Originally Posted by Knightwhosays_NI
Hi all,
thought i might just chime in with what little i know. First, the youngest s'porean i know that got accepted as a cadet pilot is 25.5 years old. There are in fact, a few who are under 26 years old. However, their acceptance into SIA is on a case by case basis. Apparently, SIA has to get clearance from the AirForce to take these guys.
Next, applicants must fulfill the pre-requisites i.e. O Levels with A levels/Dip/Degree. Billkill seems to say that there are cadets without the basic requirements, physical or academic, but i personally do not know any. Maybe i misunderstood him. Anyway, the furthest SIA has gone to bend their requirements that I personally know of, is for a cadet with only combined science in O levels instead of the pure science as required. That's as far as they're willing to go, it appears.
With regards to ThermalImage's and JMike's discussion, I feel that both have their valid points. I can understand that a guy with all the passion for flying, but saddled with a family, loans, meagre savings and a current permanent job would be in a dilemma to accept a cadet pilot position, no matter the rewards which may or may not come later. Not everyone (with their responsibilities in tow) is lucky enough to be able to survive on savings and the little that SIA pays for 2 years or so. Which is why in the interviews, they ask your family background to get a feel of your financial health. Nevertheless, SIA cadet pilots are certainly one of the luckiest pple around. By the time he's finished with Jandakot, SIA would have spent $150k on him. By the time he is done with Maroochydore, he would have cost the company $300k. All in about 2 years. And to do what? Travel around the world while earning a very nice salary. I don't think that the civil service, or in fact any other job can compare. So SIA can tell me that they're not even going to pay a salary, and I'll still gladly take up the job.
Starting with educational qualifications, the "must have" is set by CAAS:
http://www.caas.gov.sg/media/CAAS/fo...ions/sasp2.pdf
Page 6 of 101, para 5:
5 An applicant, whether ab initio or requiring an abridged course will not be accepted for training on an approved training course for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence course unless he hold a General Certificate of Education with passes in five subjects at ordinary level including English
Language, Mathematics and a Science subject.
And then para 6 says:
6 Applicants who possess other equivalent educational qualifications or foreign professional pilot’s licences should seek advice from the CAAS to determine whether their qualifications can be accepted for this purpose. NOTE : Approved Training means training carried out under special curricula and supervision approved by a Contracting State.
Comments: Although CPL is referred to here, presumably ATPL carries the same or more stringent requirements on the logic that an ATPL course is more difficult than a CPL course. And of course the typo error is noted (CAAS, take note, poor proofreading).
However, the "nice to have" is set by SIA; see and contrast the requirements set by them:
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...ew.jsp#Header2
a) minimum 2 'A's and 2 'O's, including General Paper, in the GCE 'A' Level Examination (or its equivalent);or
b) minimum 2 Principal Passes (excluding the languages; Mathematics and Science subjects preferred) and 2 Subsidiary Passes in the STPM (or its equivalent); or
c) Polytechnic diploma; or
d) University degree
Comments: Note that there is no mention of a pure science requirement. Note also that requirements a, b, c and d are separated by "or", not "and". If this advertisement is written correctly (they have been known for sloppy work in drafting out requirements), then it means that if you have no 'O' levels but have a degree, you are still eligible, even though CAAS says you must have 'O' levels (para 5) but with higher qualifications being considered at their discretion (para 6). So there appears to be some contradictions here.
Turning to JMIKE - he has gone quiet, unable to answer the challenge to compare apples with apples. So much for his claim that he was a (retired) professional. What kind of professional, with years of working experience, can make such a stupid comparison and say a Bangla ditch digger earns more than an SIA cadet pilot? When confronted with the flaws in his reasoning, he then makes a feeble attempt to compare trainee policemen / firemen / riflemen / ATCO with a cadet pilot, but conveniently avoids comparing SIA cadet pilot pay with any other cadet pilot pay.
Take note: his comparison is NOT AT ALL about the hurdles and dilemmas a potential cadet might face - by comparing the respective pay of cadets and ditch diggers he insinuates that SIA is enslaving and exploiting cadet pilots. Cadets don't produce any returns for the company until they are FOs, so what exploitation is he talking about? He can't even understand that cadets are receiving training, but ditch diggers are working. Note that his post flows suspiciously like a pre-U student writing an essay. Fools with a malicious agenda deserve to be exposed.
The (financial) hardship any candidate may face as an SIA cadet pilot, must be compared to the real alternative - the willingness to bet on himself (ie fund his own training up to ATPL level), if he wants to become an airline pilot. The other part, betting on his ability and setting aside the time to do it, is a given. It is common to both scenarios, whether self funded or as a cadet pilot. In other words, the decision has already been made to become an airline pilot, before choosing whether to pay your own way or be a cadet. Becoming an SIA cadet pilot is definitely not a suck-it-and-see joyride for those who are not sure if they want to be airline pilots, whether for SIA or not.
If someone wants to be a cadet but is in financial straits to such an extent that it cannot be mitigated, then that person has shown poor planning and should not be allowed to be an airline pilot. Usually the largest financial obligation a young man has is a car - which can be sold to reduce the debt burden he may have. No big deal there. For the 2 1/2 years or so during training, there is really no need to have a car because of the residential nature of the course.
The chance of failure is unchanged whether one is self-funded or sponsored by SIA. Therefore, that particular fear factor (not being sure of the outcome) is irrelevant - because if you can't fly, then you can't fly regardless of whether you pay for your own training or SIA pays for it. If you are so desperate to be an airline pilot that you think the marginal / extra hours that you can pay for (when you are self-funded) will help you (struggle) through ATPL training, then for sure when you face much more complex exercises during Learjet training or fleet conversion you WILL crash and burn. Might as well save all that money and grief now and just accept that you are not cut out to be an airline pilot.
In short:
1. Be sure that you want to be an airline pilot.
2. Be grateful that SIA wants to sponsor you to follow your dream.
3. If you think that the allowance you will get during training is too low, then don't join. You obviously don't have a clue about becoming an airline pilot and how much the rest of the world has to pay to become one.
4. If you think that 2 1/2 years is too long to be receiving training, then don't join. You obviously don't have a clue about becoming an airline pilot and how long the rest of the world has to wait to become one.