Want a job?
some company called AV8 Partners is advertising these positions. Seems like low time for the 737
Captain B737
Sydney Australia
Required:
• ICAO ATPL (preferable Aus CASA or NZ
CAA)
B737 NG Type Rating
Class One Medical
3,000 hours total time
First Officer B737
Sydney Australia
Required:
ICAO CPL (preferable Aus CASA or NZ
CAA)
B737 NG Type Rating
Class One Medical
1,000 hours total time
Right to live and work in Australia
• 1,000 hours P1 on jet aircraft with a max take-off mass over 40,000kgs
Right to live and work in Australia
Captain B737
Sydney Australia
Required:
• ICAO ATPL (preferable Aus CASA or NZ
CAA)
B737 NG Type Rating
Class One Medical
3,000 hours total time
First Officer B737
Sydney Australia
Required:
ICAO CPL (preferable Aus CASA or NZ
CAA)
B737 NG Type Rating
Class One Medical
1,000 hours total time
Right to live and work in Australia
• 1,000 hours P1 on jet aircraft with a max take-off mass over 40,000kgs
Right to live and work in Australia
Either way, the quality of training received and experience gained would be more than enough to cope with our benign operating environment.
It’s not the hours you put in; it’s what you put in to those hours.
Bloody heck.
(Nearly) Every trip I fly in the upper Midwest from September to May is hardball IFR. Most of them are pretty much in the clag from takeoff to landing (with ice, of course) as they are less than 300 NM and it makes no sense to climb to the flight levels in a turbo piston twin. The rest of the year we have thunderstorms to avoid.
People need to learn to fly.
(Nearly) Every trip I fly in the upper Midwest from September to May is hardball IFR. Most of them are pretty much in the clag from takeoff to landing (with ice, of course) as they are less than 300 NM and it makes no sense to climb to the flight levels in a turbo piston twin. The rest of the year we have thunderstorms to avoid.
People need to learn to fly.
The following 3 users liked this post by TBL Warrior:
Punting a 40+ year old 400 series Cessna in real ice (the type that starts before you even get airborne), poor visibilty and dodging storms with old tech radar (if any), basic autopilot (if it works at all), steam gauges (mostly working), marginal engine-out performance and no co-pilot to help out, is about as hardball as it gets.
Operators are not always keen to retrofit these old clunkers with the latest and greatest IFR gear, and even if they do, it's a bit like putting lipstick on a pig - the airframe, systems and performance are still a pig.
Kudos to 421dog.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 19th May 2023 at 01:04.
The following users liked this post:
You don't get out much do you
I'm with 421dog on this.
Punting a 40+ year old 400 series Cessna in real ice (the type that starts before you even get airborne), poor visibilty and dodging storms with old tech radar (if any), basic autopilot (if it works at all), steam gauges (mostly working)
Punting a 40+ year old 400 series Cessna in real ice (the type that starts before you even get airborne), poor visibilty and dodging storms with old tech radar (if any), basic autopilot (if it works at all), steam gauges (mostly working)
marginal engine-out performance
Operators are not always keen to retrofit these old clunkers with the latest and greatest IFR gear, and even if they do, it's a bit like putting lipstick on a pig - the airframe, systems and performance are still a pig.
Last edited by TBL Warrior; 19th May 2023 at 18:32.
The following users liked this post:
Top-notch dick swinging from all angles on display in this thread. Keep it up! 
The following 8 users liked this post by josephfeatherweight:
A 421 has no such luxury of published charted climb gradients requirements. FAR 23, not 25.
The following 4 users liked this post by compressor stall:
Top-notch dick swinging from all angles on display in this thread. Keep it up!
The following users liked this post:
I fly with the odd ace of the base (self proclaimed) but the absolute majority are refreshingly self effacing people.
As for the argument over where is harder to fly, it all depends on what you see as the biggest threat. I’d say the IOSA audit threat data would be the authority on the issue. We all have our opinions, based on personal perception. No country I fly in is much harder than others, they all have their threats that we manage as professionals.
Last edited by TBL Warrior; 20th May 2023 at 02:39.
I have plenty of older generation medium jet time, as well as enough single pilot IFR GA time, and I know which is the easier and safer, regardless of airport elevation or terrain.
I also found it sometimes easier to train good GA pilots up from props onto old generation jets than to downtrain certain B777 & A330 pilots who had become a bit too automation dependent.
Not wishing to swing my aging dick here, but someone attacked 421 dog for merely stating how it is in his part of the world (not in Australia, where we don’t get much tricky weather) - so I supported his perfectly valid point of view.
The following 3 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Seriously, who cares?
I have the easiest job flying to mostly easy places on great equipment and get paid massively well to do it. There! Guess I'm not a good pilot. Boo hoo.
I have the easiest job flying to mostly easy places on great equipment and get paid massively well to do it. There! Guess I'm not a good pilot. Boo hoo.
The following users liked this post:
Last edited by TBL Warrior; 21st May 2023 at 19:00.
Operating below your AFM RTOW for the ambient conditions will guarantee it by virtue, as you need not worry about second and third segments. Hence, no requirement in hardball C400 series ops. Furthermore, considering that Australian airports are at most 3,000ft AMSL, other than being grossly overloaded, your argument is invalid. What next - engine out performance in a 207? Thus, I stand by my opinion expressed previously.
Performance “guarantee by virtue” in relation to C400 series? I would be interested in just what that performance is. My gut tells me that in the conditions 421dog originally described it wouldn’t go anywhere near achieving your 15 ft NET wet runway obstacle clearance. (for the benefit of our newbies, NET clearances are less than what the aeroplane should achieve in the hands of a skilled pilot - they take test results and degrade to account for old airframes and even older, doddery pilots).
Submitted with apologies for thread drift and willy waving
The following users liked this post:
Moderator
Methinks a few of our colleagues need to have a refresher read up on performance.
First, nothing is guaranteed, as such. If the actual conditions on the day replicate the certification presumptions, and you fly it like the AFM suggests, then you should get something like the certification performance. But things can get considerably worse than what was presumed at certification and the results can get a bit nastier.
Heavies are not too bad as a lot of work goes into getting certification numbers and the operational procedures are a lot better for pilot longevity.
Lighties ... you have to be joking. The main reason we don't have smoking holes all over the place is that we don't have many serious incidents at low level and, in the main, terrain tends to be reasonably benign. Anyone who thinks that lightie certification performance is in the same paddock as heavies is a little off the mark, I fear.
The only requirement of great note is "don't crash". You have a far better prospect of achieving this in heavy aircraft operations than in light ....
For those who don't know Mach E Avelli's background, he has a lot of runs on the board in a lot of different aircraft and his observations are worth listening to.
First, nothing is guaranteed, as such. If the actual conditions on the day replicate the certification presumptions, and you fly it like the AFM suggests, then you should get something like the certification performance. But things can get considerably worse than what was presumed at certification and the results can get a bit nastier.
Heavies are not too bad as a lot of work goes into getting certification numbers and the operational procedures are a lot better for pilot longevity.
Lighties ... you have to be joking. The main reason we don't have smoking holes all over the place is that we don't have many serious incidents at low level and, in the main, terrain tends to be reasonably benign. Anyone who thinks that lightie certification performance is in the same paddock as heavies is a little off the mark, I fear.
The only requirement of great note is "don't crash". You have a far better prospect of achieving this in heavy aircraft operations than in light ....
For those who don't know Mach E Avelli's background, he has a lot of runs on the board in a lot of different aircraft and his observations are worth listening to.
The following 2 users liked this post by john_tullamarine: