Originally Posted by
morno
Because by the time you’re getting to turbine aircraft, it should be up to the operator to provide the appropriate training. Not the tax payer!
Lets be honest, it is such a minuscule cost to the operator, so there’s no excuse for needing pilots who went and got the training at flight school. What’s next, we start getting student loans for A320 type ratings because we might need them one day?
With the experience that this guy has, he barely knows how to work a piston, let alone a turbine. And even if he got it, it’s going to be a while until he can use it, so he will have forgotten half of it by then.
The student loan system should be only for the most basic of requirements. Ie. a license and an instrument rating. After that, go and earn it.
morno
Morno
It should only be up to the operator to pay for training on expensive to operate aircraft on personal that are willing to abide by their word, and stay for an "x" duration period - not use an employer to upgrade their skills at the employers cost then bugger off for greener grass - often not even giving correct notice period.
You also know it is a loan? not a gift from tax payers.
Most new aircraft coming to Australia (non RA rego) seem to be turbine and I am sure there are many operators that no longer use piston and that number is growing.
Again most turbine aircraft engine operation is much easier then a piston.
So we end up with most basic doctors also?
The Student Loans are capped, what one intends to study should not be limited other than the cap amount.
Job outcome is what is desired for these schemes - I recall my pre-apprenticeship course was axed because of numbers only 10 in the class compared to 45 for the motor mechanics. 8 of us passed and finished the course compared to 32 motor mechanics. All 8 of us got jobs within our trained industry, only 5 got jobs as motor mechanics by the same time. The motor mechanic course was expanded due to its success!