Do modular students get airline jobs? [Archive]

Bealzebub

2nd Jun 2012, 17:07

I gave an answer to a very similar question a few days ago, so forgive me for repeating most of it.

What is the best way to become an airline pilot and what is the best way for you to become an airline pilot.

The answers are very different as well. It really depends on what you can afford, as well as your ability, your timescale, and a great deal of luck.

People often muddy up the questions in order to arrive at the answer they want to hear. How do I obtain a CPL/IR (fATPL,) is a very different question from how do I obtain a job as a commercial airline pilot. Although you cannot be an airline pilot without the basic licence, the licence in itself, is not enough to be a commercial airline pilot.

Airlines generally seek experienced pilots to fulfill the vacancies that arise. That experience varies from airline to airline, but broadly reflects the market expectation particularly as regards those fundamentals of all markets, supply & demand! For many years (decades) demand has been very patchy and supply has been very plentiful. For most airlines "experience" is broadly defined as a basic of 2000-3500 hours and at least 500 hours of that on turbine (jet/turboprop) aircraft. For many pilots that experience has been acquired by "stepping stone" jobs. By that I mean pilots who have worked their way up through an industry by way of entry level jobs in such things as instructing, air taxi, and other aerial work opportunities. This may lead on into opportunities arising in smaller third and second tier airlines, or corporate and other commercial opportunities. Once the relevant experience has been aquired opportunities can be competed for with what might be termed first tier airlines, or those airlines regarded as career companies.

Many of the Captains flying for airlines today followed this route. Many others came from military aviation careers and then switched to a civilian airline career with broadly the same experience levels.

A few airlines also adopted an ab-initio career structure, that involved full time courses of approved commercial training leading to placements within their companies and then careers within those airlines. Some airlines recruited candidates for the initial training courses, and other airlines recruited the best graduates from these commercial schools. Traditionally it was a very small sector of the overall market, and such programmes were fiercely competitive and low in volume.

Over the last 15 years or so there has been an evolution in the the way the market is structured with regard to commercial airline recruitment. This evolution has been brought about by a combination of regulatory changes, economic demographics, and fundamental changes to the main business models within the industry. The results have meant longer potential careers for pilots resulting in more experience staying within the general market for a longer period of time. There have been enormous changes to terms & conditions borne out of the supply/demand curves, and the global economy as a whole. More importantly (as it affects this audience,) there have been major changes to the licencing structure and the way in which airlines recruit entry level career pilots.

To an extent the "stepping stone" career is still an option, however more and more airlines see economic and quality advantages in expanding the ab-initio cadet programmes that once were only a small part of the industry. Taking a good candidate from scratch and training them through a full time course of approved training and then into the airlines own apprenticeship programme has grown in popularity and proved to be successful for so many of the airlines that have utilised it.

This growth has, as a consequence, placed a significant squeeze on the demand for "experienced" entry level pilots for many of these same companies. They prefer (where possible) that the "experience" they demand has been something they have had total involvement with, utilizing pilots who by that time are a known product. Now, some people will argue and protest, but that is where the growth is, and that (like it or not) is the reality. By all means disbelieve what I am saying, but then look at airlines like B.A, Thompson, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Flybe, easyjet, etc. Find out where these companies are sourcing their low hour pilots from. Then try the same exercise without using the term "cadet."

The answer is really quite simple, although the truth may be unpalatable. If you want to be an airline pilot then your best chance of achieving that goal is through an airline cadet programme. That may be through a direct airline recruitment programme, or through a recognised airline/school tied programme. There is a lot of competition for these programmes. They do carry enormous financial risk, and there are no guarantees. They are also expensive.

The truth (as much as many protest otherwise) is that the "expense" ultimately becomes the deciding factor. If this methodology is out of the question, or indeed if any other factor makes it a non-starter, then your choices are more limited.

You can certainly obtain a pilots licence for less cost than is ever likely to be involved in an airline cadet programme, but that will not normally enable you to get on an airlines low hour cadet programme. Of course that doesn't rule out the "stepping stone" career, but the time, difficulty, attrition rate, and frustration of that approach shouldn't be underestimated either.

pudoc

2nd Jun 2012, 18:03

You have to ask yourself, how quickly do you want to fly a jet? If you are 20, you will retire at 60-65. Imagine how tiresome you would get flying a jet for 45 years. So whilst you're young, there is nothing wrong in exploring other fields like being a bush pilot or glider towing. These jobs will make you better airline pilots anyway.

If you are 35 with a family close, I could see why you want to get on a jet for money. But some integrated schools place students with airlines earning in the region on £14k a year. And yes, that's as a first officer on a jet.

Personally, I don't see why so many people rush to fly for an airline, but I digress.

Do modular students get airline jobs?

Yes.

I imagine it is more difficult for a modular student to get an airline job as their first job

Correct. CTC are good at placing their cadets. You can go modular and do an AQC with CTC and they put you into a hold pool. I don't know how long it takes to get a job from that hold pool, but I do know modular students that have done that and they got them a job on a jet.

how many modular students do actually get airline jobs straight away? And also, what are the general job opportunities available for modular students these days (airline or otherwise)?

I personally know more students that have got an airline job than those who haven't.

-Instructing
-Corporate flying
-Aerial work
-Bush flying
-Safety pilot
-Various operators (for example there are companies that run corporate jets or turboprops but I wouldn't class these as airlines as most don't even have websites)

And for the record, I know integrated students who graduated a few years ago and are still waiting for a job.

It's also important to realise, that whilst generally speaking integrated students do end up with airlines, there is no guarantee how long it'll take for you to be called up for the job. My friend was a CTC cadet, took him 2 years to get out the hold pool before ending up on easyJet Flexicrew. In the meantime my modular friend got a job within 4 months flying for a bigger airline for better money and had no contacts that got him that job.

It's swings and roundabouts really. You have to really look into integrated and modular and decide what is best for you. Don't push modular aside thinking it's not as good and don't push integrated aside thinking it's double the price for the same license. Really really look into all of it. As the above poster said, we can't tell you what's best for you. All we can do is give you our opinions.

There are other integrated schools and airlines than those I mentioned, obviously.

Mickey Kaye

3rd Jun 2012, 14:59

Do modular students get airline jobs?

I've held an instructor ticket for 20 years and in all that time I've only known 2 fellow instructors who didn't get an airline jobs.

One decided to remain an instructor the other had medical problems.

a320renewal

3rd Jun 2012, 21:11

I've held an instructor ticket for 20 years and in all that time I've only known 2 fellow instructors who didn't get an airline jobs.

that was in the past, now the answer is NO. There is no job for pilots coming out of school, you just have to look at the ad on line, most require 500/1000h jet with 3000h total and last flight check in the last 3 months.
you go nowhere with a fi ticket nowadays!:ugh:it s all pay for line training, 300h 500h, what future is that?

sevenstrokeroll

3rd Jun 2012, 21:18

will someone PLEASE tell this pilot from America what the HECK is a MODULAR STUDENT? You guys throw slang around and I would like to understand it.

also, please tell me what a FROZEN ATP is?

I was a Frozen ATP when I was doing my walkaround on my 737 in Buffalo , New York , USA in the winter time...but what do YOU guys mean?

redsnail

3rd Jun 2012, 21:46

7stroke,
Modular = the way most folks normally learn to fly in the States. "Part time" is another term. An integrated course used to mean a lot more under the old "regime" but now it just means full time at the one school. You pay well over the odds.
Frozen ATPL. Short hand for CPL+IR+ATPL subjects. Many schools that flog "integrated" courses "pretend" that it's something better than it really is.
Sadly, they can convince folks to spend the money.

I've been frozen too, in Moscow and in Samedan (UUWW, LSZS). The ATPL was fine. ;)

pudoc

3rd Jun 2012, 22:20

There is no job for pilots coming out of school,

And the sky is green.

Mickey Kaye

4th Jun 2012, 06:17

"I've held an instructor ticket for 20 years and in all that time I've only known 2 fellow instructors who didn't get an airline jobs"

"that was in the past, now the answer is NO"

A320 Renewal

You are simply factually wrong here.

I work at a School that offers modular CPL and IR training it also offers FI courses. Over the last say 2 years every single person coming through the doors has got work.

A surprising number have gone straight into airline jobs off the top of my head about a 1/3.

Another 1/3 got airline jobs after a relatively short time instructing at say 500 to 700 hours.

The rest which by and large are the most recently qualified and currently earning cash instructing/aerial photography but I suspect their time will come.

People stating that there is no jobs is simply not true. In fact comparing today with say 1993 its a piece of cake.

Perhaps what I find the most disturbing in all of this is the number of washed up flat broke dreams shattered Integrated graduates who come to us for FI courses in an effort to kick start there flying career - the really have been sold a lemon.

At times I honestly think the only difference between modular and Integrated courses is the marketing departments. The FTO I work for doesn't have one. Where as I guess CTC, Oxford etc spend an absolute fortune on telling the world that their way is the only way.

Dan the weegie

4th Jun 2012, 07:05

I have an FI ticket, without about 680 hrs Total am now flying regional TP. didn't pay for any line training but did pay for TR - cheaply tho.

I also know about 15 instructors that have landed airline jobs in the last 2 years.

There are jobs, but you need to work really hard at getting one. If you're modular and don't do an FI course you're limited to RYR or Lion Air etc.

error_401

4th Jun 2012, 07:35

Hi,

from own experience on the fATPL end up to being in charge to hire pilots I can throw in:

It depends on what job you aim at.

Main carriers with cadet schemes - the answer is NO (unless it will pick up to a point where they are simply desperate to find cadets) Some are very strict and hire only from their own schools other are more liberal.

Jobs in GA / cargo / turboprop / or far away outfits are most probably the starting point for a fATPL pilot. Then the above comments kick in - once you have experience you may get other jobs up the ladder.

Still - outfits like LH / AF / KLM / LX would have to be very, very desperate to hire modular fATPL's.

Go looking on the websites of the outfits that interest you as an employer and have a look at their terms. Most are very clear what they are looking for.

Fostex

4th Jun 2012, 08:23

Still - outfits like LH / AF / KLM / LX would have to be very, very desperate to hire modular fATPL's.

Very sad, I mean, why hire a modular fATPL with 250hrs+ flying in all weathers when you can hire a 150hr integrated super hero who did all their flying in windless CAVOK wx in Spain.

Genghis the Engineer

4th Jun 2012, 08:52

Very sad, I mean, why hire a modular fATPL with 250hrs+ flying in all weathers when you can hire a 150hr integrated super hero who did all their flying in windless CAVOK wx in Spain.

I can't entirely understand why most airlines would hire either when there are job-hunting instructors with 1000+ hours of command experience, and the vastly enhanced understanding of flying that comes from having spent a lot of time teaching it.

The logic of preferring integrated graduates is presumably massive debts forcing new pilots to be trapped by an airline salary long enough to become completely bedded into the system, willingness to completely follow procedure without thinking for themselves too much, and lack of interest in doing anything interesting with an aeroplane beyond lots of really accurate straight and level.

G

truckflyer

4th Jun 2012, 09:35

I know of loads of modular who got jobs with Ryanair, so you have the money and chance for TR that's the way to go!

I do agree that there could be more interesting flying to do first, but the ones suggestion FI or Bush flying, are living in a timeloop bubble, and not in touch with TODAYS reality.

I just heard from a friend he spent 10.000 Euros on FI course, and has NO prospect of a job!

I know of great instructors with few THOUSAND hours, not able to renew their IR, because it cost to much money, wishing they could get into an airline, and they have no chance as it is at the moment!

So believing following the "old" route to get where you want, is all well and fine, however if you want to fly for an airline in Europe, the hill is very steep just to get the chance.

It is clear for me now, it is not what you know, how good pilot you are, it is who you know, you might be lucky and get the the odd chance here and there, but besides that, there is not much luck involved.

If I was younger, I would have made sure I was fully prepared to get into Ryanair, as they offer great chance for young pilots with low experience.

Personally I loathe to fly with them as a passenger, but if I need to go somewhere that they fly, and the price is right I will use them. I believe many people think like this, and this will keep companies like Ryanair going for many years!

If you don't get in with them, than there are not many chances left for modular low hour pilots.
CTC, CAE/Oxford are trying to take a stranglehold on this very lucrative business with pilot placement! Making sure that if you want to have more than a fair chance of getting a job, you need to pay at least double the modular rate! Fair ? Or another class divide?

Artie Fufkin

4th Jun 2012, 09:46

My friend was a CTC cadet, took him 2 years to get out the hold pool before ending up on easyJet Flexicrew. In the meantime my modular friend got a job within 4 months flying for a bigger airline for better money and had no contacts that got him that job.

Go on then Pudoc, I'll bite... Exactly who are this "bigger airline" than Easy that are offering low hours pilots "better money"??:suspect:

Dan the weegie

4th Jun 2012, 09:52

Genghis, it comes down to money as it always has.
CTC do their own quite strict selection, this means that the airlines don't have to go through a long process of eliminating the many and varied loonies that managed to get fATPLs and look on paper like all the other perfectly employable people.

OAA/CAE on the other hand offer large discounts on Sim time and Type Ratings so that it becomes profitable to recruit from their own stock. Recruitment on any scale is a long and expensive process and it would seem that senior management don't see a massive change in the financials if they aren't too picky about the kind of people they recruit so long as they can do the job.

I find ex instructors much more pleasant to sit next to but it still doesn't guarantee quality. There is no replacement for setting a recruitment policy on the basis of the right outlook, attitude and work ethic. Flying skills you can train but it's almost impossible to train the arsehole out of someone :).

Genghis the Engineer

4th Jun 2012, 10:10

And how do CTC eliminate "arsehole" from people at initial selection?

G

truckflyer

4th Jun 2012, 10:53

I find the CTC selection process amusing and fairly arrogant!

End of the day, selection by CTC is a lottery, a £10 computer game and a maths test for kindergarten children!

Sorry I can not agree, they need to sell their image as they will get you the dream, the job you want, the ticket is £100.000, it is not a ticket, it is still a lottery!

Last time I heard from them, they said all their cadets had got placement, is this true?

Long lengthy selection process for the airlines, up my a.... , what utter BS and rubbish.

Having ran my own business over 20 years, I know how "business" works, and if somebody is trying to tell me that the airlines or flight schools are any different, better than the rest of private business, well dream on!

One back scratches the other, here is how I assume it works! CTC makes contacts trough their network. They build up networks with companies like EZY, Cathay, FlyBe Dragon, Flydubai, Qatar, Jet2, Jetstar etc. as they claim, I saw a list of over 15 airlines they claim to work with!

A few meetings in the backroom, some brown envelopes in the backroom to assure and convince the "right" people in the company that selection is preferred trough their establishment!

Now I use CTC as an example, as they are probably one of the main culprits in the UK, without them you can't get a job with FlyBe or EZY if you have low hours, so they are actually using their "power" to block entries of other capable pilots who could have a fair chance, if only given a chance!

They have "qualified" office women doing the assessment, there is no technical assessment or interview, there is no exposure to the real flight environment, and that's what they base their selection process on!

I can put this computer game to a 10 year old game player, and he will breeze trough this within the 3rd times with top scores.

It is very clear what is going on, example again CTC have simulators and training equipment that needs to be in use, charging example ATP over £8000 for a fixed base MCC / JOC with no promise of ANYTHING is taking the piss, seriously! It is a complete rip off, but here goes their story, WE GIVE YOU HOPE and A CHANCE, because otherwise you have NO chance with the likes of EZY or FlyBe, unless you have experience, if you had experience you would not have gone to CTC!

That companies like i mention above, associate themselves with CTC, gives CTC customers willing to pay up to £100.000 for training with them, of course ending with Flex contract is their final reward, but it gives them a step inside!

So no illusions about money, it is all about money, CTC from their overpriced flight training surely are being both awarded and awarding the right people at the right companies, that's how 99% of business works! Why else would Ezy or any other company, keep an exclusive agreement with CTC?

This is the sad truth of reality, so when people criticise Ryanair, there are much larger culprits around, and these companies like CTC are trying to make it their monopoly with regarding recruitment to as many companies as they are able to "convince" - the only thing that can convince "people today" is money!

It is not about CTC's amazing selection procedure etc. It is looking more and more likely that companies are getting into such a position now! That's why for many modular s the P2F is the only alternative, end of the day it will still save you money compared to the CTC model of training and it will give you a massive advantage when you get your 500 hours or more!

CTC talked about "exciting" prospects in Middle East and Asia, well I worked a lot with business in these countries, and let me tell you something, nothing exciting happens there, unless you give somebody some extra butter on their bread!

They give the butter, and future pilot students will be stuck between a rot or a fortune of debts!

Nice Chief Training Captains, got the hands in the pockets, and the cadets screaming to give more! Sweet........

mad_jock

4th Jun 2012, 11:01

You can do it with Group discussions and team things like spagetti bridges and that sort of stuff. Interaction in coffee breaks also plays a part.

Also interaction with admin staff prior to arrival.

Taking everyone for a pint has become a bit out of vogue these days.

But I don't have a clue how CTC do it. Each school seems to have there own theorys about what the pilot type should be.

Bealzebub

4th Jun 2012, 12:22

I can't entirely understand why most airlines would hire either when there are job-hunting instructors with 1000+ hours of command experience, and the vastly enhanced understanding of flying that comes from having spent a lot of time teaching it.

The logic of preferring integrated graduates is presumably massive debts forcing new pilots to be trapped by an airline salary long enough to become completely bedded into the system, willingness to completely follow procedure without thinking for themselves too much, and lack of interest in doing anything interesting with an aeroplane beyond lots of really accurate straight and level

You probably would understand if you flew with the product.

There is a myth that runs through these forums that seems to propogate the idea that it is a perfectly natural progression for a new CPL holder with 250 odd hours to transition to flying airliners.

The fact is, that it is something of a cliff face for most low hour pilots transitioning to this type of flying with such low experience levels.

The cadet programmes that do provide these low hour opportunities require that candidates have a full time solid background of training with a provider that uses a vertical integration method of teaching to become an airline pilot. The reason for that is simple, in that the successful candidates will become airline pilots with less than 200 hours flying experience.

Airline training slots and simulator time is expensive. Cadets are extremely intensive on both counts, and there are additional restrictions on their usability during this period and in the early parts of their career. It is very important that the cadets selected meet the standard required. That standard is more than simply having a licence and an instrument rating.

The idea that 250 hours of "flying in all kinds of weather" or "1000 hours+ of instructing" is an acceptable substitute for such a recognised course of training, isn't going to carry much weight with the airlines that have cadet programmes.

Outside of these cadet schemes, the oportunity still exists to progress via the traditional "stepping stone" routes of working your way up through aerial work jobs and into entry level transport jobs as and when those vacancies arise.

The evolution within the industry has seen an expansion in cadet recruitment which coupled with the general downturn in the global economy has seen the former take a much more significant share of the market. Cadet programmes are nothing new. However over the last 15 years or so, they have become a significant part of the airline recruitment market at entry level. Like it or not, that significance is likely to grow as the economy improves.

zoigberg

4th Jun 2012, 12:43

Bzbb
This may sound a bit flippant but what on earth is a 'vertical integration method' of teaching?

Genghis the Engineer

4th Jun 2012, 12:47

It means that the training provider pulled everything together for you towards a single objective, rather than the student doing it.

Beelzebub, out of interest, what's your background in holding this perspective? Are you a trainer, a student, an airline pilot, a salesman?

Dan the weegie

4th Jun 2012, 12:48

You probably would understand if you flew with the product.

Funny you should say that, those that have seem to prefer flying with ex instructors.

Bealzebub

4th Jun 2012, 13:17

This may sound a bit flippant but what on earth is a 'vertical integration method' of teaching?

Not flippant at all. It is where the course is taught towards the end objective of producing an airline pilot with low experience levels. As well as the generic knowledge, the airlines (specific and general) standard operating procedures and philosophies are also ingrained into the training regime. This happens up and down through the entire syllabus and allows for the succesful transition into this type of flying at this level of experience.

Beelzebub, out of interest, what's your background in holding this perspective? Are you a trainer, a student, an airline pilot, a salesman?

Never been the latter but either am or have been all of the former. I am an airline captain who has flown with graduate cadets from these programmes for the last 15 years or so. I have always been very impressed by the transition (and it is a very difficult one). I have researched deeper into the training background and the methodology employed by these programmes in order to have a better understanding of what is now a de facto part of the industry. That has involved flying with the graduates for a decade and a half and visiting the schools both in the UK and overseas, in order to see what is actually involved in the process. I have spoken to the people involved at the airline management end of the programme. I have looked at the ground level financing and selection procedures. As a result I would like to think I have a broad understanding of what is really involved and why the end product is what it is.

This methodology is not one that I employed in order to achieve an airline career, and to understand it would require that I set aside any in-built prejudice and preconceptions. I can understand why airlines utilize this form of recruitment and why the training involved is structured the way it is.

Funny you should say that, those that have seem to prefer flying with ex instructors.
Speaking as an "ex-instructor" and having flown with "ex-instructors" from both civilian and military backgrounds, I cannot say that it is really a relevant factor in whom I would "prefer flying with." Even if that were not the case, it is not a choice that has any relevance.

Fostex

4th Jun 2012, 13:36

It is where the course is taught towards the end objective of producing an airline pilot with low experience levels. As well as the generic knowledge, the airlines (specific and general) standard operating procedures and philosophies are also ingrained into the training regime. This happens up and down through the entire syllabus and allows for the succesful transition into this type of flying at this level of experience.That sounds a bit like an MPL to me, not the best idea in the world.

When people start focusing on procedures and philosophies first rather than basic skills then things go to ****.

See AF447 for details.

mad_jock

4th Jun 2012, 13:45

G I have always taken Beelzebub as a respected trainer in a legacy Carrier who likes the product his choice I prefer alot more hand foot skills and experence.

He wants a blank bit of paper when coming into the training deptment. So much of a blank bit of paper they don't really have much clue about anything so you can teach them what ever you like.

They are also in the enviroment that a low houred pilot will always be stuck next a very experenced Captain who is in the main significantly older than them. This gets rid of most cockpit gradient issues. It won't matter that they won't have a clue for a long period because they won't get a sniff at the LHS for double figure years and possibly 1000's of hours as well.

They are also in the enviroment that the SOP's are more water tight than a ducks arse. And they are flying hardware which is suited to the magenta line borg. You can read numerous threads on here bitching about various SOP's being changed just to protect the company from low houred cadets. Also alot of carriers have quite strict limits based on experence about what conditions the FO can actually operate the plane in. For example I saw one card which stated that under 1000 hours they wern't allowed to land in more than 10knts xwind and no tail winds. 1000hrs on type and your up for the LHS in some companys.

Now the problem is that these carriers don't actually require enough of these pilots to sustane the amount of training places availabe or for that matter enough capacity that if they should require in the future that there will be sufficent availble to suit thier needs.

If there arn't enough people willing to self fund these courses the option won't be available in the future for them to have a choice how there cadets are trained unless they invest a significant outlay. Also there arn't pilots sitting on standby without work waiting to go, trained the way they want them.

Vertical intergration is just a fancy way of saying we ignore everything apart from getting them ready to join the magenta line Borg. Miss out all the airmanship stuff to do with flying singles and piston twins, just focus on being able to have the mangment skills to operate an automated flight deck. Then things like AF447 happen, which if they don't happen very often is an acceptable risk.

In essance if someone else is paying for these courses or has a deal going go for it. But if your self financing don't subidise the big boys training costs.

Bealzebub

4th Jun 2012, 13:46

When people start focusing on procedures and philosophies first rather than basic skills then things go to ****.

Yes, but when the procedures and philosophies are taught in conjunction with the basic skills it provides a broader perspective that is often lacking. The intensity of these programmes allow for the progression at the end of them. They are most certainly not for everybody.

Genghis the Engineer

4th Jun 2012, 13:52

One would hope that somebody with a significant instructional background has both significant flying ability, and an excellent understanding of the need to work to rules and procedures.

Whilst my airline experience is very limited, my significant test flying experience is that ex-instructors generally make very good Test Pilots, because of their combined good communication and teamwork skills, and ability to observe and analyse what's going on.

mad_jock

4th Jun 2012, 13:57

Yes but you don't get wined and dined at the finest resurants for chucking 60 instructors into jobs and neither do you get a raft of tax breaks and reduce you NI bill by employing them.

On the other hand.......

Bealzebub

4th Jun 2012, 14:13

Mad Jock raises an interesting point.

In fact one of the main requests we have from cadets is for more hand flying. In my experience they have few problems on this score. A wider problem in the industry (and speaking from the perspective of 20,000 hours of this type of flying) is the global prevalance of "automation complacency" or "magenta line flying" call it what you will. I cannot pretend that my manual skills set is anything like as sharp as it might have been in the days flying the 707 or the turbprops and piston aircraft that preceded that early jet aircraft handling.

The reality of jet airliner flying in the second decade of the twenty first century is "automation" and "magenta line." That is always (and with the best will in the world) going to comprise over 90% of an airline pilots operation. Basic flying skills do become rusty and need to be practiced wherever feasible. That practice needs to be more than a couple of "raw data" approaches on the bi-annual simulator checks.

There is a focused importance on the need to recognise the levels of automation and when to switch between them. There is a focused importance on including manual flying as a part of the routine operation. It may be very de rigeuer to refer to cadets as the "children of the magenta line" but in fact it is the senior, very experienced pilots, like me, who are the main sinners in this respect.

The idea that 1000 hours of instructing, or 250 hours of "flying in all types of weather" somehow sets you up for a life as an airline pilot in a way that cadet entry never could, is frankly ludicrous. Even if that were just my opinion, the reality of those that have come into airline flying from just this sort of background simply doesn't bear that out.

Bealzebub

4th Jun 2012, 14:24

One would hope that somebody with a significant instructional background has both significant flying ability, and an excellent understanding of the need to work to rules and procedures.

You would hope so, but that isn't always the case.

Whilst my airline experience is very limited, my significant test flying experience is that ex-instructors generally make very good Test Pilots, because of their combined good communication and teamwork skills, and ability to observe and analyse what's going on.

Yes, test flying is a very small part of the industry. I would suggest that whilst it selects the best candidates with all the skills you state, many come from military backgrounds, and the rest are also the best qualified candidates from their respective backgrounds.

Within the airlines "cadet pilots" have become a very mature component. This is a much expanded concept, it isn't a new one. The cadets of 15 or 20 years ago are now a significant part of the instructors, examiners and management base, of those same companies (and others).

mad_jock

4th Jun 2012, 14:43

Yes we all get rusty when we fly a managed cockpit.

But we still have the basics hard wired in even if they are rusty and its still there when it goes wrong even if its not quite as slick as when you were wanging your 707 round. But its still there.

An instructor for example is hardwired to lower the nose if they think they are stalling. They have more than likely stalled an aircraft 100's of times. They know that holding the stick full back is never going to save the day unlike the AF447 pilots. Thats going back to WW1 flying and dealing with the stall.

And to be honest though you haven't really said anything which desputes the point.

In essance if someone else is paying for these courses or has a deal going go for it. But if your self financing don't subidise the big boys training costs.

truckflyer

4th Jun 2012, 14:44

I had the pleasure to fly with Oxford graduate during my MCC / JOC course at Oxford.

And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!

Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!

Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?

I understand getting the correct mindset, and train of thought, to be streamlined into SOP's and check-lists, but these will have very limited experience being left to handle a situation where automation has failed, and they are alone in control, of course we know these things will NEVER happen, will they, just like AF447 would never happen!

I would say comparing to modular guys, who have been sorting out their own situation, and have had PIC time, been alone to handle whatever is thrown against them, the mentality of the airlines who believe in the streamlining of robots, is an extremely simplistic model.

Something Ryanair have proved, that regardless modular or integrated, if you have the right mindset you will succeed, of course given a chance.

However what these "big" training schools are doing, is locking out suitable candidates, just because they do not belong to the exclusive club that can afford to pay CTC £100.000 to get a job guarantee.

I am not impressed by what i have seen of their selection process, compared to what the germans and swiss do, this is a big joke, and another money spinning idea created by the people in charge!

Genghis the Engineer

4th Jun 2012, 14:56

Yes, test flying is a very small part of the industry. I would suggest that whilst it selects the best candidates with all the skills you state, many come from military backgrounds, and the rest are also the best qualified candidates from their respective backgrounds.

Within the airlines "cadet pilots" have become a very mature component. This is a much expanded concept, it isn't a new one. The cadets of 15 or 20 years ago are now a significant part of the instructors, examiners and management base, of those same companies (and others).

I don't dispute any of this (although probably the biggest selector for a job in test flying is a strong desire for a job in test flying - most of us worked at getting there for years).

But I am comparing the many TPs I've worked or flown with, from every possible background. The instructors, particularly multi-crew instructors have generally slotted into a flight test environment very well, others have managed but have often found the transition tougher.

Cows getting bigger

4th Jun 2012, 15:20

Answering the OP's post - yes.

Picking up on the handling skills argument, I think most of us agree that there are two very clear streams of aviators. Firstly, there are the throttle and stick type who are undoubtedly well rehearsed in how to fly an aircraft. Then there are the magenta children who are equally competent at operating an aircraft. There is a bit of overlap, mostly retained by hairy ar$ed ppruners who have too much time on their hands :)

Personally, if I am walking, talking baggage I prefer to have the operator sat at the front of the tube. Without doubt, flight safety has improved over the decades as systems (both technical and CRM based) have developed and I would suggest that the AF447 scenario is far less likely now that the old style captain/co-pilot testosterone driven accidents were some 30-40 years ago. Equally, when the computer says no, many of the magenta children will be looking left for inspiration. The worrying bit will be when the left hand seat is also occupied by a magenta child.

One final point - if you want to fly, don't think that an airline job will satisfy your thirst. It will pay the bills, feed your ego and possibly open the door to the occasional no/low cost knee-trembler. However, I guarantee that if you stick with an aviation a career, it will not be too many years before you get that FI rating and spend a few days a month having fun. :)

mad_jock

4th Jun 2012, 15:39

Picking up on the handling skills argument, I think most of us agree that there are two very clear streams of aviators. Firstly, there are the throttle and stick type who are undoubtedly well rehearsed in how to fly an aircraft.

You can fly and then be an operator its not that hard a transition.

There is some debate though when the computers start giving you **** do you hit the red button and fly it or do you hang in there and try and sort it. At least if you have the background in flying be it 20 years ago you have at least got that skill set.

Trying to take a managed cockpit pilot back to one that you have to fly in is a much steeper learning curve than going the other way. They have to learn a skill set which they have never experenced before and takes motor skills which have never been developed past infancy.

Artie Fufkin

4th Jun 2012, 17:41

I had the pleasure to fly with Oxford graduate during my MCC / JOC course at Oxford.

And they was addicted to automation and magenta lines, as soon as we lifted of , and they was PF, Click click - LNAV, VNAV - AP , AT, job done!

Now I wanted to to hand fly the beast most possible, because I wanted to get value for my money, I knew that the autopilot was a very well capable pilot, and could fly the sim perfectly!

Yes, they where perfectly programmed robots, did not even have any SEP time PIC, now tell me about positive learning experience and the philosophies behind this?

I just don't even know where to start!

The MCC/ JOC at Oxford, when I went through, was not about hand flying everything. You were there to learn how to fly in a multi crew environment and learn how modern jet aircraft are flown on the line.

There was an opportunity to hand fly the aircraft in numerous sim details, but In most you were "encouraged" to put the a/p in and concentrate on the learning objective of the sim detail. Keeping the a/p disengaged and insisting on hand flying everything sounds like a serious CRM failure!

Bearing in mind the increased workload of manual flight, on an MCC, with money paid by both trainees, I wonder if your sim partner also felt he "had the pleasure" of flying with you?

And I confess, truckflyer, your attitude has really annoyed me, but your English is extremely sub standard for someone who claims to have run his own business for 20 years. Are you a troll?

truckflyer

4th Jun 2012, 19:53

Correct, but they also gave us the option during parts of the sorties, if we wanted to hand-fly or go full automatics straight away!

My partner was a great guy, not saying anything bad about him, however he was not very happy to do hand flying.
Also having spent close to £9x.xxx , he did not even have a SEP to show for, so he could go and take a flight to keep himself a bit current.

Yes sure, knock my language skills, that's a mature way of responding when it something that rubs your back! Guess English isn't my mother tongue! But it was good enough for you Artie Fufkin to das gut verstehen, oder was?

Bryr meg ikkje om ka du tenker jeg, uansett!:eek:

By the way, what exactly annoyed you? You yourself have not been a big fan of the aptitude tests, example from Gapan that you wrote about?

Dan the weegie

4th Jun 2012, 19:53

I can't argue with a vertical training program to train people who have been specifically recruited for a company training program, that makes total sense as with a cadet program they have gone through a genuine recruitment process and you have selected the people that you want to come work for you. You can always teach flying skills to someone and if you the customer has control over the standard of training then you will undoubtedly get the what you asked for or at least you know exactly the standard to which that person can fly "enough to pass the test".

Equally I think that it's a bit far fetched to suggest that the product produced by the integrated schools is any more impressive than a well rounded, well trained person coming through the modular program, the difference is that you have zero control over the standard of training and you also have zero control over the level of experience so in effect you have no yardstick of how to judge this pilots flying skill or capacity at the non-flying aspects of the job as well. This in effect is probably why modular guys are somewhat ignored by the large airlines because the amount of work required to find out if any of these thousands of CVs relates to someone useful is disproportionately large.

I've met several instructors who were a long way short of being employable so it's incorrect to say that all 1000 hr instructors are great but those who are employable are really great to fly with on a personal level. This may be more just my experience of course.

With integrated students you have a known quantity, they can fly well enough to start learning and can do the basics of what you require so all you need to figure out is what they will behave like in the job.
It's about "good enough to do the job". Truthfully that's what most employers want, but it does raise a question about how well rounded those people will be when they swap seats.

I did the MCC/JOC at OAA and there was heaps of automation but we decided to hand fly as much as possible because that's what's in the RYR assessment and what the course is there for is to get you through a sim assessment :) in a high performance aircraft. You get the real multicrew stuff when you do the TR and Line training. Learning to achieve the lesson objective while hand flying the aircraft was a far more difficult task and ultimately led to better understanding of what's going on. We did do the automatics stuff when it was required by the lesson but encouraging the students to constantly put the AP on suggests the instructor felt a lack of ability in hand flying that might distract from the course material ;).

What I also learned there was the basic flying skills of even the good cadets was pretty poor, they were excellent at flying with automation and getting the SOPs but give them something unexpected wind or wx wise then there was inevitably a panic. It unquestionably had something to do with the training they received in the US which sounded truly appalling. This may have been isolated but the stories I have heard from a reasonable number of ex students over a period of time would strongly suggest otherwise :).

Artie Fufkin

4th Jun 2012, 20:47

By the way, what exactly annoyed you?

Implicit criticism of your sim partner, who clearly understood the learning objective of the sim session better than you did.

(Apologies for my crack at your English)

but encouraging the students to constantly put the AP on suggests the instructor felt a lack of ability in hand flying that might distract from the course material

dan the weegie, admittedly its a long time since I did the MCC/ JOC, but my memory of this course appears very different to yours. For example, I remember one session, flying LGW to AMS and spending most of the time holding over SPY discussing fuel management and diversion strategy whilst dealing with a hydraulics failure.

Can't say I'd have been terribly impressed if my sim partner decided to fly this manually.

As I remember, the first 2 or 3 sessions involved manual flight and you were expected to be "up to speed" with flying the aircraft by the end of that.

truckflyer

4th Jun 2012, 22:11

First my sim partner was a nice guy, and an excellent pilot. However this was particular during the JOC part of the course, and the instructor did not consider automatics was required for these parts of the sortie, and i totally agreed, however that AP would go on everytime, even though there was ample chance to do some proper handflying!

As also was mentioned, RyR and most other companies who assess you, want you to hand fly the machine, so spending nearly £4K, I would use every chance to hand fly the sim, instead of chicken out every time the stress level and workload was increased due to this. It was not excactly complicated to push on the AP when needed.

I mean doing an ILS approach pushing LOC, white for White Loc - Green Loc - Push APP - and sit and monitor the instruments, do that twice, and you know that like the back of your palm, let's get moving and have some fun, and do that ILS without Autos, and lets take away the ILS on the Nav display too!

I can sit and practise all night on the autos on MS PMDG 737 if I want for free!

By the way, when he did handfly, he wasn't bad at that either.

By the way, I know of guys doing their line training, being encouraged by their captains to hand-fly the approach, so it can't be that bad.

You should be able to multi-task, hand fly and CRM!

Anunaki

5th Jun 2012, 14:24

....Ok, back to topic, it is heartbreaking to get to the end of a course where you had to strategically plan, chase everything, study hard and "spend" hard, sacrificing many things for a broken dream,just to realise it in the end that the modular route is dead in the water, at least in the British market.
I'm sorry,just an opinion, but if I have to advise someone as to what route to take it is definitely the integrated tied to an airline programme.
I have a feeling that by 2013 there will be no entry available to any modular cadets in the British carriers,the only one left behind being Ryanair.
Do modular students get airline jobs? am I mistaken if I say rarely(excluding Ryan)? instructing?with FTO's going bust(Cabair and recently BCFT) I doubt there are many jobs around as FI...cargo jobs are mostly for experienced(didn't know of any hiring low houred)aerial survey,none, bush flying..I have made few contacts and was told they prefer locals now, South America want south americans,Asia...P2F A.K.A modern slavery(debt-bondage)..so keep up the fight,but Imo, it is worth to wait a little longer,work so you can have the extra cash as to afford the OAA/CTC integrated airlines schemes ,save yourself from the heartache :uhoh:

mad_jock

5th Jun 2012, 14:57

just to realise it in the end that the modular route is dead in the water

Its not though I must have flown with 15 new modular FO's in the last 2 years.

There are more than a few FI jobs about and I know of 6 FI's in the last 3 months that have got airline jobs and with British carriers. One flying school in Scotland has advertised for FI's 3 times in the last 6 months because the instructors keep heading off to the airlines.

neilssmith8

5th Jun 2012, 15:05

Good Afternoon,

I just wanted a bit of advice from others that may have experience of this...

I'm 27 (28 in Dec) and I have flown around 30 hours of my PPL, however, due to personal debt and university, I have not flown for a few years. I am looking to pay off my debts in the next 12 months and start a fresh, with a large proportion of my wages going towards flying.

I wanted to whether or not I would still be able to get an airline job at the age of 38, if it were to take me at most 10 years to achieve all my licences? Or would airlines overlook this in favour for younger pilots? This would be my first airline job. I hope that it will be a five year plan, but assuming the worst...

Also, are there many well paid private commercial jobs out there?

Money isn't the biggest issue for me, just the love for flying. I'm currently in a trainee financial adviser role and I'm sure the financial services would provide a good career if I wanted to stay in it, but I can't help but think about flying for a career.

Let me know what you think...

G CEXO

5th Jun 2012, 15:07

with FTO's going bust(Cabair and recently BCFT)

BCFT have gone bust?? :confused:

Jerry Lee

5th Jun 2012, 17:01

What? Wait??? Bournemouth Commercial Flight Training??? Damn, I was planning to study there:(

zondaracer

5th Jun 2012, 17:15

BCFT have not gone bust as far as I know. Bristol Aviation went into administration. Two completely different entities but both starting with "B".

Anunaki

5th Jun 2012, 17:28

My apologies boys,I mean't to say Bristol not Bournemouth!I was considering the FI route but I feel that my age will get in the way once I try the airlines.I know in the UK you have the anti-age discrimination laws but some EU carriers still have age limitations,the market I want to target.
Mad-Jock,that is great news,but may I take a guess,that this modular guys were either with CTC ATP or CAE?
cheers fellas!

mad_jock

5th Jun 2012, 17:48

Nope Exeter, Tayside, Tayflight, Bournmouth, Bristol and another couple which I can't remember. None of the ones you mentioned.

Mickey Kaye

5th Jun 2012, 19:19

One aspect of integrated training that's rarely mentioned is the employability of such pilots in a GA environment.

Over the last few years I've seen more and more integrated students who have failed to secure airline positions attempt to kick start their career by moving into GA.

Sadly they frequently ill prepared for this. They have a bare minimum of hours. Have never done a single unsupervised/none training flight.

They never pulled an aircraft out of a hanger barely know how to top up oil or put fuel an aircraft and as for something like de-icing well they haven't a clue.

I've even seen applicants who have never even flown in the UK and after shelling out nigh on a 100 grand to end up in a position worse off than someone who has forked out 60 grand less to me something is missing.

mad_jock

6th Jun 2012, 06:20

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/470918-instructor-rating-chance-getting-employment-2.html#post6894061

Just to show that a Flying school owner has a good through put of instructors moving on to airlines.

flystrathclyde

6th Jun 2012, 07:35

Mad Jock,

I can confirm we are still on the look out for good flying instructors. We have a steady throughput to the airlines.

The majority of these are Modular students. Several have come through our own training and continued to the instructor route either by choice (to gain more experience) or simply to keep active while they await their first break into the airlines.

Our latest instructor to go (Paul) keeps up to date on Pprune and is in the final stages of his Loganair type rating. Gordon who completed his CPL/MEIR with us is half way through his instructor course.

So the trend continues and I can confirm Modular students DEFINATELY have a good chance of jobs. There is a good argument that Modular students have better experience as they are off flying themselves early in their training.

Our courses are all Modular as we link to AST based at our airport in Perth for the ground school. We have had a few instructors who have developed from Integrated courses who have also moved on. The big thing we think makes a difference is the persons attitude - this speaks volumes more than how they completed their training.