Antipodean Industry Problems.. [Archive]

View Full Version : Antipodean Industry Problems..

collective bias

1st Jun 2001, 15:59

It seemed appropriate to start a new thread on the back of the comments I made on the 'HAA' thread.
I stated that our industry was pumping an unnessessary amount of pilots into a saturated market that already canot provide jobs or a reasonable income and standard of living for the pilots already there. Imabell stated the case with greater eloquence than myself and brought to light some interesting facts of new pilots training standards and just what we are being sent out here. I can confirm the standard of pilot is extremely poor. It amazes me that just about anyone can 'buy' a licence.
Its time for a capping system on the numbers of pilots accepted for commercial licences. Greater scrutiny of candidates and age entry standards are applicable (no offence intended 'angry palm tree'). I suggested an increase in hours before being accepted for CPl to 150, and I also consider that ATPL Theory and IFR (basic theory and practical) should be the madatory minimums for theory. Sounds harsh but I perhaps it will prevent the blatent mistreatment and abuse of new pilots by a large sector of the industry. My hope is that someday pilots will not have to deal with the years of moral crushing rejection, begging and grovelling for work that myself and my friends have endured. If we reduce the surplus of pilots who are waiting for your job then employers will have to reconsider their position.
I have stated and I continue to blame training organisations for their 'prodution line' attitude to aviator creation. There are plenty of really good pilots who need this change to happen. Lets give them a go.

I would be interested to hear from the Northern Hemisphere of the availability of work for new pilots and the expected 'apprentiship' that most endure.

Turbine

1st Jun 2001, 18:47

Mr collective bias,

I don't think it's the flying schools (or CASA's) responsibility to regulate the number of pilots that are trained. In fact I think that both should be encouraging it for everybody’s gain. Flying schools are businesses and are there to make a profit. As long as the product that they produce is to the minimum required standard (or above) and the student is happy isn't that all that matters?

Most pilots, if not all, know that the industry is not a pleasant place. If somebody is stupid enough to think that they'll walk into a job after getting a licence then they are probably too stupid to ever get themselves a job. Survival of the smartest applies in aviation.

Regulating the industry like you suggest it ludicrous. Make the minimums higher to make flying even less affordable so less people fly so some of the 'so-called questionable' operators will go broke! What utter nonsense. Whilst we're at it let's double the cost of beer to stop people drinking, up the cost of petrol to stop people from driving and double the time it takes to get a bus licence to up the drivers skill levels.

What you're doing isn't rocket science sunshine. Anybody can fly a chopper - it's a piece of cake. Safety is the issue and 'upping' the minimum flight time is likely to give the student slightly better stick and rudder skills but is very unlikely to have an effect on his attitude. This can only really be learned with proper commercial exposure and a few NDEs (Near Death Experiences). The best pilots I have flown with are the converted high-time fixed wing guys who already have a professional and commercially orientated attitude. After their 60 to 70 hours 'conversion' they perform as well as the high time rotary equivalent.

Training is all about the economies of scale. There comes a point where any additional training in excess of a certain point does nothing other than cost the student money with very few other advantages.

Like I have said before, it's up to operators themselves to provide the new recruit with all the necessary 'on-the-job' training and skills that will compliment the bare licence - which is only ever a licence to learn anyhow. You can't expect a new pilot to know much at all. Operators should embrace the opportunity to teach their own pilots. Get 'em while the ions hot - before they pick up attitudes that aren't consistent with your own operation or aircraft.

I can confirm the standard of pilot is extremely poor.

If you can confirm it! If my understanding is correct you have around 1000 hours command time, if not slightly less. What makes you think that you are qualified to judge the quality of any other pilot when you are at a stage where you're barely qualified to judge yourself?

It amazes me that just about anyone can 'buy' a licence.

Not just about anyone, ANYBODY can 'buy' a licence. It's a product just like anything else and everybody is as equally entitled to a chopper licence. If you don't buy it how do you get it? I don't want to get into the "which flying school is the better flying school" debate because my opinion is that they all suck equally.

I also consider that ATPL Theory and IFR (basic theory and practical) should be the mandatory minimums for theory

While you're at it let's stop people from flying if they're over six feet tall, cut them if they have brown eyes and an IQ less than 180 or over 45 years old. 'Out them' if they can't run 15 kilometers with a gun and pack and didn't do any tertiary education.

What do you think ATPL theory will do? Why would you 'require' IF training? If this is the case why not require a university education and an Order of Australia? Are you trying to cull the lot of us until the only person left is you?

Greater scrutiny of candidates and age entry standards are applicable

I am not sure I understand this comment. If you meant that young people should be prevented from undertaking training then I agree. Older people (late 20s and early 30s) tend to be more professional and make more sound operational decisions based on life experience. They simply make better pilots. More 40+ pilots should certainly be encouraged.

My hope is that someday pilots will not have to deal with the years of moral crushing rejection

Call it 'charater building'. We all do it and the best of us get work. THIS is the way of filtering out those that don't make the best operators. If you are the right person you will get a job.

I have stated and I continue to blame training organisations for their 'prodution line' attitude to aviator creation. There are plenty of really good pilots who need this change to happen. Lets give them a go.

The whole 'production line' training is rare in Australia and particularly rare in the case of Helicopters. Like I said before all schools are alike. It's the Instructor that makes the difference. What you have to do is find yourself an instructor that you're comfortable with and who has the necessary background to teach you what you want to learn. In absence of somebody you 'click' with, a good name is enough to go by. You have constantly targeted East Coast pilots in the past. East Coast trained pilots are amongst the best in the world - thanks to a few excellent East Coast flying schools.

You have unfairly targeted a few schools in particular in the past. Somebody with your very limited experience and unusual attitude isn't is a position where he, with any sort of credibility, can 'judge' these people. Do you have an instructor rating? How many Instructional hours do you have? Obviously with such a vocal objection to the training standards you have a firm grasp of learning concepts and instructional techniques?

I would be interested to hear from the Northern Hemisphere of the availability of work for new pilots...

For future reference, if you want advice on work try and project a more professional image of yourself...

I don't understand your attitude and can't see your point of view. I am sorry if I sounded harsh - this is because I am a grumpy old man.

Turbine (but Mr. T to you)

[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 01 June 2001).]

sling load

1st Jun 2001, 19:11

Turbine, Hear Hear,

Collective Bias,
WOW, you have 1000hours, terrific, you should have a party, cause your still alive. I started flying helicopters at 17, don't give me this age bulls@#t, and I got my ATPL and IFR ratings years ago, and I can tell you all that theory has no bearing on an OPERATORs performance. The ATPL theory and IFR theory are paper examinations, designed to meet the regulations at the time, over the years they change, you gain more knowledge by experience, not by examinations. Just because you have been through hard times you suddenly think you have some god damn right to knock back kids who have the same dream as all of us, its people like you that give me the sh#@s. WE ALL started with no hours and dreams, if some turkey like you was around when I started i wouldve jumped off nearest bridge. Flying helicopters is not hard, don't fool yourself sonny youre no specially gifted person, Brain surgery, digging ditches and picking apples is HARD, don't fool others, if you don't like the industry, do us all a favour and leave and give someone else a go,
Theres OPERATORS and pilots, the system sorts them out, OPERATORS work, and pilots sit around bars telling stories, sound familiar?

Right on Mr.T

[This message has been edited by sling load (edited 01 June 2001).]

Out of Balance

2nd Jun 2001, 03:00

Colective bias, in answer to your question - I have worked in Europe and Ausralaia so may be able to offer an opinion.

European CPL(H) training and licensing seems to be more thorough than down here. The average hour requirement for CPL(H) is at least 200 hours. It also contains what are regarded to be 'add ons' here, such as sling load and NVFR ratings and basic IF skills.

As regards work opportunity, it is as cylical as anywhere, but I belive that there are far less unemployed CPL(H) holders in Europe than here.

Whilst I do not agree with all of your suggestions, I do recognise that there is a problem that needs attending to.

Less BS from training schools to prospective students would be a start and better/longer CPL(H)training would improve employment prospects.

Turbine

2nd Jun 2001, 08:09

Out of Balance,

Having flown extensively through Europe I think that some IF training is required in your training syllabus as well. UK conditions in particular are atrocious and what you consider VFR is enough to ground most low time Aussie pilots. If you didn't have some degree of Instrument training in places like India or Indonesia as well then you simply wouldn't fly.

Australian conditions are far different. We have near perfect weather and helicopter lanes/corridors in an around primary airports. Our bad weather is better than your good weather. We have very few densely populated areas and landing areas everywhere.

What we consider to be add-ons (or Ratings) are done so to ensure that pilots remain current and/ or specialise in a certain area. Why teach sling loading to somebody that will never do it enough to keep barely current? Rather, we have pilots that do it all the time and are experts in the field. Why teach NVFR to pilots that can't fly single engine night charter? It's best to wait until they have a job that will keep their skills current before you train them in hazardous and high-risk flying.

Less BS from training schools to prospective students would be a start and better/longer CPL(H)training would improve employment prospects.

Once again, increasing the minimum licence requirements will only filter out those people that can't pay for it and not those that won't make the better pilot.

To take your suggestion - make training 'better'. How would you do this?

I would like to hear from schools themselves. What are you saying that's upsetting these people?

Until Operators take responsibility for the industry and make the most of a low time pilot, rather than complaining about them, then things will remain as they are. I have embraced the opportunity to train and employ lower time pilots and this has most certainly worked to the advantage of my company. You can't tach an old dog new tricks.

I really am sorry about the ramble. This is one area I am quite passionate about.

T.

[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 02 June 2001).]

paco

3rd Jun 2001, 00:05

Turbine has it spot on. I would only add that more standardised training would be one key - my problem with hiring is checking out who did the training and what on, and otherwise equal opportunities have been lost because of this. In Europe, everything tends to be standard by default since a higher proportion of pilots are from the military.

I have long been thinking there should be some sort of after-qualification that would help redress this, but even this area can be patchy.

Phil

Arm out the window

3rd Jun 2001, 13:33

Oh yeah, Turbine,

That weather in the Torres Strait and around Cairns is always near perfect - except when it's really dog****!