Flight Instruction: Then and Now

When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th" Bomb
Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more than
the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat and as
a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.

In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though he
had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of course.
Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone know?




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your already
clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic. Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.

Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.

I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ubject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply
any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic.
Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.




BUFDRVR

Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I found that
it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking about and
I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His description of
just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact I have
thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget the
man who taught you how to go to war.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

ubject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P

but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These
guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or
apply
any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+
lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any
new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very
basic.
Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there
were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to
begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.




BUFDRVR

Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I
found that
it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking
about and
I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His
description of
just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact
I have
thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget
the
man who taught you how to go to war.


Art, there are also some people never to be forgotten. They are the
conspiracy that keeps 50% of the people inferior to the other. They are
called statisticians.

OF COURSE you had combat-qualified instructors available during WWII. In
later years, combat was not as frequent, the force size had dropped, and
many aircraft had smaller crews. People age. Eventually, it is a
practical reality, in a more modern training environment, that there
wouldn't be combat experienced people that were of an appropriate rank
to be instructors, and also qualified in type.

Was it even possible there would have been a type-qualified S2F,
combat-experienced instructor? Yes, some were shot down on surveillance
missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
located targets for shooters recently.

B-58. F-102. A5 Vigilante (non-recon). F-106. B-36. B-47. Combat
aircraft all, but I suspect none of them ever fired a round or dropped a
bomb in combat. Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.

I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your
already
clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the
summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys
did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply
any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+
lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any
new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic.
Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there
were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.

Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.

I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.


BUFDRVR

Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major
challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to B-52
FTU.

JB

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th"
Bomb
Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more
than
the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat
and as
a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.

In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though
he
had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.
Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone
know?




Arthur Kramer

About your problem with Instructos who haven't been to war; in the USAF of
the mid '70s on,
there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
the standards in the syllabus so their studs could pass their checkride,
and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments and hopefully
some judgment.

The IPs that had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many
of them were,
where combat aircraft (or whatever it was called, I forget now) training was
being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
real world. But, c'est la guerre! (sp?)

JB

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: hcb-145BCF.1833340703200

Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?


We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the experience
we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line. It
didn't take too much to get washed out.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: "Jim Baker"
Date: 3/7/04 4:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th"
Bomb
Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more
than
the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat
and as
a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.

In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though
he
had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.
Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone
know?




Arthur Kramer

About your problem with Instructos who haven't been to war; in the USAF of
the mid '70s on,
there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
the standards in the syllabus so their studs could pass their checkride,
and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments and hopefully
some judgment.

The IPs that had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many
of them were,
where combat aircraft (or whatever it was called, I forget now) training was
being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
real world. But, c'est la guerre! (sp?)

JB


I undersyand. I still remember my instructor describing how a German fighter
set up a fighter approach. He said, " The ******* will drop his inside wing
and start to point his nose at you. Once you see the nose coming around pick
him up in your sights and follow his constant bearing approach. Watch for
whether he plans on flying over you or under you and be ready to track him as
long as you can." And when we got over there that is exactly the way it
happened to the letter. Good instructor, Prepared us for what we needed to
know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major
challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to B-52
FTU.

JB

What has been a concern since 2001 is that the FTU is doing mission
qualification training. When you graduate from the FTU, you are a "full up
round" and ready to go to war.......except our young EWs, Navs and Co-pilots
are stuggling with the basics and have no buisness being deployed. I flew with
a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual training
began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about B-52
capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to
do with the jet on a bomb run.....but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear. He
had good ideas about what to do on the bomb run, but couldn't pull any of them
off. His pattern work was horrible and I left that night to go home wondering
how in God's name he passed his checkride. A few sorties later I flew with
another "newbie"...same story. Finally, one Friday afternoon, all the
instructors from my squadron (IPs, IRs & IEs) got togather, cracked open a few
beers and compared notes. Bottom line; due to the expansion of the FTU syllabus
to include mission qual training, with a non-linear expansion in number of
syllabus sorties (only added 2 sorties), crews were not getting a solid enough
foundation in the basics. 9/11 happened shortly after, and I was quite busy
until my PCS, but I still heard complaints, on nearly a daily basis.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/7/04 5:54 PM Pacific Standard Time

a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual training
began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about B-52
capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he wanted
to
do with the jet on a bomb run.....

..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear. He
had good ideas about what to do o

So what is new about that? Our co-pilot couldn't fly a B-26 to save his ass
when he came on board. Paul taught him on every flight. And pretty soon he
was quite good. When we switched from B-26's to A- 26's Bob got his own plane
and did fine from then on. I Guess on the job training is nothing new.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer