Shame about the thread creep here.
Back to Angel's thread starter:
1. Perhaps Angel was being extreme to provoke a response but there is truth in the ludicrous requirement when seen from an non US perspective. What if the instructor had 1000 h on an PA34 Seneca and 1000h on a PA28 Archer but only 50h on a C172 duirng Private licence flying or 12h DA42 on a MEP renewal?
2. Thankfully more enlightened schools recruit ex shuttle pilots:
https://aps.infusionsoft.com/app/lin...35d90044ac0a5e
This is the school KLM chose for Upset training.
3. Kirks Gusset states "The argument that mixed types or other types should be considered does not hold water I'm sorry to say."
Since when has flying or teaching ability been dependent on simple aircraft platform - see point 1 above? Absolute nonsense olde chap!
The fact is the 500h (possibly burning holes in the sky) on specific SEP and MEP aircraft of such simple configuration is pointless from a quality of instructor selection perspective. The only purpose is to assist HR departments to prevent/sift out those who don't have that specific time. A simple filter technique not aimed at getting the best staff.
Had the ad read 500h of Commercial or Military Flight Instruction with relevant licences then not only would more experienced and possibly more suitable candidates be included but the airline would likely get better training by focusing not on the platform but on the product of the training - the output standard (handling, CRM and airmanship) of the cadet/student pilot.
Sadly the commercial world is guilty of undervaluing the instructor role until a pilot gains TRE status. If the airline put it's best teachers (from engineers to Captains) through such a flight school on proper pay then the students would reap relevant experience, the schools would gain useful oversight and the airline would see a better product more suited to its operations.
Most military's value instructors far more highly - yes some pilots are "creamed off" at an early stage (instruct straight after wings) but the majority do front line tours on relevant types before returning for instructional tours.
Overall I think Angel's points are similar to a commentator about Asia/China pilot shortages and CTC on Bloomberg:
"For the experienced aviator applying for jobs HR departments now demand "time on type" - imagine you were going for an HGV job and you had 1,000000 miles on a Volvo truck/rig but the HR dept says sorry you need at 1000 miles on a Ford truck for this job - absolute madness - a real pilot can fly any aircraft safety and with maximum efficiency - and when things go wrong (and they do!) they do not panic but use their experience and airmanship (like Sullenberger in the A320 Hudson River ditching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... ) to sort things out. "