OCU and Flying Training
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ExMud, not entirely in agreement.
I was once accused at Nav School of copying another Nav's previous write-up as I had used the same wording. What had happened was we all used to listen in during Sims and perhaps unconsciously pick up the same phrases.
What I had done was write up a Safety Altitude bust. The stude pointed out my plagarism
thus highlighting that this was the second bust. When the reviewers went through his write ups they discovered this was his third offence and he was chopped with no remedial training offered.
I think we were pretty fair in the nav systems as all trips were debriefed in fine detail from the time I went through on 42 course.
I was once accused at Nav School of copying another Nav's previous write-up as I had used the same wording. What had happened was we all used to listen in during Sims and perhaps unconsciously pick up the same phrases.
What I had done was write up a Safety Altitude bust. The stude pointed out my plagarism
thus highlighting that this was the second bust. When the reviewers went through his write ups they discovered this was his third offence and he was chopped with no remedial training offered.I think we were pretty fair in the nav systems as all trips were debriefed in fine detail from the time I went through on 42 course
.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ex-Mud,
Again, not entirely in agreement.
Does it thus follow that face to face debriefs are similarly less than honest - I would imagine not. The write-up should be an accurate reflection of the spoken debrief, albeit perhaps with some 'hidden and discreet' clarification elsewhere (spoken or written) for the benefit of others in the training loop. As a supervisor, I don't recollect there being any less integrity among instructors with regards to open reporting.
Didn't ACR's adopt a similar approach? Too long ago
Again, not entirely in agreement.
Human nature dictates that the average non-sociopath does not like aggravating his fellow man by brutally pointing out his weaknesses to his face. Hence many instructors were reluctant to be totally honest in their write-ups (and grades), knowing that the student would see it all.
Didn't ACR's adopt a similar approach? Too long ago
Last edited by jindabyne; 24th Aug 2012 at 14:26.
I cannot remember any instructor pulling their punches with me, ever.
I can only recall one instructor "having it in for me", but this was balanced by another instructor who was aware of the bias and fought my side behind the scenes.
I do recall that the BFTS debrief sheet had a backside that the student did not get a copy of. I also recall that the students knew the combination of the cabinet in which these confidential sheets were kept. One duty student, call him John, doing the lock-up was in dire straits flying-wise, and could not resist the temptation to open up the cabinet and peek at his most recent confidential trip sheet. It began with the words "Do not read this John, it will depress you..."
Turned out the combination had been known to students ever since that QFI was a student.
I can only recall one instructor "having it in for me", but this was balanced by another instructor who was aware of the bias and fought my side behind the scenes.
I do recall that the BFTS debrief sheet had a backside that the student did not get a copy of. I also recall that the students knew the combination of the cabinet in which these confidential sheets were kept. One duty student, call him John, doing the lock-up was in dire straits flying-wise, and could not resist the temptation to open up the cabinet and peek at his most recent confidential trip sheet. It began with the words "Do not read this John, it will depress you..."
Turned out the combination had been known to students ever since that QFI was a student.
Nah. In my experience, debrief, both verbal and written were conducted with great honesty and frnakness. Who the would it serve to do it any onther way? There weren't too many people unwilling to tell it how it is in my time. Any other course of action would have been serious LMF.
There must be a reason why aircrew sometimes refer tongue-in-cheek to poor performances as "distinctly average". I wonder if that phrase existed before open reporting!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ES, not air related but my old man wrote on one report that this particular man had a screw slack. The man who first language was not English was ever so pleased going around telling everyone he was 'screw slack.'
I am sure 'distinctly average' was entirely descriptive even in pre-open reporting. Really it says everything - a safe pair of hands with not a spark of initiative or flash of brilliance.
I am sure 'distinctly average' was entirely descriptive even in pre-open reporting. Really it says everything - a safe pair of hands with not a spark of initiative or flash of brilliance.
Oh my God! You mean those grades of mine I saw were over-inflated? You've just shattered my self image! 
Courtney.
Courtney.
That is doubly insulting to Courtney!
Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction .
Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....
Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction .
Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Aug 2012 at 12:09.
Hmmm. I think I understand what you're saying, BB. As Beags has kindly pointed out, no, neither. Not a Harrier mate either - or were their grades really good?
Thanks, Beags.
Thanks, Beags.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard OCU s
Having done the F4 OCU, ADV OCU and a single seat fighter OCU in. Foreign language nothing but nothing was as hard as the Lightning OCU - and rightly so what with hindsight I now find upsetting is the way we were treated as students. It bore striking similarities of get some in the tv programme about national service. In fact the SAC who manned the ops desk was treated better than us. The course was based it seemed on how many cups of tea you made the staff and how to make a bacon butty. I guess with most of the staff getting divorced or having PVRd didn't help. Flying has come a long way and I'm sure today the RAF have some brilliant teachers - sadly the days of - I can do it - the aeroplane can do it - why the F**k can't you!! Seemed to rule. I could bore you all with the way Air Combat was taught but I'm sure you'd rather not hear it.
That is doubly insulting to Courtney!
Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction .
Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....
Read his journal at Vox: Paul Courtnage, Introduction .
Helicopters indeed. The very idea.....
BEags, is there a problem mentioning helos? After all, I have read in the rich tapestry of these pages that some people were associated with the VC-10 ! Who would have thought...
P.S. I haven't raised to your bating of 237 OCU instructors.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney the Helicopter pilot
Im not sure you would have reached the steps up to a Wessex cockpit Courtney !!!
Seriously - as someone who flew 3000 Hrs fast jet my greatest respect is for some of my Helicopter mates- landing a chinook into a Baghdad football stadium at night before gulf war 1 - flying me to Warton IMC in a Gazelle WTF??? The Attitude indicator never stayed still- Or being rescued by Charlie Rathbone at 2Am in the morning down the side of a Cliff near Spadeadam in his Seaking- Helo pilots you have my respect
Seriously - as someone who flew 3000 Hrs fast jet my greatest respect is for some of my Helicopter mates- landing a chinook into a Baghdad football stadium at night before gulf war 1 - flying me to Warton IMC in a Gazelle WTF??? The Attitude indicator never stayed still- Or being rescued by Charlie Rathbone at 2Am in the morning down the side of a Cliff near Spadeadam in his Seaking- Helo pilots you have my respect
Last edited by Scruffy Fanny; 25th Aug 2012 at 21:54. Reason: Added
I could have stood on a box!
Actually, I agree with your point about helo pilots. Two short trips in the mighty Chinook in ther Falklands impressed me. One night low level from Byron to MPA on the gogs and the other landing that massive assemblage on the back of the Rangatira. Hats off.
Actually, I agree with your point about helo pilots. Two short trips in the mighty Chinook in ther Falklands impressed me. One night low level from Byron to MPA on the gogs and the other landing that massive assemblage on the back of the Rangatira. Hats off.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best OCU write up I ever saw was:
"He was almost as good as me-so that makes him exceptional"
Mark 6/6.
The lucky recipient was an experienced refresh student but even so.
"He was almost as good as me-so that makes him exceptional"
Mark 6/6.
The lucky recipient was an experienced refresh student but even so.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my absence, I know you've been expecting me, but I have just returned from a very pleasant week in The Algarve! I'm afraid, also, that I am slightly disinclined to read all 5 pages assiduously but, since my alma mater has come in for some considerable bashing once again (oh, BEagle, just get over it), I feel it only appropriate to make some form of comment in order to explain, perhaps, the training rationale for any (not just 237) OCU in MHO! My experience is, I'm afraid, based on only 2 types however: that of the Buccaneer and my own personal passage through TTTE and TWCU somewhat later (and more experienced) in life.
Let me give you some background first. I was very fortunate to be the first ever RAF first-tourist navigator to be trained by 237 OCU when it formed. The course was designed and run by RAF types with RN types on the staff to assist and train those new RN types who no longer had 736 Sqn available at Lossie to convert them to the Bucc and, particularly, to deck landing practice. The 237 OCU course (long or short) was very much based on the previous 736 Sqn course where all previous RAF Bucc aircrew had been trained in the 60s. So, for whoever it was who asked that question the answer is dead easy - 237 OCU, when it formed in 1971 and in the main, adopted the syllabus and style of its dark blue predecessors initially.
I managed to 'navigate' all the hurdles required of me to reach a sufficient standard on my OCU course to meet its exit standard which, by any TNA and course design philosophy, is always the entry standard as laid down by the receiving command; in the case of the Buccaneer that was by HQ STC for crews destined for 12 Sqn (at the time) and by HQ RAFG for those, like me, destined for XV Sqn (at the time). This is, always has been and always will be the role of any OCU! I admit, that I wasn't a perfect student on my OCU course but I did meet the output standard and, as my driving examiner said when I passed my driving test at the first attempt, when I left for Germany I knew that I had passed but that I had a lot to learn! That learning was undertaken as part of the squadron work-up process to get crews qualified LCR (ie into Strike QRA) and CR, which took approximately another 6 months.
All that stated, the Buccaneer was renowned as a very difficult aircraft to operate, particularly off and to the deck, where many of my RAF contemporaries went to bolster the reducing RN FJ numbers (as also happened on the F4 OCU). The Bucc was even more deadly in the circuit as I learned when I was invited, as a 237 OCU staff navigator now on my third Bucc tour (1978-81 - did we meet BEagle?), to climb aboard with a student pilot on his 2nd ever trip on the jet, he having flown only one trip with a QFI beforehand (remember the Bucc has never ever had a second stick!).
Thus, the attitude and environment on the Bucc Force (not just the OCU) whether it was RN, RAF or even SAAF (many of whom I know personally) was that of a hard school. There was no room for training risks and there was certainly no room for underachievers! We flew the Bucc hard, low and at the edge of its envelope. Debriefs were harsh, personal, rankless (within limits as I learned to my cost when I criticised the Boss publicly for leading a six-ship, in a descent, through 8/8ths low cloud, in close formation to attack a ship in The Minch - I say led - only his 2 wingmen followed him as my pilot and I, leading the 2nd 3-ship, decided to close no further for the attack as the 3 up front disappeared through cloud!). But there was never ever any animosity after the debrief and we executed them in such a way to ensure that we all learned of the many pitfalls for the unwary when flying the Bucc - we always repaired to the bar to ensure that any flesh wounds might quickly heal! So, in short, the standard on the squadron was high, no prisoners were ever taken and the OCU reflected that in ensuring that the exit standard of it matched the entry standard for the squadrons.
We flew hard, we fought hard and we played hard. We were (and I make no apology for this next statement) members of a very small and exclusive club who were, certainly in the RAF, regarded as second-class citizens - remember, we had replaced the cancelled F-111, which had been planned to replace the TSR-2 (maybe we were third class citizens). We often had to fight for our very existence against their airships who publicly stated that we were 'an interim' measure - an interim measure that served the RAF for 25 years! So, if our exclusivity meant that if your face didn't fit then we showed you the door then, whilst that might seem harsh, from my end of the telescope it was the right decision. I have 485 surviving members of the Buccaneer Aircrew Association on my books that tell me that we made the right choices. Many of these people meet regularly for dinner biennially and, annually, significant numbers gather in London to bond once more at The Blitz. We keep together with a biannual 20 page glossy newsletter and own XX901 and more air-to-surface weapons than perhaps the RAF has on its books today - certainly more by sample if not total quantity - we even possess our own WE177C (you can see them all at YAM)! Not many aircraft can boast such fellowship!
Right, I've banged on long enough. For those who stuck with it, thanks for listening! For those who gave up at Foldie's wailings, you will never know what it was really like to be a Bucc Man!
Foldie
PS. I suspect that many OCUs and squadrons were similar too it was just that we weren't, perhaps, quite so tactful for those whose skin was just a little softer than the rest! C'est la Vie!
Let me give you some background first. I was very fortunate to be the first ever RAF first-tourist navigator to be trained by 237 OCU when it formed. The course was designed and run by RAF types with RN types on the staff to assist and train those new RN types who no longer had 736 Sqn available at Lossie to convert them to the Bucc and, particularly, to deck landing practice. The 237 OCU course (long or short) was very much based on the previous 736 Sqn course where all previous RAF Bucc aircrew had been trained in the 60s. So, for whoever it was who asked that question the answer is dead easy - 237 OCU, when it formed in 1971 and in the main, adopted the syllabus and style of its dark blue predecessors initially.
I managed to 'navigate' all the hurdles required of me to reach a sufficient standard on my OCU course to meet its exit standard which, by any TNA and course design philosophy, is always the entry standard as laid down by the receiving command; in the case of the Buccaneer that was by HQ STC for crews destined for 12 Sqn (at the time) and by HQ RAFG for those, like me, destined for XV Sqn (at the time). This is, always has been and always will be the role of any OCU! I admit, that I wasn't a perfect student on my OCU course but I did meet the output standard and, as my driving examiner said when I passed my driving test at the first attempt, when I left for Germany I knew that I had passed but that I had a lot to learn! That learning was undertaken as part of the squadron work-up process to get crews qualified LCR (ie into Strike QRA) and CR, which took approximately another 6 months.
All that stated, the Buccaneer was renowned as a very difficult aircraft to operate, particularly off and to the deck, where many of my RAF contemporaries went to bolster the reducing RN FJ numbers (as also happened on the F4 OCU). The Bucc was even more deadly in the circuit as I learned when I was invited, as a 237 OCU staff navigator now on my third Bucc tour (1978-81 - did we meet BEagle?), to climb aboard with a student pilot on his 2nd ever trip on the jet, he having flown only one trip with a QFI beforehand (remember the Bucc has never ever had a second stick!).
Thus, the attitude and environment on the Bucc Force (not just the OCU) whether it was RN, RAF or even SAAF (many of whom I know personally) was that of a hard school. There was no room for training risks and there was certainly no room for underachievers! We flew the Bucc hard, low and at the edge of its envelope. Debriefs were harsh, personal, rankless (within limits as I learned to my cost when I criticised the Boss publicly for leading a six-ship, in a descent, through 8/8ths low cloud, in close formation to attack a ship in The Minch - I say led - only his 2 wingmen followed him as my pilot and I, leading the 2nd 3-ship, decided to close no further for the attack as the 3 up front disappeared through cloud!). But there was never ever any animosity after the debrief and we executed them in such a way to ensure that we all learned of the many pitfalls for the unwary when flying the Bucc - we always repaired to the bar to ensure that any flesh wounds might quickly heal! So, in short, the standard on the squadron was high, no prisoners were ever taken and the OCU reflected that in ensuring that the exit standard of it matched the entry standard for the squadrons.
We flew hard, we fought hard and we played hard. We were (and I make no apology for this next statement) members of a very small and exclusive club who were, certainly in the RAF, regarded as second-class citizens - remember, we had replaced the cancelled F-111, which had been planned to replace the TSR-2 (maybe we were third class citizens). We often had to fight for our very existence against their airships who publicly stated that we were 'an interim' measure - an interim measure that served the RAF for 25 years! So, if our exclusivity meant that if your face didn't fit then we showed you the door then, whilst that might seem harsh, from my end of the telescope it was the right decision. I have 485 surviving members of the Buccaneer Aircrew Association on my books that tell me that we made the right choices. Many of these people meet regularly for dinner biennially and, annually, significant numbers gather in London to bond once more at The Blitz. We keep together with a biannual 20 page glossy newsletter and own XX901 and more air-to-surface weapons than perhaps the RAF has on its books today - certainly more by sample if not total quantity - we even possess our own WE177C (you can see them all at YAM)! Not many aircraft can boast such fellowship!
Right, I've banged on long enough. For those who stuck with it, thanks for listening! For those who gave up at Foldie's wailings, you will never know what it was really like to be a Bucc Man!
Foldie
PS. I suspect that many OCUs and squadrons were similar too it was just that we weren't, perhaps, quite so tactful for those whose skin was just a little softer than the rest! C'est la Vie!
...as a 237 OCU staff navigator now on my third Bucc tour (1978-81 - did we meet BEagle?)
Your DVD is excellent, I have to say though!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Close Formation
Theres you problem Foldie if you'd been an air defender flying a six ship in close would have been a walk in the park!!!
I was privileged to fly a Bucc not that long ago (2007 or 8 ) and I admit it seemed a complex aircraft if not treated with respect- The Tornado had no vices to speak of and was pretty simple to fly- My lasting impression of the Bucc was how uncomfortable it was in the back seat - unless you were a short ar se it can't have been comfy- I stand to be corrected but I think there was a dual control Bucc at Franborough? Used in the Night Bird trials - anyone. Certainainly the last three XW98s at West Freugh were single sticks .
I'd be interested in an honest opinion of Tornado GR1vs Bucc with no BS- I did hear that during the Tornado development Bucc fitted withnGR1 kit performed very well prompting the phrase - Build more Buccs
I was privileged to fly a Bucc not that long ago (2007 or 8 ) and I admit it seemed a complex aircraft if not treated with respect- The Tornado had no vices to speak of and was pretty simple to fly- My lasting impression of the Bucc was how uncomfortable it was in the back seat - unless you were a short ar se it can't have been comfy- I stand to be corrected but I think there was a dual control Bucc at Franborough? Used in the Night Bird trials - anyone. Certainainly the last three XW98s at West Freugh were single sticks .
I'd be interested in an honest opinion of Tornado GR1vs Bucc with no BS- I did hear that during the Tornado development Bucc fitted withnGR1 kit performed very well prompting the phrase - Build more Buccs
Re 2 stick Buccs. There was a 2 stick capable one at RAE Farnborough - XV344 called the Nightbird Buccaneer. I think that the rear stick was put so that a safety pilot could pull up in the event of the front seat pilot losing it during night LLTV operations. NVGs then appeared, and I don't think the aircraft was flown on trials with 2 sticks? Certainly it hadn't up to the time I left in Jul 85.