Centaurus,
Not meaning to have a go, but a couple of things you said surprised me.
Firstly, I did my training in the mid 80’s. Reading your post it appears that not a lot had changed from when you were around to when I was on course. I too was subject to the “screaming skull” style of instruction. I consider myself fortunate that it was in the Macchi, so he couldn’t hit me as well! Fortunately my FLT CDR recognised this and gave me a change of instructor which did me a world of good.
As a student the feeling I got was the majority of QFI’s considered their tour as a necessary evil, even a “punishment posting”. This attitude is very easy for a student to detect, and rather discouraging. Fast forward to today and I can say with some confidence that the majority of QFI’s want to be there and conduct themselves accordingly. There is far more empathy towards today’s students compared to the “good old days".
But one thing I have always wondered was the high scrub rate during RAAF training during the lead-up to graduation as a pilot
As I’m sure you remember the ADF is after a graduate that can learn at certain rate. The front line units rightfully expect a graduate pilot to convert to the operational type with a minimum of fuss. I’m sure the Australian taxpayer has the same expectation. Giving a ride or two extra to the syllabus (I hate that word “curriculum” – fcuking EDO’s!) to “get them over line” is rarely a good idea as it just prolongs the inevitable. The student eventually fails, but after much more cost, effort and angst to all concerned.
It struck me that the RAAF using tax payer's money, held no instructor accountable for the scrubbing of a trainee pilot for perceived lack of the Right Stuff to be a RAAF pilot.
Not sure how it was in your day, but the instructor, the FLT CDR and the CO are very much accountable for suspending a trainee pilot. ADF pilot’s are not scrubbed without good reason. That was true 20 years ago when I went through, and I’m pretty sure the same was true in your day whether or not you perceived it that way. There would have had to been a trend of poor performance, and a
judgement (after all, that’s what we are really paid for!) made that the student would not hack the rest of the course or an operational conversion. Yes, sometimes the wrong decision was (and sometimes still is) made. No training system is perfect. That said, I still reckon we do a pretty good job.
a high proportion continued to fly in GA and eventually made a command in the major airlines.
Not really relevant. The ADF is in the business of training military pilots. When the ADF scrubs a trainee pilot it is not inferred that they will not be a good civilian pilot.
Top brass never questioned The Wing Commander's decision or had a good look at his history of scrub rides.
With respect, that’s your opinion. Were you appraised of
all the facts concerning a scrubbed student? In my experience it is no surprise to the instructional staff that a student has been suspended. In your stated example it seems the “top brass” actually trusted the CO at time and let him get on with his job without the constant micro-managing and arse-covering from up above that goes on today. I bet the front line units didn’t complain about your CO's decisions!
Screaming skull RAAF instructors abounded in those far of years and yet they were never brought to heel by their superiors.
I like to think that we’ve improved in that department!
- yet when a trainee pilot is scrubbed, there is no questions asked of his instructors because they are not held accountable.
As stated before, suspending a student is not a procedure that is treated lightly. The matter is comprehensively examined by all concerned (instructor, FLT CDR, psychologist, CFI) before the CO makes the “D”. The CO in turn may have to answer to the higher chain of command. I don’t know how much more accountable the system could be.
I was fortunate to have a series of wonderful instructors during my training - others lucked out by being allotted a bastard instructor.
What we try and do now is change instructors at the completion of every phase e,g, after GFPT. Are you saying that in your day a student was allocated the same QFI for his entire time?
RAAF CFI's and CO's could scrub a trainee on gut feeling - the usual excuse being the unfortunate trainee could not hack it in a wartime scenario.
The present suspension process is quite comprehensive and as objective as possible, however in some cases it does come down to gut feeling – or that rapidly diminishing quality called “judgement”. After all , isn’t that what we’re paid for?
No lawyers in those days to bring you up sharp and explain your actions.
These days a suspended student may redress the system. I know of one student who employed a QC (at his own cost) to draft his submission! This process places a considerable administrative burden on the unit, and quite often results in the original decision to suspend being upheld. In the rare case that a suspended student is reinstated, it quite unusual for them to pass i.e. the inevitable happens at even more time, effort and cost.