OCU and Flying Training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCU and Flying Training
Hi all,
Having read Courtney's excellent website about his experiences in the RAF as a Phantom pilot one thing has raised my interest that I would like to know more about.
As a bit of a dreamer I always thought that OCU was, and here I expect to be flamed, a bit of a tick box experience
By that I mean that after a few years and millions already spent on pilot training OCU was a mere transition phase and not a 'Training' phase.
I now see that it was by no means a given that the young pilot would go on to a Squadron, and still faced the chop even at such a late stage.
And in that vein how much did the Hawk prepare you for the big beasts ?
I think it was Courtney's site that I read the Hunter seemed to prepare pilots for the more demanding front line jets and the Hawk, being so easy to fly, left a bit to be desired. My words by the way not Courtney's.
Any thoughts ?
Having read Courtney's excellent website about his experiences in the RAF as a Phantom pilot one thing has raised my interest that I would like to know more about.
As a bit of a dreamer I always thought that OCU was, and here I expect to be flamed, a bit of a tick box experience
By that I mean that after a few years and millions already spent on pilot training OCU was a mere transition phase and not a 'Training' phase.
I now see that it was by no means a given that the young pilot would go on to a Squadron, and still faced the chop even at such a late stage.
And in that vein how much did the Hawk prepare you for the big beasts ?
I think it was Courtney's site that I read the Hunter seemed to prepare pilots for the more demanding front line jets and the Hawk, being so easy to fly, left a bit to be desired. My words by the way not Courtney's.
Any thoughts ?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't comment on the Hunter v Hawk question (before my time), but you have reached the right conclusion about OCU training in that it is by no means a given. In fact, I would go further and say that new guys and gals on the squadrons still aren't really there until they finish the squadron quals. Although I don't think we lose as many these days on the OCU and squadron as in Courtney's time. We must have better intructors these days!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCU
Graduating from the OCU was not a foregone conclusion; my course of 8 on the F4 OCU had one pilot and one nav chopped. The hawk was a reasonable prep, but working as a crew and with a radar was different. At this stage of training you are moving away from learning to fly to becoming operators of a weapon system.
It then took 6 months to become QRA qualified and another 6 months to become combat ready (and again you could be chopped at any stage).
It then took 6 months to become QRA qualified and another 6 months to become combat ready (and again you could be chopped at any stage).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People did, and do, get chopped from OCUs but I think that the rate is far lower than for earlier stages of flying training. After all you should only get there if the prevous course thought you would pass!
In my experience of going from hawk to F3 in the mid 90s, I found the hawk to be very poor prep - basic ACT was taught poorly and there were no systems in a hawk - it was still very much based around flying around at LL doing visual nav with a few other bits tacked on. The F3 was far more about kit and SA in a vastly bigger bubble than the hawk, as well as the 2-seat piece. (Also no moveable wings in a hawk - the bane of many a baby Tornado pilot!!)
In terms of training quality I think that we have moved on in leaps and bounds, on both the hawk and OCUs, since the mid 90s. At that time I would rate Valley as poor with far too mny old school types and the F3 OCU as OK. Some of the stories from my contemporaries on other FJ fleets are horrendous. Would be interested to know what rotary and ME training was like back then?
In my experience of going from hawk to F3 in the mid 90s, I found the hawk to be very poor prep - basic ACT was taught poorly and there were no systems in a hawk - it was still very much based around flying around at LL doing visual nav with a few other bits tacked on. The F3 was far more about kit and SA in a vastly bigger bubble than the hawk, as well as the 2-seat piece. (Also no moveable wings in a hawk - the bane of many a baby Tornado pilot!!)
In terms of training quality I think that we have moved on in leaps and bounds, on both the hawk and OCUs, since the mid 90s. At that time I would rate Valley as poor with far too mny old school types and the F3 OCU as OK. Some of the stories from my contemporaries on other FJ fleets are horrendous. Would be interested to know what rotary and ME training was like back then?
F3 OCU Boss intro speech.
"Good to see you. Don't recognise many of you...Dxxx, where do I know you from?"
"You chopped me off the Phantom OCU ten years ago Sir"
...and he chopped him again!
(rightly)
"Good to see you. Don't recognise many of you...Dxxx, where do I know you from?"
"You chopped me off the Phantom OCU ten years ago Sir"
...and he chopped him again!
(rightly)
It then took 6 months to become QRA qualified and another 6 months to become combat ready (and again you could be chopped at any stage).
So although I was sad to have been binned me from 56(F), I did subsequently have a great time for most of the next 20 years on the '10!
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Aug 2012 at 10:07.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
An ab initio aircrew used to have to complete the post-OCU opqual and serve for 6 months on the sqn before his brevet was confirmed. I cannot remember whether that was consecutive or concurrent.
It was also a point that a sqn badge was not awarded until you were opqualfied. Some sqn cdrs tended to insist on badges being worn immediately.
It was also a point that a sqn badge was not awarded until you were opqualfied. Some sqn cdrs tended to insist on badges being worn immediately.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ExRadar, the Vulcan OCU was rather gentle when I went through each time. It seemed much more an aircraft conversion unit than an operational one.
OTOH the other OCUs went through the whole range of optasks before you were unleashed on the sqn as non-op and then underwent a sqn conversion.
On the Vulcan, after the OCU, we had to do the nuclear weapons bit, low level conversion, fighter evasion, and TFR conversion. It was presumably more cost effective employing you as lim-op on the sqn rather than lengthen the OCU which was 4 months. The other OCUs were usually a shade under 6 months thus disbarring you from getting a quarter.
OTOH the other OCUs went through the whole range of optasks before you were unleashed on the sqn as non-op and then underwent a sqn conversion.
On the Vulcan, after the OCU, we had to do the nuclear weapons bit, low level conversion, fighter evasion, and TFR conversion. It was presumably more cost effective employing you as lim-op on the sqn rather than lengthen the OCU which was 4 months. The other OCUs were usually a shade under 6 months thus disbarring you from getting a quarter.
ExRadar asks whether the training aircraft is sufficient to prepare students for front-line types. I think it is more apt to ask if the length of time you spend flying those aircraft is sufficient to prepare pilots for Ops.
It's an easy option to cut half an hour here and an hour there or drop a flight in favour of a sim to save on costs. Since it's almost impossible for anyone to say that it was the 20 minutes you skipped at the end of AD3 that eventually led you to fail the OCU it'll keep happening.
Perhaps someone with the figures to hand could work it out but I always wonder, for ever flex hour on the GR4 how many hours Tucano could you get? Same thing for C130 vs Kingair etc etc... I bet you could reconstruct METS, BFJT and the like to be a really, really good course if only you could throw 40-50 more hours at each of them.
I left University with over 150 hours (4 year degree and didn't go to all that many lectures) before starting out on the BFJT, AFT, Tac Weapons, OCU route. I now see many ME pilots rock up to OCU with 140 hours or less.
It's an easy option to cut half an hour here and an hour there or drop a flight in favour of a sim to save on costs. Since it's almost impossible for anyone to say that it was the 20 minutes you skipped at the end of AD3 that eventually led you to fail the OCU it'll keep happening.
Perhaps someone with the figures to hand could work it out but I always wonder, for ever flex hour on the GR4 how many hours Tucano could you get? Same thing for C130 vs Kingair etc etc... I bet you could reconstruct METS, BFJT and the like to be a really, really good course if only you could throw 40-50 more hours at each of them.
I left University with over 150 hours (4 year degree and didn't go to all that many lectures) before starting out on the BFJT, AFT, Tac Weapons, OCU route. I now see many ME pilots rock up to OCU with 140 hours or less.
The thread has mainly concentrated on pilots' experiences on OCU's, but they were by no means a 'tick-box' for navs, or indeed other aircrew categories. On my OCU I went through 232 as a Victor K1 nav radar. Posting straight from nav school into the V Force plotter role was not common and was reserved for those passing out near the top of their course (unlike me!). This was the case with the guy who I was paired with who had done very well at Finningley, but nevertheless struggled on the Victor and was chopped towards the end of the course. I think he went on to Bassets, so at least he retained his aircrew category.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
I was lucky enough, or old enough, to fly the Hunter at both Valley and TWU. It did provide a good grounding for the Mighty Phantom, I would believe much better than the Hawk. Even so, on our Welcome Speach at Coningsby OC 228 told us that the F4 was the most difficult and dangerous aircraft to fly in the RAF. At least one of us "may" have an accident before the end of the course. A great welcome for a Below Average 1st tourist. So it was no surprise that on the second week of flying a crew from my course ejected over Skegness with a Double Utils Failure.
I went on to be lucky enough to fly the Phantom for 2500 hrs in both air-to-air and air-to-ground. Only the F15E and later, the Super Hornet have so far surpassed the Mighty F4.
A friend of mine who is a Hawk child used to tell how great the Hawk is. The BAe propagada must have been good. Then one day, in later life, he went solo in a F6 Hunter. When he landed the smile on his face stretched from coast to coast.
I am led to believe that the Hawk T2 is a good lead in to Typhoon and future aircraft. To my mind it costs a lot of £ for a jet with such poor performance.
I went on to be lucky enough to fly the Phantom for 2500 hrs in both air-to-air and air-to-ground. Only the F15E and later, the Super Hornet have so far surpassed the Mighty F4.
A friend of mine who is a Hawk child used to tell how great the Hawk is. The BAe propagada must have been good. Then one day, in later life, he went solo in a F6 Hunter. When he landed the smile on his face stretched from coast to coast.
I am led to believe that the Hawk T2 is a good lead in to Typhoon and future aircraft. To my mind it costs a lot of £ for a jet with such poor performance.
All the above, Mate. 1980s we lost at least a crew from every F4 OCU course, quite a few from the Sqn (maybe not as many as we should have) and had a few recourses and returns to the OCU.
During my time as SO1 Trg at 1 Gp, we were losing a little less, but still a significant number. I also authorized a lot of extra flex for people the GR4 and F3 OCUs that weren't quite there yet, but the OCU guys figured they could get up to speed.
Stuff, makes a very good point. Cuts at the bottom end of the training system have always been a bugbear of mine. When instructing at Chiv, we had the biggest TWU flying course for many years either side of the 80s. All the studendts did the full course (inc all the AD and GA). Our output had a really good success rate. Again, years later as SO1 Trg, the hours had been cut, students streamed and the OCUs' chop rate went back up. Of course there's a link.
As for the Hawk/Hunter question. The Hunter was a bit more challenging than the Hawk, but I believe that the syllabus at TWU when I went through Brawdy was so full-on and challenging (with a lot of hours compared to now), that I found myself as well prepared as one can be for the mighty F4.
As others have said here, it a massive step up. But the three years that went before was the thing that enabled us to get through.
Courtney
If I'd had my way...
During my time as SO1 Trg at 1 Gp, we were losing a little less, but still a significant number. I also authorized a lot of extra flex for people the GR4 and F3 OCUs that weren't quite there yet, but the OCU guys figured they could get up to speed.
Stuff, makes a very good point. Cuts at the bottom end of the training system have always been a bugbear of mine. When instructing at Chiv, we had the biggest TWU flying course for many years either side of the 80s. All the studendts did the full course (inc all the AD and GA). Our output had a really good success rate. Again, years later as SO1 Trg, the hours had been cut, students streamed and the OCUs' chop rate went back up. Of course there's a link.
As for the Hawk/Hunter question. The Hunter was a bit more challenging than the Hawk, but I believe that the syllabus at TWU when I went through Brawdy was so full-on and challenging (with a lot of hours compared to now), that I found myself as well prepared as one can be for the mighty F4.
As others have said here, it a massive step up. But the three years that went before was the thing that enabled us to get through.
Courtney
If I'd had my way...
As well as flex, many instructors were kind enough to let me in on their SCT flying for which I was deeply grateful. I had a problem with currency, and with all the holds this was a career saver. Not to mention the UAS attachments where you got backseat rides in Hawks, Wessex, Jags, even a Lightning. They even let you plan it and fly most of it in those days, which was excellent prep for OCU/ frontline.
I came good in the end.
I guess much of this 'gash' flying has gone by the board too.
I came good in the end.
I guess much of this 'gash' flying has gone by the board too.
I was lucky enough to have completed TWU courses on both the Hunter (234 Sqn, RAF Brawdy) and the Hawk (63 Sqn, RAF Chivenor).
Both aircraft had their advantages. The Hunter GGS was great for air-to-air, less so for mud moving. Whereas it was the other way round in the Hawk. The GGSR camera in the Hunter required a lot of work, juggling with film magazines, defog and sighter bursts and the mags had to be changed in flight. Between Brawdy and Worms Head you had to check each mag in the GGSR, then prepare them for your range session. You also had to set the lens speed. Whereas the Hawk had a much better system, which was all looked after by the photo-mechs.
The Hunter was more stable during 10-15° air-to-mud, whereas the Hawk was bunt-unstable until BWoS extended the fin trailing edge fillet.
The Hunter had a fuel system which required considerable system knowledge to comprehend. The Hawk just had a pump and a gauge and worked far better; unlike the Hunter, it also had a gauge which actually worked under G.
The Hunter had a reliable G4F compass, the pre-AHARS Hawks I flew had an abysmal compass system which went tits-up after the first turn of more than 2G.
The Hunter was 'supersonic in a shallow dive'. Or rather in a very steep dive from FL-nosebleed. The Hawk wasn't. Whereas it had a far less fuel thirsty engine than the Hunter with rather more range.
Throttle response in the Hunter was vastly better than that in the Hawk, so formation flying in the Hunter was dead easy.
As for the course itself, the main difference I noticed on the Hawk TWU was in the ACM and A/A phases. 'Free and enaged' had replaced 'stick, search and report' in ACM and in A/A we faffed with a circular towed pattern against the Hunter, rather than a 'straight towed' pattern against Puddy in the Meatbox on the Hunter TWU. We also did level bombing in the Hawk instead of 15° SNEB in the Hunter. SAP phase was just as demanding on both courses though!
Our Hunters (all bar the 2 ex-Valley GT6s with TACAN) had Eureka as the only nav aid, apart from the 9s which also had a coffee grinder ADF (which we only used for music!) and just one radio apart from 243.8 on a standby box. Whereas all Hawks had UHF and VHF radios, plus TACAN - but, unlike the Gnat, no offset box (why????).
The Hunter bang seat was very old and also pretty uncomfortable - whereas the Hawk had a comfy rocket seat.
Fit the Hunter with offset TACAN, a better fuel gauging system, a GGS video recorder and it would be superb.
My favourite of the two? Despite its foibles, it would have to be the Hunter F(GA) Mk 9 - the fighter pilot's first true love! For the Hawk was a trainer used for lead-in fighter training, whereas the Hunter was a proper fighter adapted to the training role. And it made a much better noise!!
Both aircraft had their advantages. The Hunter GGS was great for air-to-air, less so for mud moving. Whereas it was the other way round in the Hawk. The GGSR camera in the Hunter required a lot of work, juggling with film magazines, defog and sighter bursts and the mags had to be changed in flight. Between Brawdy and Worms Head you had to check each mag in the GGSR, then prepare them for your range session. You also had to set the lens speed. Whereas the Hawk had a much better system, which was all looked after by the photo-mechs.
The Hunter was more stable during 10-15° air-to-mud, whereas the Hawk was bunt-unstable until BWoS extended the fin trailing edge fillet.
The Hunter had a fuel system which required considerable system knowledge to comprehend. The Hawk just had a pump and a gauge and worked far better; unlike the Hunter, it also had a gauge which actually worked under G.
The Hunter had a reliable G4F compass, the pre-AHARS Hawks I flew had an abysmal compass system which went tits-up after the first turn of more than 2G.
The Hunter was 'supersonic in a shallow dive'. Or rather in a very steep dive from FL-nosebleed. The Hawk wasn't. Whereas it had a far less fuel thirsty engine than the Hunter with rather more range.
Throttle response in the Hunter was vastly better than that in the Hawk, so formation flying in the Hunter was dead easy.
As for the course itself, the main difference I noticed on the Hawk TWU was in the ACM and A/A phases. 'Free and enaged' had replaced 'stick, search and report' in ACM and in A/A we faffed with a circular towed pattern against the Hunter, rather than a 'straight towed' pattern against Puddy in the Meatbox on the Hunter TWU. We also did level bombing in the Hawk instead of 15° SNEB in the Hunter. SAP phase was just as demanding on both courses though!
Our Hunters (all bar the 2 ex-Valley GT6s with TACAN) had Eureka as the only nav aid, apart from the 9s which also had a coffee grinder ADF (which we only used for music!) and just one radio apart from 243.8 on a standby box. Whereas all Hawks had UHF and VHF radios, plus TACAN - but, unlike the Gnat, no offset box (why????).
The Hunter bang seat was very old and also pretty uncomfortable - whereas the Hawk had a comfy rocket seat.
Fit the Hunter with offset TACAN, a better fuel gauging system, a GGS video recorder and it would be superb.
My favourite of the two? Despite its foibles, it would have to be the Hunter F(GA) Mk 9 - the fighter pilot's first true love! For the Hawk was a trainer used for lead-in fighter training, whereas the Hunter was a proper fighter adapted to the training role. And it made a much better noise!!
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Aug 2012 at 19:22.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I push my book again? In this one just life on the Phantom OCU:
Chapter 3 Operational Conversion
Chapter 9 Life as an Instructor
Anyone who thought it was easy was misguided.
Royalties supporting The RAF Memorial Trust and The RAF Museum
Chapter 3 Operational Conversion
Chapter 9 Life as an Instructor
Anyone who thought it was easy was misguided.
Royalties supporting The RAF Memorial Trust and The RAF Museum
Last edited by Geehovah; 20th Aug 2012 at 19:31.