Originally Posted by
vessbot
It would be illuminating (maybe not for Stabapch, but at least for the general reader) for some of you guys that have gone through both training systems to post a summary of both of them.
---
Stabapch, you should ask yourself 1) If it is POSSIBLE that one system is more rigorous and reliable in producing a consistent and capable product, and 2) if it is the case, who would have meaningful insight into that (people who have gone through both, or those who have only gone through one?)
1) Yes, it’s possible. The military training system is better for the military aviation goals. The civilian training system is better for the civilian aviation goals (designed by the FAA for the industry run by the FAA...). It’s really not that hard to comprehend. CRM is one example of a HUGE issue airlines were having with mil guys adapting in the past. Great study out there. College curriculums that put emphasis on CRM skills have been proven to be better than any candidate with military training. Airlines had to take extra steps in implementing programs to combat this deficit from the military side.
2) This question is irrelevant. I don’t need to have experience with both training systems when my end goal is to be a product of the civilian industry, hence why my training/background is tailored towards that. I don’t need to know how to drop bombs, evade air defense, how to abandon my injured aircraft. This stuff doesn’t make you a better candidate to get the 737 A to B.