Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
It's about the quality. .... Now I'll get flak for this, but the US military pulls it off too with low time pilots. They have rigorous selection methods, and then put them through real quality training. They come out safe pilots, and fly modern fast jets with 250-500 hours.
Not giving you flak, but painting a more complete picture.
While you are correct that the military often is an ab initio program, the selection process as well as the training syllabus makes it a far different program than taking flying lessons from an FBO or University Flying Program.
First: physical standards. The military standards will disqualify (my estimate) about half of the applicants who could otherwise hold an unrestricted FAA Class 1.
Second: educational standards. I believe all four services require a four-year degree (Army WO program is my only question-mark). While a college degree is not a direct correleation to aeronautical success, it does give testament to mental ability to study, learn, apply, manage time, organize, etc....all skills which have a place in aviation.
I would estimate the predominant intelligence quotient of military officers I have worked with is in the 110-120 range, which means, they are above-average.
Third: Stress and Time-Compression: a student at ERAU who struggles can continue to train as long as he has enough money.
Not in the military, especially the Air Force. You're given 54 weeks to finish. If you are making progress, but not at the ascribed rate, you'll probably get washed-out. Done. Go away. Don't come back.
Sometimes they get washed-back a class, but rarely more than once.
This means weak-swimmers are usually eliminated.
Fourth: Aerobatics: in theory, one could go from Student Pilot all the way to ATP and never go beyond 60 degrees of bank, and +20/-10 pitch. All the services (Army is my question again) start in the primary phase with aerobatics. Why? It teaches a guy how to fly an airplane in any attitude, not just the ones he is used to. It teaches confidence. It teaches air-sense.
I had some pretty distorted ideas about spins prior to my military training, and I thought I was fairly well educated on the subject.
About one-third of all USAF students will fly the T-38, and they have to earn that potential in the T-6. Even after all the screening to get in, when they graduate, 50% of these guys will be in the bottom-half of their class. Only one-third to one-fourth of the T-38 guys will get a fighter.
Fifth: Supervision. Now a newly-minted USAF ab initio pilot, the heavy drivers will sit right-seat under the eye of an IP, and then experienced AC.
Fighter guys: after finishing their training (same limitations as 3 & 4 above), they will be wingman. About all they are good for is to follow Lead.
I had nearly 3000 hours total, and 700 in the F-4, before I really knew what I was doing.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
As for AF447, you're right that it was a lack of experience, but then even a 11,000 hr CA couldn't see what was happening. When all 3 pilots are clueless, that's a system failure and not just pilot error. And let's not talk from a high horse in the US, we've had some of the worst air disasters for some bad reasons, including pilot error.
My point here: no one was regularly putting guys in bizarre circumstances in airline training, such as a full aft-stick stall, etc. (Colgan 3407; AF 447). If you don't train them for it, they won't know how to interpret....let alone react.
'Ab initio' in the military isn't the same thing as in the civilian world.