Not counting any of the cadets with neither experience?

Exactly!!!

With respect to QF cadets it must be remembered that they weren't immediately put into the RHS as an FO as their first job.

FRQ CB

.and that is the difference....

It should also be remembered that the Qantas Cadets only make up a very small sample of QF flight crew.

It is some time before QF cadets have an opportunity to try their hand in a control seat and by this stage should have a very good grasp of QF/airline flying ops and only need to concentrate on the handling part as the standard ops should be well ingrained.

The combination of Airlines putting through large numbers of cadets through their ranks and the possibility of fast promotion to command ends up with the blind leading the blind.

If these airlines really believe that cadet programs produce a better result than GA/experienced pilots why not foot the entire bill for training and pay a decent wage at the end of training.

If the cost to the airline was the same, airlines would take experienced pilots every day of the week.

FRQ CB i beg to differ but Q cadets placed direct into RHS in QLink and with the ICUS (which noone is required to verify) and their vast experience a number now hold commands at QLink. Unless regional experience and 74 seats doesnt count. A couple have even been placed in the sim as training instructors without been yet able to hold an ATPL. Youve got to love the company that is QLink.

Suggest trying here.

Nick Xenophon - Independent Senator for South Australia

Being put in the back seat for 10 years on international is completely different to rhs of a jet on domestic sectors in Australia.

Does anybody know whether Anthony Petteford from Oxford Aviation Academy has been asked to give evidence in front of the Senate Enquiry?

His written evidence is at first glance confusing, he states:

It is interesting that of all of the established Cadet programs in Europe that he cites in his submission, nearly all are wholly funded by the Airline under bonding arrangements are delivered in their own flight academy, none are Low Cost Carriers and most have no connection with Oxford Aviation whatsoever.

Petteford does makes specific reference to British Airways, a company which, through the "old boys network'' has had a long and established relationship with Oxford - he emphasises the success of this particular Cadet Program over a long period of time. This program has not run since 2001 and prior to that was fully sponsored by BA.

It is interesting that he does not mention Easyjet, Ryanair and Flybe, all programs that Oxford certainly do have business dealings and all of which are self-sponsored and for Low Cost Carriers. The reality of these programs is that they do not guarantee jobs and have graduated many pilots who are now unable to find jobs and who are being drowned by GBP80,000 ($160,000) loan repayments without the prospect of a job which they have trained for. For those who have not secured the loans against family homes, bankruptcy is a serious consideration and a drastic course of action some have elected for.

Why did Petteford emphasise the success of the airline sponsored programs in his submission which have nothing to do with Oxford Aviation yet fail to mention those self-sponsored programs which Oxford has involved itself with and has an in depth knowledge of all the circumstances surrounding them? Perhaps the good Senator should ask this question why this was so.

The answer may lie in some of his later statements nestled in with his conclusions. In relation to the Colgan Air Accident Petteford citing the NTSB report concludes:

So, Relevant training to improve flight deck performance and better communication leads to a safer flight and reduces the liklihood of an accident - I can go with that. However in a later conclusion he states:

The Jetstar Cadet Program not only imposes a large debt liability on the individual cadet, but expects them to work under an illegal contract that offers extremely poor pay, no super and provide absolutely no job security whatsoever.

Does Petteford's submission to the enquiry suggest that there is in fact a link between the Colgan Air Accident and the JQ Cadet Program in that a link between safety and self-funded training/poor pay does exist?

This question is central to the enquiry and needs to clear all of this up - Perhaps Anthony Petteford could help the Senators figure it out.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Lets go back to the old way. You do your training then head north for a few years and learn to fly. I have seen some of these cadets in action and it scares me.
Sorry but i believe a 1500 hour limit should be brought in. Nothing can beat experience.

And the folk who walked away from Gimli would find that at odds with reality :hmm:


Be Taught to Fly >Learn to Fly > Learn how to Really Fly > Learn Jets > then into the back seat as an S/O for a few years.

And that is how Qantas used to do things in the 60's. Produced I understand a generation or two of the types of aircrew you want in the pointy end.

I wonder how keen the airlines would be to continue with cadet programs if the government insisted that all cadets must be tied to the airline and guaranteed a job and that all training costs be borne by the airline.

Surely it would not make any difference because it is the benefit that cadet schemes produce a higher quality pilot that really matters.

I think not- they would be dropped tout suite!!

Well there are a few would be airline short cutters (would be cadets) that are playing russian roulette with 180k out there that would be losing some sleep at this stage. The good Senator is onto this little scheme.

Another one that might be worrying a few is that big brother over in the US thinks its not the way to go and we generally follow them in anything/everything.

The only thing that doesn't work in our favour is that both sides of politics in Australia support/promote sweat shop conditions.

Losing sleep is not a good thing for airline safety - Right?

180k for training that costs circa $100k outside of the cadetship is a rip-off that should be considered anti-competitive - after all there is no commitment from the airline it is just an approved course!!

Got to wonder where the facilitator err i mean regulator is on all of this.

Oh that right ..facilitating.

Wined and dined...

As far as BA cadets go this is what I understand:

In 2006 they were called SSPs, self sponsored pilots. They recieved a reduced salary for the first 5? years. After that on the same scale as everyone else for their years of service.

The SSP guys on my course had around 250-300 hours with Seneca the largest a/c. BA had put them through a full A320 JOC course prior to their start with BA (as a trial I believe) They then did the full endorsement with other DEPs, direct entry pilots. We (2) had 500hrs on an ATP, and 1500hrs on a DHC8 respectively along with other experience.

The SSPs performed very well and all got through their training with flying colours. Off the top of my head they were scheduled for more hours/sectors line training but I am not sure how many. They also had to do circuits prior to their first line training flight. The DEPs did not.

After check to line they flew RHS as PF on low vis down to 300 m for T/O, with the ability to conduct the RTO. And autoland to Cat 1 radio alt.

During my time there I am not aware of any incidents or issues with SSPs however some captains did mention it was nice to fly with someone "where some previous experience was evident."

I guess it will come down to selection and training. Hopefully Jetstar will work with other companies in establishing their own training regime.

All the best to these guys.

The last BA-sponsored course as far as I am aware, was AP211A at OAT, starting May 2001.

The British Airways SSP was not in itself a cadet programme, it is important to recognize that. BA had on its radar a number of schools, Oxford being one of them, that run what we now recogise as integrated courses. My understanding is that SSP was merely a scouting exercise through the old boy network where high flyers (or kids of existing captains) were tagged, their training monitored and based on results possibly given an opportunity to apply to join BA once they graduated.

The BA SSP has not run since the GFC and responding to this in an effort to survive, schools like CTC and Oxford have re-marketed the model to use the carrott of strong airline links and prospect of employment to encourage prospective pilots to train with them under the banner of a cadetship. They are not cadetships in the true sense of the word only 'Approved Courses'.

Given the low level of economic activity in the Uk, it is no surprise that it is this model that has now found it's way to Australia where CTC and Oxford feel justified in charging UK market rates for training ( approx. 100% more than an Australian school) for essentially the same product albeit with a 'designer brand'.

Oxford did not buy GFS just because it was a school with a good reputation, it bought it because of it's existing links with the airlines and saw the opportunity to use these to bring its UK cadetship model over and exploit prospective young pilots as they have done successfully in the UK over recent years.

Does it work? Ask the 300 pilots who graduated from Oxford in the UK on self funded courses over recent years who are crippled with debt and cannot secure a job - so much for the links with airlines.

I guess it will come down to the type of scenario that presents itself on the dark and stormy night.

On another thread Tarkeeth wrote, before getting closed down:


This is the first batch of cadets commencing their line training. First time in the aircraft and 177 passengers, 4 CC and a training captain to witness it.

Good Luck!!

At the top of the thread reads

"PASS THE EMIRATES INTERVIEW". People over in Dubai have their finger on some of the skippers' pulse!

Are they Cadets Kelpie, or accelerated low time CPL's. I don't think the true cadets (zero to hero) have completed their training yet. Either way a bloody steep learning curve, but at least they have some flight experience.

The real rub of course is the reduced pay for CPL holders only. It's good enough for them to sit in the RHS of a 188 pax airliner, but it's not good enough for them to be remunerated the same as other F/O's who hold an ATPL.

Some may argue that's fair enough. My arguement is that if they don't deserve the same pay for doing the same job, then they probably shouldn't be there in the first place! As you say...

More to follow!