N bizjets - "there could be trouble ahead"

[Klatsch]

It seems that there could be trouble ahead for those of us who operate N reg bizjets in Europe using non-type rated co-pilots, ie co-pilots qualified solely under FAR 61.55. Allegedly an operator has attracted the unwelcome attentions of the UK CAA who stopped a flight from departing because both pilots were not type rated. The regulation quoted is ICAO Annex 1 which, I am told, requires pilots of aircraft over 5700kg MTOW, certified for 2 pilots, to have the appropriate type rating in their licence and to have demonstrated knowledge to ATP level. Apparently a NOTAM is to be issued to spell out the position. I haven't had sight of the ICAO document yet to get the exact wording but I expect this will cause a sudden shortage of type rated co-pilots. Also it is not clear whether Single Pilot Waivers apply outside the US. Watch this space.

[JJflyer]

FAA should just start to issue types for the SIC's as well say B737SIC or something similar as a rating on a license. That would make it easy and understandable even for CAA.

When I first got trained on a 737 in in 1998 I qualified on 61.55 but I completed a full pt 142 school with the following 21 day program:

- 80 hours of ground school
- 12 hours of CPT
- 12 hours of simulator
- 2 hour checkride

Essentially this is exactly same type of program as with B727 type rating I did in 2001. The check ride might have been 3 hours though.

I have nothing but odd bunch of documents to show that I have received B737 training nothing on my license, but B727 is on it with close to identical training.

I did fly non US registered as well a N reg B737's. B737 as a type was on the validations I was issued.

One would think that it would be pretty simple for FAA to start to add rating for SIC's in similar fashion as full type ratings are issued.

Cheers

JJ

[Cathar]

I understand that 2 aircraft (different operators) were prevented from flying at Luton last week. The CAA action appears to be justified as the US is not complying with the Chicago Convention.

The relevant requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention are as follows

2.1.3.2 Type ratings shall be established for:

a) each type of aircraft certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots;

2.1.4.1 A Contracting State having issued a pilot licence shall not permit the holder of such licence to act either as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of an aeroplane or helicopter unless the holder has received authorization as follows:

a) ......; or

b) a type rating when required in accordance with the provisions of 2.1.3.2.

2.1.5.2 Type rating as required by 2.1.3.2 a)
The applicant shall have:
a).....;
b).......:and
c) demonstrated, at the airline transport pilot licence level, an extent of knowledge determined by the Licensing Authority on the basis of the requirements specified in 2.5.1.2 or 2.9.1.2, as applicable.

As the co-pilots licences do not meet the ICAO standards, articles 39 and 40 of the Chicago Convention (see below) are relevant. The pilots may therefore only operate in another states territory if they have that approval of that state. I suspect that approval would not have been given if it had been sought.

I note the suggestion that the FAA "add rating for SIC's in similar fashion as full type ratings are issued". I am not familiar with the FAA system but this suggests a co-pilot's type rating would not be a "full type rating". If so I am not sure that this would be any more acceptable as the ICAO standard does not differentiate between pilots in command and co-pilots.

-----------------------------------------------
Article 39
Endorsement of certificates and licenses

a) ......
b) Any person holding a license who does not satisfy in
full the conditions laid down in the international standard
relating to the class of license or certificate which he holds
shall have endorsed on or attached to his license a complete
enumeration of the particulars in which he does not satisfy such
conditions.

Article 40
Validity of endorsed certificates and licenses

No aircraft or personnel having certificates or licenses so
endorsed shall participate in international navigation, except
with the permission of the State or States whose territory is
entered. The registration or use of any such aircraft, or of any
certificated aircraft part, in any State other than that in which
it was originally certificated shall be at the discretion of the
State into which the aircraft or part is imported.

[V1 Rotate]

Klatsch,
How many crews in total do you think this is going to affect? On what types?
V1

[Base Line]

It would seem likely that this is going to affect, not only the BizJet community here in the UK, but also visiting BizJets - and also, maybe, any Airline operating on the FAA that currently comes into the UK without 2 type rated pilots...

It's going to take some time for the news to travel - but I guess once Universal/Jeppesen etc know, then that'll pass the news onto the international travellers.

[JJflyer]

Hello Cathar.

I am type rated on several Jets and these show on my licence as we as having SIC training on several other jets.

SIC training I have received meet several FAA requirements, namely FAR part 61.55, 91.531 and additionally the requirements set for SIC training under part 142 schools (Equivalent to TRTO).

Part 142 training for SIC is allmost exactly the same as the same training for PIC.
Difference is that during training SIC flies from right seat and PIC from left.
After completing training SIC will get documents certifying that he/she has received appropriate training and meets the relevant regulations while a PIC student will be issued a new "Temporary airman certificate" with the added rating on it. Permanent licence will follow in due course.

There should be no reason why US could not start to issue ratings for those qualified under pt142 and meeting both pt61 and pt91 requirements.
SIC training under pt142 is no less demanding and does not take any shortcuts compared to those that do a PIC course.

Cheers for now

JJ

[flaps8]

KLATSCH

Did these pilots hold FAA licences, or were they flying on CAA CPL / IR?
FLAPS8

[Cathar]

JJflyer

Thanks for the explanation. :D

[Klatsch]

For V1 and Flaps8

I couldn't estimate how many crews this will affect and I guess the Luton co-pilots involved were operating on FAA licences.

But how about this as food for thought - is not the ICAO document purely an agreement between contracting states, ie not law, and is not the Air Navigation Order the legal document in UK? The ANO states that flightcrew should be "as required by the state of registry of the aircraft". It will be interesting to see what notices come out from Gatwick this week.

[StressFree]

I'm no big fan of the UK CAA but I think they have a point here.

Surely its a good idea to insist that both pilots on a jet plane are fully qualified to fly that actual type of plane? Not unreasonable when you think about it..........

:cool:

[Cathar]

Air Naviagation Order 2000

Article 21

(3) Subject as aforesaid, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew required by or under this Order to be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:

(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work, he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or

(b) in the case of any other aircraft, he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or under this Order, and the CAA does not in the particular case give a direction to the contrary.

[flaps8]

CHAPS

Not so long ago i was [ like many others] operating biz jets on a management contract worldwide with just a restricted cpl/ir issued by the FAA and other states [ bermuda and caymen] on the basis of my UK ATPL and having past the FAA IR written exam.
Unthinkable now eh! OR is it?
I think we will all be operating under much stricter regulations soon.
Anybody got any comments?

[Cathar]

Further to my previous post, article 21(10)(b) of the Air Navigation Order may also be relevant. I understand that the FAA licences are not endorsed to say that they are not compliant but such endorsement would seem otiose if a licence does not carry a required type rating.

Article 21

(10) Notwithstanding anything in this article:

(a) the holder of a licence granted or rendered valid under this Order, being a licence endorsed to the effect that the holder does not satisfy in full the relevant international standard, shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom in or over the territory of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom except in accordance with permission granted by the competent authorities of that State;

(b) the holder of a licence granted or rendered valid under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, being a licence endorsed as aforesaid, shall not act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft in or over the United Kingdom except in accordance with permission granted by the CAA, whether or not the licence is or is deemed to be rendered valid under this Order.

[727 exec]

SimuFlite are now advising pilots of this tightening up of the rules...it's a part of their International Procedures course.

[mutt]

As a non-USA based flag carrier operating to FAR121 regulations, we were hit with this rule over a year ago. None of our FO's whilst duly qualified had that qualification printed on their licence.

Solution was to change the national licence to show “FO Privileges”. FAA airlines apparently comply with this ICAO requirement using an “International Licence”, 121-7xx (Cant remember the exact reference”.

Mutt.

[Bumz_Rush]

Whilst you are there put a good word in for us all.......

[rick1128]

From the posts here it sounds like it just applies to operators under Part 91, not those under Part 121 or 135 (air carrier). And it is not as easy as one thinks for the FAA to issue a F/O type rating. As far as they are concerned there is only one type rating standard.

I personally believe that the CAA and ICAO has it backwards. The US aviation community is the big dog on the block. And considering the amount of flight segments that are operated here on a daily basis, we are pretty darn safe. It is my understanding that the CAA requires a pilot to be typed in anything that he flys, including a Cessna 150. They are keeping the accident rate down by keeping people from flying. That is one way to do it.

[Panama Jack]

Sorry Rick, you've got me confused here.

So what makes it so difficult for the FAA to issue a type rating, when every other country has been able to figure out how to issue a type rating? The FAA sometimes puzzles me. The same country that put a man on the moon almost 35 years ago and made the word "stealth" a household word still can't figure out how to put a picture on a pilot certificate (I believe it is being studied still).

I personally believe that the CAA and ICAO has it backwards. The US aviation community is the big dog on the block.

Sounds rather pompous and jingoistic, but maybe I've just read your comment wrong. I also disagree with the concept of a "Cessna 150 Type Rating," however, just tell me one more time why FO's are not issued a type rating in aircraft where PIC's are required to hold a type rating. I believe that the difference between a Type ride and an SIC check is pretty minor. In addition, what exactly is the difference, in the realm of a two crew, CRM cockpit between the Captain and the FO? I can understand under the old concept of Captain/Co-pilot relationship, where the Captain was the master of the aircraft, and the co-pilot was just a gear and flap puller and the FO only spoke if and when he was spoken to. Shouldn't both be "qualified" to fly the aircraft?

[rick1128]

Part of it is that the FAA has too dam many lawyers. But the standards for F/O and Captain are considerably different here. It does NOT mean that an F/O is not qualified to fly the aircraft. But the standards are different. There are several things that F/Os are not required to be tested on. Next the regulations are written differently here.

Besides, we, especially the FAA, think we are doing right and everyone else is wrong.

[Check 6]

This was in the December 2003 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation (B/CA):

During an ICAO safety audit, the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) found that some U.S. corporate jet copilots are flying into the United Kingdom without the relevant aircraft type ratings. The ICAO and JAA rules require both pilots of "commercial" aircraft with MTOW of more than 12,500 pounds to hold a type rating. According to the U.K.'s Department of Transport, "At least two U.S.-registered corporate jets were found to be operating with non-type-rated copilots" during spot checks at London Luton Airport in October. However, "all captains checked from N-registered aircraft did hold the correct type ratings." Under FAR Part 61.55, copilots are not required to hold type ratings, but the FAA said it "recognizes that there is a difference to ICAO standards and requires copilots on international flights to have either a type rating or to obtain approval from any state into or over which they intend to operate." The CAA says that it makes over 200 foreign pilot checks at U.K. airports (airline and corporate) every year and that the spots checks will continue.

My question is, what is the definition of "commercial aircraft" in the U.K.? I have searched the CAA site without any luck. How does this apply in the real world?

Any help from someone knowledgeable on the UK CAA regs is appreciated.

[FLAMBEBOBO]

It's always been an area that is difficult to clarify by definition, however the general acceptance of the word 'commercial' in terms of aircraft operation would equate to 'for hire or reward' as opposed to 'purely private'. That is and has always been my understanding though it is open to interpretation in different contexts. Hope this helps.

[Cathar]

The report has confuses the ICAO standard with the FAA requirements. ICAO requires type ratings for all pilots of aircraft certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots. The ICAO standard is not restricted to commercial operations nor is it restricted to aircraft with a MTOW oin excess of 12,500lbs.

[727 exec]

My humble understanding is that...if the aircraft is certified as requiring two pilots, then they now have to be two rated pilots.

If it's certified as Single Pilot - then it's ok with one. If it's a Single Pilot Waiver for something like the Citation Ultra...then it's not allowed anymore.

I could be wrong, but you'd better believe that those are the rules I'm going to follow...unless someone can prove it otherwise?

[Check 6]

727 exec you are very correct. Here is an explanation from the CAA:

Your e- mail regarding the operation of US registered aircraft in UK airspace has been forwarded to me for response. You will note that the article you refer to quotes the ICAO requirement and this is what the UK CAA is required to enforce. The crux of the matter is the certification of the aircraft as to the minimum crew required irrespective of the type of operation conducted. If the aircraft is certified as requiring operation by more than one pilot then both pilots must be type rated for operations outside the US in accordance with ICAO requirements.

I hope that this answers your enquiry but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

(Captain Paul Radcliffe)
Head of Policy Co-ordination
Personnel Licensing Department
UK CAA

[FLAMBEBOBO]

Well the CAA have made that pretty clear. Is anybody aware of the extent of this problem. How many operations does it affect?

[Rosbif]

I understand that the practice of using FO's without type ratings is quite common in the US. Is this done to make sure that the FO's have nothing on their licences that would make it easier for them to move around?
Surely if the training is being done anyway, it would not be any more expensive to give the 'type rating'.
Also, does this restrict the airlines' ability to enforce training bonds, given that no type rating is ever issued, and so nothing of value is seen to be passed to the pilot?
In Canada we do not do this (unrated FO's), and I know of one airline captain in the UK who just did not believe me when I told him that you don't need a type rating to fly at an airline in the US !

[Check 6]

Rosbif, it is only a question of economics. There are some that have both pilots type. Southwest comes to mind, though at least in the past they required the 737 type to apply.

The training is not quite the same for the airlines I suspect, but I am with a non-sked air carrier.

For corporate or air-taxi operations, the training is similar, but the syllabus is larger for a type rating.

Because there is no requirement, many corporate and non-sked operations do not send their FO's for simulator training.

So, it is back to economics. Personally I think the requirement has strong merit.

:ok: