Originally Posted by
skylover
I would wager that between an Embry-Riddle pilot straight out of college with 1,000 hours and experience as an undergrad CFI at Embry Riddle, and a pilot who trained at a Mom and Pop school and graduated from U Anytown, flight instructed at said flight school after graduation and has 1,500+ hours, the ERAU pilot gets picked.
Disclaimer: I've never personally be involved in the hiring process at a 121 operation (I have been at a small jet 135 operation). My observations and discussions with those who have been indicate that you are NOT correct in this assertion. The airlines care that you HAVE a degree from a reputable college or university, they really don't care where it's from or what it's in. They really don't give a hoot about where you did your flight training* - yes a structured program is a bonus, but if there is any sort of simulator evaluation they'll be able to determine your flying skills, command presence, CRM skills, and SA in about five to ten minutes. Having gone to a structured program may well give you a leg up in that department, but you're going to have to prove it - it WILL NOT be assumed.
* The standard disclaimer that this doesn't apply to military flight training applies here, but even they still have to establish their skills in a sim ride, and there are a number who do fail.
Not intending to be insulting (though this probably comes across that way), my suggestion would be to put down the glossy brochures and do more research on your own, read more threads on here where this has been hashed out countless times and read what people with a decade or more in the industry have to say on the matter.
Originally Posted by
skylover
If you can say one thing about Embry Riddle-type schools, it's that they produce a uniformly proficient pilot. This doesn't mean the best aviator in the world, but it means a general group that regional hiring managers can depend upon in terms of skills and knowledge.
And so do a number of university flight programs; I'll put a grad from Purdue, SIU, and probably even UND (as much as I hate to say it) up against an ER grad any day of the week. I don't know so much about now (I've been out the direct loop too long), but some years back I think Purdue's program was arguably markedly superior to ER.
Don't get me wrong - I've flown with a number of capable, competent pilots from ER; but the most accurate part of the "Harvard of Aviation" refers to the price tag, not the quality.
Now since you apparently have piles of money to burn, knock yourself out; but I'd suggest saving some of Mom and Dad's money for when you get tired of Top Ramen while living in a crashpad in Hoboken.
Originally Posted by
skylover
I challenge your statement that your mentioned education route produces a "better, more knowledgeable, and safer pilot." The chart I posted above in this thread proves otherwise, and dramatically so.
The path I'm referring to is the one where you don't do all of your flying in ANY university, 141, or 121 operation. One where you gain 1000 or more hours as the lonely guy on a nasty winter's night/facing down a squall line/running low on fuel when all the airports nearby are going below minimums, who has to make the hard decision whether to takeoff/continue/divert/whatever without anyone but yourself and your knowledge and skills to rely on. I will
GUARANTEE you THAT educational path produces a pilot who is
VASTLY SUPERIOR to a pilot who did any structured, instructed for a while (and I'm all for being a CFI; you will learn VOLUMES from doing it - but it's not a complete education in and of itself either), then hired on as a 121 FO with less than ATP minimums. There is extremely valuable education out there that money cannot buy.
[QUOTE=skylover;1230762]At least for me, it would be difficult to juggle majoring in a separate topic, AND taking ground school on-campus/flight training off-campus. I just don't learn the best that way. The biggest issue is that ground school and flight training aren't "in sync" if you will. At ERAU (which indeed I'm favoring), ground and flight school are synchronized and work hand-in-hand. That in and of itself is a tremendous benefit, at least for me, to attend ERAU. And I do think that produces a better quality education.[QUOTE]
That's fine and understandable, but that criteria certainly doesn't point only to ER - again in that case (since saving $ isn't huge issue) go to one of the state schools with a quality program and double major in aviation and _________. That said, it's not that difficult to sync the flying and the ground courses, particularly is you aren't struggling to come up with the funds to do the flight training. But if the "pre-packaged" route fits for you, by all means do that.
[QUOTE=skylover;1230762]To each his own. As always, I love having these kinds of discussions - of course, people have different opinions, but I appreciate these kinds of conversations.
[QUOTE]
I'm glad you feel that way, but I hope that you take some of this to heart and aren't just debating for the Socratic exercise.
Originally Posted by
USMCFLYR
Well....we all know about assumptions.
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
You appear to have understood what I am attempting to communicate perfectly.
I too like the structure of a formal program, but not because the courses were "synced," but rather because the performance standards we were held to (in the ground schools more than the flight portion) did a good job of mirroring the expectations I've been faced with in 121 training programs. It makes a big difference going into such a program know HOW to go about studying and preparing for your training - to me that is one of the biggest values of a structured program (in addition the the comprehensiveness of the ground courses). I really think the importance of high quality ground training is vastly under-rated. Not that good flight training isn't important as well, but the classroom knowledge is so foundational and yet it often get the short shrift because it's not as "glamorous" as operating the machine.
I'll shut up now before I go another 2 pages...