1200hrs of High performance Military
 

Can anyone expand upon this statement in the AS profile?

No idea, civilian guy here. If no one answers here. We do have an Alaska airlines pilot recruiting page on facebook. Or you can send to [email protected]

Cant speak for Alaska, but usually this means Fighters, F15,F16,F18 etc..This time is usually a lower number because lighter pilots don't fly all that much. It might take a guy 8-10 years to get 1,000 hours in such equipment.

I can pull 4.5 Gs and have 12000 Hp in the osprey isn’t that high performance. But yeah I may just email the Alaska desk. Do they own the APC profile? Or can others wiki style edit pages...

Dual crewed is one of the differences.

Only counts if you can fly inverted.

No it's not. Know lots of F-18 and F-15 guys with multi crew time.

Multi crew doesn't count against dual seat tac-air. They are still single piloted.

Respectfully disagree with you on this on two accounts. MIL training and flying is so much more intense than civilian that most airlines give credit for the ability to succeed in that environment. For example, if a student wasn't ready for a particular check-ride milestone, he/she would get maybe 2 extra flights and then "good luck in your future endeavors" if they didn't make the cut.

MIL flight time is from take off to landing. I.e. MIL guys are missing what civilians would get on a Hobbs meter. So, you can typically add .2 or .3 per flight.

V-22 guys should be able to call it high performance MIL.

Well, it isn't.

There's only one pilot on board an F-15E and F-18D/F. Osprey?

Not trying to be insulting here, fellas, but the FAA doesn't even see the V-22 as a fixed-wing aircraft, much less a "high performance" one.

In this context high-performance means single pilot jets (F, A, T, U). Not sure about B-1's. I'm not going to weigh in on nuances or merits of different platforms.

That's like the F-14 jocks going into the Miramar FSDO and arguing that their ticket shouldn't say "Centerline Thrust."

V-22's i dunno. The guy in the back of 18 doesn't usually have controls and is not a rated pilot.

F-14's are not center line thrust. Remember Maverick's "flat spin out to sea"? :D

At the time they were trying to convince the FAA that they should have an unrestricted license. The FAA wasn't buying it even though the engines were like 14 inches apart. It was a standing bet in the Miramar FSDO that every time an F-14 jock came in with his NATOPS manual the over/under on the number of minutes before he'd be whining about the "Centerline Thrust" limitation.

P.S. I still can't figure out how to do a flat spin "out to sea." There's some time/space continuum aerodynamics for you.

There must be something to that with those -14’s. I saw a bunch of that in the documentary “The Final Countdown.”

:)

That movie proved the Zero was no match for the Tomcat.

V-22 is a multi pilot A/C.
If you guys are curious v-22 is getting a lot of FAA love as the GP is getting smarter on our operation. Delta allows 90% towards FW Turbine.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-1106-0122
Another mil friendly regulation is a up to 500hr credit to upgrade to CA in 121 world.

Glad to hear it. You guys deserve it.

I have absolutely ZERO doubt that a 135 guy or a KC-10 guy or a C-17 guy or a 130 guy or a COD guy or a B-52 guy or even a C-12 guy would be, at least initially, ten times better suited to this job than a single seat “high performance" guy. Absolutely NONE. No one cares about “high performance” time. The only reason it matters is because of the multiplier. And to their egos, apparently.....

Unless you have “been there done that”, I’d keep your opinion to yourself. Not everyone makes the cut for fighters/single seat and the rest go on to multicrew airframes by choice or not. Everything depends on the individual and airline flying/training is set with the lowest common denominator in mind.

I will take you up on that....Least favorite pilots to fly with are C-17 pilots...Fighter guys are way better to spend a 4 day trip with. And the fighter guys catch on to the two or three things required to fly in a crew...

Interesting opinion.

The people who hire pilots at airlines do not agree with you.

That's a new one. Fighter guys are egotistical buttholes and heavy guys are laid back cool types-isn't that the perception? You just don't like the McChordites.:D The gravedigger gave them boyz a bad rap. Barney drivers are all right by me.

Nucflash doesn't seem to realize that TACAIR guys have to adhere to all the safety regs as everyone else while undergoing physiological and psychological stresses (i.e. combat, carrier ops) that the others don't.

They may not have as much total flight time, but one could argue that their time is more decision making packed than droning in cruise across 10 time zones.

Besides, TACAIR guys are generally more fun to hang out with.

Fighter pilots are better than heavy pilots, military pilots are better than civilian pilots, Airbus is better than Boeing, my #### is bigger than your ####. Blah blah blah. Who cares? A former CP once told me, anyone can take a nice guy/gal who is a mediocre pilot and make them a better pilot. It's impossible to take an ace pilot who is an ###hole and make him a better person! I've flown with great guys and gals who are former C-17, F-15, C-172 and I've flown with ones who are #####'s. It's about the person, not the propulsion. Rant over!

Hear! Hear!

Dilly Dilly!