Pilot Competency
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Aberdeenshire.
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent discussion.
I don't consider that my level of experience enables me to answer your survey questions with an appropriate degree of validity. However, I would like to add these observations.
It strikes me that an LPC/OPC competence assessment framework is only a very basic means of attempting to ensure operations are conducted in a safe manner. Yes, there are assessable objective parameters. Yes, there are upper and lower subjective levels of expectation that fall roughly in line with role and experience. And, yes, the system is capable of being utilised to weed out the dangerous and those who struggle to develop their skill and capacity within subjective and/or commercial timescales. However, the inherent weakness of the system, at least in addressing the requirements of an offshore OG role, is that your licence is endorsed for your individual performance level for operations that are conducted in a multi crew environment.
To further develop training and assessment, and hopefully thereby increase
safety, shouldn't more time be spent evaluating problem solving, risk management and decision making.....as a crew. Isn't that the point of LOFT? Aren't two heads supposed to be better than one? How many accidents are attributable to poor basic piloting skills versus those that reflect a chronic under (or mis)use of available resources, be that crew or technology?
How would we all fare if holding our licence privileges depended on our team performance? Some people detest the existence of recording and monitoring equipment but there are those who cannot see the short comings in their ability and behaviour even when the evidence is presented to them. Or is it really the case that what happens in the sim is an accurate reflection of what occurs operationally?I do recognise that I am essentialy addressing the problems associated with a minority. But before anyone gets too comfortable, I would also like to think that most (all?) of us accept that there is invariably some room for refinement in what we each do. How does the industry assess whether the voice of inexperience will ever be raised and, arguably more importantly, if it will be listened to?
If the aim is to improve safety via a checking system then maybe our licences should carry a "fit for purpose in role" as well as type and environment endorsements.
I don't consider that my level of experience enables me to answer your survey questions with an appropriate degree of validity. However, I would like to add these observations.
It strikes me that an LPC/OPC competence assessment framework is only a very basic means of attempting to ensure operations are conducted in a safe manner. Yes, there are assessable objective parameters. Yes, there are upper and lower subjective levels of expectation that fall roughly in line with role and experience. And, yes, the system is capable of being utilised to weed out the dangerous and those who struggle to develop their skill and capacity within subjective and/or commercial timescales. However, the inherent weakness of the system, at least in addressing the requirements of an offshore OG role, is that your licence is endorsed for your individual performance level for operations that are conducted in a multi crew environment.
To further develop training and assessment, and hopefully thereby increase
safety, shouldn't more time be spent evaluating problem solving, risk management and decision making.....as a crew. Isn't that the point of LOFT? Aren't two heads supposed to be better than one? How many accidents are attributable to poor basic piloting skills versus those that reflect a chronic under (or mis)use of available resources, be that crew or technology?
How would we all fare if holding our licence privileges depended on our team performance? Some people detest the existence of recording and monitoring equipment but there are those who cannot see the short comings in their ability and behaviour even when the evidence is presented to them. Or is it really the case that what happens in the sim is an accurate reflection of what occurs operationally?I do recognise that I am essentialy addressing the problems associated with a minority. But before anyone gets too comfortable, I would also like to think that most (all?) of us accept that there is invariably some room for refinement in what we each do. How does the industry assess whether the voice of inexperience will ever be raised and, arguably more importantly, if it will be listened to?
If the aim is to improve safety via a checking system then maybe our licences should carry a "fit for purpose in role" as well as type and environment endorsements.
Last edited by marcr; 30th Aug 2011 at 16:02. Reason: Removing graphic unintended symbol.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary so far
Add what you have read to my PMs and you get a picture that looks like this:
5% -10% of the current global professional helicopter pilot workforce should not be there and heaven knows how they got there in the first place. (these I can usually spot within one sim ride).
Another 10% or so are sufficiently below the minimum competence level to suggest that for everyone's sake they go away and do a VFR day-job until they have gained the necessary skills to move on.
Maybe 10% could be good enough if only they received more/better training opportunities.
70%-75% of the journeyman aviators in our business do the job well enough provided they have enough continuity training.
5% are seriously good and impress the hell out of me.
If you get more than 100% then don't worry about it - the margins for error will take care of that.
I see no geographical monopoly on the good guys, they come from unexpected quarters sometimes but the again so do those at the bottom of the pile. In the last year I have had a young 21 year old local Qatari who will be seriously good if he can keep his focus and not get too big-headed... and two young Brazilians who are a credit to their nation. Likewise a couple of young Japanese looked like they will do well. Some disappointments from Europe and elsewhere so the so-called 'developed' world under EASA and FAA cannot be complacent.
Nobody should take this as a scientific survey but the info so far is certainly telling a story.
G.
5% -10% of the current global professional helicopter pilot workforce should not be there and heaven knows how they got there in the first place. (these I can usually spot within one sim ride).
Another 10% or so are sufficiently below the minimum competence level to suggest that for everyone's sake they go away and do a VFR day-job until they have gained the necessary skills to move on.
Maybe 10% could be good enough if only they received more/better training opportunities.
70%-75% of the journeyman aviators in our business do the job well enough provided they have enough continuity training.
5% are seriously good and impress the hell out of me.
If you get more than 100% then don't worry about it - the margins for error will take care of that.
I see no geographical monopoly on the good guys, they come from unexpected quarters sometimes but the again so do those at the bottom of the pile. In the last year I have had a young 21 year old local Qatari who will be seriously good if he can keep his focus and not get too big-headed... and two young Brazilians who are a credit to their nation. Likewise a couple of young Japanese looked like they will do well. Some disappointments from Europe and elsewhere so the so-called 'developed' world under EASA and FAA cannot be complacent.
Nobody should take this as a scientific survey but the info so far is certainly telling a story.
G.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The criticism implied in your survey tends towards the patronising and condescending view of the so called jouneyman pilot so often adopted by the specialist simulator instructor out of touch with the real world. I have rarely encountered a candidate not anxious to show himself in the best possible light. Perhaps you mistake the ability to reel off endless numbers and to fly a simulator exactly to a profile for competence. What really counts is the ability to make it look easy on a dark and stormy night when the gremlins are ganging up on you - then you will find the complete rounded aviator and not someone who is good at computer games.
The CAA training system permits the retesting of some items where required, so while a candidate may have a couple of shots at a manoeuvre, this may not show up as a fail - thereby confusing your call for notices of failure.
I am sure we would all dearly love to spend all our time practising in the aircraft and simulators in order to perfect the finished article but something called commercial operations comes into the equation somewhere!
The CAA training system permits the retesting of some items where required, so while a candidate may have a couple of shots at a manoeuvre, this may not show up as a fail - thereby confusing your call for notices of failure.
I am sure we would all dearly love to spend all our time practising in the aircraft and simulators in order to perfect the finished article but something called commercial operations comes into the equation somewhere!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarlie
Given your handle I will try to bear in mind that your comments are more than likely a wind-up and if you knew me you would know that I am the personification of 'journeyman aviator' and not the ignorant 'specialist sim instructor' you allege. I have probably made more deck landings on dark and stormy nights than you have had hot dinners. Anyway, let's not get into a pissing contest.
Your comments arrived on the day the newspapers told the story of the 14 year old girl who is now paralysed from the waist down as a result of a mistake by a doctor during a routine surgical operation. Now, was that mistake the kind of 'error of omission' that can overtake all of us at some time, even the basically competent, or will this turn out to be one of those stories that end with colleagues saying things like "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed to practice". Such stories of incompetence arose after the wave of infant deaths during surgery at a Bristol hospital and that comment was a common one. There were doctors that knew that they had amongst them colleagues who would kill one day but no scheme existed at the time to monitor competence and remove/retrain the incompetent. I believe such a scheme exists now.
Our industry is supposed to benefit from annual proficiency checks and these have a dual purpose in my view. They provide the opportunity for training and they verify competency. If the system is functioning properly I don't believe the rough and ready survey would reveal that there are a significant number of incompetent pilots out there. Why is it not working???
We are talking about guys whose incompetence smacks you in the face very quickly when you are teaching them and despite a very sympathetic and gently-gently approach they are unable to achieve a decent standard.
I ask you, do you want to be the one offering comfort to your colleagues in the crew room when one of these guys contrives to take out your best chum by saying "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed a commercial license". .
I ask the question again - why is the competence management process of licensing and proficiency checks not working as it should?
G.
Your comments arrived on the day the newspapers told the story of the 14 year old girl who is now paralysed from the waist down as a result of a mistake by a doctor during a routine surgical operation. Now, was that mistake the kind of 'error of omission' that can overtake all of us at some time, even the basically competent, or will this turn out to be one of those stories that end with colleagues saying things like "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed to practice". Such stories of incompetence arose after the wave of infant deaths during surgery at a Bristol hospital and that comment was a common one. There were doctors that knew that they had amongst them colleagues who would kill one day but no scheme existed at the time to monitor competence and remove/retrain the incompetent. I believe such a scheme exists now.
Our industry is supposed to benefit from annual proficiency checks and these have a dual purpose in my view. They provide the opportunity for training and they verify competency. If the system is functioning properly I don't believe the rough and ready survey would reveal that there are a significant number of incompetent pilots out there. Why is it not working???
We are talking about guys whose incompetence smacks you in the face very quickly when you are teaching them and despite a very sympathetic and gently-gently approach they are unable to achieve a decent standard.
I ask you, do you want to be the one offering comfort to your colleagues in the crew room when one of these guys contrives to take out your best chum by saying "it was always going to happen one day, the guy is incompetent and should never have been allowed a commercial license". .
I ask the question again - why is the competence management process of licensing and proficiency checks not working as it should?
G.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Geoffers,
I'm pretty sure that its because the majority of checks are not as objective and independent as they should be.
I once went to a CRMI symposium at the CAA, attended by company LTCs across the spctrum of the industry - I guess about 150-200 of them. The question was asked whether any of them had EVER failed anyone from their company on a CRM assessment. Surprise surprise - not a single one, ever!
I would imagine that company line checks and OPCs go pretty much the same way.
I'm pretty sure that its because the majority of checks are not as objective and independent as they should be.
I once went to a CRMI symposium at the CAA, attended by company LTCs across the spctrum of the industry - I guess about 150-200 of them. The question was asked whether any of them had EVER failed anyone from their company on a CRM assessment. Surprise surprise - not a single one, ever!
I would imagine that company line checks and OPCs go pretty much the same way.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you proposing that TRE/TRI`s be given a target number of failures to achieve in order to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling in your simulator classroom?
With regard to your comments about deck landings - I very much doubt it.
With regard to your comments about deck landings - I very much doubt it.
they go away and do a VFR day-job until they have gained the necessary skills to move on.
Are you IFR/Instrument-centric in your view of what constitutes "Minimum Ability"?
You seem to have fallen prey to thinking what is familiar is the standard.
IFR flight in helicopters is only a very small part of the spectrum of uses....and those that are damn good at IFR flight usually prove to be hopeless at Long Lining, Mustering, or any number of other very common utilizations of the helicopter.
Let's ask theses questions of those who responded to your survey.....
Are you fully competent?
Are you in need of remedial training?
Is it only others that fall short in your expectations?
Would you be in your current position if Minimum Standards were raised?
If you are a "Standards Pilot", "Training Captain", "Check Pilot".....do you fly to the same standards you insist upon while performing in that role when you fly the line as an Operational Pilot? If selected for Supervisory duties....do you continue to fly normal operations or are you purely a Management Pilot?
I'll ask you Geoffers.....what traits should those passing judgement on other's fitness to fly themselves possess? Should they pass the same checkrides their subordinates do....or should they actually have to maintain higher standards?
In my view....assuming the role of a "supervisory pilot" should also qualify as "Cross one has to bear!" as upon assuming that role....one has to lead by example and also remain current in field operations of all kinds....the whole time setting the example for anyone that shares the cockpit or work place with him.
Final question for you....have you failed anyone on a Check Ride?
I failed the Chief Pilot of an Oil Company owned helicopter operation....and later the owner of a helicopter being trained. Both later passed....one after an attitude check and a decision to comply with the training standards and the other with a bit more training to make up for a lack of overall experience.
The really interesting failure was when as a Company Check Airman I was being "checked" by the FAA while giving a Check ride one of our company pilots. I failed the guy.....the FAA guy said he would have passed him....I said I did not care as he did not meet our published company standards. A note....the FAA guy and the failed company pilot were friends and served in the same National Guard Helicopter Unit.
When you see these incompetent pilots....do you "fail" them? Do you put your customer in the position of acknowledging the situation such they have to consider the legal issues of continuing the employment of the individual without taking remedial action? If you have....how did the customer handle the situation....gracefully and with gratitude for ferreting out a potential problem?
Last edited by SASless; 1st Sep 2011 at 12:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarlie and SAS
I accept Snarlies assertion that he beats me on DLs but to both Snarlie and SAS I beg not to focus on anything more contentious than this simple question:
In each nation in the world there is in place a system designed to maintain competence - are they working? I do not design the check nor do I carry them out.
I am a simple soul sitting within a system that puts me in a position where I see people at work. Like any teacher worth his salt I care about the people I am teaching and want them all to succeed but there are some that I know from my heart of hearts should not be there. My rough and ready survey would seem to indicate a systemic problem so I ask what can we do better to ensure the integrity of our profession.
SAS - I don't care about your long-lining 206 pilot because until someone introduces an LPC that includes long lining it is not relevant to my argument. IFR is a required competency for any ATP and like being dead or pregnant you cannot be 'slightly' IFR rated.
I don't make the rules but I do ask of all my colleagues "are the rules fit for purpose?
G.
In each nation in the world there is in place a system designed to maintain competence - are they working? I do not design the check nor do I carry them out.
I am a simple soul sitting within a system that puts me in a position where I see people at work. Like any teacher worth his salt I care about the people I am teaching and want them all to succeed but there are some that I know from my heart of hearts should not be there. My rough and ready survey would seem to indicate a systemic problem so I ask what can we do better to ensure the integrity of our profession.
SAS - I don't care about your long-lining 206 pilot because until someone introduces an LPC that includes long lining it is not relevant to my argument. IFR is a required competency for any ATP and like being dead or pregnant you cannot be 'slightly' IFR rated.
I don't make the rules but I do ask of all my colleagues "are the rules fit for purpose?
G.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You started the pissing contest not me. In my experience, the system works perfectly well in a practical sense, in that, if a candidate is clearly not up to standard, the test is aborted and put down to `training`. Remedial training is then carried out prior to embarking on another test. This has the advantage of encouraging the candidate to buck up without the stigma of a failure and also avoids the piles of paperwork that go with an official failure.
Your survey question of have you ever failed a check is,therefore, likely to be answered in the negative. But that does not mean that a weak candidate has not been spotted and action taken to improve his standard.
As far as I can see, my original comments still apply.
Your survey question of have you ever failed a check is,therefore, likely to be answered in the negative. But that does not mean that a weak candidate has not been spotted and action taken to improve his standard.
As far as I can see, my original comments still apply.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarlie
Excellent handle - I can see you are working hard to live up to it. Forgive the semantics but if you abort a prof check due to poor performance then you have effectively failed the guy even if the paperwork was not completed that way. As you have 'ownership' of him it is a worthwhile gambit - unless he is earmarked for the boot.
It sounds like your experience is based on JAA and probably North Sea so forgive me once again if I point out that my assertions relate to the global workforce. The globalisation of the industry is causing a migration of many nationals into markets where their licenses may be new and this 'mix-and-match patchwork of skills is a real headache for those trying to maintain competency in their workforce.
At a guess I have taught about 200 students on various courses in 4 years and these originate from India, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Russia, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Trinidad, South Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Macau, Qatar, Oman, France, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and UK, and probably some others I have forgotten. It's simply not possible for a flight instructor to see close-up that many people from that many places and not form an opinion of the overall well-being of the global industry. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish but I would rather speak up and at least seek a consensus about the scale of the problem. Albeit in a very unscientific way I think we may have it. The situation is either:-
a. The regulatory processes that manages pilot competency in inadequate - or
b. The processes are not being applied in the manner expected by the regulators.
If any CP out their is hiring I suggest you send the guy for a check-ride before you sign him up. At least he will be a known rather than an unknown quantity. It will be worth the costs believe me.
G.
It sounds like your experience is based on JAA and probably North Sea so forgive me once again if I point out that my assertions relate to the global workforce. The globalisation of the industry is causing a migration of many nationals into markets where their licenses may be new and this 'mix-and-match patchwork of skills is a real headache for those trying to maintain competency in their workforce.
At a guess I have taught about 200 students on various courses in 4 years and these originate from India, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Russia, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Trinidad, South Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Macau, Qatar, Oman, France, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and UK, and probably some others I have forgotten. It's simply not possible for a flight instructor to see close-up that many people from that many places and not form an opinion of the overall well-being of the global industry. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish but I would rather speak up and at least seek a consensus about the scale of the problem. Albeit in a very unscientific way I think we may have it. The situation is either:-
a. The regulatory processes that manages pilot competency in inadequate - or
b. The processes are not being applied in the manner expected by the regulators.
If any CP out their is hiring I suggest you send the guy for a check-ride before you sign him up. At least he will be a known rather than an unknown quantity. It will be worth the costs believe me.
G.
I do believe definitions are going to be your down fall Geoffers.....as there is plenty of work for commercial licensed pilots....or for ATPL's that have gone "Bush" and do not maintain instrument currency as it is not needed and/or is not possible.
So...from your additional response....all you really care about is ATPL with Instrument Ratings....and relegate any other professional pilot ratings/qualifications/utilizations as being not germane to your interest.
Am I right in that perception?
It would seem you are taking at least a Euro-centric view of the Helicopter Industry world-wide.
I think what you are really trying to say is...."Are non-UK...Non-JAA licensed pilots competent?"
Are you going to pull out the coloured pencils and start giving lessons here?
So...from your additional response....all you really care about is ATPL with Instrument Ratings....and relegate any other professional pilot ratings/qualifications/utilizations as being not germane to your interest.
Am I right in that perception?
It would seem you are taking at least a Euro-centric view of the Helicopter Industry world-wide.
I think what you are really trying to say is...."Are non-UK...Non-JAA licensed pilots competent?"
Are you going to pull out the coloured pencils and start giving lessons here?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I am not saying anything of the sort. Whatever your jurisdiction, whatever your license, whatever sub section of the industry you work in I am just saying that I get to see a small part of it doing my little bit in my little (ATP) corner of the world.
Let me ask you. If you had just spent 4 years doing essentially the same thing with a variety of people and you noticed a definite characteristic amongst a significant minority then would you comment or not? Would you keep your politically correct head below the parapet, whistle 'Dixie' and tell yourself it was nothing to do with you (actually I can't imagine SAS being politically correct but I rather like the image it conjures up).
Don't forget to read the posts that indicate that other people out there in the big wide world also think that not all is so wonderful.
G.
PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.
Let me ask you. If you had just spent 4 years doing essentially the same thing with a variety of people and you noticed a definite characteristic amongst a significant minority then would you comment or not? Would you keep your politically correct head below the parapet, whistle 'Dixie' and tell yourself it was nothing to do with you (actually I can't imagine SAS being politically correct but I rather like the image it conjures up).
Don't forget to read the posts that indicate that other people out there in the big wide world also think that not all is so wonderful.
G.
PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.
"Whistling Dixie" to some of us is a matter of pride, heritage, and patriotism and most will stand firmly erect while heeding that clarion call.
There has never been a system yet that produces the "perfect" pilot....and never shall be as it is a human endeavour fraught with all the weaknesses our species brings with us to anything we do.
I submit it is up to each and everyone of us to strive for that Gold Ring we call "Professionalism"....not to the Government, Operator, or anyone else.
I would think your poll here confirms this....it matters not on one's Nationality, status in life, education, military service, or source of training that determines the "better" pilot....but rather how all of that is affected by the individual's drive and determination.
Political Correctness is part and parcel of what is wrong with our society today....one should meet muster with no passes given. The Law of Supply and Demand works in the interest of "professionalism"....the fewer qualified pilots out there the higher wages shall be, the better work conditions will be, and the higher the cost to the customer.
See a problem in that?
There has never been a system yet that produces the "perfect" pilot....and never shall be as it is a human endeavour fraught with all the weaknesses our species brings with us to anything we do.
I submit it is up to each and everyone of us to strive for that Gold Ring we call "Professionalism"....not to the Government, Operator, or anyone else.
I would think your poll here confirms this....it matters not on one's Nationality, status in life, education, military service, or source of training that determines the "better" pilot....but rather how all of that is affected by the individual's drive and determination.
Political Correctness is part and parcel of what is wrong with our society today....one should meet muster with no passes given. The Law of Supply and Demand works in the interest of "professionalism"....the fewer qualified pilots out there the higher wages shall be, the better work conditions will be, and the higher the cost to the customer.
See a problem in that?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffers said:
PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.
An ATP is a Certificate or Licence depending on where you are and an Instrument Rating is a rating. The ATP is good for operating anywhere anytime (non IMC) without a current instrument checkride.
I routinely take ATP OPC's, LPC's and 135 checkrides in various jurisdictions with no IR portion, along with many heavy helicopter pilots who fly the machines in predominantly external load work, and we operate into some pretty busy airfields from time to time.
Further; the comment ' Go away and get a VFR job until ...........Yada yada!
Many of the ' B206 with a longline' guys have extensive offshore experience, and simply moved on to something more challenging...
PS. Don't forget that any ATP check-ride I am aware of requires an IR section and once you have that ticket you have right to fly into some of the busiest airports in the world. It is only right and proper that that fragile skill is kept in good shape and NOT doing so can be counted as part of the problem.
An ATP is a Certificate or Licence depending on where you are and an Instrument Rating is a rating. The ATP is good for operating anywhere anytime (non IMC) without a current instrument checkride.
I routinely take ATP OPC's, LPC's and 135 checkrides in various jurisdictions with no IR portion, along with many heavy helicopter pilots who fly the machines in predominantly external load work, and we operate into some pretty busy airfields from time to time.
Further; the comment ' Go away and get a VFR job until ...........Yada yada!
Many of the ' B206 with a longline' guys have extensive offshore experience, and simply moved on to something more challenging...
Last edited by 170'; 2nd Sep 2011 at 16:05.
