SK44,

I think there's a wide gulf between US and foreign militaries in style and training. I sat that as one, who by the nature of my civilian work, flew and worked with both US and foreign military pilots. Foreign military pilots have a different status culturally, their careers are very much grounded in being military whereas US military has always been a producer of pilots who are absorbed into the civilian market. Being an airline pilot was a natural career path after the mil time. Overseas, it is looked as a necessary evil as you say.

Having flown at EAL and lots of corporate, it's difficult, by flying skills in demonstrated in civilian flying, to tell pilots from either path. Military pilots do show by the conversation, not by skills. I will say , flying a demo flight with a former Thunderbird One, he was very smooth, maybe the one pilot who impressed me instantly.

Formation will teach basic flying skills as few other ways can do.

GF

sierrakilo44 wrote:

So again, the military trains pilots for military operations, civilian airlines train pilots for civilian airline operations. If I had to take a candidate to train for a RHS 737 or A320 endorsement I'd take the civilian guy anyday.

And yet, the USAF will take that 350 hour, military trained pilot, and put him or her in the right seat of a C-17, B-52, or KC-135 (like they did with me) - large, multi-crew aircraft, that spend much of their time flying the civilian airways, just like that 737 or A320.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

mmo wrote:

Care to back up your statement about military pilots having trouble? I'd love to see your justification for that stupid statement! If your statements reflect your opinion of military pilots, you have a lot to learn and it proves to me you are not a "real pilot". AMF

In my experience military pilots aren't automatically recruited into civil airlines after their military time. They might be able to fly a fighter jet, but a lot of them have attitudes and personalities that don't sit well with recruitment teams at civilian airlines. In my country (I'm not in the US btw) a large proportion of military pilots fail the selection processes at airlines. A proportion still will have to spend time after the military in a smaller regional before getting into a major airline.
A lot of them fail because for them, coming to an airline is something they see as a necessary evil, a way to increase their pay and get more time off even though they see civilian flying as "boring" (I would argue it isn't but that's a discussion for another time). Recruiters pick up on that lack of passion, and then are more likely to recruit via cadet programs in which candidates who have a strong passion and aptitude for civilian flying can be recruited instead.

In your previous comments you stated cadets aren't "the best" candidates selected. That they woke up one day and just decided to do it. That is false. In my country to get into a cadet scheme you'll have to prove a long term passion and dedication to aviation, otherwise the airline will tell you that you're wasting your time and to go home.

You also accused them of basically rote learning manuals without having the capacity to think critically. Again nonsense. In initial selection and aptitude testing this is a trait that recruiters specifically look for. It is stressed and developed upon in training and whilst flying as a first officer.

And that cadets don't develop properly where you fly because they are afraid of making the wrong decisions? Again the airlines I know of actively develop the leadership and decision making skills and don't punish them for "wrong" decisions (only unsafe ones).

I would question how the airline you are employed with trains your "cadets". It seems by some of your opinions you're talking about cadets or low houred P2F carriers from Asia or the Mid East, who may suffer from a lack of passion for aviation and cultural tendencies to rote learning information. This isn't what I mean by a well selected and trained cadet in a culture that fosters good growth and career development. I would point to the cadetships of airlines in places like Europe, Canada, Africa, some Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand. These countries have proven that it is possible to foster a safe culture through cadet pilots (some solely cadets) and have done so for decades.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote. I tried not to make "absolute" statements such as always, never. Your comments indicate, to me, you didn't really read what I wrote.

First of all, as I eluded to in my post, there is a great difference in the cockpit cultures in the world. I don't know where you are located, but in the ME/ASIA, there is a definite cockpit atmosphere which is very different from the west (US, Canada, OZ/NZ, Europe). I am not going to debate this subject with you. I am now retired and could really care less what you think. However, I do take exception with your comments about military pilots, having been one. Your doing what you have accused me of doing. You use your observation as a justification for a complete ban on military pilots from commercial aviation. The military teach pilots to fly. It has absolute standards the pilots must meet or they're out the door. The military does not lose any money (revenue) when a candidate washes out. A flight school will. I will take a low time military pilot in a second vs your candidate.

End of story.!!!

AMF

You use your observation as a justification for a complete ban on military pilots from commercial aviation.

That's a straw man argument, I never called for a complete ban, just a personal preference over whom I'd employ.

The military teach pilots to fly. It has absolute standards the pilots must meet or they're out the door. The military does not lose any money (revenue) when a candidate washes out. A flight school will. I will take a low time military pilot in a second vs your candidate.

Again, while you may know about military flying training you've proven you know nothing about civilian airline cadet programs, because that is exactly the opposite of how a high quality cadet program works. Yes, they have standards that must be met and if not the students are removed from the program, they just can't pay their way to a job.

The whole topic is about the relaxation of the 1500 hour rule in the US to become an airline pilot in the United States. not about commercial airline training in the rest of the world

The airline cadet academy to produce airline pilots that you're talking about doesn't exist in the US.
Becoming a pilot in the United States is simply having enough money and time to simply pass the FAA standard. Can't figure out how to fly a hold, just keep throwing more money and time, and either you get it and move on or you give up because you ran out of money or time.

The EASA standards and the FAA standards for an unrestricted ATP on paper are the same - they both comply with ICAO standards. But you cannot tell me that the EASA ATP is easier than the FAA one. From what I understand EASA ATP has many thirteen? tests. The FAA there is just one written exam and one oral/practical for each level of pilot certificate (private / commercial / instrument/ ATP) . and you can memorize the entire answer bank to pass the exam by rote memorization with no actual understanding of the principles of flight involved. However it would become very apparent in the oral exam and the practical exam.

The problem is that the pilot certification in the United States is not set up to produce airline pilots - from zero to airline cockpit. It is merely set up to allow anyone who wants to fly whether they want to fly professionally or not to obtain the needed certifications to fly. The onus is on the pilot to pursue the required certifications and leave it up to the pilot to figure out which ones he needs. The training to obtain an ATP in the US does not include any training to operate in an airline multi-pilot crew operation.

The actual mechanics of flight for a military pilot is a very small part of what they need to do to do their jobs effectively. Not only must they fly their aircraft proficiently, they must juggle working multiple other demands that a civilian pilot never has to deal with flying an airline from point A to point B. A military pilot is more than qualified to become a commercial airline pilot - they just need to learn the new environment they're going into compared to where they came from.

So what you're talking about with the airline cadet pilot academy is trying to compare apples and oranges. The infrastructure doesnt exist in the US to produce a pilot for the US airlines. So each airline has to take an already rated pilot and train them specifically for their airline, unless they want to create their own zero to airline cockpit program - which for now either they do (JetBlue) or they choose outsource it (all the regional airlines that are relying on aviation colleges to produce a restricted ATP certificate pilot for their airline).

And for now pilots in the US can definitely pay their way into a job.

Having known both FAA DPE and EASA DPE (or whatever the designee title is) the FAA practical is more difficult than the EASA one. EASA puts more weight on theory in those 14 exams which are difficult. As one DPE told me, "at KLM one studies to become a captain, in the US/ Canada one gains the flying experience". He was Canadian, btw.

In the US, the 1,500 hour makes a certain sense in that we have a robust GA sector, a large RJ industry and are not set up for cadet programs. Could a cadet program work, of course and very well my happen in the next decade.

GF