How long to train a Army Pilot?
At that time crab, I only had experience of one RAF student, and you're right he did stand out from the crowd.....................mind you he did have 350 hours when he started at Wallop.
Serf, I think that was the one who had been chopped by the RAF but had friends, especially daddy's, in high places and got himself on the APC through the back door.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serf, if I had a pound for every time I was told at MW that a Cpl pilot in a Gazelle could do all the same stuff just as well as a Flt Lt in a Puma/Seaking/Chinook, I would be a rich man.
You are quite right, crab. An Army Cpl in a Gazelle couldn't do the same stuff as a Flt Lt in a Puma, Seaking or Chinook. For a start, he couldn't pick up 12+ blokes at A and drop them somewhere near B and then nearly get back to the vicinity of A. He'd only be able to do a bit of Obs and Recce, AOP, FAC, low level tac flying with a bit of regard for the tactical situation and a couple of other minor tasks other than bus driving.
Oh, and he'd still be able to do Gd 2/ic, organise a BBQ, look after the baby DE officers and still get paid less than rear baggage on the Puma/Seaking/Chinook.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Glad to see the investment in DHFS has produced a cohesive and mutually respected tri-service pilot product. I remember when it was nothing but a bunch of inter service "scratch your eyes out" name-calling by big girls' blouses.
Good job everybody.
Good job everybody.
Serf - yes, but he got his wings on the APC and never actually passed out at Shawbury like every other RAF helicopter pilot. He is probably quite competent now but he played the system and got a helicopter slot that was therefore denied to someone else who hadn't already failed training.
Bizarrely I believe he wears RAF not AAC wings.
Wg13, but the RAF Flt Lt didn't have to go back to Wallop for further trg before being allowed to be Ac Comd - as soon as the OCU was finished he was ready to rock.
As for tactics - could you remind me when the AAC started EW trg? The SH force had been doing it for years which is why we were allowed to play in GW1.
Things are different now, the AAC has had to raise its game significantly to operate the Apache - but who were the first guys to go on AH? All the A2 QHIs, then the B1 QHI's and eventually when they had run out of beefers, the senior line pilots.....any Cpl pilots amongst them? No, didn't think so.
Bizarrely I believe he wears RAF not AAC wings.
Wg13, but the RAF Flt Lt didn't have to go back to Wallop for further trg before being allowed to be Ac Comd - as soon as the OCU was finished he was ready to rock.
As for tactics - could you remind me when the AAC started EW trg? The SH force had been doing it for years which is why we were allowed to play in GW1.
Things are different now, the AAC has had to raise its game significantly to operate the Apache - but who were the first guys to go on AH? All the A2 QHIs, then the B1 QHI's and eventually when they had run out of beefers, the senior line pilots.....any Cpl pilots amongst them? No, didn't think so.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting comments here about output standards!.
Tactics...
EW although very important cannot be a substitute for tactical awareness and understanding of the ground picture. There are some aircrew in the AAC where that skill is often to be found wanting, but by and large the army tend to take and active interest in the army. I have more than often seen RAF crews pay lipservice to the tactical scenario because it suits them, something that would go against the grain for a teeny weeny operator.
As far as being able to command an aircraft from the off. Well yes I think that most aircrew on completion of CTT would be able to perform that role. Especially as the guys at Wallop "pretend" to be solo pilot throughout the latter stages of OTP (Something the other two services dont do!..apart from the Junglies I suspect).
The track history of the Puma fleet at the moment has proven that experience is required..not everyone is capable of jumping out of CTT and onto ops. The mechanism in the army ensures that new aircrew fully understand their role and allows for the suitable checks and balances before giving command. There have been many instances where a guy/girl has passed the pilots course but has never made command.
What checks do the RAF have and if ever has anyone ever been chopped because they were **** at commanding an aircraft???
Tactics...
EW although very important cannot be a substitute for tactical awareness and understanding of the ground picture. There are some aircrew in the AAC where that skill is often to be found wanting, but by and large the army tend to take and active interest in the army. I have more than often seen RAF crews pay lipservice to the tactical scenario because it suits them, something that would go against the grain for a teeny weeny operator.
As far as being able to command an aircraft from the off. Well yes I think that most aircrew on completion of CTT would be able to perform that role. Especially as the guys at Wallop "pretend" to be solo pilot throughout the latter stages of OTP (Something the other two services dont do!..apart from the Junglies I suspect).
The track history of the Puma fleet at the moment has proven that experience is required..not everyone is capable of jumping out of CTT and onto ops. The mechanism in the army ensures that new aircrew fully understand their role and allows for the suitable checks and balances before giving command. There have been many instances where a guy/girl has passed the pilots course but has never made command.
What checks do the RAF have and if ever has anyone ever been chopped because they were **** at commanding an aircraft???
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What’s with the rank thing????? Great CRM subject that i know more about than most as an ex DHFS best student CPL pilot. Since when was the level of skill and competency based on a person’s rank?
Didn't we have a thread not so long ago regarding the Battle of Britain being won by NCO aces?
Didn't we have a thread not so long ago regarding the Battle of Britain being won by NCO aces?
Ralph, the track history of the Puma shows only one thing - it bites and bites hard, even to experienced guys working hard under pressure. Dilute the experience on the front line and you have accidents in the making. The shame on the RAF is that despite several BoI recommendations, the Pumas still haven't been fitted with anticipators (planned soon allegedly).
The intimate knowledge of what the tankies, infantry and arty are up to is nice to have but not essential since few SH wander round the battlefield looking for business. Obs and recce and AH work is different, I guess that's why it is given to the Army.
As for tactical scenarios, NI was a real one and while we flew either at 50' or above 2000', many AAC were quite content to bimble around at 200' -500' wondering why they were the ones getting shot at.
I instructed for 5 years at Shawbury and 7 years at MW - sufficient I believe to discern the comparable levels of ability in those days. As I said the AAC have raised their game since then as a result of getting AH.
I can't speak for SH but we (22 Sqn Sarboys) chopped one pilot in the last couple of years for not achieving Operational Captaincy. If you want to see what we demand of our first tourists on SAR then come and have a look, the learning curve is steep and without good quality input, many would fail.
Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.
The intimate knowledge of what the tankies, infantry and arty are up to is nice to have but not essential since few SH wander round the battlefield looking for business. Obs and recce and AH work is different, I guess that's why it is given to the Army.
As for tactical scenarios, NI was a real one and while we flew either at 50' or above 2000', many AAC were quite content to bimble around at 200' -500' wondering why they were the ones getting shot at.
I instructed for 5 years at Shawbury and 7 years at MW - sufficient I believe to discern the comparable levels of ability in those days. As I said the AAC have raised their game since then as a result of getting AH.
I can't speak for SH but we (22 Sqn Sarboys) chopped one pilot in the last couple of years for not achieving Operational Captaincy. If you want to see what we demand of our first tourists on SAR then come and have a look, the learning curve is steep and without good quality input, many would fail.
Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
Mate, it is not often that I feel the need to correct you, but I must on this occasion.
Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.
Mate, the reason that the AAC increased the number of DE Officer pilots was because they were doubling the number of flight commander posts (4 per Sqn instead of 2). This has however caused problems. DE officer pilots will not serve long enough in an Apache Sqn to make the investment worthwhile. Now the wheel is round again and I believe we are going back to 2 flights per Sqn. The best investment for Apache is the Sgt pilot from the council estate, just like me! We can fly tour after tour, without the need for lengthy tours on the Mahogany Bomber Mk2.
I'll see you around when I return from the sandpit, next time you're at UW we'll have a beer.
Tom
Russel - it is not a rank thing per se but the fact remains that to join the AAC as a pilot you can score lower than the RN or RAF students at Cranwell and that generally (yes there will be exceptions) the educational standard of the Officers (RN and RAF) will be higher than the junior ranks of the AAC. This is why the AAC tripled their throughput of Officers through Sandhurst to provide Apache with pilots.
Mate, the reason that the AAC increased the number of DE Officer pilots was because they were doubling the number of flight commander posts (4 per Sqn instead of 2). This has however caused problems. DE officer pilots will not serve long enough in an Apache Sqn to make the investment worthwhile. Now the wheel is round again and I believe we are going back to 2 flights per Sqn. The best investment for Apache is the Sgt pilot from the council estate, just like me! We can fly tour after tour, without the need for lengthy tours on the Mahogany Bomber Mk2.
I'll see you around when I return from the sandpit, next time you're at UW we'll have a beer.
Tom
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I have close friends in the SAR world and am under no illusion as to the difficulty of acheiving Op Captaincy on a SAR flight. I think with the Op tempo as it is today aircrew from all 3 services are being thrown into the fire quicker than ever before. I think if we could the army would try and reduce the pipline even further, probably a mistake!.
Within the SH fleet and in particular the Puma are some very young crews. I know that when I was fresh out of the box I was very gratefull to have my time as a Buckshee pilot with a Senior to hold my hand. Indeed I was under no illusion as to my status and capability.
The notion that a Flt Lt fresh from the OCU would be ready to rock is a dangerous one!. Although you do say that the AAC has "raised its game", I gained wings 5 years ago and knew some pretty **** pilots who scraped the course from all services.
The system utilised by the army generally works well and weeds out any trouble cases!....usually!.
The SAR force has some very stringent checks and balances to ensure quality (and to get rid of pilots who dont flying in the mountains at night!), and quite rightly so.
BTW the tripling of officers into the AAC has more to do with the short sighted planning of a couple of SO1's in influential places rather than an AH "masterplan". The problem then arises when you have more officers flying than ever before and there is no career profile for them!. Meanwhile the bones of the AAC flying fraternity(the SNCO's) are marginalised.
Ralph
I have close friends in the SAR world and am under no illusion as to the difficulty of acheiving Op Captaincy on a SAR flight. I think with the Op tempo as it is today aircrew from all 3 services are being thrown into the fire quicker than ever before. I think if we could the army would try and reduce the pipline even further, probably a mistake!.
Within the SH fleet and in particular the Puma are some very young crews. I know that when I was fresh out of the box I was very gratefull to have my time as a Buckshee pilot with a Senior to hold my hand. Indeed I was under no illusion as to my status and capability.
The notion that a Flt Lt fresh from the OCU would be ready to rock is a dangerous one!. Although you do say that the AAC has "raised its game", I gained wings 5 years ago and knew some pretty **** pilots who scraped the course from all services.
The system utilised by the army generally works well and weeds out any trouble cases!....usually!.
The SAR force has some very stringent checks and balances to ensure quality (and to get rid of pilots who dont flying in the mountains at night!), and quite rightly so.
BTW the tripling of officers into the AAC has more to do with the short sighted planning of a couple of SO1's in influential places rather than an AH "masterplan". The problem then arises when you have more officers flying than ever before and there is no career profile for them!. Meanwhile the bones of the AAC flying fraternity(the SNCO's) are marginalised.
Ralph
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes J,
But having recruited all the officers we now find ourselves desperatly short of young SNCO's and are striving to redress the balance.
I have had the pleasure of flying with some SAR guys and gals and was astounded at the lack of ability in anything other than an A to B scenario, tactics was beyond them, is this a factor in the apparent once a SAR boy always a SAR boy mentality?
There are good and bad operators on all sides of the fence and to characterise this as rank related is folly, all undergo the same selection process and I know of many young AAC Cpls who achieved the score to go fast jet but didn't want to.
You are correct that those in the AAC now have raised their game and I have to say that the system has also. It is the case that you no longer have visibility of this however.
But having recruited all the officers we now find ourselves desperatly short of young SNCO's and are striving to redress the balance.
I have had the pleasure of flying with some SAR guys and gals and was astounded at the lack of ability in anything other than an A to B scenario, tactics was beyond them, is this a factor in the apparent once a SAR boy always a SAR boy mentality?
There are good and bad operators on all sides of the fence and to characterise this as rank related is folly, all undergo the same selection process and I know of many young AAC Cpls who achieved the score to go fast jet but didn't want to.
You are correct that those in the AAC now have raised their game and I have to say that the system has also. It is the case that you no longer have visibility of this however.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt very much that the pass level at initial selection for pilot training varies at all between the three services.
I went through Biggin Hill in 1964 and what we discovered then was that the line was drawn at exactly the same place on the list for everyone.
The big question was, "does this candidate have the potential to become a pilot within the amount of budget we are prepared to allow"
As to whether one went on to fly fighters, four engined transport or helicopters or anything at all would be decided further down the track during initial flying training. In the case of the Army, in 1964, with a couple of exceptions, everyone went rotary. I hope it hasn't changed but the Army requirement at Biggin Hill in 1964 was no less than the RAF's, it was only a measure of potential.
I went through Biggin Hill in 1964 and what we discovered then was that the line was drawn at exactly the same place on the list for everyone.
The big question was, "does this candidate have the potential to become a pilot within the amount of budget we are prepared to allow"
As to whether one went on to fly fighters, four engined transport or helicopters or anything at all would be decided further down the track during initial flying training. In the case of the Army, in 1964, with a couple of exceptions, everyone went rotary. I hope it hasn't changed but the Army requirement at Biggin Hill in 1964 was no less than the RAF's, it was only a measure of potential.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pass mark for RAF rearcrew is the same as AAC pilots, 90. But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The pass mark for RAF rearcrew is the same as AAC pilots, 90. But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF".
Think you may just find yourself out in the wilderness on this one Door Slider, I started out on the Bell47G Sioux and finished my career with ten years in command on a B747-400, would that kind of career path have been open to the rearcrew in the RAF?
Think you may just find yourself out in the wilderness on this one Door Slider, I started out on the Bell47G Sioux and finished my career with ten years in command on a B747-400, would that kind of career path have been open to the rearcrew in the RAF?
Parabellum, it's simpler than that: the option simply wasn't (isn't?) there. You couldn't join the AAC as an nco pilot. I might have. I'd like to hear from any loadies who would not rather be a pilot in any uniform.
Mark Terry went AAC from 33 in the 80s. Whatever happened to him?
CG
Picture the Army Careers Tent camped outside the Cranwell (Biggin in my day) main gate on OASC day. Banner: "PASSED NCA? COME AND FLY ARMY AH". Takers, you reckon?
Mark Terry went AAC from 33 in the 80s. Whatever happened to him?
CG
Picture the Army Careers Tent camped outside the Cranwell (Biggin in my day) main gate on OASC day. Banner: "PASSED NCA? COME AND FLY ARMY AH". Takers, you reckon?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But given the choice of NCO pilot in the AAC or rearcrew in the RAF I think most would rather stick with the RAF.
Crab
I'm surprised by your stated opinions on this thread. As someone who worked with you during your 7 yrs with the AAC (and had great respect for you both professionally and socially) I thought you were above this type of pi55ing match. If we were so bad and you (crabs generally) were so good, why were you so content to keep extending your tour with us and therefore play a part in our poor standards?
I agree with earlier comments. We produced pilots that were good at doing what we needed them to do and yes we did raise our game with Apache. So much so that I would say that the first Apache Sqn were probably the best trained aviation unit that either service had ever produced (a big call, I know). The training was exceptional and as a result, so were the pilots.