Well, lots of opinions here but if there weren't it wouldn't be an aviation forum.
I think there certainly is alot to be said about experience. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, what about the Gimli glider? Would it have turned out as well (which under the circumstances was bloody perfect!) if the Capt had never done any gliding? Now I'm not saying that all pilots should also have gliding experience but that all pilots in command should have EXPERIENCE. I think an experienced cockpit greatly increases the odds of success when the abnormal happens, you know, this stuff that ISN'T in the checklist. Can a newly minted CPL pilot bring that to the cockpit, generally I think not.
BUT if you are going to hire newly minted CPL pilots to a cockpit, let it be the RJs and 320s of the world as I think (and I have never flown either of these aircraft) that these types of aircraft operate in enviornments where the lack of experience is less likely to cause grief.
I think the argument is strong that the JAZZ now has NO deprogramming to do. The only way to do something is the JAZZ way of doing something. Don't have to worry about wasting time in a groundschool listening to some one tell the whole class how they did it back in the bush. Might make the groundschools even faster, which would save more money. This in conjunction with the 12000 a year makes a very strong SHORT TERM business case for going right to the colleges.
When its all said and done, will I feel uncomfortable sitting my butt in an RJ seat knowing that neither the Capt or FO have any experience other than RJ experience, not really until I see the ground to air missle streaking up at us on TO....then I'd really be wishing Hedley was up front in the left seat.
Cheers,
ETTW
1. The company pays me to make money for it.
2. If the company doesn't make money neither do I
3. I still hate simulators
