|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 13, 2011 0:20:04 GMT 12
Several RNZAF Air Gunners have told me that when they had gone through training at Levin or Rotorua and also some through the ADU's, etc, and they'd be put on a boat and taken to Canada, and it wasn't till they arrived there that they'd be first taken up in an aeroplane - often for most on the course their first ever flight. It seems that usually one or two would then drop out of the course as they were medically unsuited for flying.
Why did the RNZAF not have a small Flight for air experience at Levin/Rotorua as part of the ITW course so as not to waste all that time and money sending people to Canada to find out they couldn't fly? I guess they got a lovely trip out of it but it must have been damned disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Aug 20, 2011 4:25:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Aug 20, 2011 4:28:44 GMT 12
Dave,
This photo is of my Uncle Bernard who went to Canada then off to England.Im not 100% sure if this is a RNZAF plane, but if it is it might suggest some of them did fly before leaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffnut453 on Aug 20, 2011 6:58:08 GMT 12
Luther,
That's a Fleet Fort and is almost certainly taken in Canada.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Aug 20, 2011 7:09:32 GMT 12
Thanks mate, I was 50/50 on it being in NZ or Canada thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
|
Post by buffnut453 on Aug 20, 2011 8:38:20 GMT 12
You're welcome!
I have to say that the Fleet Fort is one of the ugliest aircraft I've ever seen. It's so ugly, only it's designer could love it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Aug 20, 2011 8:45:11 GMT 12
I agree,when I first saw the photo I thought to myself geez what an ugly plane.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 20, 2011 10:44:47 GMT 12
Never seen one of those Fleet Forts before, and agree, it is very ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Aug 20, 2011 10:53:32 GMT 12
Lots of head room in that rear cockpit!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 20, 2011 10:54:50 GMT 12
Instructors must have big heads?  |
|
|
|
Post by Luther Moore on Aug 20, 2011 23:01:17 GMT 12
Wireless Radio Operators in the back I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 21, 2011 0:14:33 GMT 12
No thoughts on the original question?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 23, 2011 10:39:24 GMT 12
Maybe it was just as easy to train them for a ground role if they were found to be unsuited for air operations in Canada as it was in NZ, being closer to Europe and other major theatres? What did the RNZAF use for aerial gunnery training if they weren't flying the trainees?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 23, 2011 10:44:08 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 23, 2011 10:46:44 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 23, 2011 11:10:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 23, 2011 12:33:30 GMT 12
Joe, RNZAF personnel did not train in ground roles in Canada. The Empre Air Training Scheme (later renamed the Commonwealth Air Training Plan) was just that, air training. If the trainees were bumped from the course, they came home. They likely then were remustered to a ground role.
As for training in Canada and coming home for the Pacific, many hundreds of them did that. Training got so intense that the RAF was saturated with aircrews and new trainees were sitting around awaiting OTU courses in bornemouth and elsewhere. The need was much greater in the Pacific War so from 1942 onwards many came back this direction. They reckoned on the Bomber Reconnaissance squadrons that the Canadian trained aircrew, particularly Wireless operator-Air Guners, were not up to the same standard as NZ trained guys. Probably because the NZ trained guys gained a lot of experience in home defence before going to the Pacific.
But none of this answers why they didn't go through a short dose of air experience before all that money was spent shipping them at some risk to Canada before trialling them in the air. The RNZAF had an air experience unit flying Tiger Moths for the ATC cadets, to show them what it was like and see if they were up to the task, so you'd think it would be possible to do the same for actual airmen. Perhaps nobody ever thought of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Aug 23, 2011 13:10:43 GMT 12
As is the case with much of what is placed on the Auckland War Museum's online 'Cenotaph', information is rarely checked for accuracy. Here is a more accurate account of Sheather's service (from my trilogy 'For Your Tomorrow - A record of New Zealanders who have died while serving with the RNZAF and Allied Air Services since 1915 (Volume Three: Biographies & Appendices)': SHEATHER, Pilot Officer Harold Henry. NZ415560; b Whakatane 28 Mar 20; Gisborne HS; clerk - P & T Dept, Whakatane. Rotorua Aero Club, [flew 8 hrs prior RNZAF]; RNZAF Levin/ITW as Air Gunner u/t 5 Oct 41, emb for Canada 17 Nov 41, att RCAF 1 Dec 41, 2WS 5 Dec 41, 3BGS 23 May 42, Air Gunners Badge & remust as Wireless Operator/Air Gunner & Sgt 22 Jun 42, 3RD 9 Jul 42, ctba 11 Jul 42, rtd to NZ, AHQ 15 Aug 42, 8 Sqn [renamed 30 Sqn 28.5.43] (Vincent/Vildebeest, Harvard, Avenger) 27 Aug 42, Comm 1 Nov 42, with Sqn to Pacific 30 Jan 44, kao 26 Apr 44. Bourail Memorial - Panel 5. Son of Robert Benjamin & Margaret Emma Sheather (née Davies), Whakatane. [phot. TWN 16.8.44]. Errol |
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Aug 23, 2011 15:48:34 GMT 12
"The Empire Air Training Scheme (later renamed the Commonwealth Air Training Plan)"
BCATP was largely a Canadian invention for political reasons, though later sometimes, but not often, also used in New Zealand and Australia.
For instance - New Zealand and Australian contemporary press reports and files held in their respective government archives almost exclusively refer to the scheme as EATS (e.g. WWII issues of Evening Post – 187 EATS mentions but only 3 BCATP; Archives NZ 32 EATS 14 BCATP [all of which cross referenced as EATS] National Archives of Australia 173 EATS, 1 BCATP).
"Training got so intense that the RAF was saturated with aircrews and new trainees were sitting around awaiting OTU courses in bornemouth and elsewhere."
Nor forgetting also the effect of the policy change in early 1942, where it was decided that Bomber Command aircraft would, with some exceptions, in future have just one pilot per crew in lieu of the previous two, thus creating overnight a temporary surplus of pilots.
"They reckoned on the Bomber Reconnaissance squadrons that the Canadian trained aircrew, particularly Wireless operator-Air Guners, were not up to the same standard as NZ trained guys."
One of the strange and unexplained aspects of WOp/AG training in Canada, as relates to RNZAF personnel, is that all our air-gunners arriving in Canada first undertook a c. five-month wireless course, at the end of which they would be awarded their sparks badge or (if failed) be remustered (sometimes following a reassessment at Trenton) as straight air gunners.
It seems to have been rare for anyone to have been dropped from the course part-way through, even if, as must have often been the case, the trainee was clearly not wireless material.
Air-gunner training at a Bombing and Gunnery School lasting about a month normally followed, at the end of which the trainee would be remustered as a WOp/AG or straight AG (failure as an AG was extremely rare). As it was, it was not uncommon for a Canadian-trained WOp/AG to be remustered to straight AG shortly after arrival in the UK on failing to pass a wireless refresher course there.
Given that in Bomber Command (where the majority of aircrew were destined to serve) rear and mid-upper gunner aircrew had no need of a wireless qualification. On the heavies the required WOp to AG ratio (ignoring for a moment the air bomber who manned the front turret when – rarely – required) was therefore 1 to 2. So, allowing for the diverse requirements of some of the other Commands, only about half or less of our air gunners going to Canada really needed to undertake wireless training at all. For the other half – those that failed at WS or passed but were never subsequently employed as WOp/AGs – all that seems to have been achieved is a five to six month delay in becoming operational and a tremendous waste of resources.
"But none of this answers why they didn't go through a short dose of air experience before all that money was spent shipping them at some risk to Canada before trialling them in the air."
All pilot trainees for Canada of course had previously passed out at a New Zealand EFTS. Their 'dose of air experience'!
I can't see what would have been achieved through giving air experience in New Zealand to trainee non-pilot aircrew bound for Canada – apart, perhaps, from checking for air-sickness susceptibility!
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 23, 2011 16:40:09 GMT 12
Thanks Errol. That last sentence is what i am referring to with Wireless Op-Air Gunner trainees getting all the way to Canada and then dropping out due to inability to fly because of air sickness or middle-ear issues. It's a long way to go just to come home again. A couple of different guys have mentioned to me of people dropping out of the course in Canada on their first flight due to medical reasons.
|
|
