"So You Want To Be A Pilot" Merged Thread 2002 - 2018

[hauger]

They pretty much told me it was not going to happen because I got my license from a flight school not on their list.

Why each time I try to enlist I get stuck with BS regs is beyond me ...

What?  That makes zero sense.  What about ROTP?

First things first, from a full time point of view, your Commercial Helo Pilot licence isn't worth much except as a few talking points on the merit list.  You'll still have to bomb around on the Grob, the Harvard II, and the jet ranger (IF you get helo's after PHIIA).

Where your CHP might hold some water is on the reserves side of things.  I'm not sure what the requirements are or what the chances are, but I do know the option exists (assuming you're near a reserve sqn).  You might do well to call the sqn and talk with someone there if that's the path you're thinking of.

 

[hauger]

Could it be argued that the degree issue has more to do with being an officer than being a pilot?  A way (flawed, perhaps) of the CF to insure a certain level of education in its officer corp?

Meh.  I'd argue it has more to do with the thousands and thousands of applications the CF gets every year for the job.  A degree serves as a nice vetting tool.  Sure, that probably eliminates a bunch of otherwise qualified people, but there's no shortage of very talented, fully qualified people applying.

 

[George Wallace]

Meh.  I'd argue it has more to do with the thousands and thousands of applications the CF gets every year for the job.  A degree serves as a nice vetting tool.  Sure, that probably eliminates a bunch of otherwise qualified people, but there's no shortage of very talented, fully qualified people applying.

Unfortunately, too many, both in high places and in their first year of university, seem to be of the opinion that a university education makes one a "Leader".  A great many aren't.  Even more, aren't even managers. 

I still wonder why the CF is unlike other organizations.  What organization recruits its CEOs from High School?  I am of the opinion we should be recruiting our Leadership from our PLQ, 6A. 6B and 7's Crses.  Give those Top Candidates a Career Choice; the officer route and RMC, or the NCM route.  All the BMOQ, IAP, and CAP requirements of RMC students would be greatly reduced and more time could be spent on academics and Leadership trg.

 

[Neill McKay]

Would my prior qualifications helps or will the PC Quotas system will keep me down the list

I won't work in recruiting, but given the large numbers of early twenty-something white men who join the Forces every year I don't think you have to worry much about any "PC Quotas system"

 

[CountDC]

Could it be argued that the degree issue has more to do with being an officer than being a pilot?  A way (flawed, perhaps) of the CF to insure a certain level of education in its officer corp?

I think no argument there - it is to do with being an officer.  Then the question becomes why require officers to have a degree unless that degree has a bearing on their trade?  Oceanography Degree - Licensed Pilot with 10 years experience.  I would take my chances on the pilot - he has already proven himself capable.

 

[Loachman]

Why each time I try to enlist I get stuck with BS regs is beyond me ...

For any job that you may be interested in, regardless of the employer, there are certain requirements and expectations set by that employer.

When the employer is going to be sinking over a million dollars in training you for that job, those requirements and expectations are fairly high.

You meet them, or you don't get the job.

Where there are more applicants than positions, you exceed them, or you don't get the job.

If you want the job enough, you'll do that.

If you are not willing to, then don't bother applying. You'll only waste your time and my tax dollars, and hold up somebody else who is more deserving, and who will be more effective.

It sounds to me like you don't want this very much.

It sounds to me like you wouldn't succeed if you did get the opportunity.

I don't care how much talent and ability and knowledge and experience you think that you have. The type of flying that we do bears little relationship to what you have done to date. You are not a special case.

If you want to fly with us, you do it our way.

 

[Loachman]

As I understand it you will need to get retrained from scratch. The good part is that you get paid for it. Military flying is different from civillian flying, and they'll train you to do the job the way the CF wants it done. The good part is that you won't be bogged down in the 'how do I fly this' stuff (at least on the helicopter) and can concentrate on the 'How can I do this job well' stuff.

I know that you're trying to be helpful, but I just checked your profile and there's no way that you can give anybody any meaningful advice about this - unless there's a whole bunch of stuff that you haven't gotten around to putting into your profile, including an age update.

There will be, besides Officer training, an extensive seized-wing training period as well before helicopter training begins. I have instructed a few pilot applicants with commercial helicopter backgrounds, and they had varying levels of difficulty adapting to our methods. Lack of instrument experience was a significant problem.

Want to be a military pilot? Do as the nice recruiter says, work hard, and stop whining about "BS regulations".

 

[daedalusx]

For any job that you may be interested in, regardless of the employer, there are certain requirements and expectations set by that employer.

When the employer is going to be sinking over a million dollars in training you for that job, those requirements and expectations are fairly high.

You meet them, or you don't get the job.

Where there are more applicants than positions, you exceed them, or you don't get the job.

If you want the job enough, you'll do that.

If you are not willing to, then don't bother applying. You'll only waste your time and my tax dollars, and hold up somebody else who is more deserving, and who will be more effective.

It sounds to me like you don't want this very much.

It sounds to me like you wouldn't succeed if you did get the opportunity.

I don't care how much talent and ability and knowledge and experience you think that you have. The type of flying that we do bears little relationship to what you have done to date. You are not a special case.

If you want to fly with us, you do it our way.

Point taken.

I somewhat disagree on the taxpayer's waste of money. I already shelled out 75K out of my pocket to get my CPHL. I believe that's 75K I would have saved the govt.

I somewhat disagree with the difference in training. Comms, navs, physics of flight is extremely similar between civilian and military. Emergency procedures too. Also I'm pretty sure some of us have trained with some of you (Penticton Mountain Course, in instance) while I think you're right about difference in types of flying I still believe skills I've developed in my career should be recognized.

I still fail to see why someone with any university degree would have higher priority than a a pilot who had the responsibility of flying pilot in command. I'm almost through university and there is nothing I see that convince me graduates are more mature or have more leadership skills than anyone else. But like the others said, it's been beaten to death.

I do believe if it was such a bad idea others Army wouldn't do it as the Americans do have a program to convert civilian aviators to the military way of life. I do want to serve my country. As for the comment on my motivation and/or dedication .. well we'll see about that, shall we?

[edit]

I have instructed a few pilot applicants with commercial helicopter backgrounds, and they had varying levels of difficulty adapting to our methods. Lack of instrument experience was a significant problem.

I will be through ATPL-H and IFR within 2009.

 

[Loachman]

Then the question becomes why require officers to have a degree unless that degree has a bearing on their trade?

I've expounded upon this before. It's irrelevant, and arbitrary.

I would take my chances on the pilot - he has already proven himself capable.

No, he hasn't. Prior civilian flying experience is no guarantee of attaining one's wings.

 

[Loachman]

I somewhat disagree on the taxpayer's waste of money.

The waste comes in if you fail.

I already shelled out 75K out of my pocket to get my CPHL. I believe that's 75K I would have saved the govt.

Then you believe wrong.

Regardless of what you have done, you are going to go through our pilot training programme. It may or may not be tailored to some degree, but not much. We require a common standard, and there is only one way to ensure that common standard.

And as I said earlier, prior civilian flying experience is no guarantee of getting through.

For some, it's a benefit, for others it's not - some cannot relearn or adapt, and some think that their way is best.

I somewhat disagree with the difference in training. Comms, navs, physics of flight is extremely similar between civilian and military. Emergency procedures too. Also I'm pretty sure some of us have trained with some of you (Penticton Mountain Course, in instance) while I think you're right about difference in types of flying I still believe skills I've developed in my career should be recognized.

It doesn't make any difference what you disagree with or believe. You are simply not going to sit beside any of us in a cockpit until you have met the same standard. Period.

And there are diferences, including the regulations that bind each community, civil and military.

I still fail to see why someone with any university degree would have higher priority than a a pilot who had the responsibility of flying pilot in command. I'm almost through university and there is nothing I see that convince me graduates are more mature or have more leadership skills than anyone else.

I don't see why university is a requirement either. It wasn't always that way. Somebody well above my pay level made that decision, though, and that's what you have to accept and live with. As you are about to meet that requirement anyway, I do not understand why you are making a fuss about it.

I do believe if it was such a bad idea others Army wouldn't do it as the Americans do have a program to convert civilian aviators to the military way of life.

There is a considerable difference in what is expected of a US Army Warrant Officer Pilot and a CF Officer Pilot.

That aside, I have never claimed that our way is perfect. Far from it. You can churn through my previous posts if you want to see my views on that and other things.

As for the comment on my motivation and/or dedication .. well we'll see about that, shall we?

Perhaps.

I may have formed an inaccurate first impression, but that's the one that you gave me.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

[edit]I will be through ATPL-H and IFR within 2009.

Then you may be eligible for the HELICOP programme, if you wish to be a reservist and vacancies are available. You're still going to go through the pilot training programme anyway if you go the regular force route.

 

[dustinm]

No...you were speaking out of your Lane and we frown upon that here. Do it too often and you can end up being banned.

Milnet.Ca Staff

Thanks for putting that clearly. I'll keep that in mind in the future.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just a few points I may add and/or put emphasis on...

I somewhat disagree on the taxpayer's waste of money. I already shelled out 75K out of my pocket to get my CPHL. I believe that's 75K I would have saved the govt.

75K is NOTHING compared to what the CF would pay for your training.  It's counted in M$. 

I somewhat disagree with the difference in training. Comms, navs, physics of flight is extremely similar between civilian and military. Emergency procedures too. Also I'm pretty sure some of us have trained with some of you (Penticton Mountain Course, in instance) while I think you're right about difference in types of flying I still believe skills I've developed in my career should be recognized.

Let me see, comms are different.  Civies don't have much standard on comms.  Depending on which community you get into, comm jaming isn't the way to go and comm discipline (and standard) is expected. 

Nav is different.  On the Basic course, you do navs at 500 ft and 240 kts.  Have you done that lately?  They expect you to be on time, on target (within 30 seconds) and are very picky about the way you navigate.  The end (ie: getting on target) doesn't mean you had a good flight.

Physics of flight?  You'll have to go from a helo to a fixed wing.  In my books that's pretty darn different. 

Emergency Procedures?  Extremely different.  The way you would deal with emergency on your basic flying training is much different that anything you've done civy wise.  Red Pages memorization and regurgition is only one part of it.  The hard part comes after.

And the "similarities" end here.  All in all, you've never done aerobatics (most likely), never really flown low and fast, never flown IFR, and never flown in formation, 10 feet from an other aircraft.  These 4 aspects are the 4 phases of the basic flying training. Otherwise, the standard expected is, I found, much higher than any civilian flying school and/or Transport Canada could ask.

I still fail to see why someone with any university degree would have higher priority than a a pilot who had the responsibility of flying pilot in command. I'm almost through university and there is nothing I see that convince me graduates are more mature or have more leadership skills than anyone else. But like the others said, it's been beaten to death.

That's a requirement to be an officer.  Pilots are officers.  Just like other airlines, to be a pilot in the CF, you need to be competitive.  There isn't a lack of qualified applicant from the pool. If you claim your Flying Experience will give you an edge, refer to what Loachman said previously.

I do believe if it was such a bad idea others Army wouldn't do it as the Americans do have a program to convert civilian aviators to the military way of life. I do want to serve my country. As for the comment on my motivation and/or dedication .. well we'll see about that, shall we?

Your initial post sounds like you can't get a civilian job because of the market, therefore, to keep flying, you want to join the CF.  Why didn't you join before you started your flight training?

I will be through ATPL-H and IFR within 2009.

I have personally seen people with ATPL/IFR fail the IFR portion of the basic course and even fail the course.  Doesn't mean anything.

 

[ark]

I'm white male, 22, from Quebec and I've got my CPHL (Commercial Pilot's helicopter license) since about two years. The aviation industry in Canada is terrible and jobs were non-existant last year and with the current economical context it's getting worse, if such thing was possible.
I'm going through university (admin/finance) right now and I was wondering if after my graduation I could be elligible for flight Officer in the CF. Would my prior qualifications helps or will the PC Quotas system will keep me down the list even if I am fully qualified to fly these machines ?

I've got a few hundreds hours of air time, mostly piston but some turbine time as well.

I know the Americans have a fast track program to get civilian aircrews in the US Army as CWO but unfortunatly American citizenship is required.
Any information on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

One of the initiatives that is going to be implemented (or is already in place?) is that Commercial Pilot License holders will be exempted from the Primary Flight Training. I assume CAPSS as well, but that is to be confirmed. However, I believe you need a Fixed wing CPL to get on the shorter path. Perhaps someone here may have the most accurate info?

 

[daedalusx]

And the "similarities" end here.  All in all, you've never done aerobatics (most likely), never really flown low and fast, never flown IFR, and never flown in formation, 10 feet from an other aircraft. 

Yes I already did all of those, but that's obviously not the point isn't it ?

As for the why I went commercial vs military it's mostly a private matter but I wouldn't mind discussing it in PM.

And it's not about trying to "keep" flying. I registered here on 2005 when I was still trying to join the Army. Obviously some things changed but my desire to join did not.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yes I already did all of those, but that's obviously not the point isn't it ?

Maybe you did, maybe you did not.  However, I can guarantee, with experience in both, civilian and military, that the standard and the way of doing things is much much much different.

 

[daedalusx]

However, I can guarantee, with experience in both, civilian and military, that the standard and the way of doing things is much much much different.

And I would 100% agree with you.

And I certainly did not want to come off as an arrogant "I know how to fly now gimme a right-side cockpit seat" 100 hours community college wonder.

My disappointment and bitterness came from the fact that my license, skills, decision making abilities and leadership as a PIC wouldn't not count in the selection process. I assure you that I now understand the "why". Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[SupersonicMax]

And I would 100% agree with you.

And I certainly did not want to come off as an arrogant "I know how to fly now gimme a right-side cockpit seat" 100 hours community college wonder.

My disappointment and bitterness came from the fact that my license, skills, decision making abilities and leadership as a PIC wouldn't not count in the selection process. I assure you that I now understand the "why". Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway.

Although I believe your previous flying experience may help (depends really on the individual), I think that someone with 0 experience has the same odds of getting pilot wings that someone with PFE.  All what your license proves is motivation towards flying.  Your decision making abilities and leadership skills will be taken into account, if you're able to sell it in the interview.

 

[Unglunk]

    I found the mention of this person with the oceanography degree making pilot to be a good point. I have always sort of chuckled at this degree requirement to be commisioned, but like someone on here said, they have to have something to use as a guide for choosing the commisioned.

    A couple of years ago i found myself in Victoria for the Naval Officer Assessment Board week; i had applied CEOTP for a MARS job. It was actually a really interesting week and they cut no corners for expense, top notch everything. I was told that i would be better suited for combat arms officer of some kind, or NCM Med Tech at the end of the week, and i agreed, but still a great trip.

    I had a chance during that week to sit down over meals with NCM people, Commisioned people, and pretty much anyone else that would let me bother them and this degree topic came up more then once. One guy that i had to just shake my head at was this very out of shape, extremely annoying guy who had a degree in Drama from somewhere; he had been working as a cook since finishing his degree 3 years prior, but basically thought he was a God. He figured that having a degree showed you could commit to something and therefore showed leadership. I argued that many degrees require you to give minimal effort and just put time in, and in most cases have nothing to do with your military occupation, as is the case with MARS and Pilot. I mentioned that work experience to me, showed leadership as well, but of course this chat went nowhere. I have been a PAramedic full time for 9 years and mentioned that i thought that held more leadership weight then his Drama degree, but the rules are what they are.

      I was very surprised to see that a Pilot doesn't require a more specific degree, like engineering, physics or something else that might be of some use to the actual job.

    I sum it up as this, at least Canada even has the CEOTP option. Countries like England and the US do not, at least i don't think so. This to me shows that they are receptive of the idea that other non degreed applicants have what it takes to be a leader, but at least through CEOTP, they can cover this tradition of a degree. You can't beat the system, but i do sympathize.

    I'm now waiting to start as a semi skilled Med Tech, a much better fit for me and my families needs.

 

[Someone]

You don't get a pilot degree. As I said in one of my previous post, you need A degree (any).  Then, after RMC, you do Pilot Training (which ISN'T a degree, it's military occupation training)

Max

even infantry?
what is the process if i want to be a CF-18 pilot, could you make like a timeline from beginning to end? (example: high school diploma -> basic soldier training -> RMC -> Pilot training, pilot (?))
and if im qualified to be a pilot, and i get chosen to be a helicopter pilot...what if i dont want to? can i still leave the pilot training and go infantry?

 

[George Wallace]

even infantry?
what is the process if i want to be a CF-18 pilot, could you make like a timeline from beginning to end? (example: high school diploma -> basic soldier training -> RMC -> Pilot training, pilot (?))
and if im qualified to be a pilot, and i get chosen to be a helicopter pilot...what if i dont want to? can i still leave the pilot training and go infantry?

Better late than never......




Welcome to Army.ca. Here are some reading references that are core to how Army.ca operates. I strongly recommend you take a moment to read through these to give you a better sense for the environment here. It will help you avoid the common pitfalls which can result in miscommunication and confusion. For those that choose not to read, their actions often lead to warnings being issued or even permanent bans.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34015/post-260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-259412.html#msg259412

Frequently Asked Questions - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41136.0.html

• Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html
• Army.ca Wiki Recruiting FAQ - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions
  • Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/threads/21101/post-103977.html#msg103977
  • Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf

• Infantry Specific FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21131.0.html

CFAT practice test - http://64.254.158.112/pdf/preparing_for_aptitude_test_en.pdf

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.