Creamie

[Flight_Idle]

As an ex techie, with just a couple of hundred hours on gliders, I'm intrigued about the 'Creamie' instructors.


It seems so strange, student one minute, instructor the next, seemingly at odds with the civilian world, where 'Flying hours' seem to rule, taking ages to get to the left hand seat.


I never worked in the flying training world when in the RAF, but I always imagined flying instructors to be 'Grizzled old gits' with many hours of experience, who knew every trick in the book.


In the technical world, it would be utterly impossible to have someone straight out of training, teaching all the various nuances to new recruits & I would assume the same thing would apply to flying.


Later on in my career, I was working in a flying training environment abroad, the instructors all experienced with many flying hours, but not exactly geriatric.


The 'Creamie' thing is not explained very well & I would be grateful for any comments.

[Ken Scott]

As the term implies they were the best performing students from each course. They weren't quite 'students one minute, instructors the next', as they had to complete the QFI course before they were let loose on real trainees. In my experience though as they had generally passed through their own training with relative ease they weren't particularly understanding of those that found it hard. I preferred the ex-truckies and similar who had grafted their way through to their wings and who could actually comprehend that what they were teaching was quite difficult for some and therefore why Bloggs was having trouble doing it.

[Courtney Mil]

I agree, Ken. My first instructor on JPs at Linton was a creamie and he clearly knew his stuff. But was regurgitating his CFS training without any real experience of interacting with a student. Don't get me wrong, he taught me well. I think he was also a bit pissed off that he wasn't chasing the Harrier slot he believed he deserved. He was even more pissed off by me beating him to the front line.

Yeah, probably a bitter pill to swallow.

[Molemot]

The best instructor I flew with at Linton in 1971-72 was a "creamie"; every time he put his hands on the controls, all the needles pointed to the exact numbers. After a bit, I found I could do it too....last heard of him as Wg Cdr CFI at Linton, some years later. Very impressive chap.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ken, that rang a bell at nav school. Most of the Meteor drivers, IIRC, were Polish and just loved the job. One young pilot was, to my untrained eye, very competent but did not have the same empathy. It occurs to me he may have been a short service commission pilot, still remember his name - Balls.

[Wander00]

QFI at Towers mid 60s - Brilliant in every way, thanks Metters, and RiP


PS. And my first "ton" in a car - his TR on Leadenham stright

[Wensleydale]

Remember my JP5 course at Linton - one of the studes was a chap who had broken his leg going round an assault course and had been recoursed by over a year. This particular chap was a green shield Flt Lt and had already been awarded his wings (they were awarded after the basic 100 hrs JP3 course when he went through) while the rest of us suffered from the recent change to the award of wings after valley. This senior student's instructor was a creamie flying officer who used to get annoyed when the groundcrew became confused and kept checking things with the student rather than the instructor!

[BBadanov]

OMG 'green shielder', and did he then become a 'creamie'?


The fault with both those systems was by the time these guys eventually got to the front line they were too senior and inexperienced. For promotion to front line SQNLDR, I have always believed an operator should have had 3 tours. Especially in the case of a shielder, he could get promoted after 1 tour...not enough experience for a sqn exec.


BTW, the USAF also used the creamie stream, taking guys from graduation and making them instructors. Don't know of any others who did it, perhaps some 3rd world air forces in Africa?

[teeteringhead]

Never had creamies in the rotary world - which must prove something. (not sure what though!")

[CoffmanStarter]

Would they not be called Whippies ;)

Hat, coat ... door ...

[NDW]

Did you ever get Nav creamies?

[Pontius Navigator]

NDW, not to my knowledge. Tended to have FJ navs at 2 ANS who had less experience at log and chart work and 'real' navs, ex truckie and coastal, at the more cerebral end - night astro etc at 1 ANS.

Later, at ANS, the less experienced pencil merchants taught in basics, the more advance streams, low-level FJ and ME, were taught by FJ navs and experienced ME navs.

My term 'less experienced' was relative as many of us had thousands of hours in more specialist roles.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

As the term implies they were the best performing students from each course


Except that often they weren't! Certainly in the late 90s, the Golden Balls guys would often go straight through training, because they were clearly single seat material, whereas solid but unremarkable guys were sometimes chosen to be creamies to give them a better chance of a Harrier/Jaguar slot when they subsequently went through Tac Weapons.


In my experience though as they had generally passed through their own training with relative ease they weren't particularly understanding of those that found it hard.


Agreed.

[NDW]

Ah, interesting. Thanks P_N.

[beardy]

The French Air Force used to select ORSA (Officers of the Reserve on Active Service) to become instructors. Those career officers who passed through the Hallowed Gates at Orange would have had to have committed a serious faux pas to become an instructor.

It may have changed by now.

[ACW342]

PN,
Ken, that rang a bell at nav school. Most of the Meteor drivers, IIRC, were Polish and just loved the job. One young pilot was, to my untrained eye, very competent but did not have the same empathy. It occurs to me he may have been a short service commission pilot, still remember his name - Balls.

was he the one who called his daughter Ophelia?

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

I agree with the general principle being stated here, that creamies, whilst capable pilots themselves, often lack the empathy required to help students who are struggling. Creamies who have whizzed relatively easily through their own flying training cannot really be expected to understand what is required to help a student who is working really hard just to keep up.

Additionally, I happen to believe that a QFI, particularly in the military aviation environment, should have an operational tour or two behind him/her, to add some 'street cred' to the position of being a teacher. For example, it is useful to be able to tell a student that a particular process of the syllabus is important because it will be part of what they do in the "XYZ" operational job that they aspire to. It is also important to remember that military QFIs have a role in the development of their students as military personnel and (usually) as officers, so having time and knowledge of working within the overall military system means they can offer advice about the longer term career. Creamies are not well placed to do that.

[Lou Scannon]

In my day (Gawd!) back in the sixties and seventies anyone who became an instructor before he became a proper pilot was known as "scummed off" rather than creamed off. This system had been in operation since WW1 when my instructor on Tiger Moths (Flying Scholarship) only survived the war thanks to being kept back as an instructor on Maurice Farman "Pushers".

The main requirement in selecting instructors should have been not in selecting from the brightest and the best but in selecting from those who had the ability to impart skills and knowledge and above all, had the desire and interest to do so.

The courses at CFS were simply filled by Air Secs branch from any who were available. No checks were made of their psychological aptitude or even their interest in the subject.

Not suprisingly this resulted in many instructors who would have preferred to have been anywhere but instructing... and having to tolerate some young sprog sitting in front of or next to them.

Some did their best, others behaved as demented screaming school girls who did little to improve their students abilities or motivation.

Some of the WW2 pilots remarked how their contacts with the enemy were always far more enjoyable than their contacts with their QFI's had been!

I'm sure that things are much better in today's Air Force and that only those who want to instruct, scummed off or not, get to be a QFI. (!)

[radar101]

The main requirement in selecting instructors should have been not in selecting from the brightest and the best but in selecting from those who had the ability to impart skills and knowledge and above all, had the desire and interest to do so.

As (variously) a civvie teacher, RAF instructor and civil service Lecturer I concur with Lou Scannon's view. It is not necessarily the brightest who have the ability and empathy to instruct - indeed having to struggle oneself gives a valid viewpoint as to how difficult your subject can be. I have seen PhDs fail to be effective teachers.

In the early 80s at Cosford we had new Educators posted in with degrees in biology, chemistry, genetics etc (all numerate subjects, note) who, after a short course, taught basic electronics to the students. It meant a lot of burning the midnight oil for them and picking the brains of those of us who had relevant backgrounds and a lot of help from an excellent set of chiefs. Most did well by their students.

[Stanwell]

I can identify with that.
Initially, I had been described by a creamy as a 'slow learner'.
Once I got a handle on things, though, the aircraft are probably still usable and I'm still here - and so are the passengers.

[ShotOne]

Exactly my experience, stanwell. Probably everyone was a slow learner compared to him. Mine was a very nice guy and an even better pilot; the dials magically stood still when he took control. Total natural. But he was unsympathetic, uncomprehending even, when I couldn't produce the same magic. In fact he probably thought I was just mucking about. Still, haven't broken anything 13,000hrs later..

[MSOCS]

I have seen PhDs fail to be effective teachers.

Equally, I have seen effective teachers fail to be PhDs.....following your analogy of course!

From my personal POV the assessment of "Creamie" suitability was based upon your aircraft handling skill, capacity to learn/retain quickly and overall credibility (professionalism, bearing and communication skills), albeit on the Hawk/Tucano. Perfectly recruited for the task!

As a Front Line instructor I witnessed both Creamies and ab-initio pilots on the OCU re-datum their expectations of grandeur in short order when they realised there was a hell of a lot more to being an RAF pilot than demonstrating a stalling package with perfect "instructional patter."

Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or woman)... was/is always true.

[Pontius Navigator]

MSOCS, our chaplain had worked at Los Alamos before he saw the light, brilliant mathematician, I think, but couldn't teach for toffee. Good hell fire and examination preacher though. In a parish church in Cleator Moor he once burnt the News of the World.

[smujsmith]

PN Cleator Moor, a real den of iniquity in west Cumbria.

I'm not a pilot, apart from around 500 hours solo gliding, but, I would have thought that the propensity to communicate was the main criteria for those selected as QFIs in the RAF. Firstly I would expect that anyone who would have passed their flying training to be competent in every respect. Perhaps then that "Creamies" were selected on the basis of their ability to both fly the aircraft and communicate the techniques to trainees. As I said, my flying as a pilot is limited, but I offer a small example. Shortly before I was sent solo in a Glider, my instructor told me to stop listening to him, and start telling him what I thought, and then carry out the action proposed, if I heard no objection. To that point I had sat, flown and hung on every word the instructor uttered. He gave me licence to think for myself, and the belief that I was capable. I was solo the same day, and will never forget his advice, he was a student at Cranwell at the time. I bet he heard that during his training.

Smudge :ok:

[Danny42C]

On the "Arnold" Scheme in the US, our Instructors in Basic and Advanced Schools were, to a man, last year's "creamed off " 2/Lieuts from Flight School.

Came Pearl Harbor; they were left behind instructing while all their erstwhile companions were going overseas for glory and promotion.

They were sick as parrots !

Danny42C.

[DITYIWAHP]

A long time ago, someone told me that "stick time counts". And that adage has proven to mostly be true - in my experience at least. There are elements of (student) talent (most certainly) and the quality of instruction does help (which is why some B2s are kept away from those who are struggling) when it comes to encouraging good results. Good instructors and bad instructors are always part of the mix, and many of us have managed to get to where we are because of and in-spite of those instructors...

The creamie/FAIP concept facilitates giving young-blood some valuable stick time, usually on those less complex / more basic sortie profiles, whilst ensuring that the number of take-offs equals the number of successful landings - at a reduced cost to the tax payer. It's the bottom line - so to speak.

I had the pleasure of watching my course-mates go off to war in the former Yugoslavia... That feeling of being parrot-sick has never quite been forgotten!

[GemDeveloper]

Back in the 90s, I was leading a team with members from many of the Western Europe countries, and did a lot of reading on the differences between the cultures of the different nationalities.

One of the examples that I recall (and it may well be hypocraphal), was that the Royal Air Force took their best students from a Course and brought them back immediately as Instructors (that may explain the Creamies bit), and the French Air Force took their less able students.

The RAF logic was that if you’re really good at something, then it sets a standard to which the student can aspire. As already mentioned, the proviso has to be that the really good flyers are capable of explaining to a less able student what it was that they were doing and that the student should emulate. Ever tried to explain to one of your children how to ride a bicycle? The French logic was that by requiring a perfectly competent but perhaps less outstanding pilot to spend a tour instructing he would improve his skills and be able also to empathise better with the students. All of us have had the experience of only really finding out how much we know about a subject by being facing with the requirement to teach it.

Any QFIs done an exchange with L’ecole de l'air and could perhaps comment on the veracity of this story?

[Union Jack]

(and it may well be hypocraphal)

Apologies, Wanders, but just love your new word!:D

Jack

[GemDeveloper]

You mean, as in: "If Typhoo put the 't' in Britain, who put the .... in Scunthorpe?"

Actually, I think that is how the word is spelt, but I stand to be corrected...

[Basil]

every time he put his hands on the controls, all the needles pointed to the exact numbers
Yes, bloody annoying, isn't it? :E

[POBJOY]

You have to remember that the military already have had quite a 'selection' process before anyone becomes a student,therefore the process then becomes one of super selection rather than more training.In a peacetime role when numbers required are low they can afford to be 'VERY SELECTIVE' and 'slow learners' will be lost on the way.Pilots should also have an ability to 'teach themselves' because apart from anything else they may well come across a situation that has never been covered in training.Handling skills will come with experience, but decision making is something a pilot has to develop quickly.
A first tour instructor also will remember the items that were important to him/her when training and that is quite important.In the civvy world where you have to train rather than chop because of the cost implications; instructors have to deal with a far more varied background of students so if the learning process is a little slower but 'gets there' the system works.
I think some basic flying training (power or gliding) is a valid input into good management skill training as it really sorts out the decision making in a very clear way.

[GemDeveloper]

... and, needless to say, by the Mehmsahib:

apocryphal

The benefit (?), of reading Classical Greek at University...

Yes, bloody annoying, isn't it? :E

[Wander00]

That had me confused, then realised it was not actually me......

[Thud_and_Blunder]

My Dad has his own tales of being streamed for instructor after Basic Flying Training on the Commonwealth Scheme in Canada. He was there from 1942 to 44, initially as a Sgt then commissioned to Plt Off before heading back by convoy to train as Battle Casualty Replacement on Dakotas after Overlord.

Apparently if you were commissioned and achieved 1000 hours instructional in one year there was an AFC in it for you. If, however, you achieved this total while non-commissioned you were simply taken off instructional duties for a short while and told not to hog the flying programme for the other blokes.

He loved Canada and the Canadians; his tales of flying around Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Airspeed Oxfords, NA Harvards and DH Tiger Moths - and what he got up to later - were a major reason why I chose this way of life.

Not that my own experience of creamies was that good - just as many have described earlier. My initial Fg Off QFI - initials DH - had difficulty working out why ex-squaddie Thud (with no flying experience) didn't pick things up as quickly as he had. Cue early instructor change, and all went well after that. On reaching the rotary world, I was delighted to find that every QHI had been around the buoy for a few years before being allowed to inculcate the newbies.

[Union Jack]

That had me confused, then realised it was not actually me...... Wander00

So consequently even more apologies are due, and here they are.....:O:ok:

Jack

[overstress]

So the 'creamy' banter continues, nearly 30 years after I became one! Humble apologies to all those creamy victims who had to suffer our obviously less than sympathetic approach.

It may interest some to know that (in my time at least) we were sent to the multi-engine and rotary worlds for short detachments to learn about the qualities required for those roles. I remember being given a drinking cut-off time by a VC10 skipper on a nightstop in Dulles, also getting the chance to fly Gazelle and Wessex.

[Wander00]

UJ, you are a gent! W

[Flight_Idle]

Thanks all for giving me a bit of an insight into flying training. I used to think it was a case of sitting back & enjoying the view, until I saw that 'Landing instruction' video from the 'Fighter pilot' TV series.


In fact, watching that video made me glad that I stuck with large spanners & grease.

[Skycop]

every time he put his hands on the controls, all the needles pointed to the exact numbers

I could do that as student, too. Problem was, the numbers were often the wrong ones....

As Teeteringhead wrote, the rotary world didn't have creamies. However, as I discovered, they sometimes sent young-and-not-too-happy-about-it second tourists to become QHIs. :uhoh:

[26er]

Whilst not actually being a "creamy" I might as well have been.


In 1951 I was demobbed from 229 OCU after two years national service. Five months later I rejoined the RAF and reported to Adastral House for posting instructions, to be asked what I wanted to do. I replied "fly Meteors as a fighter pilot". My man wandered off down the corridor and came back to say "go to South Cerney for 143 CFS course on Prentices and Meteors". At this stage my experience was 320 hours.


So I completed the course and went for my final interview with the Commandant, Air Cdre Selway, and the chief instructor, Gp Capt Coles. They shuffled through my files and said that they couldn't find anything about my initial interview at CFS. I explained that I'd not had one but had been posted there even though I wanted to be a fighter pilot. "Wait outside" they said. Eventually I was recalled to be told that CFS select their students and only as I had completed the course and was a B1 category were the prepared to make this exception. I'd have been happy if it had gone the other way. So it was off to an AFS to instruct on Meteors.


So there I was teaching all ranks from sergeant to group captain (it was nice too be addressed as "sir" by a senior officer student, which was the rule in those days). One afternoon (I was just 22) I found one of my students of the same age crying his eyes out. He told me his parents were divorcing. I judged him unsafe to fly at that time so though he didn't want it I phoned the OC Flying Wing and dropped the problem in his lap. I knew some of my limitations!


I learned a lot about flying and a little about life on that tour. Eventually when I left the Service at age 38 I was still a B1 instructor (there had never seemed to be a need to recat), was the wing standards officer at an OCU and still qualified on Meteors. Nobody told me that my instructional technique was crap though it may well have been.

[Wander00]

"Needles on the dials" - like that doing "formation" with Mike Smith as a stude at Valley - he had been on 92 in Hunters and then one of the Lightning formation teams - he would demo an exercise, and I would try an replicate it. Then - "I have control" and re-demo - he was always precisely in position and flew the Fun Jet with absolute precision. I got, it, well, most of it, in the end

[CharlieJuliet]

Looking at my log book I seem to have moved round several QFIs early in my BFTS Course. However, after 80 hrs I moved to a creamie. This was not good as I then struggled to meet his requirements. Most frustrating was that I could fly as well as he could, but still got criticism of my flying. This continued, but at times I was handed back to a more experienced instructor. Thus I got through night flying, IRT and FHT. As I ended up on Lightnings all was not lost!!