Heading for disaster

[Chairmanofthebored]

Since this forum is monopolised by lowtime JAR/CAA flying students obsessed with money and their potential employment and lifestyle issues; I thought I better stir things up with some thoughts from reading all your threads.

Downunder and up there, it seems the way most of you think of getting a job post licencing is by getting an instructor rating. Not a lot of you consider heading out to look for a hanger job or other menial work route that most of the higher time pilots on this forum were forced to do. The attitude is simply charge it up and buy myself a job.

It is becoming the preferred method of cracking the industry and (I'm sure it's been voiced before) in my opinion we are allowing a dillution of training that is slowly permeating all aspects of our industry to its detrement.

It is driven by the regulatory authorites who allow 200hr pilots to start training immediately out of their licences. Blind leading the blind.
This is a perfect situation for the training schools since they generally get their future staff to pay for their training and then work them for free for another 100hrs or pay them peanuts for the priviledge of gaining experience at another students loss.

What loss? well they cannot impart any commonsence nor well learned lessons from industry experience. Their 'instructor' struts around pretending he/she knows what its all about while ignoring the self doubt in the back of the mind.

Later the 'instructor' jumps up another level on the rung with the accrual of lots of time watching someone else fly and then gets to supervise other 'new' instructors. Its a retarded system.

The system won't pay decent wages to pilots with 5000hrs for training so they don't do it. If the hightime pilot opts to become an instructor, he gets a measly 5hr reduction for having an ATPL licence or nothing at all for a CPL and has to do the same length of course as the 200hr newbie. So after 5-10yrs of industry time you are loathed to part with the money to take on a job that pays you peanuts.

Any experienced IFR Captain or high time bush pilot will tell you we are starting to see the effects of this system. Pilots who come into jobs lacking in radio skills, airspace knowledge, bush experience and poor aircraft handling skills.

What is the answer? What have you recently shaken your head at and what needs to be done?

[SASless]

It is all about the bottom line dear chap. Cheap is good....Good ain't cheap.

The cost of obtaining adequate training and experience is terrible now....how does a student afford the costs of "Professional level" instructor wages?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Whilst I'm more of a fixed wing type than rotary these days, the thing that makes me shake my head is the constant shouting about how standards are dropping, with no real data behind these assumptions. Has the accident rate suddenly started increasing?

Someone with 200 hrs is seriously wet behind the ears, but they should be supervised by an experienced instructor to monitor what they teach and how they do it.

I've personally seen more problems with "experienced" people being new FI's than a lot of newbies. Experienced people have often been away from the training environment for so long, that they try and treat it like a commercial flight despite the fact there are so many differences, though they get to grips with these problems pretty quickly it has to be said.

Until there are more jobs available for low timers or more experienced people want to instruct, then there is naff all we can do to change this situation.

People want to get a start in this industry and having put themselves into hock massively in the first place, what's another few grand here and there?

There's nothing wrong with someone trying to get a job and it's hardly the fault of the pilots is it? I mean I know what I'd rather do. Fly helicopters and get paid or sweep floors....... Honestly, don't be so daft.

I sense a bit of jealousy in your post and a feeling that somehow nobody should be allowed to teach until they have significant experience, could you tell me how they are to get this experience in the first place?

I got my first flying job as an FI and haven't looked back since. I like to think I did as good a job as possible in the early days and whilst I still teach now I'm no better or worse than I was before, it's just that I know a bit more and now have to keep an eye on those with less experience.
"Industry experience" is usually nothing more than a good dose of common sense and some people are born with loads of it whilst others wouldn't know it if jumped up and bit them every day for twenty years.

One last point, how are we to attract experienced people back to training? It doesn't pay enough or most are too busy working for their primary employer. What would you rather do, Sit in a Robbie for £30/hr or be flying around in an S76 and getting paid significantly more..... Answers on a postcard!

[thecontroller]

yes, in an ideal world the 200hr guy would sweep the hangar floor, learn the business from the bottom up, sit left seat to a more experienced pilot and get some wisdom, maybe fly easy photo flights, ferry flights etc

unfortunately this is reality. insurance companies are reluctant to insure commercial pilots on anything other than an r22 with under 1,000 hours

plus, there just isnt the opportunity for every 200 hr guy to start at the bottom of the business sweeping floors etc

and... do you really think someone who has just spent 50,000+ dollars/pounds on his professional licence will be happy sweeping floors for 2 years before getting a sniff of the controls?

[remote hook]

Training has been diluted, couldn't agree more.

Here in Canada, there is still a demand for the high time instructor, so it's not a critical issue yet.... Those who justify 300hr pilots teaching 20hr pilots have no idea; either they've never experienced good training from experienced teachers, or they themselves have come up through the ranks of the low-time instructor and are strongly biased.

How can those with no experince operating a helicopter impart knowledge in excess of the federally mandated standard(which sucks in most cases)? Answer: they can't.

RH

[thecontroller]

I disagree. it depends on the school. some enforce high standards. others dont. some instructor courses are thorough, some aren't.

[remote hook]

You cannot teach what you do not know, sorry mate.

RH

[mrwellington]

I love the attitude of the newcomers to this "great" industry....they figured out all by themselves that sweeping the hangar floor means NOTHING.
It's a sign of intelligence......savour it, cause' they're the future. And they are showing more moral and backbone than many old whiners. IMO.
Pay a decent wage from day one to attract talent....stop the old excuse of cost (how come the average owner/operator drives really nice cars, if business is soooo bad) :confused: !!!
And then, and ONLY then, you will see an overall improvement. Or are you just bitching and being a old wiseass knowitall everybody is laughing at ?
:hmm:

[thecontroller]

remote hook:

agreed, but 80% of people doing there PPL are only ever going to be fair weather weekend leisure flyers, not S76 drivers. so whats wrong with a 200 hr pilot teaching them the basics to pass a private checkride?

[overpitched]

After having flown for a number of years it was interesting to recently fly with an instructor who had done very little else. he seemed to be quite a capable instructor however there was perhaps a lack of understanding of the practicle application of what he was teaching and therefor a certain inflexibility to the lessons he was trying to impart.

I would say that anytime you are trying to pass on a skill or lesson learned from someone else without ever having actually used that skill yourself in a practical situation there is a very real danger that some of the original message gets distorted or left behind.

[chopperpug]

As someone that has only been in the game a few years, my first move, and I believed it to be the only way to really get in to the industry, was to go out and put myself on the hangar floor. The company i work for now have always had, and hopefully always will have the philosophy that you must earn your time in the hangar first. I certainly don't see the time spent in the hangar as wasting precious time flying. It is something that only adds to your understanding of not only the aircraft around you, but the industry in which you work.
Depending on how many pilots/aircraft the company has, the time on the floor with out flying seems to be around 6 months. Yes, this is time spent sometimes sweeping floors/cleaning gutters/weeding gardens, but it also involves a lot of time working hands-on on the aircraft with the engineers (good guys to get to know.....). This experience makes the world of difference once you start flying out in the 'real world', especially in places up here in the NT where you are often by yourself with help a long way away. From an employers point of view it also gives them time to see how the new pilot relates to everyone else, and their general attitude/work ethic. This is much more important than pure flying skill for any junior pilot, as skill takes experience and comes with time.
I spent a few years (by choice for the last one) working in the hangar, and you will get paid for it, if it is a good company (like the one i work for) just not a lot. Not that that changes once you start flying anyway..:} .
I have met a lot of newbies, as I am currently in the position of sifting through resumes looking for someone to work out here, and the most common response seems to be that they don't want to put in the 'hard' yards in the hangar (one of the best times I've had), and want to start flying straight away. Unfortunately for these guys, they are not the ones going to get the job out here. Every person that has gone through this old system seems to have more of a general body of knowledge about the industry and more practical hands on experience, which becomes invaluable once they need to be sent out on their own.
Whether some people see this as the old way of doing things and we should be changing with the times or not, it doesn't change the fact that there are always more junior pilots out there, so if you don't want to do the time, don't expect to get a start out here. :hmm:

Oh, and the destructor thing? how can you teach what you haven't learnt yet? It's all very well and good to be shown something once, nod your head, say you understand it, but until you've been there/done that on your own, real time...... no thanks.
All the guys that taught me were 8000+ hrs, and there is something to be said for life experience. If I was paying for my licence again, I would make damn sure that the guys I was paying to teach me were the best. Its your dollar, you choose.

rant over.... :}

Oh..and if there is anyone out there that wouldn't mind a job in the NT, and doesn't mind a few months in the hangar, feel free to PM me. All robbies, mostly 22's.

[B Sousa]

"it seems the way most of you think of getting a job post licencing is by getting an instructor rating. "
I think 'Post Licensing" most get an Instructor rating so that they can starve a bit slower and build time. As at 200 hours there are limited jobs available.

"The system won't pay decent wages to pilots with 5000hrs for training so they don't do it. "
Maybe close on that one as the more experienced one is the less a company seems to want to part with for currency.

Bottom line is that you may find some of the newbies are pretty sharp on the books, but still dont know where the Cargo Hook is located, wheras the experienced driver who is flying 5 or more variations of some machines may not be able to tell you the exact numbers on each machine.... makes it nice for the little lines, green, yellow, red..........

Interesting Post....

[Nigel Osborn]

Would you expect to be a brain surgeon a month after you finish med school?

[paco]

No, but I certainly wouldn't be expecting to sweep the hospital floors. I would expect to be mentored by a senior surgeon.

Northern Mountain had a policy of new CPLs sweeping the floors or staying behind the ops desk for two years before they started flying. As a result, they lost currency and interest and it cost the company a LOT more when it came to finally getting them qualified than if they'd just given them some flying to do. In six weeks at Fort St John one year I did over 76 hours that could have been done by a junior pilot.

I've never agreed with the philosophy that "It was good enough for me, so it's good enough for you". That attitude is why children still get beaten. It's time to change it, otherwise the new people will have be brought in in such a hurry that they will make the same mistakes all over again.

Phil

[gadgetguru]

It's time to change it, otherwise the new people will have be brought in in such a hurry that they will make the same mistakes all over again.

finally - realisation

oh the 'juniors' have no idea
oh they wont do the hard yards
oh they don't swallow :rolleyes:

As a somewhat mature 'junior' i find it disconcerting that the longevity of the skillset/experience within the insdustry is being sacrificed because the passage of knowledge isn't being conducted as it should. :ugh:

just because a low hour pilots pants are down around his ankles, isn't necessarily an open invitation to any & every callous operator to give him a good rogering. :=

seems the same people complaining over experienced pilot shortages are the same ones slagging the newcomers

reinvest in the industries future (juniors) or the industry will have no future investments (seniors)

[John Eacott]

Nothing changes: the UK route to CPL(A) used to allow shiny new PPL's to become instructors: after 700 hours they then qualified as a CPL (with appropriate exam passes, of course).

It didn't seem too flash an idea then, either :confused:

[212man]

The discussion about low hour instructors and retaining experienced pilots etc has some merit. The discussion about cleaning hangar floors has rather less merit!:confused:

[800]

the last time I looked you needed 400 hours prior to sitting the flight test to become a Helicopter Flight Instructor in Australia.
Why does aviation, and especially the helicopter industry, promugate the industry stance of "slaving".
And yes, just because I did it does not mean that it should continue.
Ask the first year apprentice electrician, mechanic or plummer what they are getting paid and the conditions they work under. Its not the same as a qualified tradesman but at least they know what to expect.
Shame industry! Shame!
thants my rant for today

[MK10]

to me it depends on the FI
"there are 200hr pilots that fly like 2000hr pilots, and 2000hr pilots that fly like 200hrpilots.
mk10

[170']

I've never seen or heard of a 200hr pilot who flew like a 2000 hr pilot. Even the so-called natural pilot people have spoken about...

You can't be serious MK 10?

I've known several 2000 hr pilot's who flew like their drunk,drugged or intellectually lame...

But in their worst moments, they flew like a drunk,drugged or intellectually lame 2000 hr pilot...Huge difference!

It's after 2000 hrs that the difference in experience begins to fade.

Often can't tell the difference between a 3000 hour guy and a 13,000 hour guy...but 200 hrs...Please!

[MK10]

oh me god!
its only an expression- not to be taken literaly!
it just means some people never make good/safe pilots, and others seem to achieve a standard more easily. MAYBE you need to change to de-cafe 170?
mk10

[170']

My My MK10..Touchy today?

It's not a common expression, such as... "Bite me!"

So I mistakenly thought you actually meant what you said! My mistake, it won't happen again...:ugh:

170

[oldbeefer]

I'm not sure if it still happens, but the RAF used to 'cream off' the best students and send them on an instructors course. They would then be teaching basic students themselves with very few hours under their belts. OK, I accept that they had been through the initial acceptance and were the best of the bunch, but it was felt that being straight out of training themselves they could relate well to the problems that stoods have. Only happened on fixed wing though.

[Marc.1234]

170
Check your PM's

[Whirlygig]

Perhaps a more appropriate version of the expression is

Some people can have 10 years experience and some people can have one years experience ten times.

Cheers

Whirls

[thecontroller]

the viewpoints presented here are all valid in some way.

but the way i see it is.... you dont need 2000+ hours to teach some zero hours guy to hover an r22 or to do a decent steep approach etc.

although i think instructors teaching commercial/CFI should have at least 500 hours

i remember as a brand new instructor i had to teach commercial students, and some of them flew the aircraft better than i did! not an ideal situation.

[MK10]

Whirls, i thank you! for explaining what i was trying to say
mk10

[Crieff-ite]

Believe it or not, there is actually some of us newbie cpl's out here who actually agree with having to start off sweeping hangar floors, etc and sitting in the left seat gaining and quizzing an experienced pilots knowledge.
It would be my ideal preferred first position, rather than instruction, basically so I could get to know the industry from the ground up. I have approached numerous companies so far (and will continue to do so) asking to do just this sort of work (and no, I am not one of the work for free brigade before anyone starts :o). However, it is proving just as hard to get this sort of work as it is to get any flying jobs. I have actually been offered 3 Instructor positions with different schools, if and when I get my instructor rating but never the hangar rat positions....they just don't seem to be available. You never know, maybe the reason why all of us newbie cpl's aren't sweeping the floors is because those positions are currently filled....so that only leaves us to do the Instructor route.
Just my little bits worth

Crieff-ite

[Flingwing207]

Hm.
First, show me the numbers. In the US, we've (for better or worse), been doing it this way for a long time, yet our numbers (accidents/fatalities per flight hour) are getting better over the long term.

Of course, it may be for the same reason that our highway numbers have gotten better over the long term - it's easier/cheaper to make better roads and cars (systems) than it is to make better drivers (operators).

Either way you get results - of course you'd get the best results of all if you both improved the system and the operator, but now the reality of economics rears its head - to put it bluntly, you can't have everything, what would you use to pay for it?

Until aviation becomes a government-administered non-profit affair (oh yeah, that's how the military works, can you imagine if they had to pay their own bills), the current system may well be the one which provides the most safety for the least money.

How much safety is "enough" won't be decided by floor-sweeping apprentice pilots, it will be decided by insurance company actuarials and the shareholders of companies like SEACOR and AirLog. And, as it has always been, carried on the backs of us folks who will let their passion for flying overrule their common sense.

[The_Sheriff]

"i remember as a brand new instructor i had to teach commercial students, and some of them flew the aircraft better than i did! not an ideal situation."

So whats changed TC ;)

[Simon853]

Odd that on the one hand people criticise new pilots who may offer to work for next to nothing or for free for devaluing the qualifications in the eyes of the industry and bring down wages, and on the other expect folks with those same qualifications to happily sweep floors.

Someone mentioned new doctors not being brain surgeons. That's true but at least the medical profession has a system of internship to coach the newly qualified, without expecting the new MD to fulfill the duties of a janitor.

Si

[Gerhardt]

I know a handful of people who think they are above sweeping hangar floors, and I have no use for any of them. My office job pays the bills and feeds the wife and kids so I mow lawns to pay for my flight time. A lawn takes me on average 40 minutes and it pays for 6 minutes of flight time. Sweeping hangar floors would be a helluva lot more fun and without a doubt I'd learn a few things. With that said, if a new, young CFI has a chance to clean aircraft or teach new students what do you think he's going to do? It would be stupid not to fly.

TC is right. Most pilots working toward PPL will never advance beyond looking for sunny days to hover or make a couple of circuits in the pattern so why does he/she need an old-timer with tons of hours as an instructor? Everything is so new to him that just learning the basics is a struggle and since most training (in the US anyway) is in an R22 how much more can a CFI with 10K hours pass on that a 200 hour CFI couldn't?

I've had my PPL(H) add-on a couple of months so I'm looking at the situation from the perspective of the student. My first 2 instructors had amassed 4000-5,000 each, but were just kids in their mid-twenties and it didn't take long to figure out I needed someone more mature. It takes 3 hours to get to the airport to meet my current CFI but it's an effort well spent. He's in his late 50s with 9,000 hours in both fixed and rotary wing. Even think about making a mistake and he cusses at full volume. I don't think he's ever said a kind word...I almost cried when I was heading off for my check ride and he said "good luck", the only sign of affection I've ever seen from him.

You say it's not possible for CFIs to make a good living? His students book their time online in 1/2 hour increments and pay for the entire time blocked. You need to schedule well in advance because it fills up quickly. And he charges handsomely for his time. And when you're paying x number of dollars for aircraft rental what do you care if your CFI charges a little more for his time. A good CFI is worth every dime and this guy does well. Now this is the part that will piss most Pruners off...I honestly believe that a 200 hr. CFI with some maturity could have taught me every bit as well. It's just that I ran into this guy first.

[170']

Gerhardt

Interesting point that maturity issue? Wonder why he's so busy?


170

[bellfest]

I have raised this issue a few times before. This is not the low time instructors fault, it's the authorities fault for allowing it to happen. It is obvious that this will cause a lesser standard of instruction. Therefore a lesser standard of pilots and a lesser standard of industry:= .
One of the biggest benefits of being taught by a high timer is making the student realise where they stand, how much experience will teach them and how much time they have to put into teaching themselves to be better pilots. Even now I am coming across so many pilots that think they are light years ahead of where they actually are:cool: . It's all part of this changing culture and benchmark.
Placing yourself behind your ability is so much more beneficial to your learning than placing yourself in front of it.
How is this supposed to be evident when they are being instructed by someone that is only a few paces ahead of them?
The thing that we need to realise is that the most valuable part of your early years are not all at the controls. I believe that a large portion of my learning was leaning on a tail boom listening to those who have been around and have the stories to tell from their experiences.
You can't learn airmanship from an apprentice. Helicopter instruction needs to be complimented with experience.
It's a lot of coin to part with, give the poor bastards what they are paying for.
A qoute to those flying schools that do this because they can
"Rules were made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of f#*#wits":ok:

[MCA]

So I mistakenly thought you actually meant what you said! My mistake, it won't happen again...:ugh:
170

Good one 170’ had me in hysterics

[thecontroller]

i think the title of this thread is a bit sensationalist. its hardly a "disaster" is it?

[bluestack]

my tuppence worth....

If you're learning and being instructed within a regimented syllabus, how much variation exists in that environment ??
So therefore how much 'additional' experience can be passed on within that regimented environment.

Surely someone who's done a 1000 circuits is adequate to pass on 'that' experience...
Isn't the problem the mentoring and support available to a new pilot once he's got his licence/s in that new role ?

[is gravity respons..]

Odd that on the one hand people criticise new pilots who may offer to work for next to nothing or for free for devaluing the qualifications in the eyes of the industry and bring down wages, and on the other expect folks with those same qualifications to happily sweep floors.

Someone mentioned new doctors not being brain surgeons. That's true but at least the medical profession has a system of internship to coach the newly qualified, without expecting the new MD to fulfill the duties of a janitor.

Si

im doing my training for atpl (H) at the moment, and this comment made me think of a recent email i sent to a certain scottish company! yes i am slightly optimistic in sending them an email asking mearly to possibly meet and have a chat, but i think it shows why this industry is how it is! i got a blunt crude and almost rude ( nearly rhimed) email back from the Chieff pilot, a company representitive. its as if he has to much time and actually tried to write a demeaning and demorilising email, a simple thanks but no thanks would of sufficed!
i would love to learn from the ground up and i am all the time!! especially when hi up 'representitives' of the industry kick us down! It simply shows that this company will happily take from the industry ( high houred already trained pilots) but will not even attempt to give back, not even in the form of a polite email! i do not want something for nothing but atleast other industries in the uk are polite!
sorry for the rant but its true!

[SASless]

Ah the days of showing up uninvited and being offered a Cuppa and friendly chat!

Nowadays...hit the company web site and complete the HR computerized application and hit send......and maybe being asked to send a formal CV by post.....all the while the Chief Pilot is busy figuring his stock options or some silly thing instead of recruiting and hiring pilots.

[nutcracker43]

i sent to a certain scottish company!... i got a blunt crude and almost rude ( nearly rhimed) email back from the Chieff pilot, a company representitive. its as if he has to much time and actually tried to write a demeaning and demorilising email, a simple thanks but no thanks would of sufficed!

Go on...tell us which one...

NC43

[is gravity respons..]

well no, im not going to be mean, but its a leader in the field apart from their chieff pilot!

[mrwellington]

Sounds like the new one who, rumours say, is very old school. Probably would love to hear from idiots willing to sweep floors. Good idiots are hard to get these days :D
This whole idea of doing something not related to the actually job generally works in the favour of those NOT willing to do it. Guess who gets the job. Kindda like a Hollywood casting couch. The ones not willing generally have belief in their own talent, and therefore has a higher chance of succeeding.
PS. A brand new instructor probably knows more in his/hers first year as an instructor than anybody else. Helicopter zen-wisdom is irrelevant when learning to do patterns/hover practice.

[HillerBee]

So if the general idea is that there are too many low-time instructors, and they don't make good pilots, why isn't the accident rate much higher? Also a conclusion would be there aren't many good pilots because 80% of the instructors are low-time (initially)

This is complete bogus!

Low time instructors passed the test (government standard) and so they're supposed to know how to teach and to fly. Perfectly able to teach PPL. Then government standard tell when you can start teaching CPL or even FI. In the US this is not true but there aren't that many flightschools allowing 200hr instructors to teach CPL let alone do full-down autorotations.

I much rather hire a guy who build up his hours by instructing 2 years (or less) to get his 1000 then someone who's been sweeping the floor and flying every now and then for 5 years.

The whole hangar rat idea is ridiculous, just cheap labour. And has nothing to do with learning the industry from the ground up. Hands on experience that's what you need 'stick time' not 'broom time'.

[SASless]

NC43,

Just how many "Scottish" helicopter companies are there with rude,crude, totally unacceptable for social company Chief Pilots? I mean, why would the CP take the time to craft a rude, crude, arrogant response to an e-mail from a budding young pilot.

OH! I see your point.....one name jumps to the fore now that I think about it. Must be company doctrine sort of thing I guess....like an outfit that does not particularly show much concern for the staff....that kinda company I guess.

[overpitched]

I think part of the disagreement here may be as a result of different culture. In Aus I would think that the amount of ppls being trained is fairly low. Most students in flying schools here are cpls. It's not just a matter of teaching them to hover and fly circuits.

Also where hangar ratting works well here is that a lot of the operators that take on low hour pilots are in fairly remote areas so there is plenty to learn about the company operations,self sufficiency etc before you head out to remote camps. Generally the time spent sweeping floors, assisting engineers, greeting customers etc gives a good solid grounding(apprenticeship) If you see your time in the hangar as a waste it is probably more a reflection on your attitude than anything else.

[thecontroller]

Seems like sweeping the hangar in the UK will not teach you as much as it will in Australia. I did it for a year in the UK, and although it was invaluable experience, it really was just cheap labour for the company.

[paco]

Hmm, low time instructors....

Whilst I recognise that they are only supposed to bring students "up to their standard" as the CAA say, I am of the opinion that, since your real training starts with your first job, and most companies will spend a minimal amount on training, all there is between you and an accident is the quality of training you get before you arrive, in which case there is a lot beyond the basic syllabus that can (and should) be taught, and if you haven't got that sort of experience, you can't teach it.

Just a season in the industry before starting to teach would be enough, preferably in Canada or Australia and not punching autopilot buttons round racecourses.

Otherwise, I have flown with 17,000 hour pilots who I wouldn't trust with a pram, and 1000 hour pilots who I'd trust with anything, and I'm sure it's the same with instructors. Flying is more of a mental game than anything else.

Phil

[cl12pv2s]

Ha! Bloody hell!

Move over old timer - your time is done! (Ch.OTBrd)

HillerBee is about right.

Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.

Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam. But, he's not required to do that. He's able to perform a perfectly safe maneouver, and that's all he's required to teach.

Gone are the day's of apprenticeships and internships. Nowadays, the apprenticeship is carried by the company not the educational institution. Its simply a shift in the pardigm.

As far as quality of instruction goes, hours don't necessarily increase the quality of primary instruction at all. Show me figures that say otherwise. Good quality instruction requires the instructor to be able to convey the concepts and knowledge in an effictive manner, and to know and have experience of what he is required to teach. To not try to teach more. Some of the best teachers I know (and I know a few) are not experts in their fields, but their quality of instruction is enhanced by knowledge and enthusiasm.

I know of a great many 'high-time' pilots who would make CRAP instructors, because they don't know the first thing about people, they are too stuck up their own arses to be able to empathise with a student and understand his needs. So don't come in here griping about low-time pilots without substantiating your claims with solid educational philosophy!

Of course, you can argue that a 10000 hr instructor has a lot more 'experience' to draw from. True, but as I said before, why does a primary student need to know about how to land in a hot LZ?

The last words from me, are those written by Bob Dylan...

Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

cl12pv2s

Flamesuit on!

[nutcracker43]

well no, im not going to be mean, but its a leader in the field apart from their chieff pilot!

Oh, that one...

SASless...thanks for that, silly me, how could I have forgotten...

NC43

[bellfest]

cl12pv2s
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam
What the :mad: has that got to do with anything?

Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
You said it yourself. If you're happy with the minimum standard well :D for you.

Where do you think you would get the best value for money?
Teaching capability aside.
What category does that put the low time instructor in that can't teach all that well?
By the way, Bob had a few good tunes but at the end of the day he was just a drug :mad: ed idiot:hmm:

Hillerbee

The whole hangar rat idea is ridiculous, just cheap labour. And has nothing to do with learning the industry from the ground up. Hands on experience that's what you need 'stick time' not 'broom time'.

Nice one. That's one of the stupidest things Ive ever heard. You might think twice when one of your boys is out in the field on the phone to an engineer telling him that "He thinks that the noise is coming from that round looking thing with the square on the end near where the pipe is bolted to the grey bit" Amplifiedby the fact that he did his license with a 207.6 hour instuctor that didn't have the operational experience to pass on any tips and things to look out for on the machine.
Other than that, it's a great theory:ok:

[sajoe]

good day chopperpug.i have read your bit on breaking into the industry and i know first hand how hard it is to get that illlusive first job.

you have probably had 1000's of replies since your posting, but i think I am the person you are searching for to put in the hard yards in the hanger. i can also make a bloody good cup of coffee and know how to anwer a phone. your hanger and premises would have never looked better. the flying will come with time. i know the best way to start is at the bottom.

i have 183 hrs on the R22 and about 17 hrs on the R44. i am not in posession of my log book at the moment, so i can not give you the exact totals.

thanks again
sajoe

[bluestack]

just because you don't want to pick up a broom doesn't mean you don't spend time in the hanger with the engineers..
Any aspiring pilot should want to be there, when not flying..

[bellfest]

Those that stand out and get ahead are the ones that do what needs to be done without being asked. ie- If the floor is dirty it needs to be swept.
As far as i am concerned if you don't want to pick up a broom you can take your lazy ass somewhere else.
That my friend is a questionable attitude in any industry

[bluestack]

yeah...maybe I didn't put it well before...
What I mean is, you should already be in the hanger, spending time, doing whatever needs to be done ( and that includes picking up a broom, cleaning a windshield ), something I'm happy to do.

That's different to having to be employed purely as a broom sweeper to get a head start.

[Flingwing207]

IT seems we have two different topics here. One is the concept of low-hour, new to the industry CFIs providing primary training. In the USA, all training up through CFII should be considered "primary training" - your profession-specific training starts when the job starts. To me there's no issue.

CFIs teach the basics of helicopter flying and the aviation environment, and indeed, the "minimum standard" is good enough, as long as employers don't expect their new 1,000-pilot to have more than a really good handle on the basics. If an employer needs their pilots to be able to do field repairs, the employer has to train the pilot to do field repairs. If the minimum standard is not being met (or is not acceptable), that's a problem with our method of certifying pilots. Don't blame a CFI for training folks to the standards of the FAA or CAA or JAR or whatever - fact is, you don't need a bazillion hours to understand the concepts, and lots of time in the cockpit doesn't mean you'll be a good instructor.

The other issue is the perceived (or actual) work ethic of a pilot. Unfortunately, it's an entirely subjective issue just how willing a pilot (any employee) should be to do "whatever comes along", "go the extra mile", whatever. If I hire on as a pilot, should I be happy stripping paint off of old hangars because it needs to be done? Should I know how to work on helicopters (and put in the extra hours doing so) because an operator is unwilling to hire a full-time mechanic? At what point am I allowed to say "this is not the job I hired on for"?

It's one thing if a pilot is shirking duties, or if a want-to-be pilot is unwilling to put in the time and training required. If floor-sweeping is a recognized part of the industry, or a documented part of the job, then yes, we should see pilots sweeping floors. Otherwise...

[cl12pv2s]

Bellfest,
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam
What the has that got to do with anything?
OK Bellfest, this is of course a metaphor. Of course what I'm saying is that sometimes the 'extra' knowledge of the high-time pilot is inappropriate to the level of learning that a primary student requires. Thus that 'extra' knowledge doesn't help that student whatsoever. Just as an Ph.D Asto-physicist won't necessarily make a better primary school science teacher.

Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
You said it yourself. If you're happy with the minimum standard well for you.

Please, don't put words into my mouth. := I never said I'm happy to accept the minimum myself. What I'm saying is, the authorities impose standards to which flight training should be conducted. Let's call them (for want of a better phrase) 'minimum standards'. Therefore, an instructor should (at a minimum) have a level of competency and knowledge appropriate to teach to that standard. Surely you agree.

Is your complaint that students aren't meeting this standard. If so, then you're justified to grumble. However, iIf you're asking for the minimum to be raised, then that's another issue.

Teaching capability aside.

How can you put 'teaching capability aside? Surely that's the crux of this entire branch of this thread! A low time pilot who is a crap teacher is as effective as a high time pilot who is a crap teacher.

I could go on about the education side of flight training, but Flingwing put things in a more diplomatic sense than I did, and said pretty much what I agree.

rgds,

cl12pv2s :ok:

[topendtorque]

I don’t think anyone needs a flamesuit, all have a lot of good points and perhaps some newbie instructors do miss explaining some of those million questions.

For instance we should all visit Blenders’ ‘settling with power and/or vortex ring etc thread’ to quantify “just some” of the more elaborate points, LTE is another oft mistaken phobic pile of bull dust. Dare I mention Melbourne Australia? –old thread-

I clearly, very clearly remember a bit of a discussion I had with my 300hr newbie instructor, (a yarpie) state-side when I was upgrading from PHPL to CHPL. We’d been talking about hovering autos that we’d been doing down-under in ‘47s from the top side or less of the magic curve. He reckons, “let’s go and do them in this 269B”. I had about 3.5K at the time, all in 47’s, and five – that’s 5.O - only on the 269 and my reply was kind of unprintable. Like-No way!

On the other side of the experience coin;

Another student there, a NASA employee and multi endorsed from DC3 to many fast jets, was doing his rotary as a prelude for going onto A5’s. He picked up on the conversation and went out with his instructor, a 1200 or so hour femme (as good as they all are) and worked down to them quite neatly. Why, I don’t know as a flame out in an A5 at a 300’ hover would fall into the - extremely exciting for a short space of time- category.

However a basic license is about basic skills, with discipline! “Nothing’s a-changin there”. One big problem that I have experienced is as below;

I can say with all honesty of the several hundred newbies and many others that were not newbies that I have flown with well less, yes I mean well less than half actually, basically, put the life saver right down – or even less - when I cut the power. Quite plainly their first engine failure would have been their last!!

Why is this??!!

Maybe instructors could use a musical chairs charade as a simulator, when the music stops – push down with your left arm – someone else (their close friend?) standing behind to cuff 'em with a broom when they don’t! Make it real? with the Apocalypse now sound track, oh yeah and the bloody video!!

Mind you, here I am only talking about what happens before ‘they’ get to the hanger! Quite happy to put some logic, and facts, into the other later, like the broom is not the master of advancement at all, (absolutely no pun intended there, sorry!) merely an indicator of attitude.

Keep smiling newbies; I wouldn’t have missed this life for quids!!!

[bellfest]

Therefore, an instructor should (at a minimum) have a level of competency and knowledge appropriate to teach to that standard. Surely you agree.
I would if I agreed with the standard.

However, iIf you're asking for the minimum to be raised, then that's another issue.
That is the issue. I don't blame the low houred instructor. I blame the authorities as I said in my first post. I think that it is as much detriment to the instructors as it is to the student to think that they have a right to be doing what they are doing, thanks to the authority. It's a joke.
It's a bit like chalk and cheese to compare this to primary school teaching but if we must, would you be happy for an inexperienced teacher to teach your child in primary school if they themselves are still brushing up the finer points the bunsen burner?
I'm not suggesting the equivelent of a Phd. Maybe just puberty would be a good start.
A lot is retained from your flight training so it should be good quality.
There is a much better guarantee of this if the bar is raised.

[thecontroller]

is it just me, or does anyone else not understand the last post? the grammar seems to be very confusing.

[170']

I can't figure out why the Insurance companies demand high timers as PIC on any decent equipment. Lots of people seem fully qualified at 200-1000 hours..?

I think the paradigm shift mentioned by cl12pv2s exists along with the pilot shortage...may or may not exist in reality, but it's possible existence might help you feel better if you're young, inexperienced and out of work..

But in the world of helo's, any paradigm shift is destined to end the way of the last one! We called them hippies! seen any around lately?

I know if I was looking for a pilot. It'd be guys like Bellfest and Bluestack I'd be calling!

Bellfest...You're point about the round looking thing, bolted to the gray bit was right on the money..:ok:

The issue of sweeping floors is kind of a stupid notion, how many times a day does the damn thing need sweeping?

But washing out a component for the engineers would do a lot of people a lot of good...Along with stripping out components (because the boss doesn't want to hire an engineer?)

Also, helping re-build a machine you one day hope to fly, is not exactly the dumbest thing on the planet...As one day, the round looking thing might shake loose, and it'd be great to know if it's an important bit?
170
ps..is gravity respons: Check your PM's

[bellfest]

controller
I have come to the conclusion that topendtorque is a bit of a bushie or at least spent a lot of time in the bush. I would guess that maybe he may have a good collection of his own poetry somewhere .It's a language of its own, partly cryptic, partly abstract and partly romantic. A bit like the "where for art thou's" of your fine country. Except a bit more weathered and not quite as poofy:E
For those that are familiar with it it's a dying trait which is a bit of a shame.
You might want to read it a few more times cause there is a lot of good points in there.

[thecontroller]

i get the general idea of the post. i just found it written in a very strange style.

[SASless]

Topendtorque,

Ah but we have missed Quids for this life....

[cl12pv2s]

Bellfest,

That is the issue. I don't blame the low houred instructor. I blame the authorities as I said in my first post.

Silly me for thinking that you were having a go at low-hour instructors. At least now we know where you stand. Let's try not to mix the two issues then.

I think that it is as much detriment to the instructors as it is to the student to think that they have a right to be doing what they are doing, thanks to the authority.

Of all the pompous and patronising statements I have read, this has to be up there! Make a point please.


It's a bit like chalk and cheese to compare this to primary school teaching but if we must

OK, I admit it. The two are worlds apart. Afterall, primary school teaching is WAY ahead in its application of proven educational philosophy than the aviation world, which is just as well, seeing as primary school teaching is WAY harder than flight instruction. One day, maybe the aviation industry will realise that it doesn't really know sh1t about how to educate its pilots of tomorrow (as evidenced in half the posts in this thread).......

in an ideal world the 200hr guy would sweep the hangar floor, learn the business from the bottom up, sit left seat to a more experienced pilot and get some wisdom, maybe fly easy photo flights, ferry flights etcThis has got to be one of the most inefficient 'learning' strategies I have ever come across!!! Learning by osmosis?! Come on...

........and will look to teachers of children to help it. Primary school teachers are probably the most uptodate and effective practitioners of proven education philosophy you'll find. BTW the fundimentals of flight training are the same as for any kind of education, including primary schooling.

This is the problem with our industry. Not enough teachers who are pilots; Too many pilots who think that they can teach.

A lot is retained from your flight training so it should be good quality.

Absolutely true. I don't think hours=quality though. They can help, though.

There is a much better guarantee of this if the bar is raised.

Absolutely untrue. Higher attainment targets (authority imposed standards) do little to raise the quality of education, and then only indirectly.

As I keep saying, more hours doesn't equal better teaching and learning. What this industry needs is more emphasis on the instruction of instructors. The primary syllabii to me (FAA, CAA, CASA etc) seem adequate to produce a pilot who is safe within the confines and boundries of his training. The problem is that the instructors (young and old) are usually not trained in education technique. Due to financial forces, the place of flight training has sunk to the bottom of the industry, where we would all agree it should be at the top. Hence the reason why the companies bear the task (and responsibility) to do the 'post ab initio' instruction...this is when 10000 hrs prove their worth to a lower time pilot, not during the first X number of basic training hours.

Someone mentioned the mentoring and probation periods seen in the medical world. To me, this is the way flight training will evolve. Basic training in flight school with basic instructors, then out to industry where 10000 hr pilots will fill you with their specialist knowledge. Just like the medical student who does his basic medical course, then goes out to specialise in say, brain surgery.

Slowly, aviation is catching up with the rest of the world in the realisation that, old and grey is not the be all and end all that those old-grey folk (who are usually the ones to make the rules) think it is. The business world saw this in the last 10 years, and started to send their Chairmen / CEOs / Mangers to 'leadership' courses. I wonder how many training captains out there today have been on anything more than a 1-day course...and now they are supposed to be training others.

Bellfest, you got me talking about a subject which I am serious about. If you accept that the paradigm shift I spoke of is happening, raising the barre or having higher time instructor pilots is a separate issue. I'm talking about Education in Avaition. It took me 4 years to cover an education degree. Most instructors get little more than a week or 2 week 'crash-course' in education. To me, that is where the main problem lies. The flight experience of the 'lower-time' instructors is enough to cover the course that they teach. What is lacking is their understanding of 'what makes a good teacher'. 10000 hours won't make a poor teacher good. The quality of education in aviation is generally terrible, from ab initio education all the way up the ladder to company line training pilots. What is needed is more focus on the educators. The standards must be more rigidly enforced and clearer understanding of what the ndustry standards aim to acheive (i.e basic training only) by hiring companies. This will in turn require the companies then to take on more responsibility in terms of specialist field training, through mentorship and probation programs.

As I said...the times, they are a-changing. Aviation is much more accessible now. Pilots today haven't got dads who flew in the great war and grandads who were barnstormers in the 30s. No longer can companies assume that their new hire has been in the hangar for years listening to the old bold pilots telling tales of yore. Companies (and some individuals) need to accept this change.

cl12pv2s

P.S Before anyone slams me, I'm not saying that all people without 'education degrees' are poor teachers. There is such a thing as a 'natural teacher'. Someone who is simply good at imparting knowledge to others with no education training.

Unfortunately about 50% of Joe Averages aren't natural teachers, and by nature of the industry's history, most pilots aren't eith

[mrwellington]

Mayby someone needs to leave the sweeping to the janitor and hit the educational books to further their.......ahem...abilities in this area.
IMHO

[Quichotte]

Ok, first i have to say... i don't think that low time instructors are the way to bring the most possible quality into initial training!

Why? They can't really good prepare their customers to the many sh..t situations in helicopterflying because they are so green that the most can't imagine what could be possible in the rotary world... :E

They are really experienced with technical problems or emergencies :) really experienced with bad weather :) , really experienced with the freight or the pax or the differencies between this both jobs :) they can very good teach the navigation in hostile areas :) or... or... or...

all they can do is give their best in their limited vision of the helicopter industry. And i accept it!!! They give their best!!!

How much the chiefs in the most lowtimer-instructor schools trust in their young collegues we can see that the most chiefs let them only give the basic parts and a position between a slave of the customer (and the company) and a hangar sweeper. Only small paid on hours base, no emergencies, no flights outside the company area, no important guys.

And really bad is, that this low timers prepare low timer PPL pilots to be solo in the world. PPL instruction in sunny Florida and i try the new license in Alaska...

They are cheap, they are hungry and they don't discuss with the boss about problems like maintenance or safety. That's the reason why we have so much low time instructors!

I'm ready... fire up!

[HillerBee]

But hasn't this system been in use (FAA) for decades. So why is it suddely a problem?

[Gerhardt]

I never thought this thread would go so long. There seem to be some pilots here that think instructors should have more experience before being allowed to take on students. To them I have to ask the obvious questions:

1. What SPECIFICALLY is not being done now by inexperienced instructors that would be done by instructors with more experience? (I'm not talking about experienced instructors passing along more wisdom, etc. because that sounds a lot like hangar talk to me.)

2. Or is the problem not the information that's being passed along, but instead the flying techniques that are being taught?

[mrwellington]

I agree with Hillerbee 100 %.
Somebody needs to get of their high horses and take a sniff. The certificate is NOT a license to learn, but words of wisdom is to take calculated steps when being a newbie. The attitude of certain individuals screams of derogatory attitudes in this thread. Nobody is "born" to be a pilot, they are TAUGHT. And when they have received their license, it's the screening the future employers have to do of potential candidates to weed out the bad ones.
Attitudes are taught by example .....!!

[R22DRIVER]

Ok Guys lets put it on the table.

If you had never flown before and had $70,000 of your own money how would you guys want to be trained in the ideal world.

There is alot of bitching going on about low time instructors and alot of the points i have read are valid.

The way i see things is:

These instructors are spending all day, everyday teaching and flying the fundamental maneuvers. They have more practice at emergency procedures than any high time pilot. How many full down autos have you done in the last week? All Lowtime instructors can do is teach the basics to a very high, consistant standard.

You only start really learning how to fly when you eventually get out into the real world and start flying in the real world situations with the high time pilots.

Instructors are good at what they do- Teaching the fundamentals.
High time pilots are good at what they do - Teaching you how to really fly.

You need a good solid foundation on which to build and if you have been flying those fundamentals day in day out for 1000 hours it surely must lead to a better pilot in the long run.

Yes, the ideal would be to have the high time guys as the instructors, but at the end of the day everyone has to start somewhere and every single one of you at one point in your life was a low time newbie.

The system works and with good training and then good experiance you can form into a great pilot.

Im training as a CFII right now. It is the only route i can go. You wouldnt believe how much i would love to fly with the high time guys but it just aint gonna happen until i make that 1000 hour milestone.

Fly within your competency, dont fly into stupid wx and situations and know the second you dont respect the machine it will bite you in the ass. This is all i can do until i get into the real world.

R22 :ok:

[mrwellington]

R22driver...agree with you on all accounts but one :
Using same airspace and/or a commercial machine, you're very much in the "real world". Don't think otherwise. It would be disrespectfull to you AND your future students.

[170']

R22Driver.:ok:

The issue of more experience in an instructor,can be on many occasions little more benefit than hangar talk. But it's invaluable, both before and after you have the license to learn..(sorry Mr Wellington, you're in a tiny minority)

The reason it's so valuable, is because it's indefinable...It's not now, and hasn't been for a long time, how to hit a hot LZ ...

But it's a moot point really, as experienced pilot instructors are the exception not the rule.

A seasoned pilot has often flown in many environments, and doesn't have to look in a book because its minus 20 out. or there's a sand/snowstorm coming. A seasoned person knows the difference in snow types, how to land in snow or sand, without having to seek opinions on a website or a book that won't be available when you really need it!

Knows what kind of weather causes the skids to freeze down in winter, and how to break it out if they forgot the very simple procedure to prevent it in the first place...Knows what parts really need defrosting on a machine left out overnight in an ice storm.

If you ever ferry a machine and get caught in an ice storm away from home base, good luck in getting it ready to fly the following morning, when you're all alone on a freezing apron Sunday morning at daylight, and the machines due on a contract 1000 miles away in 2 days.

Unless of course someone taught you what to do! In that case it's 20 mins and your getting toasty tootsies courtesy of bleed air...Unless your in a 109 ...right Gary....;-)

Knows how to revive a battery. knows how to do a drip test from the pilots point of view, before you ferry it back to base with a leak..Knows that the flight school told you you don't fly with a leak.

Well when you get that first turbine job after waiting a long time. The boss says, it'll be fine, just bring it on home. It'd be nice to know if he's a homicidal maniac, looking for the insurance payout. Or if it's a common problem with the component, and if it's a stabilized leak, that you're safe to fly it home with.

This comes from hands on time or canvassing advice from a trusted senior pilot who you respect..The problem is at the bottom end of the ladder, not many people have the teeshirts, so who do you ask?

I'm not trying to break anyone down, we all have to learn! But you will not learn much until your out there doing it for yourself in the commercial world...I just hope you have an annoying old graybeard around to help you out, the way we old guys did !

I'm in my 50's now, but still keep a couple of phone numbers in my wallet. These were my mentors at various stages in my helo life. And if I had a problem tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to call one of these really grizzled old farts for some advice...Have you got phone numbers you can reach for?

You might be flying from High Wycombe or Sheffield at the moment, and all this sounds ridiculous to you! But if you stay with helo's.
You're probably gonna find yourself in lots of weird places that you can't imagine right now!

In fact, as I write it reminds me of a simple example.

I was driving a 58T years ago, and couldn,t get it to start...Was in a remote location after delivering and and holding in place for assembly, a huge radio tower mast top piece...

I had a mechanic in the right seat getting some bootleg stick time on the ferry legs ...He couldn't figure it out either...It was in the early days of cell phones with the monster satchel deals we used to pack around..

Anyway..Called Ops and the boss said they'd send in a sparks chaser and some gear. But we'd have to spend the night in the machine, as it was coming dark and the parts would be flown to a local operator by FW and the guy and parts ferried to us in a 206 the following day...So I called an old friend who'd flown H34's in the early sixties...I explained the problem and he said " lift he right seat up and at the back is a tube looking deal with a fuse in it"..."It's the fuse that's blown"...
I said are you sure, and he said it's never happened to him personally, but an old 34 driver had told him about it years ago during training on type...This was in the 1950's, and he hadn't flown one since 1966..

Sure as ****, we pulled the seat up and wrapped in self amalgamating tape was an inline fuse, they'd wrapped it in black SA tape to protect it from moisture, which made it blend in with the black paint and crud mashed down behind the seat...

So we pulled one out of another non essential unit, and replaced the dud, flashed the old girl up..Called Ops and said cancel everything, we're on our way again...Saved the company a bunch of cash, scored a few brownie points for ourselves, and all thanks to an old goat with a good memory!

Ok, It's not a flying technique, or a safety of flight story. But with many small operators, your knowledge can make or break the operation, thereby keeping food on your table!

Lots of these places will give you a new perspective from the one you hold now. And this is the reason we have such a huge difference of opinion among the helo pilot ranks! Everybodies looking from a different hilltop at the same view.Just the scene looks different to all of us.

I've asked a lot of older friends why ,when the go into retirement, they don't think about instructing part time.

It'll keep you occupied, and maybe you can put some really good, hard earned knowledge back into the biz that's been your life...

I've got a bunch of various reasons given to me why not...But the bottom line is, very few of the guy's that should be teaching are...Pretty sad really, but that's life for you !

170

[thecontroller]

90% of instructors only teach people to fly a small 2 seat helicopter near a airport in decent weather, to get their private licence. i think the pilots in australia have a distorted view of what pilots need to know, because they operate in remote areas.

[bellfest]

Silly me for thinking that you were having a go at low-hour instructors. At least now we know where you stand. Let's try not to mix the two issues then.
Maybe you should have read the first part of my very first post then!

Of all the pompous and patronising statements I have read, this has to be up there! Make a point please
I'm guessing that you are or have been a low time instructor.
My point is this. These guys come in to an industry that finds candidates of their experience and capability acceptable to instruct. This is very likely to give them a faulse sense of security about their ability, something that is of no benefit to them whatsoever when they enter the real world of aviation.

One day, maybe the aviation industry will realise that it doesn't really know sh1t about how to educate its pilots of tomorrow (as evidenced in half the posts in this thread).......
The aviation industry has been doing just fine so far thanks very much, I meet fewer and fewer pilots of the quality of yesterday so I think that your philosophy there is a bit backward.

This has got to be one of the most inefficient 'learning' strategies I have ever come across!!! Learning by osmosis?! Come on...
No one is suggesting that they should not fly. If you are incapable of realising that there is a lot to be learned from this process while they are steadily being brought up to an acceptable standard to conduct commercial operations then I would assume that your short sightedness is due to your own lack of operational experience.

To me, that is where the main problem lies. The flight experience of the 'lower-time' instructors is enough to cover the course that they teach. What is lacking is their understanding of 'what makes a good teacher'. 10000 hours won't make a poor teacher good
This is a different issue as you said. If you were however going to predict who will be of more value to the student at the current level of required education and teaching requisites you would take the experienced bloke every time. And that is where we are.
No longer can companies assume that their new hire has been in the hangar for years listening to the old bold pilots telling tales of yore
And soon we wont be able to assume that they had any exposure to this at their flight training either.

[cl12pv2s]

Bellfest,

It didn't take long for frustration to turn to personal digs, did it? BTW, you don't know sh1t about me. Be careful making assumptions on people. Not a good habit to start.

Well, I find we are at an impass, so to wrap things up...

I did notice in your first post that you mentioned 'the authority' being the problem. However, it still looks very much as if you are having a go at low time instructors...belittling their hard earned acheivements, and writing them out of the possiblity ever being able to be such a great pilot as yourself. Hell of an attitude that is for someone who is claiming that oldy-boldys should do all the instruction! I'd love to sit in on one of your debriefs!

Chairman of the Board (who has been noticably quiet) started this, in the first line of this thread, by saying, "I thought I better stir things up with some thoughts." 'Stir' things up...well he did that...but to what end? Of course he's going to get emotionally charged responses...many successful and unsuccesful pilots who opted for the 'instruction' route did that because it is now the only way to crack an industry which, although is more accessible is actually more competitive too. The committment and risk required to go this route is massive...maybe more than the military route or the 'father was a pilot too' route, that many of the 'grey-haired aces' of today took. To hear from 'self-acclaimed' masters that their efforts are worth nothing is pretty hard for them to swallow.

If you self-confessed gurus are going to convince me that you should be doing all the instruction then your attitudes to 'new pilots', and their knowledge progression are going to have to change. Remember, 'Respect' is one of the greatest facilitators to teaching and learning. However, respect is a two-way system.

The aviation industry has been doing just fine so far thanks very much. I meet fewer and fewer pilots of the quality of yesterday What the aviation industry did in the past is not really relevant. How people got taught in the past (which did work) is not how pilot training will happen ever again. That's exactly why you think you are seeing lower quality pilots coming up through the system. Something has broken and needs fixing or replacing. Can't you see that?

...something that is of no benefit to them whatsoever when they enter the real world of aviation.Sorry. Still very patronising and pompous (see paragraph above) !...and I daresay you'd agree, not entirely true.

you would take the experienced bloke every timeNo, it depends on their ability to teach, their attitude and the level of learning of the student. For a student with less than 200 hrs, I don't think years of instructor experience is actually that great a benifit. (Ph.D example.)

Well I enjoyed our discussion....time will tell as to which way things go...if authorities do in fact decide to make flight training even more expensive by raising standards and requiring higher time instructors (who will demand more pay) or if the market decides and the industry has to adjust to the new way.


That's all from me.

cl12pv2s

[Trevors cat]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen.

Re-aply handbag safety catches please.

If I may make so bold, and I am a very low hours vermin scum. But I would both like to agree and disagree with this post.

Firstly, there is good and bad in all.

Secondly, It doesn't matter to me if you have 10 trillion hours or 1 hour, it is your attitude that counts. If you are keen, you work hard, and you do your best then you are a good man In my books.

Thirdly (point a): I agree with what you are saying about people coming into this industry who do not give ****. They make me sick. but if you can inspire people and nurture them and genuinley care about their progress then you have more to offer than some jaded old fool who has seen it and done it and does'nt care.

Thirdly (point b): There are a lot of hour builders who have no experience of commercial ops and instruct, just to build hours. to them I say f~~~ ~ff. Why? because they dont give a f~~~.

You can learn more from someone who is inexperienced but keen, than you can ever learn from someone who is a Guru but who is tired and disinterested.

fourthly:

I cannot wait until I have my instructors ticket.

Why?

Because I hope to teach people to be good pilots.

How can I?

I can't!

But what I can do is teach them the right attitude. You are absolutely right about what you said in your post, but please dont forget that we all have to start somewhere. I did my time for my little country. No I wasnt a pilot because people like me couldn't become pilots because I didn't have A levels and a 3 year holiday (sorry, I meant degree). So I did my time in the Army and buit up to working with some of the best people in the world and now I am doing helicopters. I will never catch up with you and your experience, but I will always do my best, and just becuse you are a succesful helicopter pilot does not (in my books) mean that you should take it out on idiot newbies like me.

But I know what you mean!!

All the very best

trevors cat (who is sat by the fire in a basket going puuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrr, wheres my lager...........

[overpitched]

I don't follow the argument that an instructor is either low hour and keen or high hour and jaded ????? I would think it is fairly obvious if you want to compare apples with apples if you have 2 instuctors with the same level of enthusiasm, intelligence and teaching ability but one has 200 hours industry experience and one has 5000 hours industry experience then the one that has 5000 would be my pick every time. Seems like common sense to me.

If a pilot has 200 or 400 or 1000 hours they are inexperienced. Thats fact. If a pilot has grey hair and 5000 hours they're bitter and jaded...That's an assumption..but not fact.

Judging by this thread it seems to me there are plenty of low hour instructors that would rather be doing something else as well and are only using it as a stepping stone, so before you part with your cash for one of those young keen instructors you may want to find out what his long term goals are.

I have had many occasions to be thankful that I trained under a couple of grey haired ass kickers. I still let them know from time to time and it still gives me a standard to aspire to. The knowledge they passed on to me was the knowledge of an instuctor as well as the knowledge of industry survivors. The whole package worked for me. That's all I know.

[Nigel Osborn]

This discussion has rambled on for 4 pages with clearly no general agreement. I wonder why?

There is a huge difference in PPL & CPL requirements in Oz, the UK & USA. In Oz there are not so many private helicopters as there appears to be in UK & USA, hence the need just for a PPL. In the UK ( I don't know much about the USA system) you need around 700-800 hours to qualify for a CPL but in the meantime a PPL instructor gets paid for instructing. Reading Pprune it looks as though the vast majority of these PPL instructors only do it to get the hours to qualify for a CPL.

In Oz, if you get your FW CPL first, about 100 hours I think, you then only need around 60 hours for a helicopter CPL. As I am semi retired these hourly figures could be wrong but not by that much. Would you consider a 60 hour pilot experienced enough to take an instructors course or go fly commercially? Therefore he has to have around 400 hours to do his instructors course. As most students here go for a CPL, do you think a 400 hour instructor has enough background experience to teach him all that a commercial pilot needs to know? Remember quite a few of the smaller companies have very little check & training systems in place, so the new pilot can be let loose almost immediately. However, often the insurance companies won't let you insure such a pilot, so it becomes the chicken & the egg problem.
As to the quality of instructors, it's obvious that they must be able to teach first & foremost. Having 1000s of hours is useless if you are a lousy teacher.

It appears that in the UK & USA, a lot of the new pilots only want a PPL & hope to pay the least amount possible to get it. As they don't expect to fly IFR, at night, in bad weather ( until the weather misbehaves suddenly). land on mountain tops or oil rigs, etc, etc, then perhaps they can learn just enough from your 200 hour instructor to survive while they gather more experience themselves. However if they hope to become a commercial pilot down the track, wouldn't they be better off with some more in depth instruction?

I base my thoughts, probably not too eloquently, on having a reasonable amount of allround experience. I had my first helicopter lesson 51 years ago & have been an instructor/check pilot on & off for the last 40 years during which time I have flown with numerous pilots, many nationalities & could always tell what sort of instruction the pilot had in the beginning. The one saving grace I have noticed is if a person had natural ability & common sense, asked questions & tried to learn more, then as long as he survived the first few years, all pilots ended up pretty good regardless of their start. Like car drivers, some are good quickly, others never are.

[bellfest]

you don't know sh1t about me. Be careful making assumptions on people. Not a good habit to start.
You are right it was a guess, I was quite prepared for you to prove me wrong here but you didn't. You have either decided that such an assumption is not worthy of a reply or, I wasn't too far from the truth. It wasn't my intention to insult you, just an attempt to clarify where you are coming from.

To hear from 'self-acclaimed' masters that their efforts are worth nothing is pretty hard for them to swallow.
I don't see any self acclaimed masters on this thread. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and no one here is blowing their own horn. I would hope that "they" aren't misinterpreting this as bad as you are. At the end of the day if some of you are offended I couldn't really give two knobs of dried billy goat sh1t. The truth needs to be told. Read on and you will see it is not my intention to insult you.

I did notice in your first post that you mentioned 'the authority' being the problem. However, it still looks very much as if you are having a go at low time instructors...belittling their hard earned acheivements, and writing them out of the possiblity ever being able to be such a great pilot as yourself. Hell of an attitude that is for someone who is claiming that oldy-boldys should do all the instruction! I'd love to sit in on one of your debriefs!
That's quite an elaborate version of my opinion. Light years away from the actual, but nice fabrication none the less:D
Now I will tell you exactly what I think, as clear as I possibly can.
1)The requirements to obtain an instructors rating in my opinion is too low.
2)These requirements are set by the respective authorities so therefore it is they that are responsible.
3)If it is seen as acceptable by a fresh CPLH to gain hours by instructing with these minimal requirements then it is not his fault if he chooses to go down this path in an industry that is very hard to get a start in. It is the authorities fault for making him think it is acceptable. I have never directly insulted or belittled the low hour instructor.
4)I don't think that there is any room for mentoring in the first 1000 hours, in a flying school or in a commercial operation. As I have stated before, it is much more beneficial to assume you are behind the eight ball and not in front of it. Knighting a fresh pilot with the privelege to teach can place them in front of the eight ball. Having a pre conceived idea of ones ability is not that beneficial in this game.
5) To debate a topic like this we have to generalise. I don't know each low or high time instructor so you must understand that we are talking odds here.
You are quite correct to say that some individuals can have a better ability to teach than others. There is probably a percentage of good teachers and bad teachers, say 70/30. With a group of experienced instructors you will have 7/10 all round good instuctors and 3/10 not so good instructors with the added benefit of experience. Now tell me what you will get with the proportionate amount of low time instructors.

What the aviation industry did in the past is not really relevant. How people got taught in the past (which did work)

Have you heard of the expression "Reinventing the wheel" ?

If you self-confessed gurus are going to convince me that you should be doing all the instruction then your attitudes to 'new pilots', and their knowledge progression are going to have to change. Remember, 'Respect' is one of the greatest facilitators to teaching and learning. However, respect is a two-way system.

Talk about assumptions. I am happy to admit that I have picked up a lot of good points from those less experienced than I. I will say though that I can't remember a whole lot those points being about hands on aviating from 200 hour pilots. I am open to anyones point of view and any young chap with a bit of enthusiasm, the ability to work and some sting in their tale will get a lot of respect from me. So please don't assume that I am a disrespectful, arragont ass as that is a trait that I despise.

[Flying Pencil]

Nigel, You may well need 7-800 hrs to get a job in the UK but you can get a shiny new CPL with a little under 200hrs. For an FI(H) its now 250hrs.

In the UK, the CAA lowered the limit from 300 to 250hrs not that long ago. What does that say about their attitude to this arguement? Answers on a postcard please....

P.S. Why is it on this forum people have to react to every bitchy comment, surely some of us can rise above it(Pun intended).

FP.

[bluestack]

I find this discussion really pertinant to my position..not instructing yet mind..

I agree with what r22driver was saying, but disagree with trevors cat..

Thirdly (point b): There are a lot of hour builders who have no experience of commercial ops and instruct, just to build hours. to them I say f~~~ ~ff. Why? because they dont give a f~~~.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being honest and instructing to hour build, all the newbies have accepted that's the only way to do it - doesn't mean your heart and motivation isn't in it, and you don't want to give the best instruction you can, you might even enjoy it, or be good at it..Agreed there's varying degrees of competancy and natural instructing ability, we're assuming good eggs not bad..

When an insurance company dictates to a commercial operation who they can and can't hire - what option do we have (irrespective of attitude and ability).

For that reason I also understand that I need to accept a 500/1000 hour instructor, if that's how I'm going to do it..

But for all those that disagree and this is what I'm interested in..especially if there is the reported shortage and this is really pertinant to all in the industry..

What's the solution ?

as bellfest says :
4)I don't think that there is any room for mentoring in the first 1000 hours, in a flying school or in a commercial operation. As I have stated before, it is much more beneficial to assume you are behind the eight ball and not in front of it. Knighting a fresh pilot with the privelege to teach can place them in front of the eight ball. Having a pre conceived idea of ones ability is not that beneficial in this game.

If there's no room for mentoring and insurance companies dictate to commercial ops.....what is the way forward ?

I mean if you come fresh faced and wet behind the ears out of instructing - you may be light years behind the guys you're joining - but isn't this where the real education begins ??

I'd love to fly with the grey beards, and like to know from what 170' has said, what the reason they're not doing it is ?

Is it purely financial ?

And if it is - increasing the prices isn't going to relieve any perceived or otherwise pilot shortage - only going to make it worse..

[strop]

OVERPITCHED

It's a shame the "grey haired ass kickers" didn't show you how to pull your head out of your own ass !:ooh: :mad:

[overpitched]

Strop.

Thanks for joining the debate. I see you are once again expressing your intelligent, rational, and relevant point of view. Looking back over your previous posts on other threads I see it is quite a body of work you've got going there. Keep up the good work Goose.

[Chairmanofthebored]

Nicely divided into two subjects and I am going to try to link these together.

Bellfest words are worth recalling as are a lot of Paco's and Topendtorques.

Many others have valid comments on both sides of the debate but what is apparent is that those with time worry that the 200hr instructor is not as capable as a 2000hr pilot and those with 200hrs cannot understand why not? They operate under the protection of the regulatory authority that pokes the 'wings' into their chests and pushes them out the door. Blind leading the blind and feeling empowered to boot. 85% of flying is not about hands and feet, seat of the pants feel but really important extras like:

See that cloud, that tell you that is about to happen…
When you are heavy, avoid this…
Feel that vibration, that’s called a 2 per, tells you this is wrong…
Watch this guy approaching here, bet he forgets too…
See over here, make sure you have a backdoor to escape too…
Where is the wind coming from now? OK, here is another trick…
See that there? I once saw one of those come loose…

And a hundred odd more.

I too do not advocate hanger sweeping as a necessary requirement to producing a good pilot. As it has been said; it does teach you a lot about aircraft and that 'round thing near the tube that makes all the noise..." and for that it has plenty of validity. Unfortunately there is not necessarily a progression from this lowly servitude and a LOT abuse by individuals and the industry. I did the hanger and loader time and have varying sad and good stories about this. What occasionally happens in this situation is a lack of progress for the hanger rat.

We need a more formalised process of advancement into the industry for new pilots. The 'unregulated' approach is working but it would be better for individuals, the families and the aviation community if there was a more structured career path.

Ideally there should be an apprentiship starting pilots in the hanger. The intention being to move them to the 'other' seat during commercial operations therefore enabling them to watch more experienced pilots from inside the aircraft. Not all jobs can accommodate this but I wonder why it could not happen 50% of the time in jobs like Agwork, Logging, or resource support. Big problem is who will pay for all this. But why not? The same system works for plumber, mechanics and electricians.

It happens already in its own way with guys "slaving" and doing that for free or government support or wages the equivalent of the benefit. It's nothing to be proud of but it is an investment of your time into a career. Everyone needs a beginning and with insurance rates and limited opportunities in the industry it's never going to be easier.
Hence the popular route of buying a job via an instructor rating – "I don't have the strength to go through the BS to get this overrated job, so I will book it up to the bank, government loan or work 3 more jobs"
Your problem solved but more problems with degredation of training quality for our industry. Sorry 200hr instructor sitting in the other seat not flying: you cannot teach what you are not doing or do not know.

A scheme might work or it may not. It's merely an idea and the only one that I have. Trying to find a regulatory body to commence this idea would be harder than pulling the teeth on a croc guarding her eggs and the backlash from the training schools losing their cheap labour... priceless.

POSSIBLE structure?

CPL graduate apprentice – 1st year apprentice pilot (hanger slave, engineering assistant) – 2nd year apprentice (marketing, field work, ferry flights)
3rd year senior apprentice (ferry pilot, maintenance flights, tourism and photography, intro to commercial work, commence ATPL studies or fulltime Co-pilot position)
4th year – Final year senior apprentice (commercial work, ATPL subject completed)

Post this and with 1000hrs PIC you can voluntarily start Instructor Training.

What do you think?
:uhoh:

[800]

Chairmanofthebored
The sugestion has merit, although the time frames would have to be ironed out.
As you said; "Trying to find a regulatory body to commence this idea would be harder than pulling the teeth on a croc guarding her eggs and the backlash from the training schools losing their cheap labour... priceless"
These points would be major hurdles.
Another problem to solve is that of the mature apprentice. How many people flying have a past life; plumber, electrician, mechanic or post graduate student?
It can be sorted, but the industry and the government have to be willing to sort it.
Maybe a 4 year apprenticeship is too much. Maybe a 2 year internship (after time spent for exams & flight training) would be more practicable with the associated goverment support to assist the operator in wages & training etc much the such as an apprentice is guided.
Food for thought!

[Flingwing207]

Trying to find a regulatory body to commence this idea would be harder than pulling the teeth on a croc guarding her eggs and the backlash from the training schools losing their cheap labour... priceless.
POSSIBLE structure?
CPL graduate apprentice – 1st year apprentice pilot (hanger slave, engineering assistant) – 2nd year apprentice (marketing, field work, ferry flights)
3rd year senior apprentice (ferry pilot, maintenance flights, tourism and photography, intro to commercial work, commence ATPL studies or fulltime Co-pilot position)
4th year – Final year senior apprentice (commercial work, ATPL subject completed)
Post this and with 1000hrs PIC you can voluntarily start Instructor Training.
What do you think?
:uhoh:I think your first and largest hurdle would be to demonstrate that a problem exists rather than just believe that a problem exists. Until then, you'll find precious few takers for your plan.

Hmm, and suppose nobody "volunteers" to instruct - after all, why would they? Well, at least we'd get our for-real pilot shortage at last!

[thecontroller]

I can't see many people willing to spend $50,000 on their training and then sweep floors and stuff envelopes and not fly for two years.

the apprentiship idea is nice, but i think more simple flying in the first year is needed (intro rides, simple photo flights, ferry flights etc)

[Chairmanofthebored]

Those people not willing to spend $50K to sweep floors are everywhere. You see them at the unemployment office, back at their IT job or down at Macca's. Not willing to sweep means not willing to fly in most parts of the world. I guess you are saying if someone offered you a job leading up to flying but entailing sweeping that you would say NO?
Bit daft really.

Also, little do you know that the 'easy' flying you mentioned is often fraught with danger. Get BlenderPilot to show you a video he starred in regarding LTE and photo work. You wouldn't believe how many new pilots come out of a licence with a fresh commercial and B206 endorsement not understanding how to fly the 206 or any of the Bell products actually.

[cl12pv2s]

Get BlenderPilot to show you a video he starred in regarding LTE and photo work. You wouldn't believe how many new pilots come out of a licence with a fresh commercial and B206 endorsement not understanding how to fly the 206 or any of the Bell products actually.

You point was? Was the pilot of the B206 fresh out with a shiny new commercial?

COTB, nowhere in your 4 year plan do I see 'flight training'. Is this embedded or is your plan supposed to be after that. How does Joe Average who simply wants to be a weekend warrior in his own aircraft get his ticket? The cost of flight training would have to come down to nearly nothing to make this career path inviting.
It could be a plan for an university 'Aviation' course, though. You'd have to lose the 'Hangar slave' bit though!
No, I'd say that the plan is not really realistic.
As Flingwing mentions, prove that there actually is a problem. And I mean more than simply people on this list saying, "When I was a lad....." or "Tssk, the kids of today...."
cl12p2s

[Nigel Osborn]

COTB has at least put forward a plan. I don't agree with it as I think 4 years without a decent amount of flying & continuation training is a must. But why be rude about his idea?
In the real world even many chief pilots & base managers sweep the hangar floor & wash the helicopter, so why shouldn't a newbie assist?
Obviously the best way to learn is through the military as you get paid well to learn, get good instruction & general grounding & come out with enough experience to get a job, even if not always a good one. Again obviously not everyone can get selected for the military or perhaps not get through the training or just simply don't like the idea of being in the military even for a short while.
This means as a civilian, you now have to pay your way & that will cost a lot with possibly no job at the end. So what's the answer? If the answer was easy, there wouldn't be this current problem & general heart ache but no small or perhaps biggish company can afford to carry you while you learn as they do need to make some revenue.
I have offered my services to help a new pilot just for my out of pocket expenses to help him learn his trade & hopefully stay alive! It's surprising how many new pilots have said they have a license thanks & don't need any help. Oh well, you can't please everyone!

[gadgetguru]

Those people not willing to spend $50K to sweep floors are everywhere. You see them at the unemployment office, back at their IT job or down at Macca's. Not willing to sweep means not willing to fly in most parts of the world. I guess you are saying if someone offered you a job leading up to flying but entailing sweeping that you would say NO?
Bit daft really.


Those in IT are the few who can afford to fork out $50K without going into debt from the outset. They are also the smart ones who would rather live comfortably enough to be able to fly, than not fly, have no quality of living & be the arse end of the **** stick.

I sweep, amongst the many other jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none that I have to do in order to get a foot in the door somewhere.

doesn't mean I enjoy being taken for granted & all in order to pluck a few precious hours here & there, whilst the industry looks down it's nose at the 'slave-labour-scum', & does nothing but bitch about the lack of experience.

doesn't matter how high you lift your nose - your arse still smells just as bad as mine.

"we the willing, lead by the unknowing, have been doing so much, with so little, for so long, we are now expected to do the impossible with nothing"

live in the gutter, get treated like an animal, get absolutely no respect, or renumeration, or future.
but make sure your on time & presentable!
& we'll keep dangling a flight in front of your face (maybe).

don't foget - not every 'new' pilot is a pimply faced youth with no life experience, some of us are mature, skilled & successful professionals (in other fields) hence we are able to afford the luxury of flight training, that we have made it this far, is by no means been an easy ride, I had to work my arse off for every cent I brought home, we come to the industry not with our hat in our hand but with skills, & traits that can be applied in the same manner - given the opportunity to do so.

[212man]

In defence of Blender pilot (and I may be wrong but can't be bothered trawling through to check) I think what you'll find (CL and CoTB) is that he was being filmed in a 206 etc by a cameraman in an R44, and the footage was from that aircraft as it lost control; not anything to do with Blender losing control.

[CYHeli]

There is nothing wrong with sweeping a broom. The main problem is when the hanger rat hangs around WITHOUT PAY, hoping to get some flying.

The hanger rat will always be doing **** jobs. No problem there. Get chemical burns from stripping back helicopters, blisters from sweeping, filthy from emptying bins, etc. It's what a hangar rat does.

BUT because of the level of prostitution in this industry it's all done for free! The hangar rat is expected to roll up to an outfit, day after day, and put in. Hoping to get some flying at some stage. A ferry here, a short charter there. And the industry camoflagues this prostitution with the catch cry "You have to be in the right place at the right time!" Meaning, hang around and you'll get a fly, just make yourself useful while you're at it.

Thanks, but no thanks. I done that and found that I have more self-esteme than that. It's not pride, I'm happy to work, knowing that a helicopter will not fly 24-7. It has to sit still sometimes. But I became a pilot, not an un-paid cleaner.

I don't expect that the world owes me a living, just because I bought a licence. No pilot should believe that! But I do believe that everyone needs to make the best of any given opportunity. That includes investing for the future. The future of aviation.

I never realised until now how much better our countries would be doing if the charity work done by low hour pilots for helicopter companies actually went to the needy! :\

[bellfest]

The "hanger rat" system can certainly get abused. This is another point that I may not have made my point too clear on.
If someone has gone out and paid as much money as it is these days then they deserve to fly.
Grounding a fresh pilot will do nothing to their inexperience and only add to their lack of hands on capability. This will only lengthen the period of not being able to utilise your latest recruit as a flying pilot.
It is the companies responsibility to not put on a new inexperienced pilot unless they have the intention of building his experience (hours) from the outset. They should at least look forward to a couple of hundred hours in the first twelve months. Being a "hanger rat" ( a term I personally am not too keen on) only means that when you are not in the seat being trained you are doing things in and around the hanger that needs to be done.
Every individual will have their own opinion on this and every company will have their own expectations. Personally I have a lot more time for those that do things without being asked. Sweeping a floor is not degrading nor should it be seen as a total waste of time and energy. It is cooperating in an environment in which you will benefit a great deal from by becoming an integral part of. There is a lot of stuff to take in, a lot of stuff to observe and learn by looking over shoulders, standing in on conversations and observing what is the heartbeat of the entire operation.
My dad once told me "If you can't do the dishes you shouldn't well :mad:in be eating". I worked my ass off, I did so much more than I had to, at times it really pissed me off but I got a good return.
A good tip for all you young fellas too is to realise that a companies maintenance facility is the most vital and limiting factor of all. Such an obvious fact that goes unrealised by so many industry vets:confused: .
In respect to the companies, well, unfortunately to a certain degree our industry is flypaper for :mad: wits. There are those that will abuse the fresh pilot and they are the same ones that don't do the experienced ones too many favours either. There is a lot of directors in this industry (and many others) that can not do sums unless it has numbers. That is to say that they may be great accountants (who seem to be the blow flies by the way) that are incapable of factoring such equations as morale, job satisfaction and most of all staff's remuneration satisfaction into their company returns. Yet it seems so simple:ugh: . It does make it very satisfying to eventually work for the good guys though:)
To sum it up no plan/apprenticeship/traineeship should be considered without flying being a part of it from the start. After all you are pilots and you do deserve to fly. The more thorough your induction is the better for you right? Don't disregard a bit of manual labour because of your pride, soak up the environment and be a helping hand, another overlooked benefit
To the blatant abusers, I would find it quite satisfying if your ears turned into emus and kicked your :mad:in head in:ok:

[Chairmanofthebored]

212man got it right and I worded it poorly. BP starred in an LTE movie as he was being filmed by an aircraft for a while...until it ended up in LTE. Blenderpilot is a consumate pro and I enjoy conversing with him. No malice intended.

[Sgtfrog]

Soooo, is there a general consensus on what brand new CPL's should do, or shall I just climb back into the primordial slime from where I came and go back to my day job? Trevors Cat, pass the lager.......:sad:
SF.

[Gomer Pylot]

ive in the gutter, get treated like an animal, get absolutely no respect, or renumeration, or future.
but make sure your on time & presentable!
& we'll keep dangling a flight in front of your face (maybe).

"Then why don't you quit and get a real job?"
"What, and give up a job in AVIATION?
The reason this system is in place is because new pilots are willing to put up with it, when they know, or should know, that's the way it is, before they ever start training. If you don't want to starve for years, then get a real job, not a pilot's license. It may not be right, but that's the way it is, and it's not likely to change in our lifetime.

[platinumpure]

What is this hanger rat nonsense I keep hearing about. Who would sweep hanger floors and make cofee to become a pilot!

A retard me thinks!

[CYHeli]

platinumpure does that mean that you would give a low hour new pilot a job, without exploiting him/her and fair pay?

[platinumpure]

Na. I would try and exploit him/her anyway. If they where retarded enough to take it, then I would continue to do it. They would make a fine unpaid cleaner/coffee maker. Not so sure about a pilot though.

I think it is crazy that people (experienced pilots no less) are suggesting that people would benefit from cleaning floors for a year in a hanger. All because they had to do it. The reason they had to do it was because they are retards, which is exactly the reason that they are suggesting it to other pilots now.

Never in my career, even as a low time pilot would I ever have even considered such a thing. Nor would I have expected any other self respecting individual to consider it either.

What hope do we have in this industry to be seen as professionals when we have experienced pilots advising new qualified talent to sweep the floors.:confused:

Muppets!

[Nigel Osborn]

Whose going to sweep the hangar floor? The CEO? The chief pilot? The manager?

[Say again s l o w l y]

How about a cleaner!

Seriously though, why does anyone think it acceptable to put qualified people through indentured slavery? So a 200hr newbie may not be as experienced, but pray tell how they are to get "experience" whilst sweeping up and making tea.

Most decent people would help out on top of their flying, be they experienced or not. I certainly make tea for people and I know others with 10's of thousands of hours who'll do the same. Why should someone be forced into it just because they are new.

It all smacks of the old bulls**t about "hazing" the new guy, as if you somehow have to earn the respect of others by performing menial or degrading tasks. Sweeping a hangar needs to be done and most will be happy to do it on top of their flying, not instead of it.

If all sections of the industry are treated better, then it makes life better for all. Just look at what has happened in the fixed wing world, with people like Ryanair dragging the salaries down so far that even the most experienced crews have found themselves even paying for a uniform. If you don't think it could happen in the heli world, then you've got the blinkers on.

[eagle 86]

NO
Perhaps.
GAGS
E86