Fellas. I have been a flying instructor training both Modular and Integrated students. Therefore I know with laser like clarity that there was not one extra thing I was asked to teach an Integrated one over a Modular one. Nothing. Nadda. Nil.
So on the flying side you all have around 180hrs and have passed the CPL skilltest and the IRT. Neither camp has better stick and rudder skills nor any superior decision making skills.
On the groundschool side of things there simply is no difference between the grades achieved by say OATS or CABAIR or Jerez when compared to other well established groundschools. If I were forced to put myself back through groundschool tomorrow I would chose Bristol myself.
The people who pass through Oxford are just people. Some plonkers, some dim, some bright, some hot shots. In pretty much the same proportion as pass through any school.
Their training is reasonably well organised along the lines of a sausage factory and courses tend to run close to time and budget. So thats nice for them.
But don't think your instructors are that experienced. Just look at the minimum experience levels required in their job ads.
So please. There are pros and cons to going Integrated or Modular. But any claims that the Integrated student is somehow skilled or less of a training risk is laughable.
Couple of months on the line and you can't tell the difference between Integrated, Modular, Flying Instructor or Turboprop pilot is my observation.
Cheers
WWW