l totally get your point, but to be honest, I wouldn't trust my family with either one in anything less than ideal conditions. Just because one guy has been exposed to gusty conditions, glassy water, etc. once or twice before doesn't necessarily mean he is fully capable, in terms of skill, to deal with it. Both are unknown quantities, so to speak, both to potential employers and even to themselves. That's the reason why I'm personally not sold on the 50 hour course idea. In principle, it's not a bad idea when done correctly, l just feel the return on investment isn't great enough to warrant the amount of money spent.
As for trusting my family with a pilot, to be fair, on a less-than-stellar day I wouldn't trust them in a bush plane with anyone I didn't know, regardless of how much time was in the logbook. Lots of hours don't necessarily translate into a skilled or safe bush pilot. There's much more to the equation.
"50 hour bush course" any good?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore, Rudder Bug
-
shimmydampner
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: "50 hour bush course" any good?
This got pretty silly, pretty fast.
I would never get in the back of an airplane with a 90 float pilot.
I would never get in the back of an airplane with a 7 hour float pilot.
Bottom line....to me they're one and the same.
I'd sit in the right seat with ether one.
Again, to me they're one and the same.
I would never get in the back of an airplane with a 90 float pilot.
I would never get in the back of an airplane with a 7 hour float pilot.
Bottom line....to me they're one and the same.
I'd sit in the right seat with ether one.
Again, to me they're one and the same.
