ARG/US versus Wyvern

[SLFLYHI]

Great explaination. Like any system, their are faults. My frustration stems from flying with pilots who have fewer hours than I with the majority of those hours in single engine pistons, yet because those are PIC hours, my few thousend hours of jet (yes some is PIC 121) are somehow less qualifying. The airplane we're operating is a mid-size corporate jet. So according to Wyvern, the crop duster I fly with is more experienced than the guy who has been operating similar aircarft for years. It just doesn't add up. Thanks for the great explaination though!

AZT

I certainly understand your frustration. Honestly, I would get with your charter management and encourage them to forward your flight experience along with yearly training records (I assume you went to FSI or Simuflite) to the people who are disqualifying you. They may not have a beef with you flying despite not being able to check every box (I'm guessing it's the time in type problem, right?). We had a similar situation years ago where an 8,000 hr furloughed Delta pilot was D.Q.'d by Wyvern due to time in type. After we talked to our customer, they were good with letting him fly with less than the Wyvern mins....

Good luck.

 

[Stealthh21]

hey Time2Spare!

First off no worries!! I realize that they are not perfect. Thanks for the good info!!

Stealthh

 

[some_dude]

Wyvern's standards are right here:

http://www.wyvernltd.com/Pilot_requirements.htm

Granted, they do occasionally have problems, but on the whole I think it's a reasonable system.

I know nothing about ARG/US other than having seen the name before.

 

[LJDRVR]

Here's the opinion of a former Director of Safety for a larger operator: Wyvern is in the marketing business. Period. They often do not perform due diligence when performing safety audits. They are more concerned with the filling of arbitrary boxes of qualifications in leiu of asking diifficult questions concerning the safety culture of a given operation. To top it off, there is a fundamental conflict of interest involved with an organization conducting safety audits entering into a business arangement with subject of their review.

Wyvern-Approved means very little in terms of a real safety audit.

Disclaimer: I have no axe to grind with Wyvern or no bad history with them. I simply believe they are biased and not very thorough.

 

[mike1mc]

I have managed two audits for our company by Wyvern. The Wyvern, ARG/US, and Flight Safety Foundation (Q-Star) Standards will definetely help create a safer operation if you actually apply the policies and procedures. You can only take away what you put in. I don't agree with this new Wyvern Wingman crap they have created. It is nothing more than a marketing scam. ARG/US is also misleading in that they have an ARG/US Gold-rated status that has no value. I get calls all day asking "Are you ARG/US rated?". The answer is yes, but that means absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean that the pilots are ARG/US-rated or that we have even had an audit. ARG/US Platinum operators have completed an onsite audit.

I walked away from my first Wyvern audit with great satisifcation having learned about the deficiencies in our operation and how to fix them. It was a good experience and the auditos were professional and extremely knowledgable. Our second audit was pathetic. One of the auditors had zero 135 experience (he was a previous 121 Safety Manager). I spent two days teaching him the ins and outs of 135 ops. Needless to say Wyvern has lost us as a client. I am setting up an audit with ARG/US and hopefully this will be more professional.

Wide use of auditing in the 135 world is a good thing. Although the Pilot Standards lack a bit of realism, they are meant to be a quick cookie-cutter determination of a crewmember's qualifications. I wish more brokers took the auditing process more serious. They should be subscribers to Wyvern like most Fortune 500 companies to get the "official" listing of approved aircraft and crews.

 

[Lear-fan]

Resourse for safety audits

ARG/US use the DOD safety audit as a template for their audits. the DOD gives it away for free on the web. The DOD uses it when they do audits of operators who do work for them.

http://public.amc.af.mil/business/a34b/

http://public.amc.af.mil/Business/a34b/webapp/docs/A34B/publication_174.doc

Great resourse for doing internal audits befor ARG/US or Wyvernn.

Enjoy

DES

 

[pilotpat]

I agree with most of the posters...neither company looks at individual experience. Yup - it's happened with me. 2100 hours (I know its not a lot, so...), but 820 jet time...but nope, can't get the upgrade til 3500 hours. Others could have 4000 hours SE piston and get the upgrade in a hundred hours??...oh, well - guess I gotta just play the game (doesn't mean I gotta like it )

 

[PMVULB AvMgr]

I myself am on the Wyvern Customer Advisory Board. Time2spare couldn't have said it any better.

Yes, I use the Wyvern standard as a beginning point of determinig whether I will accept an aircraft or specific pilot for charter trips that I contract for.

However I have no problem accepting a crew member who might not be totally qualified on a certain type, but whose total hours as well as time on a similar type I am chartering add up to a healthy number. Wyvern standards are guides, they are not the law for those of us who need the information given by Wyvern to determine whether or not a pilot is acceptable to me as the customer.

As a sidepoint, I have personally called Wyvern and brought to their attention two specific pilots whose credentials on the web site were not correct (either by mistake or on purpose). I know both pilots, as well as their flight history, and realized that the numbers in type were utterly ridiculous.

Both pilots were immediately put up as NOT QUALIFIED, and both operators can expect a surprise spot audit by Wyvern to assure that the information put up on the site are accurate.

Wyvern is not perfect, but its customers do their best in helping keeping it as honest as possible.

Ok, here's the deal....

Wyvern is the result of several very large corporate flight departments who use charter operators on a regular basis, getting together and setting some standards that they want to see from charter operators in order to secure their business. Many of these flight departments used to audit charter operators themselves, however, that was time consuming, and frankly, was a pain to many charter companies having sometimes as many as a dozen audits each year.

Once a year, these flight departments get together with the charter operators and the Wyvern auditors to discuss standards, set policies, and review what does and does not work. I'll agree to a single point: some of the requirements the flight departments have come up with are somewhat onerous. But, by and large, the system works and has given these flight departments peace of mind in using charter companies that they themselves have not been able to personally audit.

For charter companies, receiving a passing grade from Wyvern can result in business that they otherwise would not have. For others, it reinforces that they do things the right way (i.e. not cutting corners, providing competent pilots, and maintaining their aircraft to the highest possible standards)

Let me point out that Wyvern and ARG/US are totally independant and different. Just about any charter operator can pay ARG/US, and with minor internal changes, can receive their blessing. Wyvern audits are paid for by the flight departments - not the charter operators - and avoids the conflict of interest inherent in the ARG/US system.

Now to the points made about aircrew approvals: yes, Wyvern standards can sometimes seem unreasonable. However, and this is the big point, many pilots who are not able to check every single Wyvern box, CAN and DO get approval to do trips for the flight departmens if they are given a chance to review the pilots qualifications and decide independantly of Wyvern, that they are ok with that pilot flying their trips. In other words, the Wyvern standards are rarely set in stone.

I know these things because I have worked as a pilot and manager for two charter companies that rely on the Wyvern system to fly trips for the flight departments who use the Wyvern report. I have also personally participated in the yearly meetings in which operators and flight departments meet in person.

The Wyvern standard is not perfect. With that said, it's my opinion that it is far more comprehensive than the other auditor companies out there. The bottom line is that it's up to the charter company management and sales staff to evaluate what is gained by participating in the Wyvern process, and to raise their standards of operation to secure a lot of business from the Wyvern subscribers.

From my perspective, it's a small price to pay for thousands of hours of charter - even if it temporarily disqualifies some pilots on certain trips.

By the way, I do not work for Wyvern, nor am I currently working at the charter companies I mentioned.....

Sorry if I was a little harsh on AZ Typed and Stealth21. I hope this explanation has cleared the air.