Airline Preparation Programme

[Damo29]

Hi all,

I like many before me am trawling through posts compiling info on flight schools, whilst trying to decide which route to go.

At the end of todays reading (just spent 8 hours on the pc at work oooops) I'm veering toward Oxford.

Went back to their site and found details of their Airline Preparation Programme. Looks like a great product on the surface, but I wondered if anyone had any experience of it.

Recognising the apparent benefit of Jet familiarisation when seeking later airline employment, I had thought that I might train at CCAT and then complete the Multi Crew Jet Co-Operation Training an Oxford.

I'm just about to go back to night school and do my GCSE maths again (I'm 29) so this is all pie in the sky really, but all being well (medical /aptitude tests/ etc) I would be hoping to start training next summer.

Any thoughts either general or specifically re the Oxford product would be really appreciated.

[Leezyjet]

Hi Damo,

I too am the same age as you and going through the same processes at the momet (except for the GCSE maths bit).

From the (limited) research I have done, I don't see any benefits in paying out the extra money to Oxford over what the CCAT course costs, I can't really see why their course costs £10k more than Cabair for what is basically the same training and same license at the end.

Although, I am looking at doing a modular course and would consider going to Oxford for the ATPL groundschool part only, but after reading on here yesterday about the quality of their training notes then I'm starting to think otherwise.

Good Luck.

[Damo29]

Hi,

Seems like we have been reading the same stuff. I saw that thread and also picked up on the info about Oxford notes. By the same token however I also found a lot of posts that really praise Oxford.

Either way £60,000 for the APP course is way to steep for me.

So the current plan then is to go modular at CCAT, (although I'm hoping to take a year out of work and do it all in one go) then maybe do the jet multicrew Co-ordination course at Oxford after.

I looked on the GAPAN site and they have posted the results of a questionnaire which they sent to seven major airlines. The results indicated that airlines view jet familiarisation as crucial before they would consider putting a low hour's pilot through a type rating. Also as most airlines would ask us to sit a sim test as part of their selection process it seems to be a good idea.

I haven't seen any negative posts re CCAT yet and the time in America really appeals to me.

This is all new to me though so I might be way of the mark!

Great to hear from someone else at the same stage as me. I wouldn't be going to CCAT until after my GCSE next summer, so would be great to hear how you get on.

Kindest regards

Damo

[Northern Highflyer]

The results indicated that airlines view jet familiarisation as crucial before they would consider putting a low hour's pilot through a type rating.

Just to play devils' advocate for a moment. Bear in mind that it depends on how the question was worded. This may be the IDEAL for the Airlines, but if they need pilots and the IDEAL isn't available they will train them. If they didn't then how would a turboprop guy ever move across to jet ?

Secondly, you say the survey went to several MAJOR airlines. Again bear in mind that a major such as Virgin is only likely to hire proven jet pilots with many hours under their belts so yes, jet familiarisation would be a requirement. The newly qualified wannabe wouldn't have much of a chance of getting a job with these outfits without the experience. In reality a low hours guy would start with a smaller outfit. What do these Airlines require when looking for pilots ?

These schools want your business and as such will say anything to attract potential customers. While the information may be factually correct, you should consider the bigger picture.

AFAIK a sim check is to test your flying, multi tasking, working under pressure, multi crew and learning abilities, not that you can necessarily fly a jet. If your JOT is say on a 737 and you have a sim check on an A320, then again I doubt you would have much of an advantage as it is a different machine.

If after considering all this you decide it's still right for you then go for it.

Good luck to you both.

[MikeAlphaBravo]

Hi all,
I too am in the same situation as you guys. I am being made redundant at the end of the year, and am therefore set on pursuing a career in aviation. I have attended the CCAT seminar, and I will be visiting OAT shortly. At the moment, I am swaying towards the integrated course at CCAT, as I doubt that OAT will be able to convince my wife and I that they can justify the extra 10k. To be honest, I think that the extra cash would be better spent on further training after finishing the ATPL. Anyway, wherever I end up going, I just can't wait to get started, and I will certainly give some feedback when I do.
Good luck to all!
MAB

[Damo29]

Thanks for taking time out to contribute Northern - You make some very valid points.

I guess I thought that the Jet orientation training and multi crew Co-operation, might go some way to address the airlines preference for jet experience, without the expense of doing a full on rating.

I understand that the chance of getting a job with a major carrier is remote with low hours, but might familiarisation help get you in the door with a smaller operator?

If so then cost seems negligible compared to what we will have already paid by that stage.

I know that there are no guarantees but I wonder if this type of training might shorten the odds a bit, or is it useless without actual line experience and high hours?

Mike - Good luck with your training.

[Northern Highflyer]

Damo

I can only offer my opinion based on my own limited experience, and as I am only half way through my ATPL exams I don't have any first hand experience of airline interviews yet. However I have spoken to many people and read many of the threads here on pprune and I can't say that I know of anyone who has obtained a job, or even the advantage at interview because they have had some JOT training. There may be some advantage to it but is it a big enough advantage to justify the cost ? I don't know.

I still believe as in my original post that the airlines look beyond that to the person and your experience. Maybe it would be better as MAB suggests, spending the extra money on either some further training or some real flying time.

Realistically your first job is likely to be with a turboprop operator, so JOT won't be of much use in that situation. Then if you apply for a jet job in the future, a couple of thousand hours turbo time will give you a much bigger advantage than a few hours in a sim. If the airlines are recruiting low hour guys for jet jobs when you qualify, will you have an advantage over one of your peers because you have JOT and they don't ? I really don't know.
Will you have the advantage over someone with a few hundred (or thousand) hours experience under their belt ? I doubt it.

As I said at the top, this is purely my view on it but you have to make your decision based on what is right for you.

Regards

NHF

[Damo29]

Hi,

Yeah I think I agree with you, worth thinking through all the different options though I guess.

Good luck with the rest of your exams mate.

Regards

Damo

P.S

Where r u training?

[Northern Highflyer]

I am studying with Bristol, and very good they are too.

[Send Clowns]

MikeAlphaBravo

I suggest you do a search on integrated/modular training debate on this forum. A certain school tried to sell me a completely inappropriate integrated course, before I knew the difference, without even mentioning their own modular training, and the two you seem to be consulting with both have an interest in you going integrated (if only because it is easy to change schools from a modular course as you learn about the industry while you train). You really need to consider whether there is any advantage at all to the extra £12,000+ you will spend by going integrated, but with some balance to the advice.

I am employed by a modular-only FTO, so don't trust what I say, assume I am marketing the modular course. Look into this with some of the unbiased observers here (eg Scroggs, Danny) who have commented. Ask the integrated providers what the advantage is either online here (Oxford Blue works for OATS, Keith.Williams for CCAT although he is in their modular course area) to keep them away from indefensible marketing comments or ask them on the phone and repeat what they say here for informed criticism.

Note the reason I give this advice is that I am still, 4 years later, annoyed with an FTO for basically trying to use my lack of knowledge of flight training to get me on their integrated course (when I had 180 hours fixed-wing they shoul have known it was not appropriate!) when they could perfectly easily have offered me modular training. They never tried to tell me the difference. I hope the FTOs are not doing the same to you.

[oxford blue]

Send Clowns, you are occasionally a very naughty man!!!

You have publicly attacked my integrity on this website in this last post. I never, never, never, never NEVER make indefensible marketing comments!!! When I say something, it's true. If I don't feel able to support a line, I just don't bother to contribute.

I never EVER knock other FTOs. I don't need to. There is a lot of uninformed comment on pprune by quite immature people. That's not their fault. I was seventeen once. Some times the sheer weight of numbers of ill-considered postings appears to be (apparently) winning an argument in a thread on pprune. But mature intelligent readers make sensible appraisements and judgements and - what do you know! - a lot of them decide, after reading all this froth, to come to Oxford.

You are obviously not very old and you still seem to think that the way to win marketing battles is to knock the opposition. But you should consider more carefully what you write when you make personal comments.

[Send Clowns]

My apologies, OB, I was not trying to attack your integrity! I absolutely agree that you make no indefensible marketing comments here, and I do not wish to say specifically that OATS gives any. What I was saying is that the knowledge of the other people here keep us all straight in what we say. However, I was trying (perhaps not in the most elegant way) to say that talking only to marketing people on their home ground that anything can be said.

I was not knocking any school, I avoid doing so and mostly only talk in generalities when talking about negative aspects people shoul look for in schools. Knowing what most of us know with an inside knowledge I could knock certain FTOs with a lot of ammunition. I'm sure you could as well.

I was recommending people ask you the question, as I have asked you, out of genuine curiosity. I am not trying to win the marketing battle - I am trying to find out why an integrated course is so much better for the student than a modular course. The reason is twofold: I want people here to be informed (there are threads on this issue, but people often seem not to search back) and secondly I am still annoyed by the advice I received from a school I have deliberately not named. The fact that integrated training was such a bad idea for me personally suggests that there were people trying to sell the wrong course to the student.

Can you answer the question: why should a student pay the extra for an integrated course? You didn't last time I asked you.

[oxford blue]

I really do not wish to get dragged into turf wars between FTOs on pprune. It's not what the wannabees want to see, and the moderators do not want to have their bandwidth abused. I do not see it as my role to tell students what course they should do. If you read my posts you will find that I confine myself to giving professional advice on navigation, flight planning and instruments or adding the occasional anecdote from practical flying experience to illustrate some more general point. Sometimes I correct errors of fact about OAT or, as happened recently, suggest that there are administrative procedures for resolving problems which can be better than posting on a public website.

However, since you ask, I believe that there are merits in all 3 (or 4) methods of entry, but different methods suit different people, with different amounts of available money, different ages, different family circumstances, and different abilities to concentrate and study.

Integrated has the advantage that, except for those with unusual determination and concentration, it is usually the quickest route. This can be important if the graduate then gets employed quickly. If you pass out 3 months earlier and start work at £35000 pa, that is the best part of ten thousand pounds in earnings and to some extent compensates for the higher cost of integrated. Integrated also suits those who have the money and like the structured approach and the discipline of a fixed classroom timetable and a fixed structured flying syllabus. You don't get 'hours building', ie, boring a hole in sky to get log book time in integrated. Every flight is a planned exercise which in intended to develop your professional flying skills.

Residential Modular can be almost as quick as integrated. The ground school should be equally good either way. Some FTOs, however, do not always put as much thought and supervision into their modular flying packages as an integrated course. It is possible for the student to supervise his own flying to make sure that he gets the right mix of exercises, but not all students have the necessary experience or judgement. Unless you get the phasing right it is not always quicker and, of course, whilst the flying cost might be cheaper you still have to pay for living expenses whilst training. If the training course or the intervals between the various parts of your package is longer, this may wipe out some of the cost differential.

Distance Learning Modular can fit in well with people who still need to earn a living whilst studying, but it requires a great deal of self-discipline and motivation. Whilst most FTOs who offer it give a good back-up service by phone and email, it is not the same as seeing your instructor every day and getting him to explain things on a whiteboard. It is cheapest and, for the exceptionally determined, it can be the quickest, but most people find it hard. Whilst the best get extremely good results, they are unusual, and the average mark is lower and the drop-out rate is higher.

Schemes which appear to be sponsorships but in fact bond you to a low salary for quite a long time are now appearing. These are attractive to people who really have no money, especially in times of low employment, but they are difficult to get on and may turn out to be less of a bargain than they appear if employment picks up and you find that your contemporaries are on £35000 a year three years earlier than you.

It's all horses for courses, really, and neither I nor Mike Taylor, Oxford's Careers Advisor or Marty White, Oxford's marketing manager, push students one way or another. We always tell them to consider all options and also to consider all FTOs, not just Oxford, and then choose what is best for them. A glance at the @SK OXFORD website will confirm this. However, we find that when they have considered all this, a lot of them choose the Oxford APP. But, unlike you, I never direct them towards one course or another.

It is for that reason that I found offensive the suggestion that either I or Keith Williams would make indefensible marketing comments or say privately on the phone what we would not post publicly on pprune. Get your own act together first!

However, I do accept the apology in your last post. But do think carefully about what you say about other people. Read your Shakespeare. Othello says:

"He that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And leaves me poor indeed".

And that is all I wish to say on the subject. I shall not respond to any further replies on this thread for the reasons given in my first paragraph.

[Send Clowns]

This is why I suggested posting here, Oxford. An integrated course is not significantly quicker than a modular one, more likely a month than 3 months. Were it not for weather and illness (that would have affected me equally on either standard) I would have passed my modular course in the same time as most integrated courses. The flight experience I already had saved me some time, exactly balanced by the fact that I managed to take 3 weeks full-time work in the middle when a former employer needed me. I could not have been described as having unusual concentration or determination at that time: more depressed and unmotivated because of the difficult times that had put me into civilian flight training. I did, however, deliberately choose a school that could offer me all the training, so I could sit through their standard, structured training programme, in the same way I would have in an integrated course.

P.S. If you think I am just here for some inter-school rivalry, read my comments on the thread about Oxford's notes. I was defending you guys, because although they are not exactly as I would have written them I think they are good notes! What I post here is my opinion, nothing more or less.

[Alex Whittingham]

A very balanced reply, Oxford Blue. The only thing I would take issue with is your statement about pass rates. Our friends at Cabair have found distance learning courses give better results than the classroom equivalent. Surprising perhaps, but we find the same. Maybe Clowns can contribute here since BCFT do both sorts of course?

[Send Clowns]

Unfortunately our distance-learning course is still in infancy, and we have not had any students finish yet. We have some good assessed exercises and progress tests back though, so are hopeful!

[gblen]

hi,
I had a look at the oxford school a few months back at their open day. I must admit that I was impressed, but having not seen any other schools I cant compare it. It is more expensive than other schools but you see where the money goes. The school itself has top of the range facilities and equipment. I have never been to CCAT but it would be worth having a look at oxford and ccat, comparing them to see exactly where your money goes in both of them. The difference could well be worth it, then again it may not be.

Oxford also has a great name, its regarded by the industry as being top in the UK. They have the reputation of being a top class school so that may favour you when looking for a job.

[Going Around]

This may help. NO airline will even look at you unless you have studied on an Integrated course of flight training. That is what is coming out of the industry at the moment and that is how it is likely to stay for the next few years at there are loads of people still out there trying to get jobs. (just ask those modular guys out there now trying to get jobs!)

With the debate over the APP/cost thing, ultimately it will come down to whether or not you can afford it. The APP is second to none and jobs are already being lined up for people who have not even graduated yet, such is the demand for the high quality pilots Oxford are producing. In a nutshell, the extra £10k sounds a lot, but it's nothing compared to waiting say a year post flying training without a job with little/no income.

With the news that BA are recruiting, there will be even more movement in the industry and even more jobs going. If you want the best chance to go straight to a RH seat on a big jet, do the APP

[invisiblemoon]

NO airline will even look at you unless you have studied on an Integrated course of flight training.

Sure some airlines want just integrated students but they are very few and far between.

Airlines "never" look where you trained but they look how much flying hours you have and what type of flying you have done.

Choose the course which is the most suitable for you, and don't think that the school you went could make the brake ...

[silverknapper]

Don't listen to GA, talking
Everywhere you look on this forum you find fools who believe all the marketing crap from Oxford or think they know something they clearly don't. Maybe they're trying to justify to themselves the fact they are paying through the nose for a course which at the end of the day will produce the same bit of paper as a guy spending £35k on a modular course.
And everytime they air these ridiculous views they are told they are wrong, yet they still persist.
Not even going to get into an argument with GA except to say this. I know 3 guys who recently got jobs in the last month. Two on turbo props, one on a jet. All within six weeks of IR completion. How many went on an integrated course? NONE