Originally Posted by Two's in
Hempy, perfect illustration that being as wary of a 5,000 hour pilot as a 500 hour pilot will keep you the right side of the pine box for longer, whoever you fly with. Reputations are no respecter of the laws of physics.
Absolutely. However, I guess what I was trying to say is that the Bud Holland case needs to be looked at in perspective. Because of the circumstances involved we look at it in horror and think "how on earth could they let this happen?", but in reality they odds off these things happening often if ever aren't high. This is no mitigation for those involved in Bud Hollands example, but how many 23 year veterans turn unstable?
His record only came into question in an official way 3 years before the crash, and surely even the most apathetic command structure or apprehensive junior officers couldn't put up with such behaviour un-officially for much longer than that, so lets call it 5. From what I can gather, his early career was exemplary, as witnessed by his OFR's.
Most 20 year veteran pilots I know are consummate professionals, and the reason for that is that military flying is Darwinian. The crap gets weeded out over the years. As you said, its worth being wary of a 500 hour pilot; they haven't earned their stripes, so to speak. But I am confident that the "system" in place in the USAF/RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF etc is generally proficient enough to make sure that junior pilots who display those traits are suitably dealt with.
The Bud Holland situation was an oddity, certainly one to be wary of happening again, but not one we need to be jumping at shadows over either. I am happy to give a 5000 hour pilot the respect and trust he/she deserves, until such time as he or she proves otherwise.