Military IP's

alphaone

alphaone

Well-Known Member
Just curious if any other current or former Stud's noticed a disparity in ability and technique of Military IP's. I have seen some completely contradict others with what a stud should or should not be doing and it seems to be the stud's job to figure what each IP likes. Also, there are some IP's who are amazingly SH with how they fly, and others that will berade you constantly and when they fly are.....not so good. How did ya'll handle it? I'm in the end stages of the T-6 and it seems to be mostly hazing at this point. Can't say that I'm not looking forward to track....
 
Yes. Every pilot is an individual and has his or her own peeves.

I'll elaborate more when I have some wings on my chest! I've got some good stories from the last 9+ months.
 
You're AF correct? I don't know much about the AF program but I have heard it is a bit more harsh in the "hazing" aspect for flight school. That goes for IP training as well. But that's second hand info. As far as IP's, there is going to be a variety of ablities. That means there are good and bad IP's. Not all bad IP's are bad pilots either, they just have issues instructing. I've now instructed both the FRS and primary flight training (I'm currently going throug the IUT for advanced jets) and it's not always easy to instruct. I had bad days and good days. I had days when I screwed up, hoping the stud didn't notice. Most likely he or she did. Rarely did I yell or berate a student though. You do get frustrated sometimes when a stud doesn't listen or is so far behind the power curve and it comes out in your voice. I know sometimes the stud walked away saying that IP sucked while other times, I was the man. That's what made me an average IP and average pilot overall.

All I can say is keep trucking and deal with it. When your time comes, be your own man (or IP) and remember how you were treated.
 
There's technique, there's procedure, and there are those who claim that their "tech-cedures" are the gospel.

Welcome to the AF.
 
MikeD said:
There's technique, there's procedure, and there are those who claim that their "tech-cedures" are the gospel.

Welcome to the AF.
Click to expand...

Tech-cedures, I like that...

I've seen this a bunch in my limited civvie experience too. Not so much here at Martex, but I've had other employers that had "tech-cedures," as in "you've gotta do it this well, because any other way is illegal/wrong/dangerous/stupid." I've learned just to try to deflect the BS, and go for safely flying the airplane. I don't know how that would carry over to mil flying, because the IP is basically your key to Wings. I do find it frustrating though when in a situation where you fly with 5 guys and the each one of them has their own personal version of "this is what the examiner wants."

I learned about this first hand when I took part in training up some of the guys this last season, I found that I too had these personal pet peeves about what was "right" and what wasn't. That said, it was a huge learning experience in regards to letting things be relaxed in the airplane. Its not that easy-at least for me- but I found I learned a lot in the process. Honest answer? There's more than one way to skin a cat, and about the only thing that really freaks me out is sucking up the flaps with ninja hands on a go around at low airspeed.
 
MikeD said:
There's technique, there's procedure, and there are those who claim that their "tech-cedures" are the gospel.

Welcome to the AF.
Click to expand...

This. Standard, depending on where you are.

I find this is a HUGE problem in SUPT, but not that significant of an issue in any follow on training. When I was an IFF IP, we spent an IMMENSE amount of time in IP meetings standardizing how to teach stuff...and getting there was an absolute pain in the ass. I can remember a 4-hour meeting in which we were trying to decide if defenders needed to jink in idle power or afterburner...and at the end of the meeting there still wasn't agreement.

So, now apply that factoid across a program that teaches a wide variety of disciplines at SUPT, and you'll understand why it's very difficult to have absolutely standardized instruction.

Theoretically, the 11-248 should be *the* way that students are taught to fly the T-6...but I know that there are a number of things that I teach in the T-38 that aren't the way they are explained in 11-251, so I guess I'm part of the problem, too.

With respect to IP ability...well, you're dealing with a cross-section of individuals, and by definition 50% of the people are below average. Not everyone in the AF is a great pilot, and thus not every IP is even a good IP.

I have not been to T-6 PIT, but I thought T-38 PIT left a lot to be desired when it came to actually teaching people to be instructors. In fact, I have been through 3 different instructor upgrade programs in my career (F-15E ops unit, IFF, and SUPT) and the only one that actually taught me how to really instruct was the IFF program. Coincidentally, that was also the toughest of all the programs! So, it does not surprise me that in your student experience you have seen a variety of skills in your IPs.

Just like in the real operational world, you simply have to identify the IPs that you respect, and pay the most attention to what they have to teach.
 
Another peeve of mine, in addition to the 'technique only' items listed above, is the use of MIF grading.

In early rides of training, you can rock perfectly to CTS, but get the F or whatever MIF is. The best is when you get below MIF because the IP didn't agree with your technique.

Word to the wise: Never, ever, ever, ask an IP about holding. Everyone has their own tricks and gimmicks and techniques. You will confuse the hell of yourself. Find what you like, 70deg or AIM, or the inverse 70 (which you use the outbound not inbound) and stick with it! Don't let them F with you!

And then there are the pubs themselves. Qweepy, but that 217 has "insure" instead of "ensure" written at least 4 times. Take some pride.

Moral of the story is, don't quibble. Stare blankly at the IP while he tells you his awesome technique. If you can find a tactful way to pull out the pub and show him why you did what you did, then be my guest. Just don't be perceived as that guy. Because that guy gets UAVs.
 
frog_flyer said:
the use of MIF grading.

In early rides of training, you can rock perfectly to CTS, but get the F or whatever MIF is.
Click to expand...

There is a method to the madness, and it actually works out to the student's benefit in the long run due to how the MASS ranking is calculated. Trust me, nobody who "rocks the CTS" gets shafted on assignment night because of MIF grading.
 
There are plenty of deviations in terms of pilot technique and expectations, even within the limits of the stan notes. Get used to it.....you will learn one habit, and then get corrected later on by someone else. Particularly when you move from one stage of training to another. If you go jets/-38's, if it's anything like your Navy counterparts, then you can count on relearning a lot of different "techniques" that you took as gospel when you were flying the T-6. Bottom line, figure out a way that works for you, execute it with confidence, and then listen up in the debrief if the IP has an issue with it. Nothing much more that you can do.
 
At Sheppard the T-6 was a real pain in the ass because everyone had different thoughts. I think a big part of that is because IPs on that side of the house are from Buffs, Bones, Hogs, Vipers, Eagles, Tornados, Phantoms, and a few heavy types. T-38 techcedures seemed a lot more standardized, but there were also fewer aircraft backgrounds represented.

My active duty brethren were usually more frustrated by grading standards than by seeing different looks. FAIPs and the real higher ups in the squadron usually crush your gradebook, but there are other guys that are damn near impossible to hook with.

I'll let you guys know about IFF in a few months. Hacker - where did you instruct IFF?
 
Awesome to see the replies. I have definitely been given my share of humble pie throughout UPT. I just noticed how my sorties can go great with a certain IP and terrible with another, while I seemingly do the same things. It's a bit frustrating, but just part of the program. I certainly have screwed up myself plenty of times, but also have thought I was "held back" by some IP's way of teaching and at the same time made major strides with others. I guess it all depends. Hopefully phase III will be more of a learning enviornment vs. a roast at standup.
 
alphaone said:
Awesome to see the replies. I have definitely been given my share of humble pie throughout UPT. I just noticed how my sorties can go great with a certain IP and terrible with another, while I seemingly do the same things. It's a bit frustrating, but just part of the program. I certainly have screwed up myself plenty of times, but also have thought I was "held back" by some IP's way of teaching and at the same time made major strides with others. I guess it all depends. Hopefully phase III will be more of a learning enviornment vs. a roast at standup.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought, and I throw this out being the most junior of winged aviators out there....

Sometimes those easy flights with cool IP's are good for the gradebook, but if you stop to think about them, sometimes you also don't really learn to correct your mistakes. And believe me, you are making mistakes, whether you realize it yourself or not. The guys that I see do the best in the air are the ones who are pretty anal about the details and doing things right all the time. I remember one flight in particular.....launch out of Palm Springs as a section, break up to do individual low levels, and then rejoin to come back as a section. Being pretty new at that stuff, I had a lot on my mind, and was probably focusing too much on stuff that was 15-20 mins down the road in the flight. Made one of the most epically amateur clearance/taxi calls of my life, and made us all sound like such. Rest of the flight went well, but when we got back, my IP hammered me on that call (cool guy, but like I said, a stickler for details). Averaged that flight (equivalent for you guys of straight MIF) just on those grounds alone. Had I been flying with someone else, I doubt it would have been that big of a deal. But he drove that point home, and it wasn't as much about making perfect comms....it was about being professional in every aspect of the flight. It's a constant learning process, but if you can be hard on yourself about those little details, you will see where some of these IP's are coming from.
 
///AMG said:
Here's a thought, and I throw this out being the most junior of winged aviators out there....

Sometimes those easy flights with cool IP's are good for the gradebook, but if you stop to think about them, sometimes you also don't really learn to correct your mistakes. And believe me, you are making mistakes, whether you realize it yourself or not. The guys that I see do the best in the air are the ones who are pretty anal about the details and doing things right all the time. I remember one flight in particular.....launch out of Palm Springs as a section, break up to do individual low levels, and then rejoin to come back as a section. Being pretty new at that stuff, I had a lot on my mind, and was probably focusing too much on stuff that was 15-20 mins down the road in the flight. Made one of the most epically amateur clearance/taxi calls of my life, and made us all sound like such. Rest of the flight went well, but when we got back, my IP hammered me on that call (cool guy, but like I said, a stickler for details). Averaged that flight (equivalent for you guys of straight MIF) just on those grounds alone. Had I been flying with someone else, I doubt it would have been that big of a deal. But he drove that point home, and it wasn't as much about making perfect comms....it was about being professional in every aspect of the flight. It's a constant learning process, but if you can be hard on yourself about those little details, you will see where some of these IP's are coming from.
Click to expand...

"Welcome to the squadron. Remember one thing: You freaking suck until I inform you otherwise. Carry on."
 
I was an IP in T-34's at NAS Whiting in the mid-80's. I think I was very standardized in how I taught procedures, and I know that the IP group as a whole strove for that standardization. It's very important, especially at the primary level, that students are taught procedures the same way each time.

That being said, IP's always bring their own personality into the cockpit. I knew that my students were all wound pretty tight so I tried to go out of my way to get them to relax; I feel that the best learning happens when the student is not worried about "the wrath of the gods" descending on them if they make a tiny error. I know that not all instructors did that or thought it was important.

IMO there is no excuse for not presenting and teaching procedures in a standardized way. I also don't think it is a bad thing to teach, or at least demonstrate, techniques, as long as the distinction is clearly made between the two.

I felt I was a good instructor - not a Santa Claus with grades but also not a "Debbie-downer" who came down hard on every little deviation. My goal was to let the students relax and really get a feel for flying, but then they had to perform!


If you feel that your instructor(s) are not teaching you effectively, don't hesitate to ask for a different one. As long as you only do this once or so you shouldn't be flagged as a complainer. The good IP schedulers and instructors understand that students respond differently depending on the instructor.

That was my experience, things may have changed since then or the AF may view it differently, YMMV!


Kevin
 
///AMG said:
Here's a thought, and I throw this out being the most junior of winged aviators out there....

Sometimes those easy flights with cool IP's are good for the gradebook, but if you stop to think about them, sometimes you also don't really learn to correct your mistakes. And believe me, you are making mistakes, whether you realize it yourself or not. The guys that I see do the best in the air are the ones who are pretty anal about the details and doing things right all the time. I remember one flight in particular.....launch out of Palm Springs as a section, break up to do individual low levels, and then rejoin to come back as a section. Being pretty new at that stuff, I had a lot on my mind, and was probably focusing too much on stuff that was 15-20 mins down the road in the flight. Made one of the most epically amateur clearance/taxi calls of my life, and made us all sound like such. Rest of the flight went well, but when we got back, my IP hammered me on that call (cool guy, but like I said, a stickler for details). Averaged that flight (equivalent for you guys of straight MIF) just on those grounds alone. Had I been flying with someone else, I doubt it would have been that big of a deal. But he drove that point home, and it wasn't as much about making perfect comms....it was about being professional in every aspect of the flight. It's a constant learning process, but if you can be hard on yourself about those little details, you will see where some of these IP's are coming from.
Click to expand...

Understood, and agreed. It is really nice to see the replies of those that have gone before. Regardless, even with all the hard work, this has been a privilidge to be here and learn to fly this awesome airplane, and I can't wait to move on and see whats next.
 
Many instructors do not realize they are there for one purpose and that is to serve or help the student. They are NOT there to show how smart they are or how great an aviator they are. If one plots out skill on the vertical and knowledge on the horizontal, the goal is to constantly help the student move up and to the right. This does not remove the obligation for the student to know policy/procedure and how to accomplish the tasks. The instructor and student becomes a team.

I sometimes would note that we have x time and x lessons and show the student the trend, moving ahead of the skill/knowledge set or failing below the line and ask questions. The facts are some just don't have the ability to fly... not a hand/eye coordination thing but the mental projections of what is happening and what happens next.

I tried to have multiple techniques to accomplish tasks and as long as the student was able to perform the task properly, it was okay with me. But as others have noted, there are those who believe their 'technique' is the only way. Worst is the guy who says, "I know what the book says but..." and then explains how the book is wrong, the procedure is wrong.

And then injecting some reality, sometimes you just have to play the game. A long time friend went into UPT with about 3000hrs and all of his tickets. Jimmy kept it quiet and never boasted or revealed he had more time than most of the people on the base. One IP found out and really hammered Jimmy. Jimmy, never losing his cool said, "I can fly. I can fly it by the book and I can fly it the way you want it done. Just tell me what you want." And Jimmy could do it. That shut the moron up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top