Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
HalinTexas
昇る太陽の土&#
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,536
If I were an airline pilot recruiter, I'd want to hire from the military. They're educated and mentally equiped to handle an airline training cycle. I would want someone that had crew experience rather than just a fighter jock. No offense. I'm sure a fighter jock is great at stick and rudder and a great team mate in a combat situation, but the modern airline environement couldn't be further from the fighter pitot's. That's not to say that fighter pilots are undesirable.
I had a SWA CA with military experience tell me years ago that he wanted the military pilot in training, the commuter captain with flight time or C130 or P3 guy on the line the first 6 months. After that they're all pretty equal.
If I hadn't gotten glasses in high school I would have gone the military route. I'm sure most would say that. I would have probably been drummed out because I'm a little bit of an iconoclast, rebellious pain in the a$$. :nuts:
I had a SWA CA with military experience tell me years ago that he wanted the military pilot in training, the commuter captain with flight time or C130 or P3 guy on the line the first 6 months. After that they're all pretty equal.
If I hadn't gotten glasses in high school I would have gone the military route. I'm sure most would say that. I would have probably been drummed out because I'm a little bit of an iconoclast, rebellious pain in the a$$. :nuts:
Okay.....I'll join in the fray........again.
No dig on civilian guys whatsoever. They are generally excellent pilots at FDX. About the same for the military guys.
I flew the C-5 in the AF. Crew of 8 to 10 around the world. Tactical approaches, air-refueling, airfields not on a map, 18 to 50 year old crewmembers. You have no idea about being in command and the responsibility of it unless you've been there. It is a unique experience. Am I proud of it. Yeah. Do I think I'm better qualified than others. No. However, military guys with this type of experience are more than qualified. Fighters, tankers, cargo haulers or whatever they flew in the military. The training is unparalleled. Simulator once a week if you want it. 4 hour training sorties too. Air-refueling sortie at least once a month. There is so much training available in the military, you can't help but gain experience if you have any aptitude for flying at all.
So spout off all you want about military guys and their less hours of flying. You're obviously clueless.
No dig on civilian guys whatsoever. They are generally excellent pilots at FDX. About the same for the military guys.
I flew the C-5 in the AF. Crew of 8 to 10 around the world. Tactical approaches, air-refueling, airfields not on a map, 18 to 50 year old crewmembers. You have no idea about being in command and the responsibility of it unless you've been there. It is a unique experience. Am I proud of it. Yeah. Do I think I'm better qualified than others. No. However, military guys with this type of experience are more than qualified. Fighters, tankers, cargo haulers or whatever they flew in the military. The training is unparalleled. Simulator once a week if you want it. 4 hour training sorties too. Air-refueling sortie at least once a month. There is so much training available in the military, you can't help but gain experience if you have any aptitude for flying at all.
So spout off all you want about military guys and their less hours of flying. You're obviously clueless.
BoilerUP
Citation style...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Posts
- 5,311
Malter1 said:
But its not THE initial trainer that pilots fly in UPT - they would fly the Tweet or the T-6 first.
Military tactical flying is very different than civilian flying. I'd probably equate 1000 hours of single pilot Metro PIC to about 1500 hours of single seat fighter PIC, but thats just me. Once again, neither one accurately replicates the day-to-day operations of a 121 environment.
One's not better than the other - they're just different.
av8instyle
Above Average Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Posts
- 427
My turn.
I learned to fly civillian, flew for a commuter in Alaska, then went to UPT.
I do my monthly guard flying in the F-16 and I work at it. I spend the rest of the month at my airline job and I get paid to do an easy job. The training is a lot of work, then it's friggen EASY. I have never had an "easy" day in an F-16. It's either training or it's combat. There's no biffy, no Stew's, no crew meals, and very little dead time. We don't spend our time reading the paper till it's time to figure out our descent point.
I've done both, there's no comparison. Sorry.
I learned to fly civillian, flew for a commuter in Alaska, then went to UPT.
I do my monthly guard flying in the F-16 and I work at it. I spend the rest of the month at my airline job and I get paid to do an easy job. The training is a lot of work, then it's friggen EASY. I have never had an "easy" day in an F-16. It's either training or it's combat. There's no biffy, no Stew's, no crew meals, and very little dead time. We don't spend our time reading the paper till it's time to figure out our descent point.
I've done both, there's no comparison. Sorry.
USNFDX
Purple Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2001
- Posts
- 328
I have 15 plus years flying military aircraft. Around the world, and instructing students in the advance jet strike program. There is no better training. (well maybe some of my students would beg to differ) I did however do a brief stint flying on demand part 135. This can be some of the most difficult, dangerous flying there is. These guys fly beat up equipment, no autopilot, substandard avionics into some of the crappiest weather while getting paid peanuts. Oh, if they go down, there ain't no H60 on alert or airborne to get them. In in many cases they don't get paid if they don't go. They do this to build time and to put food on the table. They have my utmost respect.
Last edited:
71KILO
My interview team
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Posts
- 149
I started flying in a 172 and had 300 hours before I went to USAF pilot training. The AF taught me things I would have never learned in the civilian world. There is no comparison. It's apples and oranges. I continue to fly Mil and Civ and both sides teach me daily how to be a better pilot in both communities. Unless you've flown in both communities you have no idea. I think it totally depends on where your expereince is and what it's in. Getting your brain to go 300kts definately changes your perspective. I think MNALPHA is jealous.
Ask someone who grew up at an airport, washed planes for flight time, got his CFI, flew for a commuter, went to pilot training with the AF Reserve, then got hired by a main line. That guy will tell you the same thing...
Ask someone who grew up at an airport, washed planes for flight time, got his CFI, flew for a commuter, went to pilot training with the AF Reserve, then got hired by a main line. That guy will tell you the same thing...
BoilerUP
Citation style...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Posts
- 5,311
TGR said:
Spoken like somebody who has never flown single pilot 135 cargo. While I admire what the point-nose community does, tactical flying equates little to the admittedly mundane flying of 121 operations.
FWIW, I'd give a single pilot MU2 pilot 2000 hrs for every 1000 hours of single engine fighter time. But yeah, that's just me
Like I said, one is not better than the other - just different.
Civilian checkrides are benign compared to military checks.
FAA check:
1. Simulator - Prebrief/oral 1 hour, sim 2 hrs. Probably a steep turn and a stall prevent, V1 cut, Eng out GA/Landing, maybe 1 system malfunction. VOR & ILS
2. Aircraft - 1 normal leg, T/O, cruise, landing.
Military:
1. 1/2 day of written testing
2. Instruments/Emergency Procedures Checkride. Probably about 3 hours depending on the aircraft. Several systems failures. TACAN, VOR, ILS, etc approaches, Eng failures, Eng out approaches, point-to-point navigation on the HSI and random holding.
3. Tactical flight check (varies by aircraft and mission, of course). Mission planning the day before. Must plan strike mission and brief flight of 2-4 aircraft. All observed/graded by stan-eval evaluator.
Inflight check items: Leadership of multi-ship formation, T/O, air refueling including tanker autopilot-off and breakaway demonstation (could be at night also), navigation, high & low-level flight, threat avoidance/reaction, bomb runs, formation breakup, perhaps some actual airwork (MDS dependent), back to base for about an hour of approaches and touch & goes including engine cuts after liftoff, actual engine out approach and landing, no-flap approach and landing, non-precision eng out approach and landing. If you're an instructor pilot, you have to instruct and talk while demonstrating all of the above. Oh, and BTW, they're real checks . . some actually bust them.
From my experience, civilian training is much more cursory as dictated by the cost. Hence, the airlines like military pilots who are known quality. Even after pre-screening in bugsmashers, Undergraduate Pilot Training in the USAF washes out about a third of the student pilots, maybe even higher in Navy flight school. You're not going to see logbook padding or faking from military pilots because their careers are military records.
For the demands of civilian airline/corporate flying, past a certain experience point it's really immaterial the differences between a civilian trained pilot and military trained one. The airline recruiters like military pilots because overall, they've had better success rates with them (read that cheaper to train).
For me personally, I enjoy flying with pure civilian pilots because they've had experiences different from mine, which makes for good conversation in cruise.
FAA check:
1. Simulator - Prebrief/oral 1 hour, sim 2 hrs. Probably a steep turn and a stall prevent, V1 cut, Eng out GA/Landing, maybe 1 system malfunction. VOR & ILS
2. Aircraft - 1 normal leg, T/O, cruise, landing.
Military:
1. 1/2 day of written testing
2. Instruments/Emergency Procedures Checkride. Probably about 3 hours depending on the aircraft. Several systems failures. TACAN, VOR, ILS, etc approaches, Eng failures, Eng out approaches, point-to-point navigation on the HSI and random holding.
3. Tactical flight check (varies by aircraft and mission, of course). Mission planning the day before. Must plan strike mission and brief flight of 2-4 aircraft. All observed/graded by stan-eval evaluator.
Inflight check items: Leadership of multi-ship formation, T/O, air refueling including tanker autopilot-off and breakaway demonstation (could be at night also), navigation, high & low-level flight, threat avoidance/reaction, bomb runs, formation breakup, perhaps some actual airwork (MDS dependent), back to base for about an hour of approaches and touch & goes including engine cuts after liftoff, actual engine out approach and landing, no-flap approach and landing, non-precision eng out approach and landing. If you're an instructor pilot, you have to instruct and talk while demonstrating all of the above. Oh, and BTW, they're real checks . . some actually bust them.
From my experience, civilian training is much more cursory as dictated by the cost. Hence, the airlines like military pilots who are known quality. Even after pre-screening in bugsmashers, Undergraduate Pilot Training in the USAF washes out about a third of the student pilots, maybe even higher in Navy flight school. You're not going to see logbook padding or faking from military pilots because their careers are military records.
For the demands of civilian airline/corporate flying, past a certain experience point it's really immaterial the differences between a civilian trained pilot and military trained one. The airline recruiters like military pilots because overall, they've had better success rates with them (read that cheaper to train).
For me personally, I enjoy flying with pure civilian pilots because they've had experiences different from mine, which makes for good conversation in cruise.
Marko Ramius
Vilnius Nastavnic
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 378
It depends where you're at Draginass
As far as the training at the major airline level, I'd agree with you Draginass. The training assumes a basic level of competence from both the military and civilian pilot in the areas that you outlined above. As a result, the focus of the training is getting one acclimated to the specific aircraft and airlines procedures. There is also usually a heavy focus on the fostering CRM interaction. Civilian training outside of the majors though, can be very different and much more difficult. I have been through marathon checkrides and orals like you described in both my primary flight training and at the commuters, so have many others. Some carriers also have pretesting requirements just to enter upgrade class, and then afterwards as well. The difference from what I can tell, is that the military is more standardized across the board, so while the check is hard you know what you're getting into. The civilian world can be all over the place depending on when and where you're taking the ride and which jerk is giving it. It's often very hard to know what to expect. I don't think this makes one better than the other, just another facet of the discussion.
As far as the training at the major airline level, I'd agree with you Draginass. The training assumes a basic level of competence from both the military and civilian pilot in the areas that you outlined above. As a result, the focus of the training is getting one acclimated to the specific aircraft and airlines procedures. There is also usually a heavy focus on the fostering CRM interaction. Civilian training outside of the majors though, can be very different and much more difficult. I have been through marathon checkrides and orals like you described in both my primary flight training and at the commuters, so have many others. Some carriers also have pretesting requirements just to enter upgrade class, and then afterwards as well. The difference from what I can tell, is that the military is more standardized across the board, so while the check is hard you know what you're getting into. The civilian world can be all over the place depending on when and where you're taking the ride and which jerk is giving it. It's often very hard to know what to expect. I don't think this makes one better than the other, just another facet of the discussion.
USNFDX
Purple Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2001
- Posts
- 328
AC560 said:
How about Iceman.....
http://thetravisty.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Iceman_-_The_Later_Years.htm
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
