Four Corners
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cjam and others,
I honesly have no association with a GA company and I'm not an owner etc etc.
I'm saying that the public may be surprised that pilots get lousy money but it's not going to be keeping them awake at night because hey have their own mortgage and kids to worry about so Larry the bush basher charter boy is just going to have to take care of himself.
My second point is that pilots must be held just as accountable as their dodgey boss. If pilots are knowingly breaching regs just to keep their jobs then they are just as guilty I'm afraid. The fact is that if a pilot accepts the responsibility for the lives of his or her pax the he or she has an obligation to operate within every aspect of the regulations and orders. If they get sacked for refusing to do so and that sacking has a negative effect on their career as they are branded "too honest" to be employed, what does that actually say about the stae of the industry.
I got sacked (walked off after huge argument actually) from my first ever GA flying job for complaining to the chief pilot about flying a single overwater with no life jackets. I went on and found another job without any hassles and that arsewipe operator folded up a year later so I stand by my opinions.
The thought of facing the family of a person who was killed or injured by my deliberate breaches was the the one thing that kept me from doing it. Making an extra few dollars a week would not have made me a safer pilot. Likewise, I would not have deliberately broken more rules if my pay was cut so if that's how it works out there today then it is, as gaunty says, game set and match......... for the whole industry.
I honesly have no association with a GA company and I'm not an owner etc etc.
I'm saying that the public may be surprised that pilots get lousy money but it's not going to be keeping them awake at night because hey have their own mortgage and kids to worry about so Larry the bush basher charter boy is just going to have to take care of himself.
My second point is that pilots must be held just as accountable as their dodgey boss. If pilots are knowingly breaching regs just to keep their jobs then they are just as guilty I'm afraid. The fact is that if a pilot accepts the responsibility for the lives of his or her pax the he or she has an obligation to operate within every aspect of the regulations and orders. If they get sacked for refusing to do so and that sacking has a negative effect on their career as they are branded "too honest" to be employed, what does that actually say about the stae of the industry.
I got sacked (walked off after huge argument actually) from my first ever GA flying job for complaining to the chief pilot about flying a single overwater with no life jackets. I went on and found another job without any hassles and that arsewipe operator folded up a year later so I stand by my opinions.
The thought of facing the family of a person who was killed or injured by my deliberate breaches was the the one thing that kept me from doing it. Making an extra few dollars a week would not have made me a safer pilot. Likewise, I would not have deliberately broken more rules if my pay was cut so if that's how it works out there today then it is, as gaunty says, game set and match......... for the whole industry.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been stated before, it's not just the pilot's who are bullied by employers or ops mngrs into breaking rules while flying. It is the pilot's who accept the job after a pilot has raised valid concerns and said no to flying.
Like Victor two I would rather stand by my decisions than have to explain in front of a board of enquiry or worse, someones family.
Can be very hard but most employers will see that the decision is based on real concerns and usually honour your stand.
To those pilots who are prepared to then come along and do that same job....well
I am not a big fan of unions but I do believe the aviation industry, namely pilots need to get organised and unite. The industry has always been harsh on pilots' wage wise. Employers have and will continue to expliot drivers so they can make a profit or to simply stay afloat.(Usually because the next operator is doing the same damn thing). Legislation and or some form of unity within the drivers' domain needs to be sort. Pipe dream....Hope not.
I am in GA and am staying here for a while, by choice.
Like Victor two I would rather stand by my decisions than have to explain in front of a board of enquiry or worse, someones family.
Can be very hard but most employers will see that the decision is based on real concerns and usually honour your stand.
To those pilots who are prepared to then come along and do that same job....well
I am not a big fan of unions but I do believe the aviation industry, namely pilots need to get organised and unite. The industry has always been harsh on pilots' wage wise. Employers have and will continue to expliot drivers so they can make a profit or to simply stay afloat.(Usually because the next operator is doing the same damn thing). Legislation and or some form of unity within the drivers' domain needs to be sort. Pipe dream....Hope not.
I am in GA and am staying here for a while, by choice.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a few mates who worked for Transair over the last few years and they have said, as far as shonkyness goes, they were not too bad.
I believe the main problem has been the NEW AUSSIE SYSTEM.
That is, they get pilots with 500 - 1,000hrs. to pay for their own endorsements and then pay them 10% under the award for the privelidge.
As stated on the program, some of these FO's are not up to speed. Therefore, the poor Captain has to act as 1 1/2 pilots for less than the award.
Of course this "bending over" puts alot more money on the bottom line. The travelling public deserves more, but then again they are people that want to fly all over the country for $10.
This new system that appears to have reared it's ugly head in this country over the last 10 years is a joke. Why don't companies like this one just get fresh CPL's and charge them 20K for the job and pay them nothing - even more money for the shareholders?
I wonder if Sunstate/easterns are taking note as I am sure their in-boxes are full of 500hr. drivers with an 18K cheque ready in hand.
I believe the main problem has been the NEW AUSSIE SYSTEM.
That is, they get pilots with 500 - 1,000hrs. to pay for their own endorsements and then pay them 10% under the award for the privelidge.
As stated on the program, some of these FO's are not up to speed. Therefore, the poor Captain has to act as 1 1/2 pilots for less than the award.
Of course this "bending over" puts alot more money on the bottom line. The travelling public deserves more, but then again they are people that want to fly all over the country for $10.
This new system that appears to have reared it's ugly head in this country over the last 10 years is a joke. Why don't companies like this one just get fresh CPL's and charge them 20K for the job and pay them nothing - even more money for the shareholders?
I wonder if Sunstate/easterns are taking note as I am sure their in-boxes are full of 500hr. drivers with an 18K cheque ready in hand.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to just address a point made earlier by cjam when he questioned whether paying a pilot more money makes them technically safer.
You did tend to harp on just a bit much in your post about pulling a double split 16 hour duty time and then getting home to find you are getting evicted so you pack up and sleep in the medical clinic and pay for your own medicals and charts and so on and so on and so on..... that all very sad. A bit dramatic I thought, but sad.
The point is that young pilots, when they slip on that uniform and load up their passengers MUST have a zero tolerance for deliberately breaching safety regulations, regardless how petty. It is that simple. If they choose to pay for their own endorsements or work for free then that is up to them. On the real issue of taking peoples lives for granted by flying beyond the law, there has to be a zero tolerance. The problem is that there is a culture out there that accept the routine flaunting of CASA regulations as a part of the job. Pilots all get together and laugh about it at the pub.
"Jacko had 16 POB in his 206 coming out of WoopWoop community last week, four adults and the rest were all kids ha ha ha!" We all know it goes on. It's really funny until half-wit Jacko drills his overloaded plane into a tree taking off.
It's that attitude that has to stop. The operators are not going to stop it so it's time we, as pilots, took the job a bit more seriously and stopped bleating like babies that we were bullied into it by the big bad boss.
My two cents anyway.
You did tend to harp on just a bit much in your post about pulling a double split 16 hour duty time and then getting home to find you are getting evicted so you pack up and sleep in the medical clinic and pay for your own medicals and charts and so on and so on and so on..... that all very sad. A bit dramatic I thought, but sad.
The point is that young pilots, when they slip on that uniform and load up their passengers MUST have a zero tolerance for deliberately breaching safety regulations, regardless how petty. It is that simple. If they choose to pay for their own endorsements or work for free then that is up to them. On the real issue of taking peoples lives for granted by flying beyond the law, there has to be a zero tolerance. The problem is that there is a culture out there that accept the routine flaunting of CASA regulations as a part of the job. Pilots all get together and laugh about it at the pub.
"Jacko had 16 POB in his 206 coming out of WoopWoop community last week, four adults and the rest were all kids ha ha ha!" We all know it goes on. It's really funny until half-wit Jacko drills his overloaded plane into a tree taking off.
It's that attitude that has to stop. The operators are not going to stop it so it's time we, as pilots, took the job a bit more seriously and stopped bleating like babies that we were bullied into it by the big bad boss.
My two cents anyway.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Launceston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
Just taking up the issue of GPS interference from GSM Mobiles.
The GSM system is digital, TDMA, which means it switches on and off very quickly.
This causes a peculiar RF Interference which has little to do with harmonics (although it causes extra ones) or blocking (but the harmonics could do this if strong enough), rather the 'switching frequency' is demodulated in the power circuitry of a lot of equipment.
So, depending on how good the power circuit is, you could hear the 'ta -da -da -da -da dah' rectified interference in the speaker of your radio OR the GPS receiver could be interfered with by it.
So, can a GSM phone interfere with a GPS, the answer is yes depending on the shielding of the GPS and the proximity of the phone.
But, is there a GSM base station in Lockhart River?????
(I would have assumed it was CDMA).
Addendum.
There is no GSM base at either LHR or Bamaga, so it is unlikely anyone on board would have a GSM turned on (or even had one) and even if they did it would not have 'polled' the base and thus the likelihood of interference is almost zero.
CDMA does not do the same 'noise' stuff.
B
Just taking up the issue of GPS interference from GSM Mobiles.
The GSM system is digital, TDMA, which means it switches on and off very quickly.
This causes a peculiar RF Interference which has little to do with harmonics (although it causes extra ones) or blocking (but the harmonics could do this if strong enough), rather the 'switching frequency' is demodulated in the power circuitry of a lot of equipment.
So, depending on how good the power circuit is, you could hear the 'ta -da -da -da -da dah' rectified interference in the speaker of your radio OR the GPS receiver could be interfered with by it.
So, can a GSM phone interfere with a GPS, the answer is yes depending on the shielding of the GPS and the proximity of the phone.
But, is there a GSM base station in Lockhart River?????
(I would have assumed it was CDMA).
Addendum.
There is no GSM base at either LHR or Bamaga, so it is unlikely anyone on board would have a GSM turned on (or even had one) and even if they did it would not have 'polled' the base and thus the likelihood of interference is almost zero.
CDMA does not do the same 'noise' stuff.
B
Last edited by DYNAMIC STALL; 7th Jul 2005 at 04:12.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for pay packet versus responsibility.
If a pilot happily flies beyond the regs and duty times making his $21K a year, he will also do it when he's paid $29K a year too. He will probably be flying with a more current en route supp in his lap rather than the one he bought last year. Money will not automatically change one's attitude to the tunnel vision culture of adherence to regulations. It's about a personal decison to be as safe in all aspects of the job as possible and to stand by your judgements.
If a pilot happily flies beyond the regs and duty times making his $21K a year, he will also do it when he's paid $29K a year too. He will probably be flying with a more current en route supp in his lap rather than the one he bought last year. Money will not automatically change one's attitude to the tunnel vision culture of adherence to regulations. It's about a personal decison to be as safe in all aspects of the job as possible and to stand by your judgements.
Even though it has been some time since I have worked for Transair, I wil say this, It was never asked or hinted, that I was to break any rules, if the aircraft was broken, it got written up and it got fixed, and finally my pay was always in the bank on time and very much in line with the applicable award.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aust
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the public not caring what the pilot is being paid, I'm not so sure.
How confident would you feel if the surgeon who was about to operate on you was being paid 21k a year??
What's the difference?
I honestly think the general public would be shocked to know what most pilots really earn.
How confident would you feel if the surgeon who was about to operate on you was being paid 21k a year??
What's the difference?
I honestly think the general public would be shocked to know what most pilots really earn.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about the pay thing - to a point. Yes, a pilot worried about finances, stressed, not sleeping etc etc - is definitely not going to be operating at 100%.
But if a pilot being paid $21k a year is a inclined to cut corners, then he or she would probably still be a inclined to cut corners somewhere even if paid $100k a year. Human nature - those who usually cut corners won't just stop because they get paid more.
How many dodgy company directors are there out there cutting corners despite big salary? Fair enough they may not be 'out on the line' but the bigwigs in the dodgy operators have a say in it too, not just the pilots.
Anyway interesting topic, missed most of the program unfortunately but from what I saw Fiona was very articulate and it was a gutsy thing for her to do.
But if a pilot being paid $21k a year is a
inclined to cut corners, then he or she would probably still be a inclined to cut corners somewhere even if paid $100k a year. Human nature - those who usually cut corners won't just stop because they get paid more. How many dodgy company directors are there out there cutting corners despite big salary? Fair enough they may not be 'out on the line' but the bigwigs in the dodgy operators have a say in it too, not just the pilots.
Anyway interesting topic, missed most of the program unfortunately but from what I saw Fiona was very articulate and it was a gutsy thing for her to do.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that it is high time that we limit pilot numbers in Australia the same way Uni student numbers are limited to courses like Medicine, Law, Engineering, etc. etc. etc.
There is simply too many pilots in this country to be employed. Flying schools continue to churn out new wannabes with the big lie that they will all get a job and have a great chance of fulfilling their dream of an airline. Nothing could be further from the truth. Odds are well and truly against said pilot achieving this goal. Some will get there but most won't.
If numbers were limited by regulation, the prostitution across the industry that keeps conditions for most pilots to range from anything between appalling to not comensurate for the qualifications, technical training and skill that is required for a pilot (let alone the investment a pilot needs to make to reach those same aspects!!!) would eventually cease.
CASA show no interest in these issues. It is clear that the regulator believes that there is no correlation between pilot pay and safety otherwise they would have acted years ago.
I believe that no real changes will be manifest in this industry until the operators are in the position that they have to beg pilots to work for them rather than the other way around as it is today.
If pilot numbers were strictly limited (matching closely what the demands will be industry wide), we would in time see a radically different aviation industry.
What is lacking is the political will to do so. Faced with the cost of running numbers of flying training outfits out of business by limiting numbers is politically unsavory, but exactly what is needed for the aviation industry to prosper as a whole.
So, we professional pilots MUST unite (i.e. do something radically different to what we have traditionally done - climbing over one another) and get the message out there that wages and conditions in the aviation industry need a radical overhaul.
Unscrupulous operators need to be brought to account. Self-prostituting pilots need to change their ways. Pressure needs to be placed on both the Government and the Regulator.
Pilot representative bodies like the AFAP need to grow some balls and stand up for their representatives for a change instead of stuffing away union fees and doing nothing while the Rome burns.
Well done to Fiona and the ABC for putting this issue in the public spotlight.
I hope this causes the players in this industry to have a good hard look at themselves and take positive steps to see change.
Turbinejunkie :ugh
There is simply too many pilots in this country to be employed. Flying schools continue to churn out new wannabes with the big lie that they will all get a job and have a great chance of fulfilling their dream of an airline. Nothing could be further from the truth. Odds are well and truly against said pilot achieving this goal. Some will get there but most won't.
If numbers were limited by regulation, the prostitution across the industry that keeps conditions for most pilots to range from anything between appalling to not comensurate for the qualifications, technical training and skill that is required for a pilot (let alone the investment a pilot needs to make to reach those same aspects!!!) would eventually cease.
CASA show no interest in these issues. It is clear that the regulator believes that there is no correlation between pilot pay and safety otherwise they would have acted years ago.
I believe that no real changes will be manifest in this industry until the operators are in the position that they have to beg pilots to work for them rather than the other way around as it is today.
If pilot numbers were strictly limited (matching closely what the demands will be industry wide), we would in time see a radically different aviation industry.
What is lacking is the political will to do so. Faced with the cost of running numbers of flying training outfits out of business by limiting numbers is politically unsavory, but exactly what is needed for the aviation industry to prosper as a whole.
So, we professional pilots MUST unite (i.e. do something radically different to what we have traditionally done - climbing over one another) and get the message out there that wages and conditions in the aviation industry need a radical overhaul.
Unscrupulous operators need to be brought to account. Self-prostituting pilots need to change their ways. Pressure needs to be placed on both the Government and the Regulator.
Pilot representative bodies like the AFAP need to grow some balls and stand up for their representatives for a change instead of stuffing away union fees and doing nothing while the Rome burns.
Well done to Fiona and the ABC for putting this issue in the public spotlight.
I hope this causes the players in this industry to have a good hard look at themselves and take positive steps to see change.
Turbinejunkie :ugh
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
View from the other side
First allow me to state that I agree that quite a substantial number of GA award rates are far below what is merited given the effort, commitment and professionalism of pilots working their way up the ladder.
I can categorically tell you that the General Public (of which I am one to all intents and purposes), at least the section that I meet and work with on a daily basis have no idea what Pilots are paid, if anything the impression is that pilots to a man earn well in excess of what most people do, this is compounded by their lack of distinction bewteen GA and the Lines.
They have little idea of the cost of endorsements or type ratings, how difficult and how hard it is to get time up, how being away from home and how much sacrifice many pilots give up to get that experience, house, family, stability and relationships all suffer.
The General belief is that Line pilots earn quite alot for what they do, many are surprised when I inform them that a new-ish FO on a RPT Jet probably earns no more than they do, the overriding perception is misunderstood and is normally based on the flagship line of the country they live in, in this case the yardstick for assessing pilots salaries is Qantas, thus this award is perceived to be inherited by all pilots regardless of industry segment.
They are shocked, for a small while at least, when they are informed that most GA pilots earn well under 50K, and I doubt they would believe that Captain Norris earned 20K+.
A clear and easily understood message is easily explained by illustrating simply what the low-costers in europe earn. Far less than their peers in Finance, law and so forth. Forgive me but the Ryanair High Pay Airline banner on the PPrune boards brought more than a little smile to my face.
My heart goes out to you Fiona, and also many other pilots who are doing the yards.
Finally, There are of course legacy perception-issues here, Aer Lingus and BA on Intercontinental and indeed the top tier LAX-SYD routes for Qantas pay quite well, but these routes are flown by pilots with decades of experience, and those awards are merited by the profitibility of the route, seniority and experience of the men and women involved.
There is unfortunately no major distinction made by the majority of joe public.
As to there being too many pilots, I am not sure that can easily be fixed I don't have an answer, as the drawcard thatI have mentioned above is a very comfortable salary doing a perceived rather easy job from two stories up on a 18-wheeler, the reality is of course quite different which I'm sure many here can attest.
I personally would love to join your ranks, however I have commitments to family, kids and a wife, and that is not negotiable at this stage. Also my personality does not lend itself to cuttng corners to make a buck, I'd last a day or so at a shonky operator.
Hats off to you who stick it out.
7g
I can categorically tell you that the General Public (of which I am one to all intents and purposes), at least the section that I meet and work with on a daily basis have no idea what Pilots are paid, if anything the impression is that pilots to a man earn well in excess of what most people do, this is compounded by their lack of distinction bewteen GA and the Lines.
They have little idea of the cost of endorsements or type ratings, how difficult and how hard it is to get time up, how being away from home and how much sacrifice many pilots give up to get that experience, house, family, stability and relationships all suffer.
The General belief is that Line pilots earn quite alot for what they do, many are surprised when I inform them that a new-ish FO on a RPT Jet probably earns no more than they do, the overriding perception is misunderstood and is normally based on the flagship line of the country they live in, in this case the yardstick for assessing pilots salaries is Qantas, thus this award is perceived to be inherited by all pilots regardless of industry segment.
They are shocked, for a small while at least, when they are informed that most GA pilots earn well under 50K, and I doubt they would believe that Captain Norris earned 20K+.
A clear and easily understood message is easily explained by illustrating simply what the low-costers in europe earn. Far less than their peers in Finance, law and so forth. Forgive me but the Ryanair High Pay Airline banner on the PPrune boards brought more than a little smile to my face.
My heart goes out to you Fiona, and also many other pilots who are doing the yards.
Finally, There are of course legacy perception-issues here, Aer Lingus and BA on Intercontinental and indeed the top tier LAX-SYD routes for Qantas pay quite well, but these routes are flown by pilots with decades of experience, and those awards are merited by the profitibility of the route, seniority and experience of the men and women involved.
There is unfortunately no major distinction made by the majority of joe public.
As to there being too many pilots, I am not sure that can easily be fixed I don't have an answer, as the drawcard thatI have mentioned above is a very comfortable salary doing a perceived rather easy job from two stories up on a 18-wheeler, the reality is of course quite different which I'm sure many here can attest.
I personally would love to join your ranks, however I have commitments to family, kids and a wife, and that is not negotiable at this stage. Also my personality does not lend itself to cuttng corners to make a buck, I'd last a day or so at a shonky operator.
Hats off to you who stick it out.
7g
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the pilot's award you will find that a pilot flying an Islander on RPT flights with an instrument rating should be paid $39092-00 PA plus 8% super, and workers compensation insurance, and loss of licence insurance premiums.
Victor Two. Not necessarily so. Mate of mine with a bare 200 hours got his first job in NT and was immediately thrown into the shonky world of badly maintained aircraft and a well known chief pilot who has made the pages of Pprune countless times. Maintenance release entries were sackable. He once flew a C210 to Darwin for scheduled servicing and pointed out to the maintenance organisation that one tyre was badly worn and needed changing. LAME disagreed saying it had a few more landings in it. On first flight after this event, the tyre burst at completion of landing run. The chief pilot proceeded to extract the price of the new tyre out of the pilots meagre wages.
There were many more operations where regulations were ignored or the pilot(s) were sacked on some pretense. This was Northern Territory GA justice at it's worst. It will never change in Australia.
The same pilot (and doubtless several hundred others now in Qantas and Virgin) is now very relieved and happy to be a first officer with with a major airline. . He feels safe and secure in the knowledge that it is a professional operation with an excellent safety record. There is no way that he would ever consider breaking the Regs because the airline ethos does not require the safety rules to be broken in order for the pilots to keep their jobs. As a former airline pilot I have the greatest sympathy for pilots who are forced to stretch the rules to live in GA. I have yet to meet a single airline pilot who would happily go back to flying GA - and it's not just the money, either. There is no shortage of highly principled but unemployed pilots. It is called the real world.
There were many more operations where regulations were ignored or the pilot(s) were sacked on some pretense. This was Northern Territory GA justice at it's worst. It will never change in Australia.
The same pilot (and doubtless several hundred others now in Qantas and Virgin) is now very relieved and happy to be a first officer with with a major airline. . He feels safe and secure in the knowledge that it is a professional operation with an excellent safety record. There is no way that he would ever consider breaking the Regs because the airline ethos does not require the safety rules to be broken in order for the pilots to keep their jobs. As a former airline pilot I have the greatest sympathy for pilots who are forced to stretch the rules to live in GA. I have yet to meet a single airline pilot who would happily go back to flying GA - and it's not just the money, either. There is no shortage of highly principled but unemployed pilots. It is called the real world.
Check out the net and find the report in todays Australian about the story from 4 Corners about pilots wages. Quite well written.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no 'law' of supply and demand. It is a construct. A rational construct that explains a set of behaviours.
It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.
...
We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots
It is particularly useful construct, but it is not a law. It does not rule human behaviour, unless we allow it.
...
We should restrict supply of aviation training to future pilots
umm.. That sounds a little contradictory to me. But how do you imagine we do that???
Like university with entrance scores? A lottery?
So you want to stop others learning to fly so that a few can be paid more. Sounds a little "elitist" doesn't it?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps an indirect method of limiting the supply of pilots would be to raise the minimum experience level for instructors.
Read an interesting article by Steve Tizzard who (amongst other things) advocated a minimum experience level of about 1,000 hours before being eligible for an instructor rating.
Would provide a smaller pool of more experienced instructors, and therefore a reduced (but hopefully better taught) output of student pilots.
Who knows - perhaps then the law of supply and demand would work in our favour?
Read an interesting article by Steve Tizzard who (amongst other things) advocated a minimum experience level of about 1,000 hours before being eligible for an instructor rating.
Would provide a smaller pool of more experienced instructors, and therefore a reduced (but hopefully better taught) output of student pilots.
Who knows - perhaps then the law of supply and demand would work in our favour?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
umm.. That sounds a little contradictory to me. But how do you imagine we do that???
Like university with entrance scores? A lottery?
So you want to stop others learning to fly so that a few can be paid more. Sounds a little "elitist" doesn't it?
Like university with entrance scores? A lottery?
So you want to stop others learning to fly so that a few can be paid more. Sounds a little "elitist" doesn't it?
Make the course at least Diploma standard but preferably as a Degree. Entry to the course could have additional requirements to demonstrate aviation interest by things such as:
* obtaining a private pilot licence independently prior to the course;
* previous gliding or other flying experience;
* other previous aviation or engineering experience (AME or LAME);
* service in Air Force Cadets or similar.
This would give the less academic candidate who dead-set wants a flying career to have a chance also (thereby not being elitist but but merit). This experience could be weighted appropriately or prerequisites for entry to the Commercial Pilot's course.
Professional Pilots should be just that - PROFESSIONAL. This should be from the start of their training to the end of their careers. We have got to change the aviation culture drastically for the industry to improve for all who earn their living from it.
Doing the above will sift out rubbish candidates and will not be based on who that person's connections are or how fat their wallet is. It is a fair system and should be adopted.
Without strict limits on numbers of candidates joining the industry, pilot conditions will never improve. The construct of supply and demand will always prevail. The supply side of the equation needs attention - FAST!
TJ
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbinejunkie,
You and i must work in a different aviation industry, i just about choked when i saw your response:
"Make the course at least Diploma standard but preferably as a Degree"
What the hell is that going to prove ?.
Is the government going to foot the bill, or perhaps QANTAS.
We have to pay for it ourselves, therefore, unless mummy and daddy pay for it, most will come from the a trade type background, i.e young people earning enough to pay for it.
Have you flown a C206 out of Port Keats or Maree, if you have, how can the lessons learn't there possibly be put into a lesson plan.
Flying Schools who pump out the numbers survive. Charter companies who do the charters survive, Pilots that get off their fat backside and move out of mummy and daddys house and go bush survive.
Double the number of commercial pilots to jobs, sounds like pretty good odds to me.
If you want Pilot conditions to improve, start lobbying your states Industrial Relations Commission, they set the standard.
You and i must work in a different aviation industry, i just about choked when i saw your response:
"Make the course at least Diploma standard but preferably as a Degree"
What the hell is that going to prove ?.
Is the government going to foot the bill, or perhaps QANTAS.
We have to pay for it ourselves, therefore, unless mummy and daddy pay for it, most will come from the a trade type background, i.e young people earning enough to pay for it.
Have you flown a C206 out of Port Keats or Maree, if you have, how can the lessons learn't there possibly be put into a lesson plan.
Flying Schools who pump out the numbers survive. Charter companies who do the charters survive, Pilots that get off their fat backside and move out of mummy and daddys house and go bush survive.
Double the number of commercial pilots to jobs, sounds like pretty good odds to me.
If you want Pilot conditions to improve, start lobbying your states Industrial Relations Commission, they set the standard.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left Hand,
I don't. I work in the same crap industry you do. I don't have a shiny-bum and I have done ALL the hard yards off my own bat entirely, having reached Regional Airline level through one thing - my own blood sweat and tears! I love flying and I despair over the **** conditions that we as pilots suffer.
Why should we invest $70,000 of our own money to be paid less than the Award which is chicken feed anyway? Not to mention all the study, recurrency and regular checking that we have to endure for the pleasure of doing so!
In response to your glib suggestion, I HAVE done what I can to try to change things in my own employment (get compliance out of shonky operators to pay the Award) but nothing has worked for me as I am just a lone voice. Too many are willing to jump into my spot and employers know it.
I AM doing something now: arguing for improvement for the benefit of the industry (not just for me but also for you). What are YOU doing to improve things? Are you prepared to make a worthwhile contribution or just mouth off at those who do?
My brave-new-world suggestion regarding the tertiary education requirement to join the industry is NOT meant to be an exchange for ability as a pilot or an indicator that the newbe pilot now knows it having completed some Uni course. Not at all.
Rather, the Degree concept is meant to be a tough HURDLE REQUIREMENT that atificially limits the number of pilots entering in this industry so that eventually as the supply side of the equation decreases causing the demand side (and therefore pay and conditions) to INCREASE.
Incidentally, better understanding of the theory of flight will also make for better pilots. A degree course can have both practical elements (all flying needed to obtain a CPL including multi-IFR and/or instructor rating) and all ATPL theory included.
This is a long-term strategy to improve pay and conditions - it won't happen overnight but if implemented WILL improve the industry overall in time.
As aviation is in the public interest, i.e. SAFETY, I propose that this becomes a government responsibility in the same way that universities (theory side) are primarily government funded. The individual will have to pay for his flying same as it is today.
However, what is different in my proposal to the way it is today is:
1) A candidate has a hurdle requirement to become a pilot;
2) Far less pilots come through the system each year due to the limited vacancies for courses.
A number of flying training schools would be forced to close over time. While this would be tough for them, they have been the prime cause for the sausage meat that has been pumped out for too long that has contributed to the pilot glut of today (and indeed tomorrow unless we act today).
Lobbying the IR Commission as a lone voice is pointless. Nothing will happen. The only way for things to change is for pilots to unite and say enough is enough and be prepared to strike for the benefit of all in the industry.
TJ
I don't. I work in the same crap industry you do. I don't have a shiny-bum and I have done ALL the hard yards off my own bat entirely, having reached Regional Airline level through one thing - my own blood sweat and tears! I love flying and I despair over the **** conditions that we as pilots suffer.
Why should we invest $70,000 of our own money to be paid less than the Award which is chicken feed anyway? Not to mention all the study, recurrency and regular checking that we have to endure for the pleasure of doing so!
In response to your glib suggestion, I HAVE done what I can to try to change things in my own employment (get compliance out of shonky operators to pay the Award) but nothing has worked for me as I am just a lone voice. Too many are willing to jump into my spot and employers know it.
I AM doing something now: arguing for improvement for the benefit of the industry (not just for me but also for you). What are YOU doing to improve things? Are you prepared to make a worthwhile contribution or just mouth off at those who do?
My brave-new-world suggestion regarding the tertiary education requirement to join the industry is NOT meant to be an exchange for ability as a pilot or an indicator that the newbe pilot now knows it having completed some Uni course. Not at all.
Rather, the Degree concept is meant to be a tough HURDLE REQUIREMENT that atificially limits the number of pilots entering in this industry so that eventually as the supply side of the equation decreases causing the demand side (and therefore pay and conditions) to INCREASE.
Incidentally, better understanding of the theory of flight will also make for better pilots. A degree course can have both practical elements (all flying needed to obtain a CPL including multi-IFR and/or instructor rating) and all ATPL theory included.
This is a long-term strategy to improve pay and conditions - it won't happen overnight but if implemented WILL improve the industry overall in time.
As aviation is in the public interest, i.e. SAFETY, I propose that this becomes a government responsibility in the same way that universities (theory side) are primarily government funded. The individual will have to pay for his flying same as it is today.
However, what is different in my proposal to the way it is today is:
1) A candidate has a hurdle requirement to become a pilot;
2) Far less pilots come through the system each year due to the limited vacancies for courses.
A number of flying training schools would be forced to close over time. While this would be tough for them, they have been the prime cause for the sausage meat that has been pumped out for too long that has contributed to the pilot glut of today (and indeed tomorrow unless we act today).
Lobbying the IR Commission as a lone voice is pointless. Nothing will happen. The only way for things to change is for pilots to unite and say enough is enough and be prepared to strike for the benefit of all in the industry.
TJ
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ComeByChance
Whilst not for a minute disagreeing with the thrust of this thread in regard to the disgraceful pay conditions I should point out that USD$18,000 whilst not a kings ransom isn't all that bad given the relative cost of living in the US and the tax regime.
They do not all live in the style in the big cities we see on TV, on a %age of income the basics are, on balance, a fair bit cheaper and they are in an entirely different airline and regulatory environment.
We shouldn't confuse the issue thus.
AUD$21,000 is simply outrageous but hey, the cold hard brutal reality is that nobody forces them to accept it when in doing so they further cement the status quo.
It is not part of any requirement or rite of passage for an airline CV that they gain their hours at irresponsible and illegal rates.
Having said that I'll repeat here what I said on the subject on another thread.
Each and every young pilot who accepts "work" under those conditions should hang their head in shame and take their share of responsibility for the state of the industry.
They have no absolutely no right to complain about their lot.
I'll bet there is already a queue for the slots.
Whilst not for a minute disagreeing with the thrust of this thread in regard to the disgraceful pay conditions I should point out that USD$18,000 whilst not a kings ransom isn't all that bad given the relative cost of living in the US and the tax regime.
They do not all live in the style in the big cities we see on TV, on a %age of income the basics are, on balance, a fair bit cheaper and they are in an entirely different airline and regulatory environment.
We shouldn't confuse the issue thus.
AUD$21,000 is simply outrageous but hey, the cold hard brutal reality is that nobody forces them to accept it when in doing so they further cement the status quo.
It is not part of any requirement or rite of passage for an airline CV that they gain their hours at irresponsible and illegal rates.
Having said that I'll repeat here what I said on the subject on another thread.
Each and every young pilot who accepts "work" under those conditions should hang their head in shame and take their share of responsibility for the state of the industry.
They have no absolutely no right to complain about their lot.
I'll bet there is already a queue for the slots.