ATPL entitlements question.

[poonpossum]

I have a question about what one is allowed to do whilst holding a CPL compared to an ATPL.

As far as I know, an ATPL allows a person to operate as pilot in command of, and therefore log command hours in passenger carrying RPT aircraft.

So if a hypothetical CPL first officer in an RPT aircraft suddenly presents an ATPL to his or her company, is this first officer immediately entitled to fly as pilot in command during the flight, considering that they are already endorsed on the aircraft? Or is some special "command endorsement" required?

Similarly, if a CPL holder got a job in corporate aviation, and flew bizjets everywhere, would they be allowed to log command hours in the aircraft, because it is a charter operation, not RPT?

Also,

What is the deal with PF and PNF in muti crew operations? The PF would not always be the captain. What if the captain is on crew rest, or is really clogged up and takes a long time to squeeze out a boris. What happens then? It's obvious that all of the command decisions on the flight deck, especially in an emergency, would rest with the first officer, yet they are still not allowed to log command time in their airliner of choice? Whats with that?

[morno]

As far as I know, an ATPL allows a person to operate as pilot in command of, and therefore log command hours in passenger carrying RPT aircraft.Incorrect. An ATPL holder is permitted to act as the PIC of a multi-pilot aircraft engaged in RPT or Charter ops (thanks MIHC). Is there any 'multi-pilot' aircraft <5,700kg's though?

A CPL holder can run around and do RPT in their Chieftain and still be the PIC.

So if a hypothetical CPL first officer in an RPT aircraft suddenly presents an ATPL to his or her company, is this first officer immediately entitled to fly as pilot in command during the flight, considering that they are already endorsed on the aircraft? Or is some special "command endorsement" required?No. The company assigns a PIC for each flight. In all cases, this is the Captain (unless you've got someone checking that Captain of course, then I guess it depends on various company rules etc.).

Similarly, if a CPL holder got a job in corporate aviation, and flew bizjets everywhere, would they be allowed to log command hours in the aircraft, because it is a charter operation, not RPT?In what capacity is this CPL holder functioning as? And what type of business jet are we talking? Does the aircraft require 2 pilots? The list of questions could go on.

Overall, there is no distinction between if you're able to log hours because it's charter or if it's RPT. It comes down to mainly the operation and the aircraft.

I think your problems all started when you had the purpose of holding an ATPL wrong.

morno

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

On the assumption we are discussing Australian rules;
5.105 What does a commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?
(1) A commercial pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence: (a) to fly a single pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation; and
(b) to fly a multi-pilot aeroplane as pilot in command while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation other than a charter operation, or a regular public transport operation; and
(c) to fly an aeroplane as co-pilot while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.

5.166 What does an air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorise a person to do?
(1) An air transport pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command, or co-pilot, while the aeroplane is engaged in any operation.

Amazing what comes up when you actually read the rules.:cool:
Now comes the debate as to whether multi pilot is due to certification or company requirements...:rolleyes:
Are all of those advocating they can log co-pilot time from the right seat of a Chieftain sure their "Captain" has an ATPL?:E

ps. 5700 kg has nothing to do with it. I know a PPL in Brisbane with a Metro endorsement. You can fly a 747 on a PPL if you are so endorsed (as long as either AWK or PVT and there are no more than 6 people on board if cost sharing:})
pps. An endorsement does not change it's effect once you upgrade your license.:ok:

[morno]

Edit - Too late at night to be reading rules and regs, :zzz:.

morno

P.S. Yeah, aware that you can technically fly a 747 on a PPL, but when I wrote the above, I had a blonde moment where I couldn't remember what types of operations the ATPL really came into it.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Seen plenty of logbooks with copilot time logged for PA-31 and C400 series ops.:=

Sleep? Whassat?
All hail the patron saint of Aviation....
NESCAFE!
Wooble...:}

[Lasiorhinus]

MIHC has it right - not surprisingly, since he's the only one who looked at the actual regs.

The only difference is the ability to be Pilot in Command of Multi Crew on charter or RPT.

Thats the ONLY difference.

I'd love to know what poonpossum thought a CPL holder should be logging while flying that single pilot bizjet all alone.... :ugh:

[gutso-blundo]

Without digging into the books...
The ATPL allows you to be PIC of a >5700kg aircraft in RPT operations.
You can still be PIC of a multi-crew >5700 aircraft under charter on a CPL. At least I hope so, or I'm going to be in a world of hurt when they next audit my log book

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

You can still be PIC of a multi-crew <5700 (sic) aircraft under charter on a CPL.
Only if your company decided it was "multi-crew", not the certification authority, which means any FO time was bullsiht.

Weight has nothing to do with the license type.
Multi-crew PIC for CHRT or AWK needs an ATPL under Oz rules.
Definition of multi-crew is by certification.

Eg.
Citation 1 (500), <5400 kg MTOW, 2 pilots required.
Citation 1/SP (501), 1 pilot required.

The only effect weight has is as per CAO 40.1.0 and relates to utilising command priviledges;
8A
8A.1 Conditions on aircraft endorsements
For the purposes of regulation 5.25, it is a condition of each command endorsement that authorises the holder of the endorsement to fly an aeroplane with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5 700 kg that the holder of the endorsement must not act as pilot in command of such an aeroplane if:
(a) the aeroplane is engaged in charter operations, or regular public transport operations; and
(b) the aeroplane’s flight manual specifies that it may be flown under the I.F.R.; unless the holder satisfies the aeronautical experience requirements set out in paragraph 8A.2.

8A.2 Unless CASA otherwise approves, the endorsement holder’s aeronautical experience must consist of:
(a) at least 50 hours of flight time as pilot acting in command under supervision in the type of aeroplane concerned; or
(b) at least:
(i) 25 hours of flight time as pilot acting in command under supervision in the type of aeroplane concerned; and
(ii) the successful completion of an approved training course conducted in an approved synthetic flight trainer.
Note The circumstances in which a person may fly an aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision are set out in regulation 5.40.

8A.3 Unless CASA otherwise directs, the flight time mentioned in subparagraph 8A.2 (a) and sub-subparagraph 8A.2 (b)(i) must include at least 10 flights each of at least 45 minutes.
CASA may approve:
(a) a training course; and
(b) a synthetic flight trainer;

8A.4 for the purposes of sub-subparagraph 8A.2 (b)(ii).

8A.5 In this subsection: command endorsement means a type endorsement specified in Part 2 or Part 4 of Appendix I or a class endorsement specified in Part 1, Part 3 or Part 5 of Appendix IA.
Enough quoting, the types listed in these Appendicies can be looked up.:cool: