I got my CASA helicopter ATPL out of a cornflakes box under the old system. Though since I've moved to the US I've had to take a flight test for my helicopter FAA ATP, and now I also had to do the FAA ATP-CTP course (around 7k fortunately my airline pays for that) and take my ATP fixed wing flight test as part of my final type ride on the embraer 145.
Cool story. Irrelevant
I guess my point is that there's no reason that Australia shouldn't have a flight test like the rest of the world.
Really? Can't think of a single reason? How about the enormous cost? The absolute absence of any evidence of an improvement to flight safety? The bungled implementation? The significant reduction in opportunities to otherwise suitably qualified pilots like pilotchute? I could go all day. I've asked you several times (as have others) to show evidence that safety is increased by the introduction of this test. Silence has been the consistent response. "Others have it" is not an argument.
I don't agree with all the requirements that CASA have lumped into it, but the FAA process is now arguably equally as expensive now that you have to do a CTP course which requires 10 hours in a level D sim, just to be able to take the ATP multi engine fixed wing written.
More cool stories
So yes, I think CASA should change some things about the ATP flight tests, but I don't disagree with the fact that an Aussie wanting an ATP should be required to take a flight test like the rest of the world regardless of your background.
You're welcome to your opinion. Still waiting for that evidence.
You had the opportunity to go the cornflakes box route, and chose not to, so I have no sympathy about you moaning about the current requirements.
As I stated, my situation is irrelevant. I went on to explain why, predictably you have ignored it. So, again for the people in the back. That may be true, its totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. That I could have avoided the difficulty of the process does not mean the process is vindicated in any way. They are not related. I don't know how to say it any more simply.
Before you tell me to pipe down, I personally facilitated the first two CASA helicopter ATPL's under PT61 (I was in the aircraft) and helped make the cost cheaper to subsequent applicants by working with the AHIA and CASA with regard to aircraft types that can be used amongst a host of other items.
All irrelevant.
By the way, did you actually make any submissions under the NPRM time before PT61 was put into effect or are you now complaining after the fact?
I have been in contact with CASA regarding these ATPL part 61 changes on many occasions and have been part of a group that have pushed and successfully lobbied to at least have the process approved. Dispensing with the KDR requirements and introducing a caveat for those with previous multi crew experience etc.
Regardless, again your inability to differentiate what is relevant to the argument and what isn't shines through. Even if I had said or done nothing before its introduction, it in no way has any bearing on the validity of my position or veracity of the facts I present. You're transparently trying to slide a stipulation into the argument that only those who contributed to the NPRM have standing to make comment on the present situation. Just as you have tried to do the same by implying that because I could have avoided this idiotic test, I'm in no position to criticise it (a wonderful logical disconnect).
In summary, no mate.