Military pilots...

I don't think there has been any problems with military aviator turned civilian pilots that has been a result of them not taking a checkride. The FARs are written in blood. Until someone straight out of the military crashes a plane with a lot of people in it, or busts an airspace and has a midair with a heavy jet they're not going to get changed. I don't think that is too likely either.
 
Roger said:
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.
Click to expand...

The guys getting the equivalency still do have to take the exam. Yes, it is not ground school, but it still tests them on the information the FAA thinks they/we need to know. It's been about 9 years since I took my commercial/IR exams, but IIRC there was no requirement to attend a formal ground school course for either of them prior to taking the test. If I'm wrong on that point, please correct me, but if I am in fact right, then I don't really see the difference. In the first few months of primary flight training, we do everything that a civilian commercial pilot would do, plus a whole lot more. By advanced training, we get much more thorough IFR training than any civilian program I am aware of. So the practical experience is certainly there, leaving the ground/FAR/AIM experience being possibly the only weak ground....hence my argument.

That was really well said Hacker. One thing that your post brought to mind for me was that this whole issue would probably go away to a great extent if folks refrained from entering a dick measuring contest every time they walked into an FBO (or likewise every time they saw a mil pilot walk into their FBO). Misplaced egos and shoulders with chips on them do not pave the way for learning.
 
without reading this whole thread I have no problems with military pilots flying civilian.

I do have a problem with people from other countries getting a FAA conversion in 5 minutes with no training whatsoever.
 
///AMG said:
The guys getting the equivalency still do have to take the exam. Yes, it is not ground school, but it still tests them on the information the FAA thinks they/we need to know. It's been about 9 years since I took my commercial/IR exams, but IIRC there was no requirement to attend a formal ground school course for either of them prior to taking the test. If I'm wrong on that point, please correct me, but if I am in fact right, then I don't really see the difference. In the first few months of primary flight training, we do everything that a civilian commercial pilot would do, plus a whole lot more. By advanced training, we get much more thorough IFR training than any civilian program I am aware of. So the practical experience is certainly there, leaving the ground/FAR/AIM experience being possibly the only weak ground....hence my argument.
Click to expand...
If the FAA's written test actually tested commercial pilot rules and regulations, that would work. However, what one can and can't do with the commercial certificate, and anything relating to 119, is an area that is woefully un-addressed in the written.
 
Roger said:
If the FAA's written test actually tested commercial pilot rules and regulations, that would work. However, what one can and can't do with the commercial certificate, and anything relating to 119, is an area that is woefully un-addressed in the written.
Click to expand...

Roger,

This is a great point. I don't see the need for a practical test (a check ride in the airplane) because while mil. to civi. guys may not be great 172 pilots (or whatever it is they are using the license to rent) they did demonstrate at least commercial level skills in their military checkride. Granted, the manuevers are a little different, but the skills translate sufficiently. And the commercial license doesn't have a specific airplane associated with it, just "complex".

What needs to be fixed is the test. I don't remember much about the test, but I remember that it was really easy. I don't really remember what it included, except that it included VFR cloud clearances and airspace classes.. which I already knew from my mil training anyway. I actually wish it covered a little more. My own knowledge on some of those topics is piss poor (anything that we don't do or do differently in the military). Of course, I've only flown civilian a handful of times, and always with someone else, so it's not like I really practice it, either.
 
fish314 said:
Roger,

This is a great point. I don't see the need for a practical test (a check ride in the airplane) because while mil. to civi. guys may not be great 172 pilots (or whatever it is they are using the license to rent) they did demonstrate at least commercial level skills in their military checkride. Granted, the manuevers are a little different, but the skills translate sufficiently. And the commercial license doesn't have a specific airplane associated with it, just "complex".

What needs to be fixed is the test. I don't remember much about the test, but I remember that it was really easy. I don't really remember what it included, except that it included VFR cloud clearances and airspace classes.. which I already knew from my mil training anyway. I actually wish it covered a little more. My own knowledge on some of those topics is piss poor (anything that we don't do or do differently in the military). Of course, I've only flown civilian a handful of times, and always with someone else, so it's not like I really practice it, either.
Click to expand...
The FAA's current commercial written is a joke. It's all rehashed private material, with the occasional instrument question thrown in. Almost nothing about the privileges and limitations of the actual commercial certificate.

I also don't see that it would hurt to have military-specific conversion written covering the biggest difference areas between civi and mil flying (airworthiness, certificate privs and limits, etc)-though, as many of the mil pilots have already pointed out, the vast majority of military guys are smart cookies and realize that they need to get with a CFI for some ground and maybe some flight (depending on their last mil aircraft and their current civi aircraft) before leaping into "an entirely different type of flying-altogether!".
 
MikeD said:
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.
Click to expand...

we had to take a written test....and this was back in Feb
 
I have 300 hours in the civilian world and about 70 in the military. I can tell you that the 70 hours I've had in the T-6 have made me a better pilot than 300 previous hours in the Piper/Cessna/Beechcraft.

However, regarding checkrides and GK: My experience has been that GK for checkrides requires more studying in the civilian world. IPs at UPT are usually triple turning and don't have 2 hours to grill you until you don't know something. They''ll hop around (usually the same things every time..... got gouge?) and call it done if you nail the first ten questions.

Of course, the 12 hour days associated with UPT probably lead to a better base knowledge than a civilian would while simultaneously being in school or working a day job.

My $.69.
 
Hacker, you hit the nail right on the head.

Military pilots take the test, most take both the "real" one and the military competancy written exams.

Seems to me the one thing that hasn't been addressed is attitude. NOT the attitude of the military pilot (we've beat that one up) but rather the attitude of the OP.

You have an extreme distaste over the fact that a military pilot has a rating that he didn't earn (I paraphrase from your post). Is it possible that he picks up on this? You may not intend to relay your feelings but we're all human and these things surface (esp. in the heat of the moment that might include a crap landing). Even sitting at the table discussing the AIM you can bet he picks up on a little impatience.

Your guy went through a few hours of C182 time that did not include commercial PTS, short/soft field, etc. Most didn't even complete the requirements for a Sng Eng PPL. Went from that straight to the C-12; completed ALL of the requirements for commercial (which is why he earned the rating) and that was several years ago.

When I started flying fixed-wing, my instructor spent two sessions discussing the AIM/FAR and talking about aviation. THEN we flew. I soloed in 4.5hrs. Not because I'm that good but rather because he prepared me for the civilian transition.

You might want to re-think your approach, his approach might just improve too. :)
 
Roger said:
The FAA's current commercial written is a joke. It's all rehashed private material, with the occasional instrument question thrown in. Almost nothing about the privileges and limitations of the actual commercial certificate.

I also don't see that it would hurt to have military-specific conversion written covering the biggest difference areas between civi and mil flying (airworthiness, certificate privs and limits, etc)-though, as many of the mil pilots have already pointed out, the vast majority of military guys are smart cookies and realize that they need to get with a CFI for some ground and maybe some flight (depending on their last mil aircraft and their current civi aircraft) before leaping into "an entirely different type of flying-altogether!".
Click to expand...

Hacker15e said:
They do. It's the "Military Competency Test" that mil guys take -- not the straight FAA Comercial test.
Click to expand...

True, but I think Roger's point still stands. The Mil. Comp. could be a little better/harder/ whatever.
 
fholbert said:
Few naval aviators will ever see this.

6-BigCk.jpg
Click to expand...

Why would they need too? Nothing a T-34C couldn't handle I think. I flew into small airstrips, like that on a few occasions in the 34 (thought not grass strips). I also think a Navy Helo pilot would have no problem hitting that ;) I've seen them land in worse. Being 45-50% of Naval Aviators are helo pilots, not a problem for em.
 
bunk22 said:
Why would they need too?
Click to expand...

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!
 
bunk22 said:
I also think a Navy Helo pilot would have no problem hitting that ;) I've seen them land in worse. Being 45-50% of Naval Aviators are helo pilots, not a problem for em.
Click to expand...

Yea, well show me a licensed civil helicopter pilot who couldn't land on a carrier. It isn't a big deal.
 
bunk22 said:
Why would they need too? Nothing a T-34C couldn't handle I think. I flew into small airstrips, like that on a few occasions in the 34 (thought not grass strips). I also think a Navy Helo pilot would have no problem hitting that ;) I've seen them land in worse. Being 45-50% of Naval Aviators are helo pilots, not a problem for em.
Click to expand...

fholbert said:
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!
Click to expand...

fholbert said:
Yea, well show me a licensed civil helicopter pilot who couldn't land on a carrier. It isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

Gentlemen.... why are you arguing? Clearly, I have the largest penis.
 
fholbert said:
Yea, well show me a licensed civil helicopter pilot who couldn't land on a carrier. It isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they could with some extra training, but from what I understand from my helo buds (pilots and aircrewmen hanging out the side alike) it isn't a walk in the park. Throw in landing on a moving small deck (cruiser, destroyer, etc) in terrible weather, terrible sea state, and poor navaid operation (on the part of the ship's company) and I'd say they have their hands full.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top