Originally Posted by
dckozak
I disagree with a couple of your assessments, but on the whole would not argue with the points you make. As insinuated, this is a
political issue as much if not more than a safety one. How can you tell?? over 2000 comments from virtually every organization with any interest in pilot training or hiring.
The RAA and the training industry (universities and pilot academies) are in a serious defensive position. That said, they are proposing the status quo, with added provisions. 1500 hours will
kill several organizations, hence their interest in proposing reasonable (
) changes. ALPA's proposals include much of these and more and with higher flight time requirements than the industry ( don't believe me, read them yourself).
Many here are advocating 1500 hour ATP limits on entry to 121, not because they think it will make for a better entry level pilot, but because it will create a barrier to entry to the profession, with hopes it will raise income and QOL terms. As one on the inside, I see and appreciate the logic, but it is so transparent that even the FAA won't buy off on it. ALPA's proposals will raise the bar and, hopefully, create a higher caliber aviator while limiting the ability of anyone to just buy his way into the profession. Agree or disagree, There will be a need for future pilots and improving standards will help to limit supply.
ALPA's proposals will raise the bar and, hopefully, create a higher caliber aviator while limiting the ability of anyone to just buy his way into the profession.
I must ask...is this not exactly what buying a 4 year degree does? Allow someone with the money to
"buy" their way into the profession? What about the person who may have amazing skills and can only afford a 2 year degree?
With all respect, the issue is
not what they have proposed in public...it's what they are doing behind the closed doors.
My perspective is a bit different. I am a product of one of those schools from many years ago. I also spent two years on the staff as an instructor and check airman. When I left for my first commuter job (that phrase ought to date me)...in a Navajo...I had over 1800 hours. And while technically proficient and had very good stick skills thanks to a very sound program, I was in no manner ready to step into a jet.
The learning curve was steep and I was fortunate to quickly move up to turboprops and later jets. I also have been seen many who came up the same way who were not anywhere near as ready as I was. I say that having had them as my First Officers in the then booming regional industry.
My late father, ex-USAF pilot and I had many discussions. While I agreed a 4 year degree was important...and for decades the argument was that "it showed perseverence."
My argument has always been that while it may show perseverence, it means nothing when the screens go blank, the weather is at minimums and #1 is shut down. You MUST have the experience and the maturity to handle the airplane.
500 hours and a four year degree doesn't do it.
As far as "killing organizations?" I'm unwilling to aprticipate in a process that reduces skill levels and safety to protect any organization. They instead should step up or step back. I'm curious what those organizations may be. Moreover, I wonder why we are equating the safety of the traveling public and our fellow employees to any organization that may not survive because we as pilots demand a higher level of safety.
Here's a slogan we could use...
"One Level of Safety"