What's REX going to do?

[Fonz121]

Does anyone have any idea what REX are doing with regard to their cadets getting a command? They've hired bugger all direct entry guys in the last year and with the industry looking like it might pick up a little this year I would have thought they would be starting to run out of upgradeable FOs.

Am I right in saying that the cadets still have no way of upgrading for a command?

Recently REX said that they are now recruiting 100% cadets ( I think I read that in their senate submission). My understanding is that they will need 500 multi command to upgrade. Where is this coming from?

Not trying to start a REX slanging match. Genuine question.

[Power]

ICUS ?
........

[Mach E Avelli]

Yes, ICUS. Most cadets will have quick commands if they hang in there for a while, assuming that Rex survives the onslaught. Because most of their experienced pilots will get soaked up by the new DJ operation (see separate thread).
Impossible you say? Many UK operators have been doing it for years. There was a time when 1500 hours got you a turboprop command and 2500-3000 hours got you a jet command. What's more, they don't crash any more than anywhere else, and a lot less than some places. Their weather is so much worse than some places, too.
Modern automation has certainly helped, but fast track commands have been happening at various stages of the industry cycle since WW2 ended.

[THE ORACLE]

Mach,

While not disputing your comments, I think your assessment is a little too simplistic.

I doubt there is a politician or aviation bureaucrat alive anywhere in this country, who would put their name to any regulatory change that could be in any way be construed as contributing to a regional airliner accident or incident in the future, regardless of the ultimate cause.

As far as automation goes, lets not forget that automation in all its forms on the flight deck is only an aid to navigation and it is not a replacement for trained, skilled and experienced pilots.

If the GPS and EFIS fails due to electrical problems or lightning strikes, etc, the pilots must be able to land safely using backup instruments, map, compass, pencil, watch and brains. Worldwide there is now a large body of human factors CRM knowledge highlighting the folly of automation over reliance and the associated loss of pilot situational awareness as a contributing factor in accidents and incidents.

Commercial air service operators can 'bleat' about 'poaching' each others pilots and the need for cadet programmes, etc., but the Government and CASA are ultimately responsible for regulating air safety and the media is very active in reminding the public of that responsibility everytime there is an accident or incident.

The Oracle

[Icarus2001]

who would put their name to any regulatory change I agree with oracle. HOWEVER, no change is required to simply ICUS up the cadets and then give a command. How does Qantas do it with their cadets. Bugger all command time then second officer, first officer then bingo COMMAND. It already happens, Skippers do it in the west.

[mcgrath50]

Doesn't QF have an exemption in regards to ICUS and FOs?

[das Uber Soldat]

I'm seeing a lot of talk here about icus but not a lot of understanding Rex are unable to conduct ICUS of it's FO's in the right seat. This may change when casa decides to grant them an exception.

Which I'm sure they are falling over each other to do.

[neville_nobody]

I agree with oracle. HOWEVER, no change is required to simply ICUS up the cadets and then give a command. How does Qantas do it with their cadets. Bugger all command time then second officer, first officer then bingo COMMAND. It already happens, Skippers do it in the west.

QF don't have a 500 ME command Requirement due to High Capacity RPT. You also filter through the CASA approved training system.

To ICUS up cadets you would have to make 3/4 of your captains training captains and have them fly in the RHS while cadet is in the LHS seat acting as Captain (Yes I know there is no requirement to be in the LHS to log ICUS but it would make practical sense)

REX would then have to pay all these Captains training captain wages.

Skippers can back door it a bit by putting guys on charter flights and keep them off the RPT services.

After what has happened in the US it would be a very very brave soul who signs off on such a dispensation for Rex. The legal ramifications for CASA of a 1500 hour captain buying the farm with a 250 hour FO doesn't bear thinking about when the agencies in the USA are recommending increasing the minimum experience levels.

Don't forget this ain't Europe and Rex are flying in uncontrolled airspace, mostly with non precision approaches in ice/rain/snow/sleet/duststorms/thunderstorms etc

Something has to be done but lowering the experience levels isn't an option.

My suggesting would be to offer guys guaranteed career progression as being the only way REX will keep anyone.

[Fonz121]

Yeah I'm well aware of the fact that REX FO's can't presently log ICUS (sorry should have made that clear in the original post). This is why I'm curious as to what they are going to do.

It's as if management know something that no one else does. I agree that it would be pretty stupid and ballsy of CASA to allow an exemption for this to happen.

And what's the point of regs if you're just going to exempt them to suit companies who want to get an unfair competitive advantage by locking their staff in for seven years simply because they won't provide decent T&C's?

So either REX management know something we don't about possible exemptions, or things will get interesting in the coming year.

[gas-chamber]

A training capt gets 5% extra. A cadet gets sfa. So why wouldnt Rex make eveyone in the left seat a trainer? When the cadets get the CASA license then on paper they meet the job requirement. Some of you guys are in denial. If they lose drivers cadets will get early commands. Bet. Then REX will be happy to lose the training capt's because they can still pay sfa.

[LeadSled]

Doesn't QF have an exemption in regards to ICUS and FOs?No, not really. After something like 100h in command, all QF mainline Captains are listed to supervise an F/O doing a sector. Have a close look at what the present (non-ICAO) reg. actually says. What it doesn't say is that only training Captains can supervise ICUS.

In reality, what QF mainline does is log hours in accord with ICAO Annex 1.

Quite why a large number of operators make a rod for their own back in this matter has always mystified me.

Why the AFAP have accepted such a rule, that only disadvantages their members, is an even greater mystery.

Tootle pip!!

[GAFA]

REX won't need that many captains (or FOs) once the Virgin Blue/Skywest Turboprop operation starts.

[Centaurus]

ICUS ?


Just another name for dual instruction. But "In command" even though followed by "under supervision", really turns some pilots on, as their pen flies to their log book ICUS column. :cool:

[neville_nobody]

A training capt gets 5% extra. A cadet gets sfa. So why wouldnt Rex make eveyone in the left seat a trainer? When the cadets get the CASA license then on paper they meet the job requirement. Some of you guys are in denial. If they lose drivers cadets will get early commands. Bet. Then REX will be happy to lose the training capt's because they can still pay sfa.

Assuming that line Captains are happy to sign up for the extra responsibility.

Cadets don't meet the requirements for a command as they don't have a ATPL till they meet the requirements and they will also need 500 multi command which also needs to be negotiated somehow. So without a dispensation or some charter flying these cadets won't be captains any time soon.

[apache]

What's REX going to do?


probably just do what they always do!

Blame everyone for their problems, refuse to do anything to RETAIN current drivers, and HOPE like hell for a break in the recruitment drive.

failing that - stop some services, report to the press that the pilots are being unreasonable and won't work extra hard for no extra money, and hope the problem goes away.

[mustafagander]

REX could always ask their FOI for advice.

That might be interesting!! I wonder what she might say???

[Mach E Avelli]

I repeat. They will ICUS cadets to command just like Skippers and Qantas and every other operator can do if they so wish. As for whether enough of the existing line captains would sign up to be trainers, of course they will. If not for the 5% increment, then to add the qualification to their resumes.
I am not suggesting that this is the best way to acquire experience, but hey, it has worked in many other parts of the world for long enough now to know that if it is done properly it is quite safe. It will work here and we will see a lot more of it in years to come.

[Fonz121]

I repeat. They will ICUS cadets to command just like Skippers and Qantas and every other operator can do if they so wish.

But they can't Mach! Qantas can because they're operate under a high capacity AOC. And I believe Skippers get their cadets hours under charter category and not RPT.

REX cadets at present CAN NOT log ICUS.

[F111]

I worked for a Regional Airline 6 years ago, operating Turboprops and we were working on an ICUS for the FOs with the full support of CASA. I think Macair may have also had an ICUS program.

[swh]

HOWEVER, no change is required to simply ICUS up the cadets and then give a command.

Should read, "no regulatory change", as the regulations currently allow for Rex (for that matter any type of operation) to carry out ICUS with co-pilots with command endorsements.

Doesn't QF have an exemption in regards to ICUS and FOs?

No, none is required.

I'm seeing a lot of talk here about icus but not a lot of understanding Rex are unable to conduct ICUS of it's FO's in the right seat. This may change when casa decides to grant them an exception.

No exemption is required.

ICUS can be conducted in private, aerial work, charter, high capacity RPT, and in other than high capacity RPT operations as long it is approved by the operator. Read the CARs, pilots logging ICUS need to be approved by the operator, not by CASA.

QF don't have a 500 ME command Requirement due to High Capacity RPT.

CAO 82.3 does not say a pilot in command of an RPT operation with a MTOW >5700kg in other than high capacity operations needs to have 500 ME command.

If we look at the actual wording ....

"2 000 hours total experience as a pilot, that includes: Command (multi-engine aeroplane) instrument rating 500 hours as pilot in command (or acting as pilot in command under supervision) on multi-engine aeroplanes under the I.F.R.; and 50 hours as pilot in command (or acting as pilot in command under supervision) on the aeroplane type; and 100 hours experience as a pilot on night operations."

Now Rex in their OPS manual may impose more restrictive requirements, that is their business, it would more likely linked to their insurance policy.

Note also all the command hours needed for an ATPL in excess of the command hours required for the issue of a CPL, can also be gained via ICUS.

Qantas can because they're operate under a high capacity AOC. And I believe Skippers get their cadets hours under charter category and not RPT.


The type of AOC or category filed on a flight plan is irrelevant condition for logging ICUS. ICUS can be logged in any type of operation if you meet the requirements set out in the CARs.

I worked for a Regional Airline 6 years ago, operating Turboprops and we were working on an ICUS for the FOs with the full support of CASA. I think Macair may have also had an ICUS program.

Yes many operators in Australia have their pilot legally logging ICUS in the RH seat, even in aircraft above 5700 kg, in other than high capacity RPT operations.

[apache]

but for the F/O to log ICUS, he/she would HAVE to hold an ATPL.... which they won't! as they don't have the required hours in command!


Now Rex in their OPS manual may impose more restrictive requirements, that is their business, it would more likely linked to their insurance policy.


I don't think that REX would make it MORE restrictive, if it is going to hinder their grand plan.

I guess they could always go back to being instructors at the Academy for a year.

[KRUSTY 34]

Yeah apache!

The blind leading the blind.

You're right about one thing old mate, why would REX make it more restrictive if the ICUS proponents say it's so easy. Speaking of them, this debate has been done to death, and still no clear winner, so please guys! Some time ago I attempted to elicit an answer from the CP. All I got were words to the effect, "...it'll happen some day soon". That was well over a year ago!

For the majority of newish F/O's (ex-cadets) it's still rather academic, lots of hurdles to jump yet. For the people getting closer to the mins (sans ICUS), they are still as much in the dark as everyone else.

From what I can gather a major sticking point may be the inability of the candidate from performing all the duties of PIC (taxiing the aircraft being just one) whilst occupying the RHS on normal line ops? Another is that ICAO annex 1 clearly and continuously refers to the logging of ICUS on Normal line ops as being for the attainment of a "...higher catagory of pilot licence." Nothing about satisfying the requirements of the Low Cap AOC. Having said that, CASA recently changed the command requirements for the ATPL from 250 hours (of which 150 may be ICUS) to 500 hours with only 70 hours now required for (real) Command time. So there are forces at work, within the regulator at least, that are manipulating the system so as to benefit the crewing situation of some operators!

Whatever the reasons, I'm guessing there are still interested parties that may be a little nervous about signing off on such an unclear process.

Perhaps some training or checking types at REX could shed some light on the progress of this scheme?

[swh]

but for the F/O to log ICUS, he/she would HAVE to hold an ATPL.... which they won't! as they don't have the required hours in command!

Lets have a look at what the regulations actually say ....

5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision

(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision
only if:

(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew
pilot (aeroplane) licence; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a commercial pilot
licence, an air transport pilot licence or a multi-crew pilot (aeroplane) licence;
and

(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or her to fly
the aircraft as pilot in command; and

(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight crew
rating is required — the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight
crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that activity as pilot in
command of the aircraft concerned; and

(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and

(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as pilot
acting in command under supervision; and

(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose by the
operator of the aircraft.

So the licence requirement to conduct ICUS is either a CPL, ATPL, MPL, or a CoV that is in effect the same as a CPL, ATPL, or MPL.

The myth that an ATPL is required is rubbish. The person doing ICUS is not the PIC, they are only a co-pilot.


I don't think that REX would make it MORE restrictive, if it is going to hinder their grand plan.

Their grand plan is to make money, not to train pilots. If being more restrictive in their OPSs manual than the regulations, it may save them 5-10% off their insurance premium, then that makes them more money.

Flying a SF340 is not hard, flying in Australia is not hard (flat and good Wx). And all that will have come from the pilots in Rex that they cannot move with the times and embrace the way the industry is moving, Rex will just turn around and hire overseas pilots with experience on 457 visas.

The people in industry that will pay for this egotistical anti-ICUS stance that seems engrained in the people from Rex are the young pilots of Australia with little experience. They would be more than capable to be co-pilots on a slow light twin like the SF340.

From what I can gather a major sticking point may be the inability of the candidate from performing all the duties of PIC (taxiing the aircraft being just one) whilst occupying the RHS on normal line ops?

CAR 5.01(3) does not say “all the duties of PIC”, and a number of operators in Australia authorise their pilots to conduct ICUS on aircraft without a tiller installed on the co-pilots side.

This is what 5.01(3) actually says....

(3) For the purposes of this Part, a person flies an aircraft as pilot
acting in command under supervision if, during flight time in the aircraft, the
person performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command while under
the supervision of the pilot in command approved for the purpose by the
operator of the aircraft.

Furthermore the SF340 flight manual does not say the PIC must seat in the LHS, nor does the flight manual, nor any CASA regulation state that the PIC must taxi the aircraft.

The PIC for any flight in Australia does not need to occupy any control seat, it is impractical on smaller aircraft without a jumpseat. On larger aircraft with jumpseats, the PIC may legally under CAR 225 (2) be in the jumpseat, or even in the bunk whilst still being in command.

(2) When, in accordance with these regulations, 2 or more pilots are
required to be on board an aircraft, the pilot in command must ensure that 2
pilots remain at the controls at all times when the aircraft is taking off,
landing and during turbulent conditions in flight.

No regulation in Australia requires the PIC to occupy any control seat.

Another is that ICAO annex 1 clearly and continuously refers to the logging of ICUS on Normal line ops as being for the attainment of a "...higher catagory of pilot licence."

ICAO recommendations in the various annexes are just that recommendations. They are not law in Australia unless adopted in the CARs/CAOs etc.

If we look at what ICAO actually say

Pilot-in-command under supervision. Co-pilot performing, under
the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-
in-command, in accordance with a method of supervision acceptable to the
Licensing Authority.

Then is goes on to talk about “2.1.9 Crediting of flight time”

2.1.9.4 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as pilot-in-command
under supervision, shall be entitled to be credited in full with this flight time
towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot licence.

Which is exactly what the Australian regulations state. When going for a higher grade of licence, ICUS is counted at the rate of 100% in Australia.

The standard international practice adopted by CAAs around the world is for F/Os to log P1 U/S on legs they operate, regardless if they have an ATPL or not without an upper limitation on the number of ICUS hours that can be logged.

If your interpretation was correct, which it is not, no pilot that has an ATPL would be able to log ICUS to meet the 25/50 hour ICUS requirement in CAO 40.1 8A.2 when transferring to a new type on aircraft above 5700 kg.

Having said that, CASA recently changed the command requirements for the ATPL from 250 hours (of which 150 may be ICUS) to 500 hours with only 70 hours now required for (real) Command time.

Define recent, I have been through at least 2 cars and 20 women in that time.

[no one]

I just wander what will happen to GA (which gave me my career path) if all the airlines go towards cadet programmes.
While I have had many a fun (and hard) times and experiences in GA, my long term goal was always to get into an airline, if I was to go through it all again from the start and knowing that the cadetships are basically the only way to eventually become an airline pilot, then I wouldn't consider the traditional way.
Now if we start getting more and more people thinking like this will GA suffer as it is a very important and vital service in our remote areas of Australia.

And another topic, saw 10 Capt. positions advertised on internal website a few days ago.

no one