TR Course AW139-Where?
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Asia
AW139 T/R and Guidance please
Sirs,
I have about 700hrs on AS350 and 1000hrs on a Multi-engine aircraft. Ex-military. Qualified in IR, NVG, etc. Would like to take my CPL(H) and start my journey towards 139 T/R. Can a kind soul point me in the right direction to do so? Costs, location and duration? I took the initiative and wrote to Abu Dhabi Aviation but I reckon that they will cost a lot and an Australian flight school. Still awaiting reply.
Much appreciated for any advice given.
I have about 700hrs on AS350 and 1000hrs on a Multi-engine aircraft. Ex-military. Qualified in IR, NVG, etc. Would like to take my CPL(H) and start my journey towards 139 T/R. Can a kind soul point me in the right direction to do so? Costs, location and duration? I took the initiative and wrote to Abu Dhabi Aviation but I reckon that they will cost a lot and an Australian flight school. Still awaiting reply.
Much appreciated for any advice given.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Offshore
I guess most training are unfortunately done this way. But it doesn't take very much to deliver a product equal to, or better than AW. But the quality will always be so much better if the instructors have plenty of instruction- and sim background. This takes time to build up, but will be the things making the difference at the end. It's a shame that training organisations do shortcuts here. I assume Money Talks - again.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Offshore
Correct, my training was performed by AW. And having been there several times since then, we also know what requirement AW have, when recruiting instructors. Some of them have been there for years, and still have obtained only 3-4 hours in the actual aircraft. Hope the setup in Helsinki will not be identical.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 917
Likes: 11
From: Tax-land.
It will be identical, or worse.
AW Instructors get to know the aircraft better because of what is available to them in terms of back up material.
But since you are, supposedly, a very experienced AW139 pilot and gainfully employed, would take a 30% paycut just for the love of teaching?
Or do you mean that you really know the aiircraft better than the AWTA instructors?
AW Instructors get to know the aircraft better because of what is available to them in terms of back up material.
But since you are, supposedly, a very experienced AW139 pilot and gainfully employed, would take a 30% paycut just for the love of teaching?
Or do you mean that you really know the aiircraft better than the AWTA instructors?
Joined: Oct 2013
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Wherever the work is
From what I understand the provider in Helsinki employ their instructors on a freelance basis, using them as and when required by the course schedules and I know that at least a couple of them have day jobs as captains for Weststar so certainly hold 139 experience in addition to being EASA TRE's/TRI's. This is just what I've heard though so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
NM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 917
Likes: 11
From: Tax-land.
Not entirely true tottigol,
From what I understand the provider in Helsinki employ their instructors on a freelance basis, using them as and when required by the course schedules and I know that at least a couple of them have day jobs as captains for Weststar so certainly hold 139 experience in addition to being EASA TRE's/TRI's. This is just what I've heard though so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
NM
From what I understand the provider in Helsinki employ their instructors on a freelance basis, using them as and when required by the course schedules and I know that at least a couple of them have day jobs as captains for Weststar so certainly hold 139 experience in addition to being EASA TRE's/TRI's. This is just what I've heard though so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
NM
AW Factory instructors can provide deeper insights and information because of the background training and standardization required of the ATO and TCOE.
You may as well dry lease the simulator.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
From: 18 Degrees North
One of the instructors they use in Helsinki is one of the highest time pilots in the world on type I would think on the real aircraft and a excellent sim instructor, as well as being EASA TRI/TRE.
Last edited by Camp Freddie; 31st March 2015 at 19:32.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
A small touch of reality....
... When a new type (in my case the AW139) arrives in the market there are NO pilots and NO instructors with operational experience to man the simulator built for the new machine. Yes, I know there was a brief hiatus before the AW139 simulator appeared but in that time there were only a few pilots that might qualify for the title 'operationally experienced' and they were, one way or another, firmly tied to their companies.
That mean that the simulator operators had to train up people with appropriate experience to take on the role of SFI and crack on with training hundreds and hundreds of new pilots as best they can.
During that period they acquired a unique blend of skills but these did depend on them having enough appropriate operational experience to 'lean on' during that period. It's easy to say in hindsight that maybe there were not enough SFI's with offshore experience but don't forget the AW139 has penetrated just about every market sector that could accommodate a medium twin.
Would those who are critical of SFI's (like me) who have just tens of hours on the real thing like to see us moved on so that those with 'operational experience' and hundreds of those operational hours - thousands even - can be brought in to replace us?
In the real world finding anyone to do the SFI's job is hard enough but to kick out the guys who arguably have the most SFI time (3,000 hours in my case) would hardly be an incentive for those looking at an SFI job teaching on the AW189 or the AW 169, or for that matter the new generations of Airbus, Sikorsky and Bell machinery.
As the number of operational simulators grows so the difficulty of finding people who are capable of teaching in one of the most challenging of environments also grows. Those of you who have been less well served by incompetent (insufficiently trained?) SFI's will know what I mean.
A little more understanding by all involved would, I think, be appropriate. We may live in an imperfect world but that does not mean it has to be dysfunctional. Get the right people, train them well, treat them well and invest in a long serving and capable work force. I maintain, as you would expect, that I am just as capable of delivering a good TR course as a Gomer or North Sea veteran. It's OK for you to disagree but the reality is that simulators, when they begin working, will never be staffed by pilots with extensive operational experience.
G.
That mean that the simulator operators had to train up people with appropriate experience to take on the role of SFI and crack on with training hundreds and hundreds of new pilots as best they can.
During that period they acquired a unique blend of skills but these did depend on them having enough appropriate operational experience to 'lean on' during that period. It's easy to say in hindsight that maybe there were not enough SFI's with offshore experience but don't forget the AW139 has penetrated just about every market sector that could accommodate a medium twin.
Would those who are critical of SFI's (like me) who have just tens of hours on the real thing like to see us moved on so that those with 'operational experience' and hundreds of those operational hours - thousands even - can be brought in to replace us?
In the real world finding anyone to do the SFI's job is hard enough but to kick out the guys who arguably have the most SFI time (3,000 hours in my case) would hardly be an incentive for those looking at an SFI job teaching on the AW189 or the AW 169, or for that matter the new generations of Airbus, Sikorsky and Bell machinery.
As the number of operational simulators grows so the difficulty of finding people who are capable of teaching in one of the most challenging of environments also grows. Those of you who have been less well served by incompetent (insufficiently trained?) SFI's will know what I mean.
A little more understanding by all involved would, I think, be appropriate. We may live in an imperfect world but that does not mean it has to be dysfunctional. Get the right people, train them well, treat them well and invest in a long serving and capable work force. I maintain, as you would expect, that I am just as capable of delivering a good TR course as a Gomer or North Sea veteran. It's OK for you to disagree but the reality is that simulators, when they begin working, will never be staffed by pilots with extensive operational experience.
G.