Originally Posted by
VinRouge
Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with this. To get through a self funded ATPL shows a lot of resilience. Many of the guys have faced multiple redundancy, disrupted flying as a result, yet have gotten into the sim and consistently performed, often having not been at the controls for 12 months. For anyone who hasn't completed the BA assessment sim, it isn't a trivial affair.
People also need to consider that Low Level, para, SKE, NVG, NSO TALT, are just additional skillsets. They are no different to skills required for the civvie role, customer service, disruptive passenger handling or a CAT III equipment failure below alert height or flying with 3 minutes statistical contingency fuel. Same focus, same professionalism. You function and train to a set of standards and perform to them. There will of course be a number that struggle, it is a massive culture change. But to write people off for not having the required gumption or mettle as they are "civvies", from my experience is wholly wrong. Heathrow aircraft were landing in crosswinds and conditions during the winter storms well above anything seen during my military time, with an awareness from operations of the impact with mitigations (an extra 40 mins fuel without even asking for it on the plan, well thought out diversions) put in place before crew in. How often would you have seen that from an RAF Flight ops perspective?
There are a fair few ex single seat fast jet mates who have struggled in a multi crew environment, more systems management focused environment, unable to handle the banter. Does that apply to every single seat pilot? Absolutely not. We shouldn't be applying the same myopic view of civilians who can make a genuine contribution, with a fresh set of eyes to our operation and ask "why do you do it like that"? The people in the civilian market have a vast wealth of both personal life experience as well as a deep knowledge of human factors and the aviation world. Route knowledge and nuisances about a particular approach at some unheard of diversion that you dip in with an 80 year old granny dying of a TMI is second to none, as is operational decision making processes and formal structures for emergencies handling, none of which are formally taught but assumed as "airmanship" within the military. There is a lot of potential for this to be a symbiotic relationship and if given the go-ahead, should be seen as such.
Great points but you perhaps miss my point. Every newby first tourist RAF pilot has jumped through hoops that no amount of money or retries would see them through. All courses enroute to that coveted seat require a mettle that the self-improver has not demonstrated - pass or get chopped. Cadets are a different case, but even they only get trained to be part of a crew and fly instrument approaches (simplified I know) - the thinking bit comes much later; perhaps their CPL course is the equivalent of the METS in old parlance. However, every RAF pilot has been taught low level NAV, formation, advanced handling etc as part of the (old-speak) Group 1 Phase 1 course. If the civvies were to be brought into the service they should be made to complete all the courses and suffer the same chop rate that we all have had to contend with.
Yes they can do all that you say but so can every ‘heavies’ pilot. FJ has its own particular problems and socio/skill outliers. I too have seen many a FJ candidate, from all (nearly) the world’s Air forces fail to make the grade at initial training and a particularly vicious Command course. It happens. My main thrust is that if this is to go ahead, the Service should choose ex-military pilots whose backgrounds are known. I should have selected flippant mode off for my initial post.