Sir - I refer to your leader "Unique Internationalism" and story "AST becomes first victim of UK training policy" (Flight International, 8-14 May, P3, P6). Rumours of the demise of Air Services Training (AST) predate either National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) or foreign training.
In fact, the school is probably a victim of over-capacity in the training market. The irony is, however, that the plug has been pulled at a time when a shortage of capacity is predicted within the next few years.
Schools are wrong to assume high moral ground over tax breaks for foreign training under NVQ rules, which allow UK schools to offer discounted training despite the fact that few candidates are likely to complete the NVQ.
NVQs are an inducement (with the carrot of a tax break) aimed at kick-starting a qualification system based on transferrable skills, and it is of little concern where training takes place, so long as it meets the standards.
The achievement of an NVQ will not allow a person to fly an aircraft - only the Civil Aviation Authority qualification will permit that. Why take the NVQ unless it is to gain the tax advantage?
Pilot training in the UK is an industry and still has much to learn about offering a commercial product. Although it can offer a valued product, which can still be sold at a premium, the world no longer beats a path to its door - but protectionism is no answer.
Some of the anachronisms of CAP 509 (the rules for the conduct of approved training courses) undoubtedly contribute to costs, as do CAA charges generally, but the situation is not such a simple one that banning foreign-based training would have saved AST.
Should we also brand British Airways as a culprit because it chose Adelaide, Australia, for 25% of its recent cadet-pilot contract?
It is time to wake up to the real world and look at how the UK can get back to selling training which is admired the world over.
Source: Flight International
