Except that this is trying to get an exemption to match the military requirements rather than the 141/college requirements.
As you noted, instructing is one of the primary means for getting those hours. There’s also hauling jumpers, towing gliders (my gliderport job got me from 450 to over 1000 hours), towing banners still exists. Biggest problem is that most people don’t see any of them as a direct pipeline to the airlines, so they’re just wasting time building time.
Acting as PIC, taking responsibility for the flight, expanding the variety of environmental conditions and mechanical issues they see, and making decisions related to the flight.
I’ve known a lot of pilots over the years who believe that “you can’t really learn to fly unless you teach it.” I don’t agree with that, but it does accelerate the learning process, and if anything is going to force someone to learn who otherwise would prefer not to learn, instructing will do that. But it’s still no guarantee.
The bar needs to be raised for a lot of pilots. You may not see it, but it’s painfully obvious with the pilots we see at work. Unfortunately, regulations aren’t going to do that.
Unfortunately this discussion isn’t about the difference between military and civilian experience at 3000 hours. It’s about the FAA having determined that a military pilot at 750 hours has the equivalent of a college aviation program graduate at 1000 or 1200 hours, as well as the equivalent of Joe Blow with 1500 hours, mostly in a Cessna 152. And Republic says that they can provide the equivalent to the military pilot training and experience in less calendar time.
That’s not the crux of the waiver request. The crux of the waiver request is that RAH’s program provides experience equivalent to a military pilot training program + operational flying experience.
Anyone who mindlessly instructs should haul checks instead.
I didnt say there was. But I would say the vast majority of the rATPs going to the airlines are cfis until they go to 121. So why is that cfi with a degree better than one without ?
No, you misinterpreted his original statement. He never said anything about being a CFI to qualify for an R-ATP. His position is that someone who holds a degree which qualifies that person for an R-ATP shouldn’t make them any more qualified than someone without that degree who has greater experience. Most R-ATP’s happen to be CFI’s coming out of their collegiate program and just burn up the pattern til they qualify.
that their program is as good as the military’s, only faster.
This is exactly my point. I flew a Piaggio at 1000 hrs and was very well versed in the Class A airspace, arrivals, departures and approaches. I wasn't by any means an amazing pilot but I couldn't qualify to fly an airliner while some cfi that had never even flown a Turbine aircraft could be a 121 pilot because they had a degree from a pilot university. Seems a little silly.
If you can come up with a way for the FAA to write into the regs how we can determine who should be able to get an R-ATP based on individual qualifications rather than a cookie cutter plan, I’m all for it. But just having turbine time in the logbook isn’t going to cut it.
Why would you need a crappy airplane like that?
That's why it's just a scam for the universities to suck money from students to save 250 or 500 hrs of experience
Given that the best ATP applicant I’ve examined was a 1000-hour R-ATP, I’d say that’s far from a universally accurate statement.
There will always be outliers. That applicant was probably going to be prepared no matter what. Some people are just really good.
Unfortunately they seem to have to be outliers to be well prepared for the checkride.
