Originally Posted by Flypuppy
This is very true, but the ability to become an aircraft commander should be based on ability and performance not just the ability to pay. The filters to take the unsuitable aviators out of the system should be training and personality based not financial.
No argument whatsoever from me here! I agree fully on how it SHOULD be.
The main problem I see there is that in the days of airline/military sponsored tuition, the washout occurred rather early in the game, or if it did at a later stage it did not really hurt the applicant too much financially. Main problem today is that I personally think most flight training organisations will carry unsuitable candidates MUCH too far, even tough it is clear to the instructors even during basic IR/CPL training that they will never amount to much. The INCENTIVE here is the problem, as of course the FTO's want to make as much money on them as possible. Again, that is exactly what you say. Same goes of course for the type ratings.
At the end of the day, why should pilots have to subsidise a commercial organisation's training budget? (remember they can reclaim VAT on training - the individual cannot)
They shouldn't but they will before giving up the dream. And that is where the cash comes in. Why, in the eyes of a bean counter, should an airline pay for something the applicants are ready to pay for themselves? Never mind that they often enough put their financial future on line.....
So there is, and as far as I can see, there always has been an over supply of bright shiny newbies but now the rise of the SSTR is allowing those with more financial means the ability to get into a jet who may not be the type of people who will make decent commanders in the future.
Yep, that is exactly the reason why those who have already invested $$$$ to get to their CPL/IR/FATPL are so easy to "pursuade" to take that 3rd mortage to get the type rating....
I suspect that in a couple of years this discussion will become superfluous anyway with the introduction of the Multi-Pilot Licence, which will effectively kill the current way of commercial pilot training.
Possibly.
In no means this discussion is limited to the aviation industry btw. There are other jobs which are open to this kind of ripp off by the training institutions. If you look at the recent boom in MBA training, with many people shelling out x k $ to get that piece of paper which was often enough portrayed to be the entry door to a carefree management career. Many who have spent their $ on this have had to realize that a) the fact that everyone and his dog have got the paper now has devaluated it to a mere "requirement" rather than something that set you apart from others and b) has in the end produced so many "bloatware" courses in it, that the actual knowledge to be gotten out of it has decreased.
Lemme give you another interesting example. Language tuition. I, for one, am not of the English mothertongue which you have certainly noticed. However, I consider myself fairly fluent. I never bothered to take CAE exams, simply because I had no use for them. However, I had to notice that people who have done some of the easier of these exams (first, advanced) got in front of me at certain levels just for the fact that they have the paper, which certifies less skill than what I have. So the only way for me to prove to a prospective employer that I have sufficient command of English would be to shell out money to get a certificate I don't really need.
The list goes on. In the end, it's all commercial reality. If bringing back sponsored training as a union requirement excluding those who did their own thing is the answer, I don't know. My experience shows that while it could do something sensible in one way, it might be quite injust to others who were dedicated enough to pay their own ways only to be told "we'd like to take you but the union won't allow it." Either way, the industry is not what it was, nor will it ever be like that again.
Best regards
AN2 Driver.