500 multi??
 

Hi there,


Just wondering, Iv'e heard the term 500 floating around and it seems to be a magical number you should aim form when getting into twins.

Can anyone tell me the origins of this please?

for the likes of TOLL,SKYTRANS,SKIPPERS,QLINK etc

is it
500 Total Multi
500 PIC+ICUS
500 PIC Only


thanks in advance

The goal posts move according to supply and demand. High demand/low supply (a once in 20 year cycle) just a licence and functioning pulse will get you in.
Low demand/high supply (the other 19 years) the more space shuttle missions you have the better. A degree in rocket science will be a plus.
Whichever part of this 20 year cycle you are in, it's not the minimum that YOU have; it's more about what your competition has that determines your chances. Whether you have 400 PIC and 100 ICUS or 500 genuine PIC won't make much difference if the other guy has 200 total multi and 2000 fast jet time fresh out of the military and the airline is recruiting First Officers for jets.
From a GA operator point of view, having given you the induction ICUS and maybe even the multi rating in the first place, it would only seem good manners to acquire 500 PIC before moving on. Old school airline recruiters respect hours done actually as PIC rather than sham time which is what a lot of so-called ICUS on offer is (pay to fly nonsense etc). In a reasonably busy GA operation 500 hours would only be about a year of your life.
Mods will probably move this to the wannabe section, where you will find more pertinent comment from those who have been through the recruitment process, or are involved in it, or who have been sadly let down by pay to fly programs.

I beleive it stemmed from low capacity AOC holders needing a pilot to have 500 hours multi command for upgrade. I think Skippers, REX and Sharp etc had that requirement. Not eyre now with part 61 if that still applies.

Just to clarify...

Hasn't been true for Qlink since well before 2008.

Not true at all for Qlink. Doubt it's true for VARA.

(Moot point for Qlink, however, atm)

DIVOSH!

Wonder what the requirements will be in 10 years time.
With all the twin rust buckets being retired and all (hopefully anyway).

Some jobs require not just 500 multi PIC, but 500 multi PIC under the IFR (Cobham 717, Air North and Rex comes to mind).

It must be a uniquely Australian requirement because I don't see this requirement for multi-jobs overseas. In Indonesia, FOs get into airlines with just a single engine instrument rating and their first multi-engine endorsement is on a B737NG or A320. Although all that is changing now at the airlines' request with flight schools now starting to implent ME-IR courses.

Don't think it matters what you have at the moment. With nearly 2000 twin ATPL etc haven't noticed any difference since when I had a half or even third of this.


Seems to be very little movement at any level at the moment from what I can tell.


Think also night hrs are very important. That's often what I hear, ' oh, if only you had 500 night!


Whatever you have someone will always want more....


The amount of PC12 and caravans getting around, I would say having 500 turbine will become more important than 500 twin.

I think the Op is referring to 500 Multi PIC.
As Pilotchute says about low capacity AOC holders needing a pilot to have 500 hours multi command for upgrade, so they then ask for it of the FO upon entry in case of a quick stepup, or because they stupidly don't know any better. ICUS time is also acceptable and can be gained while in that right seat, however let's not get into that particular can of worms here as thats a whole new thread on its own as has been discussed before, and there have been other threads about this frustrating hours blockade in the past too!

Not to be confused with 500hrs on Type for heavy turboprops and jets for ease of transfer of the type between different countries licences.

Careful, say this too often and skydive pilots will think theyre on the right track.

I remember reading here on pprune of a Qantas pilot who was recruited from the RAAF flying helicopters. His first multi PIC hours was on the 767 when he got his captaincy.

I don't think using Indonesian aviation standards is going to win any votes!

Am I alone in finding that somewhat scary?

I sincerely hope so!

Spinnerhead;:ok::ok:

There are MPL cadets with less than 200 hours TOTAL time in the right hand seat of airliners.

At the moment, get 500 hours multi time rather than turbine single. Not having the multi time will put you out of the running for many jobs. This may not be true in five years time but for now take a Navajo over a Caravan. Having S/E turbine time is a small advantage, not having multi time is a huge disadvantage.

Metro,

In this climate you need 500 pic multi to fly a Navajo.

That shows a few of us who moved overseas made a good decision.

I'm training MPL cadets on the A320 who have under 200 hours total time. A pilot who used to fly a Cherokee 6 as one of my line pilots, and left Australia with a Navajo on his licence has just got his 4th stripe as B777 driver.

Wheres that Metro Man?

For those of you going on about jet pilots without the 500multi PIC, yes that is correct. If you manage to bypass top end GA, that is possible and legal. Though again quite a few adverts ask for the 500multi pic without it actually being legally required.
Much like requiring FOs to have an ATPL, when a CPL will suffice.

Just because that is what you are doing doesn't necessarily mean it is a good thing!

Air France 447 anyone?

Capt fathom,

This has been the way of the European system for a long time. 200hr pilots straight to the jet. It has been a effective system. Most captains in Europe went through the same system.

Air France crash was terrible, but I am sure many accidents have also occurred from pilots with GA & military backgrounds of equal magnitude.

Yes and the Euro training systems is designed around 200 hours people going to the RHS. Australia's is not.

Multi
 

In today's aviation get used to it cadets are here to stay in Oz, like the rest of the world.

It works and has so for years. Like any breed and background some will be great others average and some plain ****e.

Yeah in Oz it's a tough GA road, given the chance eons ago
Would you have jumped in to the right hand seat of a shimmy jet? Don't lie, of course you would.

We are just lucky we couldn't. The GA flying years were the best flying years of my life. Love shinny jets and to be honest I actually feel sort for cadets and mpl who have not and will never have a chance to do the stupid **** and got away with us. Many of our mates didn't rip, does it make us better pilots? Yeah probably.

But cadets straight into the seat, from my experience all pretty darn good! Indo enjoy showing photos of Barons in the bush, strips that look
Like goat tracks, yeah ya do see envy in the eyes.

We were the lucky ones, yeah was tough by a truck load if fun. Don't nag these guys wish them well.

The (now superseded) CAO 82.3 - Conditions on air operators' certificates authorising regular public transport operations in other than high capacity aircraft (12/12/2004) :

Re: 200 hour Cadet, straight to RHS jet transport...
 

In the 50s, there were 5 people in the cockpit:

1. An experienced Captain
2. A skilled Co-pilot
3. Flight Engineer
4. Navigator
5. Radio Officer

Then voice communication did away with Morse, and digital tuning did away with the technical difficulty in operating the radio - exit the radio man. :8


So, in the 60's, there were 4 people in the cockpit:

1. An experienced Captain
2. A skilled Co-pilot
3. Flight Engineer
4. Navigator

Then IRS navigation (and other systems) did away with the technical knowledge and difficulty in performing Astro-Navigation, and the proliferation of beacons meant pre-printed routes on charts - exit the Navigator. :8

So, in the 70's, there were 3 people in the cockpit:

1. An experienced Captain
2. A skilled Co-pilot
3. Flight Engineer

Then Flight Management Computers provided instant technical data for various operations and fuel loading, Auto-throttle handled the engines, trimming them for take-off etc, checklists became better (Quick Reference Handbooks), ECAM systems developed and systems in general became more reliable in later generations - exit the Flight Engineer. :8

So, in the 80's, there were 2 people in the cockpit:

1. An experienced Captain
2. A skilled Co-pilot

Then, certainly in Europe, full radar coverage, auto-land capable autopilots, ILS's on every runway and strict SOPs with stabilised approach backed up by Flight Data Monitoring became standard - exit the need for a skilled Co-pilot (not saying that there are no skilled co-pilots - just that you don't NEED one now, so pilots can gain skills & experience in the RHS rather than needing them to get there.)


So, in the 90's, there were 2 people in the cockpit:

1. An experienced Captain
2. Co-pilot

Technology has made many jobs so simple that the pilots now cover them, and drone technology has been pushed along by the Middle East conflicts to the point were it is a pretty mature technology. I can see no-pilot freight and single-pilot passenger operations in the future (not in the 15 years I have left - but not long after.)

You certainly see the pressure on wages - there simply isn't the need to pay 1960s wages to get people into a jet cockpit and perform a safe operation any more.