Originally Posted by
Global Aviator
For a first job I disagree. You know you are employing a bare CPL that will need work and mentoring.
Tell me how much does it cost you to do ICUS with a newbie pilot?
Mentoring a fresh CPL into becoming a proficient and confident commander is one thing, having to offer them "training" is another. ICUS costs little, however you cannot get give a new hire ICUS with paying pax on board if they cannot yet land a C206 without thumping it into ground and bouncing along the runway. Spending time doing this kind of "training" does cost money and is something that was once not required because fresh CPLs came through the door knowing how to land a Cessna and operate cowl flaps.
The 150 hour Part 142 system and associated funding model is an absolute disaster. Before the VET funding became available for pilot training, there was a HIGH dropout rate between beginning training and completion of a CPL (I am not sure of the exact number but I am pretty sure it was around 70-80%). Now with the funding, the dropout rate is what could be considered EXTREMELY HIGH (something like 95%+).
In the old days, it was in a flying schools best interest to have good instructors who took pride in what they did, as the paying students next hour of training was dependent on them enjoying and having a positive experience for the hard earned cash that they just parted with. So even though many instructors were themselves new CPL holders, their standards tended to be higher as they had motivation to be good at what they did as their next paid hour depended on it. It was also in their best interest to develop their students' skills, as it makes the instructors life easier as the student progresses through their training as it makes for a 'lighter workload' having a student who has mastered the basics when you move onto their Navigational exercises and more advanced levels of training.
What we have today in the sausage factory VET schools is an environment where fresh CPL instructors are paid a full time salary and despite a high drop-out rate, there is no shortage of students. These students have less concept of demanding a high standard of their instructors as they are blinded by the bright shiny Garmin G1000 in front of them and pictures of A350 cockpits on their flight school walls. They also don't feel the sting of having to open their wallets after each lesson so don't feel as financially invested in their training. Their instructors also don't really feel as invested in their students progression because they will constantly be handed different batches of students doing different "modules" of their training.
The end results of these two different environments is two vastly different products.
I speak of the above from personal experience and what I have observed (and also heard from others). I was an instructor at a small school where students were self funded, then moved onto a 'sausage factory' because of the stable income and I found that I was handed students with over 100 hours that had issues not present in those with less than 50 at my old flight training school. I subsequently moved back to one of the smaller schools when I was offered a salary as a more senior grade of instructor. I strongly believe the reason for this is that I took pride in seeing my students progress from the beginning of their training right through to their CPL (or PPL if that's what they desired). I also knew that teaching them how to do things properly and develop airmanship early on, would make my life easier as they progressed in their training (and made things less stressful when I had to send them out on a solo flight!). I believe these elements are the primary reasons that the sausage factory schools produce such a poor quality of product.