PDA

View Full Version : How many Com/ALTP pilots are there registered in SA


saywhat
11th Feb 2006, 09:22
Does anyone know how many COM / ALTP pilots there are in SA? Just curious.

nugpot
11th Feb 2006, 10:55
From the SA-CAA site (http://www.caa.co.za/) on 5 March 2005:

CA - 1963
CR - 367
TA - 1955
TR - 108

So total Professional licences registered in RSA = 4393
Total Fixed Wing Pro's = 3918

This probably includes countless pilots flying overseas and pilots not using their licences to earn a living.

SpootNICK
11th Feb 2006, 11:37
Scary :eek:

Solid Rust Twotter
11th Feb 2006, 11:42
Next question.....


How many jobs?:ugh:

saywhat
11th Feb 2006, 12:04
I'm astounded. That means that there is a 1 in 5 chance of flying for SAA. I thought it was way less!!!! I'm absolutely gobsmacked at the number of helo pilots.

nugpot
11th Feb 2006, 14:41
SRT, your question will take some collaboration to answer.

I will take a guess at some of the companies in SA and I hope people in the know will correct me if wrong.

SAA - about 820
SAX - soon 160
Comair - guess 120 ???
Airlink - guess 100 ???
Nationwide - 70 ??
OneTime - 40 ??
Executive Aerospace - 20 active plus some ops guys waiting for seats ???

So far about 1335.

Solenta, King Air Services, AirQuarius, Safair, Execujet - no idea.

Lots of expats with SA licences at Cathay, Emirates, Singapore and Mauritius.
A few large corporate outfits like Falcon Air, etc.

Instructors and comms building hours.
Retired pilots with current licences.

Any other guesses?

Gerund
11th Feb 2006, 16:33
I wonder how accurate the figures really are.

Just wondering as, in the document containing the figures on the CAA website, they also break down numbers of aircraft by operating sector.

We read for, for example, that at the end of March 2005, there were 75 aircraft operated under part 121.

They make the mistake of defining part 121:

Large aircraft weighing more than 5,700kg or a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than nine seats....

No, this isn't an isolated mistake...they refer to the seating in their definition of part 135.

Now, why should we imagine that anything else is correct? We certainly can't rely on the part 135, 121 figures.

Another inspiring story from Waterfall Park.

Mark J B
12th Feb 2006, 06:37
Comair 170