April 2008 : The founding members of the College of Professional Pilots of Canada.
From left to right :
Colin Bechtel (Air Canada), Peter Thompson (Air Canada), David Coles (Air Canada), Fred Ambs (Skyservice Airlines), Steve Weiher (Westjet), Nick di Cintio (Air Canada Jazz), Nigel Edwards (Skyservice Airlines), Greg Holbrook (Canadian Federal Pilots' Association / Transport Canada)
In this photo: Colin Bechtel, Peter Thompson, David Coles, Fred Ambs, Steve Weiher, Nick di Cintio, Nigel Edwards, Greg Holbrook
Wow quite a broad representation of the industry there.
---------- ADS -----------
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
That looks like a well rounded "GRASS ROOTS" group. Everybody has a union job driving a jet. And one TC guy looking forward to retiring on a nice pension. These guys would know exactly what about the problems "in the trenches" of the industry? Wake me when you have a couple of bush rats, a night freight dog and an instructor. Because I'm not convinced everybody wants what the airlines think we want?
#1 Lesson in life ... you can't please everyone, even under the best intentions.
Its better than the status quo .. nothing. I'm at the airlines and i've been in the bush, arctic, on piston, turbo-prop .. just like you, and just like these guys. We all deal with the bullsh*t and seen our fair share of shady owners. Why not give a little support and see what they can do .. just because a current bush jockey isn't on the board (at the moment mind you), doesn't mean that section of the industry has been forgotten.
I am always reluctant to start criticizing anyone who steps out to do something in the belief that it may make life better for their fellow citizens, or in this case, fellow pilots. Especially when, to date, I've done nothing myself. For my fellow pilots, anyways. I have tried to make a difference in other social and political areas.
I'm not all OK with what I have read in this thread. I'm not saying shitcan the whole idea, but there is a requirement to listen to what people like Doc have to say and to really have another look at what the core issues are that this step supposedly addresses.
First off, I don't think the term "College" is appropriate. It sounds too posh and, as the only other professional group that applies that term to its regulatory body is one that makes people bleed, I think something more apt should be used.
I think there is an overly sanctimonious and overreaching feel to what's being proposed so far. I certainly don't accept an idea that this body should be able to deny a person who is otherwise qualified in law the opportunity to earn a living. But I do think that the people whose lives depend on that person, and insurance companies who have accepted a risk on that person, would be greatly benefited by a kind of certification mark that is issued by an independent body above and beyond the licensing process.
What's a good comparison in terms of a self regulating profession? Some may say that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is a good analogy because those folks have human life in their hands. So do we. So do taxi drivers and bus drivers and my kid when she heads out for the night with a bunch of her friends. Doctors (and dentists who I think also have a "College") go to school for seven years and then intern for a year or two after that. It takes six months to have the core license to practice our trade.
The Law Society? I despise law societies because they have sought, and obtained through legislation, a monopoly on arguing what the law is, even though it is OUR law and the idea that we have made law that is so complex that we can't understand it and have to forbid ourselves to argue it is absurd. In a democratic and liberty sense. A society which has as a basic theorum that people make laws they themselves are not competent to understand and argue is ridiculous. What have law societies done for us? Sweet @#$! all. Made the cost of going to law, or having law forced upon you, so expensive that a recent attorney general of BC felt forced to admit that "...even lawyers can't afford lawyers".
I think accounting is the profession that gives us the best analogy for what you folks are trying to achieve here. Accounting isn't rocket science. You can "practice" accounting without having anything other than perhaps a year of training, for some even less. And there is a body that limits the scope of accounting one can engage in. Or bodies, CA, CGA, and one other alphabet soup group. You need them for an audit sign off, and where there is a great deal of money or financial credibility at stake, people will seek out and pay extra for the certification that the alphabet soup gives.
I'm against any organization other than Transport Canada being able to say whether I can exercise the priveleges of my licenses or continue to hold those licenses. But I certainly welcome any organization that proposes to add an extra level of qualification, a certification that I meet standards above those of Transport Canada and which demonstrably add to the level of competence those whose lives and property depend on me can expect. No problem with that at all. Think its a hell of an idea.
Along those lines, I see that organization not only certifying pilots, but also carriers. Whether the carriers like it or not. The key to all this is what marketers call a pull strategy. Through advertising and public relations, this organization works to convince the public that they should refuse to fly with companies that do not employ pilots with the extra certification and not fly with carriers that do not have the stamp of approval. These certifications will invariably result in better insurance rates over time, provided that there becomes a statistical relationship between the certification and a reduction in claims payouts. And so on. There is obviously much that can be accomplished within that framework and very little that free people, aye professionals, in a free society can object to. It would make our careers more rewarding, and it would result in fewer people dying and being injured and fewer aircraft being bent.
There will continue to be crackpot pilots and crackpot operators. But it is market forces, not mandatory legislation, that will bring this about with this type of setup.
Finally, with the old saying that a camel was something designed by a committee in mind, I'm dismayed by the long list of claimed adherents, indeed members of the "executive" of the College. Herding cats comes to mind. If there's more than six men and women working on this, and by this I mean the first proposal to be put up for discussion, its ain't going to fly, me lads. I long ago gave up on working within groups towards the legalization of marijuana because 99% of your time was spent with ego issues, rather than the objective of the group.
MapleFlag, these college "directors" are all airline pilots from the segment of the industry that least needs help. They're all employed flying jets for unionized companies. How would that be of ANY use to the average pilot getting it up the Kazoo from companies like Wasaya?? I'll tell you.....SQUAT!
Went to the "College" web site. The part about being against the passenger's bill of rights seems a bit odd to me.
Pilots get pressured to do all sorts of things but it doesn't mean they have to be unsafe. I myself and not concerned about the schedule when safety is important. I tend to slow down a bit even more if I'm feeling rushed. My way of dealing with the pressure and letting myself remember safety is number one. Don't need a college to make that decision.
I'm not sure what to think about the college. I'd like there to be change but I don't want to find myself forced to join an organization just to keep on flying like I've always done. Seems to be geared toward people that might have jet cockpit posters and big watches and pay for Navajo PPCs and daydream of multi-time.
The RAIC pass travel would be nice, but once again that is only for one group, not all pilots have or require them.
MapleFlag wrote:No I cannot nor would I, that would be a bit presumptuous on my part. I do believe that its very possible however they are well aware of the issues that face the industry at all levels.
Cat Driver's request was pretty reasonable. After all, you claim "he remembers the battles fought.."
Why do you feel it would be "presumptuous"? Do you feel these people are above us? That's the take I get. They're are supposed to be the gurus with all the answers.
The simple fact IS they are no longer a fair representation of the little guy. There is simply nothing "in it" for them to be overly concerned about the plight of 703/704 ops. It's like putting the fate of Baltic Avenue, in the hands of Park Place.
Ogee .. You're worried about the NAME?? Because you figure it categoizes us with people that make you bleed and write complex law??! How about Doctors that save your life, instead of just make you bleed?!
Most of what you wrote is long winded and far off point ... I actually started to nod off a couple times. Do you guys think all pilots at the airline level received a license and were hand selected to go straight to the airlines? They chewed the same damn dirt and lived in the same little town whether it be Sioux Lookout, La Ronge, Thompson, High Level, Cambridge Bay .. you name it. They've been there, done that .. Trust me .. YOU DON'T FORGET ABOUT IT ... even if you want too!
Who better to oversee licensing?! .. Do you really have more faith in Transport Canada?! My gawd .. their exams are so out dated that they don't really deal with today's pilot or industry. Atleast a group of self regulating pilots would be more intune with todays industry, hence more relevant questions to test people. Also .. why shouldn't it be harder to get a license?! This is suppose to be an industry of professionals .. not a "do the minimum and get past it". (and i'm not referring to a private license, commercial and beyond) I don't think we should be a bunch of airforce grade robots .. but I do think the present system is a little (alot) lax ...
But ... to be fair ... Doc, Cat ... you are right, indeed. The airlines don't need the help ... it is the 703/04 operators (and training facilities) ... and in my eye that would be where the college would start. Those are the building blocks of this industry, and logic would dictate that to be the start point. Or so I would hope. Again .. I think in time, when they layout the agenda, that is what you'll see.
Localizer wrote:Ogee .. You're worried about the NAME?? Because you figure it categoizes us with people that make you bleed and write complex law??! How about Doctors that save your life, instead of just make you bleed?!
Most of what you wrote is long winded and far off point ... I actually started to nod off a couple times. Do you guys think all pilots at the airline level received a license and were hand selected to go straight to the airlines? They chewed the same damn dirt and lived in the same little town whether it be Sioux Lookout, La Ronge, Thompson, High Level, Cambridge Bay .. you name it. They've been there, done that .. Trust me .. YOU DON'T FORGET ABOUT IT ... even if you want too!
Who better to oversee licensing?! .. Do you really have more faith in Transport Canada?! My gawd .. their exams are so out dated that they don't really deal with today's pilot or industry. Atleast a group of self regulating pilots would be more intune with todays industry, hence more relevant questions to test people. Also .. why shouldn't it be harder to get a license?! This is suppose to be an industry of professionals .. not a "do the minimum and get past it". (and i'm not referring to a private license, commercial and beyond) I don't think we should be a bunch of airforce grade robots .. but I do think the present system is a little (alot) lax ...
But ... to be fair ... Doc, Cat ... you are right, indeed. The airlines don't need the help ... it is the 703/04 operators (and training facilities) ... and in my eye that would be where the college would start. Those are the building blocks of this industry, and logic would dictate that to be the start point. Or so I would hope. Again .. I think in time, when they layout the agenda, that is what you'll see.
Cheers!
Ah, well, here's the story Son. I ain't worried. I'm not sure where you got that idea. As for your comments about "long winded" and nodding off, that post wasn't written for you. It was written for people who understand and analyze at a different level than you do. That's the kindest way of saying it. I think the people it was written for also question the wisdom of the choice of the word College and amongst those are people who also question the presumptousness of the whole thing being forced upon them. I merely note that, I'm not WORRIED about it. But there is a College of Physicians and Surgeons, and there isn't a College of Bus Drivers. Yet. Perhaps a College of Pilots would spur them to action as well.
Tlhe College "vision" thing is one of a major change to the way in which flight crew are qualified to carry out their duties and maintain employment. It is striking in several ways. Firstly, it proposes to come into being by legislation resulting from political lobbying, rather than with the approval of a very significant majority of the pilots whose lives and careers it proposes to abruptly enter with rules to be enforced by sanctions administered without invervention of a court of law. Some of those sanctions can be career ending. I sense that guys like you, Localizer, see yourselves as being among the judgers in this process
The other vision which I put out was one that proposes to create a higher standard of aviation product in the marketplace by consent of those producing it. That product, which is flightcrew qualified to a higher standard, is then sold to meet a demand by marketing focusing on certification of such pilots and directing users to companies which seek out those pilots. All voluntary, you can have the higher certification or not. If you don't want it, you have to accept the consequences of not having it. Of which, for the most part, there may be none. One doesn't need to get all yippy about Transport Canada to argue that an additional level of certification outside of government could be a major step forward in our industry.
I also am not " WORRIED " about this college that is being put together.
I am not worried because I am finished with my career in aviation.
But knowing what I know now about aviation and the ramifications of what a college may do to change the way pilots are " ALLOWED " into this career I would be worried if I were just starting out.
Once again it is my opinion that the 703 / 704 sector of aviation would be better served by an association of your peers.......
Aviation historically has been more a trade than a profession....especially at the 703 / 704 level, so be careful what you wish for.
Then again my opinion may not worth much.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
My concern is over the delegation of licensing of professional pilots by the "Colllege", and the retention of licensing of all other pilots under the commercial level by TC. Will the college take over the entire pilot licensing, or just commercial and above? To me it does not make sense to have two separate licensing bodies for piloting aircraft in Canada. For this and a number of other reasons, I'm out.
Ogee .. first off .. I'm not your son, or boy, or young buck .. none of the other "pet" names you'd prefer to use. Thanks!
I merely note that, I'm not WORRIED about it.
I don't care if you're "worried" or not .. but you made it out to be a deal that needed to be addressed. But then again, as you said ... i'm not on the same level as you. (i'm sure it will be hard to find anyone on the same level as you, superstar!)
But there is a College of Physicians and Surgeons, and there isn't a College of Bus Drivers. Yet. Perhaps a College of Pilots would spur them to action as well.
Glad to know your self-worth is the same as a bus driver! .. You must be a gem on a 2-3 hour flight .. God forbid longer than that! .. Personally .. I see myself on a .. Oh, different level than the average bus driver. Don't get me wrong .. they have a responsibility like you and I, for sure .. but I still think they run down different paths.
I sense that guys like you, Localizer, see yourselves as being among the judgers in this process
Buying jobs.
Stuck with large bonds.
Pilots working ramps/docks under the guise of "learning" the operation, and proving their worth.
Companies running rough shod over pilot's basic rights to take vacations, call in sick.
Fear of retribution for calling duty days, turning back due to weather, refusing to fly overloads, refusing to skip fuel stops....the list goes on and on.....and on.
These are some of the REAL problems facing our industry. I just don't think a few "suits" are qualified, or interested in these issues. I'm out.
Doc, perhaps what we need is a second avenue of approach to this problem. The College most likely will not address those issues that you brought up, so perhaps we should look at a second organization to do that. This second organization would be more of a union (I hesitate to use the term guild becuase it has some Sci-Fi/Fantasy overtones). The union would take care of protecting pilots, and the College would help pilots maintain a professional public image. There are many examples of this approach in other areas. The College of Physicians and Surgeons/The Canadian Medical Association, The Ontario College of Teachers/Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation, The College of Nurses/The Nurses Association. I want to make it clear that if pilots want to advance their station in life they could really use both of these organizations.
I understand why some people have reservations about the College, and there is no doubt that if it's implemented badly it could be a very bad thing. I would cite the Ontario College of Teachers as an example. It was implemented with the worst possible political agenda, and continues to be controlled by advocates (people who have never done the job, or any real job for that matter). However, if The College of Pilots is well implemented, it could do quite a bit to improved pilots' public image. It would be a public manifestation of the responsibilities that rest in the cockpit and could provide a strong voice for pilots' concerns in government circles.
The union, on the other hand, would provide a counterbalance to the College. I know that OSSTF certainly played that role with the College of Teachers. The Union would help to prevent any one individual or group within the College from building a fiefdom.
The two pronged attack has worked before; a College to enhance public image and a Union to protect members from employers and the College. I don't see why this wouldn't work for pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
____________________________________
I'm just two girls short of a threesome.
I kind of agreed with Cat when he said that bit about flying being a trade, and I know where he's coming from. However, I do think that there is a widespread acceptance in the public that pilots are professionals. I'm sure that practically all of us strive to act as professionals at least. Yes, we don't have the investment of time that doctors or nurses or teachers have in terms of gaining our rights to practice, and its true that some relatively stupid people have gained and exercised those rights. That said, we do hold human life in our hands once we enter into that practice and for our entire careers. It's also true the same can be said of bus drivers, who also operate pieces of metal powered by petroleum products and whose passengers can and do die if they fail to carry out their duties professionally.
I guess the public has a much greater apprehension of flight than Greyhound, thus the elevated esteem in which they, or pilots wish they, hold us. So I don't argue about the professional designation one bit. In fact, if a group can be formed that will work, I'm sure the words "professional pilots" should be in its name.
"College" is a non-starter as an organizational description. There is no other profession organizing into a "College" in which you can be killed in the practice of that profession. It wasn't a good idea to start with, and some of its proponents on here have poisoned it further by their arrogance in their comments here. Not all, but some.
The problem which this seeks to address is the problem of working conditions for non union pilots in 702 through 704 operations. I'm sorry, but this proposal isn't the way to deal with that. I've suggested above that a different type of voluntary organization offering post graduate accreditation, if you will, could be supported by market forces. I also think there hasn't been anywhere's near enough discussion about Cat's idea of an association of chief pilots.
I also think there hasn't been anywhere's near enough discussion about Cat's idea of an association of chief pilots.
Thank you for bringing that idea up again.
I first came to that conclusion in 1975 when I was successful in going up against both Transport Canada and an airline to force them to abide by federal law.
Having proved in court that the law can be enforced I got the idea of forming a group of chief pilots to support each other in cases where they on their own were unable to ensure safety within the operation they were responsible for.
Unfortunately the fear factor among chief pilots along with the misguided self vision of their power factor made any attempt at forming such an association at that time not feasible.
I very much doubt anything has changed over time.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
We talked about the same idea in the 90s Cat and same s*it different pile. Time hasnt changed things one bit from that perspective. Im certain the new generation of CP`s will take a run at it again and all I can say is I wish them luck.
As for professionalism...It`s all in how we as an industry are perceived. As I mentioned in another thread, my Surgeon recently sat with me and told me how they use aviation as a model of professionalism for their industry. I had to hold back my chuckles!! That said, she was quite sincere in what she said and I have to admit that I took great pride in her perception of our industry. If she only knew!
Im still scratching my head on this whole new college. I believe them to be a group of well intentioned people. Im just with the majority in my concern of how the 703/704 sectors will be better off or even a voice in this new college? My last question would be, where did "Colin" go? Wasnt he answering some questions in another thread a couple months ago? Colin, if your reading this, could you please explain how 703/704 will be represented in the new College? Thanks.
DD.. I couldnt find the stats but somewhere around 5800 in 703/704 and unsure of 705/604 but likely similiar around 5000 ish.
