I dont disagree with you all but I dont totally agree.

I think the 1500 hour rule is a blanket rule but I totally agree with it. It mitigates some of the risk when you are dealing with the average pilot. If you had a guy that was raised in aviation by his airline pilot dad/mom, flying their family plane every weekend maybe he would be better than the average. You cant however apply that idea accross the board. Most guys/gals dont have tons of exposure to aviation prior to flight school or are natural sticks so you cannot count on that when designing the rule. I do however know that when I got my CFI, I realized very quickly that I couldn't fly for sh** compared to a senior (currently flying) CFI and didn't have the knowledge base that they did either. That is the point of instructing, you are asked questions you wouldn't have thought of yourself on a regular basis. Also, you push the envelope on the aircraft that you wouldn't normally either. Constant stalls, maneuvers build your stick and rudder skills and basic airmanship very quickly. I do not however feel a 300 or 500 hour pilot has any buisiness in the right seat of an airliner. In 135 ops, we had part 91 observers serve as right seaters. Low time, low pay, but really they were just there to serve as an SIC but hold no responsibility what so ever. Its a very common thing.

Back to the 1000 hour rule, my point again is this. A person could have 6000 hours experience. Multiple type ratings, years of experience, etc. There should be some additional provisions to allow a credit or exclusion of that rule. You guys bring up great points, but my direct issue is that a person could have flown a king air 300 under scheduled passenger ops for a 1000 hours and waive the requirement. However, a person flying a Brasilia 120 under scheduled cargo ops cannot. The King Air pilot would not be a safe person under your definitions but the FAA feels otherwise.