Skippers lose conquest at mine?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this right - they're flying a FAR23 aircraft which suffers some sort of engine/prop related problem whilst in the TKOF roll. They abort the TKOF and subsequently over-run into the dirt.
Isn't that what they're taught to do?
I would have thought this demonstrated a capable training system. Why would the company be worried about a safety review following a well handled incident?
Isn't that what they're taught to do?
I would have thought this demonstrated a capable training system. Why would the company be worried about a safety review following a well handled incident?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001
The point is not whether the engine was new, middle aged or nearly dead.
As NTS Check points out it is a FAR23 type, they weren't going anywhere but into the trees at the end of the strip on one in any event. Hopefully not too fast and if it was a little, its still safer than upside down at 120+KTS.
Only question that remains from that, is, whether an accelerate stop distance was/is calculated routinely and "balanced" against the strip length. It's in the book and takes about 30 secs to do.
The last time I saw one of them it was way over 18,000 hrs and that was in 1990. I suspect that the rest are not all that far behind.
Some would be going close to if not over 25,000hrs.
These types including the King Air have a design life of around 30 years based on around 300 hrs per year, need I say more.
You can go around in circles all you like about age and v airframe v engine hours the older it gets the more it costs to maintain, yet the older ones are sought after for their low capital costs so they can reduce the rates yet further.
They would have to be getting the airframes and engines for nought to be able to make money at the prevailing rates, and allow for their replacement etc etc.
So we continue the inexorable race to the bottom, with no prospect of any body being able to "afford" to operate new safer FAR25 equipment.
The only argument I have seen mounted against this as a concept is that nobody could "afford" to pay for it. Sort of a circular argument and a self fulfilling prophecy.
Especially when the "service" is sold as a "cheaper" alternative to airlines who are required to operate FAR25 equipment.
Though the Coroners finding was inconclusive in so far as the cause of the crash was concerned, the issues revealed in this particular instance, to an experienced and knowledgeable observer point clearly to the age of the airframe and its components, notwithstanding that the aircraft was being properly maintained, as being the main culprit.
Vital components not being scheduled for and not inspected since manufacture some 27 years ago.
CASA and more importantly the ATSB, are very aware of the FAR23 v FAR25 issue and the underlying duty of care which was ventilated pretty thoroughly at the Central Air Inquest as a result of my submission and evidence.
The ATSB have through their advisory process put it to CASA for action.
ATSB recommendation to CASA
This issue will remain on the list until it is actioned by CASA and the ATSB are satisfied with the result.
It was clear from the cross examination at the inquest that the issues revealed were not even remotely understood by any of those directly concerned including the miner, operator and passengers except of course the Regulator and the ATSB.
Because it had two "jet" engines and was a "big" aircraft, licensed by CASA and operated according to that CASA license and a Beechcraft yet, it was perceived to be operating in the same "safety" envelope as the airlines.
You are I'm sure aware of the quite fundamental and distinct differences in certification concept and philosophy between FAR23/25.
It was the Coroners recommendation said in effect, that mining or any form of FIFO activity should be taking place in FAR25 aircraft.
The miners and other users quite valid defence is that they are relying on the "expert" advice they are given by the operators.
.
The operators promote the use of FAR23 types because they are cheaper to buy and operate, without understanding the REAL reason why this is so, or if they do slide around the subject.
The user is delighted because he can get his staff from here to their cheaper than with the "airlines" without a complete understading WHY this is so.
Now that this cat is "officially" out of the bag, it will be difficult if not impossible for the "users" or "operators" to defend a duty of care action by the family and survivors, in the event that there are injuries or fatalities in a FAR23 type being used in FIFO.
The "they were licensed by CASA" defence would be interesting but a half way competent silk would IMHO be able to take it way beyond that.
NTS check
Absolutely everything worked as it should.
So what if the damage to the aircraft is "severe" or a "constructive loss" Stan should be happy at least that they all walked away and they and he and the user would not have to defend a duty of care liability case in their use of the type in the light of the above.
Given the alternative scenario he/they got lucky.
On the evidence here, the "checker" should be commended.
The point is not whether the engine was new, middle aged or nearly dead.
As NTS Check points out it is a FAR23 type, they weren't going anywhere but into the trees at the end of the strip on one in any event. Hopefully not too fast and if it was a little, its still safer than upside down at 120+KTS.
Only question that remains from that, is, whether an accelerate stop distance was/is calculated routinely and "balanced" against the strip length. It's in the book and takes about 30 secs to do.
The last time I saw one of them it was way over 18,000 hrs and that was in 1990. I suspect that the rest are not all that far behind.
Some would be going close to if not over 25,000hrs.
These types including the King Air have a design life of around 30 years based on around 300 hrs per year, need I say more.
You can go around in circles all you like about age and v airframe v engine hours the older it gets the more it costs to maintain, yet the older ones are sought after for their low capital costs so they can reduce the rates yet further.
They would have to be getting the airframes and engines for nought to be able to make money at the prevailing rates, and allow for their replacement etc etc.
So we continue the inexorable race to the bottom, with no prospect of any body being able to "afford" to operate new safer FAR25 equipment.
The only argument I have seen mounted against this as a concept is that nobody could "afford" to pay for it. Sort of a circular argument and a self fulfilling prophecy.
Especially when the "service" is sold as a "cheaper" alternative to airlines who are required to operate FAR25 equipment.
Though the Coroners finding was inconclusive in so far as the cause of the crash was concerned, the issues revealed in this particular instance, to an experienced and knowledgeable observer point clearly to the age of the airframe and its components, notwithstanding that the aircraft was being properly maintained, as being the main culprit.
Vital components not being scheduled for and not inspected since manufacture some 27 years ago.
CASA and more importantly the ATSB, are very aware of the FAR23 v FAR25 issue and the underlying duty of care which was ventilated pretty thoroughly at the Central Air Inquest as a result of my submission and evidence.
The ATSB have through their advisory process put it to CASA for action.
ATSB recommendation to CASA
This issue will remain on the list until it is actioned by CASA and the ATSB are satisfied with the result.
It was clear from the cross examination at the inquest that the issues revealed were not even remotely understood by any of those directly concerned including the miner, operator and passengers except of course the Regulator and the ATSB.
Because it had two "jet" engines and was a "big" aircraft, licensed by CASA and operated according to that CASA license and a Beechcraft yet, it was perceived to be operating in the same "safety" envelope as the airlines.
You are I'm sure aware of the quite fundamental and distinct differences in certification concept and philosophy between FAR23/25.
It was the Coroners recommendation said in effect, that mining or any form of FIFO activity should be taking place in FAR25 aircraft.
The miners and other users quite valid defence is that they are relying on the "expert" advice they are given by the operators.
.The operators promote the use of FAR23 types because they are cheaper to buy and operate, without understanding the REAL reason why this is so, or if they do slide around the subject.
The user is delighted because he can get his staff from here to their cheaper than with the "airlines" without a complete understading WHY this is so.
Now that this cat is "officially" out of the bag, it will be difficult if not impossible for the "users" or "operators" to defend a duty of care action by the family and survivors, in the event that there are injuries or fatalities in a FAR23 type being used in FIFO.
The "they were licensed by CASA" defence would be interesting but a half way competent silk would IMHO be able to take it way beyond that.
NTS check
Absolutely everything worked as it should.
So what if the damage to the aircraft is "severe" or a "constructive loss" Stan should be happy at least that they all walked away and they and he and the user would not have to defend a duty of care liability case in their use of the type in the light of the above.
Given the alternative scenario he/they got lucky.
On the evidence here, the "checker" should be commended.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTS CHECK
I guess the answer to your question is somewhere between human nature and oops.
It is a natural reaction to dread an investigation of any sorts. Now if you look walk outside the little box and take a step back and look at the big picture yet again.....
Somewhere around 1998 the Skippers fleet were predominantly grounded due to shonky repairs and maintainance, the CASA boys lodged an investigation and the Chief Engineer was hung out to dry.
The Conquest in question had just returned to service after extensive maintanance and refurb..... Stan would be thinking "hope nothing we did caused it"
Then the Crew, like GAUNTY I am full of praise for the crew and only hope management understand what they have experienced and provide the professional and appropriate counselling and support.
However there is a point here that old Stan & Dave will be thinking about quite a lot.
The female checker was a very capable captain before she went to Skippers and no doubt has maintained her skills, however has she any instructing qualification/experience ???? nope. How are her dexterity skills from the rhs ??? in this situation ???
The male pilot being checked joined the Skippers with about 200 hrs, gained about 1000 hours as a co-pilot on metros and is sitting in the left hand seat trying to get command time. (so much for the 500 hours multi requirement that everyone else needs) you're getting my drift.
What training system let this happen ? It is highly likely that the "cadet" pilot is a product of who he knows not what he knows and be him a great bloke or not that is not a good reference for the Skippers selection and line training system.
It also is a smack in the face to guys like SLICE and the other crews that had to go bush live like a hobo to get the 500 hrs multi in orde to get a job with Skippers.
All in all I'd say Lindsay would be laughing, Stan would be sweating on the finding as to whether the engineers got something wrong and what the ramifications from the customers will be. Remember mining companies are pretty touchy on safety.
I guess the answer to your question is somewhere between human nature and oops.
It is a natural reaction to dread an investigation of any sorts. Now if you look walk outside the little box and take a step back and look at the big picture yet again.....
Somewhere around 1998 the Skippers fleet were predominantly grounded due to shonky repairs and maintainance, the CASA boys lodged an investigation and the Chief Engineer was hung out to dry.
The Conquest in question had just returned to service after extensive maintanance and refurb..... Stan would be thinking "hope nothing we did caused it"
Then the Crew, like GAUNTY I am full of praise for the crew and only hope management understand what they have experienced and provide the professional and appropriate counselling and support.
However there is a point here that old Stan & Dave will be thinking about quite a lot.
The female checker was a very capable captain before she went to Skippers and no doubt has maintained her skills, however has she any instructing qualification/experience ???? nope. How are her dexterity skills from the rhs ??? in this situation ???
The male pilot being checked joined the Skippers with about 200 hrs, gained about 1000 hours as a co-pilot on metros and is sitting in the left hand seat trying to get command time. (so much for the 500 hours multi requirement that everyone else needs) you're getting my drift.
What training system let this happen ? It is highly likely that the "cadet" pilot is a product of who he knows not what he knows and be him a great bloke or not that is not a good reference for the Skippers selection and line training system.
It also is a smack in the face to guys like SLICE and the other crews that had to go bush live like a hobo to get the 500 hrs multi in orde to get a job with Skippers.
All in all I'd say Lindsay would be laughing, Stan would be sweating on the finding as to whether the engineers got something wrong and what the ramifications from the customers will be. Remember mining companies are pretty touchy on safety.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on mistapproach, any decent safety system/culture requires a safety review (or investigation) following such an incident. Especially if someone was hurt and a US$1m + piece of machinery was bent (badly?).
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up North somewhere
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear at the end of the day the crew lost an engine before reaching there pre determined decision speed and acted accordingly. Well done to the them. Vmca will usually result in bigger dints the over running a runway!
Apollo 4, let me get this right. From all reports the situation was handled professionally, by the crew involved, with everyone able to walk away from the aircraft after a failure at what is a crucial (if not critical) moment, which then prompts you to state:
I'm not quite sure what you suggest should have occurred? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your proposed ideal course of action...
As for calling into question the experience of the person who was undertaking training in the LHS -
Are you suggesting that the operator in question is going to go blindly placing somebody in the LHS of a conquest just because they are (apparently) a 'good bloke", without ever giving thought to their flying ability? That's certainly an interesting suggestion. Have you considered for a moment that in the eyes of the operator/chief pilot, the person in question may have been quite a capable pilot who, after experiencing 1000hrs on the Metro, was deemed suitable to progress onto the LHS of the Conquest? After all, he probably picked up a thing or two in his time as a Metro co-pilot, and was quite possibly flying the aircraft on every other sector. In fact, if that was the case, then I see no reason for the progression to an aircraft type such as a Conquest to be a huge drama. I also fail to see how spending time in a single engined piston aircraft (be it high performance or not) would have prepared him any better to cope with the situation that eventuated in the Conquest.
I understand that everyone in aviation has their own opinion on how best to do things, especially when it comes to progressing upwards through the 'pecking order' of commercial aircraft. However, just because somebody may have done it differently to you, doesn't necessarily mean that their way of doing things is wrong - it's just different...
What training system let this happen ?
As for calling into question the experience of the person who was undertaking training in the LHS -
It is highly likely that the "cadet" pilot is a product of who he knows not what he knows
Have you considered for a moment that in the eyes of the operator/chief pilot, the person in question may have been quite a capable pilot who, after experiencing 1000hrs on the Metro, was deemed suitable to progress onto the LHS of the Conquest? After all, he probably picked up a thing or two in his time as a Metro co-pilot, and was quite possibly flying the aircraft on every other sector. In fact, if that was the case, then I see no reason for the progression to an aircraft type such as a Conquest to be a huge drama. I also fail to see how spending time in a single engined piston aircraft (be it high performance or not) would have prepared him any better to cope with the situation that eventuated in the Conquest. I understand that everyone in aviation has their own opinion on how best to do things, especially when it comes to progressing upwards through the 'pecking order' of commercial aircraft. However, just because somebody may have done it differently to you, doesn't necessarily mean that their way of doing things is wrong - it's just different...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johnny Utah
Before we all get our temperatures above the norm, I would like to point out that the Crew did the best they could under the circumstances = Right Decisions. I happen to know that the check captain is less than happy with a few issues relating to the accident as are most of the Skippers.
My main thrust is that Management now analyse the whole situation and clearly they have, otherwise they wouldn’t be concerned re a safety review or attempted to keep the accident so quiet.
As a view completely separate to the accident itself.
The reference to the training system was legitimate in the light that the company minimums that most candidates have to achieve (people like SLICE) before employment by Skippers, include 500 hours multi engine command experience…. This “cadet” pilot I am told has less than 50 hrs multi-engine command time and I suggest anyone who has flown the piston range first and gained 500 hours PIC in charter conditions will be infinitely more comfortable with tackling a conquest command than someone who has ****** all time.
While I agree a person who has flown co-pilot in a metro has gained valuable experience, it still is in the opposite seat on a totally different aircraft and to suggest that this is somehow equivalent to PIC time is pure folly, try showing a log book to a regional and attempting to convince them that it is.
The proposition I intimated in the earlier post is this, when a company sets a benchmark level for its employees and then ignores its own requirements is that the start of a chain ? and further would it not be far more prudent to have a more experienced (500 hour multi) pilot in the left and place an instructor rated check Captain in the RHS during this period of operation. Irrespective of the cause of the accident or the final outcome, what about from a management duty of care perspective, to the crews and passengers.
As we all know when split second decisions, actions and responses need to be taken an unfamiliar cockpit and or side of the cockpit doesn’t help!!!!!
Before we all get our temperatures above the norm, I would like to point out that the Crew did the best they could under the circumstances = Right Decisions. I happen to know that the check captain is less than happy with a few issues relating to the accident as are most of the Skippers.
My main thrust is that Management now analyse the whole situation and clearly they have, otherwise they wouldn’t be concerned re a safety review or attempted to keep the accident so quiet.
As a view completely separate to the accident itself.
The reference to the training system was legitimate in the light that the company minimums that most candidates have to achieve (people like SLICE) before employment by Skippers, include 500 hours multi engine command experience…. This “cadet” pilot I am told has less than 50 hrs multi-engine command time and I suggest anyone who has flown the piston range first and gained 500 hours PIC in charter conditions will be infinitely more comfortable with tackling a conquest command than someone who has ****** all time.
While I agree a person who has flown co-pilot in a metro has gained valuable experience, it still is in the opposite seat on a totally different aircraft and to suggest that this is somehow equivalent to PIC time is pure folly, try showing a log book to a regional and attempting to convince them that it is.
The proposition I intimated in the earlier post is this, when a company sets a benchmark level for its employees and then ignores its own requirements is that the start of a chain ? and further would it not be far more prudent to have a more experienced (500 hour multi) pilot in the left and place an instructor rated check Captain in the RHS during this period of operation. Irrespective of the cause of the accident or the final outcome, what about from a management duty of care perspective, to the crews and passengers.
As we all know when split second decisions, actions and responses need to be taken an unfamiliar cockpit and or side of the cockpit doesn’t help!!!!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo 4
I have been known to be a bit one eyed towards Mr Cessnas product and a champion of the concept that they are built and designed to be "owner flown", i.e. by the businessman owner pilot, whether he may or may not have qualifications beyond a PPL, is unimportant .
Professional pilot qualifications and certification issues aside, the typical Conquest owner driver will have come to a Conquest/Citation normally through ownership of a succession of Cessna piston singles and 300/400 series twins.
The transition for piston to turbine is then relatively simple, just a change in motive power and a "different" set of gauges.
Whilst I am on that subject Cessna went to a great deal of trouble to make the Conquest "gauges" position and display and power quadrant levers as simple and similar as possible to the piston twin 400 series, to make the transition as simple as possible.
The power "computerised automatics" with auto "Start" and auto Torque and Temp limiters for the same reason.
Press the button to start and get on with whatever else around the cockpit while they spin up, stand the power levers up for TO, no drama just monitor.
Torque = MAP
RPM = RPM OK %age isn't all that hard with which to come to grips.
Temp = CHT, in this case, the "real" turbine temp is "compensated" electronically to "look" like what you would expect to see on the CHT on a 400 series twin, i.e. around 400C.
At the end of the day they could just as easily have used lemon drops, pink elephants, smilies or red, green or amber lights as symbols.
It doesn't matter because it will either start or it wont, It will deliver whatever power is available for the ambient or it wont.
The symbols displaying that info are irrelevant and there is little if anything the driver can do "to make it better" if it doesn't want to play any more.
I digress.
I am therefore surprised to hear Appolos comments on the alleged low Multi Command time.
Mr Cessna I believe, would have had no problem with the low hours, per se, if someone had stepped up to their first twin as a Conquest and the free Flight Safety training and "hand holding" would have kicked in, but they would have expected more experience than that.
At the sales level their would have been more than a fair bit of counselling, preparation and routine provision of someone to ride "shotgun" for as long as it took.
But I would have serious reservations for a Commercial operation and considering the age and hours of the aircraft would suggest that it was folly from a safety viewpoint and potentially harmful to the pilots future prospects.
This “cadet” pilot I am told has less than 50 hrs multi-engine command time and I suggest anyone who has flown the piston range first and gained 500 hours PIC in charter conditions will be infinitely more comfortable with tackling a conquest command than someone who has ****** all time.
Professional pilot qualifications and certification issues aside, the typical Conquest owner driver will have come to a Conquest/Citation normally through ownership of a succession of Cessna piston singles and 300/400 series twins.
The transition for piston to turbine is then relatively simple, just a change in motive power and a "different" set of gauges.
Whilst I am on that subject Cessna went to a great deal of trouble to make the Conquest "gauges" position and display and power quadrant levers as simple and similar as possible to the piston twin 400 series, to make the transition as simple as possible.
The power "computerised automatics" with auto "Start" and auto Torque and Temp limiters for the same reason.
Press the button to start and get on with whatever else around the cockpit while they spin up, stand the power levers up for TO, no drama just monitor.
Torque = MAP
RPM = RPM OK %age isn't all that hard with which to come to grips.
Temp = CHT, in this case, the "real" turbine temp is "compensated" electronically to "look" like what you would expect to see on the CHT on a 400 series twin, i.e. around 400C.
At the end of the day they could just as easily have used lemon drops, pink elephants, smilies or red, green or amber lights as symbols.
It doesn't matter because it will either start or it wont, It will deliver whatever power is available for the ambient or it wont.
The symbols displaying that info are irrelevant and there is little if anything the driver can do "to make it better" if it doesn't want to play any more.
I digress.
I am therefore surprised to hear Appolos comments on the alleged low Multi Command time.
Mr Cessna I believe, would have had no problem with the low hours, per se, if someone had stepped up to their first twin as a Conquest and the free Flight Safety training and "hand holding" would have kicked in, but they would have expected more experience than that.
At the sales level their would have been more than a fair bit of counselling, preparation and routine provision of someone to ride "shotgun" for as long as it took.
But I would have serious reservations for a Commercial operation and considering the age and hours of the aircraft would suggest that it was folly from a safety viewpoint and potentially harmful to the pilots future prospects.
You and me know Gaunty...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apollo 4 - you do not know that the experience level of the pilot under training was a contributing factor to the incident. So why bring it up? I can point to any number of runway excursions in various turbine equipment where the captain had well in excess of 500 ME command. Remember, there is a very prominent taxiway excursion in ML at the moment. There was also a runway excursion in Bangkok recently.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with many people in my time. The guy you lot are hammering was better than 95% of them, including me. I would be very surprised to hear experience was a contributing factor
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suffice to say that any bent C441 Conquest II is a thing that pains me greatly 
Unfortunatley Cessna 400 nose gears seem to be a weak point (notwithstanding any "beyond the call of duty" events this particular nose gear went through)
We can all be grateful that everyone walked away
Shall we lobby Cessna to restart production of the Conquest?
Or will the product liability lawyers
kill any chance of that ?
Unfortunatley Cessna 400 nose gears seem to be a weak point (notwithstanding any "beyond the call of duty" events this particular nose gear went through)
We can all be grateful that everyone walked away
Shall we lobby Cessna to restart production of the Conquest?
Or will the product liability lawyers kill any chance of that ?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna starting Conquest production is just not gunna happen, over 3-400 nm, the usual corporate trip length in this class, it's performance is just too close to the baby Citations and they just can't build those fast enough.
Apart from that, the FAR23 issues are too hard, which is why they went straight to FAR25 for their first turbines.
Apart from that, the FAR23 issues are too hard, which is why they went straight to FAR25 for their first turbines.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked for Skippers, I still have no idea what there agenda is.
However, I do know they employ rampies as metro f/o's, even though they have sfa hours and job experience. This really urks alot of local drivers who have the experience, but yet cant get a look in.
I guess throwing bags and cleaning toilets has its benefits afterall.
However, I do know they employ rampies as metro f/o's, even though they have sfa hours and job experience. This really urks alot of local drivers who have the experience, but yet cant get a look in.
I guess throwing bags and cleaning toilets has its benefits afterall.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: West of East
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skywest_xr,
Skippers have only ever employed two pilots who were 'rampies'.
If you worked for Skippers as a pilot then you would know that the ops manual had a clause in it permitting pilots to be employed on a 'cadet' scheme with less than the usual hour requirements.
Due to various reasons the cadet scheme never 'took off'.
Yes, they had less hours than usual but they were well known to the company. Aviation is a small industry and it's not only what you know but who you know. That's the way it is!
If you did a poll here on pprune as to how many pilots had got jobs after recommendations from friends as opposed to turning up at the interview completely unknown to the company then you may be in for a surprise.
I'll admit that I have known someone in just about every company I have ever been employed by. In most cases I used them as a referree at my interview. In the companies eyes there is nothing like a personal recomendation from someone already in the company who they trust.
It's a matter of being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people as these two guys did.
Having said that though - as a well known ATPL theory providor says, "An ATPL pass will get you an interview but it's your skills and knowledge that will get you the job"
As Beany6 said,
That is why these guys ultimately got the job - their skills and knowledge were good.
Skippers have only ever employed two pilots who were 'rampies'.
If you worked for Skippers as a pilot then you would know that the ops manual had a clause in it permitting pilots to be employed on a 'cadet' scheme with less than the usual hour requirements.
Due to various reasons the cadet scheme never 'took off'.
Yes, they had less hours than usual but they were well known to the company. Aviation is a small industry and it's not only what you know but who you know. That's the way it is!
If you did a poll here on pprune as to how many pilots had got jobs after recommendations from friends as opposed to turning up at the interview completely unknown to the company then you may be in for a surprise.
I'll admit that I have known someone in just about every company I have ever been employed by. In most cases I used them as a referree at my interview. In the companies eyes there is nothing like a personal recomendation from someone already in the company who they trust.
It's a matter of being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people as these two guys did.
Having said that though - as a well known ATPL theory providor says, "An ATPL pass will get you an interview but it's your skills and knowledge that will get you the job"
As Beany6 said,
I have flown with many people in my time. The guy you lot are hammering was better than 95% of them, including me.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash - you are contradicting yourself! On the one hand you say most pilots are hired due in part to recommendations from pilots within a company ''who you know, knowing the right people " and then stating that these guys ultimately got the job because of their skills and knowlege!!
If pilots hired by a given company have such superior skills and knowlege, why would they need recommendations from people within that company?
Let's face it, aircrew recruitment is one of the most venal and corrupt employment activities around! The vast excess of pilots trained and the lassez-faire approach of the Government has ensures that this is the way it will continue. As for the assesment of skills and knowlege, there is precious little objectivity to be found in General Aviation - ''This guy is better than 95% of you"!! Oh really, according to who? The person making this statement has NO idea how the vast majority of the other 95% fly!
In years gone by (maybe not true anymore - I have been gone awhile) Skippers built a reputation for crash through management (no pun intended) and pilot discontent, which is not the environment for for fostering the best skills and knowlege.
If pilots hired by a given company have such superior skills and knowlege, why would they need recommendations from people within that company?
Let's face it, aircrew recruitment is one of the most venal and corrupt employment activities around! The vast excess of pilots trained and the lassez-faire approach of the Government has ensures that this is the way it will continue. As for the assesment of skills and knowlege, there is precious little objectivity to be found in General Aviation - ''This guy is better than 95% of you"!! Oh really, according to who? The person making this statement has NO idea how the vast majority of the other 95% fly!
In years gone by (maybe not true anymore - I have been gone awhile) Skippers built a reputation for crash through management (no pun intended) and pilot discontent, which is not the environment for for fostering the best skills and knowlege.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, when I was offered employment there I knew no one at all. I was employed for my credentials, not by inhouse recommendations.
Sniper, I am not sure why you attacked my comment. It was based upon who I have flown with in my career. I dont think I have NO idea..... I could say that about you as well, but I do not know you and would have no proof to justify my comments.
Back to the top. Yes apparently a Conquest did have a bingle
Sniper, I am not sure why you attacked my comment. It was based upon who I have flown with in my career. I dont think I have NO idea..... I could say that about you as well, but I do not know you and would have no proof to justify my comments.
Back to the top. Yes apparently a Conquest did have a bingle