RAF Boys - Easy Life ! [Archive]

stablepowerset

18th Apr 2001, 03:51

Having experienced both the military side and the civvie side and seen the difference in ability and attitude, how can anybody have any gripes about militry pilots getting exemptions from any exams? the training set up and follow up training is far better than any required by any airline!! try going in the sim every 2 months instead of every 6 and line checks are far tougher trust me! The guys with 2000 PIC dont get it without a lot of effort, so whats wrong with rewarding there abilities? Besides there are some out there who have done it the hard way!!! who leave a lot to be desired! one or two scared me.

Dan Winterland

18th Apr 2001, 07:17

Not twenty years, more like twelve. In 1989, all a commander on an aircraft like the VC10 or HS125 had to do to get an ATPL was air law and an IR. Common sense has again prevailed, and now the daft requirement to do everything has gone.

I did my ATPL the long way. All the Nav and Tech exams, perf A (despite being a commander on a perf A aeroplane and having done the RAF course twice), a daft test on a Seneca (an aeroplane I will never fly for a living), and paying £550 to allow a CAA examiner to sit on the jump seat while I did my RAF IR.

I did all this during a RAF posting where I was qualified as a commander to fly 4 engined heavy jets across the Atlantinc, in RVSM airspace, and into major civilian airports.

I refer to my first paragraph regarding common sense.

VICCYTEN

18th Apr 2001, 07:53

About time too. Now that the admin route to an ATPL has been made more sensible for our mil friends, does that mean an increase in PVRs from guys looking to use their new licence?

Macman

18th Apr 2001, 09:31

Guess that ruins the Navy's 'give us three years and we'll give you £10,000 towards your licence' plan then.

BEagle

18th Apr 2001, 11:26

The idea is to keep people in HMFC until they've acheived the qualifying total. At that point the choice will be theirs, but they should then be in range of the next retention inducement which would be financial.

It takes those who fly high performance aircraft quite a while to achieve 2000 hours; bear in mind that those hours are rather more busy than many airline hours! Hopefully HMFC can retain people until roughly their mid-30s, then it'll be their choice to stay or go. The individual will benefit from a second career option and the airlines will benefit from a source of experienced and competent aviators. The numbers will not be huge, so there shouldn't be any impact on the entirely self-funded youngsters. But I don't know of any military pilots with ATPLs who haven't been snapped up by the airlines when they left.

Interestingly, any company which asks for your age when you apply for a job with them will have to explain why they need to ask the question; age discrimination will soon be illegal, so companies with a concealed 'age limit' for applicants will have to revise their ideas.

In a few months' time, certain airlines may find themselves being asked whether they would be interested in employing an ex-military senior training captain A2 QFI/IRE with 4-5000 hours 4-jet command time on world-wide routes. Not that I'm considering leaving myself, but if age even enters the conversation, they'll be asked to explain themselves!

I understand that the usual method of applying age discrimination is to hide behind the facade of the 'human factors' selector's assessment and to come up with a spurious reason for rejecting the applicant on such grounds - which are never disclosed.

N2000

18th Apr 2001, 11:33

Exeng, "...lets give our military colleagues some credit where it is due"........., yes, they can whine louder than the engines can.

Wet Power

18th Apr 2001, 11:43

So why don't CAA qualified Air Traffic Controllers get some dispensation towards the ATPLs as well?

I did Aviation Law to a far higher degree than the ATPL requires, met theory, met practical and navigation subjects to at least ATPL standard and several other subjects to boot and got zilch in the way of exemptions when I came to do my professional pilot exams. These were CAA tested exams and were long hand as well, long before the days of 'the answer is somewhere on the paper'.

One rule for some and not for others.

Avalon

18th Apr 2001, 11:58

And what about Military ATCOs having to go back to school to do all the civvy ATCO exams (AND minimum experience requirement) before being allowed to do their job at a different console?

Twistedfirefighter

18th Apr 2001, 12:02

Now I have nothing against ex mil guys, except that they seem to think that the sun shines out of their a**.
I have personal experience flying with a few of those and they have this seriously cheesy problem.
Just wind your necks in a bit and behave in an acceptable manner. Get rid of what they have drummed into you in the army and just be "NORMAL".

AffirmBrest

18th Apr 2001, 12:23

I have flown with both serving military,ex-military and wholly civilian pilots, and quite a cross-section of each. Those who have caused me the most grief and 'CRM' problems were those who always had/have something to prove (specifically, 'I'm better than you').

And not a single ex-mil among them. The ONLY crew I have met who have ever had an inflated opinion of their own abilities have been civilians, from various backgrounds. But maybe I've just been lucky.

Seems you get tw*ts in every bunch, eh Twisted?

------------------
...proceeding below Decision Height with CAUTION...

Genghis McCann

18th Apr 2001, 13:15

I am an ex-RAF fast jet Navigator and now a civvie airline Captain and so have seen life from both ends. I find myself somewhere in the middle and say to all military pilots just about to become civvies to beware of how badly they sometimes come across. I concur that the standard of ex-military pilots is actually very high in terms of ability and they have gone through all the same training as civvies. Giving them licences is not some 'freebie' but just an accurate reflection of their knowledge and abilities. Where the problem comes is that a lot of ex-RAF guys feel the world owes them a living and behave in an objectionable manner. A small minority have blotted the copybook for a substantial majority of great people. Being an ex-nav I have had to do it the hard way by working for turboprop companies and never got the 'secret handshake' entry to Virgin, Cathay and the like. I quite understand the ill-feeling that many civvies feel towards those ex-military blokes with relatively low hours who walk into the top jobs. I have had cause to be very embarrassed by ex-RAF pilots who have behaved very badly in their civvie roles - to the point where I have not advertised my ex-military background. And yet there are some fantastic military blokes (and gals by now!) out there who will be the salt of the earth to any airline.

I have benefitted enormously from my RAF training and it will hold me in good stead for the rest of my flying career. To my ex-colleagues who are about to enter the civvie world,learn a few simple rules that will save you a lot of unnecessary heartache -

Never say - 'When I was in the Air Force we did it this way....' Nobody is interested.

Never talk about your war experiences or similar events regardless of how important they are to you unless specifically asked.

Always ask your flight deck colleague about his own background and make a point of learning from his/her experiences.

Don't expect to be a Captain too quickly. Particularly if you are ex-fast jet. This is a whole new world that is radically different from the one you are now leaving. Time in the right had seat is invaluable in learning how it is done in the civvie world. The civvies have taught me so much about how to do things that I simply never knew flying fast jets.

Finally - Never, Never use ex-military white leather flying gloves on the flight deck. You will be a source of ridicule to your colleagues.

Those are my thoughts for what they are worth. Frankly I feel sad that so many good people are being blighted by a few donkeys.

The Scarlet Pimpernel

18th Apr 2001, 13:20

Twistedfirefighter/N2000 - nice to see you have such a balanced outlook on life .... a chip on both shoulders! (although Normal Nigel hasn't contributed yet!) I think you'll find people with inflated egos in any walk of life - to tar all ex mil guys with the same brush is, quite frankly, short-sighted and immature.

In line with most sensible people, I can only applaud this decision. Having done all the exams (very much like Dan, but with an MCC and an IR course at Exeter thrown in - the price for being FJ!) this must be a step in the right direction. 2000hrs, especially in a FJ takes an awfully long time and the RAF/Navy/AAC get the return of service they deserve.

Pontius

18th Apr 2001, 13:43

BEagle,

An employer is entitled to reject applications on the basis of age if they can prove the age restriction to be valid. For instance; if an airline can prove that people over age 28 (this in only an EXAMPLE) consistently need extra training or fail sponsored training then the airline is legally entitled to cap the application at < 28. This is not age discrimination but a perfectly legal means of an airline saving itself time and money. So, it may be that airlines find people over the age of 38 (and especially ex-Crab Truckies :)) statistically more 'difficult' to train than their younger contemporaries. In this case they are perfectly entitled to ask your age and you'd be unwise to start a slanging match in the interview (not that you would of course, but just exagerating for effect).

As an aside; A2 QFI etc means something in the Forces, but it counts for little in the civilian world. Likewise the 4500 hours spent 'airline type' flying if you're no good at the rest of the interview. They are ticks in the box (and some very creditable ones too) but, as you no doubt appreciate, they are only that and just serve to get you to the interview. Some of your 'transport' colleagues have let themselves down badly in the past. They think because they have airline-type flying experience they automatically leap-frog the FJ & helo chaps. This is definitely not the case. I'd be very interested to know why you're flying trucks and not FJs etc (this ain't aimed specifically at you, but you know where I'm coming from).

In summary, your qualifications are fine, but to be brutally frank, they're not much more than that. 4500 hrs is good in the military, but fairly insignificant in the civvy airline world. Likewise the QFI cat; great if you want to get a free ticket from the CAA but of limited value in getting you into an airline, as they don't normally recruit trainers specifically and it's a forces qual and not CAA. I'd stick to your strengths and not go off at the deep end with age arguements hoping to use your military qualifications as your sole 'justification' for them owing you a job.

On the subject of the thread, I think it's great that the CAA are finally giving the military pilots more credence than before. When I went through, you were allowed to sit combined papers and that was it. So you saved a couple of quid in exam fees, but still had to sit all the exams and do all the IR/multi BS. The US has a much better system. Sit a mil-comp exam (for which they have the database of questions and answers, thanks to freedom of information) and come away with a lovely civilian licence. Cost, oh about $0. The more the military training is recognised the better. It is without doubt, far more comprehensive and demanding than the civilian equivalent and it is right that QSP's skills should be recognised...more than they currently are in my opinion.

Now get off your zimmer, BEagle, and get that application form away.

Chin chin,

Pontius

------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!

sky9

18th Apr 2001, 17:36

I've always thought that the best uk pilots were either those that went through Hamble who had a high cut rate, or "fishheads" who had a paticular form of "natural selection". As far as RAF was concerned I've seen both ends of the spectrum.

Cmdr Data

18th Apr 2001, 17:59

I bet the CAA are looking more closely at these military types after the so called Ex-tornado, Airtours parker pen pilot got caught out. Seems as if the RAF breeds 'bad eggs'.

Hugh Jears

18th Apr 2001, 18:14

Just curious, how many of those slagging off the recent changes and HM forces generally, have actually worn the colours?

mmm...thought so! Green eyes perhaps?

Engage brain before opening gob(s)! Broaden your minds a little chaps. Very few ex-growbag wearers are the hellians you talk of. I've dealt with far worse civvy pilots than ex Forces. Of course, there are rotten apples in every barrel but noone gets a monopoly on the good or the bad (some airlines do seem to get all the ugly though!). A different background does not mean anything other than just that, DIFFERENT. Proper CRM means drawing on each others experiences, however gained, even if it's "I won't do that again!".

lostinBRU

18th Apr 2001, 18:19

C Data, old chap....extract head from lower orifice and check facts before squeezing cheeks and blowing out rubbish.

Never mind. Always another time.

AndyPandy

18th Apr 2001, 18:30

Can we include why BA is/isn't the best airline in the world into this thread?

Then we can really be immature and pathetic with the thread quickly degenerating into a puerile slanging match.

For what it's worth I take people as I find them and don't find that the RAF has a monopoly on egotists or idiots.

Tell you what though I am jealous that I didn't get to fly some of the military hardware!

MAXIMOL

18th Apr 2001, 21:59

CD....
I bet there are a few pure civies who have done the same, rewrite of the log book trick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say no more!!!!

SKYYACHT

18th Apr 2001, 23:50

I know of some technical groundschool instructors with literally thousands of hours of simulator/fixed base simulator experience, and the CAA grants them no slack or exemptions on the ATPL Tech subjects....yet they teach the aircrews on conversion courses......crazy, or what?

And as for Parker Time, well, that is totally shabby.

Tailwinds

BEagle

19th Apr 2001, 00:20

Pontius - intrigued to know quite why you think an A2 QFI category is 'great for a free ticket from the CAA'? Yes - once there was a route for military QFIs to Civil FI with little pain save a (then) 1179, FI test and ATPL-level Air Law; however, most QFIs were too lazy to bother and this route was stopped. Rather a shame - I did it and have enjoyed instructing/examining in my spare time ever since. Interestingly, most airline recruiting 'insiders' have told me that evidence of FW instructing ability is
a definite plus; a definite minus is thinking that the world owes you a living because you used to be the ace of the base on FJ, RW or anything else. Calm, safe ex co-pilots are less of a problem to them than some other ex-mil pilots. Particularly those who drone on about 'cap badges', 'crabs', 'fish heads' or other such pointless division.
Incidentally, it was a lawyer who advised me that 'age alone' may no longer be used as a discriminator - ability is the sole criterion. I've no interest in flying odious lager-louts to Oybeetha myself, so my comments are not specific to any future aspirations I may or may not have.

PS - it wasn't 'total time' I was quoting, merely 4-jet command time.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 18 April 2001).]

squeakyunclean

19th Apr 2001, 11:14

LostinBRU,

Check facts? You may find you are talking to the proverbial 'horses mouth'

Never mind. Always another time.

MAXIMOL,

Of course, but they don't have the advantage of being 'An Officer and a gentleman' to smooth the interview process.
HA!

Say no more!!!!

BEagle,

When you refer to QFI do you mean MIL or Civvy?
AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

(the last bit was a joke)

(in fact, all of it was a joke)

(who cares?)

Pontius

19th Apr 2001, 14:13

BEagle,

Well, you learn something new every day. I really didn't know the CAA had closed down the Mil QFI to CAA FI qual. I did it quite some time ago, but have to admit I have never used it.

Your comments regarding the negatives of 'WIWOFJs' etc is very valid, but the QFI bit honestly doesn't count for much for the less 'military' airlines. As an eg; if you were to go to 2 Bob they would have a very good idea of what you're talking about and the relevence of your quals. Go to BA and I think 99% of the time you'd end up with some puzzled looks from the interviewers.

Anyway, I'm sure we've bashed this to death already. I say good luck to all those who are still 'in' and I hope you get as many concessions as poss.

Pontius

PS: ohhh, 4500 hrs....I thought you were talking actual :)

------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!

US Marine

19th Apr 2001, 17:46

nice to see exemptions back again...i did it the long winded way before leaving Her Majesties employment....reckon that a free issue of an ATPL on retirement would be fair. all this bitching and whinging is purely a hangover form the masses who got chopped at biggin hill (or cranwell for the 70's children)

Hoorah.

Diesel8

19th Apr 2001, 19:46

How about giving this blanket dispensation to all pilot who have attained 2000 hrs in transport category airplanes, regardless of what nation they hail from.

(Bunker built, Hat on)

extra

19th Apr 2001, 21:17

Well that certainly livened things up didn't it - well done chaps. Best post yet from Genghis - good advice to all ex military types, there are plenty out there who are indeed excellent folk, it's a pity that some more outspoken ones, usually with Squadron Breitlings spoil it. Here - that could be the start of another thread - what deal did you get on your Squadron watch ?

'edited for typo'

[This message has been edited by extra (edited 19 April 2001).]

normal_nigel

19th Apr 2001, 23:03

Great news. I'm pleased it'll be easier now for the white glove brigade to transfer their over-inflated egos into the real world. Excellent. Also I think Her Majestys pen pushers should do a course on how to go straight into management/training and try to get
1. increase cra
2. more fairness inblind lines
3. "enhanced seniority because of their very relevant experience and the fact they've served Queen and Country" (Lord Flash).

Also I think any ex mil pilot who's had to fork out anything themselves in the last 25 years should have it paid back by the taxpayer.

NN

The Scarlet Pimpernel

20th Apr 2001, 02:25

You know NN, that's the first sensible post I think you've ever contributed to this forum and agree wholeheartedly with all of the points you raised. (Between you and me though, I think there may be some folk out there that may object to us getting "freebie" management opportunities, but you never know....it's worth a try. Perhaps no-one will notice) ;)

Oh....wait a mo: it was just you being sarcastic! Well - my sides have just split...you are a wag Nigel! You rarely fail to disappoint, do you? I bet the flight deck is in stitches when you're there - how those long hours must simply fly by!!!

Can't wait for you to post again!!

M.Mouse

20th Apr 2001, 02:51

AndyP

You said you didn't find that the RAF had a monopoly on idiots and up pops NN to prove the point!

BEagle

20th Apr 2001, 10:35

Abnormal Niggle seems to have sado-masochistic tendencies as he obviously enjoys the bruising replies which all his posts seem to receive!

Perhaps he only posts when his favourite cabin-boy has left the whip and gag at home??

However, I do agree that, unlike our old heaps, most normal airliners have sufficiently good air conditioning to avoid the need for sweat-resistant cape leather gloves!!

Underdog

20th Apr 2001, 11:14

FWIW,

I can't knock any mil (or ex-mil) for being recognised in one way or another for their experience. If there are cheaper ways to gain an ATPL or whatever then why knock people for taking advantage of it? We would all do it, given the opportunity.

Plenty of us 'self-improvers' have their own 'war' stories to tell about how difficult it's been both financially and career-wise to get to where we are. But frankly - who cares? Equally the ex-mils may feel that they have had a tough time getting their licences (which they may feel they should be given.) Again, who cares?

The fact is, it doesn't matter how you get your licences and/or experience. At the end of the day an ATPL doesn't take into account whether your hours are FJ or trucking. The licence is identical and grants the same priveleges. (OK, the caveat is parker penning your hours - but you know what I mean!)

Again FWIW, if we have to tar people, (let's face it, it IS fun!) The only ex-mil guy I've had nearly kill me was an Army guy, (ex-intelligence, with 'ex' being the word). And, using my Big Brush now; the consistently worst landings I have to experience have been the senior nigels who pick the flight I'm on to do their one handling sector a month!

On a brighter note, I can honestly say that whether ex-mil or not, the vast majority of guys I have the pleasure of flying with leave their egos at home and are great company down-route. There are no aces in long-haul.

OK, one last thing. In an earlier posting someone gave the ex-mils a bit of advice about wearing their gloves on the flight deck. I would just like to add to that and point out that - It is even sillier to wear white leather gloves on the flight deck when you have never been near the military! I've seen it happen and boy did he look a C**t.

Right, that's it for now - bid's open, got to plan next months golf tour!

ATB,

Underdog

judge11

20th Apr 2001, 14:51

Unless you are physiologically abnormal and do not experience sweating palms, keep the gloves. Nothing worst than handling the throttles after a hot, clammy hand has left drying perspiration all over them. And they do look a wee bit more kosher than a pair of red 'Arnold Palmer long-drives'. G-pants might be a little OTT though.

High time the mil guys got due recognition for their training and experience. Just remember chaps, it is a different world here in civvie aviation land - not difficult, just different.

DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING UNTIL IT HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DENIED

Spoonbill

20th Apr 2001, 15:06

Well spoken that man!
If Nigel and his friends think that being a mil' pilot is an easy way to an ATPL, perhaps he should try and get through the selection tests, and subsequent line training. It would be interesting to see how they get on. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif
As well as attaining and keeping the standards required, mil' pilots are doing essentially the same job as civi's, the exception being that instead of carrying pax and cargo and keeping the plane in one piece, some of them are required to carry out the other duties most of us are glad to leave to them.
I'm not ex -mil', but apart from mandatory CRM courses and other fine tuning exercises, Idont see a problem with ex -mil' pilots getting dispensations for the civvie pilots licence.
Flying is perhaps the only mil' trade that has direct parallels with the civi' world, and I think that by the time a mil' pilot has reached the standards required of the ATPL, AND got the experience required for civi' flight deck positions, they will have more than paid back the training costs. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

BOAC

20th Apr 2001, 16:29

BEagle, NN has specifically requested that no mention is made of the 'cabin boys' and we would appreciate your remembering that in a public forum.

Judge11 - be aware that military pilots do not sweat!

normal_nigel

20th Apr 2001, 17:39

I'd have thought that cabin boys were the perfect replacement for your little fags in the officers mess. Oh and by the way, if the air force is so great why didn't you lot do us all a favour and stay there.
NN

[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 20 April 2001).]

exeng

20th Apr 2001, 18:14

NN,

I normally don't feel your comments are ever worth replying to, but I must make an exception in this case.

<Oh yeah, and at least I don't get pissed on TV before I fly.> What an unpleasant and uneccessary comment.

You do us all a great misservice NN and I genuinely believe that you should seek help. Perhaps on your next medical signs of your instability will be noticed.

Exeng

normal_nigel

20th Apr 2001, 18:31

ok I've removed that due to my disgust at that bird.
NN

[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 21 April 2001).]

Underdog

20th Apr 2001, 19:32

OK All,

This post is just to let you know that us 'real' normal nigels have absolutely NOTHHING in common with the infamous NN.

It is people like him/her who refuse to live and let live that give the rest of us Nigels a bad press. Frankly every post I've read of his pisses me off - I find it very sad that he has got through the net and into this airline - or any airline for that matter.

If anyone should have a chip on their shoulder about the mil' it should be me - having been choppped from IOT in'85. But I don't. I have an inkling of what it's like on the other side of the fence and frankly, apart from the financial side of things during training, we have it relatively easy in civvie street.

NN please, for the rest of us that do get on with others, just shut the f^*k up.

ATB,

Underdog

partyreptile

20th Apr 2001, 19:48

Hey Boys!
Tell you what, how about an objective test--why not go back and review all the fatal accidents/crashes over the past 30 years in the commercial airlines, then see who the PIC was--military or civvie. My bet is that at least 75% were military--killed more folks than cancer.

partyreptile

20th Apr 2001, 19:53

Gentleman Aviator

20th Apr 2001, 20:42

n_n

Don't wish to get into a slanging match.

You have some fairly outspoken points of view; so be it.

What do you think of BA as a Company to fly and work for?

GA

judge11

20th Apr 2001, 20:50

BOAC

Thanks for reminding me; 'CESR' lectures seem a long time ago now. Officers, of course, perspire.

DON'T BELIEVE ANYHTING UNTIL IT IS OFFICIALLY DENIED

Gentleman Aviator

20th Apr 2001, 20:57

Reptile....

Interesting question, although it does sound as though your suggestion was made without any basis in fact.

Why not check yourself?

1. Find the % of accidents caused when PIC was military trained.

2. Find the % of ex-military pilots employed as civil pilots by those companies at the time.

3. Establish whether they were more or less prone to accidents than their civil-trained colleagues.

4. See if the percentages change over the decades.

If so, make reasoned suggestions as to why the changes have , or have not, taken place.

Given that you state that you are from California, you may consider concentrating on the US or widen the scope of your study to include other ICAO states.

Should you be able to gather such data it would be of great interest.

I suspect that you will not do so.

partyreptile

20th Apr 2001, 21:08

Ladies, and gentleman aviator;
you are indeed incorrect. I have already checked with my airline. And the winner is:
at AA in the U.S. since 1935 when the current airline came into being of all the accidents/incidents where loss of life occured, 100% were ex-military pilots as PIC's. Lets look again at that percentage--100, and that trend has held true through today. While I would dearly love to know the percentages at other airlines, I am not privy to the inside dope. Why don't you look it up, if as I suspect you have a need to protect/defend other ex-mil brothers. Do not take my word for these numbers, ask someone else, like AA mgt. Remember, do not believe it until it is officially denied.

partyreptile

20th Apr 2001, 21:19

An addition to my last post, I forgot to mention that of the 100 percent of ex-mil pilots that had managed to deliver their passengers to their final destination, fully 50% were previously Marine pilots, who are trained by the Navy, so lets hear it for the Navy boys out there.

fireflybob

20th Apr 2001, 21:21

I have not had the patience or the time to read every posting on this thread in detail but I think I have got the flavour of what is being said!
My experience with all pilots (whether civil or military) is that it all very much depends on the individual. A minority of both groups I would not trust with my Flymo!
Hey guys, I thought we were in this together?
I thought we wanted a win/win situation on the flight deck - it may be an ex military pilot in the LHS but whose in the RHS?

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

partyreptile

20th Apr 2001, 21:51

Whoa!
I thought that our friends from the armed forces did not need the assistance of the scantily-trained and spottily-vetted great unwashed! What is this? Are the F.O.'s now to blame? Are we to say that if there is an ex-mil in the LHS that the responsibility will now fall to whoever is in the RHS? Where are all the ex-mil's who were burning up this string before? I can't hear you.

flt_lt_w_mitty

20th Apr 2001, 21:55

Hey, FFB, it could be NN in the LHS - no, surely not! Hell yes! Worrying thought, aint it? Well, with any luck there will be an ex-mil in the RHS to save the day.
Has anyone noticed how the frequency of its posts go with the lunar cycle?!!!
Could IT be the Nigel that was so stupid that the others noticed?

Smudger

20th Apr 2001, 22:14

No,
ex RAF boys do not get the easy life, I had to do everything (written exams and flying tests)as though I'd walked in off the street to get my ATPL even though I was a 'seasoned' transport pilot in the RAF. We all know that the CAA do what they do just to screw as much cash as they possibly can out of those who choose to fly as commercial pilots and what they do bears no resemblance to fairness to the individual or commonsense in general. Life ain't fair, especially in this game, and we're stuck with it.

BEagle

20th Apr 2001, 22:49

BOAC - apologies to those who think of themselves as 'cabin boys'. They deserve every sympathy for working with - or beating with leather whips - that rather inadequate individual who posts under the name of normal_nigel!

goldcup

21st Apr 2001, 02:53

nigel-

I think I've sussed what may be the root of all your problems: simply e-mail me with your address and I can send you a pair of white gloves from clothing stores. That way, you can wear them whilst flying, thereby getting rid of your inferiority complex.

Or if you're too embarassed to contact me, you could go to a company called Silvermans and buy your own.

Just trying to help.

partyreptile

21st Apr 2001, 05:10

Hey Boys!
What's the matter? I have not heard anyone dispute my earlier posts, what--just going to accept that they are true? Or is this something that you have known all along, and were afraid to address lest the flying public find out and raise serious objections? Always nice to heckle from a position of strength. Awaiting reply's.

mr hanky

21st Apr 2001, 05:27

Just out interest, Reptile, what was the overall proportion of ex-mil pilots flying for AA over the period you're talking about? I can't help thinking it would've been quite high, in which case your argument would be about as meaningful as saying "100% of fatal military accidents had a military PIC, therefore mil pilots are unsafe".

partyreptile

21st Apr 2001, 07:35

partyreptile

21st Apr 2001, 07:40

Amazing.

No denials, just a tweaking of the information. Not "this cannot be!" or "that is patently untrue!", merely--"how many of us were there, so we can accurately gauge the blame that is rightly ours. For your information, the %'s ranged from 65-90%, with the %'s on the low side in the recent past. Still doesn't assuage the pain does it? If mil pilots were as superior as they/you believe then it should be that the %'s would be skewed the other way, with civvies resp. for far more accidents than their numbers would dictate, but that is not the case, is it? Don't believe me, do your own research, I dare you. All you have to do is do a newspaper search over the last 20 years, looking for fatal accidents tied to your own airline, then look up the accident report with an eye for the reported background of the crew. See if you have the stomach for it boys.

Smudger

21st Apr 2001, 12:15

Partyreptile, I assume that you are talking about American military pilots in which case you are probably quite correct(although I haven't checked). Anyway, this is the wrong thread for this somewhat pointless argument of yours so I suggest you give it up (and by the way, learn to spell).

Pontius

21st Apr 2001, 15:20

PartyReptile,

'Statistics and damn lies'. That and maybe nobody cares what conclusions YOU draw. Ever done military training yourself? If not, wind your neck in until you know what you're talking about.

That goes for NN too. You make sweeping statments such as alchol before flying being 'obviously' accepted in the RAF. You prat, that's exactly the kind of crap that the stupid C4 woman was trying to say existed in BA. It gets everyone a very bad name, introduces unecessary regulations and tars responsible pilots with a poor reputation. Grow up and think before you write such drivvle on a public forum.

Secondly, since you've never been a military pilot you are not qualified to comment on how good, bad or indifferent it is to be one. There are twits in every walk of life (you are living proof) and it is a shame that someone didn't see the bigotted, small minded personality in you when you bluffed your way through selection. It's such a shame I can't figure out who you are, it would be such a pleasure having you sitting next to me and seeing how truly marvellous you are.

Pontius

Intersection

21st Apr 2001, 15:22

Just to put my veiw around things being an RAF pilot is not easy to any account. The training is shall we say thourough and also difficult being in the Mititary enviroment.

So to conclude they have'nt really..

FLY BY WIRE

21st Apr 2001, 15:56

My view on this is that it is not easy to become a pilot whether civil or military but I don't think thats really the point. Military pilots to a man, are all highly trained and extremely good military pilots,(the washout rate is very high), however that doesn't mean that they all tranfer to the commercial world well(CRM).Thankfully all the ex mil guys i fly with are great, but i know some who have found adjusting difficult.
Pontius, Partyreptile got me thinking and (i'm sure i'll be corrected)but haven't most of the bigger incidents we've had over the years involved ex mil blokes?

Bash

21st Apr 2001, 18:18

I reckon Ghengis said it all on page one. I have rarely read a more balanced and objective post on this forum. If you haven't read it go back and have a gander before you contribute further to this old chestnut. Hopefully it will bring you to your senses and this post can die a death.

normal_nigel

21st Apr 2001, 18:26

well said pontius old boy but
can't seem to stop getting those 1's and 2's.
Actually I was out of order mentioning booze and I've removed it. Wrote that after a few beers funnily enough. Apologies to Mike.

NN

partyreptile

21st Apr 2001, 18:38

Hey Kids!

Still have not heard ONE word in denial. Tough to refute facts, not opinions, isn't it?

partyreptile

21st Apr 2001, 18:44

An additional observation--concerning the giving of license's without going through the usual exam routine--"IF you are having trouble meeting the requirements, lower the requirements!"

Lucifer

21st Apr 2001, 18:46

PR: how many AA pilots do not have a military background as a ratio of those who do? Idiots can prove anything with statistics.

Gentleman Aviator

21st Apr 2001, 20:17

OK reptile.....why don't you read this slowly.

This is a thread concerning the issue of ATPL accreditation to certain pilots of the Royal Air Force, Fleet Air Arm & Army Air Corps.

Your grudge seems to be with the ex-military fraternity of the USA, and the USMC in particular.

I suspect that because very few of them will be affected by the nature of this thread, you are unlikely to get an informed rebuttal of your poisonous thoughts.

I am surprised with the ferocity of your attack ( more kills than cancer? ) and the your tenacity to drive home your point.

Given that your other postings on North American aviation matters have been so calm & reasoned, I am at a loss as to why you have decided to re-invent your persona to that of mis-directed attack dog.