Flying grading, why do they bother?
 

Why do the RN (and the army?) do flying grading?

Surely it's far too early and far too short a course to stream pilots.
RN studes have already passed pilot and nav aptitude tests long before this point.

RAF ab-initio studes go straight into EFT so why don't their RN counterparts?
Is it just historical or is there some practical reason?

ST

Its not about streaming.

Grading is about deciding whether or not a student is likely to pass the subsequent pilots course and allows the Army/Navy to make a decision on whether to provide further training based on that perceived likelyhood.
Loading a student onto a course means a big upheaval for the student and lots of adminastration for the service. Especially if that student only lasts a few weeks before being "chopped".
Much easier (and cheaper) to send them onto a 3 week course to assess their future pass potential.

"Much easier (and cheaper)" to run an additional separate Squadron just for the purpose?

If it makes such sense, why don't the RAF do it?

Flying Grading does exactly what it says on the tin i.e. it grades people into those who are likely to pass subsequent flying training and those who are not. Whilst aptitude tests show whether a person has the aptitude to perform aircrew tasks, it cannot test the persons ability to perform in the air. As most of us know once you strap into an aircraft, especially under training, most of your brain power disappears. Logically people should undergo aircrew testing then flying grading before joining the services, but this would be very expensive. Of course FG cannot prove to be perfect as people still get chopped along the way, but it does 'weed out' those likely to fail at an early stage. The very old and sometimes quite bold pilots who did FG at Roborough reckoned they could tell on the first flight whether someone would be able to hack further training. Luckily for me we were allowed a full 13 hours, which included a magical solo in a Chipmunk ah Happy Days!

Still Taxying

Yes, even setting up a seperate unit (in the case of the Army, 6 x Firefly 160's with 5 instuctors - far from Sqn size!).
Army Flying Grading operates out of half an existing hanger at Middle Wallop. I would suggest that over a period of time - its been there for about 3 years so far - that even with the initial set up costs the relative low operating costs make it financially viable.
As Arrse pointed out, the RAF's version is called UAS where there are lots of units all over the country, all of which are about the same size as the single Army and Navy units.

P.S. Isn't it a little arrogant to suggest that it can't be a good idea if the RAF don't do it?

No, the UASs carry out EFT and whilst they do perform the same function of rooting out those who can't cope with the training, direct entry pilots with no experience aren't put through the equivalent of 'Flying Grading' they just go directly into JEFTS (as far as I am aware).

Ok, put it another way.
Why do the different services do it differently?
Aren't they all essentially after the same final product?

If you were in charge of ALL military pilot training, would you be in favour of Flying Grading for ALL potential pilots?

Get chopped from grading and a bit miffed are we?

I suggest that if you looked at stats you might find your answer. I.e. see how many navy/raf get chopped relative to where they are going, not forgetting that multis are not applicable to the RN. Maybe its just they need to guarantee a better pilot for rotary - therefore grading. Not perfect but effective.

Besides the RN sqn fulfills a few more tasks than just pilot screening - i don't know if the Army is the same.

As for Jefts, well the Raf are pulling out of it.

Didn't the RAF, years ago, have some Chipmunks at Swinderby doing exactly this sort of thing, to weed out poor pilot candidates early on at low cost?

The older readers here may remember that old TV ad, for (I think)McDougals Flour. To plagiarise:
'Graded Brains Make Finer Flyers' (!)
I've been involved with grading over the years and it does give:
a. A better indication of training success than merely aptitude testing.
b. A few more flying hours experience to the eventually output student.

To expand on Chicken Leg's answer..

The majority of RAF pilots are DE in their early to mid 20's and living inthe mess as they move around, therefoer if they fail and are chopped they either stay where they are holding, leave, or re-branch and move on smoewhere else to do a course. Many pilots are chopped at EFT stage.

The Army only has a small number of DE officers per course. The majority of each cse is made up of JNCOs and SNCO, many of whom are married, have MQ's and have served at least 5 years (as is the requirement). If they are chopped they go back to their original employment if they are AAC groundcrew, or are posted back to their Regiment.

The costs and upheaval of sending someone to MW (accompanied) only to move them off again in short order is huge. In most regimental establishments you are only entitled to an MQ if you are actively employed in that garrison/bks. You may get an MQ if you are on a long course, but there is no guarantee.

It therefore makes more sense to pre-qualify candidates for flying training on their actual ability to fly if the circumstances are suh that you cannot move them around easily if they are chopped.

Also, our training system is quite different from the RAF, and the tests undertaken at RAF Cranwell do not provide a full picture of all of the aptitudes necessary. As the presumption is that all students will progress onto RW on completion of EFT, it tests things like the situational awareness of potential students that the course will develop. Although it doesn't seems so at the time, what the FG course assesses has some relation to the trainign later received.

I see some but not all of what has gone on above. Not sure if this should be a new thread but why doesn't the army accept the training done by a UAS.

Colleauges of mine on the UAS who joined the RAF went straight to Shawbury, Linton or MELIN. Yet the army guys some of whom had completed the entire syallabus had to do JEFTS. Now that is a waste of the taxpayers money.

We were all taught by CFS instructors in lt ac and though not complaining about the extra hours. For the DE young AAC Offrs it seems to waste valuable career time that could have been spent either attached to another arm or getting on with rotary. For the E3 pilots this was just holding up promotion and career prosepcts.

Correct me if I'm wrong ;)

Vortex, things may have changed, but certainly flying on a UAS when I did it in no way compares to Jefts, and I think is just the RAF trying to save money. For a start UAS is fun and the pressure isnt on in anything like the same way.

I suppose it depends when you were on the UAS Tourist, but things are getting changing and the students have to work harder an take things a lot more seriously than they had to a few years ago.

Tonks

With the demise of the RAF element of JEFTS the RAF will be conducting EFT within the UAS system, which also means streaming at that point. So for anyone undergoing this it most definitely IS serious these days!

Vortex.. The issue is more of timing than anything else. 2Lts are streamed to the flying course nearest the end of their CCC. With an average of 2-5 officer pilots per course of 10-12 students it would be more impractical to hold them until the RW phase of training than to just put them through the course in its entirety.

Tonks
If this is true, then what a terrible thing to do to poor students who should be having fun at uni, not worrying about chop rides!

The RAF DID have a flying grading unit at Swinderby until not too long ago. The purpose of this was nothing more than to see if the individual could absorb instruction (and to see if he did, indeed, have the aptitude to fly!). Then along came JEFTS, which was just as cost-effective as Swinderby; jointery = saving money and was flavour of the day, along with civilianisation, contractors, et al. So Swinderby closed.

Amazing how things go full circle, isn't it? In the 60's, if you held a PPL (eg through the ATC flying scholarship scheme) or if you had been on a UAS, then you went directly from IOT to BFTS (JPs). For those that had neither experience, they went from IOT to 30 hours on Chipmunks before going on to BFTS.

We'll get it right some day!

What's more, Tourist, JEFTS is fun (for some anyway judging by the bleary eyes after a grad at Linton) although I couldn't say there's no pressure.

Can't understand all this JEFTS cost saving b******s. I did the very last Flying Selection Squadron course at Swinderby.

Leave Cranwell and see if you can actually pole an aircraft on something really cheap (Chipmunk). If you can, be taught to fly a jet on something quite cheap (Jet Provost). If you can hack that, learn how to fly/shoot/drop bombs on something a bit more expensive (Hawk). That way you get rid of all the crap at the cheap stages, and not grading/teaching on new expensive stuff.

Seemed to work at the time.

I was just wondering, for all you guys and girls who have been through flying grading, how many of you had previous flying experience and did it stand you in good stead?

I've heard different things from different people. Some say that minimal flying experience is better as you then learn everything the correct way the first time. Others have said that a PPL gives a good grounding to pass grading.

Who is correct?

Cambo