Has anyone done the Wings Alliance "Airline Ready Course"

[shy ted]

Has anyone done the Wings Alliance Airline Ready Course (ARC)?

I can't work out whether they are just offering a very expensive (£7.5k) MCC/JOC, or whether the additional cost compared to a "standard" MCC/JOC (which typically costs £3k to £4k) is justified by additional course content / value, or whether it is a "pay loads extra and in return you might get a chance for an interview with one of our partner airlines" method of extracting money from wannabes.

On the face of it it seems odd that an organisation promoting lower cost modular training has such a high-cost option as its only directly marketed offering - or is the whole Wings Alliance just a construct designed to channel business in to a premium-priced course which no-one would look at otherwise?

If anyone has any experience I would like to hear it. It would be great if there is real value in their offering, I'd just like to understand what it is.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

I think they are still setting it up. It's a relatively new programme. In my humble opinion, it would really make sense if you did your previous training with either of the member schools of the program, otherwise I would just go anywhere else. No doubt Cardiff Aviation is a great place to train at, but so are CRM Aviation at White Waltham, FSB Berlin and Simtech in Dublin.

[Alex Whittingham]

The first course is just going through. As this was a 'shakedown' course we didn't charge for it. The participants may feed back, I don't know if they are PPRuNers. As Ted says, there are a variety of MCC/JOC course providers out there, many of whom are very good. The price differences reflect the sim time and sim type more than anything else. Offerings differ, my research indicates the following for comparison:

http://s32.postimg.org/glxpc8qx1/mcc.jpg

Unfortunately a good two thirds of providers do not put costs on their websites so I may have some of this wrong, if so, apologies and please correct me. In particular Kura's price is only what people who have been through it say they paid. Anyone who can help with that please do.

This particular course is only available to pilots who completed their professional training at Alliance schools and it is worth noting that like the two other top end courses it is pass/fail. The aim is to place the pilots with partner airlines, as you say. As to that, Loganair have an ongoing need for pilots and only take modular, Monarch have said they will take Alliance modular pilots later this year and there is one other airline involved that I can not yet name. Hopefully more will follow, there is an appetite for self-funded modular pilots out there, the airlines' issue is sorting the wheat from the chaff.

[this is my username]

Thanks Alex, useful to see the comparisons between the courses.

[gfunc]

Does anybody have a good guide to the requirements of a MCC/JOC? The courses listed by Alex all seem to have wildly varying formats and costs. I've heard rumours (which could well be nonsense) than some people have been denied job interviews on the basis of too short an MCC/JOC.

Since I'm looking closely at these courses, I'm trying unsuccessfully to weigh up the advantages of the various courses, especially as there is such a disparity in prices etc. It's really hard to weigh up the premium put on the courses with airline connections (e.g. CTC) is justified, as a consumer isn't really privy to the real nature of the relationship: sales pitch or real pathway? Some folks I have spoken to are dead set on going for a premium course, whereas others are trying to get their course completion certificate as cheaply as possible.

Back on topic, one thing that jumps out from Alex's list is that the Wings Alliance course is more than twice as much as the Cardiff Aviation one, but from what I understand the Wings Alliance course is conducted at Cardiff Aviation (please correct me if I'm wrong) - other than 12 more sim hours, what else is included?

Cheers

[Alex Whittingham]

Some background first. The EASA requirements for an MCC course are 25 hours of theoretical training and 20 hours of practical training in at least an FNPTII simulator. The competencies to be achieved are set out in AMC1 FCL.735.

The most basic MCC courses just satisfy the minima. Others take the view that the 20 hour course just begins to scratch the surface and design longer courses, the extra element is called a Jet Orientation Course (JOC) and is completely unregulated by the CAA. Obviously you pay more for more hours, but the thinking is that you get a course that better prepares you for employment and which increases your chance of both initial selection for interview and actually getting through. Most airlines now insist on more than a bare MCC course, some identify either hours minima or specific MCC/JOC providers. Finally, different providers have different training philosophies, some MCC/JOC courses are to an extent modelled on type rating training, others ignore the type as far as it possible and concentrate on Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) training that would apply to all types.

The top end providers include a lot more than most, in particular extra ground elements of non-technical core competencies (such as training on the commercial aspects of aviation, team building, leadership, management & communication, professionalism & the pilot's role, knowledge & standards (SOPs), diagnosis & decision making, workload management, customer service and non-normal event handling. These will not all be taught on all courses, the best providers will teach it all and teach it well) They will also include employment selection screening - interviews, team exercises, solo exercises - to identify pilots that meet their high standards and enable them to go to the airlines and say 'this pilot has been trained in core competencies and their operating skills assessed, and would be suitable for recruitment.' The airlines like this because they have neither the time nor the resources to put each applicant through a 40 hour sim phase and all the non-technical training. If they are convinced by the provider's training and selection program they give priority to their pilots when recruiting. They will always also interview and quite probably sim check even these applicants. The existing providers that do this in the list above are CTC with their ACQ program and Kura. Each has links to airlines that they feed the successful pilots into. All this costs money - hence the higher prices.

To answer your specific question, the Alliance program starts with selection, then there is a two week course of non-technical and technical training (including all the above) first by distance learning then concluding with 4 days in the classroom, then the sim phase. After the sim phase there is a 2 day advanced pilot core competencies course (not included in the above table). Once an airline is identified there is further airline specific selection training. In these respects it is substantially the same as Kura's and CTC's courses.

Ultimately you should choose the course that suits you best!

[parkfell]

The offical certificate for the CAA is the MCC certificate which in essence says you have satisfactorily completed the course. You present it for the first multi pilot type rating.
It has been known for "attended" the course to be issued instead where a less than impressive performance was achieved.
The issued certificate is not based on pass/fail.

The JOC element is not regulated by the CAA, and may be embedded into an extended MCC course, or stand alone.

The bottom line is that it is preparing you for the first multi pilot type rating, and the more quality training you have, the easier it will be on the type course, both for you and the trainer.

Those ATOs with links to airlines will recommend the better valued customers.

[sapperkenno]

Surely you just do the bare minimum, cheapest course to get the piece of paper in the current hiring climate?
I'm still amazed how American flight crews seem to work together alright despite not having a requirement to have done a "multi crew certificate"...

I also have trouble figuring out how a good friend who is retired UK airlines captain (retired within the last 4-5 years) never did such a course during his career, and neither did his peers who were given grandfather rights. The cynic in me suggests it's just another way of getting money out of people, and surely the onus should lie with the airline when training you to fly for them and follow their SOPs, or be taught during a type rating.

I'm also surprised that it seems the likes of Oxford and CTC are becoming attendance courses too when doing the zero to hero CPL/MEIR (with ATPL exam passes) route, and you just keep throwing money at them until you pass, and either get a job or throw more money to pay2fly rather than having to prove any real skill or aptitude anywhere along the line. I've flown with a few of these cretins now in light GA, and I'm honestly shocked and quite disgusted that they hold EASA CPL/MEIR yet can't operate a light single safely or have any sense of captaincy or ADM skills.

[parkfell]

The requirement for a MCC course/certificate was mandatory from 1 July 1999 when the UK formally adopted JAR. The first multi pilot type rating required the certificate from that date.
And from 1 January 2000, the ARB exams ( written type rating) ceased. Just read the books, no course required.

So a higher initial standard was required.

[fibod]

The comparison with the FAA market is interesting, and worthy of deeper evaluation.

It is common for JAA/EASA pilots to obtain a multi-crew job on graduation form a flight school, with maybe 200 hours or so under their belts.

Typically an FAA licenced pilot will not get an airline job until they have amassed at least 1500 hours.

There are many other differences between the systems. For example, the theoretical knowledge requirements under the FAA are lightweight in comparison with EASA.

Neither system results in a higher accident rate than the other, so arguably neither is better than the other; they are just different.

What is important to understand, however, is that each is a total system. It is not wise or indeed possible to cherry-pick from either. If you don't like the regulatory requirements, don't apply for the licence. If you want the licence, stop trying to battle the system, and do what it takes to get one.

Final word from an old sod. It worries me when aspiring pilots seem most interested in following the path of least resistance. If aviation is your passion, why don't you want to learn all their is to know about it? Why are you spending all your time and energy in looking for short-cuts? Aviation training has no equivalent to the X-factor. Ultimately, those who have put the time, money and effort into their apprenticeship make the best (and safest) pilots.

It can be quick, good and inexpensive, but not all three at once.

[paco]

"Final word from an old sod. It worries me when aspiring pilots seem most interested in following the path of least resistance. If aviation is your passion, why don't you want to learn all their is to know about it? Why are you spending all your time and energy in looking for short-cuts? Aviation training has no equivalent to the X-factor. Ultimately, those who have put the time, money and effort into their apprenticeship make the best (and safest) pilots."

From another old sod :) - hear, hear!

[Alex Whittingham]

On the plus side the FAA has its own internal watchdog which on occasion criticises it for not doing things right. FAA failing to ensure airline pilots retain flying skills (https://aviationvoice.com/faa-failing-to-ensure-airline-pilots-retain-flying-skills-201601121746/#.VyhRWoAXRcU.facebook). Not much of that with our own CAA, no-one regulates the regulator here.

[Reverserbucket]

True Alex, but EASA are waking up to the lack of standardisation amongst professional flying instructors and the significant differences in training within a 'harmonised' Europe. Perhaps a return to CAP509?

sapperkenno
I'm also surprised that it seems the likes of Oxford and CTC are becoming attendance courses too when doing the zero to hero CPL/MEIR (with ATPL exam passes) route, and you just keep throwing money at them until you pass, and either get a job or throw more money to pay2fly rather than having to prove any real skill or aptitude anywhere along the line. I've flown with a few of these cretins now in light GA, and I'm honestly shocked and quite disgusted that they hold EASA CPL/MEIR yet can't operate a light single safely or have any sense of captaincy or ADM skills.
Becoming?....The key here is production - these are businesses that must meet KPI's and whose customers have been lead to anticipate success. They weren't being trained to fly single-pilot multi-engine types - that was nothing more than an obstacle to achieving the dream sold to them by the ATO. Some may argue that it has forever been this way but I disagree; look at the AST Perth thread here http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/571663-s-t-perth-scone-1966-a.html - I bet there are no student's these days who keep a diary of their training or make any photographic record of what should be one of the most enjoyable and important parts of their life and career (unless you count the dumb sounding blogs where you see written "today I fly the plane with the two engines for the first time...another box ticked towards a proper plane and my four stripes - awesome!" and selfies of them on their first solo taken from outside the cockpit looking in using a GoPro). I feel that fibod has hit the nail on the head by asking the question If aviation is your passion, why don't you want to learn all their is to know about it? The reason is that few seem passionate about what was once a great career with great people and great prospects. Sadly, like much in life today, flight training is more concerned with the price of everything and value of nothing.

[sapperkenno]

Final word from an old sod. It worries me when aspiring pilots seem most interested in following the path of least resistance. If aviation is your passion, why don't you want to learn all their is to know about it?

Are you seriously suggesting most of the guff included in the 14 ATPL exams is worth knowing?

I am probably as passionate as they come. First had a hands-on go at the age of 9, trial lessons for the odd birthday and Christmas as I grew up, 6 years in the Air Cadets. Joined the military (Army) but unable to become an Army Pilot (short-sightedness then laser corrective surgery, neither allowed for mil aviators at the time) so saved my money and did my PPL. Hour building in the US opened my eyes to how great flying is out there, and I found a great school to do all my professional qualifications (that EASA look down their noses at) through to flight instructor. Read all the books from my teens upwards, played on PC flight sims, spent most weekends at the local airfields.

Obtained UK instructor ratings on my PPL, and have been working full-time in aviation for the last 3 years as a flight instructor.

I also fly commercially in the UK on my FAA qualifications, which you probably see as the path of least resistance, when in reality it is a system that does the job with a lot less hassle. Now currently (at last) sitting the EASA ATPLs. Quite why I should relish having to take time off work, spend loads of money and mental effort to prove my passion, when I can jump in something with an N on the back, earn decent money and do what I love doing isn't what I see as learning all there is to know about it. I'd rather be doing it, not grounding myself to pass some nonsense exams.

[paco]

"Are you seriously suggesting most of the guff included in the 14 ATPL exams is worth knowing?"

Probably about 85-90% is what the average motivated pilot should know by the end of a career. I've never had a real problem with the syllabuses, although the Sopwith Camel attitude needed updating, but it's the questions that are the real problem - the useless knowledge you refer to is in those.

[Jwscud]

I actually find myself digging out obscure bits of ATPL knowledge fairly often on the line.

Now I am going long haul I am reminding myself of the more global bits of my met notes.

[parkfell]

I appreciate that the majority find the theory side a pain, and a means to an end, but I actually enjoyed my 4 week brush up course (pre JAR ~ ATPL NAV BLOCK) with late Sandy Thomson at Booker.
There were elements which did seem divorced from reality. PLOTTING on a 1:5,000,000 chart.
Even more bizarre was doing a GROUND PLOT & AIR PLOT for my UK CAA ATCO (no.54 course) exams many moons ago. Just how this was any practical use to me remains a mystery.
Something to do with pay grades in the civil service v. what pilots had to do at that time. Relevancy never formed part of the equation.

Bring back knowledge about the Moon. That is what I say:ok:

[Reverserbucket]

I could tell you the LMT at Broken Hill, New South Wales whist on the other side of the world and plot to within a cocked-hat of 2NM - neither of which might seem particularly relevant today but it was once. I am often surprised at how little some of the more recently trained guys and girls understand about how navigation really works or how to 'read' the weather (I don't mean TAF's and METARS). Morse is another example.

Quite why I should relish having to take time off work, spend loads of money and mental effort to prove my passion, when I can jump in something with an N on the back, earn decent money and do what I love doing isn't what I see as learning all there is to know about it. I'd rather be doing it, not grounding myself to pass some nonsense exams.
Why are you then?

[sapperkenno]

Why are you then?
As corporate work can be hit and miss, and flight instruction over winter in the UK isn't reliable. Would be nice to get a steady salary somewhere, and not have to worry where my next bit of work is coming from and how I'll pay the bills.

[EC DKN]

Is Wingsalliance working at all? They claim Mentored Pilot Training but once you contacted them they don't contact you any more! One the other hand, speaking with some of the schools involved they are not sure about what is going on. Moreover, although there is some Europeans schools involved there isn't any European partner airline, all are British and so there is a lack of understanding among schools about the process involved between EASA states (a lot of schools never hear before about the SOLI process, experience that on my own skin). Lastly, my opinion is that if the wings alliance ARC is a pass or fail and consequently you fail your chances to find employment are even worse then because, imagine I failed the ARC course and later on I have a selection process with Ryanair (my MCC from Cardiff) how can I explain that I just got the MCC because I was not as good as expected? (Of course they will know about Wingsalliance), it's even worst if you failed and then you want to apply to another airline that is involved with Wingsalliance!

[Alex Whittingham]

Did you enquire through the website EC DKN? We did lose some enquiries with a software glitch. Contact me by pm or email and I will make sure your queries are answered.

All three similar schemes (Kura, CTC and Wings Alliance) have pass/fail selection. The reason for this is the variable quality of candidates. To be fair, in all three schemes the main fail point is the selection process before the sim phase (group exercises, interviews, review of training records etc.) not many candidates are expected to fail after that, but it is possible. The selection processes are all different and sometimes a candidate fails one and passes another. As an example, Wings Alliance had a candidate that we thought was very good but had already been failed at the selection stage with Kura. Happily that pilot now has a job with Stobart, so it worked out.

[EC DKN]

Thanks Alex! I think it's just a matter of time that Wingsalliance will work, just patience. :)

[airpolice]

Happily that pilot now has a job with Stobart, so it worked out

Is he driving trucks up and down the M6 now?

Seriously though, I have no interest for myself, (too old) but three of my younger friends are keen to pursue a career flying for airlines.

I'm wondering what the difference, in cost and quality, might be when you compare going to a "partner" school as a student and going through "Wings Alliance" to the same school.

If they don't charge more for the same thing, then where is the revenue stream for WA coming from?

Is there a fee payable by the student to WA and if so, what does he get for that? Or, is there a "kickback" to WA from the schools for referrals?


What's the benefit of a student using WA? Are we to believe that WA has better hooks into the airlines than the existing schools that have been feeding them for years? Could it be that the recommendation comes from the same guy at the school, but with a different hat on, so it is taken more seriously?

When I am asked for advice, I need to say that I've looked into it first. So I wanted to understand if this WA is simply a marketing body for member schools, or if there is actually some underlying value.

[keith williams]

I'm wondering what the difference, in cost and quality, might be when you compare going to a "partner" school as a student and going through "Wings Alliance" to the same school.

If they don't charge more for the same thing, then where is the revenue stream for WA coming from?

The WA system is intended to overcome the advantages that students from the big integrated schools have over modular students, when seeking employment. So if the WA students are somehow given more favourable treatment that ordinary (non WA) students at the same school, then the non-WA students at WA schools really are being pushed to the bottom of the heap.

Is there a fee payable by the student to WA and if so, what does he get for that? Or, is there a "kickback" to WA from the schools for referrals?

From what I have seen on the WA website, the only additional cost (compared to non-WA students at the same WA schools), is the cost of the WA MCC/JOC.


What's the benefit of a student using WA? Are we to believe that WA has better hooks into the airlines than the existing schools that have been feeding them for years? Could it be that the recommendation comes from the same guy at the school, but with a different hat on, so it is taken more seriously?

Both of these propositions seem to me to be unlikely.

When I am asked for advice, I need to say that I've looked into it first. So I wanted to understand if this WA is simply a marketing body for member schools, or if there is actually some underlying value.

I suspect that the primary objective is to increase sales for the member schools, but I also believe that some of the people involved really do want to improve the lot of the modular students.

If you go to the WA website you can read the advantages listed for both the schools and the students. The headline statements make a lot of noise about “high standards and quality training”, but there does not appear to be any internal QA system whereby WA can control these factors. If the standards and quality in WA schools really are higher than in ordinary non-WA schools, we might reasonably expect that some schools will have applied to join WA and been rejected. Potential customers might like to ask if this has ever happened?

[airpolice]

If the standards and quality in WA schools really are higher than in ordinary non-WA schools, we might reasonably expect that some schools will have applied to join WA and been rejected. Potential customers might like to ask if this has ever happened?

I'd be more concerned if there is a territorial aspect to schools being excluded.

Rejected by whom, and on what grounds?

Has there been a behind the scenes auction for inclusion on the list of WA "approved" schools, which by the very listing and internet suggestion like yours, are not as good / up to the same standard.

On the basis that the CAA conduct impartial reviews, I thought that if an ATO is authorised by the CAA, then it is good enough. Better is surely a subjective term.

Alliance is a friendly word; clique or cartel, conjure up an image of not such a warm cuddly description of what might be the same thing.

What is the closed shop of WA "Approved" schools doing for/to the students of other non affiliated schools. Surely, in fairness, if the industry is going to portray the membership of WA as being the hallmark of excellence and connected progress, then there has to be transparency and independent verification of how the suitability of member schools is being verified.

I think it's a stretch to say that just because they have (presumably) signed up to be in this alliance, they are better than schools not admitted or not applying to join the fold. Looking at the list, I'm curious as to how there can be a verified "standard" covering schools in England, Scotland, Greece, France, Poland & Jordan.

What was the criteria that led to such a list; Evaluation, Historical placement success or a Joining fee?


WA must be getting revenue from someone, and that must be either schools taking a smaller cut (not in my tea leaves) or students paying more.



Alex Whittingham of Bristol Groundschool, a Founder Member of Wings Alliance, explained, “This is a unique high quality training route, the first of its kind in the world. Through our members we can offer a real high value alternative for aspiring commercial pilots who are seeking a direct route to airline employment.”

He added, “Modular training through the Wings Alliance will cost substantially less than the equivalent integrated course. Our Members do not have big company overheads associated with big Flight Schools and the Alliance itself is run as a not-for-profit organisation. Training with the Wings Alliance will give pilots approximately 25% more training time at, typically, 70% of the cost.”


Can the big integrated schools really be so inefficient in terms of costs? Are we to accept that somebody at BG suddenly found a way to get a gallon out of a litre pot, and decided to sell it for the price of a pint?

I know some people who were very happy with Tayside's training, and ability to place the guys in front of the right people at Loganair in order to get them jobs leading to Captaincy in a reasonable time frame. Without the need to be part of a wider alliance. I also know people who have secured jobs without needing to go to Tayside.

Please tell me this is not a case of "Join our club and pay your fees, or we will say that since you are not in our club, then you must be ****."

There is such a small list of schools, covering a huge geographic area, things don't add up.

[Alex Whittingham]

In partial response, at least...

Yes, the decision of which modular schools to initially invite to join the Alliance was difficult because of a complete lack of any objective criteria available, all there is is reputation and so the decision was made on that basis. There was an initial group of three or four FTOs, they recommended others and, in general the recommendations were accepted as correct. To be fair, the industry know who the good guys are. Now the Alliance is up and running new members are proposed, or they propose themselves, and the members vote. Moving into the future the members have proposed reciprocal standards visits from senior FIs to provide proper quality feedback from an instructor's point of view and we are working on a tripadvisor style open review platform for students to directly review FTOs. No, I don't think that a CAA approval means an FTO is 'good enough', the approval has little or nothing to do with quality, its all about manuals and processes.

Yes, prospective members have been turned down, some at the voting stage, others have been advised that were they to formally apply it is unlikely they would be accepted. This is sometimes because they have no track record, ie are new schools, sometimes because a straw poll indicates a formal vote would go against them. This is more friendly, I think, than an outright refusal but we have had some angry emails from schools accusing us of operating a clique or a cartel and I'm sure we will get more.

You are right that the only income WA is likely to receive comes from the MCC/JOC. We expect the income from that to support the website and mentoring functions. The company is limited by guarantee, it is non-profit making, there are no shareholders. As far as I understand it it can not be sold.

There is a geographical bias because the founder members were UK based. we are actively looking for members in other areas of Europe.

Yes there is an excessive price difference between integrated and modular, yes it goes to profit and marketing. The integrated course is shorter than the modular route, it could be cheaper, but it isn't. You can buy integrated courses once you get away from the 'big three' for as little as €40,000 in Europe, in the UK Flying Time do one for, I think, £60,000. These courses make a profit. I would be surprised if the 'big three' hadn't worked their cost base down to under £40K with the economies of scale and US training options.

So, yes, I'm expecting a certain number of attacks, clearly not all the industry is going to be pleased with the Wings Alliance. All I would say is look at what we do, look at the price comparisons on the website, check the figures for yourself if you want. Even if you don't do the MCC/JOC at the end and you get your Ryanair/Norwegian job on your own merits you lose nothing, it costs nothing, at at least you get some guidance through the modular minefield.