Helicopters and Money

[Loachman]

I'm sure they are, and I apologize if you thought I was implying that they weren't. 

No apology necessary, and I didn't. You have to try much harder to annoy me - and that's not a direct challenge.

I was just pointing out that these skills can be honed within our own system, and are.

It might help the admin end of things.

We teach that, too.

Can it really hurt to have more education though?  All other things remaining the same that is.

No, not at all. Education is a good thing. I only wish to point out that it is not necessarily relevant or of direct benefit to certain jobs/functions.

 

[arctic_front]

Re: Helicopters and Money
« Reply #55 on: Today at 06:27:23 »
MilPoints  Quote
I'll jump here.  I'm not a helo pilot (thank god ), I fly fast jets.  

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Either way, a degree in basket weaving or liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.

Maybe it doesn't help, maybe it does.  For myself, I feel it helped me tremendously.  Not for the material I learned during the degree, but rather the way of approaching a problem and solving it and the study habbits.  But it depends on every individual and how they use the skills they learn from their degree.  A degree isn't about the subject you're studying but rather, developping problem solving skills.  The subject is just a way of delivering that.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
A 1000 hr. civilian pilot would make a better prospect for a WO grade helo-pilot than some recent college/university green horn that has to learn from the bottom.

Civilian flying is very different than military flying.  There are commercial pilots and airline pilots that go through the CF Pilot Training system and yes, some of them fail.  In the end, everyone has to learn from the bottom again, the CF way.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
A piece of paper with B.A. after his name, doesn't make him pilot material.
The piece of paper with the B.A. doesn't make him pilot material, the Aircrew Selection process makes him pilot material.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Spending thousands of dollars to 'see' if he can be a pilot sounds like a waste of resources.
It's spending thousands of dollar to form an officer.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
I'm speaking strictly rotary-wing here, not the jet-jockey's who may require a higher education in physics or calculus to fly a fast mover.
I don't think you can really speak for any pilot here (unless you have a license or are in the process of getting one).  Riding shotgun doesn't mean you understand everything the pilot does.  

While having a science/engineering background may help you understand concepts on the ground, you never actually do math and physics in the plane (god, my brain cell (yup, no mistake, no s after cell... Singular) has already the hardest time making simple additions).  The ability to process information fast is much more useful that any type of theory/math/physics.  We sometimes have to use "math" in the cockpit, however it's Grade 6 level math.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Like any field, on the job training is where you really start to learn, the school part is just so much theory and book learning.  My point is, a good set of hands on the stick is better than a head full of university mush.
Again, it's not the theories you learned that you use but the problem solving skills you got in University.  In that respect, I do believe that a University degree is usefull for any Officer trade, pilot included.

Max


Max, I appreciate your input as you have covered the bulk of my post.  Thank you.  

I am not dissing pilots, I'm maybe dissing the the system.  Sure, being a pilot is hard.  So is every other trade in the CAF.  As the GRUNT who spends hours making your ship good to go, so you can do your job, (which is appreciated by THIS civilian) I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night?,,,,,  or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?    I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....  he understands it's systems better than you, can trouble-shoot it better than you....  you getting my point?  Not Dissing you....  you do your job well....  he does his job better.  He has too.  He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.  He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition.  

He knows that his flight crew, who become friends, are out over the water in the dark...  he knows the dangers you face....  he knows your wife and your kids.....  he does what he does because he is dedicated to his job and his machine.  He loves what he does.  He loves that he has earned your trust, and he wouldn't want to do anything else.  He is a master at his job.  But with all that responsibility, and in MY view, he has every bit the same responsibility as you have as a pilot, lives are on the line, same as you.  He loves his job as much as you.  

So how come you need a degree to carry the same responsibility as he carries every day?  Are you saying you carry more?  He doesn't have a degree....  is he too stupid to carry the same responsibility?.....  after-all...  he doesn't have a degree!  He has the required training, he has earned the position of 'crew chief' after years of doing his job well...  But he is a lowly grease monkey.  Is  he is a dim-wit grunt...?  
He didn't go to university, so he must be stupid.  But you pilots put your very life in his hands every single time you go flying....

If you pilots need a degree to fly....  shouldn't your crew-chief need one too?  He has your life in his hands every time to leave the ground.  Do you respect his skill?  Do you appreciate it?....  of course you do!    Is he smarter than you?  Dumber?..  He doesn't have a B.A, or a M.D, or a PhD.   But he can make you live or die.  How can that be?  If he doesn't have a degree in ANY field, and he has just as much responsibility as you......  how can that be?

I guess it must be pure fluke that you survive each and every flight.  Some un-educated dumb-ass just checked the oil and tire pressure before you slipped the surly bonds of earth to allow you to take flight.  After-all,
some non-university educated flunky just did the pre-flight on your machine.

Are you feeling guilty yet, Sea King Taco?....  you should be.    "thanks for coming out" was the quote as you dismissed my honest comments...  

Max, again with all due respect, you don't learn problem solving skills in university, you learn them even better in the REAL world.  University is great for learning formulas and theories, but universities fill your head with bullshit.  walk the walk with your crew chief just ONE day and you'll realize the folly of your words.  Theories work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.  Reality bites.  

I will say again, Max, thank you for addressing me with respect, and my respect goes back equally to you for being a gentleman.  University doesn't make you smarter.  LIFE makes you smart.  Your crew chief is proof of that.  Pay attention.

 

[arctic_front]

I'm sure they are, and I apologize if you thought I was implying that they weren't.  I actually believe that you are right in that it probably isn't too beneficial to be university trained to be a pilot.  It might help the admin end of things.  Can it really hurt to have more education though?  All other things remaining the same that is.

Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree.  Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.

I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.  McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.  Military men and women deserve better. 

 

[Loachman]

Again, you are out of your lane, as you have no direct experience with our circumstances. Continually stating things with which you have no direct knowledge as fact will bite you here. Please be careful how you say things.

As the GRUNT

A "Grunt", in the strict sense of the colloquialism, is an Infantryman.

Techs do not use the term when referring to themselves.

I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night?,,,,,  or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?

Yes. The vast majority of us do. The rest have problems and wonder why.

I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief

We do not have crew chiefs, at least not in Tac Hel.

on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....

No, he/she could not, nor are they permitted to.

he understands it's systems better than you,

He/she had better.

can trouble-shoot it better than you....

Generally with input from the crew.

you do your job well....  he does his job better.

No, he/she does not.

He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.

We are all undermanned, and have our challenges, and they always blame me if something goes wrong mechanically.

He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition.

The first and last are untrue, and I've not got the time to call up the pay rates, but yes, they are lower.

So how come you need a degree to carry the same responsibility as he carries every day?

We do not, as thousands of military pilots have proven in the past, but the responsibilities are nowhere near the same regardless. We are responsible for more than airworthiness.

Are you saying you carry more?

Yes. Mission accomplishment is more than airworthiness. Civilian pilots are not putting weapons on targets, or moving troops into and out of hostile situations, in a carefully choreographed ballet involving large numbers and varieties of people, machines, and lethal weapons operating in four dimensions.

He didn't go to university, so he must be stupid.

I didn't, and I'm not - I even used "colloquialism" earlier, and have used even bigger words before.

But seriously, you are exaggerating a little...

But you pilots put your very life in his hands every single time you go flying....

I do like to take hostages along for rides as often as possible, to give them a little incentive - not that they know that they are hostages.

If you pilots need a degree to fly....

We don't, even to choreograph lethal four-dimensional ballets.

"thanks for coming out" was the quote as you dismissed my honest comments...

It was, in my opinion, somewhat brusque, however you have inserted yourself into a conversation without understanding the circumstances. That never goes over very well here.


Your presence is welcome here, but, again, please be careful how you word things and do not try to tell us what our lives are like until you know.

 

[KingKikapu]

Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree.  Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.

I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.   McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.  Military men and women deserve better. 

Uh you quoted the wrong guy.  You're looking for Loachman.

Personally, I'm far more impressed with people who push themselves physically/mentally (degree or not) with humility than people who do the same, but espouse warrior bravado crap.

 

[Loachman]

Sir, and I do mean Sir,

There is no rank here.

Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane,

You are, and moving even farther.

You have no direct knowledge of the CF, yet you persist in trying to tell us what it is like and/or what it should be like.

I agree, as I have said, that your premise regarding university is correct, however you are going way beyond that.

Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.

You are telling me/us this?

I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.   McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.

What do you know about our training system?

Anyway, I have to go and get ready to look for bad guys. I'll be back in a few hours.

 

[Pelorus]

If civilian universities are only good for filling students' heads with "bullshit", and teaching concepts that "work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.", I wonder where the designs and plans for the helicopters you guys are flying and maintaining came from.  God?  Santa?  ???

 

[Loachman]

I would like to point out that none of us flying them used that term.

 

[Pelorus]

I would like to point out that none of us flying them used that term.

I realize that it was only one specific user.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Loachman and Arctic_Front,

Just to be clear- crystal clear- we are in heated agreement.  Piloting skills and university education are independent of each other.  Hell, Piloting and Officership can be independent of each other- many nations have proven that in the past and continue to do so today.

Arctic_front kicked this whole mess off with an ill-informed post about the CF that did not describe reality.

Let's talk reality: 1.  All pilots in the CF are Officers.  Whether it should be that way is the subject of one of these threads around here that just goes around in circles without resolving anything.

2. All Officers in the CF require degrees.  Again we can debate whether or not it is a good idea, but it is still a requirement.  The fact that Loach doesn't have a degree puts him increasingly in the minority. Does that make him a bad person, officer or pilot?  No, of course not.

I used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for Officers- until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there.

 

[observor 69]

Loachman and Arctic_Front,

I used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for Officers- until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there.

I  used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for NCMs until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree

You are so far outside your lane that no amount of engineer support will get you back into your lane.

My 2 cents worth, your milage will vary.

 

[22B]

Let me jump in here.  I was a M/Cpl Combat Arms, got out, and have been a Commercial Helicopter since 1980.  A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever, unless you move into non flying managment, and then, only a Business degree would be of any value.  I have worked with many ex Mil pilots, some fit well, some don't fit at all.  Based on that observation, I consider each on their own merits. It is fun, though, when they askwhat Sqn I flew with, I tell them 408, but from a Lynx (No, not the Brit Helicopter).  I will be the first to admit that there are far more civilian pilots who would not blend well with the Military, but for the most part, its irrelevant.  The one thing I really wanted to do, but missed out by two days, was to deliver 408's 206 back after maint.  The entry in the Log Book would have been most interesting, to say the least.  For the record, I fly lights and mediums and have about 7000 hours. (All as a M/Cpl 011)

 

[KingKikapu]

I also agree that whole civilian university comment was out to lunch regarding theory.   Just the other day I made a high precision ring laser gyroscope used in inertial navigation systems aboard jet fighters for fun.  This isn't exactly something that I would do on a weekend had I not earned my degree, but it has immediate applications for jets and satellites, among other things.

Next week an electrical engineering grad student and I are going to attempt to make a real time interferometric optical autocorrelator with femtosecond speeds.  Because we can, and because one of these babies will be very useful for ultra fast physics.  

Theory is serving me very well.  You are right in that it probably wouldn't help me instinctively fly better.  Other moc's might benefit from a myriad of other skill sets learned at civilian universities.  We should not discount them just because they aren't always hands-on.

 

[Zoomie]

Wading in again for the first time since March.

The CF is not short of flying pilots - we are short pilots to fill ground jobs.  Ground jobs are usually considered staff jobs - thus an Officers' domain.

 

[aesop081]

  A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever,

Pilots,as of right now, are all officers. Officers require degrees. The argument of wether they need one to fly is irrelevant.

 

[Strike]

Wading in again for the first time since March.

The CF is not short of flying pilots - we are short pilots to fill ground jobs.  Ground jobs are usually considered staff jobs - thus an Officers' domain.

Beg to differ on the tac hel side.  ;D  Mind you, we're also short on techs so the resulting serviceability rate makes it all a moot point.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Sure, being a pilot is hard.  So is every other trade in the CAF.  

Did I say anything that would mean that the only hard trade in the CF is Pilot?

As the GRUNT who spends hours making your ship good to go, so you can do your job, (which is appreciated by THIS civilian) I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night? 

I know they work hard and they know we work hard.  I have yet to spend less that 10 hours at work any given day for the last year and a half. 

or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?   

Really?  I didn't know the techs at my Squadron could fight an other aircraft or do bomb runs.  The fact is they don't.  Just like I can't fix a leak in the Hydraulic system.  Different trades, different required set of skills.

I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....

I can buy that a tech may be able to take off, land, fly in cruise.  However, I can guarantee you that he can't do the simple task of following an IFR clearance and not get violated by ATC, unless he has some previous IFR experience.  Nevermind flying formation or flying a BFM mission.  So, no, I do not think he could fly is nearly as good as me.  Just like I don't think I could fix an airplane nearly as good as him.

he understands it's systems better than you, can trouble-shoot it better than you....   

Sure he does and sure he can trouble-shoot better than I can.  That's his job.   My job is to assist him if I snaged the airplane.

He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.  He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition. 

He knows that his flight crew, who become friends, are out over the water in the dark...  he knows the dangers you face....  he knows your wife and your kids.....  he does what he does because he is dedicated to his job and his machine.  He loves what he does.

We are undermanned, short of hours and if anything goes wrong during a mission, the blame comes to me.  I work on average 11h a day, get 1/2 of what a similar type civilian pilot gets.  We don't do it for the fame or the pay, but for the love of flying. They are not the only one that do it for the love of the job.

He is a master at his job.

You think that we don't strive for perfection?  We probably are the most perfectionist bastards around...

But with all that responsibility, and in MY view, he has every bit the same responsibility as you have as a pilot, lives are on the line, same as you.  He loves his job as much as you. 

 

The techs are responsible for my life and I trust them with it.  But, I'm responsible for the life of people I don't even know.  What if I drop my bomb on the wrong target?  That's quite the responsability, isn't it? 

If you pilots need a degree to fly.... 

Have I said you need a degree to fly?  I merely said that it helped me do well on my flying courses.

I guess it must be pure fluke that you survive each and every flight.  Some un-educated dumb-*** just checked the oil and tire pressure before you slipped the surly bonds of earth to allow you to take flight.  After-all, some non-university educated flunky just did the pre-flight on your machine.

Yup, and I also do my walkaround after they do theirs.  Did I call techs dumb-*** because they don't have a degree???

Max, again with all due respect, you don't learn problem solving skills in university, you learn them even better in the REAL world.  University is great for learning formulas and theories, but universities fill your head with bullshit.  walk the walk with your crew chief just ONE day and you'll realize the folly of your words.  Theories work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.  Reality bites. 

Do you have a degree?  If you don't you can't really tell what University teaches you right?  I strongly believe that University does teach you problem solving skills, so does most of my ex-Profs.  And yes, I agree that you ALSO learn them in the real world.  University ISN'T about learning formulas and theories.  It uses this method of delivery (or whatever the artsmen use) to teach you more profound skills, like problem solving.  The problem is that most officer applicants are young and do not have the life experience to draw from and therefore, most often lack the problem solving skills, maturity and life skills in general.  Going to University may or may not (depends on the individual) help in some aspects.  I sure think it did for me.  As you mature and get older, you start getting experience you can draw from when you're faced with a new problem.

On weather days, or when I don't fly, I do go out with the techs and watch their work, simply because I'm interested (I make sure they know it's purely by interest and not to "watch" them before I do so). 

The procedures the AMEs or Techs use everyday come from theories.  Don't forget that.

University doesn't make you smarter.  LIFE makes you smart.  Your crew chief is proof of that.  Pay attention.

For me,  University was a big eye opener on what the world has to offer and how to achieve my goals in life.  So far, so good.  I have achieved everything I wanted to achieve so far.

Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.

I beg to differ.  I think it's more about taking the right decisions are the right times, and take those decisions fast.  That's what differenciate the good pilots from the excellent pilots. After a few hundred hours on type, the skills (aka:  hands and feet) are pretty much the same for everyone (unless you're a total bag of hammers, but that's a different subject).

A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever, unless you move into non flying managment, and then, only a Business degree would be of any value.

And Max - you would have done just as well without a degree, as thousands of us have done in the past.

No, a University is not required to fly.  But I think it does offer some benefit, especially in the early stages of flying.  After 10 000 hours of flying, I doubt that the skills you got through University are usefull at all when you fly.  You rely on you past flying experience.  However, in the early stage, you do not have that experience to rely on, therefore, when you're faced with a new situation, you can use what University gave you, analytical and problem solving skills, to come up with a solution that makes sense and will keep you out of trouble.

Personally, I joined the CF at 16.  I can say with much confidence that if I had gone through my flight training at that age, I would not have done as good as I did after my degree.  Would I have passed?  I think so.  But I think I would have stuggled a lot more.  Not because of hands and feet, but because of how quickly I can take the right decision. But I guess we'd have to go back in time to know that for sure!


arctic_front :  The problem here is that you do not have any real flying experience and no (assumtion here) experience in University.  You offered an ill informed opinion on both subjects. 

 

[Strike]

I can buy that a tech may be able to take off, land, fly in cruise.  However, I can guarantee you that he can't do the simple task of following an IFR clearance and not get violated by ATC, unless he has some previous IFR experience.  Nevermind flying formation or flying a BFM mission.  So, no, I do not think he could fly is nearly as good as me.  Just like I don't think I could fix an airplane nearly as good as him.

I always laugh when I hear that term.  ;D

Now, back to business.  As you were.

 

[aesop081]

I always laugh when I hear that term.   ;D

:rofl: