Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
I really don't think you can. Can you make one better than some of the other ones out there using the methods you mention? - Sure. But in the end, it's still a program designed to put a zero hour candidate into an airline cockpit with minimal experience. A far different goal than building a military pilot who is then going to spend years perfecting his craft, with most actually flying and not monitoring an autopilot while performing missions significantly more complex than A to B without spilling the coffee.
I've said it before here. Once a pilot enters the 121 world, he's done developing core skills. An ab-initio graduate hasn't even begun to do that to any significant degree. He's learned some of them, but putting them to use and gaining real experience? - Not even close. And once he gets into a highly automated Airbus or Boeing, it won't happen.
I agree (my previous post).
The US military ab initio system works great for airlines because it's foundation is very good training and screening, AND you get ten+ years of experience before the vast majority get to the airlines.
If you had no choice but ab initio, then high entry barriers, challenging curricula, and real airplane turbine training would best.
If you absolutely don't have enough GA infrastructure to allow enough folks to gain experience before entering airlines, then you might have no choice but ab initio direct to airlines. In that case, the more robust the better. If it were up to me I would also have them do a few hundred hours solo flying in ASEL, to develop some real airmanship and command sense. Cheaper than crashing widebodies.