Dangerous Flights- Discovery Channel

boboldpilot wrote: »

Well you made laugh out loud now! This is the line that set me off. You cannot be serious, just exactly how do you think anyone becomes a military test pilot? I'm pretty sure the military has cross country flying well covered, sometimes at night a hundred feet off the ground. I'm amazed any 'pilot' would make a statement like that.

Ah with every post you score an own goal my friend. The best way to spot a pretender is to look out for their literal interpretation of posts and facts/references. Thats the only way to stretch a little knowledge a long way. You show a lack of in depth around the place knowledge in how you both read and then respond to what I am saying.
I am not making a literal point in what I am saying. I am pointing out that you can have 1000s of hours of flying but be useless still if those hours are all one type of flying. You could have 10,000 hours in the Eurofighter but if you sit into the cockpit of an A320 the guy with 250h just off the type rating course is gonna be much better able to operate it than you are!
Again your hours are just a number unless they are related to the flying you are doing!

Then there's thisAgain you make assumptions about the pilot's actions based on the narrow view of a TV show. I directed you to their bios on the website. Do you honestly think they managed to log multiple thousands of hours while ignoring the basic rules of airmanship? Again I'm surprised a 'pilot' would assume that.

Firstly if you had ever flown in America you would know the answer to that is yes! Go fly in North Florida/Georgia/Louisiana and see if they even know what the word airmanship means!

Now this is where you get me wrong. I did not judge the pilots as people, or their experience. I pointed out how stupid the decisions and scenarios depicted in the show were. I have no doubt Discovery have edited the crap out of it to make it look exciting. Watching that show the pilots appear negligent in the extreme, but that is not to say that in reality they were!

It's a stupid concept in the end.

This is funny too. Comedy gold in fact. Just imagine the scene at an airline interview, Captain Flasheart is being disappointed by the airline interviewer. 'I'm sorry Captain, your 10,000 hours is no good to us at Mega airlines. So what if you were leader of the Red Arrows, won the world aerobatic championship three times and chief test pilot on the Eurofighter. We don't need your sort here. No our preferred candidate is a 350 hour hotshot just back from Florida where he was hour building in a clapped out Cessna.':p

Airlines may or may not have any preferences for aerobatic or test pilots. But I'm sure they all would prefer a pilot who knows enough about basic flying not to pull back on the sidestick with the stall warning blaring away and wonder why it isn't climbing.

This bit interests me. If you go through an airline interview process(at least the one I went through and the guys and girls I know did)the scenario you paint there is actually reality. Very few airlines are very keen anymore on hotshots from the military. It is seen mostly in the states but a little bit around Europe too. In the past obviously Air Force to National Carrier was a well beaten path, however in recent decades with the whole CRM system it's been found that many military pilots integrate poorly into the airline environment. In my company there are a few. Only one is ex-RAF fast jet. There are a couple of ex-rotary and the rest are all ex-military transport pilots. I was surprised when they suggested that ex RAF guys were having a tough time getting into the airline game as I thought as you do that having a few 1000 Eurofighter hours would be a ticket in, but they said as I said earlier "different type of flying".
A test pilot and aerobatic pilots are used to taking risks and used to having many more back ups when those risks do not come off(such as an ejector seat). They also tend to fall back on their handling skills and believe they will see them through. This leads to over confidence and poor overall decision making on their part.
To be an aerobatic pilot or race pilot you have to be negligent. It's a personality trait required to be good at it. Like BASE jumpers. You have to be a little nuts. Unfortunately commercial operations prefer people who are a little more straight laced and fearful.
To address your last point about the side-stick and stall directly. A low hour hero from a big flight school will have had the fear of stall bet into him from day one. Once he sees the speed get close to stall speed he things "ah stall better keep on top of that". However one of these former test pilots thinks "hmmm stall speed is getting close...ah well...I'll be grand I'll stay above it"....(few seconds) *STALL WARNING*.
Being experienced is very attractive to an airline....however being experienced at doing stuff they'd rather you didnt do while flying with them....not so much.

boboldpilot wrote: »

My God, you've a lot to learn my friend. To be fair you do seem to have the traits of a good old line pilot. A bit dull and predictable. You're no fighter pilot that's for sure. Turning an aeroplane upside down is an anathema to you. There are lots of pilots like you, pilots who've never quite grasped the three dimensional aspect of their chosen profession. By the way you're seriously wrong in your assessment of test pilots and years out of date. The modern test pilot is no steely eyed, hair on fire type ready to push the edge of the envelope and beyond. Chuck Yeager would never have got that job these days. For one he's an arrogant SOB and for another he's no Engineer. Test pilots are Engineers first, pilots second. They don't take unneccessary risks anymore. Everything is pre-planned and worked out in advance. Being a test pilot is more closely akin to being a systems operator than a pilot.

Again as you just said your self it is a totally different type of flying and so not considered toward commercial cross country or international transport flying. Thus rendering the experience of lesser use when it comes to transport flying.
Actually I've been in flying from a reasonably young age and flown many different types. I've been upside down, round and round and in and out. I'm never too keen to reveal any great detail about myself here. But I've flown SEP/MEP Land in Ireland and SEP/MEP Land/Sea and gliders in the US along with A320s in Europe(granted that's a newer venture). I can tell you your attitude sticks out like a sore thumb as far as someone outside the industry looking in romantically. Nobody in any serious position in aviation has this "yeeh ha...back country flying boy!!" attitude you see on tv. Flying in general but especially in a place like Ireland is so small a community and other pilots will not tolerate negligent practice from people. Several people(and we all may know some) are blacklisted by flying clubs. They may be brilliant pilots and have great skills but they are dangerous.

I have flown in America, haven't we all? I have to say I've met some of the finest pilots I've ever had the privilege to fly with and I've met some who really should have chosen an alternative career. But they don't end up with 15,000 hours in their pile of logbooks unless they are good at what they do.

You're very hard on the American system, but it works and it works better than the overly bureaucratic EASA system we have to deal with.

I'm not saying there are not some very fine pilots there. I flew with and around some very good pilots there. However there are many many pilots there who are a danger to themselves and others and have a cowboy attitude that is not tolerated in Europe. There are far too many pilots in the remoter parts of the South and South East of America who fly out of small strips and have 1000s of hours on their own aircraft. Some of them are unlicensed, but some of them would not inspire confidence on the US system of flight testing at all!
The EASA system is far better than the FAA's from a not being killed or killing point of view!

It's no secret that some fast jet pilots have difficulty integrating into the airline system. All too often it's not the experience but personality. Not everyone is cut out to be an airline pilot. Nevertheless there are many who made the transition. But your comparison of a test pilot versus a 100 hour PPL is plainly ridiculous and funny. I don't like fearful pilots, they're scary and dangerous and have no place in the cockpit. I flew with one once, he made me nervous with his attitude. Unsurprisingly it turned out he had faked some of his hours and experience. No wonder he was fearful. You're also completly wrong in assessing aerobatic and race pilots as 'negligent'. A good friend of mine, is both and a former fighter pilot. I'd gladly let my kids fly with him. Funnily enough he's a ferry pilot too. If there's a better pilot out there I haven't met him. If you're fearful of flying that isn't straight and level then I hope you never get into an unusual attitude or suffer from spatial disorientation.

Yet again like I said. You have the attitude of somebody who looks in at aviation and not somebody who had been in the air and experienced various things. Perhaps that is why you are the only one to take great issue with the assessment of the professional pilots on this thread
A real pilot understands that all flying, and hell even every flight is different. Flying an SEP/MEP aircraft in the circuit at an airfield you are thinking about speed and configuration and approach planning. SEP cross country you think about weather enroute, times etc, fuel usages and diversion plans if your destination is closed or unusable. You also look out every so often for a nice field to make an emergency landing if needs be. MEP cross country fields go out the window and you are now looking at the map to keep up to date with where the nearest airport is and keep the drill for a lost engine close to mind. If you have floats on you look out for water bodies big enough too and that changes the game again totally. Fly a glider and that's a whole new ball game.
If I'm flying a King and I loose an engine and i have 15000 hours 8000 of that may be SEP and 3000 may be SEP sea time and so my real experience here is at most 4000 hours. Suddenly my 15000 hours looks a little less impressive. That is why you always see in reports on accidents the "pilots had X amount of hours, X amount on type"
It's where the hours are earned that decide how good you are...not how many. Go ask a student how many hours he has. He may tell you "Oh 110"...you ask "How many P1?" "Oh ehhh....25"...is he as experienced as he 1st appeared?
The fact you cannot grasp that concept or just do not know that undermines both your argument and credibility.

boboldpilot wrote: »

I'm kind of enjoying the debate and I've gone along with the joke that I'm really a computer geek but seriously I'm beginning to wonder about you. Some things don't add up.

4000 hours on a King Air would be quite impressive by anyone's standards except yours. Apparently not even 15,000 hours impresses you. After 35 years, let me assure you my romance with aviation is way past the flowers and chocolate stage. Unlike my marriage, which reminds me. Better get the good lady something nice today.

I have to say in all that time. I don't think I've met anyone with an attitude and viewpoint quite like yours, particularly so early in a career. In fact it's notable at the absence of comment on this thread from the self evident professional pilots who contribute occasionally. Just ill judged aspersions cast on the TV pilots from non pilots, PC pilots, PPLs and you.

You know that's why instead of lurking as I have done until now. I decided to register. I get offended when people criticise pilots or try to minimise what we do. I get annoyed when it's said to my face that 'Those things fly themselves'. I also notice lately that several contributors to this forum are happy to denigrate pilots for doing their job and then get all offended when they're told they don't know what they'r talking about.

Seeing as you refuse to acknowledge the pilots in the programme may actually be good at what they do. Let's abstract some of the bios:

Marco Lucchese, an umimpressive 10,000 hours, Airbus Captain with an American major and delivery pilot for King Airs and Phenoms.

Bob Raskey, 25,000 hours, flew for the military and the airlines.

Randy McGehee, airline pilot for a major, owns his own aviation company. Interesting quote from him: “It’s very tough to walk from a big plane to a Cessna. The physics is the same but the procedures, responsibilities and demands of each one are different. Flying for an airline is very regulated, there are procedures put in place for everything we do. In ferry flying you are relying on yourself to get it done. There’s very little room to screw up. You can’t fake this kind of flying.”

If we're to believe some of the contributions to this thread, they are all yee ha cowboy pilots who fake it all the time and are danger to themselves and everyone else.

I've known several pilots who died in accidents. Most were young and low time and frankly they thought they knew it all. Interesting that.

There is not much more for me to say really. It's clear this will go on a while as you cannot understand the points that are being made you to.
Several times in my last few posts I have left massive doors open for you to engage in the nuts and bolts of flying but you have missed them because you lack the knowledge to spot them.
It's a well known fact in aviation that no pilot quotes his overall hours for anything, because it is well known that a lot of the time somebody who does that is hiding something. A pilot will always quote the flight experience relevant to the question asked.
You seem to be tarring me as an integrated 200h wonder put into a fly by wire aircraft. Well let me tell you. I had 1300+ hours when I applied for my 1st airline job, a lot of it through summer work and some recreational flying with family in the states. When I arrived at the interview the very 1st thing the pilot on the panel said was "Oh 1300 hours?...how much P1 and what types have you flown?". They cared little for the number, more the quality. That is what you keep missing post after post!

The very direction your posts go and points you make undermine the points made themselves.

You're reading the thread from the point of view of somebody quick to jump to the defence of romantic heros...not as a pilot who has met and seen these 15,000 pilots and rolled his eyes to heaven at the carry on they get up to.
Highlighted in this thread are the glaring errors portrayed in the show that cannot be justified no matter how many hours you have! Taking off into a thunderstorm with no alternate and less fuel than you need cannot be justified by 15,000 hours in the book!

I agree we'll argue round in circles. So I wont engage you further however I'll just take this last one

boboldpilot wrote: »

.

How's that Airbus job going btw, pay to fly obviously? Good luck with that hope it works for you. Not a good move professionally.

The only people that generally come out with that are people with green eyes