Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

I do have it handy


What is the quote from the OP?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"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.

It's the part of my message that you snipped.

No it's not.







Ok, let's not play 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)

"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)

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.

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.