Why hire military over your competition?

[livin'thesim]

I have, hand flown. To a pitching carrier deck. Pretty sure DCAs Helo back ground has found him behind little boats in big seas in bad weather as well. How much real line and/or military flying have you done, at all?

Yes or no, you've ever actually shot a PAR to mins. Or any PAR. I've done it, I've also flown self contained radar approaches using air-ground mode of the radar. I've also done CATIII's. Any moron can couple up a CatIII.

A PAR requires all your navigation skills, because if the controller is wrong or trying to drive you into the ground, he still goes home. And it does happen. It's a hard approach to fly, and a perishable skill for the controller. In the mountains at night, it's terrifying. 99% of all PARs I've ever flown, were day VFR for controller proficiency so that when I did need him/her they'd be ready. Your generalization though of how a PAR is flown proves you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Programming the XYZ arrival to a CATIII ILS and letting Otto fly, then disengaging on the roll out? You're kidding right. Granted the FMS can be a challenge to the uninitiated... For about 25 hours.

I have not. I'm going by my military buddies who say PAR was not that difficult.


Anyway, it was one of you two that tried to claim hero status for your PAR skillz, but let's not forget that most 121 operators never fly PAR.

That means that a mil pilot with lotsa PAR approaches will not have any advantage over a civilian pilot who has flown the actual approaches that will be used, such as an ILS.

In that instance, a civil pilot - depending on background - may have many times the number of hand-flown no-guidance ILS approaches, usually in airplanes with minimal automation.

Again the idea that ALLLLLLL military pilots are auuuutomaticaly the superior choice, in every case, over a high-time regional captain is quite silly.

But that is precisely what so many mil pilots wish to believe. That a military pedigree is the ultimate trump card. That it is an automatic assurance that said military pilot is - by default - the superior choice to a civilian pilot in every case, at all times.

Like I said, only a fool would believe it, and only a very insecure person would NEED to believe it.

And hey, PAR sounds kind of fun. Kind of like flying a very low ILS, but without any of the stress of tracking needles.

If you want to claim your aircraft carrier experience, by all means. I really see no application to civilian flying, though.


Beyond all this, I also want to point out what I said before - a high time civilian pilot has years working within the 121 framework, has a much more comfortable working knowledge of 121 regulations, and a sense of how 121 operations are conducted. A military pilot has to learn all this. It probably takes from three months to a year to absorb the 121 operational environment for someone who comes from outside it.

This is also true of 135 and 91 pilots. The 91 pilots struggle the most (on average) since many come from an entirely unstructured flight department.

Now, would I expect the average mil pilot to out-perform the average 135 or 91 pilot. Probably, and Yes would be the answers I would give.

But a high time 121 pilot is most often a proven commodity, and I think that it is silly to assume that a fresh lower time military pilot is automatically the superior choice to a skilled civilian pilot.

The only people who need "trump cards" are those who lack the confidence to make it on real skill. If you're so much better than everyone, let the interview and interview sim ride tell the tale.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The only people who need "trump cards" are those who lack the confidence to make it on real skill. If you're so much better than everyone, let the interview and interview sim ride tell the tale.

....Or by those people playing certain card games. Then, trump cards come in very handy.

Bubba

 

[SpauldingSmails]

That's not what I'm hearing from AA and I also heard a recent Southwest class was 100% military.

I don't know anyone at Delta, but every post on the recently hired thread there is military.

USAir may be the exception, but from people I know who have been hired and turned down it seems there is no rhyme or reason in their hiring criteria.

If you remove the flowthroughs and strictly focus on newhires I'm sure you'll see my point.

Let's set aside the linear dimensioning of our collective genitalia for a minute here.

Perhaps the major carriers are attempting to simply grab military pilots whilst they can?

Their numbers aren't what they once were, and they'll likely only become more scarce in the future as certain missions and aircraft types are replaced by UAS and guys who fly from a table. Once the initial stock of pent up military applicants from the past decade are cleaned up, their numbers will likely slow to a trickle to the majors. An airline can always hire their competition's pilots at a later time. It may just be a case of a limited time offer for the airlines.

Just a theory, and absolutely feel free to tell me I'm off base if you might think otherwise.

 

[waveflyer]

Why would they grab them just bc they're rarer than before

Military pilots have less experience in a 121 environment.

The only way the argument above makes sense is if you buy into the discriminatory, yet traditional, idea that pilots with military training are superior when in fact they do a completely different type of flying.

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

But te good ole boy system is in place and now those 80%+ mil classes that SWA and AA put out are senior to their more qualified, experienced civilian counterparts hired later for the rest of their career.

It's absolute bullsh/t and I have zero problem calling any of you internet tough guys on it.

 

[pilotyip]

Why would they grab them just bc they're rarer than before

Military pilots have less experience in a 121 environment.

The only way the argument above makes sense is if you buy into the discriminatory, yet traditional, idea that pilots with military training are superior when in fact they do a completely different type of flying.

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

But te good ole boy system is in place and now those 80%+ mil classes that SWA and AA put out are senior to their more qualified, experienced civilian counterparts hired later for the rest of their career.

It's absolute bullsh/t and I have zero problem calling any of you internet tough guys on it.

There is another point to consider, most of these military pilots are now commissioned through a service academy or ROTC. Plus I know at least in the Navy programs you must have two years of college math. a year of college physics and a year of chemistry. These requirements probably put these guy in a rare category compared to other pilot applicants. The entrance requirements for these programs are far above the normal college entrance requirements. An ACT of 29 is a cut off for most of these programs. So maybe the airlines see these guys as closer to that astronaut candidate and want to skim them off of the top of the resume pile before going down the stack to the rest of the pilots.

BTW As I have posted before if you want to cut down the pilot population to increase wages make a ACT of 29 a requirement for an ATP. And you would not need a college degree to get that score.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Why would they grab them just bc they're rarer than before

Military pilots have less experience in a 121 environment.

The only way the argument above makes sense is if you buy into the discriminatory, yet traditional, idea that pilots with military training are superior when in fact they do a completely different type of flying.

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

But te good ole boy system is in place and now those 80%+ mil classes that SWA and AA put out are senior to their more qualified, experienced civilian counterparts hired later for the rest of their career.

It's absolute bullsh/t and I have zero problem calling any of you internet tough guys on it.

I'm not trying to justify the "why" the majors like to have military pilots. I agree, it mostly seems to be related to "tradition." I have absolutely no dog in the fight for asserting military that military pilots are automatically a superior product - it's not my background.

Nonetheless, if an airline wants some military pilots in their workforce it's easier for them to get them now rather than later. Or rather, they'll get a better choice of mil. applicants now, rather than later. They won't take all of the mil applicants, and if they want to have some military guys (for reason of tradition, cronyism, diversity, fetish... whatever - and some airlines seem more into it than others), they'd rather not have to pick through the leftovers. The qualified civilian pilot pool is a lot wider and deeper. Yeah, it's a turd sandwich if you're hired behind these guys, but the airline could not care less.

I'm just theorizing why there's a heavy slant toward recruiting military guys up front. I'd be willing to bet that many hires based on factors other than straight bonafide qualification occur earliest in a hiring wave.

 

[Boxboy]

Let's set aside the linear dimensioning of our collective genitalia for a minute here.

Perhaps the major carriers are attempting to simply grab military pilots whilst they can?

Their numbers aren't what they once were, and they'll likely only become more scarce in the future as certain missions and aircraft types are replaced by UAS and guys who fly from a table. Once the initial stock of pent up military applicants from the past decade are cleaned up, their numbers will likely slow to a trickle to the majors. An airline can always hire their competition's pilots at a later time. It may just be a case of a limited time offer for the airlines.

Just a theory, and absolutely feel free to tell me I'm off base if you might think otherwise.

I think you have a point there. It's true that there are less military guys leaving the service for the airlines, for obvious reasons. The military has steadily been decreasing pilot production. They are a known quantity (in this case, limited quantity).
I agree that pilot skills are mostly based on the individual skills and not their background (mil vs. civ). As I've said, there are knuckleheads everywhere. However, I'll throw in my .02 since I had my license and instrument rating before I went in the military. Obtaining a pilot slot in the military is not easy (technical degree, good grades, high test scores, physically fit, leadership skills, etc.). In my AFROTC graduating class, 10% got pilot slots. In my pilot training class, 1/3 washed out (mostly in tweets and a couple in T-38s). The military training environment is pretty intense IMO. Flying in the military is not just about stick and rudder skills. What I'm trying to say is that military trained pilots are "trainable"; the airlines and corporations know what they are getting when they hire a ex-military pilot.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Why would they grab them just bc they're rarer than before

Military pilots have less experience in a 121 environment.

The only way the argument above makes sense is if you buy into the discriminatory, yet traditional, idea that pilots with military training are superior when in fact they do a completely different type of flying.

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

But te good ole boy system is in place and now those 80%+ mil classes that SWA and AA put out are senior to their more qualified, experienced civilian counterparts hired later for the rest of their career.

It's absolute bullsh/t and I have zero problem calling any of you internet tough guys on it.

Give it up Wave.

As has been pointed out to you before, your thesis is badly flawed. Southwest has, and always has had, a higher overall percentage of civilian-trained over military-trained pilots in our ranks. Always. Continuing today.

And as far as your "good ole boy" system accusations inflating military percentages, I'll call BS on that as well. Applicants today are screened and selected for interview by a computer based on points, NOT by "good ole" military boys selecting their own. The individual pick-and-choose programs, allowing cases of favoritism, is gone.

And speaking of which, here's something to consider. When it WAS possible for "good ole boys" to pick their buddies, Southwest's hiring practices resulted in a higher percentage of civilian-trained. Does that tell you anything? Sure, individual guys may have pushed their buddies, but that applied to civilian as well as military guys. And now that computers are picking applicants based solely on objective and quantifiable qualification points, and that has resulted in a few recent classes with higher military-trained percentages, what does THAT tell you, Wave? You can't blame the "good ole boy" effect for that. It tells me some of the following:

- Right now, there may be more qualified military-trained guys than civilian-trained guys in the pool of available talent.

- Military pilots always have a four-year degree, compared to civilian pilots. This is considered desirable (even listed on the website), and this probably adds a few points to the overall score.

- The first 1,500 hours of military flight experience is nearly universally considered much more valuable then the first 1,500 hours of civilian flight experience. Not the case after thousands of hours, of course, but it certainly might be a deciding factor in relatively low total hour guys.

- Military flight training generates a known, proven commodity. Not necessarily true with some civilian training programs. Again, not a factor for guys with a lot of experience, but certainly might be a factor for those lower total hour guys, or especially guys with less PIC time.

- I suspect that flight managers and hiring considerations place a lot less emphasis on having 121 time vs. military time than you think is appropriate. Yes, the learning curve for military guys is steeper in new-hire training, but still not as steep as what he or she has seen and mastered before. And it's just not that difficult adding 121 rules after mastering other flying regimes. After a few months of being a 121 F/O, the two guys are indistinguishable, as far as applying 121 rules go. I'm guessing that hiring managers know this, and after all, we're not hiring directly into the left seat.

There's probably other things that the computers consider, but there's a few for you to think about. Hey, I agree with you that guys with thousands of hours of 121 PIC experience (the regional paying-your-dues route) are just as capable as any military-trained pilots, but I don't think that's what we're talking about. I suspect that our civilian applicant pool isn't primarily composed of guys with thousands and thousands of hours of 121 PIC time.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Why would they grab them just bc they're rarer than before

Military pilots have less experience in a 121 environment.

The only way the argument above makes sense is if you buy into the discriminatory, yet traditional, idea that pilots with military training are superior when in fact they do a completely different type of flying.

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

But te good ole boy system is in place and now those 80%+ mil classes that SWA and AA put out are senior to their more qualified, experienced civilian counterparts hired later for the rest of their career.

It's absolute bullsh/t and I have zero problem calling any of you internet tough guys on it.

Also, I have to comment on your bolded assertion above. If you really believe that your Cessna time alone made you "just as qualified" as military guys' flight experience, then you are either a liar, an idiot, or plain (or plane) deluding yourself. I'm pretty sure that you would be alone in the world, thinking that flying simple, fixed-gear, 120mph Cessnas around and around in a traffic pattern, and doing 50nm "cross-countries" is somehow equivalent to flying all complex, turbine and jet aircraft, from hour one, all over the world, following all manner of air traffic rules. At 200 military hours I was flying, and at 1000 military hours I was PIC, in a heavy Boeing 707, flying all over the country and the world. And you're really claiming that 1000 Cessna hours in 152s/172s is equivalent to that?

Like I said, I agree that when a civilian guy has the many hours of experience of flying turbines around the country in regional airlines, then we're talking parity, but until that point, the military guys' training and experience ARE better, and more desirable by anyone trying to hire quality pilots.

I'm sure you don't realize this, Wave, but you are EXACTLY as obstinate and tribalistic as the worst "kernal" in the company, with your incessant insistence that the civilian way is always the "better" way. How can you not see that? I'll bet that when you upgrade, you're going to be one of those captains who takes out your insecurities on a new, bright and shiny F/O, just because he happens to be military-trained. He'll show up for your pairing, eager and happy, and he'll leave thinking, "what a d1ck!" I was fortunate to fly with a few of those guys when I was an F/O.

Whoever it was on this board who said it was all about the attitude was right. If you have enough experience (civilian or military or combined) to get here, it's your attitude that's the only thing that matters. Guys who continue to insist that it's only the military way that's the "best," or guys like you who continue to insist that it's the civilian way that's the "best" (and especially those who like to whine about the military guys getting unfair breaks) are the ones who make our easy job harder. Who really gives a crap where you came from? If you have the experience and qualifications to be here, and you have a good attitude, that's really all that really matters.

Think about that for a while. Please.

Bubba

 

[SpauldingSmails]

They are as qualified as I was coming out of cessnas. Capable but not yet qualified

I think you're exaggerating a tad, don't you?

I've a family member who flew AF2 for years, carrying passengers across the globe in a B707. In your mind though, he was no more qualified than you rolling out of a GA twin, even though his job was nearly analogous to an airline operation with a fairly heavy jetliner?

Just want to make sure I'm following you here.