QF S/O changes

[CaptainToBe]

As from 1/1/05, per the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) standards which Qantas helped develop, S/Os will be cruise pilots only, and not able to act as either PF or PNF for arrivals and departures.

The restrictions actually imposed are more conservative than the standards QF helped develop.

Supposedly it will increase operational safety by eliminating the need for seat changes during those phases of flight. Training, individual skills, promotion success, team building and job satisfaction will suffer.

Presumably airlines that subscribe to IOSA standards save on insurance.

Before I make any more comments, whats everybodys view about this matter.

[slice]

Other than QF and CX I don't know how other Airlines use SOs but I was under the impression that for the most part SOs are a cruise pilot position only(?)

[Cactus Jack]

Well, hell. Whilst we are at it, lets reduce their pay by half! If they weren't overpaid before, they sure as buggery are now!

[bonvol]

Worlds best practice at work :yuk:

Maybe we should get rid of S/Os altogether and only have Captains and F/Os like just about every other airline.

[404 Titan]

To my knowledge QF are the only airline that allow S/O’s in the control seat for climb and descent. Here at CX S/O’s are strictly cruise pilots only. In the seat at TOC and out by TOD. Does this make the job less interesting? Yes. Does this make the operation safer? In my opinion yes because quite frankly it is distracting changing seats at low level. Does this make it harder for S/O’s upgrading to F/O? Yes it does. The landing is the easy bit. Descent profile management takes practice. While doing it from the jump seat can help, actually operating from a control seat reinforces it.

There have been arguments here at CX about doing away with S/O’s all together and only having Capt’s and F/O’s. There were strong arguments that in the long run it would be cheaper as less flight crew would be needed. In the short term though costs would go through the roof and the training machine may not be able to keep up with the expansion requirement of the airline and converting all S/O’s to F/O’s. In the end it was dropped by management as unfeasible.

[The Librarian]

Less time in the saddle, More time in the bunk.

It can't all be a bad thing.:zzz:

[Far Canard]

The SO job is for the brain dead. You will require a frontal lobotomy prior to starting.

[*Lancer*]

The safest place to change seats is on the ground

There is no legislative requirement that prohibits S/Os from acting as either PF or PNF for take-offs and landings - in fact, they're required to be endorsed to do so! (Although there are rumours that that too may change).

Of course, I don't like the chances for that ever becoming a reality (again)! :hmm:

How long will it be before mandatory autolands will be considered 'world's best practice' in providing ultra-conservative safety protections. Although changes like these may provide quick-fix, and easily quantifiable increases in safety, what are the long term trade-offs?

I guess whatever program will follow from IOSA will deal with that!

Lancer

[DutchRoll]

The thing that bugs me is the 'World's Best Practice' crap. This is a euphemism for 'one or two others do it so it must be a good idea and we won't have to do any research to justify it to anyone'. Of course, the company only uses 'World's Best Practice' when it suits or when it saves money.

With the inevitable further decreased skill level, I pity the next poor bugger who gets a field promotion (like has happened to a couple I know).

[blueloo]

Does anyone know if our VERY proactive union which looks after the interests of themselv....... err I mean the Pilots has had anything to say on the matter?

Being an optimist I would suspect they probably whole heartedly endoresed the company position.

Of course the S/Os as a group do have another option. (As in Animal Farm) They could revolt and have a REVOLUTION!

S/Os save QF a massive amount in $, as we are coming up to an EBA period, you are entitled to some extent (depending on how you go about it) to have industrial action of sorts (minor impact up to maximum impact of a strike). Other things you can do - work to rule, I believe you dont have to agree to various dispensations (via union agreement). Of course once again being an optimist I can see none of these things happening.

Another solution, short term and not ideal. Call an SGM, thats right it only requires 25 of you, get the Union to put pressure on the company to sgnificantly increase training to counter the loss of flying. And I mean training, not this wishy washy 15 mins at the end of a sim, or this bonus bogus warm up ILS.

[Blip]

Perhaps the Company could purchase a fixed base sim and assign one or two 3 hour sim sessions per bid period (8 weeks) where a pair of S/O's could fly a 1 hour return flight (say Sydney-Melbourne or London-Frankfurt) without any non-normals and no assessments.

Just the usual stuff you find out on line. Maybe some turbulence. Maybe some tail wind turning final. Maybe some last minute speed restriction approaching top-of-descent. Just the usual stuff you get from day to day out on line.

Cost? How much will it cost not to do something like that?

[Keg]

404Titan, it would be interesting to do a comparison of the operations and see just how vastly different CX and QF 'employ' their S/Os.

EG, how many sims do CX S/Os do per annum? I recall a rumour that you're doing a truck load more than the four our guys do. Is this correct?

Also, whilst you may carry S/Os, on the 'heavy' flights, you actually carry one Captain, two F/Os and a S/O. Is this correct? Compare this with QFs one, one and two.

I've got no qualms with putting the restrictioin in place. It is without the offset increase in training that irks me somewhat although that is available- in your own time, unpaid and probably at 0300 IF the sim time is available which it probably won't be for the next twelve months! :rolleyes: :ouch:

[itchybum]

From a mind-numbing job to a soul-destroying job.

How many sectors does it take a new SO to start harking back to his, not so distant, days in GA and how much fun it actually was to do some flying?

At least the pay is still good. Sell your soul and don't touch anything.

[404 Titan]

Keg

From memory it was one sim session of four hours duration every two months. Sims 1,2,4 and 5 are recurrent training and 3 and 6 are IR and/or AR renewals.

You are quite correct about the 1 x capt, 2 x F/O’s and 1 x S/O for ULH. The company can though assign 1 x capt, 1 x F/O and 2 x S/O’s if it needs to. Australia isn’t ULH and only requires one of each for most.

[grrowler]

May I ask, without incurring too much wrath, what an SO does (did) above 10K in the climb n descent, that is now gonna require extensive sim sessions to maintain the "skill" level?

Actually, QF could save even more money by providing a new SO-only simulator - 2 cans joined by string. Practice ya radio calls to ya hearts content.:rolleyes: :D

[Screw Jac]

Job satisfaction and morale down the S bend.

The best bit about it is the managmement believes any detrimental effect to be "perceived" It might be a perceived problem provided that additonal training is provided to maintain the skill base. But it wont be. The cynic suggests bean counters will want to reduce the endorsement training as it is now a cruise only endorsement!!! That will allow the CP to sell off more simulator time to generate revenue! (A stated objective)
:yuk:

Don't worry fellas Ops management believe that you should "volunteer" for additonal observations and support duties in the simulator..Imagine the Unions' reponse if Captains were told this???

The best bit about it is that the approach is "operationally conservative"! It may well be to not let a 5,000 hour GA or regional driver in the seat, it may be smart not to allow a 2,000 hour fast jet military driver in the seat...But hey at J* asia let's throw 150 hour cadets n the right hand seat as FO's.

It would be funny if it weren't so stupid

[Mr.Buzzy]

Stage Coach driving without going up and down hills!

OK, so the SO tasks have not changed. They are only allowed to perform such tasks whilst in the cruise. ie. near level flight. Hmmmm so the additional training required should include performing the said tasks on an "Incline" be it a positive or negative incline.

Perhaps ggrowlers suggestion of 2 tin cans joined together by a string combined with the added pressure of using such a device whilst operating a play park see-saw could be put forward.

bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz

[DutchRoll]

Management's suggesting of observing sim sessions is clutching at straws (might as well go & play MS flight sim at home), and it amazes me that they seem to think that free fixed-base sim sessions grow on trees (they're as rare as rocking-horse ****).

As is generally the case, they will get a product proportional to the training resources and quality of flying experience they allocate to it. But I do wonder if they realise this (or care).

[WaldoPepper]

Why all the noise about this ?

QF and the safety audit are worried about an SO in the control seat at low level, yet they don't seem to be worried about putting a 250 hr cadet into the RHS of the Airbus with Jet* Asia !

A bit double standard to me.

Most of the SO's in QF have heaps of outside experience.

[The Librarian]

There is at least 120 SO's on the 400 that have more window seat experience in jets than the average FO.

I recently did a trip where the two SO's individually had more sectors in Jets than the Capt and FO combined.

I recently applied to jetstar asia, having previous Airbus experience but was not considered in favour of 250 hour cadets.:confused:

[*Lancer*]

grrowler and buzzy, sure it's easy enough to knock the role of an S/O, but with the same stone you can't expect the 'highest standards of professionalism' as a pilot. Either they truly are monkeys along for the ride with the responsibility that goes with it, or they're professional pilots that contribute effectively to the operation.

I get the impression its not necessarily the skill level of S/Os, but the seat change that precipitated this whole shebang. I've never, ever seen an occurance with an S/O in the seat...

Why not just practice seat changing in sims rather than NDB approaches? What is more relevant!? (or used to be at least). Does 'world best practice' include having S/Os at all? :rolleyes:

Lancer

[Mr.Buzzy]

Agreed *Lancer*

Im certainly more relaxed knowing that seat changing isnt taking place as low as 3000 feet with approach flap.... Or was that just a rumour?

bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbzzzzzzzzzzz

[The Enema Bandit]

Maybe Qantas should supply the SO's with Microsoft Flight Sim. Are you going to get paid to come in to stay current?

[Tuner 2]

The irony of this whole thing is that since the standing order was issued effective Jan 1st, I've been offered more sectors than ever.
:ooh:

[blueloo]

Mr Buzzy before the 5000' rule that was standard. Normal, and assuming it was not a busy environ., quite safe and excellent practice. Plenty of after take off clean ups and ILS intercepts and configurations for S/Os.



(Pilot in Command for FS 2002 taught me how to fly, all licence renewals were practiced on that, so dont joke about it! It WAS THE ONLY TRAINING WE GOT!! )

[grrowler]

*Lancer*,
no doubt.

But the point I was making was that surely, while it may help morale, there is no real need for QF to provide more sim sessions to SO's so they can practice twirling and pressing the autopilot buttons, or even if they wanted to "live on the edge" and handfly the climb and descent.

I do appreciate that it must be quite demoralising and, as someone mentioned, deskilling (although I'm saying no more so than before), but hasn't this always been the role of the SO?

[DutchRoll]

BTW, the restriction currently applies only to S/Os on the B747-400. It does not apply to the Classic, or the 767. Go figure. :confused:

[Capt Fathom]

the restriction currently applies only to S/Os on the B747-400 - Also applies to the A330's
It does not apply to the Classic, or the 767 - Pending!

[mustafagander]

Ah, I must be getting too old for this caper! I remeber when captains were trusted to make judgement calls about all sorts of things including when to let the S/O in the seat for a fly. Can we imagine it - captains actually being in charge of their aircraft! Even more, being allowed to manage their crews as they saw fit. Subject only to the absolute requirement to be safe at all times. "Tell 'im 'ees dreamin'"

I must have had a bit too much Christmas cheer! :ok:

[texan28]

Now guys remember when you were a budding pilot and wanting more than ever to get that first airline job and you wouldn't care if it was a S/O.... remember next time you start to verbaly bash these people that they are FELLOW AVIATORS trying to make a living and trying to work their way up the ladder just as everyone did.

[blueloo]

texan, you should know that will make no difference on PPRUNE, in fact in real life too - Aviators have a habit of being able to act like a bunch of brats, stab each other in the back etc etc etc, in many cases I suspect aviators are probably the best at it- they get so much practice at it, its not funny.

[Chris Higgins]

Here in Dumerica, it seems that there has been a complete reversal of this policy. First of all, Southwest Airlines, the only really profitable airline here now has always required a 737 endorsement and 1,000 hours of PIC turbine time to interview as a First Officer.

Netjets, the world's largest operator of fractional jets, now numbering 533, requires 2,500 tt and 500 multi to get an interview. My new hire class averaged 7,800 hours. We type all of our first officers and once they get 150 tt in type they can fly the left seat without pax at the captain's discretion. This is still not considered PIC time.

What we have found is that the training costs have plummeted within this culture. The pilot group is quite cohesive, the respect for position is not diluted, the upgrades are easier and morale through an increase in participation has taken away the monotony of the work week.

I see a lot of things about the "new" Australian airspace culture that concern me greatly. Diluting the tasks of junior officers, paying lip-service to training regimen and neglecting their worthwhile contributions to the operating environment could have disastrous results.

[DutchRoll]

Yes, I concede the 330 Fathom. Regarding the other two types though, one wonders why they are pending. It was made quite clear that there was a 'safety' aspect considered in the decision, which one would've thought would lead to the other types being included pronto. Evidently not though. Still, people far wiser than I come up with Company Orders and policies, such as the one where the only instruction was that if we have a multiple engine flameout, we should accomplish the multiple engine flameout checklist.;) The company appears - on the surface at least - to be in a state of denial that the policy will have, when mixed with factors such as lack of availability of sim time, etc, any detrimental effect on training, moral, motivation and skill levels.:uhoh:

[Howard Hughes]

Now, I have'nt flown either, as/or with an SO, but I would have thought that it would be quite acceptable for the SO to be at the controls for landing, in fact, even encouraged.

Forgive me if I have missed the point, but are'nt the 2 main reasons for having an SO:

1, to relieve the crew (this should include landings).

2, to learn the command judgements needed to oneday fill the seat of the guy with the size 62 hat?

Now as for changing seats below the transition, this is preposterous!!

Surely it is imperative that the landing crew, regardless of which 2 crew members are going to occupy those positions, should be seated well before transition, if not prior to top of descent.

How can anyone be expected to have the necessary level of situational awareness, by taking their seat in the last 5 mins of a flight?

Is it just me? Or am I missing the point here?

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[tinpis]

I wonder...... a sector long haul 2 take offs two landings company policy to give one landing to the auto pilot who gets the other one?

[Z Force]

It would be interesting to see if CASA have a view on this. Who knows, maybe Qantas will have to invest in a small jet or two for training?
Also, any truth that QF SO's now have to do some form of assessment sim to be considered for upgrade to FO?

[Ramjager]

So's?
Well maybe if QF employed pilots like 99% of the rest of the worlds airlines they wouldn't be needed.
Given every other major airline trains people into the right seat with no major problems what gives?
Let me guess?
Wouldn't be the fact that a whole lot of sons and daughters would miss out on the red carpet treatment.
They might even have to learn how to fly before they get a real job!
Maybe even make it a requirement to have an ATPL prior to starting work with them.
Nice to see IATA clamping down where CASA and the Government have let the QF be turned into a part time nursery/flying school/flying club for the benefit of the few.
Imagine putting someone with 6500hrs in as a SO to "learn" how to fly again.
Seems like everyone else saves money training direct to FO and its just as safe if not safer as you have nobody with less than 2500-3000 hrs on the flightdeck.
Sounds good to me.

[DutchRoll]

Not as such, Z Force. They look at the training history of each promotional candidate and if there are any doubts (eg, several low sim scores in a particular area), they may require an assessment sim or two. The majority of S/Os don't need to do them for promotional training.

[mr hanky]

Imagine putting someone with 6500hrs in as a SO to "learn" how to fly again.

Look on the bright side - at least that someone with 6500hrs, prior to being checked to line as a S/O, is no longer known as a PUIT (Pilot Under Initial Training, for God's sake...)

[Chimbu chuckles]

S/Os are a cheap way to extend duty times on long haul...that's the be all and end all of it. Cruise relief pilots...otherwise you'd need 2 captains and 1 F/O generally....or at least 1 captain and two F/Os (one a SFO)...either option is more expensive in a beancounters mind...they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing after all.

tinpis I would be very surprised..nay stunned, if QF were giving half the landings to the autopilot...2-3% would be more like it and that only so the crews can stay current for autoland just prior to each sim recurrent....if they hadn't actually done one for real in the previous 6 mths.

[The Messiah]

So as an s/o you now get the same pay for even less work?

I don't see the problem with that.:ok:

[alidad]

When the most senior "lifestyle" S/O's are earning, sorry getting paid in excess of $150K to show up to work twice a month I do not consider it good

[Capt Fathom]

alidad

How did you come up with $150k ?
1200 pay hrs @ $80 per hr is $96k!
Where does the other $54k come from and where do I apply!

[Feather #3]

Capt Fathom , the answer [if correct] is overtime.

Chuck , the answer is closer to 1-2%. The a/c has 45 day recency on autoland & the pilots 90. Usually the sim covers the pilots, and required Low Vis landings tend to cover the a/c.

Having said that I had to autoland a Europe bound a/c the other day because its recency was expiring, and this time last year every 2nd LAX arrival was a CatIII due w/x. "They also surf who only stand on waves!"

G'day ;)

Edited for typing while tired!:ok:

[permFO]

Whatever happened to the concept of Senior Second Officers who could land and take-off as they have done for the Airbus Technical pilot! There are lots of S/O's who would have sufficient experience and probably more than a lot of the F/O's. I think its the start of an airline attempt to have less technically able people in the cockpits. Soon the only requirement for S/O will be a PPL and a Microsoft diploma!

[The Messiah]

alidad

As I understand it, the s/o gets paid the extra money due to the extra hours at work, is this not correct?

If so how is this not good, and who is it not good for? The company benefit due to the cheaper rates for s/o's and the s/o benefits obviously. Who else needs to be considered and why should he/she take upgrade for less money and more work?

These rules were not made by s/o's so go suck on your sourgrapes!

[Screw Jac]

As Chimbu so aptly put it, bean counters know the cost of everything, yet the value of nothing.

With companies being driven by bean counters nothing has any value unless there is a dollar sign attached.
It is happening throughout the company, marginal revenue growth and severe cost cutting is a large component of profit growth....doesn't last for ever, look at the many examples in the USA!

The fact that they can count numbers does NOT imply they have any understanding of the industry in which they count...Which is why they are supposed to just count. The heirachy is however so stacked that they make inroads into everything, and meddle in areas where they have no idea!!! (Not just at QF)

So the poor S/O at QF is under pressure. The company mentioned in a recent communication that the S/O can VOLUNTEER for additional observation simulators, or undertake training in their own time! As I alluded to earlier, imagine the Captains of AIPA being told to undertake voluntary training!!!!!!!

The CP wants to generate revenues from the simulators, including external hire to companies and individuals..The same communication referred to above stated that there would be a reduced availability of simulators for private practice sessions. (see where it is leading)...Instead the employee is given a CD and said study that..

"Before undertaking flying training in an aircraft the student should know that the same result can be achieved by reading a few books and studying a CD (So CASA what do you reckon??)"

The end result will be, simulator time sold to outside clients (CX for example) The non availablity of simulator time WILL lead to failures in training and promotion. The first failures either in recurrent simulator practice or F/O promotional training will be deemed "insufficiently motivated" It will not be until there are groups of failures that the system will begin to realise, albeit to late the policy was flawed from the start.
Just how does a pilot maintain a flying standard, how does he or she pass an instrument rating reneweal every three months, when there is no line practice and no simulator practice?


It used to be that airlines were about flying, those days are well and truly over. The pilot is merely an input in the revenue model that values the brand at around A$900million.





:hmm:

[stiffwing]

There are basically 2 reasons that s/o's are employed by QF:
1. To extend flight time limitations beyond that provided by 2 pilot (domestic, SE asia ) operations and, as a consequence

2. To increase the company's productivity e.g. LAX - MEL 4 pilot (well 2 + 2 !!) is a darned efficient operation as it stands... 350 pax a quarter of the way around the world for similar costs that other airlines operating NRT - SFO or JFK - LAX with a "heavy" crew. Perhaps consider the alternative of LAX -SYD, then new crew SYD - MEL. This would be a huge increase in crew costs.