App @ Oat [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

LD Max

1st Sep 2003, 08:22

As a former modular student at OAT, I would recommend the ATPL groundschool without reservation. The courses are superb and the quality of instruction beyond reproach.

However....

The flying side is a different matter. Many detractors of Oxford have come, (like myself), from the modular side and have suffered from having to take 2nd place to the ab-initio students. This would (perhaps) be good news for you, but the ethics of the organisation were recently brought starkly into focus after they lost one of their major contracts with Khalifa airways. In a stroke, the flying training committment was reduced to a handful of students after all of the Khalifa candidates were pulled back to Algeria, following the financial collapse of their sponsor. (I make no criticism of Oxford for that event).

For us modular ATPL students who had been hammering for places on the CPL and IR courses for months, this could not have come at a better time. All of a sudden, there were planes sitting on the ramp waiting to be used, and instructors twiddling their fingers, wondering what they were going to do with all their free time.

Oxford was never, for a moment, in financial difficulty due to the fact that their owners have far more investments up their sleeve than one flying school! However, all the students were called into a general meeting to discuss the fact that Khalifa had collapsed and to offer us all the opportunity to book on for our CPL / IR courses within 2 weeks.

Oxford was promissing new and improved packages which would be competitive with other major FTOs but which would be based on Multi Engine training all the way. This is largely because Oxford are reducing their SE fleet and they do not have any SE complex aircraft anyway, ("complex" being the operative requirement for the CPL).

The problem, however, is this. Oxford market the package now as a JAA Multi-Engine CPL. I have friends who have now just finished this course, proudly announcing themselves to be Multi Engine CPL qualified!

There is, of course, no such thing in JAA land, (although in FAA land, there is a distinction). The main problem, however, is that apart from costing £350 per hour for dual multi, (which is an unnecessary expense considering it could all be done in an arrow for 1/3 of the cost), is that you are also required to perform Asymmetric manoeuvers as part of the CPL test. These manoeuvers should, (and DO), really belong in a £50 Multi Engine Class Rating, such as might be added to a PPL - but definately NOT in a £607 CPL test!

Added to this is the fact that the extra complexity of a CPL course conducted in a Multi-Engine aircraft is typically taking longer than the equivalent in a SE complex, and the result that ONLY ONE STUDENT PASSED the course First Time! Several Students "partialled" the 170a and required further training before then partialling the test , taking even further training and then failing on the 2nd attempt, to have to do yet another block of training before being allowed to do the 170a again.

All at £350 per hour, it makes me vomit! :yuk:

Oxford sell you their ME-CPL "package" at an attractive discount for 25 hours training, but they know full well that most students will be in for MANY extra hours at FULL RATES!

Another factor is that many many students have fallen foul of the fact that the planes and the instructors are now shared between the Modular and the Ab-Initio training. Modular students are always losing their slots to Ab-Initio students and often see more than one instructor. There seems to be little standardisation between instructors, to the degree that you may have learned a manoeuver from one guy, only to be berated by another for not doing it "as HE would do it". This just leaves students confused and demoralised, and again - more than one has left to go elsewhere because of it.

Indeed, this is where OAT's reputation for being "overblown" and having a "superior attitude" originates. As a management, they are supremely arrogant, and have this "take it or leave it" attitude. Complaints from students are first met with platitudes, with idle promisses (never met) to deal with the matter, or if pushed they just shrug and say "Well go to Bristol then if you don't like it!" I honestly didn't fully appreciate it, until I heard it myself, at which point I told them to stuff it.

As a PPP candidate, you will be paying WELL over the odds for your integrated course. I would urge you not to believe a word of what Oxford tell you about getting you jobs. They have been telling that to every student who goes there, and using it as a "lever" to put pressure on them to stay through thick and thin, (as in--- "if you don't stay to do ALL your training with us, then we won't put your name forward to any interested airlines")

Just remember any job guarantee is not worth the paper it's written on!

They DO provide careers advice, and some good extra-curricula seminars on CV preparation, and visiting dignitaries from potential employers. They claim to have a "special relationship" with some - whereby Oxford will be asked to put 10 of their top candidates forward as opportunities arise. This might be true, but only insofar as you will need to show an average of 85% or above with 1st time passes in all subjects... and even then your face is going to have to "fit" if the opportunity arises.

These are "benefits" are available to ALL students, ab-inito or modular, but there ARE STILL NO GUARANTEES of work!

To Sell their packages to you, (especially the PPP), they will also tell you that the CAA require you to do a "continous course of training" in order to qualify for a "professional license" and that the "modular route" can lead to your application being refused.

This is just scare-mongering, because the only requirement for a "continuous course of training" is in relation to each class or rating that you train for. There is nothing "discontinuous" about modular training, providing you don't do 5 hours here, 10 hours there, and make up the rest on holiday! If you go to any modular training provider and do a CPL "course", or an IR "course", then that is continuous enough!

There are at least 3 potential benefits of the OAT PPP route, (that I can discern at least):

a) SOME (but certainly not the majority of) airlines will still choose an Oxford ab-inito student before a modular student. BA is probably the most obvious example. Even so, their only stated reason for doing so is that they simply have not had the chance to evaluate the performance of Modular Students as thoroughly as Ab-Inito, since the modular program is still relatively new.

b) It remains the case that Ab-Initio students are "selected", i.e. you have had to go through the equivalent of an airline interview to qualify for the course. This may give you some advantage to other potential employers, but a similar, (if not more respected), selection process is available on a modular basis through CTC as a part of their type rating sponsorship scheme, in partnership with Easy Jet.

c) If you pass the Oxford selection, then you are virtually guaranteed a bank loan from the HSBC to under write your entire course. This is a very compelling reason to consider Ab-Initio, but actually not the best one from your training point of view. Again, Exactly the same applies through CTC, were you to explore that route eventually.

The MAIN advantage of the modular route is that you can "cherry pick" the best providers for each phase of your training and generally do it cheaper and to suit your own timescale. Frankly I cannot recommend Oxford for anything other than the full-time ATPL groundschool. This element I would strongly recommend.

Now I don't put myself forward as a "model", (not with my looks anyway), :8 but to give you an example of the flexibility of the modular route, this is the way I did it:

Initially I went off to the USA, got an FAA PPL, JAA PPL, JAA MECR, FAA IR, all for 150 Hrs, (which I had to build anyway). I used my FAA PPL / IR to add the CAA IMC / Night ratings to my JAA PPL.

I then went to Oxford for my ATPL groundschool, and hourbuilt in the meantime to around 200 Hrs, using the IMC rating to build instrument time in the UK, (off airways of course).

Then back out to the US where I added my JAA MECR to my FAA licence, (a paperwork exercise which adopted the FAA SE IR onto the ME priviledges), and hourbuilt up to 250 Hrs, (the minimum required for an FAA CPL), and then took my FAA SE CPL. The 50 hours hourbuilding was actually accomplished by training with a JAA instructor towards my UK IR, (which is now just a 15 hour conversion from the FAA IR obtained the previous year), and the remainder was "as required training", at a JAA approved FTO towards my JAA CPL. The JAA CPL training is more than sufficient for the FAA CPL, although a few hours were required on those daft Chandelles, Lazy 8s, 8s on pylons etc.....

So I now have 257 hours, an FAA SE and ME Instrument rating with SE CPL, and a JAA CPL with IMC and Night ratings. Now I just need to complete my training with a 15 hour IR conversion course in the UK to get my ATPL (Frozen). :cool:

I'm not saying this is the best way to do it, but I'm very happy with having a set of FAA ratings on a par with my JAA ratings, for quite a bit less money than a single ab-initio course at Oxford! I do believe that will give me more employment options than the hollow promises of their marketing department.

Best of luck with your decision.

Regards...