Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Calling it like I see it. If it makes you feel any better, I think the problem with civilian pilots in general is that the standards are inconsistent and vary wildly over time. The actual standards are driven by economics, and the rock bottom legal standard is marginal, even with 1500 hours. We may be approaching another low point. So nothing against any particular civilian pilot, it's more the system (of which I'm an alumni).
The problem with civil verses military training isn't the lack of standards it's the lack of a disciplined continued training and checking process. The military takes men and women with zero experience and by the time they get 250 hours they are flying combat missions in highly advanced airplanes and often carrying weapons of mass destruction.
If you want the civil programs to mirror those of the military then you'd better get a huge FAA budget for oversight and regular evaluations.
BTW the reason you don't hear of military crashes is because it rarely involves the deaths of civilians. The military is about death and destruction in an effort to protect the rest of us. When a single seat fighter goes down it just doesn't make the news in the same way as a MAX.
But the question at hand of this thread is 70 year old pilots. Personally, as I approach those years, my opinion is we need to move over and let the next generation advance the throttles. To do otherwise is basically delusional and selfish (of course those two may go hand in hand).