PN, apologies! Ahem.. there is a very nice Hunter by the A17 near Holbeach! :O

And a big willy waving phallic symbol next to it.

Of course, just down the road from Woodhall is a well maintained Lightning and an pretty white Bloodhound missile sans boosters.

Whining aside, aren't OCUs supposed to be hard? We could have fluffy OCUs to prepare our warriors for fluffy wars, I suppose.

Tin hat on.

Holbeach Hunter at 52°48'23.94" N 0°03'34.54" E

TTN mentioned the multi OCUs as well.

Who on 230 in the late '60s early '70s could ever forget THAT nav radar, ex-Lincolns, ex-GSU, with a voice like a foghorn :)

From Courtney
"Whining aside, aren't OCUs supposed to be hard? We could have fluffy OCUs to prepare our warriors for fluffy wars, I suppose."

Interesting.

I saw something earlier about 30% success rate for an OCU. Does that reflect badly on that OCU or in the Training System that came before the OCU.

What has disheartened me a little is the attitude of 'If your face fits' that seems to be prevalent at some period in some OCU's.

I always thought we looked after each other, some dickheads aside, and in all honestly I would have expected that even more from Officers who had been through the grinder themselves.

Or am I being too sensitive :confused:

Ex Radar, it was not only OCUs that could be hard. The SFC was not known for its leniency, but unlike aircrew where it is your neck on the line, with FCs it is someone else's neck.

Faces have to fit. (hopefully skilled faces)

Talented arseholes can be very disruptive!

ExRAFRadar,

No, don't misunderstand me. The whole training system needs to be challenging. And I agree, we did all need to look after each other and I think, in the main that has always happened - excepting a few nobs. There have never been enough hours to do everything we wanted, so we have always had to make do. The hardness is part of preparing folk for the worst of times in the future. Not nastiness for its own sake. Hardness.

Courtney

Courtney, surely the OCU course should be designed so that the average student should be able to complete the course to a satisfactory standard without requiring 'flex hours'?

A 'training needs analysis' should identify the knowledge-based and skill based elements necessary to bridge the training gap between the input standard and the desired output standard. It should also recommend the necessary training media - will chalk 'n talk do, or will CBT be more effective? Is a simulator needed, or will a part-task trainer suffice for some of the training?

The main problems with OCU training were constant fiscally-driven training cut-backs, ever greater demands from the receiving squadrons - and many members of staff who simply didn't want to be there.....

Must have been lucky, all OCU's from 1961 until 1978 were excellent! Yes, you had to accept different levels of experience in both student and instructor and different levels of teaching/learning (accepting that maybe you might know better - so what?) I personally felt that it was a good system which helped me in all ways. I still think that we do it best (and I am NOT out of touch with today's Royal Air Force!) :ok::ok:

My experience would make me agree with that. And I think they were bloody good in the rest of my time. Apart from a bit more fluffiness. :E

'Face fits' is largely gone. The training system and OCUs are much more tightly regulated than in the past, and any student who is meeting the course objectives will pass, regardless of how much of a kn*b he is. Any student not meeting the course objectives should receive additional training within the constraints laid down by the course documents; if such training was withheld or given half-heartedly because the guy was a kn*b then he would have legal recourse because everything has to be written down in black and white! It can and has happened, and suspension boards have been known to re-instate chopped students because the paperwork didn't stack up, something that was entirely unheard of in my day.

Yes, there are more kn*bs at the front line as a result, and yes sqn cohesion isn't what it once was. On some sqns anyway.

Fluffy?
The Germans have no word for Fluffy.

Maybe I should have been a bit more of a bastard to you in the F3 Sim then Courtney?

I know a few FCs (or whatever they are going by these days) from my IOT days and they would agree with that statement. By all accounts, even up until the late 90s it wasn't uncommon for entire courses to be chopped and sent back to OASC for reselection. Not sure whether such high failure rates is a damning indictment of the aptitude system which sent them there or the course and the way it was taught. Whatever the answer, to chop an entire course should have set alarm bells ringing.

Before I embarked upon my first 'OCU equivalent' one of my instructors gave me some sage advice. "Try to see it as getting to the frontline despite 899!" I remember my first day well, an instructor threw his coffee dregs onto our office floor!

I have done three of the festering things now. Sadly/ realistically they are a bean counter's nightmare for the very reason that they are a culmination of all things that you have been taught. The net must tighten and like it or not some will be found wanting. There is always a bit of flex in a decision to send someone from elementary to basic and onwards to jets - because we all develop and learn at different rates. Some struggle from the get go but struggle all the way to the frontline. Some ace the early stages but hit a wall later that is insurmountable.

I was priveleged to serve as the flight commander responsible for the final stages of an OCU once and had a fairly stringent filter to apply. If I couldn't send my mates on the frontline someone who I'd be prepared to go into combat with myself - he didn't go. The flex had gone, they either made the grade, or they didn't.

And if that means that a chap who has been training for five years goes to another aircraft type at great expense to the taxpayer then so be it. Far better that than a chap who you've personally given 'the laying on of hands' runs out of capacity at the moment critique over Helmand.

Ah yes indeed! Whilst holding at Biggin following my pre-Vulcan Buccaneer course :\ it was rather fun to have a fresh batch of young, moist fighter controllerettes arriving at regulal intervals.....:E

Ah, but they do! They've even developed a new breed of dwarf fluffy bunny to dispel this myth:

Beags,

Sorry, going back to your point about course design. You are, of course, absolutely spot on, the course should be taylored for the average student and include all the skills required for Bloggs' arrival on his or her first squadron. If a little extra can get a low or below average mate through, then that too is a good thing. If there are high ave studes, there must be low ave ones too.

My point about never enough hours was more about the final stages of pre-OCU training, where hours have been progressively stripped over the years. Big mistake.

Yes, we've all seen the bitter and twisted instructors, but in the main I think most do the job pretty well. Actually, even the complete b'stards did OK by
me in retrospect.


Fox 3,

You mean you weren't???? :ok:


Ein Teddywidderkaninchen - scoop two out and they would make a lovely pair of slippers.

I still say training should be challenging.

Beags et al

Having spent some 12 years of my flying career on the staff of fast-jet OCUs (probably too long), between the 70s and 90s, I feel there is something not mentioned in the correspondence here. That item is Honest Grading of student sorties .

At some time in the 70s the old classified (i.e. the studes didn’t see the write-ups) system was changed so that studes could see everything that was written about them by instructors. In my view the system was degraded at a stroke.

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. This soon led to Grade Inflation, where the Average became High Average or better. Because of this, many students had an over-inflated idea of their abilities, leading to feelings of being hard done by when they were suspended.

Oh my God! You mean those grades of mine I saw were over-inflated? You've just shattered my self image! :{

Seriously, though, I'm sure there's something in that. I like to think that I was always pretty honest in my marking as an instructor, but I take your point about human nature.

Courtney.