CATIRL

[Steve76]

This is certain to be contentious and undoubtably make me super unpopular.... whatever.

Commercial Air Transport Instrument Rotary Licence.

What is this?

My idea for the bare minimum qualification for a helicopter pilot. A higher and more demanding standard of theory and practical training to prepare and continue the education of the Rotary Wing Pilot.

Incorperating, but not limited too:

1) ATPL qualification.

2) NVFR Rating.

3) Instrument Rating.
Renewable every two years unless pilot is unemployed during which time it will be understood to be "frozen".

4) Minimum initial two week CRM and PDM theory.

5) Minimum 150hrs (possibly more...) of flight instruction.
Incorperating theory and practical knowledge of external load operations (ground prep + flight characteristics), low level training including flight "styles" outside of normal expectations (ie: spray turn), extensive mountain training and remote area operations and poor weather flying techniques.

WHY?

This concept comes from burying a few mates and wondering why I have seen the same scenario play out consistently in accident reports and autopsy's and incident reports.

The biggest failing in aviation is the pilot. Being human ensures that there is always going to be lots of accidents with the title CFIT, loss of situation awareness, loss of spatial orientation etc.

Also, as many of you out there can attest too; getting a helicopter licence is far too easy. Anyone with enough money can buy time to eventually reach the minimum standard to pass a flight test. They may take longer, more attempts but they will eventually meet the requirements, pass the test and start competing with you for a job.

There needs to be a standards check along the way that says - if you don't meet the standard in this time, then perhaps you really should be thinking about another career. Perhaps saying that it will take you longer than 6 months to a year, might cull some of the less serious students out. The end result of this is less pilots and better wages. A higher level of competence in general and a more positive future for new grads of the helo schools.

To raise the bar like this would ensure that every pilot has come out of training with some exposure to a variety of operational environments. The training in NVFR and IFR may never be exploited other than to save your bacon the day that you fly into that valley and into inadvertent IFR or perhaps end up getting in late to a destination and arriving after dark.
So what does a guy flying in the bush/outback/arctic need IFR for....?
Just read the accident reports.

There are a few other ideas that I have yet to write. This will instigate enough of a discussion for now...

[the coyote]

I think that what your proposing is a bit like saying you must have a full articulated truck licence before you can first take to the roads.

Aside from the huge cost, having that truck licence will not necessarily make them a safer driver initially. Yet because they have that truck licence, they are qualified to take a 40 tonne truck to the road with no experience. I think THAT is dangerous!

"The biggest failing in aviation is the pilot", I couldn't agree more. Not only their skill level, but their decision making.

I think that initial pilot training should focus far more on good command decision making and risk assessment. We spend all this time making sure they can do an auto for example, for a situation which statistically is very rare, yet every hour they fly they must make decisions to ensure the safety of the aircraft.

A night rating will not be required if the pilot makes sound decisions to ensure they do not get in the situation where they need one. Same for an instrument rating. They are not going to spud into the side of that hill if they are not pushing weather they shouldn't be.

It is important that they are aware of their limitations. If you throw every qualification under the sun at them and send them on their way thinking they can do anything, surely that would reduce that awareness and create an environment for over confidence?

A good saying I once heard: "It is dangerous when they don't know what they don't know."

I personally think a far greater gain to safety would come from more training on an awareness of their limitations, and to identify the risks associated with things such as:

Pushing bad weather
Commercial pressures
Fatigue (often from commercial pressure)
Over confidence (that soon replaces the initial lack of confidence)
Complacency
etc.

Rather than over qualifying an inexperienced pilot.

Send them out with a limited licence AND and an awareness of their personal limitations first.

You've got to walk before you can run.

[The Nr Fairy]

strop:

If we're throwing insults, let me - I bet you're a Kiwi or an Ozzie. If the "smilie" is humour, then cut me some slack.

S76:

Interesting, and I agree with the coyote. Knowing when to say "no", "why"is the most important thing to convey to neophtye pilots - myself included - but giving someone the confidence to stand up to that is a completely different ballgame in a profession where the rules aren't quite the same as any other.

[inthegreen]

Steve, while I appreciate the sincerity of your intent, I have to agree with the other guys. I don't think your proposal will have the desired effect. In fact, like coyote said, it may create more over-confidence than was initially the case. I think in these transitional times, the operators need to step up to the challenge and put new-hires through a much better orientation.

There was a time (at least in the USA where I am), that is quickly disappearing, when applicants came to an operator having been everywhere and done everything, often under fire. All the operator had to do was say "This is how we do our paperwork, now get out there and make me money". Today an operator really needs to assess a guys strengths and weaknesses and train to a higher level if there are any deficiencies.

We as pilots need to accept our limitations and ask for more training if we feel we are deficient in certain areas. We're not coming to the jobs with the proverbial "Full bags of experience" anymore. I guess it's always been a problem though, that you don't truly know your limitations until you slam into them.

One area in particular that needs more attention is unaided night. Building that experience before you get to the job that requires it is almost impossible, because very few applications need to operate at night.

Anyway, just my opinion.

[NickLappos]

steve76,

You want to fix the real problem (gasp, let me say it, pilot error, I hate that term) with a guaranteed level of experience. I have no data (do you?) but I'll bet the typical commercial helo pilot who has a pilot error accident has lots and lots of time, and might even fit your criteria. In other words, I applaud your attempt to fix the problem, but your idea won't.

The real problem is not that we have to seek more experienced people to try and assure better judgements. I think we have to cut down the excessive skill and judgement needed to do our jobs.

In no particular order:

1) Why do we not have properly equipped IFR aircraft on all rig/aeromed/exec transport/airline operations?

2) Why are ther NO helicopter IFR routes and approaches anywhere?

3) Why do regulatory agencies simply allow "pilot error" to cover up the failures of those who create and man the infrastructure?

Airlines achieve the safety they have by having standard equipment, routes, procedures and the like. Find an airline field without an ILS. OK, now find a heliport or rig with a bona-fide route structure and precision approach. I rest my case.

Now, understand that IFR procedures don't just help when its cloudy, they standardize and regulate when we fly anytime, and they make things less dependant on pilot judgement.

Helos place all that stuff that helps the pilot into the bin, and instead expect pilots to exercise God-like judgement thousands of times each year.

One of the reasons why I seem to have such a problem with the rush to Hard Cat A is exactly this - we will spend millions and millions fixing what is not broken, but simply ignore the real problems, and claim no money to fix them, anyway! Look at SASless's thread at what is wrong with what we do. I understand that some operators fly VFR to rigs at night, because somebody somewhere thinks that is OK. Then when one poor sod flys into the H2O, we call it pilot error!!

Basically, helo operations are where airplanes were in the 1930's, just at the edge of calling for technical solutions for operational problems. Let's not blame the pilot, let's make the system demand less from them.

[Woolf]

Very interesting discussion and good points raised by everyone (with the exception of “strop” maybe …) I actually do agree with Steve in so far as if this sort of qualification is required for a commercial helo pilot to get work he will certainly start his or her career with a better level of knowledge and experience. Actually your qualification sounds like a frozen ATPL/IR(H). Not a bad idea as such but prohibitively expensive as it would cost in the region of £70000 to a £100000.

As others have pointed out there might be other more practical part-solutions to “THE PROBLEM”. I for one would like to see more onus put on the operator. At the moment most of the responsibility lies with the pilot and only minimal training and checking (as demanded by the Aviation Authorities) is carried out for obvious reasons.

And then there are the Authorities themselves. As Nick has pointed out they do carry a big share of the responsibility (even though they can’t be prosecuted). However it is not easy for them to regulate - as every tightening or change of the rules is invariably seen as an attempt to damage or kill of aviation in the respective country. But in line with so many other things today regulation might be the only way forward, as “Codes of conduct” often go out the window with increasing commercial pressure.


The question is, what platforms are available for pilots to discuss these concerns in conjunction with operators and Authorities to really make a difference? Any suggestions? (IFALPA, BALPA, ECA, JAA, BHAB are just a few that spring to mind here in the UK)



Regards,

Woolf

[Martin1234]

"Also, as many of you out there can attest too; getting a helicopter licence is far too easy. Anyone with enough money can buy time to eventually reach the minimum standard to pass a flight test. They may take longer, more attempts but they will eventually meet the requirements, pass the test and start competing with you for a job."

What's the problem, really? The authorites have stated a minimum level in order to work commercially. It shouldn't matter how much time the applicant need in order to reach that minimum level. It is however up to the operators not to employ those that don't have the appropriate skills to improve themselves.

"There needs to be a standards check along the way that says - if you don't meet the standard in this time, then perhaps you really should be thinking about another career."

If you refer to the theoretical side of it - welcome to Europe and the JAA!


Actually, if it's cheaper to get your certificate it's more likely that the operators will be able to find someone who is made of the right stuff.

Take an instrument rating under the JAR regulations as an example. It's not like you're going to spend $40.000 on an instrument rating if you don't really need one. This gives the result that almost no VFR-pilots get an instrument rating while it goes without saying to get your instrument ticket if you train under the FAA regulations. The FAA instrument ticket might not be to the same standard as the JAR, but needless to say it's far better than nothing.

[Spaced]

Im sorry steve, but as a low time wannabe I cant agree with you. Flight training is expensive enough without the extra costs that you propose.
I understand your intent, however I think that you may be looking at the problem from the wrong end.
As has been stated earlier in the thread the days of pilots rocking up with massive time, and experience are comming to an end. What is prehaps needed is away to make it possible for low time guys to get the required experience.
Since the airline industry has already been mentioned, how many airline pilots start out as captains?
None they start out as FOs and then gain the required experience. How many positions exist like this for helo pilots?
Rotary wing operators have benefited over the years from the glut of experienced Nam pilots, with the experience pool getting shallower its time to start investing in the next generation of pilots trying to make their way through.
Maybe Im looking at it the wrong way. However as Im still looking for the first rung of the ladder to start my climb, I know theres a long way to go, with little or no help to look forward to.
The best way to solve this, I dont know.
Perhaps some sort of a cadetship with a return of training obligation. Where a lowtime pilot can sign up with a company, to gain experience (like an apprenticeship) with a 3 month trial period (make sure everyone is happy), and the pilot is then obligated to stay with the company for a given period.
This would give the low time pilot valuable experience, while giving the operator an experienced pilot who is trained in the ways of that particular company.
Maybe its unworkable, but some sort of system for lowtime pilots to gain experience would be of value to the industry, IMHO.

[Reefdog]

Spaced

you have hit the nail on the head....apprenticeship.....

i mentioned this in a post about 3 months ago....

JW at helimuster VRD in Oz had a great system....

You got your cpl (h) and if you got a job with him,,you were what we called a (slave) swept hangar floors, helped engineers, flew with experienced pilots, and swept more floors and help the engineers and flew again with experienced drivers..

this approach gave low houred drivers the job they wanted and a fantastic start to their careers.. and the knowledge to know right from wrong in dangerous and difficult situations...

i have meet blokes i knew that went through this system and they are scattered through out the world, in both the helio and plank business.

my 2 bobs worth

[Steve76]

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

[IHL]

I think the idea is a little extreme; requireing NVFR ATPL Standard ect.


I know lots of Day VFR only pilots who are very professional and very competent. They like what they do and have NO interest in ever flying NVFR or IFR.

[Shawn Coyle]

One of the things that should be considered in the comparison to airline operations is the tremendous role that ALPA played in the improvement of safety.
It's not well known, but their biggest expense is putting pilots on all the various technical boards to make sure things are done safely. Intersecting runway operations is but one example where they were the only ones to make the technical arguments and get things sorted out- the FAA listened to what they had to say because the FAA didn't have the resources to sort the problem.
And where is the equivalent for rotary wing stuff?
Hopefully PHPA is just getting started on this area.

[paco]

I've always had similar thoughts about people who own helicopter companies. Yes, ideally, there should be some sort of way of weeding out those who won't make the grade, but who is to judge? It's easy in the military - you just throw them off the course, but why should anyone stop someone getting a helicopter licence if he wants one?

I think the answer lies in the starting work point - some sort of attitude training, or life training, which unfortunately is just the stuff you can't legislate for. When Transport Canada Inspectors do a PPC, they tend to look at the examinee as if they were going to work in their own company, and I think that's a good starting point.

Phil

[WLM]

Gday Steve76
Yeap you sure are drawing some heavy fire.... I agree with some parts of your proposal; however I feel that the onus of proper qualifications for pilots lie with the relevant Aviation authorities, ie CASA, FAA etc.
They should really look at how easy it is our days for a person to obtain a licence, due to a lower minimum hours quota. We cannot blame a newbie to think he/she is qualified to be a commercial pilot when the authorities say he/she is...You, I and most of the readers know this can never be due to the lack of practical experience even if a piece of paper says otherwise.
I would suggest the minima is raised to something substantial like 250-300 hours or so with definitely some instrument training a prerequisite, may be to the PIFR rating in OZ. May be some subsidies from governments and operators allowing the schools to produce a better employable pilot? a scheme whereby operators are subsidised up to 500 hours of a pilot 's employment from his/her graduation? and Insurance companies should really be helping as well as the premiums they charge operators and pilots are sometimes not too short of being criminal!
Anyway my 2 bits and yes it is damn expensive to get the extra add ons later in your life when you have commitments eh Stevy:{

[Disguise Delimit]

The licensing authorities had to decide what is the minimum acceptable standard of training, and they did so - the standards are specified in documents.

The same as a car driver's licence - if you meet the minimum acceptable level, you get a ticket to learn. But you aren't ready to drive professionally, or a Formula One car or a semi-trailer.

In the military, the minimum acceptable level is way above the civil level, and is shown by the fact that a trainee scrubbed off a military course 75% of the way through is immediately eligible for a commercial licence after passing an exam. The military wants a better pilot, and they get it. Only about 10% of those who apply for a pilot course will graduate - there is a lot of weeding done via selection boards etc along the way.

But ANY civvy, even a tragic ********, given enough money, can get a licence. It just takes lots more time and money.

Making the course longer and harder might just mean you get rich dickheads instead of the not-so-well-off potentially excellent pilots.

[goaround7]

Part of the problem with CFIT is that many good, sensible, professional helicopter pilots have never flown in IF and would quickly end up like the 212 captain mentioned above.

However, commercial or ego pressures can put them in situation where they push a marginal situation just that little bit too far and pay the price - 'I'll just shoot this little bit of cloud and then this slightly thicker patch and then...'

I have IF ratings for FW and Rotary but would never fly in IF in the small single turbines I currently fly, because I know what it's like to fly in IF in a twin FW - a totally different ball game from VFR low level.

I suggest that one - slightly less expensive - solution would be to add in eg. five hours of night flying and REAL IF flying in a CPL licence. After a guy/gal has experienced disorientation, tiredness and in most cases, absolute terror in a cloud, they now 'know a little of what they don't know' and hopefully enough to keep them from pushing on where they should not. Until, maybe, if it's their goal, they can land a copilot seat on a properly equipped machine with an experienced captain and learn the ropes via the apprentice route.

Cf what is happening at Portnet in Durban, RSA where allegedly, rookies are being rushed into PIC positions to fly ship to shore at night in borderline IF. Sure Durban Intl is just around the corner but that could be a corner too far...

[Whirlygig]

But you aren't ready to drive professionally, or a Formula One car or a semi-trailer.
No, but there are extra licences to obtain to do many professional driving jobs i.e. HGV, PSV, Advanced Motorists (nobody would employ you as a chauffer without that, at least).
In the military, the minimum acceptable level is way above the civil level,
But, then again, I know of some reputable operators who would rather have civilian pilots than military since it is their perception that the civilian pilot will be better able to get on in the team. I have met a couple of ex-mil pilots who still think they are a rank above me which, as a customer, rather gets up my nose (and that is not from a flying perspective but a general personality perspective).
rich dickheads instead of the not-so-well-off potentially excellent pilots.
.. or even richer dickheads than are around at the moment? Spot on.
solution would be to add in eg. five hours of night flying
Thought it already was? There is even 5 hours IF training in the JAA PPL(H) now. What good it does, I'm not sure other than perhaps give someone the false sense of security that they can fly in cloud?

These "proposals" seem to be trying to legislate for something that cannot be taught? At best, these are attitudes that can rub off on other people and that would be the only way of encouraging professionalism.

How would these proposals be funded?

As it is, there are many jobs that are closed to low hours CPLs because of insurance requirements; isn't this the same?

Steve 76 - it is not correct to say it is all too easy to get a Commercial Licence these - it IS getting harder. Many rules have been tightened up for example, one can no longer be an FI(R) with a PPL. One must have 100 hours post PPL qualification for a night-rating (I think it used to be 25). OK, the hours required to start FI(R) course have now reduced but, 300 was a high requirement.

The only way I can see of being able to weed out the "not-very-good" pilots is some form of continual assessment after qualification. I have to prove to my Institute that I have done a certain amount training each year; if I don't I lose the right to practice.

[goaround7]

Whirlygig,

Good points all. Just a wee comment: I meant five hours or even just 5 minutes, not of simulated IF or night training but real stuff in the soup, no moon, with a very experienced instructor/PIC. The idea here being to scare the VFR pilot sh!tless with what really happens if they decide to 'push through a bit'. Also had a couple of deaths this side with non IFR pilots trying to follow other pilots through 'a little mist' and a finding a lot of mountain.

Your continual assessment point is spot on. I fly very little IF and would not therefore pass the test and should not. My IF is really to do night rating training, a requirement in SA.

[spinwing]

Ha ...
of course in order to take a new chum INTENTIONALLY into REAL IMC conditions the very experienced instructor will of course have a suitably equipped IFR capable machine to do that ....which would make the task a less terrifying ordeal (if only for the instructor) ...

catch 22 methinks ..... ;) ;) :eek:

[[email protected]]

So then, what everyone seems to be heading towards is that IF and an instrument rating of some sort ought to be part of the mandatory training package, even if it adds a few bob to the cost. Then some legislations would be required so that a pilot must fly a certain amount of IF a year and renew the IR anually. This way every pilot would have the skill to fly IMC/IFR when required as long as the aircraft is fitted with the appropriate kit. Welcome to the military because thats what we do from day 1.

I applaud Steve76s viewpoint - he wants higher standards to reduce accidents and fatalities - a desire that cannot be faulted.

[Whirlygig]

higher standards to reduce accidents and fatalities - a desire that cannot be faulted.
Absolutely. So, OK, how would this work in practice? How could you ensure that you are going to have enough pilots in an age when the helicopter appears to be used for more and more tasks?

The military are not pushing through pilots at the same rate as in days of yore and the increased costs will make it prohibitive for the civilian.

So, any operators out there who essentially agree with Steve76 who can can come up with some financing proposals because, from where I sit as a (lovely, delightful) beancounter, these costs will have to be passed on the customer, who won't want to pay and hence the jobs are not there and it becomes a very elite job for the very rich or the few who have made it through the services.

It is ALL basically supply and demand; Steve76's proposals would seriously bu$$er that fine balance:)

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Spaced]

This is an interseting discussion, I can see value in everybody opinions posted so far, even if I dont necessarily agree with all of them.
Out of curiosity what is the standard time completed after military flight training?
How long before they have a command seat? (Iknow that would vary on type)
If the military is going to be a benchmark it would be good to have some figures.


Perhaps this could be an area for the government to help out companies who sponsor low time pilots. Something in the order of a tax deduction, or a rebate for those who sponsor pilots. The Aus Gov already does this for apprenticeships and cadetships, surely it wouldnt be a hard system to set up.
This would have the benefit for low time pilots to build experience and the operators to train low time guys without bankrupting themselves to do so.

[[email protected]]

Whirlygig - this is the age-old conundrum - is flight safety cost effective? Why pass on costs to the customer to make things a little safer when they will probably be OK anyway? This is the sort of thinking (mainly by bean counters) which is suddenly reversed when your best customer is killed in an accident. Suddenly nothing can be too safe and bu88er the cost.
As most airlines will tell you, killing your passengers is really bad for business which is why they spend so much making everything double safe.
The flip side of this is that the military has an extensive flight safety empire with lots of mandatory training and briefing plus umpteen different feedback forums to get round chain of command problems - yet we still lose people/aircraft. The problem is we don't know how many we would lose if we didn't have the flight safety cover. We know some of the things we don't know but we don't know all of the things we don't know (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld)

[Whirlygig]

I am sure that the military training methods are the best; I don't think anyone has denied that. I would just contend that the nature of their training might not NECESSARILY prepare pilots for the commercial, customer-focussed world.

However, unless I have misunderstood the economics of the (at least UK) defence budget, I would still maintain that the armed services are not releasing as many qualified pilots as they did 20-odd years ago.

All helicopter operators (in fact, all companies) exist to make a profit (otherwise they are called charities). There is no other reason for a business to exist. If, due to increased costs because of flight safety, customers go elsewhere, then that operator will lose business, and pilots and engineers will lose jobs.

Air ambulance, police, BBC etc will go back to their previous methods instead of using helicopters. All these have different methods of funding as well.

I'm afraid, Crab, that my hackles really do rise at the implication that all accountants are cost-driven; most of us have the commercial awareness to realise that there are certain aspects of a business that are harder to value and quantify; one of these being quality (in all respects).

OK, back to funding these proposals. Old-fashioned apprenticeships with bonding at the end. Needs government support and unfortunately, in the UK at least, this is unlikely to be a vote winner. Since our current government has already taken steps to make aviation more elitist; it ain't gonna happen in the short term. In order to get a prospective government on your side, they would have to be persuaded by the public that aviation is a GOOD thing and with current environmentalist lobbies, this would be difficult.

Whilst I think there is some merit in Steve76's proposals, it doesn't legislate for professional attitude and whilst most helicopter accidents are down to pilot error, is this pilot error due to lack of training or lack of "the right stuff".

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Delta Julliet Golf]

But what would be enough?

At the moment I have 500 + hrs, am IF rated (around 200hrs IFR), and fly offshore (North Sea). I'm learning a new lesson every single day and I'm grateful for the experienced captain (between 4000-14000 hrs) sitting next to me. I still consider myself as a very low time pilot (unlike others I know who have barely 200 hrs)

But at some point you have to get your license, because this enables you to learn.

I compare it with getting your driving license, you get your paper and then you start learning.

Ofcourse it is in the best interest of the flight schools and companies to promote self-awareness and self critism so you are able to say : "I'm not happy with this"

Then again if someone has 14000 hrs offshore experience and he/she wants to fly EMS, they still have to learn a whole new ballgame.

In my opinion, if you're a (helicopter)pilot, you have to be willing to learn right up to your retirement and your experience will never be enough.

DJG

[Ascend Charlie]

Spaced asked what is the length of a military course.

Well, some time has passed since i did mine, and it has likely changed, but this is how it went.

We did all our flying on the Iroquois - initially the B, then the D and the H model.

First solo was around 11 hours, course completion was about 120 hours over 11 weeks. In that time we did:
turbine endorsement
low flying endorsement
hoist endorsement
cargo hook endorsement
night flying rating
command instrument rating
formation endorsement.

And from the ground school, we knew that machine very thoroughly - but in the civil world today, an endorsement can be as little as three hours of flying and a day of ground school.

[IHL]

I don't understand all the pre-occupation with night and instrument time.

There are 100s of VFR only commercial helicopter pilots in Canada and they seem to do quite well. The majority of the VFR fleet does not have the basic instruments to keep the aircraft upright in IMC nor are they required by regulation.

The VFR helicopter pilot only needs enough instrument time to realize that he will perish if attempting IMC flight if not properly trained or in an aircraft with out the required instruments.

Like I said early there are very professional VFR only helicopter pilots out there with no interest in ever flying at night or IMC.