Is RAF training all it's cracked up to be...?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the 60s, when I did pilot training, it was alleged that some people, graded "F" on an A to F scale during the selection process, were put through training anyway, to test and validate the selection mechanism. The worst banter you could give anyone was to ask if they were "An Experimental F"!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vaguely remember reading in an autobiography that the author subsequently found out that they were put through the training system with the expectation that they would fail (the experimental F?). However in their case, they went on to be an instructor on the GR3 Harrier (and did an exchange tour on the F-104)!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were a regular Naval Officer in the 50's and you went flying and trained with the RAF without any selection process. Short service pilots did the full bit. The failure rate for regulars was far less. Weird
Having been involved in the flying training pipeline in various guises during my career (selection, training and management) then I would strongly suggest that your statistics are made up. Either that or you need to explain the background behind them.
90% failure rate I might accept if that includes those individuals making their first application to a careers office who might fall at the very first hurdle. If it is from selection to Initial Officer Training then your figures are dubious and if they are from entering the start of flying training then they are simply wrong.
90% failure rate I might accept if that includes those individuals making their first application to a careers office who might fall at the very first hurdle. If it is from selection to Initial Officer Training then your figures are dubious and if they are from entering the start of flying training then they are simply wrong.
That said Roland, I would be interested to know the percentage across all aircrew trades, who made it from the street (CIO initial interview which I certainly don't recall) to a squadron.
So if you're not busy...
CG
So if you're not busy...
CG
I quite agree, Roland. It's also important to define what's meant by pass/fail. Given the policy that everyone is Group 1 until proven otherwise, do the people that don't end up FJ count as failure?
There are several big issues within the OP's question.
'Is the selection process valid?' assumes we have a validity test. We don't. No one knows just how to spot FJ aircrew from a selection of teenagers, mainly because it's not like anything they've already done. It would be a lot easier if we did know.
Next is the assumption that what is required is constant but it most likely isn't. The combination of required motor skills, awareness, technical knowledge etc has varied over time and between aircraft types and roles. In simple terms, FJ aircrew personal requirements are a moving target and this means previous experience of selection and training may not be usable.
Then there's the financial aspect. It may seem like failing a large proportion is indicative of a faulty system, but that may not be the case economically. How much flex do you give students, and when?
Lastly, there's standards. As many have commented, a pass today may be a fail a decade hence, and v.v., and from the point of view of national defence, they may both be right.
'Is the selection process valid?' assumes we have a validity test. We don't. No one knows just how to spot FJ aircrew from a selection of teenagers, mainly because it's not like anything they've already done. It would be a lot easier if we did know.
Next is the assumption that what is required is constant but it most likely isn't. The combination of required motor skills, awareness, technical knowledge etc has varied over time and between aircraft types and roles. In simple terms, FJ aircrew personal requirements are a moving target and this means previous experience of selection and training may not be usable.
Then there's the financial aspect. It may seem like failing a large proportion is indicative of a faulty system, but that may not be the case economically. How much flex do you give students, and when?
Lastly, there's standards. As many have commented, a pass today may be a fail a decade hence, and v.v., and from the point of view of national defence, they may both be right.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On the other hand, if you were talking FC training back in the early 70s - when everyone was a controller and before they split the branch and introduced Systems Officers etc - the percentage is about right.
They never seemed to be able to find an aptitude test that gave any kind of accurate forecast of who'd pass or fail.
They never seemed to be able to find an aptitude test that gave any kind of accurate forecast of who'd pass or fail.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Is RAF training all it's cracked up to be...?
.Well, at least back in the sixties. Wings course on the JP. Twenty-two started, one medical drop-out, one medical re-course. We picked up two from the previous course, so twenty-two graduated. Having said that, there was, I'm sure, a huge loss from initial application through OATC and basic training.
The earliest drop-out I came across was at South Cerney. Sworn in about 18:00 day one, shouted at on day two, he was gone by lunch.
Herod - can beat that - 1983, new IOT entry arrives Sunday night. Monday morning a vacant bed with a £10 or £20 note (cannot recall which) pinned to the pillow and a note apologising "for any trouble caused", but this was not for him...............
I suspect the "chop" rate in pilot training has always been higher than for other aircrew specialisms, if only because the physical skills required are difficult to assess until they are actually put to the test, but I cant believe 90% or anything like it.
On my own nav course of 12 in 1969-70 we had two chopped pilots, as did most courses at that time. These usually went on to qualify as navs, and in fact our actual failure rate, leaving aside the odd re-course) was quite low, probably around 10-15% at the most overall.
As an aside I was never offered pilot training after my initial assessment which in the event was a good decision, as although I subsequently learned to fly to PPL level, I took so flipping long to go solo I'd have been out on my ear at a much earlier stage had this been at an FTS!
On my own nav course of 12 in 1969-70 we had two chopped pilots, as did most courses at that time. These usually went on to qualify as navs, and in fact our actual failure rate, leaving aside the odd re-course) was quite low, probably around 10-15% at the most overall.
As an aside I was never offered pilot training after my initial assessment which in the event was a good decision, as although I subsequently learned to fly to PPL level, I took so flipping long to go solo I'd have been out on my ear at a much earlier stage had this been at an FTS!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sunny Aberdeen
Age: 60
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving aside the professional training, the 'life skills' I learnt as Nimrod NCO aircrew have been invaluable to me in the past 20 years in the civvy world. I have no doubt that I owe where I am now to the RAF. No doubt at all.
Rich
Rich
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I knew two Nav's who were chopped as pilots but went on to fly big jets.
With the broad spectrum of pilot skills, was it ever possible for a pilot to have a career purely as a co-pilot and never actually gain a captaincy?
With the broad spectrum of pilot skills, was it ever possible for a pilot to have a career purely as a co-pilot and never actually gain a captaincy?
I quite agree, Roland. It's also important to define what's meant by pass/fail. Given the policy that everyone is Group 1 until proven otherwise, do the people that don't end up FJ count as failure?
Fact that some people are suited to different disciplines should never be seen as failure.
Ambition to be something is positive, ambition measured v ability should enable people to find the right position.
I can beat both Herod and wander....
.....waiting for the bus to South Cerney at Cirencester station in the rain. Bus arrives, Ned Sparkes bellows "Get a bloody move on gentlemen I'm getting wet". Chap beside me makes a sort of whimpering noise and goes off and gets back on the train!
What did he say when he went home....????
We started with 70 and for years I thought that 40 had graduated but at a 50th anniversary this year I found it was 28!! OOer missus!
To pick up on a point that someone made further up about whether a wash out from FJ training was regarded as a failure? Having served on a ME OCU for quite a while (as a non-pilot) it was noticeable that THEY regarded themselves as failures, not all, but a high percentage. Often the first job of the QFI was rebuilding that confidence. They often went on to be excellent pilots of a big aircraft and often to be good captains which is a different skill. Some didn't.
The Ancient Mariner
What did he say when he went home....????
We started with 70 and for years I thought that 40 had graduated but at a 50th anniversary this year I found it was 28!! OOer missus!
To pick up on a point that someone made further up about whether a wash out from FJ training was regarded as a failure? Having served on a ME OCU for quite a while (as a non-pilot) it was noticeable that THEY regarded themselves as failures, not all, but a high percentage. Often the first job of the QFI was rebuilding that confidence. They often went on to be excellent pilots of a big aircraft and often to be good captains which is a different skill. Some didn't.
The Ancient Mariner
Hmmm...
I find it very interesting that the OP has yet to reply to his own thread. He really has retired to a very safe distance.
Personally (clearly getting very sceptical in my old age) I wouldn't humour him any further until he has the decency to explain the reason for his question or where he got his, quite plainly ridiculous, figures from.
BV
Personally (clearly getting very sceptical in my old age) I wouldn't humour him any further until he has the decency to explain the reason for his question or where he got his, quite plainly ridiculous, figures from.
BV
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a similar manner described by Heathrow Harry I remember the words passed to me when they told me I had failed an eyesight test.
"As the air force is smaller than it was a few years ago we can be more selective and pick the best ones available. We don't need cannon fodder in 1970."
So in today air force which is much much smaller than 1970 their can afford to pick the top few per cent.
"As the air force is smaller than it was a few years ago we can be more selective and pick the best ones available. We don't need cannon fodder in 1970."
So in today air force which is much much smaller than 1970 their can afford to pick the top few per cent.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt there are many Air forces who apply such rigid demands to their trainee aircrew,
Namely RNZAF/RAAF
The RNZAF selection criteria is particularly hard. They have had no-one pass as a FJ pilot for years.