I thought I said so...
What we have here is a case of mistaken identity. One which I have written about since I cannot remember.
Flying is a trade. It has a minumum theory part and a greater practical part. Like being a plumber, an seam welder, a professional diver, bus driver, sheep shearer.
You start of doing what you learnt in theory, and as you do in an apprenticeship, you get better at what you do, by learning from qualified experienced tradesmen, passing knowledge on to you until the day that you experience level is of such a level that you able to complete your work above an exeptable level.
In the last couple of years, and it a monster of our own making, we have been attatching to much emphisys on book learning, and force feeding practical training to the point that someone has achieved the minimum level of experience. We had the aprentices believe that once they have passed the theory and minimum acceptable level of practical flying they are qualfied to much more than just lean how to fly.
Why do I say it of our own making? Because we behave as if flying is an academic achievement.
Tell me who wasnt pissed off when the bank tells you that you cannot qualify for a overdraft because you dont have a academic qualification. I did. Until I realised they are right! I am a tradesmen. The fact that I am required to wear a shirt and tie and eupelettes to work doesnt mean anything, but that its required by the customer/employer that sees me a quasi-military role, like the captain of a ship, and that is why they call me "Captain"!
To become a tradesman in any of the trades you have to achieve a minumum level of theory knowledge, but the big issue is that you have to pass the practical test. No wonder we have to be retested yearly to confirm we still have the practical ability.
Too many of us think because we speak in flying terms, that gibberish to the ears of landlubbers, and if we make an intense study of flying theory that we actually contibute to the collective knowledge of the world.
The only reason there could be to study the theory into dust, was personal vanity and a quest for recognition. So that you could impress your fellow tradesmen with your "superiour theory knowledge" about a very practical thing, as you cannot really show them with your flying unless its one person at a time(the one on your left or right).
Pilots that make a detailed study of an approach plate and give you a 30min lecture about it falls in this catagory. It doesnt matter how well you can brief on a plate or how long you can make the lecture last, if you cant fly, you are still going to die.
So the only way you can get better at a practical subject is practice/experience. and that time, and it the type of time that doesnt come with a fat wallet.
Remember flying an approach should be easy, you should be able to it in bad weather, and if it isnt, you are doing it wrong.
I measure someones level of experience on, how long did he stay alive, while flying in what enviroment.
I dont regard flying 6 times between Capetown and 03L in a 5yr NG medium regional jet, out of its maintence base as a high stress level job. That is not building experience, that what you do when you have it.
To employers, remember, in true capitalist fashion, you should buy the best of the ability out there for the best of your money. Otherwise some is getting cheated.
Ethics is what is left, when bullsh1t, falls apart.
The world is a strange place because we make it that way.