PDA

View Full Version : ATPL test frustrations.... part 61!


flyingmogul
16th Jul 2008, 15:03
Is anyone out there feeling the same frustrations regarding the ATP test?

With Part 61 in place, the opportunity of hiring a Baron or Twin Commanche has fallen by the wayside. Instead of hiring a twin piston, the requirement is now to hire a medium twin turbine aircraft.

The smallest of which is a King Air, I have made several calls and the average quote for a conversion is R45000-R50000.

What are potential ATP candidates supposed to do if not currently flying a B1900 or bigger??

I am stumped, broke and open for suggestions??

FM

Pugilistic Animus
16th Jul 2008, 15:15
§ 61.157 Flight proficiency.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/e/ecfr/graphics/ret-arrow-generic-grey.gif top (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#PartTop) (a) General. (1) The practical test for an airline transport pilot certificate is given for—
(i) An airplane category and single-engine class rating;
(ii) An airplane category and multiengine class rating;


(v) An aircraft type rating for the category and class ratings listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section.
(2) A person who is applying for an airline transport pilot practical test must meet—
(i) The eligibility requirements of §61.153 of this part; and
(ii) The aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience requirements of this subpart that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
(b) Aircraft type rating. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a person who is applying for an aircraft type rating to be added to an airline transport pilot certificate:
(1) Must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the areas of operation in this section that apply to the aircraft type rating sought;
(2) Must receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the applicant completed the training on the areas of operation listed in paragraph (e) of this section that apply to the aircraft type rating sought; and
(3) Must perform the practical test in actual or simulated instrument conditions, unless the aircraft's type certificate makes the aircraft incapable of operating under instrument flight rules. If the practical test cannot be accomplished for this reason, the person may obtain a type rating limited to “VFR only.” The “VFR only” limitation may be removed for that aircraft type when the person passes the practical test in actual or simulated instrument conditions.
(c) Exceptions. A person who is applying for an aircraft type rating to be added to an airline transport pilot certificate or an aircraft type rating concurrently with an airline transport pilot certificate, and who is an employee of a certificate holder operating under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or of a fractional ownership program manager operating under subpart K of part 91 of this chapter, need not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section if the applicant presents a training record that shows satisfactory completion of that certificate holder's or program manager's approved pilot-in-command training program for the aircraft type rating sought.

flyingmogul
16th Jul 2008, 15:27
i am not quite following the above post?

Pugilistic Animus
16th Jul 2008, 15:35
Sorry---the emboldened paragraphs--are the FAR61 { for the required class-class SE or ME}-rating--- in other words you can do an ATPL in a Complex SE -class aircraft-or a Multi-engined class rating these are the current FARS--from the FAA website---use a Seneca or Seminole for the practical test and then add any required type ratings--later---There is no turbine requirement A part 23 certified ME is fine--I believe that pilots must protect themselves with the FARs--too many folks out there willing to take you for a ride and sell you loads of BS

I hope I've clarified my post for you

Good Luck:)

PA

Propellerpilot
16th Jul 2008, 16:51
This is the way it works practically:
Frozen ATPL or CPL/IFwill allow you to fly on any aircraft as P2. If you get a Job on a FAR 25 aircraft or SFAR41 (eg. B1900) you fly 500 hrs do the ATPL test then when the company wants you to upgrade and your ATPL will be unfrozen in the process. Nobody will probably give anyone command on a FAR 25 aircraft anyway without sitting at least 500hrs right seat - so don't worry about it, it does not affect you - there is no need to hire a FAR 25 aircraft at your expense at all.

fly1981
16th Jul 2008, 18:39
Why do you need to hold an atp license if all you are flying is a baron? I agree with progression, but once you get onto a multi turbine aircraft, you will realise how much more needs to be learnt in order to have enough knowledge to warrant holding an atp license.

Morphieus
17th Jul 2008, 15:29
With these new rules I dont think airlines and operators of 1900's and the like will require applicant's to have a full ATPL. Having the subjects should just be enough.

With the required experience on type after flying as FO they will just do your ATP test during an IF renewal. Any half decent company would in anyway pay for your 6 month recurrency's and IF renewals, so the ATP test can just be sloted in when required.
If you pitched to an operator with an ATP and a brand new Embraer Brazilia rating he's not gonna put in the left seat anyway. You'd have to do at the very least a few hundred hours on type before upgrading. So in effect it shouldn't affect the guys too much, thats as long as the operators dont insist on a full ATP licence to employ guys as FO's.

In the past, you could have flown 172's for 1500hrs, do a bit of twin flying, then test on a Seneca and you would then hold an ATP allowing you to be PIC of a complex pressurized multi crew turbine aircraft flying schedule passenger routes in all weather conditions. Now that did not make sense! So i do think these new rules make sense, but the industry is gonna have to change the way it hires new pilots and not expect them to fork out tens of thousands of rands for an ATP test!

Avi8tor
17th Jul 2008, 22:02
I am afraid the initial post is correct
Skills test for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (Aeroplane)
61.07.4 (1) An applicant for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (Aeroplane)
must have demonstrated to a Designated Flight Examiner I (DFE I) the ability to perform as pilot-in-command in an aeroplane under IFR, the procedures and
manoeuvres as prescribed in Document SA-CATS-FCL 61 with a degree of
competency appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an Airline
Transport Pilot Licence (Aeroplane). The initial skills test may be performed in a flight simulation training device (FSTD) approved for the purpose and in the following aircraft –
(a) any aeroplane with a maximum certificated mass of more than 5 700 kg,
type-certified for a minimum crew of two pilots; or
(b) any multi-engine turboprop/turbojet aeroplane with fully functional dual
instrumentation.
(2) The skills test may serve as a skills test for the issue of the licence and
an initial type rating or for the aeroplane used in the test.So unless you have a rich daddy or an employer that is prepared to pay, your stuffed.

cavortingcheetah
18th Jul 2008, 04:31
:hmm:

That coincides exactly with what I was told at SA CAA late last year, 2007.
I was told that, from somewhere around May, 2008, one of the consequences of Part 61 would be that the candidate for an initial ATPL flight test, would have to fly the exercise in a multi crew aircraft over 5,700kgs weight, either a jet or a turbine.
I was also told that for an ATPL renewal this did not apply because the renewal of an ATPL was, in effect, an Instrument Rating renewal.

A long time ago in South Africa, but very much within my flying memory, an ATPL was a licence that most pilots needed and thus obtained only when the prospect of a promotion to the LHS in an airline type two crew operation presented itself. Then the charter queens started demanding that all their charter pilots had ATPLs because it sounded like a better licence, then the insurance companies jumped on the bandwagon. I can well remember discussions with Rossair and NAC charters at Rand in the late seventies trying to convince the ladies who ran those respective charter outfits that one did not need an ATPL to fly a C310 commercially, that a CPL/IR was perfectly satisfactory, legal and sufficient. Furthermore, in those days there were a lot of CPLs about with rather more hours in their logbooks than actuality. The insistence on an ATPL placed the onus for policing real hours firmly into the lap of what was then DCA (Department of Civil Aviation) in Pretoria.
In actual fact, an ATPL is unnecessary unless one is going to function as a Captain in a two crew operation, over 5,700kgs etc. A CPL is a perfectly good licence for all other operations other than 'airline'. An ATP flight test used to be carried out as part of the command training course. So the effect of this legislation or decision is to return the tiers of licences to the status quo ante, which many would argue is where it should be. It certainly favours the logical progression of aviation experience and safety, from licence issue to instructor, to charter pilot, to two cew operation, thus enhancing the possibilities of an aviation learning curve rather than a jump straight from the licensing office in to the right hand seat of a sophisticated turbo prop :)

Shrike200
18th Jul 2008, 06:17
(a) any aeroplane with a maximum certificated mass of more than 5 700 kg,
type-certified for a minimum crew of two pilots; or
(b) any multi-engine turboprop/turbojet aeroplane with fully functional dual
instrumentation.

I suppose I'm being picky, but once the Very Light Jets arrive (if/when), somebody could do a their test on something like a Citation Mustang/ Eclipse etc merely because it has dual instruments?

Option a) actually excludes a 1900, despite all the noise about now requiring an ATP to command it! I know option b) allows it, but also allows ANY turbine, as long as it has dual instruments, and more than one engine (Cessna Conquest, Kingair C90, some VLJ's etc), regardless of weight.

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/9768/cricri10vr6.jpg

I know, I know, it doesn't have dual instruments!

But this does:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2404172261_01e4205a6c.jpg?v=0

As I said, I suppose I'm being picky, but the exclusion of a weight or minimum crew limit in the turbine/jet option seems to defeat the point.

Avi8tor
18th Jul 2008, 06:30
The problem comes that you have a guy that has been flying a C421 and now wants to do his test 'cause his subjects are about to lapse.

Trust me, I would rather give an ATP licence to a guy that has been flying a large piston twin for a 1000 hrs that an ink wet B90 rating.

cavortingcheetah
18th Jul 2008, 07:30
:hmm:

Absolutely agreed on the 402 point.

Which ray is the truth?

The ATPL subjects in SA are now valid for five years from successful completion?
The ATPL subjects in SA are now valid for five years from the first partial?
The ATPL subjects in SA are now valid for five years from the date of each sucesful IR renewal?
The ATPL subjects in SA are now valid for two years from successful completion in accordance with Part 61?
The ATPL subjects in SA are now valid for two years from succesful completion or from a partial pass?

The list goes on and on and seems to be ever so slightly changeable, depending upon to whom one speaks.
Nonetheless, it seems apparent enough that, whichever of the above options is correct,there is plenty of time from successfully completing the ATPL subjects and before they expire, in which to accumulate the flying hours required for an ATPL.
The drill always used to be that one wrote, or perhaps even had to write, Com first. This meant that by the time one got around to writing the ATPL subjects, one usually had well over two hundred hours - the basic minimum for Commercial Licence issue. Some of the problems today are exacerbated by the fact that chaps are leaping straight in to the ATPL without having accumulated any flying hours of significance while holding a CPL. Thus, some of them will battle to fly the required hours in the time available, or certainly would have when that subject expiration limit was set at two years. The logical progression of licensing was never intended to be this way around. An ATPL was a licence that one thought of when a reasonable amount of flying experience had been obtained and when it was sensible to suppose that one's career path would benefit from such a licence. It was never intended as a beginner's entry point to aviation licensing.:)

chuks
18th Jul 2008, 07:59
I think you need to state whether you are referring to South African or U.S. licenses here, when two very different sets of rules apply. I think some people are citing U.S. FARs in reply to the original question about South African rules.

From what I remember, mid-1981, about the U.S.A. it was this way:

You do one (1) ATP written that takes about a week of intense study to pass, since you can get a book with all the actual test questions and a programmed way of learning how to do the test. There are five areas tested, I believe, on that one test with just 80 questions.

I was out of work at one point when I decided to get down to it and just study for about 15 hours per day for 7 days. On the eighth day I booked the exam and on the ninth I passed the test with 93%. Anyone can pull at least the necessary 75% to pass this written. If you do mess up then you get very specific information about the questions you got wrong so that this test is laughably easy compared to the JAR writtens.

The results must be shown to the examiner in order to take the practical test; it is not enough simply to have passed the test so that you must budget the time to get the results in written form. The results are valid for 24 months. Normally one does the test in a twin-engine aircraft, although you may use a single-engine complex aircraft.

I used a Beech BE95 Travel Air for a practical test that took about 1.5 hours. I was current on the type so that I got about seven hours of instruction from a former colleague, just practicing what I would need to do on the ride. It was mostly a matter of just learning to relax and not try too hard!

There was very little emphasis given to CRM; it was mostly just a very precisely-flown multi-engine IFR test. Upon passing the practical test I was issued an FAA ATP licence. There is no such thing as a "frozen ATPL" with the FAA system.

Here is the catch: Under the FAA you cannot get a type-rating for specific aircraft under 5.7 tonnes such as the Cessna 402, the Twin Otter or the King Air. They have an internal way of doing this for Part 135 operators but it does not translate to something you as an individual pilot can put on your licence since there is no type-rating required or given under the FAA. This is a big problem if you then want to get a job under the ICAO system, of course.

As to the JAR licence:

In my case I had been working in Nigeria for a long time with a Nigerian ATPL issued on the basis of my FAA ATP. After I got the Nigerian ATPL I then added the necessary type-ratings for various Cessnas, the Twin Otter and the Dornier 328 series by doing writtens and check rides with designated examiners but this was because I was already an experienced pilot. If I were a beginner then I would not have got the job in the first place.

I went to London to do a residential course for the ATPL writtens. (I used London Metropolitan University, which I found to be value for money.)

I then did a simulator checkride for P1 qualification on the Dornier 328Jet, which was fairly easy since I had plenty of experience on the type.

BUT another gotcha surfaced since I had not done an instrument check with a CAA examiner. (None were available to observe my 328 checkride, even if I could have afforded the charges for that.)

Just to satisfy this requirement I had to do a "short Instrument Rating Course" and then do a ride with a CAA examiner in a DA-42. All of this was insanely expensive and difficult, especially since under the rules then in force one was not allowed to use the autopilot at all. Just imagine wazzing around in the London TMA in a very light twin on one engine copying clearances with one hand, flying the airplane with the other and tuning radios with... what? Now the CAA have changed the rules to allow you to use the autopilot for some phases of flight but it is still a really, really tough ride.

My present employer wouldn't even look at me until I could show them my JAR ATPL. Well, I am getting on a bit, so that there was no question of investing anything in me; I had to do it all myself to get the job and that is just how it is, same as for you guys just starting out, albeit for very different reasons.

Now we have taken a couple of younger guys with FAA ATPs but there are practical difficulties that come with that such as only being able to operate certain types due to the lack of a transferable type-rating from the FAA licence.

You can see that a low-time guy with just an FAA ticket would get nowhere under ICAO rules.

Part of the problem can be coming up against people who have the money to get that ATPL and the type-rating that gets them the job, when you might need the job to get the money to get the ATPL! Hey, what can I tell you except that life is unfair?

Market forces apply: if operators have a steady supply of appplicants with frozen ATPLs then they need give no, zero, none, zilch, nada, consideration to people trying to break into the game even if they are potentially very good pilots. Your individual problems are of interest to the average employer ONLY insofar as they mean you can be exploited and the sooner you understand this the better for you.

Dig up whatever you can that gets you work in aviation and hope for better days. Don't give up. That is about it, I guess, unless you can arrange being born to people with money in the first place!

cavortingcheetah
18th Jul 2008, 09:48
:hmm:
This is all part of the problem. Here we are on an African Forum so any references to licences and flight times would first in this case, presumably, be made in a South African context. One of the problems seems to be that many are trying to interpolate the FARs into the SA ANRs in whatever way acts to their best advantage. The two systems are different and cannot be so intermngles quite as easily. The same applies to JAR regulations.
The last UK/JAR instrument renewal I did, just over a year ago, was done in the sim. There were no particular problems with banging around TMAs and doing all the normal stuff on one engine. The old adage applies, given the short ditances and flight times, if you're not doing something, you've missed something. But there's a new wrinkle to cope with. Halfway between Southampton and Guernsey the simulator comes to a grinding halt. Now the syllabus for renewal calls for recovery from unusual attitudes in the twin on limited panel. Now that did call for a little refresher training! As for the use of the autopilot, yes indeed, some use of the thing is now permitted but quite frankly, it's easier, especially in a simulator, just to ignore the kit and fly it all hands on. :)

Pugilistic Animus
19th Jul 2008, 02:17
With Part 61 in place,


I thought they were talking about FAR 61 it seemed that either the original poster was describing obtaining a US FAA ATPL or the company policy that has adapted to FAR 61

Avi8tor
19th Jul 2008, 07:03
No, think he was talking about CAR part 61

flyingmogul
19th Jul 2008, 08:06
The original post was regarding South African Civil Aviation.

I sit in a strange position of having flown medium twin turbine in the past, but did not have the night hours. Now flying smaller training aircraft and ready for the ATP test, without a medium twin turbine to test on....

time will tell...

FM

south coast
19th Jul 2008, 13:57
Cheetah said, 'Now the syllabus for renewal calls for recovery from unusual attitudes in the twin on limited panel. Now that did call for a little refresher training!'

I have never had to do partial panel unusual attitude recovery for an LPC with my JAR licence, issed by the UK.

Was that with PAT by the way?

cavortingcheetah
19th Jul 2008, 14:15
:hmm:

Serious question so a detailed answer.

The test date was in October 2006 so perhaps I will need another UK IR test in the not too distant future.
A UK/JAR ATPL renewal. My IR had lapsed for a number of years but not the five year doomsday scenario.
I did it down at Hurn with Mike B in his little twin simulator. They're nasty little things, whiggle all over the place.
Did limited panel spiral dive and stall recovery. Mike and in his turn, the examiner, put the sim into the attitude and expected identification and recovery with minimum loss of height and airspeed stability accordingly. Never had to do this in the real machine in the airline environment and would love to know if it is mandatory because if it is not, I would have no intention of doing it again. The examiner was very forgiving and obviously thought that the requirement was, shall I say, a trifle bizarre.:(

Malagant
25th Jul 2008, 17:37
Did 2 type ratings on my FAA ATP in the last 2 years and a recurrency check last month with a P1 upgrade in the sim and the US require steep turns, stalls, clean and dirty, and unusual attitudes one nose up and one nose down with no bank less than 50 degrees, a sim session each for hot wx and cold wx ops with single engine and single engine go arounds and V1 cuts, 2 hand flown single engine appch and 2 auto pilot appchs, ILS and ILS back course, VOR, VOR DME, NDB and GPS appc with circle to land appch. A flapless appch without glide path indicators like PAPI`s etc. It is a workout and a real test. That is what is required for a type rating and upgrade in the US at the moment.