Do 65% really fail?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: london
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do 65% really fail?
Can anyone explain to me the training market stats?
According to my interpretation of the CAA licence stats there has been a steady rise in the number of first commercial licence issues since 93/4. However, the number of 1st IRs is much lower than CPLs and has dropped off in the last couple of years. Here are the figures:
Year CPLs IRs
93/4 527 435
94/5 627 435
95/6 645 486
96/7 692 497
97/8 845 461
98/9 790 428
99/0 No figures
00/1 966 183
01/2 954 175
The CPL(A) figure includes licence upgrades and both CAA & JAA. The IR(A) figure includes all initial IRs (PPL, BCPL & CPL).
The conclusions I draw from this is that a lot of people do CPLs but never progress to CPL/IR. I presume the sudden drop in numbers of IRs is something to do with the introduction of JAA which I think was about then; probably recording methods.
Now combine these stats, such as they are, with some even less scientific information; an approximation of those starting out on professional licences.
What I've assumed is that at some stage someone going for a professional licence has to either enrol on a modular groundschool programme or on an integrated course.
Integrated
There are 3 approved courses with the CAA:
Oxford: I'm told that during the last year most of their students seem to have been non-JAA (Algerian military and airline). Let's say 50 integrated students enrolled.
BAe: I've heard they have a capacity of 150 and courses are reputed to be full. They are picking up the Khalifa contract that Oxford lost and are reputed to be 2/3 Algerians, so that's another 50.
Cabair: before 911 Cabair might have done 50 a year. During the last 12 months it must be much less. Let's say 25.
Modular
Oxford and BGS each claim to have something like 40% of the market.
Oxford claim to have 550 students in training on modular groundschool courses. I guess what that really means is 550 courses sold to people who have not yet finished. So, let's say they actually sell 300 a year and some people take 6 months to complete, others take years (or don't complete).
Let's say another 300 for BGS.
If the market share claims are at all accurate, that means the other groundschools share another 150.
That would result in a total of 750 modular and 125 integrated students. Highly suspect numbers, I know, please enlighten me if you know better.
The figures are so suspect it would be dangerous to draw any conclusions. However, there is enough there for me to pose a question:
Is the drop-out rate really that high?
Let's assume that the number of initial IRs is still 350-400 per year post JAA introduction. It's reasonable to say something like 1,000 people either buy a modular groundschool course or enrol on an integrated course (albeit probably quite a few less in the last 12 months). That's a huge drop-out rate. And I've read extensively here that even those few who make it to the end struggle to find jobs.
Have I got it wrong, or is our professional pilot training industry really that crap?
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But there are also flight school salesmen (and women)!
According to my interpretation of the CAA licence stats there has been a steady rise in the number of first commercial licence issues since 93/4. However, the number of 1st IRs is much lower than CPLs and has dropped off in the last couple of years. Here are the figures:
Year CPLs IRs
93/4 527 435
94/5 627 435
95/6 645 486
96/7 692 497
97/8 845 461
98/9 790 428
99/0 No figures
00/1 966 183
01/2 954 175
The CPL(A) figure includes licence upgrades and both CAA & JAA. The IR(A) figure includes all initial IRs (PPL, BCPL & CPL).
The conclusions I draw from this is that a lot of people do CPLs but never progress to CPL/IR. I presume the sudden drop in numbers of IRs is something to do with the introduction of JAA which I think was about then; probably recording methods.
Now combine these stats, such as they are, with some even less scientific information; an approximation of those starting out on professional licences.
What I've assumed is that at some stage someone going for a professional licence has to either enrol on a modular groundschool programme or on an integrated course.
Integrated
There are 3 approved courses with the CAA:
Oxford: I'm told that during the last year most of their students seem to have been non-JAA (Algerian military and airline). Let's say 50 integrated students enrolled.
BAe: I've heard they have a capacity of 150 and courses are reputed to be full. They are picking up the Khalifa contract that Oxford lost and are reputed to be 2/3 Algerians, so that's another 50.
Cabair: before 911 Cabair might have done 50 a year. During the last 12 months it must be much less. Let's say 25.
Modular
Oxford and BGS each claim to have something like 40% of the market.
Oxford claim to have 550 students in training on modular groundschool courses. I guess what that really means is 550 courses sold to people who have not yet finished. So, let's say they actually sell 300 a year and some people take 6 months to complete, others take years (or don't complete).
Let's say another 300 for BGS.
If the market share claims are at all accurate, that means the other groundschools share another 150.
That would result in a total of 750 modular and 125 integrated students. Highly suspect numbers, I know, please enlighten me if you know better.
The figures are so suspect it would be dangerous to draw any conclusions. However, there is enough there for me to pose a question:
Is the drop-out rate really that high?
Let's assume that the number of initial IRs is still 350-400 per year post JAA introduction. It's reasonable to say something like 1,000 people either buy a modular groundschool course or enrol on an integrated course (albeit probably quite a few less in the last 12 months). That's a huge drop-out rate. And I've read extensively here that even those few who make it to the end struggle to find jobs.
Have I got it wrong, or is our professional pilot training industry really that crap?
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But there are also flight school salesmen (and women)!
PPRuNe Handmaiden
The cold hard fact remains that there aren't enough jobs for those with CPL IR's. Many drop out when they realise that the dream does not equal reality.
In Australia, the numbers go roughly like this.
Of the 100 or so fresh new CPL IR holders seeking paid employment, only 10% will gain full time work on an income that doesn't need support. (Still very poor money).
Of those, only 10% of them will fly jets for either Qantas or used to be Ansett, now Virgin Blue.
Harsh but that is the way it is.
In Australia, the numbers go roughly like this.
Of the 100 or so fresh new CPL IR holders seeking paid employment, only 10% will gain full time work on an income that doesn't need support. (Still very poor money).
Of those, only 10% of them will fly jets for either Qantas or used to be Ansett, now Virgin Blue.
Harsh but that is the way it is.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what do you do after sending 500 resumes you do not receive one flying job?
what do you when you have to pay back your loan?
sure,some guys give up for a paid job.It's not printed on the license:"job guaranteed"
what do you when you have to pay back your loan?
sure,some guys give up for a paid job.It's not printed on the license:"job guaranteed"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Blair, I believe you are right. I cannot comment on your statistics, but my reading of the situation is this:
The airlines who sponsor (or at least to) have a huge number of applicants to choose from and put them through pretty stiff selection. As a result, they get a high pass rate and, even after 911, those cadets generally got employed straight onto jet or decent airline turboprop jobs. Before 911 there were probably a little under 200 cadet places in the UK.
The flight training industry had much more appetite for business than 200 places per year, and there were all those disappointed applicants, including many career changers who were too old for the sponsorship schemes. So the flight training industry convince anyone with the money that
A) “we can train you to get a licence” and
B) “you will be able to get a job when you have a licence” (with some help from us, nudge, wink)
I know; I’ve shopped around the entire flight school industry as have many wannabies on here.
The reality is that the training is tough, especially for someone who has failed the airline aptitude tests, and there were always fewer jobs than desperate new licence holders. The unscrupulous took, and take, advantage of the desire of the naive.
Some of us are lucky in that we have had the rose tinted specs taken off before we get fleeced (so from now on it’s stupidity rather than naivety). Some wake up part way through and go back to reality. Some soldier on and become very disappointed and bitter. Some make it through and deserve every stoke of luck their hard work and persistence earns them.
Is it satisfactory? You bet it ain’t! Are there schools that rise above this and only train people who are suited and there are jobs for; none that I have detected!
I suspect your ratios are about right. But it gets worse, cause of those 35% who are successful, few will get the job of their desires in the timescale they need, even during hiring booms.
The airlines who sponsor (or at least to) have a huge number of applicants to choose from and put them through pretty stiff selection. As a result, they get a high pass rate and, even after 911, those cadets generally got employed straight onto jet or decent airline turboprop jobs. Before 911 there were probably a little under 200 cadet places in the UK.
The flight training industry had much more appetite for business than 200 places per year, and there were all those disappointed applicants, including many career changers who were too old for the sponsorship schemes. So the flight training industry convince anyone with the money that
A) “we can train you to get a licence” and
B) “you will be able to get a job when you have a licence” (with some help from us, nudge, wink)
I know; I’ve shopped around the entire flight school industry as have many wannabies on here.
The reality is that the training is tough, especially for someone who has failed the airline aptitude tests, and there were always fewer jobs than desperate new licence holders. The unscrupulous took, and take, advantage of the desire of the naive.
Some of us are lucky in that we have had the rose tinted specs taken off before we get fleeced (so from now on it’s stupidity rather than naivety). Some wake up part way through and go back to reality. Some soldier on and become very disappointed and bitter. Some make it through and deserve every stoke of luck their hard work and persistence earns them.
Is it satisfactory? You bet it ain’t! Are there schools that rise above this and only train people who are suited and there are jobs for; none that I have detected!
I suspect your ratios are about right. But it gets worse, cause of those 35% who are successful, few will get the job of their desires in the timescale they need, even during hiring booms.
Why shouldn't schools train anyone & everyone who cares to train?
The contract between the student & the school is for training only, not 'train & get employed'.
My only exception is if a school is misleading with the truth ie promises or insinuates that employment will occur as a result of training with them and without a formal guarantee such as a formal cadetship in association with an airline.
In my instructing career I always, but always, emphasised that getting the licence is the easy part (no matter how hard it seems at the time!) and getting a job at the end is usually the most difficult. I also emphasised that very few of those who get employed ever get into an airline. Can't say I noticed any difference in training commencement rates in any of the figures I maintained. Indeed, some students later told me their decision to start was - in part - due to my being so forthright.
As with any task in life, do your homework before committing.
The contract between the student & the school is for training only, not 'train & get employed'.
My only exception is if a school is misleading with the truth ie promises or insinuates that employment will occur as a result of training with them and without a formal guarantee such as a formal cadetship in association with an airline.
In my instructing career I always, but always, emphasised that getting the licence is the easy part (no matter how hard it seems at the time!) and getting a job at the end is usually the most difficult. I also emphasised that very few of those who get employed ever get into an airline. Can't say I noticed any difference in training commencement rates in any of the figures I maintained. Indeed, some students later told me their decision to start was - in part - due to my being so forthright.
As with any task in life, do your homework before committing.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we all sit here dwelling on statistics, then the dream never will be realised. If everyone who has managed to get employment past and present sat there dwelling on statistics, there may be no pilots today.
I am a strong believer that if you want it bad anough you will get there in the end, and i shall not let these statististics deter me from at least giving it a try.
I am a strong believer that if you want it bad anough you will get there in the end, and i shall not let these statististics deter me from at least giving it a try.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LHR
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've asked this at least 3 times already on this forum : Can anyone put a definitive figure on the number of ex-integrated , self sponsored graduates who have found any professional flying work in the last two years ? There are hundreds out there & I find it hard to believe that many could have found employment .
So come on marketing departments - any feedback would be useful .
So come on marketing departments - any feedback would be useful .
