The dark side of the pilot shortage.

gliderboy said:
Prior to the shortage that has improved so many of our lives, most small operaters were staffed by a cadre of skilled pilots who stayed on at those low-paying jobs because it was the best flying gig they could get. Now that most have been snapped up by the airlines, it seems like many under-trained, low-time pilots are being rushed into the vacant left seats, with predictable results.
Or is it just my imagination?
Click to expand...

Unintended consequences of government regulation. We still have low-time, inexperienced pilots on the flight deck, but we shifted them away from the airlines, where they had standardized training and experienced Captain mentors, to an industry where training and checking are arguably lower quality, and there is no no one to mentor them.
 
Cptnchia said:
So are you. You left aviation for real estate. He left tech for aviation. It doesn’t matter why each of you left your previous career field. You both did.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
I'm not sure religion is a purely mammal thing
I've seen gators do something that very much resembled praying. A massive TS was coming, and a bunch of them turned towards it and were barking in unison. Praying was the closest analogy I could come up with. It's normal for the living things to be afraid of the things they don't understand.
But eventually we need to grow out of it.
 
ppragman said:
I actually don’t get your point either - can you explain?
Click to expand...

We're actually so many pages past the relevant posts now, you may just not remember. :)

He tried to argue his business acumen as justification for his claim that he knows the airline business so well. In so doing, he claimed "seven figure profits," which then changed to a "seven figure profit" from the sale of the business. Which is now "seven figures split up amongst a bunch of people." He should have just been honest from the get-go, admitted he didn't understand the airline business so well (which is understandable, as he doesn't even work in the business), and not argue with people who do know it relatively well. In other words, I don't give a damn that he's a career-changer who likes working at a FedEx feeder. I give a damn about the puffery. It's a trend with him. Go check out threads about domestic surveillance and he's always claiming that he's worked on top-secret cyber programs to spy on Americans. Nobody who actually does work on such programs talks about them on the internet with a bunch of pilots. So stop with the puffery.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
We're actually so many pages past the relevant posts now, you may just not remember. :)

He tried to argue his business acumen as justification for his claim that he knows the airline business so well. In so doing, he claimed "seven figure profits," which then changed to a "seven figure profit" from the sale of the business. Which is now "seven figures split up amongst a bunch of people." He should have just been honest from the get-go, admitted he didn't understand the airline business so well (which is understandable, as he doesn't even work in the business), and not argue with people who do know it relatively well. In other words, I don't give a damn that he's a career-changer who likes working at a FedEx feeder. I give a damn about the puffery. It's a trend with him. Go check out threads about domestic surveillance and he's always claiming that he's worked on top-secret cyber programs to spy on Americans. Nobody who actually does work on such programs talks about them on the internet with a bunch of pilots. So stop with the puffery.
Click to expand...
Pot meet kettle
 
No, you are denigrating him for leaving a high paying job for a low paying job. Maybe in your eyes that’s a bad move, but not everyone will agree with you.

Or is it what path he took to flying? Some will still think poorly of you for the choices you made and path you took. In another post, you gave someone grief for bringing up Cherokee_Cruiser’s affiliation with JetU. And rightfully so.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
First, atheism isn’t a religion. Atheism is simply lacking a belief in a god. Atheism is the absence of religion.

Second, I’m actually not an atheist. I consider myself more of a deist. I think there probably was some sort of higher power that set all of this in motion, but I’m not married to that belief, and certainly wouldn’t purport to argue the nature of such a being, because there is no evidence to support it.

Finally, your arguments basically amount to two main points: 1) You’re not capable of being moral without believing in a sky fairy, and 2) Science doesn’t have all of the answers yet, so you’d prefer to just make up answers instead.

For the first problem, there are many, many arguments why this is simply not the case. I’d recommend a reading of “The God Delusion” for an in-depth scientific answer to that. The short version is that evolution naturally results in communal mammals having a sense of right and wrong without any belief in a sky fairy being necessary. In fact, since the sky fairies are all man-made, anyway, their moral laws all have this evolutionary origin. For the second problem, I really don’t know how to answer you. Making up answers just to satisfy yourself because science hasn’t discovered everything yet is pure silliness.
Click to expand...
You should give Intelligent Design a spin. Some would suggest that science has worked itself into a corner, and when you've exhausted all rational possible explanations...
I'm just an old fashion Methodist, and I'm not a missionary, so y'all can do what you want. But I'm really intrigued when science try's to prove the existence of a higher power.
Check out the "God particle" too.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I’d recommend a reading of “The God Delusion” for an in-depth scientific answer to that.
Click to expand...

If you think that book is science, we aren't going to see eye to eye on any of this. Moreover, I was discussing philosophy. If you think science has all the answers, that is a religious viewpoint. Since a religion can be defined as "a particular system of faith," I'm going to continue to call atheism a religion since it is believed by faith. Sorry, but science can't prove or disprove God's existence. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. If you have been led to believe that this is a scientific argument someone really pulled the wool over your eyes. Don't get me wrong, science is great, but it can't address questions that are outside of it's domain, as this one clearly is.
 
bucksmith said:
You should give Intelligent Design a spin. Some would suggest that science has worked itself into a corner, and when you've exhausted all rational possible explanations...
I'm just an old fashion Methodist, and I'm not a missionary, so y'all can do what you want. But I'm really intrigued when science try's to prove the existence of a higher power.
Check out the "God particle" too.
Click to expand...
I've never seen science try to prove the existence of a high power. That's not how it works.
High on who knows what dude - "So there's this omnipotent being that does X"
Science, "uh ok, that's an extraordinary claim, we'd need some extraordinary evidence."

The onus is not on the logical people, it's on the person making the wild claim. It's not for us to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right to us since all available evidence is that you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
nibake said:
If you think that book is science, we aren't going to see eye to eye on any of this.
Click to expand...

That's because you neither understand nor believe in science. But as NDT says "science is true whether you believe in it or not."

If you think science has all the answers, that is a religious viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a trove of answers, it's a method for discovering the answers. Your lack of understanding this point is why you think it's a religion. It's not.

Sorry, but science can't prove or disprove God's existence.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot?
 
nibake said:
Sorry, but science can't prove or disprove God's existence. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. If you have been led to believe that this is a scientific argument someone really pulled the wool over your eyes. Don't get me wrong, science is great, but it can't address questions that are outside of it's domain, as this one clearly is.
Click to expand...
Well, see that's another thing, absolutism. It's common in religion, but abhorred in science. Currently the question of some god is philisophical, and I imagine it will be for a long time, possibly forever, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to prove or disprove it. We don't even know what we don't know about future technologies. We're so in the dark about a lot of things that we don't even know what question to ask.
As to the philosophical side of it, ATN nailed it. Russell's Teapot.
 
bucksmith said:
You should give Intelligent Design a spin. Some would suggest that science has worked itself into a corner, and when you've exhausted all rational possible explanations...
I'm just an old fashion Methodist, and I'm not a missionary, so y'all can do what you want. But I'm really intrigued when science try's to prove the existence of a higher power.
Check out the "God particle" too.
Click to expand...

"God Particle" was short-hand for the Higgs-Boson. One of the many books that would address it referred to it as "The Goddamn Particle" in a rejected title. Other apocryphal stories say they called it that because the thing was so goddamned hard to find.

Nothing about religion or intelligent design, though....
 
Acrofox said:
ATN_Pilot said:
Sure. And now you fly FedEx feed. Riiiiight.
Click to expand...
I made millions of dollars (in salary) in my career in the tech industry, and now I'm on the verge of bankruptcy flying for a regional. Names, dates and companies check for his story. I can't vouch for the purchase price of Paradigm Shift, but doing a bit of nosing around, there was considerable industry interest in Keyva (Ashburn, VA) at one time. Be careful who you call out, sir. Some people have actually lived pretty kick-ass lives, and it looks bad to call them out. -Fox
Click to expand...
Did someone say kick-ass lives?
c94497b22570de73f2d9463baba58c06.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
z987k said:
I've never seen science try to prove the existence of a high power. That's not how it works.
High on god knows what dude - "So there's this omnipotent being that does X"
Science, "uh ok, that's an extraordinary claim, we'd need some extraordinary evidence."

The onus is not on the logical people, it's on the person making the wild claim. It's not for us to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right to us.
Click to expand...
Try some google-fu. Not sure if I should of said they are "trying to prove", but nevertheless, it's interesting stuff.
It's mostly described as a pseudo science, at best.
The God particle actually has nothing to do with God, per se, but it enlivens the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top