Cadet Mentors
-
Yup. Seems like the last 7 or so years of my sim experience focused mainly on training and constantly raising the bar. Instructing several students at a time on various steps: IQT/MQT/AQT/Element lead/Flight lead/Package lead/TE build/campaign management. Add that to your own personal gain/enhancements/knowledge and it’s a full plate indeed. This absolutely is a STUDY sim, not just a flight game and I think once a lot of newcomers figure that out they get overwhelmed and disinterested. That, and a lot of people just don’t have the time to invest to become/stay proficient. (I know I don’t anymore).
-
I wonder if academic qualifications as in RL might have a place in the screening process. I cant see it being introduced but it is surely a factor in success/failure at the high levels being discussed. Proven ability to study retain and understand knowledge of a technical nature and not quitting.
It’s honestly not a bad idea as I think a large majority of the BMS community has a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent.
-
You should avoid the hot air behind the engines of the tanker or you’ll mess up the engine irl, as well as the wing turbulence. You should be in this position when in formation with it
.This I know…already. I’m fine holding, it’s getting and maintaining center on the approach that are my problem…and not chasing the boom! I’m also still trying to figure out what my proper visual cues should be…just need more time practicing. LOTS more time…
-
What tools (software) do you use to present topics, how strict are you, what are your benchmarks? and so on.
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.
I believe the tools have been mentioned, but if it’s ok with you (and everyone else) I’d like to elaborate on the benchmarks a bit. Everyone does it differently; some are pass/fail, some are points values, some are a combination of both with a certain score/percentage being an acceptable “pass”. A lot are based on real-world documentation with a few edits/additions/deletions as needed to fit the needs of the sim. A few specific examples I’ve used in the past are the NAVTRAEQUIPCEN IH-315/AFHRL-TR-79-3 (USN, 1979) and the NAVAIRSYSCOM N00019-81-C-0098 (USN, 1986). Both of these provide specific benchmarks for ACM, and can be “custom tailored” to meet specific DLO’s of a training event. These are just 2 examples, and specifically for ACM training. Combined with other documents and a LOT of seat time, figuring out the best way for an organization to go about the business of instructing specific sorties for specific DLO’s can be made easier, without the necessity of “starting from scratch”.
As for the “craft” of teaching, not everyone learns the same way so an adaptable approach can sometimes be in everyone’s best interest(s). This can be most easily be achieved by having numerous IP’s available for any specific sortie, having one IP with several approaches, or a mix of both. A few reference materials I’ve used for “teaching the teacher” are the Aviation Instructors Handbook (CNAT P-905 PAT) and a Fundamentals of Instruction (there are several out there). These can give the TO or Lead IP’s some assistance in getting their peers up to speed and suggest different approaches to different issues.
There are literally thousands of ways to do it, most organizations have their own standards and most probably share some as well. At the end of the day, as long as the organization knows what they want to do, how to do it, and how to present it… it really comes down to WHO does it.
Hope I didn’t side-track too much, just wanted to give my own insight to the specific questions raised.
-
This I know…already. I’m fine holding, it’s getting and maintaining center on the approach that are my problem…and not chasing the boom! I’m also still trying to figure out what my proper visual cues should be…just need more time practicing. LOTS more time…
Dont really know what else to suggest other than stick time. You can get to precontact easily by sticking the gun cross to the boom tip, and stabilising there. Contact is directly forwards of that position. Dont overcorrect, dont use a death grip on the stick, wiggle your fingers and toes. Breathe. If you feel like your formation is a little shaky, practice with the HUD switched off or down.
-
Dont really know what else to suggest other than stick time. You can get to precontact easily by sticking the gun cross to the boom tip, and stabilising there. Contact is directly forwards of that position. Dont overcorrect, dont use a death grip on the stick, wiggle your fingers and toes. Breathe. If you feel like your formation is a little shaky, practice with the HUD switched off or down.
+1. Exactly the sort of thing I need to work on.
-
Something I needed to add on that list from BW Stevie? I always have to decrease the friction of the throttle. That way, it can’t stay in position and of course is not sticky. I found I have much more control on tiny throttle input that way and it helps my refuelling.
Wiggling toes and releasing the death grip on the controls sounds funny but they tremendously help me as well
For the rest focus on the refueller and nothing else. Don’t look at your HUD, fly formation on the big guyTo come back on topic:
I wonder if academic qualifications as in RL might have a place in the screening process. I cant see it being introduced but it is surely a factor in success/failure at the high levels being discussed. Proven ability to study retain and understand knowledge of a technical nature and not quitting.
They would sure help But would that be feasible in a Sim? I Wonder
Definitely. The guys who stick around from experience are the real world pilots or student pilots. Every graduate of IQT/MQT has been involved in aviation real world in some way, either commercial or privately. The washouts have been the opposite, just sim pilots who may be very good, but don’t see the same value in doing that much training, they just want to blow stuff up quickly. So I guess previous experience is always a huge plus.
Disagreed here. I have seen quite a bit of guys doing perfectly fine without any aviation ties.
It’s also a question of acknoledging the long term. These who can will commit to intense study. Those who don’t see it and consider the sim more as a game won’t. -
@Red:
Disagreed here. I have seen quite a bit of guys doing perfectly fine without any aviation ties.
It’s also a question of acknoledging the long term. These who can will commit to intense study. Those who don’t see it and consider the sim more as a game won’t.You already did a decent write up above, on the types of sim pilots, and I dont want to repeat all of what you said. Without going too much into it, it really does depend on the time you put into it, vs the results you get out. If you and your wing expect a high standard from your pilots, its going to take a lot of effort on the part of the IPs, and on the part of the students. Like Redshift, I see a lot of correlation between folks with a non zero air time, and folks who are prepared to put time and effort into studying the Viper. I dont think there is a causation there, though. As RD says, there are plenty of folks without air time who are prepared to put the hours in for Falcon.
Its hardly the first time Ive voiced this opinion, so Im sure this is familiar to some folks. On the topic of graduate qualifications, I dont think they prove much when it comes to dedication. Both of my housemates have their degrees, one of them has several, working on a masters. Neither of them would be ideal candidates for training by a VFW, though. Time constraints, and a general lack of dedication - neither of them tend to stick to one thing in particular for all that long. Perhaps they are outliers, though.
I think specific qualifications could be of great use for Falcon, and the VFWs who operate using it. The guiding principles behind TCM for a long time looked like they would be something suitable for this, in providing a community standard rating for pilots, who completed their course(s). One big commonality between the various wings is their lack of interoperability for training and operations. Everyone does things slightly differently - or more often, significantly differently. Having an open, community standard qualification would I think make training, and standardisation of training, much easier for a lot of wings.
For the wings who operate significantly differently to the average, it would not help all that much, and the average wing operates at a standard that makes standardisation pointless. So perhaps its not a workable idea. Still, I dont think qualifications are a bad idea, just that having a university degree is not much qualification as to how good a student you are.
-
I wonder if academic qualifications as in RL might have a place in the screening process. I cant see it being introduced but it is surely a factor in success/failure at the high levels being discussed. Proven ability to study retain and understand knowledge of a technical nature and not quitting.
The way I understood this, is not that being a real life graduate would help.
Rather in the sense:
Do academic (theoric) exam before starting VFW trainingSay, let’s study the dash1, then pass the theoric exam in the VFW and only if you succeed will the VFW start training you.
and my answer to that was:
They would sure help But would that be feasible in a Sim? I Wonder
-
Ah, I see. I dont think its the sim that makes that infeasible, but the limited size of the recruiting pool. Many folks will look at an entrance exam and choose a different wing instead.
Still, its more or less the same as what I advocate anyway - you have ground schooling alongside the flying, and you have evaluation all the way through. If you dont meet the grade, you keep studying till you do - or until you drop out. The only difference I see with doing an exam first is the order its in.
Thinking about it, so long as your entrance test was reasonably short, it would save time on your IPs, and still be a useful selection tool for your applicants. That doesnt sound like a bad idea in principle, to me.
-
If you were going to use an entrance test you’d need a series of tests otherwise all some folks will do after failing it the first time is swat to pass the test … not understand the answers and thus be not much better than before you tested them, except now you’re investing time in training them. It all depends on the level of experience you want you student pilot to have and even then there is no guarantee that they don’t quite when the going get tough. The learning curve in BMS is quite steep to start with and doesn’t really flatten out much.
Ground school (directed learning/ reading) with a test at the end could be a useful aid to learning but you need to reinforce this with actually doing it too - much like the current Training missions in BMS.
-
This has merit, but I’ve seen a lot of folks who can copy and paste from a book/manual, but then have zero clue on what it actually means when it comes to applying it. On the contrary I’ve seen folks who can perform the aircraft in combat scenarios and be an awesome wingman/lead, but can’t quote anything from the manual. I agree there could be a “happy medium”, but figuring out exactly what that is could potentially be a nightmare. Would you prefer to have someone who can “quote the book”, someone who can learn and apply the ideas of said book, or a mix of both? How would one go about identifying that? End of the day, it probably still boils down to the individual and no entrance exam/interview will truly show the intent/dedication/interest of a student. Sometimes ya just have to put the nose to the grind. My $.02
-
That’s my observation after running my course for an entire year. The pilots who have put in the time: a rated A320 first officer, a rated commercial helicopter pilot, another rated commercial helicopter pilot, myself, a F-16 crew chief, an airline ramp supervisor, then there is one pilot who has been flying Falcon a loooong time. I’m speaking more on aptitude to grasp the concepts quickly and efficiently. Even integrity to not just quit on someone who’s invested in you like that. The one who’ve just flat out quit after tons of instruction have been sim pilots, even when they were so very good at the simulator, tactics and concepts. So I never said it is a causation but for my course these are the best candidates to succeed, not the only candidates that will complete it. That’s not to say that someone couldn’t study. I was not making a black and white statement in that it’s a concrete belief. Does that make more sense?
-
Bit late reply Stevie (from your post yesterday 05:38):
Well there is also the homework for the Cadet: they can train offline as long as they want, that also gives results. Applies to most (not all) topics: you brief them, give them the information (no more, no less) they need, and send them off to train by themselves for a week. Then do it together and iron out the details. Being on standby if any questions or issues arise: a DIY IQT partly so to speak.
Not every cadet can handle that, but it does keep the initiative with them, and that empowerment can be very motivating although a bit risky sometime (concerning cohesion and the feeling of ‘being involved’ enough). -
Come on now, where are the hardcore guys hiding? The ones who can fly solidly 2 wing flights per week?
I know a few… Guess most are in this tread now They are there and yes the excuses of time is always there. I respect it but also it does make one picky. Not sure if screening more or tailoring the IQT to more ‘fun’ will have a good result. What I found is that making IQT short for Basic Mission Ready standard (entry level) and then becoming an active wingman is a good way to go, and then provide the additional training for the chosen few so to speak.
But this also creates a problem because the difference in level between active pilots becomes greater with the risk of washing out the veterans.So I don’t have the answer for it, maybe we find it here in this tread, who knows… (here’s hoping)
-
I think specific qualifications could be of great use for Falcon, and the VFWs who operate using it. The guiding principles behind TCM for a long time looked like they would be something suitable for this, in providing a community standard rating for pilots, who completed their course(s)…
One big commonality between the various wings is their lack of interoperability for training and operations. (…) Having an open, community standard qualification would I think make training, and standardisation of training, much easier for a lot of wings.
Blu3Wolf, Can you elaborate on these specific points in your post? I find them very interesting: Can you possibly elaborate on these two? I would like to understand better what your view is on these two specific points in your comment. We could be onto something here because a mix of training and OPS is not something I am seeing or hearing so far. Is this a unique approach? And does it work and if so, how would one go about realising and implementing this? Not to mention test and rate it (going back to Creeps benchmark comment)
-
(…) I’ve seen a lot of folks who can copy and paste from a book/manual, but then have zero clue on what it actually means when it comes to applying it.
I believe this goes to the learning phases; from reading, to reading again and again until one understands and can cite it, the applying it, and then internalising it; being ‘fluent’ at it. Like muscle memory.
IMHO: a great book learner with no SA can tell you exactly when and what went wrong, but he or she was unable to correct for it when it happened. On the opposite there is the ‘wow that was close’ guy not knowing what just streaked past his canopy as his lead blows up.
So as in all things balance is the key. Ground school versus OPS (just taking into account these are earlier mentioned type C students, our favorite beast)
-
an A type personality needs more stick time with active coaching and directive coaching as opposed to lengthy ground school sessions (a visual debrief with ACMI and Twiddla briefs suit this pilots best) – [the kind you throw in the deep end and then show him or her what went wrong, and build up to being an IP some day]
-
a B type personality needs limited ground school ops (he’ll know the manual) and stick time from low action (patterns, AAR) to high threat (SEAD, AA) in a managed manner (check before going forward) and debrief with benchmarks and numbers? – [the kind you provide context to, demonstrate, have him or her demonstrate, check (plan/do/check/act structures) and build up to be a wingman, mission commander/planner]
-
-
In our wing we’ve tried a lot of different training programs. We initially tried a very in depth IQT with lots of check rides and even written tests, but that didn’t work because our IPs got burnt out, our membership got too small, and most new guys never finished the course. We then tried the opposite side of the spectrum and had a very easy IQT type course, which didn’t even require an IP, and that didn’t work either because even though our membership numbers were huge our weekly flights were chaotic and we couldn’t do complex missions because of the skills gap.
More recently we’ve gone with a happy medium of the two and changed our focus from offering a “1:1 real world” IQT course to an IQT course that’s sole purpose is to get a new member up to our basic standard. Our basic standard is being able to take a wingman slot in one of our large weekend flights and existing members not being able to tell that you are a new guy. You know our SOPs, you know basic tacform, you can air refuel, and you know how to use the weapons in the jet. Maybe your brevity isn’t great yet, but you will improve your brevity over time by participating in missions. Maybe you are afraid to lead a flight, but with more experience you’ll get comfortable to take an element lead spot, and later a flight lead spot. Essentially we believe our role as a VFW is to make sure we have fun, challenging flights available to our members every single week, so all of our training is geared towards making sure new guys are comfortable participating in the weekly flights and can do so without disrupting the flight for the existing members.
Our IQT works like this… You apply and if you meet our requirements (i.e. you can ramp start, over 18, etc…) you get assigned an IP (usually based on timezone with European guys getting European IPs and North Americans getting North American IPs). Once you get assigned an IP, you have 2 weeks to start IQT and 45 days to complete it after you’ve started it. We do that because we don’t want IPs tied up with a new guy that isn’t committed to finishing the course. We always make exceptions for real life stuff though and can put it on hold if needed. Our IQT course is 6 flights and cumulative repeating the same things while adding in a new topic in each flight. We start teaching air refueling from the first flight and you have to be able to connect with the tanker within 90 seconds of “cleared to contact” (sounds difficult but it’s not - every member is able to do this before graduating). If the new guy struggles with one of the flights, he and the IP will fly it again until he gets it down before moving on. Our flights are half a tutorial and half check ride. Meaning the trainee is expected to read the training materials before each flight and practice on his own, then the IP briefs them and checks they understand the concepts, then they go fly it and demonstrate they know how to do it in the jet. We look at our IQT course as one long interview where the IP can make sure the trainee is a good fit for our group, and the trainee can determine if we are a good fit for him/her.
We do have additional specialized training courses, but I think most of the learning takes place in our weekend flights and the debriefs on TS and in the forum. We have a debrief after every flight sticking to a debrief format (i.e. Was your mission a success? What did you do well? What would you do differently if you could fly it again? And what if any SOP hiccups or details we need to discuss?). Then in the forum the debrief discussions continue in the flight thread after people have reviewed the ACMI in more detail. People can ask why someone did X, or how we could be better at Y, and we can ask the experts who do it/did it for real for help. And then they go and practice it with other members during the week. So I think we put a lot of focus on the weekly missions and always trying to execute them better, and that enables a larger group of people in the wing to get consistent weekly training than just that initial push when you join the wing - because every time you are flying you are learning - and IPs aren’t always available to do it 1 on 1. IQT just gets them started and the rest is up to them.
Not saying our method works for everyone or is better or worse. We just found our groove focusing more on getting flight hours in regular weekly scheduled missions than 1 on 1 training courses.
Other Suggestions:
-Solicit feedback from graduates or people that did your training course then disappeared and find out why they didn’t stick around. Agave Blue came up with this in our wing and it was interesting to read the responses. We now do surveys after each IQT course and the suggestions we’ve received have been great and made our training better. Sometimes as an IP you don’t realize you were doing something until someone points it out.
-Remind yourself and the new guy this is a hobby and supposed to be fun. Families and other priorities come first. Not everyone can devote the same amount of time. Your attitude makes a big difference in how long people stick around. Sounds obvious but I honestly think this is one of the most important things.
-
… Your attitude makes a big difference in how long people stick around. Sounds obvious but I honestly think this is one of the most important things.
It’s almost the only thing. That and the commitment (and sometimes courage?) to stick with it over the long run.
I say ‘courage’ in the sense that as ‘the new guy’ (some very new to multiplayer and/or BMS) even after a good IQT, you’ll get into a wing flight and screw something up royally. I think some people have been so mortified by those mistakes, that the pull back and either don’t fly as much, or just fade away altogether. But it’s really not necessary. We all screw up from time-to-time and make stupid mistakes. If you have a good attitude AND the commitment to continue, you can learn from it. Otherwise, you’re just avoiding it.
The commitment to stay over the long run is the real variable. As far as I’ve seen, there is no way to predict it. Some you can predict WON’T make the time commitment, but you can’t predict who WILL make the time commitment. It’s either, ‘Probably won’t’ or ‘Cautiously optimistic’.
-
Demo nailed it.