This is the Accident forum, so I think I'm in the right place for this?
Okay, the New York Yankees have proved it again and again. You CAN buy a World Series!
Can you "BUY" safety in an air service.
I'm not talking AC or WJ here. They shouldn't have a "need" to buy safety.
Lets look at a medium sized operation. Perhaps these guys operate Navajos, a King Air or two. Lets base these guys somewhere in central Canada, near or in a medium sized city.
Lets say these guys don't have the "best" reputation. They've been rumoured to pay rather poorly, push their "affordable" young pilots into making questionable decisions. Lets assume these guys are on TC's radar.
Okay, we want to take it over and make it very safe. It won't be cheap. Several habits, that have been saving the owners $$$ for years are going to have to go down the toilet. Replacing the present "coaching staff" is an upfront, requirement.
Lets face it, it'll cost $$$ to replace the single 1500 hour easily swayed pilots, who will launch without the auto pilot, into the great unknown, with two experienced guys who CAN'T be bullied. Who won't go in unserviceable airplanes, and will NOT bust minimums for anybody. These guys will not overload. These guys aren't going to be cheap. Can this small airline in question survive paying the drivers 70K and 40K a year(give or take) with NO bonds. Eight to ten days off a month?
In other words, can you make a profit if you do it RIGHT?
For the owners this should be obviously the only way to go......or close the doors.
Any thoughts?
Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Before I go to sleep Doc I want to be the first to comment.
What you have described is the best way for everyone to be successful if for no other reason than it will save lives and thus make it better for the industry.
The problem is how do you get to that culture?
Maybe rethink the whole licensing and training process?
Restructure the industry so companies have no choice?
For sure relying on each individual to self police their flying limits is getting the industry nowhere except more of the same.
What you have described is the best way for everyone to be successful if for no other reason than it will save lives and thus make it better for the industry.
The problem is how do you get to that culture?
Maybe rethink the whole licensing and training process?
Restructure the industry so companies have no choice?
For sure relying on each individual to self police their flying limits is getting the industry nowhere except more of the same.
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Sadly no. Because there will always be a shit hole operator who can underbid you. The majority of customers simply will not pay for "safety".Doc wrote:
In other words, can you make a profit if you do it RIGHT?
-
cdnpilot77
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Just like in any other industry you need to fill a niche. If you are able to find and solidify that niche, then it is most definitly sustainable no matter how you slice it, unless you have zero business sense. I am sure you know intimately companies that pay their employees well, train them properly and treat them with the level of respect the profession deserves, and, wait for it....still makes money 
Those that are not unique, well, they try to reinvent and replace the wheel with a cheaper smaller wheel (metaphor), one that with using cheaper and less materials will eventually break...it may hold on and do the trick for a while, but the outcome is inevitable.
It's the Walmart model that is very disturbing....make it cheap enough so that rather than fix it, it can just be replaced at a fraction of the cost (ie: airplanes, pilots, mechanics etc)
From my readings, this sounds an awful lot like a current circumstance.
Those that are not unique, well, they try to reinvent and replace the wheel with a cheaper smaller wheel (metaphor), one that with using cheaper and less materials will eventually break...it may hold on and do the trick for a while, but the outcome is inevitable.
It's the Walmart model that is very disturbing....make it cheap enough so that rather than fix it, it can just be replaced at a fraction of the cost (ie: airplanes, pilots, mechanics etc)
From my readings, this sounds an awful lot like a current circumstance.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=49232
Short of the customer demanding an operation like you suggested Doc, and nothing will change. TC enforcement is backwards, and shady operators will simply undercut you. And the shitty operators may actually seem better to the customer, because they'll get in more often by busting minimums and not turning around when they should. They'll also crash more often, but not so often that a single reserve would notice. But if you require that they hire higher time pilots with relatively clean records, the problem goes away. Unfortunately the price goes up too, but safety does actually cost money. Not so much that it's unaffordable, but something.
Have the reserves demand high standards from the operators they use, and have proper audits done. Take away a major customer of a lot of the shady operations, and they either go away, run legit operations, or run significantly smaller operations.
Short of the customer demanding an operation like you suggested Doc, and nothing will change. TC enforcement is backwards, and shady operators will simply undercut you. And the shitty operators may actually seem better to the customer, because they'll get in more often by busting minimums and not turning around when they should. They'll also crash more often, but not so often that a single reserve would notice. But if you require that they hire higher time pilots with relatively clean records, the problem goes away. Unfortunately the price goes up too, but safety does actually cost money. Not so much that it's unaffordable, but something.
Have the reserves demand high standards from the operators they use, and have proper audits done. Take away a major customer of a lot of the shady operations, and they either go away, run legit operations, or run significantly smaller operations.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Sorry Doc, but it's just a fantasy that will never come true. If this recent operator keeps their OC they will be flying people from that same community 6-12 months from now. Maybe in the short term they will lose a few customers but after a few months the customer will revert to the all mighty dollar and will go back to flying with the cheapest carrier.
Don't believe me? Think it's inconceivable? Well it's happened with this very same company how many times already and the customers still keep coming back.
I know of a community that owns a share in an airline, the competition was a few dollars cheaper so guess who they fly with now? Can you imagine? I couldn’t until I heard it. That’s how cheap and dare I say stupid some people are.
This might be cruel to say but the customers got exactly what they paid for. The cheapest / lowest airfare they could get.
Not right. Awful on all accounts but it's a reality.
When an accident happens the pilot will get blamed, the air carrier will get blamed but not the customer.
The customer is a victim. This same victim moans and groans when a flight is delayed to address mechanical issues. This same victim throws tantrums when flights are cancelled due to weather and says, “well carrier X is flying today maybe I should have book with them.” This same victim demands a Caravan at 206 rate because the competition has a 206 and heck they’ll just go fly with them if they can’t get the same rate.
Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions. The pilot for flying the plane, the carrier for dispatching the plane and even yes even the customer for demanding the cheapest, always get in, take my overload ticket.
Customers have the ultimate power here. The carrier and CP have the power over a pilot to hire and fire their ass. The customers have the power to hire and fire the carrier and it’s always the case that they hire the cheapest, fly in the worst weather, take the overloads carrier and fire the rest.
Don't believe me? Think it's inconceivable? Well it's happened with this very same company how many times already and the customers still keep coming back.
I know of a community that owns a share in an airline, the competition was a few dollars cheaper so guess who they fly with now? Can you imagine? I couldn’t until I heard it. That’s how cheap and dare I say stupid some people are.
This might be cruel to say but the customers got exactly what they paid for. The cheapest / lowest airfare they could get.
Not right. Awful on all accounts but it's a reality.
When an accident happens the pilot will get blamed, the air carrier will get blamed but not the customer.
The customer is a victim. This same victim moans and groans when a flight is delayed to address mechanical issues. This same victim throws tantrums when flights are cancelled due to weather and says, “well carrier X is flying today maybe I should have book with them.” This same victim demands a Caravan at 206 rate because the competition has a 206 and heck they’ll just go fly with them if they can’t get the same rate.
Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions. The pilot for flying the plane, the carrier for dispatching the plane and even yes even the customer for demanding the cheapest, always get in, take my overload ticket.
Customers have the ultimate power here. The carrier and CP have the power over a pilot to hire and fire their ass. The customers have the power to hire and fire the carrier and it’s always the case that they hire the cheapest, fly in the worst weather, take the overloads carrier and fire the rest.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Bobby868 raises some valid concerns.
Ultimately it will be the education of the customer, and their subsequent outrage that will drive safety improvements in the industry. You can see this happening now - in many areas where government agencies, oilfield and some of the mining and other resource sectors are the customer. Those types of customers will go so far as to conduct informed audits on companies before the company is allowed to fly for them, or continue flying.
However it is the nature of consumers to seek the best bang for the buck and whether it is the customer described above or the average joe; to varying degrees they will always want to carry more, regardless of weather, for less money.
Until our society evolves to the point that we don't need money anymore, this will continue to exacerbate the problems we are experiencing with industry safety.
Despite this, and until Transport Canada can be made to do their job, the education and support of the customer is our best hope for salvation.
In a perfect world (ie one where Transport Canada was functional instead of dysfunctional), Transport Canada would counterbalance the fickle nature of the customer by requiring all players to meet the same standards - thereby leveling of the cost of doing business. This, combined with the continued education and support of the customer would result in drastic improvements across the board.
Something to strive for!
Best Regards,
Kirsten B.
Ultimately it will be the education of the customer, and their subsequent outrage that will drive safety improvements in the industry. You can see this happening now - in many areas where government agencies, oilfield and some of the mining and other resource sectors are the customer. Those types of customers will go so far as to conduct informed audits on companies before the company is allowed to fly for them, or continue flying.
However it is the nature of consumers to seek the best bang for the buck and whether it is the customer described above or the average joe; to varying degrees they will always want to carry more, regardless of weather, for less money.
Until our society evolves to the point that we don't need money anymore, this will continue to exacerbate the problems we are experiencing with industry safety.
Despite this, and until Transport Canada can be made to do their job, the education and support of the customer is our best hope for salvation.
In a perfect world (ie one where Transport Canada was functional instead of dysfunctional), Transport Canada would counterbalance the fickle nature of the customer by requiring all players to meet the same standards - thereby leveling of the cost of doing business. This, combined with the continued education and support of the customer would result in drastic improvements across the board.
Something to strive for!
Best Regards,
Kirsten B.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
There is a rather simple solution to the problem, and it is used in many countries that we consider backwards.
The customer (pax) looks only at the price for the most part. They assume, unfortuantely incorrectly, that the good folks at TC are looking after regulating an acceptable standard.
Which they are not.
So here is the simple solution.
TC has to do what their madate actually requires them to do..Protect the unsuspecting customer from unscupulous operators...How to do it...TC should inspect companies and require a mininimum experience level for pilots that their AOC depends on..Very simple.
It can be reviewed once a year, so if a company invests in good training,and mentorship, they can have the experience level for new hires reduced.
Let me give an example.
Company A applies for an AOC to begin float operations. TC makes a condition of their AOC that they cannot have anyone with less than 500 PIC on floats, and 100 hrs. on type.
Company operates that way for a year, or maybe two, and demonstrates that their training and supervision will allow them to safely hire less experience, and the requirements are reduced to 250/50..Two more years and the requirement is dropped. TC can look at their proposed training and agree during their inspections (which should bloody well be reinstated, and done with common sense, not a check off the paperwork approach)
This ends scuzzbucket companies hiring 250 pilots, or 500 hour instructors with no cloud time, and sending them off into crap weather in beaters. Yes it will cost them more..They will have to raise their prices to the level of the companies that have good (read expensive) training programs. Of course there will always be those companies that have a good training and supervision program and pay their pilots peanuts, but that is the choice of pilots to work for nothing. Everyone loves to hate the auditing companies who provide approval for the big companies, but they are doing what TC should be doing with every company.
The other thing here, is if companies do not comply with the mandated hiring, the accountable executive might just be held accountable.
As an aside, other regulators hold accountable executives accountable, but dont dictate who they can hire for CPs or Ops Mgr/PRM, D o M..They can hire who they want but the buck goes quickly to the top if there is a problem. Puts the onus on the accountable executive to hire good management instead of using the "TC qualfied" method as the criteria.
Something to think about. Simple, and easy to implement.
The problem will be of course, the wailing and teeth gnashing of the 'how do I get experience , if I need it to get a job crowd, " You go to work for one of the good operators who has demonstated by their record that they properly train pilots, supervise them, and operate safely.
At the very least, if you are working for peanuts, you will be getting some proper experience.
Yes that will limit low timer opportunity. But a lot less of them will die.
The customer (pax) looks only at the price for the most part. They assume, unfortuantely incorrectly, that the good folks at TC are looking after regulating an acceptable standard.
Which they are not.
So here is the simple solution.
TC has to do what their madate actually requires them to do..Protect the unsuspecting customer from unscupulous operators...How to do it...TC should inspect companies and require a mininimum experience level for pilots that their AOC depends on..Very simple.
It can be reviewed once a year, so if a company invests in good training,and mentorship, they can have the experience level for new hires reduced.
Let me give an example.
Company A applies for an AOC to begin float operations. TC makes a condition of their AOC that they cannot have anyone with less than 500 PIC on floats, and 100 hrs. on type.
Company operates that way for a year, or maybe two, and demonstrates that their training and supervision will allow them to safely hire less experience, and the requirements are reduced to 250/50..Two more years and the requirement is dropped. TC can look at their proposed training and agree during their inspections (which should bloody well be reinstated, and done with common sense, not a check off the paperwork approach)
This ends scuzzbucket companies hiring 250 pilots, or 500 hour instructors with no cloud time, and sending them off into crap weather in beaters. Yes it will cost them more..They will have to raise their prices to the level of the companies that have good (read expensive) training programs. Of course there will always be those companies that have a good training and supervision program and pay their pilots peanuts, but that is the choice of pilots to work for nothing. Everyone loves to hate the auditing companies who provide approval for the big companies, but they are doing what TC should be doing with every company.
The other thing here, is if companies do not comply with the mandated hiring, the accountable executive might just be held accountable.
As an aside, other regulators hold accountable executives accountable, but dont dictate who they can hire for CPs or Ops Mgr/PRM, D o M..They can hire who they want but the buck goes quickly to the top if there is a problem. Puts the onus on the accountable executive to hire good management instead of using the "TC qualfied" method as the criteria.
Something to think about. Simple, and easy to implement.
The problem will be of course, the wailing and teeth gnashing of the 'how do I get experience , if I need it to get a job crowd, " You go to work for one of the good operators who has demonstated by their record that they properly train pilots, supervise them, and operate safely.
At the very least, if you are working for peanuts, you will be getting some proper experience.
Yes that will limit low timer opportunity. But a lot less of them will die.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Well I'll be dammed, we are getting real intelligent comments from this usually dysfunctional group.
Maybe the industry needs some of you guys ( and girls ) to start a " college " of pilots to bring about these changes to your industry.
I use " your " industries because I am becoming senile and frail in my old age.
Another suggestion would be to shit can all the drones in TCCA's flight training department and revamp the training industry.
A good start would be to have flight instructors come from the top level of pilot experience not the student pilot level.
The cost actually would be less to learn as they would cut their training time in half.
Maybe the industry needs some of you guys ( and girls ) to start a " college " of pilots to bring about these changes to your industry.
I use " your " industries because I am becoming senile and frail in my old age.
Another suggestion would be to shit can all the drones in TCCA's flight training department and revamp the training industry.
A good start would be to have flight instructors come from the top level of pilot experience not the student pilot level.
The cost actually would be less to learn as they would cut their training time in half.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
If the "...shithole operator..." did not exist, problem solved. Figure out how to get rid of them all, make everyone stand firm on the rules and professionalism and the industry can become a paragon of safety, pride and public service. Actually, as a pilot you go way beyond public service and are actually performing a trust - no passenger gives you the money for a ticket so you can kill them.
They don't expect that.
How many of you go to work thinking "...this might be my last day on earth today - hmmm, maybe if I just check the weather, snag that magneto or pump in a few more gallons, I might be able to join the guys at the bar tonight rather than make them spend all night searching for me?"
"Goodbye dear, I'm going to die today because I'm going to push weather, fly a P.O.S. airplane that needs maintenance, put in an extra passenger instead of enough fuel, break minimums at destination because I don't have an IFR approach, fly into known icing with one boot not working, all because otherwise I might have to find another job; have a nice life!"
Figure out what you are trying to do with your life (and your passengers and your family) and get it right. Like . says: "...just say no!"
They don't expect that.
How many of you go to work thinking "...this might be my last day on earth today - hmmm, maybe if I just check the weather, snag that magneto or pump in a few more gallons, I might be able to join the guys at the bar tonight rather than make them spend all night searching for me?"
"Goodbye dear, I'm going to die today because I'm going to push weather, fly a P.O.S. airplane that needs maintenance, put in an extra passenger instead of enough fuel, break minimums at destination because I don't have an IFR approach, fly into known icing with one boot not working, all because otherwise I might have to find another job; have a nice life!"
Figure out what you are trying to do with your life (and your passengers and your family) and get it right. Like . says: "...just say no!"
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
As I see it, TC has designed minimum standards for air operations, which they enforce through licensing requirements, periodical audits, and ramp checks. These regulations, as well as enfercement actions are the minimums, for the type of air operations.
Insurance companies have also their required minimums.
So, in a perfect world, pilots are sufficiently qualified, the planes are maintained to standard, and the flight operations are conducted according to the approved company approved SOPs.
I don't think TC is to be blamed for low standards, or the insurance companies either.
When something happens, sometimes everythings has been done right, and the rules have been followed. Is there a need to change the rules, unless there is a pattern of too low standards?
If problems only occur at one operation, it means that at least one person has either broken the rules about minimums for safety, or exercised poor judgement, while still following the minimum rules. Like AF 447.
The problem starts with our customer culture, of always looking for the cheapest ticket. The industry builds operators for that need of cheap flights. To do so, they go with the strict minimums allowed. And they may succeed in staying in operation, provided that they stayed within the approved guidelines.
The same applies to the trucking industry. Dispatchers find the cheapest pallet mover from A to B, and give him work. Truck drivers are employed on how they can drive cheaper, and longer... And they kill a lot of poeple too...
Insurance companies have also their required minimums.
So, in a perfect world, pilots are sufficiently qualified, the planes are maintained to standard, and the flight operations are conducted according to the approved company approved SOPs.
I don't think TC is to be blamed for low standards, or the insurance companies either.
When something happens, sometimes everythings has been done right, and the rules have been followed. Is there a need to change the rules, unless there is a pattern of too low standards?
If problems only occur at one operation, it means that at least one person has either broken the rules about minimums for safety, or exercised poor judgement, while still following the minimum rules. Like AF 447.
The problem starts with our customer culture, of always looking for the cheapest ticket. The industry builds operators for that need of cheap flights. To do so, they go with the strict minimums allowed. And they may succeed in staying in operation, provided that they stayed within the approved guidelines.
The same applies to the trucking industry. Dispatchers find the cheapest pallet mover from A to B, and give him work. Truck drivers are employed on how they can drive cheaper, and longer... And they kill a lot of poeple too...
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
The safer company you propose begs two questions.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No
The way I see it there are only two roads that lead to your safer operation.
1. regulation that forces the playing field to change (that way the next scumbag operator can't undercut you).
The problem is regulation will never happen/never works as intended.(usually causes more problems)
2. All pilots fall under a country wide association that sets standards and rules that ALL must abide by.
I would love to see it, it would get my vote...but I won't hold my breath.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? No
The way I see it there are only two roads that lead to your safer operation.
1. regulation that forces the playing field to change (that way the next scumbag operator can't undercut you).
The problem is regulation will never happen/never works as intended.(usually causes more problems)
2. All pilots fall under a country wide association that sets standards and rules that ALL must abide by.
I would love to see it, it would get my vote...but I won't hold my breath.
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Doc... You raise an interesting question. Can safety be bought? Well in some ways yes it can...and in others no it cant. I think expat has nailed it with his comment about customer culture and they are always seeking the best deal $$$ wise.
What i tried to do (and continue to do) is point out that safety is worth the few extra $$ they may pay me, vs paying my competition a bit less for less safety.
One way to address the pilot pay issue is maybe what I did with my 703 op. After about a year of paying base + miles...I saw the younger guys really struggling with weather and their decisions to go/no go. What I found was that many were willing to fly in barely min acceptable weather, because of their pay cheque. As I saw this begin to develop, I questioned the entire crew at a staff meeting and asked who felt "pushed" to do trips in marginal weather due to their pay cheque? I was shocked that at least half my team put up their hands. So what I suggested was we restructure our pay schedule completely, and pay a salary based on the aircraft, time on type, and numbers of yrs service with us.
The team LOVED the new structure and I had subsequent meetings to find out what everyone thought was a fair salary for each position. At the end of the day the change to salary took the pressure off the younger guys, and gave them the stability of knowing exactly how much their pay cheques would be every 2 weeks. It worked well for us. I actually saved over 33K in the 1st yr we implemented salary vs base & miles. The crew were all happy as they got paid whether they completed the mission or not. I also found that this set up brought the younger crew to mine and the CPs door far more often for "advice and review" on a marginal GFA. That way, they felt no pressure and made a decision based on real facts and not that they would lose 80$ if they didnt make the trip.
So, can you buy safety? In some ways yes my friend. My team were all happy with the structure as was I. It made it easy to calculate how much wages were going to cost me projected over the next yr, and I could easily budget for it. Did it buy me a safer crew? Safer Airline? I believe it did, because it took the pressure OFF and allowed the crews to make conscious weather decisions based on only weather information, and no pressure of not getting paid. I think if every 703 went to this (or was mandated to do this) it would truly make a difference.
I was on base and miles for my 1st 2 jobs and I felt the pressure to fly all the time. When I made my 1st CP position and started on salary for the 1st time...I felt more in control of my own decisions...not basing them on $$$$. If you keep your team happy, and pay them a fair salary, even the 703s can compete...if we throw the trash OUTTA the game that is...then even the mom and pop ops could pay fairly, and keep their op in the black. Its the dishonest ones that make it hard for the truly honest and safe air services.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.
What i tried to do (and continue to do) is point out that safety is worth the few extra $$ they may pay me, vs paying my competition a bit less for less safety.
One way to address the pilot pay issue is maybe what I did with my 703 op. After about a year of paying base + miles...I saw the younger guys really struggling with weather and their decisions to go/no go. What I found was that many were willing to fly in barely min acceptable weather, because of their pay cheque. As I saw this begin to develop, I questioned the entire crew at a staff meeting and asked who felt "pushed" to do trips in marginal weather due to their pay cheque? I was shocked that at least half my team put up their hands. So what I suggested was we restructure our pay schedule completely, and pay a salary based on the aircraft, time on type, and numbers of yrs service with us.
The team LOVED the new structure and I had subsequent meetings to find out what everyone thought was a fair salary for each position. At the end of the day the change to salary took the pressure off the younger guys, and gave them the stability of knowing exactly how much their pay cheques would be every 2 weeks. It worked well for us. I actually saved over 33K in the 1st yr we implemented salary vs base & miles. The crew were all happy as they got paid whether they completed the mission or not. I also found that this set up brought the younger crew to mine and the CPs door far more often for "advice and review" on a marginal GFA. That way, they felt no pressure and made a decision based on real facts and not that they would lose 80$ if they didnt make the trip.
So, can you buy safety? In some ways yes my friend. My team were all happy with the structure as was I. It made it easy to calculate how much wages were going to cost me projected over the next yr, and I could easily budget for it. Did it buy me a safer crew? Safer Airline? I believe it did, because it took the pressure OFF and allowed the crews to make conscious weather decisions based on only weather information, and no pressure of not getting paid. I think if every 703 went to this (or was mandated to do this) it would truly make a difference.
I was on base and miles for my 1st 2 jobs and I felt the pressure to fly all the time. When I made my 1st CP position and started on salary for the 1st time...I felt more in control of my own decisions...not basing them on $$$$. If you keep your team happy, and pay them a fair salary, even the 703s can compete...if we throw the trash OUTTA the game that is...then even the mom and pop ops could pay fairly, and keep their op in the black. Its the dishonest ones that make it hard for the truly honest and safe air services.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.
-
Dayofthedogs
- Rank 1
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:15 am
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
70k and 40k in a chieftain?
With the proposal of only putting guys into the aircraft with 500pic and 100 on type for a float gig. For the 172 or? For the first 2-5 years that this system would be implemented no guys with less then 500 pic or 100 hrs time on type lot's of guys would be outta a job until the companies proved they have a good enough safety record?
How does one go about getting experience in this kind of system?
How many 40 year old men/women have told you they felt bullied on the job or anywhere else for that matter?
We talk about how the young guys are afraid to blow the whistle about poor company practices because they have families to feed and don't want to end up unemployed. Yet most of the proposals I've seen on this thread would leave those very same pilots out of work because they don't have the experience. There are only so many 206 and 172 jobs out there. And if as Cat proposed no instructor jobs. However I do agree with him that the training system seems to be broken more experienced instructors sounds like a smart way to improve pilot skills opposed to having 1000hr guys who's heads are already in the 704 game.
With the proposal of only putting guys into the aircraft with 500pic and 100 on type for a float gig. For the 172 or? For the first 2-5 years that this system would be implemented no guys with less then 500 pic or 100 hrs time on type lot's of guys would be outta a job until the companies proved they have a good enough safety record?
How does one go about getting experience in this kind of system?
How many 40 year old men/women have told you they felt bullied on the job or anywhere else for that matter?
We talk about how the young guys are afraid to blow the whistle about poor company practices because they have families to feed and don't want to end up unemployed. Yet most of the proposals I've seen on this thread would leave those very same pilots out of work because they don't have the experience. There are only so many 206 and 172 jobs out there. And if as Cat proposed no instructor jobs. However I do agree with him that the training system seems to be broken more experienced instructors sounds like a smart way to improve pilot skills opposed to having 1000hr guys who's heads are already in the 704 game.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
FTB, there are many, many dead pilots littering the northern landscape brought to us by nothing BUT a pay scale of base plus milage. A practice that should be outlawed.
Another known "killer" is not paying for a trip if the pilots missed the approach.
Another known "killer" is not paying for a trip if the pilots missed the approach.
Last edited by Doc on Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dayofthedogs
- Rank 1
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:15 am
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
True.
It does seem like this comes down to clients/customers being willing to pay. I just have a hard time accepting that a low time guy is incapable of flying to a proper standard while ensuring flight safety especially when you have an experienced (and well paid
) captain in the seat next to him. Do we go back to second officers? Do we go to a college that ensures A higher degree of training in real world aviation (I know you hate that idea). That said single pilot IFR does not sound like the right way to gain your first few hundred hours of IFR time.
It does seem like this comes down to clients/customers being willing to pay. I just have a hard time accepting that a low time guy is incapable of flying to a proper standard while ensuring flight safety especially when you have an experienced (and well paid
) captain in the seat next to him. Do we go back to second officers? Do we go to a college that ensures A higher degree of training in real world aviation (I know you hate that idea). That said single pilot IFR does not sound like the right way to gain your first few hundred hours of IFR time.Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
I work in industrial construction. In our industry, safety isn't just mandated by the regulator. There is a large cost associated with insurance. Accident rates, lost time frequency and safety programs all cause your rate to go up (or down if you improve). (I believe these are the provincial workers comp programs). If your rate goes up enough, you can very quickly price yourself out of the market.
Does nothing like this exist in aviation? Is it because aviation is federally regulated?
g
Does nothing like this exist in aviation? Is it because aviation is federally regulated?
g
-
cdnpilot77
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Not per say but insurance rates would clearly increase. Trouble is, as those rates go up, the sketchy ops would find other places to cut corners...more cargo, lower wages, more u/s equipment, less fuel etc etc (sound familiar) all contributing to an even less safe operation until TC finally pulls the plug on them....we hope!!
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Is that high? Or low. A busy Navajo can make an operator a small fortune. Ideally, pay rates should be based on the income derived from the aircraft. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Your charter rate might be higher on a more sophisticated airplane, but so are your costs. It can be done safely single pilot, as long as the airplane is totally up to par (NO wiggle room here, BTW, AT ALL) and the pilot strictly adheres to all limiting factors/minimums etc. (NO wiggle room here, either) Otherwise, it'd be just another "Gong Show".Dayofthedogs wrote:70k and 40k in a chieftain?
-
Dayofthedogs
- Rank 1
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:15 am
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
Could not agree more about the no wiggle room on a single pilot ifr machine. Yes 70k and 40k seem a little high to me but I would love it if that was the case. What are low time guys supposed to do if they can't get a right seat job in a HO? This is what i'm stuck on. Why is it that you don't believe a low time guy can't properly perform the duties of a co pilot in a two crew environment?
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
I think there should be a regulation prohibiting all single pilot ME 702/703 operations VFR or IFR. The best way for the 250 hr newbie CPL or a guy/gal with only instructor experience, to really learn how to fly in a commercial operation, is sitting in the right seat with an experienced Captain.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
How does one go about getting experience in this kind of system?
Its a rather an age old question, and two of us pointed out the answer. The problem is experience is actually important. That little pussycat Navajo can turn into a snarly tiger in a heartbeat.
And it does not even have to be an abnormal situation..Pilots without experience can get overwhelmed for the first while when encoutering ice, and minimum ceilings, or night flying into a black hole on a reserve.
If you read my post, and the one just above this , you will see we offered suggestions.
Expat mentioned the standards set by TC. Those are the minimums, and flying a navaho or king air, or Caravan in the north, at night, and in hard IFR require more than the minimums.
I will say it..It is one helluva lot more difficult then driving around in an automated , push button machine, that has ample backup systems. The license minimums do not have to change, but TC could make it an OC requirement to have all IFR two crew...And a real two crew, not a pilot and a talking sandbag in the right seat. This whole two crew thing in small aircraft has turned into an instructional/mentor thing, and seldom is really a two crew operation.
Companies are not in the business of paying to teach a new pilot and give them experience, despite what some maythink.
There is just no way someone who has only an hour or two in cloud, or maybe none at all, is qualified to do this type of flying regardless of the TC standards. Smart companies know this. Scuzz buckets dont care, and the inexperienced eager new CPLs dont know what they dont know. To many find out in the last few seconds of their lives.
BTW. find ex instructors the worst. They have an attitude that they can fly pretty much anything everywhere. When I was working in Northern Canada, the problem was not pushing the new young pilots, but keeping the young fools from blasting off in weather that was way beyond their capabilities. And of course, there were exceptions. Pilots who claimed a 5kt crosswind was to much and cancelled...Or seeing a thunderstorm on a GFA 200 miles from their destination and moving away from it and cancelling.
It is a tough balance, and the solution, for some good operators is only to hire experience. The whole two crew concept unfortunately,
I will state in again..There are some great operators out there who take training seriously, and understand the demands on small aircraft IFR operations, and really do train their FOs, to act as qualified crewmembers.. And some of them pay thier FOs peanuts. But if that means you can get some real training and experience it is not all that bad a thing. However there are some operators who pay Fos peanuts and do not train them at all.. It is just about appearances..And the worst of it is, the FOs are able to log that as experience.
-
flyinthebug
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1686
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: CYPA
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
+1!Big Pistons Forever wrote:I think there should be a regulation prohibiting all single pilot ME 702/703 operations VFR or IFR. The best way for the 250 hr newbie CPL or a guy/gal with only instructor experience, to really learn how to fly in a commercial operation, is sitting in the right seat with an experienced Captain.
I have been advocating for this since back when I had my 1st SPIFR job. I had 1000 hours and no real twin experience beyond being a co-pilot "window dressing" for an air ambulance. When I blasted off SPIFR in a pa31-350 with no real experience...well lets just say I had some scares along the way. What I wouldnt have given to have an experienced Captain beside me when things started to go sideways. Somehow I muddled through and didnt kill myself or anyone else. Its pure LUCK that keeps these ops from having more bad accidents. If we mandated 2 crew for ALL 703 twin ops, it would certainly bring down the accident stats at this level of aviation.
At our op we even flew the C310 with 2 crew. Some of the other ops laughed at us...as they kept crashing and we kept our 30 yr accident free record shiny and respected!
All it would take is TC to mandate it, and maybe if we all make enough noise, they might hear us. SPIFR should be outlawed. It IS a dangerous practice and will continue to garner results like this latest accident. 4 eyes are better than 2 and 2 heads are better than 1...especially when things go sideways.
My 2 cents.
Fly safe all.
-
Just another canuck
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 6:21 am
- Location: The Lake.
Re: Buying Safety....$$$$$?
To quote one Northern Ontario operator I spoke to a few years ago: "You can not make money in this business without continuously breaking the law."
I summarized of course, but this operator also pretty much refuses to hire experienced pilots. They only hire 200 hour wonders so they can teach them their BS ways... similar in many ways to Keystone I suppose. I remember a couple of their pilots thought it was really cool that they had 2 inches + of ice on their plane and that they "barely made it back to the airport." They showed me the pictures.
When this type of thing is going on, it really tends to make me lose hope... and the sad part is that I actually believe the operator when they say they have a hard time making a profit if they don't break the law. Is it right? No. But that doesn't make it any less true.
I summarized of course, but this operator also pretty much refuses to hire experienced pilots. They only hire 200 hour wonders so they can teach them their BS ways... similar in many ways to Keystone I suppose. I remember a couple of their pilots thought it was really cool that they had 2 inches + of ice on their plane and that they "barely made it back to the airport." They showed me the pictures.
When this type of thing is going on, it really tends to make me lose hope... and the sad part is that I actually believe the operator when they say they have a hard time making a profit if they don't break the law. Is it right? No. But that doesn't make it any less true.
