Originally Posted by Soldat
When met with evidence, runs
Called it. Never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to avoid admitting when they're wrong.
Love your work though Shermy. Declaring that I'm unsafe to operate after spending the entire thread arguing those who have passed the ATPL flight test are at a higher safety standard. That'd be me sunshine. So which is it? If you say I'm safe, then your words above are shown to be wrong. If I'm unsafe, yet I've passed an ATPL flight test, then it disproves your argument that the test provides a higher (or even minimum!) level of safety. Its not often my opponent wins the argument on my behalf. Thanks champ.
In other news, if the test needs to exist for international compliance reasons (which at least would be a reason), then it needs to be adapted. It can't be part of a command upgrade process. Many people work in smaller companies where the prospects of command are marginal at best. It needs to be administered by the internal checking department and ideally should be part of the IPC with a few extra boxes to tick. It took CASA at months before approvals for 217 organisations in any volume were given to administer the test. Thats a long time for someone waiting for a job. The barriers of cost and inconvenience need to be removed so opportunities aren't vastly reduced for those looking to move up the aviation chain.
Tiger, Cobham and a host of employers require an ATPL to even apply, yet are taking people with less relevant experience simply because they hold a bit of paper they got out of a cereal packet. If the test was so valuable and increased safety or skills as is implied in this thread, they would be prioritising people who had done the ATPL flight test over all other candidates. Yet this isn't happening.
Look at the picture as a whole. Have opportunities for pilots increased with this new scheme? Demonstrably not. Has cost increased for candidates? Yes, vastly. Has safety been improved by this new test? No evidence exists that it has.