. . wrote:O.K. Photo fly just this once will you answer a simple question just for me?
If you owned a very expensive airplane and you were using it in a commercial operation you would hire a 200 hour Pilot because in your opinion experience does not mean anything as far as skills go.
By the way I am well aware you are trolling, but a lot of inexperienced people here just may take you seriously.
It's not my opinion that experience doesn't mean anything, as far as skills go. I simply make that the point that 200 (or whatever) hours of the right experience along with a "frozen ATPL" is considered by the European safety authorities to be sufficient to sit right seat on a passenger-carrying 737. Appeals about how the benefits of 5 or more years flying a King Air or Navajo in the frozen wastelands of Arctic Canada must generate some quantity of the "right stuff" which can only be of benefit to the passengers in the back sound great, but those benefits don't show up in the accident records of the airlines that employ those pilots.
You keep asking about "if I owned an expensive airplane" - but airlines don't own just one expensive airplane, they have a fleet, and a whole population of pilots to manage. So what one would or wouldn't do with one airplane is a different question with a different answer to what one would or wouldn't do with a fleet.
When I was a child and British Airways ran their own flight training unit which trained all their pilots from scratch (at Hamble:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamble_Col ... r_Training) the trainees they didn't get sent out to be instructors in a 172 from 200-1000 hours before working for a Tier 4/3/2 airline to "gain experience" and then going on to a Tier 1 carrier - they went straight to work right-seat for BOAC or BEA, or later BA - flag carriers all. Putting pilots in front of passengers at a major carrier at 200 hours is not a new feature of the airline industry.
As regards trolling: I don't know what your definition is. I write only what I believe. If anyone wants to take it seriously or otherwise it should be only because they've considered the merits of the argument.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.