Flying the CRJ-200...tell me about it please....

I'm on the E190 now, and I have to say I miss the CRJ's ability to descend rapidly without overspeeding. If the E190 descends at more than 2700 fpm, you've got to watch your speed and start getting spoilers out.

If you need to make a crossing restriction with over a 50kt tailwind, you better make it 2.7 degrees instead of 3. It's very interesting. Even the CR7 and CR9 descend way better than the E190.
 
I work with a lot of military pilots. They're just like the rest of us, basically. They're egotistical. Most of them are egotistical in a socially acceptable way, just like most of the rest of us. Some of them aren't (and who hasn't met the civilian diaper-wearing femenine hygeine product who isn't, either?). Deep down, we all harbor a suspicion that we're better than, or at the very least, as good as, everyone else. And we're all pretty sure that if the Universe worked the way that it should, we'd be in the left seat of the space shuttle.

I don't hold any particular grudges over it, and you shouldn't either. It's a waste of time. I'll never know what it's like to fly nap of the earth in formation on NVGs whilst Achmed is shooting at you. Your average military guy is never going to know what it's like to fly with no autopilot in a single piston through level 5s, eight hours a day, five days a week, and finish up with an NDB to minimums for peanut wages and get up and do it all again the next day. Maybe one is way Tuffer than the other. Maybe not. I'm never going to know.

Deep down, we all think we're the Ace of the Base...and that's ok. I worry a lot more about the guy who thinks he sucks than the guy who thinks he's God's Gift, provided he has some serious experience to back it up. *shrug*. Me, I just try to get along, drive the appliance, and go home to do the other stuff I like to do. I'd bet that goes for the vast majority of us.

In my experience, if you don't try to slap the other guy (or chick) around with your, er, Logbook, he or she will extend the same courtesy to you. And isn't that how it should be?
 
I'm on the E190 now, and I have to say I miss the CRJ's ability to descend rapidly without overspeeding. If the E190 descends at more than 2700 fpm, you've got to watch your speed and start getting spoilers out.

If you need to make a crossing restriction with over a 50kt tailwind, you better make it 2.7 degrees instead of 3. It's very interesting. Even the CR7 and CR9 descend way better than the E190.

That's because it's a real airplane and not a brick like the CRJ. :)
 
Wish I had the energy to respond to all the mil bashers on this mainly low-timer/instructor/regional forum, but I don't.

I will say this though. When I got hired at a guard fighter unit I was 1 of 132 applicants. This number was actually lower than the year before because there was some uncertainty the unit might get BRAC'ed. 15 interviewed and they hired one. Backgrounds varied from low time guys, instructors, almighty freight pilots, corporate guys, regional FOs and regional captains. Basically all backgrounds were represented. It's not exactly easy to put a package together for a unit either. My point is it is extremely competitive to get a pilot slot. It's not like the guys lined up outside ATP and all the other pilot mills. Money and a pulse don't get you in.

Boris, why are you flying through level 5s for peanuts anyway? Making bad decisions isn't exactly something I would be proud of.

I'm going to quit arguing about this because I am highly outnumbered and I don't really care to respond to everyone. No one wants to say their career path wasn't the best. But the truth is some people have better training and are much more qualified for a major than others. That goes for everyone, mil included.
 
Don't bash someone else's career path because it wasn't the same one you chose.

Boris' road to where he is, is just as "good" as yours.

Different is DIFFERENT, that doesn't necessarily equal "bad" or "not as good".

I know a certain someone who was hired by a legacy who greatly favored military guys. He was all civilian. With no PIC turbine time! When hired he had a wide variety of experience, instructing (for like 2000+ hours, the way it was at the time), Twin Otters, Saabs, ATRs, 727 engineer, DC-9, 757/767... he was highly, highly qualified for the major he was hired at. Despite his lack of military experience.
 
Don't bash someone else's career path because it wasn't the same one you chose.

Boris' road to where he is, is just as "good" as yours.

Different is DIFFERENT, that doesn't necessarily equal "bad" or "not as good".

I know a certain someone who was hired by a legacy who greatly favored military guys. He was all civilian. With no PIC turbine time! When hired he had a wide variety of experience, instructing (for like 2000+ hours, the way it was at the time), Twin Otters, Saabs, ATRs, 727 engineer, DC-9, 757/767... he was highly, highly qualified for the major he was hired at. Despite his lack of military experience.


Nice. Who do you fly for?
 
I don't (I have a PPL, but have no desire to fly airline). I was an Eagle FA, transferred to AA in the spring of 2001... with spectacularly, amazingly, awful timing and was furloughed post 9/11.

I'm married to the guy who's experience I described. :) He's with Southernjets Innanashunul, Oct 1999.
 
Wish I had the energy to respond to all the mil bashers on this mainly low-timer/instructor/regional forum, but I don't.

If you're not interested in the low times/instructor/regional forum, there are certainly others available for your use.

Unless you're just a troll.

In which case...

troll-face..png
 
One of the the best write-ups I've seen. Unfortunately, the whole military vs civilian in the airlines is about like arguing Republic vs Democrat. Doesn't matter how clear and obvious the point is to one side, the other side will always see it differently and refuse to be swayed. In my personal experience as well as the thousands of hours I have commuted on a certain mainline that is heavy on the military pilots, I will say that they, IMHO , make terrible airline pilots. While, as BobDDuck put it, I am generalizing, that is my observation. It's just two differing opinions on what makes a great pilot. They can land on an aircraft carrier...wow, they can put a C-17 on a sand dune in Afghanistan...wow, they can aerial refuel...wow, they can fly with the precision of the blue angels...wow. All of those skills mean squat at an airline. So instead of high fiving each other when you slam in on the big blocks on the runway in classic F-18 3-wire fashion and turning off in 500ft, maybe you could strive to actually have your paying passengers say how nice a flight they had with your ever so gentle control movements and your greaser of a landing. I really couldn't care less about the military guys, and the only reason I get worked up over it, is they look down on those of us that didn't fly in the military as somehow beneath them in skill and experience. You flew around with nightvision goggles through the mountains of Afghanistan...I have several thousand instrument approaches down to minimums in some of the worst weather known to man...tell me who's skill is being utilized more? Passengers are not impressed that you have the precision to bang on an airplane just because you "called your spot"...they are impressed when they don't know they were climbing, descending, turning, or landing...I suggest challenging yourself to master those.

Gah, I always fall into the trap of complaining about this subject. Ohh well, I contributed CRJ-200 info earlier on in the thread so I'm giving myself a pass...

There is a flip side to that coin. We have had 5000+ hour airline pilots (regional types) come through our program. They are very good at things like instrument flying, very good voice comms, great on the radio, good CRM and generally above average SA. Yet when it comes time for the military flying stuff, forms, tac forms, night form, BFM, the boat, they are like everyone else, behind the power curve. Not to say they don't become good at it, the difference is, they are not used to doing that type of flying, it's different than anything civilian will ever do. One of my on wings almost didn't make it out of forms (section, division, baby tac) as he was a slow learner but had flown corporate for the last 5 years prior, over 2000 hours (he did make it btw, flying Super Hornets now!!!!). My point to all this is it's difficult to transition from one way of flying to another, depending.

When E2/C2 pilots came back through the IUT and went to the boat, they often had issues as the type of flying was not what they were used to (even though they had done it before in training). An E-2 driver can go to idle behind the boat and leave it there to come down off a high ball then add power in close and the motors instantly respond. DO NOT attempt that in a T-45A/C but they do as habits are difficult to break so E2/C2 IPs have the highest instructor DQ rate, even higher than the students at times. Another example is the pilots who did primarily BFM and watch them get into regular type flying, or when they did NATOPS checks, had difficulty but they could fly the plane in rudder shakers at 24 units over the top during a roller without departing. Different types of flying and I assure you, that type of flying is very difficult...keeping your SA, the other aircraft in sight, knowing your altitude, hard deck, etc, etc.

Breaking out at mins in a big airplane, in bad weather? Yeah, that has to be tough and scary no doubt, especially being the aircraft isn't quite that maneuverable. Try it at the boat, at night, bad wx, in an aircraft with poor instrument capabilities! But again, it's a different type of flying and types of flying that civilians will never see. Flying an approach down to mins in bad weather is something military pilots do see but it will be different doing it alone in an AV8B vice MD80. Difficult either way but carrying your habits over from one aircraft to the other can be an issue. I used to fly C-2's and thus carried up to 24 pax and yeah, you always wanted to grease that landing. One my favorite things to hear was I barely knew we landed (they were probably just being nice). At the boat, no getting around it, they knew when we trapped. We had to fly that pig around the boat like a jet too, we used to get pax sick all the time, I felt bad but we had to do what we had to do.
 
Military flying and civilian flying are such massively different entities, it's not even worth getting in a penis-slapping contest about which is "better" or who is a "better" product of either system. And I don't have a penis to fight with, so there.

For a military pilot, flying is the means by which the mission is accomplished (fly plane to drop bombs). For a civilian pilot, flying is the mission (fly pax from A to B). It's like comparing soccer to baseball. They're both sports, both have lots of fans, but they're VERY DIFFERENT sports.

An airline pilot who is super good at what he does, doesn't do the same things in his day that a military pilot who is super good at his job does in his day.
 
There is a flip side to that coin. We have had 5000+ hour airline pilots (regional types) come through our program. They are very good at things like instrument flying, very good voice comms, great on the radio, good CRM and generally above average SA. Yet when it comes time for the military flying stuff, forms, tac forms, night form, BFM, the boat, they are like everyone else, behind the power curve. Not to say they don't become good at it, the difference is, they are not used to doing that type of flying, it's different than anything civilian will ever do. One of my on wings almost didn't make it out of forms (section, division, baby tac) as he was a slow learner but had flown corporate for the last 5 years prior, over 2000 hours (he did make it btw, flying Super Hornets now!!!!). My point to all this is it's difficult to transition from one way of flying to another, depending.

When E2/C2 pilots came back through the IUT and went to the boat, they often had issues as the type of flying was not what they were used to (even though they had done it before in training). An E-2 driver can go to idle behind the boat and leave it there to come down off a high ball then add power in close and the motors instantly respond. DO NOT attempt that in a T-45A/C but they do as habits are difficult to break so E2/C2 IPs have the highest instructor DQ rate, even higher than the students at times. Another example is the pilots who did primarily BFM and watch them get into regular type flying, or when they did NATOPS checks, had difficulty but they could fly the plane in rudder shakers at 24 units over the top during a roller without departing. Different types of flying and I assure you, that type of flying is very difficult...keeping your SA, the other aircraft in sight, knowing your altitude, hard deck, etc, etc.

Breaking out at mins in a big airplane, in bad weather? Yeah, that has to be tough and scary no doubt, especially being the aircraft isn't quite that maneuverable. Try it at the boat, at night, bad wx, in an aircraft with poor instrument capabilities! But again, it's a different type of flying and types of flying that civilians will never see. Flying an approach down to mins in bad weather is something military pilots do see but it will be different doing it alone in an AV8B vice MD80. Difficult either way but carrying your habits over from one aircraft to the other can be an issue. I used to fly C-2's and thus carried up to 24 pax and yeah, you always wanted to grease that landing. One my favorite things to hear was I barely knew we landed (they were probably just being nice). At the boat, no getting around it, they knew when we trapped. We had to fly that pig around the boat like a jet too, we used to get pax sick all the time, I felt bad but we had to do what we had to do.

The fundamental problem with this thread, and the thing that you're missing is that flying an airliner isn't about flying, but there is an analogue here, I think.

The flying is secondary, in the same that what I believe you guys call "administrative" flying is secondary to actually utilizing your aircraft as a weapon (or at least I think that's how Hacker15e has described it). Getting from point A to point B? That's not an accomplishment, it's an assumption that you can do it without any problems.

Being in command of an airliner isn't about how awesome your hand flying skills are, it's about how good you can deal with people. Your hand flying skills must be up to par, but that's not what the job is about. It's about leading a crew, about interacting with passengers, with the gate agents, with the ramp, with controllers, etc.

Think of being in charge of an airliner as being the captain of a ship, not a pilot in a single pilot fighter. That the ship gets from place to place is assumed, but the captain is also responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on board. The airline gig is the same thing, in my mind.
 
The fundamental problem with this thread, and the thing that you're missing is that flying an airliner isn't about flying, but there is an analogue here, I think.

The flying is secondary, in the same that what I believe you guys call "administrative" flying is secondary to actually utilizing your aircraft as a weapon (or at least I think that's how Hacker15e has described it). Getting from point A to point B? That's not an accomplishment, it's an assumption that you can do it without any problems.

Being in command of an airliner isn't about how awesome your hand flying skills are, it's about how good you can deal with people. Your hand flying skills must be up to par, but that's not what the job is about. It's about leading a crew, about interacting with passengers, with the gate agents, with the ramp, with controllers, etc.

Think of being in charge of an airliner as being the captain of a ship, not a pilot in a single pilot fighter. That the ship gets from place to place is assumed, but the captain is also responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on board. The airline gig is the same thing, in my mind.

I agree, it's a different principle if you will. Different types of flying and doing something one way for a long time can make it difficult to do something else, one way or the other.
 
Military flying and civilian flying are such massively different entities, it's not even worth getting in a penis-slapping contest about which is "better" or who is a "better" product of either system. And I don't have a penis to fight with, so there.

For a military pilot, flying is the means by which the mission is accomplished (fly plane to drop bombs). For a civilian pilot, flying is the mission (fly pax from A to B). It's like comparing soccer to baseball. They're both sports, both have lots of fans, but they're VERY DIFFERENT sports.

An airline pilot who is super good at what he does, doesn't do the same things in his day that a military pilot who is super good at his job does in his day.

Couldn't have said it better so I leave it up to others do to so!
 
Back
Top