There are two sides to this argument
1. A training course - fATPL (£loads) that is supposed to lead to a job that cannot be undertaken without additional training - Type rating (more £ loads) - So why not train 'horses for courses' or more specifically why not train 'airline pilots in airliners'
2. 'Hands on' experience of 'real' flying for when Beagle goes on his hols and the the sh1t hit the fan at the pointy bit at the front of the aluminum tube
Which is most important? Both?
I'd imagine its a method that will based upon some evidence base that indicates its efficacy..
I suppose the argument is where you draw the line that one supposes wil come in the light of further research?
At the end of the day theres always two sometimes more guys at the front and there is always one guy with a lot of experence like Scroggs there so we can rest easy I guess.....
Just dont have the same fish supper OK guys....!
Last edited by RVR800; 1st Dec 2005 at 13:51.