RAF Instructors - steely eyed or gentle and supportive ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we follow llamaman's theory through to its logical conclusion, are we saying that only a government member can judge a politician? Only a referee can judge a foul.....
I have not been and I strongly suspect never will be CFS accredited, however I do have a lot of experience being trained!
I have been taught by all three British services (4 if you include the RM) in Fast jet, Multis and rotary, plus two foreign militaries.
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)
I think that gives me a valid viewpoint on training.
In case anybody is interested, I think the Army does the best ground school by far, the RAF the best BFT and the RN the best and worst OFTs I've seen.
Out of interest beardy, which version of the CFS type training were you trained by?
The bad old version or the new version?
Both are widely copied and consider/considered themselves to be the pinnacle of training excellence.
They are very different, so both can't be right.
I think nowadays the focus is too much on scorable technical skills which are easy to put on a graph rather than a well rounded competent aviator who can think out of the box.
At the end of the day nobody is arguing that bullying is good.
You could in fact define bullying training as any training that is too aggressive to produce positive overall training benefits.
The contention is merely what is considered bullying rather than robust training, and that line has moved an enormous amount in the last 20 years as far as CFS is concerned.
I don't happen to agree.
I have not been and I strongly suspect never will be CFS accredited, however I do have a lot of experience being trained!
I have been taught by all three British services (4 if you include the RM) in Fast jet, Multis and rotary, plus two foreign militaries.
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)
I think that gives me a valid viewpoint on training.
In case anybody is interested, I think the Army does the best ground school by far, the RAF the best BFT and the RN the best and worst OFTs I've seen.
Out of interest beardy, which version of the CFS type training were you trained by?
The bad old version or the new version?
Both are widely copied and consider/considered themselves to be the pinnacle of training excellence.
They are very different, so both can't be right.
I think nowadays the focus is too much on scorable technical skills which are easy to put on a graph rather than a well rounded competent aviator who can think out of the box.
At the end of the day nobody is arguing that bullying is good.
You could in fact define bullying training as any training that is too aggressive to produce positive overall training benefits.
The contention is merely what is considered bullying rather than robust training, and that line has moved an enormous amount in the last 20 years as far as CFS is concerned.
I don't happen to agree.
Last edited by Tourist; 25th Oct 2015 at 10:04.
Dear Mum,
It's the end of week four in the Army for me and I don't like it very much. I'm sorry I haven't written sooner, but our Sargeant says we're not really allowed. I think that's against my human rights. He said I haven't got any, which is so unfair.
I think our Sergeant is quite nasty because he shouts all the time and expects us to do everything he says even if we don't want to. Sometimes he shouts at us in front of other people, which is very humiliating. He makes us carry all our own stuff even when it's too heavy. He never helps us with our stuff. I told him my back hurts, but he didn't listen. He made me do press ups in front of everyone and called me names. I think that's against my human rights.
I'm very unhappy because we never get enough sleep. We have to do all our own cleaning very late at night and then get up very early. I wish you were here to do some cleaning. When we clean our room, the nasty man says we haven't done it and we have to do it again. I don't like getting up early, I think it's my right to have enough sleep.
We have to shoot guns as well, which I think is dead stupid. They are very heavy to carry and much too loud. He always shouts at us because he says they're not clean enough. He took my iPhone away because my gun wasn't clean. That's well out of order and against my human rights.
I want to ask to come home, but the Sargent won't let me. He said I wouldn't be allowed to go home if there was a war. It's so wrong. He told me to grow a pair, but I don't know what he means.
I miss you and want to come home.
Kevin.
It's the end of week four in the Army for me and I don't like it very much. I'm sorry I haven't written sooner, but our Sargeant says we're not really allowed. I think that's against my human rights. He said I haven't got any, which is so unfair.
I think our Sergeant is quite nasty because he shouts all the time and expects us to do everything he says even if we don't want to. Sometimes he shouts at us in front of other people, which is very humiliating. He makes us carry all our own stuff even when it's too heavy. He never helps us with our stuff. I told him my back hurts, but he didn't listen. He made me do press ups in front of everyone and called me names. I think that's against my human rights.
I'm very unhappy because we never get enough sleep. We have to do all our own cleaning very late at night and then get up very early. I wish you were here to do some cleaning. When we clean our room, the nasty man says we haven't done it and we have to do it again. I don't like getting up early, I think it's my right to have enough sleep.
We have to shoot guns as well, which I think is dead stupid. They are very heavy to carry and much too loud. He always shouts at us because he says they're not clean enough. He took my iPhone away because my gun wasn't clean. That's well out of order and against my human rights.
I want to ask to come home, but the Sargent won't let me. He said I wouldn't be allowed to go home if there was a war. It's so wrong. He told me to grow a pair, but I don't know what he means.
I miss you and want to come home.
Kevin.
I have been taught by all three British services (4 if you include the RM) in Fast jet, Multis and rotary, plus two foreign militaries.
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)
I have also been trained by various corporate trainers like CAE and FlightSafety and airline training departments.
(I've even been taught by BEagle!)
Abdg, have a heart. It was perhaps 30 years ago but I remember it was about AAC Lynx instructors and students. I don't for one moment believe she meant at a first meeting but certainly early on on the system.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Take a crash course in why we got thrashed in the sandpits.
Try reading "Losing Small Wars" and "Investment in Blood", both by Frank Ledwidge.
Then you may realise it had little to do with the troops/flyers/sailors and their support staff and more to do with the top brass, heavily overpaid and undertalented?
Take a crash course in why we got thrashed in the sandpits.
Try reading "Losing Small Wars" and "Investment in Blood", both by Frank Ledwidge.
Then you may realise it had little to do with the troops/flyers/sailors and their support staff and more to do with the top brass, heavily overpaid and undertalented?
From beardy,
Thanks for that. Of course I didn't mean that CFS are the authority on all things instructing. Far from it, and I personally took issue with the way they did a lot of things. If my comment came across as arrogant it certainly wasn't meant to.
My point was that to be fully informed on the issue you are much better placed if you have experienced things from both sides of the fence, it's called empathy. I think that is a fair assumption.
I think you will find Llamaman was saying by 'a la' was 'in the style of'. In which case I agree with him. Having taught flying and other practical skills 'a la' CFS I have found their technique very good and in use by other armed forces worldwide. CM, you probably, unwittingly, used their basic techniques, which would explain your success.
My point was that to be fully informed on the issue you are much better placed if you have experienced things from both sides of the fence, it's called empathy. I think that is a fair assumption.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Way up in the clouds
Age: 42
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a currently-teaching, CFS-qual'd QFI now on exchange I can say with no shred of doubt that however bad Tourist may believe that the current training pipeline is, that it is a whole pile better than a large number of the alternatives utilised by our allies. This includes those based on our own CFS style but that have gone a long way further down the path of "numbers only, no opinions" than ours.
What we have is not perfect, but having seen a number of different options I still maintain that it is the best available. That said, it isn't as good as the corporate mentality at CFS thinks it is - the corporate (not individual) arrogance that pervades CFS stops it from continuing to improve as quickly as it should at times.
As regards the quality of training, don't confuse different approaches with different standards. I'd suggest that in my own realm of experience (SH/SF Support) that we are training guys to do things as a matter of routine on the line Sqns that weren't even possible 10-15 years ago, never mind the preserve of SF-only crews. The fact that they are conducting this effectively and for the most part safely should speak volumes about the quality of the training system delivering them.
Nothing is ever as good as it could be, but that doesn't mean it used to better either. Just because it isn't how it was when you went through doesn't mean everyone else isn't as good as you were. And if that's your view and you haven't done something to fix the problem, then you ARE the problem.
What we have is not perfect, but having seen a number of different options I still maintain that it is the best available. That said, it isn't as good as the corporate mentality at CFS thinks it is - the corporate (not individual) arrogance that pervades CFS stops it from continuing to improve as quickly as it should at times.
As regards the quality of training, don't confuse different approaches with different standards. I'd suggest that in my own realm of experience (SH/SF Support) that we are training guys to do things as a matter of routine on the line Sqns that weren't even possible 10-15 years ago, never mind the preserve of SF-only crews. The fact that they are conducting this effectively and for the most part safely should speak volumes about the quality of the training system delivering them.
Nothing is ever as good as it could be, but that doesn't mean it used to better either. Just because it isn't how it was when you went through doesn't mean everyone else isn't as good as you were. And if that's your view and you haven't done something to fix the problem, then you ARE the problem.
Llamaman,
No, I did not say your comment was arrogant. The arrogance I was referring to was the CFS attitude - or more correctly a perception of such and the attitude that some folk here are talking about.
Now that you phrase it like that, I see the point you are making. Two sides to every story. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those from one side cannot form a valid opinion of the other. I have formed opinions of doctors I have seen without ever training as a doctor. I didn't need that training to know a couple of them were utter arses. May have been perfectly well qualified doctors, but such appealing bedside manners (as I believe it's called) that they were totally ineffective as people supposed to care for people, their wellbeing and their health.
But here's the difference. As a "patient" I was a customer of a service that I pay for. But as a student I was a willing competitor in a military training regime and being trained not just to fly hardware, but also to use it for a deadly purpose. As a patient, I expect to be treated with compassion and to get whatever treatment I require (as long as NICE has decided the price is worth it). A a student I expected to be challenged to learn at the appropriate rate and also to prove that I had the mettle to do the job that may required of me.
Yes, there is no place for outright bullying. But there is a requirement for students to show that have a degree of fortitude as potential future warfighters.
Going back to your point about seeing both sides. We all know that there are, supposedly, no guilty people in prison. Most, it seems, are victims of some travesty. I've heard a lot of accounts of bad instructional technique from guys who's sorties didn't go well.
P.S. As an instructor, I did once write "DNCO Instructor" in the auth sheets when I really felt that I had not done my job properly. That raised some eyebrows.
Jumpjumpjohn,
I'm not sure you've properly understood the thrust of Tourist's remarks.
No, I did not say your comment was arrogant. The arrogance I was referring to was the CFS attitude - or more correctly a perception of such and the attitude that some folk here are talking about.
Now that you phrase it like that, I see the point you are making. Two sides to every story. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those from one side cannot form a valid opinion of the other. I have formed opinions of doctors I have seen without ever training as a doctor. I didn't need that training to know a couple of them were utter arses. May have been perfectly well qualified doctors, but such appealing bedside manners (as I believe it's called) that they were totally ineffective as people supposed to care for people, their wellbeing and their health.
But here's the difference. As a "patient" I was a customer of a service that I pay for. But as a student I was a willing competitor in a military training regime and being trained not just to fly hardware, but also to use it for a deadly purpose. As a patient, I expect to be treated with compassion and to get whatever treatment I require (as long as NICE has decided the price is worth it). A a student I expected to be challenged to learn at the appropriate rate and also to prove that I had the mettle to do the job that may required of me.
Yes, there is no place for outright bullying. But there is a requirement for students to show that have a degree of fortitude as potential future warfighters.
Going back to your point about seeing both sides. We all know that there are, supposedly, no guilty people in prison. Most, it seems, are victims of some travesty. I've heard a lot of accounts of bad instructional technique from guys who's sorties didn't go well.
P.S. As an instructor, I did once write "DNCO Instructor" in the auth sheets when I really felt that I had not done my job properly. That raised some eyebrows.
Jumpjumpjohn,
I'm not sure you've properly understood the thrust of Tourist's remarks.
Tourist, were you one of the RW pilots who came to the Brize Flying Club to obtain their PPLs?
All were fine, although one chap found that landing a SpamCan at 65 KIAS, on something that was 10000 ft long but wasn't moving, was somewhat different to landing from a hover on a postage stamp on the back of one of HM's grey war canoes battling the briny - so we did the circuit part of his Skill Test again.
I couldn't resist bursting into laughter when I did the diversion element of the Skill Test with one FAA chap - he kept producing various plotting jobbers of increasing complexity from behind him and I half expected a parallel rule and dividers to appear from his Pusser's grip, plus probably a lodestone and quadrant staff. Most people simply used the edge of the checklist and a chinagraph to draw the track, then the miles scale and a convenient VOR rose to assess distance and track.... But this latter-day Nelson managed to fly the aeroplane whilst making his plan with fiendish accuracy and as a result we arrived at the diversion spot on his ETA.
All were fine, although one chap found that landing a SpamCan at 65 KIAS, on something that was 10000 ft long but wasn't moving, was somewhat different to landing from a hover on a postage stamp on the back of one of HM's grey war canoes battling the briny - so we did the circuit part of his Skill Test again.
I couldn't resist bursting into laughter when I did the diversion element of the Skill Test with one FAA chap - he kept producing various plotting jobbers of increasing complexity from behind him and I half expected a parallel rule and dividers to appear from his Pusser's grip, plus probably a lodestone and quadrant staff. Most people simply used the edge of the checklist and a chinagraph to draw the track, then the miles scale and a convenient VOR rose to assess distance and track.... But this latter-day Nelson managed to fly the aeroplane whilst making his plan with fiendish accuracy and as a result we arrived at the diversion spot on his ETA.
I flew with a couple of those guys.
The biggest problems with my BFT course was instructor continuity. I went from the CFI, to a FJ psychopath, to a jolly nice C130 chap (who bemoaned the lack of tea making facilities in the JP), to a creamie (younger than me and who couldn't understand the concept of being just 'average'); to another FJ pilot (ex Harrier and the best pilot I have ever flown with but again, some problems with the 'average' concept); to another C130 pilot (who was further behind the aircraft than me); then to another creamie (good - and sympathetic to my plight), then another FJ pilot - who really didn't want to be there. Finally, I got a really good instructor (ex Shacks and one of the nicest guys you could possibly wish to fly with) who I learned the most from - but unfortunately, too late. For most of the course, I didn't have a clear idea of what I was trying to achieve as a lot of my energy and capacity was taken up with trying to adapt to different instruction styles. I got re-streamed to Group 2 at the end of BFT and I still consider that it was largely the system that failed and not necessarily me.
I'm not complaining - I had a fantastic time in the AAR world (I got to fly with BEagle!) and I wouldn't have had it any other way. But I learned a lot from the bad experiences and decided that if I ever became a QFI, I would model my instructional technique on the excellent ex-Shackleton guy's. A good decision, as six years later - he awarded me my A2!
The problems I encountered had largely disappeared when I became a QFI - there had been a wind change and the training environment had improved massively. We got far more from the students by being more sympathetic, but without lowering standards. In fact, the general consensus was that standards had improved. It's a similar situation to that at a public school. I got bullied because my seniors were bullied when they were juniors. This situation persisted until one day, someone decided that things had to change.
One interesting aspect of my career is that I'm still in touch with lots of my ex-students, whereas I'm only in contact with one of my ex-instructors.
The biggest problems with my BFT course was instructor continuity. I went from the CFI, to a FJ psychopath, to a jolly nice C130 chap (who bemoaned the lack of tea making facilities in the JP), to a creamie (younger than me and who couldn't understand the concept of being just 'average'); to another FJ pilot (ex Harrier and the best pilot I have ever flown with but again, some problems with the 'average' concept); to another C130 pilot (who was further behind the aircraft than me); then to another creamie (good - and sympathetic to my plight), then another FJ pilot - who really didn't want to be there. Finally, I got a really good instructor (ex Shacks and one of the nicest guys you could possibly wish to fly with) who I learned the most from - but unfortunately, too late. For most of the course, I didn't have a clear idea of what I was trying to achieve as a lot of my energy and capacity was taken up with trying to adapt to different instruction styles. I got re-streamed to Group 2 at the end of BFT and I still consider that it was largely the system that failed and not necessarily me.
I'm not complaining - I had a fantastic time in the AAR world (I got to fly with BEagle!) and I wouldn't have had it any other way. But I learned a lot from the bad experiences and decided that if I ever became a QFI, I would model my instructional technique on the excellent ex-Shackleton guy's. A good decision, as six years later - he awarded me my A2!
The problems I encountered had largely disappeared when I became a QFI - there had been a wind change and the training environment had improved massively. We got far more from the students by being more sympathetic, but without lowering standards. In fact, the general consensus was that standards had improved. It's a similar situation to that at a public school. I got bullied because my seniors were bullied when they were juniors. This situation persisted until one day, someone decided that things had to change.
One interesting aspect of my career is that I'm still in touch with lots of my ex-students, whereas I'm only in contact with one of my ex-instructors.
Hi Dan, all well in HK?
I refused to do my A2 while there was no laid down syllabus of theoretical knowledge - tales of the "I'll always know more than you do" style of BSS (that's Bulldog Standards Sqn - or should it be 'BS' Sqn?) and one miserable so-and-so's obsession with weird and wonderful aspects of world climatology were enough to put me off.
But then it changed - a syllabus appeared, so I studied for it (having just worked for my civil Air Law 1 & 2 had put me back into a learning frame of mind). They hadn't made it clear that part of the syllabus was for the JP only, so the theory behind a machmeter, while not of direct relevance to the Bulldog, was included.... A line had been missed from the CFS book, so one poor old BSS QFI, studying for his A1, had been thoroughly perplexed. I explained that this was the relation between density and static pressure, hence substituting for ρ in the equation would lead to the next line of theory. He was so thankful that the rest of my A2 groundschool check was a breeze - but the flying wasn't a lot of fun with some of the grumpier QFIs. Whereas in contrast, the actual A2 check at Scampton with Exam Wing was actually quite fun and I was lucky to get a first time pass.
The CFS techniques stood me in good stead for later ground and part-task trainer instruction for AAR conversion of crews from a couple of air forces onto their new aircraft - so no matter what people might think (as I used to before I did CFS), that 4-colour pen lobotomy is an extremely valuable asset!
And remember, LOOkout, Attitude, Instruments!
I refused to do my A2 while there was no laid down syllabus of theoretical knowledge - tales of the "I'll always know more than you do" style of BSS (that's Bulldog Standards Sqn - or should it be 'BS' Sqn?) and one miserable so-and-so's obsession with weird and wonderful aspects of world climatology were enough to put me off.
But then it changed - a syllabus appeared, so I studied for it (having just worked for my civil Air Law 1 & 2 had put me back into a learning frame of mind). They hadn't made it clear that part of the syllabus was for the JP only, so the theory behind a machmeter, while not of direct relevance to the Bulldog, was included.... A line had been missed from the CFS book, so one poor old BSS QFI, studying for his A1, had been thoroughly perplexed. I explained that this was the relation between density and static pressure, hence substituting for ρ in the equation would lead to the next line of theory. He was so thankful that the rest of my A2 groundschool check was a breeze - but the flying wasn't a lot of fun with some of the grumpier QFIs. Whereas in contrast, the actual A2 check at Scampton with Exam Wing was actually quite fun and I was lucky to get a first time pass.
The CFS techniques stood me in good stead for later ground and part-task trainer instruction for AAR conversion of crews from a couple of air forces onto their new aircraft - so no matter what people might think (as I used to before I did CFS), that 4-colour pen lobotomy is an extremely valuable asset!
And remember, LOOkout, Attitude, Instruments!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullying instructors...
...early in my flying training (sortie2) I had a MAeOP (probably the one that Adam Nams mentioned) as my man. He sat down beside me, took the fire axe off the wall and plonked it on the desk between us.
Me Brand new P/O stripe barely visible"What's that for?" I had the sense to say it on i/c.
Him "When you fook oop I clatter you on the bonedome wi' the flat bit"
...early in my flying training (sortie2) I had a MAeOP (probably the one that Adam Nams mentioned) as my man. He sat down beside me, took the fire axe off the wall and plonked it on the desk between us.
Me Brand new P/O stripe barely visible"What's that for?" I had the sense to say it on i/c.
Him "When you fook oop I clatter you on the bonedome wi' the flat bit"
Should have chopped him when you had the chance lol!
They did chop me in the end. When I subsequently went to be a 'VFW' at Scampton, I wondered whether they had a 'soft man / hard man' type of instruction - student life was so much easier than it had been a Honington and I kept waiting for the 'hard man' to appear.
I hadn't realised how humourless and ill-informed so many pontificating pc contributors are.
Violence to students. A tap on the bone dome to get him to look at the aircraft he is formating on, is not violence. Ever tried to do more than that when shoulder to shoulder in a JP? Sometimes tempted to try when the post lunch diced carrot was rattling onto your left sleeve.
It is easy to forget there were probably more students in one small FTS in the early 60s than there are now total pilots in the whole RAF. It was a sausage machine but we tried to produce gourmet sausages.
Though the CFS system was intensely boring to learn, it worked.
The vast majority of QFIs were doing the job from choice and CFS could be quite picky as to who went there. Even the creamies, whom one might have expected to be a bit disappointed, were keen on the job. Don't know if that changed later.
Can't remember a student asking for an instructor change but if we were having trouble getting the message across the first resort was to let someone else have a go.
The selection system was by no means perfect. Remember sitting at the back of the student crew room as a new course marched in and hoping the one swinging left arm and left leg together was not going to be one of mine. Some courses lost quite a few, others no chops at all. Most went in the early general handling or IF stage thus saving large amounts of money. In my student days we started with 17 and finished with 11.
The object was to produce as good a pilot as possible from a course that became increasingly difficult with ever higher standards required. There was very little slack in the hours permitted to achieve those standards. If you couldn't cope in a JP, such an easy, forgiving aircraft, you were not going to cope at the next stage.
Think all my students survived and a couple of years ago at a 70th birthday I was thanked by a student from 50 years earlier. Surprised and gratified. We were not intolerant monsters nor were we fluffy cuddly mollycoddlers.
Violence to students. A tap on the bone dome to get him to look at the aircraft he is formating on, is not violence. Ever tried to do more than that when shoulder to shoulder in a JP? Sometimes tempted to try when the post lunch diced carrot was rattling onto your left sleeve.
It is easy to forget there were probably more students in one small FTS in the early 60s than there are now total pilots in the whole RAF. It was a sausage machine but we tried to produce gourmet sausages.
Though the CFS system was intensely boring to learn, it worked.
The vast majority of QFIs were doing the job from choice and CFS could be quite picky as to who went there. Even the creamies, whom one might have expected to be a bit disappointed, were keen on the job. Don't know if that changed later.
Can't remember a student asking for an instructor change but if we were having trouble getting the message across the first resort was to let someone else have a go.
The selection system was by no means perfect. Remember sitting at the back of the student crew room as a new course marched in and hoping the one swinging left arm and left leg together was not going to be one of mine. Some courses lost quite a few, others no chops at all. Most went in the early general handling or IF stage thus saving large amounts of money. In my student days we started with 17 and finished with 11.
The object was to produce as good a pilot as possible from a course that became increasingly difficult with ever higher standards required. There was very little slack in the hours permitted to achieve those standards. If you couldn't cope in a JP, such an easy, forgiving aircraft, you were not going to cope at the next stage.
Think all my students survived and a couple of years ago at a 70th birthday I was thanked by a student from 50 years earlier. Surprised and gratified. We were not intolerant monsters nor were we fluffy cuddly mollycoddlers.
Quietplease wrote:
Why on earth would you ever need to do that? Distracting your student during close formation and taking your own hand away from the controls seems bŁoody stupid to me.
A tap on the bone dome to get him to look at the aircraft he is formating on, is not violence.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Think all my students survived
