Agreed...........most of probably are stupid enough to drive Jeeps too.

 

Hi!

The average mil pilot is smarter than the average civ pilot due to the screening process. This means that the mil guy is more likely to make it through a training program. Being smarter does not make you a better pilot, it just makes you smarter (and, if you're quite a bit smarter, it makes life more difficult..the closer your IQ is to 100, the easier it is to function in society).

The avg mil training is better than the avg civ training. If you have a low-time guy, you definitely want the mil guy. Once they have been flying for a while, the training is not that big a deal. At 10-15,000 hours, I don't think there would be much of a difference in the overall quality of a civ vs. mil guy.

I flew about as little as possible, because I got screwed on flight time twice, and I still got about 1500 in 6.5 years. That's about the min flying hours for that time frame.

Lumping all the mil pilots together doesn't work, because there is so much diversity. A High School only army helo guy, a C-17 guy, and an F-18 carrier guy have MUCH different backgrounds and experience.

The fighter guy who said that they learn CRM, etc. is basically wrong. The CRM you need for an airline is WAY different than what a fighter guy does. It's not better or worse, just different. In my limited fighter-type aircraft training, I was continually pushed to get in and fly, and quit using a checklist. There was no concept of flows, profiles, callouts or checklist usage like there is at an airline, so that is a disadvantage to single-pilot guys. Other guys would preflight WAY quicker than me...they said there's an ejection seat, so why bother taking so much time.

My buddy was an A-10 guy, and he had to learn MASSIVE multi-tasking, like talking and listening on three radios at once, while he flew, avoided threats, marked and ID'd targets, and acted as a FAC to bring other guys in on target. You don't get anything remotely like that normal civilian experience, so some civ things were easier for him because of it.

A multi-crew mil guy will be closest to understanding airline flying, but that doesn't mean that in 1 year he will be any better than a helo or fighter guy, there's too much variation.

The fighter guys, definitely have more outwardly exposed ego, because of the job requirements. How they fit in at an airline is basically their personality and how they choose to act. They can fit in as easily (or as crappily) as any other type of mil pilot.

For the guy(s) who were saying the military TRAINING program weeds out more guys than a civ program are just wrong. The military SELECTION proces is where the weeding is done.

In the old days, the training process depended. If there were more guys than needed slots, due to over-recruiting, or whatever, they would axe guys pretty quickly. BUT, if they needed guys bad, they would re-train, and re-train, and re-train. Today, it is different, because the selection process is so complicated and expensive. The mil does NOT want to weed guys out, and they work very hard to train them and keep them moving forward.

The main point that is important, is that the range of pilots in the military, and in the civilian world is very large. There will ALWAYS be some mil guys better than civilian ones, and some civilian ones better than mil guys. This is also why there are some women who are FANTASTIC pilots. Women do not make as good a pilot as a man, ON AVERAGE. But, we don't hire averages, we hire an individual, and I know a bunch of women pilots who could kick YOUR (and my) A$$!

The MOST important thing, as someone already said, is that the airlines' hiring and training process should be tweaked as much as possible to ensure that everyone successfully coming off of IOE, and out of the sim training, will be at a level of competancy that will ensure that the plane lands at the end of each flight (or successfully rejects the takeoff). To clarify this, especially for the pilots who "grade" landings, you either land, or something bad happened.

I was once asked, "What happened back there?" I replied, "We landed." And then we taxied in and shut down, just like after 99.9+% of all the legs flown in the aviation industry.

SAFETY should be the goal of EVERYONE in the industry.

What are YOU doing to improve the safety of YOUR industry, TODAY???

God Bless!
cliff
NBO

 

Hey, keep it above the belt.

 

In all seriousness... My dad would smoke your dad.

 

Great post cliff.... my only sticking point is the weeding out. I am aware things are different NOW than 20+ years ago when I went thru UPT.. but in that day and time.... it was VERY common place for wash out rates in each class to run 40-60%.... in my class we started 66 studs.... 27 graduated....sounds like a weeding out process to me.

Herc

 

Not to knock your training as I have never been through it, but I can't begin to tell you how many military dimbleberries I have encountered in Texas -- flying turbojet powered aircraft mind you -- that did not understand the simple instructions "cleared for the approach" or "no radar services provided...," etc.

 

I'm tired of all this military/civilian crap.It doesn't matter where you come from, what matters is how you perform today.I can't tell the difference from where I sit unless I ask.I will only make 1 other comment:In 31 years of commercial aviation I have never even come close to doing anything as challenging as bringing a jet aboard a carrier on a dark and stormy night.

 

atpcliff -

I agree with much of your post also except for the highlighted parts above.

IF I am the person that said that the military single seat guys learn CRM and you are saying that I am wrong then of course I'll have to disagree. For a time - I was the USN/USMC Single Seat Hornet CRM Program Manager. I even have the cool certificate I got for spending a restful week on the Pensacola beaches after I graduated from the CRM Instructor's School. You may view MY form of CRM differently than your view - we may use those 7 tenets differently than a multi-crewed aircraft - but to say that we do not use it is incorrect and not is keeping with current thinking. The days of "I don't need any CRM (or ACT as it was) because I'm single seat....." are over. Students get it at the beginning of training and at every step down the road.

Also - I'll agree with the other poster who said that there is still weeding going on throughout training. It isn't at the same rates as days past, but it still happens.

USMCFLYR

 

If only everything in this world could be counted on to be average.

The fact is, that over the last 20 years, most major airline accidents were commanded by those with at least a partial military background. Of course, there probabaly is a higher percentage of pilots at the major airline level WITH military backgrounds.

Personally, I've flown with hundreds of pilots from both backgorunds (and mixed) over my 20 years at Eagle and have observed no superior airmanship or decision making among military pilots over civilian. The only rule, Ive found is one that I learned trying to get into someones head while being a flight instructor (be it primary, aerobatic or sailplane) and that is EVERY pilot is different and there ARE no hard and fast rules.

This ridiculously pointless discussion on who makes a "better" airline pilot will never be agreed upon. Most military pilots are convinced they're the better pilots and most civilian pilots will disagree (at least when it comes to AIRLINE flying, which bears no more resemblance to fighter ops as does night freight in a beat up twin). In fact, recently a former military aviator at my GA airport had just bought into a Baron E55 and remarked that flying under the hood in that thing and doing engine out work was as demanding as any of the T-38 and C-130 flying he did in the military.

Since this discussion will continue in perpituity unresolved, perhaps we should move on ?

 

There was a post a ways back that spoke to some percentages of military background among the airlines and it was very high - so chances are that a mishap might very well have a pilot with some military flying in his past. Of course another way to look at this is the incredible safety record of our airlines compared to the rest of the world. We do an excellent job! To turn that frown upside down - those who argue that military pilots are causing most the problems [using the same argument] would need to admit that a mjaority of those safely flown flights are performed with pilot who have some military background.

Actually - the statement that started this particular stream of responses had nothing to do - nor does the thread still - have anything to do with "who makes a better airline pilot". The post that started it said that military pilots were not good stick and rudder pilots. That is a pretty banket statement that deserves to be challenged.

Most, if not ALL, of the people that I have seen on this thread who have had both types of training speak to the conviction that MILITARY TRAINING is the best available - not that MILITARY PILOTS are better. Despite all the contention that military pilots (especially tac air pilots) have "outwardly exposed egos" I don't see a single pilot claiming that all civvie pilots have poor stick and rudders skills. Those arguing most vehemently against that are civilian trained pilots who have never been through military training.

USMCFLYR