Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Why the double-standard for pilots and engineers?

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Why the double-standard for pilots and engineers?

Old 20th Jun 2013, 11:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Why the double-standard for pilots and engineers?

Why can a copilot not fly without a license on type, regardless of previous hours and experience, with the captain alongside, watching everything, ready to intervene?
Yet unlicensed engineers carry out maintenance, but how often is the licensed engineer standing alongside, watching everything, ready to intervene? (More likely, they're at a different aircraft or in an office with paperwork).
Why is this acceptable?

Would it be useful if copilots were allowed some experience on type before having to sit a licensing exam, just like engineers or should engineers have to get their license before working on an aircraft? Any thoughts?
HeliZimba is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 14:05
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 266
I think it's because its safer that way. These days a Captain does not supervise a co-pilot, both pilots supervise each other.

Modern helicopters are also so complicated that without a Type Rating (which can take a month of full time study and simulator flight) a pilot would struggle to make a valid contribution. Having said that, Type Rating training is still done on aircraft under the supervision of a TRI or Check Airman so this is an example of co-pilots gainig experience (training) on type before sitting a licensing exam.

It was not always like this with pilots and at one time an IR was only required by the Captain with the co-pilot flying (and learning) IFR under their supervision.

But the real reason is that flying requires much greater skill than spannering and you should never waste any opportunity to tell your engineers that if they had tried harder at skool they could have been a pilot like you
Max Contingency is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 15:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up North
Posts: 93
MAx

Hey Max,

Hope your engineers don't get wind of your thoughts about them !!
But remember, the engineers keep you flying.
Keepitup is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 15:32
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Thank you Capt Max.
Clearly a brave soul if you make such a remark to the engineers - hope you're wearing a helmet when you do!
So if the benefits of a training course on type and obtaining a licence before going to work on an aircraft are proven, why doesn't the same apply to engineers?
HeliZimba is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 16:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 32
Posts: 93
What a ridiculous idea.

AME's work on aircraft and then Licensed AME's certify for that work. If a mistake is made, it is (usually) caught before someone dies.

Do you know how long it takes to get a license as an AME? You don't walk in, pay your $50k and walk out licensed like you do as a pilot. If you wanted everyone that worked on your helicopter to have a license, I bet you couldn't afford to fly.

I see your point about reduced minimums for co-pilots but that would probably only ever benefit frustrated low time guys (of which I'm guessing you're one).

Just remember that about 95% of accidents are pilot error, how about you look in your own backyard before you come cleaning up ours.

Hook, line and sinker.
Widewoodenwingswork is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 17:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,493
A copilot is required to be there as a requirement of a multi crew aircraft.

A copilot without type is a passenger.

The job carried out by an LAME does not have the immediacy with respect to gravity.
RVDT is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 17:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Merriott, Somerset, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 222
Common knowledge in my day................"If flying was hard, they would get the engineers to do it"
Tony

Last edited by Tony Mabelis; 20th Jun 2013 at 17:50.
Tony Mabelis is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2013, 18:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 50
Posts: 218
Not comparing like with like for the most part.

I'm guessing troll?
tu154 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 09:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Far Far Far Away
Posts: 63
Max :

Perhaps if you had paid more attention in class you would have learned how to spell " SCHOOL " correctly.

As a point of interest it now I believe takes only 10 months from scratch to a frozen ATPL, It takes on average 7 years to become a Licenced with Type Engineer.

I Like Sky Sports hold both Pilot & Engineering Licenses and I know which was harder to get.
Maverick Laddie is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 13:18
  #10 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,226
I Like Sky Sports hold both Pilot & Engineering Licenses and I know which was harder to get.
Sky Sports can be very difficult to receive in the area where I live...
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 14:29
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Neither a troll nor frustrated.

My question about whether unlicensed engineers should have some type specific training before working on a helicopter is prompted by the decrease of maintenance standards I have witnessed over the last few years, with components installed upside down, back to front or omitted.

In the Middle East, you will no longer find Canadian, European or Australian engineers and a valuable opportunity no longer exists for young engineers from these areas to work on turbine helicopters, mostly twins.
Salaries for unlicensed guys are about one fifth of what they should be and standards and attitudes reflect this.
Where people struggle with basic English they may not appreciate the importance of points in the Maintenance Manual or be unwilling to refer to it for fear of loss of face or unfounded fear of job loss.

Thank you Max, Sky and Maverick for your intelligent contributions.

To Widewoodenwings, we all know that unless you work for a large operator and can hand over to the next shift, engineers work routine is harder, there before and after the pilot and often working in severe weather.
But bear in mind that self-funded pilots have made huge sacrifices, borrowed heavily and must get a license first before hoping for a job so they can serve their apprenticeship.
And when things go wrong 95% (to use your statistics) of the widows are pilots wives.
If your age is as posted hopefully with maturity you will lose that large chip off your shoulder and not jump over any suggestion which might raise standards in our industry or at the very least stop the rot.

Everyone benefits from training. Those most in need of it are those who think they don't need it or won't admit it.
HeliZimba is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 17:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 219
Check your head sets & seats, After you mess with the mechanics/crew cheifs ,They will play with your toys, Engineers drive trains, Check your 6 "pilots"
hillberg is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 19:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 605
Helizamba, pilot crewing is mandated legally, just like pilots duty times.

Engineer/Mechanic crewing levels are not legally mandated so companies will go for the cheapest possible option they can get away with. If they could have one licensed Mechanic for every 100 unlicensed, then they would.

Same for duty times for Mechanics, there is no such thing legally. If the company wants to work their Mechanics for 12 hours a day 7 days a week, there is no law stopping them.

Have a look at some of the biggest offshore helicopter companies in the world. You'll see that pilots must have 1 day off per week plus one day off after a night on standby.

Their ground based counterparts (unless stipulated otherwise by the oil company) get zero days off per week and after a night on standby, are expected to be at work in the morning to continue working. Contracts are crewed, ground crew wise, with NO allowance for days off/sick days at all.

Companies around the world are fighting to stop changes being made as they say it is financially not viable to operate if Mechanics have duty times and rostered days off.....
noooby is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2013, 23:48
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Sky Sports

You are right to certain degree, you must admit being a 'sky god' is way cooler.....not as hard to attain, but when you fcuk up....is way more painful. Both admirable career choices and need each other.
NRDK is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 00:27
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Depends on the day!
Posts: 217
Ever seen all that footage of monkey's going through cockpit procedures in various crafts??- Yes!
Have you ever seen any footage of monkey's doing a 100 hourly on any of those crafts?? - No!! There's a good reason for that!
bellfest is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 06:37
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 48
Posts: 215
HeliZimba, your issue is not with pilot/engineer licencing difference. You have an employer(s) that you believe to be unscrupulously taking advantage of the 'system'.

I'd say that is where your problem is.
pilot and apprentice is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 14:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
Two Crewmen Required? Both are crew

When the helo is certified, a determination is made by regulators as to whether a single pilot can properly perform all the operational tasks. If not, two crew are specified. The second crewperson is not a trainee or camp-follower, he or she is to perform critical functions in keeping with the flight manual and the operations manual. Success depends on the outcome. That co-pilot must be reasonable trained and certified so that the passengers are safe.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2013, 15:11
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
Nick,

Where ya been Laddy?

Welcome back!
SASless is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 03:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Long way south
Age: 55
Posts: 28
You can teach a monkey to ride a bike -but he can't change a tyre
CopterDoctor is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2013, 06:40
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 32
Posts: 93
Zumba,

Did you submit an incident report after each of the issues you saw? Nothing will be done to resolve the issues if no one speaks up about it. I can't speak for anywhere else in the world bar Australia but the difference in classifieds for AME's vs classifieds for pilots would indicate that there is already a chronic shortage of AME's. Your suggestion to further regulate the maintenance industry would do nothing to help that cause.

If you have issues with the way maintenance is carried out at your company/in the middle east, maybe consider the appropriate channels. Having met many AMT's from across the world, I also believe your impression of the global aircraft maintenance industry is well off the mark.

I'm as aware as the next person to the sacrifices/commitment required to persue a flying career, I'm also acutely aware of the dangers of flying. Believe me, I have a healthy respect for pilots, that respect only grows when they stick their nose out of our business and do their job.
Widewoodenwingswork is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.