License Skills Test - its the one that the TRE signs to pass the sim part of the type rating. It also covers you for your first LPC and OPC.

Its slightly different from a LPC I think because you have to do a raw data ILS. In a normal LPC I think you can do it with the flight director in. I don't know the 737 at all so there might be other differences as well.

Main thing is don't worry about it by the time you get through all the sim training the LST is a walk in the park compared to all the other sessions, there will be nothing new. The first OPC is a bit strange because hopefully you haven't done any single engine work for the last six months. I have to keep repeating to myself "flap 9 gear up" for the go around where as for the twin engine go around its "flap 9" "positive climb" then call "gear up"

edited to add another top tip. Get yourself some ginger tablets and take a couple before your sim sessions. Most TRI/TRE's are pretty good about warning you before slewing the sim. Any hint that they are going to slew the sim eg "I will just position you back to a 8 mile final". Get your head down and your eyes shut. I have never felt air sick yet in an aircraft. But after one tosser driving the sim who kept on slewing it with no warning and a knackard aircon unit I barfed for Scotland.

There's no difference between a CTC or an OAA cadet.

You're both ****, inexperienced and going to fumble your way around the sky for many months before you gain a modicum of spare capacity.


If you still believe the marketing spin about superior or first class training by the time you leave the school then you have an urgent appointment with the Reality Doctor and his rubber gloves.


WWW :cool:

Amen to that! It is getting rather depressing seeing CV's floating in from people that don't meet the minimum requirements for the FD Position we're advertising, but take a punt at it anyway. Do they unlearn how to read at OAA/CTC? Some sort of conspiracy to stop the sheep from applying for jobs that might not make OAA/CTC money...? :E

WWW

I'm not sure why people like you need to 'get off' on knocking OAA/CTC/FTE/Anywhere Except Where you Went trained pilots.

Surely above average and below average pilots come out of all schools?

Not in aviation - everyone's above average.

WWW
 

Very droll!
:D

'You're both ****, inexperienced and going to fumble your way around the sky for many months before you gain a modicum of spare capacity.'

Christ, a shiver went down my spine when I read this...my ex wife used the same phrases about my 'performance' a few years ago...:eek:

I 'believe' WWW used to instruct at one of the big FTO's so he is almost certainly speaking from a valid position of authority and also probably encounters large FTO grads at work.

I agree that there were some shortfalls in my training provision although I only attended one FTO so I cannot compare with others.

demonmonkey - I'm not bashing anyone. Given that I used to earn my living as an Integrated flying instructor in Jerez I'm not hostile to the concept.

My comments were not an attack on low time pilots capabilities. The ones I have had the pleasure to fly with have always impressed me greatly. Rather I was trying to prick the marketing bubble which likes to suggest that the training at school X will make you a better pilot than the training at school Y.

Because frankly, every time you hit TOGA, for the first couple of days/weeks/months when you only have a couple of hundred hours you will be holding onto the trailing edge of the elevator by your fingertips. It doesn't matter where you trained or what you paid.

As a wider point to Wannabes - never ever ever suggest you're a better pilot because you went to Oxford/went Integrated/were selected by someone. It always always looks pompous and gets other pilots backs up. Think of it like a public school education. If you did get onto a scheme, pay top dollar at the fanciest Integrated school or whatever then consider yourself the piloting equivalent of a public school boy. Any boast, and slight hint of superiority based on your background will just sound crass to people, the majority of pilots, who didn't do what you did. I made this mistake myself once when I was 17 and being doubly sponsored by the RAF. My flying instructor took me to one side and told me in no uncertain terms that I was no more special than anyone else on the course. He was right and I learned a lesson that stood me in good stead.

He's now the Head of Training at my airline so thats a second lesson all in itself - aviation is a small world so be nice to everyone always because one day you'll likely be glad that you were.


WWW

at no point in this thread did anyone suggest that anyone is better than anyone else. i knew there will be comments that would be made about integrated grads thinking they are better than everyone else.

i never made this assumption and no one else has on this thread. i really wish people would stop jumping to the conclusion that oaa, ctc or any other grad behave like that. i for one would take constructive advice and opinion but an instant comment to "you're ****" is just frankly insulting.

this thread has been completely blown off course as expected.

I graded from OAA and fully recommend it.

If any of the the first few posters want to PM me then feel free and I'll give you any info you need.

It still amazes me how many idiots are on this forum. (aimed at an individual half way down the page).

I'm not sure if it's me being stupid and not understanding the ironic joke, or maybe these individuals writing have no idea that actual "real" pilots use the forum.

I would always prefer a recommendation from someone who recruits rather than an ex-student.

An ex-student has no other school as comparison whereas a recruiter/ training captain will have seen the products of many different achools and can form an opinion across the board.

P-T, I can guess to whom you are referring and I can assure you that they are more than aware that there are real pilots here given they are real pilots themselves. :hmm:

To summarise ( as I don't believe you've read the whole thread) - some more experienced and qualified pilots are trying to point out that the marketing hype produced by OAA is just that and that the extra price for an integrated course is not worth it and neither are OAA students any better or worse or any more likely to get a job. However, the OAA student or graduate who succumbs to that hype and believes can (I stress "can" not "will") be arrogant enough to actually believe they are better.

Cheers

Whirls

Also to add to whirls excellent summary.

Another problem that is seen are people who have never even been to any establishment for actual training.

They go to an open day or read the web site, like what they see buy into the marketing. Its human nature to want to be something special and if you believe the marketing you will be.

Then any form of postings saying different they jump on them repeating the marketing hype and arguing the toss because deep down they really want it to be true.

WWW although being a bit abrupt with his assessment of new on line FO's is actually quite correct. There is not alot of capacity there, never mind spare capacity. If its a nice day with no problems and on a route they have done before and the planets align they just might keep up with the aircraft.

But we have all been their before, different Captains have different ways of dealing with it. I prefer to laugh about it and cut them a heap of slack and debrief later and not nit pick when they start forgetting calls etc when the work load is high. Some though do ride them and nit pick from day one. I reckon the FO's capacity increases faster being not stressed about getting a bollocking all the time for missed or incorrect calls. Anyway its a nicer cockpit environment which I prefer to a tense one.

DemomonkeyIndeed, but that does not mean the school has no influence. The average varies by school, and not necessarily in being better or worse. It varies in balance between a whole set of qualities and in where emphasis lies on a whole variety of factors. Some of these factors can't be improved much purely by structured training, they relate to that nebulous concept known as "experience".