Typed?

[TonyC]

Your quote takes what I said out of context, Wasn't referring to a tanker guy being better at FAR's.

I don't think I took it out of context at all. Perhaps you don't realize what you said.

You said, "The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying." Further, you said, "...from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines." This concluded a paragraph that discussed FAR knowledge required to successfully pass your hiring board where many of the "military guys ... got shot down ... due to their lack of FAR knowledge." Now the truth might rightly lie in the next sentence - - "You could tell the ones that boned up on the civilian side and made an effort to know them even though they didn't fly under them" [emp. added] - - but you did not rest your argument at that point. Study made the difference, not the background.



For what it's worth, I was not asked a single question about FAR's during my interview.


The simple answer to viperdriver is this: pull out that certificate you got from the FAA, turn it over. Read the type ratings you have under Item XII. Since you're asking the question, the likely answer is none. If you had one, you'd likely know the answer already.

All the discussion about what kinds of airplanes you could have gotten a type with in the military is interesting, but not useful in answering your question.

As for your last question, "Is it required on an Air Force 737?", the answer is no. You COULD have gotten a type rating on the 737, but one is NOT required to fly any Air Force airplane.


OH, and KeroseneSnorter - - I HAVE spent time in the training department. The single element that contributes most to success is not background, age, or gender - - it's EFFORT!

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I don't think I took it out of context at all. Perhaps you don't realize what you said.

You said, "The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying." Further, you said, "...from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines." This concluded a paragraph that discussed FAR knowledge required to successfully pass your hiring board where many of the "military guys ... got shot down ... due to their lack of FAR knowledge." Now the truth might rightly lie in the next sentence - - "You could tell the ones that boned up on the civilian side and made an effort to know them even though they didn't fly under them" [emp. added] - - but you did not rest your argument at that point. Study made the difference, not the background.



For what it's worth, I was not asked a single question about FAR's during my interview.


The simple answer to viperdriver is this: pull out that certificate you got from the FAA, turn it over. Read the type ratings you have under Item XII. Since you're asking the question, the likely answer is none. If you had one, you'd likely know the answer already.

All the discussion about what kinds of airplanes you could have gotten a type with in the military is interesting, but not useful in answering your question.

As for your last question, "Is it required on an Air Force 737?", the answer is no. You COULD have gotten a type rating on the 737, but one is NOT required to fly any Air Force airplane.


OH, and KeroseneSnorter - - I HAVE spent time in the training department. The single element that contributes most to success is not background, age, or gender - - it's EFFORT!

O.K. You have been beating the crap out of me because I suggested that he may need to study up on his FAR's.

So I will ask the $64 question.

Given the stated facts:

1. He does not know if he holds a type rating or not.
2. He has no idea what airplanes require a type rating.

Who issued him his ATP?
Why was he issued an ATP when he clearly does not know even the most basic things like "What am I legal to fly?"
How many other "pesky civilian regs" does he not have a clue about?


He is applying to become a part 121 airline pilot, but he is having trouble even filling out the application due to his lack of civilian aviation knowledge. Am I the only one that thinks maybe this is a problem that should be addressed?



Oh, and you still left out the part about some single engine drivers thinking that they should automatically get the position, when you quoted me. That is where the tanker driver comparison came in. Maybe my train of thought and the words didn't quite match up.

So to end your confusion, My thought was meant to imply that the few single seaters that expect to be hired because they flew fighters, actually have less directly transferrable skills than the tanker guys do who have been flying airline equipment already.

Oh, by the way, since you are in the training department, you can't tell me you haven't had some of the fighter jocks in initial and not wondered if they would ever learn to do a V1 cut and keep the thing upright! If you say no, I know you are lying and never spent a couple of weeks having to de-program a Viper pilot or a Hornet driver!! But you are correct about the effort part.

 

[TonyC]

O.K. You have been beating the crap out of me because I suggested that he may need to study up on his FAR's.

So I will ask the $64 question.

Given the stated facts:

1. He does not know if he holds a type rating or not.
2. He has no idea what airplanes require a type rating.

Who issued him his ATP?
Why was he issued an ATP when he clearly does not know even the most basic things like "What am I legal to fly?"
How many other "pesky civilian regs" does he not have a clue about?


He is applying to become a part 121 airline pilot, but he is having trouble even filling out the application due to his lack of civilian aviation knowledge. Am I the only one that thinks maybe this is a problem that should be addressed?

No, you're just the one that seems to think it has everything to do with him being a fighter pilot, and nothing to do with being a military pilot. There are heavy drivers that leave the service with an ATP and ask (or at least HAVE) the very same questions. I've talked to guys that got their ATPs and were surprised to find they were also awarded a type rating for the 707 and 720. Do you think any of them even know what a 720 IS?

Oh, and you still left out the part about some single engine drivers thinking that they should automatically get the position, when you quoted me. That is where the tanker driver comparison came in. Maybe my train of thought and the words didn't quite match up.

So to end your confusion, My thought was meant to imply that the few single seaters that expect to be hired because they flew fighters, actually have less directly transferrable skills than the tanker guys do who have been flying airline equipment already.

Your train of thought still winds up at the same station - - fighter guys have less directly transferrable skills. That's just not true.


By the way - - this ain't beatin' nothin' outta nobody. This is just conversation. If you think this is rough, try sitting through a fighter pilot debrief.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

There are heavy drivers that leave the service with an ATP and ask (or at least HAVE) the very same questions. I've talked to guys that got their ATPs and were surprised to find they were also awarded a type rating for the 707 and 720. Do you think any of them even know what a 720 IS?

So we come back to the $64 question. Why are military pilots being issued civilian certificates when it appears that they do not have even the most basic knowledge that the certificate states that they have? Not refering to the 707 or 720 issues that you brought up, that is understandable due to the military difference in designations. I am referring to the original posters questions that he posed.

A civilian ATP applicant anywhere in the country would be issued a pink slip if he could not answer those basic questions on an oral. Why are the military pilots allowed to get by without the knowledge?

As you know, 121 ops are 10% stick and rudder and 90% covering your rear and keeping the flight legal. As a CP or DO of an airline, why should I hire a guy that doesn't have the knowledge required to do 90% of the job? Would the military give me a KC-135 to fly around based on my knowledge of civilian regs? After all, I have a ton of Boeing time, A whole lot more than 70% of their Aircraft Commanders, and I guarantee I could pass the sim check after a few days of system and flight training. I wouldn't know squat about air to air refueling or it's safety procedures, but so what.....I got the 10% stick and rudder part down.

Why is it that every time a civvy questions a military practice that he finds questionable, the military guys assume that he has a thing against military pilots, or thinks he is being a d!ck? The question I posed is completly legitimate. I would expect any ATP in the country to be able to answer those simple questions. Why? Because they hold an ATP and they are supposed to know it, or at the absolute laziest.....know where to find it in the regs!!!! I mean come on.......how in the world is he going to ever decipher part 121 duty day regs. and required rest information if he can't figure out where to look for the type ratings on his certificate?

 

[hawg2hawk]

......how in the world is he going to everdecipher part 121 duty day regs. and required rest information if hecan't figure out where to look for the type ratings on his certificate?

Thousands of others have.

Makes you wonder why the airlines keep just hiring the hell out of these guys, as dumb as they are on the civilian regs.

 

[TonyC]

So we come back to the $64 question. Why are military pilots being issued civilian certificates when it appears that they do not have even the most basic knowledge that the certificate states that they have?

Find me the question from the ATP question bank that tests the area of knowledge to which you refer.

(Since I don't have a statement on my certificate describing what knowledge I have, I must assume you're using the ATP question bank to make that determination.)

MY ATP oral was not a quiz about type ratings. It covered the systems of the particular airplane I was about to fly, and instrument procedures. The DE could not have cared less whether I knew the certification requirements for the airplane or how to put together the reverse side of my certificate.

Focus all you want on your $64 question - - your charge against fighter pilots is still bogus.

(Here I am still defendin' 'em, and I ain't even one uv 'em!)

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Find me the question from the ATP question bank that tests the area of knowledge to which you refer.

Well there are only two, both deal with Type ratings and what priviledges you can excercise.

But silly me, I was under the assumption that the military boys might actually read the regs and make an attempt to understand them, after all they will be flying under them for the next 20 years or so.

Any 9th grader can pass an ATP written, rote memorization is a skill that comes fairly early in life.

But hey, I like the idea. Know the bare minimum required, do as little as possible, why read the regs when I can ask someone who has already read them?

Hawg2hawk strikes me as a much more professional type of pilot. He is on another thread asking about a book that puts the regs in plain English. Plain English is not part of the FAA's plan, but we can all hope!!

I have nothing against Fighter pilots at all, I have been snot slinging drunk with lots of them!! My questions have been directed toward the people who are defending why a guy that should know a particular item, does not.

But do not worry, I am an equal oppertunity D!ck. I really have a problem with some of the RJ guys out there flying around a .80 jet and they cannot even tell you what a balanced field is or what part of a swept wing stalls first. And don't even get me started on some of the crap I have seen in the corporate world.

All this started with my poorly worded first post. I simply meant to relay that he might want to read or re-read the regs in case it comes up in an interview. There are several airlines out there that give a fairly comprehensive written test that is not based on the ATP bank.

The harshness of my original post came from my initial reaction when I read the question. The reaction was "YGTBSM, how does a guy have an ATP and not know that!" After our discussions, I now know how a guy can have an ATP and not know that. Thank you for educating me on the subject.

I guess it is the wave of the future, ATP's that do not know when a type rating is needed, Airline pilots that have very little aerodynamic knowledge, and corporate drivers that have no idea how to figure out if their airplane is going to clear that mountian on takeoff if an engine fails. No wonder the pay rates are going down the toilet!!


When I said "directly transferable skills" I am referring to his familiarity with large jet transports and experience with their performance and limitations. I never said that a fighter guy could not do the job. I have had newhires in the sim that haven't flown a multi-engine airplane in years. A V-1 cut in a Viper has a completely different procedure........mostly dealing with a gross weight reduction of his flying machine and a parachute.

 

[gunfyter]

I can tell you exactly why he is asking while filling out a SWA application.

Military logbooks have different headers on the logging of flight time.

FP... co-pilot AirCraft Commander time.

That has to be translated to PIC and SIC time.

The civilian way of logging time is screwed up.... You count taxi time. Two different definitions of PIC and strange rules on when you can log PIC and Instrument time. So you get a big headache when filling out airline apps. What do they want? Can you log it as PIC time if you don't have a type rating or since it is a military jet do I need a type to be PIC?

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I can tell you exactly why he is asking while filling out a SWA application.

Military logbooks have different headers on the logging of flight time.

FP... co-pilot AirCraft Commander time.

That has to be translated to PIC and SIC time.

The civilian way of logging time is screwed up.... You count taxi time. Two different definitions of PIC and strange rules on when you can log PIC and Instrument time. So you get a big headache when filling out airline apps. What do they want? Can you log it as PIC time if you don't have a type rating or since it is a military jet do I need a type to be PIC?

No argument here on the screwed up regs. On the plus side, if the civilian world used just flight time and not taxi time it would be another excuse for managment to quit paying us for those hours sitting in line at LGA and BOS!!

It is very interesting and sad with what is happening in the profession. I meet more and more military pilots that are choosing to stay in due to the falling pay rates and QOL at the airlines. Good for the military, bad for the airline pilots. On the civilian side you are seeing the lowest common denominator being hired into the RJ's at certian carriers. Meaning that we now have guys running around in command of 70 to 90 seat jets that 10 years ago could not have gotten a job right seat on a 1900. More and more you see peeps out of the certificate mills and even some of the big aviation schools that have never been taught or even exposed to high performace aerodynamics. I never thought I would see the day when Captain on a 500 kt 70,000 pound airplane would pay less than a bus driver in a metropolitan city.

The expectation of what an airline pilot needs to be and what qualifications he must have is falling like a dog turd in a vacuum. It is becoming clear that the guy with the experience and training ie. military or experienced civilian pilots is not the first choice of the carriers, they are more and more looking for the cheapest warm body they can find. Progress I guess, as avionics become more advanced, the airlines are beginning to rely on electronics to conduct the safe flight rather the pilots skill and knowledge.

HMMMMM, bad thread creep here, sorry about that, must be the head cold. Feel free to go back to calling me a fighter pilot hating slimeball!!!!

 

[TonyC]

Well there are only two, both deal with Type ratings and what priviledges you can excercise.

Do you recall which ones they are, or can you point me in the right direction? It's been a while since I took it, (100%, thank you very much) and I don't recall studying that subject matter.

Thanks.

 

[milflyboy]

Must not have been a part of the few selected questions to study extra hard

No, actually in my case the two type rating questions where part of the "Study Hard" questions.

If the questions are the ones I think they are, they go like this: You are typed in this, this and this aircraft, but do your ATP check ride in this aircraft. What priviliges may be exercised regarding these airplanes: Airp1, Airp2, Airp3....

As you know, 121 ops are 10% stick and rudder and 90% covering your rear and keeping the flight legal.

True enough, but it is those 10% or should I say 0.1% where the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** hits the fan that the Airlines are hirering for. Any Joe with a couple of hundred hours can be taught to fly the line (the 90%). But has he been proven under pressure?

 

[TonyC]

Must not have been a part of the few selected questions to study extra hard

If you're implying I used one of those specially focused weekend cram sessions, you are incorrect. I used the King videos, and the accompanying book and computer testing disk (I believe it ran on DOS 3.2 or so). I covered every question in the entire bank. I learned the subject matter; I did not memorize any answers. I took dozens and dozens of randomly generated practice tests, and I covered each question several times.

If it was covered, I have forgotten. I'd still like to see the specific question or questions from the bank, and the specific subject matter area. I don't think they're there.

 

[qmaster3]

I used the King videos

Tony C she looks like your avatar

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

If it was covered, I have forgotten. I'd still like to see the specific question or questions from the bank, and the specific subject matter area. I don't think they're there.

The newest ATP book I have is from 1994 so I do not know if the question numbers will match anymore. Anyhow 9328, and 9329 deal directly with type rating privileges, specifically asking what privileges can be exercised under various conditions. There are probably others, but it's been a long day and I would rather pass out in a rack, than look for more!!

I no longer have a Commercial question book, but I think it deals with the type rating requirements in more detail than the ATP does. It also occured to me how we may have the disparity between civilian and military knowledge on this subject. As a civilian you must hold a commercial certificate prior to being eligible for an ATP (FAR 61.153 d 1). The military can skip the commercial ticket and move directly to the ATP provided they meet FAR 61.153 d 2.

Since the commercial written deals with the basics of flying for hire more than the ATP does, The ATP bank leaves out a good deal of the stuff that is considered to be common knowledge by that point for the civilian pilot. Hence the ATP bank stresses the 121 stuff a little more and leaves out items covered on the commercial written. Also a civilian pilot has probably spent a couple of years working 135 charter or flight instructing prior to having the time required for the ATP and may already hold a type rating for a light jet prior to going for the ATP. It does appear that by skipping the previous writtens (what I get from a bleary eyed peek at the regs, correct me if I'm wrong) that would explain why the military guys have questions about certian subjects that an equally rated civilian pilot finds odd.



MILF,

I disagree, That 10% stick and rudder does include the .01%.........but it's what you know (the other 90%) that will save your butt when the sh!t hits the fan. Any trained pilot can wiggle and jiggle......it's when the crap that is supposed to work to correct a situation doesn't work and you have to fall back on your aviation and aircraft knowledge to figure out why......thats what the airlines are hiring you for! The first real engine that I had come apart in my career did not go anything like what the training said it was supposed to.....of course the training never seems to cover an engine blowing its guts out when you are in ice. Pretty much the book went out the window, since not only did the anti ice systems not perform as well on one engine as the book claimed, the collateral damage from the engine failing took a couple of other items out as well. One good pilot brain is always better than 10 foot stompers. I can only remember one emergency that went like the sim said it was supposed to, too bad management seems to think that airplanes fly themselves anymore and that pilots are a redundancy.



If I ever find the little weasel engineer that wrote the part about "ANTI ICE SYSTEMS ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL EVEN WITH ONE ENGINE FAILED" in the POH, I am going to wring his scrawny little neck!!!!!!

 

[milflyboy]

Tony C

Just meant as a joke

.......but it's what you know (the other 90%) that will save your butt when the sh!t hits the fan....

....... The first real engine that I had come apart in my career did not go anything like what the training said it was supposed to.....of course the training never seems to cover an engine blowing its guts out when you are in ice. Pretty much the book went out the window, since not only did the anti ice systems not perform as well on one engine as the book claimed, the collateral damage from the engine failing took a couple of other items out as well.....

So you agree knowing your FARs and systems is not the only key to the answer? 99.9% of the military pilots I have come across know their systems thoroughly. Why? Because they have most likely been in several situations like you describe, where the real world doesn't look like the training at all.
Experiences like the one you are describing are the ones that build excellent aviators. By selecting a military pilot with 1000 hours they know you have seen stuff like that. I am not saying the civilian with 1000 hours haven't seen his share, but it is possible he hasn't. I have seen 1k civilian pilots on this board describing going missed approach and have to hold as the toughest act during their flying.
It all boils down to experience and discipline. If you are coming across so many military pilots that don't know their FARs as you describe a reason could be that they have their ATP, but are not actually using it (Not talking about the part of the FARs that apply to everyday military flying). Believe me, when the time comes they will refresh their memory, but right now they have far more complex manuals and procedures to memorize