CASA proposing flight test requirement for ATPL issue.
Some interesting developments if they come about. Co-jo ratings gone and a flight test as per NZ I presume. My bolding below
Quote:
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Special Pilot Licence to be withdrawn and PPL able to be issued to overseas PPL holder without a flight test (but with an airlaw exam and a flight review);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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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 . Pressing issues indeed
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.
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 289
Quote:
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
. Pressing issues indeed 
done.
