Jump to content

Ferry from Medford, Oregon to Miami with ATP, $200/hour


Boatpix

Recommended Posts

If that was the case, every flight instruction hour in the FAA system would have an "immoral, but legal" component in it.

 

I have yet to come across a flight school where instruction flights are hands-on 100% of the time. Fixed wing included.

 

What are you even talking about? You realize student pilots don't need to have their hands on the controls to log flight time, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had an employer ask for my log book. In fact it was my first turbine job. The employers following that job did not. The reason the rest didn't is because they will get copies of all my records from my previous employer (including flight time) and all records from the FAA along with a very detailed background check.

 

It is true that a lot of this industry is about who you know but you better be able to back that up some how. Otherwise one day it will come out.

 

 

Thanks for backing me up on this.

 

All of my hours in my book are legal, and all of them are verifiable. I do not encourage anyone to "pencil" in or exaggerate his/her hours. In fact that's stupid. One day you might get hired for a job that's totally beyond your experience level. Then it will bite you, and maybe even end your career before it started.

 

So don't do it.

 

Also, I want to make it clear, all of my flights were done with the proper certificates and providing the proper instruction. In addition, I never "hogged" the controls, but instead let the student do most of the flying, hands-on.

 

But then again, CFIs are different like all people. Some jump on the controls at every opportunity. Some don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for backing me up on this.

 

All of my hours in my book are legal, and all of them are verifiable. I do not encourage anyone to "pencil" in or exaggerate his/her hours. In fact that's stupid. One day you might get hired for a job that's totally beyond your experience level. Then it will bite you, and maybe even end your career before it started.

 

So don't do it.

 

Also, I want to make it clear, all of my flights were done with the proper certificates and providing the proper instruction. In addition, I never "hogged" the controls, but instead let the student do most of the flying, hands-on.

 

But then again, CFIs are different like all people. Some jump on the controls at every opportunity. Some don't.

 

OK,

 

your previous post made it sound like you thought CFIs had to be hands on in order to be giving instruction in a legal sense. Which is not true. I must have misunderstood what you meant. Interesting thread to say the least.

Edited by JDHelicopterPilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you even talking about? You realize student pilots don't need to have their hands on the controls to log flight time, right?

 

So then, where exactly is your problem?

 

According to your statement, I could fly the student around, he never touches the control, and can still log the flight time as long as the CFI keeps talking through the maneuvers.

 

In fact I could take anyobdy up, do an introduction flight and if they have a valid medical certificate they can log the entire flight, beginning to end, right? Even without ground lesson.

 

I know we have been living in ambiguous world for a while, but you can't have it both ways. Legal and illegal, that is.

 

Fact is Boatpix CFIs instruct in accordance with FARs. Everything else would be immoral and illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK,

 

your previous post made it sound like you thought CFIs had to be hands on in order to be giving instruction in a legal sense. Which is not true. I must have misunderstood what you meant. Interesting thread to say the least.

 

The confusion usually comes up and I have yet to find a way to avoid it. The FARs are clear, you must provide instruction. If the student touches the controls or not, doesn't matter. He could be picking his nose, or taking a picture. It's still a free country, no? At least I hope so.

 

It does matter to the customer though, who, as clearly visible in this forum thinks he might not get the proper value for his money. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

However, it is also clear that as an operator you can only provide opportunity to gain experience. If the customer does not pick it up while flying, it's not the operator's fault.

 

Like the saying goes: you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question is whether or not...

  • ...the student is receiving flight instruction when he his looking through the viewfinder taking pictures for a commercial operation
  • ...the student is receiving flight instruction when the CFI is looking through the viewfinder taking pictures for a commercial operation

For the first few hours, it sounds reasonable to claim that the student is learning how to do the mission, but after hundreds of hours, are you still instructing that student or is he just the one paying for the helicopter while y'all take pictures of boats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question is whether or not...

  • ...the student is receiving flight instruction when he his looking through the viewfinder taking pictures for a commercial operation
  • ...the student is receiving flight instruction when the CFI is looking through the viewfinder taking pictures for a commercial operation

For the first few hours, it sounds reasonable to claim that the student is learning how to do the mission, but after hundreds of hours, are you still instructing that student or is he just the one paying for the helicopter while y'all take pictures of boats?

 

So true.

 

You have to ask the individual. To claim that you can talk for someone else is unreal.

 

Two people are in the aircraft. The student and the CFI.

 

How can someone in a forum talk down on a situation they have not experiences themselves?

 

I rest my case and go back to work.

 

Tailwinds to all pilots, Boatpix or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, before I knew much about it, I considered the Boatpix gig, even contacted Tom. The reason I chose to stay away from Boatpix isn't only because of the flying piece that we're talking about. I have mixed feelings on that, which is why I am genuinely interested in having this conversation with you.

 

The primary reason I stayed away from Boatpix is that, after looking into the company, I determined that Boatpix was not a name I wanted to be associated with. They don't have a good reputation, and it sounds like for good reasons. There are jobs that I wouldn't take unless I was literally starving. Door-to-door sales, telemarketing, and anything associated with Boatpix are a few of them.

 

I want to be proud of the job I do and the company I work for. In other words.

 

I have standards as to the business that show up on my resume.

 

Anyways, back to the flying:

 

You have to ask the individual. To claim that you can talk for someone else is unreal.

 

I'm asking you.

 

Two people are in the aircraft. The student and the CFI.

 

Yea, we know. That does not mean instruction is occurring.

 

How can someone in a forum talk down on a situation they have not experiences themselves?

 

I rest my case and go back to work.

 

What a cop out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So true.

 

You have to ask the individual. To claim that you can talk for someone else is unreal.

 

Two people are in the aircraft. The student and the CFI.

 

How can someone in a forum talk down on a situation they have not experiences themselves?

 

I rest my case and go back to work.

 

Tailwinds to all pilots, Boatpix or not.

 

Before you let it rest, lets just give this subject some variation and see if it's still viable. You own a helicopter company that does survey work. You also do flight instruction. You charge your students to fly while the instructor does the survey portion of the flight, operating all the associated equipment which requires all of his attention for those portions of the flight. The survey customer is being billed for their survey, and the student pilot is also being billed for an instructional flight under the premise that the student is being "taught" how to do aerial survey work. Meanwhile the company owner is laughing all the way to the bank. Not only is he not having to pay a second pilot to fly the aircraft, he is getting paid to let someone fly!

 

Do you still feel that this is a moral setup? If you do, please stay away from me, your diseased morals might be contagious. Just because it's legal does not mean it's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can someone in a forum talk down on a situation they have not experiences themselves?

 

I know a guy who flew with boatpix. A low time commercial pilot who just flew with them for a few days to "check it out" (and no, they didn't hire him, 'cause, well, they just don't do that,...not for less than 20k in bribe money that is). He said they flew twice a day, a few hours in the morning and again in the afternoon. The "CFI" wanted him to take pictures in the morning, then the "CFI" would take them in the afternoon. "I'm not paying $200/hr to take pictures", he told the "CFI", so he flew the entire time (because of course the "CFI" had no choice, as he was really on a commercial photo job, and needed another guy (since they don't hire photographers)).

 

There was maybe 2hrs of actual instruction, he said, (since learning how to position a helicopter around a boat is not difficult,...and they weren't allowed to practice autos, so no "special" Mariner skills being taught there). That left around a dozen hours of the "CFI" (not the student) just taking pictures,...and yeah, he logged it!

 

If you have a camera in your hand, and are taking pictures, you're not acting as a pilot, or as a flight instructor, you're a photographer,...and "real" ones don't care about flight time! I wonder if the people who spend hundreds of dollars to buy those pictures know that they're not taken by professional (or even ameteur) photographers?

 

Ya know, I graduated from Yale, so I guess it doesn't matter that I cheated on the SATs!?

Edited by pilot#476398
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut and pasted below...

 

I'll not get into the FAR, Spike. The program has been around for years, so the local FSDO had plenty of time to pull the plug - if there was any reason to do so.

In fact there's been already too much written about that subject, you just google it - in your spare time.

 

Since you spun this, I’ll be sure to inform our local FSDO when a BP machine is around. We’ll see if they interpret the Regs in the same manner as your FSDO. In any case, what’s legal is up for interpretation. The problem arises when you say a photo flight is also an instructional flight. That is, not in the legal sense, but in the quality of instruction sense. Earlier this year, the industry identified a trend regarding poor quality entry-level turbine applicants. If someone wanted to find a possible cause, then maybe operators like BP are not concentrating enough on the needs of the student or the needs of the CFI. Maybe, their concentrating too much on profit. You see, when a customer pays for a service, most operators provide best level of service, in the best interest for that customer. It appears flight instruction takes a back-set when seeking out the speculation market.

 

As far as getting paid by Boatpix, it is pretty straight forward and once hired, you are operating as a contractor. Usual missions included one CFI, one student. The CFI gets paid, the student doesn't. Any different in your school?

 

“Any different in your school?” you’re funny…. One CFI and one student eh? Who is the photographer? Furthermore, the R22 is a small machine so, where is the camera when flight instructing is occurring? Plus, as a contractor, are you insured to give dual instruction? With that, are the pilots required to carry their own liability insurance to protect them from a BP lawsuit if they ding a machine? You see, contracting is a way around paying for the appropriate amount of liability insurance (as outlined in this month’s Rotorcraft Pro mag). Unfortunately, this neglect usually leaves the student and CFI highly exposed to liability claims and dreams can sometimes be taken advantage of…..

 

The 100 hrs Mariner is company policy. I did not write it, but I know the company suffered losses by people who thought they know everything and can handle everything. I do suggest you practice some autorotations in a Mariner. There is a noticeable difference in handling.

Maybe. I’ve only done autos in a 500 with floats. Had the difference figured out in about 30 seconds. Why would the R22 be any different?

 

Besides, a lot of pilots enter the Boatpix program late (as in after commercial) and some with little to none R22 experience at all. Would it be fair to those students already in the program to allow a walk-in to just simply jump the line? Think about it?

 

I’ve transitioned into many types of machines and trained to qualifications in several types of mission profiles for several different organizations. Please don’t insult our intelligence. Most of us know EXACTLY how long it takes to train for a specific mission. Even in the R22, nothing takes 100 hours to learn to standards. If it does, then obviously somebody teaching it wrong or, selling a bag of goods….

 

Boatpix prefers to hire from within. The 100 hrs requirement (which is somewhat flexible) takes care of that. I don't see any problem with it. If you don't like it, leave it.

 

I don’t need to like it or leave it. I’m employed and have been so for many years, thank you… In any case, are you suggesting if I don’t like it, I shouldn’t recommend BP to prospective customers?

 

The main program is currently 0-300 hrs from what I understand. Plus, it's almost guaranteed that you are hired afterwards. Unless you total an aircraft or make some other silly mistake.

 

From what you understand? You said you were employed by them -right? 3 years was it? Additionally, the advertising doesn’t say “almost guaranteed”. It says “guaranteed”. Big difference kiddo…

 

One thought for the public: If every flight school would hire from their own students, how come finished CFIs are knocking on Boatpix's door? Seems like their own flight school did not have the capacity to take them on, right?

 

Mostly incorrect. Many of the schools for which these CFI’s trained at are now out of business. Plus, the industry is still reeling from the SSH debacle. If you have an ounce of industry knowledge, you would have known this and stated as much but you didn’t. However, you are correct to an extent. Sure some CFI’s who’ve recently graduated are seeking BP out but, you gotta ask, why weren’t they hired at the school they trained at in the first place? You can best answer that question since you apparently are one of those individuals….

 

In fact, a flight school's main business is charging for instruction/rental. It's not job placement or employing the student it turns into pilots.

 

A flight schools main business is to provide a service. That service is flight instruction. Rentals are provided as a benefit to the customer. For career students, the goal is to reach CFI certification in order to progess through the industry. Therefore, why would anyone need to gain CFI certification in order to take photos of Boats? Furthermore, the company name is Boatpix. That infers Boat Pictures. That would mean the “main business” is taking pictures of boats. You say schools charge for “instruction/rental” but yet Boatpix charges for instruction and boat photography. Very convoluted and I believe purposely so.

 

What Boatpix does is unique in that respect. The same guy who takes your money for training, will give you a job with the photo side of the company afterwards. Clearly it doesn't make sense to just give the job to a walk-in, who knows nothing about the company and it's business.

 

Again, please don’t insult our inelegance. By your explanation, its business consists of flight instruction and taking pictures. What’s to know? The operation is not complicated so why insist that it is? Most of us speak from experience and have BTDT times 10.

 

It's an opportunity, nothing more, nothing less. You can take it or leave it. If the deal at your present school is better, fine. Then all is good, right?

 

I’ll agree with you on this aspect. However, you’ll have to agree, not all "opportunities" are beneficial.

 

However, note that any success in this industry depends largely on the pilot him/herself. You have to bring certain qualities with you. Things that are not available over the counter. Things that no flight school can teach you. If you have those, fine. You probably make it anywhere, be it Boatpix or a flight school in the woods.

 

If you don't, then any flight school can do only what you pay them to do: get you a certificate, provided your pockets are deep enough. It won't be assisting you to find you a job though.

 

Here is the crux of the matter. With regards to flight schools, you say “It won't be assisting you to find you a job though.” Really? How do you know? Have you attended every flight school? And, if a pilot is guaranteed a job, then no one needs to find anything… Right?

 

The truth of the matter is; this could be a good thing. Lots of kids need to bridge the 200 hour R22 SFAR gap and this can be a way to do that. However, the packaging and marketing stinks, which draws suspicion. Plus, the manner which BP folks post on internet forums appears to be scripted. Does BP actually teach how to spin and misdirect conversations to their customers? It’s attune to how a Politian communicates rather than a pilot. And while I thank you for attempting to answer my questions, you did nothing to lessen the suspicion.

 

BTW, there is no need to reply to this. My intent is to educate any new folks looking for school to attend. So far, I can’t endorse this organization. Maybe someday, this will change.

Edited by Spike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to autorotation’s…

 

Let’s be real. The autos learned up through 150 hours provide a level of survivability for newest of pilots during that impending inflight engine failure. However, another important aspect is to get the student to a point where they can teach autorotation’s as a CFI. The monumental difference is; as a student, you are responsible for learning and nothing more. On the other hand, the CFI is responsible for the machine and the life of the student. Huge difference. Furthermore, once a CFI demonstrates a level of competence, then they can move on to full-downs and this is where the real learning takes place. From there, as a pilot’s progress up through the industry, the higher the expectation they’ll be able to save the machine and its occupants during an inflight engine out event. Again, there is a huge difference with the level of responsibility that comes with bigger machines and additional pax. Therefore, anyone who ignores the importance of learning/teaching autorotation’s clearly doesn’t understand the level of responsibility that comes with this occupation. Believing a pilot can master autorotation’s within the initial 150 hours is pure ignorance…..

Edited by Spike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you let it rest, lets just give this subject some variation and see if it's still viable. You own a helicopter company that does survey work. You also do flight instruction. You charge your students to fly while the instructor does the survey portion of the flight, operating all the associated equipment which requires all of his attention for those portions of the flight. The survey customer is being billed for their survey, and the student pilot is also being billed for an instructional flight under the premise that the student is being "taught" how to do aerial survey work. Meanwhile the company owner is laughing all the way to the bank. Not only is he not having to pay a second pilot to fly the aircraft, he is getting paid to let someone fly!

 

Do you still feel that this is a moral setup? If you do, please stay away from me, your diseased morals might be contagious. Just because it's legal does not mean it's right.

 

Why should I even get into this? It's a fictional company you are talking about.

 

If I want fiction, I pick up a book at the library.

 

And as for the last statement, I wonder where that comes from. There's probably a ton of events in your local community that deserve the comment "legal, but not right" far more than the topic of the forum here. However, those are probably beyond the reach of your keyboard, right?

 

Don't expect me to reply to this anymore. It's an uphill struggle, and I need my energy for other things, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the autos go, instructors provide a service at a flight school, a license to PTS. I would of been fired if he knew I taught reduced airspeed, pedal turns etc, I'm sure a lot of people here have Instrument certificate, lots of straight and level but that didn't make you better? I didn't feel the need to risk more than I was required. As a CFI with time on ferry flights, hell yeah, get crazy, but being a student is the only time you get to go to places you want to go so why not have a blast?

 

If I ball up a helicopter I want I be at controls, not my private candidate because I decided to have him do some "advanced" auto, call me selfish. I did have a lot of sh*t bag students though. It's amazing what money can do.

 

safety courses, employer training and advanced training can all be sought after the license. That may be why insurance companies don't hire freshly minted commercial pilots, so you're absolutely right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^If I ball up a helicopter, I want you at the controls too :D Ya' CHOAD...

 

Ill cite all your MD500 full downs as proof that you were the more experienced instructor when we go to the courtroom over who's at fault.

 

Ill fly that football nose first into the ground if u give me a chance!! Hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why should I even get into this? It's a fictional company you are talking about.

 

If I want fiction, I pick up a book at the library.

 

And as for the last statement, I wonder where that comes from. There's probably a ton of events in your local community that deserve the comment "legal, but not right" far more than the topic of the forum here. However, those are probably beyond the reach of your keyboard, right?

 

Don't expect me to reply to this anymore. It's an uphill struggle, and I need my energy for other things, too.

 

Fictional, except for the fact that the business model described is the same as Boatpix. My point was, no matter what clothes you dress it up in, it's still immoral.

 

As for the last statement, sure there are lots of things out there that I consider immoral. Seeing as how I am primarily focused on helicopters, and this is a helicopter forum, this is what we are talking about right now. What a lame attempt to generalize the argument. If something is immoral, it's immoral. Just because there are lots of other immoralities out there does not make it any less immoral or any less pertinent to this argument.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is entertaining and looks like its warming up. I like it when the guy logs in as a different poster to defend the immoral business! (thats if the guy really does do that as possibly seen in other forums) I haven't ran into any other successful individuals in the small industry deriving there low time experience with this company either. Wouldn't hire a low time guy with that on his resume either, its silver state plague all over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for sticking to the original thread subject, rather than the unrelated, off-topic, boatpix bashing: As the 17,000-hour ATP/CFII in charge of that ferry flight, who would be providing dual XC and IR instruction all the way across the country, and not all of it in a straight line, either, I can report on the plan of action for the flights and the validity of the learning experience. Depending on the needs and experience level of the 'student,' he could end up half or 2/3 of the way through an instrument rating, or with extraordinary XC navigation skills AND unparalleled experience in high DA operations. Not to mention fringe benefits like practice autorotations at most of the fuel stops.

 

What most flight schools can only simulate and talk about, this trip would demonstrate in real life. Characterizing it as 40 hrs of straight and level is an unfortunate choice--it points back to a probable serious deficiency in the instructional skills and ingenuity of the poster. Wouldn't most of us be reluctant to demonstrate that that particular shoe fits? We can do better by keeping the interactional level of this forum up to a reasonably civilized standard . . .

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for sticking to the original thread subject, rather than the unrelated, off-topic, boatpix bashing: As the 17,000-hour ATP/CFII in charge of that ferry flight, who would be providing dual XC and IR instruction all the way across the country, and not all of it in a straight line, either, I can report on the plan of action for the flights and the validity of the learning experience. Depending on the needs and experience level of the 'student,' he could end up half or 2/3 of the way through an instrument rating, or with extraordinary XC navigation skills AND unparalleled experience in high DA operations. Not to mention fringe benefits like practice autorotations at most of the fuel stops.

 

What most flight schools can only simulate and talk about, this trip would demonstrate in real life. Characterizing it as 40 hrs of straight and level is an unfortunate choice--it points back to a probable serious deficiency in the instructional skills and ingenuity of the poster. Wouldn't most of us be reluctant to demonstrate that that particular shoe fits? We can do better by keeping the interactional level of this forum up to a reasonably civilized standard . . .

 

This is very true. It all depends on the 'instructor'. It could be a great experience for a low time pilot. It could also be a worthless waste of money. Buyer beware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unparalleled experience in high DA operations? Are you kidding me? I don't see how anyone is going to gain "unparalleled experience" in high DA operations by a few landings at mountain airports. Unless you are planning on taking a day at each stop to practice pinnacle landings, approaches into unfamiliar LZs, maneuvering flight, ridge surfing, etc.

 

I can see the XC navigation benefit and shooting a few approaches under the hood here and there, but don't sell this is a once in a lifetime training opportunity. In fact the majority of that flight will be over flat farmland that is very easy to navigate over. Hopefully you get to fly across some weather so at least your student can make some decisions along the way.

 

In the end it is a ferry flight. A long cross country getting an aircraft from point A to point B.

  • Like 4
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...