Jump to content

Training for jobs


wvrotor
 Share

Recommended Posts

What I would like to hear are thoughts on an outfit going to ALL turbine training. I know...COST. Here is what we think. Cost effective ship + turbine simplicity + insurer willing to work with us + well thought out training plan = $300 to $350 an hour.

 

SO, What are the good , what are the bad and would this turn a less experienced pilot (total time wise), into a better prospect for an employer???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big costs for turbines are overtemped engines. Keep in mind that a new engine can cost a quarter of a million dollars, and it only takes about 2 seconds to melt one. Make sure you have the cost of a few engines in the bank, because you'll almost certainly have to replace some. With pilots with only piston time currently getting hired, I doubt it's going to be that much of an advantage. Employers certainly prefer turbine time, but the cost of getting the 1000 hours required for most jobs is very high, and right now we can't even hire enough pilots with only piston time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The folks who require turbine time are generally the outfits who don't or can't provide training to new pilots (beyond the operational nature of the job itself). EMS and ENG are classic examples. They assume you know how to fly the helicopter, and "ensure" it by having steep turbine-time requirements.

 

GOM and tour operators, otoh, have to provide PT135 training anyway, and since operating a turbine engine is less complex than operating a piston engine (given that the cost of a startup mistake can be far higher) - the brunt of the aircraft training is learning that particular aircraft's limitations, systems, EP's and flight charactistics. It is no harder to fly an EC120 or Jet Ranger than it is to fly an R44, but in the GOM you have a big stack of radios, TCAD, flight following, paperwork and a bazillion other things to learn. Believe me, operating a turbine is the simplest part of the equasion, and the 10 or so hours of flight training, is plenty of time to learn to start it and not exceed limitations.

 

A very informal study says that it is not usually the properly trained, sub-100 hour in turbine pilot that overtemps on startup, it's usually that same guy with 200 - 500 hours, when they are feeling confident with turbines, and willing to try a start under conditions they would not have as a nooB (which seems to follow the same trend as aircraft incidents in general).

 

So is getting all your flight training in a turbine a good way to go? Well, it's seductive, but unless you have a novel plan to get to the 1,000-hour mark (or your "turbine school" hires you as a CFI or line pilot), you'll end up a 200-hour unemployable turbine pilot. For someone with the means to buy their own turbine helicopter, this works out fine. For someone who seeks or the fastest and least expensive path to a pilot career, the piston track will serve you better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The folks who require turbine time are generally the outfits who don't or can't provide training to new pilots (beyond the operational nature of the job itself). EMS and ENG are classic examples. They assume you know how to fly the helicopter, and "ensure" it by having steep turbine-time requirements.

 

GOM and tour operators, otoh, have to provide PT135 training anyway, and since operating a turbine engine is less complex than operating a piston engine (given that the cost of a startup mistake can be far higher) - the brunt of the aircraft training is learning that particular aircraft's limitations, systems, EP's and flight charactistics. It is no harder to fly an EC120 or Jet Ranger than it is to fly an R44, but in the GOM you have a big stack of radios, TCAD, flight following, paperwork and a bazillion other things to learn. Believe me, operating a turbine is the simplest part of the equasion, and the 10 or so hours of flight training, is plenty of time to learn to start it and not exceed limitations.

 

A very informal study says that it is not usually the properly trained, sub-100 hour in turbine pilot that overtemps on startup, it's usually that same guy with 200 - 500 hours, when they are feeling confident with turbines, and willing to try a start under conditions they would not have as a nooB (which seems to follow the same trend as aircraft incidents in general).

 

So is getting all your flight training in a turbine a good way to go? Well, it's seductive, but unless you have a novel plan to get to the 1,000-hour mark (or your "turbine school" hires you as a CFI or line pilot), you'll end up a 200-hour unemployable turbine pilot. For someone with the means to buy their own turbine helicopter, this works out fine. For someone who seeks or the fastest and least expensive path to a pilot career, the piston track will serve you better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both ponts of view well taken. We've looked at this for some time and this is what we are finding.

 

Average time to commercial via the 'traditional' route seems to be 180 hours. Given that turbines are as you guys know, easier to operate from a systems point of view then we find the student is finishing closer to minimum times. At 300 an hour vs 250 (seems to be avg piston cost) the cost is a wash.

 

 

As for cooking an engine, I agree that it is a distinct possibility. The aircraft we are using though is much less prone to that than a Jet Ranger.

 

If you go the CFI route for time building thats fine, you do it with 150 turbine hours. To quote an old commander of mine "sure, we can train down to that".

 

I don't mean to sound flippant but given the above and with a good appraoch to training for the job market wouldn't you fel a civilian trained student is better prepared going at things this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one problem with getting your ratings in a turbine, is that if you plan to go the CFI route, you can only teach in the turbine.

 

To teach in an aircraft, in general you need 50 hours in type, per the insurance companies.

 

If 99 schools operate piston helicopters and 1 operates turbine helicopters, what are your job prospects as a turbine only guy?

 

Turbine, piston, they are just powerplants, they make the blades go round. Could be rubberbands back there for all the difference it makes once you're flying.

 

People who have never flown turbines thing they are a big deal, they aren't. After 5 or 10 hours, the cool factor wears off, and they are another helicopter, like anything else.

 

Likewise, people who have little piston time tend to look down on pistons, without understanding that modern piston engines are every bit as reliable as turbine engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WVRotor,

Are you in business with Bossman? Or are you the same person?

Two threads with the same subject matter from West Virginia ties is very coincidental

It seems we've both got the same idea to get some discussion going in this area. We have not spoken to each other in a couple of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a case of "the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing"

 

I have heard those Allouette s are real maintenance hounds & parts are hard to come by, nonetheless, i would like to fly one (just so i could say that i have)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one problem with getting your ratings in a turbine, is that if you plan to go the CFI route, you can only teach in the turbine.

 

To teach in an aircraft, in general you need 50 hours in type, per the insurance companies.

 

If 99 schools operate piston helicopters and 1 operates turbine helicopters, what are your job prospects as a turbine only guy?

 

Turbine, piston, they are just powerplants, they make the blades go round. Could be rubberbands back there for all the difference it makes once you're flying.

 

People who have never flown turbines thing they are a big deal, they aren't. After 5 or 10 hours, the cool factor wears off, and they are another helicopter, like anything else.

 

Likewise, people who have little piston time tend to look down on pistons, without understanding that modern piston engines are every bit as reliable as turbine engines.

 

Obviously this is not intended to replace the piston approach. We do think though that this may open up at least a few opportunities for low time pilots that would not normally be available.

 

As for the magic 1000 hr mark, my research abd experience shows that insurers will at least look at an individual pilot / applicant with lower hours if an operator requests it. They will probably want some time in type before PIC but reading a number of forums over the past few months shows me that some operators are beginning to accept the fact that they will have to allow for some internal training to get a new guy up to requirements. The rare ones that are doing this now, us included, are finding a better pilot and employee at the end of the effort.

 

I know some are seeing promissory notes and training agreements they have to sign but you gotta give the operators some way to recoup an investment in training.

 

I agree pistons are everybit as reliable as turbines. The two most common trainers being Robbies and 300's happen to have very good correlators and any insurance company would have no problem with a CFI as long as some time in type is involved. As for the SFAR, if you want to be a Robbie CFI to build time, go for it. Remember this is not a replacement approach, just a niche approach.

 

sounds like a case of "the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing"

 

I have heard those Allouette s are real maintenance hounds & parts are hard to come by, nonetheless, i would like to fly one (just so i could say that i have)

Well let me dispel some evil rumours. Although we have been operating Alouettes for a relatively short time it has been in some high workload environments as well as training and I find them to be damn near bullet proof. Yes they use a bit more fuel per hr but with the aquisition cost lower it evens out. The procedures were set up to be simple and the maintenance is not any higher than on other turbines. So far we're quite impressed with power, reliability and DOC's. Surprisingly Eurocopter still supports them and the aftermarket for parts is better than I expected..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously this is not intended to replace the piston approach. We do think though that this may open up at least a few opportunities for low time pilots that would not normally be available.

 

And those opportunities would be? Yes, I ask seriously, because I haven't heard of any...

 

As for the magic 1000 hr mark, my research abd experience shows that insurers will at least look at an individual pilot / applicant with lower hours if an operator requests it.

 

There are a few companies out there that will take someone with fewer than 1,000 hours, usually because they know you, or know the school you work for, and know the quality they will get.

 

Recently a few GOM companies have been hiring around the 500 to 700 hour mark, but still no turbine time is required.

 

They will probably want some time in type before PIC but reading a number of forums over the past few months shows me that some operators are beginning to accept the fact that they will have to allow for some internal training to get a new guy up to requirements.

 

Per 135 regs, training is required of all new-hire pilots, regardless of past experience.

 

I agree pistons are everybit as reliable as turbines. The two most common trainers being Robbies and 300's happen to have very good correlators

 

The R-22 has an electronic governor as well, which works quite well.

 

and any insurance company would have no problem with a CFI as long as some time in type is involved.

 

You need 50 hours in type in either the 300CB or the R-22 to teach in them, period. W. Brown handles the insurance for the 300 series through the Schweizer program, Pathfinder handles most of the R-22 insurance. Both require 50 in type.

 

We suggest to our students that they split their training, get 75 hours in the Schweizer and 75 hours in the R-22, makes them more marketable to flight schools, including our own.

 

We have many students who ask us about turbine training, we give them all the same answer. It is a nice concept, but not necessary in this day and age. Save your money and let the first commercial operator you go work for pay for your initial turbine transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems we've both got the same idea to get some discussion going in this area. We have not spoken to each other in a couple of days.

You have not spoken with your partner in a couple of days, and you have not read the other posts in this forum in regards to the same subject?

I like a school that has attention to detail and good organisation. Not to slam you guys, but the impression I get from this is that you are throwing this training together haphazardly solely based on your acquisition of a bird that is inexpensive for you to operate. Correct me if I am wrong!

 

I ask, why are there not more schools doing this with the alouette, if it is so cost effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not spoken with your partner in a couple of days, and you have not read the other posts in this forum in regards to the same subject?

I like a school that has attention to detail and good organisation. Not to slam you guys, but the impression I get from this is that you are throwing this training together haphazardly solely based on your acquisition of a bird that is inexpensive for you to operate. Correct me if I am wrong!

 

I ask, why are there not more schools doing this with the alouette, if it is so cost effective?

 

 

I say give the guy a break,,,,, a friend of mine once took it upon himself to start promoting my business on the internet years & years ago,,,,,,,,i knew nothing about it untill i got emails from ppls telling me that my advertising was not up to their "specifications" & the ads would be deleted,,,,, well my friend kept doing this as i had no idea of WTF was going on !! Finally i got to the bottom of it & straightened it all out,,, but like they say "sh*@ happens" :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not spoken with your partner in a couple of days, and you have not read the other posts in this forum in regards to the same subject?

I like a school that has attention to detail and good organisation. Not to slam you guys, but the impression I get from this is that you are throwing this training together haphazardly solely based on your acquisition of a bird that is inexpensive for you to operate. Correct me if I am wrong!

 

I ask, why are there not more schools doing this with the alouette, if it is so cost effective?

 

For some one not intending to slam us you do a pretty good job. The impression you have of our training is probably a little pre mature. We seem to have a good track record to date and the students seem to have been pleased.

Week ends tend to play with our communication a bit but I don't see any significant differences in our posts so...

 

As for others, I wasn't aware of the possibilities with an Alouette until we purchased one for a commercial contract we have. People being people I'd speculate that 1. It's an older ship 2. It's a non US ship, so it is a bit unknown. Again, this is not intended to replace anything just add apossibility

 

And those opportunities would be? Yes, I ask seriously, because I haven't heard of any...

There are a few companies out there that will take someone with fewer than 1,000 hours, usually because they know you, or know the school you work for, and know the quality they will get.

 

Recently a few GOM companies have been hiring around the 500 to 700 hour mark, but still no turbine time is required.

Per 135 regs, training is required of all new-hire pilots, regardless of past experience.

The R-22 has an electronic governor as well, which works quite well.

You need 50 hours in type in either the 300CB or the R-22 to teach in them, period. W. Brown handles the insurance for the 300 series through the Schweizer program, Pathfinder handles most of the R-22 insurance. Both require 50 in type.

 

We suggest to our students that they split their training, get 75 hours in the Schweizer and 75 hours in the R-22, makes them more marketable to flight schools, including our own.

 

We have many students who ask us about turbine training, we give them all the same answer. It is a nice concept, but not necessary in this day and age. Save your money and let the first commercial operator you go work for pay for your initial turbine transition.

 

Sounds like you have a pretty good approach. We explored the Schweizer program and found it to pricey. Our current guys gave us a little better deal and so far they have been working with us pretty well when we hire a lower time pilot.

You are right about the R-22 gov. And the Schweizer corelator is quite good as well so going from turbine to them would be really no problem. 135 is its own world, so no matter where you come from the same applies to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems we have some parallel (perhaps slightly congruent) topics.

 

One is the value of a low-hour CFI with all turbine time. That's a simple one, you will only find a possible job with the school that trained you. It can happen at a small school, but no guarantees, so you take a risk.

 

Now let's give that guy 50 hours in a piston trainer. Jason refers to the 50-hour requirement for teaching in type. This is common, but it is usually backed up by having much more time in similarly-sized piston aircraft. I can't speak for all schools, but I know I would not hire someone without at least 200 hours in piston trainers, and 50 PIC in type. If I was presented someone who had learned to fly and gotten all their ratings in an Alouette, then built 50 hours in an R22, frankly, I wouldn't touch them as an R22 CFI. For the Schweizer, I'd still have some concerns. I have had the privilage of training some skilled and competent military pilots into the 300CBi, and they all struggled with power/RPM management (as well as dealing with very light, non-boosted controls). If they got 50 hours of intense training in confined area, autorotation and so on, it might be OK, but that's not the usual "hour-building" menu.

 

Finally, there's the value of an all-turbine 1,000 hour CFI versus an all-piston CFI to the next employer. I've already gone over that a bit, but here's another point of view to consider. It is a common theme from all the 135 check pilots I know that the engine is not a factor in transitioning (aside from the dreaded 900-degree startup). What is key is the size and power of the respective aircraft - if someone has only flown Blackhawks, they will have difficulty with an AStar or Jet Ranger. If they have only flown Schweizers, it might take some time to get used to the speed and inertia of a 407 or A119. Nobody ever has with "piston habits" or "turbine habits" (except in startup and shutdown) - they show up with size/weight habits, and operational habits.

 

So a big ramble just to say that for the time being, given the model the majority of the industry is using, for a funds-limited, career-tracking new student, you will do better in a small piston trainer as the venue to get you to that GOM or tour job as inexpensively, wuickly, and safely as possible. However, if you have the luxury of time and money, the turbine offer on hand here could be too good to pass up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are making a big deal about nothing here. It's pretty simple, if you want to do some turbine flying in rugged West Virginia (mountain course anyone) for $300 an hour go for it- if not, stay home. I've flown with these guys before and the experience was invaluable.

 

PS- Thanks for the Huey ride!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are making a big deal about nothing here. It's pretty simple, if you want to do some turbine flying in rugged West Virginia (mountain course anyone) for $300 an hour go for it- if not, stay home. I've flown with these guys before and the experience was invaluable.

 

PS- Thanks for the Huey ride!

 

For sure, I always find flying something new to be interesting, and getting some Huey time would be a kick...

 

However... there is a difference between getting 5 hours in it for fun, and doing all your ratings in them. Flingwing put it very well, so I won't repeat his comments, other than to agree with him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im finding it funny reading the debate that is going on with this topic, i am the cfi at marpat aviation who is teaching the students in the allouette, i am a very lucky guy, i am a low time pilot recently qualified cfi, r22 and 300 trained pilot ,british citizen, who has come to states with a dream and now im teaching people to realise their dreams, i have seven students in total at the moment and more are calling us,and none of them are complaining!!!

 

i think it is very important to note that not everyone who learns to fly is going to be looking to enter the industry looking for work, as most of my students are looking for their private pilots liscense only, then once they have it they will simply be able to hire our alloutte and take their friends flying for roughly the same cost a two seater piston engine helicopter.

 

lets be honest as a student or even as a private pilot the majority of people just want to fly a turbine as soon as they can, even if it just to hear one start up and be able to be the man doing it, do you know how many smiles i put on peoples faces when the allouette starts up???to many people it is a dream!!!!! lets not lose sight of that!!!!thats why we all did it in the first place, none of us sat in a 22 looking at a jet ranger and didnt think to ourselves "one day" well now you can and cheaply!!!!!!!!

 

we at marpat are simply offering an alternative, very cheaply, it might appeal to somebody out there, it might not, its up to the student how he or she wants to pursue their course of action, being from uk if i saw the ad and worked it all out with the pound to dollar ratio at the moment it is an option to seriosly consider, when flying a robbie in uk is nearly $600 per hour and you need 200hrs for a cpl, its all about horses for courses,

 

we are simply saying we can do up to cfi if thats what YOU WANT TO DO!!! people who enter this industry and paying for it out of their own pockets are not usually complete idiots and will think long and hard before making a decision to come to a company like ours

 

i just get the feeling on this site that everyone is so serious about everything that they are losing sight of what is just a great opportunity that is available IF YOU WANT TO DO IT!!!!!

 

blue skies!!!!

 

matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site Matt! Your comments are well put, however...

 

Please understand that our concern has to do with professional pilot training in turbines, not people looking to do this for a hobby. For those people, your program is just fine... I wish you all the success in the world, seriously.

 

The only point we are trying to make sure you and your boss understand is that you are not doing your customers any favors by doing all their training in a turbine helicopter. They would be better served, even at the same price, to do some of their training in a piston helicopter, hopefully the majority of it.

 

Fly Safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and since operating a turbine engine is less complex than operating a piston engine"

I'd have to argue with that. If you're comparing an ungoverned or poorly correlated recip to a properly functioning (governed) turbine, true. Otherwise, false. You face roughly the same issues recip and turbine, and additional complications in a turbine:

You can overspeed either, but you can do it two distinct ways, easily, in a free turbine.

You can overtemp both, but after-fires are a different matter in recips;

Intake icing; Etc.

"Less complex"? I don't think so. What's the analog in recip for a compressor stall, for instance?

Automation and control systems tend to be more complex in turbines as well. These are failure points you have to teach a student to deal with, and costs you'll have consider- it's not "if" it's "when" and students are more likely to encounter issues, and more frequently, than more experienced aviators- that's why they're students...

 

Can it be done? No argument, yes. The military does it, routinely, and "in theory", cost-effectively. What the "gummint" considers "cost-effective" is a well known conundrum- $600 hammers, $1200 toilet seats- but I digress. If you're training for career purposes, or you're likely never going to operate a recip, then perhaps it's cost effective for a civilian to pay extra for all turbine training.

Or, perhaps it would influence the hiring decision between two equally qualified potential new hires, somebody hiring for a turbine seat where a few more hours of turbine time would differentiate. I can't imagine people that equally qualified being likely.

But, "perhaps" wouldn't justify the extra cost to me was I a student, especially if I could do a turbine transition after my commercial and/or CFI to the same effect. That would seem to be the real discriminator- A new hire has to meet 135 minimum training time for most hirings, and can be taught to operate a turbine in the same period. Is the end product more or less valuable with 100% turbine training? Not if I was making the choice.

 

P.S. Are you proposing an Alouette? Not seen one in years, and then only a glance. Coventional twist-grip throttle, or ECL? An Engine Condition Lever's the wrong way to start training. They were, and are a bad idea for a single-pilot aircraft, especially for a student who's going to be flying in what I hope is a post-ECL certification environment- Throttle in hand should be the plan! Anti-torques are enough fun without requiring three hands for success. Been there, done that, and it's practically a solo maneuver with a conventional throttle.

 

P.P.S. Size/wt are less important than power and energy management. How do you prepare for the descending decel? In some aircraft, it's a real issue, big and small. Bigger aircraft tend to have better power gauging, so poor technique is obvious, but the techniques are pretty much the same whether you're managing by manifold pressure or an FLI.

 

Selling straight turbine would be a marketting issue. It'll differentiate your training from all the others... Now, I'm really gone- duty calls- bye-by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helicopter training has been going on for a long time, and currently almost all successful schools train in small piston models. There are good reasons for this. Pretty much everything has been tried, and in the end, what works best prevails. It's certainly possible to do initial training in an S76, but for some reason nobody does that. Small pistons give the best combination of cost and return on money, both for the schools and for the students. There will probably always be individuals who think they know better, and try different ways of doing it. I wish them luck, but they almost invariably fail. The fittest survive, as in most other phases of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems we have some parallel (perhaps slightly congruent) topics.

 

One is the value of a low-hour CFI with all turbine time. That's a simple one, you will only find a possible job with the school that trained you. It can happen at a small school, but no guarantees, so you take a risk.

 

Now let's give that guy 50 hours in a piston trainer. Jason refers to the 50-hour requirement for teaching in type. This is common, but it is usually backed up by having much more time in similarly-sized piston aircraft. I can't speak for all schools, but I know I would not hire someone without at least 200 hours in piston trainers, and 50 PIC in type. If I was presented someone who had learned to fly and gotten all their ratings in an Alouette, then built 50 hours in an R22, frankly, I wouldn't touch them as an R22 CFI. For the Schweizer, I'd still have some concerns. I have had the privilage of training some skilled and competent military pilots into the 300CBi, and they all struggled with power/RPM management (as well as dealing with very light, non-boosted controls). If they got 50 hours of intense training in confined area, autorotation and so on, it might be OK, but that's not the usual "hour-building" menu.

 

Finally, there's the value of an all-turbine 1,000 hour CFI versus an all-piston CFI to the next employer. I've already gone over that a bit, but here's another point of view to consider. It is a common theme from all the 135 check pilots I know that the engine is not a factor in transitioning (aside from the dreaded 900-degree startup). What is key is the size and power of the respective aircraft - if someone has only flown Blackhawks, they will have difficulty with an AStar or Jet Ranger. If they have only flown Schweizers, it might take some time to get used to the speed and inertia of a 407 or A119. Nobody ever has with "piston habits" or "turbine habits" (except in startup and shutdown) - they show up with size/weight habits, and operational habits.

 

So a big ramble just to say that for the time being, given the model the majority of the industry is using, for a funds-limited, career-tracking new student, you will do better in a small piston trainer as the venue to get you to that GOM or tour job as inexpensively, wuickly, and safely as possible. However, if you have the luxury of time and money, the turbine offer on hand here could be too good to pass up!

206,

The size, weight habits that you refer to will be closer to the GOM or tour machines if trained in an Alouette, than they would be to a 22 or 300. Come fly with us.

 

 

Helicopter training has been going on for a long time, and currently almost all successful schools train in small piston models. There are good reasons for this. Pretty much everything has been tried, and in the end, what works best prevails. It's certainly possible to do initial training in an S76, but for some reason nobody does that. Small pistons give the best combination of cost and return on money, both for the schools and for the students. There will probably always be individuals who think they know better, and try different ways of doing it. I wish them luck, but they almost invariably fail. The fittest survive, as in most other phases of life.

Gomer,

I have been a survivor for many years. All of your argument is based on money. Take it out of the equation on the schools part. Come fly with us.

 

 

Welcome to the site Matt! Your comments are well put, however...

 

Please understand that our concern has to do with professional pilot training in turbines, not people looking to do this for a hobby. For those people, your program is just fine... I wish you all the success in the world, seriously.

 

The only point we are trying to make sure you and your boss understand is that you are not doing your customers any favors by doing all their training in a turbine helicopter. They would be better served, even at the same price, to do some of their training in a piston helicopter, hopefully the majority of it.

 

Fly Safe!

jehh,

The only thing you will make me understand is that you are afraid that our turbine offer to the industry will knock you out of a nickle. I think we are doing our customers a lot of favors by offering them time in a turbine helicopter for what you are charging in a 22 or 300. I would reccomend that they do get some piston time but not the majority. We can provide that, also. Come fly with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bossman, I'm not even contemplating coming to fly with you. I'm currently an IFR PIC on an S76, so I can't afford to fly if I'm not getting paid. Money is ALWAYS part of the equation, usually the major part. If you don't know that, then I'm really not about to fly with you.

If that's the way you want to be, then I'll withdraw my flying invitation. Do you own the S76? Do you have to buy the fuel? Do you have to purchase the insurance? Do you pay for the maintenance? Unless the answer is yes to these questions we'll not talk about money. I'm kind of sensitive. Your refusal to fly could of hurt my feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who advertises the way you do, including getting the hired help to pitch in with it, has no feelings to be hurt.

 

No, I don't own the S76, I don't pay for the fuel, or the insurance, or anything else. The owner pays me damned little to fly it, though. And he's pocketing a hell of a lot of money off my labor. His profit margins are very large. He just doesn't want to share it. I've come to disbelieve any claims by any owners about anything.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...