RAF Shawbury close to melt down
 

Just been updated from the center of Military flying training about the situation there with regards to overstretch and the (personal abuse of a known individual not permitted) who is turning flying training on it's head and making the 2 Squirrel squadrons carry out the exact same training !!! 2 Squadrons in the same place who for 12 years have carried out their individual tasks to a superb and world beating standard, now doing the same job as each other. The guys there are already overstretched trying to keep the pipe line fed, now they are having to learn each others skills as well to enable this crazy idea to take effect - BUT not until November - guess who leaves Shawbury in November - non other than HRH the royal Pilot - so not good enough for him to experience, or the system is too scared to expose him to this sham. All being kept quiet until he leaves then the chaos will ensue. Not one of the lads at the coal face wants or needs this farce to happen, but (personal abuse of a known individual not permitted) decides this is a good idea and bingo, get on with it lads. Talking to some of the guys there it seems the place is a seriously depressed cauldron waiting to explode, courses running late but no worries just fly more , don't worry about the standard being pushed out just get more through. Happy is not a word used much at the moment up there, very little time for care of the students well being just push on chaps. Interesting to hear what some of the workers think about this weird idea of both Squadrons doing the same task as each other - WHY? Is Shawbury close to another accident trying to get more out of a pint pot? does anyone care? doesn't sound too good there at the moment

I would suggest that you get your info from more than one source before you embark on ill-informed, ill-advised rants on PPRuNE. I would further, particularly advise that you avoid directly impugning the character and reputation of a highly respected, decorated senior serving officer.

Is it even likely that anyone at Shawbury would have the authority to make such changes without the specific direction of No.22 Group?

So if we leave out the abusive comments about power mad donkeys, we're left with an interesting core question.

Why are the two Squirrel squadrons (660 and 705) going to conduct parallel straight through courses instead of lead-in and advanced as now seems to be the case? (Becoming more like the two squadrons at LoO rather than the two at Valley?)

What would the claimed advantages be?

What are the likely disadvantages?

What effect will this actually have?

Thanks, Teeters!

IHJ.

Not much of a story, is it? And rather 'specialised'. But of interest to someone interested in the nitty gritty of military aviation? Sure!

And my questions are intended to elucidate clarification for the benefit of anyone reading the thread. If I wanted to write it up, I'd want an exclusive and I'd be doing so via PM.


See above Jacko - some troll. Other comments since that post now deleted as they no longer make sense with the removal of the troll's post.

And what about the strategic effect??

The country is screaming out for more chopper crew to support OOA commitments. The present system is obviously not able to push them out fast enough. So perhaps some lateral thinking is called for. It might not work.....but then again it might.

And in 12 months time everyone will wonder what the fuss was about

Well now the dust has settled, I'll join the fray and - quelle surprise - actually attempt to answer the questions Jacko has asked.

And these are just the personal views of an old (not very bold) QHI

In theory, I don't see how the change should have any effect on the output numbers game. With the best will in the world, flying training (statisically) is a sausage machine. If you have x number of students, y number of instructors and z number of airframes/flying hours - the result should be the same - and those numbers ain't going to change.

Immediate advantages that spring to mind are primarily for the staff. With the "parallel" rather than "series" approach, all Squirrel staff will fly all exercises. One remembers when one was a Gazelle basic QHI, the joy of sending a baby Bloggs first solo before lunch, and teaching a more senior Bloggs to fly under wires after lunch. Variety keeps the QHI sharp - over-specialisation may (and I strongly underline may) lead to complacency and a blinkered approach, and a possibly reduced awareness of "how the other half lives". And of course being a Jack-of-all-trades is what we want our young helicopteristes to aspire to. No demo by an instructor is more accurately reproduced than the instructor's behaviour on the ground!

It may also be good for baby Bloggs (see above) to share a crewroom with senior Bloggs - much is learnt IMHO from crewroom osmosis.

(And it halves the amount of night flying and IF that 705 have to do!)

Disadvantages - few that I can think of. The much trumpeted "exposure to other service cultures" seems to me to be a bit cosmetic. 705 have "Shareholders" instead of Met Brief, and have a Splot. And I think 660 have a Sqn Sgt Major! The studes all live together and soon (very soon) will fight together - I don't think a lack of exposure to 660 or 705 will hurt in any way.

So on balance - possible advantages overall, but it's a bit close to call. So why not give it a try, and see if it does make a difference - I see little that could be lost.

Do/did QHIs rotate/move to/from 660 and 705?

Good point from AA above - I think that is the obvious answer, but lost in the confusion towards mirror squadrons. Why waste hundreds of flying hours to make ALL personnel jack of ALL trades... when a cadre of selected few would achieve any cross over needed. Bit of a strange snipe at the "old folk" on 660 Sqn - trust me the only thing creeking there is the Sqn itself, as ever it's the old and bold who keep a little sanity and stability:eek: going. As for impunging the character.... sugested by Father Jack Hacket above, I hardly think an OBE, MA and cfs are decorations to be classed as "highly decorated" Please get your head out of the dark, and get your blinkers off to see the world how it truly is before shouting down others threads. Maybe anger took over? Maybe this is a good idea, but in who's head, the only sensible reply so far has come from teetering head who makes some very good points and ones worth more discussion. Watching with interest.

In the individual's defence and in my experience, while he could occasionally use the long screw driver, he was a very capable and intelligent bloke who would give support when it mattered. Yes he asks for a lot, but he would give you the opportunity to do things your own way and can accept counter arguments as long as they're well argued and based in fact. Not an expert, but the arguments for provided above make sense and as is said above, what we've got at the moment isn't producing the goods, so why not try something else?

Wow, what a wonderful source of intelligence! Guess security is no longer a factor now then? Should this topic really be easily available for all and sundry to read?:bored:

What Intel...? Where is the Intel..? If you think that some disgruntled oik venting off on t'interweb is good "intel" then you don't know what "intel" is.

IMHO it does not go far enough. 705 should be sent back to Culdrose and 660 to supplement the Squirrel fleet already in place at Middle Wallop. Not even sure if in this day and age the single engine phase of rotary flying training is necessary, for I am sure it could all be taught from the onset on a multi engined aircraft as part of a multi-crew crew.

Before you all get on the high horse to defend 'tradition', remember that historically Rotary FTS was completed to graduate single pilot crews. This has not been so since GW1, although I believe that the junglie fleet retains this possibility. Why not move on and train a pilot with sufficient skills for a LHS (co-pilot if you want) skills in half the time who gets further (on the job) training to graduate to Captaincy at a later date. The hands on time he should get whilst occupying the LHS will serve him well later on as was pretty much proven by the sucessfull retraining of ex-Rotary Navs that are now members of the twin winged master race.

As both the RN and AAC have never subscribed to the MEARW element of RAF MFTS despite DHFS now being 12 years down the road somebody, somewhere is hanging onto the 'old way' for too long. Either the RAF should call a day to the Griffin (which FWIW does not get my vote) or the RN & AAC should prescribe to MEARW complete with (air)crewmen. I would also bin the Squirrel in toto and have a larger (joint) MEARW Sqn training everbody regardless of cap badge, & LFA 9 has its advantages in the form of real estate & community relations.

Spot4 - are you sure about the RN not needing single pilot skills? AFAIK the only guaranteed two-pilot rotary aircraft in the FAA are the baggers and the SAR cabs.

Junglies SK4, Merlin Mk 1 and Lynx are all single-pilot.

847 Lynx can be single pilot plus obs or two pilot, and I think the five SK6 used by CHF are also two pilot?

Airborne

Is that a Waa?

847 - Always 2 pilot, no obs
Baggers - 1 Pilot
Grey Lynx - 1 Pilot
Junglies - Single pilot trained, but rarely other than 2
SAR - 2 pilots on a Job, but can be single piloted
Merlin - Like the Junglies

Swerve,

I never said highly decorated and it's better than the OBE I don't have! Have you been invited up to Buck House for tea and medals recently? ;)

Father Jack

teeters old bean,

I'm with you. I learnt to fly with the AAC (Bell 47 for heavens sake) and finished up with the RAF. Spot 4 has several good points but overall you got it right........

Tri-Service training was initially a 'cost saving' exercise. Wrong from the start, wrong today. Tri-Service works well in the field, but not at Ab-Initio.....

Standing by to be poo-poooed.......:suspect:

Tourist - I think Frontline Merlin mk1 and Jungle Ops are nearly all single pilot now. The RN does not have anything else other than a single pilot requirement. (SAR is only twin pilot based on the RTS requirement)

Why the RAF have insisted on the Griffin is beyond me, when the RN and AAC go from what was a mildly longer 705 course to a multi engined aircraft.(unless they have less capable pilots? - I doubt that)

The tri service training has never ever been equal in the helo world!

Spot 4, Some interesting stuff.

Unfortunately an All MEARW system at DHFS would be hideously expensive. No point in trg pilots basic stick & pedal stuff on an ac that costs 4 times as much per hour as a squirrel. Some squirrel and some Griff is a good compromise, although I do accept some hours are used simply to swap types.

OTP at Middle Wallop does a good job of moving pilots from 705 standard to Lynx/Apache standard. Multicrew training is an area that is not as good as the RAF, but then, not all AAC pilots will fly with an aircrewman.....

It is the Navy who are short changed by DHFS as they have to leap from 705 Sqn straight onto op types. (apart from their SAR Buoys who DO go to 60 Sqn) That is why their OCUs are 10 months long!!! (hideously wasteful) It is also why the Navy chops people who have passed 705 Sqn to a 'low average' standard: It cannot afford to carry any training risks because there is this gap between 705 Sqn and RN OCU's.(wasteful and harsh for some people who could have made perfectly acceptable pilots) The fact that their SAR Bouys DO in fact do MEARW on 60 Sqn underlines the fact that there is a big hole in their training system for those not going SAR.

ewe.lander

Nothing wrong (in them days) with the Bell 47 ... but at least the (RAF) ones I trained on had superchargers......;)

Expensive
 

Marly Lite.

Your post is interesting in that it reveals quite a lot. When considering the "twin only route", most make the same mistake. We fly XXXX number of hours now so the same number of hours in a twin will be expensive. Correct. but you miss the core point. A twin only route is a complete change it combines every aspect of the syllabus from when you walk in to when you graduate. You dont lift the old stuff and just put in the new aircraft - you have a complete reset and start again. It works if done like this and saves time and MONEY but requires simulators, part task trainers etc. Lots of others around the world have done the analysis. Some have taken the bold move and the results look good.

Now, at about this stage people ignore the increased speed to produce frontline pilots, the reduction in cost, the reduction of time in training and the reduction of the carbon foot print and say but but but, the Squirrel is cheaper! Well thats good then. You carry on as the rest of the world changes around you.

Oh, the other battle cry is normally, but that will cost so much to put in its not affordable. Well let industry sort that for you - it worked in 97 so it will work again. Lets face it, there is no going back now.

As to the person who is rapidly turning into "he who shall not be named on a pprune thread". Give him a break. All he is trying to do is find a way out of a puzzle with the resources he has. It might be odd or even strange, but at least he is doing something! The true way is the above but he cant do that now can he!

All twin engine course? Fantastic idea, just ask Gordon for the extra money needed, he is loaded!! Oh just a minute..............
On the parallel courses, my 10 pence worth. The highly skilled individual squadrons is a good idea in theory. In practice, you need a bit of variety to keep you interested over the longer term. I would go bonkers teaching the 660 sylabus for years and years. As a Gazelle instructor at Shawbury, I taught the whole sylabus. It is well known that I am not a planet brain and I coped ok. If I can do it without much trouble, anyone can. In other words, both systems can work.

Have always thought that mirror sqns should have been the way to do it from the start. Changing now after 12 years will take some of the Luddites out of their comfort zone and no doubt that the transitional phase will be tricky if not well managed. There have been those who think standardisation will be out the window with 2 sqns teaching the same syllabus - I don't recall this being a problem when I went through basic JP training at Syerston - 2/3 sqns there, similar number at Lynton and Leeming and 1/2 at Cranwell, all teaching to the same songsheet.

A search on Google for "705 660 Shawbury" puts this thread in pole position :ok:

It's encouraging, if somewhat unsurprising, to see that jayteeto and oldbeefer seem to agree that "mirror-image" would work. But we are all - ahem - very experienced (alright then - we're old :() - what are the views of young(er) QHIs .... and/or recent students.

It always seemed to me that the 660 to 705 route was something of a sop to the other services, to give them their "own" sqns to "maintain ethos" and to claim that "all services had trained all pilots" .... yeah right as said younger generation might say.

Is there really any benefit to the current system that isn't purely cosmetic and/or political??

Of course the system isn't perfect and probably isn't what you'd get starting with a blank sheet of paper - and a blank cheque! But we aren't in that position. OK, we might have (on several occasions!) taken the easy route, ie: Sioux & Whirlwind = Gazelle & Wessex = Squirrel & Griffin, and not made fundamental changes that could (with the benefit of hindsight) have improved the flying training for all 3 services....

..... and as for standardisation - isn't that what Standards Sqn (or whatever they call themselves) are for. The clue is in the name .....

And having visited Rucker, Pensacola and Kirtland, you just would not believe how unstandard our cousins are across their services....

As I see it:

Benefits
1. Each sqn could manage the full course to finish on time (at present, the flying task for one is less than the other, but each has the same amount of time to complete their part).
2. Students (sorry, ‘trainees’) wouldn’t have to suffer a change of environment and personalities half way through.
3. More interesting range of exercises for the QHIs to teach – particularly of benefit to the CFS graduates who would have a more rounded experience at the end of the Shy tour.
4. Simple to move individual QHIs from one sqn to another in case of sickness/detachments/promotion/whatever.
5. Reduction in the ‘sausage-machine-feeling’ that comes from teaching the same old exercises too frequently.

Drawbacks
1. Difficult to train existing staff to teach exercises from the other half of the syllabus without disrupting student flying.
2. Umm, I’ll have to keep thinking

How difficult? Within normal SCT hours? Hardly a full drains-up job, surely?

One small problem with just teaching everything once is that complex manoeuvres like autos, quickstops etc need to be repeated on a regular basis if a student is to achieve any level of competence and finesse.

If you do it all on a twin and then send them to an OCU it will just increase the burden on the OCU because you have removed basic and advanced training and just given them basic training on a twin instead of a single.

Exercises that were a revision on the twin after learning them on a single will either have to be practised more on the twin (more hours and cost) or you will have to accept a lower standard of output to the OCU (hardly ideal).

Part task trainers and simulators have their place but they will never replace flying the aircraft as a way to build skills and confidence - not to mention airmanship. Even the best sims can still be flown as a playstation game (don't touch anything and it stays where it is) which is great for the playstation generation as far as passing sim rides goes but is coc*-all use for training pilots to handle the real aircraft.

We might all like to think that when we were students, we only needed to be shown things once and we were the ace of the base - if that was so why do we teach fault analysis to instructors?

I think the mirror Sqns at Sy is a good idea - the whole 660 705 concept of ops was, as mentioned earlier, a sop to Service pride and a hindrance to effective flying training.

That must be the Sea King & Merlin world. A Lynx pilot hasn't been chopped since the last King died.... Well....about 5 years.

I know that a wannabe Junglie was chopped not that long ago, very close to the end of OCU. He was deemed to be a bon oeuf, and most unusually he got RHS on 771.

Got onto a decent debate eventually, after some knee jerk raging from the know it alls who have never done the job, (yes I have before you ask !) good to see some well thought out arguments - got off the thread a little in places but, some good points to ponder at the sharp end - must take issue with Old beefer and his comments about Luddites being taken out of their comfort zone - come on old bean, people in glass houses etc, think how long you have been stuck in your "zone" and kicking like hell to stay there, please don't insult people who are doing a good job, when was the last time you saw the front line? if ever!! one final point standardization is a long way on now days from JP's etc they can't keep up with basic annual checks at the moment, so keeping a close eye on the 2 sqns will be a challenge.
The overriding feeling there at the moment is doom and gloom, why after so long working with the feel good factor, and getting the results they need, should all this change at the flick of a switch? People have speculated previously on this thread about change is good and a more comprehensive syllabus for both squadrons, but I learn from the VAST majority there (happy now FTH) this is not the want of the workers who will need to make this happen, but when forced box's will be ticked - a happy worker...etc
Time will tell however my money is on a spectacular failure, purely because the people who need to make it happen do not have their heart in it, military and civilian, although the military have to tow the line, behind the scenes they are well hacked off. Again I ask how can one man make such an upset in one foul move? Good luck Strawbs my how your going to need it.


Well now I ask - - - how can you ask again in this thread when it's your first post? Since none of this is as rabid as earlier posts from a troll (who was also "from London"), I'll just watch for the moment! If I'm wrong, I've never been slow to apologise by the way!

Mirror squadrons will work fine. Some guys are activly looking forward to teaching a more varied syllabus, whilst others are worried about this 'surging' of available 'BSA or ASA' instrutors to whichever Sqn/Flt can complete their Flypro with the given Weather- it's this surge where DHFS HQ believe that time can be made up. The issue that I forsee is that this surge will not deliver the hoped for reward as it's physical training area that Shawbury is short of. Being limited to 4 cabs per side at Ternhill, a fact that is further restricted by the type of exercise being flown- means you can chuck as many instrutors or even aircraft at the situation, but little more will be achieved. I agree with previous points that new CFS grads will get a better grounding, but the same could be achieved within the current system, ie changing Sqns post B1 Cx. however, one of the problems is that very few CFS grads get to stay at Shawbs, wich is a shame.
To sum up, it will work. It will cause, rightly or wrongly, much heartache (and more SCT than the normal amount by some 200 hrs actually) for very little actual benifit. It will however aid 'flexibilty' within the system. The benifit of this flex will, no doubt, be proven with time. In all, given what DHFS HQ have to work with, why not????

Tgreen.

InTgreen

your remark about SCT surprises me. There was never that much SCT to be had in Gazelle days, and we kept current on all exercises - indeed, if you include Gp3 Ph3 that's more than Squirrels do. A quick (if unscientific) check of old logbook suggests a max of about 1.30 per month (not including IFE), often much less, with some more saved to allow 5-6 hrs every 6 months with Standards.

Something I'd forgotten, but logbook revealed, was the amount of SCT that was flown mutual - effectively doubling the hours. Is that done now? If not, why not?

And of course, supervisory checks (Boss Checks or Standards) always included an unbriefed exercise from anywhere in the syllabus. So having been thinking CAs or low flying or whatever, you could find yerself doing S&L 1 off the cuff. For the avoidance of doubt, this was when I was a B1 (so it was a long time ago :ok:)

Teeter-
Reference SCT, the 200 hrs extra I referred to was the additional cost in SCT of getting all 660 QHI ASA trained and all 705 QHI refreshed in the basic sorties to impliment mirror sqns. This extra training was also the reason why implimentation of this decision is delayed until November! As you remember, normal SCT was keeping your IR current and maybe a little GH if you had time in the flying day between student sorties, so 1.30 a month would be ideal!!

Thanks InTgreen

From your answer I take it that those QHIs who aren't required to teach a particular exercise (say those on 660 and low flying) never practice it, or practice teaching it? And is that just the FBH personnel, or the serving QHIs too? (Shameful if true for them - CFS should take a view anyway).

So I guess the hours you rfer to would be a "one-off" to make the change to mirror-image work?

Yes, those hours would be one off. You are also correct that Qhi on 660 don't have to teach eg Confined Areas. It does not mean that the QHI dosen't keep the skills set up during SCT, there is just no requirement to. The extra hours are to ensure that all QHI, regardless of Sqn or experience, are teaching CA's in the standardised manner and in the basic way- ie high reccie, low reccie etc. Slightly different to how it is done in the real world.

I guess this whole DHFS reshuffle thing is interlinked with the missemployed QHIs being recalled to Shawbs. As far as I know 2 maybe 3 ex A2 QHIs, who have been Tac C130 Capts for the past 8 or 9 years are being called back to the Rotary stream. Is this to bolster the numbers at DHFS or just replace those that are not happy with life up there. Having spoken with one of them I know the oppurtunity of a Monday to Friday lifestyle appeals after 8 years of Detachments, although sounds like they will be busy either way....

Here lies one issue. If the desire is for the DHFS graduate to be more prepared for the front line (surely nobody can argue that that is a bad thing?) then teaching skills that are different to how it is done in the real world is non-productive? Fine - teach basic skills that will become useful in an applied technique later and so that the student has something to lay his hat on when facing an unforseen or new situation front line but don't waste valuable hours perfecting something that the student will not use when actually earning his living.

Rubbish, walk before you run!!
I learned high and low recces for CAs in the 1980s. Over the years, in the jungle, on ops and even now in my police aviation career, if time permits, I still use that technique. When the pressure is on, I modify that technique to achieve the task. You have to be good to be gash!!