Ark et al,

Our local PAW is currently about 50% coppers become pilots, and the majority of them are totally competent and professional. They've done the hard graft just getting there, having paid for their own training and then racked up the hours and experience by coming to employers such as myself in their spare time (9 weeks leave a year, 'sob') to eventually be able to work their way into the pilot's seat.

They start with the AS350, and after a long and thorough apprenticeship, move on to the 365. Quite a few of the IF EMS captains are true plods who have made excellent pilots.

Back to the thread, they obviously have little or no twin experience before they are put out to work on the Dauphin, so I would join in and ask why the demand for 500 hours twin? The only answer I would offer is "because they can". If I had the choice of hiring a pilot who could walk straight into the job with minimal supervision, against one who would need a year or so of training and supervision, sheer commercial good sense dictates the experienced guy (or guyess) gets the guernsey.

Low time or non twin experienced pilots that I hire get the jobs suitable for their experience level. Once the experience is there, they get the "better" jobs. Hard to justify any other way of running a business.

Wow; this topic really stirred some feathers. I personally felt quite strongly about it and wanted to gauge the general feelings. As I suspected, most replies are full of common sense and logic with a little sympathy.
You'd be surprised, Thomas Coupling, how many people have said something about the "old boy network"
My whole point is; the qualifications required should involve some common sense, not just a figure that someone 40 years ago, pulled out of their proverbial.
Pinger repeated basically what I had said earlier, that if I went to the rigs for a couple of years or however long it took to get the time, my flying skills would have deteriorated dramatically. I can confirm that first hand; I have significant experience as an instructor, and as such have had the pleasure of teaching people from all around the world with varying levels of experience. some of the worst pilots I came across (as far as basic flying skills and knowledge are concerned) were oil rig support pilots, current in anything from bell 206 to 412 etc. I am 100% certain that a pilot with 2000 hours flying photography, film, powerline, landing on boats, survey and instruction, would be a much better bet than someone with 2000 hours of twin time, flying to the oil rigs. Obviously there would have to be some training involved, but isn't that the case whenever we change jobs to fly a different machine?
I'm just looking for some common sense. The company bosses will always want someone to be able to walk staight into the job with minimal training, I don't expect anything different, just an end to outdated regulations/requirements.
John Eacott, there should be more people like yourself.
I will eventually get the time required, but having done so, will I still want to fly for the police?
Thanks again all who reply.

And there was me thinking I had to be skilled to fly offshore!

Please don't take that the wrong way. It' a completely different set of skills out there for the rigs. I do appreciate that. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Fishboy,

Why do you want to fly the police around?

What do you think the job entails?

Fishboy:

I first have to say that I can understand your opinion. But I also have to agree with both Marco and TC. Military pilots generally have had the operational exposure of a similar nature to the para-military forces of which you speak.

BUT, I agree with you 100% that individuals should be judged on merit not connections. I have had the pleasure of flying with many young pilots with 1000-2000 hours and they can fly rings around many 10,000 hour pilots. This however is not what the CUSTOMER looks at.

You have to realize that the people in charge of making the money/HR decisions are not neccessarily AirOps people. They are generally bean counters that set policy based on economics. The basic economics here seems to be that the costs such as insurance are a big factor in setting experience requirements. And then there is the OBN. (Old Boys Network, for countdown's benefit). Ya know what I mean?

If certain individuals read this thread I'm sure they will comment that I'm sticking my nose in again, but I can't help myself! I'm just a dumb Canuk with some credible experience.

Cheers, and good luck!

OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

PS. TC, check out Beartrap Bouncers

Another relevancy item: A pilot with no military experience will probably not (at least if he has abided by the UK ANO) have been used to operating to the lower weather limits that the Police role requires.

This is especially true by night (when things often get busier).

Police Air Support Units are run on a very tight budget which comes out of the same public purse as everything else the force requires. There is little scope for training up a pilot who needs it. While the marketplace can provide enough pilots qualified iaw the present requirements, nothing will change.

Supply and demand. Market forces. Usual story, just like any other operation.

OK, OK, I'm not going to write any more on the subject. I'm sure there are arguments for and against any pilot. Probably a subject that couldn't be resolved. The only thing that everyone agrees on (myself included) is that the military pilot is better, financially speaking, for the job. As for flying in adverse weather conditions, not all pilots have been restricted to UK airspace.
Incidentally, I have trained a number of US police pilots, and was subsequently offered a full time position doing just that. Unfortunately I wasn't able to take the position at the time.
Thank you all again.