Are military trained Helicopter pilots overrated?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My response
I am a retired US Army Aviator with over 10,000 helicopter hours.
I have flown VIP overseas since 1999.
I have flown with a few civilian trained pilots and know many more. Here is my take on the military vs civilian pilot issue in that article. I would not put to much stock on a military pilot with less than 1,000 hours. If he has less why ? If you have been in the service for more than 5 years you should have more. Most aviator with over 5 years should be tracked as an IP, safety, or maintenance officer, if not why not? But a pilot with 20 years in the military should be disciplined, a good teacher, and calm during an emergency.
On civilian pilots, I know many and proud to know them. It boils down to individual personality. I did not like the article bashing military pilots, I am very proud to be a former military pilot, and I feel that I was taught, and that I taught all my pilots to: complete the mission safely and professionally. Always stressing safety first!
I think civilian or military, we all deserve a pat on the back for what we do !
I have flown VIP overseas since 1999.
I have flown with a few civilian trained pilots and know many more. Here is my take on the military vs civilian pilot issue in that article. I would not put to much stock on a military pilot with less than 1,000 hours. If he has less why ? If you have been in the service for more than 5 years you should have more. Most aviator with over 5 years should be tracked as an IP, safety, or maintenance officer, if not why not? But a pilot with 20 years in the military should be disciplined, a good teacher, and calm during an emergency.
On civilian pilots, I know many and proud to know them. It boils down to individual personality. I did not like the article bashing military pilots, I am very proud to be a former military pilot, and I feel that I was taught, and that I taught all my pilots to: complete the mission safely and professionally. Always stressing safety first!
I think civilian or military, we all deserve a pat on the back for what we do !
Presumably the reason that most test pilots in the US (and elsewhere) are from a military background is that the test pilot courses are so hugely expensive that it tends to be only the military that can run / afford them?
Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.
I stand to be corrected.
OH
Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.
I stand to be corrected.
OH
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I want to stymie the thread, but what is it with choppersquad321 who signs up, posts a load of old rubbish seeking 'comments', then logs off 5 minutes later never to return.
Troll, anyone? He certainly got a result, that's for sure
Troll, anyone? He certainly got a result, that's for sure
Presumably the reason that most test pilots in the US (and elsewhere) are from a military background is that the test pilot courses are so hugely expensive that it tends to be only the military that can run / afford them?
Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.
I stand to be corrected.
OH
Therefore, I suspect that manufacturers employ mostly ex military test pilots because there are very few test pilots out there who are not from the services.
I stand to be corrected.
OH
Almost certainly true in both the fixed and rotary wing worlds. I recently heard an estimate of a little under US$1m to put a pilot through Test Pilot School. Virtually nobody will ever self fund through that, nor are many companies going to pay that if they can employ ex-military TPs.
There are pure civilian TPs, who have normally graduated from the Flight Test Engineer roles, but that's a relatively rare route and tends to be the more technically specialist TPs - the "big job" TPs: first flights, high risk testing, weapons testing - they are almost always ex-military, because of the specific training delivered at the TP schools.
G
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change of Handle.
choppersquad321. Can you please change your name on the forum
i have got a number of PMs thinking it is my post.
AS you can see the handle is taken already.
Thanks
choppersquad.
The original.
i have got a number of PMs thinking it is my post.
AS you can see the handle is taken already.
Thanks
choppersquad.
The original.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at some of the posts on prune with regards to flying in poor weather, decision making processes and busting limits and rules like rule 5 (UK ANO), I think the civilian world could learn a great deal from the military.
INHO.
INHO.
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
I think the civilian world could learn a great deal from the military.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: West africa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My idle glance at this thread led me to some serious thought on this subject.
I was trained in the UK military and spent six years as "a military pilot". Since then I have spent 30 years as a civilian pilot, split fairly evely between corporate and offshore flying. I presently hold a junior management position with one of the major offshore helicopter companies and, over the last few years I have benn responsible in one way or another for some 100 pilots.
The attitude of the military pilots has undergone a considerable change in the last few decades. The Vietnam vets that I work with are, to a man, extremely efficient pilots with a very good work ethic. They will always do the job first but, if there have any issues, they will be very forthright in stating them. They will accept positions of authority reluctantly but invariably do a good job whilst in that position. The modern day military pilots (particularly from the USA) expect to be promoted to these positions as they see themselves as being better trained than their civilian counterparts. This is not always the case!
When I finished my ab-initio training I had 220 hours airborne and in that time I had not only learned to fly a helicopter but had learned to use it as an air observation post, to control artillary and naval gunfire and to act as a forward air controller whilst flying single pilot. Also, the day after I finished training I was an aircraft commander. However, I had no instrument skills and CRM (apart from being unheard of) was a mystery.
In the company that I work for, a new pilot comes out of flight school with approx the same number of hours as I had but with very different skills. he has an instrument rating and he/she (hopefully) has been given a thorough grounding in CRM and MCC. Which of us had the better training is a moot point but I would be less than comfortable to authorise these guys to go of flying on there own. In fact, most of them will achieve 3000 hours flight time before achieving command.
Then there are the "self improvers". Tremendously dedicated people who have spent their own time and money to reach their "holy grail" of becoming a commercial helicopter pilot. They tend, almost without exception to have been instructors on singles and in many cases IREs. Often, they arrive with expectations of being Check Airmen within a very short time and are invariably disappointed when this is not the case. As a group (and I don't like generalisations) they are prepared to do the extra jobs (flight safety officer etc.) willingly and well. However, I have found that many have struggled with achieving the standard offlying that we require, particularly in the IF area.
Of course, all of the above are generalisations and individuals will always differ but, with the military trained pilot, you will get someone who will be familiar with command and will have no difficulty in making the decisions required of a commander but, may well be somewhat inflexible, not want to adapt to your company's modus operandi and will expect to have your job within the first year. The ab-initio will be the easiest to mold to your company's way of operating but will come with a low skill level and will take a lot of resources to bring to command. The "self improver" will come with all of the above attributes, or none of them, there is no way of knowing!
Who would I prefer to employ?
Obviously, the Vietnam vet.
Outside of him, all of them! Because, where and how you trained has no bearing at all on the pilot that you will become. That is down to each and every individual to become as good a pilot as they want to be. All of these people can fly, let's face it, flying isn't difficult. What defines a "good pilot" is his attitude and his willingness never to stop learning. My career is close to the end and I still can be surprised to find that a 200 hour cadet can tell me something about a helicopter that I didn't know before.
This debate is senseless (although good fun) as has been said before, but this was why this forum was started.
Fly safely and, above all, Enjoy!
Cyclic.
I was trained in the UK military and spent six years as "a military pilot". Since then I have spent 30 years as a civilian pilot, split fairly evely between corporate and offshore flying. I presently hold a junior management position with one of the major offshore helicopter companies and, over the last few years I have benn responsible in one way or another for some 100 pilots.
The attitude of the military pilots has undergone a considerable change in the last few decades. The Vietnam vets that I work with are, to a man, extremely efficient pilots with a very good work ethic. They will always do the job first but, if there have any issues, they will be very forthright in stating them. They will accept positions of authority reluctantly but invariably do a good job whilst in that position. The modern day military pilots (particularly from the USA) expect to be promoted to these positions as they see themselves as being better trained than their civilian counterparts. This is not always the case!
When I finished my ab-initio training I had 220 hours airborne and in that time I had not only learned to fly a helicopter but had learned to use it as an air observation post, to control artillary and naval gunfire and to act as a forward air controller whilst flying single pilot. Also, the day after I finished training I was an aircraft commander. However, I had no instrument skills and CRM (apart from being unheard of) was a mystery.
In the company that I work for, a new pilot comes out of flight school with approx the same number of hours as I had but with very different skills. he has an instrument rating and he/she (hopefully) has been given a thorough grounding in CRM and MCC. Which of us had the better training is a moot point but I would be less than comfortable to authorise these guys to go of flying on there own. In fact, most of them will achieve 3000 hours flight time before achieving command.
Then there are the "self improvers". Tremendously dedicated people who have spent their own time and money to reach their "holy grail" of becoming a commercial helicopter pilot. They tend, almost without exception to have been instructors on singles and in many cases IREs. Often, they arrive with expectations of being Check Airmen within a very short time and are invariably disappointed when this is not the case. As a group (and I don't like generalisations) they are prepared to do the extra jobs (flight safety officer etc.) willingly and well. However, I have found that many have struggled with achieving the standard offlying that we require, particularly in the IF area.
Of course, all of the above are generalisations and individuals will always differ but, with the military trained pilot, you will get someone who will be familiar with command and will have no difficulty in making the decisions required of a commander but, may well be somewhat inflexible, not want to adapt to your company's modus operandi and will expect to have your job within the first year. The ab-initio will be the easiest to mold to your company's way of operating but will come with a low skill level and will take a lot of resources to bring to command. The "self improver" will come with all of the above attributes, or none of them, there is no way of knowing!
Who would I prefer to employ?
Obviously, the Vietnam vet.
Outside of him, all of them! Because, where and how you trained has no bearing at all on the pilot that you will become. That is down to each and every individual to become as good a pilot as they want to be. All of these people can fly, let's face it, flying isn't difficult. What defines a "good pilot" is his attitude and his willingness never to stop learning. My career is close to the end and I still can be surprised to find that a 200 hour cadet can tell me something about a helicopter that I didn't know before.
This debate is senseless (although good fun) as has been said before, but this was why this forum was started.
Fly safely and, above all, Enjoy!
Cyclic.
There is one very good reason why military pilots on average, as a generalisation, tend to perform better in the many facets of being professional pilots after they leave the military.
A very tough selection process is applied to them regarding academic, medical, psychological, psychometric and physical fitness, as well as intense interviews to establish whether the candidates have military leadership qualities.
All this and more, such as establishing whether the candidate can take discipline during intensive basic "soldier stuff" before he/she is allowed near an aircraft to learn flying skills which are only part of what is required of a serving officer or N.C.O. who must exercise leadership and set a good example.
During the pilot training at taxpayers' expense, each phase of training is allocated a budget of flying hours and if a candidate is struggling with some aspect, a small amount of extra training might be given followed by dismissal from the course for those not making the grade.
Dismissal rates vary, but up to a third of those who start flying training might not complete it. Compare this with civilian trainees who can keep on repeating failed check rides as often as their bank accounts will allow.
I've seen several civilian ex flying instructors fail to make the grade in the demanding offshore all-weather IFR multi-engined helicopter operations, but I've also had the privilege of flying with hundreds of self-funded civilian pilots who would match up to the best the military can produce.
The offshore helicopter operators where I operate have very thorough selection procedures which filter out most of the poor candidates, but in almost 30 years I've seen a very small handful of civilian trainees get through the net only to fail. However I've never seen an ex military pilot fail, while the numbers from both training backgrounds have been similar.
Finally the age-ist 'baloney' spouted at the beginning of this thread is just that. We all get thorough medical and flight checks at regular intervals, also being put through the simulator 'wringer' every 6 months. I'm one of those past 60 already and we older pilots don't fare worse (or better) than the younger ones. I suggest you remember that everyone including you is subject to 'anno domino' and you might also want continuity of career when you reach the same age.
A very tough selection process is applied to them regarding academic, medical, psychological, psychometric and physical fitness, as well as intense interviews to establish whether the candidates have military leadership qualities.
All this and more, such as establishing whether the candidate can take discipline during intensive basic "soldier stuff" before he/she is allowed near an aircraft to learn flying skills which are only part of what is required of a serving officer or N.C.O. who must exercise leadership and set a good example.
During the pilot training at taxpayers' expense, each phase of training is allocated a budget of flying hours and if a candidate is struggling with some aspect, a small amount of extra training might be given followed by dismissal from the course for those not making the grade.
Dismissal rates vary, but up to a third of those who start flying training might not complete it. Compare this with civilian trainees who can keep on repeating failed check rides as often as their bank accounts will allow.
I've seen several civilian ex flying instructors fail to make the grade in the demanding offshore all-weather IFR multi-engined helicopter operations, but I've also had the privilege of flying with hundreds of self-funded civilian pilots who would match up to the best the military can produce.
The offshore helicopter operators where I operate have very thorough selection procedures which filter out most of the poor candidates, but in almost 30 years I've seen a very small handful of civilian trainees get through the net only to fail. However I've never seen an ex military pilot fail, while the numbers from both training backgrounds have been similar.
Finally the age-ist 'baloney' spouted at the beginning of this thread is just that. We all get thorough medical and flight checks at regular intervals, also being put through the simulator 'wringer' every 6 months. I'm one of those past 60 already and we older pilots don't fare worse (or better) than the younger ones. I suggest you remember that everyone including you is subject to 'anno domino' and you might also want continuity of career when you reach the same age.
Last edited by Colibri49; 8th Sep 2010 at 20:01.
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
to establish whether the candidate has military leadership qualities.
Cheers
Whirls
No doubt they are, but they're not a pre-condition to be selected for civilian training. Similarly the physical and psychological criteria aren't remotely as important to get through a self-funded course.
But I wouldn't dream of detracting from the drive and determination which civilian candidates must also exhibit to obtain a professional licence. Only problem is as previously stated i.e. no flight time limit is established to pass each phase of a flying training course.
Now, I'm not going to be drawn further thanks. The differences in selection criteria are self-evident to all but the most blinkered.
But I wouldn't dream of detracting from the drive and determination which civilian candidates must also exhibit to obtain a professional licence. Only problem is as previously stated i.e. no flight time limit is established to pass each phase of a flying training course.
Now, I'm not going to be drawn further thanks. The differences in selection criteria are self-evident to all but the most blinkered.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Colibri ..... apart from your bias ... what about those now 'civi' pilots who may well have been (selectable but) un-able to get into Mil flying .... excluded by the bureaucratic financial or arbitrary selection cutbacks of the day?
There but for the grace of 'whoever' might have gone you!
Colibri ..... apart from your bias ... what about those now 'civi' pilots who may well have been (selectable but) un-able to get into Mil flying .... excluded by the bureaucratic financial or arbitrary selection cutbacks of the day?
There but for the grace of 'whoever' might have gone you!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls, I am exmil and now flying civilian, commercially and am still exempt rule 5. Being exempt a rule is one thing, but some of the threads I have read and commented on regarding the disregarding of this, and other rules, by non military shows a lack of airmanship and disiplin seldom demonstrated within the armed forces of the UK (I cannot speak for others).
Just a objective observation.
Just a objective observation.
Spinwing. There but for the grace of 'whoever' might have gone you!
Absolutely ! Did I forget to mention luck as a factor? Oh dear !
Did I or did I not state that it has been my privilege to fly with civilian trained pilots who are as good as any the military can produce?
All these "red herrings" which you and others might raise don't alter the fact that military pilots are subjected to much more stringent selection criteria and are given a tight quota of flying hours to complete their training.
As I said to Whirls, I'm not going to be drawn further on this matter.
Next critic please.
Absolutely ! Did I forget to mention luck as a factor? Oh dear !
Did I or did I not state that it has been my privilege to fly with civilian trained pilots who are as good as any the military can produce?
All these "red herrings" which you and others might raise don't alter the fact that military pilots are subjected to much more stringent selection criteria and are given a tight quota of flying hours to complete their training.
As I said to Whirls, I'm not going to be drawn further on this matter.
Next critic please.
Last edited by Colibri49; 5th Sep 2010 at 15:40.
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
but some of the threads I have read and commented on regarding the disregarding of this, and other rules, by non military shows a lack of airmanship
I would also suggest that military leadership qualities are, by the very nature of what the military does, quite different from those qualities required in civilian life. Some military personnel would make no better a good man'manager in civilian life than I would make a good military leader in wartime.
Whilst the military may well have a rigorous weeding-out process, a civilian-trained commercial pilot who has probably had to fund the training themselves, will have demonstrated professionalism and good decision-making making in his or her previous career; with the exception of inheritances, how else would they have funded the training?
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls, you miss the point. Breaking rules by making mistakes is one thing, but breaking rules because you think you wont be caught is another thing altogether. I am just saying thet some PPL commentators on this forum, and not military by their own admission, admit to busting rules and are quite proud of this, their reasoning being that they are good enough not to need the rules in the first place. This is not a managerial failing but one of mindset failure, and the military do not, IMHO and experience, have this mindset. CRM and cockpit management has, for more than 20 years that I am aware of, been identified as the most contributing factor to safe and efficient flying. Being a military pilot in an aircraft is not the same as being on a parade square.....one needs to shout a lot more quietly!
Last edited by Fly_For_Fun; 5th Sep 2010 at 14:36. Reason: strange tag
Quote
Other than the training itself, there is very little aptitude screening in civil flying training (unless you're in a sponsored cadetship, which is somewhat like a military system).
That was to be my next point. Because some large helicopter companies (instead of the government) put up the money for pilot training, of course there was close scrutiny of each candidate, a la military selection, to minimise the risk of losing the invesment in each person's training.
The net result was another "filtration" process which historically has provided a large number of very high calibre candidates to become part of the structured and disciplined pilot workforce performing North Sea offshore operations.
Most recently to North Sea operations have come those who found the funding to get trained and "lifted themselves up by their own bootlaces"; no mean feat and perhaps demanding more self-confidence and determination by each individual to go through the processes while incurring heavy debt.
I venture to suggest that many of those who came from the military or sponsored cadetships wouldn't have dared to take on such a financial risk. Certainly I wouldn't !
For this most recent group of applicants the North Sea helicopter operators applied selection criteria retrospectively, similar to those criteria which were applied to candidates for cadetship.
Therefore, at least for the North Sea pilot workforce comprised of groups from differing categories, there has been intensive "filtration" applied to produce a fairly homogeneous pool of pilots, hopefully all subscribing to a common set of operational safety standards.
I never have a sense while flying of an "us and them" attitude relating to military and civilian backgrounds. Our training captains are all civilian trained and equal to, or better than the best military instructors I flew with.
I have no bias at all when considering the competence of my colleagues. It all comes down to individual aptitudes and personalities. I don't consider that my 10 years of military flying makes me a better pilot that my civilian-trained colleagues, most of whom would doubtless have made it through military pilot training.
However I certainly do consider that many other civilian pilots who have been rejected by the North Sea pilot "filtration" and probably many who haven't applied for jobs here, would not have made the grade in military pilot training.
Other than the training itself, there is very little aptitude screening in civil flying training (unless you're in a sponsored cadetship, which is somewhat like a military system).
That was to be my next point. Because some large helicopter companies (instead of the government) put up the money for pilot training, of course there was close scrutiny of each candidate, a la military selection, to minimise the risk of losing the invesment in each person's training.
The net result was another "filtration" process which historically has provided a large number of very high calibre candidates to become part of the structured and disciplined pilot workforce performing North Sea offshore operations.
Most recently to North Sea operations have come those who found the funding to get trained and "lifted themselves up by their own bootlaces"; no mean feat and perhaps demanding more self-confidence and determination by each individual to go through the processes while incurring heavy debt.
I venture to suggest that many of those who came from the military or sponsored cadetships wouldn't have dared to take on such a financial risk. Certainly I wouldn't !
For this most recent group of applicants the North Sea helicopter operators applied selection criteria retrospectively, similar to those criteria which were applied to candidates for cadetship.
Therefore, at least for the North Sea pilot workforce comprised of groups from differing categories, there has been intensive "filtration" applied to produce a fairly homogeneous pool of pilots, hopefully all subscribing to a common set of operational safety standards.
I never have a sense while flying of an "us and them" attitude relating to military and civilian backgrounds. Our training captains are all civilian trained and equal to, or better than the best military instructors I flew with.
I have no bias at all when considering the competence of my colleagues. It all comes down to individual aptitudes and personalities. I don't consider that my 10 years of military flying makes me a better pilot that my civilian-trained colleagues, most of whom would doubtless have made it through military pilot training.
However I certainly do consider that many other civilian pilots who have been rejected by the North Sea pilot "filtration" and probably many who haven't applied for jobs here, would not have made the grade in military pilot training.
Last edited by Colibri49; 5th Sep 2010 at 20:37.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The ones (4 UK, 1 US) I have met are remarkably sound individuals who don't conform to ridiculous Hollywood caricatures. IMHO the training is not the main differentiator, it's selection both at the beginning of and during service.