BALPA refuse to help its membership
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thud_and_Blunder
Bit harsh aren't you on your North Sea brothers and sisters?
I'm an emergency services pilot. I fly for the Coastguard. I enjoy my job and I get the same buzz from doing it as you.
I get the same pay and conditions as my North Sea colleagues and why shouldn't you?
We have been assisted by BALPA a lot recently with the transition from Bristow to CHC both through representation and legal support.
Bit harsh aren't you on your North Sea brothers and sisters?
I'm an emergency services pilot. I fly for the Coastguard. I enjoy my job and I get the same buzz from doing it as you.
I get the same pay and conditions as my North Sea colleagues and why shouldn't you?
We have been assisted by BALPA a lot recently with the transition from Bristow to CHC both through representation and legal support.
It's not for BALPA to make a formal statement per se. They are not qualified in this regard and certainly will not be able to defend their stance on the grounds of ill health. ICAO evidence suggests that the time is now to review the medical demographics in light of recent progress regarding life styles and to take into account SPIFR technology.
60 is the new 50.
IF and I repeat - IF pilots want to fly beyond 60 (commercially) and there is NO evidence to support otherwise - let it be. Australia / Japan / Norway / Germany et al have seen the light and it is only a matter of time before the rest fall into sync.
60 is the new 50.
IF and I repeat - IF pilots want to fly beyond 60 (commercially) and there is NO evidence to support otherwise - let it be. Australia / Japan / Norway / Germany et al have seen the light and it is only a matter of time before the rest fall into sync.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA will only be of use if you fit their demographic,if you don't then tough.They should represent the views of their membership and should'nt be making statements supporting UK policy that doesn't do that.What's the point if you have a grievance and they just tow the party line !
If the age did change,I wonder how instrumental in it they would've suddenly just become ?
If the age did change,I wonder how instrumental in it they would've suddenly just become ?
Night Watchman,
- No disagreement about pay and terms of service (it might attract the ex-mil pilots who flock to the airlines), but the key difference between the aircraft you use to provide an excellent operational service and the ones the onshore folk use is size. A helicopter with a footprint (and downwash) like a 61 simply wouldn't work as an Air Ambulance in the UK. Smaller helis with the ability to use correspondingly-smaller 2D/4D LS, or hover OGE out-of-wind over a police incident, have equally-correspondingly-small payloads. If you have to take out a police officer, medic or a patient in order to be able to carry a second pilot then you have taken away a huge part of the reason for having the helicopter there in the first place. London HEMS may be able to operate with 2 drivers but it's unlikely they need to carry much fuel. Try the same trick in an area like Yorkshire or the Great North and you have a very short-range asset. Charities don't have the funds to buy too many extra helis to cover the gaps, let alone the extra pilots. BALPA's campaign, if successful, would lead to a reduction in coverage of a valuable emergency asset. Safe, but not much use.
Helicomparator, northseaspray
- Interesting perspective - the implication being that I and my colleagues are selfishly acting as dogs-in-mangers to the youngsters struggling to join the industry, while simultaneously setting the scene for our own untimely demise (and that of our passengers, CAA-agreed and otherwise). Unsurprisingly, I do not concur. I have a healthy sense of my own limitations, perhaps amplified by the fact that I'm the only person aboard the aircraft with a stick/vote. My colleagues and I are, arguably, more likely to take ourselves off flying duty if we think safety is compromised. Interestingly, it could be argued that the advent of 2 pilot ops would actually make onshore ops LESS safe and effective; them-and-us relations twixt drivers and CAA-agreed pax leading to poor CRM environment compared to current practice, aircraft operating closer to the boundaries of the flight envelope...
- As for "the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late", I can only think of the cooking of an engine in NI over the past couple of years. How does that compare to the 2-pilot N Sea ops (at least one 365 lost) - and are such comparisons valid when factoring-in sortie rates, flying hours and the like?
- Youngsters joining the industry - should charities and police services have to foot the bill for bringing pilots unused to low-level, VFR bad-weather ops up to speed?
My employer, PAS, is the only onshore operator which has actively embraced BALPA. The process has been beneficial, in the past, both to the company and the pilot workforce. However, as mentioned earlier, the union is only as good as its last campaign.
It appears from the preceding correspondence that strong opinions about the onshore industry are held by people who aren't actually currently in that industry. When pilots within that onshore "branch" find their wishes and experience ignored, it should not come as a surprise when they look elsewhere for practical support.
- No disagreement about pay and terms of service (it might attract the ex-mil pilots who flock to the airlines), but the key difference between the aircraft you use to provide an excellent operational service and the ones the onshore folk use is size. A helicopter with a footprint (and downwash) like a 61 simply wouldn't work as an Air Ambulance in the UK. Smaller helis with the ability to use correspondingly-smaller 2D/4D LS, or hover OGE out-of-wind over a police incident, have equally-correspondingly-small payloads. If you have to take out a police officer, medic or a patient in order to be able to carry a second pilot then you have taken away a huge part of the reason for having the helicopter there in the first place. London HEMS may be able to operate with 2 drivers but it's unlikely they need to carry much fuel. Try the same trick in an area like Yorkshire or the Great North and you have a very short-range asset. Charities don't have the funds to buy too many extra helis to cover the gaps, let alone the extra pilots. BALPA's campaign, if successful, would lead to a reduction in coverage of a valuable emergency asset. Safe, but not much use.
Helicomparator, northseaspray
- Interesting perspective - the implication being that I and my colleagues are selfishly acting as dogs-in-mangers to the youngsters struggling to join the industry, while simultaneously setting the scene for our own untimely demise (and that of our passengers, CAA-agreed and otherwise). Unsurprisingly, I do not concur. I have a healthy sense of my own limitations, perhaps amplified by the fact that I'm the only person aboard the aircraft with a stick/vote. My colleagues and I are, arguably, more likely to take ourselves off flying duty if we think safety is compromised. Interestingly, it could be argued that the advent of 2 pilot ops would actually make onshore ops LESS safe and effective; them-and-us relations twixt drivers and CAA-agreed pax leading to poor CRM environment compared to current practice, aircraft operating closer to the boundaries of the flight envelope...
- As for "the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late", I can only think of the cooking of an engine in NI over the past couple of years. How does that compare to the 2-pilot N Sea ops (at least one 365 lost) - and are such comparisons valid when factoring-in sortie rates, flying hours and the like?
- Youngsters joining the industry - should charities and police services have to foot the bill for bringing pilots unused to low-level, VFR bad-weather ops up to speed?
My employer, PAS, is the only onshore operator which has actively embraced BALPA. The process has been beneficial, in the past, both to the company and the pilot workforce. However, as mentioned earlier, the union is only as good as its last campaign.
It appears from the preceding correspondence that strong opinions about the onshore industry are held by people who aren't actually currently in that industry. When pilots within that onshore "branch" find their wishes and experience ignored, it should not come as a surprise when they look elsewhere for practical support.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
HeliComparator
Surely that would be a good case for the CAA to allow Police observers/paramedics etc to be classed as 'crew' and not just Passengers! By doing so, the Police Observer/Paramedic could be officially trained to fly the aircraft to a level proficient enough to land the aircraft in the case of this sudden incapacitation. As opposed to a fully trained and qualified pilot becoming, in effect, a camera operator.
They would be also be entitled to wear a 'half wing' which I notice some units allow their observers to wear anyway, when all they really fly is an overtime sheet from folder to in tray!
This would be the bean counters ideal, as the additional cost of having to pay for a 2 pilot system would simply not apply, as the trained observer would perhaps only need to be paid a little more to cover insurance premiums and a sweetener to cover for no more overtime allowances, because now they would officially be crew and duty hours would apply.
Wouldn't 2 pilot police ops be a bit OTT ?
BALPA is not trying to stop you flying at age 60, what it is trying to do is to improve safety in the industry (the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late) by encouraging operations to switch to 2 pilot (safer and creates more jobs), and by recognising that, despite all the age discrimination legislation you can muster, the probability of sudden incapacitation does unfortunately increase as one gets older.
They would be also be entitled to wear a 'half wing' which I notice some units allow their observers to wear anyway, when all they really fly is an overtime sheet from folder to in tray!
This would be the bean counters ideal, as the additional cost of having to pay for a 2 pilot system would simply not apply, as the trained observer would perhaps only need to be paid a little more to cover insurance premiums and a sweetener to cover for no more overtime allowances, because now they would officially be crew and duty hours would apply.
Wouldn't 2 pilot police ops be a bit OTT ?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My colleagues and I are, arguably, more likely to take ourselves off flying duty if we think safety is compromised.
Interestingly, it could be argued that the advent of 2 pilot ops would actually make onshore ops LESS safe and effective; them-and-us relations twixt drivers and CAA-agreed pax leading to poor CRM environment compared to current practice, aircraft operating closer to the boundaries of the flight envelope...
Night Watchman,
Good points, well made. I can see where you think that an inexperienced pilot might feel pressured to stay at work - you can probably see where this line of argument is going to go re experienced, 60+ years of age pilots! We have nothing left to prove, and we too look forward to getting home to wind down after a hard day.
I would also expect that a SAR crew would be up there with the very best of the aviation community's CRM practitioners - long may you maintain the exemplary standards the rest aspire to! However, you would only be close to the edge of the envelope (note that I'm not including weather, FTL or other crew-related limitations, just a/c) for relatively limited periods in your flight profiles; put 2 pilots into a 135 plus medic/doc/patient or 2 bobbies/full police role and that aircraft is close to its limits throughout the entire sortie.
Good points, well made. I can see where you think that an inexperienced pilot might feel pressured to stay at work - you can probably see where this line of argument is going to go re experienced, 60+ years of age pilots! We have nothing left to prove, and we too look forward to getting home to wind down after a hard day.
I would also expect that a SAR crew would be up there with the very best of the aviation community's CRM practitioners - long may you maintain the exemplary standards the rest aspire to! However, you would only be close to the edge of the envelope (note that I'm not including weather, FTL or other crew-related limitations, just a/c) for relatively limited periods in your flight profiles; put 2 pilots into a 135 plus medic/doc/patient or 2 bobbies/full police role and that aircraft is close to its limits throughout the entire sortie.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'm not allowed to carry a paramedic or police officer when I reach 60 as this is classed as Public Transport, why should I be permitted to carry out filming or training (possibly with a new student with zero hours) just because this is classed as aerial work? The risk to the person with me due to my potential ill health is unchanged.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Good point Marco, after all aren't we really just flying around a cameraman/person and a radio operator/ess?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
Rather than give a cut/paste job, as I read it we are only public transport flights only because the observers are passengers.
Further reading on the definition of pax would raise the question that if you are carrying observers who are "authorised to supervise training and carry out tests", then thay would be classed as crew and therefore it would not be a public transport flight.
Solution, make each observer a line trainer.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
Rather than give a cut/paste job, as I read it we are only public transport flights only because the observers are passengers.
Further reading on the definition of pax would raise the question that if you are carrying observers who are "authorised to supervise training and carry out tests", then thay would be classed as crew and therefore it would not be a public transport flight.
Solution, make each observer a line trainer.
Nice one Sid:
...any idea how we can get each air ambo casualty up to the same speed?! Mind you, some of the RSI'd folk we carry show as much spark and verve as some line trainers I can think of
Solution, make each observer a line trainer.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ecosse
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been a member of balpa for some time now & was wondering if there were any other unions out there & cheaper! I know that you can claim tax relief but I'm interested primarily for legal cover.
Any suggestions/answers?
Cheers,
BM
Any suggestions/answers?
Cheers,
BM
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
...any idea how we can get each air ambo casualty up to the same speed?!
...Couldn't air ambulances be classed as charity flights?
5.2 Exception No 2 - Charity flights (Article 159)
A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft and the flight is made with the permission in writing of the Authority.
But in the case of an air ambulance, perhaps it is down to payment..
3.3 Valuable Consideration
Throughout this paper, the question of whether a flight is public transport or aerial work is discussed in terms of whether "payment" has been given or promised in respect of the flight. In the Order itself instead of "payment" the term which is used is "valuable consideration". This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services.
4 How to determine whether or not a flight is public transport.
4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried.