Thank Christ we do not act in person the way people act on the internet or there would be a hell of a lot of people getting the crap beat out of them.

Once again.

The training the military gives is second to none, however it is focused on killing the enemy and thus both aircraft and pilots are expendable.

And one more time having given advanced flight training to many military pilots they were no different than any other human being, some were born to fly some were not and the ones who were not flew by numbers and SOP's which were put in place to protect those who are not born naturals.

Cat Driver wrote:Thank Christ we do not act in person the way people act on the internet or there would be a hell of a lot of people getting the crap beat out of them.

Once again.

The training the military gives is second to none, however it is focused on killing the enemy and thus both aircraft and pilots are expendable.

And one more time having given advanced flight training to many military pilots they were no different than any other human being, some were born to fly some were not and the ones who were not flew by numbers and SOP's which were put in place to protect those who are not born naturals.

Stating the above is factual.

It's a far cry from other posts hijacking this thread to essentially state a long list everything wrong with RCAF training, and how horrible their pilots are, and they should be trying to deadstick a military aircraft to save it, like it was a 172.

What exactly is the point of that? The magenta line button pushers are superior?

Spot on Cat and Rookie.

Plus, that PM shouldn't have been displayed for everyone to see.

'97 Tercel wrote: Plus, that PM shouldn't have been displayed for everyone to see.

I write under my real name and I behave like I behave in real life. Politely and respectfully.

No one has stated or even implied that military pilots are horrible. The only one who used those words is rookiepilot. I certainly don't seem to recall any slurs similar to "magenta line button pushers" in Gilles' post.

RCAF pilots have crashed on take off, on landing, had CFITs, crashed into the approach lights while landing, stalled and crashed, had mid air collisions, or lost control of and crashed a perfectly airworthy aircraft. Many eject after having a failure that civilan pilots would end with an emergency landing.

The above is also factual. It's all on public record.

Not sure why the truth offends, but it is what it is. Nothing to do with one pilot group being better than another, in fact - that's the entire point. Seems a few missed it.

Oh well. Being offended is the Canadian national pastime, after all (apparently some think it's hockey or some such thing?!)

I must agree with the above post. Timing is everything in life and the OP has perfect timing, things are booming in this business not seen for many many decades.

So run with it, good for you. Be a little more understanding of those who never saw this and busted their balls. And, if he happens to be in the left seat, he is ultimately responsible for safety.

CRM; two way street. It is not who is right, it is what is right.

Phones; I have witnessed this as an old guy, and I have zero problems telling you that it pisses me off when a guy is on his phone while taxying out. But I say nothing, and, guess what, use CRM to perhaps indicate that it is not a good idea while operating a machine as big as a house...................while on the phone................

Cheers all.

Gilles:

You shittin'me?

I mean: "The military trains its pilots to simply eject when things go terribly wrong..."

And: "Many eject after having a failure that civilan pilots would end with an emergency landing. Their SOPs requires the ejection....."

Bollocks.


I punched out after take-off in an F-86 after my main means of propulsion decided to take a holiday.
at 200-300 AGL feet in a seat/chute combo that was almost guaranteed to work if you had a minimum of 90 knots/200 feet/ and no sink rate.

You suggesting I had another option?

One of the problems the military has had over the years is pilots who think like you do... They tended to stay with an aircraft that was doomed until they were out of the ejection envelope. And they paid the price.


BTW, you can't compare apples and oranges. Of course 250 hour F-18 pilots would have trouble fitting into the airline world. Fighter pilots are trained differently from crew-served aircraft - they're not much into CRM. Fighter pilots act unilaterally and decisively - their lives depend upon it. CRM was one of the things that I had to learn when I retired to the safety of civilian flying and crew-served aircraft.


Yes, there are military-trained pilots who can't make the transition to airline flying; there are also airline pilots who would be cannon fodder if they tried to make it in the fighter world. Doesn't mean that either of them is a bad pilot, just not suited for that role.


Yes, all military air forces have their share of accidents; however, considering the envelope in which they operate and the envelope in which airliners operate...

The reaction to Gilles' post is interesting. I don't know much about air force training and flying, but from my view all Gilles did was point out that air force accidents happen and that is perhaps evidence that the 250 hr training model is insufficient. Rather than argue the facts, invective is thrown his way (even if he was wrong about some things).

This "hero-worship" reaction is also found when someone points something about the nature of police fatalities. Some police die heros. Many die being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sadly others die because of their own negligence (like when they're speeding and run into a tree). Their colleagues declare the guy a hero and someone gently points out that may not be the case, the pile on begins.

The truth is, we all try our best at our jobs and we all sometimes fail.

Schooner69A wrote:Gilles:

You shittin'me?

I mean: "The military trains its pilots to simply eject when things go terribly wrong..."

And: "Many eject after having a failure that civilan pilots would end with an emergency landing. Their SOPs requires the ejection....."

Bollocks.


I punched out after take-off in an F-86 after my main means of propulsion decided to take a holiday.
at 200-300 AGL feet in a seat/chute combo that was almost guaranteed to work if you had a minimum of 90 knots/200 feet/ and no sink rate.

You suggesting I had another option?

One of the problems the military has had over the years is pilots who think like you do... They tended to stay with an aircraft that was doomed until they were out of the ejection envelope. And they paid the price.

That's exactly what he said. Your SOP is to eject. Which you did. And which you had to.

Civilian pilots don't have that option. They might have had to make an emergency landing which they might not have survived.

As he said.

If I may I'd like to blow up a couple of myths here:

1. No, military combat pilots are not expendable nor are their jets.

2. No, fighter pilots are not lone wolves who cannot operate in a crew environment. Fighters normally operate in pairs or more, and must do so with a high degree of coordination in extremely dynamic environments. Their survival literally depends on it.

Skyhunter wrote: A guy coming up any cadet route that has made it has just as much right to be proud as any other route. He didn't make "better choices," he (or she) made the right choices for them at the right time. Good on them.

I didn't "come up" either of those routes but respect them both. It isn't about being more humble and saying "OMG I am so lucky and honoured to be here" its just simply having mutual respect for your other pilots. How one gets somewhere is only important to them. Respect how they do their job now. Other than for making conversation in the cockpit I could careless where my FO came from, I care how they do their job now. I have flown with some good pilots from a variety of different background and experience levels. Having a couple thousand hours up north doesn't necessarily make you any better of a pilot. Doesn't necessarily make you worse either, and you aren't any more entitled to the job than the guy out of college cadet route.

I came the military route. We put 250 hour wonders in a Hornet with tons of responsibility, and they do the job quite well, they earned the spot by demonstrating skill as pilot and good learning curve in their previous flying. Experience isn't the be all and end all, there are tons of other factors too.

Lets just respect each other, and nothing wrong with being a little proud of what you accomplished no matter your path on getting there.

I am still trying to figure out what is your point? Why you are offended? Trolling, I suppose? If not, then, how do you feel about the chain of command?

Your last line is a basic summation of my point, so I see you agree with me. Pride is great, right up until the point where it becomes boasting. It's a fine line one should not cross every day.

Seems I failed to word something correctly again so here is the more correct wording.

The training the military gives is second to none, however it is focused on killing the enemy and thus both aircraft and pilots are expendable.

The training the military gives is second to none, however it is focused on killing the enemy and thus " in war " both aircraft and pilots are expendable.

I heard a quote today from an F-16 pilot transitioning from an F-4. In regards to the 2nd engine, the F-16 does have one, it's the rocket engine in the ejection seat.

In simple terms, the military is betting the airframe on the jet engine. They're giving the pilot the chance to escape the airframe.

Comparing military to airline pilots, I'd rather have two CF-18 pilots in the front of a 737 than two 737 pilot in a pair of CF-18s.

"...however it is focused on killing the enemy and thus "in war" both aircraft and pilots are expendable."

Reminds me of the old story about the General asking a fighter pilot: "Son, are you ready to give your life for your country?"

"NO SIR!" was the reply. And the General bristled!

"But", continued the pilot, "I'm certainly ready to assist some enemy pilot give his life for HIS country..."



.'s quite right: it's all sh*ts and giggles 'til someone calls your number...

Wrong again .. Pilots and aircraft are not expendable in war either.

Killing the enemy is also hardly the focus of all military flight training. Not once prior to my wings graduation do I recall a flight lesson with that objective. I was learning to fly. Tactical training comes after a military pilot is checked out to just fly their airplane in the sense civilians are. That's when you learn to use it for its intended purpose.

You would have a hard time arguing as well SAR pilots and transport pilots are trained to kill people with their aircraft.

I'd also like to debunk this myth that military pilots are trained to eject at the first sign of trouble. Believe it or not many military aircraft do not have ejections seats so their pilots are doomed to ride it in just like their civilian counterparts. For pilots who happen to have an ejection seat, they also have in their possession an abnormal and emergency checklist which only in the most dire circumstances recommends ejecting. Nobody wants to eject because it is an extremely risky thing due to the uncontrolled conditions under which an ejection may need to be initiated, the physical trauma of the ejection itself, the landing in potentially life-threatening terrain (possibly at night), and having to survive until rescue afterwards - probably injured.

A controlled ejection is only recommended when the odds of surviving a landing are slim to none, or done uncontrolled with only about 2 seconds of pre-thought because your life is about to end.

That's great but this is Avcanada so I'm pretty sure the people posting on here with ZERO military flying experience know more than you about it.

Shady McSly wrote:That's great but this is Avcanada so I'm pretty sure the people posting on here with ZERO military flying experience know more than you about it.

Or guys who make a living flying bombs and missiles on single seat fighters trying to teach others about good passenger service

AuxBatOn wrote: The result is merely part of the journey. Customer service goes beyond getting people from A to B. There are some expectations on how people should be treated while getting from A to B....

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:

Shady McSly wrote:That's great but this is Avcanada so I'm pretty sure the people posting on here with ZERO military flying experience know more than you about it.

Or guys who make a living flying bombs and missiles on single seat fighters trying to teach others about good passenger service

AuxBatOn wrote: The result is merely part of the journey. Customer service goes beyond getting people from A to B. There are some expectations on how people should be treated while getting from A to B....

You only need to be a customer to recognize lousy customer service.

Rockie wrote: You only need to be a customer to recognize lousy customer service.

You've got a point: I've never been a bomb.

There's a lot of assumptions in this thread.

A smart pilot flies the aircraft the way the boss wants them too.
Some pilots forget who the boss is.