Aviation Expert slams regional pilots
05-15-2009, 05:10 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
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
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
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
05-16-2009, 08:15 AM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
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
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
05-16-2009, 08:35 AM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
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.
05-16-2009, 08:48 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 73N
Posts: 862
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.
05-16-2009, 10:02 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
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.
05-16-2009, 05:57 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
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.
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.
05-16-2009, 06:02 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
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.
cliff
NBO
cliff
NBO
05-16-2009, 06:04 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: crj-200 FO
Posts: 479
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.
05-16-2009, 06:04 PM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
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.
05-16-2009, 06:54 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 143
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
