Originally Posted by
xtownboy
I can't believe this post has lasted for 14 pages, but I did have a question about non CFI routes to building hours. I saw a couple posts on this and I agree the CFI route is the most common and a great way to build hours. I was lucky and landed a great job flying jumpers, I am in my second year and I will admit it has made me much better pilot then the 250 hr rookie.
Are pilots that don't teach looked down on in the 121 world?
I get to fly old twin turbine aircraft loaded with min fuel and packed full of jumpers off a grass stip between two corn fields 16 times a day sometimes and love every minute of it. I know I am not teaching but its still great flying exericence.
As far as the original post, there is no way in $#% I would ever put my name on something like that.
I think every type of flying has its benefits, but look at it this way.
Doing your type of flying (16 times day) gets repetitve obviously. You are single pilot, taking off from a grass field (uncontrolled), climbing to altitude, jumpers gone, spirling down (any other traffic?), and landing, load up again and do it again.
After so much time of that - what new *airline type* skills are you developing? One reason airlines (and I would believe most) like to see instructors is because they have experience *watching others* and usually have little problem prompting others when things go awry. Even if you are not the one with the hands on the controls - teaching, watching, and evaluating is considered good experience; though repetitve also, the old saying a million times around the pattern I'm sure. But every student brings a different set of challenges with them too. In the end - I would think (but do not know and have no experience in hiring for the airlines) that a 1,000 hrs of CFI'ing would be looked on more favorably than a 1,000 hrs of flying jumpers. In my mind though - that doesn't mean that a 1,000 hrs of CFI'ing would be better than some other type of non-CFI flying, like aerial survey for example.
USMCFLYR