We have four or five TTT in the wing, and are well on course for a deliverer on every squadron very soon.
Some staff take more coaching than others, and yes - getting the patter right with the skills required isn’t easy, but it’s also not the hardest thing in the world.
Our little team has trained and approved almost 30, I just have a few squadrons to sort out.
It sounds like you’ve taught two very capable candidates, and I’m sure they’ll bring a huge amount of insight and experience to the table…
But there’s absolutely no reason why CI Jones, with no flying experience, can’t deliver effective training after the staff training course.
The 2fts hymn sheet is a joke. We’re talking about the blue badge, an intro to AEF / VGS flyers for first time cadets. Anything beyond “get in the aircraft and enjoy your trip!” is a complete waste of time.
We’re not talking about people starting EFT. Or even the first flight for a PFB. They’re kids. Let them get in a plane and experience flight, stop over complicating things and just give them opportunities.
A former CI of mine who an ex BA747 capt, CFI at one of the largest commercial flying schools and now trains 737 pilots in a proper sim with 10k.hours in the book, had to spend a day of his life being taught how to fly a flight sim by an individual whos flying experience is limited to MSFS in their bedroom and was told if they didnt attend then they couldnt teach.
Yes, strictly speaking true, but with candidates like this I spend their time making sure they’re comfortable with the flow and language we like to use, which is different to what they’d be doing.
It’s not teaching them aviation, it’s showing them the patter they need to use.
Followed by a good demonstration of different equipment levels, and how to adapt the course for basic, intermediate and more advanced equipment.
I’m just a PPL, and have felt embarrassed having commercial pilots in, but my focus was to make it worth their time - and mine! So we’ve focussed on the specific differences, passed off the training early, and spent most the time discussing the differences in the course using min spec equipment, to max spec.
Plus further training you can do with the cadets with idea sharing session.
So far everyone has left with a smile and a hand shake, saying it was better than they expected… maybe they’ve all just had good manners!
Remember at MOI we talk about knowing your audience? That’s all it takes. We’ve all learned from each other and had a good time. And promoted links between squadrons.
I wouldn’t dream of patronising our colleagues who are clearly better qualified than me - it’s a learning opportunity for everybody.
Do they want the correct terms to be used (e.g. “roll” instead of “make it go that way”) or do they want a scripted lesson? PTT was the latter and it was such a bad idea, particularly to teach 12 year olds.
Sometimes commercial pilots are terrible instructors for cadets. They’ll go off In to detail that’s not needed and over complicate. I was told by my aviation officer that the sign off was in part to put a stop to that.
The other rumour I heard was that one CFAV involved in the new syllabus dev team wanted instructon to be limited to military aircrew and civvie commercial pilots - How many of those do we have in squadrons? Guess what, they’re a pilot for a Big Airline - As someone else said it’s a reluctance to allow none silver winged master race to teach aviation.
Just as every squadron has (or should), have someone to teach Essential First Aid Blue Badge every squadron should have someone signed off to deliver this flight simulator training to an agreed standard. It’s basic - no need to be a steely eyed pilot.
Firstly I have only had 2 candidates (both passed).
Other Squadrons despite offers of help have still not put anyone forward. I feel that this is down to a lack of anyone interested, (also possibly down to the Wg Av O not passing on candidates.
The level of phraseology has been chosen to ensure that cadets are taught the correct way so that when they fly/ glide then they are familiar with the terminology used by the pilot.
The syllabus is very simple and as I said it’s just a case of using the correct terminology in time with what the aircraft is doing on the screen.
The change of the whole syllabus is the reason AEF is no longer a trip around to look at the sights and a few Aeros. There is now a fixed syllabus that follows the synthetic syllabus (which in the air takes about 5-10 minutes) and then they can do Aeros etc.
The idea is that each level of the Flying Ops Syllabus follows a format so that each part dovetails into the next level so when they advance to bronze and silver they are familiar with the format.
The idea is to prevent this. There is a huge amount of experience within the CFAV cadre but it’s all about commonality. Everyone needs to be taught the same. Once Cadet Bloggs has been taught the blue wings syllabus then there is no issue with him being taught other stuff on the sim. Indeed there are Wings out there that have a fantastic selection of simulator based courses based around aviation.
Which was never followed by the AEF when we took cadets there pre-covid, they still did a fun fly around which may have incorporated effects of controls but didn’t follow the lesson plans because they were pointless (AEF staff words).
The whole thing has been dreamed up by someone who has no idea of the situation on the ground. When cadets get one flight in a four year cadet career it should be an experience flight. Unless they are getting regular flights then any progressive training is illusionary
And that is all fine if cadets got any kind of continuity.
We have cadets now who are lucky to get more than 1 flight in 5 or 6 years, any semblance of continuity in training is utterly lost after a few weeks, so the notion that these changes makes it better for anyone is garbage and can only come from someone who has zero understanding of a-the cadets themselves, and b-how squadrons actually operate.
The blue wings instructor sign off is a really useful course to make sure everyone is on the same page.
It doesn’t have to take long, and it certainly should be achievable by everybody.
In my wing we’ve had a good response from staff, who have found the course useful:
Those just interested have learnt how to use a sim and teach.
Aviators with lots of flying knowledge have picked up handy skills and shortcuts for using the sim.
Simmers have been able to ask aviation related questions.
We’ve all learnt from each other.
As well as having “mass” courses my TTT and I have done one to one sessions for squadrons too.
The blue sign off is as simple, or as painful, as your WAvnO wants to make it. But given it is their subject and they should want cadets and staff achieving, I just don’t understand a protectionist attitude towards it.
I can see I am wasting my time trying to put across a reasoned argument here, after 35 years of service to the Cadets I have spent my time trying to ensure that cadets get the maximum from their experience with the organisation. Your replies here have shown that perhaps it’s time for me to give up.
It seems that the whole organisation is now full of people that just want to whinge and whine if they don’t get their own way.
I think the best thing to say to you all is have your own opinion but at least try and see through your views and maybe accept that perhaps some people are trying to have new ideas to help cadets get a better experience. If we spent less time hiding in forums and finding something to be negative about and more time trying to be positive about things then more cadets would get more out of the organisation. change doesn’t happen overnight and just because one pilot at one AEF isn’t following the syllabus doesn’t mean it is happening throughout the whole organisation.
Right rant over I am off to try and do some good. Enjoy……
The syllabus would be great if we had regular flying but we don’t. The gripe is that the situation on the ground means the vast majority of cadets get nothing from this change in syllabus but staff have more admin burdens.
We are not against change and trying to improve the cadet experience. But change that is great in theory but doesn’t reflect the actual amount of flying available does no one any favours.
This is not a good change for the simple fact that it does not reflect reality.
And I find it massively offensive that you, knowing not thing one about me, thinks that my arguments against one particular change means that I do not offer cadets a meaningful and valuable experience. If that is truly your attitude towards volunteers, then yes, you should leave.
Oh, and if you’ve decided that the organisation is “full of people that want to whinge”, because they’re all whinging at you… Maybe it’s not them that’s the problem…?
- As someone else said it’s a reluctance to allow none silver winged master race to teach aviation.
This.