JohnBurke

No, I didn't. Someone else did that.

It did help. Does help. Additional training, ratings, experience, exposure, helps.

Sully made it, with fairly narrow margins as to where he could have gone, and elected to go. Whether he flew it like a high aspect ratio, high performance glider doesn't change that fact.

Gaining exposure to gliding and seeking the experience and training isn't going to hurt you.

Having additional ratings alongside your basic pilot certification, isn't going to hurt you, either.

Nothing is going to guarantee an interview or a job, except perhaps nepotism. If it gets you noticed in a good way, it may be to your benefit, even if it's just an ice breaker in the interview.

I have photos of some of the more unusual aircraft I've flown, in my logbook. It's done the same thing; provided conversation beyond answering canned questions across a desk or table. In at least one case, it continued right through the sim session, providing a more relaxed, common ground atmosphere.

It also shows a dedication to one's training and to aviation in general. Not a detriment.

Not everything is that way. I was an avid jumper for many years, and that's one thing that's best not introduced in an interview in most cases. I'd argue quite soundly that it's good training, good benefit, and that I learned more about aerodynamics from flying my own body in freefall than I ever learned from a book, but it's not the fodder for the interview table (or an application) because of the implied connotations that go with it; the perception of what jumping is, vs. what it really is, mean it's probably not the first thing one should show, when discussing hobbies, experience, etc.

This is not true of gliding, which is a valid training experience, FAA rating, and makes for a better, well rounded pilot. One isn't hurting a thing to get glider training and certification.

I suspect Sully might agree.

Sliceback

We agree. Additional experience and exposure will make you a more knowledgeable pilot which should make you a better pilot.

If a candidate hasn’t had a recent training event (upgrade, new type rating, switched jobs) (recurrents don’t count) getting a new rating might trigger the computer review program. In the past at least one airline had a defined timeframe - if you hadn’t exposed yourself to a full blown examination in X years your resume was ignored.

The industry is leery of people who’ve been in one seat for years and years. So a glider rating, or seaplane rating, etc, won’t hurt and getting it as an add on might help if a candidate has been stuck in one seat for a long time(5+ yrs???).

Blackhawk

That does not mean the glider training did not help him in this situation and the NTSB report does not say that.
Everything I’ve read by Sullenberger he mentions his time in type and varied flight experiences as two things that helped him.
The NTSB report sticks to those things they can quantify, such as Airline sim training. There is not one word that I saw on the crews training outside of Airline training.
Finally, great idea to try and set it up in the sim. Unfortunately, most airlines don’t do any training other than that prescribed by the FAA, though my current employer is probably an exception. We practiced dual engine failures to a relight prior 9E 3710, though not to a ditching until after 1549. We also trained on how to “recover” from a situation such as that encountered by 5481, though really, best case, you’re looking at a controlled crash.
So, although it may not be quantified in an NTSB report, everything I’ve experienced over time and read is that varied flight experiences help prepare one for emergencies that may not be found in a QRH. My glider training and background teaching aerobatics and combat maneuver training in particular taught me much that is applicable to other types of flying.

Blackhawk

3.5 years, so my app has been scored several times.