Qantas Recruitment
LB,
Thanks for the info.
No timeline yet for revealing this plan to the industry ? "... guaranteed placement with one of the majors." is a pretty strong statement so one would assume at least one US "major" would have to have been involved from the start.
It's known that the USAF and airlines have been chatting for quite a while about "sharing" pilots but to my knowledge, no definitive plan has been reached...and everything that's been said didn't admit to involving foreign nationals.
I wouldn't expect the "experienced" foreign nationals would be available in sufficient numbers to turn the tide to either the benefit of the USAF or an airline.
Can't wait to see this one hit the fan.
Thanks for the info.
No timeline yet for revealing this plan to the industry ? "... guaranteed placement with one of the majors." is a pretty strong statement so one would assume at least one US "major" would have to have been involved from the start.
It's known that the USAF and airlines have been chatting for quite a while about "sharing" pilots but to my knowledge, no definitive plan has been reached...and everything that's been said didn't admit to involving foreign nationals.
I wouldn't expect the "experienced" foreign nationals would be available in sufficient numbers to turn the tide to either the benefit of the USAF or an airline.
Can't wait to see this one hit the fan.
I’ll eat my hat but I can’t see it happening for a myriad of reasons.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dubai
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your being to harsh, otherwise the same could be said everytime your FO has had to assist or suggest.....shall PIC time be deducted from you on those occasions?
You said it!
Not Q-link, not Jetconnect, not Jetstar, not Sunstate, not Eastern etc, but QF Mainline Second Officer internal recruitment has begun again.
While the recruitment processes may be similar, &/or driven by the same ‘group’ HR machine, ‘internal’ applicants are extended the courtesy of priority ‘mainline’ processing at the start. Those ‘internals’ accepted into QF Mainline are often given far more notice of a start date than others, and their seniority begins when they start on a new/different seniority list. (I too can confirm that it hasn’t always been that way.)
What makes you think that there are not eminently suitable candidates from outside the group also deserving of a seniority number on a list in whatever order the ‘owners’ decide? When they too start sounds eminently fair to me!😉
Perhaps some want to be able to have their cake and eat it too? I had no idea that starting a career in Dash 8s, 717s, A320s etc was so much worse than GA on night freight, teaching foreign & Aussie cadets at Moorabin/Jandakot etc, the Kimberleys, PNG, RAAF, ......🤔🙄
Not Q-link, not Jetconnect, not Jetstar, not Sunstate, not Eastern etc, but QF Mainline Second Officer internal recruitment has begun again.
While the recruitment processes may be similar, &/or driven by the same ‘group’ HR machine, ‘internal’ applicants are extended the courtesy of priority ‘mainline’ processing at the start. Those ‘internals’ accepted into QF Mainline are often given far more notice of a start date than others, and their seniority begins when they start on a new/different seniority list. (I too can confirm that it hasn’t always been that way.)
What makes you think that there are not eminently suitable candidates from outside the group also deserving of a seniority number on a list in whatever order the ‘owners’ decide? When they too start sounds eminently fair to me!😉
Perhaps some want to be able to have their cake and eat it too? I had no idea that starting a career in Dash 8s, 717s, A320s etc was so much worse than GA on night freight, teaching foreign & Aussie cadets at Moorabin/Jandakot etc, the Kimberleys, PNG, RAAF, ......🤔🙄
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone from Qlink been to the EOI meetings they've held recently? I'm wondering if the 18 month return of service is still expected - can you apply now and be 'released' once you've met it?
I'm pretty new and not in a rush to move, but it seems it might be worth getting in the queue.
I'm pretty new and not in a rush to move, but it seems it might be worth getting in the queue.
My point is most airlines don’t have proper ICUS training paths and most standard line Captains don’t give a toss or treat a cadet PF sector as ICUS. To the contrary actually, yet they still sign the log book as it was ICUS. This is my point, so FO’s become Captains with no real command time. Yes the upgrade course sorts out a lot of issues.
The industry has changed due to demand. Correct me if I’m wrong but in the past when you got into QF if you didn’t have 500 multi command you had to go and get it! Not be given it.......
Am I to harsh? But then again we are flying highly automated sophisticated machines now, takes away a lot of the skill level. Oh hang on what if Sully hadn’t the past experience or Capt Gimli Glider... Oh SFO you ask, hangon it was severe CAVOK.
Back to the topic if you get the chance to get into the legacy you want get in NOW get that seniority number then play with LWOP, reduced rosters or whatever but you are just a nunber and the lower that number the better for you!
or treat a cadet PF sector as ICUS.
allowing the pilot in the RHS logging PF time as ICUS as opposed to
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from a command upgrade program - ICUS is merely a backdoor invented by ICAO to allow CPL holders to get to ATPL level without having enough command hours. The meaning was extended because of cadetship programs, as an average cadet will not have more than 100-120 hours of real command time at the end of the program. For a former cadet, ICUS time is only relevant until ATPL PIC time requirement is covered.
There are no restrictions for logging ICUS after getting up to ATPL reqs - it becomes a simple designator between PF/PNF legs up until FO gets promoted and starts a real command training. Only at this point in time ICUS becomes what it is supposed to be: command under supervision.
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
There are no restrictions for logging ICUS after getting up to ATPL reqs - it becomes a simple designator between PF/PNF legs up until FO gets promoted and starts a real command training. Only at this point in time ICUS becomes what it is supposed to be: command under supervision.
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
Apart from a command upgrade program - ICUS is merely a backdoor invented by ICAO to allow CPL holders to get to ATPL level without having enough command hours. The meaning was extended because of cadetship programs, as an average cadet will not have more than 100-120 hours of real command time at the end of the program. For a former cadet, ICUS time is only relevant until ATPL PIC time requirement is covered.
There are no restrictions for logging ICUS after getting up to ATPL reqs - it becomes a simple designator between PF/PNF legs up until FO gets promoted and starts a real command training. Only at this point in time ICUS becomes what it is supposed to be: command under supervision.
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
There are no restrictions for logging ICUS after getting up to ATPL reqs - it becomes a simple designator between PF/PNF legs up until FO gets promoted and starts a real command training. Only at this point in time ICUS becomes what it is supposed to be: command under supervision.
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
In other aviation circles, ICUS was/is usually a means to meet client/contract/insurance requirements but the ICUS pilot held the necessary license and quals/type ratings etc to otherwise legally be sitting in the PIC seat.
So did the BA crew who glided a jet to landing in Heathrow who got their first jobs in jets need past non jet experience to land it safely? Or if the Gimli Captain’s prior gliding experience is what made the difference why isn’t that a mandatory part of the ATPL syllabus? Or the countless crews with prior experience who’ve made mistakes that have cost lives, do we count that against them? Like the SFO case, wasn’t the instructor, the guy who was supposed to be in command of the situation, an experienced ex-Korean air force pilot?
There are no restrictions for logging ICUS after getting up to ATPL reqs - it becomes a simple designator between PF/PNF legs up until FO gets promoted and starts a real command training. Only at this point in time ICUS becomes what it is supposed to be: command under supervision.
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
PS: I still don't get how is it relevant to the thread subject
Are you sure there are no restrictions? I can't speak for the company that you work for and there policies however from the CASR:
61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person's flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator's Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
(1) A person's flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator's Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
61.085 Definition of flight time as co-pilot for Part 61
A person's flight time as a co-pilot is any period, during flight in an aircraft that, under these Regulations, must be flown with a flight crew of at least 2 pilots, in which the person is performing co-pilot duties other than as pilot in command under supervision.
Note: A co-pilot is a pilot on board an aircraft in a piloting capacity other than the pilot in command or a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training: see the definition of co-pilot in Part 1 of the Dictionary
A person's flight time as a co-pilot is any period, during flight in an aircraft that, under these Regulations, must be flown with a flight crew of at least 2 pilots, in which the person is performing co-pilot duties other than as pilot in command under supervision.
Note: A co-pilot is a pilot on board an aircraft in a piloting capacity other than the pilot in command or a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training: see the definition of co-pilot in Part 1 of the Dictionary
This discussion makes me wonder if that in operations that have SOs if the SO logs any ICUS when they occupy a control seat and are PF.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I am not sure of its thread relevance but I do want to respond to your above mentioned comment that I've put in bold.
Are you sure there are no restrictions? I can't speak for the company that you work for and there policies however from the CASR:
and
As I said I can't specifically speak for your company's policies however if all the FOs are logging ICUS for their PF sectors I hope the captains are being paid accordingly for a supervisory pilot roll as they will have to meet the requirements of 61.095 - 2(b). Do the said captains also fill out an ICUS report on the FO at the completion of flight as well?
This discussion makes me wonder if that in operations that have SOs if the SO logs any ICUS when they occupy a control seat and are PF.
Are you sure there are no restrictions? I can't speak for the company that you work for and there policies however from the CASR:
and
As I said I can't specifically speak for your company's policies however if all the FOs are logging ICUS for their PF sectors I hope the captains are being paid accordingly for a supervisory pilot roll as they will have to meet the requirements of 61.095 - 2(b). Do the said captains also fill out an ICUS report on the FO at the completion of flight as well?
This discussion makes me wonder if that in operations that have SOs if the SO logs any ICUS when they occupy a control seat and are PF.
That is the way we do it.
All captains are so authorised (once landee qualified)
If your knickers are in a knot about Qantas policy, then : don’t apply!
I think your being to harsh
To harsh? Where is that, I have never been there before.
Maybe they need to reconsider dropping the year 12 English requirement.
Last edited by Slippery_Pete; 10th Mar 2018 at 06:56.
Tankengine,
I think you have missed the point I was getting at. ComradeRoo had stated that once one has obtained ATPL requirements that there is no restrictions on logging ICUS, I was pointing out that there is. I did also state that I was unaware of his/her company's policies. If it is allowed by said company's policies and they have duly authorised their captains in this capacity so be it, no nickers in a knot over that. I was just merely mentioning the requirements of CASA regarding the logging of ICUS.
I think you have missed the point I was getting at. ComradeRoo had stated that once one has obtained ATPL requirements that there is no restrictions on logging ICUS, I was pointing out that there is. I did also state that I was unaware of his/her company's policies. If it is allowed by said company's policies and they have duly authorised their captains in this capacity so be it, no nickers in a knot over that. I was just merely mentioning the requirements of CASA regarding the logging of ICUS.
Slippery Pete, a man after my own heart.
“Man” is too gender specific, didn’t you read the memo?
Feeding strawberries to pigs
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said I can't specifically speak for your company's policies however if all the FOs are logging ICUS for their PF sectors I hope the captains are being paid accordingly for a supervisory pilot roll as they will have to meet the requirements of 61.095 - 2(b). Do the said captains also fill out an ICUS report on the FO at the completion of flight as well?
1. FO has to have at least 1000hrs total time
2. Captain has to have at least 1000hrs on type to be able to supervise.
Captain signs separate ICUS flight log after each PF leg. Also, there are no restrictions on maximum ICUS hours. As long as the captain is happy - it goes into the log.
Part 61 (or the way I read it) states pretty much the same: If there is a PIC on board authorised and happy to supervise - log ICUS hours when PF. No legal restrictions. Perhaps there are differences in our FOMs
My main point was that ICUS time beyond ATPL reqs (even though one can clock it up depending on policies) becomes irrelevant. But it is an easy way of separating PF legs in a logbook and has nothing to do with real command hours.
In terms of extra pay - why? Is it that much different from normal captain duties? Supervision is in cap's job description.
LTC, however, is a different story and get extra pay. But again - company policies.
With SOs - technically they are Cruise Relief First Officers. So no ICUS as they do not perform full range of duties on board... imo
Last edited by ComradeRoo; 10th Mar 2018 at 07:57. Reason: removed extra quotes
No, the 500hrs multi command requirement is for low capacity RPT. High capacity RPT is just an ATPL. There have been plenty of captains flying in a Australia who had no command hours since CPL training.
So did the BA crew who glided a jet to landing in Heathrow who got their first jobs in jets need past non jet experience to land it safely? Or if the Gimli Captain’s prior gliding experience is what made the difference why isn’t that a mandatory part of the ATPL syllabus? Or the countless crews with prior experience who’ve made mistakes that have cost lives, do we count that against them? Like the SFO case, wasn’t the instructor, the guy who was supposed to be in command of the situation, an experienced ex-Korean air force pilot?
So did the BA crew who glided a jet to landing in Heathrow who got their first jobs in jets need past non jet experience to land it safely? Or if the Gimli Captain’s prior gliding experience is what made the difference why isn’t that a mandatory part of the ATPL syllabus? Or the countless crews with prior experience who’ve made mistakes that have cost lives, do we count that against them? Like the SFO case, wasn’t the instructor, the guy who was supposed to be in command of the situation, an experienced ex-Korean air force pilot?
Using Asiana at SFO was a poor choice - they crashed that aircraft because neither had a clue about hand flying a jet. Coupled with a lack of understanding of the auto throttle logic. They lacked applicable experience - see where I’m going ?
The BA Captain did a stellar job. In fact, raising the flaps one notch is exactly what a glider pilot would do. Was he a pure cadet ? Yes, I think gliding should be a first step in pilot training. Especially for a cadet. The Germans did it for their fighter pilots prior to and during WW2. Until they ran out of pilots and time.
Remember those two Air France pilots that stalled an A330 into the ocean ? Both cadets. They’d been babysitting an autopilot their whole career. Numerous Asian crashes have involved MPL/Cadet pilots.
I find Qantas hard to fault in terms of training and safety. Hopefully their cadet programs won’t produce a negative result in the future. One thing is clear, cadet programs and ICUS are purely a result of cost saving efforts. Not safety.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
