Because Insurance Rates are higher doesn't mean that they're LESS SAFE...
That's with anything Sir, the younger insurance are going to be higher? You still haven't made a point.... Insurance rates on vehicles are higher also if you're over 60.LOL they have a LOT the experience.

I never said that Skydivers or Traffic watch was a waste of time.... Honestly it's whatever floats your boat....

Nice Quote!!!!
"My choice is what i choose to do, if it causes no harm it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is who you choose, if it causes no harm then your alright with me." - Ben Harper

 

Ok, at least your learning something. Experience affects maturity. I having nothing personal against ATP (and how do you know that I don't know anything about ATP?). With absolute certainty I can tell you that training everywhere is imperfect. Military, airlines, FBO's, etc. The smarter ones realize this and are forthcoming about it. They all hope you use your brain in a mature and experienced way, even ATP. I hope you do too. You stated that the airlines would train you to do it there way. If that is all they needed, we could take human pilots out of the equation. Technology is already available. "Experience but it has nothing to do with safety or performance." still has me laughing. Oh well.

 

I've stated several times sir that ATP has it's faults, but there's some people here who thinks it's the worst thing in Aviation.... Honestly I think I'm pretty safe..... I get in the airplane with some guys with 700 hrs, I'm going through the checklist and they tell me don't worry about it lets, go. Thats where I say "I'm sorry sir but I really need to go through this checklist. It's my time I've paid for it let me waste it the way i want to."

What I'm saying is that I'm sure there's some 20,000hr Captain who's has 200 lives at his/her hands, who thinks they now everything, and more dangerous than the 600hr counter part carrying 50 people. Again I'm not suggesting that exprience isn't a good thing to have. I'm suggesting that having 600hrs makes you dangerous and incapable of flying airplanes.

After all lets face it, Pilots aren't Pilots anymore, they're more like computer programmers.

 

EDIT>>>>>> *I'm suggesting that having 600hrs doesn't makes you dangerous and incapable of flying airplanes.*

 

"Irrelevant!!!!!"

You know stupid it makes you look to scream "Irrelevant!!!!!" in a discussion with an E120 Capt when you have 124 hours to your name.

This is what got you banned from the professional forums.

 

STUPID??? WOW why such harsh words??? IN AVIATION I GUESS HOURS IS EVERYTHING????? Well I just might shut up until i get enough hours to voice my Opinion because apparently "people" think it's stupid to do such... LOL It amazes me that one can be so closed minded. I see you fly for UPS but Sir think outside the BOX "no Pun intended," Again you're saying I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I GOT MORE HOURS THAN YOU SO YOU NEED TO LISTEN.... READ MY SIGNATURE!!!!

 

Can we make this an adult debate without insulting another?

 

"IN AVIATION I GUESS HOURS IS EVERYTHING????? "

You got that right. I don't see how you could have missed it. That's always been a given.

You'll notice I didn't call YOU stupid. That would be insulting. I simply said your comments make you look stupid, and you can't spell proof. This is great stuff.

I'm up for an adult debate, too...

You got 124 hours to your name. You are telling someone who's been a CFI since 1980 he's not qualified to have an opinion on ATP's 90 day program because he didn't go to ATP. What kind of sense does that make?

 

Sir you have a right to your opinion (and qualifications have NOTHING to do with that) but suggesting that I don't have a right to my opinion because I only have 124 hours? What kind of sense does that make? I'm a big fan of evidence and facts U haven't proven that a 90 CFI makes a worst/better student than a 20year CFI? That's all I'm saying

 

"I'm a big fan of evidence and facts U haven't proven that a 90 CFI makes a worst/better student than a 20year CFI?"

Sorry, this sentence makes no sense. Since we're having an adult discussion here, you might want to try again, as words mean things. But I'll take a guess at your intent....

Are you saying a CFI with 90 days experience is going to be as good as a CFI with 20 years experience? And that I need to prove that to you, somehow, for you to believe it?

Sorry, some things in aviation can't be proven on paper. You just need to look to the opinion of the vast majority. I think I win on that one. But, knock yourself out if you wanna believe an ATP 90 day program CFI is as good as a guy who's been doing it for 20 years. I think it's a silly thing to even comprehend.

Makes more sense, though, if one believes hours/experience/background/seasoning mean nothing and that training can make up for it.

I don't believe that for a second....