Question regarding training on modern aircraft

[JB007]

As I'm 40 this year, I don't consider myself an "old jaded pilot". And I've known Parkfell since 2003 and has never been "glass half empty"! I think he makes a very black and white and sensible point regarding training...too much money involved now and the opportunities are generally one-sided.

Forever fight for your dream, ignore the naysayers and the jaded old pilots, if you have the capacity to achieve, and the determination, you will

I agree, although a little immature with today's costs/opportunities ratio. Keep throwing money at it you'll probably make it, and those jaded old pilots will also expect a certain level of respect that you can't ignore!

Good luck!

[jamesgrainge]

Thankyou. The costs/opportunities ratio doesn't have to be skewed,as long as you are sensible and approach with the best plan for yourself an if you can train for the same amount as you will earn in your first year then that has to be worth it.

And i agree regarding the one sided training fees, but as long as people keep believing the idea that the major schools keep selling where you plan on paying 2.5 times to train what you will earn in your first year as well as having the interest to cover. But I digress to another thread......

[Reverserbucket]

The costs alone put off the average individual, not to mention the intense study.

Have you considered BA FPP or the Easyjet or Flybe MPL or other selected schemes James? This way you could undertake an assessment to determine suitability rather than forever fighting for your dream? It might save you a lot of heartache later.

Do you really think someone who didn't really enjoy it would even attempt a CPL/IR.

Believe it or not, yes, there are many integrated students who have never touched the controls of an aircraft before enrolling on a CPL/IR course. I have met numerous who have almost zero interest in aviation but have either been guided by family who fly or because they like the idea of being an airline pilot but in reality are entirely clueless as to what that entails and how to get there. This started as a discussion about training in modern aircraft and following experience based advice offered by a few instructors here, rather predictably we have spiralled into a debate about dreams and ambition based on minimum standards and low budgets. If you seek an airline career and are not fortunate enough to secure a place on a so called 'tagged' scheme, in my opinion, find a school that is known to the airlines you intend to target but overall, not least from a financial perspective, as parkfell said,

What is important is the quality and reputation of the ATO.

[jamesgrainge]

Thanks for the tips but no I have never considered any kind of tagged scheme. Firstly I'm probably too old and secondly I wasted my education when I wad young and foolish. But not only this I have no interest in a scheme where you graduate without even a PPL to your name. I love flying and aircraft too much to waste £100,000 that confines me to one type/airline/no pay cheque. Equally I don't think there is one particular type of person who is a "good" pilot that will show up in an "Aptitude Test". I think if you have a passion for aviation,are a reasonably nice person, the intelligence for 2 A levels (not exactly a high bar, lets be honest) and a way to get the golden ticket at minimal cost then you stand a good chance of flying for a career.

If those kind of people exist then good on them, they have almost no chance of finding a job, doesn't take away my place in the future.

[Reverserbucket]

These are precisely the types that do find work though as most airlines are not looking for misty eyed enthusiastic dreamers but properly trained, qualified individuals with a proportional level of professionalism and sadly, these days, the hard cash to self-fund a type-rating and maybe pay for the odd 500 hours worth of line experience. I have seen even the least gifted of students make it without too much effort to the right-hand seat of a number of European airlines (some sadly with nothing more than the social skills of an amoeba), largely because they were in the right place at the right time (or the right ATO) and the airline needed to fill seats on type-rating courses - it's all about market forces in this game. If you are good or even exceptional, perhaps you will find yourself in a training or standards role but ultimately, it's just a numbers game and when the time is right, the jobs are there. Now is the right time but two years from now...?

I wish you luck James - have you considered flying instructing?

[jamesgrainge]

It worries me that the least capable students find job. There's me assuming the aviation game was based on quality and safety.

No I don't think that's for me, I'm not a patient teacher unfortunately.

[parkfell]

They are not necessary the least capable, just those who can access funding for the licence & a rating. So what you get is a mixed bag. Some are very good, and some less so. A large spread of ability. Think random number theory.

That is why sponsorship by the big players historically got the most suitable. Not constrained by financial clout. Something which Aer Lingus are attempting to aspire too. And of course the military would not consider anything but quality.

Unfortunately the beancounters rule the roost, and concentrate purely on the bottom line and the cheapest training costs possible.

[Bealzebub]

It worries me that the least capable students find job. There's me assuming the aviation game was based on quality and safety.

No I don't think that's for me, I'm not a patient teacher unfortunately.

A shame, because good First Officers who progress to being good captains usually are patient teachers, because that is a significant part of what the job entails.

The "least capable" candidates are not the ones who get the jobs. It is usually the most capable. That is why the selection procedures are set up the way they are. A career as an airline pilot isn't a right, nor is it suitable for a great many people. There are plenty of people who fly as a hobby, or are involved with aviation in a whole spectrum of other spheres. Some of the advice above is spot on.

[jamesgrainge]

Thank god for hearing you say that. There is still hope for talent outweighing a paycheque?

[parkfell]

And finally.....

It was always the case that the better students will find employment.
They are capable, and pass the sim rides.
The weaker ones will not succeed irrespective how much money they spend.
All this will be apparent during the first 20 hours of flying.

As for integrated courses, no previous experience is necessary,
and usually regarded as best.(no previous, that is)
Nasty habits, poor techniques etc, can be acquired prior to the professional course and are often hard to remove, and it is the most frustrating aspect for the instructor.

[JB57]

Some good information passed on here Thanks Guys. However now am confused more than ever on what's best, maybe Glass is not the best option. However after looking at various schools in UK there seems to be more and more are using the DA 42 certainly for the IR at least even the big main schools are using them. Not sure now whether to go Glass or Conventional Cockpit more investigating I think, cheers Parkfell for the honest advice

[paco]

There's nothing wrong with using the DA 42 or its glass cockpit - just be aware of its characteristics. It won't stop you getting a job, but will maybe create a little extra work, is all.

[EC DKN]

Skybus requirements were 300 PIC and ME/IR without a glass cockpit aircraft! And certainly two of the best modular schools in UK AFT (Exeter) and PAT (Bournemouth) don't use glass! But anyway, you should be looking for the quality of instructors rather than the type of aircraft!

[Reverserbucket]

It was always the case that the better students will find employment.
They are capable, and pass the sim rides.
The weaker ones will not succeed irrespective how much money they spend.

Whilst I agree parkfell that better students may have more success finding work, it is my experience that in recent years, consistently underperforming students with the capacity to pay for type and line training do find jobs predominantly on B737's in the UK and EU. Whereas I do subscribe to the idea that weak students may improve with practice and experience, I could offer you two large low-cost airlines who employ (albeit as contractors) pilots who were unsuccessful in both the first series and second series of the CPL and IR Skill Tests and who struggled through MCC in a way that I can only describe as unethical. It is my view that such weakness and ineptitude would never have been deemed acceptable to even the lowest of training establishments in the past. Any wonder that EASA is pushing to lose the 'Safety' part of it's title?

[parkfell]

SUPPLY AND DEMAND

What we are considering is the simple question of supply and demand.

The last time I can recall demand exceeding supply was 1986-1989. Gulf war 1 started in August 1990 and turned the 7 year historical cycle on its head.

I recall someone at Oxford (700 hour route) in 1986 being offered a job in anticipation of passing the IR followed by licence issue.
A further newly qualified CPL/IR had an interview at Leeds lasting 3 minutes.
"show me your licence......... That's fine. Can you start Tuesday?" Reply "yes".

So the "cutoff" as to who you employ is a function supply and demand. So in the good times, the less able do get an opportunity. They take longer to complete the line training etc, as their learning curve is not as good. They might eventually become competent.......

[Alex Whittingham]

I agree with parkfell's post above. Both of us were in the training system in the early '90s the last time there was a boom like this and both of us also watched the slump that followed. Since then there have been lesser booms and slumps. Whether there is a real 7 year cycle or not I am less sure because, historically, when the market slumps it is always following an unforeseen 'black swan' type event such as 9/11, SARS, the sub-prime mortgage crisis or the Gulf War.

Right now demand is close to exceeding supply, to the extent that candidates dumped from integrated school's holding pools several years ago after repeated failures to find jobs are being called back into the system. The market is certainly close to a historic high although jobs are not yet being offered on the basis of 'show me your license - you're hired'.

[paco]

I do remember back when Air Europe went down that you couldn't get on a training course for four years - Perth, etc. were all fully booked for that long. If you had a letter saying you were on a course you had a job! As it hapens, I don't believe that that shortage has really gone away.

[Parson]

One thing I would add re the new v old debate is that the Seneca is a lot more stable than the DA42 - worth considering if training/testing at a time of year when that may be of help.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Parkfell, Alex, and Paco are all so right,

'88 was my peak year in the training system and it really was a case of demand far exceeding supply. 20 applications and 19 interviews plus a Leeds based airline called Capital offering to pay for my IR.

However, I'm not writing to piss people off but add context to considerations regarding present day return on investment. My first job was on a jet for a very minor company beginning in Feb 1989 and my basic salary was £25,000. That would pay off a full mortgage with minimum deposit for a 3 bed North London semi in two years.

In reality I bought a terrace in scouseland for 12.5K. Experienced pilots warning you about present terms and conditions are not bluffing or trying to put you off. They've seen years of you guys arriving for courses and line training with colossal debt at a time in your lives where, all too soon, it's natural and normal for your life away from the aircraft to also become more expensive.

Think choice of aircraft through very carefully - is the DA cockpit actually totally alien to real commercial flightdecks? Are the basic skills in something like a Seneca a grounding that might help keep you away from the type of air transport accidents that dominate the statistics now?

Rob

[jamesgrainge]

Starting years at around 50k for working less than a full time job seems like a good deal to me. Such why I would suggest anyone going down this route is a smart cookie, not sucked in by the FTO reps on here or the bitter ex modulars, and subsequently does their training at the lowest cost possible for the best quality so as to minimise debt.

Best advice I have read was do whatever you want to get the CPL+IR and then do the MCC+JOC at a high quality school and turn up well prepared so as you don't struggle.