PDA

View Full Version : RAF Instructors - steely eyed or gentle and supportive ?


Fonsini
18th Oct 2015, 22:55
I never myself had the pleasure of strapping into an aircraft with an RAF instructor but some of the stories of their ascerbic wit and "supportive" comments are legend. I just finished watching an old documentary from the 1980s where one student pilot endured the following on his downwind in a JP - "what about the bloody flaps", and on tapping the throttle "Well, well, come on...remember this thing, it makes it go FASTER" - I was sweating for the poor student who looked absolutely crestfallen.

So were these guys really such martinets, or was there a measure of gentle and supportive coaching as well ?

Tourist
19th Oct 2015, 05:03
There are many different types of instructor in military flying training.

Personally, I prefer the harsh but fair ones and respond better.

I find civil flying instruction generally too huggy-fluffy. You can sometimes have trouble knowing how you are doing.

"that's fine" when you know it isn't is very irritating and destabilising.


All that said, the worst example of instruction I saw was on that suzi air programme with the new pilot getting abused by some w@nker instructor on his first circuit in the aircraft.

Harsh is ok, but only if fair.

Audax
19th Oct 2015, 05:20
Like every walk of life, there are good and not so good QFIs in the RAF. Over the years I had extensive experience instructing at every level including a spell on CFS (when it was CFS and not the neutered, scattered organisation it is now) and have seen QFIs of every ability and temperament but we did try to filter out any really bad prospects at CFS.

Fonsini, if the clip you are referring to was from the infamous Fighter Pilot programme, the instruction shown by the QFI (who I went through training with) was dreadful and I believe his instructor category was reduced because of that. The mistake the RAF made was agreeing to no vetting of the programme before it was aired

Basil
19th Oct 2015, 06:00
Mine, on the JP, was definitely 'steely-eyed' in his calmness under the pressure of some of the stunts to which I subjected him.
He was also a film star in a 'what not to say if you don't want yer head kicked in' in R to I.
Thanks, Roger F-H :ok:

Dan Winterland
19th Oct 2015, 06:11
I did my CFS course in 1991 when there was a significant change in the emphasis on instructional technique. We were the first course to get psychology of instructing lectures with the aim on getting the best out of the student with the carrot and not the stick. My training went along the lines of what you saw in that clip from Fighter Pilot and it was poor.

We were shown that clip at CFS as an example of how not to instruct!

Danny42C
19th Oct 2015, 06:51
From my memories of the student point of view, I would say that what an instructor needs above all is patience !

D.:ooh:

wiggy
19th Oct 2015, 07:06
the instruction shown by the QFI (who I went through training with) was dreadful and I believe his instructor category was reduced because of that.


The story I heard at Scampton a few years later was that the QFI may have had to revisit CFS for a bit of discussion, not sure there was a re-cat. Whatever happened I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was yet another victim of that programme. Over the years I've met and/or worked with a few of those involved (students and others) - they've all claimed a heck of a lot of "imaginative" work went on in the cutting room and one or two other tricks were played elsewhere, all to get the results the producer/director wanted.

The mistake the RAF made was agreeing to no vetting of the programme before it was aired

Agreed...but I doubt the producer would ever have agreed to any loss of editorial control.

were these guys really such martinets, or was there a measure of gentle and supportive coaching as well ?

IMVHO they were all gentle, supportive, lovable people who were never unkind to children, animals..... or students.......:ok:

Basil
19th Oct 2015, 07:15
Personally, I prefer the harsh but fair ones and respond better.
Bas: "Do you think I've any chance of making FJ?"
QFI: 'Nope!"

Pontius Navigator
19th Oct 2015, 07:15
Unlike navs, pilots are subjected only to pilot trainers.

On one sortie, NW of Stornoway the nav requested a left turn when he meant right. Next, NE of Aberdeen he again requested a left turn south.

Finally, given a snap diversion to Aberdeen he again called the turn wrong. Having chidded the stude twice this time the pilot executed a 270 degree turn.

The pilot was a complete prat. He couldn't see how the stude was barely holding it together. Not only that but his long turn ate up our fuel margin and we no longer had fuel to fly the proceedure. ATC was pissed off and my stude was totally unnerved before the hop back to base with no NAv kit like whizz wheel, fuller, or dividers.

thunderbird7
19th Oct 2015, 07:20
"I'm your QFI, I'm here to help you."

"Right Blogs, don't worry, this is just a TDCR."

Wensleydale
19th Oct 2015, 07:20
There are two types of instructor....those who think that they are there to "weed out" the weaker students and those who are there to actually train them! I could never really understand those branches with instructors who were very proud of their high "chop rate" - when I was an instructor I felt that my job was to pass people through the course if humanly possible and I considered it a failure for me as well as the student if I lost anyone. Most students needed a confidence boost while others perhaps needed the occasional "pull your finger out". In any event, it is horses for courses and the best method for the individual involved.

BEagle
19th Oct 2015, 07:28
I thought that the 'Fighter Pilot' clip was actually a put up job for the benefit of the BBC luvvies and wasn't how that QFI normally taught students?

During my training, there were a few poseur QFIs and others who didn't want to be there. They came from the "I've told you how to do it, I've shown you how to do it, I can do it, the aircraft can do it - so why the hell can't you do it?" school of instruction.....:uhoh:

The better ones were those who hadn't breezed their own training and knew what it was like to struggle - so were more patient and helpful than some sky god longing to be back in his Lightning.

Gentle wit was often helpful - I got rather too low on a flapless approach in a JP and my QFI commented "Red/pinks are OK, red/reds make my bum twitch, but don't let's get down to green/greens again - OK?".

In my latter days of QFI-ing on the FunBus, the task kept increasing but without the resources to meet it, thanks to chiselling thrusters who wouldn't say no. Quite a few AAR FIs hadn't bothered to become dual qualified in both the AT and AAR role and some of the AT FIs weren't even qualified to fly in the AAR role, let alone instruct (I did like one co-pilot's comment "Watching D****n R**s flying AAR is like watching your Dad trying to programme a video recorder"). But the net effect was that the few of us who were dual qualified were working far harder than was reasonable and becoming tired out as a result - to the total detriment of the quality of instruction we were providing. I know that now with the benefit of hindsight - I just wish I'd realised at the time.

Chris Scott
19th Oct 2015, 09:39
Quote:
"I find civil flying instruction generally too huggy-fluffy. You can sometimes have trouble knowing how you are doing."

Evidently things have changed since the 1960s... :}

Maxibon
19th Oct 2015, 10:15
I had a very mixed bag:

First - creamie - couldn't understand why I was having difficulty - odd punch in the JP, lots of expletives and was a generally unpleasant individual. More chips than Harry Ramsden's.

Second an ex F4 pilot - unbelievable contrast to the former; very relaxed and encouraging and as a result my flying improved tenfold. I should've had him from the start and perhaps I wouldn't have used so much flex flying with the uptight creamie with a clear inferiority complex and maybe got two wings instead!

Hey ho; you can't change the past.

pontifex
19th Oct 2015, 10:43
I have a fair amount of instructional experience. I was a sqn cdr at Linton and also the stnds cdr. I was also heavily involved in the work on the infamous TV film. In my opinion a very large percentage QFIs tried to do their best and would come to me if they thought they were having a personality issue with a student. I also got good feedback in the bar on a TGIF thrash. I think I would have soon learned if airborne bullying was taking place and would have jumped on it pronto. The nearest it came was when one student was having serious problems. So I reallocated him to one of my best (most successful) QFIs. After I had briefed him he asked "OK boss, do you want me to teach him or set him up" He was not serious, worked hard and the student graduated.

On another tack, I have also done a fair amount of civil instructing at a large school. IMHO the standard there was far below that in the RAF with very little empathy with the students. I became so dissatisfied with what was happening that I decided to get out of it and become an airline pilot with Air Europe. Pity it went bust.

TorqueOfTheDevil
19th Oct 2015, 14:34
there are good and not so good QFIs


And QHIs ;)


There are two types of instructor....those who think that they are there to "weed out" the weaker students and those who are there to actually train them! I could never really understand those branches with instructors who were very proud of their high "chop rate" - when I was an instructor I felt that my job was to pass people through the course if humanly possible and I considered it a failure for me as well as the student if I lost anyone.


Hear hear. From what (little) I have seen, the number of 'weeder-outers' is thankfully dropping. Not yet extinct though :sad:

27mm
19th Oct 2015, 14:34
I remember a Gnat QFI who carried a nav ruler with him and regularly poked his student in the neck with same....not so huggy fluffy back then.......

Dan Winterland
19th Oct 2015, 14:44
I remember having the news broken to me that I wasn't going to fly anything fast and pointy:

Boss: "Well Dan, you can either be a multi engine pilot, or a smoking hole in a hillside"'.

Me: "Err - I think the former sounds the best option."

Boss: "Good choice!"

Wander00
19th Oct 2015, 15:19
I remember the Gnat QFI with the ruler! My instructors were all very different, but I was lucky and never had one I could not get on with. The most important trait was to be able to pull "firm but fair" from the bag when necessary, thanks Bob Turner and Vic Wightman particularly in that respect. QFIs in the early days of 360 were pretty special, especially Eric Fell.

Herod
19th Oct 2015, 15:35
Mid-sixties, very immature and scared eighteen-year old. My instructor was pretty tough: the bone-done got a regular thumping. I should perhaps have asked for a change of instructor, but I think I was scared to. Didn't enjoy the JP as much as I could have. Having said that, he did teach me to fly and, after a full career as a military and civil pilot, I guess I'm belatedly grateful.

Pontius Navigator
19th Oct 2015, 15:45
Not a QFI but an extrovert yarpie sqn cdr on Vulcans, retired as an AM, regularly punched his copilot sufficiently hard to give him a dead arm. Right bully but much adored.

charliegolf
19th Oct 2015, 17:16
thanks Bob Turner

The helicopter Bob Turner later in his career, by any chance?

PN, did anyone ever thump him back?

CG

Wander00
19th Oct 2015, 17:19
"My" Bob Turner a S African, mid 60s, won Wright Jubilee in 66, one of the display rehearsals with me in the front seat following my IRT, and cleared to 200ft!

Rosevidney1
19th Oct 2015, 18:35
I had an Eastern European instructor (no names, no drills but the initials were JR) who was er, generous with a nav rule. His use of the English language was unique in my experience. I shall never forget him saying "I tell you once. I tell you twice but I no tell you a second time!" Looking back though he wasn't all bad. Happy days.

Bigpants
19th Oct 2015, 19:00
OK here is my confession, as a reluctant creamie QFI on the Hawk in 1982 I am willing to admit I was an awful instructor but this was an era when the RAF appeared to want steely eyed pilots.

Why? Because the Cold War was real and they, the Russians, never rolled into Germany because there were people on our side who would have nuked them into the stone age. Later on I was part of that role.

Why were RAF QFIs hard? Because the pace of training and the demands of flying and operating current 1982 fast jets was very high. My first student, Paul Gay, died on the other side of the airfield when things went wrong on finals and the board found that his QFI had stalled, others were not so sure.

So it boiled down to this, if there was doubt over the ability of a student pilot to proceed in fast jet training they were chopped. Paul Gay is a name on a piece of silver in a dusty cupboard in the mess and those that were chopped live on.

I was a better instructor later on when on a third tour at Valley.

MPN11
19th Oct 2015, 19:06
As one who fell/plummeted through the cracks ...

PPL ... Instructor was thoughtful, supportive and genial. I did OK, including going solo in 6 1/2 hours. (Piper Colt = simples)

RN Flying Grading ... First 3 trips in a Tiger Moth with a supportive [civvy] mentor [2 1/2 hours]. I was then transferred to another civvy "QFI" of the shouting, ranting, persuasion, who managed over the remaining 7 1/2 hours to completely obliterate my confidence and [minimal] skill as I tried to convert from nose-wheel to taildragger.

My only [small] consolation was that following my early retirement from the RN, and some questions being asked via our MP, "QFI 2" was no longer employed in the role. And, thanks for the offer RN, but no ... I didn't want to consider driving ships for a living ;)

Danny42C
19th Oct 2015, 20:13
Old, apocryphal story (surprised it hasn't come up yet)

Wartime QFI (Polish or Czech origin) to Stude:

"Smeeth !"...."Sir ?"...."Vot is your name ?"...."Smith, Sir !"...."No no, vot is your ozzer name ?"...."Robert, Sir"...."No no no, vot does your muzzer call you ?"....(bashfully) "Bobbie, Sir".

QFI (puts fatherly arm round stude's shoulders)...."Well, Bobbee - you're scrubbed !" :(

D.

Pontius Navigator
19th Oct 2015, 20:47
CG, I think one co did.

A few years later, when he was a staish, I held the door open for him and got a double handed punch below my rib cage. Like I said, a bully, but he did look after the troops.

GipsyMagpie
19th Oct 2015, 21:11
I think the modern CFS is very into coaching (which I think is something like baby led weaning applied to flight instruction). And I seem to recall the mantra is RCP. I think it means Ridicule, Criticise, Patronise but I might be wrong on that.

Fonsini
20th Oct 2015, 01:06
You guys are good, it was indeed the JP training sequence from Fighter Pilot I was referring to - I picked up a 3 pack of "wannabee FP" DVDs including "Combat Pilot" and "617 - The Last Days Of a Vulcan Squadron".

I also clearly remember the original early Fighter Pilot series even now - right from the initial interviews and those strange follow-the-dots hand/eye coordination machines all the way through to the final selection where (as if by TV magic) only one of the entrants made it through to fly an actual Fighter, a milkman if I remember correctly and he went on to Buccaneers - strange facts stick in the memory. The scene where the Air Minister asked for questions from the students expecting them to ask about seats in the (then) new Tornado only to be caught off-guard with numerous complaints about them not getting their promised holidays was a particular highlight.

The "Creamie" concept in the RAF always surprised me, student straight to instructor with no squadron service always struck me as odd - I wonder if other established air forces do something similar, or maybe I'm misunderstanding the process.

I've done my own share of adult teaching, albeit in a different profession and I can testify that knocking the confidence out from under any student almost always guarantees a poor performance.

Kudos to those of you who made it through, I very much doubt I would have made it.

ExRAFRadar
20th Oct 2015, 06:47
PN:

I held the door open for him and got a double handed punch below my rib cage

So he punched people when they were in no position to defend themselves.

Don't suppose he ever tried it midway through a drinking session did he?

Sounds like a BellEnd

BEagle
20th Oct 2015, 07:07
He was indeed a bullying bell end. Although I gather that he once met his match, following which he wasn't quite so free with his fists any longer.

Reputedly he would turn up unannounced during exercises and mingle to hear the moans and bitches from the lads - much to Stn Cdrs' consternation.

He came to Brawdy in 1976 and was taken flying in a Hunter 7. The other pilot was also a Yarpie. The Line Chief had scoured the squadrons to find a pair of suitable groundcrew to assist; as the pilots settled in to their bang seats, a grinning black face appeared at the top of each ladder to help strap them in.....:ok:

This was the apartheid era; however, both Yarps thought it was a good jape!

Back to the thread - whether it's the smaller need for aircrew recruits meaning that only the best prospects are selected or better instructors, but I gather that the success rate from first flight to front line is much higher than hitherto.

Pontius Navigator
20th Oct 2015, 07:07
ExRadar, you could say that but I couldn't possibly comment.

He used to carry a bull whip. In contrast, his OC Ops was a great guy, rugby player and Big enough . . . He also rose to AVM.

BEagle
20th Oct 2015, 07:35
A bull whip? The full Indiana Jones...:eek:?

Or did you mean a sjambok?

Pontius Navigator
20th Oct 2015, 07:48
BEagle, I defer. Still made a helluva crack.

rolling20
20th Oct 2015, 07:53
I am surprised one of the stars of the early part of Fighter Pilot hasn't commented on this. He was writing a book on the series, giving the true account, which I for one eagerly await! Where are you Martin?
My own experience and one which my Ex CO and I can laugh about now was not a happy one. Maybe I was just rubbish, I was eager to learn, but it just didn't happen for me, much to my dismay. Fighter Pilot was a very similar experience to what I had. Being whacked around the head didn't help either , sweating in a Bulldog cockpit. The chop when it came was EFATO, which I had never been shown.

Fast forward ten years later, I had to try again. Very nice ,calm, relaxed local flying club instructor, never once raised his voice or more importantly hand. Went solo after 7 hours and more ratings followed. The instructor is now a senior 767 Captain.

Personally I put it down to my being too young. My peers never seem to have had any trouble however. For all the disappointment that it brought, I wouldn't have missed it for the world and for that Boss I thank you!

MPN11
20th Oct 2015, 08:19
PN and others ... yes, Bullwhip was my Stn Cdr too. In the Bar he once punched me in the stomach [a complete surprise blow] and when I half-doubled up he said "What's the matter, aren't you fit?". Strange behaviour.

My first OC Ops there [or was it OC FW back then] was [I assume] that rugby player mentioned above, and was OK, although he had the perverse habit of opening the airfield at weekends for transport aircraft that could have easily used the H-24 transport airfield a dozen or so miles away. This did NOT go down well with those who were already on shift pattern Mon-Fri from early morning until late at night. He made ACM.

He was followed by a short, multi-talented, wg cdr, who held a drag race with Staish on the runway. Healey 3000 v Ferrari.

All 3 made Air Rank anyway - I doubt they posted 2nd division people into those jobs.

(Which has nothing to do with the topic ... please excuse nostalgic rambling)

Wander00
20th Oct 2015, 09:15
Some on here may have learned to fly on Flying Scholarship at Sywell in the 50s and 60s and recall an irascible instructor by the name of Les Hilditch. After him, any instructor was benign!

Hamish 123
20th Oct 2015, 11:13
Struggling on JP3s at 7 FTS, my instructors and flight commander did their best for me, nothing like the bloke on "Fighter Pilot", which was still fresh in the memory back then. My chop ride with the deputy flight commander of B Flight was a different matter though. No complaints about the miserable outcome, but what an a******e.

Dave Clarke Fife
20th Oct 2015, 12:07
OK here is my confession, as a reluctant creamie QFI on the Hawk in 1982 I am willing to admit I was an awful instructor but this was an era when the RAF appeared to want steely eyed pilots.

Why? Because the Cold War was real and they, the Russians, never rolled into Germany because there were people on our side who would have nuked them into the stone age. Later on I was part of that role.

Why were RAF QFIs hard? Because the pace of training and the demands of flying and operating current 1982 fast jets was very high.

The 1 TWU steely eyed QFI (QWI)?? at Brawdy on the Fighter pilot series summed this ethos up very succintly....

"Nobody wants to go to war with a w@nker on your wing".

I know I certainly wouldn't have wanted to.

deltahotel
20th Oct 2015, 12:15
Agree with your points. Small point of order - I was on Paul Gay's course and don't think he would be considered as a wxxxxr or up for the chop, either or both of which could be misconstrued from yr posts.

As for being punched by a QFI, my German F104 exchange QFI used to do this on occasions, suggesting that I could do with more muscle there to help counteract the g force in his aeros. I liked him, so put up with it without too much fretting.

PPRuNeUser0139
20th Oct 2015, 12:50
Good thread.. :ok:
I'd forgotten all about the rarely discussed topic of 'punchy' squadron commanders but this thread brought to mind my first sqn cdr who would enter the crew room and punch the nearest individual with his back turned to him.. Interesting to see the responses.. people would whirl around with a clenched fist - only to unclench it and 'smile' when they realised it was only their friendly neighbourhood sqn cdr.

Dave Clarke Fife
20th Oct 2015, 13:09
Agree with your points. Small point of order - I was on Paul Gay's course and don't think he would be considered as a wxxxxr or up for the chop, either or both of which could be misconstrued from yr posts.

deltahotel, my comments were not aimed at any person, and certainly would never denigrate Paul's memory, I merely stated the thoughts of one particular guy from that time. I trust any confusion is clarified.

deltahotel
20th Oct 2015, 13:16
DCF. Thnx. I didn't read that into yr post, but could see how it could have been from yr link to Bigpants post. Probably being overly sensitive.

Rgds

jayteeto
20th Oct 2015, 14:02
Where do I start here? This could run to 20 pages...... Ok the short version.
I was a very very weak student who scraped into rotary, scraped combat ready and then found instructing was great. I ended up as a CFS Sqn Cdr ffs!
Some of my instructors were basically tools, who didn't understand that some people were not naturals. On JPs, no teaching took place, initially it was read the book, why can't you do it? Steve Petherick then saved me with a 5 flight 'Crammer' before FHT. Shawbury was better, but The Puma OCU was shocking!
I still struggle to this day being civil to my old instructors. The mentality was see how much it takes to break them. The percentage of JPilots not getting CR in the Puma force was rediculous.
Then I met the finest instructor that I have ever seen, Jack Robson. Along with a great bunch of crewmen, he mentored me, it finally clicked into place. Jack said that I should instruct, because I would understand the struggle for students. The rest is history.
On CFSH, we adopted the cuddly but firm and fair methods. It isn't a step back, it works so well. If someone struggles, find out why! Don't just chop. If you do chop, look at yourself, was it your fault? Try to improve next time. Don't be a dinosaur. That said, some students are just tossers.......

Pontius Navigator
20th Oct 2015, 15:57
MPN, yes, ACM I see. I met his son a few years back with Lord Hennessy when he was producing Finger on the Button.

Odanrot
20th Oct 2015, 16:23
Big pants, you do yourself an injustice, I was a Standards QFI at Valley in 1982 and we didn't have any crap Creamies!

During my time at Valley I had great students when I was a B2, didn't need to show them much, but as I progressed up the ladder and became an A2 they got harder and harder to teach. Moral of story stay a B2.

My own experience of Valley in 69 was that there were a lot of tossers on the staff. Still I got out into the real RAF and going back 10 years latter after 3 frontline tours I saw a terrific difference and had great relationships with my studes - if you know what I mean! looking back that was a golden time, great mates, very good studes and Loooooades of flying, none of this 10 hours a month crap.

jindabyne
20th Oct 2015, 18:25
I like to think that I was a decent instructor: but please feel free to disagree. I'll probably delete this tomorrow!

Peter Carter
20th Oct 2015, 18:48
Regarding the 'w@nker on your wing' story; I think it was Dan at Valley - not Brawdy...

Odanrot
20th Oct 2015, 19:26
Yes it was Dan W he was OC 2 at 4 FTS, good bloke. Jindabyne, I have no doubt you were a good instructor as we knew each other in the 80s and from our time together that was evident. We did a BOI together. Hope you are well.

The 69ers at Valley that I knew just had a bad superior attitude that wasn't justified. There were obviously good guys as well, but the real toads stood out and it spoiled the overall experience - notwithstanding that I passed and moved on. Whereas my time there as an instructor was one of my favourite tours - what an admission.

PS I worked out who you were when you offered help on the BOI we did, beat me to it.

Herod
20th Oct 2015, 20:49
Globe Trotter. I agree that teaching to suit the student is right, and there are always times when the instructor/student chemistry doesn't work. Further to my earlier about my JP experience, I then went onto helicopters. I was having all sorts of trouble, although I got on well with my instructor. The upshot was that I had an assessment ride with the DCFI, who recommended that I be given a bit more time, with another instructor. The chemistry must have been different because all went well thereafter. Funnily enough, the instructor who had given me the assessment became my Squadron Commander at a later stage in a hot and sandy place.

Pontius Navigator
20th Oct 2015, 21:00
Standards units have a lot to offer, but frequently while they are good at assessing the delivery of sequences, they are not so good at assessing the holistic approach to instruction that is required for real students.

. . .
I was unable to change this fixation on delivering sequences by pre-OCU standards units, despite my best efforts.

My point is simply that teaching, adapted to suit the student, is the proper way to serve the student body.

Was this a consequence of the systems approach to flying training?

Certainly up until about 1989 the nav syllabus was designed to load the student progressively with more procedures to absorb spare capacity and place them under pressure with techniques not employed outside the nav school. From the 90s there was a step changing in training with lots of NEC chopped from the syllabus.

deltahotel
20th Oct 2015, 21:14
I'm working on it, but not there yet

Planet Basher
20th Oct 2015, 21:40
Having done Gliders and PPL in civvy life I quickly learnt to avoid ex RAF instructors at an early age, the previously made point about "why can't you do this already" and "don't do it like that, do it like this" without actually telling you what "it" was meant I learnt where my training money would be wasted.

I am sure most of them are great and most of them have adapted to civvy life, I just wish I had met one of them.

DC10RealMan
20th Oct 2015, 22:02
Planet Basher.

We have him at our flying club.

Herod
20th Oct 2015, 23:22
Deltahotel, disregard. I've sent you a pm

tartare
21st Oct 2015, 02:51
So on what basis is the fast jet/chop/not chop decision made?
Student who can't learn a new procedure immediately - isn't learning quickly enough?
(I assume that is because of the time and cost involved in brining someone up to scratch).
I assume a majority of students would be chopped simply because they couldn't keep up with the aircraft?
Do successful fast jet students stand out to QFIs as having an intuitive feel for the aircraft?

Flap62
21st Oct 2015, 06:47
Tartare,

Intuitive feel? By no means. All you have to do is keep up with course progress through the initial stages and then show capacity as the complexity ramps up. You really don't need to have a great pair of hands. I was comfortably in the bottom half of my BFTS and solidly course average at Valley. At TWCU something started to click and, while i still wasn't the best handling pilot there ever was, i started to show some extra capacity that had been missing in the earlier stages. Fast forward 5 years and i was a Harrier QWI. thank goodness my instructors in the early years made the decisions they did!

Haraka
21st Oct 2015, 07:09
I know one individual who was chopped on Chipmunk, went Air Traffic, reapplied five years later and ended up on Harriers.

Pontius Navigator
21st Oct 2015, 07:24
Haraka, I was going to say may be he grew up, but on second thoughts. . . :)

Tartare, as Flaps said, it probably more to do with capacity to learn quickly. At NAv school in the late 80s the OC allowed more reflies and remedial training than his budget allowed; he was ex-Buccs and probably being more lenient as a result.

The problem was weaker candidates and further expense down the line at FJ OCUs before being chopped. Their argument was you had to pass a real combat exam first time.

Quietplease
21st Oct 2015, 19:25
What's so surprising about QFIs being different. I reckon I helped the good students to be better but wasn't the best for the weaker ones.
If you passed your IRT with me you would never have a problem with instrument flying.
Remember having a good average student who would lose interest after a few minutes during formation flying and drift out of position so we were about to die. No success with him (despite hitting bone dome several times) but a quick couple of trips with someone else ( a creamie) sorted him out.

As a student on JP1s and Vampires I had very good, pleasant instructors but the QFI I remember best was the feared MP Evans. We were all getting a bit sloppy towards the end of the Vampire course so check flights for all. "What height are you meant to be boy? 1100 sir. Well why aren't you" I was at least 20ft out. Same with the speed. If you can fly at 152 when you are meant to be at 150, why aren't you? That stuck with me for the rest of my career.
When I was a QFI there was a bit of a shortage of pilots so we were getting some pretty poor ones through the selection process. They needed to be weeded. As for the Middle Eastern ones that's an epic tale, 30 hours to solo on a JP. The Russians had never let them get beyond taxiing part 1. The very odd exception, one from Kuwait who came top of his mixed course. Leading a pair of I....is solo formation more than one QFI was heard to boast that they had never caught up.
Remember as an IRE before I did CFS having a new arrival, first tour, as were we all,for his IRT. He was good and then would switch off completely and give up during unusual attitudes. New squadron commander not happy at failure. This guy had already been brown-nosing with boss.
Neil Williams suggested he have a ride with him. Trip went well until start of a BABS approach when idiot pilot trims full nose down but has forgotten that's what you do after lowering full flap in a Canberra which he has omitted to do. Even Neil chickened out of this Stuka approach. Should have been chopped in training but survived a full career in flying. Luck, or were we wrong?

Flap62
21st Oct 2015, 20:03
If you passed your IRT with me you would never have a problem with instrument flying.

I bet you were an absolute delight to fly with.

rlsbutler
21st Oct 2015, 21:22
The violence reported in #17 and #19 does not sound so bad really.

The Piston Provost came with a conventional builder's crowbar strapped to the central cabin pillar, by the instructor's left shoulder and handily in reach of his right hand.

We all knew it was there, but its only "victim" we knew of was the star of our Entry - in due course an Exceptional pilot. The instructor was later my squadron commander on 7FTS and an absolute gentleman.

Now, of course, I can guess that, while the story was real for us, it never happened.

Then again all of our instructors seemed to have come off Hunters at Jever and probably would not have known what a nav rule was.

ShotOne
21st Oct 2015, 22:24
"What height...boy", "...despite hitting bone dome several times..," yes, when struggling to acquire a new skill what I feel really helps is being insulted or hit over the head. Thank you, quiet please, your post answers the OP's question on instructional technique exactly.

Mach Two
21st Oct 2015, 22:48
Plenty of very good accounts on this thread and it only goes to show that there are as big a range of flying instructors as there are people in any other walk of life.

Personally, I got on with all my instructors, regardless of their quirks. Some of them are even here and I thank them. I agree that some fellow studes felt a bit dubious about the more "boisterous" instructors, especially in the early days, but most made it through to a high standard. So make of that what you will.

kintyred
21st Oct 2015, 23:16
Wholeheartedly agree ShotOne,

While I was struggling to get to grips with the Wessex on instruments without ASE (stab system), my instructor sat there chewing gum while repeating 'scan, scan, scan' with the occasional 'RELAX!' thrown in for good measure. Great instructional technique that obviously helped me to master the exercise in no time. Hopefully he later made a better AVM than QHI.

ShotOne
21st Oct 2015, 23:30
In what other "walk of life", mach2, is humiliating or physically striking someone you're supposed to be teaching considered normal, even something to boast about?

And yes, kintyred, I enjoyed the "RELAX!!" treatment too; on a dual navex, yelled at full volume, face four inches from mine. What on earth was that meant to achieve?

Mach Two
21st Oct 2015, 23:59
OK, Shot One, fair question. I can only answer based on my own first hand experience. Your tone comes across to me with a slight twist of bitterness so I can only assume your experiences were not like mine. I would add at this point that I am not a QFI, so I have no defence to make on this.

I can honestly say that in my many years of service I have never seen, or had reported me, anything that that would warrant being described as humiliation or physically striking a student.

I have been severely bollocked in a loud voice when my primary instructor at a secret Basic Flying Training base thought I was trying to kill him. But that wasn't humiliation even though he used harsh words.

I was once slapped for not warning an instructor before applying 8g to his body. But it wasn't any kind of physical abuse.

I have seen people, more recently, complain about being given a frank, honest, gloves off debrief. People don't like to be told bad things about their performance. I would agree that the totally straight approach to debriefing comes across as harsh to some people, especially some youngsters that have grown up in a fluffy environment where no one is allowed to experience failure. But sooner or later, the kids have to be told that "doing that will get you and others killed."

Basil
22nd Oct 2015, 00:44
On civil big jets I've twice had a change of instructor and on both occasions they remarked that they couldn't see what the alleged problem had been. Curious.

I had a manufacturer's pilot start shouting at me; he shut up when I told him I didn't require his effing advice about how to fly an NDB approach. Bit arrogant, I admit, but he'd pissed me off a bit.

I did once punch my FO but he was the FTM on a sim 'Landings to FOs' session and that particular airline liked assertive captains. A great one-off since I knew I'd never again have the opportunity to punch a manager with impunity.
Needless to say, I've never punched a real FO ;)

Adam Nams
22nd Oct 2015, 01:58
I have related this story once or twice before...


Originally being a Nimrod 'dry man' my particular hate was solely reserved for my EW instructor who had an individual way of drumming home identification of the sounds of particular radars with the use of a wooden metre ruler which he carried around the classroom with him.


He left such a lasting (non-physical) impression on me that when I later learned that he had died, my first thought, to my eternal shame, was 'Good'.


When I later became an instructor and eventually a instructor-trainer, I used him often as an example of the sort of instructor that one should never be.


Also, when going through instructor training, my instructor related the story of a certain helicopter QCI who carried a metal ruler on the aircraft with him and would beat the back of the student's helmet with it whenever a mistake was made. That worked fine until one day the student turned around at the wrong time and received the ruler on his face.

fade to grey
22nd Oct 2015, 03:27
I guess you had to put up with this violence and bullying in the military,
In the civilian world, I would have considered it possible to kick someone in the face using a C152 wing strut as a fulcrum if necessary.

Hate bullies, always have done, and will fight them to this day.

O-P
22nd Oct 2015, 03:58
1987, JP5, 2000'.

QFI "OK Bloggs, just taken a bird, I'm incapacitated, the engine is dead, the aircraft will crash, what you going to do?"

Me "Eject Sir"

QFI "Aren't you going to try and save me?"

Me "Nah, you're not worth the effort."

I passed the trip and he bought me a beer later.

BEagle
22nd Oct 2015, 07:06
One of the older QFIs was flying with his student at The Towers in 1974.....

"OK, Bloggs, where are we?"
"Errmm...."
"Well, get out your local area map then"
(Rustle rustle"
"Good grief, Bloggs, that looks like a bit of old newspaper!"

At which Bloggs turns to his QFI, offering the map:

"Chip, Sir?"

The old chap thought this a huge joke and they continued their GH sortie very happily.

But at one Happy Hour, one of the ATCOs came into the bar with a tape player, which he connected to the Steak Bar disco system. He then pressed 'Play' and we were treated to several minutes of a stuck transmit cockpit conversation between a QFI and his student. Constant aggression and swearing; eventually they realised that Cranwell Approach wasn't replying; Bloggs is told to RTB with a radio failure. "Cranwell Approach, this is XXXXX with a practice radio failure" was followed immediately by "It's not a f*****g practice failure, it's a real f****** radio failure, you c**t!" Then CLICK as it dawned on the QFI that they had probably been stuck on Tx for quite a while.....

The tape became famous, the student received a lot of sympathy and the QFI had a rather one-way interview with OC Stds......

Duchess_Driver
22nd Oct 2015, 07:20
have grown up in a fluffy environment where no one is allowed to experience failure.


It had already started way way back. WRT the ´Fighter Pilot' series in episode 1, first door on the left to be told you're going to be disappointed.

Examiner standards have us now informing students that they 'didn't meet the required standard.' I seem to recall some years ago that the education system started referring to 'deferred passes...'

Some students seem 'shocked' when I point out they actually have to work (and work hard) to get the licence/rating rather than just getting it out of a box of Rice Krispies.

Never shouted or struck a student in all my instructional days (tempted often) but will admit to the odd 'sigh of frustration' and even though it is bad technique the odd bit of sarcasm does creep in. When you have to remind people that they want to be responsible for the lives 189 strangers, huggy fluffy doesn't always work, and unfortunately, the economics of the business I'm in doesn't allow them too many attempts to get it right.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2015, 07:58
I have seen people, more recently, complain about being given a frank, honest, gloves off debrief. People don't like to be told bad things about their performance. I would agree that the totally straight approach to debriefing comes across as harsh to some people, especially some youngsters that have grown up in a fluffy environment where no one is allowed to experience failure. But sooner or later, the kids have to be told that "doing that will get you and others killed."

Back at AITC in the 80s, taught opening phrase for diabolical sortie debrief, "OK Bloggs, thought you prepared well for that trip. Putting your name on each log sheet before flight was a good time saver.

Now, it would be better if you collected the latest docs, used a new chart, and brought some pencils rather than a blunt chinagraph. You settled in well with most of your kit but were a bit slow to remember you had forgotten your helmet '
. . . "

In contrast, on the next phase of training, if late for met brief the instructors took the sortie and left the studes, apologies and all, behind. School of hard knocks worked.

Tourist
22nd Oct 2015, 08:15
I have never been any form of instructor, perhaps for the best, but I disagree with those on here who want everything to be fluffy in military training.

It is impossible to simulate the pressures of real military ops in training, but sometimes the extra pressure of aggressive instructors is very valuable.

If shouting makes you lose the ability to fly, then military is not the place for you.

Military flying training is not about getting everyone through. If you are not chopping a percentage, you are not maintaining standards.

Yes it can go too far. I've had a discussion airborne with Jack F.... during my RN grading where I explained to him that the next time he punched me I was going to hospitalise him. (We got on well after that!)

The idea that the training environment should be lovely is barking.
Do we train the SAS by chatting nicely to them?
If you want elite, it has to be pressured.
I suspect that many on here whingeing only just scraped through and are still mildly traumatised my the experienced.

kintyred
22nd Oct 2015, 08:32
"If you're not chopping a percentage you're not maintaining standards"

To be honest Tourist, I don't think you were really cut out to be an instructor!

Arclite01
22nd Oct 2015, 08:35
Instructor training - doing the usual Primary Effects of Controls demo/teach/student practice (repeatedly until the patter was good............)

'Bloggs' in the front obviously taking notes on his kneepad (but I can't see what he's writing)

After landing he says 'see those chinagraph marks on my kneepad ? (lots) That is every time you said 'OK' after delivering a line of patter...........'

Was frightened to speak after that. I'm sure it made my patter worse for the other exercises..............but I sort of got the message.

Arc

ShotOne
22nd Oct 2015, 09:10
"..next time he punched me.." Even your account, tourist shows a text-book example of bullying. If that's good technique, why should your threat of retaliation have altered it?

In my own "RELAX" shouty moment, it was delivered with such venom that I was convinced it was going to be followed up with a blow. The rest of the sortie was spent working out whether I'd have to loosen my ejection seat straps to retaliate and if I'd be chopped for doing so -and was a 100% waste of avtur.

Tourist
22nd Oct 2015, 09:12
"If you're not chopping a percentage you're not maintaining standards"

To be honest Tourist, I don't think you were really cut out to be an instructor!

No argument there......:ok:


Seriously though, if you are never chopping, you are saying that everybody who gets through the interview is suitable.

That's simply never going to be the case.

Judging how good a pilot is going to be by their learning curve/rate is cr@p, but it is better than any other metric that has been found.

Getting somebody through by awesome/extra instruction rather than student capability just leads to downstream problems either on OCUs or frontline.
We have all seen the results and long term fallout of the various times that recruitment numbers have been tight and standards have relaxed a bit.

Tourist
22nd Oct 2015, 09:16
"..next time he punched me.." Even your account, tourist shows a text-book example of bullying. If that's good technique, why should your threat of retaliation have altered it?

In my own "RELAX" shouty moment, it was delivered with such venom that I was convinced it was going to be followed up with a blow. The rest of the sortie was spent working out whether I'd have to loosen my ejection seat straps to retaliate and if I'd be chopped for doing so -and was a 100% waste of avtur.

Learning to deal with a bully is a very valuable character building moment, and you will notice that I did say it can go too far.

p.s. You are aware that we are talking about the military, yes?

Aggression, violence, bullying, intimidation.

These are our purpose. It is a little silly to believe that they are entirely unsuitable traits in military personnel.

Maxibon
22nd Oct 2015, 10:52
Tourist - there's a magic word that can go in front of those words - controlled. To be frank, even though I'm now in green (Army), there is no place for bullying at any level. Professionalism has a quality all of it's own; bullying displays one's own inferiority.

Rossian
22nd Oct 2015, 11:04
...early in my flying training (sortie2) I had a MAeOP (probably the one that Adam Nams mentioned) as my man. He sat down beside me, took the fire axe off the wall and plonked it on the desk between us.

Me Brand new P/O stripe barely visible"What's that for?" I had the sense to say it on i/c.

Him "When you fook oop I clatter you on the bonedome wi' the flat bit"

Me "I do NOT respond well to threats of physical violence and if you have a problem with that we can go and talk to the CI" (I was actually quaking in my flying boots)

Him Very hard stare, but put it back on the wall.

Later in the trip, when it was my turn in the R/H seat to do the airways comms, as I settled in to the seat the aged Master Pilot looked across and mouthed "Well done son." and let me take the pole as well.

The Ancient Mariner

Tourist
22nd Oct 2015, 12:02
there is no place for bullying at any level. Professionalism has a quality all of it's own; bullying displays one's own inferiority.

Erm.......

At any level?


You do understand what militaries are for yes?

We are the thugs for politicians. That is our job.

Our job is to throw our weight around and impose the will of our country upon others weaker than us.

That is what empires, including ours, are built on.

The Chinese are currently doing it in the islands off the coast of south east asia.

That is what the US did off Cuba.

It's what we did to Libya.

BANANASBANANAS
22nd Oct 2015, 12:28
Just to put some balance back into this thread if I may.

Way back in the very early 1980's when I was a student pilot at Cranwell, I had the pleasure of Ray 'Fu?K1ng' Knowles as my Primary Instructor on the JP5A.

First time we flew together I barfed all over him, me and most of the cockpit.

Those of you that remember Ray will know that he had a reputation for 'telling it how it was' but he stuck with me.

My air sickness caused major problems for me in the run up to the spin aeros check as I needed 3 hands to fly the thing and most practice spins resulted in 'I have "fu&king"control' from Ray in the right seat while I fumbled for, then stared into the blue bag.

But in the run up to my spin aeros check Ray spent an hour or so every evening sitting in a JP in the hangar with me after work so that he could apply 'input force' from the right column commensurate for me to overcome on the left column as he felt that I was ripe for the chop due airsickness slowing my progress, but that if we could beat the airsickness there was a remote possibility that I may one day see a set of wings pinned on my chest. I got through that spin aeros check, got the wings and subsequently saw Ray again at Brize when he was on 101 Sqn.

I think the point I am trying to make is that sometimes an image is maintained, even encouraged, but underneath you may be pleasantly surprised what you find.

I was.

kintyred
22nd Oct 2015, 12:38
I think that there's a difference between bullying and aggression. I can think of many mild-mannered, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly colleagues who, when they stepped onto a rugby pitch were transformed. Unless you're a front line fighter pilot you're supporting someone else's fight. In my experience (support helicopters) the difficult thing about military aviation in a combat role is overcoming your fear and having the courage and discipline to carry out your job. My students showed their mettle time and again in combat, all I could do as their instructor was to equip them as best as I could for their frontline role. It often took patience and occasionally a little ingenuity to get my point across but a I never once even raised my voice or lost my temper; it would not have achieved anything. The guys and girls were invariably trying their best and I was simply there to help them. I cajoled, encouraged and chided until they achieved the required standard. On the the very odd occasion when they failed to meet the standard and were withdrawn from training, I was as gutted as they were. Of all the aviation disciplines I can honestly say that instructing was the one that gave me the most satisfaction.

andyy
22nd Oct 2015, 13:01
Tourist, bullying is for the enemy; its not for your own damn side.

Firm instruction is fine. Even shouting, when required, to elicit life saving action is essential some times, and no one is saying that you need to be fluffy and hugging all the time but being threatening and making people scared to learn, just in case they make a mistake is a disgrace.

Some people will need to be chopped, some will learn at a slower rate than others but can make the grade, some learn slow and then have a ureka moment and become excellent but its the job of the instructor to work that out and help not hinder progress.

Now, I'm not an aviator, but I have experienced good and bad instructors in my fishead world, along with good and bad bosses. But the ones that bullied their own team were the ones that sometimes succeeded in achieving very short term aims, but invariable failed to achieve long term term professional performance from those around them, even when they were technically capable. They were the ones at fault.

Maxibon
22nd Oct 2015, 13:09
Tourist, whilst I have no intent in getting into a slanging match, I am well aware of the requirements of the military, given my rank and experience. I can only hope you are/were never in a position of educating subordinates on anything to do with the moral component of fighting power!

rolling20
22nd Oct 2015, 14:28
Colleague of mine on our UAS ( who I shall call P) won a flying scholarship, soloed @ 16, won every trophy going on the Squadron ,big hit with the girls and The Boss declared him a natural ( flying that is) and us youngsters were in awe.

P then joined the RAF when he left uni.

Fast forward to Chivenor TWU and he came across an instructor who took as intense dislike to him. P consequently went multi and then after a tour or 2 ended up at CFS on the Tucano.

By shear coincidence , I then found myself working some years later with his Ex Flight Commander @CFS and an interesting story came out.They once held an aero competition and the story goes that P was not only the only bod on the Squadron that didn't have Front line fast jet experience, but he was also given the worst aircraft for the comp. The rest you can guess, he won with aplomb.

Danny42C
22nd Oct 2015, 19:11
Confucius he say:

'Em as can - do.

'Em as can't - instruct.

'Em as can neither do nor instruct - go on the Examining Board.

(no, not me, Confucius)

D.

ACW418
22nd Oct 2015, 19:42
Firstly to Wander I had Les Hillditch at Sywell and thought him a great guy. Never quite understood his method of landing the Auster though. "Keep stirring it" was his technique.

I had a smashing instructor on the JP3, until you closed the canopy! Taught me a lot about instructing for use later.

I never had any problems with my students possibly because they were all better at flying than I was.

ACW

jayteeto
22nd Oct 2015, 19:59
kintyred and andyy. The best two posts on the thread. You don't have to chop to maintain standards, that's total bull. Why? Imagine that by coincidence, the ten students on a course we're the top ten students that went through for decades. Do you chop a star just to look good? That is why you judge against course standard. If need be chop everyone........ Or no one.
You can't judge how someone will perform in combat by assessing them in a circuits sortie. You can be hard on someone without being a bullying knob as well. There is no place in a modern fighting force for bullies, there is no place for someone below standard either. When I chopped a student, they knew that they had been treated fairly and honestly. That isn't too much to ask.

tartare
23rd Oct 2015, 00:55
Bananas - that is an inspiring story. A fast jet pilot who suffered from airsickness. I never would have thought... honest!
R/e aggression - isn't the key word controlled?
After all, that's what the uniform represents?
Discipline... you are allowed to kill people and/or break their stuff... using multi million dollar super weapons that are pointy and go very fast.
But only when I say so.
Bully people, and you run the risk they'll be too scared to make optimal decisions.
Simple science.

Fonsini
23rd Oct 2015, 01:13
I confess I have been surprised by some of these comments, and every time I watch Spartacus I shall think of RAF FJ training in the 1970s. Or maybe I'm just soft.

I find it hard to believe that today's Typhoon pilots had to contend with gut punches during their training and I'm sure it doesn't make them any less deadly.

I have no love of the bully.

FantomZorbin
23rd Oct 2015, 09:19
Poor instruction can have repercussions ...


SAC Bloggs undergoing trade training was subjected to continued verbal 'encouragement' from a particularly abrasive Cpl. Nevertheless Bloggs passed the course and went to his new Unit.
Time passed, he did well, so well that he applied for and gained a commission.
He eventually arrived at a Unit as JEngO where, lo and behold, the abrasive Cpl (now a Sgt) was being his usual self. Our JEngO had the Sgt marched in to his office (with hat!).
"Well Sgt, we meet again. You do realise that your career stops here. Dismiss."

Wander00
23rd Oct 2015, 09:58
FZ - just proves that on the way up you never know who you might meet coming down

Tourist
23rd Oct 2015, 10:08
I firmly believe that the attitude shown on here is why we can't win wars anymore.

Iraq, got our ass kicked.
Afghanistan, got our ass kicked.
Syria......

The students that some of you on here are waxing lyrical about teaching with gentle genius have all proceeded to lose the wars they were involved in. (I include myself in this!)

British Society has got itself into a position where we look back proudly and longingly at our glorious empire history, whilst at the same time vilifying the attitude that got us that empire in the first place.

We bullied and fought our way to the top, stopping at nothing to rule. Might was right.
We bullied the Chinese into buying Heroin FFS!
Military was harsh.
Schools were harsh.
Life was tough.
Darwin ruled.

The British were tough.

Now, not so much.

The meaning of the word "bully" has been twisted out of all proportion.
What used to be considered bullying is very different than what we would now call bullying. Defriending on facebook now qualifies:ugh:

There is a reason that military training has always had some harsh parts. It toughens you up. You need a bit of mental scar tissue, or combat will mess you up.

The forces we now fight against are tough. They are hardened. We will also need to be.

If getting shouted at in the cockpit is too much for you then go do something else.

jayteeto

What an amazingly self satisfied post. How he hell do you know what the student you chopped thought of you?!

Maxibon

What a cowardly post. You say you don't want a slanging match and then slag off my suitability as a teacher.


Fantomzorbin

You do realise that what happened in that wholesome tale of revenge is that the Jengo used his position to bully the Sgt, but somehow that bullying is ok?

Union Jack
23rd Oct 2015, 10:09
"Well Sgt, we meet again. You do realise that your career stops here. Dismiss." - FZ

Fully agree, as I often do with Wander00, but it seems to me that there's actually an element of bullying there too, as opposed to setting out to use his new status as JEngO to put the sergeant on the right track.:=

Jack

Wander00
23rd Oct 2015, 10:25
I guess different ways of reading it, but if young(ish) Fg Off was intent to ensure that sgt's bullying style was stopped, I am not going to die in a ditch.

beardy
23rd Oct 2015, 10:31
Tourist said:

Afghanistan, got our ass kicked.

Which particular century? The current one or a previous 'bullying' one when we had a short lived, crippling expensive 'glorious' 'Empire?'

The examples you quote were not lost by the combatants, shame on you for suggesting such. They were lost by the politicians who picked fights we could not win.

As an aside it was the USA bullying of an unaligned nationalist movement in Cuba that led to the revolution and further bullying that led the new regime reluctantly into the hands of the Soviets.
It was political expediency that led to the removal of the missiles. The sum total was decades of resentment by Cubans, a refugee crisis, seperated and estranged families and the accelerated development of ICBMs and SLBMs. Hardly a win.

Training does at times need to be harsh, uncomfortable and difficult, however it does not need to include bullying, which is counterproductive to learning and breeds nought but resentment.

Union Jack
23rd Oct 2015, 10:37
Wanders - I was firstly fully agreeing with your very valid observation, but secondly suggesting that FZ's post, as written, gives more than a hint of bullying, so no "fosse" required!:ok:

Jack

Tourist
23rd Oct 2015, 10:54
Tourist said:

Training does at times need to be harsh uncomfortable and difficult, however it does not need to include bullying, which is counterproductive to learning and breeds nought but resentment.

This part I would definitely agree with, however the problem comes with the definition of "bullying"


Bullying, like poverty, is a word who's meaning shifts with the times.
Neither can ever be wiped out almost by definition.

One persons harsh is another's bullying.

Military personnel need to be tough.
Gentle training does not make you tough.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Oct 2015, 10:58
Tourist, true and over bearing psychological bully can be just as bad. It might be good for RtI training but it does necessarily create a good learning environment or create good followers.

A better leader is one who creates an atmosphere where people want to succeed rather than one who is coercive.

Chesty Morgan
23rd Oct 2015, 11:03
Train hard, fight easy.

beardy
23rd Oct 2015, 11:04
Insults, sarcasm and imposition of will by force will not help any pilot to learn how to handle or operate an aircraft. They have no place in the cockpit of a Flying Instructor. I believe that when used in the air, they are more a symptom of ignorance and incompetence of the teacher.

Debatably there may be a place for them on the ground during military indoctrination. Although I doubt it.

Tourist
23rd Oct 2015, 12:39
A better leader is one who creates an atmosphere where people want to succeed rather than one who is coercive.

That is debateable.

I would much rather work for such a leader, but history is full of very unpleasant leaders who were very successful.

I would suggest that the only sensible metric for measuring "better" would be in terms of success.


If you look at the great fighting forces of the world throughout history, I think it is fair to say that the vast majority have/had extraordinary harsh training environments involving what we would definitely consider a bullying environment rather than a nice atmosphere.

These forces still managed to be disciplined.

the fact that this might be unpalatable does not make it any less true.

charliegolf
23rd Oct 2015, 12:48
All interesting stuff.

But anyone who thinks that hitting a student over the head with a nav ruler as a learning incentive is as thick as mince if they think, on reflection, "Yeah that sorted Blogg's landings out a treat".

Anyone who agrees that it is a good thing, must also agree that RAF pilots are now lesser professionals because it no longer happens. If it were that good, why not write it into the training manuals?


CG

BEagle
23rd Oct 2015, 12:58
Tourist, do you regret the passing of such quaint naval practices as flogging with the cat o' nine tails and keel hauling?

Being pushed to find one's limits on a dark and cold part of the Yorkshire moors is one thing, yelling and physically assaulting a struggling student pilot quite another - as beardy rightly states.

As for that JEngO's behaviour recounted by FantomZorbin, it was completely unacceptable. Regrettably it exemplifies the worst characteristics of some ex-rankers I've known....

What would have been wrong with "Ah, Sgt Abrasive, we meet again. When you were a corporal, you made life hell for a certain SAC. If you expect to progress in your career, I expect to learn that you have mended your ways, now that you are in a position of considerable responsibility. Do we understand each other? OK, now let's talk about any problems you've identified here - pull up a chair"

Too huggy-fluffy for you, Tourist?

Union Jack
23rd Oct 2015, 13:01
What would have been wrong with "Ah, Sgt Abrasive, we meet again. When you were a corporal, you made life hell for a certain SAC. If you expect to progress in your career, I expect to learn that you have mended your ways, now that you are in a position of considerable responsibility. Do we understand each other? OK, now let's talk about any problems you've identified here - pull up a chair" - BEagle

Perfecto.:ok:

Jack

FantomZorbin
23rd Oct 2015, 13:51
BEagle, I totally agree with your approach to Sgt Abrasive. This tale was recounted to me by a JEngO over 30yrs ago (Ouch!), I don't believe he was THE JEngO in question, but the point being made then was the one made by Wander00 (#97).


Quite frankly, having sat on Promotion Boards, I don't see how that threat could have been made good if not supported by Abrasive's previous and future reports.

Lou Scannon
23rd Oct 2015, 14:04
BFTS Syerston 1960.

I was allocated two instructors in sequence who felt that the whole business of having to fly with students was beneath them and they should have been back on Hunters (even though one had only managed the right seat on Shackletons!).

Both shouting and screaming like nervous schoolgirls at any error rather than calm rational instructing. I learned more in one ground briefing from an old Master Pilot (Jock Naismith) than I did in hours of being trapped in a JP cockpit with these two.

Later, time spent working with the Psychologists at IAM Farnborough taught me the value of psychological screening of people and how it should have been employed to elliminated this type of idiot from the system...and saved a fortune in aircraft time.

One advantage was that all the subsequent students I taught on larger aircraft benefitted from this Syerston experience and , I hope, were treated in a decent and professional manner.

Geordie_Expat
23rd Oct 2015, 14:12
Beagle: Apart from your condescending attitude to some ex-rankers, don't you think that a large majority of people would have a similar reaction?

It is not bullying, it is REVENGE !! Or is that an emotion that is removed on receiving a commission ?

Pontius Navigator
23rd Oct 2015, 14:14
Quite frankly, having sat on Promotion Boards, I don't see how that threat could have been made good if not supported by Abrasive's previous and future reports.

I expect to learn that you have mended your ways, now that you are in a position of considerable responsibility

No suggestion that future recommendation would be influenced by previous behaviour. He expected to learn; if he did not so learn one would presume that the previous behaviour would have reflected in current performance. I received a similar threat from a particular OC on my welcoming interview. I lasted longer there than he did but never received an acknowledgement that he had been wrong. Prat. Wouldn't even follow him to the toilet to see if he could reach the urinal.

But on Abrasive's future, a couple of current weak reports would certainly cause a board to think twice.

Wwyvern
23rd Oct 2015, 15:42
My uncle, long gone now, flew in France towards the end on WW1. He covered his war experiences in his memoires, an edited excerpt of which is below. Noticeable is that the poor instructor was found out by someone senior (isn't that what flight commanders, standards instructors, bosses are for?) and that a keen instructor improved the students' progress.


WW1 FLYING INSTRUCTORS

Harry took his first flight on 30 Nov 1917 in an Armstrong Whitworth biplane with a 200hp Beardmore stationary engine. Harry recalls that he was quite uncomfortable and perhaps a little scared of the whole thing.

The next few weeks were taken up with more ground school, and firing the aircraft machine guns from aircraft fuselages on the ground. The group’s instructor was not keen on instructing, and used his students as bowlers so that he could practise his batting in the nets. Their flying time was very low, and someone senior had noticed their lack of progress. They were assigned to the Wing Examining Officer, a Captain Oliver. Each student flew with Capt Oliver in turn, flying in an Avro, which was equipped with a Gosport Tube. Four of the group, including Harry, passed, one was sent to observer school and one “washed out”.

The four were assigned to a new instructor, Lieutenant Keevil, who was very keen, and they all began to make progress. There was much activity on the aerodrome, and there were several instances of aircraft landing on top of aircraft on the ground. They were now flying a DH6. Harry was sent first solo on 13 Dec 17. He describes the first solo exercise as being a take-off, two level turns and a landing. He managed the take-off, the turns and the approach. He had difficulty controlling his speed during the landing, landed at speed and knocked a main wheel off. He slewed to a stop, but right-way up. Lt Keevil trotted over to him, asked how he felt, to which the answer was, “Very well but not too happy.” There were two or three other DH6s sitting outside the hangar, and Lt Keevil got Harry into one, told him to get airborne again, but to stay overhead the aerodrome for 30 minutes and then land. This all happened without further incident. Harry was very conscious of at last being one of only a few hundred people who had piloted a heavier-than-air- machine up to that time.

27mm
23rd Oct 2015, 18:50
Some QFIs are brilliantly subtle in their methods. At Linton on the JP, circuits were left handed, except for one day a week, when for variety, right hand circuits were flown. On my course, I was blundering my way through a left PFL pattern with my long-suffering QFI, totally engrossed in the litany of checks, when I felt him writing something on my kneeboard. I glanced nervously at it to see one word: "Wednesday". :\

BEagle
23rd Oct 2015, 18:58
At The Towers, our Luftwaffe exchange QFI (spoofed by one of his colleagues into declaring to the Commandant's wife that he'd been out on the north aerodrome shooting 'pubics', which he'd been assured meant 'small hares'...) described the problem of right hand circuits to his student as "You vill haff difficulty seeing past my skvare Tcherman head!".

Super chap he was!

Checks? "Speed below 140 KIAS, airbrakes in, landing gear down...3 reds...3 greens, fuel sufficient, flaps T/O, harness tight, wheelbrakes on holding, off exhausting", wasn't it? But that was 41 years ago.

Wander00
23rd Oct 2015, 19:36
Beags - that's my bl@@dy keyboard again!

Herod
23rd Oct 2015, 19:39
You're right, BEagle, and the mnemonic was "aunt and uncle f**k frequently, however weary" 49 years ago. Some things you never forget.

MightyGem
23rd Oct 2015, 20:25
fuel sufficient
Sufficient for what? Never really understood that check. Plenty of fuel? Fine, I'm going to land. Not a lot of fuel? I'm definitely going to land.

ShotOne
23rd Oct 2015, 20:33
Hmm, wish I'd known that mnemonic, I might have done a bit better!

I wonder if one of the proponents of the punchy/shouty technique happened to be tasked with training a technical skill to, say, someone from the SAS he'd maintain the technique?

devonianflyer
23rd Oct 2015, 21:51
Just in case anyone is reading this interested in how it is today (rather than pre-1990 flying training) I would like to assure them that current CFS methods are very professional, effective and fair.

Students are treated as individuals, not numbers, and are given every possible chance to achieve.

I just wanted to set the record straight in case any future recruits were looking at this and expecting to be smacked round the head for forgetting a check list. The world has moved on from the 1960's/70's/80's etc

FantomZorbin
24th Oct 2015, 06:50
Devonianflyer.
I'm very pleased to hear that, after all there was plenty of room for improvement!! Now, I wonder if they'll let me have another go ... as long as there's somewhere to stow the zimmer frame and plug in the hearing aid!

Tourist
24th Oct 2015, 11:31
Devonian

Interesting to hear you say that.

A couple of questions.


1. Do you honestly believe that the current standard of training gives a better output to the frontline in terms of aircrew ability/capability/knowledge/experience/airmanship?

Personally, I think that for many reasons the current output standards are far lower in many areas.

2. If you asked a member of CFS from the bad old days of "pre-1990", do you think they would consider themselves awful, or would they say "I would like to assure them that current CFS methods are very professional, effective and fair."


Self given compliments and references are worthless.

ShotOne

By complete chance, despite not being an actual instructor in any way, I have in fact taught aviation technical skills to members of the SAS.

The issue of punchy shoutyness never came up for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they were inhumanly good at everything with an amazing learning curve.

Secondly, perhaps due to previous hardening up in earlier training, they did not seem like anything short of a nuclear strike would even raise an eyebrow let alone a bullying complaint. They certainly took banter well and had no need for any extra stressors applied by some soft WAFU to get them able to operate under pressure.:rolleyes:

devonianflyer
24th Oct 2015, 14:06
Devonian

Interesting to hear you say that.

A couple of questions.


1. Do you honestly believe that the current standard of training gives a better output to the frontline in terms of aircrew ability/capability/knowledge/experience/airmanship?

Personally, I think that for many reasons the current output standards are far lower in many areas.

2. If you asked a member of CFS from the bad old days of "pre-1990", do you think they would consider themselves awful, or would they say "I would like to assure them that current CFS methods are very professional, effective and fair."


Self given compliments and references are worthless.


1. Given that I wasn't even alive back then I've no idea how the output standards compare. I'd hazard to guess though that given the difference in platforms between then and now that any comparison would be very subjective and dependant on personal opinions.

2. I work with a number of CFS people that started in the 80's and they regularly say that the training system today is better overall.

I don't mean to give any sort of 'self-given compliment' as you say. Surely the current international reputation of CFS speaks for itself...

The only reason I pitched in was to reassure future applicants (who may unfortunately believe everything they read on here) that times have changed. Sorry for the worthless modern references...

Union Jack
24th Oct 2015, 14:49
I work with a number of CFS people that stared in the 80's - DF

Presumably they must have been "steely eyed" then, rather than "gentle and supportive"....:uhoh:

Jack

Tourist
24th Oct 2015, 15:17
Personally I think that the current training pipelines spend enormous efforts trying to make it look like they treat people as individuals and not numbers.
Meticulous inspection of reports to make sure that the paper trail is perfect so nobody can complain about anything.

Everything has to be Objective and data based to make the process look scientific despite the fact that if you let even a postgrad scientist look at the numbers they would point out that there are far too many independent variables involved for the numbers to be valid, and you would be better off admitting that the process is still as subjective as it ever was and let the experienced instructors get on with weeding out the unsuitable without having to couch it in faked up numbers terms.

How do you put numbers on "he's a tw@t I wouldn't like on my sqn"?

Wensleydale
24th Oct 2015, 16:40
The three questions for an instructor to consider...


1. Can the individual do the job?


2. Would I be happy if he was assigned to my crew?


3. Do I own up to having trained the bu**er?

Herod
24th Oct 2015, 16:50
I think the OP opened a can of worms with his wording. Nobody expects a military instructor to be "gentle and supportive". I would suggest "firm, fair and supportive" would do a better job.

Pontius Navigator
24th Oct 2015, 17:55
Personally I think that the current training pipelines spend enormous efforts trying to make it look like they treat people as individuals and not numbers.

True, Miss PN had to spend more time writing up failed applicants than successful ones.

you would be better off admitting that the process is still as subjective as it ever was and let the experienced instructors get on with weeding out the unsuitable?
As it happens that was the conclusion reached by an Army psychologist in report published in Air Clues over 25 years ago.

You didn't even have to be an instructor in that discipline. Mrs PN and I attended the Meet and Greet for my studes starting their navigation training. After an hour or so we left. We then individually rated the studes not just as pass/fail but how far they would progress. The one we rated top is an AVM, the only difference we had was the order of two of the failures. Our pass/fail assessment was spot on with one borderline stude passing but he didn't make the frontline.

Less I am accused of fiddling the stats, they had 3 phases to pass and they all got to phase 2. How much money, time, and reduced stress had we been able to chop in the first week on gut instinct.

abgd
24th Oct 2015, 18:05
The Army psychologist's initials weren't 'MH' by any chance?

I think this drive for illusory objectivity in complex decision-making processes is one of the great curses of the modern age.

llamaman
24th Oct 2015, 18:38
For what it's worth from someone who went through flying training in the early 90s and then CFS 20 years later.

- some of the instructional techniques I witnessed as a student were appalling and delivered by individuals with a very skewed sense of their own self-importance.

- numerous good people fell by the wayside who should have survived then, and probably would now, because the training system at the time was ill-equipped to deal with anybody having 'issues'. Things have moved on.

- shouting at soldiers works, shouting at aviators does not.

- there is a time and place in the military for aggressive instruction, the cockpit is not one of them.

- anybody who has not instructed (a la CFS) is not informed enough to comment on this matter.

I accept that my last point will be the most controversial but unless you have been fully immersed on both sides of the fence you simply do not have a complete understanding of the issues.

Pontius Navigator
24th Oct 2015, 18:47
Abdg, have a heart. It was perhaps 30 years ago but I remember it was about AAC Lynx instructors and students. I don't for one moment believe she meant at a first meeting but certainly early on on the system.

Tourist
24th Oct 2015, 18:52
I think this drive for illusory objectivity in complex decision-making processes is one of the great curses of the modern age.

Amen brother. Beautifully put.

Tourist
24th Oct 2015, 18:55
[QUOTE=llamaman;9157200]
- anybody who has not instructed (a la CFS) is not informed enough to comment on this matter.

QUOTE]

So only those who are invested in and institutionalised have a valid argument eh?


How about people who have been hand in glove with CFS people for over a decade but are not institutionalised with the laying on of magic hands/coloured pens?

Do we get a vote?

charliegolf
24th Oct 2015, 19:19
How about people who have been hand in glove with CFS people for over a decade but are not institutionalised with the laying on of magic hands/coloured pens?

How about people who can read?

CG

Bill Macgillivray
24th Oct 2015, 20:01
CFS in 1963, UAS Chipmunks, FTS JP's, OCU Vulcans, RSAF grading C-172s, SOAF/RAFO Skyvans/Defenders, Middle Wallop (AAC) Chipmunks, OATS & Cranfield. My one and only aim was to ensure that my students succeeded and, possibly more importantly, had the ability to progress into the operational theatre. Some, I am afraid, did not, and I always felt that I had let them down! That, of course , was when I think we had a fairly clear and understandable idea of a good QFI/student relationship! Not always "politically correct" but never verging towards bullying or physical violence!!
I thought (and still do), that I have done the best (within my ability) to help all my students to achieve their aim. To those that haven't I am sorry!!

Bill.

Phantom Driver
24th Oct 2015, 21:40
More memories; course briefing from DFGA weapons instructor (aka " God" ) for the new arrivals at Chivenor ( remember that place ? ) on the Hunter course in the early '70's. " if you manage to impress us, and let me assure you, you won't.....".

Quite a few "characters" in residence. " Puddy " Tate , re chaps not quite up to standard ; " NBG ! " translated as -" no bloody good ".

Certainly concentrated the mind and motivated the learning spirit.

Happy days !

Courtney Mil
24th Oct 2015, 22:48
Llamaman,

Just as I was following your argument, you come out with

anybody who has not instructed (a la CFS) is not informed enough to comment on this matter.

At which point you lost me completely.

CFS graduates do not hold all the keys to the instructional castle. There are plenty of us out there and in here that have, and still do, instruct without being QFIs. And in those capacities we have been exposed to and worked through the frustrations, challenges and pitfalls of teaching people to fly and operate aircraft and to prepare them for their futures.

Whilst fully acknowledging the well-earned reputation of CFS, I rather dispute their self-claimed monopoly on instruction and enduring stranglehold on certain aspects thereof.

So, no, you don't need to have done instruction "a la CFS" to be informed enough to comment on this matter. Perhaps your quote rather illustrates some of the arrogance that folk here are complaining about.

Danny42C
25th Oct 2015, 01:34
In "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet..." Thread (p.150 #2997), I tell a similar tale of being "shanghaied" into being an Instructor (sans QFI then or ever).

71 years ago ! Nothing changes.

Danny42C

beardy
25th Oct 2015, 07:03
I think you will find Llamaman was saying by 'a la' was 'in the style of'. In which case I agree with him. Having taught flying and other practical skills 'a la' CFS I have found their technique very good and in use by other armed forces worldwide. CM, you probably, unwittingly, used their basic techniques, which would explain your success.

Tourist
25th Oct 2015, 08:51
If we follow llamaman's theory through to its logical conclusion, are we saying that only a government member can judge a politician? Only a referee can judge a foul.....

I have not been and I strongly suspect never will be CFS accredited, however I do have a lot of experience being trained!


I have been taught by all three British services (4 if you include the RM) in Fast jet, Multis and rotary, plus two foreign militaries.
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)

I think that gives me a valid viewpoint on training.

In case anybody is interested, I think the Army does the best ground school by far, the RAF the best BFT and the RN the best and worst OFTs I've seen.


Out of interest beardy, which version of the CFS type training were you trained by?

The bad old version or the new version?
Both are widely copied and consider/considered themselves to be the pinnacle of training excellence.

They are very different, so both can't be right.

I think nowadays the focus is too much on scorable technical skills which are easy to put on a graph rather than a well rounded competent aviator who can think out of the box.



At the end of the day nobody is arguing that bullying is good.

You could in fact define bullying training as any training that is too aggressive to produce positive overall training benefits.

The contention is merely what is considered bullying rather than robust training, and that line has moved an enormous amount in the last 20 years as far as CFS is concerned.

I don't happen to agree.

Courtney Mil
25th Oct 2015, 13:03
Dear Mum,

It's the end of week four in the Army for me and I don't like it very much. I'm sorry I haven't written sooner, but our Sargeant says we're not really allowed. I think that's against my human rights. He said I haven't got any, which is so unfair.

I think our Sergeant is quite nasty because he shouts all the time and expects us to do everything he says even if we don't want to. Sometimes he shouts at us in front of other people, which is very humiliating. He makes us carry all our own stuff even when it's too heavy. He never helps us with our stuff. I told him my back hurts, but he didn't listen. He made me do press ups in front of everyone and called me names. I think that's against my human rights.

I'm very unhappy because we never get enough sleep. We have to do all our own cleaning very late at night and then get up very early. I wish you were here to do some cleaning. When we clean our room, the nasty man says we haven't done it and we have to do it again. I don't like getting up early, I think it's my right to have enough sleep.

We have to shoot guns as well, which I think is dead stupid. They are very heavy to carry and much too loud. He always shouts at us because he says they're not clean enough. He took my iPhone away because my gun wasn't clean. That's well out of order and against my human rights.

I want to ask to come home, but the Sargent won't let me. He said I wouldn't be allowed to go home if there was a war. It's so wrong. He told me to grow a pair, but I don't know what he means.

I miss you and want to come home.

Kevin.

sittingstress
25th Oct 2015, 13:37
I have been taught by all three British services (4 if you include the RM) in Fast jet, Multis and rotary, plus two foreign militaries.
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)

Crikey, did you finally manage to pass?

Tourist
25th Oct 2015, 16:36
Sadly not all of them.....:uhoh:

abgd
25th Oct 2015, 18:40
Abdg, have a heart. It was perhaps 30 years ago but I remember it was about AAC Lynx instructors and students. I don't for one moment believe she meant at a first meeting but certainly early on on the system.

Sorry, that was unfair, just got the impression you might have known the author. I used to have a desk next to a professor emeritus of psychology who had been involved in flight training. Whenever I heard swearing, I'd fix his computer then in return he'd reminisce about his roles in blue streak etc etc... One of the highlights of my time at university.

Hueymeister
25th Oct 2015, 19:03
I was ace, ;0) honest! I struggled through some aspects of flying training so had more in common with those studes of mine who also didn't quite 'get it'.

BARKINGMAD
25th Oct 2015, 19:11
Tourist,

Take a crash course in why we got thrashed in the sandpits.

Try reading "Losing Small Wars" and "Investment in Blood", both by Frank Ledwidge.

Then you may realise it had little to do with the troops/flyers/sailors and their support staff and more to do with the top brass, heavily overpaid and undertalented? :confused:

llamaman
25th Oct 2015, 19:32
From beardy,

I think you will find Llamaman was saying by 'a la' was 'in the style of'. In which case I agree with him. Having taught flying and other practical skills 'a la' CFS I have found their technique very good and in use by other armed forces worldwide. CM, you probably, unwittingly, used their basic techniques, which would explain your success.

Thanks for that. Of course I didn't mean that CFS are the authority on all things instructing. Far from it, and I personally took issue with the way they did a lot of things. If my comment came across as arrogant it certainly wasn't meant to.

My point was that to be fully informed on the issue you are much better placed if you have experienced things from both sides of the fence, it's called empathy. I think that is a fair assumption.

jumpjumpjohn
25th Oct 2015, 19:42
As a currently-teaching, CFS-qual'd QFI now on exchange I can say with no shred of doubt that however bad Tourist may believe that the current training pipeline is, that it is a whole pile better than a large number of the alternatives utilised by our allies. This includes those based on our own CFS style but that have gone a long way further down the path of "numbers only, no opinions" than ours.

What we have is not perfect, but having seen a number of different options I still maintain that it is the best available. That said, it isn't as good as the corporate mentality at CFS thinks it is - the corporate (not individual) arrogance that pervades CFS stops it from continuing to improve as quickly as it should at times.

As regards the quality of training, don't confuse different approaches with different standards. I'd suggest that in my own realm of experience (SH/SF Support) that we are training guys to do things as a matter of routine on the line Sqns that weren't even possible 10-15 years ago, never mind the preserve of SF-only crews. The fact that they are conducting this effectively and for the most part safely should speak volumes about the quality of the training system delivering them.

Nothing is ever as good as it could be, but that doesn't mean it used to better either. Just because it isn't how it was when you went through doesn't mean everyone else isn't as good as you were. And if that's your view and you haven't done something to fix the problem, then you ARE the problem.

Courtney Mil
25th Oct 2015, 22:05
Llamaman,

No, I did not say your comment was arrogant. The arrogance I was referring to was the CFS attitude - or more correctly a perception of such and the attitude that some folk here are talking about.

Now that you phrase it like that, I see the point you are making. Two sides to every story. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those from one side cannot form a valid opinion of the other. I have formed opinions of doctors I have seen without ever training as a doctor. I didn't need that training to know a couple of them were utter arses. May have been perfectly well qualified doctors, but such appealing bedside manners (as I believe it's called) that they were totally ineffective as people supposed to care for people, their wellbeing and their health.

But here's the difference. As a "patient" I was a customer of a service that I pay for. But as a student I was a willing competitor in a military training regime and being trained not just to fly hardware, but also to use it for a deadly purpose. As a patient, I expect to be treated with compassion and to get whatever treatment I require (as long as NICE has decided the price is worth it). A a student I expected to be challenged to learn at the appropriate rate and also to prove that I had the mettle to do the job that may required of me.

Yes, there is no place for outright bullying. But there is a requirement for students to show that have a degree of fortitude as potential future warfighters.

Going back to your point about seeing both sides. We all know that there are, supposedly, no guilty people in prison. Most, it seems, are victims of some travesty. I've heard a lot of accounts of bad instructional technique from guys who's sorties didn't go well.

P.S. As an instructor, I did once write "DNCO Instructor" in the auth sheets when I really felt that I had not done my job properly. That raised some eyebrows.

Jumpjumpjohn,

I'm not sure you've properly understood the thrust of Tourist's remarks.

BEagle
25th Oct 2015, 22:26
Tourist, were you one of the RW pilots who came to the Brize Flying Club to obtain their PPLs?

All were fine, although one chap found that landing a SpamCan at 65 KIAS, on something that was 10000 ft long but wasn't moving, was somewhat different to landing from a hover on a postage stamp on the back of one of HM's grey war canoes battling the briny - so we did the circuit part of his Skill Test again.

I couldn't resist bursting into laughter when I did the diversion element of the Skill Test with one FAA chap - he kept producing various plotting jobbers of increasing complexity from behind him and I half expected a parallel rule and dividers to appear from his Pusser's grip, plus probably a lodestone and quadrant staff. Most people simply used the edge of the checklist and a chinagraph to draw the track, then the miles scale and a convenient VOR rose to assess distance and track.... But this latter-day Nelson managed to fly the aeroplane whilst making his plan with fiendish accuracy and as a result we arrived at the diversion spot on his ETA.

Dan Winterland
26th Oct 2015, 03:53
I flew with a couple of those guys.


The biggest problems with my BFT course was instructor continuity. I went from the CFI, to a FJ psychopath, to a jolly nice C130 chap (who bemoaned the lack of tea making facilities in the JP), to a creamie (younger than me and who couldn't understand the concept of being just 'average'); to another FJ pilot (ex Harrier and the best pilot I have ever flown with but again, some problems with the 'average' concept); to another C130 pilot (who was further behind the aircraft than me); then to another creamie (good - and sympathetic to my plight), then another FJ pilot - who really didn't want to be there. Finally, I got a really good instructor (ex Shacks and one of the nicest guys you could possibly wish to fly with) who I learned the most from - but unfortunately, too late. For most of the course, I didn't have a clear idea of what I was trying to achieve as a lot of my energy and capacity was taken up with trying to adapt to different instruction styles. I got re-streamed to Group 2 at the end of BFT and I still consider that it was largely the system that failed and not necessarily me.

I'm not complaining - I had a fantastic time in the AAR world (I got to fly with BEagle!) and I wouldn't have had it any other way. But I learned a lot from the bad experiences and decided that if I ever became a QFI, I would model my instructional technique on the excellent ex-Shackleton guy's. A good decision, as six years later - he awarded me my A2!

The problems I encountered had largely disappeared when I became a QFI - there had been a wind change and the training environment had improved massively. We got far more from the students by being more sympathetic, but without lowering standards. In fact, the general consensus was that standards had improved. It's a similar situation to that at a public school. I got bullied because my seniors were bullied when they were juniors. This situation persisted until one day, someone decided that things had to change.

One interesting aspect of my career is that I'm still in touch with lots of my ex-students, whereas I'm only in contact with one of my ex-instructors.

BEagle
26th Oct 2015, 08:00
Hi Dan, all well in HK?

I refused to do my A2 while there was no laid down syllabus of theoretical knowledge - tales of the "I'll always know more than you do" style of BSS (that's Bulldog Standards Sqn - or should it be 'BS' Sqn?) and one miserable so-and-so's obsession with weird and wonderful aspects of world climatology were enough to put me off.

But then it changed - a syllabus appeared, so I studied for it (having just worked for my civil Air Law 1 & 2 had put me back into a learning frame of mind). They hadn't made it clear that part of the syllabus was for the JP only, so the theory behind a machmeter, while not of direct relevance to the Bulldog, was included.... A line had been missed from the CFS book, so one poor old BSS QFI, studying for his A1, had been thoroughly perplexed. I explained that this was the relation between density and static pressure, hence substituting for ρ in the equation would lead to the next line of theory. He was so thankful that the rest of my A2 groundschool check was a breeze - but the flying wasn't a lot of fun with some of the grumpier QFIs. Whereas in contrast, the actual A2 check at Scampton with Exam Wing was actually quite fun and I was lucky to get a first time pass.

The CFS techniques stood me in good stead for later ground and part-task trainer instruction for AAR conversion of crews from a couple of air forces onto their new aircraft - so no matter what people might think (as I used to before I did CFS), that 4-colour pen lobotomy is an extremely valuable asset!

And remember, LOOkout, Attitude, Instruments! :ok:

Tourist
26th Oct 2015, 08:43
BEagle

Yes, I was one of those!

I'm pleased to say we got on a lot better in real life than on here!:ok:

Trumpet_trousers
26th Oct 2015, 11:44
Bullying instructors...
...early in my flying training (sortie2) I had a MAeOP (probably the one that Adam Nams mentioned) as my man. He sat down beside me, took the fire axe off the wall and plonked it on the desk between us.

Me Brand new P/O stripe barely visible"What's that for?" I had the sense to say it on i/c.

Him "When you fook oop I clatter you on the bonedome wi' the flat bit"

Ah yes, Finningley early 80's.... On reflection it was clearly 'misfit central' for a few of the AEOp staff. Later on, the Neanderthal instructor on 236 OCU was a case study in how not to instruct....

newt
26th Oct 2015, 16:06
Note to Beagle "Must try harder"...............................Should have chopped him when you had the chance lol!:ok:

BEagle
26th Oct 2015, 16:41
Should have chopped him when you had the chance lol!

And that from one of the few people who actually tried to help me when I was struggling through 237 OCU...;)

They did chop me in the end. When I subsequently went to be a 'VFW' at Scampton, I wondered whether they had a 'soft man / hard man' type of instruction - student life was so much easier than it had been a Honington and I kept waiting for the 'hard man' to appear.

Quietplease
26th Oct 2015, 23:16
I hadn't realised how humourless and ill-informed so many pontificating pc contributors are.
Violence to students. A tap on the bone dome to get him to look at the aircraft he is formating on, is not violence. Ever tried to do more than that when shoulder to shoulder in a JP? Sometimes tempted to try when the post lunch diced carrot was rattling onto your left sleeve.
It is easy to forget there were probably more students in one small FTS in the early 60s than there are now total pilots in the whole RAF. It was a sausage machine but we tried to produce gourmet sausages.
Though the CFS system was intensely boring to learn, it worked.
The vast majority of QFIs were doing the job from choice and CFS could be quite picky as to who went there. Even the creamies, whom one might have expected to be a bit disappointed, were keen on the job. Don't know if that changed later.
Can't remember a student asking for an instructor change but if we were having trouble getting the message across the first resort was to let someone else have a go.
The selection system was by no means perfect. Remember sitting at the back of the student crew room as a new course marched in and hoping the one swinging left arm and left leg together was not going to be one of mine. Some courses lost quite a few, others no chops at all. Most went in the early general handling or IF stage thus saving large amounts of money. In my student days we started with 17 and finished with 11.
The object was to produce as good a pilot as possible from a course that became increasingly difficult with ever higher standards required. There was very little slack in the hours permitted to achieve those standards. If you couldn't cope in a JP, such an easy, forgiving aircraft, you were not going to cope at the next stage.
Think all my students survived and a couple of years ago at a 70th birthday I was thanked by a student from 50 years earlier. Surprised and gratified. We were not intolerant monsters nor were we fluffy cuddly mollycoddlers.

BEagle
27th Oct 2015, 07:49
Quietplease wrote: A tap on the bone dome to get him to look at the aircraft he is formating on, is not violence.

Why on earth would you ever need to do that? Distracting your student during close formation and taking your own hand away from the controls seems bŁoody stupid to me.

Pontius Navigator
27th Oct 2015, 08:18
Think all my students survived
Not so my nav course. Asymetrics killed many.

llamaman
27th Oct 2015, 09:34
BEagle wrote:

Why on earth would you ever need to do that? Distracting your student during close formation and taking your own hand away from the controls seems bŁoody stupid to me.

Agreed. I once had a creamie instructor hold an aircrew knife to my throat whilst in close formation on the JP. He thought it was hilarious, I thought he was a tw@t. Not that the knife posed any threat of actually cutting me of course!

Fareastdriver
27th Oct 2015, 09:44
taking your own hand away from the controls seems bŁoody stupid to me.

Can't you fly formation hands off? Standard photoshoot on Vamps.

charliegolf
27th Oct 2015, 12:16
Agreed. I once had a creamie instructor hold an aircrew knife to my throat whilst in close formation on the JP. He thought it was hilarious, I thought he was a tw@t. Not that the knife posed any threat of actually cutting me of course!

Break off, eject, and watch him watch his career go down the pan.

CG

Quietplease
27th Oct 2015, 12:24
Quietplease wrote:

Why on earth would you ever need to do that? Distracting your student during close formation and taking your own hand away from the controls seems bŁoody stupid to me.
Because he is looking the wrong way, stupid.
Don't you even read what you are criticising?
What are your hands doing on the controls when the stude is flying?
22000 posts. Must be an expert on everything.

BEagle
27th Oct 2015, 12:49
Well, that comment pretty well sums up everything which was wrong about flying training back then....

You have your hand near, but not 'on' the controls - and emphatically not being used to assault your student.

Why was he 'looking the wrong way'? Poorly briefed, perhaps?

Take control, remind him of the correct technique, get him to follow you through, then give him control.

Resorting to 'tapping' him on the bone dome marks you out as having failed to have briefed him correctly in the first place. I am also reminded of this piece of your so-called 'instructional technique':

We were doing spinning in a JP4. The first action for spin recovery was to check the turn needle before applying opposite rudder (copes with the inverted spin case). On the fifth very good recovery when the student had yet again not done that, I leant over, and jabbing the T&S at every word said "Look at the f***ing turn needle" At this point the glass broke jamming the needle hard over. He never forgot again. Not an approved CFS IT method.

As for your personal abuse towards me, perhaps you should re-familiarise yourself with the PPRuNe Ts&Cs....:rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator
27th Oct 2015, 14:06
You have your hand near, but not 'on' the controls
:

Reminds me of one QFI, loved the Gnat, stude couldn't see how nervous he was. On the JP he had to relax and present an air of quiet confidence.

beardy
27th Oct 2015, 15:17
As I recall the first action in an academic spin recovery is to check altitude followed by power followed by turn needle and then rudder. But then my mind does play tricks on me.

But I do recall that good instruction starts with a well flown demonstration of the correct technique: anything other causes confusion since the student will have had a mass brief on the correct way of doing things and will not be expecting something that differs from his pre flight study and briefing. Perhaps that could have been a contributory reason this student had not been checking his turn needle. Not that I agree that there are no bad students, just bad instructor: in my experience both exist.

teeteringhead
27th Oct 2015, 15:54
Best piece if advice I had when a CFS(H) stude (which I subsequently passed on to my CFS(H) studes) was:

No student replication of your demonstrations will be more accurate than that of your behaviour on the ground!

Supposedly dates from the 1920s or 30s - and it's very true!

Haraka
27th Oct 2015, 16:31
Would any of you experienced instructors like to comment on the Side-by- Side versus Tandem seating discussion?
As a student I found that the visible presence of an instructor in my right peripheral vision tended to occupy too large a part of my scan ( Am I doing it right ? What is he thinking?. Where are his hands?, What is he looking at?) )
Tandem was a voice and an input on the controls. Much less intrusive and an aid ,in my case, to building confidence.
But that was just my experience.

27mm
27th Oct 2015, 17:21
Tandem in the Gnat was voice, input on the controls and a nav ruler in the neck.......

navstar1
27th Oct 2015, 17:30
Good evening Pontius. What nav course were you on

Pontius Navigator
27th Oct 2015, 17:41
Navstar, the meaning of life.

42

In fact I did a fair number of courses #42, just the way it went.

sarn1e
27th Oct 2015, 18:53
comment on the Side-by-Side versus Tandem seating

QWI here, so not as directly relevant from an instructional point-of-view...

As a student, moving from the JP to the Hawk was a revelation and, like you, I loved the tandem set-up; it set you free. That said, a lot of my dislike of the JP depended upon whom I was flying with - the difference between the ex-Shack/V-force co-pilots and ex-FJ guys was very noticeable in my time. It wasn't their fault - with hindsight it became clear that they had not had that much stick-time themselves, regardless of instructional ability.

Then, Hawk TWU back to Lightning Training Flight. This could reasonably be described as hilarious (both bad and good), especially since on my course the 2-seater undercarriage collapsed on landing after the conversion phase and we did the rest of the course chased in the single-seater - which was wonderful. Then the engineers fixed all the Tubs just in time for the end of the course - literally the last 3 or 4 sorties - and that turned into a deeply miserable time! As we used to say, the best use of the T5 would have been to crash it into the simulator...then everyone would have been happy.

The T5 was a real dog's breakfast what with the reversed controls in the right-hand seat (albeit very funny when watching someone else tanking) and the fact that, if you were flying with anyone normal-sized, you had to get out of each other's way to move the stick. Check-rides were obviously stilted with blokes trying to pretend they weren't watching you when, of course, they were glued to your every move. Can't say I liked it, but it did make for a great experience for the passengers.

I instructed (tandem) both two-seat and single-seat at the sqn and OCU-level as a QWI and IP and would say that it made for a much better student experience for all the reasons described. In the USMC, we also taught an awful lot of the course (both WSOs and pilots and both 2-seat and single-seat courses) from the other jet, which was even better. I preferred to allow the 2-seat students - and, as a flt cdr, the junior front-line crews - to fly together, since they learned much more from the experience and did not suffer the decision-making gradient inevitable when a more experienced mate is in the jet. Not all the then-sqn cdrs agreed, but that was more a reflection of their risk aversion than the students'/crews' performance.

At the level I instructed, I never felt the need to watch the student's each and every move from beside or behind him. Indeed, from the comms discipline, formation-keeping, lookout and fuel calls you could tell exactly where he was looking, where his hands were and even what he was thinking without being in the same jet.

navstar1
27th Oct 2015, 19:57
See pm as not really of any interest to all the Navs out there!!

ricardian
27th Oct 2015, 21:35
And now the RAF gets trained by the Royal Navy. (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-train-with-the-royal-navy-at-rnas-culdrose-23102015)