Career co-pilots??

[SPEEDI]

Just having a discussion around the office and have an enquiry about these cadet programs in particular the jetstar scheme. Are they destined to be career co-pilots, as they wont be able to obtain the 500 multi pic??

[apache]

in a word - yes!

[sixtiesrelic]

In Command under supervision?
Doesn't that count?

[mattyj]

Aside from the pay theres no shame in being a co...I've had a gutsfull of people who should know better treating cos like second class citizens..try practicing good CRM by yourself..
..its as much fun as practicing sex by yourself!!

[Sqwark2000]

In Command under supervision? Doesn't that count?

I've heard that Jetstar only provide ICUS to Senior F/O's who hold an ATPL. Cadets will be Junior F/O's cos they don't and won't be able to meet the requirements for an ATPL, which conicidently will prevent them from getting a command.... nice little vicious circle they've got there, don't ya think :hmm:

S2K

[neville_nobody]

No they will just rewrite the regs to accommodate them.

Don't forget to that in other parts of the world (mainly Asia and Europe) people can fly for a career without ever touching a piston or turboprop.

One example is this, a Etihad Captain who has only ever flown jet aircraft other than training.

Captain Blanchard breaking down barriers in UAE (http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/executive-women/captain-blanchard-breaking-down-barriers-in-uae-20100921-15kz2.html)

Sophie Blanchard shares the name of a French aviation pioneer and has now become one herself - as the first female captain, or pilot-in-command, for Abu Dhabi's Etihad Airways.

"I am very happy. It still is a pretty macho environment, but my colleagues here encouraged me a lot, and the flight attendants are very proud," said the 33-year-old mother of two, a French citizen.

Blanchard joined Etihad as its first female pilot three years ago and last week took off from Abu Dhabi to London on her first flight as captain, sitting in the left-hand seat of an Airbus A330-200.

Her 18th century namesake was the first professional female balloon pilot, who even attracted the attention of French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

The modern-day Blanchard first flew an aircraft when she was 19, then joined her stepfather's Belgium-based freight company as its only female pilot.

"We used to work under very extreme conditions. I was flying a very old DC-8, a four-engine plane that was built in 1962," Blanchard said.

"Very often we just ended up with only three engines left, landing in airports where there was no help, by night, in spite of power cuts and sometimes with a storm. Now, I am actually resting a little," she laughed.

Blanchard later joined an Icelandic cargo company that was leasing planes to Etihad Airways. When United Arab Emirates law was changed to enable women to sponsor their husbands for residence permits, she applied for a position at Etihad and was recruited in May 2007.

"It is a very male-dominated profession," said Captain Richard Hill, the airline's chief operations officer.

"In my career, I have flown with 10 or 15 women," he said. "To survive or get to where they are, they have to be very good at their jobs and they are exceptionally good pilots."

Among Blanchard's battles were changes to her uniform. She now wears better-fitting trousers and does not have to sport a male necktie.

"But I am not sitting in a cockpit to be a woman," she said. "I am here to be a pilot. And our schedule has not been changed to accommodate us."

"It is a challenge to make yourself respected as a woman. But the biggest challenge for me has been to have a family," Blanchard said.

Many Gulf airlines, including Etihad, lack a program by which women can go on maternity leave and undergo the training necessary to get them back up to speed upon their return. Hill did not rule out such a program in the future.

Blanchard's two children were born before she joined Etihad. She raises them with the help of an understanding husband and domestic workers, she said.

The number of female pilots with airlines in the region is on the rise. Since Blanchard's arrival, Etihad has recruited 10 female co-pilots, Hill said.

Low-cost airline Air Arabia, based in Sharjah northeast of Dubai, has two female captains and three co-pilots, according to a spokesman, while Dubai's Emirates Airlines has 16 co-pilots but no captains, a spokeswoman said.

Bahrain's Gulf Air has four co-pilots, a company official said. And Qatar Airways has more than 15 female co-pilots and three female captains, according to one of the captains, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It is amazing how well we are treated here. And when Qatari women see me in the cockpit, they suddenly have this big smile on their faces. They are really proud," Blanchard said.

In Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive cars, Saudi Arabian Airlines recruited its first female pilot in 2005, according to local media.

Hill thinks the number of female pilots will continue to rise. "Ladies will come forward in increasing number to become pilots," he said, adding: "We can see that with our recruitment for our cadet pilot program."

[swh]

Are they destined to be career co-pilots, as they wont be able to obtain the 500 multi pic??

Jetstar operates under CAO 82.5 (High Capacity RPT AOC), no requirement for a Captain to hold 500 ME command.

In Command under supervision? Doesn't that count?

Yes

The problem is as co-pilot you only accrue 50% of total hours, so you need to fly effectively 4000hrs (assuming bare CPL) to have the 2000hrs total experience required.

Dual, command, and ICUS are counted 100% towards total aeronautical experience.

The other issue is the 500hrs ME CMD/ICUS as that can only be done with a C&T Captain to count as ICUS and as such would also take along time as the C&T's are usually busy with other more important tasks than ICUSing some F/O.

Is that in the Jetstar FAM ? That is not required by CASA regulations.

Cadets will be Junior F/O's cos they don't and won't be able to meet the requirements for an ATPL, which conicidently will prevent them from getting a command.... nice little vicious circle they've got there, don't ya think

Does not sound right to me, that would prevent them from getting their ATPL. I see no operational reason why they would have that in place. Care to PM me that part of the Jetstar FAM that states that ?

[Bo777]

From the CASA website
In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) Includes all flight time when assigned as co-pilot acting in command under supervision as defined above:ICUS may be logged as follows:
a) in log books with single and multi-engine ICUS columns, the flight time is logged accordingly and is included in the Grand Total Hours;
b) if the log book does not have an ICUS column then ICUS may be logged in the Pilot in Command column as long as it is clearly identified as ICUS and the pilot in command is also identified;
c) alternatively, another unused column may be used to log ICUS
In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following:

the pilot flying ICUS must hold either a CPL or an ATPL;
the pilot flying ICUS must make all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the aircraft;
the pilot must hold a command aircraft endorsement for that type;
the pilot must hold a command instrument rating if the flight is conducted under the IFR;
the operator must permit the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision;
the pilot in command of the aircraft must be appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft.Air Transport Pilot (Aeroplane) Licence

Applicants must:

be at least 21 years of age
be able to speak, read and understand the English Language
hold or be eligible to hold a flight radiotelephone operator licence
have passed a written examination (current exam consists of 7 parts)
hold or have held a command multi engine instrument rating
have a total of 1500 hours flight time:
including at least 750 hours which must include any of the following:
at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command;
at least 500 hours of flight time as pilot acting in command under supervision (ICUS);
at least 250 hours flight time, consisting of at least 70 hours as pilot in command and the balance as ICUS; and

200 hours cross country; and
75 hours instrument flight time; and
100 hours at night as pilot in command or as co-pilot.The balance of the 1500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 of the following:

not more than 750 hours flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane
not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as a pilot of:
a powered aircraft, or
a glider (other than a hang glider)
not more than 200 hours flight time as a flight engineer or flight navigator (in accordance with 5.173(7) of CAR 1988 and the balance of flight time as described in the immediate two points above.Air Transport Pilots may fly an aeroplane as pilot in command or co-pilot in any operation. An ATPL is required to command a large airline type aircraft. Note: The above requirements apply to aeroplane pilot licences. Similar requirements apply to helicopter pilot licences, commercial balloon licences, gyroplane and airship licences,
They need an ATPL and seeing that 250 hours PIC is required and a command endorsement is needed to log ICUS I doubt a command is probable but not impossible. It's up to J* and seeing that they intend to make big $$$ from this cadetship iam guessing the cadets will be shown the door after their contract expires.

[swh]

They need an ATPL and seeing that 250 hours PIC is required and a command endorsement is needed to log ICUS I doubt a command is possible.

70 hrs PIC (i.e. the requirement for a CPL) and the remainder ICUS is acceptable. I would be surprised if Jetstar F/Os only receive co-pilot endorsements.

[Bo777]

70 hrs PIC (i.e. the requirement for a CPL) and the remainder ICUS is acceptable. I would be surprised if Jetstar F/Os only receive co-pilot endorsements.

And what happens if the cadets only get a co-pilots endorsement?:E

[27/09]

Squawk2000cos they don't and won't be able to meet the requirements for an ATPL

Prob depends on where the ATPL is issued. I think you're correct regarding an NZ ATPL not sure about anywhere else. Remember NZ requires a flight test in a pressurised aircraft for the ATPL issue and this fact alone usually means some numbers of P in C hours above the basic CPL issue.

I don't know for sure what they do in OZ but some parts of the world give out the ATPL to CPL holders when they have the exams and the hours which seems a bit weird, since they don't dish out PPL's and CPL in the same manner.

[swh]

And what happens if the cadets only get a co-pilots endorsement?

When I followed the federal court case where a new Jetstar F/O failed to meet the required standard on the line, I had the impression he received a A320 command endorsement from Alteon.

Are you saying this has now changed, they only get co-pilot endorsements ?

[Fonz121]

It's up to J* and seeing that they intend to make big $$$ from this cadetship iam guessing the cadets will be shown the door after their contract expires.

Where's it say anywhere anything about contracts?

[swh]

I will, however, direct you to the CASA sites directions to the logging of flight time which states,

The CASA webpage is correct, you however were in error before when you said "The problem is as co-pilot you only accrue 50% of total hours".

When a co-pilot is logging ICUS, it is counted 100%, not 50% towards the total aeronautical experience.

See Form 196 - "Air Transport Pilot Licence Application"

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form196.pdf

[Chadzat]

"at least 250 hours flight time, consisting of at least 70 hours as pilot in command and the balance as ICUS"

This single new sentence in the ATPL requirements means that CASA has effectively given the rubber stamp for cadets to gain a command with MUCH less experience than before. :ugh:

So much for a regulator focused on safety. More like focused on pleasing airline mates. :mad:

[KRUSTY 34]

Chadzat, you nailed it in one!

Cadets, Jetstar or otherwise will eventually go to command. CASA have assured that. I've only just logged on to this thread and was going to warn about swh, but alas too late. It's been flogged so much in the "REX" thread, it probably deserves to stay there!

My opinion about Career Co-pilots? Well in the not too distant past it wasn't unusual for F/O's to sit in the RHS of a Domestic Jet for a decade or more. The difference then of course is that the F/O was considered a valuable part of the crew. They had finally made it to what many considered to be the Holy Grail, and were remunerated accordingly. While waiting their turn in the RHS, they were able to buy a home, raise a family, take quality vacations and even plan for their retirement. When the opportunity to qualify for command finally came around, the increase in pay usually assured a quality of life in retirement worthy of a lifetime of professional work and dedication.

The trouble with today's new age F/O's is their standing in some companies has been reduced to that of "Apprentice", with a comensurate reduction in income! Methinks some serious social and emotional issues might be afoot in the years to come.

Just what you want in an Airline pilot!

[swh]

This single new sentence in the ATPL requirements means that CASA has effectively given the rubber stamp for cadets to gain a command with MUCH less experience than before

Nothing that new, CAR 173 (2) had always allowed one to count up to 150 hours ICUS towards the 250 hour command requirement.

In December 2008 multi-crew pilot licence was introduced into the Australian regulations. The requirements set out in the CARs mirror the changes made to the ICAO Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing.

That is when the changes were made to the CARs allowing up to 180 hours ICUS to count towards the required 250 hours command for the issue of an ATPL.

Alternatively, one can meet the requirements for the issue of an ATPL with little or no command, you can get the ATPL with 500 hour ICUS.

Under CAR 5.214, a MPL can be issued with a minimum of 10 hours command. A pilot can go from MPL to ATPL.

[KRUSTY 34]

There you go Boys and Girls. The Regs allow it, so it must be good!

Please, please, please Senator Xeonophon, Save us from the regulator! :{

[Chadzat]

swh- If you'd care to indulge me and others on this forum, what is your personal opinion on what you have just written?

I am not going to put words in your mouth, but do you not think the original intent of the rules to have 250 hours PIC was so that sufficient decision making skills were developed based on experience gained during those 100 hours after a CPL pass?

Do you think ICUS is a sufficient method of gaining those skills?

Was the original intent of the MPL for cadets to gain command having previously only had 10......I cant believe I am typing this, 10 hours of command decision making experience?

[Dreamflyer1000]

only had 10......I cant believe I am typing this, 10 hours of command decision making experience?

and to put that in perspective? a trip to the west coast and back. and there you have it, your magic 10 hours!...hmm.

[Bo777]

When I followed the federal court case where a new Jetstar F/O failed to meet the required standard on the line, I had the impression he received a A320 command endorsement from Alteon.

swh
I was making an assumption "And what happens IF cadets only get a co-pilots endorsement?" Correct me if I'm wrong but no J* cadets have gone through the program yet. The new J* F/O you refer to was a direct entry pilot. Its quite obvious you have some vested interest in some cadetship program with your ranting about the regs, care to elaborate? IF the cadets only get a co-pilot endorsement (which does happen in some airlines) than those cadets without the experience of holding an ATPL could only get a command if ICUS is firstly approved by the company and secondly they have a command endorsement. The latter could be another way management enslaves the cadets a further 6 years already to their other 6 years.:}

[swh]

what is your personal opinion on what you have just written?

I think it has a time and place, it will not work everywhere. It is also not that easy to become a MPL training organisation, it takes a different mindset to the traditional GA GFPT/PPL/CPL route.

Lufthansa has been doing MPL training for years with very good results. However they look at the initial MPL training, aircraft endorsement, and initial line training as a single seamless program, and they train more than the "bare" minimum.

I know Alteon in Brisbane was the first organisation in Australia to be approved for MPL training, but I do not know the target airline for those students.

I think airlines looking at MPL training in the future will look at what they want as an end product, the skill set the need in their pilots, and work the training program back from that point. Traditional pilot hiring in the past had pilots building on previous experience, however when they started with airlines, pilots employed could have a wide spread of experience and skill making the first initial line training hit and miss.

MPL holders come out of their course being expected to be able to fly as co-pilot one aircraft type only, with one set of SOPs.

A CPL holder is expected to be able adapt to different types, sometimes in the same day, and be able to move between operators.

do you not think the original intent of the rules to have 250 hours PIC was so that sufficient decision making skills were developed based on experience gained during those 100 hours after a CPL pass?

The industry has changed. MPL pilots are destined for a life of only multi-crew flying normally staying with the same airline, they will not be your next generation of RFDS pilots.

Do you think ICUS is a sufficient method of gaining those skills?

Yes. To put this in perspective, I would think that MPL pilots would have several thousand hours co-pilot/ICUS time before they get command.

They would be more rigorously trained and checked from day 1 of their work life within a CAR 217 system. I would think they would tend to stay on the same type, with the same operator.

If you took two pilots, a MPL holder and CPL holder, and looked at their pool of experience up to getting their ATPL, they would have very different competencies.

I would think a GA pilot would be more customer focused, most probably have excellent piston engine handling technique, good skills in operating out of very short unsealed strips, and a mix of single/multi time, VFR & IFR experience, mainly single pilot operations.

A MPL holder would most probably only have turbine experience, only pressurised experience, only multi, and only IFR, only multi-crew.

If you look at two pilots both with 4000 hours :

a) a MPL pilot who has gained their ATPL with 4000 hours in the same aircraft, in the same company, total time in industry 4 years.
b) a CPL pilot who has come up through the GA ranks, with 3 GA jobs, ATPL at 1500 hrs, jet job at 2000 hours, and has 2000 hrs co-pilot time, total time in industry 5 years.

While pilot a would have less time in the industry than pilot b, with a less diverse experience base. I think pilot b would have less relevant experience than pilot a for a multi-crew position in the turbine operation.

Those extra day VFR command hours that pilot b had at the start of their career is not very relevant at that level to the IFR multi-crew turbine operation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but no J* cadets have gone through the program yet.

No idea, I am not affiliated with any airline or training provider in Australia, I do not have any inside knowledge. How I am presently involved is by mentoring some people through their CPL training who see me as a role model in their lives as having “been there done that”.

Its quite obvious you have some vested interest in some cadetship program with your ranting about the regs, care to elaborate?

Not at all, I am not involved with any cadet programmes at all, and I am not an ex-cadet either.

What does get my nose out of joint is when people say xyz is not possible under the regulations, when it is possible. Simple fact is that a lot of pilots in Australia do not know the regulations as well as they think they do, and often repeating what they have "heard" 3rd hand without actually seeing if it is actually correct.

IF the cadets only get a co-pilot endorsement (which does happen in some airlines) than those cadets without the experience of holding an ATPL could only get a command if ICUS is firstly approved by the company and secondly they have a command endorsement. The latter could be another way management enslaves the cadets a further 6 years already to their other 6 years.

That is an industrial issue and I do not think it would be legal under the Fair Work act, same job, same pay.

[porch monkey]

You had me right up to the "same work same pay" quote. You don't actually believe that for one second, do you?

[flyby]

SWH

There is a difference between total aeronautical experience and total flying hours, the copilot hours count at 50% towards total aeronautical experience , so even the 1500hrs would effectively take 3000hrs to acheive.The regs state aeronautical experience for ATPL requirements.
Hope i haven't stated something obvious.

BY the way with your remarks re MPL Versus GA , the thing you forget is that command experience is not achieved sitting in the right seat,and believe me it certainly helps having a command head space when you go for a command.

[tmpffisch]

Flyby, you've got it in reverse.

Total time you count 100% copilot, aeronautical experience is 50%. Regs ask for Total Aeronautical Experience.

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.

[flyby]

No your right , Might go and have a coffee and come back. I got it ass about
previous post amended.

[swh]

You had me right up to the "same work same pay" quote. You don't actually believe that for one second, do you?

As far as I am aware, the Jetstar EBA does not differentiate between those pilots employed via a cadet scheme or by direct entry.

If Jetstar were to deliberately setup their internal policies preventing cadets from achieving the experience for an ATPL, and hence FO rank, I believe this would be covered under the misrepresentations provisions under the Fair Work Act.

BY the way with your remarks re MPL Versus GA , the thing you forget is that command experience is not achieved sitting in the right seat,and believe me it certainly helps having a command head space when you go for a command.

I do not agree, most GA flying is day VFR, while the upper end of GA does expose pilots to more complex aircraft in IFR operations, GA training generally does not expose pilots to cascading failures nor multi-crew flying.

A command scenario on say an A320 could include a dual hydraulic failure, one engine out, primary destination closed and alternate with a circling approach only down to circling minima at night, minimum fuel, and two very sick passengers, then throw in a cargo fire close to the MSA for good measure.

The command skills in getting that A320 down safely has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM. You can learn that from the RHS, and the more exposure pilots have to cascading failures in a simulator during their cyclic training, the more relevant skills they have before they move to the LHS.

Total time you count 100% copilot, aeronautical experience is 50%. Regs ask for Total Aeronautical Experience.

If the co-pilot is conducting ICUS, it is 100% to both.

[Bo777]

the Jetstar EBA does not differentiate ... Doesn't it???
That is an industrial issue and I do not think it would be legal under the Fair Work act, same job, same pay. Really??? You better call the Fair Work Ombudsmen then:hmm:
From the J* EBA
"First Officer" means a pilot currently licenced by CASA and designated as such in writing by J*
"Junior First Officer" means a pilot who is appropriately trained, licensed and endorsed to act as a First Officer, but has insufficient experience to qualify for an ATPL. And their pay reflects this. JUNIOR FIRST OFFICER 60% of Level 2 FO- $55,454
Secondly who says the cadets will even be covered by the Australian J* EBA.
What does get my nose out of joint is when people say xyz is not possible under the regulations, when it is possible.
I have never said its impossible and has happened at Qlink but only when the company has approved it for certain individuals and issued a command endorsement to those that need hours for an ATPL.
But with no experience, a co-pilots endorsement and most airlines reluctant to release pilots to gain command time (as the airlines own their hours) ... a command highly improbable (also remembering its their train set and they'll do whatever they want). So I could be totally wrong.

[swh]

Doesn't it???

The term “cadet” is not used at all in the EBA. All JFOs, FOs, and Captains are paid the same as others in their rank.

"Junior First Officer" means a pilot who is appropriately trained, licensed and endorsed to act as a First Officer, but has insufficient experience to qualify for an ATPL.

And that would equally apply to a direct entry pilot with 6000 hrs total time, but insufficient instrument or night experience to qualify for an ATPL. Being a “cadet” or not does not come into it.

From my reading of the Jetstar EBA, it would be possible for a pilot without an ATPL to receive FO pay, for example a pilot with the appropriate experience to hold and ATPL, but does not meet the age requirement to hold an ATPL.

I have never said its impossible and has happened at Qlink but only when the company has approved it for certain individuals and issued a command endorsement to those that need hours for an ATPL.

Happens across the industry, you do not need GA command time to be a captain in a multi-crew environment. I grabbed this from the "Open Letter to Senator Xenophon" thread.

"Two years and 10 months after commencing his Commercial Pilot Training with Fast Track Pilot Training, 21 year old XX of Perth has begun training as a Captain on the Metroliner with Skippers Airlines. Fast Track CEO, Brad Coombe said, "when X came to us in 2006 he had been doing odd jobs as a gardner and was thinking about buying a lawn mowing round to fund his flight training. After much discussion he decided to fund his training via a bank loan. This allowed him to join our course full time. There was much controversy as to whether he could complete the Fast Track course in the prescribed 18 weeks and to his credit - he did! When X joined Skippers with a basic Commercial Pilots Licence & Multi-Engine Instrument Rating, there were some in the industry that were suggesting that this couldn't be done & that he would be stuck as a co-pilot for a long time with little prospect of ever becoming a Captain. X has overcome many hurdles & has coped very well and by all accounts has turned out to be a sound crew member in multi crew pilot operations with Skippers."

Now as far as I am aware, the Jetstar/TRTO do/will issue a command endorsement to all pilots on the A320 with them.

No need for the cadets to be "released" in order to get the hours for an ATPL, as you see above obviously Skippers does ICUS with their F/Os, and with that ICUS time, the pilot qualified for ATPL within 2 years 10 months after starting their CPL training with zero “GA” time.

[Bo777]

Now as far as I am aware, the Jetstar/TRTO do/will issue a command endorsement to all pilots on the A320 with them.

No need for the cadets to be "released" in order to get the hours for an ATPL, as you see above obviously Skippers does ICUS with their F/Os, and with that ICUS time, the pilot qualified for ATPL within 2 years 10 months after starting their CPL training with zero “GA” time.

swh
So seeing you've got all the "inside" goss about J*cadet program. Please tell us what their ICUS program consists of. I'm all ears.

the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision

[travelator]

shw reckons
And that would equally apply to a direct entry pilot with 6000 hrs total time, but insufficient instrument or night experience to qualify for an ATPL. Being a “cadet” or not does not come into it.From the recruitment website:
What are the minimum requirements to join Jetstar Airways?

The minimum requirements for selection as a pilot in Jetstar Airways are;

* Hold an Australian ATPL,

The only pilots that will be employed as a JFO's will be cadets. Like B0777 said, there is no garauntee that these guys will even be employed under the current EBA.

I'm not going to argue the GA V Cadet thing but I will say this. In general, the guy starting from GA already has 5-10 years of aviation and LIFE experience before the airline experience even begins. Certainly a valuable "head start".

[flyby]

SWH

I dont know what your GA experience was like but your qoute --
"has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job.
By the way CRM skills can and should be developed well before you jump into a two crew environment.

The last 5 years i did in GA was all IFR heavy twin rpt operations, the check and training regime was not much removed from my first airline job.

The failure model you describe maybe jet specific however check and training i was exposed to involved multiple failures to the aircraft specific to our operation ,
In my opinion dealing with a **** day in the real world with multiple redundancies is easier two crew than single pilot, Believe me ive been exposed to both those situations.

Command situational models are different when you change seats, and although the right seat is great place to learn skills to deal with your jobs specific challenges it all looks a whole lot different in on the other side.

Those years making command decisions in GA were invaluable especially when you need to think outside the square in a stressful non normal situation.

Im not saying that without GA experience all others pale in comparison, just that it gives a pilot a depth that really makes life a bit easier when you get your first jet job and upgrade.
Anyway just my humble opinion.

[rmcdonal]

You can learn that from the RHS, and the more exposure pilots have to cascading failures in a simulator during their cyclic training, the more relevant skills they have before they move to the LHS.
Everything I learnt in the sim allowed me to pass more sim sessions. Everything I learnt in the left seat taught me to still be alive in the left seat the next day. Sure I have learnt from those in the left seat (I learnt more in 5Min from an ag pilot in then everyone else combined) However the things I screwed up and fixed myself were far more useful then any of my sim sessions when it came to decision making.
The exposure you talk of is completely subjective to the check Captain in charge of the sim, all of my command training came from bringing the aircraft back to the ground in one piece (accept for that time it came down in 2 pieces :\ :ok:) without knowing that any potentially incorrect call I made would be vetoed by the Captain.

[swh]

So seeing you've got all the "inside" goss about J*cadet program.

I have already stated I have no inside knowledge or affiliation with Jetstar.

The only pilots that will be employed as a JFO's will be cadets. Like B0777 said, there is no garauntee that these guys will even be employed under the current EBA.

Jetstar has employed pilots in the past without an Australian ATPL. Your application would be accepted today if you have the experience requirements without an Australian ATPL. If that makes you competitive enough against other application in the current pool, that is another matter.

The EBA covers all pilots employed by Jetstar, refer to para 1.1 of the EBA.

Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job.

That statement is not credible.

[dxbpilot]

There wasn't much going on in Aus so I made the trip to Europe for a job.

Majority of Capts in the company I work for joined as cadets with no previous experience. 3 to 4 years later are upgraded on the 737.

I fly regularly with Capts with around 3000 TT !! Combined cockpit age is regularly less than 50.

Is there any advantage for the Aussie job market having some 737 PIC time ?

I'm guessing for VB that everyone joins at the same level as a new F/O no matter the hours ?

[captkuhrt]

Can someone help? I'm working on a childrens book abt a friend who died in a plane crash at Embry in Prescott AZ in 2000. His final flight before graduation. He took the plane up with his instructor for the "stall test". The plane crashed, both were killed.
I need to know what may have happened in the cockpit. I do not know a thing about flying. For ex: did he push up? push down? may the plane have rolled? it did not flame.
I just need basics for the book which is directed to 10-14 yr olds. Does anyone have time to answer, I want to do this for my dear friend who died, Captain Tyson Kuhrt.
Thanks so much! I'm nearing the final chapter of the book and need this info.
Robin

[travelator]

SWH
The EBA covers all pilots employed by Jetstar, refer to para 1.1 of the EBA.
Correct, but only if you are employed under that EBA. It does not apply to any of the other Jetstar companies (NZ, Singapore etc). Like I said, there is no garauntee that they will be employed under this EBA. They may be "offered" a position anywhere under any existing or new agreement.

Reading posts from other threads it appears that they are not taking on cadets that already have an ATPL (nor should they, that is not a cadet scheme). If employed under the current Australian EBA they would draw a normal FO salary. If no ATPL then JFO pay until qualified. In order to qualify they need the ICUS or time off to get command in their own time. Why would the company allow this as once the cadet has an ATPL, their pay goes up. Lets not kid ourselves here, this scheme is ONLY about reducing costs. It is the mantra of the LCC.

[Bo777]

It's quite obvious swh is a little confused. He states:
I have already stated I have no inside knowledge or affiliation with Jetstar. then in the next breathYour application would be accepted today if you have the experience requirements without an Australian ATPL. Really?
By the way swh look at para 4.1 of the EBA The EBA covers all pilots employed by Jetstar, refer to para 1.1 of the EBA
swh do you know what a douchebag is?

[flyby]

SWH

Can you tell me why my statement is not credible?, but my guess is you probably cant, Why because you have no idea !

Maaaaaate :ugh:

[swh]

Correct, but only if you are employed under that EBA.

I have only been talking about Jetstar, not Jetstar NZ, Jetstar Asia etc.

It does not apply to any of the other Jetstar companies (NZ, Singapore etc).

I do realise that. I think there could be a high chance that pilots trained through CTC (who also do the Easyjet training) will remain in NZ, the whole course is geared to be more attractive to NZ residents. But I think there is little chance of being deployed to Singapore, pilots would need to undergo all of the UK CAA ATPL exams, the Australian or NZ subjects are not recognised on a CPL.

Reading posts from other threads it appears that they are not taking on cadets that already have an ATPL (nor should they, that is not a cadet scheme).

Two cadet schemes are at play, the Ab Initio Program and the Advanced Cadet Program. I could see a pilot with an ATPL but without the ME requirements for direct entry being accepted by the Advanced Cadet Program.

this scheme is ONLY about reducing costs

Yes and no. By getting qualified pilots that are A320 type rated using your SOPs as the entry point, it does reduce the training cost to Jetstar compared to a direct entry pilot. It also guarantees supply of trained FOs which is just as important to an airline. Tiger has had numerous problems in the past trying to recruit pilots.

Really?

Yes. For example, pilots coming from the Australian Defence Force only receive a CPL based upon their ADF qualification, they do not necessarily have the experience to qualify for an ATPL even if they have the ATPL subjects.

Can you tell me why my statement is not credible?, but my guess is you probably cant, Why because you have no idea !

You claim that double hydraulic failures and an associated engine failure was a "standard days work", I would have seen all the ATSB reports. I recall none at all. Your statement lacks credibility.

[travelator]

I have only been talking about Jetstar too! Or possibly Jetstar Grounp which will be a whole new low. These days Jetstar takes on many different forms and scales and things are no longer black and white.
By getting qualified pilots that are A320 type rated using your SOPs as the entry point, it does reduce the training cost to Jetstar compared to a direct entry pilot.Correct me if I'm wrong but they only ever recruit A320 rated crew. Direct entry have to pay for an endorsement before they start and Jetstar also receive a spotters fee from the training organisation. As far as I'm aware, the Alteon endorsement is now done as per the Jetstar SOP's but I may be wrong. I would be reasonably confident that the endorsement course that the cadets are given will be same as the direct entry. It certainly reduces the training cost becasue the cadet is payed much less. Speak to any training captains in other companies that have used a scheme like this (REX, Qlink etc) and I would be pretty sure that they would say the experienced guy is far easier and quicker to train. The cadet will have to be fed a lot more knowledge and need more time to develop their skills in general compared to the experienced guy who brings much of the knowledge and skill required. This is a general statement as I'm sure there are brilliant cadets and idiot DE's.

Two cadet schemes are at play, the Ab Initio Program and the Advanced Cadet Program.I realise that. Again this comes back to cost cutting. Other cadet schemes in other airlines (QF etc) take a green pilot (zero experience) and mould them over time into valuable members of the flight crew. They are paid the same as the rest of the crew and fill the third seat (generally) for many years until they have the vast experience required. This new scheme does not play like this. It will take any already qualified pilot and stick them in a seat after taking thousands of dollars from them and paying them less than their fellow crew. It is simply and only a way to cut costs. Just like the new check in systems are designed to make paid staff redundant, not make life easier for passengers.

[swh]

Correct me if I'm wrong but they only ever recruit A320 rated crew. Direct entry have to pay for an endorsement before they start and Jetstar also receive a spotters fee from the training organisation.

You do not need to have an A320 endorsement to be recruited by Jetstar. Pilots do pay for the endorsement (either upfront or through salary sacrifice). But I do not know if pilots are on the Jetstar payroll whilst undergoing the A320 endorsement, that maybe the point you were making.

I would be reasonably confident that the endorsement course that the cadets are given will be same as the direct entry.

I would agree, however cadets undergo further training before starting the endorsement.

Speak to any training captains in other companies that have used a scheme like this (REX, Qlink etc) and I would be pretty sure that they would say the experienced guy is far easier and quicker to train. The cadet will have to be fed a lot more knowledge and need more time to develop their skills in general compared to the experienced guy who brings much of the knowledge and skill required.

I would agree in general, but once checked to line it is not that easy to tell the difference.

Other cadet schemes in other airlines (QF etc) take a green pilot (zero experience) and mould them over time into valuable members of the flight crew.

The Qlink cadetship has a CPL as the entry point. Other airlines around the world have "Advanced Cadet Programs" or similar which combines MCC and a Type Rating (and sometime a licence conversion), to pilot that are between the Ab Initio and Direct Entry experience levels.

Just like the new check in systems are designed to make paid staff redundant, not make life easier for passengers.

Like internet check-in, they also allow for airlines to expand passenger numbers and operating hours without all the indirect costs of increasing staffing levels. More passengers can travel with the same workforce, the ratio of passengers to the number of staff can increase.

Would you advocate getting rid of ATMs and internet banking and going back to counter only service at banks ? Customer convenience is something that is not airline specific, if anything airlines have been a bit slow on the uptake and application of technology in this area.

[flyby]

I dont know what your GA experience was like but your qoute --
"has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job.


No again your absolutely incorrect, please tell me where i mentioned double hydraulic failures and engine failures , because at last read I was talking about , time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

I suspect your cadetship is clouding your perception. :rolleyes:

[swh]

No again your absolutely incorrect, please tell me where i mentioned double hydraulic failures and engine failures , because at last read I was talking about ,

Look at the full context of the quote. This is what I originally posted.

"A command scenario on say an A320 could include a dual hydraulic failure, one engine out, primary destination closed and alternate with a circling approach only down to circling minima at night, minimum fuel, and two very sick passengers, then throw in a cargo fire close to the MSA for good measure.

The command skills in getting that A320 down safely has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

in reply you said

"Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job."

The scenario you were referring therefore was the command scenario I posted. I said in reply that it is not credible for you to claim that was a "standard days work in my last GA job". To which you now appear to capitulate.

Airlines have one standard for a first officer, and one standard for command regardless of their background. It takes a lot of effort to gain a first officer or command position, I have seen ex-F/A-18 instructors fail their first attempt, and I have seen cadets pass first attempt. You cannot pay a bag of money to guarentee a pass, even in Jetstar. http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/424952-pilot-who-failed-test-must-pay-training-court.html

Previous experience is no guarantee that any candidate will pass any course, those who are not open to what is being taught and rely on their "previous life" often do not meet the required standard in the normal time.

[j3pipercub]

Just for the record swh,

A standard scenario for myself involves double hydraulic failures, V1 cuts, Engine fires/loss of electrics. This is done twice a year, in a simulator, and I'm only in GA...hmmmmm

j3

[A37575]

A command scenario on say an A320 could include a dual hydraulic failure, one engine out, primary destination closed and alternate with a circling approach only down to circling minima at night, minimum fuel, and two very sick passengers, then throw in a cargo fire close to the MSA for good measure.

That is just the sort of rubbish dreamed up by management pilots that is a total waste of valuable simulator time. It doesn't prove a thing in terms of command ability. In real life, that combination of circumstances would be laughed out of any court room as nonsensically improbable. By all means play with those sort of time-wasting "what if" scenarios over a coffee in a briefing room just to get a laugh, but spare the poor bloody command candidate this type of "training" in a simulator...:ugh:

[waren9]

+1.

Absolute tosh.

Command ability is about keeping youself out of that sort of situation in the first place.. It is not about the ability to fix a set a set of circumstances, that combined, are less probable than winning the lottery.

[Artificial Horizon]

Any instructor or checkie that gives that sort of scenario in the simulator deserved to get his or her marching orders because they are sadistic. That is the kind of scenario that is designed purely to 'break' the candidate and the chances of it hapening in 'real' life slim at best. I spent most of my career in the UK flying with Captains in their early 30's who had joined the airline in their late teens and early 20's as cadets. They went straigh from 180 hours into the right hand seat of DC10's, 747's, 767's etc. They were very capable, the more airline flying you do the more 'irrelevant' your single engine / ga experience becomes. Lets not forget that by the time these guys and girls become Captains they will have completed 3-5000 hours of flying in the airbus and will as such be classed in my book as 'experienced'.

[Dreamflyer1000]

Lets not forget that by the time these guys and girls become Captains they will have completed 3-5000 hours of flying in the airbus and will as such be classed in my book as 'experienced'.

If you get to fly with GOOD, DECENT crew as an FO, you are going to learn heaps. If you get to fly with that same crew numerous times or for the majority of that 3-5000hrs, you have your OWN experiences to pull from AND that of your higher qualified crew who have taught you a thing or too..They are experienced.

As long as these newbies are prepared to spend 'as long as it takes' with no expectations, I see nothing wrong with these guys moving up the food chain.

[swh]

It doesn't prove a thing in terms of command ability.

It is not a pass fail session, it is training. The aim of the LOFT session is not to get the aircraft on the ground in one piece (that is a bonus), it is to put the pilot under stress, and to get them to recognize their command style, and then give them the tools to build on that.

If you were to facilitate the session, what failure would you introduce to get to a dual hydraulic failure (the point being to get the crew to work through the QRH summaries) and at the end of the session to evacuate the aircraft on the runway ?

In real life, that combination of circumstances would be laughed out of any court room as nonsensically improbable.

A single uncontained engine failure could cause that situation. Although "improbable" they can and do happen, I think on average 4 every year in the last 10 years on various aircraft types.