Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Are the minimum hours in the right hand seat dropping?

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

Are the minimum hours in the right hand seat dropping?

Old 27th Mar 2019, 22:09
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Qld
Posts: 2
Good on you Dick for asking a simple valid question

Certainly did not have to venture too far to get answers good and bad
mudguard01 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 23:55
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
I don't know whether the rellos of the Ethiopian pax would agree...
mate, your’e an idiot if you are suggesting that the FO’s experience was the cause of that accident since you would have to able to know what caused that accident. That’s like saying that the Qantas 747 that went off the runway in BKK had an experienced crew onboard so that is proof that too many hours is a bad thing.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 23:57
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by The Bullwinkle View Post


No issues???
Do tell, what are all the issues then caused by 200 hour FO’s that don’t have just as many corresponding occurrences with crews of higher experience? I await the comprehensive list.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 00:25
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: between 20 & 30 000'
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by wheels_down View Post

We haven’t reached that stage quite yet but it will probably bite in about 20 odd years when the majority of domestic captains retire, to be replaced with the current wave of cadets. Jetstar are now starting upgrades the initial batch of cadets.

The experienced captain of the next few decades that have gone GA-Charter-Regional => Airbus/Boeing....will be few and far I’m afraid.
I agree, my comment was not aimed specifically at Aus but more at a worldwide level, Europe has seen this for at least 20 years, SE Asia as well.
gtseraf is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 00:36
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
Think of a pyramid with Australia having a large number of pilots in smaller aircraft at the bottom and a small number in airliners at the top, in many countries that gets inverted.
Sort of, but in truth there’s probably more pilots in airliners here as well compared to smaller GA aircraft. The GA sector has declined considerably over time, and there’s no way airlines would meet their crewing requirements even if they vacuumed all suitable pilots out of GA.

And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago.
dr dre is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 01:33
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 200
Fixed wing pilot numbers with current medical at last financial year:
Air transport 7,304; Commercial 5,091; Commercial (CASA EX25/18)a 4,303; Private 9,004
Vag277 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 02:18
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,348
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion View Post

Do tell, what are all the issues then caused by 200 hour FO’s that don’t have just as many corresponding occurrences with crews of higher experience? I await the comprehensive list.
People getting confused between gear levers and flap levers and moving the wrong one. People moving the flaps in the wrong direction just to name a few. Have a look at the ATSB reports there are a few in there.

And it’s not as if this is a thing that’s just happened recently. QF, Q-Link, VA, VARA, Rex, JQ, Ansett, Cobham, Maroomba, Airnorth, Sharp, Skippers, O’Connors, MacAir, are just some of the airlines in this country I can remember, past and present, who have put well selected and trained low houred pilots into Turboprops and Jets. They started doing this not recently, but over 50 years ago.
The vast majority of that list needed 3000 hours plus to get a job 30 years ago. Not uncommon to get nickled and dimed over what your experience consisted of too. 'Oh not enough night, not enough IFR, oh you haven't flown in real icing over here etc etc.


Last edited by neville_nobody; 28th Mar 2019 at 02:31.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 02:32
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 782
Yes, but what I am saying is that these types of incidents are not exclusive to low hour FO's, I have conducted plenty of investigations and the only 'Flap' lever movement in the wrong direction I have investigated was actioned by the Captain. There is no doubt that unfamiliarity with a type can lead to a greater number of mistakes, I don't see though how having 3000 hours in a tourist operation flying 172's lessens this risk on an A320 or a 737. New to type is new to type, think of all of those over 60 Captains that Air NZ basically sacked as they couldn't meet the minimum standards during their A320 line training, they went to court and lost, their experience didn't help them pass a course that a 200 hour cadet can pass. I just don't think you can say putting 200 hour pilots in the RHS is bad just because Australia is decades behind the rest of the world and people want to protect GA as that is where most of us come from.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 03:03
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sand dune
Posts: 179
Dr Dre, Cobham only recently allowed new hires to join without an ATPL. Before that they needed an active ATPL, 500 hrs multi and most had extensive turboprop command.
Blitzkrieger is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 04:20
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post

The vast majority of that list needed 3000 hours plus to get a job 30 years ago. Not uncommon to get nickled and dimed over what your experience consisted of too. 'Oh not enough night, not enough IFR, oh you haven't flown in real icing over here etc etc.
They didn’t “need” 3000hrs to get an airline job because only those with 3000hrs have the ability to fly airliners. They needed 3000hrs because there were far more pilots than jobs and that was the easiest way back then to cull numbers of applicants. Now with the exponential growth of the airline sector this isn’t the case.

When we’re talking about 250hr cadets in the right hand seats of turboprops and Jets we aren’t talking about grabbing random graduates fresh out of CPL training out of any old flying school.

Tough selection processes, structured and appropriate training for multicrew ops, regular assessment of standards and structured line training is the name of the game. Europeans have been doing this for decades. And honestly it has been happening in Australia too on a smaller scale for longer than most seem to acknowledge.
dr dre is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 06:06
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay View Post


Is the suggestion that airlines are pumping out cheap FOs as quickly as possible perplexing you?
No, but my airline does not “pump out” F/Os onto the line unless they are trained and capable and safe to do the job. From the coments on this topic, that doesn’t seem to be the case in some Australian posters airlines. Very worrying.
“Cheap FOs”? A new joiner is obviously paid less than a long serving one, it’s called pay scales, and Seniority!
cessnapete is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 06:26
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 378
Now with the exponential growth of the airline sector this isn’t the case.
​​​​​​
Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia.

CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence.

Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it.


gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 07:07
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 504
Why did FAA go the way they did?

What were the repercussions?

What does it mean now?

(Yes I know the answers, just putting it out there as for some reason it does not seem to gain any momentum the discussion).

As I said great for Aussies with the E3.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 08:21
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,904
Originally Posted by hoss View Post
About 20 years ago you needed about 5000 hours to get an interview with a regional..
20 years ago, you got into Qantas or Ansett straight out of GA with under 2000 hours, in many cases straight out of a Cessna from Kununurra. I know plenty of pilots who did a season and went straight to Qantas. You were either the right stuff, or you were not.

If if you didn’t get picked up - it was a long slog through GA and into the regionals. If you stuck at it. The best you could hope for was link or hazos. Impulse etc. If you were pretty special, you may have got a look in at National Jet on the 146. They were very picky. Meaning a de orbit burn or two. Mostly you had to pay to progress. If you were lucky to make it that far. There were gigs overseas in dark corners and far flung places offering an airline version of GA. Renewable every 5 years or so with a new contract. After you managed the deorbit burns in Australia or managed to pay a lot of money for a type rating.

The worlds changed, flying is more affordable and there’s more of it. So the opportunities came with it.

I have no problem with a well trained 200 hour pilot in the right seat. You can’t tell the difference between them and a ex regional pilot after a few years. They may just be a little smarter due to the stricter vetting they went through to get there. It’s a different job flying a jet, especially a long haul one. It’s about knowing a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff.

No disrespect to Captain Sherms old boy, but I believe they had a ‘little’ retention problem in the RAF back then. If you ticked the box, you flew it. If you came back, well done young chap. Now go out again. I couldn’t have done it.

I loved my GA time. However, it did absolutely nothing for my airline flying. Well except it gave me a magic number to progress to the next level and some battle stories to tell. They’re that far embellished these days it’s hard to tell exactly what went on back then. I think maybe I just got better. In the stories anyway.

Being on both sides of the fence, I can say the only ones who care deeply about cadets, are the ones who are not cadets, and the ones who have to do their airline conversion.

If I had my time again I would have done a Cadetship in a heart beat and have been 1,000,000 dollars better off financially.




The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 08:27
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 504
The GG, each to their own!

I wouldn’t trade my GA days for the world.

Yes I feel belting around in a 210 having to make decisions has helped me in my airline and corporate career.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 08:47
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 527
Mid 1990s and I couldn't even get an interview for rhs turboprop despite having an ATPL 4000 hrs total with multi engine and turbine time. Late 1990s and GA employers were still paying below the award IF they gave you a job. Early 2000s, flew with a Westwind Captain who was willing to go back into the right seat of a Metroliner just to get into Kendall Airlines. Virgin Blue required you to pay for your own B737 rating. Things started improving around the mid 2000s at the lower end however paying for your endorsement is still with us.

Plenty of opportunities in Asia for experienced jet pilots with a decent type on their licence.
krismiler is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 13:07
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay View Post

​​​​​​
Coupled with the exponential decline in conditions and viability of aviation as a career along with the slow death of GA in Australia.

CessnaPete, the whole low hour RHS thing is geared to reducing future staff costs and nothing more. Firstly, airlines know that aspiring pilots will do anything to get into a jet immediately, including working for peanuts and being held in bondage for years. They also know that throwing a low time pilot in the right hand seat of a jet means they get cheap FOs and a cheap regular line Captain who will babysit/train them through the “early days” safe in the knowledge that the Captain retains strictly liability. Airlines also know that CASA readily falls for the “show us the accident stats” defence.

Dick, the RHS experience levels are declining and I’m sure the travelling public are not even remotely aware, furthermore the airlines would never dream of revealing it.

Gordon,
You are missing the point. There is no pool of 'experienced' high hours jet rated F\Os to recruit from in UK/Europe, for the reasons posted before.
Your stringently selected/competently trained and route mentored 250 hour pilots will become 1500 hour experienced, multi sector operators, after a couple of years, then everyone can be happy? In my part of the world if they don't reach the standards required they are rejected. You have to start somewhere.
People continue to bang on about inexperienced, presumably ill trained, incompetent F/Os,in their employ, that's the airline training management fault. Worrying, if thats the case.
Statistically for example BEA/BA has had no safety issues after many years of cadet recruitment.
Ryanair (despite their less than glorious customer service reputation!!) operate hundreds of nearly new B737, every day. on thousands of sectors around Europe, some with new hire F/Os. Operating to some operationally demanding, less equipped, regional airports. Their safety record is second to none.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 15:00
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 155
Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored.

200hr Pilots can be trained to do a job (I would’ve argued the same when I had mine), but if the requirement of the day is to have two Pilots flying the aircraft, then you can’t beat that couple thousand hours in GA before youre given the responsibility.
NOSIGN is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 22:20
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 444
Originally Posted by NOSIGN View Post
Whether you’re flying left or right seat, I think, that there is an unspoken respect and comarade between Pilots when you know that they’ve shared a similar arduous path in staying alive in an aeroplane through some respectable period of time. If nothing more, I t’s a human factors aspect that shouldn’t be ignored.
Errrr no. Pilots will judge the others they fly with on ability, attitude and character in their present role. Only a small minority of pilots would show less respect to a pilot because of their prior background, that’s akin to racism in a way.

Maybe a lot of people would bond more easily because of shared backgrounds or prior jobs or such, but that shouldn’t mean they don’t give the same level of professional respect to a pilot because they didn’t follow the same path into an airline that they did. If they do that’s a sign of poor character.

Last edited by dr dre; 28th Mar 2019 at 22:41.
dr dre is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 01:05
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Generally from my experience those from GA who come into regionals have a negative perception of ex cadets, and understandably thay comes from the GA echo chamber that cadets are jumping the queue and lack ability. Those views don't generally last once they realise the mountain every single pilot has to climb to get checked to line and that most of the LHS pilots are coming from the cadet stream.
Ladloy 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.