To all you new cadets at ryan
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure its unfortunate flying turbo props, why would anyone fly one other than to avoid paying for a Jet Rating. In reality no one employs people with turbo prop experience, other than to put them back on another turbo prop, turbo prop guys basically clog up the skyS
Guest
Posts: n/a
sure its unfortunate flying turbo props, why would anyone fly one other than to avoid paying for a Jet Rating. In reality no one employs people with turbo prop experience, other than to put them back on another turbo prop, turbo prop guys basically clog up the skyS
Jobs for newbies on PTLs are just as rare as on jets.
Jobs on piston shakers are, at least in Europe and in the Middle East, non-existent.
Not even mentioning the ridiculously low payment a B200, Dash-7 or LET 410 First Officer could expect to earn, but:
The hours you fly on a turboprop are absolutely worthless when applying for a job on a jet. Nobody's interested in that. The requirement for newjoiners is usually something like "500 hours flown on glass-cockpit with a mtow above 60 tons".
The IFR-hours you might have on a Seneca are not even worth logging!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PugetSound
Age: 76
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective from one who did not choose to pay to fly
In 2000 I sold a successful consulting business and, being in my early-50s, decided to start the career I had once pursued and still dreamed of – being a commercial pilot. In 1967 I was part of the original UAL program that guaranteed me an FE or FO TRAINING slot IF I completed my PPL & Instrument license within a year. UAL would lend me the money for the PPL & Instrument licenses and I would repay it during my first five years of UAL employment. I was almost ready to drop out of my junior year in college and join United when my new draft number came up single digit. United could not guarantee me a deferment, even if I was in their program, so I stayed in school and kept my deferment through 1969.
Thirty-some years later I again decided to follow my dream. My consulting business involved lots of financial analysis and project management so I applied those skills to the cost of gaining my flying licenses and the necessary flight time to have a realistic chance of flying as a FO with an commuter or regional airline. I talked to many flight schools, instructor pilots, commuter and freight company pilots, and personnel departments. During the 2002 time frame it became very obvious to me that the industry was changing and there was little likelihood of my gaining a first officer rating on even a turboprop commuter without a very large outlay of money and time. And, the 2nd scale pay rates for new FOs did not allow recapture of the training costs in any reasonable time frame.
It seemed obvious to me that I was going to have to spend $40,000 - $50,000 USD to get enough time to realistically apply for an FO position. It was obvious to me that I would have to fly a lot of dark and stormy nights, small commuters, and do a lot of instructing to get to even a turboprop commuter right hand seat. Pay-to-Fly was not yet an option, threat?, and it certainly would have been another negative in my calculations.
My advantage was I could easily afford to spend the money and the time but the disadvantage was I was old enough that the starry eyed optimism of my twenties was no longer present. In 2002 - 2003 I could not see how the economics of purchasing a commercial license and flight experience could result in a net gain over an 15-year career. I still wanted to be a commercial pilot but could not make financial sense of that dream. I still do not understand how ab-initio pilots who must pay all the way thru their TR and even into their FO time can expect to receive a positive economic result.
I do understand the desire to fly but the economics of starting out as a young, low hour, heavily indebted commercial pilot do not look positive from any rational economic analysis.
Thirty-some years later I again decided to follow my dream. My consulting business involved lots of financial analysis and project management so I applied those skills to the cost of gaining my flying licenses and the necessary flight time to have a realistic chance of flying as a FO with an commuter or regional airline. I talked to many flight schools, instructor pilots, commuter and freight company pilots, and personnel departments. During the 2002 time frame it became very obvious to me that the industry was changing and there was little likelihood of my gaining a first officer rating on even a turboprop commuter without a very large outlay of money and time. And, the 2nd scale pay rates for new FOs did not allow recapture of the training costs in any reasonable time frame.
It seemed obvious to me that I was going to have to spend $40,000 - $50,000 USD to get enough time to realistically apply for an FO position. It was obvious to me that I would have to fly a lot of dark and stormy nights, small commuters, and do a lot of instructing to get to even a turboprop commuter right hand seat. Pay-to-Fly was not yet an option, threat?, and it certainly would have been another negative in my calculations.
My advantage was I could easily afford to spend the money and the time but the disadvantage was I was old enough that the starry eyed optimism of my twenties was no longer present. In 2002 - 2003 I could not see how the economics of purchasing a commercial license and flight experience could result in a net gain over an 15-year career. I still wanted to be a commercial pilot but could not make financial sense of that dream. I still do not understand how ab-initio pilots who must pay all the way thru their TR and even into their FO time can expect to receive a positive economic result.
I do understand the desire to fly but the economics of starting out as a young, low hour, heavily indebted commercial pilot do not look positive from any rational economic analysis.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please tell us what effort and energy you are putting in to improving this industry?
Apart from beeing member of Ifalpa, and my local union, I would really like to know what else can be done.
rgrds: Obviously ignorant and stupid, and then some
Apart from beeing member of Ifalpa, and my local union, I would really like to know what else can be done.
rgrds: Obviously ignorant and stupid, and then some
This is a public forum nor do i know you from a hole in the ground.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want to change it, make it a FCL that for Jet operations you must have 500 hours turboprop and for Turboprop ops, you must have 500 ME.
But of course, that could never happen....
But of course, that could never happen....
Indeed it wont happen/shouldn't because that would limit the industry and its growth even more.
A TP will again require a TR. Which will leave either the cadet having to pay up for it, or the operator paying for it and bonding the cadet to the operation for 'X' period.
Also, we simply dont have the TP traffic in the UK (or indeed the EU) that would provide the kind of pilot numbers that are required just for current numbers to be maintained, let alone for considering growth.
Another caveat to that, is that TP aircraft are still in the public transport sector, and the difference in public transport operations between a TP with no more than 19 seats and say a Dash-8 with 78 seats is ?
Then there is the consideration put forward of a 1500 hrs minimum for pilots going into public transport operations.
Again, in the UK (and EU) we simply dont have the levels of non-public transport GA traffic that could ever provide for the number of pilots required to maintain even a marginal decline, let alone to maintain current numbers let alone industry growth.
if you are being paid for your services as a pilot, carrying passengers or not, you will be required to have a commercial ticket. and if you have a commercial ticket, then a mandated level of minimum hours to use that is going to have to lead to some possible routes..
you pay for the hours to rent an aircraft and beat up the sky to get to 1500 hours. so, again you're paying to fly again, and just how many trips to le' touquet can one person do ? then, it will likely take a decade of weekend flying to get to that level of hours, and with the cost, then your back to having an established career to pay for it... more issues here.
Next is there any evidence to say that someone who has built up 1500 hours of weekend flying and beating up the skies out of controlled airspace is any more/less safe than someone who started out in the right seat of a commercial transport aircraft at 300 or 400 hours ?
Instructing ? likewise. The UK (and the EU) doesnt have the number of flight schools that could ever hope to provide the numbers.
Besides, the operational costs for flights schools is prohibitive in the EU. Look at where the 'big' flight schools send their students, take for example OAA... Phonenix AZ. The weather is more consistent and its cheaper.
Now if you're throwing 500 hours of ME time as requirement, it becomes even more problematic.
The answer to the conundrum is actually quite simple. While the number of issues and sub-issues thrown into the mix add another layer to 'the onion', more legislation and tinkering with the FCL's wont change anything a jot. More to the point, it will make things worse. That is not where the answer is.
What will change things is a simple change to allow the industry to be competetive, nationally, regionally and internationally.
Equally important, we need to allow growth not place a stanglehold on growth.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 49
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce,
As is often the case, I've just re-read my post and recognise that my last sentence probably comes across as sarcasm - I actually meant it in the literal sense....for many of the reasons you mention, limiting the route to "the airlines" in such a manner would be totally unworkable and fail to provide anything like a big enough stream of pilots to maintain the current fleets, let alone provide growth.
I don't know what the answer is, myself - but I do know that it's not really cricket to blame someone, anyone, for playing the hand that's dealt to them. I DO NOT advocate true P2F under any circumstances, but pretty much every single one of us thats gained the blue book in the last 2.5 years understands that if we can find a job at all, likely we'll be paying for at least the type rating, if not some form of line training as well.
As I think you said earlier, it's heartbreaking to see so many experienced crews treat the newbies with such contempt when actually it's the reality of the world that newly minted pilots are born into. Now i know many of the experienced crews will say that we should have known what we were getting ourselves into - well A) we did - at the time- but the subsequent economic slowdown was unprecedented in scale and vel[fer?]ocity which changed the landscape into which we emerged totally and B) Maybe so, but the same was true when you trained - but it didn't stop you did it? So why do you expect anyone else to act differently than you did?
My overall point however, was that I don't think many actually have a burning desire to fly jets and jets alone - it's the financial rewards that jets bring that cause that desire and further are necessary to provide any kind of economic sense to the investment, given the ever escalating cost of training.
As is often the case, I've just re-read my post and recognise that my last sentence probably comes across as sarcasm - I actually meant it in the literal sense....for many of the reasons you mention, limiting the route to "the airlines" in such a manner would be totally unworkable and fail to provide anything like a big enough stream of pilots to maintain the current fleets, let alone provide growth.
I don't know what the answer is, myself - but I do know that it's not really cricket to blame someone, anyone, for playing the hand that's dealt to them. I DO NOT advocate true P2F under any circumstances, but pretty much every single one of us thats gained the blue book in the last 2.5 years understands that if we can find a job at all, likely we'll be paying for at least the type rating, if not some form of line training as well.
As I think you said earlier, it's heartbreaking to see so many experienced crews treat the newbies with such contempt when actually it's the reality of the world that newly minted pilots are born into. Now i know many of the experienced crews will say that we should have known what we were getting ourselves into - well A) we did - at the time- but the subsequent economic slowdown was unprecedented in scale and vel[fer?]ocity which changed the landscape into which we emerged totally and B) Maybe so, but the same was true when you trained - but it didn't stop you did it? So why do you expect anyone else to act differently than you did?
My overall point however, was that I don't think many actually have a burning desire to fly jets and jets alone - it's the financial rewards that jets bring that cause that desire and further are necessary to provide any kind of economic sense to the investment, given the ever escalating cost of training.
Last edited by clanger32; 10th Jun 2010 at 09:43.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce - couldn't agree more.
As to the experience or otherwise built up in 1500 hours of GA flying, I think you're spot on. Some people may indeed do something useful in that time, but the majority do not seem to.
When I finished my fATPL training, I would have quite liked to have worked for a TP operator - but guess what? Very, very few of them wanted any pilots. The ones that did, offered pay that would literally barely cover the rent. So I took the un-welcome step of paying for a Self Sponsored TR with Ryanair. After tax relief and a VAT refund, the cost was somewhere North of £13,000. Certainly nowhere near the 30k that is the standard quote if you talk to the likes of G S Willy. Yes there was an initial period that was quite financially tough, but by the end of the first year I was already up on what I would have earned with Flybe, for example. So who is really paying to fly? Not me. People are very quick to criticise the "pay to fly culture" of some operators, but their schemes are no worse than the pittances being offered by some airlines that "pay for your type rating". We all pay one way or the other. And forever it shall be...
As to the experience or otherwise built up in 1500 hours of GA flying, I think you're spot on. Some people may indeed do something useful in that time, but the majority do not seem to.
When I finished my fATPL training, I would have quite liked to have worked for a TP operator - but guess what? Very, very few of them wanted any pilots. The ones that did, offered pay that would literally barely cover the rent. So I took the un-welcome step of paying for a Self Sponsored TR with Ryanair. After tax relief and a VAT refund, the cost was somewhere North of £13,000. Certainly nowhere near the 30k that is the standard quote if you talk to the likes of G S Willy. Yes there was an initial period that was quite financially tough, but by the end of the first year I was already up on what I would have earned with Flybe, for example. So who is really paying to fly? Not me. People are very quick to criticise the "pay to fly culture" of some operators, but their schemes are no worse than the pittances being offered by some airlines that "pay for your type rating". We all pay one way or the other. And forever it shall be...
Last edited by D O Guerrero; 10th Jun 2010 at 10:21.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Guys this isn't hard to find. I lifted it straight from the Dragonair website.
So your assertions that T/P hours are completely useless are completely wrong.
So for a free Q400 type rating and a 3 year bond you'd have close to the required number of hours for Dragonair.
Not a bad investment considering it wont cost you anything.
At least 3000 hours total, including either 500 jet hours or 1000 multi engine turbo prop hours in command of a multi crew operation;
So for a free Q400 type rating and a 3 year bond you'd have close to the required number of hours for Dragonair.
Not a bad investment considering it wont cost you anything.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hours you fly on a turboprop are absolutely worthless when applying for a job on a jet. Nobody's interested in that. The requirement for newjoiners is usually something like "500 hours flown on glass-cockpit with a mtow above 60 tons".
The IFR-hours you might have on a Seneca are not even worth logging!
The IFR-hours you might have on a Seneca are not even worth logging!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here we are 'rounding on each other' all so some chav, with an ear ring, can get a subsidized holiday in alicante!
Quintessentially, it will prove nearly impossible to earn a realistic living performing a functions others will pay to do for fun!
Quintessentially, it will prove nearly impossible to earn a realistic living performing a functions others will pay to do for fun!
MIke Hammer.
Your post is a sobering and fascinating one - especially when taken in conjunction with several others. That airline managements appear not to value turboprop experience, and that that appears also to be backed up by the views of one or two on here, is appalling, if correct.
I think you are all explaining, rather more clearly than you might wish, one of the major challenges in the airline industry today and why we see what may be an increasing trend towards eincidents and accidents involving lack of what I would describe as basic 'situational awareness and basic airmanship. The sort of, frequently somewhat defensive, thinking that can only come from extensive real world experience.
Since the turboprop drivers are more often down in the dirty stuff and do more sectors, possibly in more challenging conditions on average, their experience ought to hold them in very good stead. That management seems not to understand that is worrying.
I think back to the old days of Air Anglia on the EAST Coast run in the UK. Those F27 pilots earned their pay and were super aircraft handlers, mostly becuase they had to be. Confidence inspiring on bad winter's nights as SLF.
I take nothing way from 'pure' jet pilots - the best are superb, and it has its major challenges too. However I strongly feel that the more areas of flying you experience and understand, the better a pilot you are likely to be.
To the original poster - good luck & apologies for hi-jacking the thread's original purpose. It sounds a difficult and expensive, high risk path you comtemplate.
Your post is a sobering and fascinating one - especially when taken in conjunction with several others. That airline managements appear not to value turboprop experience, and that that appears also to be backed up by the views of one or two on here, is appalling, if correct.
I think you are all explaining, rather more clearly than you might wish, one of the major challenges in the airline industry today and why we see what may be an increasing trend towards eincidents and accidents involving lack of what I would describe as basic 'situational awareness and basic airmanship. The sort of, frequently somewhat defensive, thinking that can only come from extensive real world experience.
Since the turboprop drivers are more often down in the dirty stuff and do more sectors, possibly in more challenging conditions on average, their experience ought to hold them in very good stead. That management seems not to understand that is worrying.
I think back to the old days of Air Anglia on the EAST Coast run in the UK. Those F27 pilots earned their pay and were super aircraft handlers, mostly becuase they had to be. Confidence inspiring on bad winter's nights as SLF.
I take nothing way from 'pure' jet pilots - the best are superb, and it has its major challenges too. However I strongly feel that the more areas of flying you experience and understand, the better a pilot you are likely to be.
To the original poster - good luck & apologies for hi-jacking the thread's original purpose. It sounds a difficult and expensive, high risk path you comtemplate.
Ryanair.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.S. Willy
no you just proved conclusively, you're an idiot.
1. you disregarded more than 50% of the post, namely this
and
2. despite it being specifically pointed out to you, you cannot comprehend
*plonk*
quote:
"yes. i can. however i wont."
Called your bluff then.
"yes. i can. however i wont."
Called your bluff then.
1. you disregarded more than 50% of the post, namely this
This is a public forum nor do i know you from a hole in the ground.
2. despite it being specifically pointed out to you, you cannot comprehend
This is a public forum nor do i know you from a hole in the ground.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty,
your post here :
and EGCC's comment of
Rather makes the point of "a free TR and a 3 year bond to dragoinair" being a moot point.
Dragonair isnt in the EU first off and if anything it supports the alternative position. Considering they specify 500 hours jet time or 1000 hours of command time in a TP. Indicates the difference in perspective. 500 hours in the right seat is equatable to 1000 hours of TP time in the left seat. go figure.
now if we consider mike hammer's assertion..
So if anything your assertion destroys the non-P2F route.
With offers out there of 500 hours P2F time, that would get you in the 'interested' pile of C.V.'s / Resumes in Dragonair recruitmentm yet mike hammer, with a number of years and hours of TP flying, with no sign of a captaincy on the horizon would get his C.V./Resume in the bin, even if he did have a visa to live and work in China, and converted his licence over with the associated cost implications.
when we consider tacoma's closing point..
clanger's point is driven home by his closing comment of:
so, going back to my original point in this thread. i am disgusted, flatly phyiscally disgusted by the snorting, guffawing and sanctimony of pilots who are flying the line, building seniority, that got a paid TR, back ibn the day, at the frankly sh!t career potential that the news have, having to cough up for a TR themselves, with a summer contract position and no guarantees.
Any airline, no matter how big its fleet can go Tango Uniform in a very short space of time, its happened before and it will happen again and anyone could find themselves back looking for a flight deck position.
your post here :
Guys this isn't hard to find. I lifted it straight from the Dragonair website.
Quote:
At least 3000 hours total, including either 500 jet hours or 1000 multi engine turbo prop hours in command of a multi crew operation;
So your assertions that T/P hours are completely useless are completely wrong.
So for a free Q400 type rating and a 3 year bond you'd have close to the required number of hours for Dragonair.
Not a bad investment considering it wont cost you anything.
Quote:
At least 3000 hours total, including either 500 jet hours or 1000 multi engine turbo prop hours in command of a multi crew operation;
So your assertions that T/P hours are completely useless are completely wrong.
So for a free Q400 type rating and a 3 year bond you'd have close to the required number of hours for Dragonair.
Not a bad investment considering it wont cost you anything.
COMMAND? Does this just apply to TP Captains then
Dragonair isnt in the EU first off and if anything it supports the alternative position. Considering they specify 500 hours jet time or 1000 hours of command time in a TP. Indicates the difference in perspective. 500 hours in the right seat is equatable to 1000 hours of TP time in the left seat. go figure.
now if we consider mike hammer's assertion..
When I finally got a turboprop job my salary was under £20,000 (I was more than happy at the time of course!) whilst my former training colleagues were earning towards £50,000. As captain one of them now earns over £90,000, whereas I get £25,000 with no sign of captaincy on the horizon.
With offers out there of 500 hours P2F time, that would get you in the 'interested' pile of C.V.'s / Resumes in Dragonair recruitmentm yet mike hammer, with a number of years and hours of TP flying, with no sign of a captaincy on the horizon would get his C.V./Resume in the bin, even if he did have a visa to live and work in China, and converted his licence over with the associated cost implications.
when we consider tacoma's closing point..
the economics of starting out as a young, low hour, heavily indebted commercial pilot do not look positive from any rational economic analysis
it's the financial rewards that jets bring that cause that desire and further are necessary to provide any kind of economic sense to the investment, given the ever escalating cost of training.
so, going back to my original point in this thread. i am disgusted, flatly phyiscally disgusted by the snorting, guffawing and sanctimony of pilots who are flying the line, building seniority, that got a paid TR, back ibn the day, at the frankly sh!t career potential that the news have, having to cough up for a TR themselves, with a summer contract position and no guarantees.
Any airline, no matter how big its fleet can go Tango Uniform in a very short space of time, its happened before and it will happen again and anyone could find themselves back looking for a flight deck position.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Batman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with grandiose delusions.
Grandiosity is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.[1]
It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view other with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.[2]
Grandiosity is distinct from grandiose delusions, in that the sufferer has insight into his loss of touch with reality (he is aware that his behavior is considered unusual).[citation needed]
[edit] Narcissistic criteria for grandiosity
The grandiosity section of the Diagnostic Interview for Narcissism (DIN) (Second edition) is as follows:[3]
I am sure you had a hard time choosing between Bruce Wayne, and Clark Kent when you decided what superhero you wanted to be
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with grandiose delusions.
Grandiosity is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.[1]
It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view other with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.[2]
Grandiosity is distinct from grandiose delusions, in that the sufferer has insight into his loss of touch with reality (he is aware that his behavior is considered unusual).[citation needed]
[edit] Narcissistic criteria for grandiosity
The grandiosity section of the Diagnostic Interview for Narcissism (DIN) (Second edition) is as follows:[3]
- The person exaggerates talents, capacity and achievements in an unrealistic way.
- The person believes in her/his invulnerability or does not recognise his/her limitations.
- The person has grandiose fantasies.
- The person believes that he/she does not need other people.
- The person regards himself/herself as unique or special when compared to other people.
- The person regards himself/herself as generally superior to other people.
- The person behaves self-centeredly and/or self-referentially.
- The person appears or behaves in a boastful or pretentious way.
I am sure you had a hard time choosing between Bruce Wayne, and Clark Kent when you decided what superhero you wanted to be