On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.