B206 Pilot

[MMStation]

Mount Mulligan Lodge in Far North Qld requires a B206 pilot for Adventure flights in our ex Aus Army Bell Kiowa. This position will also involve working in other areas of the Lodge including land based ATV tours and food and beverage service as required. Ideally the successful applicant will possess the following,
CPL(H)
400 hrs TT
30 hrs B206
First Aid
Low Level
Outgoing/friendly personality
RSA

Air Conditioned accommodation and meals are provided with use of company vehicles and quad bikes/ATV's available with approval from the manager,
the position may also provide a pathway for the right person through to our tourism/commercial helicopter operations at a later date. For more information on Mount Mulligan Lodge please visit http://www.mountmulligan.com
To apply please email your resume to ceo@nautilusaviation.com.au Salary will based on experience and all round ability

[Mallard]

I was mightily tempted when I saw the army getting rid of the kiowas, but I didn't think you could do charter in them?

[bl@ckers]

At present the Kiowa (this particular model) is on the limited register, which means it falls under control of the Australian Warbirds Association. This allows adventure flights (point A to point A).

[pohm1]

This allows adventure flights

What could possibly go wrong?

[Sideshow]

This allows adventure flights

What could possibly go wrong?

.......... Assuming the pilot and engineers are competent (which they should be)....... I would think there would be no increase in risk over a 206. The 206 is an extremely safe machine provided it's in the right hands.

[pohm1]

It’s not so much about the aircraft as the regulations that they are operated under.

https://www.casa.gov.au/safety-management/advice-air-travellers/adventure-flight-safety-explained

Are adventure flights safe?
The safety risks of adventure flights are very different to the risks of flying in large passenger jet aircraft or smaller commuter aircraft.

In fact, the safety risks of adventure flights are unique.

The reason is simple – these are flights conducted in historic, ex-military and replica aircraft, operating under more extreme flying conditions.

Many of these ex-military aircraft were manufactured in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

It is also important to remember that the original design specifications and standards of manufacture were military, not civilian. This means the way the aircraft were built and then maintained was not the same as civilian standards for passenger-carrying aircraft.

The maintenance standards required for these historic, ex-military and replica aircraft today are not as high as the standards required for commercial passenger-carrying aircraft.

In addition, the flights may involve aerobatics or mock military manoeuvres and this intrinsically carries a higher risk than flying in a commercial or private aircraft in level flight.

Depending on the location, the adventure flight may not be supported by air traffic control services.

All these factors mean taking an adventure flight has a higher level of risk than flying as a passenger on a commercial airline.

[hand in pants]

I think if you look at it, these "adventure flights" would be pretty ordinary. I doubt it would be carrying out aerobatics or mock military maneuvers and it wouldn't matter a bugger if ATC was involved or not. And as far as "operating under more extreme flying conditions", in what way, these things are built for war, you don't get much more extreme than that.
A great number of aircraft in this country are ancient, new aircraft are as rare as rocking horse poop.
I would imagine that the maintenance is up to scratch and that it would be as safe as any other commercial operation.

[Sideshow]

It’s not so much about the aircraft as the regulations that they are operated under.

https://www.casa.gov.au/safety-management/advice-air-travellers/adventure-flight-safety-explained

Are adventure flights safe?
The safety risks of adventure flights are very different to the risks of flying in large passenger jet aircraft or smaller commuter aircraft.

In fact, the safety risks of adventure flights are unique.

The reason is simple – these are flights conducted in historic, ex-military and replica aircraft, operating under more extreme flying conditions.

Many of these ex-military aircraft were manufactured in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

It is also important to remember that the original design specifications and standards of manufacture were military, not civilian. This means the way the aircraft were built and then maintained was not the same as civilian standards for passenger-carrying aircraft.

The maintenance standards required for these historic, ex-military and replica aircraft today are not as high as the standards required for commercial passenger-carrying aircraft.

In addition, the flights may involve aerobatics or mock military manoeuvres and this intrinsically carries a higher risk than flying in a commercial or private aircraft in level flight.

Depending on the location, the adventure flight may not be supported by air traffic control services.

All these factors mean taking an adventure flight has a higher level of risk than flying as a passenger on a commercial airline.

As long as these old Kiowas are looked after by a good engineers I would happily fly them daily. In my opinion old does not mean dangerous. It would argue that it means the product is proven. Those old kiowas would likely have less serious (serious being the key word here) mechanical or electrical failures than a 505 per flight hour.

I don't want cheap ex military gear replacing commercial gear that operators have paid good money for.

I don't think that these machines are dangerous.

I do think ex military should be restricted to airwork and private ops.

I don't think ex mil machines should be able to operate low level over built up areas regardless of how many engines they have.

[SuperF]

[highlight=]I don't think ex mil machines should be able to operate low level over built up areas regardless of how many engines they have.[/highlight]

So no Hueys, Blackhawks, Skycranes or Chinooks fighting fires around Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc??

[skypig]

[highlight=]I don't think ex mil machines should be able to operate low level over built up areas regardless of how many engines they have.[/highlight]

So no Hueys, Blackhawks, Skycranes or Chinooks fighting fires around Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc??

I don’t think any machines are NORMALLY allowed to operate at “low level” over a built up area.

I don’t think a Skycrane is necessarily “ex Military”

I don’t think fire fighting aerial assets are used very often over built up areas. And if they are, the benefits out weigh the risks, regardless of machines history or engine count!



Thread drift alert!

Anyone want a job flying a Kiowa on tourism flights?

[MMStation]

Our B206 pilot position is still open, if you've got some 206 time and a great attitude we'll be happy to consider all that apply. Even though we've received a lot of applications, "B206" time is a critical part of our assessments due to the limited onsite supervision available. The successful applicant will be inducted to Nautilus Aviation commercial standards and will be given the opportunity to transition across to our main operation once positions become available, we know this job isn't for everyone but if you're looking for a start in the industry it's a great spot to cut your teeth. All meals and accommodation are included and its a great place to meet people, there are around 20 live on staff varying in ages from 18 to 70, male and female. And for all those wondering - Our Kiowas are maintained to the same high standards as our Jetrangers, no short cuts.
Applications to ceo@nautilusaviation.com.au

[lowlevelhell]

Resumé with details sent!

[MMStation]

Thanks to all those who applied for this position, it has now been filled