Regional airline pilot mills vs the military
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Flight Instructor
Posts: 623
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.
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.
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
"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.
#4
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!!!
#5
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.
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.
#7
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!!!
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.
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
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?
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: MD-80 FO
Posts: 91
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 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.
#10
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 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.
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post