Hard yards or Cadetship and the future of GA.

[Mick Stuped]

For the last ten years or so I have been watching decline first hand of GA in the bush and at the same time the decline in basic new pilot stick and rudder skills. I am not sure the two are connected but feel in the future that the decline of small GA business will impact on safety in our industry all the way to the top.

I don't know how many times I have heard a heavy pilot say they were thankful for the grounding and start they had to their career in outback Northern Australia,flying a 206 into a remote community. Skills they learnt with basicially being out there in an ever changing, and for a low time pilot, stressful flying evnvoiroment, had given them skills that still help them in day to day decisions whilst flying be it in a metro or a A380.

I don't want this to evolve into a Cadetship v's self study debate but I am yet to be convinced a Cadetship is providing future pilots with the skills that's needed to be able to handle a high stress environment. If something really goes badly wrong and basic stress management and stick and rudder skills are called on will they have the skill set to handle the suituation. Is sim time a good a trainer as real time? We have had 1000 hour cadets come to looking for a job flying on a 206 that couldn't meet our basic skill levels eg dirt strip operations with max cross wind component in a flight check. They maybe very good at flying the same set route as a FO in the same aircraft day in day out but when asked to change without notice or disrupt the flow and they are lost. Or are we only seeing the ones John West rejects? If so please don't go looking for a job in GA if you don't make full time FO or come with an attitude that a 172 is below you.

My concern is if we loose the basic level of GA that starts the new pilots in their first job flying a 172, 182, 206 or 210 disappears who is going give a newbie a start in a 402 or a Chieftain without their own cadetships. Without a company flying these who is going to give a pilot a start in a conquest or a king air and the list goes on. Then at the end of the day has the size and level of aircraft gone up so high they then cannot serve the small and remote bush strips that needed the service in the first place. Government seems to miss the fact that GA intact is one of the safest industry's around. However take one sector out and it soon become very weak and will have a serious impact on all parts of the aviation and associated industries. Each sector like a family relys on the other be it skills or as basic as a feeder to the other.

I hate say it but it seems thats were we are at as and industry at the moment. A company that flys mainly 402 and chieftains said that they want to know the minute we have a good pilot looking and ready to move onto twins to call them. They had lost a couple of good pilots to a kingair operator. Both these companies used to run singles years ago and belived in company progression until they evolved in a mainly twin company company chasing FIFO and RPT now they are finding there isn't the depth of pilots with experience out there to fill positions. They are also having problems even finding management for RPT operations. Meanwhile we had the largest number of newbie CV's ever submitted to us this year for seasonal work.

Why? simply because entry level GA is gone. CASA I have been told want GA to disappear. How are newbies going to find a first start? Will cadet ships become the only way pilots will get a start? Will another level of training have be put into the training standard to allow a newbie step straight into a twin turbine?
Will light GA as it is with ageing aircraft and low time pilots be able to transition to part 135. Will current management in Light single GA experience be able to transition into part 135? Will transition to part 135 be affordable for these small struggling busineses? Or do we just say sorry shut the doors and watch the ripple on effect go all the way to the top of this industry and associated industry's and in a few years say what a pity that we shut down light GA.
Will the GA epitaph read..... GA was a great little small business usually found in rural and remote Australia that supplied an affordable air service to those that needed supplies or to travel long distance in a short time on a budget. It was usually run by girls and guys who live in the area that like the local store loved to provide a service.

So much for the government statement that they value small business

Maybe my last post

MS

[DropYourSocks]

I haven't been in this game a long time Mick, although I cant help but agree to some extent. I think what would be more accurate is the longer we do this, the industry changes around us and we end up being left behind in our ways (whether for better or worse).

In the end though, those who remain won't know any different, or will suffer from a similar disillusionment, and so we progress onwards.

[Aussie Bob]

The airline of the future won't need a pilot. The technology is already here.

GA has progressed from slow to rapid decline, in part due to cheap cars and better roads but mostly due to increased legislation, read CAsA. Why CAsA staff are so eager to loose their jobs is perhaps the topic of another thread.

Those taking on massive debt to fund a flying career are mostly under the impression that the debt doesn't need repaying (only comes from tax).

Maybe my last postCome on Mick, you can't do that to us!

[Pinky the pilot]

The airline of the future won't need a pilot. The technology is already here

Mein Gott, but I sincerely hope that you are wrong in that assertion Aussie Bob.:eek: Technology is fine but electronics/computer systems etc still on occasion foul up. And until they are made totally foolproof and infallible I would not like to see Pilotless a/c carrying passengers anywhere, anytime!

Re Mick`s comment about CASA wanting GA to disappear; I tend to agree. No other explanation seems valid as to just why they seem to be deliberately making things just more and more difficult for the sector to survive.:*

As for Pilots losing basic stick and rudder skills; I seem to remember Chimbu Chuckles (where are ya btw?) making that argument quite coherently in a thread quite some time back.

Come on Mick, you can't do that to us!

Concur.

[GTang]

55% in next two decades according to the economist

The onrushing wave | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previous-technological-innovation-has-always-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fonrushingwave)

[Aussie Bob]

Pinky, I sincerely hope I am wrong too! But if I am correct and the general public refuses to fly in such a device, who better to sit in the office than a pilot fresh from college?

[chimbu warrior]

Excellent post Mick, and I too sincerely hope you continue to contribute here.

As we all know, GA in Europe is dead and buried, and sadly there are definite signs of decline here. What few people seem to appreciate though, is that much of Australia needs a vibrant GA sector. GA might be a "nice-to-have" in many other countries, but is a "must-have" here.

Where will the next generation of RFDS pilots come from? You simply cannot provide enough training to a newbie to enable them to embark on medical retrievals at night in a single-pilot King Air. Only experience produces the skills required for such roles.

This is but one example of many parts of GA that are essential, but there are plenty more, like the 300 aircraft in Australia used for ag flying. Who is going to put a newbie in an 802 or Thrush?

What CASA thinks or wants is irrelevant; they are supposed to foster our industry, not smother it.

[thorn bird]

Mike,
Thank you for your post, it enunciates a lot of what is wrong with the way things are done in Australia and not just in aviation.
Unfortunately Australia is experiencing the rise of the regulator.
In our increasingly Litigious society our bureaucrats are increasingly writing regulations to limit the Commonwealths liability for anything. Rather than encourage industry of any kind to prosper and grow, they bury it in Gobbledygook.
Consider that in the USA they enunciate their rules for aviation in about 500 pages, same in New Zealand. How many thousands of pages does it take our regulator?
A comparison between us and the USA or New Zealand will illustrate just what affect over regulation has and what could occur with proper regulation.
Aviation in NZ is now the second biggest contributor to their GDP.

GA is not unique in this, just more sensitive to cost pressures.
I don't believe there is any hope that GA will survive, other than a major change in the way it is administered.

GA is about to lose its capital city secondary airports. Unfortunately the value of the land on which they sit has reached a point where the pressure on the ruling class to develop far exceeds any chance the industry could mount a defense, even if it had funds available to do so.
The power of developers money politically, is just too strong.

Our primary airports have become the biggest tax dodge in history, surpassing even the "Bottom of the Harbour schemes".

The costs of the new "reformed" regulations are unsustainable.

Maintenance costs alone are now twice what they are in the US.

I can Charter the same aircraft in the USA for way, way less than it cost me to operate here.

Our fuel costs are a cash cow for the government as well as the oil companies, and airport owners.

Consider that the extra levee on fuel imposed to give CAsA $90 Mil to employ more front line staff. Its still there and by the end of the year will have raised almost $ 400 million.
CAsA makes a "Profit" for government every year, how many "Front Line" staff did they employ for the extra $90 Mil? A few managers and a LOT of ex staff as "consultants" on twice what they were paid as employee's.

Do a comparison between here and the Philippines, fuel all comes out of the same refineries in Singapore. I have evidence that some of the private owners of some of our airports demand their own fuel "excise" for every liter sold at their airport.

GA simply doesn't have the recourses or time to combat the parasites that have grown up to feed off it.

Sad, but I'm at the end of my career, I feel so sad for the kids coming along. Remember the old days? How many guys cut their spurs in New Guinea or Northern Australia?

[Oktas8]

It used to be that an airline required pilots to have excellent airmanship & judgement, gained firstly from good training & secondly from experience flying for Mick's Air Services in the outback.

These days, instead of training & keeping highly experienced pilots, an airline finds it cheaper simply to ban its pilots from flying manoeuvres and routes requiring good judgement. Policy & procedure is cheaper than raw experience!

This is because the airline has invested in an airframe with good SA-enhancing widgets, coupled with 100 pages of instructions forbidding pilots from performing hitherto routine manoeuvres (e.g., circling approaches, max crosswind landings). With this investment and these restrictions, the airline can & will safely entrust operations to recent graduates from flying school.

And it is safe. Sure, you get the occasional nincompoop who thinks holding the stick hard back against the stops is a suitable response to an emergency (hullo Air France), but overall the safety of airline operations has never been higher.

Unfortunately, recent graduates don't want to fly 206's because gas-turbine RPT will employ them. Experienced pilots don't want to fly 206's because they are employed by heavy RPT, albeit at declining conditions. CASA doesn't like 206 operations because it's impossible to make it as safe as all those airline restrictions such as "no landing on dirt strips, no landing with max crosswind". Politicians will do only what Joe Public is willing to pay for.

I don't minimise the enormous experience in all levels of the industry. We all do our part, and a lifetime of experience will always show! But operators are less and less willing to pay a premium for this level of experience. Policy & procedure is cheaper than raw experience!

[pilotchute]

Mick,

I would like to know this company you speak of looking for guys ready to move up to twin work. I know more than a couple of people with around 1500 hours time with a mix of charter, para dropping and mustering experience banging their heads against a wall.

The responses they get range from "oh no time on type sorry" or "you need 200 hours in a Baron, 310 etc to start with us".

I constantly hear tales of woe from companies saying that can't find good people yet they pay bare minimum and treat staff like crap.

An ad on AFAP will bring up loads of qualified people. If companies weren't so picky with ridiculous hiring criteria then they might get a good CV every now and then.

[Bankrupt84]

Plenty of young men and women are still going through the hard yards of GA.

I have flown throughout Africa and PNG building my time and have met many on the journey.

However, when applying for an Australian operator I was told I had too much bush time to fly a piston twin in Australia.

Perhaps the old timers at the top should decide what they want instead of always moving the goal post. Going back to Africa I went straight into a 404.

The problem is that the cadetships make great pilots for airlines, Europe has been doing it for years, and what about Qantas?
Captains today are the product of the Qantas cadet scheme. Are you saying that these people don't have the ability because they didn't fly around in beat up piston aircraft for 10 years?

[triadic]

A quote some 7 or 8 years ago from a very experienced instructor/ATO

"The average pilot passing a CPL test today, would not have passed a PPL twenty years earlier"

The standard has been sinking for some years - certainly since the mid 90's if not earlier, for all the reasons mentioned by Mick. Today's CFI never knew it back then and have developed in this era of declining standards. They don't know any better. As they say, you don't know what you don't know......

Mick, maybe you should make your views known to someone in high places that might have some influence? Certainly worth a try.

[Pontius]

There's a lot of food for thought in Mick's post but there's the standard rhetoric that does little to advance his argument.

I have been watching decline first hand of GA in the bush and at the same time the decline in basic new pilot stick and rudder skills.

Really? So in the days of yore new pilots were somehow gifted with superior stick and rudder skills compared to new pilots of today. Absolute tosh. The 100 hour pilot of 1980 (or whatever) would have had the same stick and rudder skills as a 100 hour pilot of 2015. It could be argued that a 100 hour Tiger Moth pilot had more skills than a 100 hour C172 pilot and I could accept that slightly more skill was required to pilot those aircraft well but they lacked skills in aircraft operation that a 'modern' pilot has, including engine and systems management. I know that's not stick and rudder but it is relevant to flying the aircraft. I think these people who claim to witness a decline are (a)prone to memory loss about how crap things were 'back then' (when the 1940s pilots were saying the same thing) and (b)because their skills have advanced with experience the gap between the skills they had with few hours now seems so far away that they can't remember how bad they were.

I don't know how many times I have heard a heavy pilot say they were thankful for the grounding and start they had to their career in outback Northern Australia,flying a 206 into a remote community. Skills they learnt with basicially being out there in an ever changing, and for a low time pilot, stressful flying evnvoiroment, had given them skills that still help them in day to day decisions whilst flying be it in a metro or a A380.

Yep, I've heard that too but consider it complete bollox. "Yeah, all those nights flying into dirt strips with nothing but kerosene drums to guide the way gave me the skills, experience and captaincy necessary to command an A380". Give me a break :hmm: Yes, they broadened experience. Yes, they helped build on the basic skills already learnt but to become the basis for operating an airliner, I don't agree.

I know it's not the Australian way because in Australia it's just not possible to ever operate an airliner without having done the 'hard yards' and thrashed around the bush in a 206. The myth is self-perpetuating and I hear it in the aero club and flight deck, often from pilots with no time under their belt but who still choose to spout forth when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. They repeat what their flying instructor told them in the bar, because he heard it from a 402 pilot from Broome and so it goes on. Unfortunately, Australian aviation is so small that there are very few people who actually look at what happens outside Oz and see that there is actually more than one way to skin a cat. Australians hate cadets because they buck the system and 'cheat' by not doing their time in the North and clattering around in beaten up 210s full of 'original land owners' and newspapers. The trouble is that if cadets are taken through a proper course (NO, I am not talking about self-funding, pay-to-fly etc) then those pilots become far more relevant to operating an airliner than the one who has spent hours bashing the circuit in a 150 or flying tourists around the Kimberly. I know, I know, "burn him, burn him, he's blasphemous and talks heresy."

In my happy little world we would actually see more company-sponsored cadetships, with the training carried out in Oz. Rather than stifle GA this would actually bring more business to the flights schools used by those airlines and help to expand the world outside of airliners. We would still need the instructors in the GA aircraft and the tourists would still need to be flown around the rocks but the airlines would be getting people that are suited to their purpose of operating airliners. Those who wish to continue the 'traditional route' are still at liberty to do so (and then give us the pleasure of hearing in the bar how everybody else knows nothing unless they've flown in the NT in 'the wet' :) ). My utopia, however, is not attainable because the airlines have made flying training a business from which they can profit and they have no incentive to pay for cadet training when they can get the pilots to pay for it themselves but that's a different rant and one that's been done to death a million times, with no solution :(

[FoolCorsePich]

including engine and systems management.

I dare say the current 100 hour pilot knows just as little about engine management as did a 1980 100 hour pilot. Reason being that from then till now its still the same cr@p being taught in flying schools and theory books about engine 'management'.

the basis for operating an airliner, I don't agree.

Funny word 'basis'. What would be the basis of flying, even for an airliner? Is hand flying a visual approach in perfect weather conditions not still considered basis? Some Koreans murdered a bunch of people because this basis was omitted.

Australians hate cadets

I don't hate them. I pitty them for having a boring career and/or life.

[seneca208]

Everybody has their own pathway. Every pathway has its own challenges. Everybody has their own needs and desires from their career. Let them make the decision for themselves; I know A320 cadets that I would much prefer to be sitting next to someone else than in a 206 on their own.

[Mick Stuped]

Pontious and others,
Great points all of you apart from a bit of Boss bashing. That is just human nature and spirited argument is always good. I have been in this industry running my own small business trying my hardest to do the right thing for over 30 years. I like to think over that time I have tied to installed a sence of pride in each and every pilot that comes to work for us not only in their own personal development but in their chosen industry.

This post wasn't supposed to be a Cadetship V's traditional argument or who is or can pee the furthest. It was meant to be a look at what makes this industry, what it is that comes to mind first off when you hear the word GA. To ask everyone what will the Australian aviation scene with small light aircraft look like in 10 years time. If it is gone what model will replace the current GA scene.

According to the regulator GA, will be replaced with aerial work, scenic flights within 50 mile of the base, and part135 or light RPT less than 9 pax. Part 135 from what I understand will end GA as to meet compliance to a RPT standard with check and training, miantiance management and a lot of current remote ALA's will no longer meet standards this mean charter will no longer be available, at a reasonable cost in small aircraft as the increased cost in employing or outsourcing the extra compliance staff, to basicly do the same thing as we are doing now means the cost of a remote charter under part 135 will be beyond the budget of the small companies and communities that now use these services. We will price ourselves out of the market, not so we as Bosses or owners can make more money but just to comply and because of perceived safety issues in GA.

In just the past ten years our miantiance, fuel and compliance costs have doubled yet our hourly charge out rate has only increased by 30% as market resistance has driven down our yearly hours flown. To remain in business hoping that things would change we have all tried to cut costs in every place apart from safety, some old mates have morgaged everything as we all have seen our net worth get whittled away and now we have a growing debt, and an asset that's not worth selling even if a buyer could be found. All that have not been at front line management will say oh just another winging boss but it's true, if you want the evidence look around at any regional airport and see how many operators work from there now compared to 20 years ago. Look at statistics on how many new aircraft are on the registrar. In any industry the sign of its strength is the infrastructure reinvestment. I would love to replace our ageing fleet but at 700 to 800,000 for a new 206 or airvan we just could not make the payments. There is reason for the ageing fleet no one can afford to replace them even if banks would loan against the company figures.

I am trying to highlight without GA where do newbies go to look for their first job in a few years? And please don't insult me by telling me I don't know what makes a good pilot for my operation. I want to see all my pilots at the Christmas party I don't sugar coat my reasons for not hiring like a lot of other operators if your skills are not what I require I say go and focus on this or that or get to this standard and come back. We have had the same standard for 30 years and more pilots doing cheek rides cannot make that standard. But thats a whole new argument that this post isn't about.

I have knocked on MP both state and federal doors and have drawn my concerns to all levels of CASA and whilst all can see my concerns all throw their hands in the air and say to hard to change.

All I can do is just raise awareness of the plight of GA. It is sad that in the end we all really don't know what we have until it's gone. GA I see is really the the canary in the whole aviation industry.

We all need to stand up and go to our MP's write to them as I have done. Submit white papers and concerns to CASA as I have done. But I am only one of very few doing this. If any of you have friends in the media approach them. Maybe if we all do this a bit of common-sense may prevale when the powers that be finally settle on the final draft for for Part 135 and they don't try and reinvent the wheel but try to keeps what's there at the moment.

Still here but only just.
MS

[Pontius]

According to the regulator GA, will be replaced with aerial work, scenic flights within 50 mile of the base, and part135 or light RPT less than 9 pax. Part 135 from what I understand will end GA as to meet compliance to a RPT standard with check and training, miantiance management and a lot of current remote ALA's will no longer meet standards this mean charter will no longer be available, at a reasonable cost in small aircraft as the increased cost in employing or outsourcing the extra compliance staff, to basicly do the same thing as we are doing now means the cost of a remote charter under part 135 will be beyond the budget of the small companies and communities that now use these services. We will price ourselves out of the market, not so we as Bosses or owners can make more money but just to comply and because of perceived safety issues in GA.

I have never owned my own business and can only imagine the pressures that decent bosses have to undergo in order to keep everything ticking over and ensure that everyone benefits from their efforts in the company. I believe that Part 135 will involve more money being spent in the short term to comply with the inevitable bureaucracy that will arise from a new set of rules being applied in a new area and I empathise with the added pressure this will bring to those owners who need to ensure compliance. I am certainly no expert whatsoever in the area of the differing rules but I do see a large variance in operations between various operators and too much reliance being placed on differing FOIs, their relationship with the bosses, how CASA views various 'personalities' etc. What I would hope Part 135 rules would bring would be a level playing field, much easier visibility of what is being done right and wrong and, eventually, less bureaucracy as everybody settles into the 'new way' of doing things with a much clearer rule set than is currently in place. I accept the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but I don't think that is the case in Australian GA today and some parts of the industry do need addressing. I find it quite galling that some operators can get away with a nod and wink to a friendly FOI while others get run through the mill because they've had an argument with their's in the past. Too many individual personalities with too many individual takes on the matter.

Other countries have had to go through the same pains as they've been forced to adopt new rules and these pains have cost many operators lots of money and, in many cases, forced them out of business. However, when the dust has settled they have ended up with a standard across the industry that holds up to scrutiny under the gaze of the public, that needs the protections and guarantees of safety the rules provide. Whether this will ever be the case with CASA, who seem to out-do the rest of the world in terms of cronyism, bureaucracy, cost and inefficiency I don't know but I do know Australian GA has to move forward and can't remain forever doing things the way they've always been done because that's how it's always been done.

I do think Part 135 will adversely affect GA in the short term and I am sure there will be job losses as some companies cannot run a solvent business and comply with the inevitable cost increases it will bring. Many charters etc will be cancelled because firms are not going to be prepared to burden the price increases and, of course, there will be fewer tourists who want to pay an extra $XX to fly around the bay. But with my rose-coloured glasses on I can also foresee a time when everyone gets used to the new standard cost. Much as we all do when the prices go up at the petrol pumps, we'll bitch and moan about it and then pay the price anyway. But, unlike the petrol station where we're paying more for the exactly the same product as yesterday, at least with Part 135 it will be (so long as it's not buggered up by CASA) a better industry than at present and have a more stable and transparent regulatory standard in the future.

I think I will now step away from the wine bottle because having just read what I've written it sounds like one of those 'guarantee' letters we get from CASA that everything will be alright, mate. However, in spite of the red, I do believe what I've written and it would be such a shame to delete it all. If nothing else it'll get someone angry and stimulate debate :)

Cheers :ok: hic.

[triadic]

Pontius: What you or nobody else to date has mentioned is the very different culture that exists now as opposed to 20-30+ years ago.

Very few, except us oldies would realise the significant difference there is in the general culture of today from say the 70's, not only in aviation and piloting but in the community in general.

What CASA and other organisations fail to address is this difference. Would it make better pilots if we did? Maybe? But few have even tried I would suggest.

What I have seen in the way of new CPLs is that they seem to want everything yesterday, have little situational awareness or ability for forward thinking. Ego's are over the moon with little appreciation that you need to walk before you can run.

What that bush flying used to provide was a learning curve to mature those skills which seem now not to be there as they once were.

Sadly, this present lack of "brain skills" seems also to have an effect on "stick and rudder" skills. Maybe we need a psychologist to review?

[peterc005]

Cadetships, especially Virgin and Jetstar, have been very hard to get. If someone was lucky enough to be offered one they should jump at it.

[Lookleft]

Cadetships, especially Virgin and Jetstar, have been very hard to get.

Not sure about Virgin but in Jetstar at the moment it is impossible to get because they are not running them!

[peterc005]

Yes, I think you're right and both the Jetstar and Virgin cadetships are on hold. I've also heard the last batch of Jetstart cadets are still waiting for a slot and will be for a long time.

I've met maybe a dozen Jetstar cadets over the past few years and they all seemed to think they'd won the lottery.

Also know one guy who did the Sharp Airlines cadetship and is not flying RPT turbines. He was very happy with the training and outcome.

[porch monkey]

If I had $150 k to invest in tickets, I could win the lottery too.:rolleyes:

[Luke SkyToddler]

The airlines will be fine. As Chimbu pointed out there's been no GA in Europe for decades. Easyjet and Ryanair have been taking the vast majority of their pilots as 200 hour cadets for 20+ years now and most of their captains now are products of that system, they've never flown GA or C206's or anything of the sort, they've never known anything outside of a B737 / A320 and believe it or not they're actually all bloody good. As long as the training department is robust and knows their stuff, and is free to operate without management / financial pressure, the system works.

Furthermore there are more than a few halfwits floating around the contract world, guys with the legendary Aussie "GA background" who presumably have stick and rudder skills, but also have some pretty cowboy attitudes and interpersonal skills. A d:mad:khead is going to be a d:mad:khead whether he's got a GA background or not.

For what it's worth, I predict that the traditional "stepping stone" route from GA to airline is going to continue to decline, and eventually fall by the wayside altogether. Simply because cadet schemes are more profitable for the airlines and also easier to plan and administer. Your argument that the airlines "need" GA to give pilots the essential old-school stick and rudder that they need, is, I'm afraid to say, a complete load of baloney. I flew with plenty of ex-cadet captains in my Easyjet days and it would be absolutely ridiculous to accuse them, of being in any way less competent or somehow deficient, compared to the ex-mil or ex-GA guys.

You make a fair enough argument that there's always going to be a need for GA in Oz, therefore, GA needs to step up to the plate and solve their own problems. You seem pretty keen to spread the blame around the schools and the airlines and CASA for breaking down the supply of "quality applicants" that your business wants, but not so keen to ask what GA as an industry can do to attract and keep those guys.

You have already recognized that the stepping-stone model has broken down, therefore you need to also realize the logical conclusion from that, that you are no longer a "feeder" for the airlines, you are directly competing with them, to attract and keep the quality pilots that you seek.

[Centaurus]

Your argument that the airlines "need" GA to give pilots the essential old-school stick and rudder that they need, is, I'm afraid to say, a complete load of baloney

It's a long time ago but I clearly recall the contempt shown to me by two GA operators when I applied for a job with them following my retrenchment from an overseas 737 operator back in the 80's. Sent a modest CV (one page) to Kendall Airlines in Wagga, followed up by a short phone call to Don Kendall the chief honcho himself.

Informed I was ex RAAF and ex airline, he told me bluntly that he would not embarrass his young captains by having me in the RH seat and furthermore at my age (45) I wouldn't have the strength to lift the bags into the hold. I had the impression he had a real dislike of RAAF trained pilots.

Similar attitude when talking to the deputy chief pilot of an MU2 operation at Essendon. As soon as he saw the same one page CV, this character said thanks - but no thanks. I asked him what was the problem? He said as a former RAAF pilot I wouldn't have a clue about flying single pilot IFR and in any case I would expect too much of aircraft serviceability in GA. In other words he required pilots who would be happy to fly a defective aircraft and say nothing.

Since both these events happened within a few days of each other, I can tell you it was not a pleasant and fulfilling introduction to the world of general aviation in Australia.

[Username here]

250 hours and a an Air Force "cadet" is in the RHS of a C17, B737 or A330....

They seem to keep their big machines out of the dirt and you never hear people whining about the "RAAF cadetship", in fact you often see people telling starters..."you want an flying career? Try starting out in the RAAF!"

So why do people only have an issue with airline cadetships?

[Username here]

Some might argue that signing over 12 years of your life to the government is just as bad...

And isn't half of GA supposed to be ripping off punters looking for experience for that jet job? How are we encouraging people to take the GA route if we are concerned for the young pilots welfare? Looks to me like they are being fed to the sharks no matter what route they take...

So again, what's the issue with airline cadets?

[Luke SkyToddler]

There's no issue with airline cadets.

The original poster is a GA operator, who is understandably concerned about the breakdown of the conventional career progression path from GA to the airlines, in favour of cadet programs.

His concern in this is not the welfare of the airlines, or the safety of the travelling public once there's no more pilots with "GA experience" :rolleyes: driving the 'buses and Boeings.

It's the clear and obvious fact that given the current state of GA, very few people in their right mind will touch it with a 40 foot pole, or even commence flight training outside of a cadet program, once the airlines become a closed shop and GA becomes a dead end career with no progression path.

Should this situation come to pass, it will obviously have a drastic impact on his ability to cherry pick one or two guys from the several hundred CV's he's used to having on his table.

Hence why he's a bit grumpy and crying that this is probably his "last post" and prophesizing that the whole industry is about to come to an end.

There's an obvious solution to this problem, but it would unfortunately involve the dreaded "spending of money" :ouch:

[CoodaShooda]

My user name reflects my decision to turn my back on RAAF and CPL options in the mid-70's, because I was consistently told "there is no future in aviation".

One of those selling me that message retired 30 years later with 28,000 hours from an international long haul career.

There is much that is wrong with GA at present; the regulatory environment and cost structures in particular.

But GA will continue to be an around for as long as there is a commercial need for it. And young people who want to fly will still see it as an option.

In this, it is no different to any other industry. Not every business will thrive and not every aspirant will establish a career.

But I must admit that I was pleased CoodaKid3 chose the RAAF route and proved himself good enough to earn the Wings that were pinned to his chest last week.

It seems the wise men I listened to 40 years ago may have been a trifle pessimistic......and wrong.

[dr dre]

Just finished reading the book "A Lifetime in Long Haul" by a retired 747 Captain. Himself and his cadet colleagues of that era were required to do a couple of years of GA flying in the NT, Qld and PNG, before joining the airline as Second officers. Most of them seemed to value the experience

Would this be a solution? Maybe it's a lack of structured career path that dissuades good people from wanting to become pilots, and this could provide a source of well trained, motivated pilots for GA operators?

[gerry111]

Deadcut wrote:


"While in the RAAF you get paid a salary WHILE you train in an all expenses paid course."


And if you go through ADFA, you also end up with a degree with no HECS debt...

[Mick Stuped]

It seems there is some major confusion out there in the difference between GA or Charter operators that I am talking about and RPT and the regional scheduled airlines. It seems that some are thinking GA covers all operators that isn't a heavy.
My concern is the loss of charter operators. This is the target group for the new Part 135.

Charter operators are mainly small business less than 10 aircraft most are only running two or three small light aircraft and are by far these charter companies are the biggest employers of low time pilots in Australia.

The latest statistics showing the number of AOC holders by Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport, & Regional Economics (BITRE) Report 115 as of Febuary 2015 are as follows

Charter operators- 593
Flight Training operators - 188
RPT operators - 31

The figures for 2009 were
Charter operators - 601
Flight Training operators - 210
RPT operators - 41

It is noted from the BITRE report the number of operators with a RPT services was 53 in 1984, peaked at 58 Operators in 1993, and since then has decreased to the dismal level of 28 operators providing RPT services in 2010. Since the last report by BITRE a further 7 of the operators providing services in the report have ceased operations all together and closed their doors.
In investigations of the source data it discovered that over this time frame there were only 8 years that showed a net increase year on year in the number of RPT operators and 16 years had a net decrease in the number of RPT operators servicing regional and remote parts of Australia.
We are not aware of any data that explains the reason why out of the 165 operators that have attempted to undertake RPT operations in regional and remote parts of Australia why only 21 remain. However, what is highlighted is that of the 21 remaining RPT operators in 2015;
only 3 have provided continuous RPT services for the entire period;
a further 5 have provided continuous RPT services since 2000; and
a further 6 have provided continuous RPT services since 2005.

So with the above report on RPT declines in my mind the biggest sector in regional Australia is the charter AOC holders. Like us they are mostly just small operators spread all over inland and remote Australia running only A few aircraft each servicing tourists and local communities and the biggest employer in Aviation in remote Austalia and if even half these companies shut down as well because they couldn't afford to meet compliance with Part 135 how many will this put out of work? Due to the reduced amount of operators how many training companies will shut the doors?

You may say that the Mums & Dad operations will be replaced by bigger operators taking up the gap left. However As proven by the decline in RPT this will never happen as the reason most of these small Mum and Dad companies survive is because they can operate with low overheads, most owners not even drawing a wage only living expenses. The only reason they stay in business is they love the business and its been their lifetimes work, if they weren't doing it, it would mean being unemployed as opportunities for work is very limited if all you have done all your life is fly and run a air charter company in remote Australia. It is just not viable for a big company to establish a base in an area like that that Relies on ad hock charters without regular work or contracts. Small GA is same as a small cottage industry Mum does the books, Dad looks after the flying and they may have a newbie and a senior line pilot that was last years newbie.

If Part 135 is going to straighten out charter why then has the biggest decline in the industry since 2009 been in RPT? Could it just be the cost of compliance with recent legislative changes that swept through RPT and miantiance in the past couple of years?

I thought Australia always loved the little guy having a go. That's all these guys and girls are trying to do. However from a lot of posts out there it seems that Australia has become a big fan of the big company the body corporate only making decisions for the bottom line without a sence of community or the communities they serve. I didn't realise that we as a nation had become so city centric. Brush the bush off if you wish but it still is the source of most of our export earnings. All these remote communities still need plumbers, electricians, tradesman and government officials. With sometimes a 10 hour drive or impassable roads in the wet these guys still rely on GA to get into remote communities I cannot see why we need to shift to a RPT standard to do this with only one or two passengers in a 210. GA is as safe if not safer than it has ever been. You always hear about the bad operators but you never hear about the good ones.

MS

[hoopdreams]

There are some good experiences to be gained in GA, but it's not a prerequisite to a successful airline career. If you want to end up in the airlines, you'd be crazy not to take a cadetship.

[Pinky the pilot]

my age (45) I wouldn't have the strength to lift the bags into the hold.

Centaurus; Anybody who said that to me, even these days, would get their lights punched out!:eek:

That would soon indicate to them just how much physical strength I still have. And my age listed to the left is correct!

And I would slam the door behind me on my way out.