Aviation Expert slams regional pilots
05-14-2009, 03:57 PM
#71
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Lab Rat
If I'm not mistaken, the f/o on the Queens crash was at the controls and he was a civilian - former American Eagle pilot.
Hard to recover the aircraft after your copilot sheds the vertical stab.
Hard to recover the aircraft after your copilot sheds the vertical stab.
05-14-2009, 04:01 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by taurus12
Seems like the civillian versus military training has some egos flaring. Here's my 2 cents, if I may...
I went to a ma & pa flight school for my private, then to a well-renowned university for everything up through my CFII, and then the military. From my experience, military training is by far the best. Granted, skills such as formation & low-level flying don't DIRECTLY correlate to 121 ops, but they do enhance your overall skill and SA. That's not saying that civillian training is sub-par (several people I know from places like UND & ERAU are really really sharp)... it's almost comparing apples & oranges. You can't compare getting 200 (+/-) hours in 4 years in light single and twin piston aircraft to getting the same time in 1 year starting off with 1,100 shp and then transitioning to an mach 1 capable aircraft built in the 60s with no auto-pilot. (Fyi, I'm not trying to geek-out with the 1,100 shp and supersonic BS... I'm just trying to point out that 201 hp isn't really "high-performance" anymore). Anyways, that's just what happens when you are able to spend $1 Million on each pilot you train. Was the 200+ hours of civillian training bad? Absolutely not! There is something to be said for a program that has a syllabus and will boot you if you don't meet standards instead of re-taking the test until you pass, but that's another story.
Now, if I were to apply for an airline job, I'm positive the biggest obstacle myself or any fellow military pilot would have to overcome would be the civillian methods and procedures. Let's not go attacking stick-and-rudder skills... every military pilot I know has had to pass a formation checkride (military guys back me up on this). I doubt CRM would be an issue either (unless you're dealing with a REALLY old-school type-A guy which can come from either side these days). CRM is taught heavily in the military, even for single-seat fighter types.
When I was getting a degree in aviation, I was being groomed by civillian training to be an airline pilot. It would have been a relatively easy shoe-in to go through regional training because our civillian syllabus was written by regional airline guys. The same holds true for civillians going through military training. A scary number of CFIs fail out of UPT... not because they're bad pilots, but because they think that their hundreds of hours in Cessnas and Pipers have paved the way for their military career... it's a very different style of flying. The point I'm trying to make is that you're going to have example of people struggling whether it's military to civillian or visa versa.
In my opinion, it's what you do with your hours that makes you the pilot you are. If you hand-fly a complex aircraft in a variety of airspace, weather, and flight conditions and you get the most out of every hour, then I'd say you're set up to have many of the attributes that make a great pilot. If, on the flip-side, you flick on the AP at 600 AGL (not that an auto-pilot is a sin) and take a nap for a few hours until RAPCON wakes you up, I think you're setting yourself (and whatever you're hauling) up for disaster. Don't be a passenger when you should be a pilot.
I went to a ma & pa flight school for my private, then to a well-renowned university for everything up through my CFII, and then the military. From my experience, military training is by far the best. Granted, skills such as formation & low-level flying don't DIRECTLY correlate to 121 ops, but they do enhance your overall skill and SA. That's not saying that civillian training is sub-par (several people I know from places like UND & ERAU are really really sharp)... it's almost comparing apples & oranges. You can't compare getting 200 (+/-) hours in 4 years in light single and twin piston aircraft to getting the same time in 1 year starting off with 1,100 shp and then transitioning to an mach 1 capable aircraft built in the 60s with no auto-pilot. (Fyi, I'm not trying to geek-out with the 1,100 shp and supersonic BS... I'm just trying to point out that 201 hp isn't really "high-performance" anymore). Anyways, that's just what happens when you are able to spend $1 Million on each pilot you train. Was the 200+ hours of civillian training bad? Absolutely not! There is something to be said for a program that has a syllabus and will boot you if you don't meet standards instead of re-taking the test until you pass, but that's another story.
Now, if I were to apply for an airline job, I'm positive the biggest obstacle myself or any fellow military pilot would have to overcome would be the civillian methods and procedures. Let's not go attacking stick-and-rudder skills... every military pilot I know has had to pass a formation checkride (military guys back me up on this). I doubt CRM would be an issue either (unless you're dealing with a REALLY old-school type-A guy which can come from either side these days). CRM is taught heavily in the military, even for single-seat fighter types.
When I was getting a degree in aviation, I was being groomed by civillian training to be an airline pilot. It would have been a relatively easy shoe-in to go through regional training because our civillian syllabus was written by regional airline guys. The same holds true for civillians going through military training. A scary number of CFIs fail out of UPT... not because they're bad pilots, but because they think that their hundreds of hours in Cessnas and Pipers have paved the way for their military career... it's a very different style of flying. The point I'm trying to make is that you're going to have example of people struggling whether it's military to civillian or visa versa.
In my opinion, it's what you do with your hours that makes you the pilot you are. If you hand-fly a complex aircraft in a variety of airspace, weather, and flight conditions and you get the most out of every hour, then I'd say you're set up to have many of the attributes that make a great pilot. If, on the flip-side, you flick on the AP at 600 AGL (not that an auto-pilot is a sin) and take a nap for a few hours until RAPCON wakes you up, I think you're setting yourself (and whatever you're hauling) up for disaster. Don't be a passenger when you should be a pilot.
05-14-2009, 04:02 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Blue fifi flogger
Posts: 736
Re the AA Airbus crash, re-read the accident report. Although the AAMP may have (probably did) contributed to the FO's mind-set, more than one captain commented on his over-aggressive rudder use, including in a 727 several years before the crash. Like most accidents, there were several links in this chain.
05-14-2009, 04:16 PM
#74
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
1500 hours in 10 years?.... you are out of your mind. MAYBE ...MAYBE a fastmover driver who had a desk tour in that 10 years.... Heavy drivers.. C-17 guys... C-5 guys... and the 141 guys... as well as the 130 guys... I would bet over the past 20 yrs have averaged a hell of alot more than your 100 hours per year you talk about. I flew the line in hercs for 4 years and another year on wing staff and managed 2000 hours...many of my squadron mates flew 2500 hours or more during that time period.
For what its worth..YOU are the one who talk about walking on water, I believe if you read ALL my posts you will see that I have the utmost respect for civilian trained pilots and I specifically pointed out what I consider the main difference. MORE the half of my current flight time is flying civilian aircraft ... the ATR-42 in BOS, JFK, DCA, MIA etc... E170's out of ATL, ORD, DFW, MIA, DEN etc.... and most recently 4 different models of the citation.....I have known great MIL trained guys... and great CIV trained guys....and not so great guys on both sides.... I asked a mainline recruiter once why ( and this was years ago when DAL heavily favoured MIL guys ) they hired so many MIL vs CIV guys ...he response was they felt over all they got more of a known quantity overall to the type of training they had been exposed to... that was it.....its was that simple. This is way to complex a discussion to say which is better... each guy or gal stands on their own merit.
Have a great day River6!!
For what its worth..YOU are the one who talk about walking on water, I believe if you read ALL my posts you will see that I have the utmost respect for civilian trained pilots and I specifically pointed out what I consider the main difference. MORE the half of my current flight time is flying civilian aircraft ... the ATR-42 in BOS, JFK, DCA, MIA etc... E170's out of ATL, ORD, DFW, MIA, DEN etc.... and most recently 4 different models of the citation.....I have known great MIL trained guys... and great CIV trained guys....and not so great guys on both sides.... I asked a mainline recruiter once why ( and this was years ago when DAL heavily favoured MIL guys ) they hired so many MIL vs CIV guys ...he response was they felt over all they got more of a known quantity overall to the type of training they had been exposed to... that was it.....its was that simple. This is way to complex a discussion to say which is better... each guy or gal stands on their own merit.
Have a great day River6!!
05-14-2009, 04:20 PM
#75
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by aewanabe
Re the AA Airbus crash, re-read the accident report. Although the AAMP may have (probably did) contributed to the FO's mind-set, more than one captain commented on his over-aggressive rudder use, including in a 727 several years before the crash. Like most accidents, there were several links in this chain.
05-14-2009, 04:28 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: PIC Challenger 605
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by River6
Captain is responsbile for the safety of the flight! Read your FOM!
This is straight from NTSB.gov:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs."
It is not the Captain's fault that the guy sitting next to him, who was at the controls, decided to overstress the airframe before a reaction could be made.
Last edited by SrfNFly227; 05-14-2009 at 04:40 PM. Reason: grammer
05-14-2009, 04:37 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Retired 767 Captain
Posts: 548
Originally Posted by River6
Interesting you mention Delta. My dad retired there after 27 years after 9/11. He would tell me it would be hard for me to get hired there even though he retired from there because it's a good old boy military club. At one time, he stated to me there was over 600 guys there from one squadron alone. At SWA we have over 400 Luke Airforce guys on the property. Delta hired because you were in the club, it had nothing to do with quality. The average military guy at SWA comes to us with about 1800 to 2000hrs total time and that's in 10 to 15 year time frame and that's after coverting their time. How is it that you only flew 4 years in the military, I thought the contact was for 7 to 10 years??
05-14-2009, 05:04 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
did I say i flew four years ....read my post... oh.. but thats something you dont do.
I said I flew the line for 4 years... and ANOTHER year on a wing staff job......which actually was more like 18 months..... thats 5 1/2.... plus my year of UPT... plus 6 months of post UPT training before I was in the squadron. And then 5 months... off flight status once I submitted my papers to leave the military. In my day late 80's early 90's the commitment was 6 years from date of winging.
As for you assertion that there were 600 pilots from one squadron.... hum...lets see............. a herc squadron.(lets use something i am familiar with) was crewed at 1.75 crews per aircraft....thats 28 crews... 56 pilots.. that would be all pilots from the newest guy to the CO. Thats 11 years of pilots, more or less assuming EVERY PILOT in that SQUADRON went to DAL... Even if half of the guys who went to the airlines went to DAL and only about half of military pilots end up after separating going to the airlines....that would be 14 in a given year.. and most pilots are in the sqd 3-5 years.... without taking it any further....even over a 20-25 year period ... 600 pilots from ONE squadron... BULLSHEET. IF 15 pilots left every year for Delta it would still take 40 years to come up with the number you spout.... again... BULLSHEET.
I said I flew the line for 4 years... and ANOTHER year on a wing staff job......which actually was more like 18 months..... thats 5 1/2.... plus my year of UPT... plus 6 months of post UPT training before I was in the squadron. And then 5 months... off flight status once I submitted my papers to leave the military. In my day late 80's early 90's the commitment was 6 years from date of winging.
As for you assertion that there were 600 pilots from one squadron.... hum...lets see............. a herc squadron.(lets use something i am familiar with) was crewed at 1.75 crews per aircraft....thats 28 crews... 56 pilots.. that would be all pilots from the newest guy to the CO. Thats 11 years of pilots, more or less assuming EVERY PILOT in that SQUADRON went to DAL... Even if half of the guys who went to the airlines went to DAL and only about half of military pilots end up after separating going to the airlines....that would be 14 in a given year.. and most pilots are in the sqd 3-5 years.... without taking it any further....even over a 20-25 year period ... 600 pilots from ONE squadron... BULLSHEET. IF 15 pilots left every year for Delta it would still take 40 years to come up with the number you spout.... again... BULLSHEET.
05-14-2009, 05:23 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Originally Posted by aewanabe
Re the AA Airbus crash, re-read the accident report. Although the AAMP may have (probably did) contributed to the FO's mind-set, more than one captain commented on his over-aggressive rudder use, including in a 727 several years before the crash. Like most accidents, there were several links in this chain.
Don't think we'll ever know.
05-14-2009, 05:24 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by taurus12
Seems like the civillian versus military training has some egos flaring. Here's my 2 cents, if I may...
I went to a ma & pa flight school for my private, then to a well-renowned university for everything up through my CFII, and then the military. From my experience, military training is by far the best. Granted, skills such as formation & low-level flying don't DIRECTLY correlate to 121 ops, but they do enhance your overall skill and SA. That's not saying that civillian training is sub-par (several people I know from places like UND & ERAU are really really sharp)... it's almost comparing apples & oranges. You can't compare getting 200 (+/-) hours in 4 years in light single and twin piston aircraft to getting the same time in 1 year starting off with 1,100 shp and then transitioning to an mach 1 capable aircraft built in the 60s with no auto-pilot. (Fyi, I'm not trying to geek-out with the 1,100 shp and supersonic BS... I'm just trying to point out that 201 hp isn't really "high-performance" anymore). Anyways, that's just what happens when you are able to spend $1 Million on each pilot you train. Was the 200+ hours of civillian training bad? Absolutely not! There is something to be said for a program that has a syllabus and will boot you if you don't meet standards instead of re-taking the test until you pass, but that's another story.
Now, if I were to apply for an airline job, I'm positive the biggest obstacle myself or any fellow military pilot would have to overcome would be the civillian methods and procedures. Let's not go attacking stick-and-rudder skills... every military pilot I know has had to pass a formation checkride (military guys back me up on this). I doubt CRM would be an issue either (unless you're dealing with a REALLY old-school type-A guy which can come from either side these days). CRM is taught heavily in the military, even for single-seat fighter types.
When I was getting a degree in aviation, I was being groomed by civillian training to be an airline pilot. It would have been a relatively easy shoe-in to go through regional training because our civillian syllabus was written by regional airline guys. The same holds true for civillians going through military training. A scary number of CFIs fail out of UPT... not because they're bad pilots, but because they think that their hundreds of hours in Cessnas and Pipers have paved the way for their military career... it's a very different style of flying. The point I'm trying to make is that you're going to have example of people struggling whether it's military to civillian or visa versa.
In my opinion, it's what you do with your hours that makes you the pilot you are. If you hand-fly a complex aircraft in a variety of airspace, weather, and flight conditions and you get the most out of every hour, then I'd say you're set up to have many of the attributes that make a great pilot. If, on the flip-side, you flick on the AP at 600 AGL (not that an auto-pilot is a sin) and take a nap for a few hours until RAPCON wakes you up, I think you're setting yourself (and whatever you're hauling) up for disaster. Don't be a passenger when you should be a pilot.
I went to a ma & pa flight school for my private, then to a well-renowned university for everything up through my CFII, and then the military. From my experience, military training is by far the best. Granted, skills such as formation & low-level flying don't DIRECTLY correlate to 121 ops, but they do enhance your overall skill and SA. That's not saying that civillian training is sub-par (several people I know from places like UND & ERAU are really really sharp)... it's almost comparing apples & oranges. You can't compare getting 200 (+/-) hours in 4 years in light single and twin piston aircraft to getting the same time in 1 year starting off with 1,100 shp and then transitioning to an mach 1 capable aircraft built in the 60s with no auto-pilot. (Fyi, I'm not trying to geek-out with the 1,100 shp and supersonic BS... I'm just trying to point out that 201 hp isn't really "high-performance" anymore). Anyways, that's just what happens when you are able to spend $1 Million on each pilot you train. Was the 200+ hours of civillian training bad? Absolutely not! There is something to be said for a program that has a syllabus and will boot you if you don't meet standards instead of re-taking the test until you pass, but that's another story.
Now, if I were to apply for an airline job, I'm positive the biggest obstacle myself or any fellow military pilot would have to overcome would be the civillian methods and procedures. Let's not go attacking stick-and-rudder skills... every military pilot I know has had to pass a formation checkride (military guys back me up on this). I doubt CRM would be an issue either (unless you're dealing with a REALLY old-school type-A guy which can come from either side these days). CRM is taught heavily in the military, even for single-seat fighter types.
When I was getting a degree in aviation, I was being groomed by civillian training to be an airline pilot. It would have been a relatively easy shoe-in to go through regional training because our civillian syllabus was written by regional airline guys. The same holds true for civillians going through military training. A scary number of CFIs fail out of UPT... not because they're bad pilots, but because they think that their hundreds of hours in Cessnas and Pipers have paved the way for their military career... it's a very different style of flying. The point I'm trying to make is that you're going to have example of people struggling whether it's military to civillian or visa versa.
In my opinion, it's what you do with your hours that makes you the pilot you are. If you hand-fly a complex aircraft in a variety of airspace, weather, and flight conditions and you get the most out of every hour, then I'd say you're set up to have many of the attributes that make a great pilot. If, on the flip-side, you flick on the AP at 600 AGL (not that an auto-pilot is a sin) and take a nap for a few hours until RAPCON wakes you up, I think you're setting yourself (and whatever you're hauling) up for disaster. Don't be a passenger when you should be a pilot.
Bravo Taurus...well said!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
