The following was written while 902Jon posted - interrupted by a phone call
____________________________________________________________ __

I'd say some more than 250 hours in general aircraft handling and navigation should be required to fly a sophisticated multi-engine AIRCRAFT in the first place. So a couple of hundred hours VFR (as a flight instructor or other jobs - although nothing is really ideal to learn the ropes... catch 22) help taking the focus off from getting the wording on your next radio transmission right, to more important issues - but having to learn everything at once is just too overwhelming and I don't expect anybody to just suck that information overload up like a sponge.

Again, hearing all this "need 500 hrs offshore experience" (for what? flying straight and level? :p) and all that talk about the superior flying skills needed to fly offshore... that doesn't sound like the right learning environment to me?
...or maybe you are saying, that on-shore flying is at times as demanding as off-shore? :D

Both have its challenges:
- offshore: mostly weather
- onshore: mostly navigation & traffic
one could argue that rig landings are challenging (especially at night), but so is East 34th Street in New York with a 25 knot tailwind.

No axe to grind with the offshore folks, but this thread presented the opportunity to question the requirement in europe to have a certain amount of hours to fly corporate, but not for offshore (or airlines for that matter) - aside from insurance requirements that is. Offshore - as stated earlier - the co-pilot is a required crew member, needs to be familiar with all the complex systems and needs to be up to speed with everything to safely operate, meanwhile, in that fancy SPIFR aircraft onshore, he could just watch and learn with minimal workload required by him.


BTW: I asked a couple of friends who fly in the North Sea, what actually IS "offshore experience" and what makes it so special? Except for the weather challenges (those we have here to) I didn't get a definite answer...

Yes, but how much salary would he expect for the privilege of taking up what could be used as a passenger seat?

Btw, I would say that onshore IFR is very often more demanding than offshore IFR, not less so.

Enough to feed me and the cats :}

Like any "apprenticeship", those apprenticed don't expect to receive much salary, if training and experience are being provided. In many professions, this is how qualified people plan to replace themselves in retirement by investing their time and wisdom in younger trainees who can work their way up through a system.

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls,

I know what you're saying - I spent fifteen years instructing in the military... But a passenger revenue flight can't be a training flight too. Many corporate pilots aren't qualified to instruct. Aircraft owners are often not in a position to pay, or are reluctant to pay for a second pilot in a SPIFR machine and won't allow it to be used for training. A low hours co-pilot is likely to have to pay for his/her own type rating and IR. This will be the case until the bottom of the pool is almost dry.

(I hope you realise that I'm being devil's advocate here, but all the above is true, you could always ask Art E. Fischler-Reisen).

All very well saying give a low timer experience etc, but I go with the argument if you can afford a fair few mill worth of aircraft and the running costs of same, then the pilots should be a part of that cost, without a doubt. Any helicopter type is only as good as the person manipulating the controls. Put two people up front, suitably qualified on type, to minimise any risk. (That's not saying there are no SPIFR type guys out there doing a fantastic demanding job day in-day out)
Instrument flying can be demanding, offshore or onshore, (not getting into that argument again, its been done on here) but it's all same difference.

Like Whirls implied, a decent amount that reflects cost of living around base.
I have yet to see the CEO that would want to sit upfront... I guess for the fun of it, ok; but not as a regular passenger seat with a cozy 6 pax corporate interior in the back.

The co-pilot certainly needs to be typed in that machine too, so he is capable of flying that thing down an ILS, peace of cake. For the little extra expense, the bosses insurance has the benefit that somebody will bring the big man/woman back to terra firma if the Captain passes out...

Yes, if the co-pilot isn't type rated he can't claim the hours in any constructive way.

FAO Martin Grade
 

We operate a similiar-sized aircraft in a simliar-sounding role.
Feel free to get consultants to contact me if you wish - I might learn something - can I charge them;-)

Our corporate flight department evolved from boss deciding he could justify a fulltime pilot. That fulltime pilot soon decided that flight requirements (range/payload) required an upgrade from existing type - apart from his growing family needing 6-seats (that made it easier to decide!)

Operated out of spare room at home for a while - but demands of job and company PR (sponsors/business partners/investors etc) required more permanent base - especially as aircraft was moved to purpose-built location at Group HQ - thereby reducing Hangarage/landing/nav/atc fees.

We've just put our fulltime co-pilot through his IR and managed to recover 60% costs via 'train to gain' or some other government scheme.
Course qualified as it was not a 'legal' requirement - just enhanced his qualifications/made him a better person etc etc.
This was a bonus but he was undertaking the course anyway!

Although a 'low-time' pilot - intention was very much to develop him in 'company way'.

Enlightened owners like their layers of cotton wool and another pair of eyes in what can be a busy atc environment is considered an invaluable investment.

Captains appreciate same but also someone else to talk to and share fatigue!

We are currently in the process of producing a company ops manual (for pvt use) - another cost to consider perhaps? - although not a legal requirement at the moment - it will be in 2012......EASA Part-OPS

As far as pay goes - you'll get a pilot for 40k
and certainly an IR pilot for 70k
but suggest an offer of 85k (plus usual perks) will attract a pilot with suitable experience and character to look after passengers and aircraft in what can be a very demanding role.

I have found that lesser-experienced pilots tend to be more malleable by irate owners.....exactly what not is required in certain scenarios, I would suggest.

Experience/exposure also enhances decision-making and considering possible 'what-if' scenarios to get the boss where he needs to be and, just as importantly, when he needs to be there!

Operations staff/co-pilot can help with admin but are expenses to be considered. Do not under-estimate the admin side;-) time-consuming and intrusive if allowed to be. Good admin/ops staff are worth their weight in gold.

We currently share staff skills within larger Group - we 'own' 33% of an accounts clerk, 10% of a marketing person, 20% of workshop/hangar manager etc etc Lots of opportunities to take advantage of other skills within Group.

Maintenance overview and checking of their invoices will add to workload.......has anyone else noticed that invoice errors never work in your favour?????
First year of fulltime pilot was virtually 'paid' for by correcting invoice errors - FACT

Is aircraft to be based at an airport? Providing your own fuel can save you up to 30% -generally.

Appreciate you're after a 'sounding board' - further intrigued that someone gets paid for such consultancy - good luck to them!

Note to Diary - ask for re-write of job description - hang on - haven't written it yet!!

As is the way of the world - flight department could be redundant tomorrow - such is corporate aviation!

EESDL

Quite a good insight into corporate work.

You are right on the money as far as correcting invoice errors, almost every maintenance invoice we had was wrong in some way, one was a plausible 20K ended up being £250.

With regards to I was asked by a relatively inexperienced friend who was given a job flying day VFR corporate in a single to draw up 'How to be a corporate pilot' document. It had a bit in it that amounted to 'you have to be willing to stick to your decisions in the knowledge that even if you are right it might cost you your job', two years later it cost me mine, but I'd still make the same decision again.

The corporate world can be fickle and often principals just want to get there and if they think someone else might do it when you refuse (for whatever reason and however nicely or reasonably) you'll be gone in a blink.

I know of one talented pilot who was undercut by a fill in pilot and was gone by the end of the month.

The Train To Gain thing is handy to know.

GS

No brainer
 

EEDSL is correct and for once I agree with his points!

EC155 cost new 10M Euros, that's worth noting:

The pilot of this must have an IR, no ifs buts maybes.
He should have a co-piot, type rated and also with an IR

Annual cost of both: Captain £70k co-Jo £50k

If the above are not in the budget make it so or send the boss the last twenty corporate Heli crash reports from around the world. Yes two pilots can make errors and hit terrain but most of the time the dead rich man was being flown by a single pilot, or himself.

I have flown S76, Dauphin EC155 and lots of smaller things; To date, with 10,000 plus hours I've had a few good bird strikes, one even came in and joined me, I've had several near misses, even with TCAS, I have not had my heart stop yet but others have, I've gone 180 degrees wrong on an approach but lived, and flown 1000ft too low over terrain reading a chart over the alps at night when diverted through weather. All on my own, others haven't been so lucky.

Even if your pilot is the most ace of aces, and I doubt it very much if he doesn't think he needs an IR, then many other factors can strike down the lone driver. That is a risk you take with smaller ops but if your owner is worth more than a few million there is no excuse.