Air West Coast
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does however put good experience and calibre into the pilots being recruited by the airlines. This experience is valued by the recruiters.
In fact, it teaches pilots habits and procedures diametrically opposed to those that the airlines require. I have spent more hours than I care to think about, trying to get ex-GA people to operate as part of a crew. Most of them take many hours to get the concept of CRM, and it takes many months on the line to get them to stop trying to do the whole job themselves. And then we get to the complete disregard many of them have for safety and minimas...
In the airlines I have worked for, the vast majority of training failures are ex-GA pilots with over-inflated egos and a general disregard for the concept of SOPs.
There is a good reason that most airlines prefer to recruit cadets... just ask the nice folk at CTC in Hamilton.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In general I agree with IFR4ME that airline flying in inherently less difficult than GA, single-pilot IFR.
I agree with MOR that GA experience is not necessarily helpful to an airline recruit. It does seem, however, that the disciplined GA pilot generally has minimal trouble getting into the swing of airline flying, at least in the NZ microsystem. As Haughney1 mentioned, it has a lot to do with knowing, and accepting limitations.
I agree with MOR that GA experience is not necessarily helpful to an airline recruit. It does seem, however, that the disciplined GA pilot generally has minimal trouble getting into the swing of airline flying, at least in the NZ microsystem. As Haughney1 mentioned, it has a lot to do with knowing, and accepting limitations.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The magic words being "NZ microsystem"...
All experience is good, of course, and I thoroughly enjoyed my GA time. Hard to remember, now that the FMC does all the work and the F/O handles the walk-round when it's raining!
Regarding GA and danger, it isn't so much the pilots, more the pressure pilots are placed under. Take away the commercial pressure and a lot of the risk goes away.
All experience is good, of course, and I thoroughly enjoyed my GA time. Hard to remember, now that the FMC does all the work and the F/O handles the walk-round when it's raining!
Regarding GA and danger, it isn't so much the pilots, more the pressure pilots are placed under. Take away the commercial pressure and a lot of the risk goes away.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Land of long white cloud
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
complete disregard many of them have for safety and minimas...
In the airlines I have worked for, the vast majority of training failures are ex-GA pilots with over-inflated egos and a general disregard for the concept of SOPs
In the airlines I have worked for, the vast majority of training failures are ex-GA pilots with over-inflated egos and a general disregard for the concept of SOPs
This is where I feel experienced airline pilots have so much that they could give back to the GA sector. Many airline pilots started in GA flying around in PA31s and such aircraft, many of which are still flying today. These are the individuals who should have the best understanding of what personal limitations and minimas the GA pilot should set for themselves to keep out of trouble.
You are also right about the over-inflated ego part too. There is no place in GA flying, particularly in the SPIFR area, where a big ego is a good thing to have. These are the pilots who can 'do it better' and have the 'superior skills' and it is because of these faulty notions that some of them do not see old age...
Not all GA operators are 'cowboys' that just push the limits as far as they can. There are some really good operators that will completely support the pilots decision to cancel a flight because of weather or whatever it is.
There are also pilots that are highly disciplined and have learnt where to draw the line.
What I would like to see is a greater imput from the experienced pilots in the industry back into the GA sector to help improve some of the safety culture and lack of procedures that we seem to talk about so much.
How about it??
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR4ME
Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to do as you suggest. However, there are many hurdles...
CAA - who refuse to recognise a JAA licence that isn't current (unlike Aus), and who are generally obstructive and unhelpful.
The GA operators - who really only want young guys who they can pay very little, will put up with awful conditions, and who will do as they are told.
The aero clubs - who are the same as GA, with the added factor that they are scared of being upstaged by experienced people.
The third-level carriers - who refuse to recognise that experienced captains should not have to go back to the right seat, as the experience they bring is then wasted; and who put in place artificial barriers, such as the Air Nelson "50 hours recent NZ IF" requirement.
The industry in general - which bleats on about the lack of experienced people, particularly in areas like multi instrument instruction, but then refuses to facilitate getting experienced people back into the system.
I have about 10,000 hours, over 9000 of which is airline turboprop and jet time in Europe, and I hold JAA instructional quals. Any use to anyone? Apparently not.
I would love to be able to put something back into GA, but I'm b*ggered if I can work out how! Any ideas?
How about it??
CAA - who refuse to recognise a JAA licence that isn't current (unlike Aus), and who are generally obstructive and unhelpful.
The GA operators - who really only want young guys who they can pay very little, will put up with awful conditions, and who will do as they are told.
The aero clubs - who are the same as GA, with the added factor that they are scared of being upstaged by experienced people.
The third-level carriers - who refuse to recognise that experienced captains should not have to go back to the right seat, as the experience they bring is then wasted; and who put in place artificial barriers, such as the Air Nelson "50 hours recent NZ IF" requirement.
The industry in general - which bleats on about the lack of experienced people, particularly in areas like multi instrument instruction, but then refuses to facilitate getting experienced people back into the system.
I have about 10,000 hours, over 9000 of which is airline turboprop and jet time in Europe, and I hold JAA instructional quals. Any use to anyone? Apparently not.
I would love to be able to put something back into GA, but I'm b*ggered if I can work out how! Any ideas?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the 'third level carriers', I think you'll find it's NZALPA that prevents DECs under most circumstances. There is provision for direct entry if there are no internal applicants meeting the requirements. The company always has the right to veto upgrades based on inadequate performance. There are other instances like the recent appointment of Eagle's Line Manager, when outsiders will be taken because of their experience. I seem to recall inviting you to apply at the time MOR 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZALPA is a toothless tiger. The airlines could easily get around that by prescribing an experience bar that would justify DECs. Whether they have the will to do so is another matter. Personally I don't think they do, they are far too immersed in the parochial NZ aviation culture.
In the civilised world, people are hired for positions that suit their expertise and experience. Only in NZ do we see such protectionist nonsense (well, maybe in Oz as well).
I would have applied for the Line Manager position, but I have no desire to live in Hamilton - thanks all the same!
In the civilised world, people are hired for positions that suit their expertise and experience. Only in NZ do we see such protectionist nonsense (well, maybe in Oz as well).
I would have applied for the Line Manager position, but I have no desire to live in Hamilton - thanks all the same!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Land of long white cloud
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
You are right about the barriers to getting foreign experience into NZ GA.
However, I also know of people who have done it. One of my IF instructors was from the UK, he was ex RAF, ex Gulf Air 767 captain, who has retired and has been doing Multi IF instruction at a NZ aeroclub for a few years now. Im not sure what he had to do to get into the NZ system but there is a way that it can be done.
Im sure there could be a better system for it but.....
You are right about the barriers to getting foreign experience into NZ GA.
However, I also know of people who have done it. One of my IF instructors was from the UK, he was ex RAF, ex Gulf Air 767 captain, who has retired and has been doing Multi IF instruction at a NZ aeroclub for a few years now. Im not sure what he had to do to get into the NZ system but there is a way that it can be done.
Im sure there could be a better system for it but.....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I think my main concern is that I'm a Kiwi, not a foreigner, I just gained my experience overseas. Many operators treat you as a leper because you have had the barefaced cheek to jump out of the sycophantic new pilot pool, show a bit of initiative and go work in the busiest (and most interesting) airspace in the world.
You are then penalised because you have not spent five years washing planes for free and sucking up to the Chief Pilot (who in any other first-world country would probably still be an F/O).
I was actually told this by the then Air Nelson Chief Pilot, who explained to me that there was no way he was going to hire a "f*cking queue jumper" when other guys had stayed behind and paid their dues. How quaint. He told me other things, all of them derogatory to my chosen career path, and none of them having anything whatsoever to do with flying skill or character.
After also speaking to the Chief Pilots of other third-level carriers, I soon realised that nepotism is the name of the game in pilot hiring over here. it doesn't matter how experienced or skilful you might be, if you haven't been doing some serious brown-nosing over several years, you ain't going nowhere.
It doesn't really surprise me, having spent twenty years overseas, I have come to realise that, beautiful as the country is, and as "can do" as Kiwis might be, the aviation scene here is full of closed-minded, unimaginative ex-aero club "managers" that wouldn't last two seconds in a more demanding system. Most of them have never flown outside NZ and have no appreciation of aviation outside these shores.
There are one or two exceptions to this, people I have met in CP positions who are genuinely experienced and very "up with it", but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I do a bit of contract flying in Europe these days to keep my hand in, and it always amuses me that there is never any discussion about rank in the contract world. If you are a captain, that is what you are hired as, and no discussion is entered into. Same goes for IRE/TREs, etc. It is a far more enlightened way of working.
Ask yourself this - would IBM/Microsoft/Telecom/TVNZ hire a highly experienced executive, and then put them to work filing papers? Of course not, they recognise the skills and the value of the people they hire, and use them accordingly.
NZ aviation must be one of the last places in the developed world to employ such 19th century hiring practices.
It isn't helped by a pilot culture that is based on some sort of divine right to progression, irrespective of the needs of the operator.
You are then penalised because you have not spent five years washing planes for free and sucking up to the Chief Pilot (who in any other first-world country would probably still be an F/O).
I was actually told this by the then Air Nelson Chief Pilot, who explained to me that there was no way he was going to hire a "f*cking queue jumper" when other guys had stayed behind and paid their dues. How quaint. He told me other things, all of them derogatory to my chosen career path, and none of them having anything whatsoever to do with flying skill or character.
After also speaking to the Chief Pilots of other third-level carriers, I soon realised that nepotism is the name of the game in pilot hiring over here. it doesn't matter how experienced or skilful you might be, if you haven't been doing some serious brown-nosing over several years, you ain't going nowhere.
It doesn't really surprise me, having spent twenty years overseas, I have come to realise that, beautiful as the country is, and as "can do" as Kiwis might be, the aviation scene here is full of closed-minded, unimaginative ex-aero club "managers" that wouldn't last two seconds in a more demanding system. Most of them have never flown outside NZ and have no appreciation of aviation outside these shores.
There are one or two exceptions to this, people I have met in CP positions who are genuinely experienced and very "up with it", but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I do a bit of contract flying in Europe these days to keep my hand in, and it always amuses me that there is never any discussion about rank in the contract world. If you are a captain, that is what you are hired as, and no discussion is entered into. Same goes for IRE/TREs, etc. It is a far more enlightened way of working.
Ask yourself this - would IBM/Microsoft/Telecom/TVNZ hire a highly experienced executive, and then put them to work filing papers? Of course not, they recognise the skills and the value of the people they hire, and use them accordingly.
NZ aviation must be one of the last places in the developed world to employ such 19th century hiring practices.
It isn't helped by a pilot culture that is based on some sort of divine right to progression, irrespective of the needs of the operator.
