Summer Ground School

[sportingrifle]

Jazz just posted their 2025 openings. Been waiting since last May for a call. I'm now close to 1000 TT. Should I still consider this company as my next step or are they too overwhelmed by the amount of Captains vs FOs. I've heard some newly hired FOs barely flew 150h in 2024.

Thanks in advance,
CADPilot

While most pilots that spend a career in aviation will aim for a job that offers the LEAST amount of flying in return for the MOST $$, until you are walking around with an ATPL in your hand (a real one, not the 2000 hour c172 instructor version) your goal should be the job that has you flying 85 hours per month, every month. Build your hours as quickly as possible. Get your multi time. Get 705 time if available. Get 703/704 command time to use towards your ATPL.

Until you reach your ‘forever’ job, each stop on the way is simply a step on the ladder. Be careful about choosing the steps.

Good luck.

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

[twa22]

Jazz just posted their 2025 openings. Been waiting since last May for a call. I'm now close to 1000 TT. Should I still consider this company as my next step or are they too overwhelmed by the amount of Captains vs FOs. I've heard some newly hired FOs barely flew 150h in 2024.

Thanks in advance,
CADPilot

While most pilots that spend a career in aviation will aim for a job that offers the LEAST amount of flying in return for the MOST $$, until you are walking around with an ATPL in your hand (a real one, not the 2000 hour c172 instructor version) your goal should be the job that has you flying 85 hours per month, every month. Build your hours as quickly as possible. Get your multi time. Get 705 time if available. Get 703/704 command time to use towards your ATPL.

Until you reach your ‘forever’ job, each stop on the way is simply a step on the ladder. Be careful about choosing the steps.

Good luck.

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

[sportingrifle]

There are companies that do acreally good job with low time pilots in transport category aircraft. Lufthansa is a great example. But they spend well north of a million dollars on each cadet, just like the military do. As an example of the differeces, they do circuits in Citation jets and upset training in L-39’s recognizing the limitations of flight simulators. And line indoc is hundreds of hours with a third safety captain in the jumpseat. Contrast this with Cyvnet or whatever its called. Further evidence is the stunning inability of many with these backgrounds to upgrade. It’s not a “rule” but from what I see, pretty close to one.

[twa22]

There are companies that do acreally good job with low time pilots in transport category aircraft. Lufthansa is a great example. But they spend well north of a million dollars on each cadet, just like the military do. As an example of the differeces, they do circuits in Citation jets and upset training in L-39’s recognizing the limitations of flight simulators. And line indoc is hundreds of hours with a third safety captain in the jumpseat. Contrast this with Cyvnet or whatever its called. Further evidence is the stunning inability of many with these backgrounds to upgrade. It’s not a “rule” but from what I see, pretty close to one.

Yes fully agreed, that's what I was getting at, with good training, it can be done, it just needs to be done right, and lots of companies around the world have figured out how to do, hence why it's not a rule but we're just getting into semantics at this point

[Dime]

While most pilots that spend a career in aviation will aim for a job that offers the LEAST amount of flying in return for the MOST $$, until you are walking around with an ATPL in your hand (a real one, not the 2000 hour c172 instructor version) your goal should be the job that has you flying 85 hours per month, every month. Build your hours as quickly as possible. Get your multi time. Get 705 time if available. Get 703/704 command time to use towards your ATPL.

Until you reach your ‘forever’ job, each stop on the way is simply a step on the ladder. Be careful about choosing the steps.

Good luck.

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

TC really really needs to update the ATPL regs. So many ridiculous rules in place that make no sense (I.e 25 Night PiC X-country as one example).

[cdnavater]

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

TC really really needs to update the ATPL regs. So many ridiculous rules in place that make no sense (I.e 25 Night PiC X-country as one example).

Can you be more clear on your position, are you saying it’s not enough or ridiculous that you need it.
Before someone can debate, they need to know where you stand, ridiculous rules could go either way!

[Vincepilot]

Hi,

I will be on the Feb 17th Groundschool. I'm just looking about what was the latest equipment looks like. Any infos about planes and bases vacancies? What can we expect for 2025.

Thx!

[Me262]

Hi,

I will be on the Feb 17th Groundschool. I'm just looking about what was the latest equipment looks like. Any infos about planes and bases vacancies? What can we expect for 2025.

Thx!

Mostly CRJ YVR, and lots of Qs (except YYZ). Few E175s as well, not sure if they will be offered in the first GS though.

[Me262]

While most pilots that spend a career in aviation will aim for a job that offers the LEAST amount of flying in return for the MOST $$, until you are walking around with an ATPL in your hand (a real one, not the 2000 hour c172 instructor version) your goal should be the job that has you flying 85 hours per month, every month. Build your hours as quickly as possible. Get your multi time. Get 705 time if available. Get 703/704 command time to use towards your ATPL.

Until you reach your ‘forever’ job, each stop on the way is simply a step on the ladder. Be careful about choosing the steps.

Good luck.

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

TC really really needs to update the ATPL regs. So many ridiculous rules in place that make no sense (I.e 25 Night PiC X-country as one example).

All of this 1000x over. Even the canadian military upgrades to SAR/Transport/LRP aircraft captain with only 5-10 PIC in total. I can't say "left seat" because in the military, whoever is PF sits in the left seat while the PM right seat, and swaps around depending who acts PF/PM.

More importantly, if civilian instituions got it right (EASA), Canada needs to drop the worthless ATPL requirements (all PIC requirements past CPL, but including the dangerous 300NM CX requirement in CPL) and add what matters, ME total hours.

[cdnavater]

Well said rudder. I would add that the difference in abilities and situational awareness between a 705 f/o with no previous multi crew command time and one with, is an order of magnitude. Learn your craft early in your career and you will have a much smoother and enjoyable one.

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

TC really really needs to update the ATPL regs. So many ridiculous rules in place that make no sense (I.e 25 Night PiC X-country as one example).

All of this 1000x over. Even the canadian military upgrades to SAR/Transport/LRP aircraft captain with only 5-10 PIC in total. I can't say "left seat" because in the military, whoever is PF sits in the left seat while the PM right seat, and swaps around depending who acts PF/PM.

More importantly, if civilian instituions got it right (EASA), Canada needs to drop the worthless ATPL requirements (all PIC requirements past CPL, but including the dangerous 300NM CX requirement in CPL) and add what matters, ME total hours.

You are NOT a military pilot, the selection process is extremely competitive and the training is much more intense!

“Division VIII - Airline Transport Pilot Licence
421.34 Aeroplanes - Requirements
(7) Credits for DND Applicants

Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating (unrestricted) in a multi-engined aeroplane (Group 1) shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.”

I would gladly trade the “silly” requirements if they went back to FO time counting for half, 3000 TT for an ATPL and I’m good, the current system is silly, in the sense that it is a joke and needs to be MORE stringent!

[rudder]

While I agree that for the most part what you say is true, it's not a rule.

I have pointed out in the past here that other countries in the world have figured out how to have safe 200 hr FOs flying a320/737s around places like Europe and Asia... those same FOs have also found success in the left seat, without ever having flown anything but a high performance jet aircraft in a two crew environment from the right seat (flight school excluded).

This is also due to the fact that the rest of world has either moved on, or never had the archaic ATPL rules that Canada has, where one is held back by this magically 250 hr PIC time... how that 250hrs PIC time makes someone more qualified to sit in the left seat is beyond my pay grade, but like Rudder pointed out, there's a real ATPL, and a 2000hr instructor ATPL... those 2000hr instructor ATPLs don't exist in other parts of the world, because the regulations don't allow it, as in, take EASA, for an ATPL, you require 500hrs in a multi pilot operation...

TC really really needs to update the ATPL regs. So many ridiculous rules in place that make no sense (I.e 25 Night PiC X-country as one example).

All of this 1000x over. Even the canadian military upgrades to SAR/Transport/LRP aircraft captain with only 5-10 PIC in total. I can't say "left seat" because in the military, whoever is PF sits in the left seat while the PM right seat, and swaps around depending who acts PF/PM.

More importantly, if civilian instituions got it right (EASA), Canada needs to drop the worthless ATPL requirements (all PIC requirements past CPL, but including the dangerous 300NM CX requirement in CPL) and add what matters, ME total hours.

You are NOT a military pilot, the selection process is extremely competitive and the training is much more intense!

“Division VIII - Airline Transport Pilot Licence
421.34 Aeroplanes - Requirements
(7) Credits for DND Applicants

Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating (unrestricted) in a multi-engined aeroplane (Group 1) shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.”

I would gladly trade the “silly” requirements if they went back to FO time counting for half, 3000 TT for an ATPL and I’m good, the current system is silly, in the sense that it is a joke and needs to be MORE stringent!

ATPL should be Commercial plus GRP1 plus 1500TT including 500 MPIC or substituting Part 705 FO time at 1:2 to meet the MPIC requirement. That forces an ab initio pilot to 2000TT due no MPIC command time. That effectively would mean no 705 left seat unless 500 MPIC or 18-24 months as an FO in a 705 operation.

SAMRA/SARON Exams should have open-ended validity so that ATPL can be issued when log book is validated.

We are working with licensing standards that are well over six decades old when the industry has leaped forward from viscounts/vanguards and constellations to 76 seat regional jets and 400 seat airliners where Canada has no licensing standard above Commercial to fill those seats as an FO.

In aeromedical, TC has done a reasonable job updating standards to reflect medical advancements and increased understanding of underlying health conditions for aircrew. On the qualifications side, nothing has changed.

[cdnavater]

All of this 1000x over. Even the canadian military upgrades to SAR/Transport/LRP aircraft captain with only 5-10 PIC in total. I can't say "left seat" because in the military, whoever is PF sits in the left seat while the PM right seat, and swaps around depending who acts PF/PM.

More importantly, if civilian instituions got it right (EASA), Canada needs to drop the worthless ATPL requirements (all PIC requirements past CPL, but including the dangerous 300NM CX requirement in CPL) and add what matters, ME total hours.

You are NOT a military pilot, the selection process is extremely competitive and the training is much more intense!

“Division VIII - Airline Transport Pilot Licence
421.34 Aeroplanes - Requirements
(7) Credits for DND Applicants

Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating (unrestricted) in a multi-engined aeroplane (Group 1) shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.”

I would gladly trade the “silly” requirements if they went back to FO time counting for half, 3000 TT for an ATPL and I’m good, the current system is silly, in the sense that it is a joke and needs to be MORE stringent!

ATPL should be Commercial plus GRP1 plus 1500TT including 500 MPIC or substituting Part 705 FO time at 1:2 to meet the MPIC requirement. That forces an ab initio pilot to 2000TT due no MPIC command time. That effectively would mean no 705 left seat unless 500 MPIC or 18-24 months as an FO in a 705 operation.

SAMRA/SARON Exams should have open-ended validity so that ATPL can be issued when log book is validated.

We are working with licensing standards that are well over six decades old when the industry has leaped forward from viscounts/vanguards and constellations to 76 seat regional jets and 400 seat airliners where Canada has no licensing standard above Commercial to fill those seats as an FO.

In aeromedical, TC has done a reasonable job updating standards to reflect medical advancements and increased understanding of underlying health conditions for aircrew. On the qualifications side, nothing has changed.

30 years ago when I got my ATPL, FO time only counted for half. I had 400 hours FO and 900 multi-PIC when I hit 1500 hours but still needed 1700TT due to the FO time. So, as a result when I got my logbook certified, I had about 1100 multi-PIC. There was no PICUS and no way around it, fast forward to today you have low time pilots who think it’s stupid to need 25 hours night cross country PIC!
So, my point is they obviously changed it at some point to allow for this, I’m not sure when FO time changed to count 1:1 but that should have never happened.

[twa22]

You are NOT a military pilot, the selection process is extremely competitive and the training is much more intense!

“Division VIII - Airline Transport Pilot Licence
421.34 Aeroplanes - Requirements
(7) Credits for DND Applicants

Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating (unrestricted) in a multi-engined aeroplane (Group 1) shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.”

I would gladly trade the “silly” requirements if they went back to FO time counting for half, 3000 TT for an ATPL and I’m good, the current system is silly, in the sense that it is a joke and needs to be MORE stringent!

ATPL should be Commercial plus GRP1 plus 1500TT including 500 MPIC or substituting Part 705 FO time at 1:2 to meet the MPIC requirement. That forces an ab initio pilot to 2000TT due no MPIC command time. That effectively would mean no 705 left seat unless 500 MPIC or 18-24 months as an FO in a 705 operation.

SAMRA/SARON Exams should have open-ended validity so that ATPL can be issued when log book is validated.

We are working with licensing standards that are well over six decades old when the industry has leaped forward from viscounts/vanguards and constellations to 76 seat regional jets and 400 seat airliners where Canada has no licensing standard above Commercial to fill those seats as an FO.

In aeromedical, TC has done a reasonable job updating standards to reflect medical advancements and increased understanding of underlying health conditions for aircrew. On the qualifications side, nothing has changed.

30 years ago when I got my ATPL, FO time only counted for half. I had 400 hours FO and 900 multi-PIC when I hit 1500 hours but still needed 1700TT due to the FO time. So, as a result when I got my logbook certified, I had about 1100 multi-PIC. There was no PICUS and no way around it, fast forward to today you have low time pilots who think it’s stupid to need 25 hours night cross country PIC!
So, my point is they obviously changed it at some point to allow for this, I’m not sure when FO time changed to count 1:1 but that should have never happened.

You seem to contradict yourself. You appear to be saying the standards have gotten lower, yet you say that low time pilots think 25 hours night cross country PIC is stupid... well which one is it? Are you saying that those 25 hours night cross country PIC aren't stupid, and validate someone to be left seat qualified of a 705 machine because it's the requirement that allows them to hold an ATPL? Even though those 25 hours can be done in a C150, on sky clear nights, with zero wind?

Rudder is on the right track, and if training standards don't change, he is not wrong with the 500 MPIC requirement or substituting 705 FO time for an ATPL in Canada, it actually brings me back to my point that the Europeans and other nations around the world have figured out how to safely have 200 hour FOs in the flight deck and have those very similar requirements Rudder mentioned... and for that matter, have you heard of an MPL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-crew_pilot_licence

One can be flying right seat on 777, with having flown only 40 hours in a real airplane!

[cdnavater]

ATPL should be Commercial plus GRP1 plus 1500TT including 500 MPIC or substituting Part 705 FO time at 1:2 to meet the MPIC requirement. That forces an ab initio pilot to 2000TT due no MPIC command time. That effectively would mean no 705 left seat unless 500 MPIC or 18-24 months as an FO in a 705 operation.

SAMRA/SARON Exams should have open-ended validity so that ATPL can be issued when log book is validated.

We are working with licensing standards that are well over six decades old when the industry has leaped forward from viscounts/vanguards and constellations to 76 seat regional jets and 400 seat airliners where Canada has no licensing standard above Commercial to fill those seats as an FO.

In aeromedical, TC has done a reasonable job updating standards to reflect medical advancements and increased understanding of underlying health conditions for aircrew. On the qualifications side, nothing has changed.

30 years ago when I got my ATPL, FO time only counted for half. I had 400 hours FO and 900 multi-PIC when I hit 1500 hours but still needed 1700TT due to the FO time. So, as a result when I got my logbook certified, I had about 1100 multi-PIC. There was no PICUS and no way around it, fast forward to today you have low time pilots who think it’s stupid to need 25 hours night cross country PIC!
So, my point is they obviously changed it at some point to allow for this, I’m not sure when FO time changed to count 1:1 but that should have never happened.

You seem to contradict yourself. You appear to be saying the standards have gotten lower, yet you say that low time pilots think 25 hours night cross country PIC is stupid... well which one is it? Are you saying that those 25 hours night cross country PIC aren't stupid, and validate someone to be left seat qualified of a 705 machine because it's the requirement that allows them to hold an ATPL? Even though those 25 hours can be done in a C150, on sky clear nights, with zero wind?

Rudder is on the right track, and if training standards don't change, he is not wrong with the 500 MPIC requirement for an ATPL in Canada, but with that said, it brings me back to my point that the Europeans and other nations around the world have figured out how to safely have 200 hour FOs in the flight deck... and for that matter, have you heard of an MPL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-crew_pilot_licence

One can be flying right seat on 777, with having flown only 40 hours in a real airplane!

Show me where I contradict myself, I literally said they lowered the standard and we have pilots who think 25 hours night cross country is stupid!
How did you get anything other than I think the 25 hours night cross country is not enough!
But to some it’s too much and yes, it’s ridiculous that you can meet the ATPL standard when you can rent a 150 to achieve it! There, is that clear enough for you!
I couldn’t care less if you have 25 night cross country if the standard was higher, like the way it was when FO time only counted for half, in my opinion that should never have changed!

[twa22]

30 years ago when I got my ATPL, FO time only counted for half. I had 400 hours FO and 900 multi-PIC when I hit 1500 hours but still needed 1700TT due to the FO time. So, as a result when I got my logbook certified, I had about 1100 multi-PIC. There was no PICUS and no way around it, fast forward to today you have low time pilots who think it’s stupid to need 25 hours night cross country PIC!
So, my point is they obviously changed it at some point to allow for this, I’m not sure when FO time changed to count 1:1 but that should have never happened.

You seem to contradict yourself. You appear to be saying the standards have gotten lower, yet you say that low time pilots think 25 hours night cross country PIC is stupid... well which one is it? Are you saying that those 25 hours night cross country PIC aren't stupid, and validate someone to be left seat qualified of a 705 machine because it's the requirement that allows them to hold an ATPL? Even though those 25 hours can be done in a C150, on sky clear nights, with zero wind?

Rudder is on the right track, and if training standards don't change, he is not wrong with the 500 MPIC requirement for an ATPL in Canada, but with that said, it brings me back to my point that the Europeans and other nations around the world have figured out how to safely have 200 hour FOs in the flight deck... and for that matter, have you heard of an MPL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-crew_pilot_licence

One can be flying right seat on 777, with having flown only 40 hours in a real airplane!

Show me where I contradict myself, I literally said they lowered the standard and we have pilots who think 25 hours night cross country is stupid!
How did you get anything other than I think the 25 hours night cross country is not enough!
But to some it’s too much and yes, it’s ridiculous that you can meet the ATPL standard when you can rent a 150 to achieve it! There, is that clear enough for you!
I couldn’t care less if you have 25 night cross country if the standard was higher, like the way it was when FO time only counted for half, in my opinion that should never have changed!

I don't think any of us who are claiming that the 25 night cross country pic for an ATPL makes no sense, is advocating for there to be even less stringent ATPL rules. I certainly AM NOT saying that and I only speak for myself.

I clearly stated my position that the ATPL requirements should follow closely inline with the rest of the worlds standards, aka with what Rudder was saying. Here's the exact requirements from the UK CAA, which follows the EASA standards. Would you agree that these regulations for an ATPL would suffice to have a candidate ready to operate a 705 machine in the left seat?

https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... eroplanes/

[cdnavater]

You seem to contradict yourself. You appear to be saying the standards have gotten lower, yet you say that low time pilots think 25 hours night cross country PIC is stupid... well which one is it? Are you saying that those 25 hours night cross country PIC aren't stupid, and validate someone to be left seat qualified of a 705 machine because it's the requirement that allows them to hold an ATPL? Even though those 25 hours can be done in a C150, on sky clear nights, with zero wind?

Rudder is on the right track, and if training standards don't change, he is not wrong with the 500 MPIC requirement for an ATPL in Canada, but with that said, it brings me back to my point that the Europeans and other nations around the world have figured out how to safely have 200 hour FOs in the flight deck... and for that matter, have you heard of an MPL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-crew_pilot_licence

One can be flying right seat on 777, with having flown only 40 hours in a real airplane!

Show me where I contradict myself, I literally said they lowered the standard and we have pilots who think 25 hours night cross country is stupid!
How did you get anything other than I think the 25 hours night cross country is not enough!
But to some it’s too much and yes, it’s ridiculous that you can meet the ATPL standard when you can rent a 150 to achieve it! There, is that clear enough for you!
I couldn’t care less if you have 25 night cross country if the standard was higher, like the way it was when FO time only counted for half, in my opinion that should never have changed!

I don't think any of us who are claiming that the 25 night cross country pic for an ATPL makes no sense, is advocating for there to be even less stringent ATPL rules. I certainly AM NOT saying that and I only speak for myself.

I clearly stated my position that the ATPL requirements should follow closely inline with the rest of the worlds standards, aka with what Rudder was saying. Here's the exact requirements from the UK CAA, which follows the EASA standards. Would you agree that these regulations for an ATPL would suffice to have a candidate ready to operate a 705 machine in the left seat?

https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... eroplanes/

I can agree that that is better but there is a point I disagree with without some clarity;
“Flight time

You must have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes
500 hours as Pilot in command under supervision (PICUS)
or
250 hours as Pilot in Command (PIC)
or
250 hours to include a minimum of 70 hours as PIC and the remainder as PICUS.
200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours should be as PIC or as PIC under supervision
75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours can be instrument ground time
100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.
Of the 1500 hours of total flight time required, up to 100 hours can be completed in a suitable simulator (FFS or FNPT - but only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT).”

You either need 500 PICUS or 250 PIC but you can reduce to 250 to include 70 PIC and 180 PICUS!
70 PIC in what, don’t you have 70 PIC when you finish your commercial licence, therefore when would you ever need the 500 PICUS

[twa22]

Show me where I contradict myself, I literally said they lowered the standard and we have pilots who think 25 hours night cross country is stupid!
How did you get anything other than I think the 25 hours night cross country is not enough!
But to some it’s too much and yes, it’s ridiculous that you can meet the ATPL standard when you can rent a 150 to achieve it! There, is that clear enough for you!
I couldn’t care less if you have 25 night cross country if the standard was higher, like the way it was when FO time only counted for half, in my opinion that should never have changed!

I don't think any of us who are claiming that the 25 night cross country pic for an ATPL makes no sense, is advocating for there to be even less stringent ATPL rules. I certainly AM NOT saying that and I only speak for myself.

I clearly stated my position that the ATPL requirements should follow closely inline with the rest of the worlds standards, aka with what Rudder was saying. Here's the exact requirements from the UK CAA, which follows the EASA standards. Would you agree that these regulations for an ATPL would suffice to have a candidate ready to operate a 705 machine in the left seat?

https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... eroplanes/

I can agree that that is better but there is a point I disagree with without some clarity;
“Flight time

You must have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes
500 hours as Pilot in command under supervision (PICUS)
or
250 hours as Pilot in Command (PIC)
or
250 hours to include a minimum of 70 hours as PIC and the remainder as PICUS.
200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours should be as PIC or as PIC under supervision
75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours can be instrument ground time
100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.
Of the 1500 hours of total flight time required, up to 100 hours can be completed in a suitable simulator (FFS or FNPT - but only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT).”

You either need 500 PICUS or 250 PIC but you can reduce to 250 to include 70 PIC and 180 PICUS!
70 PIC in what, don’t you have 70 PIC when you finish your commercial licence, therefore when would you ever need the 500 PICUS

Yes, it's exactly how you understood it. One can get that 70 PIC time during their PPL/CPL stage, and then can receive the remaining PIC time via the PICUS program to be eligible for an ATPL. So that 200hr FO can go left seat once they get their ATPL, with only ever having flown actual PIC during the initial stages of their training. That said, you cannot bypass the 500 hours in a multi pilot operation. It's 500 hours multi-pilot operation, AND, 250 PIC time, of which 70 actual PIC, and 180 PICUS. This goes back to my initial statement that, a properly trained FO with 500 hours in a multi-pilot operation, can be left seat qualified, even if they start off as a 200 hr FO on a 737/320. This has been going on for decades in Europe, and they have likely produced thousands upon thousands of left seat qualified pilots.

[cdnavater]

I don't think any of us who are claiming that the 25 night cross country pic for an ATPL makes no sense, is advocating for there to be even less stringent ATPL rules. I certainly AM NOT saying that and I only speak for myself.

I clearly stated my position that the ATPL requirements should follow closely inline with the rest of the worlds standards, aka with what Rudder was saying. Here's the exact requirements from the UK CAA, which follows the EASA standards. Would you agree that these regulations for an ATPL would suffice to have a candidate ready to operate a 705 machine in the left seat?

https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... eroplanes/

I can agree that that is better but there is a point I disagree with without some clarity;
“Flight time

You must have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes
500 hours as Pilot in command under supervision (PICUS)
or
250 hours as Pilot in Command (PIC)
or
250 hours to include a minimum of 70 hours as PIC and the remainder as PICUS.
200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours should be as PIC or as PIC under supervision
75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours can be instrument ground time
100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.
Of the 1500 hours of total flight time required, up to 100 hours can be completed in a suitable simulator (FFS or FNPT - but only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT).”

You either need 500 PICUS or 250 PIC but you can reduce to 250 to include 70 PIC and 180 PICUS!
70 PIC in what, don’t you have 70 PIC when you finish your commercial licence, therefore when would you ever need the 500 PICUS

Yes, it's exactly how you understood it. One can get that 70 PIC time during their PPL/CPL stage, and then can receive the remaining PIC time via the PICUS program to be eligible for an ATPL. So that 200hr FO can go left seat once they get their ATPL, with only ever having flown actual PIC during the initial stages of their training. That said, you cannot bypass the 500 hours in a multi pilot operation. It's 500 hours multi-pilot operation, AND, 250 PIC time, of which 70 actual PIC, and 180 PICUS. This goes back to my initial statement that, a properly trained FO with 500 hours in a multi-pilot operation, can be left seat qualified, even if they start off as a 200 hr FO on a 737/320. This has been going on for decades in Europe, and they have likely produced thousands upon thousands of left seat qualified pilots.

Ok, so why would they even bother to state 500 PICUS or… since every single pilot who has a commercial licence qualifies for the or 70 PIC …..
That being said, has any company upgraded a 1500 hour FO to the left seat? I would think the reality is upgrades are likely 5-10 years with much more total time but I admit, I don’t know.

[twa22]

I can agree that that is better but there is a point I disagree with without some clarity;
“Flight time

You must have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes
500 hours as Pilot in command under supervision (PICUS)
or
250 hours as Pilot in Command (PIC)
or
250 hours to include a minimum of 70 hours as PIC and the remainder as PICUS.
200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours should be as PIC or as PIC under supervision
75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours can be instrument ground time
100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.
Of the 1500 hours of total flight time required, up to 100 hours can be completed in a suitable simulator (FFS or FNPT - but only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT).”

You either need 500 PICUS or 250 PIC but you can reduce to 250 to include 70 PIC and 180 PICUS!
70 PIC in what, don’t you have 70 PIC when you finish your commercial licence, therefore when would you ever need the 500 PICUS

Yes, it's exactly how you understood it. One can get that 70 PIC time during their PPL/CPL stage, and then can receive the remaining PIC time via the PICUS program to be eligible for an ATPL. So that 200hr FO can go left seat once they get their ATPL, with only ever having flown actual PIC during the initial stages of their training. That said, you cannot bypass the 500 hours in a multi pilot operation. It's 500 hours multi-pilot operation, AND, 250 PIC time, of which 70 actual PIC, and 180 PICUS. This goes back to my initial statement that, a properly trained FO with 500 hours in a multi-pilot operation, can be left seat qualified, even if they start off as a 200 hr FO on a 737/320. This has been going on for decades in Europe, and they have likely produced thousands upon thousands of left seat qualified pilots.

Ok, so why would they even bother to state 500 PICUS or… since every single pilot who has a commercial licence qualifies for the or 70 PIC …..
That being said, has any company upgraded a 1500 hour FO to the left seat? I would think the reality is upgrades are likely 5-10 years with much more total time but I admit, I don’t know.

I don't why the requirements are what they are in Europe, the UK or abroad. There is no perfect system, but the discussion was what should the requirements be for an ATPL and I gave this comparison. If companies are in need for captains, maybe they will put 1500 hr fresh ATPLs in the left seat, or maybe they won't, I don't know the answer to that.

[Me262]

I can agree that that is better but there is a point I disagree with without some clarity;
“Flight time

You must have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes
500 hours as Pilot in command under supervision (PICUS)
or
250 hours as Pilot in Command (PIC)
or
250 hours to include a minimum of 70 hours as PIC and the remainder as PICUS.
200 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours should be as PIC or as PIC under supervision
75 hours of instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours can be instrument ground time
100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.
Of the 1500 hours of total flight time required, up to 100 hours can be completed in a suitable simulator (FFS or FNPT - but only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT).”

You either need 500 PICUS or 250 PIC but you can reduce to 250 to include 70 PIC and 180 PICUS!
70 PIC in what, don’t you have 70 PIC when you finish your commercial licence, therefore when would you ever need the 500 PICUS

Yes, it's exactly how you understood it. One can get that 70 PIC time during their PPL/CPL stage, and then can receive the remaining PIC time via the PICUS program to be eligible for an ATPL. So that 200hr FO can go left seat once they get their ATPL, with only ever having flown actual PIC during the initial stages of their training. That said, you cannot bypass the 500 hours in a multi pilot operation. It's 500 hours multi-pilot operation, AND, 250 PIC time, of which 70 actual PIC, and 180 PICUS. This goes back to my initial statement that, a properly trained FO with 500 hours in a multi-pilot operation, can be left seat qualified, even if they start off as a 200 hr FO on a 737/320. This has been going on for decades in Europe, and they have likely produced thousands upon thousands of left seat qualified pilots.

Ok, so why would they even bother to state 500 PICUS or… since every single pilot who has a commercial licence qualifies for the or 70 PIC …..
That being said, has any company upgraded a 1500 hour FO to the left seat? I would think the reality is upgrades are likely 5-10 years with much more total time but I admit, I don’t know.

All the European companies did, yes. There the vast majority of CPL graduates go fly 320 and 737 right seat. How do you think they are upgrading to left seat? By doing the PICUS program, and many are very successful. 1300hrs in the right seat provides a lot of knowledge and experience to use once you upgrade to the left seat on the same aircraft.

[cdnavater]

Yes, it's exactly how you understood it. One can get that 70 PIC time during their PPL/CPL stage, and then can receive the remaining PIC time via the PICUS program to be eligible for an ATPL. So that 200hr FO can go left seat once they get their ATPL, with only ever having flown actual PIC during the initial stages of their training. That said, you cannot bypass the 500 hours in a multi pilot operation. It's 500 hours multi-pilot operation, AND, 250 PIC time, of which 70 actual PIC, and 180 PICUS. This goes back to my initial statement that, a properly trained FO with 500 hours in a multi-pilot operation, can be left seat qualified, even if they start off as a 200 hr FO on a 737/320. This has been going on for decades in Europe, and they have likely produced thousands upon thousands of left seat qualified pilots.

Ok, so why would they even bother to state 500 PICUS or… since every single pilot who has a commercial licence qualifies for the or 70 PIC …..
That being said, has any company upgraded a 1500 hour FO to the left seat? I would think the reality is upgrades are likely 5-10 years with much more total time but I admit, I don’t know.

All the European companies did, yes. There the vast majority of CPL graduates go fly 320 and 737 right seat. How do you think they are upgrading to left seat? By doing the PICUS program, and many are very successful. 1300hrs in the right seat provides a lot of knowledge and experience to use once you upgrade to the left seat on the same aircraft.

Do you have any proof that they are upgrading any FOs on the 320/737 at 1500 hours, please tell me so I can avoid those airlines in the future!
Yes, in Europe they have had the cadet program for years and no doubt their training program has evolved based on that reality, we are early stages in the cadet to left seat at 1500 hours, so our training programs need to adapt to that reality but for now we are not there.
Very few bare ATPL are successful first try, many pull out half way through when they realize how ill prepared they are and I think many bid it hoping the company will hold them in the right seat but pay them Captain pay based on flow projections. When they get awarded it and realize they have to do the training, their plan has backfired and they try to get out of it. An upgrade failure looks bad on the AC application, so don’t bid it unless you are sure you can do it!

[yowflyer23]

Ok, so why would they even bother to state 500 PICUS or… since every single pilot who has a commercial licence qualifies for the or 70 PIC …..
That being said, has any company upgraded a 1500 hour FO to the left seat? I would think the reality is upgrades are likely 5-10 years with much more total time but I admit, I don’t know.

All the European companies did, yes. There the vast majority of CPL graduates go fly 320 and 737 right seat. How do you think they are upgrading to left seat? By doing the PICUS program, and many are very successful. 1300hrs in the right seat provides a lot of knowledge and experience to use once you upgrade to the left seat on the same aircraft.

Do you have any proof that they are upgrading any FOs on the 320/737 at 1500 hours, please tell me so I can avoid those airlines in the future!
Yes, in Europe they have had the cadet program for years and no doubt their training program has evolved based on that reality, we are early stages in the cadet to left seat at 1500 hours, so our training programs need to adapt to that reality but for now we are not there.
Very few bare ATPL are successful first try, many pull out half way through when they realize how ill prepared they are and I think many bid it hoping the company will hold them in the right seat but pay them Captain pay based on flow projections. When they get awarded it and realize they have to do the training, their plan has backfired and they try to get out of it. An upgrade failure looks bad on the AC application, so don’t bid it unless you are sure you can do it!

For the FO's who do make it through the upgrade at the hour mins, what is different about them and their approach to the upgrade process? Just curious.

[cdnavater]

All the European companies did, yes. There the vast majority of CPL graduates go fly 320 and 737 right seat. How do you think they are upgrading to left seat? By doing the PICUS program, and many are very successful. 1300hrs in the right seat provides a lot of knowledge and experience to use once you upgrade to the left seat on the same aircraft.

Do you have any proof that they are upgrading any FOs on the 320/737 at 1500 hours, please tell me so I can avoid those airlines in the future!
Yes, in Europe they have had the cadet program for years and no doubt their training program has evolved based on that reality, we are early stages in the cadet to left seat at 1500 hours, so our training programs need to adapt to that reality but for now we are not there.
Very few bare ATPL are successful first try, many pull out half way through when they realize how ill prepared they are and I think many bid it hoping the company will hold them in the right seat but pay them Captain pay based on flow projections. When they get awarded it and realize they have to do the training, their plan has backfired and they try to get out of it. An upgrade failure looks bad on the AC application, so don’t bid it unless you are sure you can do it!

For the FO's who do make it through the upgrade at the hour mins, what is different about them and their approach to the upgrade process? Just curious.

I have only seen one on the RJ and this candidate was confident and more importantly competent, he knew his stuff cold and had experience flying out east for a Q operator. All his experience was in weather and operational conditions known for the East coast so he’s seen some shit. He was one of the DEC who was successful, I believe only two of 10 made it through, a couple are still right seat over a year later.
I’ve had upgrade candidates not even know how to properly turn on the weather radar, ffs, how do you bid the upgrade without that knowledge and then a couple others who could turn it on but have no idea how to use it properly. You should have at least two summers of weather radar usage under your belt before even thinking about the upgrade.
If you are thinking about upgrading, you should be studying the COM as that is a big part of being a Captain, knowing the COM is huge and many come through with basic stuff and here I am trying to train them on months worth of study in a week, not usually doable.
I believe some more have been successful on the Q but I admit I don’t know those numbers

[twa22]

Do you have any proof that they are upgrading any FOs on the 320/737 at 1500 hours, please tell me so I can avoid those airlines in the future!
Yes, in Europe they have had the cadet program for years and no doubt their training program has evolved based on that reality, we are early stages in the cadet to left seat at 1500 hours, so our training programs need to adapt to that reality but for now we are not there.
Very few bare ATPL are successful first try, many pull out half way through when they realize how ill prepared they are and I think many bid it hoping the company will hold them in the right seat but pay them Captain pay based on flow projections. When they get awarded it and realize they have to do the training, their plan has backfired and they try to get out of it. An upgrade failure looks bad on the AC application, so don’t bid it unless you are sure you can do it!

For the FO's who do make it through the upgrade at the hour mins, what is different about them and their approach to the upgrade process? Just curious.

I have only seen one on the RJ and this candidate was confident and more importantly competent, he knew his stuff cold and had experience flying out east for a Q operator. All his experience was in weather and operational conditions known for the East coast so he’s seen some shit. He was one of the DEC who was successful, I believe only two of 10 made it through, a couple are still right seat over a year later.
I’ve had upgrade candidates not even know how to properly turn on the weather radar, ffs, how do you bid the upgrade without that knowledge and then a couple others who could turn it on but have no idea how to use it properly. You should have at least two summers of weather radar usage under your belt before even thinking about the upgrade.
If you are thinking about upgrading, you should be studying the COM as that is a big part of being a Captain, knowing the COM is huge and many come through with basic stuff and here I am trying to train them on months worth of study in a week, not usually doable.
I believe some more have been successful on the Q but I admit I don’t know those numbers

So what's the magic number, in your opinion, to go left seat? 2000? 3000? I'm asking out of pure curiosity

[cdnavater]

For the FO's who do make it through the upgrade at the hour mins, what is different about them and their approach to the upgrade process? Just curious.

I have only seen one on the RJ and this candidate was confident and more importantly competent, he knew his stuff cold and had experience flying out east for a Q operator. All his experience was in weather and operational conditions known for the East coast so he’s seen some shit. He was one of the DEC who was successful, I believe only two of 10 made it through, a couple are still right seat over a year later.
I’ve had upgrade candidates not even know how to properly turn on the weather radar, ffs, how do you bid the upgrade without that knowledge and then a couple others who could turn it on but have no idea how to use it properly. You should have at least two summers of weather radar usage under your belt before even thinking about the upgrade.
If you are thinking about upgrading, you should be studying the COM as that is a big part of being a Captain, knowing the COM is huge and many come through with basic stuff and here I am trying to train them on months worth of study in a week, not usually doable.
I believe some more have been successful on the Q but I admit I don’t know those numbers

So what's the magic number, in your opinion, to go left seat? 2000? 3000? I'm asking out of pure curiosity

You can definitely tell the difference between 1500 and 3000 hours, the confidence and actual flying are much more refined but that is certainly not guaranteed.
I would say 2000 with 1000 on type and 3000 hours coming from medevac or a metro are similar in the training curve but a 3000 float pilot is not even comparable to a 1000 pilot except for hands and feet but all other aspects tend to be difficult to train, there is something to be said for operating in the IFR environment and two crew vs low level. 172 instructors and higher time float pilots are very similar in the training curve.
The truth is, there is no one size fits all but definitely for upgrades, in a perfect world I would like to see 2000 with 1000 on type, 2500 with 750 or 3000 with 500, probably the minimum the matrix should be.