Scroggs
I gather from that then that you support the notion that people should pay for TR's without the offer of employment or even a chance of an interview?
And without belittling your input to her HMG, surely the risk of
and had to put my life on the line a number of times in that period
is part and parcel of the job when working for HMG in the armed forces. No offence but I am sure that in any contract there might well have been mention of the possibilites of you being injured/harmed. Now don't get me wrong I respect you for having done it, I myself would jump at the chance to work for HMG if a medical problem prevented me from doing so.
The fact that you paid for your licence would also have to be offset by the amount of hours etc that you had to do as you already had all that time under your belt - it must have been cheaper than a 60000 course.
I agree that ulitmately we will have to pay much like other professions for some of our training. Where does this stop though? Will companies start making us pay for recurrent training as we are therefore not earning money for them in the air?
Somewhere we have to draw the line surely and I would have thought the death of sponsorship was a step in that direction. I personally do not think TR should be paid for by the employee WITHOUT the potential for interview and job. It becomes too specific and too much of a gamble.