Discrimination and Prejudice alive and well in the RAF
This belief that people a 'born' aviators is bolleaux - training and exposure create aircrew so actually you can 'teach ability'.
My major role as a SAR QHI on an operational Sqn was to take pilots just out of the training pipeline and turn them into operational SAR Captains - that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time both to hone handling skills (and teach new ones) and teach decision-making, prioritisation and CRM.
The same happens in all front-line Sqns/OCUs - you take the raw material from the training system - guys and girls who can fly (some better than others) - and turn them into proper pilots.
Most will tell you that although flying training was hard, the real learning and raising of ability occurred after they got their wings.
My major role as a SAR QHI on an operational Sqn was to take pilots just out of the training pipeline and turn them into operational SAR Captains - that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time both to hone handling skills (and teach new ones) and teach decision-making, prioritisation and CRM.
The same happens in all front-line Sqns/OCUs - you take the raw material from the training system - guys and girls who can fly (some better than others) - and turn them into proper pilots.
Most will tell you that although flying training was hard, the real learning and raising of ability occurred after they got their wings.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
This belief that people a 'born' aviators is bolleaux - training and exposure create aircrew so actually you can 'teach ability'.
My major role as a SAR QHI on an operational Sqn was to take pilots just out of the training pipeline and turn them into operational SAR Captains - that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time both to hone handling skills (and teach new ones) and teach decision-making, prioritisation and CRM.
The same happens in all front-line Sqns/OCUs - you take the raw material from the training system - guys and girls who can fly (some better than others) - and turn them into proper pilots.
Most will tell you that although flying training was hard, the real learning and raising of ability occurred after they got their wings.
My major role as a SAR QHI on an operational Sqn was to take pilots just out of the training pipeline and turn them into operational SAR Captains - that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time both to hone handling skills (and teach new ones) and teach decision-making, prioritisation and CRM.
The same happens in all front-line Sqns/OCUs - you take the raw material from the training system - guys and girls who can fly (some better than others) - and turn them into proper pilots.
Most will tell you that although flying training was hard, the real learning and raising of ability occurred after they got their wings.
Of course you can. Before being taught they are unable (to read or to fly etc... ) after learning they are able. You can also teach a skill (flying, forgery etc...) Not everyone can reach the same level though, aptitude and dedication play large parts.
Are you suggesting you could teach a pig to fly? Not too much ability there, or is there?
"You can teach a Monkey to ride a bike, but you won't be able teach it to read much in the way of road signs".
End of.
"You can teach a Monkey to ride a bike, but you won't be able teach it to read much in the way of road signs".
End of.
A totally spurious line of argument, not worth a moment longer than to condemn it.
This belief that people a 'born' aviators is bolleaux - training and exposure create aircrew so actually you can 'teach ability'.
I agree completely with you that the product of the training system is unfinished and that further training and exposure are required to extract whatever performance the individual has within them. Whatever the raw talent (ability or aptitude) someone has, it is meaningless without that training. Whatever the semantics of the argument, I think we can probably also agree that flying instruction is not an activity that should be entrusted to those who have failed to make sufficient progress towards higher levels of proficiency. At its most basic level, you need to put good (ie competent) people into training roles. Garbage in, garbage out!
Fortissimo - you don't allow for the late developers - I've seen plenty of pilots blossom later than some of their - initially - more able peers and go on to surpass them.
If that isn't an increase in ability born of practise and hard work, I don't know what is.
The difference is that the more able student often progresses faster and certainly that seems to be the benchmark for FJ selection - it is a useful metric but doesn't cover all bases.
yes, I concur but some of the worst instructors are those who found the whole thing too easy and then struggle to deal with a less gifted student.
Anyway we seem to have gone off-topic a bit now...
If that isn't an increase in ability born of practise and hard work, I don't know what is.
The difference is that the more able student often progresses faster and certainly that seems to be the benchmark for FJ selection - it is a useful metric but doesn't cover all bases.
I think we can probably also agree that flying instruction is not an activity that should be entrusted to those who have failed to make sufficient progress towards higher levels of proficiency.
Anyway we seem to have gone off-topic a bit now...
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Fortissimo - you don't allow for the late developers - I've seen plenty of pilots blossom later than some of their - initially - more able peers and go on to surpass them.
If that isn't an increase in ability born of practise and hard work, I don't know what is.
The difference is that the more able student often progresses faster and certainly that seems to be the benchmark for FJ selection - it is a useful metric but doesn't cover all bases.
yes, I concur but some of the worst instructors are those who found the whole thing too easy and then struggle to deal with a less gifted student.
Anyway we seem to have gone off-topic a bit now...
If that isn't an increase in ability born of practise and hard work, I don't know what is.
The difference is that the more able student often progresses faster and certainly that seems to be the benchmark for FJ selection - it is a useful metric but doesn't cover all bases.
yes, I concur but some of the worst instructors are those who found the whole thing too easy and then struggle to deal with a less gifted student.
Anyway we seem to have gone off-topic a bit now...
Also agree on those naturally gifted not all making good instructors. They lack the experience and empathy to understand the struggling student. I remember one in particular who just could not understand what was apparently so obvious, to him, why his student could not get it.
Agree with a but. The slow progress' are often weeded out due to rate of learning. Nothing to say that they could not have made the grade with more time but that in itself is an indicator of potential. Of all the suspended students that I have seen there is probably a good 50% that could have passed given more time. In fact I would say I could get 90% of the students across the line if given the time but in a lot of those cases that just passes the problem onto the squadrons. Rate of learning in itself is a significant indicator.
Also agree on those naturally gifted not all making good instructors. They lack the experience and empathy to understand the struggling student. I remember one in particular who just could not understand what was apparently so obvious, to him, why his student could not get it.
Also agree on those naturally gifted not all making good instructors. They lack the experience and empathy to understand the struggling student. I remember one in particular who just could not understand what was apparently so obvious, to him, why his student could not get it.
A person may be an ace at their trade, but if they can't put it across/teach it on to the student, they aren't the people to mark as trainers IMHO. We are all aware there is a lot of psychology involved in this sought of teaching, instructing or training. One either has it or they don't.
Finestkind - you are right and it is probably the difference between FJ and RW streams - in the RW world we are happier to invest more time and effort in what is already a well-trained product - the FJ world seems to have always been happy to be a funnel with a big top and a very small bottom so that only the quickest assimilators of skills get through.
Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more
This starts at OASC - or whatever it is called today - I was informed by one of their staff that just passing aptitude tests wasn't enough any more - they were only recruiting from those who score in excess of 30 points above the pass mark.
Trouble is, as I'm sure someone will point out, the training system has been fiddled with and slowed down too many times and is only just (certainly on the RW side) starting to function properly.
Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more
This starts at OASC - or whatever it is called today - I was informed by one of their staff that just passing aptitude tests wasn't enough any more - they were only recruiting from those who score in excess of 30 points above the pass mark.
Trouble is, as I'm sure someone will point out, the training system has been fiddled with and slowed down too many times and is only just (certainly on the RW side) starting to function properly.
"Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more"
This is of course the point - the Pre-1937 RAF was very much an elite organisation who only recruited a very small number of flying crew
When you're losing 4-5% of your bomber crews in every operation you take a different view on what is "acceptable"
If the RAF were suddenly given the money to buy and operate 200 F-35's you'd see a sudden drop in the pass marks all round
Standards are not absolutes - they exist to produce ENOUGH people
This is of course the point - the Pre-1937 RAF was very much an elite organisation who only recruited a very small number of flying crew
When you're losing 4-5% of your bomber crews in every operation you take a different view on what is "acceptable"
If the RAF were suddenly given the money to buy and operate 200 F-35's you'd see a sudden drop in the pass marks all round
Standards are not absolutes - they exist to produce ENOUGH people
"Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more "
You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
"You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
Last edited by RichardJones; 11th May 2022 at 11:53.
"Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more "
You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
"You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
the academics qualification is the very first step. Then comes CBAT. Once the results from that come through and IF you are successful with OASC, then it’s MIOT. Only then, if successful, do you attend EFT after ground trg.
You might have 10 A levels but if you don’t pass the pilot aptitude part of the CBAT, then you won’t even be considered for that. Perhaps another role but only after passing OASC and then MIOT.
Conversely, you may only have the bare minimum academic requirement for pilot but ace the pilot CBAT. Even then, you may fail OASC or MIOT.
Discrimination is absolutely never a factor.
"Personally I think this is a waste of manpower and our obsession with having the best of the best is not very efficient - lucky we don't have many cockpits to fill any more "
You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
"You mean the "best of the best" that made the cut at the academic qualifications stage.
Discrimination?
Call it discrimination if you wish or a filter. When you have more applying than possibly can be processed than a simple filter such as min education required is applied. Medical standards is another. Both these can be eased or increased reasonably simply. Both of these have been eased to what they once where in the ADF . From the applicants side you can improve your education and there are some medical medical requirements that have changed plus either correct or challenge.
RJ
the academics qualification is the very first step. Then comes CBAT. Once the results from that come through and IF you are successful with OASC, then it’s MIOT. Only then, if successful, do you attend EFT after ground trg.
You might have 10 A levels but if you don’t pass the pilot aptitude part of the CBAT, then you won’t even be considered for that. Perhaps another role but only after passing OASC and then MIOT.
Conversely, you may only have the bare minimum academic requirement for pilot but ace the pilot CBAT. Even then, you may fail OASC or MIOT.
Discrimination is absolutely never a factor.
the academics qualification is the very first step. Then comes CBAT. Once the results from that come through and IF you are successful with OASC, then it’s MIOT. Only then, if successful, do you attend EFT after ground trg.
You might have 10 A levels but if you don’t pass the pilot aptitude part of the CBAT, then you won’t even be considered for that. Perhaps another role but only after passing OASC and then MIOT.
Conversely, you may only have the bare minimum academic requirement for pilot but ace the pilot CBAT. Even then, you may fail OASC or MIOT.
Discrimination is absolutely never a factor.
I am also aware, the person who has paid attention during formal education and achieved the academic qualifications, deserve the privileges. Not sow grapes.
Unfortunately for me I was never able to settle down at school. I have known one or 2, go back to night school to get qualified. Good for them too.
Considering recent goings on in the Ukraine, FJ jockeys for e.g., aren't being utilised to the same extent as in previous heavy debates. The military can really be choosy.
In historical context, a very good filter for enlistment before the Great War was height. Very simple: if you needed more [voluntary] men, you lowered the height, and vice versa. The Foot Guards minimum height standard changed more often than I change my socks.
FB
Actually this theory is incorrect not because of the apptitude of the average pig you're likely to encounter, but rather because it is equipped with trotters and not human style hands. Therefore, I believe pigs to lack the require level of dexterity, and not forgetting their ability to reach instruments in the cockpit/flightdeck etc, this would pose another obstacle to pigs getting their pilots' brevet. Furthermore, there is the question of speech, a pig and other animals may be able to understand and receive complex instructions, but they would be a liability in the air simply because they are unable to form words, in any known human language. Except for Sausages, and only then when aided with a human finger.
FB
FB
Last edited by RichardJones; 14th May 2022 at 00:37.