18 week Fast Track CPL course

[Justin.C]

Hi everyone, I have just moved to W.A. from Sydney and am starting the 18 week Fast Track CPL course here in Perth. Has anyone got any helpful hints or comments??? :)

cheers,

[BrazDriver]

Looks like a windup!

[Awol57]

Actually there is a Fast Trak course. RACWA does the instructing, but its not their course. I think it takes about 3 months or so from nil to CPL. I think so far about 2 or 3 people have done the course, its still fairly new. I doubt it's a wind up given that, can't tell you much more about the course though.

[the wizard of auz]

Buggered if I would be employing a CPL that had never flown an aircraft four months previous. :eek: I can't honestly say I know anyone else that would either. 18 weeks is a fairly short time to absorb a lot of stuff. sausage factory just got more efficient and can pump them out a lot quicker now. I wonder what the quality of the product will be like. :hmm:

[Awol57]

I would suggest they would have equal experience as anyone else that has a 150hr CPL. Just because its done in 4 months instead of a year or ten why does that make them any worse than the next fellow with a new CPL?

If they have the license one can assume they can fly to the standard so how does it matter where or how that experience was gained? :hmm:

[MBA747]

If a flying school can complete a CPL course in 18 weeks then CASA should undertake all the flight checks. It is near impossible to properly learn the theory in that space of time. One may pass the CPL exams, but that shouldn’t be to difficult, knowing that nearly all the questions in the CASA CPL bank are known and theory courses are aimed primarily at passing those exams. If one learns the question and the right answer yes it can be done.

I guess the student will come out with a CPL and little else, no wonder GA operators are complaining about the standard of CPL holders.

[the wizard of auz]

I would suggest they would have equal experience as anyone else that has a 150hr CPL. Just because its done in 4 months instead of a year or ten why does that make them any worse than the next fellow with a new CPL?
If they have the license one can assume they can fly to the standard so how does it matter where or how that experience was gained? :hmm:
Maybe exposure to the industry for a start. some one doing the course over twelve months will certainly be around the school/club/aircraft a lot longer than three months. Also someone undertaking a course over twelve or so months will have to demonstrate a consistent level of proficiency where as the three month fella will only only have to demonstrate that level over a very short period..... good enough on the day sort of thing. Seems they would be taught to pass the exam instead of taught the subject. gotta be honest, I would be pretty hesitant in employing a 150Hr CPL as well though.
As for the last part of your statement........ well, I have been with some commercial pilots that have had the license...... and as you say, I assumed they could fly.......after a few circuits for a check before they took my aircraft away on hire, I have had to refuse to hire them the aircraft because they managed to bumble through four or so circuits and not be able to land the aircraft without me having to take it off them to prevent a prang.
A C172 is a pretty easy type of aircraft to land. Its not just been the one either. :hmm: :rolleyes:

[BrazDriver]

Gotta go with the Wizard on that one! sure 150 hours in the logbook but you dont get the exposure to aviation that you would otherwise. Say your normal CPL full time student will comlete things in a year. That gives alot more extra time to absorb the aviation environment and know whats what. Everybody ends up getting a CPL in the long run, Its your head on your shoulders and your attitude that lands you your 1st job. The best way to learn that is experience!

[Awol57]

Firstly I would like to point out I am in no way at all involved with that particular program, I just know of it.

I agree experience is the best teacher. Having said that, how do you know (without talking to the people) whether the person having done a 4 month course has not been around planes their whole life. Or perhaps they did one of the multitude of aviation type degrees around the place and then decided the best way to do the flying would be as quickly as possible.

Ok I tend to agree a walk in off the street with nothing behind them, getting taught to the exam is going to fall well short of someone who has least been in aviation for 12 months (I can't say whether they are taught to the exam or actually anything factual about the course other than it exists).

On here I see time and time again people being written off for choosing to go down the instructing road, or being taught something by their instructor which is wrong and asking a question, etc etc. Now its starting before they even begin their flying with us having no knowledge of their background at all.

Whether the course turns out good product or not I do not know, but I would like to think the person would be given an equal shot at an interview as the next fellow.

[the wizard of auz]

I think they would have an equal chance as any other 150hr CPL.
I just don't think they would rate very highly on the short list of prospective employees. Its a very competitive market out there, and I personally can't see a person that has no other flying experience other than three months flying training to a CPL standing much of a chance of landing a job. It could quite possibly happen, But I'm afraid I wouldn't be too keen to employ them.
Not trying to bring anyone down, Just stating things the way they are, and therefore I guess I'm questioning the value off the course.
I'm more than happy to be corrected by others out there that would be prepared to employ a 150hr, trained in three months pilot.
Cheers, Wiz.

[Aussie]

I heard the first guy to finish that course, is now flying a Metro or the likes....

Aussie

[the wizard of auz]

Good on him then.

[solocmv]

BAE Tamworth do it in 23 weeks for the good boys and girls of the ADF.

Solocmv

[Ratshit]

Bit precious about this, aren't you guys?

A CPL is quite do-able in 18 wks, for a smart student with aptitude.

I did my UPPL in 3.5 wks, full-time, and by the time I had accumulated about 120 hrs was peddling a C210 all around Qld. Did my CPL in Kiwiland in 6 weeks, part-time. So, call it 10 wks part-time/full-time for flying training - leaves the equivalent of 2 mths full-time plus nights for the other 10 wks to get the subjects.

Personally, I would employ a 150 hr in 18 wks CPL, particularly if I liked their attitude and style, and they were operating in a reasonably supervised environment.

R:cool:

[bushy]

I was once a ppl, and after the initial burst of enthusiastic flying, found it hard to find the money to fly often, and keep current. Enthusiasm waned. I was probably an accident going somewhere to happen, like many uncurrent weekend warriors are. Fortunately a friendly flying instructor told me so, and I set out to change this.
Many of todays cpls, have been struggling for years to finance their flying and get their licence. They are often out of their depth when they start their first job, lacking experience and currency. The workload is more than they can easily handle. We see aircraft taxiing with baggage compartment doors left open, Chieftains taxiing with flipper doors open etc. Most need a friendly environment to work in, and simpler, more predictable flights to build up experience and confidence.
The 18 week course probably has merit as it introduces a pilot to the workload he is likely to experience in his first job, The consistent flying will build confidence and situational awareness that is obviously lacking in many newbies. I believe it is also the best learning arrangement you can get.
I think that the character and attitude of a pilot is far more important than the detail of his training course. If he takes it all seriously he will achieve.
It's the "get rich quick" people who are the problem.
You have to earn it.

[ptommo77]

Maybe exposure to the industry for a start. some one doing the course over twelve months will certainly be around the school/club/aircraft a lot longer than three months. Also someone undertaking a course over twelve or so months will have to demonstrate a consistent level of proficiency where as the three month fella will only only have to demonstrate that level over a very short period..... good enough on the day sort of thing. Seems they would be taught to pass the exam instead of taught the subject. gotta be honest, I would be pretty hesitant in employing a 150Hr CPL as well though.
As for the last part of your statement........ well, I have been with some commercial pilots that have had the license...... and as you say, I assumed they could fly.......after a few circuits for a check before they took my aircraft away on hire, I have had to refuse to hire them the aircraft because they managed to bumble through four or so circuits and not be able to land the aircraft without me having to take it off them to prevent a prang.
A C172 is a pretty easy type of aircraft to land. Its not just been the one either. :hmm: :rolleyes:

Just curious as to how much exposure other people had while doing there flight training? I think the student that has the dedictaion and ability to study for four months rather than party and relax for a year will get just as much exposure...consider the frequency of exposure as well as the duration. And when was the last time the commercial pilots flew a C172...the ones you had to land for I mean? And without going into it...I think there are a lot of unknown factors that you haven't considered.

[GUARD]

Obviously there is a need to conduct this type of intensive training. I have instructed Qantas cadets and trained numerous CIR short course candidates and I would have no hesitation in supporting such a scheme.

Certainly there is a valid point to be made about living and breathing aviation for a year or more but that shouldn't rule this concept out, because there were a large majority of dickheads who did live and breathe and still couldn't fly well after 1 or 2 years.

I did my own multi-engine training approval over 3 days some years ago with "CHESTY" and feel I obtained more benefit from this than spreading it out over several weeks.

The proof is in the training. I have visited the RACWA to do a maths course and observed them to be a trumped up bunch of Top Gun WANNABES but they have certainly read the market and I hope they do a good job of it.

Good on them because at least Jandakot is jumping. Not like the Ghost Town formerly known as Bankstown.

GUARD:)

[the wizard of auz]

Hey, It was only my observations and opinion being voiced here. If you all think its a great idea, well goodo. I personally don't.
And when was the last time the commercial pilots flew a C172...the ones you had to land for I mean? Well, lets see!, only about most of them if they fly on the weekends for themselves, most of them if they are doing jollies as a first job. Hell, I still spent a substantial amount of time in one. they are used quite widely in Australia, and are most CPL's first steed.
If you guys reckon you would employ a 150hr pilot that hadn't flown an aircraft before three months ago, you just go ahead and employ them. I have to wonder why there are so many way higher time pilots looking for work, and why most companies want to see some hours in the logbook before they will look at a pilto with a view to employing them.
How many guys/gals do you know that got a job with 150Hrs and three months after starting their training?.... be realistic. Not to many I warrant. It happens, but its the exception and not the norm.

[ptommo77]

Thanks for pointing that out wiz...I mean...Obviously they had flown 172s before...but how long ago had these particular 'struggling' pilots that you referred to flown a 172 when you personally had to land for them? That was the question. As for your latter comment..guess time will show us how many of these "fast tracked" pilots get jobs after...well...4 months. From what I've read they have a 100% success rate thus far :D

[ptommo77]

Obviously there is a need to conduct this type of intensive training. I have instructed Qantas cadets and trained numerous CIR short course candidates and I would have no hesitation in supporting such a scheme.

Certainly there is a valid point to be made about living and breathing aviation for a year or more but that shouldn't rule this concept out, because there were a large majority of dickheads who did live and breathe and still couldn't fly well after 1 or 2 years.

I did my own multi-engine training approval over 3 days some years ago with "CHESTY" and feel I obtained more benefit from this than spreading it out over several weeks.

The proof is in the training. I have visited the RACWA to do a maths course and observed them to be a trumped up bunch of Top Gun WANNABES but they have certainly read the market and I hope they do a good job of it.

Good on them because at least Jandakot is jumping. Not like the Ghost Town formerly known as Bankstown.

GUARD:)

Good comment here...but I have heard RACWA don't actually own the fast track program. I think FAST TRACK is a company in their right and subcontract RACWA to provide the flight training...can anyone confirm?

[Mesopause]

Wiz JediKnite is actually JediKnight! You have used US English by mistake.:ugh: :=

[the wizard of auz]

but how long ago had these particular 'struggling' pilots that you referred to flown a 172 when you personally had to land for them?
Oh, My mistake, I miss read your question. the first was four months and the second was six and a bit months. certainly not enough to warrant a take over in the flare and bounce recovery.......... but hey, just my opinion again.
Congratulations to the 100% course completed and employed guys/gals.
Mesopause, Yeah, sorry about that. I probably had something more important on my mind at the time. :} Hey! does that make me bilingual?. :E :}

[M14_P]

Crikey! 3 months is really moving along, well good luck chap!

I would have thought if you spread the training out a little bit, it will set the tone for what the fresh CPL holder is to expect over the immediate couple or 3 years ahead.

[gloriais18]

My Dad would like to know how much this course costs.

Is it correct that it is run by the same people who a while back were flogging CD based theory training.

[4SPOOLED]

I will confirm the course is at RACWA and their flying instructors teach the student. One guy has gone through so far and upon completion of his MECIR on RACWA's PN68 he was offered a job by Skippers, as the owner of fast track is an ex airline pilot and has great contacts.

The guy that went through was only about 20 but will be in the same boat as most QF cadets in that he wont have 500 hours command and as such will be unable to get a command unless he goes back into GA and flogs around in a 172 doing scenics and if you have been in RPT then jump back into lower GA it would kind of feel below you in a way.

I have heard of plenty of guys in the same situation with 70 hours command and 1000 hours turbine RPT trying to get a gig on a PA31 to be told noway!!

Good on him anyway he is a good bloke and im sure will go far in the industry. Wish i had the same break myself at his stage in his training!

4S

[the wizard of auz]

Agreed!, Good on him....... and anyone else that gets the break. I would think it would be contact situation rather than run of the mill job application that would get them employed though.

[Mesopause]

4Spooled

I believe things have changed now. I heard the pilot you referred to was given a command endorsement on the metro and can therefore log ICUS flying hours when he is the flying pilot. I believe the arrangement now for him and other FO's to get a command is they need a total of 250 hours command made up of 150 ICUS and 100 hours PIC to become a captain. The key is candidates are now given a command rating on the aircraft and this has changed everything. The skies the limit for this young bloke!!!!

Cheers:D

[Justin.C]

My Dad would like to know how much this course costs.

Is it correct that it is run by the same people who a while back were flogging CD based theory training.


I`m not sure on the background of the company but as far as costs go here`s a link to their website, go there and email them and they`ll give you a quote

www.ftpilottraining.com (http://www.ftpilottraining.com)

[bushy]

I hope this is a new trend. A situation where trainees have a definite job to go to (provided they qualify), before they start training, and they go dorectly there. That way you get one pilot for every one job. Not ten or twenty of them fighting for it for years, with lots of stress and nastiness in the industry.
Fighting for jobs they do not want, but have to get.

[Justin.C]

Hey guys I`m now one week into the Fast Track course, and it`s brilliant. It`

[Justin.C]

Hey guys, i`m now one week into the fast Track course and it`s freakin`awesome. The theory is hard work, but the flying makes it really enjoyable especially when you can go up 2 or 3 times in a day to practise what you just studied. :)

[Arm out the window]

Solocmv, the ADF people don't get a CPL equivalent in 23 weeks.
If they pass their full wings course (eg RAAF getting through Tamworth and then PC-9 training at Pearce) they are eligible for a PPL. When (and if) they subsequently pass their first operational conversion course, they are deemed to have completed training equivalent to a CPL - probably 18 months from the street at that point, at a minimum.

[DirtyPierre]

Arm out the window,

In 18 months they are flying either a F18, F111, PC3, C130, or something along those lines after their operational conversion course.

Also in that 18 months, they do a lot of RAAF military type training that us mere mortals never do. You know, shoot guns, learn how to drill, discover what you can and can't say to a Warrant Officer, etc.

After their OCU training, they can find themselves in some not so friendly places as well.

So 18 months in the RAAF is a lot different to 18 months flying training.

[Di_Vosh]

DP

Officer Training (where they do all the shooting, talking to Warrant Officers etc) is 6 months.

Tamworth is another 6 months

Pearce is around 1 year

And I'm not sure about OCU training.

So, IF those courses run back to back, you've got around 2 1/2 years. More likely 3 years.

DIVOSH!

[Mesopause]

So Di Vosh are we agreeing that an 18 week civvi CPL course is good???

[Jet_A_Knight]

Great, now you not only can 'cram' for an exam, but the whole licence!!:rolleyes:

[Mesopause]

Maybe not. Maybe the trainee that flies everyday reaches a higher stsndard quicker and is able to maintain that standard throughout his/her training rather than needing retraining to come up to speed after 8 weeks in theory class - Food for thought

[Di_Vosh]

Mesopause, how did you infer that?

I was just pointing out to Dirty Pierre that it takes longer than 18 months in the RAAF to do all that flying, shooting, talking to Warrant Officers, etc. :confused:

[Arm out the window]

Not sure where you're getting your info from, Dirty Pierre.
I'm quite familiar with the defence flying world, and while it could be argued that graduation from Pearce would be enough to cover the requirements of a CPL, the civil regs are written such that a military person is deemed to have completed flying training to a CPL standard (allowing for an automatic issue of same) at the end of an operational conversion, which would take at least 18 months but in some cases much longer.
I'm not looking to draw qualitative comparisons between the two different training paths, just saying that the Tamworth bit's only the start.

[DirtyPierre]

The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot more to being a military pilot (and therefore the training required) than the actual flying training. Consequently, the training program is much longer than that for a civilian pilot.

BTW, when I was in the RAAF, my officer training course at Pt. Cook was only 10 weeks long. But of course things have changed since this little black duck left the RAAF. The scruby subby (Binny) hanging around Willy when I was there is now an Air Vice Marshall!

[Justin.C]

Hey Guys just an update on the Fast Track CPL course... I`ve done 1 of the cpl exams, and am now doing solo navs after 5 weeks of flying... i`m also about to move up to csu/retract aircraft next week too. The course is definately lots of work but i`m lovin` every minute of it!
I have recently been offered a flying job if I complete a CIR after my CPL! :p
My mates back in Sydney can`t believe it!

[BrazDriver]

Just depends how much you pay!! Heard you can buy a metro gig with a basic CIR for 30K. Nothing personal mate, but if everyone keeps paying for jobs the industry will go nowhere!

[Justin.C]

thats fair enough, so whats your advice to people in my shoes...? my mates say "go north" thats fine too if you want to fly small twins for 5 or so years, earning little cash, or you could Invest in your future, pay up, and reap the rewards much sooner. Thats the way I see it, however i`m new to the industry and like to hear everyones thoughts :)

[neville_nobody]

Justin the problem is that unless you get into QF you are never going to see a return on your coin.

You pay for your training, you pay for your first job, you pay for first turbo prop job, you pay for a jet job. Turboprop pay in this country is around the $40 000 figure, or less for some of the Perth companies. So you'll (or your parents!) be paying nearly $150 000ish for your beloved jet job if you get there. That's alot of money for a $80 000 odd a year in Jetstar or Virgin.

Also be warned that all your mates who go North may overtake you as they will have the magical 500 Multi command which you won't be getting flying in the RHS of a Metro. I have seen many a person in the past pay for these cadet type courses only to be back flying a 206 trying to get a twin job as they are unable to find employment because they do not met the minimum requirements for anything. Without 500 Multi command you will not be going anywhere in this country except for QF. I suggest that you go and get some command time first as it may save you alot of pain in the future.

[M.25]

Plus you will be missing out on some of the most rewarding and memorable flying of your career. Yes it gets hot and smelly, but everyone comes out with some great stories and invaluable experience to boot.:ok:

[BrazDriver]

Justin, Thanks for taking my comment with an open mind.

I second M25's comments. Flying charter is a once in a lifetime experience. I look back at my time up north in twins with many fond memories. Sure the dosh isnt fantastic, but it really has made me a better person and a much better pilot with many friends made (both pax and pilots).

You will find it a bit of a shock for the first few weeks, but it will be some of the best flying of your career!!

Good Luck! :ok:

[Mesopause]

Justin you just keep going on the path you are going. These fellows haven't done their homework very well. Actually it sounds like jealousy to me! Its true that the FOs before had to go North to get command time because they only had co-pilot ratings but that isn't the case now if you get a command endorsement on type as part of your training. This means you can now log ICUS time towards your command time. You'll be in the left hand seat of a turboprop in no time. I cut my teeth in the bush working for unscrupulous operators. You don't want to go there. I can tell you that you are doing the right thing and are a lot more fortunate than I was. Good luck to you! You are the start of the new breed of pilots in this country who will go straight from ab-initio training to the airlines. Not all operators in the bush are unscrupulous but I expect they are all going to find it really difficult to attract any pilots in the coming months.

[Justin.C]

I cant see why anyone in their right mind would knock back an opportunity like this??? am I severely mis guided???

[Swanie]

hey all
I'm down at RACWA doing my cpl, and see these fast track guys every day. there has only been one to pass the cpl + CMEIR, namely gavin, who has just finished his metro 23 TR and is now operating from perth with skippers. so there are oppurtunities out there, or perhaps it was handed to him as a course promotion/advertisement.... who knows. There is alot of speculation about gavin, but i believe it's mostly jealousy, people say hes not getting command time, but only ICUS or half time. and will most like drop him after a year. but i don't see why any operator would hire some-one if they seriously didn't want to keep them for as long as possible... just doesn't make sense to me.
These guys work their asses off to get it all done in as little as 18 weeks, they have no lecturer, just a laptop, and self motivation.
The fast track course also has an option for a jet TR i'm guessing 73. any idea Justin??
good on them i say:)

excuse the pun but there are many "flight paths" into a career in aviation....

[Justin.C]

Hi Swanie i`m not 100% sure about the jet TR but it is on the website as an option for one of the courses at Fast Track. My course does not include this though... but thats something i will look into later on,

[dxbpilot]

Even if they do drop this guy after a year, with that amount of hours, in the RHS he can easily land a job in europe !

[Icarus2001]

Does he have right of abode in the EU?

[Swanie]

Icarus, not sure what u mean.....

yes he'd easily get another job if skip's were silly enough to drop him.

hey justin which FT guy are u?? when did u start?? i only know peter, and there are like 3-4 others now

[dxbpilot]

Don't really see why this is such a big deal , this happens all the time in other places around the world.... Ryanair alone takes 300 pilots straight out of school to fly the 737NG per year....

You would think that jetstar/jetstar asia and the other LCC's would be required to take on a number of australian national cadets a year...

The emirates/etihad cadets start on the A330 !!

[Swanie]

our flight school had a royal bruni captain chat to us and he had a S/O with 150hrs on one flight:ugh:

[Justin.C]

Thats amazing!

[neville_nobody]

How can these guys log ICUS in a Metro when they have nowhere near the minimums to be a captain? How can you log ICUS in a multi crew aeroplane without even an ATPL???????? Does CASA know this is occuring? In my past experience with CASA they say you need to met the minimums to be a captain BEFORE you can log ICUS. Or is it just a case of get on with it and noone will know?

[Justin.C]

Hey swanie I started fast track just after peter, so it was just us 2 for a few weeks then jeremy started (young guy who looks like he`s 10) and the last guy to start was sam a few weeks ago. i`m now mostly upstairs in the library because its getting a little crowded in the "fishbowl" :)
I think I may know who you are, but i`ve met so many new people lately its hard to put names to faces...

[Justin.C]

Hi there Nevill Nobody

There are certain Aircraft that do not require ATPL`s to hold a command, I heard a that a metro is the largest A/C you can fly without ATPL, but i`m not 100% sure. And how the hell are can you build command hours in an aircraft if you are never allowed to be in command. why would you need ATPL credits to Log ICUS?? you are under Supervision...

Straight from CASA`s Website:

In Command Under Supervision (ICUS) The conditions for logging of ICUS are at CAR 5.40 and include the following:
the pilot flying ICUS must hold either a CPL or an ATPL;
the pilot flying ICUS must make all decisions relevant to the safe operation of the aircraft;
the pilot must hold a command aircraft endorsement for that type;
the pilot must hold a command instrument rating if the flight is conducted under the IFR;
the operator must permit the person to fly the aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision;
the pilot in command of the aircraft must be appointed for the purpose by the operator of the aircraft.

[neville_nobody]

Not saying that's what I think just saying from my experience that's what a particular CASA FOI says, and therefore was gospel for the operation. They see ICUS as a means of getting experience in the LH seat whilst preparing for a command check, not a means of building time. They were talking about people having licenses and experience before even commencing ICUS.
As for your argument as to how do you get experience if you can't ICUS, thier response would be hire people with the minimum time before you check them out. A situation which in this day and age is almost becoming impossible.

If the Metro has two pilots then you need a ATPL to fly it regardless of type, if it's a Metro I & II Single Pilot then you can do it with a CPL, Metro III ATPL's required as it is >5700kg

This has also been done before in great detail somewhere I recall....

[justanoldboy]

Thank you Neville-N for raising this, each time I read this thread the hair pricks on the back of my neck..

Justin you said.."I HEARD a that a metro is the largest A/C you can fly without ATPL, but i`m not 100% sure". NOT SURE you are the commander be sure boy, or don't do it. Next time you go to work look at your passengers they expect you to know.. Not sure? then be sure, find out.. command is not about what you write in your log book.....for crying out loud, 5 years in the right hand seat is what you need...

[Justin.C]

LOL! I think you need to invest in some razors, that is to trim those prickly neck hairs as it seems they are giving you some trouble := . I don`t fly metro`s, I never said I did. Perhaps you should read all the posts before submitting a reply, so you know exactly what is being said. I said was that I wasn`t 100% sure whether you needed an atpl to hold a command on one.

Once again, CASA say you CAN log ICUS hours with a CPL, IF you hold a command endorsement on type... plain and simple. check your CAR

[podbreak]

Maybe exposure to the industry for a start

Exposure to the industry is often the demon, that evidently turns many bitter and twisted. Just check out these forums 90% of the time.

The time factor is of little consequence. The qaulity of the instruction is much more important.

[Iinthesky]

Neville,

The FOI mentioned in your post is by no means an isolated individual perpetuating a personal belief that ICUS "should not" be logged by someone with so little experience. This line of thought is reflected throughout GA but many of the larger regionals and airlines in fact rely on new F/O's logging ICUS.

Objectively the answer is simple: Does the pilot have a CPL (minimum)? Do they hold a COMMAND endorsement on type? (this perhaps should be the topic of discussion) A Command Instrument rating? Does the operator say they can do it? If the answer is yes to all of the above then legally the pilot can log ICUS.

As you mentioned, the good old days of hiring a pilot who already had an ATPL with thousands of hours as an F/O is well and truly gone. I think it is good time that somebody (this training mob) dispensed with this outdated way of thinking and actively looked for a way to gain hours in a non traditional way.

Watching,
I

[podbreak]

Not saying that's what I think just saying from my experience that's what a particular CASA FOI says, and therefore was gospel for the operation. They see ICUS as a means of getting experience in the LH seat whilst preparing for a command check, not a means of building time. They were talking about people having licenses and experience before even commencing ICUS.

Well, this has been covered before, there is no requirement for said ICUS logger to be in the LH seat or have a certain amount of experience. In fact, airlines such as QF have F/Os log ICUS for their sectors (its in the FAM). Outside of Oz, this is necissary, and has been that way for many, many years. The idea of ICUS being soley a training tool is false.

[justanoldboy]

Justin my apology you are quite correct I didn't read the thread fully.

My wife accuses me of becoming a grump, probably just that you young fellas remind me of myself 40 years ago...Just jealous..


Enjoy every bit of your career it's the best....

[Justin.C]

No hard feelings there Oldboy :)

[Swanie]

hey what were you FT boys all dressed up for today?? looked like you were all off to a funeral or something??
that young block looked like a clown in a jacket way too big for him lol:p

[Led Zep]

Is there nothing preventing you from holding a command endorsement on a type that would require you to have an ATPL to fly? It seems like a double standard..."yes we'll let you have a command endorsement, but no, we won't let you fly it as PIC!"

:confused:

[Swanie]

hardly a job if you pay them for your first year's employment :ugh:
how many did you hear paid up??

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Just my thoughts....
To log ICUS surely you need to be not only endorsed, but also LICENCED on type, ie ATPL? with the associated 250 hours in command, 1500 hours total, be over 21 years old etc? The metros flying around these parts weigh 7484kg from memory......
Would hate to see these studes who think they have found "the easy way" to find themselves stuck in RHS (with only 50% of hours counting) for years and years.......after having to buy the job as well...unable to move on, either to LHS or to purchse another endorsement?
All that glitters is not gold......caveat emptor.

[Mesopause]

Heard this week 3 CFI's have resigned from their flying schools to move onto better jobs and their schools can't replace them!!! Its a happening thing now!!! Next the majors will be wondering how to train pilots quicker - Supply and Demand changes everything!!:)

[404 Titan]

Charlie Foxtrot India

You don’t need to have an ATPL to hold a P1 rating on something like a Metro or even a B747 for that matter in RPT ops. The only restriction is you can’t be in command. You can log ICUS or P1US though which you would do every time you are pilot flying. When you are pilot not flying you log P2.

poorlypaidpilot

You will find that CAR 5.173 (2) states that of the 250 hours command required for the issue of an Australian ATPL, 150 hours of it can be ICUS.

[neville_nobody]

Yep that one was changed a few years ago on the quiet. You used to have to have 500 COMMAND. Love to see the justification for such a significant devaluation of the license. ATPL with a 100 Command, really isn't enough IMHO.

[404 Titan]

neville_nobody

I realise the latest copy of the CAR’s indicates that that particular page was last amended in 2003 but I should point out that my copy is from 2000 with the last previous amendment in 1998. A tad more than a few years I would say.

It would be interesting if someone has an original copy of the CAR 1988 to see what the requirement was back then. I did my ATPL’s in 1995 and don’t recall the requirements being any different to what they are today. I could be wrong though as my memory is a little faded.