Originally Posted by
threeonefive
I don’t have a problem with the 1500hr rule, in fact I generally support it. But if it were so important to have 1500hrs, why is it reducible based on what school the pilot attended?
The rule was a good idea, the most straightforward way of addressing the problem within practical limits. Other solutions would require expensive and/or complex training systems or draconian standards. At least with 1500 hours the noobs can still get paid while building experience.
But politics and pork, there's always special interests and pork, welcome to real life. The universities did have a very *slight* point in that their academics are more robust than what you get at a mon n pop school. But most of us professionals don't think academics can replace much real experience. Don't get me wrong academics is good, but it's not a substitute for experience. Other parts of the world are very big on academics, but some of their pilots still can't fly so hot.
Originally Posted by
threeonefive
Part 141 programs may have more similarities to airline training programs. But as someone who taught in a part 141 program as a 250hr CFI, it doesn’t make sense that a part 61 student who likely learned from an experienced instructor who instructs because they enjoy it, has to sit in the traffic pattern for 500 more hours than someone who learned in a very sterile, restrictive, 141 environment from a 250hr CFI. If 1500hrs is important, less experience shouldn’t be.required based on the institution to whom one pays tuition money. (military trained pilots—different story)
Yes. Mil pilots get extra credit because they get some really good airplane flying skills, in addition to their academics and are subject to stiff standards (maybe a bit less today than a few decades ago).