Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Flight Schools and Training
Regional airline pilot mills vs the military >

Regional airline pilot mills vs the military

Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

Regional airline pilot mills vs the military

Old 12-31-2009, 01:20 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Flight Instructor
Posts: 623
Default Regional airline pilot mills vs the military

Are today's airline pilots, churned out by "pilot mills" that train to minimum standards, up to the task once entrusted to ex-military pilots with millions of dollars worth of intense and highly competitive training? That's one of the questions raised by a four-part series this week in The Buffalo News, an exploration prompted by the fatal crash there early this year of Colgan Air Flight 3407, in which 50 people died. As recently as 1992, about 90 percent of new hires at the airlines had military backgrounds, according to Tuesday's installment, while today that figure is about 30 percent. But whether any of that translates into a safety issue is unclear. "The kind of skills you get flying into bad weather into Buffalo you don't necessarily get flying in a fighter plane," one unnamed airline pilot, who did not come from the military, told the News. The series looks into how pilots are trained today, and the difference in safety between the major airlines and the regionals. The FAA is expected to issue proposed new rules for commercial pilots sometime in 2010. Click here to read parts one, two, three, and four of the Buffalo News series.



Training for airline pilots is also the topic of a report in Wednesday's Bloomberg News, which focuses on Gulfstream Academy (no relation to Gulfstream Aerospace, which builds the jets), the flight school where the pilot of Flight 3407 was trained. The last five fatal crashes of commercial passenger carriers in the U.S. involved airplanes operated by regional airlines, according to Bloomberg. Click here for that story.
N6724G is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 04:38 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 190
Default

Military training is FAR superior to anything in the Civy world. Any idiot with a pulse and a checkbook automatically qualifies for top honors from any puppy mill flight school.
toomanyrjs is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 04:50 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Default

Originally Posted by toomanyrjs View Post
Any idiot with a pulse and a checkbook automatically qualifies for top honors from any puppy mill flight school.
With this, I agree.

Originally Posted by toomanyrjs View Post
Military training is FAR superior to anything in the Civy world.
"Anything" in the civy world? With this, I disagree. There is no military equivalent to on-demand 135, single pilot, no auto pilot, piston or turboprop. For an aviator, I confidently put these folks against any military pilot, any day.
Zapata is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 04:58 PM
  #4  
Line Holder
 
FlynPoPo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 59
Default

I agree with Zapata! I have an Army Commercial Rotorcraft pilot (Blackhawk Pilot) who is getting deployed in another month and wants to get his Fixed Wing PPL before he leaves. We were doing some basic VOR tracking last night and he had no clue on what to do. He told me he was rusty on instruments and wanted me to talk him through it.. It's all relative on where you do your training and how good your CFI is!!!
FlynPoPo is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 05:07 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

Historically, the military accidents in training isn't all that good.

The cost issue is largely attributed to any government exercise that could probably be done cheaper elsewhere (not sure the $1000 government toilet seat is 100 times better than my $10 Walmart one).

I'm not suggesting that we try and make military training as cheap as possible, because invariably there would be corners cut. I thought it was a good idea to use the little general aviation plastic planes for initial training (sorry, name escapes me), but they ended up killing several anyway.

Military could just as easily start in a Cessna 172, for a tiny fraction of the current cost, for instance.

This debate has no winner, and will go on for as long as the two groups exists. But, clearly the puppy mills are a joke.
TonyWilliams is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 05:20 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pokey9554's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Cessna 150
Posts: 655
Default

It is student dependent.
pokey9554 is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 05:26 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Default

Originally Posted by FlynPoPo View Post
I agree with Zapata! I have an Army Commercial Rotorcraft pilot (Blackhawk Pilot) who is getting deployed in another month and wants to get his Fixed Wing PPL before he leaves. We were doing some basic VOR tracking last night and he had no clue on what to do. He told me he was rusty on instruments and wanted me to talk him through it.. It's all relative on where you do your training and how good your CFI is!!!
Using a blackhawk guy who is probably never required to do much IFR flying to AF/USN/USMC fixed wing pilots is obviously not a fair comparison. I was trained Part 61 before going in the Air Force and can say without a doubt that the syllabus, aircraft used, average experience of instructors (with the exception of FAIPS), the fact that people get washed out early for poor performance, and the overall military training environment make military training far superior to any other training. The mil guy next to you may not be the best, but he did receive the best training...the pilot he becomes years later is up to the individual and the experiences he's exposed to (and whether he's a tool).

As far as experiences that directly relate to airline flying, the Part 135 freight dogs have the market cornered on that. Although people here act like a Military heavy guy has never flown a white-knuckled, full procedure approach to mins with his boss (sometimes literally) breathing down his neck.

Last edited by blastoff; 12-31-2009 at 05:39 PM.
blastoff is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:27 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Default

Give us all a break with this inferior training stuff. Do you blame your high school driver ed instructors when you get a ticket or crash your car because of lack of training? Same thing with flying. It's all up to the individual. Even a military guy will start screaming when he's overloaded. If you don't feel ready for the task, simply don't do it until you're ready why can't we blame the individuals for their actions instead of the whole system?
AirWillie is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:47 PM
  #9  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: MD-80 FO
Posts: 91
Default

I recieved all my ratings in college while getting a four year degree in Aeronautical Science. Afterwards, I had no intention to participate in "pay for training" at the regionals so I applied to Air National Guard Units nation wide while flight instructing and charter flying (135).

I consider myself a hybrid and I can make these observations from my experiences.

1) Military equipment is the best. Aircraft, Simulators, etc. Military Instructors are typically only 18 months removed from their first flight as a student (200 hours TT) and are building thier own careers... not necessarily gifted and talented educators. Instrument training was VERY weak.

2) Civilian equipment is terrible. GA aircraft are not sophisticated enough or fast enough to really provide a perfect educational experience. Civilian Instructors were EXCELLENT from my experience. Guys with a Thousand hours or so. Instructing 6 to 8 hours a day. People who really liked teaching. The guys who were not gifted instuctors typically did not make it through the CFI program and ended up building time by flying banners or traffic watch.

I ended up having to teach my entire Flight Instruments because the "Blue Suits" did a crappy job and the FAIP's knew little more than what the students were reading out of the book. NONE of the instructors had ever been in IMC. Please understand that the Military is great at Formation flying and "Contact" or aerobatic flying.

If Flight Schools could ever put Civilian Instructors in T-38's and T-1's you would have the perfect training ground for the Airlines.
FloridaGator is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 09:58 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Default

Originally Posted by FloridaGator View Post
I recieved all my ratings in college while getting a four year degree in Aeronautical Science. Afterwards, I had no intention to participate in "pay for training" at the regionals so I applied to Air National Guard Units nation wide while flight instructing and charter flying (135).

I consider myself a hybrid and I can make these observations from my experiences.

1) Military equipment is the best. Aircraft, Simulators, etc. Military Instructors are typically only 18 months removed from their first flight as a student (200 hours TT) and are building thier own careers... not necessarily gifted and talented educators. Instrument training was VERY weak.

2) Civilian equipment is terrible. GA aircraft are not sophisticated enough or fast enough to really provide a perfect educational experience. Civilian Instructors were EXCELLENT from my experience. Guys with a Thousand hours or so. Instructing 6 to 8 hours a day. People who really liked teaching. The guys who were not gifted instuctors typically did not make it through the CFI program and ended up building time by flying banners or traffic watch.

I ended up having to teach my entire Flight Instruments because the "Blue Suits" did a crappy job and the FAIP's knew little more than what the students were reading out of the book. NONE of the instructors had ever been in IMC. Please understand that the Military is great at Formation flying and "Contact" or aerobatic flying.

If Flight Schools could ever put Civilian Instructors in T-38's and T-1's you would have the perfect training ground for the Airlines.
I disagree with your assessment of IFR training. You also make it sound like every instructor is a FAIP with 200 hours. The IRC program and Advanced Instrument School get more in the weeds (to the point you just want to die) about everything IFR than anything you could get in the civilian world without being a FAA inspector.

Sounds like you got stuck with a crappy flight when you went to UPT. I remember teaching FAIPS a few things as well. The true knowledge comes from the attached Reserve instructors and AD C-130/141 guys. Hand-flying a BeechJet at FL260 while flying raw data on airways down to a full-procedure ADF circling approach was better than any IFR training a civilian school could hope to advertise.

Ask any regional check airman who has flown IOE with a new hire that flies in the Guard/Reserve.

Originally Posted by FloridaGator View Post
NONE of the instructors had ever been in IMC.
Come on, that's total B.S. Maybe a FAIP or two on a whole base could make it through a year at Laughlin/Vance/Columbus, then go to Randolph and still not experience IMC, not likely, and definitely not an entire flight of instructors.

I know you're trying to stick up for the quality civilian instruction you received. I have fond memories of blasting through the soup with my CFII in a 172. I'm dismayed about the dismantling of University flying programs, it can't be good for a profession that seeks to raise its image to have its collegiate programs marginalized as ''trade schools" and separated from the University experience.

Last edited by blastoff; 12-31-2009 at 10:51 PM.
blastoff is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
beebopbogo
Aviation Law
28
08-25-2009 05:06 PM
FLY6584
Technical
21
08-21-2009 07:45 AM
HSLD
Military
0
04-30-2009 05:27 PM
vagabond
Hiring News
4
04-08-2009 08:03 AM
Past V1
Regional
22
03-18-2009 05:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices