Who says there is no shortage of Helicopter Pilots?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the only pilot shortage is of experienced pilots. There is no shortage, and never will be, of newly-minted commercial licenses. Oil companies are mostly demanding ATPs for both captains and first officers now, and that is increasing, not decreasing, and demanding that both have at least 3000, often 5000, hours total time. There is a shortage of 5000 hour ATPs, but no shortage of 200 hour commercial pilots. How the newbies get the time is certainly a problem. Most of the pilots of my age got the time the way I did, being paid by Uncle Sam. Get 1000 military hours, and it's easy enough to get a civilian job.
Another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again. Interestingly, the worst pilots for this are recent military escapees, used to having more power available than they need. Getting a loaded 412 off the deck takes technique and a smooth touch, apparently no longer taught at Rucker.
Another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again. Interestingly, the worst pilots for this are recent military escapees, used to having more power available than they need. Getting a loaded 412 off the deck takes technique and a smooth touch, apparently no longer taught at Rucker.
Offshore oil companies can demand whatever experience they want, but I've yet to see an oil worker walk on water to get to the rig. They will accept lower experience when that is their only choice. As an industry we haven't worked hard enough to convince them that experience is only one of several factors and is easily mitigated with better training and better screening. Anybody know 5000 hour pilots that still can't fly? I do. Oil company aviation advisors are usually pilots that know this too. It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons.
malabo
malabo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real flying, for real experience.
Originally Posted by malabo
It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons.
We need to have programs that develop pilots into better pilots, not pilots into better hangar rats.
Personally, I am glad to work for the company that I now do, even if I'm only casual. I'm low hour, but getting experience in flying something other than just circuits.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
"As an industry we haven't worked hard enough to convince them that experience is only one of several factors and is easily mitigated with better training and better screening"
Well said. There is a line beyond which customers should not cross and oil companies are way beyond it. And don't get me started on advisors.....
Phil
Well said. There is a line beyond which customers should not cross and oil companies are way beyond it. And don't get me started on advisors.....
Phil
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, what caught my attention in the article that Heliport posted was that the operators were saying, "oh yes, it's expensive, but there are loads of loan schemes out there". As an outsider looking into the industry (I'm not yet a private pilot, let alone a working one), from what I can gather, the rotary world seems very much 'bring your own'. Which is a pity, considering the costs involved.
I followed up every lead on financial help I could find, came up dry, and am thus going slowly on the self-funded route; that said, I have an idea of where I want to go, so if a company offered to help out a bit, in exchange for spending additional time with them, learning their methods and picking up good habits from their more experienced folk, in exchange for an indentured contract at the end of it...well, lets just say it'd be a bit of a no-brainer. I'm not even talking about some poor company having to stump up a free ride for me - even a little bit of extra cash would be helpful! I'd also dearly love the opportunity to go flying with experienced pilots - I'm very painfully aware of how little I know. I'd also not say no to the chance to be an extra pair of hands for the mechanics.
My point is that it's no good complaining about the shortage of experienced pilots when you're not actually stepping in and doing something about it. Offer apprenticeships or 'work placement' type visits if you can't offer indenture-based sponsorship. Standing back and going, "oh, well, there's a way out there if you want it enough" might not be the best way forward. I'm also not sure that expecting prospective pilots to be hangar slaves for a year or three is the best idea - sure, learn the ropes on the ground as well as in the air, but if you've spent all that money just so you can sweep hangers and make the tea, well...
An interesting parallel is the IT / Tech industry - there are hordes of low-end qualified people running around out there (MCSEs, etc), who have a bit of paper, but no real experience. There are also a number of graduates (and post-graduates) about, fresh out of uni, looking for the elusive first job. Most employers are looking for experience - with the correct qualifications to back up said experience, sure, but the experience is the important bit. The difference is that employers in tech have realised that there needs to be a building of experience, so they take on some newbies with potential, and get involved in education. A concrete example was my university in South Africa, where the computer science dept was sponsored by Microsoft, to help out students with potential who would otherwise have struggled with the finance; on qualification, MS would come and chat to graduates, knowing that they'd had the opportunity to tell the dept the broad areas and skills that were useful to them as an industry.
As I said above, all this is based on my view looking into the industry from the outside. I have no direct personal experience of working in aviation, so this is pure opinion. Also, if there are any old-and-grizzled pilots who fancy passing on some wisdom in exchange for the odd free pint, just yell
I followed up every lead on financial help I could find, came up dry, and am thus going slowly on the self-funded route; that said, I have an idea of where I want to go, so if a company offered to help out a bit, in exchange for spending additional time with them, learning their methods and picking up good habits from their more experienced folk, in exchange for an indentured contract at the end of it...well, lets just say it'd be a bit of a no-brainer. I'm not even talking about some poor company having to stump up a free ride for me - even a little bit of extra cash would be helpful! I'd also dearly love the opportunity to go flying with experienced pilots - I'm very painfully aware of how little I know. I'd also not say no to the chance to be an extra pair of hands for the mechanics.
My point is that it's no good complaining about the shortage of experienced pilots when you're not actually stepping in and doing something about it. Offer apprenticeships or 'work placement' type visits if you can't offer indenture-based sponsorship. Standing back and going, "oh, well, there's a way out there if you want it enough" might not be the best way forward. I'm also not sure that expecting prospective pilots to be hangar slaves for a year or three is the best idea - sure, learn the ropes on the ground as well as in the air, but if you've spent all that money just so you can sweep hangers and make the tea, well...
An interesting parallel is the IT / Tech industry - there are hordes of low-end qualified people running around out there (MCSEs, etc), who have a bit of paper, but no real experience. There are also a number of graduates (and post-graduates) about, fresh out of uni, looking for the elusive first job. Most employers are looking for experience - with the correct qualifications to back up said experience, sure, but the experience is the important bit. The difference is that employers in tech have realised that there needs to be a building of experience, so they take on some newbies with potential, and get involved in education. A concrete example was my university in South Africa, where the computer science dept was sponsored by Microsoft, to help out students with potential who would otherwise have struggled with the finance; on qualification, MS would come and chat to graduates, knowing that they'd had the opportunity to tell the dept the broad areas and skills that were useful to them as an industry.
As I said above, all this is based on my view looking into the industry from the outside. I have no direct personal experience of working in aviation, so this is pure opinion. Also, if there are any old-and-grizzled pilots who fancy passing on some wisdom in exchange for the odd free pint, just yell
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newbies will forever wonder how to break into this crazy industry and build time. But Gomer Pylot gives us in a nutshell why this will be so difficult:
Airline/fixed-wing pilots don't seem to have a problem being mentors. Helicopter pilots do.
It's that simple.
Another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again.
It's that simple.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because most "new" f/o's who show up for the right seat of an airbus or 747 have experience. They come from being captains or f/o's on other fixed wing a/c.
The candidates coming to an f/o seat in a two pilot helicopter may be brand new pilots ( 100-500 hr experience) or high time single engine/single pilot guys.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
DK
The candidates coming to an f/o seat in a two pilot helicopter may be brand new pilots ( 100-500 hr experience) or high time single engine/single pilot guys.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
DK
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Geographically misplaced, but never lost.
Age: 53
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gadget - Gomer - CY - Rotordog Et Al Well said!
I beleive that this discussion has significantly defined the true interpretation of the "pilot shortage" and what that means in human terms.
As a low hour pilot (lucky to get occaisional casual work) I have always always thought that the way to acheive a significantly more managable (and perhaps cost effective) appropraition of talent and man power would be to train and retain.
Another problem also occurs to me that many of what could be considered entry level training positions - say 500hr EMS/Polair/Oil IR Co-Jo go to people who have significantly more experience than that in any case. Yet these other high hour positions still need to be filled? Where?
The helicopter industry really is one that has a vast degree of separation from training to operation.
I beleive that this discussion has significantly defined the true interpretation of the "pilot shortage" and what that means in human terms.
As a low hour pilot (lucky to get occaisional casual work) I have always always thought that the way to acheive a significantly more managable (and perhaps cost effective) appropraition of talent and man power would be to train and retain.
Another problem also occurs to me that many of what could be considered entry level training positions - say 500hr EMS/Polair/Oil IR Co-Jo go to people who have significantly more experience than that in any case. Yet these other high hour positions still need to be filled? Where?
The helicopter industry really is one that has a vast degree of separation from training to operation.
Thread Starter
Call it what you want....when one of the big three in the Gulf of Mexico starts mumbling about hiring bonuses, cutting hours needed for hiring from their allied training school that tells me there is a shortage. The CEO has been quoted in print saying they cannot expand because they cannot get the aircraft nor pilots to man them. A second member of the Big Three, have also indicated they are having a shortage of pilots. Current contracts are being delayed because of the lack of aircraft and pilots. That outfit has stated publically they are looking to hire 100 pilots. A major oil company with its own organic fleet of helicopters anticipates hiring 10-20 pilots shortly and one can only wonder where they will come from. Another GOM operator has mandatory workover going on and has done so for over a year. That indicates they are having recruiting problems as well.
EMS operators have dozens and dozens of openings.....and do so on a continous basis. Again....they would not be running the advertisements if they were flush with pilots.
There maybe plenty of raw talent in the wings.....the question is how do we get them into the seat as working helicopter pilots. The current way of doing business sure is not the answer....it is what has gotten us into this pickle.
Anytime the operators and oil companies cannot fill cockpit seats....for whatever reason....that constitutes a pilot shortage.
EMS operators have dozens and dozens of openings.....and do so on a continous basis. Again....they would not be running the advertisements if they were flush with pilots.
There maybe plenty of raw talent in the wings.....the question is how do we get them into the seat as working helicopter pilots. The current way of doing business sure is not the answer....it is what has gotten us into this pickle.
Anytime the operators and oil companies cannot fill cockpit seats....for whatever reason....that constitutes a pilot shortage.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donut King:
Nobody said anything about 747's, and hopefully nobody believes that "newbies" are put up as 747 SIC's. Actually, I was referring to the Regional Jet captains that are "forced" to put up with and mentor newbie copilots with bare commercial/instrument/mulit ratings. Works for them, it seems. I doubt that the average RJ captain doesn't let a brand-new SIC do an approach to a snow-slick runway at night, at minimums and with a hellacious crosswind either. Then again, maybe they do. According to most of you lot, fixed-wing flying is just an unchallenging bore!
Helicopter SIC's would have at least 200 hours, not 100. (I know, I know, big whoop.) Nobody is suggesting that such a pilot be considered qualified and competent to make challenging, max-gross takeoff's from a confined-area drilling rig. (I think the phrase is, "Um, I'll just do this takeoff. Watch and learn."). But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they could do just that: sit there and learn to do it over a period of time (800 hours or so?) while handling the controls on other, non-critical portions of the flight. But helicopter PIC's don't want to be instructors no mo'. BTDT! Bring your own experience, boy! I've got none of mine to spare.
I've seen it all my life. It's sad, really. And it's why I've never had a hankerin' to drive the big rigs.
That's because most "new" f/o's who show up for the right seat of an airbus or 747 have experience. They come from being captains or f/o's on other fixed wing a/c.
The candidates coming to an f/o seat in a two pilot helicopter may be brand new pilots ( 100-500 hr experience) or high time single engine/single pilot guys.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
The candidates coming to an f/o seat in a two pilot helicopter may be brand new pilots ( 100-500 hr experience) or high time single engine/single pilot guys.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
Helicopter SIC's would have at least 200 hours, not 100. (I know, I know, big whoop.) Nobody is suggesting that such a pilot be considered qualified and competent to make challenging, max-gross takeoff's from a confined-area drilling rig. (I think the phrase is, "Um, I'll just do this takeoff. Watch and learn."). But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they could do just that: sit there and learn to do it over a period of time (800 hours or so?) while handling the controls on other, non-critical portions of the flight. But helicopter PIC's don't want to be instructors no mo'. BTDT! Bring your own experience, boy! I've got none of mine to spare.
I've seen it all my life. It's sad, really. And it's why I've never had a hankerin' to drive the big rigs.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iceland
Age: 53
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donut King.
You are almost right but not completely on your assumption that all the fo's at the airlines have the experience you talk about. At Icelandair and many other airlines, many of those fo's had from 250hrs & up under their belt mostly from instructing in a C-152 when they were recruited!
I think malabo got it just right when he said: "It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons."
Of course we need to have experienced pilots but how are the youngsters going to build the experience? Flying the circuit a thousand times or circling the Florida hills for a few years?
I guess the companies should develop a similar system as the airlines have around recruiting and training new pilots. The more experienced helicopter pilots might want to consider that they once were in the same shoes as the newbies and think a little bit out of their comfy box and take part in the training process.
If you give it a little thought that just the IR rating here in Europe costs around $40k it you shouldn't have to wonder why only a few do it to be eligible for a job as a co-pilot.
On of the problems the US offshore helicopter market has is immigration. It is easier to get rid of AIDS than to get a work visa in the US!
You are almost right but not completely on your assumption that all the fo's at the airlines have the experience you talk about. At Icelandair and many other airlines, many of those fo's had from 250hrs & up under their belt mostly from instructing in a C-152 when they were recruited!
I think malabo got it just right when he said: "It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons."
Of course we need to have experienced pilots but how are the youngsters going to build the experience? Flying the circuit a thousand times or circling the Florida hills for a few years?
I guess the companies should develop a similar system as the airlines have around recruiting and training new pilots. The more experienced helicopter pilots might want to consider that they once were in the same shoes as the newbies and think a little bit out of their comfy box and take part in the training process.
If you give it a little thought that just the IR rating here in Europe costs around $40k it you shouldn't have to wonder why only a few do it to be eligible for a job as a co-pilot.
On of the problems the US offshore helicopter market has is immigration. It is easier to get rid of AIDS than to get a work visa in the US!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spot on
Originally Posted by SASless
...
There maybe plenty of raw talent in the wings.....the question is how do we get them into the seat as working helicopter pilots. The current way of doing business sure is not the answer....it is what has gotten us into this pickle.
Anytime the operators and oil companies cannot fill cockpit seats....for whatever reason....that constitutes a pilot shortage.
There maybe plenty of raw talent in the wings.....the question is how do we get them into the seat as working helicopter pilots. The current way of doing business sure is not the answer....it is what has gotten us into this pickle.
Anytime the operators and oil companies cannot fill cockpit seats....for whatever reason....that constitutes a pilot shortage.
Originally Posted by Donut King
...
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
Originally Posted by Gomer Pylot
...
another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again...
another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again...
Along with the endorsement training, check rides, company ops induction training etc.etc. somewhere along the line information would undoubtedly be passed form check & training pilots to line captains how new 'pilotX' flies, what his deficiencies are, what his idiosyncrasies might be, what he does well, what he doesn't etc. & at this point, said captains can either begin to address the issue by taking the cojo under their wing & providing the required mentoring by working through these to produce a proficient line pilot & a good crew member.
maybe the first 1/2 dozen will be purely "watch & learn", but each time offloading something else onto the cojo to bring their situational awareness up to speed. "Yesterday we did QRS, today I want you to take particular note of XYZ", while the captain is flying the cojo has the time & space to nail the intracies & detail without massive stress factors from being overloaded, before you even consider letting him do a full take-off or landing...modular training, (divide & conquer) it's nothing new.
No-one is expecting that a 200 hour cojo is going to fly as well as a 2000>10,000+ hour captain... what we are expecting is that these captains provide the transfer of knowledge so that the experience gained is expedited, minimising risk & reducing the pilot shortage, by fast-tracking good pilot training (not basic flight school but all the additional areas already learnt the hard way by others) by sharing the experience.
I thought that you learnt something new everyday, some people seem to think they stopped learning a long time ago. You all seem to forget you were once a wide-eyed pilot with only 100+ hours...
group hug
Last edited by gadgetguru; 22nd May 2006 at 22:47.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: inside
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want TRE's in the cockpit, hire TRE's. The problem is the companies are not willing to pay for more trainers. Nothing personal against new pilots, but put the blame the right place.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real Hours
Do you think that because some pilots artificially inflate their hours, that it can be hard to see what 'real hours' means to a bean counter/insurance company and their ilk? A CP or check and training pilot can tell the difference when they go for a flight with the 'wanna be', but a bean counter knows no differnce on paper.
There is another thread comparing going straight into commercial work versus instructing for the first 500 - 1000 hours. Do the insurance companies look down on this and say 'That's not real flying, so we have to inflate the premiums to protect ourselves from 'medium' hour pilots who really fly like low hour pilots.'? (Their perception not mine! In Oz until 400 hours, I don't get the option.)
Imagine if an insurance company asked to see your log book and then contacted some of the previous operators/owners.
Just a thought.
There is another thread comparing going straight into commercial work versus instructing for the first 500 - 1000 hours. Do the insurance companies look down on this and say 'That's not real flying, so we have to inflate the premiums to protect ourselves from 'medium' hour pilots who really fly like low hour pilots.'? (Their perception not mine! In Oz until 400 hours, I don't get the option.)
Imagine if an insurance company asked to see your log book and then contacted some of the previous operators/owners.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Actually, I am in discussion with some underwriters on this very subject. They have expressed some concern that all they have to go on is hours, and we are discussing ways on how this can be improved upon.
At the moment, it is centering on how a 200-hour pilot can be made (mentally) into a 500-hour pilot, and how the cost of the training will be deducted from the insurance premium, but it could easily be extended into other areas.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Phil
At the moment, it is centering on how a 200-hour pilot can be made (mentally) into a 500-hour pilot, and how the cost of the training will be deducted from the insurance premium, but it could easily be extended into other areas.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Phil
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who insures the Mil pilots? Even the Government has to have an underwriter. If they can insure a 200 hour pilot doing what they they do either in the bush or over water, in a single or twin, how can civvy training get similar respect? Could it go on the numbers of hours within the last 12 months as well as total time.
(No, I don't want to get into MIL V's CIVVY!)
But I don't get an insurance discount as a driver just because I'm in the police force and have done extra driver training. Do ex-Mil pilots get a discount on premiums in Civvy street? That is when you compare a civvy trained pilot with the same number of hours?
(No, I don't want to get into MIL V's CIVVY!)
But I don't get an insurance discount as a driver just because I'm in the police force and have done extra driver training. Do ex-Mil pilots get a discount on premiums in Civvy street? That is when you compare a civvy trained pilot with the same number of hours?
"Who insures the Mil pilots? Even the Government has to have an underwriter. If they can insure a 200 hour pilot doing what they they do either in the bush or over water, in a single or twin, how can civvy training get similar respect? Could it go on the numbers of hours within the last 12 months as well as total time."
You, my tax paying friend, are the underwriter for the military.
You, my tax paying friend, are the underwriter for the military.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also plenty of companies self-insured, so they can take whatever they want. So basically when someone meets the part 135 requirements they could hire.
But the CP's don't want to take the risk of hiring a guy with low-hours and then lose a machine. Management will blame him. When he at least kept the company standards the CP might be in a better position.
But the CP's don't want to take the risk of hiring a guy with low-hours and then lose a machine. Management will blame him. When he at least kept the company standards the CP might be in a better position.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Macau
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC farm team
The canadian company Helijet International always gave the 100 hour wonders a break and helped them with their IR, granted the newbies started doing VFR during the spring and summer. After obtaining their IR they went into a serious autumn and winter with +/- 300 hours of SK76 time and handled the IFR very well. Most seem to go to CHC Global when they get their captancy. Regs have now changed and they need 250 hours to fly on the line with Helijet.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse the ignorant wannabe ramblings, but it appears to me that shortage of experienced pilots is never going to be solved within the current framework of licensing due to the prohibitive cost of relevant post-CPL training. If the industry needs a stepping stone between the instructor and the off-shore or HEMS co-jo then it's going to have to create one.
Perhaps the answer might be for the governing authorities to look at the creation of a separate co-jo ATPL IFR qualification, instead of requiring the co-pilot to have attained the same level of qualifications as the experienced captain. Could this hypothetical interim qualification be largely simulator based to reduce costs? (Assuming simulators of sufficient high-fidelity exist.) Might there then be an incentive to reduce insurance requirements for co-pilots who are lacking the flight hours otherwise required but having done say 1000 hours in such a training system under a specific task-training programme, be it HEMS or off-shore simulation? And then after sufficent experience at this position the upgrade to full ATPL could be less onerous?
Maybe the on-shore single-pilot world could benefit from a similar system? Could insurance levels be lowered if a post CPL VFR simulator course of training be introduced that could go someway to gaining the experience of 2 or 3000 hour pilot without the full cost? I know the idea of so much simulation isn't popular with most (all?) experienced pilots, but how much of that is truly down to the limitations of the technology's future potential?
Si
Perhaps the answer might be for the governing authorities to look at the creation of a separate co-jo ATPL IFR qualification, instead of requiring the co-pilot to have attained the same level of qualifications as the experienced captain. Could this hypothetical interim qualification be largely simulator based to reduce costs? (Assuming simulators of sufficient high-fidelity exist.) Might there then be an incentive to reduce insurance requirements for co-pilots who are lacking the flight hours otherwise required but having done say 1000 hours in such a training system under a specific task-training programme, be it HEMS or off-shore simulation? And then after sufficent experience at this position the upgrade to full ATPL could be less onerous?
Maybe the on-shore single-pilot world could benefit from a similar system? Could insurance levels be lowered if a post CPL VFR simulator course of training be introduced that could go someway to gaining the experience of 2 or 3000 hour pilot without the full cost? I know the idea of so much simulation isn't popular with most (all?) experienced pilots, but how much of that is truly down to the limitations of the technology's future potential?
Si