TAB Express in DeLand closes its doors

[Ryan Ferguson]

Not terribly surprising, but another massive "academy" style operation in Central Florida has closed. Today, Tab Express in DeLand locked its doors to prevent pre-paid customers from entering the premises. This is eerily similar to ATA's (Airline Training Academy) closure more than two years ago.

The owner blamed Key Bank for pulling their financing of student loans and the ratty BE-1900 operation which the company hoped to launch as a "Florida airline" someday. (I say 'ratty' because I've seen these birds up close.) The news reported that some students were out as much as $100k in pre-paid loan funds.

TAB's focus was starting students almost immediately in BE-90s and conducting most of the private, commercial, instrument, and multi-engine training in the turbine environment. The pointlessness (or, at minimum, the lack of cost-effectiveness) of this training method was completely lost on the company's customers. Yet again, the promise of a dream has snared the hopeful.

When I wrote about ATA's closure on my website in March of '03, my rant about pre-paid flight training generated a huge amount of email discussion. While many agreed with my opinions, some felt I was unfairly lumping together all pre-pay flight training operations. While I don't accuse all pre-pay training providers of being inherently shady, I do think it is inherently illogical to give away all leverage one might have as a customer by paying for a service-based product in advance. This is yet another example of why I feel the way I do about this topic.

While I believe universities, academies, and other 141 operators can offer quality products, I simply don't see the point of going any route other than 61 in almost all cases. The promise of an airline interview or "bridge" is essentially bogus. I have many friends who currently fly for regionals that had no difficulty whatsoever being hired despite lack of an Embry Riddle degree or other aviation "academy" style operation. The bottom line is most employers just don't discriminate that way - it's a matter of meeting minimum+ hours and interviewing well. Unfortunately, a sucker's born every minute.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

These huge flight schools are aweful. I am an instructor at a Part 141 flight school but we are nothing like these huge Florida pilot factories. We only have 12 planes, all except one is a C-172, the other is a BE-76 (Duchess). These Florida places should be called Pay For Job, not Pay For Training. We all paid for training at some point but most of use earned our jobs we did not buy them like these folks were trying to do. Serves them right. If you notice the recent discussion about the Pinnacle 3701 accident, the F/O was hired by Pinnacle with 500 hrs. because he came through a "bridge" program with GIA. Anyhow, just my rant.

 

[bbchien]

If you notice the recent discussion about the Pinnacle 3701 accident, the F/O was hired by Pinnacle with 500 hrs. because he came through a "bridge" program with GIA. Anyhow, just my rant.

Perfectly appropriate rant.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

These huge flight schools are aweful. I am an instructor at a Part 141 flight school but we are nothing like these huge Florida pilot factories. We only have 12 planes, all except one is a C-172, the other is a BE-76 (Duchess). These Florida places should be called Pay For Job, not Pay For Training. We all paid for training at some point but most of use earned our jobs we did not buy them like these folks were trying to do.

Ya know, this kind of economic snobbery really has no place amongst pilots, much less supposedly civil pilots. Furthermore, no one should take gleeful pleasure in seeing an unsuspecting individual stripped of their life savings (and probably more than that).

Virtually every time builder on the lower rungs of this industry's ladder engages in the "pay for job" routine in one way or another. The only difference I see is that some folks are rather self-delusional about their participation. For example, one rich kid walks in with $100k and buys $100/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $50/hour salary and pays $50/hour for the aircraft time. One not so rich kid walks in with $0.00 and buys $60/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $80/hour salary and accepts instead $20/hour payment for the aircraft time. The only salient difference between the two is that the rich kid is flying a twin and calls it a "pilot job" while the not so rich kid is flying a C152/172 and calls it "providing flight instruction".

In fact, if you want to be fair about the snobbery and name calling, the only non-charlatan time builders on the lower rungs of the industry ladder are the aircraft owners and renters--they are footing the entire bill on their own dime.

 

[bbchien]

Virtually every time builder on the lower rungs of this industry's ladder engages in the "pay for job" routine in one way or another.

No...or maybe yes. I know two Eagle Captains who refused pay for job/pay for training, came up through the ranks in the usual CFI manner, hired at 3,000 hours. They refused to do this. Quite young, 27 years old, but quite mature.

The real question is teaching at ERAU at $11.00 per propellor hour, a buy in? They got benefits (healthcare) and tuition reduction on their masters' degrees.

If you're in too much of a hurry this can happen.

Would you ever pay a custom home builder except in installments at foundation, framing, sheathing, and then after completion?

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Ya know, this kind of economic snobbery really has no place amongst pilots, much less supposedly civil pilots. Furthermore, no one should take gleeful pleasure in seeing an unsuspecting individual stripped of their life savings (and probably more than that).

Virtually every time builder on the lower rungs of this industry's ladder engages in the "pay for job" routine in one way or another. The only difference I see is that some folks are rather self-delusional about their participation. For example, one rich kid walks in with $100k and buys $100/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $50/hour salary and pays $50/hour for the aircraft time. One not so rich kid walks in with $0.00 and buys $60/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $80/hour salary and accepts instead $20/hour payment for the aircraft time. The only salient difference between the two is that the rich kid is flying a twin and calls it a "pilot job" while the not so rich kid is flying a C152/172 and calls it "providing flight instruction".

In fact, if you want to be fair about the snobbery and name calling, the only non-charlatan time builders on the lower rungs of the industry ladder are the aircraft owners and renters--they are footing the entire bill on their own dime.

I really did not understand exactly where you were going with this. If you were insinuating that I take "pleasure" in seeing people stripped of their money you are wrong. I really do not know where to begin on this post, it honestly infuriates me. I sweat all day today in a C-172 while student pilots tried to kill me (no offense to student pilots, I was one not long ago, this is just a saying amongst instructors), but I learned a whole lot about flying and I think they did to. If you are saying that is buying my next job then please explain it further because I would like to know. And I do call it "providing flight instruction" because that is exactly what I am doing. Yes I am getting paid, not $20 an hour. Aviation is a dues paying industry, and being able to bypass steps you cheat yourself and others. So go ahead and say that I am just buying my job. I will give you the contact information of my students and let you ask them any question you want about how seriously I take flight instruction. I do not plan on being an instructor forever but my students are paying for my services now and they are entitled to every pennies worth of instruction they pay for. Yesterday I spent 8 hours at the airport, I was paid for about 1 hour of that 8. Because I care about my job I didn't mind. This post is probably very scattered but I am just incredibly furious that you would compare flight instruction for a thousand or more hours the same as buying 250 hours in a BE-1900 in Florida.

 

[poadeleted20]

TAB's focus was starting students almost immediately in BE-90s and conducting most of the private, commercial, instrument, and multi-engine training in the turbine environment. The pointlessness (or, at minimum, the lack of cost-effectiveness) of this training method...

The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

Absolutely agree 100%. What people fail to realize is that nearly all of the PFT/PFJ deals are a scam and they are cheating themselves.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Ya know, this kind of economic snobbery really has no place amongst pilots, much less supposedly civil pilots. Furthermore, no one should take gleeful pleasure in seeing an unsuspecting individual stripped of their life savings (and probably more than that).

Virtually every time builder on the lower rungs of this industry's ladder engages in the "pay for job" routine in one way or another. The only difference I see is that some folks are rather self-delusional about their participation. For example, one rich kid walks in with $100k and buys $100/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $50/hour salary and pays $50/hour for the aircraft time. One not so rich kid walks in with $0.00 and buys $60/hour aircraft flight time by forgoing a $80/hour salary and accepts instead $20/hour payment for the aircraft time. The only salient difference between the two is that the rich kid is flying a twin and calls it a "pilot job" while the not so rich kid is flying a C152/172 and calls it "providing flight instruction".

Ed, you're off the mark on this one. There's a difference between what you're suggesting with your rather innocent example and what goes on in the "lower rungs" in our industry. And that is, literally buying a job in the flight deck on revenue flights vs. simply paying for the flight time necessary to earn an entry level job. The former are known as "payfers," "PFTers," and so on and are reviled by many professional pilots who feel that this practice (called "Pay For Training") degrades our profession, not to mention the safety of the flying public. I have gone from being moderately annoyed by PFT to joining the ranks of those who are disgusted by anyone associated with the act. Many of us compete with applicants who are willing to do our job free or even pay for the privilege. Being a former business owner I can certainly understand the economics of supply (too many pilots) and demand (not enough jobs.) But this does not excuse those pilots who attempt to shortcut through the system by buying the jobs that should be, at the minimum, an entry-level opportunity for a legitimate candidate.

For the record, none of the reputable pilots I've ever known or met have taken this route. It is NOT common except in the absolute gutter of the aviation training market.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

I think you misunderstood my statement. There's little doubt that comparing the US Armed Forces to a civilian product is at best an apples to oranges comparison, but even with that being the case, being churned out of a pilot mill with 200 turbine hours (and only a slim margin above that in total time) does not create a very marketable job applicant for pilot positions. That is where the pointlessness of this training method lies - total time, not turbine time, is what matters to most employers in most cases. Turbine time matters at the next level.

 

[bbchien]

The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

Agree, if I do say so.....but there is also the matter of candidate selection. Pay for training....there's less selection. It's a purchase

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Ed, you're off the mark on this one. There's a difference between what you're suggesting with your rather innocent example and what goes on in the "lower rungs" in our industry. And that is, literally buying a job in the flight deck on revenue flights vs. simply paying for the flight time necessary to earn an entry level job. The former are known as "payfers," "PFTers," and so on and are reviled by many professional pilots who feel that this practice (called "Pay For Training") degrades our profession, not to mention the safety of the flying public. I have gone from being moderately annoyed by PFT to joining the ranks of those who are disgusted by anyone associated with the act. Many of us compete with applicants who are willing to do our job free or even pay for the privilege. Being a former business owner I can certainly understand the economics of supply (too many pilots) and demand (not enough jobs.) But this does not excuse those pilots who attempt to shortcut through the system by buying the jobs that should be, at the minimum, an entry-level opportunity for a legitimate candidate.

For the record, none of the reputable pilots I've ever known or met have taken this route. It is NOT common except in the absolute gutter of the aviation training market.

Thank you Mr. Ferguson. Your post was a lot more understandable than my own. I believe I got a little carried away with my first reply post but after a very long day it hit me the wrong way. I too am completely disgusted by PFTers and the thought of being compared to one just made me sick.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I really did not understand exactly where you were going with this. If you were insinuating that I take "pleasure" in seeing people stripped of their money you are wrong.

Perhaps I misread your previous post. What did you mean by:

These Florida places should be called Pay For Job, not Pay For Training. We all paid for training at some point but most of use earned our jobs we did not buy them like these folks were trying to do. Serves them right.

I took the above passage as your expressing that you were somewhat happy/satisfied/gleeful that the students were financially ruined, in some cases to the tune of $100k as mentioned in the post to which you replied. If you have a more humanitarian explanation for your words please do share.

This post is probably very scattered but I am just incredibly furious that you would compare flight instruction for a thousand or more hours the same as buying 250 hours in a BE-1900 in Florida.

You flight instruct. The other pilot hauls cargo or passengers. You each have a job to do. You each may choose to do your job diligently or coast through. You choose to be diligent in executing your responsibilities. Do you assume the other pilot does not, will not, or cannot be equally diligent in executing his/her duties, different as they might be? Furthermore, it appears that you condescend and take pleasure in the other pilots financial demise. If you wonder what I expressed, I expressed an objection to those sentiments. If that bothers you, I hope it bothers you because such sentiments aren't yours.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Perhaps I misread your previous post. What did you mean by:



I took the above passage as your expressing that you were somewhat happy/satisfied/gleeful that the students were financially ruined, in some cases to the tune of $100k as mentioned in the post to which you replied. If you have a more humanitarian explanation for your words please do share.



You flight instruct. The other pilot hauls cargo or passengers. You each have a job to do. You each may choose to do your job diligently or coast through. You choose to be diligent in executing your responsibilities. Do you assume the other pilot does not, will not, or cannot be equally diligent in executing his/her duties, different as they might be? Furthermore, it appears that you condescend and take pleasure in the other pilots financial demise. If you wonder what I expressed, I expressed an objection to those sentiments. If that bothers you, I hope it bothers you because such sentiments aren't yours.

1. I am sorry to see these students duped into the scam of a PFT program. However, as you may have seen in my latest posts and the post of Ryan Ferguson, there is a great amount of disdain for PFTers because they are simply trying to bypass everyone else in the industry. They know they are basically paying for a job that others are trying to earn, no secret there.

2. Yes, I flight instruct. The other pilots do not have a job, they have a seat that they paid much more for than the passengers sitting in the back. This hurts the whole industry. I am sorry if you feel that I took some sort of joy in their financial demise, I did not. I do take joy in the fact that there is one less scam for theifs and lazy individuals in Florida.*

*I am not speaking about cargo carriers here. Late night check haulers definately earn their place. I am referring to TAB, GIA, etc. These operators claim they are training you but in reality you are paying to help reduce the cost of their operations by reducing the number of pilots they must pay.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

No...or maybe yes. I know two Eagle Captains who refused pay for job/pay for training, came up through the ranks in the usual CFI manner, hired at 3,000 hours. They refused to do this. Quite young, 27 years old, but quite mature.

To be honest with you, as I expressed in the previous post, I really don't see a difference between paying $50/hour to log $100/hour aircraft flight time when the job should pay $50/hour, or receiving $20/hour to log $60/hour aircraft flight time when the job should pay $80/hour. The difference is semantics.

The real question is teaching at ERAU at $11.00 per propellor hour, a buy in? They got benefits (healthcare) and tuition reduction on their masters' degrees.

And in so doing performed a job that in any other industry would pay $80/hour, yet they actually received a net pay of ~$30/hour. Did they buy flight time? I think they did, but I think virtually everyone does is this industry. But then again, opinions may vary.

The point is, do we cast aspersions on folks who choose another path? Maybe we should throw barbs my direction, after all, if getting paid $20/hour instead of $80/hour so you can log flight time that would cost $60/hour is the noble route, how noble is it for me to pay top dollar for nearly every hour I've flown/logged?

Like I said, semantics, and no one should be tossing stones at anyone else.

Would you ever pay a custom home builder except in installments at foundation, framing, sheathing, and then after completion?

Ah, yes, and this is the crux of the matter. Financial smarts? Not too many. But does that make the flight time less valuable? Less acceptable?

Not in my book.

YMMV.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Ferguson
TAB's focus was starting students almost immediately in BE-90s and conducting most of the private, commercial, instrument, and multi-engine training in the turbine environment. The pointlessness (or, at minimum, the lack of cost-effectiveness) of this training method...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

I think you misunderstood my statement. There's little doubt that comparing the US Armed Forces to a civilian product is at best an apples to oranges comparison, but even with that being the case, being churned out of a pilot mill with 200 turbine hours (and only a slim margin above that in total time) does not create a very marketable job applicant for pilot positions. That is where the pointlessness of this training method lies - total time, not turbine time, is what matters to most employers in most cases. Turbine time matters at the next level.

If you meant to say that, I do not think you succeeded. Your original statement indicated that you thought that doing ab initio training in turbine aircraft is "pointless," and with that I disagree. Your later "apples to oranges" statement appears to agree with what I said, which is that there is a substantial difference in the quality of the training provided, and that difference in quality is substantial and significant.

Further, there is little doubt that the major air carriers recognize the substantial difference in training quality in the military programs versus most civilian programs else they would not take military trained pilots with half the total time of their civilian-trained counterparts. But Bruce's point about screening and preselection is also well taken -- that's why Ivy League schools can have more rigorous and in-depth educational programs than your local community college, and employers recognize that difference.

 

[Everskyward]

Hypothetically, what if there was a program associated with an airline that had the same quality screening and training as in the military. Then suppose you had to pay for it. Would people still object as strenuously?

Just curious if it's the quality aspect or the paying aspect that people find the most objectionable.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

However, as you may have seen in my latest posts and the post of Ryan Ferguson, there is a great amount of disdain for PFTers because they are simply trying to bypass everyone else in the industry. They know they are basically paying for a job that others are trying to earn, no secret there.
...
I am referring to TAB, GIA, etc. These operators claim they are training you but in reality you are paying to help reduce the cost of their operations by reducing the number of pilots they must pay.

The disdain you have is hardly justified. The others have the means to choose another route. You obviously don't. Get over it. Furthermore, if you weren't so close to the situation you might see that flight instruction is the same problem (people "buying" their way) merely disguised under a different coat of paint.

Example for you. Some time ago, the FAA decided that flight instruction is teaching, not piloting, hence no need for a medical. If the FAA carried that logic through to logging PIC time and removed 61.51(e)(3) from the books, how many flight instructors would leave the business? Probably a vast majority. What would happen to CFI pay if folks couldn't use logging PIC time to rationalize accepting $11-20/hour? I'm thinking ~95% of the CFIs in the US would disappear the next morning and CFI pay might climb towards $60-80/hour. IOW, the difference between where CFI pay would be, and where it actually is today, is what every CFI "pays" for the flight time.

 

[poadeleted3]

Hypothetically, what if there was a program associated with an airline that had the same quality screening and training as in the military. Then suppose you had to pay for it. Would people still object as strenuously?

Just curious if it's the quality aspect or the paying aspect that people find the most objectionable.

I'll bet both. Personally, were I to win the lottery, I'd pay for the time I need to get where I want, and buy the kind of time I need and want. Flight instruction would be a hobby.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

The disdain you have is hardly justified. The others have the means to choose another route. You obviously don't. Get over it. Furthermore, if you weren't so close to the situation you might see that flight instruction is the same problem (people "buying" their way) merely disguised under a different coat of paint.

Example for you. Some time ago, the FAA decided that flight instruction is teaching, not piloting, hence no need for a medical. If the FAA carried that logic through to logging PIC time and removed 61.51(e)(3) from the books, how many flight instructors would leave the business? Probably a vast majority. What would happen to CFI pay if folks couldn't use logging PIC time to rationalize accepting $11-20/hour? I'm thinking ~95% of the CFIs in the US would disappear the next morning and CFI pay might climb towards $60-80/hour. IOW, the difference between where CFI pay would be, and where it actually is today, is what every CFI "pays" for the flight time.

1. First of all, I did not want to get into this, but I most definately have the means to "buy a job." So it is not a matter of getting over it.

2. Let's take your profession, chemist I believe according to your profile. I am sure you worked hard to get an education so that you could become qualified for your job. Now let's say that someone begins offering a two week course and by taking that course you are then qualified. Now these individuals who took the two week course have an agreement with the organization you work for and so they automatically get jobs. Would you feel at all slighted by that? Even if you could afford the two week course would you do it and bypass the opportunity to have a good reputation in your field?

3. Obviously you are just mad that CFI's do not get paid what you think is the deserved amount. I see that you are a CFI, why don't you charge $80/hour and see how many people still use you. Supply and demand. You are right, I am building time, but I choose to do it through flight instruction because I enjoy it. I could be towing banners, towing gliders, ferrying aircaft, etc. I know plenty of flight instructors who are not "building time", they just enjoy being a CFI and teaching others.

4. Go visit another forum at flightinfo.com and ask all of those guys what they think about PFTers. You are out of touch with the industry.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Hypothetically, what if there was a program associated with an airline that had the same quality screening and training as in the military. Then suppose you had to pay for it. Would people still object as strenuously?

Just curious if it's the quality aspect or the paying aspect that people find the most objectionable.

Good thing this is hypotetical. According to a study in 1993 (don't quote me on the year, but it was the early 90's and I believe it was 93) it would cost around $1.3 million to purchase the training provided by the military. This is why you cannot compare a place like TAB or any civilian ab initio turbine training to the military. You can't get a pilot trained like a military pilot for $20,000. I believe that US Military pilots are the best in the world, no doubt about it, but our government invests a whole bunch of money in them, thank God. These civilian programs cannot be compared to the military at all. In these PFT programs you sit there and operate the flaps and if you are lucky they let you lower the gear. But I guess that is just like flight instruction.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

2. Let's take your profession, chemist I believe according to your profile. I am sure you worked hard to get an education so that you could become qualified for your job. Now let's say that someone begins offering a two week course and by taking that course you are then qualified. Now these individuals who took the two week course have an agreement with the organization you work for and so they automatically get jobs. Would you feel at all slighted by that? Even if you could afford the two week course would you do it and bypass the opportunity to have a good reputation in your field?

Great example. In chemistry the "quick fix" doesn't exist, and the key word is right there in your example--"qualified". There is no way to pay more money and get educated and into a chemistry job sooner than the slow, grinding, graduate school route. Why? Because the quick route doesn't work. The quick route's graduates don't learn the material, the employers see a knowledge/skill deficit, and the employers don't hire. IOW, quick school chemistry doesn't produce qualified graduates. OTOH, as you well know, some aviation employers do hire graduates of the programs you disdain , so obviously someone other than you (someone, I might add, with a real stake in the game and no axe to grind) thinks those graduates can do the job. IOW, unlike your chemist example where the employers don't find the quick candidate qualified, apparently the aviation employers (at least enough of them) disagree with you--the alternative time building candidates are qualified in the minds of aviation employers.

That would be the not too subtle distinction between your chemist analogy and the reality of the pilot world. One cannot produce a "qualified" product (in the eyes of the employer), and one apparently does.

3. Obviously you are just mad that CFI's do not get paid what you think is the deserved amount.

No, I'm not mad at all that CFIs make abysmal wages. I certainly wish it weren't true, but I don't make my living as a CFI so it really doesn't matter to me on a personal basis. Furthermore, that isn't why I entered this conversation. BTW, "mad" isn't what I feel, but if you want to use "mad" to describe what I feel, well, then fine. I'm "mad" because I don't appreciate someone gleefully watching some other pilot's financial ruin. I'm "mad" because I don't believe one pilot should denigrate another pilot's experience or route to a job.

4. Go visit another forum at flightinfo.com and ask all of those guys what they think about PFTers. You are out of touch with the industry.

If "out of touch with the industry" means I don't take satisfaction in seeing another pilot financially suffer, well, no thank you, I think I'll sit right here. Besides, I doubt I'm out of touch with the industry since apparently at least some of the aviation employers disagree with you (and perhaps your like minded friends on flightinfo.com), after all, the fast route folks must be finding jobs, otherwise the schools would fold (look at the chemist world if you don't understand). Perhaps it is you who is out of touch with the industry?

 

[Everskyward]

Good thing this is hypotetical. According to a study in 1993 (don't quote me on the year, but it was the early 90's and I believe it was 93) it would cost around $1.3 million to purchase the training provided by the military. This is why you cannot compare a place like TAB or any civilian ab initio turbine training to the military. You can't get a pilot trained like a military pilot for $20,000.

When I said quality similar to military training I didn't mean training was to be done in military airplanes which I'm sure is a large part of the cost. I'm sure the actual cost would be somewhere between $1.3 million and $20,000.

Ron said this...

The US armed forces pilot training is done in an all-turbine environment and they seem pretty successful at turning out folks with only 200 hours capable being PIC of supersonic fighter-type aircraft in night/formation/low-level operations. The difference between TAB and USAF/USN pilot training is the quality of the operation, not the concept.

...which got me thinking. If someone can turn out quality fighter pilots at 200 hours why can't someone turn out quality airline pilots at 200 hours? It would have to be a very tightly focused program with no extra stuff, only things that pertained to being an airline pilot. Don't some foreign carriers do this?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Whoa guys, you're both giving me a serious identity crisis here !*

Although not a "full-time" instructor or pilot, except when I give my time and expertise away, I'm highly paid as a CFI ("charlaton" to use your words, as I recall) and also enjoy it immensely, recieved advantages in hiring at my flight school by buying my way through numerous ratings while at the same highly regarded flight school, in addition to requesting additional high level training that neither the flight school nor the FAA required. In my own defense of my "charlatanistic" ways, I still have NOT bought an airplane, but in moments of weakness am repeatedly considering purchasing an amphib.

*I may need extensive psychotherapy (not cheap) to get through all this with my identity intact, and now my CFI rates will have to go up !

 

[poadeleted20]

...which got me thinking. If someone can turn out quality fighter pilots at 200 hours why can't someone turn out quality airline pilots at 200 hours? It would have to be a very tightly focused program with no extra stuff, only things that pertained to being an airline pilot. Don't some foreign carriers do this?

Yes, they do. Their selection process is much the same as the military's, and also like the military, they exact a long commitment to pay back the investment in training. This is widely used by European airlines like KLM and Lufthansa. KLM starts its trainees in 36 Bonanzas, rapidly moves into Barons, then on to turbine aircraft. On completion of training (a year or more), they are KLM co-pilots on the smallest iron KLM flies.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

Wow, I seem to be bringing out the best in people. I joined this board at the beginning, right when AOPA closed, but recently started visiting it again. I really was not coming back looking to start these overly heated debates. I will leave it for everyone to make up their own mind. Below is the link to GIA's website and program description. In this program you can pay over $27,000 to be a F/O (flap/gear/radio operator) on actual revenue flights for Gulfstream International Airlines d.b.a. Continenal Connection. It is my opinion, and shared by others (maybe none here) that doing this hurts the industry because that seat should be occupied by a paid professional pilot. Ed, I am not going to argue with you anymore, we obviously have a philosophical difference and it has come to name calling, which I feel is unprofessional and immature. I apologize if I offended you, that was not my intention. I do still believe that everything I said was true. Keep in mind you are paying these people so that they can reduce their operation cost by not having to pay a pilot.

Gulfstream_Academy_FO_Program

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Wow, I seem to be bringing out the best in people.

Gloating at another human's financial loss may do that.

Below is the link to GIA's website and program description. In this program you can pay over $27,000 to be a F/O (flap/gear/radio operator) on actual revenue flights for Gulfstream International Airlines d.b.a. Continenal Connection.

(emphasis added)

Casting aspersions on another human's job may bring out the best in people, too.

Ed, I am not going to argue with you anymore, we obviously have a philosophical difference and it has come to name calling

You'll need to show that one to me (name calling). Other than you calling me "out of touch" I thought things were progressing with nice civility despite obvious firmly held opinions.

I do still believe that everything I said was true. Keep in mind you are paying these people so that they can reduce their operation cost by not having to pay a pilot.

Keep in mind that due to your time building desires and the resultant willingness to slash your salary demands and therefor accept sub-McDonald's level gross pay, you help the place you work reduce their operation cost, too. The apparent difference between you and me being that I feel no need for you to be ashamed of your choice. Unfortunately, it is a pervasive trend which is a reality in the aviation business and is far beyond any single person's control. I also see no need for you to heap shame on any other pilot doing the same (slashing salary demands in order to build time). You, however, appear to have no hesitation heaping shame on your teammates for their equivalent (salary demand slashing) behavior.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Seems to me there's a lot of information flying around the participants of this thread.

Ed, to me, H. Cole's "gear/flap/radio operator" description did not come across as an aspersion. It's simply an informational explanation of what an F/O does at that operation.

I think the fundamental disconnect here is understanding exactly what happens when someone "PFTs" or pays-for-training.

There is no comparison between flight instructing for meager wages, even for free, or any other job which involves compensation of some kind, vs. literally PAYING to fly as a crewmember on a revenue flight. There is no comparison because only PFT takes a job which should be made available as an entry-level position to a starving CFI or banner-tow pilot and takes it off the market while ALSO driving wages down.

This is a singular practice in our industry. It is very easily recognized and defined. It is reviled by the vast majority of professional pilots, regardless of their political leanings (liberal or conservative), regardless of their feelings about unions, regardless of their past (and many pilots have professional backgrounds in other fields, which would give them a relatively healthy perspective on this topic.)

PFT is a lot like smoking in a crowded room. It's not an activity in which the smoker can participate without adversely affecting the rest of the crowd. Your examples of the cargo pilot, the CFI, the time-builder buying time in a non-revenue aircraft are all divided clearly away from the PFTer because those guys aren't directly affecting others with their choice.

You also made a remark which I find insulting and unnecessary:

"Keep in mind that due to your time building desires and the resultant willingness to slash your salary demands and therefor accept sub-McDonald's level gross pay, you help the place you work reduce their operation cost, too. The apparent difference between you and me being that I feel no need for you to be ashamed of your choice."

Speaking for myself - and maybe just a few other pilots who've been in that position - I can say the only time I accepted McDonald's level wages was as a flight instructor. Since that point there has been no willingness to "slash my salary demands" and accept less than what I consider to be fair pay as a professional pilot. While pilot pay isn't great at the airlines, especially in the first year, this is a career path which can be embarked upon without stepping on the backs of fellow pilots in the process. In corporate aviation, the pay can be quite fair out of the gates. When I leave Simuflite with my HS125 type rating next week, that small line on my temporary airman certificate will have been rightly paid for by my employer, not me.

PFTers should feel ashamed.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

If you meant to say that, I do not think you succeeded. Your original statement indicated that you thought that doing ab initio training in turbine aircraft is "pointless," and with that I disagree.

Be that as it may, it is pointless. Graduates of this style of training do not have competitive total times, are burdened with immense debt ($100k+ for the entire program, I believe) and have not learned fundamental or advanced flying skills to any significantly higher level than the standard piston training route would offer. Some would argue that their growth as complete pilots has been stunted by skipping the hard-but-necessary CFI and MEI route, flying old airplanes with worn out instruments, teaching basic skills repetitively until they are mastered.

Your later "apples to oranges" statement appears to agree with what I said, which is that there is a substantial difference in the quality of the training provided, and that difference in quality is substantial and significant.

Agreed. There is also a substantial difference between the average quality of the students, as well.

Further, there is little doubt that the major air carriers recognize the substantial difference in training quality in the military programs versus most civilian programs else they would not take military trained pilots with half the total time of their civilian-trained counterparts.

Actually, that depends on the airline. FedEx and UPS, for example, are famous for hiring almost entirely from the ranks of the retired military pilot population. Other operators choose to mix and match their pilot makeup (Southwest, for example; their HR dept. specifically looks to keep a relatively even mix of corporate, military, and airline pilots in their new hire classes.) Still others prefer a wider makeup of pilots with 121 experience, or 135, and so on. This is usually predicated by the senior pilots involved with HR in the hiring process.

But Bruce's point about screening and preselection is also well taken -- that's why Ivy League schools can have more rigorous and in-depth educational programs than your local community college, and employers recognize that difference.

Non-aviation employers may, but the vast majority of aviation-industry employers do not.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Wow, I seem to be bringing out the best in people.

H. Cole, while I agree with most everything you've stated about PFT, you started off on the wrong foot by saying "Serves them right." That's a remark which I'm sure you didn't mean literally, and I'll bet you'd like to retract it now, yes? I'm happy TAB's out of business; not necessarily happy that those students lost their investment in the training academy. Agree?

This would help put the focus of the discussion where it belongs.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed, to me, H. Cole's "gear/flap/radio operator" description did not come across as an aspersion. It's simply an informational explanation of what an F/O does at that operation.

You casting rumor as fact, or do you have the airline's ops manual? The ops manual specifies the FO may not touch anything other than the flap switch, the gear switch, or the radio knobs/PTT switch?

IOW, I believe you just slammed the FO with absolutely nothing but your own bias to support your position.

You also made a remark which I find insulting and unnecessary:



Speaking for myself - and maybe just a few other pilots who've been in that position - I can say the only time I accepted McDonald's level wages was as a flight instructor.

If you did it, admit it, and you describe it as such, how is it an insult and unnecessary if I describe it as such (BTW, for those not following the subtleties, Auburn CFI is a CFI)? It is a sad fact of the industry, but a fact all the same. For the hours a CFI puts in, s/he could make more money putting in the same hours at McDonalds. Sad, but true. It isn't as if I laughed at the person for making the choice. We all know it is the choice that must be selected.

....this is a career path which can be embarked upon without stepping on the backs of fellow pilots in the process.

Naw, just call them names or perhaps chortle at their financial misfortune.

PFTers should feel ashamed.

That soft, squishy feeling under your foot right now? I believe it might be your fellow pilot's back.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

H. Cole, while I agree with most everything you've stated about PFT, you started off on the wrong foot by saying "Serves them right." That's a remark which I'm sure you didn't mean literally, and I'll bet you'd like to retract it now, yes? I'm happy TAB's out of business; not necessarily happy that those students lost their investment in the training academy. Agree?

This would help put the focus of the discussion where it belongs.

Said like Ryan has phrased it here, I would strongly agree. Unfortunately, until this point that hasn't been the prevailing theme of this thread. Not to say such was not Ryan's original intent, just that if it was the original intent, the thread veered to the ditch rather rapidly.

For the record, I believe TAB's and operations like them take advantage of the unsuspecting, aspiring pilot. I despise TABs and operations like them. I don't despise the pilots that fall victim to the scheme.

 

[Everskyward]

I will leave it for everyone to make up their own mind.

Which is what people will do anyway. Personally I think someone would have to be an idiot and really taken in by the glossy advertising to pay $27,000 to be an FO for this place, especially since the requirements are that you already have a commercial/instrument/multi. However, I wouldn't consider that person unethical.

Do you think this airline adds a disclaimer to their tickets? "Half of your crew paid for their seat so that is why you're getting a cheaper fare." It's like going to a barber/beauty college. The trainee cuts your hair while the instructor looks on and tidies up the goofs the trainee may have made.

 

[poadeleted20]

Be that as it may, it is pointless. Graduates of this style of training do not have competitive total times, are burdened with immense debt ($100k+ for the entire program, I believe) and have not learned fundamental or advanced flying skills to any significantly higher level than the standard piston training route would offer.

Again, it's not the style of training, it's the quality. The total times of military fighter types are way less than their tanker/transport/bomber contemporaries, but the fighter types get hired with half the time. And I would strenuously argue that the graduates of the all-turbine military programs "have not learned fundamental or advanced flying skills to any significantly higher level than the standard piston training route would offer."

Actually, that depends on the airline. FedEx and UPS, for example, are famous for hiring almost entirely from the ranks of the retired military pilot population.

I don't care which airline you look at -- they all take fighter types with lower total times that those out of the tanker/transport/bomber communities or the civilian-trained communities.

Non-aviation employers may, but the vast majority of aviation-industry employers do not.

Aviation industry employers most definitely recognize the higher quality of training from the military and hire accordingly. Their problem today is that they just can't get enough military-trained pilots to meet their needs. The shift from 90/10 military/civilian mix in the hiring profile thirty hears ago to the 45/55 mix today didn't start until the airlines found there weren't enough former military pilots available to meet their needs. The pre-screening and quality training of military pilots is indeed well-recognized by air carriers.

 

[Auburn_CFI]

H. Cole, while I agree with most everything you've stated about PFT, you started off on the wrong foot by saying "Serves them right." That's a remark which I'm sure you didn't mean literally, and I'll bet you'd like to retract it now, yes? I'm happy TAB's out of business; not necessarily happy that those students lost their investment in the training academy. Agree?

This would help put the focus of the discussion where it belongs.

I agree with your post. Certainly I do not like seeing people swindled out of up to $100,000. I still stand by the fact that being a CFI is a JOB, purchasing time in an aircraft makes you a customer. I do not respect the students of TAB because they were simply trying to buy their way into the cockpit instead of earning it. Please answer this question Dr. Guthrie:

You are flying in a commercial aircraft. The aircraft develops a problem and must be landed immediately on a runway with a sever x-wind. Who do you want at the controls?

1. 1500 hr. pilot (Experience includes over 1000 hours of Flight Instruction given and training in the aircraft you are being shuttled in) or,
2. 250 hr. pilot (Paying to be there, training in the aircraft you paying to fly in.)

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

You casting rumor as fact, or do you have the airline's ops manual? The ops manual specifies the FO may not touch anything other than the flap switch, the gear switch, or the radio knobs/PTT switch?

IOW, I believe you just slammed the FO with absolutely nothing but your own bias to support your position.

Here we go off into tangent-land. Yes, many (most?) PFT operations are right seat operations with little or no actual control-manipulation time (such as it is.) This product is sold to give would-be professionals blocks of SIC turbine time in two-crewmember aircraft. You interpret it as a slam because you're simply unfamiliar with the industry and think there could be an ego trip associated with buying blocks of right seat turbine time on revenue flights. Nothing of the sort - most of these guys and gals are pretty private about their chosen route and are well aware that they're doing nothing more than buying paper experience.

If you did it, admit it, and you describe it as such, how is it an insult and unnecessary if I describe it as such (BTW, for those not following the subtleties, Auburn CFI is a CFI)? It is a sad fact of the industry, but a fact all the same. For the hours a CFI puts in, s/he could make more money putting in the same hours at McDonalds. Sad, but true. It isn't as if I laughed at the person for making the choice. We all know it is the choice that must be selected.

Because flight instructing is an honorable method of earning time and compensation toward the next level in a pilot's career. It's difficult, the hours are long and it's usually a one to two year stop on the road to a "real" job. No one's particularly happy about CFI pay, but it's purely driven by supply and demand. It's the average time-builder's method of earning both "paper" and real experience towards the next level. Buying a seat in 1900 flipping gear and flap levers is, by contrast, degrading to the profession. Imagine someone paying to do the job you're well compensated for; it may not put you out work at this stage in your career, but it could well cost an eager young professional who can't afford to "buy" a job his shot at the prize.

Naw, just call them names or perhaps chortle at their financial misfortune.

I'm not happy those students lost their investment, but I'm glad they lost an opportunity to degrade the profession via TAB's shutdown.

That soft, squishy feeling under your foot right now? I believe it might be your fellow pilot's back.

No idea where you get this stuff.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

Again, it's not the style of training, it's the quality. The total times of military fighter types are way less than their tanker/transport/bomber contemporaries, but the fighter types get hired with half the time. And I would strenuously argue that the graduates of the all-turbine military programs "have not learned fundamental or advanced flying skills to any significantly higher level than the standard piston training route would offer."

I'm not sure why we keep discussing military flight training. I think I've made it pretty clear I'm talking about civilian flight training operations which involve a turbine emphasis from the get-go. After all, that was exactly the product which TAB Express offered. I will reiterate that it is a pointless method of training from that perspective. I do, of course, agree that when the military trains its pilot candidates, the results are typically quite good and the pilots quite capable with very few total hours. I believe that would be the case whether they were flying supersonic jets, WWII-era radial-engine propeller fighters, or dump trucks.

Also, I've attempted (but apparently failed) to make it clear that my beef is with the concept of ab initio turbine training for would be professional (civilian) pilots regardless of the quality. This concept does not create a hireable pilot in the civilian world, and the quality, by the way, is typically quite bad. There's a reason most flight schools train the way they do, and with the equipment they have - because it's the most cost-effective way to train.

I don't care which airline you look at -- they all take fighter types with lower total times that those out of the tanker/transport/bomber communities or the civilian-trained communities.

Agreed. Doesn't mean they'll take more or less fighter/bomber/121/135 applicants, though. That mix is usually decided by HR, and fighter pilots don't necessarily get preference simply because of their status at all airlines.

Aviation industry employers most definitely recognize the higher quality of training from the military and hire accordingly. Their problem today is that they just can't get enough military-trained pilots to meet their needs. The shift from 90/10 military/civilian mix in the hiring profile thirty hears ago to the 45/55 mix today didn't start until the airlines found there weren't enough former military pilots available to meet their needs. The pre-screening and quality training of military pilots is indeed well-recognized by air carriers.

That it is. However, if you really believe that all airlines will take fighter pilots above any other applicants (all other factors being equal), you're simply mistaken. I am pretty darn familiar with SWA's hiring practices and they simply do not hire that way. Others may, but military experience has variable quality in the 121 newhire market.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

I agree with your post. Certainly I do not like seeing people swindled out of up to $100,000. I still stand by the fact that being a CFI is a JOB, purchasing time in an aircraft makes you a customer. I do not respect the students of TAB because they were simply trying to buy their way into the cockpit instead of earning it.

Good deal. Sometimes the point can be lost when someone participating in the discussion focuses on a "hot" comment. I'm glad we wrapped that up and can leave it behind us.

Onward and upward...

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

You'll need to show that one to me (name calling). Other than you calling me "out of touch" I thought things were progressing with nice civility despite obvious firmly held opinions.
snip.

A review of the part about calling flight instructors charlatans may be worthwhile...

 

[SkyHog]

You know, its kinda funny. The pilot community and the professional wrestling community have a lot in common. Professional wrestling is very much a "dues paying" career. I'll spare most of the details, but reading this thread reminded me quite a bit of the sentiment of wrestlers in this way:

There are really only 3 ways to make it as a professional wrestler (meaning making it to the show - the WWE). 2 of those ways are accepted by most wrestlers, the last, is looked at as cheating the system.

The first way (and the way its been done for many, many years), is to go to a professional wrestling school, and get the snot beat out of you, reinforcing the idea that wrestling is not fake. You work and work and work, and the only thing that you learn how about the business is how to take a bump (a fall on the mat). Eventually, you earn a trust amongst the "boys" and you are accepted. Then you start to learn how the business works. You might work your first show, unpaid of course at first. Eventually, if you work hard enough, you start to land paying gigs, although the pay is still abysmal. During this time, if the WWE happens to run a show in your town, then you try to get a chance to work that show as an advancement talent (a jobber to those in the know - one who gets beat up and makes the stars look good). If you do well enough in one of these matches, there is a chance that the WWE will pick you up and offer you a job, still not making much money. As time goes on, you start to make more and more money, and depending on how the audience accepts you, you could become a star. Or not. If you don't, you still have a job, you just don't make the big bucks. End of story.

The 2nd way, which is also accepted, is similar. You apply to Ohio Valley Wrestling, which is a development league for the WWE. Its a bit of a quicker way, but still accepted by the boys because you have to have considerable skill to get to this point in the first place. Often times, people start with the 1st way, and proges to this way. They run a weekly television show in Indiana and Northern Kentucky, and the WWE farms people out of this league when they feel they are ready. Many people spend up to 10 years doing this for little pay at all.

The 3rd way...or the unaccepted way by the boys, is to appear on a contest called "Tough Enough." This was a reality show that originally aired on MTV and then started appearing yearly on WWE Smackdown as a sideshow for the real programming. You learn the basics of wrestling, but never really learn the ropes fully. Every week, someone is eliminated from the show. Those that are eliminated usually go with option 1 or option 2 to try to get back to the show. At the end, 1 or 2 people are selected the winners of the contest (after 9 weeks or so), and are given contracts to work for the WWE. They have essentially taken a position within the company by completely bypassing the dues paying part of the hard knocks lifestyle that the rest of the boys put up with. The boys in the WWE don't accept you, the boys in the independant leagues don't accept you, no one does, because you are simply not safe and professional enough to be doing the job that you are currently doing. You never got your butt kicked, so you don't realize what the moves you are doing could possibly do to another person.

In the long run, it has, so far, all worked out for the WWE tho. Of the last 3 Tough Enough contests, only 1 winner of the 6 so far still has a job with the WWE. The other 5 cannot even find work outside of the WWE, because they are too green to work elsewhere. That 1 that remains is seldom on TV, and when he is, he is used mostly as a jobber. Most of the contestants that were eliminated stuck with their dream and are working with the independant leagues making money and working on getting to the show eventually. Of them, 3 have made it, and stuck it out with the WWE, and are phenominal workers.

I assume the same will happen with pilots. Those that "cheated the system" will eventually find themselves on the outside of the community looking in. Or not. They may make it. But if they do, it will be because they enjoy flying enough to actually learn everything they can about the business to succeed.

Thank you. The end.