Beware of parting with your money!
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware of parting with your money!
A recently advertised position for a copilot based in Bournemouth on a N-Reg.Part 91 Lear45.N-708SP.
Based in EGHH.Owners live in Monaco,I was told.(Italian)
You will be asked by the CP to pay him £2500 for the FAA SIC training;Upfront;No receipt and no guarantee of work! The interview was full of contradictions and being less than complimentary about the present freelancers,who appear to get fired at the drop of a hat.My point is not to involve you in my decision to walk away from it after TSA approval,but only to advise anybody who would accept this position on those terms to pay £250 before EACH of the first 10 Line flights.I am confident that the CP/Operater will not accept this.It is wrong that one has to pay anything,but I accept we are in hard times.I am semi-retired,so it was never of great importance to me and I should have kept with my first instincts. Young guys taking loans etc is a different story.As soon as I received my TSA approval,I was told that the aircraft was busy for the next 5 to 8 weeks.Effectively I was conned out os $130 for the TSA and £90 for a class 1 medical that I was pressured into getting,although a class 2 is adequate,(which was current).The AME also voluntered to me that the CP had checked by phone on my Medical attendence on the day.None of his buisiness.Not to mention "Patient Confidentiality".Certain other aspects concern me and I will be seeking professional advice,but that is not for this forum.If you have the L45 on your FAA ticket and spare time,I guess that may be ok.If not,be very careful is my advice based on what I have just experienced.
Based in EGHH.Owners live in Monaco,I was told.(Italian)
You will be asked by the CP to pay him £2500 for the FAA SIC training;Upfront;No receipt and no guarantee of work! The interview was full of contradictions and being less than complimentary about the present freelancers,who appear to get fired at the drop of a hat.My point is not to involve you in my decision to walk away from it after TSA approval,but only to advise anybody who would accept this position on those terms to pay £250 before EACH of the first 10 Line flights.I am confident that the CP/Operater will not accept this.It is wrong that one has to pay anything,but I accept we are in hard times.I am semi-retired,so it was never of great importance to me and I should have kept with my first instincts. Young guys taking loans etc is a different story.As soon as I received my TSA approval,I was told that the aircraft was busy for the next 5 to 8 weeks.Effectively I was conned out os $130 for the TSA and £90 for a class 1 medical that I was pressured into getting,although a class 2 is adequate,(which was current).The AME also voluntered to me that the CP had checked by phone on my Medical attendence on the day.None of his buisiness.Not to mention "Patient Confidentiality".Certain other aspects concern me and I will be seeking professional advice,but that is not for this forum.If you have the L45 on your FAA ticket and spare time,I guess that may be ok.If not,be very careful is my advice based on what I have just experienced.
Last edited by mercuray; 7th Feb 2010 at 16:08. Reason: Grammar and more detail
The Ego
Has Landed
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere not too far from the airplane...
Age: 66
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the younger, less experienced guys, this would be an opportunity to break into the market. Anyone considering this situation should get a contract that states that they will have the Lear 45 job (F/O position) for a specific rate of pay (salary), for a specific period of time (one year), subject to payment of the 2500 pounds as a bond, and successful completion of the training at FSI or CAE (at the company's expense), etc.
Having hired many pilots in the past, I know that the CP is trying to keep the candidate from taking the training and then simply walking away to another job somewhere else. It's happened to me. When pilots do that, they hurt EVERYONE in the industry, and themselves later. I think I've met this CP, and he struck me as a straightforward kind of guy, but that was just from one casual meeting there at Bournemouth when we were having our 604 looked after.
Many pilots have been their own worst enemies, because of poor work ethics and lack of any sense of honesty, loyalty or commitment. Many of the employment and salary issues we face have come about because of ourselves as a whole.
Having hired many pilots in the past, I know that the CP is trying to keep the candidate from taking the training and then simply walking away to another job somewhere else. It's happened to me. When pilots do that, they hurt EVERYONE in the industry, and themselves later. I think I've met this CP, and he struck me as a straightforward kind of guy, but that was just from one casual meeting there at Bournemouth when we were having our 604 looked after.
Many pilots have been their own worst enemies, because of poor work ethics and lack of any sense of honesty, loyalty or commitment. Many of the employment and salary issues we face have come about because of ourselves as a whole.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly I agree with Paras 1 and 3 of your post.Sadly Para 1 conditions were not even up for discussion.Whilest this CP visits Flight Safety once or twice pa,it was also made very clear that did not include any freelancers.Happier to pair up with an instructor or some other sim partner.The opening line of the interview:"I want to make it clear that you will not be taking my job"Me thinks that is something one may think,but to utter it, demonstrates a degree of paranoia.400 hours pa.Not bad for this kind of operation.I suspect that the buget may include a full-time SIC which is normal for a 2 crew aircraft! The guy has a very nice expensive red Porshe sitting in the hangar;runs the L 45 empty up and down to Nice all the time.The owners apparently just accept it.Fine,but all this and they cannot (Quote) "justify a full-time copilot".The owners,I was told,have no idea about the avaition industry.I will go along with that one!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two crew aircraft. have to have a type rating!!! end of story. You aint gonna get a LR 45 type rating for £2,500.
Steer clear people.
Its life jim, but not as we know it
Steer clear people.
Its life jim, but not as we know it
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two crew aircraft. have to have a type rating!!! end of story
Mutt
Last edited by mutt; 8th Feb 2010 at 04:57.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mutt,
For a few years now the FAA have required the SIC to be typed if operating outside of the US at the insistance of JAA/EASA. It still remains relatively easy to qualify for the SIC endorsement though.
For a few years now the FAA have required the SIC to be typed if operating outside of the US at the insistance of JAA/EASA. It still remains relatively easy to qualify for the SIC endorsement though.
Last edited by NuName; 8th Feb 2010 at 14:26.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA find out that the aircraft is only being operated with one type rated pilot, they will prevent it from flying. They are pretty strict about this.
Also my understanding, although i could have been misled on this, is that to get an SIC rating, you need to attend a manufacturers course and get signed off by a PPE.
All the best
GW
Also my understanding, although i could have been misled on this, is that to get an SIC rating, you need to attend a manufacturers course and get signed off by a PPE.
All the best
GW
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A FAA ATP can sign off the training for the SIC, you'll then have to attend a FSDO to get the rating applied to your certificate.
You don't need to attend an approved course but the aircraft must obviously be insured to conduct the training.
You don't need to attend an approved course but the aircraft must obviously be insured to conduct the training.
Sign of the times again I fear.
Everywhere I go these days no-one will pay for recurrent training now. Take the cheap option and knock off an LPC in the aircraft instead. You may think the training schools would sit up and take notice. They have had it good for a while so reduce your prices and make it affordable rather than push all your customers away and then have idle simulators!!!
Another example of the dumbing down of the whole business. Safety costs money but there seems to be no shortage of people willing to take the chance!
Just how much lower can this industry sink?
Everywhere I go these days no-one will pay for recurrent training now. Take the cheap option and knock off an LPC in the aircraft instead. You may think the training schools would sit up and take notice. They have had it good for a while so reduce your prices and make it affordable rather than push all your customers away and then have idle simulators!!!
Another example of the dumbing down of the whole business. Safety costs money but there seems to be no shortage of people willing to take the chance!
Just how much lower can this industry sink?
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair,it is true,it is quite legal to obtain an FAA SIC type-rating as mentioned.It is a disgrace,but legal.I was told that "We will do 3 circuits;nip out to the south and do some steep turns and stalls and I will send you to a "DPE" in UK who for £375 will issue you with a temporarary airman's cert.We will do the ground school properly" The latter degenerated into a 5 to 8 week delay on the flying as soon as my TSA approval was granted,and the ground school: " I will copy a couple of CD-ROMS and put them in the post." He also suddenly wanted me to position the aircraft empty from Manchester to EGHH without any ground school and no safety pilot.Next week,I have an appointment with an avaition lawyer.I can make no further comment on this for legal reasons.I will persue it to FAA and the owners if so advised.My original reason for this post is to try and stop anybody handing over £2500 to this individual.It is likely that he may have commited non avaition-related offences with regard to the moneies.We will see.I am not concerned with the actual $130/£2500 as mush as I am with the principle and legality.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with the principle and legality
Mutt
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well,I have a suspicion who this e-mail is from ! I cannot answer your question as I never did the training.I have no reason to suppose that the training quality would have been a disgrace and I am sure that all the boxes would have been ticked.You stray from the point.At the interview I was happy to hand over the £2500,(just before the flying!).In principle,I still would have done if the other party had remotely done what they promised.I have enough PMs to realise that I am not the first to be mislead.Today the CP called me,"ranting and raving".He claimed that he had called my AME who was very upset. I then called the AME.He had no idea what I was talking about and wished me all the best.No such call has been made.I think the latter speaks volumes!!! During todays conversation,I was invited to fly for him;invited to go and have a drink today;threatened with law action from his "very rich clients" and finally that I would be reported to The FAA.Having run hot and cold for 13 mins,he slammed down the phone.Anyway,I suspect that this is enough "Soap" before the moderater steps in.I repeat that my intention is to acurately reflect my recent experience and strongly suggest that anybody who will accept this situation/position(?) just be very careful with parting with money.In hindsight,I am wrong not to have insisted on a financial legally binding contract to protect both parties.That would have saved me being hood-winked.I accept that I am old enough that I should have gone with my gutt instincts.I did not.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that being as the FAA have for many many years had a system that worked very well maybe it should not be maligned so quickly. The FAA/CAA accident/incident rate has never been very far apart so the end result of their individual pilot requirements can't be in doubt. It was only recently that the requirement for the SIC in a N reg aircraft came into force for operations outside the USA, there is still no requirement within the USA and its still working perfectly well. Like anything else, it can be abused, but, if conducted in the proper manner its just fine. Time has proved it. The SIC rating is little more than to ratify the situation with other civil aviation authorities outside the USA. The training requirements always existed.
Last edited by NuName; 8th Feb 2010 at 17:21.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that your post is correct and the FAA system has no evidence of produceing a bigger accident rate,to my knowledge.I have been through it within and without the confines of The USA.The instruction and testing have always been to the required standard.I put that down to the professionalism of the examiners.However,in my view,it is wide open to abuse and convenient sign-offs and should be policed more tightly.I have heard of some pretty hideous tales,but no more than that.Maybe just Tales.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
convenient sign-offs
You sound old enough and mature enough to have realized that getting qualified on a jet aircraft for 2500 was a very convenient sign off.. I appreciate that it sounds as if you got ripped off, but what exactly were you expecting?
Mutt
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ain't no fool and I haven't parted with any cash, but I have been conned at interview by a seemingly "nice guy" owner. I said I was happy to start work and wait for the contract to come through. You know the rest............the money wasn't as much as promised, neither were the hours. The grand plan never materialised, etc., etc. When I questioned it, I was told that I must have made a mistake, haha!! I learned later that I wasn't the first either. Older, wiser and more cynical now.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No,Mutt,I was paying for a FAA SIC,Type-Rating.That which was on offer to be commenced on Friday 29 Jan and to be completed 28 days later.You again miss the point.Read other inputs.I said that the system is wide open to "convenient sign-offs".A generalisation quite clearly.Second point: Well,I was certainly not expecting to be ripped off.......Just the SIC type-rating as agreed at interwiew and cleared so to do by TSA. The purpose of permission to commence training between 2 dates is to do just that,not to knowingly mislead a candidate with false information;obtain the clearence,and then say; "we have 180 days in which to do it.Catch you later.I am busy for the next 5 to 8 weeks"
A fool and his money.Ditto.I did not lose the £2500;just the $130 TSA Fee.....Yeup, I should have known better!
There is "Law" outside avaition with regard to financial dealings.Next week,I will follow professional advice.At this point,I am effectivly muzzled. If the guy was honourable,then he would just return my monies ($130). I repeat,it is the principle and underhand manipulation of myself and the system...not the $130.Having said that, it is the first time that I have been conned in aviation.Dumb move,but it will be one that will hopefully be rectified.I could just walk away and forget about it,but I won't.Not much gets my goat,but this one has.
A fool and his money.Ditto.I did not lose the £2500;just the $130 TSA Fee.....Yeup, I should have known better!
There is "Law" outside avaition with regard to financial dealings.Next week,I will follow professional advice.At this point,I am effectivly muzzled. If the guy was honourable,then he would just return my monies ($130). I repeat,it is the principle and underhand manipulation of myself and the system...not the $130.Having said that, it is the first time that I have been conned in aviation.Dumb move,but it will be one that will hopefully be rectified.I could just walk away and forget about it,but I won't.Not much gets my goat,but this one has.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt, I have to disagree with your obtuse line here. The forum should be about fellow professionals warning about bad experiences and that is what mercuray is doing.
Mercuray, I'm sure there are plenty of first-timers out there who will be thanking you for your advice.
Mercuray, I'm sure there are plenty of first-timers out there who will be thanking you for your advice.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
asdf1234.
Thanks for that.Indeed that is my only intention to warn others as I am confident that I would have been warned.Hopefully I have just stated "how it went",and let those that may be interested in such an advertised position just go in knowing a little more of the possible downsides,and make their own judgement.(especially the younger ones who can easily talk themselves into a job on a nice looking 1st jet,and quite possibly already be heavily in debt having borrowed to obtain their professional licence/s)
Thanks for that.Indeed that is my only intention to warn others as I am confident that I would have been warned.Hopefully I have just stated "how it went",and let those that may be interested in such an advertised position just go in knowing a little more of the possible downsides,and make their own judgement.(especially the younger ones who can easily talk themselves into a job on a nice looking 1st jet,and quite possibly already be heavily in debt having borrowed to obtain their professional licence/s)
Last edited by mercuray; 8th Feb 2010 at 23:19.