No, I don't think the instructor has to be better than the student. He merely has to be adequate and know how to get the best out of the student
do you send your kids to school/college/university to be taught by 'adequate' teachers?
Is 'adequate' what people in any profession should aspire to?
Getting the best out of your student usually means pushing them outside their comfort zone or showing them that the 'adequate' level of their performance (whether it be flying or playing a violin solo) can be bettered with practice and application. Just how do you do that if you yourself as the instructor/teacher are only adequate?
Perhaps this is the problem with what Geoffers and Gullibell see in their sim checks on pilots - 'adequate' is all they need to achieve and there is no reward for being any better so why bother.
Excellence is what many in the military strive for - in whatever their profession - if that is missing in civilian flying then that isn't the fault of the military.
Torquestripe = most britmil aviators are pilots first (despite what some in the heirarchy pretend) and soldiers/sailors first. They all go through a few months of basic Officer training before their flying training but that is it.
Only the Army have non-officer pilots who are usually from other Regiments outside the Army Air Corps.
Training takes place on light FW, then single engine turbine (AS 350) and includes touchdown EOLS and a whole lot more and then advanced training on a twin for operational conversion.
Oh, and I'm not the one complaining about civilian flying standards - it is those who check them that are! There are a wide range of abilities among mil pilots and instructors - that is why we have had a categorisation scheme for so many years so the good ones are allowed and encouraged to get better, rather than a box-ticking LPC OPC which just has to be passed 'adequately'.