Are military trained Helicopter pilots overrated?

[Bunnion]

Hate to burst some peoples egos but have to get this off my chest as I come up against it all too regularly.
In case it hasnt been stated before, ex military pilots are NOT by birthright better that civvie trained pilots.
I have flown all over the world on single and two crew operations with pilots from all backgrounds and experience levels, good ones and bad ones. Most of the the good ones would have been good even if they were thrown a helicopter and told to figure it out for themselves. The bad ones will still be bad regardless of all the resources and institutions through which they may have progressed. Furthemore the most annoying people to work with are those who are crap but have never realized it because they still believe the BS they were told on day one.
So regardless if you are ex army ex navy ex North Sea or ex space shuttle lets all not lose sight of the fact that we are all only as good as our next flight and either way none of this is rocket science.

[B Sousa]

My, my.......Someone sure got your shorts in a bunch.....I guess by that you mean you were not a Military Pilot and one who was and you thought less qualified, got your job..... Its the only reason to come off with this thread as most people know that Military or not does not mean one is a skygod.
Well in the words of my immortal High School Football Coach. "Nothings Fair" live with it.
Thankfully when I graduated from Army flight School I was not on the bottom of the class.......HOWEVER the guy who was, still had the same wings.
Another little diity was what do you call the guy who graduates last in his class at the worst Medical School in the world..........you got it......"Doctor"

[bosher]

Bunnion.

I could not put it better myself!!!!!!!

:cool: :cool: :D :D :D

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Ah, bless....!

I could not of put it better myself!!!!!!!

No, clearly you could not - perhaps English is not your first language? ;)

(by the way, I don't take this as seriously as the 2 "B" contributors, but couldn't resist the temptation to comment)

[Hilico]

At last, a chance to state my opinion that if all the qualified heli pilots in the world disappeared overnight, within a year heli operations would be continuing as ever.

Mind you, learning NVG would be...entertaining.

[AllyPally]

Let's put this to bed forever. Military pilots are better because:-

1. They are selected.
2. They are better trained.
3. They have more general experience.
4. They are better looking!!

AP
;)

[IHL]

AP I can't dispute that :
a) They are selected.
b) They are better trained.

But I think that more experienced is questionable, and we won't even go near better looking.


There are career civilian pilots who have done it all: mountain, vertical reference, offshore, IFR, night ect.

I have flown with some very excellent military pilots but I have also flown with some military pilots where I have asked myself the question; if the military has such high standards how did this guy get through.

Just my thoughts .

[KENNYR]

Bunnion, I dont think that ex military pilots think that they are better than civilian pilots. It may be that they have a broader range of experience. Military aircrew training is superb and very intense. A student pilot does not move on to the next stage of training until he/she has mastered the previous stage. Military aircrew training is not driven by financial expediency as are most civilian flight training centres.

So, bottom line Bunnion, there are good and bad in military aviation and civilian aviation, get used to it, and get over it.

[Gibbo]

Good spray Bunnion; what prompted it? Did an ex-mil pilot:
a. Steal your job?
b. Steal your girlfriend? or
c. Drink all of your beer?
d. All of the above?
;)

[chopperman]

Can't see the problem here, ex-mil pilots don't think they're better than their civvie counterparts, the civvie pilots think that for themselves, :D inferiority complex or what?

Why do they...
Steal your job? they don't, you lose it.
Steal your girl? better looking, more interesting, etc.
Drink your beer? never! To diluted with tears.

Need I go on? :D

Come on Bunnion, get a life. :ok:

[Captain Lai Hai]

Ask any of the civilian operators in PNG their opinions of ex military pilots particularly Australian and British and also their capabilities on the recent fires in OZ with one or two exceptions.

Nothing personal but the ex mil guys could not do the job that involved making decisions that wern't already written in some SOP manual that had been learnt parrot fashioned and with at least 2 or 3 crew to assist.

There were exceptions though and that was the ex US military guys working for Columbia.

I do not feel the slighest concern that a military or ex militay pilot will be a threat to my job security as a VFR airwork line pilot unless my ex military boss reads this.

Make us feel insignifcant now with your replies and then allow us to challenge you to put your money where your mouth is single pilot VFR whatever task you choose

[Tallguy]

From an Ops boys perspective...95% of my freelance pilots are Ex-Mil guys and I can't fault them, some of them of course are away with the fairies and believe the sun shines out of their rears but at the end of the day they go where I ask them with minimal hassle, they always look the part, they're confident in their abilities and I'm yet to have a punter grumble. Having said that my guys have been around the civvie circuit for a wee while now and know the commercial constraints of running a charter company. A couple of times now I've tried fresh faced guys who have just left the services, complete disaster, it would appear that unless somebody is sat in the l/h seat telling them which direction to go and where to land they couldn't find a landing site even if it had coloured smoke grenades and a great big arrow from the sky. Once the punters are on board it is then decided to take the pretty route therefore throwing my profits clean out of the window, and if a light comes on, oh jesus, pan call, mayday mayday mayday, oh hold on it's just the interior light. Having wittered on far too much, from my view I like having Ex Mil guys on my books they just need to have been in the civilian world for a while before I'll touch them. As for civilian trained guys, I'm not too sure, I haven't encountered too many and the ones I do know seem oddly nervous and unsure about things, but as I said I don't know too many...

[Capt Hollywood]

Thud_and_blunder,

My reply is way off the point of the thread unless you're a military pilot ;) but perhaps you're familiar with the saying regarding those in glass houses...........

I could not of put it better myself!!!!

Perhaps you meant "I could not have put it better myself!!!!!

Tricky language that English.:p

[SChanyi]

> Tricky language that English

Especially for the English. I've been in the UK for five years now and am utterly amazed at the number of words I used to mispronounce :confused:

[whoateallthepies]

Capt Hollywood

Thud-and-Blunder was commenting on bosher's bad English. (Which bosher has since edited). Even a dull ex-military type like me realised that. :rolleyes:

Sorry you've been shafted in some way Bunnion. I hope you get over your bitter and twisted episode.

[Joker's Wild]

Ok, ok, we get the idea already.

I am NOT ex-mil, however, ex-mil pilots are some of the most talented and capable individuals I have had the pleasure to spend time in a cockpit with.

I think I can safely say that for every tosser ex-mil pilot Bunnion has come across, I could introduce one civvie pilot who should have never been allowed to get within 100 yards of a helicopter.

That both backgrounds have their advantages and shortcomings should be obvious, even to someone who feels, for whatever reason, as having been slighted by a member from the "opposite" side.

Some of the best operations I have come across are those having a mix of ex-mil and civvie pilots on their roster's. But to single out one group only as somehow being "less" than the other group, well what can I say, I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of all the abuse I'd be expecting.

One man's opinion.:rolleyes:

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

It's all a matter of percentages. If you put 100 helicopter pilots in a room, then about 90 of them will be ex-mil and 10 will be ex-civilian (give or take, YMMV). Of those, if 10% are the proverbial "bad apples," then one civilian guy will stink while nine of the ex-mils will qualify, thereby giving an erroneous impression that there are more "bad" ex-mil guys than civilian.

Let us acknowledge that the military provides better training and discipline. What the individual pilot does with this is pretty much up to him/her, and a lot depends on the talent of that particular person.

[pohm1]

Maybe its just that the ex military pilots are prepared to tell you that they are better!

[[email protected]]

When the guys get back from the Gulf after you've been watching what goes on from the safety of your armchair - than ask some of them if they think there is any difference between Mil and civvy pilots.
We are better trained because of the bloo*y dangerous stuff we are asked to do (without overtime or time off inlieu or BALPA) and because our passengers are not fare paying and can't complain, frequently fly in conditions any licensed operator would be shut down for.
I know there are good and bad in all walks of life but if you really think that an ATPLH that allows you to do corporate work or fly between oil rigs (even in bad wx) is the same as going through the mill of Military training so you can go and get shot at in the desert for Queen and country then I suggest you ask how many civilian pilots have died in the Service of their country.
Are you just an wannabe mil pilot Bunnion?

[JKnife]

I have read this topic with interest. I am ex-military and work for a large civil company. All I can say is that there are good and bad from both walks of life.

What annoys me is that the ones having a go at the ex-military are those that have never been in the Services and therefore have no idea of what training and flying experince military pilots have to go through. When you talk to them and tell them of some of the things you have to do (such as underslung loads day and night, NVG, etc), some of them look gob-smacked that you were even allowed to do anything so stupid! I found some of the training captains (those civil trained) in my Company really had an anti ex-military chip on their shoulder and didn't want to listen to any ideas you had that might improve things. It can take a number of years for you to be accepted by these individuals.

However, on the other side of things, I can see the resentment the civil-only pilots have when I saw the attitude shown to them by some of the older ex-militery pilots (fortunately now most retired). I cringed at the attitude shown by these guys to the younger pilots, both civil and ex-mil.

I think todays training for military pilots is now more similar and compatible with civil flying than it ever was with regard to such things as CRM. There will be things the military pilot does that civil do not because of the nature of the job and/or because that type of flying is not allowed by the civil authority of that country. At then end of the day you train for the job you are going to do be it in the military or in civil life.

There are some excellent pilots from both worlds and also some pretty awful ones (and we can all think of some from both worlds).

What is more important is that by telling each other of our experiences in either world we can all learn something. At then end of the day whatever out training background, we have a CIVIL licence, that makes us all civil pilots!!

[trimpot]

Very, very well said JKnife. There are some military pilots, crab, that won't fly in the Gulf, but it's ok for you to generalise because that's what you do. Some military pilots are very good and some are very bad. Most are OK. But you know what? it's the same with civvy pilots. I don't see how dying for Queen and/or country would possibly help the company you work for as it would present certain OH&S problems. If nothing else it would make it very difficult for you to submit your time sheets1

[Captain Lai Hai]

Jknife,
I think a lot of the civvy trained pilots are unimpressed with always being considered inferior by mil. trained pilots.
With respect no one doubts your training standards and equipment and this may also contribute to envy from the civvy's but I would like to say that single pilot vfr flight that requires a good deal of precision like long lining jungle stream sampling ops etc. at the absolute limits are not handled as well by the mil.guys whetever its the safety margins you are used to or lack of feedback feel or what I really don't know but every ex mil guy I've flown with was quite rough on the machines like a lack mechanical symphathy was quite evident.
If you want a real challenge with external load work lift the next one with a 200' line alone

[Bunnion]

Thank you to Crab for illustrating my point so clearly.
Thanks also to Jknife for a well made post. I recently won a scolarship for five years of intensive training with Tiger Woods at the most difficult golf courses in the world. Still doubt I'll be much good at the end of it, even if people are shooting at me!!

My point is not about who is better, its about professional snobbery which is all too prevelant in our aviation industry particularly in rotary wing flying. I love to sit and BS with people who have done different types of flying in different places. Like others have said lots can be learned. I just hate when it happens to be coming with a downward trajectory... Bigger fool me for letting it annoy me...!!

[chopperman]

I'm sitting around on a day off with nothing to do, :bored: so I thought I may as well post something here, sad or what:sad:?
I don't know who make better pilots, ex-mil or civvie trained and I don't see much point in debating it either, it’s an argument that many people find very emotive and for that one reason it’s an argument that no-one will ever win. Anyway, how would you quantify if one form of training were better than the other? I don’t think you can, there are too many variables involved. My personal view is that some pilots will excel in certain aspects of the job whilst being merely competent in others, and, of course, there will always be the few on a big ego trip as to how wonderful they are :yuk:. We can’t all be experts at everything, can we? I have a feeling that someone out there will be:rolleyes:.

Chopperman.

[AlanM]

So this is what is meant by "CHIP warning?!"

------------------------------------------

Custodian of 119.9:) and ex RAF SH!:O

[ShyTorque]

I have met pilots from all types of background and there are certainly good and bad around (and many who can't spell or add up) but it's mainly irrespective of background and more down to the character and outlook of individuals.

[EESDL]

I think all civvy pilots are really great, especially Chief Pilots of AOC companies in Yorkshire, who might just have a freelance requirement for a pilot looking for work:-)

All Mil pilots are pooh because they work for a 'company' that do not pay me to fly on a Summer's evening with no one shooting at me or some guy 'nibbing' me!!

Silly thread, can we stop now?

[paco]

There's good and bad on both sides, but generally speaking, my experience is that mil pilots have a better consistency of basic training, so you don't have to watch them so much or tell them how to do a job. This is once they have the commercial side of life explained to them, of course.....

Most people over here, though, are not ex-mil, and mostly very professional without all that supervision.

phil

[heedm]

I'm not ex-military...yet. So far my experience has shown both good and bad on the military side but only awesome pilots with great attitudes on the civvy side (some of the civvies were ex-mil...some weren't). A little bit of a biased sample because I haven't been exposed to many low time civvy pilots. Most were 10,000+.

Here's a theory: New guy comes to a unit from a different unit. Sees some ways that it was done in the old place that may help in the new. Mentions them. People that have been doing it this way for years are a little offended because they've essentially been told that they've been doing it wrong all this time (just human nature). New guy gets labelled as a know-it-all.

I've seen that many times in military units. I'm sure it happens everywhere. A military guy leaves the military, gets a civvy job, he immediately becomes the new guy know-it-all. That happens to a number of ex-mil pilots, starts generating this perception. It doesn't get balanced with a number of ex-civvy pilots because very few civvies leave their job to join the military, and those that do likely don't get the chance to speak up as a newcomer.

I'm thinking all this would lead to the perception that all ex-mil pilots show up with greater-than-thou attitudes. Certainly some have that attitude, but as has already been mentioned, there are unique personalities everywhere.

[jungly]

Horses for courses boys and girls!

The best mountain pilots come from places with mountains,
The best crap weather pilots come from places with crap weather.
...get my drift?

Mil or Civ background is irrelevant and immaterial.

You cant expect and mil pilot to be an epic long-liner...he/she's never done it. Nor would I expect your Day VFR civy driver to lead a multi ship low level NVG combat sortie.

Can someone please stop this forum before the chicken-egg argument starts? Weve done this to death and head ache.

[Shawn Coyle]

This problem comes up all the time - what should we all learn from it?
Don't be in a hurry to comment adversely on the way things are done in an organization new to you until you really understand why things are done that way.
Ask lots of questions to find this out.
Ask questions that will make the others think, and if you're really clever, ask them in such a way to get the answer you want.
Keep your own counsel when the chips are down.

By the way, part of this debate might be fueled by some military organizations (and I've worked with quite a few, either as an exchange officer, civil instructor or semi-hostage to a committment) having some bizarre attitudes. The failure rate in training for one very, very large military helicopter training school was less than 2-3% - what does that tell you about the quality of the end product?

[Helinut]

I agreed with Jungly, until I read Shawn's post!

I have recently changed where I work (never was an ex-mil pilot), and have felt fairly strongly that the new outfit could benefit from looking at the experience of others. Get the impression that they are simply not interested, and have been puzzling about what (if anything) to do about it.

I don't think it is a purely ex-mil phenomenon - it is just that there are a lot of ex-mil pilots in the civy world.

[soggyboxers]

I'm ex-military (a long, long time ago). I thought that the military system was very thorough and covered the basics in far greater depth than is required for civil training. This is probably just because a lot of military pilots fly single pilot (or did in my day) and are thrown in at the deep end fairly early on compared with many of their civil counterparts. They are required to be rather more of a 'jack of all trades'. However, the nature of the military instructors could be rather antagonistic compared with a number of civil instructors I have encountered; as some military instructors seemed to have little or no empathy with, nor sympathy for, their students who were merely pieces of meat in the sausage machine.
I have been a civilian for considerably longer and spent quite a few years as an ab-initio instructor and as a training captain. I found that civil students were just the same as military students - a mixture of (very few) excellent, (most) average and a (very few) bit below average. Some people are slow starters and after a bit of a shaky start have matured into excellent, well-rounded pilots.
I think that part of the problem has nothing to do with whether a pilot is really considered to be good or bad, it's just that after a number of years in the military one tends to have a different attitude to some things. If this continues and manifests itself as the consideration that one is superior, that is a bad thing. Similarly, if one has worked only as a civilain pilot and has some sort of attitude problem about ex-military pilots, that is also a bad thing. At the end of the day, as civil pilots we all have the same job to do and in these days of JAR Ops and CRM should be able to put aside differences in our early flying development, work together and have respect for anyone who does his job in a competent and professional manner.;)

[choppersquad321]

Would love some feedback before this goes to press......

The very title of this piece will certainly get a lot of peoples’ blood boiling. There is an assumption in the rotor craft world that military trained pilots, specifically US Army aviators are the greatest helicopter pilots around. As a former military man, I have had many opportunities to experience military aviation. I commend all military aviators for their courage, honor, and fortitude, especially in light of the events of this past decade. This piece is not designed to take anything away from military aviators, but to point out that civilian trained pilots are every bit as good as, and in some cases better than their army counterparts.
Every Army aviator begins his or her training at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Some of the old timers, of Vietnam vintage, were trained at the now defunct FortWalters in Texas. Whether trained at Walters, or Rucker all these folks have one thing in common. The majority of their primary flight training was conducted by, you’re not going to believe this, civilian contractors, known as IP’s or Instructor Pilots. To this day the government hires out the majority of its flight training to civilian instructors. To be fair some of the civilians are retired military but the majority of these folks stem from civilian training. Again to be fair, much of the advanced training, such as combat tactics and gunnery are trained by current active military instructors. The average six to eight year helicopter pilot leaves the US Army with around 600 to 900 hours. Around 150 of which consisted of instruction training.
What makes army aviators so desirable in the civilian marketplace? You could argue that their discipline and regiment learned in the military is very desirable to the civilian employer. You could also argue that they have received the finest training in the world. And that army helicopter pilots are “highly motivated” individuals. You could say that operation of a helicopter in combat conditions,” weeds out the men from the boys”, so to speak. No offense, Ladies. All of these things may be true, but let’s consider a few points. First, we are not at war here at home. The ability to fly nap of the earth and blow things up are not needed here, and is in a lot cases, contrary to local and federal law. Second, if military training is so good, why does the authority under which we all operate require competency and license conversion? Remember the military is not required to operate within the confines of the FAR’s. An aversion of the “civilian” rules often accompanies military pilots. Also, it is worth noting that almost all civilian training courses and programs mirror military flight training in content and requirement. It is also fair to say that most of these programs have additional time spent with each student on the fundamentals and emergency procedures. The military has, of course, modified its training program over the years to keep up with new technologies and understanding of aerodynamics, but so has the civilian training world. Most of the world’s helicopter pilots come to the United States for their training, not with military, but in the civilian market. We must be doing something right. Next, what about being current and recency? Would you rather have a former UH-60 pilot from the 80’s with 1500 hours, who hasn’t flown in years, or an 800 hour flight instructor who flies several hours every day in your cockpit. And what about these really high time, older pilots who have 1000’s hours from 20+ years ago and are 60 to 70 plus years old. We all know that flying helicopters is an unforgiving business that requires a high degree of skill, competency, co-ordination, and timing. Just because you were the Sky King 25 years ago doesn’t make you competent and safe today. It’s the law of nature, deal with it.
“Well, Army aviators usually have a lot more turbine time than their civilian counterparts with equal total time.” True, but so what? Anybody who is honest will tell you operating piston helicopters day in and out is far more dangerous than operating turbines. Turbines have more complex systems to be learned but are far safer than their piston-driven relatives. Far more civilian pilots have lost their lives since 9/11 operating Hughes, Robinson and Enstrom helicopters here at home than military pilot lives lost in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe I should take moment here to commend the civilian pilots out there for their courage, honor, regiment and discipline. We all know that conversion from piston to turbine aircraft is simple and easy. I believe that the piston helicopter guy or gal brings with them a better understanding of operating limitations as they have cut their teeth on aircraft that are almost always at gross weight, and at maximum temperatures and pressures which is characteristic of almost of the civilian piston fleet during mission operations.

Then there is Money. The army aviator receives a paid for education. He or She, in fact, is paid to receive that training. The average cost to train a helicopter pilot in the civilian world to the level of CFII is around $60,000 USD. The civilian trained aviator pays for all of his or her education. My father always used to say that the lessons best learned are the ones that cost you. The civilian pilot is always attentive, and motivated. He or she has learned how to plan to make the most of every dollar spent to gain maximum return on investment. This knowledge and skill is not one of the attributes of the average military pilot as the general attitude is,” hey its tax-payer dollars not mine.” I have personally witnessed this attitude on many occasions and it makes me sick to my stomach as now it is my money, and not “the taxpayers”.

Finally there is the attitude that many military aviators carry like a huge chip on their shoulders. It is a disgusting sense of self-entitlement and omnipotence that can ruin any Saturday afternoon aviation discussion. It also makes it very hard for a civilian instructor in the “real world” to teach or get current a military pilot. Let me say that this is not true of all military pilots, but it is of far too many. A military training background does not make you Chuck Yeager, who by the way credits most his ability and success in aviation to the things he learned in this civilian life.

Who are the best helicopter aviators? In my opinion, it’s Flight Instructors, either military or civilian. The best pilot I have ever known personally, who also is an accomplished fixed-wing pilot, has convinced me that you don’t truly learn about anything until you have teach it to someone else. Instructors are required to have all the skills that make a great helicopter pilot, plus those of a businessman, mechanic, psychologist, therapist, and public speaker. They are constantly learning and growing their knowledge. They are current and competent in dangerous situations. Training people how to fly helicopters is a dangerous business. Training accidents have accounted for more fatalities in the past decade than combat operations. They have the ability to adapt quickly, think on the “fly”, and get the most from their equipment without exceeding its limits. They know how to plan, how to think, how to communicate with others effectively, and how to be a functional member of a team. They have the desire to teach others what they know, and are smart enough to know that they don’t know everything and make very efficient and effective students themselves. They don’t walk with a swagger. They are polite and professional in appearance. In fairness I would have to remove myself from that statement. Above all, they have the burning desire to fly helicopters. It’s not about status, or salaries. It’s not about days off or self-importance. It is the love of flying. It’s being thankful and happy for flight time whether it is in a R-22 or a S-76. It’s their need to grow both mentally and professionally.

As employers we should not dismiss or downplay civilian trained pilots. Nor should this article serve to bias you against military pilots. We need to evaluate, test, and monitor new pilots with no pre-disposition as to their background. Let each pilot stand on his or her ability, professionalism, and desire to perform the mission. To not do so may cause us to miss some of the best employees that we could have.

[Ascend Charlie]

Definitely agree that military-trained pilots are over-rated.

A civvy trained CPL comes out with a piston rating (usually R22), low flying rating, and that's it.

A military-trained pilot comes out with turbine rating, low flying rating, night rating, instrument rating, formation rating, sling rating, hoist rating, sometimes NVG rating.

So, comparing the military pilot with 8 ratings against the civvy's 2, the mil pilot is over-rated.

But a better way is to call the civvy pilot "under-rated".:E

[Epiphany]

Choppersquad,

Wouldn't happen to be American would you??

Perhaps this kind of post would be better received on Just Helicopters?

This kind of rubbish has been done to death here.

[Senior Pilot]

Would love some feedback before this goes to press......

I'm intrigued that anyone would consider such an ill informed and unstructured diatribe to be suitable for consideration for publication :hmm:

choppersquad321,

This is an international forum, with civilian and military pilots from around the world. Your thread title implies all military pilots, but your 'discussion' seems very heavily slanted against US Army aviators; not even including other US Military arms. I would strongly suggest that you re-think your piece, especially if you intend publishing it anywhere.

[FH1100 Pilot]

"Goes to press?" Someone is actually going to PRINT this? Where?

First of all, it's Fort WOLTERS, not Walters. Facts, man, you should check 'em.

Secondly, it is indisputable that military aviators receive more structured training than many/most civilian pilots do. You want to know the temperature limits of the 42 degree intermediate gearbox on a UH-1? Ask a military pilot; he knows.

But the big difference between military and civilian pilots...the important difference in my book...is that apart from the flight training itself, the military demands a level of discipline that is just unheard of in the civilian world. This is what makes military pilots think they are generally "better" than other pilots. And it is probably true.

Does this discipline sometimes work against them? Sure, especially for those who have a hard time adapting to the often slap-dash and hectic, make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of civilian flying. When I was at PHI, there were ex-mil guys who, upon receiving a flight assignment, took 45 minutes to get their oh-so-complicated 206L started and departed (an aircraft that they had already preflighted and untied). It was sad. You'd watch a guy like that and know he wasn't going to work out. And mostly they did not - they'd stick with it for a while but end up moving on pretty quick.

But these were the exceptions.

I'm civilian trained. I've been in this business for, well...nigh, 35 years. When it comes to pilots, I've seen 'em all, man. And you know what? All things being equal (which they never are, as we know), I'd hire the ex-military guy over an all-civilian guy first. I might be wrong, but I'd be willing to take that chance. I'd do a good interview and make sure he was the right guy, of course. But in the end, the discipline that the ex-military guy brings to the table would win the day.

Hey- that's just my opinion.

[dammyneckhurts]

It depends on what the job is.

Lets take 2 pilots with 10 years experience, one a 10 year civilian pilot and an 8 year military pilot with 2 years of civi experience.

If the job is off shore IFR, corporate work, sched flight work, multi crew night medevac I am going to want the military pilot, generally speaking this kind of stuff if out of the normal scope of utility work for many civi pilots. The military pilot is the right person for the job.

If I am looking for a logging, drill moving, heli ski, mountain, long line rescue pilot then I am going to want the civi guy, he has just simply been doing that kind of work longer.

Many moons ago I stopped for fuel and a Blackhawk Pilot came over to chat while I was refueling. He had a lot of questions about the kind of flying I had been doing and what life was like as a civi pilot as he was about to get out of the military. What struck me the most was that his total helicopter time was about the same amount of hours as I had done in just that same year.

[chuks]

Sounds the same if you say it fast.

You want some free help with an article someone paid you to write? That is cool. Military-trained pilots are generally better.

Many are totally ga-ga, of course, goes without saying, PTSD and PMS and all that and when they bend over to tie their shoelaces sometimes gin leaks out both ears but definitely better trained after a more rigorous selection process.

That guy is having you on, by the way; I am pretty sure it is Fort Walter's. You could look that up but why bother? You can trust me because I am a pilot. Well, sort of...

[Gordy]

It is Fort Wolters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wolters)

I gave up reading the article---hopefully you will have a proof reader and professional type setters to make it readable.

[Dan Reno]

Would not the VERY BEST helo pilots be test pilots at large helo manufacturers? I don't think they'd trust their new test beds to nothing but the best since everything is riding on those pilots abilites and skills.

I'll assume that then and would wonder if the big 3 or 4 makers would be able to tell us if all their pilots are military trained or does anyone here know?

I'd personaly have to say that former military-trained pilots are best since they were trained on my dime, got the best available and worked under more stressful conditions than most civies (bullets nipping at them and all).

Whadaya think?!

[heliduck]

I don't usually preach with unsolicited advice, but as you asked nicely -
Some military pilots are better than other military pilots, some civilian pilots are better than other civilian pilots, some civilian pilots are better than some military pilots & some military pilots are better than some civilian pilots.

A good pilot with minimal training will always be a good pilot, & a bad pilot with lots of training will always be a bad pilot. My philosophy - "Recruit for attitude, train for experience".

[Gordy]

heliduck---Not a truer word spoken.

I had this on my hard drive, not sure where it came from or who wrote it:

CAUTION!!! If you have no sense of humor, take yourself too seriously, have a big ego, penis envy, or low self esteem...please do not read the following. Additionally, if you do not know the words satire, sarcasm, irony, amphibian, areola, logorrhea, phrontistery, and the all important boobies...please do not read the following.


Let's see both sides for a second.


I've read so many of these debates and I'm tired of this not being said correctly. You may not like it if you are a military only 'pilot', but that's tough.

Civilian trained pilots have smaller egos than military trained pilots. There, it has been written.

Why is that? It is because the civilian pilot was trained in the real world. The civilian pilot was trained in the most realistic aviation curriculum in the world. The civilian pilot had more stress to deal with, more uncertainty in their future, (after all the money I've spent will I get a job to make it worthwhile?) more time management to balance, (what with working a full time job to pay for flight school) and had to compete with their peers just to get a job to pay for it.


Let's flip the roles around for a second. The military guy was probably a guy who either didn't know that he could go through a civi school or couldn't muster up the initiative to put himself through it. He heard about how cool it was to be a military from one of his zit faced, long-haired, fat ass friends (or from watching Top Gun) and went to check that out. He bought the line of crap the recruiter sold him. He spent his measly little flight time flying idiot circles around some craphole airport (Rucker) with a 22 year old, broken down 20...I mean, OH58 and a 65 year old CFI...I mean IP (talk about the blind leading the blind). Between the two of them they couldn't disarm an old lady with a bamboo cane. (Although when watching them fly you'd think that's what they were doing)


Now that he is a big time military aviator with 150 hours of flight time, he goes for the PIC rating, so he can "actually fly the aircraft". All of this is while he lives on the base, and goes down to the local sleaze-hole so he can brag about what an important person he is. Now he is the blind man leading another. Oh sure, he can spit all kinds of army code out. "You're in violation of army code 5 sec. 3e paragraph 99". Wow, he is a wealth of rote memorization now. He can't apply any of it because all he has ever done is fly maroon rotations around aforementioned airport.

Back to our civilian pilot. After 12-24 months of academics, flight training, and professional development in the real world, (only took him that long because he was working full time in addition to flight school) he graduates flight school and EARNS (not buys--DPE's are way too expensive these days} the wings that have been on his mind since he was 4 feet high. Not only is he a flight school graduate, he is a pilot (not a damn arrogant military aviator). Oh yeah, all of his training was conducted in a weed eater with blades, so he will be well prepared to fly the under-powered over-loaded machines that are a reality in the civilian world today.

Now comes the cool part: transition to a turbine aircraft and assignment to a part 135, or utility or EMS operation anywhere in the world. In stark contrast, after the military blow-hard leaves the little Rucker Boy's Club B.S., he...can't get a job because he knows more than the chief pilots and D.O.'s that he's interviewing with. I am in awe!

The civilian pilot becomes...well, pretty much whatever he wants. You see, he has a choice in his destiny. Not just what he's told to do. He goes to the canyon for his first turbine job. After months of doing his job and impressing his bosses with his ability, good attitude and lack of ego he achieves...well, line pilot status. Which when you think about it is really the same thing he achieved when he passed his 135 ride. For you military guys that means (drum roll) he's...fully mission capable. Being a sharp guy and a good stick, he draws the duty of training pilot, check airman or all around 'git er done' pilot. If you don't know what that means, you are the military jackass I am portraying. It is the...oh, never mind you'll never get it anyway.

Anyway, now, our aviator is now planning daily missions with hard times, lots of MVFR over challenging terrain. Complex mission planning for day, night, NVG, external load and dodging multi-ship military flights as well. After a strong first year in his company, our aviator has impressed the people who pay the bills and has earned a raise. No small feat in itself. He will now undergo a rigorous evaluation (every day for the rest of his career)his evaluation will consist of complex mission planning, unplanned changes and emergencies, and dodging a flight of 8 military aircraft on a night mission through the mountains (you didn't know they were there, because they just can't seem to figure out the radios. You will never know your 'mission'. Your 'mission' changes from day to day. You are expected be able to do whatever comes up. From VIP to precision longline. I can't even list all of the facets of this day to day on the job test. This pilot will have to pass on his first try. There are no second chances. Why, because if you fail it means you f**ked up and died. If not, you just might have what it takes to get ahead in the civi world.

If you are a military only 'pilot' (sorry, Aviator) I don't care, but never go off at the mouth to civilian pilots about real flying, or telling your version of a war story. It won't work and doesn't impress us. Until you have done a flight from A-Z without having all your decisions made for you by your 'superiors'.

You military pukes haven't earned the respect you think you deserve. Show some damn humility the next time you are face to face with a civilian pilot.


Get over yourself douche bag.
I've read so many of these debates and I'm tired of this not being said correctly. You may not like it if you are a civilian "only" pilot, but that's tough.

Military trained pilots are superior to civilian trained pilots. There, it has been written.

Why is that? It is because the military pilot was trained by the best instructors in the world. The military pilot was trained in the most demanding aviation curriculum in the world. The military pilot had more stress to deal with, more uncertainty in their future, more time management to balance, and had to compete with their peers just to graduate.

Let's flip the roles around for a second. The civilian guy was probably a silver-spooner from a family with some money who sent him through a fixed-wing program of some sort first. He heard about how cool it was to fly a helicopter from one of his zit faced, long-haired, fat ass friends and went to check that out next. He had (Daddy had) paid for his fixed-wing ratings, so this helicopter whim was just an add-on to his ticket. He spent his measly little flight time flying idiot circles around some craphole airport with a 22 year old, 200 hour CFI (talk about the blind leading the blind). Between the two of them they couldn't disarm an old lady with a bamboo cane.

Now that he is a big time commercial pilot with 200 hours of flight time, he goes for the CFI rating, so he can "build time". All of this is while he lives with Mom and Dad, or works for Daddy's business somewhere and lives with roommates. Now he is the blind man leading another. Oh sure, he can spit all kinds of regs out. Parts 61, 91, 135, 141. Wow, he is a wealth of rote memorization now. He can't apply any of it because all he has ever done is fly not so smart person rotations around aforementioned airport.

Back to our military pilot. After 12-24 months of academics, flight training, and professional development as an officer in the armed forces, he graduates flight school and EARNS (not buys) the wings that have been on his mind since he was 4 feet high. Not only is he a flight school graduate, he is an aviator (not a damn R-22 Pilot). Oh yeah, all of his training was conducted in turbine powered helicopters, not a weed eater with 2 rotor blades.

Now comes the cool part: transition to a combat aircraft and assignment to a combat aviation unit anywhere in the world. In stark contrast, after the civilian blow-hard leaves the little 141 BS, he goes to work taking pictures of boats for Boatpix. I am in awe!

The military pilot becomes a UH-60 Blackhawk Aviator, or maybe flies the AH-64D Longbow. He goes to Germany for his first assignment. After months of training and climbing the readiness level ladder, he achieves RL-1 and is fully mission capable. Being a sharp guy and a good stick, he draws the duty of flying PI for the ADC(M). If you don't know what that means, you are the civilian loser I am portraying. It is the Assistant Division Commander, Maneuver. Anyway, our aviator is now planning daily missions with hard times, lots of IFR legs. Complex mission planning for day, night, NVG, IMC, and multi-ship, as well. After a strong first year in his unit, our aviator has impressed his IPs and commander and has earned the right to be evaluated as a Pilot-in-Command. No small feat in itself. He will now undergo a rigorous evaluation (not pay some 90 year old DPE $500). This evaluation will consist of complex mission planning, unplanned changes and emergencies, leading a flight of 8 aircraft on a night mission through the mountains, or for a time on target LRS-D insertion. The aviator will be tested on everything from calls for fire to Instruments. From border crossings to chemical warfare. From ICAO regulations to in depth systems knowledge of his aircraft. I can't even list all of the facets of this evaluation. This aviator will probably not pass on his first try, despite days and weeks of studying, planning, and a strong execution. Why, because a unit with strict standards probably wants to find out how he will deal with it. If he bounces back and says he is going to work even harder and keeps a good attitude, he will be back on the list in no time. If he gives up and just relaxes to be a PI, the evaluation will really have done its job.

If you are a civilian only pilot, I don't care, but never go off at the mouth to military aviators about real flying, or telling your version of a war story. It won't work and doesn't impress us. Until you have done a table 10 with 8 aircraft and an armored troop of M-1s, flying system with 30 knot winds, you can't talk. Until you have flown at night with NVGs on Christmas Eve through the mountains in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania with the Secretary of Defense aboard your aircraft with 6 other Blackhawks and 4 AH-64s as escort, while the snow is falling like crazy out, shut your hole. Until you have slept in a sleeping bag under the tailboom of an OH-58D behind your sister Troop's Bradley fighting vehicle in the middle of the Mojave Desert, shut the hell up.

You civilian slimes haven't earned your way. We have. Show some damn respect the next time you are face to face with a military aviator.

[GoodGrief]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/lurker.gif

[Two's in]

Gordy,

You should have left it on your hard drive or swapped it for a decent virus.


Anyone who thinks a rotary pilot is a one dimensional beast who can be defined by his/her training route is either (a) not a rotary pilot, or (b) a complete buffoon.

Both the civil and military arenas have access to plenty of clowns and knob-jockeys, don't encourage them by proliferating this nonsense.

[Gordy]

Two's in---Maybe you failed to read the very first lines.....

CAUTION!!! If you have no sense of humor, take yourself too seriously, have a big ego, penis envy, or low self esteem...please do not read the following. Additionally, if you do not know the words satire, sarcasm, irony, amphibian, areola, logorrhea, phrontistery, and the all important boobies...please do not read the following.

I thought it was quite funny. And yes I agree with you:

Both the civil and military arenas have access to plenty of clowns and knob-jockeys,

[LordFlashheart]

:=C'mon, it depends on the person.

I've seen highly proficient pilots from both backgrounds. Don't cast stereotypes. There is no general rule.

I'm ex-military and I say 'get your hand off it' and let's all get along.:ok:

[[email protected]]

Choppersquad, I hope your flying is better than your journalism:ugh:

[THM]

Please re-write and correct all your punctuation, grammar and incorrect facts before attempting to give this to any publisher foolish enough to consider printing.

[Dan Reno]

A quick observation sees Europeon posts seem more prone to military bashing than US posts. (Gee, what a surprise. /s)

US helo manufacturers actually do employ more test pilots with military backgrounds for a variety of good reasons than civilian pilots with oodles of hours.

It isn't a Us against Them scenerio. Just that military pilots have a lot of stick time, in varied A/C, under varied conditions, lots of training and a regemented , basic manner in approaching whatever the machine can throw at the them. Then throw in the bullets flying all around and into the A/C and this builds pilots who have basically "been there, done that" and able to 'handle' situations in a more casual manner. Most anyone can fly straight and level from point A and B all day and accumulate hours but we're talking about what it takes to control the beast when the chips are down or as they say, when the A/C tries to seperate the men from the boys.

Sorry, former (US) miitary pilots have the edge. IMO

[papa68]

To answer your question as succinctly as possible. No.

:OP68

[Hell Man]

http://www.calltodoody.com/i/Pet%20Signs/no_poop_zone.jpg

ChopperDude: Try and keep PPRuNe a c*ap free zone by not posting such threads!

I've converted a bunch of civilian helo jocks onto turbines and and whole bunch more from from ab initio thru to their first licence! I admire them all and recognise the challenges they've overcome to get where they are but - it isn't a fair comparison to put up military pilots (who have gained a depth and diversity of experience at great cost) with their civilian counterparts. Its like asking the difference between a security guard and a soldier!

Please find a better topic to post!

HM

ps: Is my response mildy provocative? Perhaps. That's what you get from such posts - conflict! Delete the entire thread in my view.

[Dan Reno]

Gee Hell Man, just because the topic doesn't put a shining light on civilian pilots when compared to military pilots, don't expext the thread to be pulled just because it hurt someone's feelings. In the US we continue to dance around a multitude of issues, one being RACE which no one wants to speak openly about.

This civ versus mil pilot thingy is just like a lot of things in life; being in the right place/right time, money, luck heredity ability, where born, etc, etc...

It is what it is and no need to (in an adult, not PC world) for it to be swept under the carpet and not discussed (or cussed). No reason to stew about it. It takes all types to keep the Big Blue marble spinning. IMO

[What Limits]

Sadly the accident statistics don't seem to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, civilian or ex-military.

On this basis, we are equally as bad.

[Pullharder]

This has been done to death but anyhow, "what limits" has it right on statistics...both mil and civvie crash as often and not taking into account aircraft shot down in a war zone...actually accidents by poor airmanship/pilot error....:sad:
I have flown with/taught both mil and civilian and there are as many bad on both sides of the fence....the mil generally fly less hours and some have a hard time adjusting to civvilian rules/regs, lack of support, single pilot ops and many have very few real IMC (without NVG) hours,etc. ........ the difference is attitude, the ex mil think they are the bees knees and cannot take any criticism,:= as for the last 20 years they have had sunshine blown up their arses ( I remember how I felt joining the "crappy civvies") and the civilians usually take things on board and learn from it... I also remember having a huge amount of respect for the north sea guys when I first flew out of Aberdeen on a real crappy night, imc the whole way in icing conditions,190 miles offshore,doing radar approaches to rigs at night in fog at minima's,(with my limited imc experience with the mil, mainly in the sim)!!! and feeling a bit humble as the P1 took it all in his stride!!! :eek:
I took my military chip off my shoulder that night and left it at home forever more....
Fly safe EVERYONE....
P.H.

[Hell Man]

Dan Reno: I wasn't so bothered about civilian pilots not being shown in a positive light - just feel that its a stupid subject which doesn't help anyone!

I posted this a while back http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/418658-rip-billy-holloman.html about the passing of Billy Holloman (the US Army's first 'black' helicopter pilot) and think we've come a long way in the US when it comes to race relations. Lots more to be done but I see encouraging signs of progress everywhere.

HM

[Macaco Norte]

PullHarder

What are you talking about!


I had some years in the Mil in which I flew more hours than any I have had since leaving.
In my experience its the civvy pilots that can not take criticism, Usually the P1's that probably should have spent a little longer in the other seat. They feel it may impact their reputation. An attitude that is practically beaten out of Mil pilots. How long did you fly and what was it you flew when in the mil? Limited IMC and mainly in the sim? What is 'IMC (without NVG)?' Surely if NVG are required its VMC or at least 2km & 700ft(when I left). NVG is not logged as IMC so I don't understand that statement at all. Unless you were RN, using the 'sole reference to instruments' argument, then you would have had to have been a junglie pilot as pingers are single pilot and therefore you would know that your single pilot reference is also bo!!ox. How many police/HEMS pilots do you know that are ex mil? If its not many then consider the fact that you probably left the mil too early. Probably not knowing quite as much as you think you do.
Most ex mil types (not just pilots) are trained thoroughly to accept conditions where they will have to think for themselves, an ability that must be(not may be) learned. So working without support would be second nature.


I also had respect for the guys who flew the ARA with what seemed like an unnatural ease. However after flying them time and again, year after year, its only too obvious why they seem so uneventful. After all its the weather conditions and only the weather conditions that make Flying offshore vaguely interesting.


I never had a military chip on my shoulder. I do however have experiences that some civvy pilots choose to resent.


I respect the experience and abilities of all the friends and colleagues that I work with and have worked with in the past. It is my opinnion that no matter what a pilots background he is as able and as fallable as the next.


Although you never actually state in your post that you were once a military pilot. I have doubts that you actually served at all.

[hihover]

Choppersquad, I took several attempts to complete reading your article as I found it dull and whiny - it reads to me as though you have a complex about not making it as a military pilot, or maybe you just lack the confidence to confront the ex-mils that seem to irk you. Either way, putting the cat amongst the pigeons with your article is a cheap shot and you deserve all the criticism you have received.

What Limits addressed the only real base line when comparing pilots. Outside of accident statistics, I would be interested to hear what defines a good pilot. Only then will it be possible to establish "better quality pilots" and "poorer quality pilots".

I think we tend to rate pilots (subconsciously) based on their personal characteristics (like confidence and decision making ability) added to their flying skills and their experience level. And only when they score high on all three, do they make it to the "good pilot" status.

I am ex-mil, before you ask. I'm also a fairly experienced pilot both here in the US and the rest of the world, and I can assure you that there are good and not so good on both sides of the fence. However, the confidence levels and the war stories from the ex-mils are much more a reflection of the personality that took them through the military route in the first place. Not a reflection of perceived superiority.

You are not doing your case any good by whining. I would also recommend that the next time you decide to compare the dangers facing mil pilots and civilian flight instructors, that you use something more plausible than the civvy teaching in an R22.

Tam

[Lonewolf_50]

choppersquad321 (http://www.pprune.org/members/337001-choppersquad321)
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/avatars/th_new.gif

You also appear to be new to understanding pilots. ;)

It isn't relevant what color of money it was that paid for training, if you are hiring somebody. Military training carries with it the chance to fail, get washed out of training, a decision typically made early on to save the tax payers some money. Your decision to bring an emotional tone to that element of your essay is one of many weaknesses in support of a vaguely formed assertion.

But as others have noted, you'll get good and bad eggs in either basket when you choose to hire a pilot for the opening your company has.

The keys to choosing an individual you will or will not hire include:

how teachable, and how trainable, is he or she?
how experienced is this pilot, generally?
how does that experience fit the tasks and jobs this pilot will be assigned when flying for my company?
I flew and instructed both fixed wing and helicopter in the Navy. I first learned how to fly in a Varga Kachina. I got to see how pilots, both fresh and grizzled, adapted to new tasks, jobs, roles, missions, and equipment. The stovepipe you attempt to ram two classes of pilots into are ill-suited for the decision you wish to influence, which is related to hiring a pilot.

Regardless of how many hours one has, a very important consideration is how well, and how quickly, a given pilot adapts to a new task or job.

Beyond that, no further comment, other than this: as written, your piece isn't worth publishing.

[gfuller]

I am a retired US Army Aviator with over 10,000 helicopter hours.
I have flown VIP overseas since 1999.

I have flown with a few civilian trained pilots and know many more. Here is my take on the military vs civilian pilot issue in that article. I would not put to much stock on a military pilot with less than 1,000 hours. If he has less why ? If you have been in the service for more than 5 years you should have more. Most aviator with over 5 years should be tracked as an IP, safety, or maintenance officer, if not why not? But a pilot with 20 years in the military should be disciplined, a good teacher, and calm during an emergency.
On civilian pilots, I know many and proud to know them. It boils down to individual personality. I did not like the article bashing military pilots, I am very proud to be a former military pilot, and I feel that I was taught, and that I taught all my pilots to: complete the mission safely and professionally. Always stressing safety first!
I think civilian or military, we all deserve a pat on the back for what we do !

[OvertHawk]

Presumably the reason that most test pilots in the US (and elsewhere) are from a military background is that the test pilot courses are so hugely expensive that it tends to be only the military that can run / afford them?

Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.

I stand to be corrected.
OH

[XV666]

Not that I want to stymie the thread, but what is it with choppersquad321 who signs up, posts a load of old rubbish seeking 'comments', then logs off 5 minutes later never to return.

Troll, anyone? He certainly got a result, that's for sure :p

[Genghis the Engineer]

Presumably the reason that most test pilots in the US (and elsewhere) are from a military background is that the test pilot courses are so hugely expensive that it tends to be only the military that can run / afford them?

Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.

I stand to be corrected.
OH


Almost certainly true in both the fixed and rotary wing worlds. I recently heard an estimate of a little under US$1m to put a pilot through Test Pilot School. Virtually nobody will ever self fund through that, nor are many companies going to pay that if they can employ ex-military TPs.

There are pure civilian TPs, who have normally graduated from the Flight Test Engineer roles, but that's a relatively rare route and tends to be the more technically specialist TPs - the "big job" TPs: first flights, high risk testing, weapons testing - they are almost always ex-military, because of the specific training delivered at the TP schools.

G

[Choppersquad]

choppersquad321. Can you please change your name on the forum
i have got a number of PMs thinking it is my post.

AS you can see the handle is taken already.:=

Thanks
choppersquad.
The original.

[choppersquad321]

Choppersquad, do me a favor and fwd those messages to me please. I'll look into changing the handle!

Cheers

[Fly_For_Fun]

Looking at some of the posts on prune with regards to flying in poor weather, decision making processes and busting limits and rules like rule 5 (UK ANO), I think the civilian world could learn a great deal from the military.

INHO.

[Whirlygig]

I think the civilian world could learn a great deal from the military.You mean, be exempt from Rule 5? :\

Cheers

Whirls

[cyclicoyibo]

My idle glance at this thread led me to some serious thought on this subject.

I was trained in the UK military and spent six years as "a military pilot". Since then I have spent 30 years as a civilian pilot, split fairly evely between corporate and offshore flying. I presently hold a junior management position with one of the major offshore helicopter companies and, over the last few years I have benn responsible in one way or another for some 100 pilots.

The attitude of the military pilots has undergone a considerable change in the last few decades. The Vietnam vets that I work with are, to a man, extremely efficient pilots with a very good work ethic. They will always do the job first but, if there have any issues, they will be very forthright in stating them. They will accept positions of authority reluctantly but invariably do a good job whilst in that position. The modern day military pilots (particularly from the USA) expect to be promoted to these positions as they see themselves as being better trained than their civilian counterparts. This is not always the case!

When I finished my ab-initio training I had 220 hours airborne and in that time I had not only learned to fly a helicopter but had learned to use it as an air observation post, to control artillary and naval gunfire and to act as a forward air controller whilst flying single pilot. Also, the day after I finished training I was an aircraft commander. However, I had no instrument skills and CRM (apart from being unheard of) was a mystery.

In the company that I work for, a new pilot comes out of flight school with approx the same number of hours as I had but with very different skills. he has an instrument rating and he/she (hopefully) has been given a thorough grounding in CRM and MCC. Which of us had the better training is a moot point but I would be less than comfortable to authorise these guys to go of flying on there own. In fact, most of them will achieve 3000 hours flight time before achieving command.

Then there are the "self improvers". Tremendously dedicated people who have spent their own time and money to reach their "holy grail" of becoming a commercial helicopter pilot. They tend, almost without exception to have been instructors on singles and in many cases IREs. Often, they arrive with expectations of being Check Airmen within a very short time and are invariably disappointed when this is not the case. As a group (and I don't like generalisations) they are prepared to do the extra jobs (flight safety officer etc.) willingly and well. However, I have found that many have struggled with achieving the standard offlying that we require, particularly in the IF area.

Of course, all of the above are generalisations and individuals will always differ but, with the military trained pilot, you will get someone who will be familiar with command and will have no difficulty in making the decisions required of a commander but, may well be somewhat inflexible, not want to adapt to your company's modus operandi and will expect to have your job within the first year. The ab-initio will be the easiest to mold to your company's way of operating but will come with a low skill level and will take a lot of resources to bring to command. The "self improver" will come with all of the above attributes, or none of them, there is no way of knowing!

Who would I prefer to employ?

Obviously, the Vietnam vet.

Outside of him, all of them! Because, where and how you trained has no bearing at all on the pilot that you will become. That is down to each and every individual to become as good a pilot as they want to be. All of these people can fly, let's face it, flying isn't difficult. What defines a "good pilot" is his attitude and his willingness never to stop learning. My career is close to the end and I still can be surprised to find that a 200 hour cadet can tell me something about a helicopter that I didn't know before.

This debate is senseless (although good fun) as has been said before, but this was why this forum was started.

Fly safely and, above all, Enjoy!

Cyclic.

[Colibri49]

There is one very good reason why military pilots on average, as a generalisation, tend to perform better in the many facets of being professional pilots after they leave the military.

A very tough selection process is applied to them regarding academic, medical, psychological, psychometric and physical fitness, as well as intense interviews to establish whether the candidates have military leadership qualities.

All this and more, such as establishing whether the candidate can take discipline during intensive basic "soldier stuff" before he/she is allowed near an aircraft to learn flying skills which are only part of what is required of a serving officer or N.C.O. who must exercise leadership and set a good example.

During the pilot training at taxpayers' expense, each phase of training is allocated a budget of flying hours and if a candidate is struggling with some aspect, a small amount of extra training might be given followed by dismissal from the course for those not making the grade.

Dismissal rates vary, but up to a third of those who start flying training might not complete it. Compare this with civilian trainees who can keep on repeating failed check rides as often as their bank accounts will allow.

I've seen several civilian ex flying instructors fail to make the grade in the demanding offshore all-weather IFR multi-engined helicopter operations, but I've also had the privilege of flying with hundreds of self-funded civilian pilots who would match up to the best the military can produce.

The offshore helicopter operators where I operate have very thorough selection procedures which filter out most of the poor candidates, but in almost 30 years I've seen a very small handful of civilian trainees get through the net only to fail. However I've never seen an ex military pilot fail, while the numbers from both training backgrounds have been similar.

Finally the age-ist 'baloney' spouted at the beginning of this thread is just that. We all get thorough medical and flight checks at regular intervals, also being put through the simulator 'wringer' every 6 months. I'm one of those past 60 already and we older pilots don't fare worse (or better) than the younger ones. I suggest you remember that everyone including you is subject to 'anno domino' and you might also want continuity of career when you reach the same age.

[Whirlygig]

to establish whether the candidate has military leadership qualities.Are these the same qualities required in civilian leadership?

Cheers

Whirls

[Colibri49]

No doubt they are, but they're not a pre-condition to be selected for civilian training. Similarly the physical and psychological criteria aren't remotely as important to get through a self-funded course.

But I wouldn't dream of detracting from the drive and determination which civilian candidates must also exhibit to obtain a professional licence. Only problem is as previously stated i.e. no flight time limit is established to pass each phase of a flying training course.

Now, I'm not going to be drawn further thanks. The differences in selection criteria are self-evident to all but the most blinkered.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Colibri ..... apart from your bias ... what about those now 'civi' pilots who may well have been (selectable but) un-able to get into Mil flying .... excluded by the bureaucratic financial or arbitrary selection cutbacks of the day?

There but for the grace of 'whoever' might have gone you!


;)

[Fly_For_Fun]

Whirls, I am exmil and now flying civilian, commercially and am still exempt rule 5. Being exempt a rule is one thing, but some of the threads I have read and commented on regarding the disregarding of this, and other rules, by non military shows a lack of airmanship and disiplin seldom demonstrated within the armed forces of the UK (I cannot speak for others).

Just a objective observation.

[Colibri49]

Spinwing. There but for the grace of 'whoever' might have gone you!

Absolutely ! Did I forget to mention luck as a factor? Oh dear !

Did I or did I not state that it has been my privilege to fly with civilian trained pilots who are as good as any the military can produce?

All these "red herrings" which you and others might raise don't alter the fact that military pilots are subjected to much more stringent selection criteria and are given a tight quota of flying hours to complete their training.

As I said to Whirls, I'm not going to be drawn further on this matter.

Next critic please.

[Whirlygig]

but some of the threads I have read and commented on regarding the disregarding of this, and other rules, by non military shows a lack of airmanshipNot knowing exactly to which threads you refer, are these infringement carried out by civilian trained commercial pilots? If not and since the military does not have an equivalent of a PPL, then you are not comparing like with like.

I would also suggest that military leadership qualities are, by the very nature of what the military does, quite different from those qualities required in civilian life. Some military personnel would make no better a good man'manager in civilian life than I would make a good military leader in wartime.

Whilst the military may well have a rigorous weeding-out process, a civilian-trained commercial pilot who has probably had to fund the training themselves, will have demonstrated professionalism and good decision-making making in his or her previous career; with the exception of inheritances, how else would they have funded the training?

Cheers

Whirls

[Fly_For_Fun]

Whirls, you miss the point. Breaking rules by making mistakes is one thing, but breaking rules because you think you wont be caught is another thing altogether. I am just saying thet some PPL commentators on this forum, and not military by their own admission, admit to busting rules and are quite proud of this, their reasoning being that they are good enough not to need the rules in the first place. This is not a managerial failing but one of mindset failure, and the military do not, IMHO and experience, have this mindset. CRM and cockpit management has, for more than 20 years that I am aware of, been identified as the most contributing factor to safe and efficient flying. Being a military pilot in an aircraft is not the same as being on a parade square.....one needs to shout a lot more quietly!

[Colibri49]

Quote


Other than the training itself, there is very little aptitude screening in civil flying training (unless you're in a sponsored cadetship, which is somewhat like a military system).

That was to be my next point. Because some large helicopter companies (instead of the government) put up the money for pilot training, of course there was close scrutiny of each candidate, a la military selection, to minimise the risk of losing the invesment in each person's training.

The net result was another "filtration" process which historically has provided a large number of very high calibre candidates to become part of the structured and disciplined pilot workforce performing North Sea offshore operations.

Most recently to North Sea operations have come those who found the funding to get trained and "lifted themselves up by their own bootlaces"; no mean feat and perhaps demanding more self-confidence and determination by each individual to go through the processes while incurring heavy debt.

I venture to suggest that many of those who came from the military or sponsored cadetships wouldn't have dared to take on such a financial risk. Certainly I wouldn't !

For this most recent group of applicants the North Sea helicopter operators applied selection criteria retrospectively, similar to those criteria which were applied to candidates for cadetship.

Therefore, at least for the North Sea pilot workforce comprised of groups from differing categories, there has been intensive "filtration" applied to produce a fairly homogeneous pool of pilots, hopefully all subscribing to a common set of operational safety standards.

I never have a sense while flying of an "us and them" attitude relating to military and civilian backgrounds. Our training captains are all civilian trained and equal to, or better than the best military instructors I flew with.

I have no bias at all when considering the competence of my colleagues. It all comes down to individual aptitudes and personalities. I don't consider that my 10 years of military flying makes me a better pilot that my civilian-trained colleagues, most of whom would doubtless have made it through military pilot training.

However I certainly do consider that many other civilian pilots who have been rejected by the North Sea pilot "filtration" and probably many who haven't applied for jobs here, would not have made the grade in military pilot training.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Many are totally ga-ga, of course, goes without saying, PTSD and PMS and all that and when they bend over to tie their shoelaces sometimes gin leaks out both ears but definitely better trained after a more rigorous selection process.

This is based on personal experience? What is your sample size and what does many quantify to?

The ones (4 UK, 1 US) I have met are remarkably sound individuals who don't conform to ridiculous Hollywood caricatures. IMHO the training is not the main differentiator, it's selection both at the beginning of and during service.

[QTG]

How does it go? I remember - Fly Navy, Dig Army, Eat Crab

[Two's in]

the military pilot is a tool

...nice thread summary, says a former military pilot.

[Colibri49]

Brandtzag. Really I should avoid this steaming pile of ordure and not grace it with a reply.

Most military pilots are not trained initially for any specific purpose like killing, but to fulfil a wide range of piloting roles. A minority will eventually find themselves with fingers on triggers.

The rest will admittedly be involved in operations which indirectly or directly support the front line attack force, but most are happy to exercise piloting skills in defence of their countries without aggression.

I spent 10 years transporting troops and supplies, sometimes into very difficult and dangerous situations and like most pilots who got their military wings with me, I was relieved to complete my service as a "closet pacifist".

All that most of us ever wanted was the best flying training that tax money could buy and challenging flights to sharpen our skills. We got those, big time!

Don't believe the gung-ho rubbish about military pilots in the movies. I doubt that you were ever a military pilot and so I offer you a figurative roll of toilet paper to wipe your orifice which spouted such dung.

[chcoffshore]

I'm ex military

Really what did you fly in the military?

[jackx123]

Colibri: your post is confusing since it pretty much agrees with bran

Most military pilots are not trained initially for any specific purpose like killing, but to fulfil a wide range of piloting roles. A minority will eventually find themselves with fingers on triggers.

bran writes: a military man/pilot has to be prepared to kill another human being without hesitating seems to be in agreement here

However, I think it's naive to think that the military/government recruits to fulfill a dream of someone to become a pilot and I think bran is pretty accurate in his observation. They recruit to plug holes in an organization that has the readiness to defend its nation.

@ chc: I can't see what flying experience has on making a qualified comment or decision. Did you know that Maj. Gen David H. Petraeus (** at the time) is not a qualified (military) pilot yet was commanding general of 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

[chcoffshore]

@ chc: I can't see what flying experience has on making a qualified comment or decision. Did you know that Maj. Gen David H. Petraeus (** at the time) is not a qualified (military) pilot yet was commanding general of 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).


:rolleyes: Really i didn't know that hmmmmmmm, but i suppose he had some aviation advisors on his staff at JOC.

[Colibri49]

jackx123. Where's the difficulty? It's quite simple. Boys want to fly. The military wants them to fly and replace those who leave to become civilian pilots. The military select those they think could make the grade and trains them for a year to 18 months, during which time some boys get thrown out for not keeping up with the pace.

During training it becomes clearer which pimply youths will be best suited to which flying roles. Out of, say 70 who start a course, maybe 50 complete it. As a rough idea, 10 each go to helicopters, heavy transport, fighters, recce and maritime ops, or whatever other flying specialisations you can dream up.

In the above example only 20% become potential "killers" and possibly in later years a few others might transfer into that specialist role. But of those who ever fire a missile or guns and know they killed someone, very few will enjoy that experience or memories.

Even the pilots of fast metal prefer shooting targets and the exhilaration of speed. I know some of them including one who shot down a Mig. He doesn't brag and sometimes he doesn't dream too well.

I have had bullet holes more than once through my helicopter, including the cockpit. Our operations took us into known 'hot' zones to drop troops and evacuate the wounded. I and my crew were defenceless and did the job because it needed to be done. Some friends got killed in action, but really most of we youngsters just loved the flying.

Many of us left the military after completing service periods and some of us became civilian pilots. Only one from my course was a braggart and the rest settled well into airlines, etc. I hear more bragging at flying clubs than from my ex military fellows.

We have every reason to be quietly proud of serving our countries and most of us are grateful for the free training. Furthermore I'm certain that over 95% are relieved not to have been required to kill anyone.

Do military-trained pilots make better pilots than civilian-trained pilots in specific roles, after both have been through careful selection? NO!

Are military-trained pilots more likely on average to be trainable in a wide variety of piloting roles than civilian-trained pilots who haven't been through a rigorous selection process, such as imposed on applicants for North Sea pilot jobs? YES!

[EESDL]

Hardly!!!!

Indeed, I would think exactly the opposite.....

My civilian-trained co-pilot had, at the last count from 0900 this morning at the UK CAA Service Counter, R22, 44, 206L, AS355, AS365 and S61

Now I believe that is over-rated!

[SNS3Guppy]

Far more civilian pilots have lost their lives since 9/11 operating Hughes, Robinson and Enstrom helicopters here at home than military pilot lives lost in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without entering into the whole civilian-military debate, it's logic like what's quoted here that makes one read the article at the outset of the thread, and scratch one's head. Are you really attempting to make the case the civilian pilots are better than military, by saying that more civilian pilots die in peacetime than military pilots die in combat? Have you thought that through, at all? Forget the juvenile anatomy-measuring contest; the logic of that single sentence in the context of the article pretty much sums up the value of the article. None.

Formerly the helicopter industry was largely populated only with ex-military pilots, because nobody else had the means to get the experience. Today, at least domestically in the USA, the industry mix is slightly higher in favor of civilians. This doesn't imply that civilian training is better or worse, but only represents the numbers hired...which is always a function of the numbers available. More and more civilian helicopter pilots have become available for employment, and consequently more are hired. The large pool of military aviators that ended up on the job market as Vietnam drew down has largely dwindled. Extended service requirements and better pay have meant fewer military helicopter pilots entering the industry job market, as does the fewer number of helo aviators being trained.

In the end, the primary training source isn't the consideration for a helicopter pilot but the experience, the attitude, and the ability to do the job. In a competitive market for any given job, this could go either way, depending on the individual applying for the job.

[Dan Reno]

Now may be a good time to jump back in and ask....again: "Would not the VERY BEST helo pilots be test pilots at large helo manufacturers? I don't think they'd trust their new test beds to nothing but the BEST since everything is riding on those pilots abilites and skills."

Who are these "Best of the Best?"

They are prior military pilots (at least in the US).

IMHO I'd have to say that former military-trained pilots are best since they were trained on my dime, got the best machines available, worked under more stressful conditions than most civies (bullets nipping at them and all) and had more than flying duties to take up their time each day (multi tasked outside aviation). In particular, I've personally seen former Army test and maintenance pilots as factory TPs and of course, former military fast fliers being chosen as the test pilots for fixed winged manufacturers over civilian pilots who had odles of pt A to pt B hours. What makes them overall the best? Perhaps the military pilot has the overwhelming confidence, skills and mindset to without hesitation 'take it up a notch' when requred. This translates into having flown so many hours, under so many condions at such a very high pucker factor that a hair-raiseing flight for for the 'common pilot' isn't even worth mentioning in their opinion. Just good sticks!

[SNS3Guppy]

Who are these "Best of the Best?"

They are prior military pilots (at least in the US).

Not really. I've met more than a few who didn't seem to get hot and high work or be able to plan ahead for limited performance, having been used to the capability of losing an engine and still climbing out or continuing.

One could say that having to start from scratch in a machine with practically no rotor inertia and very limited performance forces one to plan ahead just a little more.

It comes down to the individual. Not to the place where the primary training was done.

This translates into having flown so many hours, under so many condions at such a very high pucker factor that a hair-raiseing flight for for the 'common pilot' isn't even worth mentioning in their opinion.

Military pilots tend to have lower overall hours than many civilian counterparts in many cases, given the same time in service or time in a helicopter cockpit.

[timex]

Military pilots tend to have lower overall hours than many civilian counterparts in many cases, given the same time in service or time in a helicopter cockpit.

Quantity isn't the same as quality...

[jackx123]

seems like a great tie.

Colibri got rewarded 5,000h for the 5 potshots.

Timex thinks that the massive hours needed to become a test pilot is over rated and DR thinks the opposite and again guppy thinks the opposite.

CNC thinks you need to know about flying to have a qualified opinion and votes for Gen David H. Petraeus as the next test pilot for boeing.

We need guntslapper YouTube - How to Cope With a Pilot Shortage 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZShQcMPfY) to make a video of this :} this is funny

A few years back I went to a circus in Moscow and saw a few monkeys riding a pushbike. not sure if they were civilian or military, but they performed over expectation

[Lonewolf_50]

by virtue of the nature of flying the military is looking for soldiers and not necessary pilots.
Bran, having looked at this tidbit of nonsense, I don't think much else you have to say on the topic is worth reading.

By the nature of flying, the military is looking for a pilot candidate that it can train to be a pilot. I know this because I spent some years doing just that, training military pilots. In some cases, we get pilots (with civilian time, who we then train (at less expense some times , hooray!)) to be a military pilot ... a subset of all pilots.

For soldiers, your recruiting requirement and process is different.

Please report back when you have something of substance to offer us.

But the more important point was previously made: the good pilot, regardless of initial source and training, is he or she who is passionate about the craft, and who embraces it and continues to try and perfect it and learn more of how to do that every day.

Again, that is a personality driven characteristic that can be found from people regardless of where they started. The distinction asserted in the OP was made for the sake of creating a distinction, and falls afoul of the experiences of many, civil and military, helicopter pilots who've been with the profession for a long time. See also "trolling" even if unintentionally.

[SNS3Guppy]

Timex thinks that the massive hours needed to become a test pilot is over rated and DR thinks the opposite and again guppy thinks the opposite.

Actually, that's not what Guppy thinks or said, at all, but as you will...

[timex]

Timex thinks that the massive hours needed to become a test pilot is over rated and DR thinks the opposite and again guppy thinks the opposite.


Try reading the reply again....nothing to do with TP's.

[Swamp76]

I will re-iterate that anyone who generalizes like this will be making a mistake. Individual attitude and commitment to the profession will make more difference than hours, who trained you, or who paid for it.

As for me....I was military but I have paid for some of my own ratings since I left. I don't feel the military training was given for free as I was tasked to take risks that nearly killed me. I do not feel personnally enriched for paying for ratings.

I have seen blind disregard and blind obedience to the rules/regs both in the service and out. In both cases I see that as a mistake. We are paid to think!

I learned a great deal in uniform from very good training. I flew nearly as many hours (in a war zone last year as a civvie) as I did in 10 years of military service. Both quantity and quality of hours, in isolation, will fail to make you a well-rounded pilot.

To repeat what I said above: every flight is an opportunity to learn from the a/c, copilot/captain, environment, customer, and so on. If you keep learning you are, and will continue to be, a great pilot. If you don't then you are not.

[poppahymen]

Could it be that there are both civil and military pilots that equally suck? That is not to say that all pilots equally suck. Obviously some suck more than others or put another way all pilots suck to a varying degree. I think post no 11 by Gordy sums it up nicely. Excellent wind up coppersqard123.:):):):):):):):)
Poppahymen

[jackx123]

I heard many years ago cabin crew whispers about the difference between a pilot and God. God doesn't claim he can fly :}

[blackhand]

Have dealt with military pilots in Army Aviation, and civil pilots since I left the "big green suck".

Both are difficult, know all people; although must admit some did know a lot.

Brings to mind a little saying:
You can tell a helo pilot, but you cannot tell him much.

Apologies to Whirls, I'll make you an honorary "him".

Cheers
BH

[Fly_For_Fun]

Blackhand sounds like you have some issues and this is probably not the forum for you mate.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[jackx123]

great p taking black :}:}:}:}:}:}

[Whirlygig]

Bloomin' 'eck FFF, even I thought Blackhand was funny and, as a woman, I have, of course, no sense of humour!! :}

Cheers

Whirls

[500 Fan]

It looks like the military pilots really are the best! I know this to be true because the learned scribes at this fine journal say so.

Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: News :: Prince William taunts Prince Harry (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/154451/Prince-William-taunts-Prince-Harry/)

Who knew that the Apache would be "the most difficult chopper in the world to fly"?

500 Fan.

[heliski22]

It looks like the military pilots really are the best! I know this to be true because the learned scribes at this fine journal say so.

Shades of Billy Connolly years ago...................

(to a large audience)....."I have a live-in lover - I know this cos I read it in the f*****g newspaper!"

Apologies for drifting but ageing grey matter doesn't get prompted like that too often!

[EESDL]

yep, as initially thought - another pointless thread!

[Taff Missed]

Well I'm still waiting for a steely military UH1 pilot to tell me what the temperature limits on the 42 degree intermediate gearbox are as alluded to in post#5...

"You want to know the temperature limits of the 42 degree intermediate gearbox on a UH-1? Ask a military pilot; he knows."

It's a splash lubricated gearbox with no pressure or temperature indications in the cockpit or on the gearbox. The flex couplings have temperature sensitive strips but thats about it.

[Hummingfrog]

I watched 2 civilian R44s flying in loose formation eastwards along the Moray coast this lunchtime - both out of auto range of the land. About 2 hrs later a military Lynx flew past - within auto distance of the coast - even though it has 2 engines.

Who was displaying the better airmanship?

HF

[Retro Coupe]

Who was displaying the better airmanship?

:bored:

An impossible question to answer I would suggest. Airmanship includes flight planning, aircraft handling, cockpit management, situational awareness etc. etc. If the R44's and their occupants were carrying the equipment they were legally obliged to, what's the problem with flying over water in a single engined helicopter? About the only generalisation you can make is that Military pilots receive the best training, as the organisations involved have had decades to fine tune their training programs.

I've flown with good, bad and indifferent from both backgrounds.

"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"

[ShyTorque]

When I first got involved with yellow RAF helicopters they only had one engine.

How dangerous was that, good grief - what were those pilots thinking of....?

[Hummingfrog]

ShyT

I don't recall saying it was dangerous:ugh:. I flew the Whirly 10 and seem to remember we had to wear parachutes above 8000ft 'cos if it caught fire the magalloy would be all burnt out before you could auto to the ground. We had to fly over the water to do the job and tragically people were killed when the engine stopped - eg Cyprus

RC

After 40yrs of flying I seem to have worked out what airmanship is:ok:

My point is that there was no reason to fly outwith auto distance of the land if the engine had stopped they would have been in the water - they may have had lifejackets, dinghies and PLB's but the a/c didn't have floats and getting out of a rapidly sinking possibly inverting helicopter is not easy - the dunker shows you that.

So good airmanship would influence you to fly over or within Auto distance of the land if at all practical. Obviously if you are crossing, for instance, the channel this isn't possible but all suitable precautions to mitigate the risk should be taken ie use good airmanship.

HF
(sorry for a bit of thread drift;))

[Two's in]

I watched 2 civilian R44s flying in loose formation eastwards along the Moray coast this lunchtime - both out of auto range of the land. About 2 hrs later a military Lynx flew past - within auto distance of the coast - even though it has 2 engines.

Surely 2 R44s also have two engines?

Flying a Lynx and not expecting some life changing event when you least expect it is poor airmanship in itself.

[RotaryWingB2]

Flying a Lynx and not expecting some life changing event when you least expect it is poor airmanship in itself.

Isn't that the truth.:ok:

[Hummingfrog]

Which was probably why he was keeping very close to the coastline:ok:

HF

[HeliAviator]

Am I over rated as an ex military pilot? Who cares? As a civy pilot, I am much better paid than my military counterparts and indeed most of my civy ones as well! :ok:

[Fly_For_Fun]

LOL, well said HeliAviator.:D

[lazyseagull]

It's too bad that this issue keeps coming up. It's almost always brought up by a low time civil guy with penis envy. Get over it, if you ever get to the professional level you'll find that we all work together, learn from and respect each other. A good pilot is a good pilot regardless of his/her background. Of 2 pilots of identical potential training via the civil or military routes, at 500 hours the military guy is going to have more skill thanks to the experience he's been exposed to. At the 10,000 hour mark they will probably be close to equal, and again that's got to do with experiences along the way.

Stop wasting energy on this and put it toward improving pay and working conditions for all of us. Oh, and don't make us all look bad by doing something stupid in your helicopter, rookie.

[blackhand]

Blackhand sounds like you have some issues and this is probably not the forum for you mate.
Yes quite so, but not with aviators.

Another joke:
RAF Captain to Army Pilot as leaving the toilet.
" I say old chap, in the RAF they teach us to wash our hands after urinating"
Army chap says " that's alright, in the Army they teach us not to wee on ours"

Change around to suit

Cheers
BH

[newfieboy]

Wasn't sure where to post this, well it is military pilot related, posted on facebook by one of our Belgian pilots, too funny.:D YouTube - Helicopters vs. Jets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_leZE76VE&feature=player_embedded) Love the bit quote "helicopter pilots have the hottest wifes and throw the coolest parties" Ha Ha Ha..........:D