North European Aviation Resources
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask yourself this: Who would you rather have as a pilot (putting yourself in a passenger`s position), a 250 hour bookworm or a person who has 2000 hours worth of hands on real world flying experience? This is what the whole "buy a type rating and we`ll hire you" European b.s. is about
The selection process and flying evaluation/grading process is the most important part of the education. Anyone can be taught how to fly an airliner from A to B, but when an emergency comes around I'd rather have a low-time PILOT in the front seat than a 4000-hour guy with a pilot's license.
In Europe and Asia, this is well understood by the major airlines (SAS, Finnair, Lufthansa, Cathay, Singapore etc). That is why they have their own Ab-Initio schools and little or no hour requirements.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossunder,
What are you claiming? That all pilots with more than 250 hr are traffic pilots even "lame-ass" traffic pilots!?? Your judgement is aparently very impaired. I really hope I do not end up as a passenger on Your a/c!
There are guys with a lot of hours that arenīt necesserely good pilots but in general Iīd much rather fly on a plane with a guy or gal that has a few thousend hr experience than one fresh out of any flight school.
SAS does not have an ab-initio program now and the only reason they had one was a lack of pilots in the market during the mid-latter part of the -80s. Not that they especially liked unexperienced pilots. Why donīt You talk to some of the capains that used to fly with the 250 hr pilots on longhaul routes. The captains didnīt dare go to the bathroom sometimes. Nothing wrong with these new guys exept they had NO experience. Where do You get Your B... S... from anyway. Iīm kind of hoping Your post was one just to provoke and mayby for laughs īcause if not You are a real Dip-Stick and a danger to aviation!!
What are you claiming? That all pilots with more than 250 hr are traffic pilots even "lame-ass" traffic pilots!?? Your judgement is aparently very impaired. I really hope I do not end up as a passenger on Your a/c!
There are guys with a lot of hours that arenīt necesserely good pilots but in general Iīd much rather fly on a plane with a guy or gal that has a few thousend hr experience than one fresh out of any flight school.
SAS does not have an ab-initio program now and the only reason they had one was a lack of pilots in the market during the mid-latter part of the -80s. Not that they especially liked unexperienced pilots. Why donīt You talk to some of the capains that used to fly with the 250 hr pilots on longhaul routes. The captains didnīt dare go to the bathroom sometimes. Nothing wrong with these new guys exept they had NO experience. Where do You get Your B... S... from anyway. Iīm kind of hoping Your post was one just to provoke and mayby for laughs īcause if not You are a real Dip-Stick and a danger to aviation!!
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you claiming? That all pilots with more than 250 hr are traffic pilots even "lame-ass" traffic pilots!??
SAS does not have an ab-initio program now and the only reason they had one was a lack of pilots in the market during the mid-latter part of the -80s. Not that they especially liked unexperienced pilots.
Why donīt You talk to some of the capains that used to fly with the 250 hr pilots on longhaul routes. The captains didnīt dare go to the bathroom sometimes. Nothing wrong with these new guys exept they had NO experience.
Where do You get Your B... S... from anyway
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah. Of course; experience! You have probably flown with lots of low-timers since you obviously must be a captain with SAS, Finnair, Lufthansa, Aer Lingus, or some other airline which recruits ab-initio, or?
Of course not, but Europe's the safest bet if you're gonna spend your money on flying training. I think my point gets a bit blurred by all the angry statements etc
My point is that flying training should be organised and supervised by an airline or equivalent competent organisation (e.g. SASFA).
Firstly, students must be thoroughly screened beforehand, which they are not in the US I believe. Granted, NAIA has some sort of testing, but not nearly as thorough as, say, Lufthansa or Aer Lingus. This screening ensures a minimum of basic skill such as co-ordination, perception, attitude, reasoning etc.
Secondly, there must be a system for grading and continuous evaluation (that actually works, not just the kind of grading you'd find in the NAK programme in your local flying club, where almost everybody will get a "5" or better no matter what they do) throughout the entire ground- and flight training. Also, the ground training cannot merely consist of reading a book of 1000 Q&As and watching a few King video's (very crudely generalised, I know). Knowledge is a very important part of airmanship.
This system has been used by many of the European ab-initio schools, which have adopted the NATO model for pilot training (the military recruits ab-initio ONLY, and they get the best pilots because of the screening and grading/evaluation).
Granted, the U.S. is by far the fastest and cheapest way towards obtaining you licences (although it's gradually becoming more and more expensive with the new combined FAA-JAA training), as well as landing that first airline job, but the quality seems to leafve a great deal to be desired.
I do not have any first-hand statistics, but pilots returning from "over there" seem to have a hard time landing a job once back in Europe. The percentage of unemployed pilots is apparently much higher than that amongst European-trained ones. I wonder how many taxi drivers in the capitals of Scandinavia have that FAA license in their wallet?
By omitting the screening and strict follow-up, the FTO cannot consistently produce a quality product (skilled and safe pilots with healthy attitudes towards flying; I wonder how many stories about hazardous cowboy attitudes and stunt-flying i've heard from pilots returning from the US!). Too many un-suited individuals will slip through and get hired because they have the required amount of hours logged. So what I'm saying is that many outstanding individuals (pilots) emerge from flying training in the US; no doubt about it, but many pilots sadly get a very cold shower because they took the screening AFTER they've paid for the license. These people usually, it seems, tend to end up in smaller companies because these operators do not have the resources for testing and interviewing and/or because they get hired by an aquaintance. Safety is thus no longer highly prioritised. As the old saying goes: "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to stay out of situations that would require his superior skills".
That's all, really! I suppose I might have offended some of you in my previous posts. If that is so, I apologise.
Cross.
Do you really think that the only place to get quality training is in scandinavia?!!
My point is that flying training should be organised and supervised by an airline or equivalent competent organisation (e.g. SASFA).
Firstly, students must be thoroughly screened beforehand, which they are not in the US I believe. Granted, NAIA has some sort of testing, but not nearly as thorough as, say, Lufthansa or Aer Lingus. This screening ensures a minimum of basic skill such as co-ordination, perception, attitude, reasoning etc.
Secondly, there must be a system for grading and continuous evaluation (that actually works, not just the kind of grading you'd find in the NAK programme in your local flying club, where almost everybody will get a "5" or better no matter what they do) throughout the entire ground- and flight training. Also, the ground training cannot merely consist of reading a book of 1000 Q&As and watching a few King video's (very crudely generalised, I know). Knowledge is a very important part of airmanship.
This system has been used by many of the European ab-initio schools, which have adopted the NATO model for pilot training (the military recruits ab-initio ONLY, and they get the best pilots because of the screening and grading/evaluation).
Granted, the U.S. is by far the fastest and cheapest way towards obtaining you licences (although it's gradually becoming more and more expensive with the new combined FAA-JAA training), as well as landing that first airline job, but the quality seems to leafve a great deal to be desired.
I do not have any first-hand statistics, but pilots returning from "over there" seem to have a hard time landing a job once back in Europe. The percentage of unemployed pilots is apparently much higher than that amongst European-trained ones. I wonder how many taxi drivers in the capitals of Scandinavia have that FAA license in their wallet?
By omitting the screening and strict follow-up, the FTO cannot consistently produce a quality product (skilled and safe pilots with healthy attitudes towards flying; I wonder how many stories about hazardous cowboy attitudes and stunt-flying i've heard from pilots returning from the US!). Too many un-suited individuals will slip through and get hired because they have the required amount of hours logged. So what I'm saying is that many outstanding individuals (pilots) emerge from flying training in the US; no doubt about it, but many pilots sadly get a very cold shower because they took the screening AFTER they've paid for the license. These people usually, it seems, tend to end up in smaller companies because these operators do not have the resources for testing and interviewing and/or because they get hired by an aquaintance. Safety is thus no longer highly prioritised. As the old saying goes: "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to stay out of situations that would require his superior skills".
That's all, really! I suppose I might have offended some of you in my previous posts. If that is so, I apologise.
Cross.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice ending to an informative post cross! 
It is obvious that there are differences of opinion on this issue. And that future pilots themselves will have to weigh the pros and contras before they make their decision as to where to start their training.
Threads like this one are a goldmine of information, thanks to you guys taking the time and the trouble to contribute your different views and experiences.
With cross apologising for any possibly caused offfence, perhaps we can leave the animosity behind and concentrate on giving these young lads the benefit of your combined wisdom?
With the wealth of knowledge on display here, no budding pilot can ask for more in the way of information. Reading all this certainly doesn't make it easier for them to choose, but they will be better informed, even if ever more confused.
It is obvious that there are differences of opinion on this issue. And that future pilots themselves will have to weigh the pros and contras before they make their decision as to where to start their training.
Threads like this one are a goldmine of information, thanks to you guys taking the time and the trouble to contribute your different views and experiences.
With cross apologising for any possibly caused offfence, perhaps we can leave the animosity behind and concentrate on giving these young lads the benefit of your combined wisdom?
With the wealth of knowledge on display here, no budding pilot can ask for more in the way of information. Reading all this certainly doesn't make it easier for them to choose, but they will be better informed, even if ever more confused.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossunder,
Yes I have both as captain and company instructor flown with both categories. Low timer TFHS graduets and more experienced guys from "over there". There was a differance. The experienced guys where easier to fly with, in the beginning, than the inexperienced. The TFHS guys had a good background and with experience became just as good pilots as the others. It all boils down to the individual. I will give you one point and that is the screening on beforehand. If your wish is to fly for SAS, KLM or other large carriers get an evaluation before using a lot of money on an education that is worth jack**** if you donīt get a flying job. SIAP does or at least did that kind of thing.
When it comes to choosing a flight school we are talking about the serious flight schools abroad, are we not? And if that is the case it doesnīt really matter where you get the training. What makes the differance is the experience you accumulate. Getting experience is a lot easier in the US because aviation is so much more there than in Europe.
Having seen both worlds there is no doubt what I would do if I was to do it again! Iīd pay a lot less and gain a lot more (and learn english while at it).
One last thing Crossunder, if you think that experience can be substituted buy which school you go to You are up for a big surprice . Lets talk again when you gain some, in about lets say 2000-3000 hours Good luck to you too!
PS The way things look right now Iīd rather be an instructor or fly freight at night in the US than be unemployed in Norway with Nkr 700,000 to 800,000.- in dept DS!
Yes I have both as captain and company instructor flown with both categories. Low timer TFHS graduets and more experienced guys from "over there". There was a differance. The experienced guys where easier to fly with, in the beginning, than the inexperienced. The TFHS guys had a good background and with experience became just as good pilots as the others. It all boils down to the individual. I will give you one point and that is the screening on beforehand. If your wish is to fly for SAS, KLM or other large carriers get an evaluation before using a lot of money on an education that is worth jack**** if you donīt get a flying job. SIAP does or at least did that kind of thing.
When it comes to choosing a flight school we are talking about the serious flight schools abroad, are we not? And if that is the case it doesnīt really matter where you get the training. What makes the differance is the experience you accumulate. Getting experience is a lot easier in the US because aviation is so much more there than in Europe.
Having seen both worlds there is no doubt what I would do if I was to do it again! Iīd pay a lot less and gain a lot more (and learn english while at it).
One last thing Crossunder, if you think that experience can be substituted buy which school you go to You are up for a big surprice
. Lets talk again when you gain some, in about lets say 2000-3000 hours Good luck to you too! PS The way things look right now Iīd rather be an instructor or fly freight at night in the US than be unemployed in Norway with Nkr 700,000 to 800,000.- in dept DS!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
I can't lay an egg but I can tell a bad one!
The discussion is about training not where you work.
I did the sums very carefully and the US does at first hand look very attractive.
Then you start factoring in things like cost of living without a work permit and travel and loss of income during training and suddenly it doesn't look so good after all.
Surely you must be feeling the tide of change.
Airline managers, these days, like modular courses and don't like self-improvers anymore.
So the lower hour pilots may take a little more training to get them through the sim but it makes no difference because they've done the approved JARcourse.
If having been to XXX Flight Academy is what employers want to see then it doesn't make a jot of difference how many hours you have, you've got to go to that flight academy.
Its not the voice of reason, its just the way it is!
Anyway, my comments were not to you. So, do forgive me for trying to balance the argument a little.
I can't lay an egg but I can tell a bad one!
The discussion is about training not where you work.
I did the sums very carefully and the US does at first hand look very attractive.
Then you start factoring in things like cost of living without a work permit and travel and loss of income during training and suddenly it doesn't look so good after all.
Surely you must be feeling the tide of change.
Airline managers, these days, like modular courses and don't like self-improvers anymore.
So the lower hour pilots may take a little more training to get them through the sim but it makes no difference because they've done the approved JARcourse.
If having been to XXX Flight Academy is what employers want to see then it doesn't make a jot of difference how many hours you have, you've got to go to that flight academy.
Its not the voice of reason, its just the way it is!
Anyway, my comments were not to you. So, do forgive me for trying to balance the argument a little.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Way Up North
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proxus,
Stick with your plan to go to FlightSafety. Like some have implied it's amazing what a name can mean in this business
Go to your local flight schools in the icy country, there are at least two good guys there who just returned from Vero Beach. They'll tell you more...
Stick with your plan to go to FlightSafety. Like some have implied it's amazing what a name can mean in this business
Go to your local flight schools in the icy country, there are at least two good guys there who just returned from Vero Beach. They'll tell you more...
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proxus:
Unless you've already tried it, how 'bout sending an application to you country's Air Force? Get paid while at school
Just like politics, science and personal faith, I guess it boils down to what you yourself think is the best thing to do. You'll always have "experts" on both sides with strong arguments. The choice is yours alone. And the bank's.
Best of luck. Crossunder out.
Unless you've already tried it, how 'bout sending an application to you country's Air Force? Get paid while at school
Just like politics, science and personal faith, I guess it boils down to what you yourself think is the best thing to do. You'll always have "experts" on both sides with strong arguments. The choice is yours alone. And the bank's.
Best of luck. Crossunder out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ultima Thule
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossunder: I would if I could !
The only little problem is that my counry does not have a air force
or for that matter a military
So the decision for me is btw. NEAR/NAIA and Swiss Aviation Acadamey.
Any word on manuals they teach, reputation ? ( NAIA's has been explained )
This is very helpful posts althoug I am still spinning in circles
or for that matter a military
So the decision for me is btw. NEAR/NAIA and Swiss Aviation Acadamey.
Any word on manuals they teach, reputation ? ( NAIA's has been explained )
This is very helpful posts althoug I am still spinning in circles
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Proxus,
Nice thread, lots of good and maybe a little not-so-good advice, but you'll sort it out, like all of us once did.
NEAR/NAIA used to have their own manuals, maybe a little dull layout. After they split from NAR I don't know what material they use.
Without having seen all existing JAR trainig manuals (!), I'd say the Jeppesen/Oxford-books seems very nice. Good lay-out, very good presentations, etc. Think they're used by many FTOs today, don't know if Swiss Av. Ac. is one of them.
Good luck! (And for comfort, Proxus, ALL pilots spin in circles, 'cause that's the only way you can perform a spin )
Nice thread, lots of good and maybe a little not-so-good advice, but you'll sort it out, like all of us once did.
NEAR/NAIA used to have their own manuals, maybe a little dull layout. After they split from NAR I don't know what material they use.
Without having seen all existing JAR trainig manuals (!), I'd say the Jeppesen/Oxford-books seems very nice. Good lay-out, very good presentations, etc. Think they're used by many FTOs today, don't know if Swiss Av. Ac. is one of them.
Good luck! (And for comfort, Proxus, ALL pilots spin in circles, 'cause that's the only way you can perform a spin
)
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to train
Oh well here we go again.
It depends where you want to fly. If you want to work in Europe I suggest getting a JAA licence from the beginning. You might consider a school that does part of the flying in US of A to reduce costs. This way you will have JAA papers and can start to look for jobs. Then if you wish you can get rest of you FAA licences. I believe that doing part of your JAA training in US will actually also give you a US PPL.
Converting to a JAA licence is a real biatch. I have been flying professionally now for 6 years with a FAA licence mostly ine B7something7īs. Never had problems as far as knowledge about matters or flying skills when compared to EU trained pilots. So comments to the liking that most schools in US provide you with nothing is a load of crap.
I have never seen so much non-essential info as they have in the ATPL books. I mean it is unreal. Most of it is not even nice to know just useless to pilot. Hard and difficult, certainly not, just time consuming and frustrating. So get your ratings to JAA standard from the start so you do not have to go through the same crap again 6 years down the line.
Men, this is not going to be pretty
JJ
It depends where you want to fly. If you want to work in Europe I suggest getting a JAA licence from the beginning. You might consider a school that does part of the flying in US of A to reduce costs. This way you will have JAA papers and can start to look for jobs. Then if you wish you can get rest of you FAA licences. I believe that doing part of your JAA training in US will actually also give you a US PPL.
Converting to a JAA licence is a real biatch. I have been flying professionally now for 6 years with a FAA licence mostly ine B7something7īs. Never had problems as far as knowledge about matters or flying skills when compared to EU trained pilots. So comments to the liking that most schools in US provide you with nothing is a load of crap.
I have never seen so much non-essential info as they have in the ATPL books. I mean it is unreal. Most of it is not even nice to know just useless to pilot. Hard and difficult, certainly not, just time consuming and frustrating. So get your ratings to JAA standard from the start so you do not have to go through the same crap again 6 years down the line.
Men, this is not going to be pretty
JJ
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Norway
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again..
I have never seen so much non-essential info as they have in the ATPL books. I mean it is unreal. Most of it is not even nice to know just useless to pilot. Hard and difficult, certainly not, just time consuming and frustrating.
You're definately missing the point. Let's ask ourselves why the JAR-FCL theoretical knowledge syllabi is as extensive as it is.
Accidents are still happening. Aircraft are still crashing. Aircraft systems have contineously improved towards perfection, while the pilot has not. Human error now accounts for 80% of all accidents.
And you're claiming that increased knowledge is non-essential?? That it's useless to a pilot?
Would you please explain which parts of the syllabus is "not even nice to know"? And let's not focus on details, but let's speak in general terms. Which parts of Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.470 " is useless" to you as a pilot?
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR
Learning is never a bad thing to a person let a lone for a pilot. Knowledge is power.
But I fail to see the reasoning why a student studying for JAR ATPL needs to be intimately familiar with say B737-400 systems. I mean I flew the-300,-400 and -500īs. So all the good for me. I know stuff. A waste of time for a person that may never fly that particular type when there is so much more info to learn. There are -400īs around with Electromechanical flight instruments and EFIS. Different airlines have some of the modes active and some have just bare basics in the FMS... To show how systems are integrated in a large aircraft is another thing. This attention to detail hardly serves this purpose (If that was the purpose in the first place).
Also INS. I actually found that interesting. Having used Delco Carousel and Litton -72 (these notes where freely based on the -72)and -92 systems quite extensively (In a triple mix enviroment).
INS is a Dinosaurus. IRS and Laser Inertials are tha way to go, donīt foget the GPS, these are not covered too well.
IF you will fly aircraft that is equipped with INS you will learn all the tricks on the type course. Again familiarity but how deep of a knowledge should you have of a system that you might never encounter... And you might learn things that do not apply to the system that you will use.
I thought that the idea was to teach students how to fly airplanes not fix them or build them. It is good to know about how systems work but in what detail should one know say about the construction of a flux valve ??? or in what order are fuel/Oil cooler, Fuel heater, HP and LP engine fuel pumps, FF meter arranged in the system. Systems differ greatly and a general familiriaty should be achieved but again to what detail.
Lets not forget that ATPL theories are basic training for a professional pilots licence. I am not defending the US system as basic training did lacksome info that would have been useful at one point or another. I simply think that the JAR ATPL training should be refined a bit. In its present form a lot of good material is hidden under tons of stuff that is non-essential and will be quickly forgotten by a student.
Cheers
JJ
But I fail to see the reasoning why a student studying for JAR ATPL needs to be intimately familiar with say B737-400 systems. I mean I flew the-300,-400 and -500īs. So all the good for me. I know stuff. A waste of time for a person that may never fly that particular type when there is so much more info to learn. There are -400īs around with Electromechanical flight instruments and EFIS. Different airlines have some of the modes active and some have just bare basics in the FMS... To show how systems are integrated in a large aircraft is another thing. This attention to detail hardly serves this purpose (If that was the purpose in the first place).
Also INS. I actually found that interesting. Having used Delco Carousel and Litton -72 (these notes where freely based on the -72)and -92 systems quite extensively (In a triple mix enviroment).
INS is a Dinosaurus. IRS and Laser Inertials are tha way to go, donīt foget the GPS, these are not covered too well.
IF you will fly aircraft that is equipped with INS you will learn all the tricks on the type course. Again familiarity but how deep of a knowledge should you have of a system that you might never encounter... And you might learn things that do not apply to the system that you will use.
I thought that the idea was to teach students how to fly airplanes not fix them or build them. It is good to know about how systems work but in what detail should one know say about the construction of a flux valve ??? or in what order are fuel/Oil cooler, Fuel heater, HP and LP engine fuel pumps, FF meter arranged in the system. Systems differ greatly and a general familiriaty should be achieved but again to what detail.
Lets not forget that ATPL theories are basic training for a professional pilots licence. I am not defending the US system as basic training did lacksome info that would have been useful at one point or another. I simply think that the JAR ATPL training should be refined a bit. In its present form a lot of good material is hidden under tons of stuff that is non-essential and will be quickly forgotten by a student.
Cheers
JJ
Last edited by JJflyer; 15th Feb 2003 at 19:48.
Have you ever thought about Canada?
Lots of good schools there too!!
I live/work in Gander, Newfoundland and the weather here is the worst I ever experienced, and this is at 45 degrees north! I personnally came from Norway, to the states and did my helicopter PPL/CPL/IR/CFI/CFII and worked for a while, then converted to a norwegian CPL/H and IR/H. The Norwegian syllabus was the SH!TS if you ask me. I like to read, and have quite a few books on aviation subjects, but being a helicopter pilot, using charts that aren't used any more (since late 60's), calculating take off and landing performance in a Boeing 737-500 for my ATPL written, that was just plain stupid and that is my opinion.
When you look for schools, please call ahead, ask to speak with some students and see what they have to say, they may have a more in depth gauge on the situation than anyone else (PS Don't speak to the marketing person!!!!!).
Somebody was talking about safety, how can it be that americans have fewer accidents per airmile traveled, when their schools are so crappy? Just some food for thought there.
In that respect, if you do know the technical aspect of every aircraft out there, and something really do happen, will you have time to fix it? I believe in thorough technical knowledge of the aircraft you fly, and yes I believe in general knowledge, but making the exams so hard that almost everyone who takes them fails, that seems beyond the scope to me (and yes I passed all on the first try). To mee it seems like the combined european agencies are trying to weed out prospective pilots, just to keep the pilot population down. I am the first to admit that I was not the posterchild in highschool, but does not beeing a bookworm automatically make me a bad pilot? I have seen pro's and con'c for either way to go, but I am still a firm believer that going to the states, get your licenses (even the FAA/JAA route) is better, since this will give you a lot more experience, for which you can later apply when applying for jobs.
To convert your license is hard, I know, been there, got the t-shirt.... To do it one way or the other, that is what you do research for anyway. I don't honestly think there is a great deal of difference, but there is one thing, and that is that it is a lot easier to get a job in the US with a J-1 visa teaching others to fly, than working at Burger King in Glasshuset in Bodoe and that is for sure!
Hope you find what you're looking for, and if you want some info on the school I work at (Helicopter/Fixed wing) give me a PM
last but not least: Sorry I was so long winded, but it was good to get it off my chest (almost like talking to a Pshrink!!!!
Lots of good schools there too!!
I live/work in Gander, Newfoundland and the weather here is the worst I ever experienced, and this is at 45 degrees north! I personnally came from Norway, to the states and did my helicopter PPL/CPL/IR/CFI/CFII and worked for a while, then converted to a norwegian CPL/H and IR/H. The Norwegian syllabus was the SH!TS if you ask me. I like to read, and have quite a few books on aviation subjects, but being a helicopter pilot, using charts that aren't used any more (since late 60's), calculating take off and landing performance in a Boeing 737-500 for my ATPL written, that was just plain stupid and that is my opinion.
When you look for schools, please call ahead, ask to speak with some students and see what they have to say, they may have a more in depth gauge on the situation than anyone else (PS Don't speak to the marketing person!!!!!).
Somebody was talking about safety, how can it be that americans have fewer accidents per airmile traveled, when their schools are so crappy? Just some food for thought there.
In that respect, if you do know the technical aspect of every aircraft out there, and something really do happen, will you have time to fix it? I believe in thorough technical knowledge of the aircraft you fly, and yes I believe in general knowledge, but making the exams so hard that almost everyone who takes them fails, that seems beyond the scope to me (and yes I passed all on the first try). To mee it seems like the combined european agencies are trying to weed out prospective pilots, just to keep the pilot population down. I am the first to admit that I was not the posterchild in highschool, but does not beeing a bookworm automatically make me a bad pilot? I have seen pro's and con'c for either way to go, but I am still a firm believer that going to the states, get your licenses (even the FAA/JAA route) is better, since this will give you a lot more experience, for which you can later apply when applying for jobs.
To convert your license is hard, I know, been there, got the t-shirt.... To do it one way or the other, that is what you do research for anyway. I don't honestly think there is a great deal of difference, but there is one thing, and that is that it is a lot easier to get a job in the US with a J-1 visa teaching others to fly, than working at Burger King in Glasshuset in Bodoe and that is for sure!
Hope you find what you're looking for, and if you want some info on the school I work at (Helicopter/Fixed wing) give me a PM
last but not least: Sorry I was so long winded, but it was good to get it off my chest (almost like talking to a Pshrink!!!!
Last edited by Winnie; 25th Feb 2003 at 10:03.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nordic Flying Skool
Winnie - I agree with you 100%
The quote :
This seems only relevant when studying for the JAR-ATPL/H exams ( I Feel) , which by the way don't cater for helicopters yet.... So when i get asked how many fire extinguishers should i have per hundred passengers...i think to my self... Thats a F******g big helicopter.
On the same tone as someone mentioned earlier, about knowing the oil flow sequence in a turbine enginge, what the hell is a labrynth seal........well if you blow one in a helo, ...**** hits the fan....so as to speak. (Now you know where the call sign comes from).
I know nothing of this flying skool in Iceland, but it matters not where the skool is, nor the quality. Make sure that where it is you fly, get confirmation that an trainee spot is available to good pilots out of the class, and be that good pilot. There is no room for crap pilots any more.
Before long, all the wisdom in the trade will be retired. So look for quality, even if it takes you 32 months in stead if 5 months, because if you don't, Who is going to be the next generation of meticulous pilots out there?
LS
The quote :
But I fail to see the reasoning why a student studying for JAR ATPL needs to be intimately familiar with say B737-400 systems
On the same tone as someone mentioned earlier, about knowing the oil flow sequence in a turbine enginge, what the hell is a labrynth seal........well if you blow one in a helo, ...**** hits the fan....so as to speak. (Now you know where the call sign comes from).
I know nothing of this flying skool in Iceland, but it matters not where the skool is, nor the quality. Make sure that where it is you fly, get confirmation that an trainee spot is available to good pilots out of the class, and be that good pilot. There is no room for crap pilots any more.
Before long, all the wisdom in the trade will be retired. So look for quality, even if it takes you 32 months in stead if 5 months, because if you don't, Who is going to be the next generation of meticulous pilots out there?
LS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ultima Thule
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Guys ( and gals if any )
I just want to say thanks to all you who have given their advice on this matter, expecially those that have sent me Pm's, JJ flyer, captainK, Hårek den Hardbalne and Tangofox. ( this is beginning to sound like an Oscar speach so I'll stop know. )
I have now altered my plans, somewhat built on the advices given by you.
My plan is to learn here in Iceland, ( sometimes you can't see the forrest for the trees, really ).
It enables me to stop thinking about selling my flat, I can rent it if I run into trouble,
I can continue working when I have time.
The training is about half as costly as it is abroad. The school ( note singular, the only one which traines for professional piloting on this big rock in the sea ) is even government sponsored !! so thats why it is cheaper. It is partly owned by the ( few) airlines here in Iceland, Icelandair and Atlanta. It is although modular and is taught for 9 months, but I'll get help puzzling the rest together.
Now the funding: Little did I know. I can get a student loan for the ground school fees and special flight training loan from the Icelandic National bank for up to 16K pounds. This would cover most of my flight hrs. (remember it is supposed to be cheaper here) the rest, hmmmm..... well what about the rest ?
When I was starting choosing where to train and I got the hots for Oxford, I talked to the bank manager where I have all my personal finance, and he was willing,( but of course for the help from the greatest mother on earth!!), to lent me up to 36K pounds!.
So when I have finished my fATPL, CPL/IR and all of that, and maybe have prehaps something left for MCC which I must have, then I can most likely talk again with my helpful bankmanager ( and my mother who was so helpful of offering her help with the lcollateral) and get a loan for the instructor rating.
The cost: Total about 30-38K pounds. That's not that much do you think ?
As I said earlier; THANKS for the advices given, Pprune is such a wealth of information and helpful, interresting indivituals.
Regards from the land of the ice and snow
Proxus
I have now altered my plans, somewhat built on the advices given by you.
My plan is to learn here in Iceland, ( sometimes you can't see the forrest for the trees, really ).
It enables me to stop thinking about selling my flat, I can rent it if I run into trouble,
I can continue working when I have time.
The training is about half as costly as it is abroad. The school ( note singular, the only one which traines for professional piloting on this big rock in the sea ) is even government sponsored !! so thats why it is cheaper. It is partly owned by the ( few) airlines here in Iceland, Icelandair and Atlanta. It is although modular and is taught for 9 months, but I'll get help puzzling the rest together.
Now the funding: Little did I know. I can get a student loan for the ground school fees and special flight training loan from the Icelandic National bank for up to 16K pounds. This would cover most of my flight hrs. (remember it is supposed to be cheaper here) the rest, hmmmm..... well what about the rest ?
When I was starting choosing where to train and I got the hots for Oxford, I talked to the bank manager where I have all my personal finance, and he was willing,( but of course for the help from the greatest mother on earth!!), to lent me up to 36K pounds!.
So when I have finished my fATPL, CPL/IR and all of that, and maybe have prehaps something left for MCC which I must have, then I can most likely talk again with my helpful bankmanager ( and my mother who was so helpful of offering her help with the lcollateral) and get a loan for the instructor rating.
The cost: Total about 30-38K pounds. That's not that much do you think ?
As I said earlier; THANKS for the advices given, Pprune is such a wealth of information and helpful, interresting indivituals.
Regards from the land of the ice and snow
Proxus
Last edited by proxus; 14th Mar 2003 at 03:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I started out in aviation back in 1963. I have twenty years through which I flew with numerous 1st Officers. All of these were trained either in the US or in Europe or somewhere else. I always had to ask where they trained as it didn't show. Now my son trains in the US...errr...Europe...US....?
Some things never change.
Some things never change.
