Flight Safety International?

757 · Post by **757** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:27 am

I have heard that if you obtain whatever training at Flight Safety International such as a ground course, certificate in an airplane you will be looked at a little bit better by prospective employers, is this true?
Have employers said "great, you did some training at Flight Safety INternational" or really it does not matter where or who you get upgrade training from.

looking for stories or suggestions from others that have taken or not taken flight safety international courses before.

thanks

757

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:30 am

JFK, jr received his IFR training from FSI.

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:31 am

Buying the whole PPC would work better

U/S · Post by **U/S** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:50 am

A PPC may help but you'll have spent a fortune and have no time on type and will have only flown the sim. The only benefit to you would that your prospective employer would not have to pay for your training, basically sticking you with the bill. Search other threads for views on buying PPCs, you'll find the idea very unpopular with your fellow pile its.

185_guy · Post by **185_guy** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:57 am

I think Insurance companies are the ones that like to see the flight saftey, or any type of training with the word saftey in it. This would make it easier or quicker (depending on what type of operation you are working for) to get you approved on thier insurance.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm

I think you should go the whole nine yards at FSI! Get type rating in a 767/757, 737, and an Airbus or two. That, with your 250 hours should pretty much get you a job over the phone!

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:17 pm

Taking flight safety international courses in hopes of getting a job is not a good return on your dollar.

It won't reduce the amount of time or money a company has to spend on you.

It might make you marginally more qualified than a competitor of equal qualifications or experience. But a few grand for a maybe is a big gamble.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:20 pm

Ah, JC....always the voice of reason!

rippey · Post by **rippey** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:42 pm

I thought JFK Jr. didn't have an IFR...which is where the problems started for him to begin with. FlightSafety does type specific training for jets and turboprops...I don't think they do IFRs. I could be wrong, but I have been through several initial courses from FlightSafety and the training is second to none...if they did in fact train junior I would have a hard time believing his accident had anything to do with quality of instruction.

Anyways, back to the original question. FlightSafety initial courses usually fall in the 10,000 to 40,000 USD range, I can think of better ways to spend that sort of cash. Not to mention for a non-US citizen there is a whole process of homeland security background checks, fingerprinting etc. before you can do any sim training for anything over 12,500. I can't imagine many employers caring too much about the fact that you got trained at flightsafety if you don't have any time on type. I am thinking it would be a big waste of money.

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:35 pm

just curious wrote:Taking flight safety international courses in hopes of getting a job is not a good return on your dollar.

It won't reduce the amount of time or money a company has to spend on you.

It might make you marginally more qualified than a competitor of equal qualifications or experience. But a few grand for a maybe is a big gamble.

I'd qualify that a little more jc, using our own airplane as the example.

If I have a candidate for hire, who has a reasonable amount of experience on the class of airplane (2000 mpic is what i would call reasonable), but zero exposure to the specific type, then a trip thru the flitesafety simulators will be time/money well spent. The candidate will arrive with a good knowledge of flying light twins, and zero knowledge of the specific airplane and it's systems when they get to witchita on sunday nite. When they catch a plane home on friday evening after the 5 day initial course, they will know the airplane system intimately, and have enough exposure to those systems in the simulator in a variety of adverse conditions to actually be comfortable with the airplane the first time they step into it. Assume for a minute my candidate arrived with a couple of years driving navajo under the belt, then, when they get back from FS, they will be completely at home in our plane, as comfortable in that as in a navajo.

On the other hand, if you have a 200 hour pilot and send them thru the same course, well, what you get back is a 200 hour pilot. Since they were not comfortable with light twins at the start of the course, most of the sim time will have been wasted learning basic airmanship and basic multi engine procedures, they will have gained little/no airplane specific knowledge from the course.

A type specific course at flitesafety is a very good thing. It allows one to build upon thier general knowledge, and learn a whole boatload of type specific details in a very short timeframe. If the general knowledge/experience isn't there to build on, well, it's just pissing good money down a black hole.

And that brings up that whole issue of ppc etc, i'm curious how you guys in a 704 environment look at it. We run a 703, and if I take a good look at the COM as approved by transport, I dont see much/any benefit to selecting candidates that already have a PPC on type. The absolute minimums for a new hire are 4.0 hours of initial training, and a groundschool. The only real difference selecting a candidate that already has the PPC, we dont have to do a PPC ride for them. I still need a full set of training records showing they did the groundschool and initial training with our company. If I step back and take a good look at the big picture, a new candidate with a good attitude and no ppc is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run than a candidate with a valid ppc and a bad attitude. Overall, I _may_ be able to shave a couple hours flying time in training by starting with somebody that has a ppc, but, i dont really see the point. If our company was in such dire straits that a couple hours flying was gonna break us, probably time to close the doors anyways. In the long run, it's way cheaper to filter candidates based on attitude and ability.

I'm going to make a wild guess, but, I'll bet that for you guys in 704 ops, the ability to get along and 'fit in' with the rest of the bunch is WAY more important in candidate selection that any leftover ppc's from previous employment. Would that be an accurate guess ?

pika · Post by **pika** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:38 pm

I'd say an employer would look most favourably upon whoever can do the job regardless of training.

757 · Post by **757** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:18 pm

Okay, I won't take the course so I can familirize myself with the airplane. Thanks guys.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:13 pm

When I was doing training, I can only remember one client who was taking the T.R. on spec, and that was because he was laid off Canada 3000 and EI was paying for it. Everybody else was either newly-hired or their company had bought a new 'plane.

So to me, that seems obvious that you are better to wait to get hired first, rather than do the T.R. yourself. Any outfit that would hire you solely on the fact that you paid for your own course is too close to the wire to be considered as a viable company to work for.

Besides, as Goldeneagle alluded to, usually the C.P. would accompany the new hire and do his own recurrent, thereby observing the new guy and indoctrinating the new guy with his company's SOPs.

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:04 pm

flight safety course is better than not having done a sim course...but whether it is better than the other ones, i don't know. I have done both Pan Am and FSI for the caravan and found FSI better. But, others have had the reverse experience. I think it depends a lot on your sim instructor. at panam i had a new instructor. but my colleague had a seasoned instructor. at FSI I had the seasoned instructor and my colleague the new one. take that for what it's worth.

overshoot · Post by **overshoot** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:25 am

Guys,

Paying for FSI training out of your own pocket may be a little overkill. I believe it should be the responsibility of the employer to cover that as it benefits the employer equally. However having said that, I just completed the Caravan course and it was worth every cent my employer paid and then some. The people over there definately know what they are talking about. Everything is well prepared and all the staff are extremely well versed on the aircraft they are teaching you how to fly. If you ever get a chance to go to FSI for any training I would jump at the opportunity. Those of you who have never been should reserve your negative comments for something else. FSI is a proven method of assuring excellent training. They don't put "safety" in the title for nothing.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:34 am

That's probably what JFK, jr thought too.

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:47 am

No matter how good any training is you can't legislate common sense.