RAF : Officer / Pilot Entry

Yes I agree :smile:

Although it may not be the case that someone doesn't get marked down if they do prove well in other aspects of the interview. After all the interviews do follow a set format usually. I'm sure Wzz or some of the other guys will know...

Reply 3562

BlackHawk

Yes I agree :smile:

Although it may not be the case that someone doesn't get marked down if they do prove well in other aspects of the interview. After all the interviews do follow a set format usually. I'm sure Wzz or some of the other guys will know...

Yeah, you're probably right, although my personal opinion is that the set format is biased towards those people applying for pilot. And I know I risk being shot down in flames here, but that was my impression!! :rolleyes:

Reply 3563

Nikki J S

Yeah, you're probably right, although my personal opinion is that the set format is biased towards those people applying for pilot. And I know I risk being shot down in flames here, but that was my impression!! :rolleyes:

I think it is as well because at the end of the day its looked on as one of the most important branches. Which is becoming less and less now but to some degree they test you as the would a pilot applicant. A lot of people would probably be able to do RW or ME but they test for FJ. To be honest though they can afford to be as picky as they want! Its not as though they are short of applicants.....which is a shame :rolleyes:

Reply 3564

BlackHawk

I think it is as well because at the end of the day its looked on as one of the most important branches. Which is becoming less and less now but to some degree they test you as the would a pilot applicant. A lot of people would probably be able to do RW or ME but they test for FJ. To be honest though they can afford to be as picky as they want! Its not as though they are short of applicants.....which is a shame :rolleyes:

They can be as selective as they want, but they have to compare like with like, to be consistent. If they're wanting pilot applicants then they should select them based on set criteria of the skills required for that branch (which is what they do). If they're wanting doctors, they should devise the criteria that needs to be tested for suitability to that branch, not try to take the pilot criterai as a one size fits all (which is what I believe they are currently doing).

And it's not as if doctors are banging down the door to join, they're desperately short, which is why they're currently offering 'Golden Hello's' of around 50k to many posts within medical branches.

Reply 3565

ThomA2

Nikki J S

I agree that everyone should have a level of knowledge about them, although the recruitment process should not mark down those branches that only require a very limited understanding of their role. Personally, I think it's a flaw in the process.

The focus of the interview is determined by your branch choice. Obviously air crew focus on the aircraft and weapons whereas Int focusses heavily on current affairs.

I think the level of knowledge required for the ground branches is not unreasonable, I was even surprised at how little I was quizzed.

If you pick up the Aircraft & Weapons brochure from your AFCO everything it laid out nice and neatly, it's just something you have to learn; moreover, it's quite interesting! :smile:

Also don't forget, you're an Officer in the Royal Air Force first and a medic second. Imagine if an Officer didn't know which variant of the Tornado was used for air defence, or which aircraft were used for air refuelling - a poor show indeed, I'm sure you'll agree.

Reply 3566

ThomA2

The focus of the interview is determined by your branch choice. Obviously air crew focus on the aircraft and weapons whereas Int focusses heavily on current affairs.

I think the level of knowledge required for the ground branches is not unreasonable, I was even surprised at how little I was quizzed.

If you pick up the Aircraft & Weapons brochure from your AFCO everything it laid out nice and neatly, it's just something you have to learn; moreover, it's quite interesting! :smile:

lol yes my flatmates didn't quite see my enthusiasm for it all when I showed them that booklet :rolleyes:

Reply 3567

If you pick up the Aircraft & Weapons brochure from your AFCO everything it laid out nice and neatly, it's just something you have to learn; moreover, it's quite interesting! :smile:

Interesting is subjective. I have very little interest in military aircraft or weapons, even though I recognise that I should have a better knowledge of them, and have to learn them.

Also don't forget, you're an Officer in the Royal Air Force first and a medic second. Imagine if an Officer didn't know which variant of the Tornado was used for air defence, or which aircraft were used for air refuelling - a poor show indeed, I'm sure you'll agree.

Whilst this may be the case for the majority of officer branches, it doesn't apply to 'professionally qualified' branches. As the RAF literature on these branches points out, officer responsibilities are secondary to the primary professional role. However, that 's not saying they aren't extremely important, or that you don't have to have officer skills or qualities.

Does a doctor, lawyer or chaplain really need to know which aircraft are used for air refuelling?

Edit: Why, oh why, did I post on here after drinking?!!

Reply 3568

I'm not sure I even agree with some of the stuff I posted last night whilst slightly inebriated. :p:

Or at least, I now only partially agree with it, as it didn't take account of the bigger picture..... :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'll live!

Reply 3569

Nikki J S

I'm not sure I even agree with some of the stuff I posted last night whilst slightly inebriated. :p:

Or at least, I now only partially agree with it, as it didn't take account of the bigger picture..... :rolleyes:

Oh well, I'll live!

yes ermmm same here. especially at daft o clock in the morning. *note to self* stay off tsr when drinking/tired/or on an occupied mind. Ah well it will give some of the old boys something to discuss :p:

Reply 3570

BlackHawk

Ah well it will give some of the old boys something to discuss :p:

Yeah, though perhaps a little too much! :rolleyes:

Reply 3571

Prospect

Yes I know the RAF is at first the obvious option, but it also seems to have the most competition for places, with the vast percentage of applicants going for fast jet, not actualy making it. I'm not suggesting the Navy have lower standards, I just wonder if they do actualy have less Pilot applicants. Also, to be fair, the navy do have Harriers and the JCA is set to arrive in 2012(?) which would fit in quite nicely with the end of my training. ( and yes, they are currently recruiting for the next generation of pilots with the JCA in mind)

It's about 20 times harder to end up as a FAA FJ pilot than it is to become an RAF FJ pilot. They may have Harriers, but as you have to be of demonstrable single-seat ability right from EFT, it's a lot harder to even get sent to Linton to try FJ training. Then, rather than just pass, you must be noticeably better than average all the way through Linton and 208(R) at Valley.

It's easy to be good at EFT, good at Linton, and still find you're best suited to a twin seater rather than the quite ridiculously hard Harrier OCU. I wouldn't like to leave EFT thinking from then on I was "Harrier or bust!" Besides, who do you talk to in a single seat jet? :wink:

Join the FAA if you're keen on helicopters and the sea. If you want to be, above all else, a FJ pilot, you'd be crazy not to do it in the RAF.

Reply 3572

Nikki J S

I wonder how pilots would respond if asked about the effects of Hypoxia on their ability to carry out their role?

I would have replied, "eh?"

Reply 3573

BlackHawk

yes it is a bit unfortunate in that way. Everything is geared towards pilots in the air force

There used to be a sort of mission statement thing that flew around, and I think it's worth reinforcing; when wasting days and days with obstructive blunties I still think of it.

The role of the RAF is to fly and fight. The role of those that don't, is to support those that do.

So it's alright to be pilot-centric. It's what the job's all about.

Reply 3574

Wzz

I would have replied, "eh?"

No you wouldn't. :p:

Your knowledge of Hypoxia is better than my knowledge of military aircraft :wink:

Reply 3575

Wzz

There used to be a sort of mission statement thing that flew around, and I think it's worth reinforcing; when wasting days and days with obstructive blunties I still think of it.

The role of the RAF is to fly and fight. The role of those that don't, is to support those that do.

So it's alright to be pilot-centric. It's what the job's all about.

Of course it is. However, you want people in support roles who have the skills and abilties to to undertake their duties in supporting. Those skils and abilites are different from those required to "fly and fight". Therefore they should be testing specific criteria for specific roles, with an acknowledgement that their is a large degree in commonality of role as an officer.

Reply 3576

Nikki J S

No you wouldn't. :p:

Your knowledge of Hypoxia is better than my knowledge of military aircraft :wink:

yes aren't pilots required to know those kinds of things? :p:

I know I got quizzed on it before I could try to go solo and that was only for a namby pamby uas :biggrin:

Reply 3577

Nikki J S

Of course it is. However, you want people in support roles who have the skills and abilties to to undertake their duties in supporting. Those skils and abilites are different from those required to "fly and fight". Therefore they should be testing specific criteria for specific roles, with an acknowledgement that their is a large degree in commonality of role as an officer.

But as their job is to support those who fly, a little noticeable interest in the primary equipment of the RAF and those who're in them wouldn't go amiss. Otherwise, especially in the case of professionally qualified officers, you might wonder why they chose to do their job in the RAF other than somewhere else.

Reply 3578

BlackHawk

yes aren't pilots required to know those kinds of things? :p:

I know I got quizzed on it before I could try to go solo and that was only for a namby pamby uas :biggrin:

Well, I know it now, but during my original OASC interview I would have been slightly confused to say the least!

Reply 3579