I agree that some of these posts are all a little unfair. Having been an instructor at EFT for the past 2 years and having regularly taught the CPL I resent being called crap! I am sure the other instructors do too. I have have also never played any tricks on individuals to extract more cash. It's quite simple, the CAA set the standards and if the student doesn't meet them then thay have to repeat that lesson. The CFI and instructors at EFT worked very hard to employ a high set of operating and teaching standards all of which are followed religiously. I know all of the instructors personally and they are a credit to the school.
To answer some of the other points raised; there have been issues in the past with the facilities and they are small, but they have recently been improved and make an enormous difference to a students experience at the school. The accommodation has also improved with the use of the old Pan Am facilities.
It is true the aircraft are old and some have definitely seen better days, but the quality of the maintenance is again second to none - I personally wouldn't get in any aircraft I thought was not airworthy. The maintenance staff and fleet have been increased in size so there is now minimal delay to students for tech issues. I will also concede that the school could benefit from another complex aircraft for the CPL students, but this debate has been raging since the school started. Even so I would hazard a guess that the average CPL for the average student is still only 3 weeks.
I think that EFT provide a good product at a good price, there are always things that need developing, but in my time there the positives always outweighed the negatives.
It is also important to note that there are many recent graduates of EFT, both students and instructors that have moved on and got FO jobs with good company's in Europe. Myself included.
Safe flying to you all.
Last edited by scroggs; 21st Mar 2006 at 15:06.