Just my thoughts; but how long have we been using the system that is in place today. Excellent pilots have been and are continuing to be turned out everyday, so something has to be working right. Now don't get me wrong there is always room for improvements but to add on another 50hrs to the course just so the student can walk out the door with $20,000.00 less in his/her pocket doesn't compute with me. Is that extra time really going to make him/her that much more attractive to an employer; I doubt it. What that student really needs is the operational experience that you all talk of, ops gear, radios, NAV, etc. Where and who has those resources readily available; the charter companies. A program needs to be inducted with the companies where the students will receive the real operational experience that will benefit them and the industries customers. Now how the companies would benefit financially or how one would implicate something to that nature is beyond me, but just to add more time to the initial ticket, I feel would be a waste of finances. Again, my opinion only. 🙂
Is 35 Hours Solo Realistic
- Thread starter Chopper_Stew
- Start date
Fully Articulated
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I believe they have less.graunch1 said:
Chopper_Stew
Newbie
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
In theory, military pilots should have less accidents based on the rigorous selection process. Weak candidates can be weeded out at any stage of the game. St Jean through flight time, those who can't meet the standard are uncerimoniously removed from the course. Civilian flight schools don't have near the flexibility or pool of students to "just say no". Thus only the best make it out of flight training in the military while civilian pilots who fail to acheive the standard the first time around just pay more cash until they do
Although a handful of less than satisfactory graduates MAY get into the industry, Chopper Stew, you won't find them in the majority of companies. Look at the number of graduates still looking, or having given up, and tell me how many of the less satisfactory ones you think get jobs. And DON'T hear that, just because some are looking for jobs, I think they're all sub-standard. It's just that MOST of the cream does rise to the top. 🙄
And, HBG, two or three decades ago the industry, with the assistance of ATAC, was able to pry out government (public) money for just the kind of upgrading you're talking about - after a lengthy fight by a small but determined handful. The industry crapped in its own nest (even my own company at the time) by misusing the funds for such things as IFR training for well-experienced VFR pilots. If it's in my memory, it's in others, so don't hold your breath until government ponies up meaningful bucks again. :wacko:
And Phil (Albert Ross), don't shoot too high with that plan. You can only cram so much sand into a bottle. This critter's opinion is that much better understanding of ALL emergencies likely to befall a single-engine machine is required in new graduates. Many arrive with minimal understanding of LTE, for example, and confused about vortex ring and settling with power. Then, detailed information on slinging procedures and rigging is almost always in short supply. We're in such a damned hurry to get longlining we forget to let the new folks get a good handle on the basics - sound basics. B)
Lastly, Fully Articulated, I think 407D would agree with me that the side discussion you're into is easily one of the best examples of comparing apples to oranges you can find. Having been deep into both sides of the fence, I'm satisfied that each has much to be admired and the things that aren't admirable definitely AREN'T in the control of the boys and girls at the sticks. 🙁
And, HBG, two or three decades ago the industry, with the assistance of ATAC, was able to pry out government (public) money for just the kind of upgrading you're talking about - after a lengthy fight by a small but determined handful. The industry crapped in its own nest (even my own company at the time) by misusing the funds for such things as IFR training for well-experienced VFR pilots. If it's in my memory, it's in others, so don't hold your breath until government ponies up meaningful bucks again. :wacko:
And Phil (Albert Ross), don't shoot too high with that plan. You can only cram so much sand into a bottle. This critter's opinion is that much better understanding of ALL emergencies likely to befall a single-engine machine is required in new graduates. Many arrive with minimal understanding of LTE, for example, and confused about vortex ring and settling with power. Then, detailed information on slinging procedures and rigging is almost always in short supply. We're in such a damned hurry to get longlining we forget to let the new folks get a good handle on the basics - sound basics. B)
Lastly, Fully Articulated, I think 407D would agree with me that the side discussion you're into is easily one of the best examples of comparing apples to oranges you can find. Having been deep into both sides of the fence, I'm satisfied that each has much to be admired and the things that aren't admirable definitely AREN'T in the control of the boys and girls at the sticks. 🙁
Two or three decades ago!! They had helicopters back then?? Just kidding of course. 😛 Wasn't really thinking of government funding, with as many crooked operators out there that would be pure suicide for the program as it was in the past I am guessing. Just saying that if extra money is going to be spent by the student, it should maybe be spent with a company instead of the school, kind of like an apprenticeship for 25 or 50hrs. That way the student gets some much needed operational experience and the company has a chance to look at the student for possible employment without sinking a bunch of money into a guy who turns out to be a bone head, as there are many of those still getting there licences as well, although they usually get weeded out but not before they cost one or two companies some money. Then those companies are usually pretty hesitant to give a 100hr wonder a chance again. All that said, it really comes down to survival of the fittest. And the fittest usually prevail. 
Albert Ross
Advanced
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks, downwash, your comments are noted - I had a conversation with another operator about this recently, and "advanced basics" is one thing I am looking at seriously - his own comment was that a lot of pilots seem to have been taught the trick of getting out of a clearing with a circular takeoff technique, but if you bank too steeply, the lift vector is shortened anyway. I'm sure the panel could think of many more examples.
Operational stuff will be included, though
Phil
Operational stuff will be included, though
Phil
Returning to the original subject, my early flying and my later instructing brought me to a point of view I still hold fairly strongly. There is definitely benefit to be gained from solo flight, but there comes a point in a fledgling's training when the 'fleshing out' of basics (as proposed by 'Albert Ross') is probably of more advantage.
Without exception, pilots I trained, once satisfied by enough solo to believe that they were budding chopper aces, were much more keen on 'rounding out' their knowledge and understanding, and having even greater awareness of, and respect for, the things that could bite them.
And, 'Albert Ross,' I hope I'm not alone in thinking that sling training is probably the next thing to 'basic' for the huge majority of operators (although I clearly remember tons of frustration in the Army, not having a hook and being employed in both military and civil roles with such a ridiculously limited capability). IOW, isn't slinging knowledge as close to elementary as you can get? IMOH the present Commercial standard is more like what a Private licence should entail, and the suggested addition of 50 hours for a Commercial ticket is highly desireable.
I'm still racking my tired brain as to how to deal with the added cost, but maybe it would at least have the advantage of thinning out future ranks of unemployed (including unemployable) graduates. Some may shudder at the idea of involving the military, but mightn't there be some merit in giving commercial pilot candidates meeting military standards a 'reserve' status (perhaps akin to the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Program) which would underwrite part, if not all, of the cost in return for so many years of availability for part-time or full-time service? I admit I haven't thought that one all the way through yet, but it might bear exploring. Isn't this thread a kind of brainstorming topic, after all?
P.S. Kyle, if you're watching, it seems the 'clickable smilies' are out of service again. :down:
Without exception, pilots I trained, once satisfied by enough solo to believe that they were budding chopper aces, were much more keen on 'rounding out' their knowledge and understanding, and having even greater awareness of, and respect for, the things that could bite them.
And, 'Albert Ross,' I hope I'm not alone in thinking that sling training is probably the next thing to 'basic' for the huge majority of operators (although I clearly remember tons of frustration in the Army, not having a hook and being employed in both military and civil roles with such a ridiculously limited capability). IOW, isn't slinging knowledge as close to elementary as you can get? IMOH the present Commercial standard is more like what a Private licence should entail, and the suggested addition of 50 hours for a Commercial ticket is highly desireable.
I'm still racking my tired brain as to how to deal with the added cost, but maybe it would at least have the advantage of thinning out future ranks of unemployed (including unemployable) graduates. Some may shudder at the idea of involving the military, but mightn't there be some merit in giving commercial pilot candidates meeting military standards a 'reserve' status (perhaps akin to the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Program) which would underwrite part, if not all, of the cost in return for so many years of availability for part-time or full-time service? I admit I haven't thought that one all the way through yet, but it might bear exploring. Isn't this thread a kind of brainstorming topic, after all?
P.S. Kyle, if you're watching, it seems the 'clickable smilies' are out of service again. :down:
Im just too damn curious.Why does it take three people to land a Bell medium in the Canadian Military.One pilot flying,one pilot looking out to the left and front and lastly one enginer looking out the sliding door on the pilots side yet to call out height and look at the tailrotor?Lack of training or lack of confidence.Just curious,and wanted to stir the pot with the military...............Mini
Auto Relight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
After recently completing the training, I think that the content is the problem, not the amount of flight time. That goes double for the written exam.
In FW, it's even worse. 200hrs of burning holes in the sky, often witrh no clear objective and a curriculum that is tailored to Westjet and not the first bug-smasher job. The average student isn't completing a flight test in 100hrs anyway, so if more time was spent in confineds, slinging, and some mountain flying, as opposed to doing cross-country trips with drift lines and E6B's, then we might start producing pilots with some knowledge to work with and build on.
Do any of the schools represented here teach how to fuel out of drums, use a GPS, Sat. Phone, low-level finger-on-the-map map reading, customer relations(tips on how to deal with and keep) etc.? These are the things sorely lacking in today's new pilot. The hands and feet of flying will come with time, all the other intangables are what is missing the most. Just curious.
AR
In FW, it's even worse. 200hrs of burning holes in the sky, often witrh no clear objective and a curriculum that is tailored to Westjet and not the first bug-smasher job. The average student isn't completing a flight test in 100hrs anyway, so if more time was spent in confineds, slinging, and some mountain flying, as opposed to doing cross-country trips with drift lines and E6B's, then we might start producing pilots with some knowledge to work with and build on.
Do any of the schools represented here teach how to fuel out of drums, use a GPS, Sat. Phone, low-level finger-on-the-map map reading, customer relations(tips on how to deal with and keep) etc.? These are the things sorely lacking in today's new pilot. The hands and feet of flying will come with time, all the other intangables are what is missing the most. Just curious.
AR
Pitchlink said it well near the start, as did some others, that the content needs some improvement as does standardization of the syllabus. So many schools just teach a student how to fly, and few learn the extras. I've had a student fresh out of a Commercial program that did only one hour of full-ons,and had never slung or refuelled his own aircraft. Any extras help to say the least, it would be great to see all schools give the same operational content. Look at what Canadore used to offer compared to CHC at Buttonville. NO offence to anyone but the extras the Canadore folks got were in a large part due to geography and aircraft type.
As for Winnie saying flying circuits is a waste of money, you're right , it is after a student is proficient. So, add something to your syllabus - solo can include slinging, bucketing, float training, etc, etc. Go build some log pads, students love to be involved in that kind of thing!
The 35 hour thing is a tough nut to crack. Some students progress so well it is not a problem to do the ride at 75 hours, while others are weaker and the course gets longer to complete the solo requirement.
I think Phil has a good idea in the advanced training deal but cost is such a killer, how will it ever be affordable?
How about getting rid of or reducing the IF training time and mandating low vis training and slinging/bucketing?
Any thoughts?
As for Winnie saying flying circuits is a waste of money, you're right , it is after a student is proficient. So, add something to your syllabus - solo can include slinging, bucketing, float training, etc, etc. Go build some log pads, students love to be involved in that kind of thing!
The 35 hour thing is a tough nut to crack. Some students progress so well it is not a problem to do the ride at 75 hours, while others are weaker and the course gets longer to complete the solo requirement.
I think Phil has a good idea in the advanced training deal but cost is such a killer, how will it ever be affordable?
How about getting rid of or reducing the IF training time and mandating low vis training and slinging/bucketing?
Any thoughts?
R22Captain
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree the training should be changed. Not total flight time but definatly in op's training. I very recently completed my training. I did a conversion from my fixed wing lisence and did my flight test at around 65 hours. I haven't yet jumped the bridge to my first flying job (ground crew for this summer) but can definatly see where there are large holes in the training sylabus.
I fully agree T5 that that IF requirments should be changed to some sort of low vis ops training. Flying around for 5 hours with the foggles (sp?) on isn't going to save your ass. I'm certainly no pro, but I have my FW IFR and have a few hours actual and 30 hours of hood time doesn't prepare you for 1/2 mile in fog.
I can go on and on.....
I fully agree T5 that that IF requirments should be changed to some sort of low vis ops training. Flying around for 5 hours with the foggles (sp?) on isn't going to save your ass. I'm certainly no pro, but I have my FW IFR and have a few hours actual and 30 hours of hood time doesn't prepare you for 1/2 mile in fog.
I can go on and on.....
Albert Ross
Advanced
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2003
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Like downwash, things have not been fully thought through yet, but I am definitely more than a third of the way to what I want to do. It wouldn't be just for newbies, either - the average European pilot, regardless of experience (except Brit Army) would be more or less lost as well.
As for cost - well, I have noticed that even the more disreputable companies are willing to spend $50K upwards on mountain courses - what I propose wouldn't cost anywhere near that much, but I'm trying to get it offset by a reduction in insurance of more than the cost of the course, aside from another pilot being more imeediately productive. Also, I will be using the flyit simulator for the PDM and a lot of other stuff, and it will be residential in an oil-camp type of place, so you have to keep taking your shoes off
Phil
As for cost - well, I have noticed that even the more disreputable companies are willing to spend $50K upwards on mountain courses - what I propose wouldn't cost anywhere near that much, but I'm trying to get it offset by a reduction in insurance of more than the cost of the course, aside from another pilot being more imeediately productive. Also, I will be using the flyit simulator for the PDM and a lot of other stuff, and it will be residential in an oil-camp type of place, so you have to keep taking your shoes off
Phil
I agree.
The 10 hour IF is a waste of good operational time, and is just enough to get the 'hot-shot' ready to go and kill him/herself. 5 hours in the sim is OK, then do 5 hours cross country at low level in inclement weather. That will give the student more respect for the weather, AND teach low level navigation and all its traps!
In the states, the hours up to CPL standard was well spent for most of us, IFR ratings, "mountain training", Sling load, initial instructor training etc. The mountain training was kinda a joke, 10 hours around Reno in the 300 or 22, and your instructor had 20 hours of mountain flying experience (10 hours of course, and 10 of teaching the crowd before you!)
Actually everyone should be forced to endure some time in Newfoundland, take a survival course, learn how to start a fire with a wet match, and to build a lean to with only string and a half tail rotor blade! 😀
My pennies worth anyways
The 10 hour IF is a waste of good operational time, and is just enough to get the 'hot-shot' ready to go and kill him/herself. 5 hours in the sim is OK, then do 5 hours cross country at low level in inclement weather. That will give the student more respect for the weather, AND teach low level navigation and all its traps!
In the states, the hours up to CPL standard was well spent for most of us, IFR ratings, "mountain training", Sling load, initial instructor training etc. The mountain training was kinda a joke, 10 hours around Reno in the 300 or 22, and your instructor had 20 hours of mountain flying experience (10 hours of course, and 10 of teaching the crowd before you!)
Actually everyone should be forced to endure some time in Newfoundland, take a survival course, learn how to start a fire with a wet match, and to build a lean to with only string and a half tail rotor blade! 😀
My pennies worth anyways
I notice quite a few people have opinions and good suggestions. Stating them on this forum only ends up as an opinion.
Possibly, if you belonged to a committe, on an association, you just might be able to do something about your opinion, with a viable association behind you, avec balls.
Hoping someday the message gets through.
I have a PRAYER.
Cheers, Don
PS: Further to that you might check out the Helo Conference on the Great Barrier Reef. HEPAC is in the process of negoitiating a reduction in the registration fee for HEPAC members as we are a new association on the block.
Owners/Operators that do not already know everything are welcome to attend, especially the "beancounters" they might just learn what goes on in a company. This is not said lightley as they are the biggest draw back to the industry through the mis-inderstanding of the actual operational and maintenance standards of most companies and are highly in need of human factors training.
Possibly, if you belonged to a committe, on an association, you just might be able to do something about your opinion, with a viable association behind you, avec balls.
Hoping someday the message gets through.
I have a PRAYER.
Cheers, Don
PS: Further to that you might check out the Helo Conference on the Great Barrier Reef. HEPAC is in the process of negoitiating a reduction in the registration fee for HEPAC members as we are a new association on the block.
Owners/Operators that do not already know everything are welcome to attend, especially the "beancounters" they might just learn what goes on in a company. This is not said lightley as they are the biggest draw back to the industry through the mis-inderstanding of the actual operational and maintenance standards of most companies and are highly in need of human factors training.
