commercial pilot shortage coming?

[Recovering LSO]

high profile accident that had little to do with the co pilots total time and a lot to do with the training of the captain and the trainers and mangers at Colgan that let him slip through.

In the Colgan mishap the weather sucked and procedures and known techniques were not followed. How many hours does it take to know the weather was bad, and the approach wasn't being flown accurately or procedure knew were not being followed? The co-pilot had all the experience she needed to know those things. She lacked judgment and assertiveness. The Captain was even more handicapped. In any case, it had nothing to do with hours. It is about judgment. Whether military or civilian, some guys some times make a bad judgment call. That is when safety is compromised. Not when a 1800 hour civilian sourced pilot steps onto the flight deck.

The co-pilot had little to do with the mishap, but at the same time you ask how many hours does it take to know the weather was bad, or that the approach and procedures weren't being flown properly... I guess the answer is, more..?.. Enough so that the CVRS doesn't pick up the co-pilot saying she's never flown in weather like that (really! you're operating an aircraft in the upper upper midwest in the winter and are unfamiliar with poor weather techniques and procedures - to the point that you can not correct a flailing/failing captain...?).

I stand by my point that 1800 hours of mil time (particularly single piloted time around a ship - I know, I know - the blasphemy) demonstrates greater skill, greater decision making skill, greater flexibility, and greater judgement than just about anything walking away from an FBO.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

I have to agree here that mil time is much more valuable than flying the straight and level for a million hours. Yes, there is good training to be had in civilian world, and there are great pilots who have never strapped on a grey aircraft, however I'm with Rec LSO that I personally put more confidence in a military trained guy. The stick and rudder skills are definetly not the argument in this. It is the judgement, assertiveness and ability to funciton under the "I have the rest of my life to figure this out" realization. Almost every pilot who has taken off or landed on a ship has a story of a day / night / incident where they realized there was only one person who was going to save their bacon and had a healthy fear of disaster. It is operating in that environment well that makes a good pilot. I don't have any personal experience with the airline world, but I'm venturing to guess that the level of focus / judgement / compartmentalization and handling of a "full bucket in the cockpit" is much higher for a military pilot. I look at the Colgan accident and the Air France incident and shudder at the fact that two perfectly airworthy aircraft were flown into the ground killing everyone on board.

The more I know about commercial pilot minimums and who is in the cockpit makes me start to think I would rather fly a night trap in 200 and 1/2 in a Prowler than ride in the back of the Delta Shuttle to Baltimore.

 

[gparks1989]

The co-pilot had little to do with the mishap, but at the same time you ask how many hours does it take to know the weather was bad, or that the approach and procedures weren't being flown properly... I guess the answer is, more..?.. Enough so that the CVRS doesn't pick up the co-pilot saying she's never flown in weather like that (really! you're operating an aircraft in the upper upper midwest in the winter and are unfamiliar with poor weather techniques and procedures - to the point that you can not correct a flailing/failing captain...?).

I stand by my point that 1800 hours of mil time (particularly single piloted time around a ship - I know, I know - the blasphemy) demonstrates greater skill, greater decision making skill, greater flexibility, and greater judgement than just about anything walking away from an FBO.

What do you think of someone with a few thousand hours whose spent most of his/her career flying part 135 cargo single-pilot ops, no autopilot, IMC, old planes, etc. etc.? Not argumentative, just curious.

 

[MasterBates]

Add in landing on a boat, and you might get close.

 

[wink]

You are not going to get this tacair NFO to argue that Navy tacair pilots have not honed a certain pilot skill to near perfection. But honestly, until airlines are landing airliners on a CV (I have landed a MD-80 on the boat in the sim, it will do it), it is a skill set not needed. May as well argue that I want an airline pilot that is an accomplished glider pilot in case he runs out of fuel. At least in that case, we have two actual mishaps where glider flying proved valuable experience for the pilot. If anyone's comfort level with an airline pilot is based on whether or not he was a military pilot, let alone Navy, you might want to validate that with mishap pilot statistics.

I wouldn't use the Colgan pilot's comment that she had never seen ice before like she was witnessing that evening as an indictmentof her experience level leaving her unprepared. Very few military guys, especially tacair guys, would have seen ice like that in their two fleet tours. Does that make them too inexperienced to fly a twin turbo prop commuter in the northeast? I think we can agree that judgment is vital to safe aviating We must also agree that even military guys have lapses in judgment that compromise the safety of their flights. If I had a choice between two guys with equal hours I would rather a civilian trained guy with superior judgment over a military guy with spotty judgment and a cavalier attitude flying my family.

 

[phrogdriver]

May I submit that a bunch of military pilots answering the question,"Is military flight experience important?" is like having a bunch of monkeys discuss the merits of throwing poo. Of course they're going to be pro-shit throwing. Actually, both those groups are likely in favor of that, now that I think of it.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I will not deny the value of military training or that military pilots have proven that they are probably more trainable in a larger variety of situations. I will say I've seen the same good judgment from civilian pilots as I have from military pilots, and the same bad judgment from both.

But military flying =/= civilian flying. Two different missions and two different mindsets. Ex-military guys always seem to get in trouble when they try and prove you can do a FCLP with an airliner or try and prove how maneuverable it is. If you can fly solid instruments/approaches, can handle V1 cuts and have a normal amount of common sense - you can make it as an airline pilot. The problem is that a fair number of military guys coming to the airlines have mediocre instrument experience or skills - which is the bread and butter of airline flying.

I don't have a problem with a low-time pilot that has had the proper training. At the majors, this isn't a problem. At the regionals (i.e. Colgan) it is. Canned scenarios in a simulator are easy to pass especially after multiple sessions doing the same scanrios over and over again. This is where the military pilot has the edge, his military experience in a multitude of situations/missions enhances the training he recieves at the airline.

However like phrogdriver implied, this thread is a self-licking ice cream cone.

 

[Catmando]

I will not deny the value of military training or that military pilots have proven that they are probably more trainable in a larger variety of situations. I will say I've seen the same good judgment from civilian pilots as I have from military pilots, and the same bad judgment from both.

But military flying =/= civilian flying. Two different missions and two different mindsets. Ex-military guys always seem to get in trouble when they try and prove you can do a FCLP with an airliner or try and prove how maneuverable it is. If you can fly solid instruments/approaches, can handle V1 cuts and have a normal amount of common sense - you can make it as an airline pilot. The problem is that a fair number of military guys coming to the airlines have mediocre instrument experience or skills - which is the bread and butter of airline flying.

I don't have a problem with a low-time pilot that has had the proper training. At the majors, this isn't a problem. At the regionals (i.e. Colgan) it is. Canned scenarios in a simulator are easy to pass especially after multiple sessions doing the same scanrios over and over again. This is where the military pilot has the edge, his military experience in a multitude of situations/missions enhances the training he recieves at the airline.

However like phrogdriver implied, this thread is a self-licking ice cream cone.

HAL Pilot nails it! "Military flying =/= civilian flying."

I should have been alerted when as a new hire at CAL, when a former Blue Angel busted his upgrade from FE to F/O, 2 or 3 times. They almost fired him because they thought he 'could not fly'.

From my experience, even though I was concurrently flying F-14s in the Reserves, my B-737 major airline IOE instructor pilot doubted my flying experience, I was so bad. Never mind the V-1 cut NATOPS procedures for the F-14 would crash a B-737...as I found out in the sim more times than I care to remember.

Airline flying is totally different, and it takes some adjustment. It took me awhile, but I got it, finally. And later, I became an expert. But that did not happen overnight, despite even my sterling Naval Aviator, TOPGUN, and Boat experience.

I saw similar things with new F/Os, the former military guys making mistakes the ragged and younger commuter pilot would never make. But as one might expect, with some experience, the former military guys eventually excelled, not only in piloting skills, but also in command skills, company skills, union skills, people skills, CRM skills, PR, etc. Many civilian guys excelled too, but not nearly as well or as often as former Naval Aviators. Naval Aviators were not screened, nor accepted nor winged as Naval Aviators for nothing. And when they change jobs, just expect some adjustment before they shine again.

 

[Recovering LSO]

This.

But as one might expect, with some experience, the former military guys eventually excelled, not only in piloting skills, but also in command skills, company skills, union skills, people skills, CRM skills, PR, etc. Many civilian guys excelled too, but not nearly as well or as often as former Naval Aviators. Naval Aviators were not screened, nor accepted nor winged as Naval Aviators for nothing. And when they change jobs, just expect some adjustment before they shine again.

I stand by my point that 1800 hours of mil time (particularly single piloted time around a ship - I know, I know - the blasphemy) demonstrates greater decision making skill, greater flexibility, and greater judgement than just about anything walking away from an FBO.

 

[KBayDog]

But as one might expect, with some experience, the former military guys eventually excelled, not only in piloting skills, but also in...union skills...

Cat - the rest of your list makes perfect sense, but could you please elaborate on this one?

 

[scoober78]

HAL Pilot nails it! "Military flying =/= civilian flying."

From my experience, even though I was concurrently flying F-14s in the Reserves, my B-737 major airline IOE instructor pilot doubted my flying experience, I was so bad. Never mind the V-1 cut NATOPS procedures for the F-14 would crash a B-737...as I found out in the sim more times than I care to remember.

Airline flying is totally different, and it takes some adjustment.

This is, almost verbatim, how I would describe my experience transitioning from the Big Wing P-3 world to the training wheels Tac-Air world...

Part of experience is knowing when something is totally new and different and knowing that you're going to suck at it for a while...It's been a great lesson for me.

 

[Fallonflyr]

Cat - the rest of your list makes perfect sense, but could you please elaborate on this one?

The union is like a military organization, manned by mostly former military guys. When you work for an airline, the corporation is the enemy. Contract negotiations become your new war.

 

[wink]

But as one might expect, with some experience, the former military guys eventually excelled, not only in piloting skills, but also in command skills, company skills, union skills, people skills, CRM skills, PR, etc. Many civilian guys excelled too, but not nearly as well or as often as former Naval Aviators. Naval Aviators were not screened, nor accepted nor winged as Naval Aviators for nothing. And when they change jobs, just expect some adjustment before they shine again.

Totally agree. I think all but one of the Company Chief Pilots ( a VP posting) I have had over the last 20 years at what was once (alas) the biggest airline in the world was a military guy. The very best, in my estimation, was a Navy VF alum. I think all of the chief pilots at my crew base have been military, including a VS guy who was a RAG classmate. As Cat said, somewhat true for our union, including some guys that worked either before or after in the chief pilot's office. That may seem odd as Kbay's question suggests. One has to wonder how a bunch of generally conservative independent minded individuals with management experience, who eat and and breath personal responsibility and merit, would end up as baseball bat wielding union thugs working for a COLLECTIVE. Fallonflyr's answer is not completely satisfying.

 

[Catmando]

Cat - the rest of your list makes perfect sense, but could you please elaborate on this one?

Sure. Former military pilots transitioning to commercial airlines are not as a group know to be, "pro-union." But that changes rapidly. Not only do they mostly become favorable to their pilot's union, but also they often become intimately involved in their pilots' union organization and activity.

Be it at the local or national level, pilots "associations" (unions) are a complex and multi faceted organizations. To function adequately, they require a diverse and multitude of skills for success – negotiatiating, scheduling, health & insurance, administration, incident investigation, finance, budgeting, public relations, flight operations, safety, etc.

Because of their normally more extensive education and organizational experience in addition to their flying skills, former military officers are an excellent match for union work. And many - often to their own surprise - not only seek it out, but they also enjoy it. And they are very good at it!

It can be quite a thrill to negotiate a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or to represent a fellow pilot who is seriously in need. In most all cases you work for the common good and betterment of both the airline and the pilot you represent. And in those more rare but very difficult situations, you need a trained warrior who possesses the skill and integrity to do battle with a devious or intransigent, bean counting management.

Anecdote: My early flight instructor in the RAG later became the Air Line Pilot Association's (ALPA) Chairman at his airline. Later he became Executive VP for the international union. We met at the Washington DC ALPA headquarters years later, swapping old sea stories. We also celebrated his promotion to Rear Admiral in the Naval Reserve!

 

[ProwlerPilot]

How does the union handle bad pilots? They are everywhere and after a discussion with a union pilot recently, I was surprised to hear how a union of pilots will end up protecting a unsafe or bad pilut because of the union itself. Have any of you in "the show" had any experience with this. Seems to me it would be pretty hard to swallow protecting a guy I'm afraid to fly with just because we hate the corporate bean counter.