Different Training Providers At Each Stage
 

Hi there PPRUNERS,

I've being reading pprune for a bit of time now and have decided to post my first question where any advise from you out there would be really appreciated.

I am currently due to start my IR. (ME). So far my training has consisted of an ICAO PPL, modular BGS ground school, and basically a CPL from different schools. The school at the moment where I have done my ME class rating is not really meeting my expectations, and think the course could take 3 times as longer then predicted! Doing a 55 hour ME-IR is a long-one!

Anyway, ive been speaking to another training provider regarding doing my IR there and have believe it would meet my time restrictions and quality of training required.

But...I realise that when I finish, I will have my PPL, CPL, ME Rating, IR all done at different schools!!! I was hoping where I am would allow me to do at least the ME and MEIR at the same place, but I dont think thats the case!

So the question: When it comes round to looking for employment - does anyone know from personal experience or their own wisdon where this is frowned upon by employers? Naturally a scattered education profile isn't that great and I have heard that some employers prefer it to be done at one place, but doing the IR at the same place is looking rather bleak at the moment, and im unclear of what effects my employability as a newbie cadet might have at a later stage.

It really depends what sort of employment you are looking for? Nobody is going to look particularly unfavourably at modular licence aquisition. However when you refer to "cadet schemes" I assume mean airline cadet schemes. These are usually conducted through one or more affiliated integrated training providers. As such you wouldn't normally qualify for these types of placement by definition.

For direct employment, an airline (outside of a cadet programme) will usually be looking typically for a full ATPL with around 1500 to 2500 hours including at least 500 hours on turbine powered aircraft. The requirements will vary from company to company. There is a lot of competition at this level.

flying
 

Ok, let me rephrase that. I would have finished as a 250 hour new license holder who had finished under the modular method. But I would have obviously done each part at a different school, and would like to start job hunting to airlines looking for new 250hour license holders....
So what do you reckon?

Too Early in the Cycle
 

Realistically its too early in the industry cycle for airlines to be hiring guys with your training pedigree. Set your sights lower - try to get 1000 hrs or so instructing or on taxi or other air charter work. At the peak of one of the booms I was recruiting 250 hr pilots for A320 ops but we are still a long way from that point at the moment.

Flying
 

Graham@IDC, putting aside the dire condition of the market, my question was more focused on having multiple schools for each part of my training, and how that would affect my likiness of getting an interview, versus having dones say the ME and MEIR at one place?
I do understand that now is probably one of the worst times to be job hunting, but as you can appreciate, id like to do everything in my capacity to increase my odds!

The only realistic employment opportunities at "the 250 hour level" for airlines, are through one or other of the various cadet programmes. B.A, Easyjet, Thomas Cook, Monarch etc. all utilize affiliated integrated school training programmes for these limited cadet schemes, as and when they do arise.

It is generally unrealistic to suppose that there are airline opportunities outside of these schemes for pilots with a raw CPL and a couple of hundred hours. You would need to find a way of progressing up the ladder, to put you in the 1500-2000 hour level, to stand any chance of competing with the "experienced" recruitment market at the accepted entry level.
This is a situation many people don't seem to appreciate.

A CPL/IR and 250 hours isn't really anything more than an "aerial work" licence for practical purposes (outside of these schemes) and it is generally in this segment of the marketplace that experience is likely to be acquired, albeit very difficult in the current overcrowded supply base.

737-Fanatic

I'll attempt to answer your question, seeing as you've asked it three different times.

It is impossible to say whether someone will look unfavourably on you having done your training at different providers. There are some considerations which should be made however. By taking your training at all of these different providers, you could be showing some traits (which you probably don't have), so you should at the very least be ready to explain why you did it this way.

Training at different providers for all of the modules could be seen as showing:
1. Lack of commitment to a place (unlikely, there is no obligation to stay in one place for your training!)

2. A lack of ability to get along with people. Why HAVE you needed to change places for each of the modules? Did you just not get on with the instructors? Can you not deal with being part of a team?

3. A lack of continuity in training. You've been to several places, with several different methods of teaching. Could you have missed some points which would have been picked up had you stayed at one place? To explain -I never had any form of school based sex education until I was 16 due to changing schools, who did it at different times of the year!

There are of course good arguments to these points, which I won't go into as your situation is your own. There are also many more reasons as to why it might be seen all too favourably.

It doesn't appear you have much of a choice, however, and as long as you are clear as to why you have done it this way I see no reason why you should have a problem.

In my humble opinion, I wouldnt worry about that on your C.V, I think its a small detail and if you were ever asked at interview, its easy and honestly explained. It never did me any harm, and i was never asked.
There are far greater hurdles as im sure you are aware. In short, this trip is all about hours commensurate to age.
Beg, borrow and do whatever you have to to get them.
Once you have got all the necessary bits of paper and have ticked all the boxes, its going to come down to
a) your professional approach to job hunting
b) your spare income for further advancement
c) luck
d)The quality of your C.V.
e) luck
f)your networking skills
g)luck
h)your interview skills
i) your ability to shine in the simulator
j) luck.
k)hours in your book
etc etc etc

Flying
 

Flyfish and 4015, thanks for the feedback! Two very different opinions there, and I will agree with you flyfish, that the skill of job hunting is a very different skillset to flying a profile! However both are essential - and with a license to prove it, then different training providers should show it.
I'm still thinking about it and have a day to give it some thought before I decide to move or not!
Cheers

Of course the point of modular training is that you can utilise as many or as few training providers as you wish. If some aspect of your training is not meeting your requirements, then you can of course change it. Modular training is designed to allow for this flexibility. Airlines are unlikely to care much, for the simple reason (that I suspect you are ignoring,) they won't be considering it at the 250 hour level unless you on an integrated cadet programme.

Applying at their open recruitment, is likely to be at a much higher experience level (as already mentioned) when you are in competitive consideration with other (career progression, company changing, ex military pilots.) Your training background might then warrant a question or two, but only in so much as your overall background will.

I am sure you see the distinction?

Flying
 

Hey Beazlebub,
Yes, course I see the distinction in this. As a modular, its proving much less of an issue. And as the general market goes, I certainly see that airlines have preferences with certain integrated schools and students. This is not something I am choosing to ignore, its in fact something I realised and have accepted - and have realised that as a mod student that I must think a bit outside the box to get the hours up as flyfish and 4015 were highlighting!
Cheers

Recruitment Preferences
 

I think it's pretty fair to say this about airline recruitment. When it's a buyers' market they would much rather take integrated students. When there's a pilot shortage they'll take anything with a pulse and a licence!

Even the really big players, who claim only to take from integrated schools, in fact take from the modular pool when pilots are thin on the ground. And don't forget that for quite a while CTC only offered a form of integrated moduar.

Perhaps it might help if I offered some perspective from the other side of the interview desk.

Recruiters are quite often hamstrung by their own inexperience or are bamboozled by their HR departments who think they know a lot about recruitment but simply have a different set of biases.

That aside, ultimately what you're trying to find out in the space of a relatively short interview are two things: is this guy capable of doing the job well and is he going to be easy to get along with during a long duty period.

It's much easier to quickly gauge a graduate from an integrated school. If you know the school you're broadly aware of their output standard. So you can answer the first question with some confidence and all you then have to do is figure out if the guy is OK personality wise.

Modular student are less easy to fathom. They usually have bags of motivation but their flying instruction may have been patchy.

When faced with one of these the first thing I looked at was their log book. Time to first solo gave me some sense of their innate flying ability. Pattern of hours building gave me some idea of their value. 7 hrs a day in a 172 in Florida was a dead giveaway. To all intents and purposes their experience (even if they had genuinely done the hours) was useless in terms of preparing them for a type rating.

Next I used to look at their education and employment. A pattern of achievement and diligence was always a good sign. Gaps in the CV, sporadic job changes and very average exam results was usually interpreted as a sign of drift or lack of self discipline.

Finally, it was absolutely amazing to me how many newly qualifed pilots knew absolutetly jack s**t about basic technical knowledge. One guy couldn't tell me what the basic function of fuel was. Many stuggled to give me even the most basic description of how a jet engine functioned.

But, despite all this, I took quite a few ex modular students because they were clearly able and motivated.

My advice at the moment would be to go for integrated if you can afford it. If not, look for a modular route that demonstrably offers more than simple passing of exams and tests.

Ground school is a classic. Anyone who signs onto ATPOnline can pretty much guarantee 95%+ pass marks in their exams, so this is no longer an indication of quality or ability. On the other hand some ground schools now offer tracked training in which your performance and attitude are monitored and a report given to your FTO.

The FTO itself insists on structured hours building and at the end produces a combined ground/flight report for the airline.

This undoubtedly gets over many of the problems of the modular route and sets you slightly above your modular peers. Anything which does that can only be a good thing.

I hope you find this useful. If you'd like further advice feel free to PM me.

Flying
 

Hi Graham,
Cheers for taking the time to write about your experiences in aviation recruitment. I'm actually into my IR and should be done with all stages in the next few months, so integrated now is not really an option with this.
I agree with you about the consistency with the CV and the background history, however alot of my friends are modular lads, and its tough to gauge what the job response in the market will be having done training this way. Anyway, im not going to enter the Integrated vs modular debate for the moment, and im not sure how employers respond to modular students. However one question does come to my mind - if there are approximately 40-50 flying schools in the UK (from PPL to ME/CPL/IR), and from those, only 3 are integrated cabair/oaa/FTE, then surely statistically one is assuming that more then 80% of new 250 hour graduates are less likely to get a job versus those graduates from the integrated schools. It suggests the majority might be wasting their time - which gut says isn't the case.
Anyhow, lets see what happens!

Yep many do get jobs and turn out to be really good and valuable line pilots and captains.

But there's also a pool of licence holders who are pretty much unemployable!

The airline industry is very conservative and risk averse hence the stated preference for integrated. But a good modular guy is just as valuable as a good integrated guy.

Ive always been in absolute awe of the guys and girls who plug away funding their way through modular. It takes real grit, motivation and determination! You have to respect that!

737-fanatic, Im in a similar position at the moment. I am just doing my ATPLs through Bristol, and looking at where to do my CPL and IR after I finish. Due to work commitments (as in I need to work to fund my training) Im left with a rather limited choice of schools. I wont name the schools directly, but one is well known and does both CPL and IR and the other is lesser known but comes highly recommended, it however only offers CPL so I would have to go to the other school to complete my IR. I personally dont think this should be a problem as the CPL only school does seem to be more flexible to meet my needs and I was impressed with what I saw when I looked around (let alone the positive reviews Ive heard about them).
Anyway, Ive done a little bit of digging and have received a mixed response. However two responses which stand out for me are the response from Eastern Air and Flybe.
Eastern stated "It is preferable to complete your CPL and IR at one school as this provides an audit trail for the airline and displays continuity."And Flybe pointed to the website which states "Modular candidates should have completed training at a single FTO, not including basic PPL training or ATPL theory study and examination" I still have not made up my mind, but I would suggest you try and talk to the airlines (or whoever you hope to work for) and see what they say. My thought is that if you can explain it in an interview then it should be ok, but my worry is that I might not get to interview because of the different schools listed on my CV.