Rex pilot shortage under control ?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty, under the ATOG proposal, will the ICUS pilots actually have to conduct take offs from the right hand seat from a standing start?
Will Rex (if they havn't already) ammend the ops manual to reflect this?
Will the ICUS be expected to carry out a rejected take off if necessary?
A big thing about being in command is that while the engines are running, 34+ lives rest in the command decisions that you make. As an FO, you don't have that responsibility, if anything happens it is up to the other guy to make the hard decisions, including the decision to abort a take off. This is why I ask the question about the take off, if the decision to abort or continue is not yours, you are not in command. If you are in command, you must have the ability to assume control in all situations that may arise especialy during take off!
Will Rex (if they havn't already) ammend the ops manual to reflect this?
Will the ICUS be expected to carry out a rejected take off if necessary?
A big thing about being in command is that while the engines are running, 34+ lives rest in the command decisions that you make. As an FO, you don't have that responsibility, if anything happens it is up to the other guy to make the hard decisions, including the decision to abort a take off. This is why I ask the question about the take off, if the decision to abort or continue is not yours, you are not in command. If you are in command, you must have the ability to assume control in all situations that may arise especialy during take off!
Gidday mr flappy.
The normal operating procedures for REX is that the Left Pilot (Captain) always controls the direction of the aircraft on the ground at speeds less than 80 knots, irrespective of who's sector it is. Under the ATOG proposal this will remain unchanged. The only exception would be if the Captain becomes incapacitated.
The ATOG proposal is defective in as much to what it leaves out as to the flawed way in which it seeks to justify this whole excercise. Basically it seeks to allow line F/O's to log ICUS from the right seat during normal line ops without any sort of additional training or supervision whatsoever. The only stipulation is that in order to log the ICUS, then it must be deemed the F/O's sector!
Rejected takeoff training is conducted in the SIM as part of the ongoing cyclic program. F/O's are exposed to it, but the latter stages of the reject would still be handled by the Captain. If the reject was due to a Captain being incapacitated, then the F/O would be expected to bring the aircraft safely to a stop, and they recieve training to that effect. As far as further taxiing beyond exiting the runway is concerned, F/O's are neither trained nor approved for this type of operation.
The ATOG proposal is worded in such a way as to exempt the operator from any further training, or expense with regard to ICUS candidates.
As far as the command of flight is concerned, Normal line Captains apparently will recieve no additional training (or remuneration) when conducting ICUS flights! I would suggest the In Command Under Supervision will have zero Command and very little supervision, beyond of course the normal dynamic of a typical line flight.
Makes you wonder what the real agenda is doesn't it?
The normal operating procedures for REX is that the Left Pilot (Captain) always controls the direction of the aircraft on the ground at speeds less than 80 knots, irrespective of who's sector it is. Under the ATOG proposal this will remain unchanged. The only exception would be if the Captain becomes incapacitated.
The ATOG proposal is defective in as much to what it leaves out as to the flawed way in which it seeks to justify this whole excercise. Basically it seeks to allow line F/O's to log ICUS from the right seat during normal line ops without any sort of additional training or supervision whatsoever. The only stipulation is that in order to log the ICUS, then it must be deemed the F/O's sector!
Rejected takeoff training is conducted in the SIM as part of the ongoing cyclic program. F/O's are exposed to it, but the latter stages of the reject would still be handled by the Captain. If the reject was due to a Captain being incapacitated, then the F/O would be expected to bring the aircraft safely to a stop, and they recieve training to that effect. As far as further taxiing beyond exiting the runway is concerned, F/O's are neither trained nor approved for this type of operation.
The ATOG proposal is worded in such a way as to exempt the operator from any further training, or expense with regard to ICUS candidates.
As far as the command of flight is concerned, Normal line Captains apparently will recieve no additional training (or remuneration) when conducting ICUS flights! I would suggest the In Command Under Supervision will have zero Command and very little supervision, beyond of course the normal dynamic of a typical line flight.
Makes you wonder what the real agenda is doesn't it?
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 18th Oct 2008 at 15:45.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aust
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way the check and training system is operating in Rex you would think there was no pilot shortage problem at all. The head of check and training needs to have his head examined. Never have I met someone so ego driven, yet so pathetic. As I understand it, unless you have a ZL background, you are not good enough to be in the training dept... at least thats how it appears in ADL. The FOM at that base should be embarassed from recent events.
Heres a news flash for thows that think the Saab is some sort of space shuttle....IT'S NOT. It's a Saab. A great plane that does a good job, but it ain't that hard!! The sooner certain people loose the "little airline syndrome" and except they are running a basic regional airline, that hires average pilots that now usually don't even have an ATPL, and stop trying to pretend Rex and the Saab is something it's not the better. Where are the next lot of Captains coming from? The last lot failed and the guys behind them have even less experience!!!
The head of T and C could also do with a few lessons on people skills. How someone even gets into that position when they have the same ability to listen as a door mat is beyond me.
Heres a news flash for thows that think the Saab is some sort of space shuttle....IT'S NOT. It's a Saab. A great plane that does a good job, but it ain't that hard!! The sooner certain people loose the "little airline syndrome" and except they are running a basic regional airline, that hires average pilots that now usually don't even have an ATPL, and stop trying to pretend Rex and the Saab is something it's not the better. Where are the next lot of Captains coming from? The last lot failed and the guys behind them have even less experience!!!
The head of T and C could also do with a few lessons on people skills. How someone even gets into that position when they have the same ability to listen as a door mat is beyond me.
Spot on Desk,
It's amazing how one man can create such a culture of anger and fear that permeates the entire company. I wonder if LKH really knows the true cost of the time and money which is wasted to satisfy one man's giant ego.
It's amazing how one man can create such a culture of anger and fear that permeates the entire company. I wonder if LKH really knows the true cost of the time and money which is wasted to satisfy one man's giant ego.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aust
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id say LKH has no idea how much money this excuse for a leader has blown by having guys fail that are getting minor things wrong. Basic things don't get de-briefed...guys fail, have to re-do the check and then naturally get through. It's a joke.
I remember being trained by an ex KD pilot many moons ago, and when he found out NH was down to do my check to line decided to give me a few extra sectors training so I could avoid him. He said that I had a lessor chance of passing with him as I was trained by an ex KD guy. This was before NH was the head of check and training!! He had a bad rep then, and it certainly hasn't got any better. He should be a man and grow up! As I said earlier..it's a Saab...not that hard. If NH does find it to be the most complicated piece of kit known to man, maybe he is out of his depth.
I remember being trained by an ex KD pilot many moons ago, and when he found out NH was down to do my check to line decided to give me a few extra sectors training so I could avoid him. He said that I had a lessor chance of passing with him as I was trained by an ex KD guy. This was before NH was the head of check and training!! He had a bad rep then, and it certainly hasn't got any better. He should be a man and grow up! As I said earlier..it's a Saab...not that hard. If NH does find it to be the most complicated piece of kit known to man, maybe he is out of his depth.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/o`s fly 50% of the time, and are expected to handle the aircraft as PF if an engine lets go on rotation or an engine catches fire, or if the whole freaken sky caves in. They are are expected to handle the aircraft safely in any emergency situation and make descions, WITH the captain to ensure a safe outcome. Perhaps if F/o`s went to work and did paperwork and just made radio calls it would be fair to say that the should only log co-pilot hours. but if old mate in the left seat carks it and, the weather is crap, throw in some failure of sorts, the F/o is still expected to bring the aircraft down safely.
Icus isn`t flawed, and Rex`s operation would be well suited to it. It`s the whole constant debate on pay and conditions that has made it a point of concern.
Icus isn`t flawed, and Rex`s operation would be well suited to it. It`s the whole constant debate on pay and conditions that has made it a point of concern.
Quote:
"It`s the whole constant debate on pay and conditions that has made it a point of concern."
Not an unreasonable statement M.L.
Isn't it amazing that after eons of pilot surpluses it has come to pass that when the tide is reversed, it's still all about the cheapest option. Your points have merit, but if they were the only dimension to what constitutes Command experience, then the provisions of the AOC would have been cast off years ago.
They wish to change the rules to suit their commercial imperitive. Simple as that!
"It`s the whole constant debate on pay and conditions that has made it a point of concern.
"Not an unreasonable statement M.L.
Isn't it amazing that after eons of pilot surpluses it has come to pass that when the tide is reversed, it's still all about the cheapest option. Your points have merit, but if they were the only dimension to what constitutes Command experience, then the provisions of the AOC would have been cast off years ago.
They wish to change the rules to suit their commercial imperitive. Simple as that!
Ok Tank', I'll bite.
When the QF F/O's (whom I assume have less than 250 hours Command under the IFR!) log ICUS, Is there a stipulated program or set of hoops that the candidate and indeed the "Supervisory Captain" must satisfy for this to happen.
Genuine question!
When the QF F/O's (whom I assume have less than 250 hours Command under the IFR!) log ICUS, Is there a stipulated program or set of hoops that the candidate and indeed the "Supervisory Captain" must satisfy for this to happen.
Genuine question!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We call it Command training!
However we went through years as a S/O and F/O in the system and it becomes the norm.
I presume at REX the F/Os do take-offs and landings??
The Captain already supervises these, just let the F/O do the flight planning, order fuel, liaise with other staff and make operational decisions [under his/her supervision] and this is ICUS. The Captain still boss, and if WX or X-wind not OK then Capt's sector. F/Os log co-pilot when Capt's landing and ICUS when it's theirs.
This ICUS goes towards ATPL hours for eventual Command.
Regards,
Tank
However we went through years as a S/O and F/O in the system and it becomes the norm.
I presume at REX the F/Os do take-offs and landings??
The Captain already supervises these, just let the F/O do the flight planning, order fuel, liaise with other staff and make operational decisions [under his/her supervision] and this is ICUS. The Captain still boss, and if WX or X-wind not OK then Capt's sector. F/Os log co-pilot when Capt's landing and ICUS when it's theirs.
This ICUS goes towards ATPL hours for eventual Command.
Regards,
Tank
Thanks Tank'. Now we're getting some where.
Command training is one thing, but unfortunately that's not what we're talking about. Training is fine, but it is the lack of training that most concerns me and quite a few other Captains. You state that..."just let the F/O do the flight planning, order fuel, liaise with other staff and make operational decisions..." Is this part of a formalised process or is it left to the individual initiative of the Captain on the day?
Secondly, you presume correct. The F/O's at REX do conduct Take-offs and Landings. Usually on a leg for leg basis.
Finally, you state that the ICUS goes towards ATPL hours for eventual command. You only need to log 150 hours ICUS as part of the requirements for the ATPL. Indeed the ATOG proposal uses the ICAO annex 1 to justify this. The requirements of the LCAOC however demands at least 500 hours Multi-IFR. A completely unrelated requirement!
I'm not trying to be difficult. I am honestly attempting to get a handle on exactly what ICUS means at QANTAS and how it differs from what is being proposed by ATOG!
I'm pretty sure we are talking about two vastly different scenerios.
Command training
is one thing, but unfortunately that's not what we're talking about. Training is fine, but it is the lack of training that most concerns me and quite a few other Captains. You state that..."just let the F/O do the flight planning, order fuel, liaise with other staff and make operational decisions..." Is this part of a formalised process or is it left to the individual initiative of the Captain on the day?Secondly, you presume correct. The F/O's at REX do conduct Take-offs and Landings. Usually on a leg for leg basis.
Finally, you state that the ICUS goes towards ATPL hours for eventual command. You only need to log 150 hours ICUS as part of the requirements for the ATPL. Indeed the ATOG proposal uses the ICAO annex 1 to justify this. The requirements of the LCAOC however demands at least 500 hours Multi-IFR. A completely unrelated requirement!
I'm not trying to be difficult. I am honestly attempting to get a handle on exactly what ICUS means at QANTAS and how it differs from what is being proposed by ATOG!
I'm pretty sure we are talking about two vastly different scenerios.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty - its exactly the same scenario.
Under this interpretation ICUS can be logged for hours building towards licences and requirements. This is an issue for how the FO logs hours. This is separate from the ICUS required under a CAR 217 to attain a certain standard (ie Command on a SF340). This ICUS is conducted on a set syllabus by a Supervisory or Training Captains.
When someone has their 500 hours ME requirement to satisfy CAO 82.3 App 4 AND the company is prepared to upgrade them AND the seniority system if it exists allows it - THEN the candidate can then progress onto a Command Upgrade ICUS program under the CAR 217 system.
This entire process would take approx 3 years for a cadet at REX. A candidate who is well trained initially and operates within a disciplined multi crew IFR system with stringent C&T (which REX has) and meets these requirements, may actually make an excellent Captain
How do the RAAF do it? Do they send Herc drivers to the Bungle Bungles for 2 years or do they train them internally for command in a disciplined environment with checks and balances? Indeed, how does the rest of the world do it?
Under this interpretation ICUS can be logged for hours building towards licences and requirements. This is an issue for how the FO logs hours. This is separate from the ICUS required under a CAR 217 to attain a certain standard (ie Command on a SF340). This ICUS is conducted on a set syllabus by a Supervisory or Training Captains.
When someone has their 500 hours ME requirement to satisfy CAO 82.3 App 4 AND the company is prepared to upgrade them AND the seniority system if it exists allows it - THEN the candidate can then progress onto a Command Upgrade ICUS program under the CAR 217 system.
This entire process would take approx 3 years for a cadet at REX. A candidate who is well trained initially and operates within a disciplined multi crew IFR system with stringent C&T (which REX has) and meets these requirements, may actually make an excellent Captain
How do the RAAF do it? Do they send Herc drivers to the Bungle Bungles for 2 years or do they train them internally for command in a disciplined environment with checks and balances? Indeed, how does the rest of the world do it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a side note there, the RAAF are NOT bound by CASA rules/regs. They are a law unto themselves. They do not NEED top stipulate xxx hours in command etc.
whether they do or not, is an entirely seperate issue
whether they do or not, is an entirely seperate issue
Join Date: May 2007
Location: qld (if you couldn't work that out from my name!)
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time and money which is wasted to satisfy one man's giant ego.
How someone even gets into that position when they have the same ability to listen as a door mat is beyond me.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 52
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know that the health of a check and training system is not good when you start hearing FO’s talk of not even wanting to aim for a command within the company. Reasons like not being happy with what they see the captains going through, or simply the process being too stressful. Why put the massive effort in just to have one of the above ‘implicated’ people crush your goals for something minor. Then have to wait 6 months to start the whole process again!?! Whatever! What a croc. When will they learn!
Radar.
Radar.
How did Sunstate(Mildura) or then Southern get low time new hire co-pilots on the Shorts and then Dash up to command standard? They employed some low time guys with new CPL and IFR and put them into the right seat of the Shorts and Dash over the years. The former GM reckons they were easier to train, than some of the GA aces that they employed over the years.
Quote:
"Under this interpretation ICUS can be logged for hours building towards licences and requirements."
JetA_OK
The interpretation you mention I assume is the ATOG proposal (and please correct me if you're refering to something else). The ATOG proposal makes no mention of "requirements", only a "higher catagory of licence", ie ATPL, and therefore is incorrect in it's intended application.
The logging of ICUS from the right seat for the purpose of gaining command experience for the issue of an ATPL is covered by the provisions of ICAO annex 1. The logging of ICUS from the right seat to satisfy the requirements of the AOC is not covered by any Reg that I have been able to find. Hense the intent (although flawed) of the ATOG proposal.
As the requirements of the ATPL are for 250 hours command (of which 150 can be ICUS) the logging of ICUS from the right seat by low command hour candidates for the purpose of attaining their ATPL requirements can virtually ensure enough Multi-IFR hours to satisfy the HCAOC. The requirements of the LCAOC as we know, demands 500 hours Multi-IFR.
I would suggest that it is the hours above the requirements of the ATPL, but 250 hours short of the LCAOC, is what's causing headaches for REX and the proponents of this scheme in CASA!
The logging of ICUS from the left seat for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the LCAOC, under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain would involve no additional legislation. But it would be expensive.
And that is what this is all about!
"Under this interpretation ICUS can be logged for hours building towards licences and requirements."
JetA_OK
The interpretation you mention I assume is the ATOG proposal (and please correct me if you're refering to something else). The ATOG proposal makes no mention of "requirements", only a "higher catagory of licence", ie ATPL, and therefore is incorrect in it's intended application.
The logging of ICUS from the right seat for the purpose of gaining command experience for the issue of an ATPL is covered by the provisions of ICAO annex 1. The logging of ICUS from the right seat to satisfy the requirements of the AOC is not covered by any Reg that I have been able to find. Hense the intent (although flawed) of the ATOG proposal.
As the requirements of the ATPL are for 250 hours command (of which 150 can be ICUS) the logging of ICUS from the right seat by low command hour candidates for the purpose of attaining their ATPL requirements can virtually ensure enough Multi-IFR hours to satisfy the HCAOC. The requirements of the LCAOC as we know, demands 500 hours Multi-IFR.
I would suggest that it is the hours above the requirements of the ATPL, but 250 hours short of the LCAOC, is what's causing headaches for REX and the proponents of this scheme in CASA!
The logging of ICUS from the left seat for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the LCAOC, under the supervision of a qualified Check and/or Training Captain would involve no additional legislation. But it would be expensive.
And that is what this is all about!