Are military trained Helicopter pilots overrated?

[trimpot]

Very, very well said JKnife. There are some military pilots, crab, that won't fly in the Gulf, but it's ok for you to generalise because that's what you do. Some military pilots are very good and some are very bad. Most are OK. But you know what? it's the same with civvy pilots. I don't see how dying for Queen and/or country would possibly help the company you work for as it would present certain OH&S problems. If nothing else it would make it very difficult for you to submit your time sheets1

[Captain Lai Hai]

Jknife,
I think a lot of the civvy trained pilots are unimpressed with always being considered inferior by mil. trained pilots.
With respect no one doubts your training standards and equipment and this may also contribute to envy from the civvy's but I would like to say that single pilot vfr flight that requires a good deal of precision like long lining jungle stream sampling ops etc. at the absolute limits are not handled as well by the mil.guys whetever its the safety margins you are used to or lack of feedback feel or what I really don't know but every ex mil guy I've flown with was quite rough on the machines like a lack mechanical symphathy was quite evident.
If you want a real challenge with external load work lift the next one with a 200' line alone

[Bunnion]

Thank you to Crab for illustrating my point so clearly.
Thanks also to Jknife for a well made post. I recently won a scolarship for five years of intensive training with Tiger Woods at the most difficult golf courses in the world. Still doubt I'll be much good at the end of it, even if people are shooting at me!!

My point is not about who is better, its about professional snobbery which is all too prevelant in our aviation industry particularly in rotary wing flying. I love to sit and BS with people who have done different types of flying in different places. Like others have said lots can be learned. I just hate when it happens to be coming with a downward trajectory... Bigger fool me for letting it annoy me...!!

[chopperman]

I'm sitting around on a day off with nothing to do, so I thought I may as well post something here, sad or what?
I don't know who make better pilots, ex-mil or civvie trained and I don't see much point in debating it either, it’s an argument that many people find very emotive and for that one reason it’s an argument that no-one will ever win. Anyway, how would you quantify if one form of training were better than the other? I don’t think you can, there are too many variables involved. My personal view is that some pilots will excel in certain aspects of the job whilst being merely competent in others, and, of course, there will always be the few on a big ego trip as to how wonderful they are . We can’t all be experts at everything, can we? I have a feeling that someone out there will be.

Chopperman.

[AlanM]

So this is what is meant by "CHIP warning?!"

------------------------------------------

Custodian of 119.9 and ex RAF SH!

[ShyTorque]

I have met pilots from all types of background and there are certainly good and bad around (and many who can't spell or add up) but it's mainly irrespective of background and more down to the character and outlook of individuals.

[EESDL]

I think all civvy pilots are really great, especially Chief Pilots of AOC companies in Yorkshire, who might just have a freelance requirement for a pilot looking for work:-)

All Mil pilots are pooh because they work for a 'company' that do not pay me to fly on a Summer's evening with no one shooting at me or some guy 'nibbing' me!!

Silly thread, can we stop now?

[paco]

There's good and bad on both sides, but generally speaking, my experience is that mil pilots have a better consistency of basic training, so you don't have to watch them so much or tell them how to do a job. This is once they have the commercial side of life explained to them, of course.....

Most people over here, though, are not ex-mil, and mostly very professional without all that supervision.

phil

[heedm]

I'm not ex-military...yet. So far my experience has shown both good and bad on the military side but only awesome pilots with great attitudes on the civvy side (some of the civvies were ex-mil...some weren't). A little bit of a biased sample because I haven't been exposed to many low time civvy pilots. Most were 10,000+.

Here's a theory: New guy comes to a unit from a different unit. Sees some ways that it was done in the old place that may help in the new. Mentions them. People that have been doing it this way for years are a little offended because they've essentially been told that they've been doing it wrong all this time (just human nature). New guy gets labelled as a know-it-all.

I've seen that many times in military units. I'm sure it happens everywhere. A military guy leaves the military, gets a civvy job, he immediately becomes the new guy know-it-all. That happens to a number of ex-mil pilots, starts generating this perception. It doesn't get balanced with a number of ex-civvy pilots because very few civvies leave their job to join the military, and those that do likely don't get the chance to speak up as a newcomer.

I'm thinking all this would lead to the perception that all ex-mil pilots show up with greater-than-thou attitudes. Certainly some have that attitude, but as has already been mentioned, there are unique personalities everywhere.

[jungly]

Horses for courses boys and girls!

The best mountain pilots come from places with mountains,
The best crap weather pilots come from places with crap weather.
...get my drift?

Mil or Civ background is irrelevant and immaterial.

You cant expect and mil pilot to be an epic long-liner...he/she's never done it. Nor would I expect your Day VFR civy driver to lead a multi ship low level NVG combat sortie.

Can someone please stop this forum before the chicken-egg argument starts? Weve done this to death and head ache.

[Shawn Coyle]

This problem comes up all the time - what should we all learn from it?
Don't be in a hurry to comment adversely on the way things are done in an organization new to you until you really understand why things are done that way.
Ask lots of questions to find this out.
Ask questions that will make the others think, and if you're really clever, ask them in such a way to get the answer you want.
Keep your own counsel when the chips are down.

By the way, part of this debate might be fueled by some military organizations (and I've worked with quite a few, either as an exchange officer, civil instructor or semi-hostage to a committment) having some bizarre attitudes. The failure rate in training for one very, very large military helicopter training school was less than 2-3% - what does that tell you about the quality of the end product?

[Helinut]

I agreed with Jungly, until I read Shawn's post!

I have recently changed where I work (never was an ex-mil pilot), and have felt fairly strongly that the new outfit could benefit from looking at the experience of others. Get the impression that they are simply not interested, and have been puzzling about what (if anything) to do about it.

I don't think it is a purely ex-mil phenomenon - it is just that there are a lot of ex-mil pilots in the civy world.

[soggyboxers]

I'm ex-military (a long, long time ago). I thought that the military system was very thorough and covered the basics in far greater depth than is required for civil training. This is probably just because a lot of military pilots fly single pilot (or did in my day) and are thrown in at the deep end fairly early on compared with many of their civil counterparts. They are required to be rather more of a 'jack of all trades'. However, the nature of the military instructors could be rather antagonistic compared with a number of civil instructors I have encountered; as some military instructors seemed to have little or no empathy with, nor sympathy for, their students who were merely pieces of meat in the sausage machine.
I have been a civilian for considerably longer and spent quite a few years as an ab-initio instructor and as a training captain. I found that civil students were just the same as military students - a mixture of (very few) excellent, (most) average and a (very few) bit below average. Some people are slow starters and after a bit of a shaky start have matured into excellent, well-rounded pilots.
I think that part of the problem has nothing to do with whether a pilot is really considered to be good or bad, it's just that after a number of years in the military one tends to have a different attitude to some things. If this continues and manifests itself as the consideration that one is superior, that is a bad thing. Similarly, if one has worked only as a civilain pilot and has some sort of attitude problem about ex-military pilots, that is also a bad thing. At the end of the day, as civil pilots we all have the same job to do and in these days of JAR Ops and CRM should be able to put aside differences in our early flying development, work together and have respect for anyone who does his job in a competent and professional manner.

[choppersquad321]

Would love some feedback before this goes to press......

The very title of this piece will certainly get a lot of peoples’ blood boiling. There is an assumption in the rotor craft world that military trained pilots, specifically US Army aviators are the greatest helicopter pilots around. As a former military man, I have had many opportunities to experience military aviation. I commend all military aviators for their courage, honor, and fortitude, especially in light of the events of this past decade. This piece is not designed to take anything away from military aviators, but to point out that civilian trained pilots are every bit as good as, and in some cases better than their army counterparts.
Every Army aviator begins his or her training at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Some of the old timers, of Vietnam vintage, were trained at the now defunct FortWalters in Texas. Whether trained at Walters, or Rucker all these folks have one thing in common. The majority of their primary flight training was conducted by, you’re not going to believe this, civilian contractors, known as IP’s or Instructor Pilots. To this day the government hires out the majority of its flight training to civilian instructors. To be fair some of the civilians are retired military but the majority of these folks stem from civilian training. Again to be fair, much of the advanced training, such as combat tactics and gunnery are trained by current active military instructors. The average six to eight year helicopter pilot leaves the US Army with around 600 to 900 hours. Around 150 of which consisted of instruction training.
What makes army aviators so desirable in the civilian marketplace? You could argue that their discipline and regiment learned in the military is very desirable to the civilian employer. You could also argue that they have received the finest training in the world. And that army helicopter pilots are “highly motivated” individuals. You could say that operation of a helicopter in combat conditions,” weeds out the men from the boys”, so to speak. No offense, Ladies. All of these things may be true, but let’s consider a few points. First, we are not at war here at home. The ability to fly nap of the earth and blow things up are not needed here, and is in a lot cases, contrary to local and federal law. Second, if military training is so good, why does the authority under which we all operate require competency and license conversion? Remember the military is not required to operate within the confines of the FAR’s. An aversion of the “civilian” rules often accompanies military pilots. Also, it is worth noting that almost all civilian training courses and programs mirror military flight training in content and requirement. It is also fair to say that most of these programs have additional time spent with each student on the fundamentals and emergency procedures. The military has, of course, modified its training program over the years to keep up with new technologies and understanding of aerodynamics, but so has the civilian training world. Most of the world’s helicopter pilots come to the United States for their training, not with military, but in the civilian market. We must be doing something right. Next, what about being current and recency? Would you rather have a former UH-60 pilot from the 80’s with 1500 hours, who hasn’t flown in years, or an 800 hour flight instructor who flies several hours every day in your cockpit. And what about these really high time, older pilots who have 1000’s hours from 20+ years ago and are 60 to 70 plus years old. We all know that flying helicopters is an unforgiving business that requires a high degree of skill, competency, co-ordination, and timing. Just because you were the Sky King 25 years ago doesn’t make you competent and safe today. It’s the law of nature, deal with it.

“Well, Army aviators usually have a lot more turbine time than their civilian counterparts with equal total time.” True, but so what? Anybody who is honest will tell you operating piston helicopters day in and out is far more dangerous than operating turbines. Turbines have more complex systems to be learned but are far safer than their piston-driven relatives. Far more civilian pilots have lost their lives since 9/11 operating Hughes, Robinson and Enstrom helicopters here at home than military pilot lives lost in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe I should take moment here to commend the civilian pilots out there for their courage, honor, regiment and discipline. We all know that conversion from piston to turbine aircraft is simple and easy. I believe that the piston helicopter guy or gal brings with them a better understanding of operating limitations as they have cut their teeth on aircraft that are almost always at gross weight, and at maximum temperatures and pressures which is characteristic of almost of the civilian piston fleet during mission operations.

Then there is Money. The army aviator receives a paid for education. He or She, in fact, is paid to receive that training. The average cost to train a helicopter pilot in the civilian world to the level of CFII is around $60,000 USD. The civilian trained aviator pays for all of his or her education. My father always used to say that the lessons best learned are the ones that cost you. The civilian pilot is always attentive, and motivated. He or she has learned how to plan to make the most of every dollar spent to gain maximum return on investment. This knowledge and skill is not one of the attributes of the average military pilot as the general attitude is,” hey its tax-payer dollars not mine.” I have personally witnessed this attitude on many occasions and it makes me sick to my stomach as now it is my money, and not “the taxpayers”.

Finally there is the attitude that many military aviators carry like a huge chip on their shoulders. It is a disgusting sense of self-entitlement and omnipotence that can ruin any Saturday afternoon aviation discussion. It also makes it very hard for a civilian instructor in the “real world” to teach or get current a military pilot. Let me say that this is not true of all military pilots, but it is of far too many. A military training background does not make you Chuck Yeager, who by the way credits most his ability and success in aviation to the things he learned in this civilian life.

Who are the best helicopter aviators? In my opinion, it’s Flight Instructors, either military or civilian. The best pilot I have ever known personally, who also is an accomplished fixed-wing pilot, has convinced me that you don’t truly learn about anything until you have teach it to someone else. Instructors are required to have all the skills that make a great helicopter pilot, plus those of a businessman, mechanic, psychologist, therapist, and public speaker. They are constantly learning and growing their knowledge. They are current and competent in dangerous situations. Training people how to fly helicopters is a dangerous business. Training accidents have accounted for more fatalities in the past decade than combat operations. They have the ability to adapt quickly, think on the “fly”, and get the most from their equipment without exceeding its limits. They know how to plan, how to think, how to communicate with others effectively, and how to be a functional member of a team. They have the desire to teach others what they know, and are smart enough to know that they don’t know everything and make very efficient and effective students themselves. They don’t walk with a swagger. They are polite and professional in appearance. In fairness I would have to remove myself from that statement. Above all, they have the burning desire to fly helicopters. It’s not about status, or salaries. It’s not about days off or self-importance. It is the love of flying. It’s being thankful and happy for flight time whether it is in a R-22 or a S-76. It’s their need to grow both mentally and professionally.

As employers we should not dismiss or downplay civilian trained pilots. Nor should this article serve to bias you against military pilots. We need to evaluate, test, and monitor new pilots with no pre-disposition as to their background. Let each pilot stand on his or her ability, professionalism, and desire to perform the mission. To not do so may cause us to miss some of the best employees that we could have.

[Ascend Charlie]

Definitely agree that military-trained pilots are over-rated.

A civvy trained CPL comes out with a piston rating (usually R22), low flying rating, and that's it.

A military-trained pilot comes out with turbine rating, low flying rating, night rating, instrument rating, formation rating, sling rating, hoist rating, sometimes NVG rating.

So, comparing the military pilot with 8 ratings against the civvy's 2, the mil pilot is over-rated.

But a better way is to call the civvy pilot "under-rated".

[Epiphany]

Choppersquad,

Wouldn't happen to be American would you??

Perhaps this kind of post would be better received on Just Helicopters?

This kind of rubbish has been done to death here.

[Senior Pilot]

Would love some feedback before this goes to press......

I'm intrigued that anyone would consider such an ill informed and unstructured diatribe to be suitable for consideration for publication

choppersquad321,

This is an international forum, with civilian and military pilots from around the world. Your thread title implies all military pilots, but your 'discussion' seems very heavily slanted against US Army aviators; not even including other US Military arms. I would strongly suggest that you re-think your piece, especially if you intend publishing it anywhere.

[FH1100 Pilot]

"Goes to press?" Someone is actually going to PRINT this? Where?

First of all, it's Fort WOLTERS, not Walters. Facts, man, you should check 'em.

Secondly, it is indisputable that military aviators receive more structured training than many/most civilian pilots do. You want to know the temperature limits of the 42 degree intermediate gearbox on a UH-1? Ask a military pilot; he knows.

But the big difference between military and civilian pilots...the important difference in my book...is that apart from the flight training itself, the military demands a level of discipline that is just unheard of in the civilian world. This is what makes military pilots think they are generally "better" than other pilots. And it is probably true.

Does this discipline sometimes work against them? Sure, especially for those who have a hard time adapting to the often slap-dash and hectic, make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of civilian flying. When I was at PHI, there were ex-mil guys who, upon receiving a flight assignment, took 45 minutes to get their oh-so-complicated 206L started and departed (an aircraft that they had already preflighted and untied). It was sad. You'd watch a guy like that and know he wasn't going to work out. And mostly they did not - they'd stick with it for a while but end up moving on pretty quick.

But these were the exceptions.

I'm civilian trained. I've been in this business for, well...nigh, 35 years. When it comes to pilots, I've seen 'em all, man. And you know what? All things being equal (which they never are, as we know), I'd hire the ex-military guy over an all-civilian guy first. I might be wrong, but I'd be willing to take that chance. I'd do a good interview and make sure he was the right guy, of course. But in the end, the discipline that the ex-military guy brings to the table would win the day.

Hey- that's just my opinion.

[dammyneckhurts]

It depends on what the job is.

Lets take 2 pilots with 10 years experience, one a 10 year civilian pilot and an 8 year military pilot with 2 years of civi experience.

If the job is off shore IFR, corporate work, sched flight work, multi crew night medevac I am going to want the military pilot, generally speaking this kind of stuff if out of the normal scope of utility work for many civi pilots. The military pilot is the right person for the job.

If I am looking for a logging, drill moving, heli ski, mountain, long line rescue pilot then I am going to want the civi guy, he has just simply been doing that kind of work longer.

Many moons ago I stopped for fuel and a Blackhawk Pilot came over to chat while I was refueling. He had a lot of questions about the kind of flying I had been doing and what life was like as a civi pilot as he was about to get out of the military. What struck me the most was that his total helicopter time was about the same amount of hours as I had done in just that same year.

[chuks]

Wolters, Walters...

Sounds the same if you say it fast.

You want some free help with an article someone paid you to write? That is cool. Military-trained pilots are generally better.

Many are totally ga-ga, of course, goes without saying, PTSD and PMS and all that and when they bend over to tie their shoelaces sometimes gin leaks out both ears but definitely better trained after a more rigorous selection process.

That guy is having you on, by the way; I am pretty sure it is Fort Walter's. You could look that up but why bother? You can trust me because I am a pilot. Well, sort of...