Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 30
#1771656
Chris-tt wrote:
SteveC wrote:I care deeply for the welfare of my staff and the survival of the company that I have worked for for the last 14 years. The financial imperative is indeed now at the forefront of my decision making because the staff can longer afford to sit at home and the company can’t survive if we don’t start again.

As longfinal states we still have fixed costs that have to be paid and they are not sustainable without income. So what do we do, just sit and wait until you think it’s OK for us to go back to work? Or do we adapt and start back the best we can? The former will leave hundreds of people unemployed.......


Things need to start moving again. I'm in a similar position to you, approximately 100 jobs on the line and even with everyone furloughed it's still costing far more than I can possibly afford to keep paying the bills like this indefinitely. The business interruption insurance I pay for that covers pandemics was supposed to worth £1.5m, and I discovered that they'd turned the claim down based on "Force majeure". I will be taking legal action.

The reality is we might never find an effective vaccine. If we don't are we just supposed to shut the country down permanently?

We have to remember that several clinical vaccine trials for the HIV (virus) started in 1987, and we still don't have an effective vaccine for that. SARS clinical trials began in 2003-2004, and there is no vaccine for that either. This is another strain of SARS. A lot of effort is going into a vaccine, as the world is focusing on it. However, there's no guarantee one will be found.

We need to be pragmatic about this and look at workable solutions to reopen. Hopefully, with track and trace, social distancing will become less of a requirement, and this will allow anyone who wants to get airborne again.

Luckily I was able to fly in the last week, and it was the first taste of normality I've had since March.


I have been lucky enough to continue flying in a key role as I got another part time job which thankfully will help me get everyone current again and ready to teach.

I quite agree on the vaccines front. I think people are deluded if they think they can just sit indoors and wait until a jab comes along then come out! We have to adapt now to the havoc this has caused and move forward before the damage becomes completely irreversible. It has for a lot of companies with big names dropping like fly's and there is more to come. The other problem we now have is people have been terrified into staying at home and millions of them paid to do so. They have not felt the full financial impact of this and are still repeating the mantra without really understanding whats coming......

Imagine what the NHS could have done with all that money thrown straight at it........
kanga, Chris-tt, Alt2000 and 2 others liked this
#1771723
It does seem odd that DfT/CAA still allow it is an acceptable risk to sit in a Simulator for several hours, or fly an airliner, for example to LAX, with up to 4/or more on the flight deck, for 10 hours or so.
All with no means of social distancing, a mask perhaps.
Yet seemingly it is deemed more risk is involved instructing in a small GA aircraft with two crew for an hour or so.
Both commercial operations, Is the air in a small aircraft that more toxic?
The argument re air-conditioning in an airliner/simulator doesn't really hold, plenty of fresh air can be circulated in a GA cockpit too.
T6Harvard liked this
#1771948
There is also a fundamental difference that a professional crew are deemed to understand and have control of the risks they're taking, and somebody unqualified is deemed not to have that level of understanding and control.

G
#1771951
There is also a fundamental difference that a professional crew are deemed to understand and have control of the risks they're taking, and somebody unqualified is deemed not to have that level of understanding and control.

G


I understand what you are saying but my belief is that a Flying Instructor should be deemed a Professional - whatever level of training they are providing.
Mine certainly was.
Also I had assumed that recreational training would only recommence when suitable mitigation of risk was presented to and accepted by the Authority - demonstrating a suitable level of understanding and control.
In other words, just as has happened with the Professional courses.
#1771972
G

I really thought I’d bug out of this thread but you’ve brought me back in.

I think we all respect the professionalism of Commercial Pilots, instructors and examiners. I think they are fantastic at what they do which is related to aviation.

Your earlier comment prompted me to open my CPL theory books once again at HPL and take a look at where disease control is mentioned, it’s almost a half page and there is no mention of a pandemic. I don’t think it is so simple as to say a professional pilot is qualified to understand this sort of risk when their profession is not in medicine, virology or disease control. In fact I would hazard a guess that there are more private pilots with those professional qualifications than Professional pilots.
In the same way I wouldn’t attempt to teach a surgeon how to remove my appendix , I wouldn’t expect a surgeon to teach me to land a PA28.
Skybluepink, Plan_B, defcribed and 1 others liked this
#1771973
Is epidemiology now a module in the ever-relevant ATPL syllabus, then?

I do not see what the aviation professionalism of instructor or student has to do with this discussion.
Miscellaneous, Plan_B, Skybluepink and 2 others liked this
#1771981
The sole difference is the remaining CAT still operating has been deemed to be an essential service and we have been designated key workers. Even then, most flights at my mob have been crewed on a volunteer basis with a number of mitigation measures in place and a reasonable understanding of the risks we are taking.

The lack of ATPL epidemiology hasn’t stopped a number of my colleagues on other forums switching their expertise from investments to public health :roll:

I am however fully in support of a sensible approach to the risk of flight training in an attempt to return to ops where possible. Being personally financially at great risk I have huge sympathy for those like Steve in similar positions.
kanga, Dave W, T6Harvard liked this
#1771983
TLRippon wrote:G

I really thought I’d bug out of this thread but you’ve brought me back in.


It probably is time for you to bug out of the thread. You have made your view that the virus risk can't be managed to an acceptable level for you quite clear. Others have a different level of risk they are happy to consider and debate. Time to let them discuss it with the sure knowledge that there are those that will wait for a vaccine.
SteveC liked this
#1771991
Yes, an FI is a professional.

But their student, usually isn't - and never on a PPL course or trial flight.

G


I don’t want a scrap- but the instructor should be calling the shots so do we need both Instructor and student to be professionals?
The instructor will, as ever, guide and look after the students interests not least because they are the same as their own.

I agree over trial lessons - our safety assessment still says no due to the geographical distribution of the customers and travel required possibly bringing the virus into a rural area and our community.
Our PPL students however are all local.

I am happy if the consensus is that it is too dangerous to carry out training - but really can’t see how some training is safe and others not.

I can’t see that Professional courses - some bringing in students from Europe for a few hours flying- are fine because the participants are used to evaluating and understanding aviation related risks.

The risks that we are now having to evaluate depend on a different knowledge base entirely .
#1772003
There are a whole load of things where instructors don't call the shots. They're not allowed to do ab-initio instruction outside of a school, they are not allowed to decide for themselves whether a particular aeroplane's airworthiness certification is adequate or not, they're allowed to disqualify themselves medically - but not to qualify themselves. They are required to go to an examiner every three years to have their competence to instruct re-assessed, they certainly aren't able to determine whether a student is medically fit to fly - that is for an AME (although they may sometimes decide to overule an AME and say, actually, the student *isn't* fit to fly.

But equally as holder of a professional qualification, they are deemed able to judge a lot of things - including whether for *themselves* risks are acceptable for a legally constituted flight. But, there is a higher standard, as above, required for the risks acceptable for them to subject a student, or a fare paying passenger to.

G
#1772006
I'm stunned we're at 22pages. :shock:

It's simple, banning someone's business without compensation cannot be done indefinitely when other businesses are operating.

What will happen is flying will be allowed with some precautions and thereafter it will be up to the individuals whether to fly.

Flying aside there is also a limit to the nanny state ordering others not to take risk.

Personally I don't see it being a huge issue.
Alt2000, JAFO liked this
#1772008
Miscellaneous wrote:I'm stunned we're at 22pages. :shock:

It's simple, banning someone's business without compensation cannot be done indefinitely when other businesses are operating.

What will happen is flying will be allowed with some precautions and thereafter it will be up to the individuals whether to fly.

Flying aside there is also a limit to the nanny state ordering others not to take risk.

Personally I don't see it being a huge issue.


I actually have all of your Posts ignored on settings by default but had a peak at this and for a Change find myself agreeing totally with you.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 30