Though I am not a frequent visitor of PPRuNe ( forums section moreso), I would have to agree with many of the comments, opinions and general discussions mentioned herein.
I, for one, like many other contributors to these forums, as we've seen above, am an ex-employee of Airnorth, the original commencing company in issue here, right ? . I was employed by them for almost 3yrs, having done the whole hard yards thing and all.. okay.. for those that may know me, I did it extremely hard. I could mention the different levels of trials I was subjected to but this is not in my nature..not in here anyway. Besides, to finally achieve my dream, I had seen and lived through many hardships - having worked for 6 other companies to get 'there'.
Alas, the experience levels and skills that I have achieved have been THROUGH MY OWN HARD WORK, SACRIFICES, DETERMINATION AND PASSION TO SUCCEED.... like everyone chasing a dream, we tend to be VERY passionate about it.. and unfortunately, because flying positions in Australia, in particular, are SO sparse and difficult to achieve, Pilots seem to feel more at ease about 'slagging' off their fellow colleagues. This is a real shame and unfortunately, something which continued even during my employment with Australia's 2 largest Regionals not too long ago.
I have many friends who are employed with Qantas, either through Direct Entry or via the Qantas Cadet Scheme and I can say that they are exemplery as both pilots and human beings - a full credit to them and a great choice of applicant by Qantas Recruiting. I do not think it is fair to say that Cadets are less qualified or worthy of a position on a Jet as compared with a pilot from GA. Truly, this is an unbalanced, unfair and unrealistic approach to something we all love doing - Flying. I can simply say 'I have done my time in GA, so I know what it's like etc etc..' but on the same token, another GA driver may say (this point was covered earlier) ' Hey mate, you reckon THAT'S bad ??? You had it easy !' ( though this was rarely the case ). My point here ? Everyone is different in their own ways - Pilots come in all forms, shapes and sizes..like anything else in life. Some are more clever than others, are multi talented musicians, artists..okay.. womanisers ( and the equivalent for our female colleagues out there.. I am certainly NOT sexist)..etc.etc... so we must all be treated and accepted for WHO we are and NOT for what our background is....
Like a friend recently asked me : ' Why are you helping _____ so much with his ___ (airline) Interview ? ' I couldn't help but feel his bitter touch to the question, but answered him in a way I believe is most appropriate ......
" One can be assisted with information pertaining to an exam, interview, assignment etc etc.. but when it comes time for that individual to present that information verbally in person, it is ALL up to them - NO MATTER how much help was given to them during tuition, if THEY alone cannot meet the standard the result is, unfortunately an unsuccessful one.."
Okay, there are those who dislike cadets for whatever personal reason, however let's try and put these feelings aside - as in any phobia, if you don't confront it and treat it accordingly, you will never recover psychologically.. Same goes with interpersonal communication and general behavioural patterns...
That's my 1,000,000,000 cents worth ) Sorry, a thesis was never intended.. Regards to all and Best Of Luck to both the Cadet body and Airnorth.
P.S. To any current Airnorth employees - is a particular individual's Logo/Emblem design still in place for Chartair ?
I would hate to think that my plumber who came to my house yesterday would HAVE to employ 28 year old, five year experienced apprentices.
These guys are developing their career in a different manner to what many may think the norm, some the only way, and because they dare to approach a problem differently, they are victimised by vexatous militant bigots.
Have respect for someone elses opinion.
How do you think that so many of the old school got to the 767/737 commands. Through joining Qantas, flying Electra's, DC3's, Connies, three holers and then to where they are today. Many were taken in as cadets, without necessarily spending years living like a dog in some wayward backblock to get some "character". Sure so many did that, but if I'll bet if they had their time over and could consider a cadetship then they may well take it.
Similar sort of people who refer to honest people with an opinion and want to challenge the "norm" as scabs.
Grow up, be good at what you do, not base your career on from whence you came but what I will achieve tomorrow.
Having read through 6 pages on this topic, and seeing it to be essentially an "Aussie" issue, in this forum at any rate, I hesitate to venture an opinion - but what the hell !! I am a "longish term" 25 year Airline Pilot, from a GA background, and I maintain GA interests (own plane etc). I am also in Airline Check and Training.
My two cents worth is that background/experience does not matter, and that "command time" is a meaningless measure to apply to an entry level pilot to an airline (and by "airline" I mean ops in multi-crew 10 + seat aircraft).
So long as the entrant holds - the basic requirements for the job: receives thorough and adequate initial training as part of an organised training program ; and has THE RIGHT ATTITUDE - then the skills appropriate to progression to command (NOTE - skills, not hours) will be acquired, and this can be done over a relatively short period of time - hard to put a number on this, but my subjective judgement would be 2 - 3 years. The reason it takes longer in GA (anywhere) is in part because in GA no organised development/targeted skills training takes place - it all happens by a sort of osmosis, whereas in GA in the main skills considered herein to be inherent in time on type/in a type of operation are acquired largely by "trial and error" - in fact you can extract the core elements of all those "scares" the "heroes" have had and teach people how to avoid them, rather than have each successive generation repeat the mistakes of those who wnet before - but enough from me.
Gentlement the acid test will be if the golden boys can tolerate the speed and inertia to get their heads around their first sizeable aircraft, time will tell, btw have any golden boys done the emb 120 rating yet?????
Downwind - see my previous - the "acid test" will be to see if the Air North training staff/training progranms are appropriate to the task to be undertaken - I have progressed many "light twin" pilots onto bigger/faster/higher inertia blah blah blah types** and in my experience and opinion a well designed basic type rating course (does AN use a Simulator/procedures trainer?) followed up by line consolidation by good training staff (ie, motivated and able and equipped to TEACH, not just tick boxes and tell the trainee what they are doing wrong) will see the cadet pilots operationally skillful and proficient as F/O's after about 3 months.
I take onboard your points but must add airlines are well aware of the vulnerability of Cadet programmes.
The main issue is a very, very basic F/O is the product of your 230ish hour training curriculum. This creates commercial problems in rapidly expanding airlines as Cadets will probably not meet Command Upgrade standards in a short timeframe ( under 5 years )- nor for that matter will basic GA.
I never understood why airlines bother with cadets in our part of the world. Put the pool of ex-military and ex-regionals through tough selection hoops and you have an airline pilot with a positive attitude and good experience to mould into the airlines pilot profile.
I quite agree, in times of rapid expansion/promotion a "Cadet entry point" scheme will not be suitable, and an airline will need either a mix of entrants or direct entry commands on short term contracts - this is not uncommon throughout the Pac/Asia region. However, my comments were all about the pro's/cons of a "cadet entry point" v the "2000hr" entry point, and one case requires initial training, the other, in many instances, retraining, esp if the 2000hrs has been in a SPIFR operation, there is not a lot to choose one way or the other - if the need for rapid promtion was not a factor, I would tend to hire pre-screened cadets with the right attitudes.
I also agree that here in NZ at least (and despite our trans tasman spats, I think NZ and Aust aviation have a lot in common) we have an adequate pool of regional pilots and a (smaller) pool of ex military pilots from which to draw, and the additional costs associated with cadet schemes are not justified.
SONNY HAMMOND :
In my experience, any pilot placed in new environment (SPIFR B58 to two pilot T/Prop, two pilot T/Prop to jet, smaller/domestic jet to longhaul hvy jet ops, you name it) goes through a period in which he/she is "nursed" - and the Captain has an extra workload to monitoir the new pilot, regardless of # of hours, so I have to say using that particular argument against cadet entrants is a bit lame.
I always thought the regionals employ ex GA to the right hand seat of a turbo prop purely as a future captain. Like the Major's they interview your command potential. Surely these regionals would be disadvantaged in the long run with little or no upgradable F/O's.
POTO, only if the typical average time from "zero to hero" were less than 2.5-3 years. Many airliners, esp in Europe, have a PinC who has minimal (as in , the min # required to get a CPL) of the much vaunted "Command" hours. This is the general point I am trying to make - in the specific instance, ie, this "Air North" airline, of which I have no direct knowledge, these QF cadets will not be upgrading to Command in the organisation anyway, so the problem is ??? I may have it wrong, but I know of an operation that takes on CPL/I.R pilots (preselected) onto E110 and/or S340, who are eligible for Command in terms of ATPL, experience - both as TT and in the operation, after about 2 years. (Subject to passing Command upgrade trg and checks etc), and this has worked very well for the operator over the last 10 years. However, I have stepped into a discussion which has its particular "Aussie" aviation nuances, so am only expressing my opinion on this topic in generalities - it is however a discussionthat needs to be held - eg, the revised CASA Pt 61/Training Rule envisages this sort of progression (cadet entry) becoming the norm. Cheers.
Hi to all, Lets please not forget our fallen comrads, who have been forced by this industry and its "Minimum Multi Requirements", to fly beat up, hired, tiny single/twins single pilot, in the quest for a command/entry into a Low Cap regional and have ended up regretting it. God rest your soul MH. Enough said?
ASHYELLAND : A little too emotive and out of context at this stage of the "thread" which has been developing quite logically of recent posts, however, consider this - IF the entry point were "cadets" - not QF cadets, but if each airline had a "cadet" scheme, whereby preselected pilots were inducted into the particular operation as F/O's, the "nights of horror" and "learning by mistakes" and the associated higher accident rates in ad hoc RPT and risk to the public would all be lessened, since the initial exposure to the "s......." of which you speak would be in a controlled environment with a "mentor" Captain - hence the cycle of history repeating itself might be broken - surely your argument cannot be "I had it hard so they have to have it hard?" That low time pilots have been put in unsafe situations with fatal outcomes is an indictment on the industry as a whole - may be this is a way forward? Anyway, I have now said all I want to on this topic - good night.
Up until a few yrs ago, it was not uncommon to see guys walking into the RHS with 200-300 hrs TT on the B744 on some carriers. I have flown with some of these guys, and for the most part they are very enthusiastic and motivated and respect the great chance they have before them. They understand their role and know what is expected of them. Sure its a little deep for them, but still they do their best and get on with it under guidance and control.