Jeez, I both survived those instructors from ages past, and was one myself. And yes, there probably were some who would have been better elsewhere, but the vast majority who taught me, and whom I later worked with, were bloody good at their job. Scrubbing a student is not an easy step, and even in that non touchy feely age, they always had 'form', on a look back through the hate sheets. Absolutely nobody was scrubbed for saying' umm', unless of course it meant they were never able to answer a question. And people are NEVER scrubbed because it looks like too many will graduate. The standard does not change; they just recruit less next time.

My course had the better part of 40 starters, and 20 or so finished. Across that 20 were a range of skill levels...not everyone who graduates is an ace, but all were acceptable. And I'm sure those differences may well still show up all these years later. Of the blokes who missed out, a few took the GA route. Two of that group were killed in light aircraft accidents, and two are now 747 Captains.

But this is what bugs me. I've flown with guys that are ex-military and make outstanding civilian pilots. Then, there are the real battlers. Including some of those with headline making, combat flying experience. They fall apart in LOFT exercises of relative intensity in a simulator; or a plagued by poor decision making on the line.

Maybe being a good military pilot doesn't guarantee success in a civilian environment.

Mate you have hit the nail on the head. I think most mil pilots know this as well, which is why you dont often get mil guys slagging off civvies, especially if they have seen the other side.

The requirements of the two jobs are vastly different, hence training styles that are vastly different. I think the mil training works very well for what the guys are being set up to do for real. Im sure the same could be said for civvy training.

I guess the thing to remember when comparing mil to civ is that if a guy is a really good operator he will succeed in either path. I would guarantee that there are plenty of 777 skippers that would have made top mil pilots had they chosen that path. Doesnt mean all civvies would though, just as some mil pilots wont do too well flying civ.

Hmm, I seem to remember hearing this one too. Plus a little ditty about civvy pilots being flying monkeys. :hmm: God complex not withstanding.:rolleyes:

Would this be the same Wing Commander who introduced the requirement for OSB candidates to be assessed on their ability to paint plastic model aeroplanes? :ugh: :yuk:






Disclaimer: Never failed an OSB, nor was ever scrubbed.

If you stay in, I would advise LOGO. Personally I would avoid the other RAAF flying jobs. They will dominate your life and make it hard to find time and energy to continue flying in your spare time. You would learn a lot about aviation and you would earn a little extra pay. What if you went ACO and got sent to P3s? No spare time here. Just sitting at a screen doing fuel graphs and talking to cones.

LOGO works because there are plenty of jobs to choose from and after pilot it probably gets the best skill sets for transitioning to civvy work if you decide to give flying a miss down the road.

Yeah, you can't make big mistakes until you get to a squadron, dropping tripple sequential platforms on top of an infantry battalion rather than on the DZ next to them comes to mind. Oh and destroying fuel bowsers and runways at several SE Qld airfields, oh and flying through range trace zones at Singleton without clearance during live fire ex, which resulted in being told to bugger off before you are shot down by range control.....that was all in single squadron in one year:ugh:. You know the situation is bad when the pongos are calling you unprofessional!

Go civvy:ok: Just because you were scrubbed doesn't mean you can't be a brilliant pilot. Why not be a reserve OPSO or LOGO for the extra cash and security while completing the CPL + ATPLs? There have been plenty of people in your situation and many have gone on to successful flying careers. Call a few schools and see what they can do for you.
If you are still keen on the ADF, I know at least one person who made it through after three attempts and is now (eight years later!) flying Tigers for AAvn.

Good luck:ok:

Elwood, im not ex RAAF, but fly Command 737. I can say in the last ten years or so i have worked with many FO's that have been scrubed by the RAAF, all i have talked to have gone the GA way. They have done around four to five years GA flying and gained jobs with us. I can tell you i find it very interesting talking to these guys about thier previous life. All have done about three to four years as FO and have all completed thier command upgrades. Not one complaint about the RAAF from one of them. Be safe, Fox.
PS. There will be a Pilot shortage around the corner

Raaf Cas
 

I'd love to see them actually do this, instead of knocking of early for their crazy 'hand wars' at the mess bar.

S64

Cleared to reenter, you can't have it both ways.
The alternative to 'achieving the standard by rejection' is 'achieving the standard by repeating the exercise until the student gets it right and is consistently able to keep getting it right'.

As a taxpayer, I want RAAF graduates to be capable of passing appropriate tests of skill and knowledge that add up to a reasonable 'wings' standard.
If they consistently struggle or fail to achieve milestones on course, I don't want to keep pumping money into them - after a reasonable amount of remediation, of course.

How many extra flights is too many? What would your favoured system of ensuring we graduate pilots of an appropriate standard be? Probably a course with a curriculum, some tests of knowledge and skill along the way, a way of providing extra training and remediation up to an appropriate amount when required? Sounds a lot like what happens now.

What is an outsourced organisation going to do differently?

Yes, there is human cost - I'm no harsh advocate of scrubbing, and I feel deeply for those who don't make it, but I still see the need for it to happen when it's warranted. Financial cost - yes, some money goes down the tubes when someone doesn't graduate, but it's better then continuing to throw it at them ad infinitum.

Finally, people like Elwood obviously have a hard time going through times like this (and good luck to you mate), but at the end they have the benefit of what training they did get out of the system and can build on that foundation as they choose.

Good reply, however we'll see if that convinces all the "experts" here with no military aviation experience.:rolleyes:
So why's your nickname "Scrubber?":E

Speak for yourself, Darth Vader!

While I'm on here, may I add that the "One mistake's OK but I won't let you do it twice" thing is not something that should be seized upon by knockers - it's not something I'd say (because it sounds wanky), but when taken in context (eg, motivational address to new course to exhort them to work hard and not let themselves slacken off), it ain't that bad - a bit like a footy coach saying "Get out there and rip their f***in' heads off!", not necessarily meant to be taken literally...

As we all hopefully know by now, all reasonable steps are taken to help people pass, but unfortunately there's no infallible way of predicting how they'll do until they're on course.

Hate to burst your bubble on that one but thats simply untrue.

Mate, dust yourself off and move on, these things happen for a reason. Your worst effort on the course was still better than the thousands that don't even get guernsey.

The military vs civvie pilot thing is a pissing contest in which everyone gets their shoes wet. Good and not so good pilots abound in both environments.

Correct, that's incorrect.
However I think the poster of that comment may have been confused with the student mutual formation sorties which are done at 2FTS. I'm fairly sure that no other air force does that. Certainly was the case when I was on course and during my instructional tours there, however this may have changed.

Pissing contest aside, back to the point.
I hope you got the advice you were looking for Elwood. If it hasn't arrived in three pages of posts it's not coming.

They're different.
 

Military people are taught to do as they are told, no matter how stupid or suicidal it seems. Sometimes it is. They are expected to do it even if it is suicidal. They are trained to believe that they are invincible and their equipment is superior.
They are also taught to fly.
Civilian pilots are taught to fly in a safe manner, and avoid the dangerous situations. Sometimes they even use their own initiative.

:eek:

Wow.

Bushy, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on PPRuNe. I suppose if your aim was to keep this thread alive and fire up some lively responses, your trolling might get some bites.

:rolleyes:

I tend to agree with Trojan1981 and I suggest to the mods that if bushy's input is where this thread is headed, maybe it's time to ...

Is that hard to accept?
Have a read of some military history.

It's not hard to accept Bushy - it's just bull****...........:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't start me on the memories there, bushy - it seems like just a few short years ago when I was ordered to undertake a suicide mission from Townsville to Horn Island for an overnighter at the Gateway - and return.
The buffet was dodgy, and even a gutful of VB couldn't dampen the atomic reaction brewing inside me the next morning.
It was only my invincibility training and the superior airframe at my disposal, less than 40 years old and capable of completing over 50% of planned tasking without a major U/S, that got me through unscathed.
It's hard to talk about even now.

Let me buy you a chip bushy, to go with the other one on your shoulder.

(Dammit, took the bait!)