QF S/O changes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF S/O changes
As from 1/1/05, per the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) standards which Qantas helped develop, S/Os will be cruise pilots only, and not able to act as either PF or PNF for arrivals and departures.
The restrictions actually imposed are more conservative than the standards QF helped develop.
Supposedly it will increase operational safety by eliminating the need for seat changes during those phases of flight. Training, individual skills, promotion success, team building and job satisfaction will suffer.
Presumably airlines that subscribe to IOSA standards save on insurance.
Before I make any more comments, whats everybodys view about this matter.
The restrictions actually imposed are more conservative than the standards QF helped develop.
Supposedly it will increase operational safety by eliminating the need for seat changes during those phases of flight. Training, individual skills, promotion success, team building and job satisfaction will suffer.
Presumably airlines that subscribe to IOSA standards save on insurance.
Before I make any more comments, whats everybodys view about this matter.
To my knowledge QF are the only airline that allow S/O’s in the control seat for climb and descent. Here at CX S/O’s are strictly cruise pilots only. In the seat at TOC and out by TOD. Does this make the job less interesting? Yes. Does this make the operation safer? In my opinion yes because quite frankly it is distracting changing seats at low level. Does this make it harder for S/O’s upgrading to F/O? Yes it does. The landing is the easy bit. Descent profile management takes practice. While doing it from the jump seat can help, actually operating from a control seat reinforces it.
There have been arguments here at CX about doing away with S/O’s all together and only having Capt’s and F/O’s. There were strong arguments that in the long run it would be cheaper as less flight crew would be needed. In the short term though costs would go through the roof and the training machine may not be able to keep up with the expansion requirement of the airline and converting all S/O’s to F/O’s. In the end it was dropped by management as unfeasible.
There have been arguments here at CX about doing away with S/O’s all together and only having Capt’s and F/O’s. There were strong arguments that in the long run it would be cheaper as less flight crew would be needed. In the short term though costs would go through the roof and the training machine may not be able to keep up with the expansion requirement of the airline and converting all S/O’s to F/O’s. In the end it was dropped by management as unfeasible.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 21st Dec 2004 at 06:15.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The safest place to change seats is on the ground
There is no legislative requirement that prohibits S/Os from acting as either PF or PNF for take-offs and landings - in fact, they're required to be endorsed to do so! (Although there are rumours that that too may change).
Of course, I don't like the chances for that ever becoming a reality (again)!
How long will it be before mandatory autolands will be considered 'world's best practice' in providing ultra-conservative safety protections. Although changes like these may provide quick-fix, and easily quantifiable increases in safety, what are the long term trade-offs?
I guess whatever program will follow from IOSA will deal with that!
Lancer
There is no legislative requirement that prohibits S/Os from acting as either PF or PNF for take-offs and landings - in fact, they're required to be endorsed to do so! (Although there are rumours that that too may change).
Of course, I don't like the chances for that ever becoming a reality (again)!
How long will it be before mandatory autolands will be considered 'world's best practice' in providing ultra-conservative safety protections. Although changes like these may provide quick-fix, and easily quantifiable increases in safety, what are the long term trade-offs?
I guess whatever program will follow from IOSA will deal with that!
Lancer
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that bugs me is the 'World's Best Practice' crap. This is a euphemism for 'one or two others do it so it must be a good idea and we won't have to do any research to justify it to anyone'. Of course, the company only uses 'World's Best Practice' when it suits or when it saves money.
With the inevitable further decreased skill level, I pity the next poor bugger who gets a field promotion (like has happened to a couple I know).
With the inevitable further decreased skill level, I pity the next poor bugger who gets a field promotion (like has happened to a couple I know).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the solution is.....?
Does anyone know if our VERY proactive union which looks after the interests of themselv....... err I mean the Pilots has had anything to say on the matter?
Being an optimist I would suspect they probably whole heartedly endoresed the company position.
Of course the S/Os as a group do have another option. (As in Animal Farm) They could revolt and have a REVOLUTION!
S/Os save QF a massive amount in $, as we are coming up to an EBA period, you are entitled to some extent (depending on how you go about it) to have industrial action of sorts (minor impact up to maximum impact of a strike). Other things you can do - work to rule, I believe you dont have to agree to various dispensations (via union agreement). Of course once again being an optimist I can see none of these things happening.
Another solution, short term and not ideal. Call an SGM, thats right it only requires 25 of you, get the Union to put pressure on the company to sgnificantly increase training to counter the loss of flying. And I mean training, not this wishy washy 15 mins at the end of a sim, or this bonus bogus warm up ILS.
Being an optimist I would suspect they probably whole heartedly endoresed the company position.
Of course the S/Os as a group do have another option. (As in Animal Farm) They could revolt and have a REVOLUTION!
S/Os save QF a massive amount in $, as we are coming up to an EBA period, you are entitled to some extent (depending on how you go about it) to have industrial action of sorts (minor impact up to maximum impact of a strike). Other things you can do - work to rule, I believe you dont have to agree to various dispensations (via union agreement). Of course once again being an optimist I can see none of these things happening.
Another solution, short term and not ideal. Call an SGM, thats right it only requires 25 of you, get the Union to put pressure on the company to sgnificantly increase training to counter the loss of flying. And I mean training, not this wishy washy 15 mins at the end of a sim, or this bonus bogus warm up ILS.
Perhaps the Company could purchase a fixed base sim and assign one or two 3 hour sim sessions per bid period (8 weeks) where a pair of S/O's could fly a 1 hour return flight (say Sydney-Melbourne or London-Frankfurt) without any non-normals and no assessments.
Just the usual stuff you find out on line. Maybe some turbulence. Maybe some tail wind turning final. Maybe some last minute speed restriction approaching top-of-descent. Just the usual stuff you get from day to day out on line.
Cost? How much will it cost not to do something like that?
Just the usual stuff you find out on line. Maybe some turbulence. Maybe some tail wind turning final. Maybe some last minute speed restriction approaching top-of-descent. Just the usual stuff you get from day to day out on line.
Cost? How much will it cost not to do something like that?
Nunc est bibendum
404Titan, it would be interesting to do a comparison of the operations and see just how vastly different CX and QF 'employ' their S/Os.
EG, how many sims do CX S/Os do per annum? I recall a rumour that you're doing a truck load more than the four our guys do. Is this correct?
Also, whilst you may carry S/Os, on the 'heavy' flights, you actually carry one Captain, two F/Os and a S/O. Is this correct? Compare this with QFs one, one and two.
I've got no qualms with putting the restrictioin in place. It is without the offset increase in training that irks me somewhat although that is available- in your own time, unpaid and probably at 0300 IF the sim time is available which it probably won't be for the next twelve months!
EG, how many sims do CX S/Os do per annum? I recall a rumour that you're doing a truck load more than the four our guys do. Is this correct?
Also, whilst you may carry S/Os, on the 'heavy' flights, you actually carry one Captain, two F/Os and a S/O. Is this correct? Compare this with QFs one, one and two.
I've got no qualms with putting the restrictioin in place. It is without the offset increase in training that irks me somewhat although that is available- in your own time, unpaid and probably at 0300 IF the sim time is available which it probably won't be for the next twelve months!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a mind-numbing job to a soul-destroying job.
How many sectors does it take a new SO to start harking back to his, not so distant, days in GA and how much fun it actually was to do some flying?
At least the pay is still good. Sell your soul and don't touch anything.
How many sectors does it take a new SO to start harking back to his, not so distant, days in GA and how much fun it actually was to do some flying?
At least the pay is still good. Sell your soul and don't touch anything.
Keg
From memory it was one sim session of four hours duration every two months. Sims 1,2,4 and 5 are recurrent training and 3 and 6 are IR and/or AR renewals.
You are quite correct about the 1 x capt, 2 x F/O’s and 1 x S/O for ULH. The company can though assign 1 x capt, 1 x F/O and 2 x S/O’s if it needs to. Australia isn’t ULH and only requires one of each for most.
From memory it was one sim session of four hours duration every two months. Sims 1,2,4 and 5 are recurrent training and 3 and 6 are IR and/or AR renewals.
You are quite correct about the 1 x capt, 2 x F/O’s and 1 x S/O for ULH. The company can though assign 1 x capt, 1 x F/O and 2 x S/O’s if it needs to. Australia isn’t ULH and only requires one of each for most.
May I ask, without incurring too much wrath, what an SO does (did) above 10K in the climb n descent, that is now gonna require extensive sim sessions to maintain the "skill" level?
Actually, QF could save even more money by providing a new SO-only simulator - 2 cans joined by string. Practice ya radio calls to ya hearts content. 
Actually, QF could save even more money by providing a new SO-only simulator - 2 cans joined by string. Practice ya radio calls to ya hearts content.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Third Rock
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a circus
Job satisfaction and morale down the S bend.
The best bit about it is the managmement believes any detrimental effect to be "perceived" It might be a perceived problem provided that additonal training is provided to maintain the skill base. But it wont be. The cynic suggests bean counters will want to reduce the endorsement training as it is now a cruise only endorsement!!! That will allow the CP to sell off more simulator time to generate revenue! (A stated objective)
Don't worry fellas Ops management believe that you should "volunteer" for additonal observations and support duties in the simulator..Imagine the Unions' reponse if Captains were told this???
The best bit about it is that the approach is "operationally conservative"! It may well be to not let a 5,000 hour GA or regional driver in the seat, it may be smart not to allow a 2,000 hour fast jet military driver in the seat...But hey at J* asia let's throw 150 hour cadets n the right hand seat as FO's.
It would be funny if it weren't so stupid
The best bit about it is the managmement believes any detrimental effect to be "perceived" It might be a perceived problem provided that additonal training is provided to maintain the skill base. But it wont be. The cynic suggests bean counters will want to reduce the endorsement training as it is now a cruise only endorsement!!! That will allow the CP to sell off more simulator time to generate revenue! (A stated objective)
Don't worry fellas Ops management believe that you should "volunteer" for additonal observations and support duties in the simulator..Imagine the Unions' reponse if Captains were told this???
The best bit about it is that the approach is "operationally conservative"! It may well be to not let a 5,000 hour GA or regional driver in the seat, it may be smart not to allow a 2,000 hour fast jet military driver in the seat...But hey at J* asia let's throw 150 hour cadets n the right hand seat as FO's.
It would be funny if it weren't so stupid
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stage Coach driving without going up and down hills!
OK, so the SO tasks have not changed. They are only allowed to perform such tasks whilst in the cruise. ie. near level flight. Hmmmm so the additional training required should include performing the said tasks on an "Incline" be it a positive or negative incline.
Perhaps ggrowlers suggestion of 2 tin cans joined together by a string combined with the added pressure of using such a device whilst operating a play park see-saw could be put forward.
bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
OK, so the SO tasks have not changed. They are only allowed to perform such tasks whilst in the cruise. ie. near level flight. Hmmmm so the additional training required should include performing the said tasks on an "Incline" be it a positive or negative incline.
Perhaps ggrowlers suggestion of 2 tin cans joined together by a string combined with the added pressure of using such a device whilst operating a play park see-saw could be put forward.
bbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management's suggesting of observing sim sessions is clutching at straws (might as well go & play MS flight sim at home), and it amazes me that they seem to think that free fixed-base sim sessions grow on trees (they're as rare as rocking-horse ****).
As is generally the case, they will get a product proportional to the training resources and quality of flying experience they allocate to it. But I do wonder if they realise this (or care).
As is generally the case, they will get a product proportional to the training resources and quality of flying experience they allocate to it. But I do wonder if they realise this (or care).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why all the noise about this ?
QF and the safety audit are worried about an SO in the control seat at low level, yet they don't seem to be worried about putting a 250 hr cadet into the RHS of the Airbus with Jet* Asia !
A bit double standard to me.
Most of the SO's in QF have heaps of outside experience.
QF and the safety audit are worried about an SO in the control seat at low level, yet they don't seem to be worried about putting a 250 hr cadet into the RHS of the Airbus with Jet* Asia !
A bit double standard to me.
Most of the SO's in QF have heaps of outside experience.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is at least 120 SO's on the 400 that have more window seat experience in jets than the average FO.
I recently did a trip where the two SO's individually had more sectors in Jets than the Capt and FO combined.
I recently applied to jetstar asia, having previous Airbus experience but was not considered in favour of 250 hour cadets.
I recently did a trip where the two SO's individually had more sectors in Jets than the Capt and FO combined.
I recently applied to jetstar asia, having previous Airbus experience but was not considered in favour of 250 hour cadets.