"Dumbing down" RAF Officers?

[Tiger Tales]

It's not the length that counts apparently, it's what you do with the end product!
Fears over ?dumbed down? RAF training | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article4652030.ece)

[Runaway Gun]

Some would argue that we already....oh I don't really know how to finish this sentence ;)

[Ken Scott]

My generation had only 18 weeks of IOT to prepare us for commissioned service so we must have all been jolly ropey......

[downsizer]

Interesting thrust in the article that a shorter IOT will impact on pilots ability to operate sophisticated aircraft. I wasn't aware flying training was part of IOT.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'd be more worried about the dumbing down of flying training!!

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Oh FFS! We had a 24-week course that was very effective just 15 years ago when I left the DIOT staff. It was reformed into a 33-week course (although 2 of those weeks are inter-term leave periods, I believe) to expand the military doctrine knowledge of the officer cadets and introduce rigorous academic learning supported by KCL - thus bringing it more into line with the RN and the Army. Those two aspects were planned to be provided through-life as one's career developed and higher rank ensued, thereby preparing better and earlier RAF officers (like their counterparts in the other two services) for higher command in Joint appointments. Sound logic even if there were slight flaws in the philosophy espoused by the man (a wg cdr educator) who wrote and implemented the paper! With a drop off in recruitment requirements over the past few years and rather too many pilots in the pipeline (that resulted in a number of u/t pilot redundancies about 5 years ago) the course was successful if somewhat underutilized. Recruiting is now back on the rise and there is, it seems if you are to believe the Times article, a shortage of pilots.

So what does the RAF decide to do - reverse the whole process as a matter of expediency! Well b**ger me!

When will we ever learn! How many times have we run a redundancy scheme and then realized that the sums are wrong, or we have lost our middle management experience or...

So let's reverse the IOT (sorry OACTU now) course back to what it was when I left my post in 2000 (it actually changed to 33 weeks in about 2006) and throw the baby out with the bath water yet again!

Oh FFS!

Bloggs:mad:

[Background Noise]

Roland you beat me to it.

In my day it was 18 weeks too - but of course, we had it tough!

During my time as a QFI, I can't say that I noticed any improvement in 'OQs' despite the longer IOT and the prevalence of graduates. We didn't get Sandhurst graduates in the FJ stream but the Dartmouth JOs always had the edge.

[Herod]

Bring back NCO pilots!;)

[Melchett01]

I'd be less concerned about tinkering with IOT where we train our junior officers for dealing with the foundational stages of their first couple of tours, and more concerned with our major failure to educate more senior personnel at senior flt lt upwards.

What you pick up in IOT should be a building block for the first few years, nothing more. But I think we're really patchy at the higher level concepts and thinking. I came through the ISS / JOCC route, so don't know what JOD is like these days, but ICSC was more about jumping through hoops and 'hitting the pink' than it was about real thinking and intellectual rigour. And given the relative difficulty of getting an ACSC slot, that's a lot of individuals going about their business, often representing the RAF and UK in a wider environment, who are relying on their own knowledge and experience to get the job done unsupported by academic or conceptual education.

We put the onus too much individuals to use ELCs, become autodidacts, without necessarily harnessing it or giving them the support, time and space to do it. And you can't just flick a switch to turn on that sort of thinking, it has to be developed over time, with individuals able to observe and understand the world they are operating in, and their place and role with in it. That's what will bite us in the arse in the longer term, a lack of strategic appreciation and higher level thinking not a couple of extra months at Cranwell.

[Pontius Navigator]

With 6 years seniority I requested JCSS or whatever and was told I was too senior as I had passed ISS. 3 years later I was posted to JCSS. I declined citing the previous refusal as I was now married with 2 children and 3 dogs.

[LOMCEVAK]

I recall that when I did IOT (mid '70s) it was a 16 week course at Henlow for Direct Entry cadets but for university cadetship graduates it was 14 weeks at Cranwell although we did also do a 2 week course there prior to starting at UAS so still had 16 weeks training in total. So how did we fare? One of my entry became CAS and I have (except for a couple of years with an airline) flown military aircraft continuously ever since. 14/16 weeks seems to have worked!

[JW411]

In 1960 it was 18 weeks and the UAS intake joined us halfway through so it was about 9 weeks for them.

[BEagle]

I never found the need to participate in any adult literacy courses after having completed RAFC training. A year as a Flight Cadet, 4 years at university and another year as a Graduate Entrant seemed sufficient.

I declined the 'C' exam as I could tell that its days were numbered. My boss didn't share my opinion; however, as it turned out, I was right and he was wrong!

The GE scheme was quite reasonable before RAFC went comprehensive and those frlghtful oiks, who would otherwise have been sent to that place in Bedfordshire, were let in. Having already had some somewhat osmotic exposure to the RAF during our UAS time, we only had 3 months of marching about, leadership training (which seemed to centre on carrying logs across Northumberland) and the like. Then 9 months learning to fly the Jet Provost before the graduation and wings parade.

In later years, more and more weeks seemed to be becoming added to officer training, with more and more hours being knocked off the flying training syllabus.

Now I read that the snake oil salesmen plan to have fewer T-6C trainers than we had Chipmunks at ULAS. Will that really work?

[air pig]

When I did SERE it was 4 weeks but is now the last third of IOT.

[GipsyMagpie]

Frankly IOT is mostly a waste if what you want is pilots. In 24 weeks I learnt some things I use every day (defence writing), some stuff every 2 years (rifle drill) and most of it never (office sim being a particularly useless section). I reckon a short sharp shock and straight into flying training would probably hit the spot for most drivers aeroplanes with some top up officer stuff for the worthy later on.

[johnfairr]

Best thing I learned at IOT was how to iron a shirt. ;);)






The bonus being that it was taught to me on a one-to-one basis by a member of "G" Flight. Having first creased the shirt . . . . . . . . :ok::ok:

[just another jocky]

There's no story here....move along now, move along! :zzz:

[Willard Whyte]

Best thing I learned at IOT was how to iron a shirt.

Although ironing a tie seemed a little superfluous, as did putting creases in the elbow patches of a wooly pully.

On the other hand it prepares one for a job where one regularly encounters people for whom inconsequentialities take on mountainous importance.

[ShotOne]

If reducing the course to 24 weeks is dumbing down, we must have been very dumb indeed when it was 18 wks!

[Pontius Navigator]

GM, after 3 months one my first sqn I was made sqn adjt and my first job was to create a nominal role.

Hadn't got a clue.

After advice took the draft to the typing pool; asked when I could check it. The Pakistani pool manager drew himself up and said there would be no errors. He was right.

That was on Gan.

[VictorSR]

Hmm - a bit of counter-intuitive here - it took 2 1/2 years at Cranditz with questionable results - so the new team can't be dumber to do it in whatever time it takes now!

[BEagle]

johnfairr wrote:
The bonus being that it was taught to me on a one-to-one basis by a member of "G" Flight. Having first creased the shirt . . . . . . . .

Which brings to mind the image of a certain Section Officer who might shortly have found her shirt becoming rather creased....


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork03-1.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/SYork03-1.jpg.html)




























Oh go on - it's been a while.....:ok:

[Could be the last?]

So, in the past 20 or so years, how many times has the duration of Sandhurst and Dartmouth been changed?

[brakedwell]

My IOT at Kirton in Lindsey lasted 13 weeks in 1955, followed by 6 days leave before starting flying training at Ternhill. Service writing, boot polishing, square bashing and block cleaning hardly prepared us for a dazzling career in the RAF. Plenty of flying though :ok:

[Exnomad]

Allegedly taught to be an officer and gentleman in 1953, expected to wear a hat in civies, and raise your hat when meeting a lady.
Not sure how much of it stuck, do wear a hat now, having run out of hair.
Did get an excellent wife, not sure how much the training worked towards that

[Pontius Navigator]

Nomad, remember the calling cards, station parades etc.

Last parade I recall was at Kinloss in 78 after that there seemed a dose of common sense.

[2Planks]

In 1985 IOT was summed up as: 17 weeks 5 days, Cranwell in a rear view mirror and then on with the real training to prepare you for the next 20 years.

[Two's in]

Alternative headline:

"The World turns, time moves on, The Times still stuck in the 1930's"

[DITYIWAHP]

If staffing at IOT is reduced then where could you send all of the failed blunties instead?

[Tankertrashnav]

33 weeks? How the heck do they fill the time in? I enlisted at OCTU, RAF Feltwell on 23nd September 1964, and was commissioned on 16th December. That works out as 12 weeks. The aircrew equivalent (at South Cerney, IIRC) was 16 weeks, but they had to be taught how to do sums. I could already do them, so I didn't miss the extra four weeks ;)

[Cows getting bigger]

When Queenie paid for my flying, we completed about 180hrs on the JP3/5 before being streamed. Has that been dumbed down? :zzz:

[Roadster280]

GM, after 3 months one my first sqn I was made sqn adjt and my first job was to create a nominal role.


Perhaps another week on the course ;)

[WolfOps]

Does anyone actually fail IOT these days?

[Pontius Navigator]

Can I plead predictive text?

Or guilty to lack of proof reading?

The job did have its lighter moments. Secret files 'secured' in wooden filing cabinets, Top Secret signals hidden in Secret folders for security. A gp capt ringing up asking if I had got THE LIST. Eventually, without disclosing its name, I discovered that it was the Bomber Command List of Soviet Air Defences. The boss kept it in a holdall in his room because it was so sensitive. Of course none of these breaches worried me in my ignorance.

[Melchett01]

Which brings to mind the image of a certain Section Officer who might shortly have found her shirt becoming rather creased....

During IOT I was periodically asked if I'd slept in my uniform when it wasn't quite up to inspection standards. In Section Officer Harvey's case, I think the answer could have been a resounding 'Yes!' ;)

[Maxibon]

18 weeks for me. Ironically, the only part that was useful was the Office Simulator: I was in charge of organising the air display and spent most of it drinking coffee, eating choccy digestives and having a few ciggies here and there; by the time I left the RAF I had been involved in organising three displays - the drills stood me in good stead!

[BEagle]

Whatever is/was an 'Office Simulator'?

[Melchett01]

Whatever is/was an 'Office Simulator'?

It's where you get to practice drills for No. 1 stapler failure, a flashing low paper clip caption and the like in relative safety. Or in my case, try to chat up the female Flt Cdr from the other flight who was playing the role of troublesome baby Fg Off during an interview (and to her immense credit she played along with it!)

I think it did have a serious purpose though, it allowed you to perfect the art of getting the brews in in a safe environment before being let loose on a merciless crew room!

[Willard Whyte]

I remember a task that resulted in me having to telephone someone sat <6' away from me. A poor connection resulted in me standing and walking over to chat face to face with the person I needed to speak to.

Think I was told I had a poor attitude in the debrief.

The technique of chatting face-to-face served me well over the next 20-odd years. It also served to reinforce my distain for emailed (or otherwise) edicts from 'senior' officers - esspecially those from chisellers who forwarded those from above which I'd already received, read, and given a damn good ignoring.

[SASless]

A US Army view of a similar situation.




http://i3.cpcache.com/product_zoom/747124173/making_simple_****_hard_light_tshirt.jpg?color=Natural&height=460&width=460&padToSquare=true

[pontifex]

Like Brakedwell I also did the 12 week course at Kirton Lindsey in 1956. After 2 weeks leave found myself on Empresss of Britain en route to Canada. In those days "officers" always went first class. So, dinner was in mess kit (Best blue, white shirt and bow tie). One important thing IOT had neglected was to teach us how to tie a bow tie. The cabin steward had to complete my officer training.

[BEagle]

One important thing IOT had neglected was to teach us how to tie a bow tie. The cabin steward had to complete my officer training.

And that's your excuse, is it.....:ooh:

The single-ended bow tie was bad enough, but yoof-of-today is at least largely spared the horrors of wing collars and stiff-fronted shirts!

[Pontius Navigator]

and White waistcoats.

I wonder how livers-in manage now with so many living out? Corridors used to be full of the partly dressed finding someone that could tie a bow tie.

[Dominator2]

Whatever is/was an 'Office Simulator'?

There you are BEagle, 5 years undergoing some form of Officer Training at CWL and UAS and no Office Simulator!

I did the 16 week course in the early 70's in Bedfordshire and being destined to be aircrew I paid scant regard to the lessons on Admin, File Systems and the like. The "Office Simulator" was, however, a good place to put some of that "admin stuff" into context.

I soon had to learn about File Systems, however, when I broke my arm at BFTS and the CI told me to re-organise the Ops Wing File system. Well, after 2 months it was re-organised, but who knows how well?

Back to the question, 16 weeks is plenty of time to train prospective aircrew in all they need to be an RAF Officer. Even the most expeditious training program would allow further development during BFTS, AFTS and TWU. More important, to get pilots to the front line quickly needs a restructure of the training system. There only needs to be 2 ac types flown prior to OCU. The secret is to have the correct aircraft, and the Tutor is NOT one of them!

If the process is to be successful the RAF needs to select those with the best aptitude to be pilots. Their potential to become CAS is of little importance at that stage. Select the best, not just the first that pass Selection to the minimum standard!

[Tinribs]

This has gone on long enough without a uniform story

RAF Regt guard Buck House because the date is special

Officer warned Duke of E might invite him to dine if quiet night in, be ready. He does

Duke comments RAF don't wear stiff shirts any more?

Regt Off replies "oh yes but only for special occasions"

Rest of meal is quiet, It's only a story

[salad-dodger]

It's only a story
just trying to recall how many times I have read it on PPRuNe. :ouch:

S-D

[MPN11]

Bow Ties ... I was shocked to dicover at OCTU (Feltwell 65) and subsequently how few RAF Officers could tie a bow tie, even with a mirror and assistance of a few mates.

I should have charged for my Tie-Tying Service, as at BRNC (63/64) it was normal evening wear for Cadets ... and ready-mades were certainly not allowed!

[binbrook]

My cummerbund has shrunk.

[ACW418]

Moi aussi!

ACW

[MPN11]

Yecch ... cummerbunds? Oh, Dear God, what has the RAF sunk to? Where does one place one's fob watch on a gold chain in one of those?

Mercifully, my original 1965 one still fits perfectly, as it's one of those backless ones with an elastic band ... endlessly adjustable! The rest of the gear ... hmmm :(

[ACW418]

MPN,

Yes I had the full waistcoat except for the white one which was backless. However, it isn't only the cummerbund which has shrunk - the whole wardrobe seems to have been afflicted with the same shrinking process.

ACW

[MPN11]

ACW418 The white one is in a wardrobe somewhere, along with [I think] the tie and AWFUL shirt/collar] My only real survivor is my full-length, made to measure, chrome leather dress boots made in Singapore. £7 IIRC, and still going strong after ... nearly 50 years :D

As noted on this Forum long ago, I had a wee spat with Mr Snobby at Moss Bros. in Covent Garden when I needed some new Mess Overalls. "Oh, Sir, you can only have 14" hems when wearing Dress boots" ... "I do" ... "Ahhh, oh, Yes Sir" :ok:

Shame about the bloody waistband, and I doubt a tailor could correct those missing 3-4 inches.

[Pontius Navigator]

When cummerbunds came in and waistcoats went out. Wise heads kept their' s. Sure enough they cane back in.

[Tankertrashnav]

Even in the days of waistcoats we wore cummerbunds with tropical mess kit. I have a photo of Mrs TTN with some slim bloke I dont recognise at the summer ball at Kai Tak in '68 and I am (I mean he is) wearing one.

I cant remember what colour it was (B & W photo) - was it light blue or did I imagine that?

[Danny42C]

A simpler Way (my Post p.131, #2612 on "Gaining a R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet...."):
...I went to see the C.O. "Why not ?" he said wearily, "Everybody else is getting it - I'll put you up" (my misdemeanour at Dum-Dum seemed to have been forgiven). It was a formality from then on. I was called for interview with the AOC of 221 Group in Calcutta, a kindly old AVM (Williams, I think), He satisfied himself that I didn't drop my aitches, and could probably use a knife and fork, and signed me in. Thus are careers made ...... OCTU ? ..... What's that ?..
When giving instruction on bow-tie-tying, it is necessary to operate from the rear (particularly, I would think, if your stude were from this "G" Flight ?).

Danny.

Them were the days !

[Pontius Navigator]

Or Jaguars

[Mr C Hinecap]

It would be a real shame to chop the current IOT in any way.

You old buggers who retired before it got serious - you can stop reading now.

I went through IOT in the mid 90's and thought I got a pretty good grounding in all things useful at the time.
In 2012 I was lucky enough to be allowed to 'experiment' on IOT cadets as part of the research for my Masters thesis. This meant 2 x trips to Cranwell and getting to spend a couple of days observing and chatting to cadets before and during a major exercise.

Hands down, they were better than we were. Their performances under exercise conditions (far harder and more realistic than most anything I endured on IOT or later) were fantastic. They were successfully dealing with issues taken from real, recent ops and doing better than some people who had served on those ops. Their breadth of knowledge and effectiveness was startling. I passed these observations to my own Branch Phase 2 training staff, urging them to go and see what I saw with a view to tweaking training to match this higher calibre of new JO.

I thought those cadets were far better prepared for a more operational, diverse and Joint career. Shame on the Two-Winged Master Race if they meddle to meet their own training timelines.

[Cornish Jack]

This minor obsession of the Rupert Factory brigade, in being able to tie a bow tie correctly, is extraordinary. I have been tying my own shoelaces since a very early age. Having spent some 20 years in the only worthwhile rank - Master Aircrew (Frogs and Puddles!!) the obsession came to pass in the form of an obnoxious J.O. at a mixed party. Well oiled, he joined my, then, wife and self and pulled my bow undone. His latent hysterical humour was quickly stifled when I re-tied it and asked, straightfacedly, why he had done that. No answer - so presumably that bit isn't covered in the syllabus.:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

are we recruiting more numbers through OASC BYlowering the bar at which individuals are offered a place

Cheif, suggests my amendment makes more space.

Of course by widening the net, lowering the bar, scraping the barrel etc there may be more chance of maintaining a full pipe line, pond sizes or pot :)

[Dan Winterland]

To me, it was just a glorified Boy's Scout camp and all a bit of a waste of time. Whether it's 16, 16, 24 or 33 weeks, it's still too long. The constant reduction in flying training hours is however, far more serious.

[BEagle]

Perhaps Mr C Hinecap's proposal for operational, diverse, 'joint' officers might be more appropriate for some, but is it a luxury that cannot really be justified until the individual has some professional skills under his/her belt?

Happy New Year, Dan!

[MPN11]

To me, it was just a glorified Boy's Scout camp and all a bit of a waste of time. Whether it's 16, 16, 24 or 33 weeks, it's still too long. The constant reduction in flying training hours is however, far more serious.
I think there is, however, an underlying presumption that officers should be officers first, and pilots second. Of course, experience shows that's not always the case ;)

And there are, apparently, still other Branches in the Royal Air Force besides pilots ... at least, that was what I was told: it may be a foul rumour, of course.

Oh, how wonderful it must be to emerge from the egg, fully formed and with all the knowledge and skill one would ever require :mad:

http://www.tellyads.com/play_advert/?filename=TA2230&type=recent

[langleybaston]

ah!

"Ignorant and arrogant enough to be a Harrier pilot!" as a neighbour's teenage miscreant son was once described by [of all things] a Catering officer.

[MPN11]

I think it's fair to say that all Branches have their general characteristics, but I did find over 30 years that most of them were good and decent people, doing a good job without trumpeting their greatness in the Mess or on the Patch.

But perhaps OQs, as they were known, were sometimes less evident amongst some Branches/Specialisations ;)

[Tankertrashnav]

But perhaps OQ's ... were less obvious amongst some Branches/Specialisations

When I was a Rockape I regarded most GD officers as not real officers at all, being fit only to act as drivers airframe, etc, and not to exercise command.

Of course as soon as I graduated at Stradishall with a brevet on my tunic I realised that in truth I was now a real officer and no longer a thick Rockape ;)

All a matter of where you are looking from!

[Mr C Hinecap]

Perhaps Mr C Hinecap's proposal for operational, diverse, 'joint' officers might be more appropriate for some, but is it a luxury that cannot really be justified until the individual has some professional skills under his/her belt?

Either you didn't read my post or I failed to make myself clear. I was reflecting upon the CURRENT IOT and not some aspiration. For what it's worth, the RAF is severely hampered by those who remain behind the wire and fail to learn how to play nicely with the other children. Unfortunately, they tend to be the Aircrew and the aircraft engineers, and they tend to promote themselves.

[Halton Brat]

Blimey, I must have been thick. It took the RAF 2 years at Halton to turn me into something of some kind of use to the Service......

HB

[brakedwell]

I was reflecting upon the CURRENT IOT and not some aspiration. For what it's worth, the RAF is severely hampered by those who remain behind the wire and fail to learn how to play nicely with the other children. Unfortunately, they tend to be the Aircrew and the aircraft engineers, and they tend to promote themselves.

It seems attitudes haven't changed since I left for pastures greener in 1974. Aeroplanes and those lucky enough to be closely involved with them are a damned nuisance. :sad:

[MG]

Mr C Hinecap, I don't know why you bother! Your words will never find favour with a bunch of largely long-retired, over-opinionated dinosaurs. The attitude, however, is sadly prevelent and will be why the RAF continues to be endured by the other services as a necessity, rather than embraced as a brother service of warfighting professionals. When I was involved in a further education course in Oxfordshire, the aircrew rarely excelled as they often carried the attitude of expected success and didn't work to achieve that. The officers who usually sat the highest were the Regiment guys, as they are much more used to properly working in a joint environment.
In a professional, military organisation, there is more to successful operating than just having good piloting skills, and that starts with being an officer in HM Forces, like it or not.

[BEagle]

Remember those little stickers which used to appear everywhere:

'The role of the RAF is to fly and flight. The role of those who don't is to support those who do!'

Of course that was long before 'visions', 'mission statements' and the seeming need for mantras such as 'Agile Adaptable Capable'...:rolleyes:

I was merely questioning whether it wouldn't be preferable to shave something off the present IOT syllabus and transfer it to a later point in an individual's career - such as after his/her first tour?

Just how much of that IOT stuff does the average JO aircrew mate remember anyway, once he/she reaches his/her first squadron?

[Pontius Navigator]

Rifle drill, boot polishing, hairy blues. Bed blocks, Rock lectures and the Rock who 'idly' wrote each answer on a blackboard, wiped it off, wrote the next one etc.

Those eyes down missed it. those looking for inspiration soon twigged.

Acidic water crossings, bent scaffold poles, tents with poles and guys.

Parachute rolls, dinghy drills, parades.

The main lesson?

Find a good hotel on away days and avoid sharing a room if possible.

[brakedwell]

Mr C Hinecap, I don't know why you bother! Your words will never find favour with a bunch of largely long-retired, over-opinionated dinosaurs.

Thank goodness I don't need help crossing the road! :D

[pontifex]

A couple of the more worthwhile events at IOT was to go down a coal mine and to be taken round a steelworks. Objective was to give us an understanding of just what it was that we might be fighting and giving our lives for. That did impress me. Otherwise I have to agree it was a bit like a glorified boy scout camp.

[LOMCEVAK]

Sadly, IOT students visiting a coal mine or steelworks is no longer an option in the UK! So that is 2 days by which they could shorten the course.

[BEagle]

My Graduate Entrant time at RAFC coincided with the oil crisis, the 3-day week, NUM working to rule and various other socialist strikes....

So I don't think that a visit to a coal mine would have been terribly popular on either side!

Then came 5 years of galloping 2-figure inflation and low military pay under labour misrule, before Maggie T came into power and sorted things out.

[Pontius Navigator]

Pontiflex, we visited Wiils Tobago but our escort was Customs and Excise. Also Dowry propellers but these were at Navy School not IOT.

Fast forward 30 years and Nav school studeds had to organize their own trips and also organise a fund raising event while in Basics. My lot, now embracing a gp capt and AVM exhibited all the abilities of a wet paper bag competition and failed to organise the charity event.

Probably why the boss didn't get an OBE and took a sabbatical as a missionary in South America.

[Capot]

Going back a bit.....

So, in the past 20 or so years, how many times has the duration of Sandhurst and Dartmouth been changed?No-one has answered that, so i can say that my Sandhurst course was 2 years, but had a very large "academic" content because the idea was that Sandhurst was the equivalent of a University degree. So we were turned out, up to the early 60s at least, as impeccably dressed, well-mannered 2nd Lieutenants without a huge amount of military skill, but well-versed in military history and, in my case, an Interpreter Class II qualification.

This is not all that relevant to flying aeroplanes; the Army's approach at that time was that driving its many aircraft, helicopters, Beavers, and so on, was a task that any NCO could do just as well as an Officer, so reasonably intelligent trainees from the ranks were promoted to Corporal (or Bombardier) when they went off to fly.

This annoyed the hell out of the RAF, who were determined to remove all non-commissioned pilots on the grounds that flying was an amazing skill that only Officers could perform, which was probably the main reason for the Army adopting that policy.

My Dad, wartime instructor (Rhodesia) then a Lancaster pilot shot down near to Munich and captured as a Sqn Ldr in 1943, said that lack of social skills training seemed not to make all that much difference to pilots' and crews' determination and ability to deliver their bomb-load accurately on to the target.

Some did it as best they could, some didn't. Some, very few, succumbed to terror, dumped the load under a shallow pretext and went home. Neither their commission or lack of it nor how they held their knife and fork was a factor, nor was their familiarity with a bow tie.

[SASless]

TTN.....One to the Manor must be born.

Social Climbing is still just that.:E

[Pontius Navigator]

Capot, you remind me of further ITS lessons, calling cards, Stradling, dining in nights - mess rugby, changing those 'orrible once aertex boxers shorts ONCE PER WEEK

Eek!

[Herod]

Perhaps the time has come to re-introduce the Supplementary List. Not all officers (aircrew) have the ability or desire to become CAS. Churn out pilots faster; after all, many will leave for more lucrative civilian careers (I did). At a later stage, select those with the aptitude; put them on the General List, and give them the education they will need in more senior positions.

[27mm]

Quite right too,
1 Normal
2 Back to front
3 Inside out normal
4 Inside out back to front
5 Normal

Covers a working week, or if preferred, Fri go commando...:E

[Pontius Navigator]

27, socks too.

[langleybaston]

socks back to front?

Not 1st April is it?

[Exnomad]

Got fully commisioned rather than "acting" with only a few weeks left of National Service.
Posted to Cluntoe as "supernumery officer", otherwords no job. spent the last few weeks of my national service doing inventory checks. Cluntoe was at that time a new station with prop driven Prentices. Stores had requisistioned things from HQ, and what had arrived was not always what had had been requisitioned, so spent time bringing records up to date.
As Station duty officer, light relief, found donkey wandered on to perimeter track, handed it over to guardroom, who were not pleased. We had fed it proper Irish guiness, so it was a but unsteady on its feet.
Did manage to serve as Duty officer and orderly officer without disaster.

[The_1]

An alternative view for consideration:

I agree with other posters that IOT is simply a foundation to:

Firstly teach those that want to enter the 'Club', the rules of this 'Club'

and secondly to expose those qualities/skills/knowledge that the men and women under one's command will look for in their officers. But it is clear that a training course can only scratch the surface and exposure to real people will brings its own learning environment.

So my question is what is the selection process for the Flt Cdrs at IOT? Is it designed to select the best...or those with recent operational experience...or those that have a bent for leadership? Or is the selection process simply asking for someone that wants to live in Lincolnshire? Because in those formative years it would be good to have a Flt Cdr that one could look up to. How many of the posters can claim they had an exemplar Flt Cdr? Perhaps if we want less dumbing down we should look at the basics first and get that right.

[Pontius Navigator]

The 1, my poster gave me a posting to IOT, thankfully they said I was too old.

OTOH my son in law was a flt cdr with several years experience as a SSgt and his 2nd your as flt lt. He is now a wg cdr.

[Willard Whyte]

... in enabling me to improve my GSK exam score from 79.5% (fail), gained a few days after entry, to something slightly North of the pass mark (80%) a few days later.

I knew how to launder/iron/clean/tie a bowtie/hold a knife & fork/greet a lady/speak politely whilst drunk/stand up straight whilst drunk/eat whilst drunk/find my own way back to my room whilst drunk/find a toilet without urinating in a wardrobe whilst drunk/cope with a stonking hangover the morning after, WELL before arriving at Cranwell.

It DID teach me that people with Northern accents may sound like thickos but may not in fact be - although having lived in Lincolnshi*e for too long I remain unconvinced...

[Mach Two]

I'm not sure whether I should feel dumb or blessed. We seem to be coping pretty well, despite our dumbness.

[chopper2004]

What does the tabloid want then or its readers, a US or European academy style education or to close Cranwell and make everyone go through Sandhurst bar the navy as Sandhurst is pretty much a year course. The other longest is the RM which in effect is 18 months.

Here is an example, mate of mine graduated from the Renaissancelaan as an army officer (now Land Component) back in the noughties. Two of her mates went through the same course but they were air force entrants (now Air Component) One ended up being F-16 display pilot performing at Mildenhall Air Fete and RIAT. Her other mate ended up flying Sea King on SAR duties.

After a four year of hell, she and the above guys got their BA or BSc as well as the Kings Commission.

The Ocdts regardless whether they were going to be infantry or cav officers or under the light blue who went onto fly F-16, Fat Albert etc did the same infantry training and leadership , only at different points did the air force lot did some of their stuff differently.

Their Naval Component have their own separate academy.

The above lot inc my mate went into the academy at age 17/18/19

It follows the likes of Annapolis, Colorado Springs, West Point - then across the Channel with most of NATO do the four years and earn yourself a degree.

Admittedly the states has several ways of earning a commission with the popular university ROTC and the various Officer Candidate Schools.

The latter especially the air force one at Lackland reminds me of the Henlow course in terms of course length? Am I right??

I have been shot down before in suggesting an structured ROTC type course run with the UAS/UOTC/URNU could possibly work. It does work across the pond....all one has to do is pull up a biography of either a USN or USAF or U Army aircrew officer whose in charge of a unit and most of them have an ROTC commission compared to those who are academy grads.

In the RAF 2010 or 2011 yearbook one sees in the top shelf in WH Smiths, there was an article on the SHF titled "From Careers Office to Helmand" or something along those lines about those wishing to enter the RAF to fly the Support Helicopter Force and support the troops

Just those titles reminded me of the US Army's Warrant Officer aviator recruiting posters aptly dubbed 'From High School to Flight School'

Food for thought,

cheers

[Pontius Navigator]

Chopper, simply numbers. Need to limit the number of schools. Need to limit the number of instructors*. It is also wrong to equate IOT or whatever as the only training for the potential officer.

All ab initio officers undergo post-graduate training or one sort or another. I know that officer training for navigators did not stop when they got to nav school and no doubt further mentoring is given at OCU and sqn.

Then more training is given as one's career advances (or not).

*On instructor numbers, in late 80s some 95 navs were employed turning out about 120 navigators per year. Assuming a 2.5 year tour that was roughly 3 new navs per instructor per tour. A reduced student throughput could not be met with a corresponding reduction in instructor numbers as the same number of Specialists were needed for a class of 6 or 20.

[Capot]

At a later stage, select those with the aptitude; put them on the General List, and give them the education they will need in more senior positionsI think this is what we pongos used to call "Staff College"; I did hear that the RAF/RN equivalents have now been combined with the Army's College, but maybe I got that wrong.

If right, how does that work? I cannot imagine sitting down to Dinner with the risk of having someone, probably RAF, beside me holding his knife and fork wrongly. In itself that's manageable, one can always advise discreetly, but would the bounder have anything interesting to say? What's more, he might even be a woman!! After all, there is one of those now in charge of a Sandhurst College. Need I say more?

[langleybaston]

Other than the AAC, do either of the other lots pass the port as one is accustomed to?

My only formal service dinner other than with aviators various was with the RA and I was too far gone to pay much attention.

[Pontius Navigator]

LB, having dined in I noticed the red jobs didn't seem to have grasped the need to actually pass the Port. I now appreciate the RAF habit of not letting the decanter resting on the table.

Madam Vice would have died of thirst on the top table had I not rescued a decanter.

I admit their silver was magnificent.

[BEagle]

The RAF 'habit' of not allowing the decanter to touch the table is something which seemed to creep in during the 1980s and is actually bolleaux!

The best passing of the port I recall was when I was a guest of ULOTC. Their port decanters were in a magnificent silver model of a horse-drawn gun limber, which one wheeled down the table from person to person.

Those decanters were simply removed and replaced by each diner when filling their glass - and not in that 'council' manner of filling it to the brim as practised by some supplementary list oiks either.

Of course our pongo chums have far more wedgimental plunder following their centuries of existence than the RAF could ever have....:(

After RAFC went comprehensive, they found the need to issue a 'how to use one's cutlery' guide for the benefit of the peasants who should have been at that place in Bedfordshire and for whom using anything other than a dagger or wooden spoon was probably a distinct novelty. Some OT clown had suggested that 'foreign food' such as frogs legs or snails could be eaten with the fingers - I would love to have seen him try eating a snail that way without receiving second degree burns to the fingers!

[ACW418]

BEagle,

Not true, I was taught about passing the port correctly and not letting the decanter touch the table in 1962!

ACW

[JW411]

Ditto in 1960.

[Pontius Navigator]

Quel surprise.

[Dominator2]

BEagle,
The RAF 'habit' of not allowing the decanter to touch the table is something which seemed to creep in during the 1980s and is actually bolleaux!
Once again we wave the BS Flag.

To fairly criticize "the place in Bedfordshire" you should be sure of your facts and not just believe the propaganda that was passed to you by the DS at CWL, just to make you all feel superior.

[brakedwell]

Ditto 1956

[Pontius Navigator]

IIRC, when I were as ITS that place in Bedfordshire was the college of knowledge for the backroom boys without whom . . .

Was Sleaford Tech the preserve of 6th form graduates studying for 3 years to become proper officers rather than snobs?

[Wrathmonk]

BEagle insisted

The RAF 'habit' of not allowing the decanter to touch the table is something which seemed to creep in during the 1980s and is actually bolleaux!

However...

ACW418 replied

Not true, I was taught about passing the port correctly and not letting the decanter touch the table in 1962!

and JW411 added

Ditto in 1960.

with brakedwell suggesting

Ditto 1956

Come on Danny42C - lets get this tradition back to the 40's!!

Posts quoted for posterity and historical accuracy!

[sixg]

I know a little bit about officers and pilots. Officer training does not necessarily impart sound combat judgement. Many excellent combat pilots were or are unsuitable for senior rank. The 2 requirements are quite different. In initial selection, you need 70% foot soldiers and 30 % potential leaders. Even then, some will surprise and others disappoint, so you need free movement between the two requirements during any military flying career.

The current difficulty is a self-inflicted RAF policy problem, perhaps not helped by constant politically inspired defence reviews.

As a long-serving retired RAF pilot (1963-1988), I never could understand why every aircraft needed a commissioned officer at the controls. In the late 60's it got sillier when it was decreed that all pilots should be university graduates as well, although I believe that rule has been relaxed now.

The number of productive flying years is an important factor governing RAF pilot requirements, shortages and retention. Get 'em young is key. By the time I was 27 (when my commissioned ex-university colleagues were just joining squadrons as young embryo pilots), I was an experienced pilot with 3 flying tours and over 2000 hours on fighters.

The RAF had a good return on its investment.

[JAVELINBOY]

From Taylors purveyors of Port, according to them

'Once a Vintage Port has been decanted and the moment has come to enjoy it, tradition dictates that the decanter should be placed on the table to the right of the host or hostess. It should then be passed to the left, travelling round the table from guest to guest in a clockwise direction until it comes back to its starting point. Although the tradition is most often observed when serving Vintage Port, it is also often followed with other Port styles.
There are many arcane and colourful explanations for the custom of passing the Port to the left.
One theory is that the custom arose from the need to keep one’s sword arm free in case of trouble. It is sometimes said to have originated in the Royal Navy where the rule was ‘Port to port’, meaning that the decanter (most likely a ship’s decanter) should be passed to the left. In the Royal Navy the Loyal Toast is traditionally drunk in Port and, in contrast to the other branches of the British armed forces, the officers remain seated.
However, the reason why the custom is followed today is quite simple. If the decanter keeps moving in the same direction, every guest has the opportunity to enjoy the wine and no-one is left out. The decanter travels clockwise because most people are right handed.'

[BEagle]

The port decanter should always be kept moving, hence there should be no need for it to be placed on the table. This has become corrupted into meaning that it 'must' not be so placed.

If someone fails to keep the decanter moving, such that it stays in front of him/her, the traditional query from diners to his/her left is "Do you know the Bishop of Norwich?" after the memory of said cleric who had a habit of getting so pickled that he would fall asleep before the port decanter arrived, creating a delay in accommodating the requirements of other diners.

[GlobalNav]

I must say, military history is a fascinating topic. Cheers.

[Pontius Navigator]

As it is an initial training thread I guess this is not too much of a thread drift.

We did a one week camp in the Brecons. We were issued with used Korean War vintage garments and extremely sturdy ammunition boots rather than have to wear our regular boots etc.

Do the courses now use their own issue boots? And of course have to bull them afterwards.

[Willard Whyte]

I seem to recall attending a 'boot course(?)' at Cranners between OASC at Biggin Hill in August and IOT in November 1990. Same pair of boots throughout which yes, became muddy & scuffed and subsequently required bulling.

Not quite as frustrating as having to 'blanco' white, in order to acheive absolute uniformity, an otherwise perfectly acceptable pair of self-bought, as was permitted, trainers which had the temerity to feature a couple of darker stripes. "To the right with a jump, RIGHT!" Oh happy days :rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, at school, as a 13 year old, we were lined up outside the house on the road each morning, were inspected, and then had to run up the hill and down again.

Every day I was pulled up be the house master, an ex-major in the Parachute Regiment, for mud on my black shoes. The 'mud' was a dark mud-coloured band of neoprene in the heel composition. He accepted what I told him but continued to pull me up every morning, trying to tell me something but I never twigged :) put me off the Army though.

[Danny42C]

Wrathmonk (your #102),
...Come on Danny42C - lets get this tradition back to the 40's!!...
Cannot answer for the '40s, as (in India and Burma, where I was ennobled), we didn't have dining-in nights (what with havin' a war to fight an' all) and had forgotten what Port looked like anyway.

On my return to the RAF in UK in '49, things were only slowly getting underway in the mid-'50s and although I vaguely remember dining-in and guest nights of the period, think that the old tradition of "never letting the decanter touch the table" had gone by the board: in fact the practice was to slide the decanter along the table - but always to keep it moving.

Harveys is the stuff.

Cheers, Danny42C.

[Roland Pulfrew]

the RAF in UK in '49, things were only slowly getting underway in the mid-'50s and although I vaguely remember dining-in and guest nights of the period, think that the old tradition of "never letting the decanter touch the table" had gone by the board: in fact the practice was to slide the decanter along the table

If Danny's memory is holding up well, this would suggest that the tradition of never letting the decanter touch the table was in fact older than has been suggested - could it pre-date WWII?

[ValMORNA]

One's butler pours one's port!

[Tankertrashnav]

Seem to remember Madeira was on offer as an alternative. Did this go the rounds as well? I don't ever remember sampling it. A third choice for those who didnt fancy either (or for the rare non-drinker) was water.

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, ah, Madeira. I always chose that. As the two decanters perforce moved at different rates, but together. I think the Madeira came to frequent rest.

I confess that until I stayed at a finca on the island I had no idea that there bbc was such a range varying from one like a very dry sherry through to the sweetest desert one. We usually buy ours in the market and staggered back with 6 bottles. The stagger not just from the weight.

[teeteringhead]

One always preferred Madeira when it was on offer - haven't seen it for years...... :(

Chief reason was that some (many?) Messes served exceedingly bad port, but bad Madeira seemed unobtainable.

WO & Sgts Mess port in my experience (RAF) was usually better than the Officers'; but the best I tasted in a military context was in the Naval College at Greenwich - when it was the Naval College. :ok:

[triskele]

"Do you know the Bishop of Norwich?"...seems a bit genteel.
IS THE BISHOP DEAD?!

[Startrek3]

Having recently done a bit of research into degree schemes for a friend's son who wants to pursue a career in military aviation and wants to get a degree, I was surprised to find that whilst the academic syllabi at Sandhurst and Dartmouth are now 'accredited' towards a bachelors (and I believe Sandhurst are looking to allow graduates to gain credits towards a masters) the current course at Cranwell is deemed too 'short' to gain any form of accreditation - and they are looking to shorten it even further! Given our seniors are pushing the mantra of developing a force that is capable of 'thinking to win' whilst at the same time trying to recruit bright, capable individuals, this seems nonsensical to me and any reduction in content smacks of dumbing down. Having seen another family friend go through the old 'new' course a couple of years ago I certainly felt that the academic part was a vast improvement on my day when the syllabus consisted of a bunch of retired Flt Lt's talking about what it was like 'during the war'. Hence with a little bit of effort on the part of the RAF it could have provided junior RAF officers with the same career enhancing opportunities as their army and navy counterparts.

I also recall from my other half's time at Shrivenham that, more often than not, the army and navy studes were often more academically adept than their light blue counterparts (which is one of the reasons the academic syllabus was enhance in the first place iirc).

[DC10RealMan]

I am reminded of the recruiting poster from the 1960s which showed a young RAF Officer with Cranwell in the background with the heading "RAF Officer" and to which some wag had added underneath "making simple things difficult since 1918"

[Stuff]

Having recently done a bit of research into degree schemes for a friend's son who wants to pursue a career in military aviation and wants to get a degree, I was surprised to find that whilst the academic syllabi at Sandhurst and Dartmouth are now 'accredited' towards a bachelors (and I believe Sandhurst are looking to allow graduates to gain credits towards a masters) the current course at Cranwell is deemed too 'short' to gain any form of accreditation


You didn't look very hard did you? Officer Training: Initial officer training course | Credit transfer | Open University (http://www.open.ac.uk/study/credit-transfer/my-previous-study/professional-qualifications/officer-training-initial-officer-training-course-0)

The rest of your post is drivel too.

[Startrek3]

Thanks for the heads up, Stuff you, have highlighted something that the chap in 22 Gp I spoke to failed to mention. Although I must admit I'm not sure the OU was what said individual had in mind. I wonder if the shortened course will still attract the same level of credits?

As you are being so helpful, stuff you, could also perhaps explain what exactly you mean by drivel? The fact that the RAF has adopted the mantra 'thinking to win', the fact that the new course was an academic improvement over the old course or the fact that DefAc DS thought that army and navy studes were often better placed to rise to the challenge of continued academic development than their RAF counterparts?

[Startrek3]

Thanks for the heads up, Stuff you, have highlighted something that the chap in 22 Gp I spoke to failed to mention. Although I must admit I'm not sure the OU was what said individual had in mind. I wonder if the shortened case will still attract the same level of credits?

[charliegolf]

Quite right too,
1 Normal
2 Back to front
3 Inside out normal
4 Inside out back to front
5 Normal

Covers a working week, or if preferred, Fri go commando...:E

A helicopter crewman would make soup out of it on a Saturday morning.

CG

[Danny42C]

Wrathmonk (your #102),
...Come on Danny42C - lets get this tradition back to the 40's!..
First, I must apologise for this tardy reply, but the Thread deals in matters beyond my ken, at least as '41-'46 is concerned, and it is only by chance that I have looked at it now. I was Elevated to the Peerage in '43 in this way (extracts from my Post p.131 #2612 on "Pilot's Brevet" - "Danny has Greatness thrust upon Him"):
... It seemed to us that the Dominion Governments had decided on a policy to commission all their Sergeant-Pilots in India. As a Briton, I was the odd man out.

Up to then, I'd been quite content to remain an NCO. I'd been a bit disappointed when I got my wings without even having been considered for a commission. But I'd settled down and, had I stayed in the UK, would have hoped, had I lived (more than doubtful), to rise to Flight Sergeant (one year) and Warrant Officer (two years) on time promotion. But this latest business seemed most unfair.

I went to see the C.O. "Why not ?" he said wearily, "Everybody else is getting it - I'll put you up" (my misdemeanour at Dum-Dum seemed to have been forgiven). It was a formality from then on. I was called for interview with the AOC of 221 Group in Calcutta, a kindly old AVM (Williams, I think), He satisfied himself that I didn't drop my aitches, and could probably use a knife and fork, and signed me in. Thus are careers made.... ........OCTU ?........ What's that?..
As we had neither dining tables, decanters nor Port in Burma, there was no problem.

Taking refuge from civil life in '49, I returned to the RAF. From then on till '72, as far as I remember, out of sight of top table, we slithered the decanter along (less chance of dropping it that way !)

Danny42C.

[Archimedes]

Thanks for the heads up, Stuff you, have highlighted something that the chap in 22 Gp I spoke to failed to mention. Although I must admit I'm not sure the OU was what said individual had in mind. I wonder if the shortened course will still attract the same level of credits?

As you are being so helpful, stuff you, could also perhaps explain what exactly you mean by drivel? The fact that the RAF has adopted the mantra 'thinking to win', the fact that the new course was an academic improvement over the old course or the fact that DefAc DS thought that army and navy studes were often better placed to rise to the challenge of continued academic development than their RAF counterparts?

They were wrong.

The RAF students more than held their own and it was the RN who were most concerned about the overall quality of their students; this contributed to (but was far from the only factor in) a redesign of what was then the ISC and its becoming the ICSC (Maritime).

The RAF students often won (and still do) the end of course prizes open to students from all three services and a respectable number - more, from memory, than from the other two services - have gone on to undertake MPhils [at least two of whom are members of PPrune] and embark upon PhDs [at least one lurking member of PPrune].

The OU may be a better bet than other institutions; as many RN and Army officers have discovered, having the time to take their credits forward is difficult. Credits are 'lifed' by most accrediting universities, and if the degree is not completed within a certain period, the credits from RMAS/Dartmouth can be lost. Much of the learning undertaken for the degree (if the poor JO in any of the services has the time) has to be done at distance nowadays - time spent on PPrune being put aside for online debating on the relevant degree programme's internet fora, etc.

One of the points to bear in mind about RAFC is that an awful lot of the OCdts already possess a degree and the RAF view has been that some of the material covered at IOT can be left until afterwards (for instance on JOD1); while credits are a useful thing to have upon completion of IOT for DE officers, the critical point - as ever - was that broader issues than the possibility of gaining credits for a BA drove developments (whether rightly or wrongly is a separate debate).

I don't know what the shortened course will lose exactly, but if the academic content meets the requirements in terms of contact and study hours as laid down under an international standard (the Bologna process), then the credits will not be affected; if the hours drop, then the number of credits will fall. Reduction in IOT length may simply mean that another module has to be done towards the degree.

We now return you to some much more interesting observations...

[BEagle]

Academic standards had certainly dropped for some of the non-University entrants who came to our squadron in the late 1980s.

As witness one who once piped up "You can't have a minus minus a plus!".

Ex-Harrovian, rich and thick and rather a 'Nice But Dim' type.

[Union Jack]

It was a formality from then on. I was called for interview with the AOC of 221 Group in Calcutta, a kindly old AVM (Williams, I think) - Danny

Having succeeded - with some difficulty! - in refraining from commenting on a thread with such a "tempting" title for someone of the dark blue persuasion, here is a link to the man who should be most warmly congratulated for recognising Danny's officer-like qualities (OLQ)!, namely T M Williams_P (http://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/Williams_TM.htm), then in his early "kindly old" forties....

A Lancashire lad to boot, with a very distinguished and interesting career, not least relative to recent posts about attacking trains, and as a flight commander aged 18 with an MC and two DFCs - and four subsequent FAA appointments!:ok:

Sadly he did not live long enough to fulfil his undoubted potential.

Jack

[Ali Qadoo]

As a green-shielder, having done 3 years on a UAS, I remember IOT as a 10-day course crammed into 12 weeks.

[langleybaston]

I never understood why "distance learning" rather than "distant learning"?

Surely distance learning is learning about distance, whereas distant learning is learning at a distance?

Which latter is surely what happens.

innit?

[Tedderboy]

I notice from another post that there is currently an 18 - 24 month hold in store for baby pilots graduating from IOT. However, when speaking to some of the staff on a visit to CHOM last year I was informed that one of the main reasons the current IOT course was compressed from 30 weeks to 24 weeks was to get pilots (in particular) to the frontline much quicker in order to meet CAS' directive that he did not want new aircraft waiting for aircrew! I therefore cannot see the benefit of reducing IOT to speed up the pilot training pipeline if Ph2 is unable to cope - is it really that difficult to employ a JIT training system? Of course there may be other reasons as to why the course was shortened but I see little in the way of cost savings involved and the course does seem rather short when compared to BRNC's (30 weeks) and Sandhurst's (44 weeks) - although I recognise that each Service has its own particular requirements.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tedder, good question.

[Ken Scott]

Twenty four weeks? What do they find to pad that out? The 18 weeks we did was more than enough given that it involved no professional training at all but was simply a series of hoops to jump through to ensure you deserved your commission, had a semblance of an idea of leadership (not something that's required all that often for aircrew for a few years) and knew how to behave (sort of) in the mess. The important stuff you learnt afterwards in your professional training.

[Melchett01]

Twenty four weeks? What do they find to pad that out? The 18 weeks we did was more than enough given that it involved no professional training at all but was simply a series of hoops to jump through to ensure you deserved your commission, had a semblance of an idea of leadership (not something that's required all that often for aircrew for a few years) and knew how to behave (sort of) in the mess. The important stuff you learnt afterwards in your professional training.


About 5 years back when I was in the middle of my Sqn Ldr command tour, we were hosting Commandant Cadets (IIRC) and we were talking over dinner about our time in the RAF, how we had both spent most of it in the Joint environment and had come through IOT when it was the 'bad old days', but how it had since changed for the better. He turned and asked what had I learned from my time at IOT. Peering into my wine glass for some inspiration as to how best to say what I was about to, I turned to him and said 'well based on what we've just been discussing, I have to say it showed me the sort of officer I didn't want to be once I'd graduated.' He thought about it, clearly not the expected answer and then said 'well at least you got something from it'.


As much as I hated my time at IOT, they really are missing a trick with not doing more academics - international relations, military theory and history etc, which invariably means a longer not shorter course. And I don't mean just more Operational Studies, or whatever it was called, where we all trooped into a warm room to fall asleep between PT sessions. I mean proper, intellectually rigorous stuff, that makes cadets it not fit for a complex environment, at least aware that they are going into a complex environment and gives them a foundation for where to take their conceptual development. Call me odd if you like, whilst leveling entire grid squares is fun, there's undeniably a degree of satisfaction in out-thinking the enemy - whether that be Russia, Da'esh, your Flt Cdr or your wife.

[OldnDaft]

About 5 years back when I was in the middle of my Sqn Ldr command tour, we were hosting Commandant Cadets (IIRC) and we were talking over dinner about our time in the RAF, how we had both spent most of it in the Joint environment and had come through IOT when it was the 'bad old days', but how it had since changed for the better. He turned and asked what had I learned from my time at IOT. Peering into my wine glass for some inspiration as to how best to say what I was about to, I turned to him and said 'well based on what we've just been discussing, I have to say it showed me the sort of officer I didn't want to be once I'd graduated.' He thought about it, clearly not the expected answer and then said 'well at least you got something from it'.


As much as I hated my time at IOT, they really are missing a trick with not doing more academics - international relations, military theory and history etc, which invariably means a longer not shorter course. And I don't mean just more Operational Studies, or whatever it was called, where we all trooped into a warm room to fall asleep between PT sessions. I mean proper, intellectually rigorous stuff, that makes cadets it not fit for a complex environment, at least aware that they are going into a complex environment and gives them a foundation for where to take their conceptual development. Call me odd if you like, whilst leveling entire grid squares is fun, there's undeniably a degree of satisfaction in out-thinking the enemy - whether that be Russia, Da'esh, your Flt Cdr or your wife.
I spent a number of years at Cranwell, leaving in 2012 and can only describe what I saw - It was like 30 weeks of It's A Knockout. Very little exposure to intellectual thought and genuine leadership issues, a holier than thou attitude to almost everything and an end product barely fit to lead themselves from the Mess to the workplace.

[Wyler]

Having been in the RAF for 23 years, and then a civilian instructor at a Ph2 trg unit for the last 12, I see both good and bad from the Ph1 system. IOT is still producing excellent individuals with character and potential but, sadly, it no longer really acts as a filter. So, we end up with a small percentage of individuals who are not suited to life in uniform. It is then left to the Ph2 machine to either make a silk purse out of a sow's ear or get them out of the system altogether. The emphasis is on 'training' which is as it should be but that must include an element of assessment. The latter seems to be missing to some degree from Ph1. That means that the minority who are a problem suck up most of the time and resources at Ph2 and 3, just like the gobby ones in a school class of 35 kids.
On another tack, we also have to take into account the 'kids' of today. Shortish attention span, no really long term commitment and requiring regular 'rewards'. As one Wg Cdr recently put it, the 'popcorn' generation.
So, I don't really think that the length of IOT is the issue. It is about making the best of what is available and weeding out the no-hopers at the Ph1 stage rather then maintaining the huggy/fluffy approach we seem to have.
Another area that leaves me open mouthed is the lack of leadership. We seem to now have offices full of very clever 'spreadsheet managers' and a large part of education comes from on-line courses. However, that is another story......

[Cornish Jack]

Beagle - " 'The role of the RAF is to fly and flight." Reliance on a spoil chicken is not necessarily recommended!! ;) :=

[Pontius Navigator]

Melchett, I have to say it showed me the sort of officer I didn't want to be once I'd graduated.'

Quite profound. I remember several by name and met two post IOT. One was a completely different character. There was however a nav, David St John Court-Smith, from whom I learnt much, a fine officer whose technique was light guidance rather than 'sheer terror'.

We had one cadet who accumulated more restrictions than the course length; he didn't graduate. Why did they persevere? Another, a particularly fine sprinter but as a cadet a complete wasock. He volunteered to be duty marcher as his blue webbing needed cleaning. When his white webbing turned green he reverted to blue. He was kept on until the inter-command athletics at White City. He didn't win and was chopped. Now THAT was an example of leadership :)
​​