Experience does count for something:
With respect guy's and girls, I think we're missing the point here.
It is true that an effective training system can transform someone from 0 hrs experience to a very effective operator in very little time. You can train in simulators and classrooms to impart knowledge, skills and manipulative ability to such a standard that previous experience in GA is really quite redundant.
The problem is how do you train someone in the innate thought processing of a pilot who finds him/herself in unforeseen circumstances? Well really, you can't. This is where experience will show. As a crude example if you were to take two prospective pilots with no piloting experience, let's say an ex-accountant and an ex-pro footballer. Train them both from no experience to CASA/Airline competent First Officers. Now put them into an un-forseen circumstance and see how they perform. May I suggest that the sportsman, who from his previous vocation is used to eyeing up the big picture, used to assessing different plays three moves ahead, used to critical thinking under pressure, may indeed have the upper hand over the accountant?
Just as the footballers experience helped, so to does previous GA experience. It's not really rocket science, it is perfectly reasonable to say that experience is helpful in building effective thought patterns.
Now the harder question is, what kind of experience is beneficial and how much should be expected? Here is where I like the AIPA proposal, a system or matrix is developed to assess the likely experience level of the F.O. and then training is tailored to the F.O. to mange any areas of risk.
Thought's anyone?
Regards,
MHA