Military pilots...

[jrh]

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.

You might be right.

But is there any other way to get the point across? The other day when he was chuckling at the limitations he needed to learn for a 172, I bluntly said, "Look, you can judge for yourself what's reasonable. I'm just telling you what's going to be on the checkride."

I can't help that he's on a different page from what needs to happen.

Something I always emphasize when mentoring instructors is to keep debriefs as absolutely objective as possible. Always have a reason for whatever you critique, be it good or bad. That's the philosophy I've adhered to with this client.

I try to be as polite and friendly as possible, but there comes a point where I have to call it like I see it, even if that seems a bit rough. It might be the only way to cut to the chase and make him realize what he's getting himself into. I don't know what else to do.

 

[Hacker15e]

The other day when he was chuckling at the limitations he needed to learn for a 172, I bluntly said, "Look, you can judge for yourself what's reasonable. I'm just telling you what's going to be on the checkride."

Despite your rants on the first page of this thread, seems to me that you've got a good sight-picture on what needs to happen and are being honest with him.

Sounds like he's failing to take his part of the training seriously.

So, as has been mentioned, don't paint the entire spectrum of military aviators a certain way based on your experience with this individual. I can tell you, at a minimum, that his angle doesn't in any way reflect mine.

 

[fholbert]

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.

Heck, untrained Cessna pilots have landed on a carrier without crashing. The Navy was so embarrassed they pushed the Cessna overboard soon as everyone got out.

 

[Hacker15e]

Frank, that's a whole lotta talkin' from someone who, from everything I can tell, has never actually done it before.

In military aviation that's a sin that gets you stoned to death without a trial.

I know that some of the comment is in jest, but it's making you come off like an ass to be arguing with a Navy pilot about how easy/tough it is to land on the boat.

 

[fholbert]

Frank, that's a whole lotta talkin' from someone who, from everything I can tell, has never actually done it before.

In military aviation that's a sin that gets you stoned to death without a trial.

I know that some of the comment is in jest, but it's making you come off like an ass to be arguing with a Navy pilot about how easy/tough it is to land on the boat.

The untrained Cessna pilot landing on a carrier is fact, not speculation.

 

[Hacker15e]

The untrained Cessna pilot landing on a carrier is fact, not speculation.

Got it, that's not what I'm talking about.

Besides, it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to land on a boat when your airplane is only traveling 65 knots.

 

[///AMG]

Heck, untrained Cessna pilots have landed on a carrier without crashing. The Navy was so embarrassed they pushed the Cessna overboard soon as everyone got out.

I understand you are just mostly giving us a hard time here, but there is really no comparison.

Case 1: 2000 lb Cessna flying approach at 60 kts, with the boat giving you 30 kts straight down the deck. This equates to 30 kts of closure, which means that by the time he touches down, he is basically in a fast taxi. No need for tailhook, no need for accuracy. If you can't stop a Cessna rolling at 30 kts in the distance of the flight deck, then you probably have no business flying a Cessna. No need to fly the ball, you could probably cross the ramp at 100' and still get it down in time to stop.

Case 2: 40,000 lb military jet flying approach at 150 kts. Still about 120 kts of closure at the ramp. Vertical error is about 14 feet, meaning that the difference between catching a wire and becoming ramp roast (dead) is about 14 ft when you cross the ramp. No chance of stopping without engaging an arresting wire.

As for being "embarrassed"? Hardly. Find me an operational aircraft carrier that has room for a random Cessna, and I have a bridge to sell you

 

[dustoff17]

Frank, that's a whole lotta talkin' from someone who, from everything I can tell, has never actually done it before.

In military aviation that's a sin that gets you stoned to death without a trial.

I know that some of the comment is in jest, but it's making you come off like an ass to be arguing with a Navy pilot about how easy/tough it is to land on the boat.

:yeahthat:

P.S. I would LOVE to see your average civilian helicopter pilot land on a pitching ship. Or rather I would love to see him try.

 

[USMCmech]

P.S. I would LOVE to see your average civilian helicopter pilot land on a pitching ship. Or rather I would love to see him try.

Any competent student helo pilot could land on a CVN or even a LHA on a nice day.


Put it down on a FFG or DDG in 60 knots of wind and 30 ft seas, not a chance in hell.

 

[vikingair]

When I was in Socal I saw enough interest from guys wanting to add a GA feather to their cap that I wrote a short military to civilian syllabus. I think all a conversion required then was taking the Comm written and they hadn't yet streamlined the IP to CFI process. It was short and sweet, 3 flights and 98% took it and ran. 2% acted like it was aviation heresy and if they could trap the 3-wire they could fly anything from the womb. Respect knuckles to them all for their abilities but a very very small percentage received a personal down from me for attitude.

I don't think that just a signature is enough, there are some "gotchas" to GA that don't show up on a mil pilots radar. Simple stuff you could knock out in a day, but it's the simple stuff that kills.

 

[Roger, Roger]

They do. It's the "Military Competency Test" that mil guys take -- not the straight FAA Comercial test.

Sorry, I guess I mis-interpreted some of the earlier posts and took it as the mil guys take a straight civi commercial written. Out of curiosity, what kind of stuff is on the mil/civ conversion written?

 

[Tram]

Frank, that's a whole lotta talkin' from someone who, from everything I can tell, has never actually done it before.

In military aviation that's a sin that gets you stoned to death without a trial.

I know that some of the comment is in jest, but it's making you come off like an ass to be arguing with a Navy pilot about how easy/tough it is to land on the boat.

Wow.. So I wasn't the only one feeling that..

 

[fholbert]

P.S. I would LOVE to see your average civilian helicopter pilot land on a pitching ship. Or rather I would love to see him try.

A lot of a non-military ships have helicopters on them. They seem to do just fine.

 

[Callador]

Sorry, I guess I mis-interpreted some of the earlier posts and took it as the mil guys take a straight civi commercial written. Out of curiosity, what kind of stuff is on the mil/civ conversion written?

Same kind of questions, but the Mil comp is easier. The amount of questions in the database is significantly lower too. The flight school I worked for did a lot of the Mil Comp testing for guys at CAFB. He had a program set up where they would study on the computer in the morning for about an hour or two and then take the test. Pretty much everyone passed.

For the record, I am all for Military guys getting the conversion. If they can fly to the instrument and commercial standard (which they obviously can), then they should get it. For the little gotchas they can get some dual and groundschool to get up to speed.

 

[Ian_J]

A lot of a non-military ships have helicopters on them. They seem to do just fine.

Why are you doing this, Frank?

I can't speak for anything but the Army, but in order to land on ships we have to go through a deck qualification course. It seems there are variables involved in landing on moving platforms that require additional training.

I posted once in this thread - a pretty neutral post that said essentially military pilots need to know what they don't know about civil aviation. As Hacker said, there is a lot of cock slinging going on for no good reason. I wonder what is YOUR dog in this fight? Why are you adamantly opposed to the military pilot?

I know JRH's pain - but from the transitioning military pilot perspective and not the instructors POV. I was hungry for what I didn't know of civilain aviation while my instructor was convinced I knew it all. It was pulling teeth to get her to tell me the subjects that I needed to focus on as a military pilot. She assumed I knew more than her. I soloed a plane in three hours but at the time couldn't tell you what ARROW or TOMATOFLAMES meant. Heck, I didn't understand what a carburetor was for because all the equipment I had flown previously was turbine.

It was after getting my fixed wing/ instrument add-on that I started researching civilian-specific (and in my case, airplane specific) regs and procedures myself. Once I realized the scope of what I didn't know I began researching with fervor.

Through this experience I think any military aviator who wants to fly as a civilian would be best served by partnering with an instructor who specializes in mil to civ conversions. JRH has always seemed to me to be an excellent instructor, but in this case I think he is out of his element. Those of us who have learned the lessons the hard way should be doing this type of training.

 

[fholbert]

Why are you doing this, Frank?

Ahhh, entertainment. Why do military pilots think they have some super human power a civil pilot doesn't have?

Why are you becoming so upset?

 

[Ian_J]

Ahhh, entertainment. Why do military pilots think they have some super human power a civil pilot doesn't have?

Why are you becoming so upset?

I don't and I'm not. That was the point of my post. Did you read it?

 

[///AMG]

Ahhh, entertainment. Why do military pilots think they have some super human power a civil pilot doesn't have?

Why are you becoming so upset?

Definitely a misconception there. The vast majority of military pilots I know are completely down to earth, without any sort of superiority complex. Maybe you just need a little more experience with some of us to realize that this is not a common attitude. That being said, we do have **experience** that most other pilots don't. Doesn't make us naturally better pilots, and it doesn't mean that other guys couldn't do it too with proper training. Military flying isn't for everyone, and quite a good amount of folks don't make it through the program, but to say that we think we have super human powers of flight is pretty inaccurate. If you don't have a chip on your shoulder, you at least are certainly coming off that way.

And I'll be the first to admit that while I do have the skills to fly a jet into the wires of an aircraft carrier with precision (at least as much as a newbie has), I wouldn't even think of trying to take a Cub into a 500' unimproved mountain strip without specific training to that kind of flying.....simply not a skill that I have at this point.

 

[fholbert]

If you don't have a chip on your shoulder, you at least are certainly coming off that way.

In this thread Navy members have said a civilian couldn't land a fixed wing or a helicopter on a pitching deck. How arrogant.

I proved both of those statements wrong. It's that simple. No chip, just presenting facts.

I'm shocked at how upset you guys get when facts are presented.

 

[Ian_J]

In this thread Navy members have said a civilian couldn't land a fixed wing or a helicopter on a pitching deck. How arrogant.

I proved both of those statements wrong. It's that simple. No chip, just presenting facts.

I'm shocked at how upset you guys get when facts are presented.

I'm an Army helicopter pilot who is saying I would never land on a pitching deck without training.

And you keep saying things about how how military aviators are getting upset... are we (they) really? Can you provide examples?

Also, how has your experience been flying military fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft? What have you personally seen as the challenges in transitioning to civilian aviation?