CAA Statistics to reveal all Jan 2005

[RVR800]

Good news...

From the 1st January 2005, the CAA, a UK public body will have to reveal statistics on pilot training success rates when asked; this is because this is the date when the Freedom of Information Act comes into force... this will help in informing training choices...

This Freedom of Information is active from 2005 in UK law and for a small fee a member of the general public or a journalist will be able to gain full access to statistics that for e.g. would show what percentage of fATPLs go on to get that coveted airline position...

It should be very interesting........It may be that the flying press may be fairly selective in their search for the truth although the mainstream press may be a little more objective..

Investing 60K to 100K in my view requires a full look at all the facts.. in the past the available data on this has been, lets say rather selective. The FAA are very up front with their stats come on CAA show us your hand!

At the moment some statistics are present that show that about 25 private pilots got IRs out of a total of about 30,000 private pilots as an example...

There is on the other hand very little information for members of the tax paying public (including pilots that subsidise this industry) to enable them to make informed choices based around other real data. We can exclude flying school comment like there is a 'big shortage' coming up of pilots etc.. due to some vested interest

It would be interesting to know for instance the pass rates at various test centres - which schools have the best pass rates?. Also what, why, and when policies are being changed and plans to incorporate an ICAO Multi-Pilot rating into FCL policy; minutes of meetings about this would be good..

We should be told the truth 'cos its our money.. don't you agree?


:O

[Biscuit]

I agree 100% and hope this is true. I doubt most of the business community would plough 50/60k into a venture without all the facts, especially the stats, enusuring no risks were being taken that didn't warrant the reward.

[Alex Whittingham]

I think you might be disappointed unless you are prepared to ask some probing questions. The CAA are required to publish a 'publication scheme' that lists all the data they intend to proactively publish. It already exists at on their website (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/286/CAAPublicationScheme.pdf) and doesn't represent any significant change to the status quo.

I asked the CAA what changes they were anticipating up in order to comply with the requirements of the FoI act. They said: "I do not expect any significant effect on FCL business, the CAA is already an open informative organisation. The Data Protection Act will continue to protect personal information that we hold."

The FoI act also allows them to withold commercially confidential information which is how they have, to date, classified pass rates of individual schools.

More info on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/index.htm)

[RVR800]

Yes absolutely Alex but the Publication scheme is only the start for them. The law will in Jan 2005 require them to respond to ad-hoc public demands for info...

'As one sits in the exam room ticking those boxes it would be nice to know what statistical chance one has of success..........'

I am the customer....after all

And I dont just mean in passing those exams....thats only the start

You can according to UK law ask them for any none-exempt data
(Aggregated student pilot progression data would none-exempt) and they have 20 working days to respond from Jan 2005.

Clearly it may be have commercial implications if they revealed the percentage pass rates of particular schools so that data would be lumped together - although one could theoretically ask for the test centre stats

There is a cost to the person who asks for this data but it will be way less than the cost of just one hour in a twin! I get the feeling that their will be a lot of interest in this...especially from people about to fork out...and from journos..

[0-8]

Very, very interesting. And about time too.
After all those years of guesswork, rumours and fumbling around in the dark we’re going to get some cold hard facts.

I’ll happily volunteer my time to chase up the CAA and ask any probing questions necessary to get as much data as possible. And regarding costs, surely it’s as worthy a use of the Pprune fund as any?

[RVR800]

Yes I think it is useful. The aim of the act is partly to empower the tax payer to see what public bodies are doing with THEIR money.

The act will facilitate the CAA's quest for ever greater openness and transparency

http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=33


:p

[Alex Whittingham]

It's debatable whether the plea of 'commercial confidence' is valid in the case of FTO's pass rates. The Act defines 'exempt' information quite closely. It will be interesting to watch!

[RVR800]

In any case the SRG statistics page needs a review.

I get the impression that their intention is to show how busy they are; rather than to give any clear message to potential customers

Figures such as 866 pilots were issued with JAR CPLs last year

No figures on multi-crew type ratings...

[CosmosSchwartz]

There is on the other hand very little information for members of the tax paying public (subsidising pilots)

How exactly does the tax paying public subsidise pilots? What choice does the public have to make regarding a pilot's training? If someone wants to be a pilot, they choose a school. The general public have nothing to do with that.

I don't remember being told I was subsidising pilots in my old job, I don't remember receiving any subsidy from the tax man during my training, and now working as a pilot I still can't see where I'm being subsidised. Oh, and I pay taxes too.

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious but this seems like a bizarre, irrelevant, nonsensical comment.

Having re-read your posts, if you're referring to tax payers money running the CAA then you're barking up the wrong tree. The CAA make money from flight charges, they receive nothing from the Government and they definitely don't hand out cash to pilots, in fact, it's quite the reverse. Have you seen how much a medical costs at the moment!

[RVR800]

Sorry I meant a subsidising pilot such as yourself and me who in effect subsidise this industry so that joe public pays less..

The Govt operates the CAA and it is accountable to UK Govt and ALL its taxpayers

Sorry to have given the wrong impression I really hit a raw nerve there didn't I ?

:{

[CosmosSchwartz]

I agree wholeheartedly about the ridiculous situation wannabe pilots find themselves in. I can't think of another industry where you have to pay such vast amounts for training with absolutely no guarantees at the end.

Just to clarify one point though, the government does not operate the CAA, the CAA advises the government on policy. The CAA is not accountable to the taxpayers, from the CAA website :

The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many countries, including the other JAA member states, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work. CAA Website (http://www.caa.co.uk/corpinfo/default.asp)

In fact, come to think of it, the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, actually make money from the CAA! DfT (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_507559-04.hcsp#P75_11764)

I don't mean to nitpick, but your comments will be much more credible if they are directed at the right people.

[RVR800]

The CAA is also a UK public body and as such falls under the Freedom of Information Act. Hence its participation in the Publication Scheme.

Contacting the CAA for info will come in Jan 2005 when the act is in force.

[0-8]

I agree with Alex. It will be very interesting to watch.

For those interested the relevant document can be found here (http://ico-cms.amaze.co.uk/DocumentUploads/confidentiality%20awareness%20guidance%202.pdf)

As I understand it the CAA would only be able to restrict information on an FTO’s pass rates if they think that the FTO concerned would be able to take legal action against them as a result.

[Alex Whittingham]

Read on. It's only a 'confidence' if the FTO provides the CAA with the information. If the CAA creates the information itself no confidence exists therefore there can be no breach of confidence.

[0-8]

I was under the impression that at least some of the data was supplied by the FTO’s? If this is not the case then I can’t see that there is any way the CAA could withhold the information?

And that sounds like pretty good news for wannabes.

[African Drunk]

It is about time the results were made public. I would also like to see the pass rate of different examiniers with different FTO's.

Alex I had understood the CAA had provided pass rates for the different ground schools?

[Alex Whittingham]

Yes, we know our own pass rates but they won't tell us anyone else's. No one can say 'highest pass rate' etc..

There are actually some very good reasons why pass rates on their own don't tell the full story... Do you put your students through selection tests? Do you take on students who have already failed at other schools? Do you have a high proportion of students for whom English is not a first language? The same goes for flight test pass rates, you have to know a bit more than the pass rate to get the full picture.

[Aim High]

Well, schools could volunteer their pass rates to be independently published by the CAA.

I know one school at cranfield who would love to have this happen.

Its known in the industry which schools have the highest pass rates. Its just not easy for the wannabee to find this out.

[Alex Whittingham]

[Edited to remove late night rant]

Have you considered posting under your real name Stuart? It's good manners, at least, for owners of FTOs to make it clear who they are when they post.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Its not a hard rule but we would very much prefer it if FTO owners/managers would show that fact either in their username or profile. Its good manners and is far more likely to engender support for your views than trying to remain anonymous. Have two names if you so wish.

If everyone followed Alexs example of posting in his own name, developing trust over time by the nature of his posts, then that would be of benefit to everyone.

ON the thread topic. It would indeed be very interesting to see the relationship between IRs issued and Multi IRs issued. That is to say the number of people who completed basic training but never went on to fly anything other than single pilot aircraft i.e. never made the airlines.

We'd then have a failure rate for the whole training process. It would be interesting to see - 10% of PPL's went onto multicrew flying, 60% of CPL's. 82% of IR holders etc etc.

Pass rates for inividual schools is a false holy grail. As Alex said - school intakes vary wildly. Just as in the educational environment - a school in Brixton may be fantastic if it gets half its pupils through half their GCSEs. Whereas a school in Buckingham may be rubbish for achieving exactly the same pass rate.

And it does vary hugely. Some FTO's lean towards selection only. Some have lots of foreign students because there are lots fo foreign language schools in the same area. Some schools specialise in converting ex-military experienced pilots. Some schools make you train on and on to ensure first time passes but thats expensive. Others may put you up for test the minute you stand a chance which is cheaper but riskier.

Pass rates are a very poor guide. I should not like to see them published for individual schools as they will distort the market. Schools will start chasing the published data to the detriment of wise training decisions.

We all know who the good schools are and which are a little shaky. Its no harder than getting in the car and going there for a couple of hours and talking to current students. Go to at least 5 FTOs and you'll see quite a difference. It will be obvious which seem better to you.

Cheers

WWW

Cheers

WWW

[willby]

Very much in agreement with WWW, especially his views re FTO operators discarding their anonymity. After browsing this forum for a couple of years you get to know most of them but what about the newcomers who are just about to make very important and expensive decisions concerning their future careers.
I would also be in agreement that the pass rates of the various FTO's is not necessarily a true indicator of the quality of instruction available due to the reasons cited by WWW and Alex Whittingham. However, I see PTC in Waterford give full information re pass rates on their website and I suspect most prospective students will welcome this information.
Willby

[RVR800]

On the thorny subject of integrated vs modular it would be good to see some statistical proof of what all that extra investment by
students who are integrated yields. ...

The CAA used to call the integrated route the 'approved' route
thats because they endorse full time continuous training over part time ad hoc training - nothing wrong with that I hear you say

It just would be nice to see some hard data that shows that this route pays the dividends that warrants this 'approved' tag...?

:O

[cyclic_fondler]

With regards to the freedon of information act, If I fail an exam and I then ask the CAA to see my paper so I can work out what area of the subject I am weak at, will they me obliged to do so ?

But the CAA being the CAA I guess the answer will be a "no" !

[darragh_ptc]

Willby

If we are still publishing pass rates on our website please let us know where so we can remove that information. We agree with the points made by WWW and Mr Whittingham above, that there is much more to the overall picture of a student's or an FTOs performance than this single measure.

Best wishes

Darragh Owens
Business Development
Pilot Training College of Ireland
Waterford

[willby]

Hi Darragh,
I have revisited your website and can confirm that there is no mention of pass rates etc. Please accept my apologises and sorry if I have caused any embarresment ,as I obviously have got confused with another site.
Regards
Willby

[RVR800]

>cyclic_fondler

From Jan 2005 you will have the right to request such information and unless that information is restricted due to public interest, data protection, commercial confidentiallity or security they will have to cough up. But cough up what?

Clearly they should not revel their question bank as that my fall under the public interest tag

It would be nice to get a breakdown of weak areas so that your resit may be better focussed, not least because you have paid for the examination and they should supply feedback to you...

The whole process of pilot education in the UK has been bi-passed as far as modern teaching and learning philosopy is concerned... The focus on an MCQ with no feedback has more to do with revenue and cost reduction than it has to do with safety or customer service..or good practice in teaching and learning..

I remember when you rang the CAA up and the theme was ' I have known you for quite some time but the thought of love has never crossed my mind...' That attitude is common through the whole of SRG...

[African Drunk]

True other factors are involved in pass rates, but their are schools that have such alarmingly bad pass rates. That no amount of other factors can explain.

I would also like the CAA to publish some financial background on owners and managers of FTO's as some just make a habit of going bankrupt with wannabees money.

[RVR800]

The CAA say that they cannot enter into correspondence about the results of examinations.

Well guess what; that statement next year may prove to be rather out of date.

After 20 days working the CAA will need to respond or these customers will be filing with the Information Commissioner.....

CAA Success Statistics
Next year the CAA will have to reconsider its policy of not publicising success statistics for pilot wanabees like yourself.

i.e. The statistics on the Integrated Route versus the Modular route - is it worth it? Where is the proof of this? - the CAA used to call the integrated route their APPROVED route so they clearly have evidence that merits that tag if they approve of it; the CAA think it must be better, trouble is no one knows upon what data they based that tag - its all a bit of a secret...........Could it be that more people get success from the integrated route or could it be that the pass rates are better... ummmm we cant tell you, has traditionally been their response unfortunately......They have the data they just wont cough up. All we know is that integrated is expensive and assume it to be better?

One important thing do statistics indicate that Integrated/Approved Pilots are safer per revenue km flown? As a shareholder in BA I may want proof of that before I could approve of the extra costs to 'my' company in its training budget...?

What is the age profile of people who get initial multi-crew type ratings? How many fATPL holders achieve success?

Other examples ...How many sat the CPL exam, how many failed that exam. How many PPLs took the IR how many failed etc etc..
What test centre has the best Wx record? Which test centre is most active?

What is the most difficult ATPL exam? It used to be Nav cos the scatter patter on the sitting demonstrated this...

Minutes of SRG policy meetings what change are they planning next ...?

Good News on the horizon however - This is because next year they will as a UK public body have to, under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal such Data.

This should inform customer (wannabee) choice....

The FAA do produce stats but we its seems have the attitude in Europe that information is power..

http://www.api.faa.gov/Airmen/Airme...%20CONTENTS.htm

For example: This shows that the FAA issued 10,858 IRs to Private Pilots in 2003 adding to the total of 59,774 PPL/IRs many of whom fly in the UK

There are some limited Stats from SRG issuing just 25 IRs to
Private Pilots in 2003