Read carefully.
Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.
This is much more than an IPC.
There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.
You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.
Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.
There was a long consultation process for Part 61.
The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
Sherm you are in no position to lecture anyone to 'read carefully' when you have demonstrated time and time again that you have no interest in reading a thing anyone else has to say on the matter.
There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?
Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.
Originally Posted by "Das Uber 'I just love repeating myself' Soldat
There is very little difference. Don't take my word for it though! I've got some time so lets go on a journey of discovery together!
Appendix K.1 ATPL Aeroplane category rating flight test
1. Flight test requirements
1.1 An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating flight test must
demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by
performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in tables 2 and 5 in
Section 1 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
Interesting, what does Table 2 say? (table 5 refers to an Aerobatics rating?!)
Table 2: Aeroplane general flight tolerances – professional level
1. Applicability
1.1 The flight tolerances in this subsection apply to the following licences and ratings:
(a) commercial pilot licence;
(b) multi-crew pilot licence;
(c) air transport pilot licence;
(d) pilot instructor rating;
(e) instrument rating;
(f) private IFR rating;
(g) flight examiner rating;
(h) aerial application rating;
(i) low-level rating;
(j) aircraft type rating
IPC and ATPL flight tolerances, are
exactly the same
What about demonstrated competencies?
The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
hmm, those look like some differences!
C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures.
Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment.
I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems.
I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems.
Refer above.
2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member.
Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.
This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.
How many times Sherm, how many times have people here asked you or Havick to provide
evidence that this test results in an increase in flight safety? Do you think we haven't noticed your total inability to provide it? You haven't even been able to provide a lick of evidence that the ATPL flight test is in any material way different to an IPC other than to close your eyes and shout it over and over.
I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.
I had to demonstrate taxiing.
You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.
Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;
Love your work though Shermy. Declaring that I'm unsafe to operate after spending the entire thread arguing those who have passed the ATPL flight test are at a higher safety standard. That'd be me sunshine. So which is it? If you say I'm safe, then your words above are shown to be wrong. If I'm unsafe, yet I've passed an ATPL flight test, then it disproves your argument that the test provides a higher (or even minimum!) level of safety.
So which is it mate?