# pilot education



## len173 (7 May 2006)

hey guys, I am wondering what kind of education a military pilot should have? I have been on the Air Force website and read that all you need a degree, but it doesn't specify any kind. I would assume that having a math or physics degree would be good for a pilot? But i can't ever see myself getting a degree in either, but would the military want ppl who had a degree in something completely unrelated to flying as a pilot? thanks

Lenny


----------



## Inch (7 May 2006)

The large majority of degrees have nothing to do with flying. You need the degree to be an officer, pilot training is done after the degree and will teach you all you need to know about flying.


----------



## Zoomie (7 May 2006)

A degree is a degree - there are no advantages to being an Aerospace Engineer or an English Major.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 May 2006)

Although an engineering degree (Mech or Aero) makes you understand some stuff that other probably won't. 

Max


----------



## aesop081 (8 May 2006)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Although an engineering degree (Mech or Aero) makes you understand some stuff that other probably won't.
> 
> Max



Nothing that can be learned in flight training.  You could have a degree in Kitchen & Bath decoration and still end up with a clear understanding of what a pilot needs to know.


----------



## Inch (8 May 2006)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Although an engineering degree (Mech or Aero) makes you understand some stuff that other probably won't.
> 
> Max



I disagree, I know engineers that failed out of Moose Jaw so in my experience, it doesn't matter what your degree is in. We don't design the aircraft, we fly them and only need a comparatively basic understanding of how everything works. 

There have been many, many people go before you with geography, history, and english degrees, not to mention quite a few with no degree at all and succeeded.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 May 2006)

I agree with you but I think understanding what's going on helps on taking action with regard to that.

I thinks it also helps a lot during the ground school.  

Max


----------



## Astrodog (8 May 2006)

I was conversing with a CF-18 pilot, and he told me that he flies beside some people who have engineering degrees and others who have arts degrees, what CF flying comes down to is ability to learn in a dynamic environment and, as he says it, your 'hands and feet'...


----------



## Inch (8 May 2006)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I agree with you but I think understanding what's going on helps on taking action with regard to that.
> 
> I thinks it also helps a lot during the ground school.
> 
> Max



When you get through Moose Jaw, tell me again how it really is.

I have no degree and I had zero problems learning aerodynamics as they applied to me, the operator, in both Aviation College and CF pilot training. 

I know a few engineers that failed because they out thought themselves. The other co-pilot on my Det is an engineer and he tends to out think himself too. Example, we're doing one of our very first simulator rides in the Sea King, I was the flying pilot, he was the non-flying pilot. We lost an engine and my first response was "FULL POWER BOTH", his response was "What? Why?". To which I replied "Just F***ing do it and I'll tell you after". If we had been in any other regime of flight and he questioned me rather than acted then questioned, we would have ended up in the drink.

Red pages exist for a reason, that reason is you don't have time to analyse what's happening and what to do about it, the procedure is set for you and you act on it instinctively. You don't need to understand in the moment why your compressor is stalling, only that it is stalling and the red page says to do this and this to fix it. Once your initial actions are done, you can think about what happened and any corrective actions that need to follow your initial actions.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 May 2006)

Again, I totally agree with you.  In the end, it all depends on the individual.  I don't say an artsman can't learn it at all.  However, someone with aerospace background will definately catch stuff (ground school here) more easily than someone without a that kind of background.  Let me give you and example.  I did a course named "Introduction to Aircraft Performance" which explains how to analyse the performance of an aircraft by some datas.  We saw, for example, how to determine the stall speed with/without power, gliding flight, climbing flight, vertical manoevers, range equations etc. All those things were seen pretty much in depth.  The book we used is "An Introduction to Aircraft Performance" by Mario Asselin, a former CF AERE on the Hornet (If you can get a hold on this, do it, that's a very very interesting book).  According to people I know very well that have done that course and that have done Moose Jaw say that what we see during this course is more advanced that MJ ground school.  I really think that it gives at least a tiny advantage if the individual is bright enough not to sit on his butt and think he's a god.

Having said that, I don't think pilots with engineering background are better not at all.  In the plane, individual qualities/learning skills will make the difference.  In the cockpit and in the books are two very different things...

Cheers,

Max


----------



## aesop081 (8 May 2006)

Well, i learnt to fly when i was 16.  Definately didnt have an engineering degree then.  I get the idea of your argument Max but i still dont agree.  I had not problems catching on with aerodynamics.  In fact, i think i understood stall speed quite weel.  I understand in minute details how engines work ( from radials through jet and turboprop), i understand the mechanics of flight quite well and have no problems with ILS, back-course or any other instrument aproaches.  If you want to be a test pilot, then thats another story.  A line pilot doesnt need ANY degree whatsover ( other than that officer thing) to be an excellent pilot.  I see it everyday at work, i see what our pilots have to know, i see what they are questioned about.  Heck, i'm not the pilot and i get asked to learn "pilot/FE" things on a daily basis.


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 May 2006)

Other prerequisites include:

god eyesight
good hand-eye coordination
good physical shape
witty repertoire
high level of self-confidence
ability to treat all others as lesser mortals...


----------



## len173 (8 May 2006)

thanks a lot for the input guys. That makes sense to me, it's jsut whenever i talk to ne one, like career counsellors and crap about being a pilot they will say, oh, physics and stuff, but what the hell do they know about flying, haha.


----------



## Centurian1985 (9 May 2006)

I worked with pilots for 15 years,  so I know all their good points and bad (hehe) ; however if you want honest information about the training you might try talking to some staff at the CFSAS at Winnipeg; or look for some pilots here who advertise their trades....


----------



## aesop081 (9 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I worked with pilots for 15 years,  so I know all their good points and bad (hehe) ; however if you want honest information about the training you might try talking to some staff at the CFSAS at Winnipeg; or look for some pilots here who advertise their trades....



CFSAS ? What the hell do they have to do with that ?  besides teaching the basic and advanced EW courses, the Space apps course and the aerospave officer's course.....what do they have to do with pilot training ?


----------



## Good2Golf (9 May 2006)

Degrees have less to do with being a decent pilotage than many other factors.  Spatial orientation, "air picture" or "air sense" if you will, is far more important than being able to derive L = 1/2 rho x V2 x S x CL ....  If you get into technical elements such as flight test, then yes, a math/physics/science/engineering background would likely help; however, there are less than twenty practicing Qualified Test Pilots in the CF compared to over 1600 pilots in general.

Centurian forgot to add "putting up with cranky observers who love to critique the pilot sitting beside them" in his list.  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Zach15 (9 May 2006)

I remember reading an engineering degree or one with a background in physics were preferred, but that pretty much every degree program offered by recognized universities will do.


     Zach


----------



## pipstah (10 May 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Example, we're doing one of our very first simulator rides in the Sea King, I was the flying pilot, he was the non-flying pilot. We lost an engine and my first response was "FULL POWER BOTH", his response was "What? Why?". To which I replied "Just F***ing do it and I'll tell you after". If we had been in any other regime of flight and he questioned me rather than acted then questioned, we would have ended up in the drink.



Inch you made me laugh alot! You made me think one of the guy (who's engineer) doing that... then after that I was thinking about myself... since I have a degree in psychology...  FULL POWER BOTH!!! and my response: ''why are you so stressed? Wanna tell me what is your feelings right now? Are you ok?'' Oh well great times for my little 5 minutes studying break! Thanks for that inch!


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> CFSAS ? What the hell do they have to do with that ?  besides teaching the basic and advanced EW courses, the Space apps course and the aerospave officer's course.....what do they have to do with pilot training ?



Oops! 

I was thinking navigators.  My bad. 

(looking for tess's smiley of bricks falling on my head but cant find it...)


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Oops!
> 
> I was thinking navigators.  My bad.




CFANS ( canadian Forces air navigation school) teaches navigators.......not CFSAS ( canadian forces school of aerospace studies)


----------



## Good2Golf (10 May 2006)

CFSAS also teaches the Air Force Basic and Advanced Operational Courses, EW, Space as well as the year-long Aerospace Systems Course, FWIW.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 May 2006)

Well there's my confusion - I took both the EW and space courses there and right across the hall were the navigators - has CFANS always been there as a seperate entity?  Whenever we did lectures or courses there it was always refered to as the CFSAS building....

Oh wait!!  HEY JOURNEYMAN! Look, look, I was wrong and admitted it!


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Well there's my confusion - I took both the EW and space courses there and right across the hall were the navigators - has CFANS always been there as a seperate entity?  Whenever we did lectures or courses there it was always refered to as the CFSAS building....
> 
> Oh wait!!  HEY JOURNEYMAN! Look, look, I was wrong and admitted it!



CFSMET......bottom floor

CFANS........second floor

CFSAS.........top floor


----------

