Military pilots...

[fholbert]

And you keep saying things about how how military aviators are getting upset... are we (they) really? Can you provide examples?

See thread above.

 

[Ian_J]

See thread above.

I'm reading you don't want have an honest conversation about this. No problem - it's the internet and you're free to comment as you wish.

To JRH - as you can plainly see in this thread, there are plenty of military pilots who realize they do not know it all when it comes to transitioning. It takes a strong and knowledgeable instructor to effectively train us for the transition. In the military the transition would equate to what we call "differences" training - where we switch from one airframe or flying rules to another. It is difficult as a purely civilian CFI to know exactly how to train those differences. If you're going to continue training transitioning military pilots I'd suggest collaborating with someone like Blackhawk to learn how to effectively do so.

 

[ian]

I'm reading you don't want have an honest conversation about this. No problem - it's the internet and you're free to comment as you wish.

To JRH - as you can plainly see in this thread, there are plenty of military pilots who realize they do not know it all when it comes to transitioning. It takes a strong and knowledgeable instructor to effectively train us for the transition. In the military the transition would equate to what we call "differences" training - where we switch from one airframe or flying rules to another. It is difficult as a purely civilian CFI to know exactly how to train those differences. If you're going to continue training transitioning military pilots I'd suggest collaborating with someone like Blackhawk to learn how to effectively do so.

wait, i never said i didnt know everything. I know every single thing there is to know about civilian flying and would transition from the C-5 to any civilian aircraft i dont even think i should have to have a checkout in the aircraft.

 

[Tram]

Why are you doing this, Frank?

It's pilot envy, Ian.. He's simply jealous and is acting out on it..

I will agree with him though, I'm jealous as well.. About the only thing I can think of changing in my past in that I didn't follow through and fly in the military...

 

[Tram]

Ahhh, entertainment. Why do military pilots think they have some super human power a civil pilot doesn't have?

You are perceiving this.. I've dealt with a few pompus military guys, I've also flown with military guys who I didn't believe were actual military aviators, but most of them were just like any other pilot, not anywhere near as bad a civilian doctors..

I think you are just a touch envious of our military aviators and have allowed this to skew the way you view them..

 

[///AMG]

In this thread Navy members have said a civilian couldn't land a fixed wing or a helicopter on a pitching deck. How arrogant.

I proved both of those statements wrong. It's that simple. No chip, just presenting facts.

I'm shocked at how upset you guys get when facts are presented.

I'm saying that a civilian pilot with no formal training would not have the skills needed to land a fixed wing jet on an aircraft carrier. As far as I know there are no "facts" to show otherwise. Landing a Cessna on a boat is an apples to oranges comparison to doing the same in a big military jet. Those of us with experience in this department know what we are talking about when we make this statement.......it is fact, not personal opinion. I'm not an expert on helos, so I guess I would leave that debate to someone with personal experience (a distinction that you seem to be having trouble making).

I don't think anyone is getting upset (I'm certainly not), but it is just kind of entertaining to hear your feelings about this, given that you don't seem to have any firsthand experience with any of the things you are talking about. Rather than proving a point, you are just making a fool of yourself, because you really have no idea what you are talking about, and everyone who does, can clearly see that from your comments.

 

[jrh]

A little update...

I don't know who or what did it, but it seems my client got a fire lit under his butt.

He came in half an hour early this afternoon in order to study the POH on his own for a while. He's gone through the PTS/oral exam guide/Google searches and made up all sorts of flash cards over maneuvers, systems, and procedures.

When it came to the flying, it started off the same with his student pilot-esque touch and goes. About 3/4 of the way through the flight all the light bulbs clicked on and he nailed the last two landings as well as any pilot I've ever seen. Dead on centerline, smooth, full stall, in an 8 knot crosswind. It looks like he's figured out the differences between a King Air and 172.

I still plan to review systems and regs with him, but I have a heck of a lot more confidence in him after today than a did a few days ago.




Of course, I still stand by my original position....I think transition training and a checkride is needed to go from mil to civi...but I think it'll turn out fine in this particular client's case.

 

[Tram]

jrh- How many military guys have you flown with? As what you just described seemed to be VERY typical of military guys for me..

I'd get them for their ATP or whatever, first flights, you'd think they had never been in an airplane at all.. 2nd flight always seemed to be like they had flown the plane for ever..

I loved flying with the military guys, they were always so much more prepared than civvy's...

 

[jrh]

jrh- How many military guys have you flown with?

In numbers, very few.

But one of my coworkers (another instructor in the school) is a retired RF-4/KC-135 pilot turned civilian CFI. I've had many, many discussions with him while sitting around the office between flights and think I have a handle on a lot of the differences.

Not so much the differences in specific rules or procedures, but differences in training philosophies, mentalities, goals, etc. Just a general idea of the environment military pilots train and fly in compared to civilians.

I have a lot of opinions about those things as well, but I'll save them for another thread. I'll just say this: *none* of the big name, really well respected CFIs (John/Martha King, Rod Machado, Budd Davisson, Bill Kershner, Greg Brown, Bob Buck, Arlynn McMahon, Barry Schiff, etc.) spent much, if any time in the military. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[fholbert]

I think you are just a touch envious of our military aviators and have allowed this to skew the way you view them..

I never really aspired to have a career in the military. When I entered service Viet Nam was still going and the attitude was a lot different about the services.

 

[fholbert]

Rather than proving a point, you are just making a fool of yourself, because you really have no idea what you are talking about, and everyone who does, can clearly see that from your comments.

Hot Headed, arrogant, that's kind of why I didn't like military pilots. Name calling is just icing on the cake.

I will say they usually matured and lost some of that by rank of 04. The best flight instructor (inst/me) I ever had was a 06/07 but he'd flown since high school. He'd show up to give me flying lessons in his staff car with the little flags. The guy cracked me up.

 

[///AMG]

Hot Headed, arrogant, that's kind of why I didn't like military pilots. Name calling is just icing on the cake.

I will say they usually matured and lost some of that by rank of 04. The best flight instructor (inst/me) I ever had was a 06/07 but he'd flown since high school. He'd show up to give me flying lessons in his staff car with the little flags. The guy cracked me up.

Sounds like some name calling on your part here. I can't speak for the others, but hot-headed and arrogant are not terms that anyone who knows me would use to describe me. I can say that with plenty of confidence. Yeah, there are some bad apples and as a (presumably) enlisted ATC guy, I'm sure you probably observed some of their worst behavior at times, but I would hardly use that generalization to describe the rest of us.

Re: paragraph 2, many of us (myself included) flying now in the military had civilian flying backgrounds prior to the military gig. Does that mean that we are somehow less hot headed and arrogant than those who didn't have that experience?

I guess if there is any rub with what you are saying, it is that we bust our butts through many years of training, rough and brutally honest debriefs, long days and nights flying and studying, watching good hard-working friends not make the "cut" (to be sent packing from aviation), and seeing others who gave their lives doing this. We leave our wives/families at home for extended periods of time simply so that we can put in the time needed to actually master these skills. For someone like yourself to come out and say that a guy/gal can just hop out of their Cessna and strap into one of our aicraft and do what we do with no training is an insult to all the hard work that we put in on our end, and all the folks who risk their lives on a daily basis to teach us. The reason why I don't take what you say personally is that you clearly haven't experienced the process that one goes through to get qualified to do this stuff......if you had, you would be singing a different tune, or at least not making such uninformed statements. I don't say any of this to insult you, or your background as an experienced civilian aviator, but simply to show you my perspective as that guy you are ragging on. It's not arrogance, it is just pointing out the difference between what you are saying and reality. That all being said, if you are ever in the neighborhood, hit me up. I'd be glad to show you what it is that we do, as well as show you a group of professional military aviators who are anything but arrogant pricks (maybe its just an AF thing )

 

[Roger, Roger]

Same kind of questions, but the Mil comp is easier. The amount of questions in the database is significantly lower too. The flight school I worked for did a lot of the Mil Comp testing for guys at CAFB. He had a program set up where they would study on the computer in the morning for about an hour or two and then take the test. Pretty much everyone passed.

For the record, I am all for Military guys getting the conversion. If they can fly to the instrument and commercial standard (which they obviously can), then they should get it. For the little gotchas they can get some dual and groundschool to get up to speed.

Easier? Good night. See previous statements about the Commercial written being useless for, well, commercial operations. Dear FAA, 1960 is calling, they want their test back.

 

[Hacker15e]

I have a lot of opinions about those things as well, but I'll save them for another thread. I'll just say this: *none* of the big name, really well respected CFIs (John/Martha King, Rod Machado, Budd Davisson, Bill Kershner, Greg Brown, Bob Buck, Arlynn McMahon, Barry Schiff, etc.) spent much, if any time in the military. I don't think that's a coincidence.

I think I get what you're implying by this statement, but just to be clear why don't you come on out and say it explicitly.

If I get your implied point correctly, I think you're using a very incorrect cause/effect relationship to derive why your statement above is true.

Something you may be very surprised to know is that very few military pilots, in my experience in the USAF over the last 15 years, are actually interested in flying outside of the military. In every flying squadron I've been associated with, only a very small percentage of pilots had even a passing interest in GA flying -- literally out of 40 or 50 pilots, only 2 or 3 flew outside of work.

So, there are cultural factors inside the military pilot community that would have a major impact on your hypothesis that you probably aren't even aware of.

My counter to your statement is simply that, most military pilots don't want to fly GA, much less be professional CFIs, by the time they've finished their hitch flying big iron for Uncle Sam.

 

[jrh]

I think I get what you're implying by this statement, but just to be clear why don't you come on out and say it explicitly.

Uh-oh...I knew I should've bit my tongue. Let me try to summarize without starting another 5 page argument...

My counter to your statement is simply that, most military pilots don't want to fly GA, much less be professional CFIs, by the time they've finished their hitch flying big iron for Uncle Sam.

Exactly. This is part of why I'm not a big fan of military pilot culture.

It seems as though there is little to no "fun" factor when it comes to flying. They either don't understand or don't care about going out on a nice Saturday morning to screw around, hopping between airports in a little plane, just for the heck of it. It's very mission-oriented. That's not necessarily a bad thing (in fact, under the right circumstances, it's a very *good* thing) but it doesn't translate in to the recreational side of the civilian world very well. They have a hard time relating to pilots who fly for fun.

They don't seem to understand the business side of aviation. What I mean is, they've never had to deal with customer service, marketing, keeping people interested in flying, etc. Which is understandable. They've never been exposed to those elements before. But again, I don't care for it as a result.

They don't seem to operate very efficiently. Again, I attribute this to never needing to. What I'm talking about here kind of ties in with not knowing the business side of aviation. I'm not necessarily thinking of details such as saving gas, brake wear, etc...I'm thinking more along the lines of scrubbing flights unnecessarily, without thinking through the impact that will have on a business, etc.

Risk management is approached differently. Military pilots seem to have a more rigid view of risk management. Obviously it works for them, as evidenced by the safety statistics. But again, I'm not convinced that the more rigid, standardized structure of the military translates well in to civilian GA flying where it is oftentimes a lone pilot, with little support, making decisions for themselves.

I don't want to start another argument over these things. It's just my perspective. Military pilots are great at what they do. But I think the culture that makes them so excellent at their job is also a (partial) hindrance when it comes to excelling in the civilian world that I'm accustomed to.

 

[Hacker15e]

It seems as though there is little to no "fun" factor when it comes to flying. They either don't understand or don't care about going out on a nice Saturday morning to screw around, hopping between airports in a little plane, just for the heck of it. It's very mission-oriented. That's not necessarily a bad thing (in fact, under the right circumstances, it's a very *good* thing) but it doesn't translate in to the recreational side of the civilian world very well. They have a hard time relating to pilots who fly for fun.

They don't seem to understand the business side of aviation. What I mean is, they've never had to deal with customer service, marketing, keeping people interested in flying, etc. Which is understandable. They've never been exposed to those elements before. But again, I don't care for it as a result.

They don't seem to operate very efficiently. Again, I attribute this to never needing to. What I'm talking about here kind of ties in with not knowing the business side of aviation. I'm not necessarily thinking of details such as saving gas, brake wear, etc...I'm thinking more along the lines of scrubbing flights unnecessarily, without thinking through the impact that will have on a business, etc.

Risk management is approached differently. Military pilots seem to have a more rigid view of risk management. Obviously it works for them, as evidenced by the safety statistics. But again, I'm not convinced that the more rigid, standardized structure of the military translates well in to civilian GA flying where it is oftentimes a lone pilot, with little support, making decisions for themselves.

I don't want to start another argument over these things. It's just my perspective. Military pilots are great at what they do. But I think the culture that makes them so excellent at their job is also a (partial) hindrance when it comes to excelling in the civilian world that I'm accustomed to.

No argument here. Actually some pretty valid observations.

 

[bunk22]

Why, because they might want to land one by them self. No helos circling in case of rescue. No men in fire gear. Three guys making a wave off decision for you? Not even! It's just you and the airplane. And there not a fricking cable, let alone 3. You gotta use your brakes man!

Sorry dude, as much as you would like to believe it's equal or nearly so, GA flying and military flying...especially around the boat are not even close.

Yea, well show me a licensed civil helicopter pilot who couldn't land on a carrier. It isn't a big deal.

I couldn't show you as I don't know of any....in my many years of Naval Aviation, never seen it. Could it be done? Sure, with some training. Not a big deal? If you haven't done it, you have no clue. Again, carrier aviation or even small boy aviation is above and beyond GA flying, end of story.

Heck, untrained Cessna pilots have landed on a carrier without crashing. The Navy was so embarrassed they pushed the Cessna overboard soon as everyone got out.

You're obviously trying to be a pain and a bit ignorant if you are speaking of Vietnamese Major Bung-Ly who landed a Cessna O-1 Bird Dog on the USS Midway. It was not pushed over the side as it now resides in the Naval Aviation Musuem in Pensacola. It's hanging from the ceiling along with his note that he dropped on the deck. Nice try though.

 

[bunk22]

I never really aspired to have a career in the military. When I entered service Viet Nam was still going and the attitude was a lot different about the services.

Translation, I couldn't make it in the program. Standard response by those who wish they could have, the wannabe's or never have been's. I know you want us to think you are just antagonizing for fun but it's obvious you're not. Otherwise, you wouldn't have responded to my pic like you did. Hey, if it helps you sleep better at night to think your flying around in a Cessna is anywhere near the equivelant of flying to the boat, by all means. Nothing wrong with that lol.

In this thread Navy members have said a civilian couldn't land a fixed wing or a helicopter on a pitching deck. How arrogant.

I proved both of those statements wrong. It's that simple. No chip, just presenting facts.

I'm shocked at how upset you guys get when facts are presented.

Quote where a military pilot said a civilian couldn't land a fix wing on the boat...meaning cut and paste it. I would like to see it, cause I can't find it. What I'm sensing, as others are, is envy plain and simple lol.

 

[Hacker15e]

Translation, I couldn't make it in the program.

Probably a little harsh there, bud.

He was enlisted -- just because he didn't aspire to get commissioned and be a military pilot doesn't mean he *couldn't* hack it. Plenty of perfectly smart and capable people out there who simply don't *want* to.

While agree that Frank appears to have a bit of one of those chips we've all been talking about, no reason to go poke at him personally about it.

 

[bunk22]

Probably a little harsh there, bud.

He was enlisted -- just because he didn't aspire to get commissioned and be a military pilot doesn't mean he *couldn't* hack it. Plenty of perfectly smart and capable people out there who simply don't *want* to.

While agree that Frank appears to have a bit of one of those chips we've all been talking about, no reason to go poke at him personally about it.

Is what it is. He wants to have fun and games? Be ready for the return fire. You know me from all the websites, I don't a give a you know what.