Absolutely! The Safety Pilot issue is separate from the problem of P2F. Having a Safety Pilot is part of the prescribed process for flying a new aeroplane. For example, the CAA recommends that even TREs returning to the aircraft type after a twelve month break initially fly with a safety pilot, having "refreshed" their skills in the sim. (Standards Document 43, 26.2).

Can we please move on to a proper debate about P2F?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Only if you choose to believe that is the case. Please do not take anything in this post as personal or as individual criticism as its not meant to read that way. I want to help in what ever way i can to rid the industry of this practice and my reasons are based on safety.

P2F affects safety. The airlines that are involved in P2F are exposing themselves to more risk and our profession is all about reducing risk, to as close to zero as we can.

Now, OBVIOUSLY BA and other airlines will use whatever crew compliment they need to, including 3rd/safety pilots for those moving from the sim to the line for line training etc.

HOWEVER, these are guys whose training has been monitored from their selection. They are PAID employees and they can be chopped at anytime.

They do not have to sell their souls to a training organisation or an airline that will give them a couple of hundred hours and then put them back on the dole. They are not people that will need to go and get a second job to make ends meet. They are not people that will have to live in as cheap accommodation as they can find in order to keep their expenses down. They are not people who have to worry about increasing levels of debt.

Having P2F people sitting in a flight deck diminishes safety more than having a cadet / new hire full time employees training in the same flight deck.

Castigate me if you want for that comment but the time when it will be proven will be when theres an accident and in my opinion, thats not the right time to find out and act.

Terms and conditions aside, this is a safety issue. It needs to be addressed as such and it needs to be dealt with as such and if the people on here who train these guys, do it against their will for fear of recrimination and reprisals, then that reduces safety even further and i would therefore urge the trainers to back the reduced safety angle as that is the only way this will ever be eradicated because it will be picked up by the press and that will force the airlines that engage in this process to cease.

There are some very good and qualified drivers on the dole. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THE AIRLINES SHOULD BE CREWING THEIR FLIGHT DECKS WITH not P2F candidates.

There are P2F wannabees on the dole also, because they have ben put there by the next P2F candidate. Will they ever learn..........probably not.

So i have voted with both feet, i wont be flying EasyJet again as long as they continue this practice. Its no disrespect at all to the trainers in EasyJet, its just how can i expect the travelling public to get p****d off at this if im prepared to travel myself with the airlines that engage in this practice. If a professional body exposes its own practices as being unsafe, trust me, people will listen and companies will have to act.

And hopefully the insurance industry will pick up on this too and significantly raise the premiums of the airlines in question. In an economic climate when everyone wants to increase margins, im sure insurance companies are just looking for a reason to raise premiums, so letters and protest emails should also be sent to insurance brokers and underwriters.

GW

Global Warrior of course its your choice which airline you fly on.

However your posts show hints of naivety with regard to the airline industry. For trainers to take unilateral action against this would be ridiculous & ill-advised. You might not be aware but TREs would also have to answer to the CAA for their actions as they directly represent the authority.

I can assure you that the standards for each stage of training are not compromised for any trainees. If they don't reach the standard then they will not progress. I can also assure you that the CAA have the highest regard for Easyjet training which is much to do with training management as well as the trainers.

Im not so sure that it does. This thread is about how to get rid of P2F within the industry. My comment about ill go BA because they dont need safety pilots was meant to be in strict comparison to the airlines that are training P2F people constantly. I didnt literally mean BA Pilots are so good they dont need safety pilots!!!!! But the airlines operating these schemes will continue to do so unless they can be given a clear reason as to why they shouldn't.

Secondly, any training department, be they and airline or a TRTO can speak up about their concerns on safety, either to the company or directly to the CAA. If any P2F airline training department doesnt want to speak out (assuming they have reasons to of course)...... thats a choice, not one that i agree with, but its a choice. It does not make me naive at all. If a whole training department, one that commands respect, declares that the P2F practice compromises safety, either to the company or the CAA, they would be listened to.

i am certainly not advocating some kind of militant action at all. Far from it, but one other contributor has drafted a letter which is a start in the right direction but.......... i fear, after reading the first 2 lines......... some may perceive it as being £120,000 a year pilots whinging and as such, it will not get nearly the same impact as people who start pushing the safety angle, even if done anonymously and thats what i would really like to promote........ the erosion of safety.

One of the problems with the way this P2F business has been dealt with on this web site, is it comes across too much as, ......"the airline is using a cheaper pilot than me"........ ie market forces........ "and so im whinging and whining about it". It comes across like a CSD saying "sod off, im not pushing a trolley"...... prima donna ish.

I, however, believe that there is a very real safety impact associated with P2F. Naivety may actually end up being on behalf of the people that could have spoken out about this and didn't because they thought no one would listen.

By the sounds of it, none of the companies operating these schemes have ever been given a reason not to. The one department that could give clear reasons as to why this practice should be done away with is the training department. Safety culture is so important. Preventing its erosion even more so.

Of course, its also possible that i am a lone voice in the wilderness and every airline that promotes the P2F model believes that there is absolutely no compromise to safety what so ever.

I just dont believe it.

GW

The nub of this thread, before it gets derailed, is the old Bottom Line v Safety debate. And whilst the EZY TRE's comments are encouraging who wouldnt say their company has the best safety culture?

You only have to look at earlier posts on this thread and the the other thread http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearme...ng-j-curd.html to see, what appears to be, experienced pilots questioning the safety culture which is emerging.

No-one doubts the training quality at EZY. Its very high. As is BA. As is BMI. The problem is, is that industry leaders are setting a very dangerous precedent. Other companies are not as well resourced as the above airlines and the Bottom Line consideration is a higher priority than safety, although clearly they would never admit it.

And it doesnt stop there either. Some companies have exploited this trend, blatantly deceiving young wannabess with nothing to show for it. http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ek-merged.html

Its got to stop - we are destroying the integrity of our own industry.

If you are talking about BALPA then BALPA members must make it clear to the union that they want them to act upon this. This has to come from a broad spectrum of members.

BALPA are keen to use the slogan 'You are BALPA.' If enough members contact BALPA and request action then BALPA must move. However it needs to be pushed and continually followed up. There has to be some form of petition or balloting of its members to show the degree of support that this has. This would take a great deal of time and effort on behalf of those wishing to push BALPA to publicly denounce PTF and drive a campaign to the airlines, the DofT and the CAA.

So an external group of members must manage an action plan which will lobby the support of current members who wish to see the end of PTF. It is then taken to BALPA who would have no alternative but to act - surely?? If not the words 'hammer, nail and coffin' come to mind - for BALPA and its inaction at the behest of its members

It sounds something like this "Ladies and gents, this is your trainee speaking. I, as you, have paid for the privilege to be onboard this aircraft. I pay lots more than you guys, thus I get to sit way up front with all the buttons. Oh, and I also get to talk on the radio. It`s pretty neat! There are always other people talking on the radio. They tell me where to go and where everybody else should go. By some miracle it all seems to work out. Oh well, only 50 more hours of my training contract and I`ll be replaced by another trainee who also will put more gray hairs on the head of this guy on my left hand side with 3 more stripes than myself. He`s pretty tired, so I said I`ll keep a lookout while he takes a powernap. Y`all have a nice flight now, and let`s hope these voices on the radio tell us t go somewhere pleasant." :yuk:

Maybe someone should come up with a campaign name.....then write a letter that leaves no one in any doubt as to the serious safety issues, quote directly from the AAIB report, which the Flight International Mag article below does and scare the c**p out of those reading and then mail it to all balpa reps, the media, etc etc and keep pushing it. It MUST be factually correct also. The other letters suggested IMHO dont go on about the safety issues enough and as there has already been an incident that is attributable to this scheme, i think its only right this should form the body of the letter.

Good example GW.

Is anyone else aware either through personal experience, company bulletins or press articles incidents which, specifically, involve low houred P2F? Company and individual names may need to be witheld....

I, personally, am aware of low houred pilots (i.e. straight out of school) attempting to fly into the wrong airport, staying below the glide path, speed degradation, even problems of rudder use during LPC/OPC EFATO drills - incidents which contradict basic flying skill (despite the person originating from a well known flying school) and where the TC/Captain, after PACE protocol, has had to take control.

At the very least it will attempt to build a picture of how prevalent the danger is and at the best will provide some evidence which can formulate support for any arguement.


PP

WingoWango

Sorry my experience level with this sort of matter is as limited as yours I'm afraid. I have only been a fully fledged BALPA member for little over a year and a half and have had very little dealings with them. My earlier post relating to your question of how the pilot fraternity moves to abolish PTF was merely my own opinion on how to get BALPA to act. I have no idea how many members BALPA has and therefore couldn't tell you what proportion would be needed in order to ensure a BALPA led campaign is perused. Approach company councils is an idea, however BALPA holds many members who's company may not have formal representation (Ryanair, Jet2) or who work for airlines outside the UK. However PTF could eventually effect each and every member at some stage in their career. So it needs to be a universal effort from across the spectrum of the BALPA membership in my opinion. I agree that this sort of thing will be difficult to organise and administrate, however a battle against something like PTF needs to be staged by something with a certain degree of clout. The only clout that we have in the UK (as a group of individuals) is, unfortunately or not, BALPA.

Global Warrior

Believe me, your letter addressing the very real safety concerns of PTF has already been attempted. A colleague of mine showed me the response received from the DofT (Paul Clark - Under Sec of State for Transport). He ignored references to the AAIB report of the Kos incident and the associated safety concerns of PTF - such as crew rest (citing Colgan Air where the flight crew couldn't afford accomadation) and psychological issues associated with the high levels of debt and job uncertainty related to PTF. Instead Mr Clarke detracted from these points and focused on the fact self sponsored flight training has been alive and well in the UK for quite some time (no sh1t sherlock) and that cadet pilots have been placed in airlines up and down the country. He went on to say that airline training programs are highly regulated (as we know) and the flight and duty limitations schemes are adopted and regulated within all airlines (again as we know). Talk about blatantly ignoring the point! But then what do you expect from a politician!?! :ugh:

Dear PPRUNE members:

I have been following this thread and would like to draw some parallels to a case in the US. You may remember the case of the Continental Express Q-400 turboprop that crashed in Buffalo, NY last January. This crash occurred just weeks after the USAirways flight 1459 landed in the Hudson River.

The National Transportation Board faulted crew rest, training, and is also questioning the entire pay concept at the regional airline level. The low pay brings out things like pilots living in crash pads and commuting across the country because they cannot afford to live in base. While the NTSB and the FAA will not mandate wage scales, this accident has provided the impetus for raising the licensing standards and requiring both pilots to hold an ATP as a minimum. This bill is in the House now and a similar bill is being worked on in the Senate, although the ATP requirement may be watered down.

The FAA is charged with the safety of the traveling public, and our independent Union, USAPA, the US Airways Pilots Association, and CAPA, the coalition of Airline Pilots association, an industry trade group is having some success in pointing out the low pay poor training and minimal standards of these operations. We are stressing that allowing minimum standard pilots to operate aircraft under the paint scheme and marketing arrangement of the mainline carrier partner is fostering a fraud on the traveling public.

The public responds to safety issues and allowing training to go on during revenue flights by pilots who are not on the airline payroll, who are not employees of the airline and who may not meet the minimum standards for employment, but meet only the minimum standards for licensing, if there is such a distinction in the UK, is a safety travesty. The public is being duped and paying good money for tickets on Carriers that are regulated by the appropriate UK authorities. The public is buying tickets on an Airline, not an airline training school. The certification of an airline is something I would presume to be done in the public interest for the purpose of providing efficient and safe air transportation.

This is the equivalent of having discount brain surgery provided by first year med students on a pay for practice scheme. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Mr. Gumby goes to the Brain Surgeon, Dr Gumby and says “My brain hurts.” Dr. Gumby says, “It will have to come out.”

Pay2fly or (PFT), pay for training, as we call it on this side of the pond needs to die a horrible death or at least in the words of Dr. Gumby, “It will have to come out.” One of the ways to get the public on your side is to focus on the safety aspects of this issue and point out that an accident may not have yet occurred in the UK due to this but accidents where minimal training was cited as causal factor have recently occurred in the US.

Way 2 go...
 

Forgive my ignorance Grendel (typical self-effacing Brit :)) but are you saying that PTF schemes are relatively embryonic in the US and even at this early stage safety issues/incidents are being highlighted?

I don't want to burst to your bubble PP, but this sort of argument will not wash with those concerned. They only have to review LPC/OPC forms from all companies to realise these are errors made by all experience levels.

For what it is worth this issue should be broached by Balpa head office/NEC, on a similar vein to their European FTL campaign.

Fair point Right Way Up. Perhaps referring to the LPC/OPC element would be a mistake: However all other incidents outside of standard training should be considered as an indication of a flight safety issue???

BALPA - BALPA: FTL CHANGE NEEDED

Dear PP,

The PFT or Pay2fly is not a relatively new concept but it has been limited somewhat by the realities of the US marketplace. The only PFT scheme I am currently aware of is an outfit in Florida, called Gulf Coast Airlines, or Gulf Coast aviation.

The have a PFT scheme and flight school for the BE-1900. They fly as a code share partner for several major carriers and fly to the islands from MIA and FLL. The are the only one i am aware of right now.

Because the Regional industry was in such a growth mode for the past decade in the US, so many low time pilots were hired to fly RJ's that no large aircraft carrier had to use PFT types for his operation. The woods were full of pilots with several thousand hours of jet time, even if it was in the right seat, they made good candidates. If they had some left seat time all the better.

PFT in the US to date has been only applied at the lowest level of the industry, like small turboprop operators. I am not aware of any larger air carrier using this method yet.

Cheers.

There is alas, some serious misinformation on this thread. The comments of the ill-informed, such as Global Warrior, do not help. Added to that, there are people writing to MPs who have failed to check their facts fully. When their letters are checked it will do not favours to the cause of those wishing to end this type of employment practice. There are many people reading this debate who are not airline pilots and they are being falsely led to the view that UK airlines apart from the blessed British Airways are crazily eroding safety standards in the pursuit of saving money.

An unfortunate issue of safety pilots has been mentioned on this thread. For those who do not understand what is happening it may be worth explaining. Safety pilots are used by ALL companies (including Global Warrior's blessed BA) and are there, surprisingly enough, to ensure safety! They are carried in the early sectors of a trainee's Line Training and would be there to ensure that the Training Captain does not miss something critical and to take over in the event of his demise. As the trainee proves himself capable, the safety pilot can be removed, but only after he has successfully demonstrated his ability to land the aircraft unassisted and without danger to the occupants. The idea that BA does not use safety pilots because it is intrinsically more safe is just rubbish and totally removed from reality. We at easyJet are currently training ex-737 pilots, some of whom have in excess of 10,000 hours time on the Boeing, onto the Airbus - they too have to have a safety pilot for the first few sectors. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of current captains at BA all began their career as 200 hour cadets on BA aircraft. The doubters would do well to listen to the excellent comments of Wingswinger, who is ex-RAF fast jet instructor, ex-BA captain and current easyJet TRE. I completely concur with his views.

In this debate, it is important to understand that the term 'p2f' is not strictly accurate. The schemes associated with this term have actually been evolving over the last 2 or 3 years and it is really not accurate to call them all 'pay-to-fly'. The pure 'p2f' schemes, like JC's original one initially mentioned here were not good. A way appeared by which meaningful selection could be avoided and young lads (and in some cases old lads!) with a few bob to spare could fulfil their ambtion and effectively pay for 150 hours of line training on a Boeing or an Airbus. The Thomas Cook accident referred to previously on this thread by Global Warrior involved one of those individuals who lacked the basic apptitude to fly a jet airliner. EasyJet also, in my view unwisely, 'employed' 32 of these guys 2 years ago. Only about half got to the end of their 150 hour line training and the Head of Training kicked the scheme into touch. I would have to say that that period represented the lowest point we have had in terms of the standard of pilot employed. We still had the same safety standards, but it was hard to credibly say the selection process was fully intact. However, the world has moved on - it is vital that people do not think that easyJet is filling its cockpits full of the wrong people because that is absolutely not the case. It is, of course, true to say that a 200-hour pilot is more vulnerable to making signficant mistakes than a pilot with 5000 hours+ on type. Clearly that is true, but that has been the case since the dawn of time. BA are no different and have a long history employing properly selected cadets. They offset the initial risk by the presence of experienced Captains and embracing the advantage of grabbing a pilot at an early stage to indoctrinate him/her with the best of BA thinking. The current 'p2f' schemes as they are known, are totally different beasts than their predecessors. The paying element is forcing someone to buy a type rating. There are, however, 2 key differences - the first being that the pilot is paid once they start flying. The pay is not great but they are paid nonetheless. The second key difference is that the selection process to allow these candidates to reach an easyJet cockpit has been substantially tightened up. I am not justifying the current terms and conditions being applied to our newest FOs, but I am saying that they are not pure pay-to-fly schemes in the way that some here understand them to be. We have talented and capable pilots being given the best possible training and being closely supervised during the line training process. That is exactly how a responsible airiline should work and we at easyJet have one of the best TRTOs in Europe. I am not asking anyone to support the terms and conditions, but I am strongly suggesting that the safety card being played here is neither appropriate nor accurate.

Norm,
If I may be so familiar.
I have had the dubious "pleasure" of flying with some of the products of
the Sleasy "pay to fly" school.
It's not pretty
Flying is just that. FLYING

Not simply a button pusher with 200 hours and no practical experience

EZY
 

I was under the assumption that a PTF scheme was being trialed between OAA/Parc and EZY. Involved Oxford Integrated students investing in a SSTR and then 75 line hours through EZY. There was no obligation on EZY to offer a contract and if so it would be via Parc on a fly when required basis at £50 per hour. Is this a dead duck?

Going with what NSF says, the selection at EZY is meaningful and the guys that they decide to take on have the ability - that i don't doubt. Whether they be OAA or CTC sourced. However the investment in line hours by OAA students appears to be PTF, even if it could eventually lead to some degree of employment with the partner airline.

Gloves off
 

Me thinks it is about time to stop talking about "Pay to fly". Those paying for line training or hours in the seat and when program is finished taking a salary that hardly pays for food are actually paying to work, paying to do the same job I and most of the people I know, want to be paid a salary for.

I've seen salaries drop and conditions worsen in the last 10 years to the extent that my income today is roughly half what it was in 2000. I can only see this getting worse as there are more and more people around willing to pay to sit in the seat rather than get paid for it.
I cannot imagine a truck or a bus driver actually paying an employer thousands of euros to drive a vehicle? Or a Nurse or a Paramedic doing the same with a company providing rescue services or with a hospital.

Flying commercial jets for the purpose of air transport is a bloody job not a hobby. If people want hobbies they can rent a fartcart like a Cessna 150 and drill holes to the sky, well thats how I see it.

What are we going to do then
 

Ok Ladies and Gents,

I think we are all pretty much of the same opinion here. We need to get rid of this awful level of exposure of our profession.

How are we going to actually combat it.

Press?

Government?

Boycott BALPA?

We have to do something. Lets do something about this.

What do you all think is the best way to sort this out.

Handflown.

Good arguement NSF but there are some flaws...
 

A well articulated arguement NSF with some very encouraging insight.

I refer the honourable gentleman to post #50. The fact someone pays to get onto a flying program of sorts is an indication of Bottom Line over and above safety - surely you cant expect anyone to believe that if a candidate was that good but didnt have the funds you would still accept them? So where's the meritocracy?

For the most part the safety culture is strong at senior airline level...and I am sure PTF relationships/cadet programs will continue to evolve to ensure that that remains the case. However as senior players they do drive change in our industry and as such they are a beacon for future industry development - setting precedents as they go.

Clearly, from what you say (above) EZY has gone through a learning curve. However, the arguement for the safety record of one company is not neccessarily represenative of the industry as a whole. Its the cultural change and overall trend I'd be more concerned about rather than spotlighting a single operator just because they have a proven incident free and well-structured PTF. However as we have seen this trend:

- Is having an impact on safety in other parts of the industry
- Is degrading T&Cs, effecting job prospects
- Is being used to exploit young pilots

You may well flag up the efforts gone to make EZY safer - I dont doubt it, I graciously applaud you for it. But the overall nature of what is being done and the signal it sends will impact on a broader scale. Your present the reality of the PTF as seen from EZY, but sometimes the perception of what is happeining (over and above reality) is enough to facilitate a change we would all rather avoid.

Perhaps the answer here is to see more actual hands on involvement with candidate selection and training at FTO level? If its happening (Flybe?) then let the industry know, otherwise the safety card you are playing will never be vindicated - especially when it comes to senior airlines accepting money from pilots to train/fly with them.

What ever NSF and his colleagues say, this is why P2F airlines need to be avoided. This particular candidate could have been chopped, retrained or side lined, apparently, according to the AAIB at several points in his training. He wasn't, for whatever reason. I doubt that any full timer would have been given this number of opportunities but as has already been posted here, TRE's do as they are told.

With regards to one training department here, those that have identified themselves as belonging to one particular airline have without exception said that they train these guys but they dont like it!!!! They then have the audacity to criticise me when i say "well if you dont like it ....... do something about it" They then hide behind what a wonderful organisation they are and how well respected they are.

That is probably the case. They are probably well respected and why not. Im sure they do a bloody good job. Im sure its not always strait forward and im sure they have very good and very well respected guys and gals as part of their department....... just like any other UK airline

BUT

it doesnt make them always right.

The excerpts above come from an incident involving another highly respected UK airline, with no doubt a highly respected training department but the comments made by the AAIB (and yes its only a very small part of a very long report) seem to justify the thinking that P2F is bad for the industry. Why would any self respecting airline take a guy with 275 hours to fly in the right seat when there are guys with 3000+ hours on type on the dole.

NSF and his colleagues seem to want to turn this into a personal issue. Im not interested in that. Im interested in getting rid of P2F schemes. However, my belief is that in order to do that, we need to prove that safety is an issue because this story has no legs without it. BALPA are simply not interested for whatever reason. PPRune even takes advertising money from companies that advertise these schemes.

So to NSF and his colleagues, im sure you have a world class training organisation (albeit staffed with people who only read half of whats posted here and then comment negatively) and im sorry if i offend you as that is most definately not my intention. And i totally understand why you are defensive about your product. I think you are a class outfit. I admire the company you work for and the job that gets done.

BUT

I want to see the end of this P2F debacle. You have all agreed that you dont like it either. Im sure its a very bitter sweet pill to swallow but the only way we are going to educate the world about this is through the (lack of) safety issue. No one is going to give a stuff about the erosion of Terms and Conditions. Our Union doesnt so why would anyone else?

The P2F issue has absolutely NO AFFECT what so ever on my Terms and Conditions so i could just wind my neck in as im sure some here would want, which is fine. But i happen to want to lend my experience; 12,000 PIC JET hours to the debate and help scrap P2F. I have no reason to join in being personal but i do fully appreciate the position that those that criticise me are in. If they admit that safety is an issue, its like admitting they are bad at what they do. But i KNOW that that is not the case.

To an extent their hands are tied. But if an airline is going to put 250 Hour pay to fly guys in the right seat, will they then put 1500 hour guys in the left. Will they then populate their training department with 2000 hour pilots. All of the above would save costs. It would be bloody daft but it would save money.

So to continue the theme of the thread, "P2F the cancer of Aviation" needs to be eradicated and the quickest way to do that is to promote (if its actually the case) the erosion of safety as its the only thing that will eventually get all sides on board.

Good Night. Good Luck. God Bless

GW:ok:

Right so from reading this thread and the Curd one I think its safe to say that we all universally hate this.

From LTC's who feel exasperated at the constant stream based on bank balance and not always ability,

to time served captains who look back at those starting and see the crap, hoops and costs associated compared to how they got into the business,

to senior first officers who may be thinking that the erosion of T&C's means they are likely not get the same contracts their predecessors did,

to junior F/O's concerned that they be next out the door to allow P2F'ers in,

to unemployed pilots looking to get the first foot on the ladder giving these schemes serious thought,

and to those starting out on this careers to be pilots who may have to add another £35k to the £40k-80k for their initial training due to current precedents being set.

We all hate this, both BALPA and the IPA are aware of the strength of feeling and should feel free to act without a petition from any one of us or an action group forming. Based on the criticism voiced on here and 99% thinking it stinks, the unions running with this could really gain them some serious kudos. They should also look at picking their advertisers more carefully.

I see this argument has moved to covering the safety aspects when it initially seemed to highlight the T&C's and their perceived erosion over time. I know the press will react better to safety than a group that is perceived by the majority of the general public as already well paid and lead a glamorous lifestyle.

The letter is definitely a start however it has to be armed with cast-iron facts and a compelling argument. At present it needs some tweeking, but its mostly there.

Global Warrior ...... excellent post.

There are two separate issues here. The first is safety. My contention is that because the clear safety implications of the earlier p2f schemes which involved people paying for line training, these schemes have now ceased at easyJet and in many other airlines. It was clearly unacceptable that people with money buy their way into the right seat of a commercial jet without proper selection or receipt of salary. That was an enormously unsuccessful experiment that has quite rightly stopped. The current schemes are different from a safety perspective and should not be compared to the one which led to the accident at Thomas Cook. It is also worth saying that the fact that one of you had a duff day with a 200 hour p2f pilot is hardly a scientific examination of the scheme's success. If it is any consolation, I have had some shocking days out with some FOs with way more hours than that! As I have said previously, a low-houred pilot is vulnerable to making big errors. That is a stage which every one of us went through and we should not be too high and mighty about remembering that. The overwhelming majority of low-houred pilots I fly with are dedicated and keen to learn. I find them a pleasure to be with, and if treated with respect and decency are great colleagues to spend the day with.

The second issue is the continual degredation of terms and conditions to which 747JJ and others refer. That is an altogether different matter. What has become known as p2f (pay-to-fly) is simply a misnomer. It should be p4tr (pay-for-type-rating) as that is a much more accurate description of what is happening. My argument is that because you do not like the p4tr schemes, it does not mean they are intrinsicly unsafe. It does, however, mean that flying has become the pastime of the rich and is not available to people of talent regardless of background. I am not a socialist, but that strikes me as fundamentally unfair. It is also dire to see the truly awful financial offerings that easyJet and others have come up with. As I have said previously, I am not sure how our managers sleep in their beds at night - taking huge bonuses bought and paid for by starvation wages. Nonetheless, the flying rates being achieved are significantly better than those envisaged, and the tales of pilots eating live alley cats and road kills to survive have not yet materialised. And yet the same responses to these Ts&Cs keep appearing - 'the deal is rubbish and I shall leave BALPA in protest'! That folks is insanity and just exaccerbates the problem. If we had every pilot in BALPA, this issue would not have arisen. Every one of you who leaves BALPA in protest are just signing the death warrant of our industry. We are dealing with unscrupulous managers who gladly line their pockets with our money. The only answer is to stick together and fight it out. No doubt these comments will send some of you over the edge, but that is the way it is.

Morning,

I have copied and pasted from an advertiser on this web site.

This looks a lot like a P2F scheme to me.

A Type Rating can be done at a TRTO and following base training, usually 3-6 take offs and landings in the aircraft, the Type can then be added to the licence.

I believe its schemes such as the one above that is being referred to as "the cancer of aviation"

NSF is 100% correct with

And i think that was what this thread was originally about. The question is what is the best way to stick together and fight it out?

Whilst i concur 100% again, my personal feeling is that even 1 incident is 1 too many and if the passengers on that aircraft had had a choice, they may just have exercised their democratic right to either off load themselves or protest. And that is why my feeling is that we HAVE to look at this from an erosion of safety issue because once the press get hold of it, they will probably ask BALPA for their comments and unless BALPA wishes to marginalise itself even more, they will have to come out with an unfavourable comment.

NSF would you be kind enough to educate me as to how your employers scheme is different to the one that is being advertised above because if im going to lend my weight to this cause, its because i want to eradicate the industry of people paying to sit in the RHS of a commercial aircraft during commercial operations whilst receiving "training" in order to fill their log books with time on type. :ugh:

GW

The only way this process will be banned is if the Authorities do so, and as they are all "independant" this simply will not happen,lobbying MPs, petitioning CAA is all a waste of time. The time and effort would be better placed in pushing for additional approvals for the companies that provide these schemes, perhaps the resultant costs, which would have to be passed on to the candidates, will eventually have the same effect. Many of the TREs that are tied up with these schemes are the same that tread the corridors of power at the CAA and they already have the " Ear of the authority", if they wanted to change things, they could have already done so, fact is that money talks and loyalty is pocket deep.

If I may add my 2 pence worth.I was a base trainer -737 variety with the orange airline represented so eloquently on these pages by NSF.I moved on to an airline painted blue and was employed in the above capacity.We recruited some pilots who had bought type ratings through a well known agency.They had completed their base training in the minimum 6 landings and were holding 737 type ratings.I can vouch for the fact that they could not fly an accurate approach path nor land the aircraft correctly and proficiently as per the Boeing FCTM.In my experience the average cadet pilot with approx 200 hours takes a minimum of 10-14 landings to attain proficiency and safety prior to release for line training.

My point being? The training agencies are selling ratings/packages with a startling lack of scruples or morals.The individuals who bought these ratings appeared unaware of their deficiency yet had been led to believe that they were proficient but manifestly were not.A training captain had signed official paperwork confirming proficiency.The sooner the airline industry wakes up and realises that they have a responsibility to sponsor and develop pilots the better -this will have a financial impact.Also(sorry NSF -I agree with a lot that you sat generally) training pilots should reflect on their responsibilities and refuse to train or participate in pay to fly schemes where cash equates to selection.Personally,if still in the orange world it would have meant adios to training.

atb

I am mildly surprised, to put it lightly, at the defensive attitude being adopted by some here, which seems to centre on failure to accept one basic principle.

The basic requirement to crew your aircraft with the most suitable (generally speaking most experienced) crew available is being sacrificed at the altar of converting a cost into a revenue stream.

P2F P4TR ? ? Norm, it doesn't matter.

Ryanair would argue that it is easier to take a brand new guy and "educate" him in the ways of Ryanair than "uneducate" him out of his former ways, but they (and you & I ) know that this half fact is just so much BS to divert attention away from the plain fact that TR's are a nice little earner.

Is it safer to crew your aircraft with one of the many experienced F/O's on the market, or safer to have large swathes of the fleet running around with breathless line trainers accompanied by steely eyed youths several nautical miles behind the airframe ? It's a no brainer there, experienced TC's or not (and some of them in that "other" loco are anything BUT experienced, many of the LT's there are VERY new Capt's whilst many of the old hands can't be bothered with the aggro for the small amount of extra dosh on offer) the safer crew will be the one with the overall greater experience.

What makes Easy and some other companies actions so morally repugnant, is that they go one stage further than the Ryanair idea of turning a cost into a revenue stream. As far as I am aware all Ryanair cadets are offered a contract (albeit through an agency, and albeit with the distinct possibility to work less as they become more expensive with hours gained) after they complete, to the required standard, their training.

The easy system appears to thrive on flooding the market with 300/500 hr F/O'S to simply then replace them with another revenue generator.
Just as the guy actually gets some experience he is dumped, as he is no longer actually generating income (working for peanuts ain't enough these days :hmm: )

A useful by product of this morally bankrupt policy is that the market is becoming flooded with barely qualified guys, so they are certainly unlikely to be in a position to demand better terms anytime soon.

If it wasn't so disgusting on a human level you could almost admire the elegance of this "solution".

How anyone is able to even begin to see a defensible side to it is beyond me. It is totally and utterly immoral ,thieving from those who should (by virtue of their chosen career ) know better than to fall for it, and I include LTC's in this, because you, are being robbed of your experience and effort, not to build a better safer crew complement for your chosen employer, but to generate additional income.

And, most importantly, it puts revenue before safety, that is incontestable.

A hard working LTC constantly accompanied by some poor debt ridden sod, struggling to survive, unable to pay the rent , and unable to know when he will next be paid (or how much ) cannot in anyones mind be as safe as a properly rested complimentary (in experience) crew with a full time contract.
This other stuff sucks, and it is high time it was sensationalised (it doesn't need much mind you) and fed to the less scrupulous members of the press to regurgitate into something very damaging to the scumbag companies concerned. :}

For those that feel strongly enough to protest via official means about this cancer to aviation, why not add your vote here.

Petition to: stop airlines receiving payment from pilots in return for flying. | Number10.gov.uk

Am not a brit, but I'd love to sign on that petition. Do you think you can get 500 signatures just by opening a petition and advertising it on the pprune site?
I think it would be a very good idea to bring it to the attention of the public who is using this service without knowing what's happening behind the doors.

United we stand...
 

NSF, the length of your responses show that you clearly feel passionate about this topic as does Global Warrior, 747JJ, captplaystation, myself included and others who have contributed to this thread.

Whilst your experiences of PTF or P4TR (package it as you like..) may have been progressive and recently more positive there clearly is gap between your experiences and others' ongoing experiences...resulting in a general voice of concern for future safety. You also highlight that it is the degradation of T&Cs resulting from such schemes which is deplorable - not to mention the lack of meritocracy. Well said. :D

Your arguement is good news because it shows that we are all agreed, for whatever reason/motive (safety, T&Cs, jobs, etc.. etc...), on one thing: These schemes need to be checked before it impacts on the industry on a wider basis.

Lets not argue our individual causes but lets take action together for the greater good. Sign the petition! :ok:

So far I am only # 13 to sign := cmon guys, you know , and I know, that politicians are all self serving w@nkers, but, at least sign this thing PDQ and at least put the wheels in motion.

Yours, tacitly optimistically (well not really :ugh: ) Capt PS.

Any chance Uk licence holders non resident/non British could sign that petition?

Regards, CG

NSF
 

In my honest opinion, the old Sleazy TRSS used to be a p4tr scheme: you paid for the type but got a JOB in the end. P2F is simply paying for a type and a number of hours on type, period! No job, no salary but instead a firm boot under your @ss to make room for the next sucker when your time (literally!) is up!

I'm, just like capt playstation, completely flabbergasted by your somewhat vague reply (waffling about p2f vs p4tr) and it almost reads like your defending these scams by simply raising the selection criteria.

Norm, are you seriously telling us that these EZY cadets are offered a probationary contract after finishing their type rating and a full time contract (with EZY, not some contract agency!) when they finish line training, just like in the old days of TRSS?

JAA B737 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €28,000 EUR / £24,800 GBP

JAA A320 Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

300 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €46,100 EUR / £40,800 GBP


JAA B737 NG type rating course including aircraft base training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual B737 NG First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €32,500 EUR / £28,800 GBP

JAA A320 NG Type Rating Course including Aircraft Base Training and VAT

Airline Operator Conversion Course

500 Hours of Actual A320 First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger Operations

from €55,800 EUR / £49,400 GBP

Joe Wannebe is paying for a service namely a "jet transport type rating" and "First Officer Experience during Airline Passenger operations". No type rating or no line experience would be a breach of contract unless there is unequivical failure to meet training standards, thus there has to be strong pressure on the TRI's to get marginal pilots through. Furthermore since this is a purely profit making venture terminating anyones training will immediately and directly effect tha TRO's bottom line. Bottom line: it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain training standards in such an environment.

considering 80% of crashes come from pilot errors, I am sure these P2F schemes increase risks.

in an conventional airline, the standards are above the minimum requirement, illimited simulator...when in P2F, it' s barly the minimum ( 2 hours every 6 months, what a joke!).
how many hours of technical ground school a P2F pilot, probably 0 hour...
How can a P2F pilot report a problem in "his" company without getting an answer like" if you are not happy here, you can leave, you won't get your money back, now go fly and shut it up".

don't forget the VTA., the government love it.
soon a terrible crash will happen! it s not when , but where!.

cessnagirl.

unfortunately answer appears to be No, you need to be UK citizen or resident :uhoh: Can't see Gordie and his mates changing the rules vs petitions just for us "spoiled brats" :=

In One word or less do these guys have a valid Type rating or not? do they have a frozen ATPL? and are they being line trained?

How do they operate without a valid type rating.
They only have a PPL
and they are not being line trained ,

This is simple. Stop paying for type ratings and training and companies will be forced to pay us. I'm 31, I have three types and everyone has been paid for by the company I worked for at the time. Actually, I've been paid while getting training. And as a matter of fact, this pay for experience and training is looked at quite unfavorably in many parts of the world. I know as a fact that a certain captain on the hiring board of a certain airline(the biggest in the world) has flat out told guys that paid for ME time that they're not welcome because they did this in a diplomatic way.

Im going to assume this is not a wind up.

The minimum requirements to apply for a course are a Frozen ATPL, which now can be obtained with around 230-250 hours. Multi Crew Course also needs to be completed BUT can be added to the TYPE RATING course itself.

So, once you have a frozen ATPL, you can PAY MORE MONEY to a TRTO that will then put you through the TYPE course. Remember, you are paying yourself, not an employer so the TRTO has some moral issues with whether they will actually tell you you are more likely to shag the pope than have a successful airline career........ besides, they know there is not and endless supply of P2F candidates so anyone with cash is better than no one.

Once you have finally completed the Sim and Ground School part of the course, you have to do the base training....... essentially 6 circuits in the aircraft. Once this is complete, you get the type stamped on your licence and then the airlines that wish to have a 250 Hour unknown in the flight deck, allow you to pay them for the privilege of their training until such time as you reach the magic number of hours that you have previously paid for 300-500 by the looks of some programmes. Then you go back on the dole because in the meantime, some other candidate has found a bank or rich uncle to allow them to go through the same process you have so you are replaced by one of your own.

In the old days.............late 1990's you got a PPL, built up your hours and experience, probably becoming a Flight Instructor on the way and dealing with newbies and the errors they would demonstrate on the way. During this time you have got multi engine qualified and possibly your multi IR on the way. When you had 700 hours, you could do your CPL exams. Once you had a CPL you could apply to the airlines but generally they wanted 1500-2000 hours experience.

In fact if you look at a recent advert for a Mid East airline, they want 3000+ hours, some of it on aircraft heavier than 40 Tonnes.

Now, you can just buy your way in the flight deck of an A320 with 260 hours and get 500 hours of training with trainers that have already admitted on this thread that they dont like training you.

A UK operator has already had serious incident with one of these candidates landing the aircraft. The AAIB notes several points in his training where his abilities were in question but still he was not chopped. Why? Possibly through the fact that as he had paid to be there, they were morally obliged to complete the training and hope that he would become someone else's problem later.

Have there been many more near incidents? We will never know.

One vicious cycle sees the money go from the candidates pocket to

The TRTO, which then divvies it up to the ground instructor and the TRE's that come in to do the sim training......... ive heard at rates of £900 a day but that might not be totally right

Then it goes to the company that provides the aircraft for the base training.............. and the TRE that conducts the base training

Then it goes to the company that you buy the hours from.......... and the TRE / LTC that conducts your line training

As a matter of interest, The TRTO's use a lot of the TRE's of the companies that the candidates eventually go to fly for

So Candidate is happy as he gets a Type and 300-500 hours RHS time in a Jet.
TRTO is happy as it is making money from the candidates dream of being a Real Jet Pilot.

TRE's are happy as they are making a lot of extra wonga

The company is happy as its now got a revenue stream in the Flight Deck rather than an expense.

Problem is........... the fare paying public are not asked if they like this practice and they are not given the choice to travel or not in an aircraft that statistically is more likely to have an incident. Even more likely to have an incident if it was the same aircraft training a full time employee that at any stage could/would be sent for retraining or chopped.

The AAIB accident report for the Kos incident alluded to the fact that the airline should have discontinued his training at several points but for what ever reason (MONEY?) didnt. All airlines if nothing else have a duty of care to their passengers and this one practice operated by the airlines involved are proving that they dont take this duty of care very seriously.

GW