200hr pilot=200lbs=30mins of fuel
After flying the Van for over 600hours and have multi crew experience in other planes I would prefer the extra fuel. The Van is an awesome machine but extremely easy to fly, slow and not complex. No real need for a co-pilot.
Caravan FO?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
more than enough time to know the airplane. Why would you want more than that?-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
RC 320 wrote:
Someone to assist....observe...and participate.
I am having a hard time understanding exactly what the job is of an FO on these single pilot machines? Are they a part of the crew or are they a student/mentoree who is getting a paycheck. I think there is a preception that may be different depending on where you are in the system. I think many companies think of them as merely window dressing for the customers or insurance companies. The Captains view them as assistnts, not full fledged crew members, and the newbie FO's as getting a paycheck to get an education. And this is not for two crew required aircraft. I am going to sound like a broken record, but experience is what you gain when you have a job, not what you get hired for.
The other bad thing about this myth, is that many many lowtimers by into it and thus are going to become career co-pilots.
do I understand correctly, then, that is what your definition of a FO is?It is not instruction though. It's exposure. Get him in the right seat to assist, observe and participate.
Someone to assist....observe...and participate.
I am having a hard time understanding exactly what the job is of an FO on these single pilot machines? Are they a part of the crew or are they a student/mentoree who is getting a paycheck. I think there is a preception that may be different depending on where you are in the system. I think many companies think of them as merely window dressing for the customers or insurance companies. The Captains view them as assistnts, not full fledged crew members, and the newbie FO's as getting a paycheck to get an education. And this is not for two crew required aircraft. I am going to sound like a broken record, but experience is what you gain when you have a job, not what you get hired for.
The other bad thing about this myth, is that many many lowtimers by into it and thus are going to become career co-pilots.
Doc, why does a superstar like you fly with a cojoe in a baby king air that anyone could fly single pilot then? I bet they've never helped you or caught one of your mistakes either!
If you're a 5000hr guy then perhaps the advantages of a caravan copilot are more limited. However, there sure seems to be a lot of 1000-1500hr caravan captains out there that can use as much help as they can get. Why crap on them but not a 1500hr navajo captain that flies with a copilot?
If you're a 5000hr guy then perhaps the advantages of a caravan copilot are more limited. However, there sure seems to be a lot of 1000-1500hr caravan captains out there that can use as much help as they can get. Why crap on them but not a 1500hr navajo captain that flies with a copilot?
Endless wrote:
As to your statement that you bet they've never helped or caught one of doc's mistakes either......the point is we all make mistakes. Most of them, if you want to be nitpicky, just dont amount to much, and as I dont think doc is posting from the afterlife or a hospital bed, I think I may be quite correct Now let me put a litte prespective question to you. do you think a Captain can put their full attention when they are when they have to watch over an inexperienced FO?
As to a Navajo, or a BE 90...I think an experienced, knowledgable, and current pilot can fly one just fine without a co-pilot. If you disagree you will have to do more than provide the usual "two pairs of eyes are better than one" or some other motherhood type argument.
having said all this, I am really just trying to add a little balance here to the ego boosted FO's claims.
Let me see. I fail to see any rationale in your argument except that it is a personal attack on doc. As to your claims about "a lot" of 1000-1500 Caravan captains that can use help.....exactly what is "a lot" and where did you find such statistics? to put it bluntly, your claim is in dispute.Doc, why does a superstar like you fly with a cojoe in a baby king air that anyone could fly single pilot then? I bet they've never helped you or caught one of your mistakes either!
If you're a 5000hr guy then perhaps the advantages of a caravan copilot are more limited. However, there sure seems to be a lot of 1000-1500hr caravan captains out there that can use as much help as they can get. Why crap on them but not a 1500hr navajo captain that flies with a copilot?
As to your statement that you bet they've never helped or caught one of doc's mistakes either......the point is we all make mistakes. Most of them, if you want to be nitpicky, just dont amount to much, and as I dont think doc is posting from the afterlife or a hospital bed, I think I may be quite correct Now let me put a litte prespective question to you. do you think a Captain can put their full attention when they are when they have to watch over an inexperienced FO?
As to a Navajo, or a BE 90...I think an experienced, knowledgable, and current pilot can fly one just fine without a co-pilot. If you disagree you will have to do more than provide the usual "two pairs of eyes are better than one" or some other motherhood type argument.
having said all this, I am really just trying to add a little balance here to the ego boosted FO's claims.
Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that this is never the case in 2 crew required aircraft? That a Captain of large aircraft would not see the First Officer as an assistant because the manufacturer wrote in the AFM that 2 pilots were required? Or that a new First Officer has nothing to learn from the Captain? And what purpose does a first officer on a 2 crew plane serve that can't be applied in a single pilot aircraft? I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand what you're trying to say.trey kule wrote:I am having a hard time understanding exactly what the job is of an FO on these single pilot machines? Are they a part of the crew or are they a student/mentoree who is getting a paycheck. I think there is a preception that may be different depending on where you are in the system. I think many companies think of them as merely window dressing for the customers or insurance companies. The Captains view them as assistnts, not full fledged crew members, and the newbie FO's as getting a paycheck to get an education. And this is not for two crew required aircraft.
first of all, I was not particularily clear, and some of the bigger companies go 180 degrees from my thinking.
But...on many of the two crew airplanes, for example the cockpit layout is designed to be flown by two pilots, and their duties are different.
If you look at say, WestJet and Air Canada, for instance, you will see that despite all the posts to the contrary they are hiring FO's that are experienced pilots. and there lies the crux of the matter.
If the FO comes to the job with experience then they can play an immediate role in the cockpit. On the other hand, when you put a pilot in the right seat who has never actually done a real instrument approach, it is difficult to take his comments seriously. And quite the contrary, you have to actually watch over them...this is a general statement, so war stories aside, this is generally the case.
Now can you apply this to a single pilot certified aircraft. Why would you want to? to give an FO experience? You do it because it is a customer or insurance driven requirement. The other issue is that in many cases the sop's do not reflect a crew envirorment and the a/c are flown both with a crew and single pilot which makes everything more confusing.
The point here is that all the no timer FO's want to justify their postion in the cockpit and at the same time want mentoring.
As to the SOP's , my personal experience is that it is damn hard to follow them in many cases when they dont meet with the FO's carreer goals.
ie. turning off the autopilot to get some "stick time in" etc.
As I pointed out before, I am purposely taking an extreme approach here to counter the FO posts. Let me put it this way. I believe that an FO should be able to upgrade to Captain after a 100 or so hours...if that is not possible than the FO was hired without the necessary qualifications.
But...on many of the two crew airplanes, for example the cockpit layout is designed to be flown by two pilots, and their duties are different.
If you look at say, WestJet and Air Canada, for instance, you will see that despite all the posts to the contrary they are hiring FO's that are experienced pilots. and there lies the crux of the matter.
If the FO comes to the job with experience then they can play an immediate role in the cockpit. On the other hand, when you put a pilot in the right seat who has never actually done a real instrument approach, it is difficult to take his comments seriously. And quite the contrary, you have to actually watch over them...this is a general statement, so war stories aside, this is generally the case.
Now can you apply this to a single pilot certified aircraft. Why would you want to? to give an FO experience? You do it because it is a customer or insurance driven requirement. The other issue is that in many cases the sop's do not reflect a crew envirorment and the a/c are flown both with a crew and single pilot which makes everything more confusing.
The point here is that all the no timer FO's want to justify their postion in the cockpit and at the same time want mentoring.
As to the SOP's , my personal experience is that it is damn hard to follow them in many cases when they dont meet with the FO's carreer goals.
ie. turning off the autopilot to get some "stick time in" etc.
As I pointed out before, I am purposely taking an extreme approach here to counter the FO posts. Let me put it this way. I believe that an FO should be able to upgrade to Captain after a 100 or so hours...if that is not possible than the FO was hired without the necessary qualifications.
The truth of the matter is, that the guy in the right seat, is, for the most part ballast. Or, perhaps a swamper? We are talking about one of the simplest, most basic aircraft ever to actually fly. Operators are creating these pseudo positions to appeal to the egos of pilots who are really ramp workers who just get to "ride around" in an airplane. If there are "1000-1500 hour Caravan captains out there that can use all the help they can get" maybe they should take some dual! If you need "help" to fly a Caravan with 1000-1500 hours, you should be looking for employment with Gray Hound?
Sorry endless, I just don't agree with you. You have no stats to back up your claim that two person crews are safer than single pilot crews. I've flown single pilot, and two crew (so have you) and the only time I had to really wake up and "rescue" a situation was courtesy of a really poor co-pilot.
Sorry endless, I just don't agree with you. You have no stats to back up your claim that two person crews are safer than single pilot crews. I've flown single pilot, and two crew (so have you) and the only time I had to really wake up and "rescue" a situation was courtesy of a really poor co-pilot.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
All depends on what the 200 hour pilot was taught and allowed to do." who would you rather captain your caravan?
1500hr instructor, or 200hr pilot who has been a copilot on your caravan for the last 1300hrs? "
If the 200 hour pilot was truly part of a two crew concept and flew 50% of the time, I would choose that pilot hands down.
Conversely if the 200 hour pilot was a passenger just gawking and not even allowed to taxi the aircraft I wouldn't want either one of your examples..
But that's just me.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I totally agree that one professional pilot is better than two cowboys egging each other on. But that's comparing apples to oranges. I also agree that all single pilot certified airplanes can be operated with a very high level of safety with only one pilot. Two well trained, professional acting pilots, operating with a 2 crew type SOP raise that already high level even higher. Notice the age of the posters saying two crew isn't safer. They're ancient and they have ancient attitudes. What confuses me is the Treetops fellow who thinks after his few months in the left seat that a copilot would be of no use to him. I don't mean this as an insult but I think your attitude is a bit hazardous. As for the no taxiing rule. Yes it's a bit silly. Northern operators do it to minimize damage to propellors on gravel. My guess about Air Georgian is they do it to minimize the risk of a runway incursion or other type of ground accident at high traffic airports like Pearson. Comments?
Rudy, you're right. We're "ancient". And we have been in single pilot operations. And guess what?? We've been in more two pilot operations than most of you...and you know what else? We are accident free! Wonder why? Nobody held our hands. Gee, how did that happen? But. what would we know about all these new fangled modern airplanes? Have the rules changed? Are we in a dream world brought about in our twilight years? Must be magic? Just so ya know there, Rudy...I have 1500 hours in the 'van. All single pilot.
SHOW me the numbers. SHOW me how having two guys in a simple single engine, fixed gear airplane is safer? You can't. Because it just isn't! If you want to have a 200 hour pilot ride around with you, I don't care. Just don't give me this "it's safer" crap!
BTW, I wouldn't let a guy with 200 hours, and 1300 hours shot gun on a Caravan near my Caravan! Why? Because he has NEVER made a decision on his own. It's two million dollar airplane, and he has NO time. And you guys are advocating cutting him loose with another 200 hour "rider"? Gee, he'd learn bundles of wisdom in that sitch!
SHOW me the numbers. SHOW me how having two guys in a simple single engine, fixed gear airplane is safer? You can't. Because it just isn't! If you want to have a 200 hour pilot ride around with you, I don't care. Just don't give me this "it's safer" crap!
BTW, I wouldn't let a guy with 200 hours, and 1300 hours shot gun on a Caravan near my Caravan! Why? Because he has NEVER made a decision on his own. It's two million dollar airplane, and he has NO time. And you guys are advocating cutting him loose with another 200 hour "rider"? Gee, he'd learn bundles of wisdom in that sitch!
Hey endless.....I'd rather have the instructor. Send him to FSI and he'd be fine. The 200 hour guy has never made a decision!
I don't know where the attitude that instructors can't fly comes from. Sour grapes would be my guess. Because all their time counts? More than you can say for right seat time...in a Caravan!
I don't know where the attitude that instructors can't fly comes from. Sour grapes would be my guess. Because all their time counts? More than you can say for right seat time...in a Caravan!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Rudy I take offense at such a broad statement. Even though I am in favour of two crew concept." Notice the age of the posters saying two crew isn't safer. They're ancient and they have ancient attitudes. "
I am one of the oldest pilots on Avcanada and also one of the most modern thinking equipment and crew wise.
I was trained in the two crew concept by some of the best operators in the world, and have been using actual CRM since before many here on this forum were born.
With regard to the no taxiing restriction for FO's I think that is one of the dummest SOP's I have ever heard of.
If a pilot is not to be trusted to taxi how in fu.k can you let them fly?
The whole argument in support of such a stupid SOP only degrades the two crew concept, what is the second pilot going to do if the pilot taxiing is about to run into something or into the wrong taxiway or an active runway? Just say nothing and do nothing? If monitoring at taxi speed is that slack God help them at cruise speed in flight.
Some things can be rationalized but the no taxi one baffels me.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Pilatusable
- Rank 2
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:05 am
- Location: Victoria
So, without low time pilots getting right seat jobs on simpler aircraft, how do they get their hours up to get into the better jobs? Instructing? Floats? How is it safer for someone with 250 hours, and very little experience, to be teaching many others how to fly rather than sitting right seat on a Caravan and learning for themself (with the aid of the Captain). Without these kinds of jobs intended pretty much solely for learning purposes, not nearly enough people would get enough hours to fill this impending pilot shortage everyone keeps talking about. Please tell me, what are some other options for a low time pilot other than right seat Caravan or similar, instructing, or floats.
DOC WROTE
So you would rather have an instructor with 1500 hours who has never flown in ice or dodged cb's over a guy who has probably delt with it in the particular machine.
Oh and guys I am not bashing instructors in any way. An instructor got me a start in this career.
DOC LATER WROTEIf you need "help" to fly a Caravan with 1000-1500 hours, you should be looking for employment with Gray Hound?
200+1300 =1500BTW, I wouldn't let a guy with 200 hours, and 1300 hours shot gun on a Caravan near my Caravan!
So you would rather have an instructor with 1500 hours who has never flown in ice or dodged cb's over a guy who has probably delt with it in the particular machine.
Oh and guys I am not bashing instructors in any way. An instructor got me a start in this career.
I'd think a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the company that hires no time co-pilots, they either make it clear that they are self loading baggage, or they expect them to contribute and they are part of a team.
Companies that hire self loading baggage get just that. And if the no-time pilot is still there 1200 hours later, thats his fault, not the companies. Is it ethical? no, but its business. They need someone to sit there, and they pay a small pittance commensurate with your time to sit there and look pretty.
Conversely, if a company is experienced in 2 crew ops and stands by it, they invest in candidates who demonstrate potential to advance within the company. If the company takes 2 crew seriously, and makes the most of the time the co-pilot gets, then the opportunity should be made for her/him to advance. If it can't happen there, they should move on, remember how professionally they were treated, and pay that forward.
Saying that a second pilot makes things safer is a blanket statement. If you don't use two crew properly its a wasted resource, no different then not fully knowing how to program your autopilot, yet assuming it will make your life easier.
It may be a valid argument that a good number of airplanes can be handled very competently by a single pilot. A 2nd pilot may not be needed on every flight, but then again, some flights may need a second set of hands or eyes. You can have one and not need him/her, or you can need one and not have him/her.
Companies that hire self loading baggage get just that. And if the no-time pilot is still there 1200 hours later, thats his fault, not the companies. Is it ethical? no, but its business. They need someone to sit there, and they pay a small pittance commensurate with your time to sit there and look pretty.
Conversely, if a company is experienced in 2 crew ops and stands by it, they invest in candidates who demonstrate potential to advance within the company. If the company takes 2 crew seriously, and makes the most of the time the co-pilot gets, then the opportunity should be made for her/him to advance. If it can't happen there, they should move on, remember how professionally they were treated, and pay that forward.
Saying that a second pilot makes things safer is a blanket statement. If you don't use two crew properly its a wasted resource, no different then not fully knowing how to program your autopilot, yet assuming it will make your life easier.
It may be a valid argument that a good number of airplanes can be handled very competently by a single pilot. A 2nd pilot may not be needed on every flight, but then again, some flights may need a second set of hands or eyes. You can have one and not need him/her, or you can need one and not have him/her.
