ATPL v CPL / IR Ground School

[2close]

Is there a significant difference in standard between the examinations at ATPL level and those at CPL and IR level?

I see there are no approved organisations providing residential GS for CPL and IR theory.

In that respect, leaving aside the question 'why would they want to?' and accepting that a person may have a valid reason for doing so, if that person undertook the residential ATPL course with one of those organisations approved for both ATPL and CPL / IR, would it be permissible for a person to undertake the residential ATPL studies then sit the CPL / IR exams?

[FougaMagister]

In order to become CPT on a MPA, you will need an (unfrozen) ATPL; a CPL/IR will allow you to fly in the right-hand seat, but you would have to sit the ATPL exams before doing a command course - provided of course an airline would recruit you with a CPL/IR but no written ATPLs (which is doubtful).

Cheers :cool:

[BillieBob]

...a CPL/IR will allow you to fly in the right-hand seat, but you would have to sit the ATPL exams before doing a command courseIn fact, you need to have passed the ATPL exams before acting in any capacity as a flight crew member of a multi-pilot aeroplane, not just as PIC.

By taking only the CPL and IR exams, you will be restricting yourself to flying only single-pilot aeroplanes whilst doing almost as much work as is involved in the ATPL exams. Whilst it may be your intention now only to fly single-pilot aeroplanes, it would be wiser to attempt the ATPL exams if only to keep your options open for the future.

[2close]

Thanks for the replies guys and I agree it would seem pointless restricting options by only doing the CPL and IR exams.

But as I'm only looking to move into instructing I was wondering whether the ATPLs were completely necessary, hence the original question regarding standards.

Thanks again.

[FlyingForFun]

My understanding is that the level to which you are tested is the same whether you do CPL/IR exams, or ATPL exams. The only difference is the size of the syllabus.

However, the ATPL exams are basically a combination of the CPL and the IR exams. So although the CPL syllabus is considerably smaller than the ATPL syllabus, as is the IR syllabus, the combined CPL/IR syllabus is not. In fact, you will end up doing more exams, because some subjects are duplicated between the two.

If you are planning on getting both a CPL and an IR, then do the ATPL exams. (Remember you need to get both your CPL and IR within 3 years of completing the exams, though.) If you're going to instruct and don't want an IR (at least not within the next few years), then do the CPL exams.

FFF
--------------

[2close]

Cheers FFF,

As the intention is to do CPL IR FI, I think the prudent move would be to do ATPL as it clears it all in one go.

And as you say it's easier on the exam side of things.

Thanks again,

2close

[Tinstaafl]

Most people do the ATPL exams for the reasons FFF mentioned. As mentioned by FFF, the major catch is the time limitation from passing the exams & obtaining the licence & IR. Allow for that in your planning. After that, the ATPL credit remains valid indefinitely as long as you keep renewing your IR. There's a period after the IR lapses where the exams remain valid but damned if I know what it is. 5 years? 3 years?

Doing the CPL exams --> CPL then IR exams when ready to train for the IR --> IR can be more amenable to your schedule while minimising a lapsed exam credit difficulty.

[2close]

Thanks again troops but I have one other question.

Are JAR ATPL examinations taken in another member state valid for issue of a UK CPL?

I've looked in LASORS 2006 and I cannot read anything that would suggest the UK will not accept ATPLs sat in another JAA member state but I also believe that there are some JAA countries that insist on the ATPLs being sat in their own country.

Cheers

2close

[Unusual Attitude]

Just a quick correction to BillieBob's statement:-

In fact, you need to have passed the ATPL exams before acting in any capacity as a flight crew member of a multi-pilot aeroplane, not just as PIC.

Not just "Passed" the ATPL's but the theroy must in fact still be considered "Valid" by the CAA. If you exceed the 3 years without gaining both a CPL & IR then the CAA basically condsider it as if you have never even sat the ATPL's in the first place! I have this in writing from the CAA :-(

I can only assume from this that at the stroke of midnight on the last day of the 3 year period, the CAA fairy creeps into your bedroom while you slepping, waves its "wand of doom" and removes all ATPL level knowledge from your brain........Probably best I dont get started on that rant again though......!!

Having been there, do the ATPL's, no point in doing only the CPL exams as that just leads you down a dead end you cant upgrade from !

Regards

UA

[potkettleblack]

Are JAR ATPL examinations taken in another member state valid for issue of a UK CPL?

Nope had this very fact confirmed in writing from the CAA as I had shifted home and wanted to do my last few exams in Ireland. If I did the remaining exams here with the IAA then my CPL/IR etc would be issued by the IAA and not the CAA.

Of course this excludes the overseas FTO's that operate under CAA approval and run ATPL exams in the US and elsewhere.

[jerezflyer]

I am 36 and I have a PPL. My intention is to obtain a CPL to become a flying instructor. Therefore, I am not interested in an IR at the moment, and will not be flying multi-crew aircfaft in the forseeable future. I am going to start the CPL groundschool course for these reasons.

I think there is enough work involved in becoming a VFR instructor, without having to worry about an IR. If in the future, for instructing purposes I want an IR then I will sit the exams then, not now or be under pressure for 3 years due to ATPL credits expiring. Just my particular situation.

[RVR800]

The CAA dont require you to do the full training again after the 36 months

Which is nice of them

[potkettleblack]

Jerez I can fully understand your reasoning and good to see that there are people who are willing to commit to be career instructors rather than the many hour builders we come across that jump ship at the first chance. Only thing is....what if one day the guy who owns a biz jet, king air or twin on the other side of the field comes over and needs someone to fill in on a part time basis? Having the ATPL g/s and IR would put you in a better position and you might enjoy a bit of a change from instructing 7 days a week. Just another view.

[2close]

Which is more or less what happened to a guy I met last summer who was working as a FI at a small field but was offered a job flying bizjets and now happens to be flying a shiny new corporate Gulfstream V.

Right place, right time but with all the quals in the back pocket.

[2close]

To qualify my earlier comment regarding LASORS, JAR FCL 1 does NOT require that all components (medical, theory and flight training) are completed in the same member state. In fact, it clearly states that training CAN be commenced in one state and completed in another provided that both member states agree such and they agree which state shall be the state of licence issue.

Provided the states involved are all full member states with full reciprocal recognition, there would be little room for the authorities involved to argue against allowing cross border training.

The following is a direct, un-edited extract from JAR FCL 1.

JAR–FCL 1.065 State of licence issue
(See JAR–FCL 1.010(c))
(a) An applicant shall demonstrate the satisfactory completion of all requirements for licence issue to the Authority of the ‘State of licence issue’ (see JAR–FCL 1.010(c)).
(b) In circumstances agreed by both Authorities, an applicant who has commenced training under the responsibility of one Authority may be permitted to complete the requirements under the responsibility of the other Authority.
The agreement shall allow for:
(1) theoretical knowledge training and examinations;
(2) medical examination and assessment;
(3) flight training and testing,
The Authorities shall agree the ‘State of licence issue’.
(c) Further ratings may be obtained under JAR–FCL requirements in any JAA Member State and will be entered into the licence by the State of licence issue.
(d) For administrative convenience, e.g. revalidation, the licence holder may subsequently transfer a licence issued by the State of licence issue to another JAA Member State, provided that employment or normal residency is established in that State (see JAR–FCL 1.070). That State would thereafter become the State of licence issue and would assume the responsibility for licence issue referred to in (a) above.
(e) An applicant shall hold only one JAR–FCL licence (aeroplane) and only one medical certificate at any time.
[Amdt. 1, 01.06.00; Amdt. 2, 01.08.02; Amdt. 3, 01.07.03]

[BillieBob]

But the only such agreement in existence, AFAIK, is between the UK CAA and the IAA and applies only to the modular CPL(A). With this one exception, all licence training must, at present, be completed at FTOs approved by the state of licence issue - Medical, Theoretical Knowledge and Flight Training.

[hold5]

LASORS on the CAA website will tell you all you need to know about what you can and can't fly depending on what licence you wish to get.

[2close]

Points taken guys,

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the whole JAA system is fundamentally flawed (That's not what I wrote originally but I thought I'd best tone it down).

What is the point of having common standards and reciprocal 'agreements' and a system in black and white which states that medicals, theory and flight training CAN be applied cross-border if, in practice, they are never implemented because each country wants to protect its own sovereignty (pocket?)?

Wasn't it 1972 that JAA was first formed? It then took them 27 years to get a set of rules that everyone was 'happy' with but in reality national authorities only pay attention to the bits that suit them.

I do wonder how these countries will manage when EASA takes over and JAR FCL standards become EASA Parts 123XYZ, enshrined in EU law, with which they have no option but to comform.

I wonder how cross border cooperation will then operate.

[potkettleblack]

Yep tell me about it very frustrating indeed for those of us who have recently shifted out of the UK and want to finish off bits and pieces closer to home and theoretically to the same standards.

Possibly if the CAA don't like the flavour of something that EASA promulgates then it will just use its right of veto?

[2close]

As I understand it (but I may be wrong) there is no right of veto as EASA Parts999etc are regulatory and therefore subject to the powers of the Courts, unlike JARs which are to all intents and purposes optional!

If an EU member state refused to implement the EASA Regs it could be prosecuted in the EU Courts.

But then again, has that ever stopped a country from doing its own thing?

[jerezflyer]

Jerez I can fully understand your reasoning and good to see that there are people who are willing to commit to be career instructors rather than the many hour builders we come across that jump ship at the first chance. Only thing is....what if one day the guy who owns a biz jet, king air or twin on the other side of the field comes over and needs someone to fill in on a part time basis? Having the ATPL g/s and IR would put you in a better position and you might enjoy a bit of a change from instructing 7 days a week. Just another view.

Very true - however, I could not survive economically as a full time FI because I would have to take a severe pay cut from my current career. This means I would only really be instructing at weekends, and maybe doing other things that a CPL lets you do such as VFR pleasure flights, etc. Without an IR, I can get an ME rating to fly light twins (I know, VFR only).
I dont think even flying a king air as a F/O would work financially (although I would live happily ever after if I could - prefer a king air to a large jet).