Why I am encouraged
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
True to a certain extent PT ... but in these hard times when 200 hour "jet airline" jobs are as rare as rocking horse sh!t, and mostly come with a big poison chalice of buy-a-type-rating and then work for free or worse for your first few hundred hours, I think it's important that someone points out to the UK and European wannabes waiting their turn that there is another whole world of flying out there that they probably havent even considered as a means to build experience and employability.
And yes before someone jumps down my throat, it's damn near impossible for Euro wannabes to get employed in Aus or NZ in bush flying. However I don't see too many Brits hanging out in Maun or PNG or the caribbean / pacific or anywhere else where it's international fair game for anyone who wants to turn up and get stuck in. As you say, I guess it's a cultural thing but it's the European wannabes' loss in my opinion
And yes before someone jumps down my throat, it's damn near impossible for Euro wannabes to get employed in Aus or NZ in bush flying. However I don't see too many Brits hanging out in Maun or PNG or the caribbean / pacific or anywhere else where it's international fair game for anyone who wants to turn up and get stuck in. As you say, I guess it's a cultural thing but it's the European wannabes' loss in my opinion
PPRuNe Handmaiden
PPRuNe Towers,
Back in the days when I was flying in Australia, part of the reason for "needing" thousands of hours to get a sniff of a turbine job is because of so many pilots for comparatively few jobs. So the entry to the "better" jobs were artificially difficult. Prior to the '89 bunfight, the thought was you did need thousands of hours to fly jets etc. One possible reason for this belief was that flight training/type rating training wasn't as good as it is now.
Now in Australia there's a pilot shortage. (partially solved by the economic slow down). For the first time in ages you don't need thousands of hours to get a sniff at a Dash 8. Has the remuneration improved, no. Qantaslink did bring in "pay for rating" but then the applications coming in plummeted. Very few bothered. So now they had to go back to paying people to train, even considering schemes for the IR etc. Where they are at the moment I don't know. Most of the experienced captains have left Qantaslink for Virgin Blue. Why? Short sightedness from QF mainline.
Virgin Blue, Qantas, Dragon Air, Cathay etc have snapped up the Rex and Qantaslink turborprop pilots as quickly as they could. While most pilots in Australia (and New Zealand) will admit that they would like to fly a jet one day, they understand that a turboprop job, a piston job etc is a good start and something not to be sniffed at.
Qantas have even put their cadets into turboprop jobs because they realise that the experience they'll get is useful.
For sure, it will take some rethinking in Australia and New Zealand for new CPLs to go straight to jets as an FO.
Now reading the forums here I and many others just find it incredible that the UK guys feel that if they start on any thing other than a B737 then they haven't been successful. They'll take a turboprop job, if they must. It seems to me that many would rather take on crippling amounts of debt than either shift countries to where work is or take a job on something with propellers.
There's a thread asking about how to raise 60K now that HSBC has pulled out.
Is this a result of marketing or "I want it all NOW" syndrome?
I know you didn't do a full time course at some "name" school but you turned out all right.
However, I have heard from other folks that there is a percieved snobbery about t/prop flying. If you have flown a turboprop then you're more of a risk than someone straight out of "super" school....
Good training can only take a person so far, a good attitude with a good work ethic is definitely required.
Back in the days when I was flying in Australia, part of the reason for "needing" thousands of hours to get a sniff of a turbine job is because of so many pilots for comparatively few jobs. So the entry to the "better" jobs were artificially difficult. Prior to the '89 bunfight, the thought was you did need thousands of hours to fly jets etc. One possible reason for this belief was that flight training/type rating training wasn't as good as it is now.
Now in Australia there's a pilot shortage. (partially solved by the economic slow down). For the first time in ages you don't need thousands of hours to get a sniff at a Dash 8. Has the remuneration improved, no. Qantaslink did bring in "pay for rating" but then the applications coming in plummeted. Very few bothered. So now they had to go back to paying people to train, even considering schemes for the IR etc. Where they are at the moment I don't know. Most of the experienced captains have left Qantaslink for Virgin Blue. Why? Short sightedness from QF mainline.
Virgin Blue, Qantas, Dragon Air, Cathay etc have snapped up the Rex and Qantaslink turborprop pilots as quickly as they could. While most pilots in Australia (and New Zealand) will admit that they would like to fly a jet one day, they understand that a turboprop job, a piston job etc is a good start and something not to be sniffed at.
Qantas have even put their cadets into turboprop jobs because they realise that the experience they'll get is useful.
For sure, it will take some rethinking in Australia and New Zealand for new CPLs to go straight to jets as an FO.
Now reading the forums here I and many others just find it incredible that the UK guys feel that if they start on any thing other than a B737 then they haven't been successful. They'll take a turboprop job, if they must. It seems to me that many would rather take on crippling amounts of debt than either shift countries to where work is or take a job on something with propellers.
There's a thread asking about how to raise 60K now that HSBC has pulled out.
Is this a result of marketing or "I want it all NOW" syndrome?I know you didn't do a full time course at some "name" school but you turned out all right.
However, I have heard from other folks that there is a percieved snobbery about t/prop flying. If you have flown a turboprop then you're more of a risk than someone straight out of "super" school....Good training can only take a person so far, a good attitude with a good work ethic is definitely required.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Culture and expectations Luke and Reddo,
A remarkable paucity of those in the UK who rocked up to an FTO after seeing glossy pics of loading a 206 in Maun, the Bungles or Arnhemland.
They missed that class
Like I said, alien to outsiders but then again, to us the OZ/NZ threads read like something from 50 years ago because that's how long it is since the UK and Europe kicked off cadetships at places like Hamble.
It is 'normal' for the UK folks to have a massive blind spot regarding other opportunities when those first direct entry effos retired as senior heavy iron skippers while most our wannabees were still in primary education. If you think about it, Europe's first turboprop/jet cadets have been retired for anything up to 20 years now. Given that, why wouldn't you think it's a normal aspiration?
It makes no more sense that the bitchfest going on over PICUS within the OZmates forum. It's simply the way it is and quite possibly partially explains how you both came a wandering this away
Rob
A remarkable paucity of those in the UK who rocked up to an FTO after seeing glossy pics of loading a 206 in Maun, the Bungles or Arnhemland.
They missed that class
Like I said, alien to outsiders but then again, to us the OZ/NZ threads read like something from 50 years ago because that's how long it is since the UK and Europe kicked off cadetships at places like Hamble.
It is 'normal' for the UK folks to have a massive blind spot regarding other opportunities when those first direct entry effos retired as senior heavy iron skippers while most our wannabees were still in primary education. If you think about it, Europe's first turboprop/jet cadets have been retired for anything up to 20 years now. Given that, why wouldn't you think it's a normal aspiration?
It makes no more sense that the bitchfest going on over PICUS within the OZmates forum. It's simply the way it is and quite possibly partially explains how you both came a wandering this away
Rob
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Rob,
We are probably in heated agreement and I feel you might be playing devil's advocate. After all, I have seen you post that you'd rather have an FO who's got a few thou hours in a turboprop than someone with a raw CPL.
There is room for all methods for training. Whether it be a structured cadet scheme for a specific airline where the airline selects and monitors the training. The cost to the student? Usually, reduced pay for X years but a contract. Or of course, the one I am and many successful airline pilots in the UK are familiar with, the self improver/modular or various permutations in between.
What we're seeing now with CTC is the contract being subtley changed from a definite offer of employment with airline X assuming all checks are satisfactory etc. So now the student is exposed to huge loan repayments after 6 months of "employ". The low houred pilot will have maybe 300 or 500 hours depending. That might be enough to get another job with another operator on the same type. But, what if they can't shift countries or "down size" aircraft because of the loan repayments? By falling for the flying school spin and thinking an expensive course is the only way to get a flying job, they are restricting their own flexibility.
That is just one example.
Easy credit and equity in property in the UK has (to quote yourself) skewed flying training to the "super" schools. So the other forms of aviation in the UK and Europe has fallen below the radar. Often at a much lower cost to the student and the training has a greater depth as there's more exposure to different operations. (thinking piston charter, jet charter, small regional airline ops etc) It is the immersion of the pilot to the industry I feel is often missed at the larger schools (when the student is not a specific cadet to an airline).
The point that I am making (rather clumsily I think) is that there's different paths to a CPL/IR. Some suit the structure of an integrated course, others the modular. There are obviously risks and benefits to both.
In Australia, the cadet v bush pilot has begun. You could substitute instructor for cadet too. The arrogance of both is misplaced. In the UK substitute jet and turboprop, or integrated or self improver....
Airlines etc need a variety of pilot. New ideas from military pilots, charter pilots, other airlines I feel are essential for rigorous safety culture and SOPs along with cadets (and their keen eyes in the manuals).
Survival, whether it be the individual pilot or the company is dependent on flexibility and fast adaptation to a changing environment.
I'll stop now. Al Murray's on tv.
We are probably in heated agreement and I feel you might be playing devil's advocate.
After all, I have seen you post that you'd rather have an FO who's got a few thou hours in a turboprop than someone with a raw CPL.There is room for all methods for training. Whether it be a structured cadet scheme for a specific airline where the airline selects and monitors the training. The cost to the student? Usually, reduced pay for X years but a contract. Or of course, the one I am and many successful airline pilots in the UK are familiar with, the self improver/modular or various permutations in between.
What we're seeing now with CTC is the contract being subtley changed from a definite offer of employment with airline X assuming all checks are satisfactory etc. So now the student is exposed to huge loan repayments after 6 months of "employ". The low houred pilot will have maybe 300 or 500 hours depending. That might be enough to get another job with another operator on the same type. But, what if they can't shift countries or "down size" aircraft because of the loan repayments? By falling for the flying school spin and thinking an expensive course is the only way to get a flying job, they are restricting their own flexibility.
That is just one example.
Easy credit and equity in property in the UK has (to quote yourself) skewed flying training to the "super" schools. So the other forms of aviation in the UK and Europe has fallen below the radar. Often at a much lower cost to the student and the training has a greater depth as there's more exposure to different operations. (thinking piston charter, jet charter, small regional airline ops etc) It is the immersion of the pilot to the industry I feel is often missed at the larger schools (when the student is not a specific cadet to an airline).
The point that I am making (rather clumsily I think) is that there's different paths to a CPL/IR. Some suit the structure of an integrated course, others the modular. There are obviously risks and benefits to both.
In Australia, the cadet v bush pilot has begun. You could substitute instructor for cadet too. The arrogance of both is misplaced. In the UK substitute jet and turboprop, or integrated or self improver....
Airlines etc need a variety of pilot. New ideas from military pilots, charter pilots, other airlines I feel are essential for rigorous safety culture and SOPs along with cadets (and their keen eyes in the manuals).
Survival, whether it be the individual pilot or the company is dependent on flexibility and fast adaptation to a changing environment.
I'll stop now. Al Murray's on tv.
