So I ask the question:
What is the point of licencing? Why have authorities created licence requirements and what is their motivation?
Reefdog:
How many "apprentices" got the start they were hoping for with VRD and how many got nothing. How much were you paid for the priviledge of making VRD what it is today? Nothing like making the rich richer by working for nothing. It is despicable that VRD can use young people with so little concern for their existence. How many months did JW spend in the bunglebungles in a tent?
They didn't call you a slave for nothing.
Spaced:
Congrats on spending your $50K. We have all done it and for each of us there are 5-10 others that spent the same money, tried half heartedly and never got the job. Those others saturated the already bloated surplus of inexperienced pilots and dragged out the "slaving" period that myself and others endured for years. Included in those others are the wives and kids....
The point of raising the theory requirements and having you achieve further practical education is primarily to discourage those others who think that $70K is too much money for a lifestyle job. To cull the uncertain and give more chances to the seriously committed.
And also I guarantee that you would thank me 5-10yrs after your licence when you decide to apply for that IFR position and already have the night and instrument endorsements.
I and countless others will attest to the hassle and hardship that further expenditure on licencing causes when you are years into the industry with a family or working in a remote area.
It is also wrong to consider that the top end of the industry is retiring. That is the message that has been repeated year after year. There are plenty of 30 somethings to take the positions that are slooooowly becoming available. Ask any 4000hr pilot how easy it is to get a job out there today.
Martin1234:
The problem is that the industry is almost self regulated. The minimum standards are not sufficient and many graduates that come through are just not up to the commercial tasks that they may be confronted with. Put that new pilot into a remote area and they are useless to the customer. I see this everytime I work with an existing customer and they chat about the previous pilots. The errors and silly little issues I am asked to explain are often ridiculous.
The training organisations are profit motivated (naturally) and they are readily accepting candidates for training not because they are suitable but because they are cashed up. Like I said, it may cost twice as much but you can repeat your ride until you finally crack it. Whats the point of standards?
The allowance of these persons into the industry dilutes the quality and worth of my profession. Period.
Coyote:
The tractor trailer example is flawed considering that helicopters of every size exist in all manner of operation. An R22 will fly into the side of a hill as easily as an S76. I am not sure the truck licence analogy is accurate.
If you wanted to become a ship captain, would you only train to the level of experience that allowed you to work in Sydney Harbour conditions? What if you did that and then one day you are asked to cross the pacific?
This analogy is typical of the problems facing many pilots out there on a daily basis. Hense the continued occurance of CFIT and inadvertent IFR leading to death. Many many experience VFR pilots are killed in these situations yearly. The guys are just not equipped to deal with the emergency they are confronted with.
Perhaps most of the issue is a lack of good decision making but when you goof up and make an error of this magnitude, would it not be favorable to be able to fall back on your IFR training? I am sure that every VFR pilot would accept IFR training readily if it was affordable or required. I know of nobody who has declined IFR skill training.
The problem is; when you are 33 with a missus and kid, the funding and time is just not there to allow you to go out and plan for something that you may never need to use.
I recall a young pilot with a fixed wing IFR rating working the sydney fires one year who took control of a 212 when the pilot became disorientated in severe smoke. Made a turn to avoid the hills, stabilised, initiated a max performance climb above the situation, contacted centre and solved the problem with vectors out of trouble. All "IFR". End result...one happy and grateful 212 captain. The concept works.
Plan to be the seastate 5, round the world tanker captain and hope to only have the excitement of the Manly ferry.....
Nick:
Yes yes yes.
But NO, this is not going to solve the problem of pilot error but simply give the person more tools to use in situations that are described above. There are plenty of well equiped VFR machines out there with pilots ignorant to the workings of the NDB and AH. Not too many accidents occur because an instrument was missing or not working properly. More likely they are there but a mystery to the pilot. Remember, you graduated from a military academy. How many military organisations graduate a pilot without an IFR ticket? Why not?
I am not trying to solve a problem here but introduce the thought of a higher standard of MINIMUMs required to be a pilot. Possibly a byproduct of these increased minimums may be a reduced accident rate.
Captain Marvellous:
Largely many pilots are commercial and not using a helicopter for private useage.
Of course you can continue to take to the sky with your minimum 50hrs of instruction and continue to fly your friends, collegues and family around. CATIRL - has no mention of PRIVATE in it.
The insurance industry nor TC, FAA or CASA really care about you killing yourself and family. They are around to protect the public through plenty of regulation.
Your passengers can continue to blindly consider you competent with your massive 50hrs of flight time and I wish you good luck in your madness.
There are still more thoughts in my burdened mind
Thanks to all for your replies.
Steve