Shoot me down in flames, but...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Thanks Phileas for clearing up the pilot bit.....an incorrect assumption on my part.
I agree with almost all you have to say....and considering the state of the market place at the moment, I would have thought 150-200 hours on type is not that uncommon. Having said that, when you refer to quality...I believe that as long as the person is not a blithering idiot, is able to relate to those around themselves, and perhaps most of all, can demonstrate the required level of technical profficiency.....they are a good bet for a position. I am sure however that plenty of unscrupulous operators will take all and sundry...for the right price.
In respect of experience...yes..it is a measure of ones skill set, adaptability, maturity, employability, and stickability...all the i ties..
Which brings me back to the original point I have made..and even asked the question...."where does it all end?"..this state of affairs is not sustainable in the longrun...but then mayby thats the point entirely.....recruiters and airlines aren't looking into the longterm.
H
I agree with almost all you have to say....and considering the state of the market place at the moment, I would have thought 150-200 hours on type is not that uncommon. Having said that, when you refer to quality...I believe that as long as the person is not a blithering idiot, is able to relate to those around themselves, and perhaps most of all, can demonstrate the required level of technical profficiency.....they are a good bet for a position. I am sure however that plenty of unscrupulous operators will take all and sundry...for the right price.
In respect of experience...yes..it is a measure of ones skill set, adaptability, maturity, employability, and stickability...all the i ties..
Which brings me back to the original point I have made..and even asked the question...."where does it all end?"..this state of affairs is not sustainable in the longrun...but then mayby thats the point entirely.....recruiters and airlines aren't looking into the longterm.
H
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney,
What I meant by 'quality' was the standard of training, the standard of the Training Captains, operating procedures, adherance to procedures etc. You can be a mighty fine individual pilot but if you've picked up some bad habits or not been trained to a good standard, well, you'll need a minimum of extended training.
I heard only last week that an eastern European country, recently joined the EU, is handing out jet TRI & TRE certificates to Captains just off turbo-props.
I don't know if you know but a JAA TRI or TRE needs to undergo a Core Course then be CAA supervised when himself supervising, such is the high standard some guys don't make the grade.
The referred to country is not providing any such quality control, training nor supervision, they're simply dishing out training qualifications to guys who's handling of the jet is questionable to say the least, and this guy is going to be training others!
Now, put yourself in the position of a Chief Pilot, would you readily accept guys trained by these people?
Who can say when it will end, one loco goes bust, another one starts up but they'll be affected also if mortgage & interest rates go up or Gulf War 3 occurs! And then it will all start again once things improve thereafter!
What I meant by 'quality' was the standard of training, the standard of the Training Captains, operating procedures, adherance to procedures etc. You can be a mighty fine individual pilot but if you've picked up some bad habits or not been trained to a good standard, well, you'll need a minimum of extended training.
I heard only last week that an eastern European country, recently joined the EU, is handing out jet TRI & TRE certificates to Captains just off turbo-props.
I don't know if you know but a JAA TRI or TRE needs to undergo a Core Course then be CAA supervised when himself supervising, such is the high standard some guys don't make the grade.
The referred to country is not providing any such quality control, training nor supervision, they're simply dishing out training qualifications to guys who's handling of the jet is questionable to say the least, and this guy is going to be training others!
Now, put yourself in the position of a Chief Pilot, would you readily accept guys trained by these people?
Who can say when it will end, one loco goes bust, another one starts up but they'll be affected also if mortgage & interest rates go up or Gulf War 3 occurs! And then it will all start again once things improve thereafter!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: No.9 cloudedge
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey mole surely with ryanair operating quiet a few 737's and given there fairly active turnover rate of crew and required recruitment would you not hang about a few months and give that a go instead of going for line training. You seem to have the available funds so why not do the NG differences and apply online to them, (no comments how **** they are plz). You also got the other 737 operators at mo taking some guys on so why not just test the waters awhile with ur new rating. Interesting to read people say a 737 rating will automaically rule you outta running for turbo jobs etc etc, I have met guys who landed business jet jobs on the basis they held a jet rating, it does account for at least some added credibility.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSTR
I attended and passed a SSTR scheme early this year, there was 16 of us on the course, of which 14 are now on the line with respective airlines around the europe.
I think the line training is a complex issue, in so far as the 100hrs exsposure to the line doesnt qualify you as an experienced pilot in terms of airline requirements.
However, are you any more likely to get a position once the line training is complete, with an airline other than the training provider?
Is the line training costs not better spent keeping an already exspensive type rating current?
I think the line training is a complex issue, in so far as the 100hrs exsposure to the line doesnt qualify you as an experienced pilot in terms of airline requirements.
However, are you any more likely to get a position once the line training is complete, with an airline other than the training provider?
Is the line training costs not better spent keeping an already exspensive type rating current?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bail Out,
Airlines, most of them anyway, are in business to shift passengers from A to B, Training Providers are in business to provide training.
Line training provided by the airline is provided as a legal requirement, perhaps 20 sectors, to get it out of the way as soon as possible and get on with what the pilot is there for, shifting passengers.
An airline, normally, wouldn't have the capacity of training staff to provide unecessary (by law) training and that's not what they're in business for. Training providers however are in business to provide training thus should have the training staff to facilitate this.
There appears to be a misconception that when an airline advertises for experienced pilots they are directing this advert to the wannabee's thus putting these guys in the position whereas they are expected to buy hours.
This is not the case, as in any business, previous experience is preferred and these airlines would preferably like guys with 1,000's of hours experience and perhaps want a career change/advancement.
Such are current market conditions they perhaps cannot source such guys thus are reducing their minima below 500 hours to perhaps 200 hours on type but they remain advertising for experience.
If a wannabee can put him/herself into this category by buying time then that is a decision/risk for them to make and take but, such airlines are not raising their criteria for wannabee's, they're reducing their criteria for experienced and the two should not be confused.
Market conditions haven't dictated yet that they need to take guys with zero hours on type but if they did need to take such guys then they'd prefer to arrange the type-rating training themselves, perhaps partly through a financial interest but moreso to enable them to oversee the training of the guy they're going to let loose with their aeroplane(s).
Just to reitterate, this refers to airlines who advertise for experience and not airlines who advertise for wannabees prepared to fork-out on a type rating.
Airlines, most of them anyway, are in business to shift passengers from A to B, Training Providers are in business to provide training.
Line training provided by the airline is provided as a legal requirement, perhaps 20 sectors, to get it out of the way as soon as possible and get on with what the pilot is there for, shifting passengers.
An airline, normally, wouldn't have the capacity of training staff to provide unecessary (by law) training and that's not what they're in business for. Training providers however are in business to provide training thus should have the training staff to facilitate this.
There appears to be a misconception that when an airline advertises for experienced pilots they are directing this advert to the wannabee's thus putting these guys in the position whereas they are expected to buy hours.
This is not the case, as in any business, previous experience is preferred and these airlines would preferably like guys with 1,000's of hours experience and perhaps want a career change/advancement.
Such are current market conditions they perhaps cannot source such guys thus are reducing their minima below 500 hours to perhaps 200 hours on type but they remain advertising for experience.
If a wannabee can put him/herself into this category by buying time then that is a decision/risk for them to make and take but, such airlines are not raising their criteria for wannabee's, they're reducing their criteria for experienced and the two should not be confused.
Market conditions haven't dictated yet that they need to take guys with zero hours on type but if they did need to take such guys then they'd prefer to arrange the type-rating training themselves, perhaps partly through a financial interest but moreso to enable them to oversee the training of the guy they're going to let loose with their aeroplane(s).
Just to reitterate, this refers to airlines who advertise for experience and not airlines who advertise for wannabees prepared to fork-out on a type rating.
Last edited by Phileas Fogg; 15th Nov 2004 at 17:12.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: No.9 cloudedge
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes by in large this would be quiet accurate, but as with everything there is always other options or situations which have given to guys getting jobs with just the basic type and no time.
Yes Airlines would probably like to arrange for training to go through a TRTO which would be under the watchful eye of the airline,but then again interviews/sim checks have sufficed in the past for SSTR students which is of course a easier option for some airlines. As with everything there is always exceptions,there is nothing in stone.
Yes Airlines would probably like to arrange for training to go through a TRTO which would be under the watchful eye of the airline,but then again interviews/sim checks have sufficed in the past for SSTR students which is of course a easier option for some airlines. As with everything there is always exceptions,there is nothing in stone.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Worcs UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, I believe some, if not many airlines have a limitation with how many pilots they can employ with less than 500 hours on type due to insurance cover. So even with 100 hours line training you're still going to be short.
cheers
MJR
cheers
MJR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Location Location
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we all been looking at this the wrong way?
Any of you guys read Flight International this week? Probably a dumb question. 'Straight and Level' has a '50 years ago' column. And 50 years ago the price of a transatlantic return flight was reduced to around about £250. Yes £250. Cost of a transatlantic return flight today - well blow me down if you look in the back of the sunday papers it's £200. So who is going to pay me 20 grand a month to do that then I wander?
Secondly
In the good ol' days a tried and tested route to airline flying was to instruct/ fly air taxi/ fly a banderante/fly anything or any combination of these. And we all did it because we knew that when we made captain in a shiny jet it was payback time financially speaking. I know single blokes who lived in the old pig stys at Headcorn for a pound a night because they were instructing and they couldn't afford anything else. The difference then is that BA were paying theeir top blokes £150k pa and the top line elsewhere was good as well. I have lived in a caravan to afford it. Has anybody done a cost analysis of this? Who is better off- the ones who go without for years, or the ones who have earnt money and then spent it on something stupid like a type rating? And people with rich parents are excluded from this argument. And so are people who have spent a load of money then whinge about it on pprune day and night.Whichever way you look at it, I personally will always be financially less well off because of my flying habit.
And yes I will do the line training my last contract was working in live sewers so I think I have bloody earned it!
Any of you guys read Flight International this week? Probably a dumb question. 'Straight and Level' has a '50 years ago' column. And 50 years ago the price of a transatlantic return flight was reduced to around about £250. Yes £250. Cost of a transatlantic return flight today - well blow me down if you look in the back of the sunday papers it's £200. So who is going to pay me 20 grand a month to do that then I wander?
Secondly
In the good ol' days a tried and tested route to airline flying was to instruct/ fly air taxi/ fly a banderante/fly anything or any combination of these. And we all did it because we knew that when we made captain in a shiny jet it was payback time financially speaking. I know single blokes who lived in the old pig stys at Headcorn for a pound a night because they were instructing and they couldn't afford anything else. The difference then is that BA were paying theeir top blokes £150k pa and the top line elsewhere was good as well. I have lived in a caravan to afford it. Has anybody done a cost analysis of this? Who is better off- the ones who go without for years, or the ones who have earnt money and then spent it on something stupid like a type rating? And people with rich parents are excluded from this argument. And so are people who have spent a load of money then whinge about it on pprune day and night.Whichever way you look at it, I personally will always be financially less well off because of my flying habit.
And yes I will do the line training my last contract was working in live sewers so I think I have bloody earned it!
