Metro FO's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pursuing Happiness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro FO's
In Australia with a Metro type rating, but with only 20hrs as FO on type and low multi PIC, ie; less than 50 hrs, what, if any is the likelyhood of getting employment on a Metro, and if employed as a FO is it possible to advance to the left hand seat with low PIC?
Any advice on this subject would be great, or if anyone has been down this road before, any advice?
Thanks
Any advice on this subject would be great, or if anyone has been down this road before, any advice?
Thanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are a couple of operators who have put low time pilots on as FOs. In saying that, none progress to the left seat without going out and doing command time [read multi] for a year of two in lighties.
My advise would be to get the PIC time under your belt first. You will be able to progress to left, and also make a better FO at the same time.
Good luck.
My advise would be to get the PIC time under your belt first. You will be able to progress to left, and also make a better FO at the same time.
Good luck.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree 100% with engine out. seen many a scenario before of guys jumping into the right seat with low time, very easy move. will not move to left seat though unless the step out of the metro, go back to something smaller and get some cmd time. Just get the cmd time first, and then jump into the metro, will save the heart ache later!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grivation
Only in Australia??
Some research may determine the reason for this is the minimum requirements of PIC time from the insurer. To keep the premiums or the policy excess at a managable level some operators may very well have set a minimum PIC limit.
Makes you think now, dosn't it.
Only in Australia??
Some research may determine the reason for this is the minimum requirements of PIC time from the insurer. To keep the premiums or the policy excess at a managable level some operators may very well have set a minimum PIC limit.
Makes you think now, dosn't it.
Grivation, I prefer the guy/gal up the front to have a bit of time up their sleeves before being set loose on a Turbine. Just because in the UK/EU you only need 200hrs and $120,000 means nothing.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Big Whiskey
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really knocks me for a six (after an under-arm delivery ofcourse!) when I read shyte like this.
'you can't move to the left hand seat until after you've gone back into a single pilot operation for another two years.'
Two crew ops and single pilot ops are completely foreign to each other so why make someone unlearn good sound multi-crew skills after having developed a good working knowledge of it.? That particular pilot will observe over time command decisions and participate in them as well from the right hand seat, so why on earth does he need to go and pick up single pilot habbits?
Once again the insurrance norms in Australia need a look at I think, they are out of sync. Put together back in the 60's perhaps? Another example is the attitude insurrance companies have towards aviation as a an occupation. The companies view our occupation alongside the armed forces, so they will not cover us if we are killed on the job, or may stack up the premium to compensate.
The occupation of pilot is now one of the safest in the world, there are many other occupations where the mortality rate is infinitely higher, yet they are still covered, ie, motorcycle/cycle courrier, building construction worker to name a few.
In Europe you don't see 737 F/O's going back onto twin bugsmashers just to get the command time. They don't need to. More Auusie aviation folklore.
Blue Foot
'you can't move to the left hand seat until after you've gone back into a single pilot operation for another two years.'
Two crew ops and single pilot ops are completely foreign to each other so why make someone unlearn good sound multi-crew skills after having developed a good working knowledge of it.? That particular pilot will observe over time command decisions and participate in them as well from the right hand seat, so why on earth does he need to go and pick up single pilot habbits?
Once again the insurrance norms in Australia need a look at I think, they are out of sync. Put together back in the 60's perhaps? Another example is the attitude insurrance companies have towards aviation as a an occupation. The companies view our occupation alongside the armed forces, so they will not cover us if we are killed on the job, or may stack up the premium to compensate.
The occupation of pilot is now one of the safest in the world, there are many other occupations where the mortality rate is infinitely higher, yet they are still covered, ie, motorcycle/cycle courrier, building construction worker to name a few.
In Europe you don't see 737 F/O's going back onto twin bugsmashers just to get the command time. They don't need to. More Auusie aviation folklore.
Blue Foot
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe rmcdonal, you should sit down and design a good competency based command upgrade program.
Then splatman could present it to his underwriters and make a case for a premium reduction.
Yeah right - Cat III ops, contaminated runways, snow, sleet, ice, language, airspace saturation.
As BFB put it "Aussie Aviation Folklore"
Then splatman could present it to his underwriters and make a case for a premium reduction.
Just because in the UK/EU you only need 200hrs and $120,000 means nothing.
means nothing.
Yeah right - Cat III ops, contaminated runways, snow, sleet, ice, language, airspace saturation.
I don't believe a pilot should have to step back into a single pilot job in order to move ahead, I do however believe that they should not be in that position in the first place without the experience to back it up.
While I’m getting in everyone’s way;
The occupation of pilot is now one of the safest in the world, there are many other occupations where the mortality rate is infinitely higher, yet they are still covered, ie, motorcycle/cycle courrier, building construction worker to name a few.
CAT III, isn't that where you turn the autopilot on and let plane land it’s self?
Edited because I went a bit to far
Last edited by rmcdonal; 22nd Mar 2006 at 10:32.
Originally Posted by Grivation
Yeah right - Cat III ops yawn... autoland, contaminated runways ...Antiskid, snow ...external de-icing crew, sleet ...again, ground based de-ice, ice ....heated intakes/leading edges/boots/vanes etc etc and an aircraft that can outclimb the ice, language ....I'll grant you that one, airspace saturation ...Have you ever tried to get into Cannington Mine at 8.05am on a Thursday morning arranging your own seperation in a piston twin?
As I'll put it: "Aussie Aviation Deadset Legends", and I salute all of you in whose daily grind have to make the above descisions day in and day out and don't get the opportunity to live in posh shiny houses in big cities and enjoy the soft lifestyle that goes with it. I choose to do the work I do at the minute (as do a great many of people), and the people who belittle and deride my lifestyle choice need a fair dinkum kick up the butt.
GA in a lot of ways is an apprenticeship, and many find their niche in it. Don't s#!tcan them (none of them do that to you), as our job has it's own set of difficulties and we have to work the whole thing out ourselves without the help of another head in the cockpit to help us. Put yourself in their shoes for a change, you might be surprised what a positive learning experience GA really is for the decision making process.
JetABro, Grivation & Blue-Footed Boobie
A lot of it also has to do with the fact that a low time driver may not have the experience required to hold an ATPL and therefore can’t command an aircraft over 5700kg in most operations.
As has been mentioned insurance companies play a very big part in determining minimum pilot experience so does contractual requirements with clients like mining companies, oil companies and government contracts.
My advice is get the command time first and then consider F/O time in larger aircraft once you can obtain an ATPL.
Requirements for an ATPL(A).
5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical
experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that
includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised
aeroplane.
(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time
must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in
command under supervision.
(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or
more of the following:
(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered
aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;
(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:
(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a
flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation
5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or
(b).
5.173 Aeronautical experience: calculation of flight time
(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may
be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and
(d) as describe the flight time.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in
command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command
under supervision.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of
instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the
75 hours of instrument flight time.
(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours
in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal
amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).
(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more
than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.
(6) CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of
subregulation (4).
[Note Operational standards for synthetic flight trainers are set out in the documents
titled “FSD1—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved Flight
Simulators” and “FSD2—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved
Synthetic Trainers” that are published by CASA.]
(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph
5.172 (4) (c):
(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and
(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.
(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:
(a) as pilot in command; or
(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or
(c) in dual flying;
must be halved in calculating the person’s flight time for the purposes
of regulation 5.172.
A lot of it also has to do with the fact that a low time driver may not have the experience required to hold an ATPL and therefore can’t command an aircraft over 5700kg in most operations.
As has been mentioned insurance companies play a very big part in determining minimum pilot experience so does contractual requirements with clients like mining companies, oil companies and government contracts.
My advice is get the command time first and then consider F/O time in larger aircraft once you can obtain an ATPL.
Civil Aviation Regulations
Requirements for an ATPL(A).
5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical
experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that
includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised
aeroplane.
(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time
must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in
command under supervision.
(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or
more of the following:
(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered
aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;
(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:
(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a
flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation
5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or
(b).
5.173 Aeronautical experience: calculation of flight time
(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may
be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and
(d) as describe the flight time.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in
command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command
under supervision.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of
instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the
75 hours of instrument flight time.
(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours
in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal
amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).
(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more
than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.
(6) CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of
subregulation (4).
[Note Operational standards for synthetic flight trainers are set out in the documents
titled “FSD1—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved Flight
Simulators” and “FSD2—Operational Standards and Requirements—Approved
Synthetic Trainers” that are published by CASA.]
(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph
5.172 (4) (c):
(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and
(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport
operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.
(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:
(a) as pilot in command; or
(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or
(c) in dual flying;
must be halved in calculating the person’s flight time for the purposes
of regulation 5.172.
Guest
Posts: n/a
404,
just a quick correction...ATPL is only required to be PIC in an aircraft requiring more than one pilot. You can be PIC on a metro 3/23(being above 5700kg) without an ATPL, as long as it is single pilot (e.g. freight, or 9 pax configuration (not that I have seen one)) the metro is a single pilot certified aircraft.
just a quick correction...ATPL is only required to be PIC in an aircraft requiring more than one pilot. You can be PIC on a metro 3/23(being above 5700kg) without an ATPL, as long as it is single pilot (e.g. freight, or 9 pax configuration (not that I have seen one)) the metro is a single pilot certified aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JETABRO.....Plenty of advice there for you.......I think most of us have had to do METRO 2/3 time.....enjoy it whilst you can,in the end you may hate the thing if you spend to much time in it.....
but one thing is for sure,.....it will teach you how to fly a turbine,..everything after that will be a piece of p@ss!!!.......my advice...if you get the opportunity to get into the left seat...TAKE IT....low time or not....best of luck mate.....pahi iti......PB
but one thing is for sure,.....it will teach you how to fly a turbine,..everything after that will be a piece of p@ss!!!.......my advice...if you get the opportunity to get into the left seat...TAKE IT....low time or not....best of luck mate.....pahi iti......PB
EngineOut
I was sought of alluding to that when I said “most operations”. Maybe I should have been clearer but as the original poster was talking about multi crew operations I didn’t want to complicate the conversation.
My advice to anyone even contemplating doing the FO thing first on a light turbo prop, don’t. The way the reg’s are in Australia and insurance company and client requirements, you could be backing yourself into a corner. Get the command time first then consider the FO time.
I was sought of alluding to that when I said “most operations”. Maybe I should have been clearer but as the original poster was talking about multi crew operations I didn’t want to complicate the conversation.
My advice to anyone even contemplating doing the FO thing first on a light turbo prop, don’t. The way the reg’s are in Australia and insurance company and client requirements, you could be backing yourself into a corner. Get the command time first then consider the FO time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pursuing Happiness
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Certianly given me something to think about. When you have been stuck on the ground as long as I have you need to review all the options presented to you.
Once again, thanks.
Just one last question, roughly how many companies still operate Metro's in Australia that take on low cmd FO's?
Thanks
JetABro
Once again, thanks.
Just one last question, roughly how many companies still operate Metro's in Australia that take on low cmd FO's?
Thanks
JetABro
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the regs that require the command time for multi crew ops - not insurance companies. Outfits with CAR 217 systems don't have insurance minimums (not that I've ever seen). There are moves afoot to amend the CAO Multi Command requirement for RPT ops (although not the ATPL requirement) - I think it will happen soon. The ATPL command requirement includes 150 hrs ICUS so in reaility only 100 hours PIC is required for RHS - LHS transition. NZ is a good model to use. Never thought I'd ever hear myself saying that 
JetA_OK
Insurance requirements are going to vary between insurance companies. Some are more stringent than others. From my experience client requirements were always the most demanding and sometimes made it very difficult to find new drivers when the ones we had moved on.
I don’t disagree that CASA will eventually change the requirements to operate RPT command but I still think it is a little way away as they have always dragged their heals in the past when things needed to be changed.
Insurance requirements are going to vary between insurance companies. Some are more stringent than others. From my experience client requirements were always the most demanding and sometimes made it very difficult to find new drivers when the ones we had moved on.
I don’t disagree that CASA will eventually change the requirements to operate RPT command but I still think it is a little way away as they have always dragged their heals in the past when things needed to be changed.