That posting came from the JobBank and if you look further you find that it is this operator, and the reason why 'Lost' mentioned the '...to fly a 206, beaver, 208 amphib and a PC12' -

http://www.thunderhook.com/thunderhook/aircraft.php

Thanks for playing.

draggintails wrote:when i saw this job post i almost fell out of my seat. i look at this as an insult. if you have that experience you better bet your boots that guys want you and will PAY you what your actually worth. i think thats the nicest way i can put it without getting blocked.

cheers

I was kidding of course about applying.

C-FSRQ - Private Registration: Cancelled 2009-10-31

C-FSRX - Private Registration: Cancelled 2009-10-31

C-FLPL - Commercial Registration: Plumridge, Donald

No registration marks showing on the Caravan or PC-12... interesting.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

Don P. sure had upgraded since I was in Armstrong. Well done! Even better if you can find a dude to work for $3000 a month. I think that advanced seaplane institute thing is just another name for the "Dunk Course"

snoopy wrote:C-FSRQ - Private Registration: Cancelled 2009-10-31

C-FSRX - Private Registration: Cancelled 2009-10-31

C-FLPL - Commercial Registration: Plumridge, Donald

No registration marks showing on the Caravan or PC-12... interesting.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

US registered Kirsten

Maybe that's why the N-reg is so small.... so we wouldn't see it...

"PC-12 Business Jet".... hmmmm

It looks much like the PST add that was on PCC. Unreal requirements and then put on a site that next to no one checks so you can say "Well I tried". Canada loves to give out work permits. Jobs for Natives and Foreigners, Canadians need not apply.

$3000 a month to fly a beaver, 208 is major retardation!

Aren't they carrying passengers for reward?

nope there selling hunting or fishing trips. Show me the CAR that say's selling you a fishing trip is illegal

JAG wrote:There's a possibility that the job had to be posted for legal reasons. The candidate is likely hired already (or will be) but to circumvent too many additional applications, the job is tailored to the candidate.

It's possible that it's immigration related (or similar) and that the poster has to prove that the job listing was circulated.

This is likely exactly the case. 10 years ago a Beaver in armstrong paid 3500/mth. The ad is just to get someone a work visa.

Does anyone know what branch of the gov handles work visas like this. I would call them and ask if there is a complaint process this is so obvious and its insulting. Do they even have a beech18?

Edo wrote:

JAG wrote:There's a possibility that the job had to be posted for legal reasons. The candidate is likely hired already (or will be) but to circumvent too many additional applications, the job is tailored to the candidate.

It's possible that it's immigration related (or similar) and that the poster has to prove that the job listing was circulated.

This is likely exactly the case. 10 years ago a Beaver in armstrong paid 3500/mth. The ad is just to get someone a work visa.

Does anyone know what branch of the gov handles work visas like this. I would call them and ask if there is a complaint process this is so obvious and its insulting. Do they even have a beech18?

Yes it is for a visa, all they have to do is run the ad and prove there was no one qualified locally so they have to look elsewhere for qualified persons. I dont like it either, but if they are like this you don't want to work for them anyway

I would think the ad has to be reasonable. Sure the employer has a right to demand certain qualifications but time on an aircraft you do not have and time well in excess of industry norms for sub-par wages should not be allowed.

So what about an ad like this: equipment operators min 5000 running a, 2000 dozers, loaders, scrapers. Advanced soil relocation course required. Pay: minimum wage. Position operate a john deer grass cutter.

Should that company get a work visa because no one locally was qualified? Of course not.

The only reason they may get away with this is no one in the visa office knows Aviation well enought to know they are advertising falsely.

I dont want the job, but they should not be allowed to do an end run on this.

If anyone knows where to contact the visa office that handles this situation, I will call them and ask to file a formal complaint for unfair requirements. I will post the results here.

You can start here, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/contacts/index.asp

Edo wrote:I would think the ad has to be reasonable. Sure the employer has a right to demand certain qualifications but time on an aircraft you do not have and time well in excess of industry norms for sub-par wages should not be allowed.

So what about an ad like this: equipment operators min 5000 running a, 2000 dozers, loaders, scrapers. Advanced soil relocation course required. Pay: minimum wage. Position operate a john deer grass cutter.

Should that company get a work visa because no one locally was qualified? Of course not.

The only reason they may get away with this is no one in the visa office knows Aviation well enought to know they are advertising falsely.

I dont want the job, but they should not be allowed to do an end run on this.

If anyone knows where to contact the visa office that handles this situation, I will call them and ask to file a formal complaint for unfair requirements. I will post the results here.

I don't think anyoneat the visa office gives a shit, as long as the paperwork is filled out correctly and they can leave the office 15 min early everyday it is just fine with them

aviator2010 wrote:

Aren't they carrying passengers for reward?

nope there selling hunting or fishing trips. Show me the CAR that say's selling you a fishing trip is illegal

I can't show you the CARS, but I can show you this from the latest Safety Letter:

In two older court cases, two operators of remote fishing or hunting camps had offered a fly-in service to guests at no extra charge. In other words, the rate charged for accommodations and guide services was the same whether the customers chose to use the fly-in service offered by the camp operators, or whether they decided to pay someone else to transport them to the camps. The hunting camp operators argued that, because they received no additional fee for the offered flights, there was no “hire or reward” situation. The courts in both cases rejected this argument and found that the free flights provided each operator a clear, albeit indirect, benefit. Therefore, the flights in question were “hire or reward” flights and the operators were found to have been operating a commercial air service without the appropriate licence.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publi ... .htm#money

Edo wrote:If anyone knows where to contact the visa office that handles this situation, I will call them and ask to file a formal complaint for unfair requirements. I will post the results here.

More power to you edo. I hope these asshats do not get away with this bullsh!t.

They forgot to say that you must have a PPC on the Space Shuttle and be less than 23 yrs old

I can't show you the CARS, but I can show you this from the latest Safety Letter:

It's cheaper and easier to beg forgivness than ask permision. when a TC inspector makes an attempt to shut down a company he risks his job, his pension and his families finacial security if he doesn't have all his ducks in a row. Plead ignorance on the fact that there is no CAR's and you get away with a slap on the wrist. the inspector isn't going to push it

I thought for sure it was someone jerkin our chain with that ad. Even if qualified, the lack of a university degree and no time on any Apollo missions would negate my application. Time to rethink some of my formal training in order to become more competitive in todays market place. Thanks for the heads-up.

BSD where are you? Im curious to your take on this one?

Dino wrote: I don't think anyoneat the visa office gives a shit, as long as the paperwork is filled out correctly and they can leave the office 15 min early everyday it is just fine with them

It is not the business of the visa office to tell a company what they do or don't need, regardless of whether it's legit or not. It is the business of the company to tell the visa office.

You're correct, Dino.

Raised the pay

Job Number: 4823533

Title: Bush pilot (NOC: 2271)

Terms of Employment: Seasonal, Full Time, On Call, Weekend, Day

Salary: $4,000.00 Monthly for 40 hours per week

Anticipated Start Date: 2010/05/20

Location: Armstrong, Ontario (1 vacancy)

Skill Requirements:

Guess he couldn't quite bring himself to type in $4500... the number he claimed it was meant to be when I asked him if it was a typo...

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

aviator2010 wrote:

I can't show you the CARS, but I can show you this from the latest Safety Letter:

It's cheaper and easier to beg forgivness than ask permision. when a TC inspector makes an attempt to shut down a company he risks his job, his pension and his families finacial security if he doesn't have all his ducks in a row. Plead ignorance on the fact that there is no CAR's and you get away with a slap on the wrist. the inspector isn't going to push it

But the CTA does this for a living. When your looking at fines starting at, and I quote right from the CTA, 5000 dollar per flight it's not that cheap.

But the CTA does this for a living. When your looking at fines starting at, and I quote right from the CTA, 5000 dollar per flight it's not that cheap.

CTA deals with sched stuff. they could give a rats ass about a fishing lodge owner selling fishing trips.