New GI Bill Cuts Pushed Covertly By ‘Obsessed’ Veterans Committee Staffer
One Hill staffer on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs was exposed for covertly pushing GI Bill cuts after allegedly hiding opposition VSO letters from lawmakers.
Longtime House staffer Jon Clark is reportedly behind a GI Bill coup aimed at cutting GI Bill benefits for some veterans seeking pilot training from public universities – – not private institutions like for-profit colleges – – but public universities.
Veterans advocate Christopher Neiweem called out Clark for his GI Bill attack “he’s obsessed with cutting this benefits program” for aspiring pilots.
“It is normal for staffers to draft legislative proposals for lawmakers.” Neiweem continued, “It is entirely another thing for some obsessed staffer to draft, propose, and then push their own legislative agenda covertly while also hiding opposing position letters.”
Clark, a nonveteran, stated about the legislation he crafted, “Veterans are meant for classrooms and can get a degree but pilot training is way too expensive, this program is ridiculous and Congress should not be paying for it.”
By blowing the lid off what Clark is covertly working on, he hopes to hear back from Congress about how it will handle these breaches of the public trust perpetrated by the staffer responsible for all VA’s economic opportunity programs.
How will the House and Senate respond to a staffer who:
- Withheld data from lawmakers against Committee rules?
- Made anonymous quotes to the press against Committee rules?
- Obsessively championed cuts to economic training programs affecting national security such as training pilots?
It seems clear to me someone willing to push out such a plan is obviously not familiar with how the veteran community might respond to such an outsider. So here we go.
“Clark never wore the uniform and never held a substantive job outside HVAC after college,” Neiweem said. “As a civilian, he has no idea what it means to go through the Transition Assistance Program, get an education using the GI Bill, or fight for Vocational Rehabilitation benefits to get retrained while disabled.”
Sadly, Clark is responsible for oversight of these same programs during periods of turmoil and outstripping of those same programs. Maybe that explains the recent failures of Vocational Rehabilitation and the TAP for transitioning veterans – – there is no compassion, empathy or a been there done that perspective.
If Clark gets his way, here, many veterans will find that training out of reach due to a serious cap the new legislation poses. He wants to cap all pilot training to under $25,000. Due to the high cost of flight training, the cap will limit access to undergraduate degrees for many vets.
The problem here is that larger commercial pilot hiring programs require at least a bachelors degree.
READ IT: House Staffer Suppresses Information From Congress
And more importantly, would you want an under-educated pilot flying your jet?
Past Private Cap
In 2016, Congress capped private flight programs due to soaring costs of programs exploiting the benefit, but the legislation left public universities alone. Resultant reforms lowered GI Bill expenditures for flight training, but Clark was not satisfied and wanted all programs capped regardless of the type of licensure being sought.
For example, rotary wing is more expensive than fixed wing.
Clark’s legislation allows veterans to compress their receipt of benefits to offset the shortfall in monthly benefits as a result of the cap. But, his legislation would keep affected veterans from completing their education through the GI Bill.
Presently, there is a hiring crisis for pilots that I highlight below. Any mention of the present shortage and high demand for well-trained pilots was curiously diminished from Committee discussion of the bill. Instead, Clark presented it as closing a “loophole.”
Did I mention how strange it seems to talk about a staffer’s legislation?
Rep. Jodey Arrington Support
Clark’s legislation is now being championed by freshmen Congressman Jodey Arrington (R-TX).
“The GI Bill was never intended to be a blank check for educational institutions to charge whatever they want, knowing that the taxpayer will cover it,” Arrington told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s why there are already caps on private university tuition. We are applying the same principle from private university tuition and fee caps and closing this loophole for flight schools.”
Apparently, in 2014, there was one example of one veteran’s education costing the GI Bill program $534,000, and as a consequence of that one outlier, Clark has spun up this myth of a “loophole” being exploitable by public universities.
This is a classic logical fallacy where an outlier – – one that occurred because VA erred in processing the benefits requests – – is used as the basis to cap an entire program.
Do we not want veterans to receive adequate training and education to become pilots as a consequence of an agency mistake or anecdote?
Personally, I want my pilots well paid and well educated. Maybe Rep. Arrington and Clark disagree. How about you?
Hiding Letters Of Opposition
Clark reportedly hid veteran group letters ahead of key votes on HR 4149 (now Section 201) of HR 5949. The add-on is now set for inclusion into this year’s NDAA, which will allow it to become law without passing through traditional checks and balances that would likely result in failure to pass.
As if that is not bad enough, Clark reportedly “targeted veterans who voiced opposition to this bill in Congress by calling their employers by phone to raise ethics concerns and attempt to harm them financially.”
Clark’s Anonymous Interview
Compounding matters are Clark’s attempt to cut funding while remaining anonymous in his comments to the Daily Caller:
The requirement for a pilot’s license can often be met in 18 months, a source involved in crafting the bill told TheDCNF, and pilots can condense their GI Bill funding into this period to cover the costs. However, the source did not confirm what kind of pilot’s license he was referring to.
Clark apparently started his DCNF interview on the record but demanded anonymity after he bumbled questions from the reporter about what pilot’s license he was referring to. As with most things, not all licenses are the same within any profession type.
Veterans Support Airline Industry
In the past, the airline industry relied on veterans to fill the ranks of commercial pilots after military service. Over the years, the number of pilots trained in the military has gone down due to dampened military demand for pilots. Compensating for that demand are civilians and other veterans who receive GI Bill funding for commercial pilots training.
RELATED: Arrington Bill May Destroy High-Paying Veteran Jobs And The Airline Industry
AMVETS has come out hard against the legislation, which possesses a test of the American appetite to cut back on GI Bill benefits, long considered the crown jewel benefit of military service:
AMVETS’ chief strategy officer, Sherman Gillums Jr., told TheDCNF: “We are watching this continued attempt to atrophy veterans benefits and employment opportunities for veterans through the sudden, insidious inclusion of section 201 in the 5649 bill without regard for the consequences that will surely follow.”
“This isn’t about the number of veterans that will be impacted,” he continued. “It’s about caring as much about the livelihood of each and every veteran who served our country as much as one cares about scoring political wins. Either Section 201 will be removed and debated, or we’ll know those in Washington, D.C. — who often remain bubble wrapped from the real consequences of their decisions — simply don’t give a damn.”
United States Army Warrant Officers Association Executive Director Jack Du Teil added: “I am very troubled that this bill, which stands to jeopardize thousands of jobs for veterans, was bundled into a bill intended to increase resources to help veterans transition to private sector employment. It seems to contradict the very purpose of the overall bill.”
Du Teil’s organization submitted a letter to both the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees opposing the bill.
Impact Of Fewer Pilots – National Security Issue
According to The DCF:
The number of pilots in the U.S. has decreased by 30 percent over the last three decades, MarketWatch reported in July. Meanwhile, demand for flights is expected to double by 2036, according to the International Air Transport Association. The average salary across all types of pilots is nearly $80,000 a year, according to Glassdoor.
The amount of veterans pursuing pilot training is also decreasing, MarketWatch shows. About two-thirds of pilots were veterans in the 1980s, but that’s since dropped to less than one-third. Non-veterans often have to front the full cost of pilot training, which, at private institutions, can cost over $100,000.
The federal government is already pushing more veterans to become pilots with the “Forces to Flyers” program, an initiative looking at ways to encourage more veterans to become commercial passenger airline pilots.
“North America alone will need to hire more than 112,000 pilots by 2035 to keep pace with demand,” Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao said when announcing the initiative in November.
AOPA Opposition Letter
According to a recent letter of opposition from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:
On behalf of associations representing thousands of aviation businesses and hundreds of thousands of pilots, we appreciate the committee’s continued work on legislation to improve the delivery of veterans’ flight training benefits. While the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 5649 does contain numerous provisions to improve the program’s efficiency, the proposed capping of program payments undermines the important goal of helping our nation’s veterans enter a field where they are desperately needed.
Unlike how other degree programs at public colleges or universities are treated, the bill caps payments for flight training programs which unfairly impacts the ability of veterans to pursue well-paying jobs in the civilian aviation sector.
Capping funds available for flight training degree programs virtually guarantees that veterans seeking to use their GI Bill benefits to enter the aviation industry will have insufficient funds to achieve their goals. They will either abandon their pursuit or be burdened with significant personal debt through either expenditure of personal funds or taking on of student loans. This will harm veterans and limit their employment opportunities in the aviation industry.
It is unfair and discriminatory to single out for these funding caps veterans seeking employment in aviation. These caps deprive them of the ability to pursue collegiate flight training, a common path to a career as a commercial pilot.
We urge the Committee to remove the discriminatory cap on flight training at public institutions and to keep the promises that will allow veterans their choice of career.
My Background With Neiweem And Clark
I know both Neiweem and Clark.
Clark asked me to provide written testimony about VA Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment in 2015 since I am a national authority on that program and run a 25,000+ veteran group I founded of veterans using that program.
I have leaned on Clark on a few instances including where Vocational Rehabilitation cut health insurance when required by colleges veterans attend. The agency basically disregarded the issue.
Neiweem, on the other hand, is a policy guru on Capitol Hill making a name for himself as an independent advocate for certain veterans issues in person in DC and regularly on TV. Neiweem is a small business owner and disabled veteran.
My Take – We Need New Blood
On this issue, I need to call balls and strikes before veterans are economically harmed.
Rhetoric aside, Clark is inappropriately pushing his own pet project at the expense of veterans and concealing his actions from Congress and the public. Since Clark has never held a substantive job outside of the House Committee, it seems plausible that his view of veterans seeking economic benefits is skewed.
Further, Clark’s long tenure at the Committee is obviously biasing his understanding of his own role within that organization. Even though he is not an elected official, he is certainly acting like a Congressman.
Based on the facts presented, Clark probably views veterans as parasites, at least subconsciously, even though veterans for decades paid into the GI Bill to then use the benefits after the military.
How predictable is it that a nonveteran without substantive real-world experience seeking economic opportunity for himself is in charge of oversight of veterans pursuing the same?
America is in a state of crisis over declining pilots.
Few policymakers are talking about the connection between this bill and its impact on veterans seeking that career. Even Clark apparently does not know the difference between the types of pilot training, but he crafted his legislation without conducting the due diligence then and now.
What Do You Think?
How do you feel about the cuts? What about a Hill staffer pushing his own agenda? What about that same Hill staffer withholding information from Congress while trying to make anonymous statements to the press?
Why does the House have a nonveteran without real-world experience in charge of oversight for TAP, GI Bill, VA Vocational Rehabilitation, and other related programs?
Is it any wonder VA’s economic programs are a mess or why veterans are seeing our GI Bill benefits stripped one by one?
To Arrington’s comment above about a “blank check” – – no one wants a blank check. We just want a fair shot. But that is something someone like Clark would never appreciate.
Ask Jon Clark
Readers concerned about the cuts should call Jon Clark directly to let him know what you think. 202.225.3527. Report back what you find out.
Why is it that the only comments that get posted are comments support your argument. You are a dirtbag. People here in DC think you’re a joke btw. Good luck with your “blog”. If you honestly think you help veterans, then you are sadly mistaken.
@ “f-off”. Thanks for joining the party. It’s comments like this from those like yourself that keep me going. You say this website is not helping veterans. We just moved an inch closer to saving pilot training for veterans by exposing this problem. What did you do today?
Personally, I take it as a compliment to know some DC elites and VSO sycophants still besmirch entrepreneurs like myself. Perhaps you’d take me more seriously if I was a W-2 employee of one of those VSOs wearing a funny hat? Nah, I would just be a faceless nobody posting comments under a pseudonym, like you.
Called, and the person who answered had zero clue as to what I was asking about.
Clark’s vigilante attitude isn’t unique limited to high level Capital Hill staffers unfortunately. I am at the end of Post 9/11 GI Bill due to lengthy medical recovery. I wasn’t able to attend for many years. Due to complications I won’t be able to complete my degree before the 15 year time frame expires. I observed that some staff and professors at the small state college had the same “I am god” complex. I was 48 when I started my AS in a technical Mech program. It is a manufacturing related degree that is what listed as high demand and critical future shortage nationwide. I faced a certain degree of critical discrimination based on my age and disability. How shocking is that? I obtained one of the metamajor’s several technical degrees Cum Laude. These critical fields are very cleverly being sabotaged in one manner or another to what end and through what collaboration? We need to find this out. If we do not we Americans and our country will continue to be herded and funneled to serve demagogues and megalomaniacs. The only groups that have anything to lose by training America up to a competitive level are foreign interests that do not want the competition. They would like to continue perpetuating the negative stereotype that Americans aren’t genetically predisposed for intellectual heavy lifting. It is obvious by online reactions that sustained and recent improvements in American automobiles isn’t well accepted internationally. We have clearly given too much clout and attention to overinflated egos outside our country. If we want real-time sustainable successes in these critical areas we have to take an uncomfortably close and transparent look at the entire process past the point of graduation. Training of any kind isn’t successful until it has been implemented and consistently productive. What is so difficult concerning mentorship in these areas? Mentorship is missing. Follow-up is missing. It makes sense that if these are problem areas that mentorship and followup is something new for us and it is outside of normal. It isn’t just our way of life under attack it is credibility, respect, honor, social standing and self respect. We deserve to live like we are a top superpower in the world and have the skills to sustain a prosperous civilization that has a future. Our legacy to our children should be more than the prospect of a low wage retail job. Too many children are without skills or knowledge until after college. They are all lined up at square #1 at the bottlenecks of life. No reason for that. Some young people would have different options and doors open relieving these bottlenecks. School, education, training, mentorship and implementation aren’t done deals. They are cleverly arranged shells in a bait and switch shell game. It is up to us to outwit the bugs chewing on the roots. Let’s do it.
These comments have made this long fight in the House against Mr. Clark worth it. Exposing him was 100% necessary. He is now on his hands and knees (he apologized to me previously though Congress did not punish him) begging vets groups to come to his aide for “previous good works”. Clark took on vets and now he is going down in round two faster than a pint of thick dark brewed beer in an Irish pub. He should be terminated from his job immediately and write an open letter to every veteran in the VA system apologizing and then go find a job outside of the political system.
1. These are the asshats/all kinds and forms of ‘staffers’ that help demand or say they can’t discuss matters with their bosses, pass issues along to be fixed, or political office heads claiming the need for us to play games unless they have access to our files or VA records. Then some wonder how our info may get so spread around like mine has having to open our lives up to this kind of filth and there are many of them. Some may then wonder why I started shutting off such consent forms for our fearless leaders. Especially after getting their forms signed to “investigate” matters and never hear anything more from them, about any so-called investigation, or what they have found or think. May get a letter of saying the phony investigation showed nothing and refer me back to the VA. Nope, it’s dropped, the buck passed, ignored, or then told they can’t do anything about the issues at hand. If so, then why the hell did their staffers and themselves require our info for matters they can’t help with in the first place?
It’s the staffers/secretaries and cliques who tell us when contacting politicians that they can’t do anything about those of us with complaints who live outside of their constituency or area. Or give us different info with each call or have us chasing our tails with false info or passing that good ol’ buck. Or have part in some retaliation games and circus. It’s part of their job description to keep us away from their bosses and to handle the little people they care nothing about. To shut us up, pass our info and names along or list us. They have to make sure their CEOs and political heads have their coffee, hookers, muses, and pleasant happy days. Not to be bothered by the likes of us.
How common is it for locals to pick up or have knowledge of us contacting out of state officials, senators, Reps, etc??? Media types too? We don’t have a chance to know these people or their affiliations or agendas yet we are supposed to trust them all. For local medical people, politicians, and activist to enhance their tactics and harassment. It’s not to help us either especially in Indiana that all agencies and demons (both parties/all activist/militants) seem joined at the hips with all the networks of evil and retribution fully intact and functions better than helping people or to shine a light on all the corruption and covering up.
Is he another long time staffer that got those free trips to Israel to meet their true masters??? Ooops!! Since all of them including Congress and the DC crowd always pledges allegiance to and stands with them at all cost and goes to wars for them.
Who and what are all these carefully chosen staffers connected to and why?
Just who gives these powers to staffers and also circles their wagons around them with protection?
Are they vetted and by whom?
If any of those people would put forth the effort for some positive changes and help to expose the wrong doers some of us may have a chance with things, not until. It’s not their agenda or politics. It’s seems to be more for foreigners, “pet projects,” activism, nepotism, self-service, etc.
Nothing to add, you all said it perfectly.
@cj gimme your discord again I’ll fire up mine later on and add you to my server.
WyldeChylde, I will be out most of the day, being too poor to afford a mechanic, I have to tear the top half of my engine down, and replace a few parts.
What’s an average law degree cost these days?
My law degree might cost around $150,000 in today’s dollars. Medical school is about the same or more depending on the school.
Why would this non-veteran have any say on what education our want to consider on taking, this clown didn’t even serve, how did he manage to slide this paperwork through without any backlash, something is admist he had help getting this done someone had to meddled, our Veterans deserve the best education
The dude is obviously on the payroll of student loan banks. The program is cutting into the take on student loans that can follow the student to his grave, even attaching his Social Security Check.
The military industrial complex also might have thrown a few coins his way. Pretty big chunk out of the budget cutting hardware contracts in favor flesh and bone that puts no profit in their pockets.
Since Clark is a staffer and not an elected official, I don’t find anything just yet on his party affiliation. This is his department.
House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
The Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity has legislative, oversight and investigative jurisdiction over education of veterans, employment and training of veterans, vocational rehabilitation, veterans’ housing programs, readjustment of servicemembers to civilian life, and servicemembers civil relief.
Have a question about the Post-9/11 Bill? Learn more here. “https://veterans.house.gov/legislation/gi-bill.htm”
Resources for Veterans
Doing Business with the Federal Government
Doing Business with the VA
G.I. Bill® and other Education Programs
G.I. Bill® Comparison Tool
Guide to Federal Employment for Veterans
Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program (HVRP)
Veterans Employment and Training Service of the U.S. Department of Labor
Veterans Employment Center (Job Postings for Veterans)
Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E)
There is also a listing of Congresspersons on the committee as well as recent hearings and news.
I’m guessing he’s Republican.
Here at Clark’s LinkedIn profile “https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-clark-53904a1b”, it says he worked for Steve Buyer R-Ind and Brandt Hershman R-Ind.
“Senate Confirms Wilkie as New VA Secretary”
Dated: 23 Jul 2018
By: Mr. Richard Sisk
The Senate by a vote of 86-9 confirmed Robert Wilkie on Monday as the next secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in a move to bring stability to a department Republicans and Democrats suggested has been in turmoil over political infighting and low morale.
The vote for Wilkie, 55, of North Carolina, an Air Force Reserve colonel with long experience at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, capped a tumultuous four months at the VA marked by ongoing leadership shuffles since President Donald Trump fired former VA Secretary Dr. David Shulkin in March.
In a sign of continuing questions about the direction of the VA, the Senate’s action in confirming the new secretary — normally a bipartisan event — featured opposition votes.
The vote to confirm Shulkin last year was 100-0 to head a department serving nine million veterans annually with a budget of more than $190 billion and a workforce of more than 350,000.
The “no” votes came from eight Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and one independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Sanders earlier this month cast the first opposition ballot in memory for a VA secretary nominee in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee vote that sent the nomination to the floor.
Sanders at the time said he was voting more in protest of Trump than he was to Wilkie’s qualifications, saying he feared that Trump and political appointees within the VA would use the recently passed VA Mission Act as a vehicle to press for the “privatization” of VA health care.
In the floor debate leading up to the vote, Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, said he is confident Wilkie can “re-establish the non-partisan approach to serving our veterans” at the VA, a possible reference to political infighting at the department.
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, who voted for Wilkie, was more direct. “We’ve got political forces at play inside the VA. That’s very unfortunate,” said the committee’s ranking member. “When Mr. Wilkie becomes secretary, he has to see that this stops.”
In his stormy departure from the VA, Shulkin said he was the victim of “subversion” by Trump political appointees within the VA and at the White House.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman of the committee, said, “We know Robert Wilkie is the real deal,” and he will now have the opportunity “to fix the problems that we have” at the VA.
“This is the opportunity to do the changes of a lifetime,” Isakson said but repeated a warning he gave Wilkie at his confirmation hearing: “You will have no excuses.”
Shulkin’s firing initially led Trump to nominate Rear. Adm. Ronny Jackson, his personal physician and head of the White House medical unit, to head the VA.
In an embarrassment to the administration, Jackson withdrew his name over allegations — never proven — that he mishandled prescriptions at the White House medical unit and may have been drunk on duty.
Following Jackson’s withdrawal, Wilkie was moved over from the Pentagon to become acting secretary at the VA. In his time as acting secretary, Wilkie noted the political turmoil and low morale at the department. He said he wanted the staff “talking to each other, not at each other.”
When Trump surprised him by nominating him to the full-time position, Wilkie had to step down as acting secretary to avoid violating a provision of the U.S. Code barring acting secretaries from nomination to cabinet positions.
Peter O’Rourke, a former Trump campaign worker who had been chief of staff at the VA, was moved up to the acting secretary’s position. O’Rourke has since clashed with VA Inspector General Michael Missal over access to whistleblower complaint data.
The major veterans service organizations (VSOs) supported Wilkie’s nomination despite initial reservations that expansion of community health care options for veterans could lead to privatization.
In a statement after the vote, Denise Rohan, national commander of the two-million-member American Legion, said in a statement, “I congratulate Mr. Robert Wilkie on his Senate confirmation to be the 10th secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
“We look forward to working closely with Secretary Wilkie and his staff to ensure America’s veterans receive the health care, education, and other benefits they have earned through their selfless service to our great nation,” she added.
Here’s the only comment!
Mike Zondlo10 hours ago two things – how long will he last and will he actually do some good for the veterans???? probably not good in either
Jon Clark is a domestic enemy of the Constitution and an enemy towards our way of life.
It seems to be “staffers” are writing bills. Whereas those who were elected to positions in government aren’t!
That is not the way our government is supposed to be in a Constitutional Republic!
As I watched, on live TV how our alleged elected officials vote on bills, it was accomplished by “staffers” running around on the floor pushing buttons! How many of these “staffers” have been elected to the rights given to those elected – answer – NONE!
Now, we have a “staffer”, a non elected person, who took it upon himself to decide “who gets what!”
In neither Ben’s Blog or the other article does it say which “party” Jon Clark belongs. I bring this up for multiple reasons:
1.) As we have watched and read in the past few years, “staffers” have been committing criminal acts against “We the People”!
2.) When was it written “staffers” write the “bills” “We the People” elected certain people into office to do that job?
3.) If “staffers” are now writing bills, why are “We the People” electing people to serve us in Congress?
4.) Jon Clark needs to be fired and arrested for this breach of policy! It has to be a criminal act against “We the People”!
Lastly, FUCK YOU JON CLARK!
If Jon Clark is a Democrat, I guarantee y’all nothing will happen to him. On the other hand, if he’s a Republican, I guarantee y’all he’ll be burned at the stake!
I’ll go one further. No taxation without representation.
Hey Clark: It’s simple, really simple. FUCK OFF!
Jon Clark is subverting our process with his one man wannabe dictator show. I’m pretty sure nobody elected Mr. Clark to office so how is it he’s allowed to backburner our elected officials? More importantly why is Congress not demanding to see everything this person has hidden from them.
What we have here is disenfranchisement instigated by this one person. This has got to be the most egregious thing a person can do to others in a free society. And then to top it off he retaliates against people who raise concerns.
Jon Clark needs to meet one of our armed and crazy veterans.
We have seen this tactic used over and over, where some adverse hidden ploy is added to a bill, then at the eleventh hour (or later), it gets a little light shone on its dirty scheming self.
From the linked, richly explanitory article:
“”The problem is this bill will not improve conditions for veterans. It will instead eliminate thousands of career opportunities for vets because of one provision that few members of the Committee were even aware was added to the bill.””
Here is the link to the bill in the article (HB 5649).
Okay, I’m gonna poke the bear.
One of the sticking points mentioned at the start of Ben’s post, was the cost of pilot training. Does anyone have any info to share on the civilian airliner training cost for a military trained pilot, compared to say a military trained at pre-med level to be a civilian doctor.
In a news mag program, it was mentioned that beginner training for a pilot license was at or just under five figures cost. The majority of veterans that would be airline pilots are already trained FAR BEYOND a beginner’s training and those years of flight experience are transferrable credits toward further professional training. Case in point, remember the recent passenger tragedy, where Pilot Tammy was able to rely on her military pilot skillset to make a safe landing with a blown out window at high altitude, without further souls on board incurring serious injury? That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Putting civilian pilot education skills within the reach of veterans desiring to further those abilities is in line, in my opinion, with what the GI BILL is intended to produce. An important piece that is missing here, THE VETERAN HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR OWN FINANCIAL EARNINGS TOWARD THEIR EDUCATION TO UTILIZE THOSE GI BILL PROCEEDS!!
Me immitating Colombo, “And one more thing…”
Where does this guy Clark get off thinking there’s no classroom time in pilot training? Facepalm!
Comments are closed.