Eagle Air to advertise for Direct Entry Captains

[conflict alert]

Mattyj wrote

None of Eagles 1900s have autopilots mate so by NZCAA rules they must have two crew for IFR ops. Its the same for any aircraft..no autopilot 2 crew..even a C152.

Bollocks....the days of having 2 of everything (ADF/VOR/ASI/ALT etc etc) and an autopilot for single pilot ops are long gone. You can fly anything single pilot ops except where the flight manual for the aircraft type dictates otherwise and as long as you can communicate without having to take your digits off the flight controls. Nothing to do with whether there is an autopilot or not.

2 crew..even a C152

....pleeease

[27/09]

You can fly anything single pilot ops except where the flight manual for the aircraft type dictates otherwise and as long as you can communicate without having to take your digits off the flight controls. Nothing to do with whether there is an autopilot or not.

Better check with the regulator on that.

Air Transport ops have extra requirements, at least in NZ. Can't remember the exact requirements, but I think any ATO must have 2 pilots if not equipped with an operational auto pilot and I think any ATO with or without auto pilot, with above 9 PAX, must be two pilot also.

[6080ft]

In nz if you are doing ato's IFR then you must have an auto pilot - or a two pilot crew. If you are part 91 then single pilot no auto pilot is ok. I wouldn;t bother with that tho!

You can fly around in anything on an ATO VFR with no auto pilot.

[conflict alert]

I probably didn't explain myself very well..you are correct in that under ATO's you must have an auto pilot for single pilot ops IFR and 2 pilots if no autopilot - or - manual dictates 2 pilot operation.

The way I read Mattyj's message was that he was referring to IFR ops in general (including private ops). This was reinforced by his reference to C152 and the use of "all IFR Ops". This was what I was responding to. If Joe wants to fly his privately owned learjet around IFR without an autopilot - and the the flight manual says you don't need two pilots - then he can

[hoggsnortrupert]

Mutly's Pigeon:

Not entirley correct hoggsnortrupert, Can think of more countries running B190 two crew than one. In anycase it must be very recognised overseas given the swarms of Eag crews who have left to take jobs in Asia, Africa, Middle East and America of recent times. You can go onto you argue your own view but its getting the boys and girls jet gigs world wide so one cant complain.


Where, or Who , or What authority, allows F/o time on such, to contribute towards time for ones ATL? If it is as per its FM a single Pilot A/C:

H/Snort

[Bongo Bus Driver]

I may be wrong but I believe the CAA made a ruling on other GA operators a few years back whose pilots were logging Co pilot time in aircraft whose flight manual did not require two pilots. They said that even though air operations require two crew for IFR flights with no auto pilot (in this case part 135 ops) the second pilot cannot log the time unless they are the pilot flying.

Does the AFM of the 1900 require two pilots? If not then no co pilot time can be logged using the same rational.

However I am not sure of the details so this might be bollocks. Can anyone expand on this?

[kmagyoyo]

Any chance of getting back to the subject???

[muttly's pigeon]

If it is as per its FM a single Pilot A/C

Might want to check with one of the B190 boys around the country but I believe there are words in the flight manual are along the lines of "Minimum flight crew of one except when operated as a (insert relevant rule) category aircraft in which case the minimum number of flight crew is two"

B1900's in NZ fall into the relevant category on thier ATO's and hence require two. The boys log Co-Pilot time towards thier ATPL, and many of which take the logged time and licence it earned overseas - everyones happy.

[horserun]

What does ALPA think of all this??

[always inverted]

Obviously not that much as I haven't heard of it being a problem and CAA would be th first to step in something like that wouldnt they.

Thats just the way it is here and if you dont like sand then stay out of the sandpit...
Think the call bout looking for direct entry captains is some-what of a fishing exersize as I'm not sure where they will come from. May be a good boot in the ass for the co's to hurry up and meet the req's for the lh seat.

[muttly's pigeon]

Think youll find ALPA fine with it (presumably conditions attached) as they have taken DEC before when there was no one else to fill the seat.
Agree with AI... would probably be more hassle that upgrading a company co so may well be intended at a rev up with the co's at this point.

[Sqwark2000]

Maybe a rev up for the co's, but was told at same meeting that there were 10 command upgrades slotted into the training program over the next couple of months, and at last check of the seniority list there's only about 4-5 co's that meet the legal/company requirements.

Also spoke to a recent contract captain who has returned to Eagle after a number of years out of flying, and was surprised (shouldn't be really ) that he is back at year 1 Capt pay despite his previous service, qualifications and time on type.

[Cloud Cutter]

I'm pretty disappointed that they've been allowed to do that with the bond. Did the current employees try to fight it, or just let it through because it doesn't affect them?

Either way, it's not good or fair, and will see more and more good pilots opt to spend that little bit longer in GA until they can get into Air Nelson or other.

At the end of the day, the large pay disparity between Eagle and the next step, will often make it viable to cut one's losses, and pay out the bond. It's disappointing when a company tries to stem the personal progression of its employees.

[flyby_kiwi]

Bugger its gone up but faced with what is the norm over the tassie which is self funding the type rating, at least the bond keeps the ball in the employees court as to wheather he/she wil be parting with cash.

Those bold enough can always contend it and probably win (as one past employee is rumoured to be finding out as we speak). The burning bridges saying comes to mind however.

Cant see too many guys wanting to stay stuck in what they percieve thier dead end GA jobs for another 12 months waiting for NSN, especially given that youll probably have a B190 command after 12 months vs starting out as a Q300 f/o. - One of the two will dress the CV a little better and its not the latter.

Current pilots didnt let it through on the basis it didnt affect them..... more that the company just made the offer to new pilots at the interview and was accepeted by all..... I assume that because the bond conditions themselves are not part of the acutal CEA(?) (a testament to how enforceable a bond is) it was not disputed by the pilot group.

[always inverted]

The bond is totaly inforced if one decides to leave and not pay up. The now contract captain had done exactly that, he had left and now he came back, why should you get the same money if you leave then come back.
Curent pilot group not very vocal about it only because we read about it in the summary of the cmg minutes.... There may have been a few that knew but who realy cares.

If up and comming pilots want to get a job in a turboprop then they make the decision to sign or not dont they.
I really dont know why some people in here are making such a big deal over the eagle stuff, I mean does it really concern them...
Seems like a whole lot of idiots that have too much time to bitch and moan when they could be a bit more constructive and give positive comments to the current situation. Could it be that they have been shafted and now its payback or are their noses all sticky from putting them in other peoples business ?
Again, if you dont like the sand......

[haughtney1]

If up and comming pilots want to get a job in a turboprop then they make the decision to sign or not dont they.
I really dont know why some people in here are making such a big deal over the eagle stuff, I mean does it really concern them...

Nice attitude inverted...could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG, and use this forum to voice those concerns? because lets be honest...things aren't that great at the moment
I should also add that there are plenty of us on here who have been around this industry both in NZ, Oz, and other parts of the world who will take umbrage with your comments inverted..the "I'm alright jack" brigade have a lot to answer for with regards to the denigration of existing terms and conditions.
For what its worth, I actually think a bond is a fair and equitable solution to pilot retention...as long as its reflective of the true cost of training..and not an artificial impediment to movement.

[muttly's pigeon]

could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG

Yeap but there seems to be more people on these forums knowing about whats going on at EAG than people working there.

AI has i the summed it up perfectly...... should be a standard disc. for any thread involving EAG: if you dont like the sand......

Now EAG have culled many over the years (rightly or wrongly), most of whom have moved on and done well for themselves....... then there are those who on every thread make a song and dance about have moved on to such greater heights yet little known to themselves actually view this forum in a false attempt to convince themselves that that it really was the best thing that ever happened, and therefore the rest of us should all despise the place. Not to many present/past EAG boys and girls bitching about it, it seems to be more those who have as they put it.... 'moved on'.

Now play nicely

[horserun]

Ha ha ha ha

Eagle just gets better and better!! I was told the other day that 70% of people fail their command check first time round. Any truth to it??

Must have a piss poor check and training culture!

[nike]

could it be that some of us actually KNOW what goes on inside EAG

First hand? I think not.

You can check your horse at customs next time you're in town.

It is fair to say that Eagle gets more than it's share of bashing on this forum, and it's generally from the same handles, with the same tone.

I doubt many here (particularly the neigh-sayers) have worked or currently do work for Eagle, and in such do they have a direct beef with them?

At the very least, by all means have your say, but then don't make out that these negative posts are somehow improving the situation. Further to that, it's probably fair to say that this isn't exactly breaking news and in such the arguement of spreading the word for the greater good is equally weak.

You're all winners in my book.

[haughtney1]

Nike you are so right mate...oooooopps I forgot to say all my info is first hand, straight outta the mouths of a several current line pilots, in both seats
BTW I'm quite fond of my horse, its the cowboy boots and spurs that cause problems....
I've said it plenty of times before, EAG is a good outfit to get some kerosene multi-time, and it is also a good first "proper" job. It isn't despite the indignation expressed on here any better or worse than most other semi-GA outfits operating similar kit.
It could IMHO do things a lot better for both its employees, and its shareholders.
Comments like "if you don't like the sand" emphasize a particular type of arrogance that prevails in the small minds of those who don't know any better