Bush Course

[polar one]

I have read alot here about the bush courses. And I am not in favor of them as I do not think they give the type of training that is of any value.

But, we got tossing the idea around here. Thought I would put it out there for comments.
We will need two new pilots but not for about 4-5 months from now, and are thinking that instead of hiring then, we could start training two up now.

At the present time we have a 1000TT, 500 on floats, and 100 on type as minimum hiring requirements. I spoke with our insurance company about a training program, and with the local regulators office. We are giving thought to hiring one or two pilots on a training program. The minimum is a CPL and float rating. Our thoughts are that we would provide accomodation, a small pay (enough to live on), and all the training at our cost. Our present training is thorough and well done and for the most part is outsourced. The flight training would consist of 6 hours on each company type (there are two), then line indoc, and finally command under supervision.
It would consist of approximately 50 hours over a six month period. At the end of the period, pilots would go on full pay and on line. We would ask for a total 12 month commitment.
Due to the particular circumstances, we would require a bond (in the form of a promissory note...not cash) for approximately $2500 which is forgiven totally at the end of the year, but would not be prorated during that time.
This is not a ramp job, but pilots would be trained on all aspects of refueling, supervising loading, and operational aspects during the period, including learning some of the management positions. And just to be clear, there are dedicated people to all these jobs.

Unfortunately, we can offer these only to single people.

Also, the question came up as to what we should be looking for as we have hired only two young pilots in the last few years, and unfortunately neither were worth a damn. There was two hired under a ramp/training. program 9 years ago. Worked out well. One is still flying with us and the other left last year after 8 years

Our biggest concern is that young pilots tend to want to show off and "play" with the planes when there are no passangers aboard. One of the two mentioned above was let go after his second incident for low flying over a built up area. On the first one he got off with counselling as his excuse was believed. The second time he was violated.

So lets hear it. Is this a bad idea, or do some think it an opportunity.

Please, no pm's with resumes. This is just a think tank thing at this stage as it requires a fairly substantial financial risk for us if it does not work out well.

[Bushav8er]

I think you are on the mark there. Most bush courses are taught by pilots that just got the rating and are really a money maker for the 'school' offering the course. If your insurance is cool with it then training the pilots yourself is a good plan as you know what they have to know and have a chance to evaluate them before actually putting them to work. I would stipulate this in the 'hiring' - even though you are being trained, you are under evaluation and subject to dismissal, so perhaps prorate the bond. I wonder if a 1 year commitment is enough too. The first half is training which they want anyway, that leaves only the 6 months for you to recoup and after one season most guys end up with enough hours to move on.

Why only single guys? Discriminates and, generally, married people are more stable.

Good luck with it

[roger.roger]

Our thoughts are that we would provide accomodation, a small pay (enough to live on)

is it enough to eat and make student loan payments.

I just hate to see this being the accepted norm.

[phillyfan]

What you are doing is not a new idea. Your just hiring dockhands. It's been done this way since float flying began. Hire some poor bastard, get him pumping gas, digging holes and cleaning toilets and then dangle the carrott of the odd flight in an airplane in front of him, to keep his spirits up. The only problem is you are now going to pay them less. The $2500 12 month bond is pretty weak as well.

[DEL]

Amazing how times have changed. In 1998 I worked at a company that hired three of us to fly a Beaver. All of us had less than 50 hours on floats and two of the guys were checked out and flew that summer. I was not checkout as I became the dockhand that summer. Basically if you had your floats rating, you could get a bush job back then. I have struggled since then to get flying in the bush. I have hit the insurance wall as I have talked to number of employers and my question to them is if the insurance company will insurance me! I had one operator that wanted me and said so. I did not get the job as it went to guy who had finished off a bush coarse. He had about a third of the hours I had but it was the insurance company that made job call.

I now have 1,200 hours, but only 130 of float time thus still the insurance wall. I keep trying but it does make wondering how us pilots do get the time.

[polar one]

First of all thanks for the posts.

What you are doing is not a new idea. Your just hiring dockhands. It's been done this way since float flying began. Hire some poor bastard, get him pumping gas, digging holes and cleaning toilets and then dangle the carrott of the odd flight in an airplane in front of him, to keep his spirits up. The only problem is you are now going to pay them less. The $2500 12 month bond is pretty weak as well.

That is just not true. I specifically posted that we have dock hands, refuelers, loaders.
They are not pilots and for the most part are long term employees.
There is no digging holes and cleaning toilets. Your post is nothing more than mean spirited.
The pay is well above average for the people working in this area. Line pilots makes 3-4x what the average wage is. There is demonstrating that you have to show up for duty time on time, not hit the golf course before you complete post flight paperwor,k , remember to complete the logbooks...and well yes, clean your own toilet. You might be surprised how many flight school products have not realized that being a pilot is a job, not a fun thing to do that people will pay you for.

Now as to the single thing. The job is not in Canada, and we cannot get work permits for married couples. Yes it is discrimination, but that is what it is and we are not going to fight the system.

Same with the bond. The bond is simply to cover return airfare so that we dont get someone who just wants to take a flying holiday for a month or so and then go back to Canada.

As to the old days. Yes, I flew in those days too. We had about one or two accidents a year.
This company has been operating for over 25 years and has not had one serious accident and only one minor one..I am not sure that "the good old days" when I flew back in the 60's when we pushed every limit and occasionally got caught were really all that good. Besides that, the flying in this area, with tides and reefs and currents and wind, is more challenging than any I ever did in Canada, both in the north and on the coast, so one has to have enough experience to learn quickly or get in depth training, and enough supervision to be certain they are safe. Our feelings were that with about 10 -15 hours or type training., 10 or so hours of line training, and 25-30 hours of command under supervision (legal here with a training captain), a pilot should be able to do the easier trips on good weather days. The reason for the six month training period is it takes nearly a month to do a license conversion (did I mention the cost for a work permit and license conversion is about 3000.00?) and that we pay for it. during that period the only flying that can be done, other than ride arounds, is type training as a ride has to be done before line training can be started..the ride is done by the regulatory authorities. We have never had anyone since I have been here miss the ride, but it is one of the things we discussed with lower time pilots..How much time do we continue to put in if a pilot does not make the ride. Once a pilot has a license conversion and has attended the mandatory courses (all outsourced and subject ot scheduling), they can fly on line only on empty legs until they are line checked, which takes some time as we only have about 1/4 of our flying on empty legs and that translates to about 10 -15 hours a month for two pilots. Once they are line checked they can fly under supervision with pax. Six months may be to long, but we do not want to be in a position where a pilot is saying...but you promissed. We would rather be able to finish the training early, rather than late. Our last pilot took 9 weeks to get his license conversion, for example.

Anyway, thank you again to those with constructive posts. We will keep working on it for now.

[Bushav8er]

He said that its not a ramp job - they have people for that, only that the new hires would be trained in all aspects of the company - that doesn't make sense to everyone? They are hired as pilots - train - fly.

This is not a ramp job, but pilots would be trained on all aspects of refueling, supervising loading, and operational aspects during the period, including learning some of the management positions. And just to be clear, there are dedicated people to all these jobs.

Makes sense now.

Now as to the single thing. The job is not in Canada, and we cannot get work permits for married couples. Yes it is discrimination, but that is what it is and we are not going to fight the system.
Same with the bond. The bond is simply to cover return airfare so that we dont get someone who just wants to take a flying holiday for a month or so and then go back to Canada.

DEL - I understand your frustration but have to wonder...you started your career, if not actually flying, in 1998 and only now have

I now have 1,200 hours, but only 130 of float time

. I would be asking myself questions too if I were an employer. Most guys that get flying can do at least 250 hours a season so even 100 hrs over 10 years would give you more than that. you either haven't found the right companies or haven't put out the effort. Good luck though, and if you're serious - keep trying.

[polar one]

is it enough to eat and make student loan payments.

I just hate to see this being the accepted norm.

I cant comment on your student loan costs. It is enough to eat well, live decently, and afford to golf, sail or scuba dive on your days off.

The original thoughts were that people were paying big dollars for a bush course with instructors who were not really experienced and learning things that were not necessarily important...and not really learning some important things. We did not want anyone quietly sobbing in their flat while dining on some old fish bones they had wrestled away from a local stray dog, but the training is expensive, and paying someone for six months, including accomodation, training, uniforms etc. is a bigger investment that hiring a qualified pilot who will typically be up and on line in about 6 weeks (plus or minus a week or two), and require less dedicated training and less time from a training captain. It is a give and take situation, and we do not think this approach is really going to be cheaper for us, but we are hoping to snag a couple of really good long term employees that we can train to fly properly...we would not ask for a float rating except that is a requirement here to convert your Canadian license...and it is something that we are trying to see if we can work around as we would like to be able to hire people without the rating...Not much more training involved and we dont have to deal with any bad habits. All just very preliminary for now

[SuperchargedRS]

It seems to me that your idea is the sales pitch behind being a dockhand.

So if you take the being a dockhand out of the mix (which if I understand, you did) sounds like a GREAT idea.

[polar one]

No sales pitch, and it seems that no matter how many times I post we have dock hands...they are not pilots. Pilots here fly airplanes. The training pay here is twice what a dockhand makes and pilots start out at about 4 times what everyone else except the CP and CE make.There has never been a pilot who worked the dock that I know of here. Dont know how much clearer I can be, but there is none so deaf as those who will not listen.

It was as much about giving new guys a start as anything. Not cheaper for us as we have to have a senior pilot fly with them when under supervision (they fly left seat), and entailed a much greater risk then hiring experienced pilots direct.

I guess it is easier to bitch that no one will give you a start without taking advantage of you then it is to offer some good thoughtful advice.

It was an idea, but I can see now, it was a bad one. So instead of getting a paid job learning to fly (and that is exactly what it is), and learning how to work in a commercial operation you can keep moaning that everyone wants experience and no one is willing to give it to you.

Anyway, thanks to those who did give it some real thought and your comments.

[Rowdy]

I think it's a great idea. However, it would be advisable to be very selective in who you introduce to the program. It still amazes me how fickle a lot of new cpls are. And to those that think it's discrimination to not want married folk or those with long term or live in girlfriends.. grow up! Life aint fair.

[Geko]

I think it's a great idea. However, it would be advisable to be very selective in who you introduce to the program. It still amazes me how fickle a lot of new cpls are. And to those that think it's discrimination to not want married folk or those with long term or live in girlfriends.. grow up! Life aint fair.

I agree.

"Bush Courses" -> Do you mean those 50 hour float courses? Would you then just advise to just get the 7 hour standard rating?

I'd be interested to see what your terms are on that bond and what language you'd have in the agreement you'd have the potential pilot sign. Would you allow a potential pilot to have a lawyer look over the agreement and in discussion with you modify or add terms? The fact that a bond is required because some pilots have managed to sour your companies trust is sad but from running a business stand point they are now necessary.

[polar one]

Geko.

The bond idea came up, not from any bad past experiences. Our concern was that it costs us about 2500 to buy someone a return ticket, which is required by immigration here when hiring someone from overseas. If someone decided to just come for a vacation, they could hop down, do a couple of weeks, then say they want to go home. Free paid vacation to a great place with some free flying thrown in and a paycheck for your time. There are some very nice perks with this job that I did not post as they are not really germaine to the thread. Our ops manager therefore required that we would have to consider some sort of protection as no matter how careful you are, you are hiring a long way away.

In any event, we have decided to abandon the idea, and if we do decide to do something like this in the future we will offer it to the local pilots.

[Geko]

Good luck with your searching.

[angry inch]

Polar.... In my opinion, your idea has a lot of merit. If I were in the position of making decisions about who is hired, I would rather focus on the candidates personality & character. I would hire "the right person" with basic CPL experience, & then train them specifically for the operation. When you build the right team, a lot of the mentoring & learning becomes a natural progression amongst the group.

I don't think much of what I read on here would factor in to my decisions....

[fortis risk]

I think it sounds great, its sad that people didn't seem open to it. If I was starting out I would be all over it.

[volez]

Polar one, what you offer makes totaly sense but does exist on another scale (especially in Europe among the airline world), it looks to me like a "cadet scheme program" , which is proven to be reliable and profitable for the company on a long term basis.

The new factor in here relies on the fact that you offer such a program in an air taxi operation which is outstanding. Although the "selection process" takes time and implies a serious investment moneywise, I truly thing that it could work on a long term basis.

My 2 cents,

You have my full support and why not my application ...

Chris

[polar one]

Thanks for all the positive input.

Things have changed a bit. We have filled the two positions with local pilots from other companies.

Now, I never really thought about it as a cadet program, but that was a good description.
We will keep it on the agenda for next year at this time and maybe revisit the idea.

Thanks to those who gave us some good ideas.

P1

[volez]

That's some good news !

See you next year then , for the time being we wish you the BEST !

[Stan Darsh]

From where I sit this sounds like a great idea. Every May you'll have the pick of the litter if you need it. Screen and choose the right candidates, and you'll have loyal long-term employees.

[cdnpilot77]

Sorry that I am late on this one, but wow, some people are really sour. I think its a great idea and completely like a cadet program. It is no different than any other company that is trying to build a long term relationship with its employees, you make people accountable for what they are doing. Speaking as someone who worked the docks, I can say that this is interpreted by me as having very few if any similarities to being a swampy.

I liken this more to my days in sales as training to learn the entire business so that if someone asks you about something, you know the damn answer. Far too often nowadays people are trained only into what they are expected to know and if something goes wrong that is outside their turf, they are useless. I prefer to have everyone on the same page so that if something goes wrong, everyone can pull together and fix the situation.

I think its a great idea Polar and I am very sorry that you abandoned the idea. I think it is the way to move forward in the economic climate in which we live in. This type of thing makes sense and keeps people more accountable to themselves and their co-workers as well ensuring that everyone is there to help the team and not just themselves because if we run into tough times again, who are the ones that are going to be let go and whos gonna stay...we all know the answer except you union folks.

[PanEuropean]

..We will need two new pilots but not for about 4-5 months from now, and are thinking that instead of hiring then, we could start training two up now...

...At the present time we have a 1000TT, 500 on floats, and 100 on type as minimum hiring requirements.

If I were in the position of making decisions about who is hired, I would rather focus on the candidates personality & character. I would hire "the right person" with basic CPL experience, & then train them specifically for the operation.

Hello Polar:

I think that AngryInch has got the right idea.

FWIW, I did the hiring and training for a fairly large company (a dozen DHC-6) for several years, and my experience was that I got the best results when I hired low time pilots (250 hours, com/multi/IFR, ink still wet on the license) who had elected to switch to aviation after having been successful at another career. The benefit of this was that the candidates were mature, and because they didn't have any prior work experience in aviation, I didn't have to worry about them bringing any bad habits with them. They were all very sharp on theory and knew what the rules were. I didn't do any form of bonding with these new hires, instead, as AngryInch suggested, I focused on the personality & character - I hired the human being, not the logbook. When I found a good candidate, I told them that we were willing to hire them, but we wanted them to make a 2 year commitment to us, and I asked them to take a few days to think about that and then get back to me. If they accepted, we bundled them off to FlightSafety for a pilot initial course, then buddied them up with Captains who enjoyed training new hires. I never had one person leave the company before two years, except for one person who had to leave due to family reasons and wound up leaving the aviation industry entirely.

I realize that in your particular situation, flying a floatplane single pilot is a more demanding task than flying as a F/O in a Twin Otter. However, why not find the right 250 hour candidate, hire them (at normal pay for the position), then spend the first 50 hours flying with them as their instructor? That would, I think, be sufficient to both teach them how to operate the aircraft safely and also give you enough time to assess their performance and judgment. I don't think you would even have to worry about bonding, etc. because it is highly unlikely that the candidate would leave at the end of their training period. First of all, they would be in "pilot heaven" for a (by now) 300 hour pilot, and second, who else in this industry would want to hire a 300 hour pilot?

FWIW, I have found that keeping a 50/50 boy-girl mix in the pilot pool greatly improves safety, decision making, and general behavior. The girls are generally more mature than guys of the same age, and find it much easier to make the tough decisions ("No, I'm not going flying in this weather, it's too crappy") than the guys. The guys see this kind of behavior demonstrated, and they then learn how to behave that way themselves. So, if you need two pilots, hire one of each gender.

Michael

[polar one]

FWIW, I have found that keeping a 50/50 boy-girl mix in the pilot pool greatly improves safety, decision making, and general behavior. The girls are generally more mature than guys of the same age, and find it much easier to make the tough decisions ("No, I'm not going flying in this weather, it's too crappy") than the guys. The guys see this kind of behavior demonstrated, and they then learn how to behave that way themselves. So, if you need two pilots, hire one of each gender.

I have been a little busy lately and have not had time to read this thread, but about 30% or the pilots here (all male), told me I should read your post. While I dont think their motives are maybe the same, that is in an interesting comment I have not heard before. Perhaps someone will start a thread on male/female ratios of flight crews and the changes in the dynamics. BTW, I understand there was a meeting at the local planning centre and adult beverage emporium and the present crews felt an 80/20, female to male ratio would improve things even more.
Seriously though, that is an interesting observation, but I think we would have to think very carefully before implemeting a quota system to change the current ratio...I am generally for hiring people based on qualifications and character and not on gender.

[PanEuropean]

...I am generally for hiring people based on qualifications and character and not on gender.

Sure, so am I. But, considering that there is no shortage out there of appropriately qualified candidates for this type of position, you can then apply secondary criteria to further refine your intake.

Seriously, though - talk to anyone else who has run a 50/50 gender ratio in pilot staffing, and I am pretty sure that they will tell you the same thing - the whole 'locker room' mentality disappears, and all the macho and braggadocio disappears. Life becomes far more 'normal'.

Alaska Airlines is the only 'big carrier' that comes close to a 50/50 ratio in the flight deck. They work in a pretty difficult environment. I suspect they have figured out something that the rest of the major carriers have not.

Michael