Piston Pilots Need Not Apply.
 

Goodmorning All,

I just wanted to open up the floor to a subject that has always amused me. After flying for a number of years in OZ I had accumulated a good number of hours in piston engine helicopters. The company that I worked for only operated piston engine machines. When ever I talked to turbine operators about work they always shyed away from " Piston Pilots." I know of many guys still there with thousands of hours in Robbys who cant get a start in a turbine machine. Then I head overseas for a change of scenery and I am considered a 3000 hr pilot. Not a 3000 hr piston pilot. I received a 206 and 500 endorsement in my first month with many other endorsements to follow. I have spoken to many pilots from home and they have all expressed the same opinions. So what is the excuse/reason? I believe there is a certain undeserved air to piston pilots. What are your thaughts?

It's a simple matter of economics - the turbines are more expensive to buy, and therefore more expensive to insure.

Owners generally negotiate a reduced insurance premium by agreeing to minimum pilot qualifications and or experience, for example...we have a CPL pilot with 2000 hours (+- 150 on B407 and about 40 on AS350B3), the rest mainly R44 with over 800 at night. This fellow is unable to fly our Jetty as the minimum requirements are 1000 Hrs rotary wing (no prob there) including 200 turbine (almost there) AND 50 on type! (Oops).

The low-time (PPL) owner is, however, on the policy and able to fly. (The insurer wouldn't bite the hand that feeds, would they?)

We are, of course, able to "name" our comm pilot on the policy too - with no increase in premium. The catch comes in the event of a claim - 5% (of insured value) added to the excess payable. The owner is not interested in footing the extra bill in the event of a claim - and the operator doesn't have to expose itself as there are enough pilots around to satisfy the demand.

I think to a certain extent in AUS it is also driven by the customers. Telstra(some sections)... 500 hrs turbine requirement Most contracts with RFS, DPI, National Parks, Rio Tinto etc will also have a 500 hr minimum turbine requirement. We have customers presently who stipulate a minimum of 1000 hrs turbine ??

Where does this come from ... Who knows ?? Some aviation expert/consultant somewhere I guess.

I have always put it down to the fact that in this country piston helicopters are mainly used for more basic or simple work...mustering excluded of course... and therefore with turbine experience comes broader general experience on a range of more demanding jobs. I'm not saying this is the case in every situation but I think in this country that would generally be the industry perception.

Hhmmm Interesting. I guess the insurance policies must be different for operators abroad. While we do have minimums imposed there is certainly no diferentiation between piston and turbine.

Overpitched,
More demanding than mustering?
Mate there's nothing more demanding than mustering..............'cept maybe hard IFR, but we're not really discussing that.

Oops. Sorry, reading to fast!...mustering excluded of course...

Sh1t... I could have sworn I said "mustering EXCLUDED of course" . No hang on that's would I DID say.

LLDL.
If you are going to argue with me could you please pick a topic that we disagree on... It's more fun... just ask my wife.

But now you mention it I thought the only requirement for you guys was that you were just a little bit smarter than the cows ????:p :p :p

And watching a pxxxd off Brahmin under a tree against a newey CPL up from the smoke, it looked like evens in the intellect stakes.