Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevjets
Well, I don’t have any imperial data. Which is why I used the term seems. But even just looking at civilian training (of all sorts not just certification) versus military training (including those training flights in which you fly from one base to another for repositioning), it seems like there is no comparison in safety.
Let’s face it, if airlines weren’t as safe as they are, less people would fly. Which equates to less profits. The airlines have a profit incentive that the military doesn’t have (and shouldn’t have). That alone should equate to the difference in safety, not withstanding you’re valid points about military flying. In my estimation, therein lies the difference in train to proficiency. Simply put, the airlines don’t need to train like the military (and vice versa for different reasons) because the industry is getting safer. Just marking the point that train to proficiency or training like the military doesn’t necessarily have a direct corollary with safety. Airlines train to proficiency (perceived as bad by some) and yet safety increases. Military doesn’t train to proficiency yet their safety isn’t necessarily increasing.
That all makes sense. Airlines do need to be safer than the mil, and adopting NATOPS (or the USAF equivalent) isn't going to help.
Also worth noting that the airlines don't hire military trained aviators any more than they hire wet commercials (anymore). They hire the end product, after ten+ years of operational flying. That's a whole person package, flight experience, organizational player, masters degree, clean living, etc.
To get the benefit of military training you have to "graduate" from the military with wings (and body) intact, and about 5K hours (or the fighter equivalent of fewer, but very busier hours). The washouts sell life insurance like anybody else.