Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas Recruitment

Old 10th Mar 2018, 02:58
  #1241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Queensland
Age: 35
Posts: 72
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.
Check_Thrust is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 06:40
  #1242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,739
Slippery Pete, a man after my own heart. I suspect you are trying to feed strawberries to pigs but I enjoyed it.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 07:10
  #1243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
Slippery Pete, a man after my own heart.


“Man” is too gender specific, didn’t you read the memo?

Feeding strawberries to pigs
I have never heard that before, what a great line. It will make an excellent addition to my usual “you can’t polish a turd”.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 07:29
  #1244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Check_Thrust View Post
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?
My current company's FOM has only two restrictions for logging ICUS:
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
ComradeRoo is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 23:43
  #1245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dirty South
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post
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?
Meh.

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.
JPJP is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 23:55
  #1246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by ufford View Post
You like to point out your/you’re yet write ‘whose’
instead of ‘who’s’.
Oh dear.

I don't think you're at the level where you can critique others...Just yet.
FLGOFF is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 00:01
  #1247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dirty South
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by FLGOFF View Post
Oh dear.

I don't think you're at the level where you can critique others...Just yet.
To soon ?


I apologize for contributing to the thread drift. Now, back to the topic of hopeful young thrusters and a kangaroo (that really didn’t sound quite how I meant it).
JPJP is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 03:24
  #1248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dubai
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Slippery_Pete View Post
Whose being? Your being, or my being?

To harsh? Where is that, I have never been there before.

Maybe they need to reconsider dropping the year 12 English requirement.
Haha, spelling police on Prune...would love to be sitting on your flightdeck, not. Get a life
EY_Airbus is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 04:33
  #1249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
.

...Numerous Asian crashes have involved MPL/Cadet pilots....
JPJP can you please cite some of these "numerous" Asian crashes that have involved MPL/Cadet pilots please?

Thanks

Fly Safe
PJ
Propjet88 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 05:37
  #1250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
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 ?
Not really. You were implying that the new generation of "autopilot babysitters" (ie cadets) are more likely to spear planes into the ground. I pointed out that pilots from varied backgrounds can spear jets in and save them through skills and quick thinking (yes the BA captain was a cadet, most in Europe are -
http://booking.virtualaviation.co.uk...structors.html)

If those guys in SFO didn't have a clue about hand flying and didn't understand systems logic that points to poor training and a poor culture of discouraging hand flying. That won't be rectified by not hiring cadets, if you read into a history of Korean aviation a lot of the issues that caused major crashes in the 80's and 90's had to do with former military pilots not fitting in with airline culture.
dr dre is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 06:45
  #1251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
One thing is clear, cadet programs and ICUS are purely a result of cost saving efforts. Not safety.[/QUOTE]

The JQ cadets get paid the same as direct entry pilots, have their type rating paid for and get 200hrs of line training instead of the standard 100.

They are more expensive to employ not cheaper!

Around 40 going through their training at Moorabbin as we speak.
Airbus A320321 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 07:19
  #1252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,739
get 200hrs of line training instead of the standard 100.
Line training on revenue flights is hardly a significant cost.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 08:13
  #1253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,582
Don’t they also get put on as junior FO’s on lesser pay until they reach like 1500hrs? Unlike a DEFO who will automatically start on normal FO pay?
morno is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 11:12
  #1254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by morno View Post
Don’t they also get put on as junior FO’s on lesser pay until they reach like 1500hrs? Unlike a DEFO who will automatically start on normal FO pay?
Nope, the JFO payscale was abolished in the latest (2015) EBA. All cadets are level 1 FO from day 1.

Last edited by Airbus A320321; 11th Mar 2018 at 21:25.
Airbus A320321 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 11:54
  #1255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,739
Haha, spelling police on Prune...would love to be sitting on your flightdeck, not. Get a life
I always laugh at these comments, especially when not directed at me.

EY Airbus, what his lack of grammar and spelling indicate is a lazy and not well educated mind. Slippery Pete was pointing that out not because he missed a letter here or there/their/they're.

I once watched two senior pilots arguing over the meaning of a paragraph in the CAR and it became obvious to me that one of them had no idea what the word "notwithstanding" meant, which was causing the confusion.

You can pour scorn on people who point this stuff out but in the context of QF dropping education requirements and the importance of literacy and comprehension given the large volume of reading we need to do I think it is important. Given the standard of writing I see in tech logs..."guage" "portable water" etc some people need help. So when I hear people at EBA time compare our profession to doctors and lawyers I laugh out loud.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2018, 12:21
  #1256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dubai
Posts: 45
EY Airbus, what his lack of grammar and spelling indicate is a lazy and not well educated mind.
Not a well educated mind?? That’s a bit unfair don’t you think? Lazy? Come on, we aren’t writing letters to the Queen here....more like responding on a smartphone with your non-preferred hand, whilst your other one is busy doing something far more important, like stirring a pot of lentils or pouring kitty litter into the litter tray.
EY_Airbus is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2018, 01:03
  #1257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 504
ICAO level 6...................
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2018, 16:10
  #1258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 138
Is anyone going to about anything productive which has relevance to this thread?
AviatoR21 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2018, 21:44
  #1259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
One Australian airline which had a reasonably successful ICUS program decided to use it as industrial leverage, banning it overnight to pressure FOs into signing a rubbish EBA offer.

Not only did the offer get voted down, now they’re massively short of upgradeable crew as a result.

Stupidity at its finest.

As for the cadet vs non cadet debate, it’s been done to death in PPRuNe a million times. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 10:04
  #1260 (permalink)  
rep
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 95
Looks like external recruitment has opened up again today.

Good luck to all those applying, with the new minimums it will be just as competitive as before.

It's a long process, but well worth it for those that make the cut!
rep is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.