Mega Merged: REX Recruitment/Cadetship and Working for REX
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex can easily fix the shortage of command hours of their cadets by setting up or buying a charter company (or doing a proper deal with one) so they have "career progression" for their cadets and pay them award wages(or better).
This would be a better arrangement than relying on GA for free training as too many airlines do. Some of the GA companies are now paying more than REX.
It is great to see that one airline is taking responsibility for training their own pilots. This will increase the strenght of the airline, and the GA industry. Both need more sdtability and less transient people.
This would be a better arrangement than relying on GA for free training as too many airlines do. Some of the GA companies are now paying more than REX.
It is great to see that one airline is taking responsibility for training their own pilots. This will increase the strenght of the airline, and the GA industry. Both need more sdtability and less transient people.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: a long way South
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar Cadet Program
Seeing that the cost of the program is pretty much the same as the REX program, how does the REX program compare?
Taking into account that one gets a chance to train in HK or the UK , availability of Fee-Help, high capacity AOC and hence Command progression and the thoroughness of the Jetstar scheme from what I gather from their website, is REX overcharging???
Hope those in the REX program are not feeling short-changed.
Taking into account that one gets a chance to train in HK or the UK , availability of Fee-Help, high capacity AOC and hence Command progression and the thoroughness of the Jetstar scheme from what I gather from their website, is REX overcharging???
Hope those in the REX program are not feeling short-changed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this jetstar cadetship is $154,000 and you have a 'conditional' offer of employment... sounds great BUT its so freaking expensive!! rex is around $88,000
why cant an australian airline do what cathay have done!! an all expenses paid cadetship
why cant an australian airline do what cathay have done!! an all expenses paid cadetship
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the air
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe both airlines will start lowering their cadetship prices just like their fares!
I can see management cutting costs to give the customer a cheaper cadetship at their airline.
Might make it very affordable one day
I can see management cutting costs to give the customer a cheaper cadetship at their airline.
Might make it very affordable one day
Care to elaborate aviator23.
Did you also know that Cadet graduates will soon be banned from night landings and X-wind landings above a certain minimum untill a stated level of experience is gained?
Perhaps a CASA trade-off? Perhaps not?
ICUS is already available. Firstly though, you need to have an ATPL. You cannot fly in command RPT >5700kg without one. The "C" in ICUS stands for command. OOOPS!
Did you also know that Cadet graduates will soon be banned from night landings and X-wind landings above a certain minimum untill a stated level of experience is gained?
Perhaps a CASA trade-off? Perhaps not?
ICUS is already available. Firstly though, you need to have an ATPL. You cannot fly in command RPT >5700kg without one. The "C" in ICUS stands for command. OOOPS!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICUS
Krusty - are you saying that you can't log ICUS on the SAAB without having an ATPL?
I was of the impression that you could log ICUS to get your ATPL,
even RPT >5700kg.
I can't imagine anyone logging ICUS on a seminole.
let me know the CASA reference from which you get this information Krusty.
p.s. usually your on the ball Krusty(hope your wrong on this one though)
=D
I was of the impression that you could log ICUS to get your ATPL,
even RPT >5700kg.
I can't imagine anyone logging ICUS on a seminole.
let me know the CASA reference from which you get this information Krusty.
p.s. usually your on the ball Krusty(hope your wrong on this one though)
=D
bmarley26, you are correct. You do not need to hold an ATPL to log ICUS. You must hold a CPL and a command endorsement on the aircraft type etc. The whole idea of logging ICUS would be to gain the required aeronautical experience to upgrade the licence.
Refer to CAR 5.40 for full requirements.
Refer to CAR 5.40 for full requirements.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
must agree with KRUSTY, again.
to be IN COMMAND of an RPT flight with more than 9 pax seats, or MTOW greater than 5700kg, then the pilot MUST hold an ATPL AND a command endorsement on the aircraft.
BOTH... not just one.
I believe that there is one chap doing approx 400 hours ICUS, but only to bring his TOTAL command time up. He already holds an ATPL, AND a command endorsement.
to be IN COMMAND of an RPT flight with more than 9 pax seats, or MTOW greater than 5700kg, then the pilot MUST hold an ATPL AND a command endorsement on the aircraft.
BOTH... not just one.
I believe that there is one chap doing approx 400 hours ICUS, but only to bring his TOTAL command time up. He already holds an ATPL, AND a command endorsement.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to have to side with maverick22 and bmarley26 on this one. The ex-Macair FO's used to be allowed to log ICUS when they were the flying pilot so that they could build the hours required for an upgrade to command. They did have command endorsements but not an ATPL. Besides if you needed an ATPL to log ICUS on RPT then wouldn't you also need 2,000 hours total time with 500 hours multi engine command? There'd be hardly any point to ICUS time if you needed the requirements of a captain to log any.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ex-Macair FO's used to be allowed to log ICUS when they were the flying pilot so that they could build the hours required for an upgrade to command
if so, then I stand corrected!
bmarley26, yeah I was stirring the pot a bit, but there is a lot more to this thing than many seem to realise.
The fact is, this has been debated previously. ICAO annex 1 (crediting of flight time) permits the logging of ICUS for the purposes of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence. I'll say that again, A higher grade of pilot licence. CASA, being a signature state to ICAO can therefore approve the logging of ICUS for this purpose.
More than 3 years ago the Air Transport Operations Group, a snug little division in CASA with a pro-operator agenda, decided to formulate a system where by CPL holding F/Os could in fact log ICUS from the RHS on line ops, merely because it was their leg. Contained in this cynical and rediculous document was the premise that because of the advent of single engine turbine types now replacing the traditional multi-engine piston aircraft in G/A, the logging of "Multi" engine time prior to joining the airlines was becoming a thing of the past! Whether you believe this nonsence or not, one must ask, what the hell does the logging of "Multi" time have to do with attaining a higher grade of licence? Absolutely nothing. It's command hours, specifically 250, of which 150 may be ICUS, that is required for the issue of an ATPL. So why use this proviso of ICAO annex 1 as the cornerstone for the document? Because it's all about circumventing the experience requirements of CAO 82.3, and that refers in part to the requirement for 500 hours multi under the IFR! Two completely different things.
The problem for CASA, and their airline management mates, is that the ATOG proposal was exposed for the flawed document it was. Any sort of scheme for the logging of ICUS from the RHS can only be employed untill such time as the candidate has logged 150 hours, this being the ICUS requirement for the issue of a higher grade of licence (ATPL). After that it's not legal.
Ooops!
The fact is, this has been debated previously. ICAO annex 1 (crediting of flight time) permits the logging of ICUS for the purposes of attaining a higher grade of pilot licence. I'll say that again, A higher grade of pilot licence. CASA, being a signature state to ICAO can therefore approve the logging of ICUS for this purpose.
More than 3 years ago the Air Transport Operations Group, a snug little division in CASA with a pro-operator agenda, decided to formulate a system where by CPL holding F/Os could in fact log ICUS from the RHS on line ops, merely because it was their leg. Contained in this cynical and rediculous document was the premise that because of the advent of single engine turbine types now replacing the traditional multi-engine piston aircraft in G/A, the logging of "Multi" engine time prior to joining the airlines was becoming a thing of the past! Whether you believe this nonsence or not, one must ask, what the hell does the logging of "Multi" time have to do with attaining a higher grade of licence? Absolutely nothing. It's command hours, specifically 250, of which 150 may be ICUS, that is required for the issue of an ATPL. So why use this proviso of ICAO annex 1 as the cornerstone for the document? Because it's all about circumventing the experience requirements of CAO 82.3, and that refers in part to the requirement for 500 hours multi under the IFR! Two completely different things.
The problem for CASA, and their airline management mates, is that the ATOG proposal was exposed for the flawed document it was. Any sort of scheme for the logging of ICUS from the RHS can only be employed untill such time as the candidate has logged 150 hours, this being the ICUS requirement for the issue of a higher grade of licence (ATPL). After that it's not legal.
Ooops!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reply to krusty
If you don't have an ATPL then any experience gained, including ICUS, could be considered experience put towards "A higher grade of pilot licence."
Now I'm just stirring the pot Krusty....
have a good one
Now I'm just stirring the pot Krusty....
have a good one
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land down under
Age: 43
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nt pilot;
Answer: $$$$, or less of them in managements bottom line.
this jetstar cadetship is $154,000 and you have a 'conditional' offer of employment... sounds great BUT its so freaking expensive!! rex is around $88,000
why cant an australian airline do what cathay have done!! an all expenses paid cadetship
why cant an australian airline do what cathay have done!! an all expenses paid cadetship
Absolutely bmarley26, IMHO all experience is valuable, especially total aeronautical. The main point I'm making however, is that the gaining of certain types of experience ,ie: 100 hours command (non ICUS) for the ATPL, and 500 hours multi-command under the IFR (a requirement for Low Capacity AOC), cannot simply be attained just by it being the candidates flying sector. For the balance of the 100 hours command, it has to be "Command", and the 500 hours multi-command under the IFR, to satify the requirements of the AOC, can only be conducted from the LHS under the "supervision" of a qualified Check/Training Captain once the minimum 150 hours ICUS for the issue of the ATPL has been completed. Pheew!!! That's what has them scratching their heads.
So, my original question to aviator28 still stands. Over to you.
So, my original question to aviator28 still stands. Over to you.