Noted, understood and for clarification, i´m with you on that one.

Pilots with military background would be my first choice for such a task. We did lots of AAR with the National Guard-Crews, and it always was a pleasure to work with them.

My comment is pointed at the discussion, that any civilian pilot can do the job, regardless of a military flying background. And there i´m in a total disagree!

franzl

So on the one hand, you might have an RAF ab-initio recruit, fresh out of 45Sqn, with maybe 150 hours TT, no jet experience, and not even the experience needed to hold a CPL. He is possibly not even very interested in a military career, and sees getting on the FSTA as a way of getting a valuable type-rating to move into civvy flying as soon as possible (not an unusual attitude in the RAF).

On the other hand, you might have an experienced civilian pilot with many thousands of hours on widebody jet, who happened to have previously joined the another branch of the military (eg submariner, infantry officer) for genuine motives, then got the flying bug a bit later in life when too old to start military flying, but is now really motivated to fly for the RAF (albeit as a reservist).

And you tell me you would rather have the first candidate flying FSTA just because he has done "military flying" on a Grob Tutor and Beech King Air?

I'd probably prefer to have the young abo on the Sqn because he won't whinge when you ask him to organise and host a RAFA visit / charity something-or-other. And if he's doing it, I wont get pinged for it.
Also, if he genuinely is rubbish or a t**t, you can chop him without his lawyer getting involved.......Winner!!!

I would guess that it will all be fine in the end, because time will show that military and civvy pilots are all about as good or bad as each other. It is just a question of who can put up with huge amounts of BS and keep smiling (yearly gas chamber visit, JPA expenses, RAFFT, OJARs/SJARS annual swimming test, OIC pingpong club etc etc etc.) That is the mark of a true military aviator:}!......that and a healthy appetite for beer.

That said, if you just wanna pitch up and do the flying, good on ya. I've been looking for that job for the last 18 years!!

Trim Stab
First of all, your example would not happen, the military canditate you mentioned would have been washed out of any military flying program well before and would not come back now or later. And assume he has an interest in a military career, then he would be properly evaluated and if found capable trained for the job he is supposed to go to. If that is a flying gas station, so be it.

So in answer to your question, as a military comander i would take the guy most suitable for the job, which could be either one.

The main statement i want to communicate is, that it´s not only hours and flying expierience what counts, it is the capability to do the flying job in a military environment in peace and war. The former military people have already proven their ability to cope with that part of the job, so they would be my primary choice.

A civi probably looks at it like any job, a military person should see it with dedication and honor with all necessary consequences. Its no use to have crews run away when the sh*t hits the fan, flying gets dangerous and more crews are needed than in peacetime. And that is what the taxpayer is ultimately paying for, not for peacetime training, but for readiness and reliability in bad times without discussion.

If your above mentioned civi-pilot can cope with that requirement and can prove it without doubt, he should throw his hat in the ring!

franzl

Arty, it is almost unheard of for civil pilots to sue their employers without very good reason and a lot of documentation to back it up and only ever happens over contractual issues. Sue one employer and your working environment will be so bad that you'd have to leave, but no other airlines will touch you because of it; they don't want people who will go to such measures to stand up for what is right.

Getting chopped in training happens in every airline - litigation by passengers over accidents from poor crew training is a big threat to airlines which the RAF doesn't face. It's very hard for a pilot to prove his trainer was being unreasonable or unfair, and I have never heard of one suing over such a matter, even when stitched up.

Arty - that's about the first rational argument on this whole thread!

Thanks, I will try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

By the way, I wasn't being serious about the lawyer thing. And sorry whippersnapper, didn't want to bring back bad memories by mentioning the whole getting chopped thing. Damn, I said it again! I won't mention getting chopped again. Bugger! Don't worry about it....I mean I once had a few mates who were chopped...haven't seen them for 15 years but not because they were bad people, just unlucky i guess. Anyway, must go, I know I mentioned being chopped once, but I think I got away with it!

And to think you have concerns about the mentality of civil pilots. How can the service justify letting people as puerile hold a commission, never mind fly their aircraft.

Sure, getting canned was horrible at the time, but it gave me a much better life outside of aviation than being in the RAF would have done, so your goading just isn't going to achieve what you want. I dislike the company I work for, but I'm happy with the rest of my life. Sounds like you might not be, though...

Just a query, Whippersnapper, but if the prospect of flying military tankers involved flying some 30 year old non-glass TriShaw, rather than a spanking new A330, would you be quite as keen?

If not, why not?

Not criticising you, just asking.

In all honesty, I think I'd prefer it. I'm no Luddite, but I'm not a fan of Airbus' fly-by-wire philosophy, and the L1011 was an incredible machine in its heyday. I have only flown Boeings, so am likely to be biased, but I see them as more of a pilots' aeroplane then a 'Bus, which I see, rightly or wrongly, as more of an engineers' machine. For all that, though, all my friends and colleagues who have converted onto Airbus all say that once you've made the mental transition, they're great machines to work with...

At the end of the day, though, I'm more interested in the job and the company than the specific airframe ...

Arty, I think you are wasting your time trying to rile Whippersnapper. I don't see any evidence that he's in the least bitter about being chopped. Some people take it on the chin and some people search for reasons other than not being good enough. Cutbacks, bad time for pilot hiring, not enough people retiring, usual MoD cockups, cfi and personality conflict, grudge pregnancy, the list is huge.

I've never met anyone chopped from flying for not being good enough.

In my own case I wasn't clever enough, or anything like officer materiel, so my under par eyesight wasn't an issue in me not being an RAF pilot.


On an another note, can anyone help me find the Sarcasm font?

Open your eyes Sunshine, it's right in front of you... :rolleyes:

Does anyone have any rumours to share regarding the important stuff? Like pay and conditions for AirTanker pilots?

Runaway Gun,

So it is, I should have seen that when I was compsing the message, after all , the emoticons have a tooltip that pops up to say what they indicate, so it should have been more obvious.

Oh, there I go again, being sarastic without using the icon or making it particularly clear that I am trying to sound that way.:rolleyes:


Anyway, we are wandering off the point of the thread. Let's get back to why Whippersnapper was chopped, er............. I mean, how the reservist people will we welcomed at Brize.

Whippersnapper,

That would be a bite then.

With your finely tuned sense of banter I can see how you would be a right laugh to have about the place!
Seriously though, I have no doubt your lack of flying prowess was not the reason for you being chopped from flying training. It is obvious to even the casual observer that your flight comander didn't like you.