First ATPL awarded under Part 61
Thread Starter
First ATPL awarded under Part 61
For those interested, a pilot was today awarded the first ATPL under Part 61. The test was in a Boeing 737 simulator and overseen by a CASA FOI. The pilot already had a few thousand hours on 737's which helped.
In what way did it help? Did having the experience help the candidate with the sequence that was flown or just that they had time on type? Also how much did the FOI cost them. The only reason I ask is that there are quite a few J* cadets who are wondering how they will get their ATPL.
I recall a CASA FOI reported the first Australian Part 61 ATPL was issued following a flight test in a Kingair a couple of months ago.
The requirement for completing a MCC doesn't take effect until 1/9/15, in any case persons already holding a multi crew type rated aircraft endorsement are taken to meet this requirement and post 1/9/15 any serious training provider will incorporate the MCC in the type rating course.
The requirement for completing a MCC doesn't take effect until 1/9/15, in any case persons already holding a multi crew type rated aircraft endorsement are taken to meet this requirement and post 1/9/15 any serious training provider will incorporate the MCC in the type rating course.
Thread Starter
Despite his/her experience, did CASA still require an MCC course?
Previously he was unable to get interviews within Australia, NZ and some operators overseas without having the ATPL in his hand; even though in the "old" days all you needed was the usual 1500 hours min time to apply for an ATPL and could apply for a job. My understanding was CASA charged a standard test fee of $700 which is in their website somewhere.
Anyone considering doing the test with only a simulator type rating and no actual flying time on type, would be wise to first undergo several practice sessions depending on aircraft type. IMHO
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" ...... the first ATPL under Part 61 ......"
Not exactly sure where you're coming from. I know a young lad with an ATPL Part 61 licence flying as an F/O for a regional airline and he's had it for around 4 months.
Not exactly sure where you're coming from. I know a young lad with an ATPL Part 61 licence flying as an F/O for a regional airline and he's had it for around 4 months.
Folks,
None of this helps the GA pilot who has passed all the ATPL written, and is otherwise qualified.
It seem there is a HUGE problem getting any MCC course approved, because there is a HUGE gulf between two pilot operations, as understood by airlines and manufacturers, and multi-crew operations as understood by some in CASA , who appear to have little or no two (or more) crew experience.
Needless to say, so far the CASA "view" seems to be prevailing over a system based on common airline/OEM practices, notwithstanding CAR 138 requiring compliance with the AFM.
Once the poor sod who wants an ATPL overcomes the above, at whatever cost and inconvenience, there is the "little" matter of the flight test, whether it is in an aircraft or simulator, starting with availability, and then the cost.
None of this was a problem before Part 61, and the horrendously expensive "solution" of Part 61 is a solution to a problem that did not exist.
Fundamentally, as it now stands, an otherwise qualified pilot is going to spend some 50-60% or more of his or her whole flight training just on an ATPL exam, unless they are an airline cadet.
For those of you who think: The harder it is, the higher the "standards" must be, therefore the "safer it must be" must be ecstatically happy with this outcome, almost as happy as those coming into Australia on 457 viza.
There is no evidence that our previous system (or the FAA system) results in an air safety problem.
Those of you directly shafted by this provision, please write to Mr. Skidmore, with a copy direct to Mr. Geof. Boyd, the new Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Skidmore has issued the invitation.
Tootle pip!!
None of this helps the GA pilot who has passed all the ATPL written, and is otherwise qualified.
It seem there is a HUGE problem getting any MCC course approved, because there is a HUGE gulf between two pilot operations, as understood by airlines and manufacturers, and multi-crew operations as understood by some in CASA , who appear to have little or no two (or more) crew experience.
Needless to say, so far the CASA "view" seems to be prevailing over a system based on common airline/OEM practices, notwithstanding CAR 138 requiring compliance with the AFM.
Once the poor sod who wants an ATPL overcomes the above, at whatever cost and inconvenience, there is the "little" matter of the flight test, whether it is in an aircraft or simulator, starting with availability, and then the cost.
None of this was a problem before Part 61, and the horrendously expensive "solution" of Part 61 is a solution to a problem that did not exist.
Fundamentally, as it now stands, an otherwise qualified pilot is going to spend some 50-60% or more of his or her whole flight training just on an ATPL exam, unless they are an airline cadet.
For those of you who think: The harder it is, the higher the "standards" must be, therefore the "safer it must be" must be ecstatically happy with this outcome, almost as happy as those coming into Australia on 457 viza.
There is no evidence that our previous system (or the FAA system) results in an air safety problem.
Those of you directly shafted by this provision, please write to Mr. Skidmore, with a copy direct to Mr. Geof. Boyd, the new Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Skidmore has issued the invitation.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 19th May 2015 at 08:11. Reason: typo
First ATPL awarded under Part 61
I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges. A type rating course will address the MCC aspects and the TR flight test will meet the ATPL test with very little additional effort. Employers need to sort out their stuff and align their recruitment policies with Part 61. Fair enough to require ATPL theory, but there is no point in insisting on the actual licence. I cannot imagine an employer taking on the holder of a fresh ATPL without muti-crew operational experience and putting them straight into the left seat of a multi crew type rated aeroplane.
It's time to let go of the old stuff and make this crap we're stuck with work.
It's time to let go of the old stuff and make this crap we're stuck with work.
How about we demand that CASA fix the 'crap' instead? This is not to say we should return to the old stuff. The old system was flawed, but the new is a joke. We now have some of the worst aviation legislation on the planet. It must be fixed.
Recently I heard a CASA officer make the lame excuse that while 'they' drafted the rules in simple and plain language, it was all the fault of the legal people who wrote the final words.
The solution to that is surely to draft less rules for the legal people to mess with.
Recently I heard a CASA officer make the lame excuse that while 'they' drafted the rules in simple and plain language, it was all the fault of the legal people who wrote the final words.
The solution to that is surely to draft less rules for the legal people to mess with.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<insert many topics>is a solution to a problem that did not exist.
Too true.
Mach E…..write to Mark Skidmore and Geoff Boyd. I have on a couple of occasions recently and had genuine interest in dealing with the issue.
The more they receive, sensible, polite and well prepared emails, not pages of insomnia curing rants, the more they will realise we are not a bunch of whiny whingers but indeed practical and sensible operators with genuine interest in solving the problems.
My take so far is that with GB in the Chair, and MS having determination, things may happen. Interestingly from inside the walls at CASA I have learned that JMAC actually did care, but was forever tied in knots by folk from too powerful departments. We can all guess who/where etc.and mostly be correct. So lets hope they can withstand that. And this is where my skepticism comes in.
Too true.
Mach E…..write to Mark Skidmore and Geoff Boyd. I have on a couple of occasions recently and had genuine interest in dealing with the issue.
The more they receive, sensible, polite and well prepared emails, not pages of insomnia curing rants, the more they will realise we are not a bunch of whiny whingers but indeed practical and sensible operators with genuine interest in solving the problems.
My take so far is that with GB in the Chair, and MS having determination, things may happen. Interestingly from inside the walls at CASA I have learned that JMAC actually did care, but was forever tied in knots by folk from too powerful departments. We can all guess who/where etc.and mostly be correct. So lets hope they can withstand that. And this is where my skepticism comes in.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges.... I cannot imagine an employer taking on the holder of a fresh ATPL without muti-crew operational experience and putting them straight into the left seat of a multi crew type rated aeroplane.
Airlines can't adjust overnight to a massive amount of red tape, even then CAsA need to take time to consider and approve the TC departments plans.
Jaba, I have indeed already written quite a detailed letter to Mark Skidmore.
Its main thrust is the way loose cannons in his organisation interpret and act on rules which are confusing and sometimes contradictory.
I won't go into detail here because to do so could be prejudicial in what may yet develop into a legal argument.
Its main thrust is the way loose cannons in his organisation interpret and act on rules which are confusing and sometimes contradictory.
I won't go into detail here because to do so could be prejudicial in what may yet develop into a legal argument.
I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges. A type rating course will address the MCC aspects and the TR flight test will meet the ATPL test with very little additional effort.
Consider the operators of business jets, who get their type ratings done overseas. If you reckon CASA charge a bomb for an ATPL test, you will be left breathless at the cost of taking a CASA examiner overseas to conduct a flight test. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a bizjet operator will recruit a CPL holder for the right seat of any of their aircraft.
There are also plenty of Aussie and NZ pilots looking overseas for opportunities, particularly given the gloomy outlook for airline hiring here.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on Mr Chimbu,
Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.
Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.
Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.
Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.
Tankengine, it's a catch 22.
If Aussie pilots don't go overseas, Luddites in this country will never learn anything about real world aviation. Because, sorry old mate, we are not the best - in fact far from it.
But to go to some overseas countries you have to rock up with an ICAO ATPL.
Other overseas countries do not even have a licensing examination system of their own, but rely on acceptable foreign licences. For a long time that was the case with PNG, and may still be the case. If a considerable number of Australian pilots had not cut their teeth in PNG and other demanding environments, our experience base would be the much poorer for it.
If Aussie pilots don't go overseas, Luddites in this country will never learn anything about real world aviation. Because, sorry old mate, we are not the best - in fact far from it.
But to go to some overseas countries you have to rock up with an ICAO ATPL.
Other overseas countries do not even have a licensing examination system of their own, but rely on acceptable foreign licences. For a long time that was the case with PNG, and may still be the case. If a considerable number of Australian pilots had not cut their teeth in PNG and other demanding environments, our experience base would be the much poorer for it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not say anywhere that we were the best, old mate.
If you are flying overseas of course you need an ICAO ATPL,
I am just saying that overseas jobs are not a reason for any changes to the Aussie ATPL.
How many other countries do not have a test for the ATPL?(I really don't know)
Aussie employers will need to live with the new reality, as will pilots.
Part 61 introduction certainly has been crap!
If you are flying overseas of course you need an ICAO ATPL,
I am just saying that overseas jobs are not a reason for any changes to the Aussie ATPL.
How many other countries do not have a test for the ATPL?
(I really don't know)Aussie employers will need to live with the new reality, as will pilots.
Part 61 introduction certainly has been crap!
Tank engine to partly answer your question, some simple detective work will reveal at least six countries in the Caribbean alone that have no pilot licensing examination system. They all have a validation process which relies on recognition of an ICAO compliant CPL or ATPL, plus a local Air Law exam.
I am sure that similar research would show the same situation in Africa and less developed parts of Asia.
As for more advanced countries, I doubt the average Aussie could pass an ATPL written in Japanese or Mandarin or Spanish. All these places sometimes need pilots. So, we should not tolerate a system that by its sheer cost, excludes Aussies from this market.
Instead of all rolling over and accepting the situation that CASA have created, those affected need to come up with suitable alternatives and argue a case.
I am sure that similar research would show the same situation in Africa and less developed parts of Asia.
As for more advanced countries, I doubt the average Aussie could pass an ATPL written in Japanese or Mandarin or Spanish. All these places sometimes need pilots. So, we should not tolerate a system that by its sheer cost, excludes Aussies from this market.
Instead of all rolling over and accepting the situation that CASA have created, those affected need to come up with suitable alternatives and argue a case.