Jet Star - Action Needs To Be Taken
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who can seriously sit here and say they would rather have a kid with 200 hrs flying them from A to B than an experienced pilot is full of ****. I work at an airline that has had a cadet program running for years but the difference is that there is a rigorous selection process followed by an 18 month full time flight training course where quite a few guys wash out.
After that it's 3 or 4 years sitting in the observers seat learning the operation with no less than 6 sims per year with some rather nasty sim instructors and check captains.
Then if you get through all of that you upgrade to F/O but only after you pass an upgrade interview and no less than 40 sectors of line training.
Even after all of that we get the occasional guy slip through the cracks.
That is the difference between a real cadet program and what Jstar are doing.
The point of the matter is not whether cadetships work or not, they clearly do, but do you need them in Australia with an already huge pool of experienced guys who were motivated enough and passionate enough about flying that they willingly put themselves through the trials and tribulations of GA.
This Jstar scheme is purely a cost saving measure and in fact could be seen as a revenue raising measure by the more cynical of us.
Do we really want an industry based on selecting the best guys possible for the job or one where the job goes to the highest bidder.
After that it's 3 or 4 years sitting in the observers seat learning the operation with no less than 6 sims per year with some rather nasty sim instructors and check captains.
Then if you get through all of that you upgrade to F/O but only after you pass an upgrade interview and no less than 40 sectors of line training.
Even after all of that we get the occasional guy slip through the cracks.
That is the difference between a real cadet program and what Jstar are doing.
The point of the matter is not whether cadetships work or not, they clearly do, but do you need them in Australia with an already huge pool of experienced guys who were motivated enough and passionate enough about flying that they willingly put themselves through the trials and tribulations of GA.
This Jstar scheme is purely a cost saving measure and in fact could be seen as a revenue raising measure by the more cynical of us.
Do we really want an industry based on selecting the best guys possible for the job or one where the job goes to the highest bidder.
As airlines are driven by customer sentiment I wonder how long it would take for a change in recruiting patterns if they were required to make an announcement that the flight being boarded will have a Cadet First Officer under training in the cockpit?
As a matter of interest given the pro and against stance:
AAIU Formal Report No2003/010
AAIU File No: 2002/0050 ]Published: 6th Aug 2003
Ryanair
Manufacturer: Boeing
Model: B737-204 ADV
Nationality: Irish
Registration: EI-CJE
Location: During climb out from Derry Airport.
Date/Time (UTC):28 September, 2002, 08.20 hours.
(First Officer)
Personal DetailsMale, Age 22
Licence CPL 343263
Total all types 382.25
(Commander)
Personal DetailsMale, Age 34
It is clear from the pilots debriefing into this incident that the pressurisation system controls were not in the normal configuration, at least from after take-off at 08.03Z to the resolution of the problem between 08.18Z and 08.24Z, when permission to climb to FL310 was requested. While the Captain’s decision to perform a “Bleeds Off” take-off was done in the interest of the relatively inexperienced FO, (this was his first such take-off), the Cross Cockpit Gradient of experience was quite steep in this instance. It was unfortunate that the additional switching prior and after take-off led to the FO describing retrospectively, in his own words, “mentally becoming overloaded with new information which potentially had serious effects”. And this, in effect, is what transpired. The FO switched the pack switches to OFF and this went unnoticed by the Captain in subsequent checks and ignored by the FO, until the aircraft levelled off at FL270. That all was not well was brought to the crews attention by the sounding of what they understood to be the configuration warning horn.
SERIOUS INCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: Airbus A320, G-DHJZ
No & Type of Engines: 2 CFM56-5B4/P turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2003
Date & Time (UTC): 5 July 2007 at 1205 hrs
Location: Kos Airport, Greece
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 6 Passengers - 180
Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None
Nature of Damage: Severe damage to main landing gear
Commander’s Licence: Air Transport Pilot’s Licence
Commander’s Age: 47 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 12,100 hours (of which 950 were on type)
Last 90 days - 174 hours
Last 28 days - 38 hours
Co-pilot’s Age 34 years
Co-pilot’s Flying Experience 381 hours (of which 147 were on type)
Last 90 days - 154 hours
Last 28 days - 49 hours
Synopsis
The aircraft landed heavily on Runway 32 at Kos Airport, causing substantial damage to the aircraft’s main landing gear. It touched down with a high rate of descent, following a late initiation of the flare by the co‑pilot, who was undergoing line training. Three safety recommendations are made.
Late in 2006, he attended selection tests for a ‘Cadetship’ programme offered by a commercial flying training organisation (FTO), in conjunction with the operator (of G-DHJZ)6; the tests were run by the training organisation. Under the scheme, a cadet would pay for a ‘Jet Bridge’7 course, type rating and 150 hours of line flying with the airline. Thereafter, there would be a possibility of employment should the airline concerned have any vacancies. The commercial training organisation paid the airline for its involvement in the training, enabling the airline to generate revenue through their training department,
Having cadet pilots is not risk free but if given good training and if the airline is properly resourced the risk is very much reduced. Of course after a period of time they do have the experience the risk is in the initial stages.
As a matter of interest given the pro and against stance:
AAIU Formal Report No2003/010
AAIU File No: 2002/0050 ]Published: 6th Aug 2003
Ryanair
Manufacturer: Boeing
Model: B737-204 ADV
Nationality: Irish
Registration: EI-CJE
Location: During climb out from Derry Airport.
Date/Time (UTC):28 September, 2002, 08.20 hours.
(First Officer)
Personal DetailsMale, Age 22
Licence CPL 343263
Total all types 382.25
(Commander)
Personal DetailsMale, Age 34
It is clear from the pilots debriefing into this incident that the pressurisation system controls were not in the normal configuration, at least from after take-off at 08.03Z to the resolution of the problem between 08.18Z and 08.24Z, when permission to climb to FL310 was requested. While the Captain’s decision to perform a “Bleeds Off” take-off was done in the interest of the relatively inexperienced FO, (this was his first such take-off), the Cross Cockpit Gradient of experience was quite steep in this instance. It was unfortunate that the additional switching prior and after take-off led to the FO describing retrospectively, in his own words, “mentally becoming overloaded with new information which potentially had serious effects”. And this, in effect, is what transpired. The FO switched the pack switches to OFF and this went unnoticed by the Captain in subsequent checks and ignored by the FO, until the aircraft levelled off at FL270. That all was not well was brought to the crews attention by the sounding of what they understood to be the configuration warning horn.
SERIOUS INCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: Airbus A320, G-DHJZ
No & Type of Engines: 2 CFM56-5B4/P turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2003
Date & Time (UTC): 5 July 2007 at 1205 hrs
Location: Kos Airport, Greece
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 6 Passengers - 180
Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None
Nature of Damage: Severe damage to main landing gear
Commander’s Licence: Air Transport Pilot’s Licence
Commander’s Age: 47 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 12,100 hours (of which 950 were on type)
Last 90 days - 174 hours
Last 28 days - 38 hours
Co-pilot’s Age 34 years
Co-pilot’s Flying Experience 381 hours (of which 147 were on type)
Last 90 days - 154 hours
Last 28 days - 49 hours
Synopsis
The aircraft landed heavily on Runway 32 at Kos Airport, causing substantial damage to the aircraft’s main landing gear. It touched down with a high rate of descent, following a late initiation of the flare by the co‑pilot, who was undergoing line training. Three safety recommendations are made.
Late in 2006, he attended selection tests for a ‘Cadetship’ programme offered by a commercial flying training organisation (FTO), in conjunction with the operator (of G-DHJZ)6; the tests were run by the training organisation. Under the scheme, a cadet would pay for a ‘Jet Bridge’7 course, type rating and 150 hours of line flying with the airline. Thereafter, there would be a possibility of employment should the airline concerned have any vacancies. The commercial training organisation paid the airline for its involvement in the training, enabling the airline to generate revenue through their training department,
Having cadet pilots is not risk free but if given good training and if the airline is properly resourced the risk is very much reduced. Of course after a period of time they do have the experience the risk is in the initial stages.
Last edited by Lookleft; 17th Feb 2011 at 04:47.
Pac2 and Artificialhorizon,
You both claim that low cost 200hr cadet jet copilots is how "the rest of the world" operates. This is absolutely false and you both know it.
You both claim that low cost 200hr cadet jet copilots is how "the rest of the world" operates. This is absolutely false and you both know it.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael.
Anyone who can seriously sit here and say anyone has previously said that they would prefer a 200 hour cadet to an experienced pilot, is himself full of the same material.
What has been said (or inferred) previously is that cadet systems are not inherently dangerous. Properly run and resourced they do work. Also has been said. Cadet systems are not required in this country due to the large pool of experienced pilots.
The point of it all is. If you wish to make, to the general public, an argument about the evil nature of J* plan, make sure it is based on sustainable fact. If you do not, you will lose all credibility with the target audience, and the outcome will not be what you are seeking, (with a great deal of support and empathy if I might add).
Do yourself a favor and reread the posts by those who have bothered to take a little time to lend a bit of advice, based on real world experience. Methinks we are in heated agreement on the core issues.
SS
Anyone who can seriously sit here and say they would rather have a kid with 200 hrs flying them from A to B than an experienced pilot is full of ****.
What has been said (or inferred) previously is that cadet systems are not inherently dangerous. Properly run and resourced they do work. Also has been said. Cadet systems are not required in this country due to the large pool of experienced pilots.
The point of it all is. If you wish to make, to the general public, an argument about the evil nature of J* plan, make sure it is based on sustainable fact. If you do not, you will lose all credibility with the target audience, and the outcome will not be what you are seeking, (with a great deal of support and empathy if I might add).
Do yourself a favor and reread the posts by those who have bothered to take a little time to lend a bit of advice, based on real world experience. Methinks we are in heated agreement on the core issues.
SS
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scam, I think that there may be an agreement on most levels, Mike seems to infer that at his airline, they have realised that the 200 hour cadet requires substantial extra training and experience before the cadet can be deemed safe to operate as an F/O.
Qantas does the same thing.
Again, Qantas is an example of this. The point that is being made is clearly that the Jetstar program is a money making / saving scheme, and the incumbent cadets through no fault of their own, cannot be considered safe to be in the RHS of an A320. The Jetstar scheme IS inherently dangerous. It IS NOT properly resourced or run.
Jetstar need to realise this, before a tragedy occurs. Media, you need to read this and report it.
Qantas does the same thing.
cadet systems are not inherently dangerous. Properly run and resourced they do work.
Jetstar need to realise this, before a tragedy occurs. Media, you need to read this and report it.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance.
You still miss the point.
What Michaels company do and what Qantas do, is not terribly relevant to any argument as to what is safe and what is not. Those comapies undoubtably run a safe cadet program. That is not to say that the way they do it is the only way.
Any opponents will simply trot out data on what goes on in the rest of the world and shoot you down in flames if you have no sustainable/quantifiable rebuttal.
200 hour cadets are a fact of life the world over. Many other countries/companies run cadet schemes. Many of those do not have the second officer concept. Never have never will. They put their guys into the RHS with minimal hours.
The resourcing that is required to do that sucessfully includes the provision of properly trained and qualified supervisors. You cannot go and put a 200 hour cadet with a 1500 hour wunderkind that has been in airlines for 2 years who has been extremely fortunate with his timing. If the regulator cannot trust the operators, (or is too weak to impose on the operators), to supply appropriately qualified people there should be a mandated minimum "cockpit experience level", to avoid the shonks like J* producing dangerous pairings of crews. If the company does not have sufficient experienced crews the system wil not work, and they will be forced to cast their net wider and increse the recruiting requirements.
I reiterate, I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current Australian environment.
SS
You still miss the point.
What Michaels company do and what Qantas do, is not terribly relevant to any argument as to what is safe and what is not. Those comapies undoubtably run a safe cadet program. That is not to say that the way they do it is the only way.
Any opponents will simply trot out data on what goes on in the rest of the world and shoot you down in flames if you have no sustainable/quantifiable rebuttal.
200 hour cadets are a fact of life the world over. Many other countries/companies run cadet schemes. Many of those do not have the second officer concept. Never have never will. They put their guys into the RHS with minimal hours.
The resourcing that is required to do that sucessfully includes the provision of properly trained and qualified supervisors. You cannot go and put a 200 hour cadet with a 1500 hour wunderkind that has been in airlines for 2 years who has been extremely fortunate with his timing. If the regulator cannot trust the operators, (or is too weak to impose on the operators), to supply appropriately qualified people there should be a mandated minimum "cockpit experience level", to avoid the shonks like J* producing dangerous pairings of crews. If the company does not have sufficient experienced crews the system wil not work, and they will be forced to cast their net wider and increse the recruiting requirements.
I reiterate, I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current Australian environment.
SS
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, SS. Your point is understood, though, respectfully, I disagree with the concept that a 200 hour cadet is safe with anyone but a qualified check and trainer. And there just an't enough of those to go around. The fact that other airlines might do it is irelevant.
What they do elsewhere is their business. Their latent failures are their latent failures. Their accidents are their accidents.
I will reiterate too; I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current environment! If Qantas want to do this with Jetstar, then it should be done properly, and that does not involve 200 hour pilots in the RHS of an A320.
Do I have the data to back that up? Nope, I have 20,000 hours flying, checking, training, instructing and observing. That tells me it is inherently unsafe. It may not be sustainable / quantifiable right now, but it will be when they have a smoking hole in the ground.
Cheers!
What they do elsewhere is their business. Their latent failures are their latent failures. Their accidents are their accidents.
I will reiterate too; I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current environment! If Qantas want to do this with Jetstar, then it should be done properly, and that does not involve 200 hour pilots in the RHS of an A320.
Do I have the data to back that up? Nope, I have 20,000 hours flying, checking, training, instructing and observing. That tells me it is inherently unsafe. It may not be sustainable / quantifiable right now, but it will be when they have a smoking hole in the ground.
Cheers!
So the cadet in front is using the B737 like I did when I learned?
I think a few bent firewalls, wingtip scrapes and broken landing gear will reverse the Jetstar program quickly.
I think a few bent firewalls, wingtip scrapes and broken landing gear will reverse the Jetstar program quickly.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the sky, mostly
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(although what help cruising around in the sunshine VFR is, is anyone's guess).
Flying a C210 around the bush for 1500 hours has absolutely nothing to do with operating a commercial jet in airline operations.
I do not know of any 1500 hr C210 pilots who have been employed as 737/320 pilots. To the best of my knowledge, the majority are hired from regional multi-crew turboprops – with the odd one getting in with significant multi-piston IFR time. With a growing FIFO sector, some also have jet time. This type of experience is very valuable indeed.
To prove the relevance of this experience you just have to look at turbo-prop Captains who have successfully moved straight to the left seat of a commercial jet. ALL of the experience that they were able to draw from was GA.
Cadetships have their place, but if given the choice I do believe that a quality candidate with experience is better than a quality candidate without. Granted not ALL GA pilots are suitable – but a great number of them are.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balance
That is exactly the point. If they have insufficient properly qualified people to supervise, the whole thing falls in a heap. Proper resourcing!!!
Then they have to go out and do it the traditional way.
Desmo.
Wouldn't have a clue, but I did say earlier that it is not appropriate in the US and Aus due to the large pool of qualified drivers.
SS
That is exactly the point. If they have insufficient properly qualified people to supervise, the whole thing falls in a heap. Proper resourcing!!!
Then they have to go out and do it the traditional way.
Desmo.
Wouldn't have a clue, but I did say earlier that it is not appropriate in the US and Aus due to the large pool of qualified drivers.
SS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sherm has lived and survived in at times hideously challenging foreign worlds of terrain, traffic, weather, poor english, non-precision approaches, night circling in snow etc etc etc and and shared some thousands of those hours with very very inexperienced Cadet trained F/Os.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
200 hrs, well 
me. 200 hrs does not get you a flying instructors job. 200 hrs means you have not a freckin clue. A crook night, severe turbulence, the Skipper's taken a bait and feels like s%it, and you are going to hand over a jet with 300 people on board to someone who has 200 HOURS? I was still in nappies when I had 200 hours. I was still in nappies when I had 600 hours, on a DC3 for chris sakes. What about Airmanship, or does it not exist anymore. Old fashioned perhaps, boring, perhaps. What about standards, or don't they exist anymore either. What utter lunatic thought this up? Let me guess, a bean counter. THERE IS NO SIM IN THE WORLD THAT CAN TEACH YOU AIRMANSHIP. Airmanship was shown on the A380. Ditto the 400 with the oxy bottle hole. Pilots that had come thru the RAAF, where they were kicked up the arse until they learnt. And you tell me that some pimply kid whose daddy paid for him to get a guernsey, arrives in the RHS of a commercial jet, and the skipper is supposed to wear it. The aircraft is not freckin McDonalds. I hope on the first hull loss that the airline is charged with murder. Murder of 200 plus people, the reason being one pilot was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to operate a commercial jet. After all my years in the air, I can think of many occasions, how much I appreciated a good and experienced F/O, times when two experienced brains were needed to get out of a sticky situation. One and a quarter brain would not have done it. What the fcuk are they thinking.
me. 200 hrs does not get you a flying instructors job. 200 hrs means you have not a freckin clue. A crook night, severe turbulence, the Skipper's taken a bait and feels like s%it, and you are going to hand over a jet with 300 people on board to someone who has 200 HOURS? I was still in nappies when I had 200 hours. I was still in nappies when I had 600 hours, on a DC3 for chris sakes. What about Airmanship, or does it not exist anymore. Old fashioned perhaps, boring, perhaps. What about standards, or don't they exist anymore either. What utter lunatic thought this up? Let me guess, a bean counter. THERE IS NO SIM IN THE WORLD THAT CAN TEACH YOU AIRMANSHIP. Airmanship was shown on the A380. Ditto the 400 with the oxy bottle hole. Pilots that had come thru the RAAF, where they were kicked up the arse until they learnt. And you tell me that some pimply kid whose daddy paid for him to get a guernsey, arrives in the RHS of a commercial jet, and the skipper is supposed to wear it. The aircraft is not freckin McDonalds. I hope on the first hull loss that the airline is charged with murder. Murder of 200 plus people, the reason being one pilot was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to operate a commercial jet. After all my years in the air, I can think of many occasions, how much I appreciated a good and experienced F/O, times when two experienced brains were needed to get out of a sticky situation. One and a quarter brain would not have done it. What the fcuk are they thinking.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TERESA
They are thinking $$$$$$$$$$$$ mate. That is all that counts my friend. Agreed 100% re the nappies thingy. I remember my first 12 months in the Dash 8 and I was lucky to have a handle on that after 600-700 hrs in it, that's after the 4500 odd I had prior to my first turbine F/O slot.
BUT, AND IT'S A BIG BUT, the difference between OZ and the rest of the world is this. We (OZ) have very benign weather and virtually zero terrain. 8/8ths blue most of the time and not much traffic. It is a relatively easy environment to operate in compared to Asia,N. America and Europe. European and Asian(reputable) carriers have cadet F/Os in the RHS, as has been pointed out, with very minimum experience and demonstrate day in day out that cadets are capable in all extremes of wx, terrain and traffic. Does it work in the rest of the world? Answer: YES.
I am sorry, but this parliamentary enquiry will be nothing but a big waste of $$$ and time. It will be business as usual and pilots are on a hiding to nothing.
They are thinking $$$$$$$$$$$$ mate. That is all that counts my friend. Agreed 100% re the nappies thingy. I remember my first 12 months in the Dash 8 and I was lucky to have a handle on that after 600-700 hrs in it, that's after the 4500 odd I had prior to my first turbine F/O slot.
BUT, AND IT'S A BIG BUT, the difference between OZ and the rest of the world is this. We (OZ) have very benign weather and virtually zero terrain. 8/8ths blue most of the time and not much traffic. It is a relatively easy environment to operate in compared to Asia,N. America and Europe. European and Asian(reputable) carriers have cadet F/Os in the RHS, as has been pointed out, with very minimum experience and demonstrate day in day out that cadets are capable in all extremes of wx, terrain and traffic. Does it work in the rest of the world? Answer: YES.
I am sorry, but this parliamentary enquiry will be nothing but a big waste of $$$ and time. It will be business as usual and pilots are on a hiding to nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution is simple. All fourstripers in JQ refuse to fly with a button pusher. Turn up to sign on, if given a kid with bumfluff on his face, walk out. Demand a fully qualified F/O, or leave. It won't take long, before there is a turnaround, with A/C sitting on the ground. How would you like to go to work, knowing your work load is about to be doubled, and that is what you are going to get. Sure its fine if all is well, your mother in law could do the same job, but when the **** hits the fan, you need a competent well trained pilot, with plenty of experience behind him/her. I note some blogger has posted that GA pilots experience does not count, when joining a airline. Bollocks. A GA pilot has learnt airmanship, they have learnt to think for themselves, they have probably frightened the sh%t out of themselves on more than one occasion, all this gives them the background they require, to go onto the next learning curve. To think of the standards and safety that was installed in us, and to pass on to the next generation of PROFESSIONAL pilots, means sweet bugger all, and to hand over a commercial jet to a button pusher, beggers belief. I don't give a ratz what they do overseas, because it will eventually come home to haunt them, if somebody walks into fire, does it mean you have to follow them? And where the hell is CASA in all of this? I am ringing my MP. I suggest you all do the same.
TG,
I would imagine that like the cabin crew being quizzed and found wanting (as described in the senate inquiry) so could the FO. If he passes, fine, if not stand him down.
I would imagine that like the cabin crew being quizzed and found wanting (as described in the senate inquiry) so could the FO. If he passes, fine, if not stand him down.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teresa m'dear
Good to see your bristles are still intact.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.
I don’t agree that a self funded cadet scheme is the most appropriate way for things to go, in this country.
My bristles are raised when people with little experience of the concept or what happens by necessity, in other parts of the world, blacken the reputation of all cadets, by declaring that cadets are dangerous. World experience clearly shows that that is not the case. Cadet schemes are not a new invention, they have been around in various forms for nearly 50 years, that I am aware of. Some are good some are bad. Some put guys into the back seat, for eons, others put them into a window seat straight up. Sure the Left seat workload can be increased by such procedures, however with proper mitigation by use of properly qualified and experienced left seaters, by and large it runs successfully.
The point is, dear Teresa, the pilots of Australia wish to make a point about the mendacity of J*'s proposal to employ cadets from home and OS when we have a large pool of experienced pilots of the home grown variety, available. I totally agree, it is an insane concept. If they mount an argument based on emotion rather than sustainable fact, they will come to grief. Fight the proposal on grounds of social or industrial equity, something quantifiable. Rather than “ I had difficulty with a 310 at 500 hours so why should anyone else be any different”. Joe blow will simply tell you to piss off and get with the rest of the world.
Given a proper structure, quality training and meticulous mentoring and supervision, it can work. I suspect J*, on past history will be reluctant to devote the resources required.
Fight to ensure that the regulations, should they come to pass, are adequate to ensure the safety of the operation. This requires CASA to grow some balls and dictate, how it should occur, rather than taking it up the rear and doing what is asked. If proper conditions and requirements are put in place, and monitored by CASA, it will soon become apparent that it is quicker and cheaper to bring on the hordes of qualified guys already in the field. Once the economic scales are tipped, the scheme will disappear.
SS
PS How much time did the cadets who went through your original airline employer’s scheme spend in the back seat before they got a window seat?? Was that a dangerous operation?
PPS My background is originally GA. I was not a cadet. I was not Airforce. My parents did not pay a cent for my training. I had over 5000 hours when I joined airlines and have something over 25,000 now. I carry a torch for no-one. I believe I have seen enough to make an informed judgement. I believe that, for this argument to be sustained it needs to change direction away from emotion and towards sustainable facts.
SS
Good to see your bristles are still intact.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.
I don’t agree that a self funded cadet scheme is the most appropriate way for things to go, in this country.
My bristles are raised when people with little experience of the concept or what happens by necessity, in other parts of the world, blacken the reputation of all cadets, by declaring that cadets are dangerous. World experience clearly shows that that is not the case. Cadet schemes are not a new invention, they have been around in various forms for nearly 50 years, that I am aware of. Some are good some are bad. Some put guys into the back seat, for eons, others put them into a window seat straight up. Sure the Left seat workload can be increased by such procedures, however with proper mitigation by use of properly qualified and experienced left seaters, by and large it runs successfully.
The point is, dear Teresa, the pilots of Australia wish to make a point about the mendacity of J*'s proposal to employ cadets from home and OS when we have a large pool of experienced pilots of the home grown variety, available. I totally agree, it is an insane concept. If they mount an argument based on emotion rather than sustainable fact, they will come to grief. Fight the proposal on grounds of social or industrial equity, something quantifiable. Rather than “ I had difficulty with a 310 at 500 hours so why should anyone else be any different”. Joe blow will simply tell you to piss off and get with the rest of the world.
Given a proper structure, quality training and meticulous mentoring and supervision, it can work. I suspect J*, on past history will be reluctant to devote the resources required.
Fight to ensure that the regulations, should they come to pass, are adequate to ensure the safety of the operation. This requires CASA to grow some balls and dictate, how it should occur, rather than taking it up the rear and doing what is asked. If proper conditions and requirements are put in place, and monitored by CASA, it will soon become apparent that it is quicker and cheaper to bring on the hordes of qualified guys already in the field. Once the economic scales are tipped, the scheme will disappear.
SS
PS How much time did the cadets who went through your original airline employer’s scheme spend in the back seat before they got a window seat?? Was that a dangerous operation?
PPS My background is originally GA. I was not a cadet. I was not Airforce. My parents did not pay a cent for my training. I had over 5000 hours when I joined airlines and have something over 25,000 now. I carry a torch for no-one. I believe I have seen enough to make an informed judgement. I believe that, for this argument to be sustained it needs to change direction away from emotion and towards sustainable facts.
SS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am going to dip my oar in here. I have been vocal in the past with regard to the cadet systems. I have also mentioned I am agnostic as to background - GA/Airforce/Cadet.
What one has to remember is there are no free lunches in this world, merely the illusion that such a beast exists. There is always a price to pay. However, it is not alway obvious to the naïve what that price is.
For the potential cadet, on paper, things look rosy, frankly, it looks almost too good to be true (alarm bells should be ringing already). Airlines are business, and the managers can see a financial advantage by employing indebted cadets.
j* cadetship
It is left to the cadets imagination what this "opportunity" may actually be.
If you look carefully at the strategy being pursued by j*, it even before the last EBA management were very clear about the strategy to pay cadets far less (Junior First Officer) was in place . The offshore push will essentially allow management to offer a job on minimum wage, and cadets would have very little choice but to accept. If they don't like the offer, simple, pay back the training "sponsorship". This is straight out of the English LCC playbook.
If you were a prospective cadet without knowing someone close to the industry there is almost no chance you would establish the true facts of the matter.
So, in short, cadets may get a window seat, apparently jumping the queue, however, unless they come from a wealthy background they can expect to pay dearly for that seat for a decade or more. They can expect offshore contracts & brutal T&C's - this is their price. Those that choose GA pay-as-you-go model, will have longer to wait, but once in the a jet, a vast amount more flexibility & control over their career. They paid the price up front, but with no debt to an employer. Military guys have excellent training, great machines to fly, reasonable pay & good fringe benefits, but a significant return on service. That is their price.
As I said, there are no free lunches, the hard work & sacrifice must be put in at some point. This must be clearly understood, no matter which path is taken. There is no way around this fact, and those contemplating the cadetship should understand this, unfortunately, many will not until the noose is well and truly tightened around their neck.
What one has to remember is there are no free lunches in this world, merely the illusion that such a beast exists. There is always a price to pay. However, it is not alway obvious to the naïve what that price is.
For the potential cadet, on paper, things look rosy, frankly, it looks almost too good to be true (alarm bells should be ringing already). Airlines are business, and the managers can see a financial advantage by employing indebted cadets.
To learn more about this amazing new opportunity
It is left to the cadets imagination what this "opportunity" may actually be.
If you look carefully at the strategy being pursued by j*, it even before the last EBA management were very clear about the strategy to pay cadets far less (Junior First Officer) was in place . The offshore push will essentially allow management to offer a job on minimum wage, and cadets would have very little choice but to accept. If they don't like the offer, simple, pay back the training "sponsorship". This is straight out of the English LCC playbook.
If you were a prospective cadet without knowing someone close to the industry there is almost no chance you would establish the true facts of the matter.
So, in short, cadets may get a window seat, apparently jumping the queue, however, unless they come from a wealthy background they can expect to pay dearly for that seat for a decade or more. They can expect offshore contracts & brutal T&C's - this is their price. Those that choose GA pay-as-you-go model, will have longer to wait, but once in the a jet, a vast amount more flexibility & control over their career. They paid the price up front, but with no debt to an employer. Military guys have excellent training, great machines to fly, reasonable pay & good fringe benefits, but a significant return on service. That is their price.
As I said, there are no free lunches, the hard work & sacrifice must be put in at some point. This must be clearly understood, no matter which path is taken. There is no way around this fact, and those contemplating the cadetship should understand this, unfortunately, many will not until the noose is well and truly tightened around their neck.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that cadets can be safe. All that is needed is an airline that understands the requirements for high quality training systems to be in place.
Will Jetstar provide the extensive training required to make these cadets safe?
To answer this question we need to ask why is Jetstar introducing a cadet scheme in Australia when there is a ready supply of pilots with experience, who also will need varying amounts of high quality training?
The answer is that Jetstar is introducing a cadet scheme so as these new pilots can reduce the airlines operating costs. Does this cost focused philosophy fit together with expensive high quality training that is required for a safe outcome?
Will Jetstar provide the extensive training required to make these cadets safe?
To answer this question we need to ask why is Jetstar introducing a cadet scheme in Australia when there is a ready supply of pilots with experience, who also will need varying amounts of high quality training?
The answer is that Jetstar is introducing a cadet scheme so as these new pilots can reduce the airlines operating costs. Does this cost focused philosophy fit together with expensive high quality training that is required for a safe outcome?
