EC155 Salary & quals south UK

[Martin Grade]

Guys,

Please excuse my butting into this thread but I am after a little advice. We are currently using an Aviation consultancy and exploring the possibility of buying an EC155 to be used by our company chairman for arround 300 hours a year. The consultancy company we are using has advised a salary itro £70,000 for a South Coast based pilot and he must have an ATPL(h) with Instrument rating, they say the instrument rating is vital.... They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc. Is the Instrument rating necessary, as we dont think the boss or his family want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc.

Cheers all,

Martin

[HillerBee]

IR is necessary, otherwise you would only be able to fly in good weather conditions, and you wouldn't need to buy a 155 anyway. The salary for a corporate pilot with ATPL, would at least be £70k, and don't forget pension, company car, company phone, laptop, health insurance, medical cost, training, proficiency checks. You might be lucky to find one in these (bad) times.

You're talking about buying an EC155 for millions, why don't you want to pay for the most important 'part'....

[Captain Gartmort]

Well said Hiller.

[Martin Grade]

Happy to pay what the going rate is, we just want to make sure the advice from the Aviation consultancy Co is on the right track. The reason I ask is an ex mil pilot has approached us directly, he wants a simillar salary but states that as we probably wouldnt want to fly in poor weather the IR is not required. The Aviation consultancy tell me it is a basic and essential requirement to have an instrument rated pilot for safety..

[Torquetalk]

Agree with Hillerbee: cost-cutting at the end of things is innapropriate decision-making: the safety of any flight has more to do with pilot competence than the machine, which in this case is itself high value: why skimp on the "other important bit"?

A co-pilot or safety pilot adds an added tier of safety; although filling the seat with an occasional low-timer to help out during flight in poor weather, again seems innapropriate advice: the low-timer does not have the expereince to offload an expereinced captain in those circumstances. On the other hand, if the advice is to engage a low-time co to fly with an experienced captain and build experience, and "bring on" company crew, that's a fair proposal.

Whilst not essential, an IR would give additional flexibility, and probably an additional level of safety too. IMC flying is not the same as "poor weather". Many flights (esp commercial fixed wing) would never get from A to B if they couldn't fly through a layer of cloud.

TT

[windowseatplease]

"he wants a simillar salary but states that as we probably wouldnt want to fly in poor weather the IR is not required"

I bet he does! That's because he doesn't want to shell out £50,000 for an IR (the UK taxpayer is not paying for his licences anymore)

An IR is ESSENTIAL. You can't grub around under the clouds in an EC155 on a corporate job. It is a great IFR machine. Don't skimp on the most important part of the aircraft (the pilot).

[ShyTorque]

Having been in this particular branch of the job for some years myself, I suggest you do NOT listen to the ex-mil pilot saying that an IR isn't essential. He is wrong (I'm ex-mil too). In UK the aircraft will often fly in very poor weather conditions. If it doesn't, it isn't a viable / reliable method of transport.

Imagine the situation - "Sorry Boss, we have to turn back - I'm not allowed to fly in that cloud so there is no way over those hills.."

I think that would very quickly turn sour (I've seen it happen, btw).

Or, even worse - "Well I'm not qualified to do this and I know it's dark, but it's probably only a little cloud - here we go...."

That's happened too, I could give two examples of fatal accidents to emphasise the point.

[101BOY]

Agree with the above - undoubtedly need an IR in this country. This sounds to me like a bloke without an IR trying to get a job for which he isn't really qualified. I'm also ex-mil so no axe to grind, but I bet that if he had an IR his tune would be different. :bored:

[jeepys]

Well if a non IR pilot wants a similar wage to a fully qualified IR pilot then go for the better qualified. Even if you do not want to fly in poor weather it would be nice to have the ability to do so especially if it's not going to cost any more.
A 155 comes with all the bells and whistles as standard. If you do not plan on being able to use them then why not get a cheaper heli and employ two pro pilots minimum.

Do not be led into thinking that non IR mil experience is worth more than an IR if you come across crap weather. As outlined earlier there have been a few accidents where this has been proved.

[XV666]

We are currently using an Aviation consultancy and exploring the possibility of buying an EC155 to be used by our company chairman for arround 300 hours a year. The consultancy company we are using has advised a salary itro £70,000 for a South Coast based pilot and he must have an ATPL(h) with Instrument rating, they say the instrument rating is vital.... They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc. Is the Instrument rating necessary, as we dont think the boss or his family want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc.

Martin,

To be blunt, why are you considering buying a very expensive IFR twin, obviously on the recommendation of your Aviation Consultancy to whom you are paying for the advice, and then modifying your original post with the caveat "we don't think the boss (snip) will want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc"? :confused:

Either you have provided the wrong parameters for your Consultants to advise on, or you are moving the goalposts to justify saving on a decent pilot :=

As already stated (in not so many words): you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Either do the job properly with the right tools and the right staff at the right salary, or don't do it at all. Or become another accident statistic :ugh:

[jeepys]

This could always be a bogus post initiated by a heli company to see who send pm replies saying 'I will fly for you. I have blah blah and blah. I would be a better option for 70k'

Or is that me just being silly?

Sorry. I will just go back into my cupboard.

[Torquetalk]

This could always be a bogus post initiated by a heli company to see who send pm replies saying 'I will fly for you. I have blah blah and blah. I would be a better option for 70k'

steady on!

The post poses a fair question: why not answer it reasonably?

TT

[Martin Grade]

Gentlemen thank you for your replies, it is exactly the sort of feed back I was hoping for, ie balanced. If it helps I promise I wont reply to any PMs. Sevenstron your post strikes a cord with me, and to be honest I think that is the tack I will take as we look to move this project forward.

Cheers

Martin

[Martin Grade]

Forgot to mention one other point, as we are looking to only fly arround 300 hrs per year, what are your thoughts on the pilot providing some income by hiring out his services. We dont envisage using our own acft to generate the revenue, but is there scope on the 15 or so days per month when the pilot is not flying to be doing that for someone else.

Martin

[ShyTorque]

With a private owner things are relatively straightforward. To hire out your pilot and or aircraft you / he will be providing public transport and will therefore need an Air Operator's Certificate (or go on someone else's and will get involved in a flight time limitations scheme). This is a much more complicated issue.

Also, who is going to do the operational planning for the pilot if he flies every day? By operational planning I mean finding landing sites and making bookings etc. He needs backup.

Btw, why are you not getting these answers from the consultancy you are already paying for?

[dunnarunna]

300hrs per year is quite high utilisation for a corporate helicopter. Sounds like you are considering the pilot on duty for 15 days per month which works out at just shy of 2hrs flying each of those 15 days. Take the days off and holidays into account probably doesnt leave much scope for hiring him out, especially if operating to an FTL scheme. How about backup when he is sick / holiday etc?Are you operating the aircraft privately or taking advantage of commercial opportunities to mitigate the vat on purchase and operation?

[heliski22]

Martin,

You'll find the pilot would prefer to fly pretty much every day if he/she could. It won't be his/her fault if the boss doesn't want to fly and the pilot must then stand by.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for people to query the time the pilot spends on the ground and to wonder if they ought not to be getting better "value" for the salary being paid.

I find it particularly vexing myself and have frequesntly had to argue that I'm being not being paid for my time but rather for my experience and for the sheer scale of the responsibility (up to 8 pax and $12m worth of somebody else's property!) I must carry each time I get airborne.

It continues to baffle me why people who have the wit and the wherewithal to start and grow successful businesses, with all of the risks and responsibilities involved, can so easily become hung up on the additional cost of (a) a suitably qualified primary pilot and/or (b) the cost of a second or subsequent pilot.

Anyway, many years ago, when I went to buy my first car, the salesman said, "I know what you want - you want a good cheap car!" "Exactly!", I replied. "There's no such thing", he said. "If it's good, it'll not be cheap and if it's cheap, it'll not be good!" I have found in my life so far that that applies broadly across the board!! I'll wager you'll find your 155 crewing won't be any different.

[Whirlygig]

Heliski22, you mean this?

It's unwise to pay too much but it's unwise to pay too little.
When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything,
because the thing you bought was incapable
of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits
paying a little and getting a lot.
It can't be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder,
it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that,
you will have enough to pay for something better!"


Cheers

Whirls

[902Jon]

They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc.

IMHO a bad idea. If you want to do this properly with 2 crew, then the co-pilot should be equally qualified (i.e instrument -rated) and experienced in 2 crew IFR operations. The only compromise is that he/she could be experienced less in terms of hours than the Captain.

If a company can afford to be in the position of buying a new EC155 in this financial climate, they must think a lot about their Chairman/Directors. The corporate insurance may stipulate 2 qualified crew. The cost of a good co-pilot would be relatively cheap in the overall scheme of things.


Captain £60-65k plus perks
Co-pilot £40-45k plus perks

[101BOY]

902Jun - I'd say you've undercooked the Captain pay by 10k there, given the burden of responsibility will be with him and not through an operator. Those look like payscales for someone like Premiair to me.

[Bertie Thruster]

To buy the 155 and not equip it with the IR pilot is akin to buying the Bentley and hiring a marginally-trained chauffeur or curry-delivery driver to drive it around.

I totally agree with the intent of this quote but it does rather suggest that the UK's force of non IR'ed EC 135/MD902 police and air ambulance pilots are marginally trained or ethnic!

[heliski22]

You mean you didn't make up that little ditty yourself, Whirls?

[airborne_artist]

"he wants a simillar salary but states that as we probably wouldnt want to fly in poor weather the IR is not required"

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies - "he would say that, wouldn't he" :D

[Snarlie]

Martin,

Forget the 155, get a second hand S76C+, there are at least two well eqipped corporate models for sale and a couple of fully qualified pilots who would be happy to help at £69,995.

[SeniorWillie]

Martin,
Why don't you place an ad for a suitably qualified pilot for your proposed operation in 'Flight' or other similar publication?

You'll get an idea of the level of interest in the position and you'll be able to assess the qualifications and experience of prospective candidates.

And. as sometimes happens, the position might just go the the right guy!

PS - sack the consultants, they should be advising you on this. :ugh:

[ChristopherRobin]

To be fair, Eddy, if the principal owns the company, then it's up to him what he does with his spends.

However, he relies on people like Martin to get the right answer. Martin, I must echo what other people have said - get the IFR guy. I left the Army in June and spent my last 2 months in the army (and over £45k) getting an IR. As a result of that IR I now have my dream job in a terrific location flying SAR helos, getting paid as a copilot in excess of what people are suggesting for a captain on your machine. So money well spent.

Few military pilots get an IR when in the forces as it isn't needed for many of the tasks they do. A pilot who tells you an IR isn't needed for corporate work (which I have also done a little of) when that pilot doesn't have an IR is, by definition, unqualified to advise you of that point!

If your principal simply wants to get safely from A to B, and the cloudbase is at 500 ft above ground level (not unusual and not particularly bad weather either) your pilot will need an IR. Don't confuse poor vis and low cloudbase with turbulence that will make principal's family unwell. How many times have you flown on an airliner and you're looking out the window and you're in cloud? It isn't turbulent, everything is fine, and there are no problems. Those pilots couldn't do that without an IR!

I know that helicopters don't go as high, but cloud comes down pretty low in this country. You're buying a helicopter for 2 reasons: Flexibility and to save time; you will have neither without an IR qualified pilot! This is not qualification snobbery, this is the truth and I have seen the light brother!

Military pilots mostly have a non-procedural IR which allows them to fly in cloud but many airfields then can't take them because of the type of approach they use, however, this qualification is not available to them outside the military and they won't be able to fly in cloud at all.

And finally, if your boss wants to fly to a different country from time to time, then the IR allows him to do that with much greater flexibility. Whoever the military pilot is, then I'm sorry mate if this comes as unwelcome news, but those are the facts of life and the 2 accidents referred to above should remind you of that.

All the best! :ok:

[Phil77]

IMHO a bad idea. If you want to do this properly with 2 crew, then the co-pilot should be equally qualified (i.e instrument -rated) and experienced in 2 crew IFR operations. The only compromise is that he/she could be experienced less in terms of hours than the Captain.


I know how you get instrument rated, but following your argument, how do you suggest a low timer should get experienced in multi-crew IFR operations?
Or is it safe enough to have the 250 hour guy (or the inexperienced recent VFR guy) assist in carrying 12 roughnecks, but not safe enough for the CEO - and all that with much less workload in a fancy SPIFR EC155 rather than a dual pilot S-76A or AS332L1? :ugh:


Back on topic: the EC155 probably cost £1 or £2 mio more than a comparable alternative (I stand corrected) - just think about it: for £1 million you spend in excess because it may look better, you could hire 3 pilots (let's say 2 captains, 1 FO) for 5 years and still pay 'em a somewhat decent salary!?

[Bilbo Bagover]

A low hour VFR pilot in the co-pilot's seat of a SPIFR machine is a sensible compromise. It takes a lot of pressure off the captain by helping out on the non-critical nif naf associated with helicopter operations. Passenger handling, Jepp updates, flight planning and ops etc etc... In return the co-pilot has a great chance to build hours in a complex machine under the supervision of an experienced Captain. It should happen more!

[Whirlygig]

Excellent comment Bilbo; I am an expert at folding charts and have impeccable diction on the radio. And I smell nicer than most co-pilots :}

So is there really a possibility of a 250 hour CPL getting a co-pilot job in corporate aviation?

Cheers

Whirls

[902Jon]

101BOY I'd say you've undercooked the Captain pay by 10k there, given the burden of responsibility will be with him and not through an operator.

No - I think a realistic salary given that most on-shore captains dont get the same salary that their off-shore equivalent gets. With the the on-shore corporate market currently getting squeezed, (corporate jets & helicopters are not flavour of the month with shareholders), and the charter market shrinking as well, there are some well qualified & experienced pilots out there that would happily settle for that amount. Don't get me wrong - pilots should get as much as they can for their services - but not price themselves out of a job.

PHIL77 I know how you get instrument rated, but following your argument, how do you suggest a low timer should get experienced in multi-crew IFR operations?
Or is it safe enough to have the 250 hour guy (or the inexperienced recent VFR guy) assist in carrying 12 roughnecks, but not safe enough for the CEO - and all that with much less workload in a fancy SPIFR EC155 rather than a dual pilot S-76A or AS332L1?

All North Sea pilots are required to be instrument rated - there are no VFR guys carrying 12 roughnecks in Europe. What I was suggesting was that a relatively inexperienced co-pilot (1200-1500 hrs/2-3 years North Sea) in the left seat would be advantageous over a purely VFR co-pilot. Understanding 2-crew IFR proceedures when the weather is cr*p and the s**t is hitting the fan, must be helpful to the captain.

Bertie Thruster To buy the 155 and not equip it with the IR pilot is akin to buying the Bentley and hiring a marginally-trained chauffeur or curry-delivery driver to drive it around.

I totally agree with the intent of this quote but it does rather suggest that the UK's force of non IR'ed EC 135/MD902 police and air ambulance pilots are marginally trained !

The police & AA pilots I know are all top blokes, who I have the utmost respect for, and are more than capable of holding IR's. PAS and direct employ police units dont want IR'd pilots as they would have to pay more or risk them going to better paid employment. However all of BAS, London HEMS (2-crew) and at least 1 of the NEAA (PDG) pilots are IR'd, as they believe it adds to the safety of the operation.

[windowseatplease]

Isn't there some new ruling that all UK Police pilots will need to be IR rated within the next 2 years?

[dunnarunna]

Whirly.
These days, not without an IR.
Bilbo.
The 'non critical nif naf' are actually some of the most important points in running a safe and highly professional IFR corporate helicopter. Placing a low time VFR pilot (as I once was) into this role increases the risk and complication for minimal perceived financial benefit to the operator and client. Yes, training new pilots for the future is important but there is a limit; we have done so but an IR and some experience is an absolute prerequsite.

What has happened to Martin Barclay the originator of this thread?

[Torquetalk]

What has happened to Martin Barclay the originator of this thread?

dunnarunna

[Bertie Thruster]

902Jon; or risk them going to better paid employment

Very possibly!

...but does that happen to the the IR'd BAS guys?



Curiously the non IR'd police pilots enjoy twice as much dedicated instrument training than the IR'd guys, in order to maintain their night currency.

[Trochilidae]

Check pm, Martin

Cheers

[Martin Grade]

Thank you very much for all the helpful comments posted on here, plus all the pms, as was stated earlier I will not reply to pms as the reason for the original post was to just get some back up info, not to undercut our Consultants in any way.

Some have stated the gen given here should infact be coming from the Company we are using, it is! I simply wanted to validate that info from another source, in business it is useful to take a number of opinions even if they are sometimes conflicting. Its not that we dont trust the consultants, quite the contary, the info they have given and in particular insisted on has been backed up by you guys.

We feel the ex mil guy with the direct line to our Chairman is giving poor advice, (well he would say that wouldn't he :mad: classic) We will be insisting on an IR, as our consultants have stressed on numerous occasions and I feel the salary we have in mind is pretty much correct. Remember it is itro £70000.

I am sorry for not replying to the genuine people who have pmd re jobs and advice, but I am a man of my word.

Regards

Martin Grade ( not Barclay!!!)

[Phil77]

PHIL77:
I know how you get instrument rated, but following your argument, how do you suggest a low timer should get experienced in multi-crew IFR operations?
Or is it safe enough to have the 250 hour guy (or the inexperienced recent VFR guy) assist in carrying 12 roughnecks, but not safe enough for the CEO - and all that with much less workload in a fancy SPIFR EC155 rather than a dual pilot S-76A or AS332L1?

902Jon
All North Sea pilots are required to be instrument rated - there are no VFR guys carrying 12 roughnecks in Europe. What I was suggesting was that a relatively inexperienced co-pilot (1200-1500 hrs/2-3 years North Sea) in the left seat would be advantageous over a purely VFR co-pilot. Understanding 2-crew IFR proceedures when the weather is cr*p and the s**t is hitting the fan, must be helpful to the captain.

902Jon:
I was not questioning the necessity of an IR, that's a given. I was arguing the experience side: why does the Co-Pilot have to fly offshore first to be qualified in the left seat?

[ShyTorque]

This issue with non-IR'd, low time (+/- 250 hours) co-pilots in the LHS of a corporate machine has cropped up recently in our organisation following a question from the insurer.

Some thoughts: A very low time CPLH pilot still needs to build and reinforce basic handling skills in all weathers. A VIP/corporate co-pilot's job isn't the best place to do that.

The LHS pilot really needs to be able to retrieve things in an emergency, for example if the RHS pilot became incapacitated. Could such an inexperienced pilot fly an ILS to lowest approach minima in very poor weather?

This sounds very cruel but it's true...some low-time pilots I've flown with are a liability in the cockpit for one reason or another and I'd rather just have their weight in fuel and fly SPIFR instead...

[902Jon]

Phil77
why does the Co-Pilot have to fly offshore first to be qualified in the left seat?
He doesn't. But I don't know of any other place where a low-time IFR pilot is going to build IF experience at the rate they will on the North Sea. The average North Sea driver is probably flying 600hrs+ per year with 30% or more being full IF. Plus with flying procedural approaches to platforms by day & night it is the fastest way to gain experience.

ShyTorque
and I'd rather just have their weight in fuel and fly SPIFR instead... At my first job with Bond (as it was) at North Denes (150 hr pilot) I and many of my co-pilot friends were told that we were just 75kgs of unusable fuel :{ Ah the days before CRM......

[griffothefog]

902 beat me to it....:ok:

[Phil77]

The following was written while 902Jon posted - interrupted by a phone call
____________________________________________________________ __

I'd say some more than 250 hours in general aircraft handling and navigation should be required to fly a sophisticated multi-engine AIRCRAFT in the first place. So a couple of hundred hours VFR (as a flight instructor or other jobs - although nothing is really ideal to learn the ropes... catch 22) help taking the focus off from getting the wording on your next radio transmission right, to more important issues - but having to learn everything at once is just too overwhelming and I don't expect anybody to just suck that information overload up like a sponge.

Again, hearing all this "need 500 hrs offshore experience" (for what? flying straight and level? :p) and all that talk about the superior flying skills needed to fly offshore... that doesn't sound like the right learning environment to me?
...or maybe you are saying, that on-shore flying is at times as demanding as off-shore? :D

Both have its challenges:
- offshore: mostly weather
- onshore: mostly navigation & traffic
one could argue that rig landings are challenging (especially at night), but so is East 34th Street in New York with a 25 knot tailwind.

No axe to grind with the offshore folks, but this thread presented the opportunity to question the requirement in europe to have a certain amount of hours to fly corporate, but not for offshore (or airlines for that matter) - aside from insurance requirements that is. Offshore - as stated earlier - the co-pilot is a required crew member, needs to be familiar with all the complex systems and needs to be up to speed with everything to safely operate, meanwhile, in that fancy SPIFR aircraft onshore, he could just watch and learn with minimal workload required by him.


BTW: I asked a couple of friends who fly in the North Sea, what actually IS "offshore experience" and what makes it so special? Except for the weather challenges (those we have here to) I didn't get a definite answer...

[ShyTorque]

meanwhile, in that fancy SPIFR aircraft onshore, he could just watch and learn with minimal workload required by him.


Yes, but how much salary would he expect for the privilege of taking up what could be used as a passenger seat?

Btw, I would say that onshore IFR is very often more demanding than offshore IFR, not less so.

[Whirlygig]

Yes, but how much salary would he expect for the privilege of taking up what could be used as a passenger seat?
Enough to feed me and the cats :}

Like any "apprenticeship", those apprenticed don't expect to receive much salary, if training and experience are being provided. In many professions, this is how qualified people plan to replace themselves in retirement by investing their time and wisdom in younger trainees who can work their way up through a system.

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Whirls,

I know what you're saying - I spent fifteen years instructing in the military... But a passenger revenue flight can't be a training flight too. Many corporate pilots aren't qualified to instruct. Aircraft owners are often not in a position to pay, or are reluctant to pay for a second pilot in a SPIFR machine and won't allow it to be used for training. A low hours co-pilot is likely to have to pay for his/her own type rating and IR. This will be the case until the bottom of the pool is almost dry.

(I hope you realise that I'm being devil's advocate here, but all the above is true, you could always ask Art E. Fischler-Reisen).

[helimutt]

All very well saying give a low timer experience etc, but I go with the argument if you can afford a fair few mill worth of aircraft and the running costs of same, then the pilots should be a part of that cost, without a doubt. Any helicopter type is only as good as the person manipulating the controls. Put two people up front, suitably qualified on type, to minimise any risk. (That's not saying there are no SPIFR type guys out there doing a fantastic demanding job day in-day out)
Instrument flying can be demanding, offshore or onshore, (not getting into that argument again, its been done on here) but it's all same difference.

[Phil77]

Yes, but how much salary would he expect for the privilege of taking up what could be used as a passenger seat?

Like Whirls implied, a decent amount that reflects cost of living around base.
I have yet to see the CEO that would want to sit upfront... I guess for the fun of it, ok; but not as a regular passenger seat with a cozy 6 pax corporate interior in the back.

The co-pilot certainly needs to be typed in that machine too, so he is capable of flying that thing down an ILS, peace of cake. For the little extra expense, the bosses insurance has the benefit that somebody will bring the big man/woman back to terra firma if the Captain passes out...

[ShyTorque]

Yes, if the co-pilot isn't type rated he can't claim the hours in any constructive way.

[EESDL]

We operate a similiar-sized aircraft in a simliar-sounding role.
Feel free to get consultants to contact me if you wish - I might learn something - can I charge them;-)

Our corporate flight department evolved from boss deciding he could justify a fulltime pilot. That fulltime pilot soon decided that flight requirements (range/payload) required an upgrade from existing type - apart from his growing family needing 6-seats (that made it easier to decide!)

Operated out of spare room at home for a while - but demands of job and company PR (sponsors/business partners/investors etc) required more permanent base - especially as aircraft was moved to purpose-built location at Group HQ - thereby reducing Hangarage/landing/nav/atc fees.

We've just put our fulltime co-pilot through his IR and managed to recover 60% costs via 'train to gain' or some other government scheme.
Course qualified as it was not a 'legal' requirement - just enhanced his qualifications/made him a better person etc etc.
This was a bonus but he was undertaking the course anyway!

Although a 'low-time' pilot - intention was very much to develop him in 'company way'.

Enlightened owners like their layers of cotton wool and another pair of eyes in what can be a busy atc environment is considered an invaluable investment.

Captains appreciate same but also someone else to talk to and share fatigue!

We are currently in the process of producing a company ops manual (for pvt use) - another cost to consider perhaps? - although not a legal requirement at the moment - it will be in 2012......EASA Part-OPS

As far as pay goes - you'll get a pilot for 40k
and certainly an IR pilot for 70k
but suggest an offer of 85k (plus usual perks) will attract a pilot with suitable experience and character to look after passengers and aircraft in what can be a very demanding role.

I have found that lesser-experienced pilots tend to be more malleable by irate owners.....exactly what not is required in certain scenarios, I would suggest.

Experience/exposure also enhances decision-making and considering possible 'what-if' scenarios to get the boss where he needs to be and, just as importantly, when he needs to be there!

Operations staff/co-pilot can help with admin but are expenses to be considered. Do not under-estimate the admin side;-) time-consuming and intrusive if allowed to be. Good admin/ops staff are worth their weight in gold.

We currently share staff skills within larger Group - we 'own' 33% of an accounts clerk, 10% of a marketing person, 20% of workshop/hangar manager etc etc Lots of opportunities to take advantage of other skills within Group.

Maintenance overview and checking of their invoices will add to workload.......has anyone else noticed that invoice errors never work in your favour?????
First year of fulltime pilot was virtually 'paid' for by correcting invoice errors - FACT

Is aircraft to be based at an airport? Providing your own fuel can save you up to 30% -generally.

Appreciate you're after a 'sounding board' - further intrigued that someone gets paid for such consultancy - good luck to them!

Note to Diary - ask for re-write of job description - hang on - haven't written it yet!!

As is the way of the world - flight department could be redundant tomorrow - such is corporate aviation!

[VeeAny]

EESDL

Quite a good insight into corporate work.

You are right on the money as far as correcting invoice errors, almost every maintenance invoice we had was wrong in some way, one was a plausible 20K ended up being £250.

With regards to I have found that lesser-experienced pilots tend to be more malleable by irate owners.....exactly what not is required in certain scenarios, I would suggest.

I was asked by a relatively inexperienced friend who was given a job flying day VFR corporate in a single to draw up 'How to be a corporate pilot' document. It had a bit in it that amounted to 'you have to be willing to stick to your decisions in the knowledge that even if you are right it might cost you your job', two years later it cost me mine, but I'd still make the same decision again.

The corporate world can be fickle and often principals just want to get there and if they think someone else might do it when you refuse (for whatever reason and however nicely or reasonably) you'll be gone in a blink.

I know of one talented pilot who was undercut by a fill in pilot and was gone by the end of the month.

The Train To Gain thing is handy to know.

GS

[stas-fan]

EEDSL is correct and for once I agree with his points!

EC155 cost new 10M Euros, that's worth noting:

The pilot of this must have an IR, no ifs buts maybes.
He should have a co-piot, type rated and also with an IR

Annual cost of both: Captain £70k co-Jo £50k

If the above are not in the budget make it so or send the boss the last twenty corporate Heli crash reports from around the world. Yes two pilots can make errors and hit terrain but most of the time the dead rich man was being flown by a single pilot, or himself.

I have flown S76, Dauphin EC155 and lots of smaller things; To date, with 10,000 plus hours I've had a few good bird strikes, one even came in and joined me, I've had several near misses, even with TCAS, I have not had my heart stop yet but others have, I've gone 180 degrees wrong on an approach but lived, and flown 1000ft too low over terrain reading a chart over the alps at night when diverted through weather. All on my own, others haven't been so lucky.

Even if your pilot is the most ace of aces, and I doubt it very much if he doesn't think he needs an IR, then many other factors can strike down the lone driver. That is a risk you take with smaller ops but if your owner is worth more than a few million there is no excuse.