Flying Instructor - Civilian or Ex Military?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: kemble
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Instructor - Civilian or Ex Military?
Readers,
Following an interesting debate on the Ultimate High thread, I would find it interesting to hear the opinions of other readers on their preferences of Civilian or Ex Military Instructor and any experiences they may have had from both.
Andy Cubin
Following an interesting debate on the Ultimate High thread, I would find it interesting to hear the opinions of other readers on their preferences of Civilian or Ex Military Instructor and any experiences they may have had from both.
Andy Cubin
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost all of the instructors I've ever flown with have been civilian, and have varied from absolutely superb, to pretty awful - but with a big bias in favour of absolutely superb.
(I have flown once with an ex-military instructor who was both a superb pilot and a superb instructor, and also with an ex-military person whose flying is mostly civilian, so I count him as a civilian instructor. So not really enough experience of military guys to have an informed opinion.)
FFF
--------------
(I have flown once with an ex-military instructor who was both a superb pilot and a superb instructor, and also with an ex-military person whose flying is mostly civilian, so I count him as a civilian instructor. So not really enough experience of military guys to have an informed opinion.)
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with civilian (PPL) and military instructors (UAS), and I have to say that I greatly prefered the military types. There is an element of consistency which I didn't find when I had to swap instructors during my PPL. Although I haven't flown with an ex military instructor during my PPL, I am sure that the standards that ensured they got the job done in the RAF apply once they leave the military.
The feeling I got from military instructors is the idea of always aiming to do things right, and not give it a go a few times, and if you don't get it, we'll move on.....
The only downside that I can see is getting clobbered by the QFI for being an idiot
(the BIG disadvantage of sitting next to your instructor in a Bulldog).
My tuppence worth
Cheers
The feeling I got from military instructors is the idea of always aiming to do things right, and not give it a go a few times, and if you don't get it, we'll move on.....
The only downside that I can see is getting clobbered by the QFI for being an idiot
(the BIG disadvantage of sitting next to your instructor in a Bulldog).My tuppence worth
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being ex RAF the ex-military get my vote as I know the standards required of them. My experiance of many civil instructors is that they are just sat there waiting for an airline job and let you know it. Ex mill guys have been there and have a wealth of experiance to pass on in a consistant manner.
This is not to say that there are not some suberb civilian FI's out there as well. High hours dedicated instructors who teach for the love of the job not the hope of an airline job.
I have met more than a few d*&*^head "jet jocks" in the mess as well, but this is the same in all walks of life!
Bose-X
(looking forward to his foramtion course with Ultimate High shortly!)
This is not to say that there are not some suberb civilian FI's out there as well. High hours dedicated instructors who teach for the love of the job not the hope of an airline job.
I have met more than a few d*&*^head "jet jocks" in the mess as well, but this is the same in all walks of life!
Bose-X
(looking forward to his foramtion course with Ultimate High shortly!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best instructors that i've flown with have been ex-military; however, to be fair they are also far more experienced than the fATPLs I learned with during my PPL. Best kind of instructor is one who wants to be doing it, rather than one who has to 
I was originally taught to fly by two serving RAF pilots. Although they were totally different personalities and had very different flying experiences, the standard of instruction was remarkably consistent. I do not remember having any preference for flying with either of them, they were both great.
When I re-learned twenty years later at a competent flying club, the lack of consistency between the civilian instructors was a bit of a problem until I found one I liked and stuck with him.
I only ever had one problem with an RAF CFI and that was because he didn't seem to appreciate that, unlike the UAS students he was used to, we had to pay for our flying (and his) and he wasn't very sympathetic to the freedom we had become used to under previous CFI's.
When I re-learned twenty years later at a competent flying club, the lack of consistency between the civilian instructors was a bit of a problem until I found one I liked and stuck with him.
I only ever had one problem with an RAF CFI and that was because he didn't seem to appreciate that, unlike the UAS students he was used to, we had to pay for our flying (and his) and he wasn't very sympathetic to the freedom we had become used to under previous CFI's.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Evo here. Sheer enthusiasm and wanting to do the job makes a world of difference, regardless of the level of experience (although the more experience the better I hasten to add).
I've been fortunate enough to have flown with both, having done my time in the UAS system like Boing_737, and recently completed my CPL/IR.
My primary QFI in the UAS had no enthusiasm for the job at all, and it showed in his instruction. I learnt so much more when I flew with the boss or any of the other QFI's. They absolutely loved the job and it showed through. The boss was a fearsome old b#gger and his standards were way higher than my primary's, and eventually it showed through in my own flying. I think the military environment allows FI's to be a great deal harsher and more demanding than many civvy instructors would get away with, as there are no commercial considerations.
When I did my CPL, the quality of instruction was OK (it was easy to make comparisons as we were covering a lot of the ground I had done in the UAS), and some of it was good. The best were the old boys who had been instructing for many years and had a whole load of experience to pass on, as well as enough enthusiasm to have kept them in the job. Some of them were every bit as much fun to fly with as the military guys, but they are obviously teaching with a different end result in mind.
I suppose the final answer would be it depends what it is you are looking for personally from your training.
I've been fortunate enough to have flown with both, having done my time in the UAS system like Boing_737, and recently completed my CPL/IR.
My primary QFI in the UAS had no enthusiasm for the job at all, and it showed in his instruction. I learnt so much more when I flew with the boss or any of the other QFI's. They absolutely loved the job and it showed through. The boss was a fearsome old b#gger and his standards were way higher than my primary's, and eventually it showed through in my own flying. I think the military environment allows FI's to be a great deal harsher and more demanding than many civvy instructors would get away with, as there are no commercial considerations.
When I did my CPL, the quality of instruction was OK (it was easy to make comparisons as we were covering a lot of the ground I had done in the UAS), and some of it was good. The best were the old boys who had been instructing for many years and had a whole load of experience to pass on, as well as enough enthusiasm to have kept them in the job. Some of them were every bit as much fun to fly with as the military guys, but they are obviously teaching with a different end result in mind.
I suppose the final answer would be it depends what it is you are looking for personally from your training.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the answer may depend on the student as much as the instructor. All students make mistakes and part of being an instructor is how you respond to those mistakes. "Constructive criticism" seems to be more "robust" in the military and whether the student will respond to that style of teaching depends on the student.
That said, I have found the ex-mil instructors I've had have required a higher standard of me than the civvies and this is, eventually, motivating. They can just take a little getting used to. I've flown with 3 ex-mils and 3 civvy instructors.
That said, I have found the ex-mil instructors I've had have required a higher standard of me than the civvies and this is, eventually, motivating. They can just take a little getting used to. I've flown with 3 ex-mils and 3 civvy instructors.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SE England
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex-military - their instructional technique & style is second to none.
However, the instructor i flew with for my PPL is also top dollah and i wouldn't have changed him for anything else.
I think its all down to personal opinion and the instructor in question - each has their own taching style based on the same syllabus, and its what suits each individual student; as one may think 'X' is a fabulous instructor, but that instructors technique, style and of course personality may not be what another student likes or wants.
I don't think there is no right or wrong answer, but everyone is entitiled to their own opinion, as everyone has had different experiiences with inistructors from a variety of backgrounds.
However, the instructor i flew with for my PPL is also top dollah and i wouldn't have changed him for anything else.
I think its all down to personal opinion and the instructor in question - each has their own taching style based on the same syllabus, and its what suits each individual student; as one may think 'X' is a fabulous instructor, but that instructors technique, style and of course personality may not be what another student likes or wants.
I don't think there is no right or wrong answer, but everyone is entitiled to their own opinion, as everyone has had different experiiences with inistructors from a variety of backgrounds.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with both civvy and ex-mil, Brits, French, Americans and S Africans.
Post ab-initio training, I guess that really it comes down to the individual. The ex-mil instructors that I have had have probably pushed me harder to obtain perfection and consequently certainly seem better at explaining difficult difficult to grasp concepts. (I'm primarily talking aerobatics and formation work)
Only once have I had to sit with a youngster who was merely hours building and that experience lasted all of 35mins!
Stik
Post ab-initio training, I guess that really it comes down to the individual. The ex-mil instructors that I have had have probably pushed me harder to obtain perfection and consequently certainly seem better at explaining difficult difficult to grasp concepts. (I'm primarily talking aerobatics and formation work)
Only once have I had to sit with a youngster who was merely hours building and that experience lasted all of 35mins!
Stik
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Down South
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great topic!
I started flying with a civiliian, but using milatary methods (Flying scholarship), and found this to be excellent, and some of the best intruction I had.
I then moved on to a civillian, teaching normally - and found that it was less intensive, and in comparrison, I found it difficult. The intructor did seam to lack the passion.
Since then I have experianced both through clubs and UAS, and would reiterate the point that the experiance has a lot to to with the passion of the intructor. I belive it has a lot to do with if your passion meet as well.
If you are quite laid back, and youo are learning because you enjoy the learning, and in no hurry - then may be this is the instructor for you. If you want to get the learning in,m and the experiance as fast as pssible, the higher intensity methods may be more up your street.
A lot of person preferance, style, and attitude on this one me thinks!
FW
I started flying with a civiliian, but using milatary methods (Flying scholarship), and found this to be excellent, and some of the best intruction I had.
I then moved on to a civillian, teaching normally - and found that it was less intensive, and in comparrison, I found it difficult. The intructor did seam to lack the passion.
Since then I have experianced both through clubs and UAS, and would reiterate the point that the experiance has a lot to to with the passion of the intructor. I belive it has a lot to do with if your passion meet as well.
If you are quite laid back, and youo are learning because you enjoy the learning, and in no hurry - then may be this is the instructor for you. If you want to get the learning in,m and the experiance as fast as pssible, the higher intensity methods may be more up your street.
A lot of person preferance, style, and attitude on this one me thinks!
FW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown with some excellent civvy instructors, particularly rotary, but still opt for mil/ex-mil instructors when I have the option. The military instruction technique can be strict and demanding (in a military environment), but it's second to none in quality.
There was no such thing in the UAS as 'good enough'. Until you could do something properly and consistently, you didn't move to the next exercise. I concede there were different considerations: (a) the next stage for more than half the studes was Jet Provosts at Cranwell so the basic training had to be thorough; (b) HM was paying so time spent perfecting an exercise didn't have any (direct) financial implication.
Since then, I've been lucky to fly with/be instructed by ex-Mil instructors quite often. Although less formal than in the military environment, the same superb military technique shines through.
All the good qualities are there, but not those aspects which probably wouldn't be acceptable in private instruction.
I understand the point Aim Far and FW make about pace and 'robust' criticism but I've found that, away from the military environent, mil instructors adapt to your pace and ability. More patient and less pressure (ie no bollocking) - and, of course, no regular check flights with the Sqn Ldr CFI to worry about.
Boing_737
The Chipmunk was worse. Not only could the QFI somehow 'see' everything you did wrong, but your bone dome was within easy reach - an effective incentive to get things right!
Aim Far's point about instructors responding to mistakes is relevant to all FI's. My first QFI was good, but with one flaw. I remember him explaining over a drink in the Mess the need to adapt to a student's personality etc. Agreed so far. He then gave an example, comparing me with another of his students, saying he wouldn't bang his bone dome or give him the hard time he gave me because he'd get rattled and make more mistakes. Wrong! Theory: 10/10. Practical: 4/10. Although the other student was quieter and less outgoing than me, nothing rattled him - I was the one who occasionally got rattled! All that said, he was a good instructor who followed the tried and tested military methods.
========================
BEagle
If you read this thread - that was Flt Lt Pete L talking about Jerry Margiotta (Sp?). As for worrying about check flights with the CFI, remember the late, great Sqn Ldr Andy Whittaker? Never raised his voice, never had to. We all wanted to impress him because a 'Well done, good flight' from him was really worth something. The Boss (M.E.) was such a kindly chap he said that to everyone every time, regardless.
There was no such thing in the UAS as 'good enough'. Until you could do something properly and consistently, you didn't move to the next exercise. I concede there were different considerations: (a) the next stage for more than half the studes was Jet Provosts at Cranwell so the basic training had to be thorough; (b) HM was paying so time spent perfecting an exercise didn't have any (direct) financial implication.
Since then, I've been lucky to fly with/be instructed by ex-Mil instructors quite often. Although less formal than in the military environment, the same superb military technique shines through.
All the good qualities are there, but not those aspects which probably wouldn't be acceptable in private instruction.
I understand the point Aim Far and FW make about pace and 'robust' criticism but I've found that, away from the military environent, mil instructors adapt to your pace and ability. More patient and less pressure (ie no bollocking) - and, of course, no regular check flights with the Sqn Ldr CFI to worry about.
Boing_737
The Chipmunk was worse. Not only could the QFI somehow 'see' everything you did wrong, but your bone dome was within easy reach - an effective incentive to get things right!
Aim Far's point about instructors responding to mistakes is relevant to all FI's. My first QFI was good, but with one flaw. I remember him explaining over a drink in the Mess the need to adapt to a student's personality etc. Agreed so far. He then gave an example, comparing me with another of his students, saying he wouldn't bang his bone dome or give him the hard time he gave me because he'd get rattled and make more mistakes. Wrong! Theory: 10/10. Practical: 4/10. Although the other student was quieter and less outgoing than me, nothing rattled him - I was the one who occasionally got rattled! All that said, he was a good instructor who followed the tried and tested military methods.
========================
BEagle
If you read this thread - that was Flt Lt Pete L talking about Jerry Margiotta (Sp?). As for worrying about check flights with the CFI, remember the late, great Sqn Ldr Andy Whittaker? Never raised his voice, never had to. We all wanted to impress him because a 'Well done, good flight' from him was really worth something. The Boss (M.E.) was such a kindly chap he said that to everyone every time, regardless.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 3rd Mar 2004 at 05:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the lack of consistancy in Flying Instruction within the UK.
Not only are each individual instructors standards different but also each schools and each examiners.
The ex-mil people have been trained by a system which has to have set high standards, in far more demanding situations than any of us will fly in. Each ex-mil has had upwards of a million pounds pumped into there training, I should hope that they are of a better standard than your 45k wannabie flying instructor who is living on bake beans and struggling to repay thier loans.
But they are good at instructing only a certain type of individual, but utterly wrong for other types. Personally I like their honesty in your skill level and their clinical briefs and debriefs. I tried to do that when I started instructing. But quickly found that about 80% of students don't have the mental capacity, and or, are in a state of mental exhaustion after a lesson to really take what you are saying in. Or they are learning to fly for fun and don't want to be bollocked for ever cockup on their day off.
For the rest of the instructors and examiners to come up to the uniformity of the mil trained people would cost a fortune and also there is no push from the belgrano or europe for this.
As much as I bitch and argue with Beagle it needs someone of his experence, common sense and balls to speak out about what should be happening, to take the whole of the industry by the horns and sort itself out.
Mind you maybe 10 years in the TA Royal Engineers has shown me the benifits of a regimented training method set at the lowest standard required (what do you mean you didn't tether the pig stick you arse). And I still turn the viewfoil off while swapping slides
MJ
Not only are each individual instructors standards different but also each schools and each examiners.
The ex-mil people have been trained by a system which has to have set high standards, in far more demanding situations than any of us will fly in. Each ex-mil has had upwards of a million pounds pumped into there training, I should hope that they are of a better standard than your 45k wannabie flying instructor who is living on bake beans and struggling to repay thier loans.
But they are good at instructing only a certain type of individual, but utterly wrong for other types. Personally I like their honesty in your skill level and their clinical briefs and debriefs. I tried to do that when I started instructing. But quickly found that about 80% of students don't have the mental capacity, and or, are in a state of mental exhaustion after a lesson to really take what you are saying in. Or they are learning to fly for fun and don't want to be bollocked for ever cockup on their day off.
For the rest of the instructors and examiners to come up to the uniformity of the mil trained people would cost a fortune and also there is no push from the belgrano or europe for this.
As much as I bitch and argue with Beagle it needs someone of his experence, common sense and balls to speak out about what should be happening, to take the whole of the industry by the horns and sort itself out.
Mind you maybe 10 years in the TA Royal Engineers has shown me the benifits of a regimented training method set at the lowest standard required (what do you mean you didn't tether the pig stick you arse). And I still turn the viewfoil off while swapping slides
MJ
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown with both types, both during initial training and since in a professional capacity
Civilian - Lots of types/personalities. Instructional standards a bit variable, but where else could you learn crop spraying techniques with only 10 hrs! (Thanks Barry!) Most 'self-improvers' I have flown with have been sound personalities.
Military - Spent a lot of time being told how wonderful they were ("When I was a Lightning/Phantom/Hawk/Buccaneer pilot.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"). Standards typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them! (Thanks Liz). Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines ("But it says that in the AP"). An inability to conform to everyday civilian rules and regs..("We never did it like that in the RAF")
My view is that the RAF way is not always the way to do it in the civvie world, in civvie aircraft. However, they seem to have superior instructional standards.
This subject will roll on forever, depending on who you talk to.
Civilian - Lots of types/personalities. Instructional standards a bit variable, but where else could you learn crop spraying techniques with only 10 hrs! (Thanks Barry!) Most 'self-improvers' I have flown with have been sound personalities.
Military - Spent a lot of time being told how wonderful they were ("When I was a Lightning/Phantom/Hawk/Buccaneer pilot.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"). Standards typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them! (Thanks Liz). Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines ("But it says that in the AP"). An inability to conform to everyday civilian rules and regs..("We never did it like that in the RAF")
My view is that the RAF way is not always the way to do it in the civvie world, in civvie aircraft. However, they seem to have superior instructional standards.
This subject will roll on forever, depending on who you talk to.
That takes me back, FL! I alaways found Pete L a great chap to fly with and he never hit me in the back of the bonedome!
Funny thing was Gerry M went on to be a very professional FJ test pilot - saw him a couple of years ago down in StAthan!
As an ex-mil QFI now UK/FE(PPL), I find it important to remember that Bloggs is paying to enjoy his flying! Pi$$ him off and he'll take up extreme philately or some similar hobby. Ex-mil students also find it a bit of a culture shock to discover that they have to clean the windscreen, pull the ac out of the hangar, refuel it and re-oil it; there's no 'starter crew' or anyone to pull out chocks..... Plus the ac is flown within the heart of the envelope, not at the limit! They also have to learn to navigate in UK Class G airspace at 2-3000ft rather than down in the weedisphere or up at Flight Level Nosebleed.
Illustrating a training event with an anecdote is fine (Andy W did that: "I forgot the checks completely in my first 2 or 3 forced landings...." "One of my first Seafire students lost his prop - it fell off") - but "When I was on xxxxxxs we did it this way" just annoys folk
Funny thing was Gerry M went on to be a very professional FJ test pilot - saw him a couple of years ago down in StAthan!
As an ex-mil QFI now UK/FE(PPL), I find it important to remember that Bloggs is paying to enjoy his flying! Pi$$ him off and he'll take up extreme philately or some similar hobby. Ex-mil students also find it a bit of a culture shock to discover that they have to clean the windscreen, pull the ac out of the hangar, refuel it and re-oil it; there's no 'starter crew' or anyone to pull out chocks..... Plus the ac is flown within the heart of the envelope, not at the limit! They also have to learn to navigate in UK Class G airspace at 2-3000ft rather than down in the weedisphere or up at Flight Level Nosebleed.
Illustrating a training event with an anecdote is fine (Andy W did that: "I forgot the checks completely in my first 2 or 3 forced landings...." "One of my first Seafire students lost his prop - it fell off") - but "When I was on xxxxxxs we did it this way" just annoys folk
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One element that may cloud the issue is that when you are learning in a military environment, you are either there permanently (regular RAF), or at least there a few times a week for the whole day (UAS) and have various week/2 week long camps. For that whole time you live and breathe flying - ops, met briefings, plotting the NOTAMs and other mundane but important things as well as the exciting stuff - which all leads to a well rounded learning experience.
In the civvy environment you tend to go for the hours lesson, and then go home, so you don't get the benefit of learning from your peers and other instructors (that'd be those when I was.... speeches then
). You also don't get the benefit of those quality RAF instructional videos on press-onitis LOL and mess rugby during the dining-in nights
I think this plays as important a role in the learning process as strapping into a plane and throwing(?) it around the skies. Maybe clubs should encourage their students to do stuff like plot the NOTAMs on the notice boards and stuff like that....
In the civvy environment you tend to go for the hours lesson, and then go home, so you don't get the benefit of learning from your peers and other instructors (that'd be those when I was.... speeches then
). You also don't get the benefit of those quality RAF instructional videos on press-onitis LOL and mess rugby during the dining-in nights I think this plays as important a role in the learning process as strapping into a plane and throwing(?) it around the skies. Maybe clubs should encourage their students to do stuff like plot the NOTAMs on the notice boards and stuff like that....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
You were probably a better pilot than me.
(Pete L didn't really hit me in the back of the bonedome, or anyone else as far as I know. He was a good instructor - it was his misapplied psychology which amused me. Rick M was reputed to be a 'head-banger', but I never flew with him.)
===========
Zlin526
"Civilian ..... Instructional standards a bit variable."
"Military ..... typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them!."
Fair assessment which illustrates one of the points in favour of ex-mil instructors.
The mil pilots have had "money thrown at them" and "are typically good" - not much consolation for the student that "bit variable" civvy instructors might have been just as good, if only ...... .
Please don't misunderstand me. There are FIs for whom I have great respect who aren't ex-mil.
"Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines."
Really?
The main warbird operators at Duxford wouldn't agree with you. And, if WWII aircraft aren't strictly 'vintage', isn't the Shuttleworth Collection's Chief Pilot a former RAF (and UAS) pilot? Andy Sephton? Isn't John Allison (ex RAF) a regular Shuttleworth pilot? I believe those approved to fly the Collection's rare aircraft include at least six ex-mil pilots.
I can understand why 'When I was ..... ' stories might bore experienced mil pilots like BEagle (equivalent barristers' stories bore me) but, as students, we used to encourage them. I still enjoy hearing such stories - as do most PPLs/students if this website is any indication.
(Edited to delete a point I thought, on reflection, might cause the thread to go off on a tangent.)
You were probably a better pilot than me.
(Pete L didn't really hit me in the back of the bonedome, or anyone else as far as I know. He was a good instructor - it was his misapplied psychology which amused me. Rick M was reputed to be a 'head-banger', but I never flew with him.)
===========
Zlin526
"Civilian ..... Instructional standards a bit variable."
"Military ..... typically good, but then so would the civvie instructor's be if they were having money thrown at them!."
Fair assessment which illustrates one of the points in favour of ex-mil instructors.
The mil pilots have had "money thrown at them" and "are typically good" - not much consolation for the student that "bit variable" civvy instructors might have been just as good, if only ...... .
Please don't misunderstand me. There are FIs for whom I have great respect who aren't ex-mil.
"Absolutely NO engine handling skills whatsoever, esp with vintage engines."
Really?
The main warbird operators at Duxford wouldn't agree with you. And, if WWII aircraft aren't strictly 'vintage', isn't the Shuttleworth Collection's Chief Pilot a former RAF (and UAS) pilot? Andy Sephton? Isn't John Allison (ex RAF) a regular Shuttleworth pilot? I believe those approved to fly the Collection's rare aircraft include at least six ex-mil pilots.
I can understand why 'When I was ..... ' stories might bore experienced mil pilots like BEagle (equivalent barristers' stories bore me) but, as students, we used to encourage them. I still enjoy hearing such stories - as do most PPLs/students if this website is any indication.
(Edited to delete a point I thought, on reflection, might cause the thread to go off on a tangent.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Mar 2004 at 01:18.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the wild blue
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy, really excellent post, and as stated we could rattle on all day..... but heres my two cents worth !
I have instructed for the past 10 years, the last 4 with mainly ex military guys, and really you cannot get away from the quality of these guys.
Anyone who has been CFS trained or checked sets a yard stick for us Civi guys to follow. All the guys I work with are very happy to pass on their knowlege, they don't look down on my background, and of course always have the best stories to tell in the bar !
Are we civi's just as good ? ....... In alot of cases YES !, while we don't have the background or the resources your typical miliatary QFI has had, a hard working civi Instructor does a pretty good job, an least all my Instructors did, dispite being low time etc.
Instructing really comes down to a desire to TEACH ! All of us have seen (or come from time to time) a warn out grumpy old prick, be it military or civi trained !
Is interesting to note also gone are the days of all airline and display pilots being ex miliatary.
I have instructed for the past 10 years, the last 4 with mainly ex military guys, and really you cannot get away from the quality of these guys.
Anyone who has been CFS trained or checked sets a yard stick for us Civi guys to follow. All the guys I work with are very happy to pass on their knowlege, they don't look down on my background, and of course always have the best stories to tell in the bar !
Are we civi's just as good ? ....... In alot of cases YES !, while we don't have the background or the resources your typical miliatary QFI has had, a hard working civi Instructor does a pretty good job, an least all my Instructors did, dispite being low time etc.
Instructing really comes down to a desire to TEACH ! All of us have seen (or come from time to time) a warn out grumpy old prick, be it military or civi trained !
Is interesting to note also gone are the days of all airline and display pilots being ex miliatary.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Left seat of a Boeing... mostly!
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to concede… my basic, instructor and commercial GFT/instrument rating training was on the whole done by two ex CFS instructors (all be it in a Civilian environment… the GAC Oxford), Hamish Logan and Mike Vickers… the standard of instruction was unquestionably EXCEPTIONAL, even I managed to pass all the flight tests first time!
These two gentlemen were/are quite obviously very talented aviators… above all they knew how to pass the information/skills on in a format that the student could easily understand.
The area that ex mil instructor probably does not have the upper hand is that of more specialist instruction… say Advanced or Unlimited aerobatic training.
Here I think you have to have done it (at competition level) to teach it… as far as I’m aware the air force doesn’t teach Negative snap rolls, Torque rolls or the Double Eventail (a gyro figure, for the uninitiated)?? So Ex Mil does not automatically give you the edge… Here this is best left to the Cassidy’s and the Elfimov’s of this world… these specialised areas are dangerous and best left to people with significant experience in this type of flying. Both these gentlemen provide this training to a very high standard and neither are from ‘true’ military flying backgrounds.
In the civilian airshow world an ex military background may well be a disadvantage??… you are largely unsupervised thus you have to set your own standards and limits (and importantly know your own limits). I think the military is more regulated here… certainly civilians have the skill to fly to this level… just look at the competitor listings at Advanced/Unlimited Competition Level in the UK. If you think it’s easy to fly to this standard… go and have a go…
Rob
These two gentlemen were/are quite obviously very talented aviators… above all they knew how to pass the information/skills on in a format that the student could easily understand.
The area that ex mil instructor probably does not have the upper hand is that of more specialist instruction… say Advanced or Unlimited aerobatic training.
Here I think you have to have done it (at competition level) to teach it… as far as I’m aware the air force doesn’t teach Negative snap rolls, Torque rolls or the Double Eventail (a gyro figure, for the uninitiated)?? So Ex Mil does not automatically give you the edge… Here this is best left to the Cassidy’s and the Elfimov’s of this world… these specialised areas are dangerous and best left to people with significant experience in this type of flying. Both these gentlemen provide this training to a very high standard and neither are from ‘true’ military flying backgrounds.
In the civilian airshow world an ex military background may well be a disadvantage??… you are largely unsupervised thus you have to set your own standards and limits (and importantly know your own limits). I think the military is more regulated here… certainly civilians have the skill to fly to this level… just look at the competitor listings at Advanced/Unlimited Competition Level in the UK. If you think it’s easy to fly to this standard… go and have a go…
Rob
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Desperately trying to remain on topic, but failing miserably, I think you'll find that there aren't as many military or ex-mil pilots flying old aeroplanes at DX these days; maybe there were more when you frequented the place? There seems to have been a grand clearout of military types in recent years, especially at the Fighter Collection. The few that remain are exceptional and skilled at what they do. The days of the military being the UK authority on old aeroplanes and flying displays has long passed. Certainly now, there are more pilots at Duxford with relevant experience on old aeroplanes rather than mates of the Chief Pilot..Insurance requirements now dictate who flies these aeroplanes.
At Shuttleworth, there's no choice; they are ALL current or ex-mil pilots bar one because of the collection's policy of using test pilots. I stand to be corrected by Airbedane, but engine handling is sure to be at the top of the training agenda for these aeroplanes and I believe it works well.
I'm not having a dig at the ex-mil guys (although on reflection it probably appears that way) but maybe having somebody else paying (taxpayer), and somebody else to repair it for them are to blame?
in my experience only a few have had any empathy with the aeroplane/engine combination, and these have been pilots who have already flown or owned their own vintage aeroplanes as well as flying for Queen & country.
(edited to avoid upsetting those with sensitive egos)
Desperately trying to remain on topic, but failing miserably, I think you'll find that there aren't as many military or ex-mil pilots flying old aeroplanes at DX these days; maybe there were more when you frequented the place? There seems to have been a grand clearout of military types in recent years, especially at the Fighter Collection. The few that remain are exceptional and skilled at what they do. The days of the military being the UK authority on old aeroplanes and flying displays has long passed. Certainly now, there are more pilots at Duxford with relevant experience on old aeroplanes rather than mates of the Chief Pilot..Insurance requirements now dictate who flies these aeroplanes.
At Shuttleworth, there's no choice; they are ALL current or ex-mil pilots bar one because of the collection's policy of using test pilots. I stand to be corrected by Airbedane, but engine handling is sure to be at the top of the training agenda for these aeroplanes and I believe it works well.
I'm not having a dig at the ex-mil guys (although on reflection it probably appears that way) but maybe having somebody else paying (taxpayer), and somebody else to repair it for them are to blame?
in my experience only a few have had any empathy with the aeroplane/engine combination, and these have been pilots who have already flown or owned their own vintage aeroplanes as well as flying for Queen & country. (edited to avoid upsetting those with sensitive egos)
Last edited by Zlin526; 4th Mar 2004 at 06:34.