Integrated APTL course or Modular ?

[License to Fly]

I am trying to work out which is the best way to get the frozen ATPL - through an Integrated course or going down the Modular route.

If money is not an issue, is it not still better to go down the modular route (which is generally cheaper) and then build up your hours to make us more employable ?

I spoke to one of the British airlines today and they said they have no preference for recruiting Modular or Integrated people.

Has anyone had any experience/got a view ?


thanks

[CAT3C AUTOLAND]

Lisense to fly, I am by no means experienced with both methods, however I do have an opinion.

Personally I think it is about what works for you. Some people will argue the 'integrated route' is the one the airlines go for and others will argue against this. Personally, I think which ever route you take (you end up with the same thing anyway) your whole attitude and approach will be evident to your future employer who is sitting opposite you in the interview room, as this will be the most important. However, looking at it from a different perspective, I could see why an airline would prefer an integrated student over a modular student, in the respect of being consistent with training and having the continuity to go with it. It may be thought that the general concensus is that modular students get into bad habits, end up on the saw tooth learning curve etc, but I know it is not the case, as many students cruise through in a similar time as integrated students.

Personally for me I have chosen the modular route. At the moment I am waiting to go to the US to do an IMC and night, along with a little P1 time, and in the meantime doing some pre-requsite study for the ATPL course. To be quite honest, flying, groundschool, flying, scares the hell out of me. Obviously, certain persons would deal with it differently, but for me I would feel more comfortable keeping the two separate. After a days flying my brain gets tired, and the thought of having to hit the books, then go and do a full day of AC electrics the following day turns my stomach :D.

On completion of the course, I would very much like to gain my instructor rating and teach, not only for the hour building, but for the buzz of teaching people who have the same enthusiasm as I have. With what I know now, I am not sure whether I feel 100% comfortable with the idea of sitting in the sharp end of a BOEING which my freshly pressed white shirt and 2 gold bars with only 250 hours, maybe I will feel differently on completion? Who knows. Actually I would be interested to hear from anyone who has walked into such a job with a limited number of hours. What is it like when the captain says 'its all yours son' having to fly the ILS approach with a cloud base of 400ft, a cross wind component on limits and chucking it down with rain approaching in mountainous terrain :eek: :D. Sorry starting to waffle.

If you did decide on modular, like you say you could save a few grand, perhaps put it towards an instructor course, MCC etc.

Cheers.

CAT3C AUTOLAND

Edited for shoddy spelling. ;)

[low n' slow]

I agree with CAT 3C autoland on this, modular might be a better choice. I'm doing a CPL integrated right now and what CAT3C said about flying one day and then AC 3 phase electrics the next is absolutely true. My capacity when it comes to studying is not the best and I'm finding it a struggle to keep up with it all. I just wrote the first batch of exams (keep in mind that this is only CPL, ATPL is worse as I've understood it) and I've got about 25 hrs to fly until check-flight.

I would much rather have done a modular course (I felt I had no choice as I was offered this for free, god bless the state...:rolleyes: ), because there is no time to let anything sink in. Regarding the flying, you could get away a lot cheaper as there is more time to reflect on the previous flight and make corrections on ground instead of during the next lesson. Eventhough a modular perhaps takes longer time to complete, I would bet that you'd get more out of it. Then, what the airlines want I don't dare say. My guess is that as long as you can produce an appropriate license they're happy.

However, I'm very pleased with the course I'm doing. I dare say that schools providing integrated courses are likely to maintain a high standard. If yo feel that you can stand a high pace regarding both flying and theory, go integrated and if you feel that you need a bit more time and the possibility to concentrate on separate parts, go modular. In any case, good luck!

regards /lns

[fibod]

The exams and tests are the same in both systems; arguably, the modular CPL is more demanding as the examiner has to be independent from the school, whereas for the integrated course the school may use an internal examiner.

There is a prejudice against modular from some quarters. I believe this for 2 reasons:

HISTORIC. Under CAA rules, the CAP 509 course was the equivalent of today’s integrated, and was an ‘approved’ course. The alternative was to arrange one's own training (unapproved) and merely take the exams/tests. As long as you passed the tests and met the minimum hours requirements, it didn’t matter how you trained. This was the so called “self-improver route”. The training varied from good to bad, and airlines are generally looking for more than just passing the licence, so they tended to treat self-improver applicants with suspicion. However, after some experience, the original training is only part of one’s CV.

What many people have failed to realises is that the Modular route is not a straight replacement for the self-improver route. Unless one has more than 600 hours TT, to get a CPL, IR or MCC certificate, or to even sit the JAA theory exams, one has to have competed an approve modular course.

QUALITY. I don’t think there is any difference in quality of the instruction given for modular or integrated groundschool, CPLs, IRs or MCC courses. The difference lied in the first 150 hours of the modular route. It was designed for PPLs with experience. Of course, there is no reason why a zero time person cannot do a PPL and then build their hours to 150TT (must include a min of 70 P1 and 50 X-country, ideally will include night (min 3D 2S) and perhaps some twin time) as part of their professional training. This is where the problem lies. Some people do really valuable training during the 150 hours and, as a result, find the CPL easy (an integrated course student may be taking the CPL after about only 100 hours). But many people just burn holes in the sky after the PPL, and some PPL training is pretty poor quality as well. This may be cheap, but ask any modular CPL school how tough it is trying to prepare someone for the CPL test in 20hrs flying and 5 hrs sim, when they are largely self-taught, are riddled with bad habits, and are not aware of their own shortcomings.

My own opinion is that the modular route should be better – it involves more training. However, all too often it compromises on quality in a way that cannot happen on a fully regulated integrated course.

This is all very tough on the students too – it is only looking back with hindsight that you realise the limitations of your instructors and training (unless it is truly bad, or you are particularly aware!). I thought that the sun shone out of my first instructor’s bottom. It was some time later that I realised that he was pretty average (sorry Dave), but I was rather young then!

Which should you do? Well many airlines these days are more interested in you rather than the rules under which you gained your licence. Do what suits you: your budget, your timescale (modular is on average a little slower than integrated) and your interest, if any, in shopping around (you are stuck with one provider all the way to the IRT with integrated). My advice is, if you choose modular, beware cutting corners early on. Too many modular students end up requiring extra hours later, where it is much more expensive, and for many it is not their ability which is poor, just the training they received early on.

By the way, low n’slow, an integrated course does not have to involve mixing groundschool and flying. I must admit I thought it did, but our last Head of Training (at Oxford) introduced a new Integrated Course that split flying and groundschool into separate phases, for just the reason that you identify: it is tricky doing both at once. I believe BAe followed suit, but Cabair and Western Michigan University (the only other UK CAA approved schools for Integrated training) still do flying and groundschool mixed.