Bigpants and DCF
 

Agree with your points. Small point of order - I was on Paul Gay's course and don't think he would be considered as a wxxxxr or up for the chop, either or both of which could be misconstrued from yr posts.

As for being punched by a QFI, my German F104 exchange QFI used to do this on occasions, suggesting that I could do with more muscle there to help counteract the g force in his aeros. I liked him, so put up with it without too much fretting.

Good thread.. :ok:
I'd forgotten all about the rarely discussed topic of 'punchy' squadron commanders but this thread brought to mind my first sqn cdr who would enter the crew room and punch the nearest individual with his back turned to him.. Interesting to see the responses.. people would whirl around with a clenched fist - only to unclench it and 'smile' when they realised it was only their friendly neighbourhood sqn cdr.

deltahotel, my comments were not aimed at any person, and certainly would never denigrate Paul's memory, I merely stated the thoughts of one particular guy from that time. I trust any confusion is clarified.

DCF. Thnx. I didn't read that into yr post, but could see how it could have been from yr link to Bigpants post. Probably being overly sensitive.

Rgds

Where do I start here? This could run to 20 pages...... Ok the short version.
I was a very very weak student who scraped into rotary, scraped combat ready and then found instructing was great. I ended up as a CFS Sqn Cdr ffs!
Some of my instructors were basically tools, who didn't understand that some people were not naturals. On JPs, no teaching took place, initially it was read the book, why can't you do it? Steve Petherick then saved me with a 5 flight 'Crammer' before FHT. Shawbury was better, but The Puma OCU was shocking!
I still struggle to this day being civil to my old instructors. The mentality was see how much it takes to break them. The percentage of JPilots not getting CR in the Puma force was rediculous.
Then I met the finest instructor that I have ever seen, Jack Robson. Along with a great bunch of crewmen, he mentored me, it finally clicked into place. Jack said that I should instruct, because I would understand the struggle for students. The rest is history.
On CFSH, we adopted the cuddly but firm and fair methods. It isn't a step back, it works so well. If someone struggles, find out why! Don't just chop. If you do chop, look at yourself, was it your fault? Try to improve next time. Don't be a dinosaur. That said, some students are just tossers.......

MPN, yes, ACM I see. I met his son a few years back with Lord Hennessy when he was producing Finger on the Button.

Big pants, you do yourself an injustice, I was a Standards QFI at Valley in 1982 and we didn't have any crap Creamies!

During my time at Valley I had great students when I was a B2, didn't need to show them much, but as I progressed up the ladder and became an A2 they got harder and harder to teach. Moral of story stay a B2.

My own experience of Valley in 69 was that there were a lot of tossers on the staff. Still I got out into the real RAF and going back 10 years latter after 3 frontline tours I saw a terrific difference and had great relationships with my studes - if you know what I mean! looking back that was a golden time, great mates, very good studes and Loooooades of flying, none of this 10 hours a month crap.

I like to think that I was a decent instructor: but please feel free to disagree. I'll probably delete this tomorrow!

Regarding the 'w@nker on your wing' story; I think it was Dan at Valley - not Brawdy...

Yes it was Dan W he was OC 2 at 4 FTS, good bloke. Jindabyne, I have no doubt you were a good instructor as we knew each other in the 80s and from our time together that was evident. We did a BOI together. Hope you are well.

The 69ers at Valley that I knew just had a bad superior attitude that wasn't justified. There were obviously good guys as well, but the real toads stood out and it spoiled the overall experience - notwithstanding that I passed and moved on. Whereas my time there as an instructor was one of my favourite tours - what an admission.

PS I worked out who you were when you offered help on the BOI we did, beat me to it.

Globe Trotter. I agree that teaching to suit the student is right, and there are always times when the instructor/student chemistry doesn't work. Further to my earlier about my JP experience, I then went onto helicopters. I was having all sorts of trouble, although I got on well with my instructor. The upshot was that I had an assessment ride with the DCFI, who recommended that I be given a bit more time, with another instructor. The chemistry must have been different because all went well thereafter. Funnily enough, the instructor who had given me the assessment became my Squadron Commander at a later stage in a hot and sandy place.

Was this a consequence of the systems approach to flying training?

Certainly up until about 1989 the nav syllabus was designed to load the student progressively with more procedures to absorb spare capacity and place them under pressure with techniques not employed outside the nav school. From the 90s there was a step changing in training with lots of NEC chopped from the syllabus.

Herod
 

I'm working on it, but not there yet

Having done Gliders and PPL in civvy life I quickly learnt to avoid ex RAF instructors at an early age, the previously made point about "why can't you do this already" and "don't do it like that, do it like this" without actually telling you what "it" was meant I learnt where my training money would be wasted.

I am sure most of them are great and most of them have adapted to civvy life, I just wish I had met one of them.

Planet Basher.

We have him at our flying club.

Deltahotel, disregard. I've sent you a pm

So on what basis is the fast jet/chop/not chop decision made?
Student who can't learn a new procedure immediately - isn't learning quickly enough?
(I assume that is because of the time and cost involved in brining someone up to scratch).
I assume a majority of students would be chopped simply because they couldn't keep up with the aircraft?
Do successful fast jet students stand out to QFIs as having an intuitive feel for the aircraft?

Tartare,

Intuitive feel? By no means. All you have to do is keep up with course progress through the initial stages and then show capacity as the complexity ramps up. You really don't need to have a great pair of hands. I was comfortably in the bottom half of my BFTS and solidly course average at Valley. At TWCU something started to click and, while i still wasn't the best handling pilot there ever was, i started to show some extra capacity that had been missing in the earlier stages. Fast forward 5 years and i was a Harrier QWI. thank goodness my instructors in the early years made the decisions they did!

I know one individual who was chopped on Chipmunk, went Air Traffic, reapplied five years later and ended up on Harriers.

Haraka, I was going to say may be he grew up, but on second thoughts. . . :)

Tartare, as Flaps said, it probably more to do with capacity to learn quickly. At NAv school in the late 80s the OC allowed more reflies and remedial training than his budget allowed; he was ex-Buccs and probably being more lenient as a result.

The problem was weaker candidates and further expense down the line at FJ OCUs before being chopped. Their argument was you had to pass a real combat exam first time.

What's so surprising about QFIs being different. I reckon I helped the good students to be better but wasn't the best for the weaker ones.
If you passed your IRT with me you would never have a problem with instrument flying.
Remember having a good average student who would lose interest after a few minutes during formation flying and drift out of position so we were about to die. No success with him (despite hitting bone dome several times) but a quick couple of trips with someone else ( a creamie) sorted him out.

As a student on JP1s and Vampires I had very good, pleasant instructors but the QFI I remember best was the feared MP Evans. We were all getting a bit sloppy towards the end of the Vampire course so check flights for all. "What height are you meant to be boy? 1100 sir. Well why aren't you" I was at least 20ft out. Same with the speed. If you can fly at 152 when you are meant to be at 150, why aren't you? That stuck with me for the rest of my career.
When I was a QFI there was a bit of a shortage of pilots so we were getting some pretty poor ones through the selection process. They needed to be weeded. As for the Middle Eastern ones that's an epic tale, 30 hours to solo on a JP. The Russians had never let them get beyond taxiing part 1. The very odd exception, one from Kuwait who came top of his mixed course. Leading a pair of I....is solo formation more than one QFI was heard to boast that they had never caught up.
Remember as an IRE before I did CFS having a new arrival, first tour, as were we all,for his IRT. He was good and then would switch off completely and give up during unusual attitudes. New squadron commander not happy at failure. This guy had already been brown-nosing with boss.
Neil Williams suggested he have a ride with him. Trip went well until start of a BABS approach when idiot pilot trims full nose down but has forgotten that's what you do after lowering full flap in a Canberra which he has omitted to do. Even Neil chickened out of this Stuka approach. Should have been chopped in training but survived a full career in flying. Luck, or were we wrong?

I bet you were an absolute delight to fly with.

prodding with a nav rule
 

The violence reported in #17 and #19 does not sound so bad really.

The Piston Provost came with a conventional builder's crowbar strapped to the central cabin pillar, by the instructor's left shoulder and handily in reach of his right hand.

We all knew it was there, but its only "victim" we knew of was the star of our Entry - in due course an Exceptional pilot. The instructor was later my squadron commander on 7FTS and an absolute gentleman.

Now, of course, I can guess that, while the story was real for us, it never happened.

Then again all of our instructors seemed to have come off Hunters at Jever and probably would not have known what a nav rule was.

"What height...boy", "...despite hitting bone dome several times..," yes, when struggling to acquire a new skill what I feel really helps is being insulted or hit over the head. Thank you, quiet please, your post answers the OP's question on instructional technique exactly.

Plenty of very good accounts on this thread and it only goes to show that there are as big a range of flying instructors as there are people in any other walk of life.

Personally, I got on with all my instructors, regardless of their quirks. Some of them are even here and I thank them. I agree that some fellow studes felt a bit dubious about the more "boisterous" instructors, especially in the early days, but most made it through to a high standard. So make of that what you will.

Wholeheartedly agree ShotOne,

While I was struggling to get to grips with the Wessex on instruments without ASE (stab system), my instructor sat there chewing gum while repeating 'scan, scan, scan' with the occasional 'RELAX!' thrown in for good measure. Great instructional technique that obviously helped me to master the exercise in no time. Hopefully he later made a better AVM than QHI.

In what other "walk of life", mach2, is humiliating or physically striking someone you're supposed to be teaching considered normal, even something to boast about?

And yes, kintyred, I enjoyed the "RELAX!!" treatment too; on a dual navex, yelled at full volume, face four inches from mine. What on earth was that meant to achieve?

OK, Shot One, fair question. I can only answer based on my own first hand experience. Your tone comes across to me with a slight twist of bitterness so I can only assume your experiences were not like mine. I would add at this point that I am not a QFI, so I have no defence to make on this.

I can honestly say that in my many years of service I have never seen, or had reported me, anything that that would warrant being described as humiliation or physically striking a student.

I have been severely bollocked in a loud voice when my primary instructor at a secret Basic Flying Training base thought I was trying to kill him. But that wasn't humiliation even though he used harsh words.

I was once slapped for not warning an instructor before applying 8g to his body. But it wasn't any kind of physical abuse.

I have seen people, more recently, complain about being given a frank, honest, gloves off debrief. People don't like to be told bad things about their performance. I would agree that the totally straight approach to debriefing comes across as harsh to some people, especially some youngsters that have grown up in a fluffy environment where no one is allowed to experience failure. But sooner or later, the kids have to be told that "doing that will get you and others killed."

On civil big jets I've twice had a change of instructor and on both occasions they remarked that they couldn't see what the alleged problem had been. Curious.

I had a manufacturer's pilot start shouting at me; he shut up when I told him I didn't require his effing advice about how to fly an NDB approach. Bit arrogant, I admit, but he'd pissed me off a bit.

I did once punch my FO but he was the FTM on a sim 'Landings to FOs' session and that particular airline liked assertive captains. A great one-off since I knew I'd never again have the opportunity to punch a manager with impunity.
Needless to say, I've never punched a real FO ;)

I have related this story once or twice before...


Originally being a Nimrod 'dry man' my particular hate was solely reserved for my EW instructor who had an individual way of drumming home identification of the sounds of particular radars with the use of a wooden metre ruler which he carried around the classroom with him.


He left such a lasting (non-physical) impression on me that when I later learned that he had died, my first thought, to my eternal shame, was 'Good'.


When I later became an instructor and eventually a instructor-trainer, I used him often as an example of the sort of instructor that one should never be.


Also, when going through instructor training, my instructor related the story of a certain helicopter QCI who carried a metal ruler on the aircraft with him and would beat the back of the student's helmet with it whenever a mistake was made. That worked fine until one day the student turned around at the wrong time and received the ruler on his face.

I guess you had to put up with this violence and bullying in the military,
In the civilian world, I would have considered it possible to kick someone in the face using a C152 wing strut as a fulcrum if necessary.

Hate bullies, always have done, and will fight them to this day.

1987, JP5, 2000'.

QFI "OK Bloggs, just taken a bird, I'm incapacitated, the engine is dead, the aircraft will crash, what you going to do?"

Me "Eject Sir"

QFI "Aren't you going to try and save me?"

Me "Nah, you're not worth the effort."

I passed the trip and he bought me a beer later.

One of the older QFIs was flying with his student at The Towers in 1974.....

"OK, Bloggs, where are we?"
"Errmm...."
"Well, get out your local area map then"
(Rustle rustle"
"Good grief, Bloggs, that looks like a bit of old newspaper!"

At which Bloggs turns to his QFI, offering the map:

"Chip, Sir?"

The old chap thought this a huge joke and they continued their GH sortie very happily.

But at one Happy Hour, one of the ATCOs came into the bar with a tape player, which he connected to the Steak Bar disco system. He then pressed 'Play' and we were treated to several minutes of a stuck transmit cockpit conversation between a QFI and his student. Constant aggression and swearing; eventually they realised that Cranwell Approach wasn't replying; Bloggs is told to RTB with a radio failure. "Cranwell Approach, this is XXXXX with a practice radio failure" was followed immediately by "It's not a f*****g practice failure, it's a real f****** radio failure, you c**t!" Then CLICK as it dawned on the QFI that they had probably been stuck on Tx for quite a while.....

The tape became famous, the student received a lot of sympathy and the QFI had a rather one-way interview with OC Stds......

It had already started way way back. WRT the ´Fighter Pilot' series in episode 1, first door on the left to be told you're going to be disappointed.

Examiner standards have us now informing students that they 'didn't meet the required standard.' I seem to recall some years ago that the education system started referring to 'deferred passes...'

Some students seem 'shocked' when I point out they actually have to work (and work hard) to get the licence/rating rather than just getting it out of a box of Rice Krispies.

Never shouted or struck a student in all my instructional days (tempted often) but will admit to the odd 'sigh of frustration' and even though it is bad technique the odd bit of sarcasm does creep in. When you have to remind people that they want to be responsible for the lives 189 strangers, huggy fluffy doesn't always work, and unfortunately, the economics of the business I'm in doesn't allow them too many attempts to get it right.

Back at AITC in the 80s, taught opening phrase for diabolical sortie debrief, "OK Bloggs, thought you prepared well for that trip. Putting your name on each log sheet before flight was a good time saver.

Now, it would be better if you collected the latest docs, used a new chart, and brought some pencils rather than a blunt chinagraph. You settled in well with most of your kit but were a bit slow to remember you had forgotten your helmet '
. . . "

In contrast, on the next phase of training, if late for met brief the instructors took the sortie and left the studes, apologies and all, behind. School of hard knocks worked.

I have never been any form of instructor, perhaps for the best, but I disagree with those on here who want everything to be fluffy in military training.

It is impossible to simulate the pressures of real military ops in training, but sometimes the extra pressure of aggressive instructors is very valuable.

If shouting makes you lose the ability to fly, then military is not the place for you.

Military flying training is not about getting everyone through. If you are not chopping a percentage, you are not maintaining standards.

Yes it can go too far. I've had a discussion airborne with Jack F.... during my RN grading where I explained to him that the next time he punched me I was going to hospitalise him. (We got on well after that!)

The idea that the training environment should be lovely is barking.
Do we train the SAS by chatting nicely to them?
If you want elite, it has to be pressured.
I suspect that many on here whingeing only just scraped through and are still mildly traumatised my the experienced.

"If you're not chopping a percentage you're not maintaining standards"

To be honest Tourist, I don't think you were really cut out to be an instructor!

Instructor training - doing the usual Primary Effects of Controls demo/teach/student practice (repeatedly until the patter was good............)

'Bloggs' in the front obviously taking notes on his kneepad (but I can't see what he's writing)

After landing he says 'see those chinagraph marks on my kneepad ? (lots) That is every time you said 'OK' after delivering a line of patter...........'

Was frightened to speak after that. I'm sure it made my patter worse for the other exercises..............but I sort of got the message.

Arc

"..next time he punched me.." Even your account, tourist shows a text-book example of bullying. If that's good technique, why should your threat of retaliation have altered it?

In my own "RELAX" shouty moment, it was delivered with such venom that I was convinced it was going to be followed up with a blow. The rest of the sortie was spent working out whether I'd have to loosen my ejection seat straps to retaliate and if I'd be chopped for doing so -and was a 100% waste of avtur.

No argument there......:ok:


Seriously though, if you are never chopping, you are saying that everybody who gets through the interview is suitable.

That's simply never going to be the case.

Judging how good a pilot is going to be by their learning curve/rate is cr@p, but it is better than any other metric that has been found.

Getting somebody through by awesome/extra instruction rather than student capability just leads to downstream problems either on OCUs or frontline.
We have all seen the results and long term fallout of the various times that recruitment numbers have been tight and standards have relaxed a bit.