New engineering apprentice scheme
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New engineering apprentice scheme
Hi All
Been brooding on this for sometime... so I have to vent a little! Over the last few years I have taken care of graduates of various aircraft engineering schools as work based placements.
Most (all I have seen) seem to be let down by the system . Personally I am in favour of the traditional 4 year apprenticeship scheme . Where student does 6 months on the job to see if he first of all likes the job and it is suited to him. Then once they accepts the apprenticeship starts his two week blocks of theory. Think I had roughly 40 weeks over my 4 year apprenticeship.
Under the new system students don't see an working aircraft or a real life organisation operating aircraft . Theory is shoved down the necks of students week after week relentlessly over a 9 month period. Certainly dumping the previous weeks lessons from their brains.
It seems very few hand skills are taught . Such as how to strip a wire , crimping and using a nav test set. It seems the blackhanders are taught how to file a block aluminum and basic lockwiring. Even more beneficial teaching would be how to actually conduct a service, powering on an aircraft and even safety in aviation environment (not just the theory).
The new journals are even harder to navigate , it seems this was written by someone from the education department with no idea of what is actually involved in aircraft maintenance. Personally I see nothing at fault with the current SOE books.
Combine this with the death of self study I see a great shortage for licenced guys coming into the system. Lets hope 457 visas don't dry up
That is my little rant :-/
Been brooding on this for sometime... so I have to vent a little! Over the last few years I have taken care of graduates of various aircraft engineering schools as work based placements.
Most (all I have seen) seem to be let down by the system . Personally I am in favour of the traditional 4 year apprenticeship scheme . Where student does 6 months on the job to see if he first of all likes the job and it is suited to him. Then once they accepts the apprenticeship starts his two week blocks of theory. Think I had roughly 40 weeks over my 4 year apprenticeship.
Under the new system students don't see an working aircraft or a real life organisation operating aircraft . Theory is shoved down the necks of students week after week relentlessly over a 9 month period. Certainly dumping the previous weeks lessons from their brains.
It seems very few hand skills are taught . Such as how to strip a wire , crimping and using a nav test set. It seems the blackhanders are taught how to file a block aluminum and basic lockwiring. Even more beneficial teaching would be how to actually conduct a service, powering on an aircraft and even safety in aviation environment (not just the theory).
The new journals are even harder to navigate , it seems this was written by someone from the education department with no idea of what is actually involved in aircraft maintenance. Personally I see nothing at fault with the current SOE books.
Combine this with the death of self study I see a great shortage for licenced guys coming into the system. Lets hope 457 visas don't dry up
That is my little rant :-/
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New engineering apprentice scheme
Not forgetting that those that do come through this system belong to gen y, the generation that thinks the world owes them something and just doesn't care !
"Hasa" that is indeed disappointing but not surprising to read.
The word apprenticeship will go in the annuls of the past, something to be read by the next generation who will think gee fancy having to work for a living & learn a trade....eeeekkkkk!
The way I see the future for Australian industries (said with tongue in cheek as we simply have none of any worth) is that most manual work will be done by other means, IE robotic-ally or sent off shore & the only hands-on labour that will exists here (in the land of opportunities...cough cough cough) will be those that dig holes (& fill 'em back up again, Eg council worker), the main employment stream will be over educated Uni products, pen pushers, future generations of white shirts that wouldn't know which way to turn a screwdriver! Sure we need them as well but the balance is now way out of kilter!
The days of hands on skills in life will no longer be needed, you just look it up on yr iPad & order a new one 'cause no one will know how to fix anything!
We are breeding a new Australia full of princesses (look at the latest footy princess fiasco!) politically correct whom are over-reliant on the system that has no long term future. They want it & they want it NOW!
The way of the future where sometimes progress (used loosely) is short term!
Wmk2
The word apprenticeship will go in the annuls of the past, something to be read by the next generation who will think gee fancy having to work for a living & learn a trade....eeeekkkkk!
The way I see the future for Australian industries (said with tongue in cheek as we simply have none of any worth) is that most manual work will be done by other means, IE robotic-ally or sent off shore & the only hands-on labour that will exists here (in the land of opportunities...cough cough cough) will be those that dig holes (& fill 'em back up again, Eg council worker), the main employment stream will be over educated Uni products, pen pushers, future generations of white shirts that wouldn't know which way to turn a screwdriver! Sure we need them as well but the balance is now way out of kilter!
The days of hands on skills in life will no longer be needed, you just look it up on yr iPad & order a new one 'cause no one will know how to fix anything!
We are breeding a new Australia full of princesses (look at the latest footy princess fiasco!) politically correct whom are over-reliant on the system that has no long term future. They want it & they want it NOW!
The way of the future where sometimes progress (used loosely) is short term!
Wmk2
.............yeah sorry JR, getting more & more like you everyday buddy
One day in the not too distant future man will find buried deep in the sands of yesteryear what he describes as an implement of curiosity.
Described as around 20cm's long, somewhat cylindrical in shape made of some crude soft material on one end that appears to be well worn by the hand of man & on the other end of the long thinner metal like shaft an odd shape for perhaps turning something by hand.........................what has that future man found?....a screwdriver !!!!
Wmk2
One day in the not too distant future man will find buried deep in the sands of yesteryear what he describes as an implement of curiosity.
Described as around 20cm's long, somewhat cylindrical in shape made of some crude soft material on one end that appears to be well worn by the hand of man & on the other end of the long thinner metal like shaft an odd shape for perhaps turning something by hand.........................what has that future man found?....a screwdriver !!!!
Wmk2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day teaching on a blackboard is cheap. As long as people can pass that course that week its fine . Students are prepped for exams .... not taught the subject.
Also if they are assessed 'competent' as opposed to 'not yet competent ' irks me . The lecturer told the last student "If you get anything past the 70% pass mark you are trying too hard" . Who ever thought up competency based training needs a punch in the throat !
Also if they are assessed 'competent' as opposed to 'not yet competent ' irks me . The lecturer told the last student "If you get anything past the 70% pass mark you are trying too hard" . Who ever thought up competency based training needs a punch in the throat !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, so when my plane comes out of service it only needs to be 70% serviced right?! I'm afraid my opinion of 'higher education' took a dive when I discovered the pervasive mentality of doing just enough to 'pass' (and 70% is a high pass mark compared to some uni courses). When was 'near enough = good enough' ever acceptable in this field of endeavour let alone others? What happened to doing one's best?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been at the wrong end of compentacy based training. This was in the early days in the early 90's in the TAFE system. Did 9 months of an automotive course at TAFE promoted as being preparation for automotive trades. Got myself a start at a workshop. Then after 3 months my employer found that there was a big difference in what my paper qualifications stated and what my actual hands on skills were. He was most displeased about being mislead by my educational institution. I'll tell anybody that compentacy based training is sub standard and is obviously a cheaper alternative to proper training. I think the long term effect is that it discourages high calibre teachers from being involved in a broken system.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasherucf... this has not been my experience.
I have had a few dozen apprentices over the years (both under traditional block release/TAFE and newer 1 year pre-vocational system) and most have gone on to be excellent engineers. To me though under the old traditional 4 year system there was a higher drop out rate and took years longer to get licenced, and for the first year pretty useless beyond removing panels and lunch orders.
Personally I have found the kids trained under the new system are way in front and far more useful from day one, plus they get licenced far quicker. I have heard all the BS about being just taught only theory and it is that BS... the apprentices we have seen from the pre-vocational system have all had good basic practical skills and a good attitude.
We are looking to put on another apprentice shortly and will probably go with kids from ATAE or CASC, they seem to do a pretty good job and filter out the duds.
I have had a few dozen apprentices over the years (both under traditional block release/TAFE and newer 1 year pre-vocational system) and most have gone on to be excellent engineers. To me though under the old traditional 4 year system there was a higher drop out rate and took years longer to get licenced, and for the first year pretty useless beyond removing panels and lunch orders.
Personally I have found the kids trained under the new system are way in front and far more useful from day one, plus they get licenced far quicker. I have heard all the BS about being just taught only theory and it is that BS... the apprentices we have seen from the pre-vocational system have all had good basic practical skills and a good attitude.
We are looking to put on another apprentice shortly and will probably go with kids from ATAE or CASC, they seem to do a pretty good job and filter out the duds.
CBT and aviation
As someone recently out of industry and now currently involved in the trainign sector I would like to add my two cents regarding CBT and apprentices:
Firstly, the "new system" is not new at all, the one organisation touting a 1 year theory based course does nto in fact produce CBT results, any review of thier statement will reveal that they provide "eligability for assessment" in the required CBT units and not competency.
Since the entire CBT system is premised on assessment being more important than delivery (you can be assessed as competent without attending a course - as in recognition of prior skill) this course amount to nothing toward an apprenticeship.
CPT does not require a 75% pass mark, in fact graded passess are NOT acceptable under the Australian VET sector rules. Only competence (100%) in the individual task skills required in each unit is acceptable under VET rules despite what some providers have gotten away with.
This was often justified under "the employers only want license outcomes" etc. However the license now requires skills as well as knowledge.
Those justifications aside I agree that the TAFE sector has largly lost touch with the requirements of industry. Within the organisation I am working with we have been workign to re-introduce practical skills training into the VET program and produce apprentices who are of more value.
This inlcudes having them complete multiple practical tasks (not just lockwiring and filing) but actually completing a 100hourly.
I can suggest to those employers who do not appreciate the current focus on knowledge to the detriment of skills to contatc thier TAFE, followed by Manufacturing Skills Australia and lastly the TAFE regulator in thier state. Ultimately CBT is driven by industry demand and will only respond to industry feedback.
Firstly, the "new system" is not new at all, the one organisation touting a 1 year theory based course does nto in fact produce CBT results, any review of thier statement will reveal that they provide "eligability for assessment" in the required CBT units and not competency.
Since the entire CBT system is premised on assessment being more important than delivery (you can be assessed as competent without attending a course - as in recognition of prior skill) this course amount to nothing toward an apprenticeship.
CPT does not require a 75% pass mark, in fact graded passess are NOT acceptable under the Australian VET sector rules. Only competence (100%) in the individual task skills required in each unit is acceptable under VET rules despite what some providers have gotten away with.
This was often justified under "the employers only want license outcomes" etc. However the license now requires skills as well as knowledge.
Those justifications aside I agree that the TAFE sector has largly lost touch with the requirements of industry. Within the organisation I am working with we have been workign to re-introduce practical skills training into the VET program and produce apprentices who are of more value.
This inlcudes having them complete multiple practical tasks (not just lockwiring and filing) but actually completing a 100hourly.
I can suggest to those employers who do not appreciate the current focus on knowledge to the detriment of skills to contatc thier TAFE, followed by Manufacturing Skills Australia and lastly the TAFE regulator in thier state. Ultimately CBT is driven by industry demand and will only respond to industry feedback.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: darwin
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBT
As a graduate from an aeroskills CBT syllabus myself, I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong person.
Am I incorrect to say that as a requirement of hiring a trainee or apprentice from a direct entry theory course is that they are partnered in the workplace with a trade qualified mentor? Tell me what 1yr apprentice you have hired that learns how to ground run and fault find a system within the first year of TAFE.
If you hire a graduate from one of these courses, and he's not the golden troop you want within the first six months, is that still the training providers fault or the fact you haven't mentored them properly in the work place?
Is correct that no trainee graduates from a theory school actually competent in a task? A trainee is only competent once he/she is actually assessed by an Australian aerospace assessor who then signs their logbook as being competent one he.she demonstrated competence in the assessed task.
Also, the new skills log in use really isn't that hard to navigate, most supervisors get frustrated because they don't know what they are looking at and give up, when there is a clear explanation in the front of all logs on how it works and how to use it.
Whoever thinks the passing a 12 month full time Aeroskills course is easy, I can tell you its not.I have seen some 'classis' engineers who have been in the field for 20yrs. If they were exposed with the same expectations when they completed their apprenticeships, they would not be 20yr engineers today but most likely toilet cleaners.
To the fool who puts this down to Gen Y, You need to look at the generation of folk who develop these systems and thrust them upon us. Most likely the same aged folk who armed us with high interest easy credit cards.. But don't worry, we can be the scapegoats you blame for this, then expect to fund your retirement!
Am I incorrect to say that as a requirement of hiring a trainee or apprentice from a direct entry theory course is that they are partnered in the workplace with a trade qualified mentor? Tell me what 1yr apprentice you have hired that learns how to ground run and fault find a system within the first year of TAFE.
If you hire a graduate from one of these courses, and he's not the golden troop you want within the first six months, is that still the training providers fault or the fact you haven't mentored them properly in the work place?
Is correct that no trainee graduates from a theory school actually competent in a task? A trainee is only competent once he/she is actually assessed by an Australian aerospace assessor who then signs their logbook as being competent one he.she demonstrated competence in the assessed task.
Also, the new skills log in use really isn't that hard to navigate, most supervisors get frustrated because they don't know what they are looking at and give up, when there is a clear explanation in the front of all logs on how it works and how to use it.
Whoever thinks the passing a 12 month full time Aeroskills course is easy, I can tell you its not.I have seen some 'classis' engineers who have been in the field for 20yrs. If they were exposed with the same expectations when they completed their apprenticeships, they would not be 20yr engineers today but most likely toilet cleaners.
To the fool who puts this down to Gen Y, You need to look at the generation of folk who develop these systems and thrust them upon us. Most likely the same aged folk who armed us with high interest easy credit cards.. But don't worry, we can be the scapegoats you blame for this, then expect to fund your retirement!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Progressive nails it on the head ! Getting away from just lock-wiring and filing a block and actually doing a 100hrly occasionally. I met so many guys that have said "I wish they had taught us how to do a 100hrly"
Or making a loom with skills such as wire stripping , soldering , terminating , pinning out and installing . A broader range of basic hand skills
I certainly don't blame the student as they are just part of the process. I dont expect a student to come out as the complete package but being useful after a year would be good . Like knowing how not to strip a screw , inflate a tyre safely or take off a panel . All people that aren't licenced need to be supervised.
As for the 70% mark I plucked that figure from no-where , I think it was 75% at a well known training school when I attended a course there. The sample questions they handed out were almost a mirror of the Cert IV exam which we did as practice. I scored 97% and 98% in those exams but as a LAME I did the CASA exam which I got low 80%'s in.
Also students were run through terminolgy they didn't know . They had no training aids in the class , like if your teaching say ADF's then get all the parts of an ADF and show people what it looks like . Show operation in a live aircraft when possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't instructors going to be required to be licenced under the new system ?. How would they be required to stay current . Do they need to work on 'live' aircraft to stay current ?
Or making a loom with skills such as wire stripping , soldering , terminating , pinning out and installing . A broader range of basic hand skills
I certainly don't blame the student as they are just part of the process. I dont expect a student to come out as the complete package but being useful after a year would be good . Like knowing how not to strip a screw , inflate a tyre safely or take off a panel . All people that aren't licenced need to be supervised.
As for the 70% mark I plucked that figure from no-where , I think it was 75% at a well known training school when I attended a course there. The sample questions they handed out were almost a mirror of the Cert IV exam which we did as practice. I scored 97% and 98% in those exams but as a LAME I did the CASA exam which I got low 80%'s in.
Also students were run through terminolgy they didn't know . They had no training aids in the class , like if your teaching say ADF's then get all the parts of an ADF and show people what it looks like . Show operation in a live aircraft when possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't instructors going to be required to be licenced under the new system ?. How would they be required to stay current . Do they need to work on 'live' aircraft to stay current ?
Moderator
The vast majority of Australian apprentices, including aero skills apprentices, complete a traditional three or four year on the job apprentice indenture arrangement. They attend approximately six weeks college per year in Years 1 to 3 (or RTO training delivery in the work place) whilst undertaking normal on the job supervised work in the work place.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 37
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you got a reference for that Taily? In my experience, the figure is more like 50%.
Unfortunately most of the kids who do their six or twelve month pre-trade course go on to do the CASA exams because the new system is too difficult to get their (and their employers) heads around.
In the end, the one year spent in a classroom pressing the auto dump button every few weeks counts for nothing except to get a foot in the door. If I could of had it my way, I would have just done the CASA basics and got the SOE I needed and I would have been licenced 12 months before I eventually was.
It's a poorly thought out system, designed for the airlines to be able to import engineers. Unfortunately, the old CAR31 system wasn't much better, being designed for Tigermoths, Wirraways and Hillers where back in the day the CASA inspector who issued the licence, whilst knowing that they still had a lot to learn, took a little initiative and actually wanted the applicant to get a LAME licence.
Unfortunately most of the kids who do their six or twelve month pre-trade course go on to do the CASA exams because the new system is too difficult to get their (and their employers) heads around.
In the end, the one year spent in a classroom pressing the auto dump button every few weeks counts for nothing except to get a foot in the door. If I could of had it my way, I would have just done the CASA basics and got the SOE I needed and I would have been licenced 12 months before I eventually was.
It's a poorly thought out system, designed for the airlines to be able to import engineers. Unfortunately, the old CAR31 system wasn't much better, being designed for Tigermoths, Wirraways and Hillers where back in the day the CASA inspector who issued the licence, whilst knowing that they still had a lot to learn, took a little initiative and actually wanted the applicant to get a LAME licence.
Moderator
Have you got a reference for that Taily? In my experience, the figure is more like 50%.
Only those that complete a traditional on the job apprenticeship, subject to a Training Contract registered through their State Training Authority, are included in Government statistics.
Those who complete an RTO one or two year Certificate III or Certificate IV in-house college courses, not subject to a registered Training Contract, are not apprentices and their qualification is provided by the RTO, not registered through a State Training Authority.
A person who is not an Australian Citizen or Australian Permanent Resident can not undertake a registered Australian Apprenticeship. Overseas students undertaking Cert III or Cert IV trade courses in Australia are not apprentices, nor is their qualification registered through a State Training Authority.
Many Australians are also completing expensive one or two year RTO Cert III and IV aeroskills courses and wonder why they have problems gaining employment as AME. There is still no substitute for a traditional four year apprenticeship.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 37
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I should have said that (in my experience) about 50% of the kids who go on to get licences, go straight into an apprenticeship and have TAFE blocks throughout the next four years, the other 50% start with a one year Aeroskills Cert. IV Course and then end up doing the CASA basics and SOE just like the first half because the Cert. IV system is not widely understood and encouraged.
Obviously that option is about to become the only option available as they will stop offering CASA basic exams mid next year and won't be processing CAR31 applications into 2015.
The biggest driving factor is that if a company has a choice between two applicants, and one will have to be sent to TAFE two or three times a year for weeks at a time, the Aeroskills guy usually wins. Is s/he ever compensated for the year he spent living without pay (except for his Domino's job), and the expense of putting himself through school? Nope. The apprentice however is paid all the way though, given allowances to travel to and from TAFE, accumulates holidays at TAFE etc etc. If I had it my way again, I know what I'd do.
Try telling CASA that. It's a thing of the past in Australian aviation.
P.S. Having done an apprenticeship means absolutely nothing more than having worked for 3 or 4 years as a tradesman's assistant when it comes to applying for a licence.
Obviously that option is about to become the only option available as they will stop offering CASA basic exams mid next year and won't be processing CAR31 applications into 2015.
The biggest driving factor is that if a company has a choice between two applicants, and one will have to be sent to TAFE two or three times a year for weeks at a time, the Aeroskills guy usually wins. Is s/he ever compensated for the year he spent living without pay (except for his Domino's job), and the expense of putting himself through school? Nope. The apprentice however is paid all the way though, given allowances to travel to and from TAFE, accumulates holidays at TAFE etc etc. If I had it my way again, I know what I'd do.
There is still no substitute for a traditional four year apprenticeship.
P.S. Having done an apprenticeship means absolutely nothing more than having worked for 3 or 4 years as a tradesman's assistant when it comes to applying for a licence.
Moderator
One problem in the eyes of some employers is that person that completes a Cert IV Aeroskills then seeks employment must be paid at higher AME wage - if he can find employment - whilst his productivity and trade supervision requirement are probably at Year 2 or Year 3 apprentice level.
An apprentice commences on apprentice wages, 40% of Award tradesman's rate.
I don't recall CASA ever accepted completion of an apprenticeship as qualification for an AME License? But an apprentice completes an SOE during his apprenticeship and should be able to pass basic engine and airframe licenses.
There is still no substitute for a traditional four year apprenticeship.
An apprentice commences on apprentice wages, 40% of Award tradesman's rate.
Having done an apprenticeship means absolutely nothing more than having worked for 3 or 4 years as a tradesman's assistant when it comes to applying for a licence.
There is still no substitute for a traditional four year apprenticeship.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: darwin
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBT
Think about how many AME's are really trained as 'traditional' apprentices now days. 800 people graduated from the RAAF tech school last year all under CBT, add that to Aviation Australia, QIAE, BAE, Boeing and other private companies using training packages supplied but places such as RMIT and you will find no more than 15% of AME's now days complete a 'traditional' apprenticeship. Even GA companies are looking for graduates from trade schools.
How can learning a solid theory base prior to getting licensed be worse than some clown getting licensed who has never actually completed any prior training but passed the CASA basics and got some dodgy entries in their SOE out the back of nowhere which was possible under CAR 31.
The new system takes longer to get licensed as it is suppose to. It will produce quality 21st century engineers.
To the folk who think that the now skills log is a bad idea. Grab one of your trainees logs and read the first 5 pages. It will explain everything clearly. If that fails meet up with an Australian aerospace assessor and they will be able to explain it clearly.
What this new Skills log ensures is competency in every task before getting licensed. Hence why there is a requirement to carry out tasks a certain about of times before the AAA is able to assess as competent.
How can learning a solid theory base prior to getting licensed be worse than some clown getting licensed who has never actually completed any prior training but passed the CASA basics and got some dodgy entries in their SOE out the back of nowhere which was possible under CAR 31.
The new system takes longer to get licensed as it is suppose to. It will produce quality 21st century engineers.
To the folk who think that the now skills log is a bad idea. Grab one of your trainees logs and read the first 5 pages. It will explain everything clearly. If that fails meet up with an Australian aerospace assessor and they will be able to explain it clearly.
What this new Skills log ensures is competency in every task before getting licensed. Hence why there is a requirement to carry out tasks a certain about of times before the AAA is able to assess as competent.
CBT and apprenticeships
Hi all and thanks for the positive feedback,
I just wanted to clarify some of the confusion in the points made above.
Firstly a Cert IV in Aeroskills IS a traditional apprenticeship, and in fact you cannot be enrolled in this course until you are an indentured apprentice (at least in my state). The units of competency simply formalise the one the job training requirements around specific skills.
Secondly the "one year course" offered by the well known school is not a Cert IV in Aeroskills (cert IV is a 48 month course) It is a "pre appreticeship" that the well known school say qualifies its students for the theory only component of the cert IV.
The student still needs to be enrolled in a Cert IV course once an employer is found.
To clarify, the only way to achieve a Cert IV in aeroskills is to complete an apprenticeship, either while undertaking the theory (block release) or after as in the case of the one year course.
Cheers
I just wanted to clarify some of the confusion in the points made above.
Firstly a Cert IV in Aeroskills IS a traditional apprenticeship, and in fact you cannot be enrolled in this course until you are an indentured apprentice (at least in my state). The units of competency simply formalise the one the job training requirements around specific skills.
Secondly the "one year course" offered by the well known school is not a Cert IV in Aeroskills (cert IV is a 48 month course) It is a "pre appreticeship" that the well known school say qualifies its students for the theory only component of the cert IV.
The student still needs to be enrolled in a Cert IV course once an employer is found.
To clarify, the only way to achieve a Cert IV in aeroskills is to complete an apprenticeship, either while undertaking the theory (block release) or after as in the case of the one year course.
Cheers
Moderator
....in fact you cannot be enrolled in this course until you are an indentured apprentice (at least in my state).
There is still no substitute for a four year apprenticeship.