QFLINK drops minimums
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Qlink FO's have Command Instrument Ratings, and a co-pilot Dash8 endorsement . When in the right hand seat, they log Co-pilot hours. They go straight onto your Total Time without discount. They are reduced 50% when calculating total Aeronautical Experience. They do not add to your time in command, ICUS or otherwise.
So it's a good point about these guys who have zip command time. The thing is, they won't end up as captains with Qflink.
So it's a good point about these guys who have zip command time. The thing is, they won't end up as captains with Qflink.
Last edited by WynSock; 14th May 2007 at 06:58.
WynSock
Unless QLink give them a P1 endorsement which allows them to log ICUS. After all the cost difference between a P1 and P2 rating is negligible and who is paying for the endorsement?
So it's a good point about these guys who have zip command time. The thing is, they won't end up as captains with Qflink.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough Munt - no need to get snappy
Do I understand correctly...that the company assigns the FO authority to act as the commander of the aircraft?
Is the FO then responsible for the (supervised) command decisions relating to the flight etc?
Or just the permission to log the time as ICUS?
Not a pisstake - legitimate curiosity.
Do I understand correctly...that the company assigns the FO authority to act as the commander of the aircraft?
Is the FO then responsible for the (supervised) command decisions relating to the flight etc?
Or just the permission to log the time as ICUS?
Not a pisstake - legitimate curiosity.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 500 PIC requirement? I'm not sure but what I mean is that the cadets (
am I allowed to say that here?) won't be in the company long enough to move into a command. I'm not even sure they would be entitled to a seniority number. (?)
am I allowed to say that here?) won't be in the company long enough to move into a command. I'm not even sure they would be entitled to a seniority number. (?)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter guy looking to cross
G'day fellas,
Just wondering if anyone could give me a little advice on transferring my rotary skills across to the fixed wing world. I have mainly multi-engine rotary time
I see the minimums for QFLink lowering as an opportunity, so would like to target Sunstate. What I need is the fixed wing multi time. I am in Brisbane and would appreciate any assistance in locating someone that could offer me a whole bunch of multi-engine fixed wing co-pilot time (180 hrs). I have MECIR (fixed wing), but not much time in command of fixed-wing multi-engine. I have plenty in command of rotary wing.
I've not had luck with QFLINK recruitment info email address, so would appreciate anyone on the inside willing to discuss a number of the issues with me.
I would prefer PMs.
Thanks in advance.
Just wondering if anyone could give me a little advice on transferring my rotary skills across to the fixed wing world. I have mainly multi-engine rotary time
I see the minimums for QFLink lowering as an opportunity, so would like to target Sunstate. What I need is the fixed wing multi time. I am in Brisbane and would appreciate any assistance in locating someone that could offer me a whole bunch of multi-engine fixed wing co-pilot time (180 hrs). I have MECIR (fixed wing), but not much time in command of fixed-wing multi-engine. I have plenty in command of rotary wing.
I've not had luck with QFLINK recruitment info email address, so would appreciate anyone on the inside willing to discuss a number of the issues with me.
I would prefer PMs.
Thanks in advance.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condition Lever.... I don't f
g know! I never thought of that angle!
I suppose if the company authorises you for that purpose....but then again, who is supervising if the skipper is in the crew rest? Another FO? Another Captain?? The CSM??
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, pilots can log WTF they like in their log book! If it makes them feel better to log command, when someone else's @rse is on the line and responsible for the aeroplane, and they're not under command training, let them fill their boots!
Whatever trips your trigger
g know! I never thought of that angle!I suppose if the company authorises you for that purpose....but then again, who is supervising if the skipper is in the crew rest? Another FO? Another Captain?? The CSM??
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, pilots can log WTF they like in their log book! If it makes them feel better to log command, when someone else's @rse is on the line and responsible for the aeroplane, and they're not under command training, let them fill their boots!
Whatever trips your trigger
Toluene Diisocyanate:
Bollocks ol' mate, there's a bloke starting with Eastern on Monday who only satisfies the new requirements. Off the top of my head he's got about 1400hrs total and 350 multi command. That didn't take long did it! Surely there's gotta be more on the way.
TL
The only reason the minimums were dropped is to permit cadets to fly as FOs. They're in sunstate now and easterns very soon.
Bet not too many non cadets with such low hours get in.
Don't get yer hopes up. This is just more hypocrisy from the dark side.
Bet not too many non cadets with such low hours get in.
Don't get yer hopes up. This is just more hypocrisy from the dark side.
TL
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question Jet A:
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision.
So, you don't have to be authorised to act in command, you have to be authorised to AICUS. To this end, FOs are authorised.
Originally, endorsing FOs with command ratings enabled them to fly with SOs (only copilot endorsed), with the CPT in the bunk. The CPT is still the PIC, and still logs command time even if they're asleep. It doesn't matter whether anyone is a training captain or not, as long as the ICUS requirements are met.
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the aircraft as
pilot acting in command under supervision.
So, you don't have to be authorised to act in command, you have to be authorised to AICUS. To this end, FOs are authorised.
Originally, endorsing FOs with command ratings enabled them to fly with SOs (only copilot endorsed), with the CPT in the bunk. The CPT is still the PIC, and still logs command time even if they're asleep. It doesn't matter whether anyone is a training captain or not, as long as the ICUS requirements are met.
Last edited by *Lancer*; 25th May 2007 at 00:37.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet A
Sorry, who is now getting snappy???
The fact is that CASA allows for FOs to log ICUS under the direction of their company's SOPs (refer to the relevant CAO).
Guess what, I hold a command endorsement (as an FO) on the aircraft I fly and regardless of whether the Captain is in the seat or not I am allowed to log ICUS on the sectors that I fly as is allowed by my company SOPs.
If I make a decision the Captain doesn't like, he explains why he would prefer it his way and I learn from that. If I disagree etc, etc, etc.... use of common sense CRM. Thread drift....
Regardless, Lancer is correct and that is why there is another column in your log book so that you may log ICUS - not command time as you allude to.
Sorry, who is now getting snappy???
The fact is that CASA allows for FOs to log ICUS under the direction of their company's SOPs (refer to the relevant CAO).
Guess what, I hold a command endorsement (as an FO) on the aircraft I fly and regardless of whether the Captain is in the seat or not I am allowed to log ICUS on the sectors that I fly as is allowed by my company SOPs.
If I make a decision the Captain doesn't like, he explains why he would prefer it his way and I learn from that. If I disagree etc, etc, etc.... use of common sense CRM. Thread drift....
Regardless, Lancer is correct and that is why there is another column in your log book so that you may log ICUS - not command time as you allude to.
Condition Lever - let me get this straight - your company Ops manual states that when you are the handling pilot for that sector you may log ICUS ?
This sounds a little odd to me as ICUS by definition requires some for of direct supervision does it not ? In my co. ICUS is only logged during actual command line training but the PF sectors are still shared by the by the trainee Captain and the Training Captain.
This sounds a little odd to me as ICUS by definition requires some for of direct supervision does it not ? In my co. ICUS is only logged during actual command line training but the PF sectors are still shared by the by the trainee Captain and the Training Captain.
Nunc est bibendum
Slice, from the QF FAM.
There is another burst a bit later that provides more info. Two specific points relate to this discussion:
If I recall correctly then Condition Lever is with J* but I'm pretty sure they're the same as QF in this regard. I hope that assists.
First Officer line flying time can be logged as ICUS when the First Officer has a Command type endorsement on the aircraft, and is also flying the sector.
- All Captains (essentially, one caveat for Captains on their first 12 sectos in command) are authorised to suerpvise ICUS sectors being operated by F/Os.
- A takeoff or landing that is relinquished to the PIC due to marginal weather, crosswind limitations or non-normal configurations are not to be logged as ICUS sectors.
If I recall correctly then Condition Lever is with J* but I'm pretty sure they're the same as QF in this regard. I hope that assists.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condition Lever - more foul mouthed - than snappy
Thanks Keg.......So, using ICUS as described, what is inherently co-pilot time is logged at 'full value' instead of contibuting 50% of total aeronautical experience.
It still seems to be no more than creative accounting to me.
Thanks Keg.......So, using ICUS as described, what is inherently co-pilot time is logged at 'full value' instead of contibuting 50% of total aeronautical experience.
It still seems to be no more than creative accounting to me.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, - the only difference at J* is that ICUS can only be supervised by a Check or Trng Capt.
Keg - it looks like we might all be in AIPA together.
I am looking forward to their pitch, I hope that they can sell being unbiased.
Keg - it looks like we might all be in AIPA together.
I am looking forward to their pitch, I hope that they can sell being unbiased.
Nunc est bibendum
I must say that 9/10 sectors that I fly as ICUS are actually ICUS and everything from the 'tone' of the day through to active and ongoing management of the flight is left to the F/O.
Some may consider it creative accounting but the reality is that for some it's a very effective developmental tool.
Some may consider it creative accounting but the reality is that for some it's a very effective developmental tool.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the reality is that for some it's a very effective developmental tool.
A QUESTION:
Is the co-pilot appointed to the flight for the purpose of Pilot in Command by the company??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My arse crack
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the sounds of it I think you would be snapped up. If you do a search I think previous posts have people talking around the $80K mark for a Capt.
Surveillance Australia is also another potential employer.
Surveillance Australia is also another potential employer.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Qlink possibly opening a can of worms for themselves re: loyalty with regard to this?
500 hrs multi command (along with perhaps another 150 or so multi ICUS that the operator provided to get a low time pilot to the point of being commercially useful) neatly added up to approximately a years service with a GA operator. Not an unreasonable expectation from either party.
If a new hire jumps ship from their current GA employer on 250hrs multi to join Qlink, there is a fair chance that they have just reneged on an agreement to serve out a minimum 12 mths with that employer.
At the very least that fact should guarantee a very curly question from the panel on interview day.
If it doesn't raise an eyebrow, then Qlink would appear to be giving tacit approval to cutting and running. Surely this will return to bite them when the new hire bolts with 500hrs RHS turbine in 8 or 9 months. After all they've paid for the endorsement...?
A deferred solution to the problem at best.
500 hrs multi command (along with perhaps another 150 or so multi ICUS that the operator provided to get a low time pilot to the point of being commercially useful) neatly added up to approximately a years service with a GA operator. Not an unreasonable expectation from either party.
If a new hire jumps ship from their current GA employer on 250hrs multi to join Qlink, there is a fair chance that they have just reneged on an agreement to serve out a minimum 12 mths with that employer.
At the very least that fact should guarantee a very curly question from the panel on interview day.
If it doesn't raise an eyebrow, then Qlink would appear to be giving tacit approval to cutting and running. Surely this will return to bite them when the new hire bolts with 500hrs RHS turbine in 8 or 9 months. After all they've paid for the endorsement...?
A deferred solution to the problem at best.
Last edited by Kingswood; 26th May 2007 at 20:53.