Paying for ICUS [Archive]

The Green Goblin

15th Jan 2010, 06:35

I noticed on the AFAP website a particular company is offering Pilots to pay for ICUS in their PA31s :ugh:

$120 per hour day or night. They should be paying Pilots $120 per hour to fly a PA31 for them.

The race to the bottom continues.

Don't people understand that you get the required minima to fly a particular aircraft with an operator when you do your line training/ICUS? A good operator will spend 50 hours doing ICUS with the right Pilot for the job to get them up to insurance/contractual minima.

If this continues and is accepted by our industry, the right seat in an airliner will be soon for sale with a price tag on 500 hours P2 time in a 737 to get a crack at the middle eastern carriers.

MakeItHappenCaptain

15th Jan 2010, 06:53

Let me guess.......from the right seat?:hmm:

hugh_jorgan

15th Jan 2010, 06:55

Could not agree more GG.

11percent

15th Jan 2010, 07:05

Glad to see the AFAP refusing to support pilot prostitution. :=:=:=

No, that's right, they are so weak they even assist by advertising it.

Shame, shame shame. :=:=:=:=

longrass

15th Jan 2010, 07:38

That's disgusting.... Who is the organisation

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 07:49

YOU, the member ARE the organisation:sad::sad::sad:

JMEN

15th Jan 2010, 08:01

Think you will find that there are already A320/737 operators around doing it, just look in the back of flight international...

One of the Night.

15th Jan 2010, 08:04

I WAS in the throws of joining the union for precisely this reason....the greater good for all in the long term.

On reading that advertisement I threw my application form in the bin, what an utter disgrace AFAP......shame. What hope do we have?:ugh:

PyroTek

15th Jan 2010, 08:18

It isn't at all possible to make a new, more powerful union, is it?

How I see it is, that most pilots see AFAP doing nothing, therefore won't join, so the union is not going to get any stronger. Is it time for a new union?

-Puts flame shield up-

Super Cecil

15th Jan 2010, 08:31

For a union/association/affiliation/league to work people have to stick together, just reading these thread alone that's never going to happen. While ever you have feeder mobs crewing with cadets/trainees and paying dearly for it, the practice is going all the way to the top boys, accept it.

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 08:36

One of the Night

Please explain to me ( because obviously I am stupid ) how can you change things by not being a member???:ugh::ugh:

Orion Delta

15th Jan 2010, 08:38

welcome to the future of aviation.

Super Cecil

15th Jan 2010, 08:49

JetAOK said This is hilarious.
Tell me, how many of chest thumpers on this site have bought themselves a A320 / E170, E190, DHC-8, B777 or B737 endorsement?

It is a chuckle, mummy and daddy usually paid for their training too :8

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 09:18

I ask the same question of ALL of you, how can you change things by NOT being a union member.

Or are you, indeed, happy with your lot???

One of the Night.

15th Jan 2010, 09:19

Arnold,

Perhaps I am the stupid one, though I am under no delusions that my actions will change anything.

At this point in time, I simply lack the confidence in such an organisation to achieve anything either. Granted I know very little about the AFAP, and will continue to delve deeper....though this advertisement set alarm bells ringing. I sincerely hope upon further investigation my opinion is altered.

However as you said, the organisation is a reflection/representation of it's members, this advertisement does not reflect my values one iota.

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 09:23

Well then, join and change it.
Lobby and make a difference.

DO SOMETHING

MakeItHappenCaptain

15th Jan 2010, 09:35

Is there a possibility that people are actually going to pay money to possibly go and spot greenpeace for the Japanese?

Sad, sad world

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 09:37

MakeItHappenCaptain

Ka????

Yeah Ok, went back to the top of the thread and re-read, see what you mean.

glekichi

15th Jan 2010, 10:16

Hey GG I agree with your sentiment re paying for experience and jobs, but I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick here.

I happen to know that this IS one of the employers that does give whatever ICUS is needed to the right applicants. (I was once one of them)

Those who do instrument ratings there also get as much ICUS as they need (okay, within reason) free of charge.

They don't just send you with anyone. The ones giving the ICUS all have formal training with an external ATO for approval to fly/supervise from the right.

Instead, I would be blaming all the employers out there that want pilots with 10/50/100 on type, forcing young pilots that want the job to get experience elsewhere, and the same even experienced pilots that just happen to not have time on that particular type. This company is not one of them!

Personally though, I don't see why people pay for ICUS to get a job with those outfits that refuse invest in their staff's training themselves. It doesn't say much for the company. I guess this is what you were trying to say, GG?

morno

15th Jan 2010, 10:32

I happen to know that this IS one of the employers that does give whatever ICUS is needed to the right applicants. (I was once one of them)

Then why are they advertising ICUS for $150/hr?

They don't just send you with anyone. The ones giving the ICUS all have formal training with an external ATO for approval to fly/supervise from the right.

You don't need to be anyone special to supervise someone during ICUS. **** I used to supervise people all the time, and I'm no one special, nor did I ever have any 'formal' training for flying from the right seat.

morno

glekichi

15th Jan 2010, 10:38

morno,

Exactly right. You don't need any special approval, but the company has elected to go above and beyond that. I think its a bloody good idea.

They are advertising it because there are a lot of people out there that want/need the experience to work for other operators, or just want to get current.

The Green Goblin

15th Jan 2010, 10:49

I didn't intend this to be a union bashing exercise after all, I am an AFAP member.

I do think it is a little ordinary that 'our' union is receiving money from a company that is exploiting Pilots trying to get a leg up on their peers, hoping to get the job that will get them ahead. The problem is those with the deepest pockets are not necessarily those that are most suited to the job.

As you mentioned Glekichi, I started this thread to point out that operators should be investing in their people. You take a guy, put him through your company, and pay him a decent wage as he increases in experience and value to your company. When he leaves he has all the boxes ticked and heads off to somewhere for further career progression (Hopefully after you have had at least 2/3 years out of him -0-ATPL).

Instead GA is full of guys moving from one company to the next without any loyalty, companies are taking guys from other operators instead of training them themselves and so on.

Dog eat dog I suppose, kind of sad really.

Perhaps the GA companies should get together and make agreements with each other as feeders to each other after x amount of time is served and a slot opens up.

Alligator to Westwing, Slingair to Hardy, King Leos to Chartair etc etc. Maybe then guys will stick around a little while longer with a carrot being dangled and the multi engine operators know the product they are getting. Perhaps then the multi engine operators should feed particular regionals etc etc.

Dreaming but it would be nice!

AerocatS2A

15th Jan 2010, 11:50

Is it a crock of **** if it's a single pilot operation, therefore they don't actually need another pilot in the aeroplane, and by having an ICUS pilot they have reduced payload for passengers/cargo?

MyNameIsIs

15th Jan 2010, 13:47

Pay the money, log the hours in the command column instead because you are "hiring the aircraft" at that rate. Bugger off. Cheap hours on type! :E

don't take the above too seriously..................................

j3pipercub

15th Jan 2010, 22:25

Wally Mk2

15th Jan 2010, 22:28

I think paying for hrs is wrong but having said that aviation today is a different beast to many years ago when it was flourishing. I personally wouldn't pay for such hrs but I'm not in the early learning stages of gaining experience where such things is developing into what could be the norm if you want to get ahead of the pack.
Don't forget everyone in some ways we have ALL paid for flying from day one in one way or another. Every lesson you took you paid for so effectively you paid for yr job along the way. Self funded type endo's, ICUS time self funded (such as thread topic), security clearances self funded, user pays in virtually everything with aviation, ldg fees, en route fees, English language tests, there all nails in the coffin of general aviation. Slowly but surely the 'flying for fun' & the building of hrs towards a job will be only available to the few very wealthy & as for learning to fly from off the street to that shinny jet job (the traditional way once)? Well will one day pass into aviation folk law, sad but I believe inevitable:{

Obviously all personal opinions & no more:-)

Aviation is like a school yard, the tough stand on top of the heap!

Wmk2

PPRuNeUser0163

15th Jan 2010, 22:50

did anyone mention Eagle Jet etc etc.

Seems to be becoming common practice these days- I don't condone it however it is just a fact of the way things are moving..

Super Cecil

15th Jan 2010, 23:02

Yes it's still a crock Aerocat, as they are training you to fly their aircraft to make them money...

An on the AFAP front, you all love to bag them and call them paper tigers and useless. So just for clarification, how many of you guys complaining are members? Strength and Saftey in numbers, plus 500k if I lose an eye, or get diabetes etc.

j3 AFAP member since 04.

Did try it for a couple of years back in the early eighties, think I was a member about four years. I had a complaint about $6,000 missing from a years wages, they said they couldn't help and my next years subs were due. Seems at the time all they were interested in were Captains wages and conditions, GA didn't get a look in. Has anything changed?

Arnold E

15th Jan 2010, 23:40

Maybe things haven't changed, but you sure as hell are not going to change things by being on the outside, looking in.

Maybe the TWU is the go for GA.

Flying Bear

15th Jan 2010, 23:52

IMHO, the AFAP is virtually worthless...

Great in concept, but tainted by the fact that the battles they need to fight exceed the capabilities of those charged with fighting them! I've seen this on a few occasions now - and the predictability of an amatuer approach from AFAP is quite frustrating, both as a pilot and a pilot manager.

I do acknowledge the "can't change things from outside looking in" argument, but my primary focus is not to ever be driving AFAP - I'd rather pay fees to people who are interested in doing that well and in so doing, get out there and kick some goals for us.

Nevertheless, paying for ICUS is a crap scheme but unfortunately, it will never stop. I bet that many companies would love to buy a new photocopier, get the office staff to pay for a training course on it, and then have them pay again to use the copier in the service of said company!

I like the concept of "feeding" pilots from one company through another, though - at least that way each company has a known quantity, the pilots coming through a career path for a while and the stability that comes with being able to predict and plan (to an extent) pilot attrition. Ideally, a flying school to charter company to regional airline concept would be great.

To be honest I reckon it would develop a very competitive and professionally mature aviator in comparison with their QANTAS cadet / military counterparts - after all, there is no substitute for getting out there on the job and learning through experience, with the right balance of mentoring from those pilot managers at each level along the way.

PLovett

15th Jan 2010, 23:57

Be very very careful about joining the TWU, read the fine print carefully. When I worked as a lawyer I represented several people who wanted to cancel their membership. The TWU had some nasty provisions about that and were ruthless in pursuing them.

As to paying for ICUS, I have done it twice. The first was at the conclusion of my instrument rating when I realised that I only had a rating to learn. I bought some hours to consolidate the training and to get a feel for "real life" IFR. I still consider it the best money I have spent on training.

The second occasion was just prior to the first instrument rating renewal when I needed to get back to speed on flying a twin. Again, I consider it money well spent.

The rest of my entries under ICUS in the logbook were getting time on type prior to being turned loose on an unsuspecting public by my employer.

scarediecat

16th Jan 2010, 00:21

Maybe things haven't changed, but you sure as hell are not going to change things by being on the outside, looking in.

Maybe the TWU is the go for GA. .

I agree and this comment definilty aplies. I am in GA and have been for many years. I was once a member of the AFAP but like so many others I felt a little alone being a member there. Year after year the same feeling. My opinion is the TWU really doesnt care for the GA pilot either, but at least I get that warm fuzzy feeling being a part of a powerful organisation that can achieve. Sorry the AFAP for the GA grunt cannot.

Paying for ICUS sucks. It cost's enough money and heart ache to get any where in this industry without these vultures circling. It would be marvellous if each company could be a feeder for each other, but are they that organised to do such a thing? Each company is striving to survive week to week. So the big ICUS carrot is here and here to stay. Unfortunatley :*

gettin' there

16th Jan 2010, 02:30

I wonder how the legalities and cost structure of such a scheme work? Are you still classified as an employee of a company if you are PAYING to work there, or are you a Customer? Are you covered by things like workers comp and public liability etc? Is it even legal to charge people to work for you?

Stationair8

16th Jan 2010, 04:29

Very valid point Plovett about the TWU and membership.

Nothing like getting that valuable ICUS experience with somebody that
knows only a smidgin more about the aeroplane than you do!!!!!!

The Green Goblin

16th Jan 2010, 04:40

Why would you pay for ICUS though plovett to try and get current for an instrument renewal?

I always found spending a couple of hundred bucks on a simulator and shooting NDBs and ILSs far more valuable. Even though I have never had to pay for a renewal yet (the employer has always paid the bill) I would not want to fail one and let them down if they are investing the time and money in me, so a couple of hundred bucks out of my pocket for the sim was very good value and showed I was keen.

The ATO also is not testing your straight and level performance, they want to see you shooting approaches in a high traffic CTA type environment.

The spirit of ICUS was/is for an employer to get an employee checked to line for the type of operation he/she was hired to do. It was/is not intended for someone to pay for hours to meet minimum hours on type or for an employer to ICUS someone 500 hours to meet command requirements.

IMO you also can't log ICUS in the right seat, it has to be in the left with a check captain or chief pilot who is approved to occupy that seat. I bet CASA has the same viewpoint.

GG

Brian Abraham

16th Jan 2010, 04:52

The TWU had some nasty provisions about that and were ruthless in pursuing them
The AFAP in the old days were not beyond the bully boy approach. The majority of our pilots were members and a couple of our boys did all the donkey work in negotiating award details with the company. AFAP were a rubber stamp basically, besides being the agent to whom the judge talked to formalise arrangements. A disagreement came about (forget what) and our reps were told (threatened??) that they, the AFAP, would get Norm Gallagher (remember him?) and his muscle to pay a visit and show us the error of our ways. The result was all AFAP members bailed and we set up our own union.

DrMatt

16th Jan 2010, 06:08

bushy

16th Jan 2010, 08:08

The whole concept of using the light aircraft industry as merely a training ground for airline pilots is very, very wrong, and this "prostituting' will continue as long as that practice continues.
The light aircraft industry supplies vital air services to about 80% of the country that have very few options and little infrastructure. It is an important part of our trnasport system that should have a sound commercial base, long term personel and long term planning. At the moment it has neither of these.
Like the aboriginal problems this is an inconvenient truth that has been swept under the carpet for too long.
In a so called civilised society people in the the centre of the country have to rely on an organisation that is supported by bequests an public fund raising to fly them to medical facilities as there are no medical facilities near where they live.
Why are the bequests and public fund raising necessary?
Because our Governments and regulators live on the coast and don't care. They don't care about the light aircraft industry either. They don't use outback medical services or light aircraft services. Our governments are relying on cheap services to the outback, from "missionaries" etc who do things at low rates and expect support from public fund raising, bequests etc, and a flood of wannabie airline piolts who will also work cheap.
So our very important light aircraft industry is impoverished and staffed by lots of transient airline wannabies who will pay for ICUS etc and are not interested in making things better.Many won't be here long. They will quit if they don't get an airline job soon.
Many who read this are adding to the problem, but I cannot see a solution while the present system continues.

Checkboard

16th Jan 2010, 10:32

If this continues and is accepted by our industry, the right seat in an airliner will be soon for sale with a price tag on 500 hours P2 time in a 737 to get a crack at the middle eastern carriers.

Too late! In the UK, at least, the process is now:
pay for your training at an "integrated school", at twice the price of a "pay per lesson" school,
pay extra for special "two crew airline" training,
pay extra for type rating on jet, with a "guaranteed" job,
"garanteed job" turns out to be unpaid line training, with
a bit of casual "pay by the hour" over Summer (when the airline is busy), then
you're dropped like a hot rock over winter, and
never called again, as you have to make way for the next income opportunity .. er.. "cadet". :mad:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7RmaaPMDAYo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7RmaaPMDAYo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Arnold E

16th Jan 2010, 11:08

I cant believe what is posted is true, because only the truely stupid would put themselves in this position. If you truely want to fly that much, get a fair dinkum job, buy yourself and aircraft and fly at a fraction of that cost, and have a lot more fun to-boot.

NOSIGN

16th Jan 2010, 12:29

Colleagues - use your backbone and don't pay for ICUS to get a commercial job. Whether you're wealthy or poor, you're determination is going to get you a commercial gig in most instances. Be patient and persistant.

I also cannot fathom that AFAP allow the advert in question; I imagine that they are targeting the young CPL Pilot. I will post AFAP's justification when it reaches my inbox!

Counter-rotation

17th Jan 2010, 05:24

NOSIGN - I take it from your post that you have asked them for a "please explain"

Good on you, and I intend to do the same.

Yeah, those who say that nothing can be changed if not a member are correct, but one or two members pushing for change will probably not achieve much either. All AFAP members (even if you are a "cynical" member - I am), please make the effort to tell 'em what you think about this.

CR

glekichi

17th Jan 2010, 08:51

As stated earlier in the thread, I am no fan of paying for ICUS to get ahead, and agree with the general sentiment of the thread. I have not done it and will not do it myself.

But, at the same time, I would like to add a little balance to the conversation.

Those that think that this company is at fault for offering the service, or that the AFAP is at fault for advertising it, I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Firstly, the AFAP already advertises plenty of those jobs from the companies that refuse to invest in/train their own and demand 10/50/100 hours on type for a job.

There are also plenty of companies out there offering (or exploiting young pilots, as some put it) at double the rate advertised by the company in question, or more! Advertising it at that price is actually helping to put 'exploitation', as some put it, out of business.

Secondly, there are plenty of legitimate situations where a bit of ICUS can help one to get/stay current, as opposed to using it and one's (or one's daddy's) money to get ahead of the pack.

GG suggested that spending the money on a simulator would be better than flying ICUS in preparation for a renewal. I don't disagree entirely, but also think it depends on in which area you struggle. In one night of ICUS you would typically do 5hrs with 2 day and 2 night approaches and get a reasonable refresher in the aeroplane for a price that would only get you about 40mins of private hire or dual in the aircraft.

There are also instructors trying to get hours towards a M/E instructor rating. I don't think they should be paying for these hours either (I think the requirement should to have 50hrs on commercial ops, and only as PIC, not ICUS), but that said, its a hell of a lot cheaper and also hell of a lot more valuable than private hiring and flying around aimlessly.

How about we attack the companies that put the people in such situations, and the pilots that at times throw money at aviation to get ahead even when it is not required (i.e. the I'll work for nothing or the I'll pay you for a job types), instead of the AFAP for simply advertising a legitimate service?

Checkboard

17th Jan 2010, 09:08

Is this type of operation safe? The guys "Supervising" in the RHS have no requirement for instructor training, and no two crew time. How well is the "supervision" conducted?

Personally, I think CASA should legislate specifically under which conditions valid ICUS can be logged - and that should really only be with a rated instructor in the RHS, or under a C&T organisation.

glekichi

17th Jan 2010, 09:16

Checkboard,

Read back through the thread. All the guys doing the ICUS do go through a specific program (and at the present time all happen to be instructors also) . Not all pilots in the company are approved to do it, so the ones that are are rostered on specifically when any ICUS is to be done.

MakeItHappenCaptain

17th Jan 2010, 09:27

IMO you also can't log ICUS in the right seat, it has to be in the left with a check captain or chief pilot who is approved to occupy that seat. I bet CASA has the same viewpoint.

Actually this is not the CASA viewpoint

What? You can adequetely reach all the CB's and switches without having to constantly lean across the LHS pilot in a PA31?

OK, Matt, I accept your viewpoint was that ICUS can be conducted from RHS in some cases, but anyone who does it from the RHS in a Nav/Chief????

DrMatt

17th Jan 2010, 19:46

What? You can adequetely reach all the CB's and switches without having to constantly lean across the LHS pilot in a PA31?

OK, Matt, I accept your viewpoint was that ICUS can be conducted from RHS in some cases, but anyone who does it from the RHS in a Nav/Chief????
The CASA document I linked allows for operating controls 'by instruction'.

I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, I was just pointing out that it may be allowed (in response to GG's "I bet CASA has the same viewpoint").

desmotronic

17th Jan 2010, 22:24

The guys "Supervising" in the RHS have no requirement for instructor training, and no two crew time.

Why would you need an instructor rating or multi crew time to supervise a qualified pilot acting in command of a single pilot operation?

MakeItHappenCaptain

18th Jan 2010, 04:05

As I said Matt, understand the reason for your reply.
There used to be an operator, however, who flew ICUS from the RHS in 31's.

Glekichi, can you confirm Tasair isn't one of these operators?

glekichi

18th Jan 2010, 06:12

Affirm. The pilot flying ICUS is in the left, pilot supervising on the right.

NOSIGN

18th Jan 2010, 11:24

Glekichi,

IMHO there are situations where pay for ICUS may be legitimate, you have named a few; renewal training, re-currency training , contract Pilot, the private Pilot etc.

However, pay for ICUS schemes can be easily exploitated and I feel that advertising such a risky 'offer' on a Pilots union job webpage is inappropriate.

I also hope that any company offering 'pay for ICUS' is not commercially benefiting from utilising two Crew - that would be an exploitation at the highest level. I am not suggesting that this is the situation at TASAIR.

Checkboard

18th Jan 2010, 13:00

Why would you need an instructor rating or multi crew time to supervise a qualified pilot acting in command of a single pilot operation?
... because there is a potential command conflict. The pilot supervising is the pilot in command for the flight, but the pilot logging ICUS is fulfilling the duties. At what point does the pilot supervising take-over, give corrections, how well are they training in monitoring approaches (as opposed to flying them) etc etc

I have read the CASA communication, and see that they "expect" that such training has taken place, but do not require it. :hmm:

Having thought about it a bit, I don't see this as such a bad thing, if it is done correctly. In a single pilot context, it doesn't usurp a paid job. It does give an opportunity to gain experience in a commercial operation, which is perhaps more useful than hiring an aircraft to fly around by yourself.

AerocatS2A

18th Jan 2010, 15:12

The pilot under supervision should be able to physically fly the aeroplane, that is he should be able to confidently fly the approach etc with out the supervisory pilot needing to possibly take over. The supervisory pilot should be there to help with the decision making process. They are there to help you be a pilot in command, not to help you be a pilot. If they need to help you be a pilot then it, IMO, is not ICUS.

rmcdonal

19th Jan 2010, 00:27

I concur with AerocatS2A.
When on an ICUS flight I would expect the supervisor to sit there quietly monitoring the other pilots flying. The supervisor is only there for legal reasons (normally to do with min 10hrs on type, etc). There would be no taking over and showing the other pilot how it is done, and no need for 2 crew co-ordination (accept when the aircraft is a 2 crew operation), it is not a lesson. The pilot under ICUS is fully qualified to fly the aircraft and just lacks time on type. The only things I would expect the supervisor to do would be to offer suggestions on how to improve operation of the aircraft, and to assist in an emergency.

glekichi

19th Jan 2010, 01:30

Aerocat and rmcdonal you are both right on that and it is how the vast majority of the flights end up taking place, but that doesn't mean one can get complacent.

The reality is that most people with a fresh instrument rating, and quite a few with more experience, will put you in some sort of danger when attempting their first few night circling approaches and black hole takeoffs. Unusual attitudes are not that unusual!

I'd say about half of the trainees will need either a take over or some very firm advice on their first flight or two. Instructors will be used to letting the situation go as far as possible before intervening, but for the non-instructors it could be a bit of a challenge to let the person make the mistakes and learn from them.

Lawrie Cox

19th Jan 2010, 22:24

As a result of concerns being expressed by members of the Federation we have decided to discontinue the TAS AIR training advertisement on the Jobs page.
For the benefit of those who are not members and wish to criticise the Federation be aware the site is provided for free to all and sundry as a service to our industry. There is a disclaimer in relation to the jobs that are advertised ’BUYER BEWARE’.

Lawrie Cox
Manager – Industrial Relations
Australian Federation of Air Pilots

The Green Goblin

20th Jan 2010, 03:18

Lawrie, thank you for listening to your members.

Now if we can remove this rot of paying for ICUS to get a job, the companies will actually invest in training (like they had to in 2007) and the cycle will finally be broken.

If all you fellas with money burning a hole in your pockets hang onto it, then that money will come in pretty handy when you are chasing that first job.

Now if we can get a more modern GA award that actually represents the cost of living in the towns where the majority of GA Pilots actually work, we may make some head way.

Remember Lawrie a starting out GA pilot used to earn what a teacher earnt and teachers are now over 50K. We are still in the low 30's. If a company cannot afford to pay its staff what they should be earning it should not be operating. Let the companies that are doing the right thing actually be able to charge the customer the real cost of air travel/charter and in turn be able to invest in the fleet and facilities. The sooner these fly by night operators disappear the sooner we will have a GA industry which is again attractive as a career. (The Airlines will then have to move the ball too)

GG

glekichi

20th Jan 2010, 03:44

I too am an AFAP member, and I can see why this has been done and accept the decision, but for now all this means is that more unwitting young pilots will continue to pay double that rate at other organisations that may or may not do it to as high a standard.

As has been said though, lets now move on then and also for starters ban the advertising of companies that do not pay the award and do not invest in staff training.

bushy

20th Jan 2010, 06:18

There are companies which are hunting fools and gathering money.
I remember getting another company in to do a charter for us in a chieftain and they had two pilots. Super safe!!
After they had loaded passengers they taxied out with the flipper doors open. Had they checked the hydraulic pumps?
Some companies are charging more for ICUS than they are paying the suopervising pilot.
These things are usually a mark of an opportunistic organisation. Most of the long established companies behave better than that.
But these days there is a constant supply of fools.

PLovett

20th Jan 2010, 09:12

bushy,

...fools and dreamers, fools and dreamers..... and it has always been thus in aviation. How else could you get someone to fork out the dollars for a licence and associated ratings to only earn a pittance.:ugh:

Incidentally, I suspect the reason for the two crew Chieftain was a bust autopilot.:uhoh:

And I can remember talking with you about your early days in GA. Back then you said a pilot earned approximately the same as a teacher. If that were the case today I suspect that a lot more would stay in GA or come back when they realise the dream of RPT is actually a bad one.

When I learnt to fly rather a long time ago now :{ the instructors were full time, earned enough to support a family and children and the aircraft were new and replaced with new about every three years. Where has it all gone so badly wrong? :sad:

short-field

20th Jan 2010, 10:39

If people want to pay for ICUS then let them, but what I think is pretty poor form is when the ICUS seats are given to the 'fly-in paying customers' in preference to those who have spent many more thousands of dollars doing the instrument rating/endorsement training at the same company with the expectation/promise of ICUS following the endorsement.

Horatio Leafblower

20th Jan 2010, 10:56

My company doesn't offer ICUS, mainly because our ops (99% pax CHTR) aren't suited to it.

I offer the following questions as Devil's Advocate:

If I have a product to sell, and someone wants to buy it, why not?

No pilots are out of work because of it (I need to put a pilot on that run anyway)... why not?

If I have the capacity and systems in place to give someone ICUS... why not?

They win, we were flying there anyway, YES we make some additional revenue from the aircraft so we win too. Why not?

If that additional revenue means another bill paid and my pilots stay in work... why not?

I am not sure I can see a legitimate reason for your beef. People everywhere, in every industry, do the equivalent of paying for ICUS; it's called doing the hard yards to get ahead.

There also seems to be an insinuation that any company offering ICUS is automatically dodgy and must accordingly have low standards of training, questionable ethics and dubious parentage.

This isn't a perfect world, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and crying on PPRuNe aint going to change that.

Some of you just seem upset that little Johnny has paid the money and got ahead :{

If the ICUS is worth paying for (ie: you aren't just a seat warmer/refueller/cargo loader for a day) then word will get around. It can be good training.

If the ICUS is crap... if you don't actually get pole time... if you don't learn anything, word will get around then too.

In a previous life, I DID give 10-12 hours ICUS once as a favour on a survey tour in a C206. I will say this:

If you DO enter into an agreement to do ICUS with someone, at an agreed rate, do the honourable thing and PAY THE BILL :=

You know who you are.

GADRIVR

21st Jan 2010, 03:00

Horatio,
Have to agree with you after a few years of being around this bloody industry.
If the ICUS is properly given, then why wouldn't you do it? Everybody wins.
The good old days are long gone (though to be honest I can't remember them being particulary good at all!!).
There is no real union protection for GA pilots, there is certainly no real career progression most part of GA and to top it off, we don't live in Wonderland!!!
Do what you've gotta do to get ahead in this segment of the industry and do it quick. Ethics, morals, doing the "right thing" (ie: waiting your turn) by your compatriots in and around GA is pointless. Good guys get nowhere fast.
Take the hours when you can and how you can because.......GA is NOT worth it. It's just a place to spend a few years, have a few beers and enjoy yourself but eventually financial and family reality will force you to move on to much more enjoyable, well paid and better things.
Not a particulary nice tone to my post but.....grounded well within Realityland. Sad really!:ugh:

NOSIGN

21st Jan 2010, 08:05

There's nothing wrong with ICUS.

Here's a thought from the other side of the fence, pay the Pilot flying ICUS $120/hr and advertise the safety benefit of two crew to your passengers.

You'll not only be doing a good service by your passengers, but you'll be helping a young Pilot in the industry.

An operator who could not afford to do that could just take the kid on without paying him if he has the extra capacity. Why not?

arnellis

21st Jan 2010, 08:56

Is it just my computer, or has the ad been removed from the afap jobs page?

psycho joe

21st Jan 2010, 09:40

The argument for "Charging for ICUS" as some humanitarian greater good for GA, is like saying that you're making a humanitarian contribution to Haiti by only shagging Haitian hookers. :ugh:

It's amazing that people are quick to trot out the old line about how it's you the members who collectively are the AFAP, thereby absolving the organisation from any wrong doing or responsibility and placing the onus on the collective group.

Yet when it comes to abhorrent practices in GA, it's every man for himself. It's all about the individual and the perception of getting ahead and F:mad:ck everyone else.:ugh:

With the way that behavioural science based Airline interviews are going, I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future candidates were requested to Cite examples of how they have made their work-place / industry a better place for the generations following behind them. :hmm:

Di_Vosh

21st Jan 2010, 11:15

Is it just my computer, or has the ad been removed from the afap jobs page?

It's not your computer. Refer to LC's post #59 :ok:

Cheers,

DIVOSH!

JohnnyK

21st Jan 2010, 13:12

Well Done.
A victory for the working class. An advertisement has been taken off a website. The bourgeious has capitulated. Net result. Nil. Another successful lose-lose for those that pepper their sentences with with "what should happen is..", and"we should all..." and then do exactly nothing. This is called stirring and is,in fact, a great Australian pastime.The fact of the matter is that we are all out there in the market place alone, competing for the scraps and morsels available and no amount of pipe dreaming on PPRUNE about better conditions and days gone by are going to magically improve the lot of GA. Its is up to you, the individual, to make your choices and get ahead and fight for your terms and conditions yourself because, as sure as death and taxes, your aviation brothers are not going to do it for you despite all the hot air here to the contrary. This may involve joining a union or it may involve some firm words with your employer or it may just be acting smart and finding leverage where you can. Or it may, shock,horror involve paying somebody to gain some hours because it will benefit you and your family.The market is the great dictator here and hopefully, with all this hiring ramping up, the boot will be back not on our, but your, foot. If you choose to do your bit and help out those you are in a position to help, directly and materially with words of advice or a word to the boss or a finger point in the right direction then I salute you. I have been helped like this and have helped others and its got me work and Ive got others work and it actually works hell of a lot more that sitting around carping about higher wages and longer lunch hours. I sit back and wait for the roasting....

One of the Night.

22nd Jan 2010, 15:46

Credit where credit is due :ok:.
Time to retrieve a piece of paper from the waste basket.

The Green Goblin

16th May 2010, 23:59

TASAIR were great. Challenging flying and in a commercial op situtation they're great in a situation where we either get our hours up in a **** plane paying exorint prices or fly good aircraft with excellent intructuctors. TASAIR are a bloody good company who I will support.

You are supporting the companies out there that should be paying for endorsements and ongoing Pilot training.

bushy

17th May 2010, 03:38

Next time you are talking to a wannabe airline pilot make sure he reads this thread to see what existing pilots think of the situation. He can then balance that against what the flying schools and ICUS sellers tell him.
I remember when companies paid for endoesements, but that has certainly changed. I also talked to a man who "purchased" 300 hours of 737 time from an asian airline, and was dumped when the 300 hours was up.He was looking for a job flying pistons in the outback.
Times have changed.

Stationair8

17th May 2010, 08:18

So how much experience did the guy have, that did your ICUS?

The Green Goblin

17th May 2010, 08:31

TASAIR were great. Challenging flying and in a commercial op situtation

You're also paying them money on-top of what they are charging their clients. This enables them to undercut competitors and skimp of Pilot training for guys that they employ. This promotes a if you can't beat 'em join 'em mentality in the industry. Look at GA in NZ. Do you want Australia to have desperadoes working for up to a year without pay?

Do you think Lames will pay per hour for the privilege of working on a type to get their hours up for a new licence?

Anyway rant over for now :yuk:

povopilot

17th May 2010, 08:50

You're also paying them money on-top of what they are charging their clients. This enables them to undercut competitors and skimp of Pilot training for guys that they employ. This promotes a if you can't beat 'em join 'em mentality in the industry. Look at GA in NZ. Do you want Australia to have desperadoes working for up to a year without pay?

A la Interair with the Westpac beach patrols.. Would have been a terrific first twin job if there wasn't 100 rich parented, spoilt ****s out there willing to pay for an endorsement and ICUS.

Rumour has it that TASAIR had a heap of people apply and they were more than willing to take their cash for the endorsement, but when it came to the actual flying all of a sudden they didn't have enough work...

Makes my blood f*cking boil. As someone said the race to the bottom is on, and the rich kids are leading the charge.

Reading5

16th Jun 2010, 14:26

Re the Pay for ICUS debate that once raged.....

I hear your concerns and they are fair and reasonable concerns, however there are a few points that we should all consider.

Virgin Blue Pilots have to pay for their 73 endorsements and they pay off the debt gradually.

Also to fly a Chieftain, you require 50 command or ICUS hours to hire or fly one in command and at an operating cost of around $800+ per hour, that is quite a costly exercise to try and get those hours up if you are paying for them.

In addition, some of us who want to gain or consolidate some valuable IFR and/ or night IFR experience or currency and we have an excellent opportunity to do it at a reasonable rate, by doing the night IFR ICUS.

$120 per hour for night IFR ICUS experience in a Chieftain compared to around $500 for IFR training or flying in a Seminole and what would you choose.

Also, TASAIR, who operate from Tasmania offering the $120 ICUS is at least half the rate of the Tasfast rate who operate out of Moorabbin.

The other point I wish to make is that by carrying the pilot conducting the ICUS means that the payload may be reduced, thus reducing the return they may be making on the cargo run anyway.

I am only speaking for myself and find it a great way to enhance my experience base and flying in a challenging but safe situation.

kalavo

16th Jun 2010, 21:29

Nobody's disputing the value of ICUS, we're banging our heads against the wall with people paying for it.

There's more than a few operators around who do ICUS for FREE. In fact you actually get PAID to do ICUS. You start working for the company and immediately receive a salary, when there's a bit of movement in the company, they pay for your endorsement on the next largest aircraft in the fleet and send you off flying with a more experienced pilot until you are competent.

If you want to get real fancy some of them even work for CAR 217 organisations where the pilot sitting in the right hand seat has been checked as a Supervisory Captain rather than someone who just happened to do the endorsement three months before you and still learning themselves.

Once upon a time airline pilot's didn't pay for type endorsements either. In fact there's still some companies where this is the case. Think about it.

43Inches

16th Jun 2010, 21:31

Virgin Blue Pilots have to pay for their 73 endorsements and they pay off the debt gradually.

This should not happen but PILOTs allow it to (Jetstar also does this with Tiger requiring you have the endorsement before starting). There are a number of operators who do not require this and pay for your training.

Also to fly a Chieftain, you require 50 command or ICUS hours to hire or fly one in command

This is not required by law and is a flexible insurance requirement, there are ways around it if you know how.

In addition, some of us who want to gain or consolidate some valuable IFR and/ or night IFR experience or currency and we have an excellent opportunity to do it at a reasonable rate, by doing the night IFR ICUS.

Why? If you work for said companies they should have a training program to familiarise pilots with the operation.

$120 per hour for night IFR ICUS experience in a Chieftain compared to around $500 for IFR training or flying in a Seminole and what would you choose.

Neither, I would get a job that pays me to fly, and I did. If you actually put in some effort the work is out there.

Also, TASAIR, who operate from Tasmania offering the $120 ICUS is at least half the rate of the Tasfast rate who operate out of Moorabbin.

So they are undercutting each other? The pilot is still out of pocket.

The other point I wish to make is that by carrying the pilot conducting the ICUS means that the payload may be reduced, thus reducing the return they may be making on the cargo run anyway.

Most times the ICUS pilot is off-loaded before freight, showing what you are worth to the operator.

As has been said before paying an operator for your training reduces your value. They will just replace you with the next person willing to do it, the cost to the operator to replace you is zero, they even make money off new starts.

Stationair8

16th Jun 2010, 23:05

The big question with paying for ICUS, is after you have taken the money of the willing pilot and done X number of hours would you let him or her fly the aeroplane on their own with your charter client?

bushy

17th Jun 2010, 01:13

I have seen city based flying schools set up charter companies in the outback using hired aeroplanes and casual pilots and selling ICUS . They can undercut established companies, fleece pilots and pull out when they have destroyed the industry in that area. They have virtually nothing invested.
They take money from pilots to train for jobs that do not exist, sell them ICUS with sinilar low timers supervising, and generally drag the industry down.
When it dies they just send the hired aeroplanes back or move to another area.
I cannot respect these people.

glekichi

17th Jun 2010, 07:17

Yeah Bushy, but Tasair, despite all its faults, is certainly not one of those companies, and they do put newly employed pilots through ICUS without charge - as it should be!
What ****s me off about it is that none of the extra cash is passed on to the supervising pilot!

Di_Vosh

18th Jun 2010, 00:47

I think Bushy's post was aimed at D***ctair

DIVOSH!

PLovett

18th Jun 2010, 02:08

Di_Vosh, then bushy got it wrong, at least while I was there.

The Green Goblin

19th Jun 2010, 07:14

Part of the reason operators charge ICUS is that after investing quite a lot of money on a pilots training they will piss off at the drop of the hat, leaving the operator to fork out for the next lot of training.

Not really, single engine operators know they've got 'em until they clock over th 1000th hour provided they provide decent working conditions and the work is there to support a career minded Pilot (they will leave pretty quick starting out at less than 400 hours a year)

A multi engine operator knows they have got them until 500 multi command, provided they meet the same conditions above. They also tend to stick around for a while on the pistons until a turbine slot shows up.

Turboprop operators generally have no choice with the training as it's mandated if they are a CAR217 operation however they do bond.

hardNfast

19th Jun 2010, 08:17

Part of the reason operators charge ICUS is that after investing quite a lot of money on a pilots training they will piss off at the drop of the hat, leaving the operator to fork out for the next lot of training.

Really?? Most companies now days want you to pay up front for endorsements.

No wonder people piss off as soon as they get the hours they need. If they were a good operator to work for people would stay around.

Reading5

26th Jun 2010, 16:12

I wanted to let all this go but I am still wondering...

Am I hallucinating here? I'm actually a little confused and might sign off as I think there are passing comment here.

A company obtaining a government loan...and people are rejoicing in their struggle? People getting ICUS and people PPRuners canning the company?

Give me a break! So where is the happy medium? If companies like Tasair go under, apart from the immediate impact to family members and share holders, what happens to the employees...not just the pilots.

Doing IMC IFR flying to get experience is a challenge. If you are adept and qualified at that, kudos to you brother or sister.

But don't pooh pooh people having a crack at doing this and trying to survive (literally). The company and the crew are okay and seemed to be switched on.

I am not aligned to any company but I read these forums with mild bemusement. Do any of you guys honestly believe the regionals are making millions....?

If you want to take up the fight, take it up with QANTAS or another major. Having a go at Tasair about ICUS is bull shiber.

glekichi

27th Jun 2010, 03:04

There's no comeraderie where I fly, there's no updating the pilot behind you on the same route about the weather conditions etc. This is reflective of the industry on a whole, you are on your own, GA is something you survive alot of the time due to good luck rather than good management. Rather than be a good experience it is something you bear until you make it into an airline and are covered by an EBA.

Well, Owen, looks like you are working for the wrong operator then. This is one area that Tasair isn't actually too bad. The pilots, bar a few wankers (the kind that also wont have a beer with you after work, not that you'd invite them), are a pretty supportive group. Quite normal to stay back to help push planes away etc. and have a yarn about the day. I didn't leave on the best of terms with management, but the workmates I had there are something that I do miss.

On the case of Government intervention in Tasair, other operators would not get the same 'protections' 'subsidies' and 'bailouts.' They are tired of trying to make a quid on an unfair playing field. These other operators provide just as good and better services, they run on the smell of an oily rag. If the market was allowed to operate as it should there'd be less operators charging more realistic prices, then perhaps investment in better aircraft and better pay for pilots.

Once again, whilst far (really far!) from perfect, I think you'll find Tasair is still paying staff better than any other operator in Tasmania (unless, heaven forbid, the award is being enforced) and certainly is above average for GA.

It is the competition that has been under charging and under paying for years and contributed to the current situation! That and a certain personality that drives hundreds of thousands of students' dollars away every year.

They could do a lot better by listening more to the inputs of non-management staff though. Lots of wasted money elsewhere. It's pretty demoralising to know the work you're doing is making an absolute killing for the company, yet they still struggle because its being pissed away!!

A37575

27th Jun 2010, 14:14

I am not sure about Australian regulation but by UK regs the ICUS pilot must make all operational decisions during the trip. If the pilot in command is forced to disagree on any one of those operational decisions by the ICUS pilot, then the ICUS logging is cancelled and the ICUS pilot reverts to logging dual or copilot time.

Judging from the significant amount of ICUS time I have witnessed in some pilot's log books in Australia they must either have been flying superbly without a single remark or comment by the supervising captain - or they are logging cheating hours.

Centaurus

27th Jun 2010, 14:20

The people you meet with any integrity over twenty years you will count on the fingers of one hand. This may not have been the case before 1989, don't know.

Not quite sure what you are getting at. What is the significance of Year 1989.
Certainly 9/11 was a significant event in world events - but 1989?

Angle of Attack

27th Jun 2010, 16:10

9/11 was not significant in the world, only in the western world, do not get too self important about this event please. It was a pin prick in the global scale lets get real people.

Centaurus

28th Jun 2010, 13:16

9/11 was not significant in the world, only in the western world, do not get too self important about this event please. It was a pin prick in the global scale lets get real people.

A bloody painful pin prick to the 3000 plus who lost their lives. A pin prick that caused the US and its Allies to try get stuck into the baddies (fanatics) in Afghanistan and a pin prick that cause huge security measures to affect air travellers world wide. Anyway, the question is still unanswered. What is significant about 1989 in Australia?

aussieflyboy

28th Jun 2010, 13:27

warning further thread drift:

meaning no disrespect to the tragic events but in Australia shouldn't we be calling it 11/9 rather then 9/11...

aaaaannnnd back to my hole :ugh:

Tee Emm

4th Jul 2010, 05:17

Don't we all know that we are glorified bus drivers???

Agreed. Airbus.:8

Arnold E

4th Jul 2010, 10:29

"In 1989, the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke infamously put down all pilots and with Peter (Not quite) Ables caused massive stress to a number of good people"

If memory serves me correctly, didnt all the pilots resign en mass? Wouldn't that mean that people were re-employed on merit?
I dont know, but, maybe you had no merit :confused::confused: Dont know :sad::sad::sad::sad:

Owen Stanley

6th Jul 2010, 12:07

Here we go...............

(couldn't help it :ugh::ugh::ugh:)

LeadSled

6th Jul 2010, 14:10

A37575,
The UK P1(U/S), Command under supervision is ICAO compliant, as is the equivalent in US, most of EU, SIN, NZ, PNG, most places I have had occasion to look.

Australia's ICUS is not compliant with Annex 1 --- except that a difference notice filed with ICAO makes it "compliant".

By exemption,(???) CASA "allows" a number of major airline's pilots to log time in compliance with ICAO Annex 1.

What is really behind all the anguish on this thread (whether people know it or not) is that Australia makes it very difficult for a young pilot to log Pilot In Command Under Supervision.

Further, because all too many pilots who have achieved the holy grail of "enough command time" are so myopic that they are unable/don't want to distinguish (in UK terms) between P1 (with the P1 name in the log book) and P1 U/S, ( with the actual P1's name Command column in the P1 U/S log book).

Some how or other, ICUS is equated with some kind of cheating, "bogus" time, maybe we should call it BAICUS, log it as "Command (B)".

All the screeching about the propriety of someone paying for what must be obtained, (somehow or other) is really an offshoot of the fact that AU does not comply with the spirit and intent of ICAO Annex 1.

If Australia actually complied with Annex 1, without a difference, most of the problem would go away.

As a side issue, CASA is getting it right royally screwed up about ICUS time on an air route, or ICUS time after endorsement, and what applies in the case of "group" endorsements ---- there have been some really creative, some quite bizarre re-interpretation of what are really long standing rules ---- ???

Tootle pip!!