This conversation should be more about the economics of subsidized flight training, not a pissing match between FTU guys and college guys. I think most would agree that the training circumstances are somewhat irrelevant, and there are great pilots from both categories.
I don't see this as a pissing match at all. There are indeed great pilots from both categories. However, you do not see FTU guys (aside from myself with the introduction of this thread) running around trying to establish the position that 'eradication' of an avenue of training, and an entire segment of the industry is necessary to increase their chances of employment.
This thread was started in response to that line of thinking. In my wildest drunken rant I would never suggest that college programs should be eliminated entirely. Yet, here we have many of those folks towing that line. So the pissing match does not exist, self preservation however does.
I think there is no doubt the college programs do turn out better pilots on the whole. Of course there are exceptions, but the wealth of teaching experience that career instructors at such institutions can offer is invaluable. Combine that with the fact that as a student, it you don't work your but off and produce results, both academically and at the wheel, you're out of the program. This weeds out the morons/lazy, no? At the private FBO, if you don't produce results you just spend a little more and take a little longer and can skim by.
I would like to see some empircal data on this. A subjective observation from an anonymous source isn't exactly the kind of source which would be accepted by any college program (if that is the standard you are attempting to reinforce) if say you would be writing a paper. With regards to the division of focus between academic and flight training, I just cannot see how this is a good thing, until you take into account the fact that these courses take two years to complete. That's just over 100 hours a year, whereas in a FTU based program you can cram all that flying into less than a year and come out and work the job market.
I will provide my own subjective observation, pilots who fly more often tend to be better sticks.
georgebush wrote:By taking away funding, you are making the profession inaccessible to the average teenager. Only the elite with money, or those who are lucky to get a bank loan, would be able to afford flight training. The industry would miss out on many talented pilots. $60,000 is hard to save up working full time for minimum wage. Key solution is to make it fair, not elitist. If you're limiting with funding, it is 100% elitist. Most students lack funding, contrary to the ability of study. Not everyone has employment opportunity to earn good money right after High School. Buying your career is not fair. Money does not guarantee quality pilots.
Who wants an average teenager responsible for anything? How does giving them a subsidized rate on the back of the taxpayer make them more responsible? Want to know what a lot of people consider responsible, working, saving money, and battling to better yourself. Know what a lot of people don't respect, or find responsbile, people who use welfare... which is essentially what government funded flight training is, a welfare program.
You are substituing one wall for another that suits your specific position. I believe the fair solution is that everybody pays the actual cost of their training, be it at an ftu or a college program. What is more fair than that? In the end, both pilots must meet the same standard. I highly doubt, under your system, that the government would impose a tuition cap, the end result a captive monopoly.. gee wonder where that will end up.
I'll point you in a direction... when a captive monopoly is instituted you end up with a LADA, a really expensive LADA.. ever driven a LADA? Probably not, because they SUCK. You don't increase the quality of anything by creating a captive monopoly, there is example after example of this.
Limiting the funding is not 100% elitist, it is 100% fair. Fair = the same for everybody, not a better deal for some and nothing for others
Responsible people have access to credit, responsible people have the ability to save money and better themselves. Irresponsible people end up on welfare, or welfare type programs (read subsidized college programs).
Most students might definitely lack funding but there is a reason that there has never been a college standard to operate an aircraft, and that is simply because the education you obtain that is not directly related to the operation and logistics of flying an aircraft are irrelevant.
I thought you were done in this thread. Yet another contradiction.
Furthermore, you have called people who are not from a college program lazy, lacking in worth ethic and questioned their capability to memorize things. Well, what is your problem, you cannot memorize the difference between your, you're, I've seen you use alot and their/there with the incorrect usage. These are amongst the most rudimentary of english concepts taught and memorized before junior high. I've pointed this out to you time and time again yet the errors are still there, and still being made. I'm not saying this is common of most college grads (thank god) but it really makes you comparable to the people you seem to despise. You can't even type an essay and you are here espousing the benefits you must have to do what you do..
People have called you a black eye on your institution and I have to agree with that ascertation (and no, that word does not mean you have an intchy butt.. though you clearly seem to have something stuck firmly up there (what is where would you find your brain for 1000 alex). Perhaps . will lend you a moose antler and you may or may not be able to find that region.
So what you're saying is that because maybe someone doesn't do well in high school they have ABSOLUTELY no motivation, or can't memorize emergency drills?? Man, that's the stupidest thing I've EVER heard. No really, it is. Here's a concept for you genius. Maybe some kids don't do well in high school due to the nature of the beast itself.
