Metro FO's

[JetABro]

In Australia with a Metro type rating, but with only 20hrs as FO on type and low multi PIC, ie; less than 50 hrs, what, if any is the likelyhood of getting employment on a Metro, and if employed as a FO is it possible to advance to the left hand seat with low PIC?
Any advice on this subject would be great, or if anyone has been down this road before, any advice?
Thanks

[EngineOut]

There are a couple of operators who have put low time pilots on as FOs. In saying that, none progress to the left seat without going out and doing command time [read multi] for a year of two in lighties.

My advise would be to get the PIC time under your belt first. You will be able to progress to left, and also make a better FO at the same time.

Good luck.

[Chilli Tarts]

Agree 100% with engine out. seen many a scenario before of guys jumping into the right seat with low time, very easy move. will not move to left seat though unless the step out of the metro, go back to something smaller and get some cmd time. Just get the cmd time first, and then jump into the metro, will save the heart ache later!:ok:

[Grivation]

Because everyone knows you can't fly a turbine properly unless you've been bashing a piston twin around the sky first :rolleyes:

And before that a piston single!

Only in Australia :hmm:

[Towering Q]

Shouldn't this be in GA and Questions?:confused:

[splatman]

Grivation

Only in Australia?? :oh:

Some research may determine the reason for this is the minimum requirements of PIC time from the insurer. To keep the premiums or the policy excess at a managable level some operators may very well have set a minimum PIC limit.

Makes you think now, dosn't it.

[rmcdonal]

Grivation, I prefer the guy/gal up the front to have a bit of time up their sleeves before being set loose on a Turbine. Just because in the UK/EU you only need 200hrs and $120,000 means nothing.

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

It really knocks me for a six (after an under-arm delivery ofcourse!) when I read shyte like this.

'you can't move to the left hand seat until after you've gone back into a single pilot operation for another two years.'

Two crew ops and single pilot ops are completely foreign to each other so why make someone unlearn good sound multi-crew skills after having developed a good working knowledge of it.? That particular pilot will observe over time command decisions and participate in them as well from the right hand seat, so why on earth does he need to go and pick up single pilot habbits?

Once again the insurrance norms in Australia need a look at I think, they are out of sync. Put together back in the 60's perhaps? Another example is the attitude insurrance companies have towards aviation as a an occupation. The companies view our occupation alongside the armed forces, so they will not cover us if we are killed on the job, or may stack up the premium to compensate.

The occupation of pilot is now one of the safest in the world, there are many other occupations where the mortality rate is infinitely higher, yet they are still covered, ie, motorcycle/cycle courrier, building construction worker to name a few.

In Europe you don't see 737 F/O's going back onto twin bugsmashers just to get the command time. They don't need to. More Auusie aviation folklore.

Blue Foot

[Grivation]

Maybe rmcdonal, you should sit down and design a good competency based command upgrade program.
Then splatman could present it to his underwriters and make a case for a premium reduction.
Just because in the UK/EU you only need 200hrs and $120,000 means nothing.
Yeah right - Cat III ops, contaminated runways, snow, sleet, ice, language, airspace saturation.
means nothing.
As BFB put it "Aussie Aviation Folklore"

[rmcdonal]

Yeah right - Cat III ops, contaminated runways, snow, sleet, ice, language, airspace saturation.
And pilots with no understanding of the stress this puts on the single crew operations. Remember everything your going into with 2+ crew, they are going into with 1. How are they meant to make good operational and safe decisions with regards to other aircraft if they have never been the other guy?
I don't believe a pilot should have to step back into a single pilot job in order to move ahead, I do however believe that they should not be in that position in the first place without the experience to back it up.
While I’m getting in everyone’s way;
The occupation of pilot is now one of the safest in the world, there are many other occupations where the mortality rate is infinitely higher, yet they are still covered, ie, motorcycle/cycle courrier, building construction worker to name a few.
While in some countries this maybe true, in the States (that place from which we steal all our aviation ideas) It's not so (http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Top_10_Most_Dangerous_Jobs/artid/23) from memory that little statistic is only a few years old.
CAT III, isn't that where you turn the autopilot on and let plane land it’s self?

Edited because I went a bit to far

[OpsNormal]

Yeah right - Cat III ops yawn... autoland, contaminated runways ...Antiskid, snow ...external de-icing crew, sleet ...again, ground based de-ice, ice ....heated intakes/leading edges/boots/vanes etc etc and an aircraft that can outclimb the ice, language ....I'll grant you that one, airspace saturation ...Have you ever tried to get into Cannington Mine at 8.05am on a Thursday morning arranging your own seperation in a piston twin?

Now try doing that with no wx radar around wet season thunderstorms or Southern Australia in big ugly icy thunderstorms, a 30 year old aeroplane, MTOW 95% of the time and min fuel for max payload (you know - that sheet that someone else works out for you and you sign as accepted), little margin over fuel required due alternate v's MTOW v's load, short soft saturated top end sand/shellgrit/gravel strips with obstacles, no or minimal approach aids, you check-in your own passengers, and to top it all off you might be lucky to make a quid and pay off the car this month living in fly heaven often 2000km from your friends and family, or even in another country.
As I'll put it: "Aussie Aviation Deadset Legends", and I salute all of you in whose daily grind have to make the above descisions day in and day out and don't get the opportunity to live in posh shiny houses in big cities and enjoy the soft lifestyle that goes with it. I choose to do the work I do at the minute (as do a great many of people), and the people who belittle and deride my lifestyle choice need a fair dinkum kick up the butt.
GA in a lot of ways is an apprenticeship, and many find their niche in it. Don't s#!tcan them (none of them do that to you), as our job has it's own set of difficulties and we have to work the whole thing out ourselves without the help of another head in the cockpit to help us. Put yourself in their shoes for a change, you might be surprised what a positive learning experience GA really is for the decision making process.

[404 Titan]

JetABro, Grivation & Blue-Footed Boobie

A lot of it also has to do with the fact that a low time driver may not have the experience required to hold an ATPL and therefore can’t command an aircraft over 5700kg in most operations.

As has been mentioned insurance companies play a very big part in determining minimum pilot experience so does contractual requirements with clients like mining companies, oil companies and government contracts.

My advice is get the command time first and then consider F/O time in larger aircraft once you can obtain an ATPL.

Civil Aviation Regulations

Requirements for an ATPL(A).

5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical
experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that
includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised
aeroplane.

(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time
must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in
command under supervision.

(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or
more of the following:
(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered
aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;
(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:
(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a
flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation
5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or
(b).

5.173 Aeronautical experience: calculation of flight time

(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may
be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and
(d) as describe the flight time.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in
command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command
under supervision.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of
instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the
75 hours of instrument flight time.

(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours
in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal
amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).

(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more
than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.

(6) CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of
subregulation (4).

[Note Operational standards for synthetic flight trainers are set out in the documents
titled “FSD1—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved Flight
Simulators” and “FSD2—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved
Synthetic Trainers” that are published by CASA.]

(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph
5.172 (4) (c):
(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and
(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.

(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:
(a) as pilot in command; or
(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or
(c) in dual flying;
must be halved in calculating the person’s flight time for the purposes
of regulation 5.172.

[EngineOut]

404,

just a quick correction...ATPL is only required to be PIC in an aircraft requiring more than one pilot. You can be PIC on a metro 3/23(being above 5700kg) without an ATPL, as long as it is single pilot (e.g. freight, or 9 pax configuration (not that I have seen one)) the metro is a single pilot certified aircraft.

[pakeha-boy]

JETABRO.....Plenty of advice there for you.......I think most of us have had to do METRO 2/3 time.....enjoy it whilst you can,in the end you may hate the thing if you spend to much time in it.....

but one thing is for sure,.....it will teach you how to fly a turbine,..everything after that will be a piece of p@ss!!!.......my advice...if you get the opportunity to get into the left seat...TAKE IT....low time or not....best of luck mate.....pahi iti......PB

[Defenestrator]

Engineout,
You are right on the money. Have a look at the jcraft operation.
:ok:

[404 Titan]

EngineOut

I was sought of alluding to that when I said “most operations”. Maybe I should have been clearer but as the original poster was talking about multi crew operations I didn’t want to complicate the conversation.

My advice to anyone even contemplating doing the FO thing first on a light turbo prop, don’t. The way the reg’s are in Australia and insurance company and client requirements, you could be backing yourself into a corner. Get the command time first then consider the FO time.

[JetABro]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Certianly given me something to think about. When you have been stuck on the ground as long as I have you need to review all the options presented to you.
Once again, thanks.

Just one last question, roughly how many companies still operate Metro's in Australia that take on low cmd FO's?

Thanks:ok:
JetABro

[JetA_OK]

Its the regs that require the command time for multi crew ops - not insurance companies. Outfits with CAR 217 systems don't have insurance minimums (not that I've ever seen). There are moves afoot to amend the CAO Multi Command requirement for RPT ops (although not the ATPL requirement) - I think it will happen soon. The ATPL command requirement includes 150 hrs ICUS so in reaility only 100 hours PIC is required for RHS - LHS transition. NZ is a good model to use. Never thought I'd ever hear myself saying that :eek:

[Skystar320]

I think we may have opened a fresh can of worms!!!!!!

[404 Titan]

JetA_OK

Insurance requirements are going to vary between insurance companies. Some are more stringent than others. From my experience client requirements were always the most demanding and sometimes made it very difficult to find new drivers when the ones we had moved on.

I don’t disagree that CASA will eventually change the requirements to operate RPT command but I still think it is a little way away as they have always dragged their heals in the past when things needed to be changed.

[tinpis]

Buggered if I would let my family travel in a Metro with some goose with 150 hours P1 total time wrestling with the shiny levers.
Thats just bloody stupid.

[JetA_OK]

Thats right Tinpis - pilots with 1000s of hours of P1 time have never crashed :rolleyes: I suggest you never let your family fly anywhere else but Australia then.

[sillograph]

If being a pilot is one of the safest jobs around, how come it's so hard getting life insurance with your superanuation. Of course they have to give it to you, it's against the law not to. But watch em try and weazel out of it.

As far as low time drivers being covered for insurance, normally it will be say an excess of say 3% hull value, then reducing to say 1% certain time has reached.

It's allways easier to get a cheaper insurance cost with named pilots only, but that is not possible with such fast movement of pilots through the ranks. So companies may go for a blanket cover statement saying 500 min, or 250 PIC etc.

[splatman]

Some very sound and thought out posts by 404 titan :ok:

Jet A_OK
Outfits with CAR 217 systems don't have insurance minimums (not that I've ever seen).

I can assure you insurance minimums can apply even with CAR217 organisations in place. I was recently amazed of the minimums required by an insurer for a position of C310 PIC that specified not only mimimum multi PIC but minimum time on type PIC. And the PIC on type was set at 50 hours (for a C310!). We applied for and got a reduction based on the training programs in place together with the acceptance of higher claim excess. But this is exactly the point I am trying to get across here, its not just some old company owner saying "Boy - go and get some command time before I let you let you loose in my Kero Burner". Its the company owner managing his company in what he sees as the most viable way.

Now in regard to Kero Burners, this respective insurer had even gone so far as to require the specific details of PIC for the aircraft. The options were simple, go with their requirements or be prepared to pay a higher premium & claim excess.

Given the cost of running an aviation business in Aus at the present time, can you blame the company owner/management for taking an option that minimises cost.

Grivation
Maybe rmcdonal, you should sit down and design a good competency based command upgrade program.
Then splatman could present it to his underwriters and make a case for a premium reduction.

I'll just let that one one fly because it looks like your fishing! :p

[Waka Rider]

rmcdonal bro you are very correct the autopilot does land in CAT3B. But brother how does the aircraft find its way the the gate in 75M RVR. That the bit I find the hardest. Have seen many guys come through the system with low hours and operate well. Every style of flying has its pros and cons be it bush flying or airline. Dont hate on those that have done their flying a different way. Pre 9/11 our cadets did not have to pay so it gave many people the oportunity to learn to fly that would not been otherwise able too.

[jetbrett]

every one is right about getting more multi command time first, but even if you didnt, you would probably have a bit of trouble finding a metro to go on, most are owned by qantas group companies and generally their more experienced candidates or cadets get the first look in.

[160knots]

75 instrument flight time. A couple of questions:

1.the 10 hours instrument flight time for my CPL and the 20 hours required for the I/R will that count towards the 75 hours required?

2.If I am flying at night out in the boon docks, where it is as black as the ace of spades, can I count that as instrument flight time. For instance if I am flying at night when there is no moon between Alice Springs and Mt. Isa which is a couple of hours, can I legimately log it as instrument flight time? Auto -Pilot off.

[rmcdonal]

160knots
I can answer Q2. No. You can't claim IF at night unless your actualy in cloud. Even though you maybe short one horizon and the worl is pitch black
Instrument Flight Time All flight time during which the aircraft was controlled solely by reference to instruments may be recorded in the instrument 'Flight' column:
a) Time above overcast or at night in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) is not counted as instrument flight;
b) In actual or simulated instrument conditions, only the pilot manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot may log all flight time as instrument flight;
c) A flight conducted on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan is not to be counted as instrument flight unless flying in IMC;
d) Instrument approaches are to be credited to the pilot (pilots, in the case of an airborne radar approach) manipulating the controls or providing input to the auto-pilot during the approach.
http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/flight_time.htm
Doesn't matter if the Auto-pilot is on or off for IF logging.

[160knots]

Thanks for that.

Point b) confirms that the 10hrs inst time for the CPL and the 20 hrs for the I/R will count towards the 75 hrs instrument time.

Interesting though an instrument approach can be logged as inst time regardless of met conditions.

Considering the good wx we have in Oz its going to be difficult getting the rest of the hours unless one conducts inst approaches which is going to be difficult, seeing time is money. I guess the other alternative is to go up north during the wet season and fly through cloud but avoiding the CB's.

[rmcdonal]

Nothing stopping you from getting your hands on some fogels and flying around in simulated IMC... except that then you wont be able to dodge the VFR guys transiting your level. :}
Are you sure you can log appchs as IF time if there visual? I know you can log them for recency but I don't think you can log the time taken to do one unless it's actauly in IMC.

[160knots]

Para.d) says instrument approaches, does not stipulate IMC. If one considers an instrument approach, to execute it proffficently one would have to fly accurately and within limits so I guess the pilot will not have time to gaze outside. So I guess its I/F.

[morning mungrel]

If you read it carefully, you'll notice that not only does para (d) not say IMC, it also does not say logging. It says CREDIT, ie, you may complete the approach in VMC, and credit it to your recency for approaches. If it isn't in IMC, you get jack **** for the IF column. Using your logic, if i keep my head inside the cockpit at all times, and fly on track, I could log all flight as IF, couldn't I?

[Capt Fathom]

You can't claim IF at night unless your actualy in cloud. Even though you maybe short one horizon and the worl is pitch black
Hmm...if there is no horizon and the world is pitch black, wouldn't you be flying with reference to...instruments!

[rmcdonal]

It would still be VMC even if you are on instruments.
I remember this point was made to me by a FI when I did my NVFR. Pitch black night no horizon. Me flying on instruments asking if I could log it as IF. No was the answer, because you are in VMC (clear of cloud 10k viz etc). Funy thing about it was later in life I was flying under the same conditions (except on an IFR plan) and flew into some cloud. The only deiiference was that the strobes started to reflect back into the cockpit.

[160knots]

Quote:
If it isn't in IMC, you get jack **** for the IF column. Using your logic, if i keep my head inside the cockpit at all times, and fly on track, I could log all flight as IF, couldn't I?

Well mungrel, during your I/R training Im sure you flew around on days which were VMC for hundreds of miles , the only thing that made it IFR was you wearing a hood. The purpose of which was to make you fly on instruments ie your head in the cockpit. A black night would do that, any instrument approach whether day or night would be the same, ie head inside.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

If you read it carefully, you'll notice that not only does para (d) not say IMC, it also does not say logging. It says CREDIT, ie, you may complete the approach in VMC, and credit it to your recency for approaches. If it isn't in IMC, you get jack **** for the IF column. Using your logic, if i keep my head inside the cockpit at all times, and fly on track, I could log all flight as IF, couldn't I?


Except for 'see and avoid'...............

[pakeha-boy]

Would someone with 150 PI hours ,Total Time,actualy get a command position?.....

and if so,who,s fault is that.....most of us(not all) are doing this for a "command" position....beggars cant be choosers,and we are all beggars!!!

[CAR256]

I thought that VMC meant 5km vis etc... SO??? If,
You can't claim IF at night unless your actualy in cloud. Even though you maybe short one horizon and the worl is pitch black
How much vis do you have??? I would say ZERO... And if the PIC is the approved wx observer for the flight, then you can log it as instrument!!!
Just another way of looking at it... :cool:
It is a bit like the saying, if a tree falls in the forest. If there is nothing to see, how do you know how far you can see???
Or, getting out of bed in the middle of a pitch black night, you can wave your hand in front of your eyes and not see it... even with your eyes open!!!:sad: