Restrict Flight Training to Gov, funded programs?

[RVR6000]

Money alone won't make you a doctor, lawyer or an engineer. However enough money will get you a pilot's license. Its flawed a comparison.

Law is world famous for being the spoiled little rich boys profession, and enough money will definitely get you through med school or an engineering program - Believe me, I know people who have paid their way through each one

That might be the case in the US however not in Canada. Here is U of T med school entrance GPA (its round 3.9, keeping that for 4 years is not a walk in the park)

http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/statistics.htm

Here is McGill's entrance requirements: The primary basis of the assessment of undergraduate degree performance is the cumulative grade point average (degree GPA) of the degree used for the basis of admission. Successful applicants tend to have a degree GPA above 3.5 (average approximately 3.8 ). Applicants with a degree GPA below 3.4 are rarely considered.

I take offence whenever some compares a pilot to an engineer. Because it took a lot more effort, time and dedication to get an engineering degree then an ATPL, also I didn't get an ATPL by instructing.

To make aviation more professional; more academia isn't the solution. Transport needs to tighten the requirements for CPL and ATPL.

[Hedley]

Transport needs to tighten the requirements for CPL and ATPL

No, it doesn't. Ever heard of ICAO? Probably not

[OceansEdge]

No, it doesn't. Ever heard of ICAO? Probably not

Ummm correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but if ICAO set the standards for CPL's and ATPL's would they not all be international licenses? A pilot wouldn't have to worry about transferring the credential to an FAA or JAA ticket? Licenses *I thought* were issued by the governing body - Transport Canada - and thus subject to their standards? Those standards may have to meet an ICAO minimum standard, but it's still TC that sets Canadian standards isn't it?

[stef]

Anyone ever ask why our government heavily subsidizes training for an industry with far more supply than demand for pilots? It doesn't make sense.

This is an important question. It is the root cause of the biggest problem with our industry. There are many more pilots than jobs.

[bushhopper]

I think I can answer your question. I will keep it theoretical.

Lets say our government prefers education, and it does, since we live in a free country, they can't forbid the private guy getting a license through a FTU. By eliminating subsidized programs in aviation we will limit the industry to the elite who can afford it, or afford a loan. A nation in debt is not a good nation.

If you take the same concept and put it in reverse. Limit private FTU. You would not make it Elite. Anyone can apply to a subsidized program if your high school grades are high enough. Fair enough? Everyone has equal opportunity in high school. The amount of work you put into study, will directly reflect on what you receive for career options. This method works world wide.


What makes it Elite is the cost. The only way to keep it fair is to apply the bottle neck effect with education. Anyone, rich or poor has the ability to study in high school! But wait! There is one more (possibility) feasible option!

Morav said. Not like it matters, I am personally willing to consider this option. Options are good.

What about raising the requirements for a flight instructor rating, and thus turning it into a position that is sought by only the experienced. Instructor's would get paid more, quality of flight instruction would increase, and a slight bottle necking should occur due to the increased price of commercial flight instruction and a shortage of qualified personal.

Win win, no?

*By raising the requirements, I only mean to with regards to commercial pilot training. That way GA can still flourish.

This way we can keep the peace between graduates of structured programs and private FTU with a common results of a slight bottle necking effect.

Obviously this would only apply to pilots fresh of the boat to say. Those who already have many hours in the books would not be effected at all on any level of their career. therefor both options should be considered.

What we are trying to achieve is a slight bottle necking effect. There is no purpose or reason to compare structured program grads to FTU pilots, for some reason I did at the beginning of the thread, I apologize. We have a common goal on both sides. Applying a fair bottle necking effect.

I think:

by cost = you make it elite, not fair.
by education = its fair

[modi13]

I will do you guys and my self a favor and I will drop this subject.

Hypocrisy?

A nation in debt is not a good nation.

Do you think the money the government spends on these programs miraculously appears in its coffers? It doesn't matter whether we pay for it ourselves or the government takes our taxes to pay for them. The government is massively in debt already, and there's no difference between us taking out a loan and Ottawa doing it.

Anyone can apply to a subsidized program if your high school grades are high enough. Fair enough? Everyone has equal opportunity in high school. The amount of work you put into study, will directly reflect on what you receive for career options. This method works world wide.

Good grades don't make one a good pilot. If we restrict entry into flight training to those who are academically proficient, we would lost everyone with "stick and rudder" skills. I used to be an instructor, and the ability to fly was not directly correlated to intelligence. Not only that, but not everyone has equal opportunities in high school; some students have to work, and don't have the same amount of time to study, while some students are provided with private tutors by their parents. The only way to determine who is best able to fly is to actually give people the opportunity to do so and weed them out once they've demonstrated whether or not they're capable.

[niwre]

I will try to remain as calm as possible.

" I feel that many wannabies who never get accepted or make it through a program like Seneca, Sue, Confederation, or military, because they lack proper grades in high schools, just end up getting their CPL through a flying club or private FTU. Some pilots who failed a structured program, mostly due laziness, lack of motivation and focus, never receive equal training at a private flight training unit. "

This is where you lost respect from most anyone on this board. It was your first damn paragraph after your thesis statement. You said you never intended to hurt or offened but you basically piss on anyone who never attended one of these institution. If you think that because is says Overpiced Training University on your resumé makes your taining better... are you gonna grill the AC or WJ captain next time you board a flight and ask if they are college trained or not?