Jet Star - Action Needs To Be Taken

[Capt Toss Parker]

For most of your career in aviation you learn that experience and good training count for everything. It’s the very foundation that makes a competent and safe pilot out of each and every one of us.

To top it off we have always been presented with goal posts by big companies like Qantas, these hourly requirements have established a certain level of safety within the industry and provided pilots with a clear strategy about what type of experience they need before they will be eligible for employment.

The USA have recently changed their regulations so that anyone who operates an aircraft under air transport ops must hold the full ATPL license and necessary experience levels. Why else would you have an ATPL license? The requirements are there so why not meet them before you can operate public transport?

Big waves need to be made about the Qantas / Jet Star move to operate their $150,000 Buy A Job Scheme. For most of your career you’ve been told you’re not experienced enough to operate public transport until you have 1500 hours and 500 multi, but all of a sudden Jet Star say you can throw $150K down and in 12 months you’re good to go? THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Yes Qantas have had their cadet scheme running for ever, but the QF cadets spend years in the simulator before they finally upgrade to a first officers position. The Jet Star guys get to jump in the right seat of an A320 on the completion of their course with 200 hours!

Where does it leave all of the aviators who have looked far and wide to obtain valuable flying experience? All those years living away from home in crappy small towns just to climb the ladder and gain some hours.

Those positions that would have been available for G.A. pilots will no longer be there when the cadet scheme ramps up, which means that guys stuck in G.A. will be stuck there even longer! By allowing this to happen you’re doing yourself out of a job and you’re allowing safety to be jeopardized.

I’m not much of a writer but here’s what needs to happen. A standard letter of complaint needs to be written in a professional format that we can all edit our details on and submit to CASA.

The same letter needs to be sent to : GetUp! - Action For Australia - www.getup.org.au (http://www.getup.org.au/) “Get Up Action For Australia” The team from “Get Up Australia” rally for donations and then run professional media campaigns for good causes. If we get enough people to ask for a campaign then they will run large scale advertisements in The Australian newspaper high lighting our concerns.

The public need to know for their safety and pilots in G.A. need to protect their future – Airline pilots need to protect their own conditions and support this cause.

This is one crime that Jet Star cannot get away with.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT >> YouTube - Jet Star Pilot Safety (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNnnoLl_v8g)

[Pack2]

Well ladies and gentlemen the low cost model which has been operating in the rest of the world for many years has finally arrived and I am afraid the reality,inspite of all the forthcomming protests,is that it is here to stay.

By way of example both easyjet and ryanair have been using the 200 Hr cadet system to crew their aircraft for over 10 years. Both these airlines are full of captains that have come up through this same process. None of them had 500 multi command before joining. None of them spent hours flying night freight in claped out cheitains,or worse. They were trained from the beginning to fly airline jets in a two crew environment,and thats what they do. Lets be clear here. Flying a C210 around the bush for 1500 hours has absolutely nothing to do with operating a commercial jet in airline operations.

I would however like to see the following scenario demonstrated in the simulator as a qualification standard.
Capt PF
Engine failure between V1 and Vr
Capt incapacitated
No Radar Vectors
Procedural ILS to minima

Given the choice between pilot A who has 1500 hrs of hard graft in GA then buys a 737 type rating or the Integrated cadet with 200hrs who is trained to sit next to me in airline operations..well im sorry but its a no brainer..

[Capt Toss Parker]

I agree they have been doing it in Europe for many years now and it's been successful but the difference is Australia has a large pool of general aviation pilots that Jet Star can recruit from. Much larger than the UK, so the only reason they would run a cadetship is for cheap pilots and cost savings. The Low Cost Model as you mentioned.

Now ... the USA also ran cadetships through various airlines and what the FAA have found was that some accidents could have been avoided if the crew compliment were more experienced. The regulations have been changed back to a full ATPL license for crews in transport ops. The USA has the largest aviation industry and they have done a 180' turn in regards to airline cadetships.

I'm not saying all cadets are bad but when there are hundreds of people in G.A. with experience ready to step up, hiring cadets is not a good idea.

[Turkeyslapper]

Firstly I am not an airline pilot so please excuse my ignorance.

How come a guy can complete RAAF pilots course with 200 odd hours and then be thrown into the right seat of a C17, A330, 737, C130, et al. Many of which operate in very demanding environments. A course mate of mine quite a few years ago went straight from course to flying a Falcon 900 with the PM on board!

Surely, if the selection, training and supervision is appropriate, and a sound progression plan is in place whats the problem?

Any hooo.....

Turkey

[Artificial Horizon]

I am afraid that this is just a case of Australia finally catching up with the rest of the world. I have worked with many pilots, Captains included who started flying as fully fledged F/O's with just on 200 hours on big jets such as DC10's and classic 747's. Equally I have seen some pretty 'experienced' GA pilots who have joined the airlines and been pretty 'crap'. Cathay, Singapore Airlines, Qantas, BA, Air France, Lufthansa, Ethiad all have 200 hour cadet schemes some of which allow the cadet directly into the right hand seat, no one has ever questioned the safety of these schemes, WHY. The cost of the course can't be the only thing, the amount the Jetstar Cadets are paying is offensive, it will not however mean they are trained to lower standard than if the scheme was free. There is no doubt a 'profit' motive to this new cadet scheme, lets not forget though that the cadets are not forced to sign up to this deal, the advice has certainly been out there advising against this.

As for the FAA, they have reacted to a highly publicized crash when raising the minimum pilot experience levels. Fact of the matter was though that both pilots on that Dash 8 that stalled had over 1500 hours experience, what the FAA has overlooked is that both of these pilots were being paid peanuts and where absolutely shagged due to the FTL's that they were operating too. Why didn't they react to this by tightening up on the duty times that pilots operate to, or perhaps introducing a 'minimum wage' for flight crew to ensure they could actually afford to live where they work!! Because this goes in the too hard basket.

CADETS are not a big threat to airline safety!!

CADETS are a big threat to those pilots who are toiling through GA at the moment as they may be left out in the cold. However, JETSTAR will never be able to service their entire FO recruitment through CADET's alone so there will always be a place for experienced Direct Entry.

The BIGGEST threat to airline safety is the ability of airlines to dictate to the regulators. If CASA took airline safety seriously they would be REGULATING instead of aiding the airlines in reducing safety standards. When airlines ask for an exemption to operate with less Cabin Crew they could say NO, exemptions for high capacity operators to operate longer duty days....NO, employing pilots on inferior contracts to fly the same aircraft...NO!!

If you want to improve safetly, encourage CASA to grow a pair:mad:

[RENURPP]

Serious question,

Do these cadets in the "real world" frequent places with no radar environments equipped with Only NDB approaches in the middle of no where or do they fly ILS to iLS under radar guidance?

[KRUSTY 34]

You guys that are such fans of Cadet programs, do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy!

Allow me to explain. The Jetstar Cadet program is possibly the most evil, cynical, and blatant grab for cash campain that the Australian professional pilot body has ever faced. Your defence of Cadetships in general however is nothing more than thread drift. Applying any arguement to the Jetstar scheme is merely advocating the integrity of Jetstar management!

Smell the coffee!

[balance]

IMHO, in terms of jobs alone, the possibility of sending our jobs overseas presents a far greater threat to Australian Aviation than does the Cadet problem, but the problem having been mentioned, it deserves attention.

The logic being used by the pro-Jetstar cadet lobby is this: "There hasn't been an accident, so therefore it must be OK."

Problem is, there are clear and very serious latent failures thererin. Latent meaning, yet to happen, but just sitting there waiting. GK has very clearly pointed that out in his submission to the Senate enquiry.

This being the case, I would ask, whast price is one life? What price is a hull loss? My opinion, it isn't worth it, and the whole world has gone nuts.

[MOR]

I'm not saying all cadets are bad but when there are hundreds of people in G.A. with experience ready to step up, hiring cadets is not a good idea.

Actually, it is. The truth is that very few cadets are bad, they wouldn't get through the system if they were. GA, on the other hand, tends to mask a lack of skill with sheer flying hours and "experience" (although what help cruising around in the sunshine VFR is, is anyone's guess).

What most airline training departments find, is that taking a GA guy, sorting out all his bad habits, and then trying to teach him how to operate multi-crew while flying a faster, heavier aircraft, is a lot more difficult and expensive than just training a guy up from scratch.

The Jetstar Cadet program is possibly the most evil, cynical, and blatant grab for cash campain that the Australian professional pilot body has ever faced.

Funny then that there doesn't seem to be a shortage of applicants... :rolleyes:

[scam sniffer]

RENURPP Serious answer.

Let me state first up I think the whole J* bit is a cynical moneygrabbing, exploitative disgrace.

Pilot employment/deployment like any other comodity/resource, is a matter of supply and demand. At this time, and it has been thus forever, the supply of pilots in Australia exceeds the demand. In that circumstance, one could ask why is it necessary to artificially introduce more resources on the supply side? Gordon Geko might be able to give some insight into that rationale.

Having said that, there is a requirement, in some parts of the world, to introduce a viable strream of candidates for employment. Many countries do not have the GA structure of the US and us. They simply cannot find the number of qualified pilots required, within their own nationals. These countries must resort to a cadet program. Almost invariably those programs are sponsored. Cadets are requred in certain circumstances, but not in Australia.

As to the cadets themselves. Having flown with a considerable number, I have found the product to be, generally, very competent. This has been due in large part to the quality of training, a significant part of which is carried out in Australia and the US.

Procedurally most are excellent. Understandably decision making process' and rat cunning are very formative. Those will come with time. The safety of the system is in the provision of adequate supervisory experience in the left seat. Where any of these cadet programs/models will come unstuck is with the pairing of low time left seat with no time right seat. For this reason, in my view, if a cadet program is to be introduced , there should be a minimum total time on the flight deck, say 5-6,000 hours. Then a newbie will only be paired with an adequately experienced partner, whichever seat the newbie is in.

In answer to your question about NDB's ILS's uncontrolled etc. These cadets at 300 odd hours are quite capable of operating aircraft such as MD 80's, 737's analogue or glass variants, on reverse arcs to LLZ approaches in mosoonal WX to the minimum. They are capable of (and are) operating into military airfields conducting GCA, PAR and ASR approaches. VOR approaches to the minima with circling to the rciprocal, at night in moutainous terrain. Operating in joint civil military airfields with parallel, contra rotating circuits, with 6 training jets in the circuit on the right runway doing left circuits while the civil runs a right circuit off the left runway. NDB's and OCTA, easy ****. Don't believe it? Been there done that. Get out and see what happens in the rest of the world.

I cannot recall an accident where the flying pilot was an ex cadet, operating from the right seat. I can recall many accidents where the flying pilot was a low hour left seat. However my grey matter is decidely grey, and I stand to be corrected.

This is not a safety argument, it is an argument as to whether or not an expensive self funded cadet program is appropriate and beneficial to the Australian aviation environment. In my view it is not. However to argue on safety grounds I am afraid will leave you exposed to the realities of the rest of the world, and may not achieve the desired outcome.

SS

[virginexcess]

Personally i don't see a valid argument against Cadet schemes from the business perspective. The company does not have any obligation to prop up the Australian GA industry.

I have many years in the Left seat of a Heavy Jet as a trainer and check captain and i am yet to see tangible differences between GA pilots and WELL TRAINED Cadets.

To answer turkeyslapper, the difference is that RAAF pilots go through a much tighter selection process initially and then subsequently have significantly better training than GA pilots. Not one hour of RAAF training is spent drilling aimlessly through the sky to build hours. Every single hour of flying has a syllabus, objective and outcome, and in the end produces a far more capable 200hour pilot than does the cadet scheme. By means of validating my comments, i have been through both processes.

By this I am not inferring that RAAF pilots necessarily end up being better aviatiors in the long term, but certainly at the 200hr stage RAAF pilots are better prepared to undergo type training to sit in the right seat of a big aeroplane than is the average GA pilot with 200hrs.

What this all boils down to is the level of training received. Cadetships are entirely appropriate if they encompass sufficient training of an adequate standard. On the other hand, cadetships that rely on the lowest cost provider to pump out minimum standard pilots are a recipe for disaster.

I have been involved in Cadet Schemes that take people who have never flown an aircraft and eventually put them in the right seat of the most modern commercial aircraft in the world. The caveat is that they sat next to training captains for a minimum of 120 sectors, which causes a significant cost to the company through increasing training resources to cope with the training burden

So if you want to mount a case against cadet schemes, make sure you get some facts and compare to successful and not so successful cadet schemes around the world. There is no doubt cadet schemes can present a threat to both safety and career aspirations. Just make sure your arguments are based on measurable facts, because you can be sure the company's will be.

Lastly, there is not point pissing around with letters to CASA, your local member, Crikey or giving money to random organisations. The biggest pilots union in the country has forced a Senate Inquiry into exactly this issue. The inquiry is taking place as we speak. If there is any possibility of forcing change it will be through this mechanism. And conversely, if this process not highlight the fact that CASA is asleep at the wheel and jolt somebody into action, then we may as well start sending of our applications to Truck Master.

[fender]

Risk assessment: R, the magnitude of the potential loss L, and the probability p, that the loss will occur. PLUS

Ergonomics: the science of designing the workplace environment to fit the user.

Equals, She'll be right mate.

Let's hope nothing more is added to the equation....

[Capt Toss Parker]

I've flown with numerous cadets who are now wide bodied skippers and they are awesome, great guys and ultra competent. But they were recruited through a rigorous selection process and the airline paid for their course. They also spent years as S/O's doing simulators every two months and gaining exposure before they upgraded.

The $150K buy a job scheme is what sux, you're not getting the best guys you're finding the guys who have the money and the result is Jet Star save **** loads of money by getting dirt cheap FO's for a year.

The industry in plagued with expenses and now you have this? $150K

They won't be getting the best guys for the job .... who has two arms some eye's and a big cheque book.

You can't pigeon hole the G.A. pilot and say he's only flown in the bush so he doesn't know airline flying. When I had 1500hrs I was flying a turbine IFR and shooting approaches all the time, plenty of G.A. guys do some decent flying and believe me IT DOES COUNT!

Cadet schemes traditionally were imposed to attract pilots because there wasn't enough applicants. There are loads of applicants for Jet Star in Australia but some of those poor buggers don't have $35K to dump on a type rating.

[Captain Sherm]

Sherm has lived and survived in at times hideously challenging foreign worlds of terrain, traffic, weather, poor english, non-precision approaches, night circling in snow etc etc etc and and shared some thousands of those hours with very very inexperienced Cadet trained F/Os. Far more challenging worlds than the worst stuff single pilot IFR OCTA ops get in Australia. The cadets did a good job.

I commend Scam Sniffer and Virginexcess for their posts. A very adequate summing up of the whole issue and very well written. Need to keep the focus. If it ever seems that pilots are trying to justify an industrial goal with an emotive safety argument then all credibility will be lost for good.

Safe Flying

Sherm

[mustman]

I agree with Krusty. This thing is terrible. These threads come up weekly at the moment with the same crap being discussed over and over again. :ugh:As usual to divisions between ourselves will be what kills us and Jetstar and others will happily move along doing whatever they want to pilots. Lube up cause here comes the pineapple!

Do you thing a L or P plate driver is as good on the road as everyone else? What L and P plate drivers and Cadets lack is experience!

I am not talking about how many millions of hours you have driven or flown, but how many "Oh F*ck!" situations you have got into. Bad weather, aircraft issues, rowdy/sick passengers. All these experiences help you become a better pilot and make you think outside the square and as a low hour pilot its only yourself that can make these decisions.

Sure the 200 hr cadets can be trained to a certain standard like an L or P plater. They will be able to get by most days, but give them a situation that hasn't been trained and how will they react?

In regards to people having more hours being harder to train. Well that is a generalisation. Some might be, some not. Again I compare it to driving. Just because someone has been driving for 40 years doesn't make them a good driver, but no doubt some might be very capable.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee361/mustman/JETSTAR.jpg

[Capt Toss Parker]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1029/jetstartail2.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/jetstartail2.jpg/)

[balance]

This is not a safety argument

Sorry. Yes it is.

In answer to your question about NDB's ILS's uncontrolled etc. These cadets at 300 odd hours are quite capable of operating aircraft such as MD 80's, 737's analogue or glass variants, on reverse arcs to LLZ approaches in mosoonal WX to the minimum. They are capable of (and are) operating into military airfields conducting GCA, PAR and ASR approaches. VOR approaches to the minima with circling to the rciprocal, at night in moutainous terrain. Operating in joint civil military airfields with parallel, contra rotating circuits, with 6 training jets in the circuit on the right runway doing left circuits while the civil runs a right circuit off the left runway. NDB's and OCTA, easy ****. Don't believe it? Been there done that. Get out and see what happens in the rest of the world.

Yup, I've been out there, seen and done that. I don't believe that I have seen what you describe above. If it does happen without my knowledge, then I'm very frightened by the possibility of a low hour captain flying an MD-80 with a 300 hour cadet pilot on an reverse arc to a LLZ approach in monsoonal weather at minimas.

I wouldn't put my wife or kids on that aeroplane. If you would, then you don't love them very much.

I cannot recall an accident where the flying pilot was an ex cadet, operating from the right seat. I can recall many accidents where the flying pilot was a low hour left seat.

Are you therefore suggesting that this is therefore a safe operation? Just because it hasn't happened? If so, then THAT is a worry.

I'd suggest that such an operation has a systemic LATENT failure, just waiting to rear its ugly head.

For me, placing the wife and kids on an aeroplane is the litmus test. At this stage, they won't be flying Jetstar.

[The The]

Cadet schemes can and do work. The essential requirement is very close supervision/oversight/monitoring/mentoring from the sponsoring airline at all stages of the cadets training.

Unfortunately this kind of supervision costs money and considerable time, and as we have seen with Jetstar's endorsement training, Jetstar put in minimal to no effort before the pilot turns up to work for Jetstar with the endorsement in hand.

That it appears Jetstar management view the cadet scheme as another revenue source to then provide a pool of cheap labour, indicates the scheme will be full of problems with poor outcomes.

[scam sniffer]

Balance.

Thank-you. You make my point.

This would be a serious safety issue with a low time left seat coupled with a no time right seat. In a proper operation this is mitigated by ensuring that an appropriately qualified left seat runs the show. (read lots of experience in the left seat.)

I too would be reluctant to put the wife and kids on a low time combination. If that is where J* appear to be headed, then there are tears in store.

My contention is that cadets, per se, are not a problem. Inappropriate matching of seat v experience IS.

But the real point of the current argument is about a company exploiting the weakness of the system, to improve it's bottom line, at the expense of qualified Australian, pilots. That is industrial and social equity. Not safety.

And BTW make up your mind.
Yup, I've been out there, seen and done that. I don't believe that I have seen what you describe above.

You can't have it both ways.;)

[1a sound asleep]

This is a horrific thing to say, so please excuse me.

NOTHING is going to happen until there is a fatal accident AND the ATSB report blames the accident on poor crew training/experience

So lets just keep or fingers crossed that nothing ever happens. In the meantime crew training will be for rich little spoilt brats born with a silver spoon in their mouth. These same little brats wouldn't even know what a dipstick was

[Michael Hunt]

Anyone who can seriously sit here and say they would rather have a kid with 200 hrs flying them from A to B than an experienced pilot is full of ****. I work at an airline that has had a cadet program running for years but the difference is that there is a rigorous selection process followed by an 18 month full time flight training course where quite a few guys wash out.
After that it's 3 or 4 years sitting in the observers seat learning the operation with no less than 6 sims per year with some rather nasty sim instructors and check captains.
Then if you get through all of that you upgrade to F/O but only after you pass an upgrade interview and no less than 40 sectors of line training.
Even after all of that we get the occasional guy slip through the cracks.
That is the difference between a real cadet program and what Jstar are doing.
The point of the matter is not whether cadetships work or not, they clearly do, but do you need them in Australia with an already huge pool of experienced guys who were motivated enough and passionate enough about flying that they willingly put themselves through the trials and tribulations of GA.
This Jstar scheme is purely a cost saving measure and in fact could be seen as a revenue raising measure by the more cynical of us.
Do we really want an industry based on selecting the best guys possible for the job or one where the job goes to the highest bidder.

[balance]

Well said, Mike.

[Lookleft]

As airlines are driven by customer sentiment I wonder how long it would take for a change in recruiting patterns if they were required to make an announcement that the flight being boarded will have a Cadet First Officer under training in the cockpit?

As a matter of interest given the pro and against stance:

AAIU Formal Report No2003/010
AAIU File No: 2002/0050 ]Published: 6th Aug 2003
Ryanair
Manufacturer: Boeing
Model: B737-204 ADV
Nationality: Irish
Registration: EI-CJE
Location: During climb out from Derry Airport.
Date/Time (UTC):28 September, 2002, 08.20 hours.
(First Officer)
Personal DetailsMale, Age 22
Licence CPL 343263
Total all types 382.25
(Commander)

Personal DetailsMale, Age 34

It is clear from the pilots debriefing into this incident that the pressurisation system controls were not in the normal configuration, at least from after take-off at 08.03Z to the resolution of the problem between 08.18Z and 08.24Z, when permission to climb to FL310 was requested. While the Captain’s decision to perform a “Bleeds Off” take-off was done in the interest of the relatively inexperienced FO, (this was his first such take-off), the Cross Cockpit Gradient of experience was quite steep in this instance. It was unfortunate that the additional switching prior and after take-off led to the FO describing retrospectively, in his own words, “mentally becoming overloaded with new information which potentially had serious effects”. And this, in effect, is what transpired. The FO switched the pack switches to OFF and this went unnoticed by the Captain in subsequent checks and ignored by the FO, until the aircraft levelled off at FL270. That all was not well was brought to the crews attention by the sounding of what they understood to be the configuration warning horn.

SERIOUS INCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: Airbus A320, G-DHJZ
No & Type of Engines: 2 CFM56-5B4/P turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 2003
Date & Time (UTC): 5 July 2007 at 1205 hrs
Location: Kos Airport, Greece
Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)
Persons on Board: Crew - 6 Passengers - 180
Injuries: Crew - None Passengers - None
Nature of Damage: Severe damage to main landing gear
Commander’s Licence: Air Transport Pilot’s Licence
Commander’s Age: 47 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 12,100 hours (of which 950 were on type)
Last 90 days - 174 hours
Last 28 days - 38 hours
Co-pilot’s Age 34 years
Co-pilot’s Flying Experience 381 hours (of which 147 were on type)
Last 90 days - 154 hours
Last 28 days - 49 hours
Synopsis
The aircraft landed heavily on Runway 32 at Kos Airport, causing substantial damage to the aircraft’s main landing gear. It touched down with a high rate of descent, following a late initiation of the flare by the co‑pilot, who was undergoing line training. Three safety recommendations are made.
Late in 2006, he attended selection tests for a ‘Cadetship’ programme offered by a commercial flying training organisation (FTO), in conjunction with the operator (of G-DHJZ)6; the tests were run by the training organisation. Under the scheme, a cadet would pay for a ‘Jet Bridge’7 course, type rating and 150 hours of line flying with the airline. Thereafter, there would be a possibility of employment should the airline concerned have any vacancies. The commercial training organisation paid the airline for its involvement in the training, enabling the airline to generate revenue through their training department,
Having cadet pilots is not risk free but if given good training and if the airline is properly resourced the risk is very much reduced. Of course after a period of time they do have the experience the risk is in the initial stages.

[desmotronic]

Pac2 and Artificialhorizon,
You both claim that low cost 200hr cadet jet copilots is how "the rest of the world" operates. This is absolutely false and you both know it.

:*

[scam sniffer]

Michael.

Anyone who can seriously sit here and say they would rather have a kid with 200 hrs flying them from A to B than an experienced pilot is full of ****.Anyone who can seriously sit here and say anyone has previously said that they would prefer a 200 hour cadet to an experienced pilot, is himself full of the same material.:ugh:

What has been said (or inferred) previously is that cadet systems are not inherently dangerous. Properly run and resourced they do work. Also has been said. Cadet systems are not required in this country due to the large pool of experienced pilots.

The point of it all is. If you wish to make, to the general public, an argument about the evil nature of J* plan, make sure it is based on sustainable fact. If you do not, you will lose all credibility with the target audience, and the outcome will not be what you are seeking, (with a great deal of support and empathy if I might add).

Do yourself a favor and reread the posts by those who have bothered to take a little time to lend a bit of advice, based on real world experience. Methinks we are in heated agreement on the core issues.:ok:

SS

[balance]

Scam, I think that there may be an agreement on most levels, Mike seems to infer that at his airline, they have realised that the 200 hour cadet requires substantial extra training and experience before the cadet can be deemed safe to operate as an F/O.

Qantas does the same thing.

cadet systems are not inherently dangerous. Properly run and resourced they do work.

Again, Qantas is an example of this. The point that is being made is clearly that the Jetstar program is a money making / saving scheme, and the incumbent cadets through no fault of their own, cannot be considered safe to be in the RHS of an A320. The Jetstar scheme IS inherently dangerous. It IS NOT properly resourced or run.

Jetstar need to realise this, before a tragedy occurs. Media, you need to read this and report it.

[scam sniffer]

Balance.

You still miss the point.

What Michaels company do and what Qantas do, is not terribly relevant to any argument as to what is safe and what is not. Those comapies undoubtably run a safe cadet program. That is not to say that the way they do it is the only way.

Any opponents will simply trot out data on what goes on in the rest of the world and shoot you down in flames if you have no sustainable/quantifiable rebuttal.

200 hour cadets are a fact of life the world over. Many other countries/companies run cadet schemes. Many of those do not have the second officer concept. Never have never will. They put their guys into the RHS with minimal hours.

The resourcing that is required to do that sucessfully includes the provision of properly trained and qualified supervisors. You cannot go and put a 200 hour cadet with a 1500 hour wunderkind that has been in airlines for 2 years who has been extremely fortunate with his timing. If the regulator cannot trust the operators, (or is too weak to impose on the operators), to supply appropriately qualified people there should be a mandated minimum "cockpit experience level", to avoid the shonks like J* producing dangerous pairings of crews. If the company does not have sufficient experienced crews the system wil not work, and they will be forced to cast their net wider and increse the recruiting requirements.

I reiterate, I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current Australian environment.

SS

[desmotronic]

200 hour cadets are a fact of life the world over.

How many in North America Scamsniffer?

[balance]

Fair enough, SS. Your point is understood, though, respectfully, I disagree with the concept that a 200 hour cadet is safe with anyone but a qualified check and trainer. And there just an't enough of those to go around. The fact that other airlines might do it is irelevant.

What they do elsewhere is their business. Their latent failures are their latent failures. Their accidents are their accidents.

I will reiterate too; I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current environment! If Qantas want to do this with Jetstar, then it should be done properly, and that does not involve 200 hour pilots in the RHS of an A320.

Do I have the data to back that up? Nope, I have 20,000 hours flying, checking, training, instructing and observing. That tells me it is inherently unsafe. It may not be sustainable / quantifiable right now, but it will be when they have a smoking hole in the ground.

Cheers!:ok:

[Sunfish]

So the cadet in front is using the B737 like I did when I learned?

I think a few bent firewalls, wingtip scrapes and broken landing gear will reverse the Jetstar program quickly.

[patienceboy]

(although what help cruising around in the sunshine VFR is, is anyone's guess).

Flying a C210 around the bush for 1500 hours has absolutely nothing to do with operating a commercial jet in airline operations.

These are misrepresentations of the amount and type of experience a GA pilot would normally accrue before even being considered for an interview with Jetstar et al.

I do not know of any 1500 hr C210 pilots who have been employed as 737/320 pilots. To the best of my knowledge, the majority are hired from regional multi-crew turboprops – with the odd one getting in with significant multi-piston IFR time. With a growing FIFO sector, some also have jet time. This type of experience is very valuable indeed.

To prove the relevance of this experience you just have to look at turbo-prop Captains who have successfully moved straight to the left seat of a commercial jet. ALL of the experience that they were able to draw from was GA.

Cadetships have their place, but if given the choice I do believe that a quality candidate with experience is better than a quality candidate without. Granted not ALL GA pilots are suitable – but a great number of them are.

[scam sniffer]

Balance

That is exactly the point. If they have insufficient properly qualified people to supervise, the whole thing falls in a heap. Proper resourcing!!!

Then they have to go out and do it the traditional way.

Desmo.

Wouldn't have a clue, but I did say earlier that it is not appropriate in the US and Aus due to the large pool of qualified drivers.

SS

[Cactusjack]

Sherm has lived and survived in at times hideously challenging foreign worlds of terrain, traffic, weather, poor english, non-precision approaches, night circling in snow etc etc etc and and shared some thousands of those hours with very very inexperienced Cadet trained F/Os.

Sherm has been flying JQ as Captain into Sydney ??

[teresa green]

200 hrs, well :mad: me. 200 hrs does not get you a flying instructors job. 200 hrs means you have not a freckin clue. A crook night, severe turbulence, the Skipper's taken a bait and feels like s%it, and you are going to hand over a jet with 300 people on board to someone who has 200 HOURS? I was still in nappies when I had 200 hours. I was still in nappies when I had 600 hours, on a DC3 for chris sakes. What about Airmanship, or does it not exist anymore. Old fashioned perhaps, boring, perhaps. What about standards, or don't they exist anymore either. What utter lunatic thought this up? Let me guess, a bean counter. THERE IS NO SIM IN THE WORLD THAT CAN TEACH YOU AIRMANSHIP. Airmanship was shown on the A380. Ditto the 400 with the oxy bottle hole. Pilots that had come thru the RAAF, where they were kicked up the arse until they learnt. And you tell me that some pimply kid whose daddy paid for him to get a guernsey, arrives in the RHS of a commercial jet, and the skipper is supposed to wear it. The aircraft is not freckin McDonalds. I hope on the first hull loss that the airline is charged with murder. Murder of 200 plus people, the reason being one pilot was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to operate a commercial jet. After all my years in the air, I can think of many occasions, how much I appreciated a good and experienced F/O, times when two experienced brains were needed to get out of a sticky situation. One and a quarter brain would not have done it. What the fcuk are they thinking.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Normasars]

TERESA

They are thinking $$$$$$$$$$$$ mate. That is all that counts my friend. Agreed 100% re the nappies thingy. I remember my first 12 months in the Dash 8 and I was lucky to have a handle on that after 600-700 hrs in it, that's after the 4500 odd I had prior to my first turbine F/O slot.

BUT, AND IT'S A BIG BUT, the difference between OZ and the rest of the world is this. We (OZ) have very benign weather and virtually zero terrain. 8/8ths blue most of the time and not much traffic. It is a relatively easy environment to operate in compared to Asia,N. America and Europe. European and Asian(reputable) carriers have cadet F/Os in the RHS, as has been pointed out, with very minimum experience and demonstrate day in day out that cadets are capable in all extremes of wx, terrain and traffic. Does it work in the rest of the world? Answer: YES.

I am sorry, but this parliamentary enquiry will be nothing but a big waste of $$$ and time. It will be business as usual and pilots are on a hiding to nothing.

[teresa green]

The solution is simple. All fourstripers in JQ refuse to fly with a button pusher. Turn up to sign on, if given a kid with bumfluff on his face, walk out. Demand a fully qualified F/O, or leave. It won't take long, before there is a turnaround, with A/C sitting on the ground. How would you like to go to work, knowing your work load is about to be doubled, and that is what you are going to get. Sure its fine if all is well, your mother in law could do the same job, but when the **** hits the fan, you need a competent well trained pilot, with plenty of experience behind him/her. I note some blogger has posted that GA pilots experience does not count, when joining a airline. Bollocks. A GA pilot has learnt airmanship, they have learnt to think for themselves, they have probably frightened the sh%t out of themselves on more than one occasion, all this gives them the background they require, to go onto the next learning curve. To think of the standards and safety that was installed in us, and to pass on to the next generation of PROFESSIONAL pilots, means sweet bugger all, and to hand over a commercial jet to a button pusher, beggers belief. I don't give a ratz what they do overseas, because it will eventually come home to haunt them, if somebody walks into fire, does it mean you have to follow them? And where the hell is CASA in all of this? I am ringing my MP. I suggest you all do the same.

[mcgrath50]

TG,

I would imagine that like the cabin crew being quizzed and found wanting (as described in the senate inquiry) so could the FO. If he passes, fine, if not stand him down.

[scam sniffer]

Teresa m'dear

Good to see your bristles are still intact.

I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.

I don’t agree that a self funded cadet scheme is the most appropriate way for things to go, in this country.

My bristles are raised when people with little experience of the concept or what happens by necessity, in other parts of the world, blacken the reputation of all cadets, by declaring that cadets are dangerous. World experience clearly shows that that is not the case. Cadet schemes are not a new invention, they have been around in various forms for nearly 50 years, that I am aware of. Some are good some are bad. Some put guys into the back seat, for eons, others put them into a window seat straight up. Sure the Left seat workload can be increased by such procedures, however with proper mitigation by use of properly qualified and experienced left seaters, by and large it runs successfully.

The point is, dear Teresa, the pilots of Australia wish to make a point about the mendacity of J*'s proposal to employ cadets from home and OS when we have a large pool of experienced pilots of the home grown variety, available. I totally agree, it is an insane concept. If they mount an argument based on emotion rather than sustainable fact, they will come to grief. Fight the proposal on grounds of social or industrial equity, something quantifiable. Rather than “ I had difficulty with a 310 at 500 hours so why should anyone else be any different”. Joe blow will simply tell you to piss off and get with the rest of the world.

Given a proper structure, quality training and meticulous mentoring and supervision, it can work. I suspect J*, on past history will be reluctant to devote the resources required.

Fight to ensure that the regulations, should they come to pass, are adequate to ensure the safety of the operation. This requires CASA to grow some balls and dictate, how it should occur, rather than taking it up the rear and doing what is asked. If proper conditions and requirements are put in place, and monitored by CASA, it will soon become apparent that it is quicker and cheaper to bring on the hordes of qualified guys already in the field. Once the economic scales are tipped, the scheme will disappear.

SS

PS How much time did the cadets who went through your original airline employer’s scheme spend in the back seat before they got a window seat?? Was that a dangerous operation?

PPS My background is originally GA. I was not a cadet. I was not Airforce. My parents did not pay a cent for my training. I had over 5000 hours when I joined airlines and have something over 25,000 now. I carry a torch for no-one. I believe I have seen enough to make an informed judgement. I believe that, for this argument to be sustained it needs to change direction away from emotion and towards sustainable facts.

SS

[breakfastburrito]

I am going to dip my oar in here. I have been vocal in the past with regard to the cadet systems. I have also mentioned I am agnostic as to background - GA/Airforce/Cadet.

What one has to remember is there are no free lunches in this world, merely the illusion that such a beast exists. There is always a price to pay. However, it is not alway obvious to the naïve what that price is.

For the potential cadet, on paper, things look rosy, frankly, it looks almost too good to be true (alarm bells should be ringing already). Airlines are business, and the managers can see a financial advantage by employing indebted cadets.
To learn more about this amazing new opportunityj* cadetship (http://ssl.jetstar.com/au/en/pilot-cadet-program.aspx)

It is left to the cadets imagination what this "opportunity" may actually be.

If you look carefully at the strategy being pursued by j*, it even before the last EBA management were very clear about the strategy to pay cadets far less (Junior First Officer) was in place . The offshore push will essentially allow management to offer a job on minimum wage, and cadets would have very little choice but to accept. If they don't like the offer, simple, pay back the training "sponsorship". This is straight out of the English LCC playbook.
If you were a prospective cadet without knowing someone close to the industry there is almost no chance you would establish the true facts of the matter.

So, in short, cadets may get a window seat, apparently jumping the queue, however, unless they come from a wealthy background they can expect to pay dearly for that seat for a decade or more. They can expect offshore contracts & brutal T&C's - this is their price. Those that choose GA pay-as-you-go model, will have longer to wait, but once in the a jet, a vast amount more flexibility & control over their career. They paid the price up front, but with no debt to an employer. Military guys have excellent training, great machines to fly, reasonable pay & good fringe benefits, but a significant return on service. That is their price.

As I said, there are no free lunches, the hard work & sacrifice must be put in at some point. This must be clearly understood, no matter which path is taken. There is no way around this fact, and those contemplating the cadetship should understand this, unfortunately, many will not until the noose is well and truly tightened around their neck.

[-438]

The reality is that cadets can be safe. All that is needed is an airline that understands the requirements for high quality training systems to be in place.
Will Jetstar provide the extensive training required to make these cadets safe?

To answer this question we need to ask why is Jetstar introducing a cadet scheme in Australia when there is a ready supply of pilots with experience, who also will need varying amounts of high quality training?

The answer is that Jetstar is introducing a cadet scheme so as these new pilots can reduce the airlines operating costs. Does this cost focused philosophy fit together with expensive high quality training that is required for a safe outcome?