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/Aircraft_by_Type/CF-18/cf_18_hornet.htm
Here it is......
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.