Instructors: is no combat better?

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

Tony Volk