Jump to content

Whats It Going To Take


Recommended Posts

...I don't want a handout and am opposed to government funding for training.

I do believe that if they do any funding it should be for the pilots that already possess a chpl or better yet, tax incentives and wage subsities to companies that hire new pilots.

Can't agree more! Are there still federal funds available for ab-initio pilots? If so, that is at least a fleecing of the taxpayers, more likely a disgraceful (criminal?) misappropriation of funds. :angry: The only exception to this should be the military. Even there may be the opportunity to lessen the cost of training and reduce the numbers of inexperienced pilots in the civilian market by giving a shot to those who have proven their mettle to get their CP-H license on their own. Why would you exacerbate a saturated market? If there is any pilot shortage it is NOT a shortage of low-timers. If many of us are foolish enough to spend our OWN hard earned money to engage in this folly, so be it. We pays the price, we takes our chances. To have to compete against the government using our tax dollars against us is at least absurd! :down:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey Just Fly!

To answer the question on federal funds it is sadly yes. Workers compensation will pay for the entire coure for retraining induividuals who were hurt and have back trouble etc!

Unbelievable how they think that it is not hard on your back to say, longline.

 

The most extreme that I was witness to was 500 hours given for training including all expenses.

300 on a piston and 200 turbine I believe. Lucky for the guy who gets it and a bit disheartening having to compete with subsities of that magnitude. Oh well, bury your head in the sand and cry or get back to the grind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the odds that contraption can fly a 1000 hrs without coming apart in flight???

 

 

Back to the original topic however, one of the main reasons we don't hire more 100 hr pilots than we already do is because of the hourly minimums set by the customers, who get their advice from so-called aviation experts consultants. Insurance has nothing to do with it as the increased insurance costs, if any, would be offset by the lower wages paid to low timers.

You can blame the operators all you want but their hands are somewhat tied! :down:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic however, one of the main reasons we don't hire more 100 hr pilots than we already do is because of the hourly minimums set by the customers, who get their advice from so-called aviation experts consultants. Insurance has nothing to do with it as the increased insurance costs, if any, would be offset by the lower wages paid to low timers.

 

Ok! We have one identified problem facing operators and one myth done away with.

So does anyone have any ideas what it is going to take to get customers to start trusting the guys running the companies for decisions involving pilot skills and minimums?

I can't see how the customer companies give a **** on minimums if they have no crew of their own on board and as was pointed out by others, a flat approach to an open field pad is a lot different than dropping someone off on a mountain pad with growth reaching for the tail rotor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all - this question is about just Long Lining( no pass.) if there is a shortage of LL pilots for fire fighting what would cost be to change from buckets to tanks??? would it be the same as training low time pilots up to standards? also what would the benifits or problems with doing this? sorry if this has been addressed before Im new to the forum and not started my training yet....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem is that customers make no distinction as to the type of flying involved. These decisions are made based on arbitrary numbers set forth by aviation consultants, most of whom have little or no rotary flying experience. Their risk assessment models do not allow for the operator's judgement in having the flight performed by crew of appropriate level of experience...

 

What will eventually hapen is what happened in Quebec a couple years ago. Operators started telling Hydro Quebec "Sorry, I have the machine available, but no pilot that meets your minimums." . Hydro Quebec's minimums are now down to 250 PIC / 50 on-type + a 13 hour HQ safety course and signoff...

 

How long before the same happens out west ? Who knows. The sooner the better !

IMHO, the person most capable of determining who to send on a job is the CP.

 

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, how often do you high-time guys go out on an "easy" job, only to find yourself pulling out the long-line for an impromptu lift ? Just curious, I think this is one of the reasons used to justify the high minimums...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...