TBH Parkfell I don't think it is necessarily a standard deviation of the students.

A lot of it is hugely influenced by quality of instruction. The flight training industry is largely inhabited by self selected instructors. Commercial considerations currently preclude most organisations from having a comprehensive standardisation effort.

I keep encountering students who aren't stupid and are trainable but who have massive gaps in knowledge. Or worst of all, have been told that what they are learning is "90% bullcrap".

And when you get a student who has just passed an IR but doesn't have a scan that includes heading, or doesn't know which way to turn to track an RMI, or who never seems to consider wind and drift, then there is something seriously wrong with the system.

This is the key point.

If you read the above post by Chris the Robot he makes some good, valid points that I will try and expand on. My background is as a retired train driver/instructor/manager who had a fair amount of input regarding the selection and training of new drivers, for fun I can just about get a weightshift up and down without breaking it.

As Chris alluded to, the selection procedures are rigorous, and in my experience it was close to an 8% pass rate in the psychometric and trainability tests. This is before face to face interviews and after sifts and telephone interview. The selection process is not cheap and after having more failures than usual in the school it was decided that the training department would have an input in the recruitment from the application stage. The reasoning behind this was that as efficient as HR were, they were looking at candidates without having any experience of what the job entails and were probably rejecting people that had what we were looking for. As to the training cost and timescale, it is probably on parity with putting someone in the RHS of a bus and we paid them about £30k while training.

The difference today between the industries is that the railway has total control of the process from initial contact to sending the new driver out on his own. There has been in recent years attempts by private companies to emulate the big integrated ATOs but apart from a few offering to sell you the psychometric tests it has met with resistance from both companies and unions with good reason. It doesn't matter how much money or educational qualifications you have, if you do not have the qualities that are required then the door is closed.

There are always going to be in both industries a surplus of those that want to and those that actually can do. The process must start with selection on potential ability and personal qualities. Perhaps other airlines could follow the BA self sponsored cadet scheme?

You can probably trace the reduction in instructing standards of basic flying skills to the number of RAF A2 instructors leaving the service aged 38+, and being employed at what was the Commerical Flying Schools. Hamble/Oxford/British Aerospace FC/Cabair to name but a few.

A Standards Dept were the Quality Control. Once the critical mass of ex-A2s were not present then standards could not be guaranteed, as more "self improvers" were employed to keep up with the demand.

WilliumM is 100% correct about the undue influence of the HR department. It is the Training Dept who should be the controlling influence over selection. If HR were charged through budgetary control for their howlers, they would appreciate the merit of pilots having the casting vote.

Besides lack of initial selection replaced by money, "old school" FI's, and ATO's total control of the process, what about the impact of the 14 ATPL theoretical exams which "Unemmployable " candidates can pass with good mneumonic memory, rote learning, without even one face to face assesment interview ?

That's why the FAA and Transport Canada have an oral exam.....

Negan

Firing any employee "on the spot" might well prove very expensive for the employer should it end up at an Employment Tribunal. There is a clear due process to follow when dealing with suspected misconduct.
You, as the customer, can always complain if it directly impacts on your training.

Your Flight School does not seem to be a very happy place, with a possible lack of control by management. It surprises me that your stay. You could always vote with your feet ?

Good point about written exams, especially multi-choice. I do find that when it comes to written exams, one thing that is really important is technique and they teach that at secondary school these days. I couldn't tell you a great deal about Shakespeare's plays though I could tell you how to obtain all four marks in a four mark question about them.

The post about HR influence is pretty valid too I think. Where I work, the final interview is done by local management who have direct experience of the role in question. At the end of training it's the same management decision as to whether someone is allowed to become qualified, the decision comes after a four/five day process known as the Initial Competence Assessment.

If 50% of applicants are unemployable.
Then they need to change their interviewing criteria.

Why would any A320/B737 type operator even bother with 250 hour wonder kids.
When there are thousands of fully qualified and experienced people willing and able to do the job.

Anything short of a full ATPL is an injustice to the natural law of upward mobility.
It holds people back in favour of a select privileged few.
And ends up ruining it for everyone.

Imagine if you couldn’t afford an over priced pretentious school like L3?
That’d be like you couldn’t be in the cabinet unless you went to Eaton.
Oh, it is that way.
OK then, how about you couldn’t get into broadcasting without going to Cambridge.
Oh, that’s the case too.
Alright, getting into government without going to Oxford.
You get the point.
The system is rotten to the core.
But that’s exactly my point.
Look what a horrid mess the country has turned into.
Where people can’t see and say or even allowed to think the obvious.

In the 2017 pay section of this site.
A F/O flying a Jetstream 41 at Eastern Airways gets paid £21,495 a year for 750 hours
When they have been Captain for a year, they should be ready for a Jet job.
But their slot has been taken by a cadet.

Theses same cadets then think they’ll be alright making six figures in six years time.
£100,000 isn’t even close in my opinion.
But looking at what Alex (Ebeneza) Cruz has install for you.
That may be the new top end of the scale at IAG.
At Vueling A320 F/Os make €12,000 base + €10,000 flight (900 hours) = €24,000 a year.
It’s disgusting.

Pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I blame the pools of white tailed doe’s and bucks for messing up the pilot gene pool, and turning it into a septic sewer.

Until the law changes that requires a minimum experience level before flying aircraft over certain weights, then a newly qualified CPL/IR straight from L3 or whoever, will occupy the RHS with low hours.
It is exactly what BA, Aer Lingus, Easyjet etc do. If it didn't work they would not do it. And you don't need to be a "wonder kid". Just a hard working competent junior birdman.

BA have been sponsoring cadets for years. Remember Hamble?
AerLingus likewise training at Oxford & BAe?

If the "white tails" wish to spend their money on a CPL/IR, that is a matter for them. Whether it is wise in all cases, that is the risk they take, knowing that employment is never a certainty.

As for T&Cs, a function of market forces, and what the Unions achieve through negotiations with the employer in a democratic European society.

And finally, not all Turbo Prop Captains are capable ( a small minority) of making the transition. Some have actually tired it, and given up the unequal struggle, returning to the turbo prop world.

Like the old adagio says " BU****IT talks, money walks...There is no point arguing, the accident record is good, computer flies the a/c, crews are cheap and quickly available from zero to hero in 2 years, fares are competitive and low....

Everybody is happy, of course until S**T hits the fan. Then the debate is revived again and soon forgotten.....

I do not like any scheme where people are selected from schools and univerties and given this career.
Especially if it is funded by the tax payer.
“One for you, nineteen for me. TAX MAN” 95% income tax bracket that The Beatles sung about.
It’s what happened with Hamble with BEA and BOAC in the 1960s and early 70s.

The only place I see that happen today is Aer Lingus.
I see them as a relic of a bygone era.

Even in a publicly traded company I wouldn’t agree to it, if I were on the board.
I’d do away with all cadet and scholarships, and run it like a business.

Trade Unions need to push for a change to the rules for weight restrictions for CPL holders.
But the democratic European society has turned into a demonic European society, with ever decreasing wages.

I have trained many people from a wide range of backgrounds including helicopters, turbo props, pistons and fighters.
What I can’t train is people with a sense of entitlement and an arrogant aire of superiority.

Now you may say that 250 hour pilots don’t kill people.
But have you had to fly with them?
If you think I’m happy until !!!!! hits the fan.
No I’m not happy at all.
Of course I want competent experienced people to work with, that I know I can count on.

What no-one has so far mentioned, is the skills they think companies should be looking for?

Anyone can learn to fly an aircraft if they are duly motivated, same as driving a car, neither are evolutionary skills, so there is nothing that cannot be picked up. Smoothly and perfectly maybe not, to a safe and acceptable level, absolutely.

What exactly are people discussing when they mention what students are lacking?

I don't like the concept that someone high and mighty would be able to make the decision of what someone could and couldn't do, an aptitude test will in no way give you an indication of if I can fly an aircraft, nor will it give you an indication of if you could spend 6 hours in an enclosed space with me.

Have you ever instructed?

[QUOTE=jamesgrainge;10088364 I don't like the concept that someone high and mighty would be able to make the decision of what someone could and couldn't do, an aptitude test will in no way give you an indication of if I can fly an aircraft, nor will it give you an indication of if you could spend 6 hours in an enclosed space with me.[/QUOTE]

Here is the order from where I feel that airlines should pick their candidates from.
I have chosen British Airways as an example, just to show the correlation.
It is in no way ment to describe who I think they should hire.
And is in no way ment to describe who should apply.

The first should be airlines that they have purchased. (British Midland, Dan-Air, British Caledonian)
Then.
1/ Airlines within their country that have gone bankrupt. (Morarch)
2/ Airlines from foreign countries that they don’t like. (Emirates)
3/ Subsidery airlines flying under their banner. (BA City Flyer)
4/ Wholy owned subsideries. (Go)
5/ Similar airlines. (Virgin)
6/ Airlines that operate similar equipment but not similar markets. (Thomas Cook)
7/ Military Pilots. (RAF A330)
8/ Airlines that cut into their market. (EasyJet)
9/ Corporate pilots.
10/ Airlines that are a thorn in their side. (RyanAir)
Then on down the list too.

100/ Crop dusters.
101/ British Airways Future Pilot Program.

I’d never stoop so low.
If you love flying and aircraft.
You’ll find a way to make it happen.
We all did.

If they followed this matrix.
Then I believe their acceptance rate would be closer to 100%.
But when they go around interviewing every Tom, Dick and Harry.
What do you expect.

Interviewing and the selection process has now become big business.
I though the Thomas Cook £600 interview was reprehensible.
Yeah, but you did get half of it back if you didn’t make it to day 2.
Insulting.

Airlines hire pilots.
If your not one yet, make yourself one.
Don’t expect someone else to do it for you.
Life is a journey not a destination.
Start at the beginning and work yourself up as high as you care too.
Taking a helicopter ride to the top of a mountain is no fun.
There is only one way to go from there.
Down.

If you fly aircraft for fun or for a living, you have my respect.
To those that are having a hard time of it.
I SALUTE YOU.

The other consideration in the long term is the demographic spread of the pilot workforce where ideally the bulges (retirement year/s) do not exist.

The last weight restriction to be removed was for the SENIOR COMMERICAL PILOTS LICENCE which required 900 hours experience with the ATPL exams passed for issue. That allowed pilots to be in command of ac up to 20,000kg.

Last issued in 1989, with a transition period of 5 years for holders to upgrade to the ATPL or revert to CPL.

As one of the 50% being referred to (Ryanair rejected my application, I didn't get as far as an assessment) I take statements like this with a pinch of salt. What is their definition of "not employable"? In my case someone over 40 with several thousand hours of instructing on single-engine aircraft.

Not once. I don't have the patience or capacity for instruction, it wouldn't be fair on the student.

I'm pretty sure this 50% figure is relevant for people having taken the sim assessment.

There is a huge spectrum in ability for those attending the sim assessment sessions.
Capt Pitt Bull mentioned those attending MCC/JOC courses and the varying quality of customer.
The same is also true post MCC/JOC where airline selection occurs, and the varying quality in the initial exposure to multi crew operations which shows itself in the sim rides.
Choose your ATO carefully........

How much is down to the individual and how much is down to the training? Do some training schools who have quite a few poor students ability-wise get a reputation for poor training when actually selection* is the culprit?

It's interesting that there have been mentions of airlines wanting some life experience but not too much (i.e. too old).

*I use the term "selection" reluctantly because true selection based on ability to fly is non-existent.