Professional Recognition Sought For Pilots

[cncpc]

How about rating system for ALL operators? The criteria of which should include past transgressions. Banks and insurers have risk assessments for everyone including corporations. I would hope that a College of Proffessional Pilots would think long and hard about developing in implementing one.

Exactly.

Other than the College bit. That is a bridge to self aggrandizement too far. No problem with the word professional. But, I've been to a college, and this is a long way from a college. As I said above, just examine the intellectual skills of some of the proposed members in these threads.

No problem with additional standards beyond the licence. Real problem with saying you can't work if you don't meet those standards. The group sets its standards, which raises the practice of aviation to a better level than it is now. It's foremost strategy is to move to a place where it is the foremost spokesperson about aviation safety in Canada in the eyes of the public.

It certifies operators. It only certifies operators which have a sizeable number of members in senior flight management and operations roles. Not every pilot need be certified, but those who aren't are at least under the mentorship of the senior, accredited pilots.

The group (College) is active in making the public aware of how safety is compromised by operators and is public about which operators it refuses to accredit and why.

Market forces are what are going to bring about a better profession for pilots, and safer flight for the public.

Look at what Contrail did, and that is more or less a scam. Imagine what a legitimate set of standards could do.

[x-wind]

Driving Rain, that link you provided doesn't look to parallel the proposal to rating every commercial operator. I'm not aware of any official health care workers group rating the different hospitals in the country. Ideologically I'm opposed to the further deregulation of our industry with the implementation of SMS and other ideas of dismantling the main framework of the government setting the rules which everyone has to follow. I would like this college to be an "industry" voice, one that can't be ignored, when regulations and standards are implemented/changed.

I don't agree with the idea of a group of senior pilots advising the public & making endorsements.

I do agree with changing the actual standards of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Parts IV & VII as applicable, to realize a better pilot & then, through osmosis, a better industry.

[LousyFisherman]

Are you kidding me? An electrician builds electrical systems.

Well considering, you or I can wire our own house and I have done my own wiring, then get a inspector or electrician to inspect for code. And here it is, all 41 pages of it.
http://www.hydro.mb.ca/customer_service ... l_code.pdf

Hey cool, now you can take a feed from that 12,500V line hook into the transformer and then give me 3 phase 600V and then hook up that $10 million CNC
lathe. Did your 40 pages of the 5900 page code tell youthe proper way to do that? You have already proved your ignorance, you don't have to do it again.

Try becoming a city bus driver, how much experience do you think you need?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/career/tr ... ining.html
The Calgary Transit Training Program is approximately four weeks (21 business days) long.

An ideal candidate for the position of Transit Operator position must possess the following minimum requirements:

Preference will be given to those who currently hold a Class 1 or 2 Alberta Operator’s License.
Preference is given to those who currently have a Q endorsement (airbrakes).
Preference is given to those who have a minimum of six (6) months of large vehicle driving experience (but not required)

Oh you meet the minimum standard so you get the job?
Here's reality, in Calgary you will need a minimum of 10 years driving experience of which 5 must be in a bus or chauffeur (taxi) environment
And you will be competing with people with 15 years experience of which 10 years are shuffling people around

A mechanic repairs turbines.

I don't want to demeen this trade as my Dad was a mechanic, but I beleive he would tell you todays mechanics are parts changers not trouble shooters. Hook up the machine and it tells you what sensor to change. I myself have done complete rebuilds without any formal training, Chiltons manual is an amazing thing.

So have I, a 1964 MG engine rebuild done on my driveway. But I don't call myself a mechanic. Again look at your lack of respect. "todays mechanics are parts changers not trouble shooters." pretty broad statement to make about a very large group of people.

But to sum up my point, lousy, why don't you become a city bus driver and do our profession a favor.

And how would me becoming a bus driver help your profession? I don't fly as a job.

What is it with commercial pilots? Are you so insecure you have to denigrate every other profession to justify your attitudes?

Flame away
LF

[seafeye]

If your job does not require a degree it will not be considered a profession.

At least this is what NAFTA believes.

[mbav8r]

Oh you meet the minimum standard so you get the job?
Here's reality, in Calgary you will need a minimum of 10 years driving experience of which 5 must be in a bus or chauffeur (taxi) environment
And you will be competing with people with 15 years experience of which 10 years are shuffling people around

First I'll respond to this because it is complete fabrication, I know because the 20 year old new canadian driver I had last week could not possibly have met your above requirements, along with the numerous others I've encountered.

And how would me becoming a bus driver help your profession? I don't fly as a job.

As for this, thank you, now I can ignore your opinion on this matter, as well as anyhting else having to do with, "fly as a job"

How's this gem for ignorance all three are immoral concerning commercial pilots, not to mention illegal. Yes all three are illegal but in your mind only the last one is.

LousyFisherman wrote:
So according to law,
- It is not okay to fly at 4PM if I have one beer at lunch.
- It is okay if I get just shit faced the night before, down 4 shots at 2 AM, then go flying at 10AM even though I have to stop the car on the way to the airport to puke and my head is throbbing and my eyes won't focus. (Otherwise known as a seriious hangover.)
- It is not okay to smoke a joint 7 days ago and go flying today because I have THC in my blood.

Article S. 253 of the Canadian Criminal Code says that: “Everyone commits an offence
who operates a motor vehicle or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or
railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or
railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person’s ability to
operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a
drug.”

[Gino Under]

DonutHole

"There are already standards set which need to be adhered to to become a commercial pilot, these standards are dictated by TC."
I don't believe TC dictate standards. The Government of Canada write into law, regulations. TC administer and enforce those regulations. They may determine and set the criteria for a licence but based on the number of clerical errors, cheats, or those who simply choose to ignore improperly issued documents, I'd say their system isn't perfect either.
I've yet to see perfection in anything aviation. But, that's not why I think professional pilots in Canada could use a properly established fraternity, association, club, organization or college.
What we choose to call it is immaterial. How we as a group decide it should function is what's relevant and important. So is your contribution.

"Why do we need MORE bureaucracy?"
As a professional society, CPPC is unlikely to be MORE bureaucracy for the every day pilot. If you joined, you could help determine its size, shape, flavour, and scope. That's the nice thing about organizations in their infancy, you get a say in what it becomes. A collective professional voice, without the influence or interference of government, stands a better chance of getting things done than not.
I've always been suspicious of those who hide behind the written word or regulation anyway.

"I am really worried about the 'standards' the college will look to impose on the industry. To me, this is simply a certain group of individuals looking to impose their ideals and once recognized will use these ideals to limit access to the field, thus limiting supply thereby raising the wages."
I don't think you need to be concerned. Impose isn't a word I'd use in reference to any standards a college might define. How would any society operating like that benefit from snobbism or elitism? Why would you think it could "impose" anything on anyone? As a member I know I would resist any and all attempts to dictate, impose or abuse anything that wasn't for the betterment of our profession. Wouldn't you?
How would limiting the number of pilots able to join, benefit, and participate in this occupation enhance, improve, or advance piloting?

"My question is, once this organization is in charge of standards, what happens to all of those pilots working with a CPL issued under TC that doesn't meet the extended standards imposed by the college, are they to be grandfathered in."
I don't assume or presume 'the college' will be placed 'in-charge' of licensing standards. Are you imagining a college rep sitting in on your check ride, pen, paper, and pen in hand overseeing TC and a candidate to determine if your performance is Sat or Unsat?
Personally, that's quite a stretch.
Relax. You might just be letting your imagination run away with you because I don't think that's going to happen off the blocks. Besides, if you were a member, would you want to see this as a college responsibility and do you imagine if such a responsibility were handed over from TC to the college it's likely to happen in your lifetime?

"So as it sits, we have an organization which wants nothing to do with licensing, only standards, but the group is open to anybody with a CPL or higher, which are licenses, which they want nothing to do with, which are issued by transport Canada."
It goes without saying a professional organization should be concerned with professional licencing standards, requirements and the piloting occupation, but it should also recognize as a part of its responsibility and function that it should also encourage and support the piloting profession by having PPL licenced pilots participate as well.
We're entering an era of pilot shortages. We can't stand for or encourage any elitist attitude moving forward. I think your concern is misguided.

"I don't believe that a private organization should be allowed to set wages across the board for operators in Canada. I believe that is communist and anti free-market. There is already an avenue available to those specific groups wishing to accomplish this goal, and that is unionization, which includes collective bargaining. A heavy handed one sided approach by an external entity is an unacceptable solution when it comes to wage standards."
I would think that unionization of the workforce is an issue outside the scope of a society, college or association in this context. I would agree and support any private commercial operation/operator's right to establish pilot salaries. I would expect the college to establish a fair wage schedule for a variety of piloting jobs in Canada. Whether a company or anyone wishing to accept less is an individual choice and I respect that. I seriously doubt this college will have teeth or club sharp enough or large enough to impose anything on any commercial operation. But, it might just affect change by influence and expectation.

"Six of one half dozen of the other. They don't want to be involved in licensing, but they want to be in charge of the standards required to exercise the privilege of that license. It is an end run around the knee jerk negative reaction which comes with having an external entity actually controlling the issuance of the licenses."
Canadian licencing standards are not what they should be, need to be and in fairness to those just starting out, don't prepare our ab initio, CPL, or ATPL sufficiently well enough for the new realities of our industry. I see it everyday as I'm sure many others following this thread will attest. I will discuss, debate or argue with anyone over this issue.

"Machum said its principal functions would be pilot certification
What does this mean if not licensing. A commercial pilots license, and then an ATPL *IS* the certification... they are also the licenses. So which is it, do they want to be involved in the licensing or don't they? This is the kind of contradiction that scares me as it seems disingenuous to claim that they don't want to be involved in the licensing but the want to be involved in the certification. They way it sits RIGHT NOW, it is impossible to determine which direction the college wants to take their mandate. With that kind of open ended ambiguity it is very easy for them to claim one thing and then do another... Not a fan."
I can't speak for Mr. Machum.
A principal function would more likely be advisory to TC for pilot licencing in terms of the required knowledge, experience, and skills necessary for the issuance of a pilot licence. Isn't that a reasonable way to participate in the expectation of piloting standards?
I understand there are numerous types of flying jobs for pilots and the KES (knowledge, experience, skills) varies from job type to job type, but the reality is we should all aspire to the highest level whether or not we ever get there. Those sitting at the top tier should be contributing to the requirements of the top tier by working with Personnel Licencing to establish a more applicable licencing criteria. I'm not in favour of minimum standards if they don't keep up with a rapidly changing industry and I doubt that you do as well.
Simply stated, if you're well prepared for the top tier anything less should see you very well prepared to accept your piloting responsibility in whatever piloting job you end up in. Not the other way round.

I joined for the simple reason that I believe this movement is long overdue. I'm not a founding father or member of the board, just a Canadian ATPL holder. These are only my musings on a college for professional pilots and what my expectations might look like. If you have issues or concerns, join. If you truly believe your way of life is threatened by an elitist group of pilots in Canada, join. Be an effective voice in its evolution and if you disagree with some of it, say so. But at least participate and make sure your corner of the piloting profession contributes and has a say.

Cheers,
Gino Under

[cncpc]

DonutHole


These are only my musings on a college for professional pilots. If you have issues or concerns, join. If you truly believe your way of life is threatened by an elitist group of pilots in Canada, join. Be an effective voice in its evolution and if you disagree with some of it, say so. But at least participate and make sure your corner of the piloting profession contributes and has a say.

Cheers,
Gino Under

So, what you're saying is, as an example, if I have concerns about the Hells Angels, I should join them?

[mbav8r]

cncpc wrote;
So, what you're saying is, as an example, if I have concerns about the Hells Angels, I should join them

If you join the Hells Angels, would you have any say in what they do going forward? If the answer is yes, I say join, maybe you can have them vote on whether or not to start selling flowers on the street corners, instead.

[Gino Under]

cncpc

Enjoyed your post.
I suppose it depends on your comprehension skills and how simple minded you might be as to what I meant with my previous comments for DonutHole. I certainly didn't take away much from it though.

However... since you asked.
If you are a biker with criminal tendancies looking for some professional development then you could probably go with Hell's Angels. I honestly don't know. We have the Rock Machine in Quebec. Bearing in mind there are other criminal elements within Canadian society where you could probably develop any number of specialized criminal behaviors, I'm probably not your best guidance councillor in that regard. You might check with your local RCMP detachment. They can probably tell you better than I as to where your concerns for criminal standards and any criminal code of ethics might best be guided.

Gino Under

[Meatservo]

Wow. This conversation is a good indication of the "professional recognition" that pilots are earning for themselves. I do wish you people would pick a different word than "college". Some people still don't quite seem to understand what the word means in this context. Why don't we give them a break and call it something else?

[TomM]

Good morning. I guess it's time to do a little clarifying.

1. The College that we envision has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in limiting the number of pilots. Even if the projections of pilot shortages are out by 50% there will still be a need for more pilots.

2. The College has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in changing the education requirements from the status quo. We only wish to ensure that the minimum standard as outlined is maintained across the board regardless of where one's CPL training is completed. If a change were envisioned it would only be done with the collaboration of all stakeholders AND it would be done to ease the transition to that first job after flight school. It would not be done to LIMIT entrance, it would be done to PROMOTE transition to that first job.

3. The process we envision would not add more examinations to entrance to the profession. Once you finish CPL training, you would still get a TCCA issued license, you would also be immediately admitted to the College which means you would receive College certification. To maintain that certification, you would need to respect the Code of Conduct we would all follow and you would need to demonstrate proficiency as you do currently on a regular basis. If you didn't maintain the code or proficiency, your certification could be in jeopardy and if that were lost, you'd lose the ability to work.

4. While a member of the College, you would be expected to behave in the manner you hopefully already behave. In addition you would be expected to monitor the behaviour of your colleagues and remind them if they were stepping across the line. They, also as professionals would be obliged to take your comments into consideration and hopefully modify their behaviour. The College would provide resources to assist the members to be effective with this. And finally, if in the end, a pilot chose to ignore the constructive feedback, there would be an escalation process in place where the pilot in question would, if the matter were serious enough, eventually be called in front of a peer review panel and could potentially lose their certification.

Remember, the idea here is to be proactive, identify the problem before it gets out of hand and hopefully deal with it in a manner that avoids litigation and promotes best behaviour.

5. Finally, get over the name. It's a name that fits what we are trying to do. The second definition at Oxford's online dictionary is:

"an organized group of professional people with particular aims, duties, and privileges: the Royal College of Physicians"

I hope this helps to clarify the goals of the College.

[AirFrame]

No not yet, ok lets say we achieve this designation and now lets say down the road the the college sets a minimum that a pilot could be paid, it would be unethical to work for less and enforced by the ethical standards set forth to be considered a "Professional Pilot", no more bottom feeder.

Oh, if it were only this easy.

As a Professional Engineer, I can say with 100% certainty that the association publishing recommended salaries will do next to nothing for your paycheque. In BC, they publish the results of a bi-annual survey, where engineers report what they were paid in the last calendar year. At the same time they publish a table of recommended salaries for engineers working at certain experience levels. Regardless of that, Engineers are paid based on market pressure, or, in large enough companies, by an internal pay scale that is next to impossible to circumvent (hmm... sounds like an airline). If someone equally qualified is willing to take less money than you, they will get the job. It's as simple as that. There are plenty of bottom feeders in every profession.

[x-wind]

TomH,

When regulations and standards are drafted, for commerial operations, are there any current stakeholder representing pilots?

Are you aiming to have legislation drafted, into the CARs, to mandate the commercial pilot be a member of the college?

I appreciate the comment about training changes only happening, with a reluctant tone, w/ the desire to ease the transition to the first job. This is what I hope for too as I feel there is a big disconnect. A commercial pilot holder should be competent to be a commercial pilot and that often isn't the case IMHO. Furthermore, the maintenance of proficiency is a also a point of contention; in house testing is a conflict of interest.

[Meatservo]

Tom H, since every time I post on the subject it seems to elicit a response from you, let's get some things straight: I AM over the name. It's just that I'm still seeing posts from other people that say things like "doesn't sound like any college I ever went to", or "I went to a college, it wasn't anything like this". That's all. Call yourself whatever you like. I understand perfectly, believe me.

Second: I have never advocated restricting the number of new pilots. In another thread I mentioned it because the issue bears discussion. Not because I believe in it, but because it's been brought up before, so clearly some people do. You can stop acting like the very idea is in the same category as apartheid or antisemitism. It's not. It's just a bad idea.

I actually support what you're doing. If you can avoid sounding self-important and pretentious on the one hand, and compromising and ineffectual on the other hand, you might have a chance of changing something for the better. Or at least changing something.

What I'm seeing here is an organisation with voluntary membership, with an arbitrary code of conduct, the violation of which results in no tangible consequences other than being booted out of the "club", no mandate to change the status quo when it comes to standards, other than to smooth out some inconsistencies in a program that already caters to the lowest common denominator, and no membership criteria other than what you already need to get a job.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a bid to increase the societal "status" (which I admit is slipping) of being an air pilot, without any concomitant increase in effort. I wish you the best. I was actually hoping there was going to be some compelling reason to force the profession to pull its collective socks up.

[5x5]

ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in limiting the number of pilots

Interesting, but what about the last quote I've included?

ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in changing the education requirements from the status quo

So everything is OK as it is?

Once you finish CPL training, you would still get a TCCA issued license, you would also be immediately admitted to the College which means you would receive College certification

As above, apparently the current system produces pilots who are adequate to become members.

To maintain that certification, you would need to respect the Code of Conduct we would all follow and you would need to demonstrate proficiency as you do currently on a regular basis.

Suddenly, with no change to education or licensing requirements there is introduced a Code of some kind with no details as to what they are or what issues they are trying to address. Obviously, you must feel there are some things wrong in the current system although your first statements seem to indicate there isn't. What problems, hence what requirements, are you intending to have in your Code?

If you didn't maintain the code or proficiency, your certification could be in jeopardy and if that were lost, you'd lose the ability to work.

As a follow-up to your first statement, this certainly sounds like limiting the number of pilots. If you feel there is a need for a code, it must be because there are current pilots that you feel wouldn't meet some of the intended standards. By excluding them, you would in fact be limiting the number of pilots

So it does seem to me that you definitely want control over the number of pilots that would be able to work in Canada.

[Meatservo]

If you didn't maintain the code or proficiency, your certification could be in jeopardy and if that were lost, you'd lose the ability to work.

An experiment, then: I will not join your organisation, and we will wait and see if you ever acquire the right to determine whether or not I am eligible to work. My personal code of conduct is not currently in need of a brush-up, and from what I have read here, you have little else to offer.

[DonutHole]

Meat

the important part here is that, in a perfect world where the college is in full force, without their certification you cannot work.

So, what I take his statement to mean is basically what it says, without being a member of the college you can't work.

Which takes me back to the point: They don't want to be in charge of licensing, they want to be in charge of your ability to exercise its privileges. It is an end run around having to be in charge of the licensing.

[cncpc]

Good morning. I guess it's time to do a little clarifying.

4. While a member of the College, you would be expected to behave in the manner you hopefully already behave. In addition you would be expected to monitor the behaviour of your colleagues and remind them if they were stepping across the line. They, also as professionals would be obliged to take your comments into consideration and hopefully modify their behaviour. The College would provide resources to assist the members to be effective with this. And finally, if in the end, a pilot chose to ignore the constructive feedback, there would be an escalation process in place where the pilot in question would, if the matter were serious enough, eventually be called in front of a peer review panel and could potentially lose their certification.

5. Finally, get over the name. It's a name that fits what we are trying to do. The second definition at Oxford's online dictionary is:

"an organized group of professional people with particular aims, duties, and privileges: the Royal College of Physicians"

I hope this helps to clarify the goals of the College.

Tom, why is it impossible to say in plain English what behavior will be expected and not cloak it in gibberish like "...in the manner you hopefully already behave" What manner is that? Who is hoping I behave in that manner? As for nannying my colleagues, that sounds like the old Soviet Union. "Stepping across the line"? What line? According to who? What resources will the College provide its members to be effective in monitoring our colleagues and their footsteps? Video cameras in belt buckles. Secret listening devices? Tiny GPS transmitters for those shoes that may step over the line?

The name is never going to fly. It is laughable. Those in the Royal College of Physicians have, for instance, actually attended and graduated from a college. There is no "College" in the world that I know of that contains people who do not at least have a post secondary degree.

It seems to me, in following the logic in this, that the only purpose of the College is to make people behave a certain way. I think if the absurd comes to pass, and you start telling people they can't work because they don't "behave" the way you want to, you're going to have to appear in public in a balaclava, wear a bulletproof vest, and require 24 hour police protection.

Sounds more like the aviation version of a bunch of George Zimmermans.