Becoming a professional pilot, and finding a job
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age & Responsibility vs. Your Dream...
Would have... could have... should have. If you fly helicopters, at least that is one item you can scratch off your list of "I've always wanted to do that." Besides, how cool is it to become a helicopter pilot? A rare and daring breed for certain. 
Nevertheless, I have to agree with your cautious approach and applaud your necessity for long term planning. I'm 33 and started flying when I was 31 years old. For me, I definately had to consider the results of a cost benefit analysis. After all, your mortgage, child's college fund, and other bills won't take a hiatus during the time you dedicate for training.
However, I am NOT a professional pilot. Therefore, my advice is slanted because I took a different path. I aspire to become a professional pilot (at least a part time instructor). Believe me, I would LOVE to be one, but the reality of my personal situation is different from those starting a new career. Specifically, I was able to keep my day job!
I'm not a doctor or lawyer making big bucks, but I have a comfortable living as an IT Systems Engineer. So, I am gradually building my hours, learning absolutely everything I possibly can. This is a very slow path, and I'll never be more than a part-time instructor (if that).
When I started on my PPL, I did take a lot of time from work because I felt that it was important to fly 3-5 times a week in the beginning. After my PPL, I went to the factory safety course and participate in other safety training where possible (i.e. FAA Wings Safety Program). Now, I only fly 2-3 times per month! I would love to fly more, but this is the best of both worlds (for me).
Nevertheless, I have to agree with your cautious approach and applaud your necessity for long term planning. I'm 33 and started flying when I was 31 years old. For me, I definately had to consider the results of a cost benefit analysis. After all, your mortgage, child's college fund, and other bills won't take a hiatus during the time you dedicate for training.
However, I am NOT a professional pilot. Therefore, my advice is slanted because I took a different path. I aspire to become a professional pilot (at least a part time instructor). Believe me, I would LOVE to be one, but the reality of my personal situation is different from those starting a new career. Specifically, I was able to keep my day job!
I'm not a doctor or lawyer making big bucks, but I have a comfortable living as an IT Systems Engineer. So, I am gradually building my hours, learning absolutely everything I possibly can. This is a very slow path, and I'll never be more than a part-time instructor (if that).
When I started on my PPL, I did take a lot of time from work because I felt that it was important to fly 3-5 times a week in the beginning. After my PPL, I went to the factory safety course and participate in other safety training where possible (i.e. FAA Wings Safety Program). Now, I only fly 2-3 times per month! I would love to fly more, but this is the best of both worlds (for me).
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 50 ft AGL
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about financing one's dreams ...
helislave wrote: [...] Hey maybe we can start up some organisation
somehow to help newbbie pilots get 'off the ground' [...]
somehow to help newbbie pilots get 'off the ground' [...]
something like that a while ago.
Maybe we could all together try to look in deeper detail into such a concept ?
I would really be interested in your thoughts regarding this idea - Even if
this turns out to be only a "mind game"...
There are certainly many things to take into consideration - and many
drawbacks - but also some advantages. When I thought about such an institution
I came up with a concept where those people successful in aviation support
newbies trying get a foot into the door. There would have to be some kind
of 'generational contract'. In order not to depend on large sums of
individual donations one would need a large pool of independent supporters who
are willing to contribute only a very small donation (but steadily): possibly 'well established'
aviators who want to support 'newbies' - while a newbie could apply for support
with that said (imaginary) institution for financial support regarding a career
in aviation, the applicant would have to accept the obligation to pay back (at least
part of) the credit provided by 'our organisation' as soon as this is financially
possible-a long term commitment. That way the 'pool of supporters' would be kind of
"self-refreshing".
Certainly, that would require a certain likelyhood of the applicant to
successfully pursuit a career in aviation-hence, some kind of assessment would
need to take place in order to decide for support.
Although I don't know of the beaurocratic requirements for such an institution
I don't think that this should be a major obstacle, since we are certainly
talking about a "non-profit" organization. Even if such an organization
helps only half a dozen people per year with their career it would be worth it.
Further income could be generated by advertisements and the like - maybe YOU have
additional suggestions ?
I would really be willing to donate my spare time working out a concept and possibly
even implementing a basic frame of such an idea. I am confident that with the support
and discussion here, one could really make that idea grow and take shape.
I hope that many people feel encouraged to contribute to such an idea with their
comments and suggestions - even if it's just to illustrate the unlikelyhood for such a
project to ever function properly. ;-)
Maybe such a topic deserves its own thread ?
We'll see ;-)
regards
AGL
Last edited by AlphaGolfLima; 26th Sep 2003 at 05:35.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an example...
As a low-time pilot with no real world experience in aviation, I'm not qualified to offer any advice on AGL's proposition. Nevertheless, I do have an example of a similar organization in a different industry that may provide a few avenues for consideration. I'll try to summarize the concept for all.
OK, think outside of aviation for the next few moments...
In the IT industry, it is usually important to be certified in a particular discipline. For example, many network engineers are Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (MCSE). Well, after the IT industry started taking off (several years ago - before the .com failures), there was a sudden surge of MCSE's. Basically, the IT industry experienced a sudden inflow of "paper MCSE's." This meant that many people took the exams for certification, but had no real world experience (kind of like the new pilot). Of course, you couldn't really get a job without the certification, so it was a Catch-22 situation (kind of like the new pilot).
Anyway, a group of IT business owners contacted all the major technology vendors (Novell, Microsoft, Unix, Cisco, etc) and created a working group for a new certification and new standards. After several YEARS of effort, new standards were agreed upon to establish a "field certification." This was a series of hands-on exams that elevated successful candidates above the folks that just had the book knowledge (paper MCSE's). It proved they had the ability to work independantly and solve complex problems without a stack of references to rely on.
As part of that practice, a curriculum was developed to help train people new to the IT industry. Basically, this working group helped to groom IT newbies to work in a professional arena and on large enterprise systems. The field certification was extremely challenging, as it should be. However, it gave the prospective employer good reason to choose this person and pay him a decent salary.
OK, put your aviation hat back on...
I'm not familiar with PHA and what they offer. Also, this has NOTHING to do with Unions. What I'm suggesting is the creation and management of an independant, non-profit, agency for helicopter pilots that is SOLEY focused on a new helicopter certification. The purpose would be to raise the proficiency standards for the professional pilot... the true believer.
JAA, FAA, and others have government standards. Nevertheless, what is stoping professional pilots from adding to the standards and creating a non-governmental certification program? Newbie pilots who complete or meet these future standards may be viewed differently by prospective employers. It would be easy to establish a mentorship training program for newbies that show promise from their basic training (score well on written exam, practical, oral, written endorsement from their CFI, interview process, etc).
Now, I know that many of the helicopter companies have their own safety and training programs. Why can't this be standardized to teach at least the same fundamentals throughout the industry? For example, Rich Lee (forgive me for offering you up without consultation) would be a great candidate to Chair "risk management" standards as part of this working group. My point is that this might be an opportunity for you pro's to share your real world experience, insights, wisdom, and knowledge with the rest of us who are just starting out. Instead of a "one-on-one" mentorship program, an association or organization can standardize and manage accelerated training and pilot techniques that could lead to some kind of non-governmental certification. Proper management and support from key industry leaders could make this new certification very prestigious.
Three things would need to happen for this certification to be accepted and recognized as a "real achievement." 1) The standards should be VERY challenging and difficult in order for it to mean anything. 2) Continuing education requirements should be mandatory to maintain certification. 3) This non-profit agency should be strictly focused on the standards, development, and training programs. You MUST have acceptance and support from industry leaders, so don't get involved with anything other than to develop sound methods to make "good pilot better."
Is that too daffy?
OK, think outside of aviation for the next few moments...
In the IT industry, it is usually important to be certified in a particular discipline. For example, many network engineers are Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (MCSE). Well, after the IT industry started taking off (several years ago - before the .com failures), there was a sudden surge of MCSE's. Basically, the IT industry experienced a sudden inflow of "paper MCSE's." This meant that many people took the exams for certification, but had no real world experience (kind of like the new pilot). Of course, you couldn't really get a job without the certification, so it was a Catch-22 situation (kind of like the new pilot).
Anyway, a group of IT business owners contacted all the major technology vendors (Novell, Microsoft, Unix, Cisco, etc) and created a working group for a new certification and new standards. After several YEARS of effort, new standards were agreed upon to establish a "field certification." This was a series of hands-on exams that elevated successful candidates above the folks that just had the book knowledge (paper MCSE's). It proved they had the ability to work independantly and solve complex problems without a stack of references to rely on.
As part of that practice, a curriculum was developed to help train people new to the IT industry. Basically, this working group helped to groom IT newbies to work in a professional arena and on large enterprise systems. The field certification was extremely challenging, as it should be. However, it gave the prospective employer good reason to choose this person and pay him a decent salary.
OK, put your aviation hat back on...
I'm not familiar with PHA and what they offer. Also, this has NOTHING to do with Unions. What I'm suggesting is the creation and management of an independant, non-profit, agency for helicopter pilots that is SOLEY focused on a new helicopter certification. The purpose would be to raise the proficiency standards for the professional pilot... the true believer.
JAA, FAA, and others have government standards. Nevertheless, what is stoping professional pilots from adding to the standards and creating a non-governmental certification program? Newbie pilots who complete or meet these future standards may be viewed differently by prospective employers. It would be easy to establish a mentorship training program for newbies that show promise from their basic training (score well on written exam, practical, oral, written endorsement from their CFI, interview process, etc).
Now, I know that many of the helicopter companies have their own safety and training programs. Why can't this be standardized to teach at least the same fundamentals throughout the industry? For example, Rich Lee (forgive me for offering you up without consultation) would be a great candidate to Chair "risk management" standards as part of this working group. My point is that this might be an opportunity for you pro's to share your real world experience, insights, wisdom, and knowledge with the rest of us who are just starting out. Instead of a "one-on-one" mentorship program, an association or organization can standardize and manage accelerated training and pilot techniques that could lead to some kind of non-governmental certification. Proper management and support from key industry leaders could make this new certification very prestigious.
Three things would need to happen for this certification to be accepted and recognized as a "real achievement." 1) The standards should be VERY challenging and difficult in order for it to mean anything. 2) Continuing education requirements should be mandatory to maintain certification. 3) This non-profit agency should be strictly focused on the standards, development, and training programs. You MUST have acceptance and support from industry leaders, so don't get involved with anything other than to develop sound methods to make "good pilot better."
Is that too daffy?
Last edited by RDRickster; 26th Sep 2003 at 09:02.
AGL -
Your wonderful idea already exists. it is called the military forces.
Large numbers of people (taxpayers) pay money regularly (tax) to keep it going. It is administered by Blunties in the armed forces.
Suitably keen applicants who want to fly are interviewed and chosen for their likelihood of succeeding(recruits). During the course, they are assessed for progress and if not up to speed, are scrubbed.
Those who succeed must spend a certain time in the job to return the investment, and they too pay their taxes to help the next lot get through.
AGL, I am not being cynical, but think about the size of the organisation you will need - the source of the income, the people administering it, the people choosing who will benefit from it, assessing the standards, scrubbing the failures (and coping with potential lawsuits) and so on.
An "apprentice" scheme has long been touted, and I as a director of a flying company, I often was approached by applicants, but the thing that stopped me from doing it was the number of keen students I had seen who were never going to measure up to commercial standards. Nice enough people, and able to reach the MINIMUM standard set by CASA, but not the sort of pilot I would hire.
Your wonderful idea already exists. it is called the military forces.
Large numbers of people (taxpayers) pay money regularly (tax) to keep it going. It is administered by Blunties in the armed forces.
Suitably keen applicants who want to fly are interviewed and chosen for their likelihood of succeeding(recruits). During the course, they are assessed for progress and if not up to speed, are scrubbed.
Those who succeed must spend a certain time in the job to return the investment, and they too pay their taxes to help the next lot get through.
AGL, I am not being cynical, but think about the size of the organisation you will need - the source of the income, the people administering it, the people choosing who will benefit from it, assessing the standards, scrubbing the failures (and coping with potential lawsuits) and so on.
An "apprentice" scheme has long been touted, and I as a director of a flying company, I often was approached by applicants, but the thing that stopped me from doing it was the number of keen students I had seen who were never going to measure up to commercial standards. Nice enough people, and able to reach the MINIMUM standard set by CASA, but not the sort of pilot I would hire.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you lot read the other forums? The PPRuNe Fund was started up for those who had been successful to help wannabes. I think it's been airline wannabes so far, but if someone had a word with PPRuNe PoP.....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly,
Apologies to count for going off his topic...
Thanks for AGL on picking up on my idea and expanding it somewhat i too had a similar thought, non-profit too. maybe we should get together or something. Whirlybird, maybe you are right too, we should perhaps talk to PPRUNE to expand the rotary bit. Any ideas how we should do that?
Second, Acsend, i see your point about there being an organisation already called the military, but why should these people get all of the perks? And not only that some people are too old, like me and Count, some people don't like the military way of things, some people are pacifists and would never do it, and even though there is unique training in certain aspects for the military, i hear that some companies (in and out of aviation) don't like the ex-military way of doing things (I'm not saying all etc before anybody jumps down my throat, and it's the exception rather than the rule).
Thirdly, it is true that flying training organisations will train anybody with a slight interlect (min GCSE's in the UK) and over 18 and with the cash to burn. But are these the correct pilots anyway. I'm refering mainly to fixed wing training here, but i'm sure you've all read articles about the quality of fixed wing pilots entering the industry etc. I know that some companies/airlines do screening and pyscometric tests and the like, but not really in the early stages unless they are sponsored. But that's fixed wing! Why not raise the standard and awareness of rotary operations, and make the perception to Joe Public that helos are the dog's cahoonas and the not noisy play things for the rich and famous. (see this week's flight international). If we want the helo to not disappear all together we need to pull together, and work together and that can be achieved by a process of education and reeducation for both pilots and the public alike! I also am aware of organisations already like BHAB, EHA and HAI, but they're not really suited for newbbie wannabies.
As RD said 'ok i'll paraphrase'
Let's get some standardisation, above and beyond what the authorities say. I know the FAA/JAA and the rest are trying to do this, but let's face it, they all hate helos, they are a nuisance to them and only put up with them because they have to (this should invite a few comments), and ATC cannot get to grips with the flexibility of helicopter operations.
RD:
Proper management and support from key industry leaders could make this new certification very prestigious.
This statement is a very true one, it raises everybodies game and awareness, it may even increase salaries across the board and also get the respect owed to helo pilots that seemingly are only given to plankers (don't have a go at me on this, you know what i am talking about), and more importantly it may improve safety as a result, therefore it makes helos more attractive. We all know that safety rates for helos are worse than for planks for the equivalent number of hours, but we also know the reason why, it's the field of operations in which helos fly, but Joe Public doesn't know this! They just see the statistics!
AGL. so maybe if you want to discuss this idea a little further i'd be happy too, give me a PM and we can sketch out some sort of idea, and then perhaps post it on here to see what people think, and get some feedback and input. It maybe a crock of preverbial but we have to start somewhere, and i do think it's about time WE helo lovers pulled together and spoke with one voice and get some more exposure!
I would suggest to anybody that you get this weeks' Flight, (i am not advertising), particularly the comment but it certainly is an interesting read, not only that there's an nice article on the A109 power too.
Apologies to count for going off his topic...
Thanks for AGL on picking up on my idea and expanding it somewhat i too had a similar thought, non-profit too. maybe we should get together or something. Whirlybird, maybe you are right too, we should perhaps talk to PPRUNE to expand the rotary bit. Any ideas how we should do that?
Second, Acsend, i see your point about there being an organisation already called the military, but why should these people get all of the perks? And not only that some people are too old, like me and Count, some people don't like the military way of things, some people are pacifists and would never do it, and even though there is unique training in certain aspects for the military, i hear that some companies (in and out of aviation) don't like the ex-military way of doing things (I'm not saying all etc before anybody jumps down my throat, and it's the exception rather than the rule).
Thirdly, it is true that flying training organisations will train anybody with a slight interlect (min GCSE's in the UK) and over 18 and with the cash to burn. But are these the correct pilots anyway. I'm refering mainly to fixed wing training here, but i'm sure you've all read articles about the quality of fixed wing pilots entering the industry etc. I know that some companies/airlines do screening and pyscometric tests and the like, but not really in the early stages unless they are sponsored. But that's fixed wing! Why not raise the standard and awareness of rotary operations, and make the perception to Joe Public that helos are the dog's cahoonas and the not noisy play things for the rich and famous. (see this week's flight international). If we want the helo to not disappear all together we need to pull together, and work together and that can be achieved by a process of education and reeducation for both pilots and the public alike! I also am aware of organisations already like BHAB, EHA and HAI, but they're not really suited for newbbie wannabies.
As RD said 'ok i'll paraphrase'
Let's get some standardisation, above and beyond what the authorities say. I know the FAA/JAA and the rest are trying to do this, but let's face it, they all hate helos, they are a nuisance to them and only put up with them because they have to (this should invite a few comments), and ATC cannot get to grips with the flexibility of helicopter operations.
RD:
Proper management and support from key industry leaders could make this new certification very prestigious.
This statement is a very true one, it raises everybodies game and awareness, it may even increase salaries across the board and also get the respect owed to helo pilots that seemingly are only given to plankers (don't have a go at me on this, you know what i am talking about), and more importantly it may improve safety as a result, therefore it makes helos more attractive. We all know that safety rates for helos are worse than for planks for the equivalent number of hours, but we also know the reason why, it's the field of operations in which helos fly, but Joe Public doesn't know this! They just see the statistics!
AGL. so maybe if you want to discuss this idea a little further i'd be happy too, give me a PM and we can sketch out some sort of idea, and then perhaps post it on here to see what people think, and get some feedback and input. It maybe a crock of preverbial but we have to start somewhere, and i do think it's about time WE helo lovers pulled together and spoke with one voice and get some more exposure!
I would suggest to anybody that you get this weeks' Flight, (i am not advertising), particularly the comment but it certainly is an interesting read, not only that there's an nice article on the A109 power too.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more thing...
Let me just say that my earlier example took YEARS of effort from the working group that eventually formed a legitimate committee. In fact, when Microsoft was first approached, they said, "no - we already have certifications." However, after things got moving along, they desperately wanted a seat on the council. It won't be easy to accomplish, but it will be achievable and will benefit the entire industry (especially new pilots). Let me know if there is anything I can contribute. I guess we've hi-jacked Duck's thread long enough; time to start a new one.
It would be vital to get the insurance companies to accept the certificate in lieu of flight time.
Having spent considerable time, effort and (inevitably) money on getting the "PPRuNe Class A heli-ops" certificate with "Vertical Reference" and "VIP Pampering" endorsements, the newbie would be awfully cheesed off if s/he still couldn't get a job because operators can't affordably insure aircraft flown by pilots with less than umpty squillion hours P1.
Having spent considerable time, effort and (inevitably) money on getting the "PPRuNe Class A heli-ops" certificate with "Vertical Reference" and "VIP Pampering" endorsements, the newbie would be awfully cheesed off if s/he still couldn't get a job because operators can't affordably insure aircraft flown by pilots with less than umpty squillion hours P1.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken...
Agreed - insurance seems to drive everything. We'll have to get their buy in, find out what statistics they are looking at to make their decisions, and include additional training to make them feel more comfortable. For the insurance companies, it is a win because they will be more comfortable with safer and better trained / qualified / certified pilots.
There are some interesting U.S. statistics that I'll share below. I researched a while back and believe they have some relevance. Historically, the FAA has been WRONG about most pilot projections they've made since 1955! (I wonder how much we pay in taxes to get the wrong answer each year for the last 48 years).
For example, in 1995, the FAA predicted that the number of Student Certificates would decline from 100,000 in 1995 to about 90,000 in 2000. Here are the actual statistics (in approximate terms - just to give you an idea):
1995 - 110,000
1996 - 115,000
1997 - 150,000
1998 - 130,000
1999 - 155,000
2000 - 140,000
I made this graph in a hurry, so it isn't exactly perfect and doesn't show any of the other statistics. Also, I didn't get any data beyond 2000. The green line shows New Student Certificates and the red line shows the incorrect FAA predictions.
The FAA accuracy regarding most of their reports ranges from NEGATIVE 19% to NEGATIVE 37 percent! In another example, new students actually increased by 2.5% between the 1st quarter of last year and the 1st quarter of this year (source: Williamson Study). The FAA predicted a 4.5% decline, which is obviously contraindicated.
Also, we had a strong economic recovery in FY 2003, and most aviation economist predict a moderate growth between 2003 and 2013. That prediction was made before many of the larger airlines went bankrupt, but I believe it was based on the anticipated NEED for aviation resources (pilots, aircraft, and new missions). Of course, this doesn't account for the student drop out rate, but it is a useful guide.
On another note, here is some information I pulled from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of Department of Commerce). This represents actual pilot statistical information, and does NOT include student pilots. These are working professionals...
Some of this information is paraphrased (for easy reading) from four sub-table categories of interest. If you want to research this more, go to http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/NIPATableIndex.htm#A to look at the NIPA tables. You'll have to search the correct category and subcategory.
To get a really really detailed picture of what's going on in the industry, you would need to cross-reference other tables and sources of info to include demographic information (region, age eligible to retire, number and type of medical certificates approved by FAA, etc, etc). If folks REALLY want to know, perhaps we could get the AOPA or some other group to fund a research project to find some of the more important answers?
Aircraft sales seem to be on a dramatic increase. The following include stuck-wing (multiply by hundreds):
1997 - 120.12
1998 - 162.01
1999 - 232.38
2000 - 240.99
2001 - 245.45
Persons engaged in aviation, including independant operators and contractors (multiply by thousands):
1997 - 1,067
1998 - 1,123
1999 - 1,163
2000 - 1,216
2001 - 1,205
Persons engaged in aviation as full-time employees (multiply by thousands):
1997 - 1,062
1998 - 1,117
1999 - 1,159
2000 - 1,207
2001 - 1,197
Average wage and salary for full time employees in aviation (actual amount):
1997 - 38,693
1998 - 40,402
1999 - 42,520
2000 - 43,817
2001 - 45,715
It's really hard to get specific information on the rotor-head population. I think you will get a better "pulse" of what's going on in this community by looking at information contributed by actual helicopter pilots on this forum and elsewhere. Granted, without an adequate number of demoninators, these bulletin-board "poll" statistics aren't completely accurate - but they give you a idea of what to expect.
One more thing, I couldn't find an adequate definition of what "engaged in aviation" means. Therefore, you should probably assume this includes support personnel, A&P mechanics, and other non-flyers in the aviation industry as a whole. Nevertheless, this isn't a bad "wide-angle" view because you can't fly without the whole team's participation anyway.
*** Edited to add Statistics***
There are some interesting U.S. statistics that I'll share below. I researched a while back and believe they have some relevance. Historically, the FAA has been WRONG about most pilot projections they've made since 1955! (I wonder how much we pay in taxes to get the wrong answer each year for the last 48 years).
For example, in 1995, the FAA predicted that the number of Student Certificates would decline from 100,000 in 1995 to about 90,000 in 2000. Here are the actual statistics (in approximate terms - just to give you an idea):
1995 - 110,000
1996 - 115,000
1997 - 150,000
1998 - 130,000
1999 - 155,000
2000 - 140,000
I made this graph in a hurry, so it isn't exactly perfect and doesn't show any of the other statistics. Also, I didn't get any data beyond 2000. The green line shows New Student Certificates and the red line shows the incorrect FAA predictions.
The FAA accuracy regarding most of their reports ranges from NEGATIVE 19% to NEGATIVE 37 percent! In another example, new students actually increased by 2.5% between the 1st quarter of last year and the 1st quarter of this year (source: Williamson Study). The FAA predicted a 4.5% decline, which is obviously contraindicated.
Also, we had a strong economic recovery in FY 2003, and most aviation economist predict a moderate growth between 2003 and 2013. That prediction was made before many of the larger airlines went bankrupt, but I believe it was based on the anticipated NEED for aviation resources (pilots, aircraft, and new missions). Of course, this doesn't account for the student drop out rate, but it is a useful guide.
On another note, here is some information I pulled from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of Department of Commerce). This represents actual pilot statistical information, and does NOT include student pilots. These are working professionals...
Some of this information is paraphrased (for easy reading) from four sub-table categories of interest. If you want to research this more, go to http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/NIPATableIndex.htm#A to look at the NIPA tables. You'll have to search the correct category and subcategory.
To get a really really detailed picture of what's going on in the industry, you would need to cross-reference other tables and sources of info to include demographic information (region, age eligible to retire, number and type of medical certificates approved by FAA, etc, etc). If folks REALLY want to know, perhaps we could get the AOPA or some other group to fund a research project to find some of the more important answers?
Aircraft sales seem to be on a dramatic increase. The following include stuck-wing (multiply by hundreds):
1997 - 120.12
1998 - 162.01
1999 - 232.38
2000 - 240.99
2001 - 245.45
Persons engaged in aviation, including independant operators and contractors (multiply by thousands):
1997 - 1,067
1998 - 1,123
1999 - 1,163
2000 - 1,216
2001 - 1,205
Persons engaged in aviation as full-time employees (multiply by thousands):
1997 - 1,062
1998 - 1,117
1999 - 1,159
2000 - 1,207
2001 - 1,197
Average wage and salary for full time employees in aviation (actual amount):
1997 - 38,693
1998 - 40,402
1999 - 42,520
2000 - 43,817
2001 - 45,715
It's really hard to get specific information on the rotor-head population. I think you will get a better "pulse" of what's going on in this community by looking at information contributed by actual helicopter pilots on this forum and elsewhere. Granted, without an adequate number of demoninators, these bulletin-board "poll" statistics aren't completely accurate - but they give you a idea of what to expect.
One more thing, I couldn't find an adequate definition of what "engaged in aviation" means. Therefore, you should probably assume this includes support personnel, A&P mechanics, and other non-flyers in the aviation industry as a whole. Nevertheless, this isn't a bad "wide-angle" view because you can't fly without the whole team's participation anyway.
*** Edited to add Statistics***
Last edited by RDRickster; 26th Sep 2003 at 20:57.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also agree,
As a general outline i was considering, getting in the organisations, some manufactures most certainly operators to flesh out their requirements criteria, and definitley the insurers.
Intersting concept don't you think?
i was thinking that the operators wouldn't go for it, but as i understand it (correct me those in the know), they would ultimately benefit, better pilots, less training costs, less insurance costs (like the insurers areever going to lower their premiums) and they can drive the criteria as to what they require more precisely and if they have a standard they all agree to, it may stop all of this pilot swapping that seemingly goes on. Particularly in the north sea.
i think for people (the industry, governments and public alike) to give acceptance to helicopter operations we all need to be involved ina coordinated effort, i am NOT advocating unionisation. However, in order for this to get any place at all, then the criteria for selection and training has to be in excess of those current requirements already out there. we have to raise the game. It's like any business, in order to improve ones market share, one has to improve on any that's already existing in order to set the standard!
Thanks Whirlybird...
As a general outline i was considering, getting in the organisations, some manufactures most certainly operators to flesh out their requirements criteria, and definitley the insurers.
Intersting concept don't you think?
i was thinking that the operators wouldn't go for it, but as i understand it (correct me those in the know), they would ultimately benefit, better pilots, less training costs, less insurance costs (like the insurers areever going to lower their premiums) and they can drive the criteria as to what they require more precisely and if they have a standard they all agree to, it may stop all of this pilot swapping that seemingly goes on. Particularly in the north sea.
i think for people (the industry, governments and public alike) to give acceptance to helicopter operations we all need to be involved ina coordinated effort, i am NOT advocating unionisation. However, in order for this to get any place at all, then the criteria for selection and training has to be in excess of those current requirements already out there. we have to raise the game. It's like any business, in order to improve ones market share, one has to improve on any that's already existing in order to set the standard!
Thanks Whirlybird...
For christ's sake guys who cares about student certification et al . What a load of b***cks.... Let's help this guy out and stop pontificating!
Count: If you are married with kids AND have a lot of equity or disposable assets, then go for it big time.
If not..........
don't waste your wife's time
Count: If you are married with kids AND have a lot of equity or disposable assets, then go for it big time.
If not..........
don't waste your wife's time
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC, the data reflects new pilots to the industry and was relevant to the discuss that AGL and Helislave brought up. Since most of your posts are rather rash, perhaps you already have all the answers. Maybe you'd consider sharing some your vast experience in a more constructive way. Most people give careful consideration to their actions (and comments) before making them. Then again, what the hell do I know.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Norwich, CT USA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a whole lot of difference between the number of Student Pilot Certificates issues, the number of students that start taking lessons and the number that even finish and earn a pilot certificate. When I was teaching, we could expect that 70% of the Students that Start will not compleat a private pilot program. A better way to look at it, is the number of New Private Pilot Certificates issued, from there the New Commercial's and well ATP's. The AOPA dose this sort of thing, and if you talk to them you will find that the Pilot population in the US has been going down over the last 20 or so years. To compare The Helicopter Industry with IT or Computers in general, is laughable. PHI's quarterly billing would not amount to a day or two pay for Mircosoft Apple or any of the other Computer players. And what ever you say about it, PHI is a player in the helicopter business, and they have half the machines today that they ran in 1989. It goes to the wider issue, avaition has aways been either boom or bust. The dot.com's was just a hi tech feeding frenzy. You want to fly helicopters or airplanes for a living, fine, there are some things that you will have to do in order to do that, and a lot of it you will not like and even then, you are subject to economic down turns like anybody else. Gee's when its all said and done and strip it all down, its just a job , I never bought the idea that well I just love to fly so its enough. Yea I like to fly, been doing it for close to thirty years now, but its still a job.
Now for the fellow that is asking about it as a career change. You are not to old, and if you are willing to do what you have to do, yea you will be able to fly for a living, it may not be the kind of living you would like or enjoy now. You may have to relocate quite offten, since with helicopters, you have to go to were the work is. And even then most of it is seasonal in nature or supporting the Oil Industry. Yea I said it, One of the bigggest consumers of Helicopter Services is the Oil Business. And Since the Oil Business is so cut throat, and boom or bust. The Helicopter Business takes on some of that nature as well. So what do you do, well I would not borrow money to learn to fly, It will take a little longer but on the other end you will not have a lot of debt to service. The reason is that most of the first couple of jobs are going to be very poor paying. What would be best for you, I can't tell you, since I'm not you only you can determine that.
Now for the fellow that is asking about it as a career change. You are not to old, and if you are willing to do what you have to do, yea you will be able to fly for a living, it may not be the kind of living you would like or enjoy now. You may have to relocate quite offten, since with helicopters, you have to go to were the work is. And even then most of it is seasonal in nature or supporting the Oil Industry. Yea I said it, One of the bigggest consumers of Helicopter Services is the Oil Business. And Since the Oil Business is so cut throat, and boom or bust. The Helicopter Business takes on some of that nature as well. So what do you do, well I would not borrow money to learn to fly, It will take a little longer but on the other end you will not have a lot of debt to service. The reason is that most of the first couple of jobs are going to be very poor paying. What would be best for you, I can't tell you, since I'm not you only you can determine that.
George, why couldn't you have said your last line first....and left it at that
Rd, having given careful consideration to my actions and comments before making them:
who said:
and who said:
and who said:
K.I.S.S. ?
Rd, having given careful consideration to my actions and comments before making them:
who said:
Let me know if there is anything I can contribute. I guess we've hi-jacked Duck's thread long enough; time to start a new one.
Did this die on the vine before bearing any fruit?
I enjoy the conversations / humor at PPRuNe, except for the occassional threads that seem to attack another person's character or the threads that are too ridiculous or way off topic.
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 5th Oct 2003 at 16:07.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, now this thread's been all round the houses and all over the world and then some, to get back to the basic question....
count duckula,
Chances of getting a job are reasonable if you're prepared to go anywhere, do anything, and take a cut in pay, at least at the start. However, by the time you qualify, that could all have changed, and no-one has a reliable crystal ball.
It probably IS as bleak as you've been led to believe, but determination will usually find a way...though not necessarily a particularly good or profitable way.
If you're borrowing the money, will you be able to pay it back at the end? Maybe, and probably eventually. But I know a fair few instructors trying to pay it back on what they earn, and often not succeeding. And if you lose your medical, as one I know did?
OTOH, you only live once, the two saddest words in the English language are "if only", and you rarely regret what you have tried but often what you haven't.
Your choice.
count duckula,
what are the chances of getting a pilots job in the real word, it is a bleak as I am led to believe ? or is it a case of you will be okay in the end.
It is a lot of money to spend and I don't mind borrowing it if I can pay it back at the end.
It is a lot of money to spend and I don't mind borrowing it if I can pay it back at the end.
It probably IS as bleak as you've been led to believe, but determination will usually find a way...though not necessarily a particularly good or profitable way.
If you're borrowing the money, will you be able to pay it back at the end? Maybe, and probably eventually. But I know a fair few instructors trying to pay it back on what they earn, and often not succeeding. And if you lose your medical, as one I know did?
OTOH, you only live once, the two saddest words in the English language are "if only", and you rarely regret what you have tried but often what you haven't.
Your choice.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Cranfield campus, students are allowed to fly/rent aircraft using the university's own aircraft and it is cheaper than all of the resident flying schools on campus.
The fleet comprises of Bulldog aircraft belonging to the NFLC guys (we do flying labs in their Jetstream flying classroom).
I think that all students doing an aerospace related degree at Cranfield Main get to do a certain degree of flying as part of the course - even us Air Transport Management lot and it looks like it's going to be a lot of fun!
Jason
The fleet comprises of Bulldog aircraft belonging to the NFLC guys (we do flying labs in their Jetstream flying classroom).
I think that all students doing an aerospace related degree at Cranfield Main get to do a certain degree of flying as part of the course - even us Air Transport Management lot and it looks like it's going to be a lot of fun!
Jason
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
Nice shot of Gazelles - since when did they use those at Cranfield - the only rotary training I saw at Cranfield was in Robbies. But if you get some Gazelle hours as part of an MSc it'll be worth the brain ache!!!
Back to the main thread, having a degree meant that I could have a decent job while I was training for my PPLs CPLs FI etc etc and have work while I was waiting for a proper heli job.
Nice shot of Gazelles - since when did they use those at Cranfield - the only rotary training I saw at Cranfield was in Robbies. But if you get some Gazelle hours as part of an MSc it'll be worth the brain ache!!!
Back to the main thread, having a degree meant that I could have a decent job while I was training for my PPLs CPLs FI etc etc and have work while I was waiting for a proper heli job.