RFC training casualties

This thread fits in with nearly all of the books I've read on this topic, as I research a new novel set in WWI England. However, one of them, The First Air War: 1914-1918, by Lee Kennet, states and backs up statements denying them, and bringing the death toll for trainees far far down.
I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, I'm afraid, but he seems to be bringing forth hard numbers, having gone through numerous records. He seems to be directing the ratio of students entering to students dying as about 20:1. Still much higher than would be conscionable (sp?), but much less than others say. He does point out that up to 28% of students who began did not finish for one reason or another--whether they were busted back to infantry, taken out of training and made observer, or something else.
Has anyone else seen this text, and what can you tell me about it in relation to what's been discussed here?
So far we have left deaths in training nebulous--suggested a few happened, and had our characters particularly aware of some, but haven't wanted to make it seem like too many or too few students.
Can you help us out?

[crankcase]

this is a fascinating discussion. one might be forgiven for considering the british high command as being callous, at least from our modern perspective, but in the historical context they were working under pressure with what they had and knew.

i am reminded of arthur lee's book "no parachute" and the high command thinking that a pilot with a parachute wouldn't display the necessary tenacity going into a fight. before combat fatigue became a medically accepted term, weren't people condemned for "lack of moral fibre" in those days?

the germans weren't more enlightened... acting with scarce manpower, they were probably more methodical in their training... and issued parachutes!

[retread]

Bookworm51,
To give you the Readers Digest version of the figures from the book you refered to ( The First Air War, 1914-1918. Lee Kennet). French Schools produced 18,000 pilots and a General Christtienne gave the number of fatalities of student pilots resulting from training accidents at 300.
The German figures given are somewhat vauge (from Neumann, Luftsteitskrafte). Twenty-eight percent of German air service fatalities were suffered within Germany- much but not all of this as a result of training accidents.
As for the UK- "Records for January- October 1918 indicate that in the R.F.C./R.A.F. training establishments there was one death for every 790 hours of flying.....Yet there are references to earlier loss figures which do seem appalingly high: one death per 90 hours of flying, for example. Kennet goes on to say that at various times in 1917
"wastage" in flight training schools were given as 17%, 20% and 28%. The wastage was of course being the percentage of students who failed to complete the flight training for any reason. With 10% given as a typical approximation for those who "washed out" included.
Intrestingly, Kennett infers that flight training conducted by the R.N.A.S. may have been significantly safer on those involved. Based on the notes of a Royal Navy surgeon (H. Grame Anderson) who spent 6 months on a naval flight training facility in 1918. His figures indicate 58 "serious" crashes (apparently those that resulted in desroyed aircraft) in 4,000 hours of flying parlayed into 16 injuries and 0 fatalities. However, again this was late in the war.

Thanks; this is quite helpful.
I somehow had not seen his mention of 1 fatality/90 hours earlier in the war. That does bring things up rather, considering that most of our characters are being trained early on.
It is still strange, however, to see such a difference between his numbers and the ones one hears elsewhere.
Ah, well. Thank you again!

[Vin]

That figure of 8,000 is starting to look doubtful.

[retread]

Surely there was no training in the US whilst they were neutral, and after which they would mostly have been concerned with training their own pilots? There was training in Canada though, which was a much less perilous affair than in the UK according to the numbers.

From the book "Jenny was no Lady, The Story of the JN-4D"( by Jack Lincke, 1970). The U.S. and Canada had a reciprocal training agreement which allowed the R.F.C. to train pilots in the airfields in Texas in return for the U.S. having many of its pilots trained in Canada early on in America's involvement in the war. Lincke continues,
" ... the Texas operations accumulated 67,000 flight hours between November 17, 1917, and April 12, 1918.During this time , 1,960 pilots were trained for the U.S. and R.F.C."
".... despite an unbelievably high crash rate, in-flight fatalities were only 1.88 percent of the total pilots trained in the fourteen months of operations, nevertheless, there were lots of funerals."

It's easy when one hears a figure like that, 1.88%, to think of it as inconsequential--but think of it: Approximately 1 in every 50 people who began the program died in trying to complete it.
Sorta changes the way things look...

[retread]

It WAS a dangerous business. Recognize as well that none of these figures take in consideration cadets permanantly disabled as a result of flight training incidents. I am only guessing but I do not think it is over the top in any way to suppose that those numbers must of equaled the fatalities.
Not to mention the myriad lesser injuries.

[ONEALM]

Surely there was no training in the US whilst they were neutral, and after which they would mostly have been concerned with training their own pilots? There was training in Canada though, which was a much less perilous affair than in the UK according to the numbers.

Governmentally speaking, that's correct. There was little or no training while we were still offically neutral - just look at the number of "trained pilots" in the Signal Corps on 6 April 1917. But the number of private organizations that saw the obvious and began to prepare is pretty impressive.

Plattsburg's civilian military "summer camps" began in 1916 and continued into 1917. Many of the officers in France began their military at Plattsburg. Started by a military officer, but entirely voluntary - sort of a "Army 101" for those with foresight.

Yale University's Naval aviation training program turned out a good number of pilots. I'm sure someone can plug figures in for that. Privately funded.

The group on Mineola which included Hoby Baker - I cannot recall the details of that organization, but believe it was privately funded - which reads like a who's who of early pilots.

Princeton University ran a volunteer program as well - 47 students learned to fly before then end of 1917 and if you look at the roster of the famous 2nd Oxford Detachment, you'll see many, many of the pilots first trained at the University. This program was entirely funded by the University and the alumni - no government $$ involved at all. 4 Jennies (one donated entirely by the class of 1903) , civilian and military flight instructors hired, mechanics employed from Curtiss, 60 acre flying field with hangars, operations and maint. sheds... all put together by non-government volunteers, much of the labor and materials for the field and infrastructure donated by the way.

Elliot Springs, George Vaughn, Denny Holden, Percy Pyne, William Neely, Walter Boadway, Al Bevin, Harold Bulkley(KIC) (not 95 Sq.'s Buckley), Arthur Taber (KIC), Jim Paull (KIC), Newt Bevin, Bonham Bostick(IIC), Matthew Cronin (KIA)... just the one's I can recall off the top of my head - all got overseas and to active units - or got killed in training.

A smaller group in Virginia - privately funded - run by Bennett (sorry - whiffed on his first name...) later 40 Sq. ace and KIA who purchased Jennies to train pilots before the war.

Already mentioned is the reciprocal agreement with the British to use flying fields in Texas in exchange for training 300 US fliers. This was after the declaration, but you can bet the negotiations happened well before that.

And these are just the ones I know about off the top - I'm sure there were more.

It seems incredible to me that all this activity and preparation was being made by private citizens long before the actual declaration simply because they thought they should be ready for the inevitable conclusion.

So were we "training" - you bet. We just didn't let the government get in the way...........

Mike

And for various reasons (close ties with the UK, the desire for adventure etc) it seems many simply went to Canada and volunteered for the RFC. I did a quick count on the top American aces listed on this site, and it seems that seven of the top ten were flying with the RFC/RAF.

I'm reading Winged Victory at the moment, which in my opinion is quite as good as 'Catch-22' or 'All Quiet on the Western Front' as an anti-war novel, and one thing you really get a sense of is the cosmopolitan mix of the RFC.

It would be interesting to see a nationality breakdown of RFC aircrew for the war. I imagine it became increasingly mixed as the war went on.