RFDS require Awesome Flying Qualifications

[Centaurus]

Friday's Australian newspaper carries an advertisment for a flight ops manager for the RFDS. The minimum qualifications stated include not less than 6000 flight hours - including 4000 multi, 1000 turbine, 700 night, and now get this: no less than 600 hours instrument flight time. Also the advertisement calls for another 10 additional qualifications, including a demonstrated high degree of ethics and integrity. The last named certainly rules out 99.9% of GA pilots who have successfully survived that cut-throat industry!

About this 600 hours instrument flight time. Surely the advertisement means IFR flight time - not real in cloud hand flying time on instruments? Of course legally it could mean 600 hours of automatic pilot time IMC. Having said that, my view is that any pilot with over 50 hours hands-on cloud flying no cheating is an experienced IMC pilot in my book.

Locating some old log books gathering dust in the shed, one page showed close to 11,000 hours before the instrument flight hours got to 600 - and that was honest hands on hard work - none of this on automatic pilot. You weren't allowed to log autopilot time IMC because that was considered cheating.

Where does this awesome RFDS instrument flight hour requirement stem from? Even Qantas 747 captains don't have those sort of instrument flight hours and they carry 400 plus passengers. Is it an insurance thing? Is it really that difficult to fly a King Air or PC12 in IMC on autopilot that you need a minimum of 600 hours fair dinkum in cloud hands on flying on the clocks to get a look in?

[triadic]

Cen... from my experience, the type of person they are looking for is not that common. The IF time is certainly a prime requirement, but I believe you will find the ability to manage and to be a good administrator who can work all the internal politics is what they are looking for. It has and always will be a special type of person that works for the RFDS (any section) and a very special type of person that becomes a Flight ops mgr and chief pilot. There are just not that many about. The last time the SE section recruited a FOM I understand there was only a very short list. It aint easy finding such a person. By looking at the IF time, you have missed the point.

[Centaurus]

Triadic. Obviously the RFDS are looking for someone who they perceive is the Right Stuff by their standards - especially administrative experience.. No problem there. Just seems that they have already asked for 8 multi-engine renewals - so what is the point of requiring 600 instrument flight hours when it is not possible to verify those hours in the first place.

I know of airline pilots who stick 30 minutes of I/F in the daily flight record sheet just to keep the CASA auditors happy even though there is not a cloud in the sky and the aircraft is on Vnav and Lnav. In other words no way can it be verified as true.

. The original principle of instrument flight hours being a hands on requirement and therefore a rough measurement of a pilot's hands on experience in cloud, was made completely irrelevant when autopilot time spent reading a newspaper or eating lunch on a tray was legally approved by ICAO/ CASA as perfectly acceptable to log as instrument flight time. In other words the logging of instrument flight time by today's rules means it's not worth a pinch of salt by original standards. RFDS are merely perpetuating the myth by requiring unverifyable instrument hours.

[swh]

Centaurus,

Its not hard to get 10% of your total time as instrument time if your flying a turboprop single pilot, you are more likely to be in mid to low level cloud more often. You are less likely to get instrument time when flying above the tropopause, and less likely flying multi-crew, as only the pilot flying or controlling the autopilot can log I/F.

These crews go to "strips" at time in the most awful conditions, a lot of them are not served by approaches.

Flying a circuit into a strip/road where there is no runway lights (which does happen) at night in a remote area free from most ground lighting does take above average hand flying of the aircraft, its a IFR circuit, no autopilot. Only people who do similar are some tactical MIL flights, however I understand they use NVGs for doing this.

Most sections that I know of have MELs which allow the aircraft still to be flown single pilot with autopilot U/S for a number of days.

As far as I know it is not common to fly any non-ils approach in these aircraft with autopilot on.

As you would remember, renewals used to be done every 6 months, 8 is not unreasonable.

Flight ops manager sounds like a warm and fuzzy way of saying chief pilot.

I would rather go with a RFDS pilot any day when going anywhere remote, and a 744 skipper when going somewhere needing a CAT 3 approach, each part of the industry has its niche, obviously both pilots would have proved themselves over and over in demanding conditions.

:ok:

[Captain Sand Dune]

The RFDS are after an OPS MANAGER , not a line driver. I don't consider their pre-requisites unreasonable.
Wouldn't be surprised if they know exactly who they want, and have formulated the pre-requisites around that person.
Just as an aside, a quick look at my logbook shows my IF time (actual + sim) about 5% of total time. How does that stack up against others?

[John Citizen]

My IF time is only about 3% of my total, however Half of this total was VFR flying.

[Ice Vanes]

I see what Centaurus is getting at, 600 hours is a fair bit of IF time, but if that what they want ,thats what they want.

I've logged around 300 actual IFR hours out of 9 odd thousand hours (3.3%) with 14 renewals, compared to planned IFR flight time of around 6500 hours.

I, however, admit that I am pretty fortunate in where I fly, at the right time of the year I could go many weeks where I have never see a whiff of cloud and on others find levels on top or in between layers.

Anyway I tip my hat to the RFDS guys, their gig is way harder than mine....... and I don't mind keeping it that way either. :D

[frangatang]

well.. l have just come out of the sim after sweaty 3 eng ndb approach on autopilot so l was a lot better when flying ndbs around normanton in an aerocommander all those years ago.And l take my hat off to any rfds pilot having witnessed what they had to fly through and into. Now back to my slippers and a decent pint

[compressor stall]

Just checked the logbook spreadsheet, 12.6% of my RFDS hours are IF inflight.

[Towering Q]

Stallie, sounds like you have too much time on your hands.:ok:

[compressor stall]

Yep, tq, it's pissing down snow outside so not much happening :{

btw - I asked your redheaded ex colleague to fwd on an email as your bigpond one kept bouncing.

[Grog Frog]

The position is for Flight Ops Manager, which includes Chief Pilot, Head of Training and Checking, Aircraft/ Flight crew scheduling and I would assume oversight of maintenance scheduling, preparation of flight ops budgets etc etc etc.

It's their ad, they can ask for what they like, at least they haven't demanded that you self fund a B200 endorsement if you haven't already got one !




Disclaimer, currently am not, and never have been, RFDS

[clear to land]

I spent 3 years in with RFDS(QLD) and approx 20% of my logged hours were I.F.(mostly with autopilot but determined as IF by CASA Definition). Last couple of years flying RPT Jet and less than 2% logged I.F. (same definition). Flying RFDS you can never have too much IF experience! I now have about 8000TT and 890ish I.F. and have always used the same criteria for determining IF.:O

[ovum]

No what it means is that they already have someone for the job who has those hours and experience and are placing the ad in the paper (as they are legally required to do) knowing full well that the majority of people won't meet the requirements :cool:

Nothing wrong with that really

[hurlingham]

ovum

Not necessarily so.

Even if the have 'head-hunted' someone common sense would say to place the add - you never know who is out there if you don't ask.

My research suggests they are looking for new blood.

[I Fly]

Ovum might be correct. People with double those qualifications don't get a look in. Or is that for other reasons?

[Centaurus]

Clear to Land. Do you really log automatic pilot time as true instrument flight time - even though it is CASA approved? To us instrument purists that's like walking in the Anzac day march with fake medals on your chest.

[404 Titan]

Funny, I have never seen columns in my logbook that say “True Instrument Flight Time” and “False Instrument Flight Time”. CASA clearly state what IF time is and also state that falsification of a logbook is a criminal offence. I suggest people should log hours according to how CASA want you to, not how you feel you should log them. If anyone has a problem with CASA’s definitions take it up with them. If you don’t like what they tell you, have a court define it for you.

[swh]

404,

You fly a B registered aircraft... do you log instrument time in accordance with your HKCAA licence or your CASA licence in your Australian log book ?

For example an Australian pilot flying a G registered aircraft on a UK JAR licence can log IF time whenever they are on an IFR flight plan ...this is "false instrument time" for CASA purposes, but valid under JAR.

:rolleyes:

[404 Titan]

swh

The Hong Kong CAD stipulates that “Instrument Flying” must be logged only when manipulating the flight controls solely by reference to instruments, either under actual or properly simulated instrument flight conditions. This is considerably more restrictive than in Australia where CASA has defined IF time to include the above and when the Auto Pilot is engaged. As I fly a “B” registered aircraft on my HK license logging the hours in a HK logbook, the Australian rules don’t apply. It is worth pointing out that the HK CAD have allowed me to keep all my IF time from my Aus license.

As for the Australian with a UK JAR license flying a “G” registered aircraft. The only problem I see here is if he wanted to convert his license or use the foreign IF time for keeping his Aus license current.

In conclusion you log the time in accordance with the state regulations for which you are licensed and operating in. If you want to keep a number of licenses valid then you need to comply with all the state requirements.

[HSWL]

I do not know when the Australian CAA lowered the bar to include automatic pilot monitoring as counting towards logging instrument flight time but the original reason for the logging of flight time on instruments was a measure of experience level and thus perceived competency. The Royal Australian Air Force and Navy saw fit to also restrict logging of instrument flight time to actual hands on flying.

It is possible that the rules changed when airlines perceived hands on instrument flying as potentially dangerous in jet transports and lobbied their regulators to add autopilot monitoring as acceptable for logging on instruments. This of course immediately negated the whole point of having an instrument flight column in the log book.

Of course it is impossible to verify if a pilot is stacking his log book instrument flight column with fake flight on instruments in order to qualify for certain flying jobs where minimum instrument hours are called for. Witness previous Pprune posts where it was mentioned that a captain of a certain LCC said to his F/O who was completing the day's flight records "Put me down for 30 minutes I/F" even though the weather had been CAVOK wherever they flew that day.

To the knowledgeable interviewer, the amount of instrument flight time shown in a pilot's log book is usually regarded with marked scepticism if it can be proved it was automatic pilot time.
A short raw data non-automatics session in the simulator quickly weeds out the automatics monkeys.

[404 Titan]

HSWL

Prior to moving onto the airlines I had 6000 hours total experience in GA over ten years. Of this total I had 235 hours of IF time. This was logged in accordance with the rules in Australia. Personally I rarely used the autopilot in climb and descent because quite frankly it wasn't very good at it and increased my workload. It was far easier to hand fly the thing during this time, when I was most likely to encounter IF conditions than let the A/P do it. With the such small amount of IF time I had compared to total time, and this was almost all on IFR flight plans by the way, in the tropics, I don’t think it would make any difference if you included A/P time or not.

[Arm out the window]

Autopilot or not, if you're in cloud or severely reduced vis, the management of the flight takes on a whole new aspect compared to VFR, ie. LSALTS, how to get down at the other end, diversions, and so on.
Logging IFR when you can see as well as if it was a beaut VFR day isn't kosher, in my view, because all those considerations become insignificant. However, once you're in the gloop, the careful planning and good situational awareness are paramount, and the autopilot is neither here nor there - consider an aircraft with a copilot hand flying in cloud; should the captain still log instrument time? Ken oath!

[Wing Root]

an aircraft with a copilot hand flying in cloud; should the captain still log instrument time? Ken oath!

OK. I'm confused now...
This is what CASA has to say about it.

"In actual or simulated instrument conditions, only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot may log all flight time as instrument flight."

[Centaurus]

Arm out of window. You have to be joking. The captain is probably having coffee and bikkies in the LH seat and chatting up the hostie. How can he log that as I/F if the other bloke is flying it?

[Arm out the window]

Sorry, temporary (I hope) brain failure on my part.

[gaunty]

Well; depends on the experience level of the FO I guess .:} then it gets really difficult :E

But back on thread RFDS pilots require awesome quals because they do an awesome job.

Through sleet snow blah blah the mail/RFDS must get through and there is a single pilot "black hole" approach at the end of it.:ok:

[tinpis]

and there is a single pilot "black hole" approach at the end of it.

And how much training is devoted to this I wonder?
Done the RFDS and Aero Med thing and there was none nada zip in my day.
Still did all the landing on strips lit by carlights etc an man it was bloody hairy.
Its a circus act and has nothing whatsoever to do with normal ops of any kind.
Hope they dont still carry on with all this stuff?

[swh]

tinni,

Initial and recurrent training in limited flare path was provided. Doing so is a mercy flight and all other avenues are explored first, like waiting until landing can be achieved at first light, driving to/from another strip, helicopters etc. Also the PIC has the final say, if they dont like it, pull out at any time, no blame policy.

:ok:

[maxgrad]

Tinpis
Definately changed. Check and training very high on list. As said previously, the PIC has final say at all times, strip bit dodgy? no land, simple as that.

[hurlingham]

Qld section do a Night Check every 12 months that includes landing on car headlites

[tinpis]

Thanks fellas well the time I am talking about the base airfield didnt even have an approval for night operations it required a dispensation.
The runway lighting was kindly provided by my missus putting out flares using my car !
Can anyone guess where this was?

Oh a prominent RFDS committee type person once said at a fundraiser "Oh I never knew we had an aeroplane based there?"

:p

[Aussie]

Hey on the RFDS note,
anyone know what these guys start on pay wise?
They seem to have it harder then most pilots out there.

[compressor stall]

tinpis,

across the nullarbor where a couple of kero flares at each end and reflectors do the job at night, training is done once every two years with the checkie in the RHS, usually at Southern Cross. Ruins the training when the F50 keys the PAL going overhead though...

Aussie,

As for the salaries, well they vary a bit from section to section, but I would roughly say around 60K including perks first year in.

[7gcbc]

60k, So essentially its a retirement job then, because you can't ,meet their minimums of experience and time unless you are 60+ and sans mortgage, and you can't live on 60K unless you don't gotta mortgage, which means you are either 21 and the son of a millionaire or 58 and all paid up and retiring ?

fair enough, I see their point, very clever.

but if you have already worn yourself out on a mortgage, and blown all your breath on your career thus far, why would you risk RFDS if they are so exacting ?

can someone please explain, as I always dreamt of RFDS, but this means another 10 decades wait....... ?

[The Voice]

7gcbc
you can't ,meet their minimums of experience and time unless you are 60+ and sans mortgage, and you can't live on 60K unless you don't gotta mortgage
oh deary me .. that is a little defeatist .. I know that there are more than one or two RFDS pilots that don't fit either category.

Tinni I've got one or two ideas about where you mean .. but the AU AO is just a little broad!

In my 10 years when service actually meant something to GA, I only ever had one flight declared one of mercy, and that was upon the dep for the big smoke, not on ldg.

[Towering Q]

60K doesn't sound too bad. But then again I'm on 40K with 20 month old child and mortgage.

Stallie...just checked out 'The Voice's' location, he's not bunked down with you by any chance?:ooh:

[tinpis]

Er...the Voice is a he?
:E
Wasnt in the Brisbash phottys which I see have been edited


:} :}

[Night Hawk]

I think you’ll find that the RFDS( South Eastern section anyway) is no retirement village. There are at least a dozen or so pilots that are under 40 spread over the five bases and half a dozen are also under 35. Some joined the RFDS when they were in their late twenties. Granted there are some older pilots in the ranks who are in until the Dr’s say that’s it but even some of them plus the young one’s are looking else where due to the high turn over of chief pilot’s of late.

The pay actually isn’t that bad but could be better. Starting pay is around 54K going up to 64K(with years of service) but with the Salary sacrifice set up they have, it’s about the same take home pay as if you were on high 60’s to mid 70’s depending on your years of service anywhere else. This all varies across the section due to the fact that some bases get overtime pay because of their contracts being operated and some get a remote area allowance. Some bases get neither which hopefully will be addressed at the next EBA. The overtime pay and allowances(Meals/phones etc..) is on top of the figures above. Except for night shift there is almost never any overnights also.

The high qualifications come from the Sydney contract requirements which is why the high numbers for the FOM job. The Sydney minimums (line pilot) were made section wide requirements by two chief pilots ago. The other bases don’t actually require these minimums. NSW air ambulance service think these hours best suit their needs.

IMHO they are bit over the top. Lots of IF time is definitely required but the right type is required, like time logged conducting approaches not 20 mins in a cloud at 15,000 feet.

Having done my share of back hole approaches or low vis, low level arrivals into some strips that you think twice driving a 4WD down fast let alone landing a B200, experience is definitely required. Its more about what type of flying you’ve done before plus under what conditions. Was it through the wet season? Have you even been into short strips? Those who have gone ILS to ILS their whole career will struggle to get an interview for line position but maybe looked at for the FOM and other management positions. The last two FOM’s were x airline, so management may look elsewhere in the industry. Whether they look internally is yet to be seen.

The FOM’s job is not an easy one, with 6 bases to worry about plus the politics which would take another 5 pages to explain, so I won’t.

Anyway being a line pilot is a good job , the FOM’s is a nightmare but could be good if they choose right.

Good luck to those who applied. That’s my 2 cents worth!!!

P.S. Hit any small black and white birds yet Stallie??
:cool:

[sunny77]

Night Hawk you've hit the nail on the head! I believe most Sections are not retirement villages; although some bases have average ages over 50!
In essence what they want for a FOM is a mature chap who can handle a bunch of 'experienced' (read 50+) pilots and deal with Health Departments, megalomaniac Emergency Consultants, ambulance coordinators and angry flight nurses, oh and by the way, you should be able to fill in on the roster at the drop of a hat when required. Now that is a challenging job if ever I have seen it. And you should see the chief pilot description!! Having a pilot who can be put on the roster at a moment's notice (of course within appropriate rest periods bla bla bla) and fly the "worst case" RFDS flight requires someone who has been around the block more than once, hence the hour experience requirements.
In regards to IF time, yep, it's a funny one. I don't think that you would miss out if you had all requirments except 600IF, but you might if you only had 100hrsIF.
Also, the applicant would want have good social skills to deal with the above after a long shift- but that is hard to quantify on 'minimum requirments.' The best place for that is charter, IMHO. Sometimes ex-airline and military types are lacking in this area.

Stallie, keep those photos coming. They are great..:ok:

[7gcbc]

Allow me to clarify, what I meant by "retirement" was based on the experience and IR requirements, this taken into consideration with the salary essentially means that its either a vocational position or a senior line pilot who wants to leave the jets/lines, it goes without saying that RFDS is not a easy retirement position in the that sense of the word.
<I certainly know that its some of the best (read challenging) flying to be had anywhere in the world>

those requirements put RFDS firmly outside the reach of anybody who has not already given a decade or so of experience to another career path (within aviation) like the lines, so that given,
you'd be hard pressed to keep a family, a house, et cetera and manage to fly for RFDS, because without a line position you'd not make the minimums, and if you had a line position and a young family, then why risk the jump to RFDS ? You'd be a fool to swap it for the uncertainty of the RFDS, especially at the award rate quoted.

confused ?????????????

[maxgrad]

There are a fair number of pilots that haven't come from "the lines" within the aeromedical fratternity. Get good solid time,(read night, outback flying, black hole approaches and IF) and you can det in .
You can also do all this with a young family

[hurlingham]

Qld section have several young pilots with less than 5000 hours.
Over time quite a few move on to the airlines.
On the other hand there are those who have made a career of the RFDS.
The conditions are a lot better than any charter outfit. Perhaps not a 'cushy' as airlines - but a lot of pilots do not want to fly for the airlines.

[Centaurus]

Hurlingham. You say a lot of pilots don't want to fly for the airlines? My guess is that 95% of pilots would love to fly with an airline, but for various reasons cannot get a guernsey.

[hurlingham]

centaurus
cannot quote percentages - but I know of a lot of pilots over the years who have never applied for nor had any interest in applying for the airlines

[Howard Hughes]

Given the high qualifications asked for this position.

Who applied?

Who got the job?

What experience did the succesful applicant have?

Sadly this is a job that I would aspire to, but am only about 60% of the way there on the qualifications!!

I personallly think that the qualifications asked for in this add were far above what would be required to be competent in this position. More to the point even further above anything that would be specified by CASA!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[compressor stall]

Some of the RFDS pilots with whom I had the pleasure of flying might have given the airlines a go, but many are also the sort of people who want to do more in aviation than go from Cessnae to Boeings in their 20s and stay there.

There is a wonderful enjoyment in bush flying at the highest level (in terms of skill and aircraft) and to boot it is often an incredibly satisfying job, although it does have its moments.

In the current aviation climate, some career diversification is also an advantage. For those who do move on to the airlines having well respected turboprop time would definitely help the prospects of those who may be the victim of any future AN style job losses.

7gcbc...I am very sure that you would be aware that the advertised job would not be at 60K. And at that level of the company, I don't see the position as 'uncertain'.

CS

ps. TQ - the voice is most definitely not a he...and no, she is not here with me, I think moving below the tropic of capricorn was enough for her!

pps. nighthawk and sunny 77, no birdstrikes...might be some questions asked if there were! :ooh: Back home now, so more photos to come once the slides are scanned. ;)

[trousersnake]

7gcbc

What the fcuk is the "uncertainty of the RFDS" supposed to mean ? These days RFDS job security is safer than half the major airlines. Just what "award rate quoted" are you referring to ?
RFDS SE section all work to EBA's with varying salaries depending on years of service, salary sacrifice arrangements etc. I know RFDS pilots who are NOWHERE NEAR 60 yrs of age who have met the requirements. I also know RFDS pilots who have a family & a house so me thinks you are very confused???
If you are aspiring to be a line pilot with the RFDS I suggest you get out there and "do the hard yards" to gain the necessary experience, there is no quick fix, you either cut the mustard or you don't !

[7gcbc]

fair points snake, I cannot disagree with you at all.

On first review of this post, it did look, and perhaps incorrectly so that RFDS requires "god" like experience to join.

Hard yards agreed, thats why I'm working on the missus and family to move to 51 Deg North and 0 deg west, not enough options here to get the experience and also keep kids jumpy boingy healthy and pay the great aussie 75 times your income mortgage :D

uncertainty = risk, either financial (cost), physical (oops that rock), compliance (government) , local (government again)., safety (oh dear government again)

Having lived in SA a while back , I can tell you I have never seen the like of small minded beaurocratic idiots anywhere in the world, and I am not kidding, I see no reason to believe that RFDS operations based in Port Agutta or ad-dull would be exempt from the "Ad-dull-ade" syndrome of nit-piking and terminal criticism death...

besides JAA won't hurt a bit.