Prior to Covid, the pilot shortage was recognized as a looming challenge by industry groups such as ATAC, but it remained one that was still relatively manageable. With the loss of many pilots due to reasons that vary from early retirement to simply changing careers, and the reduction of new Commercially Licensed Pilots graduating from flight schools caused by the shutdown of many schools during Covid, the pilot shortage has been further exacerbated, temporarily.
The major carriers are having difficulty recruiting pilots at the experience level they were accustomed to (evidenced by lowered requirements), and this is rapidly having a trickle down effect to the regionals and all the smaller (702, 703, and 605) operators. Historically, pilots who graduated with their CPL/multi-IFR or similar have gone first to these smaller carriers, then the regionals and finally the majors. This has contributed to the stellar safety record at the 704 and 705 (regional and major air carrier) level that has lasted for decades due to the experience of those pilots. That experience was often earned in northern and remote operations in both difficult weather and on difficult runways, and it helped to ensure that those individuals were ready to assume command on the larger more complicated aircraft after they operated from the First Officer position for a few years.
The expansion of many air carriers, and an aging & relatively cohesive pilot cohort approaching retirement, is also contributing to the need for pilots. Pilots are being recruited with less and less experience. The implications for safety, and adjustment to training techniques/timelines, are obvious. The question is, what can be done to mitigate this potential problem?
The College of Professional Pilots believes that part of our mandate is to assist in the transition from newly licensed Commercial Pilot to a pilot that works in a multi-crew aircraft for a regional or major air carrier. We plan to do this on several levels; through mentorship, a flight school initiative that assists with CRM and SOP training, educational material available on our website, and by promoting professional standards. Mentorship will be available for College Members at every level who will be matched to a mentor that is knowledgeable in the type of flying the Member would like to pursue. Flight schools who promote the College to their students will be given generic SOPs that use industry best practices. Assistance with multi-crew CRM and SOP training will be to ensure a smoother transition into complex 2 crew aircraft. The rigors of flying in difficult conditions will be addressed through education, and the examples of personal standards will be discussed along with realistic expectations and positive reinforcement of best practices.
The goal is to achieve the same or better level of safety that our industry has enjoyed over the last few decades by working together with flight schools, the air carriers, and the other stakeholders. Achieving this goal is key to our industry remaining strong and protecting our reputation as professionals and fostering trust for our occupation in the eyes of the traveling public.
Every year, the month of May signifies graduation for post-secondary students. For newly minted pilots outside of modular programs who may be graduating from 2,3, or 4 year college or university aviation degree programs, it is a time of celebration and of apprehension.
It is a market reality that at the low-end of the pilot experience spectrum, there are more sub-250hr CPL pilots than there are positions for them. Main factors behind this are those of safety (sometimes, there is no substitute for experience), regulatory, (e.g. 250hrs total time required to hold a type rating on 2-crew aircraft), insurance limitations, and the combination of types flight operation (e.g. seasonal, VFR, adhoc charter) and the (small, single-pilot) aircraft well-suited to those missions.
Large cohorts graduating at the same time flood the pilot market at the low-experience end, exacerbating the challenges for these individuals to become employed as pilots soon after their studies. Consequently, and in our market system, it is to be expected for operators to take advantage. Ground-to-flight programs, ramping, training bonds, vague promises of a flying position in exchange for working in other positions after a period; are familiar to all except those looking to start a flight training program.
Commentary on pilots exiting the profession, pilot-ramp positions, training bonds, wages and working conditions, or the economics of a small operator, are not the purpose of this op-ed, but they are certainly consequences of what this article is highlighting.
That is, clearly, the current state of affairs post-pandemic and in the midst of a pilot shortage of sorts (has it finally come to pass?!) results in even poorer outcomes for safety, for pilots, and for operators than even a decade or two ago.
Time away from flying, large debt loads, poor remuneration, outright unemployment, precarious living situations to name a few, are not conducive to safe pilot-decision making, lead to adverse long-term health and lifestyle choices, and are detrimental to industry and professional growth in the larger scheme. One may conclude that given free-market principles leading to a lack of leverage for new pilots, at the root, one must limit the number of new pilots produced. To be clear, unlike some other professional bodies, this is not the position of the College. While it certainly would be the “nuclear option”, the impracticality—and the author would argue, question of ethics—of implementation and the spectre of unintended consequences loom large.
Instead, given adequate pilot support, an organization like the College of Professional Pilots can be instrumental in effecting more realistic and relevant changes to the above status quo to the benefit of the profession and individual pilots, and arguably, operators as well.
For starters, providing early education on the realities of the profession and career support from the day an individual decides to embark on a pilot career is foundational. So many groups may offer a small scholarship, or promote a visible minority, or offer targeted mentoring (“look, somebody like you did it, you can do it too!”). These well-intentioned efforts are haphazard overall, and are offered in an insular manner without regard to the industry picture in which the pilots will find themselves but a tiny dot upon completion of their flight training.
Beyond networking, mentorship, and being a representative for the interests of the profession, forearming pilots with an impartial assessment of the state of the industry and of the profession, outcomes are less likely to be shocking and discouraging, and pilots would enter the workforce more resilient to workforce realities. This additional time to prepare and adjust their thinking could just make the difference in ensuring pilots who by ability, preparation, and perseverance, achieve the better outcomes they deserve. A professional College endeavours to holistically support the entire development and progression of pilots, because at every stage, the skills, standards, and professionalism of each commercial-level pilot affects us all.
To that effect, the College is going right to the source. The flight schools that produce our fledgling flocks have always had their traditional set of challenges. To these are added the relatively recent and novel problem of a lack of instructors, and high instructor turnover leading to an inability to build up a solid foundation of training experience. One can easily see how this is another negative to the profession and to individual pilots; while operators will soon see the consequences of that if they haven’t already.
Concretely, for this initiative, the College is reaching out to flight schools coast to coast. It is high time to start tackling the challenges of training, experience, progression, professionalism, and every other aspect which affects the piloting profession. No other stakeholder group, operator group or even regulator, are putting time into addressing the underlying structural problems in a coordinated, coherent fashion, at great accumulated cost to the Canadian aviation industry and everyone in it. By being the impartial body to draw flight schools and operators together, needs of industry can be better connected with pilot production, and the voice of flight training becomes more relevant in industry and to the regulator when we approach them for much needed changes to archaic (and arbitrary!) requirements. The College’s initiative on the PICUS program is an example of work in that direction.
Lastly, by reaching new commercial pilots at the source, individual pilots will benefit from the networking, shared experience, and industry knowledge as they set forth into “real world” operations. It is also at this vulnerable time they could benefit most from a voice to represent their interests and effect positive changes with the regulator and other stakeholders to improve outcomes in early-career and facilitate reaching their goals with a minimum of undue pain.
Ground to Flight Program versus Signing a Training Bond
The ink on your Commercial Pilot Licence and IFR booklet is still wet. Your scan the web and see employment opportunity in either a 12 month Ground to Flight Line Program and an opportunity to fly immediately by signing a $20,000 Training Bond. The choice is obvious; Right?
I was at Flight Safety for two weeks of simulator type training with other Canadian pilots who each had signed $20,000 Training Bonds as new hires for identical simulator type training as me. Ground school chatter detailed how their new type-training would advance their career into a mainline 705 carrier within a year. My costs to attend two weeks at Flight Safety included $2,000 airfare, $3,000 lodging, $2,000 meals and $23,000 for the training. This all expense paid program was a bargain for each of them signing a $20,000 training bond, while receiving both a salary and all expenses paid. Their choice was obvious: Right?
Canada’s Aviation Rite of Passage
The ground crew to the flight line program was Canada’s traditional aviation rite of passage. An Air Operator hired us to perform specific manual labor where they screened, molded, mentored, and eventually invested financially in advanced technical and flight training in their current aircraft model or type. This rite of passage insured there was a good probability of a good ROI (Return on Investment) to the air operator and to the pilot.
Training Bond Culture as a Return on Investment (ROI)
Recently, a Training Bond culture has evolved as a credit shortcut option for new pilots to the flight line who have invested $150,000 and at least twelve months to earn the minimum CPL/IFR qualification. The Training Bond culture became a necessity for Human Resource managers when the pilot shortage, increasing training costs and subsequent new hire pilot turnover created a negative ROI to their employer.
Newly qualified pilots see the Training Bond as bypassing Canada’s traditional aviation rite of passage, seeking a credit short cut with this contract. Each operator training bond is unique with several contract clauses that require legal discernment. Examples may include:
– $20,000 is for the full term or
-$20,000 prorated over the term
– what is the non-disclosure clause
– how broad is the non-competition clause
– can you be let go without cause
New qualified pilots see the Training Bond as the opportunity to log time immediately. Many new pilots have signed and may not have considered the financial exit strategy should the employment relationship go sour without a signed Employment Contract document that may have:
⁃ no employment separation clause
⁃ no employment pay scale
⁃ no duty or flight schedule.
⁃ no assigned domicile
Newly qualified pilots should always attend an in-person interview and view the presented training bond before they pay out for any airfare, any apartment rent or give notice where they currently work.
Training Bonds are financial investments defining the operator/pilot relationship. The operator expects a positive ROI (Return on Investment) over the term of the bond.
Remember; the training bond is a corporate economic tool for the operator to maintain their ROI and manage pilot turnover costs. If you engage in a training bond, assure yourself the bond price is reasonable for the type of training and qualification you are receiving.
Captain Pilot Proficiency or Co-pilot Competency Training
What is the Difference ? Qualification ? Training ? Cost ? Portability ?
Most CARS 703 Operators fly single pilot aircraft that must have a captain with a Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) flight check on the specific model with Transport Canada within the last 12 months. Some operators also choose to have co-pilots on these single pilot aircraft for a variety of operational or contractual reasons. Co-pilots are required to be trained to a Pilot Competency Check (PCC) level with an operator designated captain. Operator flight training is either done to a Captain proficiency, or a Co-pilot competency standard. The financial investment and return on investment difference for each is significant for both the pilot and the operator.
The Captain ground and flight training have specific direct costs allocated to the Training Bond including:
⁃ costs such as company indoctrination ground school
⁃ costs such as aircraft type technical ground school
⁃ variable costs for 4-5 flight hours of designated syllabus training such as night circuits, IFR missed approaches with a qualified training captain etc.
⁃ the aircraft model PPC check flight (1.5 hrs) and Transport Canada ACP fees
However, most in house Co-pilot ground and flight training only include the following syllabus;
⁃ Shared costs such as company indoctrination ground school
⁃ Shared costs such as aircraft type technical ground school
⁃ Minimal costs such as on flying empty charter legs with a training pilot
Only the Captain’s flight test by a Transport Canada approved check pilot (ACP) is portable or transferrable within the industry. The Co-pilot’s training and flight check is company restricted and is not transferable within the industry. Each Training Bond should reflect the either the costs or the portability / transferability value within the industry. A co-pilot competency check ROI may be valued by the operator at $5,000; while the proficiency check and flight check ROI may be valued at $20,000. “
Newly qualified pilots will continue to find air operators advertising either “Ground to Flight” or “Training Bond” entry programs. Know the difference between these career entry programs.
Michael Graham operated Missionair as a 703 operator for 13 years. Missionair continues to provide PA31-350 simulator training in Manitoba. Michael contributes as a board member of College of Professional Pilots Canada