Fighter Time Factoring

[FcU]

Im have heard that some airlines when looking at a pilots flying hours will give a multiplication factor for fighter time. Does anybody have specific information with regards to this?

[TowerDog]

Never heard of multiplication factor for fighter time, but some airlines ask military
pilots to add 10% towards their flight time
on the application form. This is to compensate for the block time civilian pilots
are using.

Other airlines says to leave it alone, no adjusment wanted.

------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[Arkroyal]

Maybe it should be a factor of 0.5 to make up for the lack of CRM required in a single seater?

:)

[nugpot]

Don't know about factoring flying time. I would like it to be x2.

But factor your age the following way:

Add 1 year for every time that you were shot at.
Add 2 years for every war that you took part in.
Add 1 year for every 5 years or part thereof that you spent in military.
Add 5 years if you ever gave military instruction (especially ACM instruction).
Add 1 year for every major emergency and 2 years for every ejection.

Anybody want to hire a 72 year old with 1000 hours? :)


------------------
It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

[FcU]

Arkhole put away the TOP GUN video and shut off your flight sim computer program. You obviously have absolutely no clue what it takes to fly a combat aircraft within a fighting unit of an "Element", "Section", "Mass Attack" (in case you don't know what those terms mean I'm sure your SEGA manual will provide all the answers you require to make an "informed" comment). This type of flying within a multi service, multi nation operation requires levels of coodination and cooperation I seriously doubt you could comprehend. CRM is about dealing with people,personalities, and resources whether they happen to be sitting beside you,150 ft behind you, in another cockpit, or 6000 nm away on the other end of a SAT phone. I think some cranial anal extraction is in order. Over to you.

[Capt Homesick]

Without commenting on the quality of fast-jet time compared to other flying (although if any fast jet drivers want to offer me a trip I'm sure it would be a very valuable experience):
Many airlines apply factoring to the hours totals of their pilots, usually when deciding on promotions. Typically, this involves multiplying hours on non-company flying by anything from 0.1 to 0.9.
How far they take this varies from company to company. Some only factor light aircraft time, some even apply a factor to flying the same type with another company.
I see no reason why this should not be done with military flying: one of my bosses at my last job (an ex Tornado driver) freely admitted that he still had instincts more appropriate to centreline thrust aircraft, than to an airliner with 4 podded engines (or APUs by some reckoning).
I don't really approve of factoring- it seems like a way of simplifying too many issues, to make it something beancounters can assess.

[scroggs]

FcU,
I think what you are referring to is an unofficial, but generally accepted, practice of achieving an approximate equivalence between military and civilian hours. Civilian hours are calculated chock to chock, as opposed to the military system of take-off to landing. To ensure you are not disadvantaged relative to your civilian competitors in the job market, you can add 10 minutes to each training or fast-jet trip, or 15 minutes to truckie trips. The CAA gave me this info when I was on the application treadmill, and all the UK airlines I talked to accepted it. Hope this helps!

[Roc]

I'm pretty sure that United uses a multiplication factor for fighter time. Nobody seems to have a problem with it. If you've ever flown fighters you know that 1 hour of flight time is not the same as an hour crossing the pond. Many pilots dont think this is fair, and all time should be counted equally, that is wrong. In the USAF only the best pilots are chosen for fighters, the fact that they dont fly many hours a month shouldnt be used against them when they apply for a civilian job.

[Arkroyal]

Fcu

Get my sharking chair and full harness, I think I've got a big one on the line!!!!

:) is usually a give away for a wind up.

Ex military myself and all respesct for fighter jocks..... at least those with GSOH!

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

[FcU]

Arkoyal, Hook,Line ,and Sinker. I bow down to your "wind-upiness" Note my pprune Line Training note. Hours are a fairly sensitive issue at the moment however you have my apologies.

[Tom Tipper]

Yeah but really, why would there be any factoring? Flying fighters is very different to airliners. Not better, not worse, just different.

Seen some great fighter pilots do well at airliners and some appallingly. Don't see however why fighter hours should be factored.

[Jackonicko]

With due regard to all of the above, perhaps number of take offs and landings (the difficult, dangerous bits) should perhaps be taken into account?

[Arkroyal]

My abject apologies FcU, I should have checked your credentials like any good instructor.

I do think you are allowed to add a bit for the taxi time but that's about it.

Valid point Jacko, A lot of my mates went to the USA and swanned about in circles to build hours. Quality flying?

I just overstayed me welcome at HerMajesty's pleasure and got em that way.

[BLOGGSON]

Don't get too excited about your past experience, once you've got a job, no one cares, least of all me.

[Checksix]

CT flights x 1.1
Anything at night (in addition to factors below) x 2.0
Night Bombing x 10 (and thats with no one shooting back)
Night Air refuelling x 100
All flights when it's raining x 5
Flights on Friday night (when, let's face it, all self respecting fighter pilots are getting a******ed in the bar) x 50

Just a start. Anyone care to add?

Checky
(Age 99)

[Lost For Words]

Night Low Level on NVG's factor x0
(as far as the CAA are concerned)
Top tip to anyone with EO hours, delete all mention from your logbook. I can't understand why they don't count towards the magic 100hrs night. They were certainly the scariest moments of my life.

Apart from that morse exam....Obviously

[Thrush]

Factoring is Orange, or at least it used to be , at interview. So much for fast-jet, so much for turboprop F/O, so much for turboprop Captain, etc etc. If I remember correctly, the only flight time that was factored as 1.0 was 737 command time.

Things may have changed at the Big Orange Taverna. Anyone know, as I'm going back 3 years?

[Ignition Override]

My background years ago was a bit of C-130 and then regionals: Bandits and Shorts. Three legs into a busy hub such as O'Hare or DFW was of much higher "quality" than three approaches into a military base with maybe one plane ahead of us. So, as an alternative concept for tactical/training jet factoring, based on hours, how about using two hour sorties etc to equal one approach?

Pilots at most western US Air Force bases ie Nellis, Davis-M etc don't seem to have flown very many IMC app, other than hopping up north or east, and this different concept might even be better for tactical/tng jet aviators, when the application is put into the airline comupter? Don't get me wrong-I'm just trying to compare IMC approach experience.

[ShotOne]

This seems to be mostly a wishful thinking post. I don't know any UK airline which factors hours in the way some pilots claim here.

Are some of these claims really serious?...do you really think a one hour refuelling sortie is worth 50 hours of night VOR/DME approaches in foul weather to an airfield in the Hebrides?

[FcU]

I suppose my original thread should have been titled "military time factoring",in that most military hours logged are flight hours rather than block hours. If you want to compare hour for hour regardless of type then I can live with that. However, you must allow the addition onto my 2000 odd sorties that I logged in my AF flying, a very conservative 10 min taxi in and out. This adds roughly 333 hours to my total. At $75.00usd per hour on something small and slow (if you want to compare 2000 fighter hours to 2000 hours of cessna time) that's roughly 25000.00usd and in some companies a 6 month delay to command at roughly another 25000.00usd. Hardly insignificant by any definition.

[me duele las uvas]

FcU,

Recognised practice is to add 10 mins per sortie. There's a letter from Innsworth out there somewhere with all the details. I've read it but haven't got the Ref although someone on pprune has. Bottom line is though that it's kosher.

mdlu

[US Marine]

You can add 15 mins if you flew a multi-engine type; nice to see there are some advantages to being a casulty of the training system. (Okay, here comes the really witty fast jet banter, should have worked harder at school,etc., yawn!).

[Bailed Out]

Do airlines operate fighters then? Wow! :)

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

fly high else you'll hit summit!

[MrBernoulli]

FcU,
me duele las uvas has hit the nail on the head. There was a letter pushed out by Binnsworth a couple (maybe more) years back regarding this subject. It involves various additions to your flying hours dependent on military type ie training, ME, rotary, FJ etc. It requires some serious trawling through your logbook with a calculator but the result is justified if it jacks up your 'equivalent' total time.

I think I have a copy in my logbook on the Sqn - if I can locate it I will publish the details here.

[judy]

Its all total rubbish .

Miltary jet, helicopters ,light aircraft , gliders, balloons and Walls ice cream carts . What on earth have they got to do with operating and managing an airliner ?

You can count about 100 hours on each as beneficial , any more is a waste of ink.

[Claymore]

Thankyou Judy. A voice of reason among hugely inflated egos. :-)

Later dudes

[Arkroyal]

Cripes I think Judy means it.

I reckon that outside of my 6000 military hours flying, it was wearing out the crewroom chairs reading the paper that best readied me for airline flying.

Beware the chopee with long memoree

[411A]

Never mind the hours, put 'em in the SIM and SEE if they can fly. :)

[Capt Pit Bull]

Frankly, is it really important how many hours you've got?

As far as airline recruitment goes, surely the main point is 'does this individual represent a training risk?'

i.e. will they pass the course and turn out to an effective crew member, of a airliner, flying airline type operations.

Now I don't know much about FJ ops, but I don't see how a FJ pilot should think that their experience automatically equates to a dfferent style of flying.

Having said that, what is very true is that FJ pilots have demonstrated the ability to successfully absorb a lot of training. In other words they have the potential to be extremely low training risks.

So,if I was involved in recruitment, I'd look very favourably at FJ pilots, but simply because of what they are, not because of how many hours they might have.

As long as the interview process convinced me that the individual was going to apply their learning ability to learning my kind of operation, I'd be happy.

If they came with a know it all attitude I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

CPB

[ShotOne]

What factor would you use for crashing into an Italian cable-car, then lying about it afterwards?

[MrBernoulli]

Oh dear, did we stumble into a meeting of the "We Resent Military Aviators" Club. Tut-tut, you are a sensitive lot.

This ISN'T about "my hours are better than yours". Its about PROPERLY crediting military hours when it comes to applying for jobs that may state a minimum experience requirement. If that gets you to the interview, the employer can then make up their own mind about training risk etc.

[Tom Tipper]

Yeah but then why would you want to IMPROPERLY factor fighter hours. What on earth do they have in common with flying airliners? Should Hang Glider pilots get credit, what about guys who've spent 50,000 hours on Flight Sim 2000?

They are all nice things to talk about when you're old but they aint got much in common with flying a 747 from Heathrow to JFK with min fuel, crap weather, cranky pax and flight time limitation constraints.

[Charles Glass]

Tom Tipper

Flying fighters teaches you things about flying, especially with fuel, time and weather limitations that civilian trained pilots can only dream about.

Try and get the T-shirt. Then we'll talk again.

On a more serious note. Fighter pilots only want to add taxi time to help them get to the hours needed to get an interview. Unfortunately in the regulated military environment, it is impossible to pad your hours, as I'm sure you have never done. Not even when you were a desperate wannabe who only wanted enough hours to get a job.

Yes, ex military pilots don't necessarily make good airline pilots, but man, can they fly! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[Roc]

You draw your maps, update the Chum to see if any towers or aerials were built on your route since the chart was printed. You figure out your fuel burn, not someone in dispatch! you do it, and you have to take into account your high level burn, low level burn, how much you burn behind the tanker, how much you need to onload from the tanker, where your going if you cant refuel etc. You HAVE to take off on-time, if you dont the tanker will not meet you at the rendevous time, and the troops relying on you to deliver the goods may not survive. Your wingman calls with a maintenance problem, Do You take offr without him, but wait the troops need the equipment on his plane, how long to offload it and load it on yours? can we do it and still take off on time? can we take off later and fly faster to the tanker? Yes, but our fuel burn will be higher!! we'll need more gas! 30 minutes to take-off, can the tanker wait? No, he's got to refuel fighters after us! How will the extra gas affect the CG?? Can the mission suceed without the extra equipment on #2? 20 minutes to take-off!!!!!!!!!!! So far this military pilot hasnt logged 1 second of flying time!!!! Yet he's making decisions that most airline pilots make dont have to deal with in a year. Would I want him flying for my airline?? YOU BET!!!!!!

[nugpot]

Roc, you forgot to tell them a few things.

After take-off, you get the inflight relief pilot to take your seat while you climb across the ejection seat for a well earned hot meal, coffee and some kip. After waking up you take a leak, chat to the bombs and do some wing walking to stretch your legs. After all, the only things YOU have to worry about is getting shot at, saving lives and plugging into a tanker with a heart rate of 200+. With your avionics offline, the close formo letdown to minima is a piece of cake and you have a whole 2 hours to rest and plan the next hop after landing. The fact that some of your buddies did not return has no effect on your performance, after all you logged a whole 2.8 hours today.

Oh, and the ATC's at the target and the staging area made sure that minimum seperation was never breached. You didn't have to look outside once. The run from the target area at 50 feet didn't even raise a sweat.

I agree. Fighter pilot hours are useless and shouldn't count at all.

I've seen many fighter pilots make it in the airline, but I have never seen the opposite.

------------------
It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

God spare us from these people.It must come as a terrible shock to realise that in the civvy world you are just a bloke doing a job and nobody gives a hoot what an ace you were on the FJ.After years of being told and telling each other how wonderful they are they cannot remotely conceive that its not the case.The worrying and dangerous thing is that they bring this collosal arrogance to the Flight Deck of an Airliner.

[judy]

As can be seen by the numerous replies , my point is clearly made.

Flying and operating the aircraft is only one
part of managing a commercial airliner .
Flying to prescribed limits and standards are taken for granted .

Attitude, common sense , humility , leadership and commercial awareness open ones mind just a little more .

Dont worry about logging extra taxiing time
I would rather have a well trained pilot with low hours and a solid education , but start right down there at the bottom of the seniority list , its a new world mate.

Been there got the Tshirt .Best of luck...

[nugpot]

Don't take life so seriously Homer's kiddo. You'll get an ulcer.

Likewise judy.

[This message has been edited by nugpot (edited 06 October 2000).]

[Checksix]

Likewise shotone! I can't believe you took my post seriously!

(air refuelling should only be factored x 20)
(unless it's raining)
(on a weekend)
:)

[ShotOne]

You are wrong Mr Bernouilli, I certainly don't belong to any "resent military pilots club"...at least I didn't until I'd read some of the prattish posts here. Having seen the level of maturity displayed by some, I now agree that fighter time SHOULD be factored -by about 0.1

[Davaar]

Judy, the only flying I do is with the herd in the back, so I am in competition with no one.

Flying and operating the aircraft, you say, are only one part of managing a commercial airliner, and I am very sure that is true. I never flew one. They are quite an important part, though.

Sometimes I wonder, though.

You are on an ILS approach, in fog, about 50' up, high on the approach. You catch a glimpse of the runway lights that suggests you are off centre and beyond the threshold. Since you are high you have chopped power fully off. Want to land, you see. You are on the point of the stall. You know this because, for one thing, the stick shaker stall warning is, true to its destiny, shaking the stick. You have landing flap down. You are at 4 degrees positive angle of attack. You decide to go round again, and advance the power controls to get take-off power. The engines will take several seconds to spool up.

At the same moment as you select power, do you:
1. Increase the angle of attack to 10 degrees positive?;
2. Select flap up?; or
3. Both of these?

If any of 1, 2, or 3, what do you think will happen? I know what I would have expected in a fighter.

[FcU]

My initial post was a request for specific information that people in the industry might have with regard to "leveling the playing field" if you will. I should have anticipated the Us verses Them discussion that has ensued over the last few days. I believe it is a matter of perception and having been involved in flying large airliners 320/330 worldwide for the last five years and commercial operations for the last eight I feel justified in commenting from both sides of the fence.
The best pilots that I have ever flown with in the last 16 years have almost always been the ones who are quietly confident about there abilities. This confidence has a generally calming effect on everyone that they come in contact with and the job gets done with a minimal amount of stress. In contrast some of the worst pilots were the ones who were loud, boastful,and unwilling to see something from another persons perspective. They are the people that are generally trying to compensate for their lack ability/ confidence in themselves and feel that they must continuously be denegrating others to elevate themselves. Seems that this may be a common thread between civvy and military pilots. Confidence in ones ability does not equal arrogance.
Scroggs, Roc, Thrush, me duele las uvas, MrBernoulli and all the others who offered the info that I requested thanks for the input. Please send more if you have time.

[THINALBERT]

With all due respect to Davaar, your assumptions made in describing your scenario do you little credit because.

1. An airliner, imc, high on the glideslope, close to the ground would NEVER EVER EVER take idle power. That is what the GA switches are for.

2. No Captain worth his salt would allow the airplane to get into that situation in the first place. It would either be a fully stabilised approach by 1000' in bad weather or a GA from 1000'. Simple as that.


[This message has been edited by THINALBERT (edited 07 October 2000).]

[Davaar]

Oh Thinalbert, in due course I shall give you the reference. All neatly published.

[InTheDark]

It's horses for courses really. If you want to bomb, straff, and dog fight, you need a fighter pilot. If you want to take people on their holidays you need an airline pilot.

I would not run down the skills of either group when doing their own tasks. However, what hacks people off is when someone turns up with experience in a different area and announces that they are here to show us how it's done!

After all what sort of reception would a twenty year 10000 hour airline pilot get if he went to a fighter unit and tried to tell them how to fly?

Lets stop the " my dad's bigger than your dad" stuff. Different jobs different skills. Fighter pilots can and do make good airline pilots, and if given the circumstances I am sure that airline pilots could make good fighter pilots. That's assuming that you can get through the banter and immature wind ups!

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Nugpot,the only thing that gives me ulcers is the prospect of another night flight listening to "Bang out" tales from some prat who thinks he is the Muts Nuts.(And is just as likely to be gash, though he will never recognise this)

[nugpot]

The nicest thing about this us vs them scenario is that you always get someone to take the bait.

I agree with other correspondents that different skills are needed in airliners and fighters, but both share a basic need for flying skills. There can be no dispute that any successful airliner pilot has those, irrespective of his background.

Fighter pilots share something else. A cross between esprit de corps and healthy competition. Everywhere you find mil and ex-mil pilots, you'll see them compare stories. This is not arrogance or boasting, just a civilised way of measuring up each other. Sometimes this spills over into civvie life and causes resentment in civilian trained pilots. I apologise for any inferiority complex this causes.

Mil and ex-mil pilots are results orientated and will be the first to seek further training if they don't meet expectations. When they do, they are confident in their abilities and go about their business displaying this confidence. This is not arrogance either, but a sign to the world in general that they know what they are about and thus they try to make pax and coworkers feel comfortable. It is interesting that pax are not threatened by this, but rather feel safe to fly with the individual concerned. Most civilian pilots also have this air of quiet confidence about them. I have found that those that find most mil pilots in civilian jobs too arrogant, do not have this quality. Most civilian pilots find ex-mil drivers easy to work with and easy to train. These civvie pilots usually consider background as irrelevant and get on with the job.

I agree that some mil and ex-mil drivers are overbearing and arrogant, but so are some civvies. Most however are just pilots doing their jobs. If you find all or most mil pilots arrogant, look at yourself to find the problem.

And don't ever try to tell me that military hours are useless as background for civvie flying. Every single hour you fly, whether hangglider, Cessna 150 or Tornado teaches you about flying and may give you the experience that will one day save the lives of many.

To get back to the original question. If you want to add 10 mins to each military sortie, please go ahead, but remember to tell the selection board what you did and why.

Here endeth the lesson. (Now that is arrogant) :)


------------------
It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

[ShotOne]

...of course if someone makes a statement which they subsequently realise makes them sound arrogant and foolish, then why not claim it was a wind-up!

[Mowgli]

In response to the original question, I've just been for an interview at Easyland. I was asked where I see myself in 3 years, and I replied that if all goes well I would be looking at a Capt slot some time in the future. I was told my hours would be factored by 0.7 and so my total flying thus far would be reduced, then added to any company flying time, to see if I met capt min criteria. Obviously I would also have to prove suitable. This seemed reasonable to me, because my previous experience is all fast-jet and so not as relevant as if I had been flying 737s commercially.

I am well aware that I am entering a different side of aviation, and whilst I am confidant that if I work hard and apply myself I should be able to eventually be a competent FO, I am assuming nothing because I have a lot to learn.

I am really looking forward to my new career (if I get the job - been invited for a sim ride) and I am not going to look back to my past in the military; if someone wants to ask me about past stuff - that's fine - I'll be asking them all about the commercial experiences so that I can be better at my job in the future.

I am disappointed by the posts on this topic. At the end of the day we all fly aeroplanes, and they're there to do different jobs. Can't we just accept that and benefit from the variety of experiences that various backgrounds have to offer?

I go to interviews after reading threads like this wondering who's sharpening the knife because I used to fly fast and pointed things.

Don't have preconceived ideas - see as you find.

Your only as good as your next trip.

[Mmmmnice]

I really don't know where to start: I'm new to the 'pruning' and was having a bit of a trawl around whilst I wait to go and do some worthless military aviation. As I'm usually not travelling forward when I land I guess that's not like flying an airliner either!or if I slap on a set of gogs that doesn't help.
The bottom line is; I get the impression that if I decide to change career path then I might have well been a librarian all those years for all the benefit my time working for HMG will be. Am I being too harsh with myself?
PS. I do know that if the rwy looks short and fat there is something wrong - possibly with my seat adjustment.

[Tom Tipper]

No...if you want to go and fly fighters with another airforce your experience will stand you in very good stead.

If however you want to fly airliners then your experience is as of much value as somebody who has flow Bandierante's in Ice and Snow down to Minimas with dodgy generators, unhappy pax breathing over your shoulder and pushing flight time limitations.

To suggest you are somehow worth more (which is sadly the trend which seems to be appearing here) is arrogance at it's worst and in no way an asset to you. Of course you're not alone, a few Airline pilots do this too (eg: a 747 hour is somehow worth more than a 767 or 737 hour) but they've at least done it. In entering a new industry with this attitude will only hurt one person - yourself (hopefully).

[nugpot]

Who said anything about being worth more. The hour factors were all in jest.

At least you agree that our experience is relevant Tom.

In other words mil hours = civvie hours.

[Gentleman Aviator]

For UK Armed Forces chaps:

An agreement was reached between the CAA and UK Armed Forces that Military Pilots may claim taxy time. The letter was written from CAA to Innsworth. I will do my best to find a copy of that letter and post it in due course.

The basics are as follows:

1. The CAA recognises that taxy time can be claimed for SOME military flying.

2. Whilst ineviatbly, the periods of taxy time are greater than the CAA allowance, they are the minimum that the RAF can confirm that each aeroplane type would have performed on each sortie.

3. A non specific form should be created to confirm number of sorties within each aeroplane type. This form should be counter-signed and dated by the individual's Commanding Officer.

4. Allowances:

Carrier Ops (inc FJ) : 0 mins
Skidded Heli : 0 mins
Field Heli Ops : 0 mins
Wheeled Heli : 5 mins
All fixed wing training : 10 mins
Fast Jet : 10 mins
Multi-Engine : 15 mins

Hope this is of some help.
This claimed allowance can be used towards the hour requirement for issue of a civil licence. I know this, because I did it!

GA :)

[Davaar]

Mutual suspicions between the military-trained and the civil-trained are at least as old as E K Gann’s learning days back in the 1930s, so they will not be settled here. To declare my own interest, I was RAF trained many years ago (piston/jet). Now I fly as a passenger.

FcU asked a short and inoffensive question on 1 October. A short statement of fact would have answered it. By 5 October, though, we have Judy telling us that 100 hours on a military jet equals 100 hours on a Wall’s Ice Cream cart in the matter of operating an airliner. On October 6, Arkroyal says he thinks she means it and the same day Judy confirms that, from the numerous replies, her “point is made”. Game, match, and set. This is fallacious logic (“Our kitchens are the best in New York. 50,000 flies can’t be wrong) Judy. Like Arkroyal, though, I think she means it.

She tells us that flying and operating the aircraft is only one part of managing a commercial airliner.
That is self-evident, but while only one part, the flying does seem a pretty important part. She adds that flying to prescribed limits and standards by the [commercial pilots, presumably] are taken for granted. Maybe by you, Judy, maybe by you, but not by me.

Since she had gone so much further than FcU’s question, and do so in intemperate and even foolish terms, I put in a posting very early on 7 October in which I asked her three questions on aircraft management. Like FcvU’s, they were simple enough to answer. So far I have no answer from her. There is plenty of time.

Ten minutes after my posting on 7 October Thinalbert did reply, and he reproved me for the assumptions or postulates with which I had prefaced my three questions. They did me, he wrote, little credit, and he gave his reasons. These were that my postulates, an airliner, IMC, high on the glideslope, close to the ground would NEVER EVER EVER [his emphasis] take idle power, and that no captain worth his salt would ever allow the airplane to get into that situation [i.e., the one I had posed] in the first place.

Thinalbert, I did not intend to set a trap for you, but I did want to address Judy’s “only one part” and “taken for granted”. If you had not replied I should have let it simmer a bit. I just want to know that the steely-eyed one up front when I am with the herd down back knows his job. As Judy would say, I want to take it for granted. I do not think I can.

I think it is fair to state, Thinalbert, that you criticised me because my postulates simply beggared belief and could not be taken seriously, and I cannot really blame you for that. They were quite specific, though, and I did not make them up. It is because I shared your belief in their impossibility that I have entered this debate. Credo quia impossibile. I invite your attention to Aviation Occurrence Report A97H0011 of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, into the crash of C-FSKI at Fredericton, NB, on 16 December 1997.

Turn to page 1. After the autopilot was disconnected at about 165' AGL, the aircraft “drifted above the glide path”. A neat verb, that “drifted”. Drifted? O.K.; it drifted. This aircraft was not being flown by anyone. All on its own it just drifted. Floating on high, just like Wordsworth’s cloud. No one is stated to have flown it high on the glide path. The first officer “reduced thrust to idle” at about 80' AGL. This, we read, was in response to the captain’s first mention “to get the aircraft down”.

Moments later the captain, aware that the aircraft was left of the runway centre line, but not knowing how far down the runway, and not sure that a safe landing could be made, ordered a go around. So “the thrust levers were advanced” (Again, notice the use of the passive voice. No human agency mentioned here. By whom were they advanced? I do not know). The F/O selected the go-around mode for the flight director, and he started to increase the pitch of the aircraft to the command bar indications. (Until I read this I had never heard of a command bar. In the hi-tech Vampire F.B.5, the safety lock for the hood was a bit of string with a loop slipped round a knob on the handle. You want hi-tech? That’s it. We had no command bar. Look on me as a Tiger Moth pilot. I’ll come back later to the command bar).

To continue, the F/O got the aircraft to 10 degrees nose up. The engines were still not spooled up to deliver power. One second after the F/O acknowledged the go-around, the stick-shaker (stall warning) activated. Now there’s a surprise. But soft! There is more. One and a half seconds after the stick shaker activated, the captain called flaps and selected them to the go-around setting. Thereupon the “warbler tone associated with the stall protection system sounded”. Guess what happened then? I suppose we might ask the pilot in command or first officer of the Wall’s Ice Cream cart.

I have asked Judy what she would expect when the angle of attack was raised and the flaps reduced with zero or almost zero power at the point of the stall. There I was with nothing on the clock but the maker’s name, etc. Thinalbert tells me this could never happen, and of course, as Judy says, we can take the flying skills for granted. You bet. Now I am going to ruin the suspense. The aircraft “stalled aerodynamically”. That is what the report says. How else would it stall? Psychologically? Dramatically? Resignedly? Hopelessly? There must be some reason for that adverb, but what can it be? It could not have been a torque stall, since it was not a big-piston single, and given the speed it could not have been a high-speed stall (which also would be aerodynamic), so what else could it have been but aerodynamically? Is there another kind of stall it could have been or is this just a neat bit of irrelevant literary distraction? Oh, an aerodynamic stall, you say! Oh well, that changes everything. If you’d only said that at the beginning.

It did stall, but what else could it have done? Junior military pilot that I was, with but the one ring on the sleeve, I could have told you what would happen, but I can also tell you this: it would not have happened to me, and for a very good reason. That reason is that in our dull military way, real jet jock stuff, we practised go-around procedures, throttle and flap management very thoroughly, in an aircraft blessed with an engine that took a near eternity to spool up once it was at idle. In fact treat it roughly and you put out the candle. That was the RAF’s incentive program to treat it right. You got to keep on living.

Since I had never heard of a command bar until I read the report, I sought the opportunity to try an hour on a simulator, and it was generously provided. Now there’s a difference from my day. I can see how things would happen with that command bar. The report says that following the command bars in go-around mode does not ensure that a safe flying speed is maintained, because the positioning of the of the command bars does not take into consideration the airspeed, flap configuration, and rate of change of the angle of attack, considerations required to compute stall margin. Gosh Golly! Am I glad I have my pencil with me, so I can take notes. Would you say, Judy, that a captain and a first officer should have known this? Or not, perhaps? Or would it be, as we say in the trade, “taken for granted”? Or not? Is this all, in your own idiom, rubbish?

Then the report tells the reader that the published go-around procedure does not adequately reflect that once power is reduced to idle for landing, a go-around will probably not be completed without the aircraft contacting the runway “(primarily because of the time required for the engines to spool up to go-around thrust)”. Again Gosh Golly! If they had only told me that! So: “a go-around will probably not be completed”. Yup. “Without the aircraft contacting the runway”! Savour that expression “contacting the runway”. A little bounce, maybe, and then you soar off again? A hop, skip, and a jump? Or maybe your full “body-contact” contact, as in screaming off the runway at full power into the trees? Now would the skills that Judy tells me I can take for granted include that knowledge or not? When I drove that Wall’s Ice Cream cart in 1956, I knew. But not, evidently, those in command of C-FSKI. But perhaps they will tell me I am wrong, and where. If this correspondence teaches anything, it teaches the dangers of being dogmatic.

Now that I am asking, however, I’ll ask a bit more. I used to be with an operation flying DC-4s. But we had to get a jet, so we bought one. Brand new. Beautiful. Our pilots were ecstatic and went off to learn to fly it. Now they too could swan around with the big boys at school. My memory may be hazy on detail over the years but they were back with the new toy in a remarkably short time. I think it was more than two weeks, but not as long as a month. I asked about the training. Virtually none was done in the air in an aircraft. It was almost all “in the simulator”.

I made a note not to fly with them until they had completed a few trips, but I also reflected on the seven months of actually flying actual aircraft in the actual sky day after day in actual rain (Anglesey. Lots of rain) with Her Majesty. In that time we did actual instrument flying with actual instructors and, except for solo, always as I recall on actual limited panel. We also did precision flying, with formation flying and aerobatics, at heights up to 43,000'. Steep turns with that man in the right hand seat droning on about keeping a steady and accurate height, which truth to tell is not all that easy. Flying up there was not the same as flying down here. And we did not have swept wings. Why were so stupid or handless that it so long?

Then there were the compressibility effects, and the night flying. This was not a simulator, and you could actually be killed doing it, and some actually were. Many more were actually told to go away and do something else. This was all actual, nothing simulated. They taught us not to do dumb things like increase angle of attack and raise flaps at low level in fog with power off and zilch airspeed (Did I mention that the weather at Fredericton was below limits, Judy? Is it taken for granted that your chaps will not fly below limits? I do believe you said so.) because this had an actual probability of doing us a lot of actual no good.

I really wondered how our DC-4 pilots could learn all those things over a long week-end or two. I still wonder.

Recently there has been speculation (not by me; I know better than use the “s” word) about the dark void when an aircraft breaks out below cloud at night over water. I know about that dark void. Been there, 44 years ago, but I still remember very clearly a high level QGH over the Irish Sea, down though cloud and emerge over the water. There was not a ship, not a light, to be seen, save a lighthouse on Anglesey. Yep, that will be Anglesey, right below me. Straight down. That’s where the light is, but it seems to be off to port. Something wrong this. I’d better fix it.

I was convinced I was in the only Vampire F.B.5 on the inventory that could fly straight and level with the wings at right angles to a non-existent horizon. Well, non-existent for you, maybe, but it sure existed for me, and I tell you that horizon was at right angles to my wings. It certainly was. The solution was simple, of course. All I had do was roll 90 degrees around the longitudal axis to starboard and all would be well. Then I’d have the light underneath where it belonged. No! All would not be well, really, said the intellect. Davaar, son, it said, you just ignore the seat of the pants and rely on that A/H so thoughtfully provided by Mr de Havilland. And that, dear children, is how I survived to meet your Grandmamma, and to ask questions like these of my betters; but it was not easy.

Thereafter I took every chance I could to fly IF. I never had that experience of vertigo when flying dual. It seems from recent report that civil pilots have the experience too. Not surprising, given physiology. But when, if ever, do they get the chance to develop the skill to handle it, when they are flying hands on and not with one of those command bars, like the one at Fredericton? Can the simulator be rigged to induce it? If so, why do I see it put forward as a possible explanation for crashes?

I have no idea how to equate military hours, especially fighter hours, with civil. I knew one pilot, Squadron Leader, RAF, ex F.86 in 2ATAF, ex Vampire T.11 and F.B.5, and whatever else I know not, QFI, ex flight commander at an RAF AFTS, IRE, flying at that time the Javelin FAW. My recollection is that he then had in the order of 1,500 hours. I do not think he would have floated around at 50' in fog, power at idle, off centre, on the stall, no idea how far he was down the runway, raised the nose and raised the flaps. In fact I take that for granted. I do not know what experience you have, Judy, but since you write with such authority it must be considerable and I respect it. I look forward to your answers.

[Jackonicko]

Davaar

Well said mate.

Generally speaking, fast jet and military aviators are sharper and have better hands, 'cos they need to have. That's why you can buy your way to an ATPL, but not into the cockpit of an F-16, Harrier, or military transport or tanker.

I'll exclude those Airline pilots who make their ToT (oops, ETA) to the second, as a matter of routine. I'll exclude those airline pilots who can fly their aircraft to the limits with reliability and confidence, etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but I'd be happier down the back if the Captain had 1,000 fours fast jet than if he had 1,000 hours instructing/glider-towing/flying Bandeirantes on night mail sorties, etc.

I wouldn't want that pilot not to have learned the necessary cockpit procedures and ways of doing things, I wouldn't want him not to have enough experience as co-pilot not to be fully aware that he was now doing a different job, requiring new priorities and some new skills - but that's really not the hard part, is it?

I don't mean to be offensive, but would ask anyone who maintains that military pilots are less skilled why they didn't go and do it themselves?

[Tom Tipper]

"I'm sorry, but I'd be happier down the back if the Captain had 1,000 fours fast jet than if he had 1,000 hours instructing/glider-towing/flying Bandeirantes on night mail sorties, etc."

You might be sorry chum but recruiters for many large international airlines aren't. They prefer the Bandit Pilot/Instructors because they have a good attitude (ie: enthusiatic and very willing to learn). Don't just take this from me, make enquiries yourself.

The simple reason is that what can be a problem with some fighter pilots is that they THINK they are better and this ATTITUDINAL deficiency actually makes them WORSE (ie: not much more can be taught to them).

Short of seeing fighter experience as a bonus, airlines are increasingly seeing this as a negative. Some of the responses to this topic appear to validate their beliefs.

[stormcloud]

Jackoniko,
What I really want is someone up front with 1,000+ hours on type!

[stormcloud]

RoC

You go to the crewroom to meet the 'Chums'.
You look in the notices to see if there's something important/relevant. You check the fuel plan even though it came from planning. You take into account the weather, your diversions, the type of approach at destination, any expected holding etc and decide what you really want. You have to take off on time or you miss your slot and the businessman looses a multi million dollar deal. Engineering call wanting some important item on board for an aircraft down the line, can you wait for it because the other aircraft can't fly without it? Can we go later and faster, yes but more fuel required. Have we got time, 100 tonnes takes a while to load? What about MLW at destination? 30 mins to go and the IFS goes sick, are there enough crew and can the purser do the job?
So far this CREW haven't logged 1 second of flying time. Are they getting the job done?
YOU BET!

[Roc]

Stormcloud,

You make a valid point, I may add the difference is the pilot in my example was a 25 year old preparing to fly 14-plus hours with an air refueling thrown in. I respect all pilots whatever way they were trained, In my experience my USAF training class started with 63 students and graduated 18. Alot of my friends who "washed-out" continued their aviation career, training the civilian route, and all of them fly for airlines today. So what does this tell you about the differing standards between civilian and military training? I concluded that the military is not teaching you to fly, they are looking for a pilot who can handle alot of differnt, dynamic, and high pressure situations and make good sound judgements...usually the flying is the easiest part. Not saying all mil guys are flying gods, but I feel that their experience is worthy of extra-consideration, vis-a-vis flying time computations...

[Tom Tipper]

No

[TowerDog]

Roc:

With all respect to military pilots and their training, there is also some examples of them not hacking it and "washing out" when civilians did not: In my upgrade class a number of years ago, (Guess you Brits call it
Command Course) about half of the class did not make it and went back to the right seat to think it over for a year. Some of those guys were military trained pilots.

No speculation on why they did not make it, just proves the point that you are not always golden just because you flew for the tax payers.

My own observations both from the left and from the right seat is that there is no difference in abilities or talent between the two. Had some really good ones and bad ones from each group.



------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[Roc]

Towerdog

I agree, I didnt mean for my post to come across like the military pilots are better than their civilian counterparts. I meant to convey that the military is not just looking for exceptional pilots, but also pilots who can handle certain situations. I fly civilian also, and at my airline I notice alot of pilots like to fly the same routes, approaches, etc.. these are usually the guys that start to "ping" when they are given different clearances etc.. Now before you go off and disparage my airline, its one of the best in the world and we have never crashed an aircraft. Now, back to the fighter time factoring, if a pilot excels and gets to fly fighters etc or even a B-1 bomber, how often do you think these pilots are flying them? Short of a war they will fly maybe 400 hours a year. So should they be penalized for this lack of flying time by virtue of the type of military aircraft they were told to fly? Another example, who do you think the USAF selects to fly the $500 million dollar Stealth Bomber? Only the BEST, yet these guys probably dont fly often, would you say he's not as competitive as the regional pilot with lots more hours? or would you give him some credit for his accomplishments in being chosen to fly the B-2 in the first place.. Again this is not to disparage civilian trained pilots, we ALL PAY OUR DUES, just different ways....

[TowerDog]

Roc:

Youre saying your airline is the best in the world and has never crashed an aircraft?
Wonder which carrier that would be?

The only 2 I knew of that never screwed up was Southwest and Quantas, until a little while ago when they both had a mishap.

As for the B-2 guys getting a little extra credit for not flying a bunch, but still being great aviators: Yes, perhaps so, but then how about the time building flight instructor who paid for all his ratings by driving taxi-cabs, and forever hanging around airports trying to get another hour in the air, and maybe, just maybe an hour or two of multi-engine time. If he is good and plays his cards right, maybe some commuter will sniff at him in a year or two.
Then he can really start building time....
Should he include a factor in his flight time?

Yeah, Roc I know what you are saying. I flew 120 hours a month in turbo-prop commuters. (with no auto pilot or air conditon) Racked up time pretty darn fast, and from a military pilot's view there is perhaps some inflation in that kind of flight time.
It was however hard work, 7 to 10 sectors a day, pretty worn out and head spinning after
last shut down for the day. Then do it all over again 20 days a month.

Not complaining, it did pay off. Especially the day I strapped the left seat of a 747 on my back.

My opinion is that an hour in the air is an hour in the air is an hour in the air.
The military guys usually get some credit for not logging block time.

As for demanding flights and high work load aircraft= extra credits, etc.
Well, then how about when the civilian guy lost an engine, or lost a couple of hydraulic systems, should he log twice the flight time to compensate for the higher demands?

I think the recruiters have it all figured out without the pilots having to include any factors: I usually have twice the flight time of military guys in the same interwiev group.




------------------
Men, this is no drill...

[Genghis McCann]

May I enter the fray as being somewhere in the middle. I started life as a fast jet navigator in the RAF and have worked with military fast jet pilots at close hand without actually being one. As a nav I have almost certainly flown with more fast jet pilots than any pilot and am in a position to comment on what the people are really like. I am now a turboprop captain having worked both as an instructor and for 3 different airlines so I have seen it from all sides of the fence and have no real axe to grind.

The RAF is a hard rules environment - you shape up or ship out, and nowhere is that more harshly applied than among fast jet pilots. Consequently in the 'survival of the fittest' culture in training, only those guys/gals who are able to keep up with the enormous learning curve make it to the end. You come to see that this is in fact a very wasteful system in that lots of good folk who just needed a bit more time never get through. Whatever your views - that is the harsh reality. The people that make it are not necessarily the nicest people in the world, and some of them are frankly very aggressive and a pain in the neck, but they are all good. I was on several squadrons and the worst pilot on the squadron was actually still quite a capable bloke in general terms. Compare that with the civvie world and the picture is very different. I have sat next to some marvellous captains - both in terms of attitude and in ability. I have also sat next to people and have been aghast that such poor quality captains ever got a job let alone a command. I have to say that the weeding out system of the RAF, although ruthlessly indiscriminate, made certain that did not happen. A military fast jet pilot with 300 hours is light years ahead of his civillian counterpart. I am sorry if that offends some people but that is the truth. When I joined my pilot colleagues at the RAF Tactical Weapons Unit, I remember being amazed at what the were expected to do with little more than 200 hours training (IMC close formation, formation take-offs, leading a bounced pair, dropping bombs, firing canons etc). So at that stage it is a big tick to the RAF. Alas it is the tortoise and the hare. The problem comes later down the line when 10 years on, the RAF bloke has 2000 or maybe 2500 hours total. His civvie equivalent who started slowly and maybe even was not quite as quick a learner has now 8000 hours, has flown in all weathers, operated all over the world and knows the airline industry backwards. He is also now very, very good at what he does and the fast jet guy is now a long way back. Enter Mr Fast Jet (or even Hercules) and as the hare he wants equal or even higher status than the tortoise. Alas he has fallen behind despite being a very skilled and talented individual in his own world. He needs hours on something big and he has not got them!

I am also acutely aware that some RAF/military types have left the RAF and make real idiots of themselves in having totally the wrong attitude and I have been very embarrassed to be lumped alongside them. They have been rude, unpleasant, self-opinionated and in some case not very good. These bad apples should not spoil the whole barrel.

As an ex-nav, I naturally had to do a few years in the right hand seat and I am exceedingly grateful for all that I was taught there. To all you fast jet guys out there who are having to listen to foolish and ignorant criticism from other pilots I would say to you - you are very good blokes, but do not try to run before you can walk. Several fast jet guys have left the RAF, been given commands straight away and have alienated all those around them. Your job in the RAF was very demanding, and to do it you had to be very good. You are now entering a different world that is not harder but it is very different. Have the grace to admit you need to learn new tricks and in time you will be superb at them just as you are now in your Harrier or Tornado. Be willing to do your co-pilot time and you will learn an enormous amount When the big day comes that you are given command of some mega beast then you will be able to do it very well indeed. You will also have learnt the people skills that are so critical to being effective as an airline pilot.

Best of luck to you all.

That is my view and I am sticking to it!

[This message has been edited by Genghis McCann (edited 09 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Genghis McCann (edited 09 October 2000).]

[Tom Tipper]

Roc. I'm sure the USAF select the BEST pilots to fly the B1. They are no doubt great at what they do.

This however does not mean they are the BEST for airlines, in fact in many cases it means the opposite. It is attitude which is the key to what airlines are after.

As so many have said, I too have seen good and bad, passes and failures from military and civil aviation. It is not possible and far too simplistic to differentiate between the categories. Any differentiation should be attitude based.

[SIDIAMIL]

An interesting thread which has raised some topics which I feel must be addressed:

CRM. A fairly new innovation to the commercial world which, after a short induction course and annual refresher makes our profession masters of management!!!! A skill which is rarely practiced by the crewdogs. FYI, the topics discussed during these "courses" are assessed during selection for all of HM forces; in other words, the "skills" of management are assumed from the outset and are then extended during the training and career of ALL HM pilots.

FIGHTERS v THE REST. There is no doubt that there are different skills involved in getting a max weight 747 from A to B under full IFR control (AKA being told what to do for 99% of the time) and landing in a typhoon and leading 12-ship of mud-movers at very low level against 18+ AD assets and still dropping a bomb in a bucket on time. I have done them both many times and know which one I prefer!

FIGHTER TIME. The real professionals on both sides of the argument (those who have and those who tried but could not) acknowledge that fighter time in no way relates to hand flying an airliner to 10000ft under SID or radar control then AP, tea, beef pork or chicken and blah blah blah to AP off at the outer marker after RAVEC or STAR and a landing. Under this assessment, I would give the airline pilot 10min for the climb and 3 min for the landing, factored at 2/3 for PF and 1/3 for PNF (Pilot Flying and Pilot Not Flying for the as yet uninitiated) per sector. The fighter guy should get the following: single-seat 2x; 2-seat 1x. The non-fighter guys should have: hours divided by the number of engines!

RECRUITING. An interesting one. Ex-mil guys in the UK and Her colonies are usually employed as direct entry FOs ar Captains. The level of experience required usually is attained after 6-7 years in the Mil system and excludes all but the more experienced (heavy turboprop) civvie guys. Indeed, in CPA GA guys are exclusively employed as SOs and the majority, even after 2-3 years service, still do not have the required experience to transfer our freighter operation as FOs. In contrast, ex-fighter guys are snapped up for the freighter and ex-fighter guys with 3-4 years in CPA are transferring to the LHS on the freighter (747).

I know many extremely capable ex-fighter guys, from many countries' air forces, flying for the world's leading airlines. I have yet to meet the corollary.

GICASI

[Tom Tipper]

Well now ther's a coincidence, CPA is JUST the example I was thinking of when I wrote my above post!!

Contrary to your ideas regarding what CX regard as a suitable you can rest assured that the airline has had a number of concerns with fighter pilots.

This can be checked (should you wish) by the recent very poor success rate at interview (in London this year) for these pilots as applicants for both the CX freighter and S/O positions. Can't recall the specific pass rate but you could get the exact figures from the Recruitment section. The main difficulties I'm reliably informed were Attitude and Poor simulator handling skills.

Your so-called "GA" pilots are achieving very high success rates at present, particularly from a recent recruitment drive in Australia and South Africa.

No doubt you will challenge the above but it is all there in Black and White for you to see should you wish.

However I stick to the original idea that there are great and lousy pilots from all backgrounds but the best pilots are those who are keen to learn and have a healthy attitude.

[Arkroyal]

Just to get back to FcU's original question (and I apologise once again for my jape!)the points are:

Military flight time is taken from wheels off to wheels on, so quite rightly there is a formula to credit him or her with taxi time.

The military guy has come through a very tough selection and training process, and with the right attitude is as trainable as anyone else to fly an airliner.

I get the feeling that some adverse comments here come from chopped ex-military. If so don't be bitter, you are the proof that you can still make it in aviation.

Advice to all ex military. Your experience is useful, but attitude is all. You are learning something new and no airline trainers like the old 'but in the air force we did it like this' bit.

(At risk of opening another can of worms), my employers have found that in general, ex Navy people tend to shut the hangar doors on leaving rather better than the light blue, and start with a clean slate and so tend to take more of them.

Please, this is not intended to open up a crab v fishhead war, just an observation, and a little advise to those leaving the services.

:)

[nugpot]

Tom Tipper,

With the recent successful recruitement drive of CX in SA, 80% of the pilots they took were ex-mil, albeit with some civvie time.

In SA we have the situation where we had a war for 15 years and the SAAF was the biggest trainer of pilots. The ratio of ex-mil to GA pilots in all the airlines in SA are very close to 50-50, if not 60-40 in favor of ex-mil pilots. This is slowly changing now with the feeders, but in SAA, I think the mil trained pilots are still in the majority.

[av8er]

Ex Fast Jet, now airline Captain.

Interesting reading, although some complete bollox.

I personally found the transition to large aircraft types surprisingly difficult. Won't bore you with that though -

The reference from HQPTC Innsworth is as follows:
PTC/285701/P&P dated 6 Nov 95;
signed by C W D Goodwin for Gp Capt Training Policy.
This letter actually states that they are still awaiting approval from the CAA but to add the extra taxy time anyway.

BTW never really understood why I log flight time for waiting 20 mins in a que for take-off? (PS. the engines don't!)

[Flanker]

Being a scum of the earth self improver,here's my tuppence worth.
The military FJ guys are generally a pretty safe bet from a handling/capacity viewpoint, basically more professional in their attitude.A friend of mine ex Jaguar, now 76/75 skipper, is the most able/knowledgeable pilot I can think of.He is also among the most modest.
The problem lies with the very fact that they are very competitive and to be really good at something you have to believe in yourself,when did you last meet a shy FJ pilot?
It is this superiority complex that the civvie world finds so annoying.Is aggression/overconfidence a good thing in an airliner? If you haven't experience at the job you're doing,no matter what job,you better wind your neck in and take some time to learn your new trade.
I recently saw (the MAD) Shaun Tucker display his overpowered tiny biplane, now if he isn't a brilliant stick and rudder pilot I don't know who is, but how much of that skill would be relevant as a 737 pilot?Airline flying is not a competition!So I would say to the FJ guys, your hours may be on the low side but at least your background will get you a job.And remember the sun does NOT shine out of your a*se.

[Jackonicko]

You can't buy your way into a FJ cockpit. Those rejected by the military (including you, Tom?) or washed out because their flying skills weren't quite sufficient, can still make good airline pilots.

Now a FJ pilot needs to learn new skills (and dump some of the attitude) if he's to become a successful airline pilot, but to pretend that a 1,000 hour fighter/bomber/recce man is somehow no better than his direct equivalent (in terms of piloting skills, airmanship, etc.) is really rather silly.

[Tom Tipper]

Nugpot...No sir, apologies but I believe your figures are not quite correct.

A mere 15% of the succesful SA candidates this round of interviews were ex-military. It was only 6% from the previous round.

Jackonicko: Just a thought, but perhaps your reasoning is a big part of the problem as to why the above is the case. (PS: Never tried for military - had no interest, not that this has any bearing on the issue. It is certain airlines who are having this problem with some fighter pilots, this post is simply reporting reality - recruiting statistics speak for themselves. Fighter experience may appear to those who have accrued it as worth more than other forms of flying but there is clearly something with fighter pilots which appears not to be impressing many Airline recruiters. As before, suggest it could be attitude based. No use complaining about it, if an airline job is sought then a degree of humility seems to go a long way. Unless your post is a wind-up (hope so) then it is this attitudinal problem which may well be the reason success rates at interview are so low.


My contributions to this thread began with the fact that it doesn't matter what the background of the pilot was, it was his attitude that governed his ability to fit into airline life.

I hope that certain contributions to this topic are not truly indicative of the thinking of the majority of fighter pilots (I would still like to believe that they are not). Should they be however, it is very tangible evidence as to why Airlines increasingly steer away from these pilots.

Factoring fighter time may thus in effect become a liability.


[This message has been edited by Tom Tipper (edited 11 October 2000).]

[ijp]

TomTipper,

I didn't know Australia had an air force to recruit from. I remember one of your carriers going the wrong way during joint exercises, ramming and sinking a US destroyer back in '68. (Capts on carriers are all former aviators)

It is obvious to me that every pilot in this forum seems to have an ego problem, refusing to conceit that someone else may be better trained or somehow more competitent because of their background.

I do know this, It was far easier to hustle the ladies as a fighter pilot in uniform, than a freight dog, or commuter pilot.

[Jackonicko]

I'll happily concede that the 'from-scratch' civil pilot is likely to have better inter-personal skills on the flight deck, and even that he may have more relevant experience of certain types of instrument flying. He may also be more up to speed in certain multi-engine handling situations, I find it amusing that you will not concede that a miltary pilot is likely to have superior basic flying skills, airmanship and multi-tasking skills than a CPL/ATPL with the same number of hours.

I've been taught by civil and military instructors, and have flown with civil and military pilots. I wasn't surprised that those coming from a 'money-no-object, excellence is the only criteria' background tended to be sharper.

Read my post carefully - I agree with you re attitude, and agree that military guys aren't ready to do the job without extra learning, but they are often very much better than their low hours totals might suggest.

[Roc]

Tower Dog,

I fly for a Big Brown cargo airline, and we've never had an accident yet, a few scrapes here and there for sure, but nobody hurt. Thanks for your reply Roc

[FcU]

So what about my 10 or 15 mins per sortie even though it is irrelevant for the next 2.5 years?

[Tom Tipper]

Jackonicko: "I find it amusing that you will not concede that a miltary pilot is likely to have superior basic flying skills, airmanship and multi-tasking skills than a CPL/ATPL with the same number of hours."

It's good that mirth is to be had and I again (very hopefully) detect a degree of wind-up.

However the airlines
1)Don't agree with you and
2)Like Queen Victoria and unlike yourself - are not amused.

Regarding the uniforms, yes I can well understand why the US armed forces were better at hustling the women. Airline pilot uniforms are simply utilitarian.

[scroggs]

FcU,
I should just let this lot get on with it and start another thread while they're not looking. This'll go on, getting more and more anal, till the cows come home!!
Best of luck when it's your turn to go for interview.

[scroggs]

oops!

[This message has been edited by scroggs (edited 12 October 2000).]

[Arkroyal]

Tom Tipper

The airlines do however agree with Jack, and take on the ex military in huge numbers.

Fcu:

Now look what you went and started. :)

[Jackonicko]

Tom T,

Yes, there is an element of wind-up. But underlying is a serious point. Putting aside the tendency of some mil pilots towards arrogance and 'know-it-all' attitude, putting aside the envy of military 'might-have-beens', and while acknowledging that no-one could step directly from an F-16 into either seat of a 737, without M/E training, ATPL exams and some conversion and sim sorties, my point is to challenge the original statement.

This ran along the lines that one hour FJ mil was worth no more than one hour Cessna/Glider towing/single-engined instruction and was implicitely worth less than one hour Bandit night mail, 737 second dickey. etc.

I say again. Just look at the entry standards. Just look at the quality of the training. Just look at the workload. Just look at the multi-tasking required. In terms of pure piloting skills and mental sharpness, I'd say that one 45 minute F-16 hop (whether frontline or Thunderbirds) or one 3 hour B-1B ride is probably worth one civil flight.

Compare sorties, not hours. Landings and take offs, instrument approaches etc. are comparable, but the 25 minutes you spend checking up on your shares, reading the paper, eating your meal, chatting up the hostie, impressing small boys who visit the flight deck are not worth 25 minutes low level nav, in the gunnery pattern, or even in high level transport, if the aircraft in which you're transiting has no autopilot and has a tactical job to do.

And, as has been pointed out, military guys log take off to landing, while you log 'chock-to-chock'. Would you deny that that needs factoring?

Or have you never had spare time during your oh-so-impressive and oh-so-valuable Boeing 737 flights?

An alternative way of looking at it. I'd give you more credit with your five-hundred hours as a professional aviator if I wanted to hire you to fly helicopters than I'd give me - with a similar number of hours, mostly gained as an amatuer in single-engined puddle-jumpers.

[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 13 October 2000).]

[Tex Jones]

Can't be bothered to read any more than the first page; can someone save me some time and tell me if anyone in the intervening posts whose view is that fighter hours count for nothing ever flown fighters? In which case I'll take the proposition seriously!

Lightnings, Mirages and Jaguars rule, OK?

[MrBernoulli]

Jackonicko, a nicely balanced view I think. You've said it better than some have tried to.

Unfortunately on this thread there are a scattering of people who seem to seriously believe that mil pilots shouldn't be allowed to factor logbook time to put their hours 'experience' on a level playing field with the rest of the industry. These people will not be swayed, no matter how eloquent the argument.

[hat n' sash]

Come, come gentlemen. A lot of postings on this thread seem to be suggesting that getting through a military training regime is in some way difficult or demanding. Tosh. If women can make it through the same regime the job cannot be all that demanding.

[scroggs]

Hat'n'Sash - blue touch paper is now well and truly lit. This should be fun....

[Noddy Staltern]

To answer one of the original questions, in the UK, the MOD will endorse a pilots logbook to account for taxy time. The allowance (as stated earlier in this thread) is zero for helicopter flying, 10 mins for fixed-wing flying training and fast-jet flying, and 15 mins for multi-engine transport flying.

The letter stating this is as follows:

PTC/285701/P&P dated 6 Nov 95, from Sqn Ldr CWD Goodwin at PTC to Flt Lt APD Smith at Brize (101 Sqn). (It may well have been superseeded in the last few years).

At the time of the letter, the CAA would not recognise these extra hours towards the award of a licence, however most airlines will recognise them towards an initial job or subsequent command.

[ijp]

Hat n sash,

I know, first hand, that the US Navy determined that women pilots were not up to standard. Like it or not, those were the findings.

[Capt Pit Bull]

FCU,

Re your original question.

I don't know about retrospectively changing what you have logged. However, if you still have some time to run, some of my contempories did the following:

Start a duplicate log book. Transfer your hours so far as logged (i.e. t/o to ldg.).

From now on, log the times as usual in your 'military' log book, but also log the actual brakes on / brakes off times in your 'civvy' log book. Since you are logging actual times, rather than some vague number of extra minutes per sortie, you are demonstratably following the CAA method of recording flight time.

You can then argue the toss with them about what you have done so far, but at least reliably gain credit from now till the end of your term of service.

Hope this is of some use.

CPB.

[max nightstop]

Capt Pit Bull has got it right, if you run parallel log books then there is no argument. Furthermore, if you taxy slowly enough you will soon be as good as someone who never flew military stuff.

You might as well sit for 15 mins before take-off too, pretending you are in a big queue and 10 mins after landing while BAA find you a stand. It's all good flying time.

:)

[Streamline]

Often the argument of CRM pops up when comparing Civil and Military.

Often also arguments that actually have nothing to do with CRM are pushed trough as CRM issues.

How to best use the resources in the Cockpit "CRM " is different in civil from flying a fighter.

Do not compare apples with oranges, both experiences are different and therefore an apple can never become an orange and hence the flight times as far as the CRM issue is concerned is of a lesser value and that, with respect to the military counts in both directions.

Converting from military to civil as far as flying skills is concerned has a lot to do with the speed of the ops themselves and I would say that the mil guy’s are definitely not at a disadvantage.


------------------
Smooth Trimmer

[This message has been edited by Streamline (edited 20 October 2000).]

[judy]

Dear Davaar , I am sorry not to have answered you as I have been away on back to back trips .

Firstly you assume Iam a lady /woman/female. No I am a man.

I too was trained at the same establishment as you, now I am operating for an airline.

Mr fcu asked if he could or should log taxi time etc due to his military exprience. Why should he ? What would this gain him ?

If he has a solid background and training why would an airline worry about another 300 hours ?

Your reply regarding the Canadian accident is very interesting , what does it prove ?

I could recount numerous accidents involving crews from various backgrounds


My point is the individual has to be of the correct type( military or other ) , its the person , their education , common sense etc etc

[Hydraulic Palm Tree]

It matters a lot if you are a miltary helo pilot trying to get a job with the minimum amount of fixed wing time as possible. I managed to squeeze another 10hrs or a minimum of £600 out of this perk.

HPT

[Davaar]

Judy:

It was the name that did it. I should have known. I once had a client common acceptance "Bud", ne (not nee) "Shirley". Anyway, thank you for getting back. I can't speak on commercial aviation from personal experience, but what you say makes sense.

[Arkroyal]

Judy does not speak sense.

Why would the military pilot NOT want to claim taxi time to put him/her on a level playing field with the civvie bozo who logs flight time for sitting in a 152 picking his/her nose on the taxiway?

[Flanker]

Arkroyal

If your'type were half as good as you are arrogant you'd be 'king good!

'a nose picker'

[Arkroyal]

Sorry Flanker

Didn't mean to get offensive with the self improvers, but the Judy woman/man/thing has put some drivel in this thread.

I'll start again. Fcu simply wants to claim his taxi time just as a civvy does. What can possibly be wrong with that.