Dear Jabiman,
In your post #81 you quoted my words:
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
You then said '
WRONG' but now you are saying you don't want to discuss pilot training pathways! Fascinating!
I am not sure what you mean by making reference to the VH-VQT A320 incident at Melbourne Airport on Jul 2, 2007. There is certainly some interesting points to consider in the ATSB Report. Well worth a darn good read. However, the PIC had 6,500 hours of which 1,580 were on type and the CP had 5,000 hours of which 500 were on type.
The report does not indicate if they were cadet entrants to the industry or came through the traditional pathway which you recommend. This is appropriate as it has nothing to do with the incident. In this case, two very experienced pilots dealing with an issue brought about by a wide range of factors some which related to the pilots themselves.
I fully agree that we need to continue to build pilot training and performance standards in Australia. Possibly, the first step is the experienced assisting these less experienced for the greater good. I am sure that's what most are doing as to do otherwise would be unforgiveable.
Your discussion on training has now moved to the topic about who pays for it.
the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.
I am not too sure what you mean as even an 'experienced aviator' may incur individual cost in gaining a position in some airlines. You would need to do a cost analysis (including social and opportunity costs) to see if someone working in a single pilot, single engine, VFR aircraft beyond the black stump is more economically effective than someone taking the more contemporary pathway. However, is it really a 'contemporary pathway' as many airlines including Qantas have had cadet schemes off and on for many years. Either way, your point is valid that the airlines want someone who is trained and doesn't want to pay for it. The Air Force used to be good to plunder but in most cases they earn too much these days so companies like Rex are an excellent resource pool.
Meanwhile, Jabiman enjoy the old folks home and your memories of the days of glory and importance long since past in an industry that continues to evolve to something that looks so much different to 'the good old days'.
Frank x x x