Civilian vs. Military Training

Civilian vs Military Training

  • Military training is better

    Votes: 35 72.9%

  • Civilian training is better

    Votes: 5 10.4%

  • No real difference

    Votes: 8 16.7%
  • Total voters
    48
L

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
Well guys I know we have pilots from varied backgrounds and types of training on this forum so I thought I would throw this topic out there. In your opinion what type of training atmosphere will generally make the better pilot? Will it be the military environment with perhaps more structure and danger? Or is it the civilian training structure which nonetheless has good quality? Do you guys see a difference between the two types of pilots?
 
The odds of getting a high-quality professional pilot are a lot better with military training, because:

  • There is a much tighter pre-selection process,
  • They wash out anyone who doesn't progress according to plan,
  • They have a very regimented, procedures-oriented style of flight training, and
  • There is a lot of oversight of new instructors and a lot of quality control checks of both trainees and the training process.
That said, you can get the same quality out of a civilian program that is designed and operated to accomplish the same end goals. It's just that in civilian training, there are no guarantees you're going to get the same quality of training, or that the trainees accepted will have the requisite adaptability to aviation.

So, it's not that all military-trained pilots are necessarily better than all civilian-trained pilots, it's just it's more likely the result will be a professional product. In that regard, if you're making blanket statements about all military flight training versus all civilian flight training, I'd have to say the military flight training is better -- but it sure ain't for everyone, and there are a lot of folks who'd never get into military flight training no less complete it who can become perfectly good pilots in a good civilian flight training program.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The odds of getting a high-quality professional pilot are a lot better with military training, because:
There is a much tighter pre-selection process and because they aren't afraid to
Click to expand...

And the CFI is not sucking money out by the hour. If you dont make the grade in the military you flunk out. In the civilian world the CFI keeps banging out hours.
 
Last edited:
Don't want to diss the civilian instructors,but they do not all teach to the same standards. A good number of CFIs are just building time for the big job. If you are lucky enough to get a professional flight instructor then I would say the training could be as good.
 
Money. To this day, I couldn't pay for the fuel I used, much less the maintenance. And the airplanes. Until I got out of the AF I never flew anything with less than 800HP.
 
Are we just talking flight school or the training that takes place throughout a military pilot's career? Pretty much what Ron said above but I'll add some things on the rotorywing side of the house. I voted military for the following reasons:

1. In the military flight school you've got almost an unlimited budget so you're getting a bunch of turbine hours compared to some guy with R22 time. Since most high paying commercial ops require 500 hrs turbine, it would be a no brainer on who to hire.

2. Wider range on what's required to know in the military. I've found in part 135 ops there isn't much of a distinction. In the military you have to have limits and EPs down cold. My Part 135 ride is an hour oral and an hour flight. In the Army I did two separate flights and two separate orals. One was for NVG/tactics and one was for IFR.

3. Constant training in the military. Instructors and pilots conducting classes daily. No notice evals all the time. There is a competition involved with pilots and they know if they don't hack it they'll soon find someone who will. In Part 135 we do one online class per month that takes all of 15 mins to do. I will say they are excellent online classes though.

4. Way more detailed performance planning in the military. You're not looking at some charts prior to departure, you have a Performance Planning Card that details everything you need to know. Why civilian rotorywing hasn't gotten onboard with this i'll never know.

5. Training is generally more varied in the military. The training isn't just a qual either, it's something that done in the real world with real pax on board. Example: high altitude mountain ops, over water training, NVGs, dust / snow formation landings (always fun with NVGs...not), real world IMC cross country's. Sling loads. Pinnacles. Slopes.

Having said all that, if the training doesn't apply to a civilian application it's not much of importance. For example, I've read about pilots bragging about the type of flying done in combat. Well that's fine if you're applying for one of the many contract jobs in theater but has little to do with flying tours, oil & gas, VIP, news gathering, etc. back in the States.

Occasionally we have problems in HEMS with former military who can't adjust to a single pilot helicopter. They were used to sharing cockpit duties dual pilot and now they're forced into doing everything on their own. A big part of that is in HEMS your planning is pretty much non existent. No flight plan and no route on a map. The phone rings and you go. Some guys are used to hours of planning and just can't hop in an aircraft with little notice. Another slight advantage for civilian trained is regs. The military guys have so many regs jumbled in their heads that they have to try and dump a lot of the military stuff because it no longer applies. Civilian guys from the get go start out studying regs that will always apply to them.

Plenty of good programs out there like Embry Riddle and UND but if I think 2 yrs of military flight school edge them out slightly. The OJT that occurs after helps as well.
 
Last edited:
Military flight training is good for military operations, just as civilian training is good for civilian operations. Some people can make the transition either way and then again, some can't.

In airline operations some of the ex-military types have a rough time acclimating to civilian operations and not flying "missions". Also the single pilot type military guys have a difficult time operating in a crew concept flight deck.

Each side of the house has their advantages and disadvantages.
 
Military training is better because it free. Since I flown with military pilots I'd say their skill vary.
 
Ron Levy said:
The odds of getting a high-quality professional pilot are a lot better with military training, because:

  • There is a much tighter pre-selection process,
  • They wash out anyone who doesn't progress according to plan,
  • They have a very regimented, procedures-oriented style of flight training, and
  • There is a lot of oversight of new instructors and a lot of quality control checks of both trainees and the training process.
That said, you can get the same quality out of a civilian program that is designed and operated to accomplish the same end goals. It's just that in civilian training, there are no guarantees you're going to get the same quality of training, or that the trainees accepted will have the requisite adaptability to aviation.

So, it's not that all military-trained pilots are necessarily better than all civilian-trained pilots, it's just it's more likely the result will be a professional product. In that regard, if you're making blanket statements about all military flight training versus all civilian flight training, I'd have to say the military flight training is better -- but it sure ain't for everyone, and there are a lot of folks who'd never get into military flight training no less complete it who can become perfectly good pilots in a good civilian flight training program.
Click to expand...
There is certainly truth to that, but military aviation produces it's share of rocks. There are pilots out there with Day-VFR only HAC letters.
 
Pros and cons to both, but after getting an instrument rating in the civilian world, and then getting my military equivalent with the Navy, I felt 100 times more confident flying in IMC after military training, to the point where I wonder why they even let me have an instrument rating as a civilian! (Not to speak for all instrument rated folks out there, but for me personally!)
 
Having never experienced civilian training I may be speaking from ignorance, but logic tells me the military trains the most qualified people they can find to the highest standards possible with a nearly limitless budget keeping in mind they will operate their machines to the edge of the performance envelope in extremely challenging environments. Civilian training trains anyone who can pass a physical and has enough money for as long as they need to meet a minimum standard. You decide.
 
Velocity173 said:
....
3. Constant training. Instructors and pilots conducting classes daily. >>>>No notice evals all the time. .<<<<
Click to expand...

Those!


if the training doesn't apply to a civilian application it's not much of importance.

Very True! This goes back to the 'beginner's mind' theory. If you join the military you need to push your civil experience into the back of your mind so there will be room to learn the military way of doing things.

The reverse is just as true. Even if you were Thunderbird Lead in the Air Force, and you take a retirement job as CFI at the local cow pasture strip, you need to push that Thunderbird time to the back of your mind so there will be room to learn the civil way of doing things.
 
In the end, I see little difference at my airline.

I will admit my bias: I'm civilian trained. I work at an airline that primarily hired retired military pilots that were considered too old for the majors.

The military trained pilots think they are better. It's a byproduct of their training.

Most military pilots are amazed that civilian pilots can even fly. Few understand the hurdles that a civilian trained airline pilot has gone through.

Civilian pilots get vetted just like military pilots, but in a different way. My training at my airline was the same as the military trained pilots. We must have all passed. Most civilian pilots have had multiple jobs with multiple jeopardy training milestones.

Airlines still love military pilots. In the end, it only matters what the HR department favors.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
In the end, I see little difference at my airline.

I will admit my bias: I'm civilian trained. I work at an airline that primarily hired retired military pilots that were considered too old for the majors.

The military trained pilots think they are better. It's a byproduct of their training.

Most military pilots are amazed that civilian pilots can even fly. Few understand the hurdles that a civilian trained airline pilot has gone through.

Civilian pilots get vetted just like military pilots, but in a different way. My training at my airline was the same as the military trained pilots. We must have all passed. Most civilian pilots have had multiple jobs with multiple jeopardy training milestones.

Airlines still love military pilots. In the end, it only matters what the HR department favors.
Click to expand...

You must be flying with a bunch of tools. And I'm impressed that you have met enough military pilots to assert that "Most military pilots are amazed that civilian pilots can even fly." And I didn't know that of all civilian pilots who apply for training 90% are rejected, which is the percentage for Naval aviators.

No need to be so defensive, but you should realize that airline flying is merely transport aviation. The skill level required does not begin to approach the demands of other operational types of military flying.
 
I was trained by the navy, but stopped flying for 20 years and got back into it 18 months ago. Just passed my IPC. There were two civiian instructors who guided, encouraged and mentored me - they were recently picked up by a regional airline (which is what they really wanted to do). They were firm with me, but very supportive, I respect both of them as pilots and won't forget how they reconnected me with something I didn't realize how much I missed. So I appreciate both sides of the equation.
 
I'd say it depends on the person.

I got my PPL and IR with an ex-Air Force fighter pilot. I appreciated getting the **** kicked out of me when I deviated more than two degrees or 50 feet. It is what I expect from my students.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
No need to be so defensive, but you should realize that airline flying is merely transport aviation. The skill level required does not begin to approach the demands of other operational types of military flying.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, "merely" transport. :rolleyes2:

We are speaking two different worlds with 2 different skill sets. One is not superior to the other, they are different.

A retired Airline Capt who is now VP of Operations for an airline put it in a good way. He said "military pilots are trained to fly into hazardous conditions, perform a mission and then fly their way out." "As airline pilots we are trained to stay out of hazardous conditions and if encountered, find a safe way out".
 
If you think that military training is a great deal more structured, boy, are you wrong.

I've experienced part 61, 141, and military training.

I'd say that the "structure" of military training is similar to a 141 program; there is a strict sequence of events that have to occur and certain standards have to be met to proceed to the next block.

The motivation level is more of a part 61 mentality, at least in the Navy / Marine Corps. No one tells you to study, no one cares how you utilize your time. You're expected to know what you have to know and if you can't do it on your own then you wont make it through.

The Air Force is different. The horror stories I've heard from friends that went through Vance are appalling. Stand up EP sessions, being FORCED to be in squadron facilities for the work day... disgusting...

The military does a wide range of flying... civilians don't do A/A or A/G, have any practical use for form flying, in flight refuel, land on aircraft carriers, etc.... but neither does every pilot in the military. Every military pilot can take off from point A and land at point B, how many civilians are proficient in the above skill sets?

If you want to try to make a comparison then compare missions that are similar, perhaps military transport vs the airlines. You'll still find that the military does more, i.e. even KC-130 guys use NVGs.

In summary: structurally, not too much of a difference. Which is more demanding? The military, without a doubt. The learning curve is definitely MUCH steeper in the military (guys go to the boat with as little as 150 hours TOTAL time, what are you doing with 150 hours TT in civilian land?), and the military trains to more extensive skill sets.

If you want to compare what a 1,000 hour fighter or attack pilot, fixed or rotary wing, is capable of to any civilian pilot then sorry, but there is zero comparison.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the main differences are the military washes out people who can't perform, civilian only washes out people who can't afford it anymore. The military also teaches energy management and the edges of the envelopes, civilian teaches you to stay away from the edges of the envelope.
 
Ron Levy said:
The odds of getting a high-quality professional pilot are a lot better with military training, because:

  • There is a much tighter pre-selection process,
  • They wash out anyone who doesn't progress according to plan,
  • They have a very regimented, procedures-oriented style of flight training, and
  • There is a lot of oversight of new instructors and a lot of quality control checks of both trainees and the training process.
That said, you can get the same quality out of a civilian program that is designed and operated to accomplish the same end goals. It's just that in civilian training, there are no guarantees you're going to get the same quality of training, or that the trainees accepted will have the requisite adaptability to aviation.

So, it's not that all military-trained pilots are necessarily better than all civilian-trained pilots, it's just it's more likely the result will be a professional product. In that regard, if you're making blanket statements about all military flight training versus all civilian flight training, I'd have to say the military flight training is better -- but it sure ain't for everyone, and there are a lot of folks who'd never get into military flight training no less complete it who can become perfectly good pilots in a good civilian flight training program.
Click to expand...

Plus 1
 
jonnyjetprop said:
In the end, I see little difference at my airline.
Click to expand...
I suspect that in your position, you're seeing only the upper left-hand corner of the big picture of civilian pilots. Fly with a broad cross-section of them, including the 100-hour PP's flying 172's, and the 400-hour PP-IR's flying Bonanzas and the like, and you might see some huge differences.
 
Thanks for the good input and discussion gents. This has so far satisfied my curiosity regarding the two training avenues. Further curiosity I have has to do with the instructors in the military. Would you say the actual instructors themselves are better in quality?
 
LJS1993 said:
Thanks for the good input and discussion gents. This has so far satisfied my curiosity regarding the two training avenues. Further curiosity I have has to do with the instructors in the military. Would you say the actual instructors themselves are better in quality?
Click to expand...

The quality of an instructor is dependent on the individual and whether or not he/she enjoys instructing and is motivated to teach. Just like in the civilian world, you get very good instructors and not so good ones. For some it's an unwanted assignment which gives them an excuse to cop an attitude when they feel they should be flying an F-22 instead of a trainer. Being proficient at flying an aircraft does not necessarily translate into making for a good instructor.
 
At my airline I fly with all types, from soloed in a Cub types to military fighter jocks. The talent level universally is high. My preference of the military vs. civilian has much more to do with personality than with background.

If one were to compare a 300hr commercial, instrument, multi-eng, CFI civilian-trained pilot with a similarly experienced military type, the most obvious difference would be in the hardware they have flown. Both are still babes in the woods. Does more sophisticated hardware always result in a better pilot? I've met extremely confident King Air pilots who I doubt would last 3 times around the patch in a Luscombe. Naval Aviators land aboard ship. Civilian Aviators land on sand bars in C-185s. Military pilots get training in aerobatics. Civilian pilots compete in aerobatic contests (and win).
 
LJS1993 said:
Thanks for the good input and discussion gents. This has so far satisfied my curiosity regarding the two training avenues. Further curiosity I have has to do with the instructors in the military. Would you say the actual instructors themselves are better in quality?
Click to expand...

Hard to compare quality of instructors between the two. In the Army you go through a formalized 6 week course. The Fundamentals of Instructing (FOI) that they use is almost word for word out of the FAA's instructor handbook. Because of the similarities in instructing the FAA authorized us a few years ago to get our CFIs by just taking the written.

You have to realize also that the military just isn't using military instructors. In the Army they have like two different contractors (LSI, S3), Department of the Army Civilians, and Army Warrant Officers instructing. Wide range of skills and hours there. Also unlike other services the Army doesn't retain honor grads from flight school to stay on instructing. Instructors in the Army have been selected based on experience and that experience includes thousands of hours and multiple deployments.

Getting back to what 3 Finger said in the differences in military vs civilian. You're not just instructing in transporting an aircraft from A to B. As an instructor you are teaching a weapon system and how it interacts with other weapon systems. That type of training alone consumes as much time as the basic of flying your aircraft in the NAS. Unfortunately there's as much nonessential military crap (additional duties) to learn outside of the cockpit as there is inside.

You could look at it this way, taking a military aircraft out on an IFR cross country for the "$10,000 hamburger" is basic low stress, easy planning for military aviators. Taking your aircraft out for an NVG multiship air assault during a combined arms excercise requires extensive planning, briefing, and it's flying in extremely unforgiving environment. I've never been nervous flying IFR from A to B in the military. It's a relatively benign, controlled environment. Flying the tactical side in the military, I've had several instances where I wasn't sure I was going to make it out in one piece. Not only is that type of flying demanding, there are so many "players" involved that any one of them can ruin your day.

So basically in the military you have all the requirements that a civilian pilot has but with the additional tactical training. I think that in itself makes for slightly better pilots but like I said, it has little value in transferring to the civilian side. In my current job I fly my aircraft from hospital pad to hospital pad. While I've had experiences outside of this type of flying, a civilian trained pilot with equal hours is just as qualified as I am.
 
Last edited:
RE: the deadly ( needless)accident in Clarence n.y. Which killed a lot of people. I do not think the pilot or the copilot would have made it thru military training. The military screens for clutch city and try's to weed out the bumbles and even then they probably miss a few. I have been good friends with several ex military pilots who flew for the airlines and they all had many many accident free hours flying in all kinds of crap. Overall...I repeat overall ,I think Military trained pilots are better equipped to either military or civilian flying. The pilots I flew with in the military were very sharp. I was enlisted and learned to fly in an aero club. The instructor was just back from combat, very very sharp and not officious. We had FUN! I think the ability to perform under very demanding conditions would go to the military pilot.
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
Thanks for the good input and discussion gents. This has so far satisfied my curiosity regarding the two training avenues. Further curiosity I have has to do with the instructors in the military. Would you say the actual instructors themselves are better in quality?
Click to expand...
Hard to say as an overall statement, but poor instructors do not last long in the military due to the more consistent oversight by senior instructors and unit leadership. In that regard, substandard instructors are fairly rapidly weeded out of military flight training operations, while they may continue for decades in the civilian training world, especially in situations with little or no oversight.
 
Velocity173 said:
Hard to determine quality of instructors. In the Army you go through a formalized 6 week course. The Fundamentals of Instructing (FOI) that they use is almost word for word out of the FAA's instructor handbook. Because of the similarities in instructing the FAA authorized us a few years ago to get our CFIs by just taking the written.

You have to realize also that the military just isn't using military instructors. In the Army they have like two different contractors (LSI, S3), Department of the Army Civilians, and Army Warrant Officers instructing. Wide range of skills and hours there. Also unlike other services the Army doesn't retain honor grads from flight school to stay on instructing. Instructors in the Army have been selected based on experience and that experience includes thousands of hours and multiple deployments.

Getting back to what 3 Finger said in the differences in military vs civilian. You're not just instructing in transporting an aircraft from A to B. As an instructor you are teaching a weapon system and how it interacts with other weapon systems. That type of training alone consumes as much time as the basic of flying your aircraft in the NAS. Unfortunately there's as much nonessential military crap to learn outside of the cockpit as there is inside.

You could look at it this way, taking a military aircraft out on an IFR cross country for the "$10,000 hamburger" is basic low stress, easy planning for military aviators. Taking your aircraft out for an NVG multiship air assault during a combined arms excercise requires extensive planning, briefing, and it's flying in extremely unforgiving environment. I've never been nervous flying IFR from A to B in the military. It's a relatively benign, controlled environment. Flying the tactical side in the military, I've had several instances where I wasn't sure I was going to make it out in one piece. Not only is that type of flying demanding, there are so many "players" involved that any one of them can ruin your day.

So basically in the military you have all the requirements that a civilian pilot has but with the additional tactical training. I think that in itself makes for slightly better pilots but like I said, it has little value in transferring to the civilian side. In my current job I fly my aircraft from hospital pad to hospital pad. While I've had experiences outside of this type of flying, a civilian trained pilot with equal hours is just as qualified as I am.
Click to expand...

You know what though is that guy truly just as qualified? I say that because those crazy conditions you worked under in the military had to have given you some sort of mental resolve that the civilian sector trained pilots may not have. I could be wrong but just a thought.
 
Very true.


Ron Levy said:
I suspect that in your position, you're seeing only the upper left-hand corner of the big picture of civilian pilots. Fly with a broad cross-section of them, including the 100-hour PP's flying 172's, and the 400-hour PP-IR's flying Bonanzas and the like, and you might see some huge differences.
Click to expand...
 
Here are two I knew......one was navy trained, carrier qual. Went on to fly PV2 Neptunes out of Brunswick Maine to Iceland, flying low day and night to harass Russian subs. Got out, flew for eastern for 33 years, started in super Connie's right seat, finished in Lockeed 1011's as captain. 2. Degree in aeronautical engineering, flew as fighter instructor then transferred to U2 training at Beale. Flew many hours in U2 "everywhere" as he puts it. Retired as Lt. Col. Now flys left seat for a major airline. The third one I don't know but he did real good, Capt. Sullenberger. When I was in, the accidents we had, usually fatal ,were in B47's and KC 97's our base had two horrific accidents. A B-47 simply blew up in the air shortly after takeoff killing everyone.(3) Then a KC97 , threw a prop blade, came thru the airplane, decompression, went into a flat spin from altitude, killed everyone including evaluation crew, total 10 as I recall.
 
Civilian is better anyone who enlists with the idea of becoming a pilot has the mental capacity of a scratch card addict.:lol:
 
Both of the pilots I describe enlisted with the understanding that they would go to cadets. Both were college grads. Both obviously made it thru.
 
Ron Levy said:
Hard to say as an overall statement, but poor instructors do not last long in the military due to the more consistent oversight by senior instructors and unit leadership. In that regard, substandard instructors are fairly rapidly weeded out of military flight training operations, while they may continue for decades in the civilian training world, especially in situations with little or no oversight.
Click to expand...

I did several Check Airman evaluations and and ADE (aircrew designated examiner) oversight while assigned to the CMO. This was a large airline with predominately military backgrounds.

Some of the check airman actually were good instructors as well as the ADE's. Before each evaluation I would access their records which contained their resume, and yes most came from some sort of teaching command in previous military.

But they had their fair share of guys that didn't understand the first thing about instructing, and these guys shared the same resume backgrounds. So I don't think the military does that good of a job weeding out the weak links. As with some military, as observed, it has to do with your connections rather than ability.

Just an observation.
 
turbofan said:
If you think that military training is a great deal more structured, boy, are you wrong.

I've experienced part 61, 141, and military training.

I'd say that the "structure" of military training is similar to a 141 program; there is a strict sequence of events that have to occur and certain standards have to be met to proceed to the next block.

The motivation level is more of a part 61 mentality, at least in the Navy / Marine Corps. No one tells you to study, no one cares how you utilize your time. You're expected to know what you have to know and if you can't do it on your own then you wont make it through.

The Air Force is different. The horror stories I've heard from friends that went through Vance are appalling. Stand up EP sessions, being FORCED to be in squadron facilities for the work day... disgusting...
.
Click to expand...

Your experience is definitely Navy only. USAF is more structured than any civilian training I've ever heard of. My only experience was Flight Safety for a king air type rating and my initial training back in the 90's. YMMV.
 
Geico266 said:
And the CFI is not sucking money out by the hour. If you dont make the grade in the military you flunk out. In the civilian world the CFI keeps banging out hours.
Click to expand...
"tell us how you really feel".

My retort is that in the military, candidate selection is far superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top