2000 hour wonders hired at Delta

[livin'thesim]

I'd have to say that I disagree. Anyone flying an F-16 in the military not only completed military flight school, (which is great training), but also completed fighter tactical training, which has a very high fail out rate. This shows that the applicant is sharp and has well above average airmanship abilities, thus do well in 121 training.

Sure, that's true.

But the high time 121 guy is not a blank slate with regard to 121 ops.

A high-time 121 regional guy could probably get into an unfamiliar airline sim and do a passable LOFT flight, I doubt the ex F16 guy could.

Military guys are very sharp, but they don't necessarily have the big picture in terms of 121 ops, and they certainly don't normally have 121 PIC experience, which many regional pilots do.

It all comes down to the individual.

 

[dillfer]

Why would a military guy claim that he could do an airline job better than an actual airline pilot. They're two totally different types of flying, aren't they. That's like saying that a RJ guy could fly a crop duster better than a trained crop duster, or an F-16 pilot could fly an otter on floats better than someone that's been flying floats for 3000 hours. You don't see Airline guys saying that they could fly a F-15 better than a guy that's been flying F-16's for 1500 hrs.

Seems very strange. If you've got 3 or 4000 hours of actual airline experience how could 1500 hours in an F-16 compare? Makes no sense. They're is just some things that the airline guy is going to know more than the mil guy. Not saying that the mil guy couldn't be trained, obviously he can be.

 

[hate2bL8]

will somebody answer this guy"s question!

 

[CA Calypso]

Why would a military guy claim that he could do an airline job better than an actual airline pilot. They're two totally different types of flying, aren't they. That's like saying that a RJ guy could fly a crop duster better than a trained crop duster, or an F-16 pilot could fly an otter on floats better than someone that's been flying floats for 3000 hours. You don't see Airline guys saying that they could fly a F-15 better than a guy that's been flying F-16's for 1500 hrs.

Seems very strange. If you've got 3 or 4000 hours of actual airline experience how could 1500 hours in an F-16 compare? Makes no sense. They're is just some things that the airline guy is going to know more than the mil guy. Not saying that the mil guy couldn't be trained, obviously he can be.

Of course an F-16 pilot can fly an otter better than an otter veteran. Just ask him - he'll tell you!

 

[Benjamin Dover]

Listen up, whaler. My intention is not to look down on you, but your generalities are spot on wrong. I'm not saying there aren't quite a few competent af fighter guys who become airline pilots, however, the "redflag" training they provide every 1,500 hour f16 pilot doesn't necessarily translate to being a competent 121 crew member. You claim that an f16 pilot will quickly outfly on the line a 3,000 regional pilot who has spent 3-5 years in weather at jfk, ewr, lga, ord, dfw, lax, etc. is patently laughable. I have flown with a number of reserve and guard fighter pilots and would place their crm skills as above average and below average relative to their non military counterparts.
Let's go a step further and really uncover your beliefs about your training. Do you believe that a 1,500 hour purely fighter guy/gal would perform the same on the line (in bad weather in DTW) at CAL/UAL/DAL as a 6,000 hour former regional Captain?

Dude,

You started the whole fight on this thread - you realize that right? Your original flame-bait post did not say anything about the detail of experience you describe above. Do you even remember your post? - you said passengers would rather fly with someone with 3000+ hrs and 4 yr. 121 glass experience vs. 8 yr. 1500 hr F-16 exp. Really? How many pax do you ever hear ask that question? Maybe it pisses you off when they ask if the pilots are Air Force or Navy, but that's just the way it is. It's up to you to get over it that pax could care less if you went to Riddle or flew glass CRJ's or flew the the whatever with no autopilot in busy airports in bad wx.

I am Navy and I shared a crash pad with mostly civie dudes for a couple years. Great experience for all of us. I learned much about all the various challenging ways you guys built time and experience and it was a pretty cool learning experience for me. Likewise, my cp roomies learned much from me too and many wrong assumptions on their end were corrected as well. For example, a couple of those guys assumed we only flew VMC off the ship - they figured if was IMC, we didn't takeoff because no way we could land back on the carrier IMC right?...

And then we discussed training. Not "who has better training" but who has tougher standards. We all came to agree that military training - even the cushy Air Force - has a much higher attrition rate that civilian flight training. Just the facts.

So, you picked the fight, so fight a good fight. I don't think anyone is saying that civie guys arent' good pilots. I've been an airline pilot for 13 years and in my view mostly good and a few "others" in our business no matter what your background. And for most of us military trained guys, we have been civie pilots for much longer than our military careers. When will we just be "airline pilots?" Sure I know we have our "brothers" that just can't let it go and piss you guys off with their fighter-speak. But just as often it's civie guys on that pick the scab with comments like "what pax want..."

 

[waveflyer]

So from now going forward is it going to be "ode to Delta"?

Well when was that? Who's been hiring where that could happen today?
I remember that happening circa '99-2000- but so were a LOT of captains kids and interns - you take advantage of the opportunities given you- and you put pressure on those and do everything you can to make it happen- You did. I did. So have most of us - and we should. I wouldn't have turned down a chance to fly for a major with low time- and while humble, I'd have been damn good.

And this goes for the age old Mil debate- there's no replacing talent in this gig. And there's no replacing attitude- which is where the Mil attitude is just old. Let it go- you're an airline pilot now. Navy trained are the best needle and pointer basic ifr pilots- AF guys are trainable, but often are difficult to fly with bc they tend not to see the big picture as well w/ their "what does the book say" ideology- I've rarely met a marine, navy or coast guard pilot I didn't like to fly with - good combination of big picture judgement and overall ability and personality- AF guys are hit and miss and civilians are better overall than they are- but when they are weak it really sucks how timid they can be- those tend not to make it to the majors-

Bottom line- these are stereotypes and like the previous poster said- we have all taken different paths to the same spot- and there are the occasional bad seeds from all backgrounds -

as Disney said to his people as they were collecting their awards- "you're only as good as your NEXT movie" - most of us that are super prideful about their past achievements are the ones not busy achieving new things in the present-

 

[whymeworry?]

m80drvr,

I'm a known quantity to Delta. They know what they're getting. If I was coming from some RJ outfit I'm a wildcard. I'm sure they'd rather have me and my 1725 hours than that captian at Colgan.

Yes, you're a known qty. Known that you ended up on the bottom-rung of military aircraft. Reason? Not graduating at the top of your class? So did you come in as average then? I've never flown military (they weren't hiring when I graduated) but every mil pilot I've flown with tells me fighter guys are the cream of the crop and that tanker/ freighter/ helo guys aren't. I'm not saying either way, only relaying what your military brethren have told me. I don't mean any offense to C17, KC or UH60 drivers. I'm sure the training you received was top-notch and only the best of your group got through. But these are the things I have been told by fighter-jocks and other military personnel over the years.

Fact is, there is little difference between a military or civilian pilot, once the civilian drivers get up past a certain number of hours (say 4-5,000). I've trained military and civilian pilots in Pt121 flying. 8 out of 10 times the civilian pilots are much easier to train and grasp commercial-flying concepts. Not saying it's impossible for military pilots to make the transition; at the end of the day an ILS is an ILS, a G/A the same. But like I said, neither group, as a whole, is better than the other. To say military is better is, well, uninformed. Though I will agree that those who get through military flight school are held to a higher standard than those in the civilian world who might have somehow slipped through the cracks, I have met plenty of average military pilots who made me wonder whether they slipped through cracks as well.

If there is a bias at an airline to hire military pilots, like at say, FedEx (85% mil), then THAT is the reason they are chosen... the bias. But it isn't based on being a known-qty, as you say. BTW, how many seasoned military-pilots have crashed FedEx aircraft in the last 10 yrs? Their safety record is so bad their own CP put out that 3 pager pilot circular a few years back lambasting the pilots for the "WTF-aspect" of all their crashes of late (remember that letter?). Yet the NRT crew failed to execute a basic G/A after a balked ldg... something we all train for in the sim (3rd bounce 3.4 Gs).

I find a lot of military pilots go into this job expecting that they are "the best" at what they do. That often introduces a blind-spot to their learning from others. I've seen F/18 pilots crash in the sim because they mismanaged their thrust, then turn around and tell me it was my fault. Really. A few weeks back an airline I use to fly for had a former AF pilot crash one of their birds (hard landing, crashed on 3rd bounce of balked). The nose gear went into the FOs seat. He's lucky to still be alive. The latest is that plane will be a total write-off. Numerous FOs have complained about this skipper to me, one even wrote the CP that he will not fly with him. He also had two (yes 2!) tail-strikes on ldg in the past 3 yrs. So everyone expected him to be fired this time around. But guess what, he's going back to re-training as we speak. Reason? His CP buddy is former AF as well. Incredible. There's a lot of that in the military. Buddies protecting buddies, etc. I think we all know that. I know I've heard enough stories of such.

Believe me, 8,000hr RJ Captains with 5,000 hrs PIC jet are a just as much of a "known qty" than a 1800 hr mil pilot. It all depends on who is sitting on the interview panel that day, how well that pilot flys the sim, and how well he or she gets through the panel.

BTW, there isn't any doubt in my mind that US Military training is light-years better than any airline or civilian training (airline trng is minimal due to cost). I've been put though a number of advanced, swept-wing, aerodynamics classes taught by military pilots and what I learned was, by far, way more than I would ever get taught in an airline training environment. But training is just that, training. It's text-book, abstract learning. Not exactly real-world. At the end of the day, real-world experience is the database you access for judgement in this business. Just because a military pilot learns about cross-over angle of attack or backside of the drag curve in mil training classroom, doesn't mean he has the skills to apply that to civilian airliner flying. To be fair, neither does the civilian pilot, especially if he hasn't been taught the aforementioned subjects in a proper learning environment. I'm just saying, there isn't much difference between military or civilian (once civilians have passed that 4-5,000 hr mark). It all boils down the the pilot and his or her competence and experience level.

Back to the OP thread topic. I will concur the bar is often lowered for women pilots. It's up the the checkairman to see that they don't send sub-standard products to the line. I have always maintained my professionalism there but I have seen a few of occasions where women have used their "assets" to try and persuade me otherwise (less than 5 in 7 yrs as a 121 checkairman). While I don't cave, I must admit, tragically, I have seen instructors who do/ have. It's kind of pathetic actually. To see a grown man cut some young chick a break because of how well she flirts with him.

 

[waveflyer]

As one gal enlightened me: "I flew a crappy little beech 1900 for over a year,
I paid my dues!". Ok?

Apologies- This was the quote for my last post- victim of an iPhone
;-)

 

[Scope out RJ's]

m80drvr,

I'm a known quantity to Delta. They know what they're getting. If I was coming from some RJ outfit I'm a wildcard. I'm sure they'd rather have me and my 1725 hours than that captian at Colgan.

Not to mention all those hours you have answering the phone, serving coffee, and those ever important faxes!
You're a known quantity alright!:laugh:

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Back to the OP thread topic. I will concur the bar is often lowered for women pilots. It's up the the checkairman to see that they don't send sub-standard products to the line. I have always maintained my professionalism there but I have seen a few of occasions where women have used their "assets" to try and persuade me otherwise (less than 5 in 7 yrs as a 121 checkairman). While I don't cave, I must admit, tragically, I have seen instructors who do/ have. It's kind of pathetic actually. To see a grown man cut some young chick a break because of how well she flirts with him.

Not sure where you work, but my experience has been everyone no matter what we are, who we are or where we came from everyone has to pull their own water. I too was a LCA and never once had the issues you describe.

As many have pointed out, organizations like WIA offer the opportunity for women to network. They are smart and use that vehicle to further their careers. If anything they have better networking opportunities to get "noticed" and then get moved to the "top end" of a stack of resumes. They all have to pass the same tests at the same standards that every other aviator does.

I have never seen that sort of blind favoritism at my airlines. They simply know more people and network better than most males. They generally are better spoken, and more driven. This results in 20 somethings getting hired at airlines before their male counter parts do. Once here, they still network, and do not rest on their laurels, and get promoted to higher positions where they can prove themselves.

One must remember that 99.99% of their female counterparts at the airlines are generally very driven and work a lot harder to get where they are. Many just give of the appearance that it has been easy. Why don't you ask some of them what sort of vetting they have done to get these opportunities. 73N types with the senior APD's and FAA watching over their shoulder. They perform way above the standard and get noticed. Of course WIA has given them the opportunity for these sort of events, but they take every advantage offered and perform to the top of their abilities. I do not know one female that has ever gloated about this, or talked about these little proving events, but I know they occur.

It is just funny to see a bunch of guys commenting on how "easy" these women have it. Take the time and ask how long they have been networking at a min, and doing little events like the one listed above. Not all but many have put ten times as much time in to this sort of thing than we have. We all scratch or heads in amazement when they get plucked for a major airline gig with less time. It is not about the time, it is about the networking, and ability they have shown when given the opportunity. Flight time is but one criteria used. We as males generally use it as a yard stick because we do not comprehend the benefits of the networking that organizations like WIA and OBAP offer. To this I say, Wake the heck up. Job fares are great, but you must do a lot more than that just that to get noticed. Those are like winning lotteries, few and far between are winners.

There will always be someone with less flight time, younger, smarter, or better looking than you get an opportunity you think you deserve and they don't. Get over it. You look petty and jealous.

 

[767/757]

This is a worthless thread.

When a pilots makes it to a Major airline hiring board, the playing field is level between military or civilian training/flying. Can a civilian pilot fly a Military aircraft? Absolutely - it is a matter of timing, luck, training, and determination. Can a military pilot fly a 121 aircraft? Absolutely - it is a matter of timing, luck, training, and determination.

Who is the best trained pilot? The one that save your bacon on that dark stormy night when things go wrong.

 

[ExAF]

Really

This is a worthless thread.

Yep...pretty much, but it is oh so entertaining! The semiannual mil vs civ thread is a tried and true FI tradition!:laugh:

 

[dillfer]

Back to the whole woman thing. Everybody knows that if God would've wanted women to fly he would've painted the sky pink.

 

[SLUF4]

nevermnd

 

[CoolSidePillow]

I believe that C5 Galaxy that crashed a few years ago(Delaware or New Jersey) in VMC was flown by military pilots. They did not handle an engine out emergency well. There are weaker pilots and pilots that have bad days in every part of aviation. You cannot categorize skill by general background. Commuter flying can be very challenging at times. It not only tests flying skill but judgement and is usually done by tired pilots. The same can be said for cargo pilots and military pilots. I had two air force pilots fail in my hiring class. (one fighter and one c130 guy) All it means is that those two guys had bad days. Nothing else. Then there are pilots that have all the technical skills needed but their personalities are so bad that they make unsafe cockpits.

 

[Flyer1015]

Originally Posted by COOPERVANE
How about a 15oo hr UND ex sorority chick?

How hot is she?

Depends. How many beers have you had?

 

[dicko]

I believe that C5 Galaxy that crashed a few years ago(Delaware or New Jersey) in VMC was flown by military pilots. They did not handle an engine out emergency well. There are weaker pilots and pilots that have bad days in every part of aviation. You cannot categorize skill by general background. Commuter flying can be very challenging at times. It not only tests flying skill but judgement and is usually done by tired pilots. The same can be said for cargo pilots and military pilots. I had two air force pilots fail in my hiring class. (one fighter and one c130 guy) All it means is that those two guys had bad days. Nothing else. Then there are pilots that have all the technical skills needed but their personalities are so bad that they make unsafe cockpits.

I think you're talking about the crash out of Dover. They were unable to figure out which thrust lever affected which engine. The flight deck was filled with military check airmen, check flight engineers and bozo the clown.

They continued their descent into the ground with the gear down and a good engine that had the thrust lever at idle. The genius in the pilot seat continued to repeat " uhhhhh ... I'm concerned"

Listen to the CVR if you want a good laugh. It's only funny because nobody died.

 

[Flyer1015]

As many have pointed out, organizations like WIA offer the opportunity for women to network.

Ah, yes, the WIA. 2 female CAs from Pinnacle alone got free type ratings on the 737 through WIA, interviews with SWA through those connections, and are not at SWA based in OAK. Meanwhile, I know 3 male CAs at my airline who paid $5000-$8000 for a type rating out of their own pocket, and were still waiting for a phone call in 2008 (when those ladies got hired).

So yes, some have it easier than others. No denying the 'woman' advantage in our pilot field. But why has this thread turned into a military vs regional experience bashing?

 

[JAFI]

It looks like it started with post number 10 in the thread.

 

[dillfer]

But why has this thread turned into a military vs regional experience bashing?

He asked why, not when.