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

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. :D

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. :):p

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

I agree with just about everything you said, but I have to take exception to the bold (both literally and figuratively) statement above.

This can't be true because this statement assumes that all civilian pilots have been through military screening. I agree that the military recruits the sharpest and brightest individuals, but the sharpest and brightest individuals don't always choose the military route. Not everybody wants to be a military pilot.

There is no doubt that the quality of military training is superior to any that can be obtained in the civilian world. However, never make the mistake of assuming that the quality of the individual is determined by their chosen path to the cockpit.

Your entire post was great, but I fear its meaning is lost because of the first sentence. This is not the way to win hearts and minds.

In the end, there is no earthly way to qualify or quantify that statement, short of administering an IQ test to every pilot on the planet and determining their training background. You may want to consider a revision.

Respectfully,
Johnnysnow

Hi!

Actually, that statement is correct, as is the fact the being smarter does NOT make you a better pilot.

Civilian pilots IQs run a wide range. Mil pilots run a much smaller range, due to the screening tests administered to all the applicants. They can afford to only take the highest scoring people. I believe it helps them get through training, but that is it.

In fact, if you are VERY smart (I'm not sure what the IQ cutoff would be), I am confident that you will NOT be as good of a airline (crew) pilot, as you are so far different from a "normal" (IQ-100) person that it will be difficult for you to function "normally" with other people.

I'm guessing that in a single-pilot cockpit it would make much less of a difference.

I personally learned a lot from all the civilian and all the military training I have had.

I try, and I keep trying.

If I fly with you, I will try, and I think you will agree that I will do a good job. If you don't, I will keep trying to do better!

God Bless, and Think Safety!!!

cliff
NBO

Still the responsibility of having 50-200 lives behind you is something you don't get landing on a carrier. Don't get me wrong i understand your position. It's just not that simular. The best pilots i have found are the ones that have the ability to say no. No to broken airplanes, no to atc, no to the CP's...The ones that know when it's time to set the parking brake and take it slow.

Training is only as important as you make it. Some people go through any type of training and use it as a base to learn more and more off of. Some people immediately, or over time, begin to no longer follow thier basic training. You can have the best training in the world, but if you don't take this gig seriously and try to continually better yourself, you will get dull and you will make mistakes.

How about conducting Air Refueling, at night, over the Atlantic, at 4am, with 75 pax in the back? More applicable? Most Mil Pilots fly heavy's, not fighters. Most guys in the Air Force are flying what are basically civilian airliners with gray paint...and doing amazing things with them with more passengers than your average Regional Jet. We still say no to broken airplanes...and take more heat for it...but we still say no.

nope...just 5,000 guys on the carrier hoping you dont crash on the deck....
not to mention the hundred or more guys actively working on that carrier deck while you are trapping......nope..not in the back... more than just the pilots life at risk... you bet.

In the end its all about what you do with the training you get..... good and bad. Is the training better... I think so... does it matter...to some maybe... to most of us ...NO. In the end when guys have been seasoned for a few years... like Tom Goodman said.... you cant really tell the difference.

Damn...now that is why I don't get along with any of the guys stuck flying with me :D;):p

Can everyone regional, majors, private, charter, cargo and mil pilots all just take themselves off their own little pedestal and just stand side by side and work TOGETHER. After all, at the end of the day we fly the same sky and sit in the same cockpit.

What about the responsibility of being Nuke-Q'd? I can't imagine any of us can top that...

...or the responsibility of helping the guys on the ground who are getting shot at stay alive.

Heavies or fighters, mission completion is rarely _just_ about keeping your own butt out of harm's way, unless you're on the way home with an empty jet.

Pardon my Ignorance, But after reading this entire post I'm dang near just annoyed with it. Implying a military pilot is better than any civillian pilot to me is kind of like saying. MP's or SP's are better at policing than a civillian police officer??? Are they both not dedicated? Are they both not professional? I have seen some egos and some humble statements from both sides here and I think we should (from both sides) respect one another. I could rant my own opinion but I will save your time. Fact Is we All (I hope) Love flying. I do. Hey Jog your memory with this. Why do you fly? What was it that got you going and said to yourself (I want to fly)? I bet you all would have some cool stories...

1. No, its not. Civilian police are probably better, mainly because they're not teenagers.

2. Military pilots have superior TRAINING, that is fact, this does not automatically make you a better pilot than Joe Schmoe Banner Tow, there are bad apples everywhere.

3. As has been said a half dozen times, we Military Pilots believe a Civilian pilot is capable of being a superior pilot, despite not having the OPPORTUNITY to go to a Military Flying School.

4. Ignorance Pardoned.:)

If your comparing average scores, group to group, than I see what your saying and will have to agree. I think I misunderstood what you originally posted.

Real gracious of you to think that civilians are "capable of being a superior pilot." And who died and made you the judge of picking out superior pilots?

No one here is disputing that military training is second to none.

I disagree with that premise period. Military screening has no direct correlation with IQ required to being a smart airline pilot. All it proves is that a candidate has an aptitude for flying including spatial orientation and situational awareness on PAPER. It is at the weeding out process during the actual flight training that sifts out most talented. Even then many slip through the crack as evidenced by the accident figures.

As someone indicated, many "smart" civilian pilot candidate do not opt for the military. Unless you take a random sampling of statistically significant sample of all military pilot selectee versus all civilian pilot students, the statement that military pilots are on average smarter than civilian pilots is an unsubstantiated rumor. I've seen a lot of dumb and smart pilots on both ends, civilian and military.

Military does provide a superior training, discipline and unique flying experience you can't get anywhere else. Take it for what it's worth from a guy trained as a civilian first then and in the military.

another good comment....

Lightening...there was one guy early in this thread... River6 who seemed to believe that military pilots had no skills ..... and frankly that is what about 85% of this thread has been about.

Nobody said that. What was said was that statistically, the average IQ score of military pilots(as a group) is higher than the average IQ score of civilian pilots(as a group). This is because the military process selectively reduces the scoring range by screening, which is not done in the civilian world. In fact atpcliff makes note that this has NO bearing on the quality of the final product.

That's funny, that's exactly what atpcliff said.

That was me who said that. So who are you arguing with again?

We are not talking about individuals, but rather groups as a whole. Fact is the civilian pilot group has lower scorers that drag down the average. This does not occur in the military group because of the selective screening barrier. But once again, both of us have said that this has NO bearing on the quality of the pilot. Hey atpcliff, why am I arguing your point.:D

Thanks for reiterating what both of us have already said.

The word "smarter" is polarizing. Maybe atpcliff could have used a different term. Regardless, I have no problem making the statement that military pilots, as a group, score statistically higher on IQ tests than civilian pilots ,as a group. That's coming by the way from someone who was never in the military.

Does that make the average militray pilot a better pilot than me? No. Does that make the average military pilot smarter than me? No

Next time read the entire thread first so that you can accurately judge the content and meaning of our posts. Thanks for playing.

I guess I should have made it clear in the beginning that I disagree with the first statement by Atpcliff and of your reasoning for agreeing with on that particular issue. Yeah, I did read your entire post and I am not disagreeing with your entire post. You are the one who needs to read my entire post, try to understand what I am trying to say and then decide.

Never said military pilots are better pilot than you. Don't know you so how can I make that judgment.

The argument about IQ is idiotic because of the reasons I stated. Need to take a statistically siginificant sampling of the people involved to make a statement like that. It is not valid unless proven statistically correct. Reread my post. Some one dragging down others in the average is irreelevant. Anyone who has taken any statistics course knows what I am talking about.

People need to get off this topic and discuss something constructive. I've seen SMART pilots from both ends of the sector, and I have seen DUMB pilots from both ends also. It all depends on individuals. There's no such thing as "on average some sector is smarter than the others." Who defines smarter to begin with. No argument with Atpcliff on his assessment regarding the better quality of training in the military. As far as the weeding out process, that selection criteria in the military is a little different than the civilian counterpart. Just because you get through the particular training does not necessarily mean you are "smarter," it just means you have the knack for the types of skills required to pass that "type" of training.

Bottom line, superior training in the military, and unique types of flying experience in the military but at the end of the day who is smarter depends on who is defining that term "smarter."

Are you saying they are not? Or are you trying to read more into the statement than there was? My post was in defense of Civilian pilots.

I was trying to be gracious. I have flown with plenty of guys at XJT that would make fantastic Military pilots. I know quite a few Mil guys that would be crappy Airline Pilots. Notice I tried to make it abundantly clear to those incapable of critical thinking, by putting in ALL CAPS my opinion that becoming a Military Pilot is an OPPORTUNITY for the fortunate, not a birth right of "superior" people. As was posted earlier, most of us are responding to the earlier tone of the thread that Mil pilots are crap.
Nothing I have said contradicts anything you said. Why again are you attacking my post?

This is a discussion forum you know, you can be the thought police and respond like that to any thread: "Who died and made you the judge of...." I guess by your reasoning only HR departments should be on here expressing their opinions and judgments on this matter.:rolleyes:

Likewise.

If that was your intended meaning then we are in agreement. I must have misread your statement as being pompous. I got tired of all these people going on about the IQ and intelligence of civilian pilots versus military pilots which is a worthless argument.

Fair enough.

Does anyone know how many people the military trains a year for pilot slots vs the civilian schools, I dont believe it comes even close to what the civilian world puts out. So the regionals are never going to have the cream of the crop. The whole problem is a broken system of pay and duty rules leading to many and I mean many incompetent and inexperienced pilots getting ahead and into spots they should not be. I have been to Flight Safety and I know you have to screw up pretty royally to fail a Checkride, I dont know from personal experience but I guarantee this does not happen in the military. There are many very good Civilian pilots and many good Military pilots, it all comes down to having enough real world experience to safely do the job you are assigned. This may not have been the case on 3407.

I did read your post, in it's entirety. I wrote what I wrote because your missing the context of our conversation, as you still are. Neither of us was making an argument about who the better pilot was, or who had the better training. We were basically discussing the gene pool, and how the military has barriers to who gets into it to swim. That's all. Nothing more.

Why? Maybe because were bored, or maybe because we don't like being "constructive". Regardless, it's a great piece of irony that you put yourself in the middle of it, and then advise us to find something more "constructive" to do. Maybe you should work on following your own advice first, before you dish it out to others.


Your right! It is irrelevant in that it has no bearing on what makes a good pilot. In the context of statistical averages, it also happens to be very true. This is why on a normal distribution graph, the curve slopes gradually to the extremes. When the same graph is manipulated by barriers, curve slopes more steeply and the phase(or length) of the curve is shorter.

No, anyone who has taken a statistics course does not know what your talking about.

Anytime you create barriers, you artificially manipulate the natural distribution of scores (for better or worse)for that group. By the way, I learned about this in Quantitative Analysis.

Let me ask you this. If tomorrow the military made it a requirement for flight training to have a PHD in Quantum Physics from MIT, would you still be singing the same "Need to take a statistically significant sampling of the people involved to say they are smarter." song? So why is it such a stretch that selection barriers, that exist in the military today, would ensure that the brightest and most intelligent individuals get selected? Barriers that, by the way, don't exist in the civilian world.

If there truly was no statistical difference in intelligence, than why have the barriers? Are you saying the military's recruiting philosophy is flawed? That they are wasting their time because there methods of recruiting more intelligent individuals does not work? That they would have better results by selecting people using the "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" method? Seriously?

Bottom line is, I'm not in a p@ssing contest with you about who has the better pilots, or who has the better training, or who has the better ....
I really don't care, because it really doesn't matter. The original posts were not even about that. It was about pointing out that the military recruits the sharpest and most intelligent individuals. That on average, they have more per capita, than the civilian world.

This is my last post on this topic, because now I really am "bored". I guess I'll find something more constructive to do, like watch my grass grow.:D

Bubba the MILITARY have DEEP POCKETS called the TAXPAYERS the Airlines Not so much...

Rough Numbers
 

I believe for Fiscal Year 2009, the total Air Force pilot production is 800-900.

It had been averaging around 1200 (I think) for the last 10 years.

I think Navy numbers are similar, although a huge percentage of their pilots are helo, who normally aren't entering the airline pool.

Looked at another way: in 2013, when age 65 retirements start, each major carrier will average about 200 retirements a year.

The Top 10 carriers could absorb every military pilot produced (assuming they were all looking for airline jobs, and that the airlines hired only military).

If the Top 10 hired a 50-50 mix of mil/civilian, then there are only 800 military guys to spread among all other carriers.

Just looked up Airman stats on the FAA site. For the last 10 years:

1, About 60,000 student certificates issued, per year.
2. About 22,000 Private Licenses, per year
3. About 14,000 Instrument
4. About 10,000 Commercial
5. ATP: a high of 19,000 to 15,000 in 2008.

The ATP was perplexing, since it is more than the other ratings that 'feed' it, but I think it is because the FAA counts a new Type Rating (and the subsequent re-issue of your license) as a "new' issue, as well as one that a guy got for the first time.

I would guess the actual 'first-ever' ATP numbers would be about 5-6000.

So mil guys are outnumbered 7 or 8 to one.

You must be one bored individual. How in the world did you jump to the clonclusion that I think military selection process is flawed? I have gone through the process successfully so I should be defending the military selection process. No, I never said the military selection process is flawed. I was responding to the vague statement that you agreed with Atpcliff that military pilots are smarter than civilian pilots which has no real substantive scientific basis. I was not addressing who is a better pilot. I was addressing the specific statement Atpcliff made regarding whether military pilots on average are smarter than civilian pilot. It just shows my point about you not understanding my point or you have a reading comprehension problem. Your example of requiring PHD is beyond absurd and is not even a reasonable basis for discussion. You are beginning to convince me that maybe Atpcliff is right and military trained pilots are smarter because I don't have this much problem explaining my position to my colleagues who are military trained even if they happen to believe that we, military trained pilots, are smarter than civilian pilots. I guess you have successfully proved Atpcliff's point.

My point on the military selection process is that it selects certain individuals with a knack for certain talents for that type of training. It appears you are civilian trained and know nothing about the military selection process so I find it amusing and ironic that you are arguing with me, who HAS gone through the military selection process successfully, about this issue. If I wanted to be irrational like the others I could just agree with Atpcliff and claim that yeah military pilots are smarter than civilian pilots. Does that make it a REALITY? Not unless it is proved scientifically through a meaningful statistical analysis. One of the things we were taught in the military is to objectively evaluate the situation instead of making a general assumption. Making general assumptions just because it appears that way can lead to a very false conclusion and in war that can mean a total defeat.

Your argument has made it clear to me you do not know statistics. For if you did you would know what I was referring to when I wrote taking a "statistically significant random sampling." This is my last response on this fruitless topic.

You guys know that everytime there is an accident it doesn't mean that you have to start the military vs. civilian argument, right? It's old and the last time I checked both types of pilots have been involved in incidents and accidents that were attributed to pilot error.

Yet for some strange reason SWA seems to not only want military trained pilots but seek them out!

I only got to page 5 or 6 before I got tired of hearing who is better when it comes to training. Bottom line, BOTH side's need to get down from their high horses, and do a reality check. WHO CARES WHO IS BETTER!!!!:mad: The bottom line is that both training enviroments lack something/offer something the other ones doesn't. To say "I got my training from the mil/civil, so I am better" is puffing up your chest and trying to be "hollier than thou." Knock it off. Act your age!:mad::mad:

I guess Military guys need more experience with making bad jokes and corny PA announcements.

I know that's big part of the South-West Way:)