Who would You Accept???

[ZKTOM]

Major Discussion going on at school and was wondering what the rest of the world thought.

[Zöltuger]

'it depends'
way too many other factors to take into account. like are they nice people, reliable etc.
But assuming they're the same except for background, I'd probably pick the private pilot, because he'd probably take fewer risks.

[victor_alpha_charlie]

Same. Exactly the same reason. Of course before all that I'd take into account their personality, work ethic/ ability to do things 'outside the call of duty'. That from a 15 Year old

[creator2003]

id say the ex pilot would have more hours under the belt and would add better rep to my companys over all look to investers and so on and better storys to tell me ,well thats what they say on those cop adverts

[towerguy]

I would say it depends on the individual person!

Just because someone has flown in the airforce does not mean they are predisposed to take a risk - in fact I would have thought that with all the training and varied types of flying that they get, they would have more knowledge as to what is or is not a risk and what is the better response in the situation. There is a reason that there is such a stringent selection and training criteria for airforce flying personnel. mental physical and psycological.

I in no way mean to demean or lessen those that have come through the private way either as I have been though both systems and they both have their plusses and minus's. Once a pilot has reached the 2000hr mark as mentioned above then really they have generally proved that they have the experience and stability required to be part of the industry and it doesn't matter what the previous training path has been to reach that point - unless it is a necessity for the type of operation involved ie 2000hrs fixed wing means squat for a job flying Helos onto an oil rig.

[travnz]

Lol a private pilot would be as useful as tits on a bull to an airline!

But if you mean private pilot as in training up to standard privately then the private pilot for sure!
They are purposely trained for the carriage of passengers or freight in a commercial environment.

[ZKTOM]

But assuming they're the same except for background, I'd probably pick the private pilot, because he'd probably take fewer risks.

But wouldn't air force pilots be under huge discipline, competition and the fear of being booted out for mucking about???

[Jimmy]

Everytime I whatch aircrash investigation programs almost always its "ex airforce pilot", are the majority "ex airforce pilots"? Has me concerned, I'm going to be going the "private" way, will it make things harder or easier? hmm

I voted "private", just what I would hope for ae

James

[pois0n]

Personally I'd pick the Private if it was a capable person.

[towerguy]

As I said above - by that stage both are generally equally disciplined, equally motivated and equally knowledgeable - it would all come down to 'who did I feel more comfortable with personally, who would get on better with the mix of staff that I already have, who is better qualified for the type of aircraft and the mix of routes I have and more importantly now days - who will stay around longer before moving on and have to be replaced.

[G-HEVN]

There's a guy at our flying club, he's ex Army Air Corps rather than RAF, flew Apaches and all sorts. I had one flight with him, and vowed "never again". I'm not saying that all ex-mil pilots are like that, but there does seem to be a certain amount of "whatever it takes..." in their make up. And as a result (based on a sample of one!) they need a certain amount of calming down. Having said that, ex-mil pilots are much more likely to have multi-crew, as well as 'big plane' experience, as well as having been taught discipline and following orders.

A 2000 hour PPL... almost certainly instrument rated, maybe even MEIR... (just add a commercial and you've pretty much got an ATPL right there!), probably been flying on business to rack up those kind of hours (ie he's not just a 'weekend bimbler'), also probably most of those hours have been flown single pilot, so there's no clue how he'd cope in a multi crew environment. Certainly no guarantee he'd have the 'right stuff'.

[h290master]

I'd pick Ex-airfoece due to their intensive training and discepline which in my opinion makes them more reliable.

[Brennanx]

id say the ex pilot would have more hours under the belt and would add better rep to my companys over all look to investers and so on and better storys to tell me ,well thats what they say on those cop adverts

Just says over 2000 hours could have 15000 hours

[ZKTOM]

Another aspect of the air force would be the competitve environment enabling pilots to work harder to earn their place. The air force is a social pyramid in a way and everybody is trying their best to get to the top-where the privileges are. And the only way to get there is to be the best you can be.
I'd say private would be a more laid back approach to becoming a pilot. You choose when you fly most of the time, aircraft type. However you need alot of dosh otherwise you are in big debt.

[ZKTOM]

also probably most of those hours have been flown single pilot, so there's no clue how he'd cope in a multi crew environment. Certainly no guarantee he'd have the 'right stuff'.

I have to agree with the fact of real life emergency management of situations. I hear they fly those Orions to Aussie etc. on two engines and are constantly doing drills etc. so that if a real emergency does occur the airforce pilot would almost instantly know what to do-because it has been practised.

Not that private pilots aren't as well trained. I'm sure they are taught and maybe practise some scenarios. The trouble is private pilots don't have the opportunity to operate larger aircraft doing their hours.

[ZKTOM]

Just says over 2000 hours could have 15000 hours

I'd have to say it would be hard if not very expensive for a private pilot to rack up those hours. And it would take years to do.

[creator2003]

QUOTE (creator2003 @ Jun 19 2007, 08:46 PM)
id say the ex pilot would have more hours under the belt and would add better rep to my companys over all look to investers and so on and better storys to tell me ,well thats what they say on those cop adverts laugh.gif

Just says over 2000 hours could have 15000 hours

dude thanks for pointing that out ,but in my opinion it wouldnt really matter id still go for a ex airforce for the rep of my company ,and any private pilot who racked up that many hours must have some big bank account or overdraft,but id also expext had done some extra training and want more money {maybe)
anyway good to see the poll is kind of even ..

[FlyingKiwi]

Depends. As Trav pointed out, the sort of training a private pilot undergoes is more relevant to the civil airline industry, but if the air force pilot has flown a Herc or a 757 chances are he's going to be more useful to an airline than a private pilot who's done 2000 hours in a Tomahawk.

[HardCorePawn]

You cannot just look at someone on paper and say "Yep, they're the one"... Thats why you interview and do sim and/or flight tests...

You might have a PPL with only 250 hours, but has a fantastic attitude, tons of natural ability, is easy going and good with people (aka customers)...

on the other hand you could have an ex-mil type with 10,000 hours, but all of it is in a single seat jet fighter, thinks he's tom cruise, takes orders well but is not able to relate well to people...

I choose option C. - Cannot say without more information

[Boeing]

Hello NZFF. I would have to look at how they act in their interview with me. I'd take whoever was more physically and mentally stable.