Paying for ICUS
Colleagues - use your backbone and don't pay for ICUS to get a commercial job. Whether you're wealthy or poor, you're determination is going to get you a commercial gig in most instances. Be patient and persistant.
I also cannot fathom that AFAP allow the advert in question; I imagine that they are targeting the young CPL Pilot. I will post AFAP's justification when it reaches my inbox!
I also cannot fathom that AFAP allow the advert in question; I imagine that they are targeting the young CPL Pilot. I will post AFAP's justification when it reaches my inbox!
NOSIGN - I take it from your post that you have asked them for a "please explain"
Good on you, and I intend to do the same.
Yeah, those who say that nothing can be changed if not a member are correct, but one or two members pushing for change will probably not achieve much either. All AFAP members (even if you are a "cynical" member - I am), please make the effort to tell 'em what you think about this.
CR
Good on you, and I intend to do the same.
Yeah, those who say that nothing can be changed if not a member are correct, but one or two members pushing for change will probably not achieve much either. All AFAP members (even if you are a "cynical" member - I am), please make the effort to tell 'em what you think about this.
CR
As stated earlier in the thread, I am no fan of paying for ICUS to get ahead, and agree with the general sentiment of the thread. I have not done it and will not do it myself.
But, at the same time, I would like to add a little balance to the conversation.
Those that think that this company is at fault for offering the service, or that the AFAP is at fault for advertising it, I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
Firstly, the AFAP already advertises plenty of those jobs from the companies that refuse to invest in/train their own and demand 10/50/100 hours on type for a job.
There are also plenty of companies out there offering (or exploiting young pilots, as some put it) at double the rate advertised by the company in question, or more! Advertising it at that price is actually helping to put 'exploitation', as some put it, out of business.
Secondly, there are plenty of legitimate situations where a bit of ICUS can help one to get/stay current, as opposed to using it and one's (or one's daddy's) money to get ahead of the pack.
GG suggested that spending the money on a simulator would be better than flying ICUS in preparation for a renewal. I don't disagree entirely, but also think it depends on in which area you struggle. In one night of ICUS you would typically do 5hrs with 2 day and 2 night approaches and get a reasonable refresher in the aeroplane for a price that would only get you about 40mins of private hire or dual in the aircraft.
There are also instructors trying to get hours towards a M/E instructor rating. I don't think they should be paying for these hours either (I think the requirement should to have 50hrs on commercial ops, and only as PIC, not ICUS), but that said, its a hell of a lot cheaper and also hell of a lot more valuable than private hiring and flying around aimlessly.
How about we attack the companies that put the people in such situations, and the pilots that at times throw money at aviation to get ahead even when it is not required (i.e. the I'll work for nothing or the I'll pay you for a job types), instead of the AFAP for simply advertising a legitimate service?
But, at the same time, I would like to add a little balance to the conversation.
Those that think that this company is at fault for offering the service, or that the AFAP is at fault for advertising it, I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
Firstly, the AFAP already advertises plenty of those jobs from the companies that refuse to invest in/train their own and demand 10/50/100 hours on type for a job.
There are also plenty of companies out there offering (or exploiting young pilots, as some put it) at double the rate advertised by the company in question, or more! Advertising it at that price is actually helping to put 'exploitation', as some put it, out of business.
Secondly, there are plenty of legitimate situations where a bit of ICUS can help one to get/stay current, as opposed to using it and one's (or one's daddy's) money to get ahead of the pack.
GG suggested that spending the money on a simulator would be better than flying ICUS in preparation for a renewal. I don't disagree entirely, but also think it depends on in which area you struggle. In one night of ICUS you would typically do 5hrs with 2 day and 2 night approaches and get a reasonable refresher in the aeroplane for a price that would only get you about 40mins of private hire or dual in the aircraft.
There are also instructors trying to get hours towards a M/E instructor rating. I don't think they should be paying for these hours either (I think the requirement should to have 50hrs on commercial ops, and only as PIC, not ICUS), but that said, its a hell of a lot cheaper and also hell of a lot more valuable than private hiring and flying around aimlessly.
How about we attack the companies that put the people in such situations, and the pilots that at times throw money at aviation to get ahead even when it is not required (i.e. the I'll work for nothing or the I'll pay you for a job types), instead of the AFAP for simply advertising a legitimate service?
Is this type of operation safe? The guys "Supervising" in the RHS have no requirement for instructor training, and no two crew time. How well is the "supervision" conducted?
Personally, I think CASA should legislate specifically under which conditions valid ICUS can be logged - and that should really only be with a rated instructor in the RHS, or under a C&T organisation.
Personally, I think CASA should legislate specifically under which conditions valid ICUS can be logged - and that should really only be with a rated instructor in the RHS, or under a C&T organisation.
Checkboard,
Read back through the thread. All the guys doing the ICUS do go through a specific program (and at the present time all happen to be instructors also) . Not all pilots in the company are approved to do it, so the ones that are are rostered on specifically when any ICUS is to be done.
Read back through the thread. All the guys doing the ICUS do go through a specific program (and at the present time all happen to be instructors also) . Not all pilots in the company are approved to do it, so the ones that are are rostered on specifically when any ICUS is to be done.
IMO you also can't log ICUS in the right seat, it has to be in the left with a check captain or chief pilot who is approved to occupy that seat. I bet CASA has the same viewpoint.
Actually this is not the CASA viewpoint
Actually this is not the CASA viewpoint
OK, Matt, I accept your viewpoint was that ICUS can be conducted from RHS in some cases, but anyone who does it from the RHS in a Nav/Chief????
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? You can adequetely reach all the CB's and switches without having to constantly lean across the LHS pilot in a PA31?
OK, Matt, I accept your viewpoint was that ICUS can be conducted from RHS in some cases, but anyone who does it from the RHS in a Nav/Chief????
OK, Matt, I accept your viewpoint was that ICUS can be conducted from RHS in some cases, but anyone who does it from the RHS in a Nav/Chief????
I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, I was just pointing out that it may be allowed (in response to GG's "I bet CASA has the same viewpoint").
The guys "Supervising" in the RHS have no requirement for instructor training, and no two crew time.
As I said Matt, understand the reason for your reply.
There used to be an operator, however, who flew ICUS from the RHS in 31's.
Glekichi, can you confirm Tasair isn't one of these operators?
There used to be an operator, however, who flew ICUS from the RHS in 31's.
Glekichi, can you confirm Tasair isn't one of these operators?
Glekichi,
IMHO there are situations where pay for ICUS may be legitimate, you have named a few; renewal training, re-currency training , contract Pilot, the private Pilot etc.
However, pay for ICUS schemes can be easily exploitated and I feel that advertising such a risky 'offer' on a Pilots union job webpage is inappropriate.
I also hope that any company offering 'pay for ICUS' is not commercially benefiting from utilising two Crew - that would be an exploitation at the highest level. I am not suggesting that this is the situation at TASAIR.
IMHO there are situations where pay for ICUS may be legitimate, you have named a few; renewal training, re-currency training , contract Pilot, the private Pilot etc.
However, pay for ICUS schemes can be easily exploitated and I feel that advertising such a risky 'offer' on a Pilots union job webpage is inappropriate.
I also hope that any company offering 'pay for ICUS' is not commercially benefiting from utilising two Crew - that would be an exploitation at the highest level. I am not suggesting that this is the situation at TASAIR.
Why would you need an instructor rating or multi crew time to supervise a qualified pilot acting in command of a single pilot operation?
I have read the CASA communication, and see that they "expect" that such training has taken place, but do not require it.
Having thought about it a bit, I don't see this as such a bad thing, if it is done correctly. In a single pilot context, it doesn't usurp a paid job. It does give an opportunity to gain experience in a commercial operation, which is perhaps more useful than hiring an aircraft to fly around by yourself.
Last edited by Checkboard; 18th Jan 2010 at 13:17.
The pilot under supervision should be able to physically fly the aeroplane, that is he should be able to confidently fly the approach etc with out the supervisory pilot needing to possibly take over. The supervisory pilot should be there to help with the decision making process. They are there to help you be a pilot in command, not to help you be a pilot. If they need to help you be a pilot then it, IMO, is not ICUS.
I concur with AerocatS2A.
When on an ICUS flight I would expect the supervisor to sit there quietly monitoring the other pilots flying. The supervisor is only there for legal reasons (normally to do with min 10hrs on type, etc). There would be no taking over and showing the other pilot how it is done, and no need for 2 crew co-ordination (accept when the aircraft is a 2 crew operation), it is not a lesson. The pilot under ICUS is fully qualified to fly the aircraft and just lacks time on type. The only things I would expect the supervisor to do would be to offer suggestions on how to improve operation of the aircraft, and to assist in an emergency.
When on an ICUS flight I would expect the supervisor to sit there quietly monitoring the other pilots flying. The supervisor is only there for legal reasons (normally to do with min 10hrs on type, etc). There would be no taking over and showing the other pilot how it is done, and no need for 2 crew co-ordination (accept when the aircraft is a 2 crew operation), it is not a lesson. The pilot under ICUS is fully qualified to fly the aircraft and just lacks time on type. The only things I would expect the supervisor to do would be to offer suggestions on how to improve operation of the aircraft, and to assist in an emergency.
Aerocat and rmcdonal you are both right on that and it is how the vast majority of the flights end up taking place, but that doesn't mean one can get complacent.
The reality is that most people with a fresh instrument rating, and quite a few with more experience, will put you in some sort of danger when attempting their first few night circling approaches and black hole takeoffs. Unusual attitudes are not that unusual!
I'd say about half of the trainees will need either a take over or some very firm advice on their first flight or two. Instructors will be used to letting the situation go as far as possible before intervening, but for the non-instructors it could be a bit of a challenge to let the person make the mistakes and learn from them.
The reality is that most people with a fresh instrument rating, and quite a few with more experience, will put you in some sort of danger when attempting their first few night circling approaches and black hole takeoffs. Unusual attitudes are not that unusual!
I'd say about half of the trainees will need either a take over or some very firm advice on their first flight or two. Instructors will be used to letting the situation go as far as possible before intervening, but for the non-instructors it could be a bit of a challenge to let the person make the mistakes and learn from them.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Federation Position
As a result of concerns being expressed by members of the Federation we have decided to discontinue the TAS AIR training advertisement on the Jobs page.
For the benefit of those who are not members and wish to criticise the Federation be aware the site is provided for free to all and sundry as a service to our industry. There is a disclaimer in relation to the jobs that are advertised ’BUYER BEWARE’.
Lawrie Cox
Manager – Industrial Relations
Australian Federation of Air Pilots
For the benefit of those who are not members and wish to criticise the Federation be aware the site is provided for free to all and sundry as a service to our industry. There is a disclaimer in relation to the jobs that are advertised ’BUYER BEWARE’.
Lawrie Cox
Manager – Industrial Relations
Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Thread Starter
Lawrie, thank you for listening to your members.
Now if we can remove this rot of paying for ICUS to get a job, the companies will actually invest in training (like they had to in 2007) and the cycle will finally be broken.
If all you fellas with money burning a hole in your pockets hang onto it, then that money will come in pretty handy when you are chasing that first job.
Now if we can get a more modern GA award that actually represents the cost of living in the towns where the majority of GA Pilots actually work, we may make some head way.
Remember Lawrie a starting out GA pilot used to earn what a teacher earnt and teachers are now over 50K. We are still in the low 30's. If a company cannot afford to pay its staff what they should be earning it should not be operating. Let the companies that are doing the right thing actually be able to charge the customer the real cost of air travel/charter and in turn be able to invest in the fleet and facilities. The sooner these fly by night operators disappear the sooner we will have a GA industry which is again attractive as a career. (The Airlines will then have to move the ball too)
GG
Now if we can remove this rot of paying for ICUS to get a job, the companies will actually invest in training (like they had to in 2007) and the cycle will finally be broken.
If all you fellas with money burning a hole in your pockets hang onto it, then that money will come in pretty handy when you are chasing that first job.
Now if we can get a more modern GA award that actually represents the cost of living in the towns where the majority of GA Pilots actually work, we may make some head way.
Remember Lawrie a starting out GA pilot used to earn what a teacher earnt and teachers are now over 50K. We are still in the low 30's. If a company cannot afford to pay its staff what they should be earning it should not be operating. Let the companies that are doing the right thing actually be able to charge the customer the real cost of air travel/charter and in turn be able to invest in the fleet and facilities. The sooner these fly by night operators disappear the sooner we will have a GA industry which is again attractive as a career. (The Airlines will then have to move the ball too)
GG
I too am an AFAP member, and I can see why this has been done and accept the decision, but for now all this means is that more unwitting young pilots will continue to pay double that rate at other organisations that may or may not do it to as high a standard.
As has been said though, lets now move on then and also for starters ban the advertising of companies that do not pay the award and do not invest in staff training.
As has been said though, lets now move on then and also for starters ban the advertising of companies that do not pay the award and do not invest in staff training.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hunters and gatherers.
There are companies which are hunting fools and gathering money.
I remember getting another company in to do a charter for us in a chieftain and they had two pilots. Super safe!!
After they had loaded passengers they taxied out with the flipper doors open. Had they checked the hydraulic pumps?
Some companies are charging more for ICUS than they are paying the suopervising pilot.
These things are usually a mark of an opportunistic organisation. Most of the long established companies behave better than that.
But these days there is a constant supply of fools.
I remember getting another company in to do a charter for us in a chieftain and they had two pilots. Super safe!!
After they had loaded passengers they taxied out with the flipper doors open. Had they checked the hydraulic pumps?
Some companies are charging more for ICUS than they are paying the suopervising pilot.
These things are usually a mark of an opportunistic organisation. Most of the long established companies behave better than that.
But these days there is a constant supply of fools.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy,
...fools and dreamers, fools and dreamers..... and it has always been thus in aviation. How else could you get someone to fork out the dollars for a licence and associated ratings to only earn a pittance.
Incidentally, I suspect the reason for the two crew Chieftain was a bust autopilot.
And I can remember talking with you about your early days in GA. Back then you said a pilot earned approximately the same as a teacher. If that were the case today I suspect that a lot more would stay in GA or come back when they realise the dream of RPT is actually a bad one.
When I learnt to fly rather a long time ago now
the instructors were full time, earned enough to support a family and children and the aircraft were new and replaced with new about every three years. Where has it all gone so badly wrong? 
...fools and dreamers, fools and dreamers..... and it has always been thus in aviation. How else could you get someone to fork out the dollars for a licence and associated ratings to only earn a pittance.
Incidentally, I suspect the reason for the two crew Chieftain was a bust autopilot.
And I can remember talking with you about your early days in GA. Back then you said a pilot earned approximately the same as a teacher. If that were the case today I suspect that a lot more would stay in GA or come back when they realise the dream of RPT is actually a bad one.
When I learnt to fly rather a long time ago now
the instructors were full time, earned enough to support a family and children and the aircraft were new and replaced with new about every three years. Where has it all gone so badly wrong?
Last edited by PLovett; 20th Jan 2010 at 10:35. Reason: dyslexia