Back to the ATPL debate; having had time in more than one CAR 217 organisation I do not accept this is a guarantee of quality training or checking.
In a former role, I was quite amazed at how bad some pilots from this system could be. Only a few, but enough to cast doubts on placing absolute trust in operators to uphold standards. Some of the training I received in these systems was excellent, some of token value only and some just plain bloody worthless.
The same goes for flight schools and independent ATOs authorised to renew instrument ratings.
So your argument now is that CAR 217 organizations are not capable of ensuring compliance? Considering they're currently responsible for assessing competence right up to ATPL flight test standard (with an IPC), this is alarming news. Do you suggest we need to scrap these organizations immediately? What then?
You've seemingly to me gone to great lengths to entirely avoid the arguments that are being put to you by myself and others regarding the evidence and logic behind an ATPL flight test.
Neville wrote : "You could also argue that someone could pass an ATPL on a Metro then hold a command on a A380 and fly anywhere in the world.
What relevance would a ATPL test on a Metro have to commanding a A380?".
Its a valid question. How on earth does the test conducted in this environment possibly relate or have any bearing at all on the level of safety of an applicant? Think about what that person needs to go through to attain such a position in addition to the differences in the operation.
Lead wrote "So where is your data to show the level of risk that is mitigated by the formal final tests in the other examples you gave? How do you know it's not just self-perpetuating intuition? "
Where is your evidence? Or answers to his follow up questions? "I note there are lots of people exercising the privileges of an ATPL who have never been the subject of a formal ATPL flight test. Why are they not considered 'unsafe'? Or is it that they are merely tolerated as being 'acceptably unsafe'? How 'unsafe' are they, compared with the pilots who have passed the formal ATPL test?"
So, no - time under CAR 217 or a history of IR renewals in a bugsmasher twin does not automatically an ATPL make.
And yet CASA will give my company 217 dept approval to conduct ATPL flight tests by simply observing us conduct one, which as been clearly shown to be more or less identical to the IPC. How on earth do you derive a difference? PERHAPS if CASA had retained exclusive privilege to do the tests you'd have a point, but that isn't the case and was never meant to be the case.
Its an extra test, identical to ones we already undergo, conducted by the same people who do our existing testing. It is absolutely pointless and redundant.