Mil Pilot - Nature or Nurture?

[tarantonight]

Good Evening,

Back in the day (1960's), my father was a FAA Fast Jet man who was Night Fighter/AWI/Carrier qualified.

Despite my unbounded enthusiasm and hopes, Biggin Hill was as far as I got.

In my 53 years, I have carried out a number of activities where the Cognitive part of my brain has definitely won or lost the day

Is it fair to say that those who end up with those wings on the sleeve have 'It'. If you 'haven't', then no matter how much you try, it just won't happen?.

All the best,

TN.

And much respect to those who do have 'It'. Still envious!

[Bob Viking]

Taranto.

I've often wondered the same thing but have no empirical evidence to support either argument. I'm a first generation pilot (FJ) so I guess I'll let you know if and when any of my offspring make the leap.

All I can say with certainty is that when I first saw Top Gun I knew I could do better.

BV

[Two's in]

I believe OASC (or it's equivalent) is more about cost control than recognizing steely eyed aviators. It provides a solid measure that training costs invested in a candidate will deliver a reasonable return of service in terms of operational service. That measure comprises a number of elements, including general aptitude, decision making, visual comprehension, hand-eye coordination etc. Recognizing and measuring those qualities over the years has allowed the training system to deliver viable candidates to operational flying within an acceptable time period i.e. as my Chipmunk instructor used to berate me "I could teach your Granny to fly if we had all day, but we've only got the next hour!".

Many unsuccessful candidates would likely have made good pilots if the system were provisioned to allow more time to train and strengthen weak areas, but it doesn't. Statistically we know the minimum hours training required to produce competent aircrew, and we know how to test for the commensurate level of aptitude to enter that training. Not having "the right stuff" on the day does not necessarily mean you never had "the right stuff" in you, only that you didn't have it when the test was administered.

Although somewhat contradicting my thesis here, when my particular service was short of pilots some years ago, they reappraised candidates who had "marginally" failed flying grading (13 hours on Chipmunks at the time) and allowed then to attend flying training. The result was, with very few exceptions, those re-selected subsequently failed to pass Basic Flying Training at quite a late stage of the training. This validated the role of flying grading but it was an expensive way to do so.

[Onceapilot]

I think the reply above is fair. I suspect the system just tried to choose the best. However, FJ Military flying is a complex skill set. IMO, you have to be able to do the flying fairly easily, it is the prioritisation and time / task management that is difficult. :ooh:

OAP

[rolling20]

Whilst I agree with a lot that Twos in has said, I also wonder if the system ever considered the 'fear factor'? Young fledglings can sometimes be intimidated by the demi god sitting next to them in the cockpit and never get to show their potential. Fighter Pilot briefly showed a snap shot of a bollocking in the air and I knew how the poor bugger felt. It knocks the old enthusiasm out of you. Ok it was a long time ago, but Guy Gibson once took a number of Sergeant pilots up with a view to having one as his co pilot. He dismissed them all as useless, until he ended up with Dave Shannon. Shannon's view was that the Sergeants weren't useless, just that they were scared of Gibson.

[gums]

Salute!

As an instructor in three jets over 16 years or so, the competent pilots always seemed to me to be more nature than nurture. I also noticed this as a raw nugget when first starting out.

The naturals could hold speed within two knots and altitude within 25 feet on initial for the overhead pattern and be able to talk to the tower and look around within a flight or two. The nurtured folks had to dedicate most of their time to just fly the pattern. They usually wound up in heavies or washed out when things got more complicated later in the syllabus.

Not all of my attack/fighter students were "naturals", but they had abilities besides "good hands" that compensated. The biggest thing I noticed about "naturals" was if I asked "can you feel that", and they would say "yeah, what do I do?" The "technicians" had to be taught to "feel", and that is not real easy.

If you really want to be a pilot, then you have to keep on keeping on, and that part is an attitude, which many folks do not possess. A good instructor will exploit what's there naturally and help you to learn the fine points.

Gums philosophizes......

[Fareastdriver]

No matter how well you go through training your career may well be subject to the military requirements.

On my course we had three choices on graduation.

Victors, Valiants or Vulcans.

[ORAC]

If you go back a couple of generations the aircraft were cheaper and lives also treated as such. I believe that in WWII the RAF lost more aircraft and aircrew during training than operations; and looking at the loss rate on early jets during the 50s and 60s the number of aircraft and pilots lost per Sqn per year makes you go white.

I presume as the price of aircraft rose and numbers shrank the reduced loss rate also indicates an increase in the selection and required standard of candidate. In other words your father was a steely eyed fighter man, but might not have had any more natural aptitude than yourself, or made the cut during selection today.

[Pontius Navigator]

Two's In, to add from a Nav perspective, one CNI was castigated for bending the rules and allowing more extra hours per marginal stude than was budgeted for. The problem was that lower calibre students were being passed up the training system, where costs increased, before being chopped.

For the 'granny' stude the protracted training slope could extend in to first combat and risk aircraft and lives should the student not be up to speed.

As an examiner I was once presented with an operational crew where the navigator was below average and the squadron hoped that we would have wielded the axe. In the event my boss refused to be the hatchet unit and left that to the squadron. I have no doubt that that crew would have been combat ineffective and blame the CO for not facing up to his responsibilities.

Back to nature-nurture, I believe looking at different branches is also revealing. Aircrew, I believe, appear as a body to be less risk averse than engineers. The difference is that aircrew control their own risk whereas engineers control risk of others. Does this risk appetite vary as each becomes more indoctrinated in their roles?

[Fareastdriver]

We binned a pilot on his first operational tour in the Far East. His training records were a mash of ruruns and second chances but he was a uni graduate and as so was inviolate.

Less than six months and even he agreed it was time to ditch his wings and be an Educator.

[Basil]

Not having "the right stuff" on the day does not necessarily mean you never had "the right stuff" in you, only that you didn't have it when the test was administered.
Recollect civil aviation boss discussing a training accident and remarking that a competent crew was not competent on that day.

[rolling20]

If you go back a couple of generations the aircraft were cheaper and lives also treated as such. I believe that in WWII the RAF lost more aircraft and aircrew during training than operations; and looking at the loss rate on early jets during the 50s and 60s the number of aircraft and pilots lost per Sqn per year makes you go white.

I presume as the price of aircraft rose and numbers shrank the reduced loss rate also indicates an increase in the selection and required standard of candidate. In other words your father was a steely eyed fighter man, but might not have had any more natural aptitude than yourself, or made the cut during selection today.
I believe the RAF lost around 70,000 killed in WW2, with Bomber Command suffering 55,000 casualties, of which over 8,000 were in training accidents.

[MSOCS]

Gums nails it

[ORAC]

rolling20,

I believe the 8K figure is just for Bomber command, and they attracted by far the operational loss rate. It omits those of Fighter, Ferry, Transport and Coastal commands, along with all the overseas commands.

I am not sure, but I believe it is also compiled from the dedicated bomber training units such as OTUs and not the basic flying training units in the UK, Canada etc.

[tarantonight]

If you go back a couple of generations the aircraft were cheaper and lives also treated as such. I believe that in WWII the RAF lost more aircraft and aircrew during training than operations; and looking at the loss rate on early jets during the 50s and 60s the number of aircraft and pilots lost per Sqn per year makes you go white.

I presume as the price of aircraft rose and numbers shrank the reduced loss rate also indicates an increase in the selection and required standard of candidate. In other words your father was a steely eyed fighter man, but might not have had any more natural aptitude than yourself, or made the cut during selection today.

Thankyou for your belief ORAC, but I fear I would have been the equivalent of the Granny mentioned. Having said, if I had aimed for Rotary all along, when it all got a bit much, I could have just stopped and a thought about it for a while!!

TN.

[rolling20]

rolling20,

I believe the 8K figure is just for Bomber command, and they attracted by far the operational loss rate. It omits those of Fighter, Ferry, Transport and Coastal commands, along with all the overseas commands.

I am not sure, but I believe it is also compiled from the dedicated bomber training units such as OTUs and not the basic flying training units in the UK, Canada etc.

Orac that is correct, Bomber Command suffered the highest losses in training of any command. I haven't read Right of the Line for a long long time, but I use a quite here from the net, which isn't mine: John Terraine in The Right of the Line gives:

'From first to last, 1939-45, the Royal Air Force lost 70,253 officers, NCOs and airmen killed or missing on operations, the overwhelming majority of them being aircrew. This was the price of its victory, and of it by far the largest share fell to Bomber Command between Sept 1939 and May 1945: 47,268. This great number is the grim total of those lost on operations; it was the unique hazard of the airman's trade that a further 8,305 Bomber Command aircrew lost their lives in non-operational flying - training or accident. In addition, 1,570 ground crew (RAF and WAAF) were killed or lost their lives from other causes during that period, making a full total of 57,143.'. Although other Commands aren't mentioned, Bomber Command suffered the greatest loss in operations and training.

[Danny42C]

Some five years ago, I wrote on "Gaining a Pilot's Brevet in WWII":
..."
The first ten hours of military flying instruction are critical. This is where the sheep are sorted from the goats. In civil life, a flying club will keep on taking your money till the cows come home, irrespective of whether you're ever going to make a pilot. The [US] Army can't afford to do this, it's working to a timetable.

An average pupil will go solo after eight hours. Nine hours is stretching it. Ten, and your instructor will hand you over to a check pilot, who will take you up and assess your performance, and who may give you a second chance, with a different instructor. But this rarely happens. You're "washed out".

It sounds hard-hearted, and we think of late developers and helping lame dogs over stiles. But, as is pointed out, your dog is still lame after you've got him over the stile, and there are more stiles ahead. Better to chop him now.

The majority of these losses took place in the first ten days. After that they became progressively fewer. One of my room mates disappeared after a month, having absent-mindedly blundered through the circuit at our Relief Landing Ground. "Dangerous tendencies", they said, and he was out. Two others had fallen at the first hurdle, so now I had the room to myself.

The Arnold Scheme had a "washout" rate of around 50%, I believe. Whether this was due to the impossibly high standards [of the US Army Air Corps], or whether simple arithmetic had more to do with it, I have often wondered..."



Time is the currency of War !

[MPN11]

Picking up on PN's last para in Post #9 regarding risk-aversion:

It was noticeable that younger ATCOs didn't seem to think too seriously about the risks they potentially imposed on their customers. The older ones entering the field felt the responsibility quite heavily, some to the point of severe loss of self-confidence.

I had a first-tourist who had changed Branch in her mid-30s: she was perfectly competent, but struggled initially with the responsibility she carried. We just jollied her along, and within a year or so (without warning) I started her on Supervisor training. She was horrified, the Training Team and I just smiled sweetly and carried on. She swam brilliantly at the deep end, and never looked back :)

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, OTOH, one unit we had a mature, yet new ATCO, who on their first operational unit could not adapt the stress and became speechless.

[MPN11]

MPN, OTOH, one unit we had a mature, yet new ATCO, who on their first operational unit could not adapt the stress and became speechless.Not uncommon.
We had imposed a max ago of 34, IIRC, for entry into training. The 'not successful' rate had increased significantly for students over that age.

[serf]

No matter how well you go through training your career may well be subject to the military requirements.

On my course we had three choices on graduation.

Victors, Valiants or Vulcans.

Perhaps the course loading was deliberate, taking into account the OASC results.....

[Dan Winterland]

I'm with Gums. Having spent two tours instructing, I'm convinced the naturals will usually get through. The guys that have to work at it? Well - hard work will probably get them through, but it's hard! And a number will inevitably fall by the wayside.

[Monarch Man]

As the years have progressed I've become a bit more pragmatic about this, and funnily enough it was always the most oft asked question by students from BFT all the way up to an OCU.
There's a big part of me that took the natural argument, it was after all how I think I got through. On reflection though there were plenty of naturals chopped along the way as well, many as it happened for seemingly solvable problems.
I'm firmly of the opinion that hardwork and determination had and has as a much a place as does natural ability, Lady Luck also played her part as well, I know in my case that the lovely lady was an important component part of my career.

[Pontius Navigator]

MM/serf etc, there was also a tendency to post the slower learners to less demanding types to consolidate. V-Force copilot was one where those making the grade got a captaincy or, later, CFS. Others got flight sim slots, FAC, ops, etc until their option points. I know a Tornado pilot who had a prior tour on Dominies or navs sent to 360.

[MPN11]

Same with ATCO. The 'lesser brethren' were posted to low intensity/complexity units (our grading system) to consolidate, find their feet and hopefully move on and up. Others went to more intense/complex units, where they would be able to cope as an ab-initio ATCO. Some even moved straight on to Area Radar training, although at that time it may have been partly a manning requirement!

The various air/ground systems were quite sensible. There's no point in putting people out of their depth, and failing, after time/effort/expense has been committed to training them.

[beardy]

In many more years of training than I care to count I have met a few, very few, natural, gifted and talented individuals. They were outstanding in their ability to manipulate an aircraft and make it do exactly what they wanted it to do. The rest had to work hard to understand why they weren't so gifted, once that hurdle was overcome teaching them became much easier.

[ORAC]

Link from the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum.

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/593539-no-automation-zero-zero-landing-finesse.html#post9741349

[Pontius Navigator]

In many more years of training than I care to count I have met a few, very few, natural, gifted and talented individuals. They were outstanding in their ability to manipulate an aircraft and make it do exactly what they wanted it to do. The rest had to work hard to understand why they weren't so gifted, once that hurdle was overcome teaching them became much easier.

I recall an article many years ago, 1990s I guess, where an Army psychologist addressed this same issue while focussing on aircraft accidents. Just as an illustration, she noted that pilots were divided something like 5% natural and 95% nurtured (to use the OP phrase). The bulk of accidents occurred among the latter group 99-1%. The 1% occurred when other factors affected the performance of the nature group, head cold for instance.

Now I made up the figures but they were not far off the truth. They seem to be borne out by the remarks above. I can think of only 4 pilots that I flew with in the nature group and only crewed up with one of them. I can think of many in the latter group.

*I could name names but only in a PM :)

[ORAC]

I can remember a similar article concerning fighter pilot aces and the difficulty in picking out the wolves from the sheep during training.

No matter what their ability to fly, many of the best natural pilots did not have "it" when it came to combat, and some of those who were not as well regarded turned out to be the most savage wolves. It was just that nobody could seem to work out a way to predict which would which.

[Monarch Man]

Interesting point ORAC, my grandfather flew hurricanes in the battle France and later on after recovering from his wounds went on to fly typhoons and eventually tempests, he always said the same thing as well.
His favourite story, if memory serves correctly, revolved around either an NZ or Oz pilot who displayed all the aptitude of your average Vicky Pollard, he was however when in sight of the enemy utter fearless and ruthless and was a dead shot when it came to deflection shooting, I think I'm right that he was shot down by ground fire during an intruder mission and ended up making it to Switzerland and marrying a local maiden!

[2Planks]

Another nav's point of view......


I was deselected very early on on thanks to a crippling lack of coordination and inability to learn at the rate required. You only need to watch me on a sports field or court to realise! So nature seemed to play a big part in that. However, I then did well through nav training, nature had given me the right tools for that.


Interestingly, I did my second tour at 6FTS where shortly after I had got my B1 I had a conversation with OCANS who told us that HQ RAFSC had decided that in future all baby navs would come from the pilot training system failures to save money on training (ie already done most of the groundschool and some visual nav and would be therefore ahead of the game). By this time most navs were bound for a FJ or Kinloss. After a bit of dragging through records we produced some stats that this was counter intuitive, if a guy was chopped after spin aeros (ie he could fly but not operate the aircraft) he would get a bit further in the nav training but would ultimately fail as he couldn't crack the high tempo 'mind games'. A guy off the street who had passed the Nav side of OASC had a much better chance as did the uncoordinated duffers like me.


So ultimately, with the Tornado era you had to have two lots of nature to crack it as a FJ pilot, plus a good deal of hard work unless you were one of the very lucky ones.

[gums]

Salute!

I think Pointius underestimates the number of naturals, but mainly in the advanced programs. Seems USAF and RAF cull the fast movers and the rest go to less demanding systems, and not single seat.

I only taught real basic stuff to the Vee, and the ones we got in the Dragonfly had gone thru two stages to get to us. Their nurtured ones went to FAC planes and Gooney Birds. I figure we only had about 20% nurtured. We also trained the first USAF Reserve unit and they came from C-119's!!! GASP! About half were nurtured, but the only real difficult thing in the Dragonlfly was helping them learn to do everything solo, with no help, and flying formation.

In my A-7 and F-16 years I only saw maybe 20% nurtured. But those folks usually had great situation awareness, were fast learners of the avionics and could navigate. They would not become Thunderbirds yet still be effective in combat. Biggest challenge for us was the two-seat background/mentality of many Double Ugly pilots.

I was something like those that ORAC references as far as some aspects of the mission. I was definitely a natural and soloed at age 16 after about 4 hops in taildraggers, then min time in the T-37 and soloed at minimum legal mission count. However, I sucked at A2A when I got to the Viper. I had about 3400 hours, of which 2400 was in mudbeaters ( my three tours to SEA, then two IP tours). Nevertherless, I kicked ass in A2G and low level nav. I qualified without the computer in strafe and divebomb.

As others opine, attitude and smarts can make up a lot for average "hands". Nevertheless, in the fast movers one will encounter some hairy situations from time to time and the good reflexes and "touch" will save the day. See the pic of my LEF on the bio. Then there was the flameout landing with battle damage back in 1968.

Gums opines...

[Danny42C]

Pontius N (#19),


At Shawbury mainy moons ago mentored a Direct-Entry ATCO (name forgotten), who was hard up against the upper age limit for SSCs in the Branch (39 then). How she'd got past the Selection Board in the first place was a mystery, as she had an inferiority complex the size of a house. She had been brainwashed by her family to believe she was fated to fail whatever exam she tried, and needed a good talking-to.


"I've mentored a lot of students since I came here", I said, "I haven't lost one yet - and I'm not going to start with you - We'll get you through this Course if we have to drag you through by the hair !" And we did (get her through).


Never knew what happened to her. Hope she was Posted somewhere quiet !


Danny.

[Pontius Navigator]

2Planks, I started with 7, 2 str nav and 5 chopped P. One nav made AVM and the other Gp Capt at last count. 1 P made Canberra nav and then AeroSystems, of the other 4, one made Eng, one RAFP, don't know about the other 2.

[rolling20]

Interesting point ORAC, my grandfather flew hurricanes in the battle France and later on after recovering from his wounds went on to fly typhoons and eventually tempests, he always said the same thing as well.
His favourite story, if memory serves correctly, revolved around either an NZ or Oz pilot who displayed all the aptitude of your average Vicky Pollard, he was however when in sight of the enemy utter fearless and ruthless and was a dead shot when it came to deflection shooting, I think I'm right that he was shot down by ground fire during an intruder mission and ended up making it to Switzerland and marrying a local maiden!

Ralph 'kid' Hofer is worth looking up. U.S. citizen, amateur boxer, joined the RCAF, flew fighters as a sergeant, joined the USAAF as a Flight Officer and was credited with a 109 on his first mission and in his short career he went on to become credited with 30 or so aircraft destroyed. Yet he wouldn't have achieved any of this as he wasn't a college graduate, so had the RCAF not taken him on, he couldn't have been a USAAF pilot. He gained a reputation as a bit of a maverick and his navigation was none too good. My favourite story about him was when his P47 formated on James Goodson and all Goodson could see in the cockpit, was Hofers Alsatian dog!

[polecat2]

One of the best examples of a not-too-great pilot with the killer instinct is Screwball Beurling. But he was what was needed at the time.

[Danny42C]

Monarch Man and rolling20 (#35),


"Can't fly, but can shoot -
He still can be a bit of a brute !"


"Can fly, but can't shoot -
For him the Huns don't care a hoot !


(Anon)

[tarantonight]

Many Thanks for all your replies.

For what it is worth, I am in the Nature camp. I do believe those Nurtured have the basic Nature input. We are what we are, period.

For those of you who have 'It' and end up a Mil Pilot, particularly FJ, I am still envious.

I must have picked up my Mum's genes, so I am quite a good cook - the family will never starve!

TN.

[MPN11]

Self-congratulating, I guess I was "Nature" as an ATCO, and bloody good at the job ... but they never let me be an Instructor. Apparently I was 'too tactical'. :)

[Fareastdriver]

serf


Quote:


Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post

No matter how well you go through training your career may well be subject to the military requirements.

On my course we had three choices on graduation.

Victors, Valiants or Vulcans.

Perhaps the course loading was deliberate, taking into account the OASC results.....

Ruddy Cheek!

Apart from two of us they were all ex UAS bods. One was a Marquis.

[Danny42C]

MPN-11,


Never mind. We used to say: " 'Em as can, Do. 'Em as can't, Instruct 'Em as can neither Do nor Instruct, go on the Examining Board "


"Many a true word ........"

[Herod]

I think a lot has to do with finding your niche, and age. I never made FJ, thank goodness. I would have killed myself in the first five minutes in a Lightning.
However, I think I made quite a good helicopter pilot, and a damn good airline captain. LHS of an airliner (or perhaps military transport?) was my natural place.

[ORAC]

I guess I was "Nature" as an ATCO, and bloody good at the job ... but they never let me be an Instructor. Apparently I was 'too tactical'. ] Now we come to those who are good instructors.

I was always poor in the first few hours of which ever qualification I was given, but at some stage something "clicked" and I got it. It wasn't technique and formula - suddenly I knew how. That was why subsequently I was an awful instructor - and I know I was, but inevitably was made responsible for training up to OC Trg at a CRC because I was good at my job.

In retrospect the nurture are the best instructors - they know how to teach nurture students - natural fliers will pick it up anyway and also some off the additional lessons. Natural instructors on the other hand have no comprehension of the problems that those less gifted experience.

I can remember students remonstrating with them as to why I had told them what they had done one day was right, but the next day was wrong and all I could respond was - "because", and as to why I did something at a particular moment and because all I could respond was because "it felt right" and they'd get it eventually. And why some controllers hated controlling and threw up before or after difficult sorties and why I loved and revelled in them - bring them on!

You need both.

[jayteeto]

Right at the front of my F5000 it read..... "Taylor is not a natural pilot"
I knew that, they knew that, so what was the answer?
I learned, slowly, to manage my time and capacity. I packaged things into neat little SOPs and ended up on a single pilot Puma squadron. Often, I would land from complex sorties and have no recollection of the last 90 minutes for debrief. I considered quitting, even after making combat ready.
After a while, it just clicked. I went to CFS and did pretty well on the course and found that I could read students really quickly. Most needed help organising their thoughts and could be taught to free up capacity. Most went on to be good squadron pilots and a few got FJ crossovers and did very well.
I now have a successful civvie flying career. So you can nurture people.

That said, I would still never make it as a FJ pilot. To do that, there MUST be a large chunk of natural ability.

[charliegolf]

One was a Marquis.

What, like a posh tent?:E

CG

[Fareastdriver]

He was posted as a co-pilot on Vulcan 2s. Apparently he objected to this on the basis that being in single figures in line for the Throne he wasn't going to take orders from a commoner.
He ended up on Canberras instead.

RIP Angus.

[sarn1e]

Like MSOCS, I'm with gums; however...

Although I would be considered to fall into the "natural" category, I really struggled for the first 50 hours because (as I later came to realize) of the quality of the "nurture". As a child of the Vulcan/Victor/Shackleton co-pilot instructor era in the early 80s, FJ instructors (other than creamies - that's FAIPs to you, gums) were very rare. That's not to say that all were uniformly bad, but some definitely struggled to "do" it themselves - which often had ramifications.

I was very lucky to switch at the 50-hour point to two brand-new (straight out of CFS) FJ instructors, at which point I never looked back. After 3 (count 'em) basic flying tests and a scraped pass to that point, I never again re-took any sortie, test or check-ride at any level in 4 different front-line aircraft - including the qualified weapons instructor course - over 20+ years.

But it is also worth noting, as gums identifies, that the "nature/nurture" divide reasserted itself once you'd made it onto FJs, albeit obviously at a higher level. There was the initial single-seat/two-seat aptitude/selection divide (choices notwithstanding) and then, once on the front line, there was the "squash ladder". Very quickly, everyone knew precisely where they were on that squadron ladder; and, with very few exceptions, all those at the top were in the "nature" camp. These were the actual and eventual QWIs, TPs, display pilots and Red Arrows. I generalize (some were inbound to airlines from Day One and would only contemplate CFS, for example) but you get my meaning.

At the end of my career (as a Squadron Commander) I used to get a lot of offended responses from my peers when I said that all it took to be a FJ pilot was the unthinking combination of reasonable hand-eye coordination and mental arithmetic skills. (Imagine unwinding altimeters, due to pressure error correction, while concentrating on a rock steady VSI in the turn at low-level at night during an acceleration from 350 to 600 knots all while working the radar hand-controller in gain and elevation and simultaneously calculating your bingo. Lightnings as a first tour were a real barrel of laughs, but everything afterwards was immeasurably easier for the experience). But I maintain that plenty of intelligent sporty types I knew at school would have been perfectly capable of the same - as many of their predecessors had proved during World War II and the early jet age. And, of course, they would have had to have the requisite drive and determination to succeed; but that's true for many professionals, not just military practitioners.

Yes, the newer types are more decision-driven than the older ones and, being much easier to fly, don't demand quite so much of your maths-and-motor skills. But you still have to be sufficiently ahead of the jet - in a more complex and connected environment - to operate it.

So "nature" might be the glib answer, but not - as very I nearly learned to my cost - without a good dose of "nurture".

[Pontius Navigator]

sarnie, true a school contemporary was a sporty type and went straight to Lightnings. Sadly he was killed but not through any fault of his own.

[mopardave]

As someone who failed OASC twice ('82 and '84) and then gave up, this thread has been a fascinating read! Prior to my visit in '84, I thought I'd steal a march and at least go solo. I was sent solo quite quickly (I think?). I just checked my Pooley's......I was sent solo by the legendary and formidable Sqn ldr Ken Jackson....sadly no longer with us after 6.4 hours. Ok, it was a Cessna 150.....about as simple as it gets! I'm fairly sure I could have flown something but I'm also certain I couldn't have operated anything. I'm also pretty sure that had I been in a chop ride situation, it would have ended badly. The system just wouldn't have had the time to "nurture" any talent I might have had. Wish I'd thought more about the board's recommendation in '82 that I'd have made "excellent NCO aircrew"......ah well!
MD

[MACH2NUMBER]

Well, I always wanted to fly helicopters, but I was sent FJ, by those who know better, and flew a variety of FJs for 30 years.

[Blacksheep]

Aircrew, I believe, appear as a body to be less risk averse than engineers. The difference is that aircrew control their own risk whereas engineers control risk of others.Interesting point. I'm not particularly risk averse in general life, but when it comes to aeroplanes I am not risk averse, I simply will not release anything to service that isn't completely airworthy. Risk isn't part of the equation. Was I indoctrinated or is it a natural characteristic of those with an aptitude for engineering?

[Pontius Navigator]

BS, I would say that is 100% risk adverse. You don't want to risk the lives of others.

[Fortissimo]

As one of the 'rare' FJ QFIs in the BFTS system in the 80s, I think there was a fairly clear nature/nurture divide but it did not divide cleanly around FJ/ME/RW lines! I can think of several streamed RW who were excellent aviators with bags of capacity but who were not comfortable with close formation or the high-dynamic events (as far is this was possible in a JP). Same for ME. There were also people still afloat in the FJ stream but who would probably be a training risk once they got to the SAP/weapons phase.


It was not until I did the CFS course, dragged kicking and screaming from the end of my first FJ tour, that I realised just how bad a few of my BFTS instructors had been. The penny should perhaps have dropped at Valley, when the (bona mate) QFI response to my first IP-tgt run was "What was that?!" followed by a question about whether I had been taught it by a Vulcan or a Victor pilot (= the latter) and then a demo of how it should actually be done.


My other conclusion about nature/nurture is that poor instruction can put a serious brake on talent that not all will be able to overcome. On the other side of that coin, good instruction can raise someone's game to the point where competence (but not brilliance) becomes possible. That comes back to the argument about putting the good students with the good instructors and letting the others sink or swim.

[sarn1e]

Entirely agree with Fortissimo's "around FJ/ME/RW lines" argument (and the rest of his post), but in my era the system culled the non-FJ-capable guys before AFTS, so many who might have made it never got the chance to prove it...

All my ME and RW contemporaries only got there via being re-streamed from failing at AFTS, TWU or OCU.

[gums]

Salute!

Thanks for nice words, Sarn.

Although USAF went thru the politically correct phase once or twice, the selection for the high performance slots came back to evaluations by the training outfit and instructors as to whether the candidate was a "keeper".

In my A-7 days as an IP, we had one of the first "anybody can fly any jet" troops at The Beach. Flew into the ground one night at the range while on a radar pass. Saw another similar loss years later in the Viper, where the fellow was in the "nurture" category, but had some personal problems that may have been in the way. We ( USAF) got out of that PC mode but stretched things a bit to get some females into fighters and "combat" slots during the late 90's. I supported the females, but did not want any to be advanced without demonstrating everything expected in the performance of the criterion task ( ya can tell I was an IP and have an advanced degree in education, huh?).

One thing I wanted to get out is I saw several of the "naturals" stretch the envelope when they not have to. My best example was the USAF "top gun" that pressed a screwed up attack versus aborting and we have the HUD video of the impact -you don't see individual sage bushes until last two seconds. Also had a classmate in 'nam that pressed too many times until it caught him. There are times to press, but mostly the "hero" type situations. And even then one must not press on knowing it's a kamikaze outcome.

So I helped several "nurtured" folks check out in three jets. The "hands" needed to be fair, but the overall airmanship was the prime ingredient, IMHO. I also saw several "naturals" that should have been in Phantoms or 'vaarks to have "Jimminy Cricket" siting right there to help.

Gums sends...

[Danny42C]

gums,

(Not really "on Thread", but near enough).

A bit before you were born, I was on my "Primary" at Carlstrom Field, Arcadia.
We did our 60 hours on the "Stearman" with no ASI - we were taught to "Fly Attitude". We felt no pain - what you've never had, you never miss.

Did any other Air Force do this ? (the RAF didn't). Does the USAF do it now, or was it just a USAAC thing ? (I've been glad of it many a time when being tossed about in a monsoon cu-nim in Burma). Possibly it could have saved AF447.

Still treasure my Air Corps silver wings.

[4Greens]

A futile discussion. Its a mixture of nature and nurture.

[ORAC]

Most discussion is futile - but enjoyable.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Gums,
I spent 3 yrs as an exchange Eagle IP, teaching ab initios and many retreads from other USAF types, from B52 to F4 and a variety of Guard technicians. Despite much nurturing, it was almost impossible to wash out the ones with no nature. One that I did recommend to finish almost ended in a court case.

[KenV]

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is my experience:
During basic flight training I had no trouble on approach or in the pattern and could aviate, navigate and communicate simultaneously without seemingly much effort. But what I could not "see" or "feel" was the last several feet to the landing, be it full stop or touch and go. My instructor pilot could not solve it. I got a new instructor pilot and he quickly determined that I was "spotting the deck" rather than looking out at the horizon. That solved it for me almost instantly. So while I apparently had "good hands", I definitely needed a little nurturing.

And with the F-35 and similar digital jets, the "nature" seems to be quite different than it was in my time. Apparently, one no longer needs "good hands" because the fly-by-wire provides that. But one does need a "good head" that can use all the high tech stuff to maximum advantage. It appears that at least some of the "right stuff" is different now.

[MPN11]

KenV .. perhaps partly explains why I washed to of flying training on a tail-dragger, having got my PPL on a nose-wheel. I was wedded to the instrument panel :(

[Mogwi]

Hmm, chopped on IF as a Wessex 1 pilot, then made a bit of a mark on Harriers. Not sure what that proves.

[teeteringhead]

Mogwi

obviously you needed the maturing influence that the Wessex 2 provided for you! ;)

jayteeto

After a while, it just clicked. I went to CFS and did pretty well on the course and found that I could read students really quickly. Most needed help organising their thoughts and could be taught to free up capacity. Exactly so - and you will also recall that - with few exceptions - the better instructors had usually had to struggle a bit in their stude years. :hmm:

[Onceapilot]

. It appears that at least some of the "right stuff" is different now.

I think it always has been. ;) However, the question for aviation today is: should we require basic stick and brain skills to be equal with IT skills? If not, I see little future, or point, for human piloting skill. :eek:

OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

OAP, like navigation skills.

If lost call for help.
If no help bang out.

Simply, modern aircraft cannot be flown mechanically.

[LOMCEVAK]

Over the years I have converted pilots from very varied backgrounds onto a wide range of types, including fast jet pilots onto ME types and vice versa. I have always found the differences in how different individuals perform fascinating and have tried to work out why.

The starting point in the nature vs nurture discussion is what is meant by a natural pilot? To answer this we need to look at what the piloting task is. A pilot controls the flightpath of an aircraft and has to make control inputs to achieve what is required. He/she must make the required control inputs to initiate a manoeuvre then scan the required cues (visual attitude, ASI, altimeter, g meter etc) in a pattern relevant to that manoeuvre and then must correct any errors in the required flightpath with further control inputs.

A natural pilot is one who intuitively has the required scan pattern at a high rate such that he/she can detect errors in the flightpath very rapidly when they are still small and then has a valid muscle memory to make the required correcting control inputs. Muscle memory is, arguably, a learnt characteristic (nurture) and some people are more adaptable than others ie. learn more quickly. In this respect a 'natural' pilot could be considered as one who acquires the correct muscle memory very quickly such that, effectively, it becomes intuitive/sub conscious. If the muscle memory and error detection is intuitive it will reduce the amount of mental capacity required to fly the aircraft. If this is not intuitive (ie. a non-natural pilot) it can often be learnt but will require more mental capacity which may then become a limiting factor for what roles a given pilot can undertake.

In addition to the pure flying task, a pilot has to make decisions (airmanship) and complete secondary tasks (eg. mission system operation). Mission system operation inevitably is learned (ie. nurture not nature). Decision making requires a mental model which also is usually learnt (again, nurture). However, the ability to complete the decision making and secondary tasks relies on mental capacity and this does vary markedly between individuals. Therefore, a 'natural' pilot who has average mental capacity may well have the spare capacity to make the decisions and complete the secondary tasks required for most if not all missions. However, a non-natural pilot with the same mental capacity may, for some tasks, become task saturated such that he cannot undertake high workload missions.

Some aspects such as employment of checklists and SOPs will always be nurture. And then there is CRM (which does still apply to single-seat formation and multi-aircraft operations). Some of this is nurture but nature plays a major part here; this encompasses all roles but I have heard of cases where some of the pilots who are more challenged in this respect were sent single-seat if they had the other abilities required!

To return to the original question regarding nature vs nurture and fighter pilots, the fast-jet missions are typically high workload. Therefore, fighter pilots need to be either natural pilots in order to have the spare mental capacity to perform the decision making and mission tasks or they have to have high mental capacity in order to absorb the increased workload resulting from learned/nurtured pure flying skills.

The interesting case is when an individual has natural flying ability but relatively low mental capacity such that they will never have the spare capacity for the high workload secondary tasks of some missions.

All of the above is personal opinion based of many years of observation. I am interested on the thoughts of you all on this.

[MPN11]

A fascinating deconstruction, which makes much sense to me. No wonder I never made it as a pilot!!

However, I also see the read-across to ATC. I won't presume on your time to elaborate, but the workload aspects (the spare capacity to multi-task and problem-solve whilst holding 3 or more simultaneous 'conversations', rather than just following the rules) seem pertinent. Mastering the basics does not make a controller, there's also that 4-dimensional awareness which is surely 'nature'.

[gums]

Salute, LOM

Very good analysis of the "naturals" with only one exception - "hands", or "touch".

My own experience as an IP in three attack/fighter jets was mostly with the "naturals" as you postulated, but I also had what I called "technicians", that seem to have exhibited the "nurtured" charateristic. My definition was those folks were very "mechanical" WRT the basics of flying. Not only a slow scan rate of attitude, speed, body rates and such, but they could not"feel" the plane or what it was telling them like the "naturals"

I am not bragging when I assert I was a "natural". Except for over control of yaw on takeoff my first 2 or 3 hops, I was ready to solo and did. Figure 4 hours or so. I was 16 years old. Later, going thru USAF pilot indocrination and then the T-37, it was the same way. My only bad grades were "spin entry", duh? I just had a hard time holding the controls in an unusual position long enough. I could feel the imminent stall and had been taught by my civilian IP long before to first relax back stick, use rudder to keep pointing end forward and wings level ( not much aileron) and then even push forward if required. The key was recognizing the imminent stall. Some planes I flew had very little shake, rattle and roll or wing rock or "nibble". One had pronounced wing rock, one had a fair amount of "burble" and finally shaking before it departed. The Deuce had nothing but a "buzz" as it developed a healthy sink rate, but directional control was no problem although you could spin it if you tried hard enuf..

When I became an IP, I would point out the indications of an imminent stall as well as other characteristics of the plane - asking the student, " can you feel that?". Not surprisingly in the fighter/attack courses, most of my students caught on very easily and some recognized "bad" things without my help. A very few had to be nurtured, with some just depending upon attitude/airspeed scan rate. Those few would sometimes have problems adding/incorporating the other tasks as you have pointed out.

So I would add the "touch" attribute to the "natural" definition, LOM.

Gums opines...

[LOMCEVAK]

gums,

Thanks. My comment .. can detect errors in the flightpath very rapidly when they are still small and then has a valid muscle memory to make the required correcting control inputs. is, I think, what you are referring to as 'touch'. That is, intuitively they can apply the correct control displacements and forces to achieve the required response. In addition, they can use the control forces as part of the cues for feedback loop data. I guess that 'touch' or 'feel' is a simpler way of saying the same thing!

Rgds

L

[Pontius Navigator]

To touch could you add feel? The ability to jump in to a strange type but quickly hand!e that type?

[ORAC]

I have known a couple of reputedly highly competent FJ pilots who I did sometimes wonder if they had the mental capacity to fly and chew gum at the same time......

[ORAC]

MPN11, there's also that 4-dimensional awareness which is surely 'nature'. Back in the 80s there was a concerted effort to try and improve the FC course pass rate, which as ever hovered around 30%, so a lot of boffins were brought to do tests upon those qualified to find out why we succeeded where others failed and to produce, in their terms, "a mathematical model of a fighter controller".

Lots of fun ensued as they stuck helmets on our heads with lasers on stalks and shown lights in our eyes to see what we were looking at as we controlled as we were controllling, scan pattern, memory and spatial tests. Every now and then they made a major discovery of they were very proud and deigned to share with us - such as we looked at things that moved or changed rapidly more often than slow moving objects or information thN rarely changed. Who'da thunk it.

Eventually they discovered that, indeed, controllers had very high spatial awareness!!

So they then decided to follow a couple of courses through from start to finish and see if their theory was correct. All candidates were checked before starting and a puzzling thing was found, apart from a slight variation everyone was about the same. Then a strange thing happened, those who progressed were showed a higher and higher level whilst those who failed did not, until by the end those who qualified met the profile of those originally tested.

Nurture, not nature.

[gums]

Good point, Pont

"feel" works with "touch". One day I had a chunk of ice come loose in my intake shortly after takeoff. As I moved the throttle for rejoin I felt a vibration, and this was a few seconds after the thump of the large icecube, heh heh. So back to original throttle position, call flight for the abort and to see if engine gauges were showing weird things ( think Sully). The vibration was the biggie, and many folks I flew with would not have noticed. But having felt the "thump" 10 or 15 seconds before that, I was maybe more sensitive than normal. My original thot was a bird strike, but I could not see feathers on the leading edges and gear was already up.

I came around heavy weight using speed brakes for whatever they would do with my speed and left throttle where it was until on the runway. You know, "thanks God, I'll take over now."

Between 60 to 70 compressor/fan blades destroyed, missing or bent!!!!

So my view is "feel" is a player, and maybe the "touch" and muscular aspects LOM points out enable "execution" and the proper "response".

The absence of direct connections to the flight control surfaces since the 50's is/was a big thing for we fast movers. Until 90's, and even afterwards except for a few transport planes, no cables or pushrods. Nada. So our butt and "feel" of the airframe and the motor had to be decent.

The FBW sportscar I flew for almost 5 years was really a challenge, as not only was there no feedback, but the stick didn't move more than 1/16th inch and in the family model you could not "feel" or see what the nugget in the front seat was inputting. My salvation was having chased newbies about for 600 hours or so in the A-7D, where I was camped out on his wing close as I dared. I could only watch and experience with my own butt and such to offer advice. Made it lots easier for me later in the Viper.

Gums opines...

[LOMCEVAK]

PN,

The ability to jump from one type to another is something that has not been touched upon much here - adaptability. To me, this is the ability for a pilot to change his/her control input gains in order to achieve a desired response or to correct a detected flightpath error across different aircraft types. The control input differences between types is manifest as variations in the stick forces and displacements required to achieve a given response (the relationship between which varies between types and at different flight conditions) plus variations in the required application rate/frequency of control inputs. This all relates to the muscle memory aspects that I discussed previously and how quickly a pilot can learn and 'remember' a new set of gains. The adaptability of a pilot to switch from one type to another is definitely a strong function of natural ability. It can be taught/nurtured to an extent for most pilots but some will always find it difficult.

Multi-type flying has been my life for 37 years. The problem is that if someone has never done it they may not believe that it is possible to do it safely and well. For some pilots it is possible but you still have to work hard at it. How many types? I have stayed current to military regulations on 9 and simultaneously flown up to about other 6 types under different regulations, with a maximum of 4 in one day (covering 4-engine piston, modern fast-jet and WWII fighter). Golden days!

[MPN11]

ORAC ... ISTR around that time there was a bit of an 'instructor attitude problem' too. Where 'chopping' was the flavour of the day? Or was that just a nasty inter-Branch rumour?

[tarantonight]

PN,

The ability to jump from one type to another is something that has not been touched upon much here - adaptability. To me, this is the ability for a pilot to change his/her control input gains in order to achieve a desired response or to correct a detected flightpath error across different aircraft types. The control input differences between types is manifest as variations in the stick forces and displacements required to achieve a given response (the relationship between which varies between types and at different flight conditions) plus variations in the required application rate/frequency of control inputs. This all relates to the muscle memory aspects that I discussed previously and how quickly a pilot can learn and 'remember' a new set of gains. The adaptability of a pilot to switch from one type to another is definitely a strong function of natural ability. It can be taught/nurtured to an extent for most pilots but some will always find it difficult.

Multi-type flying has been my life for 37 years. The problem is that if someone has never done it they may not believe that it is possible to do it safely and well. For some pilots it is possible but you still have to work hard at it. How many types? I have stayed current to military regulations on 9 and simultaneously flown up to about other 6 types under different regulations, with a maximum of 4 in one day (covering 4-engine piston, modern fast-jet and WWII fighter). Golden days!

Many thanks LM, there have been some excellent replies, and I think you have easily matched those.

Additional thanks to all contributors, I'm impressed I have generated four pages of replies!

TN.

[ORAC]

ORAC ... ISTR around that time there was a bit of an 'instructor attitude problem' too. Where 'chopping' was the flavour of the day? Or was that just a nasty inter-Branch rumour? Not having instructed at the School I couldn't say - but as the LEO on unit who received the output, the standard was not particularly high.

Perhaps the major problem was that we were still teaching to the close control standard required for the Lightning which was still in service, and it was very demanding, whilst the airspace was becoming more and more congested. In comparison with the F3 era when the jets have far more SA due to data links, there were far less sorties and the job was far more assigning targets and coordination with air traffic, the jobs were almost totally different in comparison. Of course at that time you couldn't tell where you'd be posted or what you controlled at your home unit or on detachment, so everyone had to be able to do it.

Before I left close control had been dropped from the basic course and was taught as an add-on for experienced controllers for tours where they might need it. I imagine it is now just a distant memory.

Memory - U26A intercept Tgt M1.6, Ftr M1.8, 180 degree intercept with 26nm offset for conversion to a 90 cross ahead 8 miles with 1nm roll-out - and a radar with a 15 second rate of rotation, whilst coordinating with LATCC and Eastern on the traffic around, and trying to complete as close to the Binbrook dive arc as possible, whilst trying to maintain 30mm from the coast. The only advantage being the Ltg didn't have mode C....

[Monarch Man]

Thread drift...

Apart from yourselves or oneself, who was the best stick and rudder guy (girl if we are being PC) you ever saw or flew with?
Mine, years ago I had the chance to ride in a Ag aircraft whilst on holiday in of all places New Zealand. Having mentioned my background I was duly treated to such a magnificent and precise display of low level high AOA flying I was left almost speechless. The gentleman's name whom I shall not mention was a former single seater who also held a test pilot certificate in rotary-wing. In terms of being one with his machine it was fascinating to watch and I took a lot away and back to the Squadron from that 30 minute master class. The big thing was for me that military flying and aviators weren't the bee all and end all that Id thought we were.
Just a thought for you lot.

[LOMCEVAK]

Monarch Man,

An interesting thread drift! There are many facets to flying and I have always found that within any group of pilots, however talented they are, some are better than others at a given event. For example, aerobatics, formation flying, ACM, unguided weaponry. Therefore, I believe that it is not possible to ever name one 'best' pilot. However, I do agree with you in that some of the best stick-and-rudder pilots I have ever watched or flown with were not military or military trained.

[Herod]

One thing no-one has mentioned is the "sixth sense" that can come with experience.
Dark night, Twin-jet airliner. Light icing conditions. I "sensed" something wasn't quite right. The hairs on the back of my neck were almost standing up. A check of all engine, system and flight instruments showed all was normal, but the sensation would not go away. A check of the wing with the ice-light; all OK, anti-icing working normally. Only a short sector, and at top of descent there was a terrific vibration and the port engine warning for severe vibration lit up. Check list followed, and engine shut down. I was now quite calm and relieved. The unknown I had been waiting for had happened. An engineering check after landing revealed no damage. The engines were rear-mounted, and the only explanation anyone could come up with was that, although the wing leading-edge anti-icing was functioning, somehow a large chunk of ice had built up on the wing surface, and detached itself into the intake.
I was talking with one of the fleet trainers about it a couple of days later, and his comment was that experience can build up a feeling or "sixth sense" of problems, even when they are not detectable by normal means. Dunno, just saying.

[blimey]

In agreement with LOMCEVAK, so many different skills:

Low level, leading a balbo, harry doggers, winning the debrief, weaponeering, radar, HOTAS, recce, basic handling, formation, aeros, formation aeros, instrument flying, number 3 in the flat turn at Deci with the boss at 4.

Some naturally good at one, distinctly average at another; the odd bloke disconcertingly good at everything. Horses for courses. Though however able you were, you'd always be better at it if you were well nurtured.

Having then to perform under the pressure of someone shooting at you, I would imagine would bring its own challenges.

[SpazSinbad]

My own training experiences are long ago with some expression of them in the 'RAAF 50th Anniversary' thread. http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/588450-raaf-50th-reunion.html Interesting to me today are the new ways of RAAF training thusly COACH: 10 Apr 2017 (HEAPS more BUMPF at JUMP)
"...[SLDinfo] The RAAF has adopted a new approach, addressing physical, mental and cultural changes as the key means to get these results.
Air Combat Group Commander AirComm Roberton:
“Innovative training is about taking more of a coaching approach to the task. It is also about giving our trainees the mental and emotional tools to cope with the stress and the challenges to a better job of self-improvement as well.”

He argued that the sports business has provided a number of tools which the RAAF has adopted for fast jet pilot training, including a physical endurance training approach to handling G tolerance.

“It’s a change in mindset of our instructors as well. Some of our instructors now are involved far more in a coaching role, as opposed to just straight instruction.

“They are looking at helping pilots go though the process with far less of a ‘testing mindset’ as their primary focus of attention. [Caught me out a few times 50 years ago now] If you take the testing mindset out, people learn at different rates and you can accommodate that basic reality of teaching and learning.”... Shaping Cultural and Generational Change in the RAAF: The Perspective of Air Combat Group Commander Roberton | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-cultural-and-generational-change-in-the-raaf-the-perspective-of-air-combat-group-commander-roberton/)

[AQAfive]

OASC selection is really a case of convincing the chairman, the one in the middle, that on a cold damp February evening in the mess, he would find you interesting to chat to. As long as you pass the medical and any aptitude test, then his views are the important ones. The rest is window dressing, so they can write about why you failed to make the grade.

Many years ago a colleague decided to go for a branch commission. He was not only considered by his peers to be outstanding, the station commander, who had known him for some time, dispatched him with his personal recommendation. When he failed OASC because of a lack of leadership potential, his peers and superiors laughed at such a crass and wrong decision. When the Station Commander queried the decision of the board, especially as he had personally recommended the man, he was dismissed with the phrase that it was their decision and that was final.

So whether selection considers nature over nurture is really not an issue. As training progresses no doubt it becomes apparent and in truth we need a mixture of both. A team of leaders is not a team.

As an aside, I was selected for pilot training and as I was waiting for my OCTU course, the station air experience flight gave me a trip in a Chipmonk. Given the controls for the first time I grabbed the control column as if my life depended on it. The Chippy, of course, responded to my nervousness by trying to move in all planes of axis at once. Realising my plight the young pilot regained control explaining where I was going wrong. I must have missed his “you have control” announcement for as I was thinking about what to do with the column he announces “now you have got the idea”, I then realised the perfectly trimmed Chippy was flying by itself.

Guess I'm not a natural then. Oh and I failed OCTU so I never found out.

[oxenos]

The issue of who you accept and how much time you give them also depends on how many pilots you need V. how many people want to join.
When I finished on Jet Provosts in '63, we were streamed onto either Gnats for potential aces, or Varsities for the rest. Needless to.say I got Varsities.
Late 70's and I was the chalk and talk pilot on the Nimrod conversion course. At that time,after basic training, pilots were being sent to Hawks, or chopped. The pilots for the Nimrod course were either second tourists from other multis, or pilots who had been sent to the Hawk and not made the grade. I could not understand why those not considered for FJ were not being given the equivalent of the Varsity course.
As well as the normal conversion courses for the Nimrod, we would do quick acquaint courses for senior officers, so that they have some background on the aircraft.
On one of these I asked the SO why we were scrapping people after basic who might make multi pilots, given a suitable course. He had spent some time as a Fairly SO in the training world, so he was a good one to ask.
He told me that when I had joined, the cutoff for accepting someone for pilot training was 100 points on the Aircrew selection board's assessment, the average would have been 110, with one or two up at 125. Because fewer people were applying they had had to lower the acceptance level to get enough recruits. There had then been a juggling act, where if the level was set too low, hardly any of the extra ones recruited made the grade, but if it was set too high, you would be turning away some who might make it. They had therefore come up with the idea that those who got through basic would all be sent to Hawks, and those who didn't make it on the Hawk would be sent to a multi course.
His punch line was " the ones we chop at the end of basic would have trouble riding a f*****g bicycle"
Not long afterwards the effect of the end of the cold war meant that numbers required dropped drastically, so who knows what the entry standard became. ( He assured me that they had made sure that the assessment system itself did not alter)

[Rossian]

..... mentality caused the ME world to lose a lot of potentially good operators.

My experience was watching Nimrod QFIs spending a lot of time building up a young man's confidence. They had either washed out at Valley or in two cases who come to mind, a FJ OCU. Those two went on to become very good squadron captains then squadron commanders and station commanders.

One did need a stern talking-to in the back bar one night along the lines of "Listen matey you failed that course, get over it, stop harking back to "when I was on....." and start trying to become the best co-pilot you can be". He went on to do well and is a thoroughly nice chap with it. (Even though he's a pilot and VSO)

I speak as a non-pilot (as oxenos will no doubt attest to in a micrisec) but I watched a fair number of young men going through that evolution from down the back.

The Ancient Mariner

[Pontius Navigator]

TAM, WM per chance though I don't recall any bitching.

[Rossian]

..... a bit later than that. As an aside one of them asked to come off the OCU because he wasn't enjoying it although he was doing OK. The system answer was to send him to the shrinks at Wroughton not understanding why one wouldn't want to be a FJ pilot.
When it came to a big crew he had the unusual ability to get people to WANT to work for him. It was interesting to watch.

The Ancient Mariner

[Pontius Navigator]

Rossian, thank you. I do know another ex-F4 jock who had never really enjoyed the 'toom and had an accident at Gib despite telling the sqn cdr, a nav (aka smiling knife) that he needed more practise after his leave before deploying to Gib. I think he did very well on Nimrods.