EC155 Salary & quals south UK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: EGHI
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC155 Salary & quals south UK
Guys,
Please excuse my butting into this thread but I am after a little advice. We are currently using an Aviation consultancy and exploring the possibility of buying an EC155 to be used by our company chairman for arround 300 hours a year. The consultancy company we are using has advised a salary itro £70,000 for a South Coast based pilot and he must have an ATPL(h) with Instrument rating, they say the instrument rating is vital.... They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc. Is the Instrument rating necessary, as we dont think the boss or his family want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc.
Cheers all,
Martin
Please excuse my butting into this thread but I am after a little advice. We are currently using an Aviation consultancy and exploring the possibility of buying an EC155 to be used by our company chairman for arround 300 hours a year. The consultancy company we are using has advised a salary itro £70,000 for a South Coast based pilot and he must have an ATPL(h) with Instrument rating, they say the instrument rating is vital.... They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc. Is the Instrument rating necessary, as we dont think the boss or his family want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc.
Cheers all,
Martin
Last edited by Martin Grade; 12th Feb 2009 at 19:44.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR is necessary, otherwise you would only be able to fly in good weather conditions, and you wouldn't need to buy a 155 anyway. The salary for a corporate pilot with ATPL, would at least be £70k, and don't forget pension, company car, company phone, laptop, health insurance, medical cost, training, proficiency checks. You might be lucky to find one in these (bad) times.
You're talking about buying an EC155 for millions, why don't you want to pay for the most important 'part'....
You're talking about buying an EC155 for millions, why don't you want to pay for the most important 'part'....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: EGHI
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy to pay what the going rate is, we just want to make sure the advice from the Aviation consultancy Co is on the right track. The reason I ask is an ex mil pilot has approached us directly, he wants a simillar salary but states that as we probably wouldnt want to fly in poor weather the IR is not required. The Aviation consultancy tell me it is a basic and essential requirement to have an instrument rated pilot for safety..
Agree with Hillerbee: cost-cutting at the end of things is innapropriate decision-making: the safety of any flight has more to do with pilot competence than the machine, which in this case is itself high value: why skimp on the "other important bit"?
A co-pilot or safety pilot adds an added tier of safety; although filling the seat with an occasional low-timer to help out during flight in poor weather, again seems innapropriate advice: the low-timer does not have the expereince to offload an expereinced captain in those circumstances. On the other hand, if the advice is to engage a low-time co to fly with an experienced captain and build experience, and "bring on" company crew, that's a fair proposal.
Whilst not essential, an IR would give additional flexibility, and probably an additional level of safety too. IMC flying is not the same as "poor weather". Many flights (esp commercial fixed wing) would never get from A to B if they couldn't fly through a layer of cloud.
TT
A co-pilot or safety pilot adds an added tier of safety; although filling the seat with an occasional low-timer to help out during flight in poor weather, again seems innapropriate advice: the low-timer does not have the expereince to offload an expereinced captain in those circumstances. On the other hand, if the advice is to engage a low-time co to fly with an experienced captain and build experience, and "bring on" company crew, that's a fair proposal.
Whilst not essential, an IR would give additional flexibility, and probably an additional level of safety too. IMC flying is not the same as "poor weather". Many flights (esp commercial fixed wing) would never get from A to B if they couldn't fly through a layer of cloud.
TT
Last edited by Torquetalk; 12th Feb 2009 at 20:01.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"he wants a simillar salary but states that as we probably wouldnt want to fly in poor weather the IR is not required"
I bet he does! That's because he doesn't want to shell out £50,000 for an IR (the UK taxpayer is not paying for his licences anymore)
An IR is ESSENTIAL. You can't grub around under the clouds in an EC155 on a corporate job. It is a great IFR machine. Don't skimp on the most important part of the aircraft (the pilot).
I bet he does! That's because he doesn't want to shell out £50,000 for an IR (the UK taxpayer is not paying for his licences anymore)
An IR is ESSENTIAL. You can't grub around under the clouds in an EC155 on a corporate job. It is a great IFR machine. Don't skimp on the most important part of the aircraft (the pilot).
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Having been in this particular branch of the job for some years myself, I suggest you do NOT listen to the ex-mil pilot saying that an IR isn't essential. He is wrong (I'm ex-mil too). In UK the aircraft will often fly in very poor weather conditions. If it doesn't, it isn't a viable / reliable method of transport.
Imagine the situation - "Sorry Boss, we have to turn back - I'm not allowed to fly in that cloud so there is no way over those hills.."
I think that would very quickly turn sour (I've seen it happen, btw).
Or, even worse - "Well I'm not qualified to do this and I know it's dark, but it's probably only a little cloud - here we go...."
That's happened too, I could give two examples of fatal accidents to emphasise the point.
Imagine the situation - "Sorry Boss, we have to turn back - I'm not allowed to fly in that cloud so there is no way over those hills.."
I think that would very quickly turn sour (I've seen it happen, btw).
Or, even worse - "Well I'm not qualified to do this and I know it's dark, but it's probably only a little cloud - here we go...."
That's happened too, I could give two examples of fatal accidents to emphasise the point.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with the above - undoubtedly need an IR in this country. This sounds to me like a bloke without an IR trying to get a job for which he isn't really qualified. I'm also ex-mil so no axe to grind, but I bet that if he had an IR his tune would be different. 
Well if a non IR pilot wants a similar wage to a fully qualified IR pilot then go for the better qualified. Even if you do not want to fly in poor weather it would be nice to have the ability to do so especially if it's not going to cost any more.
A 155 comes with all the bells and whistles as standard. If you do not plan on being able to use them then why not get a cheaper heli and employ two pro pilots minimum.
Do not be led into thinking that non IR mil experience is worth more than an IR if you come across crap weather. As outlined earlier there have been a few accidents where this has been proved.
A 155 comes with all the bells and whistles as standard. If you do not plan on being able to use them then why not get a cheaper heli and employ two pro pilots minimum.
Do not be led into thinking that non IR mil experience is worth more than an IR if you come across crap weather. As outlined earlier there have been a few accidents where this has been proved.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Martin Grade
We are currently using an Aviation consultancy and exploring the possibility of buying an EC155 to be used by our company chairman for arround 300 hours a year. The consultancy company we are using has advised a salary itro £70,000 for a South Coast based pilot and he must have an ATPL(h) with Instrument rating, they say the instrument rating is vital.... They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc. Is the Instrument rating necessary, as we dont think the boss or his family want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc.
To be blunt, why are you considering buying a very expensive IFR twin, obviously on the recommendation of your Aviation Consultancy to whom you are paying for the advice, and then modifying your original post with the caveat "we don't think the boss (snip) will want to travel in poor weather due airsickness and discomfort etc"?
Either you have provided the wrong parameters for your Consultants to advise on, or you are moving the goalposts to justify saving on a decent pilot
As already stated (in not so many words): you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Either do the job properly with the right tools and the right staff at the right salary, or don't do it at all. Or become another accident statistic
This could always be a bogus post initiated by a heli company to see who send pm replies saying 'I will fly for you. I have blah blah and blah. I would be a better option for 70k'
Or is that me just being silly?
Sorry. I will just go back into my cupboard.
Or is that me just being silly?
Sorry. I will just go back into my cupboard.
This could always be a bogus post initiated by a heli company to see who send pm replies saying 'I will fly for you. I have blah blah and blah. I would be a better option for 70k'
The post poses a fair question: why not answer it reasonably?
TT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: EGHI
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen thank you for your replies, it is exactly the sort of feed back I was hoping for, ie balanced. If it helps I promise I wont reply to any PMs. Sevenstron your post strikes a cord with me, and to be honest I think that is the tack I will take as we look to move this project forward.
Cheers
Martin
Cheers
Martin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: EGHI
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to mention one other point, as we are looking to only fly arround 300 hrs per year, what are your thoughts on the pilot providing some income by hiring out his services. We dont envisage using our own acft to generate the revenue, but is there scope on the 15 or so days per month when the pilot is not flying to be doing that for someone else.
Martin
Martin
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
With a private owner things are relatively straightforward. To hire out your pilot and or aircraft you / he will be providing public transport and will therefore need an Air Operator's Certificate (or go on someone else's and will get involved in a flight time limitations scheme). This is a much more complicated issue.
Also, who is going to do the operational planning for the pilot if he flies every day? By operational planning I mean finding landing sites and making bookings etc. He needs backup.
Btw, why are you not getting these answers from the consultancy you are already paying for?
Also, who is going to do the operational planning for the pilot if he flies every day? By operational planning I mean finding landing sites and making bookings etc. He needs backup.
Btw, why are you not getting these answers from the consultancy you are already paying for?
Last edited by ShyTorque; 12th Feb 2009 at 22:15.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300hrs per year is quite high utilisation for a corporate helicopter. Sounds like you are considering the pilot on duty for 15 days per month which works out at just shy of 2hrs flying each of those 15 days. Take the days off and holidays into account probably doesnt leave much scope for hiring him out, especially if operating to an FTL scheme. How about backup when he is sick / holiday etc?Are you operating the aircraft privately or taking advantage of commercial opportunities to mitigate the vat on purchase and operation?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin,
You'll find the pilot would prefer to fly pretty much every day if he/she could. It won't be his/her fault if the boss doesn't want to fly and the pilot must then stand by.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual for people to query the time the pilot spends on the ground and to wonder if they ought not to be getting better "value" for the salary being paid.
I find it particularly vexing myself and have frequesntly had to argue that I'm being not being paid for my time but rather for my experience and for the sheer scale of the responsibility (up to 8 pax and $12m worth of somebody else's property!) I must carry each time I get airborne.
It continues to baffle me why people who have the wit and the wherewithal to start and grow successful businesses, with all of the risks and responsibilities involved, can so easily become hung up on the additional cost of (a) a suitably qualified primary pilot and/or (b) the cost of a second or subsequent pilot.
Anyway, many years ago, when I went to buy my first car, the salesman said, "I know what you want - you want a good cheap car!" "Exactly!", I replied. "There's no such thing", he said. "If it's good, it'll not be cheap and if it's cheap, it'll not be good!" I have found in my life so far that that applies broadly across the board!! I'll wager you'll find your 155 crewing won't be any different.
You'll find the pilot would prefer to fly pretty much every day if he/she could. It won't be his/her fault if the boss doesn't want to fly and the pilot must then stand by.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual for people to query the time the pilot spends on the ground and to wonder if they ought not to be getting better "value" for the salary being paid.
I find it particularly vexing myself and have frequesntly had to argue that I'm being not being paid for my time but rather for my experience and for the sheer scale of the responsibility (up to 8 pax and $12m worth of somebody else's property!) I must carry each time I get airborne.
It continues to baffle me why people who have the wit and the wherewithal to start and grow successful businesses, with all of the risks and responsibilities involved, can so easily become hung up on the additional cost of (a) a suitably qualified primary pilot and/or (b) the cost of a second or subsequent pilot.
Anyway, many years ago, when I went to buy my first car, the salesman said, "I know what you want - you want a good cheap car!" "Exactly!", I replied. "There's no such thing", he said. "If it's good, it'll not be cheap and if it's cheap, it'll not be good!" I have found in my life so far that that applies broadly across the board!! I'll wager you'll find your 155 crewing won't be any different.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliski22, you mean this?
Cheers
Whirls
Originally Posted by John Ruskin
It's unwise to pay too much but it's unwise to pay too little.
When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything,
because the thing you bought was incapable
of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits
paying a little and getting a lot.
It can't be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder,
it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that,
you will have enough to pay for something better!"
When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything,
because the thing you bought was incapable
of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits
paying a little and getting a lot.
It can't be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder,
it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that,
you will have enough to pay for something better!"
Whirls
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They also advise that we consider a young co pilot (ie hours builder) but used as safety pilot when planning poor weather transits etc.
If a company can afford to be in the position of buying a new EC155 in this financial climate, they must think a lot about their Chairman/Directors. The corporate insurance may stipulate 2 qualified crew. The cost of a good co-pilot would be relatively cheap in the overall scheme of things.
Captain £60-65k plus perks
Co-pilot £40-45k plus perks
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
902Jun - I'd say you've undercooked the Captain pay by 10k there, given the burden of responsibility will be with him and not through an operator. Those look like payscales for someone like Premiair to me.