Zapata

This interaction and understanding of people and the world around us doesn't take a degree. Nor does leadership and judgment.
Airline pilots aren't judges, moral or otherwise. It's not part of the job description. I don't think Adams was talking about judgment in decision making in regard to flying professionally.
What? NCO's don't have judgment? Anyway, the airlines are not the military. There is zero similarity or necessity for a comparative rank structure and no need for such separation. Again, professional pilots are not judges. We continually develop and have judgment (big difference), but that doesn't require or even favors having a degree.

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself. BTW; I have flown with pilots without a degree that more than "has what it takes", even more so than some with a degree.



As for my highlights in red, most "educated" people would know of these common and simple spelling errors. I am not normally a grammar nazi. However, if I were taking such an elitist stance and thumping the bible of education, I would make sure that I can at least live up to the standards to which I am preaching.

OldSF3Dude

judge= 1. hear and determine authoritatively 2. hold as an opinion; deem; consider 3. make a critical determination; estimate the value or magnitude of anything

judgment= 1. the ability to make accurate determinations; discernment

Sounds like pilot stuff to me.

Answer me this, Why don't enlisted men sit on court marshals and other judgment things like that?

No, the airlines are not the military, but rank, authority, etc. is quasi-military. I don't think it's an accident that our uniforms look like military ones.

What education and experience levels, etc. do you recommend? 8th grade education and 100 hours pilot time? I'm sure you could find someone out there who could function in an aircraft at that level. I don't think that's a good rationale for setting the bar there, however.

I think it's a good idea to always aim higher, not decend to the lowest common denominator. Sorry if that angers you.

bcrosier

All I know is a backpack can carry a lot of wine or beer when the situation calls for it. And THAT, boys and girls, is what is really important.

OldSF3Dude

Boy, we covered a lot of ground here! Back to back packs again eh? For the record, I think that the back pack question falls more into the catagory of personal style and modern fashion than some of these other questions about professionalism. I don't normally use one for flying, but years ago my roller carry on was lost for a week. I flew the Saab then and our roller bags didn't fit into the over head so we kept them in the cargo bin. Occassionally they would get removed by mistake with the checked luggage and disappear for a while. One time mine disappeared for a week and I was forced to use a camoflaged day pack for my stuff. It was nice because it could be stuffed into the over head bin, but it sucked to not have a roller bag to hook my flight bag on to. I also took a lot of crap for walking through the terminal with a duck hunting ruck sack!

Like I said, there are reasons and exceptions...

Zapata

I agree. However, I disagree with your application of context in your previous post.

Irrelevant.

No. Our uniforms resemble maritime uniforms and that was actually a marketing tactic by the airlines when they were competing for ocean-going passengers. So yes, if there's a military resemblance, it is an accident.

The rank and authority in aviation is not even quasi-military. There may be a far flung and distant relationship, but that is it.

Straw man argument. However, to entertain your question, at least a high school education is required by most companies that fly for hire. Ultimately, there is no minimum formal education level for one to be able to call himself a professional.

Another straw man argument. I am not angry at all. Perhaps you would like me to be for some reason, but nothin' doin' Sparky.

*Again, interesting misspelling for such a professional aviator that keeps preaching about a college education.

OldSF3Dude

Well, I once had a college professor who said "An unexamined life ain't worth a ****." so I think it's a good thing to discuss who we are-

A quasi-military profession?

A bus driver of the sky job?

Something else?

If I were going to sum up this whole thread it would be along those lines. If you read my old threads I would argue it is most like a quasi military profession. I think to maintain it as such requires similar standards that the military requires for education, professional developement, etc.

There is a lot of talk now-a-days about a "race to the bottom". How much of this are we responsible for ourselves?

Anyway, my old opinions are earlier in the thread (the ones not edited by Zapata are easier to read) so I think I've had my say. Someone else can take over from here.

jungle

We all started out young and inexperienced, most of us managed to aquire all the skills and professionalism we needed over the years.
Some of us are quick to slam the younger generation, but they will prove to be just as tough and adaptable as the generation before, perhaps more so.

LeftWing

I don't generally agree with Zapata (no offense to you zapata) but I have to here. The airlines are civilian, period. Not even close to "quasi military". If you really believe this, you don't understand CRM and your understanding of military leadership is suspect.

Let me ask you this. Is a non degreed Captain with a civilian background paired with a retired Colonel with an advanced degree as his F/O somehow an injustice to you sf3?

It seems like you're one of these arrogant military types that feels military officers are somehow entitled to an airline job....especially over civilian folks. Not to mention, your nostagia is behind your fantasy of a military-like civilian airline. Get over it. It isnät like that and it never will or should be.

BTW; I am a retired NCO with an advanced degree and after 20 years, I have the upmost respect for the military folks.

tomgoodman

A. B. I think "A" used to be accepted -- now "B" is the prevailing opinion. People will disagree about which is/was better, and will not convince each other. Similar debates were heard thirty years ago, and will be heard thirty years from now. If I met my younger self, we would probably have an argument.

OldSF3Dude

Left wing and others, if you're jumping on this thread without reading from the beginning I think you're going to totally get the wrong impression of the point I was trying to get across. Don't let Zapata muddy the waters. In trying to answer his questions (which he then calls "irrelevent") I think I've lost some focus of my main point.

I have no nostalgia for the military. I was a NCO and an officer. That was a long time ago. I disliked as much about the military as I liked. But, the point I was trying to make, is one of the good things about the military is that it required it's officers to have an education and professional developement and that is in large part what helps to define it as a profession. Seeing how as the military does some similar work to what we do I thought it was fair to compare and contrast. I don't want to argue about who is better or worse over all. But, I do think more education is better than less. Apparently the military and legacy airlines do as well.

This started as a discussion about what was professional and what a profession is. I guess what to one man is professional, to another man is "elitism".