Learning to deal with a bully is a very valuable character building moment, and you will notice that I did say it can go too far.

p.s. You are aware that we are talking about the military, yes?

Aggression, violence, bullying, intimidation.

These are our purpose. It is a little silly to believe that they are entirely unsuitable traits in military personnel.

Tourist - there's a magic word that can go in front of those words - controlled. To be frank, even though I'm now in green (Army), there is no place for bullying at any level. Professionalism has a quality all of it's own; bullying displays one's own inferiority.

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"

Me "I do NOT respond well to threats of physical violence and if you have a problem with that we can go and talk to the CI" (I was actually quaking in my flying boots)

Him Very hard stare, but put it back on the wall.

Later in the trip, when it was my turn in the R/H seat to do the airways comms, as I settled in to the seat the aged Master Pilot looked across and mouthed "Well done son." and let me take the pole as well.

The Ancient Mariner

Erm.......

At any level?


You do understand what militaries are for yes?

We are the thugs for politicians. That is our job.

Our job is to throw our weight around and impose the will of our country upon others weaker than us.

That is what empires, including ours, are built on.

The Chinese are currently doing it in the islands off the coast of south east asia.

That is what the US did off Cuba.

It's what we did to Libya.

The other side
 

Just to put some balance back into this thread if I may.

Way back in the very early 1980's when I was a student pilot at Cranwell, I had the pleasure of Ray 'Fu?K1ng' Knowles as my Primary Instructor on the JP5A.

First time we flew together I barfed all over him, me and most of the cockpit.

Those of you that remember Ray will know that he had a reputation for 'telling it how it was' but he stuck with me.

My air sickness caused major problems for me in the run up to the spin aeros check as I needed 3 hands to fly the thing and most practice spins resulted in 'I have "fu&king"control' from Ray in the right seat while I fumbled for, then stared into the blue bag.

But in the run up to my spin aeros check Ray spent an hour or so every evening sitting in a JP in the hangar with me after work so that he could apply 'input force' from the right column commensurate for me to overcome on the left column as he felt that I was ripe for the chop due airsickness slowing my progress, but that if we could beat the airsickness there was a remote possibility that I may one day see a set of wings pinned on my chest. I got through that spin aeros check, got the wings and subsequently saw Ray again at Brize when he was on 101 Sqn.

I think the point I am trying to make is that sometimes an image is maintained, even encouraged, but underneath you may be pleasantly surprised what you find.

I was.

I think that there's a difference between bullying and aggression. I can think of many mild-mannered, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly colleagues who, when they stepped onto a rugby pitch were transformed. Unless you're a front line fighter pilot you're supporting someone else's fight. In my experience (support helicopters) the difficult thing about military aviation in a combat role is overcoming your fear and having the courage and discipline to carry out your job. My students showed their mettle time and again in combat, all I could do as their instructor was to equip them as best as I could for their frontline role. It often took patience and occasionally a little ingenuity to get my point across but a I never once even raised my voice or lost my temper; it would not have achieved anything. The guys and girls were invariably trying their best and I was simply there to help them. I cajoled, encouraged and chided until they achieved the required standard. On the the very odd occasion when they failed to meet the standard and were withdrawn from training, I was as gutted as they were. Of all the aviation disciplines I can honestly say that instructing was the one that gave me the most satisfaction.

Tourist, bullying is for the enemy; its not for your own damn side.

Firm instruction is fine. Even shouting, when required, to elicit life saving action is essential some times, and no one is saying that you need to be fluffy and hugging all the time but being threatening and making people scared to learn, just in case they make a mistake is a disgrace.

Some people will need to be chopped, some will learn at a slower rate than others but can make the grade, some learn slow and then have a ureka moment and become excellent but its the job of the instructor to work that out and help not hinder progress.

Now, I'm not an aviator, but I have experienced good and bad instructors in my fishead world, along with good and bad bosses. But the ones that bullied their own team were the ones that sometimes succeeded in achieving very short term aims, but invariable failed to achieve long term term professional performance from those around them, even when they were technically capable. They were the ones at fault.

Tourist, whilst I have no intent in getting into a slanging match, I am well aware of the requirements of the military, given my rank and experience. I can only hope you are/were never in a position of educating subordinates on anything to do with the moral component of fighting power!

Colleague of mine on our UAS ( who I shall call P) won a flying scholarship, soloed @ 16, won every trophy going on the Squadron ,big hit with the girls and The Boss declared him a natural ( flying that is) and us youngsters were in awe.

P then joined the RAF when he left uni.

Fast forward to Chivenor TWU and he came across an instructor who took as intense dislike to him. P consequently went multi and then after a tour or 2 ended up at CFS on the Tucano.

By shear coincidence , I then found myself working some years later with his Ex Flight Commander @CFS and an interesting story came out.They once held an aero competition and the story goes that P was not only the only bod on the Squadron that didn't have Front line fast jet experience, but he was also given the worst aircraft for the comp. The rest you can guess, he won with aplomb.

Confucius he say:

'Em as can - do.

'Em as can't - instruct.

'Em as can neither do nor instruct - go on the Examining Board.

(no, not me, Confucius)

D.

Firstly to Wander I had Les Hillditch at Sywell and thought him a great guy. Never quite understood his method of landing the Auster though. "Keep stirring it" was his technique.

I had a smashing instructor on the JP3, until you closed the canopy! Taught me a lot about instructing for use later.

I never had any problems with my students possibly because they were all better at flying than I was.

ACW

kintyred and andyy. The best two posts on the thread. You don't have to chop to maintain standards, that's total bull. Why? Imagine that by coincidence, the ten students on a course we're the top ten students that went through for decades. Do you chop a star just to look good? That is why you judge against course standard. If need be chop everyone........ Or no one.
You can't judge how someone will perform in combat by assessing them in a circuits sortie. You can be hard on someone without being a bullying knob as well. There is no place in a modern fighting force for bullies, there is no place for someone below standard either. When I chopped a student, they knew that they had been treated fairly and honestly. That isn't too much to ask.

Bananas - that is an inspiring story. A fast jet pilot who suffered from airsickness. I never would have thought... honest!
R/e aggression - isn't the key word controlled?
After all, that's what the uniform represents?
Discipline... you are allowed to kill people and/or break their stuff... using multi million dollar super weapons that are pointy and go very fast.
But only when I say so.
Bully people, and you run the risk they'll be too scared to make optimal decisions.
Simple science.

I confess I have been surprised by some of these comments, and every time I watch Spartacus I shall think of RAF FJ training in the 1970s. Or maybe I'm just soft.

I find it hard to believe that today's Typhoon pilots had to contend with gut punches during their training and I'm sure it doesn't make them any less deadly.

I have no love of the bully.

Poor instruction can have repercussions ...


SAC Bloggs undergoing trade training was subjected to continued verbal 'encouragement' from a particularly abrasive Cpl. Nevertheless Bloggs passed the course and went to his new Unit.
Time passed, he did well, so well that he applied for and gained a commission.
He eventually arrived at a Unit as JEngO where, lo and behold, the abrasive Cpl (now a Sgt) was being his usual self. Our JEngO had the Sgt marched in to his office (with hat!).
"Well Sgt, we meet again. You do realise that your career stops here. Dismiss."

FZ - just proves that on the way up you never know who you might meet coming down

I firmly believe that the attitude shown on here is why we can't win wars anymore.

Iraq, got our ass kicked.
Afghanistan, got our ass kicked.
Syria......

The students that some of you on here are waxing lyrical about teaching with gentle genius have all proceeded to lose the wars they were involved in. (I include myself in this!)

British Society has got itself into a position where we look back proudly and longingly at our glorious empire history, whilst at the same time vilifying the attitude that got us that empire in the first place.

We bullied and fought our way to the top, stopping at nothing to rule. Might was right.
We bullied the Chinese into buying Heroin FFS!
Military was harsh.
Schools were harsh.
Life was tough.
Darwin ruled.

The British were tough.

Now, not so much.

The meaning of the word "bully" has been twisted out of all proportion.
What used to be considered bullying is very different than what we would now call bullying. Defriending on facebook now qualifies:ugh:

There is a reason that military training has always had some harsh parts. It toughens you up. You need a bit of mental scar tissue, or combat will mess you up.

The forces we now fight against are tough. They are hardened. We will also need to be.

If getting shouted at in the cockpit is too much for you then go do something else.

jayteeto

What an amazingly self satisfied post. How he hell do you know what the student you chopped thought of you?!

Maxibon

What a cowardly post. You say you don't want a slanging match and then slag off my suitability as a teacher.


Fantomzorbin

You do realise that what happened in that wholesome tale of revenge is that the Jengo used his position to bully the Sgt, but somehow that bullying is ok?

"Well Sgt, we meet again. You do realise that your career stops here. Dismiss." - FZ

Fully agree, as I often do with Wander00, but it seems to me that there's actually an element of bullying there too, as opposed to setting out to use his new status as JEngO to put the sergeant on the right track.:=

Jack

I guess different ways of reading it, but if young(ish) Fg Off was intent to ensure that sgt's bullying style was stopped, I am not going to die in a ditch.

Tourist said:

Which particular century? The current one or a previous 'bullying' one when we had a short lived, crippling expensive 'glorious' 'Empire?'

The examples you quote were not lost by the combatants, shame on you for suggesting such. They were lost by the politicians who picked fights we could not win.

As an aside it was the USA bullying of an unaligned nationalist movement in Cuba that led to the revolution and further bullying that led the new regime reluctantly into the hands of the Soviets.
It was political expediency that led to the removal of the missiles. The sum total was decades of resentment by Cubans, a refugee crisis, seperated and estranged families and the accelerated development of ICBMs and SLBMs. Hardly a win.

Training does at times need to be harsh, uncomfortable and difficult, however it does not need to include bullying, which is counterproductive to learning and breeds nought but resentment.

Wanders - I was firstly fully agreeing with your very valid observation, but secondly suggesting that FZ's post, as written, gives more than a hint of bullying, so no "fosse" required!:ok:

Jack

This part I would definitely agree with, however the problem comes with the definition of "bullying"


Bullying, like poverty, is a word who's meaning shifts with the times.
Neither can ever be wiped out almost by definition.

One persons harsh is another's bullying.

Military personnel need to be tough.
Gentle training does not make you tough.

Tourist, true and over bearing psychological bully can be just as bad. It might be good for RtI training but it does necessarily create a good learning environment or create good followers.

A better leader is one who creates an atmosphere where people want to succeed rather than one who is coercive.

Train hard, fight easy.

Insults, sarcasm and imposition of will by force will not help any pilot to learn how to handle or operate an aircraft. They have no place in the cockpit of a Flying Instructor. I believe that when used in the air, they are more a symptom of ignorance and incompetence of the teacher.

Debatably there may be a place for them on the ground during military indoctrination. Although I doubt it.

That is debateable.

I would much rather work for such a leader, but history is full of very unpleasant leaders who were very successful.

I would suggest that the only sensible metric for measuring "better" would be in terms of success.


If you look at the great fighting forces of the world throughout history, I think it is fair to say that the vast majority have/had extraordinary harsh training environments involving what we would definitely consider a bullying environment rather than a nice atmosphere.

These forces still managed to be disciplined.

the fact that this might be unpalatable does not make it any less true.

All interesting stuff.

But anyone who thinks that hitting a student over the head with a nav ruler as a learning incentive is as thick as mince if they think, on reflection, "Yeah that sorted Blogg's landings out a treat".

Anyone who agrees that it is a good thing, must also agree that RAF pilots are now lesser professionals because it no longer happens. If it were that good, why not write it into the training manuals?


CG

Tourist, do you regret the passing of such quaint naval practices as flogging with the cat o' nine tails and keel hauling?

Being pushed to find one's limits on a dark and cold part of the Yorkshire moors is one thing, yelling and physically assaulting a struggling student pilot quite another - as beardy rightly states.

As for that JEngO's behaviour recounted by FantomZorbin, it was completely unacceptable. Regrettably it exemplifies the worst characteristics of some ex-rankers I've known....

What would have been wrong with "Ah, Sgt Abrasive, we meet again. When you were a corporal, you made life hell for a certain SAC. If you expect to progress in your career, I expect to learn that you have mended your ways, now that you are in a position of considerable responsibility. Do we understand each other? OK, now let's talk about any problems you've identified here - pull up a chair"

Too huggy-fluffy for you, Tourist?

What would have been wrong with "Ah, Sgt Abrasive, we meet again. When you were a corporal, you made life hell for a certain SAC. If you expect to progress in your career, I expect to learn that you have mended your ways, now that you are in a position of considerable responsibility. Do we understand each other? OK, now let's talk about any problems you've identified here - pull up a chair" - BEagle

Perfecto.:ok:

Jack

BEagle, I totally agree with your approach to Sgt Abrasive. This tale was recounted to me by a JEngO over 30yrs ago (Ouch!), I don't believe he was THE JEngO in question, but the point being made then was the one made by Wander00 (#97).


Quite frankly, having sat on Promotion Boards, I don't see how that threat could have been made good if not supported by Abrasive's previous and future reports.

BFTS Syerston 1960.

I was allocated two instructors in sequence who felt that the whole business of having to fly with students was beneath them and they should have been back on Hunters (even though one had only managed the right seat on Shackletons!).

Both shouting and screaming like nervous schoolgirls at any error rather than calm rational instructing. I learned more in one ground briefing from an old Master Pilot (Jock Naismith) than I did in hours of being trapped in a JP cockpit with these two.

Later, time spent working with the Psychologists at IAM Farnborough taught me the value of psychological screening of people and how it should have been employed to elliminated this type of idiot from the system...and saved a fortune in aircraft time.

One advantage was that all the subsequent students I taught on larger aircraft benefitted from this Syerston experience and , I hope, were treated in a decent and professional manner.

Beagle: Apart from your condescending attitude to some ex-rankers, don't you think that a large majority of people would have a similar reaction?

It is not bullying, it is REVENGE !! Or is that an emotion that is removed on receiving a commission ?

No suggestion that future recommendation would be influenced by previous behaviour. He expected to learn; if he did not so learn one would presume that the previous behaviour would have reflected in current performance. I received a similar threat from a particular OC on my welcoming interview. I lasted longer there than he did but never received an acknowledgement that he had been wrong. Prat. Wouldn't even follow him to the toilet to see if he could reach the urinal.

But on Abrasive's future, a couple of current weak reports would certainly cause a board to think twice.

My uncle, long gone now, flew in France towards the end on WW1. He covered his war experiences in his memoires, an edited excerpt of which is below. Noticeable is that the poor instructor was found out by someone senior (isn't that what flight commanders, standards instructors, bosses are for?) and that a keen instructor improved the students' progress.


WW1 FLYING INSTRUCTORS

Harry took his first flight on 30 Nov 1917 in an Armstrong Whitworth biplane with a 200hp Beardmore stationary engine. Harry recalls that he was quite uncomfortable and perhaps a little scared of the whole thing.

The next few weeks were taken up with more ground school, and firing the aircraft machine guns from aircraft fuselages on the ground. The group’s instructor was not keen on instructing, and used his students as bowlers so that he could practise his batting in the nets. Their flying time was very low, and someone senior had noticed their lack of progress. They were assigned to the Wing Examining Officer, a Captain Oliver. Each student flew with Capt Oliver in turn, flying in an Avro, which was equipped with a Gosport Tube. Four of the group, including Harry, passed, one was sent to observer school and one “washed out”.

The four were assigned to a new instructor, Lieutenant Keevil, who was very keen, and they all began to make progress. There was much activity on the aerodrome, and there were several instances of aircraft landing on top of aircraft on the ground. They were now flying a DH6. Harry was sent first solo on 13 Dec 17. He describes the first solo exercise as being a take-off, two level turns and a landing. He managed the take-off, the turns and the approach. He had difficulty controlling his speed during the landing, landed at speed and knocked a main wheel off. He slewed to a stop, but right-way up. Lt Keevil trotted over to him, asked how he felt, to which the answer was, “Very well but not too happy.” There were two or three other DH6s sitting outside the hangar, and Lt Keevil got Harry into one, told him to get airborne again, but to stay overhead the aerodrome for 30 minutes and then land. This all happened without further incident. Harry was very conscious of at last being one of only a few hundred people who had piloted a heavier-than-air- machine up to that time.

Some QFIs are brilliantly subtle in their methods. At Linton on the JP, circuits were left handed, except for one day a week, when for variety, right hand circuits were flown. On my course, I was blundering my way through a left PFL pattern with my long-suffering QFI, totally engrossed in the litany of checks, when I felt him writing something on my kneeboard. I glanced nervously at it to see one word: "Wednesday". :\

At The Towers, our Luftwaffe exchange QFI (spoofed by one of his colleagues into declaring to the Commandant's wife that he'd been out on the north aerodrome shooting 'pubics', which he'd been assured meant 'small hares'...) described the problem of right hand circuits to his student as "You vill haff difficulty seeing past my skvare Tcherman head!".

Super chap he was!

Checks? "Speed below 140 KIAS, airbrakes in, landing gear down...3 reds...3 greens, fuel sufficient, flaps T/O, harness tight, wheelbrakes on holding, off exhausting", wasn't it? But that was 41 years ago.

Beags - that's my bl@@dy keyboard again!

You're right, BEagle, and the mnemonic was "aunt and uncle f**k frequently, however weary" 49 years ago. Some things you never forget.

Sufficient for what? Never really understood that check. Plenty of fuel? Fine, I'm going to land. Not a lot of fuel? I'm definitely going to land.

Hmm, wish I'd known that mnemonic, I might have done a bit better!

I wonder if one of the proponents of the punchy/shouty technique happened to be tasked with training a technical skill to, say, someone from the SAS he'd maintain the technique?