Sorry for the ongoing thread drift.
Originally posted by john_smith:
When are people going to accept the fact that flying around VFR in light aeroplanes has absolutely nothing to do with operating a transport category aircraft?
It's not "fact" it's your opinion. Depending on exactly what is done in those light aeroplanes, I may or may not agree with you.
. . . but it is demonstrably not unsafe to put cadets into the right hand seat of an airliner. BA, LH, KLM have been doing it for decades; RYR and EZY for fifteen years or so. The safety argument against cadets is just not sustainable.
Firstly, as far as I know, that applies to SH not direct to LH. Secondly, a properly formulated safety assessment does not merely consist of an examination of accident statistics. Otherwise, I'd suggest that we can make lots of other money saving changes. How about removal of pop out RATs? When was one last relied on as sole electrical or hydraulic pressure source? Why stop with the RAT, just get rid of triplex hydraulic systems entirely. I'm sure we could get rid of at least one of the A320/330/340's pesky flight control computers. Delete an HF radio on LR types? We all know that if you lose comms half way accross the pond or going down through Africa you'll live. Why teach stall recoveries? A good transport pilot doesn't get into that position, and bad ones screw it up when they need it, so what's the point? Why carry final reserve fuel? It's almost never used and if it wasn't there people would just declare an emergency and land earlier. Obviously I could go on and on - and yes, I am being facetious. But I hope I've made my point. These are meant to be two pilot aircraft not one and a half.
Back to thread. Regardless of joining scheme or licence, think very carefully before signing up to a forty plus year career of pure long haul. By all means go LH later, if you so wish.