Merged: Qantaslink Traineeship/Cadetship/General Employment
Was it a CAO day to stop 7 days straight? If not, I'd be interested to read where in the EBA they're within their rights to dangle replacement days off as carrots! 'cos next time I'll be pushing the issue!
Dragun,
The Sunstate EBA has the option of either 8 hours @ double $ching$ or a lower amount and a substitute day off.
That being said, when crewing are super short of crew they can be allowed to offer extras to get the job done!
Stoob.
The Sunstate EBA has the option of either 8 hours @ double $ching$ or a lower amount and a substitute day off.
That being said, when crewing are super short of crew they can be allowed to offer extras to get the job done!
Stoob.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: gold coast Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who make best Airlines Pilots are Cadets with Degrees ..Not Cowboys on 210s
This post was written a number of years ago for a flight training website. It is replicated here with a few minor modifications (but fails to address more recent developments in the MCPL/cadet programs) as an introduction to what will come next – a post on Jetstar’s Cadet Program. Although it was written with an Aussie focus, it’s still relevant globally.
I was fortunate enough to get a fairly comprehensive blurb on the Multi Crew Licence (MCPL) by a CASA friend of mine quite a few years ago before the nature of the licence was widely known or publicised to the industry. At the time, I remember I was somewhat opposed to it (this post intially came a few days later), but have since come very close to becoming an advocate for such programs – and this has a lot to do with the effect General Aviation (GA) potentially has on a pilot, rather than the benefits offered by the radically different licence or cadet program.
At the time I was first introduced to the MCPL concept, I argued with passion that the nature of traditional light aircraft flight training was multi crew anyhow… even if it was just the instructor and student. The crew still adheres to certain fundamental multi crew procedures and – if the operating methodology in the aircraft were altered only slightly with an emphasis on CRM/management strategies – the same procedures you apply in a small Cessna would transition into real two crew types. Any student I fly with today would feel quite comfortable in an airliner from a procedural perspective. Of course, my earlier argument was fundamentally flawed because I didn’t consider the long-term consequences of exposure to GA. A good or bad thing? I still don’t know.
As somebody that has grown up within the ‘corruptible ranks’ of general aviation I’ve got conflicting views on the MCPL and cadet programs but, for the purpose of my ramble, I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate and comment on some of the less favourable qualities on GA.
The MCPL was fundamentally a European airline initiative (driven by ICAO) not that dissimilar to traditional cadet programs. It’s primary purpose was to overhaul the nature of flight training to cater for a more modern flight deck with a focus on CRM, Threat and Error Management (TEM) training and high altitude flying – all tightly governed with a competency based syllabus.
Cadet programs are more traditional. Training seeks to train pilots with a full commercial airplane licence, a command instrument rating and a ‘frozen’ ATPL. Although the syllabus is heavily influenced by CRM, multi-crew and TEM training, it is focused on training pilots in a real aircraft with a lesser emphasis on simulation (until a conversion course is conducted).
Airline cadets have always copped a raw deal from those within the bitter ranks of the general aviation fraternity because they are seen as people who shortcut the so-called hard yards into an airline job without having to endure the years of ‘character building’ offered by the myriad of jobs in GA. I can relate to both sides of the argument and I have concluded, in my own mind, that the decision by airlines and/or CASA to have a licence that bypasses the majority of this might be the lesser of two evils.
Sure – general aviation offers a great deal to a pilot and provides for experiences and an education that is arguably worth its weight in gold, but I’m not completely convinced that the GA environment is conducive to the ideal airline pilot candidate.
GA Monopoly
GA pilots have an unknown history, they are an unknown quantity and it’s difficult to adequately profile them for flaws that would potentially make them unsuitable for a multi crew cockpit. The synergy of an airline cockpit relies on a harmonious blend of disciplined personalities who have a similar mindset and function in a similar way. When seasoned GA pilots undergo airliner conversion training you’re essentially trying to undo thousands of hours of conditioned behaviour and years of bad habits that may potentially poison the sterile pointy end of a Boeing like a cancer. Some might argue that they’re a diamond in the rough… but that’s another argument.
Cadets and MCPL trainees, on the other hand, can be conditioned to operate in a desired manner. They essentially surrender their capacity to ‘think’… and they’re easily assimilated into the cultural collective. Airlines want clones. They’re effectively rationalising pilots’ brains.
Airlines want a pilot that has a complete and utter dependence on the OPS Manual and SOPs. They want to employ pilots that have a complete reliance on published company policy and procedure rather than the erroneous, three-dimensional mentality of a GA pilot. I am not saying that GA guys don’t adhere to their ops manual or have an appreciation of SOPs etc, but they do develop a habit of making fuzzy in-flight interpretations of regulations and their ops manual; and they often make radical operational decisions on the fly to cater for changing circumstances – without published ‘guidelines’ – something that is generally frowned upon in scheduled airline service.
It is simply unacceptable at the HCRPT level to have a willingness to kneel before commercial pressures and compromise on safety. If a person can do this once; they can likely do it easier the second time. In the airline environment the commercial pressure is very rarely applied and you always have a broader support for your decisions – but in GA, failing to ‘play the game’ often means your job.
A quote from another post:
At times throughout my general aviation career I couldn’t help but feel that many pilots were so blinded by visions of a big jet left seat, the big bags of money at the end of the general aviation ladder and the long legs of the busty stewardesses that they soon lose their passion for flight and trade it in for a couple of kitchen knives and a large stone to occupy the area of their chest normally reserved for a heart. Most general aviation pilots have little choice but to assimilate themselves into the career-hungry collective or be left in the wake of those around them. The dissension and dissatisfaction (that evolves from the frustration that one is not flying a jet) often creates quite the hostile working environment, despite the fact that the people you’re working with are among your best friends. Don’t get me wrong: general aviation provides for a motivating work environment since most pilots have more ambitious plans for their future, but it also encourages some people to consistently compromise their personal values for the same reason.
My personal Australian experience with others suggests that general aviation often breeds a bitter contempt for the industry; for safety; and for procedures in some pilots. Many pilots end up spending their life savings so they can beg for a poorly paid job flying well-tanned Northerners around; and then maybe they’ll score another poorly paid job in a beaten up twin in Darwin. Is this really character building? Is this really the kind of management flying that Qantas wants from its potential Captains?
Before you know it, the same clowns are posting beaten up lies to Prune and online forums in an attempt to fast track their career with little regard to the consequences or the people they tread all over on the way. Isn’t it better to recruit and train potential airline pilots before the industry does irreparable damage to their otherwise innocent and uncorrupted psyche?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the flight training situation in Australia is getting worse. Standards are dropping, the number of pilots applying to courses is decreasing, aircraft are getting older, airports are disappearing, training is fast becoming more expensive, and CASA is seemingly making attempts to eradicate the pestering private sectors of the industry. If the flight training market is failing to produce quality candidates for airlines then it makes sense that the airlines will introduce a licence or/and a course that they can take control of themselves. It is probably the most effective means – and perhaps the only means – of flight crew quality assurance in the recruitment process.
I only know of two or three schools that I would recommend to anybody if I were asked. I mean… how effective could training really be when the typical instructors are all under the age of 20 and paid by the hour? Many of these junior instructors have only been flying aircraft a year longer than the student they’re teaching! I know of countless schools where instructors teaching commercial pilots have never actually flown a commercial flight.
I was fortunate enough to get a fairly comprehensive blurb on the Multi Crew Licence (MCPL) by a CASA friend of mine quite a few years ago before the nature of the licence was widely known or publicised to the industry. At the time, I remember I was somewhat opposed to it (this post intially came a few days later), but have since come very close to becoming an advocate for such programs – and this has a lot to do with the effect General Aviation (GA) potentially has on a pilot, rather than the benefits offered by the radically different licence or cadet program.
At the time I was first introduced to the MCPL concept, I argued with passion that the nature of traditional light aircraft flight training was multi crew anyhow… even if it was just the instructor and student. The crew still adheres to certain fundamental multi crew procedures and – if the operating methodology in the aircraft were altered only slightly with an emphasis on CRM/management strategies – the same procedures you apply in a small Cessna would transition into real two crew types. Any student I fly with today would feel quite comfortable in an airliner from a procedural perspective. Of course, my earlier argument was fundamentally flawed because I didn’t consider the long-term consequences of exposure to GA. A good or bad thing? I still don’t know.
As somebody that has grown up within the ‘corruptible ranks’ of general aviation I’ve got conflicting views on the MCPL and cadet programs but, for the purpose of my ramble, I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate and comment on some of the less favourable qualities on GA.
The MCPL was fundamentally a European airline initiative (driven by ICAO) not that dissimilar to traditional cadet programs. It’s primary purpose was to overhaul the nature of flight training to cater for a more modern flight deck with a focus on CRM, Threat and Error Management (TEM) training and high altitude flying – all tightly governed with a competency based syllabus.
Cadet programs are more traditional. Training seeks to train pilots with a full commercial airplane licence, a command instrument rating and a ‘frozen’ ATPL. Although the syllabus is heavily influenced by CRM, multi-crew and TEM training, it is focused on training pilots in a real aircraft with a lesser emphasis on simulation (until a conversion course is conducted).
Airline cadets have always copped a raw deal from those within the bitter ranks of the general aviation fraternity because they are seen as people who shortcut the so-called hard yards into an airline job without having to endure the years of ‘character building’ offered by the myriad of jobs in GA. I can relate to both sides of the argument and I have concluded, in my own mind, that the decision by airlines and/or CASA to have a licence that bypasses the majority of this might be the lesser of two evils.
Sure – general aviation offers a great deal to a pilot and provides for experiences and an education that is arguably worth its weight in gold, but I’m not completely convinced that the GA environment is conducive to the ideal airline pilot candidate.
GA Monopoly
GA pilots have an unknown history, they are an unknown quantity and it’s difficult to adequately profile them for flaws that would potentially make them unsuitable for a multi crew cockpit. The synergy of an airline cockpit relies on a harmonious blend of disciplined personalities who have a similar mindset and function in a similar way. When seasoned GA pilots undergo airliner conversion training you’re essentially trying to undo thousands of hours of conditioned behaviour and years of bad habits that may potentially poison the sterile pointy end of a Boeing like a cancer. Some might argue that they’re a diamond in the rough… but that’s another argument.
Cadets and MCPL trainees, on the other hand, can be conditioned to operate in a desired manner. They essentially surrender their capacity to ‘think’… and they’re easily assimilated into the cultural collective. Airlines want clones. They’re effectively rationalising pilots’ brains.
Airlines want a pilot that has a complete and utter dependence on the OPS Manual and SOPs. They want to employ pilots that have a complete reliance on published company policy and procedure rather than the erroneous, three-dimensional mentality of a GA pilot. I am not saying that GA guys don’t adhere to their ops manual or have an appreciation of SOPs etc, but they do develop a habit of making fuzzy in-flight interpretations of regulations and their ops manual; and they often make radical operational decisions on the fly to cater for changing circumstances – without published ‘guidelines’ – something that is generally frowned upon in scheduled airline service.
It is simply unacceptable at the HCRPT level to have a willingness to kneel before commercial pressures and compromise on safety. If a person can do this once; they can likely do it easier the second time. In the airline environment the commercial pressure is very rarely applied and you always have a broader support for your decisions – but in GA, failing to ‘play the game’ often means your job.
A quote from another post:
At times throughout my general aviation career I couldn’t help but feel that many pilots were so blinded by visions of a big jet left seat, the big bags of money at the end of the general aviation ladder and the long legs of the busty stewardesses that they soon lose their passion for flight and trade it in for a couple of kitchen knives and a large stone to occupy the area of their chest normally reserved for a heart. Most general aviation pilots have little choice but to assimilate themselves into the career-hungry collective or be left in the wake of those around them. The dissension and dissatisfaction (that evolves from the frustration that one is not flying a jet) often creates quite the hostile working environment, despite the fact that the people you’re working with are among your best friends. Don’t get me wrong: general aviation provides for a motivating work environment since most pilots have more ambitious plans for their future, but it also encourages some people to consistently compromise their personal values for the same reason.
My personal Australian experience with others suggests that general aviation often breeds a bitter contempt for the industry; for safety; and for procedures in some pilots. Many pilots end up spending their life savings so they can beg for a poorly paid job flying well-tanned Northerners around; and then maybe they’ll score another poorly paid job in a beaten up twin in Darwin. Is this really character building? Is this really the kind of management flying that Qantas wants from its potential Captains?
Before you know it, the same clowns are posting beaten up lies to Prune and online forums in an attempt to fast track their career with little regard to the consequences or the people they tread all over on the way. Isn’t it better to recruit and train potential airline pilots before the industry does irreparable damage to their otherwise innocent and uncorrupted psyche?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the flight training situation in Australia is getting worse. Standards are dropping, the number of pilots applying to courses is decreasing, aircraft are getting older, airports are disappearing, training is fast becoming more expensive, and CASA is seemingly making attempts to eradicate the pestering private sectors of the industry. If the flight training market is failing to produce quality candidates for airlines then it makes sense that the airlines will introduce a licence or/and a course that they can take control of themselves. It is probably the most effective means – and perhaps the only means – of flight crew quality assurance in the recruitment process.
I only know of two or three schools that I would recommend to anybody if I were asked. I mean… how effective could training really be when the typical instructors are all under the age of 20 and paid by the hour? Many of these junior instructors have only been flying aircraft a year longer than the student they’re teaching! I know of countless schools where instructors teaching commercial pilots have never actually flown a commercial flight.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is something that needs to be said though for REAL world experience... not a flight simulator. When you do a type rating you go through the sessions and cover all the required bases. But no training can prepare you for every circumstance... failures are rarely textbook, especially in highly complex aircraft. Dealing with a strange situation is a lot easier at 120kts in a 206 in vmc octa than in a Saab or 737 at 250kts in the terminal area with low ceilings. Scenario a has nothing to do with scenario b; it has everything to do with it.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gold7x7 - the post seems to make some sweeping assumptions in dismissing GA experience our of hand to justify the end goal of the training organisations. I can see the point though, there is a yawning gulf in technical requirements, mindset and procedure between light GA flying and jet airline operations. Perhaps it is better for the airlines to just simply clone the pilots they need....
Like on when your #2 engine throws a turbine disk through your wing severing controls? Or when having to land on the Hudson river? I don't think its fair to simply dismiss experience, however gained, as irrelevant because it was gained outside the control of an airline training organisation. Maybe it does create a more relaxed mindset - but is that offset by the grinding in of flying fundamentals over so many years? I don't know I am not there yet in flying. All I can say is that in my line of work, experience counts because it means seeing what you are not trained for, having to think beyond the documentation you are given.
Devil's advocate here - this also applies to their experience of industrial relations, not to mention the fact bringing in an untrained person means they have a lower starting base salary. This effectively reduces overall salary capacity in the long term. From my experience in the corporate world (outside aviation) I suspect this has as much to do with it as the training aspects. I know it happened to me in IT, starting on a low base was good enough for me, but I was paid 40-50% lower than the other guys in the team, despite doing the same work as well as excelling in my reviews. They had me from the get go, so small bumps were all I knew.
Maybe in the long term this is a good thing. Perhaps not having this golden end zone of airline flying might reduce the churn in GA and make the industry more healthy as people stay flying instead of trying to climb the ladder. Or maybe it will just starve the GA sector of work completely as the pool of prospective pilots dries up.
they often make radical operational decisions on the fly to cater for changing circumstances – without published ‘guidelines’
Isn’t it better to recruit and train potential airline pilots before the industry does irreparable damage to their otherwise innocent and uncorrupted psyche?
Maybe in the long term this is a good thing. Perhaps not having this golden end zone of airline flying might reduce the churn in GA and make the industry more healthy as people stay flying instead of trying to climb the ladder. Or maybe it will just starve the GA sector of work completely as the pool of prospective pilots dries up.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a quick question to anyone in the know..
with the traineeship seemingly back in full swing now and new courses starting every few weeks/months and numerous planned for next year- it seems recruitment at qlink is back to what it was in 2007/2008 when the program was initially layed out- or nearing that point!
My question is- back in 08' during the desperate times for crew- QLink resorted to hiring guys with <500 hrs as many are well aware of.. at this stage the guys hired this year seem to be those with experience but lately a few with 500-1000 hours circa have been employed..
Just wondering if anyone thinks this will be the general trend and if this will continue for the intakes next year and revert back to how it was in 07/08' with the low hour entrants.
Cheers,
N
with the traineeship seemingly back in full swing now and new courses starting every few weeks/months and numerous planned for next year- it seems recruitment at qlink is back to what it was in 2007/2008 when the program was initially layed out- or nearing that point!
My question is- back in 08' during the desperate times for crew- QLink resorted to hiring guys with <500 hrs as many are well aware of.. at this stage the guys hired this year seem to be those with experience but lately a few with 500-1000 hours circa have been employed..
Just wondering if anyone thinks this will be the general trend and if this will continue for the intakes next year and revert back to how it was in 07/08' with the low hour entrants.
Cheers,
N
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nkand
To be blunt, Qlink are in the process of bleeding pilots and the rate of atrittion is only going to increase in the near future.
This is coupled with 7 new airframes arriving next year (i.e. 70 more pilots).
Qlink will be competing with J* and DJ who are also recruiting (as well as Tiger, VA, etc)
Draw your own conclusions as to where the "minimum requirements" will be adjusted.
Cheers,
DIVOSH!
This is coupled with 7 new airframes arriving next year (i.e. 70 more pilots).
Qlink will be competing with J* and DJ who are also recruiting (as well as Tiger, VA, etc)
Draw your own conclusions as to where the "minimum requirements" will be adjusted.
Cheers,
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: location loaction
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm interesting,
Does anyone know if they have resorted to hiring pilots whom are "close" to having all the minimum requirements. I recall late in 2007/08 they were paying for pilots to complete thier ATPL's to be elidgible. Some with as little as 300hrs.
Does anyone know if they have resorted to hiring pilots whom are "close" to having all the minimum requirements. I recall late in 2007/08 they were paying for pilots to complete thier ATPL's to be elidgible. Some with as little as 300hrs.
Rocket
Highly unlikely that this will happen again....Most of the guys coming through now have experience....time to command for these new guys though probably around the 3-4 years as a lot of the cadets/trainees now meet/or close to meeting the min requirements.
Highly unlikely that this will happen again....Most of the guys coming through now have experience....time to command for these new guys though probably around the 3-4 years as a lot of the cadets/trainees now meet/or close to meeting the min requirements.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested in applying for the Qlink Traineeship but seem to have hit a snag.
The minimum criteria states:
I am over 18 years old - Tick the box
I am a Permanent Resident - Tick the box
Holder of Australian or New Zealand Passport - Oops, dont have one
I emailed QL Recruitment to query the requirement to hold an Australian or New Zealand Passport given that Permanent Residents seem eligible to apply and asking if an overseas passport with PR visa would be considered an equivalent. They came back with the answer "No"
I emailed back asking them to clarify this on the basis that all other Qantas group companys will accept an overseas passport with a PR visa.
The answer has come back again as "I have consulted with our management, and you are required to hold an Australian or New Zealand passport"
Has anybody else come across this one?
Cheers
Biggles
The minimum criteria states:
Age/Residency/Passport
- Applicants must be 18 years old;
- Australian Citizen, Australian Permanent Residents or New Zealand Citizen (documentation required);
- Hold and maintain a current Australian or New Zealand passport with access to all Qantas ports.
I am a Permanent Resident - Tick the box
Holder of Australian or New Zealand Passport - Oops, dont have one
I emailed QL Recruitment to query the requirement to hold an Australian or New Zealand Passport given that Permanent Residents seem eligible to apply and asking if an overseas passport with PR visa would be considered an equivalent. They came back with the answer "No"
I emailed back asking them to clarify this on the basis that all other Qantas group companys will accept an overseas passport with a PR visa.
The answer has come back again as "I have consulted with our management, and you are required to hold an Australian or New Zealand passport"
Has anybody else come across this one?
Cheers
Biggles
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now a 4 year stint as a PR before you can apply for citizenship.
Yes looks like I may just have to wait it out but I just cannot seen why QL would be any different to all the other Qantas Group companies or indeed any other airline.
Just does not seem right to me.
Yes looks like I may just have to wait it out but I just cannot seen why QL would be any different to all the other Qantas Group companies or indeed any other airline.
Just does not seem right to me.
Wonder if the few 'Seth efricans' QLK employed during the busy period in 2008 have an Aussie Passport?
If they were employed on a 457 visa, is that sufficient for dual citizenship or even issuing of Aus passport? Just a consideration...
If they were employed on a 457 visa, is that sufficient for dual citizenship or even issuing of Aus passport? Just a consideration...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Splinter
Can you explain the ''simple"PNG ops thing to me please.
Are you suggesting that I cannot fly into PNG because I do not have an Aussie Passport?
I was in PNG six months ago - a simple process of just getting the Entry permit - no problems!!
Cheers
Can you explain the ''simple"PNG ops thing to me please.
Are you suggesting that I cannot fly into PNG because I do not have an Aussie Passport?
I was in PNG six months ago - a simple process of just getting the Entry permit - no problems!!
Cheers