FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0196.PDF
194 FLIGHT, 13 February 1953 AIRCREW TRAINING —for Civil and R.A.F. Needs: a Suggested Scheme - - By F. A. CHAPMAN SINCE the war a rapidly expanding civil aviation has been able to draw on a large pool of trained ex-R.A.F. personnel for its new and replacement aircrew. This source of supply will continue over the next few years, as short- service and National Service aircrew become redundant. But do the civil airlines and Corporations want these men ? The short-service people now returning to civil life, or soon to return, are ex-war pilots, and therefore too old to have a useful length of flying life left. The National Serviceman, on the other hand, is generally too young and inexperienced; and in any case, having thrown up military flying as a career, he is unlikely to take up civil flying as a livelihood. Additionally, as the stated policy of the Services is to retain only the cream of its aircrew, surely civil operators should not be satisfied with less thau the best aircrews for its passenger transport. In the foreseeable future even this small pool of trained aircrew may dry up. It seems likely that, with the advent of such bombers as the Vulcan, Service pilots will be few in number, will be comparatively high ranking and be employed solely on piloting for many years. It appears obvious, then, that civil aircrews will have to be recruited and trained from the young, raw material. Not least of the difficulties of instigating such a policy will arise in obtaining the right type of man, and this object can be achieved only by offering a long-term policy—in other words, the prospects of a life career. Unfortunately, flying is still not looked upon as a career, even by many of those actively engaged in it. Such trends of thought must be eradicated, though the difficulty of doing so becomes apparent when one looks back on the frustrations of the post-war years, the mass of redundancies, and the succession of gluts and scarcities of aircrew, culminating in the recent short sighted axing of basic and Reserve flying training schools. To attract the right type of man, then, a suitable career must be offered and, as with all other professions, men must be guided to think along the lines of their chosen calling at the earliest possible age. It is still true to say that the younger the man the more easily will he absorb flying instruction; but with the complexity of modern aircraft, a pilot should not go on to productive flying, either civil or Service, until the age of 23-25, when he still retains the fire of youth yet is mature enough to know where he is going. I am convinced that one of the reasons for the small percentage of National Service aircrew wishing to stay on in the Service is because too-young youths have been too-quickly taken on to too- fast aircraft. In other words, experience is gained not simply by flying hours, but by those hours spread over a period of time. The training scheme I have in mind envisages a start of active training at between 17 and 20 years of age, carrying through pro bably seven years before becoming fully productive. The next major item is cost. Obviously, individually financed training is out of the question. It would also be unfair to ask the Corporations to bear the whole cost when they stand to lose men to private airlines or the Services. One feels that most of the initial training costs should be born by the Air Ministry, since every trained pilot is a potential war pilot. The training scheme, then, can be envisaged as a mutual civil-R.A.F. scheme. It would be built around these four major points:— (1) Flying must offer a career. (2) Training would aim at turning out fully qualified pilots or other aircrew at approximately 25 years of age. (3) Initial training would be carried out to the mutual benefit of both service and civil aviation. (4) Economy of operation would be constantly kept in mind. To fulfil Point 1, aspiring aircrew would be signed on between the ages of 17 and 20 on a five-year, part-time or reserve engage ment. At the end of the five years, the man would be given an option of (a) joining the R.A.F. on a long-term engagement; (b) joining a Corporation or civil flying company; (c) leaving fly ing altogether, but being retained for five years on the R.A.F. non- training reserve. Pay would be on similar lines to that obtaining in the present university air squadrons, with a bounty of, say, £50 per year; but this bounty would be payable only at the end of five years and then only to those entering the R.A.F. or civil flying. Such a scheme would give the budding aviator sufficient long-term security and prospects to encourage him to carry through his training, but at the same time would leave him a loophole for turning in his hand should he decide that flying is not in his blood; and he could do so with the knowledge that he would not be unemployed by so doing, and could carry on with his normal trade. To fulfil Point 2, training on the five-year engagement would be at the rate of 80 hours' flying and 80 hours' lectures per year. CONCERNED at such matters as the cuts in the Reserve schools, and the general uncertainty bred by occurrences of this kind, the author of this article suggests a five-year training scheme, which, while largely based on existing facilities, displays some original features. He writes from practical knowledge as chief instructor at No. 19 Reserve Flying School, Woodvale, near Liverpool, which is operated by Short Brothers and Harland, Ltd. Thus, in five years—and, say, at the age of 23 or so—the men would have carried out 400 hours' flying, and have achieved proficiency at least equal to the present "wings" standard achieved. A further one to two years' advanced training in his chosen branch would produce a man with a good length of flying experience and one sufficiently mature to captain a valuable modern aircraft. With regard to Point 3, and bearing in mind cost, the initial five years' training would be carried out on the following lines:— First Year.-—Eighty hours' basic flying training on Chipmunks, with 15 days' continuous training in the early solo stage. Second Year.—Eighty hours' flying on Chipmunks; 15 day' scon-tinuous training to Instrument Rating standard. Third Year.—Eighty hours' flying, 15 days' continuous training used to convert on to a twin-engined aircraft (e.g., Oxford or Anson). Fourth Year.—Eighty hours' flying plus one month attached to an R.A.F. unit, converting to jet aircraft. Fifth Year.—On twin-engined aircraft; 15 days' continuous training aimed at giving experience in the greatest possible number of types of instrument approach-aids, both Service and civil. The above scheme is based on the supposition that 80 hours' flying is the maximum that can reasonably be done in one year. The months at an R.A.F. unit would give the pupil an insight into Service life. With Point 4 in mind, maximum use is made of part- time training, thus eliminating much of the financial loss incurred when a full-time, three-parts-trained pilot is either "scrubbed" or throws in his hand. This five-year, part-time training would be carried out by civilian-operated schools (as at present operating as Reserve Flying Training Schools) far more economically than by either the R.A.F. or the Corporations. Such schools have had long experience of this type of work and over the past 20 years have become the backbone of ab initio flying training in this country. The scheme would be financed by the Air Ministry, but airline companies would pay a certain sum for every pilot they took from the pool. This scheme, one feels, would benefit both the Corporations and the R.A.F. by providing pilots (trained to a fairly advanced standard at the most useful age) for advanced aircraft; and it would do so at a reasonably low cost by using, in the main, an already constituted and well-tried training set-up. The numbers to be trained in this scheme are obviously a matter for high policy, but it is suggested that an intake of 25 pilots per year by each of 20 schools would be almost sufficient for both civil and R.A.F. needs with present types of aircraft. Training for other aircrew could be broadly on the same lines. DISCUSSING HELICOPTER MAINTENANCE (Continued from page 193) worthwhile operating items (d) and (e) in the way mentioned in the latter alternative. In view of the probable regular operating pattern, the second alternative was the more attractive, because it aimed at spreading the grounding period dictated by the main tenance cycle into a number of blocks of time in such a way that all maintenance work necessary could be done when the aircraft was not required for revenue flying. The first alternative would be preferable only where flying was at a low rate and of a non-regular nature. The other might be termed the "progressive system." (3) The most likely way of achieving efficient labour effort was to employ the labour force at a steady load continuously and not in a series of high activity periods followed by periods of inactivity. The "progressive system" of maintenance thus clearly helped to achieve an attractive economic balance. In his concluding remarks, Mr. McClements referred to the frequent confusion between maintenance implications and opera tional considerations, and to the manner in which the concept of the "Utilization Potential Factor" could help to reduce this confusion. The practical apphcation of the progressive system of maintenance had been found not to be over-formidable, he con cluded, as it had been used during the B.E.A. Liverpool-Cardiff passenger helicopter service—indeed, it had made it possible. We hope to print a summary of the fourth main paper, by Mr. W. L. Shippey, of the B.E.A. Helicopter Unit, and of the other contributions to the discussion, in next week's issue.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
