Bull......

Bingo!!!

^This

 

Supply proof.

 

Level of difficulty does not equate to quality of education. Pt 61 pilots have a much higher fail/term rate in initial training than the 141/142 pilots. Reference the NPRM which rewrote the minimum requirements for the ATP.

Can you cite any studies that support your claim?

 

Nope, no studies but you're full of crap if you honestly believe that. My study is what I have witnessed with my own 2 eyes. Aviation college types can struggle just as bad. The NPRM was also heavily influenced by the universities that have the money to go lobby, joe blow flight school can't do that and make a dent in anything.

 

Although I do agree with a majority of what you're saying, the $10,000 is paid out over 2 years at $417 per month on top of your normal paycheck. So I wouldn't say it's heavily taxed. Just an FYI.

I would also say that with that bonus paid out like that, it makes the pay for the first 2 years actually pretty good compared to other regionals even when looking at min. guarantee on reserve.

 

Guurrrrrrl, I only went for the free haircuts and to get my nails did.

 

Disclaimer: I come from a part 61 background and have a non-aviation college degree.

I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to offer, but I agree with Mustache in that piloting skill (take that to mean whatever you'd like) depends on the individual. There's nothing a dedicated aviation student can't learn on their own and from a good flight instructor that they would otherwise learn in a college aviation program. Personally, I've never struggled through any portion of 121 training despite never having taken a formal class on CRM. I've trained several students (through the same part 61 program I completed) who are now airline pilots. They all tell me the same thing. I've ridden in a jumpseat with one of them and couldn't have felt safer with them at the controls.

That being said, there were ERAU/UND graduates in my class who always felt behind in class and did poorly during their sim training and on their check rides. There were also plenty of part 61 people who had zero issues throughout the process.

Marx, the study you mentioned may reflect the tendency of aviation grads to be better employees, but that does not necessarily indicate that they are any more skilled or any safer than those who came through other training routes. In fact, could the data in that study obscure the fact that some pilots come to work sick and/or fatigued for various reasons? Their attendance may be good, but could that negatively affect safety? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I want to point out that a reliable pilot (ostensibly as a product of their training) does not necessarily make a better or safer pilot.

I don't think any amount of research could definitively show that one training route is superior to another. I also think that no everyone is meant to be a pilot (feel free to throw your rotten tomatoes if you must ). It all comes down to the individual.

 

This is crazy. I've met several pilots from Riddle, NDU, and other aviation colleges and were they good pilots? Yes for the most part. However I've also met more pilots from ATP, Aerosim,and other professional programs, were they good pilots? Mostly yes! Haven't met any small FBO commercial guys so can't speak to that route. There are going to be good and bad no matter what system you send ppl through. It's arrogant to think that just bc you went through UND you are better at flying an airplane than somebody who has a degree in something else. For the record, I've never met a person who was thrilled they got an aviation degree, none of them have had the mins for ATP due to getting next to no multi time or next to zero XC, that's just not getting your money's worth in my humble opinion...

 

Where did you get your information from? Their recruiter said it was paid in a lump sum.

 

I've heard that 35-40 units can be applied to a 4 year degree. That's insane. Nice little 1.5 year shortcut.