Old 03-06-2010 | 12:31 PM
  #57  
crustacean
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by duece123
I totally agree with you. I dont think mil guys should get special treatment. Maybe this whole 1500TT/ATP thing is bogus. So, a guy that towed banners/jumpers/whatever burning holes in the sky for 2yrs/1500hrs is more prepared for an RJ than a guy who flies in the military for 3yrs/1000hrs? If the quality of the 1500 hrs is not considered, then what is the point?

Edit: not a mil vs. civ issue. I know there are great ways to build legit civ experience
I have absolutely no argument that the quality of time matters, yet I don't know how you'd go about judging that. I suppose you could give a rating to each flight hour logged. For example, tooling around the sky earns you 0.1 (lowest), and something like flying a multi-engine aircraft cross-country, with inclement weather, and so on would earn you a 1.0 (highest). However, I don't see that ever happening due to the sheer amount of work it'd take, and the enormous mess it'd create. That's why it's simply easier to say "ATP required", modify some of the Practical Test Standards, and completely rewrite the written exams (and keep rewriting them).
Reply