For some time now , a group of us has been dealing with TC to provide some standards for FO's on planes that are not required by their certification to have two crew.
I now understand that, regardless of ops specs , that unless an aircraft is required to have two crew, FO time will not count towards the issue of a higher license. (Amendment to the CARS pending)
Thats the bad news, but before anyone flames me for this , there are many in the industry besides myself that believe that a 250 hour, newly minted commercial pilot is simply not capable of contributing to a proper CRM system...and there are many many statistics to back this up. Even worse is when it is considered a training position as what that means is that on revenue flights with passangers on board, the flight is being flown not by two crew, but by a captain and student. Or worse, as I have seen posted here, where the captain is suppossed to be training the FO to be a Captain.
The good news however is that the oil company auditors, although lowering and changing their standards will still require FO's on the excluded aircraft so it should not change the job market. FO will just not be able to count the time towards a higher license.
Over the years we have seen much improvement in navigational systems to enhance situational awareness, and a huge improvement in autopilot technology for small aircraft. I think we will see a significant increase in safety as a result, and for once, have to congratulate TC for taking a pro active approach to analysis a potential risk and deal with it.
Good news and Bad News for FO's in small aircrat
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Really? The Euros/Asians/Indians seem to do OK with them - is their accident rate any higher than ours?many in the industry besides myself that believe that a 250 hour, newly minted commercial pilot is simply not capable of contributing to a proper CRM system
Not wanting to start a war here, just questioning...
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
And their safety record, compared to north american airlines is?
I see this trotted out all the time, but it is an apple to oranges thing when you consider the wide variation in training schools in Canada as compared to some of the airline sponsered schools who specialize in churning out captains' assistants....time will tell
I see this trotted out all the time, but it is an apple to oranges thing when you consider the wide variation in training schools in Canada as compared to some of the airline sponsered schools who specialize in churning out captains' assistants....time will tell
i'd like to see some proof of this statement.
personally, as an FO on one of the aircraft that would be affected by this, i find it distrubing. in my line of work, we really DO require the two crew members. if this should actually become law, i can see my company having a hard time finding pilots, even harder than it is already....
personally, as an FO on one of the aircraft that would be affected by this, i find it distrubing. in my line of work, we really DO require the two crew members. if this should actually become law, i can see my company having a hard time finding pilots, even harder than it is already....
Makes sense to me. If the manufacturer claims, and the feds agree, that only ONE pilot is required (eg C172) well ...unless an aircraft is required to have two crew, FO time will not count towards the issue of a higher license
The guy in the right seat is receiving dual, and should log it as such.
Note that this is a double-edged sword for Transport, though. Using their logic, they can no longer require 2 pilots if the aircraft is certified for single pilot ops
-
unregistered
- Rank 4
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:22 pm
Although I can neither confirm not deny this, it does fall in line with a convrsation I had with a Transport Canada employee in fairly recent history.
This particular person had been attending meetings with the International Civil Aviation Organization and explained to me that ATPL requirements were going to change soon in Canada's attempt to match the 'so called' calibre of other countries.
I remember it being specifically mentioned that you may actually need to hold a type rating on a minimum 'two crew' aircraft in the future to qualify for an ATPL.
Like I said - not confirming nor denying (or expressing an opinion). Just passing that on.
This particular person had been attending meetings with the International Civil Aviation Organization and explained to me that ATPL requirements were going to change soon in Canada's attempt to match the 'so called' calibre of other countries.
I remember it being specifically mentioned that you may actually need to hold a type rating on a minimum 'two crew' aircraft in the future to qualify for an ATPL.
Like I said - not confirming nor denying (or expressing an opinion). Just passing that on.
-
Phsyco SID
- Rank 0
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:53 am
I have just read what I believe to be the biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen in my entire life. Its obvious these guys have forgotten what its like to be a 250 hour guy trying to make it in this tough industry. I agree there are alot of low timers that cant contribute but there are also lots that can. Thats up to the company thats hiring to decide. Not You!!! This buisness is full of Captains as well that come with a bush backround that dont know squat about CRM. Does that make them better than a new FO? The industry is already running a shortage of experienced pilots and this sure as hell aint going to help!
To you and anyone who agrees to this new regulation, I suggest you check your ego and go back to when you were a bright eyed new pilot, tossing bags trying to get your chance on a Navajo and just think about where you would be today if you were not allowed to log that time.
To you and anyone who agrees to this new regulation, I suggest you check your ego and go back to when you were a bright eyed new pilot, tossing bags trying to get your chance on a Navajo and just think about where you would be today if you were not allowed to log that time.
I think this is a bad idea. If time is good enough for the logbook, it should be good enough for the licence. And I don't understand how this is supposed to improve safety... since when does logging time but not counting it make one safer? Very few pilots in Canada would hold ATPL's without counting f/o time on single pilot aircraft - Beech 1900's and King Air's jump to mind first.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
It is my belief formed by having seen a bit of aviation that.
Flight time is a poor benchmark for determining a persons abilities to operate a flying device.
Two pilots are better than one, safety wise as long as both are well trained.
250 hours are not enough to allow a pilot to fly in a demanding enviroment.....I had 252 hours when I was hired for my first flying job, spraying tobacco in S. Ont in a Cub....my training was very in depth and obviously sufficient as I'm here writing this..
...so if we are going to have a minimum time requirement it should be 252 hours T.T.
Every young pilot deserves to be given the opportunity to fly whatever aircraft he/ she / it / can, long as they can demonstrate they have the ability to safely operate said device.
The ultimate authority to determine who is qualified should be the chief pilot.
I could add more but I will wait till later.
Flight time is a poor benchmark for determining a persons abilities to operate a flying device.
Two pilots are better than one, safety wise as long as both are well trained.
250 hours are not enough to allow a pilot to fly in a demanding enviroment.....I had 252 hours when I was hired for my first flying job, spraying tobacco in S. Ont in a Cub....my training was very in depth and obviously sufficient as I'm here writing this..
...so if we are going to have a minimum time requirement it should be 252 hours T.T.
Every young pilot deserves to be given the opportunity to fly whatever aircraft he/ she / it / can, long as they can demonstrate they have the ability to safely operate said device.
The ultimate authority to determine who is qualified should be the chief pilot.
I could add more but I will wait till later.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
B612
If time is good enough for the logbook, it should be good enough for the licence.
Your first good example of those that do not know. You can log anything you want....the issue is whether TC will use it for a higher licence....or you can convince a future employer that it is true and valuable. According to your claim (and there are alot of others who would agree), if you log it, is it experience..and everyone should accept that.
You also wrote:
B1900
another bit of informed claim.....hint 17120# McTOW
Your post is very illustrative of the exact kind of problem that exists.
If time is good enough for the logbook, it should be good enough for the licence.
Your first good example of those that do not know. You can log anything you want....the issue is whether TC will use it for a higher licence....or you can convince a future employer that it is true and valuable. According to your claim (and there are alot of others who would agree), if you log it, is it experience..and everyone should accept that.
You also wrote:
B1900
another bit of informed claim.....hint 17120# McTOW
Your post is very illustrative of the exact kind of problem that exists.
trey kule
How will an f/o not being able to log time improve safety?
Don't you think that this will lead to pilots in the right seat being their as 'loaders'? Realistically, don't you think they'll fly, and work as crew members? Only now they will have no training or SOP's.
Even a 172 is flown more safely by two crew members. Ask students who have been flying together during their commercial training.
Any newly trained pilot is detrimental in a cockpit for the first few hours, but soon after becomes an asset for many hours to come.
Have we been paying slaries at TC to come of with this kinda crap?
These are the kind of rules created by people who find it difficult to fly. So they naturally think flying is just as hard for everyone else and that no one is qualified for any seat without thousands of hours. Good fo's require training and the right personality. Experience just makes them better.
Now guys will be flying for free in the left seats of Navajo's as well as the right seats cause that time will become so valuable. Good job!
How will an f/o not being able to log time improve safety?
Don't you think that this will lead to pilots in the right seat being their as 'loaders'? Realistically, don't you think they'll fly, and work as crew members? Only now they will have no training or SOP's.
Even a 172 is flown more safely by two crew members. Ask students who have been flying together during their commercial training.
Any newly trained pilot is detrimental in a cockpit for the first few hours, but soon after becomes an asset for many hours to come.
Have we been paying slaries at TC to come of with this kinda crap?
These are the kind of rules created by people who find it difficult to fly. So they naturally think flying is just as hard for everyone else and that no one is qualified for any seat without thousands of hours. Good fo's require training and the right personality. Experience just makes them better.
Now guys will be flying for free in the left seats of Navajo's as well as the right seats cause that time will become so valuable. Good job!
Mduffy:
Dont shoot the messenger.
In all fairness to the decisiion makers though, their priority is the value of logged time, and not the needs of new pilots. I know it is tough to gain a fair perspective if you are a low time FO, but you have to try and view the big picture.
Dont shoot the messenger.
In all fairness to the decisiion makers though, their priority is the value of logged time, and not the needs of new pilots. I know it is tough to gain a fair perspective if you are a low time FO, but you have to try and view the big picture.
VSF
I agree. This seems to be moving in the wrong direction. The conditions and operations many of these airplanes work in should REQUIRE two pilots regardless of certification. And thusly, the right seat time should be well respected.
The single pilot certification is a selling feature, not a safety feature. Is transport this blind? I'm now thinking this is just a joke.
I agree. This seems to be moving in the wrong direction. The conditions and operations many of these airplanes work in should REQUIRE two pilots regardless of certification. And thusly, the right seat time should be well respected.
The single pilot certification is a selling feature, not a safety feature. Is transport this blind? I'm now thinking this is just a joke.
trey kule
Agreed, nothing against you.
Is the 'value of logged time' or any piece of paper really the 'big picture'. Isn't the big picture saftey, and the industry.
I see this as bad for pilots and safety.
And to be clear, this won't affect me in the least. However, I think it was hard enough to get where I am now, this won't help.
Agreed, nothing against you.
Is the 'value of logged time' or any piece of paper really the 'big picture'. Isn't the big picture saftey, and the industry.
I see this as bad for pilots and safety.
And to be clear, this won't affect me in the least. However, I think it was hard enough to get where I am now, this won't help.
What the 1900 and autopilots in the states has to do with Canada is that its still a 1 crew a/c in Canada. It just can't be flown that way without an autopilot IFR. Thats the same with King Airs Navajo's Caravans. It doesnt change that they are certified single crew. If you had a 1900 in Canada with an autopilot you could fly it single pilot.
-
Kenny Blankenship
- Rank 1
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:49 pm
-
groundtoflightdeck
- Rank 6
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:56 pm
I don't think that is right. In Canada I understand that TC doesn't allow the 1900 to be flown SPIFR. Also if you look at the operators, they are mostly 704 - which makes no allowance for Single Pilot ops. Maybe if you register your 1900 703 tape off 10 seats, get the ops spec approved on your 1900 you can, but I don't think so.
-
'effin hippie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
- Location: Further..further...ok, too far...
The 704 thing is apples and Oranges, its like Medivacs requiring 2 pilots. Its the ops requiring it not the a/c, and you could save the tape and remove the seat. It turns out the thread was crap anyway so not an issue. As a side point I personally think that the 1900 shouldnt be flown single pilot.
I think that the point here is whether a 250 hr pilot contributes to what is happening in the cockpit.
And I have to say yes he/she does. That newly minted pilot, apart from what they have just learned in all of their flight training. They might not be in the best position to offer " real" aviation advice as their exposure is obviously somewhat limited. But they are still a live/thinking individual who should be able to offer input, if they are allowed to by their Captain, that could offer ideas that the Captain only flight wouldn't have.
Don't discount the 250 hr wonder as being just there filling the seat, you don't know the quality of the resource that you have just based on his/her # of flight hours.
Of course every person and situation is different, don't discount the person's possible input just because they only have 250 hrs.
You might have a PHD of something or other beside you, it is up to you to determine the value of the resources that are beside you, and use it to your best advantage.
And I have to say yes he/she does. That newly minted pilot, apart from what they have just learned in all of their flight training. They might not be in the best position to offer " real" aviation advice as their exposure is obviously somewhat limited. But they are still a live/thinking individual who should be able to offer input, if they are allowed to by their Captain, that could offer ideas that the Captain only flight wouldn't have.
Don't discount the 250 hr wonder as being just there filling the seat, you don't know the quality of the resource that you have just based on his/her # of flight hours.
Of course every person and situation is different, don't discount the person's possible input just because they only have 250 hrs.
You might have a PHD of something or other beside you, it is up to you to determine the value of the resources that are beside you, and use it to your best advantage.
