If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
I do have it handy What is the quote from the OP? Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... I do have it handy What is the quote from the OP? It's the part of my message that you snipped. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... It's the part of my message that you snipped. No it's not. Yes it is. Ok, let's not play games. ....He says, just before he starts playing games. Here's the OP relating to the purple heart: === Subject: Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality From: Larry Dighera Date: 10/13/04 7:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy wrote in :: The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities That is your big problem Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test? FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10% advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing field should be level. === You then ask: What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting injured? ... in your message: === Subject: Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 10/14/04 1:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: . net "Robert Briggs" wrote in message ... Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test? FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10% advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing field should be level. Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured* make you a better candidate? What in the previous message suggested points were given for getting injured? === In order to get a purple heart, you must have been injured. (it must have been under specific circumstances, but for now this is irrelevant). The context of "getting injured" in this post is military. The context implies (though it does not require) combat. The purple heart requires combat, but that's irrelevant to the question being asked. Whether in combat or not, receiving an injury does not make one a better candidate. It can be argued that being in combat makes one a better candidate. I won't argue that either way. I see it instead sort of as a reward for service and an apology for injuries. Whether this is good or bad I won't argue either. In any case, the quote from the OP was not in the part of your message that I snipped. ObAviation - went up leaf peeping from DXR to the Catskills. The DXR area was still pretty green as was much of the Hudson Valley, but the Catskills were gorgeous. Not much wind either, so I could fly low over the mountains. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote: Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Robert Briggs wrote: FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an additional 5% for a Purple Heart ... Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured* make you a better candidate? Imagine two guys going through the same battles together, one of whom gets hit by an enemy bullet while the other isn't. Now, I can see how their *experience of battle* may be relevant when applying for a job, but I don't see how a single bullet wound makes the one better suited than the other. I don't see how either one is a better candidate than one with no military service. Well, air traffic control (which is, after all, the specific field in which we are interested in this thread) requires rather more in the way of discipline than do many jobs and I would expect prior military service to correlate positively with this, and it is no bad thing at all for controllers to be able to cope well "under fire", whether or not they actually get hit by any bullets. While I believe that *modest* credit for prior military service is no bad thing in itself, it must clearly not be allowed undue influence: for example, a former military controller might get his 5% for the *military* aspect, but his *experience as a controller* should count for much more, as should a Canadian civil controller's experience of handling cross-border traffic. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Briggs wrote: Well, air traffic control (which is, after all, the specific field in which we are interested in this thread) requires rather more in the way of discipline than do many jobs No it doesn't. ATC is no different than any other job. You may or may not be well suited to it. and I would expect prior military service to correlate positively with this, and it is no bad thing at all for controllers to be able to cope well "under fire", whether or not they actually get hit by any bullets. Under fire is simply another term for stress. While I believe that *modest* credit for prior military service is no bad thing in itself, it must clearly not be allowed undue influence: for example, a former military controller might get his 5% for the *military* aspect, but his *experience as a controller* should count for much more, as should a Canadian civil controller's experience of handling cross-border traffic. Military controllers washed out at a much higher rate than guys off the street with zero experience, back when we washed people out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | October 14th 04 06:10 PM |
Moving violation..NASA form? | Nasir | Piloting | 47 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |