- Reaction score
- 13,106
- Points
- 1,010
And you would be wrong- but thanks for coming out!
Helicopters and Money
- Thread starter ruxted
- Start date
And you would be wrong- but thanks for coming out!
A
aesop081
Guest
arctic_front said:
You fix them. How does that qualify you to speak about what is required for a person to fly them ?
As SeaKingTacco said, thanks for coming out.
Next
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Sea king Taco.... please enlighten me as to how a liberal arts, or any other degree, is necessary to flying?
FYI, I have also flown them too... as they often have the co-pilot sticks in the other side. Flying a helo does not require a head full of math as you suggest.... because i know how they work, just as well as any pilot does, in a lot of cases, better than they do. Your welcome. Civilian pilots do not require even a high school education to fly them, just enough smarts to pass a few tests, so where does the university degree come into this? Or, the math?
Just because they are painted green doesn't change the aerodynamic principles involved in making a heavier than air machine lift off the ground. Fixed or rotary wing. I am just a little surprised that you assume that an AME is too stupid to understand complex subjects such as ring-state vortices, retreating blade stall, or settling with power. I also know plenty about navigation, weight & balance, avionics and instrumentation. How do you even know that I don't have a degree? The 'E' at the end of AME stands for what, do you suppose?
I'm not knocking the pilots who went to school to get a degree in a relevant subject, even a B.A., so why do you think it's ok to bash me because I am a lowly 'grease-monkey?' Sounds pretty elitist on your part. You'd be surprised at the things i have 'know' about aerodynamics to get that letter 'E' in my 'lowly' title. I made reference to university degrees as not being entirely relevant to actually flying a helicopter. Nothing more.
Flying requires eye-hand co-ordination, quick reflexes and decision-making skills. A degree in nuclear physics or aerodynamics it does not. I'm open to any legitimate criticism as to why you believe I am wrong.
I work as an aviator, same as you. People die in my end of the aviation spectrum, same as you. I work on the same equipment ( UH-1 or Bell medium/Bell Kiowa/206) as some in this forum are familiar with, so I think i have a reasonable and knowledgeable contribution to the subject. 23 yrs worth of hands-on with helicopters is not irrelevant, be it from a pilot's perspective or an engineer's.
(Am I under the mistaken impression that a 'forum' is a place to voice opinions openly and read and respond to other's? )
FYI, I have also flown them too... as they often have the co-pilot sticks in the other side. Flying a helo does not require a head full of math as you suggest.... because i know how they work, just as well as any pilot does, in a lot of cases, better than they do. Your welcome. Civilian pilots do not require even a high school education to fly them, just enough smarts to pass a few tests, so where does the university degree come into this? Or, the math?
Just because they are painted green doesn't change the aerodynamic principles involved in making a heavier than air machine lift off the ground. Fixed or rotary wing. I am just a little surprised that you assume that an AME is too stupid to understand complex subjects such as ring-state vortices, retreating blade stall, or settling with power. I also know plenty about navigation, weight & balance, avionics and instrumentation. How do you even know that I don't have a degree? The 'E' at the end of AME stands for what, do you suppose?
I'm not knocking the pilots who went to school to get a degree in a relevant subject, even a B.A., so why do you think it's ok to bash me because I am a lowly 'grease-monkey?' Sounds pretty elitist on your part. You'd be surprised at the things i have 'know' about aerodynamics to get that letter 'E' in my 'lowly' title. I made reference to university degrees as not being entirely relevant to actually flying a helicopter. Nothing more.
Flying requires eye-hand co-ordination, quick reflexes and decision-making skills. A degree in nuclear physics or aerodynamics it does not. I'm open to any legitimate criticism as to why you believe I am wrong.
I work as an aviator, same as you. People die in my end of the aviation spectrum, same as you. I work on the same equipment ( UH-1 or Bell medium/Bell Kiowa/206) as some in this forum are familiar with, so I think i have a reasonable and knowledgeable contribution to the subject. 23 yrs worth of hands-on with helicopters is not irrelevant, be it from a pilot's perspective or an engineer's.
(Am I under the mistaken impression that a 'forum' is a place to voice opinions openly and read and respond to other's? )
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
What about maintaining tactical/situational awareness "the air picture".
IMO, there is a LOT more to military aviation than the aspect of making an aircraft physically fly.
Pilots are not just pilots in the Air Force, they are Commissioned Officers in the military, and there is a whole other aspect to that not involving flying.
IMO, the problem here is your thinking is 1 dimensional and centric to the flying aspect alone. Not tactics, war fighting, and the military Officer side of the equation.
Food for thought.
IMO, there is a LOT more to military aviation than the aspect of making an aircraft physically fly.
Pilots are not just pilots in the Air Force, they are Commissioned Officers in the military, and there is a whole other aspect to that not involving flying.
IMO, the problem here is your thinking is 1 dimensional and centric to the flying aspect alone. Not tactics, war fighting, and the military Officer side of the equation.
Food for thought.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,364
- Points
- 1,160
arctic_front said:
I can't speak for the piloting side, but the demonstrated ability to think critically does have a significant value for being an officer. It is true that having a degree is not proof of intelligence, and the absence of a degree is not even suggestive of an intellectual deficiency. However, in general, a degree indicates some formal effort has been made toward the betterment of an individual's critical thinking capability. This first step is of great value, and it is built-upon thought an officer's career.arctic_front said:
A
aesop081
Guest
arctic_front said:
Well, in that case i can add pilot time in the CH-146, CT-142, CT-114 and CP-140 to my logbook....sweet !
:
I'm glad you know better, you're supposed to. But then again, theres a difference between what technical manuals say, and what happens in real flight.
Pilots are officers. Officers have degrees. Is that simple enough for you to understand ?
It certainly changes the scope of responsabilities of the pilot/crew.
I'm certain that you understand it well. While you understand it, others actualy live it. Theres a key difference there.
I know plenty about aircraft maintenance. Thats why i am trained to do basic AFRP and A, B, A/B checks on my aircraft. That doesnt make me a technician does it ?
I never insulted your background. I question wether it made you qualified to speak on pilot / aircrew requirements.
You work IN aviation, same as me.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:aviator&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
- Reaction score
- 13,106
- Points
- 1,010
Arctic Front,
I'm not dissing AMEs. You just came to a perfectly natural and ill-informed conclusion that Officer Aircrew (I'll leave the NCMs out of this for now to keep things cleaner) don't require degrees. If by this you mean "to fly an airplane, one does not require advanced education" you are perfectly and completely correct. Officers (which all pilots are in the CF), however, require degrees, because when you take the fullness of a typical pilot's career into view, actually flying duties form a small portion of what they are required to do. By this, I mean staff work, leadership, tactics, etc. As Aircrew advance in rank, their higher level eductaion comes more and more into play. In short- aircrew in the CF are Officers first.
You could have avoided most of the pile-on which you have suffered here by simply rephrasing your initial post on this topic in the form of a question ie- "why do pilots in the CF require degrees?"
Cheers.
I'm not dissing AMEs. You just came to a perfectly natural and ill-informed conclusion that Officer Aircrew (I'll leave the NCMs out of this for now to keep things cleaner) don't require degrees. If by this you mean "to fly an airplane, one does not require advanced education" you are perfectly and completely correct. Officers (which all pilots are in the CF), however, require degrees, because when you take the fullness of a typical pilot's career into view, actually flying duties form a small portion of what they are required to do. By this, I mean staff work, leadership, tactics, etc. As Aircrew advance in rank, their higher level eductaion comes more and more into play. In short- aircrew in the CF are Officers first.
You could have avoided most of the pile-on which you have suffered here by simply rephrasing your initial post on this topic in the form of a question ie- "why do pilots in the CF require degrees?"
Cheers.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,232
- Points
- 1,160
Yet the US army seems quite happy have NCO's fly their gunships, and since they fly far more helo's and different types than any other western country, one can consider them SME's on the subject. So clearly we know from both the largest Western military and from civilan use that university degrees are not a critical requirement of the job. Considering the skill shortages facing the military, one would think they would bend over backwards to get trained pilots. Training them to work in the tactical environement would also likely be cheaper than working raw recruits through the current system only to find they can't fly well and may also be tactical dunces as well. The current system worked in Canada, due to the small numbers required, as our role and fleet begins to expand again, new ways of doing the job need to be given fair consideration.
A
aesop081
Guest
Colin P said:
US Army Warrant Officers are not NCOs. They are specialist officers as oposed to generalists.
A
aesop081
Guest
Colin P said:
IMHO, we do not have a shortage of applicants for the pilot MOC but we do have a shortage of training space and resources. Bringing in more applicants (officers or otherwise) will do nothing to help any shortages at the operational units.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,232
- Points
- 1,160
MCG said:
You are correct a CWO pilots appear to be commisioned officers in the US army, now that is strange, but a WO is not yet a commisioned rank either, but holds a Warrant.
http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2007/07/072407-Apache_save.aspx
http://www.militaryspot.com/military-rank.htm
How to become a WO in the US Army
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/download/Warrant_Officer_RPI.pdf
The nice thing about been proven wrong here is you certainly learn something new.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I feel sorry for arts degree holders because they always get picked on, and I don't understand why. They learned how to critically analyse and disseminate information like the rest of us. I respect that, and I suspect it would help them greatly in any venture. Stop using them as scapegoats.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
SeaKingTacco said:
He's absolutely right.
Degrees were not required for most officer classifications for decades. It became universal again at the time that two of the three military colleges were cut as part of the post-Cold War "peace dividend" slashings. Coincidence? Stated reason or not, it certainly appeared to me to be nothing more than a means of justifying the continuing expense required to maintain RMC when the other two were closed.
I went through as OCTP - no degree. A larger percentage of the DEO candidates on my courses washed out than us unedumacated bums. Their degrees did not help them get through, or be better pilots if they did.
The military training given was perfectly adequate, including the various staff etcetera courses later.
I continue to view the requirement for a degree as a needless waste of time and tax money at the entry level.
As for Army and Navy pilots - yes.
NCO pilots, at least in the Army - yes.
The current system and structure, on the Tac Hel side, is cumbersome, expensive, and ineffective.
You do not need two people in each cockpit trained to lead and command acting as drivers, any more than you need a commission to command a LAV III or a tank.
Battlefield helicopters are vehicles with a different method of mobility - rotary wings instead of tracks or wheels.
I have written about this here in numerous threads in the past.
I missed this whole discussion while I was in Wainwright cut off from the interweb while on my Sperwer course, or else there would be lengthy rants from me in this one too.
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Points
- 1,140
I'll jump here. I'm not a helo pilot (thank god ), I fly fast jets.
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.
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.
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.
Max
), I fly fast jets. arctic_front said:
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.
arctic_front said:
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.
The piece of paper with the B.A. doesn't make him pilot material, the Aircrew Selection process makes him pilot material.arctic_front said:
It's spending thousands of dollar to form an officer.arctic_front said:
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.arctic_front said:
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.
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.arctic_front said:
Max
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Eye In The Sky:
With utmost respect, I have to ask, what university teaches those things? Except RMC? No civilian university offers courses in military tactics or strategy except a military college. You learn those things after you join the military. I'm not trying to disrespect military officers or the military in general. I'm stating only that a university degree doesn't make a person a pilot. A gifted intellectual does not make you a pilot. An un-educated slob may be a gifted pilot based on his ability. My point is just that the military discards gifted pilots on a basis of a university education, when that education is not a requirement to be a pilot. Unless the candidate is a total dummy, he can learn the tactics and the rest of the regime, on the job, like every other pilot candidate. Requiring a university education smells strongly of elitism. Flying is a hands-and-feet job. Mission planning is a learned job like most jobs.
Obviously, skill alone is not enough. Intelligence is required. A simple aptitude test can suffice. The rest can be taught. A university education of any kind may be helpful, but it doesn't make you a better warrior. It certainly doesn't make you a better pilot. A degree in an unrelated field to aviation serves no purpose. It is a cop-out to fulfill a minimum requirement for entry and nothing more. I would offer this: Canada needs a strong military academy program to teach our future warriors,,,,, opps, silly me.... we used to have one.... where did it go?
In these times, to close doors instead of opening them, for potential members of the elite of the elite military, is simply foolish. Doors should be opening, not closing. Keep the standards very high. Allow no person past those very high standards unless they meet the requirements, but an artificial standard of elitism is not helping. Smarts, skills, talent, intelligence is what the CAF needs. University is not a true measure of ability. Intellect is the true measure. Don't dumb-down a thing, but require a minimum intelligence. A university degree doesn't make you a better warrior, or make you smarter, just more educated. They are mutually exclusive.
Talent and ability is what the CAF needs, not elitists
With utmost respect, I have to ask, what university teaches those things? Except RMC? No civilian university offers courses in military tactics or strategy except a military college. You learn those things after you join the military. I'm not trying to disrespect military officers or the military in general. I'm stating only that a university degree doesn't make a person a pilot. A gifted intellectual does not make you a pilot. An un-educated slob may be a gifted pilot based on his ability. My point is just that the military discards gifted pilots on a basis of a university education, when that education is not a requirement to be a pilot. Unless the candidate is a total dummy, he can learn the tactics and the rest of the regime, on the job, like every other pilot candidate. Requiring a university education smells strongly of elitism. Flying is a hands-and-feet job. Mission planning is a learned job like most jobs.
Obviously, skill alone is not enough. Intelligence is required. A simple aptitude test can suffice. The rest can be taught. A university education of any kind may be helpful, but it doesn't make you a better warrior. It certainly doesn't make you a better pilot. A degree in an unrelated field to aviation serves no purpose. It is a cop-out to fulfill a minimum requirement for entry and nothing more. I would offer this: Canada needs a strong military academy program to teach our future warriors,,,,, opps, silly me.... we used to have one.... where did it go?
In these times, to close doors instead of opening them, for potential members of the elite of the elite military, is simply foolish. Doors should be opening, not closing. Keep the standards very high. Allow no person past those very high standards unless they meet the requirements, but an artificial standard of elitism is not helping. Smarts, skills, talent, intelligence is what the CAF needs. University is not a true measure of ability. Intellect is the true measure. Don't dumb-down a thing, but require a minimum intelligence. A university degree doesn't make you a better warrior, or make you smarter, just more educated. They are mutually exclusive.
Talent and ability is what the CAF needs, not elitists
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A few things:
- University education sharpened my analytical and problem solving skills a great deal. That is something I will cherish and apply for as long as I can think on my own.
- University is elite? Have you seen some of the people coming out of school?
- If you use intellect as one of your standard measures, then what do you propose we use as a testing methodology for candidate pilots?
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
arctic_front - You are out of your lane, as you have no direct knowledge of the military, however I agree with much of what you say.
And Max - you would have done just as well without a degree, as thousands of us have done in the past.
KingKikapu - my analytical and problem-solving skills are quite adequate, I believe, without university. I developed them through military training beginning at the age of seventeen. Generations of pilots were adequately screened, trained, and tested without university.
And Max - you would have done just as well without a degree, as thousands of us have done in the past.
KingKikapu - my analytical and problem-solving skills are quite adequate, I believe, without university. I developed them through military training beginning at the age of seventeen. Generations of pilots were adequately screened, trained, and tested without university.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
