Beech 1900 SIC [Archive]

fly1981

9th Jul 2008, 16:33

All fo's operating on south africa 1900's Hold P1 ratings on the aircraft, as the sacaa will not issue a p2 rating due to the fact it is a certified single crew aircraft, therefore unless we are carrying more then 9 pax, you do not require a second pilot. Having said that, most operators in SA require a second pilot according to their operations manual(regardless whether they carrying +-9 pax) According to a recent audit, the person performing our audit stated that the fo's should be logging P1 for any flying on the 1900 when they are carrying less then 9 pax on board, and P2 if the aircraft is carrying more then 9 pax, this being due to the fact that SA law requires 2 pilots on any commercial flight carrying more then 9 pax. By law, if you are carrying more then 9 pax, there has to be a co-pilot(P2)
I am no Law boffin, but this is the way I understand it, Please correct me if I am wrong.

50feet

9th Jul 2008, 17:03

ya thats a bit confusing old chap? how can a co-jo log pic if less than 9 pax and then must log p2 when more than 9 pax on board. surely you can only log pic as a co-jo if you are doing a PICUS flight for upgrade purposes and providing you have done a MCC course? correct me if im wrong but thats how it was explained to me by the CAA official

fly1981

9th Jul 2008, 17:28

Ya, I agree very confusing! The audit was conducted by 3 CAA officials as you put it. Considering the company employs about 40 1900 fo's. The whole reason is as follows: If you are carrying less than 9 pax, there is no requirement for an fo(the 1900 is certified for single crew ops) meaning it is not an mcc aircraft, the aircraft cannot be operated in full from the right seat, the only reason you would ever require an fo is when you are carrying more then 9 pax, and this is a sa law requirement!!! Words from the horses mouth, You have to log P2 for any flight that requires a P2 by law, if you are acting in the capacity of Co-Pilot, Hahaha, this debate could go on for hours, days and even weeks/months. Every one has been told a different story by the caa, the out come from the 'meeting'on the 16th will hopefully resolve alot of these issues once and for all!!!:ok:

oompilot

9th Jul 2008, 17:50

Logging in this way may lead to invalidity of your log book in other parts of the world that don’t recognize this hap hazard way of logging hours. Log what the manufacture says the AC needs. In other words if the manual says 2 crew log it, if it doesn’t then don’t. This way you can always hand your log book over to anyone with a smile. :)
I wouldn’t go by SACAA they could change their minds next month and then what, you have invalid hours in your logbook. :ugh:
Just by the way I have seen a 1900 P2 rating in a SA licence!!!??? Go figure:=

fly1981

9th Jul 2008, 18:09

I agree with oompilot 100%, It happened on the Be20 years ago, and alot of pilots ended up with a lot of p2 time on the 200, which these days the caa are not to happy to accept!!!I to have seen a p2 rating, in fact, when I got my 1900 rating 3 years ago, I was issued with a P2 rating by the caa, based on the fact I never had an ATP. The only thing i am not to sure about is, the 1900 is certified a single crew aircraft by the manufacture, so are you saying you can or cant log P2 time???I have a little P2 time on the aircraft, the caa hasnt got a problem with it, on provision the pilot with the p2 time is issued with a letter from the company he/she flys for stating the aircraft is operated as a multi crew aircraft accompanied by caa approved multi crew sops.

FlyingWrench

9th Jul 2008, 23:08

So some guys are having trouble with the caa recognizing their p2 time on the 1900? I am flying on a SA validation of my US license and I have 1900 "SIC privileges only" on my license. I know the FAA accepts the time. Under the operation we need two crew. So that means that the copilot is a required crewmember and should log the time accordingly.

SIC privileges only would be considered P2 then? Does SA require the copilot to be typed (P1 or P2) ?

Still Confused :confused:

fly1981

10th Jul 2008, 06:32

The co pilot will have to have a P1 rating, as the caa only issues P1 ratings on the aircraft, they do not issue a P2 rating as it is a certified single crew aircraft. The caa will recognise P2 time on the 1900 provided you are operating the 1900 for a company which has caa approved multi crew sops.

FlyingWrench

10th Jul 2008, 15:30

Ok great thanks. Wish I would have gotten a PIC rating on the 1900, instead I am stuck with SIC only. Now the Copilot with the P1 rating, can they log PIC for the legs they are pilot fllying?

Propellerpilot

10th Jul 2008, 16:46

I think the best way to do it, is to provisionally log the hours either as PIC if you are PIC or as Copilot if you are SIC on that individual flight if engaged in multicrew operations. If the aircraft is certified for single pilot operations, that just implies that the aircraft can be operated this way (and that it is not a requirement to hold an ATP to act as PIC) - if any flightoperation decides to implement a multicrew operation, it does not make sense to penelise the guy doing his job in the right hand seat.

Another thing to remember is that the 1900 does not comply with FAR 25 performance certification requirements. JAA require 500 hrs on a FAR 25 certified aircraft to unfreeze an ATP. I just mention this on the sideline to add to the discussion. As SACAA seemingly want to go the JAA way, this is what might be in store in the future.

Goffel

10th Jul 2008, 18:35

Flyingwrench.

Sent you a pm with my direct line and cell number.
Give me a call and I will explain the new situation to you.
.
Yes, for the others, depending on the meeting, 1900 will definitely need an ATP to command....

For the ATP pilots, your salaries are about to double as you will be in greeeeeat demand.

But just hold the ponies until after the 16th meeting for any decisions are made.

Goffel

south coast

10th Jul 2008, 19:49

I think the easiest way to understand what to log is:

PIC is for the person who is given the responsibilty as the commander/captain.

SIC is for the other person.

It doesnt matter who is pilot flying/handling pilot, it is what position/rank/level of responsibility you have been given on the plane that determines what you log.

For example, if there were 2 ATPL pilots flying the 1900, one would be dedicated as the captain, the other the fo, and only the captain could log PIC time and the other guy SIC.

Thats how it works under JAR.

cavortingcheetah

10th Jul 2008, 20:06

:hmm:

Of course, none of this brouhaha would have happened in the first place if the aircraft weight and licence requirements of the past had been left unchanged. The old Senior Commercial Licence was a little bit of a peculiar permit to fly and perhaps unique to South Africa. But its existence was more to give a fillip to the ex air force chaps than anything else. Those poor blokes really do absorb bad habits, if only by a process of osmosis. I remember an ex Rhodesian Hunter pilot with whom I used to fly. Every time we winged our way up to Salisbury in the F27; he was forever standing up on his seat in the cockpit regaling us with the reminiscences of one of his sorties over Rhodesian villages. Since his air force activities had mostly consisted of exterminating civilians, this did not go down too well with the cabin attendants who all lived in Gaberone. We finally took the wind out of his sales a little by convincing him that I had flown with the Fleet Air Arm and, as everyone knows, absolutely any idiot can land on a runway but, well a carrier and not with a harrier? That, to paraphrase Kipling, takes a man, old son!
Back to the point then, which is that irrespective of all the braggadacio of linguistic screaming and yelling that will probably greet what is a brave decision on the part of the CAA; it simply makes no more common sense to have an aircraft such as a B1900 flown by a lowly CPL holder than it would to permit single crew passenger carriage for hire or reward. To have arrived at the point where the subject even arose, let alone became a point of contention does nothing other than remind one that something, perhaps approaching an error of judgement, occured in the past.
It is noticeable furthermore that the minimum qualifications for left hand seat positions has been decreasing quite markedly in aviation in general on a world wide basis and seemingly quite noticeably in South Africa as well. This tendency of course becomes specifically quite hazardous when two crew of similar inexperience are placed together operating in the cockpit under conditions of stress and in a weather situation which might be less than suitable for a champagne picnic. This reduction in standards has been matched, parri passu, by the aviation construction business which has consistently produced aircraft which no more resemble an aeroplane of grace and style than does a duck billed platypus. Indeed, it might be true to say that, in general, today's aircraft are equally as ugly as that strange antipodean creature. In fact, the similarity between machine and mammal may be said to end with the bill itself. For today's machines that fly, as distinct from flying machines, require no more input or intelligence to operate than that which might reasonably be found in the hands of a small boy at a Battlestar Galactica pinball machine in an amusement arcade.
In an effort to carry these helpful points one step further, it might indeed be a most satisfactory contribution to the continuance of safe aviation practice if legislation were introduced to ensure that no appropriate licence holder could act as pilot in command of an aircraft required to be operated with two flight crew unless he had already accumulated five hundred hours of flight time in an aircraft of the same type, class and category as the one in which it was intended that he should operate as Commander. This would have the effect of ensuring that companies only employed as First Officers those in possession of an Airline Transport Licence so that after the requisite five hundred hours flying, effectively as Commander and Captain, a transition from right hand seat to that on the left could smoothly be made. This policy was pursued by Bristow's in Nigeria on the Dornier 328 turbo props and jets and the system worked well. It would also ensure that Commercial Pilots would of necessity be required to gather greater experience of aviation at the instructional and basic charter level while at the same time affording a well deserved degree of employment protection to those who hold the coveted ATPL.:E

Addendum:
As an interviewing Chief Pilot of a candidate for employment who is the holder of a CPL and who has flown misguidedly in command of a B1900, one supposes that his time on that aircraft should actually be divided by a factor of two to compensate for the fact that he should not actually have been flying as pilot in command in the first place? That seems a fair enough!:{
;)

Goffel

14th Jul 2008, 16:37

I know the meeting is on Wednesday, but had a chat to Mathew from Testing Standards today regarding the 1900's and the meeting.

He is adamant that the 1900 is a single crew operation and that is how it is going to stay.

So you may definitely carry on comanding with a Comm.

This may change in Dec/Jan where the weight (5700kg), might be brought into place.

If they decide to change things in someones wisdom.....I will then know it is time to change and hang my head in embarrassment.

Goffel.:(

50feet

16th Jul 2008, 12:42

any news from the meeting today?

Goffel

16th Jul 2008, 15:46

Bad news for the Comm 1900 captains.

The meeting held today has brought bad news for the guys with a comm flying as a captain on the 1900D...(C to follow soon).

As of today, any person caught flying a 1900D as a captain with only a comm, will be in contravention of the CAT''s / CAR'S.

It was debated for 90 mins on the subject and as the law is very very clear on the privalliges of a comm pilot / ATP and flying multi crew aeroplanes.

The 1900D is a factory certified multi crew aircraft,(9 seats or more), and above 5700kg, thus requiring a ALTP as the commander.

This has now come from the commissioner.

Some of the operators were informed of the commissioners decision and stance on this, this afternoon,

As there are people who do not like what has happened, you are at liberty to apply for an exemption from this law.

The unfortunate thing is, the whole industry new that this day was coming.
Some definitely did something about it, others carried on hoping that it would just go away.
As it is a law, zero grace can be given, except in the event of a exemtion from the commissioner.

Goffel.

fly1981

16th Jul 2008, 15:58

Great news for ATP captains!!!!!sorry for all the comm captains.

Propellerpilot

16th Jul 2008, 16:42

So SACAA has decided to go in contravention to JAA and FAA. The aircraft is FAR 23 certified and SFAR41 as commuter aircraft catogory. So 2 crew are mandatory in part 135/121 operations, however the PIC does not require ATP overseas.

I do not mind as I am just starting out as FO anyway, busy with my ATP. However some SA companies will suffer due to PIC shortage. At least now there is clarity to the subject.

50feet

16th Jul 2008, 16:53

well well well...... very interesting! this is a good move I think better for us with ATP's, but Solenta and Norse Air are going to kuk off!!!!! Loads of CPL's poling left seat there!

cavortingcheetah

16th Jul 2008, 17:22

:hmm:

That's really going to put some hyenas into the baby birds' nests.
Many thanks to G for keeping people posted. :eek:

Solenta

17th Jul 2008, 06:45

Here is the link to the actual FAA certification certificate for the B1900 C and D stating single pilot certification ( see page 39 )...

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/63a04565a8c445f786257465006b4d56/$FILE/A24CE.pdf

Here is the link from the FAA library stating the B1900 series ( C and D ) can be tested as single pilot, ( read page 5... F (1)-(5).)
B1900C is certified under SFAR41 and the B1900D in the "Commuter Category"... ( see page 2...para 3 note 6 (f) )

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/7f85cd99697aa59d86256f700076ed32/$FILE/87103D-C13.pdf

SA CAA Part 61.05.5 (5) (c)
(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any
aeroplane certified for single-pilot operation;
ICAO Annex 1, UK CAA, and JAR ( FCL 1.150 Priveleges and conditions ) note (3) allow a Commercial pilot to "act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transportation of any single pilot aeroplane; "

By adding a second pilot, does that change the aircraft certification ? NO.
Does it increase the safety margin ? YES

It defies logic that a 250hr Comm is allowed to fly a B1900D with 9 pax as a single pilot as P1, yet add one pax and suddenly this is unsafe and he now needs 1500hrs and an ATPL !? What if he has 9 pax and 1 ton of cargo, his TOW will still be well above 12500lbs (5700kg) yet he may still fly as P1 single pilot with a Comm ?^%*&^
What about B1900D Cargo aircraft - they don't have more than 9 seats ?
All SA 1900 operators operate the B1900 with 2 pilots, but the fact remains, it is still a single-pilot certified aircraft.

For an aircraft to be MCC certified, there is a huge amount of certification requirements, equipment fit, performance requirements ( JAA 2.1% FAA 2.4% 2nd stage climb etc ) The B1900 does NOT meet these, therefore never was, nor will it ever be, MCC certified.
You cannot test for ATPL under JAA on the B1900 as it is not MCC, it is a single pilot certified aircraft.

Obviously this interpretation of the law would adversely affect Operators, and pilots alike. What happens to those pilots already operating as Captain on the B1900 with a Comm and P1 rating, some of these guys have been doing this for years, the CAA has approved AOC's and Operations Manuals and logbooks and licences like this for years.
If it is decided that a B1900 Captain will now need an ATPL, after being told by the CAA many times, they consider it a single-pilot certified aircraft and a Comm Pilot CAN fly as a Captain, there would need to be a reasonable transition period for Operators and crew alike to meet this restriction. Until then, the status quo should remain.

The most important thing here is to reach a safe, sensible, legal agreement that complies with the law, and doesn't kill an industry already reeling from the effects of oil price increases, redundancies etc.
Just look at SAA's latest financial results..........

50feet

17th Jul 2008, 07:01

i agree with the above post, it is not going to be easy now for the operators. what about the guys in the field now flying left seat without a atpl? does the CAA really expect one to call them home? what agreement was reached about a transition period if any?

cavortingcheetah

17th Jul 2008, 08:43

:hmm:

If the CAA has decided that the B1900, in commercial operations for hire or reward, should be a two crew operation with the Commander having an ATPL, then that would seem to be something which lies within its authority. A CAA of any country is entitled to err, if that is the apposite word, on the side of caution which is, in effect what the SA CAA has done.
(It might be relevant, especially in terms of FAA regulations, to remember that a CPL holder does not have to have an instrument rating for his licence to be valid.)
Arguments to the effect that because the FAA allow single crew/IFR/commercial operations in a B1900 (if they do) are somewhat disingenuous. South Africa has its own regulations and its CAA is perfectly entitled to make whatever changes it deems fit to what has, up to now seemed to have been more of a tendacious arrangement than a legal prerogative.

It is difficult to see how exemptions could be made. There hardly seems to be flexibility in determining which CPL holder is better qualified to fly such an aircraft single crew than another. One suspects that the easiest solution for the CAA will simply be not to grant exemptions at all. A period of grace would perhaps be a more realistic option but even that would be difficult to implement and there would inevitably be enormous clamour for extensions.
It is somewhat difficult to see that the CAA, in arriving at its decision has allowed itself any room for manouevre. From this then, must one conclude that the CAA does not seek room for such flexibility?
This is, of course, all very distressing for those pilots who find themselves in a position of some licencing awkwardness. It is also presumably a difficult time for the operators. Presumably and as of this morning, any insurance cover on B1900s will be automatically void when flown by a CPL for hire or reward?
It is true, however, to say that this matter has been bandied about for a long time. There has been opportunity for those in the flying positions in question to obtain their ATPLs. The writing has hardly just appeared on the wall as it did at Balthasar's Feast.
Therein perhaps lies a possible saving grace if one were to be sought. It seems obvious enough that the CAA have predicted the onslaught from operators and pilots that their decision will cause. It would be reasonable for the CAA to wish to draw a line under this matter as soon as possible. Suppose therefore that the CAA were to grant a temporary exemption to any Commercial Pilot who had, at the least, obtained a partial pass in his ATPL examinations and then set a reasonable time limit, six months or one year perhaps, for the completion of the licence. Such an action would ease the situation insofar as operators are concerned, possibly make life a little easier for the CAA and afford recognition to those pilots who, having seen which way the wind was blowing, had decided to do something about it?:)

fly1981

17th Jul 2008, 09:23

I completely agree with all said above. The fact remains the aircraft is over 5700kg(well over I may add....) I also agree with the fact that there are alot of very highly experienced captains flying 1900's for SA operators that do not have SACAA/ICAO ATPL licenses, but hold FAA/JAA atpl's instead. I feel desperately sorry for these pilots. What must be kept in mind is a lot of operators in SA have been getting away with murder, employing 1200-1300hr comm captains on the 1900(where 900hrs of the respective captains experience lies in the circuit, doing touch and goes in a TIRED old c150) and paying them less then half the market rate, because quiet frankly, they do not have the experience to be in that position, realizing that, the pilot accepts the salary on the grounds he/she 'needs the hrs'. What this does to the guys with the right amount of experience(not mentioning ATPL)is career threatening, suddenly experience means nothing, operators would rather employ inexperienced pilots, on the grounds that it is legal, and pay them peanuts!!!!!!! instead of the employing pilots with the right amount of experience and having to pay a little more. This law(having to hold an atp to command a 1900D)will STOP this abuse!!!!!!and companys will be forced to employ experienced pilots and pay the market rate. Having flown for quiet a few years, it is always drummed into a pilot,that if there are two conflicting laws, you always apply the most restrictive of the two, the aircraft may be a "single crew certified" aircraft, BUT its over 5700kgs as well, which law overides which???

cavortingcheetah

17th Jul 2008, 09:36

:hmm:

I have serious doubts but that, had such crew/s been flying with their levels of experience during a northern European winter, there would have been some very unfunny, fun and games.:ooh:

Propellerpilot

17th Jul 2008, 09:50

Solenta is 100% correct. I doubt that a captain with 3000hrs on type with only a CPL/IF will suddenly become a better or more qualified pilot when writing those SACAA ATP exams. However he will make himself more marketeble for true FAR25 aircraft if he does. So better do it now than when it changes to the new Part61 exams in January.

One thing uncertain however is, that voices I hear from oversees (JAA) state, that SFAR41 commuter hours are counted towards unfreezing of an ATP, but you can still have a CPL/IF captain flying the aircraft PIC.

My question is now, how big is the transition from a 1900 to a true FAR 25 aircraft (say a Dash8 or Canadair Jet) for the pilots ?

Goffel

17th Jul 2008, 10:02

Solenta.......please take out your 1900D Raytheon manual...go to Limitations...page 30.

I PILOT: All passanger seats in excess of nine (9) must be rendered nonoccupiable by "DO NOT OCCUPY" seat belt tube assembly...(anotherwords, more than 9 pax, now makes it a certified multi crew ???)

If you can convince the Commissioner that the 1900D is in actual fact a single crew operation with more than 9 pax's, then I am sure you will get an exemption.

If you cannot convince the Commissioner of such, I am pretty sure your exemption will be turned down.

The privilages of a commercial pilot is very clear in saying that one may act as a co-pilot in a certified multi-crew operation.

Yes, it does also say that a comm pilot may act as a commander on a certified single crew operation, regardless of weight..(a figure that was ommitted from version 8 of the up-dates.

But lets be fair, every operator of a 1900 has known for years that this little loophole would be closed, and in fact last year, the same month as we are in now, the same was debated and the industry was told that it would be clamping down....in other words, the operators have definitely had enough time to get ATP pilots to drive their machines.

If you start giving out exemptions for the 1900's, what is stopping the E120 operators asking for the same as the weight difference is not that much....or any other operators of a/c above 5700kg's.

I am pretty sure that there are going to be ATP pilots out there watching this whole debate with interest, just waiting for people to get exemption, then they will pounce on the CAA with a law suite as their jobs are being taken away from them by a comm pilot.

What is good for one, wil be just as good for the other.

The fact is, there are ATP pilots out there looking for jobs, but are not prepared to work for a comm pilot's salary....and rightly so...they studied, slaved and passed....so why accept the comm salary.

The fact of the matter is...it is a law....and an operator/pilot must obey the law of his country.

Goffel...(the above is my personal opinions only).

cavortingcheetah

17th Jul 2008, 10:11

:hmm:

Of course, man to man, a pilot with 3,000 hours on a B1900 and an ATPL is a better and more qualified pilot than one with a CPL and the same time.

He is better educated and he has demonstrated qualities of ambition, initiative and perseverance which the other has not!:D

fly1981

17th Jul 2008, 10:21

Quick question for Goffel: will p2 time on the 1900D now count in full or will it still be halved?

81

cavortingcheetah

17th Jul 2008, 10:44

:hmm:

One does get very confused with all this FAR stuff. Tendency arises then to let airmanship and common sense prevail.
Transitioning from a machine such as a B1900 to a Dash 8 piece of kit shouldn't pose too much problem so long as the electronic ergonomics of the cockpits are fairly similar. An FMS and its usual operation in an SOP can take a little getting used to as well.
Same goes, in principle, as between the B1900 and a baby jet but I think that most people with experience on a B1900 would need to cycle a little faster during the first few hours of conversion to the Canadair or a B737 for example.
There's a bit of a technique difference between flying an instantly responsive turbo prop and a oscillatorally (?) inclined jet.
Then there is that which seems to be never mentioned in South African aviation training terms. It's the hardest bit of the lot and it's called Line Training.:suspect:

Goffel

19th Jul 2008, 15:44

Unreal......the left hand does not agree with the right hand.....it is so enjoyable to see the likes of boffins arguing the facts (or no facts), of law and the little interpretations.
..
Good news for the 1900 comm pilots though.
..
Bad news for the 1900 ATP pilots looking for work...(and that there are genuinely a few who have been in contact).
..
Round number 6 starts on Tuesday morning....:ugh:

Goffel.....sitting on the beach in Plett.

cavortingcheetah

19th Jul 2008, 16:01

:ooh:

Is it too much to conjecture that, in the middle of this hiatus, every SA CPL flying a 1900 'in command' has signed up for an ATPL examination date?:E

Goffel

20th Jul 2008, 11:20

Cavorting Spotty.....and to think that they got a discount on the exam fees....all you had to do was have a letter from your company saying that you were a poooooor 1900 D comm peeeeloooot and could not afford the fees.

This entitled you to 50% discount on the exam fees, the pass mark had been lowered to 65%, but could be lowered even more if you had flown the C model as well.

And now this has all been taken away due to round number 6....no more discount.

Eisch.:E

cavortingcheetah

20th Jul 2008, 13:46

:hmm:

At the risk of posting an unpopular post, a terror which usually does not act as a disincentive, one has to say this. The SA licence would seem to be accepted in most countries in the sub continent. Certainly, as far as one can determined, the SA ticket is highly revered south of the Sahara and one is constantly bumping into fellows hanging around downstairs at Waterfall Park, waiting for their treasured validations. That being the case and bearing in mind that African Africa, of such a term may be used, is considerbly bigger than Europe or JAR land, it seems that the SA CAA fees are remarkably low. Bearing in mind the territorial size of the land mass over which the SA licence reigns and balancing that versatility against a JAR licence, should not the SA CAA fees rise tenfold to reflect proportional representation?
Furthermore, is it not reasonable to expect that, if an experienced pilot writes a technical examination, his standard of knowledge might equally reasonably expected to be higher than a pilot with no such experience? Such a justified assumption should then logically lead to an increase in the pass mark required rather than a decrease?:cool:

Solid Rust Twotter

20th Jul 2008, 14:49

Bored Mr Cheetah? :E

Trawling for turds is most unbecoming.....:}

cavortingcheetah

20th Jul 2008, 14:56

:hmm:

It's a grim and grey day under the ramparts and towers of Neuschwanstein.
But there is more than a grain of truth in the gems so painstakingly distributed to those who rant and moan at the thought of paying a few rands for a priceless acquisition. As one seems to remember, the last UK CAA fee, for the little green book only, you understand, was £160. :E

Propellerpilot

20th Jul 2008, 17:05

Don't wake sleeping dogs. Shure if your earning Pounds or Euros the SACAA license is dead cheap - if you earning Rands, it is actually quite pricy. Each to their own... I think the pricelist of the SACAA is more than adequate for us South Africans.

cavortingcheetah

20th Jul 2008, 17:24

:hmm:

Probably true on all counts.
Mind you, if you're a turbo prop Captain in the UK on £40,000 pa then £160 for the licence represents 0.4% of your annual gross salary. But then, in that particular example, the book has a ten year life span. As one says, let us just treat this as a point of academic idiocy shall we?:eek:

CALCULATOR

22nd Jul 2008, 17:45

A very interesting meeting was held at the CAA today 22/7/08.
Only licensed BE19 operators were present (in fact one company that operates the BE19 but does not have a AOC was asked to leave the meeting and were escorted out!!)

To all those out there the operators argued and I think we won our case explaining to the CAA that the BE19 is a single crew certified aircraft and can be flown by 2 Comm pilots.

Let me say the biggest support we received today was in fact from numerous well versed CAA inspectors who support the operators and disagrees with there own colleagues interpretation. Let me tell you all, it was one hell of a meeting. It is great to know in my opinoin that there are numerous high calibre CAA inspectors out there who do understand the impact that this can and will cause the industry.

Certain phone call made to operators last week have been critisized and I have it on good authority that a CAA inspector has today been suspended over the said phone calls!

The CAA have advised the industry that they will comunicate with us all in writing soon , but until then we MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH 2 COMM PILOTS.
The industry is looking forward to working with the CAA and coming to suitable comprimise , however as stated today we all are well within cetain safety,and training standards. Round one to us.:ok:

Shrike200

22nd Jul 2008, 19:12

A question has been bothering me - why is it so important to allow CPLs to command a 1900? Is there a giant shortage of ATP licensed guys out there? Costs to the companies? What is it?

A 1900 is a serious aircraft, carrying 19 people (yes, obvious stuff, I know). When we allow a CPL to command it, we legally allow a 200 hr pilot to command it. The obvious counter argument is that no company would allow somebody so inexperienced to do so - but that is what the law would allow. Is this the right thing to do? Maybe I'm just not seeing it logically, I'm not a 1900 operator. I'm just somebody who once flew them, so my opinion is simply my opinion, it carries no weight. I ask only to satisfy my own curiosity.

cavortingcheetah

22nd Jul 2008, 19:34

:hmm:

There are those who might agree and might also possibly dare to think, in a manner of idle conjecture, that any CAA decision that could legally allow two such potentially inexperienced pilots, with 400 hours between them, to occupy both seats of a King Air 1900 cockpit at the same time reflects a legislative lack of airmanship and common sense which is to be deplored.
However, some one did comment to the effect that certain CAA inspectors understood what an effect the proposed changes and consequent tightening up of the ATPL/Commander requirements would have on the industry.
It would be disquieting to be able to infer from such comments that aviation safety in South Africa has been or is about to be compromised to the potential benefit of commercial interests. It is somewhat difficult to construe the matter in any other way.:suspect:

CALCULATOR

22nd Jul 2008, 20:03

Shrike I think you ask a good question.The answer is YES there is a huge shortage of ATP rated pilots and what we are finding the new ATPS are using the small charter companies as stop gaps until they are called up/accepted by the larger airlines.Most new ATPS are keen to move into the airline evironment and therefore we find we loose the guys quickly.What we are allready seeing is 1000 Comm pilots being accepted into the feeder airlines even with no ATP subjects.

Let me make our point clear,when one has a operating certificate your company and its ops manual must be approved by CAA. CAA again confirmed today that they will not allow a operator to fly the BE19 with 2 Comm pilots unless a approved minimum hours is called for in your ops manual. .IE all the BE 19 operators call for a min of 1500(pic) and additional pilot a min of 500hours, therfore there is a safe gard in place preventing 2 x 400 hour comms flying the aircraft and quite rightly too.It is also important to note that many of the operators are flying these aircraft with Comms as PIC who have many thousand hours as well.These are 3 mil Dollar machines and by no means toys.

south coast

22nd Jul 2008, 21:11

Safety is not about to be compromised by allowing CPL pilot's to continue flying as a captain on a 1900.

The fact that there has not been huge numbers of accidents already with CPL captains proves that there are indeed internal company safeguards which stops 200 hour pilots from becoming captains.

If you want to argue that point of view, you could well say that a fresh ATPL pilot, with 1501 hours could legally jump into the left seat of a 747 and fly it as a captain, does it happen, NO!

So I dont think much of the arguement that legally you could have a 200 hour CPL as the commander.

In JAR, or now Euro-Ops (Eu-Ops) land, one can command the 1900 with just a CPL and I have faith in the European authorities.

The reason there are not many ATPL pilots interested to fly 1900 is because the plane is typically used on contracts in parts of the world one would not queue up to go on holiday to for fairly average pay.

Now ask the question as to why there are no ATPL pilots that interested in flying the 19000 again.

As already mentioned, the method of maintaining high standards is by making sure the CPL captain receives good training, good licence renewals and proficeincy checks, good line training, and by being well paid.

All these factors are down to the operator and there in can lie the problem.

FlyingWrench

22nd Jul 2008, 21:45

So if I am getting this straight, to command a 1900 you now need to be a ATPL? I have read posts saying this is the decision from the CAA and then others contradicting it. Whats the final rule? Is there a grace period? What about the copilots, what does this mean to them?

Solid Rust Twotter

23rd Jul 2008, 04:31

Quite so SC. The operators are already cutting corners trying to squeeze through loopholes and pressuring CAA to allow them to do so, so where else are they compromising?

Arms Dealer

23rd Jul 2008, 07:23

Hey Goffel..You seem to be pretty in the loop regarding this Comm capt issue..Any news or latest developments.:ugh:

Goffel

23rd Jul 2008, 09:17

Dont ask me....ask Calculator.....he seems to know more than I do....According to him, (from his reliable bag of wind), a CAA inspector has been suspended for carrying out an instruction given by the Commissioner.

Me, I'm lying on the beach in Plett and having a good laugh.

Never in my life have I read and heard so much twaddle....1stly, how in goodness sakes name do you ask a 1900 owner to leave a public forum meeting...in front of others on top of it.....he has as much right to know what is going on as the rest of the operators.

Then to have CAA officials arguing amongst themselves, with one actually telling another to sit down and shut up....in front of all the operators....and then another blaming a certain inspector for phoning the operators and conveying the outcome of the CAA meeting on the 15th.

To point fingers at each other as to who is to blame and for what portion of the blame goes to who in front of all the operators....what a disgrace.:mad::mad:

For the rest of the smiling crowd......for what it is worth....Adrian Lyions was given an instruction by the Commissioner to notify the operators "to desist from operating with comm pilots as captains with immediate effect", to which he then delegated to an inspector to do.....:p

But getting back to the original question...PM me your address and I will email you the FAA report on the 1900D, where the original desicion was made from.

Oh and by the way...yes, I fly the 1900D....and I only have a comm...so it effects me as well.

Oh, Calculator, ask your bag of wind to open me another beer and please do tell us all who was suspended and when.:oh:

Goffel...on the beach in Plett.:E

Prop Job

23rd Jul 2008, 09:27

Good Day All,

I refer you to the B190D AFM's Limitation section.

Minimum Flight Crew - p2-11
The minimum crew is one pilot. See the Kinds of Operations Equipment List in this section for required equipment.

KINDS OF OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT LIST
Single Pilot Operation Only - p2-30
1. Headset
2. Boom Mounted Microphone
3. Emergency, Abnormal, and Normal Procedures Check List.
4. Kit 114-5042 [All passenger seats in excess of nine (9) must be redered inoccupiable by "DO NOT OCCUPY" seat belt tube assembly.]

Please note that this only applies to the B190D.

Now, I have flown many a 1900 for quite a few operators, but I have NEVER seen a 1900 with kit 114-5042 installed. To my mind that makes a B190D a TWO CREW OPERATION.

It just seems to me that the operators will make a loophole in the law where and when they need one. At the same time they will ignore the hard facts about the aircraft as long as they can make a buck or two whilst doing it!

Just some food for thought,

Prop Job

Foxyflyer

23rd Jul 2008, 10:30

It amazes me how a guy suddenly becomes a genius on aquiring an ATP. And how some people have the arrogance to suggest that sombody who holds a cpl should'nt be allowed to command a 'serious' aircraft like the 1900. All aircraft are serious and a 1900 is just a bigger 200. Can anyone seriously suggest that a cpl with 3000 hrs and 1000 hrs in command on the 1900 is less qualified or able than a 1500 hr ATP with 1000 hrs on c210 and 200 hrs on 1900s. Thats ridiculous. Its horses for courses. No good operator is going to let somebody take command of a 1900 unless they have several hundred hours on type and have passed a rigorous command check ride. The CAA would do better to lay down some sensible minimums regarding hours on type and multi crew experience, rather than just saying that you need an ATP to fly what is essentially a single crew aircraft. I know plenty of ATPs that I wouldn't put in command of a wheelbarrow and plenty of cpls who I would trust my life to any day. I hold a JAR ATPL and an SA CPL. Does that mean I am competent to fly a european 1900 but too stupid to fly a south african one. There is way too much nonsense talked about on this subject and way too many brand new ATPs slagging off CPLs.
Grow up :=

Shrike200

23rd Jul 2008, 12:55

I'm sorry, but in my opinion that was a terribly thought out post. Nobody is slagging off CPL's. It's not an ATP vs CPL pissing contest.

Obviously you don't suddenly become a genuis on acquiring an ATP. You do however, have a proven number of hours flight experience, of clearly defined types of flying, and have tested on a clearly defined complexity level of machine, apart from being tested on more theory. That doesn't make an ATP special, it merely points to a certified minimum experience level.

It should be self evident that comparing a 3000 hr CPL with a 3000 hr ATP is a pointless exercise - it's all about what the minimums allow an operator to do. As Calculator pointed out, the CAA wants company ops manuals to define minimum experience. You however, believe that "The CAA would do better to lay down some sensible minimums regarding hours on type and multi crew experience, rather than just saying that you need an ATP to fly what is essentially a single crew aircraft." So the CAA should now define experience levels for different aircraft, on a type by type basis? That's simply not practical at all. And, as has been pointed out, a 1900D (at the very least) is NOT a single pilot aircraft, unless the seats have been blocked off - when last did you see that happen on contract? Also, if a 1900 is, as you say, essentially a single crew aircraft, how would a co-pilot accumulate the required multi crew experience?

As you also say, "No good operator is going to let somebody take command of a 1900 unless they have several hundred hours on type and have passed a rigorous command check ride." - you don't legislate to keep the 'good' companies in check, you legislate to prevent the bad ones abusing the system. And, quite frankly, I've seen some less than 'rigorous' command check rides in my time, from more than one operator.

Comments blaming "brand new ATPs", accusing them of "slagging off CPLs", and then ranting on about 'growing up' are simply ridiculous, and drag down whatever valid points you may have had.

To close, I actually don't have a problem with experienced CPL's commanding 1900's at all - but minimum experience levels are important. And if you're going to make that the same, or more, than the minimums for ATP, then what's the point? 1500 hrs isn't a whole lot of time in reality.

Goffel

23rd Jul 2008, 14:05

This was never about the "slagging off of Cpl against ATP.....it was about the law....and not just SACAA law....international law..ex.FAA ; ICAO.

Why dont we let the comm guys flying MD82's/737's/DC9's go into the left seat if he has 2000 hours on type....he has the experience.

I'll tell you why.....because they only have a comm and not an ATP....and it is a law.

The next interesting debate is on how you log those hours whilst sitting in the right hand seat of a forum argument PROVEN single crew aeroplane.

No more multi crew time......same as having your mate fly with you in the B200 now...(or in the twotter).:ugh:

But then again, most of the REPUTABLE B1900 operators allready use ATP captains.:E

I need another beer
Plett is great.

WhinerLiner

23rd Jul 2008, 14:12

1900's have been flown by CPL's since they arrived in the country all those years ago. Are they now more difficult to fly? Are CPL's less competent now than before? Seems this may be rule making for the sake of it rather than an improvement of any kind.

Considering that 1900's have been flown by CPL's in SA for many tens of thousands of hours, one might think that there is a fair body of evidence to work from with regard to safety issues. Is anyone aware of any incidents in a 1900 that could be blamed on fact that a pilot only held a CPL? If not, is there a problem here that really needs to be fixed here?

The minimum number of crew in a Beech 1900D is one pilot. That makes it single pilot certified. Don't know how this can be seen as ambiguous.

south coast

23rd Jul 2008, 15:54

I think the ambiguity starts because the plane weighs in excess of 12,500lbs or the 5700kgs which I believe then requires the commander to hold an ATPL, unless the manufacturer dictates that the plane has been certified as a single pilot plane.

If that is not correct, then I am confused.

cavortingcheetah

23rd Jul 2008, 15:57

:hmm:

The law of licence privilege in South Africa used to be that a Commercial Pilot Licence holder could fly an aircraft for hire or reward up to, or up to and including, a weight of 5,700kgs?
After that there was a Senior Commercial Licence with a further maximum weight restriction and then, above that the ATPL with no weight restriction. It seems as though the CAA created a small problem for itself when that law was changed. The cynical might wonder if it were commercial pressures that led to a reduction in the qualifications required to fly aircraft over a certain weight? We seem now to have arrived at a stage where commercial operators can claim that their operations manuals have become the arbiters as to who has the time to fly what. But such manuals can be both highly flexible and open to a great degree of interpretation. Such interpretations, as we all know full well, usually may be said to favour commercialism.
If the decision as to whether a pilot has sufficient hours to fly a B1900 is left to the operator and his operations manual, then who audits those claimed flying hours to ensure that they have been genuinely flown and in the correct configuration? The system is really quite open to abuse, both by commercially minded operators and by pilots eager to augment their hours by either stretching the imagination or by actual inclusion in the log book of Parker time. Since at least two of the functions of a CAA might reasonably be supposed to be the prevention of abuse and the promulgation of safety; it surely seems reasonable that the Authority should exert its quite legal powers in these respects. In so doing, there seems no reason why the SA/CAA should necessarily follow the laws or procedures of a foreign Authority. It is furthermore, not an adequate argument to claim that, as one has been flying B1900s using CPL holders up to now, it is thus sufficient justification for continuing to do so. The rebuttal to such an argument is quite historically straightforward. Reference to the 1976 ANRs will show that at that time a Commercial Licence holder would not have been permitted to fly an aircraft of the weight of a B1900 for hire or reward. This is indeed one of the many reasons why the B200 was for so many years as popular as it was in South Africa, its weight falling within the remit of a CPL. Of course, that too was a single pilot operation in that one pilot, sitting in the left seat, could reach all switches and controls in the cockpit. That did not make the aircraft single crew, commercial operations. That decision lies with the national aviation authority, not with Beechcraft and its hometown certification procedures.
The simplest solution for the CAA is therefore, surely, to revert to the old licensing weight limitation qualifications and to obtain whatever opt out clause is necessary in terms of individual nation requirements in any JAR/OPS discussions in the future. There is little homogeneity between international CAAs and the likelihood of one professional licence covering all countries is completely remote. One more set of JAR/OPS differences is not going to make a great deal of difference.
:)

Solid Rust Twotter

23rd Jul 2008, 16:03

Wasn't it 2700kg before requiring a SCPL to command aircraft up to 5700kg?

cavortingcheetah

23rd Jul 2008, 16:07

:hmm:

Could have been, although the figure of 7,400kgs sticks in the brain for the old SCPL.
We always had ATPLs in the LHS of the 200 in the old days.
The principle of the argument would stay the same, just be a darned sight more hard bottomed for the CPLs today.:)

planecrazi

23rd Jul 2008, 16:33

I seem to remember the figure of 20 tons for senior comm. Those were the days, hey Swanepoel!!!!:}

Having flown 6000 hours on the KingAir on contract, I did complete the last 800 hours on the B1900 UC (long range tanks), and remember that we were not allowed to treat it, as single crew in East Africa. Strictly 2 crew only, regardless of the POH limitations/certification. (rules is rules!) When training was being undertaken, or when I was doing the type rating testing for the Kenyan DCA, we had to carry a qualified P2 in the back, so in the end were actually 3 crew.

Now as for logging of hours with 3 crew in a B1900, this leaves another question.:confused:

Mind you, I last flew this aircraft over 10 years ago before joing the airline world, so a lot has been forgotten and so I find this thread most interesting.
I still hold a P2 on the machine with a SA ATPL, but have never utilised the SA ALTP ever since obtaining it, and never completed a P1 check ride in SA, only in East Africa.

cavortingcheetah

23rd Jul 2008, 16:48

:hmm:

Swanepoel!:eek: JJ!

Yes, one remembers him although not with any great degree of affection. The rumour was that he was the way he was because he had never been able to pass the ATPL examination subjects and objected to being looked down on by the rest of the DCA gang while they flew right hand seat to keep him legal in the King Airs?:suspect:

I think that you're right about the twenty tons. Seem to remember that the HS748 fell within an ATPL while the F27 was just within an SCPL. Not that it made any difference because, obviously one had to have the ATPL. But that would corroborate your memory.

planecrazi

23rd Jul 2008, 16:57

Wasn't Swanepoel the inspector who shut down a King Air engine with the condition lever, and then decided it wasn't a good idea, and so he put the condition lever back while the pilot was under the hood? He then looked out the window and said to the pilot, "you have an engine fire" and so the pilot simulated the drill to which Swanepoel answered, " you still have a blooody fire". No doubt it cost Struben Street (DCA) a little something.;)

cavortingcheetah

23rd Jul 2008, 17:13

:hmm:

That's the one and such is the story which I believe to be quite true. There were several more such rumoured episodes in his career and, at the end of the day, I think some people really did draw the line and refuse to have him on their aircraft as a test officer. I seem to remember that he did something on a Rembrandt Falcon once which occasioned the curtailment of his life's supply of cigarettes and Dunhill lighters, if he smoked at all, and thus became banned from that fleet.:oh:

WhinerLiner

24th Jul 2008, 07:48

But meanwhile, back on the actual topic..................

cavortingcheetah

24th Jul 2008, 08:34

:hmm:

Still on topic with just a slight amplification of the subject in a discussion of Beechcraft aircraft weights, appropriate licensing, and the mishandling of PT6 engines by those who were employed by SA CAA.
:p

Shrike200

24th Jul 2008, 08:46

Later developments on this thread are relevant, re. the HPA bits and more info on initial turbine conversions in general:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/african-aviation/336156-whats-next.html#post4285359

Thanks to Prop Pilot for the gen.

VortexGen300

24th Jul 2008, 09:10

Hey why don't they just fit multiple Auto Pilots to the machine and leave the pilot at home - then they won't have to worry if the guy has a CPL or ATP or a Microlight license for that matter? ;)

Anyhow why don't you just go out get the trusted aircraft in the hangar and fly your friends around while they pay when you only have a PPL with 5000 hours on type? Well it is the law that you can't - and those that do know what to expect when they are caught out? :hmm:

Now for the same reason you don't go out fly in the roll of commander of a boeing at an airline with only a CPL - they would not allow you - because when they are caught out . . . . .:{

So now the law says . . .

B1900 is an aircraft with a MAUW of more than 5700 kg - it is an aircraft that can carry more than 9 passengers. Now because of all sorts of pressures and requests the CAA has allowed the "OLD LAW" to be bent and twisted by operators under specific applications. Such issues are always temporary in nature and was bound to be withdrawn at some stage. For some reason the CAA also allowed themselves to be bullied by operators into changing certain phrases and wording in the regulations to assist some in their efforts to make the extra buck (probably allowing for some flash cash to flow under the tables as well but I am only speculating).

It is understandable that operators now are in some form of predicament - the CAA has now reverted to the real intention of the regulations and closed the loopholes that was exploited by operators and themselves.

But why have the operators not closed the situation with the ATP issue - why did they not design a program where they would get a guy to enter as a First Officer with a CPL, train him to become a Captain and make sure he is an ATP by then. Well reality is that they were so into making their money that they never bothered to pay the pilot a decent salary - they messed around with him, expected him to fly with sub-standard equipment and you can add to this list - so when the first opportunity arise this guy will move on and they are in sh!t - they are back to square 1. Now lets send a MAYDAY to the CAA and gues what the CAA through a life vest / life raft to the operator - Yes sir you may now operate the aircraft with two CPL but it is not a free for all . . . . rules are rules and the guy in Command has to have 1500 hours min and his co-jo 500 or nothing? and for that sir - I really need a favour???? (the one hand washes the other . . . )

I would admit that it is by no means that difficult to fly especially a 1900 although it requires you to have the knowledge and ability.

So maybe just maybe the CAA should reconsider one thing - the wording of the priviledges of a license holder.

CPL when flying for reward commercially - PIC of all aircraft up to 5700 kg or on any single pilot certified aircraft as rated provided that on single pilot certified aircraft above 5700 kg (with no more than 19 passenger seats) he will have in excess of 1200 hours flying experience (of which 100 hours on type) and will be assited by a rated CPL co-pilot who has at least 500 hours flying experience.

And to satisfy the YANKS & FAA:
When more than 9 pax are carried in an aircraft their will always be 2 flight crew members.:ugh:

ATP - PIC all as rated

Eish - still a compromise but how on earth are they going to sort this mess out? :O

VG300

WhinerLiner

24th Jul 2008, 09:53

VG300, you need to deal with that anger brother

VortexGen300

24th Jul 2008, 10:45

VG300, you need to deal with that anger brother

1. Who said I am a brother? - I might be a sister?:confused:

2. I am angry but because we are f'ed around and literally running against a wall? :ugh: With the circus we are put in by "well meaning" :suspect::ouch: operators who say - we have this sorted out with the CAA - just to discover they are bull sh!tting us:{

And it is turning out to be a hell of an embarrasment and now after resigning a job spend money on a type rating - promised a job on a 1900 now to discover I can't and I also have no way back from where I come?

Time to move on (read "back" and start again ???)!

VG300

south coast

24th Jul 2008, 12:07

Lost me brother, or was it sister?

Makes me think back to the woman played by Michael Palin in The Life of Brian... 'it is every man's right, and woman's, yes thank you sister, to be a free man, or woman-thank you sister.....'

HansFlyer

26th Jul 2008, 06:56

Any updates on this circus where the clowns are running around to try and allow or prohibit a CPL fly an aircraft they say is or is not supposed to be flown by an ATP?

Hansflyer.

flux

26th Jul 2008, 07:19

Why not just go do the ATP?

VortexGen300

26th Jul 2008, 12:11

Why not just go do the ATP?

Well there seem to be a few stumbling blocks:

1. It takes time to study and do the exams.
2. To do the ATP test you also need to have done a MCC and fly 500 hours as co-pilot on an Multi-crew aircraft.
3. And yes you need to go hire a Multi engine Turbine aircraft to do the flight test.
4. At the dismal rates pilots are paid - hardly anyone can afford that expense.
5. And yes I forgot to mention now that the operators are stuffed - they are not making the money to pay the pilots -
so yes they are in bigger sh!t

A rough guess on the cost estimate for one with the hours that will need to test:

MCC on a 1900 simulator is approx ZAR23 000.
The cost of rental of a BE20 or similar for roughly 2 hours provided you have the aircraft on your license - ZAR15 000 if you are lucky.

Now if you don't have the rating it will probably cost you around ZAR40 000 to get the rating - probably worth it to do the combined 1900 be20 rating and MCC at one of the bigger training centres.

Worst of all this exclude the cost of the actual test?

Where were the days when you could literally fly the hours and do the test in a Baron or Seneca?

So it is actually just getting more difficult for the PDI's to get anywhere without someone with a lot of financial backing - and for the CDI's it is impossible without committing to a training bond and as a result get screwed by the operators?

VG300

flux

26th Jul 2008, 12:39

Vortex, sorry to hear about your predicament. I am not too clued up on the new 61, but I am sure you could do your test on a normal complex aircraft. It DOES take time to get the subjects, and many people have done it, and will continue to do it. Nothing wrong with doing a little work. Bonding has and will continue to be a fact of life in aviation. Nothing is for free. As for ATP's and B190's, the better operators have always operated that way. A loophole may make it legal, but not necessarily right. Glad CAA have closed it.

50feet

26th Jul 2008, 15:40

Well with regards to moaning about costs of atp flight testing . . . any company worth their salt should pay for it! Period! mine certainly does and they are all too happy to have you do it and upgrade. just my two cents

Irene

26th Jul 2008, 17:11

Sounds like due policy making process has been followed by the CAA :ugh:

Many of the posts here try to make this issue an experience vs inexperience issue or an ATPL vs CPL war and, whilst I think all of those points are valid, this issue, I believe, is one of wording. The manufacturer says single pilot under certain conditions and the CPL PIC limitations include no multi-crew operation or anything >5700 kg (I know there are sub-paragraphs to those and more)

Loop hole or not, which words set the legal precident? If a deceased passenger's family lays a civil claim against the operator, PIC and SACAA who is going to be accountable? This answer should come from CAA legal department, not flight operations.

It boosts operator's profits to employ a lower qualified pilot (who has less chance of getting into an airline) rather than a more qualified and naturally expensive one. To me, the question is not about whether boosting a handful of people's profits is safe or not, it is really whether it is legal or not.

The SACAA should be held accountable for its poor leadership on this issue. But then that would beg the question as to whether SA has an accountable government and for that matter can you really call it a democracy when a bad government is not voted out... but I suppose that is for a different forum.

VortexGen300

26th Jul 2008, 19:35

but I am sure you could do your test on a normal complex aircraft.

Nope - The CAA has already made it easier as the original reg's said: "MULTI CREW CERTIFIED" and that excluded even the 1900's so they were under enormous pressure to change it to "any Multi Turbine". They will probably not change it down again.

In terms of the costs and company paying for it - I AGREE - but we are now getting to a circus where some of the clowns we have are starting to talk about self sponsored type ratings on aircraft - and that will surely sort the big money spinners from the normal oakes?

Back to the thread - Any news on the latest about this issue - was expecting to hear from the meeting between the operators and the CAA earlier this week?

VG300

Propellerpilot

27th Jul 2008, 10:22

There have been no final conclusions so far. A letter will be drafted, as soon as they have made up their minds.

50feet

29th Jul 2008, 15:33

all quiet on the western front it seems here? anyone heard anything further from the CAA? ATP or CPL to command?

Goffel

29th Jul 2008, 20:54

I have it on good authority that two companies have put in letters requesting that CAA complies to the multi-crew ruling and that ATP pilots be used and NOT commercial pilots as captains on the 1900.

So much for the operators standing together.

Oh and by the way, Calculator, please let your "have it on good authority, bag of wind" that someone has been suspended, that what they told you is a klomp twak, and before they give you duff gen like that again to please make sure of their facts, because they only make idiots of others...:ugh:

Just when I thought that I could suntan.......it rained.

Goffel..:8

CALCULATOR

2nd Aug 2008, 07:03

Sorry Goffel my mistake!
How wrong could I be?When the individual phoned me to advise that he had been suspended how would you like me to record this?

I think this might have just been a little warning to certain people in the CAA to act within the company structures and not (pick up telephone and cause havoc) Have been away in Africa for past week flying in Africa, will update you soon,BAG OF WIND OUT.

WhinerLiner

2nd Aug 2008, 16:13

Calculator, if you are good with small numbers you may be able to work out the intellectual level that you are pitching your responses at.

Take the high road, at least you may get a better view.

fly1981

5th Aug 2008, 06:55

any more news? all seems to have gone quiet!

FlyingWrench

9th Aug 2008, 22:45

I guess nobody knows the answer to the question. It feels like one of those situations that if you ignore it it does not exist. To me it is clear that the regs say anything over 5700 kg is part 121, and that requires an ATP. I dont get why the CAA is ignoring this and not made a permanent stand. I know all the operators use comm captains and such but that does not change the law.

Annoyed

withaflash

10th Aug 2008, 06:56

FW,

" I know all the operators use comm captains"

I doubt my friend.

Propellerpilot

10th Aug 2008, 08:24

FW - WHERE do the regs actually say that ? No point in being annoyed. Flying multipilot crew does not always imply, that the PIC has to hold an ATPL - that depends on the performance certification of the aircraft and it's requirements as stated in the POH. As for it's hybrid charakter, the 1900s (or Metro's etc) should be treated as such - depending on the situation under which Part that particular flight is operated, different rules/laws will apply. They are even different between the D and the C Models as has been mentioned.

What has also been mentioned, is that the cockpitlayout would also have to be re-modified as there are certain standards that need to be fulfilled. i.e. check Solenta's post on page 2.

WhinerLiner

10th Aug 2008, 16:16

Flyingwrench-the reason you are being ignored is because you have no idea what you are talking about. This has got ZERO to do with 121/135. The question relates to the priviledges of a CPL vs ATP. Those reg's (P61) make no reference to 5.7 tons or in fact any other weight restriction. The consideration is whether the aircraft is CERTIFIED for single pilot operation, not if the TYPE of operation requires 2 crew.

So here's a question for you then, by the same scratchy logic does a Caravan require an ATP driver? Most are operated under IFR, and in most cases require 2 crew? How about a King Air 200?:ugh:

FlyingWrench

10th Aug 2008, 22:40

I didn't know I was being ignored. I admit I dont have a clue about SA regulations regarding this issue. I did my training in the US and 121 and 135 are completly different, does not base anything on weight that I know of. This is something that I am trying to learn more about. Everything that I have read has pointed out that 121 is 5700kg or more, at least that is what I thought it said. I dont have the big blue books to read, and it seams nobody else does - not even the CAA because I have not heard a definite answer. (bouncing head on brick wall smiley)

Propellerpilot

11th Aug 2008, 07:11

Yes - your personal concern is rather your SIC question at the start. Due to the fact that even the SACAA and many other people are partially confused with it's own laws, this thread got slightly twisted.

If you actually read the blue books (you can get it on the internet) and the relevant POH's then you will get a better idea and the essence has already been reflected in this thread.

I have just gone through aquiring a 1900 type rating signed out with a copilot restriction on the forms (single pilot high performance aircraft, warbird form) - HOWEVER on my licence this restriction is not reflected - it says P1 without any restrictions.

To solve your problem, go write Matthew at the CAA an email - he will be able to answer your question on what your type rating is worth, in the end, apart from what everybody else has written here in the forum, they are the ones who will tell you what they want from you. From my experience, I guess he might offer you a skills test with one of his DE's in an aircraft.

FlyingWrench

11th Aug 2008, 10:27

I guess I will just standby until there is a final answer. Oh cool if I get offered a skills test by a DE do you think he would upgrade me to a P1 rating? :ok:

Propellerpilot

11th Aug 2008, 15:53

You would have to prove to him, that you have fulfilled the all the requirements (including an ATO syllabus), which are stated in the Part 61 type rating requirements (READ it !!! on CAA website) and what experience you already have (FAA etc). Then you do the skills test flying in the right hand seat with a DE. If he signs you out - then yes you will be issued with a 1P.

But as I have said before - the testing standards officers at the SACAA are the only ones that will give you an answer to your specific case - in fact it does not even matter, what anybody else says here in the forum - they do provide individual solutions in accordance with the part 61 Law in order to satisfy themselves. Worst case would be that they just won't accept it from the start.

Goffel

12th Aug 2008, 20:14

I have to admit to being a bit amazed at this whole debate.
..
Firstly there was a meeting on the 15th with the CAA inspectors.....a concensus was agreed upon........the 1900D needed an ATP captain.
..
Adrian Lyions of testing standards then comes to Flight Op's and gives an instruction, (which in his own words in front of witnesses, came from the commissioner),to an inspector to notify certain operators, that the commissioner says, "to tell the operators to desist from operating the 1900D's with commercial pilots as captains with immediate effect".

Said inspector does as he is asked to.

Then there is a meeting with all (except the two that were thrown out of the meeting, because a certain testing standards inspector does not like them).

At the meeting, CAA argues amongst themselves to such an extent that Adrian Lyions is told to sit down and shut up by Blake Voster in front of all the amazed operators.

Then the operators are told that a mistake has been made and that the directive never came from the commissioner...........

Now, where my amazement comes in, has anyone actually spoken to the commissioner about the whole debacle.

No....not one operator has picked up the phone and asked the commissioner to give his view and to put it on paper.

Until that happens, the law is and always will be unclear.......just like the law that say that if you fly IFR, you have to have two crew...(not IMC...but IFR).
(and it makes no provision for an auto pilot instead of the second pilot)....so there you have another debate due to spelling mistakes in the law.

Part 121, says IMC.........Part 135, says IFR.

So the answer to the 1900D story......ask the commissioner to send you a letter with the answer.

Goffel....(in need of a real job).