Airlines should obtain a TRTO certificate for selling line training.

[dartagnan]

exactly, I think airlines who charge pilots for line training and time building should obtain a school TRTO certificate from their respective CAA.

in my point of view, an airline provides a service which is to transport cargo or passengers, NOT to train commercial pilots or selling hours as I have seen in the past.

if I check in their SOP, I bet there is no mention of such activity, in this case case, it's "illegal":eek:.

if Airlines change their status from airlines, to flight school, they may loose their
original certificate:ugh:, or (if they obtain both certificate)passengers will know they are flying with a flight school, and not with a "professional pilot" on board...:hmm:... (but with
Student pilot).If you continue in this logic, no license should be required... (what would say the CAA?:=)

I think it is time to change this scandal. Contact your CAA by writing.

[wobble2plank]

So how do the airlines conduct 'normal' FO training? Command training? ZFT training for type rating courses, LPC's, OPC's etc, etc, etc.

Farm them out to Cabair? Nip down the local flying club for an annual refresh on the 'ol 747?

The airlines have this dispensation in their AOC. How they choose to adapt it is, sadly, up to them.

[Founder]

I dont know if you know but most Airlines are TRTO's also, otherwise they would not be allowed to train pilots at all...

[Mercenary Pilot]

Personally, I think there is a very large difference in training up an employee and allowing someone to play at being an airline pilot for a few weeks. Maybe writing to your local employment office or taxman would be more effective.

I wonder if Osama and his mates know that you don't actually need to hijack an airliner these days. They just need a pilot's license with a few thousand pounds(to pay for the 100-500 hours 'Line Training' schemes), and faster than you can say "How did it all come to this?", they have access to the controls of a medium range jet transport such as a 737 or A320.

[dartagnan]

train pilots at alltrain a pilot, OK as long he is trained for a rating on their simulators or for hiring, but selling blocks of hours like "300h of A320, 30'000$+VAT", hell no, this is ILLEGAL.this is ILLEGAL, this is ILLEGAL....

oh, did you see the "VAT", ?

guess where the VAT goes?
....mmh! CAA corrupt?:hmm:
On the good side there is a crackdown on such illegal operations.
Exemple: Indian have kicked foreign copilots out.
US can not hire under a student visa to fly a passenger planes.... eheh, eaglejet tried, they FAA blocked them.
we have to see now what will happen with Morocco, and some other countries but I guess these countries will slowly kick foreign "students" out.

[Denti]

It is not illegal, that's why it's done. To be able to run typeratings, wether for their own pilots or others, airlines have to be a TRTO and most are with the few exceptions that outsource training to others. That of course enables them to sell training and quite a few do that, although not all by far. It seems to be more common in the UK but i could be off there.

[wobble2plank]

Nope, nothing illegal in it. Before the applicant starts their 'paid for' type rating they must be in possession of a minimum of a fATPL for their position to be legal. Add to that the requirement to fly with a training Captain in the LHS.

Whilst I agree that the situation is complete exploitation of those who, one way or another, have the money to take this route, it is not in any way shape or form illegal. It is merely playing on the belief that having that type rating will assist in getting a job.

It is a sad reflection as to the depths that some airlines will stoop to claw in revenue.

[remoak]

More to the point, a pilot must have completed the type rating before starting line training. The type rating is a legal requirement before undertaking revenue flying. The line training is a company requirement that varies widely in it's application.

[Birdy767]

If someone pays to work, IT'S ILLEGAL because he does it to the detriment of someone who wants the job to get paid...

[Mercenary Pilot]

Just so its clear. As in many other threads on this subject, its the hour building (paying to sit in the RHS for 500 Hours) on commercial airlines that is being criticised NOT the type rating itself.

And I agree that it IS illegal.

[Wingswinger]

Until someone can quote chapter and verse form the contravened legislation and/or offer credible legal opinion that it is illegal I believe that it is not. The people who run airlines may be many things but they are generally not fools. It may, however, be immoral.

So might the CTC Flexicrew scheme be as they are, I am told, placing no limitation on the number of young cadets who are offered places on the scheme. This at a time when there are few permanent jobs to be had anywhere.

It is also a sad reflection on the intelligence and judgement of those who are prepared to part with large amounts of money in such circumstances.

[wobble2plank]

Whilst I understand the vitriol behind the despairing cries of 'illegal' I fail to see under what EU law it can be considered so?

Believe me when I say I know what this sort of practice leads to. The helicopter industry, of which I was a part for many years, had its T's & C's drastically wrecked by a bottom up infestation of 'will fly for free' applicants.

Hence I left the industry for the fixed wing industry and I am now seeing the same here.

We would all love it to be illegal as then we would have a legitimate claim to take said companies to court and have the practice banned. Sorry but that isn't going to happen. The companies involved will have gone through the entire rule book with very qualified lawyers before entering into this practice.

Sadly one can't blame the applicant either as they are trying to get a step on the ladder and risking the wrath of the company pilots whilst doing so. Not an enviable place to be. Until they all figure out that a $30000 spend plus VAT with no job and little prospect of a job is the common end to these courses they will keep coming.

Look on the bright side, the major national carriers abhor this type of training and would look at the training record and background of such an applicant very carefully at interview as it would bring into question, in my mind, as to the suitability of the candidate for normal line operations.

Still NOT illegal.

[Mercenary Pilot]

Nearly all workers in the UK should be paid the National Minimum Wage and your employer is breaking the law if they aren’t paying it to you. It doesn’t matter how you are paid, what your contract says or what agreements you have made with your employer.*Directgov

These scheme don't just damage our T+C's, they are damaging to our employers. These courses are eliminating the need to hire F/O's and are subsidising the cost of the captains salary (who do not see the extra income in their paypacket). Thus other airlines must find ways to reduce their costs or follow the same route.

Also, the constant lack of experience in the RHS of some of these airlines involved is certainly a flight safety consideration.

[wobble2plank]

Mercenary Pilot,

What you have missed in your quote is that, under these schemes, the person in the RHS is NOT an employee, they are a student on a training course which they have paid for. Ergo the company is NOT an employer, merely a training provider.

The fact that they are 'training' on a revenue flight is irrelevant (if not a little scary!).

Otherwise, all of our wonderful student fraternity would be demanding minimum wages for turning up for their underwater basket weaving courses. ;)

[Mercenary Pilot]

the person in the RHS is NOT an employee, they are a student on a training course which they have paid for.

But they are not a student because they don't gain any qualifications for being there.

Otherwise, all of our wonderful student fraternity would be demanding minimum wages for turning up for their underwater basket weaving courses

I'm sure they've tried! :}

[dartagnan]

again, keep it simple and logic about time building on a commercial plane:

a commercial license or a ATPL (full or frozen)are required to fly on these big passenger planes!. Everybody agree with this statement...eh? you can not fly with a privat license... agree?

do you see "commercial" in my statement ....I repeat, do you see COMMERCIAL?, this means you can make a commerce , or make MONEY, YES MONEY...!!!this is the main difference between a commercial license, or a privat license.

if a guy PAY to fly a COMMERCIAL planes, his activity is not "linked" to his commercial license (CPL)anymore and he downgrades his qualifications to something less than a commercial, which in this case to a Private license, or a recreational pilot, or even a discovery pilot (bapteme)....

if you follow my logic, this activity becomes (suddenly?) illegal because it's illegal to fly a commercial airliner with a non commercial license(a basic CAA rule).

many things in this society are authorized,because nobody complaints and I think it's time for the EU commission to clean this mess.
if you have a certificate, you are moraly and by law responsible to follow the rule based on your certificate so you must be paid!!!!.
Do you think a taxy drivers, gives money to his boss to build hours in his car?

I think they are working on it at the EU commission.
there was a guy who has post the link of the person to contact.

[Denti]

Sadly that logic is heavily flawed. You do not downgrade your licence just because you pay to fly. Over here, and yes, thats euroland too, you are not even allowed to fly any jet on a private license, you are forced to have at least a CPL with ATPL credit or have to prove equivalent knowledge (by sitting the exams) to do so, i know i had to fly a couple hours on an L39 just for fun (bloody expensive experience, but a lot of fun). Having a CPL ist not only about being able to work commercially but also about a certain level of knowledge proven in an exam.

Selling training is something that is allowed, even if we do not like it.

I can only suggest to lean on the politicians responsible for your area to change the relevant european laws, but my guess is that that probably never happens.

Don't get me wrong, i do not like that practice at all and i believe it is very detrimental to airsafety, but i had too much exposure to european working law in the last year for my liking to learn that a lot is possible which defies normal logic.

[Pilot Pete]

Those who feel so inclined should be exposing the practice in the media, not aguing on here. It's not illegal, but would raise a few eyebrows amongst the fee paying travelling public. The problem would be showing some evidence that safety standards have been lowered, which I doubt you or any investigative journalist would be able to do. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it cannot be defended successfully.

A better angle would be following a wannabee from nothing to license to bankruptcy showing how they are milked dry in the process. I suspect that would raise a few eyebrows too.

PP

[757_Driver]

whilst i understand some of the vitriol vented here, i'm with the others in saying that im 99% sure it is not illegal. I know most professions seem to think that they have the toughest life around, but there are many other professions where people 'pay to work' or 'work for free' in the bottom rung of the ladder, so its not something that is unique to this industry.
It is another manefestation of Gordon browns "i want it all and i want it now" economy, where you had easy cheap credit coupled with a generation of people who have never been educated about 'risk' or indeed ever had to face the consequences of their own actions.
I do beleive however that this situation will resolve itself - after all how many jobs are there at the moment? and how many banks are lending money with no security and on such obviously risky schemes such as these?
If you want to point the finger about who is squeezing the t's and c's in this industry then don't look at a handful of 'pay-to-fly' wannabees, these are just a manefestation of the wider cost pressures. Start looking at a british and european government who detest the airline industry, fail to provide infrastructure, tax us to death with so-called 'green' taxes and generally use their huge propaganda machine to rubbish us at every turn.
A flight to New york, right now costs no more than it did 10 years ago, yet air passenger duty has gone from zero to 45 quid (for a single) on that ticket (and up to 60 quid next year) and 10 years of inflation and fuel cost rises have occured aswell. Do you really think that the squeeze on t's and c's is only due to a few pay to fly schemes?

[dartagnan]

http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/372459-bad-news-line-trainees-turkey.html


bye bye eaglejet, and storm!!!:ouch:

[Mercenary Pilot]

I'm sure they will find new countries and airlines to operate their schemes from but that is very positive news.

[Deep and fast]

I'm sure the idea of giving an airline TRTO status was to allow the company to train its own employees to operate company aircraft. It would also allow said company to train pilots for another company that does not hold this status. All very sensible. The problem comes when the intent is to train people that they have no intention of employing. All training carries an increased risk as the Turkish incident has highlighted. The risk to the fare paying passenger should be kept to a minimum and it is the duty of the CAA in the UK to legislate over this.
As always in cases such as this, something will only change after there is a loss of life incident. In the mean time Balpa should really be working to bring these practices to an end.

All should be able to buy a rating and base train, but line training is a safety risk too far. Because when one has finished the next will start and the risk continues until you run out of willing fools who part with the cash.

D and F :8