The company I work for has employed three pilots who have done some or all of their training at BCFT. They have all done very well, and the connection with BCFT's old boy network helped get two of them the jobs. I would consider BCFT (or PAT for that matter, Mrs Mollison! I know one of your instructors) on a CV, as school or employer, as being in the candidate’s favour. The level of literacy Mr Harrison has shown here would mean his would be binned.
If Mr Harrison had his dad write the CV and covering letter, and I gave him an interview, I would consider the attitude shown here as making Mr Harrison unsuited to any role within the company, in the office, on the ramp or in the flight operation. Certainly I would fail him a line check purely on CRM. He does a very good impression of being someone who would not fit in our flight-safety culture. I would go so far as to recommend that unless he can rapidly change the way he deals with other people Mr Harrison should not waste his money on flight training, as he is unlikely to ever get a good flying job.
Perhaps he would not show the childish, petulant, naive, insecure and arrogant attitude in person, but that begs the question as to why he shows it online. However he also shows a lack of self-awareness that suggests he might not know to moderate his behaviour.
W1
Talking to a former BCFT student I understand that in addition to the aircraft owned by the company there were three owned by the directors which could be hired for people who wanted variety in flying (I think a couple of aerobats and an unusual twin).
And a voluntary settlement of a case means little until we know details, certainly not the “marketing scam” that “Tommy” shouts about. My experience of marketing in some of BCFT's larger competitors is much worse than BCFT's seems to be.
Last edited by Lost man standing; 3rd June 2008 at 16:56.