AAC MIDDLE WALLOP
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: england
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I am not one for being too much of a traditionalist, but lets not forget Wallop is the home of the AAC and remains one of the busiest fields in the UK with many thousands of movements per year.
Army pilots must remain to be trained at Wallop from flying grading to the award of wings. Yes the fixed wing/HALS ect combo is not ideal but with such an outstanding ATC team there are no issues. SPTA and Hampshire/Wiltshire creates great army pilots. LONG LIVE MIDDLE WALLOP.
It is always too easy to combine units and types and sadly that is happening as we speak all over the UK, clearly due to cost, but the penalty is the loss of unit identity.
I am not one for being too much of a traditionalist, but lets not forget Wallop is the home of the AAC and remains one of the busiest fields in the UK with many thousands of movements per year.
Army pilots must remain to be trained at Wallop from flying grading to the award of wings. Yes the fixed wing/HALS ect combo is not ideal but with such an outstanding ATC team there are no issues. SPTA and Hampshire/Wiltshire creates great army pilots. LONG LIVE MIDDLE WALLOP.
It is always too easy to combine units and types and sadly that is happening as we speak all over the UK, clearly due to cost, but the penalty is the loss of unit identity.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH7,
Nice aspiration but my understanding is:
670 Sqn being drawn into Shawbury.
Wildcat to Yeovilton, Lynx expires as does Gazelle.
Apache originally destined for a single type hub and would be more efficient in the long run, could consolidate at Wattisham.
That leaves Grading and ground training (better at single type hubs).
Not a good cost effective basis really.
I can see the taxpayers take on this.
Nice aspiration but my understanding is:
670 Sqn being drawn into Shawbury.
Wildcat to Yeovilton, Lynx expires as does Gazelle.
Apache originally destined for a single type hub and would be more efficient in the long run, could consolidate at Wattisham.
That leaves Grading and ground training (better at single type hubs).
Not a good cost effective basis really.
I can see the taxpayers take on this.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like there's some intensive lobbying going on by the Army to take control of RW training and keep Middle Wallop open!
British Army fights to influence helicopter training choices
Although it doesn't look like they've quite got the hang of "tri-service" yet:
British Army fights to influence helicopter training choices
Although it doesn't look like they've quite got the hang of "tri-service" yet:
"They arrive here [670 Sqn] and we try to unmould their tri-service learning."
There's a world of difference in training pilots to "fly" a helicopter at Shawbury and then train them how to "use" it according to Service. I'm sure the RAF and RN do the same.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, but one usually builds on common, tri-service training and enhances it by teaching specialist single-service skills. However, the article makes it appear that the tri-service training was an obstacle to overcome.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can certainly confirm that 6-7 years ago, the Army's take on courses running behind at DHFS could be summarised as, "We don't really care how many shortfalls they leave with, it's less for us to un-teach them when we get here". It does seem to support the fact that they aren't fully engaged with the concept of tri-service fundamentals of flying. Then again, I'm not an SH/AH pilot and so am perhaps not best placed to judge.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Throwing stones from my glass house
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, you aren't best placed to judge Proudfishead. I've instructed on the Army Pilots Course and can tell you that output standard from Shawbury was of grave concern on occasion. I personally saw students pass from 660 to 705 Sqn who shouldn't even have got that far, but somehow managed to be passed out through the sausage machine for us to deal with on the Operational Training Phase. So where are the concepts of "Tri-Service fundamentals of flying" there? We are in the business of producing "MILITARY" helicopter pilots. DHFS is a largely civialiansed organisation focussed on teaching basic flying skills. A task which it does well on the whole (something the RAF didn't consider when they left Shawbury out of there original plans for MFTS).
So let's not kid ourselves on here. Each service has a completely different approach to how it operates it's aircraft and no service has fully embraced a joint concept. The Army is very focussed on mission effect and it's main effort is to deliver that effect on the battlefield / theatre of operation. It is this concept that is lacking in alot of students returning from Shawbury and so there is often a need to remind people of what they are there to do in the first place.
I am not having a go at DHFS. I enjoyed my training there and the standard of instruction was second to none. But it is out of touch operationally, geographically it offers none of the benefits that SPTA does both by day and night and the reality is that it is not equipped to deliver the requirement that Army Aviation needs. The Army is right to push Middle Wallop to the fore, it delivers the end product we require.
So let's not kid ourselves on here. Each service has a completely different approach to how it operates it's aircraft and no service has fully embraced a joint concept. The Army is very focussed on mission effect and it's main effort is to deliver that effect on the battlefield / theatre of operation. It is this concept that is lacking in alot of students returning from Shawbury and so there is often a need to remind people of what they are there to do in the first place.
I am not having a go at DHFS. I enjoyed my training there and the standard of instruction was second to none. But it is out of touch operationally, geographically it offers none of the benefits that SPTA does both by day and night and the reality is that it is not equipped to deliver the requirement that Army Aviation needs. The Army is right to push Middle Wallop to the fore, it delivers the end product we require.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taught at DHFS and in accordance with DSAT protocols, the 'customer', read Sqns and in particular OCFs, were invited for face to face liasion to confirm that DHFS output standards were compatable with input expectations. This was not embraced at all by the Sqns and one can therefore logically assume that they were happy with the standard being provided. *Although the ammount of out of office (deployed) messages was also a reflection of reality. To clarify, this was post multi engine rather then Squirrel, but I assume that the single engined side of the house was similar if not identical.
It was usually as a result of newly posted in military instructors bring contemporary protocols with them that the course developed. To cut to the chase, if DAAvn or the staff working for him were unhappy with the standard or quality of army students, what, if anything, was done to staff a solution? ...especially after "I enjoyed my training there and the standard of instruction was second to none", for DHFS were not adverse to change, far from it.
Regarding focus on the battlefield and mission effect. I suggest that all military helicopter crews regardless of service serving today, tomorrow and every day thereafter have that argument truly squared away.
It was usually as a result of newly posted in military instructors bring contemporary protocols with them that the course developed. To cut to the chase, if DAAvn or the staff working for him were unhappy with the standard or quality of army students, what, if anything, was done to staff a solution? ...especially after "I enjoyed my training there and the standard of instruction was second to none", for DHFS were not adverse to change, far from it.
Regarding focus on the battlefield and mission effect. I suggest that all military helicopter crews regardless of service serving today, tomorrow and every day thereafter have that argument truly squared away.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Throwing stones from my glass house
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger_mate,
There was dialogue and visits between DHFS and AACen which did improve the situation and also led to DHFS taking on a little more night flying training. But this does not make Shawbury a credible alternative to deliver the full spectrum of training for Army pilots.
The fact that no one embraced the chance to reveiw whether DHFS output standards were compatable with input expectations after multi engine doesn't logically mean that people were happy with that either (As you said, out of office, deployed, apathy maybe?). A similair question was asked by AACen with regards to the output standard of the Lynx CTT. This led to a Conversion To Role course in addition to the CTT which went a large way to reducing the training gap and the burden on the Regiments to train new pilots to CR standard. Middle Wallop has been ideally suited to this task and only time will tell what effect moving Wildcat to Yeovilton in toto will have on how the Army operates this new aircraft.
I have no doubt that DHFS are receptive to change and rightly so if they want to survive in these harsh times. But that doesn't make them the solution. I think Middle Wallop has more than a strong case for it's future and its Commandant is right to push and highlight this
.
I'd also agree that most military helicopter crews have battlefield focus and mission effect well squared
.
Fly safe.
There was dialogue and visits between DHFS and AACen which did improve the situation and also led to DHFS taking on a little more night flying training. But this does not make Shawbury a credible alternative to deliver the full spectrum of training for Army pilots.
The fact that no one embraced the chance to reveiw whether DHFS output standards were compatable with input expectations after multi engine doesn't logically mean that people were happy with that either (As you said, out of office, deployed, apathy maybe?). A similair question was asked by AACen with regards to the output standard of the Lynx CTT. This led to a Conversion To Role course in addition to the CTT which went a large way to reducing the training gap and the burden on the Regiments to train new pilots to CR standard. Middle Wallop has been ideally suited to this task and only time will tell what effect moving Wildcat to Yeovilton in toto will have on how the Army operates this new aircraft.
I have no doubt that DHFS are receptive to change and rightly so if they want to survive in these harsh times. But that doesn't make them the solution. I think Middle Wallop has more than a strong case for it's future and its Commandant is right to push and highlight this
.I'd also agree that most military helicopter crews have battlefield focus and mission effect well squared
.Fly safe.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that DHFS are receptive to change and rightly so if they want to survive in these harsh times. But that doesn't make them the solution. I think Middle Wallop has more than a strong case for it's future and its Commandant is right to push and highlight this.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again the army painfully demonstrate that they just don't do Joint.
They seem to think that they are some type of special case, which of course they are not. It is the same with every type of flying which requires tactical warfighting - the basics are taught first then the pilots need to be trained to do the tactics. In the FJ world it is no different - the QWIs will grumble about the bloody QFIs and having to "unteach" pilots so that they can fight the aircraft, not just fly it, but the fundamentals need to be there first. What doesn't help are public articles bashing each other, what does help is talking and constantly trying to make things work better. Together.
Of course it wouldn't be as much of a problem if Air did air and Land did land.
They seem to think that they are some type of special case, which of course they are not. It is the same with every type of flying which requires tactical warfighting - the basics are taught first then the pilots need to be trained to do the tactics. In the FJ world it is no different - the QWIs will grumble about the bloody QFIs and having to "unteach" pilots so that they can fight the aircraft, not just fly it, but the fundamentals need to be there first. What doesn't help are public articles bashing each other, what does help is talking and constantly trying to make things work better. Together.
Of course it wouldn't be as much of a problem if Air did air and Land did land.
Or is it because the officers (ie 2nd Lts) fall behind their peers in the promotion stakes by having to do a long 'learn to fly' course, when the other Sandhurst graduates are virtually straight into their respective regiments. Always remember an AAC officer is a soldier first, no matter how extensive (or expensive) training may have to be.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Throwing stones from my glass house
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards PLT
Hahahaha, that really is Pot calling Kettle and asking for a colour state!
I agree, service bashing from any quarter does no one any good. And at a time when it would appear that the Support Helicopter element of the RAF is being cut down to one type (Chinook), it's no surprise you've wheeled out the "Air should do air and Land do land" self licking lollypop, but Army Aviation is long past having to justify it's existance to anyone so no pi$$ing contest there with SNCO pilots operating aircraft just as complicated as one of your fast, pointy jets.
All credit to the Navy right now though who seem to be making a good job of sneaking in the back door and nicking all of your sweeties .
I agree, service bashing from any quarter does no one any good. And at a time when it would appear that the Support Helicopter element of the RAF is being cut down to one type (Chinook), it's no surprise you've wheeled out the "Air should do air and Land do land" self licking lollypop, but Army Aviation is long past having to justify it's existance to anyone so no pi$$ing contest there with SNCO pilots operating aircraft just as complicated as one of your fast, pointy jets.
All credit to the Navy right now though who seem to be making a good job of sneaking in the back door and nicking all of your sweeties
.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gosport
Age: 75
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middle Wallop
I served at Middle Wallop for two years in 1973 - 1975 and recall my time there with great affection. I was in the Army (R.E.M.E.) and worked in the first line Workshop in logistics where we had Sioux and Scout helicopters. The Gazelle was just coming into service then and I recall most of the manuals I saw being in French.
Being an aviation enthusiast, this was a dream posting and I had a fantastic time there. This was the only time in my career that my O.C. wasn't a R.E.M.E. Officer but a Fleet Air Arm Lieutenant.
My wife Chris and I visited Middle Wallop three weeks ago and had a look round the Museum which recalls the history of Army flying from it's earliest days. The museum has many exhibits of Army Aviation dating back to 1878 when the Royal Engineers commenced trials with balloons working with a budget of £150.00. There are also many displays devoted to the R.F.C. and R.A.F. as Middle Wallop was also a W.W. II Fighter Station. The R.A.F. remained at Middle Wallop until the late 50's when the Army Air Corps took residence. There are 30 aircraft on display inside the Museum and two, a De Havilland Beaver and a Scout on display outside. Well worth a visit,
Regards,
Bob
Being an aviation enthusiast, this was a dream posting and I had a fantastic time there. This was the only time in my career that my O.C. wasn't a R.E.M.E. Officer but a Fleet Air Arm Lieutenant.
My wife Chris and I visited Middle Wallop three weeks ago and had a look round the Museum which recalls the history of Army flying from it's earliest days. The museum has many exhibits of Army Aviation dating back to 1878 when the Royal Engineers commenced trials with balloons working with a budget of £150.00. There are also many displays devoted to the R.F.C. and R.A.F. as Middle Wallop was also a W.W. II Fighter Station. The R.A.F. remained at Middle Wallop until the late 50's when the Army Air Corps took residence. There are 30 aircraft on display inside the Museum and two, a De Havilland Beaver and a Scout on display outside. Well worth a visit,
Regards,
Bob