Is 35 Hours Solo Realistic

[407 Driver]

Fully Articulated, can you answer a couple of questions re: why the CAF pilot can be a Captain and a civie pilot can't at 500 hours?

 

1) Customer and Insurance requirements. Who is your customer and can your customer dictate experience requirements? Who is your insurer?

 

2) How much training $$$ have gone into that 500 hr captain? How many training hours vs Operational hours have gone into that 500 hr Capt?

How much of this has the Captain paid with student loans, collecting bottles and selling Mac Burgers?

 

3) Who's your competition, and do they undercut your rates, offer more experienced crews, fly newer aircraft and steal your customers?

 

 

I have an idea your question Re: 500hr CAF Captains isn't really thrown out on a level playing field, is it?

[Phil Croucher]

I'm trying to get some sense out of insurance people as we speak about an add-on course that would fill in the gaps for 100-hour pilots and make them the equivalent in knowledge at least as 500 hour ones - suggestions for content would be welcome!

 

Phil

[Rotorhead]

The BC Forest Service credits a Penticton mountain and advanced operations grad to have the equivalent to 2000 hours of operational time. That has been taught for decades.

 

RH

[Randy_G]

Why can't the companies run better re-current/indoc training ??

 

PL you say that the flightschool should teach students about FM radios. So they will need to buy every type of FM and teach each student how to operate each. That's something that each operator should be doing, during re-current. The student has a lot to learn in a very short period of time.

 

Touch on the subject of datums. Review how to use the grid systems (d7J 94I12) your clients are gonna hand you on your first ever flight

I agree with this, as it's part of basic navigation and the students should understand the basic datums, and how to deal with UTM.

 

 

How to repair and problem solve an aircraft refueling pump.

 

If the course was longer, then students could be taught how to take care of ops gear. Mind you, an operator could also do this during re-current training. I would prefer that, since there are numerous experienced pilots out there who seemingly haven't the foggiest notion how to care for ops gear.

 

The more hours that new pilots log training before they get licensed the better. I would like to see the number of hours required move up to around 150 hours. More longline training and practice. More true confined areas in brushy areas teaching new pilots how to not have tail rotor strikes.

 

Nothing beats properly supervised training by a good instructor. The earlier they learn good habits, the better, and the safer they are likely to be. There should also be a form of supervised "apprenticeship". So those good habits are reinforced, and the bad habits aren't allowed to take hold.

 

Cheers

[donnybrook]

Nothing personal, but I hate the idea of restricting licences by making it financially prohibitive to get one. Only the rich can afford a licence? I'd rather hire someone who is absolutely committed to being a pilot and will work for their first break, vice someone who has bought their first break. Not that people with money aren't hard workers, I just think that excluding people based on their income is unsatisfactory.

[HBG]

Just my thoughts; but how long have we been using the system that is in place today. Excellent pilots have been and are continuing to be turned out everyday, so something has to be working right. Now don't get me wrong there is always room for improvements but to add on another 50hrs to the course just so the student can walk out the door with $20,000.00 less in his/her pocket doesn't compute with me. Is that extra time really going to make him/her that much more attractive to an employer; I doubt it. What that student really needs is the operational experience that you all talk of, ops gear, radios, NAV, etc. Where and who has those resources readily available; the charter companies. A program needs to be inducted with the companies where the students will receive the real operational experience that will benefit them and the industries customers. Now how the companies would benefit financially or how one would implicate something to that nature is beyond me, but just to add more time to the initial ticket, I feel would be a waste of finances. Again, my opinion only.

[Fully Articulated]

Does the military have more accidents that involve pilot decision making than the civvy world should be the 2nd part of that question 

No, I believe they have less.

[Chopper_Stew]

In theory, military pilots should have less accidents based on the rigorous selection process. Weak candidates can be weeded out at any stage of the game. St Jean through flight time, those who can't meet the standard are uncerimoniously removed from the course. Civilian flight schools don't have near the flexibility or pool of students to "just say no". Thus only the best make it out of flight training in the military while civilian pilots who fail to acheive the standard the first time around just pay more cash until they do

[downwash]

Although a handful of less than satisfactory graduates MAY get into the industry, Chopper Stew, you won't find them in the majority of companies. Look at the number of graduates still looking, or having given up, and tell me how many of the less satisfactory ones you think get jobs. And DON'T hear that, just because some are looking for jobs, I think they're all sub-standard. It's just that MOST of the cream does rise to the top.

 

And, HBG, two or three decades ago the industry, with the assistance of ATAC, was able to pry out government (public) money for just the kind of upgrading you're talking about - after a lengthy fight by a small but determined handful. The industry crapped in its own nest (even my own company at the time) by misusing the funds for such things as IFR training for well-experienced VFR pilots. If it's in my memory, it's in others, so don't hold your breath until government ponies up meaningful bucks again.

 

And Phil (Albert Ross), don't shoot too high with that plan. You can only cram so much sand into a bottle. This critter's opinion is that much better understanding of ALL emergencies likely to befall a single-engine machine is required in new graduates. Many arrive with minimal understanding of LTE, for example, and confused about vortex ring and settling with power. Then, detailed information on slinging procedures and rigging is almost always in short supply. We're in such a damned hurry to get longlining we forget to let the new folks get a good handle on the basics - sound basics.

 

Lastly, Fully Articulated, I think 407D would agree with me that the side discussion you're into is easily one of the best examples of comparing apples to oranges you can find. Having been deep into both sides of the fence, I'm satisfied that each has much to be admired and the things that aren't admirable definitely AREN'T in the control of the boys and girls at the sticks.

[HBG]

Two or three decades ago!! They had helicopters back then?? Just kidding of course. Wasn't really thinking of government funding, with as many crooked operators out there that would be pure suicide for the program as it was in the past I am guessing. Just saying that if extra money is going to be spent by the student, it should maybe be spent with a company instead of the school, kind of like an apprenticeship for 25 or 50hrs. That way the student gets some much needed operational experience and the company has a chance to look at the student for possible employment without sinking a bunch of money into a guy who turns out to be a bone head, as there are many of those still getting there licences as well, although they usually get weeded out but not before they cost one or two companies some money. Then those companies are usually pretty hesitant to give a 100hr wonder a chance again. All that said, it really comes down to survival of the fittest. And the fittest usually prevail. :up: