Boomer

I knew a guy that took a year off when his wife died. I guess he set up a successful consulting gig while he was off, and wanted to ride that pony as long as possible. He kept telling the airline he wasn't ready to come back.

The airline cancelled his LOA when they discovered his wife wasn't actually dead... she had just divorced him. They also cancelled his employment.

gfwarlock

Was he an ethics consultant?

Thunderpig

Merely that given the differences you see in Mil vs. Civ training, Mil guys are going to have a better time (generally) adapting to firehose style training...we see more of it. Once you get into sims, CRM tends to be a bit of a challenge at first for fighter types as we tend to do everything ourselves...inherent to our style of flying, but adaptation comes pretty quickly. Much like getting out of training and into the CAF, the learning curves tend to even out over time and then you are left to the personalities...

John Carr

What's the average sortie time?

I venture to guess the .3 conversion is more than 5 minutes for tactical jet.

It's not like it matters anyway. As long as mil pilot meets the mins, the totals aren't really that important anymore. It's adding things to the qualifications like IP, standeval, etc that make them stand out withing the peer group.

Not sure if it's that cut and dry. There was a time that regional pilot training was VERY fire hose style training. At a previous company, there was a time on both the way up pre 9/11 that guys went through training on 2-3 types of planes in a year with all the movement. Then post 9/11 when things went the other way, downward.

legacy training programs aren't anything near like circa 1980's before the onset of AQP style training was adapted. Many regionals are finally coming around to the concept now, although some had it in the late 90's. Point being, it's not a "fire hose" or intensive as it was at one time.

Everything is relative.

Thunderpig

Speaking in general terms...I have seen both, though only a couple of high time civilian to military guys were able to adapt to the single seat concept. This isn't meant to be demeaning...there is a difference in approaches to what is being taught. Each person adapts differently, but there are some pretty broad true stereotypes.

John Carr

And I've seen a few training cycles myself. Both the fire hose type and AQP/train to proficiency type.

Usually it's a guys crappy attitude and inability to forget where he came from and adapt that messes him up. Regardless of mil or civ.

It's not a mil vs. civ peeing contest. Although just like clockwork, it can be counted on.

Thunderpig

Agreed...and it usually evens out in the end except at the far ends of the spectrum.

LandGreen2

Thunderpig...be careful, I know this is a anonymous forum, but your posts really smell of the mil vs civ thing.

Easiest way to bust an HR interview is to be an "IceMan" type. You do NOT want to bust the HR portion.

Just saying...

tsquare

Yeah, so don't roll your pencil around your fingers while the man's talking to ya.....

Humboldt

You guys are dangerous.