Cadet Mentors
-
@Red:
yeah, we’re on the same page, I know you played devil’s advocate.
rest assured that in our VFW we go the extra mile for most if not all candidates. And that’s why it’s hard to see them go at a moment or another.
And seeing the success of the other VFW, I am sure it’s the same on their side of the fence.I hope that this topic not only serves the purpose to share information between VFW managers but also shows a bit what we expect from candidates. It’s important that candidates reckon the level of work and kind of investment some guys are making to train them.
Regardless of all what’s been said here, it’s fun and opens great door with many different individuals.
Should I start over, I’d redo the exact same. Proof that even if I am sometimes frustrated about it, I still love doing it and sharing the MP possibilities BMS has to offerIndeed, I have experienced the burnout and frustration that you are talking about but if I could do it again, I would. The joy is not only in improving myself for the sim but also sharing my skills and learning from others. Without “paying it forward,” we would be nowhere.
One thing though –- going the extra mile may seem like a lost cause, but if the candidate did bow out for a genuine reason, then at least you’ve left a good impression on him and hopefully he returns once his time/money/resources allow.
I’m not sure I see it the same way as you. I don’t believe we confuse a hobby for career. Just because something is a hobby doesn’t mean you have to do things sloppy, use it as excuse for lack of effort, or any of the myriad of reasons folks don’t put in their best. It doesn’t take all that much to be “hardcore.” And if folks are too impatient to develop themselves then they never had it to begin with, there isn’t really a loss there. They weren’t a part of it anyway, it’s just some guy “passing through” this part of town.
Just because someone does not do it “full real” does not mean it’s sloppy or lack of effort. It may be the best they can do, or the best they know how to do. What I meant with regards to hobby vs. career is the amount of time and effort a person would be willing to put into it. If you only had 20 hours of free time during the week, and you had to catch up on work, would you be studying manuals (hobby) or would you be catching up on work (career)? That’s what I meant – prioritization. Some people just do not have the time needed to be able to go “full real,” just like some people do replica cockpits while some have to settle for chair or table mods. Doesn’t mean that the guy with a table mod is sloppy or lazy… he might just not have the time/skills/space/resources for a replica cockpit.
As for the “impatient to develop themselves,” well, that’s a very unfair and elitist way of looking at things. Again, this is a hobby… if they are here for instant gratification, like a dogfighting TE, what’s wrong with that? They could be “hardcore” there, but just can’t afford to be “hardcore” in a campaign. Sure, the guy may be “passing through,” but you could never tell whether he had “it” or not… he might have, he just wasn’t able to show it.
-
Just because someone does not do it “full real” does not mean it’s sloppy or lack of effort. It may be the best they can do, or the best they know how to do. What I meant with regards to hobby vs. career is the amount of time and effort a person would be willing to put into it. If you only had 20 hours of free time during the week, and you had to catch up on work, would you be studying manuals (hobby) or would you be catching up on work (career)? That’s what I meant – prioritization. Some people just do not have the time needed to be able to go “full real,” just like some people do replica cockpits while some have to settle for chair or table mods. Doesn’t mean that the guy with a table mod is sloppy or lazy… he might just not have the time/skills/space/resources for a replica cockpit.
As for the “impatient to develop themselves,” well, that’s a very unfair and elitist way of looking at things. Again, this is a hobby… if they are here for instant gratification, like a dogfighting TE, what’s wrong with that? They could be “hardcore” there, but just can’t afford to be “hardcore” in a campaign. Sure, the guy may be “passing through,” but you could never tell whether he had “it” or not… he might have, he just wasn’t able to show it.
Again what I’m seeing is the aversion to doing more than the bare minimums, likes its kooties, from a girl at the school yard hahaha. Your example isn’t really an argument. If they have 20 hours of free time, then it’s not career time for work. Plus 20 hours per week is a TON of time. We just need our pilots to fly 2 hours per week to become “full real” or one IQT flight per week. You’re telling me you don’t have the free time to do one “hardcore” flight per week? So yes there is no excuse to not become absolutely great. I personally believe every person can be absolutely great!
I don’t see how wishing folks would improve themselves as elitism or unfair. Why do people settle? Why do folks go with “good enough?” It’s not about being “hardcore” it’s about gaining knowledge in the support of our hobby. Again, -Ice you will probably fly this simulator 3-5 years maybe even 10 years. You’re telling me at the end of that decade a person doesn’t grow beyond that same level they started, while I don’t see anything wrong with it per se, but why would you do something that long to not get really really good at it? Finally the very last sentence is a cop out, that’s what folks say when they don’t have the skills or knowledge, like a business saying we have a great product but we never got to show it. I think it kind of rests on the individuals shoulders whether or not they’re going to show it or not. I don’t know why it’s offensive for some to have standards and expectations, and the right of a VFW to decline spending that hard earned free time if I’m just going by your example, I’m going to spend that 20 hours with guys who “deserve” it.
Now to get the thread back to training ideas……
-
No, its not, and you had to misread my post to get to that idea in the first place. I just finished saying how the manual is great for one thing, and tutorials where you explain the important stuff from the manual are great for another thing, but you pick out just the part about the manuals being great. To answer the question, the IP is going to highlight which parts are important. Its not at all like telling someone to read the manual and leaving them to it - if you think that constitutes instruction, you have another think coming.
Did I? Let me dig it up again:
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.
Nothing there about an IP, just that “the manuals exist, read it, parts of it are ‘nice to know,’ etc.”
However, if you did mean that and I missed it, I apologize. I agree the manual now is better, and is definitely miles ahead of – ahem! – others. The training manual is great too, so that lowers the barrier to self-study quite a bit.
As for the “it’s only a hobby” statement, well, that is true. No need to get upset. It’s just like some people referring to this as a “game” and suddenly, the forums are awash with vitriol! With regards to replica cockpits, refer to my post above… a lot of resources, free time, and a good amount of skill are required for a replica pit. Take away even just one of those and viola! No pit. Or one ordered custom made — but that’ll cost even more!
Well, the RAAF and RAN recruiters I spoke too both spoke more about the drawbacks than the perks. Still, you just finished telling me I dont know the difference between a job and a hobby, so whats it matter whether its for a job or not?
And you spoke to them when? Did they tell you outright or did you have to ask? Do they do this to ALL they try to recruit?
I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with your remark about job vs. hobby though.
See, this is a common opinion in the world of Falcon. Folks are spoiled from flying out of the worlds most forward deployed airbases. Its not unusual in the real world for a combat mission to be 700 miles both ways. Often, the answer to how hard is it to move the squadron closer to the FLOT is very, or impossible. An alternate becomes a pain for recovery, particularly if they are not an F-16 base.
Im not seeing what you are trying to get at, -Ice. No animosity here, Im just not understanding the argument you are trying to make here.
No, nothing like that at all. Refer to my reply to Red Dog above.
-
by the way, building a real pit is one important cause for inactivity. Temporary I reckon. We have at least 3 guys in reserve because of pit building duties
It’s a good sign, I know these guys will be back and I know they are stickers - otherwise they wouldn’t build a pit.
Been there before and I got the tee shirt to prove it
except I never stopped flying , even in the building stages -
Again what I’m seeing is the aversion to doing more than the bare minimums, likes its kooties, from a girl at the school yard hahaha. Your example isn’t really an argument. If they have 20 hours of free time, then it’s not career time for work. Plus 20 hours per week is a TON of time. We just need our pilots to fly 2 hours per week to become “full real” or one IQT flight per week. You’re telling me you don’t have the free time to do one “hardcore” flight per week? So yes there is no excuse to not become absolutely great. I personally believe every person can be absolutely great!
Sorry about the 20 hours thing, I was just throwing a number out. Point was, prioritization comes into play. Whether it be work, family, other hobbies, or studying to be “full real.” I also don’t agree with your statement “it doesn’t take all that much to be ‘hardcore’”…. yes, yes it does. It’s what separates good musicians with great musicians. Sure, they may only practice for a few hours everyday, but over the years, it adds up. Some people do not have the “few hours everyday” or if they do, they can’t allocate it to music practice. Maybe they only have a few hours during the week. Over the years, they still fall short compared to those who practice everyday so again, that’s what separates good musicians from great ones.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean about you seeing people’s aversion to becoming great. Some may not have the skills, some may have the skills but lack practice, some may have the skills but lack the confidence, and so on. Not everyone can be great; see Red Dog’s classification of A/B/C types of simmers. Or maybe everyone can be absolutely great, just not everyone being great at flight simming… and that takes it out of our converstation.
I don’t see how wishing folks would improve themselves as elitism or unfair. Why do people settle? Why do folks go with “good enough?” It’s not about being “hardcore” it’s about gaining knowledge in the support of our hobby. Again, -Ice you will probably fly this simulator 3-5 years maybe even 10 years. You’re telling me at the end of that decade a person doesn’t grow beyond that same level they started, while I don’t see anything wrong with it per se, but why would you do something that long to not get really really good at it? Finally the very last sentence is a cop out, that’s what folks say when they don’t have the skills or knowledge, like a business saying we have a great product but we never got to show it. I think it kind of rests on the individuals shoulders whether or not they’re going to show it or not. I don’t know why it’s offensive for some to have standards and expectations, and the right of a VFW to decline spending that hard earned free time if I’m just going by your example, I’m going to spend that 20 hours with guys who “deserve” it.
You weren’t wishing folks to improve themselves. Your statement was “if they are too impatient to develop themselves, there’s no loss, they weren’t a part of it, they were a nobody, just passing through.” You’re saying that if people don’t improve themselves, they’re nothing.
Are you really sure people “settle”? Are you sure they’re happy with “good enough”? Again, maybe they just don’t have the time, or the hardware, or the skills, or the guidance. You’ll never know if you don’t engage with that person. Sure, some don’t have the drive, some don’t have the skills, and so on, but you’ll never know.
Now to get the thread back to training ideas……
Haha!! Yes, I do apologize for derailing this thread… it is, after all, training ideas, not recruitment
-
@Red:
by the way, building a real pit is one important cause for inactivity. Temporary I reckon. We have at least 3 guys in reserve because of pit building duties
It’s a good sign, I know these guys will be back and I know they are stickers - otherwise they wouldn’t build a pit.
Been there before and I got the tee shirt to prove it
except I never stopped flying , even in the building stagesPreaching to the choir here. Luckily, I forecast my current pit will be done in time for winter. With five LCD screens, it’ll be great for warming up the gaming room!!
Unfortunately, because of the pit in progress, my hardware is on a study desk and I refuse to fly in a non-ergonomic setup. -
So there is a shared experience on the IP’s on the difference in level of commitment from some pilots. It surprises me how similar they are: I have the same experience.
Oh and posts almost always derail, no worries. there’s just so much that ties in with this subject IMHO.
Ok so I have a specific question based on most of the posts from the last two days: How do the:
A: recruitment phase
B: screening / 1st flight, entry flight, first contact so to speak (you guys call it differently in several posts)
‘reading’ of the newbe: what kind of… and what setup… what to expect (do you have an expectation, do you set the bar?)
Documentation (the 400 pages bit)
E: style and personality of the IP
F: the actual course content and flying itTie in together to make a good wingman? Because reading your course details, I believe the ‘Combat Ready’ state a Cadet achieves is on a #2 or #4 slot. I am sort of (sorry) leaving out the ‘as real as it gets’ VFW’s because IMHO that’s a beast on it’s own and should be pettet or called upon lightly: it’s hardcore, which I personally like very much, but it is a niche in a niche. A beautiful one, but not one for Cadets and getting new blood in and having them stick to it.
My quest is to find the ‘gold nugget’ that achieves succes in teaching and adds to the wing as opposed to draining a IP or seasoned pilot to the point of ‘washing out’. Which will happen to the Cadet sooner than the veteran offcourse.
Reason why I’m asking (context):
In my personal experience, when meeting a new cadet, I basically work from an IQT design template, but I would add more or stick to the core curriculum depending on the capacity and experience of the Cadet. Also I would have a prediction for that cadet for command: a wingman, or possible future admin, IP, or whatever. Basically adding a specific colour to an already exsisting palette so to speak.
So the difference is in the static and the fluid: the BMS (excellent) documentation, the skill (every wing or jet needs to be RAMPED; that makes it a constant), the basic flying skills + weapons delivery,
versus the:
personality of the Cadet, the IP, the culture, the expectations, the language barriers (not mentioned yet, big factor), the synchronising of the schedules (again, big factor + time zones) and the soft skills of the IP using the tools mentioned earlier.There is a balance in all these moving parts and I’m not sure what the ‘magic’ is. Is it ‘do this or go away’ or ‘let’s work on this and see where we end up’ sort of thing. I would like to set benchmarks stricter for my training to ensure I deliver a proper wingman to the exams when teaching. What has been your experience in this specific phase?
-
In my personal experience, when meeting a new cadet, I basically work from an IQT design template, but I would add more or stick to the core curriculum depending on the capacity and experience of the Cadet. Also I would have a prediction for that cadet for command: a wingman, or possible future admin, IP, or whatever. Basically adding a specific colour to an already exsisting palette so to speak.
We do this too and I think it’s very important to retaining a very green pilot after training. Not every guy that joins is going to be the same skill level. Some you are just teaching them your SOPs and confirming they know everything they need to know to meet your standard, whereas others you know you are going to be spending more time teaching. Both go through the same training, but how you teach it and the total length of the training may vary (i.e. the guy that is green is going to require more flights). I’ll reply in more detail to that and your other points a little later when I have time. This is a great thread though Buster. Good stuff.
-
Tie in together to make a good wingman? Because reading your course details, I believe the ‘Combat Ready’ state a Cadet achieves is on a #2 or #4 slot. I am sort of (sorry) leaving out the ‘as real as it gets’ VFW’s because IMHO that’s a beast on it’s own and should be pettet or called upon lightly: it’s hardcore, which I personally like very much, but it is a niche in a niche. A beautiful one, but not one for Cadets and getting new blood in and having them stick to it.
That’s the big question Buster
Being a good wingman can’t be taught in the books, it’s taught in MP flight, and not only in training , but also and most specifically when the Sh*t hits the fan
That’s the core of initial VFW basic training IMHO, without that you can’t even start thinking doing Advanced technique
IMHO it’s one of two aspects where academics won’t help at all. You have to fly, make the mistakes; debriefed, learn from it, do it again and again.
It’s inversely proportional to your task saturation. If you’re not task saturated you can be a good wingman. Once you are task saturated, usually the first thing that goes down the drain is the visual stuff.
We (VFW) strive to correct that from the earliest possible momentIn an ideal world, it should be the sole task of VFW - with the avionics and how to fly the jet left at the BMS documentation and solo training. But we have to teach many thing at the same time. Some more important than others
How to be a good wingman is - as far as we are concerned the most important goal of our BFT. And the single grade of the checkride.
If the Ip considers the recruit to be a good wingman he passes.Quoting our homepage, illustrating it is a very important aspect of MP flying
ViperDrivers Wingmen DICTA
DURA LEX, SED LEX
1. Keep your flight lead visual at all times and clear his six.
2. Be where your lead expects you to be.
3. Do the cockpit work (radar work and navigation work)
4. Ever VISUAL
5. Always VISUAL
If you fail 1. call blind and stop everything else and get your lead back in visual.
If you fail 2. get back where he last cleared you in. You are of no use if you are not where lead can best use you.
Do 3. only if 1. and 2. are fulfilled
4. & 5. are CARDINAL RULES
-
There is a balance in all these moving parts and I’m not sure what the ‘magic’ is. Is it ‘do this or go away’ or ‘let’s work on this and see where we end up’ sort of thing. I would like to set benchmarks stricter for my training to ensure I deliver a proper wingman to the exams when teaching. What has been your experience in this specific phase?
Again, there’s a million approaches to this so I’ll share mine that has been used in the past. Please note that none of the following is currently used, nor is any of it shown here in its entirety.
Step 1. Conduct a live interview. My personal choice, but I don’t care for a written form to provide enough information for an entry/denial decision. We’re looking for an honest “benchmark” of the candidate’s experience, knowledge, and expectations (both from their viewpoint, and ours) and a “face to face” interview can be a crucial ice breaker/first impression. Here’s a snippet of our interview outline:
NAME:
CURRENT CALLSIGN: *make sure they know they WILL be assigned a new one at some point
AGE:
LOCATION:
FALCON EXPERIENCE:
PAST MULTIPLAYER EXPERIENCE: Wing/squadron/callsign/former commanders
WHAT DID YOU LIKE THE MOST ABOUT YOUR PREVIOUS GROUP?
WHAT DID YOU LIKE THE LEAST ABOUT YOUR PREVIOUS GROUP?
SELF RATING: PILOT RATING, cadet, nugget, veteran, ace, legend
SELF RATING: Best assets
SELF RATING: Worst assets
SELF RATING: What can you bring to the wing/IE: What can we expect from you?
SELF RATING: What can the wing bring to you/IE: What do you expect from the wing?Step 2. Based on the interview, if we like what we’ve heard (which is practically a 100%) we’ll schedule a “show us what you’ve got” flight. We have several prepared TE’s of varying difficulty to select from, which one utilized will depend on the “self assessment” answers. EX: you self describe yourself as a veteran… prove it. EX 2: you self describe yourself as a nugget, let’s go up and see what your strong points are, your weak ones, and we can custom tailor our syllabus to meet your specific needs; focusing on the weaker points and re-enforcing the strong ones.
Step 3: The actual flight: It’s graded. We have a points system for each phase of the flight with a minimum overall percentage being a pass/fail benchmark. This flight is critical, we can truly discover how the candidate approaches challenges (or doesn’t), and can provide a truthful assessment (or not). You’d be amazed at how many pilots have no idea of their true capabilities. The ones who say they’re green more often than not ACE the flight. The ones who say they’re aces more often than not fail miserably. This doesn’t mean we reject their application, but it does provide us with a very good “here’s what we’re facing” starting point for actual training. (speaking candidly, we tend to be a bit more accommodating to those who score themselves lower rather than higher… the higher self rating guys who can’t “back it up” have statistically been the mentalities that don’t lend themselves to a team structured environment)
Step 4: As long as SOP’s are followed, and DLO’s are met, we give our IP’s “free reign” on how they teach the syllabus. We have the expectation that the materials will all be presented, and DLO’s will be met, but the manner in which they are presented is up to the individual IP based on the individual student. No one learns the same way, and no one teaches the same way… so why make it a mandatory objective doomed to fail.
In no way is the above meant to be the only way, the best way, or even the desired way… it’s just A way.
-
You weren’t wishing folks to improve themselves. Your statement was “if they are too impatient to develop themselves, there’s no loss, they weren’t a part of it, they were a nobody, just passing through.” You’re saying that if people don’t improve themselves, they’re nothing.
Are you really sure people “settle”? Are you sure they’re happy with “good enough”? Again, maybe they just don’t have the time, or the hardware, or the skills, or the guidance. You’ll never know if you don’t engage with that person. Sure, some don’t have the drive, some don’t have the skills, and so on, but you’ll never know.
Except that’s not what I said and you’ve actually inserted your own words that didn’t exist therefore changing the entire meaning. Try not to paraphrase or put words in people’s mouths.
And if folks are too impatient to develop themselves then they never had it to begin with, there isn’t really a loss there. They weren’t a part of it anyway, it’s just some guy “passing through” this part of town.
Ugh, just when you think you’re out they pull you back in. Now my statement, yes in that context I stand by it. If someone won’t improve its not my problem, but people like to take this as elitism. However I never said they were “nobody” as any person knows well enough not to waste time on something that is futile. But in the relative sense that is like letting strangers drink your beer, I don’t want that backwash.
So what does this mean. Am I too good to answer a few questions for a newbie: HELL NO! I love helping folks, more than anything. So quick questions, pointing people in the right direction absolutely I’ll answer every time. But will I ever spend more than that with someone who will not fly with me? No way. If they want the best of me they’re going to have pony up some time. The old joke: Ass, grass or cash, nothing comes for free. I want a mutually beneficial relationship. I think that’s normal, anyone who thinks that they deserve someone’s time just is being entitled to something that isn’t theirs. That’s why every wing has a screening process to ensure they have solid candidates, fit the culture, ect. The basics are what the manuals, the forum, and the community is for.
I hope that clears up what I meant. Finally people settle all the time be it a job, a spouse, or any endeavor. The goods vs greats is the difference, it’s not meant to put anyone down, I stand by that all can be great at this. To me greatness defined as a pilot who knows the roles, responsibilities and contracts of the F-16.
So there is a shared experience on the IP’s on the difference in level of commitment from some pilots. It surprises me how similar they are: I have the same experience.
Oh and posts almost always derail, no worries. there’s just so much that ties in with this subject IMHO.
Ok so I have a specific question based on most of the posts from the last two days: How do the:
A: recruitment phase
B: screening / 1st flight, entry flight, first contact so to speak (you guys call it differently in several posts)
‘reading’ of the newbe: what kind of… and what setup… what to expect (do you have an expectation, do you set the bar?)
Documentation (the 400 pages bit)
E: style and personality of the IP
F: the actual course content and flying itA: Finding a guy who is 18+, can ramp start, make contact on the boom, takeoff, land and fly safely. Hopefully knows the avionics, systems and checklists by self-study through the BMS documentation or forums.
B: Interview to establish goals of the training, the candidates mindset and interests, previous experience which then transitions to the first ground school for LAO. We teach the SOPs of our home airfield, the local airspace, basics like runway lineup, EOR and taxi, comms, and other wing SOP. Then the LAO is flown using those briefed procedures and the student is given a tour of homeplate. They’re shown VFR entry fixes and other important navigation aids. After which we RTB to debrief and either respectfully part ways if not up to standard (a candidate an IP would view as worthwhile to train, so they have great attitude, willingness to learn and improve) or offered entry into our IQT. Training has already begun and they are then “processed” into the wing, given permissions as required, ect.
Reading of the “newbie” is simply assessing the claimed skills vs the actual skills displayed. Do they naturally goto the correct formation visual cues and distances on their own or do I have to help them find it? How did his overhead break go, did he wait the 5 seconds like we briefed? Those kind of things give you a sense of what needs debriefed or touched on, where he already is at before we get into the more difficult subjects. A big part of that initial process is selling in the benefits of doing all the work and what the training will cover. We get a good sense right here of how the rest of training will go.
Documentation is intensive. They get an AFI, squadron standards, and other supplemental docs and access to the library where the TTP of the wing is kept that will cover all subjects they’ll train: IQT, MQT, FLUG, ect. It’s actually more than 400 pages of reading all docs put together drops grenade
E: We just aren’t that big yet. We teach directly, make timely corrections, and ensure they master the DLOs of the sortie.
F. The course just builds on itself, using something from all lessons but the progression is AHC > FORM > BFM > ACM > ACT > BSA > LASDT > SAT with the graduation being a flight as a wingman in a 4 ship strike. If they’re able to provide mutual support, complete the mission successfully and RTB per the SOPs, they’ve graduated and the initial journey is done, from there they get into MQT and the sky is the limit.
-
Except that’s not what I said and you’ve actually inserted your own words that didn’t exist therefore changing the entire meaning. Try not to paraphrase or put words in people’s mouths.
Try to be clearer with the words you say/write. While what you have written may safely be said face-to-face with facial cues and other non-verbal signals, that is not the case for the written word.
If someone won’t improve its not my problem, but people like to take this as elitism. However I never said they were “nobody” as any person knows well enough not to waste time on something that is futile.
Genuine question – how do you know that someone won’t improve without engaging with them? How do you know you’re wasting time with a person if you don’t engage with them?
-
Genuine question – how do you know that someone won’t improve without engaging with them? How do you know you’re wasting time with a person if you don’t engage with them?
Good question: do you get enough of a trust factor from the Cadet to invest the time? IMHO if a Cadet is late 3 times and reschedules 2 hours before a flight for instance, these are ‘red flags’. But that’s all in the recruitment / 1st contact phase. That basically sorts itself out (they wash out 99%)
On Redshift20 post:
Thanks, that really gives a good view on where in the process you implement your checks and balances, great stuff. I am having to look up the abbreviations though -
Good question: do you get enough of a trust factor from the Cadet to invest the time? IMHO if a Cadet is late 3 times and reschedules 2 hours before a flight for instance, these are ‘red flags’. But that’s all in the recruitment / 1st contact phase. That basically sorts itself out (they wash out 99%)
Or they could turn up on time for the whole thing but still leave you hanging after the training period is over.
-
Or they could turn up on time for the whole thing but still leave you hanging after the training period is over.
Happens a lot. We’ve tried applications (same as most all VFW’s), interviews on TS, general knowledge questions, ‘get acquainted’ flights, etc. We’ve tried groups/classes and one-on-one. We’ve done anonymous surveys of people who completed IQT and then stopped showing up within the year. In all of that, I still say it’s a crap shoot. Until someone discovers the secret to vetting and retaining new VFW applicants, you either get frustrated by it or accept that some level of ‘churn’ is inevitable.
-
Until someone discovers the secret to vetting and retaining new VFW applicants, you either get frustrated by it or accept that some level of ‘churn’ is inevitable.
This. Attitude is everything, and the grind of losing people after training is somewhat mitigated when you finally get that one guy that kicks ass and becomes a good friend.
-
Yep, sift through much dirt and mud to find the precious gems!
-
I have been reading with much interest the 12 pages of this topic. Thanks Buster/Poppy for the initial post. I can identify myself with many opinions here regarding how the training should be run as well as with “cadets” leaving during/after the initial training. Nevertheless, I believe you are missing some importants why it is so difficult to get good squad/wing members on the long run. By good I mean committed and dedicated, not necessarily “hardcore” or a “sunday pilot” (=the opposite of “hardcore” in my definition).
a) The main problem is real life. And that is often independent whether the recruit/cadet has a “hardcore” character or not. I created in the last 25 years 3 different IQT-like trainings, one MQT, one FLUG in three different squads (two of my own). My experience is the following:
i) Pilots in the early tweenties or younger have tons of time and are “hardcore” oriented. They will be passionated and dedicated in their flying, but they still have to go through all the real life stuff….studies, find a job, start family, house, etc. 100% of the fellow recruits/pilots in that age, left the squadrons in the past due to RL. NONE stayed in the long run (>1-2 Years)!
ii) In order to be “Hardcore” you need basically a lot of time. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE MASTERY IN A HOBBY (be BMS, Golf, Chess, Flying Gliders, etc.) WITHOUT PUTTING A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY ON IT. Guys with 30+ can have this time, but they need to choose between family/kids/other hobbies/career. Many very talented guys in this age (30+) left the squadrons/wingies in the past, because they were not willing to make the choice and fly BMS. Or they stayed in “Sunday squadrons”…I know many examples here.
iii) Older guys with 40+ have usually their lifes sorted out and here you will find the most good friends and dedicated pilots in the long run. Unfortunatelly they are most of the time already commited to a squadron/wing. On the other hand, the newcomers with 40+ have in my experience a slow learning capacity in Falcon 4 compared to the 20+ recruits.b) The other problem is the expectation of different groups within a squad/wing. Never mix “hardcore” pilots with “sunday pilots” or vice-versa (the two extrema). That is frustration for both groups. From the beginning on you should make very clear what kind of squadron/wing the recruit/cadet will be flying for. If you mix different kind of groups the following happens: Pilots of both groups will leave the squadron, because they don´t want to offer the time/dedication or they don´t to compromise. That is also a major reason for newly formed pilots leave a squad/wing.
c) Leadership of senior officers is another issue that affects moral. Contrary to RL air forces, leadership in squads/wings is not achieved by dedication, training etc. Leaders should be the example in terms of flying, skills and dedication. That is independent of how “hardcore” or not the squad/wing is.
I think that every cadet should be asked the following questions (particular before IP comitts his/her time to a ~“hardcore” training):
-
How much time do you want to put in this hobby per week? Do you have another hobbies?
-
Are you planning to open a new bussniess, do PhD/MBA/work abroad, etc in the near future? For how long?
And thank you all for the very nice discussion. You don´t find such a quality of posts so often in forums.
Cheers
-
-
tbuc I agree on all of your points and it’s a superb summary of this thread and the situation with squadrons.
On the different groups mix I’m afraid in large schema (wings with few squadrons) is unavoidable. It’s very hard to balance things up and can cause extreme hazardous situations but on the other hand they distinguish or surface new talents or motivates members that see the light at the end of the tunnel and want to go hard core.
If you want to get advantage of the full scale of the sim you need many members. So your pool of members must always have and in most case have 3 stages of members. The thing is to master the maturity levels and know what and when to do it.
Putting what you said on another perspective there is a cycle of active members in a squad…. this cycle is cause of what you describe age priorities family work etc…
So a squad must establish and learn it’s active members cycle and set low’s and highs. That way the squad knows when to start fishing for newbs or open subscriptions or push members to the hardcore pipeline, and when to ease up. All those with the second cycle of ppl “working” for the squad.The cycle of ppl working for the squad in my humble inexperienced opinion should be set in prior. You must not have the same guys busting their asses for x years and others drain them and enjoy from their work. They must be stepped down and others take in… when a shortage comes up or things don’t work as they should those old farts could chime in and give a helping hand, or why not preplanned relax the guys in duty and take a small brake.
Finally a very important factor that I believe is not there in many squads edu programs is mission planning. Specially for large schema… it is essential that missions - good planed missions with all the fat and juicy staff BMS can offer be there. sure there is the records of the squadron but having the ability and knowledge how to adjust the mission and retain balance and tailor it so that smaller or larger groups can fly the mission is essential. Also this eases up the work load on the guys that have to train create missions and execute plans at the same time.
-
Are you planning to open a new bussniess, do PhD/MBA/work abroad, etc in the near future? For how long?
I can vouch for the Ph.D. part…it’s a lot of work, especially if you already work full-time and get a Ph.D. part-time. It makes for 100+ hour work weeks and flying is usually one of the first things that gets cut. You get REALLY good at using Microsoft Word though which has actually helped me at the 8th writing documentation.