Bond/OAT "Sponsorship"
Robbo Jock,
Why the requirements for ab-initio? Because it is much easier to train someone properly from the beginning than to have to essentially re-train them later on.
(And please don't be under the illusion that passing the CPL test is any guarantee of quality... )
Why the requirements for ab-initio? Because it is much easier to train someone properly from the beginning than to have to essentially re-train them later on.
(And please don't be under the illusion that passing the CPL test is any guarantee of quality... )
Last edited by Bravo73; 28th May 2008 at 23:13. Reason: Spacing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only speculating here but going ab-initio means Bond have more control over who they are going to end up with. I don't think it's just flying skills they're after. Doing it this way means they can see who's 'Bond' material from the start, things like team working, personality etc.
Also, training a group of people means they will already know each other, surely good for building a future Bond team?
I can't help thinking though, that the guys who have gone through the programme may be missing out somewhat on the variety of flying that doing the CPL/instructor/turbine/twin/IR route offers. Surely the people who have done the long, 'hard slog' have had greater exposure to more diverse and demanding (?) flight time?
Also, training a group of people means they will already know each other, surely good for building a future Bond team?
I can't help thinking though, that the guys who have gone through the programme may be missing out somewhat on the variety of flying that doing the CPL/instructor/turbine/twin/IR route offers. Surely the people who have done the long, 'hard slog' have had greater exposure to more diverse and demanding (?) flight time?
Robbo Jock,
Sponsoring ab-initio has the advantage of being able to screen out individuals who may be able to pass exams but don't have a natural flying ability. The big operators all have had bad experiences of taking on pilots who have lots of hours under their belt but can't cope with the skills and disciplines of multi-crew IFR operations. By sponsoring ab-initio, they have the advantage of picking the best material at an impressionable age who will sit in the co-pilots seat for a lower wage for up to 6 or so years without giving the company any trouble. A previous Bond manager used to refer to them as "canon fodder". They come with no baggage and are a reliable P2 workforce and if they stayed the course, would eventually make P1. Unfortunately many would want further challenges or variety before they were ready for heli command (or else there were no command slots available) and would pay off what was left of their bond and go off to fly large fixed wing jets.
Sponsoring is however expensive and companies will only do it if there is lack of quality pilots in the market already.
Sponsoring ab-initio has the advantage of being able to screen out individuals who may be able to pass exams but don't have a natural flying ability. The big operators all have had bad experiences of taking on pilots who have lots of hours under their belt but can't cope with the skills and disciplines of multi-crew IFR operations. By sponsoring ab-initio, they have the advantage of picking the best material at an impressionable age who will sit in the co-pilots seat for a lower wage for up to 6 or so years without giving the company any trouble. A previous Bond manager used to refer to them as "canon fodder". They come with no baggage and are a reliable P2 workforce and if they stayed the course, would eventually make P1. Unfortunately many would want further challenges or variety before they were ready for heli command (or else there were no command slots available) and would pay off what was left of their bond and go off to fly large fixed wing jets.
Sponsoring is however expensive and companies will only do it if there is lack of quality pilots in the market already.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at an impressionable age who will sit in the co-pilots seat for a lower wage for up to 6 or so years
Wonder why I didn't get through
Cheers
Whirls
But all that stuff about screening out, selection, team player, personality can still all be part of the mix. Apply a set of selection criteria to choose a group of candidates, bring them together, put them through a course, binning those that don't come up to scratch in whatever way. That's exactly what they'd be doing with ab-inits and I can't see why it wouldn't work with newly-qualified.
I've no doubt someone sent through such a course with a newly-minted CPL would be just as happy to "sit in the co-pilot's seat for a lower wage for up to 6 or so years without giving the company any trouble" as someone who's never been in a helicopter before - the graduates of such a scheme won't be much more employable elsewhere for those years anyway.
I don't mean peeps with loads of hours and experience. A whole different set of selection criteria, expectations and training requirements would come into play there, on an individual-by-individual basis. But taking someone with 200 hours, say, and putting them through a standardised course of 135 hours should churn out a pilot of the requisite quality for the company.
B73
No, I don't suffer that illusion - I'm living proof that passing the CPL test is no guarantee of quality!!
I've no doubt someone sent through such a course with a newly-minted CPL would be just as happy to "sit in the co-pilot's seat for a lower wage for up to 6 or so years without giving the company any trouble" as someone who's never been in a helicopter before - the graduates of such a scheme won't be much more employable elsewhere for those years anyway.
I don't mean peeps with loads of hours and experience. A whole different set of selection criteria, expectations and training requirements would come into play there, on an individual-by-individual basis. But taking someone with 200 hours, say, and putting them through a standardised course of 135 hours should churn out a pilot of the requisite quality for the company.
B73
No, I don't suffer that illusion - I'm living proof that passing the CPL test is no guarantee of quality!!
Robbo Jock,
Are you an instructor yet? If you are, then you will understand that someone with previous training (eg a PPL(A) or even a few hours rotary) is generally always harder to re-train than someone who is effectively a 'clean sheet'. Believe it or not, but someone who has 200hrs is already pretty much set in their ways.
One of the instructing mantras is 'Teach them properly the first time because it's much harder the second time'.
It's the same reason that the military also expect very little prior experience from their ab-initios. IIRC, they are happy with PPL level training but you might struggle to gain entry if you already have a CPL.
Are you an instructor yet? If you are, then you will understand that someone with previous training (eg a PPL(A) or even a few hours rotary) is generally always harder to re-train than someone who is effectively a 'clean sheet'. Believe it or not, but someone who has 200hrs is already pretty much set in their ways.
One of the instructing mantras is 'Teach them properly the first time because it's much harder the second time'.
It's the same reason that the military also expect very little prior experience from their ab-initios. IIRC, they are happy with PPL level training but you might struggle to gain entry if you already have a CPL.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: leicester
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having asked around I have found that the preference for prior experience is not so much because they are "set in their ways",
But because flying a Robinson is something that you the pilot does. North sea equipment such as ec225 are far better at flying themselves, and it requires a training of chageing ones point of view from "I can fly this aircraft well" to "this aircraft can fly well and I will assist it to do that flawlessly"
MADY
But because flying a Robinson is something that you the pilot does. North sea equipment such as ec225 are far better at flying themselves, and it requires a training of chageing ones point of view from "I can fly this aircraft well" to "this aircraft can fly well and I will assist it to do that flawlessly"
MADY
The first EC 225 arrived at the weekend (G-REDU). Two more to come....G-REDR end of June and G-REDT end of July.
So can someone get a few pics of it, dying to see it
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: North sea equipment such as ec225 are far better at flying themselves, and it requires a training of chageing ones point of view from "I can fly this aircraft well" to "this aircraft can fly well and I will assist it to do that flawlessly"
I completely agree g-mady, aircraft are becoming more and more sophisticated with ever increasing empahsis on operating flight management systems.
One thing seems to have been overlooked in the discussion on whether training ab-initio pilots is a better option than taking on those who have some experience – ie. in the process of completing or just finished CPL.
Many recent CPL’s have trained at Bristow academy in Florida (being a cost effective way to do a JAR CPL) which would seem to suggest that they would have been exposed to the same flight training as those who had been selected as ab-initio cadets for Bond -who if I remember where to be trained at Bristow Academy.
As often it is an IR rating that proves to be the biggest financial hurdle for pilots aiming to fly for the rigs, its just a thought, but would it not be more cost effective for companies to offer more IR sponsored training, and not exclude those who have had the determination to gain some experience from having the opportunity to show whether they are suitable? Some inevitably would have picked up ‘bad habits’ but some end up being stuck in a catch 22 of not having funds for an IR but not being able to apply for opportunities like those offered by Bond.
Just some thoughts to promote healthy discussion!
Nobby
I completely agree g-mady, aircraft are becoming more and more sophisticated with ever increasing empahsis on operating flight management systems.
One thing seems to have been overlooked in the discussion on whether training ab-initio pilots is a better option than taking on those who have some experience – ie. in the process of completing or just finished CPL.
Many recent CPL’s have trained at Bristow academy in Florida (being a cost effective way to do a JAR CPL) which would seem to suggest that they would have been exposed to the same flight training as those who had been selected as ab-initio cadets for Bond -who if I remember where to be trained at Bristow Academy.
As often it is an IR rating that proves to be the biggest financial hurdle for pilots aiming to fly for the rigs, its just a thought, but would it not be more cost effective for companies to offer more IR sponsored training, and not exclude those who have had the determination to gain some experience from having the opportunity to show whether they are suitable? Some inevitably would have picked up ‘bad habits’ but some end up being stuck in a catch 22 of not having funds for an IR but not being able to apply for opportunities like those offered by Bond.
Just some thoughts to promote healthy discussion!
Nobby
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Dissapointment
I have read this thread with interest having worked on and off in the NS over the past 20 odd years.
Many years ago I applied to be an Army pilot, passed all the exams, got to the final interview and was rejected. Too little personality, or was it too much, not sure now, but several years later, the Army were desperatley short of Pilots and suitable material to train. Having opened the barrel, my name lurking near the bottom and hey presto, I was suddenly the AACs new best friend. I have gone on to have an interesting, varied and at times very satifying career with wobbly wings above my head and despite the Armys initial misgivings I have managed over 11K hours of flight without scratching a coat of paint (touch wood).
For those of you on this forum who have tried, and failed, to make this particular sponsership round, do not be disheartened. When there is pleanty of material to choose from, the criteria the operators use tend to become more and more obtuse, to the point that many of use in the industry feel is beyond the pail.
The Company management I work for now finds it OK to reject ex military helo pilots with flawless records .... just because they seemed to have flunked the pyschometrics.
But the boot will always end up on the other foot and the aviation world is a great big wheel, and when it turns - your turn will hopefully arrive.
For those posting who believe that there is no real requirements to "Fly" a big heli like the 225 or the L2 you are very wrong. You need to be able to hand fly the machine very well to operate safely to Oil Installations and particularly moving helidecks and the paradox of automisation (if that is indeed a real word) is that their is less time to learn and practise this.
As a NS Commander the only thing I cannot do is land the heli from the LHS (when I am sat in the right), and I would rather have a competent hands on pilot sat next to me than an all singing all dancing clone from the CRM/PYSCHMETRIC aviation academy.
Finnaly, I am convinced that time spent truly learning how the helicopter behaves in and out of wind, how to hand fly an accurate sight picture approach both day and night makes any other type of flying (IFR or VFR) much easier to master.
Practise and master the basics and you will a better, safer and in my view, more employable pilot.
Good Luck!!
Many years ago I applied to be an Army pilot, passed all the exams, got to the final interview and was rejected. Too little personality, or was it too much, not sure now, but several years later, the Army were desperatley short of Pilots and suitable material to train. Having opened the barrel, my name lurking near the bottom and hey presto, I was suddenly the AACs new best friend. I have gone on to have an interesting, varied and at times very satifying career with wobbly wings above my head and despite the Armys initial misgivings I have managed over 11K hours of flight without scratching a coat of paint (touch wood).
For those of you on this forum who have tried, and failed, to make this particular sponsership round, do not be disheartened. When there is pleanty of material to choose from, the criteria the operators use tend to become more and more obtuse, to the point that many of use in the industry feel is beyond the pail.
The Company management I work for now finds it OK to reject ex military helo pilots with flawless records .... just because they seemed to have flunked the pyschometrics.
But the boot will always end up on the other foot and the aviation world is a great big wheel, and when it turns - your turn will hopefully arrive.
For those posting who believe that there is no real requirements to "Fly" a big heli like the 225 or the L2 you are very wrong. You need to be able to hand fly the machine very well to operate safely to Oil Installations and particularly moving helidecks and the paradox of automisation (if that is indeed a real word) is that their is less time to learn and practise this.
As a NS Commander the only thing I cannot do is land the heli from the LHS (when I am sat in the right), and I would rather have a competent hands on pilot sat next to me than an all singing all dancing clone from the CRM/PYSCHMETRIC aviation academy.
Finnaly, I am convinced that time spent truly learning how the helicopter behaves in and out of wind, how to hand fly an accurate sight picture approach both day and night makes any other type of flying (IFR or VFR) much easier to master.
Practise and master the basics and you will a better, safer and in my view, more employable pilot.
Good Luck!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 35
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shiney chopper!!!!!!
Has anyone heard from any of the bonded bond cadets lol. Turns out me not gettin it has worked out fine, i'm off in september to be a deck officer for cruise ships, they pay for the degree and a wage on top (beats paying a £30k bond up front), with cruises in between academic phases!!! - in a way better than flying as job because i will have the income to let me fly as a hobby and enjoy it for what it is and not be under constant pressure
.
The only thing i hold against bond is that they didn't give feedback when i asked for it, and considering i was in the last interviews it would've only been about 9 people to give feedback to. They seem a great company otherwise.
Has anyone heard from any of the bonded bond cadets lol. Turns out me not gettin it has worked out fine, i'm off in september to be a deck officer for cruise ships, they pay for the degree and a wage on top (beats paying a £30k bond up front), with cruises in between academic phases!!! - in a way better than flying as job because i will have the income to let me fly as a hobby and enjoy it for what it is and not be under constant pressure
.The only thing i hold against bond is that they didn't give feedback when i asked for it, and considering i was in the last interviews it would've only been about 9 people to give feedback to. They seem a great company otherwise.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a change in direction...
But whatever floats your boat if you pardon the pun.
Whilst feedback would have been nice, it is never guaranteed when applying for a job. Even if employers do offer you feedback, sometimes it is just full of buzzwords to make you feel better. So I wouldn't hold anything against anyone.
But whatever floats your boat if you pardon the pun.
Whilst feedback would have been nice, it is never guaranteed when applying for a job. Even if employers do offer you feedback, sometimes it is just full of buzzwords to make you feel better. So I wouldn't hold anything against anyone.
Snowy Owl, you off to P&O? Windstar? Been there, done that. A great experience and an ideal way to save money to fly. Come home on leave with the money and time to fly.
Merchant navy might not be for everyone but you start from scratch, get a qualification, and work experience, seeing the world, whilst sponsored on about £12k+ yr (might be more now), plus you get a degree/diploma etc and on completion of training (3yrs now?) you start on a tax free salary as 3rd officer/junior engineer of about £25k/yr. Don't know why more wannabes don't do it to be honest.
Good luck with the course and have fun.
Merchant navy might not be for everyone but you start from scratch, get a qualification, and work experience, seeing the world, whilst sponsored on about £12k+ yr (might be more now), plus you get a degree/diploma etc and on completion of training (3yrs now?) you start on a tax free salary as 3rd officer/junior engineer of about £25k/yr. Don't know why more wannabes don't do it to be honest.
Good luck with the course and have fun.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 35
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers
Yeah its a great deal really, all uni stuff is paid for and you get just shy of £10k whilst you're doing the academic stuff for the first year, they say it will go up by the second year! And then once qualified as 3rd officer after 3 years you're starting wage is about £26k but ends up being £30k because you get the tax back
.
At the interview they said that those numbers are more than likely to change in the three years, and it will definately be an upward change which is good.
Also in terms of holiday, once you're an officer now they let you stay in the country of your port of disembarkment until you want to fly home, then they pay for the flight lol. So you could spend 6 months at sea, then a month in say new zealand and then 2 weeks at home!
Definately a great way to save up flying money, but i'll see how it goes - if i like it then i'll work my way up to captain and keep a little chopper on the upper deck haha!
Yeah its a great deal really, all uni stuff is paid for and you get just shy of £10k whilst you're doing the academic stuff for the first year, they say it will go up by the second year! And then once qualified as 3rd officer after 3 years you're starting wage is about £26k but ends up being £30k because you get the tax back
.At the interview they said that those numbers are more than likely to change in the three years, and it will definately be an upward change which is good.
Also in terms of holiday, once you're an officer now they let you stay in the country of your port of disembarkment until you want to fly home, then they pay for the flight lol. So you could spend 6 months at sea, then a month in say new zealand and then 2 weeks at home!
Definately a great way to save up flying money, but i'll see how it goes - if i like it then i'll work my way up to captain and keep a little chopper on the upper deck haha!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know why more wannabes don't do it to be honest.
Hope you're good at mopping up snowy...
YouTube - Crazy pool
Robbo Jock,
Why the requirements for ab-initio? Because it is much easier to train someone properly from the beginning than to have to essentially re-train them later on.
(And please don't be under the illusion that passing the CPL test is any guarantee of quality... )
I gotta say that Bond has been quite successful in the offshore business, and any new process they experiment with shouldn't be discounted until we see the results.
I am at odds with the concept of stepping over all the qualified PPL/CPL helicopter pilots, many trained in Europe, to instead try the un-tarnished "new pilots from scratch". These "new recruits" are not being trained at some sophisticated, end-use guided school in the UK, but at Patrick Corr's Helicopter Adventures in Florida. Sorry, changing the name to "Bristow Academy" doesn't change anything. It is a low buck school operated in a country of convenience with low costs and optimal weather. Part of the low cost from hiring newly graduated students to be instructors for the first year. By comparison, the UK tends to have a more developed instructor cadre in its schools, same as in Canada. I'm supposing that Bond feels they can get a better quality pilot that way, and have a better assessment from those instructors on the progress of those students. Sounds counter-intuitive to me.
Other posters that have said it is easier to untrain than retrain make me wonder if they have ever flown a helicopter. The fundemental skill of a helicopter pilot is one of managing accelerations, closure rates, and power management. To think that the risk in investing into the wrong student can be mitigated through a nausiating series of test and hurdles has been tested extensively in the military, and they have only had a mixed success there, despite a 90% washout rate. Can Bond afford a 90% washout on their investment? I doubt it.
I'd be quite happy as an employer to let the pilots self-screen themselves for motivation and ability by paying for their own initial license. I'm quite sure that the same battery of tests Bond is applying before can be applied afterwards. As far as any negative training, if Bond can tolerate initial training done by a 300 hr R22 new instructor, then I am quite confident that I could also retrain a student taught by a 3000 hr ex-IFR/Offshore instructor, and that maybe I might even get a better assessment.
Let's see how the Bond experiment works out
Why the requirements for ab-initio? Because it is much easier to train someone properly from the beginning than to have to essentially re-train them later on.
(And please don't be under the illusion that passing the CPL test is any guarantee of quality... )
I gotta say that Bond has been quite successful in the offshore business, and any new process they experiment with shouldn't be discounted until we see the results.
I am at odds with the concept of stepping over all the qualified PPL/CPL helicopter pilots, many trained in Europe, to instead try the un-tarnished "new pilots from scratch". These "new recruits" are not being trained at some sophisticated, end-use guided school in the UK, but at Patrick Corr's Helicopter Adventures in Florida. Sorry, changing the name to "Bristow Academy" doesn't change anything. It is a low buck school operated in a country of convenience with low costs and optimal weather. Part of the low cost from hiring newly graduated students to be instructors for the first year. By comparison, the UK tends to have a more developed instructor cadre in its schools, same as in Canada. I'm supposing that Bond feels they can get a better quality pilot that way, and have a better assessment from those instructors on the progress of those students. Sounds counter-intuitive to me.
Other posters that have said it is easier to untrain than retrain make me wonder if they have ever flown a helicopter. The fundemental skill of a helicopter pilot is one of managing accelerations, closure rates, and power management. To think that the risk in investing into the wrong student can be mitigated through a nausiating series of test and hurdles has been tested extensively in the military, and they have only had a mixed success there, despite a 90% washout rate. Can Bond afford a 90% washout on their investment? I doubt it.
I'd be quite happy as an employer to let the pilots self-screen themselves for motivation and ability by paying for their own initial license. I'm quite sure that the same battery of tests Bond is applying before can be applied afterwards. As far as any negative training, if Bond can tolerate initial training done by a 300 hr R22 new instructor, then I am quite confident that I could also retrain a student taught by a 3000 hr ex-IFR/Offshore instructor, and that maybe I might even get a better assessment.
Let's see how the Bond experiment works out
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm currently working offshore as deck crew trying to finance my way through training.
I long for the day when I will, hopefully, land on a rig and not have to collect my bag and make the dreaded walk to the accomodation
.
I long for the day when I will, hopefully, land on a rig and not have to collect my bag and make the dreaded walk to the accomodation
.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitstable, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
change in direction...
It's nice to see snowy happy. But his change in direction is perhaps a telling example of a flaw in Bond's strategy/target group though. How many cadets are going to change direction before or even once qualified?
The youth of today come from a quick fix culture.. like a previous poster said, picking those who have got themselves to CPL would be much wiser... plus more suporting of the industry as a whole... the message Bond is sort of sending is the North Sea is not an option for PPLs or CPLs so if you don't think you are going to get a job at 190 hours ..... why start? A lot of schools won't be happy with the fact that the North Sea co-pilot carrot for new CPLS is not an option anymore...
The youth of today come from a quick fix culture.. like a previous poster said, picking those who have got themselves to CPL would be much wiser... plus more suporting of the industry as a whole... the message Bond is sort of sending is the North Sea is not an option for PPLs or CPLs so if you don't think you are going to get a job at 190 hours ..... why start? A lot of schools won't be happy with the fact that the North Sea co-pilot carrot for new CPLS is not an option anymore...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South of the border
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K48
Is it a flaw in Bond's strategy or does it demonstrate how successful the rigorous selection procedure was at weeding out unsuitable candidates?
Considering the level of commitment expected from the successful candidates, I would be surprised if any decided to change direction now!
PR
Is it a flaw in Bond's strategy or does it demonstrate how successful the rigorous selection procedure was at weeding out unsuitable candidates?
Considering the level of commitment expected from the successful candidates, I would be surprised if any decided to change direction now!
PR