RAF Shawbury close to melt down
Gentleman Aviator
ewe.lander
Nothing wrong (in them days) with the Bell 47 ... but at least the (RAF) ones I trained on had superchargers......
Nothing wrong (in them days) with the Bell 47 ... but at least the (RAF) ones I trained on had superchargers......
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expensive
Marly Lite.
Your post is interesting in that it reveals quite a lot. When considering the "twin only route", most make the same mistake. We fly XXXX number of hours now so the same number of hours in a twin will be expensive. Correct. but you miss the core point. A twin only route is a complete change it combines every aspect of the syllabus from when you walk in to when you graduate. You dont lift the old stuff and just put in the new aircraft - you have a complete reset and start again. It works if done like this and saves time and MONEY but requires simulators, part task trainers etc. Lots of others around the world have done the analysis. Some have taken the bold move and the results look good.
Now, at about this stage people ignore the increased speed to produce frontline pilots, the reduction in cost, the reduction of time in training and the reduction of the carbon foot print and say but but but, the Squirrel is cheaper! Well thats good then. You carry on as the rest of the world changes around you.
Oh, the other battle cry is normally, but that will cost so much to put in its not affordable. Well let industry sort that for you - it worked in 97 so it will work again. Lets face it, there is no going back now.
As to the person who is rapidly turning into "he who shall not be named on a pprune thread". Give him a break. All he is trying to do is find a way out of a puzzle with the resources he has. It might be odd or even strange, but at least he is doing something! The true way is the above but he cant do that now can he!
Your post is interesting in that it reveals quite a lot. When considering the "twin only route", most make the same mistake. We fly XXXX number of hours now so the same number of hours in a twin will be expensive. Correct. but you miss the core point. A twin only route is a complete change it combines every aspect of the syllabus from when you walk in to when you graduate. You dont lift the old stuff and just put in the new aircraft - you have a complete reset and start again. It works if done like this and saves time and MONEY but requires simulators, part task trainers etc. Lots of others around the world have done the analysis. Some have taken the bold move and the results look good.
Now, at about this stage people ignore the increased speed to produce frontline pilots, the reduction in cost, the reduction of time in training and the reduction of the carbon foot print and say but but but, the Squirrel is cheaper! Well thats good then. You carry on as the rest of the world changes around you.
Oh, the other battle cry is normally, but that will cost so much to put in its not affordable. Well let industry sort that for you - it worked in 97 so it will work again. Lets face it, there is no going back now.
As to the person who is rapidly turning into "he who shall not be named on a pprune thread". Give him a break. All he is trying to do is find a way out of a puzzle with the resources he has. It might be odd or even strange, but at least he is doing something! The true way is the above but he cant do that now can he!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
All twin engine course? Fantastic idea, just ask Gordon for the extra money needed, he is loaded!! Oh just a minute..............
On the parallel courses, my 10 pence worth. The highly skilled individual squadrons is a good idea in theory. In practice, you need a bit of variety to keep you interested over the longer term. I would go bonkers teaching the 660 sylabus for years and years. As a Gazelle instructor at Shawbury, I taught the whole sylabus. It is well known that I am not a planet brain and I coped ok. If I can do it without much trouble, anyone can. In other words, both systems can work.
On the parallel courses, my 10 pence worth. The highly skilled individual squadrons is a good idea in theory. In practice, you need a bit of variety to keep you interested over the longer term. I would go bonkers teaching the 660 sylabus for years and years. As a Gazelle instructor at Shawbury, I taught the whole sylabus. It is well known that I am not a planet brain and I coped ok. If I can do it without much trouble, anyone can. In other words, both systems can work.
Have always thought that mirror sqns should have been the way to do it from the start. Changing now after 12 years will take some of the Luddites out of their comfort zone and no doubt that the transitional phase will be tricky if not well managed. There have been those who think standardisation will be out the window with 2 sqns teaching the same syllabus - I don't recall this being a problem when I went through basic JP training at Syerston - 2/3 sqns there, similar number at Lynton and Leeming and 1/2 at Cranwell, all teaching to the same songsheet.
Gentleman Aviator
It's encouraging, if somewhat unsurprising, to see that jayteeto and oldbeefer seem to agree that "mirror-image" would work. But we are all - ahem - very experienced (alright then - we're old 
) - what are the views of young(er) QHIs .... and/or recent students.
It always seemed to me that the 660 to 705 route was something of a sop to the other services, to give them their "own" sqns to "maintain ethos" and to claim that "all services had trained all pilots" .... yeah right as said younger generation might say.
Is there really any benefit to the current system that isn't purely cosmetic and/or political??
Of course the system isn't perfect and probably isn't what you'd get starting with a blank sheet of paper - and a blank cheque! But we aren't in that position. OK, we might have (on several occasions!) taken the easy route, ie: Sioux & Whirlwind = Gazelle & Wessex = Squirrel & Griffin, and not made fundamental changes that could (with the benefit of hindsight) have improved the flying training for all 3 services....
..... and as for standardisation - isn't that what Standards Sqn (or whatever they call themselves) are for. The clue is in the name .....
And having visited Rucker, Pensacola and Kirtland, you just would not believe how unstandard our cousins are across their services....
) - what are the views of young(er) QHIs .... and/or recent students.It always seemed to me that the 660 to 705 route was something of a sop to the other services, to give them their "own" sqns to "maintain ethos" and to claim that "all services had trained all pilots" .... yeah right as said younger generation might say.
Is there really any benefit to the current system that isn't purely cosmetic and/or political??
Of course the system isn't perfect and probably isn't what you'd get starting with a blank sheet of paper - and a blank cheque! But we aren't in that position. OK, we might have (on several occasions!) taken the easy route, ie: Sioux & Whirlwind = Gazelle & Wessex = Squirrel & Griffin, and not made fundamental changes that could (with the benefit of hindsight) have improved the flying training for all 3 services....
..... and as for standardisation - isn't that what Standards Sqn (or whatever they call themselves) are for. The clue is in the name .....
And having visited Rucker, Pensacola and Kirtland, you just would not believe how unstandard our cousins are across their services....
As I see it:
Benefits
1. Each sqn could manage the full course to finish on time (at present, the flying task for one is less than the other, but each has the same amount of time to complete their part).
2. Students (sorry, ‘trainees’) wouldn’t have to suffer a change of environment and personalities half way through.
3. More interesting range of exercises for the QHIs to teach – particularly of benefit to the CFS graduates who would have a more rounded experience at the end of the Shy tour.
4. Simple to move individual QHIs from one sqn to another in case of sickness/detachments/promotion/whatever.
5. Reduction in the ‘sausage-machine-feeling’ that comes from teaching the same old exercises too frequently.
Drawbacks
1. Difficult to train existing staff to teach exercises from the other half of the syllabus without disrupting student flying.
2. Umm, I’ll have to keep thinking
Benefits
1. Each sqn could manage the full course to finish on time (at present, the flying task for one is less than the other, but each has the same amount of time to complete their part).
2. Students (sorry, ‘trainees’) wouldn’t have to suffer a change of environment and personalities half way through.
3. More interesting range of exercises for the QHIs to teach – particularly of benefit to the CFS graduates who would have a more rounded experience at the end of the Shy tour.
4. Simple to move individual QHIs from one sqn to another in case of sickness/detachments/promotion/whatever.
5. Reduction in the ‘sausage-machine-feeling’ that comes from teaching the same old exercises too frequently.
Drawbacks
1. Difficult to train existing staff to teach exercises from the other half of the syllabus without disrupting student flying.
2. Umm, I’ll have to keep thinking
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
1. Difficult to train existing staff to teach exercises from the other half of the syllabus without disrupting student flying.
One small problem with just teaching everything once is that complex manoeuvres like autos, quickstops etc need to be repeated on a regular basis if a student is to achieve any level of competence and finesse.
If you do it all on a twin and then send them to an OCU it will just increase the burden on the OCU because you have removed basic and advanced training and just given them basic training on a twin instead of a single.
Exercises that were a revision on the twin after learning them on a single will either have to be practised more on the twin (more hours and cost) or you will have to accept a lower standard of output to the OCU (hardly ideal).
Part task trainers and simulators have their place but they will never replace flying the aircraft as a way to build skills and confidence - not to mention airmanship. Even the best sims can still be flown as a playstation game (don't touch anything and it stays where it is) which is great for the playstation generation as far as passing sim rides goes but is coc*-all use for training pilots to handle the real aircraft.
We might all like to think that when we were students, we only needed to be shown things once and we were the ace of the base - if that was so why do we teach fault analysis to instructors?
I think the mirror Sqns at Sy is a good idea - the whole 660 705 concept of ops was, as mentioned earlier, a sop to Service pride and a hindrance to effective flying training.
If you do it all on a twin and then send them to an OCU it will just increase the burden on the OCU because you have removed basic and advanced training and just given them basic training on a twin instead of a single.
Exercises that were a revision on the twin after learning them on a single will either have to be practised more on the twin (more hours and cost) or you will have to accept a lower standard of output to the OCU (hardly ideal).
Part task trainers and simulators have their place but they will never replace flying the aircraft as a way to build skills and confidence - not to mention airmanship. Even the best sims can still be flown as a playstation game (don't touch anything and it stays where it is) which is great for the playstation generation as far as passing sim rides goes but is coc*-all use for training pilots to handle the real aircraft.
We might all like to think that when we were students, we only needed to be shown things once and we were the ace of the base - if that was so why do we teach fault analysis to instructors?
I think the mirror Sqns at Sy is a good idea - the whole 660 705 concept of ops was, as mentioned earlier, a sop to Service pride and a hindrance to effective flying training.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also why the Navy chops people who have passed 705 Sqn
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
That must be the Sea King & Merlin world
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got onto a decent debate eventually, after some knee jerk raging from the know it alls who have never done the job, (yes I have before you ask !) good to see some well thought out arguments - got off the thread a little in places but, some good points to ponder at the sharp end - must take issue with Old beefer and his comments about Luddites being taken out of their comfort zone - come on old bean, people in glass houses etc, think how long you have been stuck in your "zone" and kicking like hell to stay there, please don't insult people who are doing a good job, when was the last time you saw the front line? if ever!! one final point standardization is a long way on now days from JP's etc they can't keep up with basic annual checks at the moment, so keeping a close eye on the 2 sqns will be a challenge.
The overriding feeling there at the moment is doom and gloom, why after so long working with the feel good factor, and getting the results they need, should all this change at the flick of a switch? People have speculated previously on this thread about change is good and a more comprehensive syllabus for both squadrons, but I learn from the VAST majority there (happy now FTH) this is not the want of the workers who will need to make this happen, but when forced box's will be ticked - a happy worker...etc
Time will tell however my money is on a spectacular failure, purely because the people who need to make it happen do not have their heart in it, military and civilian, although the military have to tow the line, behind the scenes they are well hacked off. Again I ask how can one man make such an upset in one foul move? Good luck Strawbs my how your going to need it.
Well now I ask - - - how can you ask again in this thread when it's your first post? Since none of this is as rabid as earlier posts from a troll (who was also "from London"), I'll just watch for the moment! If I'm wrong, I've never been slow to apologise by the way!
The overriding feeling there at the moment is doom and gloom, why after so long working with the feel good factor, and getting the results they need, should all this change at the flick of a switch? People have speculated previously on this thread about change is good and a more comprehensive syllabus for both squadrons, but I learn from the VAST majority there (happy now FTH) this is not the want of the workers who will need to make this happen, but when forced box's will be ticked - a happy worker...etc
Time will tell however my money is on a spectacular failure, purely because the people who need to make it happen do not have their heart in it, military and civilian, although the military have to tow the line, behind the scenes they are well hacked off. Again I ask how can one man make such an upset in one foul move? Good luck Strawbs my how your going to need it.
Again I ask how can one man make such an upset in one foul move?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Well North of the M25
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mirror squadrons will work fine. Some guys are activly looking forward to teaching a more varied syllabus, whilst others are worried about this 'surging' of available 'BSA or ASA' instrutors to whichever Sqn/Flt can complete their Flypro with the given Weather- it's this surge where DHFS HQ believe that time can be made up. The issue that I forsee is that this surge will not deliver the hoped for reward as it's physical training area that Shawbury is short of. Being limited to 4 cabs per side at Ternhill, a fact that is further restricted by the type of exercise being flown- means you can chuck as many instrutors or even aircraft at the situation, but little more will be achieved. I agree with previous points that new CFS grads will get a better grounding, but the same could be achieved within the current system, ie changing Sqns post B1 Cx. however, one of the problems is that very few CFS grads get to stay at Shawbs, wich is a shame.
To sum up, it will work. It will cause, rightly or wrongly, much heartache (and more SCT than the normal amount by some 200 hrs actually) for very little actual benifit. It will however aid 'flexibilty' within the system. The benifit of this flex will, no doubt, be proven with time. In all, given what DHFS HQ have to work with, why not????
Tgreen.
To sum up, it will work. It will cause, rightly or wrongly, much heartache (and more SCT than the normal amount by some 200 hrs actually) for very little actual benifit. It will however aid 'flexibilty' within the system. The benifit of this flex will, no doubt, be proven with time. In all, given what DHFS HQ have to work with, why not????
Tgreen.
Gentleman Aviator
InTgreen
your remark about SCT surprises me. There was never that much SCT to be had in Gazelle days, and we kept current on all exercises - indeed, if you include Gp3 Ph3 that's more than Squirrels do. A quick (if unscientific) check of old logbook suggests a max of about 1.30 per month (not including IFE), often much less, with some more saved to allow 5-6 hrs every 6 months with Standards.
Something I'd forgotten, but logbook revealed, was the amount of SCT that was flown mutual - effectively doubling the hours. Is that done now? If not, why not?
And of course, supervisory checks (Boss Checks or Standards) always included an unbriefed exercise from anywhere in the syllabus. So having been thinking CAs or low flying or whatever, you could find yerself doing S&L 1 off the cuff. For the avoidance of doubt, this was when I was a B1 (so it was a long time ago
)
your remark about SCT surprises me. There was never that much SCT to be had in Gazelle days, and we kept current on all exercises - indeed, if you include Gp3 Ph3 that's more than Squirrels do. A quick (if unscientific) check of old logbook suggests a max of about 1.30 per month (not including IFE), often much less, with some more saved to allow 5-6 hrs every 6 months with Standards.
Something I'd forgotten, but logbook revealed, was the amount of SCT that was flown mutual - effectively doubling the hours. Is that done now? If not, why not?
And of course, supervisory checks (Boss Checks or Standards) always included an unbriefed exercise from anywhere in the syllabus. So having been thinking CAs or low flying or whatever, you could find yerself doing S&L 1 off the cuff. For the avoidance of doubt, this was when I was a B1 (so it was a long time ago
)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Well North of the M25
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teeter-
Reference SCT, the 200 hrs extra I referred to was the additional cost in SCT of getting all 660 QHI ASA trained and all 705 QHI refreshed in the basic sorties to impliment mirror sqns. This extra training was also the reason why implimentation of this decision is delayed until November! As you remember, normal SCT was keeping your IR current and maybe a little GH if you had time in the flying day between student sorties, so 1.30 a month would be ideal!!
Reference SCT, the 200 hrs extra I referred to was the additional cost in SCT of getting all 660 QHI ASA trained and all 705 QHI refreshed in the basic sorties to impliment mirror sqns. This extra training was also the reason why implimentation of this decision is delayed until November! As you remember, normal SCT was keeping your IR current and maybe a little GH if you had time in the flying day between student sorties, so 1.30 a month would be ideal!!
Gentleman Aviator
Thanks InTgreen
From your answer I take it that those QHIs who aren't required to teach a particular exercise (say those on 660 and low flying) never practice it, or practice teaching it? And is that just the FBH personnel, or the serving QHIs too? (Shameful if true for them - CFS should take a view anyway).
So I guess the hours you rfer to would be a "one-off" to make the change to mirror-image work?
From your answer I take it that those QHIs who aren't required to teach a particular exercise (say those on 660 and low flying) never practice it, or practice teaching it? And is that just the FBH personnel, or the serving QHIs too? (Shameful if true for them - CFS should take a view anyway).
So I guess the hours you rfer to would be a "one-off" to make the change to mirror-image work?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Well North of the M25
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, those hours would be one off. You are also correct that Qhi on 660 don't have to teach eg Confined Areas. It does not mean that the QHI dosen't keep the skills set up during SCT, there is just no requirement to. The extra hours are to ensure that all QHI, regardless of Sqn or experience, are teaching CA's in the standardised manner and in the basic way- ie high reccie, low reccie etc. Slightly different to how it is done in the real world.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: too close too biap
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this whole DHFS reshuffle thing is interlinked with the missemployed QHIs being recalled to Shawbs. As far as I know 2 maybe 3 ex A2 QHIs, who have been Tac C130 Capts for the past 8 or 9 years are being called back to the Rotary stream. Is this to bolster the numbers at DHFS or just replace those that are not happy with life up there. Having spoken with one of them I know the oppurtunity of a Monday to Friday lifestyle appeals after 8 years of Detachments, although sounds like they will be busy either way....
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A High Powered mtg laid out plans to upload a lot of trg from the frontline
teaching CA's in the standardised manner and in the basic way- ie high reccie, low reccie etc. Slightly different to how it is done in the real world
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Rubbish, walk before you run!!
I learned high and low recces for CAs in the 1980s. Over the years, in the jungle, on ops and even now in my police aviation career, if time permits, I still use that technique. When the pressure is on, I modify that technique to achieve the task. You have to be good to be gash!!
I learned high and low recces for CAs in the 1980s. Over the years, in the jungle, on ops and even now in my police aviation career, if time permits, I still use that technique. When the pressure is on, I modify that technique to achieve the task. You have to be good to be gash!!