PFT-Let it fly!

[Toy Soldier]

Let's break it down into a list and see what it looks like:

1. Getting your private license - PFT
2. Getting your instrument tickets - PFT
3. Getting your ASEL commercial - PFT
4. Getting your AMEL commercial - PFT
5. Getting your CFI - PFT
6. Getting your CFII - PFT
7. Getting your MEI - PFT
8. Getting your ATP - PFT
9. Buying block time in a "twin" - PFT
10. Buying block time in a turboprop - PFT
11. Buying your way into an airline job with less than min. - PFT

It seems like the entire process of getting all of your ratings is PFT. In some form or other, we are paying for every bit of our training and experience.

Let's use the standard issue 1500 total and 200 multi as a base line for the following example.

PILOT A - gets all of his licenses and then CFI's until he meets the minimums. This guy "buys" his way up the ladder with sweat equity.

PILOT B - gets all of his licenses and then pays for a seat in an aircraft that doesn't require a "right seater". This guy "buys" his way up the ladder with a loan.

PILOT C - gets all of his licenses and then buys his way in to an aircraft that requires a "right seater". This guy "buys" his way up the ladder with a loan.

The process of reaching the "standard minimums" will be reached by all - however each will have taken different paths. The professional business world is no different. For example, compare the man that has all of his education and schooling but no experience to a man that has 20 years experience but no formal education.

However, two distinct problems can surface...

PROBLEM 1
I don't think the issue is the "method of getting the mins" as much as it is buying a way into a "slot" that requires a pilot anyway. IE; airline slot

PROBLEM 2
To me, the bigger problem is that we end up with cheaper salaries because there will always be those that will "work for food" to get the slot that the rest of us "professional grade IE: ATP, 1500/200" pilots have worked to get.













PILOT A

 

[Timebuilder]

.. however to be more COMPETITIVE, I am interested in getting some Turbine time in my logbook, while in the end I may have 1500+TT and 200+ MEL time instructing and another 250+ Turbine I can only see this as being valuable and while you might disagree that PFT is wrong, there are not many places you can get TURBINE time without PFT or getting hired by some company to work you way up into one.

While turbine time is valuable, there are so many pilots who have it, in addition to higher levels of total time, that I am not sure it is as much of an advantage as it used to be.

I had a whopping TWO hours of turbine time when I was hired as a Lear SIC. I don't think it was a factor. I DO think it was the multi instructor and piston charter experience that made me competitive, along with actual instrument and class B familiarity.

My conclusion? The negatives of PFT outweigh the benefits.

 

[Timebuilder]

It seems like the entire process of getting all of your ratings is PFT. In some form or other, we are paying for every bit of our training and experience.

If you think your list is correct, then you either have not fully educated yourself on this topic, or you are just posting flamebait.

There may be other possibilities, but I don't know you well enough to draw another conclusion.

 

[stillaboo]

I knew this thread wouldn't die!

Oh, Toy Soldier, read the entire thread. Then you'll see why your 'everybody does PFT' list doesn't fit the accepted definintion of PFT on this board.

edit: Or just have Bobbysamd re-write the essence of it below!

-Boo!

 

[bobbysamd]

P-F-T v. P-F-T

It seems like the entire process of getting all of your ratings is PFT. In some form or other, we are paying for every bit of our training and experience.

No. You have to differentiate between obtaining training and paying for training.

Everyone must obtain the basic credentials of Commercial-Instrument. At its lowest common denominator, that means paying for use of an airplane and paying a flight instructor. The exception would be if you can use an airplane for free and/or a flight instructor will train you for free. Either or both are not likely.

At that point you will possess the basic quals for gaining employment as a pilot. You then look for jobs and, hopefully, are hired. That's where the P-F-T issue comes in.

You should not have to pay a company to train you. Training employees is a normal business expense - in any business or industry. Companies who pass that on to new hires are demeaning them, taking advantage of them, and perhaps defrauding them.

I never was hired into any kind of job where I had to pay for training, and neither should you. I've had something like 15 jobs in my life in something like five different businesses, including high school and college jobs. Maybe with some jobs we pay through the nose but one should not pay money for training.

Don't let others take advantage of you. Don't P-F-T.

 

[Toy Soldier]

I apologize for my lack of articulation! My post came about 2 hours after my "bedtime" last night.

I understood what everybody meant. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly - That's happened before!

I saw someone's concern in a previous post about "buying twin time" in an airplane that doesn't require two pilots. IE: block time in a King Air. Someone had refered to it as PFT!

That's why I summed it up by differentiating between the two. IE; paying for training in a seat that requires a pilot anyway. Versus buying "time".

For the record, I agree with the rest of the board overall about PFT. As I mentioned earlier,

PROBLEM 1 I don't think the issue is the "method of getting the mins" as much as it is buying a way into a "slot" that requires a pilot anyway. IE; airline slot

To me, the bigger problem is that we end up with cheaper salaries because there will always be those that will "work for food" to get the slot that the rest of us "professional grade IE: ATP, 1500/200" pilots have worked to get.

I just added the note about PFT affecting the salary structure as well.

Did I still miss the point?

 

[Scarecrow]

Dean Dean Dean

Dean,

I wish I had the time to develop a more articulate reply. I've not had the time to read every post in this thread (Nor do I have much time to type), but have read enough to see that a couple of people in this thread have very patiently tried to explain some truths to you. You have a good feel for the attitudes and opinions on this board. I'll give you mine.

I hate pay for training. I also have a difficult time developing respect for anyone who chooses to pay a company like GA for a "job"(sell-out B@st@rds). The reason that this matters to you is that one day, you will probably be sitting across from someone like me in an interview. Or, we'll get to know each other and you'll need help getting a job. (I think you know this -- It is the reason you are so defensive and trying to shore up your justification). Pay for training cheapens our profession. You're not here yet so this issue isn't very dear to you yet. It will be. We all love to fly. Our collective stength is the only thing that keeps us (most of us) from living out of cars just to have a job flying planes. Everytime some misguided individual forks over cash to try and short-cut the process, we lose. Don't do it. If you have the money to give GA, use it to suppliment your income as you develop the skills and experiences necessary to properly build your resume -- You'll garner far more respect.

Good luck with your decision.



Where the He!!'s the spell-check!

 

[bobbysamd]

Buying time

I saw someone's concern in a previous post about "buying twin time" in an airplane that doesn't require two pilots. IE: block time in a King Air . . . . IE; paying for training in a seat that requires a pilot anyway. Versus buying "time". . . . I don't think the issue is the "method of getting the mins" as much as it is buying a way into a "slot" that requires a pilot anyway. IE; airline slot

I note from your profile that you are a Chief Pilot, not to mention that you have some other excellent credentials. So, you would an appropriate person to judge this issue.

Which candidate would impress you, someone who bought a block of time and flew it off to make a minimum requirement, or someone who worked his/her way in and obtained time through employment? I am sure that it would be the latter, so therein lies your answer.

 

[Toy Soldier]

bobbysamd

I am on the same side of the fence as you are on this issue. In my post I made a feeble attempt at playing the devils advocate- and didn't do so well!

I was trying to compare a "minimum" 1500/200" hour pilot "not paying for training" versus the 350 hour pilot that has to pay for training to fill the same FO slot at an airline. Supposing that they both applied at the same tiime. I think it was like this at ASA a few years back.

In my question, I was asking whether it made a difference as to how the 1500/200 guy got his time - as long as it wasn't sitting in a seat that "required a pilot" anyway. Especially since those positions typically require the "newby" pay for the seat - (PFT).

As far as being Chief Pilot goes, other than having to worry about a prospective pilot meeting our insurance requirements, I try to make an objective assessment as to the persons' "quality" of experience. Experience has shown me that "more hours" don't always mean "more better"!

I am still going to slip in my opinion that PFT also cheapens our profession since folks are basically working for free AND paying for the paycheck. bobbysamd, do you remember in a previous post I mentioned that I had a new pilot that didn't want to accept her paycheck because she "felt bad because she was getting flight time from me"?

Well, I had a LOOONG talk with her about how that attitude cheapens our profession because she, and others, tend to have that PFT mentality. They think that as long as they are "getting something" then it must be OK. I'll tell you this, she came by today and wouldn't accept her check... until I told her that she was fired if she didn't!!!! I told her that the current management where I work would be GLAD to have her fly for free since she was "getting time"! A manager said that to me before. And right after the next comment that came out of his mouth about "pilots being out of work and he wasn't going to pay for my pilots to train - I went ballistic!

 

[bobbysamd]

P-F-T v. Fly-For-Free

bobbysamd, do you remember in a previous post I mentioned that I had a new pilot that didn't want to accept her paycheck because she "felt bad because she was getting flight time from me"?

Yes, I remember it well. <sigh>

Well, I had a LOOONG talk with her about how that attitude cheapens our profession because she, and others, tend to have that PFT mentality. They think that as long as they are "getting something" then it must be OK. I'll tell you this, she came by today and wouldn't accept her check... until I told her that she was fired if she didn't!!!! I told her that the current management where I work would be GLAD to have her fly for free since she was "getting time"!

Ya know something, if I were still flying, I might have contacted you about that job, as, I'm sure, so would have dozens of other members here. Although I loved instructing, I would have jumped for joy to get a job where I actually had my hands on the controls for a change to actually fly without having to demo something.

You did the right thing by telling that lady you would can her if she did not accept her paycheck. I might be wrong about this, but from what I've seen about employment law, your company might have risked liability and/or wage and hour law problems if you had taken up this gal's offer to fly for free. You had to pay her. Once more, I may be wrong about this, but this is why a lot of companies don't want interns. You might discuss this with your corporate attorney.

 

[hammer]

please explain?

Okay Guys, I have a question for everyone. I am a student pilot and I am planning on working my way up to instructing and then see where I can go from there. I am new to the aviation family and was wondering what PFT is exactly. I am 39 and starting kind of late in life but am now going wide open into this. I am sort of from the old school where you put your time and work hard to get where you want to but I hope I have not started too late. Thanks for the info.

 

[bobbysamd]

Aviation career goals for the "older" aspirant

You have the right idea about working your way up from the bottom, but your age might limit your goals. I feel that my age limited me.

I had been flying for a few years and had earned everything but my multi ratings when I decided to change careers in 1987. I was 36. I got my multi, and with about 900 hour and about 20 of multi I started applying. There was a hiring boom at the time, so I thought I'd have a chance, even with somewhat low time. I applied to commuters and freight. I tried to talk to people, but basically got nowhere. I did not quit my day job because it was my sole income source and financed my training. Finally, ten months later, I got a job instructing at ERAU in Prescott.

At ERAU I built up my total time and multi time and earned my ATP. I continued to send out reams of resumes. In July of 1990, with about 2800 total hours and 630 of multi, and after trying for more than two years, I finally got an interview with a commuter. Two days before the interview, Hussein had invaded Kuwait. I wasn't hired. I remember clearly how there was buzz about an industry-wide hiring stoppage.

Shortly thereafter, a recession set in and George Bush went to war with Iraq. The late '80s-early '90s hiring boom indeed ended, but there still was hiring. I know, because my 25 and younger peers at ERAU were getting interviews and jobs at regionals that never at all responded to my numerous and repeated applications and resume submissions. I was 39, going on 40. Our credentials were essentially alike, but I was older. You figure out what happened.

Having said all that, I urge you to set realistic goals. There are other forms of flying where you can be successful, but I wouldn't hold out much hope about the regional airlines. There is no doubt in my mind that they practice age discrimination. There are always exceptions - I know of one or two people here who will dispute my story - but I believe that my experience is indicative of the industry's attitude as a whole toward older career-changers.

Finally, P-F-T means "pay for training." As a condition of employment you must agree to remit payment for the training you will receive, with that training being specific only to that company and with no tangible credential issuing, e.g. a certificate or rating. Start reading this thread from the beginning and/or search "P-F-T" on the board for more discussion and information than you ever will need on P-F-T.

Hope that helps. Good luck with your plans.

 

[TankCommander]

Something to read

This is something I found on the internet that blew my mind!

http://www.vaxxine.com/aviation/rats.htm


Crew Hiring Trends:

An item that seemed to be unanimously agreed upon at the R.A.T.S conference was the fact that current regional airlinehiring practices weren't always the most efficient or cost effective. Both Greg McGowen of FlightSafety International and Randy Hotton of USA Jet presented many similarities of what they believe the industry must look for in pilot candidates.l The common thought shared between these two major aviation companies was that air carriers must get away from the idea of hiring pilots; they should be looking at hiring potential captains. Much time and money can be lost in training a second officer who will ultimately perform poorly when placed as a captain. The overall consensus was that those pilots who typically demonstrated the most potential to perform as future captains came from the military or pilot bridge programs. U.S.A. Jet and Atlantic Coast Airlines (ASA)shared the common idea that candidates with extensive experience as flight instructors showed poor performance as captains, and lacked the overall leadership to effectivelymove into the left seat. The suggestion put forth by Greg McGowen was that airlines should seek a candidate with 500 hours total time and 250 as second in command flying turboprop aircraft, instead of hiring a pilot who spent 1200 hours flight instructing. To further add to these hiring ideas, Drew Bedson of Atlantic Southeast Airlines(ASA) suggested that air carriers must back away from going to the "lowest common denominator" when selecting crew. Although industry standards may suggest hiring at 1200 hours with 100 hours flown in multi-engine aircraft, it will ultimately be up to the regional airline to bridge the gap between what meets industry standards and what credentials will produce effective captains.

Any ideas on which way togo?

 

[bobbysamd]

I smell a R.A.T.S. . . . .

The overall consensus was that those pilots who typically demonstrated the most potential to perform as future captains came from the . . . pilot bridge programs . . . The suggestion put forth by Greg McGowen was that airlines should seek a candidate with 500 hours total time and 250 as second in command flying turboprop aircraft . . .

Sure. And that way they don't have the expense of training their pilots. "Pilot bridge programs" are a cryptogram for P-F-T. And, how else will the typical low-timer get the 250 of SIC but for P-F-T?

I will not even dignify the "comment" that flight instructors "lack the overall leadership to effectively move into the left seat."

 

[Timebuilder]

"Lack leadership?"

Now that's funny!