Just in case anyone is reading this interested in how it is today (rather than pre-1990 flying training) I would like to assure them that current CFS methods are very professional, effective and fair.

Students are treated as individuals, not numbers, and are given every possible chance to achieve.

I just wanted to set the record straight in case any future recruits were looking at this and expecting to be smacked round the head for forgetting a check list. The world has moved on from the 1960's/70's/80's etc

Devonianflyer.
I'm very pleased to hear that, after all there was plenty of room for improvement!! Now, I wonder if they'll let me have another go ... as long as there's somewhere to stow the zimmer frame and plug in the hearing aid!

Devonian

Interesting to hear you say that.

A couple of questions.


1. Do you honestly believe that the current standard of training gives a better output to the frontline in terms of aircrew ability/capability/knowledge/experience/airmanship?

Personally, I think that for many reasons the current output standards are far lower in many areas.

2. If you asked a member of CFS from the bad old days of "pre-1990", do you think they would consider themselves awful, or would they say "I would like to assure them that current CFS methods are very professional, effective and fair."


Self given compliments and references are worthless.

ShotOne

By complete chance, despite not being an actual instructor in any way, I have in fact taught aviation technical skills to members of the SAS.

The issue of punchy shoutyness never came up for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they were inhumanly good at everything with an amazing learning curve.

Secondly, perhaps due to previous hardening up in earlier training, they did not seem like anything short of a nuclear strike would even raise an eyebrow let alone a bullying complaint. They certainly took banter well and had no need for any extra stressors applied by some soft WAFU to get them able to operate under pressure.:rolleyes:

1. Given that I wasn't even alive back then I've no idea how the output standards compare. I'd hazard to guess though that given the difference in platforms between then and now that any comparison would be very subjective and dependant on personal opinions.

2. I work with a number of CFS people that started in the 80's and they regularly say that the training system today is better overall.

I don't mean to give any sort of 'self-given compliment' as you say. Surely the current international reputation of CFS speaks for itself...

The only reason I pitched in was to reassure future applicants (who may unfortunately believe everything they read on here) that times have changed. Sorry for the worthless modern references...

I work with a number of CFS people that stared in the 80's - DF

Presumably they must have been "steely eyed" then, rather than "gentle and supportive"....:uhoh:

Jack

Personally I think that the current training pipelines spend enormous efforts trying to make it look like they treat people as individuals and not numbers.
Meticulous inspection of reports to make sure that the paper trail is perfect so nobody can complain about anything.

Everything has to be Objective and data based to make the process look scientific despite the fact that if you let even a postgrad scientist look at the numbers they would point out that there are far too many independent variables involved for the numbers to be valid, and you would be better off admitting that the process is still as subjective as it ever was and let the experienced instructors get on with weeding out the unsuitable without having to couch it in faked up numbers terms.

How do you put numbers on "he's a tw@t I wouldn't like on my sqn"?

The three questions for an instructor to consider...


1. Can the individual do the job?


2. Would I be happy if he was assigned to my crew?


3. Do I own up to having trained the bu**er?

I think the OP opened a can of worms with his wording. Nobody expects a military instructor to be "gentle and supportive". I would suggest "firm, fair and supportive" would do a better job.

True, Miss PN had to spend more time writing up failed applicants than successful ones.

As it happens that was the conclusion reached by an Army psychologist in report published in Air Clues over 25 years ago.

You didn't even have to be an instructor in that discipline. Mrs PN and I attended the Meet and Greet for my studes starting their navigation training. After an hour or so we left. We then individually rated the studes not just as pass/fail but how far they would progress. The one we rated top is an AVM, the only difference we had was the order of two of the failures. Our pass/fail assessment was spot on with one borderline stude passing but he didn't make the frontline.

Less I am accused of fiddling the stats, they had 3 phases to pass and they all got to phase 2. How much money, time, and reduced stress had we been able to chop in the first week on gut instinct.

The Army psychologist's initials weren't 'MH' by any chance?

I think this drive for illusory objectivity in complex decision-making processes is one of the great curses of the modern age.

For what it's worth from someone who went through flying training in the early 90s and then CFS 20 years later.

- some of the instructional techniques I witnessed as a student were appalling and delivered by individuals with a very skewed sense of their own self-importance.

- numerous good people fell by the wayside who should have survived then, and probably would now, because the training system at the time was ill-equipped to deal with anybody having 'issues'. Things have moved on.

- shouting at soldiers works, shouting at aviators does not.

- there is a time and place in the military for aggressive instruction, the cockpit is not one of them.

- anybody who has not instructed (a la CFS) is not informed enough to comment on this matter.

I accept that my last point will be the most controversial but unless you have been fully immersed on both sides of the fence you simply do not have a complete understanding of the issues.

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.

Amen brother. Beautifully put.

[QUOTE=llamaman;9157200]
- anybody who has not instructed (a la CFS) is not informed enough to comment on this matter.

QUOTE]

So only those who are invested in and institutionalised have a valid argument eh?


How about people who have been hand in glove with CFS people for over a decade but are not institutionalised with the laying on of magic hands/coloured pens?

Do we get a vote?

How about people who can read?

CG

CFS in 1963, UAS Chipmunks, FTS JP's, OCU Vulcans, RSAF grading C-172s, SOAF/RAFO Skyvans/Defenders, Middle Wallop (AAC) Chipmunks, OATS & Cranfield. My one and only aim was to ensure that my students succeeded and, possibly more importantly, had the ability to progress into the operational theatre. Some, I am afraid, did not, and I always felt that I had let them down! That, of course , was when I think we had a fairly clear and understandable idea of a good QFI/student relationship! Not always "politically correct" but never verging towards bullying or physical violence!!
I thought (and still do), that I have done the best (within my ability) to help all my students to achieve their aim. To those that haven't I am sorry!!

Bill.

More memories; course briefing from DFGA weapons instructor (aka " God" ) for the new arrivals at Chivenor ( remember that place ? ) on the Hunter course in the early '70's. " if you manage to impress us, and let me assure you, you won't.....".

Quite a few "characters" in residence. " Puddy " Tate , re chaps not quite up to standard ; " NBG ! " translated as -" no bloody good ".

Certainly concentrated the mind and motivated the learning spirit.

Happy days !

Llamaman,

Just as I was following your argument, you come out with

At which point you lost me completely.

CFS graduates do not hold all the keys to the instructional castle. There are plenty of us out there and in here that have, and still do, instruct without being QFIs. And in those capacities we have been exposed to and worked through the frustrations, challenges and pitfalls of teaching people to fly and operate aircraft and to prepare them for their futures.

Whilst fully acknowledging the well-earned reputation of CFS, I rather dispute their self-claimed monopoly on instruction and enduring stranglehold on certain aspects thereof.

So, no, you don't need to have done instruction "a la CFS" to be informed enough to comment on this matter. Perhaps your quote rather illustrates some of the arrogance that folk here are complaining about.

'Em as can, Do. 'Em as can't, Instruct.
 

In "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet..." Thread (p.150 #2997), I tell a similar tale of being "shanghaied" into being an Instructor (sans QFI then or ever).

71 years ago ! Nothing changes.

Danny42C

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.