MT
You ask me how they’re getting a GCSE English at Grade C? Suspect that the fault may lie with my generation (baby boomers) who, once they had graduated from Teacher Training College, threw out the wisdom of the years and concentrated on ‘expression of thought’ etc rather than a working knowledge of the basics of our native language. Very few of us are complete experts; we all make the odd gaffe – misspellings, incorrect grammar, wrong use of words, typing faster than our thoughts etc. However, a basic expertise with your own language is one of the basics. Perhaps that is why the Armed Forces (and a lot of other organizations) insist on basic numeracy and literacy as the minimum qualifications. The RAF has set the bench mark at Grade C or above at O level standard, however, they have no control on what that actual standard is. Perhaps that is why ISS (or whatever they have nowadays) has to be a hurdle that officers ought to pass. Fortunately most officers do have the basics, but a glance at some of the postings here leads one to the conclusion that a lot do not (See Flyer1997 post on New Streaming Point).
I was a flt cdr at Cranditz from 83 to 86 so my knowledge of current teaching is zilch. However, I am sure that Service Writing still forms some of the syllabus. It is there to ensure that the layout and standardization of such things as memos, loose minutes and routine correspondence become familiar. It also has the secondary purpose of determining the basic standard of English.
One of the faults of the ‘system’ is that credence is given to the philosophy that if you are aircrew you don’t need proficiency in English. What utter b*ll*cks. How about these for entries on an F700:
“Oil tempriture gage fluctating” or “Enjin running ruff”
to quote just 2 examples from memory. Or this from a memo from the OIC Athletics:
“All personal [personnel]to note that the track trails [trials] will now be at 0900 on Saturday. Its [It’s] expected that selections will be made the week following [following] for the Group trails [trials] in September when personal [personnel] will be told of it’s [its] final selections.”
Gripping stuff, especially when it is read by an airman who probably wonders which school that particular officer went to and is probably more educated to boot. Don’t forget that an officer is primarily a leader. That’s why so much time is taken up at IOT with leadership training. A leader is looked up to and if that leader is being rubbished by his subordinates because he can’t convey his thoughts in writing just where does that place the leader? And don't forget that correct use of English is an "officer quality" - to quote TimeFlies
A few posts have postulated that it is not important, that proficiency in English is not needed, that it can be skipped over and sorted out later. Fine. Breed a ‘close enough is good enough’ mentality. But what happens when those thought processes carry over into air operations?
As I said, when I was at Cranditz I chopped 2 aspiring pilots – mainly on their borderline leadership and personal qualities – but the deciding factor was their appalling English which, despite constant correction from me and others, had little effect and they continued making the same basic mistakes. One of them actually had the nerve to give the same excuses to the Board as that put by TimeFlies. Impressed them no end!
With reducing numbers and greater competition for the remaining ejection seats the bar has been set higher. Literacy may well be a deciding factor in judging equal candidates. However, you may be the best flier in the world and get through. I fly with one of the most natural pilots in the world but he is impossible with English - and it embarrasses him! He asks me to write his correspondence!
Harri, you’ve read all the posts (I hope) including the unmitigated rubbish from TimeFlies. It’s now your call. In the words of Dirty Harry, “Are you feeling lucky, punk?”
Rant over
