First Job Drive Australia
If we are talking about first job then it is the operators who should be doing the training. You can’t expect a newbie with zero time out of training to ‘get’ real commercial ops.
Eons ago when I did my CPL it was at a reputable school, lo and behold, luckily not long after landed that first job in a remote location. Erm how do you use the HF😳. So yes things slip and schools should make sure that everything is covered. I was employed at a time when there’s the keys there’s the aircraft off ya go, yep all 230 hours……
Move along a bit and I employed quite a few newbies with bare minimums from the CPL what counted was ATTITUDE and basic flying ability. It was then up to the team to smash out ICUS flying till they were up to speed and off ya go.
Now if you are talking 2nd / 3rd job then pilots should already be ready. However employers should be the ones spending the time.
I can’t believe there are still outfits around that charge for a check flight to see if you are employable!
So yes it’s a double edged sword, but have the right attitude, as many have said here up skill outside of aviation, and then 🤞🏾 for the good luck.
Now the ‘drive ready’ course… You’re onto something here, applications can be sent to dontbeasucker get out there and do it!
Eons ago when I did my CPL it was at a reputable school, lo and behold, luckily not long after landed that first job in a remote location. Erm how do you use the HF😳. So yes things slip and schools should make sure that everything is covered. I was employed at a time when there’s the keys there’s the aircraft off ya go, yep all 230 hours……
Move along a bit and I employed quite a few newbies with bare minimums from the CPL what counted was ATTITUDE and basic flying ability. It was then up to the team to smash out ICUS flying till they were up to speed and off ya go.
Now if you are talking 2nd / 3rd job then pilots should already be ready. However employers should be the ones spending the time.
I can’t believe there are still outfits around that charge for a check flight to see if you are employable!
So yes it’s a double edged sword, but have the right attitude, as many have said here up skill outside of aviation, and then 🤞🏾 for the good luck.
Now the ‘drive ready’ course… You’re onto something here, applications can be sent to dontbeasucker get out there and do it!
And for gods sake make sure you get some Cessna time. I have spoken to 3 or 4 operators over the past year and they said their biggest problem has been new pilots who come from the city sausage factory flying schools having flown nothing other than a DA40, who can't even seem to operate a C172 properly 
Get at least 10 hours in a C206 and learn how to fly a nice tidy circuit, or a C182 at the very least.
Get at least 10 hours in a C206 and learn how to fly a nice tidy circuit, or a C182 at the very least.
I think it would be wise for CPL students who are moving into the PIC time building phase, to plan out what one will spend the time in, don't do it all in a 152 or DA40 if you can. Research the employers, see what types they have, and plan accordingly. You will find near nobody does a large chunk of the hour building in a 206, so being that person, will make you competitive. I understand that not everyone can afford to do 50-100 hours in a 182/206, however 15 or 20 hours in each is more than most, that would still be a plus.
Any CV that passed my desk back in the day, that had 50-100 hours heavy Cessna PIC time, got my attention. They were the 5%. It was also much easier onboarding someone to a 210 that has spent significant time in a 206. Needless to say those 5% all got hired.
True. However, it shouldn't be up to operators to have to spend hours teaching a new hire how to fly an acceptably tidy circuit in a C182. Once upon a time, fresh CPLs new how to attitude fly and fly a circuit that doesn't resemble that of a 737.
The following 2 users liked this post by mikewil:
For the life of me, I don’t get the obsession with C206 time. I’d have thought genuine remote area experience in anything that defies gravity, especially in the areas your desired future employer operates would be far more useful. I don’t see how 30 hours tooling around Victoria in a C206 is more useful than 100 hours in a C-150 hopping around the Kimberlys in the wet season.
Easy to teach someone to fly anything your company’s way, not so easy to teach thinking out of the box.
45 years ago there wasn’t any black art to running an IO520, today it appears you need a thermodynamics degree to lean it and manage MP, RPM and the cowl flaps. In 1500 hours of 206/207/210 back then, I never heard of any premature engine rebuilds. What’s changed?
Easy to teach someone to fly anything your company’s way, not so easy to teach thinking out of the box.
45 years ago there wasn’t any black art to running an IO520, today it appears you need a thermodynamics degree to lean it and manage MP, RPM and the cowl flaps. In 1500 hours of 206/207/210 back then, I never heard of any premature engine rebuilds. What’s changed?
The following 3 users liked this post by lucille:
45 years ago there wasn’t any black art to running an IO520, today it appears you need a thermodynamics degree to lean it and manage MP, RPM and the cowl flaps. In 1500 hours of 206/207/210 back then, I never heard of any premature engine rebuilds. What’s changed?
The following 2 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
In which case wouldn't a prudent operator properly induct a newbie, rather than take it that prior 206 time guarantees anything?
The following users liked this post:
I fly jets with 200 hr F/Os that I wouldn’t want to send out on a C206 charter flight let alone in Baron, which their CPL/IR would qualify them to do. A few of our Captains wouldn’t meet the insurance requirements for a Banderante command in PNG yet are flying jet airliners on international routes.
IMHO it’s how they’re trained and what they’re trained for that is the issue. A sausage machine school operating out of a capital city G/A airport is more likely to prepare students for an airline job rather than a bush one. Having a control tower, 2000m tar runway with VASIs and possibly an approach aid whilst flying a new generation training aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit isn’t good preparation for the bush.
Putting a product of this training system into a 30 year old C206 with a Garmin 100 and expecting them to operate into a short dirt strip in marginal VFR weather is asking for trouble.
Back in my day we learnt on round dials, because that’s all there was. Map reading was important because there wasn’t normally a beacon and GPS was still a few years away for civil use. I had several hundred hours experience before I knew what a VASI was and over 1000 hrs before operating into airports which had them.
However CRM training was non existent and multi crew was what you did when you got into an airline. No one knew about human factors and there was a lot less regulation and oversight. Flight data monitoring was in its infancy.
We were better prepared for a G/A job and less prepared for an airline one. This didn’t matter too much as you were unlikely to get near the airlines until you had at least 2000 hours under your belt.
Now the situation is reversed.
IMHO it’s how they’re trained and what they’re trained for that is the issue. A sausage machine school operating out of a capital city G/A airport is more likely to prepare students for an airline job rather than a bush one. Having a control tower, 2000m tar runway with VASIs and possibly an approach aid whilst flying a new generation training aircraft equipped with a glass cockpit isn’t good preparation for the bush.
Putting a product of this training system into a 30 year old C206 with a Garmin 100 and expecting them to operate into a short dirt strip in marginal VFR weather is asking for trouble.
Back in my day we learnt on round dials, because that’s all there was. Map reading was important because there wasn’t normally a beacon and GPS was still a few years away for civil use. I had several hundred hours experience before I knew what a VASI was and over 1000 hrs before operating into airports which had them.
However CRM training was non existent and multi crew was what you did when you got into an airline. No one knew about human factors and there was a lot less regulation and oversight. Flight data monitoring was in its infancy.
We were better prepared for a G/A job and less prepared for an airline one. This didn’t matter too much as you were unlikely to get near the airlines until you had at least 2000 hours under your belt.
Now the situation is reversed.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Is that the Government's fault for facilitating the Diploma student influx or training institutions dropping standards for maximum turnover? I feel something has gave in if that is a common sentiment felt by operators.
Global,
The idea with any commercial operator is to make money. It is said that if a GA operator makes 4% on investment they are doing good.
In part that means that they want pilots who need minimum flying before they are set loose on a money making mission.
To do any training costs in terms of aircraft, competent check/training pilots, fuel, decreased aircraft hours to make money, risks involved in training.
In short what an operator wants is a pilot who has what it takes to make money with minimum check flying, not training. Thus a pilot already trained and capable to fly their aircraft type and can be set loose to make money, safely, is the one who gets the job. Not having to spend time training someone to be capable.
R
The idea with any commercial operator is to make money. It is said that if a GA operator makes 4% on investment they are doing good.
In part that means that they want pilots who need minimum flying before they are set loose on a money making mission.
To do any training costs in terms of aircraft, competent check/training pilots, fuel, decreased aircraft hours to make money, risks involved in training.
In short what an operator wants is a pilot who has what it takes to make money with minimum check flying, not training. Thus a pilot already trained and capable to fly their aircraft type and can be set loose to make money, safely, is the one who gets the job. Not having to spend time training someone to be capable.
R
The following 2 users liked this post by runway16:
It's the job of the training organisation to ensure they are job ready and employable as part of the CPL training.
All that should be required by the employer is induction and standardisation.
All that should be required by the employer is induction and standardisation.
The following 4 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Clare, Hi,
I could not agree with you more.
That gets back to the level of training that that new CPL received. In my opinion many new CPLs are just not Job Ready and that is where the post CPL sign off comes into being, to bring the candidate up to standard.
I feel that CASA and its Part 142 150 hours regs has a lot to answer for the production of new sub standard CPL holders who are just not Job Ready.
R
I could not agree with you more.
That gets back to the level of training that that new CPL received. In my opinion many new CPLs are just not Job Ready and that is where the post CPL sign off comes into being, to bring the candidate up to standard.
I feel that CASA and its Part 142 150 hours regs has a lot to answer for the production of new sub standard CPL holders who are just not Job Ready.
R
The following 2 users liked this post by runway16:
Global,
The idea with any commercial operator is to make money. It is said that if a GA operator makes 4% on investment they are doing good.
In part that means that they want pilots who need minimum flying before they are set loose on a money making mission.
To do any training costs in terms of aircraft, competent check/training pilots, fuel, decreased aircraft hours to make money, risks involved in training.
In short what an operator wants is a pilot who has what it takes to make money with minimum check flying, not training. Thus a pilot already trained and capable to fly their aircraft type and can be set loose to make money, safely, is the one who gets the job. Not having to spend time training someone to be capable.
R
The idea with any commercial operator is to make money. It is said that if a GA operator makes 4% on investment they are doing good.
In part that means that they want pilots who need minimum flying before they are set loose on a money making mission.
To do any training costs in terms of aircraft, competent check/training pilots, fuel, decreased aircraft hours to make money, risks involved in training.
In short what an operator wants is a pilot who has what it takes to make money with minimum check flying, not training. Thus a pilot already trained and capable to fly their aircraft type and can be set loose to make money, safely, is the one who gets the job. Not having to spend time training someone to be capable.
R
Tell me how much does it cost you to do ICUS with a newbie pilot?
I do agree training organisations should do more, I don’t agree that a fresh CPL should be ready to have the keys thrown to them and off ya go. Investing time and money in people pays dividends (or used to).
In now debating with myself, is a fresh CPL ready to instruct? No they have to do a course, ready to paradrop? Nope need some training, ready for survey work, errrr…..
Any job after the first I agree wholeheartedly however we need to give the newbies a break after all we got one.
Newbies if readying this then yes I agree with alot of what’s written here in regards to upskilling and making sure you can fly a 6 pack!
Clare, Hi,
I could not agree with you more.
That gets back to the level of training that that new CPL received. In my opinion many new CPLs are just not Job Ready and that is where the post CPL sign off comes into being, to bring the candidate up to standard.
I feel that CASA and its Part 142 150 hours regs has a lot to answer for the production of new sub standard CPL holders who are just not Job Ready.
R
I could not agree with you more.
That gets back to the level of training that that new CPL received. In my opinion many new CPLs are just not Job Ready and that is where the post CPL sign off comes into being, to bring the candidate up to standard.
I feel that CASA and its Part 142 150 hours regs has a lot to answer for the production of new sub standard CPL holders who are just not Job Ready.
R
Some statistics on how many enrol, how many finish and how many actually get a job within say three months of qualifying would be interesting and may need to be brought to the attention of some Senators who might want to know why on earth the government is funding this at all.
I have plenty of anecdotal stories about the success rates, surely the organisations have to provide this information to someone in Canberra to keep getting the money? Or do they??
7 out of 10 probably aren’t interested in a 206. They’re already super excited to thank everyone on LinkedIn for the guidance and support that helped them get a job on *insert airline gig here*
The following 3 users liked this post by Going Nowhere:
Global, Hi.
Your reply an interesting read.
I disagree in that an operator, say a small charter operator, wants minimum expense for a new pilot before he makes money. Standisation, a check flight and maybe a route check but not 'Training' at large. The last say 10-15 years has seen a change in the dynamics of flight training. Sausage factories staffed by instructors who are still sucking on moma's tit, kids who still live at home and Dad expects the flight school to make them a man. Flight schools that talk of our highly experienced instructors - who only got their instructors ticket a month ago, and never flown out of the state.
Build time towing gliders. A good time building route because the gliding people look over your shoulder to ensure no bent metal. Para dropping. I got 45 minutes in a C185 before I was set loose. Now have done over 3500 sorties and 13000 plus jumpers but one thing it did teach me was working solo and under pressure and had to make sure I got it right.
Flight schools are interested in one thing - making money. What a lot lack is competent experienced instructors who have real skills to pass on to the new Bees.
I say again that CASA introducing Part 142 with 150 hours is creating inexperience new CPLs. It takes all of 200 hours to be happy that you will get home in one piece.
Investing time and training is something that my last CEO lacked and with thousands of hours there was no professional development for me. . That went to the less experienced instructors who were good drinking buddies with said CEO, and were always having a laugh in his office instead of doing the job. After they got their upgrade they then left with no contract to keep them on staff and return the PD.
Yes, times, attitudes and regulations as well as expectations have all changed in the last 10-15 years.
R
Your reply an interesting read.
I disagree in that an operator, say a small charter operator, wants minimum expense for a new pilot before he makes money. Standisation, a check flight and maybe a route check but not 'Training' at large. The last say 10-15 years has seen a change in the dynamics of flight training. Sausage factories staffed by instructors who are still sucking on moma's tit, kids who still live at home and Dad expects the flight school to make them a man. Flight schools that talk of our highly experienced instructors - who only got their instructors ticket a month ago, and never flown out of the state.
Build time towing gliders. A good time building route because the gliding people look over your shoulder to ensure no bent metal. Para dropping. I got 45 minutes in a C185 before I was set loose. Now have done over 3500 sorties and 13000 plus jumpers but one thing it did teach me was working solo and under pressure and had to make sure I got it right.
Flight schools are interested in one thing - making money. What a lot lack is competent experienced instructors who have real skills to pass on to the new Bees.
I say again that CASA introducing Part 142 with 150 hours is creating inexperience new CPLs. It takes all of 200 hours to be happy that you will get home in one piece.
Investing time and training is something that my last CEO lacked and with thousands of hours there was no professional development for me. . That went to the less experienced instructors who were good drinking buddies with said CEO, and were always having a laugh in his office instead of doing the job. After they got their upgrade they then left with no contract to keep them on staff and return the PD.
Yes, times, attitudes and regulations as well as expectations have all changed in the last 10-15 years.
R
The 150 hour Part 142 system and associated funding model is an absolute disaster. Before the VET funding became available for pilot training, there was a HIGH dropout rate between beginning training and completion of a CPL (I am not sure of the exact number but I am pretty sure it was around 70-80%). Now with the funding, the dropout rate is what could be considered EXTREMELY HIGH (something like 95%+).
In the old days, it was in a flying schools best interest to have good instructors who took pride in what they did, as the paying students next hour of training was dependent on them enjoying and having a positive experience for the hard earned cash that they just parted with. So even though many instructors were themselves new CPL holders, their standards tended to be higher as they had motivation to be good at what they did as their next paid hour depended on it. It was also in their best interest to develop their students' skills, as it makes the instructors life easier as the student progresses through their training as it makes for a 'lighter workload' having a student who has mastered the basics when you move onto their Navigational exercises and more advanced levels of training.
What we have today in the sausage factory VET schools is an environment where fresh CPL instructors are paid a full time salary and despite a high drop-out rate, there is no shortage of students. These students have less concept of demanding a high standard of their instructors as they are blinded by the bright shiny Garmin G1000 in front of them and pictures of A350 cockpits on their flight school walls. They also don't feel the sting of having to open their wallets after each lesson so don't feel as financially invested in their training. Their instructors also don't really feel as invested in their students progression because they will constantly be handed different batches of students doing different "modules" of their training.
The end results of these two different environments is two vastly different products.
I speak of the above from personal experience and what I have observed (and also heard from others). I was an instructor at a small school where students were self funded, then moved onto a 'sausage factory' because of the stable income and I found that I was handed students with over 100 hours that had issues not present in those with less than 50 at my old flight training school. I subsequently moved back to one of the smaller schools when I was offered a salary as a more senior grade of instructor. I strongly believe the reason for this is that I took pride in seeing my students progress from the beginning of their training right through to their CPL (or PPL if that's what they desired). I also knew that teaching them how to do things properly and develop airmanship early on, would make my life easier as they progressed in their training (and made things less stressful when I had to send them out on a solo flight!). I believe these elements are the primary reasons that the sausage factory schools produce such a poor quality of product.
The following 2 users liked this post by mikewil:
Sadly I think the future is that the choice will be RAAus or sausage factory. This is the result of the privatisation of the airports and subsequent governments allowing the developer landlords to destroy the smaller operators (I'm looking at you, Mr Albanese, as the one who oversaw the worst of this in your era as minister and turned a deaf ear to industry representatives) meaning that only large multi nationals will be able to afford the rents, parking and landing fees. CASA have played their part in the rot as well.
The sausage factories are of course financed by the bottomless pit that is VET funding - disastrous though this is, if this were to stop now there could be no GA training at all.
We old schoolers can't keep going when the students are being lured away with the promise of "free flying" and a job in an Airbus on graduation,
For some reason these operators are exempt from the requirements of the ACCC: False or misleading claims | ACCC
The sausage factories are of course financed by the bottomless pit that is VET funding - disastrous though this is, if this were to stop now there could be no GA training at all.
We old schoolers can't keep going when the students are being lured away with the promise of "free flying" and a job in an Airbus on graduation,
For some reason these operators are exempt from the requirements of the ACCC: False or misleading claims | ACCC
- Businesses shouldn't try to gain an unfair advantage by making misleading claims about their products or services.
- Claims should be true, accurate and based on reasonable grounds.
- A business must be able to prove any claim they advertise.
Government's don't give a rats about the end product you talk about above, they are out to tick the lack of supply box with such schemes. Politicians are only out to show they are doing something, regardless if that is the right thing or not, and as per the recent Green paper, they actively talk up such schemes as soon as "pilot shortage" is mentioned. They have ticked the box and move on.
The future is sausage students, DA40 time with a "GA Ready" course done at the end to gain some 210 time.
The future is sausage students, DA40 time with a "GA Ready" course done at the end to gain some 210 time.
It is sad that due to the massive turnover rates at sausage factories, students almost dread their training time because they feel rushed in the whole experience, can't get any extra time to ask their instructor a few questions and can't even spend an extra 5 minutes to become comfortable with the pre-flight inspection and run-ups because the instructor needs to promptly kick their ass out and not run late for the next 4 students of the day.
The following 2 users liked this post by mikewil: