Cadet Mentors
-
Hi friends,
I am curious as to how the teaching pilots, or Cadet mentors, in the different squadrons, or wings, go about their training: How is it working for you, what are your experiences, how do you go about your specific curriculum, and so on. What does work, what doesn’t. Teaching someone in a virtual world is a whole different cookie than standing in front of a attending classroom. I am a Cadet Training Officer (CTO) with an active squadron myself, with also experience in teaching in R/L.
So a post to have the teachers talk about their craft, and share their thoughts and tips with other teachers. I have surfed (yeah I know very '90’s) the forums and I can’t find any platform where the teachers have a space to work together: What tools (software) do you use to present topics, how strict are you, what are your benchmarks? and so on.
After all, we want good, if not excellent, pilots to join our wings in a combat zone, a COOP or Force on Force right?
So I believe our goals are shared, but our methods are not.
My intention is to go above the specific SOP’s your wing, squadron, or flight might have. Talk about the craft of teaching the new guys.
Without sharing our secrets, specifics and internal squadron workings; my intention is solely to talk about getting in to a dialogue on best practises for teaching in a virtual environment.
Reason being the recent and coming updates, the new pilots, the many, many variables in technical setups and so on. Not to mention personal teaching style and different Cadets coming in.I hope by opening this discussion to add to the community by supporting new teachers, old teachers a refresh, and a general platform in this tread. That being said: In case this forum is too public for this or not appropriate please let me know.
Open mike friends, looking forward to your comments.
-
Great briefing/instruction tool here: www.twiddla.com
Collaborative white board. You can upload PDF’s, Pics, etc. and mark them up.
So if you want to describe TacTurns, for example, ……
-
Good idea for a thread. Probably well known already, but Twiddla is very helpful to use as an online whiteboard. It’s free and you can upload images, maps, etc… and draw all over them. I find it’s easier to explain things if you are both looking at the same thing and you can point out visual references, etc… Using it to brief is helpful. That and of course TacView and the online debriefing feature which is amazing. You can also point things out on there with the laser pointer thingy. I’ll add more later but those two things are huge since you’re teaching over the web.
Edit: Agave beat me to it
-
Thanks guys,
I’ll check that out asap. Thanks. I use Teamviewer 11 most, and the online debief feature with Tacview. But not all have the paid version so sometime it won’t alow the cadet to view. So I’ll just present it over teamviewer and move on.
On ways of debiefing and communicating:
I tend to show a problem or incident in a flight, and then in debrief ask the cadet why that was a problem instead of explaining. To have him or her basically look and understand. That works very well: demonstrate, debrief, zoom in on specifics and ask/debunk. How do you guys tackle a ‘tender’ issue that needs to be adressed? -
Our squadron uses a bit of everything:
- Dropbox-folder to share documents, ACMI, screenshots, …
- Forum and Teamspeak for briefs, debriefs, Q&A, …
- Online whiteboard for brief and debrief
- If available, video recordings/excerpts
- Teamviewer for screensharing
We also have the benefit of living pretty close to each other, so we organise a LAN every month to share thoughts, discuss matters and fly together. If necessary, we can also help each other out by coming over at one’s home for a few hours.
-
Thanks guys,
I’ll check that out asap. Thanks. I use Teamviewer 11 most, and the online debief feature with Tacview. But not all have the paid version so sometime it won’t alow the cadet to view. So I’ll just present it over teamviewer and move on.
On ways of debiefing and communicating:
I tend to show a problem or incident in a flight, and then in debrief ask the cadet why that was a problem instead of explaining. To have him or her basically look and understand. That works very well: demonstrate, debrief, zoom in on specifics and ask/debunk. How do you guys tackle a ‘tender’ issue that needs to be adressed?Poppy here was my instructor through IQT and will be teaching me much more through AQT.
I think the interactive way works best, not just telling the student what they’ve done wrong but asking then what they think has happened is the best way to teach.
Thinking about the whys and whats rather than just being told will have you learn quicker and retain the knowledge better IMO and also teach you how to debrief yourself.
-
Thinking about the whys and whats rather than just being told will have you learn quicker and retain the knowledge better IMO and also teach you how to debrief yourself.
That’s true in some cases. Depends on the level of the Cadet. In your case you we’re challenging me because you have a high level of dexterity and there was little to no language barrier. But that’s a rare match:
It’s easy to overload a Cadet in brief; that by the time you get to the flight line he/she is behind the jet on the TARMAC.
Some cadets come in with a years worth of BMS experience as well. So finding the balance is the challenge: The art so to speak: as a teacher you have to adapt to the student, but only in so much: some things are directive (do this, do that, make sure you have done this) and some are descriptive/leading (now we are going to do this etc.)So the experience from the teachers is interesting: How do you get a new pilots to the level you want them to be in: being directive, or leading, or explaining or leading by example. How do you take out the variables (Cadet level, capacity, personal style, personality) versus the mentor (same things). to achieve the goal: passed IQT.
-
redact: I put in the last post twice. This one is empty please refer to above comments
-
For teaching, briefing and debriefing we have multiple Tools.
But IMHO, teaching is not the problem. Finding candidates that are willing to invest the time required and keep them motivated is the real challenge.Document:
Teaching starts with a good set of reference document.
The BMS Dash-1 started as a VFW training document. Nowadays BMS has a full suite of documentation that is providing the backbone to learn the sim.
VFW IP can use that document suite for teaching.
There are things left out of the BMS document suite, which are more tactical issues volontarily left at the VFW appreciation.
But at least the BMS doc suite should cover the Initial Qualification Training partBrief:
Teamspeak for a voice brief.
Twiddla or Teamviewer for interactive brief if the flight is more demanding
Powerpoints, or PDF and the WDP datacard are also pretty useful in some cases.
Briefing templates come in handy. At least we’re all on the same templates and that allows the brief structure to be known by all.SOP
A good SOP set well known by all is also a great tool to decrease briefing loads and time.
Briefers can always refer to SOP during their brief and omit the common things when possible.
SOP must be enforced at all times and maintained by the VFWDebrief
It’s where you learn
Teamspeak, Teamviewer and Twiddla again.
Tacview and online debrief is where it all becomes visible
The trick to debrief is to stay positive. Each (pilots, IP, cadet) has to be able to take criticism, accept his mistakes and learn from it.
It soulds great on paper, but it’s pretty different in real life.Other stuff that helps for online flying planning:
Timing:
Plan specific times: Brief 2000z, Step2030z Debrief: 2200-2230z and try to respect the timelines
That ensure we don’t spend way over time in the brief, up to the point where there is no more time for the flight (and debrief)
That is less of an issue when all members are in the same timezone, but when it’s not the case, it’s important.Different mentors
Having one guy doing all the teaching is impossible and probably doomed to failure
Candidates needs to be thought by different guys (who all shares the same structure) but at least they can have different approach to the same porblem solving attitude
if the candidate has the choice between multiple methods, he has more chances to find a method that works best for himNow the hard part for me is not teaching or training
Candidate type
The hard part is the way people see the hobby
BMS is not an easy sim and requires time and investment. You loose a lot of ppl right there.
Of those remaining, I see three types of candidates
A. Some can’t be positive when their actions/décisions are criticized at debrief.
B. Some are positive and motivated but can’t learn the tricks and are constantly behind.
C. A minority is ready to invest time and study. are positive at debrief and learn from their mistakes. They practice and keep on getting better day by day, week by weekIRL, both types A and B candidates are washed out of the program. A luxury VFW doesn’t have
A type don’t need more training, they need positive attitude which we can’t really teach them - I believe it’s something that needs to be learned as a young guy. The older you are, the harder it is to learn. I’d love to know how to teach this, because I don’t know.
B type needs more training. That’s easy to provide. But it’s frustrating because it’s a very slow process. And in the end, it may be lost time. Some ppl will never be able to learn it and progress. They reached their limits. The question is do VFW impose limits and what to do then when the limit is reached?
C type is the guys that makes the VFW progress forward. They are a rare breed and a pleasure to work with. teaching them anything is not a problem we have the above Tools and most of the time they are sufficient to reach the assigned goals.
But they need to be kept motivated and that’s another challenge for a VFW. On top of managing A & B types, the VFW has to keep type C flying by organizing events, Te’s, campaign, intersquad TE, TvT, … (or make them IP so they can share the A & B types burden)
These C types are avid learners and will want more. They will want the next level when they reached the last goal they set for themselves. If these guys are left over, they will disappear and that will be a shame.So my conclusion:
it doesnt not only dépends on Tools. It also depends on candidate types
teaching dépends on how the candidate wants to take the Learning Curve
VFW can easily work with motivated, ready to train hard and ready to study candidates.
The more positive the candidates are (the easiest they find and accept their mistakes), the easier it is for the VFW teachers.That’s also IMHO the reason where we see différences in VFW.
Some accept more, some accept less adn each sets his own limits -
@Red:
Candidate type
C. A minority is ready to invest time and study. are positive at debrief and learn from their mistakes. They practice and keep on getting better day by day, week by weekI agree, these pilots are awesome compared to the many new pilots that come for the “wham, bam…”.
@Red:
Different mentors
Having one guy doing all the teaching is impossible and probably doomed to failureI beg to differ here but(after reading) I understand why you may thinks so.
Our method seems to work extremely well and our latest qualified pilots are testament to that.I don’t say that to be nit-picky mate, purely my opinion
-
the main point about that is twofold:
1. It’s too much work for one man - on the long term. Eventually that someone will burn out
2. I think it’s great for cadets to learn the same thing from different people. It adds a different approach. the trick is that all différents IP, must follow the same structure. You don’t want them to teach different things obviouslyOur method seems to work extremely well and our latest qualified pilots are testament to that.
I have no doubt of that. matter of fact, I always wondered how you guys do it
-
Took some time to read Red Dogs post, thanks friend, great comments and very very true and shared experience there. To reply to some comments:
"The question is do VFW impose limits and what to do then when the limit is reached? "
Well not really: But in practise we have the same experience. So I do two things to be able to have some sort of limit improsed in the process:-
PQT: Pre-IQT tasks and requirements. The entry level benchmark basically:
A PDF which will be sent that has the Cadet perform several things before starting IQT. Dealing with port forwarding, trackir, static IP, 3 trainingn missions + ACMI, and the tech stuff basically.
The evidence (ACMI, screenshots) needs to be sent in for review: have the Cadet do this and if not, you know you’re dealing with a type B. Which is fine, but needs to be adressed and needs more and more time. I just adjust to curriculum to this to do 1 thing, not 5 in a flight. I’ll get him/her through IQT but on a grade D level. -
Attendance: enforce a rule which has them showing up, and if not, you go into the doghouse so to speak. This is more to protect the type C pilots in the squadron, more than anything else. If you’re behind of the jet on the tarmac and keep asking the same question because soccer is on in the background: don’t waste my time please… A great analogy is; do that to the wife and you’ll sort of know how I feel. A bit weird but there it is: trying to make it personal because my time is valuable I’d like to think. But overall: Type A and B are difficult.
On the feedback and positivity: Type A can be a proud Cadet and touchy on these subjects. In my experience they make the best dogfighters though, so there’s merit to this type of Cadet. But I just debrief not by showing what went wrong, but by showing (in ACMI/teamviewer) what went wrong and asking them ‘what was your thinking at this point, what we’re you doing’. That evades the pos/neg aspect and works really well. When they open up and tell you, then you can understand and maybe advise (ask first, again, touchy people). If you ask the proud/high ego type student if they want help, instead of giving it straight away, usually they reply positively at which point you will have achieved a common base to start working from.
we start by getting IQT in from the bottom-up: based on the type B level pilot (as per your post’s description: I’m type C)
When the pilot turns out to be type C, we go through IQT in a flash, or in some rare cases, just go straight to the exam flight. The course is build for the novice pilot. Then we enroll them in AQT which is our advanced course (post IQT training) and has them working on intercepts, VRP/VIP to PIP, FAC work and so on.On the ‘1 teacher versus many’ comment: I am the 1 teacher, but on specific topics I like to host a guest teacher who does a specific part of the brief at that time. Takes a bit of the load off and having it being told in a different voice does help a lot.
-
-
Our method seems to work extremely well and our latest qualified pilots are testament to that.
+1: I am working to structure the course into classes and have the Cadets working together more and also have more senior pilots participate in a non teaching role, to create a studying, more lively atmosphere versus the 1-on-1 training which is not optimal for both IP and Cadet.
-
- PQT: Pre-IQT tasks and requirements. The entry level benchmark basically:
A PDF which will be sent that has the Cadet perform several things before starting IQT. Dealing with port forwarding, trackir, static IP, 3 trainingn missions + ACMI, and the tech stuff basically.
The evidence (ACMI, screenshots) needs to be sent in for review: have the Cadet do this and if not, you know you’re dealing with a type B. Which is fine, but needs to be adressed and needs more and more time. I just adjust to curriculum to this to do 1 thing, not 5 in a flight. I’ll get him/her through IQT but on a grade D level.
Our way of screening is a guest flight.
We open our doors to possible candidates and we organize a guest flight. We provide our SOP and we make sure the guest knows what we will do. The guest has to prepare on his own for that guest flight.
After the guest flight, depending on the material we provided we know if the guy prepared the flight or didn’t care. We decide to open a slot in our training if
a. the guy is interested (because the candidate also has the right to see if the VFW is the good one for him
b. we are satisfied that the guy has prepared to this guest flight, have a basic understanding of our SOP and was aware of what would happen during the flight. He’s obvioulsy in a wingman position.
That step also takes care of the PreIQT stuff, like setting up, Hotas, connection tests etc etcI love that primary screening and most of the time it works pretty well and tells the VFW a lot of things about the candidate (and inversely). But you can’t always really see if he might be a type B as this is obviously not deep training enough to realise. You might screen a few - and you have to let a chance to the real new guys as well too.
Most of the type B I encountered, was way later when starting to do much more complicated things. Let’s face it, in the early days of joining a VFW, the motivation is there and most of the guys are gung ho. It’s after that motivation and the need to study and train decreases.- Attendance: enforce a rule which has them showing up, and if not, you go into the doghouse so to speak. This is more to protect the type C pilots in the squadron, more than anything else. If you’re behind of the jet on the tarmac and keep asking the same question because soccer is on in the background: don’t waste my time please… A great analogy is; do that to the wife and you’ll sort of know how I feel. A bit weird but there it is: trying to make it personal because my time is valuable I’d like to think. But overall: Type A and B are difficult.
Well watching Soccer and being inattentive during the MP flight is not even typeB These guys would never be part of our VFW for long. I’d refuse to fly with them. Simple as that.
Type B is much more difficult, because they are there, they are not distracted but as you say they do ask the same questions ever again. Although they were told many times the answer. They just might have forgotten and didn’t cross the T and pointed the i. So they ask again and that indeed disrupt the enjoyment of the other pilots (type A or C) in the Multiplayer flight.
They need more training, but you never know if that extra effort will pay off. I would like to spend the extra time on these guys, but it’s often done at the expense of the training of the other candidate or the enjoyment of type C pilots….On the feedback and positivity: Type A can be a proud Cadet and touchy on these subjects. In my experience they make the best dogfighters though, so there’s merit to this type of Cadet.
Agreed
But I just debrief not by showing what went wrong, but by showing (in ACMI/teamviewer) what went wrong and asking them ‘what was your thinking at this point, what we’re you doing’. That evades the pos/neg aspect and works really well. When they open up and tell you, then you can understand and maybe advise (ask first, again, touchy people). If you ask the proud/high ego type student if they want help, instead of giving it straight away, usually they reply positively at which point you will have achieved a common base to start working from.
Again, dépends on the individual, but what you say indeed make sense
- PQT: Pre-IQT tasks and requirements. The entry level benchmark basically:
-
@Red:
the main point about that is twofold:
1. It’s too much work for one man - on the long term. Eventually that someone will burn out
2. I think it’s great for cadets to learn the same thing from different people. It adds a different approach. the trick is that all différents IP, must follow the same structure. You don’t want them to teach different things obviouslyI have no doubt of that. matter of fact, I always wondered how you guys do it
I agree there can/could be value from having one cadet work with more that one instructor. In BMS practical considerations sometimes make this more difficult than in RL situation (i.e. single pipeline, time-zones vs co-location, etc.)
One the other hand, we don’t have ‘one guy doing it all’. We have several IP’s going through the training cycle with their students every 45 to 60 days. Some administration is shared. Changes to improve our program, plus changes to BMS (which necessitates add’l changes to our program), keeps things fresher.
One of the OP’s questions had to do with dealing with different levels of experience or expertise among recruits. If the v-Wing is going to accept candidates with a range of experience, the IP staff have to be able to 1.) recognize when and where those differences occur, 2.) adapt their teaching content and style to accommodate them, and 3.) insure a constant focus on pre-defined minimum learning objectives and/or procedural compliance.
For instance, one cadet cannot (or is poor at) air refuel and one cadet is very good. In the first case the IP will need to be a coach and cheerleader, providing tips and technique to help the student become proficient, while maintaining wing/squad AAR procedures. In the second case, the IP and student are more focused on wing procedure and the act of AAR is merely an operational objective.
-
Ok so that’s clear: but how do you manage a ‘class’ of students with different levels? Can you divide the attention during the flight or do you gly, then go in debrief to each and inform?
SOP’s do shape a clear framework to start off from, that is a big help. Especially when in you’re in IQT3 (3rd mission) so the Cadet can get used to doing things in a specific way each time, adds to the ‘extra brain capacity’ so to speak to put in new information. Whether it be switches or systems, or basic flight manoevers or weapons delivery.
I’d say the first things are SOP’s, then SA, the formation, then navigation and build on that going forward to weapons employment. I noticed copying R/L courses to BMS doesn’t work very well and having more than 1 Cadet in a IQT flight is very difficult. Do you guys have any experience on how to set that up (properly)?
And the 1 guy doing it all, well that has its pros and cons. Guess it depends on the size of the squadron?
-
Ok so that’s clear: but how do you manage a ‘class’ of students with different levels? ….
And the 1 guy doing it all, well that has its pros and cons. Guess it depends on the size of the squadron?
We do 1:1 …. one student and one IP, not by ‘class’; i.e. not as a group with one IP.
We do have quite a few IP’s … 5 or 6?
-
Hi Agave_Blue,
Just wondering and interested: if you have a couple of instructor pilots, how do you, or your CTO, keep track of progress: How do you ‘manage’ the whole thing with all these moving parts. Top down changes in a squadron need to be implemented (if applicable), what are some of the methods you use, or your IP use, to maintain a quality level and also a comfort level for the Cadets that are on the receiving end of this course?
And who teaches the teacher? That is another question. Maybe we might be looking at an IP platform here where IP’s can work together and make our own separate squadrons better?
Allow me a little daydream: Having IP’s work together on tools, form, process and communication to lift the BMS community up and provide a platform and resource for future IP’s to add to?
Regardless of the individual SOP’s and squadrons we might be tied to. Inner workings of a VFS are specific and VFW internal:
I mean specifically the IP’s. Build a knowledge + experience base…. -
Hi Agave_Blue,
Just wondering and interested: if you have a couple of instructor pilots, how do you, or your CTO, keep track of progress: How do you ‘manage’ the whole thing with all these moving parts. Top down changes in a squadron need to be implemented (if applicable), what are some of the methods you use, or your IP use, to maintain a quality level and also a comfort level for the Cadets that are on the receiving end of this course?
And who teaches the teacher? That is another question. Maybe we might be looking at an IP platform here where IP’s can work together and make our own separate squadrons better?
Allow me a little daydream: Having IP’s work together on tools, form, process and communication to lift the BMS community up and provide a platform and resource for future IP’s to add to?
Regardless of the individual SOP’s and squadrons we might be tied to. Inner workings of a VFS are specific and VFW internal:
I mean specifically the IP’s. Build a knowledge + experience base….We have an entire squadron within the wing dedicated to IP’s and training new cadets. There is a training syllabus that all IP’s adhere to and DLO’s (desired learning objectives) that every student going through IQT needs to meet to progress through their training. All cadets are tracked amd reports are filed within the wing to keep track of progress.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Hi Agave_Blue,
Just wondering and interested: if you have a couple of instructor pilots, how do you, or your CTO, keep track of progress: How do you ‘manage’ the whole thing with all these moving parts. Top down changes in a squadron need to be implemented (if applicable), what are some of the methods you use, or your IP use, to maintain a quality level and also a comfort level for the Cadets that are on the receiving end of this course? ….
Over time the wing has built up infrastructure to support it. Standard training docs, TE’s, DLO’s, etc. We have a roster where we keep track of progress. We write up each training mission, post and discuss them on the forum. If we need to change a training objective, we discuss it on the forum and put it in place via the docs and/or TE’s. I don’t know that this any different that what many other wings do.
If a cadet needs a re-fly, they know it before they leave a debrief. It’s not a penalty. It’s a recognition that to move to the next flight, we need to do this one better. Students need to study and practice between flights. It becomes obvious who does and who doesn’t. Wash-outs among those less experienced in BMS Multiplayer are high if they can’t commit the prep and practice time. It’s a steep learning curve (as we all know).
The underlying purpose is what will drive the training content. Our objective is NOT to teach BMS system button pushing, nor to graduate Weapon School Flight Leads. We expect new members to know the basics around radar use, weapon employment, T/O and landing, Ramp start, etc. at the time they join. Our objective is for the cadet to demonstrate a basic level of competence with regard to AA/AG/Form aspects of flying, demonstrated adherence to wing SOPs (comms procedure, MP connection procedure, AAR procedure, STTO, etc.) and competence employing basic weapon and/or team tactics. We want to bring them far enough that they can integrate into wing-wide flights where their competence in BMS will increase. Other wings go further …. some much further.