PDA

View Full Version : fATPl, 500 Hrs required


Telstar
10th May 2005, 09:55
Loganair advertising in Flight today for Captains and First Officers.

Requirements for FO is fATPL and 500 hrs.

Now the 500hrs is the bit I don't understand, I have seen it a few other places too. Citiexpress was the other one.

If the vast majority of fATPLs have ~250Hrs, why oh why are they now stipulating 500hrs, and the advert does NOT say 500 on type.

Is it a tactic to keep the vast majority of fATPLs away then?Is it just case of the goal posts being moved again? How soon can we expect to see flight schools offering fATPL packages including a 500 hr building module:E ?Its not a whinge, honest I just don't understand and have my shiny new fATPL and just want to apply.

Tallbloke
10th May 2005, 10:25
I would assume it seperates those with no experience beyond their training from those with more experience, for instance those who have trained and are now instructing.

Addy
10th May 2005, 10:46
Telstar: what's the contact information you have?

About why 500, it's like the man said. Just about getting guys a little bit more experienced....

conor_mc
10th May 2005, 11:31
Bearing in mind that the majority of hour-building work is instruction, then candidates will have also undertaken an FI course, which by all accounts improves your flying skills beyond having simply burnt holes in the sky for 500 hours.

And you've also probably had to react to to a few dodgy student-induced moments, which is, again, a better quality of experience than simply burning holes in the sky.

N2334M
10th May 2005, 12:55
I don't think there is such a big deal of difference between 250hrs and 500hrs.

I think it is better to have done a Airline Line Orientated Flight Training course rather then having flown 250hrs more with a single engine.

Telstar
10th May 2005, 13:06
Ay yes, the LOFT, thats another goodie. Very clever that, the big FTO's like Oxford and CTC created their own Niche product the LOFT or JOT or whatever you want to call it this week, as long as its another clever sounding acroynm. You then convince people that its needed and suddenly it becomes a requirement. MCC's are sooooooo 90's. Loft is the new black!:p ;)

MJR
10th May 2005, 14:28
I'm not sure if the vast majority of ATPL holders have approximately 250hours, many do but there is a large amount of people with in excess of 1500 hours who are still actively seeking multi-crew employment.:E

Addy
10th May 2005, 15:08
I'm not sure if the vast majority of ATPL holders have approximately 250hours, many do but there is a large amount of people with in excess of 1500 hours who are still actively seeking multi-crew employment

One of those, kind of at least...and I'll fly anything with two engines, single or multi-crew, I don't really care as long as I can make something that comes close to a living it'll do for now ;)

African Drunk
10th May 2005, 15:30
I believe this was first put in place by Brymon who believed a modular pilot needed additional experience when compared to a intergrated student.

In logan's case could be 1) They do not have enough admin staff and are trying to limit the number of cv's.

2) Quite a few of their pilots do a couple of years and leave. So by recruiting instructors (particually from scottish schools) they will get a longer term workforce.

capt. skidmark
10th May 2005, 15:44
apparently this vacancy is for typerated pilots with 500tt only.
why?
because to apply you need to select "current on type?=yes"
otherwise you will get the message that you don't meet the requirements.

capt. skidmark

Telstar
10th May 2005, 16:10
Ah nice one Skidmark, so it was just a typo on F.I part. I shall now climb down of my pedestal!:rolleyes: :p :E

Maude Charlee
10th May 2005, 19:12
Are you sure the ad is in Flight and not just on the website. Nothing in my copy. Or is it only available in the special McFlight edition? :}

Telstar
10th May 2005, 19:30
Maude Charlee (Great Nickname!), Its on the interweb don't know if its in the Paper copy.

ATP_Al
10th May 2005, 20:06
I believe this was first put in place by Brymon who believed a modular pilot needed additional experience when compared to a intergrated student.

Sorry to be pedantic, but Brymon had ceased to exist by the time the current modular vs. integrated debate came into being. At that point it was CAP 509 (similar to integrated) vs. self improver (do 700hrs then take your CPL/IR tests without any formal course of training). This whole modular vs. integrated thing has stemmed from the fact that recruiters still think that modular means self improver when in fact the two routes are very very similar and both involve similar amounts of formal training.

And for what it's worth, I do believe that 500hrs tt represents a little more experience and a lot more know-how over your average 250hr graduate.

Tubbs
10th May 2005, 21:11
Twice as much experience! I certainly felt much more comfortable/spacially aware/confident with 250 hours instructing under my belt, and I think that my transition through type-rating was smoother than it would have been immediately post-IR.
McTubbs

IRRenewal
11th May 2005, 05:28
because to apply you need to select "current on type?=yes"This is something to do with the way the FI website is set up. Presumably put in place as a filter to stop too many people e-mailing as a result of FI adverts on the web. You have to answer 'yes' to a few questions to reveal the e-mail address you need to apply to. If no rating/experience is asked for in the advert, just answer yes to the question and hey presto.

Gerard

African Drunk
11th May 2005, 10:16
ATP_Al

When brymon started this policy it was during the transition to JAA when BCPL's could upgrade to CPL's by doing an approved IR.
Also pilots on the old system could do a conversion flight to transfer their BCPL/IR to a JAR CPL/IR (restricted).

AD

Addy
11th May 2005, 10:21
Maude Charlee (Great Nickname!), Its on the interweb don't know if its in the Paper copy.

What's the url of this website then? never heard of it to be honest:oh:

ATP_Al
11th May 2005, 19:33
AD,

I didn't mean to sound confrontational - just trying to use this situation as an example of how little some recruiters seem to understand about the current training and licensing system.

Al

African Drunk
11th May 2005, 23:33
ATP_Al

I agree. I was trying to explain to a airline HR bod about the new changes to the IR/CPL test and he expressed total understanding and then interviewed a ex-student two days later showing no understanding.