Is CTC the only way to get an airline job?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is CTC the only way to get an airline job?
I did my ATPL exams in 1996 and didn't go for a commercial pilot job; Ive kept flying current, bit of personal flying, bit of instruction and kept my IR valid etc
So 2500 hrs later I've decided to get into airline flying; Looking around at various airlines, it seems that the only route in is via CTC or a modular course.
I don know if its worth paying for a Boeing or Airbus type rating as most airlines will want you to do it with their own training organisations anyway?
Is that right or am I missing something? Advice appreciated.
Cheers
So 2500 hrs later I've decided to get into airline flying; Looking around at various airlines, it seems that the only route in is via CTC or a modular course.
I don know if its worth paying for a Boeing or Airbus type rating as most airlines will want you to do it with their own training organisations anyway?
Is that right or am I missing something? Advice appreciated.
Cheers
Educated Hillbilly
If you are prepared to pay for a rating then Wizzair may be worth a look.
There are a few turboprop opportunities if you are prepared to be bonded earning not a lot for three years.
CTC isn't the only way but it certainly feels like it sometimes; find it ironic that with your experience if you are an instructor you could probably get a job a FTE Jerez, OAA or CTC as an instructor teaching the cadets; but you are not eligible to apply to the airlines where these Schools send the cadets.
There are a few turboprop opportunities if you are prepared to be bonded earning not a lot for three years.
CTC isn't the only way but it certainly feels like it sometimes; find it ironic that with your experience if you are an instructor you could probably get a job a FTE Jerez, OAA or CTC as an instructor teaching the cadets; but you are not eligible to apply to the airlines where these Schools send the cadets.
as an ex-CTC grad, no they are not the only way to get a job, however if you do well enough then you will end up with a job quite quickly no matter how you train. Just you won't be able to sit around and do naff all hoping the job will find you...
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Noyb
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1000 piston hours total here, double license faa and caa, Certified Flight instructor ( 600 hours ) and ryanair wont call me because i busted POF.
Wish someone had told me to go the route of the 180 hour ctcer which some of them have trouble Reading back basic radio calls instead of trying to be a better airman and build good foundations, good habits and basic handling experience.
Piston hours are a waste of time.
Wish someone had told me to go the route of the 180 hour ctcer which some of them have trouble Reading back basic radio calls instead of trying to be a better airman and build good foundations, good habits and basic handling experience.
Piston hours are a waste of time.
Educated Hillbilly
It is a big debateable subject about the relevance of Day VFR hours to the Airline World. But take the Air France Incident, that was an example of two pilots who (I believe I am correct on this) had gone straight from Integrated training to the Airbus with no other flying experience between. Although the Airbus Side stick philosophy contributed to the incident, the fact these two had gone straight to an A320 probably didn't help the situation. I just wish Europe would introduce an hours requirement like America has.
It isn't so much that the day VFR hours have relevance but these Integrated courses tend to attract those that want to be airline pilots rather than those that want to fly for a living and have a true passion for flying. Having to go and do some actual hand on flying of some form just demonstrates a level of dedication to flying. I think it is still better to have that 1000 hours of hands on time than not. Anyway irrelevant what I say; the industry in Europe is shifting the other way, the MPL means the new cadets have even less real flying time.
It isn't so much that the day VFR hours have relevance but these Integrated courses tend to attract those that want to be airline pilots rather than those that want to fly for a living and have a true passion for flying. Having to go and do some actual hand on flying of some form just demonstrates a level of dedication to flying. I think it is still better to have that 1000 hours of hands on time than not. Anyway irrelevant what I say; the industry in Europe is shifting the other way, the MPL means the new cadets have even less real flying time.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTC do 3 hours of proper UPRT in a Slingsby. There is unusual attitude stuff on the CPL/IR syllabus as per legislative requirement but it's very basic. Eyes open, oooohh 30 degrees nose down, 20 degree bank, power off bank level pull up. It's not very extensive. MPL's do UPRT in the sim.
I'd like to see EASA require a mandatory 10 hours of real aircraft UPRT, plus two hours of unusual attitudes at night recovering with reference to instruments like the IR test.
Also I don't think it would hurt to teach g management techniques like straining your core muscles and breathing out. Would certainly help at the end of the UPRT lesson if your instructor asks if you want to do a few quick aeros on the way back home
I'd like to see EASA require a mandatory 10 hours of real aircraft UPRT, plus two hours of unusual attitudes at night recovering with reference to instruments like the IR test.
Also I don't think it would hurt to teach g management techniques like straining your core muscles and breathing out. Would certainly help at the end of the UPRT lesson if your instructor asks if you want to do a few quick aeros on the way back home
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't enough of a GA industry in the UK to support the 1000-1500 hours requirement. The airlines wouldn't be able to find people and would need to look abroad.
Also we would end up with a situation where all instructors were building time, probably working for free or even paying to work and the career instructor wouldn't get a look in.
I do agree about the need for basic hand flying skills though.
I have read old accounts that mention airline flying clubs with subsidised GA type flying? Maybe more of this kind of thing is the answer.
As far as I can see the airlines do not support GA at all. Despite it being the training ground for a large number of their pilots.
The fact we have the MEP though and integrated guys dont even have an SEP means it is going more the other way
Also we would end up with a situation where all instructors were building time, probably working for free or even paying to work and the career instructor wouldn't get a look in.
I do agree about the need for basic hand flying skills though.
I have read old accounts that mention airline flying clubs with subsidised GA type flying? Maybe more of this kind of thing is the answer.
As far as I can see the airlines do not support GA at all. Despite it being the training ground for a large number of their pilots.
The fact we have the MEP though and integrated guys dont even have an SEP means it is going more the other way
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Young pilots on large aircraft is nothing new, and as fas I'm aware there is not much of a correlation between the two regarding accidents. This goes from the days of the war (dambusters etc.) up until the days of hamble and teenagers flying large jets for BA as well as numerous other European carriers.
It is nothing new and it's unlikely anything will change soon. In my experience most of those who complain about it are those who for whatever reason were never able to get on a course and in many cases it's simply an instance sour grapes.
One thing I can certainly say is I've never heard anyone with extensive flight training knowledge or industry background knock or speak ill of going from flight school straight onto a jet.
It is nothing new and it's unlikely anything will change soon. In my experience most of those who complain about it are those who for whatever reason were never able to get on a course and in many cases it's simply an instance sour grapes.
One thing I can certainly say is I've never heard anyone with extensive flight training knowledge or industry background knock or speak ill of going from flight school straight onto a jet.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wandsworth
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What planet are these people on?
As if the MPL couldn't have any less flying, I was unaware that UPRT was just conducted in a simulator, just what planet are these people on!?!?
A simulator cannot possibly re-create the feeling and forces of proper upset flight, barely any point in doing it at all.
If you want Upset Recovery training go Gliding, Spins and Stall as much as you want, practice winch launch failures and energy management. If you can afford an Intergrated ATPL you can afford to do some proper basic flying... even if you're school won't give it to you.
Makes me even more concerned with young cadets for an orange airline recently posting to the world on social media and their countless blogs about being excited to fly a real aircraft again in line training. I know simulators are realistic and supposedly the way forwards in training but I don't even want to know how few hours they've spent doing real flying. But what do we know?
A simulator cannot possibly re-create the feeling and forces of proper upset flight, barely any point in doing it at all. If you want Upset Recovery training go Gliding, Spins and Stall as much as you want, practice winch launch failures and energy management. If you can afford an Intergrated ATPL you can afford to do some proper basic flying... even if you're school won't give it to you.
Makes me even more concerned with young cadets for an orange airline recently posting to the world on social media and their countless blogs about being excited to fly a real aircraft again in line training. I know simulators are realistic and supposedly the way forwards in training but I don't even want to know how few hours they've spent doing real flying. But what do we know?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: England
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where this information about doing upset training in a sim is from, but at one of ctc's rival schools it is conducted in a real aircraft. 5 hours of it, if it satisfies your curiosity.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wandsworth
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I'd hope there never is, but I cannot at all back down that Simulator UPRT for MPL students is not equivalent to ATPL in a real aircraft. There are enough incidents and accidents from 447 to QZ8501, to Alpha Floor activations and mis-identification proving that UPRT cannot be skimped on. Just why does there have to be a race to the bottom with all of this at the top of the profession?
Thread drift, back to the original topic?
P.S Officer Kite, do explain on the other thread the "dodgy things are occurring at the moment" in CTC , you're quick to jump on me but not on your own accusation.
Thread drift, back to the original topic?
P.S Officer Kite, do explain on the other thread the "dodgy things are occurring at the moment" in CTC , you're quick to jump on me but not on your own accusation.
Educated Hillbilly
Officer Kite, MPLs at the moment are at least flying with Captains from the previous era. 6 years down the line from now we will have MPLs promoted to Captain, MPL Co Pilot with a Captain from the MPL route. System reliability and automation is the reasons safety records are so good.
And in normal operations when nothing goes wrong these automation operators are fine, but when you get that 0.001% occasion when it goes wrong, I would like people up front who have done more than 50 hours of flying on something that isn't an Airbus.
In the 70s there were a number of notable accidents due to MCC issues, hence the prevalence and emphasis on CRM in training in following decades. However in the last 6 years the incidents and accidents are now getting attributed to handling issues.
Yes low hour pilots from Cadet schemes are not new, but prior to JAA, these Cadets were select candidates fully sponsored; not just anyone who could put up 100,000k up front for training and pass some token selection test.
RAF pilots from World War 2, they followed a training route of increasing difficulty, Tiger Moth, Harvard- Avro Anso - Lancaster, all these stages of training built and developed skill, not something really comparable to DA40 to DA42 to Airbus.
And in normal operations when nothing goes wrong these automation operators are fine, but when you get that 0.001% occasion when it goes wrong, I would like people up front who have done more than 50 hours of flying on something that isn't an Airbus.
In the 70s there were a number of notable accidents due to MCC issues, hence the prevalence and emphasis on CRM in training in following decades. However in the last 6 years the incidents and accidents are now getting attributed to handling issues.
Yes low hour pilots from Cadet schemes are not new, but prior to JAA, these Cadets were select candidates fully sponsored; not just anyone who could put up 100,000k up front for training and pass some token selection test.
RAF pilots from World War 2, they followed a training route of increasing difficulty, Tiger Moth, Harvard- Avro Anso - Lancaster, all these stages of training built and developed skill, not something really comparable to DA40 to DA42 to Airbus.
Educated Hillbilly
It isn't sour grapes, it is the fact that my wife and kids are at some point going to flying on these Airliners, so I would like the people up front to be more experienced than myself.
"One thing I can certainly say is I've never heard anyone with extensive flight training knowledge or industry background knock or speak ill of going from flight school straight onto a jet."
How about the entire FAA, they introduced the 1500 hour rule to stop that happening.
"One thing I can certainly say is I've never heard anyone with extensive flight training knowledge or industry background knock or speak ill of going from flight school straight onto a jet."
How about the entire FAA, they introduced the 1500 hour rule to stop that happening.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the entire FAA, they introduced the 1500 hour rule to stop that happening.
And I'd hope there never is, but I cannot at all back down that Simulator UPRT for MPL students is not equivalent to ATPL in a real aircraft
Horses for courses. You can't teach UPRT for jet aircraft in single engine pistons, just like 3000h of flying C172 in a circuit won't help you flying a B777 on a ULR flight.
Professional Student
To go back to the original question...
No, CTC is most definitely not the only way into an airline. It is, however, probably one of the more common routes for newbies at present.
I know plenty of my contemporaries who have gotten into the RHS of a Boeing or Airbus; nearly all of them went instructing/light twin/regional turboprop to get there. A few managed to skip some or all of those steps. Hardly any (of about 20 or so) went the CTC route.
Having said that I did my CPL some years ago now..
I'd never recommend paying for a TR unless you've got a job offer i.e. don't get one on spec.
No, CTC is most definitely not the only way into an airline. It is, however, probably one of the more common routes for newbies at present.
I know plenty of my contemporaries who have gotten into the RHS of a Boeing or Airbus; nearly all of them went instructing/light twin/regional turboprop to get there. A few managed to skip some or all of those steps. Hardly any (of about 20 or so) went the CTC route.
Having said that I did my CPL some years ago now..
I'd never recommend paying for a TR unless you've got a job offer i.e. don't get one on spec.
