airborne_artist

The difference is that for FAA you need an AIB pass (any grade) but pretty good FATs (130 or more).

For the AAC you need only a pass at aptitude, but a very high score at RMAS (top 25%, realistically), and to be the "sort" that the AAC is looking for, which is harder to define.

stude101

Mister-T, at what point did I say "if all else fails go for the AAC"? I simply said that I know the army accepts a lower score on aptitude testing, and they chop more people on grading than the RN.
Any flying slot has fierce competition and to be honest if any wannabe on here was looking for an easy route into flying they will be very disappointed.

Ireland151

Thanks for the replies. Will still attend AIB and see what happens.

In response to some of the questions, the AAC have lower aptitude score requirements (80 out of 180) and the actual test is a shortened version of the FATS.

The FATS and RAF aptitude tests for pilot (cut off is 112/180) are exactly the same (with the same weighting for each section) - they are extended versions of AAC aptitude tests. I took FATS more than a year after AAC aptitudes, which made me eligible.

The AAC, however, is still extremely difficult to get in to because you have to pass grading AND perform well at Sandhurst. They took around 5 people from the last intake.

I'm a bit disappointed - the general consensus from you all is that I have little chance due to my low score (which should have been higher given my flying grading experience). However, surely you get alot of people who score well in FATS but then go on to fail Navy grading.

I was looking at it from a different perspective i.e. "Ok, he's got a low pass BUT has proven his potential in the air by passing grading (all be it with the Army and not the Navy)".

The closing statement on my grading report refers to my "considerable potential for further military flying training" - this gives me some hope! Anyway, thanks again for all your advice.

airborne_artist

Not that many, in fact, which proves that FATs do their job.

By all means push the positive, but I think you'll find that the FAA have quite enough people with 130 and above, so why should they deny one of them the chance in favour of you? I can't see it happening.

Frankly, your only chance is with the AAC - you'd just have to work your nuts off on right/left flanking attacks, oiling your moving parts, digging in and all those other activities the green jobs love so much.

stuart955

I won't go into details but I'm considering the FAA over the RAF.

Can anyone tell me how similar the selection procedures are for both forces?

After spending the last month obsessing over OASC, I've now got to start over with it being RN.

Looking on Rum Ration I'm getting the impression it's generally similar, although I get the impression AIB may be 'easier', or at least it has higher pass rates. Is this because the candidates have already gained a higher FAT score to get to the AIB stage of selection?

It's a tough one to put into words really - I am NOT considering FAA because I think it will be easier in any way. Right now I'd face the same difficulties getting into any armed force as I have no experience, serving family members or friends, etc etc, so it's all new to me.

I'd really like a balanced opinion of both branches, the selection process, and any general opinions/comparisons of Navy life and RAF life.

Thanks.

Fray

Ireland,

I too have only just scraped a pass at FAT's recently (2nd attempt). It was extremely deflating to be told 'well done you've passed, BUT, would you consider another career?'

I was also told that I may have a chance if I do exceptionally well at AIB. Passing for pilot with the navy is all that I have ever wanted to do and I'm not giving up just yet. It's ironic that I was looking towards the army if I don't get into the Navy!

Let the AIB decide. The worst part is that if you do pass, but they have no intention of giving you a place, they won't tell you and your 12months will lapse. That will be the worst part of it all.

Ireland151

Fray, it's the worst feeling ever! Having a "pass" that may as well be a fail. Anyway, here's a genuinely true story that might offer some hope - friend of mine apllied for RAF (he was on a UAS for three years), got 112 for pilot and a slightly better WSO score - RAF turned him down. He was, however, successful with the navy after doing well at AIB. This was in summer 2007 so maybe the FAA were really short of aircrew applications back then...In spite of the odds, there is always a bit of hope!

The army is a massive gamble if commissioned aircrew is all you want. Good luck though, hope it works out!

thedonnmeister

Hi all! Only just decided to register.

Quick briefing about me:

I am attending OASC on the 8th Feb
Im 17 (Almost 18)
I have applied as a WSOp

I have attended two prep courses for the Army's AOSB, so I have a fairly good idea of what they are looking for, however, is there anything specific to my trade that they will want?

I am so seriously geared up for this, 17 years of wanting to be in the forces is coming down to this, so motivation ect will not be an issue. I have reports from my Army courses, they say I have good leadership skills, however, I am very domiant or so it says!

If anyone is going to OASC on the same intake, give me a PM!

Cheers fellas

Pontius Navigator

I am not going to spare your blushes with a PM.

There is nothing wrong with being strong and positive which will suggest a potential for good leadership however . . .

There is no I in teamwork. All teams depend on leaders and followers. It will be no accident that you will have more opportunities as OASC and AITC to practise following.

Remember, give the team leader a chance and as much support as you can. Your chance to lead will come. Only if the TL is floundering and the rest of your team is at a loss then make yout suggestions but do it with sensitivity and not assertiveness.

Dominants we don't need (yet).

thedonnmeister

Yes thanks PN, thats the same sort of thing my review Officer told me. I just want to tap into the knowledge of you guys!

In my view, getting the task done is the most important point. Which is why when some people could'nt come up with a working plan or people didnt listen to our leader, I took charge (I almost do it without realising).

So I think that will be something I really need to rethink during OASC.

Thanks PN

guitarwillie

Hi

I had my filter interview for the RAF 6th form scholarship and was told that I was being recommended to OASC. I had this interview in September and still haven't heard anything. I heard from somone else that apparently they no longer send 6th form scholarship canidates to OASC, but they just just sent a letter saying whether you were successful, or not. Has it changed? Should I be expecting a letter from Cranwell?
Thanks in advance

GW

Fray

Yes, there's also one or two people on rumration who have had low FAT's scores in the past and are well into their careers.
I think that it depends on the sift of people in which you are in as well. I wrote a similar post on rumration ages ago and there aren't as many people as you think going in as aircrew at present (according to the examiners at Cranwell)

Ireland151

Do you mean aircrew places at BRNC are more limited or do you mean that they have less applicants? Hopefully the latter!

dave_perry

Hi all,

I went down to AFCO today for my initial briefing with the Royal Navy. Looks fantastic and I am already in good spirits about it all! The chap who briefed us was a Warrant Officer Class 1 in the RM, and said that because I had passed my FATS and medical last year for the RAF in February, that I wouldn't have to do them again this time round. Also, he said for the fitness test I am required to do for Pilot, I have to do 1.5 miles in 12.20 minutes.

Now, having gone through OASC last year, the fitness seems a lot easier in the RN compared to the RAF. I was told that the FATS scores only last for a year (told at OASC) so seen as it's nearly February - I should think I would have to re-sit them. Also with the medical, I was told I wouldn't have to have one. However I would have thought it would be mandatory, mainly because I could have developed 'something' since February. (Touch wood nothing)

So although I am very happy on what I have been told and what I have to do, I have my suspicions that it may not be the case. Not saying the chap is lying - but it just doesn't seem like normal procedure.

Am I right or wrong? Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Dave

airborne_artist

From this thread on Navy-Net - the current RN aircrew application procedure:

1. RN presentation at careers office - with a bunch of other officer candidates, just a powerpoint presentation and a dit about the various branches and jobs available, etc.

2. RT test - the standard tests done by all officer and rating candidates. Maths, English, mechanical comprehension, etc. There will be plenty of info on this on the site just have a trawl through. New.

3. Sift Interview - A formal, one to one interview with your careers officer. Mine lasted about an hour, motivation for joining, Navy knowledge, etc. Again there'll be plenty of info around this site. Following this I was given my full bundle of application forms.

4. Flying Aptitude Tests - This is where it gets tough! Two days up in RAF Cranwell, one day of testing. 5 hours or so in front of a computer screen doing barrages of tests. Lots of useful info on this here www.navy-net.co.uk/cpg...1868.html. and on Pprune.

5. Medical - At your careers office, or at a GP nearby. Pretty standard height, weight, etc. Questions about any ilnesses or medical conditions you might have. Basic vision and hearing tests. New

6. Admiralty Interview Board .

7. Aircrew medical - A much more in depth medical, done at Haslar the afternoon after your AIB finishes.

7. BRNC - Assuming you are succesful enough at AIB to win an Aircrew place.

Fray

Dave Perry,

Please do me a favour and refrain from trying to join the senior service. If your talking is like your typing, then I pity your future oppo's!

Maybe you could try again with the RAF and sit a bit further back into the chair? Those lads who were applying for AAC (when I sat OASC) that were found too tall for the cockpit got another chance at their medical 2 hours later (in the hopes that they 'adopted a more suitable seating positon'). Those candidates then passed their medical amazingly enough.

dave_perry

They found my legs were too long the first time, so they said sit back further. I did so and they were still too long. I tryed 4 times to adopt a new seating position however still failed!

I tryed also asking which aircraft they measured you for; from which nobody knew the answer.

airborne_artist

DP - in the bad old days it was the Bulldog that was the limiting aircraft. Anyone who was borderline at the medical at Haslar would be fitted with a helmet, taken to Southampton UAS at Hamble and plonked in a 'Dog for a full and free check.

I only knew one such person. Cocky bugger, and he did no work in the second term at BRNC. Must have failed the attitude test too, as he was chopped with no chance of a re-scrub.

mike172

Sorry PN, not been around here for a while. Thanks for the advice. I am now considering going to uni to read intergrated engineering and applying again before I finish the course. I am also considering the AAC as a possibility.

Thanks again,

Mike

Pontius Navigator

Mike, good. Aside from the academics use the time at Uni to develop wider interests and improve your teamwork, leadership and organisational skills.