Career change possible?

[quixote]

Norman2
Stay in IT where the money is, join the PFA, then build and fly your own aircraft like many professional pilots do to enjoy aviation again.
Don

[mpala]

Its easy for people to say "Stay with I.T", but for those who really aspire to flying - its hard to spend every day sitting in front of a screen when you really want to sit in front of an instrument panel. Its also difficult being surrounded by those who expect you to "have your heart in I.T and nothing else"

True, the money won't be as good, especially in a low end FO job on a turboprop, but money isn't the be all and end all (except when it comes to paying for the training). If you really enjoy the job, and it allows you to have a reasonable standard of living, then you won't be waking up every morning (or night) thinking "oh no, not an other day at work !".

[FlyingForFun]

I've come into this one a bit late, and everyone else has beaten me to all the good advice, so all I can do is repeat what's already been said.

First of all, get a Class 1. There's no point wasting time and money if you can't get the medical.

Once you've got that out of the way, as Kefuddle said right at the top of the thread, there's no need to quit your current career. By all means take the voluntary redundancy, the money will come in useful. You might even like to do the ATPL exams full-time before looking for another IT job - it depends whether you think you're up to working and studying at the same time (which is very hard - believe me, because I'm doing it - but not impossible). But there's no reason why you can't get another IT job, do the studying for the ATPLs part time, and do the CPL and IR during your holidays.

The fact is there are very few jobs out there for low-time pilots at the moment. Your age won't help, but even if you were younger there are still very few jobs out there. I'm much younger than you, but decided I need to stay in IT for the security, until I'm actually offered my first flying job. Also, if I can't get a job straight away, my IT job will pay for me to stay current.

Once you're offered a job, you will be taking a very large pay cut. Whether it's worth it or not is entirely your choice. I don't think you've said much about your personal circumstances (I skim-read a lot of this thread, though, so apoligies if you did and I missed it.) I certainly wouldn't be happy about starting off in aviation if I had a family to support, for example. But, if you know the kind of salaray you can expect to bring home and you're happy you can live on it, then go for it! Just make sure you're doing it with your eyes open, and with a backup plan if you can't find work.

Good luck!

FFF
--------------

[Select Zone Five]

Kefuddle_UK said...

I seem to remeber the CAA telling me in the pre-requisites for the Class 1 that no laser surgery is permitted. Again, maybe somebody can clarify??

I believe the CAA's stance on this is that they "do not" recommend it. It means exactly that, ie. it doesn't rule you out but there is a chance surgery could screw up your eyesight completely, so they will not actually "recommend" it.

davesingleton said...

However, I am apprehensive about paying £400 pounds for a medical but at least by doing this I will have a definitive answer as to whether or not it would be worth my while to invest in the extra training.

I believe if you tell the CAA that you're not sure your eyesight meets the standards, they will test it first. If you do indeed fail, they will not do the rest of the tests thereby saving you quite a lot of money. I think the eyesight test is around £70 (not sure of this figure but it will certainly be cheaper than £400)

Good luck from a fellow wannabe...

SZF

[Footsie]

Kef and Dave

I had LASIK 18 months ago and am going for my Class 1 in early January. The CAA wanted to see my pre- and post-operative assessments, and I may have to see an opthalmologist when I attend, but LASIK itself is no barrier to a Class 1. You must be within +5 to -5D before treatment, be a minimum of 12 months post-op (although I think they may be about to reduce this), have no glare or other complications, and have 6/6 or better post-op.

My LASIK was a complete success - to the best of my knowledge I have no complications and was signed off by my clinic 9 months ago at 6/5 vision. I'm actually more worried about the colour blindness tests. They had some on the telly last week after Life of Mammals on the BBC, and I got one of the three wrong. I've since tracked down the Ishihara tests on the Web and got 24 slides in a row correct, but I'm still now a little concerned about the Lantern tests I believe they do at Gatwick.

Max

I tell you what I would pack it in for though - my own business, lots of dosh, and the freedom to fly for my own pleasure when and where I want

Err - that's me (although I could always use more dosh). Shall we swap?

[Barney Stubble]

Norman2

I trained alongside a chap in similar situation to yourself: was made redundant from bank manager job, early 40's, little prospect of reviving his banking career, loved PPL flying. He did as well as anybody through training, and even kept his wife and family! I would love to say he is now doing his dream flying job as he is a lovely bloke, but 2 years later there is little prospect of that happening especially considering the parlous state of the airline industry.

Of course this may change in the future, but this is a cut-throat industry when it comes to getting a job and there will always be greater supply of pilots than demand, so you can hope for the best but I suggest prepare for the worst. There is usually a constant demand for flying instructors so maybe you would settle for that as an end result, although you could not live on the pay so would need another means of earning.

Carb

I have to say that the whole ab initio cadet concept, which churns out a big chunk of the workforce and crowds out other pilots, is a very objectionable socialist idea... it of course originated in the dark ages with state-owned European airlines.

Not that this has much to with Normans dilemma, but this is such a strange idea it deserves some reply. How would you suggest ab-initio's without a money tree become commercial pilots? The whole idea of sponsorship is that it is treats everybody on merit not on how rich your parents are. I believe the practise actually started with the air force rather than state owned airlines (they only borrowed the idea). The RAF long ago discovered that younger candidates had a higher success rate in training, and that by selecting trainees who had demonstrated achievementin school and sporting fields they were more likely to be able to repeat that success when it came to flying.

The one thing missing is effort and achievement. Any young Tom Dick or Harry with a few A levels can, for the cost of a stamp, apply to be fast-tracked into an airline job

A levels require a lot of effort, and in fact most candidates selected for sponsorship have degrees, so there is no shortage of effort or commitment amongst them, indeed those who are successful in selection and the commercial pilot training deserve praise not sniping. If as you state there is room in aviation for all types and backgrounds, don't knock the sponsored chaps, they have worked as hard as anybody.

Barney

[carb]

Absolutely, every person is worthy of total respect whatever route they take into aviation, it's always hard, and I may yet benefit from sponsorship myself. But regardless, it's totally reasonable to criticise any system that discriminates based on age, height, weight, and so on. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.

[Maximum]

But regardless, it's totally reasonable to criticise any system that discriminates based on age, height, weight, and so on. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.

Sorry carb, but with all due respect I just don't get your logic. By its very nature, any selection procedure will discriminate. That's its purpose. Where does one draw the line? After all, its only through luck that some people are born with an aptitude for flying that others don't have - that's discrimination.

I'd like David Beckhams' success and money, but through a combination of nature and nurture I can't play football like him. It's not right, and it can't be allowed to last.

[carb]

Playing football is a very physical activity so clearly some consideration of age, and height-weight, is sensible.

But if you're a pilot, then so long as you can maintain a class 1 medical, what difference does it make if you're big, short, not within some arbitrary age range, etc etc?

I've never heard anyone object to discrimination based on merit or aptitude but some of the things that airline selectors appear to be getting away with are ridiculous. Just look at the lack of diversity for the evidence.

[mpala]

I suppose there will always be some kind of discrimination in choosing airline pilots for different reasons. Height and weight to a certain degree have practical issues i.e. a really fat person wouldn't be able to fit on the flight deck - look at the problems which arise when fat passengers are put next to thin ones. Also, the medical probably has something to say about weight being fairly proportional to height. The age thing is probably to do with potential length of service i.e. a younger person will have longer to serve than an older person.

It is horrible for people to be discriminated especially when it comes to looks, academic qualifications, or background. How does being an expert in partial fractions (A-Level Maths) make you a better pilot ? Surely it would be better to go by actual flying experience, but then it would create discrimination on financial grounds.

As for the David Beckham argument, he was probably in the right place at the right time. There are footballers out there who could have ate David Beckham for breakfast, but they were never discovered. Chances are, these footballers stopped playing football at a young age (maybe due to some trivial reason such as the games teacher didn't like them, or they were discriminated), and went to work in I.T !

Further to my last post, I'm not turning this board into a "I hate working in I.T" board, but it seems as if most people on here, who are discontent, and pursue training to become pilots come from the I.T background. Do we have any discontent accountants, lawyers, plumbers or tax collectors in here ?

[Flysundone]

Norman 2

I decided to "go for it" when I was in my early forties however, I started on the proviso that I would become a part-time instructor first and an IR and job might come later.

I did all my ground study whilst in full-time employment followed by a BCPL and Intructor Rating. Instructed part-time and decided to do an IR once I had about 800 hours. Did an MCC and finally got a flying job this year on a turbo-prop. I consider myself to be very lucky.

Perhaps you should consider a similar route, that way you keep earning and you too might be lucky.

[Maximum]

carb.....I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I was only using football as an analogy.

My point is simply that in any occupation where demand for jobs outstrips supply, there is always going to be an element of discrimination or extreme competition.

The point is, with sponsorship its the airline's money, so they can basically do what they like.

If however, you come to them for an interview as a qualified ATPL/IR, they'll be using a wider set of criteria. I can assure you, I've flown with all shapes and sizes, gender and race.

[Norman2]

I think the age policy is discriminatory - a younger recruit is more likely to resign and join another airline, especially from the low-cost ones. So a "bond" repayable over say 5-10 years would be more sensible.

The reason they specify 18-25 is simply because they have more applicants than places and it's a legal way (at present) to reduce the number of applications they have to consider.

People may argue that younger pilots will on average have certain advantages - but these arguments are exactly the same as used to justify other forms of discrimination in the past - which now that they are outlawed - seem hopelessly outdated.

As for IT being a career - most of my colleagues never really thought of it as one. In a profession with less change and more entry barriers - experience = kudos. At my age in a law career I might be a QC about now and earning serious money.

[scroggs]

Age is a significant and proven factor in training success, and not only within aviation. If you're going to pay for your own training, and are prepared to continue throwing money at it until you pass, that's your prerogative. If you expect someone else to pay for it, you must also expect them to minimise the risks to their wallet. Employers don't have unlimited money, or time, to train their new pilots, and will select accordingly. This procedure will never be illegal, however unfair you think it is from your personal viewpoint.

As the one paying, the employer is the customer. Like you when you wish to purchase something, they are entitled to set their own criteria when doing so.

[Kefuddle_UK]

As the one paying, the employer is the customer. Like you when you wish to purchase something, they are entitled to set their own criteria when doing so.

Although I cannot fault your logic, the problem is that purchasing goods means purchasing inanimate objects. Employing people is not only a moral, ethical and implicit contract of responsibility to the employed person (and visa-versa) but also to that of society! Discrimination should be limited to a person's functional ability to deal with the job in question. Age most definately does not fall into that category. To say that older people do not respond to training because of their age is complete bullsh*t People do not respond well to training for only two reasons: 1) Their ability 2) Their motivation!

[quixote]

"To say that older people do not respond to training because of their age is complete bullsh*t "
I thought it was accepted that we learn faster when younger e.g. language learning, going solo etc so assume it applies to all training.

Don

[Kefuddle_UK]

Yes I heard that too, still don't agree and emipirical evidence is the strongest of all! Maybe when one is in one's 70's or 80's. If anything I think I can now read faster, remeber more and get the hang of mental and coordination tasks quicker than ever! My reasoning for this is that in later life one is building on knowledge already present rather than having to learn everything afresh such as when one leaves school. Then again I work in IT and that requires constant and unrelenting research to stay on top of technologies and stuff.

[scroggs]

Employing people is not only a moral, ethical and implicit contract of responsibility to the employed person (and visa-versa) but also to that of society! Discrimination should be limited to a person's functional ability to deal with the job in question. Age most definately does not fall into that category.

The responsibilities of an employer are prescribed by law, and may not include all those things that you would wish for. However, this is not an argument about an employer's responsibility to his employees, but about what methods an employer can use to ensure he gets the best employees for his purposes.

Where there are no other factors, age should not be used as a reason for not employing someone - although there is, I believe, no law that says so. However, as the RAF has discovered after 80+ years of training pilots, age is most definitely a factor in the success probabilities of student pilots. As they don't have unlimited time and money to throw at slower learners, they restrict entry (for pilots) to age 24.

Nevertheless, you will discover, if you research further, that most airlines' maximum age for employing pilots is around 5-7 years younger than their notional retirement age, i.e. about 48-55. That is to allow the individual a reasonable chance to advance to command, and for the airline to amortise the training costs (for an already-experienced airline pilot). It is only the entry into sponsored ab-initio training that is limited to young people. It's not discrimination, it is risk management.

[Splat]

Agreed.

I've also heard that the EU (bless em) is drafting some laws making age descrimination illegal in this country. Not sure how, or if it applies here, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

S

[Kefuddle_UK]

scroggs,

Nevertheless, you will discover, if you research further, that most airlines' maximum age for employing pilots is around 5-7 years younger than their notional retirement age, i.e. about 48-55. That is to allow the individual a reasonable chance to advance to command

That seems reasonable to me. I mean, if one of the qualifications for taking on F/Os is that the individual concerened has command potential then it stands to reason that there has to be enough working life left for this to be a practical reality.

It is only the entry into sponsored ab-initio training that is limited to young people. It's not discrimination, it is risk management.

Again, I have no problem with this. This is really a level removed from the employment stage. I don't see it as the employer's responsibility to train people who they do not currently employ - although it may make commercial sense to. We all have a personal responsibility to do what we can to ensure we are employable. It just so happens that for ATP roles this is expensive, but cost does not change the parameters of the argument IMHO. If someone wants to pay for my training prior to selection then that is a bonus.

Discrimination is actively choosing not to consider/select a person qualified for the job because of characteristics/attributes not related to the ability to do the job and I mean the whole job, not just flying the plane.

As for age. It just is not possible to say that age affects the ability learn. The RAF example maybe true(ish) but then there are a whole stack of factors that may make life difficult for older people with the net effect being poor performance in training. Take for example the pass rate and pass mark of mature undergraduate universtity students; considerably higher than school leavers and that is also a 'fact'. Take that on face value and you have the opposite view.

BTW, is that what psychologists call being in "violent agreement"