CPL(H) modular or integrated course?

[seang]

Hello everyone, I have done a search and can't find any posts on this apart from on wannabes and that is all about fixed wing training. Can anyone please offer any advice on whether doing an integrated CPL(H) course has massive advantages over a modular one? In the fixed wing thread there seems to be a difference of opinion, some say integrated is best because of the structured training, others reckon modular shows a single-minded determination on the student's behalf to succeed. What would prospective heli employers believe, in your opinions or experiences? I would post this on wannabes, given the fact I AM a wannabe, but whenever I post a helicopter question on there I get told to post on rotorheads because that is where the info and experience is. I appreciate your time and effort in responding to my queries so far, and it is really valuable, believe me.
Cheers, Sean

[paco]

If I was a Chief Pilot looking to put a bum on a seat there would be many other considerations to look at first, believe me! I suppose when you have a huge pile of resumes and need an excuse to screen some of them out (because that's how the selection process really works) it might be relevant, but I've not heard of it in the helicopter world.

Otherwise, some people study best in the classroom, some don't.

Phil

[Whirlygig]

Many, many more "wannabees" use the modular route in the rotary world; not least because there are (to my knowledge) only two places which do JAA integrated course (Bristow's Academy and Cabair) and because of the cost.

As paco says, there are many more factors which are important. From everything I've heard and read, helicopter operators wouldn't consider integrated/modular at all - it's a CPL(H). Now, what are your hours, types and experience???!!! That's what they'll consider!!

You'd be better off saving your money and going modular and using the saving to get a turbine ratnig or similar!

Cheers

Whirls

[seang]

Thanks Paco and Whirl for your replies and advice

[2papabravo]

I would tend to disagree with the above.

If we consider UK North Sea employment, where are the big 3 sourcing their guys from? Increasingly it seems to be from their own IR courses, Cabair and Bristow Academy. And understandably so...

From the employers position, choosing an integrated graduate has a certain number of 'guarantees'. The student has done the training in a condensed period of time and hasn't had any lapses of training. The training environment is closely monitored at all times, with regular progress reporting to chart how the student is doing throughout the course both in the air and on the ground. The groundschool is thorough, often provided by lecturers with years worth of personal experience. This is a particularly significant point. The amount of material to learn for the JAA ATPL syllabus is significant. Trying to digest all the information by reading it on your tod is some feat. With only a couple of places operating JAA courses, the employers can also gauge the quality of the flight instruction quite easily.

I would agree that there are many other factors to consider before a candidate is chosen, but trying to dum down that there is little or no difference in whether you've been trained in a modular or integrated way is a little naive if you ask me...

2pb

[paco]

Sorry, disagree with you entirely, based on my experience as a Chief Pilot and currently Head of Training.

What about the significant number of North Sea IR students have recently gone through a school not a million miles from Wycombe?

"The training environment is closely monitored at all times, with regular progress reporting to chart how the student is doing throughout the course"

Every school has to do that.

"The groundschool is thorough, often provided by lecturers with years worth of personal experience."

I would put my notes and instructors up against any school's any day of the week. It is down to the student to do the work, and as I said above, some learn best in the classroom, some don't. My first two students (one ATPLH and one CPLH) have gone through their first modules in the 90% range, even 100% on one exam.

There are also many excellent training organisations who can complete the remainder of the flying.

[Whirlygig]

2pb, I disagree with yuor arguments - has someone sold you an integrated course? :}

The training environment is closely monitored at all times, with regular progress reporting to chart how the student is doing throughout the course both in the air and on the ground.

Progress reporting to whom? This would only be applicable if a student was being sponsored by an employer and, as we know, the only operator who has done that is Bond.


The groundschool is thorough, often provided by lecturers with years worth of personal experience. This is a particularly significant point. The amount of material to learn for the JAA ATPL syllabus is significant. Trying to digest all the information by reading it on your tod is some feat.

All groundschools will have lecturers with years of experience. I did distance learning on my tod - it was tough but no "feat". I went to a school that does integrated aeroplane course (but not rotary) - does that make them better or worse in your eyes?

the employers can also gauge the quality of the flight instruction quite easily.
They can also do that with pretty much any UK school. It's a small world and any employer will know the reputation of the flight school you attend whether integrated or modular. Of the two integrated schools mentioned so far, one of them does not have the best reputation going and the other has a certain amount of bias against it because of the location.

but trying to dum down that there is little or no difference in whether you've been trained in a modular or integrated way is a little naive if you ask me...
In what way naive? What experience have you of recruiting in the offshore industry? Have you been to see any of the North Sea Operators?

Cheers

Whirls

[FairWeatherFlyer]

As paco says, there are many more factors which are important. From everything I've heard and read, helicopter operators wouldn't consider integrated/modular at all - it's a CPL(H). Now, what are your hours, types and experience???!!! That's what they'll consider!!

I work in a different industry, but play a part in the recruitment process and my views align with the 'other stuff is more important'. For the theoretical side of ATPL/CPL, I would be interested in what candidates learnt and took away from their courses, e.g. an aviator that has no understanding or interest in Met. is a 'curiosity' at best.

I've met a couple of the ex-military rotary crowd and would not like to compete with them for employment. They've already been selected by a necessarily very thorough process, they tend to have a good mix of flying experience, often management experience and they all seem remarkably pleasant and free of some of the personality defects that one occasionally finds elsewhere in the aviation world.

If i was changing industry, i would also plan career options in advance including researching ageism issues.

[helimutt]

2pb, agree with the others comments. The big 3 don't necessarily recruit from their own schools. Everyone I know who recently started for CHC was from independent schools. Ok so Bristow now have their own academy and Bond are doing a 'sort of' sponsorship scheme (how successful or long running that will be I have no idea)

Plenty of us all did the DL thing and in our own time and at our own expense.
Are we all dumbed down?? (you bet ya:E) but we still got the jobs!

[seang]

Thanks everyone

[2papabravo]

I'll get my coat :}

[seang]

2papabravo
I appreciate your response and advice, don't put your coat on just yet