WASAYA WANNABE PROGRAM?

[rjonno]

so how is this at all different from working the ramp?

[Gorgons]

so how is this at all different from working the ramp?

It's not different from working the ramp. The difference is that APLA has decided they want a piece of the action. They will be collecting union dues from pilots that are working on the ground instead of in the air. I've read more rants on this site about bad operators or evil scheming management always dreaming up ways to screw us than you can shake a stick at. Now we have one of the largest pilot unions in Canada participating in what is effectively a cash grab and that’s okay with everyone. I think everybody missed the sarcasm in my earlier comment when I said ALPA rocks and another victory. Victory for whom? There will be no seniority progression; there will be no negotiated pay scale, there will be no standards or clear guidelines of what’s expected of you while you work on the ground. Your future will be decided by the court of public opinion, but nobody tells you when the hearing is or who your accusers are. ALPA you say, I promise they won’t be anywhere near this process or lack thereof. They will however be happy to accept your dues.

[frankfrank]

You speak as if you have first hand knowledge gorgons.

[Gorgons]

If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk by god its a skunk. That notice is full of weasel words

The program will be operated much the same as the previous system, where employees who have Commercial Pilot’s licenses who are employed by Wasaya as ground staff or ramp attendants at our Pickle Lake or Red Lake Stations, if qualified and suitable, may be offered entrance into the apprenticeship program and be used as Caravan First Officers when needed.

I have no direct or first hand knowledge of what’s in the LOU, but its pretty clear by the wording in there own joint announcement that its going to run much the same as before. I did have 1st hand knowlegde of how things worked before so I ask myself why is ALPA endorsing this now if they were opposed before? My conclusion, a piece of the action.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Hey I heard that the wannabe program is back. Can anyone confirm this?

Just a few tips for you Flyboy, and please do your best to understand why I have written this.....and please do not accuse me of being selfish, or arrogant. I am just a youngster with a solid passion to do what he loves to do. I have passed on job opportunities through word of mouth, and people have done so back to me. I would however agree that posting something like this in Canada's top aviation troll forum was anything but intelligent. Maybe start a thread asking for PMs with regards to the wannabe program? That is always a great way.

In the event something like this arises with, let's say another successful company, I would highly suggest you pick up your phone, and call them 1 on 1. Are you satisfied getting 1300+ people in airplanes before you? If so, then good luck. You have probably just exponentially increased the # of resumes into wasaya and reduced the chances of many fresh CPLs, with the appropriate ratings. So your original question, or w/e your motive was to begin this thread, is now fried. You could have easily called their HR (very nice people) , and they would have told you more information. I also do appreciate some information in these forums, as the advice / inside information is priceless, and helps steer many in the right direction.

To those who say take your chances elsewhere....? Well, what’s elsewhere? Inst ratings cost money, everything costs money... so getting your foot in the door with a company that has a reputation from ramp-plane promotion, is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s not like we can directly apply to Air Canada.

[hairdo]

It's a JOKE hairdo.....ever heard of a JOKE??? The dumbing down continues....

Yes Doc, as a matter of fact, I have! I may have even made one myself at some point. The problem with posting jokes in a textual format, is that the non-verbal element is lost, so it is much easier to miss the point of the post (Non-verbal items may include sarcasm... ).

The thing is, is that I wouldn't put it past some companies to actually do the things that Gorgons posted (not saying Wasaya does or not), so I was hoping he wasn't some newbie fresh out of flight school willing to eat as much shit as the company can shovel him. When companies do this stuff, it kinda catches my ire, kapeesh?

[polar one]

dumbing down continuing? I think Doc got it right. If anyone could not tell that was a humerous post, then a. they are seriously screwed up., or b. our industry is so screwed up that the bizarre might be taken as realitiy. Verbal cues! You have to be kidding. Work with the drugs.

Seriously, it would have been better not to have made that misleading post. First thing we know TC is going to require a TQ (as do some other countries) to operate a forklift. And that means training. And , of course, a bond...you can all see where this is going to lead.

What exactly does a 200 hour wonder do as a first officer on a caravan? Look after calling "gear up...if it could go up", as some other thread posters have suggested. Maybe watch to see there is no fuel flow before the condition lever is put forward on startup and that there is some oil pressure. That would sure relieve the work load on the captain. Oh yes, I forgot, the universal two heads are better than one, as four eyes are better than two argument.. Who can argue with that? Or maybe just be mentored to move to the left seat...after all that is what some people thing the Captain's primary duty is.

As long as these nonsense notions exist, companies are going to be able to exploit them to get virtually free labor..Wonder how many rampies would work the ramp for free based on the possibility of moving up to assitant fork lift operator.

My rant for the day.

[fingersmac]

What exactly does a 200 hour wonder do as a first officer on a caravan?

The same thing a 200 hour wonder does as a first officer in a King Air or PC12.

[polar one]

So your saying that in the pc 12 and b200 they just sit there and stare at the Captain in awe too?

Actually, the king airs, in general, if things are not going as they should be can use a second pilot, though some of the accident reports we read suggest that some Captains dont seen to agree with this. Dont know anything about a pc 12...but at least in has a real gear switch...wasnt that many years ago though that FO's were logging time in PC12s that did not have co-pilot instruments..gotta wonder about what exactly they were doing...and that was on scheds.

My point is a little more serious than I am making it out to be. When you have a pilot with nothing really to do, a point comes where everything else such as CRM etc, also starts to deteriorate. And when things dont go as they should, everything comes apart. Look at the King air a captain flew into the ground. And a navajo...same thing...and I use these two examples only because no one was hurt...

[Meatservo]

So is it the extra engine, or the landing gear switch, or both of them together that occupies all of the co-pilot's time on a King Air? If you wonder what a co-pilot might be up to on a Caravan, maybe you don't know what co-pilots do on other aeroplanes. The last time I saw a caravan, it had enough instruments on the right side that a guy could act as PF from either seat. So I suppose, if a company runs these planes two-crew, which is their prerogative, the co-pilot might be participating in checklists, flying every other leg, helping to load/unload, participating in flight planning, and learning about flying and company procedures from a more experienced pilot. Just like every other co-pilot in the world, in any plane. I imagine a co-pilot is quite welcome aboard the Caravan during night instrument flights.

[Doc]

Meatservo, you've never flow a Caravan, have you? Not intending to rain on anyone's parade here, but there really is no need of a co-pilot on a Caravan. Perhaps a "swamper", of perhaps into places like KORD, for radio work. Other than that, it's 180 pounds of wasted space.

[polar one]

You said it better than I could have Doc.

[North Shore]

Meatservo, you've never flow a Caravan, have you?

Doc, he has several hundred hours at least, on a 'van.

I imagine a co-pilot is quite welcome aboard the Caravan during night instrument flights.

but there really is no need of a co-pilot on a Caravan

I wonder whether the 8 dead people in Summer Beaver would agree with you?

[Meatservo]

Several thousand, in fact. Wheels and floats. And I never had a co-pilot, AND never was a co-pilot. However, Doc, (and Polar One, thanks for being Doc's cheerleader ) I know you have several thousand hours on King Airs, so tell me what is the co-pilot for on that aeroplane? Really, I'm not being confrontational, just trying to discuss. I don't have any emotional attachment to the concept of a two-crew Caravan, or a one-crew King Air for that matter. A second engine and a set of retracts can't explain why there's another guy there, so what is it? Most King airs don't carry more than 8 passengers, so what is the copilot for? I think on any aircraft a company can develop a set of SOPs to utilise a second crewmember to whatever extent they want to.

I'm not trying to say I think Caravans should be operated two-crew, I'm just saying that the same argument against a superfluous crewmember could be made for any aircraft that is certified to be flown single-pilot but commonly flown two-crew despite having less than 9 pax seats, like a King Air or some small jets. I had the impression that Wasaya had started flying IFR and night passenger flights with two pilots after the Summer Beaver crash, either voluntarily or as the result of an insurance requirement. Anyway, nobody would question a company putting a co-pilot on a King Air, and I'm just pointing out that the second engine, gear handle, and pressurization controls are a pretty weak reason to require a second crewmember. It implies that you think a copilot is just there to actuate controls that happen to be out of the Captain's comfortable reach. Since we know that's not the case, I don't think it's too silly to create an entry-level right seat position in a Caravan if you can get away with it payload-wise, and in terms of learning, what is a King Air copilot going to learn that a Caravan copilot isn't, if they are both flying on night IFR flights? (Multi-engine emergency checklists? Please.)

A good subject for a (friendly and civilized) discussion would be whether ANY aeroplane really needs two pilots (regs aside) and if so, why? And then apply your reasoning to a single pilot IFR machine like a PC12, Navajo or a Caravan and tell me why the rationale doesn't apply there. Is the plane too small? Not "important" enough? Too few buttons and switches? Doesn't require any major decision-making in its operation?

It comes down to cost. On a plane that size, you want the extra 200 pounds. On a bigger plane, that 200 pounds isn't such a big fraction of the total. But, if the company wants to stick a co-pilot in there, and still considers it cost effective, then I don't see why it follows that there is nothing for that guy to do, there is as much or as little as the other pilot wants to give him. I used to fly the thing IFR at night; now I fly a plane that has two pilots, and I also fly it IFR and at night, and if I had to go back and fly a Caravan IFR or at night, (not likely: I need two fans to keep me cool ) I would miss my friend in the right seat, and not just when it's time to lift up the wheels or balance the props!

[Doc]

I wonder whether the 8 dead people in Summer Beaver would agree with you?

Frankly, I think that's a really stupid argument. Totally without merit. I can ream off scads of fatal accidents where two crew were involved. I don't consider safety, per say, and issue.

[Meatservo]

'Course, I might just be pro-copilot because I'm pretty lazy and like to watch unloading a lot more than I like to DO unloading, but that is a TOTALLY different issue.

I don't think it was a stupid thing to say Doc, it speaks to the reasoning behind having 2 pilots in the first place. How many more accidents MIGHT there have been if there was only one pilot per plane? I read a book about the A320 once, and the designer of that plane's flight control system really does believe there should only be one pilot per plane. Seriously we should start a discussion about whether anybody really needs a copilot, I think it would be an interesting one.

[Doc]

Several thousand, in fact. Wheels and floats. And I never had a co-pilot, AND never was a co-pilot. However, Doc, (and Polar One, thanks for being Doc's cheerleader ) I know you have several thousand hours on King Airs, so tell me what is the co-pilot for on that aeroplane? Really, I'm not being confrontational, just trying to discuss. I don't have any emotional attachment to the concept of a two-crew Caravan, or a one-crew King Air for that matter. A second engine and a set of retracts can't explain why there's another guy there, so what is it? Most King airs don't carry more than 8 passengers, so what is the copilot for? I think on any aircraft a company can develop a set of SOPs to utilise a second crewmember to whatever extent they want to.

I'm not trying to say I think Caravans should be operated two-crew, I'm just saying that the same argument against a superfluous crewmember could be made for any aircraft that is certified to be flown single-pilot but commonly flown two-crew despite having less than 9 pax seats, like a King Air or some small jets. I had the impression that Wasaya had started flying IFR and night passenger flights with two pilots after the Summer Beaver crash, either voluntarily or as the result of an insurance requirement. Anyway, nobody would question a company putting a co-pilot on a King Air, and I'm just pointing out that the second engine, gear handle, and pressurization controls are a pretty weak reason to require a second crewmember. It implies that you think a copilot is just there to actuate controls that happen to be out of the Captain's comfortable reach. Since we know that's not the case, I don't think it's too silly to create an entry-level right seat position in a Caravan if you can get away with it payload-wise, and in terms of learning, what is a King Air copilot going to learn that a Caravan copilot isn't, if they are both flying on night IFR flights? (Multi-engine emergency checklists? Please.)

A good subject for a (friendly and civilized) discussion would be whether ANY aeroplane really needs two pilots (regs aside) and if so, why? And then apply your reasoning to a single pilot IFR machine like a PC12, Navajo or a Caravan and tell me why the rationale doesn't apply there. Is the plane too small? Not "important" enough? Too few buttons and switches? Doesn't require any major decision-making in its operation?

It comes down to cost. On a plane that size, you want the extra 200 pounds. On a bigger plane, that 200 pounds isn't such a big fraction of the total. But, if the company wants to stick a co-pilot in there, and still considers it cost effective, then I don't see why it follows that there is nothing for that guy to do, there is as much or as little as the other pilot wants to give him. I used to fly the thing IFR at night; now I fly a plane that has two pilots, and I also fly it IFR and at night, and if I had to go back and fly a Caravan IFR or at night, (not likely: I need two fans to keep me cool ) I would miss my friend in the right seat, and not just when it's time to lift up the wheels or balance the props!

I think Meatservo, I'm looking at a "need", while perhaps you're looking at it from another direction.
Fact....You don't NEED a second pilot on a Caravan. Under some circumstances, perhaps some company might be useful?
Do you "need" two pilots in any aircraft? An argument might be made for both sides of this one.
Do you "need" two pilots in a 172? A 777? A DC6?
But, today we speak of the Caravan. Can you log second pilot time in a 'van? I don't think you can. Would you learn something from filling the right seat? Of course you would. Are you "needed"? Nope.
It would be nice to have someone help unload the pop and chips. But you don't need to be a pilot to fulfill that role.
At least there's no "bond" to ride around in one....yet. Bet pilots would pay 5K to do so, though. They are that.....what's a good word here? I keep taking flack for calling pilots "stupid"....so I'll refrain. For now.

[iflyforpie]

Can you log second pilot time in a 'van? I don't think you can.

If the company has a two-crew SOP then you can log the time. The only reason it looks a bit silly is there is no co-pilot column in the single-engine section. But companies like AirSprint seem to value single-engine copilot time when upgrading their pilots to the jets.

[Minimums]

It would be nice to have someone help unload the pop and chips. But you don't need to be a pilot to fulfill that role.
At least there's no "bond" to ride around in one....yet. Bet pilots would pay 5K to do so, though.

Well actually I believe you do need to be a pilot to fulfill that spot, at least for that company. While it might not pay for the extra 200lbs of meat to be flown around doing nothing, I'm sure it pays off in the long run. For example, all of the Sunshine team are now unionized, and not paid to offload freight, but they still do it, no? I beleve there is nothing even written in their scale about doing it either, its just a 'company requirement' that is implied, you have to do it, you're not paid to do it, and if you don't do it, you'll get punished in one form or another, ball and chain thing.

The payoff is having that chunk of meat learn from his great mighty left seat operator. From this, he can tackle pushing out oversized leather couches, and skillfully messaging snowmobiles with little to no damage, and load several hundred pounds of propane and propane accessories back into and out of the aircraft.
Then, when the time is right, and they've paid their dues.......literally, bondwise and union wise, they will be allowed to upgrade from right seat to left, and the circle off life will continue for what? Oh yes, some crappy pay, piss poor schedule, and a great full body workout provided free of charge. Thus, the cut in pay the company may have taken for that 200lbs of meat to be flown around for a little bit and has now paid off 10fold in free labor, and still is! You have to be a pilot though, with a real license, because it wouldn't pay off for just anybody to sit there. But its ok, alpa stands up for pilots though right? We'll there is a fine example of slave labor that is being swept under the rug, but who cares so long as the union dues are flowing fine. It'll be in their contract sometime in the next 5 years. And I'm sure the bond for the right seat meat is not far away....

[polar one]

I wanted to jump in earlier, but this damn cheerleading outfit doesnt fit anymore, and the pompoms keep falling on the keyboard.

I think the discussion has progressed past common sense and is now treading on the religous, that is what we want to believe. But I do have a problem with this whole concept that it the person sitting in the right seat is in a training role. One of the big problems I have seen from some of these right seat wonders is that they were so busy learning how to be a Captain that they never learned how to be a first officer. And when they got to be a Captain they suddenly had to do everything themselves. Accident after accident where when something went sideways the whole CRM thing went out the window.

Anyway, I am getting odd looks so I must go and get out of this outfit.. Goooooo Doc

[Meatservo]

Well, if that's true, then it's the SOPs and training that are to blame, not what kind of aeroplane it happens to be. I happen to agree that a copilot has a lot to learn to be a good copilot, without worrying about learning to be a captain right away. I still don't see why that can't happen on a Caravan.

"Swamping" on the Otter is a good way to learn some ropes before being tossed the keys to the camp-check 180... why shouldn't it work in a Caravan too?

Take off those pompoms..you look ridiculous.

[icewa]

This captain wasn't needed to fly a plane.
http://avherald.com/h?article=422bbcf0&opt=0

These guys had 2 FOs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527076,00.html

A caravan FO is just like any other FO. They do PF and PNF work as set out in the SOP of any company. Every new pilot for a company is in a training role, how do you think they get operational line experience for the area they are flying? In the sim?

[Mustard]

Idiots!
It's always the same on here...everyone fighting each other for the benefit of management.
The bottom line is 2 crew means there is a pilot who is being paid to fly and not flip burgers.
Also means added safety. I did fly the 208 a lot both 2 crew and alone. I will be the first to admit
having a co-pilot reduced risk by reducing my work load.
Nearly all planes could be flown single pilot, but it doesn't mean they should.

[frankfrank]

I fully agree with mustard. Flying 14 -15 hour days by yourself, reconfiguring, throwing freight, wears you down. Why not have another guy there to fly every other leg and log it as well as help out with the rest. As long as it is logable I dont see how it could do any harm.

[Doc]

I fully agree with mustard. Flying 14 -15 hour days by yourself, reconfiguring, throwing freight, wears you down. Why not have another guy there to fly every other leg and log it as well as help out with the rest. As long as it is logable I dont see how it could do any harm.

Correct me if I'm wrong here (I could well be) I don't think you CAN fly 14-15 hour duty days single pilot? If you are, then you are being "pushed".
Further to that, a two pilot SOP does not make right seat time in a Caravan count. We could very easily develop a two pilot SOP for a 150. Could you log that? Nope. The time would not count towards a higher licence or requirement thereof. Let me rephrase that slightly. You can log ANYTHING. Even passenger time.....but it doesn't mean anything.