Logging hours as FO
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fohnwind;
Some are hiring pilots with 700 hours, that tends to be the day/fvr single engine end of the market. I would love to invest in new pilots, I do not have a profit margin that allows it. You may doubt my post, I am happy to prove the point and show you what we get from the key man insurers. Please pm me if you want.
Don't forget the key man insurers are taking the risk of what may happen to a multi-national company if the Chief Exec gets killed in an accident, not the hull and third party risks, the key man risks run into billions.
As for what you have heard, I've no doubts there are cowboys on-shore, and I certainly saw plenty off-shore.
As for 2 crew; the company either has full two crew procedures in the OM, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the clients know that it is two qualified pilots with one working as single pilot. Go through Wyvern clearance some time, and see how the audit process works. Its' expensive, but essential to fly a lot of the US market in Europe,
And finally, we don't own the aircraft, if the owners can save a couple of quid on insurance premiums they will, just as they whinge about pilot costs, anything to do with safety that costs, maintenace costs and hourly rates. I often compain that going back off-shore would lead to a fairly dull existence, knowing what I'm doing next month, but I would miss the challenge of on-shore, and despite your comments flying with some very highly motivated, professional aviators, in a small, friendly group.
SND
Some are hiring pilots with 700 hours, that tends to be the day/fvr single engine end of the market. I would love to invest in new pilots, I do not have a profit margin that allows it. You may doubt my post, I am happy to prove the point and show you what we get from the key man insurers. Please pm me if you want.
Don't forget the key man insurers are taking the risk of what may happen to a multi-national company if the Chief Exec gets killed in an accident, not the hull and third party risks, the key man risks run into billions.
As for what you have heard, I've no doubts there are cowboys on-shore, and I certainly saw plenty off-shore.
As for 2 crew; the company either has full two crew procedures in the OM, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the clients know that it is two qualified pilots with one working as single pilot. Go through Wyvern clearance some time, and see how the audit process works. Its' expensive, but essential to fly a lot of the US market in Europe,
And finally, we don't own the aircraft, if the owners can save a couple of quid on insurance premiums they will, just as they whinge about pilot costs, anything to do with safety that costs, maintenace costs and hourly rates. I often compain that going back off-shore would lead to a fairly dull existence, knowing what I'm doing next month, but I would miss the challenge of on-shore, and despite your comments flying with some very highly motivated, professional aviators, in a small, friendly group.
SND
212 Man, I don't think you've read my post. You quote the EASA definition. Yes, correct. But how do you defend automatically awarding P1u/s to an f/o for every one of his handling sectors - but handling sectors only (are command decisions only made on handling sectors? Shouldn't they practice command on non handling sectors too?) The Captain is specifically excluded from any form of supervision of this beyond the normal Capt/cojo supervision and is generally unaware that the f/o is claiming to have made any, let alone all command decisions at all!
But No! The CAA in their infinite wisdom allow a variation from that EASA definition where the Capt need not even be aware that the f/o is logging P1 time...and certainly has no say over whether to grant it or not. I certainly call that a CAA sponsored dodge though I sometimes think "fraud" would be more accurate. This fraud robs f/os of the opportunity to learn Captaincy and decision making. This now apparently occurs instantly as some sort of transfusion in Command training and is perhaps related to the fear some companies have that older Captains might seek to instil some of that subversive Airmsns.....Sh!t! I Nearly said Airma....Oh God!! you know, that subversive rubbish that we used to think essential in a safe aviator. And it would never do to have Captains instead of trainers coaching f/os in the niceties of the job, would it? Anarchy might prevail, and questioning SOPs!
I had one cocky little 200hr sprog on his very day on the line (double LON CDG in crap weather) ask how he should divvy up my 3 sectors to his one into P1u/s as he was entitled to sectors turn and turn about! Entitled!
I jest not.
But No! The CAA in their infinite wisdom allow a variation from that EASA definition where the Capt need not even be aware that the f/o is logging P1 time...and certainly has no say over whether to grant it or not. I certainly call that a CAA sponsored dodge though I sometimes think "fraud" would be more accurate. This fraud robs f/os of the opportunity to learn Captaincy and decision making. This now apparently occurs instantly as some sort of transfusion in Command training and is perhaps related to the fear some companies have that older Captains might seek to instil some of that subversive Airmsns.....Sh!t! I Nearly said Airma....Oh God!! you know, that subversive rubbish that we used to think essential in a safe aviator. And it would never do to have Captains instead of trainers coaching f/os in the niceties of the job, would it? Anarchy might prevail, and questioning SOPs!
I had one cocky little 200hr sprog on his very day on the line (double LON CDG in crap weather) ask how he should divvy up my 3 sectors to his one into P1u/s as he was entitled to sectors turn and turn about! Entitled!
I jest not.
Last edited by Wageslave; 22nd Aug 2016 at 22:46.
Wageslave - I thought I had to have the entry signed by the Captain to log PIC/US, are you saying this is not required under CAA?
From CAP804 - "all time recorded as SPIC or PICUS is countersigned by the aircraft pilot-in-command/flight instructor in the Remarks"
From CAP804 - "all time recorded as SPIC or PICUS is countersigned by the aircraft pilot-in-command/flight instructor in the Remarks"
Fohnwind. What on earth do you fondly imagine can divine about my CRM from calling a cocky little sprog a cocky little sprog? Read the damn post to see why he deserved to be called that will you, you cocky little sprog.
tipsock, For no-signature automatic (handling sector only mind...) P1u/s your company has to have approval from the CAA and this is given in conjunction with an approved command training system. You'd know if your employer had that, but in any case you are going to learn far more, far better from your line Captains over the years before your command using the traditional method than from a synthetic three day "command decisions" course. I think one reason big airlines dislike the proper system is that it instils Airmans..Oh! God, I nearly said it again! well, you know what it instils and the big companies don't like that as they see it as a threat to their rigidly inflexible SOP, automatics and magenta line training system that turns out identical, unquestioning, sometimes unthinking and above all obedient clones who all toe the company line because they simply aren't aware that there is another way to fly - ie by using your brain. It may sound odd to some of you in rotary where I expect that unmentionable "A" word is still regarded as important. In the big loco world that word and it's concept has been utterly banished for a decade or more - trainers never ever use it (I never once heard it used in the training environment in almost 15 years) - it is simply not considered the correct way to operate in SOP land. New f/os arrive on line not even knowing what the word means as they have never heard it before. Incredible but true.
Make the best of the good, working system you have to become a proper, thinking pilot and absorb the collective knowledge of your Captains.
tipsock, For no-signature automatic (handling sector only mind...) P1u/s your company has to have approval from the CAA and this is given in conjunction with an approved command training system. You'd know if your employer had that, but in any case you are going to learn far more, far better from your line Captains over the years before your command using the traditional method than from a synthetic three day "command decisions" course. I think one reason big airlines dislike the proper system is that it instils Airmans..Oh! God, I nearly said it again! well, you know what it instils and the big companies don't like that as they see it as a threat to their rigidly inflexible SOP, automatics and magenta line training system that turns out identical, unquestioning, sometimes unthinking and above all obedient clones who all toe the company line because they simply aren't aware that there is another way to fly - ie by using your brain. It may sound odd to some of you in rotary where I expect that unmentionable "A" word is still regarded as important. In the big loco world that word and it's concept has been utterly banished for a decade or more - trainers never ever use it (I never once heard it used in the training environment in almost 15 years) - it is simply not considered the correct way to operate in SOP land. New f/os arrive on line not even knowing what the word means as they have never heard it before. Incredible but true.
Make the best of the good, working system you have to become a proper, thinking pilot and absorb the collective knowledge of your Captains.
Last edited by Wageslave; 24th Aug 2016 at 17:56.
How does the language one employs affect the facts?
Fella, once again, try actually reading my post - that is actually reading it to see why a 200hr f/o demanding to be awarded P1u/s for sectors he hadn't flown and imagining he's entitled to sectors of is choosing was seen as a cocky little sprog. Entitled indeed!
Rest your case? Gawdelpus! You need a course in logic matey if you make assumptions on that basis.
It occurs to me to ask if you are by any chance that cocky little sprog?
Fella, once again, try actually reading my post - that is actually reading it to see why a 200hr f/o demanding to be awarded P1u/s for sectors he hadn't flown and imagining he's entitled to sectors of is choosing was seen as a cocky little sprog. Entitled indeed!
Rest your case? Gawdelpus! You need a course in logic matey if you make assumptions on that basis.
It occurs to me to ask if you are by any chance that cocky little sprog?
Last edited by Wageslave; 26th Aug 2016 at 11:15.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
We live in a world where Volkswagen make money by telling lies, where senior officials at FIFA line their own pockets, where governments do secret (illegal?)deals over tax with the major corporations. I have had to work with two FI's who were previously sacked for falsifying their logbooks yet are still employed as FI's with major players. Our world is no less corrupt than elsewhere so it's 'caveat emptor' when you run through the CV's as a CP. Sad but true and the declining efficacy of regulatory oversight is not helping.
G.
We live in a world where Volkswagen make money by telling lies, where senior officials at FIFA line their own pockets, where governments do secret (illegal?)deals over tax with the major corporations. I have had to work with two FI's who were previously sacked for falsifying their logbooks yet are still employed as FI's with major players. Our world is no less corrupt than elsewhere so it's 'caveat emptor' when you run through the CV's as a CP. Sad but true and the declining efficacy of regulatory oversight is not helping.
G.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't there a police 'pilot/CPL/IR' who made it all the way into employment and line training a while back (probably pre-NPAS) who had nothing more than a PPL and some falsified docs? I don't think they lasted long, but still....
Wageslave - thanks for the reply, seems to go against CAP804 but I suppose the CAA can give exemptions to it's own rules. Seems a crazy way to do things which would be prone to falsification.
