wmupilot85

I do believe there is SOME validity to the argument. Quality is better than quantity to an extent. But, the more quality hours you have are significantly better than a low quantity or quality hours. 5,000 hours in a C152 flying day VFR in no weather at all on perfect CAVOK days, isn't as significant as 1,000 hours of flying hard IMC, shooting approaches to minimums, etc.

USMCFLYR

It all depends on what type of skill set you are comparing.
A lot of instrument time will not prepare you well for aggressively maneuvering an aircraft for example just as that recreational VFR flying you mention above would not be very useful for sharpening instrument skills.

twebb

Looks like a lot of comments made the last few days were posted today. Many against Great Lakes.

iahflyr

Do you also make fun of 16 year olds who work at McDonald's to make some money and get some experience in a real job???

Then back off the guy who has a commercial license and is getting his first real flying job.

When I started off in this industry, the attitude seemed to be do whatever you can to help the younger generation of pilots get into aviation. Be a good mentor. Don't make fun of these people for taking one of the only jobs they qualify for. We were all there one day.

Phteven

I think this is only part of the picture. I think I was the normal amount of ***holes and elbows through my private and instrument training. Got my commercial and flew skydivers, traffic watch, and CFI'd until about 1000 hours when I got hired at a 135 op. In getting ready for that I got an IPC and it was infinitely easier than when I was working on my instrument rating even though it had been about two years since I last shot a real approach. I attribute that to time spent getting really comfortable flying airplanes. I also made PIC decisions, overly conservative weather no-go's, overly cavalier weather go's, and came out of that with more comfort on the radio, in congested airspace, etc.

I really don't get the argument that flying VFR for a year is a waste of time because good instrument flying is much, much more than centering needles on an ILS. If you want a gear jockey who has never made a PIC decision good or bad who has been trained to watch an autopilot fly an airplane then sure, 250 hours should do it. Hell, why 250? Might as well be 100!

gojo

It's hard to accept sometimes, but times change. Today's generation of new pilots are not as aggressive.

USMCFLYR

I agree completely with what you say.
I'm all about quality of time -vs- *strictly* quantity of time having a bearing on ability, experience, and every aspect of CRM.
Not sure if you got something else from my post.
My opinion has been stated numerous times on this forum - - I'm for 1500 hrs across the board - not exceptions.

sweetholyjesus

Yes and with a 6-fold increase in experience required there should be a 6-fold increase in starting pay

WesternSkies

Looks like Doug Parker chimed in.

Phteven

I didn't mean to criticize you as being against the 1500 hour rule, sorry if it came across that way. Rather I was just giving my 0.02 that I think recreational VFR DOES improve one's real-world instrument flying skills. Shooting approaches in a sim is one thing, but shooting an approach while not being saturated with basic flying tasks only comes from experience.