Career change possible?

[Norman2]

Here's a question and a half.

I've had a CAA PPL for 20 years (about 400 hrs) and always managed to convince myself that it was never the right time to try to qualify as a professional pilot.

However after 22 years working in IT - I am heartily sick of working in an office and staring at a screen all day. I've always had a strong interest in aviation and regret not making it my career.

My employer is looking for volunteers to take severance and if I left I could so with about £50k after tax. But I am now 43 - is it worth considering a career as a professional pilot or not? I live near Gatwick but could move anywhere in the South of England.

Since my current job pays well, I don't want to end up wasting my time and money if I will just end up unemployed due to ageism or whatever, in the airline industry. I do have a wife and two kids so the responsibility does bear heavily.

So would someone like to offer an opinion on whether I would be able to get a decent job at my age, as a professional pilot and how much it would pay?

[Capt Pit Bull]

You might try looking back over past threads in this forum.

There is usually someone in a similar situation to yourself asking the same question every couple of months.

Many people will encourage you to go for it. I (when I'm about) tend to be the lone voice sugesting that it probably isn't a good idea.

Of course, it all depends on individual circumstances. Without going into details, it is certainly possible that you could get qualified and get a commercial job, but your age counts against you in 2 areas:

1. Your experience vs age ratio.
2. The time you've got to earn back your investment.

50 K may seem like a lot, but by the time you've got qualified, lost earnings for the time your training AND however long it takes you to get a job (an open ended proposition), you could easily find yourself in a position experienced by many other wannabees, namely broke and jobless, a couple of years down the road.

You should try and analyse exactly WHY you think becoming a professional pilot is something you want to do. Is it because of:

1.) Earning Potential.
2.) You 'just have to fly'.
3.) The lifestyle you think is associated with Flying.
4.) You want a career change.
5.) etc, etc.

You've only got to read the other forums on this site to see how badly the professional pilot community feels it is treated by the employers. I strongly advise that you are very clear about what you are buying into!

Basically, I don't think commercial aviation is to be recommended as a career. Nevertheless, I accept that for some people reason 2 comes into play.

If you're suffering terminal boredom, how about a career change within IT. Maybe you need a new employer rather than a new career.


CPB

[Kefuddle_UK]

I am a fellow IT sufferer and "Just have to fly" career changer :rolleyes:

From the perspective of somebody purely in the wanabee camp (still doing PPL) and so very inexperienced but having asked all the questions you are asking (and more) to a reasonably wide range of aviation folk here is my synopsis:

I would say at the moment, there is no need to quit anything. You have the req'd no of hours for a CPL and a whole lot more! A modular ATPL course is pretty cheap at £3000 or less. Whilst doing the ATPL if you gather IMC and Night quals and if you can a multi rating too in prep for the CPL training. With those and an FI(R) qualification and you can possibly make a half-decent living as a PPL instructor whilst you decide how to tackle the IR or wether to build on your current FI rating. Whats that in cost? £3000(ATPL)+£1500(Night)+£1000(IMC)+£6500(CPL)+£6000(FI(R)) = £18,000. The IR will set you back at least another £14,000 but I do not belive that is required if you follow the instructor route initially. I think you are in a good position regarding the money:risk ratio as you don't need to suffer the expense of initial training and hour building :)

However, one thing that has dawned on me is that when I eventually am qualified and am able to make the move I WILL be earning significantly less than the £prettygood+car+pension that I am currently on. I would therefore assume that so will you. Not putting me off. Nothing drains the lifeforce more than having to do something you hate everyday whilst knowing you could do something you have dreamed of doing :cool:

Hopefully I am not talking ***********. Good luck dude :D

Kef.

[Norman2]

Thanks for the input guys.

I guess it's all about how risk-adverse a person is. Looking out the window at the British weather makes me wonder how it's possible to earn a living as a PPL instructor over here (and I suppose another regret for me about not having emigrated to the US years ago)!

Shame the NVQ tax relief was withdrawn due to the abuse by recreational pilots. I once took a Microlight flight from Redhill (entirely for fun) and was advised I could claim NVQ tax relief!

Getting back to the point, my motivation would really be just to spend my life doing something I enjoy and with a reasonable income. I think I have always had an aptitude for flying, but assumed my eyesight was a barrier to a class 1 medical.

Indeed the CAA regarded moderate short-sight (-3.5 d) as a reason to deny a class 1 medical, despite the FAA having no problem with it, now the JAA allows up to -5 d (uncorrected) so yet again the CAA has over-regulated and unnecessarily killed off people's ambitions.

[Maximum]

Hi Norman2....like Capt Pit Bull I tend to be one of the few who urge extreme caution when this type of question comes along.

I've made a number of posts regarding this topic - have a scroll through them.

The main problem for you is discovering what being a professional pilot is really like before you commit all your time and money to it. Well, as Capt Pit Bull advises, have a look at some of the threads on professional terms and conditions to see how disgruntled a lot of us are at the moment. And I really can't see it getting any better.

Take something you love doing, then do it too much - that's the bottom line with being an airline pilot these days.

To get a taste of what I mean, and this may seem a little crazy, but try it as an experiment - when you get some time off, set your alarm for 0430, go and scrape the ice off your car, and drive for an hour. Come back, sit at your computer, start up FS2000 or whatever, and do four sectors, say Heathrow Glasgow or Heathrow Brussels and back followed by a Nice and back. Oh, and use the autopilot - but make sure you monitor the instruments constantly. Give yourself a forty minute turnround on each - but no cheating - don't leave the room. Turn the vacuum cleaner on for that authentic turnround ambience. Read a newspaper for ten minutes if you're bored. For lunch, (usually after third sector) scoff a crappy microwave meal in five minutes flat. After your fourth sector go out to the car and drive for another hour. Now your home. Repeat for five or six days. Have two days off, and start all over again.

Now that may appear a little flippant, but I can assure you, it's actually very close to the truth. In fact, it's a hell of a lot easier. Ah, I hear you say, but I'll have a Captain with me to relieve the boredom. Well, yes, if you like him/her fine, but there will be many more times when you have nothing in common, and that makes the day even harder!

You say you're sick of sitting staring at a screen all day - erm, sounds just like my job in the air.

I'm not trying to put a downer on your dreams, just trying to give you a taste of the reality of those dreams. I've trained and flown with a number of people like yourself, and the majority of them have said to me once they've been doing the job for about a year "now I understand what you were talking about".

I've said it before in other threads, but I'd use some of that money for some really good private flying if I was you.

If you still feel you have to go for it, then good luck, you'll need it. :)

[Capt Pit Bull]

I'm a little confused now. Have you got a class 1 or not? Or are you thinking class 2 then professional instructor?

Whats your thing in IT. Are the skills suitable for contract work? Maybe you could take the dosh, then alternate between training and contracting.

CPB

[mpala]

I work in Information Technology, and also feel discontent about my current career. I am 26 years of age, and wish there was a route into Aviation. Unfortunately, I don't have a PPL, but I did do quite a few hours reaching solo standard but had to cut short due to financial reasons. If there was a definite route, then I could pick up where I left off.

I read in the local paper that Easyjet were offering sponsorship via a third party FTO but it turns out I'm too old for this (as they wanted people UNDER 26 years of age). Not only that, but they want academic genuises.

A long time ago, my mother gave me an article from one of the womens magazines; which interviewed a 40 year old bloke who decided at the age of 31 his career as an I.T Manager wasn't for him, and started learning to fly via a modular route which saw him accomplishing his CPL at the age of 40. He managed to get a job flying for a Cargo Carrier, as they preferred older people (who were more likely to stay put) rather than the young early 20 somethings who would use this as an hour building route to the airlines.

I don't know if this is still the case with Cargo Carriers. Does anyone in here know ?

[scroggs]

A career change to professional flying at your age can be achieved. But those who succeed are few and far between, and tend to be somewhat celebrated on these pages! Indeed, our own Capt Pprune was a late arrival to this field at 37.

However, I would echo the cautious note of the Capt Pit Bull and Maximum. The job market at the moment, and for the forseeable future, just does not favour a late entrant with little experience. That will change, in time, but it's difficult to predict when, and how long the next period of 'good times' will last.

I wouldn't burn any bridges just now. Maybe take the severance, but get yourself set up in a new IT position while you obtain the ATPL qualifications in your spare time. Look at the aviation market when you are fully qualified and only then make the decision whether to leap or not.

And, as I've often said here before, make sure your family fully understand the risks of your chosen course, and are prepared to back you for the long haul ahead - even through unemployment and potential homelessness. Believe me, the risks are huge!

[Norman2]

I have a class 2 medical.

What I was saying is that I enquired about a class 1 some years ago and was told by the CAA that my eyesight was out of range.

Now the JAA rules mean that it is in range - strangely enough my eyes are exactly the same, but of course I have lost 10 years.

The IT contract market is pretty dead at present, due to the economic situation plus the fact that the Government has both opened the door to foreign IT workers and failed to stop offshore outsourcing, so our loss is India's gain.

It will be interesting to see how the ageist recruitment policies of Easyjet (you're past it at 26!) and others will be affected by the forthcoming EU regulations which will make it illegal (and not before time) in around 2006.

For anyone in their 20's in IT - I would recommend trying to work freelance, avoid having dependants and certainly to change to a more rewarding career while you can - or else just stash the money away and retire to somewhere sunny ASAP.

Looks like I will just have to look forward to my final salary pension and perhaps some instructing after early retirement.

[davesingleton]

Norman2, although I am only 28 and (with genuine respect) have more time on my side than yourself, I too have a bit of an issue with the eyesight side of things. I recently saw my optician and showed them the standards that are acceptable for a Class 1 medical and they did say that I should be O.K.

However, I am apprehensive about paying £400 pounds for a medical but at least by doing this I will have a definitive answer as to whether or not it would be worth my while to invest in the extra training.

If I remember correctly you do not have at present a Class 1 medical certificate. If you were to take one (Class 1) and pass, then you really would have a decision to make. If you don't because of your eyesight (which unfortunately is unlikely to improve) then at least you know now to look elsewhere.

If you do pass the Class 1, say for example you had laser surgery and the CAA/JAA were O.K. with that, presuming your wife and kids were backing you then why not go for it? It sounds to me like with your background in I.T. you would have something to fall back on if a career in Aviation did not work out. If you can, go for it! You won't get there if you don't, that is certain.

I know that the people above are giving you their honest views as to what you would be better off doing, some of the facts which you really must take into consideration, but whatever path you choose to follow may I wish you the best of luck. I Hope you find what it is you are looking for.

All the best.

[Norman2]

As far as I know, my eyesight is perfectly corrected and would now be accepted for a JAA class 1 medical.

I actually had my last class 2 at the CAA medical centre at Gatwick - and this is a sort of a cheap way to get a view on your chances of a class 1 - just ask the medical officer if he thinks if you would pass or not . Clearly this won't give you the extra tests but it's a start.

I think £400 is not really a barrier - you can think of it as a healthcheck anyway and the follow-on costs are far more.

You're right in that I could probably get another job in IT (although it's notoriously ageist) - but if I was the kind of person who took major leaps of faith then I wouldn't be asking these questions now anyway.

[Kefuddle_UK]

To get a taste of what I mean, and this may seem a little crazy, but try it as an experiment - when you get some time off, set your alarm for 0430, go and scrape the ice off your car, and drive for an hour. Come back, sit at your computer, start up FS2000 or whatever, and do four sectors, say Heathrow Glasgow or Heathrow Brussels and back followed by a Nice and back. Oh, and use the autopilot - but make sure you monitor the instruments constantly. Give yourself a forty minute turnround on each - but no cheating - don't leave the room. Turn the vacuum cleaner on for that authentic turnround ambience. Read a newspaper for ten minutes if you're bored. For lunch, (usually after third sector) scoff a crappy microwave meal in five minutes flat. After your fourth sector go out to the car and drive for another hour. Now your home. Repeat for five or six days. Have two days off, and start all over again.
Excellent stuff Max, but a forty minute turnaround? I thought the pros could do it in thirty ;) A serious question for you though: would you pack it in at the drop of a hat to take up a new career in IT then?

:)

Dave,

I seem to remeber the CAA telling me in the pre-requisites for the Class 1 that no laser surgery is permitted. Again, maybe somebody can clarify??

Cheers,
Kef.

[carb]

Just on the age barriers, I don't know if European regulations are the ideal way to bring in some fairness and equal opportunity but certainly we need a bit of a revolution in UK aviation to bring the culture into the 21st century. In the US, no matter who you are, if you work hard you can and will eventually progress up the ranks... just about anyone can get a class 1 medical, anyone can afford to get a PPL, and from there it just takes dedication and the right aptitude to get on. Observe the flight crews milling around in major US airport terminals and you can see a full cross section of humanity, all sharing just one thing in common, a love of avaition. Contrast this with the very strange demographics of British pilots; they all even look the same.

I'll happily sign up for sponsored training if offered, at 26 I'm still eligible for some current schemes and may well succeed, but even so, having seen inside now, I have to say that the whole ab initio cadet concept, which churns out a big chunk of the workforce and crowds out other pilots, is a very objectionable socialist idea... it of course originated in the dark ages with state-owned European airlines.

Bureaucrats 'select' the people they think will make the best pilots for their firm, using whatever barmy methods they want -- ranging from reasonably sensible aptitude tests, thru to personality and handwriting assessments and, of course, age, height, weight. The one thing missing is effort and achievement. Any young Tom Dick or Harry with a few A levels can, for the cost of a stamp, apply to be fast-tracked into an airline job and if successful will be handed it all on a silver plate, yet those who wish to work hard to get on by themselves are looked down upon and may get nowhere.

Obviously this is not new, but, it seems at this moment to be getting worse and people just casually comment on it like by-standers watching an accident in progress. The only good development is the gradually relaxing class 1 medical regime. It's very sad that the pilot employment market is going to need European regulations to liberate it!

Why do airlines want to create new inexperienced pilots when there are plenty of people keen to work hard and make themselves into experienced pilots? Sure, GA in the UK is underdeveloped/overtaxed but not that bad. Apologists can argue it's about quality, airlines choosing who they want, but I think it's actually about an elite airline clique, operating in cahoots with the CAA, BAPLA, and others, preferring to oversee a closed-shop of self-perpetuating clones rather than open the doors to the fresh air of diversity. :(

[Maximum]

Excellent stuff Max, but a forty minute turnaround? I thought the pros could do it in thirty A serious question for you though: would you pack it in at the drop of a hat to take up a new career in IT then?

Thirty minutes? Twenty minutes no problem.:)

As for me taking up a career in IT, I don't think they'd have me!

Seriously though, with all due respect I think your question's a wee bit naughty - I have no desire to go anywhere near a career in IT - never did have, never will have. However, I presume in your own case you did make a conscious decision to go down this route? (Albeit for all I know it was not your first choice). So a bit of a non sequiter IMHO.

I tell you what I would pack it in for though - my own business, lots of dosh, and the freedom to fly for my own pleasure when and where I want.;)

[davesingleton]

Norman2, if your sight is fine then to be honest with you I would go for it! I am aware of you family situation but suppose you succeed? Look at it that way. If you don't at least you had a go.

Kefuddle, I think (and please correct me if needed) that on the CAA Medical website that they do not state that refactory surgery prohibits you from gaining a Class 1 medical? I think that the CAA are rather ambiguous (if that is how you spell it) on the subject of refractory surgery. It seems to me that they are sitting on the proverbial fence.

All I know is that my uncorrected vision is within the CAA standards and that my corrected vision is virtually perfect.

As regards refractory surgery, perhapsthe CAA/JAA could clear this up once and for all?

Good look to all wannabees.

[Kefuddle_UK]

Max,
Seriously though, with all due respect I think your question's a wee bit naughty - I have no desire to go anywhere near a career in IT - never did have, never will have. However, I presume in your own case you did make a conscious decision to go down this route? (Albeit for all I know it was not your first choice). So a bit of a non sequiter IMHO.
Hehe :) I think you have neatly side-stepped the 'spirit' of my question but what the hell :D Au contraire! IT was my first choice of career. Indeed both my Mum and Dad met whilst working at IBM!

But what is choice when there are few options. Being a late developer, it wasn't until after a few years racing around London on motorbikes delivering letters that I had to opportunity to 'settle down'. If I appreciated my ability earlier I would have made an attempt to join the RAF, but I just simply assumed it was not feasible. Only now do I have the resources to persue what I previously considered out of reach. Technically then IT is my first choice, given what I saw as my options at the time :rolleyes:

Dave,

OK mate. I think I read it on the form they send you when you book your appointment but I can't be sure as I no longer have that paperwork.

Cheers chaps,
Kef.

[boofta]

Dear Norman2
As you have specified that you are unwilling to move beyond a geographical location in order to fly I believe you have answered
your own question.
If you want to pursue a flying career you must be prepared to
move, really move, around the world, not around southern UK.
You also have a family to support, aviation does not feed a
family at the beginning, maybe a small dog but not a family.
My humble suggestion is some casual instructing or similar even
lecturing ground school courses. This would get you involved in
aviation and continue to feed your family, giving you contacts and
more knowledge of possible job opportunities. Best of luck

[mpala]

I think the age barrier is caused by the fact that airline pilots retire at 55 years of age. For sponsorship (whether full, partial, or simply a 737 rating for a new ATPL'er), an airline has to pay x thousands and within <two years, they have a pilot who they will theoretically keep until they are 55.

A 28 year old cadet will become a FO at the age of 30 and will have 25 years potential service.

A 20 year old will become a FO at the age of 22 and will have 33 years potential service, thereby delivering a greater return for the original outlay.

Can someone clarify how easy it is to get into a Cargo Airline now at a late age ? A Cargo Airline won't benefit from the above equation as a young pilot is inevitably going to ditch them for a higher paid airline job at the earliest opportunity. An older person doesn't have the luxury of doing this and hence would be more likely to serve more years service in a Cargo Carrier.

[Kefuddle_UK]

Retirement for single crew is 60 yrs, 65 yrs for multi crew. BA retires its at 55 yrs. Some BA guys go on to fly for another 5 yrs in other airlines before retiring proper. Nearly all other airlines retire crew at 60 yrs. I belive there is EU legislation in the works to up the single crew retirement age up to 63 yrs, but this maybe just one of those rumours.

[davesingleton]

Norman2 and Kef,

I am sure that what I read about refractory surgery is what I saw on the CAA website, I think that if you had surgery over a year ago that theywould look at your case on its merits (although they virtually say that eyes that have been lasered are 5h1te).

Yet again, they could show more clarity on the subject. Speaking for myself, I do not need corrective surgery at the moment. But if I needed it in the future, what would happen to the Class 1? Anybody?

P.S. The rest of my village could do with some new DNA.

[quixote]

Norman2
Stay in IT where the money is, join the PFA, then build and fly your own aircraft like many professional pilots do to enjoy aviation again.
Don

[mpala]

Its easy for people to say "Stay with I.T", but for those who really aspire to flying - its hard to spend every day sitting in front of a screen when you really want to sit in front of an instrument panel. Its also difficult being surrounded by those who expect you to "have your heart in I.T and nothing else"

True, the money won't be as good, especially in a low end FO job on a turboprop, but money isn't the be all and end all (except when it comes to paying for the training). If you really enjoy the job, and it allows you to have a reasonable standard of living, then you won't be waking up every morning (or night) thinking "oh no, not an other day at work !".

[FlyingForFun]

I've come into this one a bit late, and everyone else has beaten me to all the good advice, so all I can do is repeat what's already been said.

First of all, get a Class 1. There's no point wasting time and money if you can't get the medical.

Once you've got that out of the way, as Kefuddle said right at the top of the thread, there's no need to quit your current career. By all means take the voluntary redundancy, the money will come in useful. You might even like to do the ATPL exams full-time before looking for another IT job - it depends whether you think you're up to working and studying at the same time (which is very hard - believe me, because I'm doing it - but not impossible). But there's no reason why you can't get another IT job, do the studying for the ATPLs part time, and do the CPL and IR during your holidays.

The fact is there are very few jobs out there for low-time pilots at the moment. Your age won't help, but even if you were younger there are still very few jobs out there. I'm much younger than you, but decided I need to stay in IT for the security, until I'm actually offered my first flying job. Also, if I can't get a job straight away, my IT job will pay for me to stay current.

Once you're offered a job, you will be taking a very large pay cut. Whether it's worth it or not is entirely your choice. I don't think you've said much about your personal circumstances (I skim-read a lot of this thread, though, so apoligies if you did and I missed it.) I certainly wouldn't be happy about starting off in aviation if I had a family to support, for example. But, if you know the kind of salaray you can expect to bring home and you're happy you can live on it, then go for it! Just make sure you're doing it with your eyes open, and with a backup plan if you can't find work.

Good luck!

FFF
--------------

[Select Zone Five]

Kefuddle_UK said...I seem to remeber the CAA telling me in the pre-requisites for the Class 1 that no laser surgery is permitted. Again, maybe somebody can clarify?? I believe the CAA's stance on this is that they "do not" recommend it. It means exactly that, ie. it doesn't rule you out but there is a chance surgery could screw up your eyesight completely, so they will not actually "recommend" it.

davesingleton said...However, I am apprehensive about paying £400 pounds for a medical but at least by doing this I will have a definitive answer as to whether or not it would be worth my while to invest in the extra training. I believe if you tell the CAA that you're not sure your eyesight meets the standards, they will test it first. If you do indeed fail, they will not do the rest of the tests thereby saving you quite a lot of money. I think the eyesight test is around £70 (not sure of this figure but it will certainly be cheaper than £400)

Good luck from a fellow wannabe...:)

SZF

[Footsie]

Kef and Dave

I had LASIK 18 months ago and am going for my Class 1 in early January. The CAA wanted to see my pre- and post-operative assessments, and I may have to see an opthalmologist when I attend, but LASIK itself is no barrier to a Class 1. You must be within +5 to -5D before treatment, be a minimum of 12 months post-op (although I think they may be about to reduce this), have no glare or other complications, and have 6/6 or better post-op.

My LASIK was a complete success - to the best of my knowledge I have no complications and was signed off by my clinic 9 months ago at 6/5 vision. I'm actually more worried about the colour blindness tests. They had some on the telly last week after Life of Mammals on the BBC, and I got one of the three wrong. I've since tracked down the Ishihara tests on the Web and got 24 slides in a row correct, but I'm still now a little concerned about the Lantern tests I believe they do at Gatwick.

Max

I tell you what I would pack it in for though - my own business, lots of dosh, and the freedom to fly for my own pleasure when and where I want

Err - that's me (although I could always use more dosh). Shall we swap? :D

[Barney Stubble]

Norman2

I trained alongside a chap in similar situation to yourself: was made redundant from bank manager job, early 40's, little prospect of reviving his banking career, loved PPL flying. He did as well as anybody through training, and even kept his wife and family! I would love to say he is now doing his dream flying job as he is a lovely bloke, but 2 years later there is little prospect of that happening especially considering the parlous state of the airline industry.

Of course this may change in the future, but this is a cut-throat industry when it comes to getting a job and there will always be greater supply of pilots than demand, so you can hope for the best but I suggest prepare for the worst. There is usually a constant demand for flying instructors so maybe you would settle for that as an end result, although you could not live on the pay so would need another means of earning.

Carb

I have to say that the whole ab initio cadet concept, which churns out a big chunk of the workforce and crowds out other pilots, is a very objectionable socialist idea... it of course originated in the dark ages with state-owned European airlines.

Not that this has much to with Normans dilemma, but this is such a strange idea it deserves some reply. How would you suggest ab-initio's without a money tree become commercial pilots? The whole idea of sponsorship is that it is treats everybody on merit not on how rich your parents are. I believe the practise actually started with the air force rather than state owned airlines (they only borrowed the idea). The RAF long ago discovered that younger candidates had a higher success rate in training, and that by selecting trainees who had demonstrated achievementin school and sporting fields they were more likely to be able to repeat that success when it came to flying.

The one thing missing is effort and achievement. Any young Tom Dick or Harry with a few A levels can, for the cost of a stamp, apply to be fast-tracked into an airline job

A levels require a lot of effort, and in fact most candidates selected for sponsorship have degrees, so there is no shortage of effort or commitment amongst them, indeed those who are successful in selection and the commercial pilot training deserve praise not sniping. If as you state there is room in aviation for all types and backgrounds, don't knock the sponsored chaps, they have worked as hard as anybody.

Barney

[carb]

Absolutely, every person is worthy of total respect whatever route they take into aviation, it's always hard, and I may yet benefit from sponsorship myself. But regardless, it's totally reasonable to criticise any system that discriminates based on age, height, weight, and so on. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.

[Maximum]

But regardless, it's totally reasonable to criticise any system that discriminates based on age, height, weight, and so on. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.

:confused: Sorry carb, but with all due respect I just don't get your logic. By its very nature, any selection procedure will discriminate. That's its purpose. Where does one draw the line? After all, its only through luck that some people are born with an aptitude for flying that others don't have - that's discrimination.

I'd like David Beckhams' success and money, but through a combination of nature and nurture I can't play football like him. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.:rolleyes:

[carb]

Playing football is a very physical activity so clearly some consideration of age, and height-weight, is sensible.

But if you're a pilot, then so long as you can maintain a class 1 medical, what difference does it make if you're big, short, not within some arbitrary age range, etc etc?

I've never heard anyone object to discrimination based on merit or aptitude but some of the things that airline selectors appear to be getting away with are ridiculous. Just look at the lack of diversity for the evidence.

[mpala]

I suppose there will always be some kind of discrimination in choosing airline pilots for different reasons. Height and weight to a certain degree have practical issues i.e. a really fat person wouldn't be able to fit on the flight deck - look at the problems which arise when fat passengers are put next to thin ones. Also, the medical probably has something to say about weight being fairly proportional to height. The age thing is probably to do with potential length of service i.e. a younger person will have longer to serve than an older person.

It is horrible for people to be discriminated especially when it comes to looks, academic qualifications, or background. How does being an expert in partial fractions (A-Level Maths) make you a better pilot ? Surely it would be better to go by actual flying experience, but then it would create discrimination on financial grounds.

As for the David Beckham argument, he was probably in the right place at the right time. There are footballers out there who could have ate David Beckham for breakfast, but they were never discovered. Chances are, these footballers stopped playing football at a young age (maybe due to some trivial reason such as the games teacher didn't like them, or they were discriminated), and went to work in I.T !

Further to my last post, I'm not turning this board into a "I hate working in I.T" board, but it seems as if most people on here, who are discontent, and pursue training to become pilots come from the I.T background. Do we have any discontent accountants, lawyers, plumbers or tax collectors in here ?

[Flysundone]

Norman 2

I decided to "go for it" when I was in my early forties however, I started on the proviso that I would become a part-time instructor first and an IR and job might come later.

I did all my ground study whilst in full-time employment followed by a BCPL and Intructor Rating. Instructed part-time and decided to do an IR once I had about 800 hours. Did an MCC and finally got a flying job this year on a turbo-prop. I consider myself to be very lucky.

Perhaps you should consider a similar route, that way you keep earning and you too might be lucky.

[Maximum]

carb.....I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I was only using football as an analogy.

My point is simply that in any occupation where demand for jobs outstrips supply, there is always going to be an element of discrimination or extreme competition.

The point is, with sponsorship its the airline's money, so they can basically do what they like.

If however, you come to them for an interview as a qualified ATPL/IR, they'll be using a wider set of criteria. I can assure you, I've flown with all shapes and sizes, gender and race.

[Norman2]

I think the age policy is discriminatory - a younger recruit is more likely to resign and join another airline, especially from the low-cost ones. So a "bond" repayable over say 5-10 years would be more sensible.

The reason they specify 18-25 is simply because they have more applicants than places and it's a legal way (at present) to reduce the number of applications they have to consider.

People may argue that younger pilots will on average have certain advantages - but these arguments are exactly the same as used to justify other forms of discrimination in the past - which now that they are outlawed - seem hopelessly outdated.

As for IT being a career - most of my colleagues never really thought of it as one. In a profession with less change and more entry barriers - experience = kudos. At my age in a law career I might be a QC about now and earning serious money.

[scroggs]

Age is a significant and proven factor in training success, and not only within aviation. If you're going to pay for your own training, and are prepared to continue throwing money at it until you pass, that's your prerogative. If you expect someone else to pay for it, you must also expect them to minimise the risks to their wallet. Employers don't have unlimited money, or time, to train their new pilots, and will select accordingly. This procedure will never be illegal, however unfair you think it is from your personal viewpoint.

As the one paying, the employer is the customer. Like you when you wish to purchase something, they are entitled to set their own criteria when doing so.

[Kefuddle_UK]

As the one paying, the employer is the customer. Like you when you wish to purchase something, they are entitled to set their own criteria when doing so.
Although I cannot fault your logic, the problem is that purchasing goods means purchasing inanimate objects. Employing people is not only a moral, ethical and implicit contract of responsibility to the employed person (and visa-versa) but also to that of society! Discrimination should be limited to a person's functional ability to deal with the job in question. Age most definately does not fall into that category. To say that older people do not respond to training because of their age is complete bullsh*t :) People do not respond well to training for only two reasons: 1) Their ability 2) Their motivation!

[quixote]

"To say that older people do not respond to training because of their age is complete bullsh*t "
I thought it was accepted that we learn faster when younger e.g. language learning, going solo etc so assume it applies to all training.

Don

[Kefuddle_UK]

Yes I heard that too, still don't agree and emipirical evidence is the strongest of all! Maybe when one is in one's 70's or 80's. If anything I think I can now read faster, remeber more and get the hang of mental and coordination tasks quicker than ever! My reasoning for this is that in later life one is building on knowledge already present rather than having to learn everything afresh such as when one leaves school. Then again I work in IT and that requires constant and unrelenting research to stay on top of technologies and stuff.

[scroggs]

Employing people is not only a moral, ethical and implicit contract of responsibility to the employed person (and visa-versa) but also to that of society! Discrimination should be limited to a person's functional ability to deal with the job in question. Age most definately does not fall into that category.

The responsibilities of an employer are prescribed by law, and may not include all those things that you would wish for. However, this is not an argument about an employer's responsibility to his employees, but about what methods an employer can use to ensure he gets the best employees for his purposes.

Where there are no other factors, age should not be used as a reason for not employing someone - although there is, I believe, no law that says so. However, as the RAF has discovered after 80+ years of training pilots, age is most definitely a factor in the success probabilities of student pilots. As they don't have unlimited time and money to throw at slower learners, they restrict entry (for pilots) to age 24.

Nevertheless, you will discover, if you research further, that most airlines' maximum age for employing pilots is around 5-7 years younger than their notional retirement age, i.e. about 48-55. That is to allow the individual a reasonable chance to advance to command, and for the airline to amortise the training costs (for an already-experienced airline pilot). It is only the entry into sponsored ab-initio training that is limited to young people. It's not discrimination, it is risk management.

[Splat]

Agreed.

I've also heard that the EU (bless em) is drafting some laws making age descrimination illegal in this country. Not sure how, or if it applies here, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

S

[Kefuddle_UK]

scroggs,

Nevertheless, you will discover, if you research further, that most airlines' maximum age for employing pilots is around 5-7 years younger than their notional retirement age, i.e. about 48-55. That is to allow the individual a reasonable chance to advance to command
That seems reasonable to me. I mean, if one of the qualifications for taking on F/Os is that the individual concerened has command potential then it stands to reason that there has to be enough working life left for this to be a practical reality.

It is only the entry into sponsored ab-initio training that is limited to young people. It's not discrimination, it is risk management.
Again, I have no problem with this. This is really a level removed from the employment stage. I don't see it as the employer's responsibility to train people who they do not currently employ - although it may make commercial sense to. We all have a personal responsibility to do what we can to ensure we are employable. It just so happens that for ATP roles this is expensive, but cost does not change the parameters of the argument IMHO. If someone wants to pay for my training prior to selection then that is a bonus.

Discrimination is actively choosing not to consider/select a person qualified for the job because of characteristics/attributes not related to the ability to do the job and I mean the whole job, not just flying the plane.

As for age. It just is not possible to say that age affects the ability learn. The RAF example maybe true(ish) but then there are a whole stack of factors that may make life difficult for older people with the net effect being poor performance in training. Take for example the pass rate and pass mark of mature undergraduate universtity students; considerably higher than school leavers and that is also a 'fact'. Take that on face value and you have the opposite view.

BTW, is that what psychologists call being in "violent agreement" :p

[piperindian]

to go for a fATPL in the current climate is a bit insane
especially with additional factors like no class 1 (i am not sure any airline will employe without a class 1) and after 40.

There are guys out there with 1000s of jet hours and right age, got dismissed after 11/9 and they cant find any airline job, they got jobs outside aviation or are just on the dole.

I personally left a good-paying manager position two years ago to finish the IR /ME of my JAA fATPL (modular). Been applying since then for an airline job.
The job market is really ****ed off. Sending cvs is like throwing them in a black hole. even connections dont work nowadays. And if you find a position it will be probably with the likes of Ryan air, easy, virgin or other similar low-cost operators (who treat their employees like @#&)

[carb]

Kefuddle_UK Hear hear.

Discrimination is when you try to put people into boxes rather than considering each person as an individual with different merits, aptitude, intelligence, etc etc.

scroggs, the military used to block women from their recruitment, too, and plenty people defended that as being justified risk management, yada yada yada :rolleyes: It's probably true that younger recruits are generally, on average, quicker to train than older recruits, just as it may be true that women are less likely to be suitable than men, but to apply that logic to every person without giving them a chance to go through selection procedures, is what we most of us these days call discrimination, if not facism.

[mikeo]

Norman2 - I'm in exactly the same position - age 43, IT job (pays well, boring), PPL(A) holder - would love to change career to flying anything for a job.

In my mind I just need to ensure that I could have enough cash to support my family and aim to use my IT salary to buy a couple of houses to let out.:) That should at least secure a future income.

I intend to work towards getting an FI(R) possibly still as a PPL - so I won't get paid but would be great for hours. Then do CPL(A) when I can and hope for paid work.:cool:

I don't think I would get a airline job owing to my age by the time I'd completed the necessary ratings but at least I would have tried. Which is better than looking back in 10 years time and thinking that I should have - even if I'm worse off financially.

[scroggs]

mikeo

Well done for bringing the thread back on-topic! We've strayed a bit from the original discussion.

Kefuddle

Yes, I think you're right - but I'm not sure what's violent about it!

carb

I think that you and I are just going to have to accept that we are coming from different angles here. Neither I nor EZ, JMC, Ryan, the RAF or whomever are fascist (and I would resent that insinuation, if I could be bothered), and it's true that opinions change over time about what objective criteria should be met when looking for new blood. But objective criteria will always be there, if only to limit the workload for the recruiters.

Or are you seriously suggesting that every able-bodied wannabe should be interviewed for every employment opportunity? You gonna pay for that?!

[carb]

I do understand your angle - just don't accept it necessarily has to be that way. And no, I'm not calling anyone a fascist! Nor would I propose interviewing every living, breathing wannabe ('able-bodied'? not necessarily, in the more forward-looking US anyway!) -- sifting through all their applications and credentials, though, perhaps...

edited cos I can't spell :rolleyes:

[The African Dude]

Kefuddle

It's entirely feasible to justify the pass rate in training younger RAF. Flying rockets is a highly physical procedure.

'Nuff said!


Regards

[Greenfinch]

Norman2,

I was 33 when I decided to change career. I'd been in the Civil Service for 16 years and had held a PPL for 10. I didn't have a bean to my name, but with about £20K of equity in my house I decided to sell it and beg and borrow the remainder required to go to Cabair at Cranfield for the ATPL. I did the ATPL Groundschool then the BCPL (it was still CAA rules at that time) and then the approved BCPL-CPL/IR Upgrade.

I now fly Airbus A320/321 for a living and feel that, despite a few hardships along the way, changing to a career in aviation was the best thing I ever did. If you want something badly enough just go for it !

Good luck.

GF ;)

[Barney Stubble]

Good for you Greenfinch, but not a common experience I would think from the replies already posted to Normans Q.

Enough said about age discrimination, it is more relevant to sponsorship schemes and is featured on other threads. I don't think age makes much difference if you are paying your own way - it is equally tough for everybody.

Norman2

It would be nice to know your plans, given the mixed bag of responses to your post! I think going the Commercial flying route is like buying a Ferrari, it is in no way practical, costs a fortune to run, but God it's a great car. If you have to do it, you have to do it, sod the cost. Just don't whinge about it afterwards like so many people on these forums!

Barney

[scroggs]

G-RICH

No, it doesn't really apply - we'd just strayed from Norman2's question to the wider issues of who airlines recruit and why. It's a topic that's been moot on a number of threads recently. I apologise to Norman for getting off-topic - which, to answer your points, I'm going to have to do again. Sorry!

You're right - the greatest training risk is the inintial entrant to training. There's no history, so all the employer can do is ensure that the candidate has a majority of the physical and mental characteristics of those who have succeeded in the past. As this is, at best, an imprecise science, many of those candidates will fall by the wayside until, at the end of line training on the first commercial (or military) type, you have a pilot who you can reasonably expect to succeed through the rest of his or her flying career. When that pilot is required, in later life, to undergo training on other types, their proven aptitude combined with their growing experience will make such conversions relatively straightforward and risk-free.

Those under-30s whose lives primarily revolve around booze, 'music', and the opposite sex are unlikely ever to succeed in this process, as you suggest. Er.... on the other hand, that description fits a great many pilots I know - including me and one or two other Mods!! But determination, confidence and motivation are certainly the most important qualities for any wannabe.

The trouble is that learning a completely new skill gets progressively more difficult as we get older, so we need more time to successfully master it. Employers, of any variety, are reluctant to indulge in extended (ie more expensive) courses to accommodate older trainees, and so they tend not to offer them - and they certainly won't queue to train untried pilots of relatively advanced years! That doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen for Norman2, just that it's less likely than for someone 10 or 15 years younger.

As for your advice about keeping a second string to your bow, I think that applies to all of us, doesn't it?!

[Norman2]

To answer the person who asked what I was doing. The answer at present is nothing. I didn't volunteer for severance in the end and they didn't make me take it either.

Clearly there would be a fair degree of risk of unemployment - but if I was single then I would take it - even if at the end of it I had just had an interesting year of flying training out of it.

But with a family, it's easier to stay put - perhaps I am a coward in that sense. But I think school fees may take priority.

Perhaps I can blame the CAA for their unneccessary eyesight limits (uncorrected) in the years gone by. Mind you I should have married a Yank and gone commercial in the US if I had thought about it!