Genghis the Engineer

That raises an interesting question.

Let's say a newbie has £80k available. Take it as a given for the moment that an integrated graduate is more employable than a fresh modular graduate with similar total experience.

Which is more employable?

(1) Fresh integrated grad with fATPL.

(2) Modular graduate who spent the other £40k building additional flying experience. Say 100hrs multi, SET and FI(R).

Bealzebub

The answer would have to be: Employable as what?

If you mean as a Flying Instructor, then they would both now require a CPL and an additional FI course. This was a long established route for decades for aspiring pilots to work their way up from PPL to CPL. Since the harmonisation of licencing within the JAR member states, working for remuneration as an FI now requires a CPL. In the UK the requirement for the issue of a (non-approved) CPL fell from 700 hours to around 250! As flying instruction broadly falls within the "aerial work" category, that properly reflects the purpose of the modern basic CPL. Although many of these "aerial work" jobs seem much harder to come by, it is still a route for the modern day "self improver".

Spending £40K on hour building is likely to result in a basic CPL/IR and around 400 additional hours (if you are lucky!) A basic CPL/IR and around 650 hours total time isn't likely to open too many doors.

Airline vacancies on to their cadet schemes usually take full time integrated graduates with 200 hours (less on an MPL course) through to advanced training, leading on to a placement with the partner airline. The placement period is usually around 8 months, during which time the cadet is likely to acquire around 500 hours on a modern jet transport or a large regional turboprop. Depending on the partner airlines requirements at the time, it is planned that, subject to satisfactory progression, employment as an F/O will dovetail from the placement.

Many of the first tier airline operators utilize cadet schemes on this basis. It is highly competitive, but nevertheless a fast track route into first tier commercial airlines for many that do successfully embark on this route. The selective, monitored and mentored nature of these programmes results in a fairly low failure rate. Progression to advanced training (the airline part) can be delayed by the partner airlines own intake requirements at any given point in time.

Beyond the cadet schemes, there are few opportunities for low hour pilot employment at this level. The 650 hour CPL/IR is going to be looking at amassing around 1500-2000 hours more experience via "stepping stone" jobs whereby that total experience becomes meaningful, before they reach the next traditional airline employment plateau. With a CPL now requiring roughly one third of the hourly requirement it did 15 years ago, there are exponentially a vastly increased number of aspirants chasing far fewer of what have traditionally been regarded as those "stepping stone" jobs.

In part, it is a case of knowing what you want, where you want to be, and then researching how you are going to get there. That done, the reality is then tempered by what you can afford, your own ability and determination, and of course luck! These three factors alone, will by their very nature provide much of the initial screening.

Airlines with cadet programmes are invariably looking for those candidates who are going to succeed on what is definitely going to be an intensive and very steep learning curve. Training resources are too valuable and scarce to be wasted on anything else. Of course this is why the partner training schools are selected so that this risk is minimized. If this is the route that somebody elects to embark on, the choices are fairly obvious, if no less difficult.

Your 650 hour aspirant isn't going to qualify for most of these programmes. For them, it is largely a case of following the traditional pathways up through the career mountain. Those pathways haven't changed a great deal. However the requirement for the basic licence has reduced significantly, and consequently there are now far, far more people chasing the opportunities that exist at this level. Obvious things such as the global economic downturn have had a marked negative impact on the numbers of those opportunities, and a more subtle shift away from many of the "stepping stone" type opportunities, has also had a marked effect.

That is why I gave the answer as "employable as what?"

There are many careers and not every pathway is necessarily the best use of time or resource, depending on the goal. There are the hard realities of life that often have to dictate the pathway whatever the goal.

I have said it before, but will do so again.
If I were to offer to pay for one course of training for somebody to complete their CPL/IR, which of these three choices (in order) would they pick?

1) Full time integrated cadet programme course at a major FTO.
2) Full time integrated CPL/IR course at a major FTO.
3) Modular course (anywhere) at their leisure.

It is not particularly difficult, and for the airlines with cadet programmes it is not difficult at all.

mad_jock

It really depends which job they are going for G.

Which is the whole crux of this debate.

The high end jobs which bealzebub is on about the recruitment process usually starts just after they have completed the IR because that's when they know if they have a first time pass or not. Then things get finalised while they do the MCC/JOT side of things. Then off they go current as they can be onto the type rating/sim assessment.

Which is more than likely why the those that have access to a 737 sim do so well with Ryanair. They have just spent there MCC and JOT doing the sim profiles for the selection with a grumpy old TRE battering the preferred style of CRM into them. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a script for the selection.

Those that shoved out of the door are in a completely different boat. They know that 1-2 months behind them there is another 20-30 pilots from the same school chasing the same jobs. Also as well the IR skills are very perishable at that stage of things without experience to hard wire them in.
They are also trained to work on an automated flight deck. The only thing automated on my heap is the engine start. So after about 6 months they are in the B list what ever they apply for. And for those company's that the training department are modular trained themselves they will just go straight into the bucket.

In general the modular pilot wouldn't be spending that amount or anywhere near it maybe 8k for a FI rating. Or they would hold that rest of the money back for a type rating and staying IFR current. Once you get over 1000 hours the amount of jobs available increases significantly. This is partly to do with insurance and partly to do with cutting the numbers down to something manageable that apply. We are talking in the region of about 1000 low hour guys actively sending CV's out currently. If you add in the none brits that puts another 3-400 on. And you get about 100 none EU citizens thinking they are doing you a favour offering there services with 200-300 hours and no work permit.

MEP doesn't really add anything to equation these days. IFR time and total time does to meet EASA requirement for single crew ops. Which I might add PC 12 captains are in the same pay range as Bealzebubs FO's.

Also as well the 1500 hour ATPL comes into play as in general they will be flying about 300-600 hours a year. A lot of these smaller company's will want them to be available for upgrade with a minimum of two winters under their belt. So if you take them in at 200 hours your nearly 4 years before they get there ATPL. Some might say shock horror putting them in the LHS after only 1300 hours but in reality in those 1300 hours they will have done getting on for 3000 takeoff's, approaches and landings in daylight/night and most wx conditions. If we get them at 1000 then they will have about 1500 sectors under there belt when they go for the ATPL LST. First winter they will just be fighting with the aircraft second they will know what's going on with the big picture.

Out of the crew base across all company's operating my type there must be about 140 crew qualified to fly it in Europe

In the last year I personally know 10 of them that have moved on to jets. 4 of them to 757 and bigger and 6 that have moved to heavy long haul biz jets.

The ones I don't know personally there are about another 20 that I have heard of. Mostly biz jets but more than a few to 100 ton plus machines and a surprising number to 747. Don't worry they have an integrated trained cruise pilot to make sure they press the right buttons and make huffing noises when they brief for a visual then hand fly from 5000ft.

We are even having speculative applications from heavy tin drivers in the middle east/Asia wanting some form of lifestyle back. A halfing in salary is not a problem working from 5am to 10:30am 4 sectors then home to the wife and kids 5 days a week they are more than happy with that.

So this is the reason why I really just don't see where Bealzebub is coming from.

I have no doud't they are going to want names dates and company ID's of the people I am talking about which I won't give. They live in a different world to the one I work in. That world isn't a bleak as they make out. They have a preferred method of training and along with quite a few from that side of the industry they more than likely wish that the modular side of things would just go away. It pulls income away from their preferred method any generally puts a spanner in the works because the supply vastly out strips the demand. But there is a requirement for a vast number of people to use the preferred supply to keep it economic and not to collapse.

CTC could very easily provide every single available job in the UK including the crappy jobs and everyone would get work. The 30 odd modular schools would have to go and also the other big two. That's is how much over supply there is to the market.

So

Bealzebub

Because if you look at the top of the forum it is titled "Wannabes" I doubt "heavy tin drivers" consider themselves as such.

Artie Fufkin

MJ, it's interesting to see how your "30 to 50" story is developing.

Now we here that this figure doesn't come from one UK regional turboprop operation as was originally implied, but from all crews from across Europe operating your type. Quite a different story.

However, it does still sound rather optimistic. Annual pilot turnover of 50 pilots out of 140 equates to 35% of the workforce moving on each year.

Really?

Genghis the Engineer

Going off-topic for one second, I think that we all "wanabee" something, even if it's finally retired.

Me - I "wanabee" a full Professor of Aerospace Engineering, and probably feel about that much the same as many F/Os want that captaincy. We're in great well paid jobs - but there's something better there...


Actually on-topic, just a note about the general debate. Every debate about qualification routes should probably be regularly qualified by some form of "wotcha wannabee". MJ and I both have places we could (and might)go from where we are* - for example - but it doesn't look like either of us "wanabee" a Ryanair driver, or even a BA driver. For many people however, that's their ambition.

Maybe in these debates we should be changing "best" to "best for job X" when describing training routes? Better still be honest and qualify with "but perhaps not as good for job Y".


* That said, I suspect that Mad_Jock may just be one of those rare and happy people truly content in the job he's in. If so however, he's in a tiny minority.

mad_jock

Yes I am happy with my lot. Have loads of disposable. And yes I could have moved a few times but even on highend cadets rates of intial pay it would be a substantial pay drop. And the deals were always a bit dodgy for my liking. We shall see what happens there are always things developing. Maybe that's the reason why I am vocal about all this,. My personal risk factor requirement is quite refined. It needs to be to survive flying my old heap.

Certainly if I thought there was a 5% chance of going off the side of the runway I wouldn't even be attempting an approach. And I wouldn't even have taken off if someone had said before the flight I have a 95% chance of crashing and burning or 50% for that matter or 10%.

Art the job numbers quoted were for UK bases under UK AOC's

Its not really fair to include the rest of Europe because in the main they are quite different to the UK ie they won't employ none nationals as inexperienced new starts. And if there are no locals then there is the local zone of surrounding countries which arn't perfect but won't cause the backlash of hiring a Brit. You can get work with them overcoming language requirements but you need to have a sort after skill such high hours LHS or LTC or TRE. So it doesn't really help the debate because the method of training will always be beaten by the lingo and who issues your passport for low hours. You could have a 45 year old diabetic serial rapist apply for a job against the 25 year old cream of the school. And the 45 year old with the right passport would get the job even if everyone in flight ops wanted the other guy with the Brit passport.

Artie Fufkin

But you said

Frankly, I'm bowing out here. Your attitude towards integrated flight training is the worst case of confirmation bias I have ever seen.

mad_jock

Pots and kettles to be honest.

you are picking and choosing statements to suit.

So I make a statement on UK company's hiring predominately modular trained pilots.

Then I make a statement about the numbers moving on to bigger things from my fleet type.

Neither of them are connecting. They just answer points about

a) Modular pilots never getting hired.
b) It being impossible to escape the lower end of the market once your foot is in the door.

And you will have noticed at no point have I said anything about the quality of the training. Which I accept is good for automated flight decks.

The only thing I have been commenting on is the likely hood of the paying the premium and getting zero benefit from paying the extra for the majority considering it.

And go and look through the employment stats for the big three and you can even work out which operator has been hiring TP pilots as 747 FO's with huffing and puffing behind them. Some of them have already managed to get "home" back to a UK 747 AOC holder. One of them was Zero to 747 FO in 5 years I think.

tdubya

Please forgive me for jumping in at the deep end with this question (especially if it's already answered elsewhere in the 34 plus pages )

Does joining and leaving the RAF with flying experience help towards being able to become a commercial pilot ?

Genghis the Engineer

Of course it does - most RAF pilots have little trouble getting civil jobs at the end of their military career.

However, that point is fairly irrelevant. The three services, all of whom recruit pilots, are all shrinking but trying to maintain the highest possible standards. So, anybody not firmly deducated to a military life and career will be weeded out at the selection stage. It's debateable whether it ever was, but the RAF is certainly not now a route to a civil flying job - that is just what military pilots tend to do post retirement aged 38 or so.

Reverserbucket

I was told recently that one sizeable European integrated school has not had a graduate find a flying job with an airline in the past five years (approximately 450 new JAA/EASA CPL holders). I know the market is weak at the moment but this is not very encouraging in view of the shortage the same organisation promotes as part of it's sales pitch. And that's only one of the schools.

sapco2

Tdubya, I've just been through the same exercise with my son, he served for 5 years in a ground role in the RAF. He has recently qualified via the modular route with f(ATPL) IR MCC and JCC at a cost of just over £50,000

Having thoroughly looked at the integrated route as an option he elected to go for the modular training instead and it has worked out well for him.

FANS

Beazle raises some valid points about where modular stems from.

My view and order:

Tagged scheme with a reputable airline (not flybe at present)

CTC wings for now

Don't bother

mad_jock

Yep he does.

And I wouldn't argue with your list either.

Its what I have been saying if you only want to fly Jets.

If you happy to come fly with the rest of us in none shiny hardware there is a cheaper way to train.

contacttower118.2

When you say it has worked out well for him...does he have a job?

Nkapur

I would agree with going modular but are there any specialist sources of finance for this approach that anyone has heard off?

FANS

Yes - best bet for modular is hard earned cash/savings. That way if you go down the FI route, you'll be able to afford to eat!

It'll also make you realise how much £50k is, and it's led a few to use as a deposit on a house and not do commercial flight training, but that's a separate debate.

Dilan12345

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already but I have heard that integrated courses are much more respected by airlines. I'm not sure if this is true but the only airline to recruit modular students on a regular basis are integrated, so even though it costs more to do an integrated costs, the benefits are much greater.

Axel25

Hello all,

I want to start to learn flying next year after passing my A-Levels (In Germany = Abitur) and already did a lot of research on this topic.

Now I want to get some opinions on the way(s) I plan if I don't manage to get ona airline-scheme:

Way 1:
PPL + IFR at Florida Flyers in the US + Hour Building towards 190h total
CPL/ME/IFR + ATPL Theory at the Keilir Aviation Academy
MCC at Häusl Air in Germany

price: around 50.000€


Way 2:
FAA CPL/ME/IR with a US-Flightschool (also thought of Florida Flyers here, they have professional-courses with 250h flighttime)
Conversion at Diamond Flight Academy Scandinavia
MCC + ATPL Theory at Häusl Air in Germany-

price: around 50.000€


I'm not sure, which is the better way or if a integrated fATPL would be better than the above, so I want to hear your opinions.