Aeronautical experience

Banner towing is pretty scarce here with the exception of a few weeks out of the year. I wouldn't mind CFIing for a while, I'm just apprehensive about whether or not I'd be good at it. Instrument seems kind of fun, but right now the idea of teaching initial students sounds like someone saying to me "here, hold my newborn!" You're probably right about the Midwest thing though. GA really does seem like it's pretty much died in my area in the last 10 years. Maybe some of the guys going to the airlines now will help open things up, but that doesn't mean the business is there. It just sucks to miss the age cutoff for the ATP rule by about 90 days. Otherwise hitting 500TT and getting on in the nick of time would have been possible, but I can't make myself age any faster. Such is life! Hopefully things work out and I can get off the ramp.

There are tons of jobs at the Jersey Shore beetween memorial day and labor day...
 
.
The Sourcing Culture / Aviation's Jeopardy game

Unlike MikeD, bunk22, AMG, Hacker, and the few other AF/Navy trained guys on the site, I never went on to operational or combat units after UPT. My entire experience is wrapped up in training, and from there I went on to military R&D labs working on new concepts (aviation psychology training applications mostly). When I raised the issue here earlier of the Total Immersion training environment, there was another aspect of that which I found to be an integral part of the military culture which is rarely recognized. The Sourcing Culture, which by design sucked everybody in to it, not just the hyper-motivated pilot. A cultural norm that most of us enjoyed, but one which might be seen as almost abusive, or as an abnormal behavior, among civilians.

At UPT I found myself humbled by IPs who could not only snap out the answer to every question, they regularly spouted the AF manual #, the Chapter, and sometimes even the page and column where the information could be found. It was normal behavior, a point of pride to be good at it, and no one thought twice about challenging a speaker to cite the source of his information. In my contacts with the civilian world I noticed that habit of reciting sources to be far less common, and somewhat unwelcome unless it occurs between 2 former AF/Navy aviators. This Mil practice was even fun, like the aviation version of the TV game show Jeopardy. Those of us who studied this type of subject in R&D noted that many civilian aviators when challenged to recite their source don't always appreciate the challenge, and will give far less precise answers, or will go hunt-up the book (tomorrow) to find the answer. Reciting Sources is not as strong of a cultural norm in the civilian world as it is in the military.

I'm not sure who at UPT or in AF/Navy aviation started this unwritten Source Citation game, but the value of reciting a precise Source (or at least standing ready to recite when challenged) brought added value to the Total Immersion training environment. It had a cleansing effect. Information from pilots who stood ready to recite their Source was more heavily weighted than information from pilots who might merely be expressing an opinion or were guessing. That was a little recognized but important part of the military's Total Immersion method when I was associated with UPT. It costs nothing and it's fun, but I'm not sure where a very highly motivated civilian student could duplicate that experience, surrounding himself with that type of intensity, and thereby accelerating the pace and quality of training. A lone civilian pilot can't duplicate it at his FBO or school because it takes many like-minded pilots to play the game. The Chinese do it. As I said earlier, I'm not that well versed in the selection of civilian schools in the US, so I don't know where a civilian could duplicate that experience.

.

I would encourage you to explore other forums JC has to offer. The lavatory, though fun and filled with arguments backed up by "sources," is not quite like some of the more aviation-related forums that are chock full of actual aviation-related sources.

Like you, I went through military flight training and like you I experienced IPs who knew the manuals by title, chapter, and page number. Unlike you, I have experienced military aviation in operational units and unlike you I have experienced civilian aviation, both in training, as the trainer, and on the line. Citing sources and being knowledgeable in applicable manuals and regulations is not exclusive to the military.

Seriously, look at some of the other forums here involving aircraft specific knowledge, whether it be a C152, PA31, or B747, there's plenty of source citing. Or what about PIC logging, cross country logging, high performance or tailwheel logging questions: lots of really good, well documented sources there. Look up JC members like Midlifeflyer, Tgrayson, SHDW, Blackhawk (former military), and a host of others who routinely inform others about aviation and cite their sources.

Outside of JC I have experienced civilian aviation training and have also been a civilian aviation instructor. Trust me, citing sources and "stump the chump" is alive and well in civilian training. And very related to your title, I have played a version of aviation Jeopardy in both civilian and military environments (though my Alex Trebek probably sucked.).

Citing sources has a good and authoritative ring to it, but one has to look at the subject matter and more importantly, the sources cited to determine credibility. Discussing Air Force procedures and backing it up with an Air Force manual is one thing - discussing politics or policy and backing it up with a video of an "expert" is another. One is black and white, the other is fuzzy.
 
I'm currently in this gray area between wet commercial and 500TT and its getting frustrating. I just got turned down from a DZ that was paying $6 a load avg 20/wk. If I can't get that job WTF can I get.


There are tons of jobs at the Jersey Shore beetween memorial day and labor day...
Can you point me towards some I have found nothing.
 
Back
Top