Career co-pilots??

[travelator]

I have only been talking about Jetstar too! Or possibly Jetstar Grounp which will be a whole new low. These days Jetstar takes on many different forms and scales and things are no longer black and white.

By getting qualified pilots that are A320 type rated using your SOPs as the entry point, it does reduce the training cost to Jetstar compared to a direct entry pilot.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they only ever recruit A320 rated crew. Direct entry have to pay for an endorsement before they start and Jetstar also receive a spotters fee from the training organisation. As far as I'm aware, the Alteon endorsement is now done as per the Jetstar SOP's but I may be wrong. I would be reasonably confident that the endorsement course that the cadets are given will be same as the direct entry. It certainly reduces the training cost becasue the cadet is payed much less. Speak to any training captains in other companies that have used a scheme like this (REX, Qlink etc) and I would be pretty sure that they would say the experienced guy is far easier and quicker to train. The cadet will have to be fed a lot more knowledge and need more time to develop their skills in general compared to the experienced guy who brings much of the knowledge and skill required. This is a general statement as I'm sure there are brilliant cadets and idiot DE's.

Two cadet schemes are at play, the Ab Initio Program and the Advanced Cadet Program.

I realise that. Again this comes back to cost cutting. Other cadet schemes in other airlines (QF etc) take a green pilot (zero experience) and mould them over time into valuable members of the flight crew. They are paid the same as the rest of the crew and fill the third seat (generally) for many years until they have the vast experience required. This new scheme does not play like this. It will take any already qualified pilot and stick them in a seat after taking thousands of dollars from them and paying them less than their fellow crew. It is simply and only a way to cut costs. Just like the new check in systems are designed to make paid staff redundant, not make life easier for passengers.

[swh]

Originally Posted by travelator

Correct me if I'm wrong but they only ever recruit A320 rated crew. Direct entry have to pay for an endorsement before they start and Jetstar also receive a spotters fee from the training organisation.

You do not need to have an A320 endorsement to be recruited by Jetstar. Pilots do pay for the endorsement (either upfront or through salary sacrifice). But I do not know if pilots are on the Jetstar payroll whilst undergoing the A320 endorsement, that maybe the point you were making.

Originally Posted by travelator

I would be reasonably confident that the endorsement course that the cadets are given will be same as the direct entry.

I would agree, however cadets undergo further training before starting the endorsement.

Originally Posted by travelator

Speak to any training captains in other companies that have used a scheme like this (REX, Qlink etc) and I would be pretty sure that they would say the experienced guy is far easier and quicker to train. The cadet will have to be fed a lot more knowledge and need more time to develop their skills in general compared to the experienced guy who brings much of the knowledge and skill required.

I would agree in general, but once checked to line it is not that easy to tell the difference.

Originally Posted by travelator

Other cadet schemes in other airlines (QF etc) take a green pilot (zero experience) and mould them over time into valuable members of the flight crew.

The Qlink cadetship has a CPL as the entry point. Other airlines around the world have "Advanced Cadet Programs" or similar which combines MCC and a Type Rating (and sometime a licence conversion), to pilot that are between the Ab Initio and Direct Entry experience levels.

Originally Posted by travelator

Just like the new check in systems are designed to make paid staff redundant, not make life easier for passengers.

Like internet check-in, they also allow for airlines to expand passenger numbers and operating hours without all the indirect costs of increasing staffing levels. More passengers can travel with the same workforce, the ratio of passengers to the number of staff can increase.

Would you advocate getting rid of ATMs and internet banking and going back to counter only service at banks ? Customer convenience is something that is not airline specific, if anything airlines have been a bit slow on the uptake and application of technology in this area.

[flyby]

I dont know what your GA experience was like but your qoute --
"has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job.

No again your absolutely incorrect, please tell me where i mentioned double hydraulic failures and engine failures , because at last read I was talking about ,

time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

I suspect your cadetship is clouding your perception.

[swh]

Originally Posted by flyby

No again your absolutely incorrect, please tell me where i mentioned double hydraulic failures and engine failures , because at last read I was talking about ,

Look at the full context of the quote. This is what I originally posted.

"A command scenario on say an A320 could include a dual hydraulic failure, one engine out, primary destination closed and alternate with a circling approach only down to circling minima at night, minimum fuel, and two very sick passengers, then throw in a cargo fire close to the MSA for good measure.

The command skills in getting that A320 down safely has little to being a "ace of the base" pilot, it has to do with time management, prioritise actions, and good CRM."

in reply you said

"Im no ace of base but that scenario sounds like a standard days work in my last GA job."

The scenario you were referring therefore was the command scenario I posted. I said in reply that it is not credible for you to claim that was a "standard days work in my last GA job". To which you now appear to capitulate.

Airlines have one standard for a first officer, and one standard for command regardless of their background. It takes a lot of effort to gain a first officer or command position, I have seen ex-F/A-18 instructors fail their first attempt, and I have seen cadets pass first attempt. You cannot pay a bag of money to guarentee a pass, even in Jetstar. http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ing-court.html

Previous experience is no guarantee that any candidate will pass any course, those who are not open to what is being taught and rely on their "previous life" often do not meet the required standard in the normal time.

[j3pipercub]

Just for the record swh,

A standard scenario for myself involves double hydraulic failures, V1 cuts, Engine fires/loss of electrics. This is done twice a year, in a simulator, and I'm only in GA...hmmmmm

j3

[A37575]

A command scenario on say an A320 could include a dual hydraulic failure, one engine out, primary destination closed and alternate with a circling approach only down to circling minima at night, minimum fuel, and two very sick passengers, then throw in a cargo fire close to the MSA for good measure.

That is just the sort of rubbish dreamed up by management pilots that is a total waste of valuable simulator time. It doesn't prove a thing in terms of command ability. In real life, that combination of circumstances would be laughed out of any court room as nonsensically improbable. By all means play with those sort of time-wasting "what if" scenarios over a coffee in a briefing room just to get a laugh, but spare the poor bloody command candidate this type of "training" in a simulator...

[waren9]

+1.

Absolute tosh.

Command ability is about keeping youself out of that sort of situation in the first place.. It is not about the ability to fix a set a set of circumstances, that combined, are less probable than winning the lottery.

[Artificial Horizon]

Any instructor or checkie that gives that sort of scenario in the simulator deserved to get his or her marching orders because they are sadistic. That is the kind of scenario that is designed purely to 'break' the candidate and the chances of it hapening in 'real' life slim at best. I spent most of my career in the UK flying with Captains in their early 30's who had joined the airline in their late teens and early 20's as cadets. They went straigh from 180 hours into the right hand seat of DC10's, 747's, 767's etc. They were very capable, the more airline flying you do the more 'irrelevant' your single engine / ga experience becomes. Lets not forget that by the time these guys and girls become Captains they will have completed 3-5000 hours of flying in the airbus and will as such be classed in my book as 'experienced'.

[Dreamflyer1000]

Lets not forget that by the time these guys and girls become Captains they will have completed 3-5000 hours of flying in the airbus and will as such be classed in my book as 'experienced'.

If you get to fly with GOOD, DECENT crew as an FO, you are going to learn heaps. If you get to fly with that same crew numerous times or for the majority of that 3-5000hrs, you have your OWN experiences to pull from AND that of your higher qualified crew who have taught you a thing or too..They are experienced.

As long as these newbies are prepared to spend 'as long as it takes' with no expectations, I see nothing wrong with these guys moving up the food chain.

[swh]

Originally Posted by A37575

It doesn't prove a thing in terms of command ability.

It is not a pass fail session, it is training. The aim of the LOFT session is not to get the aircraft on the ground in one piece (that is a bonus), it is to put the pilot under stress, and to get them to recognize their command style, and then give them the tools to build on that.

If you were to facilitate the session, what failure would you introduce to get to a dual hydraulic failure (the point being to get the crew to work through the QRH summaries) and at the end of the session to evacuate the aircraft on the runway ?

Originally Posted by A37575

In real life, that combination of circumstances would be laughed out of any court room as nonsensically improbable.

A single uncontained engine failure could cause that situation. Although "improbable" they can and do happen, I think on average 4 every year in the last 10 years on various aircraft types.