View Full Version : Question to JetStar pilots

max autobrakes
10th Aug 2007, 04:16
With the news of the imminent arrival of Qantas' new Chairman ,Leigh Clifford, and the headlines such as "Dixon finds a supporter on IR"
or "Dixon finds a fellow IR warrior in former Rio Tinto boss"
or "Dixon created JetStar as a means of shifting the IR goal posts"
One can only summise that the industrial climate is about to get hotter, much hotter.
At present I sense a certain smugness emanating from some JetStar pilots, no doubt bolstered by their belief that they are cheaper than Qantas and therefore favoured.

My question is ,let us suppose Dixon wins his ideologically driven, government backed and sanctioned industrial war and Qantas pilots end up on a JetStar inspired contract, who will get the spoils then, when there is no longer any productivity/cost difference?

The Legacy pilots who are extensively trained to a standard, or the LCC pilots who are trained to a price?

I wonder who CASA would favour, I wonder who Qantas' insurance underwriters would favour, I wonder who the shareholders would favour?

Maybe you could then regain the high ground by signing a new contract that gives you back that competitive edge so as not to pollute that culture.l

A true example of how WorkChoices will work as dreamed up by the big end of town.

The Professor
10th Aug 2007, 04:47
"let us suppose Dixon wins . . "

Do you think there is any doubt?

" . . . and Qantas pilots end up on a JetStar inspired contract"

Dont you mean that Qantas pilots will end up working for Jetstar or will be shown the door.

"The Legacy pilots who are extensively trained to a standard, or the LCC pilots who are trained to a price?"

Probably the cheaper ones that dont crash as apposed to the expensive ones that dont crash (assuming we turn a blind eye on BKK). Just like the rest of the world my friend.

"I wonder who Qantas' insurance underwriters would favour"

The insurance underwriters for Qantas also insure carriers in Asia and the Middle East. Jetstar pilots are deemed suitably trained by the governing body of Australia and that is all the insurance company is generally interested in.

"Maybe you could then regain the high ground by signing a new contract that gives you back that competitive edge so as not to pollute that culture."

Maybe Qantas pilots will begin to compete in the labor market instead of relying on an outdated principle of Government protection and militant unionism. The sooner you accept change the sooner you will move from victim to participant.

10th Aug 2007, 05:11
I've heard that Qantas' command training is so poor that only about half pass it on first try. Is this true? Or was a QF pilot pulling my leg?

10th Aug 2007, 08:11
You know, they deny and deny, but every now and then one of the Gods Of Aviation just has to pipe up and let us know how much better they are than mere mortals.:rolleyes:

10th Aug 2007, 08:19
Moderators - please move this back to Dunnunda & Godzone.

It's embarrassing when these sorts publicly unleash their self loving, insular and inflated opinion of themselves into the international forum:{

Honestly, you just can't take some people anywhere:rolleyes:

10th Aug 2007, 16:09
I love engaging in a debate where the winning argument is made by the opposing side.

"I am a legacy pilot. Therefore I am".

Perhaps the real issue here is that only "legacy pilots" are allowed to be smug?

11th Aug 2007, 00:05
I very much doubt in the current environment (ww pilot shortage) that QF are going to cut too far with their pilots.

Jetstar are struggling to recruit to fill their current aircraft orders.

As I have said before, ,Jetstar protects QF pilots T & C.

However, QF pilots may need to look at their current contract in light of competition from other carriers. Will AU $350 - $400k plus oncosts be competitive for an A380 Captain compared to other operators, particularly given the limitations of CAO 48, Home Transport rules etc. etc.?

I would suggest that if you take a basket of Legacy carriers and find that you are on one of the best packages then there is probably only two scenario's, sideways or down.

Douglas Mcdonnell
11th Aug 2007, 00:34
Max. Darwin, Canberra, Sydney and a particular golf course somewhere O/S. Ring a bell Warren?

The Kavorka
11th Aug 2007, 01:24

With a pilot of your obvious excellence, maybe it's time to take up a roll with nasa and command the first human flight to the Red Plantet!!!!!:ugh:

11th Aug 2007, 01:37
The Legacy pilots who are extensively trained to a standard, or the LCC pilots who are trained to a price?

You really let yourself down with that throwaway line, Max.

Going Boeing
11th Aug 2007, 06:34

Will AU $350 - $400k plus oncosts be competitive for an A380 Captain compared to other operators

You've been reading too many newspaper articles where the figures have been provided by Darth. I'm a Captain on the highest paying QF type (B744) and my Group Certificate income (which includes allowances) was in the mid $200k range. QF pilots are not as overpaid as the pro QF management journalists would have you believe. Most QF pilots expect that the A380 pay rate will only be a few percent above the B744.

Overseas carriers are now increasing the packages on offer because of the pilot shortage (eg CX are offering over $300K pa for Simulator Instructors) and it won't be long before QF salaries will look like LCC salaries to overseas pilots.

12th Aug 2007, 03:14
What's all this "legacy" stuff about anyway?
Qantas is an airline, like the others.
This sounds like the nonsense we see on TV when some car company brings out a new model, that's got a "17 channel spiflicated gooferriser" and you have just got to have one.

12th Aug 2007, 13:08
GB, only mid 200's last fy? I know a couple of 73 skippers who earnt very close to that figure as well...they flew their backsides off mind you.

Capn Bloggs
12th Aug 2007, 15:53
What a bunch of pricks some of you are. The gods are paid more than the rest so they have to come down because of change. No wonder the industry's stuffed, professor. :yuk:

12th Aug 2007, 23:15
Seconded, Bloggs.

One sage once told me "There will always be someone somewhere who is flying bigger, faster, newer equipment than you, on more money."

I know for a fact that QF pilots as a group are no better or no worse than JQ, VB, or any other mob that you care to name.

Its good to have a bit of pride in your profession and in your organisation. Bit of history, all good. But don't think it doesn't exist elsewhere. This "tribalism" was invented by pinheads, and some of us maintain it. D'oh!

l wouldn't mind the extra money that is made at some other outfits. I'm not so sure I'd like to work at a place like QF or VB, don't know if I could take the 'culture', but thats another discussion.

I am dead pleased that they earn good money and that they are moving the marker up. More of it I say. Push the benchmark up, don't drag it down!

And if the rumour of $200k+ salaries at Tiger turns out to be true, I will be pleased but I won't be applying.

Move it up, boys! I'll keep my roster, my bionic DC-9, and no back of the clock flying and push my mob to move the money up towards yours.

Win win.

Mstr Caution
13th Aug 2007, 01:06
While on the topic of questions to Jetstar pilots.

Any truth to the rumour going round that there are insufficient crews to operate two A320's from late September?

Heard that there may be a reduced flying schedule.

Anyone heard anything similar?

The Kavorka
13th Aug 2007, 01:17
mst ctn,

maybe true...keep getting called by crewing to change roster and have been called on all avail days lately...

however, there is a lot of newbies training at the moment!!

max autobrakes
13th Aug 2007, 01:39
Well gentlemen this little tread starter has certainly caused some vitriol.
From the tone of some of the contributors one would think that professional organisations have no place in the ongoing debate about the "rationalisation" of the Australian workplace.
I suppose these same gentlemen also believe that the AMA have no place in commenting or input into the standards pertaining to foreign doctors practicing in Australia .

Well Professor you are quite correct, all airlines have insurance. Do all airlines pay the same premiums though? What exactly do the actaries look at when calculating those premiums.
As to if Dixon will get his way, who knows ,there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge yet!
One thing is for sure if the present incarnation of AIPA acted like the JPC or the old AIPA then your taunt would certainly have more credence.

To a number of other contributors and the whole indignation about standards. A simple question really, if JetStar can get away with less Initial Training Sims ,cyclics and training than the rest of the Qantas Group (as the Regulations and the Regulator allow them to) ,why can't or won't Qantas demand the same and save themselves a lot of money?

As to that perennial hairy chestnut, Bangkok and the golf course.
Have any of the wise arses who use this as an example of trying to bring the so called "sky gods " down to earth actually taken the time to read and analyse the ATSB report?
If you had one would soon realise that this is what happens when management go down the path of unfettered cost cutting.
Here are some of the ATSB's conclusions, see if what I'm saying holds any water as to if this accident should be a warning about the perils of affordable safety !

-The flight crew didn't use an adequate risk management stategy for the approach and landing, the error was primarily due to the absence of appropriate company procedures and training.
-Company-published information, Deficient.
-Procedures and training of crew ,Deficient in numberous areas.
-processes to manage development,introduction and evaluation of changes to operations, Deficient.
-Management culture over-reliant on personal experience and did not place adequate emphisis on structured processes

These observations were only the tip of the iceberg.

Further changes were recommended in the following areas.
- operational training and procedures.
- Hazard identification.
- Risk assessment
- Change management
- Design of proceedures and training programs.
- Management decision making processes.

Have the Sky God management taken any of this to heart?
Will training to the bare minimum legal requirements prevent a similar accident from occuring?
Profitability before Safety before Schedule.
Modern day affordable Safety!

This might also explain why some JetStar Training Captains have been asking questions regarding the amounts of training set by JetStar management, the average standards resulting from this minimalist training, the pressures exerted to pass pilots, and the legal implications ,to them as the training captain, if any thing goes wrong in the future.

Can anyone now see why there is a need for pilots to band together and demand that the accountants now running airlines need to listen just a bit more to operationally experienced people and realise that there is a certain undeniable cost associated with running a business and that just because minimum requirements are met does not necessarily make for a good business decision.
Is AIPA's Professional standards Campaign such an abhorrence when seen in such light?

13th Aug 2007, 01:48
Ha! you're funny Max :}

To a number of other contributors and the whole indignation about standards. A simple question really, if JetStar can get away with less Sims ,cyclics and training as the Regulations and the Regulator allow them to ,why can't or won't Qantas!Surely there must be a huge cost imput to Qantas in being forced to train more.

then to try and justify BKK golf course:

The flight crew didn't use an adequate risk management stategy for the approach and landing, the error was primarily due to the absence of appropriate company procedures and training.
-Company-published information, Deficient.
-Procedures and training of crew ,Deficient in numberous areas.

So which is it Max, are the gods better trainied or not ??
Hope the insurers are'nt reading this.

BTW, speaking of old chestnuts, do you really believe QF do more checks per year than JQ, or are they just less sims more often ?

max autobrakes
13th Aug 2007, 02:08
You are not listening cunninglinguist.

The cutting in Qantas has been going on for years!
I never said Sky Gods are Sky Gods.
They are just pilots working for a company with a very long history and proud culture.
Do you really believe that Qantas would have survived as long as it has if the operational front line of the company adopted an attitude of near enough is good enough, excellence through indifference.

The justification of BKK is not mine, that quote was straight out of the ATSB report. So are the ATSB wrong in their summation?

Is more training than the bare statutory minimums more ,or less likely to mitigate accidents?

No one is immune from the risk of human error, even Sky Gods.
However extensive ,thorough, training will add more slices of cheese to the RISK MODEL. More slices of cheese means less risk, it does not mean NO risk, a big difference that you don't seem to quite grasp!

13th Aug 2007, 02:27
GB :confused:
Regarding your comment on CX simulator instructors-
I have a mate working there on the B747-400 -simulator-who is on 8th year pay and with Bonus- he is just making $140 K OZ.
They are screaming for guys and have just increased the numbers for this fleet from 14 to 20 ( simulator Insructors) so you can imagine how hard these people work. Things are not always as they seem in this Industry?

13th Aug 2007, 03:38
The only way to stop these threads is to vote for some power in the workplace then get all pilots in the QF group on the same agreement not a worse one.
Divide and conquer that's managements strategy and it's working.

Easy to get T and C down when a new hire is sat in any office handed a contract and told if they don't sign there is no Job and it's back to the even lower T and C in their current Job. So what do they do they sign. Lets face it guys who are in the postion to negotiate for the right T and C never had a problem before and contracts with better than award or EBA conditions occasionally happened for those positions.

What needs to happen is some communication between groups to organise how this is going to happen. As for Pilot training every professional Pilot should be pushing for higher standards wherever and for whoever they work for same said for maintenance at the end of th day it's our arse on the line. But with things like the Multi Crew Licence on the way and offshore maintenance allready happening it doesn't look good industry wide.

As far a comparing our profession to the medical profession there is one major difference besides the type of work we do. That is the AMA regulates the number of doctors in training (supply) to ensure there is always adequate demand ensuring good terms and conditions. But our industry makes a profit training pilots so they can often be unemployed with a large debt to pay scratching around worldwide to find somewhere they can work to pay the debt off.

Anyway thats my two cents worth.:ok:

13th Aug 2007, 03:43
With regards to minimising human error, training, pay, experience and company culture needs to be altered. Firstly, are the guys happy? If not, then why? If so, how do you better the deal for them. I have worked in a previous airline where we had CPL holders earning in excess of AUD$250,000 tax free. Yes they were financially doing well but they all failed their commands several times and still substandard. My philosophy is not rocket science so here goes:
1) Are the guys happy at work.
2) Are the trainers well liked and respected?
3) Is training really training or checking?
4) Days off?
5) Leave allocation?
6) Family quality of life adequate or not?
7) Does management manage or dictate?

If the above was achievable, I am certain many guys will work for a lot less and stay longer.

Good luck.

The Librarian
13th Aug 2007, 15:59
Max Auto,
You really are an embarasment to QF pilots, Dont presume for a second that they are any more highly trained or better skilled than any VB or J* pilot. They just have longer to think they are when they are filling in time crossing the pacific. Ive experienced the training systems of other airlines and believe me QF are not doing it any better.

Whilst I agree with you that management should take a portion of the blame for the BKK incident when it comes down to it the Capt was the one who made the major error in cancelling his decision to Go around, in those circumstances you make your decision and stick to it and donīt tell me management are to blame for that.

Time to pull your head in Max

Going Boeing
13th Aug 2007, 19:44

Regarding your comment on CX simulator instructors-

I can't verify its accuracy, but I did a sim recently and two sim instructors were talking about $300,000+ on offer from CX. One of them was considering the move.

13th Aug 2007, 21:34
You twits who keep quoting BKK keep forgetting that 1 major accident/incident in nearly 50 odd years of operating Jet aircraft, whilst not perfect is nevertheless a fantastic record, especially when you compare it to nearly every other airline around. Lets touch wood and hope no carriers, let alone the rat have any prangs at all.

International Trader
13th Aug 2007, 23:40
Max Auto Brakes

"-The flight crew didn't use an adequate risk management stategy for the approach and landing, the error was primarily due to the absence of appropriate company procedures and training.
-Company-published information, Deficient.
-Procedures and training of crew ,Deficient in numberous areas.
-processes to manage development,introduction and evaluation of changes to operations, Deficient.
-Management culture over-reliant on personal experience and did not place adequate emphisis on structured processes"

Correct me if I am wrong but, apart from these nebulous "deficiencies" that are created by beaurocratic agencies in order to dance around cold hard facts and not directly blame anyone, is it not true that:

-The Pilot Flying was hand flying an approach when "experience" would have dictated the use of automation in poor weather.I heard that the man was demonstrating his abilities for someone in the cockpit ( after 911 though,I wonder if observers were allowed in).
- The Flying pilot (rightly) went around when he became unstuck.
- The "Commander" took over control and attempted another landing after the go-around was commenced.
- They landed half way down the runway.
- They only used idle reverse thrust
- Were the auto brakes used?

Seems like a few "deficiences" in judgement,airmanship and safety if you ask me. Relying on "experience and not on structured processes"? One would think that a "world's best practice" company would have a highly refined management process to induct inexperienced crew and give them "structures" to use until they gained the "experience" to use the company "processes" to achieve safety as well as performance.
What "standard" was that you were talking about?No use talking about more or less Sim sessions and the cost of it.That won't solve this problem.

It goes to prove that anyone can F-up but the problem with the "Gods" is that they actually believe that they are better than everyone else because of this wonderfull system with a "long history and proud culture " that has produced them.
If it is the case, that this system has created this belief of being better than all others, then, that in its self is a "deficiency" in safety.Even if I am completely wrong and you just go on the ATSB report items that you included (my info may be wrong and I am often wrong) , it would be a wonderful CRM lesson for the company.I ask you, is it being used as an example in QF training?
I'll bet it isn't. I'll bet it has been buried,hasn't it?

In light of this and the recent maintenance issues surfacing ( several instances of bits of 767 falling off in flight and the latest events), one wonders what skeletons are in the cupboard.

Seems to me the "proud culture" has a touch of mold on it.

Blue Loo;

"Fantastic record"......mmmm ,well that's the public record.I wonder what the truth is. Wake up and smell the roses...ahh, I mean...the "proud culture "
:cool:( peeeeuuuu)

I prefer to believe that on a good day, I am average at best and luckily by the grace of god.......

14th Aug 2007, 00:14
I don't want to get into the specifics of max's comments. He's phrased the concerns in a very different manner to that which I would have chosen. He does however have a point about whether all of QF's additional costs in training are required if J* can do it so much more cheaply. It can't be that QF drivers are worse than others and therefore require additional training to make the grade because according to all posters to this thread, everyone is about the same standard.

International Trader, if you're not going to bother reading the report then don't try and draw assumptions. I'll give you a couple of examples.

The Pilot Flying was hand flying an approach when "experience" would have dictated the use of automation in poor weather. I heard that the man was demonstrating his abilities for someone in the cockpit

Reported wx conditions were above those required for the F/O to fly the approach. At the time the F/Os were required to disconnect at 1000' HAT when flying an ILS approach- don't ask me why, I always thought it was a daft policy but that in itself is a good example of poor policy and not accepting feedback by some quarters in QF management.

( after 911 though,I wonder if observers were allowed in).

You do realise that the prang was in September '99? Families on the flight deck were no problem back then. I don't recall entirely but I think it was the S/Os missus (or the Captains?) and not the F/Os so that could possibly blow your 'showing off' theory out of the water not with standing my previous comments on extant policy of the time. Personally, having had my family on the flight deck in previous times has made me more conservative, not less.. (I don't want to get engaged in a discussion about whether becoming more conservative posts it's own CRM problems, I'm a big boy and understand the issues here).

- The "Commander" took over control and attempted another landing after the go-around was commenced.

'Another' landing'? Not correct. Whilst the decision to cancel the go around was always one of the most significant errors in all of this, your comments imply that the aircraft was airborne again or that it never landed to start off with and the decision to not go around resulted in the long landing. It was not. The aircrafttouched down once only and that was as the thrust levers were moving forward to go around thrust.

- Were the auto brakes used?

These had disconnected when the aircraft touched down thrust levers in a position that caused the logic to disconnect them.

The other one you didn't mention was that the speed brakes were not up. This was due to one of the thrust levers not being caught by the crew and still being forward of idle to the extent that the spoilers did not rise.

it would be a wonderful CRM lesson for the company.I ask you, is it being used as an example in QF training?
I'll bet it isn't. I'll bet it has been buried,hasn't it?

As a bloke who I have a lot of respect for said recently on another forum:

It's better to keep one's mouth closed and have people think you're a fool, rather than open it and confirm the fact....

QF1 @ BKK appeared in the QF CRM program over a couple of years for a few different reasons. It still gets a mention now and then these days although I haven't been involved in the CRM program at QF now for nearly two years. Buried? Hardly. Have the crews who were around at the time taken the lessons to heart? My estimation is that they have. Did those crew who joined since then who were part of the CRM courses that I facilitated also take the lessons to heart- most of them did although a few fail to see the organisational factors in the prang and see it simply as the one poor decision right at the end. Still, even they take THAT particular lesson from it.

About the only thing I agree with is your last statement. That being the case though, why are we happy to endorse an organisation in the group that does 'less' training than all the rest. This is the double standard that I don't get from many contributors to this forum. We're all too happy to say 'no one is better than anyone else' but no one wants to advocate that additional training makes us better (the prang rates can show this). People like IT are more than happy to point to the cock ups at QF as testimony to the fact that training doesn't help- or at least it didn't in QFs case- but don't actually contribute to the discussion on what level of training is appropriate.

DJ had a rumoured 50% failure rate for command training recently. Many contributors to various forums cited inadequate experience and inadequate training. QF had an equally horrendous rate in the mid '90s. Do we still think that 'we're all equal' or maybe, just maybe does the amount of training have something to do with it.

So, pissing contest aside between 'sky-gods' (what a highly offensive term) and others, what is an adequate training program for upgrade? Is QF over training by believing (stupidly) that the increased training gives a better product or is J* on a winner here by doing less training but still getting the required numbers? Is there pressure (inadvertent or otherwise) on the trainers at carriers where less training is done to get the people through? Is the standard being assessed the same or is there a difference?

The reality is that none of us know the answer to that with any degree of surety although I suspect there are a few in QF and probably J* who do through having been involved in both training regimes- HC is across at J* isn't he GB? I'd bet money that none of them actually post here on PPRUNE though.

I'm Driving
14th Aug 2007, 00:21
Alright people. Get over it.

Jetstar did not even exist (and impulse did not operate jets), when BKK happened. So if Jetstar pilots want to use it as an excuse as to why they are better than Qantas pilots. Get your hand off it.

Since Jetstar (or impulse) started operations, both company's have had a good safety record.

And carrying on in the spirit of this thread. My D*** is bigger than yours.

Please. :rolleyes:

What The
14th Aug 2007, 03:34
By Qantas' own admission!


Qantaslink (Regional) Pilots

The story for Qantaslink pilots is quite different to that as for main-line Qantas pilots above. The increasing shortage of qualified pilots for recruitment is already present. Furthermore, the Qantaslink Pilots have an attrition rate that is 8 times than that of the mainline Pilots.

Additionally, an increasing number of current pilots are approaching retirement age with 12% of this workforce over 55:

Whilst we receive approximately four applications for every vacancy, only one in four actually meet the job requirements. The skills and experience required for regional pilots are higher than that for mainline, as pilots enter the regional workforce directly as a First Officer, whereas in mainline they enter as Second Officers.


Spaghetti Monster
14th Aug 2007, 04:28
the problem with the "Gods" is that they actually believe that they are better than everyone else

Given that you don't even seem to know what decade QF1 @ BKK occurred in, and are wrong about many of the other details as pointed out by Keg, I'm wondering how you can claim an insight into the minds of about 2500 individual pilots?

14th Aug 2007, 04:38
"The skills and experience required for regional pilots are higher than that for mainline, as pilots enter the regional workforce directly as a First Officer, whereas in mainline they enter as Second Officers."

Well it looks like I'm a SkyGod, I'll be around to sign for autographs later:ok:.

14th Aug 2007, 12:46
The inference made is that QF provide more training than J* so they must be better pilots. Max queried the number of sim sessions that QF pilots do compared to J* but as someone else pointed out the time spent in the sim is exactly the same (16 hours per year). Ansett were doing their sim sessions in 6 monthly intervals as well so why QF do it the "old" way I don't know. It could be just as simple as "we have always done it this way".

The idea that as a Qantas pilot you are better than the rest is stated on day one of the induction when it is put that you must be better than everybody else if you have been selected. I think the expression used was "creme de la creme". It is further reinforced when you finish your probation and the letter includes the statement "not everyone has been able to do what you have done".

I agree that those who work for Qantas are part of a proud heritage and not all take that to mean that they have greatness bestowed upon them, but there are a significant number who think that flying for Mainline is a testament to their superior aviating abilities.

As for BKK, a significant factor that was overlooked even by the ATSB report was that, if the PF had pressed the TOGA buttons then the PIC would probably not have been able to abort the go-around in the manner in which he did.

14th Aug 2007, 13:06
To those who think that QF is safer than JQ or UA or my dad with his lawnmower, what exactly are you using for reference. How do you determine the level of safety at an airline. If you are simply using historical accident data then you are living in dreamland - its much more complex.

Many ex AN guys that have been via QF to other airlines since just laugh when you talk about QF. They have just as many stuff ups as anybody. No different.

15th Aug 2007, 21:30
God some people are just plain tools arn't they

max autobrakes
15th Aug 2007, 22:49
Once again we spiral into the pagan tribalism of pilot groups attacking each other.
Bula and others I will ask , were you happy with your training in JetStar?
You might very well be ex-Rex, or ex somewhere else and came with a very solid grounding.Are all pilots coming from the same starting point as you? Can management guarantee that the lowest common denominator is covered?
Yes to other posters Qantas is not the be all to end all! In fact until recently I thought training in Qantas stank.
They didn't really train ,they checked.
Shorhaul Qantas I'm told had much better training. Why ,because it was ex TAA ,like Ansett they had a corporate culture that evolved to bring young pilots out of GA into the right hand seat to be an F/O.They had to train to achieve a satisfactory result.
Whereas the corporate culture that existed in Qantas was that these same young pilots that came out of GA or the airforce etc started as S/O's and learnt most of their craft through osmosis, the training section never really had to do much training because of the time frames involved in getting to F/O ,the motivation of the individuals and the experience levels these S/O's were exposed to, or came into the company with ,resulted in the training section evolving into the way we knew it.

Threat Error management appears to be the latest buzz concept.
Have a look at the way our industry is going and the ever increasing threats that are facing professional pilots today.
Casualisation of just about every facet and section of airlines.
Training given that satisfies regulations but no more because that costs money.I'm not just talking about pilots, every section of every airline. Instead of people doing their jobs and having done so for many years you are getting continual turn over of people now.
Staff who now worry about paying bills, staff who worry about how I'm supposed to do this ,no staff ,no time, manpower shortages.
No spare parts in inventory, that costs money.
Dispatching aircraft with multiple complex MEL's.
No time to study the effects or operational and or performance implications of these MEL's because aircraft are scheduled with tight turn around times for efficient use of airframes.
Threats everywhere and growing.

Guess what ,pilots are the last line of defence, and what do you think will happen if an accident occurs?
As usual it will be the pilots who they will try to blame.

That fellow aviators is why pilots in this country need to start working together, asking difficult questions when they see less than optimal company practices that put profits and bonus' before best practise.Training is just one of those defences to help a pilot break the chain of events that lead to an accident.

As has been said before and dare I say it again, if you think safety and training are expensive try having an accident!

16th Aug 2007, 00:03
Max you have hinted that the Pilot groups should be standing together to improve training and yet at the start of this post you blatantly attack one particular group.
Why should they now stand with you, when you've made your true feelings toward this group obvious in the beginning?
I for one have chosen not to try for mainline, not because I'm not good enough but because I don't feel that the culture would suite me. That doesn't make me any less of a pilot than you! I'm sure that a lot of other people feel the same.

The Kavorka
16th Aug 2007, 07:27
Max Auto...

Your a W*NK*R...everyone knows your a W*NK*R, and I think even your QF mates try an distance themselves from you.......

How was the training on your cadet course???????????????????????

Going Boeing
16th Aug 2007, 07:48
Kav, I suggest that you re-read Max's post. A lot of what he says makes sense.

I've found that when groups of pilots join an airline that there may be a wide variation in experience and skill level but after a few years of line experience the differences become negligible. Line experience can make up for shortfalls in a training system as long as aircraft are operated in a conservative manner during the period that pilots are adjusting to their new environment. My understanding of the JQ system is that a lot more of the training responsibility is thrust on the shoulders of line captains because the length of training is minimal.

Wrt JQ command training, I have doubts that 4 sim sessions and 6 domestic sectors is sufficient to expose any shortcomings. The QF command training has sufficient sectors that by the law of averages every command trainee is exposed to events or scenarios which tests his/her decision making and lateral thinking - the C & T pilots don't have to create scenarios, the real world always provides them. I would think that it is possible for a JQ trainee to complete the required sectors without being exposed to any difficult scenario. Input from JQ trainers would be appreciated.

16th Aug 2007, 09:24
Where the heck did you get the "6 domestic sectors" rubbish for JQ command training?

Just like 99% of the rest of the "information" that gets propogated on this forum, it is a complete Chinese whisper and/ or has been made up by someone with an agenda (against Jetstar? Never!).

I'm just trawling through the logbook now;
16 simulator hours before getting into the aeroplane, then; 62 sectors; 124.5 flight hours; 2 day, 8 domestic sector check-to-line.

Please pull your heads out of the sand and try not to be so blindly guided by utter gibberish. :yuk:

16th Aug 2007, 11:05
So confirm for me the details then please.

Four sims?

How many sectors does the J* Checking and Training manual require for command training and check to line?

16th Aug 2007, 12:29
Max your post is spot on in that the pilot is the last line of defense and it is recognised (even within J*)that the training received by some from Alteon has been poor. However the training received by those who went to AirNZ has been second to none and their product has been up to a standard that you would expect from a legacy carrier. There are highly experienced pilots within J* who are on the ball and putting systems in place that will counter the deficiencies of the external training providers.

Unfortunately Goeing Boeing and Keg are perpetuating the myth put out by AIPA that J* Command training is 4 sims and 6 sectors. If you truly believe that then it is not surprising that mainline pilots think they have the superior aviating skills. If you stop and think about it though, doesn't it seem ridiculous that any airline in Australia would put people in the LHS with 15hours total in that seat!

Why do you think that the professionalism and standards of the J* training department is inferior to mainline? Most of the managers within J* are ex-Ansett and some of them even trained mainline pilots in QF sims as contractors so I really don't think there can be any argument about the standards applied or expected.

I witnessed some very ordinary performances by mainline Captains and I have also witnessed some very professional performances in J* and vice versa. When J* pilots are no longer viewed as the "enemy" then I think you will find that all pilots of the Qantas Group can present a cohesive message to those that hold the purse strings.

16th Aug 2007, 12:31
'I've found that when groups of pilots join an airline that there may be a wide variation in experience and skill level but after a few years of line experience the differences become negligible.'

GB - This is highly dependant on timframes. If for example you take the experiece of some of the ex Alirone or RAAF pilots in Qantas then I highly doubt that the differences are 'neglible' after 'a few years', especially when compared to a GA or cadet pilot.

You will, however, find that on average most of these pilots have become 'assimilated' and simply behave as they are treated, mushrooms.

A good mate of mine is a highly respected former military pilot whose services are greatly sought after in the civilian world ( deliberately vague as his specific quals WILL identify him). However, when he is at 'work' as a QF pilot he is at times literally treated as an idiot.

I truly doubt that after a few years the difference between *&%$# and most other QF pilots would be negligible.

What I do not doubt however is that some (most?) QF pilots would not bother finding out the qualifications and experience levels within their crew, but instead would make a highly prejudiced and myopic judgement based solely on rank.

I do not like reading the crap posted here about BKK. It was a mistake in an otherwise good history. I do however see that CRM and crew co-ordination played a filtering role in this unfortunate accident. It is suprising therefore to hear that many of the CRM issues still remain.

16th Aug 2007, 12:53
Unfortunately Goeing Boeing and Keg are perpetuating the myth put out by AIPA that J* Command training is 4 sims and 6 sectors.

Easy tiger. Read my questions again and the statement of the person before me. It was flyingins who made the reference to 16 sim hours. That's four sims is it not?

I wanted to know what the number of sectors of line training is. It's apparently not six so educate us. What is the sector requirement in the J* check and training manual. Lets compare them apples- out of interest sake, nothing less. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that yours is an error rather than a deliberate attempt to show (again) that the big mean nasty QF drivers are ganging up on you with false stories. I also note that neither yours nor JJW's post actually answers the question.

JJW, probably the best post I've read from you. I think that what GB was getting at was that after a few years in QF, the difference in ability to operate the aircraft to QF's expectations are negligble. I meet the company standard but I still know there are guys around who can fly circles around me every day of the week. Many of them are S/Os. I'll name names if you like because I don't really hold 'pride' in that way. I will note though that occasionally they indicate that I have something to offer them considering I've spent the last ten years in the F/O seat of QF aeroplanes. I'll also note that there are also times when they feel there is nothing I can offer them. I give them a wry smile anyway! :ok:

One seperate thing though. I have a rabid dislike of 'outsourcing' training to the candidate and permFO's comments about the standard differing markedly between Alteon and AirNZ is a case in point. Initial endorsement should be treated seriously, not considered a stamp in the log book that means anything between two very wide boundaries. J* management obviously doesn't take it seriously because they appear to not give two hoots where the endorsement comes from. It is this minimalist attitude that frustrates QF drivers. Our training isn't perfect (and having been involved in the CRM program for a few years it's all too obvious) but the QF I first joined was never a believer in minimalist training. Whether or not that training was first class, better than elsewhere, delivered a better product, etc, was never the issue in this discussion. It's always been about management attitude to training and skills and what this means for both the individual pilots, the respective group 'silos' and the piloting profession in general.

The issue is not J* pilots, the issue is the management attitude. We are not the enemy here.....and nor do we consider J* pilots to be the enemy- even if sometimes we don't word things as nicely as we should. max's second post was far better than his first one! :ok:

Going Boeing
16th Aug 2007, 14:36

Please pull your heads out of the sand and try not to be so blindly guided by utter gibberish.

I received my info second hand and was unable to verify the number of sims and sectors, which is why I invited input from JQ trainers. I did not attack the JQ pilots but made observations about potential pitfalls if there was only six sectors during command training. We are all aware of the swiss cheese model and I, like every pilot, don't want the holes to line up.


Most stories relayed by pilots are the "juicy" ones and it sounds like your mate has flown with a couple of captains who haven't displayed normal people skills by "treating him like an idiot" and having no interest in crew members previous experience/qualifications. Every airline has its share of pilots like this but from my experience in QF, these guys are in the very small minority. By the tone of your remarks, it sounds like your view of QF pilots has been tainted by these stories - a shame because it's not a true assessment.

Condition lever
16th Aug 2007, 22:03

Just so we can compare apples with apples - what are the QF training requirements for a FO on the 737 to progress to a command on the 737?

Do current FOs on the 737 hold command endorsements on the 737?

You are completely incorrect in your assumption that J* management are happy with the quality of the Alteon training. A manager at J* (who is no longer working there) signed a 10 year (I believe) contract that has locked the company in (perhaps the same guy that purchased A330-200 in a domestic config). I did the Alteon A320 conversion and was not happy with it either.

Having done the QF A330 conversion as well I would only rate it marginally better than the Alteon one.

16th Aug 2007, 22:38
Max I get where you coming from and there is alot of truths is what you are saying but I think you need to a little further into what Graham Braithwaite is talking about in your text books.

The unfortunate truth that some people seem not to fatham is that you dont have to be old, have a wealth of experience after starting in tigermoths, be around since the Wright brother or have Grey hair to be a pilot. Porno mustaches and cockpit resource management went out with the dinosaurs and so did some of the ideas being thrown around this forum.

I am happy with the training I received.

Training by OSMOSIS... Works well in Qantas because their S/O Cadets have ZERO experience. There is only so much a person can learn, and the approach and landing phase requires a more tactile and practical approach.

The fact that companies have long since changed from spending everything necessary to save one life, to a risk hazard concept is a fact of modern aviation... and its not the pilots fault. Aviation is now a business involving trunk loads of money. The days of senior pilot running companies how "they think" it should be run is over and I just wish people would accept that.

You speak of culture, and please lets not kid ourselves. Yes there are a a few of us who arn't old grey guardian of aviation. We don't have the length and breadth of experience that there is in a legacy carrier. But funnily enough that culture has been in-ground since marxism, where the concepts of the culture you speak of had only been around really since the early 1990s. So which company will embody the essence of risk/hazard management. The legacy carrier with the old hats, or the penny pincher's of a modern low cost carrier.

Plainly MEL's are developed by the manufacturer, Pilots are the last line of defence, and an efficient, slender operation can be a safe one, ....... and no-one in J* are struggling to pay their bills.

16th Aug 2007, 23:00
".....and no-one in J* are struggling to pay their bills."

That’s not what a commuting Jetstar FO posted on QREWROOM. He said in a remarkably frank (and refreshing) post that he lives from pay to pay and could not survive without an overdraft...

16th Aug 2007, 23:12
Be careful what you take at face value.

May I suggest that this was not his sole source of income, and yet he is still unable to pay the bills.

May I also suggest that he may have had a personal agenda in making those posts. The particular pilot concerned is very unhappy about not being given a A330 command whilst QF MOU F/O's are moving right to left.

There are always two sides to a story

16th Aug 2007, 23:16
Condition lever, I hope you're not trying to deflect the issue here though. This is now the third time that I've asked about the J* command training and no one has posted the answer with everyone appearing to to change the subject or angle it a different way. Given that I don't fly the 737 I wouldn't have a clue what the command training entails. I'll look it up for you and post up.

Interesting comment about the QF A330 training. A couple of colleagues of mine also reckon it's the worst conversion course they've done in QF. This was a few years ago when we first got the aircraft and my understanding that it has improved in that time.

16th Aug 2007, 23:24

One thing you can take at face value is the payslip he posted on Qroom. Can't argue with that and it made for sobering reading.

FYI 737 F/Os are command endorsed.

737 F/O to Cpt would be about 7 sims min ( 28 hours)

Min sectors 30 (more if requested by the training Capt)

4 sectors check to line

Going Boeing
17th Aug 2007, 00:41
Having done the QF A330 conversion as well I would only rate it marginally better than the Alteon one.

At the time of purchasing the A330, Airbus introduced a new training package for the A330 which QF purchased. It turned out to be a dud and Airbus returned to its original package. As the board has not made funds available to purchase the other package, Qantas is stuck with the dud one (with some in-house improvements).

The particular pilot concerned is very unhappy about not being given a A330 command whilst QF MOU F/O's are moving right to left.

No need for further concern as a very senior source has said that no more QF pilots will be released under the MOU as QF cannot spare any more.

max autobrakes
17th Aug 2007, 02:06
Thank you ,
finally some proper discussion and some facts laid bare on the table for all to better draw informed opinions from.
Now one and all, please read my first post again, does the tone now sound any different after the rush of blood to the brain has normalised.

Rather than a pissing contest to see who's appendage is larger shall we look at some of the facts please.

Tinee Tim wrote 28hrs of sims and minimum 30 sectors F/O 737 Qantas

flyingins wrote 16hrs of sims 62 sectors as an example for JetStar

I asked a mate who has done initial command training on the 737 in Qantas, he came from a wide body F/O position, he reported that he did 70hrs of sim training that included fixed base sims and 61 sectors of line training this figure included the 4 sector check.His respose was that he had 15 years of jet experience under his belt and close to 15,000hrs and he said that the training was spot on and he said he believed any thing less would not have allowed himself to feel totally at ease and able to handle just about anything on his first sector as a captain.

Now putting that into context with my original post, I know there are exceptional pilots in JetStar, some JetStar pilots are mates of mine ,however not every JetStar pilot has the benefit of an extensive training path coutesy of and paid for by a Legacy carrier or another LCC or Airforce ,what pressures does that place on a Training captain when one has to take into account of a trainees ability to pay for training?.Can every JetStar pilot straight out of GA or every JetStar captain who was flying turboprops one year and heavy jets the next due to the rapid expansion in the company truely say that if more sim training was offered prior to flying on the line they would have felt much more comfortable on their first flight.Now when one puts that question into context with the concept of pilots paying for their training ,wether that be up front, or through a bond arrangement/ salary sacrificing ,one can begin to see how this money saving idea from management is not conducive to worlds best practice from a risk aversion point of view.See wording of my first post.

As a final thought on this topic a Training captain friend of mine said the following, "at the end of the day when it comes down to wether or not I'll sign a pilot off on his final check to line ,I ask myself the following question, "would I be happy to send my wife and kids off with this pilot tomorrow", if the answer is yes than a tick goes in the box and a congratatorial handshake offered."

Condition lever
17th Aug 2007, 02:21
max - you have to ask if your mate who did 70 hrs of sim to achieve his initial command if he was transferring from the RHS of a 737 or perhaps from a 747 et al. It is more than understandable if he was not type rated at the time (holding a command endorsement on the 737 as a FO as TineeTim indicates) that he would require 70 odd hrs.

What is the length of training required for a seat swap and command upgrade? Again TineeTim has indicated QF use 28hrs in the sim. I am not arguing for or against longer sim training - just that if you are currently flying the type as a FO you may require less training than someone who is not current and doing their initial upgrade - again apples v apples.

Keg - not trying to deflect the issue at all - I don't know what the J* training package is, I will attempt to find out.

17th Aug 2007, 03:01
So the results are Qf 12 more sim hrs and Jq 32 more sectors (approx 60 more hours) so I guess just to continue with this ridiculous pissing competition we need to know how many JQ line hours equal one Qf sim hour.:zzz:

17th Aug 2007, 08:31
QF 737 RHS to LHS [2 years ago so prob same now, or even more due HUD and RNP training]:

12 sims then 30 sectors training, 6 sector pre-final, 4 sector final.

Training in sim increased 3-4 years ago to include 600 series Command management sims simmilar to cyclic loft sims.
line training happens very quickly due to 4 sector days. Sims and line includes both 400 and 800 series.

17th Aug 2007, 08:48
Careful Toolish you don't end up looking foolish.
I've been following this thread for awhile now and I think I can see where old Max is headed.
After 62 sectors you end up with a Line competent pilot, and so you should!
However ,what is a simulator after all?
It's a training tool used to expose pilots to situations and aircraft configurations and hopefully teach and equip them to handle non normal situations if they should ,god forbid, happen to experience such events on the line.
16 hrs sim training ,that = 4 sims.Can I assume that includes a sim check?
That leaves 12hrs of training = 3 sims.If not then 16 hrs / 4 sims is still not much time to cover electric non normals, hydraulic non normals, Flight control non normals ,practise NDB approaches, VOR approaches, ILS approaches, Engine out take offs and landings, Engine out handling , upper airwork, etc, etc.What if a recruit needs to repeat an exercise or needs more training to achieve a pass does he get charged more?
Is the reason limited Simulator time is allocated, in order to achieve an endorsement cost that was not too expensive? The old supply and demand conundrum?
Is this what Old Max was hinting at when he first said" training to a standard not to a cost?"
I don't know? Can anyone enlighten me please.

17th Aug 2007, 09:50

Initial command, no jet command experience before.

4 sim rides.

Approx 16 line training sectors.

Some have done it with total time 5000 hours having spent just 1000 hours in the right seat of a jet. Less with some airlines in Europe.

China flying - a lot more difficult than domestic oz.

This is a wank of an argument.

I think JQ pilots will cope with the amount of training receive.

17th Aug 2007, 20:42

no argument here, sims are great for what you mentioned should JQ have more, absolutely.:ok: I think we should just say "both are trained to a suitable standard" and leave it at that. My point was really about this never ending sledging and pissing contest.:ugh: