Pipeline Patrol flight time requirements
11-26-2011, 06:05 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 204
Pipeline Patrol flight time requirements
What is the deal with all of these Pipeline patrol outfits wanting 1500TT to be considered as a patrol pilot?? How many 1500+ TT pilots are really out there that are willing to add useless day VFR single engine time for 30k a year? I mean, by the time you're at 1500 hours of single engine time in your log book, another 1000hrs of the same stuff is not going to make any difference.
I just don't get it; haven't these types of jobs historically been for "time builders" and not career minded pipeline patrol lifers? This is just frustrating. I guess there must be a bunch of pilots out there who just have no desire to move on.
I just don't get it; haven't these types of jobs historically been for "time builders" and not career minded pipeline patrol lifers? This is just frustrating. I guess there must be a bunch of pilots out there who just have no desire to move on.
11-26-2011, 07:25 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by BeardedFlyer
What is the deal with all of these Pipeline patrol outfits wanting 1500TT to be considered as a patrol pilot?? How many 1500+ TT pilots are really out there that are willing to add useless day VFR single engine time for 30k a year? I mean, by the time you're at 1500 hours of single engine time in your log book, another 1000hrs of the same stuff is not going to make any difference.
I just don't get it; haven't these types of jobs historically been for "time builders" and not career minded pipeline patrol lifers? This is just frustrating. I guess there must be a bunch of pilots out there who just have no desire to move on.
I just don't get it; haven't these types of jobs historically been for "time builders" and not career minded pipeline patrol lifers? This is just frustrating. I guess there must be a bunch of pilots out there who just have no desire to move on.
I don't know - but if the company can't afford the insurance for a less than 1500 hr TT pilot because the insurer looks on them like a 16 year old male driver in a corvette, then I'm sure you can appreciate the quandary the employer finds themselves in when looking for pilots.
USMCFLYR
11-26-2011, 09:58 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 949
Originally Posted by Cruz5350
Insurance drives everything.
-low altitude
-single engine piston
-variable weather/terrain
If you were insuring them, you'd want high time pilots too.
11-27-2011, 05:54 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: AT802
Posts: 241
My step dad flew pipeline when I was a kid. Has over 9000 hours in single engine Cessna's ( and 9 engine out landings, may be the reason the insurance wants 1500 hours?) At the last company he worked for he was paid well and was home every night. It wasn't that he didn't have higher expectations, there just wasn't a lot of options in the 70's. When he finally got a shot at something bigger, he got a Sabre job that turned into a Falcon 20 job that turned into unemployment.
11-27-2011, 02:30 PM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Position: C182
Posts: 19
From the folks I've talked to the pay is not bad....Not great either but not bad. The guys that work directly for the gas/oil companies fly well-maintaned airconditioned Cessnas. These companies do not want maintenance to be a factor in any accident investigation. Nothing is deferred, if something breaks a fresh airplane is delivered to you while the wounded one is ferried for surgery. So to spend that kind of money to keep the airplane flying it only makes sense to look for experienced pilots to break them. And lets face it, most accidents occur at or near the ground, so how many insurance claims does one need to file before one does what one's told.
11-27-2011, 10:08 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 204
I guess having a commercial pilot license these days is hardly one step above a food handlers card. Why do insurance companies have such little faith in the FAA? I have met the requirements, I have passed the tests and check rides, I have demonstrated my abilities at the commercial pilot level, why do I need another 1000 hours to prove I am capable of following a pipe at 500 AGL in a single engine cessna in day VFR? Off airport landings are something any commercial pilot should be able to handle if the engine quits. It's really not about how many hours the pilot has but what type of terrain luck decides to put under him/her when it quits.
If you were insuring them, you'd want high time pilots too.
Ok but 1500 hours? Come on, that is just ridiculous! It seems to be pretty simple flying, and there are no passengers involved so where is the liability? Compare pipe patrol from a insurance standpoint to banner towing, (and banner tow companies will hire a bare minimum 250hr pilot!) what is the difference? Actually I would say that banner towing presents more of a risk because you are flying over and around highly populated areas, if the engine quits you are much more likely to hit people or property on the ground. When it comes to flying pipe, it's just a bunch of bushes and trees, so what are they worried about?
Also, most 135 cargo operators will let a 1200 hour pilot loose in a piston twin at night in hard IFR, but insurance companies would really say that same pilot is not qualified and does not posses the necessary experience to fly a C-172 following a pipe during the day?!
Originally Posted by DirectTo
If you were insuring them, you'd want high time pilots too.
Also, most 135 cargo operators will let a 1200 hour pilot loose in a piston twin at night in hard IFR, but insurance companies would really say that same pilot is not qualified and does not posses the necessary experience to fly a C-172 following a pipe during the day?!
Last edited by BeardedFlyer; 11-27-2011 at 10:54 PM.
11-27-2011, 11:19 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Insurance companies work on numbers, probabilities, and statistics. I guarantee, if they see a correlation between a certain type of flying and certain types of claims, they will adjust their fire to be on target next time.
11-28-2011, 02:48 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by BeardedFlyer
I guess having a commercial pilot license these days is hardly one step above a food handlers card. Why do insurance companies have such little faith in the FAA? I have met the requirements, I have passed the tests and check rides, I have demonstrated my abilities at the commercial pilot level, why do I need another 1000 hours to prove I am capable of following a pipe at 500 AGL in a single engine cessna in day VFR? Off airport landings are something any commercial pilot should be able to handle if the engine quits. It's really not about how many hours the pilot has but what type of terrain luck decides to put under him/her when it quits.
Ok but 1500 hours? Come on, that is just ridiculous! It seems to be pretty simple flying, and there are no passengers involved so where is the liability? Compare pipe patrol from a insurance standpoint to banner towing, (and banner tow companies will hire a bare minimum 250hr pilot!) what is the difference? Actually I would say that banner towing presents more of a risk because you are flying over and around highly populated areas, if the engine quits you are much more likely to hit people or property on the ground. When it comes to flying pipe, it's just a bunch of bushes and trees, so what are they worried about?
Also, most 135 cargo operators will let a 1200 hour pilot loose in a piston twin at night in hard IFR, but insurance companies would really say that same pilot is not qualified and does not posses the necessary experience to fly a C-172 following a pipe during the day?!
Ok but 1500 hours? Come on, that is just ridiculous! It seems to be pretty simple flying, and there are no passengers involved so where is the liability? Compare pipe patrol from a insurance standpoint to banner towing, (and banner tow companies will hire a bare minimum 250hr pilot!) what is the difference? Actually I would say that banner towing presents more of a risk because you are flying over and around highly populated areas, if the engine quits you are much more likely to hit people or property on the ground. When it comes to flying pipe, it's just a bunch of bushes and trees, so what are they worried about?
Also, most 135 cargo operators will let a 1200 hour pilot loose in a piston twin at night in hard IFR, but insurance companies would really say that same pilot is not qualified and does not posses the necessary experience to fly a C-172 following a pipe during the day?!
USMCFLYR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
