can anyone tell me more about the assessment ?

Oxford Aviation UK = very, very expensive, and very, very good

Oxford Aviation US = very, very expensive, and very , very sh!t

Scott

if you want to go integrated at Oxford then go and do it...the endless modular v integrated debate has started to degenerate your thread into ususal pprune rubbish.
Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks they know best...the only one that matters is yours, and i sense you have your heart set on OATS.

I went to OATS in 1997 and self funded an integrated course; my reasons were

1. BA were sending their cadets there at the time so trining should be good
2. better facilities at the time than anywhere else i visited
3. not the cheapest by anymeans but you could pay in installments (5k per month)
4. didn't fancy going modular as it took too long and in my opinion it seemed airlines preferred integrated at the time

as it turned out i though they were excellent, didn't use any outside help for groundschool and passed first time. I think they may have got a lot busier these days so things may have changed a bit but i can only say as i found.

BTw i got a job with BA on the 757/767 after 3 weeks. I also got offered a job with 2 other airlines based SOLELY on my Oxford recommendation and results ( British World airlines (since gone bust!) and GO). Also i just remembered that Aer Lingus phoned me to come to an interview after 5 weeks but i had alread started with BA. This was 10 years ago though and the job market has changed a lot sonce then.

Regarding the the type of course one chooses I wouldn't like to say but as far as quality of trainning goes getting the right instructor is more important than choosing the right flight school and that can be pot luck.

Choosing the right training provider can make a huge difference to your job prospects though and at one time (it may still be the case) preference was give to Oxford graduates for no obvious reasons when smaller outfits like PAT were getting some of the best first time pass rates (did someone say back handers or old boys network ? I couldn't possibly comment).

When a certain flight school folded, Oxford took on some of the flying instructors, many of the ex students of this flight school though would probably agree two of the best instructors went to PAT although now I believe one of them has gone on to pastures new and the other prefers to spend more time on his allotment although if large amounts of green stuff (not cabbages) are waved under his nose he is tempted once more out of retirement.

Going in past events, imo if you are prepared to pay the premium and and go with Oxford and if you time it right you stand a greater chance of walking into a job quite soon after you finish up. At the moment though the trick is probably going to be to try and time it right.

I was a modular student throughtBCFT, Airways Flight training in Exeter (who were excellent) and did the MCC at Oxford. I have a very high opinion of Oxford however, dont believe all the hype that its the school that gets you the job. I believe with the market in the right condition they can help if you get good grades but I am strongly believe that if you put the effort in before starting the course you can make contacts that can often really help when you finally get the blue book. I was a modular student and thanks to writing to airlines and from the time I started the PPL, some 4 years before completion of the ATPLf, my first job was on the 320 for a UK charter company.

From what I have experienced the school is very good and can help get CV's to tops of piles but I also feel that you make your own luck, so start writing!!

CABUS:ok:

Best of luck buddy

Some people in the US seem to have been unlucky with the scheduling, with our course now beginning to overtake the course ahead. There was an issue with students cancelling their own flights left right and centre, and the current backlog could be the consequence of this.

The flight cancelling got so bad that any cancellation now has to be countersigned by an instructor, which I think is fairly reasonable. However, it looks as though we're going to have potential problems as two courses simultaneously hit the Senecas, and all Warrior students have been called to a meeting tomorrow which is, I suspect, going to put some of us on a bit of an enforced holiday. (This is the rumour, we haven't been told what it's about yet).

I'm hoping it's not me, as I'm only 2 weeks away from finishing the Warrior flying and don't want to take any breaks at the moment after finally getting the holds nailed.

Reliability hasn't really been an issue on the Warrior fleet for me (not had a lesson cancelled due to a tech aircraft so far), and through flying six days a week I'm running nearly a month ahead of schedule.

Dave.

PS - Is cancelling one or two l's? Firefox says one, Google says two.

Scott,

I see your from Jersey...been there a couple of times, lovely place! If I were you i'd be getting in about Blue Islands and Air Aurigny. Being a local lad and all that, get your face known. You've got your ppl already, shows commitment to your future career. Have a chat with the Chief Pilots there, tell them what you want to do. Ask what theyre looking for in terms of training background etc. You wouldnt be the first 'local lad' snapped up by an airline/operator thats right on the doorstep. I've seen it now time and time again....jobs for the boys and all that. If you want OAA and Ryanair at 100k, then go for it. I think you'll have much more fun however spending a bit less money, getting a fantastic hands on flying job on a TP flying around a beautiful part of the country.....then head for the jet jobs. Just my opinion though. Your so young, and have got loads of time ahead. Be wise, be sensible, but do whats right for you. ps. I know plenty ex trades guys now flying, you'll do just fine. You've got a solid background to fall on if needs be.

If you feel the BA interview is worth £25 000, go integrated.

If not go modular. You will save £20k - 30k and still more than likely end up at Ryanair. (Which I feel is a good starting airline.)

Sorry, to make clear, the quality of training in the US is very good, ie, the instructors methods and teaching abilities are without fault (Brad B, you are a genius!). The groundschool portion of OAA's groundschool is also very good. However the overall operation/scheduling/aircraft condition in the US is pretty dire.
Rest assured the skills learned will put you in good stead for the rest of your career, but OAA must stop resting on their laurels as far as the US operation is concerned, or the likes of the Netjets 'incident' will happen with other airlines also.

I am clearly out of the loop here - what was the NetJets 'incident'?

one l or two
 

David,

I think it might depend if you are a Brit (two - hence "cancelling") or a Yank (one - "canceling").

But could be wrong.

Overflare

Having done the OAA integrated course - I would broadly agree with most of what has been said. However anyone who thinks that the training in AZ is excellent is either nuts or was very lucky. Generally the standard of instruction there was poor (although it did improve post CPL skills test) in my experience. The instructors were badly controlled (probably due to the director having been sacked without replacement) , some turning up when they feel like it, or just not turning up at all. Many taught their own flavour of aviation rather than the OAA syllabus. Scheduling and maintenance is hit and miss. Communication with the students is dire. The aircraft (and there can be no debate on this) are decrepit. One PA28 in particular looks like it was the subject of an arson attack. The PA34s generally had an availability of 2 servicable aircraft out of 7. Say what you like about "that's aviation" but the fact is that this is a very expensive course and I think its unreasonable to have to use a fleet of aircraft which could easily feature on scrapheap challenge. They all have different avionic fits, having mostly been sourced on the cheap from different sources.
That said, groundschool in the UK is excellent. The IR training in the UK is also very good although the instructors feel that they are having to spend the precious few hours re-teaching what should have been taught in the US. The MCC/JOT is top line.
I now wish I had gone elsewhere or gone modular. I probably sound like a bitter old tw*t, but I did manage to get a job and I suppose they must have done something right, but the overall experience didn't live up to 50% of the expectation...

Low hour Employment Stats
 

Just thought this might be an interesting fact!

Statistics prove that 80% of all low hours pilots employed by the airlines have completed their training via the modular route.

Ba is an exception to this!

Did you know 75% of statistics are made up?:rolleyes:

Have you actually got a source for that?

Pjlot - what's your source? It sounds like a load of rubbish.... Standing by to be proved wrong.

I only know of the 80% reference made by FLYER: (flyer learn to fly guide '06)

"The modular majority: Perhaps 80 percent of those training for the ATPL do so via the modular route, spreading their training over a period of time and/or between training organisations. Four modular students share their experiences with FLYER..."

"Perhaps" a load of old boll-cks? :}

60% of the time.....it works everytime

Oh Ron Burgundy, we salute thee.

I doubt that there is a database anywhere that tracks training route and employment stats for the entire UK or all of JAR land and is also accessible to the likes of Flyer. Perhaps the CAA have such data for the UK, but as far as I know, they don't even publish pass rates for exam and flight test data they do have. I suspect what they publish are statistics on how many people train modular and integrated, but that doesn't mean the employment rate matches that split. Even if 80% is accurate, it would be important to know what type of jobs are involved, how long it took to get them, how much self-improver work experience at various low wage jobs was involved, and how many were SSTRs or pay-to-fly types, etc.

Finally, even if the statistic is accurate and otherwise meaningful, it says nothing about how many from either route don't get work. Given that there are four integrated approved schools and about 90 approved for modular, I would be more comfortable having the failure stats than the success stats, even if I accepted the 80 percent figure.

To modify what RickO says about 75% of statistics being made up, I would add the other 25% need a lot of caveats to be properly deployed for meaningful risk management.