Military Instructors - New FAA Proposal

[mjg407]

Doesn't that apply to anything? My point being is I would say most military pilots shouldn't have a problem transitioning to the GA side of the house. Not hard but granted, having an understanding of the type of flying would be key. I for one would not want to instruct or give check rides in aircraft that I was unfamiliar with, don't care if it's something as simply as a C-172. I might have 3000 military hours, 600 carrier landings, both prop and jet time but a competent instructor pilot with many hours in the C-172 is going to initially fly it better than me (or should in a perfect world), hell may even be better period with enough time and experience.

I will say my initial CFI-Multi was the hardest rating I ever had to get. My II was pretty simple, but my initial sucked. Here's part of the problem that we as military instructors will struggle at. Every student you see in the fleet, whether at a VT or FRS, has had an initial screening for aptitude. Not so in the civil world. So you need to learn how to teach at that level. I would say if I had VT experience, it would have made it easier, especial the ground part. Also, learning the FARs suckked! 3710 makes a lot of sense to me, and there is very little exceptions, not so in the FARs, for almost every rule, there is an exception.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Personally I'm surprised this thread made nearly 3 pages. Military flying is far different that commercial civilian flying but they seem to have worked out getting their CPLs. If a 250 hour kid from ATP fresh with his temporary CFI can teach someone I think a seperating military IP can do alright.

 

[///AMG]

Nope, an ATP can instruct in air transport service in aircraft of cat, class and type ass applicable for which he is rated. In fact to be a DPE or PPE there is no requirement for CFI, unless you have a FSDO that requires it

Thanks for the info!

 

[mjg407]

I don't have a problem with it at all, especially since they have to take the written. That should clue them in on areas they really need to study or seek help on.

As far as Military Mech's getting civilian A & P licenses I am not so sure about. From what I know in the military the mech's are pretty specialized (e.g engines, avionics, sheetmetal, etc) and don't get much experience in other areas? Also how much exprience do the have with Piston engines?

If I am wrong and the military has well rounded mechanics then give them their A & P.

You could then argue that an A/P IA whose experience is solely at the FBO should have no business working on a turbine?

 

[germb747]

In Pensacola and probably Corpus, 80-90% of our flying is VFR. We launch VFR, enter civilian fields VFR, enter Class C/D airspace VFR, enter the MOA VFR, exit the MOA VFR, etc, etc. Hell, we even do instrument procedures VFR with stud pretending to be IFR. It isn't until post primary until the VFR stuff starts to go away. So IP's that instruct in primary have a good understanding of VFR flying. I did not prior to that however. It isn't rocket science and not that hard to learn. If a pilot can earn his wings flying in the military, he or she can learn and fly GA.

Yes, the Navy flies much more VFR than we do. We can't even legally shoot instrument approaches under VFR.

 

[MikeD]

We can't even legally shoot instrument approaches under VFR.

We as in AF? Or as in AMC?

If its the former, am glad the statute of limitations is up......

 

[bunk22]

I will say my initial CFI-Multi was the hardest rating I ever had to get. My II was pretty simple, but my initial sucked. Here's part of the problem that we as military instructors will struggle at. Every student you see in the fleet, whether at a VT or FRS, has had an initial screening for aptitude. Not so in the civil world. So you need to learn how to teach at that level. I would say if I had VT experience, it would have made it easier, especial the ground part. Also, learning the FARs suckked! 3710 makes a lot of sense to me, and there is very little exceptions, not so in the FARs, for almost every rule, there is an exception.

I was a VT IP and taught studs with nothing but IFS and they still sucked. Again, if you can do the military thing, you can do the civilian thing. I've got VT primary experience and FRS experience and the primary stuff was more difficult but the FRS aircraft were much more tough to fly.

 

[granlistillo]

As far as Military Mech's getting civilian A & P licenses I am not so sure about. From what I know in the military the mech's are pretty specialized (e.g engines, avionics, sheetmetal, etc) and don't get much experience in other areas? Also how much exprience do the have with Piston engines?

If I am wrong and the military has well rounded mechanics then give them their A & P.

About as much piston experience as the pilots. That is the "P" side of things.

Many mechs are highly cross trained, especially in transports units, when they go on deployments they have to be widely crossed trained. Not too much experience with fabric and dope though on the "A" side of the house.

Anywhoo, nothing a limitation couldn't handle like "Turbine Powered Equipment only" couldn't fix.

 

[Hacker15e]

Yes, the Navy flies much more VFR than we do. We can't even legally shoot instrument approaches under VFR.

That's so you don't chaff up the approaches for the people who are flying them under IFR -- got nothing to do with hatred or dislike of VFR flying.

BTW...you CAN do it...you just have to be VMC, follow VFR cloud clearances, etc, and have MAJCOM approval.

 

[Hacker15e]

the primary stuff was more difficult but the FRS aircraft were much more tough to fly.

Interesting. The T-38 is way tougher to fly from a stick-and-rudder standpoint than any of the USAF fighters.

That's intentional, from a couple of different perspectives.

- The '38 was designed in an era of significantly different front-line fighters, like the century series, which all had some pretty nasty flying qualities compared to today's jets.

- The USAF trainer philosophy even from back in the days of the AT-6 has been to have the advanced trainer be more difficult to fly than the airplanes it's graduates would go on to fly. In fact, there's a joke about flying the AT-6 that says in order to prepare for flying it, you should go get some time in a Bearcat, then some time in a Mustang, and then you'll be ready for it.

- Today's fighters are more of a weapon system platform than an airplane with weapons on it. The airplane needs to be easy to fly so that the pilot doesn't need to spend too many brain bytes thinking about it when he should be dedicating brainpower to operating systems and thinking about tactics.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Proposal? I thought this was going be law Oct 20th?

 

[HeyEng]

About as much piston experience as the pilots. That is the "P" side of things.

Many mechs are highly cross trained, especially in transports units, when they go on deployments they have to be widely crossed trained. Not too much experience with fabric and dope though on the "A" side of the house.

Anywhoo, nothing a limitation couldn't handle like "Turbine Powered Equipment only" couldn't fix.

It's not as easy as it looks. You still have to substantiate your experience to the FSDO and while some may just look at a sheet you bring in with a qualified AFSC, most want more. That of course is only your authorization to test. Then you get to take a series of written tests, an oral and a practical. Most guys I know don't know much about blending props (maybe turbine blades) or timing mags, but most of the other stuff is "gravy". In a former life, I was a crew chief by trade but through "cut training" I was signed off on almost all engine related tasks (turbo prop) stuff. Getting an A&P still is a daunting task.

 

[germb747]

That's so you don't chaff up the approaches for the people who are flying them under IFR -- got nothing to do with hatred or dislike of VFR flying.

BTW...you CAN do it...you just have to be VMC, follow VFR cloud clearances, etc, and have MAJCOM approval.

Yes, you can do just about anything with mother MAJCOM approval, but yes 11-202V3 8.1.2.2 allows it with those stipulations. The reg does require us to fly victor airways IFR (not the case per the FARs). And, 11-202V3 4.3.5 and 8.1 generally frown upon VFR flight (unless, of course, it's required for mission accomplishment).

 

[bunk22]

Interesting. The T-38 is way tougher to fly from a stick-and-rudder standpoint than any of the USAF fighters.

That's intentional, from a couple of different perspectives.

- The '38 was designed in an era of significantly different front-line fighters, like the century series, which all had some pretty nasty flying qualities compared to today's jets.

- The USAF trainer philosophy even from back in the days of the AT-6 has been to have the advanced trainer be more difficult to fly than the airplanes it's graduates would go on to fly. In fact, there's a joke about flying the AT-6 that says in order to prepare for flying it, you should go get some time in a Bearcat, then some time in a Mustang, and then you'll be ready for it.

- Today's fighters are more of a weapon system platform than an airplane with weapons on it. The airplane needs to be easy to fly so that the pilot doesn't need to spend too many brain bytes thinking about it when he should be dedicating brainpower to operating systems and thinking about tactics.

I hear that about the T-38 and the old T-6 Texan (most recently from an owner of one). Unfortunetly however, the Navy's E2/C2 aircraft are beasts and hard core stick and rudder aircraft. Not easy to land, especially on the boat. The C-2 was a bitch single engine (had 4 actual) depending, etc. I have no doubt that the F/A-18 is easy to fly, just more difficult to deploy as a weapons system. The E2/C2 can trace their design back to the late 50's and early 60's and thus not very pilot friendly. I went back to fly the T-34C as an IP and it was such an easy aircraft to haul around the sky after flying the Thunder Pig for so long. I'm going back to fly the T-45 Goshawk and hear that's an easy one to fly as well. I always thought whoever designed the ergonomics and flying qualities of the COD should be shot I hated flying it but the lifestyle was excellent. Good and bad.

 

[granlistillo]

It's not as easy as it looks.

Uh, fully aware of the complicated process, thanks for sharing. Quoting the status quo is not germane to the argument either way. Military pilot training and civilian commercial pilot training are totally different too. If you want to take the argument on a tangent, are you saying that military mechanics don't rate a "competency" like pilots? Or is the fabric and dope repair really an important skill to have for an A&P?