It seems to me that the point is continually missed here.
Given the fact that prescribing a specific number of hours, unless you can prescribe exactly “how” those hours are gained (then there is always the problem of how that is going to be verified or verifiable) is always going to be problematic, the logical question remains ... what is the alternative?
The alternative is, and always has been, the amount and the quality of training received and assimilated. With very little effort, the type and the amount of training is usually verifiable and is almost always accurate – presuming the company that provided that training is still in business.
It would seem to me that a total number of hours of “experience” certainly can be one source of discriminator in determining who to hire, but it should belong somewhere down on the list of important factors. The most important factor, the only one that can be somewhat accurately verified and is so much more valuable, is the quality and quantity of training conducted and assimilated. What is wrong with having that kind of requirement clearly outlined in the regulations?
Additionally ... I, too, would like to understand the references to "AQP" - what is it about having completed an AQP program that says the pilot is so much better prepared than having completed a training program under the normal regulatory requirements?