Qantas cadet commands?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: on the bridge
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas cadet commands?
Hi all,
Just a quick question, I have seen a couple of posts saying that the Qantas cadets are going to have to stay on GA and miss out on commands whilst less senior crew get prommoted past them. Whats that all about? I thought after training they went on to Qantas mainline as S/O. Why no commands, is it because they are restricted because of the cadetship contract?
Cheers
Just a quick question, I have seen a couple of posts saying that the Qantas cadets are going to have to stay on GA and miss out on commands whilst less senior crew get prommoted past them. Whats that all about? I thought after training they went on to Qantas mainline as S/O. Why no commands, is it because they are restricted because of the cadetship contract?
Cheers
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is more the case of having sufficient COMMAND time to hold an Air Transport Pilot Licence.
In Australia, we do not have P1 or P2: you are either Pilot in Command, Acting In Command Under Supervision or Co Pilot.
You need 250hrs command time, of which only 150 hrs may be AICUS to get the ATPL.
In Australia, we do not have P1 or P2: you are either Pilot in Command, Acting In Command Under Supervision or Co Pilot.
You need 250hrs command time, of which only 150 hrs may be AICUS to get the ATPL.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: on the bridge
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. So the cadets are going straight out of training onto a job were they accumulate only co-pilot time. So no matter how many hours they have, they are never going to get a command because they don't have any command time, which they need to be eligible? They must become captains one day, so were do they pick up the command time?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a requirement to have 100 PIC before gaining employment at the completion of the cadet programme. This is so cadets can still meet the requirements for an ATPL by logging ICUS time, when appropriate.
Lancer
Lancer
Lancer
How are they planning to log ICUS time in a 767/747/737 when they can't hold an ATPL?? To log ICUS in these aircraft you have to have an ATPL.
CASA have ruled for our company that in an RPT operation the guy being ICUSed has to meet the requirements to be PIC. So if our CASA guy is correct then cadets are career FO's.
Unless of there is one rule for QANTAS and another for everyone else which I think is what happens in reality.
Or alternatively CASA don't know about any of this yet and QANTAS have just assumed that they can log ICUS time willy nilly
How are they planning to log ICUS time in a 767/747/737 when they can't hold an ATPL?? To log ICUS in these aircraft you have to have an ATPL.
CASA have ruled for our company that in an RPT operation the guy being ICUSed has to meet the requirements to be PIC. So if our CASA guy is correct then cadets are career FO's.
Unless of there is one rule for QANTAS and another for everyone else which I think is what happens in reality.
Or alternatively CASA don't know about any of this yet and QANTAS have just assumed that they can log ICUS time willy nilly
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a bit on the logging of ICUS hours by cadets on on this thread (from page 3 onwards)...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=3
ED
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=3
ED
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
neville,
As I understand it, the Reg requirements to log ICUS are that you have to have the appropriate endorsements and ratings to act as PIC, but there is no licence specification based on what the operation is. So, to log ICUS on a 76/4/3 all you need is a command endorsement and MCIR - not necessarily an ATPL.
If you have to have the the PIC experience to log it in the first place, doesn't that really defeat the purpose of ICUS anyway?
Back to the original question though, jau.
What threads are you referring to? Cadets can get overtaken if they don't meet the hours requirements for promotion, but ultimately it comes out in the wash once they do...
Lancer
As I understand it, the Reg requirements to log ICUS are that you have to have the appropriate endorsements and ratings to act as PIC, but there is no licence specification based on what the operation is. So, to log ICUS on a 76/4/3 all you need is a command endorsement and MCIR - not necessarily an ATPL.
If you have to have the the PIC experience to log it in the first place, doesn't that really defeat the purpose of ICUS anyway?
Back to the original question though, jau.
What threads are you referring to? Cadets can get overtaken if they don't meet the hours requirements for promotion, but ultimately it comes out in the wash once they do...
Lancer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i might be missing something here...
are we refering to air north as beign GA for cadets??
if so, are they not in the right hand seat and therefore logging co-pilot hours as do the QANTAS f/o's??
correct me if i'm wrong too, but a cadet (or anyone else for that matter) within QF may be an f/o, as long as they only fly with a captain. ie they cannot be on the flight deck alone with a s/o. so they don't hold a command rating on the a/c type, but a co-pilots rating. thus achieving the hours (slowly) to get a command...
does that clear things up or confuse the issue???
are we refering to air north as beign GA for cadets??
if so, are they not in the right hand seat and therefore logging co-pilot hours as do the QANTAS f/o's??
correct me if i'm wrong too, but a cadet (or anyone else for that matter) within QF may be an f/o, as long as they only fly with a captain. ie they cannot be on the flight deck alone with a s/o. so they don't hold a command rating on the a/c type, but a co-pilots rating. thus achieving the hours (slowly) to get a command...
does that clear things up or confuse the issue???
Lancer
Your argument is what we put to CASA plus we argued that you were covered by the bloke who was PIC. However they said this isn't good enough and ruled that the ICUSee has to meet all the requirements of being PIC.
So with the same logic applied a QF cadet can not log ICUS time as an FO because they can't hold an ATPL so therefore cannot be PIC on an aircraft >5700kgs on a RPT run multi crew.
If CASA are constistant acroos the country the cadets will have to get their command or ICUS time some other way.
Qantas may have been given a dispen to get around this of course. Be interested to see what the real story is.
Your argument is what we put to CASA plus we argued that you were covered by the bloke who was PIC. However they said this isn't good enough and ruled that the ICUSee has to meet all the requirements of being PIC.
So with the same logic applied a QF cadet can not log ICUS time as an FO because they can't hold an ATPL so therefore cannot be PIC on an aircraft >5700kgs on a RPT run multi crew.
If CASA are constistant acroos the country the cadets will have to get their command or ICUS time some other way.
Qantas may have been given a dispen to get around this of course. Be interested to see what the real story is.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nev, I suggest your company takes this up with CASA again as there are several airlines in Aus who do ICUS in this manner, not just QF. There is no requirements in the regs for the person under ICUS to hold an ATPL. I know of several people who gained their ATPLs during line training (under ICUS) in regionals.
Nunc est bibendum
Neville, CASA certainly didn't have a problem with it when I used 3 ICUS hours accrued on the B767 to get to the 250 required for an ATPL a few years back! Maybe their position has changed since then but I wouldn't bet on it.
Our side of the story came directly from the friendly local CASA FOI so this is isn't 2nd hand information or speculation.
As I said before the CASA argument was that the ICUS guy had to have PIC qualifications. Therefore an ATPL if required.
Looks like another classic example of CASA not really knowing what they are doing. Our problem is that we can't argue once they making a ruling no matter how stupid it is.
As I said before the CASA argument was that the ICUS guy had to have PIC qualifications. Therefore an ATPL if required.
Looks like another classic example of CASA not really knowing what they are doing. Our problem is that we can't argue once they making a ruling no matter how stupid it is.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Guam
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cuban_eights
correct me if i'm wrong too
within QF may be an f/o, as long as they only fly with a captain. ie they cannot be on the flight deck alone with a s/o. so they don't hold a command rating on the a/c type, but a co-pilots rating. thus achieving the hours (slowly) to get a command...
To become an F/O a cadet (or direct enrty pilot for that matter) must have logged 1500 hours of aeronautical experience. Only 50% of their co-pilot time counts toward this of course. As a result a cadet who joins with 250 hours total will need to spend 3 to 4 years as a second officer to get the 3000 odd hours total time that breaks down to the 1500 aero-exp.
I.E. the ATPL 1500 hour requirement.
Where it differs from the CAR is that Qf has managed to get a dispo for the 250 hours PIC requirement for the application for an ATPL (CAR 5.172 2a) because of it's cyclic training program. This figure has been reduced to 100 hours through negotiation; and as *Lancer* mentioned, this is required to be had prior to starting a jet course.
As a result the cadet pilots can get their F/O slot after 3 or 4 years without having to do the PIC hours the rest of us do. By this time they've got the night hours, they've got the X-country (duh!) and they've got the IF time.
They then can go onto the 767 (where F/O's get a command endorsement - cadet or not!) and sit up there with an S/O whilst the Skipper snores.
It is a company requirement to hold an ATPL if your gonna drive the 76 for a Capt or F/O.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regarding the "PIC time" ...
(don't know if this helps or not)
CAR 5.111 ( qualifications prior to sitting CPL test under 150 hour CPL course) .... applicant requires 70hrs as PIC.
CAR 5.115 (qualifications prior to sitting CPL test under 200 hour CPL course ) .... applicant requires 100hrs as PIC.
I do not know which course QF put the cadets thru, but I would imagine that if you already have 100hrs as PIC, then you CAN accrue the remaining 150 as ICUS.
With regards ICUS .... ICUS stands for in COMMAND under supervision , therefore must hold a command endorsement on a/c type, and be appropriately licensed for the type of operation.
(don't know if this helps or not)
CAR 5.111 ( qualifications prior to sitting CPL test under 150 hour CPL course) .... applicant requires 70hrs as PIC.
CAR 5.115 (qualifications prior to sitting CPL test under 200 hour CPL course ) .... applicant requires 100hrs as PIC.
I do not know which course QF put the cadets thru, but I would imagine that if you already have 100hrs as PIC, then you CAN accrue the remaining 150 as ICUS.
With regards ICUS .... ICUS stands for in COMMAND under supervision , therefore must hold a command endorsement on a/c type, and be appropriately licensed for the type of operation.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache, my understanding is that the courses are based on the 150 Hour syllabus, but involve 100 Hours of PIC anyway (there's the instrument rating, and aeros to do on top of the CPL).
Ibol, for pilots with 500 Hours in Command (Direct Entry) the requirement is 1000 Hours Aero Exp. For pilots with less than 500 PIC (majority of cadets) its 1250 Hours Aero Exp, rather than 1500. You don't need and ATPL for the 767 - but without one you're restricted to non-S/O ops in the same manner that over 60s are...
Lancer
Ibol, for pilots with 500 Hours in Command (Direct Entry) the requirement is 1000 Hours Aero Exp. For pilots with less than 500 PIC (majority of cadets) its 1250 Hours Aero Exp, rather than 1500. You don't need and ATPL for the 767 - but without one you're restricted to non-S/O ops in the same manner that over 60s are...
Lancer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Guam
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*Lancer*
I understand that you would be able to conduct ops as an F/O without an ATPL but they don't.
The company issued a flight standing order stating : S/O's can not undergo promotional training unless they hold the required hours to apply for an ATPL. and they must have applied for and received the ATPL within 3 months checked to line.
So I guess for that three months.... sure. No S/O. You're not going to be senior enough for anything but mel - syd returns for about a year anyway. But they don't let you skate along in the right hand seat with just a CPL.
Would be a scheduling nightmare if you had F/O's that were restricted and others not in addition to the over 60 guys (only 3 or 4 of them anyway)
Cheers
The company issued a flight standing order stating : S/O's can not undergo promotional training unless they hold the required hours to apply for an ATPL. and they must have applied for and received the ATPL within 3 months checked to line.
So I guess for that three months.... sure. No S/O. You're not going to be senior enough for anything but mel - syd returns for about a year anyway. But they don't let you skate along in the right hand seat with just a CPL.
Would be a scheduling nightmare if you had F/O's that were restricted and others not in addition to the over 60 guys (only 3 or 4 of them anyway)
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
I dunno if this helps but .... Under NZCAA Rules (which are = to/acceptable to CASA under TTMRA) ICUS (called "command Practice) here, does not require the F/O to hold an ATPL, only a CPL, I/R and a Type Rating (note, in NZ no distinction bewteen Command/Sin C ratings). To act as PinC in an 3 pilot crew, ie, supervise an S/O, an F/O DOES require an ATPL.
ATPL eligibilty rules are the same for all operators/pilots, a combo of PinC and ICUS is acceptable to make the 250hrs.
ATPL eligibilty rules are the same for all operators/pilots, a combo of PinC and ICUS is acceptable to make the 250hrs.
Ibol
According to CASA's database there had been no exemptions given to any operator or individual against CAR 172, there have been 5815 exemptions issued against the CARs, but none for that reg.
CAR 5.172 does not have a provision for CASA to issue an exemption, regs that it can issue an exemption have something like "CASA may ....." (examples CAR 134,CAR 134(1), CAR 134(1)(b), CAR 136, CAR 137, CAR 139, CAR 139(d), CAR 141, CAR 143, CAR 144, CAR 149, 150, 151).
I can see where neville_nobody's is coming from ...
CAR 5.166 allows the holder of an ATPL to "to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation."
For a CPL holder CAR 5.105 says "to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation"
And don't forget the recency provisions in CAR 5.170 for the PIC of a muti-pilot aeroplane. It is a condition of CAR 5.166 that it is subject to the limitations set out in regulations 5.167, 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171.
How does a S/O meet the recency requirements for takeoffs and landings if they are cruise relief pilots only ? If they don't meet the recency requirments, how can they act as PIC ?
CAR 5.40 does allow a CPL holder to undertake ICUS, but it does not say that a CPL holder may undertake ICUS in a multi-pilot aeroplane.
The hour requirements in the CARs are largely derived from the ICAO requirements, thus CASA's hands are tied, they cannot reduce the PIC hours required.
Hey what would I know, you guys got the gig, enjoy !
According to CASA's database there had been no exemptions given to any operator or individual against CAR 172, there have been 5815 exemptions issued against the CARs, but none for that reg.
CAR 5.172 does not have a provision for CASA to issue an exemption, regs that it can issue an exemption have something like "CASA may ....." (examples CAR 134,CAR 134(1), CAR 134(1)(b), CAR 136, CAR 137, CAR 139, CAR 139(d), CAR 141, CAR 143, CAR 144, CAR 149, 150, 151).
I can see where neville_nobody's is coming from ...
CAR 5.166 allows the holder of an ATPL to "to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation."
For a CPL holder CAR 5.105 says "to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation"
And don't forget the recency provisions in CAR 5.170 for the PIC of a muti-pilot aeroplane. It is a condition of CAR 5.166 that it is subject to the limitations set out in regulations 5.167, 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171.
How does a S/O meet the recency requirements for takeoffs and landings if they are cruise relief pilots only ? If they don't meet the recency requirments, how can they act as PIC ?
CAR 5.40 does allow a CPL holder to undertake ICUS, but it does not say that a CPL holder may undertake ICUS in a multi-pilot aeroplane.
The hour requirements in the CARs are largely derived from the ICAO requirements, thus CASA's hands are tied, they cannot reduce the PIC hours required.
Hey what would I know, you guys got the gig, enjoy !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
That's just it though... The Regs specify that you can't be PIC in a multi-crew operation, but they don't specify that you can't be ICUS in a multi-crew operation. There is no need for an exemption because there is no prohibition!
Clear as mud isn't it
That's just it though... The Regs specify that you can't be PIC in a multi-crew operation, but they don't specify that you can't be ICUS in a multi-crew operation. There is no need for an exemption because there is no prohibition!
Clear as mud isn't it