I have a mixed feelings about that.

One hand a deep academic background is beneficial in any complex endeavor, and this is a way to encourage people to get that background.

On the other hand I feel that over-confidence and complacency set in around the 400-500 mark for the average pilot who does not have a previous "operational" background (military, hard-core law enforcement, logger, oil rig, etc). It may take a another 1000 hours for such a complacent pilot to scare himself straight.

The 400 hour demographic complacency issue is well documented.

I can understand that... Accidents happen when you least expect them to. Which is why constant vigilance is key.

And I just don't see how graduates of a "career pilot program" or university program have any more in depth knowledge of aviation than the guy/gal who went to the local FBO and received flight training. Not to mention the serious narrowing of future possibilities that an aviation degree leaves you with. That doesn't seem very smart to me.

Maybe its just me... I dunno. I just don't get the rationale.

Well, those "graduates" learn about transport category systems, v1, v2, etc, all sorts of stuff they like you to be familiar with. The problem is that $$ talks and poor performers don't really get washed put all that much, so there isn't much there to assure that the knowledge or understanding is really there IMO. Does that make one safer? I'd say not really, but no one wants to invest in a battery of tests that would be necessary to separate people regardless of hours and "knowledge".

I think the last three posts on here (rickair, chris reed, james) have all been brought up very good points, and reflect the not so cut-and-dry nature of developing a professional pilot.

I fear that;

-Piloting could be a profession that is bought, not earned and developed.

-We may be reaching a point where a degree trumps, rather than paves the way for real life experience.

-'Large schools' are looking out for their financial security; not the good of the aviation industry, much less the individual flight student.

-Large schools do have the clout to affect rule/law making to the their favor.

-Large schools could potentially check some boxes (to satisfy the FAA's 1,000 hour reduced minimum) but not teach anything a half-motivated person couldn't find out by picking up a book/video/youtube....

....Which honestly, I feel describes the aviation college I went to. (The professors of that program are *of course*, arguing vociferously against raising mins for part 121 FOs. Gee, I wonder why.)

I'm with ChrisReed on this one.

I have a mostly part 61 background and I currently instruct at a University, and I don't know how the students at the University are any more qualified than a lot of people coming out of the 61 world.

They are very sheltered, most of them graduate from our program without flying through a cloud, they have a limited number of airports they are allowed to go to, the longest cross country they ever get to go on is 250 nm one for commercial (and our school is talking about changing that so they don't actually go 250 nm from our home airport), they aren't allowed to file IFR for solo flights, we go to ridiculous lengths of hand-holding and spoon-feeding when they are not doing well, and the list goes on.

Sounds like the school I went to in DAB. There really is no experience to be had. They tell where, where, why for everything. Them sit in the right seat to make sure you'll be ok.

However, those big schools have a lot of money and are pushing really hard to get this rule changed. I have a feeling the regionals, RAA, et al are doing the same.

I think the release of the new ruling will find the requirements for an ATP to be well below that of 1500tt.

So they have had a "turbine transition" course? Big whoop. That doesn't make up for having real turbine experience in 91 ops. I took a turbine transition course through the school I went to and had systems training on King Airs. It didn't in any real way prepare me for FO duties in the 91 world. Not sure what that has to do with going to a University program either. Anyone can buy a "turbine transition" course.

Thats exactly what seems absurd to me about a lot of the University aviation programs... Most of the kids are oblivious to real-world commercial ops and are led to believe that regional airlines are basically the only career track out there. Considering the amount of money it takes to get through one of those University program, I'd say a lot of those kids come from "sheltered" backgrounds. I'm sure that isn't reality in every case but it sure has seemed that way with the ones I have met. Not to mention the inherent sense of entitlement (and generally poor critical thinking skills) that the ones I have met exhibit. Once again, I'm sure that isn't the case with all... But that has been my experience. I think the rule should stand at 1,500 for all except maybe military pilots. But that is a different story altogether.

Agreed with everything said above. I have flown with several grads of a flight school in a very cold, very flat state since I have access to a reasonably priced twin for time building. It is a pre-1970's steam gauge panel with no GPS. 3 of 4 were completely lost with steam gauges and almost had a meltdown when they asked where we were flying and I said 'wherever you want to fly'.... I think my skills certainly meet or exceed any that can be found from a 141 grad - I just chose to get a degree in Finance instead of Professional Flight.

This reduced mins plan is Malarkey! If low hours were a recipie for disaster, we'd have planes falling from the sky everyday... Most of the major airline crashes I can remember were the result of 8000+ hour pilots that made the wrong choice at the wrong moment. This is going to funnel all the wide eyed naiive kids with SJS to UND and ERAU with degrees that will be worthless without a medical (think surprise diabetes, etc). Part 61 flight schools are going to wilt and die a slow death as the lemmings all march on to Daytona & GFK.

Great conversation! I'm sure we can debate this topic forever and there are no right answers. I personally enrolled my son in an "Accredited" university program at Kent State precisely for some of the reasons you all mentioned. I wanted him to learn on steam engined instruments (They have glass as well, but they learn steam first) and I wanted him to see real weather as opposed to palm trees. I'm military and personally I hope after graduation he decides to go this route but it his choice. As far as comparing flight schools versus one of these University programs all I can offer is this example.
Last spring my son was still in High School studying for his PPL written and license. He was overwhelmed with all the knowledge he needed to pass the PPL writtten. He studied the books, but essentially he memorized the FAA questions and passed. This semester at Kent State he has an entire class dedicated to teaching the knowledge behind the questions and the final exam for the class is the actual FAA PPL written exam (He's exempt from the final since he has it already) Anyway, he has told me how much he's learning and the concepts behind the questions. He's also taking alot of courses in ATC, Commercial ops etc..He calls me up to ask questions about topics I have no clue about and I'm a 11,000 hour ATP and current Military pilot, so even though we all know examples about kids paying for ratings or two week crash courses etc etc he really is getting a solid foundation in aviation and perhaps thats why they are offerring a small reduction in hours from this ATP requirement. Not saying which way is better.
Keep the conversation going!