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?