They all had at least 100 hours, and if they went to training before the early 2000s, they had more like 200.

The Hun was single engine. There is a very different engine-fire-on-takeoff decisionmaking process for a single engine aircraft vs a twin, obviously.

A fighter pilot in a multiengine jet also doesn't perform a 4-segment takeoff in the event of an engine failure, either. The term "v1", or "v1 cut" also doesn't appear in the lexicon of a military fighter guy. Does all that make him some kind of idiot?

No, it just means that different aircraft types in different environments have differing procedures that are appropriate to that aircraft and that environment.

Pilots don't magically know what to do and how to do it in a new aircraft and new industry. If only there were a process by which pilots could be taught what to do when such a change happened....

There is... and its not magic. It's called ground school, CBT, CPT, and FFST.

In G/A through Multi Crew Transport Category Aircraft operations, rushing during emergency situations can and have lead to disastrous results.

Was it not obvious that my statement about training was sarcasm?

None the less, the point of the comment was that pilots aren't born with aircraft- and sector-specific skills and knowledge. All of us only knows what we've been trained and what we've experienced in our own small sliver of the aviation world.

Many pilots -- including both 121 and military aviators -- don't have the understanding that in other sectors of aviation in which they've not participated, there are other standards/methods of flying that are not the same as what they're accustomed to. More importantly, they don't understand that those differing methods are "separate but equal" in that what is quite appropriate in one sector may not be appropriate in another. The other methods are not any better or worse, just different.

So, while here on a forum where the topic is airline flying, it is all fun to bust on a military fighter guy who doesn't know the local customs. The opposite is just as true; in my time teaching both UPT and Fighter Lead-In, it was hilarious/ridiculous to see guys coming from airline experience and not understanding that the "new" methods they were taught in military ground school were, in fact, supposed to supplant whatever techniques/procedures they'd used in the airlines. Works both ways, for better or worse. The same is true for guys coming out of ag flying, or bush flying or corporate-to-airlines, or what have you.

A smart aviator knows that there are differences, and learns/performs in accordance with the local customs, even if they differ substantially from what they're used to.

Hacker, well said

There are lots of little differences, and I was not shy about telling the first few captains I flew the line with that I'm new to the industry and am still learning the culture, techniques, contract, etc, that aren't taught in training.

Timbo,

My first go around in the sim I rushed to get the gear up right away (after positive rate) because in a T-38 if you don't do that, you will overspeed them...in an Airbus...not so much. My first engine fire in the sim, I too was leaning too far forward. Lesson learned on both accounts and it only took messing up once to learn it.

Some of the biggest challenges were on the ground...ramp control? EDTC's? I had no clue about that stuff.

Hardly anyone gets to their level of experience and knowledge without instruction. The Wright Brothers and Boelke were 100 years ago. They had to. Most of us learned from many others.

Watch AB guys transition to Boeings, or vice versa, and you'll realize the truth in Hacker's comment - guys need to be exposed to different techniques and procedures to develop the skills for their new job.

The guys who do well in one area tend to do well in the next but it's not a given.

And the worst is watching guys take old techniques and apply them to new circumstances when it's negative transfer. Like watching guys put full aileron controls in a airliner for crosswind takeoffs, or pumping the stick like they're trying to hit the 3 wire dead on centerline, slamming th speed brakes in or out, or chasing every knot of airspeed, pulsing the rudder like it's a tail dragger in a gusty crosswind, etc, etc.

Meh, if you're not kicking up rooster tail, 20' high at DER standing up the Iron Cross, you're nobody. You tell Cappy that's how we did "diverse departure" back at the squadron. Negative transfer that! :D

This is a great post, Hacker.

My son is at an Aviation University as we speak, and the minimum Multi-time is 50 hrs for the restricted ATP (which he qualifies for). He received about 18 hrs ME for his MEL, and has been lucky enough to fly a twin during the summer for a gentleman that owns a C-310. Multi time is not an emphasis item once you've met the mins..the emphasis is on building time towards the magic 1000 hrs (restricted ATP).
On a side note, HackerF-15 shacked it! I remember back when I was attending UPT during the T-38 phase, I went home for Christmas break. My best friend was at the local airport flying a "hot" little GA plane called a Varga Kachina. He asked me if I wanted to fly with him. We lined up on the runway, and he says "your aircraft". I proceeded to firewall the throttle and release the brakes, at which point he slams the throttles back to idle and screams ***!! I was used to flying the -38 and that's how we did our take offs...as Hacker said, you know what you know until trained otherwise.

Never taught anything like that flying fighters. The number one rule I was taught was in the event of a severe emergency the first thing you should do is wind the clock. The second thing you should do is think. Then and only then handle the problem.