https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/busi ... lanes.html

This article seems a sober discussion of the issue, and a number of insights we likely all have heard, but not discussed in one place.

And a question I have asked before. Would it be possible to rig an existing plane (two engines, piston or military two place jet trainer), so that it would offer realistic training, stall experience, or other extreme flight situations? I imagine that about all pilots would jump at the chance of spending 2-4 hours with an advanced instructor every year 'jockying' a plane around. Could such a plane duplicate somewhat the experience of a stalling jet liner?

Not sure what you are trying to ask, but Extended Envelope Training, UPRT is upon the airline US airline industry effective this month. A significantly improved training program for all Part 121 operators. Low altitude, high altitude full stalls are a part of the program.

There are advanced training programs available to pilots in or outside of the airline industry but making it a part of the normal curriculum for 14,000 pilots of an individual airline is somewhat impractical.

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

BravoOne wrote:

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

What about the old geezer that get completely incoherent when they can't fly the plane on the seat of their pants into the ground with a bang?
What I'd not go for is a crew that collectively are below 1000h ( or at nearer to 1000 than 500h )

WIederling wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

What about the old geezer that get completely incoherent when they can't fly the plane on the seat of their pants into the ground with a bang?
What I'd not go for is a crew that collectively are below 1000h ( or at nearer to 1000 than 500h )

Your geezer comment really is a disservice to all pilots. All pilots have to pass a flight physical and keep it current on a regular calendar basis and keep their training current. Your "old Geezer" may or may not prefer newer planes, but if he is flying the aircraft you are on he will certainly be proficient flying it and have all of his qualifications current.

There is a mandatory retirement age for pilots that is pretty much before geezer-dom sets in for most people.

Is that the best argument you can give for this kind of crewing?

Until the advent of the extended envelope training and UPRT, flight simulators didn’t have the data to simulate stalled aircraft. Now they do.

Whereas prior recurrent PCs and PTs focused on getting the instrument approaches , rejected takeoffs and rejected landings ticked off the checklist, this years UPRT was a useful training event.

You can fly acrobatic aircraft all you want but you cant simulate a stalled airliner at FL410 in that acrobatic trainer.

It was neat to see that it is possible to recover from a 130 degree bank 30 degree nose down attitude at 5000ft. No time to dawdle though.

stratclub wrote:

Your geezer comment really is a disservice to all pilots. All pilots have to pass a flight physical and keep it current on a regular calendar basis and keep their training current.

This is not about "physical" but about mindset.
US society is overvaluing perceived experience as competence.
probably based on a broken education system thinking more in trade terms than in educated scientific terms.

BravoOne wrote:

Is that the best argument you can give for this kind of crewing?

What kind of crewing?

The original poster appears to ask if the general public can have a thrill performing simulated full stalls in transport category aircraft...using light airplanes rigged up to duplicate heavy aircraft behavior. No, not really.

I rather doubt any ab initio program has as much hand flying and emphasis on hand skills as a military program. When I went thru, it lacked CRM and crew concept, but 200 hours of intense hand flying, no FD, no autopilots, just contact, formation and instruments. Formation is great training as the “flying” part has to be subconscious—just fly the plane like bird. Observe, orient and fly without conscious thought of control inputs. Then, tackle the systems, crew resource, etc.

We learned high level stalls by...doing high level stalls and sometimes falling out of sky. Nothing like being given an unusual attitude in a jet 70⁰ nose high, airspeed falling thru 200 knots under the hood. Or 60⁰ nose down at near zero airspeed when all of sudden you’re doing 450 knots.

Actually, at NTPS, the poor throttle response on the Viper engine made the Macchi trainer pretty good duplicate for transport category plane, can’t power out.

Liked the replies, and I knew when I posted it was a somewhat unanswerable question. But one that will be discussed in aviation circles so long as we have pilots.

BravoOne wrote:

Not sure what you are trying to ask, but Extended Envelope Training, UPRT is upon the airline US airline industry effective this month. A significantly improved training program for all Part 121 operators. Low altitude, high altitude full stalls are a part of the program.

There are advanced training programs available to pilots in or outside of the airline industry but making it a part of the normal curriculum for 14,000 pilots of an individual airline is somewhat impractical.

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

Couldn't agree more about the low time in the right seat. But that is the way North America and the rest of the western world is going. And airplanes are now starting to fall out of the sky because "pilots" don't know how to fly airplanes. Yes, they're proficient in programming a computer but when things go south...

I'm an "old geezer" The industry is losing more of my generation at an alarming rate only to be replaced with inexperienced crew members who in turn are being upgraded to Captain prematurely.

Are you so sure you want us to retire?

Yikes! wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Not sure what you are trying to ask, but Extended Envelope Training, UPRT is upon the airline US airline industry effective this month. A significantly improved training program for all Part 121 operators. Low altitude, high altitude full stalls are a part of the program.

There are advanced training programs available to pilots in or outside of the airline industry but making it a part of the normal curriculum for 14,000 pilots of an individual airline is somewhat impractical.

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

Couldn't agree more about the low time in the right seat. But that is the way North America and the rest of the western world is going. And airplanes are now starting to fall out of the sky because "pilots" don't know how to fly airplanes. Yes, they're proficient in programming a computer but when things go south...

I'm an "old geezer" The industry is losing more of my generation at an alarming rate only to be replaced with inexperienced crew members who in turn are being upgraded to Captain prematurely.

Are you so sure you want us to retire?

It's a big leap to say that planes are now falling out of the sky. They were falling out of the sky much more regularly when I was a kid.

Good training is good training. Some airlines do it. Many do not.

Yikes! wrote:

I'm an "old geezer" The industry is losing more of my generation at an alarming rate only to be replaced with inexperienced crew members who in turn are being upgraded to Captain prematurely.

As a generation the "old geezers" have trashed quite a bit more planes to get their experience than the abysmally performing 200h seat cushion warmers. Look at statistics: getting better nearly every year.
Traffic growth demands that crews today are on average younger than before.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I rather doubt any ab initio program has as much hand flying and emphasis on hand skills as a military program.

Probably depends. The ab initio programs require the FAA-standard 1,500 hours of flight time for ATP certification, and basically all of it is going to be hand flying. (There are a small number of hours required for autopilot training... I don't remember the exact number but I think it's something like 10.)

For military vets who choose to get their ATP, the FAA only requires 750 hours.

Now obviously there's a reason for that, because military pilots are flying complex, high-speed, often multi-engined aircraft from the start, and learning either advanced maneuvers or flying large transport category airplanes, or both. So more of those 750 hours are going to be directly transferable to flying airliners and doing emergency maneuevers.

But in absolute terms, civilian ab initio programs require more hand flying, it's just that it's hand flying smaller, less powerful aircraft. It's debatable whether more hours in a less powerful aircraft or fewer hours in a more powerful aircraft is going to make you a better airline pilot, but obviously the FAA thinks both are equivalent, which is why the requirements are what they are.

spacecadet wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I rather doubt any ab initio program has as much hand flying and emphasis on hand skills as a military program.

Probably depends. The ab initio programs require the FAA-standard 1,500 hours of flight time for ATP certification, and basically all of it is going to be hand flying. (There are a small number of hours required for autopilot training... I don't remember the exact number but I think it's something like 10.)

For military vets who choose to get their ATP, the FAA only requires 750 hours.

Now obviously there's a reason for that, because military pilots are flying complex, high-speed, often multi-engined aircraft from the start, and learning either advanced maneuvers or flying large transport category airplanes, or both. So more of those 750 hours are going to be directly transferable to flying airliners and doing emergency maneuevers.

But in absolute terms, civilian ab initio programs require more hand flying, it's just that it's hand flying smaller, less powerful aircraft. It's debatable whether more hours in a less powerful aircraft or fewer hours in a more powerful aircraft is going to make you a better airline pilot, but obviously the FAA thinks both are equivalent, which is why the requirements are what they are.

Agreed. In most of the rest of the world, ab initio training is very different from the US. A large part of my colleagues went from a light prop to a widebody with 250-300 hours. Do airlines with this model have more accidents? They do not, because skill and safety are not directly correlated to hours.

1500 hours flying locally in a light prop do not make you a better airline pilot.

Where’s an American ab initio program requiring 1,500 hours? They take you to Comercial, then CFI and one either is a CFI or gains time to 1,500 hours doing something like dropping skydivers. A structured ab initio program is more like a military school than any thing in the US for civilian pilots.

The thing lost in the programs is a UPT military student spends another 3-9 months post-UPT in training for their follow-on assignment. Once at an operational unit, they will have a grad book and everything flight, sim, ground training is logged, graded and reviewed. Every event is a training event that will be debriefed. An airline doesn’t, to my knowledge, act that way. Once quailed, the individual is a full qualified co-pilot, commanders are not expected to instruct, debrief and report deficiencies.

All that said, a structured program will produce better pilots, but it isn’t cheap.


GF

commanders are not expected to instruct, debrief and report deficiencies.

We were expected to debrief every flight. It usually involved "have any questions" but could be more involved if there was any confusion on any part of the flight. There were a few instances were an F/O was reported to the duty officer for more glaring issues.

There’s the difference between an ab initio civilian and a similarly situated military pilot—constant training and monitoring. Every flight debriefed in detail, not just glaring mistakes. Captains were required to write up trip reports. Landings used to graded by a runway supervisor, now just debriefed. 32 hours in the sim annually, plus two hand flown take-offs and landings with an instrument approach monthly. The training never ends. My last C-5 flight was a HHQ standardization check with several senior and junior pilots, an hour debrief by me then by my check pilot.

My corporate operation was heavily ex-mil and we did the same but the civilian pilots thought it all too intense.

spacecadet wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I rather doubt any ab initio program has as much hand flying and emphasis on hand skills as a military program.

Probably depends. The ab initio programs require the FAA-standard 1,500 hours of flight time for ATP certification, and basically all of it is going to be hand flying. (There are a small number of hours required for autopilot training... I don't remember the exact number but I think it's something like 10.)

For military vets who choose to get their ATP, the FAA only requires 750 hours.

Now obviously there's a reason for that, because military pilots are flying complex, high-speed, often multi-engined aircraft from the start, and learning either advanced maneuvers or flying large transport category airplanes, or both. So more of those 750 hours are going to be directly transferable to flying airliners and doing emergency maneuevers.

But in absolute terms, civilian ab initio programs require more hand flying, it's just that it's hand flying smaller, less powerful aircraft. It's debatable whether more hours in a less powerful aircraft or fewer hours in a more powerful aircraft is going to make you a better airline pilot, but obviously the FAA thinks both are equivalent, which is why the requirements are what they are.

There’s another reason you didn’t mention for the lower ATP hours requirement for military pilots


They fly significantly less hours than their civilian counterparts, they just don’t have the opportunity to build hours at the same rate

WIederling wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

What I'd not go for is a crew that collectively are below 1000h ( or at nearer to 1000 than 500h )

How is a collective experience below 1700 even possible? You need at least 1500 hours to become a captain in the first place, and realistically, no airline would pair a fresh 200 hour FO with a recently released captain. It would be the experienced line training captains for the first long time who fly with the low-timers.

IMHO, this point seems to be lost all too often, especially to Americans. 150 hour pilots can ONLY fly as first officers. It is the same 1500 hour rule, plus additional training before you can upgrade to captain.

I suspect that the noted 200 hours was reference to time in type, as opposed to total time? Makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way. I have number of friends who have flown contract for ET, and they give generally high marks to their operations.

There was a time in the mid-2000s where pilots with 200-250hrs were making it into regional jets in the US. That ended with the ATP rule.

There were more than a few times I found myself in the cockpit and between me and the FO we collectively had less than 1800 hours and less than a combined 9 months of seniority at the airline.
The FO even with 250 hours, would be upgrading within 12-13 months having attained the required 1500 hours since their hire date.

The crew room would be a collective experience building experiment. “Hey did you hear about what happened to so and so?” Would be a frequent/daily discussion in the crew room.

Woodreau wrote:

There was a time in the mid-2000s where pilots with 200-250hrs were making it into regional jets in the US. That ended with the ATP rule.

There were more than a few times I found myself in the cockpit and between me and the FO we collectively had less than 1800 hours and less than a combined 9 months of seniority at the airline.
The FO even with 250 hours, would be upgrading within 12-13 months having attained the required 1500 hours since their hire date.

The crew room would be a collective experience building experiment. “Hey did you hear about what happened to so and so?” Would be a frequent/daily discussion in the crew room.

Who else has that kind of staged pilot requirements at home?
funny rules based on size seem to be rather US centric.
Europe as an example has few if any "milkruns" done by air transport.

BravoOne wrote:

I suspect that the noted 200 hours was reference to time in type, as opposed to total time? Makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way. I have number of friends who have flown contract for ET, and they give generally high marks to their operations.

No, I believe the F/O in the Ethiopian event had 200 hours total time.

Very low experience is a common feature in many airlines around the world.

I might be a little closer to this than you. I will stick to my posted remarks. I do appreciate your posts however:)

WIederling wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

There was a time in the mid-2000s where pilots with 200-250hrs were making it into regional jets in the US. That ended with the ATP rule.

There were more than a few times I found myself in the cockpit and between me and the FO we collectively had less than 1800 hours and less than a combined 9 months of seniority at the airline.
The FO even with 250 hours, would be upgrading within 12-13 months having attained the required 1500 hours since their hire date.

The crew room would be a collective experience building experiment. “Hey did you hear about what happened to so and so?” Would be a frequent/daily discussion in the crew room.

Who else has that kind of staged pilot requirements at home?
funny rules based on size seem to be rather US centric.
Europe as an example has few if any "milkruns" done by air transport.

You should learn about scope and US contracts.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You should learn about scope and US contracts.

What good is a glass dagger?
The US unions are dysfunctional too. Should I learn about those too?

I'd prefer to go for rational things to learn.

WIederling wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You should learn about scope and US contracts.

What good is a glass dagger?
The US unions are dysfunctional too. Should I learn about those too?

I'd prefer to go for rational things to learn.

That's just your opinion. The opinion of most US airline pilots is, the multi-crew training used world wide is dysfunctional.

Really? You know all about it and, like everything else American, you hate it.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Really? You know all about it and, like everything else American, you hate it.

Life is so simple, isn't it?

No, it isn’t, but making a rash assumption, it’s silly for foreigners to call someone’s else systems as dysfunctional. There’s a long history of development and laws that created our system. Scope clauses have a very specific purpose-defining the work that is subject to the contract. It’s a labor protection device that prevents operations like Jetstar in Australia or contract pilots like at several EU lines, I’m looking at you Ryan.

stratclub wrote:

WIederling wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

A better solution to airline ops would be making sure you don't have any 200 hour pilots in the right seat of your shiny new jets.

What about the old geezer that get completely incoherent when they can't fly the plane on the seat of their pants into the ground with a bang?
What I'd not go for is a crew that collectively are below 1000h ( or at nearer to 1000 than 500h )

Your geezer comment really is a disservice to all pilots. All pilots have to pass a flight physical and keep it current on a regular calendar basis and keep their training current. Your "old Geezer" may or may not prefer newer planes, but if he is flying the aircraft you are on he will certainly be proficient flying it and have all of his qualifications current.

There is a mandatory retirement age for pilots that is pretty much before geezer-dom sets in for most people.

Uh huh, tell that to the families who lost the FO and FE of the Korean Cargo flight in London. The captain flew a perfectly functioning plane right into the ground. The FO should have taken the plane from him since he knew what was going on.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the difference between an ab initio civilian and a similarly situated military pilot—constant training and monitoring. Every flight debriefed in detail, not just glaring mistakes. Captains were required to write up trip reports. Landings used to graded by a runway supervisor, now just debriefed. 32 hours in the sim annually, plus two hand flown take-offs and landings with an instrument approach monthly. The training never ends. My last C-5 flight was a HHQ standardization check with several senior and junior pilots, an hour debrief by me then by my check pilot.

My corporate operation was heavily ex-mil and we did the same but the civilian pilots thought it all too intense.

I've always been interested in how military pilots handle a transition to civilian. I'd really like to see a detailed study on how they handle CRM. A family member flew in the Navy but he failed out of a major airline because he was just a jerk and couldn't handle working as a crew. He's family but I don't blame them at all for throwing him out.

What is your point???? Further reading has led me to believe that this F/O had 200 hours in type, not 200 hours TT I'm know that KAL does not have any 200 hour F/O's flying their 747's.

TTailedTiger wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the difference between an ab initio civilian and a similarly situated military pilot—constant training and monitoring. Every flight debriefed in detail, not just glaring mistakes. Captains were required to write up trip reports. Landings used to graded by a runway supervisor, now just debriefed. 32 hours in the sim annually, plus two hand flown take-offs and landings with an instrument approach monthly. The training never ends. My last C-5 flight was a HHQ standardization check with several senior and junior pilots, an hour debrief by me then by my check pilot.

My corporate operation was heavily ex-mil and we did the same but the civilian pilots thought it all too intense.

I've always been interested in how military pilots handle a transition to civilian. I'd really like to see a detailed study on how they handle CRM. A family member flew in the Navy but he failed out of a major airline because he was just a jerk and couldn't handle working as a crew. He's family but I don't blame them at all for throwing him out.

It would indeed be an interesting study. I've flown with a number of former military pilots and my anecdotal impression is that just like any other background it runs the gamut of personalities so there might not be a clear answer. At the very least you might have to look at differences between former fast jet pilots who are used to doing things solo, vs former transport or tanker pilots who are accustomed to a multi-crew environment. And don't forget the rotary wing guys.

In my experience, and just like all the other guys, some are very chilled, others are more hierarchical and pedantic, and most are somewhere in between. I've flown with former fighter pilots who love expounding to all who will listen on how cool it was to be them, and others who would never think to mention their military experience off hand, and when asked what they did before this job will be very humble about it. Guess which type is more fun to fly with.

At some undefined point the military vs. civilian time differences wash out, and they become equals for all intent. I've spent a good deal of time flying with former military pilots, Flag Officers, Blue Angels, Top-Gun, all with great hands and some incredible stories, but when it comes to flying the line they all put on their big boy pants pretty the same way.

I went through pilot training (USAF/Calif ANG), after I had been hired by an airline. Up to a point is was fairly easy but as we progressed the challenge became significantly more intense. When finished, I was a much better pilot for the experience.

At the very least you might have to look at differences between former fast jet pilots who are used to doing things solo,

True and not true. Being part of a formation of between 2 and 16 (strike package), CRM is vital. You have to be a good leader and follower, you have to listen and multitask and plan for the whole gaggle. In fast jets, you almost never fly alone. We did currency flights as s two-ship even with weather such that flying ILSs was the thing going.

GF

Enjoying the discussion, and even learning things I wanted to learn. Thanks

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

No, it isn’t, but making a rash assumption, it’s silly for foreigners to call someone’s else systems as dysfunctional.

It is silly, yet it doesn't stop some of your compatriots doing just that on this thread. Are BA wrong putting 200 hour FOs into the right seat?

The US system evolved to meet the needs and requirements of the nation, taking into account military pilot availability, a widespread GA scene, and future airline requirements. Other countries see a different situation, such as a relatively small military pilot pool and a lack of private flying. They adapted their systems to cope with their reality, in some countries if they had to wait for a pilot to rack up 1500 hours instructing, that person would be thinking about retirement by the time they got near an airline

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the difference between an ab initio civilian and a similarly situated military pilot—constant training and monitoring. Every flight debriefed in detail, not just glaring mistakes. Captains were required to write up trip reports. Landings used to graded by a runway supervisor, now just debriefed. 32 hours in the sim annually, plus two hand flown take-offs and landings with an instrument approach monthly. The training never ends. My last C-5 flight was a HHQ standardization check with several senior and junior pilots, an hour debrief by me then by my check pilot.

My corporate operation was heavily ex-mil and we did the same but the civilian pilots thought it all too intense.

Not to mention, the high level of constant academic training. Most non-military pilots don't realize how intense and difficult UPT is. It's not a leisurely 9-5, M-F deal. You spend an incredible amount of time in university level academics. This continues well into your operational assignments. There's a lot of good civilian pilots but the you get both ends of the spectrum. You simply get a more consistent product with any formal training program with lots of resources thrown at it. Similarly, look at kids that go through STEM education at a university. On the bulk average, you simply get better scientists and engineers from those who go through a formal program.

Many of the civil guys I fly with have excellent 'experience' but experience alone is a very inconsistent thing. For example, a guy flying 747s at Atlas certainly has a different experience set than an RJ guy flying nothing but domestic. Also, modern aircraft are so reliable that most guys have never dealt with flight control malfunctions, engine failures, total electrical failures, and so on. Increasingly, airlines are getting guys with lots of hours but little actual problem solving experience. Furthermore, their airline training is minimal, particularly under AQP. Therefore, civil pilot education is severely lacking, unless a student attends a college aviation program. Case in point, despite all the aviation knowledge and science available in books, on the internet, and in engineering, companies like Flight Safety taught pilots to power through stalls up until recently. I guess these guys never read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" - https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... 80T-80.pdf . My point being that education is a constant and deliberate activity in military aviation whereas civil aviation is largely through asymmetric experience and procedural simulator training.

BravoOne wrote:

At some undefined point the military vs. civilian time differences wash out, and they become equals for all intent. I've spent a good deal of time flying with former military pilots, Flag Officers, Blue Angels, Top-Gun, all with great hands and some incredible stories, but when it comes to flying the line they all put on their big boy pants pretty the same way.

I went through pilot training (USAF/Calif ANG), after I had been hired by an airline. Up to a point is was fairly easy but as we progressed the challenge became significantly more intense. When finished, I was a much better pilot for the experience.

During normal operations...yes... during emergencies, the military guys still provide a more consistent positive resolution to the problem. What you are really paying for with a military guy is the kind of things that happen < 1% of the time (e.g. Sully). For example, even before Sully, one of our big airplane scenarios was an all engines failure shortly after takeoff so you could practice energy management, CRM, and ditching procedures with a large back-end crew (passengers basically). This was rehearsed at 1000 AGL. Likewise, the military guys get hundreds of opportunities to do real stalls and spins and not just simulator training. In fact, the FAA only now started requiring sim training for full stalls at high altitude whereas this has been a daily thing for military guys for decades. The FAA mandated training is still nowhere near equivalent to military training in this aspect and I've taught/teaching both. The military big airplane mission set is very diverse ranging from formation flight, air refueling, airdrop, low levels, to tactical maneuvers. Civil guys get takeoffs and landings only. So the equivalence stops once you deviate past A-B flying under normal circumstances. I also think there is a very deep misunderstanding of how diverse and complex military flying really is. Many of the civil pilots I fly with think big airplanes in the military are just A-B cargo planes. They also don't know what things like being a Test Pilot are. So many of them falsely see equivalence.

In the end, it's about money. You can train anyone to be a decent pilot. The big problem with airlines is that they don't want to spend millions on a pilot the way the government can.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the very least you might have to look at differences between former fast jet pilots who are used to doing things solo,

True and not true. Being part of a formation of between 2 and 16 (strike package), CRM is vital. You have to be a good leader and follower, you have to listen and multitask and plan for the whole gaggle. In fast jets, you almost never fly alone. We did currency flights as s two-ship even with weather such that flying ILSs was the thing going.

GF

This is a great misconception by civilian guys. They see fighter guys as having no CRM skills. (FYI, CRM has been ammended to include Threat-Error-Management, another military idea executed for decades!). The truth is the fighter guys have to have excellent CRM because they work in a real-time environment without the benefit of sitting side-by-side with full time comms. A formation leader has to be fast and correct because he leads the whole flight and its elements (wingmen). Even in training, I remember flying instrument approaches in a T-37, in formation! And that was at less than 200 hrs. Fighter pilot CRM is definitely more advanced than transport category aircraft CRM. A fighter guy will be weak when he first starts in a big airplane because it's totally different, but the intensity of his past mission is much much higher, resulting an a pilot who will quickly learn and possibly surpass regular big airplane CRM.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the very least you might have to look at differences between former fast jet pilots who are used to doing things solo,

True and not true. Being part of a formation of between 2 and 16 (strike package), CRM is vital. You have to be a good leader and follower, you have to listen and multitask and plan for the whole gaggle. In fast jets, you almost never fly alone. We did currency flights as s two-ship even with weather such that flying ILSs was the thing going.

GF

Aaaah. Didn't think of that at all. Thanks for pointing it out.

ECAMerror wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

At the very least you might have to look at differences between former fast jet pilots who are used to doing things solo,

True and not true. Being part of a formation of between 2 and 16 (strike package), CRM is vital. You have to be a good leader and follower, you have to listen and multitask and plan for the whole gaggle. In fast jets, you almost never fly alone. We did currency flights as s two-ship even with weather such that flying ILSs was the thing going.

GF

This is a great misconception by civilian guys. They see fighter guys as having no CRM skills. (FYI, CRM has been ammended to include Threat-Error-Management, another military idea executed for decades!). The truth is the fighter guys have to have excellent CRM because they work in a real-time environment without the benefit of sitting side-by-side with full time comms. A formation leader has to be fast and correct because he leads the whole flight and its elements (wingmen). Even in training, I remember flying instrument approaches in a T-37, in formation! And that was at less than 200 hrs. Fighter pilot CRM is definitely more advanced than transport category aircraft CRM. A fighter guy will be weak when he first starts in a big airplane because it's totally different, but the intensity of his past mission is much much higher, resulting an a pilot who will quickly learn and possibly surpass regular big airplane CRM.

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.

I knew a guy, no one in the C-5 squadron was surprised when he came home. That’s ego, not necessarily being in fighters. TAC has a way of beating ego out of Lieutenants. I’ve meet plenty of egotistical pilots from lots of backgrounds. As a EA captain used say, “I can live with an easy going incompetent pilot, I can deal with asshole who is very sharp, it’s the incompetent asshole that’s a problem”. Rare.

In my Reserve career, I’ve known just about every background. At one time, my C-5 unit had every major weapon system represented save the SR-71 and the B-1. We had USA, USN and USMC pilots, a U-2 pilot, Wild Weasels, all the heavies. They all fly fine, most were airline guys. The two problem children quickly got out. The rest flew well thru several activations and countless contingencies.

GF

TTailedTiger wrote:

ECAMerror wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

True and not true. Being part of a formation of between 2 and 16 (strike package), CRM is vital. You have to be a good leader and follower, you have to listen and multitask and plan for the whole gaggle. In fast jets, you almost never fly alone. We did currency flights as s two-ship even with weather such that flying ILSs was the thing going.

GF

This is a great misconception by civilian guys. They see fighter guys as having no CRM skills. (FYI, CRM has been ammended to include Threat-Error-Management, another military idea executed for decades!). The truth is the fighter guys have to have excellent CRM because they work in a real-time environment without the benefit of sitting side-by-side with full time comms. A formation leader has to be fast and correct because he leads the whole flight and its elements (wingmen). Even in training, I remember flying instrument approaches in a T-37, in formation! And that was at less than 200 hrs. Fighter pilot CRM is definitely more advanced than transport category aircraft CRM. A fighter guy will be weak when he first starts in a big airplane because it's totally different, but the intensity of his past mission is much much higher, resulting an a pilot who will quickly learn and possibly surpass regular big airplane CRM.

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.

Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?

ECAMerror wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ECAMerror wrote:

This is a great misconception by civilian guys. They see fighter guys as having no CRM skills. (FYI, CRM has been ammended to include Threat-Error-Management, another military idea executed for decades!). The truth is the fighter guys have to have excellent CRM because they work in a real-time environment without the benefit of sitting side-by-side with full time comms. A formation leader has to be fast and correct because he leads the whole flight and its elements (wingmen). Even in training, I remember flying instrument approaches in a T-37, in formation! And that was at less than 200 hrs. Fighter pilot CRM is definitely more advanced than transport category aircraft CRM. A fighter guy will be weak when he first starts in a big airplane because it's totally different, but the intensity of his past mission is much much higher, resulting an a pilot who will quickly learn and possibly surpass regular big airplane CRM.

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.

Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?

Having read quite a bit both by and about the three you mention, my takes on their arrogance with regards to flying and perceived ability:
- Chuck Yeager - Arrogant. His autobiography is one long series of stories about how good a pilot he is and how others were often wrong.
- Neil Armstrong - Not arrogant. A truly humble man; hard working and quietly confident in his very high abilities. Coincidentally, Armstrong features in a story in Yeager's biography where Yeager is anything but complimentary. It reads as both petty and smacking of jealousy.
- Sully - Maybe arrogant, sometimes. An accomplished pilot to be sure, but I wouldn't call him humble. There are hints of arrogance in his media comments, often implying things about the perceived poor training of non-Western pilots, and the perceived shortcomings of non-Western flight control architectures.

ECAMerror wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ECAMerror wrote:

This is a great misconception by civilian guys. They see fighter guys as having no CRM skills. (FYI, CRM has been ammended to include Threat-Error-Management, another military idea executed for decades!). The truth is the fighter guys have to have excellent CRM because they work in a real-time environment without the benefit of sitting side-by-side with full time comms. A formation leader has to be fast and correct because he leads the whole flight and its elements (wingmen). Even in training, I remember flying instrument approaches in a T-37, in formation! And that was at less than 200 hrs. Fighter pilot CRM is definitely more advanced than transport category aircraft CRM. A fighter guy will be weak when he first starts in a big airplane because it's totally different, but the intensity of his past mission is much much higher, resulting an a pilot who will quickly learn and possibly surpass regular big airplane CRM.

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.

Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?

I think you are misinterpreting what I posted. Let me make it a little more clear. My cousin is an asshole who doesn't belong at an airline. The airline that hired him made the right call in telling him to hit the road. I wouldn't even want him along with me as a safety pilot. He is the type that is going to get the last word no matter what.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

.......... “I can live with an easy going incompetent pilot, I can deal with asshole who is very sharp, it’s the incompetent asshole that’s a problem”.

I prefer intelligent but lazy adjutants. They think before they get busy .. or not. ( Some military ?German? bigwig )

Starlionblue wrote:

ECAMerror wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

All fine and well as long as you leave that ego behind when you go to the airlines. My cousin thought he was better than civilian pilots and treated them as such. Like I said, he didn't make it through training and the airline sent him on his way.

Why do you take it as arrogance instead of accomplished fact? The arrogance factor is usually seen on the civilian side of the fence. People who have done a lot aren't usually arrogant. Would you call Chuck Yeager and Neill Armstrong arrogant? Would you call Sully arrogant?

Having read quite a bit both by and about the three you mention, my takes on their arrogance with regards to flying and perceived ability:
- Chuck Yeager - Arrogant. His autobiography is one long series of stories about how good a pilot he is and how others were often wrong.
- Neil Armstrong - Not arrogant. A truly humble man; hard working and quietly confident in his very high abilities. Coincidentally, Armstrong features in a story in Yeager's biography where Yeager is anything but complimentary. It reads as both petty and smacking of jealousy.
- Sully - Maybe arrogant, sometimes. An accomplished pilot to be sure, but I wouldn't call him humble. There are hints of arrogance in his media comments, often implying things about the perceived poor training of non-Western pilots, and the perceived shortcomings of non-Western flight control architectures.

Sully is a political guy. He also talks for influencing.
That should determine what he pushes into the public ( for good, for bad ).

I found the double (ghostwritten) biographic book from Leonov/Scott a good read in that respect too :
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/781 ... f_the_Moon