Having a degree does not give one the ability to be better at “flying the airplane.” But to play devils advocate here, it does help a potential employer find applicants with a higher likelihood of having certain qualities. For instance, a better understanding of statistics (misunderstanding this post being a good example of this). A higher likelihood of good reading comprehension, study habits, attention to detail, math skills, critical thinking skills, and a host of other skills picked up in school that aren’t directly related to underwater basket weaving. Same reason an employer looks at your speeding tickets or your volunteer work, they are trying to discriminate against some people who they think are statistically less likely to be the ideal candidate instead of wasting time and effort interviewing every possible applicant.

 

That's because your breadth of experience is limited.

How about Richard Bong (#1 WWII ace, Medal of Honor recipient)?

How about Chuck Yeager (ace)?

How about George Herbert Walker Bush? Do you know who that is?

How about the thousands of other pilots that never had a degree and were responsible for making the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the best aerial fighting forces on the planet?

The military pilot who had a degree was the exception, not the rule, up until Vietnam and later. The degree started being (generally) a requirement for commissioning as an officer. Since all pilots (Army excepted) are commissioned officers, that requirement also became a prerequisite to get into flight school. This requirement became more prevalent with the thinking at the time, as airplanes evolved from props to jets and the commensurate technology advanced.

Up until at least the early 2000's, which is when I left the service, the Navy still had the NAVCAD and AVROC programs. NAVCADs only had to have two years of college to go to AOCS, get commissioned, and then onto flight school. The college requirement is a more modern development. No college was required previously.

I am way out of touch with the military these days, but as far as I know, the NAVCAD program may still be around.

And, no, NAVCADs were/are not limited to certain aircraft types. Both my squadron and another FA-18 squadron in my Air Wing each had a NAVCAD on board.

My closest personal friend in flight school was a NAVCAD. He was a stellar performer, and had jet grades if that was the direction he chose to go, but he wanted helos, as that was the community he came from when he was a prior enlisted guy. George Bush was also a NAVCAD (18 years old), and returned to school to complete his degree after the war.

The degree is really a tool used to limit the applicant pool and live up to some HR symbol of dedication on the civilian side, and other ideologies on the military side. Unless you are looking to send someone to Test Pilot School, which requires an advanced knowledge of mathematics and aerodynamics to get through the academic portion of the course, a degree does not make you a better pilot.

Heck, up until the 60's, even a lot of test pilots didn't have a degree.

Try telling all those thousands of guys they are slow learners, can't think ahead of the airplane, and have a hard time in flight school.

Yes, I have a degree.

 

First off all you are blurring the lines of military and civilian education. Yes chuck only had a high school diploma. If he had a degree he would have been eligible to be an astronaut. He went to test pilot school and also created and expanded the foundations of test pilot curriculums. Military pilots go to ground school for long durations of time are required advance degrees to progress and are given free credits to war colleges. Civilian get two weeks of PowerPoint and thats it. Spoon feed nowadays.

 

A lot of those mil guys started out as barnstormers, circus flyers, and crop dusters, too.

What you describe is more of a failure of training, rather than a failure of the individual.

The best pilots you’ve flown with are college grads because that is what the industry requires, and what most pilots bring to the table these days.

College didn’t make me a better pilot, I went to college because I knew that was what was needed to achieve my goals.

Most degrees these days are worthless, anyway. If you’re paying for any undergrad major that isn’t a hard science or engineering, you’re wasting your (parents’) money. That’s why so many students are leaving school $100k in debt for an education that gets them a $30k/year job.

That’s a whole other discussion!

 

I didn't trash an entire pilot group, I trashed the 10 or so of you that are here. You are nowhere the majority of pilots. We have 2500 pilots and 10-20 of you are complaining here, with vast delusions of grandeur that your comments affect anything. They don't.
Call me a company pawn as much as you want, but the fact that you guys are posting complete lies about everything isn't helping your cause.

As I've said multiple times - the truth is bad enough, so just stick to it. That's what I've tried to do here. It might not fit your agenda, but it seems to attract questions from people who see through your whining.

And no, I'm obviously not going to post any of the PM's, but

Welcome, dera.
You last visited: Today at 02:42 PM
Private Messages: Unread 34, Total 494.

I removed a bunch a few weeks ago. I get a lot of PM's. And yes, I think Skywest should pay me.

 

Good thing the 10 or so of us here are always here clocking views or this board would never hit the well over 1 mil. views it has now... in a pilot group of around 2000....

 

An average new hire class has 1 or 2 that has ever heard of this forum. It really isn't a large percentage.

Also, a lot of people can see through the false advertising you guys put out here. Just stick to damn facts. That way people might actually believe you.

 

You are welcome to rebut anything I've ever posted. It shouldn't be hard, I occasionally use hyperbole, and yet you've never done it successfully.

While you're at it explain the methodology you used to study newhires' exposure to APC forums. Probably the same fuzzy math they used to determine a 5.5 yr. or better flow for new hires.

 

Your post doesn't make any sense.

The 5.5 year flow is horseturd, we all know it.

 

You accused me, and everyone else here, of false advertising and not sticking to the facts. What facts am I not sticking to? I think you're projecting. If you wore your rose-colored glasses any harder they'll have to be surgically removed when something finally doesn't break your way.