CASA proposing flight test requirement for ATPL issue.

[slice]

Some interesting developments if they come about. Co-jo ratings gone and a flight test as per NZ I presume. My bolding below

Key proposals

Flight crew licensing requirements to be aligned with ICAO SARPs; pilot licences to be a single licence for each of recreational, private, commercial and airline transport with the provision to have one or more aircraft category ratings attached (as per the US system):
Multi crew and other human factors competencies (including Crew Resource Management [CRM] and Human Factors principles) to be incorporated into the ATPL/CPL /PPL and flight engineer syllabus;
ATPL flight test in a multi-crew environment to be introduced;
Instrument flying training to be introduced for helicopter licences;
Recreational Pilot Licence to be introduced to replace passenger-carrying privileges for student pilots;
Private Pilot Licence to conform with ICAO and include operations in all classes of airspace;
Special Pilot Licence to be withdrawn and PPL able to be issued to overseas PPL holder without a flight test (but with an airlaw exam and a flight review);
Domestic qualifications that are not covered by ICAO to continue (e.g. Night Visual Flight Rules [VFR] rating, Private Instrument Flight Rules [IFR] rating, plus log book authorisations for other activities);
Separate co-pilot qualifications to be discontinued. Limited provision will be made for co-pilots who have not yet completed a full type rating to relieve other pilots in cruise or in private operations but not to conduct take-offs and landings.


Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensing (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS061)

[chimbu warrior]

No biggie. Just bringing Australia into line with other ICAO contracting states.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Probably good news for QF S/O's. They may finally get command endorsements, or am I reading it wrong.

[Josh Cox]

I do not know why it has taken so long to be considered.

No doubt this concept will offend some Australian purists, as this is what they have done in the FAA system for a very very long time.

I wonder when the exam system will be kicked into line with worlds best practice. I once thought doing a flight planning exam was about testing my knowledge on flight planning, it turns out it was actually a pseudo language reasoning exam, who would have thunk it.

[neville_nobody]

CASA were supposed to bring this in 7 years ago.:ugh:

Anyways it's not good for pilots as you will be locked up by your employer. If it's going to be the same as before then you will have to do a flight test in a multi crew aircraft >5700kg. I would presume you could pay your own way but sim's are not cheap and you will have to be endorsed on type to do the test.

So as a result you will have to wait for your command on a >5700kg multi crew aircraft before you ever get an ATPL unless you want to pay up.

It is going to also limit movement overseas as most guys will not have an ICAO ATPL. Just another way CASA are screwing guys careers and ultimately working with the airlines.

CASA will now allow Jet RPT cadets who are locked into their airline because they have no experience.
And for guys who actually have the experience they will be locked into their airline as they won't be able to get an Australian ATPL and unable to move on or overseas unless they want to pay more money or wait for their command to come around.

as this is what they have done in the FAA system for a very very long time.


No in America the ATPL flight test is essentially a instrument renewal in a Bugsmasher with a FAA guy. The Australian one will have to be in a multicrew aeroplane and you will also have to be endorsed on type. Hence my comments above about it restricting Australian pilot career opportunities.

If it was just a renewal that would be fine, but I don't think that is what's proposed.

[Josh Cox]

Neville, are you confusing the "MPL" with the introduction of an ATPL flight test ?, they are not the same thing.

[neville_nobody]

No if it is the same proposal as 7 years ago you will have to do a flight test in a multicrew aircraft >5700kg. The company I was working for at the time would have been affected by the proposal and was going to cause a few headaches. It will also create some drama's for guys operating DHC6/B200 aircraft multi crew as they are not above 5700kg.

[Josh Cox]

"Multi Crew Environment" does not necessarily mean a multi crew aircraft.

The FAA system does the ATP-AMEL in a "Multi Crew Environment" in a Duchess or similar ( carry out the phase ones, then call for the check list ).

[MACH082]

The kiwis have been doing this for years and the sky has not fallen in.....(although many get a licence conversion and an Australian ATPL to avoid the flight test).

The FAA has also done this for years and they still survive.

I would say when you do a command endorsement on an aeroplane above 5700 kg (i.e first regional job) it will be done as one complete assessment with the endorsement.

The ones it will affect are piston charter operators who operate aeroplanes like chieftains and kingairs multi crew and require an ATPL licence for mining contractual requirements.

But CASA don't care about GA, in fact if they can shut it down they will save a lot of money on their budget regulating it. That way there is more time to spend in the chairmans lounge talking about how to avoid shock cooling in a piston single, the money trough that is regulatory reform or what that naughty helicopter pilot was doing on the barrier reef :p. Pressing issues indeed :D

[neville_nobody]

That's my point this isn't a copy of the FAA license. The Australian one was based on the European model. If anyone can get their hands on the PART 61 standards manual the latest amendments will be in there and we will know what the requirements are. Can't find it quickly.

Interesting to note that if you do a MPL do not need to sit the ATPL theory exam.

[Sunfish]

RAA licence allows controlled airspace usage if suitably endorsed. Whoo Hoo!

[Icarus53]

So as a result you will have to wait for your command on a >5700kg multi crew aircraft before you ever get an ATPL unless you want to pay up.

I for one have never understood why a regulator would issue a license to a pilot who has not demonstrated their capability in a particular operation.

Given that the only privilege an ATPL offers over a CPL is the ability to command RPT services, why should a pilot with zero multi-crew and/or zero RPT experience ever hold the license? I've heard a number of people getting wrapped around the axles lately over issuing ATPLs, but why should a pilot have one at all before they go to an airline? Is it just a pride thing - as soon as you tick all the boxes you throw in the application so you can say you've got the top grade?

Your CPL will get you in with most regional airlines, and almost all of them issue command endorsements now too. Once you're in the airline, with cyclics and routine checking there are plenty of opportunities to be flight checked for the ATPL. And then the regulator can say that it's giving the license to someone who has demonstrated capacity to exercise the privileges it offers, rather than any Tom, Dick or Harry that can complete the clownish comprehension exercises we call exams and then stay airborne for 1500 hours.

Maybe they'll also get rid of the 50% co-pilot time bit while they're at it!:E

[gobbledock]

If the proposed new requirement is a better method, system or way of doing business then you have all been hoodwinked as CASA do not introduce workable systems!

It sounds more like they have decided to dig into the recycle bin, pull a few old ideas or discussion papers out from a few years ago, dust them off, put the word out on the street, employee a few consultant mates or keep a few of the crusty old c:mad:ts employed a little longer by throwing the thought around! Hell, the formation of a working group is likely and a couple of trips to Montreal or the USA is definitely on the cards, especially for all the pensioners running the joint. Oh the taxpayer kitty is so deep, decisions decisions, which bucket of money do we raid this time, which unnecessary trip abroad to go on this time, more troughs please, quickly quickly our snouts are dry, quick quick more troughs!!

And speaking of troughs, rumour has it that 15 of them attended the recent safe skies seminar (safe skies should be used loosely) in Canberra, most stayed at the luxurious $650 starting price per night Hyatt Canberra (Presidential suite spooning perhaps) and the cost of their sojourn was huge!
(jeez those taxpayers are kind).
One can imagine the old CASA executive geezers/washed up pilots strutting around in grey suit pants and tweed jackets, hypothesizing about safety matters and 'best practise models' while wetting the ends of a juicy stoogie and measuring each others pee pee's.
Hell I would even bet their flag poles rose to half mast as they sat in the auditorium idolizing ICAO and the FAA while clinging to any crumb that fell from the safety table, that they could digest and then regurgitate to industry as their own idea.

[SW3]

Agreed with Icarus. ATPL is the requirement for command >5700kg, so makes perfect sense to require a check in a transport category aeroplane. After all it's the whole reason for needing the licence!
Another hoop to jump through but a practical one. As said, make it part of recurrent training/command base or proficiency check for FOs chasing a command from holding only a CPL. Particularly given regionals nowadays whereby less experienced FOs are being considered for commands.

[FlexibleResponse]

Good Lord!

I just hope that this not another Australian ANO bureaucratic nightmare dreamed up by CASA (as we know what is the best...regardless of and stuff the rest of the civilized World).

Why don't we just adopt the FAA licence system and get on with the fricken' job?

Please tell me that my fears are unfounded.

[By George]

Ah Yes the Australian Licence system. I have licences issued by the DCA, DOT and CASA. Four green books and a strange plastic card. A Second Class ATPL marked 'OBSOLETE', an SCPL that IS obsolete, marked 'PERMANENTLY VALID'. An ATPL with a issue date ten years after qualifying for one and every licence has a different endorsement listing. Some types have been removed because they are no longer on the register, others due to 're-grouping'. With Instrument ratings a history of no less than four different classes are written down.
Prior to being issued a SCPL in the early seventies I was one of the first for the new requirement for a additional flight test. The test had to be conducted in a 'sophisticated aircraft' but operated only in VFR and without using any Nav-Aids. Nobody really knew what a sophisticated aircraft was (no guide lines issued) but the humble Piper Navajo proved acceptable. Here I was, racing around at 500ft, scud-running and trying to find a obscure road junction and the examiner only held a Commercial! What a farce!
In 1998 I remember all this documentation spread accross the Chief Pilots Desk of a major Asian Airline during an interview. Trying to explain it all they actually burst out laughing, "you are a very funny guy" they said.

So they are going to change it all again eh? Thank God for red wine.

[Slippery_Pete]

I've been hearing about this, and it being "just around the corner" since 2001. All fine in theory, problem is it needs a regulator who can get :mad: done.

Look at the time and money spent by CASA on the regulatory overall, which has gone NO WHERE.

Do you really think they will get this done in the next five years?

[LeadSled]

ATPL is the requirement for command >5700kg,SW3,
With respect to private operations only, do you believe the above statement is correct?
See CARs 5.78/79/80.
Tootle pip!!

[Oktas8]

A good thing, if it ever happens. As already happens in NZ (and Europe, and other ICAO countries), newbies will have to demonstrate competence in a multi-crew aircraft before getting an ATPL. Me, I got an ATPL despite never having flown anything bigger than a Seneca! And zero charter / RPT experience...

To reassure some posters here, if it's anything like NZ or the EU, the test contains almost exactly the same items as an employer's command endorsement check ride, with perhaps 5 minutes of extra boxes to tick and an extra form to complete at the end. At one regional in NZ, FO's get the test upon request during a scheduled cyclic check unless the company is deliberately holding them back. Common sense applies and the sky has not yet fallen.

[megle2]

ATPL required for above 5700 RPT OR CHARTER ops except if aircraft is single pilot ie King Air 350 or as a requirement for employment

RFDS will have to drop back to CPL in new system which would make sense

[saseahawk]

All very interesting! But does anyone know when this proposed change is to become effective?
Also, I don't think it is a bad idea upping the requirements to ICAO and NZ comparable standards. Afterall how much worth is an ATPL where half of this flight time can come from gliders, ultralights, etc.
Although I do say this now after receiving my ATPL.

[Tankengine]

A licence with a REQUIREMENT for a couple of hundred gliding hours would be an improvement!:ok:
ATPL [and SCPL before that] for over 25 years.;)

Licence test as part of command IR test sounds reasonable.:zzz:

[Oktas8]

But does anyone know when this proposed change is to become effective?

This is the most accurate and succinct answer you will ever read:





No.

[saseahawk]

True, unfortunately. I've heard this proposition for the first time several years ago. Just like they were discussing to change the flight planning and performance subject aircraft to a more modern aircraft than the 717.

[cficare]

...can't imagine there is anyone..current...capable or...believeable...in CASA that could do the assessment..

[WannaBeBiggles]

True, unfortunately. I've heard this proposition for the first time several years ago. Just like they were discussing to change the flight planning and performance subject aircraft to a more modern aircraft than the 717.


At least the 717 would give you a type that still flies in Australia...the 727 on the other hand ;)

I don't see a real issue with this, as long as they still accept my ATPL passes and don't make me do them again!

[saseahawk]

So the 727 it shall be. Interesting. Good point you made.
They will have to accept them. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.

[Tankengine]

Seagull mark IV?:confused::E

[SW3]

LeadSlead why would we be talking about private ops on the subject of an ATPL above 5700kg where I've been explicitly on the subject of commercial ops. If you want to fly your KingAir 350 privately without an ATPL fill your boots, talking about RPT here. Give the knit picking a break!

[aussie027]

Tankengine,
Seagull Mk IV, that brings back memories, ATPL Flt Planning exam in the early 80s.:E
Based on the old B707 we were told.:E:ok:

[Icarus2001]

have to wait for your command on a >5700kg multi crew aircraft
as they are not above 5700kg
only privilege an ATPL offers over a CPL is the ability to command RPT services
ATPL is the requirement for command >5700kg,
ATPL required for above 5700 RPT OR CHARTER ops except if aircraft is single pilot

With respect, when was the last time some of you guys actually read the CAR with respect to CPL and ATPL priveleges and limiations?

[as fragged]

What about the aspiring corporate captains who have overseas type rating providers?

let me guess, there will be an hourly rate charged.....

[mar1234]

Its been a while since this thread was active just wondering if anyone has any updates as to when the CASA atpl Flight Test is coming into effect? lots of rumors around but nobody really knows. I've emailed CASA about it to get their verdict, but have been waiting a while now ;)

[StoffelNZ]

Back in 2009 there was something on the CASA website about changing CASR Part 61 to include the need for a flight test. I e-mailed a guy in the licencing department and he was cagey about when it would be brought in, but suggested that it might be some time in 2010 :uhoh: So it's anyone's guess.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Have we fully transferred over to CASR 1998 yet?

There's your answer.

[weloveseaplanes]

employee a few consultant mates or keep a few of the crusty old cts employed a little longer by throwing the thought around! Hell, the formation of a working group is likely and a couple of trips to Montreal or the USA is definitely on the cards, especially for all the pensioners running the joint. Oh the taxpayer kitty is so deep, decisions decisions, which bucket of money do we raid this time, which unnecessary trip abroad to go on this time, more troughs please, quickly quickly our snouts are dry, quick quick more troughs!!

And speaking of troughs, rumour has it that 15 of them attended the recent safe skies seminar (safe skies should be used loosely) in Canberra, most stayed at the luxurious $650 starting price per night Hyatt Canberra (Presidential suite spooning perhaps) and the cost of their sojourn was huge!

Do they feel guilt?

[expert_beginner]

maybe i've missed this, but is there still a prerequisite to have a pass in the 7 ATPL exams based on B727 and B767 for an aircraft which I imagine will not be used to conduct this flight test? could it be a good idea to adopt a similar process with regard to the written portion and look into the FAA system a bit more?

[Tee Emm]

Does anyone know if this proposed new ATPL licence system include the current situation where a CPL paying for his own A320 type rating (being his first jet) will still be given a command endorsement on type, even though his simulator training is in the copilot's seat?

[PLovett]

could it be a good idea to adopt a similar process with regard to the written portion and look into the FAA system a bit more?

Wash your mouth out! Don't you know that mentioning anything the FAA does is heresy! You'll be burnt at the stake for that. :ok:

[4SPOOLED]

Tee emm,

When you do an A320 type rating, you spend equal time in either seat.

You then receive a command rating.

[Capt Fathom]

You then receive a command rating.

For the simulator!

[c100driver]

What on earth is a "command type rating".

Are you saying that an Aussie type rating is "LHS or RHS" valid only?

[A37575]

Qantas I believe put their new recruits into the copilots seat for their 737 command endorsement training in the simulator. Usually two pilots do their training at the same time, swapping seats after the coffee break as each has his turn at flying from the copilot position (RH seat).

Because an engine failure below V1 is always conducted by the aircraft (simulator) captain who occupies the left seat, it means that when the pilot in the RH seat is doing the take off and an engine failure occurs before V1, he must immediately hand over control to his mate in the left seat who does the abort. In other words the pilot undergoing training for a command endorsement does not make the decision to reject. Work that one out!

In normal endorsements, a candidate undergoing simulator training for a command endorsement (as distinct from a copilot endorsement) would do his handling from the left seat. That would be logical you would think. In this case he gets an engine failure below V1, makes the big decision to reject and does his thing and aborts because he is already in the "captains' chair.

But when undergoing his command (captain) endorsement training in the simulator in the RH seat there is this apparent split-second shuffling of responsibilities (CASA approved, of course) where the decision to stop switches from the bloke in the RH seat to the mate in the left hand seat.
This is where it gets confusing.

If it is accepted that the decision to reject below V1 is entirely the captain's handling responsibility in the left hand seat, then in simulator training for a command endorsement that is conducted in the copilot seat, it seems illogical to suddenly switch roles for a rejected take off where the bloke under training in the RH seat for a command endorsement immediately hands over control to the bloke in the left seat saying "All yours - your decision-handing over - your problem, Mate"

Confusing to the un-initiated? You bet. One would have thought that all command endorsements should be done with the candidate sitting in the command (left) seat. I may be wrong, but understand this RH seat command endorsement is an Australian thing. Although I think Cathay does it as well. Perhaps someone could explain the reason for the policy. Pilots going to Boeing in USA or Airbus in France seeking a command endorsement are trained in the left seat. Seems logical?

[Howard Hughes]

A flight test for a licence? Probably not a bad idea! ;)

[helifella]

Are you saying that an Aussie type rating is "LHS or RHS" valid only?

Potentially, yes. For multi-crew aircraft you can attain either a 'command' (allowing you to fly LHS and RHS) or 'co-pilot' (RHS only) type endorsement. Also there are command and co-pilot versions of an instrument rating too.

However, once CASR Part 61 takes effect on the 4th of December it seems they intend to not have co-pilot qualifications any more. Makes sense to me. The worst case scenario would be a co-pilot having to take over if the captain is incapacitated. Seems to me you'd want the guy in the other seat to be equally well trained and qualified to fly it!