Where Did it All Go Wrong?

Plane Speaking this month is asking the tongue in cheek question.

So, where did it all go wrong?

Having been involved in training since the 70’s and left the bed from the wrong side this morning, I think I’m reasonably well qualified to comment on the current state of the UK aviation training industry. I’ve worked for integrated schools as well as TRTOs and I’m still very busy training future flight instructors and rather less busy examining for the CAA now we’ve kissed goodbye to Europe. I even spent a very brief while working for the CAA. I feel like an alcoholic confessing his addiction - but now I’m cured. In the 70’s the UK licence was very highly regarded – far higher than the FAA and as high as any European, Middle or Far Eastern licence. The UK Licence was the one to hold. The British did it right. The stamp in the log book was a revered one. UK training meant something.

The examinations for the ground school papers were written in long-hand. Students were expected to understand the subject as well as answer the questions correctly. We had Hamble, we had Oxford and we had Perth – all respected flight training schools producing high calibre pilots. In those days the schools completed all of their training in the UK, despite the weather, and in UK airspace. The CAA employed a group of very experienced flight examiners to complete the CPL and Instrument Rating skill tests from Stansted Airport.
The examiners were only interested in standards, not their popularity (just as well because some were horrible), and, as instructors, we strove to ensure those standards were achieved. A first-time pass was an achievement for the instructor as well as his student. Yes, surprisingly students actually stayed with the same instructor for each phase of the training but no, a good instructor was not judged by how many stripes they had on their shirt or blouse.

It was then decided by someone that training in the USA could lead to considerable savings in time and money, meaning more profits for the schools and perhaps slightly reduced costs for the student. Did someone mention quality? No, only profit. The CAA joined the JAA and some of the older die-hards noted a slight dilution of standards. The night 1179 test disappeared – yes, overnight, and integrated course (509) instructors were no longer examined by the CAA. The CAA closed Stansted and instead positioned examiners at various test centres – still employed by the CAA but working separately, although their HQ was considered to be Bournemouth. This was also considered to be rather expensive and, as some of these examiners approached retirement, they were not replaced but were offered contracts to work as Authorised examiners, often from the same locations they were working from before. Over time we began to lose the high calibre people at the Authority and the ability to pick up a telephone and speak to someone ‘in the know’. The press button switchboard philosophy enabled more savings at the Authority and we are now where we are today. Don’t ask me to recommend whom you should speak to at the CAA. They are probably at home or walking the dog. Covid had its advantages?

Don’t take this wrong. There are some good people left in the Authority. I just don’t have their phone extension any more. The CAA even stopped offering Initial Class 1 medicals, again giving those to ‘industry’ and frustrating the doctors with a computer system as old as Fortran! But good news again, the CAA started charging every pilot a booking fee which would be subsequently subtracted from the cost of your medical – only it isn’t.

Meanwhile, flight schools were becoming tired of the British weather and, rather than integrating the ground school, decided it would be more productive to complete it in one six month hit. It’s not so important to understand the subject; let’s be honest – passing the examination, the end goal, is far more useful than actual comprehension. Imagine a doctor completing all his written examinations without ever having seen a body – apart from their own I suppose? Quickly learned, quickly forgotten, but it doesn’t matter if you’ve achieved your 75%. Who cares which way the winds blow around a depression, anyway?

We now relocate the ab-initio training to Florida, Arizona, Spain or maybe even or somewhere sunny. We have cleverly removed the requirement to make weather decisions or to experience and understand the airspace in the country from which most of your departures will be from. We might even consider training in the Middle East, if it means our parent company can win a lucrative simulator contract. But “what about the quality of the training?” I hear you cry. Sorry, you didn’t cry loud enough. Remember, money always wins! Don’t worry about the different procedures or the completely different RT or the fact you are navigating from one sand dune to another. When was an accident ever caused by poor RT? Nice weather in Tenerife I hear you say. Not always – sometimes it’s foggy!

Meanwhile, the JAA becomes EASA and our CAA sees opportunities to downsize and reduce costs even further. Goodbye to most of the employed Staff Examiners and hello to Authorised examiners, most of whom will never meet other examiners to discuss standards acceptable or otherwise. Authorised examiners became the norm and great news – again for the accountants – they were happy to work on zero hour contracts and even pay the Authority for the right to do their work for them. Result.

By joining EASA we became regulated by ‘hard law’ set in tablets of European stone. There were consequences: the CAA no longer had the power to ‘regulate aviation as they saw fit’ and so no longer needed the calibre of experienced people who could make reasoned and reasonable decisions on how aviation training should be conducted. All that was now required was to interpret EASA law. Flight Crew Licensing became the Shared Service Centre! Does that mean anything to anyone with a pilot’s licence.

Industry saw the chance to dismantle what it called ‘CAA gold plating’ – the very things which had contributed to the world view that UK training was a cut above the rest, but which cost money that European competitors didn’t have to spend. An example of this was the old requirement for prospective FIC instructors to be interviewed by a panel of FIEs before being allowed to train; the EASA view is that, once an instructor has sufficient hours, they can become an FIC instructor immediately.

Having exited Europe, we just took all the EASA regulations into UK law – a massive and on-going cut and paste exercise - thereby missing the chance to untie the CAA’s hands and allow them to regulate as they see fit. Yes, they can now change regulations, but the process is painfully slow and there will no doubt be cries from UK industry if more stringent rules are added.

So far so good. We have now saved money on the training and, did I forget to say, we have now moved over to multi-choice, on-screen box-ticking for most of our ground-school? The beauty of this system is that, if you can recognise the question, you can probably recognise the answer and hopefully never really have to understand the concept. How many students have I met, even when taking their final handling test, who cannot tell me which way the winds circulate around a depression or how an ILS works? The answer is always: “Well I did my ground-school two years ago.” The inference is ‘you shouldn’t expect me to remember it let alone be interested.’

Now, ground school is not considered the bedrock but simply the challenge. The content and format of the exams; badly written questions, seemingly not proof-read when translated from the multitude of EASA languages and designed to trap, not test, students, all the while being driven by no formal syllabus but instead a set of “Learning Objectives” so wide-ranging and imprecise that an Authority can breezily say “that question falls within the scope of the learning objective” to any student who appeals.

The material covered by the learning objectives is now largely irrelevant and solely included to bulk out the material and, crucially, is of little use to a pilot in their future career. Most schools recommend the use of question banks to help pass the examinations because the exams have become so determined to trap students rather than to genuinely test understanding. Understanding is now less important than passing.
Let’s also now add a few extra qualifications to make us feel a little happier about the pilot we are producing. Let’s add an MCC course. Let’s now add a UPRT course and let’s now add an APS MCC Course. Each course will add further cost to the already struggling aviation student and, if that’s not bad enough, let’s charge them for a Type Rating at the end of all of this – and best of all with no guarantee of a job! That will really test the person’s determination to be a pilot - forgetting the fact they may have sold their car and house (or their parents have) to fund the training. Don’t misunderstand me; MCC and UPRT are important, but shouldn’t they be part of a comprehensive course, not just an add on?

Meanwhile, back at the overbooked Integrated Schools it’s been decided to farm out the IR training to another school and the CPL to another. But the integrated school, rather like a wholesaler, skims the profits under the pretence of Integration. A glossy brochure often disguises the truth. Work this carefully and your students may never actually fly in the UK at all. We can still call it ‘integrated’ because the UK CAA has approved it - but in reality the only integration or similarity might be the logo on the students new flight bag. We can now even standardise the foreign instructors by Zoom.
We don’t really need to fly with them. We already know they are not as well trained as the British. Whilst we are about it, let’s throw in a degree qualification along the way. Thank heavens, green shield stamps have ended or we’d be offering those as well.

Move on then to leaving Europe and waving goodbye to EASA. This came as a shock to most people working in the CAA and the shock lingers on, it would seem. Covid led to hybrid working and, if you try and speak to someone at the CAA, just make sure it’s not a Monday or a Friday or after 4pm unless you have their home number. Of course it doesn’t just stop there because now, having unnecessarily left EASA, we require our aspiring young aviators to hold two licences, yes two! The good news is - this will enable everyone to take two sets of written examinations and sit two instrument ratings and require flight schools to hold expensive approvals for their ATOs and simulators for both Europe and the UK. Imagine telling University graduates they have to sit the final exams for their degree twice! Or telling their professors they need to obtain additional qualifications to teach the same subject they were teaching the previous term?

So where does this leave us? Not dissimilar to the failing UK high street. Flight schools are beginning to realise the futility of continuing as they were. Oxford, the once revered name in Flight Training eventually purchased by CAE, downsized to the end of a hangar at London Oxford Airport and continued to complete the bulk of its training in Arizona and Northern Europe. Recently it’s announced the end of its integrated course training in the UK.

BAe Prestwick moved to Jerez where the sun shines more brightly and VAT is not applied to flight training. CTC became L3 which became L3Harris which high-tailed it out of Bournemouth, closed its New Zealand base as well as its Portugal base and now has moved its ab initio training to Florida and its advanced training to Cranfield. BCFT closed its doors last year for the last time at Bournemouth and now, for the first time in over fifty years, Bournemouth Airport no longer has an advanced flight training school. Perhaps that has something to do with their approach fees? FTA at Shoreham, another approved Integrated School sailed down the river never to return and took with it many thousands of pounds of students and the tax payers money. Despite CAA approval, this does not mean flight schools are a safe investment. Caveat Emptor despite the CAA approval. Remember SECOAT, Cabair, Tayside. The list will go on.

So, what is the CAA’s response to this deteriorating situation? Talk to the hand! The CAA has removed “Safety is no accident” from their building front. It would appear the CAA feels comfortable in the thought that initial training is far less important than the training the airline will eventually provide. Or is it that the airlines pay them more money? We leave it to industry! So now with a smaller Authority, industry takes charge. Did someone mention the prisoners have been given the keys to the prison or the lunatics the run of the asylum?

But is it too late to put this right? Or am I just an old aviator who like Victor Meldrew cannot accept change and progress. Did I say progress?

The problem is safety. The safe carriage of passengers is what this is all about, and when the next disaster happens involving a British flight crew, questions will be asked - but it’s unlikely those questions will reach the point where the initial training is questioned - although almost certainly it will be a factor.

Training has become like a distorted Swiss cheese model. It seems that if there is sufficient money on one side of the cheese most people will pass through to the end. After all, with the examinations done as they are, the ground training is close to useless. It proves an ability to retain knowledge over a short timescale. Much the same as a Type Rating Course requires.

The MPL (Multi Pilot’s Licence) demonstrated to everyone that we can train people to look safe in a cockpit much more quickly than we first thought and more cheaply.

So where are we now? Just about hanging on in there. Or is there a plan? If there is, the accountants will have the answer hidden in their latest spread sheet somewhere, don’t ask the aviators, check the spread sheet.