I am not a helicopter pilot.
Scalextric for Men
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern England outside the M25
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a helicopter pilot.
But one recurring theme seems to be the quality or lack of it from some training organisations.
Pprune, a centre for learning and not being rude.
- Does the military produce a better pilot than a civilian training establishment?
- If you as a pilot were to be flown as passenger and had the choice of an ex-military with 2,000 hours and a civilian with the same Pilot in Charge time. Who would you want?
- Could you generalise as to which might be the safer pilot. I understand that civilians are not likely to get shot at, but if my memory serves me well [VH DIK 206 Jet Ranger took a round in the extended range fuel tank, while on circumnavigation. The film was shown on the BBC but where is it now.]
- I realise that in a time of peace there may be less urgency to produce Heli pilots.
- Likewise the training helicopter is a significant factor. Which may effect results and pilot profficiency.
Pprune, a centre for learning and not being rude.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Notarious
But one recurring theme seems to be the quality or lack of it from some training organisations.
Pprune, a centre for learning and not being rude.
- Does the military produce a better pilot than a civilian training establishment?
- If you as a pilot were to be flown as passenger and had the choice of an ex-military with 2,000 hours and a civilian with the same Pilot in Charge time. Who would you want?
- Could you generalise as to which might be the safer pilot. I understand that civilians are not likely to get shot at, but if my memory serves me well [VH DIK 206 Jet Ranger took a round in the extended range fuel tank, while on circumnavigation. The film was shown on the BBC but where is it now.]
- I realise that in a time of peace there may be less urgency to produce Heli pilots.
- Likewise the training helicopter is a significant factor. Which may effect results and pilot profficiency.
Pprune, a centre for learning and not being rude.
2. It again depends on the person, and in the case of the civil guy what kind of experience. 2000 hours doesn't say much.
3. I don't think the training helicopter is a significant factor. The training organisation is the factor to start with.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: GIRT, BY SEA
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military pilot is one who is usually highly dedicated, and is chosen to start the course from a pool of applicants. During the course, this trainee is under pressure to perform and to learn at the desired rate - any slow learners are scrubbed.
When this pilot graduates with wings, he/she has not only learned to fly, but has achieved:
Day flying
(Usually) turbine endorsement
Night rating
Instrument rating
low level training
formation endorsement
sling load
hoist
low level navigation to +- 5 second accuracy
And all in the allotted time of around 120 hours
Your average civvy might finish training in 120 hours, and has the following qualifications:
Day
sometimes, another piston type
So, who do you prefer?
And that documentary on Dick Smith should be available from the man himself on Dicksmithflyer dot com. The shooting took place off Kanchatka in the early 80s and was not discovered until after landing.
When this pilot graduates with wings, he/she has not only learned to fly, but has achieved:
Day flying
(Usually) turbine endorsement
Night rating
Instrument rating
low level training
formation endorsement
sling load
hoist
low level navigation to +- 5 second accuracy
And all in the allotted time of around 120 hours
Your average civvy might finish training in 120 hours, and has the following qualifications:
Day
sometimes, another piston type
So, who do you prefer?
And that documentary on Dick Smith should be available from the man himself on Dicksmithflyer dot com. The shooting took place off Kanchatka in the early 80s and was not discovered until after landing.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your average civvy might finish training in 120 hours, and has the following qualifications:
Day
sometimes, another piston type
Day
sometimes, another piston type
Civilian trained pilots will also be dedicated as they have to fund the training themselves and there's nothing like spending your own money to focus the mind
If hours are equal (which was the original question), I doubt you could say whether military or civilian was better. Within the military, would you say Army, Navy or RAF produced the best pilots? Probably not!
Some operators prefer to have military trained pilots; others don't. It's down to perceptions of abilities and personalities. In the end, I think it's down to the individual and what they make of their training.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlygig: "In the end, I think it's down to the individual and what they make of their training."
You are right Whirlygig, it does come down to the individual. Who is motivated, attentive during lessons, mechanically aware (it makes understanding emergencies easier), good situational awareness and understanding of the needs and objectives of the pax/mission. Mainly it is who can 'feel' the helicopter and what is doing, so that they can fly it.
I have spent time in the military (ex infantry and commando), the police force and I am a civvy trained pilot. My thoughts. The major difference is money!
The military want the best bang for their buck. They are paying for flight training and can afford to pick and choose who they train. The civvy has to finance his/her own training. The readily available funds means that the military pilot will fly more often than the civvy, who may only fly once a fortnight, or once a month depending on your 'readies'.
I think the military get it too easy, flying wise. The civvys are the ones who become hangar rats – washing helicopters, sweeping floors, loading, refuelling, assisting maintenance personnel, driving to various airports and operators to chase work. The military even get a travel allowance to move from base to base. Oh, and civvys flying for free. Sometimes even paying the operator to let them fly on a commercial op. The level of prostitution in general aviation is unreal. I have even seen a student build a cubby house for the boss's kids to impress him and offset his training costs.
The military don't have to go through all of that to realise their dream.
(The military get it tough, just talk to any infantry soldier or sailor to hear about the grass roots action, but we are talking about pilots here, not 'grunts'.)
The military pilots should make the best of their opportunity (or get sacked) and get all the training that they can, and at 100 - 300 hours in general, they simply are a better pilot! They have flown regularly with top notch instructors that are not just hour building, but give a true damn about their students. But after 300 - 500 hours, you are spending less time with an instructor and more time on your own making decisions and really learning what it means to be PIC! At 2000 hours, the only difference would be if it took the pilot 5 years or 20 years to get there.
The military also spend more time doing revision or recurrence training. This, again, is too expensive for the civvy operator.
This shows, that with the proper training, anyone can learn to fly in, or endorsed on, a turbine machine. The only thing that slows down the civvys is money. It's expensive for a student, or an operator to train (and insure) a turbine helicopter.
More money means more flying and only time at the controls will improve a pilot.
Col.
You are right Whirlygig, it does come down to the individual. Who is motivated, attentive during lessons, mechanically aware (it makes understanding emergencies easier), good situational awareness and understanding of the needs and objectives of the pax/mission. Mainly it is who can 'feel' the helicopter and what is doing, so that they can fly it.
I have spent time in the military (ex infantry and commando), the police force and I am a civvy trained pilot. My thoughts. The major difference is money!
The military want the best bang for their buck. They are paying for flight training and can afford to pick and choose who they train. The civvy has to finance his/her own training. The readily available funds means that the military pilot will fly more often than the civvy, who may only fly once a fortnight, or once a month depending on your 'readies'.
I think the military get it too easy, flying wise. The civvys are the ones who become hangar rats – washing helicopters, sweeping floors, loading, refuelling, assisting maintenance personnel, driving to various airports and operators to chase work. The military even get a travel allowance to move from base to base. Oh, and civvys flying for free. Sometimes even paying the operator to let them fly on a commercial op. The level of prostitution in general aviation is unreal. I have even seen a student build a cubby house for the boss's kids to impress him and offset his training costs.
The military don't have to go through all of that to realise their dream.
(The military get it tough, just talk to any infantry soldier or sailor to hear about the grass roots action, but we are talking about pilots here, not 'grunts'.)
The military pilots should make the best of their opportunity (or get sacked) and get all the training that they can, and at 100 - 300 hours in general, they simply are a better pilot! They have flown regularly with top notch instructors that are not just hour building, but give a true damn about their students. But after 300 - 500 hours, you are spending less time with an instructor and more time on your own making decisions and really learning what it means to be PIC! At 2000 hours, the only difference would be if it took the pilot 5 years or 20 years to get there.
The military also spend more time doing revision or recurrence training. This, again, is too expensive for the civvy operator.
This shows, that with the proper training, anyone can learn to fly in, or endorsed on, a turbine machine. The only thing that slows down the civvys is money. It's expensive for a student, or an operator to train (and insure) a turbine helicopter.
More money means more flying and only time at the controls will improve a pilot.
Col.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Outback
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown with both civvy trained and military trained pilot, by and large i agree that it comes down to the individual pilot.
Although, if I had 2 pilots both with a less than a 1000 hrs, I would take the mil. trained pilot.
After that I feel it is pretty even.
Just my thoughts, and for the record I'm civvy trained.
Although, if I had 2 pilots both with a less than a 1000 hrs, I would take the mil. trained pilot.
After that I feel it is pretty even.
Just my thoughts, and for the record I'm civvy trained.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense would suggest. If you have access to the best machines (or simply the most machines). including a tough and on-going selection process. Trained and monitored by Instructor pilots who met demanding selection criteria themselves, producing a product that’s in demand. And will be further tested in the field. With ongoing real-time feedback to the training organization…It’s going to be tough to provide a similar environment.
If you’ve got a Robbie and a porta cabin…
170’
ps..I think blade root makes a solid point! after a while it's just the individual...
If you’ve got a Robbie and a porta cabin…
170’
ps..I think blade root makes a solid point! after a while it's just the individual...
Last edited by 170'; 5th Apr 2006 at 03:59.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very complicated question to answer simply. You haven't specified what you want the pilot to do. Having someone who's trained on underslung loads doesn't mean that she/he is a good corporate pilot. And a great A-Z corporate who looks good, dresses well, flies safely doesn't necessarily make for a good filming pilot. Horses for courses, as they say.
It doesn't really come down to Mil v Civ - it's more about the type of experience, the personality and the quality of the training. Even total hours can be mightily misleading - and, apparently, not all log books tell the truth......I've heard.
We use a number of CPLs and ATPLs for filming - but that license isn't a shoe-in for the job. Filming pilots must understand the medium and its demands - and they have to get their head around the tv technology. They must fly the shot - they must see the shot in their mind as well as out the window.
All the pilots we've used so far have been self-funded non-mil. They do seem very keen on their work and have an open mind to accept new ideas. They are also all civilian instructors and/or examiners - so they are very current on the ANO which is vital. Can't comment on mil or ex-mil pilots because none has ever approached us for a job.
It doesn't really come down to Mil v Civ - it's more about the type of experience, the personality and the quality of the training. Even total hours can be mightily misleading - and, apparently, not all log books tell the truth......I've heard.
We use a number of CPLs and ATPLs for filming - but that license isn't a shoe-in for the job. Filming pilots must understand the medium and its demands - and they have to get their head around the tv technology. They must fly the shot - they must see the shot in their mind as well as out the window.
All the pilots we've used so far have been self-funded non-mil. They do seem very keen on their work and have an open mind to accept new ideas. They are also all civilian instructors and/or examiners - so they are very current on the ANO which is vital. Can't comment on mil or ex-mil pilots because none has ever approached us for a job.
Last edited by headsethair; 5th Apr 2006 at 10:02.
Not the old military vs civilian question again!
I commend everyone so far for their evenhandedness. When the same question's been asked on FW forums it has quickly degenerated into insults based on prejudice.
Military training varies - whose 'military' are we talking about? Civilian training varies according to budget (trainer and trainee) and regulator. Individuals vary - I've met stars and tossers from both worlds.
Having commended everyone else, I must remain polite myself, but the question is meaningless and the motivation? Surely not to stir the pot??
I commend everyone so far for their evenhandedness. When the same question's been asked on FW forums it has quickly degenerated into insults based on prejudice.
Military training varies - whose 'military' are we talking about? Civilian training varies according to budget (trainer and trainee) and regulator. Individuals vary - I've met stars and tossers from both worlds.
Having commended everyone else, I must remain polite myself, but the question is meaningless and the motivation? Surely not to stir the pot??
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely not to stir the pot??
If military training had been an option for me, then I'd have gone for it (if they'd have had me, which they wouldn't 'cos they didn't do girls in those days!) so civilian is the only option. However, having been taught entirely by ex-mil guys (one of each; Army, RAF and Navy), I'm sure some of the philosophies and attitudes rub off.
Actually, I might be mistaken but isn't the PPL(H) syllabub based on the RAF training manual which is why fun things like quick stops are part of the course?
Cheers
Whirls
Originally Posted by Whirlygig
If hours are equal (which was the original question), I doubt you could say whether military or civilian was better. Within the military, would you say Army, Navy or RAF produced the best pilots? Probably not!
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Thomas, that's zabaglione you're thinking of! 
I hope you're not casting nasturtiums at my use of English? I do enjoy a good maladroitism - named after the character in Sheraton's play "The Roundels".
Cheers
Whirls
All puns, misspollings, spoonerisms and malapropisms intentional just in case you all think I am an ignorant, ill-educated bog-trotter!
I hope you're not casting nasturtiums at my use of English? I do enjoy a good maladroitism - named after the character in Sheraton's play "The Roundels".
Cheers
Whirls
All puns, misspollings, spoonerisms and malapropisms intentional just in case you all think I am an ignorant, ill-educated bog-trotter!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 85
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was involved in RAF training, I once calculated that the percentage of people who finally made it to a squadron from those who went to initial selection was startlingly low, about 4%. Bearing in mind that people were filtered out for reasons of personal qualities, leadership etc as well as flying ability, it still means that filter mesh was pretty fine. These people were then very closely supervised in their early flying life and crucially tended to get in their flying at an even rate in these years.
When I was similarly involved in sponsored CPL/H training, the percentage was about twice as great between application and the left seat in a North Sea helicopter, but the applicants had to have at least a PPL and the same education qualifications as the military to be even considered.
All I am perhaps saying is that now in the civilian world, which generally pursues the self improver route, selection is mainly by ability to pay or willingness to take on a large debt, so the spread of ability and qualities, hour for hour have much greater variables. I am definitely not saying that military pilots are better, it's just that it is more difficult to make decisions without reference to a complete (and honest) flying history.
When I was similarly involved in sponsored CPL/H training, the percentage was about twice as great between application and the left seat in a North Sea helicopter, but the applicants had to have at least a PPL and the same education qualifications as the military to be even considered.
All I am perhaps saying is that now in the civilian world, which generally pursues the self improver route, selection is mainly by ability to pay or willingness to take on a large debt, so the spread of ability and qualities, hour for hour have much greater variables. I am definitely not saying that military pilots are better, it's just that it is more difficult to make decisions without reference to a complete (and honest) flying history.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is another perspective. I'm paying for my training with my own hard earned money so I'm very well aware of the cost to fly an aircraft. My background is self employed and running my own business and I come from a fairly big family without much money. So I'm well aware of the cost to run a business and come out with a profit.
I'm going to do my best to give the operator as well as the customer the most for there money. I have worked with people who spent there lives working for the government or large companys or whatever who don't have a clue about where the money is coming from or going and they drive me nuts with wasted time and materials.
I think there is a lot more to the job than just the flying. the indivdual's attitude and the way they do things (anything) is what matters.
I'm going to do my best to give the operator as well as the customer the most for there money. I have worked with people who spent there lives working for the government or large companys or whatever who don't have a clue about where the money is coming from or going and they drive me nuts with wasted time and materials.
I think there is a lot more to the job than just the flying. the indivdual's attitude and the way they do things (anything) is what matters.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that although anyone can learn to fly, some have more natural aptitude than others.
Assuming that the military are looking for ability, responsibility etc., then there is a filter process going on in the military that simply doesn't exist for civvy flying - as long as the civvy has cash, he can keep flying as long as he passes the tests. If the civvy is CPL/ATPL, there will probably be a job for him/her somewhere.
The mil also offer a rounded package of training, so on balance they will have a broader training than civvys, many of whom never get to night or instrument unless they go full ATPL.
So in the absence of any other knowledge about an individual (blind choosing a pilot), I'd take the mil. man.
As soon as you start to know the individual's character, you can make a more informed choice, however I would say that out of 100 random mil. pilots and 100 random civvy pilots with the same hours and the same exposure to training, the filter process in the military is bound to have an impact on the standard of the mil. pilots.
On average.
Excludes individuals! your mileage may vary....
BW
Assuming that the military are looking for ability, responsibility etc., then there is a filter process going on in the military that simply doesn't exist for civvy flying - as long as the civvy has cash, he can keep flying as long as he passes the tests. If the civvy is CPL/ATPL, there will probably be a job for him/her somewhere.
The mil also offer a rounded package of training, so on balance they will have a broader training than civvys, many of whom never get to night or instrument unless they go full ATPL.
So in the absence of any other knowledge about an individual (blind choosing a pilot), I'd take the mil. man.
As soon as you start to know the individual's character, you can make a more informed choice, however I would say that out of 100 random mil. pilots and 100 random civvy pilots with the same hours and the same exposure to training, the filter process in the military is bound to have an impact on the standard of the mil. pilots.
On average.
Excludes individuals! your mileage may vary....
BW
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about getting specific about what skills/characteristics actually make a better pilot? Here's a few to start with (not in order of importance):
Reliability and timekeeping
Flight planning
Pre flight checking
Weather judgement
Personality and rapport with any pax
Personal presentation
Smoothness of flying
Navigation
Maintaining recommended FM procedures/profiles
Judgement of hazards eg weather, landing sites
Flexibility and accommodation of task changes
Handling problems/emergencies
Honesty - eg reporting exceedances, flight times
Maybe there are some trends of differences in these specific areas between Mil/Civil trained pilots?
Reliability and timekeeping
Flight planning
Pre flight checking
Weather judgement
Personality and rapport with any pax
Personal presentation
Smoothness of flying
Navigation
Maintaining recommended FM procedures/profiles
Judgement of hazards eg weather, landing sites
Flexibility and accommodation of task changes
Handling problems/emergencies
Honesty - eg reporting exceedances, flight times
Maybe there are some trends of differences in these specific areas between Mil/Civil trained pilots?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast majority of accidents are due to a poor decision making process not because the pilot had marginal physical flying skills. I prefer someone with good judgement over the best "natural" pilot. When we start seeing accident reports stating things like PIC could not hover or PIC failed to perform an autorotation backwards I will worry about natural skills. But as long as we keep seeing things like PIC flew into IMC and CFIT and PIC ran into cables at 50 feet off the deck, I will take the good brain over the swift stick.
But back to the point, anyone can learn to fly either via the military or private training route. However, neither of the two methods can rewire the brain. We are what we are.
But back to the point, anyone can learn to fly either via the military or private training route. However, neither of the two methods can rewire the brain. We are what we are.
