Who says there is no shortage of Helicopter Pilots?
 

One US based recruiting web site has four pages of job listings....99 separate entries that lists about 125 jobs for pilots in the United States and for International locations.

Someone convince me there is not a shortage of pilots.

Why do most Operators cling to the "Old Way" of recruiting while being confronted with such evidence the market now favors the Pilot and not the Operator.

Is it time for Operators to think outside the same old box in finding and retaining pilots?

I say so.
 

shortage of experienced pilots, quite possibly.
shortage of pilots, NO.

There are 6 guys that were on my course that dont have jobs in the industry at all but they are still commercial pilots. That was a few years ago now too. I think you will find most "pilots" are in a smilar situation.

Pilot shortage? Never happen.
 

I wouldn't make any judgments about a "pilot shortage" situation based on anything related to job posting websites or recruiting services.
This would be like asking an insurance agent whether you had enough coverage.
Call it the "Kit Darby" effect.
The fact is, there are a few more open positions today than in previous years. However, I wouldn't characterize that as a pilot shortage, rather I'd call it a "job surplus."
Several forces will soon act on the industry to correct this situation...among them fuel prices and/or availability, government regulation, and the inevitable results of competition in oversaturated markets. When this occurs it will be back to business as usual, i.e., ten qualified applicants for each position, instead of the mere two or three that we have now.
Pilot shortage? Not now, and under no imaginable circumstances. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade or ruin someone's fantasy or dream, but these are the facts and realities of the situation.

There are more than enough pilots in Canada, but too many of them have 100 hours.....

The shortage is in mid-range experience.

Phil

there are under a thousand helicopters in australia, most new helicopter purchases are for private owners.

there are under a thousand commercial pilots with current medicals, (casa website). this has been the case for a few years now

there are over 9000 people that hold australian commercial helicopter pilots licences. this number gets bigger every year.

in the words of professor julius sumner miller, "why is it so". :confused: :confused:

In utility work there always has been and always will be a shortage of EXPERIENCED pilots

i think there is a shortage of experience pilots because heli flying is so diverse , there is.... instruction, offshore, charter, long-line, AG, powerline, firefighting, IFR, stunt/movies, tours, EMS, police etc...

and there are also many different types of helicopters

put all this together and that's why there are hundreds of people with a CPL and 200 hours (because all you need to get that is time and money), whereas there are not many people with 2000 hrs, 700 night, 500 turbine, 300 IFR, NVG experience, and 300 hours on an S76 (for example)

it's the old problem of "you get no job without experience, but no experience without a job"

Sasless,
There is a shortage of pilots , but IMO there is even a bigger shortage of good companys to work for. I am a young guy, paying my dues, I have found most of these compnays are the same. Most of them havent figured out this isnt the 80's anymore. They all promise you the world and rarely follow thourgh. No one wants to pay for training!

I shopped for a better paying gig, found one then the owner started waffeling on the deal and the start date. He expected me to keep waiting for a job to start after giving me a start date months before that had now came and went. I wasnt going to wait until June they find out his drill job was still in court and all the other jobs for the summer were gone, I had already passed on lots of good oppertunity. I even offered to work in the hanger at the time of the orginal start date, but he was too cheap.
I opted to go back to the operator I worked for last summer for the following reasons= he paid on time, maint is good ( never pressure to fly if I thought somethign was worng), the CP backs me up anytime I need it ( to the point of screaming at the owner). The pay is substandard low ( the check out in the H and 12 makes up for it).. but is higher pay worth dealing with unknowns?

Lama Bear, you guys have been busy over there! They tried to move me twice but politics got involved. 41 days 6 hours of flight time! I am baking away in the sun over here!

Common theme seems to be, when they need you they really ( and will pay)do, when they dont, well too bad.

The one other thing I have learned is Desperation creates oppertunity!!

SAS looking at those jobs do you think if they paid what they are really worth they would still be unfilled?

RB

and that, my fellow pilots, is the $64,000 option.

There are very few good companies to work for because they have low attrition because they are good. It is the circle of life!!
These companies rarely suffer from "the pilot shortage". Particulalry when they are willing to train the right person.

Maybe there is a lesson in that somewhere?:8 :8 :8

..........and the company I work for is hiring as fast as it can, but can't keep up with tha attrition, thus lots of mandatory overtime for those of us still there, and still trying to squeeze us on pay and benefits.

Helicopter Pilot Shortage Coming?
 

The Morning News


Following the Vietnam War thousands of helicopter pilots trained by U.S. military forces landed jobs in the civilian ranks flying for an emerging air ambulance industry, offshore transport and utility maintenance crews. Today those pilots range from 55 to 60 years old and, according to Stuart Buckingham, director of operations for Air-Evac in West Plains, Mo., they are rapidly leaving the industry.

The Alexandria, Va.-based Helicopter Association reports more helicopter companies starting and expansion of air-ambulance and offshore transport at the same time dozens of seasoned pilots are retiring, further widening the gap.

"During that time we trained roughly 1,700 to 2,000 pilots per year. A major difference today is those pilots are being asked and given incentives to stay in the military for up to 10 years. Whereas, in the 1970's pilots who came home from the war went straight to the workforce," Howard Anderson said.


"The closest helicopter flight school to this area is in St. Louis. I wanted to bring this resource to the immediate area because it has not been previously offered here. I realize that the costs can be expensive but no more so than a complete college education," McAhren said.

The costs of acquiring a commercial license in today's market ranges between $35,000 and $50,000 -- or roughly $235 per hour.

So a number of pilot training schools have said there is a pilot shortage...:suspect:

Why would that be?:p

oh dear, here we go again. there was a thread on this a few weeks ago. articles like this just make people search for "helicopter training" on google, then rush off to a flight school, thinking that 1,000 hours of teaching people to fly around the pattern in a Schweizer gets you an EMS/north sea job with $70,000 salary.

yes, there is a shortage, but of EXPERIENCED pilots.

go to HAI and tell me there is a shortage. the place is rammed with over 250 students.

Tex-Air is now merged with ERA and operates under the ERA logo.

One fortunate young lady got hired by Tex-Air with 600 hours was it? That appears to have been a one off hiring.

This lack of experienced pilots is also happening in the UK how many of the regular faces that appear in their twin squirrels are about to face retirement without any young guys to take over.

It's funny, but you'd think people would be smart enough to discern the definition of "pilot shortage." It is *not* "a shortage of pilots with the bare-minimum credentials" but rather, "a shortage of qualified pilots.:ugh:

Minimum-hour requirements will only come down so far. I was amazed when EMS operators started hiring pilots with less than 3,000 hours; it was a floor I thought would never be violated. I was wrong. Nevertheless, the 1,000-hour floor will probably stand firm (he says, knowing that he's been wrong before).

The real issue that is never addressed when talking about a "pilot shortage" is: How do pilots gain the required experience to become employable? Obviously, being a CFI is "The Way"...right now, about the only way. Will that ever change? Hmm...I do not know. I do know that not everyone wants to instruct, and not everyone is suited for it.

More and more offshore companies are operating the S-92. The AW-139 will probably make some inroads too. If the offshore operators in the U.S. were smart, they would put all new-hires in these machines as SIC's, right? Ah, but there are "issues." Oil companies have certain minimum standards and qualifications for the pilots who fly for them. The current system virtually guarantees that an S-92 SIC will be nearly as qualified and experienced as the PIC. Strange, that. And pretty unnecessary if you ask me. But our helicopter pilot egos just bristle at the thought of putting a wet-behind-the-ears newbie in an S-92 when there are so many old-timers just itching to fly the latest-and-greatest, even if they have to take an SIC slot to do it.

And then really, how many "SIC slots" are we talking about? Certainly fewer per year than there are small-ship PIC positions opening nationwide. Not only that, but does serving as an SIC in an S-92 or even a 412 really prepare a guy to take the reins of an EC-130 or 407 as a sole PIC? Some would say no.

The helicopter industry is faced with our eternal dilemma: Where does the experience come from? In the past, pilots coming into this industry were already seasoned "journeymen" due to their military experience that exposed them to a wide array of challenging situations in a compressed amount of time. I don't think anyone here would argue that a 1,000-hour ex-mil pilot is the same as a 1,000-hour Robbie CFI in terms of overall training and experience. But the big question is: Can they do the same job with an equivalent level of safety?

I have said this before and will reiterate it here: If the accident rate starts creeping up and insurance rates go up commensurately, we will start to see helicopters parked by the end of this decade due to a lack of qualified, available crews. (In other words, I'm sort of predicting that we'll see a downturn in our industry soon.) The GOM operators may be forced to accept new-hire SIC's just to satisfy their own staffing needs, much less to supply qualified pilots to the rest of the industry.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next five years!

What'll happen in the next five years is the industry will wean itself off the easy (and wrong) reliance on minimum hours of experience as the qualification in itself. I've flown with new Thai copilots hired and trained off the street that were better at 600 hrs than many of us 10,000 hr old farts. There was no benefit to them to fly a thousand hours of circuits in an R22, just as the US military didn't require their pilots to do a thousand hours of H269 time to be qualified to then copilot a Huey. Someone mentioned the holy grail of 3000 hrs for EMS - again, I've flown with absolutely competent day/night/IFR captains in a multi-engine EMS operation that had no more than 900 hours of helicopter time. Nothing will get parked, more pilots that paid for their own initial training will get jobs with operators willing to invest in a proper training program for their pilots.

Helicopters are getting easier to fly too. Bush work used to be with old Bell 47's, manual throttle, problematic turbo's, skilled techniques like overreving a couple hundred to slingshot off a mountain pad. Of course in those days helicopter flying was only an endorsement to a fixed wing license and only took as long as it took to solo. At 300 hours you were an experienced pilot.

Even now, look at how much easier it is flying a 407 compared to even a 206. Or a 76 C+ compared to an A model. Navigation - the fine art of flying an LF range, an HSI compared to a drum DG, tuning old HF's and coffee-grinder ADF receivers... the list of improvements goes on.

Better equipment and a more appropriate and structured training - the same approach the military has that can send out 600 hr Seahawk commander to do a night winching of a ditched 61 crew that wouldn't let anyone with less than 5000 hrs sit in their cockpit.

malabo

There is the current rub....no investment by operators. They want the applicant to bring it all when they show up.

The effect of the post-Katrina/post-$70 barrel increase in GoM flight hours has been compounded by the loss of reservists called up for active duty.

I/C

i'll take a S.W.A.G at this one
 

(firstly imabell, or at least his better half are the one of the few who honestly told me to go away & consider a different career move - commendable advise, but post-license, elsewhere)

unfortunately the helicopter 'industry' is dominated at the front end by sausage-factory training schools who will willingly take your money , self perpetuating the cycle of oversupply of pilots, but barely a handful of jobs for the picking for a select few pilots ( & not necessarily the pick of the buch, just) those that are fortunate enough that favourable circumstances prevail. (& good luck to them)

what is missing are viable avenues of progression from 105>>500>>1000, that don't require the new pilots to stoop to slave labour. It has been so difficult for too long to get a start that a mere fraction of pilots have managed a starting role.

Had the industry invested in some (more) of these new comers, it wouldn't be in the predicament that it finds itself in now.

There is clearly not a shortage of pilots, there is a shortage of progression paths for new pilots. Pure & simple.

too many pilots today (with x000) forget where they came from, & sitting in the comfort of their flying jobs cast dispersions on the dedication & potential of the ones who try to follow. The path might not be so hard had not some predecessors done such a fine job of burning many bridges that served them so well.

I agree that the only pilot shortage is of experienced pilots. There is no shortage, and never will be, of newly-minted commercial licenses. Oil companies are mostly demanding ATPs for both captains and first officers now, and that is increasing, not decreasing, and demanding that both have at least 3000, often 5000, hours total time. There is a shortage of 5000 hour ATPs, but no shortage of 200 hour commercial pilots. How the newbies get the time is certainly a problem. Most of the pilots of my age got the time the way I did, being paid by Uncle Sam. Get 1000 military hours, and it's easy enough to get a civilian job.

Another reason the 200 hour guys don't get hired into copilot positions is that those of us flying as captains now don't want to be training captains, repeatedly having the pucker factor go offscale as a new guy tries to do a max gross takeoff crosswind over obstacles from a crappy offshore helideck. It's been tried, and the senior captains rebelled, and would again. Interestingly, the worst pilots for this are recent military escapees, used to having more power available than they need. Getting a loaded 412 off the deck takes technique and a smooth touch, apparently no longer taught at Rucker.

Offshore oil companies can demand whatever experience they want, but I've yet to see an oil worker walk on water to get to the rig. They will accept lower experience when that is their only choice. As an industry we haven't worked hard enough to convince them that experience is only one of several factors and is easily mitigated with better training and better screening. Anybody know 5000 hour pilots that still can't fly? I do. Oil company aviation advisors are usually pilots that know this too. It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons.

malabo

Real flying, for real experience.
 

I like the honsety! :D

We need to have programs that develop pilots into better pilots, not pilots into better hangar rats. :mad:

Personally, I am glad to work for the company that I now do, even if I'm only casual. I'm low hour, but getting experience in flying something other than just circuits.

"As an industry we haven't worked hard enough to convince them that experience is only one of several factors and is easily mitigated with better training and better screening"

Well said. There is a line beyond which customers should not cross and oil companies are way beyond it. And don't get me started on advisors.....

Phil

Personally, what caught my attention in the article that Heliport posted was that the operators were saying, "oh yes, it's expensive, but there are loads of loan schemes out there". As an outsider looking into the industry (I'm not yet a private pilot, let alone a working one), from what I can gather, the rotary world seems very much 'bring your own'. Which is a pity, considering the costs involved.

I followed up every lead on financial help I could find, came up dry, and am thus going slowly on the self-funded route; that said, I have an idea of where I want to go, so if a company offered to help out a bit, in exchange for spending additional time with them, learning their methods and picking up good habits from their more experienced folk, in exchange for an indentured contract at the end of it...well, lets just say it'd be a bit of a no-brainer. I'm not even talking about some poor company having to stump up a free ride for me - even a little bit of extra cash would be helpful! I'd also dearly love the opportunity to go flying with experienced pilots - I'm very painfully aware of how little I know. I'd also not say no to the chance to be an extra pair of hands for the mechanics.

My point is that it's no good complaining about the shortage of experienced pilots when you're not actually stepping in and doing something about it. Offer apprenticeships or 'work placement' type visits if you can't offer indenture-based sponsorship. Standing back and going, "oh, well, there's a way out there if you want it enough" might not be the best way forward. I'm also not sure that expecting prospective pilots to be hanger slaves for a year or three is the best idea - sure, learn the ropes on the ground as well as in the air, but if you've spent all that money just so you can sweep hangers and make the tea, well...

An interesting parallel is the IT / Tech industry - there are hordes of low-end qualified people running around out there (MCSEs, etc), who have a bit of paper, but no real experience. There are also a number of graduates (and post-graduates) about, fresh out of uni, looking for the elusive first job. Most employers are looking for experience - with the correct qualifications to back up said experience, sure, but the experience is the important bit. The difference is that employers in tech have realised that there needs to be a building of experience, so they take on some newbies with potential, and get involved in education. A concrete example was my university in South Africa, where the computer science dept was sponsored by Microsoft, to help out students with potential who would otherwise have struggled with the finance; on qualification, MS would come and chat to graduates, knowing that they'd had the opportunity to tell the dept the broad areas and skills that were useful to them as an industry.

As I said above, all this is based on my view looking into the industry from the outside. I have no direct personal experience of working in aviation, so this is pure opinion. Also, if there are any old-and-grizzled pilots who fancy passing on some wisdom in exchange for the odd free pint, just yell :ok:

Newbies will forever wonder how to break into this crazy industry and build time. But Gomer Pylot gives us in a nutshell why this will be so difficult: Airline/fixed-wing pilots don't seem to have a problem being mentors. Helicopter pilots do.

It's that simple.

That's because most "new" f/o's who show up for the right seat of an airbus or 747 have experience. They come from being captains or f/o's on other fixed wing a/c.
The candidates coming to an f/o seat in a two pilot helicopter may be brand new pilots ( 100-500 hr experience) or high time single engine/single pilot guys.
There is a HUGE difference in the CREW experience dynamic between fixed wing and helicopter.
DK

Gadget - Gomer - CY - Rotordog Et Al Well said!

I beleive that this discussion has significantly defined the true interpretation of the "pilot shortage" and what that means in human terms.

As a low hour pilot (lucky to get occaisional casual work) I have always always thought that the way to acheive a significantly more managable (and perhaps cost effective) appropraition of talent and man power would be to train and retain.

Another problem also occurs to me that many of what could be considered entry level training positions - say 500hr EMS/Polair/Oil IR Co-Jo go to people who have significantly more experience than that in any case. Yet these other high hour positions still need to be filled? Where? :confused:

The helicopter industry really is one that has a vast degree of separation from training to operation.

Call it what you want....when one of the big three in the Gulf of Mexico starts mumbling about hiring bonuses, cutting hours needed for hiring from their allied training school that tells me there is a shortage. The CEO has been quoted in print saying they cannot expand because they cannot get the aircraft nor pilots to man them. A second member of the Big Three, have also indicated they are having a shortage of pilots. Current contracts are being delayed because of the lack of aircraft and pilots. That outfit has stated publically they are looking to hire 100 pilots. A major oil company with its own organic fleet of helicopters anticipates hiring 10-20 pilots shortly and one can only wonder where they will come from. Another GOM operator has mandatory workover going on and has done so for over a year. That indicates they are having recruiting problems as well.

EMS operators have dozens and dozens of openings.....and do so on a continous basis. Again....they would not be running the advertisements if they were flush with pilots.

There maybe plenty of raw talent in the wings.....the question is how do we get them into the seat as working helicopter pilots. The current way of doing business sure is not the answer....it is what has gotten us into this pickle.



Anytime the operators and oil companies cannot fill cockpit seats....for whatever reason....that constitutes a pilot shortage.

Donut King:Nobody said anything about 747's, and hopefully nobody believes that "newbies" are put up as 747 SIC's. Actually, I was referring to the Regional Jet captains that are "forced" to put up with and mentor newbie copilots with bare commercial/instrument/mulit ratings. Works for them, it seems. I doubt that the average RJ captain doesn't let a brand-new SIC do an approach to a snow-slick runway at night, at minimums and with a hellacious crosswind either. Then again, maybe they do. According to most of you lot, fixed-wing flying is just an unchallenging bore!

Helicopter SIC's would have at least 200 hours, not 100. (I know, I know, big whoop.) Nobody is suggesting that such a pilot be considered qualified and competent to make challenging, max-gross takeoff's from a confined-area drilling rig. (I think the phrase is, "Um, I'll just do this takeoff. Watch and learn."). But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they could do just that: sit there and learn to do it over a period of time (800 hours or so?) while handling the controls on other, non-critical portions of the flight. But helicopter PIC's don't want to be instructors no mo'. BTDT! Bring your own experience, boy! I've got none of mine to spare.

I've seen it all my life. It's sad, really. And it's why I've never had a hankerin' to drive the big rigs.

Donut King.

You are almost right but not completely on your assumption that all the fo's at the airlines have the experience you talk about. At Icelandair and many other airlines, many of those fo's had from 250hrs & up under their belt mostly from instructing in a C-152 when they were recruited!

I think malabo got it just right when he said: "It doesn't help that we've worked hard to maintain an old-boys club recommending more and more hours for our own selfish job-security reasons."

Of course we need to have experienced pilots but how are the youngsters going to build the experience? Flying the circuit a thousand times or circling the Florida hills for a few years?

I guess the companies should develop a similar system as the airlines have around recruiting and training new pilots. The more experienced helicopter pilots might want to consider that they once were in the same shoes as the newbies and think a little bit out of their comfy box and take part in the training process.

If you give it a little thought that just the IR rating here in Europe costs around $40k it you shouldn't have to wonder why only a few do it to be eligible for a job as a co-pilot.

On of the problems the US offshore helicopter market has is immigration. It is easier to get rid of AIDS than to get a work visa in the US!

spot on
 

exactly

Why? - oh yes of course, they can actually get a start somewhere to accrue some hours/experience, whereas rotary pilots are exempt from this consideration...

seriously guys, if you have a low-time co-jo, is there any captain that is simply going to give over the stick first time & say "away you go". No of course not.

Along with the endorsement training, check rides, company ops induction training etc.etc. somewhere along the line information would undoubtedly be passed form check & training pilots to line captains how new 'pilotX' flies, what his deficiencies are, what his idiosyncrasies might be, what he does well, what he doesn't etc. & at this point, said captains can either begin to address the issue by taking the cojo under their wing & providing the required mentoring by working through these to produce a proficient line pilot & a good crew member.

maybe the first 1/2 dozen will be purely "watch & learn", but each time offloading something else onto the cojo to bring their situational awareness up to speed. "Yesterday we did QRS, today I want you to take particular note of XYZ", while the captain is flying the cojo has the time & space to nail the intracies & detail without massive stress factors from being overloaded, before you even consider letting him do a full take-off or landing...modular training, (divide & conquer) it's nothing new.

No-one is expecting that a 200 hour cojo is going to fly as well as a 2000>10,000+ hour captain... what we are expecting is that these captains provide the transfer of knowledge so that the experience gained is expedited, minimising risk & reducing the pilot shortage, by fast-tracking good pilot training (not basic flight school but all the additional areas already learnt the hard way by others) by sharing the experience.

I thought that you learnt something new everyday, some people seem to think they stopped learning a long time ago. You all seem to forget you were once a wide-eyed pilot with only 100+ hours...

group hug

If you want TRE's in the cockpit, hire TRE's. The problem is the companies are not willing to pay for more trainers. Nothing personal against new pilots, but put the blame the right place.

Real Hours
 

Do you think that because some pilots artificially inflate their hours, that it can be hard to see what 'real hours' means to a bean counter/insurance company and their ilk? A CP or check and training pilot can tell the difference when they go for a flight with the 'wanna be', but a bean counter knows no differnce on paper.

There is another thread comparing going straight into commercial work versus instructing for the first 500 - 1000 hours. Do the insurance companies look down on this and say 'That's not real flying, so we have to inflate the premiums to protect ourselves from 'medium' hour pilots who really fly like low hour pilots.'? (Their perception not mine! In Oz until 400 hours, I don't get the option.)

Imagine if an insurance company asked to see your log book and then contacted some of the previous operators/owners.

Just a thought.

Actually, I am in discussion with some underwriters on this very subject. They have expressed some concern that all they have to go on is hours, and we are discussing ways on how this can be improved upon.

At the moment, it is centering on how a 200-hour pilot can be made (mentally) into a 500-hour pilot, and how the cost of the training will be deducted from the insurance premium, but it could easily be extended into other areas.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

Phil

Who insures the Mil pilots? Even the Government has to have an underwriter. If they can insure a 200 hour pilot doing what they they do either in the bush or over water, in a single or twin, how can civvy training get similar respect? Could it go on the numbers of hours within the last 12 months as well as total time.

(No, I don't want to get into MIL V's CIVVY!)

But I don't get an insurance discount as a driver just because I'm in the police force and have done extra driver training. Do ex-Mil pilots get a discount on premiums in Civvy street? That is when you compare a civvy trained pilot with the same number of hours?

"Who insures the Mil pilots? Even the Government has to have an underwriter. If they can insure a 200 hour pilot doing what they they do either in the bush or over water, in a single or twin, how can civvy training get similar respect? Could it go on the numbers of hours within the last 12 months as well as total time."

You, my tax paying friend, are the underwriter for the military.

There are also plenty of companies self-insured, so they can take whatever they want. So basically when someone meets the part 135 requirements they could hire.

But the CP's don't want to take the risk of hiring a guy with low-hours and then lose a machine. Management will blame him. When he at least kept the company standards the CP might be in a better position.

CHC farm team
 

The canadian company Helijet International always gave the 100 hour wonders a break and helped them with their IR, granted the newbies started doing VFR during the spring and summer. After obtaining their IR they went into a serious autumn and winter with +/- 300 hours of SK76 time and handled the IFR very well. Most seem to go to CHC Global when they get their captancy. Regs have now changed and they need 250 hours to fly on the line with Helijet.

Excuse the ignorant wannabe ramblings, but it appears to me that shortage of experienced pilots is never going to be solved within the current framework of licensing due to the prohibitive cost of relevant post-CPL training. If the industry needs a stepping stone between the instructor and the off-shore or HEMS co-jo then it's going to have to create one.

Perhaps the answer might be for the governing authorities to look at the creation of a separate co-jo ATPL IFR qualification, instead of requiring the co-pilot to have attained the same level of qualifications as the experienced captain. Could this hypothetical interim qualification be largely simulator based to reduce costs? (Assuming simulators of sufficient high-fidelity exist.) Might there then be an incentive to reduce insurance requirements for co-pilots who are lacking the flight hours otherwise required but having done say 1000 hours in such a training system under a specific task-training programme, be it HEMS or off-shore simulation? And then after sufficent experience at this position the upgrade to full ATPL could be less onerous?

Maybe the on-shore single-pilot world could benefit from a similar system? Could insurance levels be lowered if a post CPL VFR simulator course of training be introduced that could go someway to gaining the experience of 2 or 3000 hour pilot without the full cost? I know the idea of so much simulation isn't popular with most (all?) experienced pilots, but how much of that is truly down to the limitations of the technology's future potential?

Si