What happens if I don't get selected?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: london
What happens if I don't get selected?
There are only so many airline jobs that come available in the UK each year.
A proportion of those will go to sponsored cadets.
Some will be taken by people leaving the RAF (or the other armed forces).
A few will be taken by ‘experienced’ pilots from other countries.
What % are left over for self-sponsored/self-improvers to scrap over?
Presumably, with the advent of the CTC McAlpine Sponsorship Programme the number of sponsored cadet ‘places’ has increased - at the expense of the ‘self-improver places’?
So, although the chances of being selected have improved, if you are turned down, by definition you are not so attractive to the airlines and the number of places to go for is more limited than before?
At the same time, BAe have just increased their integrated course fees by 11% to £59,500 and OATS put theirs up to £72,000 which is also about a 11% rise (what’s inflation at the moment, 2.5%?). There’s always Cabair – a bit cheaper but with a Woolworths image. And of course as many modular routes as you can shake a stick at. They always seem much cheaper, but when I do a budget and allow for all the things missing from the headline prices (landing fees, pilot bag, nav kit, headset, airfares, travel, food, accommodation, test fees, a safety net in case I fail the odd test, travel insurance, the life and critical illness insurance the bank insists on, etc, etc) the difference narrows.
This is not meant to be an integrated vs modular thread. That’s been done to death many times before and recently. But if I don’t get sponsored, I cannot get my head round spending £72K or even £60K with a reduced chance of employment at the end and no realistic chance of getting well paid employment. I mean OATS must be taking the ****. I can see the Chief Pilot now:
“Where did you do your training?”
“OATS”
“Oh, so you failed the sponsorship selection?”
“Well, yes, but it’s a very old school you know – you can tell by the aircraft. They also have a very nice man who teaches you how to right a top CV.”
“But why should I give you a job?”
“Because I’ve got a huge loan now and I really need a job”
Is anyone actually forking out this dosh? Wouldn’t it be better to do a cheaper course then buy a type rating and go for Ryanair? If I don’t get selected for sponsorship (please, please let it happen) what should I do?
If you answer, remember things have changed since a couple of years ago – both in the training market and the airline employment market (where I’m looking a couple of years forward anyway). What made sense before may not now and the problem facing people who are either not selected or not eligible is today and tomorrow’s problem.
Thanks
Tony
A proportion of those will go to sponsored cadets.
Some will be taken by people leaving the RAF (or the other armed forces).
A few will be taken by ‘experienced’ pilots from other countries.
What % are left over for self-sponsored/self-improvers to scrap over?
Presumably, with the advent of the CTC McAlpine Sponsorship Programme the number of sponsored cadet ‘places’ has increased - at the expense of the ‘self-improver places’?
So, although the chances of being selected have improved, if you are turned down, by definition you are not so attractive to the airlines and the number of places to go for is more limited than before?
At the same time, BAe have just increased their integrated course fees by 11% to £59,500 and OATS put theirs up to £72,000 which is also about a 11% rise (what’s inflation at the moment, 2.5%?). There’s always Cabair – a bit cheaper but with a Woolworths image. And of course as many modular routes as you can shake a stick at. They always seem much cheaper, but when I do a budget and allow for all the things missing from the headline prices (landing fees, pilot bag, nav kit, headset, airfares, travel, food, accommodation, test fees, a safety net in case I fail the odd test, travel insurance, the life and critical illness insurance the bank insists on, etc, etc) the difference narrows.
This is not meant to be an integrated vs modular thread. That’s been done to death many times before and recently. But if I don’t get sponsored, I cannot get my head round spending £72K or even £60K with a reduced chance of employment at the end and no realistic chance of getting well paid employment. I mean OATS must be taking the ****. I can see the Chief Pilot now:
“Where did you do your training?”
“OATS”
“Oh, so you failed the sponsorship selection?”
“Well, yes, but it’s a very old school you know – you can tell by the aircraft. They also have a very nice man who teaches you how to right a top CV.”
“But why should I give you a job?”
“Because I’ve got a huge loan now and I really need a job”
Is anyone actually forking out this dosh? Wouldn’t it be better to do a cheaper course then buy a type rating and go for Ryanair? If I don’t get selected for sponsorship (please, please let it happen) what should I do?
If you answer, remember things have changed since a couple of years ago – both in the training market and the airline employment market (where I’m looking a couple of years forward anyway). What made sense before may not now and the problem facing people who are either not selected or not eligible is today and tomorrow’s problem.
Thanks
Tony
I say there boy
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
Very good post Mr Blair. Basically if you self-sponsor, when you qualify you join the rest of us hopeful ones looking for a way in.
Here are the options:
ATP scheme £7,000, tough selection, fingers crossed that you pass the final handling test after you've stumped up the cash for the AQC course, but excellent rewards if you succeed.
pprune cadet scheme even better than the ATP if it happens again
Instructor rating £6,000 plus near-breadline wages if you manage to find a job
Self-sponsored freight TP type rating £8,000 - £13,000, plus lowish wages if you manage to get a job off the back of it. Danger of getting a rating on a type few people fly.
Self-sponsored jet rating c. £20,000 - a bit of a double or quits gamble - good prospects if you get a job, potentially career damaging and very expensive if you don't.
Para-dropping/glider towing/other GA little of it around, pays very poorly if at all, might need gliding experience, hours gained may be viewed poorly by airlines due to lack of structure, plus you can forget air taxi as it requires 700 hours minimum under JAR
Go overseas potential of high rewards hours-wise, but requires flexible personal circumstances. All sorts of work is out there, the problem is finding it, plus possibly the cost of licence conversion.
Then there's the do nothing option. Sit at home, letting your skills go rusty, get a job outside aviation that pays off the loans but does you no favours for getting into aviation, getting gradually more bitter every day, and eventually getting too old and giving up completely. More people than you think end up doing this, plus complete lack of opportunities has forced it on many more of us qualifying since just before 11/9/01. Battening down the hatches awaiting better times seems to have been the only course of action. Unfortunately the market for 250hours fATPL holders had never been good, and is currently non-existant.
However things seem to be improving now, so for me, 2003 is the year to do something about getting into aviation again. Whatever it takes.
cheers!
foggy.
Here are the options:
ATP scheme £7,000, tough selection, fingers crossed that you pass the final handling test after you've stumped up the cash for the AQC course, but excellent rewards if you succeed.
pprune cadet scheme even better than the ATP if it happens again
Instructor rating £6,000 plus near-breadline wages if you manage to find a job
Self-sponsored freight TP type rating £8,000 - £13,000, plus lowish wages if you manage to get a job off the back of it. Danger of getting a rating on a type few people fly.
Self-sponsored jet rating c. £20,000 - a bit of a double or quits gamble - good prospects if you get a job, potentially career damaging and very expensive if you don't.
Para-dropping/glider towing/other GA little of it around, pays very poorly if at all, might need gliding experience, hours gained may be viewed poorly by airlines due to lack of structure, plus you can forget air taxi as it requires 700 hours minimum under JAR
Go overseas potential of high rewards hours-wise, but requires flexible personal circumstances. All sorts of work is out there, the problem is finding it, plus possibly the cost of licence conversion.
Then there's the do nothing option. Sit at home, letting your skills go rusty, get a job outside aviation that pays off the loans but does you no favours for getting into aviation, getting gradually more bitter every day, and eventually getting too old and giving up completely. More people than you think end up doing this, plus complete lack of opportunities has forced it on many more of us qualifying since just before 11/9/01. Battening down the hatches awaiting better times seems to have been the only course of action. Unfortunately the market for 250hours fATPL holders had never been good, and is currently non-existant.
However things seem to be improving now, so for me, 2003 is the year to do something about getting into aviation again. Whatever it takes.
cheers!
foggy.
Last edited by foghorn; 24th December 2002 at 17:02.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: Right Here.
No such thing as a..........
Chief Pilot (CP): Did you ever apply for a sponsorship scheme?
Applicant (AP): No.
CP: Why not?
AP: Errrr. I was afraid that if I wasnt selected it would look bad.
CP:
Dont shoot off your foot to spite your face. If you can apply for these schemes DO IT. If you dont get selected then get on with it just like everyone else. If your on a budget then train modular. Most Chief Pilots couldnt give a toss whether you payed 72k for integrated or 30k for a patch work quilt. As long as your the person for the job!
MAX
Applicant (AP): No.
CP: Why not?
AP: Errrr. I was afraid that if I wasnt selected it would look bad.
CP:
Dont shoot off your foot to spite your face. If you can apply for these schemes DO IT. If you dont get selected then get on with it just like everyone else. If your on a budget then train modular. Most Chief Pilots couldnt give a toss whether you payed 72k for integrated or 30k for a patch work quilt. As long as your the person for the job!
MAX
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: All over
Don't assume you go to the back of the line if you've trained modular, you're a bit older and you've done a few hundred hours of para-dropping/glider towing. Some chief pilots would favour this over an 18 y/o whose been through the ab-initio susage factory, depending on the airline/fleet in question.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 6
From: Suffolk UK
I wouldn't get too hung up on this business about failing to be selected looking bad. Failing to apply for sponsorships would look worse, don't you think? All airline recruiters are aware of how difficult it is to get a place on these schemes, and won't hold it against you if you haven't been lucky (because luck is most definitely involved!).
There have never been that many jobs available to wannabes; the market now is no worse than it has been on average over the last 20 years. In many ways, it may be better. There's evidence that there are fewer wannabes these days, and the number of jobs to be filled is gradually increasing in line with the inexorable increase of air traffic.
In fact, our own Hamrah has suggested that, in 2003, somewhere around 400 pilots will be required by the low cost/IT sectors in UK. I personally suspect it will be fewer than that, but not by a great deal. What is certain is that 2004/5 will see rapidly increasing opportunities for low-time pilots as the economic slowdown and war issues fade and the world gets travelling again.
However, you're right to suggest that the ideal route to that airline cockpit may be changing. It seems obvious to me that the CTC McAlpine scheme will spawn imitators, as the airlines realise that they are likely to get higher-quality (and thus cheaper to train) candidates through a formal training system. Schemes like this will, eventually, largely replace the ad-hoc hour-building route that has been the staple for airlines over the last 50 years. I think it's probable that such schemes will be open to self-sponsoring students, but they will still require selection by the scheme operator.
However, I think that widespread use of such schemes is probably still a few years away!
There have never been that many jobs available to wannabes; the market now is no worse than it has been on average over the last 20 years. In many ways, it may be better. There's evidence that there are fewer wannabes these days, and the number of jobs to be filled is gradually increasing in line with the inexorable increase of air traffic.
In fact, our own Hamrah has suggested that, in 2003, somewhere around 400 pilots will be required by the low cost/IT sectors in UK. I personally suspect it will be fewer than that, but not by a great deal. What is certain is that 2004/5 will see rapidly increasing opportunities for low-time pilots as the economic slowdown and war issues fade and the world gets travelling again.
However, you're right to suggest that the ideal route to that airline cockpit may be changing. It seems obvious to me that the CTC McAlpine scheme will spawn imitators, as the airlines realise that they are likely to get higher-quality (and thus cheaper to train) candidates through a formal training system. Schemes like this will, eventually, largely replace the ad-hoc hour-building route that has been the staple for airlines over the last 50 years. I think it's probable that such schemes will be open to self-sponsoring students, but they will still require selection by the scheme operator.
However, I think that widespread use of such schemes is probably still a few years away!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK
Schemes like this will, eventually, largely replace the ad-hoc hour-building route that has been the staple for airlines over the last 50 years. I think it's probable that such schemes will be open to self-sponsoring students, but they will still require selection by the scheme operator.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: wherever they let me
Scroggs,
Kerfuddle may not be that far off the mark. Look at the CTC/easyJet deal. The succesful candidates will be on "cadet salary" for 7 years, so even as a Captain they will be on a lower salary, for the same level of responsibility.
I get the impression that every time there is a downturn in the industry the airlines see it as an excuse to erode further the Terms and Conditions of aircrew. As we have discussed on other threads, there are other avenues open to people, which allow for similar or greater income levels as aircrew for less financial input and personal sacrifice.
72k for an ab-initio fATPL course? At some point people just will not be able to justify the risk/benefit equation. Word on the street is that the number of people starting training is falling, and one of the "big" schools is going to be a victim at some stage.
Anyway, merry Christmas to all, and happy birthday to you Scroggs.
Kerfuddle may not be that far off the mark. Look at the CTC/easyJet deal. The succesful candidates will be on "cadet salary" for 7 years, so even as a Captain they will be on a lower salary, for the same level of responsibility.
I get the impression that every time there is a downturn in the industry the airlines see it as an excuse to erode further the Terms and Conditions of aircrew. As we have discussed on other threads, there are other avenues open to people, which allow for similar or greater income levels as aircrew for less financial input and personal sacrifice.
72k for an ab-initio fATPL course? At some point people just will not be able to justify the risk/benefit equation. Word on the street is that the number of people starting training is falling, and one of the "big" schools is going to be a victim at some stage.
Anyway, merry Christmas to all, and happy birthday to you Scroggs.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: MK
In every proffesional career a graduate starts on the shop floor,be it the A&E dept for a new Doctor or Northern Ireland for a new Officer.
It's a great grounding and builds the candidate up,slowly and maturely.
Ask yourself wether you would pick yourself,a new boy/girl lets be honestover someone with even a bit of previous experience?
Anyway good luck,i'm off to start my third year in instructing before i grace someones door,asking for a job on the board earning a shed load of cash(ooops meant to say right hand seat in multi million dollar jet)
It's a great grounding and builds the candidate up,slowly and maturely.
Ask yourself wether you would pick yourself,a new boy/girl lets be honestover someone with even a bit of previous experience?
Anyway good luck,i'm off to start my third year in instructing before i grace someones door,asking for a job on the board earning a shed load of cash(ooops meant to say right hand seat in multi million dollar jet)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK
In every proffesional career a graduate starts on the shop floor,be it the A&E dept for a new Doctor or Northern Ireland for a new Officer.
It's a great grounding and builds the candidate up,slowly and maturely.
Ask yourself wether you would pick yourself,a new boy/girl lets be honestover someone with even a bit of previous experience?
It's a great grounding and builds the candidate up,slowly and maturely.
Ask yourself wether you would pick yourself,a new boy/girl lets be honestover someone with even a bit of previous experience?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: The MCC - Lords
Should the schools that are offering you the chance to part with your hard earned cash not perhaps have some moral obligation to look seriously at the job market and then consider whether they should take your cash. I appreciate they are a business, but ultimately if they flood the market with low hours people who will NOT get jobs then they are shooting themselves in the foot as this will slowly erode the nature of the industry and hence the source of their income.
The more pilots come into the market and remain jobless over time then the less glamorous the job will be and the less people will 'want' to get into a job where the cost/benefit equation is so ridiculously proportioned.
Have a look at the Economist Christmas special as there is an excellent article over the future of 'pilotless' civil airliners. Again might this be something for some people to consider in the future?
The more pilots come into the market and remain jobless over time then the less glamorous the job will be and the less people will 'want' to get into a job where the cost/benefit equation is so ridiculously proportioned.
Have a look at the Economist Christmas special as there is an excellent article over the future of 'pilotless' civil airliners. Again might this be something for some people to consider in the future?
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
From: Location: Location:
Cricketer
I fully agree, its the same as selling somebody a £20K car you cant buy parts for.
The main reason why these course's exist was to fulfil in the good old days the Hamble sort of situation that existed with BA. This was brought about by an ongoing requirement for crews in a rapidly expanding airline taught to exacting standards. That is far from the current situation..
whilst not wanting to be controversial I personally feel that these courses should be banned, I mean does anybody really feel that they are going to be any good at 200 hours in a modern airliner however standardised they are?
Whenever I go into the London TMA as part time crew in a citation I always get amazed over the workload compared to a "serene" European trip to somewhere like Palma.
Its the training captains I feel for, I mean they must be bl@@dy good (daft statement) to have the added worry of a very low time co-pilot in what is on occasion the most congested piece of Airspace in Europe!
How about a Ban on Integrated Courses until the demand is there???
How about the CAA insist on "Distance Learning" for practical flying skills instead of learning what the weather is doing in lower mombassa in Jan as opposed to June.
How about an integrated course of practical flying skills to include mandatory instruction under close supervision of an experienced CFI.
How about 2 weeks structured module of work experience in ATC area control?
How about 2 weeks structured module of work experience in a busy OPS department.
How about having to pay an Airline to ride on the Jumpseat and "shadowing" (That is to say not saying anything) a regional TP captain as another possible module for x amount of sectors??
Its something to consider isn't it? from somebody who has recently qualified and tasted whats around the corner, I sometimes consider how the system could be improved to better prepare you for whats lying in wait for you.
Whilst very challenging getting an fATPL only qualifys you for A RHS job in a Jet/TP, it does not prepare you for it.
Buying a ticket on a Saturday night qualifys you for the Lottery.
This post ended off Topic my apologies - go modular save yourself a lot of cash and serve an apprenticeship - you will go through the rest of your career with confidence knowing you had a good grounding. Life is not a dress rehearsal
I fully agree, its the same as selling somebody a £20K car you cant buy parts for.
The main reason why these course's exist was to fulfil in the good old days the Hamble sort of situation that existed with BA. This was brought about by an ongoing requirement for crews in a rapidly expanding airline taught to exacting standards. That is far from the current situation..
whilst not wanting to be controversial I personally feel that these courses should be banned, I mean does anybody really feel that they are going to be any good at 200 hours in a modern airliner however standardised they are?
Whenever I go into the London TMA as part time crew in a citation I always get amazed over the workload compared to a "serene" European trip to somewhere like Palma.
Its the training captains I feel for, I mean they must be bl@@dy good (daft statement) to have the added worry of a very low time co-pilot in what is on occasion the most congested piece of Airspace in Europe!
How about a Ban on Integrated Courses until the demand is there???
How about the CAA insist on "Distance Learning" for practical flying skills instead of learning what the weather is doing in lower mombassa in Jan as opposed to June.
How about an integrated course of practical flying skills to include mandatory instruction under close supervision of an experienced CFI.
How about 2 weeks structured module of work experience in ATC area control?
How about 2 weeks structured module of work experience in a busy OPS department.
How about having to pay an Airline to ride on the Jumpseat and "shadowing" (That is to say not saying anything) a regional TP captain as another possible module for x amount of sectors??
Its something to consider isn't it? from somebody who has recently qualified and tasted whats around the corner, I sometimes consider how the system could be improved to better prepare you for whats lying in wait for you.
Whilst very challenging getting an fATPL only qualifys you for A RHS job in a Jet/TP, it does not prepare you for it.
Buying a ticket on a Saturday night qualifys you for the Lottery.
This post ended off Topic my apologies - go modular save yourself a lot of cash and serve an apprenticeship - you will go through the rest of your career with confidence knowing you had a good grounding. Life is not a dress rehearsal
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: Sand Pit
G-spots&cricketer.....
Agree for the most part. I did al my training in the U.S. through a relatively structured airline ab-initio program. I got lucky, finished all my ratings in 14 months and got hired into a 1900 with 207 hours (in the U.S.)
I have seen so many of these high priced programs that promise the world but cant get you into a job. I firmly beleive however that if the business model and training program (read facilities also) is right then competant, standardised 250 hour pilots are possible and cost effective for the airlines to hire.
The basis of this argument is military training. The military obviously can train pilots to fly high performance jets (transport incl) in quite low time, however with a budget incompatable with an airline in a copetetive market. Despite this, its not impossible for flight schools to run these programs successfully, however the key is to have the airlines taking all their graduates, or at least have a garunteed interview. I cant tell you how many of my peers went through these programs only to come out with not even the slightest prospect of a job with twice the dent in their bank accounts.
Alternatively, these programs should be airline driven, like qantas does. Interview the 0 time pilot to see if you want him/her, hire them into a cadet program, they pay the 100k but get the job if they pass the final.
these programs arent all bad.....i think its just bad business models and programs that fail the consumers (you and I)
just some thoughts
Agree for the most part. I did al my training in the U.S. through a relatively structured airline ab-initio program. I got lucky, finished all my ratings in 14 months and got hired into a 1900 with 207 hours (in the U.S.)
I have seen so many of these high priced programs that promise the world but cant get you into a job. I firmly beleive however that if the business model and training program (read facilities also) is right then competant, standardised 250 hour pilots are possible and cost effective for the airlines to hire.
The basis of this argument is military training. The military obviously can train pilots to fly high performance jets (transport incl) in quite low time, however with a budget incompatable with an airline in a copetetive market. Despite this, its not impossible for flight schools to run these programs successfully, however the key is to have the airlines taking all their graduates, or at least have a garunteed interview. I cant tell you how many of my peers went through these programs only to come out with not even the slightest prospect of a job with twice the dent in their bank accounts.
Alternatively, these programs should be airline driven, like qantas does. Interview the 0 time pilot to see if you want him/her, hire them into a cadet program, they pay the 100k but get the job if they pass the final.
these programs arent all bad.....i think its just bad business models and programs that fail the consumers (you and I)
just some thoughts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
From: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Kefuddle
I'm intrigued by your statement that standardisation leads to low-pay. Surely the only way a system is ever going to lead to low-pay is if it becomes easier to pass, thus attracting, and retaining, low quality candidates.
The military flying training system (UK) is standardised beyond belief, but that does not make it any easier to pass.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am confused by your logic and hope that you're wrong!
I'm intrigued by your statement that standardisation leads to low-pay. Surely the only way a system is ever going to lead to low-pay is if it becomes easier to pass, thus attracting, and retaining, low quality candidates.
The military flying training system (UK) is standardised beyond belief, but that does not make it any easier to pass.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am confused by your logic and hope that you're wrong!
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 6
From: Suffolk UK
Yes, I think Kefuddle is reading 'standardisation' as something akin to 'mass production'. Standardisation is the backbone of all military and airline training, and ensures that for a given set of circumstances, certain operating procedures will be followed. Standardisition is absolutely fundamental to safe, predictable operation in a multi-crew enviornment. There is no room for 'artistic impression' in an airliner!
The military system is proof, if any were needed, that low-time pilots are perfectly capable of handling and operating high-performance, high-workload aeroplanes. However, there is the major difference between military and civil training in that the trainee military pilot handles complex, high-performance machinery from a very early stage (my very first aircraft was a jet). That's achieved through ongoing type-specific groundschool and simulator training throughout each phase of the course. As you can imagine, such thorough training is extremely intensive and expensive - and takes around three years. As a result, a military pilot will hit his first squadron with 300 hours or less - at a cost of £7 million plus! Yet the RAF would not consider this individual as a truly rounded, useful squadron pilot until the end of his first tour - another three years down the line. It's unlikey that any private-venture school could afford to imitate this kind of training, hence the low-hour pilot will need some years of further training within an airline before he's ready to assume command.
Standardisation in no way implies a downward threat to pay and conditions. The currently increasing trend of airlines to apply pay restrictions on low-hour pilots partially reflects the fact that these pilots have not undergone the 'apprenticeship' that was alluded to in a post above, and the fact that a 250-hour pilot with a type rating is in no way equal in usefulness to the company as a 2000-hour senior(ish) first officer. It also partially reflects a desire by these airlines to minimise the costs (and inevitable risks) that are inherent in taking on such pilots.
In the past an airline pilot would have completed either many years as a military pilot, or perhaps many years working through the air taxi, night freight, commuter airline etc., or would have joined an airline through a cadetship that involved (in BA's case) a couple of years as a cadet, followed by up to seven years as a second officer, before he achieved the (then) dizzy heights of first officer, with somewhere around 3000 hours. The relatively high pay accorded an FO on appointment in those days reflected the long road to get there. Now, it would seem, many not only feel that they deserve the seat at 250 hours, but they think that they justify the pay as well. Sorry, but it ain't so - and these latest schemes effectively acknowlege the fact that you are a trainee for some years after you join.
The military system is proof, if any were needed, that low-time pilots are perfectly capable of handling and operating high-performance, high-workload aeroplanes. However, there is the major difference between military and civil training in that the trainee military pilot handles complex, high-performance machinery from a very early stage (my very first aircraft was a jet). That's achieved through ongoing type-specific groundschool and simulator training throughout each phase of the course. As you can imagine, such thorough training is extremely intensive and expensive - and takes around three years. As a result, a military pilot will hit his first squadron with 300 hours or less - at a cost of £7 million plus! Yet the RAF would not consider this individual as a truly rounded, useful squadron pilot until the end of his first tour - another three years down the line. It's unlikey that any private-venture school could afford to imitate this kind of training, hence the low-hour pilot will need some years of further training within an airline before he's ready to assume command.
Standardisation in no way implies a downward threat to pay and conditions. The currently increasing trend of airlines to apply pay restrictions on low-hour pilots partially reflects the fact that these pilots have not undergone the 'apprenticeship' that was alluded to in a post above, and the fact that a 250-hour pilot with a type rating is in no way equal in usefulness to the company as a 2000-hour senior(ish) first officer. It also partially reflects a desire by these airlines to minimise the costs (and inevitable risks) that are inherent in taking on such pilots.
In the past an airline pilot would have completed either many years as a military pilot, or perhaps many years working through the air taxi, night freight, commuter airline etc., or would have joined an airline through a cadetship that involved (in BA's case) a couple of years as a cadet, followed by up to seven years as a second officer, before he achieved the (then) dizzy heights of first officer, with somewhere around 3000 hours. The relatively high pay accorded an FO on appointment in those days reflected the long road to get there. Now, it would seem, many not only feel that they deserve the seat at 250 hours, but they think that they justify the pay as well. Sorry, but it ain't so - and these latest schemes effectively acknowlege the fact that you are a trainee for some years after you join.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: MK
I've got to be honest but entering my third year of instructing their seems to be a continual wave of hopefulls who i can only sudgets have not done any research or spoken to anyone in the know.
I've followed the old system,the unfashionable instructor path and if in charge today would demand everyone including the intergrated follow the same.
Some graduates come to me from large well know schools and other instructors for check outs to keep their hand in,and to be honest their general awerness be it the lookout or in the circuit is appalling.
After they zoom off in their new BMW i'm left a little,and lets be generous amused how they were ever passed with a PPL let alone anything else.
I may be a little bias but the hour builder doing the mudular route is usually somewhat better!
Still it's not what you know ehhh
I've followed the old system,the unfashionable instructor path and if in charge today would demand everyone including the intergrated follow the same.
Some graduates come to me from large well know schools and other instructors for check outs to keep their hand in,and to be honest their general awerness be it the lookout or in the circuit is appalling.
After they zoom off in their new BMW i'm left a little,and lets be generous amused how they were ever passed with a PPL let alone anything else.
I may be a little bias but the hour builder doing the mudular route is usually somewhat better!
Still it's not what you know ehhh
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK
I'm intrigued by your statement that standardisation leads to low-pay. Surely the only way a system is ever going to lead to low-pay is if it becomes easier to pass, thus attracting, and retaining, low quality candidates.
...
The military flying training system (UK) is standardised beyond belief, but that does not make it any easier to pass.
...
The military flying training system (UK) is standardised beyond belief, but that does not make it any easier to pass.
I concur, I think I have made a bit of leap in saying that this will erode the status of the job; but I think that, in time, this broad brush effect will open the flight deck to a greater number of people - as traditional flying skills become more and more irrelevant.
May I add that, as I previously stated, I still know sod all about aviation but that I am only drawing on my experience of a similar effect taking place in the IT industry. The need for software developers to know how things work as nearly disappeared. With the advent of decent standards in the industry nearly everybody is expected to one of two standards: a) .NET b) J2EE. This allows employers to pick and choose more readily rather that having to search for someone with knowledge of their specific needs. Now employers can choose to ask for very specific skills rather than having it foisted upon them?
I am finding it difficult to put my precise thoughts into words on this. Probably a clue that I am confusing myself now
