Cadet Mentors
-
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.
-
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.
That is a good way to do it and you sure get a lot of numbers that way, but for us it’s more a quality over quantity approach. We want guys who will push to learn the most advanced subjects you can within the limits of Falcon. The real end game should be that all members fairly proficient (vs mere currency), in my mind it’s better to fly with someone who knows the same thing you do without it being up to interpretation or individual pursuit of knowledge. In our wing you fly the standard, everyone knows their contracts roles and responsibilities in all roles because we all get the same exact training no matter the experience level. You can fly falcon for 15 years, I am going to put you through the course. The only way to get that kind of quality is to spend the time training, there are no shortcuts to get “there.”
Let me ask you this, how many of the members after IQT graduation understand the intercept timelines and decision making processes by the lead, in addition to managing the targeting, sorting and finally employment? Do they understand when to shoot? How many out of IQT or MQT can go up with an experienced lead and be an asset to him the entire from wheels up to wheels down flight multiplying his force on the battle field? Do they get to learn all concepts of mutual support, their roles within their element, flight and ultimately the package? For example a wing mans job is easy: fly the leads wing, stay where he can be seen and used by the lead, provide secondary navigation, do the cockpit and radar work (check six lookout, AOR contracts and sanitization). I think it’s extremely important for all pilots to know these very basics before ever flying in any kind of “combat” ops because without these very basics what will happen invariably is someone doesn’t get to go home. With the extra study and knowledge of roles and contracts you see higher mission success rates and ultimately RTBs.
Just curious because one common thing I’ve heard from folks who join our wing is that they never understood the complete picture and are generally relieved to learn the “why” in what their doing as it really improves not only their skills but ultimately their SA of threats, friendlies, ect in the AO. Every wing is different but I’d rather have a team of 5 guys who are all locked in their tactics than 50 who have a idea of what’s supposed to happen, but not a more complete understanding. Even then we are still not perfect and have a lot to learn still, but the continual training and improvement toward to the goal of maximum proficiency in all roles, hopefully I won’t burn out anytime soon
-
This is not a debate thread gents this is an ideas thread.There will be no ‘whos better’ crap in here, lets keep it civil.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
I believe we had about 5 guys joining in the past year, of which none stayed, and another 3-4 showing interest but never committing. Our setup is that we first have a 30-minute conversation on Teamspeak to discuss what they expect/want to get out of joining, which allows us to estimate what we can expect from them, and to give them a quick run-through of our training process, which is divided in 4 - 5 phases.
-
If they want, they can join as “FNG”, during which they have no obligation to us in any way, but they can fly some missions with us to see how we actually operate, and if they could see themselves doing that. We don’t really impose a time frame on this stage, but we aim to have clarity within 1-2 months, depending on FNG availability.
-
If they like what they see, and they request to start training with us, they become Probation Pilots (PP). In this stage, PP’s continue to fly missions with us, but now, we’ll also provide them with documents to study and arrange 3 separate and guided/supervised Initial Squadron Training (IST) flights of about 90 - 120 minutes each, to teach them basic stuff they’ll need every flight (e.g. ramp start, take-off, landing, formation flying, first brevity etc.). In the past year, for reasons unknown, we have had nobody continue past this stage…
Should they pass the IST, we continue on to Air Combat Training (ACT), where PP’s learn how to perform in A-A and A-G roles with gradually increasing hostile opposition. Our aim is to get a PP through his ACT phase in roughly 6 - 8 months. -
At the end of the ACT flights, which they fly as a wingman, the PP’s do a two-ship Flight Lead Upgrade (2FLUG) flight. This serves as a bit of an exam, where the PP needs to show he understands what he was taught, by coming up with a game plan and taking control over the flight. If they pass the FLUG, they become two-ship leads and reach Belgian Virtual Tiger (BVT) status.
-
During their stay in the BVT, they’ll get continued training on how to perform in and lead fourships, culminating in the 4FLUG.
-
After the 4FLUG, we provide optional courses that further increase their skills, so they can take control over an entire package, and later even become mission (aka COMAO) commander.
As for how we regulate IP’s:
Because we are a small squadron, with only 9 active pilots, everybody that has reached a certain rank, and thus has shown to be capable of passing that threshold, is automatically assigned IP for a lower one. This means that every BVT, having passed the 2FLUG, could be IP for the IST or ACT phase; 4FLUG’s can teach the fourship course and so on. -
-
Awesome! That’s what’s great about mutual support, you get kill ratios of 2:6 or 2:8 so I don’t know, depends on the criteria for commit, how the groups are setup on the radar, whether or not the bandits are aware ect. So I’m not sure on the jab exactly but I was just asking if they learn these things or not?
Also just to respond the forcing of “will” or treating people like “dirt.” What are you exactly meaning? As far as I know someone who joins the wing agrees to abide by the AFIs/SOPs put forth and they know their roles within the CoC. Anyone who steps outside of those rules and SOPs will be corrected no matter their position. Is that what you mean? Finally if you retread my previous response, I said so far the most active and successful candidates in my wing have been real world aviation, maybe that’s because their jobs more closely align to what we are simulating, therefore they take it more seriously than the candidate in the game to blow stuff up? I think a couple folks misinterpreted what was being stated I think the “best” vs only I think is a big difference. There are guys in our wing who are not pilots and excel too. I’ve found it clicks faster if there is some experience beforehand be it 10 years of Falcon or a guy who flies for a job. We aren’t setup for “new pilots” to just jump in and fly.
-
This is not a debate thread gents this is an ideas thread.There will be no ‘whos better’ crap in here, lets keep it civil.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
There’s no “who’s better” and you’re not going to “moderate” a legitimate question. Do they get that kind of training? My posts are absolutely civil suggest you read them again.
-
There’s no “who’s better” and you’re not going to “moderate” a legitimate question. Do they get that kind of training? My posts are absolutely civil suggest you read them again.
It is the policy of the BMS moderation team to moderate anything they see as starting a problem/arguement/issue please read the rules again for any clarification, the warning was made as a broad statement and not directed at anyone in particular, but i assure you if we do see an issue arising we will moderate it at our discretion.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Have a great day, Dillin.
-
And you as well sir.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Very interesting thread, gents. Please allow me to “throw a wrench in,” play devil’s advocate, and throw in a few genuine questions:
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Are there VFWs that take on applicants no matter the level of proficiency? While we’d all like to have Type C pilots (as per Red Dog’s post), won’t we be severely limiting ourselves if we can’t deal with or help Type As or find roles for Type Bs?
I can see the point in training someone so he can be a better pilot, training someone so that you have someone to fly with, but does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim?
EDIT:
I also find the 75-80% washout rate interesting. Any ideas on why the students wash out? How much of this is due to 1) real life issues, 2) expectation/reality incompatibility, or 3) lack of skills/brain power for the material?Thanks!
-
You raise some great points Ice. I’ll give my own personal opinion on a few of them.
Who takes care of the really new guys? They do. If one wishes to join a group, then a bare minimum expectation should be expected to be met for that particular organization. This expectation varies from group to group but exists for a reason. If the “new guy” doesn’t like it, doesn’t feel up to the task, or just doesn’t want to, then that particular group probably is not for them anyway. That, or they can show some initiative and learn/meet these requirements and go from there. This is why there’s more than one wing out there, and all have their own standards/expectations. I personally think this is a good thing!
Does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim? Define “enjoy the sim”. This means many things to many different fliers. Some just want to casually go up and “blow sh!t up”. Some want to be more structured and do it as a team. Others want to emulate real world as much as possible. Some focus on procedure, some focus on tactics, some focus on strategy, some focus on it all. Enjoyment comes in many flavors, and this again is why there’s more than one wing out there.
The washout rate has been discussed before, it’s a combination of all 3 items you mentioned. Whether someone has been instructing for a week, a month, a year, or a decade… we’ve probably seen 'em all. I would venture to say (in my personal experience) that real life factors are the main reason (or at least the most utilized excuse ).
-
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)
Alright, so a little history on my thoughts on the idea. Some years back I had this pie in the sky idea for community training. It never really got past the pie in the sky idea to start with. I was envisioning something akin to what the TCM guys were going for, but I never got any further than ‘hey, that seems like a cool idea’. The general idea should be familiar. You have a wing run by a community standard, whose mission is to conduct training IAW principles of their code of conduct, and following guidance by ‘client’ wings on the standards they need pilots trained to. Say, for example, the 199th VFW (picked at random, sorry if that is your wing!) wants their applicants to meet a certain standard, but is short of IPs. They avoid duplication of work by specifying that their applicants do initial qualification training at the training wing - which was originally to be the 8VFW WP, but that name is taken now.
The idea behind it is simple, you get a common standard that many wings can use and assume that their new pilots meet it. Its a benefit for wings, because it lets them offload initial training requirements, decreasing the workload on their possibly limited IPs. That commonality then lends itself to future interoperability for joint ops between wings - their pilots already meet the same baseline standard.
However, it has drawbacks too, and the ones I identified whilst idly considering it meant that I never got past the stage of writing up documentation on how it would work. I first thought that there would be little demand for such a service. Wings already conduct their own initial training, and many use that training as a selection tool. Folks would be opposed to losing that selection tool, I think. On reflection, I also realised there are a great many different standards of training for different wings. As Redshift points out above, many wings training standard is at a level that some wings would not accept from their new recruits. Most wings training standard is lower than the one I would stand for, were I to found another wing. So, such a community standard would either need their training course to be at a standard much higher than most wings need or desire, or to be lower than the standard that some demand. Either way is a problem, because in both cases you need an adjustment after they leave the training wing. There would be little demand for a wing that trained your new recruits on things they dont ‘need’, from the point of view of most wings. I personally had no interest in a training wing that trained to a lower standard than as close to CMR as I could make it. At the time, I also figured I didnt have to worry about this stuff anyway, because TCM was soon going to be filling any demand there might be in that area. Unfortunately, I was mistaken on that one, but the others still seem like issues to me.
Its a great idea for a standard of training, but I think the wild differences in wing standards would make such a standard hard to implement. It would not be impossible, either. And the idea of many wings having a common standard for interoperability, based on a common standard of training, is definitely a captivating one - for me at least.
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Well, we already know Im biased on this. Still, if there existed a community training wing, one would expect there to be a certain minimum barrier to entry, and that barrier would likely consist of self study. If you cannot read the manual to ramp start, that isn’t going to convince anyone you want to learn more about the jet. Ive twice talked someone through a ramp start, and Ive sat in on someone trying to do the same for someone else, twice. The fastest one was only 35 minutes - or mach 2 depending on how you measure things! Point being, its something better suited for ground schooling, or self study. Likewise, Id argue that taking off should be something you can at least accomplish before starting a falcon training course - if there was a demand for ab initio training though, perhaps that could be identified. Im not convinced there is such a demand, though. Landing is on the same ticket, though landing well might be something that ground school time could be devoted to. Navigation is an interesting thing for BMS. Most applicants havent done it before, which is a significant departure from the prototype for training - where F-16 students are winged pilots to start with, and familiar with basics of navigation, and a lot more besides. Things like dropping bombs, dogfighting… that stuff should be trained at the wing, in my own opinion.
-
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points. -
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points.Im gonna go ahead and be ‘that guy’ for a minute. Sorry.
I reckon some of those modalities ARE necessarily better - but not in absolute terms. Completely agree that a well rounded training program needs to make use of different modes of learning, though. The way I see it, that 400 page manual is excellent for covering a topic in detail. There’s a reason they exist. You dont need to memorise the dash, but some parts of it are essential, while others are ‘nice to know, but it can be looked up in flight if necessary’. On the other hand, a video (IF done properly, and there are a lot that are not) is a great way to engage the viewer, and make strong use of visuals to reinforce complex ideas. Finally, it doesnt matter how poorly you learn by doing - if you cant reproduce the ideas that you had on the ground, in the air, then you will not meet the standard expected of you. You need to get stick time, in conjunction with ground learning and self study.
The badges thing seems like a gimmick, but not necessarily a bad one. Many wings already issue ‘patches’ to their graduates, the OpenBadges standard would just make it a little easier for folks to display those patches online.
With regards to the different levels lf investment and competency, its something that could possibly be addressed by having multiple consecutive training standards, or possibly different parallel courses. One for newcomers who want to as quickly as possible, get in the jet and blow stuff up. One for the average wing pilot who needs a minimum standard of training. And one for the few wings who are interested in a high standard of training, but also trusting enough to permit an external training corps to conduct that training.
Of course, the issue then becomes, who is going to donate their time to teaching folks this stuff? In particular for the (still entirely hypothetical) newcomer course. Most of the time, the inducement for IPs is that their wing gets more recruits. With a community training wing, they dont directly get that inducement. Possibly some wings could donate IPs, folks who would spend some of their time training for the community wing, and the rest of their time spent doing follow on training at their own wing? All interesting thoughts, anyway.
I am both surprised and impressed that this thread has stayed on track. Some good thoughts all.
-
Very interesting thread, gents. Please allow me to “throw a wrench in,” play devil’s advocate, and throw in a few genuine questions:
Who takes care of the really new guys?
I understand that IPs have limited free time but isn’t the “barrier” to entry a bit high? Maybe not for seasoned fliers who’ve played Falcon 4.0 and mods, AF, and now BMS, but look at it from a point of view of really, really new blood to the genre. Most VFWs ask that applicants can rampstart, take off, navigate, drop bombs, do air-to-air refuelling, have dogfights, RTB, and land. What about those that struggle in one or more areas? I’ve known of a few guys that have held off applying to VFWs because they can’t tank that well or they need more A-A dogfight practice…. if only they’d known that they could apply to A-G specific squadrons or that the wing can sometimes arrange an alternate landing site for those that can’t refuel.
Are there VFWs that take on applicants no matter the level of proficiency? While we’d all like to have Type C pilots (as per Red Dog’s post), won’t we be severely limiting ourselves if we can’t deal with or help Type As or find roles for Type Bs?
I can see the point in training someone so he can be a better pilot, training someone so that you have someone to fly with, but does anyone see value in training someone so he can simply enjoy the sim?
EDIT:
I also find the 75-80% washout rate interesting. Any ideas on why the students wash out? How much of this is due to 1) real life issues, 2) expectation/reality incompatibility, or 3) lack of skills/brain power for the material?Thanks!
I am of the opinion that knowledge comes from exposure, but proficiency comes through repetition.
In terms of “modes of learning” some people have difficulty reading a 400 page manual, you have to admit that it can be intimidating to a newcomer! Some people prefer video tutorials, while others prefer to “learn by doing.” None of these modalities are necessarily “better” but a well-rounded training program should understand and attempt to accomodate each of them.
I would like to ask a few more questions. How well do you think, and how utilized are, the built-in training TEs in the sim? I think we can we can all agree that they are far from complete, but how well would running, and passing, each of the training TEs help your vetting of potential recruits?
Forgive me for making any comparison to FSX(I will surely be penalized a couple of rounds at the O-club later…), but would a “reward” for completion of the training set help to incentive the process? That comes back to intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. IF (and it’s a big, hypothetical if) an accepted standard were prescribed along the lines of what the TCM project mentioned earlier, could a community recognized “badge” be administered? I am thinking along the lines of Mozilla’s Open badges initiative at openbadges.org
It would be very cool to see this community generate a curriculum set of training TEs with stated learning objectives, grading standards, briefings, etc. The VFWs may have to collaboratively establish, or “buy into” an accreditation system but it could help establish a truly level playing field for quantifying an individuals exposure level across the various VFWs or at FO.
I understand that some are satisfied with competency, others move toward currency while others strive even harder for proficiency. Let’s face it, some are here to game and “blow stuff up”, others are here for the hobby, others come specifically to learn and be challenged. As long as each person walks away fullfilled we should all be happy. BMS has SO MUCH to offer, but at the end of the day each one of us has to choose how much we want to invest in ourselves on this platform.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on the above points.Well I just want to say anyone can learn this simply by studying, that’s all there is to it – hard work. You have to be smart, study hard, and try to push yourself to do harder and harder things. Start with each building block and then eventually put it all together. That’s what I’m trying to get to, in order to get high level you have to study it all the time. There is no way to learn this stuff through osmosis and there’s no short cut. But why do something if you don’t do it well? I think a lot of people have an aversion to greatness. They tell themselves they can’t do it, or it’s too hard, but it’s actually not. It’s just going to take time to get it all down, everyone does it differently. As far as just training someone, I don’t know I’d at least like the guy to stick around for a while if you’re going to go through the effort, is it so much to ask that he’ll fly with ya after you show the way? Otherwise you simply get tired of flying the same 2 hour sortie. I want the guy to not only stick around if we are going to train him, but a friend too. Commit and strive for greatness (I still get shot down from time to time I’m not perfect, but I’ll sure as hell try to be the best I can be! :p) learn the basics of aviation (navigation, weather, aircraft performance, ect) then learn your specific aircraft checklist avionics, and systems, then finally join the fine VFW of your choice and learn the SOPs, tactics, and procedures! Anyone can learn this stuff, if they really want to and try, I think Creeper hit the nail on the head when he said that newbie pilots have rely on themselves for that initial learning. We have all the books already, just fantastic documents written and compiled by the BMS team, particularly RedDog’s training TEs and guide. The latest manual should get any newbie in the right direction, crack that sucker open!
-
Who takes care of the really new guys?
People like Krause and Tim Morgan (Stretch from the 72nd) that make YouTube tutorials of the basics.
or lack of skills/brain power for the material?
I don’t think I’ve met anyone in the community that doesn’t have the brain power to do it. There is so much of it that is memorization that ANYONE can do with enough practice. The rest takes even more practice but it can be learned with enough dedication and diligence.
Most of the washouts from the 8th have been due to real life issues or difficulty doing 20+ hours of time on Twiddla learning the fundamentals plus another 40+ hours flying the in sim just to get BMC, and then even more training to get CMR. It’s a really tough course by design as Redshift mentioned.
I would also add to what Creeper said. Not only is the definition fun different for everyone, sometimes it takes time to figure out what your definition of fun actually is! This might mean trying a few different wings to find what type of wing you feel you fit best in. For many I’ve known and talked to, the old adage “third time’s a charm” holds true and they try 3 different wings before finding the wing that fits their definition of fun.