Originally Posted by
Swale Smith
Certainly is logical, nobody surely should expect them to recommend someone that they themselves aren’t confident are skilled enough to meet there partners expectations (airlines) be it theory or practical... that relationship would diminish fast. But for someone to say they no longer would recommend someone who does meet the criteria of theory, practical and attitude why on earth wouldn’t they recommend them?
Logic tells me as much as they may be a business and might well not go out there way to find you employment as such (especially if said student hasn’t put the effort in or done well etc) , it’s still got to be in there interests to get students out the door to a good employable standard where they hopefully find employment, if not then there business would also collapse as ultimately nobody would go there, there would be countless upset people complaining that the school was poor etc etc. and I’m just not seeing that... or am I missing something?
The recommendation phase is more likely than not to come towards the end of the course when a clear picture has emerged as to the quality of the customer. If the customer then failed the IRT say three times, that might cause a rethink ; a serious breach of the ATOs rules & regulations may be a valid reason to withdraw the recommendation. Not an exhaustive list.
The phrase about taking a horse to water springs to mind. A competent motivated customer will succeed. Periodic review boards will take place, and the “no hopers” hopefully removed at an early stage of training, usually during the ground school phase, although it does happen during the flying phase, often after a failed progress test & repeated fail.
You will always get those who just make it “by the skin of their teeth” and would be regarded as high risk following the MCC phase, if they were to undertake a type rating course. Post CPL/IR issue, it only gets harder and more complicated.
The bit that you are missing is “how” the schools actually work.