Military pilots...

[///AMG]

military pilots operate in a very controlled environment. When you set them free on their own simple items like fuel management become an issue.

I agreed until this. Fuel management is a HUGE consideration in tactical aviation. Much more so than any civilian flying I have ever done. Either way, I do agree that many of the mil-only types I have met have very rudimentary knowledge of the FARs and other civilian book info.....at least the parts that don't pertain to CONUS flying in military aircraft. I know the guys in my winging class who didn't already have their civilian tickets took a 4 hour crash course in preparation for the test. I would be surprised if some of them failed to absorb some of the finer points of the information. That being said, most of them will probably not use their commercial privileges for many years to come, and hopefully will bone up on the material when the time comes.....I mean there is no ATP equivalency exam that I am aware of, so it would come back to bite them if they didn't fully understand the material by then.

 

[MikeD]

I'll give you the helo pilots. Transport are a little bit better than the fast movers but they know little of the VFR part of the FAR's.

Maybe the strat airlifters. But the tac-airlifters such as the C-130 guys, seem to know more than the average bear regards VFR, probably because they delve in it more than the 141/5/17 bubbas.

GA Performance? You got a looser. Several times this happened when trying to check out in GA.
Mil Pilot: How come the plane shakes when I turn?
CFI (Ret Mil Pilot): The wing is stalling.
Mil Pilot: This isn't a very good airplane then.
CFI: It really wasn't made to do 70 degree turns in the traffic pattern.

A guy's got to learn a new airplane, and thats why he should have the foresight to go up with a CFI to get that training prior to just kicking the tires and lighting the fires. Inverse would be the same. I'd hope the guys would be smart enough to do that.

Airport OPS: Issue a military pilot in a GA aircraft a Land and Hold Short clearance, you'll see. How about rolls in class D full of Air Carrier traffic? Another guy requested a follow me truck to find transit parking (had no idea what the green line was).

LAHSO, at least for the USAF, we're only allowed to participate in it "passively", as in we can't be the one's accepting the clearance, but we can land when someone else is doing LAHSO with our runway. Probably the reason they don't know it much is because to receive the clearance as the "active" player is something USAF guys aren't used to. I don't personally know the other services' regs on these ops.

No knowledge of VFR vs IFR, my favorite. I was almost hit by 3 C-141's who were penetrating a solid layer on a VFR flight plan. I was in a PA-28 and I filed a near miss. Of the 3 Instructor Pilots, 3 PIC, 3 SIC only one could have passed a Private Pilot written. Their written statement said the following.

• That I was in a MOA and an MOA is Restricted Airspace. I was at least 15 miles outside the MOA and the position they gave confirmed that.
• They were indeed on on an IFR clearance. No, they were not talking to ATC exited the clouds 1,100 feet below the MVA. No approach, no MEA. They were on a 1200 code too.

One pilot in the formation owned a GA aircraft and he couldn't talk the others out of signing the statement.

It turned into a big deal on base. When the dust settled the Squadron Commander blamed the Tower for not telling them they didn't have an IFR clearance.

Fuel Management? One simply needed to look at the fuel receipts.

Those guys should've known better, I agree. It's sometimes a misconception about a MOA being some sort of "restricted" airspace when its hot, and guys need to be reminded that its not when they mistake that. It's the same as civil guys needing to be schooled on what declaring an IFE really does for you and what the responsibilities are. Mil guys have zero compunction on declaring when they need to, yet so many civilian guys are loathe to do it, simply because they don't know about it.

One odd thing I have noticed about the military, unrelated to piloting necessarily, is ATC. For some reason, it seems that ATC gets a bad rap from the ops world (talking USAF here), especially at ACC/TAC bases where there is a SOF. They get blamed for things that, in my first-hand experience of witnessing them, were the fault of the pilot. The Pope AFB midair of '92 comes to mind, where ATC took alot of blame for a midair that occurred in day VMC when an F-16 failed to see and avoid a C-130 on landing.

As far as fuel management, we're harped upon to know what our fuel is at all times, especially in planes that aren't very fuel efficient.

 

[fholbert]

As far as fuel management, we're harped upon to know what our fuel is at all times, especially in planes that aren't very fuel efficient.

I think the issue is a lack of bells and whistles keeping track of fuel burn.

 

[BobDDuck]

Remember though, military guys aren't just handed civil certificates.

Mike, that's not true. The guys I was training for civvy ATPs at Willie all already had their commercial multi certificates. They all had said all they had to do was take their UPT completion form to the FSDO, fill out another form (I think it might have even been an 8710) and they were given their temp civilian certificate.

Those guys were some of the best pilots I've ever flown with and taught, but the OP is right... many of them had no idea about how to operate under the FARs in the subject areas listed. Some of them did take it upon themselves to learn that stuff before hand, but I had to explain to many of them what the MX requirements are, required equipment and what not.

Remember... the FARs say "you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this, but everything else is fair game" where as military regs say "you do it this way, you do it this way, and you don't do anything else".

 

[MikeD]

Mike, that's not true. The guys I was training for civvy ATPs at Willie all already had their commercial multi certificates. They all had said all they had to do was take their UPT completion form to the FSDO, fill out another form (I think it might have even been an 8710) and they were given their temp civilian certificate.

Those guys were some of the best pilots I've ever flown with and taught, but the OP is right... many of them had no idea about how to operate under the FARs in the subject areas listed. Some of them did take it upon themselves to learn that stuff before hand, but I had to explain to many of them what the MX requirements are, required equipment and what not.

Remember... the FARs say "you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this, but everything else is fair game" where as military regs say "you do it this way, you do it this way, and you don't do anything else".

Unless something has changed, which I don't think it has, there's a written test required as mandated under 14 CFR 61.73(b), and specifically (b)(2). I know the Lts who didn't have their wings yet over at Ft Rucker where I was training last year had to do this.

 

[Blackhawk]

I'll give you the helo pilots. Transport are a little bit better than the fast movers but they know little of the VFR part of the FAR's

GA Performance? You got a looser. Several times this happened when trying to check out in GA.
Mil Pilot: How come the plane shakes when I turn?
CFI (Ret Mil Pilot): The wing is stalling.
Mil Pilot: This isn't a very good airplane then.
CFI: It really wasn't made to do 70 degree turns in the traffic pattern.

Airport OPS: Issue a military pilot in a GA aircraft a Land and Hold Short clearance, you'll see. How about rolls in class D full of Air Carrier traffic? Another guy requested a follow me truck to find transit parking (had no idea what the green line was).

No knowledge of VFR vs IFR, my favorite. I was almost hit by 3 C-141's who were penetrating a solid layer on a VFR flight plan. I was in a PA-28 and I filed a near miss. Of the 3 Instructor Pilots, 3 PIC, 3 SIC only one could have passed a Private Pilot written. Their written statement said the following.

• That I was in a MOA and an MOA is Restricted Airspace. I was at least 15 miles outside the MOA and the position they gave confirmed that.
• They were indeed on on an IFR clearance. No, they were not talking to ATC exited the clouds 1,100 feet below the MVA. No approach, no MEA. They were on a 1200 code too.

One pilot in the formation owned a GA aircraft and he couldn't talk the others out of signing the statement.

It turned into a big deal on base. When the dust settled the Squadron Commander blamed the Tower for not telling them they didn't have an IFR clearance.

Fuel Management? One simply needed to look at the fuel receipts.

Do you want to know how many RA's I've gotten in my career- all from GA pilots- who were either in IMC in controlled airspace talking to no one or who busted through control zones without talking to anyone?
How many pilots I've trained for 709 rides who busted class B airspace- all straight GA pilots?
How many GA CFI applicants who, in the course of spin training, tell me a stall is when you fly too slow?
How many flight reviews I've given to GA pilots in their own airplanes who can not use their autopilots, who do not know any functions of their GPS beyond direct to?
How many GA pilots when faced with maintenance issues may know TOMATOFLAMES but nothing more?
How many GA pilots know nothing about PA, DA or performance?
The list goes on.
I at least know with a military trained pilot that they indeed have a basis of knowledge and all that is needed is a review of GA regulations and handling of GA airplanes.

 

[///AMG]

I think the issue is a lack of bells and whistles keeping track of fuel burn.

Some have em, some don't. Every mil aircraft I have flown up until my current jet, had nothing more than a standard fuel gage......#'s/hr in burn rather than gallons, but I think you know what I mean.

 

[fholbert]

I got my private and instrument through civilian channels, i got my comm, multi, and 2 type ratings via military conversion, and will be getting my CFII the same way in about 3 years.....are you saying i should turn those in?

I'm just saying I know a good bar in Altus OK.

 

[germb747]

You have to remember, military pilots operate in a very controlled environment. When you set them free on their own simple items like fuel management become an issue.

How many military accident reports can you find that were caused by fuel exhaustion? This would be a much longer thread if I had to dig up all the GA crashes caused by this.

If you are going to stereotype military pilots, fine--let's stereotype them. With few exceptions, they have four-year degrees and are military officers. They've passed a rigorous screening process to include personal interviews, phychological assessments, leadership assessments, intelligence/reasoning testing, medical exams that make an FAA medical look like a formality, and rigorous military training over many years with a significant washout rate.

Just about any Joe Schmoe with enough money can qualify for a civilian pilot certificate with no special screening involved.

That being said, I realize it's two different environments. I earned my Comm/CFII/MEI/Inst rating before joining the military. Most of the military pilots in my unit are airline pilots (with either an commercial or ATP ticket). And yes, many of them don't know much about 100-hour inspections, VFR minimums, and piston-powered aircraft. They're taught by their respective carriers what they need to know (ops specs) to do their jobs effectively, much like the military teaches them to do their military jobs. I think any person who exclusively flies high-performance turbine aircraft (whether military or airlines) would be dangerous in a single-engine general aviation aircraft without focused attention from an instructor who operates in that environment. Any aviator who is worth a damn would seek out such instruction if they're unfamiliar with general aviation flying. Does that mean a military-trained pilot with a commercial pilot certificate who flies as a first officer for Southwest Airlines under Part 121 IFR isn't worthy of the certificate they hold because their knowledge of VFR may be limited?--No!

Now, one time I was talking to one of our military aviators (a flight engineer, not pilot) who went to a civilian FBO to take his AMEL rating. He told me how frustrated he was that his examiner terminated the checkride and told him to come back the next day when he didn't know his V-speeds. His attitude was "I'm just here to take a checkride; I'm never going to fly this particular airplane again! Why do I need to know that?!" I told him how lucky he was because he didn't just get pink-slipped because that's what should have happened and I would have done it in a heartbeat. So, there are guys out there who give the military a bad rap, but not all of them are pilots.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Hmm...I'll just throw this out here, I have about 80 hours with a CFI who at one point was a CFI on a Navy Airfield getting guys checked out in 172s(he was also in the Navy but worked on subs), so you can say I've heard a lot of stories from the guy. If I had a penny for every story I've ever heard about an airline pilot going back to GA, I'd be a rich man. I've heard tons of stories from him that all go about the same, something like a DC-10 captain retiring from United had let his CFI expire and was earning it again. He lines up with the runway, and begins an aggressive flare at close to 100 feet and stalls the plane due to him being used to flaring a DC-10 and the CFI has to save the day.

I have never once heard him tell a story about a military guy almost killing him in a 172. All he ever said was now and then one would have a big ego and be hard to fly with, but that's about it. Maybe F-4 pilots almost killed him in a 172 on a daily basis and he just never told me, but the point is he made it seem clear that an Airline pilot who hasn't flown GA over their airline career should not be hopping into a Cessna like they know what they're doing. So I wouldn't say the military is doing anything crazy when a retired A380 captain can be offered a job ferrying a 182 from the factory the day after her retires.

 

[USMCmech]

I think any person who exclusively flies high-performance turbine aircraft (whether military or airlines) would be dangerous in a single-engine general aviation aircraft without focused attention from an instructor who operates in that environment. Any aviator who is worth a damn would seek out such instruction if they're unfamiliar with general aviation flying.

And 95% of the military pilots I've run across understand this VERY well. They approach GA flying with a humble attidude ready to learn. They pick up differences very quickly and make great Cessna pilots in a very short period of time.

That other 5% however can be scary to think about.

 

[bunk22]

How many military accident reports can you find that were caused by fuel exhaustion? This would be a much longer thread if I had to dig up all the GA crashes caused by this.

If you are going to stereotype military pilots, fine--let's stereotype them. With few exceptions, they have four-year degrees and are military officers. They've passed a rigorous screening process to include personal interviews, phychological assessments, leadership assessments, intelligence/reasoning testing, medical exams that make an FAA medical look like a formality, and rigorous military training over many years with a significant washout rate.

Just about any Joe Schmoe with enough money can qualify for a civilian pilot certificate with no special screening involved.

Well said :beer:
You only know what you know and maybe having a little humility goes a long way. I have very little experience flying GA, about 30 hours. I've flown a few different types of aircraft: Cherokee Warrior; C172; and a twin-engined Seneca. Soloed in the Warrior after 8 hours or so and ran out of money years ago. I'll admit, it's not easy putting a light, underpowered aircraft down on centerline with any sort of wind. I balloned the out of that Seneca lol. When I started instructing in T-34C's with VT-6, most of our flying was VFR and I realized how little I knew about it. Though civilian aviators will never see this:

...you have to respect the rules, regulations and capability of the aircraft you're flying. Just because I can fly the hell out of a T-45C Goshawk or E-2C Hawkeye doesn't mean I can land that Cherokee without issue.

 

[fholbert]

Though civilian aviators will never see this:

Few naval aviators will ever see this.

 

[Maurus]

I kinda agree with the OP. A checkride should be needed. If the guy can't pass a section of the PTS he shouldn't have the certificate, just like a civilian.

 

[ppragman]

The question is not whether they can complete the mission they were trained to do in the military, but rather, can they meet the standards required to be a civilian pilot under the PTS. If the answer is no, for whatever reason, then they probably shouldn't be able to convert their certs.

In many ways, little airplane flying can be some of the most challenging flying available. Short jacked strips, bad IFR with piss poor equipment, poor performance, and a concerted lack of support services available. Further, you don't have the option some times of turning around and go back.

Flying VFR in Marginal VFR conditions, or Special VFR is also incredibly challenging and taxing, and many of these guys have never done it. Its been ILS / PAR if the weather is bad. Granted that's not the case for a good many of them (especially the rotor jocks who get out in the garbage quite a bit, or Coasties, who I've seen flying in the most hellacious weather imaginable) but some of them lack requisite experience to seamlessly transition into civilian flying that requires that on a daily basis.

The mindset is different as well. Flying in the civilian world, with a few exceptions, is basically for one purpose: make money! That means being efficient, trying to shave off minutes of time here and there to operate the aircraft both as efficiently, and as safely as possible. That doesn't mean cutting corners, but if you can stay higher for a little bit longer, or if you can go direct, then why not? Not all of the military guys I have spoken with have this mentality.

I've seen mil guys who are super flexible, and are very mission oriented, I've also heard about guys who were basically only able to fly their type of airplane, and that was it. That's all they knew. Variety of experience helps to make a good aviator in my opinion, and some guys lack that. A friend of mine happened to work at an aeroclub as a CFI, and has particularly interesting stories about guys coming into get checked out in the 172s and the like from the local f16 squadron. These guys were stone cold killers in the Falcon, but needed some very remedial work in the 172s. They expected that they could just jump right into the machine and blast off. Not so much.

Like anything else, it depends on the person, as well as their background.

 

[Callador]

Most of the military pilots I have worked with did a great job. The thing you have to understand is that you can't just throw them into a C172 and expect them to do real well. There are lots of differences between what they fly and the 172. It really pays to do a little ground school to talk about the differences before you fly, and generally speaking, that gets them up to speed.

We did a lot of ATP's and a couple of single engine ATP's for the guys that didn't get a converted single engine rating (if they trained in the T37 instead of the T6 etc...), and some of them never flew piston or prop anything, so it isn't fair to just expect them to "know". In the same way, if I just jumped into a T37, and didn't get any sort of ground training on how to start it etc... I would look like an idiot too. Even things like carb heat have to be explained. So my best advice is to assume they know nothing about small planes, unless they did GA prior to military, and train them like that. They learn quickly, usually you say something once or twice and they have it.

For light planes too, it is a good idea to talk about strong x-winds and flare height. Some of these guys are flying heavy tankers and have a way different sight picture. We trained lots of foreign guys with L37 time, and they did bad with strong crosswinds, they just aren't used to using so much rudder and cross control... so again, if you explain it before you go, it makes it much easier.

Last but not least, I worked with a guy who was a retired full bird Colonel. He was an AF instructor for a long time, and one of the best civilian CFI's I had ever seen.

 

[Callador]

And 95% of the military pilots I've run across understand this VERY well. They approach GA flying with a humble attidude ready to learn. They pick up differences very quickly and make great Cessna pilots in a very short period of time.

That other 5% however can be scary to think about.

Very true. Most realize there is a significant difference. I even had a KC135 guy (Lt. Col) back seat on some of my Seneca flights to get the flow down. He had never flown anything with pistons or props, so he had a lot of great questions during the XC flight. Really nice guy too! In the end he nailed his ATP.

 

[Hacker15e]

There's an immense amount of ignorance on both sides of this issue.

First off, the OP has a valid point: many military-trained and experienced aviators who have taken the mil-comp test and been issued the FAA Commercial do not have a firm grasp on what is required to make use of that particular certificate in some circumstances.

That fact should not be taken as a broad-brush indictment against the FAA rules that allow it.

Unfortuantely, the follow-on arguments in this thread are both made from behind some pretty big fortress walls that don't do any good outside of showing everyone's biases. Everyone, take a deep breath and make some effort to see things from the other guy's perspective, because there is some important (and easy to reach) middle ground here.

For the civi guys: As others have mentioned, you have to treat a military dude learning to fly a GA single the same way you'd treat anyone else who comes from flying an aircraft or mission that is drastically different than GA (like the 777 Captain mentioned in an earlier post). Pilots who aren't named Hoover are only going to be good at what they have proficiency in and have done lately. These guys have a LOT of experience in an area of flying that is tactically somewhat different, but strategically and operationally (using the S-O-T model, here) very similar. That means they're not going to be knowledgeable or skilled at what you're trying to teach them, but they're going to have the airmanship and discipline to pick it up quickly. CFIs need to cater to their strengths and be attentive to their weaknesses (hint: that's your job as a CFI). If you can approach from the correct angle (and without a chip on your shoulder), they will probably do well.

For the military guys: We have rigorous training, high standards, and detailed working knowledge of the minutae of what we do. Unfortunately, that knowledge doesn't have complete overlap with large sectors of civilian flying (and specifically, Part 91 GA flying). Our exposure has been to only a very small slice of the overall flying picture, and many times the procedures we've been brought up to follow are military-specific variations on the CFR.

Just like you'd have to go to an extensive training course to learn to fly a new military aircraft, learning to fly a GA aircraft is NO DIFFERENT. Approach learning (re-learning) that skill with the same dilligence and humility that you would any other military course, and you'll be fine. Understand that there is a lot that you don't know (or don't remember), a lot that is different, and that CFI you're paying (while not as experienced in a lot of ways as you are) knows a crap-ton more about GA flying than you do. The military guys who have taught primary flying know all about the guy who shows up to UPT/Pensacola with a bunch of civilian flying under his belt and thinks he knows it all. If you show up to the Cessna sporting that same attitude (ergo, thinking that because you're a military pilot that you 'know it all'), you'll make the same negative impression on your CFI as that civi guy did to you when you were the instructor! Check your attitude, understand that you're actually there to learn something (no, you don't know it all ready), and put the effort into learning that it deserves.

As a side note, like many pilots, I've found that the more experience I get, the more I realize I don't know. I find that getting knocked off my high horse every so often by going and learning something different (and realizing how much my current skill doesn't directly translate to that new thing) makes me a much better aviator for the effort. Unfortuantely, there are too many pilots -- both civilian and military -- who don't believe this. They think that, because they're good at what they do, that they're also good at everything else that involves flying an airplane. Again, I've seen truckloads of experienced civilian pilots show up to USAF training thinking they've got it licked, only to be served a giant piece of humble pie. Plenty of squadronmates have felt themselves to be such good fighter pilots, that they feel like they could go jump into any little 'bug smasher' and still be the ace of the base...and when they've tried, they've realized the limits of their experience.

 

[poser765]

There's an immense amount of ignorance on both sides of this issue.

Wisdom........

Very excellent post Hacker. This thread is very dangerous. It sits on a very narrow ledge of a fall into mil vs civilian discussion, which is a very stupid and not relevant discussion. We are both professionals with very different missions.

Who is the better driver...NASCAR Driver, or long haul truck driver/

 

[Roger, Roger]

I don't see what the objections are to making someone learn the rules for a civilian commercial certificate before they are given a civilian commercial certificate.