I have not. I'm going by my military buddies who say PAR was not that difficult.I have, hand flown. To a pitching carrier deck. Pretty sure DCAs Helo back ground has found him behind little boats in big seas in bad weather as well. How much real line and/or military flying have you done, at all?
Yes or no, you've ever actually shot a PAR to mins. Or any PAR. I've done it, I've also flown self contained radar approaches using air-ground mode of the radar. I've also done CATIII's. Any moron can couple up a CatIII.
A PAR requires all your navigation skills, because if the controller is wrong or trying to drive you into the ground, he still goes home. And it does happen. It's a hard approach to fly, and a perishable skill for the controller. In the mountains at night, it's terrifying. 99% of all PARs I've ever flown, were day VFR for controller proficiency so that when I did need him/her they'd be ready. Your generalization though of how a PAR is flown proves you actually don't know what you're talking about.
Programming the XYZ arrival to a CATIII ILS and letting Otto fly, then disengaging on the roll out? You're kidding right. Granted the FMS can be a challenge to the uninitiated... For about 25 hours.
Anyway, it was one of you two that tried to claim hero status for your PAR skillz, but let's not forget that most 121 operators never fly PAR.
That means that a mil pilot with lotsa PAR approaches will not have any advantage over a civilian pilot who has flown the actual approaches that will be used, such as an ILS.
In that instance, a civil pilot - depending on background - may have many times the number of hand-flown no-guidance ILS approaches, usually in airplanes with minimal automation.
Again the idea that ALLLLLLL military pilots are auuuutomaticaly the superior choice, in every case, over a high-time regional captain is quite silly.
But that is precisely what so many mil pilots wish to believe. That a military pedigree is the ultimate trump card. That it is an automatic assurance that said military pilot is - by default - the superior choice to a civilian pilot in every case, at all times.
Like I said, only a fool would believe it, and only a very insecure person would NEED to believe it.
And hey, PAR sounds kind of fun. Kind of like flying a very low ILS, but without any of the stress of tracking needles.
If you want to claim your aircraft carrier experience, by all means. I really see no application to civilian flying, though.
Beyond all this, I also want to point out what I said before - a high time civilian pilot has years working within the 121 framework, has a much more comfortable working knowledge of 121 regulations, and a sense of how 121 operations are conducted. A military pilot has to learn all this. It probably takes from three months to a year to absorb the 121 operational environment for someone who comes from outside it.
This is also true of 135 and 91 pilots. The 91 pilots struggle the most (on average) since many come from an entirely unstructured flight department.
Now, would I expect the average mil pilot to out-perform the average 135 or 91 pilot. Probably, and Yes would be the answers I would give.
But a high time 121 pilot is most often a proven commodity, and I think that it is silly to assume that a fresh lower time military pilot is automatically the superior choice to a skilled civilian pilot.
The only people who need "trump cards" are those who lack the confidence to make it on real skill. If you're so much better than everyone, let the interview and interview sim ride tell the tale.