Professional Helicopter Industry

[rick1128]

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…..

 

Spike, I have seen this more directly in the FW world, where a pilot who learned to fly Multi engine FW in Cessna 310 got into trouble when he did his first trip loaded to max GW, because he had never had to worry about limited power during training because of the light weights they operated at. When you learn to fly with limited power, it makes you more cognizant of what you have to do to get the maximum performance out of your aircraft. Learning to fly in a 206 or R66 or even a soloy doesn't give you the same restricted power feel of a 300. IMO it is an important part of the training process.

[Spike]

Spike, I have seen this more directly in the FW world, where a pilot who learned to fly Multi engine FW in Cessna 310 got into trouble when he did his first trip loaded to max GW, because he had never had to worry about limited power during training because of the light weights they operated at. When you learn to fly with limited power, it makes you more cognizant of what you have to do to get the maximum performance out of your aircraft. Learning to fly in a 206 or R66 or even a soloy doesn't give you the same restricted power feel of a 300. IMO it is an important part of the training process.

 

I not quite sure I completely agree with your sentiments. Turbines are just as limited as pistons in the right environment with the right instructor. This is true especially with an underpowered turbine. Furthermore, I’m not convinced out of 10,000 hours of flying a few hundred hours of twisting a throttle makes that much of a difference. Kind of like, if I’m going to drive an automatic all my life, why should I learn how to drive a stick-shift?

 

I agree with what students need to be cognizant of. However, Uncle Sam believes it’s no longer necessary to train in a piston so why should we?

 

Mind you this is all in fun as both you and I know; students will be flying pistons long after we’re gone from this business….. That is, unless Lynn Tilton reads my idea and calls me……….

[yzchopper]

Mind you this is all in fun as both you and I know; students will be flying pistons long after we’re gone from this business….. That is, unless Lynn Tilton reads my idea and calls me……….

 

Let us know what she says. All inspiring minds here on this forum would love to hear about this phone call! It sounds like a great idea though.

 

Steve

[lelebebbel]

Some input from a different perspective - I am US trained, worked there as an instructor and am now in Australia, where the typical flight instructor is a lot more experienced (there is a 400hr TT minimum for instructors, and it is not typically a low-timer timebuilding job).

 

1. In AUS, students are trained by instructors with a lot more experienced, so are the new CPLs (with 125hrs) any better than in the US?

In my opinion, no. I have flown/worked with about half a dozen "new guys" here, doing fairly simple sightseeing/joyflights. They have exactly the same problems that a 150hr CPL in the US would have, at least the ones I know (myself included of course!). These problems all have to do with lack of experience, being exposed to new situations that they haven't seen before all the time. The other thing is workload, having to focus too much on the flying and having trouble dealing with distractions.

So yes, in my opinion the insurance companies are right to refuse brand new pilots trained in the current system for many jobs

 

2. is it easier for low timers to find work?

No! At 150hrs, there simply is not a lot a typical company can use you for. To safely utilize beginner pilots (see 1.), they need to fly and work in a structured environment, working under supervision (depending on the job, from inside or outside the cockpit). Only larger companies can do this, and only for certain jobs. Flight instruction can be -more or less- one of those jobs.

 

In addition to that, I have heard the opinion here from Australian trained pilots that the US way of instructing as timebuilding is not worth much because "it's the same flight every day". Sorry, but that is BS.. the flying I did in the US as an instructor definitely taught me a lot more about flying helicopters than doing 1,000hrs of what I am doing now (survey/sightseeing/VIP/photo flights) would have.

 

 

So?

 

I think that 150hrs (or 105hrs in AUS) for a commercial license and 200hrs for a CFI are simply not nearly enough. The training needs to continue on after the "basic" training (which is what we have now). New pilots need to be exposed to "real world" flying scenarios and decision making problems after that for at least another 50 or 100hrs to build up routine and experience. This could be in an "apprentice" environment, for example as a co-pilot in a machine that would otherwise be flown single pilot.

 

The problem is obvious, nobody can and will pay for this.

 

Currently, it is the people who want to become pilots that have the problem, not the companies. And there is always a line of people wanting to become pilots, so my pessimistic outlook is that things are going to stay exactly the way they are. On both sides of the pacific.

 

 

disclaimer: I am still by no means a highly experienced pilot, so if this post sounds like I think I know all about flying - it's not supposed to.

Edited January 22, 2010 by lelebebbel

[miles.lowry]

I know of a few places that do that, but you don't get it by applying for it, you get it by making the right friends...

Who do I have to befriend? I'll put on my butt kissing lips.

[yzchopper]

Some input from a different perspective - I am US trained, worked there as an instructor and am now in Australia, where the typical flight instructor is a lot more experienced (there is a 400hr TT minimum for instructors, and it is not typically a low-timer timebuilding job).

 

1. In AUS, students are trained by instructors with a lot more experienced, so are the new CPLs (with 125hrs) any better than in the US?

In my opinion, no. I have flown/worked with about half a dozen "new guys" here, doing fairly simple sightseeing/joyflights. They have exactly the same problems that a 150hr CPL in the US would have, at least the ones I know (myself included of course!). These problems all have to do with lack of experience, being exposed to new situations that they haven't seen before all the time. The other thing is workload, having to focus too much on the flying and having trouble dealing with distractions.

So yes, in my opinion the insurance companies are right to refuse brand new pilots trained in the current system for many jobs

 

2. is it easier for low timers to find work?

No! At 150hrs, there simply is not a lot a typical company can use you for. To safely utilize beginner pilots (see 1.), they need to fly and work in a structured environment, working under supervision (depending on the job, from inside or outside the cockpit). Only larger companies can do this, and only for certain jobs. Flight instruction can be -more or less- one of those jobs.

 

In addition to that, I have heard the opinion here from Australian trained pilots that the US way of instructing as timebuilding is not worth much because "it's the same flight every day". Sorry, but that is BS.. the flying I did in the US as an instructor definitely taught me a lot more about flying helicopters than doing 1,000hrs of what I am doing now (survey/sightseeing/VIP/photo flights) would have.

 

 

So?

 

I think that 150hrs (or 105hrs in AUS) for a commercial license and 200hrs for a CFI are simply not nearly enough. The training needs to continue on after the "basic" training (which is what we have now). New pilots need to be exposed to "real world" flying scenarios and decision making problems after that for at least another 50 or 100hrs to build up routine and experience. This could be in an "apprentice" environment, for example as a co-pilot in a machine that would otherwise be flown single pilot.

 

The problem is obvious, nobody can and will pay for this.

 

Currently, it is the people who want to become pilots that have the problem, not the companies. And there is always a line of people wanting to become pilots, so my pessimistic outlook is that things are going to stay exactly the way they are. On both sides of the pacific.

 

 

disclaimer: I am still by no means a highly experienced pilot, so if this post sounds like I think I know all about flying - it's not supposed to.

 

Thank you for your input. This is what we seem to all agree on. So now we all need to agree on where and how to start to make these changes. If we could figure this out, it is a win win for everyone, the big companies, small companies, new companies, the helicopter manufactures, pilots now and future pilots, and also the clients & customers who require the use of helicopter operations to make their businesses succeed.

 

Steve

[muppetdog]

has anyone said,

 

"inspire low-time pilots to seek other career choices"?

[rick1128]

I not quite sure I completely agree with your sentiments. Turbines are just as limited as pistons in the right environment with the right instructor. This is true especially with an underpowered turbine. Furthermore, I’m not convinced out of 10,000 hours of flying a few hundred hours of twisting a throttle makes that much of a difference. Kind of like, if I’m going to drive an automatic all my life, why should I learn how to drive a stick-shift?

 

I agree with what students need to be cognizant of. However, Uncle Sam believes it’s no longer necessary to train in a piston so why should we?

 

Mind you this is all in fun as both you and I know; students will be flying pistons long after we’re gone from this business….. That is, unless Lynn Tilton reads my idea and calls me……….

 

Spike, I have flown a BH206A which is probably the most underpowered turbine out there. With myself and one other person even with full fuel it still has plenty of power. One of the problems with the training environment is that it still has an artificial feel to it even for the student. When the US Army first started all turbine training, they started the students in UH1's. They have since changed over to TH57's (206). However the military has their own reasons for doing all turbine training. They no longer do autorotations to anywhere near the degree they did during the 70's. They figured it out that they were wreaking more helicopters during training of autos than they would ever lose in actual operations. Does that mean we should stop teaching autos? No. The military operates on the basis of calculated risk, which we on the civilian side do not.

 

The point I am trying to make is that in the training environment, the turbine machine is not going to be that heavy or that power limited. The early days of the pilot's training are important in that they set the corner stone of the pilot's experiences and skill sets.

[EC120AV8R]

Spike, I have flown a BH206A which is probably the most underpowered turbine out there.

 

I dunno...have you flown an EC120?