How long till things go back to usual

[AnotherUselessPilot]

where you need 1000 hours to sit right seat on a Navajo
or 3 years on the ramp
or pay upfront bond

Was debating this with a colleague the other day. We agreed on 5 years or so ...
Thoughts?

[Bushman1515]

Not for awhile bud.... and In all fairness 3 years on the ramp or 1000 hours right seat for a ho is ridiculous.Not saying that a 250 hour wonder should be in a dash either but some medium should be found. Maybe some more requirements for PIC time before guys are allowed to get into the bigger machines wouldn’t hurt anyone

[DanWEC]

The oversaturation of pilots in the past allowed economics to do its thing, and led to requirements in positions that were far above the actual skill level required and pay far below what was deserved.

Glad that's mostly gone, and some particularly exploitive operators have to do business in the real world.

Now that being said, 1000 hrs right seat on a Ho shouldn't necessarily be too far off. Maybe 750. It's more being mindful of being able to upgrade in reasonable time. Their northern working environment is what it is.

Hours should be combined with seasons!

[North Shore]

Actually, in the past, it sometimes seemed more like the 1000 rule:

0-2000 152/172/185/206
2001-3000 Beaver
3001-4,5000 Otter
4500-6,7000 Navajo
8000 - DHC-8

[PilotDAR]

The somehow magic 1000 hour threshold seems to me to be an artificial applied as a sort of catch all. If a pilot can accumulate 1000 hours flying anything, that pilot must be upgradeable. Because, it is possible that most of those 1000 hours were right seat in a 172, while a student flew circuits. Not a lot of pilot experience growth out of that, but I guess enough that an operator will invest in the upgrade. If a pilot accumulates 500 hours, including flying a ragwing halfway across Canada, flying a number of types, or flying cross country into the US a few times, they probably have a breadth of experience which is attractive for an operator. I was right seat in an Aztec and C340 with about 300 hours, and then right seat in a Cheyenne shortly after that. The operator liked my experience and skills I suppose. When I flew the Navajo, there was no one available to check me out, I was told to check myself out, then do the required flying, though this was not a commercial operation.

The 1000 hour number begins to be important if your breadth of experience is narrow. So if you're thinking to make yourself attractive for the right seat in a Navajo, consider being more diverse in what and where you fly. Make your pilot logbook interesting reading, rather than a column of 172 at CY--

[B208]

I'm not sure that things will 'go back to usual'. The low wages and poor working conditions of the 90's through to ~2015 were the result of simple supply and demand; There was a tremendous excess of pilots so they didn't cost very much. This excess was due to a strong general aviation culture in Canada. (For example, as a high school kid working part time I could afford to pay for my private license). The general aviation culture in Canada is pretty much dead now due to costs. This means that we are not likely to see a huge excess of pilots again and, as a result, pilots will never be that cheap again.
Conversely, the current rate of airline expansion and grey out won't continue indefinitely either. The hiring spree will stop. Long story short; once supply and demand stabilize a new 'usual', somewhere in between where we were in the early 2010s and where we are now, will be established.

[Zaibatsu]

The whole “1000 hours as a passenger” is getting kind of old. How many stall or spin recoveries did you do per year dumping meat bombs or flying overweight fishermen? How much dead reckoning or pilotage did you do in the flight levels as a flaps and radio operator? When did you ever let someone with only a few hours of experience take control of your aircraft during critical phases of flight?

All my hours of passenger in command didn’t seem to hold me back from upgrading in a matter of months. One of the things that Transport Canada and the industry has been on about are pilots who went straight into turboprops were conditioned to only using power to affect a recovery with minimum altitude loss. A few years of flight instruction made that a non issue for me.

[goingnowherefast]

Air Canada hiring is what drives the rest of the industry movement. All you need to do is pay attention to their hiring projections and that will be a pretty good clue. Retirements are ramping up, but expansion is gradually slowing down. The only unknown is when the next recession will be. That will cause reductions at AC, hiring will slow dramatically and movement in the rest of the industry will slow to a trickle as well. Aviation is affected by the economic swings to a greater extent than most other industries.

[HansDietrich]

The industry is going very well in the sense that one can get a nice flying job with relatively little time. Where I completely disagree is when certain individuals make it seem like we have it so well compared to twenty years ago. Let me remind you: Twenty years ago, being an F/O at a regional carrier would allow you the financial freedom to buy a small house or an apartment in a city such as Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver or Montreal. 40K a year in 2018 can barely afford you a rented room in a big city, after you factor in the cost of food, car payments, insurance, phone etc.

If our industry is going so well, then why are wages below poverty line? What was the starting wage at Air Canada on the Boeing 767 (F/O) twenty years ago? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet my medical it was more than 50K a year.

Young people our age work very very hard. We are not a generation of "entitled, spoiled little brats". We work hard and our money does not go very far. So, those of you in your 40s 50s, thinking that the younger generation has it easy, please try to inform yourself before making blank statements. This last paragraph is aimed at those that have made snotty comments about the younger crowd. You know who you are.

[PilotDAR]

So, those of you in your 40s 50s, thinking that the younger generation has it easy,

Oh, I certainly don't! I struggle to imagine how a new pilot can afford to accumulate flying time. The same plane (really, the same C 152), in which I was taught to fly in the '70's rents now for nine times what I paid to rent it! I don't think younger people are earning nine times the average wage from the '70's! This is silly! No wonder people are drifting away from recreational flying, who could blame them? Sadly, it is becoming a luxury, which will not attract new entrants.

We (including COPA) have allowed various interests to each increase the requirements for flight, so it just ends up costing more. Some resisting TC along the way might have reduced this effect. Entry pilots are powerless to reduce costs for themselves. People established in the industry have some ability to act against TC policy changes which add burden to flying, assist in new cost saving initiatives by "buying in", like Mogas STC's, and demanding that representative organizations act in their interest (COPA) rather than sitting back on modest accomplishments.

I'm not knocking flying instructing, it's an honest living. But I assert that a person is going to plateau their skills after 500 hours or so doing primary flight training, so having much more than 500 hours right seat in a 172 is no longer making you a better pilot per hour. Finding your way across Canada solo will broaden your skills faster than many times that many hours in the circuit and training area. New pilots need to seek out flying opportunities beyond being right seat to a student. Go fly aerial photography, ferry a plane somewhere, offer to fly some maintenance check flights (with caution), and go for the right seat ride in something different if offered. To do this, you may have to hang around the airport a bit.

Summer before last, I had an empty day, and it was nice. In the spirit of my attempts to mentor here, I flew one of my planes, the odd amphib in my avatar to Brampton, with the specific intent of having lunch at the restaurant, then offering a flight to a new pilot I might meet there. The was only one new pilot there the whole time I dined. I went and chatted with him, but he was time limited, and could not accept my offer. I hung around for another hour, and flew home offer ungiven. That day, the airport did not reveal any of the eager new pilots which I certainly was in my age. I suppose they were off doing something else - maybe typing to AvCanada...

I can trace all of my rewarding piloting to knowing someone who gave me an opportunity, 'cause they liked me. Nearly all of those people were at the airport when I met them. How's the saying; When my ship comes in, I was at the airport? Well, if you want your plane to come in, be at the airport!

I imagine a new type of pilot in the next generation: A person who is very well trained, really good on the type upon which they were trained, and the sim, but a person who is in it for the money, and the job, not the passion for rebuilding a Champ in their parent's garage, and flying it around. We will see automation grow (and hopefully become more trouble resistant) so most pilots can climb in, take command of automation, taxi with caution, then monitor the automated flight. Not my kind of flying, and it sure failed with an automated car in Tucson the other week, but it seems the future.

So "usual" changes, there will be no more "back to usual", fewer Champs being rebuilt in garages, and fewer pilots who can fly four different types in a day. There will be a new usual. Yes, airlines will have to pay better, and hopefully passengers will value an experienced flight crew, and stop expecting to fly Toronto to Orlando for $99. People will get what they pay for. I don't fly bargain basement carriers - by choice!

[C.W.E.]

The same plane (really, the same C 152), in which I was taught to fly in the '70's rents now for nine times what I paid to rent it!

When I learned to fly there were no C152's we only had C140's and Fleet Canucks to learn on and they were eight dollars an hour solo and ten dollars an hour dual.

But I only made thirty five dollars a week driving a delivery truck .

[C.W.E.]

The whole “1000 hours as a passenger” is getting kind of old. How many stall or spin recoveries did you do per year dumping meat bombs or flying overweight fishermen?

The question makes no sense, who in their right minds would deliberately stall an airplane with paying passengers onboard?

Stall and spin recoveries are basic flying skills and one would hope a commercial pilot flying for a living would know how to recover....then again even the big jet pilots do manage to kill hundreds of people because they could not recognise and recover from a stall so I guess the question does have merit.

Ahh the wonderful new world of automation and pilots who can't fly when automation can't fix the problem.

[schnitzel2k3]

The whole “1000 hours as a passenger” is getting kind of old. How many stall or spin recoveries did you do per year dumping meat bombs or flying overweight fishermen? How much dead reckoning or pilotage did you do in the flight levels as a flaps and radio operator? When did you ever let someone with only a few hours of experience take control of your aircraft during critical phases of flight?

All my hours of passenger in command didn’t seem to hold me back from upgrading in a matter of months. One of the things that Transport Canada and the industry has been on about are pilots who went straight into turboprops were conditioned to only using power to affect a recovery with minimum altitude loss. A few years of flight instruction made that a non issue for me.

Hey Zai,

I agree with ya, instruction is a valid form of gaining experience, but real world A-B flying encompasses so much more than circuit jockeying and running ab-initio ground schools. I have found that instructing teaches many valuable skills but many of those skills - while fundamental to the cornerstones of aviation - are classic (a.k.a ancient) methods of getting from A-B, and a lot needs to be learned for many (not all, but many) 1000-1500 hour instructors. 1000 hours PIC instructing =//= 1000 hours PIC no matter how you slice it. It just doesn't.

Instructing has it's time, place and usefulness. Unfortunately that experience must be taken with a grain of salt going forward.

S.

[schnitzel2k3]

The whole “1000 hours as a passenger” is getting kind of old. How many stall or spin recoveries did you do per year dumping meat bombs or flying overweight fishermen?

The question makes no sense, who in their right minds would deliberately stall an airplane with paying passengers onboard?

Stall and spin recoveries are basic flying skills and one would hope a commercial pilot flying for a living would know how to recover....then again even the big jet pilots do manage to kill hundreds of people because they could not recognise and recover from a stall so I guess the question does have merit.

Ahh the wonderful new world of automation and pilots who can't fly when automation can't fix the problem.

If it's Boeing, I'm not going.

Like every step in aviation, automation is continuing to have it's teething issues as we encounter situations and weather to which was not originally foreseen.

Makes me wonder about these completely automated cockpits. I picture scenes from Wall-e with the Captain fighting the yoke.

S.

[schnitzel2k3]

where you need 1000 hours to sit right seat on a Navajo
or 3 years on the ramp
or pay upfront bond

Was debating this with a colleague the other day. We agreed on 5 years or so ...
Thoughts?

I give it 10 years.

S.

[C.W.E.]

Like every step in aviation, automation is continuing to have it's teething issues as we encounter situations and weather to which was not originally foreseen.

The accidents I was referring to had nothing to do with weather they were 100% pilot error.

In my personal opinion the qualifying guide lines for commercial pilots flying skills are far to lax.

The problem in a lot of cases is to many pilots teaching these skills are the problem because you can not teach something you do not understand your self.

[schnitzel2k3]

Like every step in aviation, automation is continuing to have it's teething issues as we encounter situations and weather to which was not originally foreseen.

The accidents I was referring to had nothing to do with weather they were 100% pilot error.

In my personal opinion the qualifying guide lines for commercial pilots flying skills are far to lax.

The problem in a lot of cases is to many pilots teaching these skills are the problem because you can not teach something you do not understand your self.

Tocuhé, I read into it too much. I was thinking of the two big Airbus crashes (Air France both times) that were (correction: not primarily) related to automation.

Agreed otherwise.

Sorry for the sidecar conversation OP.

S

[Meatservo]

In my personal opinion the qualifying guide lines for commercial pilots flying skills are far to lax.

The problem in a lot of cases is to many pilots teaching these skills are the problem because you can not teach something you do not understand your self.

I couldn't disagree more. I think the requirements need to be completely re-vamped. I mean, we have Hans Dietrich here saying that young people work very, very hard, but he must be talking about the work they do at their other jobs, because flying these days isn't very, very hard at all. Now, it's true that these jobs are pretty crappy-paying, and PilotDAR makes a good point that learning to fly is far too expensive. But it would be way less expensive if you took the curriculum and deleted a lot of the stuff that you don't need in order to be a "pilot" at Jazz or Encore, or any of the entry-level jobs. I've made a list of the things I consider to be redundant and which could probably be snipped out of the commercial syllabus:

1) Navigating of any kind. Who navigates? GPS, baby.
2) Soft field takeoffs and landings. Obviously
3) Short field takeoffs and landings. Also obviously
4) "Turning". (other than"turning" the autopilot "on" at 400 feet, and until as late as practicable on approach)
5) The whole "attitude, power, trim" thing. Autopilot does that.
6) Anything to do with piston engines
7) The distance and time requirements for any cross-country work. Just go to another airport. The closer the better. What, exactly, is the point in going 200 miles following the magenta line on your G1000 screen?

I figure you can produce an airline-ready pilot with 100 fewer flying hours. And replace those flying hours with more classroom stuff to learn about FMS operation and air regs. Maybe memorize some generic S.O.P.s and an introduction to the contents of a typical flight attendant's manual.

I agree that the wages these days are pretty terrible, but on the other hand those who are whingeing about them probably aren't really aware of what the salary is like at "comparable" jobs, i.e., a job where post-secondary education is optional and you just sort of sit in a chair and do easy stuff with a headset on, like telemarketing or whatever.

Yes, flying certainly doesn't pay the bills like it used to, but let's be honest: Can what most young people are doing in aeroplanes these days really be considered "flying"?

[FADEC]

In the 1970''s, AC and others were taking pilots with as low as 250 hours.
Most often, they would sit as S/O's for some time before getting a right seat. Pilots (and they were pilots at AC not engineers) were required to do a Sim session every month. Instrument ratings were renewed in the Sim; four sim rides per year.
They were allowed to fly the DC8 above ten thousand feet. Standards were very high; 50 feet in altitude and Mach had to kept at .805 with no autothrottle.
Pilots who had used their 250 hours well, generally did well on course. There were no visuals in the Sim; zero zero landings and takeoffs. Headings were held like life itself.
At some points in the progression, pilots went on to the DC9 in less than two years. Those who elected to stay in the comfortable back seat till they gained seniority generally did less well when they tried to upgrade; some retired in the back seat.
DC9 F/O's learned to fly for real; sometimes several non-precision approaches in a day. Captains were (mostly) great mentors; lots of down and dirty experience in the Maritimes.
No coupled approaches; no autothrottle; most could keep the "needles" crossed to limits with little apparent effort, and land at max crosswind because they did it every day. (DC9 "Max Demonstrated" was 39 knots)
A study of industry safety in the seventies found that DC9, BAC 1-11 and 737's were the safest airplanes in terms of legs flown. All the long haul airplanes including widebodies were worse.
Clearly because the short haul pilots did it several times a day.
These days, kids coming out of a good college are well trained; they know the rules and there is no earthly reason that a good 250 hour candidate cannot be in the right seat of any type, provided they have a good mentor in the other seat. (not a given)
If you can't fly with the "Stuff" turned off, you have no place in the cockpit, because the "Stuff" will let you down occasionally.
At the same time; the "Stuff" should be known perfectly; how it works and how to make it work; aircraft today have wonderful tools available and are safer as a result. That is only true if the "Pilot(s)" know what they are doing when things don't work.
Flights flown is a better indication of experience than hours logged. Sitting in the seat for eight hours is worthwhile to learn the weather and vagaries of long-haul, things that needs to be known cold, so when go the situation goes sideqays, the routine stuff is routine and can be executed without a lot of thinking.
Mandating a certain number of hours is nonsense. Better to hire a good low-time pilot than someone who has just been hanging in to get hours. Lots of more experienced people out there who also bring a lot to the table, but HR Departments with "Formulas" for hiring are not the answer. Look at what the Candidate has done and what kind of person they are; a good interview by Pilots about Pilot stuff will tell a lot. Sim Evals are important (although AC didn't do them in the timeframe mentioned.)
Is the person eager to learn; have they shown this; are they going to manage when the chips are down? Not things that fit into a formula.
Customer Relations count! If someone can't get along with others, and won't reflect well on their employer, leave them on the street no matter what the paper qualifications.