Buying Safety....$$$$$?

[Doc]

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 wouldn't go as far as saying single pilot flights should be regulated out of existence, (I do see where you're going here however)but perhaps single pilot ops could be somewhat limited by weather minima, or pilot experience?
Totally agree with the comments regarding "where do the low time pilots gain experience...". Perhaps demand a certain experience level of the left seat guy? I agree, you don't need 1500-2000 hours to set right seat in a HO, but if you have 250, the other guy ought to at least have quite a bit more? I wouldn't go as far as mandating a TT requirement, but I guess you'd kind of have to?

[Doc]

Gawd! I'm talking to myself.

TRAINING!!!!!

Caravan drivers require FSI, or an equivalent! If they're going to fly passengers at night, or IFR. Now, I've flown HO's. I've even known a few.....A HO is a HELL of a lot more complicated than a Caravan!(I have a couple of thousand in Caravans, BTW) BUT, operators can get by with training that is a bloody JOKE on a HO??????? WHY????? At least the captain should have an FSI course on type under his belt. Thoughts?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Gawd! I'm talking to myself.

TRAINING!!!!!

Caravan drivers require FSI, or an equivalent! If they're going to fly passengers at night, or IFR. Now, I've flown HO's. I've even known a few.....A HO is a HELL of a lot more complicated than a Caravan!(I have a couple of thousand in Caravans, BTW) BUT, operators can get by with training that is a bloody JOKE on a HO??????? WHY????? At least the captain should have an FSI course on type under his belt. Thoughts?

You raise a very interesting point. You are required to use a sim for training for large aircraft (unless one doesn't exist) and that allows you to practice things that are just too dangerous to do in an aircraft and does a much better job of exposing the pilot to systems emergencies then you get simulating them in the real airplane.

I once flew a pressurized piston twin Cessna for a corporate operator. The owner ran it like a good jet operation and insisted on annual recurrent training at SIMCOM ($ US 3500). SIMCOM built their own 414/421 sim that cost almost $2,000,000. It was extremely realistic and provided outstanding training. There was no question I was a better, safer pilot after the exposure to the sim. I think that this level of type specific training would be a hard sell for piston 703 operations, but the new Redbird sim IMO has some real potential and rents for around 140 bucks dual. I recently used it for some training for a private pilot flying his own piston twin. The EFATO scenario was pretty realistic and I made a short but realistic LOFT training scenario that had him sweating. Mandatory recurrent training in one of the new generation sims would IMO be a real benefit.

One important point I did not mention was the importance of good 2 crew SOPs. Without them the benefits of the second guy will not be realized

[Prairie Chicken]

There are some really GOOD points coming out here! Ok, so, at the conclusion of this brain-storming session, who is going to prepare a summary of the many good points & submit to the appropriate CARAC committee???? Who will write it up in a professional manner and submit to those who can make a difference; complete with signatures?

Great thread Doc! Beef, right on, and I'm still chuckling about that one!

I do not think we can expect TC to return to effective oversight. That would take money and I do not foresee the government investing significant amounts of money in further oversight of this industry. Perhaps if the accident rate and body counts really catch the attention of the public, but not before.

So, back to the suggestions, keep 'em coming, but make a commitment to pass them along, formally, to the legislators and while we're at it, let's send this document to your MPs too.

[cncpc]

I think that this level of type specific training would be a hard sell for piston 703 operations, but the new Redbird sim IMO has some real potential and rents for around 140 bucks dual. I recently used it for some training for a private pilot flying his own piston twin. The EFATO scenario was pretty realistic and I made a short but realistic LOFT training scenario that had him sweating. Mandatory recurrent training in one of the new generation sims would IMO be a real benefit.

The Redbird FMX does have real potential. I think the issue is whether the company will improve that model, or leave it behind for greener pastures with things like their King Air sim that the US government is now testing. Another interesting development they have down there is a research project to see if more sim time could be put into the training syllabus in at least the FAA regime for private and commercial.

The core functionality of the Redbird is very impressive. However, the "model" really only extends to performance and the throttle arrangement and the display. One set of switches and breakers applies to every model, and there is only one yoke, so the opportunity for SOP training is lost. The platform is there with the motion, the display arrangement is adequate but of course has its limitations in that it is left seat perspective based and requires roll to look below. It has some obvious flaws and they seem to be petty omissions on Redbird's part. For instance, no cowl flaps on cowl flapped airplanes. We just got a 206 cockpit and cowl flaps and constant speed and the heavier controls are the main parts of the transition up from the 172. It does control forces quite well and has the constant speed, but no cowl flaps so we're looking at building our own. The difficulty is simulating the effect on CHT.

If Redbird would go along with it, and sell only the core functionality and the acrylic, it might be a good business for someone to provide aftermarket type specific models with dual yokes. Redbird's approach is, if you want a Caravan, for instance, they will do one up with more Caravan specific features, and you pay the development costs. I think its in the $180,000 range, or roughly $115,000 more for the customization. I don't know if they then turn around and sell other models that you've paid to develop or how that works.

Redbird is a super company for service, no doubt about that.

[CpnCrunch]

(This is a reply to a comment in the North Spirit Lake thread, but I thought it was better to continue the discussion here).

Around 7000-10000$ per aircraft initial investment...it is the maintenance costs that hurt down the road. To a small operator, it simply doesnt make any business sense.

Ah, thank you FITB... I thought that was the approximate price, however I wasn't sure what they cost to keep up.

I believe putting a radar alt in a (703) PA31-350 would offer a false sense of security to the less experienced pilots.

This may be true... but, now we come back to training. If trained properly, the RAD ALT can be a very useful tool to cross-reference your altimeter with. And like the above poster stated, could serve as a back up to a faulty altimeter/setting. I never used it "sneak in" but I used it as a reference on every approach. Used correctly, it certainly can't be a bad thing.

There are cheaper options available that give more situational awareness, such as garmin 796 which has synthetic vision...probably a better option for pilots flying marginal VFR than a radar altimeter.

Also, if you're a pilot who's regularly flying in marginal VFR and you can't afford that, there are cheap apps that you can put on your iphone/android that give terrain awareness for literally a few bucks!:

https://market.android.com/details?id=c ... ight&hl=en

(I haven't tried this one myself - just spotted it now).

And of course Doc is right in saying that you just shouldn't fly VFR if you're not VFR. Sensible pilots would only use this technology as a backup, not a crutch.

[cncpc]

70k and 40k in a chieftain?

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Still, a betting man would take the Rottweiler over the chihuahua.

[Mach 92]

I've always liked the idea of learning to fly as an apprenticeship process. It's certainly a safer, less stressful, way to go. Unfortunately, for me, this was never the case. Much of my "experience" was learned at my unknowing passengers' expense. I have to say that the most difficult flying job I ever had was flying IFR piston twins. It only got easier from there as the aircraft got progressively easier too.

Simulators are great, but they still can't provide the kind of experience gained by a good mentor. There needs to be more of an industry incentive to bring new pilots up through the right seat. From there, they should be free to move on to PIC jobs in aircraft that require more skill. I like the idea of introducing a course that teaches pilots how to perform in a multi-crew environment, and introduces them to the concepts of SOPs and emergency procedures ("My airplane, my radios, memory items, go ahead with the ____ checklist.") Upon completion of such a course, a pilot could move on to copilot any aircraft given type specific training. This would be similar to the FAA requirements for a business aviation aircraft where no formal type rating is required to sit right seat. I can think of many Canadian operators who would benefit both financially and strategically from this type of regulation/relationship.

Engineers have embraced the apprenticeship program, why can't we? It's an industry problem that deserves an industry solution.

Whenever I flew with inexperienced copilots, I've always tried to impart as much of my experience to them as I possibly could. I tried my best to make them feel at ease, and let them do 90% of the flying, so they could get the hands on time they need to gain more confidence. I challenged them to make all of the decisions, as if they were PIC when they were flying, and I would only step in when I had to. This way, they learned to think for themselves. Most of the time, they challenged me just as much by constantly asking questions that really made me think.

[MrWings]

I think the rules are in place already to ensure a high degree of safety. But if people can break them with no consequence then what good is the rule?

I am sick of all of the new rules being legislated when there is no follow-up. They recently introduced a distracted driving law in Alberta where it is unlawful to talk on your cell phone while driving. But every day I see people talking while driving. The police don't want to chase these people around. The only way to get charged under this law is AFTER you are in an accident and it can be proven that you were on the phone. Enforcement is always reactive.

Enforce the rules we have. If someone gets into an airport without an approach when the weather is reported to be IFR, lets see some stiff fines. A $5000 or $10000 hit will quickly stop operators from pressuring pilots.

[Doc]

While we're on the subject of "buying safety"..........we'll pay the extra $$$ for a second engine, thank you very much. Except for the Caravans running freight VFR, I SAY AGAIN, VFR!

['effin hippie]

Hey Doc.

I don't think this needs to raise operating expenses that much at all, assuming we just took over a company that was at least a little profitable (and if it wasn't, then we are retarded for mortgaging our homes or whatever to buy the crap thing).

We took this outfit over right? Why would we step on our own dicks by being the kind of jerks that push low-timers, which we think is immoral; only to turn around and double our pay-roll to hire the kind of people who won't let us push them, which we know is expensive?

Someone just mentioned this in a related thread: the only new hires need to be the CP, OM and maybe the DM if the old one was bad. (And I have seen plenty of crap ops where the bullying came from the wrenches.)

Now there will be some increased spending for sure, better training, fix up Otto or pay for 250 hr co-joes, not sure what's cheaper. But Good SOP's and safety culture are the product of your new managements blood sweat and tears, not $$$.
Money wise what will really change is our expectations as owners for free cash-flow. We're going to have to feed most of it back into the op for a few years, make sure every season the equipment is a little better than last season. Build a good track record with the insurer. Build the organization.

If we're owners and mangers dedicated to building real value in our organization over the long term we stand a great chance of making this thing work. If we want a new truck every year from the word go we're f***ed and will become the very people we loathe.

ef

ps. Just re-read. Doc, regarding 'Ho pay: Mileage kills, but we do want a system that scales pilot wage to aircraft revenue. Thoughts? Borek used to pay monthly base plus daily whether you flew or not.

pps. Fact is, bad ops are created by people bad at business. Period. And the only way our imaginary op can be a good one is if we as imaginary owners are good at business. Which we all are. In our imaginations...

[Doc]

Good points there, ef. Of course, the subject IS spending money to improve safety. Assuming we HAVE money to spend. If we have to take out mortgages, the improvements would have to come completely from our new company "culture" or "mind set". But you're right, no reason at all that by adopting a "no push" attitude a company could go forward in leaps and bounds safety wise.
Interesting comment you made about some pressure coming from "wrenches". I've seen it with regard to some snags. It's been a while, for me at least. But I've seen it.
Also, nothing wrong with 250 hour right seat guys, as long as they're flying with guys they can learn from. Good post.

[Gorgons]

Read a really interesting article the other day, not about airplane add-on's like a radar alt but rather snow tires. One province made them mandatory during certain months, they produced reports suggesting it improved safety and saved lives during winter months. Well stats can be produced to paint the picture you want. In this case it did, seems the low accident rate could be tied to less driving being done by male drivers between 18 and 25 due to lack of available jobs etc. At any rate a number of countries have produced reports demonstrating that increasing percieved safety features actually has the opposite effect as it leads to higher confidence levels in the operators that the safety features will save them and they tend to take greater risks than without the features installed.

[CpnCrunch]

Read a really interesting article the other day, not about airplane add-on's like a radar alt but rather snow tires. One province made them mandatory during certain months, they produced reports suggesting it improved safety and saved lives during winter months. Well stats can be produced to paint the picture you want. In this case it did, seems the low accident rate could be tied to less driving being done by male drivers between 18 and 25 due to lack of available jobs etc. At any rate a number of countries have produced reports demonstrating that increasing percieved safety features actually has the opposite effect as it leads to higher confidence levels in the operators that the safety features will save them and they tend to take greater risks than without the features installed.

Anyone who lives in Calgary knows that snow tires are a requirement if you don't want to end up like all those people you see on the news sliding around everywhere at the beginning of winter.

The argument of people taking greater risks has been around since the days of seatbelts, ABS, etc. but we still think it's better to have those safety features. I think you'll always have a few douchebags who take risks no matter what, but for the rest of us it's better to have these safety features.

I understand the argument about synthetic vision making it easier to break the rules. My counter-argument would be that if you are a safety-conscious operator then you should have tools such as synthetic vision AND you should ensure your pilots don't fly into unsafe weather. It seems that the cheap-ass operators who push their pilots to fly into unsafe weather aren't likely to be spending money on synthetic vision, radar altimeters or similar tools anyway.

[Brown Bear]

I think the original thesis was can you "buy" safety in a Navajo type operation?
YES. You toss an experienced driver in the left seat. Pay him 70K a year, and tell him he has carte blanch not to break ANY rules. Problem solved!

[CID]

Buying safety huh?

The problem is how do you get to that culture?

Cat Driver uses some very interesting language here. "Culture" he says. For someone who is so against SMS, he sure likes the underlying foundation.

Many here are looking for the elusive magic bullet that will makes things right overnight. That ain't gonna happen. But as Doc is implying, we need only to "follow the money" in order to find the problem and indirectly buy safety.

For decades, airline owners have been financially protected by the Aeronautics Act and even civil laws. If they pressured or even forced pilots, mechanics and other employees to cut corners, they were completely free from litigation. The guy who actually committed the indiscretion was crucified while management looked the other way. That is if they poor bastard actually survived.

So enter SMS. It forces operators to clearly define who is responsible for what activities and define the accountable executive. Basically they guy who is bankrolling the operation. And they use the same language (ironically) as Cat Driver does in describing the development of a culture of safety.

Many OC holders cry out "we can't afford it". What that tells me Doc is that they aren't interested in buying safety. They are happy with the status quo.

Believe it or not, SMS can eventually weed out the crooks as they can no longer transfer liability to their employees. The buck stops at the top under SMS.

And how about the consumer's role? People seem to spend more time buying a TV then they do buying a ticket on an airline. The average consumer can tell you all about HDMI, 1080p, DLNA, LCD, Plasma, DVI etc etc, but they don't know the difference between a PC-12 and a PC-6. Or a PA-31 and a PA-18. They don't know the difference between IFR and VFR. There is no consumer advocacy group for small operators and the BBB just doesn't cut it when selecting airlines.

Want to "buy" safety? Establish that consumer advocacy group where aircraft and operators are assessed and presented in simple terms that consumers can understand. A chart or a matrix where consumers can make a reasonable choice between their travel needs and the capabilities of the operator. And yes, that would include the safety record.

As the consumer becomes educated, the shitty operators go away. Can you imagine what would happen to SEIFR if consumers were educated as to what that entails? And what range of aircraft are available for 703 ops?

[flyinthebug]

I think the original thesis was can you "buy" safety in a Navajo type operation?
YES. You toss an experienced driver in the left seat. Pay him 70K a year, and tell him he has carte blanch not to break ANY rules. Problem solved!

Agree with you here BB except for the salary. It would be difficult for the average op to pay that amount. My top PA31-350 salary was around 46K (agree it should have been closer to 55K and these numbers are from 01-05). For a King Air A100 Capt, yes to the 70K. PA31 Capt closer to 55K in todays market is fair...especially if you offer certain perks like assistance with housing (northern ops), and profit sharing in one form or another.

You have to remember that the average gross revenue you`d get from a PA31 is about 300-400K each in a busy yr. If you paid 10% of revenue that would only be 40K tops 30K bottom end...so 55K salary, no wx pressure, etc etc thats a pretty decent gig. Sadly, the F/0`s are admittedly paid terrible wages, BUT they flew all the time and got paid to learn. Many of our PA31 F/0 became Capt, then later Capt on the King Air too.

As Doc and I agreed, base + miles=accident waiting to happen. It puts too much pressure on the less experienced to fly. Give them all a decent salary, and pay the guys in the right seat enough to survive until they get moved to the left seat. As someone else suggested, have SOPs in place so the guy in the right seat is involved and part of the team. When we went 2 crew on all our twins we had to get our SOPs approved by TCCA.

Safety can be bought. Or at least the risk factor can be reduced dramatically by doing these few simple things. If an op cant afford to pay a PA31 Capt with experience at least 50K, they are either quoting too low, or just greedy. You can pay fairly and still maintain a decent margin.

My 2 more cents on this topic.

Fly safe all

[Prairie Chicken]

As Doc and I agreed, base + miles=accident waiting to happen. It puts too much pressure on the less experienced to fly.

You can add me to that list too. Paying mileage just adds up to bad decisions.

[goldeneagle]

As Doc and I agreed, base + miles=accident waiting to happen. It puts too much pressure on the less experienced to fly.

You can add me to that list too. Paying mileage just adds up to bad decisions.

I lived on base+mileage for all of the 80's, and, thought it was a great system. I never let 'money pressure' make a go/no-go decision in those years, just not worth it. In the end, you gotta get home if you want to cash the cheque. Most of the outfits I flew for on that scheme, did it with a bit of a twist, and, that twist made me a lot of money over the years. We got paid for 'mileage billed', not mileage flown, and, if I could work out a routing that made mileage flown less than mileage billed, got paid double for the difference. Consider a very typical scenario. Trip in the 185 to drop 3 folks in camp A, then later a trip in the Beaver to pick up 4 from Camp B. 100 miles out to A, and 100 miles out to B, but the distance from A to B is also 100 miles. Now do some simple math.

Billed mileage = 400 miles, 200 each on the beaver and 185, with a stop at home base to change planes, if it's flown as booked. But, me being a little smarter than that, I just left the 185 on the dock, and departed for camp A with party of 3 in the Beaver, then, launched from A to B, picked up 4 and back home. I flew 300 miles by the time the trip was done. My paycheque would show 300 miles flown, 100 miles 'backhaul bonus', so, I'd get paid for 500 when I flew only 300. If I was going to be 2 hours early arriving at Camp B, no problem, stop on a lake somewhere between A and B, get my fishing rod out, and catch dinner while I was killing time.

I can remember many a day, where the bookings were sort of slim, but, and early trip out to drop folks, then, a late in the day trip to pick up in the same general area. I packed a lunch, and a fishing rod, spent the day fishing. Billed was 2 trips at 400 miles each (200 mile legs each way), mileage flown was 400. So, at the end of the day I got paid for 400 miles flown, and another 400 miles of backhaul, grand total worked out to same as flying 1200 miles. We always used to joke about it, can make way more money fishing, than flying, and I did a lot of fishing in those days. I spent a few overnights in fishing lodges along the way too. Evening drop at a lodge, with a morning pickup at another lodge in the same area. Way cheaper to spend $125 for an overnight at a fishing lodge, than to fly a beaver 100 miles home, then back in the morning. Life was good, but, we did have ample opportunity to find backhauls on our schedules in those days. Not all flying jobs have the potential for backhauls.

You guys are suggesting that base+mileage puts pressure on to somebody that turns them into an 'accident waiting to happen'. I'd counter that, and suggest, that same person is an accident waiting to happen irrelavent of how pay scale is devised, and if you remove that particular bit, it'll be something else. A person making bad decisions, is a person making bad decisions, and, unless you remove all decisions, bad ones will be made. Put them on a salary, and, you wont cure 'gethomeitis' or any of the other maladies that cause folks to make bad decisions, you only remove one potential pressure point, out of many. All of the others will still be in play, so they will still have ample opportunity to make bad decisions.

If at the end of the year, the base+mileage pay scale returns a decent liveable wage for the person working on it, that's a good scale, just puts the onus on that person to manage the budget over the year, and tuck some away during the 'good times', to help smooth out the bad times. And, if the end of the year total is not a liveable wage, then, it matters not if it comes in the form of salary, or base+mileage, it's not liveable. Managing a personal budget, is much the same as managing fuel, some folks are very good at it, and some always seem to live on the edge. Folks that make good decisions, probably wont leave on an itinerary with insufficient fuel for the full trip. That same decision making process probably means, they wont take a job that doesn't pay enough to survive.

You want to buy safety in your organization doc, simply offering up a large salary is not going to find you the safe pilots with good decision making skills. But, it's going to look very attractive to folks that do a poor job of managing personal finances.

[Doc]

Well Goldeneagle, I'm happy it worked for you. I've seen way too many operators refuse to pay milage to a pilot if the flight resulted in a missed approach. The equals extra, shall we say incentive, for the pilot to "push" the weather a we bit. That "wee bit" has resulted in lost lives over the years. Most of us who have flown for base/miles would be MORE than happy to see that same amount averaged out as a salary. Not everybody has common sense to know when to say "NO" and as this thread implies, we're trying to "buy" safe here. No more base/miles.

[Prairie Chicken]

goldeneagle, you make some good points. I'm glad there are some pilots, and companies, that use the mileage system responsibly. It sounds like you were working for a descent employer, one that was willing to share the benefits when the pilots found a way to save some dollars. I'm afraid not all employers are that wise.

For me, back in the bad old days, the pressures of paying the rent was always in the back of my mind. I guess it didn't sway my decision-making on days that it shouldn't have, , but it was there.

I'm also concerned that a green pilot is simply not experienced enough to know when he is looking at a bad decision. That's when a good CP or mentor can be really helpful. Unfortunately, the not-so-good companies may not have that on offer either.

Thanks for sharing that though.

[flyinthebug]

Goldeneagle...

I appreciate all you are saying and if everyone was as fortunate as you were to work for such generous operators, and thought as you think, maybe base and miles would work. Sadly, that is not the case as a general statement. I too worked for a few ops that paid base and miles. My 1st experience was similiar to yours. Good op, safety conscious, good maint etc and I made a decent living. Then I moved on to another op that was simply horrible. They pushed based on the roar of the Ops Mgr in the pilots lounge..."Do you guys wanna get a pay cheque this week? Then you better get off your asses and get flying!". Unfortunately, that is reality at some 703/704 ops. You push or you wont be there long. That was a HUGE concern to me as a young pilot trying to get hours. It was only after I had some experience that I started to feel confident enough to say NO, and be able to explain why. That is difficult for an inexperienced pilot, standing on the dock watching 2-DHC3s take off and he is unsure if he should go or not. The pressure to fly does indeed come in many varieties, but by eliminating one of them, it certainly couldnt make matters worse?

The real world is quite different from that you described (at least in my experience). Wages make up approx 30% of your overall revenue. If its a fixed cost, it becomes easier to budget for...by both the employee and company. In my previous post, I was sure to point out that we paid a "livable wage" even for the PA31 F/0s. Although it wasnt much, it was enough in the short term. They shared housing in many cases and became friends away from work. That also led to a safer environment by promoting discussion about the planes they flew and the op overall.

Base + Miles is one of many problems...but by eliminating potential problems one at a time, eventually you can reach an optimum safety level.

Fly safe all.

[Prairie Chicken]

I'm not sure whether to stick this in here, or start another thread. I guess I'll stick it here since the thread is active again, & x-ref on the others. I'm not sure what I may do with this. I must say I found the results pretty disappointing. Anyhow, I've prepared it in a manner that can be shared, should I decide to do that. Since you provided the raw material, here's the analysis that I prepared. Constructive comments and suggestions are welcome.

ANALYSIS

On 10 January 2012 a Navajo operated commercially by Keystone Aviation crashed on North Spirit Lake, ON with a loss of four lives. The resulting threads on the AvCanada Forum expressed serious concerns over the state of our industry.

Additional threads were started to identify perceived problems in the industry and possible solutions. This is an analysis of these concerns and proposed solutions, and was prepared with the intent of capturing the information provided in a manageable format.

The intent of this analysis was not to identify the cause of this accident. Posts and discussions pertaining to specific aspects of the accident have not been included nor assessed. Rather, the intent was to identify cultures or human factors which may be affecting safety in our industry.


METHODOLOGY:
Three threads were reviewed up to approximately 1700 UTC on 28 Jan 2012. These included the original thread regarding the accident. I first isolated posts which raised concerns &/or proposed solutions. These posts I copied in whole or in part, unedited, to a Word table.

Tags were then applied to the various posts. These tags, and a brief explanation of their intended meaning as applied, are:
• College – an area where I believed the College or other such association would be a particularly suitable vehicle to promote the idea. However, I believe the College has a place in most if not all of the issues identified.
• Compensation – Refers not to quantity, but rather to a recommendation against pay on a mileage basis.
• Cowboy Culture – illegal, unsafe or unprofessional activities being promoted by management, maintenance, or peers.
• Equipment
• Experience (or lack thereof) – generally translates to years in the business, or hours of applicable experience.
• Lack of Management Oversight – pertains to the competence of management rather than a negative culture in the organization.
• Lack of Regulatory Oversight – by TC
• Lack of Wx Reporting and Approach Aids
• Media Attention –publicizing the situation
• Mentoring (or lack thereof) – by any positive source, formalized or otherwise.
• Safety Culture – examples of positive influence
• Self Confidence (or lack thereof) – although this often comes with Experience, I did not see them as the same thing.
• Training (or lack thereof) –Technical knowledge, not to be confused with experience.
• Union vs. Management

The process was subjective in that I alone selected the posts to be assessed and applied tags to each post.


RESULTS:
103 posts were assessed. Of these, the following numbers of tags were attached:

Cowboy Culture - 49
Lack of Regulatory Oversight - 40
Mentoring (or lack of) - 35
Experience (or lack of) - 25
Self Confidence (or lack of) - 21
Media Attention - 7
Training (or lack of) - 6
College - 3
Safety Culture - 3
Compensation - 2
Lack of Management Oversight - 2
Lack of Wx Reporting & Approach Aids - 2
Union vs. Management - 2
Equipment - 1


SUMMARY:
The numbers speak for themselves. If one considers that a “Cowboy Culture” and “Lack of Regulatory Oversight” are intrinsically linked, almost 89% of respondents felt this was an important issue affecting aviation safety.

As mentioned earlier, Experience and Self Confidence have been considered as separate tags, but in many cases one leads to the other. Conclusions may be drawn that inexperience leads to lack of confidence, and that experience provides the confidence to make better decisions. While not news, this confirms an old problem still exists and is of greater concern when one notes the frequency of concerns of the “cowboy culture”.

Mentoring was raised time and again as an appropriate means of assisting those with less experience. It was obvious the AvCanada Forum is itself a significant form of mentoring.

Perhaps surprisingly, better salary, equipment and training were not considered significant issues. Of note was compensation, which was raised twice in that posters felt that pay for miles flown had a negative impact on a pilot’s decision making whether to attempt a trip or not.

This analysis was prepared as a structured repository of the data submitted on the Forum.

[trey kule]

P. C....nice piece of work, and very interesting.

Now, however, as my boss would say...

"Thank you....now suggest how we resolve these problems."

I did have a few suggestions, but removed them to see how other perceive your analysis and what meaningful and practical suggestions will come from it .

[goldeneagle]

Not everybody has common sense to know when to say "NO" and as this thread implies, we're trying to "buy" safe here. No more base/miles.

If they dont have enough common sense to say NO, then, changing the pay scheme isn't going to change that. That was a hiring mistake, and, no amount of fussing with the pay structure is going to fix that problem. You cannot cure all problems by simply throwing money at them, just ask your federal and/or local politicians how well that works.

When it comes to pay structure, what matters is, where the final numbers tally up, and wether or not that is a liveable amount. If it's below average, then when hiring time comes, you will have a pool of resumes to choose from, which represents essentially the dregs of the industry. If it's substantially above the average, you will end up with a much deeper pool of resumes to choose from at hiring time. Supply, demand, and the grapevine will look after that for you. If you have small airplanes, then you wont be inundated with resumes from folks blinded by 'big shiny aluminum'.

But in the end, if you want a safe operation, the key is, picking and choosing from the candidates, and, ensure you DONT end up with that person who doesn't have the common sense to say NO, driving your airplanes. It really wont matter how much money you throw at the problem after the fact, if you have chosen the wrong staff, you wont get the desired end result. And they key to having a depth of candidate pool, is not the method of calculating the pay scale, it's how the final numbers tally up against the overall averages.

So now tell us honestly doc, which would you rather have for driving that KingAir? $6K monthly salary, or, a flat buck a mile (no base), based solely on trips completed ? And, if you were on the buck a mile pay scale, would that be enough to co-erce you to sneak a hundred feet lower trying to 'get in' today ?