PIC time before the airlines
"Not that long back the company i work for employed two new pilots.
1 came straight off some sort of basic Cessna twin. The other had been a chief pilot for a turbo prop operator then an f/o on a similar jet. He had previous experience with FMS, weather radar, two crew , cabin crew, flight director, TCAS and the list goes on. As they started the same time, their seniority and time to command was very similar. Both were considered by the troops as ok pilots when it came to manipulative skills. They both did ok in the sim and on line checks, you have to achieve a minimum standard, not be the ace of the base.
Which one would you like you throw your family behind when things were tough?
Over time the first guy will catch up, but hey, that's what experience is all about."
I agree with that, but surely the minimum exp would be met by both the following pilots,
1) an FO with 4-5yrs company FO exp ~2500hrs FO time and,
2) a former GA pilot, 1yr company exp ~700hrs FO time
(keeping in mind the following)
"Experience is learnt by "experiencing" different situations and learning from them. If you spend 5000hrs climbing to 10,000 feet overhead an airfield, dropping parachutes and nothing else, you are experienced at doing exactly that, not much else. In a general context I don't consider that person an experienced pilot, I do however consider them an experienced local parachute pilot. I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in crap weather doing an NDB approach with them."
1 came straight off some sort of basic Cessna twin. The other had been a chief pilot for a turbo prop operator then an f/o on a similar jet. He had previous experience with FMS, weather radar, two crew , cabin crew, flight director, TCAS and the list goes on. As they started the same time, their seniority and time to command was very similar. Both were considered by the troops as ok pilots when it came to manipulative skills. They both did ok in the sim and on line checks, you have to achieve a minimum standard, not be the ace of the base.
Which one would you like you throw your family behind when things were tough?
Over time the first guy will catch up, but hey, that's what experience is all about."
I agree with that, but surely the minimum exp would be met by both the following pilots,
1) an FO with 4-5yrs company FO exp ~2500hrs FO time and,
2) a former GA pilot, 1yr company exp ~700hrs FO time
(keeping in mind the following)
"Experience is learnt by "experiencing" different situations and learning from them. If you spend 5000hrs climbing to 10,000 feet overhead an airfield, dropping parachutes and nothing else, you are experienced at doing exactly that, not much else. In a general context I don't consider that person an experienced pilot, I do however consider them an experienced local parachute pilot. I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in crap weather doing an NDB approach with them."
It depends whether your talking minimum required experience or minimum desired experience.
An F/O isn't meant to be a student pilot, he is there to assist the captain, and possibly take over the role should something untoward happen. Good luck with that and 700 hrs and a couple of minor issues thrown in. Remember this could happen on day 1, it's not a "four years later issue" at least it shouldn't be.
An F/O isn't meant to be a student pilot, he is there to assist the captain, and possibly take over the role should something untoward happen. Good luck with that and 700 hrs and a couple of minor issues thrown in. Remember this could happen on day 1, it's not a "four years later issue" at least it shouldn't be.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: new zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not talking several hundred hours fellas. We are talking several thousand hours.
Most guys getting into major airlines have over 3000 hours TT and are regional airline captains. This means they will generally have over 2000 hours command time.
To become a regional airline Captain you need at least 500 hours multi engine command.
To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.
The other option is a cadetship, however many are traps and well documented on here.
Most guys getting into major airlines have over 3000 hours TT and are regional airline captains. This means they will generally have over 2000 hours command time.
To become a regional airline Captain you need at least 500 hours multi engine command.
To get the 500 hours multi engine command, you need to get at least 1000 hours total time flying single engine piston operations either as a flight instructor or a charter pilot.
The other option is a cadetship, however many are traps and well documented on here.
Alot of operates wont let you fly there twins with less than a decent
amount of hours otherwise there insurance premiums are through the roof.
We had a min of 1000hrs TT to be able to get a rating on our C208 because of the insurance. I am not saying all places are like that but it is a factor.
Jkeg
Just because someone has more "experience" than a companies minimum required, does not make them any safer than someone that just meets them. Of course, on both sides of the argument, there will be some exceptions.
I'm sure there are more than a few FO's that would agree, there are plenty of captains with 10's of 1000's of hrs "exp" and yes while they can fly day to day, pushing the aircraft to the very limit of acceptable operation, there performances in the sim/real life issues is/are far from polished.
I'll add to the above, (but reserve for another thread) the CRM/team work of said "experienced" captains
I'm sure there are more than a few FO's that would agree, there are plenty of captains with 10's of 1000's of hrs "exp" and yes while they can fly day to day, pushing the aircraft to the very limit of acceptable operation, there performances in the sim/real life issues is/are far from polished.
I'll add to the above, (but reserve for another thread) the CRM/team work of said "experienced" captains
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Noclue, you are producing ideas that sound an aweful lot like 'management speak.' With reference to the thread topic of 'PIC' time, you seem to be quite happily disregarding the value of 'command' time and all that it entails. It is not fair to put it on par with a copilot logging the same hours. Command experience involves carrying the responsibilty and accountability of all aspects of the flight. Making decisions and living with the results. It is a very different kettle of fish flying with another person beside you to 'lean' on as opposed to being on your own in that department. Of course you may feel that someone who has had experience making decisions and being in a 'leadership' responsibility role is no more safe than the next guy who has just finished his cadetship...
Why is it that almost everyone everywhere in all sorts of industries, sports, professions - you name it - understands the value of experience except for for those who live in aviation management world?!
Bagchucka, it may not be 1984 anymore - you're dead right, but the traps of flying an aeroplane didn't die out in the 90's either. That is why I made the comments I did about quick progression. I still stand by my statement that quick progression comes with traps.
Why is it that almost everyone everywhere in all sorts of industries, sports, professions - you name it - understands the value of experience except for for those who live in aviation management world?!
Bagchucka, it may not be 1984 anymore - you're dead right, but the traps of flying an aeroplane didn't die out in the 90's either. That is why I made the comments I did about quick progression. I still stand by my statement that quick progression comes with traps.
Now they have both experienced exactly the same situations, and as a crew, have both worked through the same (pardon the pun) ups and downs together. How can one pilot have gained more experience than the other?..
One pilot is startled/concerned with a situation, looks to the left and is reassured (and yes, sometimes frustrated) by not having the final decision.
The other looks to the left and sees nothing but their own reflection looking back at them.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIC is ultimately responsible for all decisions throughout a flight; CP provides input and assistance.
Whether PIC of a C172 or a B777, being in command means the buck stops with you.
Whether PIC of a C172 or a B777, being in command means the buck stops with you.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
As long as the supply is high enough, the experience demanded will also be high.
Drop the supply and the experience level required comes down.
You don't need me to remind you about the lower experience levels of pilots doing the exact same level of job in other parts of the world, and in more trying conditions than auz/nz.
Drop the supply and the experience level required comes down.
You don't need me to remind you about the lower experience levels of pilots doing the exact same level of job in other parts of the world, and in more trying conditions than auz/nz.
You don't need me to remind you about the lower experience levels of pilots doing the exact same level of job in other parts of the world, and in more trying conditions than auz/nz.
At the end of the day though experience counts for nought in this country. If airlines cannot get anyone they will just get the government to change the rules for them.
As there are no recognized ICUS in these parts of the world ----
What we call ICUS goes by various names in various countries, but the result of ICAO compliance is the same--- as long as you have the 100 actual PIC, meeting the rest of the licensing criteria will never be a problem.
In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS, Command Practice/ description of choice where you happen to be. And the F/O doesn't need an ATPL/ALTP/ATR/name of choice license of a First Class/P1/Command/name of choice endorsement on the aircraft being flown to log P1 U/S/ICUS/dah/dah.
The anal Australian non-ICAO ( we used to be compliant once , in this area at least, back in the G.O.Ds,) seriously career disadvantages young (or any age) Australian pilots in the international job market ----- all in the name of safety, you understand.
Of course, no 457 visa pilot would ever have any P-51 or VH-BIC hours, would they????
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
But with with better facilities. How many FO's in Europe on a 737/A320 fly into non controlled aerodromes with 30m runways and non precision non runway aligned approaches?
You need '000s of hours to cope with doing that do you???
...Everyone does it a little differently, EU have Cat 2-3 approaches on a regular basis, iceing/de-iceing issues, PAR approaches, SIDS and STARS like playing a chess manoeuvre, and PNG does GPS approaches down through mountain range ravines, I'm sure the list goes on.
Everyone gets trained for where they fly to do what they do.
The hours required in Australia is NOT because of the skill, its supply and demand. People have already said about what higher experience was required so many years ago to get the same job and now over time its come down, but its still high by comparison to the rest of the world.
The 500multi PIC non-ICAO requirement that affect so many early on is farcical, and as Leadsled points out with other rules does nothing for the Australian job market.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leadsled
a certain dash 8 operator in aus allows certain f/o's to log icus on their sectors (and co-pilot time on the sectors flown by the captain)
the aircraft is not operated any differently regardless of whether or not it's an icus sector.
there's only one tiller in the dash, the captain always performs the start and he's gonna have the final say as it's his nuts on the chopping board.
personally i think this is nothing more than abuse of a system - i.e horse****.
it's used purely to boost the co-pilots total aeronautical experience and it doesn't stop once they gain an atpl - it is used beyond that to gain the 2000 aeronautical experience required for a command.
icus was great in a chieftain, where the guy under supervision flew it from the left and gained experience all under a watchful eye.
the dash program is a wank.
but i'm keen to hear your thoughts.
a certain dash 8 operator in aus allows certain f/o's to log icus on their sectors (and co-pilot time on the sectors flown by the captain)
the aircraft is not operated any differently regardless of whether or not it's an icus sector.
there's only one tiller in the dash, the captain always performs the start and he's gonna have the final say as it's his nuts on the chopping board.
personally i think this is nothing more than abuse of a system - i.e horse****.
it's used purely to boost the co-pilots total aeronautical experience and it doesn't stop once they gain an atpl - it is used beyond that to gain the 2000 aeronautical experience required for a command.
icus was great in a chieftain, where the guy under supervision flew it from the left and gained experience all under a watchful eye.
the dash program is a wank.
but i'm keen to hear your thoughts.
Absolutely and comprehensively wrong, most of the rest of the world (unlike the nonsense in Australia surrounding ICUS) comply with ICAO Annex 1 rules for logging pilot hours.
In short, every time the F/0 operates as pilot flying, he/she/it will log P1 U/S, P1S, ICUS,...
...the biggest difference is the authorities don't care.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
a certain dash 8 operator in aus allows certain f/o's to log icus on their sectors (and co-pilot time on the sectors flown by the captain)
HAHAHA!!
...THIS IS WHAT THE PILOTS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD DO!!
This is what myself and others are getting at, your ICUS rules and other things are unique to Australia!
I don't think some of you realise just how much of the AU regs out there are non ICAO. Heck your airspace designation has only just become compliant in the past year.
bagchucka,
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described ------
But, of course, bagchucka, ICAO and the rest of the world have got it wrong, and good old Australia have got it right (but had it wrong in the days of the good old DCA), must be great, being so certain you are the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.
No wonder Mick Toller was heard to describe Australia as an aviation Galapagos, where aviation has developed all sorts of strange mutations in splendid isolation from the rest of the aviation world -----
I just hope bagchucka is an accurate description, you certainly shouldn't be any where near the controls of an aeroplane.
And for all that we have a very ordinary safety record ---- great result.
Tootle pip!!
PS 1: In UK, it is logged as P1 U/S, does not have to be in the LHS, and only needs a CPL ---- indeed, in the right circumstances, a PPL can log P1 U/S, last time I looked at the UK CAA on the subject.
PS 2: Checkboard, Why don't you go and read ICAO Annex 1 re. logging hours, instead of further airing your rather profound ignorance ---- it is Australia that is non-compliant, not everybody else --- wake up !!
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described ------
But, of course, bagchucka, ICAO and the rest of the world have got it wrong, and good old Australia have got it right (but had it wrong in the days of the good old DCA), must be great, being so certain you are the only soldier in the battalion marching in step.
No wonder Mick Toller was heard to describe Australia as an aviation Galapagos, where aviation has developed all sorts of strange mutations in splendid isolation from the rest of the aviation world -----
I just hope bagchucka is an accurate description, you certainly shouldn't be any where near the controls of an aeroplane.
And for all that we have a very ordinary safety record ---- great result.
Tootle pip!!
PS 1: In UK, it is logged as P1 U/S, does not have to be in the LHS, and only needs a CPL ---- indeed, in the right circumstances, a PPL can log P1 U/S, last time I looked at the UK CAA on the subject.
PS 2: Checkboard, Why don't you go and read ICAO Annex 1 re. logging hours, instead of further airing your rather profound ignorance ---- it is Australia that is non-compliant, not everybody else --- wake up !!
PS 2: Checkboard, Why don't you go and read ICAO Annex 1 re. logging hours, instead of further airing your rather profound ignorance ---- it is Australia that is non-compliant, not everybody else --- wake up !!
)If you weren't so ignorant yourself, you might have recommended JAR-FCL 1.080(c) para (5) for my further reading.
And I stand by my earlier statements.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bagchucka,
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described
Well, I guess that you better tell Qantas that what they have been doing for as long as I can remember is horse****, because what Qantas do (now by agreement with CASA to have their pilots log their hours in accord with ICAO), and have done for many, many years, is exactly what I described
is that the intent of icus in your mind?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slasher, Yeah I remember the operation with the C150 where you had to have a Senior Commercial Licence to fly it. I thing it was because of some Victorian state govenment requirement in the contract ( ...pilot must have ATPL or eqivalent...
).
Ah, the old days...
Pel-Air advertised for FOs - minimum of 3000 and 2000 ME command?
500 hrs for C206 jobs.
5000 hrs for a Kingair job.
3000 hrs might get you an interview at Kendell.
These guys now flying C441s with 1000hrs: with that experience 25 years ago, you wouldn't be qualified to wash the aeroplane , let alone fly it
I have observed from the jump seat some of these 28 year old jet captains and one common theme is lack of depth in knowledge. ie can't use wx radar to save their life...and one day they might have to. It used to be seen as an apprentiship to become a Captain and now I can see how gaps in knowledge and other deficiencies are resulting in poor mentoring for the next generation of FOs.
The back ground on this ICUS thing.. In the mid 1990s, CAO 40 allowed for pilots with a command type (1st class endorsement) rating to log hours flown as P-I-C time. Up until then, the airlines gave their FOs either 'co-pilot' type ratings or '2nd class endorsements'. Holders of these later ratings could only log co-pilot time, regardless of if they flew the sector or not.
With CAO 40 Amendment 13 (if believe), this was changed to reflect the current staus; that FOs could not log P1/command time at all, regardless of the nature of their type rating.
The reason that this had come about was as follows: in 1995, Ansett sent a pilots to Untited Airlines in Denver to do B747 type ratings. The FOs who went to the USA for this training had to get a US licence and instrument rating for the B747 type rating . The Yanks have only one type rating and that is 'Command', so effectively these Ansett FOs recieved a B747 command rating on a US licence and this would be transfered to their Australian licence.
When these FOs came back to Australia, Ansett Flight ops told the CAA (CASA) to issue them with "Co-Pilot" type ratings. Ansett even modified the Endorsements page of the FO's log books to reflect a Co-Pilot B747 rating.The FOs quite rightly were entitled to ask the CAA for "Command" B747 type ratings to be put on their licence. The CAA eventually agreed and complied because all of these FOs had every lawful right to be issued with B747 Command type ratings. This meant they could legally log B747 command time if they were PF for the sector.
Ansett flight ops. were having none of that and got the regulator to change the rules so that only one pilot could log command time for the flight.
).Ah, the old days...
Pel-Air advertised for FOs - minimum of 3000 and 2000 ME command?
500 hrs for C206 jobs.
5000 hrs for a Kingair job.
3000 hrs might get you an interview at Kendell.
These guys now flying C441s with 1000hrs: with that experience 25 years ago, you wouldn't be qualified to wash the aeroplane , let alone fly it
I have observed from the jump seat some of these 28 year old jet captains and one common theme is lack of depth in knowledge. ie can't use wx radar to save their life...and one day they might have to
. It used to be seen as an apprentiship to become a Captain and now I can see how gaps in knowledge and other deficiencies are resulting in poor mentoring for the next generation of FOs.The back ground on this ICUS thing.. In the mid 1990s, CAO 40 allowed for pilots with a command type (1st class endorsement) rating to log hours flown as P-I-C time. Up until then, the airlines gave their FOs either 'co-pilot' type ratings or '2nd class endorsements'. Holders of these later ratings could only log co-pilot time, regardless of if they flew the sector or not.
With CAO 40 Amendment 13 (if believe), this was changed to reflect the current staus; that FOs could not log P1/command time at all, regardless of the nature of their type rating.
The reason that this had come about was as follows: in 1995, Ansett sent a pilots to Untited Airlines in Denver to do B747 type ratings. The FOs who went to the USA for this training had to get a US licence and instrument rating for the B747 type rating . The Yanks have only one type rating and that is 'Command', so effectively these Ansett FOs recieved a B747 command rating on a US licence and this would be transfered to their Australian licence.
When these FOs came back to Australia, Ansett Flight ops told the CAA (CASA) to issue them with "Co-Pilot" type ratings. Ansett even modified the Endorsements page of the FO's log books to reflect a Co-Pilot B747 rating.The FOs quite rightly were entitled to ask the CAA for "Command" B747 type ratings to be put on their licence. The CAA eventually agreed and complied because all of these FOs had every lawful right to be issued with B747 Command type ratings. This meant they could legally log B747 command time if they were PF for the sector.
Ansett flight ops. were having none of that and got the regulator to change the rules so that only one pilot could log command time for the flight.
Last edited by Anthill; 10th Feb 2012 at 21:23.