RFDS require Awesome Flying Qualifications
Thread Starter
RFDS require Awesome Flying Qualifications
Friday's Australian newspaper carries an advertisment for a flight ops manager for the RFDS. The minimum qualifications stated include not less than 6000 flight hours - including 4000 multi, 1000 turbine, 700 night, and now get this: no less than 600 hours instrument flight time. Also the advertisement calls for another 10 additional qualifications, including a demonstrated high degree of ethics and integrity. The last named certainly rules out 99.9% of GA pilots who have successfully survived that cut-throat industry!
About this 600 hours instrument flight time. Surely the advertisement means IFR flight time - not real in cloud hand flying time on instruments? Of course legally it could mean 600 hours of automatic pilot time IMC. Having said that, my view is that any pilot with over 50 hours hands-on cloud flying no cheating is an experienced IMC pilot in my book.
Locating some old log books gathering dust in the shed, one page showed close to 11,000 hours before the instrument flight hours got to 600 - and that was honest hands on hard work - none of this on automatic pilot. You weren't allowed to log autopilot time IMC because that was considered cheating.
Where does this awesome RFDS instrument flight hour requirement stem from? Even Qantas 747 captains don't have those sort of instrument flight hours and they carry 400 plus passengers. Is it an insurance thing? Is it really that difficult to fly a King Air or PC12 in IMC on autopilot that you need a minimum of 600 hours fair dinkum in cloud hands on flying on the clocks to get a look in?
About this 600 hours instrument flight time. Surely the advertisement means IFR flight time - not real in cloud hand flying time on instruments? Of course legally it could mean 600 hours of automatic pilot time IMC. Having said that, my view is that any pilot with over 50 hours hands-on cloud flying no cheating is an experienced IMC pilot in my book.
Locating some old log books gathering dust in the shed, one page showed close to 11,000 hours before the instrument flight hours got to 600 - and that was honest hands on hard work - none of this on automatic pilot. You weren't allowed to log autopilot time IMC because that was considered cheating.
Where does this awesome RFDS instrument flight hour requirement stem from? Even Qantas 747 captains don't have those sort of instrument flight hours and they carry 400 plus passengers. Is it an insurance thing? Is it really that difficult to fly a King Air or PC12 in IMC on autopilot that you need a minimum of 600 hours fair dinkum in cloud hands on flying on the clocks to get a look in?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cen... from my experience, the type of person they are looking for is not that common. The IF time is certainly a prime requirement, but I believe you will find the ability to manage and to be a good administrator who can work all the internal politics is what they are looking for. It has and always will be a special type of person that works for the RFDS (any section) and a very special type of person that becomes a Flight ops mgr and chief pilot. There are just not that many about. The last time the SE section recruited a FOM I understand there was only a very short list. It aint easy finding such a person. By looking at the IF time, you have missed the point.
Last edited by triadic; 30th Jan 2005 at 01:45.
Thread Starter
Triadic. Obviously the RFDS are looking for someone who they perceive is the Right Stuff by their standards - especially administrative experience.. No problem there. Just seems that they have already asked for 8 multi-engine renewals - so what is the point of requiring 600 instrument flight hours when it is not possible to verify those hours in the first place.
I know of airline pilots who stick 30 minutes of I/F in the daily flight record sheet just to keep the CASA auditors happy even though there is not a cloud in the sky and the aircraft is on Vnav and Lnav. In other words no way can it be verified as true.
. The original principle of instrument flight hours being a hands on requirement and therefore a rough measurement of a pilot's hands on experience in cloud, was made completely irrelevant when autopilot time spent reading a newspaper or eating lunch on a tray was legally approved by ICAO/ CASA as perfectly acceptable to log as instrument flight time. In other words the logging of instrument flight time by today's rules means it's not worth a pinch of salt by original standards. RFDS are merely perpetuating the myth by requiring unverifyable instrument hours.
I know of airline pilots who stick 30 minutes of I/F in the daily flight record sheet just to keep the CASA auditors happy even though there is not a cloud in the sky and the aircraft is on Vnav and Lnav. In other words no way can it be verified as true.
. The original principle of instrument flight hours being a hands on requirement and therefore a rough measurement of a pilot's hands on experience in cloud, was made completely irrelevant when autopilot time spent reading a newspaper or eating lunch on a tray was legally approved by ICAO/ CASA as perfectly acceptable to log as instrument flight time. In other words the logging of instrument flight time by today's rules means it's not worth a pinch of salt by original standards. RFDS are merely perpetuating the myth by requiring unverifyable instrument hours.
Centaurus,
Its not hard to get 10% of your total time as instrument time if your flying a turboprop single pilot, you are more likely to be in mid to low level cloud more often. You are less likely to get instrument time when flying above the tropopause, and less likely flying multi-crew, as only the pilot flying or controlling the autopilot can log I/F.
These crews go to "strips" at time in the most awful conditions, a lot of them are not served by approaches.
Flying a circuit into a strip/road where there is no runway lights (which does happen) at night in a remote area free from most ground lighting does take above average hand flying of the aircraft, its a IFR circuit, no autopilot. Only people who do similar are some tactical MIL flights, however I understand they use NVGs for doing this.
Most sections that I know of have MELs which allow the aircraft still to be flown single pilot with autopilot U/S for a number of days.
As far as I know it is not common to fly any non-ils approach in these aircraft with autopilot on.
As you would remember, renewals used to be done every 6 months, 8 is not unreasonable.
Flight ops manager sounds like a warm and fuzzy way of saying chief pilot.
I would rather go with a RFDS pilot any day when going anywhere remote, and a 744 skipper when going somewhere needing a CAT 3 approach, each part of the industry has its niche, obviously both pilots would have proved themselves over and over in demanding conditions.
Its not hard to get 10% of your total time as instrument time if your flying a turboprop single pilot, you are more likely to be in mid to low level cloud more often. You are less likely to get instrument time when flying above the tropopause, and less likely flying multi-crew, as only the pilot flying or controlling the autopilot can log I/F.
These crews go to "strips" at time in the most awful conditions, a lot of them are not served by approaches.
Flying a circuit into a strip/road where there is no runway lights (which does happen) at night in a remote area free from most ground lighting does take above average hand flying of the aircraft, its a IFR circuit, no autopilot. Only people who do similar are some tactical MIL flights, however I understand they use NVGs for doing this.
Most sections that I know of have MELs which allow the aircraft still to be flown single pilot with autopilot U/S for a number of days.
As far as I know it is not common to fly any non-ils approach in these aircraft with autopilot on.
As you would remember, renewals used to be done every 6 months, 8 is not unreasonable.
Flight ops manager sounds like a warm and fuzzy way of saying chief pilot.
I would rather go with a RFDS pilot any day when going anywhere remote, and a 744 skipper when going somewhere needing a CAT 3 approach, each part of the industry has its niche, obviously both pilots would have proved themselves over and over in demanding conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RFDS are after an OPS MANAGER , not a line driver. I don't consider their pre-requisites unreasonable.
Wouldn't be surprised if they know exactly who they want, and have formulated the pre-requisites around that person.
Just as an aside, a quick look at my logbook shows my IF time (actual + sim) about 5% of total time. How does that stack up against others?
Wouldn't be surprised if they know exactly who they want, and have formulated the pre-requisites around that person.
Just as an aside, a quick look at my logbook shows my IF time (actual + sim) about 5% of total time. How does that stack up against others?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see what Centaurus is getting at, 600 hours is a fair bit of IF time, but if that what they want ,thats what they want.
I've logged around 300 actual IFR hours out of 9 odd thousand hours (3.3%) with 14 renewals, compared to planned IFR flight time of around 6500 hours.
I, however, admit that I am pretty fortunate in where I fly, at the right time of the year I could go many weeks where I have never see a whiff of cloud and on others find levels on top or in between layers.
Anyway I tip my hat to the RFDS guys, their gig is way harder than mine....... and I don't mind keeping it that way either.
I've logged around 300 actual IFR hours out of 9 odd thousand hours (3.3%) with 14 renewals, compared to planned IFR flight time of around 6500 hours.
I, however, admit that I am pretty fortunate in where I fly, at the right time of the year I could go many weeks where I have never see a whiff of cloud and on others find levels on top or in between layers.
Anyway I tip my hat to the RFDS guys, their gig is way harder than mine....... and I don't mind keeping it that way either.
well.. l have just come out of the sim after sweaty 3 eng ndb approach on autopilot so l was a lot better when flying ndbs around normanton in an aerocommander all those years ago.And l take my hat off to any rfds pilot having witnessed what they had to fly through and into. Now back to my slippers and a decent pint
Yep, tq, it's pissing down snow outside so not much happening 
btw - I asked your redheaded ex colleague to fwd on an email as your bigpond one kept bouncing.
btw - I asked your redheaded ex colleague to fwd on an email as your bigpond one kept bouncing.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: At lunch
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The position is for Flight Ops Manager, which includes Chief Pilot, Head of Training and Checking, Aircraft/ Flight crew scheduling and I would assume oversight of maintenance scheduling, preparation of flight ops budgets etc etc etc.
It's their ad, they can ask for what they like, at least they haven't demanded that you self fund a B200 endorsement if you haven't already got one !
Disclaimer, currently am not, and never have been, RFDS
It's their ad, they can ask for what they like, at least they haven't demanded that you self fund a B200 endorsement if you haven't already got one !
Disclaimer, currently am not, and never have been, RFDS
I spent 3 years in with RFDS(QLD) and approx 20% of my logged hours were I.F.(mostly with autopilot but determined as IF by CASA Definition). Last couple of years flying RPT Jet and less than 2% logged I.F. (same definition). Flying RFDS you can never have too much IF experience! I now have about 8000TT and 890ish I.F. and have always used the same criteria for determining IF.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No what it means is that they already have someone for the job who has those hours and experience and are placing the ad in the paper (as they are legally required to do) knowing full well that the majority of people won't meet the requirements 
Nothing wrong with that really
Nothing wrong with that really
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ovum
Not necessarily so.
Even if the have 'head-hunted' someone common sense would say to place the add - you never know who is out there if you don't ask.
My research suggests they are looking for new blood.
Not necessarily so.
Even if the have 'head-hunted' someone common sense would say to place the add - you never know who is out there if you don't ask.
My research suggests they are looking for new blood.
Thread Starter
Clear to Land. Do you really log automatic pilot time as true instrument flight time - even though it is CASA approved? To us instrument purists that's like walking in the Anzac day march with fake medals on your chest.
Funny, I have never seen columns in my logbook that say “True Instrument Flight Time” and “False Instrument Flight Time”. CASA clearly state what IF time is and also state that falsification of a logbook is a criminal offence. I suggest people should log hours according to how CASA want you to, not how you feel you should log them. If anyone has a problem with CASA’s definitions take it up with them. If you don’t like what they tell you, have a court define it for you.
404,
You fly a B registered aircraft... do you log instrument time in accordance with your HKCAA licence or your CASA licence in your Australian log book ?
For example an Australian pilot flying a G registered aircraft on a UK JAR licence can log IF time whenever they are on an IFR flight plan ...this is "false instrument time" for CASA purposes, but valid under JAR.
You fly a B registered aircraft... do you log instrument time in accordance with your HKCAA licence or your CASA licence in your Australian log book ?
For example an Australian pilot flying a G registered aircraft on a UK JAR licence can log IF time whenever they are on an IFR flight plan ...this is "false instrument time" for CASA purposes, but valid under JAR.
swh
The Hong Kong CAD stipulates that “Instrument Flying” must be logged only when manipulating the flight controls solely by reference to instruments, either under actual or properly simulated instrument flight conditions. This is considerably more restrictive than in Australia where CASA has defined IF time to include the above and when the Auto Pilot is engaged. As I fly a “B” registered aircraft on my HK license logging the hours in a HK logbook, the Australian rules don’t apply. It is worth pointing out that the HK CAD have allowed me to keep all my IF time from my Aus license.
As for the Australian with a UK JAR license flying a “G” registered aircraft. The only problem I see here is if he wanted to convert his license or use the foreign IF time for keeping his Aus license current.
In conclusion you log the time in accordance with the state regulations for which you are licensed and operating in. If you want to keep a number of licenses valid then you need to comply with all the state requirements.
The Hong Kong CAD stipulates that “Instrument Flying” must be logged only when manipulating the flight controls solely by reference to instruments, either under actual or properly simulated instrument flight conditions. This is considerably more restrictive than in Australia where CASA has defined IF time to include the above and when the Auto Pilot is engaged. As I fly a “B” registered aircraft on my HK license logging the hours in a HK logbook, the Australian rules don’t apply. It is worth pointing out that the HK CAD have allowed me to keep all my IF time from my Aus license.
As for the Australian with a UK JAR license flying a “G” registered aircraft. The only problem I see here is if he wanted to convert his license or use the foreign IF time for keeping his Aus license current.
In conclusion you log the time in accordance with the state regulations for which you are licensed and operating in. If you want to keep a number of licenses valid then you need to comply with all the state requirements.