That says it all! Right there! That's just the thing we're talkin' 'bout!! OMG!!

LMFAO...

 

[QUOTE]Sorry that you seem to have such a bad impression of the military pilot Johnny. The last time a Mig was on the tail of a US fighter was the Gulf War as A10 said.
Your point about it being totally different is right on point - which is exactly why the post was questioning the comparison of the "stick and rudder" skills" of a Part 135 pilot and a MILITARY pilot (I put that in caps because you seem to focus on the stiek fighter pilot). How about the transport or tanker pilots who even fly versions of civilian airplanes? They do EVERYTHING that a airline pilot does PLUS many mission oriented duties that the strict civilian pilot has never given a thought too.

I not sure when the last time a P-3 pilot would have flown an ILS or if they have one (I would think they would) I wonder if they would have flown a TACAN approach better or a PAR? I know that few in USN/USMC tactical aircraft have flown an ILS in years!
If you want to make comparisons - I have another for you then to show how bringing up one example is pretty worhtless. My squadron recently had a 3,000+ hr Part 135 pilot come through training. He did well overall - but he was NOT the guy with the highest grades at the end of the day. He even did the best in his class in certain phases of training, but he didn't graduate this training program with the highest grades. I guy who had only started flying 2 years ago and had a whopping 350+ hrs had better overall grades. Another high time civilian pilot going through training BARELY 9and I mean barely) made it through training and I wonder if he will even make it through his first fleet tour without a board.

Why is it that the civilian pilot is usually the one that resort to this kind of attack? You're not helping your cause by calling people "hotshot" Johnny. It makes you look like one of those people who wishes he were doing doing something else. Find me the post on the forum where a military guy has said that there isn't good civilian training? It is a known fact (especially in the past) that the quality of civilian training widely varied and military flight school gives you a very consistent quality of instruction. The airlines have always like that aspect of military pilots. If you have heartburn with that then I'm sorry.

You really have a bone with the military don't you? I'm sorry - show me the statistics that show the majority of incidents/accidents/mishaps were caused by former military pilots? Do you know why military pilots had some trouble with CRM? Because they had been doing single cockpit duties for a long time. It has taken a long time for that mindset to slowly change for the better. So much is made here of the Part 135 solo pilot. You don't think that the single seat military strike fighter pilot has reason to tout his skills either?

Again - you see much more of your attitude on here seemingly jealous of the military pilot than you do the other way around. I'm sure there are those out there (especially ones who have never flown civilian) who think that way - but they are a vast minority. Your post says alot about some underlying problem that you might have experienced in your past. Find me the post where a military pilot says that all the things you mention above have anything to do with flying an airliner except for the CRM tenets of Situational Awareness, Assertiveness, Decision Making, Communication, Leadership, Adaptability/Flexibility, and Mission Analysis.

USMCFLYR

 

I personally recieved all of my civilian flight ratings in college and thought the training was quite good. The dropout rate was astronomical. Most people said it was due to money (even though we all had student loans) but the reality is that they just couldn't keep thier perfomance level up. Either in the classroom, in the cockpit, or both.

Having $30,000 in student loan debt I decided that I simply could not just flight instruct and then PAY FOR TRAINING after graduation. It would simply be too much debt for me to be comfortable with.

So I set out sending resumes, transcripts, and copies of my AFOQT to Every single Air National Guard Unit in the country. Yes sure I looked into Active duty....but I never desired to be in South Korea as a 10 year indentured servant. Especially if there was a better option.

I did UPT at Vance Air Force Base and basically did all my training over again in a tweet and talon. Then from there, went to the airlines.

The bottom line of what I learned is this... There is an ego based debate over who is the better trained pilot (and therefore better pilot) that has very few qualified people to voice objective opinion.

Do you know anyone who has been through both programs? There aren't many of us.

Here it is.... The equipment is better in the military. The jets, the sims, the briefing rooms, etc. They spare no expense. The instructors are typically FAIPS. So depending on the day.... I might fly with a Lt Colonel who could teach me some things. But mostly, I had more flight time, experience and airmanship than my first assignment instructor. Talk about afraid? They were afraid to leave Oklahoma. A cross-country is terrifying! Unfamiliar airports. A civillian controller system. What is ramp control?

In university programs.... you are typically instructed by a CFI who has been a pilot for 4 years or more. All the training took place in college, and now they have 500 hours or more and they are flying 8 hours a day ... so 1000 hours is not a long way off. These guys new their stuff and could teach it really well. Incidentally....all the ones I knew are at Major airlines. Most from UPT arent pilots anymore.

The distinction that should be made is a pilot with a college degree verses nothing more than a highschool education and a few summers cropdusting after banging out a commercial certificate part 61 with the farmer.

Please understand me. There is a virtual tie between FAR 141 University trained pilots and Air Force Training in Undergraduate Pilot Training.

Where there isnt much debate is which service produces the best pilots. The only time the navy ever gives the airforce even a hint of a challenge is when the carrier is ramping up for deployment. Other than that brief moment in time, the Air Force lives up to its name and thanks to a huge alotment of sorties.... is without question the best service branch in aviation. IF you want to storm a beach....the marines are for you. If you want to row a boat...the navy. If you want to fly the best airplanes in a tactical environment... the AirFoce and reserve components are IT.

IF you want to operate under FAR part 121 then either get all your ratings through either a military program or in a university FAR 141 Aviation program.

 

I have a bit of a different take on all of this.

My background is civilian but it's different than the many. I was only an active CFI for a very short time, I never worked at any regional and I've had the opportunity to do a lot of different kinds of flying.

After years off odd jobs from grand canyon tours to jumping skydivers I wound up in Northern AK.

I flew as a smoke jumper pilot for several years in the summer and as a polar expedition/scientific support pilot in the winter. The smoke jumper mission includes tons of low level flying in the mountains at slow speed in low visibility dropping para cargo at 100' AGL. Polar flying involved lots of near zero visibility landings on skies on ice floes hundreds of miles off shore.

I flew single pilot in a Merlin III for two years based out of South Eastern NM flying all over the country and Mexico and Canada.

Just like some of the comments made about military flying not being applicable to the airlines. What in the world does dropping para cargo at 100' AGL in dense smoke in rugged terrain have to do with the airlines?

The answer is that it doesn't matter what your background is. In my opinion the more varied the better. Flying low level at high speed at night in a fighter makes your a better pilot, aerobatics, instrument work, formation, eight legs a day in the weather, single pilot night freight, crop dusting. It's all good and it's all relevant.

After spending seven years in the training department at UAL I've seen it all from just about every background. The good the bad and the ugly exist in all facets and backgrounds. One of the most shockingly horrible pilots I've ever witnessed was an SR 71 guy. That blew me away! I've also had to bust guys with tons of regional time who were atrocious pilots. There is no telling based on background. And of course the VAST majority of guys from any background are pretty good pilots.

This military VS civilian thing needs to stop it is the number one bias in the cockpit it is totally STUPID and it is completely irrelevant. In reality it's all about inflated fragile ego's on both sides.

 

So you're saying a 22 year old fresh out of a college 141 program with 300-400 hours total time is more qualified to fly 121, then say a guy like me who may have gotten my ratings part 61 and flown several years of twin turbine 135, single pilot IFR ops, crop dusting, flight instructing and got on in the 121 world with 2000 hours or more total time?

I have flown with both types, the guys fresh out of 141 programs and the guys wth real world IFR experience.....guess who I'd rather have in the pilot seat when it hits the fan? it's not the 400 hour 22 year old just cause he has an aviation degree and training part 141.

 

They should change the title of this thread to "Pilots Over 60, Who Can't Handle Change".

 

[QUOTE]
I might have understood you, but please don't refer to being Active Duty as being an "indentured servant" It is degrading to those of us who have chosen to serve our country on Active Duty.

Quote:

Do you know anyone who has been through both programs? There aren't many of us.

I, like you, went thorugh a program while in college and got most of my ratings (all but instructors ratings) so you and have can speak on either side of the fence I would say. I've never flown P121 or been through a P121 training program or a FSI course; and I can't say that I am looking forward to it.
Things might be different in the AF, but when you say they were "typically FAIPs" then that makes it sound like you are saying a majority of your IPs wwre FAIPs. That is not the case in the USN/USMC programs. Those opportunities come and go and even when they are around you don't see too many of them. I'm hoping that you were able to learn a few things from the senior CAPTs and MAJs you flew with too in UPT. What you say about FAIPs operating outside of the base is one of the problems I agree with. Your instructor might be someone who's entire flight training experience is having just gone through the same training that you are going through. I would much rather have a fleet experienced person teaching me more than the local course rules. In the civilian world - that is one reason I didn't want to get my CFI/II right away. I did not feel I knoew enough to be teaching someone else how to fly! I have learned since that it is the 90% course of action, but it just wasn't for me.

Quote:

In university programs.... you are typically instructed by a CFI who has been a pilot for 4 years or more. All the training took place in college, and now they have 500 hours or more and they are flying 8 hours a day ... so 1000 hours is not a long way off. These guys new their stuff and could teach it really well. Incidentally....all the ones I knew are at Major airlines. Most from UPT arent pilots anymore.

My instructors in college were people a year or two older than me and were brand new CFIs. Most people that I have known that got out of the millitary as IPs (whether it be Primary, Advance or FRS) are Major airline pilots (at least until recently and now they are furloughed )

Quote:

Please understand me. There is a virtual tie between FAR 141 University trained pilots and Air Force Training in Undergraduate Pilot Training.

This might be true in the AF, but certainly not true of the USN/USMC newly winged aviators. They have a much broader perspective of training doing many more things; but then again it is my understanding (at least in the past) that the AF training up to wings doesn't include many of areas of training that USN/USMC training encompasses. If someone could break down the different phases of training and what is accomplished in each I would appreciate it.

Quote:

Where there isnt much debate is which service produces the best pilots. The only time the navy ever gives the airforce even a hint of a challenge is when the carrier is ramping up for deployment. Other than that brief moment in time, the Air Force lives up to its name and thanks to a huge alotment of sorties.... is without question the best service branch in aviation. IF you want to storm a beach....the marines are for you. If you want to row a boat...the navy. If you want to fly the best airplanes in a tactical environment... the AirFoce and reserve components are IT.

Oh to be so sure This could be its' own post!

USMCFLYR

 

That is incorrect. I never once implied a low opinion of military pilots. My post was in response to a post that claimed that military training is better in all cases. Me disagreeing does not, in the least, even suggest a low opinion of military pilots.

That said, I was a 135 check airman in a previous life and I have seen excellent military pilots as well as military pilots that should never operate a doorbell. This rings true with pilots from a civilian background.

Folks, many of you in this thread seem to think that any dissension from the idea that military pilots are generally superior airman than civilian pilots is anti-military. Nothing is further from the truth. The very first post implied some sort of default superiority with military aviation and many of us disagreed. Unless you military folks think you really are god's gift to aviation, what's the problem?

 

Actually, it is training.In fact, real world flying is better training than any training curriculum or syllabus could provide by a long shot.

As a former 135 check airman, i have flown with many excellent fighter guys and some not so excellent.....as with the civilian side too. So cranking and banking and shaking a Mig doesn't necessarily make someone a proficient airman.

 

I guess it matters what your goal is then If you are talking about proficient in flying a ILS - no. On the other hand - if you goal is to get the other guy off your tail then it does and how well you nail the TACAN approach doesn't matter a whole lot. So in this case proficiency is goal oriented.

This is actually one area that I chide the USN about all the time. I hate to hear the USN IPs tell a young guy that their reputation is made around the boat It may be true (and it probably is) but it is like they don't care whether you can get a bomb on target +/- 10 secs or target effectively and shoot on timeline as long as you look good the last 12-15 seconds in the groove for that line period.
Sorry Navy guys - that was a slight shot across the bow - but I take hits all day long so I felt like I was due

USMCFLYR