Turbo prop job with Jet time
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting aside the Pom versus Ozzie slanging for a minute, the reason various airlines require certain command hours, turbine hours or whatever, is because they can. It's their train set.
Also, a lot of operators in Oz have contracts with mining or oil companies and those companies dictate the minimum experience level of pilots on their contract, flying their staff. Again, their train set.
The reason command time, even in bugsmashers, is so valued in Oz is because it provides a sort of Darwinist evolution thing. The useless ones crash and burn, literally sometimes. Then the night freight turbine operators pick up the 2000 hour survivors. Later the airlines pick up the 3000 hour survivors out of that lot. When there is a relative shortage the 2000 hours may drop to 1500, or even 1200, but most chief pilots want some evidence of an ability to survive and make decisions.
It is a nonsense to suggest that a pilot used to single crew ops can't learn to be a good co-pilot. Any good training system will soon beat some CRM and SOP into anyone willing to learn. Then a few years as a co-pilot and the necessary skills for command are acquired by most. The only problem is the single pilot who thinks he/she should be captain on day two after getting into a two pilot cockpit. That tends to be more of a problem with some military jocks who do have superior skills in some areas and so assume that they know it all. Again, a good training system beats that notion out of all but the most stubborn.
Other countries, where there is no real G.A. industry do it different because they have no choice but to take pilots with virtually no command time. If it works for them, fine. Doesn't mean we have to.
Also, a lot of operators in Oz have contracts with mining or oil companies and those companies dictate the minimum experience level of pilots on their contract, flying their staff. Again, their train set.
The reason command time, even in bugsmashers, is so valued in Oz is because it provides a sort of Darwinist evolution thing. The useless ones crash and burn, literally sometimes. Then the night freight turbine operators pick up the 2000 hour survivors. Later the airlines pick up the 3000 hour survivors out of that lot. When there is a relative shortage the 2000 hours may drop to 1500, or even 1200, but most chief pilots want some evidence of an ability to survive and make decisions.
It is a nonsense to suggest that a pilot used to single crew ops can't learn to be a good co-pilot. Any good training system will soon beat some CRM and SOP into anyone willing to learn. Then a few years as a co-pilot and the necessary skills for command are acquired by most. The only problem is the single pilot who thinks he/she should be captain on day two after getting into a two pilot cockpit. That tends to be more of a problem with some military jocks who do have superior skills in some areas and so assume that they know it all. Again, a good training system beats that notion out of all but the most stubborn.
Other countries, where there is no real G.A. industry do it different because they have no choice but to take pilots with virtually no command time. If it works for them, fine. Doesn't mean we have to.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with your theory, is that no modern airline thinks like that. Airline training departments work to budgets, and nothing stretches the budget as much as getting bad single-pilot habits out of pilots, and replacing them with multi-crew skills. The problem is that the very resourcefulness and survival instinct that works so well in GA, tends to lead these pilots to think that they have superior skills. It is often the re-conditioning of that mindset that takes all the time. I have sat in the simulator time and time again, and watched ex-air taxi guys simply refuse to use their partner in the flight deck. It isn't usually deliberate, it is mostly a result of ingrained habit, and if the habit has been ingrained over many years, it is very hard to shift.
Most airlines budget a finite number of sim sessions for each new pilot. Hopefully the candidates who are training risks are screened out at interview, but some always get through. Few airlines will allow more than one or two extra sessions in the sim; in one airline I worked for, new F/O's got 11 sim sessions and no more. If they hadn't reached the standard by then, they were chopped. We chopped a lot of single-pilot people. It was harsh, but it was budget-driven.
Of course CRM is assessable on every check in Europe, and is a fail item if not carried out properly.
Most airlines budget a finite number of sim sessions for each new pilot. Hopefully the candidates who are training risks are screened out at interview, but some always get through. Few airlines will allow more than one or two extra sessions in the sim; in one airline I worked for, new F/O's got 11 sim sessions and no more. If they hadn't reached the standard by then, they were chopped. We chopped a lot of single-pilot people. It was harsh, but it was budget-driven.
Of course CRM is assessable on every check in Europe, and is a fail item if not carried out properly.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, early in this thread you stated that you had ' no intention of setting foot in Ozmateland ' so whether or not airlines here won't recruit 300 to 800 hour pilots should be of no concern to you personally. However other pilots in this experience range need to know that they are wasting their time and money buying jet ratings in the hopes that this will fast track them to an airline job in Oz. Not unless we get a real shortage, and elsewhere that has been dismissed as unlikely this side of hell freezing over.
Every pilot likes to justify their qualifications and experience as being the best or most suitable for the jobs up for grabs.
All I'm saying is that the normal progression expected in this country is 1000 to 1500 on single pilot singles and twins and maybe another 1000 or so either left or right seat on turbo props, if you can get it. THEN you are in the ballpark come recruiting time at Big Jet Airlines. Simply because that kind of experience IS available here. Although the airlines are not allowed to discriminate on an age basis, you can bet that their selection processes would identify those who have been in a single pilot role so long as to be difficult to train, and they would not get hired. Of course there are exceptions to all the above, like being closely related to the boss, or the occasional political minority appointment made to appease Canberra, but that has been beaten to death elsewhere.
Any 'modern airline thinking' should include appropriate training in the classroom and simulator to iron out any CRM issues, and any pilot who does not display an understanding of the two crew concept on say, the second day of sim, should be scrubbed right there, because it ain't rocket science. Airlines and pilots have to accept the occasional failure as part of the business they are in.
Sadly, with the move towards pilots paying for their own ratings, there is a reluctance by some training outfits, who make their money from young hopefuls, to tell them to go away and get some real time before putting their cash into a jet endorsement.
There is also a real concern at some levels about the degradation in basic flying skills in today's jet pilots. Do a search on the UK CAA's website for a very good paper on loss of skills as a result of automation. At the risk of provoking MOR further, dare I say the 300 to 800 hour pilot would be unlikely to acquire real stick and rudder skills in the first place, so could hardly suffer a degradation?
Every pilot likes to justify their qualifications and experience as being the best or most suitable for the jobs up for grabs.
All I'm saying is that the normal progression expected in this country is 1000 to 1500 on single pilot singles and twins and maybe another 1000 or so either left or right seat on turbo props, if you can get it. THEN you are in the ballpark come recruiting time at Big Jet Airlines. Simply because that kind of experience IS available here. Although the airlines are not allowed to discriminate on an age basis, you can bet that their selection processes would identify those who have been in a single pilot role so long as to be difficult to train, and they would not get hired. Of course there are exceptions to all the above, like being closely related to the boss, or the occasional political minority appointment made to appease Canberra, but that has been beaten to death elsewhere.
Any 'modern airline thinking' should include appropriate training in the classroom and simulator to iron out any CRM issues, and any pilot who does not display an understanding of the two crew concept on say, the second day of sim, should be scrubbed right there, because it ain't rocket science. Airlines and pilots have to accept the occasional failure as part of the business they are in.
Sadly, with the move towards pilots paying for their own ratings, there is a reluctance by some training outfits, who make their money from young hopefuls, to tell them to go away and get some real time before putting their cash into a jet endorsement.
There is also a real concern at some levels about the degradation in basic flying skills in today's jet pilots. Do a search on the UK CAA's website for a very good paper on loss of skills as a result of automation. At the risk of provoking MOR further, dare I say the 300 to 800 hour pilot would be unlikely to acquire real stick and rudder skills in the first place, so could hardly suffer a degradation?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so whether or not airlines here won't recruit 300 to 800 hour pilots should be of no concern to you personally.
Agreed that buying a speculative rating in OZ is a waste of time. However, over in NZ, it is not unusual for a job offer to be made on the basis of a completed type rating, and I expect that approach to become common in Oz too.
All I'm saying is that the normal progression expected in this country is 1000 to 1500 on single pilot singles and twins and maybe another 1000 or so either left or right seat on turbo props, if you can get it. THEN you are in the ballpark come recruiting time at Big Jet Airlines.
Any 'modern airline thinking' should include appropriate training in the classroom and simulator to iron out any CRM issues
any pilot who does not display an understanding of the two crew concept on say, the second day of sim, should be scrubbed right there, because it ain't rocket science.
It isn't rocket science, but it is a series of complex, learned behaviours. These behaviours are amongst the hardest to instil in a new candidiate, and the evidence of that is the large number who revert to a familiar (single pilot) behaviour when under stress. The commonest note I write in training flies is "failed to use other crew member".
dare I say the 300 to 800 hour pilot would be unlikely to acquire real stick and rudder skills in the first place, so could hardly suffer a degradation?
We encourage our crews to fly manually for the first and last 5000' of the flight, at least one or two flights per week. Personally, I always fly the SID manually, and the approach manually when time (and fatigue levels) permit. Call me old-fashioned, but I never have any trouble on sim checks!
Hey Biggun,didnt know you had been demoted to the PC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: aus
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes- news to me too yowie. Best hit the books.
Mor wrote:
There's very little that falls into the modern category regarding your thinking Mor. In fact, I doubt there much thinking going on at all.
Mor wrote:
Quite right... doesn't concern me in the slightest. Not sure why you think it does. I'm simply stating modern thinking on the subject of training pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Asia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Ahhh at no stage have I written that an Australian citizen isn't eligible for a position in Australia?
At no stage did I write that a PC12 was a heavy. Unlike yourself I have an aircraft type on my profile. Did you quickly check my profile to back up your 'I fly a bigger aeroplane than you therefore I am right on this subject' theory?
Well where are you from 'world's greatest aviation hero'? Once again you have nothing on your profile. From your other ramblings your either from NZ, the US or Lithuania? Please fill us in.
Just wondering where your 'solid' European airline time has come from...Flybe. perhaps?
etc etc
Well unlike you MOR, I didn't get my airline start with 710 hours 'heavy' multi crew instructing time. I didn't realise a PA28 was considered that in Europe, USA or NZ or where ever it is you come from. My single pilot time has been of no hindrance.
Fruitbatflyer wrote
YOU wrote
Yet earlier you wrote
"please explain?"
As for your rantings on single pilot flying, airline recruitment and airline training policies...
MORon
...in the same way that Brits with Aussie citizenship, or right of abode, have the right to be considered for an Australian position... jeez...
Well Mr Biggin is certainly driving a lighty, unless a PC12 is a "heavy" in your estimation. What do you fly? You may also care to note that he was calling me a fool, which rather blunts your point.
Not nearly as sad as you not working out that I'm not a pom... ah well, keep trying...
You really are having comprehension problems! Never worked for Chanex. Or are you trying to make some other obscure point?
Well, there aren't many. But, to the point: if you knew your arse from your elbow, you would know that lots of single-pilot time is in fact a major training impediment when flying multi-crew aircraft.
The trouble with your theory, is that no modern airline thinks like that. Airline training departments work to budgets, and nothing stretches the budget as much as getting bad single-pilot habits out of pilots, and replacing them with multi-crew skills.
Well unlike you MOR, I didn't get my airline start with 710 hours 'heavy' multi crew instructing time. I didn't realise a PA28 was considered that in Europe, USA or NZ or where ever it is you come from. My single pilot time has been of no hindrance.
Fruitbatflyer wrote
MOR, early in this thread you stated that you had ' no intention of setting foot in Ozmateland ' so whether or not airlines here won't recruit 300 to 800 hour pilots should be of no concern to you personally
Quite right... doesn't concern me in the slightest. Not sure why you think it does. I'm simply stating modern thinking on the subject of training pilots
Oh, and by the way, I am just in the process of getting my Oz licence, so before you know it I will be across there using my 10K hours and piles of jet time to beat you to a nice job. Thanks, CASA, for making it so easy
As for your rantings on single pilot flying, airline recruitment and airline training policies...
MORon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivor Littleun
Try doing some research on the subject. You might then like to come back and apologise. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
ROKAPE
Go back to page one. You were railing against Meeb working in Oz, despite the fact that he has right of abode. Look at the part of my post you refer to... three words... right of abode.
Who the f**k cares? Unlike you, I don't feel the need to dazzle the world with the aircraft I fly. Tell you what, though, my one has two engines and weighs more than 50 tonnes.
Nah, it's more fun watching you try to figure it out.
The larger ones were British Midland and Sabena.
Nor did I, and if you could read big words, you would know that was exactly my point.
You really do need everything explaining to you, don't you?
You were being "wound up", but you are simply too dim to recognise it. Let me give you a hint. An Oz licence is useful for reasons other than flying in Oz. Think about that for a week or so, then let me know if you still haven't figured it out...
Lol... coming from someone with no multi-crew experience, no airline experience, and no recruiting experience... we should really take your word for it.... NOT! Better get back to sending out CV's laddie...
There's very little that falls into the modern category regarding your thinking Mor
ROKAPE
Ahhh at no stage have I written that an Australian citizen isn't eligible for a position in Australia?
Unlike yourself I have an aircraft type on my profile. Did you quickly check my profile to back up your 'I fly a bigger aeroplane than you therefore I am right on this subject' theory?
Please fill us in.
Just wondering where your 'solid' European airline time has come from
Well unlike you MOR, I didn't get my airline start with 710 hours 'heavy' multi crew instructing time.
"please explain?"
You were being "wound up", but you are simply too dim to recognise it. Let me give you a hint. An Oz licence is useful for reasons other than flying in Oz. Think about that for a week or so, then let me know if you still haven't figured it out...
As for your rantings on single pilot flying, airline recruitment and airline training policies...
Lol... coming from someone with no multi-crew experience, no airline experience, and no recruiting experience... we should really take your word for it.... NOT! Better get back to sending out CV's laddie...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Asia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
I'm referring to the 'Australian citizen' part, as I wrote.
You were the one so interested in PC12's, what aircraft Ivor flys, wannabes and lighties. Now it's 'who cares' what aircraft type?
Yes, you did write that you got your first job with 710 hrs, mostly instructing. Your still clinging to the my aeroplanes bigger therefore I'm right argument. Now it's all getting too hard it's a 'wind up'. I'm not ranting about airline training, untrainable single crew pilots and airlines recruitment, you are. You are getting really boring, have another glass of red MORon.
I'm referring to the 'Australian citizen' part, as I wrote.
You were the one so interested in PC12's, what aircraft Ivor flys, wannabes and lighties. Now it's 'who cares' what aircraft type?
Yes, you did write that you got your first job with 710 hrs, mostly instructing. Your still clinging to the my aeroplanes bigger therefore I'm right argument. Now it's all getting too hard it's a 'wind up'. I'm not ranting about airline training, untrainable single crew pilots and airlines recruitment, you are. You are getting really boring, have another glass of red MORon.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL
Well everybody else gets it, pity you can't figure it out.
It's got nothing to do with the size of aircraft. It has to do with experience and achievement. You have little of either, and yet you go on and on about topics you have no experience or knowledge of.
The thread started with you voicing your opposition to our friend Meeb, who has the Right of Abode in Australia, coming to Oz to work. You asserted that those jobs belong to Australians, when this is patently not so. You were wrong about that, and you have been wrong about pretty much everything else since then.
I'm glad you are happy flying your PC12, maybe you will see Meeb down in Oz as he flies past in whatever airline-class aircraft he ends up flying...
Well everybody else gets it, pity you can't figure it out.
It's got nothing to do with the size of aircraft. It has to do with experience and achievement. You have little of either, and yet you go on and on about topics you have no experience or knowledge of.
The thread started with you voicing your opposition to our friend Meeb, who has the Right of Abode in Australia, coming to Oz to work. You asserted that those jobs belong to Australians, when this is patently not so. You were wrong about that, and you have been wrong about pretty much everything else since then.
I'm glad you are happy flying your PC12, maybe you will see Meeb down in Oz as he flies past in whatever airline-class aircraft he ends up flying...
