It will come as no surprise that word of mouth plays a large part in where junior birdmen choose to train.
Those who succeed are far more likely to recommend the ATO.

Those who fail to make the grade are less likely to recommend the same ATO.

Really depends how the customer is handled. Often the failed customer is in denial, with fault never lying with them in any shape or form.

Selection of modular students is essentially one of ability to finance the course.

Regular management assessments & reporting goes a long way to keeping the customer aware of the HOWGOESIT.

Ahh if only Ryanair knew how many high quality pilots they rejected and considered ''not employable'' and how easily the same ''not employable'' guys got offered jobs in much better companies and with much harder selection processes afterwards...

Times have changed. Now the big schools want quantity of students, not quality. More fee-paying students and more income. At the sacrifice of of training quality and speed. Classrooms full, planes over-worked and instructors swamped. It doesn't matter if they get a handful of no-hopers, some may eventually scrape through, or will leave of their own accord. Their fees are more important to the school than a few critical comments on this forum when the graduate can't find a job. Reputation means nothing, and money talks.

On my integrated course the ground school phase was the time when most people were chopped. The school took quite a strict stance on failed ATPL exams, and they terminated students with more than four failed exams. The school considered self-sponsored students with more than four failed exams to be totally unemployable. Even with a single failed exam the student had to have a meeting with the HOT. Thankfully I never found myself in that situation, but the school took a firm stance on failed ATPL exams.

It was the flight training phase where it became ridiculous. The school just kept people there who were completely useless, and didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the line. There were guys who failed the first check-ride three or four times (take-offs, landing, basic circuits and radio calls), and then eventually scraped through because they had a sympathetic examiner. Four or five months later these guys were still limping along with a list of failures as long as their arm. Some were beyond help, but the school just kept pushing them on. In my opinion the school should have been much firmer with failed check-rides, and chopped the hopeless students. Surely these no-hopers would do more harm than good to the school's reputation, especially when they start openly criticising the school after their training, or making complete fools of themselves in sim checks?

A large majority of students got through their training scot-free, and credit to them. My issue is that most of a big school's output are 19 or 20-year olds with very little life-experience, work experience, and little or no applicable soft skills. If I conducted an interview in my old line of work, and came across these typical integrated graduates, my initial judgement would be "privileged background, wealthy parents, private school, wants a bit of instagram candy, and to tell his friends that he's a airline pilot". I trained with these lot, and I know what they're like. Generalised, yes, but that's the way I saw it. A lot want everything around being a commercial pilot, but don't care much about actually doing it.

You'd think it would be sensible for all of the UK-based airlines to group together and open their own integrated flight school to handle all of their cadet needs. Complete quality control from day one and much lower costs. I believe TUI Belgium reckoned it costs €60-70k to get someone from the street to the RHS now that their cadet scheme is on an in-house integrated course.

That way there would be very few unemployable trainees and probably a higher standard of training. I doubt it'd be quite like the days when they did circuits around Shannon in a real VC-10 (though I did hear somewhere that Swissair had even better training) but I imagine it'd be pretty good.

The only real barrier would be a lack of willingness amongst the airlines to finance it properly, though given the cost-cutting shenanigans at one or two places this could actually be quite a big problem.

It makes one cry for the old BCPL + instructing days....

Separate the wheat from the chaff.

When did this whole self-sponsored malarkey start anyway, as far as I recall in the 90's there were no self-sponsored on the integrated courses, all of them were airline sponsored, or does my memory fail me?

In the early '90s there were a few at AST.

One was self-funded by the proceeds of a divorce. She passed without too much trouble, though one unkind instructor did suggest that she'd never get hurt in an a crash as she was always so far behind the aeroplane.

One was the son of an immensely wealthy North African. He had no aptitude whatsoever and totally lacked any ability to differentiate left from right or East from West. Soloed after about 50 hours. Phoned his instructor from ABZ after his first solo cross-country landing, saying in a plaintive voice: "Mr ****, my aeroplane, she is on her back". After 150 hours instruction on the PPL IMC Rating course without any significant progress, CFI eventually broke the news to rich and munificent daddy that as long as H***** has got a hole in his arse, he'll never be a pilot. AST folded not long after losing that source of revenue. The really scary thing is that he went on to Medical School. As a pilot, he could kill at most four or five hundred people. As a doctor....

The system is based on how much money they can squeeze out of the students and how little they can pay the instructors.
No wonder the end results are tablet users and not much more.

Flash 8

I was a FI at BAe PIK in the 90's where only sponsored airline students trained.
That was until the impact of the first Gulf War in 1990 was felt. BA had an option to send students until 2004. They stopped sending new students in 1992 which was the time when self sponsored integrated students and modular customers first began to appear.

No aptitude testing, just the ability the fund the course. And surprise surprise, a mix bag appeared. Some were very talented aviators, others were not.

I did feel sorry for those who just scraped through after a number of attempts at various phases, but lacked the necessary ability ever to become a professional pilot.

The policy prior to 1992 for BA students was that first solo was to be achieved by 15 hours, otherwise a review board took place. Cathay students were allowed up to 20 hours. Quiet a few arrived having never driven a car !
Fail any of the five progress tests twice, and a chop ride would occur, by either STANDARDS, or a FLIGHT MANAGER. Uncle Brian would often be called upon for those worth saving.
QUALITY was the name of the game, as was competency based training.

This word COMPETENCY is now used in MPL training. Nothing really new, just a reinvention of a proven concept.

With beancounters in charge, money doesn't just talk, IT SHOUTS.

Lots of issues at play as usual. I’ll throw a few random views into the mix.

Most of us heavily criticised the MPL but what we fail to acknowledge is that a traditional IR/ME can for many people serve as negative training. Students are trained for a career where they'll be flying a 400+ KTS jet, yet 75% of the training is done on aircraft that move at 90-120kts, flying single pilot and where you are forgiven for lack of energy management and perception of speed/time.

The idea is that after 150 hours of this training they stick you inside a fixed base sim where someone equally detached from airline flying experience teaches you the principles of multi-crew operations. Many student pilots are exposed right here but it’s too late now. The skills are supposed to be transferrable to any aircraft – This is simply not true in my opinion.

Finally, any experienced Freelance TRE will secretly tell you that something like 2 out of the last 5 licenses they sign, they do so reluctantly. If they are also responsible for sim checks at screening, they would simply not be able to fill the two front seats of an airliner if they applied the expected standard. Most sim performances I’ve seen since I left a big UK airline have been shocking and left me wondering how some people could’ve made it this far. It’s the industry’s dirtiest secret that something like 30% of people flying commercial airliners probably shouldn’t be doing so.

Bloody hell! You sound very bitter. You can't go through life feeling like this, do something about it

hum ho....the question of performance in sims and check-flights/exams has long fascinated me.

I am retired but when I was flying and some sort of test came up......I prepared with the idea simply that I should not give the examiner a clearcut reason to fail me.......the idea of an outstanding performance didn't enter into it.

It really wouldn't cost a massive airline like Ryanair, which has no debt and huge profits, a lot of money to buy a hand full of PA28s, DA42s, a airfield, a hangar, a building and employ a few instructors. They already own the expensive training devices i.e. 737 sims. I think they will catch on eventually, especially if they intend to grow to 1000 a/c by 2030.

I concur. I too was in another career before I picked up flying. Did slightly better than the average 19-22 year lot.


Same scenario where I come from.

Funny enough just yesterday I was talking to 737 Capt with 25 years experience who has helped recruiting for 3x arilines in the UK and he said the exact same thing.

That 50% of applicants are unemployable FOR ANY JOB.

I have been unbelievably fortunate to have had this career. Against all odds, I hit the jackpot. So, me being bitter? No - not me.
But I want others to have the same opportunities. If they are prepared to work as hard as I did to reach the top. And not just attending a school for 18 months, and Hey Presto, instant airline pilot. But working tirelessly for years in the industry to make it happen.
Being from a very middle class background, I was able to break all social barriers.
I fear, what I did, unfortunately isn’t likley to be replicated again.
I’m not a selfish person, just looking out for #1.
For the future generations of working/middle class youth, the door has been slammed in their face.
People are now tied in the bondage of indentured servitude from bank loans, training bonds, and slave wages, whilst constantly being under cut by the old school tie.

But I am ‘doing something about it’.
Many have used my aircraft for hour-building at no cost, as people had helped me in the past.
I’m just paying it forward.

But, if your alright, Jack!

Button Push Ignored

I suspect because, despite editing, a spelling/grammar lesson is overdue.

Is it surprising that a major employer of newly qualified cadets finds half of whom apply unsuitable? If I think back, I was probably unsuitable but I got lucky. Even now in some things I’m not considered to be a fit and proper person as I have banned from Jet Blast. Not all of us can do what we want when we want.

Flying is is no different from any other job. Employers have their criteria and one of them is a Frozen ATPL. The more complicated, difficult to acquire and less tangible values that employers are looking for personal attributes. Flying schools do not develop these. This is why advice to hopefuls has consistently been ignore flying, go to university or get a trade, live a life and then go flying. The exceptions to this are this those who learn to fly with armed services because they will be getting plenty of life experience in the process.

If you think I’m wrong consider this. What rational person spends in the order of £130-£150,000 on the possibility they might end up with a job pushing buttons? Admittedly the view is good but what makes people want to go flying? I think the answer for far too many is the perceived status and respect of the job. As a result, too many of the wrong types of people apply and they, with the ones who need to grow up a bit, find it difficult to get a job. The latter stand a chance. The former might never get employed.

What is refreshing is that the attributes that make a good pilot are now starting to be publicly discussed. The ATPL is just one minor requirement for a job. The really important bits are hidden inside a person and are developed through life, not training and they cannot be purchased... fortunately.

PM

PM.
I couldn’t get my job today either.
I was going over the airlines personality profile test with my daughter.
I scored a 29, she a 98.
I was also banned from Jet Blast for quoting Winston Churchill and William Gladstone.
1984 thought Police.
2018 spelling/grammar Police.