Military/ Civilian Time from PSA CRJ-700 Thread

pwttogfk said:
Turning right back around and teaching what you just learned is the civilian norm. The military has the ability to weed out people based on aptitude instead of based on pocketbook. I don't see anything at all wrong with the military also having relatively low time instructors.

Separately, I'm quite curious if there's a standard for the military for when to use radar altimeter/baro altimeter, and if all low-altitude baro ops are QNH or if any QFE operations happen. I have (literally) just enough time upside down to be extremely dangerous and never feel quite right using QFE in the box.
Click to expand...

Aren’t there mil pilots who immediately become instructors after UPT? I’ve seen videos of drop nights where people get assigned to T-6’s
 
ppragman said:
yeah, I really don't think pilots give themselves enough credit.

it's really not simple
Click to expand...
Ok, look... I agree with this 1000%. I'm not saying that everyone is equally proficient or trained, nor that it's not a job that requires a lot of knowledge, understanding, and focus.

What I'm saying is that there are very few people incapable of reaching the point any of us are at. Training people to do this job is something that is about breaking through the "you must unlearn what you have learned" phase and teaching attitudinally appropriate responses. That means things like taking responsibility, understanding what it means to be PIC, building the web of safety, committing yourself to understanding things even though they're hard, even if you lack foundational knowledge. It means devoting yourself to the study of aviation accidents and history, to truly internalizing aerodynamics, to learning the ins and outs of weather.

I'm not saying the job is simple, I'm saying that there's a reason the world's top race car drivers come from racing families (or money, or both), and it's not genetic superiority.
 
ppragman said:
yeah, I really don't think pilots give themselves enough credit.

it's really not simple
Click to expand...

That's fair. We get used to it I suppose after many years and it doesn't seem special. I don't really know if it is or not, but I get what you guys are saying anyway
 
🦈💜 said:
What I'm saying is that there are very few people incapable of reaching the point any of us are at. Training people to do this job is something that is about breaking through the "you must unlearn what you have learned" phase and teaching attitudinally appropriate responses. That means things like taking responsibility, understanding what it means to be PIC, building the web of safety, committing yourself to understanding things even though they're hard, even if you lack foundational knowledge. It means devoting yourself to the study of aviation accidents and history, to truly internalizing aerodynamics, to learning the ins and outs of weather.

I'm not saying the job is simple, I'm saying that there's a reason the world's top race car drivers come from racing families (or money, or both), and it's not genetic superiority.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent, but some folks are impossibly spatially challenged, or lack the hand eye coordination (obviously not talking about automation here). The practice/desire/early exposure stuff is probably really big. I know I had that, since I have flown airplanes with my dad since I was a young kid. So I don't discount that. However some people are either cerebrally or physically unable to do the task. Maybe those are the few you are referring to though. I've definitely seen it, and my sample size at that (primary) level of flight instruction (i.e. when I was a student myself) is even fairly small and limited to physically qualified student military aviators.
 
🦈💜 said:
Ok, look... I agree with this 1000%. I'm not saying that everyone is equally proficient or trained, nor that it's not a job that requires a lot of knowledge, understanding, and focus.

What I'm saying is that there are very few people incapable of reaching the point any of us are at. Training people to do this job is something that is about breaking through the "you must unlearn what you have learned" phase and teaching attitudinally appropriate responses. That means things like taking responsibility, understanding what it means to be PIC, building the web of safety, committing yourself to understanding things even though they're hard, even if you lack foundational knowledge. It means devoting yourself to the study of aviation accidents and history, to truly internalizing aerodynamics, to learning the ins and outs of weather.

I'm not saying the job is simple, I'm saying that there's a reason the world's top race car drivers come from racing families (or money, or both), and it's not genetic superiority.
Click to expand...

Secondarily, the reason "highly selective" pipelines are able to "weed out" people is that they have a large enough pipeline that they can simply bounce people off who don't get there quickly or get it right the first time. But that's not a guaranteed way of achieving excellence. In fact, sometimes people who fail to get it right the first time achieve even greater success later on than those who encountered little difficulty at the onset.
 
///AMG said:
I agree with you to an extent, but some folks are impossibly spatially challenged, or lack the hand eye coordination (obviously not talking about automation here). The practice/desire/early exposure stuff is probably really big. I know I had that, since I have flown airplanes with my dad since I was a young kid. So I don't discount that. However some people are either cerebrally or physically unable to do the task. Maybe those are the few you are referring to though. I've definitely seen it, and my sample size at that (primary) level of flight instruction (i.e. when I was a student myself) is even fairly small and limited to physically qualified student military aviators.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you got it--those are absolutely the subset I'm referring to.
 
///AMG said:
I agree with you to an extent, but some folks are impossibly spatially challenged, or lack the hand eye coordination (obviously not talking about automation here). The practice/desire/early exposure stuff is probably really big. I know I had that, since I have flown airplanes with my dad since I was a young kid. So I don't discount that. However some people are either cerebrally or physically unable to do the task. Maybe those are the few you are referring to though. I've definitely seen it, and my sample size at that (primary) level of flight instruction (i.e. when I was a student myself) is even fairly small and limited to physically qualified student military aviators.
Click to expand...

It took me a while to catch on. I had already been tinkering with flight sim, but adjusting to moving on 3 axis and the spacial aspect of that took some time. Then being assigned an instructor who was not very friendly towards me and looked at me as an annoyance to him made it even worse. But things started clicking a bit better once I got a new instructor. There is also the money aspect. I feel instruction is best when it is consistent which doesn't make it very easy if you're broke. I managed to overcome that. But some of my friends never gained any traction because they weren't flying consistently enough.

I said all that to say that there is definitely some variables in there to take into account.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Aren’t there mil pilots who immediately become instructors after UPT? I’ve seen videos of drop nights where people get assigned to T-6’s
Click to expand...

Yes, a practice that goes back to the 1930’s, if not earlier.

If Navy and AF are comparable, IP candidates are in the top 30% of their class.

I think they’ve tweaked the algorithm over the decades to prevent an IP assignment from having any negative career impact. I know one admiral, a few skippers, and a CAG that were SERGRADS.
 
///AMG said:
That's fair. We get used to it I suppose after many years and it doesn't seem special. I don't really know if it is or not, but I get what you guys are saying anyway
Click to expand...
yeah, we think because it's second nature that it's some sort of easy-peasy thing, I mean, anyone can learn it in the same way that basically everyone can learn to drive - I mean, hell, mice have learned to drive little electric cars around, but to be good at it is an underrated skill

we sell ourselves short a lot in this field
 
WacoFan said:
Interested in your (and other instructors) thoughts - have you noticed a degradation in the manual dexterity (for lack of a better word) or just basic mechanical skill with the people generationally? Just curious about that because the kiddos can't seem to find their ass from a hole in the ground today - wonder if people drawn to flying are maybe more better and such.
Click to expand...

Currently doing primary instruction. Younger students are by far better than older ones when it comes the the dexterity/spatial end of things. They are also way better with iPads and finding information. Older folks take longer to learn this stuff, but they also pay me by the hour, so...
 
" data-source="post: 3327879" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
said:
I'm going to go ahead and say it: I think the concept of "aptitude" is dramatically overrated. Nearly anyone can successfully be a pilot. Some people may be predisposed to it by their attitudes and how readily they pick up kinesthetic skills, but in general that's mostly a question of background. The reason it takes some people longer ("pocketbook") isn't that they're not predisposed to be a pilot or that they don't have the aptitude for it, it's largely due to the fact that there are attitudinal and judgmental things that they have to unlearn and re-learn, and that's more about mental plasticity than any innate aptitude.

The concept that one out of a hundred people taken off the street could be successful at X is one of those things that persistently hangs around and leads to the thinking that people who do certain things are supermen. Flying takes the following: visual measuring, extending your proprioception, judgment, and some basic good default settings. It helps to start early, because once you allow your thought processes to ossify, once you get mentally lazy, any new skill is much harder to learn. You typically want to rely on adapting existing skills and knowledge to suit rather than relearning things that you may not have had correct to begin with.

I've flown with a lot of military pilots and a lot of civilian pilots. I've seen good and bad on both sides. The best pilots I've flown with were the ones who were dedicated professionals who started young.

No matter what their background was.

Also, while I'm here: I wasn't joking earlier when I said that veterans preference is one of the earliest and most pervasive forms of DEI. I know lots of people who have been hired for jobs that others were equally (or more!) qualified for simply because they were in the military.

You know what, though? I don't have a problem with that. Putting yourself on the line to serve your country deserves some lifelong appreciation from your country. For that matter, many veterans deserve a lot more than they get.
Click to expand...

Flying is a lot like sports. Some people don’t have to try at all and they are better than all their peers at it. Others will work their ass off and never be better than mediocre. If you flight instruct enough people you see it. I agree most everyone can eventually catch on and get their ratings. But I’ve definitely met and flown with people who you could tell were just naturals and made even the toughest conditions looks easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
///AMG said:
I agree with you to an extent, but some folks are impossibly spatially challenged, or lack the hand eye coordination (obviously not talking about automation here). The practice/desire/early exposure stuff is probably really big. I know I had that, since I have flown airplanes with my dad since I was a young kid. So I don't discount that. However some people are either cerebrally or physically unable to do the task. Maybe those are the few you are referring to though. I've definitely seen it, and my sample size at that (primary) level of flight instruction (i.e. when I was a student myself) is even fairly small and limited to physically qualified student military aviators.
Click to expand...

Just ring the bell. Ring the bell and all this pain goes away. Get you a nice steak dinner, a cold beer, nice comfy lounge. I mean, you don’t need all of this hassle and abuse. There’s no shame in quitting. All you’ve got to do is go over and ring the bell….
 
Just for common understanding, the Army does not make instructor pilots the same way the AF/Navy/USMC does.

It’s not an upgrade, it’s a career track (one of 4) for the warrant officer community.

That’s not to say there are no regular line officer instructors, but admission to the course and the follow on progression that takes place to validate them in a unit is reserved to select few usually tied with a special assignment like the UK exchange Officer slots.

Normally there was a backlog of pilots-in-command waiting to track who would both demonstrate aptitude and receive seasoning/guidance pursuing that. We don’t have those options with the force we currently have due to crew manpower limits from the last -12 years or so. That combined with the loss of the 500-1000 hour normal of an Iraq/Afghan rotation ever 2-3 years has led to a severe erosion in what was considered normal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Just for common understanding, the Army does not make instructor pilots the same way the AF/Navy/USMC does.

It’s not an upgrade, it’s a career track (one of 4) for the warrant officer community.
Click to expand...

Sounds like not super different from the weapon school patch model all the other services have, no? Granted we also have just standalone "production" tours where you serve as an instructor in the training command or FRS and don't ever go to a weapon school. But for those of us who did, it is a career track of sorts. I have been an instructor in some role since my class at the 'GUN graduated 10 years ago, and even a couple years before that as a mostly informal squadron level instructor of FNGs.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Yes, a practice that goes back to the 1930’s, if not earlier.

If Navy and AF are comparable, IP candidates are in the top 30% of their class.

I think they’ve tweaked the algorithm over the decades to prevent an IP assignment from having any negative career impact. I know one admiral, a few skippers, and a CAG that were SERGRADS.
Click to expand...
Why would an IP assignment have a negative career impact?
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
Why would an IP assignment have a negative career impact?
Click to expand...

In short, timing. You are perpetually a year or more senior in terms of time in service, compared to your seniority in whatever squadron tour you are in. The FITREP (fitness report) cycle normally awards the good breakout FITREPs to the most senior 2-3 people in the squadron, as they walk out the door. If you are needing that FITREP for career purposes, but are still junior in your command compared to others, you can get screwed. That is an overly simplistic explanation, but suffice to say that a 12-15 month no count job can have compounding effects as you progress through your career. I think the main way they avoid this for most SERGRADs is by limiting that tour to a year or less. Much more than that is rolling the dice with your career progression.

A normal IP tour doesn't have the same effect when it occurs during the normal timeframe to do such a thing, if any of that makes any sense. The big hangup is the screen for O-4 and shortly after that, the next milestone job as a squadron department head. If you don't get selected for at least the first during your first or second "look", you won't even be able to get to an active duty retirement. If you don't get selected for the second, you will not get command and most likely will not promote later on to O-5 (though you will be able to retire exactly at 20 years and no more)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top