View Full Version : QFSO's
Crossbleed
10th Mar 2006, 09:19
been out of circulation for a while, what's the story with the rat's SO's re: hands on. Used to be no-fiddling below 5, now cruise only, that true??
Close enough really.
Not in on descent at all.
On climb greater than 20K and only as PNF.
DCP indicated that it was under review with an aim to aligning with IATA audit requirements. I think that is 10K and doesn't matter if PF or PNF. I'll be glad to see the S/Os be able to jump back in for much longer. If you were the last back from a break, it was often good to be able to sit back and get a handle on it from the back seat for a while before jumping in the front! :}
QFinsider
11th Mar 2006, 12:33
What a master stroke...S/O's have no job satisfaction, no destinations thanks to the guardians at the old AIPA (Singapore Basing) no skills due to the mate of mannings selling off sim capacity and making the matrix more crowded during a cyclic as we only have two functional simulators!
It takes these geniuses a year to realise the S/O rank is suffering from a lack of engagement. I bet they blame the S/O for having lack of skills too, if there is ever any promotion. Wait a minute make them do 3 assessment simulator exercise to ensure they will be okay when they commence F/O training...(already done :sad: )
It really makes me wonder. I used to hold up QF as a benchmark. I still do I just use it as a benchmark for what not to be like!
dirty deeds
12th Mar 2006, 00:49
How funny things have become, a cruise F/O, sorry a special term for S/O at J*, does not even need an ATPL, funny how the bar is lowered all of a sudden when they want to pay peanuts and get monkeys.
One Union, One Group, One Stand. Its our only hope.
404 Titan
12th Mar 2006, 11:29
dirty deeds
How funny things have become, a cruise F/O, sorry a special term for S/O at J*, does not even need an ATPL, funny how the bar is lowered all of a sudden when they want to pay peanuts and get monkeys.
Since when do you need an ATPL to be an F/O let alone an S/O? If you aren’t P1 i.e. captain it isn’t required.
neville_nobody
12th Mar 2006, 11:44
In QF all long haul FO's have to have an ATPL as they act as PIC when the Captain is absent from the flight deck. Dunno if it's a QF internal thing or a CASA enforced one. I would suggest that in Jetstar the FO's would have to have an ATPL but the cruise FO won't. And besides the only people at that level who won't have ATPL's are the QF cadets and I'm sure QF will find some way of getting around the legal obstacles if they have to.
Nev, it's CASA enforced. It changed about 2000 from needing just the CPL to needing the ATPL.
As to the 'getting around' the legalities, you're a tad off the mark there. No 'getting around' the requirements at all considering how low they are anyway. Most cadets come out of the cadet course with somewhere between 75 and 100 command hours. Given the ATPL only needs 250 command (of which 150 can be ICUS), it really isn't a big deal to have the required hours for an ATPL within a very short time of gaining your F/O slot on either 737 or 767. No 'getting around' required at all! :rolleyes: Of course, the ex cadet may need to ensure that they have the 100 command.
However, given that they are doing ICUS as part of the industry placement, there wouldn't be many who join QF and wouldn't be eligible for the immediate issue of an ATPL.
Soulman
13th Mar 2006, 01:02
However, given that they are doing ICUS as part of the industry placement, there wouldn't be many who join QF and wouldn't be eligible for the immediate issue of an ATPL.
I thought the Cadets only logged Co-Pilot time, not ICUS?
Had a cadet mate down from Air North recently who needed some command time before going mainline.
Soulman.