View Single Post
Old 11-10-2010 | 04:11 AM
  #2385  
scambo1's Avatar
scambo1
The Brown Dot +1
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
Default

Originally Posted by ATCsaidDoWhat
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"
Nicely stated. I agree completely that academic learning is completely different from practical learning. In some ways they are complementary, but they are distinctly different.

They should be separated in "qualification ranking" which they are, but both the book learning and the practical learning should be minimum requirements.

Why on earth would what someone could afford for their education even enter into a safety discussion?
Reply