View Full Version : Rockhopper


ATP_Al
25th Jun 2005, 13:51
Does anyone know the name of the Chief Pilot at Rockhopper?

Thanks,

Al



Buter
25th Jun 2005, 20:21
Hi Al

Check your PM's

Jinkster
25th Jun 2005, 21:01
If Buter hasnt PM'ed the chief pilots name to you then send me a pm.

Basically for Rockhopper you need 1000hrs with 250hrs PIC as it is a single crew operation.

Good luck!

:)

eyeinthesky
26th Jun 2005, 10:24
Most important is the requirement for 250hrs ME experience.

It may not be only single crew for much longer....

WX Man
26th Jun 2005, 13:16
But ATPL Al has probably got 250h ME with 1000h total, including Islanders. In with a better chance than most of us.

BTW, Al, did you hear I got a job?

ATP_Al
26th Jun 2005, 13:33
Thanks for everyone who replied! I don't have all the requirements yet but I will have around 250hrs ME by the end of the summer, most of which is on the Islander, so I figured it would be worth getting in touch soon.

Al

P.S. WX Man - Well done - I hadn't heard! Please fill me in...

Jinkster
26th Jun 2005, 16:59
....and I need a job! :O 280hrs TT :O

OA32
26th Jun 2005, 23:57
They've had a few pilots leave in the last few months with probably a few more to follow. Rumour is they are getting J31's for some bizaar reason two crew and only 19 seats it makes no sense. Best of luck to anyone who apply's you'll certainly be doing lots of sectors to build your hours up.

eyeinthesky
27th Jun 2005, 21:21
Why does the idea of a 19-seat aircraft (I heard it was Let 410s) and two crew make no sense? Two flight crew are required by the regulations.

19 seats or less: no cabin crew required, nor one necessary on 8-minute inter-island sectors. It saves money.

Reference your other comment: Pilots will always leave airlines eventually such as Rockhopper as they presently operate. They offer the chance to build what are, for some, the first proper public transport hours and then move on to bigger airlines. Single pilot, no autopilot IFR work is generally accepted to be hard work and many think it a good way of earning your 'wings' in the airline world. Quite right too, and good command preparation.

What is not right is the situation where people think they can take the training and all the rest of it that the airline provides and then disappear with a week or less notice. Some form of commitment on both sides is required. Thus you can expect some form of legally binding bond if you work for them. Seems only fair.

On the Trislander and islander fleet it is probably true that your number of take-offs and landings will probably exceed the number of flight hours, especially inter-island.

Leo45
28th Jun 2005, 09:41
Oh really?

Public transport - IFR - single pilot but no autopilot!

This is not legal!!!

ZUT
28th Jun 2005, 12:30
Public transport - IFR - single pilot but no autopilot!

This is not legal!!!

Oh really, how come, several operators operate under these terms in the UK???????

Under Jar Ops, an autopilot is required, however JAR OPS is not legally binding, and the UK still operates under the ANO, and the CAA can give exemptions as it sees fit, until EASA (or what they eventually decide to be called) take control, when the European legislation will be binding.

Until then, it is legal. It's amazing what a little research can tell you isn't it Leo45.



Rumour is they are getting J31's for some bizaar reason two crew and only 19 seats it makes no sense.

Well, two crew, 19 seats. It isn't about the number of seats, a whole host of other factors come into play, such as what it says on the type certificate, performance, weight etc... Just because a Lear 55 can't hold 19, doesn't mean it can be flown single pilot, now does it. It amazes me the lack of common sense among some people. Beech 1900's are 19 seat, and require 2 crew, but no flight attendant. That's because any more than 19 seats requires a flight attendant.

Anyway, I've heard they're a good operation down there. Are the Let 410's 19 seat?

Leo45
28th Jun 2005, 16:35
Yes, it's amazing what one finds out when reading the ANO Art 20 sect 1/23


"(i) Subject to sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii), an aeroplane registered in the United Kingdom and flying for the purpose of public transport in circumstances where the aircraft commander is required to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules and having a maximum total weight authorised of 5700 kg or less and powered by:

(aa) one or more turbine jets;

(bb) one or more turbine propeller engines and provided with a means of pressuring the personnel compartments;

(cc) two or more turbine propeller engines and certificated to carry more than nine passengers;

(dd) two or more turbine propeller engines and certificated to carry fewer than 10 passengers and not provided with a means of pressurising the personnel compartments, unless it is equipped with an autopilot which has been approved by the CAA for the purposes of this article and which is serviceable on take-off;or

(ee) two or more piston engines, unless it is equipped with an autopilot which has been approved by the CAA for the purposes of this article and which is serviceable on take-off;

shall carry not less than two pilots as members of the flight crew thereof.

(ii) An aeroplane described in sub-paragraphs (i) (dd) or (i) (ee) which is equipped with an approved autopilot shall not be required to carry two pilots notwhistanding that before take-off the approved autopilot is found to be unserviceable, if the aeroplane flies in accordance with arrangements approved by the CAA."

So, in other words, an autopilot is required. Should it be found unserviceable, then some arrangements may apply...

ZUT
28th Jun 2005, 18:06
Yes, and the CAA are the power over the ANO, and may issue exemptions should they so choose, which includes several companies, of which I know since I have friends flying with them, single pilot, without autopilot, in IFR, in fully compliance with their AOC's and authorisations. Which was actually stated in my last post, ...the CAA can give exemptions...

Rules are average cases, but there will obviously be exceptions to these rules, which is why we need people like the CAA to look at individual requirements of operators in a clear, logical and sensible way, which is the experience I've had with them.

We don't all do exactly the same job, therefore, rules need to be ammended to suit everyones requirements, but obviously within reasonable boundries.

Ambulance 'Charlie Alpha'
2nd Jul 2005, 10:15
Hi

Just to add my tit bit.

Exemptions can be granted by the CAA and indeed are in force with a number of single-crew ops around the country. The airline I worked for at Lands End had a MEP IFR no-autopilot exemption as long as single-crew ops were restricted to 6 named 'main route' airports. Perfect for IFR Island-hopping and mainstream up country work. Any airports outside of these 6 are to be flown two-crew (Namely ad-hoc charter flights).

Makes sense really if the majority of flights are to the same group of relatively close destinations, over many sectors everyday.

The airline I then moved to in Scotland with the same piston twins had a similar exemption for the Orkney and Shetland Inter-Island Scheduled flights, but autopilots were required for the Air Ambulance flights. However, even these flights could go single-crew with autopilot u/s within the bounds of the MEL, they just raised the approach minima slightly and restricted the amount of sectors prior to fixing the unit.


Cheers

ACA