Jump to content

Professional Helicopter Industry


yzchopper

Recommended Posts

Starting your own insurance company requires money and a lot of it, especially when you're talking about insuring items as expensive as helicopters.

 

This still sounds like the argument "this is the way it's always been done and this is the way it will always be done". Insurance companies do not have to dictate our industry. Think bigger here. No disrespect intended Oil pilot I am sure you have tons more experience in the off shore industry than I do (I have none), but I am making outside the box suggestions here. The following suggestion wouldn’t work for small companies but for someone like Shell or Mobile (who have more money than God and can thus influence the average deity like an insurance company) it would have industry changing effects for everybody.

 

If you will humor me for a moment.

 

Someone like Shell or Mobile could self insure. Given what they or their contractors might spend on insurance they could lower operating costs by self insuring aircraft. I am aware that most helicopters are leased and the leasing contracts require specific insurance if it does not come with insurance.

 

So PHI is on a contract with Mobile, PHI would obviously would include the price of insuring aircraft and crews as part of the contract price. If Mobile were to do one of the following the cost of operations could be brought down significantly.

 

A. Develop their own in house insurance program or self insure (this might require they purchase equipment directly and outsource the pilots. (What do you think it costs PHI or Mobile to insure their crews and aircraft? Does it equal or exceed the potential cost of a claim? I don’t know I am just asking the question).

B. Drive competition in the marketplace by either working with or against certain insurance companies to lower prices on policies. This would entail developing an insurance approved certification program for both training and operations that would allow for higher safety factors (I don’t know what that might be but it something to be explored). This is done all the time by companies (I know I used to do it). Companies that are large enough can dictate their own pricing and direction (think Walmart and its suppliers).

 

Granted that would require companies to want to get involved at this level. Given that there is an abundance of unemployed low time helicopter pilots there is little incentive for the large employers at the moment but forward thinkers might look to do this sort of a thing in the near future.

 

These are just ideas that could limit the insurance company control over the industry. But certainly are not doing things the way we have always done. Which is the death of anyone. Adapt or die.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

500pilot,

Nicely put. If pilots here are open minded they will understand and see where you are coming from. There should not be anyone getting upset for you telling how it is for you. I for one have had the opportunity to fly SIC and know all too well how overwhelming it can be. I had 232hrs when I flew with Croman in the SH-3H and S-61. For a newbie it is very overwhelming. I would not change it for the world though, as it was a great and valuable learning experience.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is going to piss of alot of lower time pilots but I need to say my feelings about pilots looking to learn as low time SIC's. I know you want to learn and are excited to try new things and think that being in the left seat will give an operator a cheap way to build a pilot the way they want.

 

I fly a dual pilot IFR aircraft and in a very challenging enviroment in the NE. I would not want a lower time pilot to be in the aircraft with me. The reason being is I'm not there to train someone. When I am in the cockpit with my SIC we are a crew and we both use our experience to do get the job done safely and effeciently. I have flown with some new pilots that were qualified on paper but once they got in the cockpit they were overwhelmed. It was worse than being single pilot as I felt like I was babysitting the other pilot and did not feel the confidence I had with a more compitent crew member. A new pilot would be even worse and can lead to serious safety issues. Some of these pilots got better and became much better pilots, some just felt overwhelmed and left. These pilots were all high time guys (over 2500hrs) coming from both the military and civilian world.

 

When we fly in a world outside the training enviroment most of the flying is boring and mundane and thats the way I like it. Add in IFR, tight landing spaces and takeoff spaces, power management and a young pilot will quickly get overwhelmed. I need to be able to trust my SIC and his knowledge about flying not having to second guess his/her descisions. I have no problem teaching a new pilots stuff I know but would not want to do that in every day situation. It would be to stressful on myself and probably on other pilots as well.

 

I personally have no problem mentoring lower time pilots and have done so many times. I have always tried to offer up an extra seat if I have an mx flight or position flight. But when it somes to doing my job I do not want a low time pilot sitting next to me. I want someone with equal experience working as a competent flight crew getting our job done safely.

 

A perfectly reasonable expectation. Your type of flying might not be the best place for mentoring or SIC spots. I can completely understand that having to train someone else while flying and extremely demanding mission could be a recipe for disaster. But are there other types of jobs where it might make more sense? Not all pegs are going to fit in the same hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still sounds like the argument "this is the way it's always been done and this is the way it will always be done". Insurance companies do not have to dictate our industry. Think bigger here. No disrespect intended Oil pilot I am sure you have tons more experience in the off shore industry than I do (I have none), but I am making outside the box suggestions here. The following suggestion wouldn’t work for small companies but for someone like Shell or Mobile (who have more money than God and can thus influence the average deity like an insurance company) it would have industry changing effects for everybody.

 

If you will humor me for a moment.

 

Someone like Shell or Mobile could self insure. Given what they or their contractors might spend on insurance they could lower operating costs by self insuring aircraft. I am aware that most helicopters are leased and the leasing contracts require specific insurance if it does not come with insurance.

 

So PHI is on a contract with Mobile, PHI would obviously would include the price of insuring aircraft and crews as part of the contract price. If Mobile were to do one of the following the cost of operations could be brought down significantly.

 

A. Develop their own in house insurance program or self insure (this might require they purchase equipment directly and outsource the pilots. (What do you think it costs PHI or Mobile to insure their crews and aircraft? Does it equal or exceed the potential cost of a claim? I don’t know I am just asking the question).

B. Drive competition in the marketplace by either working with or against certain insurance companies to lower prices on policies. This would entail developing an insurance approved certification program for both training and operations that would allow for higher safety factors (I don’t know what that might be but it something to be explored). This is done all the time by companies (I know I used to do it). Companies that are large enough can dictate their own pricing and direction (think Walmart and its suppliers).

 

Granted that would require companies to want to get involved at this level. Given that there is an abundance of unemployed low time helicopter pilots there is little incentive for the large employers at the moment but forward thinkers might look to do this sort of a thing in the near future.

 

These are just ideas that could limit the insurance company control over the industry. But certainly are not doing things the way we have always done. Which is the death of anyone. Adapt or die.....

 

Now I feel we are really starting to get somehwere with this thread. Lots of great ideas and steps to look at, at taking this industry to a whole new level that is better for all. Change for the better can be great as long as it is done in small steps to help improve what we already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500pilot, I understand and agree that an unknowledgeable SIC is worse than single pilot. I teach in turbine airplanes to private owners and it is so much harder at first. However, after many hours of training, they go from a student to a competent SIC. I think the issue here is training and that is what needs to be addressed. A student could be trained from scratch for a specific field, so at 200 hours, you could have a very competent SIC if they were trained as such. But training to meet the minimums in the PTS doesn't give a pilot what they need to know to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500pilot, I understand and agree that an unknowledgeable SIC is worse than single pilot. I teach in turbine airplanes to private owners and it is so much harder at first. However, after many hours of training, they go from a student to a competent SIC. I think the issue here is training and that is what needs to be addressed. A student could be trained from scratch for a specific field, so at 200 hours, you could have a very competent SIC if they were trained as such. But training to meet the minimums in the PTS doesn't give a pilot what they need to know to be successful.

 

 

I agree that training should be far and above PTS standards and I believe most instructors train their students to much higher standards but there is no way you can take a start from scratch pilot and train them to be a SIC. They just don't have the decision making skills needed to fly in the conditions most dual pilot aircraft fly in. At 200 hours most pilots flying skills are still raw and need to be honed. And then wiggling the sticks is just one part of the equation. What about understanding all the performance factors, weather factors and many other things needed when flying aircraft that require two pilots? Two pilot aircraft are more complex than any new pilot has ever seen and I do not want to be having to babysit a new pilot. Teaching them is one thing but the real world flying there is no time to teach. You have to fly and work as a competent crew. Someone that is very wet behind the ears is in no position to be in this situation and might even find it so overwhelming they might leave flying altogether. In my situation it generally takes new pilots with no experience in what we do around 100-200 hours before they start to feel comfortable in the job. These pilots are already experienced so imagine a 200 hour pilot.

 

Someone mentioned that my situation is not ideal for the new pilot so what is? The only other place that I know would be logging companies and a few EMS companies. However it seems even these companies are shying away from lower time pilots as the risk for them is great. Your not going to find many single engine situations (other than a few GOM operators) where you can have an SIC. the weight penalty of an extra pilot does not allow for this as well as the fact that the extra seat is revenue for a company.

 

So how can you get the experience that these pilots needs? We need the more experienced pilots to talk with low timers, offer a free seat when available and mentor them. Unfortunately we never know when we have a free seat and some companies even prevent non employees from touching the controls. Young pilots should not be in a hurry to fly the larger machines. Enjoy your time as an instructor, learn from it and before long you will be in a larger ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic seems to have turned into “how to advance the careers of low time pilots” rather than “how to improve the helicopter industry”…. Not that there is anything wrong with that…..

 

As far as the insurance thing goes, I believe the issue is best fought from the bottom up rather than the top down. The top meaning, attempting to convince operators, insurance companies and/or oil companies that there is a better way of doing things, is an idea which would be dropped faster than 3rd period French.

 

IMO, the way to tackle the low-time problem is to eliminate the piston time. You see, way-back-when, there were no “entry-level” helicopter positions. That is, the CFI pool was occupied with ex Viet Nam pilots so almost NO ONE went from zero-time to employed CFI within their first few hundred hours. It just didn’t happen. What changed? The game changed by Frank Robinson introducing the R22 and offering insurance to cover that 150 hour Robinson CFI. Make no mistake; this changed everything for the helicopter industry. It essentially closed the hour gap required to get that first time piston job.

 

Again, IMO, the same problem exists but now it’s associated with turbine helicopters. Therefore, developing a dedicated turbine trainer (not the R66 or 206) and subsequently offering insurance to cover these CFI’s would theoretically close the turbine gap just like Frank did. This would create a 600 hour CFI with all turbine time AND be seen by insurance companies as a turbine instructor. After that, you’d see an overall reduction of total time required for the next position such as tours, ENG, etc, etc………. This is what I mean by solving the problem from the bottom up…..

 

BTW, this "turbine trainer" already exists. It would be a redesigned 500C with a C18 (if still being manufactured) and limited to 2 occupants for training ONLY. IF manufactured properly, I’m guessing the DOC could be under $200…

 

Lynn Tilton you listening???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, this "turbine trainer" already exists. It would be a redesigned 500C with a C18 (if still being manufactured) and limited to 2 occupants for training ONLY. IF manufactured properly, I’m guessing the DOC could be under $200…

 

see the link below for the turbine trainer that has been out for quite sometime now.

 

http://www.sacusa.com/products/333main2.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see the link below for the turbine trainer that has been out for quite sometime now.

 

http://www.sacusa.com/products/333main2.asp

 

That’s funny.

 

Not to slam the Triple-3 but let’s be honest. The turbine brother of the 300 is called the 500. The Trip-3 was born an ugly stepchild and while I’ve never flown one, it’s not the vision I was attempting to project nor do I believe the DOC is under $200………..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to slam the Triple-3 but let’s be honest. The turbine brother of the 300 is called the 500. The Trip-3 was born an ugly stepchild and while I’ve never flown one, it’s not the vision I was attempting to project nor do I believe the DOC is under $200………..

 

yes the 500 is the turbine evolvement of the 300 and the old 500C model is a very scarce bird and the 333 is the now stepchild of the 300 I think it does deserve a little respect as the current turbine trainer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil Pilot,

Good points. I knew the insurance questions answer would be about having lots of money. But really, how many claims do the insurances get every year on helicopters alone. I've been seeing more accidents with high time pilots than with low time pilots. So where does the insurance get its' information that is factual that it is better to have more hrs? Just a question here cause I don't know the answer.

 

 

I forget the percentages and numbers off the top of my head, but to start an insurance company, you need to have sizable a CASH reserve before you can even get the company accredited/certified. As always, there are a lot of government controls involved.

 

It doesn't come down to how many claims are actually paid each year, it comes down to how many claims MIGHT you have to pay out in a given year. That's a job that actuarials have to sit down and crunch the numbers to come up with a "worst case scenario".

 

Granted as you said, it seems that a lot of the accidents are higer time pilots, but there is also a ratio of who is doing the most flying? Higer time pilots. If a given segment of the industry is flying considerably more hours, you might expect to see more accidents from that segment. Law of averages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All flight training should be done in turbines. Sure, they are more expensive but they are also far more safe and reliable than the industry standard R-22. This would cause training prices to skyrocket, but the banks would still give loans, trust me. The reason the banks would be on board is that more of their customers would survive through the training process so they would almost be guaranteed their money back. This would also help graduates to more easily hunt for that desired turbine job, no more "sorry need to get some turbine time first".

 

Once students understand all of these benefits they would be lining up at any school that only has turbine training, trust me.

 

I respectfully disagree. How many students are currently being lost to accidents, and thus defaulting on loans? I bet the number, when compared to the number of people in trianing is miniscule. The reason banks don't want to give loans for flight training, is that it is an unsecured loan. When a student decides "this isn't for me" and quits, or completes trianing and can't find a job in the industry to pay back said loan, they default. When you default on an unsecured loan, what can the bank come repossess for the money they gave you? Nothing. Banks don't want to give such loans, because it just bad business. As with the insurance industry, it comes down to numbers. Good risk vs. bad. Unsecured loans are always a high risk loan for the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s funny.

 

Not to slam the Triple-3 but let’s be honest. The turbine brother of the 300 is called the 500. The Trip-3 was born an ugly stepchild and while I’ve never flown one, it’s not the vision I was attempting to project nor do I believe the DOC is under $200………..

 

I would bet that a 500C would have a DOC well over $200/hr...fuel alone will be around $100/hr and C-18 parts are scarce. So if you run one with a C-20 you're gonna have even higher operating costs...

 

But, if you get one and rent it out for $300 or so an hour I will certainly buy some time from ya :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget the percentages and numbers off the top of my head, but to start an insurance company, you need to have sizable a CASH reserve before you can even get the company accredited/certified. As always, there are a lot of government controls involved.

 

It doesn't come down to how many claims are actually paid each year, it comes down to how many claims MIGHT you have to pay out in a given year. That's a job that actuarials have to sit down and crunch the numbers to come up with a "worst case scenario".

 

Granted as you said, it seems that a lot of the accidents are higer time pilots, but there is also a ratio of who is doing the most flying? Higer time pilots. If a given segment of the industry is flying considerably more hours, you might expect to see more accidents from that segment. Law of averages.

Thank you for the information on this area of the industry. I know some but not as much as I thought did. Well you know what they say: " You learn something new everyday, and if your not learning then your not paying attention!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would bet that a 500C would have a DOC well over $200/hr...fuel alone will be around $100/hr and C-18 parts are scarce.

I looked at a 500C as a toy for one of my student. The owner was asking $350,000.00 and it was completely rebuilt from the skids up. He told me his operating cost minus fuel was $150. He had the C-18 in the helicopter but was willing to sell a C-20 with the helicopter for an additional $25,000.00. My student said no it was too steep of a price and later bought a 500E from SEA.

 

So I hear ya, it would be hard to do with the fuel cost and a C-20 engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some operators do self-insure as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will hire lower time guys to fill SIC slots. Air Log had a program like that for a while when they were short pilots, but now that it's easy for them to maintain a surplus of pilots, they prefer to just have the more experienced guys in that seat.

 

It also doesn't always depend solely on the operator themselves. A lot of times the customers dictate what they want, especially when you're talking about the big oil companies like Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. They're governed by international rules and regulations which they carry over to the GoM even though they don't necessarily have to. If I remember right, Shell is especially notorious for dictating safety policy.

 

There's your experienced pilot requirement information from my side of the industry as I know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very good information and has turned into a really constructive thread. To everyone that has posted.... THANK YOU. It shows more and more pilots are now understanding what we are all trying to accomplish here and are willing to help make the change for the better for all in the Helicopter Industry. If given the opportunity to make change for the better and with all onboard seeing, knowing, willing and with the right small steps we all can and will succeed in making the future for the pilots and the helicopter industry a better place to be and to work.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would bet that a 500C would have a DOC well over $200/hr...fuel alone will be around $100/hr and C-18 parts are scarce. So if you run one with a C-20 you're gonna have even higher operating costs...

 

But, if you get one and rent it out for $300 or so an hour I will certainly buy some time from ya :D

 

I believe I said a redesigned 500C.

 

The evolution of an aircraft usually goes something like this. A manufacturer manufactures an aircraft. Before you know it, the customer wants this aircraft to do more for him so the manufacturers react by making this aircraft bigger, stronger, and more powerful. The end result is a more expensive aircraft. The idea here is to move the manufacturer in the opposite direction. In my scenario, I believe it’d be Boeing. Take the Army’s little bird strip her out and replace the engine with a smaller turbine. I guess the C18 is no longer, so either reproduce the engine or R&D a new variant (maybe the RR300?). In any case, the smaller engine, the lower the fuel burn. Reproduce the 500C rotor head and tail as each is less expensive to manufacture and maintain (M&M). Low skids (low M&M). Drive lines all K-Flex (yes expensive in the initial purchase but low long-term maintenance costs). And here’s the biggie. Produced with only 2 seats (the rear area would be considered a cargo compartment). The instrument panel would resemble that of a R22 (or 44), meaning nothing but the essentials. No fluff like, soundproofing, high-tech glass or leather seats. Think minimalist here. Bingo, a low cost turbine trainer.

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will disagree about the all turbine training. It is not totally beneficial for the student. The student misses things like dealing with limited power. And, except for the Robinsons, having to deal with direct power control.

 

As for low time instructors, this industry has been dealing with that forever. It is like the old trade craft method of learning. See one, do one, teach one. One benefit for the pilot in instructing early in their career is when they do move on to other portions of the industry, they tend to be the sharpest they will ever be during their career. That is one of the neat things about being a company training pilot or check airman, you do all the emergency and special maneuvers all the time, not just every 6 or 12 months. Plus the instructors have started to fill their bag of tricks that will keep them alive while they remain in the industry.

 

Scenario based training is not a cure all. It does have some benefits. But like LOFT training the training must be directed and controlled.

 

In the case of SIC's, the PIC should be 'training' them. Not in basic things, but passing their knowledge on to the SIC. That is part of the job. If your company doesn't list that in their GOM as part of the PIC duties, it needs to be updated. The FAA used to renew the CFI's of PIC's on that basis alone. And if your SIC's are just thrown into the helicopter to sink or swim, then your company is not doing their part.

 

I was quite fortunate in that during my initial helicopter training, I had access to several very highly qualified helicopter pilots. They took me under their collective wings and taught me not only little tricks to help me out, but also gave the real skinny on things like confined areas and the like.

 

Lets be frank. The training environment is not like the real world. Most flight schools are set up to teach people from Zero to whatever. So everything tends to be black and white. In the real world everything tends to be more varying shades of gray. Plus they don't do one TO and Lndg right after another. And so on.

 

Things that would not only improve training but also the students and even instructors' employability would be things like having a Safety Management System and CRM programs in place from day one. Change Part 141 to allow more flexibility. Bring in experienced helicopter pilots to conduct seminars or lectures on areas of their expertise. Many of the course materials available for the instructor and student to use are still mid 20th century. This industry needs to move toward the mid 21st century in their training materials. The FW training world is way more advanced than we are in available training materials. Cessna and their Cessna Pilot Centers are a prime example. There is no reason that Robinson or Sikorsky can't do the same. I work in both the RW and FW worlds and the RW world is way behind in organization and standardization of training. We can do much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will disagree about the all turbine training. It is not totally beneficial for the student. The student misses things like dealing with limited power. And, except for the Robinsons, having to deal with direct power control.

 

At one time or another, I’m sure even F18 pilots have said “I wish I had a little more power”…….

 

Depending on the machine and the operating environment, power management and limited power conditions can be just as important in a turbine, if not more…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I said a redesigned 500C.

 

The evolution of an aircraft usually goes something like this. A manufacturer manufactures an aircraft. Before you know it, the customer wants this aircraft to do more for him so the manufacturers react by making this aircraft bigger, stronger, and more powerful. The end result is a more expensive aircraft. The idea here is to move the manufacturer in the opposite direction. In my scenario, I believe it’d be Boeing. Take the Army’s little bird strip her out and replace the engine with a smaller turbine. I guess the C18 is no longer, so either reproduce the engine or R&D a new variant (maybe the RR300?). In any case, the smaller engine, the lower the fuel burn. Reproduce the 500C rotor head and tail as each is less expensive to manufacture and maintain (M&M). Low skids (low M&M). Drive lines all K-Flex (yes expensive in the initial purchase but low long-term maintenance costs). And here’s the biggie. Produced with only 2 seats (the rear area would be considered a cargo compartment). The instrument panel would resemble that of a R22 (or 44), meaning nothing but the essentials. No fluff like, soundproofing, high-tech glass or leather seats. Think minimalist here. Bingo, a low cost turbine trainer.

 

Okay I see what you mean. Maybe a 300 with a small turbine then? You could pick up an older 300 for $100-150k and maybe another $50k for a turbine conversion... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I see what you mean. Maybe a 300 with a small turbine then? You could pick up an older 300 for $100-150k and maybe another $50k for a turbine conversion... :D

 

Not quite what I’m proposing but it really doesn’t matter as this is all in fun anyway.

:P

 

This would be a completely new machine which would require zero R&D funds as all of the parts exist or have existed in the past. However, if a wannabe helo entrepreneur (or even a company like Helimart) wanted to go-for-it, purchase the Type Certificate for the 500C model from MD and either remanufacture or refurbish them. Kind-of like what Erickson did with the crane. Target purchase price hover around the cost of a R44.

 

Dream Weaver

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite what I’m proposing but it really doesn’t matter as this is all in fun anyway.

:P

 

This would be a completely new machine which would require zero R&D funds as all of the parts exist or have existed in the past. However, if a wannabe helo entrepreneur (or even a company like Helimart) wanted to go-for-it, purchase the Type Certificate for the 500C model from MD and either remanufacture or refurbish them. Kind-of like what Erickson did with the crane. Target purchase price hover around the cost of a R44.

 

Dream Weaver

:lol:

 

That'd be pretty cool, but I'm still waiting on the Made in China Hiller Soloys...should be cheap and the design is already proven... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...