S/O at CX

[747boss]

I heard a rumour that CX S/O don't
get a type rating and they can't
log the flights?

is it true or a rumour?

[The Guru]

Unfortunate but TRUE!

Source 1: "How to pass the CX Interview"
Source 2: My friends who are CX S/O's

Sorry to dampen your spirits, http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[Rumblefish]

An S/O told us that he logs 'Command under supervision' anytime he's sitting in the F/O's seat...Thus, would the Cabin-crew working the back-end get to log 'Command under supervision' anytime they enter the flight deck to check up on the pilots?!?

[BUSDRVR]

How can he log P1 U/S if he only has a p2X rating??

Falsification of records will haunt him, unless your mate is making the mistake of thinking he will make his life long career at CX!

[jumpseat]

I believe US licenced pilots are allowed to log time although they are not type rated. I could be wrong tho'.

[ausflyer]

If you are not type endorsed as S/O then what does the ground course consist of? Is it simply a course to prep you for the HK ATPL? All answers appreciated. Not yet totally convinced that CX could be so bad to work for. E-mail's most welcome, even from the CX bashers.

Cheers

------------------

[747boss]

Thank you for your answers.

--------------------------------------------
jumpseat:
---------
I believe US licenced pilots are allowed to log time although they are not type rated. I could be wrong tho'
--------------------------------------------
Does anybody knows any US Pilots
who are logging the hours and
is it legal?


regards

747BOSS

[awexs]

sad but true at KLM we have the same system junior pilots are s/o for up to 5 years at present and no expension planned yet

[roostertail]

All CX S/Os receive a P2X rating for their relative aircraft, whether it is a 400 or a 340.

The P2X rating is not an endorsement, strictly speaking, however it DOES allow logging of hours. That is why the Hong Kong CAD issues a log book to all Hong Kong based employees, whether CX or KA employees, that have a column headed "P2X".

And no, it's nowhere near as bad as you may have heard. It's bloody great actually.

[electricjetjock]

You may be able to log the hours in the specially adapted HK CAD logbook, adapted on whose request you may ask (CPA). But the rating is only P2X and of the many hours you may log none will be recognised by any other carrier and CPA / CAD will only give you credit for 300 of them.

So be very careful in your decision making. You might not be financially bonded to CPA but you would be for two good reasons.
1. It will probably take you 4-5 years to get a rating worth anything plus some hours.
2. Your "wonderful" provident fund will not be fully yours, if you leave employment, until you have completed 10 years!

Many many things are hidden and of course they will also be economical with the truth to get you to join. Knowing that once you are here it is a very big decision to move yet again, plus penalising financially.

[ausflyer]

On ya roostertail, so few of you on this thread with positive views. To those of you not so content with CX, please errrr' consider applying to some of the Aus' regional operators. (Any chance of an E-mail "rooster"?)

------------------
Cheers


[This message has been edited by ausflyer (edited 10 January 2001).]

[jtr]

aus, did you ever wonder why 99.9% of the posters from CX are not happy?

[The Prisoner]

jtr...Answer :- because the're aussies??

I think there are far too many over here, bring back the Brits! Lets face it, in ten years, when the crusties have retired, we'll be run by a bunch of ill educated bush men. S'truth !!

[nudger]

Maybe we need more "Canucks" here!

At least they don't assist in greasing the bat that's shafting everyone!!

Who's saying is it "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for everything"??

I like it anyways!

[ausflyer]

Point taken.

[This message has been edited by ausflyer (edited 11 January 2001).]

[Grypen]

I am curious about one aspect of this thread - as an S/O pilot on a 744 or 340, working for Cathay, even if you don't have a type rating written down in whatever legalese is appropriate to Hong Kong, surely if you DID go to another airline they would recognise the fact that you had been flying that type as an effective crewmember for the last XX years?

I mean, even if you can't (for whatever strange reason) log hours in an official book, if you keep your own computerised records of flight details and hours, and provide evidence that Cathay did or do employ you as a pilot, and explain the reasons for that, any airline interview board would immediately see that you could be taken on with little to no retraining required. And any sim ride would quickly show that not only could you handle the jet in their test scenario, but you actually knew FOR REAL how to fly the thing!!

Call me naive ( I'm sure someone will ;) but I think it would be foolish for another airline to discount your years of flying with Cathay on the basis that you weren't allowed under HK rules to log anything officially!!

I hope to join a major soon and am wondering if this scenario is common to other airlines than the ones mentioned above.

Thanks in advance for your replies,

Grypen

[gearupmaxpower]

Wether or not you have a rating as a S/O is a bit of a detail. If it is in your logbook (either as P2 or P2X), it doesn't really matter. It is up to any prospective airline wether they actually recognise the time or not. You can have the rating with lots of S/O hours, but an airline may not necessarily count those hours towards their qualification requirements. if the CX guys can at least put some hours in the logbook, that is Ok to some airlines. They are still official hours.

Of course the next debate becomes - "Do you log seat hours or total sector hours?" i.e. some airlines/pilots log hours that they are in the bunk.

[Panza]

It's my saying

------------------
" If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything "