Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Shawbury close to melt down

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Shawbury close to melt down

Old 16th Sep 2009, 21:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy RAF Shawbury close to melt down

Just been updated from the center of Military flying training about the situation there with regards to overstretch and the (personal abuse of a known individual not permitted) who is turning flying training on it's head and making the 2 Squirrel squadrons carry out the exact same training !!! 2 Squadrons in the same place who for 12 years have carried out their individual tasks to a superb and world beating standard, now doing the same job as each other. The guys there are already overstretched trying to keep the pipe line fed, now they are having to learn each others skills as well to enable this crazy idea to take effect - BUT not until November - guess who leaves Shawbury in November - non other than HRH the royal Pilot - so not good enough for him to experience, or the system is too scared to expose him to this sham. All being kept quiet until he leaves then the chaos will ensue. Not one of the lads at the coal face wants or needs this farce to happen, but (personal abuse of a known individual not permitted) decides this is a good idea and bingo, get on with it lads. Talking to some of the guys there it seems the place is a seriously depressed cauldron waiting to explode, courses running late but no worries just fly more , don't worry about the standard being pushed out just get more through. Happy is not a word used much at the moment up there, very little time for care of the students well being just push on chaps. Interesting to hear what some of the workers think about this weird idea of both Squadrons doing the same task as each other - WHY? Is Shawbury close to another accident trying to get more out of a pint pot? does anyone care? doesn't sound too good there at the moment
bluster is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2009, 21:40
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would suggest that you get your info from more than one source before you embark on ill-informed, ill-advised rants on PPRuNE. I would further, particularly advise that you avoid directly impugning the character and reputation of a highly respected, decorated senior serving officer.
Father Jack Hackett is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2009, 22:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Is it even likely that anyone at Shawbury would have the authority to make such changes without the specific direction of No.22 Group?

So if we leave out the abusive comments about power mad donkeys, we're left with an interesting core question.

Why are the two Squirrel squadrons (660 and 705) going to conduct parallel straight through courses instead of lead-in and advanced as now seems to be the case? (Becoming more like the two squadrons at LoO rather than the two at Valley?)

What would the claimed advantages be?

What are the likely disadvantages?

What effect will this actually have?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2009, 22:33
  #4 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: WERTS
Age: 44
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some troll up to no good. Probably someone we know - now banned!
I hate Journos is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2009, 23:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Thanks, Teeters!

IHJ.

Not much of a story, is it? And rather 'specialised'. But of interest to someone interested in the nitty gritty of military aviation? Sure!

And my questions are intended to elucidate clarification for the benefit of anyone reading the thread. If I wanted to write it up, I'd want an exclusive and I'd be doing so via PM.


See above Jacko - some troll. Other comments since that post now deleted as they no longer make sense with the removal of the troll's post.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 01:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And what about the strategic effect??

The country is screaming out for more chopper crew to support OOA commitments. The present system is obviously not able to push them out fast enough. So perhaps some lateral thinking is called for. It might not work.....but then again it might.

And in 12 months time everyone will wonder what the fuss was about
sisemen is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 04:57
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Wholigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This thread could produce a useful and interesting discussion and exchange of ideas. However, it will only run for as long as there are no more pointed personal attacks on anybody!
Wholigan is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 08:16
  #8 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 74
Posts: 3,691
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
Well now the dust has settled, I'll join the fray and - quelle surprise - actually attempt to answer the questions Jacko has asked.

And these are just the personal views of an old (not very bold) QHI

In theory, I don't see how the change should have any effect on the output numbers game. With the best will in the world, flying training (statisically) is a sausage machine. If you have x number of students, y number of instructors and z number of airframes/flying hours - the result should be the same - and those numbers ain't going to change.

Immediate advantages that spring to mind are primarily for the staff. With the "parallel" rather than "series" approach, all Squirrel staff will fly all exercises. One remembers when one was a Gazelle basic QHI, the joy of sending a baby Bloggs first solo before lunch, and teaching a more senior Bloggs to fly under wires after lunch. Variety keeps the QHI sharp - over-specialisation may (and I strongly underline may) lead to complacency and a blinkered approach, and a possibly reduced awareness of "how the other half lives". And of course being a Jack-of-all-trades is what we want our young helicopteristes to aspire to. No demo by an instructor is more accurately reproduced than the instructor's behaviour on the ground!

It may also be good for baby Bloggs (see above) to share a crewroom with senior Bloggs - much is learnt IMHO from crewroom osmosis.

(And it halves the amount of night flying and IF that 705 have to do!)

Disadvantages - few that I can think of. The much trumpeted "exposure to other service cultures" seems to me to be a bit cosmetic. 705 have "Shareholders" instead of Met Brief, and have a Splot. And I think 660 have a Sqn Sgt Major! The studes all live together and soon (very soon) will fight together - I don't think a lack of exposure to 660 or 705 will hurt in any way.

So on balance - possible advantages overall, but it's a bit close to call. So why not give it a try, and see if it does make a difference - I see little that could be lost.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 09:04
  #9 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Do/did QHIs rotate/move to/from 660 and 705?
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 09:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good point from AA above - I think that is the obvious answer, but lost in the confusion towards mirror squadrons. Why waste hundreds of flying hours to make ALL personnel jack of ALL trades... when a cadre of selected few would achieve any cross over needed. Bit of a strange snipe at the "old folk" on 660 Sqn - trust me the only thing creeking there is the Sqn itself, as ever it's the old and bold who keep a little sanity and stability going. As for impunging the character.... sugested by Father Jack Hacket above, I hardly think an OBE, MA and cfs are decorations to be classed as "highly decorated" Please get your head out of the dark, and get your blinkers off to see the world how it truly is before shouting down others threads. Maybe anger took over? Maybe this is a good idea, but in who's head, the only sensible reply so far has come from teetering head who makes some very good points and ones worth more discussion. Watching with interest.
swerve is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 12:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 747
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the individual's defence and in my experience, while he could occasionally use the long screw driver, he was a very capable and intelligent bloke who would give support when it mattered. Yes he asks for a lot, but he would give you the opportunity to do things your own way and can accept counter arguments as long as they're well argued and based in fact. Not an expert, but the arguments for provided above make sense and as is said above, what we've got at the moment isn't producing the goods, so why not try something else?
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 14:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hants
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, what a wonderful source of intelligence! Guess security is no longer a factor now then? Should this topic really be easily available for all and sundry to read?
fayslag is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 14:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What Intel...? Where is the Intel..? If you think that some disgruntled oik venting off on t'interweb is good "intel" then you don't know what "intel" is.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 15:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IMHO it does not go far enough. 705 should be sent back to Culdrose and 660 to supplement the Squirrel fleet already in place at Middle Wallop. Not even sure if in this day and age the single engine phase of rotary flying training is necessary, for I am sure it could all be taught from the onset on a multi engined aircraft as part of a multi-crew crew.

Before you all get on the high horse to defend 'tradition', remember that historically Rotary FTS was completed to graduate single pilot crews. This has not been so since GW1, although I believe that the junglie fleet retains this possibility. Why not move on and train a pilot with sufficient skills for a LHS (co-pilot if you want) skills in half the time who gets further (on the job) training to graduate to Captaincy at a later date. The hands on time he should get whilst occupying the LHS will serve him well later on as was pretty much proven by the sucessfull retraining of ex-Rotary Navs that are now members of the twin winged master race.

As both the RN and AAC have never subscribed to the MEARW element of RAF MFTS despite DHFS now being 12 years down the road somebody, somewhere is hanging onto the 'old way' for too long. Either the RAF should call a day to the Griffin (which FWIW does not get my vote) or the RN & AAC should prescribe to MEARW complete with (air)crewmen. I would also bin the Squirrel in toto and have a larger (joint) MEARW Sqn training everbody regardless of cap badge, & LFA 9 has its advantages in the form of real estate & community relations.
Spot 4 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 15:56
  #15 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Spot4 - are you sure about the RN not needing single pilot skills? AFAIK the only guaranteed two-pilot rotary aircraft in the FAA are the baggers and the SAR cabs.

Junglies SK4, Merlin Mk 1 and Lynx are all single-pilot.

847 Lynx can be single pilot plus obs or two pilot, and I think the five SK6 used by CHF are also two pilot?

Last edited by airborne_artist; 17th Sep 2009 at 16:11.
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 17:00
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airborne

Is that a Waa?

847 - Always 2 pilot, no obs
Baggers - 1 Pilot
Grey Lynx - 1 Pilot
Junglies - Single pilot trained, but rarely other than 2
SAR - 2 pilots on a Job, but can be single piloted
Merlin - Like the Junglies
Tourist is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 17:38
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Swerve,

I never said highly decorated and it's better than the OBE I don't have! Have you been invited up to Buck House for tea and medals recently?

Father Jack
Father Jack Hackett is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 19:11
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 138
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
teeters old bean,

I'm with you. I learnt to fly with the AAC (Bell 47 for heavens sake) and finished up with the RAF. Spot 4 has several good points but overall you got it right........

Tri-Service training was initially a 'cost saving' exercise. Wrong from the start, wrong today. Tri-Service works well in the field, but not at Ab-Initio.....

Standing by to be poo-poooed.......
ewe.lander is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 19:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tourist - I think Frontline Merlin mk1 and Jungle Ops are nearly all single pilot now. The RN does not have anything else other than a single pilot requirement. (SAR is only twin pilot based on the RTS requirement)

Why the RAF have insisted on the Griffin is beyond me, when the RN and AAC go from what was a mildly longer 705 course to a multi engined aircraft.(unless they have less capable pilots? - I doubt that)

The tri service training has never ever been equal in the helo world!
Triple Matched TQ is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2009, 22:43
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oop North
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 6 Posts
Spot 4, Some interesting stuff.

Unfortunately an All MEARW system at DHFS would be hideously expensive. No point in trg pilots basic stick & pedal stuff on an ac that costs 4 times as much per hour as a squirrel. Some squirrel and some Griff is a good compromise, although I do accept some hours are used simply to swap types.

OTP at Middle Wallop does a good job of moving pilots from 705 standard to Lynx/Apache standard. Multicrew training is an area that is not as good as the RAF, but then, not all AAC pilots will fly with an aircrewman.....

It is the Navy who are short changed by DHFS as they have to leap from 705 Sqn straight onto op types. (apart from their SAR Buoys who DO go to 60 Sqn) That is why their OCUs are 10 months long!!! (hideously wasteful) It is also why the Navy chops people who have passed 705 Sqn to a 'low average' standard: It cannot afford to carry any training risks because there is this gap between 705 Sqn and RN OCU's.(wasteful and harsh for some people who could have made perfectly acceptable pilots) The fact that their SAR Bouys DO in fact do MEARW on 60 Sqn underlines the fact that there is a big hole in their training system for those not going SAR.
Marly Lite is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.