Lighteningspeed

+1! I agree with everything you said. While I was stationed over in Europe during my military stint, I had a chance to fly with EU military pilots during joint exercises and I also observed the JAA licensing process. People who insist EU system is better are entitled to their opinion but I disagree 100%, as do many of my former EU military pilots I have had a chance to fly with.

Like you said if you want to learn how to build an AC generator, radio or learn star navigation, by all means go over there and do it their way. If you want to learn how to fly, do it here in the US. There is a reason why so many EU students come over to US and learn to fly. Cost and paperwork is prohibitive in Europe. There is a reason for this. They regulated GA almost out of existence by charging for everything. You pay for landing fees everytime your wheels touch the runway surface, route fees, for filing IFR, etc, etc. Each EU nation has their own CAA and they are not funded by the government like our FAA so each CAA charge exhorbitant fees for everything under the sky to raise money.

As for having no reciprocity in EU. You can blame that on our government. For one thing we, here in the US, have the most laid back immigration policy. Try immigrating to France or Germany. Not easily done. The EU immigration policy for US citizens is not half as easy as ours is for Europeans coming over here. Plus they do not accept FAA licenses so if you were to go over there, you'd have to go through the entire JAA process which is extremely expensive. I would love to fly for Air France, but the whole process would be too expensive and time consuming, even if they allowed a non EU pilot to fly for them, which they do not.

indapit

I'm not saying JAA is better by any means. I am saying when foreign airlines teach their pilots to fly from day one, they do not allow multiple failures and wee out under performers very quickly. We do not do that in the states. The first chance US airlines have to weed out under performers is the interview and initial ground school. Many foreign airlines and the military for that matter starting weeding out when they cannot pass a private course.

But hey, this is America. Everyone deserves a chance, even if you failed your private check ride 8 times.

bubi352

JAA is based on RAF standards from the medical all the way to the checkride. It is true that more than half of the knowledge gained is useless but the process is meant to weed out the idiots and it does a pretty good job at it. There is a reason why JAA standards are accepted worldwide. You have to admit that anyone can get an FAA license. There is nothing hard about it. Hell, you are even given the questions and answers for the written test! I totally agree with you guys that experience is the key - you can't replace that. But where I was going is if we were to take two pilots (1 FAA & 1 JAA) fresh out of training - I guarantee you the JAA trained pilot has stronger basics and ADM. Bottom line - all I hope is for the FAA to raise their standards for pilots seeking a professional career. Maybe then we could get back a little more respect similar to other countries. That's just my humble opinion.

Lighteningspeed

You must be joking. You say you are just an old man flying a Bonanza but based on your response, it's clear you are an Embry Riddle employee or their lobbyst. First, it's discipline not disciple. For someone who advocates getting a degree in aviation from Embry Riddle, your writing level is found sorely wanting. BTW, you can't be a lawyer in many states UNLESS you have graduated from an accredited law school and have passed the state Bar. And law school is a Doctorate level after one graduates from a college. Let's not confuse a graduate level educational requirement with a requirement for an undergraduate level education.

After sorting through your disjointed points, I disagree entirely with your premise. A degree is a degree. There is no reason why a prospective pilot has to get a degree only in aviation. That is contrary to the acceptance policy used in the US by all accredited colleges and including the military pilot selection process. Harvard Law School does not require applicants to come with only Pre-Law degrees. They accept students from all dscipline including Biology. Same for the military pilot selection process. You can apply for the pilot selection process with any college degree, whether they are Philosophy, History or English Literature.

There is a very good reason for this. A college degree is supposed to provide a solid educational foundation to form a well rounded individual. Concentrating only on one discipline at this undergraduate level is contrary to that principle. I guess a really good example is the education student gets at West Point. West Point produces Army Officers first but they also produce college graduates who are well versed in History, English Literature, Foreign languages and Science among others.

A good military officer is a leader with a well rounded education. Same thing goes for a good airline pilot. Some of the best airline pilots I have met, including my mentor, were men and women of well rounded education who can see the whole forest beyond individual trees.

Technical proficiency comes with target specific training provided during the FAA pilot licensing process and during the Part 121, Part 135 pilot training process, AND most importantly while gaining flying experience, whether they be instructing in C152s, flying cargo, flying military training missions over Nevada or flying on demand charter flights.

crabinow16

With the upgraded Mins for Part 121 flying do you support a decrease for Part 135? Because there is a fundamental flaw here those right seat jobs in a 1900 or 99 or Navajo that the guys in the 80's were able to get just don't exist. Right now those companies since they don't need the right seater then why have them. Or if you want to sit right seat you can drop 20K and sit there for 300 hours. I believe that I am not ready to be thrust into the part 121 job pool I don't have enough expierence but the only issue that i can see witht hat theory is I have no idea how to get that expierience the small cargo operator field has dried up there a a ton of furloughed pilots with thousands of hours expierience and the economy is down meaning that not many people are getting training on how to fly.

indapit

No one ever said it was going to be easy. I'm sure Purdue told you they were the easy way into the industry. You need to go out and find any way you can get hours. Will it be hard? Yes. That is the point. The harder it is to become an airline pilot, the lower the supply will be.

crabinow16

I understand that it is going to be difficult I also understand that there is a need for more requirements for pilots to be considered safe to act as airline captains. I also have been extremely miffed by the reasoning of getting a Commercial at 250 hours. One its a little misleading becasue you really can't do anything with a commercial rating other than become a CFI and drop pilot or tow pilot. Now witht he economy the way it is you can't really even do that. Why not revise the commercial hour requirements to reflect a reasonable expierience quals. Purdue has never said that it is the easy way into the industry. They provide you wiht a real world education and my professors have always been straight with us regarding the market for pilots. When i started there regionals were bringing a plane full of HR people in and conducting interviews and sim rides at our facilites. Times have changed and I believe that there is no base for a lower supply of pilots. Currently the airline industry is at a pretty bare min ammount of pilots. Companies are shartchanging on reserves even. So I don't see how a lower supply of pilots is going to help when the economy turns around and the airline industry picks up again.

TPROP4ever

Funny, so far in the last two years, I have heard the same things over and over, (ergo) If you have a degree you want to make it a must have, if you dont, then you will strongly opose making one a requirment. If you have 1500 hrs you will fight hard to get the rule, a visa versa. The really sad part (and common theme here) is everyone is choosing their side based on every reason in the book except for safety, for 99% of you its always been about money. The few that do yell safety from the soapbox are simply using it as nothing more than a Catch Phrase to , you guessed it get more money....thats the sad part about all this, its always money money money.

USMCFLYR

crabinow16 -

It sounds like you are coming up with some pretty good reasons to take the advice many on this board give constantly and pursue a career in another, more stable, market and fly for enjoyment on the side until the aviation industry turns around - if it ever does.

USMCFLYR

crabinow16

People have been saying that for years and i respect their opinion. They all have been through the system and seen what happens. For me though even though i know it is going to be a long hard slog i am going to stick it out. I have wanted to be a pro pilot for as long as i can remember and don't really fancy giving up on it because its hard. For every person i talk to that says go do something else I have heard form other people that even though it is hard and uncertain they wouldn't give it up for anything. I was just bringing up some food for thought for all the people who are talking about how great it is that there is a new rule going into effect for requirements. I am not complaining about it I knew what i was getting my self into when I decided to pay the money for my education. What i was bringing to the table is my take on the effects of the new rule and standards and what is going to happen to the industry in my opinion. Hope fully it brought your attention to some new aspects of it.