How Many Mates Have You Seen Chopped??

[CofG]

Anyone else getting a bit frustrated with seeing mates get chopped from flying training who could have made it if the system had shown a little bit more understanding to them?
Has the system always been so strict or is it a sign of the cash strapped times we now live in? Just wondered if things were any different in days gone by...

[Green Flash]

The Airforce is getting smaller, so they can afford to be more choosier (pardon?).

[LFFC]

I think you'll find it was always like that - perhaps even tougher. Try reading "First Light" by Geoffrey Wellum and you'll see that, even in 1939 when we desperately needed pilots, the chop rate was far higher than now.

Mind you, to be "chopped" from pilot training in 1939 apparently had a distinctly more permanant meaning. Their expression for being suspended from training was to be given a "Bowler Hat" - and that was very common indeed!

[Arm out the window]

CofG, I'm sure the heartache and hard decisions on retention/chopping (or scrubbing as we call it) are the same in our system - having seen it from both ends, so to speak, I'd ask a couple of questions:

As a student on course, how do you know how well your mates are doing? From what they say, as you don't fly with them (or at least very rarely on later mutual sorties, if you guys have those), nor would you be in a position to assess their performance if you did.

How do you know how much 'understanding' the system has applied in any particular case?
Again, from the "chop-ee's" side of the story. In my experience, the system does all it can, generally, to pass people, if they are trying hard and performing reasonably.

This isn't to say that injustices don't happen, or personalities don't come into it, but although frustration at seeing your friends and colleagues dropping by the wayside is understandable, it's not well justified in most cases.

[D-IFF_ident]

Nah, it was harder when I went through etc.

[cazatou]

Some 35-40 years ago the CinC Training Command stood up at a CFS Dinner and stated "there are no bad students - only bad instructors". Thereafter no students could be failed.

The result was an increased accident rate and a large number of pilots who were unsuitable for aircraft captaincy.

[Ghostflyer]

When I did it, on my courses 43% of EFT went, 52% of BFT, 43% of AFT, 14% of TWU and 11% of the OCU. The overall attrition rate was 37%.

Then when I was Operational, I knew well 10 guys killed before they reached their 30th Birthday in peacetime accidents, I had dinner with 3 of them in the week before they died and watched one walk out of the office at 0730 never to return.

Maybe that is why the chop rate is so high!

[BEagle]

Out of about a dozen, we lost one or two at Basic. Including a self-suspension. But back then everyone received basic training, not just the pointy-heads.

On the Gnat we lost 3 out of about 9. No-one was killed on our course, but most people had an emergency at some stage.

At TWU we lost a couple who asked to fly helicopters....they never did. Another guy stoofed in. The rest of us got through, but several were on review at times.

Bucc OCU was appalling. 2 out of 3 pilots chopped, 1 out of 3 navs. The surviving pilot was a re-tread from Canberra B(I)8s and was also a QFI; of the navs only one was brand new from training. At the time no crew with both a pilot and nav straight from training had passed the course for the previous 2 years.....

Later, the Vulcan OCU was a much happier organisation and everyone breezed it. But on the course ahead of us, a pilot was chopped because he couldn't handle being out over the ocean miles form land with only the crew to help. He could fly the jet OK - but bottled the solo to 15W and back.

[Pontius Navigator]

The argument is quite simple. You start with the basics, you are given loads of assistance and plenty of time. Then the pace quickens, the works starts to become applied. Then it becomes both advanced, intense, and applied and the loading increases.

Usually all the students cope except that the good ones do so with ease and the less capable struggle. This was true earlier too. What we are seeing is a sort out not by skill, as few have that at this stage, but of capacity.

The same process continues on the OCU and even the Op qual phase on your sqn. If you role change after your first tour the chop process can start again only this time you keep your brevet.

What we have found is that it may be bad at the time when you are chopped but later the pressure comes off and the stude is actually much happier.

[havick]

BFTS - 20 started, 3 scrubbed and 7 back-coursed for various reasons ie med, weather delays etc. The 3 scrubbed were all good blokes where personality/attitude would not have been an issue.
As I understand it, from the student point of view, you have to have the ability (hands and feet, push and pull) but what makes you passable to the next stage is your spare capacity to deal with other than ops normal stuff. The QFI's are not unrealistic at all with their expectations, they too 'have a bad day' every now and again.

[Melchett01]

Beags, what exactly was it about the Bucc OCU that made it so difficult to pass - ac a bitch to fly, instructors, studes not up to the role?

I joined up after the last Bucc units had been re-roled / disbanded etc, but even now I hear the rumours about the chop rate on Buccs. Guess that says something!

[airborne_artist]

I completed a course (we called it Selection, with a capital S) on a chop rate of 97%. 273 whittled to 9 in under five months...

[LateArmLive]

Maybe someone who's been through flying training in the past 20 years might like to comment on the above situation...........:hmm:

[Wwyvern]

Caz.

That would be at about the same time that the CAS stated, when I was a Gp FSO, that there was no such thing as an accident, there was always a reason.

[Two's in]

Sometime around late eighties/early nineties the Army sent letters to a bunch of people who had failed flying grading (on the Chippie) saying that following a review, they had in fact been assessed as suitable for Pilot Training. It was a move purely driven by low student numbers and IIRC, just led to a higher failure rate on the subsequent course (anecdotal evidence, admittedly) and further validation of the value of flying grading as an assessment tool. Been a while since I've been back, but do the RAF/RN use grading or does UAS etc meet that need?

[Pontius Navigator]

I read an Army report by a psycologist who determined, from accident records, that pilots fell in to 2 categories. 5% were naturals the other 95% could be taught. Most accidents happened to the latter group (ie greated accident rate). When the 5%ers had an accident it was usually because they were not 100% fit.

She then concluded that experienced and qualified instructors could tell after a few minutes who would pass and who would fail. They then had to spend weeks and hours work in proving that they were right all along.

On my nav course we identified the failures at the meet and greet. One got through the first phase only by careful scheming and got chopped immediately thereafter.

One would be stude claimed I had been prejudiced, lazy, and merely copied a colleagues write-up. True I had used exactly the same words (but that is because we listen to each other during sims. When we went back through his reports, only 5 or so, we found the identical remark on 3 of them. Each one was a safety altitude bust!

Had he not complained we might not have noticed

and another one bites the dust

[cazatou]

Wwyvern,

As the OED defines accident as "an event without apparent cause" he possibly had a point. I suspect, however, that we can both think of occurrences which would fit the definition.

[wiggy]

C of G
I think Arm out the Window has got a good point when he says that you don't really know how your mates are doing...you just hear their crewroom bragging.
I remember going through an airbase somewhere near Sleaford many moons ago and wondering at why on earth X or Y, seemingly our Course aces, could be chopped. Several years later I returned to the same base as a QFI and some of the Spec Aircrew QFIs were still there.....so after a few Friday night beers in the crewroom (remember them?) questions were asked about X and Y and guess what....they were nowhere near as good as they had led us, their mates, to believe.

[oldbeefer]

Having been rotary instructing since the '70's, there is no doubt in my mind that the input standard is no where near what it was (RAF students had to pass the 120 hour JP course to be able to fly anything) and the lack of motivation of some of the students now is appalling. BUT, when a stood struggles now he gets far more hours and help than 30 years ago. Some of this is down to the 'compensation culture' where a few failed students have sued for their failure. So, if you fail, it's 'cos you aint good enough!

[Avtrician]

A good point to remember, is that the schools are there to graduate pilots, not fail them. The cost of training a pilot is huge, in the terms of money time and effort. The Instructors spend a lot of time trying to get students through each phase, so they will not be failing any one unless it is absolutely neccessary.

Go and see your local saftey equipment workers, they usualy are pretty good at picking who wont make it through.

[BEagle]

oldbeefer, you are probably 100% correct. I found the same when we started getting non-BFTS pilots into the VC10 OCU. Many of them really struggled - not through any particular lack of ability, more through inexperience and through having a lower level of training than their predecessors had received.

Although I didn't personally find any lack of motivation.

It seems that only future pointy-heads have the benefit of BFTS training these days.....

The early 1970s era core JP3/5 basic course had a lot to recommend it, as you say.

[WeeMan18]

Maybe someone who's been through flying training in the past 20 years might like to comment on the above situation

OK. Speaking as a fairly recent choppee, who got the chop at RW CR check stage, having flown Ops in Iraq as an LCR mate, and then was offered ground branch or leave (no multi crossover) by the 'admin centre of excellence' outside Gloucester. I'm not going to state in clear who I am but it should be pretty obvious to those in the same circles - so Hello!

I would normally watch this sort of thread from the sidelines, but two of your commments, Pontious, really grated.

Firstly, another one bites the dustShow a bit of sensitivity for the chaps who have their lives destroyed by being chopped, whilst you happily crack on with your own flying career.

Secondly,What we have found is that it may be bad at the time when you are chopped but later the pressure comes off and the stude is actually much happier. A phrase I have heard said many times in my RAF career and one, that from the beginning, I have considered to be utter horsesh1t. I can now say from experience that such a notion is a fanciful idea that does a great disservice to the choppee. I can only assume that those who make this flippant assertion do so to appease any misgivings of their own in the face of the absolute misery inflicted on the choppee. Some old and bold instructors may go on about student apathy and motivation but spare a thought for those who give their all and then some more, and eventually find that their lifelong dream, the single thing thay have worked harder towards than anything else, is snatched out of their grasp. I have only ever met one chopped pilot who thinks that being chopped was in any way a positive experience - and that was because he thought that if he continued flying FJs he'd end up in a smoking crater one day. Approximately 18 months after the event, I do not pass through a single day without feeling extremely sad and angry about the whole saga and the deplorable treatment by PMA in the aftermath. If you choose to continue to express that opinion, Pontious, remember that you say it to make yourself feel better, not the stude.

You may think I'm bitter and twisted about this issue. You're right, and you would be too.

[FJJP]

At one time in the 70s, the fast jet crossover mill was populated by a bunch of QFIs who seemed hell-bent on making heavy guys lives a misery - the chop rate was more about guys who had had enough psychologically than their ability to fly. A friend of mine got a FJ crossover slot, but after 3 months of torture voluntarily withdrew from training and went back to heavies.

The stories he told [allowing for self pity, etc] were horrendous. Tales of derision, bullying and pressure, rather than teaching.

It seemed at the time as though you had to be the self-made Top Gun to stand any chance. There was no room for the guy who needed another few hours to make it all click and come together.

[ProfessionalStudent]

I have extensive experience of the rotary training system from both sides and I would say that the chop rate on our side of things is pretty low. Generally, it's actually pretty hard to get someone chopped these days, and if the evidence is not all there, it'll just get chucked out at the review stage.

Students (or trainees in the new, caring sharing PC RAF) really are given every chance to pass the course, even if it doesn't feel like it from the studes point of view. With the shrinking resources and pot of hours available, the training burden is pushed further and further towards the front line, but even now it is a rarity to see someone chopped post AFT, let alone post OCU.

The reality is that there has to be a minimum standard and if one doesn't reach it, then there is only one outcome that is fair for both the RAF, the individual and anybody in their ac (or the school in the Harrier and Typhoo's case).

Weeman, I know you're bitter and the Personnel Mismanagement Agency have shafted you, but you had a better crack of the whip than some. It says a lot for you that you got as far as you did. In my experience likeable people tend to get cut a little more slack than the other boring grey men. I would rather an average pilot on the sqn who was good in the bar and on Det, than a Stick Jedi who was an absolute tosspot. I know it shouldn't matter, but as long as flying training is carried out by humans and not robots, there will always be a degree of latitude like this.

All the "try harder" guff is exactly that. No student tries anything less than 100%. And if they do, they deserve to be chopped anyway.

For the record, the hit rate at Shawditz tends to be about 2 per course on SERW and 1 per course on MEARW (2 out of 16, then 1 out of 10-12)...

[jayteeto]

I left Shawbury 3 years ago so does that count as recent? As a basic rotary instructor on gazelle, an OCU instructor on puma and a CFS instructor on squirrel, I always saw a student failure as a potential failure on my part. We used to go to great extremes to get people through at the required standard. A post mortem was always carried out on chopee's to see if we could have done better. Usually, the question asked was: 'would I trust this person to fly me and my family?' Believe me when I say, if you got chopped you were not good enough for the military front line. I do not regret a single chop........

[Ghostflyer]

As a student on course, how do you know how well your mates are doing?

I think that is the most aposite comment. I remember coming back from a solo sector recce and chatting to my mate.

Me: "It was a bloody nightmare I had no idea what I was doing and kept worrying about hitting all the other aircraft!"

Him: "It was worse for me, I was lost the whole time I was airborne"
In pops one of the other guys, when asked he said "No snags, piece of piss, I don't know what you guys are on about."

About a week later the guy that was 'doing so well' was chopped. We thought the game was up because if he was doing so well we had no chance. It didn't quite turn out like that. Later I realised that the guys that thought they were not doing so well just had the extra capacity to notice what was really going on. The guys that thought it was a breeze and got chopped were maxed out.

I think the best advice I would give to the guys going through the process is to try and chill a little. Easy to say but I put almost insurmountable pressure on myself and felt like I scraped everything until I was operational. Then I did things that were far harder, with comfort, because I actually had a little belief. Almost all the pressure was self induced and although we had a lot of laughs outside the aircraft, it was all just a bit too serious in the jet. As an instructor in years to come I always tried to take the pressure off to see how the guy could really perform and try and spark a little bit of self confidence.

[ORAC]

Now the FC course in the 70s, there was a chop rate.....

[mrwickets]

I concur with weeman's sentiments. In my instance, the late 80's appeared to be a quotas game. All 18 studes on my BFT (Long) course went solo, but we knew from a sneaky look at a signal we 'found' in the admin box when bussing across to Elvington for circuit consol that only 5 places were booked at AMTC ahead of Group 1 Phase 1. I was about the fourth or fifth to go, flying my chop ride with the CFI who told me "well you've passed the ride, but I'm going to chop you anyway". Being an engineer when they were thin on the ground and at a time when they had navs comoing out of their ears, staying commissioned aircrew wasn't an option. (With hindsight, I wish I had gone ALM / Winchman). Nonetheless, all the talk about "the stude being happier after the pressure comes off" still sounds hollow when flying is all you ever wanted to do. I guess them's the breaks though - good luck to all those in the system now :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

at a time when they had navs comoing out of their ears, :

Actually at that time navs were not coming out of their ears. My course was about 5 short when we started. Only 2 were straight in navs and also only 2 out of 3 to graduate straight through. Of the other 5, all were chopped pilots and as I say only one graduated.

IMHO recruiting was lean and anyone with any pilot apptitude was sent pilot first and cascaded down thereafter.

One problem was that the pilot cascade, below FJ, was full, so most pilots were not re-streamed multi but bounced across. I have no idea how many did not get a hack at nav either. I guess maybe a few.

I note the comments about personality and trying to get a stude through. The personality issue was true to some extent at Nav School but the system was not usually one on one (except for remedial work). Biting the dust was a damn sight better than a 4th safety altitude bust in bad weather.

[bad livin']

Weeman, I'm sorry you had to go through that. I was chopped around the end of JEFTS in 2000 and it still stings to this day because I loved it so much. However, I count myself fortunate in a couple of ways: the first being that I won't get the chance to stoof in and possibly take at least one mate with me, the second being that it happened very very early, and, having just seen a few mates chopped from the (proper) Merlin and Lynx courses in the vinegar strokes, wasn't literally in sight of the end. I had another mate whom many of your may know who got well through the GR4 OCU, got chopped, and retrained Nav. As far as I know he's done well but it must have been appalling for him (alright Phats?).

[BEagle]

After much holding and several delays, one of my ex-UAS studes got as far as the Tornado OCU before being chopped.

Got to hear he'd been restreamed ME, so persuaded our Flt Cdr Trg to get the Boss to put in a word at Binnsworth to send him our way - I convinced the Flt Cdr he was a catch we would be lucky to get...and he trusted my judgement.

Binnsworth agreed - and he came to us after finishing on the Wetdream.

Did well as a co, then did well as a captain. I did his B-cat check (a horrid black, wet night!); the minute we shut down the Stn Cdr told him he'd been promoted and handed him his Sqn Ldr braid.

Then became a Flt Cdr on the other sqn........now I hear he's going back to the premier tanker squadron as the next Boss!

Sometimes it really is good to be chopped!

[Hangar On]

Okay, I would like to add some input to this thread too.
I was chopped on my wings preride at Shawbury about 18 months ago so it won’t be too difficult for those in the know to identify me.
So, if you fail, it's 'cos you aint good enough!
Possibly. However, there are many more factors than this to consider. As an example I had something like 45 instructors in my flying training whereas course mates had 4 or 5 per course (20 or so total) and usually flew with their primary.
I’m certain that consistently flying with the same instructor has a beneficial effect on the student’s progress as the instructor can more easily identify and overcome any weaknesses.
Flying with multiple instructors is useful in developing flexibility and seeing different people views and techniques but only up to a certain point after which the lack of continuity has a negative effect.
Then was offered ground branch or leave (no multi crossover) by the 'admin centre of excellence' outside Gloucester
I was offered the same despite the fact that others who were chopped months before me were offered the fabled multis slot.
The only reasons I could honestly come up with for this were that I was the ‘course t**t’ or that there were no multis slots available.
I hope I wasn’t the ‘course t**t’ (otherwise why offer me a ground branch… oh, maybe answered my own question there.:hmm:) so this leads me to believe that I was not offered multis based on quotas.
Some old and bold instructors may go on about student apathy and motivation but spare a thought for those who give their all and then some more, and eventually find that their lifelong dream, the single thing they have worked harder towards than anything else, is snatched out of their grasp. Approximately 18 months after the event, I do not pass through a single day without feeling extremely sad and angry about the whole saga and the deplorable treatment by PMA in the aftermath.
I agree with this fully. I felt at times that the multitude of reports were written in such a way as to justify my withdrawal from training rather than the actual events.
I know that as an officer I should have refuted this and so on but in practice this is very difficult for a young Flying Officer when faced with hugely experienced senior officers.
When I was initially chopped I was full of hope and adamant that I would continue appealing and do whatever it took to get my multis slot. However as the whole process went on (Taking about 8 months) I was slowly worn down and became more and more apathetic and disillusioned. In the end I just wanted to know what was happening with my future either way. It’s not a nice feeling to have your entire future uncertainly hanging in the balance and having to explain the whole situation to everyone you meet for 8 months.
For the record, the hit rate at Shawditz tends to be about 2 per course on SERW and 1 per course on MEARW (2 out of 16, then 1 out of 10-12)...
I believe my course was 4 SERW (of 18 or so) and 4 on MEARW (Of about 12).
As mentioned above a number of those chopped early on were given multis slots yet the final two to get chopped were offered a ground branch or the door.
Perhaps that says something about the multis system filling up as the year went on or maybe it shows that people who get further have ‘more rope to hang themselves’ with?
Weeman, I'm sorry you had to go through that. I was chopped around the end of JEFTS in 2000 and it still stings to this day because I loved it so much. However, I count myself fortunate in a couple of ways.
Being chopped has given me a whole load of new opportunities and probably saved me from being stuck in the dessert for 11 months of the year (from what I’m led to believe by pprune) but it’s still pretty painful.
I don’t like to tell people I was chopped because it makes them think ‘failure’. I don’t feel like that’s fair – I truly believe I should have got multis (For the record my EFT preference was for multis and I was recommended to be streamed multis) and that I was a victim of the system.
When I try to explain the story to people 100% of them agree that I was shafted and can’t understand why the RAF would waste their money and my time (Over 3 years of the ‘prime of my youth’) on getting me so far through training and then dropping me.
But then they would think that, they’ve just heard the bitter young failure’s side of the story…

[jollygreenfunmachine]

'Anyone else getting a bit frustrated with seeing mates get chopped from flying training who could have made it if the system had shown a little bit more understanding to them? '

Felt I had to respond to this. It is unfortunate when people are 'chopped'. However, in my experience, these decisions are never taken lightly. In my time at Shawbury I have seen instructors work very hard to ensure that the kids coming through get every oppurtunity possible to complete the course. However, at the end of the day you have to ensure that the guys you are sending to the Squadron are fit for the job. The decision to suspend guys from training is never taken lightly and the suggestion that the system does not show enough understanding is (in my experience) unfair. The days of 'oh let him through, the OCF will sort him out' are gone. It is, IMHO, irresponsible of the training system to pass the problem on to someone else.

[Oblique96]

Further to Cazatou's comment, In the late seventies, the Canberra OCU was fielding ex-V Force co-pilots who hadn't hacked it to 4 jet captain. Why the powers that be thought Canberra captaincy would be easier, I do not know - but in several cases they were wrong.
The 'caring' solution was to try and get them back on to aircraft where they could be co-pilots for a bit longer. Some went that way, some bit the dust there and then. A generalisation, perhaps, but the main problem seemed to be an inability to fly and think at the same time.

[Flap62]

Would echo the sentiments that the instructor fraternity usually makes a great deal of effort to get people through. This is usually invisible to the stude and they may see the changes of instructor as "just being messed about and leading to lack of continuity", but often the staff are working hard to match studes to instructor to sortie profile. Trust me, it's not often that the stude knows what's best for them.

As to the carping, "well, I was good enough but there weren't enough slots" - no you weren't!!. You may have been good enough to have passed the course 6 months ago or a year ago but as requirements change, so the bar moves - how could it be any other way? On any course, if you are good enough you will pass - you might just need to be bloody good if your timing is off!

[Pontius Navigator]

Oblique96, there were also several other 'send 'em to where they can't do any harm' type slots. I won't iterate where they were apart from one which was as a FAC.

No idea if he ever flew again but I know he thought it was better than sliced bread. Driver, radio ops, tents, landrover and his own boss.

[threepointonefour]

Any student who is chopped (or has been in recent years) was given every possible chance to succeed. The system is now SO student friendly (rightly so) and TG et al are paranoid about having a water-tight case that each student is given umpteen extra hrs/sorties before the axe finally falls.

As someone else said, I don't regret any of my decisions to swing the axe, but I do feel sorry as it falls. Such is life.

I know people who would make cr@p aircrew who are very successful in other areas of life - it's all about finding out what you can and can't do.
Fact: some people make crap aircrew, some are good. To want to fly doesn't mean you have a divine right to, it takes hard work and a certain skill-set.

[Grum Peace Odd]

I was not offered multis based on quotas.Almost definitely true. But then again, the RAF doesn't owe any of us a living. If the mob doesn't need another ME pilot at the time, why should they employ another one?

Quotas are a part of recruiting in any walk of life. Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister, but the quota is only for one and the slot is filled! No sane person would suggest that we have a couple of PMs for a while, just so that we don't waste the investment that taxpayers have put in to his perks...

[Talk Reaction]

There are some valid points in this thread but an overwhelming amount of bleating. There is NO doubt that the trg system is much better now than 15 or 20 years ago, any student today who makes the grade will go on to the next stage of trg (in some cases that means people who only just make the grade reach their limit on a sqn when in years gone by they'd be wearing blue or civvies).

That said, where does the idea that the RAF owes pilots slots come from, the RAF needs what it needs and that changes, life they call it, everybody outside of the forces deals with it daily.

Be upset, who wouldn't be, and the lucky (or good enough) ones of us should be greatful for what we get to do, but move on and don't think that because you weren't good enough for one job the RAF owes you a 'lesser' skilled one. Btw I'm sure the multi lads don't appreciate the bleating effectively undermining the proffessional skills that their jobs require.

Sorry for the rant - there is plenty of sympathy for studes during and after the event and no qfi/qhi likes failing a single trip let alone chopping someone, but if it's happened there is a reason so deal with it, if gp 2 pilots are needed AND you're suitable then even the fiscally retarded RAF wouldn't waste the trg investment in you.... if you can't take critisism maybe you tried the wrong job!:ugh:

[Arm out the window]

Hangar On, you explain your feelings eloquently and I can sympathise with the bad time anyone who is chopped must go through to sort themselves out again.
However, your point that you had 3 years of wasted time isn't legitimate in my view - you got a whole course up to the wings point worth of flying and ground school, plus I assume a bunch of officer training that a lot of corportate types would rate highly.
The flying hours alone would cost a punter many thousands.

Edited to spell 'corporate' properly!

[jonny5]

Course time is not wasted time, but..
navy guys upon completion of dartmouth are taking approximately 3-4 years to get wings when courses only account for about 18-20 months, i think there is a massive waste of time during training and skill fade is huge!. Navy can have a hold after serw for 6+months the get a 5 hour refresher before OCU. The refresher can lead to air warnings, how is that fair!!

[TMJ]

I think that is the most aposite comment. I remember coming back from a solo sector recce and chatting to my mate.

Me: "It was a bloody nightmare I had no idea what I was doing and kept worrying about hitting all the other aircraft!"

Him: "It was worse for me, I was lost the whole time I was airborne"
In pops one of the other guys, when asked he said "No snags, piece of piss, I don't know what you guys are on about."

About a week later the guy that was 'doing so well' was chopped. We thought the game was up because if he was doing so well we had no chance. It didn't quite turn out like that. Later I realised that the guys that thought they were not doing so well just had the extra capacity to notice what was really going on. The guys that thought it was a breeze and got chopped were maxed out.

This effect actually applies in all sorts of domains apparently; it's not just extra competence that allows you to see how things should be done ideally and how what your doing differs from said ideal. There's a rather good paper on the phenomenon at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html which is worth reading for some humourous anecsotes as well as the detail of the study it reports.

[Zoom]

I’m certain that consistently flying with the same instructor has a beneficial effect on the student’s progress......

I would agree for the most part, but I remember at BFTS thinking that I must have been the worst pilot on the course from hearing my colleagues' post-flight banter. I flew with an excellent foreign fighter jock who set his standards extremely high, but in the early days I didn't cope well with his many negative comments and felt that I could never attain the impossibly high standards that he demanded. I reckoned that I would never go solo and felt that I was permanently on the verge of being chopped. My mates started going solo and that made me feel worse. I remember his saying, 'I know you want to go solo and I know I could send you solo, but you don't want to go solo until you are 100%, do you?' Wrong! I wanted to go solo regardless, as I'm sure the rest of you did. My confidence was at rock bottom. Then one day I flew with another instructor (ex V Force, as it happened) and he said things like 'Good', 'Nice turn there' and 'Well done'. Blimey, I was doing something right at last. But wait, nothing in my flying had changed, which meant that perhaps I had always been doing (at least) something right but nobody had told me so before. At the same time, a couple of colleagues flew with my instructor and came back white-faced and trembling, and they sympathised with me for having to put up with such a strict master. My confidence soared as I realised that perhaps I wasn't as bad as all that. I then found that I could absorb my instructor's comments far better and I stopped taking them personally, and our relationship improved no end and I began to enjoy learning from him. Furthermore I came to view my colleagues' chat with a good deal of sceptism and I had a far better idea of where I stood in the rankings. I also came to realise that compassion and encouragement were as important in teaching flying as skill and experience. So thank you, Flt Lt D R, for showing me that not all flying instructors were ogres.

One colleague who did get chopped was having real trouble getting to grips with flying and couldn't solo. He was given about 10 extra hours to try to get him through, which was a lot of extra time considering that most were soloing in about 6 to 8 hours. In the end he was chopped and he was mightily relieved. He said that the pressure on him to succeed had been unbearable and the extra attention embarrassing, and he had realised that he just did not have the aptitude for flying. He was delighted to go off and do something where he had the opportunity to succeed.

[bowly]

Seventeen.

[Dundiggin']

I totally sympathise with Wee man 18.......my experience is through my son who, having entered the final week at Valley with two trips to go, had to cut short my 'phone call in order to placate his course mate who was in tears in the corridor having just been told he had been chopped!! :{ I believe a similar thing happened to a previous CAS's (Norman Wisdom!) son!
I completely understand that had they proceeded it would/may have been dodgy but surely the system is smart enough where these and similar studes could have been chopped much earlier in their training and then treated with some sympathy/humanity.

It quite shocked me that intelligent people that far through the system should suddenly, irrevocably and unceremoniously be dumped!!... :ugh:

[[email protected]]

his course mate who was in tears in the corridor having just been told he had been chopped!!

Sad thought this story is, I'd far rather read something like this than experience the grief of his parents at his funeral. Student pilots are chopped for the right reasons, not at the whim of the system.

Does it matter how far through the training pipeline a student gets before they're chopped? It's a tragedy for the individual no matter when it happens. Do you think he should have been chopped earlier? How do you know? As someone posting earlier mentioned, the course starts relatively easy, then the pressure increases and increases. At some point we all cave in, the ones who pass are the ones who can show they can cope with military flying, which takes into account a range of scenarios and situations the candidate may encounter in his/her career. This particular individual clearly couldn't and for their sake, the sake of their colleagues and the sake of the community as a whole he was removed from the course. I doubt he will ceaee flying completely, there will probably be a slot for him somewhere, just not at the fast/pointy end.

I'd rather see the student chopped before he/she gets to a situation they can't cope with, than be buried after.

[Airbrake]

I went through Finningley in the late 80's and got through by the skin of my teeth, I even got as far as the Stn Cdrs review and sat in front of him with hat on and pleaded for another chance. I guess he felt sorry and gave me another go. I subsequently did 2 OCU's with no real hassle other than the odd duff day, I was was the classic late developer. However, the days and weeks on review gave me grey hairs and I remember praying for good weather before each chop ride.
For anybody on review reading this, never give up until the Staish has swung the axe. Be professional, work hard and fight your corner with dignity and respect to the bitter end, you just never know what might happen.

[Tombstone]

A chap who was chopped on my course at 208 flies Hercy birds now & loves it, honest!

Although he was gutted at the time the axe fell, relief took over and I think he accepted the decision quickly (in the bar). I don't think he had been enjoying the course for a number of trips and knew that the end was coming for him.

Why be an average FJ pilot when you can be an excellent multi/rotary mate?

[A2QFI]

A fellow cadet of mine at Cranwell was chopped on his pre-FHT trip which was the culmination of 3 year's training, of which 2 years had been flying training. This was in the days when we graduated with our wings and then went straight to an OCU

[XW420]

Tombstone.
30 years ago, when Dennis Healy was giving us all a bad time, (and I'm not talking about the VAT on fags), some of us would have jumped at the opportunity of the 'other' streams. We had FJ or bust. I bust, and was condemned to 30 years in IT where the 'chop' rate is just as bad. At least the Indians/Chinese are not flying our aeroplanes, or are they.....

[parabellum]

Friend of mine got chopped just a few trips short of 'Wings', we were all stunned. At the end of course piss-up in a local pub we raised the question with the instructors, 'How could someone get so far into a course and still be chopped?'
The answer was that the further one got was a measure of the chances you were given in the hope that you would eventually come good, obvious no-hopers were chopped early but if they thought someone might make it he would be allowed to continue, but eventually a decision has to be made.

[Caractacus]

1980's, Jet Provost BFTS course. Started with fourteen - ended with five. One chopped every two months or so.

Probably the hardest course of my life, so much presuure, such high standards. However, the imposed discipline certainly saved my life in a number of situations over the years. I remember the atmosphere being really oppressive. The QFI's really cared and tried hard to get us through.

I hated it at the time but learned so much from the experience.

[Ghostflyer]

TMJ,

Bloody hell!!


People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


I'm sure it just means 'zippo of capacity'! Gotta love the psychologists:ok:

[Chugalug2]

[quote=LFFC]I think you'll find it was always like that - perhaps even tougher.
Just reminded me of a dour welsh trainer, Taff John, on Hastings in the 60's who led a very nervous student into the debriefing room. After they had been sat opposite one another for what seemed an eternity to the wretched trainee, his nemesis looked up from the paperwork he was completing. "What's your name again?", he asked. "Jones, sir", was the reply. "No, no, not your last name, what does your mummy call you?". "John, sir". "Well, John, you're chopped!".
Sorry, inappropriate on so many levels!

[Samuel]

As a non-qualified observer, but a passionate flier nontheless, who has experienced many superb hours flying with and behind some real professionals, I am personally quite satisfied the system works and the best get through.

I have been well-aquainted with three very good friends over the years who started out on Wings courses and were chopped and offered other Branches which all three accepted. Two were chopped from the basic course, and the third after he had gained his wings because he did some very stupid and illegal low flying. He was my best man in fact, and it took a long time and many beers before he finally admitted he perhaps should never have got his wings in the first place. He still wears them, of course, and who wouldn't?

The other two both admitted they were probably chopped fairly, one because "I couldn't fly basically", and the other because he could never find a QFI who actually agreed with the way he wanted to progress! The QFIs won because they were all correct!

Another graduate of a Wings course was grounded and kicked out because he actually hit a vehicle on a beach while low -lying, but even his CO stated that to recover the aircraft and get it back to base with a aileron dangling in the breeze was a superb piece of flying!

[Pierre Argh]

I remember being told on my "chop interview" that they could teach monkeys to fly if they had enough time, it was all a simple case of how much time they had available?"

... seems to me that somtimes there must be more time than at others!!!!

[Belgique]

Only lost one student chopped in 25 years of jet instruction in three air forces. Of course I'm not aware of how many are presently pushing up daisies. Only know of one really, a Malaysian prince who lost depth perception after a low flyby in a Tebuan of a Malaysian frigate in the Malacca Straits during a Navy Family Day. I knew Shamsuddin ("Sham") loved low flying at high speed but I thought that I'd taught him how to do it properly. Pity we had no oceanic LFA's to teach him the trix n traps over water.

The secret is the avuncular approach. It tends to de-terrify the students. Teach them to be relaxed and alert and their capacity and enthusiasm zooms beyond belief. About 3/4's of that is confidence in you the instructor - and their appreciation of the fact that you're trying your best to get them through, not chop them.

In many tours as a QFI/FIC, including three as Flt Cdr, I had the abiding impression that the wastage was needlessly wasteful. Some of the streaming decisions were criminal. One desk weenie was so impressed with our stats and the fact that an adjoining FTS had half its students wanting to join our Sqn, that he asked me what our secret was. He then wrote a staff paper on it, advocating a more familial approach to pilot training. Sounds like things have regressed back to the old unproductive adversarial system.

[Art Field]

Belgique.

Whilst agreeing that a relaxed approach to flying training is desirable, one has to be wary of being too avuncular. Military aviation is a serious business and ,in my experience as an FTS, Sqn, OCU and Staneval QFI, it is not, after an initial few, the lack of polling ability that leads to a chop but an inability to cope under pressure and especially a lack of understanding of errors of judgment. A classic example might be an insistence to continue an approach through a thunderstorm on finals, not necessarily a chop in itself maybe but a sign of a greater overall problem.

[Brain Potter]

I think the policy of totally binning students that have been chopped quite a way downstream in the FJ/RW route is crackers. Let's face it, those that were "streamed" multi-engine at EFTS have actually been chopped earlier than folks who get further along the other streams. Unless the student has an attitude problem, then I believe that candidates who have got, for example, to RW OCUs should get a stab at multis in preference to those were obviously did not do well at EFTS. This current policy runs a dreadful risk of studes trying to get multis at EFTS as a safer route for their career. Furthrmore, I think the common BFTS course would have weeded out some of those that have subsequently been chopoed on (very expensive) multi-engine OCUs. Perhaps MFTS will sort it all out....

[Flying Pencil]

I can sympathise with a lot that has been said as a chopped pilot myself.
It took the navy four years to realise that they didn't want my services. I was chopped at the very end of the ASW seaking course, already sent out the invites to the wings parade!!
Could argue the toss over the decision but it is always going to be looked at as sour grapes.
However if the guys on my course wonder why I didn't get to say any goodbyes I was ordered to leave the base within 24 hrs! The caring, sharing navy.
On my leaving interview I was told not to bother with a job as a civilian pilot, with no real reason behind it. I didn’t listen and am now flying at least 700 hrs a year as a commercial helicopter pilot and instructor. Not the same I know but….

FP. (Rev).

[Belgique]

Flying Pencil
.
Precisely my point. I never worried too much about studes demonstrating penultimate airmanship as long as that aspect was developing. I found almost without exception that as long as you persevered, eventually the penny would drop. I could count the number of natural pilots that I trained (or knew) during my career on the fingers of two hands. Most of them were strugglers just like me. I had no natural abilities and got through my Flight Training only because the country was in a war and needed some cannon fodder.... perhaps also because I had a good grounding in X-country competition soaring.
.
I had exposure to everything from 18 y.o.'s to remustered navs and AEO's. As long as I could see that they were keen (and most were mustardly, otherwise they wouldn't have been on course), they had my support. Only ever took a dislike to one student and that was because he was a total prat. He ended up with the least patient QFI in my flight and inevitably paid the penalty for his prattitude. I don't hesitate to say that the avuncular big brotherly approach paid off well - and almost without exception. That doesn't mean that I often didn't have to tell it as it was and lay it on the line for the odd sod. Forgot to mention in the earlier post that the weenie who wrote the staff paper was successful in having it adopted as an official Training Command policy. I guess they figured that you can't argue with demonstrated success and high student morale.
.
I've known numerous instructors and FTS execs who believed the exact opposite. They normally had little to celebrate, except for slapping each other on the back in congratulatory mode every time they managed to eliminate another potential choppee. That approach always came across to me as the quintessential negative attitude.