No More KingAir Endorsements

[Grogmonster]

Well guys the it's official. If you wish to get endorsed on a KingAir B200 or B350 after April 1st it will have to be done in a Sim. Refer CAO 82.0 and CAO 40.1.0. In addition any training in one of the above, for an organisation with CAR 217 approval, that requires the use of Abnormal or Emergency procedures has to be done in a Sim. Before I get shot down let me assure you I have done the research. The criteria are that the B200 and B350 have approval to seat 10 or more pax on their Type Data Certificate and there is a Sim available for both types in Australia.

There is no B1900 Sim in Australia and therefore endorsements and 217 T&C can be done in the aircraft. To me this is CASA lunacy at its best. I understand the intent but once again they have completely stuffed it up. Surely The intent, after the tragic accident in Darwin, was to make things safer in aircraft over 5700KG in the CAR 217 training environment. The B200 KingAir is the modern day Piper Chieftain and this new regulation will cause untold expense and heartache in the GA sector.

Please keep in mind that there is a 50 hour ICUS requirement for the first time Multi Turbine pilot before he can conduct a charter so will the above really make it any safer ??????

Groggy

[Horatio Leafblower]

Erm groggy, where is the reqt for 50 ICUS?

(yes I need to know, no I am not being a smart arse)

[717tech]

I hope the only connection between the PA31 and B200 you have made is in regards to how many there are, not performance!

[Anthill]

So. does this mean we're not getting Kingairs?

(maybe only old timers will get this...)

[Howard Hughes]

The criteria are that the B200 and B350 have approval to seat 10 or more pax on their Type Data Certificate and there is a Sim available for both types in Australia.
Certificates of later model Kingairs have been amended to show 9 Pax, whereas earlier models (especially B350) had up to 14 pax.The B200 KingAir is the modern day Piper Chieftain
I think you might need to check the dates on the type certificates! ;)

PS:At present an endorsement can not be 'completed' on the B200 sim in Australia, as some of the flight sequences still need to be completed in the aircraft.

[ebby1028]

What about the Conquest? Mine has 10 pax seats? So if a C441 sim shows up that's it. No more abnormal training ops in the Aircraft? What if the sim breaks........and let's face it they NEVER break, cough cough, f$&k me. The whole country is shut down from doing any kind of useful training?

[601]

CAO 82.0.7 only applies to AOC holders who have a CAR 217 T&C organisation.

Therefore training on a B200 or C441 or any aircraft >5700kg MTOW would not be required to be done in a QSTD. How many AOC holders in Oz who operate King Airs, other than the 350, would have CAR 217 approval?

Certificates of later model Kingairs have been amended to show 9 Pax,

The 9 pax in a King Air only applies to aircraft modded for FAR 135 operations in the USA.

[Nose wheel first]

How many AOC holders in Oz who operate King Airs, other than the 350, would have CAR 217 approval?

I know of at least 1.

[avcraft]

The C90A and later TCDS has 13 pax seats...

[compressor stall]

CASR 61 I think has the relevant gen.

61.205 When training must not be conducted in aircraft

(1) For paragraphs 61.195 (2) (d) and 61.200 (d), the training must not be conducted in an aircraft with a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity of more than 9 if:

(a) there is an approved flight simulator for the training available in Australia; or

(b) for a rating that applies only to an aircraft with a maximum certificated passenger seating capacity of more than 19 or a maximum certificated take-off weight of more than 8 618 kg—there is an approved flight simulator for the training available outside Australia.

(2) In this regulation:

available, for training, means able to be used for the training.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Horatio;
Groggy may have been referring to CAO 40.1.0
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.

Wouldn't apply to B200.:ok:

[kalavo]

ZOMG the sky is falling!

5 hours x $2000/hr in the plane... $10k

5 hours x $400/hr in the sim $2k, Flights for two people from Broome (about the worst case scenario with the sim in Melbourne?) <$2k, accommodation and allowances for two nights in Melbourne for two people $1k (cheaper options available, but lets keep it at round numbers).... so $5k.

Resulting in an extra expense of... -$5k. Might even be able to do better if you send two people down for the endo at the same time. Heck they can sit in the right seat while their sim buddy is doing their training and might learn more from others mistakes. Not to mention being able to give real engine fires at V1 in the sim, or any one of a number of system failures. Deal with a real event under pressure rather than casually talk about what would you do if...? Can't afford to lose your C&T staff for three days... might have to question your truck number there if you're CAR217, but if you're comfortable with it, can get the Sim centre to do the training and only lose the pilot you're getting endorsed.

Oh I get it... "What do you mean I can't train the pilot on the dead leg of a charter any more and get the customer to pay my expenses while still bonding the pilot for $12k?"

I disagree with a lot about CASA at the moment, but not this particular point. I've done endo's with and without the Sim.. the Sim was definitely a better endorsement despite being run by a less capable instructor. Those I've seen object to having to do endo's in the Sim, generally have never done one.

[compressor stall]

I lost track of the regulatory reform process last century, but aren't the CAOs and CARs being replaced by CASRs?

Thus CAO 40.1 will be extinct, replaced by part 61 above?

And yes, as per previous poster, I am personally struggling to see the problem with it.

[The Green Goblin]

Leave the CARs CASRs and CAOs for the boffins at CASA.

No one in industry looks at them (except manualsexuals).

Everything you need to know is your Jepps or the company operations manuals.

[manymak]

How many AOC holders in Oz who operate King Airs, other than the 350, would have CAR 217 approval?

A majority of 200/B200 operators around the country are CAR217 organisations; RFDS (Qld/South Eastern), Pel-Air, Hinterland, CareFlight, Pearl Aviation.

All of which already use the Ansett sim in Melbourne.

[Grogmonster]

Horatio and others, for B200 Endorsements, read CAO 40.1.0.

Groggy

[morno]

All of which already use the Ansett sim in Melbourne

No they don't

[Wally Mk2]

I am led to believe that the Beech Sim in ML is not currently avail as a 350.

Flash lookin' contraption though, had a peek in it the udder day, huge space inside but man was the drivers seat environment cramp, I guess old age means I 4got what it was like:-)



Wmk2

[Dash 42]

The Beech sim in the main building is configured as a 350 with proline 21, but I am told it will soon be made available as a 200 as well.


Dash.

[nitpicker330]

Let me see:----throw the real Aircraft around the sky learning to fly it and risk killing yourself........or do it in a Flight Sim ?????? I choose the Sim...:ok:

Besides its a much cheaper and better training environment.

What's the problem????

[Wally Mk2]

..............okies 'dash' I'll reverse my post:ok:
Only ever had a quick go at the Pro 21 in a B350, very flash brudda:ok:

The old clunker B200 Sim at the Ansett Sin Center ought to be used as a testing platform for any pilot looking for any job, if ya can fly that thing on one donk at night(obviosuly) & not get a little sweaty under da arm pits then yr a candidate for the space shuttle:)!

Wmk2

[manymak]

All of which already use the Ansett sim in Melbourne No they don't

Apologies, all of the operators I mentioned except RFDS Queensland Section.

[gretzky99]

I think the vast majority of us can all see the training benefits from completing (well almost) aircraft endorsements in a simulator. Personally I have no problem with this at all.

I do however have issues with the thought process/wording of CAO 82.0 subsection 7, and how its requirements apply to 'operators that are require to have a check and training organisation under CAR 217'.

Putting the obvious safety benefits aside for a moment, I'll use an example to illustrate the problems.

Two companies exist, both currently operating B200s charter only. Their only training/checking requirements at the moment are for annual 20.11 emergency procedures training, and to have a CIR renewal each year. Company A decides that it also wishes to operate Caravans IFR, and therefor sets up a CAR 217 C&T organisation as required by the current regs. Suddenly all their B200 drivers are now also required to complete two training sessions and two checks in the Ansett sim at a significant cost. For North QLD/NT/WA operators, the costs of this are even higher. Company B can continue to operate their B200 without this requirement, whilst flying the exact same work as company A.

How can a companies B200 training/checking requirements be dependent on what/how they operate other aircraft?

If it is decided that there is such a benefit to sim training/checking (and I think we all agree there is), shouldn't it be applied to either how that particular type is operated, or since we are moving away from the charter/RPT distinction, apply it to the type regardless of the operation?

Currently all that is being achieved is some operators are being forced to comply with higher requirements, and others aren't.

P.S. If I've misinterpreted this part of CAO 82.0, then please ignore everything I have just said.:)

[Howard Hughes]

The 9 pax in a King Air only applies to aircraft modded for FAR 135 operations in the USA. All of our new Kingairs show 9 pax on the CofA and from my understanding are exempt from the requirement (if we so choose). However why would we? The standard of endorsement (from what I have experienced) is far higher from the sim (even the old clunker), than us poor buggers who had to do it 'old school'! ;)

I will look into it further just to make sure.The Beech sim in the main building is configured as a 350 with proline 21, but I am told it will soon be made available as a 200 as well. I am told the CAE B350 sim in Melbourne is not able to be re-configured as a B200 and never will be able to, which I find a little bizarre.

PS: Love the new B350 sim, just like the 'real thing'! :ok:

[Roger Greendeck]

Costs less, better training, safer. Not seeing the downside here.

[sillograph]

In the past I was quoted $12500+ for a b200 endo at a simulator operator here in OZ

Are the three take off and landings in the actual aircraft going to be removed from the requirements of the endorsement?

If so this may reduce the cost somewhat which would be great as the above figure is way over the top.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

I understand the B350 initial issue Sim course (Melb). is around $25K.

As I'm too lazy this morning to check with CAE myself, is this true?.

[Mach E Avelli]

Gretzky makes a good point. The playing field should be level for all operators of the type. If CASA continue to allow double standards then operators will always opt for the lesser and cheaper if they can.
$12500 for a full simulator course reflects the cost of quality training. I doubt that it would be any less less at Flight Safety in the USA. And there is still a requirement to do a few circuits in the real aeroplane, so there is unlikely to be any change out of 15 grand for this type rating.
But, compared with a hot section on a turbine engine, or a landing gear overhaul, a mere drop.
There will always be those who think that they can operate turbines on a piston budget. Same characters usually have lots of nice words in their training manuals and on their websites about how good their standards are. Time for them to walk the talk.

[Centaurus]

At present an endorsement can not be 'completed' on the B200 sim in Australia, as some of the flight sequences still need to be completed in the aircraft.






Cat B sim only. Meaning the fidelity on the runway (take off run to touchdown run) is not available. So if someone criticises the pilot for having trouble with the simulator before lift off and after touch down, it is unfair and unwarranted since the sim is designed that way.

[C206driver]

"I am told the CAE B350 sim in Melbourne is not able to be re-configured as a B200 and never will be able to, which I find a little bizarre."

HH,

B300 different electrical system

[Howard Hughes]

HH,

B300 different electrical system
An A330/340 sim can be reconfigured by changing the throttle quadrant, surely a B200/350 sim can be reconfigured by changing the lower/overhead panels. Then all that is required is a change to the flight model.

I understand there are sims available that can be interchanged between Kingair types, unfortunately the one we have available in Australia is not one of those.

[kalavo]

The fun part becomes where it was ordered as an interchangeable sim, but delievered as a 350 only sim. There are rumours of January 2014, there are also rumours that there's enough work for a second Kingair 200 sim to go next to the current 350 sim. So maybe a compensation deal will be worked out.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So if you do a 350 endo, will the energency procures be satisfied for the 200 type, seeing as you get the priviledges for everything bar a C90 with a 350 endo? (CAO 40.1.0)

Will it be similar to the US system where all ME is covered, but you have to do a conversion course for insurance?

[Grogmonster]

Howard Hughes. The POH etc have nothing to do with seating capacity referred to in the regs. It specifically states, "the seating capacity on the Type Data Certificate." This of course has no relativity to logic.

Groggy

[601]

Suddenly all their B200 drivers are now also required to complete two training sessions and two checks in the Ansett sim at a significant cost.

Not strictly correct. A CAR 217 T&C does not cover aircraft below 5700kg unless the operator asks and CASA approves.

All of our new Kingairs show 9 pax on the CofA

"maximum certificated passenger seating capacity" (CAO 82.0.7.1) would mean what if in the Type Certificate.

Maybe someone in FF thought that a King Air was only certified for 9 pax, so they decided on 10 pax as the magic number without checking the Type Certificate.

So if you are a charter or awk operator with 14 seats in a B200, you are not required to have a 217 T&C organisation. You certainly do have an advantage over the bloke next door who operates an IFR C208 and B200s.

Another not so well thought through CAO amendment.

[STOL Artist]

So if you do the Flightsafety course in the US (Level D sim) post April 1, do you still need to do the circuits in the aircraft to get the endorsement on your Aus licence? Surely not.

[Mach E Avelli]

"Surely not" my ass. CASA will impose whatever conditions they see fit, no matter how schmick the simulator. If it is an initial multi turbine endorsement, my bet is they will still want the circuits. Just to be sure, to be sure.

[The Green Goblin]

..............okies 'dash' I'll reverse my post
Only ever had a quick go at the Pro 21 in a B350, very flash brudda

The old clunker B200 Sim at the Ansett Sin Center ought to be used as a testing platform for any pilot looking for any job, if ya can fly that thing on one donk at night(obviosuly) & not get a little sweaty under da arm pits then yr a candidate for the space shuttle!

Wmk2

I'll raise ya Wally, try flying that bloody metro sim at Ansett with both donks going at night :p

[Capt Fathom]

try flying that bloody metro sim at Ansett with both donks going at night

Well no wonder it is so difficult! The sim wasn't meant to fly on two engines! :E

[The Green Goblin]

True true Cap'n :cool:

[Grogmonster]

No requirement for circuits in the real aircraft after a Level D endorsement. There is however significant ICUS required here in Aus. In the states ICUS is required by the insurance companies. Different oversight but same result.

Groggy

[Wally Mk2]

................okay 'GG' I have heard the 'flying tube' isn't an easy machine to fly so shall accept yr comments:ok:
I think any old style Sim would be a hand full when yr under the pump:-)

Wmk2

[LeadSled]

the operator --------- and CASA approves.
601,
Or CASA demands, which they are doing got the Cessna Mustang.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Which country in the world operates the most under 12,000 LB turbines?
Does this country even require a type rating on these types?
They dont!!! good grief they must be falling out of the sky everywhere!!
Their not!!..hmm pilots must be good then, I even hear they have a much better overall safety standard than here with only a third as many regulations as well. How do they do it??

[T28D]

thorn bird, great post and as a holder of a multi engine land I just salute you for the common sense approach to answering this, feed the donks with motion lotion, be aware what happens if one stops, understand the laws of physics.

Stay alive, it isn't really hard.

[Howard Hughes]

I'll raise ya Wally, try flying that bloody metro sim at Ansett with both donks going at night
I couldn't fly the thing, hats off to all those that could!

Never flown a Metro, but surely they are easier than that bloody sim! ;)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
More than one pilot has had their career cancelled by CASA requiring they use a certain Metro simulator, with no recourse to demonstrating competence.in an aircraft.

If you go back to when such elementary simulators were new, they were so removed from the real aeroplane, that a pilot failing in the simulator had the right to a second go in a real aeroplane. It is another condemnation of the current CASA approach, that such a right is now denied.

As to the outrageous prices I am now seeing quoted for now mandatory use, it seem to me that the costings are based on the US Flight Safety rates plus return airfares plus a hefty margin. In short, in my opinion, what you are seeing is the inevitable result of a CASA created virtual monopoly.

The QF prices for a simulator for contract usage must make then some of the cheapest simulators in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

"As to the outrageous prices I am now seeing quoted for now mandatory use, it seem to me that the costings are based on the US Flight Safety rates plus return airfares plus a hefty margin. In short, in my opinion, what you are seeing is the inevitable result of a CASA created virtual monopoly."

To use a simulator at a certain foreign airlines facility in Australia costs around three times what the actual aircraft costs, currently they have a monopoly. The current cost for recurrancy is around what it would cost to attend flight safety.
They also pretty much dictate how the airport they use is run as well, how long before foreign entities begin dictating who can and cant use Australian airports. Oh forgot! our airports are mostly privately owned jeez even Mascot is owned by some company in the Bahama's a well known tax haven.
What happens Leadie when the public interest or safety benefit is overridden by the holy $$$.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Well no wonder it is so difficult! The sim wasn't meant to fly on two engines! :E

Reminds me of the line from one of my sim instructors. He said "You are paying for two engines, but you only get to use them one at a time" :ouch:

[FutureFO]

What's the latest on CASA stance in doing a type rating OS. Surely no one is actually paying 16-18k for a b200 type rating with Ansett. That's a mountain of cash..

Where else can you still do the TR, smart air can't do the initial now can they?

[Band a Lot]

ZOMG the sky is falling!

5 hours x $2000/hr in the plane... $10k

5 hours x $400/hr in the sim $2k, Flights for two people from Broome (about the worst case scenario with the sim in Melbourne?) <$2k, accommodation and allowances for two nights in Melbourne for two people $1k (cheaper options available, but lets keep it at round numbers).... so $5k.

Resulting in an extra expense of... -$5k. Might even be able to do better if you send two people down for the endo at the same time. Heck they can sit in the right seat while their sim buddy is doing their training and might learn more from others mistakes. Not to mention being able to give real engine fires at V1 in the sim, or any one of a number of system failures. Deal with a real event under pressure rather than casually talk about what would you do if...? Can't afford to lose your C&T staff for three days... might have to question your truck number there if you're CAR217, but if you're comfortable with it, can get the Sim centre to do the training and only lose the pilot you're getting endorsed.

Oh I get it... "What do you mean I can't train the pilot on the dead leg of a charter any more and get the customer to pay my expenses while still bonding the pilot for $12k?"

I disagree with a lot about CASA at the moment, but not this particular point. I've done endo's with and without the Sim.. the Sim was definitely a better endorsement despite being run by a less capable instructor. Those I've seen object to having to do endo's in the Sim, generally have never done one.
Sim available and booked 25/Jan/2017 $2,000
Broome - Melb - Broome x 2. 23 Jan - 26Jan $2,036
(only useable flight due flight and arrival times)
3 nights accom x 2 - 24,25,26 Jan $1,074
Allowances and taxis $800
Wages $1,856 4 days.
$7,766

Ok now consider the follow on costs- loss of revenue, repayments of idle B200 for min 4 days for example.

Also can you break down the $10,000 for 5 hours (a dry hire B200 is around $1,000 per hr last I checked) I worked on wages @$29 p/h.

Often people forget to consider that aeroplanes still need to fly on revenue flights to pay for sim training in far away places, they only forget they need to be paid until they are back after 4 days away and the award prohibits use of backpackers for accom.

** When the only available flights to and from Broome left tomake the sim booking date, are the ones that go via PER and BNE and take 18 and1/2 hours.

What is the minimum rest period required after the flight/s?
Also what is the minimum duty period for a day?

Full time B200 captian.

[chimbu warrior]

I understood that there is now a Kingair simulator on the Sunshine Coast. Is that a better option?

[Grogmonster]

Chimbu,

You got it right and it will be fantastic to have an excuse to go to the Sunny Coast. Its Proline 21 and will be Level "D" I believe which is even better.

[Band a Lot]

Warrior,
My point is simply saying the sim is only $400 p/h and the a/c is $2,000 per hr so include a few $K in extras in flight its still half price is not taking much into account.

I just took the location that was suggested (Broome) and had a bit of a look and many other factors make huge problems inc duty time for the month if only certain legs are available on the available sim time. Also Broome is a lucky location, it has RPT flights.


Depart Broome 18:25 Monday 23/1/17 arriveafter 18.5 hrs positioning arrive MLB Tuesday 08:35 on 24/1/17

Minimum 24 hrs off


Wednesday 25/1/17 Simulator 11:30 - 16:30 (5hrs)


Thursday 26/1/17 depart Melbourne 18:00for Broome 18.5 hrs positioning time arrive Broome 27/1/17 at 09:35.


Minimum 24 hrs off


Can next be rostered to work at 09:35 onFriday 28/1/17.


42 hours of duty time for 5 hours ofsimulator time and 2 pilots away for a week.


*Min B200 pilot $1,242 per week. = $2,484


Allowances =$1,720


Airfares =$2,046


Accom =$1,422


Transport =$100


Sim =$2,000


Total :- $9,772


__________

5 hrs dry hire @ $1,100 = $5,500


5 hrs fuel = $2,900


10 hrs wages = $320


Total :- $8,720 + no loss of crew for a week and aircraft online.

[rammel]

I may be wrong, but from what I heard the pilot isn't completely endorsed in the sim at Ansett. They still need to do some actual flying in the aircraft prior to being endorsed. Like I said, I'm prepared for someone to correct this if it is incorrect.

[sillograph]

Still need an ato to do 3 circuits etc, fill in paper work and submit to casa along with paper work from sim centre, same forms just different section filled in on each one.

All good, overall cost shouldn't be much over $12500 to $14000 for sim work and aircraft plus expenses.

[compressor stall]

I sympathise with the costs of getting crews to Melbourne, but reread this. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3546615/ao-2010-019.pdf

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Nice thing with the sim, you can do all the hot starts, hung starts, engine fires, prop over speeds etc without risking the airframe or engines.

Lot more beneficial for the pilot progressing onto his/her first turbine.

[Band a Lot]

Compressor stall, I am fully aware of that crash. Charlie certainly a sim for a first turbine has many benefits.

However it is simply a Canberra based decision with no cost analysis that makes for a very un level playing field. (is there a small org in Broome that has one King air and 2 pilots that runs a contract every second weekday - what is the impact?)

I think you can safely assume CASA did no such research - contract lost, company with 6 aircraft and 12 staff closes!

Or such company did not have King Air but a C441 (no sim in Australia) - are these passengers and crew as safe as the King Air or less safe?


I have my King Air endorsement and have got my job in Maun, Botswana my Australian licence is validated (they don't issue a Botswana Licence) the certified sim in South Africa is not available (due politics).

The B200 sim/s in Australia suddenly become U/S do updates only supported by -x or above sims (ours are below x)-
Suddenly a sim is no longer required for B200!


Question

(Pratt & Whitney PT6A-41's power the early model 200's while PT6A-42's are found in B200's. The differences between the 200 and B200, besides the engines, are that the 200's have electrically operated gear while the B200 has hydraulic gear.)


Are the sims available in Australia B200 + 200 or only B200?

[drpixie]

FutureFO - you're right, nobody does a B200 type rating anymore ... because it hasn't existed for the last couple of years, the B200 is covered by the multi-class rating :ugh:

All that's required is some "training" and a flight review in the aircraft. So CASA did a few helpful things with part 61 (though I doubt it's been worth the fuss.)

[Jabawocky]

I sympathise with the costs of getting crews to Melbourne, but reread this. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3546615/ao-2010-019.pdf

That report is far closer to home to me than most..........SIM is worth it.

[Band a Lot]

Sorry for your connection Jab.

The SIM worth it! well in this companies case yes as they were transitioning to the SIM.


* A Braz is a larger aircraft, above 5700kg but most importantly a 2 crew.

So instantly we have 2 people doing 3 jobs - justification alone for SIM training.

If this training flight had zero thrust selected, chances are current requirements would only include all RPT above 5700 kg to require SIM training.


A small aircraft with single crew operation can and has safely carried out such training for many years in Australia and in fact the World.

To reiterate I agree 100% with SIM training requirements on multi crew aircraft.

[Band a Lot]

The progress made by CASA and the aviation industry toward the mandatory use of simulators for non-normal flying training and proficiency checks in larger aircraft is commendable. The introduction of regulations that mandate the use of simulator training has the potential to eliminate asymmetric training accidents in these types of aircraft.
Notwithstanding, the need remains for in-flight asymmetric training in those aircraft types where there is no suitable simulator-based alternative. In those circumstances, -provided appropriate operator procedures are in place and followed, and pilots are alert to the potential hazards, simulated engine failures and asymmetric flight should not present unacceptable risks.

[Band a Lot]

Air North VH-MMA DC-3 ... Reregistered as VH-CAN - August 9, 1950 ... utilisedfor tourist flights throughout the Northern Territory - seating 25 passengers.


Now owned by Hardy Aviation

March 19, 2016

Dick Verburg and his colleagues at Multi Pilot Simulations based inGoenekan in the Netherlands saw an opportunity to provide a viable way fortoday’s DC-3 pilots to train realistically, with her shell serving as thefoundation for a state-of-the-art flight simulator. Verburg anticipates finalapproval shortly from the Dutch aviation authority.


Multi Pilot Simulations (http://www.mps.aero/about_mps/news___press/dda_experiences_unique_training_possibillities_of_mps_dc-3_simulator)


Hope nobody in Norfolk Island invests in a C441 simulator (would certainly increase the Islands GDP), then set up a C404 simulator for kicks on Christmas Island.

[Centaurus]

saw an opportunity to provide a viable way fortoday’s DC-3 pilots to train realistically, with her shell serving as thefoundation for a state-of-the-art flight simulator.

Realistic training means the operator should supply a small phial of real hydraulic fluid as part of the type rating. The smell of hydraulic oil as you enter the cockpit is a characteristic of all DC3's. Or used to be in my time. :ok:

[Band a Lot]

A DC 3 makes up the shell of this SIM, and it is impossible to get rid of that smell

[thorn bird]

I do not have a B200 type rating or endorsement rating or class rating or another type of rating, but I have about 150 hours PIC on type, all legally logged on ferry operations.
In those days you got the flight manual and POH, read things up, sat in the aircraft for a while familiarising yourself then went flying. I look through my Dad's old WW11 logbooks and salivate over all the old types he flew, tossed a few pages of notes to read, hop in and fly.
Commercial ops, different thing, but a sensible operator will make sure their troops are competent before letting them loose in an expensive piece of machinery.
I wonder what all this new BUMF stuff is trying to fix?
All the years I've spent training I cannot think of one instance where I had to assume control because a candidate was going to kill me.
In the US the best risk managers on the planet dictate what is required before they will insure an aircraft. Simple, quick, cost effective, safe. Without one size fits all complicated expensive regulation that serve no safety purpose.
Too many people with vested interest including the regulator.
Whats the old saying? "never give sucker an even break" CAsA is playing the industry for suckers.

[Band a Lot]

Ok is the 1900 "out of norm training" exempt because no sim in Australia (maybe since there is one now - but not my point) but the B200 is as Type Data Cert states seating - and 1900 has same Type Data Cert # as the 200.

These are from TCD and a short search on CASA sim requirement on (seats/passengers)

My interp is the 1900D has seating for 21 as per TDC, it requires only 1 crew. That leaves 20 pax seats.

Seating includes crew - under any of the TDC's passenger numbers is not listed only seats and min crew.

---

The Beech 1900D is the evolutionarydescendant of the Beech 200, which was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=FAA))30 years ago. In the intervening period, the airplane grew through variousmodels, raising a fundamental question: at what point has the aircraft been somodified that it should be treated for certification purposes as a new design?The Beech 200 and the Beech 1900D both share the same FAA (http://www.aviationtoday.com/search/?query=FAA)type certificate number:

Model200, Model A200C, Model 200C, Model B200, Model B200C (cont’d)
No. of Seats and Maximum 15(including crew at +129). See loading instructions in Pilot's
Cabin Loading Operating Handbook for approvedseating and cargo configurations.
Model 1900D,Airliner, 21 PCLM (Commuter Category), Approved March 19, 1991
Minimum Crew One pilot
No.of Seats and Maximum 21 (including crew at +129). See loading instructions inPilot's
Cabin Loading Operating Handbook for approvedseating and cargo configurations.
NOTE 7. With passenger seating of10 or more, the airplane must be equipped with the following:
1. The 8 cabin seats in the doubleclub cabin arrangement must be of the narrow back configuration,
part numbers 130-530074-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7,or -11, -9, or -12.
For aeroplanes and helicopters certificated to carry 20 or more passengers,or
with a MTOW of greater than 8,618kg, and where an appropriately qualified flight
simulator or FTD is available inAustralia or overseas, any non-normal exercise must not
be performed in the actual aircraft.

[FutureFO]

FutureFO - you're right, nobody does a B200 type rating anymore ... because it hasn't existed for the last couple of years, the B200 is covered by the multi-class rating :ugh:

All that's required is some "training" and a flight review in the aircraft. So CASA did a few helpful things with part 61 (though I doubt it's been worth the fuss.)

Assume in reference to the PDF regulation reform.

"You cannot fly these types unless you have completed flight training and a flight review in that type. A flight test with a flight examiner is not required."

Does this mean any CAR 217 org can supply the training and it seems no minimums in hours are listed? So assume do a PT6 course and just call any org with 217 to do some sim and 3hrs and be ticked off, or does it have to be a flight training org?. So vague in their explanations/ descriptions.

[601]

org with 217
217 only applies to employees of that organisation.