AWA`s not good news.

What's a job in helicopters pay? Does it pay? Why do you get paid more than me?
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Fri Mar 16 2012, 12:21

choppermech1986 wrote:I hate to be such a negative Nancy, but I fail to see how any of these industry changing proposals could be beneficial for anyone but one generation of low hour pilots.

You don't have apprenticeships for truck and bus drivers, drillers, geologists, doctors or nurses, they all seem to do pretty well.


These jobs are all supply and demand, the fewer truck drivers and doctors getting around, the more companies will have to pay if they want to employ one.

You can also leave your apprenticeship if you feel like you aren't getting what you deserve, it's not as though you're married just because you're indentured.

The world has an uncanny way of working out an equilibrium, it would be wonderful if any high-school kid could pay his $70k to get his CPL and land a well paid job flying helicopters for a boss who treats him well, but it doesn't take a genius to work out why that wouldn't work.

The unemployment rate is just a little over 5%, if you don't like the way your boss treats you, grow some balls and ask to be paid/treated what you believe you're worth, if he thinks he already is, then at least you've got a better than 95% chance of getting another job. :too_cool:

Lastly, for any of you left leaning socialists to whom the above situation applies, you might want to consider if its not your attitude that's holding you back, not the industry.


not quite correct, Drs, and nurses do 'internships' which are basically the dr/nurse form of an apprenticeship or hanger rat. they learn the ropes, are not given much responsibility, watched like hawks, have to work long hours and don't get paid very well for what they earn, however they do get the award. They also come out of uni with the 'bare essentials' to get a job, but they are not experienced, and they are not given roles of responsibility. Internships usually last a minimum of four years, if doing a specialist course, its more like 8 years. Bus drives don't qualify in this discussion, their ticket costs $1500 and lasts a few weeks of driver ed, hardly on the same scale. Marine Engineers for example, start off as deckhands, work their way upto 3rd then 2nd then 1st, eventually becoming chief, they can then do watch keepers (another 18 months at school) to become a class 2 engineer, there is another 18 months study involved to become a class 1. All up? About ten years work, and a LOT of study. Much more comparable to pilots, deckhands, get paid OK, 3rd engineers mmm well if not in the oil and gas it aint so great, and they get to do whatever the 2nd, 1st and chief tells them to do.... and so on. These professions all employ people on trainee ships, and apprenticeships, they pay less wages because the guarantee a certain standard will be the end result, and a qualification if the person see's it out. I think the idea is very workable, not all trainee and Apprentices see their course out, the same for pilots, there would still be those that don't 'cut' it. They can still be sacked if it doesn't work out, and so on, I think there is a lot of potential in the aviation industry to adopt a proposal like this. I would back any such proposal, that was designed fairly and with a definite outcome for both employer and employee, wholeheartedly. The Cert 4 in Aviation is already in place, it wouldn't need much to set it up as a trainee-ship or an apprenticeship.

CM I also think much more than just the first gen pilots would benefit, for one, the schools will have students who are funded by employers, so they no longer have to wait for the student to earn enough cash for his next lesson, the lessons would be in structured training blocks, like they do for other trades, also the employer has the pilot from before he gets his license, and as this gets to train him in all the things that are required for that pilot to be a 'useful' employee once he graduates. Then once a license has been procured, the pilot is actually ready to do some work (still under supervision and guidance obviously) It also means the pilot has been flying while doing the hanger rat stuff (as he is doing his license at teh same time) so you no longer have a sulky pilot who has been sweeping and moping for 6 months and never getting to fly, in the meantime when they do get to fly, they are rusty and need more guidance, as they have not been flying regularly. It also allows the employer to see first hand how his net new pilot, flys in training. As all training information is passed directly through the employer, so they know, long before they put the pilot in their own aircraft, what they are getting. If there was a minimum term set say two years min with the employer post license graduation, this ensures that the employer gets the benefit of having trained the pilot, rather than the pilot rushing off to some 'bigger better' job.

Obviously the idea needs some polishing, and is by no means hole proof, but I still think the concept has a lot of potential, and is worth while putting some time into to see if something can be put to industry at some point in the future. There is no cure all for the situations of low hour pilots, as with Peter Holsteins 'class 3' instructor idea, it is simply about giving pilots and employers more options, and making new pilots more employable. I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution, however a few ideas like Peters and this one above, is at least an attempt to improve things, rather than just continue on knowing there is a problem, and doing nothing to try and fix it.
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.
choppermech1986
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 258
Joined: Sep 2007

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby choppermech1986 » Fri Mar 16 2012, 12:59

Pegs wrote:not quite correct, Drs, and nurses do 'internships' which are basically the dr/nurse form of an apprenticeship or hanger rat. they learn the ropes, are not given much responsibility, watched like hawks, have to work long hours and don't get paid very well for what they earn, however they do get the award. They also come out of uni with the 'bare essentials' to get a job, but they are not experienced, and they are not given roles of responsibility.


It's not a form of apprenticeship, it's called a career. You get a tertiary qualification and start your career.

The above situation is almost exactly how I've seen numerous junior pilots advance their careers. They didn't need another structured course, they put their licence (bare essentials) to use, understood that their training was only the start of their learning and nearly all of them look back on that with a great fondness.

I simply fail to see what problem we're trying to fix here, I just get a sense that there's a lot of people not willing to lower their standards to pick up a broom or help an engineer? People who only want to fly, not answer phones, clean the work car, mow the lawn or fix the fuel bowser.

A Helicopter Association would be run at the benefit the industry, not just greenhorns who think they are owed a flying job.
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Fri Mar 16 2012, 13:21

I simply fail to see what problem we're trying to fix here, I just get a sense that there's a lot of people not willing to lower their standards to pick up a broom or help an engineer? People who only want to fly, not answer phones, clean the work car, mow the lawn or fix the fuel bowser.


With all due respect CM, I think that is a bit harsh, the suggested idea incorporates the system already in place, in that a pilot to be employable, needs to work on the ground first, to get to know the business and to understand what makes it tick, and to learn from people who are more experienced such as LAME's and other pilots. I have not suggested that there should not be hanger rats, but that it could be incorporated into a learning environment that included a license or training of some kind, which was also balanced out with some flying in a training environment. I don't think anyone was trying to dodge doing the hard yards, I loved my time working with the LAME's in fact I considered doing it as a career I enjoyed it so much! Mowing lawns and washing choppers just goes with the territory, I have seen the CP mow lawns and wash choppers, if its good enough for him, its good enough for everyone.

The proposal was more based on getting a fairer system in place for both employers and employees, as it stands and Ian has highlighted, as an employer you take a risk in putting on a new pilot, not only because he might bend your aircraft, and that he is generally not all that useful early on, but because you stand a great risk of losing all your hard work on training him to another employer before you have actually had the benefit of getting a return on your investment in his training and development. A training package, which included a CPL, ground time, and two years post license flying time to the employer, I thought made it a little fairer on the employer, in that they get a min of two years out of the new pilot after training, and as the 'hanger rat/ground school' has been done whilst they were doing their CPL studies, there is no need to keep them on the ground for another 6 months not earning you or them any money, while you teach them the ropes. It also means that whilst in this training stage before and shortly after the license is obtained, that the pilot is on a much reduced wage in line with other traineeships and apprenticeships, that is subsidized to make it more worth while for employers to employ and pay (legally!!) a new up and coming pilot. The employee also gets a formal recognized qualification for their work, it is formally recognized, and they have something other than just hours in a log book (or lack of) to show for their 3-4 years start in the industry. I think the ground time in the hanger is invaluable to a pilot, I'd advise anyone to do it if they want to fly, you learn a lot about your aircraft, about the business and about the industry being on the ground, I wouldn't suggest cutting that section out for any reason, same as lawn mowing etc, its all part of starting at the bottom, however I don't think it should be expected to be done for FREE. Which, in a lot of cases, it is, with the promise of a flying gig down the track 'if you play your cards right', and 'we don't hire the guy who has 50 hrs more than you and a low level endorsement that just walked in off the street'. Employers can be vultures too, its not just employees that exploit hrs.

Also its not just greenhorn pilots who think they are owed a job, I have talked to, quite recently some very high hour pilots who are quite qualified, and yet are struggling to find work, whether they are owed it or not is beside the point, the low end of the industry are not the only ones who are having troubles, sure some of it is attitude, some of it being in the right place, some of it who you know, and some of it is just that you fitted the picture of what the employer wanted, even if the next guy was more qualified on paper. It is not always the bloke with the most credentials that gets the job. I agree with you that any such Assoc would, I would hope, support all its members equally, and provide representation to all levels of experiences in the industry, from students to low and high level pilots, employers, and so on. But to do so, it would also need to listen to what the students and low hr pilots have to say, and not just the employers, otherwise it is hardly representing the industry, just a portion of it wouldn't you agree? If we had no more low hour pilots and students, eventually there would be no pilots, someone has to train them, and put time into them and mentor them. What is currently in place, works for a some people, however not everyone can afford to be unpaid and fully employed for 6 months whilst waiting for a chance to be given a job, these people slip out of the industry, they have no choice, it doesn't mean they wouldn't have been good pilots, it simply means they were defeated by the system that is in place. It shouldn't just be the kids with money, or those that can take 12 months away from their jobs and families to pack around Australia like a backpacker working for peanuts that get a start. I fail to see how they become better pilots, because they 'did it tough' when some other guy had to get back to a real job to support his family instead as he couldn't afford to work for free for 6 months in order to get that start.
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.
choppermech1986
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 258
Joined: Sep 2007

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby choppermech1986 » Fri Mar 16 2012, 22:44

That's the wonders of Capitalism for you. If employers needed it, they would get it but obviously there's enough 105hr pilots turning up at doors that finding people isn't a problem.

I believe that the aerial ag industry is looking at something similar to your suggestion but that's because there's a chronic shortage and the people with the pull (the operators) are asking for it (and the aerial ag industry has a very strong representative body).
User avatar
papillons
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 287
Joined: Jan 2011

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby papillons » Fri Mar 16 2012, 23:07

Hey Choppermech, I might not have been clear enough: as Pegs outlines, my post above too is as much about protecting employers as anything. First time hirers sink a lot of money into training, especially in the form of reduced return from a still-fledgling pilot. I think there should be a degree of enforceable mutual loyalty. I think few junior pilots have much understanding of how much energy and slog is required to establish and sustain a GA helo operation, so that there ARE entry-level jobs available to them.

Until the global big hitters like CHC and Bobds etc launch their own internal from-scratch cadet schemes, it's in everyone's interests to make it as easy as humanly possible for the grass-roots GA operators to survive and thrive. I see this as THE highest priority issue for any industry association, and this naturally includes provision for realistic first-employment mechanisms.

Reckon there's a lot to said for training mechanisms that require some degree of on-the-job indenture prior to attaining full-qualification status. Perhaps more like an internship than a full-blown appie set-up?
¡Librame!
User avatar
black duck
Capt Poppet
Capt Poppet
Posts: 734
Joined: Oct 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby black duck » Fri Mar 16 2012, 23:16

Germany invades Poland and Japan bombs Pearl Harbour (note "u") problem solved! :roll:
"It's wabbit seathon! It' duck seathon! I dare you to shoot me now!"
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Fri Mar 16 2012, 23:38

black duck wrote:Germany invades Poland and Japan bombs Pearl Harbour (note "u") problem solved! :roll:


Don't mind him, someone is a little bored rolling round a donger in Karratha town trying to keep their head out of the wind and dodge Cat 4 Lau that is barreling towards them.... :roll:
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.
choppermech1986
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 258
Joined: Sep 2007

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby choppermech1986 » Sat Mar 17 2012, 00:06

Duck, If I was an economy right now, I'd rather be Germany than Poland and Japan instead of the USA!

Paps, I do get the point you're making. I just believe that nature has a way of working things out, and that belief stems from seeing a lot of young guys starting out and watching their hard work pay off, I have seen guys not make it, but they move on and life goes on.

If there was a helicopter association, I would want it to do most of its' work with CASA to make legislation changes, liase with the general public and lobby to encourage the use of helicopters wherever feasible (what the AAAA's does). I believe the rest would follow.

Below is a link to an aviation representative body if anyone is interested.

http://www.aerialag.com.au/site/index.asp
User avatar
black duck
Capt Poppet
Capt Poppet
Posts: 734
Joined: Oct 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby black duck » Sat Mar 17 2012, 01:00

Karratha?? I wish, they stuck us in a single man's camp about ten mile out of town!! )c/ Might have something to do with the last crew running riot in town and not passing the bretho when the fun was over............yep I'm BORED!!!! sorry about the thread theft :D
"It's wabbit seathon! It' duck seathon! I dare you to shoot me now!"
User avatar
cassidy_copter
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 301
Joined: Oct 2011

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby cassidy_copter » Sun Mar 18 2012, 03:17

An AWA gives employers the exclusive right to treat their employees like slaves.

Recently, I met an A380 Captain. He had no Certificate IV in Aviation. It sure as heck didn't diminish his value to his employer or prospective employers. A Certificate IV or Apprenticeship program is merely another way to wring more money out of your (student/fledgling pilot) pockets.

AWA's give any employer an excuse to hire an apprentice over a better qualified and more experienced applicant, because #1 he can righteously pay the employee less and #2 he will get a kickback from the government for hiring an apprentice.

AWA's merely authorise employers to treat their employees like slaves and terminate them on a whim. An employee would have no recourse, no right to appeal to an unbiased Arbitrator or Industrial Relations Commission for: "unfair dismissal", discrimination due to an employee's age or disability or religious practice, or simply taking a sick day or refusing a flight.

AND, he will definitely be using the apprentice for duties a more experienced pilot should be doing. Don't lie to yourselves.

IF your "commercial realities" are such that you cannot afford to pay a proper and decent wage, cannot afford to maintain your aircraft according to CASA and manufacturer's recommendations, cannot afford to comply with the Regulations and/or provide proper crew rest, then you should not be in business.
Never take "No" for an answer.
User avatar
Twistgrip
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Twistgrip » Sun Mar 18 2012, 06:56

IF your "commercial realities" are such that you cannot afford to pay a proper and decent wage, cannot afford to maintain your aircraft according to CASA and manufacturer's recommendations, cannot afford to comply with the Regulations and/or provide proper crew rest, then you should not be in business.


This get the quote of the week award for me. Well said CC
"You can watch things happen, you can make things happen or you can wonder what happened"
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Sun Mar 18 2012, 07:31

CC, I agree and disagree with some portions of your post,
This statement
IF your "commercial realities" are such that you cannot afford to pay a proper and decent wage, cannot afford to maintain your aircraft according to CASA and manufacturer's recommendations, cannot afford to comply with the Regulations and/or provide proper crew rest, then you should not be in business.
echos my sentiments entirely.

however in regards to an apprenticeship program or trainee ship, I disagree with you, there is a need for it, or something like it, to help make new pilots with low hours and no skills more employable to companies and businesses, at the moment, straight out of a license they are not employable, this is the reason they get the 'hanger rat' job, usually for little or no pay so they gain some of the skills (and prove they are worth employing) to be employable. Now I don't agree with them not being paid, and I don't agree with the way the system currently is, legal though it is not, it still happens. My proposal is to having something formalized, that recognizes the fact that students and low hour pilots are not employable to most businesses straight out of a license (or safe to turn loose in your aircraft for that matter) and also allows those people the opportunity to be employed and have an official learning role for a set period of time under an employer who has undertaken the responsibility to train them to specific standard as well as in their own business practices. They can not replace experienced pilots, as they need to be supervised themselves (like all other apprentices), it is simply a more formal approach to the system that is already in place, that also gets a fairer deal for the employer and the employee and a specific outcome.

Take the following situations (examples) of how a current new pilot might go about getting work.

# 1.
Fresh CPL H holder, 110 hrs, R22 and R44 Endorsement, approaches company A for a job. Company A operates JR's and R44's doing scenic work, location is remote and on site, upkeep is charged at $150 per week for lodgings. Company A says "we have plenty of pilots at the moment, however if you wanted to come out and do some hanger work to gain some experience we may have a job for you down the track when someone moves on'. Your pay will be $250 per week, out of that will come $150 p/w board and keep, and there may be the odd ferry flight for you to do. The new pilot accepts the position, after 6 months of sweeping the hanger and washing choppers someone leaves, great thinks he, my chance has come, he awaits someone to tell him he now has a job as a pilot and approaches Company A for confirmation, Company A says "sorry son, we had 100 resumes come in for that job, its been filled by someone with 250 hrs and some experience. You just keep doing what your doing, you'll get there." CPL holder sticks it out for a bit longer, then goes back to his day job, as he realizes eventually that the hanger rat position isn't going to get him into a chopper with that company.

Pilot lost out.

#2. Fresh CPL H holder, 110 hrs, R22 and R44 Endorsement, approaches company B for a job,Company b operates JR's and R44's doing scenic work, location is remote and on site, upkeep is charged at $150 per week for lodgings, Company B says, sure we'll give you a job, you will start on 30K a year for the first 12 months or until you reach 500 hrs then you go on the award, initially you will do ferry flights and hanger stuff, and we will spend time on you to teach you the ropes and further your skills so you are safe to fly our aircraft. We will require you to sign on with us for a min 0f 3 years though. Pilot agrees and signs on. Pilot completes first 12 months training and reaches 500hrs. He then gets a better job offer elsewhere, and tells Company B he is leaving to take the other job. Company B says "what about the two years you owe me for all the time and training we did with you so you could get 500hrs?" Pilot looks ashamed mumbles 'sorry' and leaves with two weeks notice.

Employer lost out.

These I'm sure are not unfamiliar situations to most people on this forum, I've had it, so have many others, it happens every day. At least with something formal, there are more guidelines and a procedure is in place, there is also a limit and specific goals to be reached by certain times, IE you are not going to still be sweeping the hanger and not flying 3 years into the 'trainee ship or apprenticeship. At the moment some people work months for a company on the ground for little or no remuneration and never get to sit in a helicopter, they are quite simply, used. Some employees take advantage of companies that give new pilots a go, and never give anything back, by leaving just as soon as they become useful, so the employer never sees the benefit of having put the time into them to make them employable.

I think a more formalized approach to hiring and training new pilots needs to be adopted, I hear every day from operators how many fresh CPL's come through their gate looking for work, there is none for them, as they are not employable straight off a license. These same operators also talk about how much time has to be spent with a new pilot, and how they would rather hire someone with the experience, so they have someone useful straight away who they don't have to put so much time and money into. If new pilots are not employable off a license, than something needs to be done to help make them more so, and to compensate businesses for the time and effort that needs to be put in to make them employable.
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.
User avatar
cassidy_copter
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 301
Joined: Oct 2011

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby cassidy_copter » Sun Mar 18 2012, 09:58

Pegs,

Problem with a Certificate III or IV program over and above say a guy who already has an CPL or ATPL adds nil to his ability to keep his tail out of a fenceline on takeoff, but throws an unnecessary additional requirement on top of all the other crap we have to pay for. Soon enough, employers will accept it as the norm, rather than another ridiculous requirement that adds zero value or experience. We don't need guys whom are great at academics and bookkeepers, unless they seek an AOC. We need guys with heaps of common sense, whom know their limits, respect an aircraft as if they own it, willing to take the initiative, who comply with the Regs and can keep their tailfeathers out of the trees or fence, whom don't burn up engines or over-torque gearboxes, whom build their experience with every flight, every task, every new job, whom are willing to learn something new though they have already enjoyed a long career, whom maintain their integrity and professionalism, even if it pisses off an employer and may cost him his job. Anything less you would be lying to yourselves and merely enjoying a group grope. Aviation is not a mutual admiration society, except here on BS forum.

Apprenticeships or treating pilots like a motor mechanic or some other trade merely serves to diminish the entire industry's esteem and value to the public. That would suggest any moron could become a pilot, if he serves out his apprenticeship. There is no need for a pilot to serve any time as a hangar rat. And, when he comes across an employer willing to bring him through the door if he scrubs toilets, sweeps the hangar floor, empties trash, and goes for the Chief Pilot's lunch then he should keep looking for an employer who is not seeking a slave. Again, it does not teach the kid to do a hover power check before he attempts to pull a load out of a confined area surrounded by trees nor how to make a takeoff from a field of snow and ice though one of his skids might be frozen to the ground. Now then, if a young pilot wants to earn his way and the respect of others, he might volunteer to sweep the hangar floor, hold a torch for the Chief Wrench, or take the initiative and empty the overflowing trash can in the lunch room, while he is sitting in the break room waiting for a call to do a scenic flight and say nothing about his deed, but to be expected to do it merely takes a job away from say a person with disabilities or an otherwise unemployable person who can only get work cleaning up the office and lunchroom or be a gofer. AND, how many pilots have been injured in the hangar or doing non-pilot related duties? How many well trained Gate Managers have walked into the rotating prop of some RPT aircraft, around the world? There are some excellent pilots who could not be trusted to fly a broom and definitely could not be trusted with tools in their hands? How many pilots have jumped on the cart to help the Chief Engineer or Chief Pilot, but ran the aircraft into the hangar door or wall? Pilots belong in the cockpit.

You want formal or some way to hold a pilot's feet to the fire, some airlines will make a pilot sign a bond and contract, for say an endorsement. They will either get 3 years work out of him or deduct it from his pay. This works and is enforceable. BUT, if the employer breaches the contract, in any way, under pay, fails to pay on time, does not comply with Air Laws or forces/coerces a pilot to violate Air Laws or fly an aircraft that should be grounded or fly when a pilot says "No", then they must wear the consequences. It would be a clear breach of contract.

Regarding
how much time has to be spent with a new pilot
That is the cost of doing business(period) A young girl who seeks a job at a video game and toy store for the first time or at Woolies as a cashier needs to be trained to proficiency. Why is it expected to be different in Aviation?

Regarding the esteem issue, the general public already believes we are overpaid bus drivers.

So, let's all get together now, and perpetuate the myth.
Never take "No" for an answer.
choppermech1986
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 258
Joined: Sep 2007

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby choppermech1986 » Sun Mar 18 2012, 10:41

That post wins the internet.

Pegs, your two examples are the exception and definitely not the rule and are not reflective of the general decency of most operators and junior pilots.

I'm out.
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Sun Mar 18 2012, 11:17

CC,

I see where you are coming from, however how do you plan on telling that to the majority of operators in Australia who do exactly as I posted above? Or have the example two I used done to them? Walk into almost any hanger in Australia, and you will find some kid who wants a job as a pilot sweeping the floor or washing a chopper who is NOT on the books as a pilot, and if he is, he is getting very little seat time in between all the other 'ground' based jobs. Then ask him if he is getting the minimum wages, of $500 per week for his efforts? I bet that 9/10 people say they are not. In an ideal world, I would like it to be how you say it is, but that is not how it is here for new pilots trying to get a start in this industry. I spoke to a pilot last year who had been a hanger rat at a company for 18 months and despite people coming and going, they had still not been offered a flying position in the company, instead they were answering phones, washing choppers, taking bookings, and sweeping the hanger. 18 months waiting and hoping and being promised something they never got. In the end, they went back to a job out of aviation, and tried with someone else, who they eventually after another 4 months 'hanger ratting' got a start with. By this time their glassy eyed view of the industry had changed very much indeed.

You know what my first flight instructor told me about flying? Its easier than learning to drive a car. This would indicate in fact, that as you put it, Any moron can learn to be a pilot. And in fact they can, I have seen people learn to fly in their 70's, I have seen 14 yr old kids learn to fly, I have seen illiterate people learn to fly! Learning how to fly, is no different to learning anything else, you have a course, and a desire to learn what is taught, and you do. Its not some magical gift that only a few posses. Despite how some people like to carry on. Pilots, are at the end of the day employee's, employees in Australia do as they are told, within reasonable boundaries, and within health and safety regulations as they allow, employees are also entitled to a fair days pay for a fair days work, this seems to apply to every industry except Aviation. Until this mindset changes, nothing else will either. As I said at the start, I don't think my idea is a fix all, nor is the other one (grade 3 instructor) however they are idea's to help put in place some procedures to protect both employee's and employers, create a job market for low hour pilots, and also to put in place some regulations to govern how people are employed and in what role, and for how much rumination.

I'm not attempting to tar all operators with the same brush, I am very well aware of some very good operators who pay award and above, who do offer training and further career options to their staff (where possible), and who take their maintenance obligations seriously. However I also am well aware of a great number that in some way or another, do not, in at least one of those areas if not more.

The issue of wages has long been a contested issue in this industry, what a pilot is being paid, and what they (in the eyes of the operator) are worth being paid, and what the Law says they Should be paid. Mainly this applies to low hour pilots under a 1000 hrs. For every guy that tells me he gets award, there are ten who tell me they didn't, some didn't even get half the award, in their first year flying. Many people have spoken up and said that a new pilot isn't worth the award, that is fine, a business knows how much an employee will make them, and knows what they are worth to them, this is the reason I felt something like a trainee ship would take into account the time and money, and effort that was needed to train a new pilot, as trainee's get a significantly less wage then normal employee's, and they are also on a 'trainee' course, which means that specific outcomes are required, whether this be operations, compliance, health and safety or just general running of every day business. All these things are stuff that a 'Hanger rat" would be expected to learn over a say 6 month period of first joining a company at the very least. The point I am trying to make, is all this I am proposing above bar the certificate etc, happens now, the only difference is it isn't governed, there are no procedures or timelines other than what the employer wants to set, and there is no set outcome for the employee other than the hope his effort pays off with a job. My idea is simply to put procedures in place, and formalize what already happens, including a pay scale that takes into account the new pilots abilities and experience beside a pilot of 1000 hrs, and sets clear goals for achieving outcomes from the 'ground' training experience that include a set period of time before being promoted to flight experience, rather than it just being ongoing and set by the employer when they see fit to do so or in some cases, not do so.

I am in business, I have been in business for over 8 years now, I know it all boils down to costs, and saving on costs. That is the bottom line for every business, without good staff we don't have good business, every new pilot has the potential to be an asset, or a liability, they always start off as a liability to some degree, and with time and money become an asset, if they don't, they are moved on. The pity is that not all aviation businesses see their staff as assets, particularly not the low hour ones, until that attitude changes, nothing else will either.
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby havick » Sun Mar 18 2012, 12:05

No malice intended Pegs, but you should try going on the Dragons' Den to add to all the people that went on that show with a product/solution that solves a problem that doesn't exist.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
User avatar
cassidy_copter
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 301
Joined: Oct 2011

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby cassidy_copter » Sun Mar 18 2012, 12:16

Pegs,
Its easier than learning to drive a car. This would indicate in fact, that as you put it, Any moron can learn to be a pilot. And in fact they can

Learning how to fly, is no different to learning anything else

If that is the case, then please enlighten me why half my Army flight training class washed out?

I have told my fair share of pilots they should consider driving a taxi, as they had neither the attitude nor aptitude. I have gone to a Check Airman or two and told them NOT to pass at least one of my students, as they had copped an attitude, once they had completed their training course with me.

Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot.

employees in Australia do as they are told, within reasonable boundaries, and within health and safety regulations as they allow, employees are also entitled to a fair days pay for a fair days work

On this point I become a staunch unionist. Employees, especially at the lowliest jobs are being treated poorly by their employers and those same employers feel it is their God given right to treat them so and work them like slaves and keep those employees beholden to them.

Employers take advantage of employees, in Australia, because this government and previous administrations allow it to happen.

I worked on a job as a Motor Mechanic, in Adelaide, where the employer felt it righteous to cheat me out of my pay and two weeks worth of overtime and when working on a Holden V8 (engine block) that he hoisted onto a tray with a wire mesh screen that allowed the engine to rock back and forth, I nearly had the tip of my middle finger severed, when the crankshaft gave way. The tip of my finger was hanging on by a thread. Fortunately, it reattached and healed (No thanks to public health care available in Australia). The engine block should have been mounted on an engine stand. He did not have one. I should have been given assistance to hold the engine steady. The cheap bastard employed only two mechanics. Then he asked or strongly suggested that I not to file a Workman's Compensation Claim, because it will increase his insurance premium. I did not file a claim. He did not take me to the hospital. I bled into a shop rag and drove myself. To add insult to injury, when his brother-in-law lost his job at Ford, a week later, this guinea bastard told me he had to give my job to his brother-in-law, because he is family. I took him to the Industrial Relations Commission. I won. I proved that the employer lied and owed me money. He had a lawyer from Motor Trades Association corroborate his lies. He told the Commissioner that he hired me as an Apprentice only, thus tried to justify his wages. In each instance I proved them wrong. I showed the Commissioner my Aircraft Mechanics Licence, which was the basis for my employment. Normally, I am a nice guy. Just don't cheat me of my hard earned pay nor unnecessarily risk my life and limb or expect me to violate Regulations for you to earn an extra buck.

Why did I work as a Motor Mechanic?

Not one son-of-a-bitch in the Australian aviation industry would give me a job as a mechanic not to even to "hangar rat", not even to sweep the hangar floor, though I have held an FAA Aircraft Mechanics Licence, since 1993 and was a Maintenance Test Pilot. I hold Nine FAA approved aircraft modifications to my credit. But none of it is worth a cup of coffee according to CASA . . . AND, the crap maintenance I have seen at various airports around Australia.

I am on a roll!

I have a Russian friend, much older than me. He worked as a Motor Mechanic. I worked in another department at a car dealership. He owned his own shop, at one point in time. He was very experienced. His younger co-workers, at the dealership, would hide his tools, hide the instructions for the specialised test equipment and play other dirty tricks. Eventually, he was terminated, due to his age and inability to cope with the modern shop environment.

Firstly, I suggested he take his case before the Industrial Relations Commission, then I coached him through it. He won his case against an Adelaide dealership.

Please do not tell me about Australian employers or what employees owe an employer. And, I am willing to bet these same personalities exist in the Aviation industry, as they do elsewhere in the world.

Working for a fixed-wing air ambulance company, more than 20 years ago, I was flying an Aero Commander 680W and 690 turboprop. This guy and his wife (Ma and Pa operator) would try their best to coerce me to take a flight in the worst conditions night/mountainous terrain/severe turbulence/crappy aircraft (I was eager to build multi-engine command experience and turbine time), then he had the gall to cheat me on my pay. That Owner/Chief Pilot got a punch in the mouth and I went out of my way to put him out of business. I give what I get.

If a pilot does not stand up for what is right and for his rights, he will get walked on. It is the way of the world. Never compromise your integrity or professional ethics. The first time you do, it will be expected every time by your employer.

every new pilot
they always start off as a liability to some degree, and with time and money become an asset

COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
Last edited by cassidy_copter on Sun Mar 18 2012, 13:12, edited 1 time in total.
Never take "No" for an answer.
User avatar
Pegs
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1324
Joined: Dec 2009

Re: AWA`s not good news.

Postby Pegs » Sun Mar 18 2012, 13:04

CC,

I just want to clear something up here, are you saying that apprentices and Trainee's are not treated fairly and have no rights as employees? Are you saying that if they are put on as either of these they will be exploited? More so then they are already?

Also no offense intended here, but your experience in the army, is very different from civilian aviation,and in my eyes not at all relevant to this discussion as my points are relevant to civilian aviation only, in the army you have to prove not only you can fly, but that you can cut the mustard in all the other stuff am I correct? In civilian, you simply need to show up with the cash and a reasonable aptitude to learn and the ability to gain at least a class two med certificate, we are talking chalk and cheese mate. There is no instructor screaming at students, no push ups, no weapons training, no being told how useless you are or that you won't make it, quite the opposite, even when you are hopeless an instructors job is to train you, and train you they shall, it may take 150 hrs, instead of 105, but still trained you will be, unless you drop out, so yes, I do think most anyone can be a pilot. I too have seen many, I wish never were passed, but they did, and they fly.

Havic, I have no idea the show you refer too,but insults aside, if you truly think the problem/s I have outlined, and others have outlined also, including an experienced operator, doesn't exist, then I would suggest you are either very sheltered, naive, or are not in touch with civil aviation.

The problem of new pilots and underpaid and exploited pilots, and operators who employ low hour pilots who are then exploited by pilots who are 'building hours' has been debated over and over again on this forum, this thread was started in 2007, there are many others on here also, so no I am not imagining things, more saying things that people don't want to hear, or face, or do anything about. Just because it is this way, doesn't mean it should be.

just as a further note, there has been some very good debate on this thread, lets not let it deteriorate into name calling just yet, CM, you mention that there are plenty of 105 hr pilots around, and you are of course correct, perhaps we could have some reasons why such a suggestion of a trainee-ship or some such idea, would not work in aviation? Rather than denying there is a problem, with low hour pilots when we all know damned well there is, how about we address the issue and debate what things would or might be workable under some sort of trainee agreement that incorporated ground time and flying time, and a certain amount of hours (my proposal was to 1000hrs) and also a certain time frame of loyalty to the employer.

Obvious things that spring to mind would be cost, how much paper work is involved (we all see plenty of that already) and benefit to the employer over just hiring a normal hanger rat like they do now. Also whether such an idea should incorporate the initial CPL license as well, or be post license and a little more of a 'sure' thing to the potential employer...

Fire away..... ducking for incoming.... :D


edit. CC I just saw your edit, also I might point out that you have in a fashion agreed with one of the problems I outlined, which is the companies that do not maintain their machines to standard, in my experience, if machines were not maintained then staff often are not paid properly and in many cases trained properly either, and vice versa, is this your experience as well?
A good idea needs landing gear as well as wings to get off the ground.

Return to “Pay”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest