College of Pilots?

[Widow]

Actually, yes ... provincial ombudspersons DO have authority to investigate Institutions as defined in the College and Institute Acts. So while the College/Institute has the authority to investigate the doctor/lawyer/etc., the ombudsperson can investigate complaints about the College/Institute's investigation.

I don't think espousing the use of an Ombudsperson undermines the intent of the College at all. Rather, it would help provide for ALL persons in the industry, not just pilots.

[yycflyguy]

yycflyguy, You would be safe using 7.32 pilots per year.

No me understand. 7.32 pilots per year for retirements, deaths, loss of medical etc. equals 73 pilots over 10 years. At AC alone, that is only 6 or 7 months of retirements. What stat are you quoting?

[flyinthebug]

delete (would have been a hi-jack) so delete!

[freakonature]

yycflyguy, The Human Resource Study of Commercial Pilots in Canada.

[CD]

Speaking of CAMC...

ASL 4/2009 - The CAMC Leads Update of the Human Resource Study of Commercial Pilots in Canada

The Update of the Human Resource Study of the Commercial Pilot in Canada will provide the researched data that will then be used to develop a comprehensive picture of Canada’s commercial pilot occupation, describing both current conditions and likely developments in the future at the 5, 10, and 15 year marks. This research will also provide the foundation for the development of professional pilot occupational standards.

The aviation transportation industry includes general aviation, commercial air carriers, rotorcraft operations; suppliers and maintenance repair and overhaul companies. Flight crews for the different operations require a diverse set of experience, skills and knowledge. The understanding of the human resources challenges to this sector is important to the aviation transportation community. Canada also has an important flight training industry that needs to understand the future commercial pilot knowledge and skill requirements in order to produce the properly trained personnel.

Update of the Human Resource Study of the Commercial Pilot in Canada

[Triple7]

in laymans terms (cause im too lazy to read through all the rambling and rants) could someone tell me the gist of what this college of pilots is please.

thanks.

[mattedfred]

perhaps the college should take a break from their due diligence and try this approach

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpv ... re=related

[Dust Devil]

perhaps the college should take a break from their due diligence and try this approach

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpv ... re=related

Unfortunately when they took the stage they turned and ran just as quick. The rep from Ornge made a better spokesperson. Agree with Ornge or not at least they had the courage to come here and address the questions.

I'm not as far off from supporting this college as some people think. However their unwillingness to stand and be questioned is what gives me the greatest concern. I think trust should be something built over time and with a group like this trust is of utmost importance as it affects all of our livelihoods. The more silent they are the less trusting I get. I don't know about others. I think things are so bad for some people they are just looking for something to cling to for hope and these guys seem to be exploiting that.

[george sugar]

Some observations:

1. To have an adversarial approach is to guarantee that you will find an adversary. Not everyone that disagrees is an adversary, nor is it wise or productive to take disagreement as a personal attack.

2. An enterprise that seeks to represent everyone usually ends up representing no one well. An enterprise that begins with too many unclearly stated goals usually does not serve any goal well. These two taken together usually end up making things worse.

3. The reason that someone is at your door usually has more to do with their needs than yours.

4. Line pilots will not in general be compensated or employed in the same way as doctors or lawyers in Canada as long as the seniority system exists in aviation, or conversely it is absent from the legal and medical professions. Doctors and lawyers have almost complete mobility to offer their services to any interested client. They negotiate positions, terms and pay according to demonstrated ability and experience, and are most certainly not always forced into the most junior lowest-paying position when joining a firm. When they move from firm to firm they tend to take their clients with them, and usually retain at least their previous pay and standing; they do not give their highest paying clients to less experienced practitioners at the new firm and take on clerking/interning duties at the commensurate lower pay rate. Further, many doctors and lawyers are individual incorporated entities responsible for getting their own clients and paying their own expenses and costs; they are also usually paid directly by the clients or a government agency, rather than being employees of a profit-seeking company. Pilots in Canada are employed according to a system that bears little resemblance to this method. One system is not necessarily better than the other, but they are not fundamentally compatible.

5. Within, or beyond, existing employment standards laws, a disinterested third-party cannot tell an employer who to hire or fire, and how much to pay them. Restricting an otherwise qualified person’s ability to obtain or maintain employment of their choice, because they do not meet some arbitrary standard not based in regulation, opens the door to legal action and Charter challenges.

6. I am always wary when someone seeks to limit the freedom to negotiate my own terms with the purported aim of protecting my best interests when: they haven’t asked me what my best interests are, the initial framework is formulated without the broad participation of the people it professes to serve, the rules and scope are settled by the time I learn of them, and I am compelled to join without having an initial vote on the concept. Some form of representation may be appropriate to a situation, but one should be directly involved in that decision.

I offer these points purely as a licenced flight crew member employed in this country; please do not assume that I have one position or another on the matter. However, as it is currently presented, such an organization seems to be strictly a balance-of-power exercise that would likely only replace one unaccountable task-master with another.

[mattedfred]

Dust Devil,

perhaps you haven't contacted the college via their facebook page or aren't willing to wait for them to add a contact link to their website so you can ask them any question you may have?

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gro ... 8544762222

http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/index.html

maybe you could even volunteer your time and resources to help them get this thing off the ground?

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil,

perhaps you haven't contacted the college via their facebook page or aren't willing to wait for them to add a contact link to their website so you can ask them any question you may have?

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/gro ... 8544762222

http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/index.html

maybe you could even volunteer your time and resources to help them get this thing off the ground?

Truthfully if I felt I had the time to dedicate to something like this I would absolutely take part. Running your own Air Operation takes up considerable time and I think it would be unfair to the organization if I could not devote the time to it. Besides as an owner I may not even be welcome.

As for the Facebook group what keeps me from joining it is the perception by some that I may support it by clicking that little join button. It seems trivial but it just rubs me the wrong way to see my name joined any group that I don't necessarily support published.

As for contacting them directly. I think it does a huge disservice to the other aviators out there and is a very inefficient way to communicate. Answering one question at a time while others may have the same question doesn't sound very efficient and it also closes the option of dialog. Right or wrong these guys should be standing up in front of their peers.

I think the College could do good things. I see it as an avenue to do things like getting rid of PPC's which is a major cause of these guys who buy their jobs. Or at least make a PPC company specific. (anyway this isn't about PPC's just using an example) All I want to see is some acknowledgment that they will be accountable to the people the represent. They do seem to have it right when it comes to opposing the passenger bill of rights for example. They do however need to come forward and say what other goals they have and how they plan to complete those goals.

What blows my mind is they were offered the opportunity to have an article in the safety letter published by TC and basically turned their back on it. I can't fathom the reasoning for that. Maybe there is something going on in the background but the perception is they want no part of it at this time. It is probably the largest aviation publication in the country and best way to get the message out that they even exist.

I'm not saying I'll never support them, but right off the bat they seem to be doing some fundamentals wrong. I don't know if others share these concerns. It doesn't seem so to tell you the truth. Maybe that is what they are counting on.

[Cat Driver]

6. I am always wary when someone seeks to limit the freedom to negotiate my own terms with the purported aim of protecting my best interests when: they haven’t asked me what my best interests are, the initial framework is formulated without the broad participation of the people it professes to serve, the rules and scope are settled by the time I learn of them, and I am compelled to join without having an initial vote on the concept. Some form of representation may be appropriate to a situation, but one should be directly involved in that decision.

I offer these points purely as a licenced flight crew member employed in this country; please do not assume that I have one position or another on the matter. However, as it is currently presented, such an organization seems to be strictly a balance-of-power exercise that would likely only replace one unaccountable task-master with another.

[mattedfred]

respectfully Dust Devil,

you have been able to find the time to participate in the avcanada community on a regular basis.

how do you know you don't have the time to help out the college when you haven't even asked if they need any help?

why not let the college decide which method of communication is more efficient for them instead of assuming you know what is best for them by not contacting them?

perhaps the college is working very hard to draft a clear and concise message that they will relay to our industry as they see fit. perhaps the creation of a very basic webpage and facebook page is the first step in their communication strategy.

respectfully, it sounds like too many of the detractors of such an initiative take more pleasure in nay saying and stirring the pot rather than actually contacting those involved and submitting constructive criticism and offering tangible solutions.

i'm perplexed that many of the long time and regular posters on avcanada have not beaten down a path to the college door with offers to help improve our industry

perhaps i misunderstood them when they insinuated that their posts were intended to improve our industry or perhaps they do not recognize this as an opportunity to do so

[Dust Devil]

respectfully Dust Devil,

you have been able to find the time to participate in the avcanada community on a regular basis.

how do you know you don't have the time to help out the college when you haven't even asked if they need any help?

why not let the college decide which method of communication is more efficient for them instead of assuming you know what is best for them by not contacting them?

perhaps the college is working very hard to draft a clear and concise message that they will relay to our industry as they see fit. perhaps the creation of a very basic webpage and facebook page is the first step in their communication strategy.

respectfully, it sounds like too many of the detractors of such an initiative take more pleasure in nay saying and stirring the pot rather than actually contacting those involved and submitting constructive criticism and offering tangible solutions.

i'm perplexed that many of the long time and regular posters on avcanada have not beaten down a path to the college door with offers to help improve our industry

perhaps i misunderstood them when they insinuated that their posts were intended to improve our industry or perhaps they do not recognize this as an opportunity to do so

Well trolling away on a message board is hardly the time commitment that this organization would require. If you take my concerns as simply taking pleasure in nay saying and stirring the pot you are very mistaken. I have offered solutions such as the TC safety letter they just go ignored and unanswered.

[Cat Driver]

Dust Devil mattedfred has me on his ignore list because I am not up to his vision of what a real pilot should be, so can you ask him a simple question for me?

What active part does he have directly with this planned college and can he share his inside knowledge with us?

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil mattedfred has me on his ignore list because I am not up to his vision of what a real pilot should be, so can you ask him a simple question for me?

What active part does he have directly with this planned college and can he share his inside knowledge with us?

There ya are buddy

[Ogee]

Some observations:

1. To have an adversarial approach is to guarantee that you will find an adversary. Not everyone that disagrees is an adversary, nor is it wise or productive to take disagreement as a personal attack.

2. An enterprise that seeks to represent everyone usually ends up representing no one well. An enterprise that begins with too many unclearly stated goals usually does not serve any goal well. These two taken together usually end up making things worse.

3. The reason that someone is at your door usually has more to do with their needs than yours.

4. Line pilots will not in general be compensated or employed in the same way as doctors or lawyers in Canada as long as the seniority system exists in aviation, or conversely it is absent from the legal and medical professions. Doctors and lawyers have almost complete mobility to offer their services to any interested client. They negotiate positions, terms and pay according to demonstrated ability and experience, and are most certainly not always forced into the most junior lowest-paying position when joining a firm. When they move from firm to firm they tend to take their clients with them, and usually retain at least their previous pay and standing; they do not give their highest paying clients to less experienced practitioners at the new firm and take on clerking/interning duties at the commensurate lower pay rate. Further, many doctors and lawyers are individual incorporated entities responsible for getting their own clients and paying their own expenses and costs; they are also usually paid directly by the clients or a government agency, rather than being employees of a profit-seeking company. Pilots in Canada are employed according to a system that bears little resemblance to this method. One system is not necessarily better than the other, but they are not fundamentally compatible.

5. Within, or beyond, existing employment standards laws, a disinterested third-party cannot tell an employer who to hire or fire, and how much to pay them. Restricting an otherwise qualified person’s ability to obtain or maintain employment of their choice, because they do not meet some arbitrary standard not based in regulation, opens the door to legal action and Charter challenges.

6. I am always wary when someone seeks to limit the freedom to negotiate my own terms with the purported aim of protecting my best interests when: they haven’t asked me what my best interests are, the initial framework is formulated without the broad participation of the people it professes to serve, the rules and scope are settled by the time I learn of them, and I am compelled to join without having an initial vote on the concept. Some form of representation may be appropriate to a situation, but one should be directly involved in that decision.

I offer these points purely as a licenced flight crew member employed in this country; please do not assume that I have one position or another on the matter. However, as it is currently presented, such an organization seems to be strictly a balance-of-power exercise that would likely only replace one unaccountable task-master with another.

One of the best posts I've ever seen on AvCanada, George.

I finally went to the site. Don't like what I see, for the reasons you have stated so well.

[george sugar]

mattedfred

How can it be that it is required of the members of the electorate to grovel at the candidate’s door to find out what is being proposed on their behalf? Shouldn’t the candidate communicate in a way that is most effective and convenient for the voter, rather than the other way around, to gain support for the proposals? Is this an indication of how the organization will conduct itself in other matters?

Maybe the fact that people aren’t beating down the door indicates that they do not feel that this is the best or only vehicle to promote safety, or that the method is correct but the implementation is unsound. Silence, or a lack of unsolicited offers to work for free in the cause, may mean something other than not wanting to promote safety at all.

Having some meetings of like-minded people and building a website is hardly sufficient to become the presumptive authority on every aspect of every facet of aviation as it concerns pilots, but that seems to be what is happening here. There seems to be a posture of “either you’re with us or you’re against us” in place, and that does not bode well.

For such an organization, the work should first be completed on the pilot’s bill of rights before a position is taken on the passenger’s bill of rights, one would think. And one of those rights should be the ability to easily, openly and frankly communicate with those that claim to represent them.

[Ogee]

I'm not saying I'll never support them, but right off the bat they seem to be doing some fundamentals wrong. I don't know if others share these concerns. It doesn't seem so to tell you the truth. Maybe that is what they are counting on.

No, lots of people share these concerns DD.

I'm relatively satisfied that this is never going to become law. I think that's the first concern, that compulsion and exclusion replace free market forces. There is a very high degree of presumptiousness in the whole thing.

I'm also leery of what involvement Transport Canada has in it to date and what level of legitimacy TC affords to the communications that are clearly going on behind our backs. There's an argument that can be made that TC would support this as it reduces their responsibilities even further.

[Cat Driver]

Just a short while ago a new face appeared on television and promised to fundamentally change how America is governed.

The public lapped up his slick delivery that had zero information on how he was going to fundamentally change America and voted him in to a position to try and make his changes.

I wonder how it will all play out?