College of Pilots

[Doc]

Noticed much beating of chests of late regarding the "safety" margin by pilots who meet contrail requirements vs. pilots who don't. A little research into the recent accidents to determine whether or not the PIC would have met the requirements of contrail. Pretty sure the crew of the 737 would have met the requirements? Would just be venturing a guess as to the rest, but I think the total hours in one's log book making them necessarily a safer pilot are just so much bullshit!
Never have believed in "standards" set by a third party. They may well give your customer a "warm and fuzzy" feeling, but beyond that, it's total crap!

[contrite]

PC, no, I did not try to get involved in the effort and was not kept from doing so. This is because I do not want to be involved in the effort. If people want to organize such a thing, then they should do so, but leave me alone to work under the present rules and regulations. My objection is that the clear statements by the founders signify the intent to limit my ability to work unless I conform to a standard of behaviour which is set without my input, despite my wanting to not be a part of it. And a one-third inaugural mandate is hardly a form of democracy. Hence the "aggression", as you put it.

As for volunteerism and NGOs, we are not bringing water to African villages here. The intent is to increase the piece of available revenue in aviation that is allocated to pilots. If that is the case, then it is inconsistent to work for nothing in the effort to stop people from working for nothing. I understand Cat's motivations and good intentions, and if everyone spearheading this effort shared Cat's qualities I would feel better about this; but they do not, so I do not. The present "part of the solution or part of the problem", "we have got to do something even if we don't know what it is" type of thinking indicates that the implications of the proposal have not been thought through, and that anyone who objects can expect criticism instead of substantive answers.

[Doc]

You can either "Be part of the solution or part of the problem", I for one am IN. TomM at your convienience please feel free to PM me, I would like to explore how I can contribute.

Maplrflag

How, pray tell does not jumping on the "bandwagon" make one "part of the problem"? Monkey see, monkey do.

[snoopy]

You can either "Be part of the solution or part of the problem", I for one am IN. TomM at your convienience please feel free to PM me, I would like to explore how I can contribute.

Maplrflag

This statement is very true, however I see very few individuals willing to stand up to their employers (or be different from the peer group when poor standards are the norm); and companies and/or individuals willing to defend their rights against Transport Canada when representatives employ bully tactics to enforce regional or inspector policy instead of federal law.

Instead, the majority of people seem to prefer to hide their dissent behind the cloak of anonymity on these forums (and in general) and hope that some association will come along and magically fix that which they are not prepared to fight for themselves. Those people remain so hopeful in their fear (or complacency) that they will accept without question an association whose objectives, demographics, and intent have no relationship with, bearing on or input from the people they purport to represent and desire to control.

There is nothing wrong with the licensing standards in this country, in fact internationally Canadian licensing and training standards are held in high regard. I fail to understand why the College is so intent on input and/or control over licensing standards and the ability to punish members/industry for non-compliance with behavior standards set by a small group of people.

There is however everything wrong with many other aspects of the aviation industry, but these problems will not be fixed overnight and do not require an association to begin the path to recovery. Instead improvement of standards and intolerance of abuse from peers, companies and/or certain segments of Transport Canada comes from the courage of the individual to stand up for what is right. Leading by example is an excellent way to "be a part of the solution". When that starts happening, an association will help to strengthen and reinforce better standards.

When that association properly reflects the demographics of the industry, and includes ALL stakeholders (not just prima donna pilots - airline or otherwise), I will support it. Whatever segment of aviation you work in, your aircraft requires more than just a pilot to fly.

You don't have to agree with my opinion, I just ask that you consider it, and I thank those that took the time to read and reflect on it.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[cncpc]

I brought up Contrails for the simple purpose of pointing out they are not regulatory, they set a standard a pilot must meet to be approved.

There are several of us on this forum who hold air display authorities, to hold one you must meet a standard that has been set for the purpose of public safety to ensure you can actually fly air displays without losing control and killing the audience.

The bottom line is unless there is a method by which pilots can be judged beyond just the time they have logged the chance of earnings and working conditions improving are remote.

I agree with Cat's reasoning here. I'm a bit uneasy about pointing to Contrails as an example of post licencing "accreditation" as it is a for profit organization and it is selling the idea that it has some special insight into what is required to fly in the oilpatch. It doesn't. It put together some numbers and sold it to rather gullible customers.

Nonetheless, it demonstrates that a system of post licencing standards can be marketed directly to the customer, and that customers will express a preference for the "product" being sold. In the Contrail case, there is a question as to whether the product is the pilot, or the claimed special power of your man at Contrail to enhance safety by creating an experience matrix.

The College can do what Contrail does on an industry wide scale, or at least the industry below Borek level. It can mirror what is done by the other self regulating professions, which is to add a level of pilot capability certification beyond the certification that comes with initial training and licencing. Unlike the other self regulating professions, it cannot expect that the government will give it authority to licence, or exclude anyone from the practice of aviation. Although I was initially encouraged by Tom's update, and felt that the idea of deciding who would be licenced had been abandoned, one of his later posts indicated that that is still an objective of the College. As long as that remains so, the College will not, and should not, be recognized to any great extent by those in the flying profession.

Which raises the word "profession". What does that mean? Perhaps this little story can give some insight. Many years ago, a former leader of the Official IRA was interviewed by someone in the Irish media. He was asked about the cell structure of the organization and the fact that people within the IRA didn't know who else was in it, and had nothing other than the word of some local figure that they themselves were. He was then asked how a person who believed himself to be in the IRA could actually know that he was. The answer was "If you think you're in the IRA, you're in it.".

How do we know we are professionals? As a starting point, if we think we are and have at least some outside confirmation that we are, then we are professionals. Unlike the IRA however, we can seek to identify ourselves to the public, particularly that part of the public that uses air transport. Politics is said to be the art of the possible, and those who seek to establish the College as founders are engaged in politics. There should be no doubt about that. It is possible, even highly desirable, that the College be the entity which affirms the professionalism of those pilots who want to be so affirmed. I stress the voluntary nature of membership and striving for accreditation.

I suggested up above how that could be done. I'm all for taking additional courses and peer evaluation and a range of innovative ways in which the College could encourage its members to seek additional accreditation by the College, including even some of those initials behind names. I believe the College should, when it is fully established, let the world know that you are getting a pilot who has met standards considerably beyond those required for licencing and urge users of air services to seek out and utilize those companies which employ only College members. What I would never accept is a College mandate from the government to determine who can be a pilot. It is something that the market can decide when it is given information on what College members offer. In doing that, the College should never make the claim that it has the best pilots, because the best pilots may not want to be associated with the College. What the College can do is provide a certification that you are getting someone much above average and perhaps certified for certain types of operations.

Personally, I can't imagine what airline pilots think they have to gain by a College. They have it made. No one seriously disputes they are professionals and entitled to that designation. Is their motivation to see that those who follow them don't have to go through the same shite that they did? Well, fair enough on that. But airline pilots themselves certainly don't need a College and where this will go sideways is if they try to establish this College from the presumption that they are experts on the types of flying whose pilots really could benefit from a College and higher standards, and talk down to people like Doc and others who feel they don't need anybody proclaiming that they are much above average pilots.

Anyways, a long way of saying I agree with Cat's premise.

[Cat Driver]

I will keep injecting my ideas here even though some of the people I know on this forum either do not quite understand my position or disagree with it.

There is now some give and take here among the posters and slowly we are sorting out what a college should not be involved in.

Now I have another factor for those of you who are actually examining the possibility that this college just might be worth while.

Most of you got the connection between the industry and Contrails......which is a non regulatory body, yet has some power in the industry.

Now digest this.

From a regulatory position the most effective vehicle available is the following, from which the college can drive this monster.

With " ALL " chief pilots and operations managers on board the industry will have to follow the law.......because the industry is fuc.ed without these people on their O.C.'s.

[snoopy]

cncpc, you make many good points in your post.

If I may just add to what you've written, a reminder to those reading this that a great segment of the approximately 23,000 professionally licensed pilots (approximate because the total number is identified at 23,387 but some are dual qualified, as I am) have chosen a career path that is non-airline. As I'm sure you would agree, the "majors" are not the pinnacle of the industry, they are a facet. Each non-airline segment of the industry has its own set of intricacies and problems, which can best be identified and resolved by those directly involved in that particular segment. Of course, taken in the aggregate, improvements in any/all segments will eventually benefit everyone - at least to some degree.

I might also add that being an airline pilot does not by default make one a professional, nor does it make any non-airline pilot not a professional. In my mind a professional pilot is any pilot that conducts him/herself accordingly (ie in a professional manner).

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[snoopy]

Yes Cat - "With " ALL " chief pilots and operations managers on board the industry will have to follow the law.......because the industry is fuc.ed without these people on their O.C.'s."...

However any person who choses to hold, and qualifies for such a position of responsibility should not require membership in an association as an excuse to follow the law. As a professional, responsible person in a position of authority they should already be following the law.

Which takes us back to the point that it takes the courage of each individual to motivate and lead change in themselves and others. That is professional behaviour, which comes from within - not from an external agency. Membership in any association, organization, club or group does not make one a "professional" by default.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Doc]

You can either "Be part of the solution or part of the problem", I for one am IN. TomM at your convienience please feel free to PM me, I would like to explore how I can contribute.

Maplrflag

This statement is very true
.

Really? I think it's just about the dumbest statement on the entire thread. You don't happen to want to "play" their game.....HOW would that make you "part of the problem..."??

[Cat Driver]

Snoop, you are not accepting the reality of how the industry works.

I have watched it and was involved in it for over fifty years and have been chief pilot for three 705 companies and several 703/704.

During all that time there has always been far to many companies who operated outside of the law because the operations managers and chief pilots knew they would end up without a job if they tried to stop their employer from operating outside of the law.

There has never, ever been any mechanism to protect these people because the regulator will always turn a blind eye to why ops managers and chief pilots are suddenly fired.

If anyone here has evidence of TCCA actually reversing a dismissal of a ops manager or a chief pilot when the root cause was they were only trying to follow the law please post it here.....because I never saw it happen.

[snoopy]

Really? I think it's just about the dumbest statement on the entire thread. You don't happen to want to "play" their game.....HOW would that make you "part of the problem..."??

You're limiting the context of a perfectly true statement to that poster's comments: "Be part of the solution or part of the problem". That poster wants to join an association to "be a part of the solution", which I don't agree with as a solution to industry problems. I think I've made it pretty clear that my idea of being "part of the solution" is conducting oneself in a professional manner and having the courage to stand up (and take action) for what is right.

Those who simply complain about the situation, deny that there's any problem at all and/or do nothing (ie don't conduct themselves professionally and/or don't have the courage to stand up for what is right), are part of the problem. Inaction to a wrong by default means you condone the status quo and therefore are contributing to the overall problem.

Isn't that the same message as you've been delivering all along?

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[snoopy]

Cat,
Reality is what people make of it, and just because "it's always been like that" is no excuse for acceptance, denial or inaction. An association will not change the professionalism of an individual - they need to do that of their own accord. When they do, that is what will drive change.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[cncpc]

I will keep injecting my ideas here even though some of the people I know on this forum either do not quite understand my position or disagree with it.

There is now some give and take here among the posters and slowly we are sorting out what a college should not be involved in.

Now I have another factor for those of you who are actually examining the possibility that this college just might be worth while.

Most of you got the connection between the industry and Contrails......which is a non regulatory body, yet has some power in the industry.

Now digest this.

From a regulatory position the most effective vehicle available is the following, from which the college can drive this monster.

With " ALL " chief pilots and operations managers on board the industry will have to follow the law.......because the industry is fuc.ed without these people on their O.C.'s.

In reality, the things that Contrail does are the jobs of operations managers and chief pilots. It is the chief pilot's job to ensure that pilots are properly trained and checked for the flight assignments they are given. Insurance underwriters are vitally interested in how well that is done. They are possibly the best appraisers of pilot adequacy of all. It is the job of operations managers and directors of maintenance to oversee the regulatory and documentary framework that Contrail claims to do a better job at.

We have to remember it is operators that Contrail approves. One of the criteria for approval is pilots. There is a business consequence for lacking Contrail approval. Similarly, it may be that the College should approve operators only, with the criteria being that the operators must only employ College members. All of that being successful would depend on the brand power of the College stamp of approval for an operator. Sure, it isn't going to matter much for some American hunters coming up, but it may well matter to buyers who have to select operators for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual revenue for the operator.

That won't work? It works well for Contrail. It will work very well once a crash victim or his or her family sues on the basis that the buyer owed a duty of care to inquire into the quality and qualifications of an air operator, was aware of what the College certified, and chose to go with a different carrier that wasn't certified and which had some defect that resulted in damages to the plaintiff. One judgment on that basis, and very few charter buy decision makers are going to choose a non approved over a College approved operator.

I'm aware we're getting into a different approach here, and that this approach would be harmful to good operators who didn't want to seek out College approval, but it does get into the area Cat raises of operators binning ops managers or CP's who don't do their jobs for fear of being fired.

A few years ago, I had interviewed for an ops managers job that was north of where I am now. It was at about 120,000 a year. In the interview, which for some reason included the director of maintenance, it came up that the owner had what might be unkindly described as Munson's Syndrome. It came out that the previous ops manager had some problem with him flying the line and forbid it. It also came out that the director of maintenance was an awful gobshite who at the interview made the claim that "...all pilots are idiots". When I got home, I located the previous ops manager, who had resigned for a better job (wasn't fired) and had a talk with him. He confirmed what my concerns were and added to them. I then called the owner and advised him that I was withdrawing my application and thanks very much for his time. A couple of days later, I got a call from a Transport Canada inspector. He asked what my concerns were. I told him that I expected that I was being asked to be a figurehead and would not be able to do my job. He said that was exactly Transport's concern and that wasn't going to be allowed to happen. I do know that at least the first candidate proposed was rejected by Transport, and that a well qualified person was finally appointed.

I don't really think it is Transport's job to resolve labor relations matters, but it certainly can bring greater attention to bear on an operator when it knows the statutory personnel do not really have the authority they are supposed to have. What would make all the difference in these type of things is if the fired person took legal action for unjust dismissal and framed the pleadings in a very precise and detailed way. The media can report freely on documents filed in a court matter, and the unjust dismissal of a flight operations manager or CP, when reported on in the media in the operator's market, would pretty well end that business.

Assisting such people by validating their concerns, and providing legal advice, or at least a strategic variation of legal advice, is something the College could do right now. The key though is to defend good people done down by bad operators. Sometimes CP's and ops managers need to be fired. Good companies do that, as part of being good companies.

[Cat Driver]

Snoop.....you are not being realistic.

Those of us who said no and lost jobs had no one to back us up, and nothing absolutely nothing has improved in the system because there is no cohesiveness just individuals alone.

Until that changes the system is not going to change.

So I am willing to examine this college idea.

[TomM]

I need to clarify a comment as I suspect there has been a misinterpretation.

Snoopy made a comment in her post which was a compilation of previous posts something to the effect of all the others in the industry and I interpreted that to mean people like AMEs, dispatchers, ramp attendants, flight attendants, etc. So my comment about having the utmost respect for people "behind the scenes" was referencing them, not some secret group.

I also apologize for not coming forward sooner. A former board member did come forward in the fall of 2009 and made excellent points at that time.

Again, I repeat that there has never been any intent to do anything underhanded. The purpose of coming to this site and facing you here was to seek feedback... well I have an ear full and am reflecting on your comments.

Nothing is cast in stone with respect to the College. If you want to participate, PM me and we'll talk.

There is no elitism among the people I deal with. We are simply trying to help move piloting to the next step as we see it. If you don't share that view, fair enough and this will die. At this point there is also so much opportunity to shape the vision. To repeat myself, it is your choice.

Good night.

[contrite]

Contrails in the context of this discussion is a red herring. Contrails is a requirement of a group of customers imposing a standard on those that wish to do business with them. Contrails in no way restricts an operator's ability to do business elsewhere, nor does it say that pilots who do not meet Contrails requirements cannot work in their chosen field for other customers. The other side of Contrails is that if their requirements become too stringent or expensive, no operator will fly for them, and then just watch how quickly the standards are reduced.

The College, on the other hand, proposes to create a blanket restriction. And this latest genius idea of ...it may be that the College should approve operators only, with the criteria being that the operators must only employ College members. All of that being successful would depend on the brand power of the College stamp of approval for an operator. is just one more example of the mission creep such an enterprise would inevitably create without a clear prior plan or mandate.

Encouraging people to "step up to the plate" is another way of saying give your tacit approval to this bad idea by giving suggestions to make it less bad. Getting people involved in creating this is the hook, but this device completely marginalizes the perfectly valid choice of opposing it altogether. This is about personal responsibility, right? Well, that includes not going along with a crowd that is moving in the wrong direction.

[Doc]

Contrails in the context of this discussion is a red herring. Contrails is a requirement of a group of customers imposing a standard on those that wish to do business with them. Contrails in no way restricts an operator's ability to do business elsewhere, nor does it say that pilots who do not meet Contrails requirements cannot work in their chosen field for other customers. The other side of Contrails is that if their requirements become too stringent or expensive, no operator will fly for them, and then just watch how quickly the standards are reduced.

The College, on the other hand, proposes to create a blanket restriction. And this latest genius idea of ...it may be that the College should approve operators only, with the criteria being that the operators must only employ College members. All of that being successful would depend on the brand power of the College stamp of approval for an operator. is just one more example of the mission creep such an enterprise would inevitably create without a clear prior plan or mandate.

Encouraging people to "step up to the plate" is another way of saying give your tacit approval to this bad idea by giving suggestions to make it less bad. Getting people involved in creating this is the hook, but this device completely marginalizes the perfectly valid choice of opposing it altogether. This is about personal responsibility, right? Well, that includes not going along with a crowd that is moving in the wrong direction.

First off, "contrail" shouldn't even occur in nature. It's simply "sunshine" pumped up the butts of certain customers in the seriously flawed logic that ONLY pilots meeting certain criteria are even remotely capable of flying them from A to B. Total B.S.
I won't be "stepping up to the plate" at any rate. I don't see the value of this "college" idea. Some of you see it as the "flavour of the month", I don't. Giving certain companies the "Good House Keeping" seal of approval, based on "rules of conduct and behaviour, qualifications" as set forth by a third party just doesn't wash with me. We have licences. They were issued by the governing body of Aviation in Canada. If this isn't good enough...stuff it.
I don't have "authority" issues, I just choose not to be a sheep. Who gave these guys the right to phuque with the way I do business?
They can't do anything about working conditions. They won't do anything about low wages. They won't do anything to abolish bonds or money up front for jobs. WTF do we really need them for? To call ourselves "professional"? Snoopy reminds us that being "professional" is an attitude. She's partly (mostly) correct. It also means you are paid to do a job. The opposite to "professional" is "amateur". Look it up. Has nothing to do with paying dues to some association with a spiffy name, who will really do nothing for you.
Improve working conditions. Improve salaries. Abolish bonds. THEN, get back to me.
Ciao!

[cncpc]

You know PC, after you mentined that , I went and reread the thread on contrail requirements.
I think you might have come up with the best idea yet.... If the college could convince customers to use companies that meet college standards for flying a particular aircraft or type of operation, it would go along way towards making the college effective.
It would not be an onereous amount of work for a college to have an employer send in each year who flew for them and the hours, training on type...contrail used to require it when I was dealing with them.
Maybe one of the paths to follow is to demonstrate to companies that if they participate by providing statistics to the college say twice a year, that the whole industry will benefit. Many companies who now dont use Contrail ride on the coattails by only going to Contrail operators..Something a college could do.

The only fly in the ointment is audit companies like Contrail dont give a rats butt if pilots like them or not.
they care about their customer who is paying for the audit. there might be a bit of a problem convincing pilots that a college is trying to set standards.....gets in the way of the whole career path thing. Pilots want to be called professional, but dont want the standards raised ......

But it just might make aviaition safer. Get wages increased, And get some professionalism back in the profession....

Good idea.

Excuse me. I'm not one for really caring much about whose idea something was, but when the adjective genius is attached to it, and it was actually mine, I have to speak up...

And this latest genius idea of ...it may be that the College should approve operators only, with the criteria being that the operators must only employ College members.

and as for this...

Contrails in the context of this discussion is a red herring. Contrails is a requirement of a group of customers imposing a standard on those that wish to do business with them. Contrails in no way restricts an operator's ability to do business elsewhere, nor does it say that pilots who do not meet Contrails requirements cannot work in their chosen field for other customers. The other side of Contrails is that if their requirements become too stringent or expensive, no operator will fly for them, and then just watch how quickly the standards are reduced

.

At the risk of having the genius claim retracted, I have to say that Contrite's Contrails comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of what Contrail is about. Contrail customers did not create and impose a standard on those who wished to do business with them. Contrail convinced them that existing regulation was inadequate and that your wee man in Contrail could help them towards greater safety through his special knowledge of what was required for safety. He put together a package, they bought it, and Contrail imposes it on the operators through the stick of losing oil company business. Contrails absolutely eliminates non approved companies' ability to do business with the oil companies, usually in markets where it may hardly be worthwhile to be in business "elsewhere". It is glib in the extreme to say Contrail requirements don't stop pilots who don't meet them from working in their chosen field for other customers. That is true as long as they don't chose to work anywhere that Contrail operates. How many companies running turboprops for the oil industry are going to hire a pilot who can't fly Contrail work when that might be 80-90% of all that company's work.

If the requirements are to stringent or expensive, one operator will always fly for them. And the oil companies will pay. That's true for the same reasons that some pilots will fly for nothing.

My genius comment was made in the context of a brainstorming session in this thread. There is also a resistance session going on. Certainly Contrails can't be pleased with the comments about it on here, or the threat the rise of an alternative to its own seal of approval poses. In that sense, Contrails and Contrite seem to have the same interest. What is it they call that, serendipitious?

I'm not sure it was all that geniusitous anyways. I see College Mark I as having an agenda that proposes to regulate the very existence of pilots, to say who can be a pilot and who can't and get the government to give them that authority. It really isn't the body, if it ever got going, to implement an improvement in conditions by creating a certification mark for operators, based perhaps on the three statutory positions being certified, and leaving it to the holders of those statutory positions to decide on flight safety and all of the other conditions of employment that recognize the worth and dignity of both pilots and engineers. And, it could certify pilots, if they wanted to be certified. Why not. But not mandatory, and certainly not as a substitute for the government.

[Prairie Chicken]

Snoopy & Cat, may I suggest you're both correct?

I would add that sometimes, maybe not too often, but sometimes immature & impressionable pilots simply cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. That's when a mentor--one who practices right and not wrong as is so common--could be truly valuable.

Similarly, peer pressure is a very big factor. Yes Snoopy, I know it shouldn't be but not all people are strong and confident, and that goes far beyond aviation.

To clarify, I'm thinking of immature or impressionable pilots. Note I don't say young; I don't think this is an age issue. In this area I believe the College really could offer some valuable assistance.

[confuzed]

After sifting through this thread I too am on the fence. Being a natural "devil's advocate", I can see the arguments from both sides and understand where each person is coming from.

Given that it causes me to wonder about a couple of things that maybe Tom could answer and Doc I'd like your opinion about with your background/position in a certain area.

1) What exactly do you consider disciplinary action "faux pas'" Tom? This is where I pose this question to Doc (and all else with the same stance), would you support the college if they took care of this? Are you talking about those that conduct themselves poorly and work for free, pay for their jobs, etc? That would seem fair to me, and would be all over that being taken care of as these people are a major problem to being able to consider ourselves professionals. What concerns me is that any and every accident and incident is overly scrutinized, and 9 times out of 10 it is thought to be pilot error. It doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that an incident or accident that was way out of my scope of controlling the outcome or even initial event in the first place could have me losing the privileges of my license. Does it mean that I would now have 2 bodies investigating adding to the stress....what happens if the two bodies disagree on the situation, who would have final say? It would be quite unfortunate if Transport deemed something not my fault but the college thinks differently and now I can't work to feed my family.

2). How does the college plan to integrate this industry wide? The employers are going to fight this until the end, and will not let up as it stands to cut their margins WAY down. Just look how some employers are not happy with the change to duty day regulations that are in the process of being updated. Just wait until the "unforeseen" definition gets clarified in the regulations (if it ever does).

I do agree with Snoopy though that we ALL have to change our mindset in the first place, as this is where the underlying issue is. However, an organization that incorporates and embraces the mindset change is an interesting concept. The only other issue Ican see though s that until people conduct themselves in a professional manner it is destined to fail. With the threat of disciplinary action and the current mindset, the review board would be very busy in my opinion. With the current mindset of people stabbing their own brothers in the back to get their job/iron, they will be "advising" the college of any type of infraction no matter how minute just in the hopes of getting themselves ahead as a possible replacement.



Edited to add one more final thought.

[Doc]

Doc,

My guess is that you might have much to offer however the last bit of your most recent post makes it sound like you are only interested in joining a winning team after others has done the work that is a shame, I quote;

"Improve working conditions. Improve salaries. Abolish bonds. THEN, get back to me.
Ciao!"
I am in the last quarter of my career and I can honestly say that some change has occured, maybe not as widespread as we would like but remember the tortoise made it to the finish line before the hare !!!!!

The year 2011 was touted as the "Year of Revolutions" maybe 2012 will see some advancement in our industry. It's got to start somewhere and sometime, why not NOW.

Mapleflag

Just to set the record straight mate, I know something needs to be done. I'm just not really impressed with the "behind the scenes" MO on this one? Also, the big issues (as I see them....I'm sure there are many more) are not even "on the table" as far as the "college" is concerned. What I should have said in my closing comments would be something like..."If you decide to include working conditions, low wages and bond issues in your agenda, get back to me..." That probably would have been closer to my true feelings on the matter.
Ciao!

[flyinthebug]

Just to set the record straight mate, I know something needs to be done. I'm just not really impressed with the "behind the scenes" MO on this one? Also, the big issues (as I see them....I'm sure there are many more) are not even "on the table" as far as the "college" is concerned. What I should have said in my closing comments would be something like..."If you decide to include working conditions, low wages and bond issues in your agenda, get back to me..." That probably would have been closer to my true feelings on the matter.
Ciao!

Doc, you are confusing what the college will do... with what a UNION would do. The College of Physicians and Surgeons does not regulate working conditions or pay. That is up to the individual doctor and the deal they strike with their respective provincial providers.

The concerns you are addressing are of course valid, but I believe they are out of the scope of what the college hopes to achieve.

An idea`s time has come. I dont believe that bashing those that are willing to give up their own free time, in an attempt to better our industry, is the right way to go here.

You have been a friend of mine (and mentor) for several years now, and I KNOW you want improvement in our industry. The college is a step in the right direction. It will not resolve all the issues, or even address them all. However, they will be an important part of the industry oversight.

Working conditions, bonds, pay scale etc are all functions of a union...not a college. With respect Doc, if you take a closer look and ask them some questions, I dont think you`ll be too disappointed with the answers. I encourage you to start a dialogue with TomM and you`ll find in short order that he is not an "airline type"... he is someone with a genuine concern for the direction our industry is taking, and wants to improve it. He would love to have your level of experience helping them establish a foundation for the college. I believe you have ALOT to offer this undertaking, and it would be a shame if you missed the boat on getting this off the ground...basically over your desire for a Union and not a College. perhaps in time, both can become a functional part of our industry.

One final thought... The CTA is considered a "toothless" political animal. I thought the same thing until I was late on an insurance payment. Then watch this toothless monster rear its head and MAKE you hear them. This college is no different. It will have authority that is in keeping with their mission statement. The CTA has no business on my property in regards to an enforcement issue...but when your fleet is not insured properly, they are there to make damn sure you get the proper coverage. I learned that the hard way as a young Ops Mgr.

Same thing applies to a College vs a Union Doc. They both have their place in our industry...just like CTA and TCA. Two seperate entities, working together for the betterment of safety in our industry.

Fly safe all.

[Big Pistons Forever]

First off, "contrail" shouldn't even occur in nature. It's simply "sunshine" pumped up the butts of certain customers in the seriously flawed logic that ONLY pilots meeting certain criteria are even remotely capable of flying them from A to B. Total B.S.

Yup couldn't agree more......BUT I would argue it is the only thing that in recent history has had a beneficial impact on wages. The hard numbers act to restrict the number of pilots eligible and therefore have acted to at least reduce the race to the bottom in wages. If and, I admit it is a big if, the current robust hiring by all the airlines continues then all those crappy T prop operators are going to have no pilot left unless they substantially sweeten the deal. You just have to look at the number of KA captain positions, "Contrails mins required !", advertised now, to see things are already tightening up. A supply shortage is the only thing that will make life better and I don't see how the college is going to make that happen.

[snoopy]

On the subject of mentoring, I (and I am sure many others) have been mentoring junior pilots for many years through both formal and informal means, as well as by writing and sharing stories about my experiences, adventures and challenges on my pilot journey. I've taken countless kids up on their first flight, given school presentations, guided tours and "womanned" various aviation-related displays, including air shows in order to share information and answer questions.

I didn't need a College to prompt me to do any of that, a sense of responsibility, interest and caring drove those actions. If I didn't care about the industry I operate in, I wouldn't bother trying to improve it and/or expand awareness of it.

If the College is putting forth mentoring as a core value, I commend this, however mentoring, along with abiding by the law is something that a professional would do naturally, and a College is not required for someone to take the initiative to mentor another.

Just thought I would throw that out there for those that seem to assume we don't think mentoring is important! I firmly believe that most people who are passionate about their career will do their best to share that passion with others. I know I do, and I'm not the only one out there.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[172pilot]

When it comes to safety, sounds like TC isn't doing their job and now some want to create yet another layer in the industry. How about we simply give more funding to TC which hopefully could crack down on dangerous operators? I dont see how an underfunded 'college' is going to achieve anything other than paying a few board of directors a nice salary since they lack any form of goverment or self-goverment enforcement powers. TC issues the licenses for pilots and operators and needs to do a much better job when doing enforcement. I cant speak for them but underfunding could be a major problem.