Flying Instructor - Civilian or Ex Military? [Archive]

Boing_737

2nd Mar 2004, 17:07

I have flown with civilian (PPL) and military instructors (UAS), and I have to say that I greatly prefered the military types. There is an element of consistency which I didn't find when I had to swap instructors during my PPL. Although I haven't flown with an ex military instructor during my PPL, I am sure that the standards that ensured they got the job done in the RAF apply once they leave the military.

The feeling I got from military instructors is the idea of always aiming to do things right, and not give it a go a few times, and if you don't get it, we'll move on.....

The only downside that I can see is getting clobbered by the QFI for being an idiot :} (the BIG disadvantage of sitting next to your instructor in a Bulldog).

My tuppence worth

Cheers

S-Works

2nd Mar 2004, 17:18

Being ex RAF the ex-military get my vote as I know the standards required of them. My experiance of many civil instructors is that they are just sat there waiting for an airline job and let you know it. Ex mill guys have been there and have a wealth of experiance to pass on in a consistant manner.

This is not to say that there are not some suberb civilian FI's out there as well. High hours dedicated instructors who teach for the love of the job not the hope of an airline job.

I have met more than a few d*&*^head "jet jocks" in the mess as well, but this is the same in all walks of life!

Bose-X
(looking forward to his foramtion course with Ultimate High shortly!)

Evo

2nd Mar 2004, 17:22

The best instructors that i've flown with have been ex-military; however, to be fair they are also far more experienced than the fATPLs I learned with during my PPL. Best kind of instructor is one who wants to be doing it, rather than one who has to :ok:

pulse1

2nd Mar 2004, 17:41

I was originally taught to fly by two serving RAF pilots. Although they were totally different personalities and had very different flying experiences, the standard of instruction was remarkably consistent. I do not remember having any preference for flying with either of them, they were both great.

When I re-learned twenty years later at a competent flying club, the lack of consistency between the civilian instructors was a bit of a problem until I found one I liked and stuck with him.

I only ever had one problem with an RAF CFI and that was because he didn't seem to appreciate that, unlike the UAS students he was used to, we had to pay for our flying (and his) and he wasn't very sympathetic to the freedom we had become used to under previous CFI's.

witchdoctor

2nd Mar 2004, 17:45

I have to agree with Evo here. Sheer enthusiasm and wanting to do the job makes a world of difference, regardless of the level of experience (although the more experience the better I hasten to add).

I've been fortunate enough to have flown with both, having done my time in the UAS system like Boing_737, and recently completed my CPL/IR.

My primary QFI in the UAS had no enthusiasm for the job at all, and it showed in his instruction. I learnt so much more when I flew with the boss or any of the other QFI's. They absolutely loved the job and it showed through. The boss was a fearsome old b#gger and his standards were way higher than my primary's, and eventually it showed through in my own flying. I think the military environment allows FI's to be a great deal harsher and more demanding than many civvy instructors would get away with, as there are no commercial considerations.

When I did my CPL, the quality of instruction was OK (it was easy to make comparisons as we were covering a lot of the ground I had done in the UAS), and some of it was good. The best were the old boys who had been instructing for many years and had a whole load of experience to pass on, as well as enough enthusiasm to have kept them in the job. Some of them were every bit as much fun to fly with as the military guys, but they are obviously teaching with a different end result in mind.

I suppose the final answer would be it depends what it is you are looking for personally from your training.

Aim Far

2nd Mar 2004, 17:55

I think the answer may depend on the student as much as the instructor. All students make mistakes and part of being an instructor is how you respond to those mistakes. "Constructive criticism" seems to be more "robust" in the military and whether the student will respond to that style of teaching depends on the student.

That said, I have found the ex-mil instructors I've had have required a higher standard of me than the civvies and this is, eventually, motivating. They can just take a little getting used to. I've flown with 3 ex-mils and 3 civvy instructors.

ACW 335

2nd Mar 2004, 19:14

Ex-military - their instructional technique & style is second to none.
However, the instructor i flew with for my PPL is also top dollah and i wouldn't have changed him for anything else.

I think its all down to personal opinion and the instructor in question - each has their own taching style based on the same syllabus, and its what suits each individual student; as one may think 'X' is a fabulous instructor, but that instructors technique, style and of course personality may not be what another student likes or wants.
I don't think there is no right or wrong answer, but everyone is entitiled to their own opinion, as everyone has had different experiiences with inistructors from a variety of backgrounds.

stiknruda

2nd Mar 2004, 19:24

I have flown with both civvy and ex-mil, Brits, French, Americans and S Africans.

Post ab-initio training, I guess that really it comes down to the individual. The ex-mil instructors that I have had have probably pushed me harder to obtain perfection and consequently certainly seem better at explaining difficult difficult to grasp concepts. (I'm primarily talking aerobatics and formation work)

Only once have I had to sit with a youngster who was merely hours building and that experience lasted all of 35mins!

Stik

flyingwelshman

2nd Mar 2004, 19:36

Great topic!

I started flying with a civiliian, but using milatary methods (Flying scholarship), and found this to be excellent, and some of the best intruction I had.

I then moved on to a civillian, teaching normally - and found that it was less intensive, and in comparrison, I found it difficult. The intructor did seam to lack the passion.

Since then I have experianced both through clubs and UAS, and would reiterate the point that the experiance has a lot to to with the passion of the intructor. I belive it has a lot to do with if your passion meet as well.

If you are quite laid back, and youo are learning because you enjoy the learning, and in no hurry - then may be this is the instructor for you. If you want to get the learning in,m and the experiance as fast as pssible, the higher intensity methods may be more up your street.

A lot of person preferance, style, and attitude on this one me thinks!

FW

Flying Lawyer

2nd Mar 2004, 21:32

I've flown with some excellent civvy instructors, particularly rotary, but still opt for mil/ex-mil instructors when I have the option. The military instruction technique can be strict and demanding (in a military environment), but it's second to none in quality.
There was no such thing in the UAS as 'good enough'. Until you could do something properly and consistently, you didn't move to the next exercise. I concede there were different considerations: (a) the next stage for more than half the studes was Jet Provosts at Cranwell so the basic training had to be thorough; (b) HM was paying so time spent perfecting an exercise didn't have any (direct) financial implication.
Since then, I've been lucky to fly with/be instructed by ex-Mil instructors quite often. Although less formal than in the military environment, the same superb military technique shines through.
All the good qualities are there, but not those aspects which probably wouldn't be acceptable in private instruction.
I understand the point Aim Far and FW make about pace and 'robust' criticism but I've found that, away from the military environent, mil instructors adapt to your pace and ability. More patient and less pressure (ie no bollocking) - and, of course, no regular check flights with the Sqn Ldr CFI to worry about. :eek:
Boing_737
The Chipmunk was worse. Not only could the QFI somehow 'see' everything you did wrong, but your bone dome was within easy reach - an effective incentive to get things right! :D
Aim Far's point about instructors responding to mistakes is relevant to all FI's. My first QFI was good, but with one flaw. I remember him explaining over a drink in the Mess the need to adapt to a student's personality etc. Agreed so far. He then gave an example, comparing me with another of his students, saying he wouldn't bang his bone dome or give him the hard time he gave me because he'd get rattled and make more mistakes. Wrong! Theory: 10/10. Practical: 4/10. Although the other student was quieter and less outgoing than me, nothing rattled him - I was the one who occasionally got rattled! All that said, he was a good instructor who followed the tried and tested military methods.

========================
BEagle
If you read this thread - that was Flt Lt Pete L talking about Jerry Margiotta (Sp?). As for worrying about check flights with the CFI, remember the late, great Sqn Ldr Andy Whittaker? Never raised his voice, never had to. We all wanted to impress him because a 'Well done, good flight' from him was really worth something. The Boss (M.E.) was such a kindly chap he said that to everyone every time, regardless.

mad_jock

2nd Mar 2004, 22:25

The problem is the lack of consistancy in Flying Instruction within the UK.

Not only are each individual instructors standards different but also each schools and each examiners.

The ex-mil people have been trained by a system which has to have set high standards, in far more demanding situations than any of us will fly in. Each ex-mil has had upwards of a million pounds pumped into there training, I should hope that they are of a better standard than your 45k wannabie flying instructor who is living on bake beans and struggling to repay thier loans.

But they are good at instructing only a certain type of individual, but utterly wrong for other types. Personally I like their honesty in your skill level and their clinical briefs and debriefs. I tried to do that when I started instructing. But quickly found that about 80% of students don't have the mental capacity, and or, are in a state of mental exhaustion after a lesson to really take what you are saying in. Or they are learning to fly for fun and don't want to be bollocked for ever cockup on their day off.

For the rest of the instructors and examiners to come up to the uniformity of the mil trained people would cost a fortune and also there is no push from the belgrano or europe for this.

As much as I bitch and argue with Beagle it needs someone of his experence, common sense and balls to speak out about what should be happening, to take the whole of the industry by the horns and sort itself out.

Mind you maybe 10 years in the TA Royal Engineers has shown me the benifits of a regimented training method set at the lowest standard required (what do you mean you didn't tether the pig stick you arse). And I still turn the viewfoil off while swapping slides :D

MJ

Zlin526

3rd Mar 2004, 03:45

I've flown with both types, both during initial training and since in a professional capacity

Civilian - Lots of types/personalities. Instructional standards a bit variable, but where else could you learn crop spraying techniques with only 10 hrs! (Thanks Barry!) Most 'self-improvers' I have flown with have been sound personalities.

Military - Spent a lot of time being told how wonderful they were ("When I was a Lightning/Phantom/Hawk/Buccaneer pilot.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"). Standards typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them! (Thanks Liz). Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines ("But it says that in the AP"). An inability to conform to everyday civilian rules and regs..("We never did it like that in the RAF")

My view is that the RAF way is not always the way to do it in the civvie world, in civvie aircraft. However, they seem to have superior instructional standards.

This subject will roll on forever, depending on who you talk to.

BEagle

3rd Mar 2004, 04:20

That takes me back, FL! I alaways found Pete L a great chap to fly with and he never hit me in the back of the bonedome!

Funny thing was Gerry M went on to be a very professional FJ test pilot - saw him a couple of years ago down in StAthan!

As an ex-mil QFI now UK/FE(PPL), I find it important to remember that Bloggs is paying to enjoy his flying! Pi$$ him off and he'll take up extreme philately or some similar hobby. Ex-mil students also find it a bit of a culture shock to discover that they have to clean the windscreen, pull the ac out of the hangar, refuel it and re-oil it; there's no 'starter crew' or anyone to pull out chocks..... Plus the ac is flown within the heart of the envelope, not at the limit! They also have to learn to navigate in UK Class G airspace at 2-3000ft rather than down in the weedisphere or up at Flight Level Nosebleed.

Illustrating a training event with an anecdote is fine (Andy W did that: "I forgot the checks completely in my first 2 or 3 forced landings...." "One of my first Seafire students lost his prop - it fell off") - but "When I was on xxxxxxs we did it this way" just annoys folk :yuk: :yuk:

Boing_737

3rd Mar 2004, 07:37

One element that may cloud the issue is that when you are learning in a military environment, you are either there permanently (regular RAF), or at least there a few times a week for the whole day (UAS) and have various week/2 week long camps. For that whole time you live and breathe flying - ops, met briefings, plotting the NOTAMs and other mundane but important things as well as the exciting stuff - which all leads to a well rounded learning experience.

In the civvy environment you tend to go for the hours lesson, and then go home, so you don't get the benefit of learning from your peers and other instructors (that'd be those when I was.... speeches then;) ). You also don't get the benefit of those quality RAF instructional videos on press-onitis LOL and mess rugby during the dining-in nights:yuk:

I think this plays as important a role in the learning process as strapping into a plane and throwing(?) it around the skies. Maybe clubs should encourage their students to do stuff like plot the NOTAMs on the notice boards and stuff like that....

Flying Lawyer

3rd Mar 2004, 09:12

BEagle
You were probably a better pilot than me. :(
(Pete L didn't really hit me in the back of the bonedome, or anyone else as far as I know. He was a good instructor - it was his misapplied psychology which amused me. Rick M was reputed to be a 'head-banger', but I never flew with him.)
===========
Zlin526
"Civilian ..... Instructional standards a bit variable."
"Military ..... typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them!."
Fair assessment which illustrates one of the points in favour of ex-mil instructors.
The mil pilots have had "money thrown at them" and "are typically good" - not much consolation for the student that "bit variable" civvy instructors might have been just as good, if only ...... .
Please don't misunderstand me. There are FIs for whom I have great respect who aren't ex-mil.

"Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines."
Really? :confused:
The main warbird operators at Duxford wouldn't agree with you. And, if WWII aircraft aren't strictly 'vintage', isn't the Shuttleworth Collection's Chief Pilot a former RAF (and UAS) pilot? Andy Sephton? Isn't John Allison (ex RAF) a regular Shuttleworth pilot? I believe those approved to fly the Collection's rare aircraft include at least six ex-mil pilots.

I can understand why 'When I was ..... ' stories might bore experienced mil pilots like BEagle (equivalent barristers' stories bore me) but, as students, we used to encourage them. I still enjoy hearing such stories - as do most PPLs/students if this website is any indication.

(Edited to delete a point I thought, on reflection, might cause the thread to go off on a tangent.)

Aileron Roll

3rd Mar 2004, 13:42

Andy, really excellent post, and as stated we could rattle on all day..... but heres my two cents worth !

I have instructed for the past 10 years, the last 4 with mainly ex military guys, and really you cannot get away from the quality of these guys.

Anyone who has been CFS trained or checked sets a yard stick for us Civi guys to follow. All the guys I work with are very happy to pass on their knowlege, they don't look down on my background, and of course always have the best stories to tell in the bar !

Are we civi's just as good ? ....... In alot of cases YES !, while we don't have the background or the resources your typical miliatary QFI has had, a hard working civi Instructor does a pretty good job, an least all my Instructors did, dispite being low time etc.

Instructing really comes down to a desire to TEACH ! All of us have seen (or come from time to time) a warn out grumpy old prick, be it military or civi trained !

Is interesting to note also gone are the days of all airline and display pilots being ex miliatary.

The Mad Russian

3rd Mar 2004, 17:42

I have to concede… my basic, instructor and commercial GFT/instrument rating training was on the whole done by two ex CFS instructors (all be it in a Civilian environment… the GAC Oxford), Hamish Logan and Mike Vickers… the standard of instruction was unquestionably EXCEPTIONAL, even I managed to pass all the flight tests first time!

These two gentlemen were/are quite obviously very talented aviators… above all they knew how to pass the information/skills on in a format that the student could easily understand.

The area that ex mil instructor probably does not have the upper hand is that of more specialist instruction… say Advanced or Unlimited aerobatic training.

Here I think you have to have done it (at competition level) to teach it… as far as I’m aware the air force doesn’t teach Negative snap rolls, Torque rolls or the Double Eventail (a gyro figure, for the uninitiated)?? So Ex Mil does not automatically give you the edge… Here this is best left to the Cassidy’s and the Elfimov’s of this world… these specialised areas are dangerous and best left to people with significant experience in this type of flying. Both these gentlemen provide this training to a very high standard and neither are from ‘true’ military flying backgrounds.

In the civilian airshow world an ex military background may well be a disadvantage??… you are largely unsupervised thus you have to set your own standards and limits (and importantly know your own limits). I think the military is more regulated here… certainly civilians have the skill to fly to this level… just look at the competitor listings at Advanced/Unlimited Competition Level in the UK. If you think it’s easy to fly to this standard… go and have a go…

Rob

Zlin526

4th Mar 2004, 06:14

FL,

Desperately trying to remain on topic, but failing miserably, I think you'll find that there aren't as many military or ex-mil pilots flying old aeroplanes at DX these days; maybe there were more when you frequented the place? There seems to have been a grand clearout of military types in recent years, especially at the Fighter Collection. The few that remain are exceptional and skilled at what they do. The days of the military being the UK authority on old aeroplanes and flying displays has long passed. Certainly now, there are more pilots at Duxford with relevant experience on old aeroplanes rather than mates of the Chief Pilot..Insurance requirements now dictate who flies these aeroplanes.

At Shuttleworth, there's no choice; they are ALL current or ex-mil pilots bar one because of the collection's policy of using test pilots. I stand to be corrected by Airbedane, but engine handling is sure to be at the top of the training agenda for these aeroplanes and I believe it works well.

I'm not having a dig at the ex-mil guys (although on reflection it probably appears that way) but maybe having somebody else paying (taxpayer), and somebody else to repair it for them are to blame?:{ in my experience only a few have had any empathy with the aeroplane/engine combination, and these have been pilots who have already flown or owned their own vintage aeroplanes as well as flying for Queen & country.

(edited to avoid upsetting those with sensitive egos):ok:

Alty Meter

4th Mar 2004, 20:12

I've been a civvy all my career, not even in the ATC as a kid. I started with the world's favourite airline as a youngster and Im still there. Light aircraft flying for 30+ years and lots of club instructing over many years. Some display flying though nothing grand and lots of aerobatics though not competion, never appealed to me, not enough time to practice and I don't think I would have been good enough anyway. I've flown light a/c with lots of civvies and quite a few ex RAF pilots.
My advice to anyone wanting a PPL?
Find yourself an ex RAF instructor.
Want to learn aeros and other advanced manouvers?
Find yourself an ex RAF instructor.
You MAY find a civvy instructor who's just as experienced and just as good, but the chances are pretty slim. Most club instructors are low hours, low experience and hours building to get a flying job. There are some fine exceptions who've always been instructors and if you get someone who works as a commercial pilot, not just instructing, you'll probably be alright but it's roulette. If you get an instructor who's RAF Central Flying School trained, then you're almost guaranteed to get a good instructor. I've flown light aircraft with lots of them and they have got a certain quality, no question about it.

Want to train to be a competition aerobatic pilot?
That's different. You need to learn what's required for compettions. Find yourself someone who does well in competitons and it doesn't matter if he's ex RAF or a PPL.

Too many civvy pilots have got chips on their shoulders about ex-RAF pilots, even more if they've flown the fast stuff, and some PPLs who fly old aircraft or competition aeros have got even bigger chips than some airline colleagues I could mention.

Aileron Roll is right about the days when all airline pilots were ex RAF being over. They went years ago when the wartime pilots retired.

Zlin
There's more civvy warbird pilots at Duxford than there used to be but you're overstating it. I don't know too much about the Fighter Collection but the Old Flying Machine Company still has mainly ex-mil pilots. I know four of them aren't, but two of those were taught to fly by their ex-mil fathers. Flying Lawyer doesn't fly with the OFMC any more and he may not "frequent the place" like he used to but he still owns a warbird with Ray Hanna so I doubt if he's as out of touch as you think.
Shuttleworth all Test Pilots? I don't think that's true. eg I don't think Sir John Allison was. FL will probably know because they're friends.

If you can get an ex RAF instructor, you won't go wrong.
Civvy is a gamble. Ex Raf is a racing certainty.

That's my tuppence for what it's worth. :D

Polly Gnome

5th Mar 2004, 02:46

In a talk to the BWPA at Shuttleworth a couple of years ago Andy Cephton said they used only Test Pilots (with very few exceptions) because Test Pilots were familiar with moving from one type of aircraft to another, and were quick to pick up the methods of flying a different aircraft.

BigEndBob

5th Mar 2004, 03:33

When i was a civilian instructor and we had our first military instructor (who was rotary on £45 an hour and me fixed wing on £8) said "we will will have to get our holiday days sorted out", what days days off i said, you are a civilian instructor now!

Heliport

5th Mar 2004, 14:33

Zlin526's opinion that military pilots are unsuitable for vintage aircraft was bound to challenged with examples from Shuttleworth and Duxford.
The claim that Shuttleworth's mil and ex-mil pilots are all test pilots also seems to have been laid to rest but, for those interested, here it is from the horse's mouth. "We have an air chief marshal, two Group captains, two chief test pilots, a Gulf War veteran and that's just for starters." - Andy Sephton, Shuttleworth's chief pilot.Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2129608.stm) The article also describes 'unlearning' modern techniques and learning how to handle old aircraft/old engines.
There are fascinating discussions about flying old aircraft in the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum. I recommend looking in to that forum if you haven't already.
Zlin - Agree you're failing miserably. Less convinced you're desperately trying. ;)
Why not start a new discussion on your point in the AH&N forum?

BUT that is not what this thread is about.

Andy Cubin started an interesting topic which I don't remember being discussed before. It would be a shame to be diverted and lose it.

Heliport
Moderator

Those interested in old aeroplanes might want to look at this thread:
Flying WWII aircraft in the 21st C. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120575)

Say again s l o w l y

5th Mar 2004, 19:25

An interesting discussion. I have to say that of the two best instructors I have been fortunate to fly with, one was civvy the other was ex-military.
They were totally different in style, but both were vastly experienced which is really the best measure of competence not background.

On the same vein, the two worst instructors I have worked with one was (current) military and the other civvy. The military pilot wasn't bothered about GA and had an ego the size of my overdraft, whilst the civvy was just an awful pilot and terrible communicator, who also had a massive ego and thought he was god's gift despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If I had a choice between a highly experienced civvy or ex military it would be quite a dilemma and would come down purely to personality, but if the FI was fairly inexperienced then the ex-mil chap would be a shoe in.

Pat Malone

6th Mar 2004, 04:04

There is one set of circumstances in which the civilian instructor may have the edge, and that is when the student is so inept, or has a mental block at some stage in training, that he or she would have washed out of any military programme.
On two occasions I've been asked by ex-military instructors to take over students who just weren't getting it. No amount of instruction, however clear or consistent, was breaking the circle. Both students eventually went on to get their PPL(H)s. One became a very good pilot, the other gave up.
What they needed was a bit of TLC and some Zen. They felt bullied and intimidated and had developed low self-esteem.
I would say that good students benefit from a military approach, but poor students sometimes need an excess of flexibility.
And remember, a good student does not always make a good pilot, nor a poor student a bad one.

Airbedane

6th Mar 2004, 05:36

Flying Lawyer & BEagle - From my recollections of ULAS, Rick M was a pussy cat - he had a gruff exterior, but underneath he was just great. When I joined, Andy Whittaker was reputed to be a head-banger, but I never received that pleasure from him, although I do remember one or two challenging (a good word for it) debriefs!

The current Shuttleworth pilot team includes 16 pilots, all but one are ex-military, all but three are test pilots.

BEagle

6th Mar 2004, 17:14

Hi Airbedane! Had a bit of an IT faff, so have been off the air for a few days. All well now, thanks to Sir William Gates and 'system restore' for WinXP.......

As you say, Ricky Mo was a bit of a pussy cat. Perhaps never a rocket scientist; however I do recall him once saying "Disorientation means lack of guts" which seemed to be pretty high grade bull$hit to me!

FL- no, I meant that some old fart regaling tales of derring-do in HMFC to u/t airliner-drivers probably bores them - they just want to know what the thrill of 4 trips from Lootnairpawt to Oybeefa and back in a day ferrying the tattooed, pierced and unwashed dregs of society about is like...:rolleyes:

There really is some awful cr@p coming out of FIC schools these days. Thinks like the DRIBL or DABL or whatever that stupid check is which one of them has dreamed up, total misunderstanding of the basics of selecting, holding and trimming attitudes - and a lack of an ability to teach recovering from a stall with minimum height loss. All very basic stuff instilled into an RAF QFI! And please don't talk so much when Bloggs is doing the practice!

Regarding aeros, I had the misfortune to sit through a brief given by one of these 'unlimited' aerobatic people and I personally think that he has a crew loose from all that bizarre high G pulling and pushing. A good flowing aeros sequence is fine - but upward snap whatevers followed by brutal outside 'gosh this hurts but hey I'm cool' things..forget it. Looks awful, probably feels worse. But each to his own!

Graceful low level flypasts around the Old Warden bend - brilliant. But grunting, painful aerobatics in a flying advertising hoarding? Well, that's the time to have lunch or visit the loo for yours truly!

Flying Lawyer

6th Mar 2004, 20:00

BEagle
I was responding to Zlin who seems to have a hang-up about ex-RAF pilots, especially FJ judging by the types he mentioned.

Zlin526
Just out of idle curiosity ... well not entirely 'idle', I do have reasons for asking.
Do you belong to the PFA by any chance?

Tudor

Pilgrim101

6th Mar 2004, 20:18

Can't hear too well for the noise of the axes being ground :p

I learned to fly at a terrific civvy flying club where the banter between the ex mil and "normal" flyers sometimes degenerated into something a little more aggressive with off the cuff comments being thrown around in front of others, not exactly the most inspiring or edifying sight for a paying student ! In my experience the ex mil flyers were capable of pushing the training envelope a bit further for the student to make his or her own decisions but that was my personal observation at just one club.

Ego ! I'm sure it's why we all fly of course, but I am constantly aware of the sheer professionalism of fixed wing and rotary pilots of all hues who stay in flying for the love of it (certainly not the money huh ?) and the ex mil ones might just exude a little more "attitude" under certain circumstances than most flyers from a civvy background. Mind you, I've met some plonkers from both:E

Let's face it, nobody teaching flying is going to make any money and they are obviously in it for other (more altruistic???) motives, aren't they ?

When we are up there, we are all on the same team, right ?

TD&H

7th Mar 2004, 23:21

The informed opinion is that there are good and bad from both civvie and ex-military. Horses for courses sometimes.

However the biggest irony with the civilian instructor is that it is generally the only job a newly qualified CPL can get, so he/she goes into instructing not because they want to but as a means to an end, an airline job. Would that the system be better, in that it encouraged and rewarded the mature pilot who actually wants to instruct. But as has been seen in various magazines etc, it is being made more difficult and expensive for the mature infrequent instructor to keep their ratings, so they are drifting away and a valuable asset is being lost to instructing.

Its the system that forces unwilling instructors into the only job they can get that is wrong.

Aileron Roll

8th Mar 2004, 14:02

As risk of going off the subject just abit... is it true that every Red Arrows pilot has a standing invitation to join Cathay Pacific at the end of his service..............

boomerangben

10th Mar 2004, 03:54

After years having received instruction and a couple giving, I reckon that I can tell the origin of the guy I'm flying with within a few minutes. Not just military or civvy, but which of the 3 services the ex military guys come from.

RAF - Excellent, but tend to be authoritarian and are very much by the book
Army - Far more practical and more relaxed than the ex RAF.
Navy - A cross between the two above
Civvy - Variable, but always more compasionate and patient than ex mil types

The most important bit is the relationship that you have with your instructor. If you get on as people, it doesn't matter where your instructor came from.

My favourite? - Definitely ex army. They teach you the book and then teach the sequel that has yet to be written. Aviation is just too complicated to condense into words.

Aileron Roll

10th Mar 2004, 14:31

Afew years ago after gaining approval to conduct PPL Renewals I was tasked with flying with a current military A1 CFS chap (who also led the current aerobatic team).

To cut a long story short I learnt more in that 1 hour flying than probably any other. He showed me how to teach my max rates just right, and had a great intro to low level flying military style. Over to many cups of coffee some great discusion also on intructional technique. At the time I was working on a low level aero's approval. He had me sit through the ground stuff he gave the next Instructors Course .

Both him and all the military guys I have meet have always been very keen to share their knowledge, and go out of their way to help out.

Would be nice to get perhaps regular mixed siminars on this sort of thing........... I for one am always ready to listen to someone else............. anyone else feel the same ?

Megaton

12th Mar 2004, 16:42

Aileron Roll,

Cubes could tell you for certain but I am fairly certain that there is no standing invitation from Cathay for ex-Reds.

ANDY CUBIN

14th Mar 2004, 17:28

A thousand thanks to all of you for responding and for the 1000+ readership.

My h'pennyworth:

1. Cathay do not auto invite ex Reds - I failed to get in!

2. True - the RAF do not teach gyroscopic manoeuvres or other advanced aerobatics, but that does not mean that my fellow ex`RAF instructors (some of whom have significant competition experience) or I have not gone away and acquired the necessary knowledge. The Cassidy's of this world command my highest respect and are the authority on the subject. Indeed I have studied these men and their words very closely, but they do not hold the monopoly on the instruction of these manoeuvres.

3. I have been taught by both civvy and RAF instructors and, has been expressed, you can find dogsh**t on both sides of the fence. For amusement, the worst instructor of my life was a civvy, who was an arrogant bully - revenge was sweet (with his wife!), but there were a number of RAF instructors who came close to this idiot.

4. The lesson I learnt from it all, 20 - odd years down the line, is compassion for your fellow pilot. Don't really like the word student - fellow aviator with a bit less experience suits me better. Always happy to lend an ear to the most inexperienced of fellow pilots - I was one once and they still don't half teach me a thing or two!

ANDY CUBIN