Usually. No. Really Wrong. Dead Wrong.

I'd say waiver on the multi-engine time, but not total time... in the end, nobody has any business carrying commercial traffic with less than an ATP in my humble opinion... Heck, as a CFI, I had over 2000 before my break into the Brazilla.. But fighter guys (there are not many SE fighters left) can get a multi-rating at your local mom and pop flight school and as far as I am concerned demonstrate competence in a simulator on single engine approaches and V1 cuts and when you consider their usually aviators of a higher caliber to begin with, you're probably going to be fine with him as an SIC for the length of time one can expect to be SIC these days.

Don't worry your pretty head, big purple loves fighter/military guys, and always will.

Devil's advocate time here:

Why waive the multi requirement for SE fighter types but not for those who have a whole bunch of SE turboprop time, like in a TBM/Pilatus/Caravan?

If the purpose is safely delivering airline passengers and/or cargo to their destination, and regulators WANT a significant amount of multi-engine experience for safety, then experience in one SE turbine (pointy nose) should be just as good as another (prop nose).

When do the new FAA pilot requirements kick in?

Because generally speaking, and I can't say for today's politically correct military environment, the fighter pilot was the top of his (or now her) class and demonstrated significantly high levels of aviation skills... they were usually trained in multiengine jets before going to their fighter billet... long story short (and as someone who didn't flight fighters myself) .. I think it's arguable that in a military environment (as I remember it) where weeding out the weak is common and skill = position, not seniority or "who you know"... Fighter pilots have earned this waiver, where as the guy who may have busted every other 299 ride in a Caravan working for some Fedex feeder isn't measured by the same yardstick..

What would you define them as? as we are talking about a separation of scope clauses I think there is a large one between horizon and Alaska for example. If you are saying that the large airlines are going to go into the over water and wide body long haul routes only and the regional will take over everything what does that mean for the airlines that fly as majors/legacy(which this site classifies AS as a legacy btw) but only operate narrow body's? would that men AS gets rolled into QX or vice versa? or would that just not happen and there would be a third class. cause if there is a third category you might as well discard the original opinion and just sya that everyone is better off as they are now wiht the scope clauses they have now.

Also 1500/500 is fine and dandy but if people can't afford to purchase their hours to get their and the training market remains the way it is currently you are going to create an industry where only people who have a ton of money at their disposal to buy their time. I know the arguement of go fly night freight or air taxi is going to come up...I suggest you go look at whtat those operators are looking for now as their minimums. almost as high as your 1500/500 wants. They also don't hire first officers.

So...SE fighter pilots should be excluded from the proposed multi requirement simply because of the training and 'demonstrated high level of aviation skills' required for one to get into pointy nose airplanes.

Is that about right?

What would you say to a Caravan pilot who hasn't failed a single checkride in his/her career? Would such a Caravan pilot have not demonstrated the same 'high level of aviation skill' as the fighter pilot?

My point is such a waiver, applicable ONLY to military pilots, serves no purpose but to discriminate against non-military pilots who arguably would have more applicable experience for airline operations than the pointy-nose crowd. I say scrap the ME requirement altogether (after all, how many 121 incidents have been directly or indirectly caused by a pilot's lack of ME time?) or word it such that anyone with significant SE turbine time (say, 500hrs in aircraft with a MTOW greater than 6,000lb) is eligible as well.

How many fighter slots are available anyways? I know there are some in the guard but overall I don't think there are that many. I have some friends in AF Rotc and they said that there weren't many of them that got slots. Also I think if your going to give a waiver to a military pilot give it to the transport drivers...they have more experience than the Fighter Pilots do.

(military transport pilots don't have to worry about having enough multi time)