Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[svcta]

Well, now you're assuming, aren't you.

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

if they don't then it's just plain shady. There. Got my bases covered.

 

[joe_pilot]

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

This isn't fact, it's opinion.

One that I pretty much agree with.

-JP

 

[time builder]

Well, now you're assuming, aren't you.

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

if they don't then it's just plain shady. There. Got my bases covered.

I'm not assuming anything other than they're part 135 (which alone provides justification, if you even read and understood that part) and could have ops specs requiring an FO. If you read otherwise, you read wrong.

And to say they're justifed or useful, doesn't imply that they're essential. At Gulfstream, they are essential, and the flight cannot operate without them. In the case of cargo, we can operate single pilot without them. Eliminating the cargo FO programs won't create any jobs. I get the feeling that some on this board are somehow stuck on the idea that it would.

Having a safety pilot is useful, but you can still fly without them. However, you have a mutually beneficial arrangement which makes both pilots required (and thus both log time), but no one is arguing against that.

 

[svcta]

I'm all for them being in the airplane. But there's no reason that the company should charge someone for it. Especially since there is a real possibility that the "SIC" in this case can't technically log the time.

The "safety pilot" as we'll call him would be very useful. I used to take one along on my cargo flights whenever I could. Fetch charts, make a phone call to the company while I paid fees or vice versa, etc. But my company understood it for what it was. Someone who could log a little time on the part 91 legs and who could reduce our workload during normal ops with cargo. Everybody won, nobody was taken advantage of. They developed a sense of how we operated and would be great employees when they got the time required. More than one guy came along through that company that way. We liked having them around and they learned a lot and didn't have to pay us for it, and since they weren't required crew it was volunteer work. Though, we would at least buy their meals on the road. And there were a lot of part 91 legs as we zig zagged across N. America and Mexico so they did get some good twin time out of the deal. And international experience. All it cost them was their time and gas to drive to the airport.

Again, everybody won.

 

[time builder]

Our dispatchers and line service guys occasionally ride along too, although letting them fly part 91 legs would probably be putting your job as captain on the line at my company. Even still, the FO program isn't going to deny these guys that opportunity if they don't want to pay for the part 135 stuff.

I sense this argument is going back to the "morally wrong" side, which I again respectfully disagree where I feel the money is adequate compensation for training and liability. Also, the demand is on the consumer side, not the employer. If it were a recruiting program (like Airnet's) the applicants would have to interview and commit to employment after they become captain eligable, and yes they'd have their training paid for. As it stands with these programs, FOs are the one's keeping the program going, we don't actively recruit for it (we'll leave that to Eagle Jet). FOs just gotta play by the rules and pass their checkrides, after that they're free to leave.

Again, with the post on the thread, I give 8inman the benefit of the doubt that he's letting people know of opportunities more than actively recruiting for his own personal gain.

 

[svcta]

Yes, but there may not be a need for the SIC in which case training and a checkride are totally extraneous and only exist to generate justification to charge for the seat.

The the OP: Is an SIC required by or mentioned at all in your ops specs for cargo?

 

[avbug]

Our ops don't require an SIC, but that doesn't mean you can't log it. For example, some jets are certified single-pilot as well, but most of the time they are flown with two pilots both logging it.

You really have no understanding of the regulation, have you?

Your firm is raping the industry, no matter how you slice it. Not only are you unwilling to pay a crewmember, but expect the crewmember to find his or her own lodging, to boot. To call the practice dispicable would be a kindness.

You're lowering the bar for the industry, no matter how you might try to dress this act of defecating on your fellow pilot.

Your firm isn't the first to sell a seat, and won't be the last in a long line of pathetic, shameless ethical failures. That you're willing to flaunt it here says nothing good about you, or the firm in question.

 

[brokeflyer]

for once avbug agrees with what I said.

You CAN'T log the time as SIC....your ops spec dont require and SIC and the plane dont require an SIC.

It cant be logged period.

UNDERSTAND? or would like me to put it a diffrent way. Being a former FAA inpspector you guys better be careful with what you are doing. Make sure on the weight and balance you dont have your "SIC" listed as anothing other than a "employee".

PM me and ill help you out.

 

[Mickey]

I always thought interns worked for free or got paid a little bit. Since when do interns have to pay. Call it what it is. This is not an internship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern

 

[brokeflyer]

it is obviously a dirtbag operation, that is the only thing that is clear.

 

[time builder]

Yes, but there may not be a need for the SIC in which case training and a checkride are totally extraneous and only exist to generate justification to charge for the seat.

I'm going to leave the "extraneous" adjective as "subject to opinion." However, you do concede that there is legal justification for the FO, and that's what I'm after.

On a side note, I look at what I've posted previously and would like to give a quick disclaimer. I'm neither management nor a company spokesperson, and am not entitled to speak on behalf of my company, I'm merely stating things as I see them, and giving my opinion.

I have nothing to gain from guys joining these FO programs other than the 5 bucks per flight hour when they fly with me, and the satisfaction of seeing mentoring at work.

 

[time builder]

Seriously, the hypocrisy in this industry is killing me. The fact that my college professor could spend a good chunk of class time preaching to us that we be better do all our certificates and ratings with the college or else we won't have a job when we graduate, is downright wrong. But, seems like everyone else played into it, and thus it was status quo, and it doesn't get any attention. For crying out loud folks, to funnel tens of thousands of dollars into your program with the incentive of working for the people you just paid? This doesn't get the label PFT and the shame that goes with it?

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Someone who knows new pilots considering this route, tell them to RUN (not walk) away.

Do you really think an airline that wants its FO to PAY to fly, would have your best interest in mind?

Do you know that many operators will NOT hire you if they see these operators on your resume?

If you have an extra $13k, invest it in something useful, like a business degree. If you don't have the cash, forget it and save your credit.

What the OP is doing is taking advantage of an opportunity in supply and demand. Sadly, this opportunity reeks of poor ethics, and probably reflects on his treatment of others, work conditions, and maintenance and adherence to regulations.

With tough times comes opportunity. If aviation becomes saturated, find another field. You NEVER have to whore yourself to make a successful career.

CE

 

[spacecadet1]

I think being a prostitute would be more worthwhile. At least you'd be providing a needed service.

 

[avbug]

Seriously, the hypocrisy in this industry is killing me. The fact that my college professor could spend a good chunk of class time preaching to us that we be better do all our certificates and ratings with the college or else we won't have a job when we graduate, is downright wrong. But, seems like everyone else played into it, and thus it was status quo, and it doesn't get any attention. For crying out loud folks, to funnel tens of thousands of dollars into your program with the incentive of working for the people you just paid? This doesn't get the label PFT and the shame that goes with it?

Didn't your high-priced education teach you the difference between college and a job?

Forget the labels. Most blather on about "PFT" and don't have a clue what they're talking about. Set the label aside.

Your college encouraged you to do your training at the school, lied to you, intimidated you, blah, blah, blah. What has this to do with the price of tea in china?

Your employer is making a profit, and requires employees who will function for a wage in order to make that profit. The employer has hired one pilot, then convinced another to pay for the opportunity to work there. This is not "PFT" (pay for training), this is pay-for-work. While encouraging or requiring pilots to pay for their training does meet with some distain, requiring pilots to pay for their jobs, work for free, and even house themselves at the same time is far worse.

You've rabbited on about a legal need for the SIC...show it.

You've rabbited on about mentoring. Is this the case? You've prostituted out another pilot, used and abused him or her, then kicked them to the curb when the money runs out...and feel proud that you've "mentored" them. In fact, the pilot has been willingly raped, being too young, too inexperienced, and too stupid to know otherwise, and you're proud to have helped...and the company things the victim should be grateful for the opportunity. Quite a racket there.

No...not "PFT." That's really a term that the ignorant get excited about and toss around. This is worse, and it lowers the bar across the board. It lowers the bar for employers, who can get a ready supply of inexperienced pilots to come pay to work for them, and it lowers the bar for pilots who find that employers don't pay a fair wage when they can get cheap, even paying, labor.

If you're in a single pilot aircraft (lacking the authority or requirement for a second pilot) and charging others to ride along, and don't have the legal basis for those others to even log the time, let alone be a required crewmember, you're running a scam program and perpetuating a falsehood. It's the big lie, and you're charging others for the privilege of living the big lie. How wonderful that you're proud to be a part of the big lie, isn't it?

Seems you're not only an enemy to the pilot body, but to the industry at large, as well as a moral criminal and an ethical rapist. Your pride in your work speaks volumes about your character and your place in this world. By all means. Keep talking. You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. If you keep up, eventually you'll bury yourself.