send a note home to Mum with a menu enclosed saying that training was proceeding as planned but the food was sh1t!

Out of interest, and as a result of that memory tweak, I checked my IOT photo - I think 18 of us started training as pilots - 8 got through Cranwell (nothing other than fast jet slots at the time), 3 were subsequently chopped at Valley, of whom one got a helo slot (which he'd wanted from day 1 anyway). So 33.3% of those who started made it to the front line. I can't remember anyone who wasn't grateful for the removal of the pressure after the decision to suspend them had been made. Hard work, but generally fair, although you couldn't help feeling sorry for the guy who was chopped the day before he was due to get his wings - it was too late to stop his name appearing in the newspapers, but he didn't graduate with the rest of us.

[ricardian]

Eton Mess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_mess)

[Manandboy]

Thanks Ricardian, I know what it is and I'm sure that's what Mrs would have been given had she ordered it - the (very) mild amusement was in how it was written on the menu, but thanks for helping out those who've never heard of the stuff.

RAF training still pretty damned good! :)

[kintyred]

Misread the phrase there....I thought it said "Military Chiefs' course". Having served under a few I was inclined to agree!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

was it ever possible for a pilot to have a career purely as a co-pilot and never actually gain a captaincy?


At the Centre of SAR Excellence, circa 2003, there was COLA (the Co-pilots' Liberation Army) as a nod to the FOLA from NI days. But noone actually spent a career as a co-pilot...the post of Co-pilot Leader was handed on as each incumbent either got Captaincy or a 1021...