Finally !...Eastern/Sunstate order 7x DH8-400

[CLEAR PROP]

Qantas Airways is to invest about $200 million for seven new aircraft to use on its regional Australian routes.

The turboprop Bombardier Q400 planes will be used by QantasLink and the airline has taken options to buy another 10 in the future.

The new aircraft will be delivered in the first half of next year.

"This investment marks a new era in regional air travel, with the Bombardier Q400 featuring improved passenger comfort, jet-like speed and lower operating costs," said Qantas executive general manager regional airlines Narendra Kumar.

The 72-seat Bombardier Q400 will deliver a 44 per cent increase in capacity over QantasLink's existing fleet of 50-seat Dash 8-Q300s, he added.

Mr Kumar said the investment reflected Qantas' support for regional Australia and was the largest single investment it had ever made in its regional turboprop fleet.

Last year, the airline acquired seven new Dash 8-Q300 aircraft for more than $100 million.

Mr Kumar said QantasLink would exercise the available options and rights over the additional 10 aircraft only if market conditions improved and the airline continued to achieve efficiency and productivity gains.

Advertisement
AdvertisementQantasLink currently operates 16 Dash 8-Q300s and 18 Dash 8-100s and 200s.

[QF skywalker]

see the link at the ASX website

Order for 7x Q400's with 10 options. Delivery as of 2006.

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/todayAnnHeaders.jsp (http://)

[spinout]

I heard a story today that some of the old AFAP stalwarts in QLD were spreading rumors that Qantaslink would not get DASH 8 400 because of the formation of the Eastern Pilot Group…. Shows how much they know…:p

[GalleyHag]

Fleet Latest News

SYDNEY, 13 January 2005

Qantas said today that it would acquire seven new turboprop Bombardier Q400 aircraft, and take options and purchase rights over an additional 10 aircraft, for use by QantasLink on regional routes.

Executive General Manager Regional Airlines, Narendra Kumar, said the new aircraft would be delivered in the first half of 2006.

"This investment marks a new era in regional air travel, with the Bombardier Q400 featuring improved passenger comfort, jet-like speed and lower operating costs," Mr Kumar said.

"The 72-seat Bombardier Q400 also delivers a 44 per cent increase in capacity over QantasLink's existing fleet of 50-seat Dash 8-Q300s.

"These new aircraft will allow QantasLink to grow capacity efficiently on key regional routes while maintaining frequency," he said.

"For example, the larger Bombardier Q400 can replace Dash 8-Q300s on certain routes and the displaced Dash 8-Q300s can replace smaller 36 seat Dash 8-100s and 200s."

Mr Kumar said this substantial investment in the regional fleet would continue Qantas' support for growth in regional Australia.

He said the seven new aircraft would cost about A$200 million, the largest single investment Qantas had ever made in its regional turboprop fleet. Last year, the airline acquired seven new Dash 8-Q300 aircraft for more than A$100 million.

"The Bombardier Q400 also offers improved operational efficiency. It is a new aircraft with new engine and propeller systems. It can also fly at 360 knots, allowing it to reduce flight times and potentially operate additional frequencies on some sectors."

Mr Kumar said QantasLink would exercise the available options and rights over the additional 10 aircraft only if market conditions improved and the airline continued to achieve efficiency and productivity gains.

He said the Bombardier Q Series/Dash 8 was a reliable and comfortable aircraft and a key part of the QantasLink regional fleet. QantasLink currently operates 16 Dash 8-Q300s and 18 Dash 8-100s and 200s.

QantasLink offers more than 2,000 flights each week, serving 49 destinations throughout Australia and employing more than 1,000 people.


Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (3199)

[Capt Claret]

I was told a story a couple of days ago, alleging that Sunnies/Eastern pilots had mooted a pay claim for $100k for DH8 captains, and been told by the evil empire "that's fine, do it, we'll just give the work to National Jet".

At the time I couldn't see a logical reason to push for a substantial pay increase, but now..... :8

[Animalclub]

quote...
At the time I couldn't see a logical reason to push for a substantial pay increase, but now.....
unquote

Captain C.... so because QF bought new aircraft QF pilots should push for more pay.

I don't understand/see the reasoning behind this statement.

To coin a phrase "Please Explain".

[badboiblu]

JetA_OK
l think you will find that Sunstate/Eastern will be crewing the new aircraft. Four will go to Sunstate and three to Eastern. They will be replacing the old 100's and operating over current routes.

[bonez]

The Media release does not mention any of the Qantaslink operators.

Me thinks they will play them off against each other.

It is certainly not in the bag for EAA/SSA, much as they deserve it... it's a top aeroplane!

[Hugh Jarse]

Gidday Clarrie,

I received an SMS from our Chief Pilot this arvo announcing it. However I saw it here on PPRuNe first:}

But like I wrote with the -300 announcement, I'll believe it when I see 'em here;)

However this has been rumoured for months, and it originated from our own Ivory Tower no less. And our Technical Manager has had his head down and ar$e up for a couple of months with -400 bits and pieces strategically placed on his desk.

But....I'll believe it when I see it..........:8 Though I won't promise to run through the terminal naked like Capt. R.Sole did. That would scare the pax away:E

Gidday.

[F111]

Hugh,

Capt R Sole, now thats a name form the past;) He never did run naked through the terminal:E ;)

Enjoy your new toy:ok:

[Hugh Jarse]

F111,

I think the Capt. is very selective of who he shows his fat to, if you know what I mean :}

Sorry Capt;)

[How's it Hanging]

For those thinking 400's will go anywhere but Eastern and Sunstate, think again!
QFLink management have already told pilot forums the reason for B717's going to either Njs or Impulse were economic ones, and that if Dash 8 400's come they will go to Eastern and Sunstate for the same reasons.
In the big picture if current QFLink pilots who end up flying the 400 get paid more than NJS pilots who might want to come in and undercut them, it means nothing, as the initial start up costs and current infrastructure available far outweighs any undercutting they may be available on crew costs.

[swh]

Was that national jet advertising in the not too distant past for a Dash 8 sim instructor for ML base ?

[Pimp Daddy]

Was that national jet advertising in the not too distant past for a Dash 8 sim instructor for ML base ?
Close - it was Surveillance Australia (Coastwatch) looking for a sim instructor which could possibly be based in Melbourne due to a new sim being built there.

Qantaslink have already merged one of their Dash 8 operators into another (Southern) and their stated goal is to move eventually to one Dash 8 operator (ie: Sunnies/Eastern merge), so it would go against all current thinking to make another Dash 8 operator with the -400s.

And given that all the internal Qantaslink (turboprop)departments are working on the -400 indroduction it would seem a little unusual to do all that and hand them off to another operator.

You may see a separate group of pilots within Easern/Sunstate flying them initially as I don't think the question of cross qualificationhas been sorted yet.

[hoss]

out of interest where is the nearest Q400 simulator? :)

[TopperHarley]

My money is on the new DHC8 sim at Ansett in Melb being -400 capable !

Any ideas of the proposed -400 routes?? Same routes or some new ground ?? What about endorsement ?? A new type rating ??

Since this is a rumor network, any one else heard the one that says crewing the -400 wont necessarily be related to seniority ??

[Pimp Daddy]

My money is on the new DHC8 sim at Ansett in Melb being -400 capable !


They may get a -400 sim there in the future but the -400 is a separate sim.

The one going into MEL is supposedly a 100, 200, 300 jobbie.

Any ideas of the proposed -400 routes?? Same routes or some new ground ?? What about endorsement ?? A new type rating ??

The main talk has been around increaed capacity/frequency on current routes. As for the endorsement - Bombardier say it's the same, in fact, one of the canadian operators operates -100s and -400s with same crew. Then again Eastern made us do differences flying for a -300 so who knows.

And who knows how CASA will take it, wouldn't be the first time they've trotted out the square wheel again just in case it works this time.

[hoss]

Heard that the conversion takes about 3-4 days in class and 2-3 days sim. Toronto is a cold place at this time of the year.

Great news for Qantaslink(eastern and sunnies):)

[Capt Claret]

Animalclub

(please read with a red wig on and nasal strine twang ;) )

NO I didn't say that because QF bought a new aircraft QF pilots should push for more pay. I said that I couldn't understand what was behind the alleged push for more pay. At the time I had no knowledge of the Q400 purchase which was only announced in the last day or so.

I'm neither saying that QF pilots should or shouldn't be paid more for flying an aircraft that carries 40% more pax than their current largest (regional dh8-300) aircraft. BUT the announcement of the Q400 does go some way to explaining the possible motives behind the alleged demand/request for a pay increase.

edit: bad maths day :\ , edit to correct pax increase percentage from 70% to 40%

[Ozgrade3]

How would something in between go to replace the 300's. Say a 350, 50 seats, take the avionics out of the 400, bigger engines to give it similar performnce. Much like the SAAB 2000 was.

[grrowler]

an aircraft that carries 70% more pax than their current largest (regional dh8-300) aircraft

dh8-300 - 50 pax
dh8-400 - 70 pax

70/50 x 100 = 40% more...

so only need a 40% payrise :}:rolleyes:

Ozgrade3, something in between is the dh8-300

[Ozgrade3]

I was thinking a 300 with 400 systems and performance. What a cracker that would be

[badboiblu]

Yes but as there was no pay rise when the 300's were introduced, you need to compare the 100's "36 seat" to the 400's "72 seats for the Qantaslink order"
Hmmm 100% payrise.

[spinout]

My Question is for those Eastern/Sunstate Pilots… who would you rather have doing the negotiating for a pay rise for the DASH8 400
a) AFAP
b) AIPA
And for what reasons?
:cool:

[Animalclub]

Captain C....

Aaahhhh, now I understand. My humblest apologies.

Cheers

[swh]

Apparently a steady exit from sunnies and easterns of experienced drivers to jet operators is starting to take a toll on qlink, they been making phone calls to other operators requesting that qlink drivers not be considered, or not letting them go.

Hearing that selected capts, including ex-146 drivers are being earmarked for the -400, mainly pilots with exp above 20t. Talk about is to get QF cadets as F/O’s as at least they will stay for 24 months and that would take care of many of the industrial issues about with the introduction of the new type, and stop current F/O's getting exp above 20t which would make them even more attractive overseas.

Apparently the -400 not part of the current EBA ... anyone able to confirm ?


:hmm:

[b55]

swh,
"Appanently a steady exit from sunnies and easterns..."
Eastern with lots of hopeful maybe's to J*, but not true at sunnies.

[Hugh Jarse]

SWH,

Eastern is currently unable to take min experience cadets, as they don't meet the company minimum experience criteria. And you will have to ask yourself the ramifications of a 150hr pilot in the RHS of a -400. The company is conservative on such matters, and there is no reason to believe otherwise in this instance.

Take a read of our EBA, Clause 50, page 27 regarding introduction of new aircraft.

The -400 will have to be sorted out (industrially) by negotiation. It's early days yet. The Chief Pilot has announced this formally to the pilot group. Therefore its introduction will have to be negotiated with the pilot group. Hopefully in the current EBA. If this is not possibe, then it will be done by letter of agreement.

One thing's for sure. We haven't forgotten the introduction of the -300 and the broken promises:yuk:

Gidday.:ok:

[swh]

Jarse,

If QF can get the cadets as a F/O's with Jetstar with the same experience, why can they not be a f/o on a dhc8 ?

QF have placed cadets already on Dhc8s outside Qlink.

If its a FAM issue, its nothing a pen cannot fix. I have seen in the Impulse/Jetstar EBA cadet pay scales, does such an aminal exist in the EAA/Sunnies ?

:ok:

[b55]

swh,
turboprop RPT, ROUTINELY work in more uncontrolled airspace, regional airport runways, CTAF's, all nonprecision approaches with more terrain considerations usually, which is a much more dangerous working enviornment than QF RPT jets routinely face. The prudent thing for QF and the Qlink chief pilots is to put the cadets where they can do the least harm while they try to learn to be jet pilots, in the mainline S.O. positions.

[swh]

b55,

After completing training, QF places cadets into industry before they are considered for a SO position. Graduation from a cadet course does not mean you will get a SO position.

The cadets who are flying your SA227, J32, EMB120, DHC8 as graduates from cadet programs now are flying FO's. Its hog wash to suggest that Qlink work is any more or less hard then those positions.

The schedule work in Qlink could be considered easier than the non-scheduled work that some of them are doing charter wise.

As I said before QF have cadets on industry placement on dash 8s in Australia now, why can they not extend that to the Qlink fleet.

With good training anyone can fly, you dont need to have had 5 GA jobs, 12 renewals, 5000 hrs turbine to fly a dash 8 in any airspace.

:bored:

[speedjet]

Why should QFLink take QF cadets?? QF deem most of us at QFLink as unsuitable for mainline, but suitable enough to train their future pilots..... that makes sense. That will make the workplace a friendly environment with these cadets sitting in RH seat knowing that they are going to QF soon.

[b55]

swh,
If it is safe for QF cadets to start into a Dash 8-300 (260kts) or the Dash 8-400 (360kts) in its enviornment, then it is safe for them to start on the QF jets as F/O's in that enviornment. But they don't. Nor should they. They SHOULD at least go through 12 months of a GA job. There are reasons why RPT above S227,J32 etc. is safer and pilot experience is one of them. The point is QF has been cautious with their cadets and so they should. The same reason applies to the Qlink Dash fleet, even more so, imho.

[swh]

b55,

If you read my previous posts in this thread, some do start as F/Os in jets with Jetstar.

Some do start on DHC8's outside Qlink.

The vast majority of them start on a turbine as a F/O.

No evidence to suggest this has lead to increased numbers incidents here or overseas.

In the UK it has been common practice for years to have 150-200 hr f/os on jets.

speedjet

"That will make the workplace a friendly environment with these cadets sitting in RH seat knowing that they are going to QF soon."

Qlink has happly been training pilots for other airlines for ages, Virgin, Cathay, Dragon, Royal Brunei, Eva, Qantas, etc. Was it 6 EAA drivers got slots with QF mainline last year ?

Given the large turnover at Qlink at the moment, it would be safe to say that a lot of the guys in your RHS will be leaving within two years of starting. Only differance with cadets is they have a known timeframe, and known destination.

:ok:

[b55]

Why are cadets okay for JetStar as f/o's but not QF?! If QF cadets are good enough to fly for other RPT airlines, then they are certainly good enough to start flying in the mainline QF enviornment.

[swh]

b55,

The actual reason I believe is due to the contract between QF and the Cadet.

The reason behind that could be to give the pilots exposure to life outside QF and to consolidate what they learnt as part of the cadet program.

Everyone joining QF, being a cadet, F/A18 pilot, 737 captain, DHC8 pilot, or G.A. driver all start as S/Os. As a S/O they would not get exposure to takeoff and landing until upgraded sometimes 7 years later to F/O.

From a management point of view I could see real value in the prospect of having Cadets, you dont have to interview them, you dont have to bond them, you know when they will finish, and you know where to find more to replace them when it comes time to let the go to mainline.

From memory mainline will also pay for the endorsement.

So if I was a manager looking at trying to introduce a new type, and can get cheep F/Os, that have their endorsement paid for by the parent company, do you think I would get a bigger bonus for keeping the costs down ?

Would you risk whats happening in Jetstar, with guys geting their A320 endorsements then going overseas where real money is available...you telling me no one would jump ship to say ANA to drive a Q400 there ?

QF are not the only operator doing this...from what I hear NJS is doing similar on the 727F, having cadets as F/O's.

:ok:

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

With good training anyone can fly, you dont need to have had 5 GA jobs, 12 renewals, 5000 hrs turbine to fly a dash 8 in any airspace

Hey, the machine flies ITSELF, right??

Give me a guy with the above experience in the RHS over a low-time and low experience pilot (however well they 'operate' the machine) next to me any ol day - especially when things aren't going quite right.


You can NEVER replace a solid foundation and a varied command experience. Sooner or later, a lack of it it will show up - hopefully for you or your pax - not at the wrong time and wrong place.

[tinpis]

Sooner or later, a lack of it it will show up - hopefully for you or your pax - not at the wrong time and wrong place

Like a crew unable to carry out a simple night circuit in A320 in VMC.

[b55]

The experinced RPT F/O is proven to be a big safety factor. As you say, captains with "just sit there and watch" F/O's in DC-3 days are a bad example of the unsafe flight deck. The average cadet F/O's wouldn't be much better at knowing what is safe within their limited RPT experience and thus pointing things out "Gee, captain but I think a go-around would be a very good idea for you." "hmmm, this doesn't look good, does it captain?!!" "are you sure we are lined up with runway, captain?" Most wouldn't know for several years at least of exposure or be confident enough in their knowledge to make a call. The silent F/O as the jet goes in. Always best to start at the bottom and work your way up with your experience.
"Your surgeon, Wow! Great school he went to! His first operation and it's on your heart ! How good is that"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grrowler]

swh,

I agree with most of what you're saying, however I think b55 does make one valid point and I'm not sure you answered his question; QF are using cadets in a variety of machines, even RHS A320. Why then, are mainline SO's whether cadets or not, now being even further restricted in what they are allowed to do on the flightdeck (below 10K)? A slightly different issue I know, but it's good enough for a regional or subsiduary, but not for mainline itself? Why? Your comments on cadets as 400 fo's does have a certain ominous tone to it though, n sounds right up qf management's alley... :yuk:

And for those of you who seem to be saying that a 250hr cadet is as capable as a 2000+hr FO - what?! Sure they are capable of doing the job when everythings going ok, so could a monkey, but if you haven't learnt anything in your flying time that could save your ar$e when the sh!t hits the fan, that wasn't taught to you when you did your CPL, I am quite worried.

[b55]

JetA_ok,
Single pilot ops, no matter what their experience level, is much more dangerous than any two pilot operation. I'm NOT saying years of experience EQUALS safe, I'm saying the more experience, the more a pilot recognises when things are not quite right, or getting close to the edges, something he has never seen before. Can a cadet do that for your captain on the next RPT jet flight sitting down the back ? Suggest that is why QF sends their cadets for F/O positions anywhere but their own ops.

[swh]

G,

I would suggest it has more to do with FAM requirements than anything else.

At that height you have a sterile cockpit, approach should be briefed, and checked in the FMC by the crew conducting the approach. Even tho the S/O is capable of doing that, if its was the F/O's sector, under QF procedures only the capt can brief/fly that approach if it requires low vis procedures.

To me its just getting the crew in "approch config", no last minute changes, and with most things might be a result of an issue of people changing seats and getting distracted when low.

Also below 10k it would be nice to have people concentrating on the job at hand, esp if a TCAS event were to occour. The restriction may have somethnig to do with transits in Class E.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz,

I am sure the CP of any regional airline would like to people like that available, however they are getting harder to get, they also tend to be mid career and are chasing the bucks & jet time.

Whilst experience has always been thought as being positive, sometimes its is also negative, and some believe that since they have experience the world owes them a living, and they know everything about aviation. Some at this stage are harder to teach SOPs etc to.

I am hearing they are having a problem with stability within the workforce, having people with a known tenure will assit in planning. Also using cadets that are not part of the current pilot pool, by using them it will not remove people from the roster to undertake training on the Q400, making staffing of the current roster possible.

tinni,

Are you talking about the Gulf Air A320 accident ? I thought that was a hand flown low level orbit on finals, something that is not smart to do in any aircraft at night regardless of pilot experience.

Its been some time since I read that report, from memory the F/O was too fast for the approach, the capt took over and decided to do an orbit to configure rather than vectors, published hold or the published missed.

b55,

To further expand on my previous, my understanding of the contract between the cadet and QF is that have a nominal 24 month industry placement which can be extended or reduced if both parties agree. If QF were short, and the cadet agreed I am sure that this 24 month period would be reduced.

The cadets meet the command PIC requirments at the end of the cadet program in order to gain an Australian ATPL, they do not need to do any additional "command" time to gain an Australian ATPL, ICUS/Co-Pilot is satisfactory.

:ok:

[wayne_king]

"entrenched industrial issues", that's a big call to make based on one or two anonymous people's posts. Once again pilots argue with pilots and the IR department rubs their hands together with glee. Gee how original:zzz:

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

SWH - we have to decide which is the overriding priority: Safety or Operational expediency.

If safety is the priority, you would have to agree that the experienced co-pilot comes out miles ahead - hands down. Their experience should be embraced, and suitably renumerated.

If they don't comply with SOPS, then that should come to light and they should be shown the door.

Jet_A_OK: Your posts on this thread seem to indicate to me that you have an entrenched inferiority complex, however, what you say regarding 20k hr cockpits and accidents does hold true. An accident is awaiting even the most experienced aviator, given the right/wrong set of circumstances. What you fail to address, and what we don't often hear about are the countless numbers of accidents that 20k hr cockpits have AVOIDED.

Aviation safety is about alot of things, including checks and balances. Part of this is to have two pilots who can check and correct the other. This is one ofthe basic premise of MC ops. If one of them is inexperienced, they:

1. May not know or realise that the Captain is in error and needs correction

2. May be too timid to question the Capt. even if he did realise there was an error.

I am sure others can add further examples...

Having as much experience up front is not an 'entrenched industrial issue' but a SAFETY issue. You can't argue against the fact that an experienced pilot is more capable than a fresh low time/cadet pilot.


As for an accident report where ex-cadet type pilots have wrecked a plane, go here for the A320 that was flown into the water during a botched night visual approach. Obviously, this guy did no Single pilot night freight.

http://www.bahrainairport.com/arabic/caa/civil_gf072.htm


You also mentioned something about inept pilots?? The Crossair Avro RJ accident in Zurich, where a Captain descended below lowest safe during an approach, and the low time co-pilot watched it all happen, is a prime example of when an inept Captain is teamed up with an inexperienced Co-pilot (490hrs TT). So much for checks and balances.

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1793_e

As was said before, would you undergo brain surgery with a doctor fresh out of med school??

The only person who would belittle the value and importance of experience is someone without it.

[swh]

Col. Walter E. Kurtz,

The GF captain was not a cadet pilot...he was employed as a apprentance maintenance engineer (engineer cadet)..he was an AME for about 9 years before being a flight engineer for about 8 years, then becoming a pilot.

From what I hear GF has a few locals like him, dont listen to anyone. He was showing off and paid the price, and took a heap of people with him. I have mates who have worked in GF as F/Os, expats, the local captains dont listen to them either, and they have circa 10,000 hrs, capt 4,000.

I have never seen anything so stupid as this accident, doing an orbit at 500' AGL, 0.9 nm from the runway. I know no one who would entertain such an idea, let alone in a 70t jet, at night, and with a wopping 86 hrs command on it.

This is not a good example, no one I know would do anything so stupid....cadet pilot or not.

The only thing this accident illustrates is the need for strict adherance to SOPs.

I still think we will agree to disagree...cadet pilots will need to be checked to the same standard as any other Qlink F/O, no better no worse...same standard. They will use the same S.O.P's. They have better multi crew training than most G.A. types, as most G.A. type never got any multi-crew training.

So can we get back to the Q400....

:ugh:

[grrowler]

swh,

the point I was making is that mainline don't think it is safe to have a SO in the seat for take-off or landing in their aircraft, yet apparently it's fine in "just a regional", because they are happy to now use them as a training ground.

Why should the regionals then accept this less safe standard? It has nothing to do with FAM or SOP or any other bullsh!te abbrev. you want to bring out, it is only to do with $.

[swh]

G,

Do S/O cyclics cover engine failures on takeoff ?

:ok:

[grrowler]

ah the old swh brickwall... you're not addressing my (or b55's) question, you're coming back with fairly irrelevant responses.

swh, if they chose to they could easily include EFATO, etc and then the SO could take-off and land. Mainline don't do this, why? Perhaps the company wants the most able, experienced pilots doing the job. Why shouldn't this be the case for the subsidiaries and regionals?:confused:

[swh]

G,

If you or B55 wish to have a rant to me over cadets in EAA/Sunnies/QF please feel free to PM me.

The ones I have been with have been more than capable operators, sociable, and very eager to learn. They know SOP tolerances to the letter, call it when required, they did it as part of their initial cadet training, they know no differant. Something which would be useful for anyone in G.A.

The reason they dont do the same cyclics as captains and f/os is to save on training costs. If time, money, and resources were available I am sure in an ideal world everyone would do the same cyclics, and everyone would have command endorsements.

Bear in mind the "most able, experienced pilots doing the job" may infact be the S/O, QF have hired a number of pilots of late with 5000+ hrs jet, some with considerable jet command, more than a lot of f/0's. However the way the system works in QF, it goes by your QF start date, not experience level to gain promotion (with some exceptions, project pilots etc).

From an outsiders point of view, it seems like you guys are trying build an illusion to say a Q400 requires a test pilot to fly it, most probably to argue for a pay rise. I would suggest that there are better ways to argue for a pay rise than bag other pilots.

:ok:

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

JetAOk - I can assure you at this stage in my life, I do not feel in the least threatened by any cadet that can pass the same checks etc as I do! They still haven't passed their command check:ok:

This was not meant to be a comparison of who has done the hardest graft or my climb to the job was any harder than yours. Personally, I couldn't care less HOW they got there, but I do care what they DO when they are in the seat next to me. As for 'warm fuzzy feelings', at my age, I can't afford to waste them on cadets! :E

Granted there are some very capable cadets who know the SOPS and the calls to the 'T'. I can't argue with that.

It's when things happen that AREN'T in the SOPS, that hasn't been seen in the SIM or cyclics, where problems start to surface! There's little else to draw upon for them when they are in this situation. I suppose that's why the Captain is there, but it sure as $hit helps to have all the VARIED experience you can possibly have up front, when you need it most.

This is not intended to persecute cadets - so please don't take my comments personally. It's not meant to denigrate yours or others TALENT. Talent is a springboard, experience has to be built upon that. It's just the reality that cadets often had not had to face the music on their own, in a reasonably varied environment.

QF once upon a time used to seconde their cadets out to work in GA for a few years before bringing them back for line training. This seems like a good way to get these guys out of their insular world, to fly SP IFR which is some of the most demanding flying there is, to develop a better sense of command judgement and to learn when to pick their fights (as long as it is not subsidised wages wrecking things for other GA pilots).

But what would I know - I'm just an old fart - no match for a young hot-shot who has read all about it in books and manuals - but can pass the same checks as me!!

[grrowler]

swh,

You've got me all wrong, I have no problem with cadets. I have a problem with the double standards shown by management. I can't be bothered rewriting my point again.

and the q400 can't be any harder to fly than flying for the big H ;)

[swh]

G,

No worries...maybe next time im in siddney we can catch up and have a beer or five.

Whilst it maybe your perception that double standards apply, ie QF not taking on cadets straight from the course, what I have tried to say abouve is this...
[list=1]
The cadet training contract requires them to have some industry ecxperience before going to mainline, normally a 24 month period
The length of the industry placement maybe extended or reduced by mutual agreement.
Cadets are placed in industry by QF where QF can find positions for them
I would not be surprised if some were to take an additional year option up in their industry placement as that flying would be the most fun they will ever have in their career.
The industry experience may be in any form, from instructing at BAFTA to F/O on a 717, 146, 727, A320
All S/O's are restricted in what they can do in QF, cadet or not. The S/O has a defined role, cruise relief. ALL PILOTS JOINING QF MUST START AS A S/O. They are trained and kept current for only that specific role, regardless even if they were say ex AN, had a command on the 767 with AN, and a S/O on a 767 with QF, they would still have those restrictions.
A cadet going into the EAA/Sunnies C&T system and would be spat out as an F/O. They would have to pass all the same technical, simulator, and line training as any other F/O, to the same standard.
They might increse the amount of line training for cadets meaning the cadets would be on a training wage for longer. May also put a support f/o in the jump seat for the inital sectors.
The military have been putting pilots with only a few hundred hours solo on fast jets for ages, a lot of these guys start off at the academy as cadet officers. I dont see many people complaining about a 21 yr old with a couple of hunderd hours flying around in a F111 at 250ft and 600 kts, or sending them off to the gulf in a F/A 18. Guys in the military on fast jets would be lucky to get 2-400 hrs a year, and not unusual to only have a few thousand hours total in their career with the military as a fast jet driver.
[/list=1]

:ok:

[hoss]

swh,

one cadet into Qantaslink for one Qantaslink pilot into mainline.

If your interested i'll organise 'my people' to have a talk with 'your people':) .

[b55]

swh,
"....rant..."?! get hold of yourself man.
Everything said is quite irrelevant to the fact of the QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions, then they are not good enough to go straight into the regional F/O position. Qantas has a good reason for that policy. That same reason is just as good for the regionals as well.

[swh]

Hoss..

No probs...just get a list together of all the Qlink or previous identity ex-employees that are with mainline, should be get 24 names, use that to get 12 cadets a year into the system, then rotate the cadets out and replace them with cadets.

Simple ... thanks :ok:

B55...

Geez them dash must really be heavy work, so much harder work than any other job out there. Good enough to have them as F/O's everywhere else around the country even operating the same type of equipment or three times bigger.QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions, then they are not good enough to go straight into the regional F/O position. Qantas has a good reason for that policy. That same reason is just as good for the regionals as well. That statement is pure fantasy mate...I will happly retract that statement is you could advise me where is says in a QF policy manual that "QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions".

Remember that other Airline that used to be here...they also have cadets go on as F/Os on F50 or jets. Some of them even operated out of SY.

Hang on they were Ansett cadets...not Qantas cadets....its the Qantas Cadets that are "NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions"...yeah right :} :}

Then again a F50 out of SY is heaps easier to fly than a Dhc8 and is a bigger aircraft (over 20t)...

:oh:

Oh well...at the cadets will get to know what it like being an F/O with Qantas...and you know what its like being a F/O in Qantaslink.

:ok:

[9Ws]

1. Anyone know how long progression to Captain would take at Eastern nowdays for someone joining the company in the near future?

2. For someone joining the company in the near future, which aircraft would they be put on initially? -300s perhaps, considering the eventual phasing out of the -100s and -200s? ...or is it all a common type rating and everyone flies all types?

3. Would every pilot be trained on the -400 or would that take forever for newly joined pilot?

[karnoath]

SK111,

Does the company you fly for operate more than one Dash type?
If so do crews operate all types?

Thanks,

karnoath

[GT-R]

360kts to 5nm would be nice to see...

[flybe.com]

Hi all, mind if I join in?

Here at flybe in the UK we've had DHC8-200/300/400 in our fleet at the same time, however the 200s have now gone. We have just ordered another 20 400s so will have a total of 41.

Although the 400 needs a differences course, once completed, flying both types is a frequent occurrence, even on the same day!

The 400 is a fantastic machine with amazing performance. We have them in a 78 seat configuration, and even at MTOW (29,000 kgs) it climbs like the proverbial homesick angel. The aircraft has certainly opened a few eyes in the aviation world over here.

GT-R - 360 kts is the quoted TAS figure. IAS (Vmo) limitations are as follows:

0 - 8000' - 245 kts
10000' - 282 kts
18000' - 286 kts
20000' - 275 kts
25000' - 248 kts

The 0 - 8000' limit is an artificial one based on windscreen certification under birdstrike conditions.

A little tip, amongst many, for those guys who eventually get to fly them - park the windscreen wipers in the vertical position, the flightdeck becomes a whole lot quieter! The usual parked position is horizontal, so consequently flightdeck noise from airflow over the arms is high, blip them up to the vertical and all goes quiet. Unlike smaller versions, the 400 has no speed restriction for wiper operation so you can do it anytime.

I could go on forever with little bits of 400 info, but it'd take me all night.:ok:

[Pimp Daddy]

I could go on forever with little bits of 400 info, but it'd take me all night

Feel free to go on and on.

Hopefully some of our guys will be up your way anyway. Apparently some of the engineers will be visiting you guys for some experience, hopefully some of the drivers get there too.

[Shagtastic]

Pimp Daddy,

Given the mass exodus of pilots out of flyBE of late perhaps some of your visiting 'drivers' might like to stay??

Can't prommise you nice Ozzy weather though. Can't prommise much now I think about it! That may expalin why everyone is leaving.

Shaggy

[flybe.com]

Pimp Daddy - Here's a question for you, will the airlines that eventually receive the 400s (Eastern & Sunstate probably) be fully staffed to fly them? or might they need a helping hand for a few months? Or, is the Oz pilot scene too much of a closed shop to stand any chance of being able to work there temporarily?

Another tip - to avoid what is known as the DHC8 Wobble, if flying in HDG mode and cleared DTO a waypoint in the FMS, wait until the waypoint map on the MFD has updated (after pressing DTO) before selecting NAV (4-5 secs). If one presses DTO & NAV too quickly under certain conditions, (eg. right of track with new waypoint to the right) the aircraft will initially turn the wrong way (left to regain original track) before eventually working out where it actually needs to go (right) and reverses the turn. This leaves the pax down the back thinking their pilot has no idea where he's going!

[ROKAPE]

Not meaning to be rude fly.be old chap, but Australia has no shortage of experienced pilots that could be converted / trained on to the 400Q. Although it is probably easier for Brits to get a job here in Australia than it is for Aussies to try the fortress Europe / JAA route! However, I'm sure the QFLink guys appreciate your tips :ok:

[flybe.com]

Rokape - Since writing my post, I've spoken to guys here in the UK from Oz, NZ, Canada, and mainland Europe, as well as friends that fly with Aussie pilots over here. To a man, (and woman) they all say that getting short-term contract work in Oz is about as possible as a DHC8-400 flying for a week without going u/s! :eek:

We have guys over here from all parts of the world doing contract work using licences issued by many different aviation licencing bodies, and any 'local' red tape tends to be dealt with by the Company employing the visiting pilot once he or she is over here. In contrast to this, I've been advised that for such a thing to happen in Oz, the Company must testify that there isn't a trained 'local' available to do the job, and failing that, there isn't a 'local' who could be trained to do the job in a given time period. Additionally, the temporary contractor must satisfy all the usual permanent residency criteria, and have the appropriate licences already in place.

Seems like one hell of a closed shop to me!!! but don't get me wrong, I'm not knockin' ya for it, there are many Brits who would like the UK market to be similar. However if I've been misinformed then accept my apologies. :ouch:

Onto another tip - Start & Taxy. Unlike the 100/200/300, the engines on the 400 are started with the power levers in the 'disc' position. When the tug has disconnected, and the condition levers are brought up to the max (1020rpm) position, I bring the power levers up to a point about an inch below the flight idle position, and leave them there until take off. "Why?" you may ask, well the brakes on the 400 are carbon, like a jet, and carbon brakes need to be warm to work correctly, (as demonstrated by F1 drivers who do the warm up lap with their foot on the brakes in preparation for the first corner of the race). If you taxy the 400 like any other DHC8 using the power levers to speed up & slow down, then you might find yourself struggling to stop the beast on cold brakes in an aborted take off situation. Keeping the power levers in a position just below flight idle maintains a slightly positive pitch angle on the blades, and therefore a small thrust force during taxy as a jet would have. This means speed on the ground is therefore controlled by the brakes, which are consequently heated up nicely to deal with any take off problems.

Additionally, a by-product of not throwing the power levers back & forth between disc & flight idle on the ground as you speed up & slow down, is that the whole process is remarkably quiet. This is because the blades are at an angle that causes them to slice through the air as opposed to the normal disc position racket (heard by everyone in a ten mile radius!) where the blades slap the surrounding air. One of the noisiest aspects of a trip as a pax in the back of a 400 is during taxy when the guy up the front won't leave the power levers alone! In the past I've had cabin crew ding during the taxy to ask if there's a problem with the engines because they can't hear them very well!

At his point I must just add that everything I say on here is purely my own experiences of getting to know and love the 400 over a couple of thousand hours flying it, and my opinions carry no manufacturer endorsements of any kind.

[Capn Bloggs]

Flybe,

then you might find yourself struggling to stop the beast on cold brakes in an aborted take off situation.

Are you sure it's better to start an abort with hotter brakes?? In a maximum brake-energy stop situation, I have my doubts about your theory. They may be "more efficient" when they are warm, but you are perhaps drawing a long bow equating efficiency with maximum brake energy available.

What does manufacturer say about this?

[flybe.com]

Capn Bloggs - Thanks for your comment. I'm sure there are those, like yourself perhaps, who could give a better insight than I into the technical factors surrounding carbon brakes and their operation. However I can't, hence me oversimplifying the energy/efficiency equation. All I know is that when you apply the brakes on a 400 when they're cold, they're (at times) worryingly ineffective, but when warm, they're good.

Of course this could be due to a number different reasons, hydraulic fluid temperature and associated viscosity being one, I don't really know. I also have no idea what the manufacturer's opinion is either.

As an aside, what I did forget to mention in my F1 example above is that there is obviously an element of tyre-warming going on as the heat from the brakes dissipates.

[badboiblu]

Hey Flybe can you tell me if you are required to fly the 400 sim before being let loose on the aircraft.

The latest we hear in Australia will be a couple of days ground school and then a few circuits or line flights.

Its may be the same type, but there appears to be enough differences to justify more than that.

Any comments from anybody else?

What happened at Qantas for the jump from the 737 400 to the ng?

[flybe.com]

badboiblu - After consultation with the UK CAA, our Company elected to put us through 4 x 2hr sim sessions followed by 10 or so line training sectors. Our 6 monthly OPC/LPC is then alternated between the 'Classic' (200/300) and the 400.

Bombardier could have made the 400 a lot better, but sacrificed some of the potential advances to share a common type-rating with the Classic. My opinion is that looking at the huge differences between the Classic and the 400, a common type-rating is questionable.

Further to my earlier point about taxying with the power levers maintained in a position just below flight idle, our 'Tech' Pilot has just circulated his monthly memo, and in it he compares our 400 operation with that of SAS. Apparently, we have higher brake wear than they do, but this is attributed to operating from shorter runways, having a higher rotation/flight time ratio, and using bigger wheels. On the other hand, SAS have a far higher incidence of FOD damage to the engines, and this is due to their greater use of the disc position whilst taxying. He recommends that, as in the case of jet aircraft, we accelerate to the maximum SOP permitted taxy speed of 20kts, then slow down using the brakes, speed up again, then slow down again, and so on and so on. Therefore, brake life is sacrificed to preserve engine life.