SO rating/endorsement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO rating/endorsement
1> Is there a difference between the SO and FO training curriculum/sylabus?
2> As an SO who successfully completes the training, do you technically hold a type rating or endorsement for the aircraft on which you've been trained? (I have been told that SO's are not "fully qualified" flight crew members, ie. if an SO was to be laid off, then subsequently apply for a DEFO position elsewhere, they would be denied due to the lack of a "First Officer" rating/endorsement. It makes sense that he/she would be denied due to lack of hands on experience if they were going up against a hands on expereinced FO, but would they be denied due to the lack of technical qualifications that the First Officer would possibly have over the SO?)
Thanks
2> As an SO who successfully completes the training, do you technically hold a type rating or endorsement for the aircraft on which you've been trained? (I have been told that SO's are not "fully qualified" flight crew members, ie. if an SO was to be laid off, then subsequently apply for a DEFO position elsewhere, they would be denied due to the lack of a "First Officer" rating/endorsement. It makes sense that he/she would be denied due to lack of hands on experience if they were going up against a hands on expereinced FO, but would they be denied due to the lack of technical qualifications that the First Officer would possibly have over the SO?)
Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have read elsewhere on this forum that:
1. as an SO you are not officially type-rated onto your aircraft type. it's not even written on your license!
2. SOs get P2X time, which is a fraction of the total flying time you will do. i think it's 1/4 of your time, but someone else will have to verify this for you.
out of curiousity, they don't have SOs in North American carriers, right?
1. as an SO you are not officially type-rated onto your aircraft type. it's not even written on your license!
2. SOs get P2X time, which is a fraction of the total flying time you will do. i think it's 1/4 of your time, but someone else will have to verify this for you.
out of curiousity, they don't have SOs in North American carriers, right?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Heart of Asia
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an SO you hold a Hong Kong P2X rating. Thus, you are granted SO privileges on HKG-registered aircraft, and you can only operate above 20,000 ft. The endorsement for type is on your licence. The sim training is pretty much the same as you would get as a DEFO. How another country or airline would recognize this endorsement is up that airline or state...
To log time as an SO for further licencing with the HKG CAD, you can only log the time you spent in-seat. Again, what another airline would let you credit yourself for this experience is their business.
To log time as an SO for further licencing with the HKG CAD, you can only log the time you spent in-seat. Again, what another airline would let you credit yourself for this experience is their business.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO time is not recognised most countries, definitely not in the UK. ie JAA. You'll find most people will look at you rather oddly when you say P2X. Best to say I'm a radio operator who eats all the sandwiches and makes a mean bunk!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Right Here.
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true about the sim training.
You wont get any dual engine failure training/handling or be required to learn RNAV approaches etc.
Depending on your experience its an absolute doddle and completely unchallenging.
Just like the SO job.
YAWN.....
MAX
You wont get any dual engine failure training/handling or be required to learn RNAV approaches etc.
Depending on your experience its an absolute doddle and completely unchallenging.
Just like the SO job.
YAWN.....
MAX
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
The S/O sim training used to be exactly the same as the F/O course without as you say the dual engine failure and the RNAV. Personally I think the S/O sims are more difficult that the FO setup. Once you have done a few RT/PC's you realise that it is pretty much the same thing over and over again. The dual engine failures are always flown by the commander (as would be the case in reality) so after that initial course you won't fly one again until your command.
S/O modules, although scripted, are often changed extensively by the instructor to suit your experience and can be very challenging when you consider that you don't get a chance to practise on the line.
The S/O job is a doddle but the sim training
/checking is not!
W2
The S/O sim training used to be exactly the same as the F/O course without as you say the dual engine failure and the RNAV. Personally I think the S/O sims are more difficult that the FO setup. Once you have done a few RT/PC's you realise that it is pretty much the same thing over and over again. The dual engine failures are always flown by the commander (as would be the case in reality) so after that initial course you won't fly one again until your command.
S/O modules, although scripted, are often changed extensively by the instructor to suit your experience and can be very challenging when you consider that you don't get a chance to practise on the line.
The S/O job is a doddle but the sim training
/checking is not!W2
