Military Licencing vs Civilian Licencing
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never assume anything! Part 2
Military to Civvy Instructor quals - again, I stand by my comments previously 100%. Instructors coming from the services are as a general rule no better or worse than those on civvy street similar experience. For the most part, they generally do lack 'commercial sense' and need to be exposed to the rigors of flying for a 'living' which is sometimes very different than flying for a job. I totally support the concept of QFI's passing a flight test prior to gaining the civvy quals and the chap who was issued the Grade 1 automatically is a very fortunate and exceptional person indeed - I would suggest he 'knew' someone in CASA maybe(?) becuase this certainly IS NOT the norm.
I presently employ two miltary instructors on staff and have employed several in the past including in senior positions and believe you me, they are not the be-all-and-end-all and quite often seriously lack knowledge of the rules and regs, good client relations and patience. (They too are human)
They might be able to drop a 500 pounder up a ducks freckle from 20000' , at night, in formation with bullets flying around them, but that ain't going to help them a hoot out here!
I presently employ two miltary instructors on staff and have employed several in the past including in senior positions and believe you me, they are not the be-all-and-end-all and quite often seriously lack knowledge of the rules and regs, good client relations and patience. (They too are human)
They might be able to drop a 500 pounder up a ducks freckle from 20000' , at night, in formation with bullets flying around them, but that ain't going to help them a hoot out here!
Knowledge of rules and regs is something that needs to be tested, for sure, same as the need to pass the IREX before getting a civil instrument rating.
Knowledge of commercial realities - important too, but not relevant to whether someone can instruct or not.
Can the ex-military instructor, or the civil-trained one, safely get airborne with someone, get the message across, teach all the sequences, not go beyond their own limitations, supervise, send trainees solo with confidence, impart information in ground school, predict the probable stuff-ups that students will make in time to prevent them, have regard to the different needs of the individuals they instruct?
If they've proven they can do that, then I reckon the requirements for issue of a rating have been fulfilled.
Knowledge of commercial realities - important too, but not relevant to whether someone can instruct or not.
Can the ex-military instructor, or the civil-trained one, safely get airborne with someone, get the message across, teach all the sequences, not go beyond their own limitations, supervise, send trainees solo with confidence, impart information in ground school, predict the probable stuff-ups that students will make in time to prevent them, have regard to the different needs of the individuals they instruct?
If they've proven they can do that, then I reckon the requirements for issue of a rating have been fulfilled.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Aust
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez P&B, I think everything that AOTW has mentioned has been reasonable and considered. Your last post is unwarranted. I trust the attitude you have shown here it is not a reflection of your airborne instructional technique. 
Pitch and Break. This subject has outlasted its usefulness so it is time to move on.
Before I do, ponder the following :
1. Cowl flap inoperative.
2. Right carb heat lever totally jammed.
3. Firewall shut-off safety cover totally jammed - unable to operate fuel shut off.
4. Partenavia fuel cocks totally jammed - unable crossfeed or turn off fuel.
5. Left engine dies while taxying. Right engine sometimes feathers during landing.
6. AH topples in flight - intermittent defect.
7. HSI inoperative in slaved. RMI has 30 degree error.
8. ADF No 2 has 20 degrees of lag.
9. ADF range only 10 miles.
Now this is the crunch. NONE of these defects were entered in the maintenance releases and nearly all had been like this for several months. These came from different operators over different States. By your standards would you say that these defects were not really worth entering in the MR - that they are unnecessary entries? By your admission you would require the pilots concerned to ask your permission before writing them up. What a dreadful state of affairs in your little world. I could quote dozens of examples where GA pilots are too frightened to record defects except perhaps on a grubby piece of paper hidden in the office drawer.
There is nothing like a virgin clean MR to keep the chief pilot/CFI on side, is there?
Whether you like it or not the regulations say ALL defects must be recorded - not just the ones that suit CP's like yourself.
............................................................ ........................
Before I do, ponder the following :
1. Cowl flap inoperative.
2. Right carb heat lever totally jammed.
3. Firewall shut-off safety cover totally jammed - unable to operate fuel shut off.
4. Partenavia fuel cocks totally jammed - unable crossfeed or turn off fuel.
5. Left engine dies while taxying. Right engine sometimes feathers during landing.
6. AH topples in flight - intermittent defect.
7. HSI inoperative in slaved. RMI has 30 degree error.
8. ADF No 2 has 20 degrees of lag.
9. ADF range only 10 miles.
Now this is the crunch. NONE of these defects were entered in the maintenance releases and nearly all had been like this for several months. These came from different operators over different States. By your standards would you say that these defects were not really worth entering in the MR - that they are unnecessary entries? By your admission you would require the pilots concerned to ask your permission before writing them up. What a dreadful state of affairs in your little world. I could quote dozens of examples where GA pilots are too frightened to record defects except perhaps on a grubby piece of paper hidden in the office drawer.
There is nothing like a virgin clean MR to keep the chief pilot/CFI on side, is there?
Whether you like it or not the regulations say ALL defects must be recorded - not just the ones that suit CP's like yourself.
............................................................ ........................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bummer, Centaurus. I finally get organized to join this debate and you try to kill it!
Anyway, my two cents worth follows...
Having had similar military experience to AOTW and others and more recently had to jump through the hoops to get my civil instructor rating; and having read the whole of this thread, I feel qualified to comment here now.
My civil instructor rating took me five weeks. I look back in my logbook and see it was 7.1 engine hours long (less than 5 hrs actually flying and demonstrating my technique), which included two aircraft endorsements and an instrument rating. Over the remainder of the month (I flew about once a week) I assisted the instructors course in remodeling the flying school's garden, sitting around waiting, played many games of cricket and spent _many_ hours critiquing the other instructor candidates' lecture technique (on behalf of the CFI).
I therefore did complete a civil rating, both on paper and to a lesser extent in the field. I didn't stay at that school long and my subsequent experiences there are irrelevant here. (And yes, it was a well recognized flying school in a capital city.)
What did I gain from this experience? Naff all, in terms of flying or instructional experience, but a pretty good insight into how some operators work and what to steer clear of. Was it worth it? Probably. Any flying experience assists in the long run and it is certainly a good idea for ex-military types to understand as much of the other side of the coin as possible.
There seems to be two main types of operators in the GA world. Most operators are genuinely keen to give all a fair go, provide a decent service to the public and look after their employees. These people pose no real problems to any new comer (military or otherwise).
Others are driven by the mighty dollar. These operators, I believe, are very dangerous to the industry (as well as their passengers). They generally are operating aircraft they can't afford and are reluctant to see any unscheduled maintenance as 'necessary'. They also hate having the (financial) initiative taken away from them by someone who they believe doesn't have the 'big picture'. Reporting defects in the MR is an example of things they hate. (The fact that CARs make such reporting mandatory, is seen as not relevant to them. Presumably the same applies for the one that goes: '...must not knowingly or recklessly prevent another person from reporting a defect...' Ahh, that ATPL Law is useful for something!)
These CEOs/CPs coerce their staff into 'doing it for the company' (read: their own jobs) or by comparison to another pilot who may have less scruples. They are also characterized by the 'so far, so good' mentality.
Knowing about these people is necessary for all pilots in GA, so they can identify them and avoid them or at least try and counter their tactics.
Ex-military pilots, like all others, need a bit of exposure to this side of the industry before being let lose unsupervised.
InkaDinka
PS
MT Edelstone56 - where did this bit come from?
I'm sure there are a lot of ex 2, 9 & 35 SQN people, not to forget HMAS Sydney and Melbourne and several DDGs, etc who would argue with you here!
.
Anyway, my two cents worth follows...
Having had similar military experience to AOTW and others and more recently had to jump through the hoops to get my civil instructor rating; and having read the whole of this thread, I feel qualified to comment here now.
My civil instructor rating took me five weeks. I look back in my logbook and see it was 7.1 engine hours long (less than 5 hrs actually flying and demonstrating my technique), which included two aircraft endorsements and an instrument rating. Over the remainder of the month (I flew about once a week) I assisted the instructors course in remodeling the flying school's garden, sitting around waiting, played many games of cricket and spent _many_ hours critiquing the other instructor candidates' lecture technique (on behalf of the CFI).
I therefore did complete a civil rating, both on paper and to a lesser extent in the field. I didn't stay at that school long and my subsequent experiences there are irrelevant here. (And yes, it was a well recognized flying school in a capital city.)
What did I gain from this experience? Naff all, in terms of flying or instructional experience, but a pretty good insight into how some operators work and what to steer clear of. Was it worth it? Probably. Any flying experience assists in the long run and it is certainly a good idea for ex-military types to understand as much of the other side of the coin as possible.
There seems to be two main types of operators in the GA world. Most operators are genuinely keen to give all a fair go, provide a decent service to the public and look after their employees. These people pose no real problems to any new comer (military or otherwise).
Others are driven by the mighty dollar. These operators, I believe, are very dangerous to the industry (as well as their passengers). They generally are operating aircraft they can't afford and are reluctant to see any unscheduled maintenance as 'necessary'. They also hate having the (financial) initiative taken away from them by someone who they believe doesn't have the 'big picture'. Reporting defects in the MR is an example of things they hate. (The fact that CARs make such reporting mandatory, is seen as not relevant to them. Presumably the same applies for the one that goes: '...must not knowingly or recklessly prevent another person from reporting a defect...' Ahh, that ATPL Law is useful for something!)
These CEOs/CPs coerce their staff into 'doing it for the company' (read: their own jobs) or by comparison to another pilot who may have less scruples. They are also characterized by the 'so far, so good' mentality.
Knowing about these people is necessary for all pilots in GA, so they can identify them and avoid them or at least try and counter their tactics.
Ex-military pilots, like all others, need a bit of exposure to this side of the industry before being let lose unsupervised.
InkaDinka
PS
MT Edelstone56 - where did this bit come from?
In the last 30 years is that why Army always goes to war for this country?
.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
Again, a bit of selective reading on your part. Nowhere did I say that U/S's were not written up or were people encouraged NOT to write them up. I will say it again, they are discussed with the CP BEFORE writing them up to make sure they are actually defects that require attention. The examples you give are all items I would write up immediately (and I hope you did; but I bet you didn't?) The example I gave is not a one-off; it happens all the time and they are not defects but rectifiable snags which do not require engineering rectification UNLESS THEY ARE WRITTEN UP? Inka Dinka; not sure where your'e coming from but you certainly went to the wrong place? I'm only suggesting that the 'test for qualification' Vs 'automatic' is, in my opinion, the correct way to go in this case.
Prolonging this charade goes against my better judgement- but P&B you are a good one at dangling the damned carrot, I'll give you that.
Simply put, I find it difficult to comprehend your attitude that your pilots (whom I presume you interviewed before employing them) are perceived by you as so dumb that they have to ask you first so that they can get their facts straight before you give the OK for them to carry out their legal responsibilities. Are you a one man band or what?
It is clear from the tone of your posts that you vet any entries that have been considered worthy of MR entry because you are scared stiff that someone is going to cost you money.
Maintenance means money. Forget flight safety chum - money is the bottom line in your organisation. I could be wrong of course, but believe me that is the way it comes across in your posts.
It seems incredible to any reader of these pages that you have so little faith or trust in the professional judgement of your staff that you do not allow them to enter a defect without referring to you first. And does it matter a damn if the defect is "trivial" by your standards? Defects do not necessarily ground the aircraft - but they sure as hell warn the next pilot to fly the aircraft that he needs to be aware of a potential problem.
Having been in the airline industry for many years, I can assure you that airline captains are not required (nor would they accept professionally or industrially) to first ask their chief pilot to vet any entry in the maintenance log in case it was not a REAL defect - and only the wise chief pilot could decide that.
Why should a GA pilot be any different? Certainly the military did not require you to ask permission of the CO before writing up a snag - at least not in all the squadrons that I served in.
I suggest you would do well to lighten up a bit and give your long suffering employees a break from your wisdom!
If you disagree with their intention to enter a defect then what happens if they go ahead anyway because they feel it is their responsibility? Do you sack 'em and hire a more cooperative chappie?
Simply put, I find it difficult to comprehend your attitude that your pilots (whom I presume you interviewed before employing them) are perceived by you as so dumb that they have to ask you first so that they can get their facts straight before you give the OK for them to carry out their legal responsibilities. Are you a one man band or what?
It is clear from the tone of your posts that you vet any entries that have been considered worthy of MR entry because you are scared stiff that someone is going to cost you money.
Maintenance means money. Forget flight safety chum - money is the bottom line in your organisation. I could be wrong of course, but believe me that is the way it comes across in your posts.
It seems incredible to any reader of these pages that you have so little faith or trust in the professional judgement of your staff that you do not allow them to enter a defect without referring to you first. And does it matter a damn if the defect is "trivial" by your standards? Defects do not necessarily ground the aircraft - but they sure as hell warn the next pilot to fly the aircraft that he needs to be aware of a potential problem.
Having been in the airline industry for many years, I can assure you that airline captains are not required (nor would they accept professionally or industrially) to first ask their chief pilot to vet any entry in the maintenance log in case it was not a REAL defect - and only the wise chief pilot could decide that.
Why should a GA pilot be any different? Certainly the military did not require you to ask permission of the CO before writing up a snag - at least not in all the squadrons that I served in.
I suggest you would do well to lighten up a bit and give your long suffering employees a break from your wisdom!
If you disagree with their intention to enter a defect then what happens if they go ahead anyway because they feel it is their responsibility? Do you sack 'em and hire a more cooperative chappie?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
Good for you to have been weened in the military and progress to the airlines.
Would you have adapted to GA or lost your first job?This happens to many and is part of being "scrubbed" in the civilikan world ie:not making the airlines.Survival more than just competent flying skills.
Good for you to have been weened in the military and progress to the airlines.
Would you have adapted to GA or lost your first job?This happens to many and is part of being "scrubbed" in the civilikan world ie:not making the airlines.Survival more than just competent flying skills.
Another two bobs worth...
(background: Started civvy, went mil, now civvy. civvy CIR & ME Grade 2. IRE & QFI mil)
I reckon the system is fine and beaut - now that they have fixed the instrument/night instructional qual requirements for ex mil.
Mil, in my experience, do not have sufficient knowledge of the regs to get either a CIR nor Instructor rating, and therefore paaing the exams and doing ONE ride (for the test) is a good solution to the problem. This includes a quizz for NVFR rating where the rules are particularly different.
That seems to summarise the majority view in the thread. As for some of the other topics:
NO. A civvy instructor should not get the mil QFI rating as suggested above. The Mil QFI rating, as pointed out by AOTW, not only teaches how to impart flying sequences in a generic way, it goes into far more depth. In particular, a mil QFI rating has to be awarded on each aircraft type (and sometimes for each role the aircraft does) because the rating is also linked to operational sequences and an in depth airframe knowledge not sought after, nor required, in civvy street. in civvy street, the rating covers almost everything and every airframe. For example, I was an A2 QFI on one type, and then had to operate my new type for 12 months and then do a 30 hour instructor standardisation just on that new type before being awarded a B Cat QFI on the new type. In civvy street, I need bu33er all hours on different frames to instruct.
For the dud ex mil instructor oft quoted above: If you are as old and bold as you say, why have you not learnt that, even in the mil, there are good and bad pilots? What an absurd arguement you put forward.
(background: Started civvy, went mil, now civvy. civvy CIR & ME Grade 2. IRE & QFI mil)
I reckon the system is fine and beaut - now that they have fixed the instrument/night instructional qual requirements for ex mil.
Mil, in my experience, do not have sufficient knowledge of the regs to get either a CIR nor Instructor rating, and therefore paaing the exams and doing ONE ride (for the test) is a good solution to the problem. This includes a quizz for NVFR rating where the rules are particularly different.
That seems to summarise the majority view in the thread. As for some of the other topics:
NO. A civvy instructor should not get the mil QFI rating as suggested above. The Mil QFI rating, as pointed out by AOTW, not only teaches how to impart flying sequences in a generic way, it goes into far more depth. In particular, a mil QFI rating has to be awarded on each aircraft type (and sometimes for each role the aircraft does) because the rating is also linked to operational sequences and an in depth airframe knowledge not sought after, nor required, in civvy street. in civvy street, the rating covers almost everything and every airframe. For example, I was an A2 QFI on one type, and then had to operate my new type for 12 months and then do a 30 hour instructor standardisation just on that new type before being awarded a B Cat QFI on the new type. In civvy street, I need bu33er all hours on different frames to instruct.
For the dud ex mil instructor oft quoted above: If you are as old and bold as you say, why have you not learnt that, even in the mil, there are good and bad pilots? What an absurd arguement you put forward.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Illawarra
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 bobs worth!
Firstly, I think I tend to support P&B mostly throughout this thread as he obviously is enmeshed in the GA/training environment and I think from the reading that AOTW AND CENTAURUS are not (probably being in airlines?) So I think the two scenarios are vastly different and as that's where his posts are directed, then P&B is correct and his observations are supported not just by me, but by most GA persons. There really is little room in GA for the ex-military drivers; they do not tend to assimilate well and usually are so inflexible that they become more of a hindrance than an asset to any organisation game to employ them. That is obviously why most go to airlines where they can be assured of not having to work unsupervised or without positive direction and structure. Someone had to say it but lads, that is the nature of the beast....the ex-military guys usually make great airline pilots because of the crew environment they are used to working in and the fact everything is laid out for them nice and clean and simple.
HF - who are you alluding to as being the dud ex-military instructor? It could be any one of the 10 or so handles mentioned above and it would be interesting to see just who you are directing that comment to???
HF - who are you alluding to as being the dud ex-military instructor? It could be any one of the 10 or so handles mentioned above and it would be interesting to see just who you are directing that comment to???
OK, I'll bite
Where do you get this from? Give an idea of your experience in this area. I know some organisations that are not airlines that have a preference for employing ex-mil drivers.
If this is just bait, then grow up.
Gibbo
There really is little room in GA for the ex-military drivers; they do not tend to assimilate well and usually are so inflexible that they become more of a hindrance than an asset to any organisation game to employ them.
If this is just bait, then grow up.
Gibbo
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Illawarra
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gibbo,
No bait - Just stating the facts plain and simple.
I too know ex-military drivers who have fitted in nicely with GA however, it is the exception; not the rule.
Some might not like to hear it; others might not like to face it; but it doesn't stop it from being the facts nonetheless.
No bait - Just stating the facts plain and simple.
I too know ex-military drivers who have fitted in nicely with GA however, it is the exception; not the rule.
Some might not like to hear it; others might not like to face it; but it doesn't stop it from being the facts nonetheless.
I hear you 3greens....but....
I also know alot of GA drivers who shouldnt be in GA.....
Dont colour all with the same brush, generalisations like that are bound to be found wanting. My experience is that some dont hack it for the reasons you state, and some excel in it. Wasn't your hero, P&B the 20 year Mil man after all? How could he have possibly survived in the harsh commercial reality that was GA?
Some GA guys dont hack it in the airlines - therefore are they all doomed? Point made?
I also know alot of GA drivers who shouldnt be in GA.....
Dont colour all with the same brush, generalisations like that are bound to be found wanting. My experience is that some dont hack it for the reasons you state, and some excel in it. Wasn't your hero, P&B the 20 year Mil man after all? How could he have possibly survived in the harsh commercial reality that was GA?
Some GA guys dont hack it in the airlines - therefore are they all doomed? Point made?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THREEGREENS......agreed in priciple and HELMETFIRE is right too...generalisations are very often found wanting.
I think 3greens might be pretty near right though as I have too found that in the main, ex-military guys do not necessarily make the transition to GA easily nor are they particularly suited to the job for exactly those reasons expressed by him.
HELMET FIRE......please reread and check my previous posts very carefully before you jump to conclusions.
I think 3greens might be pretty near right though as I have too found that in the main, ex-military guys do not necessarily make the transition to GA easily nor are they particularly suited to the job for exactly those reasons expressed by him.
HELMET FIRE......please reread and check my previous posts very carefully before you jump to conclusions.
Last edited by Pitch and Break; 22nd May 2002 at 11:30.
I think that despite 18 years RAAF (majority as QFI) - 7 years in DCA, 14 years airlines- AND 10 years as civvy instructor - My views re GA being a pretty grubby little world still stands. Just talked to mate in North Qld who has been threatened with the sack because he refused to fly a lightie on charter with well beyond the limit magneto drop. Was told that "all the other pilots fly it - why don't you?" Yeah - that's GA all over. It is a culture that starts in the flying schools and permeates to the charter world. It will never change.
Last edited by Centaurus; 22nd May 2002 at 13:00.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank Goodness!
So glad to hear that my lack of flexibility and ability to assimilate means there is no room for me in GA, Threegreens! Better just stay put where everything is laid out nice, clean and simple and I can be properly supervised and directed. Phew!