Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner

I, respectfully, disagree with a few of your points. In my opinion, TT and hours aren't completely, 100%, arbitrary. To go along with your point, though, I do think there is a very small likelihood that someone with 250 hours could, theoretically, have better experiences than someone with 1500 hours. But, when looking at averages and probability, where do you believe the averages lie? I would say that, on average, a person with 1500 hours has more experience, and better experiences than someone with 250 hours. I have never personally seen anyone with 250 hours who was a better pilot, and made better decisions than someone with 1500 hours. Is it possible? Yes. But, when making regulations, you need to base it off of your average 250 hour pilot, and your average 1500 hour pilot; not the extremely rare 250 hour pilot, who has had some really valuable experiences, and the extremely rare 1500 hour pilot, who has not had a lot of valuable experience. On top of that, I don't think a 250 hour pilot's experiences could be valuable-enough, within that small amount of flight time, to be a safe first officer in a 121 cockpit. Maybe safe-enough for normal operations. But, definitely not in all situations, and especially when the poop is hitting the fan. I know I wasn't even close to being ready at 250 hours, and I did everything I could to gain valuable experiences, flying across the country numerous times in extremely challenging situations, etc. When I take off on a contaminated runway, in hard IMC, in a mountainous environment, I ask myself, "Am I ready to handle this if I lose an engine at V1?" If I was back at 250 hours, the answer would be "heck no!" Just my thoughts.