Liar

[LJDRVR]

Anybody looking for a laugh or to get P.O.'d, look no further than this thread on the regional board. You've got to read down about half a page when the original poster starts defending his lack of multiengine flight time by citing his military experience "Dropping bombs on baghdad in my F16."

Enjoy!

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=46142&page=1&pp=15

 

[HueyPilot]

Interesting...he listed the types of a/c he's flown: C172, T-6, F-16. Must've done sh!t hot in the T-6 to bypass the T-38 and the AT-38. Not to mention he's a fast mover if he trained on the T-6, then flew combat missions in OIF, then went searching for an RJ job.

 

[Swede]

The point I think is this... SE vs ME. An F-16 is infinitely more complex than a Seminole or B1900. A 1.5 hour F16 mission has more real "flying" than a ATL-MIA leg.

All this assumes that the guy is not blowing smoke about being an F16 pilot.

 

[sandman2122]

But look..

But look........what kind of a job is this "fictious F-16 guy/gal" applying for? That's right, an airline job, where you don't fly low level sorties dropping bombs in a 737, RJ or 767 from ATL to MIA.

This debate goes on and on......I recently heard an ACP at my company compare flight time, PIC and experience into "you have to look at the difference between a C-5 guy with 8,000 hours flying long haul trips over the Pacific with the autopilot on vs. an F-16 or F-18 guy down in the dirt dropping bombs with only 1700 hours".......okay, but once again, isn't the company looking to hire someone to fly "long haul trips with the autopilot on" not to simulate dropping bombs from thier 727's??

In my opinion it's guys without commuter, corporate or military transport experience that have an uphill battle trying to justify their experience and qualifications to land a job.....non-tactical/fighter folks don't have to......unless of course the hiring board is made up of former fighter pukes...

Every company needs a good mix of pilots, I just believe it's an uphill battle for some while for others it's not.

Off to get some more coffee..

 

[sonofaeagle]

My belly is big fat and jiggly. Ow I bonked my knee.

 

[Swede]

Being an ex-fighter guy, I'm biased, but here's my take...

We are paid not to haul crap from A to B, but to handle the unforseen, the circumstances where bad $hit can stack up quickly, where sound judgement and strong situational awareness can save everyone vs. creating a smoking hole. Fighter/tactical types shine in these conditions.

I'm not Mr. FAR's, or Joe Systems god, but when things are burning, the hydraulics are failing, and the weather is down, that's when I'm strongest.

I've experienced both, the tactical world, leading a mission of sweeping fighters, flying my own jet and that of several others, and hauling crap to Tokyo. There is absolutely no comparison... the tactical mission is far more challenging in terms of overall situational awareness, dealing with the unforseen, etc, than making sure we don't have any trapped fuel in the tail tank, or dealing with the drunk in 5A.

A guy packs a huge amount of aviation in 1000 fighter hours. At a bare minimum, that's probably 6 to 8 years, 1000+ cycles in an unforgiving platform, dealing with some very challenging circumstances.

Fire away.

 

[milplt]

The difference (of course, everyone is an individual - but there are stereotypes that exist) is in which community produces pilots who are more likely to stay in the books. More importantly, who is more likely to get in the books when they start to feel rusty or the systems knowledges degrades a little. At the airline that I am involved with, that is a common problem that is dealt with in the training dept - and some backgrounds are represented more than others when you look back at the last couple of years worth of re-trainees.

 

[sandman2122]

It could come down to the individual. One who can adapt and is willing to learn. There are great pilots in heavies and fighters that are booksmart and have good hands, I've seen them.

I'm sure if you take a sampling from any airline that the re-trainees will come from all backgrounds......we all can have bad days......I just try to stack the deck and stay in the books........

Coffees' cold

 

[KarmaPolice]

"We are paid not to haul crap from A to B, but to handle the unforseen, the circumstances where bad $hit can stack up quickly, where sound judgement and strong situational awareness can save everyone vs. creating a smoking hole. Fighter/tactical types shine in these conditions."

Would you mind showing a little more respect for heavy jet guys? What you do is difficult and very important, and you don't need to denigrate our job to make yours look better.

As for hauling "crap" where "bad $hit" apparently can't stack up? Having spent a couple years flying tactical approaches into and out of the OAR to pick up and safely remove bleeding and wounded soldiers, I have to disagree with your judgements.

I have no doubt that fighter pilots in general make great airline pilots, but in making your case please be a little more thoughtful.

 

[LJDRVR]

I didn't want to start some tactical vs. airlift thread, I was simply pointing out an obsurd couple of posts where some lying sack of cr_p attempted to justify his low amount of multiengine experience (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) by claiming to have been "Dropping bombs on Baghdad in my F-16 while the rest of you were shooting touch and goes." This self proclaimed viper guy was claiming only 73 hours of mult-engine time. We were having a laugh at his expense, pointing out that between Phase III and IFF he would have about double that.