Originally Posted by
deltabound
My experience, and my opinion, of course.
I'm not particularly interested in getting dragged into the whole military vs. 3000 hr 152 pattern jockeys vs. Riddle vs. yadda yadda yadda. It's been done to death. But I understand flightinfo loves a good flame war on this topic, so head there for battle if you really want.
Fact is, planes are simply getting easier and easier to fly as they take the pilot out of the "hands on" flying portion and put him in the "systems management", JUDGMENT role.
If anything, I'm more biased towards newer pilots that have had previous careers that required them to exercise independent judgment. (Cops are perfect, small businessmen and any military service, etc.).
While there are exceptions, I'd also say that there's a certain age range that's perfect. Age 21 . . .not so good. Age 30-ish . . . much better. Age 50 . . . those can be some cantankerous old bastids (I should know!)
I go back to the question I have asked my friends a thousand times. Would you rather have a 3000-5000hr pilot with no degree in the cockpit or a 300hr wonder kid with a sparkling degree from Embry Riddle? I just don't believe 300hrs is enough time or experience for a person to be sitting in the cockpit of a modern jet or turbo-prop aircraft. I, of course, defer to the military and Microsoft desk jockeys. Maybe its just me, but I want as much experience in the front as possible. Rock on brother.