TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Cat Driver »

When I was in the training business I had a mix of airline pilots and military pilots as my clients, I found them to be the same as any other pilot, some were born naturals and some were paint by numbers pilots.

The minimum skills requirement to get a license is set so the lowest common denominator can struggle through the training and pass a ride.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

Received this in a PM
I can't believe you went there in conversation about respect. I won't dignify it with a public response, but you have crossed a line! Some of those losses involved the loss of close personal friends. Doing jobs most civilian pilots could not comprehend.

This was the most asshole and insensitive comment I have ever seen posted on avcanada. I have now lost all respect for anything else you have said here or will post again.

I hope you are happy with yourself.
This gentleman might be correct that some of these crashes involved highly skilled pilots who were tasked with doing perilous things.

But not all. To use the fact that the RCAF puts 250 hour pilots at the controls of a CF-18 is proof that good vetting, training and selection (the washout rate is very high) can replace experience does not hold water. It just compensates.

I agree that the training is excellent and wish the civilian pilots could afford such training, but its not possible.

The RCAF, had its fair share of accidents caused by pilot error, such as CFITs, not while just performing dangerous tactical flights, but on regular fights as well.

Like their civilian counterparts, 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. Their SOPs requires the ejection.....

In fact, the RCAF is unique in the world, that it operates the only front line tactical fighter that was ejected out of, not once but twice by its pilot, repaired, and put back into service after both ejections.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Airc ... hornet.htm

Here it is......

Image

(I heard of a RCAF pilot who had a major failure, made an emergency landing, saved his aircraft, and got very close to being reprimanded for not ejecting.)

So to use the RCAF as an example that putting highly trained and vetted 250 hour pilots at the command of complex aircraft can be done in the civilian life is a bit far fetched. I would not put my family on board an airliner flown by two pilots who had been trained the military way and whose total combined experience did not exceed 1000 hours. The military trains its pilots to simply eject when things go terribly wrong, and this is not an option in civilian aircraft where the pilot must either survive with his passengers or die with them.

That said, I do not claim that the RCAF is worse that other military pilots in other air forces. Not at all. All Air Forces have many crashes because of the nature of their work. They put 250 hour wonders that the controls of large transports and front line fighter pilots because there is just no other way. So they compensate that lack of experience with extreme vetting, extensive and excellent training and a costly selection process with a high washout rate, which to some degree, compensates for lack of experience, but not enough for me to ever accept to put my children in an airliner whose pilots received such a high level training but who lack any real world experience.

So according to the gentleman who sent me the nasty PM, we can study and question the decisions and actions of deceased civilian pilots, but I get hate mail for suggesting that the performance of any RCAF pilot involved in an accident was anything but exemplary.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by rookiepilot »

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:Received this in a PM
I can't believe you went there in conversation about respect. I won't dignify it with a public response, but you have crossed a line! Some of those losses involved the loss of close personal friends. Doing jobs most civilian pilots could not comprehend.

This was the most asshole and insensitive comment I have ever seen posted on avcanada. I have now lost all respect for anything else you have said here or will post again.

I hope you are happy with yourself.
This gentleman might be correct that some of these crashes involved highly skilled pilots who were tasked with doing perilous things.

But not all. To use the fact that the RCAF puts 250 hour pilots at the controls of a CF-18 is proof that good vetting, training and selection (the washout rate is very high) can replace experience does not hold water. It just compensates.

I agree that the training is excellent and wish the civilian pilots could afford such training, but its not possible.

The RCAF, had its fair share of accidents caused by pilot error, such as CFITs, not while just performing dangerous tactical flights, but on regular fights as well.

In fact, the RCAF is unique in the world, that it operates the only front line tactical fighter that was ejected out of, not once but twice by its pilot, repaired, and put back into service after both ejections.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Airc ... hornet.htm

Here it is......

Image

Like their civilian counterparts, 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. Their SOPs requires the ejection.....

(I heard of a RCAF pilot who had such a failure, made an emergency landing, saved his aircraft, and got very close to being reprimanded for not ejecting.)

So to use the RCAF as an example that putting highly trained and vetted 250 hour pilots at the command of complex aircraft can be done in the civilian life is a bit far fetched. I would not put my family on board an airliner flown by two pilots who had been trained the military way and whose total combined experience did not exceed 1000 hours. The military trains its pilots to simply eject when things go terribly wrong, and this is not an option in civilian aircraft where the pilot must either survive with his passengers or die with them.

That said, I do not claim that the RCAF is worse that other military pilots in other air forces. Not at all. All Air Forces have many crashes because of the nature of their work. They put 250 hour wonders that the controls of large transports and front line fighter pilots because there is just no other way. So they compensate that lack of experience with extreme vetting, extensive and excellent training and a costly selection process with a high washout rate, which to some degree, compensates for lack of experience, but not enough for me to ever accept to put my children in an airliner whose pilots received such a high level training but who lack any real world experience.

So we can study and question the decisions and actions of deceased civilian pilots, but I get hate mail for suggesting that the performance of any RCAF pilot involved in an accident was anything but exemplary.
I agree with the PM. Frankly, Gilles...... you're out of line for hijacking this thread for your own agenda, and using it to piss on the military. Too many love to do that.

This thread is nothing to do with examining the RCAF, nor are most of us qualified to do so.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2132
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by complexintentions »

WTF are you talking about.

Gilles' post was one of the most articulate, rational statements on the pros and cons of excellent training versus operational experience I've read. Backed up conclusively with facts, not rhetoric. I fail to see a single personal attack or emotional argument.

I cannot say the same about angry PM's and phrases like "pissing on".
To use the fact that the RCAF puts 250 hour pilots at the controls of a CF-18 is proof that good vetting, training and selection (the washout rate is very high) can replace experience does not hold water. It just compensates.
Very, very well expressed. As did Cat:
When I was in the training business I had a mix of airline pilots and military pilots as my clients, I found them to be the same as any other pilot, some were born naturals and some were paint by numbers pilots.
Pointing out that the RCAF has the same issues with low-experience pilots as the civilian world isn't an attack, it's just reality. I've lost friends and colleagues from both worlds in accidents, it's tragic but I don't get all offended every time the errors that were made are pointed out.

I guess we all have our sacred cows, but I thought placing one's military above all reproach was more of an American thing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
digits_
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3008
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by digits_ »

rookiepilot wrote:
I agree with the PM. Frankly, Gilles...... you're out of line for hijacking this thread for your own agenda, and using it to piss on the military. Too many love to do that.

This thread is nothing to do with examining the RCAF, nor are most of us qualified to do so.
Linking to 2 wikipedia articles with verified information is hijacking a thread now? To use some abbreviations again: WTF?

Nice example of "Pilots hating on Pilots" :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Cat Driver »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by rookiepilot »

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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by '97 Tercel »

Spot on Cat and Rookie.

Plus, that PM shouldn't have been displayed for everyone to see.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Gilles Hudicourt »

'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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2132
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by complexintentions »

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?!)
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by confusedalot »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Schooner69A »

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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3215
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Bede »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3008
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by digits_ »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Rockie »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mach1
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Mach1 »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Cat Driver »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1855
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by goingnowherefast »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Schooner69A »

"...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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8082
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: TSC- Pilots hating on Pilots

Post by Rockie »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”