Author Topic: Air Corps Training (Read 1064 times)

alpha foxtrot 07 · « **on:** February 02, 2004, 07:17:34 am »

as a aer corps cadet or potential nco you are required to become as quilifed or trained as your army counterpart. now is this a worthwhile practice or should id be changed.
example:
1. a aer corps cadet is trained to lead infantry soldiers in section and platoon level tactics, is this realistic training for an officer who will not use that training.
2. a NCO be it cpl or sgt is trained to the army level aswell, the cpl in section tatics and the sgt in platoon tactics and all this is so that tech can do different thing on the maintanence side of the corps, again is this training worthwhile for someone who does not need it.
i personally know of at least one tech who left the corps because to make progress he would of had to do the pots course, which is the army nco course, which if i remember correctly is about 12 weeks long.
what do you fine ladies and gents think.

dangermouse · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2004, 09:28:35 am »

On the NCO side of things whilst leading a sec in an attack might not be part of their everyday work it does help to develop leadership skills etc, also it is worth noting that air corps personnel to serve overseas with the army in army type roles.....
As far as officers go an air corps cadet only does the first 7+ months of army cadet training which is all about moulding the individual in to a potential leader and of course introducing them in ot the rigours of military life.

alpha foxtrot 07 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2004, 06:46:49 pm »

so the navy only do 3 months because there not a true military force.

Tucco · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2004, 07:45:21 pm »

What's the 'AER' Corps?

Is it related to the Irish AIR Corps?

'>

alpha foxtrot 07 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2004, 08:32:25 am »

aer is irish for air.

Ben Dover · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2004, 11:18:58 am »

I have always questioned the need for corps units, be they medical, signal, Air, etc, to under take infantry career courses.
There is little use for section attacks at the corps level however I believe that the powers that be couldnt be bothered holding a AC or signals NCO course because it would be "too much hassle".

There isnt enough technical promotions within the DF. Some guys going (like the aptce class) to do technical training and living in a slit trench for 2 weeks doesnt interest them. I am sure that more than 1 has left the AC for the same reason as your mate alpha

Tucco · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2004, 12:02:14 pm »

Well done Foxtrot.

Unfortunately Irish Air Corps is the english name that has always been adopted and used for the Corps.

Of course, in either case AER Corps is grammatically incorrect. Aer Chor would be closer if one wished to use an Irish sentence. AER Corps is simply wrong.

'>

Joey d · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2004, 12:06:06 pm »

Tucco

'> Lets not get carried away over one letter

'>

Tucco · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2004, 12:35:37 pm »

'> Fair enough Jody E

'>

Just kiddin.

Have to say, drives me mad when papers etc keep using Aer Corps. It's just plain wrong.

Joey d · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2004, 04:51:36 pm »

'> As apposed to being plane wrong

'>

alpha foxtrot 07 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2004, 05:28:47 pm »

hi tucco
lets stick to the topic at hand, what do you think about it.

FiannaFail · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2004, 05:59:27 pm »

Its like Éire or Republic of Ireland isn't? What about Aer Chor NaÉireann?
FiannaFail ':cool:'

Tucco · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:17:17 pm »

Eh, yeh, on the topic in hand I think basic army and weapons training is benificial to anyone.

And perhaps of some benefit to pilot officer or NCOs. Be that character or confidence building if nothing else. Clearly for their daily role in a military airwing it's of little daily use.

However, don't forget it also qualifies Air Corps personnel to take part in Irish infantry operations overseas. Where they depart with the battallion in DPMs and carry out the duties of a soldier while in theatre.

Without this, Air Corps personnel would never be stationed overseas. Or at least on very rare occasions - like John O'Brien running air operations in Somalia.

'>

Fouga · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2004, 02:18:33 pm »

Would also come in handy if a pilot had to bail out, seeing as we are getting Ejection seats with the new PC-9m's.

Sounds far fetched but all training is handy no matter who you are

« **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2004, 10:27:53 pm »

There has been efforts over the past while to change the training or Air Corps NCO's but it goes against the tri-modular way they currently do it and has run into some problems. Aside from this, I think personally that many of the Air Corps' current problems stem from attempting to distance themselves from 'military aspects' of training and therefore from the army. It has resulted in a total lack of a military ethos and a resultant lack of support from Army leadership when it comes to the crunch. The army can no longer relate to the Air Corps because they see no parallel skills. Keep the leadership aspects, however useless and it contributes to a sense of mission and camraderie inter-corps. For the pilots, I think that they should be instilled with a much deeper sense of being a corps of the army, not a separate entity altogether. It would result in a better working relationship and a better understanding of what the Air Corps can offer in terms of support and training to mud sluggers. It might even convince certain top brass that the Air Corps deserves some well placed words to support purchase of proper equipment to help develop the army mission.

WorldAirPics.com Forum

News:

Poll

aer corps training