Military influence on civilian aviation - a Good Thing?

[boogie-nicey]

Scroggs is quite correct in his responses (here) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=232086) BUT I feel that Soviet Bloc just chose his words fleetingly and without too much thought even though the point being made was understandable. A case of wires getting short circuited here I think..... Both opnions are correct but derived from differing aspects of the same issue.

The RAF is an EXCELLENT organisation and whether in war or peace seem to be able to undertake any and all duties after all can you last recall when the RAF said "Oh dear I think that might be a bit too much for us", no I don't neither. (In fact the politicians are constantlt trying it on knowing that the ever adaptive RAF will just get on with it without moaning, but I digress). I admire such devotion to standards, morality and honourable conduct especially in this day and age of the 'pop idiol' generation. Nevertheless what Soviet Bloc and others refer to is the unwaranted expansion of the military into the civil side and the eventual consequences it has as described in the OAT posting above. Civil attitudes don't bode well for the military so why are RAF menatalities excerised on us civies? The CAA and OAT are examples of this and thus have a dedicated following of people who despair at their exclusive actions and overtures.

In the US the FAA is more inclined as a 'people's system' and therefore has a more integrated and better handle on it's responsibilities and future aspirations (though no where near perfect). But it appears that on our side of the pond us fellow aviators need to be reminded (like school kids) that the system is here to do us a big favour rather than supporting and guiding us through training. I would love to have an RAF approach on many aspects of aviation training but then I would also like to have heavily discounted training so I can concentrate on getting it right and being the best pilot I can be. I would also like near limitless time off work to conduct such training too but again the realities of the situation wouldn't permit this and I need to be practical in my approach. Therefore I don't need these excessive unmeasured constraints on my training.

I think SCROGGS is the coolest of the lot and having experienced instruction by a retired RAF chap on the Provost and Gnat, I can confirm the instructional level of the RAF is breath taking, I don't really know how they do it. But never forget the realistic template across which such 'Services mentality' is overlayed across the civilian landscape.

[cavortingcheetah]

:)

Whilst in now way manner or form wishing to decry the excellent attributes of the RAF, might I take the liberty of pointing out that, at the end of the day, almost anyone can land an aeroplane on a slab of rigid concrete.
It takes an altogether different kind of man to land a fast jet on a heaving slab of seaborne metal where there are no nice little grass under or over shoots.;)

[cavortingcheetah]

:)

It's the spray that gets you every time.:p

I think that Scroggs, bless his little heart, has been very devilishly sneaky moving the topic to this thread. I can foresee some entertaining results. A nice little piece of military manouevre that!

[chevvron]

Problem with the RAF approach is it's too expensive to transpose it to civil aviation.

[boogie-nicey]

My original response was in another thread and has been moved and entitled to a new thread without my knowledge. It is not my intention to question the pros and cons of military concerns in this fashion and for anyone reading my post at the top of this thread.... I didn't mean to start a new discussion :confused:

Please I don't want any trouble :ouch:

[Art Field]

Problem with the RAF approach is it's too expensive to transpose it to civil aviation.

One needs to differentiate between how you teach and what you teach. The civil pilot requires a more restricted course than the military aviator because his needs are less to achieve qualification. The standards required to meet either pilots duties within their own fields however, should be the same. The quality of teaching should therefore be the same with the civil pilots course being cheaper since it is shorter.

There seems to be a suggestion that the civil pilot is less well trained because of the differences in training methods. There are undoubtedly many excellent all though civil pilots, equally there are some ex military in civil aviation who are less than perfect, I know, I chopped some of them.

[jetlagslag]

can you last recall when the RAF said "Oh dear I think that might be a bit too much for us", no I don't neither.

I can! Taranto!

Sorry, had to sneak it in!

[Beeayeate]

Military influence on civilian aviation - a Good Thing?

What a charming notion, it is certainly to be hoped for

Consider though - military av training teaches chaps to bomb things, kill people and break their stuff. :E

Mind you Civ Av could do with the disipline.

:ok:

[Focks 2]

Consider though - military av training teaches chaps to bomb things, kill people and break their stuff. :E
But at least its done right! :)

I'd like to see a four ship of C152's recovering. :8

[Zoom]

Consider though - military av training teaches chaps to bomb things, kill people and break their stuff.

So there's some other point to flying.......?

[BEagle]

Well, is this sufficient for you, F*cks 2?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Club4small.jpg

This was led by the late 'Reichmann' - killed in the Canberra T4 accident at Wyton a couple of years ago. An RAF FCA flying club formation trip - flown to civil limits. We also flew the same formation to RIAT last year.

You won't find many civil FIs bragging that they chopped someone - and remember that there is no such thing as a bad student, but there are many bad QFIs! Take that as you will, Arters!

Military instruction is driven by budget, civil is driven by students' funds. Although military pilots are generally superior to most of their civil counterparts (and they darn well should be, given their selection processes!), I consider that RAF theoretical training is really rather poor these days. At least at elementary level.....

[Focks 2]

Thankyou BEagle. Very tidy!

....I'd like to see an eight ship.... never mind. :)

[boogie-nicey]

This is not about whether the military approach is better or not compared to the civil side of things. Instead we need to focus on a 'point of balance' in other words yes you can get Rolls Royce training when the budget is almost infinite but at what point will the small increases in training standards begin to cost far too much.

The Civil and Military aspirations are different not totally but nevertheless quite divergent from each other. In civil flight training there are no aeros (other than some add-on course), no low level flight (especially at night!), no weapons instruction, etc ....

Just because the RAF utilise aircraft don't forget that they are essentially flying soldiers, a point that is all too often overlooked. Indeed there are some healthy cross integrations of training methods and philosphy but I think both systems should be relatively independant from each other as there are operate in different arenas. It could be argued further that the civilian side would scorn the "money no object" approach adopted at times by our military, would that suffice at senior level in an airline?

As I've already said I admire, respect and am in awe of military flying standards and capability but that doesn't give it an exclusive licence regarding ownership of aviation. The US FAA was founded and still does to this day encompass all of the auspices of a civil system and thank God for that. The military are the people's most trusted, honoured servant and most
noble of knights but they are not the masters.

[Art Field]

You won't find many civil FIs bragging that they chopped someone - and remember that there is no such thing as a bad student, but there are many bad QFIs! Take that as you will, Arters!

Well Beags, I'm not quite sure whether your tongue is in your cheek or in full flow here. Having heard that statement for real from the mouth of an AOC in a crew room full of studes and QFI's and seen what effect it had on the QFI's I hope its the cheek. I was perhaps a little blunt in the use of chopped, there was no pleasure in the act but I have no regrets at the outcome. If you have no standards and equally do not give someone the teeth to maintain them then all is lost.

[beardy]

Having experienced the CAA, FAA and the RAF I am somewhat bemused by, what I consider to be, extravagant lauding of the FAA. I did not (and still don't) find them to be particularly sympathetic to the pilot nor usually are they to be found in the real world. They operate in a different legislative environment which restricts the way they conduct themselves, this in turn may give them the appearance of being 'on the side of the trainee.' I don't believe they are, they just can't do what they would like to do, witness the way they treat the fully qualified.

[OverTq]

"No such thing as a bad student".... what pinko lefty bolleaux.
Quite, but not many years ago where RAF instructors were told that, Fortunately things have moved on. Only problem now is having to have a squeaky clean audit trail for stoods - sorry, trainees (where did THAT come from) so that when they are chopped - sorry, withdrawn from training- the system can resist all efforts by ex-student to sue them (which does happen). The worlds gone mad and I love 'Grumpy Old Men!