Aviation Expert slams regional pilots
05-14-2009, 07:50 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by River6
I think that same question could hold true for civilian pilots as well. Like I said earlier, lets take the lastest major airline crashes in the last 10 years and lets see who was PIC on those flights. I've already listed three AMR Crashes that were listed as pilot error. We at SWA have had three and they all were pilot error, flown by former military pilots. So for you or anyone else on this forum to say that military pilots are better pilots than civilian pilots is a crock!
I think your missing the point...I think people are trying to say that "training" in the military is better, not necessarily the "pilot". Better training doesn't always equal better pilots. It's not how many hours you have, necessarily, but what you have done/experienced in those hours....my $.02.
05-14-2009, 08:01 PM
#102
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
!
I think what this guy is saying is reprehensible and totally irresponsible, not to mention false. I also think it is ridiculous to say such a thing at an NTSB hearing, where relatives/friends of deceased crewmembers are listening. Shameful, and untrue.
05-14-2009, 08:12 PM
#103
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Isn't the real issue in this thread that no matter which pilot population you're talking about there will always be someone on the left shoulder of the bell curve?
In any safety system, uh...take piloting airplanes for example, the goal is to ensure that the population on the left shoulder of the bell curve is adequate to safely do the job.
Does it really matter what kind of paint is on jet?
In any safety system, uh...take piloting airplanes for example, the goal is to ensure that the population on the left shoulder of the bell curve is adequate to safely do the job.
Does it really matter what kind of paint is on jet?
05-14-2009, 08:25 PM
#104
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Shakespeare
Originally Posted by River6
I think your watching to many Top Gun reruns as well!
"I think you're watching too many Top Gun reruns as well!"
If I may paraphrase the Bard: "Me thinks the civilian doth protest too much."
I started with civilian flight-training. I thought I was pretty sharp. I got to UPT and found out I was average. The military--on the whole--makes you a better exposed and more-rounded pilot, as others have alluded to.
The best part of USAF training, in my view: energy maneuverability, and being comfortable to maneuver at any attitude or angle of attack. I did some limited aerobatics as a civilian--but I didn't know how to handle it if things were botched.
But Air Force pilot training didn't make me infallable. My first three airline sims were quite humbling. But then again, they were for the civilian guys in my class, too. The biggest weakness for mil-guys coming into a major carrier will be weak FAR knowledge, the newness of FOMs and OPSPECS, and for fighter guys, ice and de-icing (and having to ask someone else to raise the gear, flaps, or talk on the radio).
If you have brain cancer, would you rather go to your local hospital, or Johns Hopkins? If you wanted a tune-up for your car, who would do a better job: Meinecke, or Earnhardt's pit-crew? Hmmm..the local shop might do it quicker and better...the first time. But I'd bet that overall, the pit-crew knows more about cars than the guy in a local garage. It's all about who probably has the best training, experiences, and "weeding-out"
And that's the point here: by statistics and probabilities, the military guy will have better training and more varied experiences. It should pay-off as a better pilot---but it might not. Of my favorite Capts to fly with at UAL, 90% of them were mil. But one of the worst pilots I ever flew with was mil, as well.
The one thing you can't change in any training program, be it military or civilian: personality. Some people are sharp, and easy to get along with. Some people are difficult. Everyone has seen them and worked with them. Some people are losers. You wonder if they've ever been on a date, and then, you hope that they haven't....their kind doesn't need to proliferate.
By the way, your listing of accidents that had military pilots is a non-sequitor. If I said "It turns out that in military accidents, the pilot was always a military pilot!" would be apparently laughable. Similar in airliner accidents: since, at most major carriers, traditional hiring standards meant that half or more of all their pilots were military, you would expect a military pilot to be involved in half or more of all their accidents.
Just chill, River. No one is attacking you personally, and I'd guess you are as able a 737 pilot as the next guy at SWA. Just accept this as gospel: If you polled the military guys on this forum, I don't think any one of us would say that our military experience made us a worse pilot. It made us better, and in my case, more trainable.
05-14-2009, 08:34 PM
#105
Gets Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: On Top
Posts: 742
Originally Posted by HSLD
Isn't the real issue in this thread that no matter which pilot population you're talking about there will always be someone on the left shoulder of the bell curve?
In any safety system, uh...take piloting airplanes for example, the goal is to ensure that the population on the left shoulder of the bell curve is adequate to safely do the job.
Does it really matter what kind of paint is on jet?
In any safety system, uh...take piloting airplanes for example, the goal is to ensure that the population on the left shoulder of the bell curve is adequate to safely do the job.
Does it really matter what kind of paint is on jet?
05-14-2009, 10:48 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by River6
If it's the best in world lets do a comparison of all the Major Airline crashes in the last 15 years and bet you any amount of money that 95% of the Captains who were piloting those aircraft were military trained. So the best training in the world comes with questions? To say a pilot who is trained in the military is a better pilot to someone who comes out of a school like Purdue, or ERAU is naive on your part. Most of the F-teen drivers and heavy drivers come to the majors with 1500tt over a period of 10 to 15 years which comes up to be 100 hours a year. In peace time, it's less than that. To say they are better pilots than some guy who has been flying RJ, ATR's in and out of Boston, LGA, JFK and logs 1000hour in one year and comes to the majors with 6000 hours of airline experience is a joke!
A few recent crashes that had Captains all trained by the Uniited States military.
Captain Richard Bushmann AMR flight that crashed in LIT
Captain Edward States AMR flight that crashed in Queens
Captain Nicholas Tafuri AMR flight that crashed in Cali
All were contibuted to pilot error. Accidents happen and will continue to happen for some ex-military/aviation expert to say the Colgan Captain was not as well trained as military pilot is a crock!
A few recent crashes that had Captains all trained by the Uniited States military.
Captain Richard Bushmann AMR flight that crashed in LIT
Captain Edward States AMR flight that crashed in Queens
Captain Nicholas Tafuri AMR flight that crashed in Cali
All were contibuted to pilot error. Accidents happen and will continue to happen for some ex-military/aviation expert to say the Colgan Captain was not as well trained as military pilot is a crock!
First off - I never said that. You are welcome to go to my profile page and search ALL of my posts and I will pay YOU some repsect if you find a post where I said that military pilots are better than civilian pilots.
You River said that military pilots don't have stick and rudder skills.
You are naive if you believe this.
First bold comment. Please do this research. I'm sure that many would be interested in the results. Please share them on the forum when you finish the project.
Second bold point. Your information is very flawed River. The first part is wrong in that if someone flew straight for 15 years - they would have more than 1500TT. Most instructors in my squadorn (and I come from the tac air community which gets probably the LEAST amount of flight time) have been flying for 6-7 years (the new instructors) and already have between 1200 to 1500 hours in TYPE. Ones who have been flying TYPE for 15 years like you assert have over 2000-3000 in TYPE - and this is with a few years doing OTHER things - like ground tours, IA billets, schools, staff tours, etc....
On average - you'll find a tac air guy flying about 220-280 hrs per year. That is a lot of sorties when many of your flights might be around 0.9-1.1; most of which is spent actually FLYING the airplane too - stick and rudder skills - not flying in the flight levels for hours at a time on autopilot (in my community)
Best training in the world. Yes - I think so. The amount of different things that I was trained on, and to what standards, was worlds apart in my first 300 hours of civvie time compared to my first 300 hours of military time. The amount of money that was spent on said training, the academics, the courseware, the simulator training, the facilities, etc.... (yes - even in the USN/USMC) are top notch - and those pesky IPs know their stuff pretty well too
Sorry that you seem to have such a low opinion of the military trained pilot and insist of picking out a few mishaps where there was a military trained pilot at the controls. I certainly never said that we were Gods of aviation. I almost crashed myself just this afternoon. I made a mistake. I got a little too close to the jet wash of the student I was chasing around at 200' and nearly 500 mph while in a 5 g turn and I went for a Mr Toad's wild ride for about 2-3 seconds. Scared the crap out of me! Btw - I was only on autopilot for a total of 10 minutes today - and that was only so I could provide my wingman a stable platform to fly formation on. Love this jon and I;m going to miss it terribly.
USMCFLYR
05-14-2009, 10:58 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Roll Inverted and Pull
600 from one squadron? How many planes in that squadron?
Where River6 is coming up with these numbers is beyond me! 
Between 1500TT after 15 years and 600 guys from one squadron; I'm looking forward to the next number
Of course 400 guys from Luke (or at least ones that have gone through Luke) could be plausible since he decided to pick one of the largest AF/F-16 bases around.USMCFLYR
05-14-2009, 11:05 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 73N CA
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by uber
That is the most false thing I have ever read. You must have went to one crap "civilian" program.
05-15-2009, 05:16 AM
#109
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
ALL NEW PROSPECTIVE PILOTS SHOULD READ THE LAST 25 POSTS OF THIS THREAD. IT WILL PROVE TO THEM THAT THIS CAREER IS HOPLESSLY SCREWED AND A WASTE OF TIME. THEY WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NO FUTURE IN JOINING A BAND OF ABSOLUTE IDIOTS THAT CONSTANTLY ATTACK EACH OTHER LETTING THOSE OUTSIDE THEIR RANKS PUT THEM IN JEOPARDY REPEATEDLY.
Indeed, what a pathetic future we have.
Indeed, what a pathetic future we have.
05-15-2009, 06:11 AM
#110
New Hire
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
corrected for spelling:
"I think you're watching too many Top Gun reruns as well!"
If I may paraphrase the Bard: "Me thinks the civilian doth protest too much."
I started with civilian flight-training. I thought I was pretty sharp. I got to UPT and found out I was average. The military--on the whole--makes you a better exposed and more-rounded pilot, as others have alluded to.
The best part of USAF training, in my view: energy maneuverability, and being comfortable to maneuver at any attitude or angle of attack. I did some limited aerobatics as a civilian--but I didn't know how to handle it if things were botched.
But Air Force pilot training didn't make me infallable. My first three airline sims were quite humbling. But then again, they were for the civilian guys in my class, too. The biggest weakness for mil-guys coming into a major carrier will be weak FAR knowledge, the newness of FOMs and OPSPECS, and for fighter guys, ice and de-icing (and having to ask someone else to raise the gear, flaps, or talk on the radio).
If you have brain cancer, would you rather go to your local hospital, or Johns Hopkins? If you wanted a tune-up for your car, who would do a better job: Meinecke, or Earnhardt's pit-crew? Hmmm..the local shop might do it quicker and better...the first time. But I'd bet that overall, the pit-crew knows more about cars than the guy in a local garage. It's all about who probably has the best training, experiences, and "weeding-out"
And that's the point here: by statistics and probabilities, the military guy will have better training and more varied experiences. It should pay-off as a better pilot---but it might not. Of my favorite Capts to fly with at UAL, 90% of them were mil. But one of the worst pilots I ever flew with was mil, as well.
The one thing you can't change in any training program, be it military or civilian: personality. Some people are sharp, and easy to get along with. Some people are difficult. Everyone has seen them and worked with them. Some people are losers. You wonder if they've ever been on a date, and then, you hope that they haven't....their kind doesn't need to proliferate.
By the way, your listing of accidents that had military pilots is a non-sequitor. If I said "It turns out that in military accidents, the pilot was always a military pilot!" would be apparently laughable. Similar in airliner accidents: since, at most major carriers, traditional hiring standards meant that half or more of all their pilots were military, you would expect a military pilot to be involved in half or more of all their accidents.
Just chill, River. No one is attacking you personally, and I'd guess you are as able a 737 pilot as the next guy at SWA. Just accept this as gospel: If you polled the military guys on this forum, I don't think any one of us would say that our military experience made us a worse pilot. It made us better, and in my case, more trainable.
"I think you're watching too many Top Gun reruns as well!"
If I may paraphrase the Bard: "Me thinks the civilian doth protest too much."
I started with civilian flight-training. I thought I was pretty sharp. I got to UPT and found out I was average. The military--on the whole--makes you a better exposed and more-rounded pilot, as others have alluded to.
The best part of USAF training, in my view: energy maneuverability, and being comfortable to maneuver at any attitude or angle of attack. I did some limited aerobatics as a civilian--but I didn't know how to handle it if things were botched.
But Air Force pilot training didn't make me infallable. My first three airline sims were quite humbling. But then again, they were for the civilian guys in my class, too. The biggest weakness for mil-guys coming into a major carrier will be weak FAR knowledge, the newness of FOMs and OPSPECS, and for fighter guys, ice and de-icing (and having to ask someone else to raise the gear, flaps, or talk on the radio).
If you have brain cancer, would you rather go to your local hospital, or Johns Hopkins? If you wanted a tune-up for your car, who would do a better job: Meinecke, or Earnhardt's pit-crew? Hmmm..the local shop might do it quicker and better...the first time. But I'd bet that overall, the pit-crew knows more about cars than the guy in a local garage. It's all about who probably has the best training, experiences, and "weeding-out"
And that's the point here: by statistics and probabilities, the military guy will have better training and more varied experiences. It should pay-off as a better pilot---but it might not. Of my favorite Capts to fly with at UAL, 90% of them were mil. But one of the worst pilots I ever flew with was mil, as well.
The one thing you can't change in any training program, be it military or civilian: personality. Some people are sharp, and easy to get along with. Some people are difficult. Everyone has seen them and worked with them. Some people are losers. You wonder if they've ever been on a date, and then, you hope that they haven't....their kind doesn't need to proliferate.
By the way, your listing of accidents that had military pilots is a non-sequitor. If I said "It turns out that in military accidents, the pilot was always a military pilot!" would be apparently laughable. Similar in airliner accidents: since, at most major carriers, traditional hiring standards meant that half or more of all their pilots were military, you would expect a military pilot to be involved in half or more of all their accidents.
Just chill, River. No one is attacking you personally, and I'd guess you are as able a 737 pilot as the next guy at SWA. Just accept this as gospel: If you polled the military guys on this forum, I don't think any one of us would say that our military experience made us a worse pilot. It made us better, and in my case, more trainable.
Newsmax.com - Obama Wants to Disarm U.S. Pilots
- Didn't check the credibility of the website... but according to their quote of the Washington Times, 70% of airline pilots have a military background.
As pilots age, airlines hire fewer from military | recordonline.com
- According to this, 90% of pilots highered in 1992 were military, although that has tapered off to about 28% in 2008.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
