How are RAF Pilots categorised into; Fast Jet, Multi-Engine, and Rotary Wing?

[Madden96]

Is it random selection, or based on assessment scores? Or are you asked to give your preferred Aircraft type?

Thanks.

[muppetofthenorth]

Some from column a, some from column b, your own preference is noted, but service needs come first.

[Legate]

It's based on your performance in the bar:
Those that mix well with others, have interests outside of work and are generally 'good eggs' go mutis.
Those that want to sit outside in the rain and are a bit odd go helos
Those that stand in the middle of the room telling everyone about themselves and never listen to others but rather just wait for their turn to talk again go fast jets.

[Fareastdriver]

In my case (twice), alphabetical order.

[NutLoose]

Fast Jet, Multi-Engine, and Rotary Wing?


Bigger watch, Bigger stomach and Bigger tent :p

[Pontius Navigator]

And age, when they grow up and become adults they are posted to multis.

[Brian W May]

The Ritual Casting of the Chicken Bones . . .

[Schnowzer]

Talent, good looks and bull**** ability. Being QDW normally works for multi!

[DunWinching]

Not wanting to have my eyes moved closer together or teeth filed to points eased the decision to head rotary. And being repeatedly sick in a JP............

[Wander00]

Well, I wanted Sunderlands but they had all gone, so bid multi/ maritime, got Valley. Bid Canberra strike and got Canberra strike, but short coursed and went ECM. So rare in Signals Command that the CinC asked to see my 5000 Series because he had not seen a first tourist's folder!

[sharpend]

I wanted Shackletons as my father was on Lancasters. But I was considered far too dangerous to fly with anyone else so went to Valley :O

[Odanrot]

If you can read and write Fast Jets. If you can read or write Multis. If you can read or write while being tossed about in a washing machine Helos.

[jayteeto]

The serious answer to the question.
All pilots are recruited to go fast jet. If they are good enough and training slots are available, that's the way they go.
If pilots are crap, they get chopped and go civilian usually.
Those who don't quite make FJ but are still decent, go to helos or multis, usually based on some of the things mentioned above. With extra experience, some go fast jet later in their career. Most don't!
We all banter the FJ boys, but a ****load of us would have loved to make it

[goudie]

Is it expected that all pilots who go multi will eventually become captains or are some destined to remain co-pilots throughout their service.?

[Pontius Navigator]

Goudie, the expectation is that they would become captain's but if course some didn't. Today, ever onwards has been replaced with onward and out so I guess there is more potential for captaincy.

On the OP, the FJ stream was 1st, Harriet, 2nd Jaguar,3rd F3, last GR.

Navs were similarly F3 if they had the apptitude, GR if they had the potential, Canberra if they needed more experience.

On Multis the best went Nimrod.

But, as mentioned, even if you ticked the right boxes, if there were no slots then tuff titty.

[KPax]

Always thought it was based on personality, 3 grades, not a lot, some and plentiful. I will leave it to the experts to apportion who deserves what.

[Ken Scott]

Is it expected that all pilots who go multi will eventually become captains or are some destined to remain co-pilots throughout their service.?


Goudie: in the same fashion that all RAF student pilots are recruited with FJ potential all ME students are expected to achieve captaincy at the end of their co-pilot's tour, ie: in only 3 years. At the end of this time they are 'boarded' for captaincy - these days it's a paper exercise but it used to involve wearing No 1s & sitting before a board comprised of SASO & a load of Sqn Cdrs being asked a bunch of questions to assess your suitability, on top of the paper exercise based on your reports of the past 3 years. Those that passed were considered suitable for a captain's slot but might get sent to CFS to be a QFI first, those that failed would invariably end up in a ground tour & in a few years have another go as a co again, possibly on a different type. Few failed to make it after their second go & most got captaincy after their first in my experience. So it's quite a short time to captaincy certainly when compared to civil aviation.

PN: what was the top slot for ME training graduates has varied considerably over the years & personal preference did seem to be a fairly significant factor. Strangely Tristar was deemed to be at the top when I passed through Finningley, Nimrods was volunteers mainly, perhaps due to the limitations of the location, although there seemed to be no shortage..... More recently C130J was the top slot as it was glass cockpit & Tac, closely followed by C17 (ditto but non-Tac) with C130K at the bottom. Not entirely sure where the order currently lies but I expect when ab-initio slots on the A400M open up that will take the top ranking.

[Pontius Navigator]

Aye, new aircraft usually get top billing.

Friend of mine working for HeavyLift, Airbus I think, said how the Belfast crews were looking forward to upgrading to a new type. Their hopes were dashed. HL preferred to recruit new and already trained rather than convert.

Still the RAF hasn't had that luxury.

[just another jocky]

On the OP, the FJ stream was 1st, Harriet, 2nd Jaguar,3rd F3, last GR.

Navs were similarly F3 if they had the apptitude, GR if they had the potential, Canberra if they needed more experience

Not when I went through:

Harrier, Lightning, Jaguar, GR1/Bucc then F4 (aggressively low average :E) in that order.

Best Navs went mud mover first.

[Pontius Navigator]

JAJ, depends on which time slice you take, but your list conforms with mine. I certainly knew some weak F4 drivers.

Going back, V-Force plotters and copilot drawn from Canberras, no first tourists. Before that Canberras would have been tops, not sure about Meteor/Javelin. Eventually the Canberra was almost an advanced trainer in pecking order.

[Willard Whyte]

Announced my preference for multis on (pretty much) day 1 of Finingley.

"Attitude Problem" appeared many, many times on reports thereafter (may not have been 100% related to that wish), including from a JP pilot instructor who asked whether I wanted F3s or GR1s - C-130 was NOT the answer he wanted. Didn't speak to me for the rest of the (thankfully short) sortie, or anytime thereafter (until I met him when he was a trainee co on VC-10s. Looked a bit sheepish, can't think why...)

Streaming interview post basic JPs was a bollocking, during which the Wingco forgot to tell me I got what I wanted. Had to knock on his door, after it slammed shut behind me, to ask!

During ANTS streaming I was told I was too lazy to go Nimrod or 10s, so got what I wanted then too. Helped that I could drink my instructors under the table (attitude problem resolved).

Sorry, nav input on 'pilot thread'.

[ICM]

I'm sure that 'the exigencies of the Service' will trump all else, though there must be many fewer alternatives today than when I graduated from ANS in 1965. When our Course Commander came back from his visit to London to announce postings, there was enormous surprise to hear that two of our number were going to Javelins. No Navs had gone that way in ages - but the post-UDI deployment to Zambia had changed everything. As things turned out, events changed things again and they ended up on very different types. At that time, I think we all were able to express a type preference, and the chap with top marks got what he wanted, provided there was a slot available.

Going a little further back, and I stand to be corrected on this, but I seem to recall that officers in the GD Branch could expect to follow a 'balanced career' during which changes in role would be considered as entirely normal. 'Fast Jets' and the like did not exist at that time and, having graduated to Wings standard, the expectation was that you should be capable of operating in all current roles.

[Pontius Navigator]

ICM, re-role changes and types, not as far as I could see as those selected for the V-Force were passed from Air Sec to Bomber Command for 5 years or 2 tours minimum.

I managed three roles but PMA drew the line at a 4th :)

I think the true GD fast track actually had few tours with air officers often having barely 2000 hours. I dont know what Craig had but as OC 35 he aimed at a 1000 hours and failed by just 10. According to Wiki he went from Hunters to Vulcans with a tour on SAM which would not have done a lot for his flying hours. He would appear to have done a limit sqn cdr tour having started as a flt cdr 18 months as OC. After Vulcans, from which I can guess he would have only had around 2000 hours became OC Akrotiri where he certainly flew with all Vulcan crews and no doubt the C130 and WW but I would hazard less than 3000 total hours.

This was in line with USAF General officers with often less than 2,200 hours.

[Fareastdriver]

If you want to get on as a GD officer in the RAF the last thing you do is fly aeroplanes.

[Pontius Navigator]

FED hence Specialist Aircrew cf General Duties (Cranditz)

[Treble one]

A chum of mine was most distressed when after his advanced flying course on the Vampire (???), he was sent to Gaydon to the Victor OCU. He had visions of flying the Lightning!


Of course in the 60's the cream were sent to the V Force (it was very much the tip of the sword in those days).


I was told later that the FJ chaps got a bit upset that all the best candidates were going V Force and so later (in the 70's I believe) a quota also went fast jet and the Harrier (I am told) is where they mostly ended up first.

[smujsmith]

"Is it random selection, or based on assessment scores? Or are you asked to give your preferred Aircraft type" - None of the above I suspect. Professional assesment of capability across the board will feature highly in selecting and grading modern airframe directional operatives. Gone are the days that a bloke with two wooden legs can bludgeon his way in to first line fighters. There's definitely a major external influence to selection these days IMHOP.

Smudge:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Smudge, though if your heart isn't in it . . .

By the mid-60s the V-force was shedding copilot who didn't cut it for captaincy. One came back while on his punishment tour, he was a FAC with a driver and comma man and ear to ear grin. Others went to flt Sims.

One, and I always thought he was shafted, was eased out. He was an artist with polystyrene and hot wire and was joed with making superb, large sized, unit crests. He was off so long he failed a check ride on the sqn, did a short refresher IIRC, but never got back flying.

But there have also been some who worked the oracle. Just good enough to pass but not good enough for a plum and finished up on trucks as they wanted - high risk strategy though.

[just another jocky]

"Is it random selection, or based on assessment scores? Or are you asked to give your preferred Aircraft type" - None of the above I suspect. Professional assesment of capability across the board will feature highly in selecting and grading modern airframe directional operatives. Gone are the days that a bloke with two wooden legs can bludgeon his way in to first line fighters. There's definitely a major external influence to selection these days IMHOP.

Smudge:ok:

Depends what you mean by external?

Representatives from each of the streams are present and have an input so I guess they could be classed as external. The number of required slots in each stream will be known. Each candidate has their reports assessed and recommendations scrutinised. The candidates preference is also noted.

Then they toss a coin! :}

[Pontius Navigator]

Other factors apart from OCU capacity is the number of retreads taking up slots and the willingness of the receiving force to accept dilution of experience. Of course with shrinkage and only two FJ types there is less opportunity to pick and choose.

Holds, while expensive, can be used to regulate the flow to the front line.

[Fareastdriver]

In about 1970 a newly qualified pilot was sent out to Changi in Singapore to hold until his OCU came up.

Three months flying TT Meteors that were older than he was.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Three months flying TT Meteors that were older than he was.

Like our current Tonka stick monkeys?

[Pontius Navigator]

FB, sign of the times. The oldest aircraft I flew in we're Anson about 25, Lancaster 24, Shackleton 24 and Dominie 25. I first flew in the Dom when it was about 2 yrs old and used to fly for more than 3hr30.

[MPN11]

I'm tiptoeing on broken glass here, but whatever ...

As part of my job, I used to run the ATC Supervisors Course, which I initiated. intended to give young ATCOs a bit of a kick as they moved from just looking at the scope as 'producers' to actually managing the operation.

I got an old buddy from Staff College [then in IFS] come along to give an aircrew perspective to our people, who were on the bottom rung of an actual career. He got his DSO for something else, later on ... :ok:

Anyway, he used to ask the Course "Which pilots give you the most problems?" After a not-surprising response from the majority, which I had experienced on the shop floor in ATC, he then gave the Course "The way the system worked" for FJ aircrew and others, much of which I recognise from up-Thread comments.

It was very enlightening, quite detailed, and gave our young people a slight inkling of how best to deal with the various voices coming out of their headsets.

[newt]

Very simple for me. At FTS I met my instructor in the bar. After buying him two beers he casually asked "What do you want to fly young man?" Without really thinking about it I replied "Helicopters Sir" Mel looked at me over the top of his beer and with clenched teeth said "No student of mine goes to helicopters!"

So that was it. Decided over a beer!

[bandoe]

Always thought it was a triple combo. The detail below is based on rumour and myth banded around in the crew room at EFT....

We thought selection was made on:

Category 1. Slots available (primarily)

Category 2. Grade at EFT FHT and accompanying comments from CFI/Boss.For someone who had expressed a preference for FJ the following might be true for an average intake where slots available were proportionate to the aircraft in the inventory:

Score 3:3 or below - nope. Say 5% chance
Score 3:4 - rare to get FJ but possible if there were many more FJ slots than
candidates. 20% chance.
Score 4:4 - was a standard green light for being considered for FJ (depending on whether there were slots). 50% chance
Score 4:5 - You'd be perhaps a little unlucky not to get an FJ slot. 65% chance
Score 5:5 - 90% chance
6:5 or 6:6 - Do these people exist?! 99% chance

Category 3. Some kind of behind the scenes character assessment by QFI/CFI/boss to thrash out whether certain cockpit environments would really not be good match for you.

I was a 3:4 (well, a 4:3) with good comments from the Boss who saw me through FHT, but the small mention of "may struggle to keep up in fast moving environment" meant for me that any tiny prospect of FJ was dashed.


Note: for those not familiar with this kind of EFT grading, one score was for Airmanship and the other for Handling - with the potential to receive a maximum of 6:6 (theoretically.....).

[NDW]

Interesting thread.

Out of interest; when did Navs/WSOs cease flying in Helos?.

[BEagle]

Having just about managed to struggle through the Gnat course at Valley, I finally arrived at Brawdy on the Hunter course at a time when the RAF had stopped ME training, except for a few refreshers on the Beech Baron - the worthless Jetstreams having been grounded and put into mothballs.

One particularly tough day at Brawdy I'd just landed from a solo GH sortie in the wonderful Welsh weather. As I made a coffee, the Flt Cdr (a really nice chap) chuckled "Bet you found that hard!" as the sortie had included circuits in manual - not much fun when you can barely see through the windscreen in the rain. "Of course if anyone finds it too much for them here, they can always volunteer for helicopters", he continued...

2 of our number took him at his word, only to find that he hadn't actually been serious. But their attitude was deemed suspect and so they were off the station within a few days......

......to start as baby navigators at Finningley :eek:!!

Most of the RAF's frontline FW are at least quite modern nowadays - Typhoon and the prospect of F-35B for FJ mates in particular, plus Atlas, C-17, Voyager, Sentinel for ME pilots. Although there are still the E-3D and RC-135, which aren't exactly youthful....

Should the UK ever need to expand the RAF back to a sensible size though, we'd be well and truly stuffed. Not enough aerodromes, not enough instructors and not enough training aircraft....:uhoh: The nonsensical farce of MFTS simply couldn't cope.

[Courtney Mil]

This is only about fast jet pilot streaming.

I spent around seven years as SO1 Trg at HQ 1 Gp and, as such, attended (as the customer with full voting rights) every role disposal conference that I was in the country for during that time. I knew where the OCU slots were, where the front line need was and what the dilution rates, upward requirements and (from the posters) aspirations, dissatisfactions and onward Manning projections for each of the forces were.

Each and every training graduate's report summaries and recommendations were examined carefully and considered for the current slots available and, in many cases, against future needs for future slots. More often than not we would need to delve deeper and call a halt to read the relevant, individual sortie reports (with a degree of cross-referencing).

Let me just plug in a little personal thought at this point. If you grade aircraft types against pilot performance in training, you will consistently risk sending the lower end of your training system to the type that someone has decided is the safest place place to put (potentially) a disproportionate number of so called training risks. You dilute that force. You seriously degrade its capability and risk creating a lack of worthy supervisors, "Qs" and future leaders. That is madness.

So, the "needs of the service" is really the needs of each force with the bigger picture in mind. The Harrier force could not demand the best (as they saw them) guys from training on the grounds that there were handling demands, at the same time that the Tornado force could not be expected always to take the "others". I am not making any comment about folk that constituted that same committee before my time there (I was was also a member of it as a TWU flight commander many years earlier and cand attest to the same level of rigour then).

We smashed the "Harrier myth" by sending a range of pilots to them without completely shining training reports, we maintained the balance of skill levels between the forces, we addressed the needs of the new Typhoon OCU. And downstream success/failure/recource rates did not change significantly.

My job didn't finish there because the OCUs sat on my desk, so I then got to watch the trainees go through their conversion courses and their squadron work-ups. So don't think for a moment that I was a bloke that turned up at role disposals. The same was true for every other member of the boards in their own way.

Acknowledging the OP's question was between FJ, Multis, Helos. Excuse the diversion, please.

[JointShiteFighter]

Courtney, I can't imagine many of the F-4 and later F3 guys complained about not being "considered" good enough for a ground attack aircraft. Becoming a 'fighter' pilot is the job young men dream about. Many of us have watched Top Gun as children and thought, "That's exactly what I want to do!"

[Pontius Navigator]

As CM says, dilution is a significant factor. Decades ago it was still significant.

The V-Force nav radar specialization was manned almost exclusively by ex-Lincoln, ex-Canberra navs and with several tours. Almost overnight these specialists who had completed the NBS long course were replaced by short course first tourists. On our sqn the choice for radar leader fell on a first tour nav ex-accounts officer.

The same thing happened on my second sqn where, IIRC, there were only 2 of us not first tourists.

The same was true of copilots where the recruiting poster of the time was "You can be a flt lt and captain a V-bomber by age 23."

Then the pendulum swung and we had a sudden influx of 50 year olds to give a depth of experience. Of course that did n t work, 50 year old, married, 2 kids, do t hang around crew rooms talking to kids, nor do they get started at happy hour (unless they are well into the gravy). Drinks regularly a n d unwisely :)

[just another jocky]

Courtney, I can't imagine many of the F-4 and later F3 guys complained about not being "considered" good enough for a ground attack aircraft. Becoming a 'fighter' pilot is the job young men dream about. Many of us have watched Top Gun as children and thought, "That's exactly what I want to do!"

Yes, but then they grow up. :E

[Wokkafans]

Slightly off topic but possibly relevant to the theme of the thread?

Yesterday I attended a psychology seminar where the presenter commented that the RAF has a policy of not allowing pilots to use multi-screen displays below a certain age (24?). Apparently, using multiple-displays below this age may actually hinder the development of the ability to multi-task. As a consequence, the RAF restricts the use of such displays in it's younger (trainee?) pilots.

I'm not sure how this impacts in practice but it might indicate that age related ability to multi-task may be an important factor in flying ability. Is there any correlation between age and subsequent streaming - FJ, helo, multi? Do older or younger trainees display a variance in ability (albeit within the narrow age-selection criteria) and subsequent stream selection?

[Pontius Navigator]

Wokka, now that should be a tread if its own.

[Pontius Navigator]

I believe pre-uni studies may be more malleable with aptitude growth potential, with older entrants and grads, WYSIWYG.

[Ken Scott]

Yesterday I attended a psychology seminar where the presenter commented that the RAF has a policy of not allowing pilots to use multi-screen displays below a certain age (24?). Apparently, using multiple-displays below this age may actually hinder the development of the ability to multi-task. As a consequence, the RAF restricts the use of such displays in it's younger (trainee?) pilots.

If the RAF has a policy on this I've not been party to it despite working as an OCU instructor on a glass cockpit ac for most of the past decade. Then again by the time most of our 'young' pilots have completed their training interspersed with numerous lengthy holds they're pushing 30......

[Wensleydale]

A Jaguar QFI once told me that you could tell which pilots went to the F3 after training - they were the ones assessed as "Aggressively below Average". :}

[teeteringhead]

Wensleydale

:D:D:D

[Odanrot]

Yes, but then they grow up.


You can't be a fighter pilot and grow up - it's one or the other:ok:

[Homelover]

Wensleydale.

Your QFI friend was just bitter. When I was a QFI's QFI, I could always tell an ex-jaguar mate; they were the ones who didn't have a clue about air combat and always ended up getting gunned ;-)

[ShyTorque]

Many of us have watched Top Gun as children and thought, "That's exactly what I want to do!"

I watched it as the captain of a military helicopter and I certainly thought that about Kelly McGillis. :E

[llamaman]

Simple really;

Fast jet pilot will be at the bar talking about being a fast jet pilot.

Multis pilot will be at the bar eating.

Rotary pilot won't be at the bar because he's pulled.

[teeteringhead]

llamaman

:D:D:D:D:ok::E

[just another jocky]

Simple really;

Fast jet pilot will be at the bar talking about being a fast jet pilot.

Multis pilot will be at the bar eating.

Rotary pilot won't be at the bar because he's stuck in a tent.

Fixed it for you! ;)

[oxenos]

"Multis pilot will be at the bar eating."

Times must have changed. In my day we ate in the air in order to concentrate on drinking when we got to the bar.

[Pontius Navigator]

Munch munch

[Melchett01]

"Multis pilot will be at the bar eating."

Times must have changed. In my day we ate in the air in order to concentrate on drinking when we got to the bar.

Personally I'll be in the best hotel in town with the pretty girls - does nobody else have standards or ambition these days?

[Tashengurt]

I once read that the best pilots in the USN were sent to fly COD aircraft. That can't do much for fighter pilot egos!

[Mach Two]

Wokka, I'm not aware of any restriction on the use of multi displays. To be honest, I haven't seen anything about their influence on the development of our tender young charges either. You got any more on that policy there?

[Wokkafans]

M2 - I've dropped an email to my colleague and hopefully I can put together a response in a day or so.

WF:ok:

[Training Risky]

For what it's worth, from my perspective of pilot streaming boards in circa 2000, it was all about what seats were available with little regard for ability and NO regard for personal preference.

My major strengths were formation and IF while my weakness was low-level nav. On streaming from EFT I asked for fast-jet, then multis and rotary a distant third. I was surprised to find myself at Shawbury a few months later! (With the last rotary navs in 2001 in response to an earlier query).

On role disposal I asked for Puma, then the last Wessex (I really wanted to experience NI), then Merlin, then Chinook (it just looked weird and unsafe), then Sea King a distant fifth. I was, again, surprised to find myself at Odiham a few months later (pattern forming here...)

On posting I didn't really care by that point. The posting ceremony was a bit tame though. You chug a pint and at the bottom was a coloured sticker: black for 7 Sqn, red for 18 and green for 27. I saw a green in mine which meant I was going to be a 'bunster'...but that got cancelled just before I left the OCF due to low-level nav bufoonery! (See para 2!)

Of interest the most fun role disposal I ever witnessed was at Valley while I was doing some pre-wings SAR training: the FJ students were tied to a back wall with a bungee while trying to reach the far wall where pictures of a GR1/F3/GR7/Jag/Hawk/Tucano (memory fails if there was a Canberra too) were pasted. The first one to grab a random picture took it to the QFI who looked at his list and handed the guy a pint of lager if it was the wrong guess (down it and try again sunshine) or a glass of champagne if correct!

I never saw a multis role disposal, but I just assumed it involved pies and ketchup-filled doughnuts...

[Haraka]

I had the experience of an interview with a GD Wing Commander in c.1977 approaching several of us "Chopped" pilots in Ground Branches , who wondered,having looked at our flying training records, that we might consider reapplying as pilots .....

The word "loyalty" came up.

No Comment.

[bandoe]

A little broader in scope, but with some relevant snippets, see the following link to a recent FoI response [page 2 section 3 in particular on % of applicants from commencement of EFT to commencement of OCU]:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/451944/20150720-FOI_05642_Aircrew_Stats.pdf

[Sky Sports]

So, if you end up at a UAS instructing on the tutor, what would your background be leading up to that?

[JointShiteFighter]

Either discipline, I'd imagine? After all, the Tutor is where it all began and it has been that way for a while now.

I know of at least one ADP who flew F-4's and F3s on the front line that's now a Tutor QFI......

[bandoe]

As instructors we had (posted to UAS whilst within service term) Wessex, Canberra, Nimrod, Herc, Tornado/Jag bloke for a short period too.

...and then (returning to RAF in a training role after finishing service term - the "old boys") - Lightning, Harrier, Tornado/Jag.

[rolling20]

I remember being given a talk in early 82 on UWAS by a Squadron Leader with a splendid moustache, who had come down from the TTTE @ Cottesmore to give all us bright eyed youngsters a first hand account of the new beast.

When explaining he had previously been the Boss of a UAS and went from Bulldogs on to the Tornado, with a refresher on the Hunter in between, it elicited a smirk and titter amongst the eager young studes.

He unfortunately didn't seem to see the funny side and looked at us rather dead pan and serious.

The next day with us nursing hangovers, the whole station came to a stop whilst the said Tornado was exercised around the airfield. Bit smokey if IIRC.

[Sky Sports]

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...crew_Stats.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/451944/20150720-FOI_05642_Aircrew_Stats.pdf)

I'm surprised more comment hasn't been made on this FOI response. A quick read through the document makes it look highly likely that once you start on the path to officer aircrew, you will finish it. Chop rates look very low indeed.

97.8% pass IOT
87% (average across the 3 streams) pass to OCU

On the other hand, it does show how few even start the journey. Less that half the applicants walking through the door get invited to OASC.
What it doesn't tell us, and therefore doesn't really help the person making the request, is the OASC percentage pass rate. Does anybody have this final piece to the jigsaw?

[Pontius Navigator]

Sky, I have asked the question.

Let us make some assumptions including the FOI figures.

5300 present to AFCO
1780 are passed to OASC - 33%
Pilot recruitment at about 125 pa - 600
97.875% pass out ie 582
Assume 45 per year into FJ OCUs - 180
78% then pass through to the FJ OCU - 140

On these figures only one in 38 get from application to AFCO to a FJ OCU.

What I have no feel for is the disposal of the 22% that fail to reach a FJ OCU; whether they are rebranched or reboarded to ME/RW.

PS

From a subjective view, about 2.5% would wash out of nav school for reasons unassociated with officer qualities and aircrew aptitude, things like medical and personal reasons among them. Medical issues are probably as significant at IOT with some voluntarily withdrawing from training.

[Pontius Navigator]

No actual figures for OASC pass rates but:

"the high pass rate (esp for fg trg) is due to the exceptional job the occ pyschs do in making the aptitude tests robust and relevant. The Gp Capt (the post is now Wg cdr) used to spend 80% of his time with the psychs, esp . . . introduced ab initio for typhoon and . . . making plans for ab initio UAV Pilot selection"

Also:

"The medical process is also hugely robust and instantly weeds out any doubt and in my opinion is the best of the 3 services."

So basically, while suitable to go to OASC, OASC assessment of pilot/aircrew potential is very robust hence the high success rates into IOT and beyond.

My figure of 40-45 will not be far off the mark considering the capability of the two FJ OCU to accept ab initio students with numbers of previous FJ aircrew re-roling from the other types (F3, Harrier, Jaguar).

[Sky Sports]

To summarise then:

The two main stumbling blocks are, 1) getting invited to attend OASC, and 2) passing OASC.

Pass OASC and the rest is about a 90% certainty.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sky, in a nutshell, yes. The further in to the system you get the more the money that has been invested in you. Chopping a pilot on a final handling check is most expensive.

The other crucial figure is the percentage that get through the OCU to combat ready. Failure at this stage is not unheard of but is fairly low. Loss of wings, ie not being re-rolled is perhaps even rarer.

[Pontius Navigator]

More:

The number of pilots recruited used to be 125 and is believed to be about the same now. The categorisations now are likely to be more towards ME than FJ as there are only 2 FJ training schemes.

As for NCA they, they will almost certainly be part of those presenting at OASC and not being considered for a commission/pilot. The major consideration here being commissioning potential and not aircrew aptitude.

The FOI request does not address NCA and I have no feel for numbers from external or in-house recruitment.

[charliegolf]

Pontious:ok:

[Sky Sports]

Thank you Pontious :ok:

Do you know the total number of pilots, (across the 3 streams), who finish pilot training each year?

[Pontius Navigator]

Sky, no. My source was not near enough to the output end. In fact the number of people routinely aware of that answer would be few. The FJ Sub-Committee would only have one or two members that served on the ME and RW committee(s).

An FOI request would elicit the answer.

[NDW]

In the worst case scenario; if a pilot was deemed unsuitable for all flying routes & with the withdrawal of WSO, what options would said candidate have in regards to a flying career?
Would commissioned WSOp be an option?

[Pontius Navigator]

At which point the WSOp would become a WSO while his mates took the P.

Loadmasters as was, ALM, had commissioned Loadmasters. I met a wg cdr at AFSOUTH ('buff said) and an absolutely brilliant one, a sqn ldr, Air Transport Ops, at Ascension.

I believe such advancement continues.