Pilot shortage
Alas if I was a young lad I would be striving for 1500 hours and running to the states, unless that horse has bolted...
Think about it, 1500 hours, get a jet FO seat, flying in a first world country with now decent money with cost of living. What? 3/4 years upgrade, yes if we were Aus 10/15 years ago but now even LCC what 10? Years? Surely 457’s won’t be DEC? Or will they.
Why do Aussies go the expat option? Money? Yes, career progression? Yes? Lifestyle? Maybe? But no it’s not Aus....
So many countries have or allow expats because they NEED THEM, aka UAE. Does AUS? No there are enough blokes belting around in GA that should get that airline chance, ok maybe then GA will need 457’s, but give he local bloke a shot first.
And as for expats returning to the bottom of the seniority list, yep if enough coin saved, otherwise why?
Remember life’s not perfect anywhere and it’s becoming less and less perfect in the lucky country.....
Think about it, 1500 hours, get a jet FO seat, flying in a first world country with now decent money with cost of living. What? 3/4 years upgrade, yes if we were Aus 10/15 years ago but now even LCC what 10? Years? Surely 457’s won’t be DEC? Or will they.
Why do Aussies go the expat option? Money? Yes, career progression? Yes? Lifestyle? Maybe? But no it’s not Aus....
So many countries have or allow expats because they NEED THEM, aka UAE. Does AUS? No there are enough blokes belting around in GA that should get that airline chance, ok maybe then GA will need 457’s, but give he local bloke a shot first.
And as for expats returning to the bottom of the seniority list, yep if enough coin saved, otherwise why?
Remember life’s not perfect anywhere and it’s becoming less and less perfect in the lucky country.....
We are so short of captains that basically any iligeble FO that meet captain mins are being displaced (forced upgrade) to captain in recent vacancy bids. I fly for a wholly owned regional of American Airlines.
I would love that but how can it happen? I would love to see instructor wages higher and would love to see an uplift in the quality of teaching (including the quality teaching of instructors).
In an ideal world I would love to see schools where well trained, enthusiastic career instructors were given the time to work with students and while doing that to be recompensed well.
To pay instructors more and encourage it as a career path you need schools to make more money and for it to be a more secure business.
Flying school margins are very tight. Many have gone to the wall. Running a school is not a way to riches and security. Sadly.
Do we make students pay more? It would reduce the number of people entering the door and close off aviation to many of the young motivated, bright eyed and passionate who are exactly what we want in aviation leaving it just for the well heeled (or those with well heeled parents) to indulge in.
Do we reduce overheads and increase the ease of learning to fly by reducing school requirements? - simpler lower cost instructor ratings and lower training standards meaning higher throughput and succes rates? moving to simpler to fly, lower cost training aircraft? How will that increase the quality of pilots that get churned out?
Fuel costs, maintenance costs, site lease costs, movement costs, costs to meet compliance, insurance costs, aging aircraft and the gradual reduction in interest in learning to fly are all atrophying the GA training industry.
Without more people entering GA and lower operating costs how do we make that happen? Genuine question.
I don't have answers but without reduced costs/increased income and better industry, instructing will always be something you do because you love it or because you need to build hours, not because of the money or prestige.
In an ideal world I would love to see schools where well trained, enthusiastic career instructors were given the time to work with students and while doing that to be recompensed well.
To pay instructors more and encourage it as a career path you need schools to make more money and for it to be a more secure business.
Flying school margins are very tight. Many have gone to the wall. Running a school is not a way to riches and security. Sadly.
Do we make students pay more? It would reduce the number of people entering the door and close off aviation to many of the young motivated, bright eyed and passionate who are exactly what we want in aviation leaving it just for the well heeled (or those with well heeled parents) to indulge in.
Do we reduce overheads and increase the ease of learning to fly by reducing school requirements? - simpler lower cost instructor ratings and lower training standards meaning higher throughput and succes rates? moving to simpler to fly, lower cost training aircraft? How will that increase the quality of pilots that get churned out?
Fuel costs, maintenance costs, site lease costs, movement costs, costs to meet compliance, insurance costs, aging aircraft and the gradual reduction in interest in learning to fly are all atrophying the GA training industry.
Without more people entering GA and lower operating costs how do we make that happen? Genuine question.
I don't have answers but without reduced costs/increased income and better industry, instructing will always be something you do because you love it or because you need to build hours, not because of the money or prestige.
Jonkster,
I agree with what you say and like you I don't have the answers. What I've said is just an insight into what I am seeing at the grass roots level. As the saying goes, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!
If a flying school boasts highly experienced career instructors and training that is second to none, people will sign up to train there and would be happy to pay more, I would. It's the same reason people pay more for a 5 star hotel as opposed to a 2 or 3 star, it's just better and worth the extra money.
Yes, this does disadvantage some of the less affluent people in society, but I can assure you that I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I was determined enough and made it happen (only to earn peanuts at the end 😉
. So I do feel that charging more for training will result in being able to pay instructors well enough to make a respectable living, whilst at the same time delivering a high standard of training resulting in better quality pilots.
For those who have been out of instructing a while, it's very much volume based training now and instructors do their best in the minimal time they spend with a student.
Regarding the pilot shortage, we are simply setting the bar too high for the pilots we do have. The RHS can and should be filled by CPL pilots with let's say 1,000 TT for arguments sake. If it's good enough for a 300 hour cadet, surely the same should apply for a GA pilot with 1,000 hours. Anyone who has flown single pilot IFR in a clapped out 45 year old piston twin knows that it's far harder (and scary at times) than flying a jet at flight levels with multi crew.
Again, I mean no disrespect to cadets of which some I have seen are very good pilots, but it should be an even playing field and fair for everyone.
I agree with what you say and like you I don't have the answers. What I've said is just an insight into what I am seeing at the grass roots level. As the saying goes, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!
If a flying school boasts highly experienced career instructors and training that is second to none, people will sign up to train there and would be happy to pay more, I would. It's the same reason people pay more for a 5 star hotel as opposed to a 2 or 3 star, it's just better and worth the extra money.
Yes, this does disadvantage some of the less affluent people in society, but I can assure you that I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I was determined enough and made it happen (only to earn peanuts at the end 😉
. So I do feel that charging more for training will result in being able to pay instructors well enough to make a respectable living, whilst at the same time delivering a high standard of training resulting in better quality pilots. For those who have been out of instructing a while, it's very much volume based training now and instructors do their best in the minimal time they spend with a student.
Regarding the pilot shortage, we are simply setting the bar too high for the pilots we do have. The RHS can and should be filled by CPL pilots with let's say 1,000 TT for arguments sake. If it's good enough for a 300 hour cadet, surely the same should apply for a GA pilot with 1,000 hours. Anyone who has flown single pilot IFR in a clapped out 45 year old piston twin knows that it's far harder (and scary at times) than flying a jet at flight levels with multi crew.
Again, I mean no disrespect to cadets of which some I have seen are very good pilots, but it should be an even playing field and fair for everyone.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aust.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view it’s not just a shortage of pilots that is of concern. There is a shortage of experienced capable people across many sectors in the Australian economy.
The underlying causes will be many and too complicated for mere mortals, however may include the following.
While the Australian economy has experienced an unprecedented period of growth, this growth has been primarily in Mining , some sectors of agriculture , Federal Gov. via Royalties/tax on mining thence Public sector and the finance industry who gets to play with the superannuation generated.
The rest of the economy has been either stagnant or going backwards in real terms, despite what politicians and the media have said !
There is also an underlying wealth transfer underway from the lower and middle class to the wealthy and super wealthy … again at unprecedented rates in human history.
This has meant the lower income would be pilots never had a chance , and the wealthy would be pilots didn’t want a bar of investing 150K on an insecure career such as aviation … Medical , Law , I.T or buying a Café makes much more sense . And they don’t even need to leave home town !
Yes , no doubt the lack of investment in shiny new Glass cockpit trainers for local student pilots , or Charter still done in 40 year old aircraft hasn’t helped , but surely that was always a symptom of lack of money in the general economy making those upgrades financially unviable .
I’m fully aware most training in Australia the last 15 years has been by foreign owned schools training their own cadets using our facilities / Instructors and good weather … and low and behold mostly in new glass equipped machines . Those Asian companies are spending their nations money !
And god help us from a Regulator whose contribution the last 20 years has been a never ending stream of useless bureaucracy , pointless changes and cost escalations beyond comprehension .
You can maybe add issues including aviation not having the sex and ego appeal it had 30 years ago , the fact Millennial's want it all and now , sliding pay rates , 457 visa pilots and whatever else you'd like to throw into the mix
The underlying causes will be many and too complicated for mere mortals, however may include the following.
While the Australian economy has experienced an unprecedented period of growth, this growth has been primarily in Mining , some sectors of agriculture , Federal Gov. via Royalties/tax on mining thence Public sector and the finance industry who gets to play with the superannuation generated.
The rest of the economy has been either stagnant or going backwards in real terms, despite what politicians and the media have said !
There is also an underlying wealth transfer underway from the lower and middle class to the wealthy and super wealthy … again at unprecedented rates in human history.
This has meant the lower income would be pilots never had a chance , and the wealthy would be pilots didn’t want a bar of investing 150K on an insecure career such as aviation … Medical , Law , I.T or buying a Café makes much more sense . And they don’t even need to leave home town !
Yes , no doubt the lack of investment in shiny new Glass cockpit trainers for local student pilots , or Charter still done in 40 year old aircraft hasn’t helped , but surely that was always a symptom of lack of money in the general economy making those upgrades financially unviable .
I’m fully aware most training in Australia the last 15 years has been by foreign owned schools training their own cadets using our facilities / Instructors and good weather … and low and behold mostly in new glass equipped machines . Those Asian companies are spending their nations money !
And god help us from a Regulator whose contribution the last 20 years has been a never ending stream of useless bureaucracy , pointless changes and cost escalations beyond comprehension .
You can maybe add issues including aviation not having the sex and ego appeal it had 30 years ago , the fact Millennial's want it all and now , sliding pay rates , 457 visa pilots and whatever else you'd like to throw into the mix
Does anyone know what some of the Schools and such are being slogged these days for Leases at Airfields like Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot etc...? It seems like the Governments extremely short sighted decision to privatise them has massively raised the costs and created a massive burden on anyone wanting to run a Charter Company or a Flight Training School at these prime locations.
1000 hours experience is a total bollocks requirement for a new hire FO. Give me any number of 250 hour CPL+IR with 5 hours each in a Level D FFS and I’ll tell you which of them are worth investing in a TR course and job as a FO. Easy.
Something I struggle to get my head around is the multi-engine requirements for any FO job in Australia. Personally, I don't see the need for any more than the rating. Even under the USA's 1500 hour rule only 25 of those need to be in a multi-engine aircraft, something most will cover during MECIR training in Australia. There are very few opportunities in Australia currently for guys to build multi hours. I know numerous guys who have 1000s of single time but little or no Multi
When i look at hour requirements i see it as being about having experience in different situations, airports, weather, airspace etc, something you will get regardless of how many engines you have.
There are currently numerous Aussie pilots picking up E3 jobs at US regionals simply because they don't have the multi hours needed by Australian regionals and majors 250 multi hours to fly a Saab 340 - really? There cadets don't have totals hours of that.....
When i look at hour requirements i see it as being about having experience in different situations, airports, weather, airspace etc, something you will get regardless of how many engines you have.
There are currently numerous Aussie pilots picking up E3 jobs at US regionals simply because they don't have the multi hours needed by Australian regionals and majors 250 multi hours to fly a Saab 340 - really? There cadets don't have totals hours of that.....
Wishful thinking, clients will generally go with the cheapest option (within reason) regardless of instructor experience.
That's in an environment where "mon & pop" flying schools can give you a licence for £40,000. Yes, the toys to train on at these local flying schools are of a lower standard - but the licence at the end is the same.
So - how did the UK manage to triple the cost of training, and still be swamped with clients? The "academy-style" businesses approached various airlines and tailored their training to specific airline SOPs, and they included early "job interviews" in the mix, with the result that those airlines only accepted candidates from those schools. If you want an airline job, you had to go to one of those schools (regardless of how good you were.).
So if you want instructing to pay - you need to work with the end employer of your student product. You increase the value of your training by getting the quality recognised not by the student, but by the end employer. Once you can prove that quality results in an increased chance of airline employment only THEN do you have a product that students will be willing to pay more for.
It's the reason Harvard can charge $62,000 a year while South Texas college only charge $1300 a year. People expect that the job opportunities with a Harvard degree are better than an STC one.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: elsewhere
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how desperate companies truely are.
Applied to VA with over 3200 hours, +700 multi ifr, little bit of turbine, night, atpls and the rest....got rejected for not being competitive enough. Couldn’t even sit aptitute testing.
Applied to VA with over 3200 hours, +700 multi ifr, little bit of turbine, night, atpls and the rest....got rejected for not being competitive enough. Couldn’t even sit aptitute testing.
If you can be replaced quickly by an inferior product you will be!
You blokes would be 700K a year if you had to demonstrate the skills of an airline pilot 20+ years ago- you can thank the original dodo's at Virgin Blue pay for a crap rating, pay for a job.
I fly with cadet pilots in Asia who can't fly raw data, can't fly visually or if they do it looks more like an abbreviated ILS and have no rules of thumb for jets or a concept of TLAR ! It's not a lunar moon shot!
However, when something really bad happens, all those folks with their $99 tickets are expecting Captain Sullenberger up front. But it won't be. His skill-set is from yesteryear. But the blame will lay on the pilot with perhaps his very poor training and generational loss of skills.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500 PIC Multi-Engine Requirement.
Australian CPLs struggling to get their foot in the door are questioning the "ridiculously high multi engine minimums" for direct entry FO positions when the Airline's own cadets are sitting in the cockpit at 300 hours. Well, its like this: CAO's state [how quickly we forget our Air Law] that to have command in Air Transport Category Regular Public transport operations, to fly as a Captain the minimum requirement to gain command is 500 hours multi-engine PIC experience. So, as a direct entry FO, without this minimum requirement, you ain't getting up graded. As to the cadets, there is a provision in the regulations that allows for company trained, under a fully approved company training system, for cadets to gain a full career with full progression to the left seat within that airline. BUT here's the catch, you are an endured slave to that airline and its seniority system. If you leave that airline, and you do so without 500 hours PIC multi-engine experience, then you become just another career jet FO. Only way out......pay to get multi time....then join the queue.
There is one thing for sure, based on my "professional" experience, is that Australia, in a time when every other Nation State is making it harder and harder for expatriate contract pilots to gain direct entry positions in favour of their own 200-250 hours fresh CPLs, is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Despite political correctness, Nationalism and Nationalist labour policies are alive and well. What is it with Australia??? 17 years of looking in from outside......just say'in
There is one thing for sure, based on my "professional" experience, is that Australia, in a time when every other Nation State is making it harder and harder for expatriate contract pilots to gain direct entry positions in favour of their own 200-250 hours fresh CPLs, is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Despite political correctness, Nationalism and Nationalist labour policies are alive and well. What is it with Australia??? 17 years of looking in from outside......just say'in
I think this provision applies to any pilot employed by the airline. An airline could employ someone direct entry with zero multi (if they wanted to) and give them the appropriate ICUS training for command upgrade just as they do for their cadets.
Well, its like this: CAO's state [how quickly we forget our Air Law] that to have command in Air Transport Category Regular Public transport operations, to fly as a Captain the minimum requirement to gain command is 500 hours multi-engine PIC experience. So, as a direct entry FO, without this minimum requirement, you ain't getting up graded......
BUT here's the catch, you are an endured slave to that airline and its seniority system. If you leave that airline, and you do so without 500 hours PIC multi-engine experience, then you become just another career jet FO.
BUT here's the catch, you are an endured slave to that airline and its seniority system. If you leave that airline, and you do so without 500 hours PIC multi-engine experience, then you become just another career jet FO.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of airline Captains in Oz who got the position without 500 multi command (or any command beyond CPL training and basic ATPL requirements).
ATP(A)L, CP(A)L does not permit a person to fly as PIC of a multi-crew aircraft in CHTR and RPT operations.
CAR 1988 5.105 (1) "(b) to fly a multi‑pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation;"
Aeronautical expereince required is covered in CAO 40.1.0 para 8A.2, basically 50 hours ICUS, or 25 hours ICUS after an approved course.
The 5700KG threshold was dropped.
When researching my response, I did fine a Senate Inquiry .pdf on "Pilot Training and Airline Safety".
<http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-12/pilots_2010/report/c02.ashx>
Point of note is Recommendation 5.
"Recommendation 5
2.282 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently
being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as
opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience."
This will go along way to answer the "ridiculously high multi engine minimums" question.
Hmmm, strange. I have been out of the Australian system for 17 years - (last position was a Chief Pilot of a piston charter company), so I stand corrected by the "slap down". It has changed....
ATP(A)L, CP(A)L does not permit a person to fly as PIC of a multi-crew aircraft in CHTR and RPT operations.
CAR 1988 5.105 (1) "(b) to fly a multi‑pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation;"
Aeronautical expereince required is covered in CAO 40.1.0 para 8A.2, basically 50 hours ICUS, or 25 hours ICUS after an approved course.
The 5700KG threshold was dropped.
When researching my response, I did fine a Senate Inquiry .pdf on "Pilot Training and Airline Safety".
<http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-12/pilots_2010/report/c02.ashx>
Point of note is Recommendation 5.
"Recommendation 5
2.282 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently
being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as
opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience."
This will go along way to answer the "ridiculously high multi engine minimums" question.
ATP(A)L, CP(A)L does not permit a person to fly as PIC of a multi-crew aircraft in CHTR and RPT operations.
CAR 1988 5.105 (1) "(b) to fly a multi‑pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation;"
Aeronautical expereince required is covered in CAO 40.1.0 para 8A.2, basically 50 hours ICUS, or 25 hours ICUS after an approved course.
The 5700KG threshold was dropped.
When researching my response, I did fine a Senate Inquiry .pdf on "Pilot Training and Airline Safety".
<http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-12/pilots_2010/report/c02.ashx>
Point of note is Recommendation 5.
"Recommendation 5
2.282 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently
being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as
opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience."
This will go along way to answer the "ridiculously high multi engine minimums" question.
To Clarify cokebottle, CAO 82.3 stipulates the 500 Multi PIC/ICUS for LC-RPT operations. Rex have an ICUS program for their cadets to log ICUS time to meet this requirement.
They now have several Captains in the LHS with 2000 hours SAAB and 500 ICUS time.
Half the problem for experienced guys who are getting turned away and trying their hardest to get into the airlines is HR.
If you don't tick some little box that HR has come up with you don't get the job. No matter how well you did in your SIM or Group assessment. They are turning away very experienced people who would not have any issue slotting in to the right seat of a jet (Including me), people who are already proven in the right-seat of a regional sized transport category aircraft.
If you don't tick some little box that HR has come up with you don't get the job. No matter how well you did in your SIM or Group assessment. They are turning away very experienced people who would not have any issue slotting in to the right seat of a jet (Including me), people who are already proven in the right-seat of a regional sized transport category aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Half the problem for experienced guys who are getting turned away and trying their hardest to get into the airlines is HR.
If you don't tick some little box that HR has come up with you don't get the job. No matter how well you did in your SIM or Group assessment. They are turning away very experienced people who would not have any issue slotting in to the right seat of a jet (Including me), people who are already proven in the right-seat of a regional sized transport category aircraft.
If you don't tick some little box that HR has come up with you don't get the job. No matter how well you did in your SIM or Group assessment. They are turning away very experienced people who would not have any issue slotting in to the right seat of a jet (Including me), people who are already proven in the right-seat of a regional sized transport category aircraft.
i hope we do actually see a pilot shortage in Australia one day. A genuine shortage that entails aircraft being parked even after every single qualified Aussie pilot that is looking for a job has been employed.
While they are able to remain picky in Oz regarding soft skills there really isn’t a genuine shortage at all.
Best of luck.
PG
Unfortunately you’re right. It must be very frustrating for the many, many guys (and gals) like you that hear constantly about this apparent pilot shortage yet are knocked back by some irrelevant score on an HR psychometric test.
i hope we do actually see a pilot shortage in Australia one day. A genuine shortage that entails aircraft being parked even after every single qualified Aussie pilot that is looking for a job has been employed.