PFT in disguise

[secks]

Re: MAPD v. P-F-T

It is not P-F-T because it fails the two-prong test:[/i]You are not being hired for a job when you enroll at MAPD. You are enrolling for flight training.[/i]On this prong alone, MAPD fails the P-F-T analysis.

...

It is true the Mesa interview is the carrot on the stick at the end.

Why is it that so many of you harp on this "two prong test"? (ratings valid outside the school + not explicitly paying for a seat)? This is a completely contrived definition, and should be scrapped. The real culprit here is PFJ (pay for job), as I stated in my earlier post. The term "PFT" ought to be scrapped.

The fact is that in the MAPD program, a hefty sum is paid for both training and the interview. Let's not mince words: the interview is part of the deal. You are paying for an interview, assuming that the program is completed satisfactorily. As you have said many times in the past, the interview is yours to lose, further proving that it really is something you pay for, assuming that an academic criteria is met. Since the interview practically always leads to an eventual job, the student is essentially paying for a job. That's the logic of it, and that's what you need to refute.

 

[bobbysamd]

MAPD v. P-F-T

Why is it that so many of you harp on this "two prong test"? (ratings valid outside the school + not explicitly paying for a seat)? This is a completely contrived definition, and should be scrapped. The real culprit here is PFJ (pay for job), as I stated in my earlier post. The term "PFT" ought to be scrapped.

Because not everything is what it appears to be. Just trying to inject a touch of fairness into the discussion and to try to use well-settled and agreed-upon terms so the discussion can be carried on intelligently (?). In other words, you take the facts, you take the generally-accepted test, and apply the test to the facts.

The fact is that in the MAPD program, a hefty sum is paid for both training and the interview. Let's not mince words: the interview is part of the deal. You are paying for an interview, assuming that the program is completed satisfactorily. As you have said many times in the past, the interview is yours to lose, further proving that it really is something you pay for, assuming that an academic criteria is met. Since the interview practically always leads to an eventual job, the student is essentially paying for a job. That's the logic of it, and that's what you need to refute.

(emphasis added)

I believe I have already, by first demonstrating that MAPD is a flight school. And you have assisted me, by declaring that "the interview" practically always leads to an eventual job.

I will finish what you have started. For one thing, "practically always" does not mean "always." The interview is not absolutely guaranteed. MAPD will not send you to "the interview" if it deems you to be less than worthy. I had a student who was deemed as such. Secondly, being hired is not a guaranteed result of "the interview" or any airline interview. MAPD grads are known by the time they go to the interview in terms of the training they've received, but they still have to impress the right people as do street applicants. Finally, MAPD grads are not guaranteed a job. They still have to go through ground school and flight training to be hired for that job. MAPD grads are subject to the same vagaries of instructor and check airman personalities as street hires. I was told by someone who went through Mesa class a couple of years ago about MAPD grads who were summarily washed out of class for no reason. I have every reason to believe what I was told was genuine and authentic.

Summary. MAPD is a flight school. You earn certificates and ratings which are valid anywhere. "The interview" is not an absolute guarantee. The only absolute is you have to walk the line to get it. Finally, although you have received the interview, you have to compete with every other interviewee to get the job. And on that day, there may be street applicants who impress Lori Clark and the other interviewers far more than that day's MAPD interviewees.

 

[blueridge71]

My guess is that it is quality control.

I got most of my ratings FAR 61, but instructed at FSI for a while. I got my current regional job as an instructor at FSI. At the time, I had high TT but low ME. I got my job because the company trusted the quality of FSI instructors, but I was not part of a bridge program.

FAR 141 instructors have to pass standardization courses that ensure their instruction is to certain standard. FAR 61 CFIs don't face that after their checkride. That isn't to say that FAR 61 CFIs aren't as good as 141 guys, but there is a wider variety of skill and techniques.

Additionally, bridge pilots are more likely to have training in CRM, simulators, and high performance aircraft at a lower time level.

 

[secks]

Re: MAPD v. P-F-T

Summary. MAPD is a flight school. You earn certificates and ratings which are valid anywhere. "The interview" is not an absolute guarantee. The only absolute is you have to walk the line to get it. Finally, although you have received the interview, you have to compete with every other interviewee to get the job. And on that day, there may be street applicants who impress Lori Clark and the other interviewers far more than that day's MAPD interviewees.

What difference does it make if something is "absolute" or not? It doesn't matter if the interview isn't guaranteed. The fact is that when you pay your MAPD tuition, you're also paying for a good shot at a job with very low hours. It's no different than bribing an interviewer to consider a student with extremely low hours. The bribe may not guarantee the job, but by paying him off, you've given yourself a much better chance.

 

[bobbysamd]

MAPD v. P-F-T

What difference does it make if something is "absolute" or not? It doesn't matter if the interview isn't guaranteed. The fact is that when you pay your MAPD tuition, you're also paying for a good shot at a job with very low hours. It's no different than bribing an interviewer to consider a student with extremely low hours. The bribe may not guarantee the job, but by paying him off, you've given yourself a much better chance.

<Sigh> Whatever. I need not reiterate for a second time what I wrote above.

"Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up."

 

[bobbysamd]

FSI standardization

I got my current regional job as an instructor at FSI. At the time, I had high TT but low ME. I got my job because the company trusted the quality of FSI instructors . . . .

Not to mention the airline-like checklists, profiles and checklist discipline that are drilled into instructors as well as students.

I'm sure the profiles have been changed a lot since 1992. Back then, the Chief Pilot was so impressed by Alitalia profiles and procedures we were teaching its students that he incorporated them into FSI's basic program.

 

[blueridge71]

That's a good point as well. The training materials at FSI were very similar to what I saw in Initial Training.

My background made the transition a lot easier than it was for people with a FAR 61 background.