Join TSR now and get all your career questions answeredSign up now

What is a competitive score for the RAF CBAT for pilot?

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bear in mind Hertz, the chop rate on Army grading includes those who voluntarily withdraw from the process.

    And savings are being made by means of cutting the number of sorties flown on EFT to name one example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Couple of factors, chief among them being the sheer numbers that the RAF needs to take when compared to the FAA, especially in recent years. The RAF will clearly be forced to take people who, put simply, aren't quite as good as the top level.

    Indeed they do face savings, hence MFTS.
    There is certainly truth in that - look at what the two require of their pilots. The FAA only operate Fast Jet and Rotary wing aircraft really, which doesn't allow for the run-off into Multi-engine that the RAF has. They want to be sure that any candidate that they do accept has the ability to make it into one of these two streams.
    I'll not say I don't understand the logic behind the grading system, I'll just promote the idea that there are efficiencies to be made there by substituting it for a more cost effective solution.

    Drewski, what's your stake in this by the way? Are you a candidate, in training or serving in any of the forces currently? Just want to understand where you are coming from! Feel free to reply by PM if convenient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Bear in mind Hertz, the chop rate on Army grading includes those who voluntarily withdraw from the process.

    And savings are being made by means of cutting the number of sorties flown on EFT to name one example.
    Oh okay, in that case the money you need to look at is that which is spent on the chopped candidates as opposed to all of them. I can see how it might not be cost effective to provide a tailor made solution to replace grading in the short to mid term in that case. Though if it were my job, I'd certainly investigate the numbers closely and get estimates of the cost of developing that alternative solution.

    Cheers for explaining the process chaps! Glad to learn more about the process and I appreciate the time it's taken you to change my perspective.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    By grading I mean flying aptitude is assessed over several hours of live flying with a QFI to assess the candidates ability to monkey see, monkey do, multi task etc in an unfamiliar and stressful environment.
    The majority of RAF students/candidates are ex-UAS which would make grading rather a waste. Considering the low "chop rate" during EFT, and the robust aptitude testing that has been refined over near three-quarters of a century, RAF "grading" would be a waste of resources. As for the Army, grading is completed alongside their (lower pass mark) aptitude testing and actually gets the AAC the ability to see whether their soldier or Sandhurst candidate has a natural aptitude and character.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    The instructors wouldn't be the issue I feel as its contracted out to Babcock and is a nice little number for those who have retired from the military.
    So cynical for someone so young. As it happens the vast majority of Babcock pilots are pure civilians with not military experience.

    As for the point on EFT sortie savings, that's short term pre-MFTS. The MFTS EFT course will be broadly similar to the older EFT courses, but with sims too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    I can see how it might not be cost effective to provide a tailor made solution to replace grading in the short to mid term in that case. Though if it were my job, I'd certainly investigate the numbers closely and get estimates of the cost of developing that alternative solution.
    I suspect it's the way they've always done it and it'll remain that way. The RAF will never introduce it due to the large number of UAS grads and the very, very low EFT chop rate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hertz32)
    what's your stake in this by. the way? Are you a candidate, in training or serving in any of the forces currently? Just want to understand where you are coming from! Feel free to reply by PM if convenient.
    Formerly in, though not a member of the two-winged master race.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fritz Lansen)
    So cynical for someone so young. As it happens the vast majority of Babcock pilots are pure civilians with not military experience.

    As for the point on EFT sortie savings, that's short term pre-MFTS. The MFTS EFT course will be broadly similar to the older EFT courses, but with sims too.
    I wasn't being cynical, there are plenty of ex military (not all were military pilots either) Babcock QFIs, far more than what would qualify as a minority.

    So will those on the EFT short course (for lack of a better name) graduate with training deficiencies that are to be swept up further down the line or will that in fact become the norm? Much along the line the military seems to take on other methods of cost saving, "it appears you only fired 75% of your ammunition allocation this training year, therefore you will receive that 75% as your total allocation next year", but the fact that 25% of your manpower and weapons were deployed somewhere else doesn't factor in etc etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    I wasn't being cynical, there are plenty of ex military (not all were military pilots either) Babcock QFIs, far more than what would qualify as a minority.
    There are still far more pure civvies now than ex-mil.

    So will those on the EFT short course (for lack of a better name) graduate with training deficiencies that are to be swept up further down the line or will that in fact become the norm?
    Training deficiencies? Depends on what you want to achieve. Very few rotary and multis pilots need to go upside down, so do they need to be taught spinning or aerobatics? Other than those elements the course has materially changed very little. Those going FJ can pick that up later down the line in some form or another. Quite a few people will turn up at EFT with plenty of UAS hours too, so overall the risk for the RAF is relatively low. As it is SDSR told the RAF it needed to put X pilots through the system per year. It couldn't do X with the course length as it was, but could do X if the course was smaller.

    It may give a headache later down the line, but hey, that's what the military has always dealt with. MFTS will essentially restore the old course anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fritz Lansen)
    It may give a headache later down the line, but hey, that's what the military has always dealt with. MFTS will essentially restore the old course anyway.
    Indeed, interesting times lie ahead with regards to MFTS, particularly from an AAC perspective 🌝
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Indeed, interesting times lie ahead with regards to MFTS, particularly from an AAC perspective 🌝
    I'm not sure anyone will notice too much difference (apart from the sportier aeroplane). The pace may be a little different, but the QFI demographic will be similar and, I believe, the Grading contract is set to run for some time thereafter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Of course, the world will continue to spin, however, there is going to be a freeze in output for some months (how long is unknown, or at least isn't common knowledge) of Army pilots and I can only assume the other services will experience the same, due to change of type and training locations. Unfortunately, the pressure will be felt the greatest at the front line squadrons which may have a knock on effect for retention.

    To top it off they are still yet to decide the future basing of the AH force so depending on when that starts being actioned, whatever the decision is, it may lead to a perfect storm.

    All this without a significant commitment to operations either, so no doubt that would be another thumb in the pressure point should something pop up.

    I'll take my cynical hat off now 🙃🎩
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    I'll take my cynical hat off now 🙃🎩


    For the trainee the luxury is they just go where they are told and when they are told to! At the end of the day there may be a slight delay for some, but not too much more than any normal hold that RAF/RN students are well used to.

    I think the EFT transition will be fairly painless. The core syllabus be taught is essentially the same, the QFIs just need to be converted to the 'TP and adjust to teaching on the new aircraft; not too unlike the change from Firefly to Tutor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fritz Lansen)
    I think the EFT transition will be fairly painless. The core syllabus be taught is essentially the same, the QFIs just need to be converted to the 'TP and adjust to teaching on the new aircraft; not too unlike the change from Firefly to Tutor.
    Hopefully you're right, I'm just waiting for Pprune to go wild when there's the first wheels up landing and someone tries to blame it on the lack of analogue in the cockpit Bonus points if someone mentions Children of the Magenta.

    Rotary wise, I think that's where the most pain will be felt. But a sales pitch I've heard bounced around already is "the students should look forward to the 135, it's more transferable to civvy street and it, or the 145 will probably end up taking on the NI/BATUS/Brunei tasks anyway so need to convert further down the line".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NFI)
    Hopefully you're right, I'm just waiting for Pprune to go wild when there's the first wheels up landing and someone tries to blame it on the lack of analogue in the cockpit Bonus points if someone mentions Children of the Magenta.
    The Argentine's have done that already a year or so back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Currently 3rd term in IOT45 and due to graduate in 3 weeks. We have 3/4 pilots on our course who are 18. One pilot got 112 on his CBAT and he's here. Don't listen to people growing around scores such as 121 is the current pass mark, it's complete nonsense. Anything above 112 and you're in with a chance.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hand to eye co-ordination and innate aptitude tends to be at it's highest at age 16-17 and declines at a standard rate to age 28 where it then remains constant for many year - until the mid 50's early 60s (the performance range is wider then). However, flying isn't all about aptitude, it's also about the quality of decision making which comes through life experience, knowledge and 'maturity' and it is low at 16 and high by the late 20s where it tends to stabilise (it's harder to measure empirically). The intersection of these two rising and declining elements of overall aptitude comes at about 23 years old, plus or minus a year each way, so that's, for the 'average' applicant, the ideal time to recruit. That doesn't quite fit with university graduation, when people are in alife position to apply, but it's close enough.

    The younger you recruit a high aptitude person the more risk they don't develop the maturity and decision making, the older you recruit an excellent decision maker, the more risk they don't have the aptitude for some of the more advanced handling requirements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lekzz)
    Currently 3rd term in IOT45 and due to graduate in 3 weeks. We have 3/4 pilots on our course who are 18. One pilot got 112 on his CBAT and he's here. Don't listen to people growing around scores such as 121 is the current pass mark, it's complete nonsense. Anything above 112 and you're in with a chance.
    It always has been the case. 125 was historically the "competitive" score, but I suspect that has gone out of the window somewhat post SDSR. Pre-SDSR those in the 112-125 bracket tended to get through based on actual flying potential (ie had flown on the UAS). Once they have a surplus of suitable applicants it may come back.

    It's always been possible to score more than 112 and fail too, if you miss the cut off point on any particular element.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So, 40 posts later, we're back at what I said in post #2. Might have been out a while (and now not allowed back in, Grr) but still know what I'm talking about!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    So, 40 posts later, we're back at what I said in post #2. Might have been out a while (and now not allowed back in, Grr) but still know what I'm talking about!
    Basically, yes. But nothing beats a bit of beating about the bush in the meantime!
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: September 24, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

Articles:

Guide to the armed forcesGuide to the Royal Air ForceA job in the Army

Featured recruiter profiles:

Army logo

The Army is recruiting now

"With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

Quick Link:

Unanswered Armed Forces Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.