How does one get their command on RPT these days
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does one get their command on RPT these days
With all the traineeships, cadetships, MPL etc....my question is with the growing number of pilots entering high capacity RPT's with low hours how will these guys and gals get commands. I even read recently on one operators website that looking at 2 to 3 years before command. But I know some people with only 200 hours, how is this possible on co-pilot time. From quick estimate you're looking at 4 years and that is just to get to the 1500 total hour mark and not including 250 command?
Which leads to my next question, how would a co-pilot ever get that command. I assume the company would fork out 150 hours ICUS line training when upgrading to command????
And let's face it, the older captains that got in by direct entry will eventually retire leaving a majority of low command time pilots
Which leads to my next question, how would a co-pilot ever get that command. I assume the company would fork out 150 hours ICUS line training when upgrading to command????
And let's face it, the older captains that got in by direct entry will eventually retire leaving a majority of low command time pilots
ICUS time really?
Mig I don't know where you get this information from. Usually log as co-pilot time and as GearDown noted when you do line training you normally do ICUS if you don't already have enough command time.
The company I work for its 2000 hours total actually (despite the CAR requirements) with 250 command of which 250 x-country then the usual 100 hours night etc.
Of course this is at the discretion of the company and I would imagine this would be similar in other operations.
So GearDown to answer your question I wouldn't be surprised if and when the time comes when the low time FO's are required to be stepped up for command filling that the company would use their own discretion on some of the requirements eg. 2000 hrs. As for the command....not really sure?
The company I work for its 2000 hours total actually (despite the CAR requirements) with 250 command of which 250 x-country then the usual 100 hours night etc.
Of course this is at the discretion of the company and I would imagine this would be similar in other operations.
So GearDown to answer your question I wouldn't be surprised if and when the time comes when the low time FO's are required to be stepped up for command filling that the company would use their own discretion on some of the requirements eg. 2000 hrs. As for the command....not really sure?
Be careful you don't confuse the requirements of an AOC to the requirements for an ATPL re: Command time.
This subject was debated fairly extensively on the now closed Rex pilot shortage under control? thread. Probably not the best place for it, but much of the pro's and cons can be found on pages 5-8.
From what I have researched, the holders of an AOC are permitted to allow ICUS training from the right seat for the purpose of the candidate to attain a higher class of licence. (ATPL) This is defined under ICAO Annex 1. The provisions of an ATPL require 250 hours command of which 150 hours may be ICUS. If you have less than 100 hours command (not ICUS) you will have to find the balance of that 100 hours before you can qualify for the ATPL. As an ATPL is the minimum for command on aircraft above 5700kg MTOW engaged in RPT, then this may be an impediment.
As far as the requirements for the AOC is concerned, then we are talking Multi-Engined Command time under the IFR. Typically 250 hours for High Capacity RPT (Greater than 36 pax seats), and 500 hours for Low Capacity RPT (36 pax seats down to 10). Also there is usually a requirement for 2000 hours total aeronautical experience (that's what HappyBandit is refereing to)
So, if you have at least 100 hours Command time (not ICUS), then the logging of ICUS towards your ATPL from the right seat should not be a problem. If you are also working for an operator with a High Capacity AOC, then progress to command (provided of course you meet the standard) should not be a problem either, as the 150 hours of ICUS required for the issue of the ATPL, will bring you within the Ballpark for the 250 hours Multi-IFR required for the provisions of the HCAOC. If you are short of the Multi under the IFR component after that, it can easily be made up during your command training when you are in the left seat under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain.
If you are working for an operator with a Low Capacity AOC (LCAOC), and you are in the above situation, then you have a problem. Despite what some think, the logging of ICUS from the right seat is only permitted to satisfy the command component (150 hours) of the requirements of the ATPL!
Under the current Regs, once you have logged enough ICUS from the right seat to qualify for the ATPL, the balance of any command time (including the Multi-IFR component for the LCAOC) can only be logged from the left seat under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain.
For LCAOC that means an extra 250 hours!
This subject was debated fairly extensively on the now closed Rex pilot shortage under control? thread. Probably not the best place for it, but much of the pro's and cons can be found on pages 5-8.
From what I have researched, the holders of an AOC are permitted to allow ICUS training from the right seat for the purpose of the candidate to attain a higher class of licence. (ATPL) This is defined under ICAO Annex 1. The provisions of an ATPL require 250 hours command of which 150 hours may be ICUS. If you have less than 100 hours command (not ICUS) you will have to find the balance of that 100 hours before you can qualify for the ATPL. As an ATPL is the minimum for command on aircraft above 5700kg MTOW engaged in RPT, then this may be an impediment.
As far as the requirements for the AOC is concerned, then we are talking Multi-Engined Command time under the IFR. Typically 250 hours for High Capacity RPT (Greater than 36 pax seats), and 500 hours for Low Capacity RPT (36 pax seats down to 10). Also there is usually a requirement for 2000 hours total aeronautical experience (that's what HappyBandit is refereing to)
So, if you have at least 100 hours Command time (not ICUS), then the logging of ICUS towards your ATPL from the right seat should not be a problem. If you are also working for an operator with a High Capacity AOC, then progress to command (provided of course you meet the standard) should not be a problem either, as the 150 hours of ICUS required for the issue of the ATPL, will bring you within the Ballpark for the 250 hours Multi-IFR required for the provisions of the HCAOC. If you are short of the Multi under the IFR component after that, it can easily be made up during your command training when you are in the left seat under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain.
If you are working for an operator with a Low Capacity AOC (LCAOC), and you are in the above situation, then you have a problem. Despite what some think, the logging of ICUS from the right seat is only permitted to satisfy the command component (150 hours) of the requirements of the ATPL!
Under the current Regs, once you have logged enough ICUS from the right seat to qualify for the ATPL, the balance of any command time (including the Multi-IFR component for the LCAOC) can only be logged from the left seat under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain.
For LCAOC that means an extra 250 hours!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 23rd Oct 2008 at 05:46.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite what some think, the logging of ICUS from the right seat is only permitted to satisfy the command component (150 hours) of the requirements of the ATPL!
There seems to be very little information about ICUS in the regs and provided the pilot is holds appropriate ratings, I do not see any reason why an FO cannot log ICUS for sectors flown, as occurs in some airlines (such as QF). There is certainly no specification that those hours must be flown under supervision of Check or Training Captains.
I'd also like to know where your 250 hours ME IFR Comd comes from? CAO 82.5 does not include an appendix similar to that in 82.3 stipulating experience requirements. If they exist elsewhere I would be interested to read up on what I've missed.
BTW - a heard recently that CASA is drafting new rules relating to ICUS which may define it a little better and stipulate more clearly the conditions under which it can be logged. Well overdue in my opinion as this Co-pilot time business is completely out of touch with airline flying.
I'll have a go Icarus'.
The logging of ICUS from the right seat for the purpose of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence is detailed under paragraph 2.1.9 ICAO Annex 1. Note that it says "...for the purpose of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence..." (my bolding) As far as the reference for the logging of ICUS for the purpose of satisfying the provisions of the AOC, well if you can find that reference, then we would not be having this debate.
The fact that you state "There seems to be very little information about ICUS in the regs..." says as much about what you cannot do, as to what some believe is permissible. The AFAP are looking at just this, and they have determined that the proposal to have this situation "clarified" (ATOG) has no legal basis! Just because the regs don't prohibit you from doing something doesn't mean you can go ahead and do it as a result. Hense the attempt at arse covering by those concerned with this subject. And a very p!ss poor attempt it is!
The ATOG proposal (I'm assuming this is what you are refering to about new rules) makes liberal reference to the above mentioned Annex, but as we now know, this is only applicable to ICUS logged for the pupose of attaining a higher grade of licence (ATPL)
No-one at CASA want's to go out on a limb with this one. The ATOG proposal is an attempt to circumvent the regs rather than change them. Why? Because to change the regs would involve conditions, and having conditions to the logging of ICUS is the last thing the operators, and their mates in CASA would want!
As for the 250 hours Multi-IFR requirement for the HCAOC, mate you've got me. My main focus has been on appendix 4 of CAO 82.3. So what are the requirements for HCAOC? Are the only requirement those for the 250 hours command associated with the ATPL. If that is so, then I'll gladly retract my previous statement. Anyone know?
Krusty
The logging of ICUS from the right seat for the purpose of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence is detailed under paragraph 2.1.9 ICAO Annex 1. Note that it says "...for the purpose of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence..." (my bolding) As far as the reference for the logging of ICUS for the purpose of satisfying the provisions of the AOC, well if you can find that reference, then we would not be having this debate.
The fact that you state "There seems to be very little information about ICUS in the regs..." says as much about what you cannot do, as to what some believe is permissible. The AFAP are looking at just this, and they have determined that the proposal to have this situation "clarified" (ATOG) has no legal basis! Just because the regs don't prohibit you from doing something doesn't mean you can go ahead and do it as a result. Hense the attempt at arse covering by those concerned with this subject. And a very p!ss poor attempt it is!
The ATOG proposal (I'm assuming this is what you are refering to about new rules) makes liberal reference to the above mentioned Annex, but as we now know, this is only applicable to ICUS logged for the pupose of attaining a higher grade of licence (ATPL)
No-one at CASA want's to go out on a limb with this one. The ATOG proposal is an attempt to circumvent the regs rather than change them. Why? Because to change the regs would involve conditions, and having conditions to the logging of ICUS is the last thing the operators, and their mates in CASA would want!
As for the 250 hours Multi-IFR requirement for the HCAOC, mate you've got me. My main focus has been on appendix 4 of CAO 82.3. So what are the requirements for HCAOC? Are the only requirement those for the 250 hours command associated with the ATPL. If that is so, then I'll gladly retract my previous statement. Anyone know?
Krusty
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 23rd Oct 2008 at 21:04.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because that is what they're doing, and what the CASA approved Qantas Ops Manual tells them to?
When PF they are Acting In Command Under Supervision. When PNF, its the Captains sector, and so the F/O is not making the decisions relavent to the flight, and is Co-Pilot.
Any more reason needed than that?
When PF they are Acting In Command Under Supervision. When PNF, its the Captains sector, and so the F/O is not making the decisions relavent to the flight, and is Co-Pilot.
Any more reason needed than that?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
Qantas FO's log their PF sectors as ICUS and PNF as Co-Pilot
Are we flying special planes downunder?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
The only explicit regulatory requirement to be PIC on High Capacity RPT is an ATPL. Of course an AOC holder may have additional requirements as a condition for issue of their certificate.
I believe the current CARs allows ICUS to be logged towards the aeronautical experience required for an ATPL in excess of the 150hrs allowed in lieu of actual command time.
I think you are right in your interpretation of Annex 1. However, there is a crucial difference between the Annex (10th Ed) and the current CARs. Annex 1 makes no reference to aeronautical experience or the 50% discounting of co-pilot time towards the experience required for an ATPL. In the eyes of ICAO an hours flight time is an hours flight time no matter where you sit in the cockpit. So once the you have the 500 or 180 hrs ICUS required by Annex 1 the residual up to 1500hrs can simply be co-pilot.
The 10th edition of Annex 1 effective 23rd November 2006 introduced the requirements for MPL, changed the upper age limit for ATPL licence validity to 65 and tweaked the flying experience requirements (eg 70hrs command time instead of 100 for an ATPL). My understanding is that the rule change project underway to ammend CAR Part 5 will capture some or all of those Annex 1 changes. We shall wait and see.
As an aside, under the Annex 1 it will be possible to have an ATPL with only 10hrs command in aeroplanes if you progress via an MPL. Interesting.
The only explicit regulatory requirement to be PIC on High Capacity RPT is an ATPL. Of course an AOC holder may have additional requirements as a condition for issue of their certificate.
I believe the current CARs allows ICUS to be logged towards the aeronautical experience required for an ATPL in excess of the 150hrs allowed in lieu of actual command time.
I think you are right in your interpretation of Annex 1. However, there is a crucial difference between the Annex (10th Ed) and the current CARs. Annex 1 makes no reference to aeronautical experience or the 50% discounting of co-pilot time towards the experience required for an ATPL. In the eyes of ICAO an hours flight time is an hours flight time no matter where you sit in the cockpit. So once the you have the 500 or 180 hrs ICUS required by Annex 1 the residual up to 1500hrs can simply be co-pilot.
The 10th edition of Annex 1 effective 23rd November 2006 introduced the requirements for MPL, changed the upper age limit for ATPL licence validity to 65 and tweaked the flying experience requirements (eg 70hrs command time instead of 100 for an ATPL). My understanding is that the rule change project underway to ammend CAR Part 5 will capture some or all of those Annex 1 changes. We shall wait and see.
As an aside, under the Annex 1 it will be possible to have an ATPL with only 10hrs command in aeroplanes if you progress via an MPL. Interesting.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite concerning really regardless of all the ways around getting good cmd experience one day soon just about every high Cap plane will be flown by guys/gals with very litte hrs that not too long ago would have been lucky to fly a PA31.
I guess todays modern jetliner doesn't take too much skill to operate hence low exp is allowable.
Cw
I guess todays modern jetliner doesn't take too much skill to operate hence low exp is allowable.
Cw
The very high cost of inducting pilots to airlines and type rating them on complex aeroplanes will guarantee that they will find a way to move pilots from RHS to LHS when they need them. Any hours requirements will be massaged to fit the requirements on the day. CASA will go along for the ride, because if they don't they will lose 'business' and will be seen to be out of step with the rest of the world.
ICUS, P1/S, command practice - call it what you like. In my day it was called 'ticketted training' and was just a fancy name for the F/O filing the flight plan then flying the sector from takeoff to touchdown without the guy in the left seat having to grab the controls. The only caveat was that the Captain had to put in a progress report saying warm and fuzzy things about command potential blah blah.
It's been done in Europe and in Asia for the last 40 years and it will be done here - but only when they need to; not because they are in a generous frame of mind. Do the beancounters care a rat's about prior command experience? Of course not. Experience is nothing to them. It is only the cost of the type rating and any other training that they care about. So if you are young, and have only 10 hours of multi PIC, don't worry about your command prospects - just get into that jet RHS. The command will follow in due course.
ICUS, P1/S, command practice - call it what you like. In my day it was called 'ticketted training' and was just a fancy name for the F/O filing the flight plan then flying the sector from takeoff to touchdown without the guy in the left seat having to grab the controls. The only caveat was that the Captain had to put in a progress report saying warm and fuzzy things about command potential blah blah.
It's been done in Europe and in Asia for the last 40 years and it will be done here - but only when they need to; not because they are in a generous frame of mind. Do the beancounters care a rat's about prior command experience? Of course not. Experience is nothing to them. It is only the cost of the type rating and any other training that they care about. So if you are young, and have only 10 hours of multi PIC, don't worry about your command prospects - just get into that jet RHS. The command will follow in due course.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Look up and wave
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree in trying to get into that RHS asap,
Folk just do not know what they are missing in GA, you can have so much fun flying a 210, even more in a Baron/310 or similar, scare the pants off yourself in a PA31 on the first short field, max weight t/o and climb out you experience, appreciating the refinement of a 404 after flying the said PA31, the george foreman grill in a conqy, comparing the eye height of a braz to a rationalized 'just below 737 level now' short field landings in a dash, poxy cockpit airflow in a metro! Then there are the people, the passengers, the places, the company's. Why would you want to miss all that adventure and excitement to jump straight into a jet and listen to the captain toss on about how hard the financial crisis is hitting his millions in super?
Get out there, get some red dirt in your veins and you will have something to talk about on all those boring long haul sectors and mind numbing overnighters.
Folk just do not know what they are missing in GA, you can have so much fun flying a 210, even more in a Baron/310 or similar, scare the pants off yourself in a PA31 on the first short field, max weight t/o and climb out you experience, appreciating the refinement of a 404 after flying the said PA31, the george foreman grill in a conqy, comparing the eye height of a braz to a rationalized 'just below 737 level now' short field landings in a dash, poxy cockpit airflow in a metro! Then there are the people, the passengers, the places, the company's. Why would you want to miss all that adventure and excitement to jump straight into a jet and listen to the captain toss on about how hard the financial crisis is hitting his millions in super?
Get out there, get some red dirt in your veins and you will have something to talk about on all those boring long haul sectors and mind numbing overnighters.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ways around getting good cmd experience
I would have thought it would be a greater concern to see a scenario whereby a pilot with more hours in his log book (albeit mostly flying 182s and light twins) is given comd of a Hi Cap RPT aircraft in preference to someone who has a couple of thousand additional hours RHS time. This is what is happening in some regionals at the moment as low time pilots get to the top of the seniority list but are unable to take command.
Now before you fly off the handle, I don't think they should get command if they don't meet requirements. That said, if you give me a choice between a guy with an ATPL earned with circuit time in a Tomahawk but only six months RPT; and a CPL holder with 2500 hours on type in RPT, then I have to say I would rather the bloke with time on type and experienced in the operation.
If all we worry about is the numbers in the columns, then I am afraid there is no such thing as "good comd experience". Some people can spend 3000 hours in command and still not get it, while others who are yet to set foot in a cockpit are capable of better skill and decision making than you or I.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys not many people (if any) fly 182s then fly in an airline. The very high majority have flown multi crew turbine, and/or single pilot twin IFR. So cut out the speculation on this business of people going from VFR singles to an airliner. The minimum entry for the regionals is generally single pilot IFR twin. The issue is that experience is easy to get now and people are getting into regionals with very little total experience. Whereas 5 years ago you needed 2000+ to get into a regional airline.
The past few years I have discovered a new law in aviation:
The flexibility of the CARs is inversely proportional to the supply of pilots.
It's amazing how many so called 'laws' which where written in stone 3-4 years ago are now considered just 'nice to have'.
Also having low time pilots in airlines are not a problem, if airliners want to spent money on training. The problem is in this country airlines are addicted to experience pilots and build their training schedules around this fact. So they are now throwing their arms in the air when they can't get people through in the time frames they are used to. Everyone throws around the idea that Asia and Europe have low time copilots and we can do it here. Anyone have any idea how much money the Asian airlines spend on training? Can you see Virgin and Qantas giving their copilots experience in a Lear 45 just to get jet experience?
Airline management want to pay Asian type salaries yet none of them actually look at how much money these airlines spend on training. Just another example of how in Australia pilots subsidise the system
The past few years I have discovered a new law in aviation:
The flexibility of the CARs is inversely proportional to the supply of pilots.
It's amazing how many so called 'laws' which where written in stone 3-4 years ago are now considered just 'nice to have'.
Also having low time pilots in airlines are not a problem, if airliners want to spent money on training. The problem is in this country airlines are addicted to experience pilots and build their training schedules around this fact. So they are now throwing their arms in the air when they can't get people through in the time frames they are used to. Everyone throws around the idea that Asia and Europe have low time copilots and we can do it here. Anyone have any idea how much money the Asian airlines spend on training? Can you see Virgin and Qantas giving their copilots experience in a Lear 45 just to get jet experience?
Airline management want to pay Asian type salaries yet none of them actually look at how much money these airlines spend on training. Just another example of how in Australia pilots subsidise the system
Mach082- never a truer word said!!
Not having a go at cadets....but the stories and experiences you have as your climb the ladder are golden! I am at the 404 level at the moment and look forward to the next lot of stories yet to be played out!
Not having a go at cadets....but the stories and experiences you have as your climb the ladder are golden! I am at the 404 level at the moment and look forward to the next lot of stories yet to be played out!
It's like drawing teeth!
A Comfy Chair,
Delta T,
Tempo.
I'll try to explain my question. You are permitted to log ICUS from the right seat on regular line ops, but for what purpose?
ie:
Thanks GaryGnu, interesting about the way annex 1 has been tweaked to suit the MPL, but that's a whole other debate. The essensial thing is that Annex 1 only referes to the building of hours for the purpose of the issue of the higher grade of licence (ATPL, MPL whatever). Something the author of the ATOG proposal apparently missed!
ga_trojan.
Nicely said, especially the bit about "The flexibility of the CARS is inversely proportional to the supply of pilots."
Krusty.
Delta T,
Tempo.
I'll try to explain my question. You are permitted to log ICUS from the right seat on regular line ops, but for what purpose?
ie:
- The command requirements of the ATPL
- The multi command requirements of the HCAOC
- To give you the quals for a better job elsewhere
- To make your logbook look nice
- To impress chicks!
Thanks GaryGnu, interesting about the way annex 1 has been tweaked to suit the MPL, but that's a whole other debate. The essensial thing is that Annex 1 only referes to the building of hours for the purpose of the issue of the higher grade of licence (ATPL, MPL whatever). Something the author of the ATOG proposal apparently missed!
ga_trojan.
Nicely said, especially the bit about "The flexibility of the CARS is inversely proportional to the supply of pilots."
Krusty.
And here's another point
Tempo
You noted that in QF FO's log ICUS when PF and co-pilot when PNF.
But operator I work for FO's only have a co-pilot endorsement, so cannot legally operate under this same system....ie can only ever log co-pilot time unless training for command upgrade.
You noted that in QF FO's log ICUS when PF and co-pilot when PNF.
But operator I work for FO's only have a co-pilot endorsement, so cannot legally operate under this same system....ie can only ever log co-pilot time unless training for command upgrade.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
I'm not having a go at you, but I think the reasons you have stated would be obvious for any pilot as to why they keep track of such flight time (well apart from the chicks one). Why is it such a critical point for you?