This discussion has lured me out of my PPrune semi-retirement. I have some strongly held views about this - without prejudice, but based on my experience from three sides of the fence (like fence can have three sides?!). This may lead to some thread drift.
QFIs are an essential element of our flying training system and are to be thanked for every pilot that have flown our aircraft since QFIs were invented. I don’t hold with the oft stated derogatory generalisations that resulted from a few bad eggs. That happens in all areas of life. My flying career was certainly created by their efforts. What I do have doubts about is the overstated insistance by CFS that dictates that only QFIs can teach or supervise certain events. I shall come back to that shortly.
QWIs, by definition, teach very different skills, but are equally essential. Again, there have always been QWIs that have adopted a certain attitude that translates, to a point, into a more general “image”. That said, we are talking about a cadre that teaches their specific area with the same background training and knowledge as QFIs do in theirs when it comes to aircraft that have any association with weapons (I’ll leave the other aspects of being a QWI alone today). Again, my flying career was certainly created by their efforts. But, again, I would challenge the dogma that only QWIs can teach, assess and supervise specific events.
There are fundamental and obvious similarities between the two disciplines. First, the level of excellence demanded of the “Q” annotation. Second, the need to have real specialists to teach, assess and supervise specific events. Third, the provision of expertise to expand flying operations into new areas. Forth, influencing and guiding future developments in military aviation. I know there are other fields, but that will do for now.
So, now to justify my doubts about ring-fencing events and attributing them to the two disciplines. There is a a lot of crossover in routine flying at all levels outside of the sorties that are traditionally assigned to QFIs and QWIs. Supervisors, for example, with neither “Q” effectively cover both areas, including a huge element of “I”. That “I” is based on the aviator’s ex;erience. Now take this a step further. Yes, I’m going to compare our system to another nation’s. Sorry.
The USAF RTUs (OCUs) teach their students to fly and operate specific types. They teach their instructors to instruct on that type. After that their mantra is that if you can fly and operate an aircraft in all its modes and you are an instructor, you can teach all the modes - from trip one in the aircraft to AAR, to weaponeering, to systems operation, to mission planning, to formation management, etc. And that is what they do. A student can go through the entire course without ever flying with either of our traditional “Q”s. That is not to say that they don’t have their specialists, which remain invaluable, but it does break our dogmas about ring fencing certain sorties. Cheifttp may wish to correct me. And it works, partly due to the point that beardy made here earlier that aircraft are a lot easier now than they were in the past. They are also more complex.
My bottom line is bolleaux to the personal attitudes to either discipline. And bolleaux to the sanctity of either “Q” when it comes to day to day flying BEYOND THE EARLY STAGES OF TRAINING.
That’s enough from me for now, even though I haven’t haven’t offered any real revelations.
Good night, brothers.
P.S. I still think QFIs are trimmers.