QFLINK drops minimums

[high talker]

Heard on the grape vine that they have dropped the minimums to 700tt and 250 multi command or co-pilot. Where will the future commands come from if they dont have the elusive 500 multi. Also how long is it before VB and J* follow.

[Flying Tiger]

The 500 multi in command requirement only applies to operators with a low capacity AOC. It is not applicable in the case of a high capacity AOC, in which case the command requirement reverts to those stipulated for the issue of a full ATPL - ie 250 hours with no requirement for it to be on multi engine aircraft.

[KRUSTY 34]

So those pilots joining Qantaslink, with less tah 500 multi, will have to move on if they are to ever hold a command on RPT ops!

That makes sense?

Are the management of these companies even interested in retaining their professional staff?

[slice]

Krusty Low capacity RPT refers to operators with Aircraft of 36 seats or less - Qlink (EAA & SSA) are not in this category.

[slice]

MUNT - see CAO 82.3
Conditions on Air Operators' Certificates Authorising Regular Public Transport Operations in Other Than High Capacity Aircraft (includes Appendixes 1 to 5)
In appendix 4 there is the (some say obsolete) requirement for the pilot in command to have 500 hrs as PIC (or ICUS) in multi-engine aircraft under IFR rules.
This is in addition to anything required for an ATPL.
Other things listed there include 2000 TT, 50 PIC or ICUS on type.
Note this only applies to RPT other than High capacity (ie AC 36 seats or less)
so FRT CHTR etc do not have this requirement.

[404 Titan]

slice

Can you tell me if an F/O on the dash gets a P1 or P2 rating? If they get a P1, every time they operate the aircraft as pilot flying they log P1US or ICUS as it is called in Aus. It’s also worth pointing out you don’t need an ATPL to have a P1 rating and log ICUS. They would have the 500 PIC or ICUS in no time at all.

[Aussie]

Yeah i heard the same thing on the new minimums.. mate of mine just got the job there and the interview panel told him bout the new mins...

Wonder how soon before REX follows!

[*Lancer*]

slice, as long as the FO is command endorsed with a CIR, they can log ICUS and meet the 500 hour requirement in about 12 months.

[John Citizen]

I don't believe logging ICUS is as easy as you say it is.
Take a look at the guidelines http://http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/specialpilotops/logbook.pdf
The operator must permit that person to fly the aircraft acting as ICUS.

CAR 5.40 Pilot acting in command under supervision
(1) A person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under
supervision only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
or
(i) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were a
commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence;
and
(b) the person holds an aircraft endorsement that authorises him or
her to fly the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person proposes to carry out an activity for which a flight
crew rating is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or
grade of flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out
that activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned; and
(d) the person is the co-pilot of the aircraft; and
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the purpose
by the operator of the aircraft.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The operator of an aircraft may permit a person to fly an aircraft as
pilot acting in command only if:
(a) the person holds:
(i) a commercial pilot licence, or an air transport pilot licence,
that authorises him or her to fly the aircraft; or
(ii) a certificate of validation that has effect as if it were such a
licence; and
(b) the person holds an endorsement that authorises him or her to fly
the aircraft as pilot in command; and
(c) if the person carries out an activity for which a flight crew rating
is required—the person holds a flight crew rating, or grade of
flight crew rating, that permits him or her to carry out that
activity as pilot in command of the aircraft concerned.

[slice]

404 - Well new FOs only get a Co-pilot rating on the Aircraft (I presume equivalent to P2) so as such they can't log ICUS but as originally pointed out it doesn't matter anyway as QLink are not a Low capacity AOC thus no need to worry about 500 hrs multi-engine. Company Ops manual

Lancer - true but I was just pointing out to MUNT that there is a requirement as it stands. Many have pointed out in past threads that this has become to be regarded as an obsolete requirement. Although as you point all the experience can be gained through ICUS, at least they have to do that before moving to command.

[hoss]

In the past they only issued a DHC-8 COPILOT endorsement. Not sure what the guys pay for now, hopefully COMMAND.

John Citizen beat me to it, the 'ICUS thing' could be an issue and it will be interesting to see how they get around it.

Lowering the experience level is not the answer when there are heaps of potential pilots who have been put off by the BYO endorement and QF psychometric and skills, think how insulting this must be for them.

I'm not going to bet my nuts this time but I reckon 'open day' sessions in the traditional hotspots for pilot talent would be the go(north west WA, NT, FNQ etc.). Go to the action, if only the management realised how tricky it is for a working pilot to get to the east coast for the current process. Considering tourist season is about to crank up, looks like QantasLink is going to miss out on a stack of good pilots, bummer.

[MUNT]

slice, I stand corrected.

John Citizen, it is as easy as a command endorsement and the approval of the operator (whack it in the FAM). Plenty of operators in Oz practice this in normal operations (FO logs ICUS for sectors they fly), and its the way mainline do it. There is a common perception throughout the industry that ICUS is soley a command training tool, not so.

[John Citizen]

But before an operator allowed you to fly as ICUS, as well as the command endorsement and approval from the operator, I believe you would also need
to be recently proficiency "checked" as command (which is different to a co-pilot proficieny check).

Also to fly ICUS if you have not been checked to line as a captain, wouldn't then you only be able to be fly ICUS with a "training / Check and training captain" only ? The same way as when doing training for command and building up ICUS time.

As far as I am aware, to fly command, you need to be checked to line as command or flying ICUS with an "approved training captain".

[Jet_A_Knight]

Lowering the experience level is not the answer when there are heaps of potential pilots who have been put off by the BYO endorement and QF psychometric and skills, think how insulting this must be for them.

Hoss, let's not forget about the 'HSC Requirement'.

Pity some guys' thousands of hours of flying is considered secondary to the HSC they didn't do 10 years ago.:hmm:

[hoss]

For sure, the HSC requirement should be removed in my opinion.

What does the HSC prove? Maybe it could show that a potential candidate is able to study but so does an ATPL. If the HSC was that important it would be a regulatory issue, but it's not.

I don't know when or why QantasLink made the HSC a requirement. I have a mate who was not able to apply to QantasLink due to it but thats alright he was snapped up by the competition and is now flying jets. There are many similar stories.

[podbreak]

John Citizen

There is no requirement for you to be checked to line in Command to log ICUS, mainly because you won't ever be on the line as PIC. The requirements for logging ICUS do not specify any additional requirements of the PIC. The PIC therefore doesn't need any check and training experience. There is also nothing stipulated about the seat the ICUS logger must be in, infact the only thing that really is said, is that the person logging ICUS must be co-pilot. Basically, the PIC experience ends at the endorsement.

This is how many airlines (particularly outside of Australia, where the ICUS deal is often the same), enable candidates to achieve their ATPL. Infact the inclusion of ICUS in ATPL hour requirements is evidence of the intention for its function outside of training. There is no recency requirements for logging ICUS either (as in recent PIC time on type).

There is wide confusion regarding this subject, and its mainly due to the lack of information in the law, leaving it hopelessly open to interpretation. As someone said before, it is not confined to the realms of training.:ok:

[Transition Layer]

HossWhat does the HSC prove? Maybe it could show that a potential candidate is able to study but so does an ATPL. If the HSC was that important it would be a regulatory issue, but it's not.


Hoss, with all due respect, things have changed. You might only be 9 years older than me (judging by your profile age) but I think you would be hard pressed to find many professional pilots in their twenties these days who didn't finish school. I don't know ANYONE who didn't finish high school - friends (including plenty from outside aviation), family, etc.

Given that a large majority of QFLink applicants would be aged in their mid-late twenties, I doubt many would have not finished school. I think you'll find it is the norm these days to stay at school right up to Year 12, even for a lot of those doing apprenticeships.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it would rule out many applicants at all, but instead is just another tick in the box.

[international hog driver]

The HSC thing is a joke, just like the rest of mainlines screening process, over the next few years the minimums will drop and so will the requirements.

A mate of mine from school dropped out in Yr10...... he now flys a bus for a particular one star airline. Before you all jump up and down he did start with Oxley.... so that shows how long he has been in the system.

Dont think I am jealous about not working for the rat, I work 6 months a year, earn as much as a short haul captain, and have a life and friends outside of a cockpit that many of my mates who are in the roo club simply dont have.

$0.02

[Flickroll2]

Yes the old HSC requirement is just a waste of time and you will see why when they drop it to attract more people to come and join them in their line of assulting bill****. I know someone who was there for 10yrs, and he was LHI & HOT approved and still didn't kill anyone and he didn't have the HSC either. But Qantas on the other hand told him that he NEEDED the HSC so he would have the intellingence to pass the PYSHCO testing and he passed that as well. But in true Qantas style he and many others had enough of all of the QF GOD selection and now most of these guys are flying things like B747-400's,
A330's, A340-600/300, A320/1.(Only about 90 - 120 from Eastern) It's only taken QF 10 years to relise that there is something wrong so when they pull their heads out of their arses they might have a very slim chance to hangon to the reigns before someone gets seriously hurt.:ugh:
Please guys if your going to cough up some money for endorsement have a good look at the A320 and B737 first because there plenty of jobs out there with the upgrade option after 2-3 years.:oh:

[neville_nobody]

Guys gimme a break.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: HSC education is the basic standard. If you want to do alot of things these days you will need to at least of completed year 12. Trade apprenticeships these days often prefer year 12.

QF want people who have a certain level of academic achievement. You can do the bridging courses if required. It is not unreasonable for a major international airline to have such requirements. If you look at the USA you won't be a airline pilot over there unless to have University education as a minimum. You would also need that to fly freight over there too!
The best job you'll get in the USA with a year 12 diploma is probably a job a the local supermarket or at McDonalds!!

Year 12 is a minimum education standard and really a basic one at that. You won't find many other jobs based in a capital city that pays QF money where all you need is a HSC. Most jobs for that sort of money you will need many years of experience plus multiple degrees and post graduate qualifications. Every doctor and lawyer in Australia would have university level education yet not many of those would be seeing pay figures in the mid $100 000+

Either go and do a bridging course or shut up! Year 12 is not a unreasonable requirement.

[Under Dog]

Yes Neville your right, the HSC is a basic standard of education but I still don't understand what its got to do with flying an Aeroplane.


Regards

The Dog

[Transition Layer]

Good luck in your next EBA negotiations, with beancounters and management, many of whom would have at least Bachelor Degrees, if not a Masters.

"Yeah we think we are worth more, but oh, you don't need a HSC to fly a Dash."

The 20yo bloke cleaning the toilets probably finished school, surely it's not much to ask of the pilots!!!

[Howard Hughes]

Year 12 is not a unreasonable requirement.
It is a ridiculous requirement for people who finished school 20+ years ago, especially if you do not take into account what they have achieved in the interim! If they were to look at each individual on their merits, that would be a more sensible approach!

QF and more important QF link have missed many pilots who would be ideally suited because of this requirement!

[WarmNuts]

The Dog

Mate you might feel the urge to to do some trigonometry or recite some useless poems whilst doing a NDB app :}

[MUNT]

but I still don't understand what its got to do with flying an Aeroplane.


the other 4 years of your high school education doesn't either...

[Aussie]

Well said... they want there candidates a little smarter and dedicated then ya average Joe!

[hoss]

Streuth, it looks like the HSC advocates must have been sick on the day the teacher taught comprehension:} .

Neville, this is simply about flying for QantasLink not whats going on in America or at the 'high end of town'. Sure, if a pilot presents for an interview with a HSC that would be good. It might not mean much but why limit the 'pilot pool'.

Transition, not all pilots joining QantasLink are in the age/experience demographic you speak of.

Picture this, back in the late eighties a fifteen year old kid decides he cant wait any longer to get his hands on an aeroplane and manages to get a job in the local hangar. He works hard and after a few years is well on his way to getting his licences both as an engineer and a pilot. By his early twenties he is working 'up north' and with those qualifications can pick up work anywhere. After many years he is now well known, regarded and has achieved heaps. He decides it would be nice to work for a regional airline and with about five times more experience in his logbook than the airline requires he figures he would stand a chance if interviewed. He trys to apply only to be told by some clerk just out of university trying to justify their job that he cant be considered until he obtains a HSC!

Although fictitous, if anybody thinks this guy still should not be considered for a regional airline job then they have serious 'mental problems'(thanks margaret);) .

[slice]

Hoss - I guess in absolute terms what you say is perfectly valid but ultimately it is their train set as such and I am sure that they are aware of the effect the that the year 12 requirement has. As I understand it the year 12 requirement (in addition to the psychobabble tests) has only come about as the Qlink operations have become more subordinate to the larger empire as it were. I daresay the decision was made by someone further up the food chain than a clerk and it is my guess that this decision was made by someone in Qantas not Qantaslink.

[Next Generation]

FOs only get a Co-pilot rating on the Aircraft

I didn't think you could get Co-pilot endorsements in Australia any more, or was that one of those things that is often talked about but not acted on?

[bushy]

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters on Prune should go back to school for a while.
Some appear to be semi literate.
Flying also involves accurate verbal and written communication.

[*Lancer*]

JC, if you read the reg you posted earlier the only requirements (summarising) for logging ICUS is at least a CPL, a command endorsement, a M/E CIR, and company approval. You're only under 'supervision', not instruction, so no requirement for a training pilot. :)

[Under Dog]

Transition

Thats what you pay the AFAP large amounts of loot for,Besides plenty of guys with the HSC still wouldn't know a good deal from a bad one .
So it all comes back to a status thing for QFLINK.

Regards The Dog

[morning mungrel]

Hoss, that "fictitious" person of which you speak isn't so fictitous.........:{

[Howard Hughes]

Hoss,

What about the fictitious young fellow who is not only an A student at school, but a very succesful sportsman. He is not only a State Champion, but goes on to compete in a number of National Championships! In year 11 he finds both full time training (around six hours per day six days a week), plus schooling (six hours per day five days per week), become just to much and decides to concentrate on sport.

After a very succesful sporting career, which as I said earlier includes a State Championship, he decides to pursue his boyhood dream of aviation. After many trials and tribulations, he finally achieves that coveted licence! Then he heads north to find that elusive first job, which leads to the next and then the next, anyway you know how it goes! Finally he lands a job flying a turboprop and considers himself one of 'the lucky ones'. After a considerable stint at the one company, he now has over 6500 hours, most of which is in command on multi-crew aircraft, including some training experience!

In pursuit of a young lady, he sets off for greener pastures and applies to the regional in question. They are apparently, in 'desperate' need of pilots, so he approaches them directly only to be told... You are exactly the type of person we are looking for, now if only you had your HSC!
Anyway the young chap (at heart anyway), makes the move to be with his sweetheart and is welcomed with open arms at another reputable operator. Quickly becoming a functional member of the team, his skills show that he indeed does have what it takes, after all he was an A grade student...;)

NB: Of course this story is entirely fictitious!:ok:

Footnotes: While his grammar may be suspect at best, he has found that his vocabulary is the equal of many of his HSC graduate peers and his knowledge of physics, more than adequate for his chosen profession, that is of course if this person wasn't totally fictitious! ;)

[slice]

Jawz - the 500 hour requirement only applies to Low capacity (not more than 36 seats) AOCs.

[WynSock]

"They are apparently, in 'desperate' need of pilots, so he approaches them directly only to be told... "

It's funny isn't it? Not so long ago Sunnies and EAA had heaps of experienced guys on the books.
So forward to now and they lose a few to jets...Rather than give guys a carrot to stay, they hit the new ones with the $10k lump of wood. (That would have to be an accountant's idea.) :hmm:

So Hoss, do you have HSC? I know sunnies wasn't too worried about it until recently.
I agree with you, and it makes alot of sense. I guess the public would just expect us to 'have' HSC. Just like they probably expect that the FO has a reasonable level of experience. :}

I thought year 12 was for meeting girls and enjoying myself....So I completed year 12 but badly.


cheers

[freddyKrueger]

I suspect this is a discrimination issue.
Because it has been a requirement for the HSC, if they remove it, previous candidates without their HSC who were knocked back could complain.
I know this was a problem after Ansett collapsed, many pilots without their HSC who wanted to join qf had to go and do a bridging course in order to be considered.

[hoss]

WynSock, yes i have a HSC. I didn't pass and did all the wrong subjects but that useless piece of paper got me in!

I think you'll find the QantasLink Rate of Resignations(QRoR) at about 50 per annum and stable.

:)

[OhForSure]

Some of the guys in here (Hoss, HH etc.) should take a bow. You've done well. However, I'm afraid I stand with the others. It is perfectly reasonable for a reputable airline to expect those qualifications from applicants. However, considering HSCs weren't always as common as they are now, perhaps QL should accept other qualifications in its place??? e.g. Turbine time etc. I find it interesting to note that QL will drop the TT/Multi hour requirements to 700/250 BEFORE they will drop the HSC requirement. Clearly they do GENUINELY believe that this piece of paper is rather valuable!

[WynSock]

QRoR...


hehe:}

I must submit that one to the international aviation acronym authority. AAA

[hoss]

dont you mean the IAAA:ok: .

[puff]

So it is mearly the completion of year 12 they are looking at rather than any 'standard' of results? I'm also in the position where I attended and finished year 12 but failed 2 subjects. In that case it still would suffice hoss by the sounds of it?

[The Ox]

For what it's worth I started at Eastern 3 years ago with only year 11 under my belt. Left school in the late eighties so I don't see what difference a 3 week crash course in cramming would made to my abilities, or lack there of... :)

[Toluene Diisocyanate]

The only reason the minimums were dropped is to permit cadets to fly as FOs. They're in sunstate now and easterns very soon.
Bet not too many non cadets with such low hours get in.
Don't get yer hopes up. This is just more hypocrisy from the dark side.:ugh:

TDI

[DUXNUTZ]

Got a call and non-cadet

[freddyKrueger]

MUNT, I personally know an ex-AN pilot who got through the sim evaluation in 01/02 for mainline, but was told to go and do the bridging course before he could be employed. They really wanted to employ the guy, but were hamstrung by previous HSC requirements and told him so at the time. He is now in the sandpit.
You may well be correct, the pool may be shrinking. I am just pointing out what has occurred previously.

[Icarus53]

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure none of the freshly graduated QF cadets would have either 700 TT or 250 ME. Although there's a whole lot of changes going on with recruitment at the moment (and clearly, taking on cadets is part of that - in fact this was explicitly stated in a recent memo), you simply cannot say they have dropped the minimums in order to allow cadets to fly.

At the end of the day - they can allow anyone to fly (as long as they have the right piece of paper). All this does is change the number of people who get in the door for testing. I know a bunch of guys with a few thousand hours who didn't get an interview under the old requirements. Willing to bet they'll be just as many who get a job with only the new minimum in the book.

[404 Titan]

People should see this for what it truely is. An attempt to maintain the downward pressure on T's & C's in a tight pilot recruiting environment. Those that think it is a good thing a kidding themselves because at the end of the day it only makes things easier for management. The same goes for the HSC requirement. Open the fload gates and watch your pay packet evapourate.

All this is, is a cynical move by your management to artificially control supply and demand of pilot numbers. Think about it.:yuk:

[DUXNUTZ]

777,
In between old and new. Have turbine and multicrew time over 5700kg just not the 500 multi (yet but should have it shortly).

Anyone any goss on the interview? Wondering how i am supposed to fly a jet in an interview never having even sat in one....

[M.25]

404 is correct.

By halving the minimum requirements they have doubled the rate at which GA can pump out applicants who meet them.

Pilot shortage? What pilot shortage?!

[Dashtrash]

It's a new management strategy.

We can effectively reduce the number of experienced pilot leaving Qlink if we only employ inexperienced pilots to begin with. If we don't carry a stock ef experience, we can't very well lose it can we.!?!?!?!

Now that's an idea worth a productivity bonus. Expect a roadshow soon followed by power point presentation coming soon to a crewroom near you.

[Roost]

It has probably been covered already but incase it hasn't, the endoresment you pay for is definately a co-pilot one despite what some were told in interviews, I have it stamped in my log book. The management didn't even have the correct infomation in the interview, but it is definately only co-pilot

[MUNT]

Roost,

It was a co-pilot endo, but with these new hour reqs the new FOs will need a command endo (so they can log ICUS).

[Jet_A_Knight]

You need more than just a command type rating to log ICUS.

PILOT FLYING is NOT the same as COMMAND.

[DUXNUTZ]

SO its Q-link still a good place to be?

[redsnail]

If you want to fly a reasonable turboprop with pretty good training and good crew then it's fine. If you're after the big $$/or a shot at jets, do your time and then move on. Lots of exQ'link crew in SE Asia and beyond.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Munt,

When I am training captains, they sit in the LH seat, do all the captain stuff under my supervision.

If they're in the RHS, they're the co-pilot - not acting ICUS.

You would have to be assigned the authority to act in command by the company, have completed the appropriate command training course, and operate as if you were the captain - usually with a supervisory/training/check captain in the RHS - until you were checked to line as a captain.

You just don't fly in the RHS with a command rating in hand - and log it as 'command'.

If people do do that - it just devalues the concept of command experience.

[John Citizen]

Well said Jet_A_knight

I said something along those lines earlier but no one seemed to believe me :ugh:

[Icarus53]

The new FOs will not be logging ICUS (even if they have a command endo) - the company manual states that all FOs will only log co-pilot unless they are undergoing training for command upgrade.

The most recent courses have all done co-pilot endos.

[neville_nobody]

If they are issuing copilot endorsements then how come Virgin and Jetstar insist that everyone has command endorsements? I thought it was a requirement that the FO has a command endorsement if the captain became ill. Or is it only a requirement if it suits if them to be a requirement? :confused:

[WynSock]

All Qlink FO's have Command Instrument Ratings, and a co-pilot Dash8 endorsement . When in the right hand seat, they log Co-pilot hours. They go straight onto your Total Time without discount. They are reduced 50% when calculating total Aeronautical Experience. They do not add to your time in command, ICUS or otherwise.

So it's a good point about these guys who have zip command time. The thing is, they won't end up as captains with Qflink.

[404 Titan]

WynSock

So it's a good point about these guys who have zip command time. The thing is, they won't end up as captains with Qflink.
Unless QLink give them a P1 endorsement which allows them to log ICUS. After all the cost difference between a P1 and P2 rating is negligible and who is paying for the endorsement?

[Jet_A_Knight]

Fair enough Munt - no need to get snappy:ooh:

Do I understand correctly...that the company assigns the FO authority to act as the commander of the aircraft?

Is the FO then responsible for the (supervised) command decisions relating to the flight etc?

Or just the permission to log the time as ICUS?

Not a pisstake - legitimate curiosity.:ok:

[slice]

WynSock - why not? The 500 hour multi PIC requirement does not apply to Qlink.

[WynSock]

No 500 PIC requirement? I'm not sure but what I mean is that the cadets (:}am I allowed to say that here?) won't be in the company long enough to move into a command. I'm not even sure they would be entitled to a seniority number. (?)

[Warbler]

G'day fellas,
Just wondering if anyone could give me a little advice on transferring my rotary skills across to the fixed wing world. I have mainly multi-engine rotary time
I see the minimums for QFLink lowering as an opportunity, so would like to target Sunstate. What I need is the fixed wing multi time. I am in Brisbane and would appreciate any assistance in locating someone that could offer me a whole bunch of multi-engine fixed wing co-pilot time (180 hrs). I have MECIR (fixed wing), but not much time in command of fixed-wing multi-engine. I have plenty in command of rotary wing.
I've not had luck with QFLINK recruitment info email address, so would appreciate anyone on the inside willing to discuss a number of the issues with me.
I would prefer PMs.
Thanks in advance.

[Condition lever]

Jet-A

Why wouldn't you be able to log ICUS when the Skipper is out of the cockpit for a couple of hours in crew-rest?

[Jet_A_Knight]

Condition Lever.... I don't f:mad:g know! I never thought of that angle!

I suppose if the company authorises you for that purpose....but then again, who is supervising if the skipper is in the crew rest? Another FO? Another Captain?? The CSM??:eek:

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, pilots can log WTF they like in their log book! If it makes them feel better to log command, when someone else's @rse is on the line and responsible for the aeroplane, and they're not under command training, let them fill their boots!

Whatever trips your trigger:hmm:

[Transition Layer]

Toluene Diisocyanate:
The only reason the minimums were dropped is to permit cadets to fly as FOs. They're in sunstate now and easterns very soon.
Bet not too many non cadets with such low hours get in.
Don't get yer hopes up. This is just more hypocrisy from the dark side.

Bollocks ol' mate, there's a bloke starting with Eastern on Monday who only satisfies the new requirements. Off the top of my head he's got about 1400hrs total and 350 multi command. That didn't take long did it! Surely there's gotta be more on the way.

TL

[ovum]

Actually TL...

1650 total and 390 multi command. Just asked him ;)

[*Lancer*]

To answer your question Jet A:

(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision.

So, you don't have to be authorised to act in command, you have to be authorised to AICUS. To this end, FOs are authorised.

Originally, endorsing FOs with command ratings enabled them to fly with SOs (only copilot endorsed), with the CPT in the bunk. The CPT is still the PIC, and still logs command time even if they're asleep. It doesn't matter whether anyone is a training captain or not, as long as the ICUS requirements are met.

[Condition lever]

Jet A

Sorry, who is now getting snappy???:oh:

The fact is that CASA allows for FOs to log ICUS under the direction of their company's SOPs (refer to the relevant CAO).

Guess what, I hold a command endorsement (as an FO) on the aircraft I fly and regardless of whether the Captain is in the seat or not I am allowed to log ICUS on the sectors that I fly as is allowed by my company SOPs.

If I make a decision the Captain doesn't like, he explains why he would prefer it his way and I learn from that. If I disagree etc, etc, etc.... use of common sense CRM. Thread drift....

Regardless, Lancer is correct and that is why there is another column in your log book so that you may log ICUS - not command time as you allude to.

[slice]

Condition Lever - let me get this straight - your company Ops manual states that when you are the handling pilot for that sector you may log ICUS ?

This sounds a little odd to me as ICUS by definition requires some for of direct supervision does it not ? In my co. ICUS is only logged during actual command line training but the PF sectors are still shared by the by the trainee Captain and the Training Captain.

[Keg]

Slice, from the QF FAM.

First Officer line flying time can be logged as ICUS when the First Officer has a Command type endorsement on the aircraft, and is also flying the sector.

There is another burst a bit later that provides more info. Two specific points relate to this discussion:

All Captains (essentially, one caveat for Captains on their first 12 sectos in command) are authorised to suerpvise ICUS sectors being operated by F/Os.
A takeoff or landing that is relinquished to the PIC due to marginal weather, crosswind limitations or non-normal configurations are not to be logged as ICUS sectors.

If I recall correctly then Condition Lever is with J* but I'm pretty sure they're the same as QF in this regard. I hope that assists.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Condition Lever - more foul mouthed - than snappy:E

Thanks Keg.......So, using ICUS as described, what is inherently co-pilot time is logged at 'full value' instead of contibuting 50% of total aeronautical experience.

It still seems to be no more than creative accounting to me.:hmm:

[Condition lever]

Yes, - the only difference at J* is that ICUS can only be supervised by a Check or Trng Capt.

Keg - it looks like we might all be in AIPA together.
I am looking forward to their pitch, I hope that they can sell being unbiased.

[Keg]

I must say that 9/10 sectors that I fly as ICUS are actually ICUS and everything from the 'tone' of the day through to active and ongoing management of the flight is left to the F/O.

Some may consider it creative accounting but the reality is that for some it's a very effective developmental tool.

[Jet_A_Knight]

the reality is that for some it's a very effective developmental tool.

Keg - I am glad that it utilised in that manner - and I am sure it is an effective tool.

A QUESTION:

Is the co-pilot appointed to the flight for the purpose of Pilot in Command by the company??

[Capt Under Pants]

From the sounds of it I think you would be snapped up. If you do a search I think previous posts have people talking around the $80K mark for a Capt.
Surveillance Australia is also another potential employer.

[Kingswood]

Are Qlink possibly opening a can of worms for themselves re: loyalty with regard to this?

500 hrs multi command (along with perhaps another 150 or so multi ICUS that the operator provided to get a low time pilot to the point of being commercially useful) neatly added up to approximately a years service with a GA operator. Not an unreasonable expectation from either party.

If a new hire jumps ship from their current GA employer on 250hrs multi to join Qlink, there is a fair chance that they have just reneged on an agreement to serve out a minimum 12 mths with that employer.

At the very least that fact should guarantee a very curly question from the panel on interview day.

If it doesn't raise an eyebrow, then Qlink would appear to be giving tacit approval to cutting and running. Surely this will return to bite them when the new hire bolts with 500hrs RHS turbine in 8 or 9 months. After all they've paid for the endorsement...?

A deferred solution to the problem at best.

[hoss]

SK111,

I'm not too sure of the website for QantasLink it's difficult to find. QantasLink do not employ DEC and probably will not have to in the forseen future. If you decided to apply you would be employed as a first officer, at the moment time to command is at about 6 years. Pay starts at around $55K to $120K(Q400 CC 10years++++)

Best wishes:)

[hoss]

very rough figures, first officer earns $60k/year = $2.5K/fortnightly pay but only $1.9K goes into bank.

depends on your lifestyle but it's manageable.

:)

[slice]

Overnight allowances (~$85 per night) are only taxed at 15%, base salary for 1st year FO (~50K) taxed at about 22~23%(but depends alot on personal financial circumstances). Kids get you a bit more back in the Family tax rebate (depends on total family income). 6 weeks annual leave. QF staff travel after 6 months service. Current EBA has 3% increment per year.

Also telephone (landline) allowance of $27 pm and internet connection allowance $215 pa

A litre of unleaded petrol at the moment ~$1.29 NSW ~$1.20 QLD

Milk $1.00 ~ $1.60 per litre

New Small Car $15k ~ $25k

Housing Sydney 2 brm apartment ~300k and up (dodgy areas maybe a bit less)

Brissy ~200K and up

Cairns ~180K and up

Might be a bit out with the housing as I only casually glance at the real estate pages. Others may correct me.

[hoss]

Kingswood, your prediction/s are just starting to become a reality and will surely increase, watch this space.

Good on them, if it was me I would get a Q400 endorsement thrown in as well and then go to Asia after a few months flying the line. One guy did and I cant blame him. After all I would want a return on my $10K investment, wouldn't you?

As we approach another EBA negotiation this 'new generation'(self funded) will soon realise how much the company values them and you can rest assured that by this time next year 9 out of 10 will be actively seeking employment elsewhere.

:)

[struggler20]

Kingswood what a load of BS

"If a new hire jumps ship from their current GA employer on 250hrs multi to join Qlink, there is a fair chance that they have just reneged on an agreement to serve out a minimum 12 mths with that employer."

Im offended by comments like that, most GA operators pay you absolute crap, you can just survive on the income, and forget about making a dent of the massive loan most of us all have for our training.
GA operators need to learn that if they want to keep pilots they need to treat them with respect and pay them well, (bonding will not work)
I would happily stay on if i was given a pay rise or incentive to stay. In every other industry people get pay rises each year, (that does not include if you step up onto a twin or so on). Most of the remote places i have lived or worked i get paid less than every one in the town (including some on gov handouts)
And do you think for one minute the operator give 2 sh*ts about you when they lose that contract, nope your outta here/ or back on casual.

My point is loyalty is earned, treat people right and we will stay

struggler

[2p!ssed2drive]

Struggler,

Hear hear :ok:

[hoss]

Clearly QantasLink dont treat their new recruits right therefore they will not stay.

Loyalty is a rare word, almost rude and mostly used in a past tense.

[Kingswood]

Struggler,

Relax. Being offended will not serve you in any environment.

If you knew of the conditions on offer prior to employment, then why did you agree to 12 months service? The question from the interview panel will surely be: "Struggler, why did you not serve out your full agreed term with ... ?". I assume they will be interested in your answer, in order to determine your likely behaviour as one of their employees.

The question I posted above simply relates the Qlink response to the answers they receive from 250 hr applicants in the interview.

If the applicants answer is along the lines of "I knew it was a rubbish job, but I agreed to 12 months just to get it, knowing full well I would take off at the first quality opportunity... Thank God you dropped your minimums... now I can get out of here!", (or if it can be determined that this is the case simply by calling the company in question)

Then an observer could reasonable ask: Why are Qlink are not troubled by that sort of behaviour in an applicant?

Are they not simply deferring todays problem until 6-12 months from now? Is there not a better way to solve the shortage of applicants for our positions? Perhaps paying more money to retain the people we already have that have helped established the strong business we have today? How are things improved by having people fork over 10k for the endo, and then shoot off after 6-9 mths? Do the new applicants really want that?

You will note that I am not making a value judgement here. I am not saying that your choices are not valid. I am simply observing that previous behaviour can be a good indication of future behaviour. We've all been there in GA and know what you are going through. We have all made our choices.

My question is simply, how does this make life better for Qlink? In days gone by, not serving out agreed terms with previous employers would have completely snookered you in the interview... Has that minimum standard also been dropped?

[404 Titan]

struggler20

It must be said, “Don’t burn your bridges”. This is a very small industry and you will come across those bridges again in your career.

[Under Dog]

QF link Have changed the culture to regional aviation for ever, with having
to pay for your endorsement. Newbies coming through the system will think its the norm to pay for your endorsement as you further your career(not that VB,JS etc Have done any thing different just that QFLINK is further down the food chain).
This will affect Loyalty right throught the whole industry which will not benefit either party.

Regards The Dog

[struggler20]

Kingswood,

I understand what you are trying to highlight, there are a small percentage of drivers out there who have and will continue to walk all over operators and other pilots on there way to the top. The rest of us try and do the decent thing by both the company and others we work with.

What i would like to say is that how many times have promises been made by employers that just never eventuate and finally people get fed up and just leave , only to get guilted by the "i gave you so much and now you are leaving"

Lets just agree that this is a two way street if you look after us we will stay.
I cant see that any operator that imposes upfront bonds/self funded TR/Endos can expect any loyalty. " l mean the give give use 5k upfront incase you leave in 12 months type bonds" By doing this people feel that they have the right to go on to green pastures as why not, we payed for our own TR.

Again i think crew shortages could be reduced by increasing salaries, 50K for a FO is what a 1st year grad from Engineering/IT/Business would make in a capital city. I would assume that most FO's would have at least 3 or 4 years of experiance in the industry.

my 2cents

[bodex666]

hi guys

Had a interview last week and got offered a spot on the next Dash ground school at the end of this month, just a quickie, does anyone know how long till a command with the current flow of crew through the company?

[hoss]

about 6+ years at the moment for eastern (any base).