The Right Stuff - Flight International

[RVR800]

According to this weeks Flight ..

... amongst the self-selected pilots
are some who scraped their qualification
by hard work

.... However admirable their efforts and dedication

... they will conspire to cost the airlines more at all points in type and recurrent
training ...

The wrong stuff
scraping/hard work

The right stuff:
sailed through/easy

Discuss ?






[This message has been edited by RVR800 (edited 02 February 2001).]

[AJ]

RVR,

I also read that part quite carefully, and I don't think FI were neccesarily implying what the right/wrong stuff was.

Perhaps they were merely being honest??

Maybe those that have done the training in-house DO cost the airlines less money, and therefore the logical step (in terms of economics) would be to limit admission to those that had been through the airline's own TEP programme.

Of course some will deserve it more than others, but economics doesn't work like that. If self-sponsored cost more than Cadets, who are the airline going to shut the door to??

That's life....

[Token Bird]

Having just looked at this, I think they meant those who have only just scraped passes through the course, which could apply to sponsored pilots as well as self-sponsored. They weren't talking about all self-sponsored pilots - that wasn't what they meant by hard work.

Token Bird

[AJ]

Surely y'all don't find this topic that boring!! C'mon guys, whaddya reckon?

------------------

[Flying_Steph]

Rate of failure at the end of training (type):

-50% when folks have been through tough selection
-51% when folks didn't do any testing before starting the course.

Now make up your own mind ! ;)

I know, it's only statistics taken from a narrow and "obscure" study, and statistics are only useful to prove that more people die during war time than during peace time.
But if somebody has a better approximation, I'm all ears !

[scroggs]

Flights' editorial was neither intended to put down self-improvers, nor to suggest that pilots obtained through a selection system are always better by definition. I read it to mean that there are self-financed pilots who are marginal on ability yet qualify on paper for airline jobs. When those pilots apply for an airline RHS jet job, the airline can only go on the paper qualifications and the performance at interview. When the airline later discovers that this pilot is struggling, it has to pay for extra training and monitoring - possibly for the entire career of this pilot. That is expensive! The fact that a pilot holds a frozen ATPL does not mean that they are up to the task of being 50% of the active crew of a modern jet. Don't take it as an insult; it is a fact of life.
If airlines had recognised training schemes, the weaker candidates could be weeded out at earlier, less expensive stages without risk to the airline's paying customers. Over the last 40 years, only a couple of lines have invested in long-term training systems. The lack of suitibly qualified pilots of adequate ability, and the difficulty in verifying that ability under the current system, should really be encouraging the UK airlines to get together and collectively invest in an industry training system that will provide high-quality young pilots for their long term needs. Let's hope it happens!