ATPL Requirements - CAA what a joke
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPL Requirements - CAA what a joke
The SACAA requirements for a ATPL is (as I`m sure you all know ) :
1500 hrs total
250 hrs command
100 hrs night
75 hrs IF
Now whe all know that co-pilot time on a medium category A/C only counts half towards a higher licence, 1/2 hr command for every 1 hr flown as P2 , fare enough. So surely this should apply to the 200 hr command requirement ? Why else put it in ? ( Maybe its just me , but that sounds quite logical )
When confronting CAA with this its just the normal " co-pilot hrs count 1/2 towards the 1500 TT " what a crock of .....
They give pilots with 1500 hrs instruction, not even touching the controls and spending a good portion of that in the circuit, and wait for this, IN THE RIGHT HAND SEAT, a ATPL license without blinking twice ?? ( Nothing against the instructors out there, after all without you guys none of us would be here, its just a matter of principal, my opinion)
I should think hands on experience in actual conditions should count for the total 1500. Fair enough to sacrifice a 150 hrs from your TT to make up the command time, after all you did pick up good command skills if you had the priveladge to fly with an experienced Captain.
All bitter words I know, but this is bugging lots of guys out there. Well just have to wait for that magical 3000 hr mark I gues....
Fly safe
Bubblewrap
1500 hrs total
250 hrs command
100 hrs night
75 hrs IF
Now whe all know that co-pilot time on a medium category A/C only counts half towards a higher licence, 1/2 hr command for every 1 hr flown as P2 , fare enough. So surely this should apply to the 200 hr command requirement ? Why else put it in ? ( Maybe its just me , but that sounds quite logical )
When confronting CAA with this its just the normal " co-pilot hrs count 1/2 towards the 1500 TT " what a crock of .....
They give pilots with 1500 hrs instruction, not even touching the controls and spending a good portion of that in the circuit, and wait for this, IN THE RIGHT HAND SEAT, a ATPL license without blinking twice ?? ( Nothing against the instructors out there, after all without you guys none of us would be here, its just a matter of principal, my opinion)
I should think hands on experience in actual conditions should count for the total 1500. Fair enough to sacrifice a 150 hrs from your TT to make up the command time, after all you did pick up good command skills if you had the priveladge to fly with an experienced Captain.
All bitter words I know, but this is bugging lots of guys out there. Well just have to wait for that magical 3000 hr mark I gues....
Fly safe
Bubblewrap
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you just clarify something.....
So assuming you're a co-jo on a multi crew a/c as a CPL holder.....the hours you log still count only half towards the 1500 total?
So assuming you're a co-jo on a multi crew a/c as a CPL holder.....the hours you log still count only half towards the 1500 total?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.T
I had this very problem myself with co-jo hours with a CPL on multi crew aircraft. I did go speak to an inspector at the CAA and basically it boils down to this: your co- jo hours go into your log book as those that you have flown ie the full amount, however when it comes time to calculate your hours for the issue of a higher license, an ATPL obviously, then your co- jo hours will count half of what is in your logbook. So lets say you have 1500 hours total with 200 of those being co pilot then you will in fact have 1400 hours in the eyes of the CAA and will thus have to fly 100 more pic or 200 more as co pilot to be eligible for the higher license.
Hope I have explained it ok.
Cheers C.B
I had this very problem myself with co-jo hours with a CPL on multi crew aircraft. I did go speak to an inspector at the CAA and basically it boils down to this: your co- jo hours go into your log book as those that you have flown ie the full amount, however when it comes time to calculate your hours for the issue of a higher license, an ATPL obviously, then your co- jo hours will count half of what is in your logbook. So lets say you have 1500 hours total with 200 of those being co pilot then you will in fact have 1400 hours in the eyes of the CAA and will thus have to fly 100 more pic or 200 more as co pilot to be eligible for the higher license.
Hope I have explained it ok.
Cheers C.B
THUNDERTAILED
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: L200
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke with a CAA inspector not too long back and he pulled out the Airlaw book and had it highlighted, and this is what he said:
many people believe that half your P2 hours count towards the ATP. Not so. The book says it in a strange way but it is taken to mean that half of the hours toward the higher licence may be P2 time, ie. 1500/2=750 so a maximum of 750 hours may be P2 time. The rest may be Sim (to a limit, forget what it is, poss 130hrs), Dual, IF and of course P1. This is to protect against people who have never had much command time getting an ATP.
Which makes sense.
many people believe that half your P2 hours count towards the ATP. Not so. The book says it in a strange way but it is taken to mean that half of the hours toward the higher licence may be P2 time, ie. 1500/2=750 so a maximum of 750 hours may be P2 time. The rest may be Sim (to a limit, forget what it is, poss 130hrs), Dual, IF and of course P1. This is to protect against people who have never had much command time getting an ATP.
Which makes sense.
What they have said to you conforms with ICAO requirments.
I have no problem with an instructor getting 100% credit for the flight time they spend in the RHS, they are the PIC, they are the ones responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.
Similar is the long haul skipper of say a 744, when they go off to his crew bunk, they are still logging PIC time, they are not even physically in the cockpit or in physical control of the aircraft, but if something were to go wrong they are still the person in charge.
This is pretty well much the ICAO requirements .....
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.
(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in command under supervision.
(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;
(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:
(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation 5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or (b).
(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) as describe the flight time.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command under supervision.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the 75 hours of instrument flight time.
(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).
(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.
(6) CAA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of subregulation (4).
(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (4) (c):
(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and
(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.
(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:
(a) as pilot in command; or
(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or
(c) in dual flying;
must be halved in calculating the person's flight time for the purposes of regulation 5.172.
I have no problem with an instructor getting 100% credit for the flight time they spend in the RHS, they are the PIC, they are the ones responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.
Similar is the long haul skipper of say a 744, when they go off to his crew bunk, they are still logging PIC time, they are not even physically in the cockpit or in physical control of the aircraft, but if something were to go wrong they are still the person in charge.
This is pretty well much the ICAO requirements .....
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.
(2) The 750 hours must include:
(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and
(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in command under supervision.
(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;
(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:
(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation 5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or (b).
(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) as describe the flight time.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command under supervision.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the 75 hours of instrument flight time.
(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).
(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.
(6) CAA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of subregulation (4).
(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (4) (c):
(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and
(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.
(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:
(a) as pilot in command; or
(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or
(c) in dual flying;
must be halved in calculating the person's flight time for the purposes of regulation 5.172.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: All over Africa
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clear up something....
The Regulations (Part 61) state the following wrt ATPL requirements:
61.07.2___An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which_
(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;
(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and
(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.
This has to be read together with:
Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_
(3)__A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.
(4)__A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence.
What (4) actually means is that of your total requirement of 1500 hrs for ATPL, only 750 hrs may be co-pilot hours. Thus, even though you might have 4000 co-pilot hours on an a/c required to be flown with a co-pilot (remember 4000/2=2000), only 750 of the 2000 will be considered towards the next higthest license.
Therefore, if you have a total of 4500 hours (4000 P2), the other 750 hours (of the min requirement) must be P1 and/or as per breakdown in 61.07.2. This is where most of the SAA cadets fall out of the bus, because they come back with a frozen ATPL, go into the RHS of a J41/DHC8/ERJ/CRJ, clock the P2 hours, but do not get any additional P1 hours to satisfy the minimum requirement.
If it is still confusing - join the club....
61.07.2___An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which_
(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;
(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and
(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.
This has to be read together with:
Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_
(3)__A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.
(4)__A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence.
What (4) actually means is that of your total requirement of 1500 hrs for ATPL, only 750 hrs may be co-pilot hours. Thus, even though you might have 4000 co-pilot hours on an a/c required to be flown with a co-pilot (remember 4000/2=2000), only 750 of the 2000 will be considered towards the next higthest license.
Therefore, if you have a total of 4500 hours (4000 P2), the other 750 hours (of the min requirement) must be P1 and/or as per breakdown in 61.07.2. This is where most of the SAA cadets fall out of the bus, because they come back with a frozen ATPL, go into the RHS of a J41/DHC8/ERJ/CRJ, clock the P2 hours, but do not get any additional P1 hours to satisfy the minimum requirement.
If it is still confusing - join the club....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a few guys who CAA issued an ATPL with only co-pilot time to count towards their license. Double standards are the problem, they cant decide what they want, what they do have though is the ability to issue every Tom Dick and Harry from another country with a validation so us locals have to go to the ass end of the world to do what we love.
I dont know about you guys but I would feel alot more comfortable with a guy that has 1500 hrs co-pilot time with actual experience in the left seat than an instructor with 1500 hrs circuit time in the left when things start getting hairy....
While I was doing my Comm license one of the airschools ATPL instructors went on a x-country to Joburg where they cut infront a King Air on final at Lanseria and after that landed on the wrong runway at Rand... Experience counts boys......
Fly safe
Bubblewrap
I dont know about you guys but I would feel alot more comfortable with a guy that has 1500 hrs co-pilot time with actual experience in the left seat than an instructor with 1500 hrs circuit time in the left when things start getting hairy....
While I was doing my Comm license one of the airschools ATPL instructors went on a x-country to Joburg where they cut infront a King Air on final at Lanseria and after that landed on the wrong runway at Rand... Experience counts boys......
Fly safe
Bubblewrap
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoltan
Confucious he say: Man who p!ss into wind, get feet wet!
The crediting of FO hours towards a higher licence issue has always been there. Long before you started flying mate, and even when obtaining an ATPL (ALTP in those days) required much more experience.
The issue is quite simple: the instructor IS the PIC and the FO IS NOT! Your point regarding left and right seat misses me completely since competence is not seat related. What is a fact is that a CPL FO is authorised to operate under the supervision of his ATPL captain and therefor is given 50% credit. The instructor is the PIC supervising his student and therefor gets 100%. We all went through it. My advice to you is that you stop whining and do the same.
Your logic concerning when things start getting hairy.... has no foundation nor basis of fact. Your claim that Experience counts boys is true. I however sincerely doubt that you have reached the point where that experience has been reached.
Freightboss
You've clearly misread point 4.
As one who had to use this law (many years ago) to have my ALTP issued, I know. The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.
That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!
The crediting of FO hours towards a higher licence issue has always been there. Long before you started flying mate, and even when obtaining an ATPL (ALTP in those days) required much more experience.
The issue is quite simple: the instructor IS the PIC and the FO IS NOT! Your point regarding left and right seat misses me completely since competence is not seat related. What is a fact is that a CPL FO is authorised to operate under the supervision of his ATPL captain and therefor is given 50% credit. The instructor is the PIC supervising his student and therefor gets 100%. We all went through it. My advice to you is that you stop whining and do the same.
Your logic concerning when things start getting hairy.... has no foundation nor basis of fact. Your claim that Experience counts boys is true. I however sincerely doubt that you have reached the point where that experience has been reached.
Freightboss
You've clearly misread point 4.
As one who had to use this law (many years ago) to have my ALTP issued, I know. The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.
That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizzly Bare - says it all, doesn't it..?
Actually, I do have an FAA ATP. And a South African ATPL and a Dutch ATPL and a Hong Kong ATPL. Firstly, I have not found the SA CAA to be anything like you describe them. Not at anytime in the over 20 years that I've dealt with them. To the contrary is more like it!
Next, since you feel so strongly against the people that taught you to fly, would you kindly please produce the documented evidence and studies showing that Instructors are more dangerous than 1000 hour co-pilots? Regardless of your personal prejudice there is no evidence that the one group is any more or less dangerous than the other.
Also, obtaining a RSA validation is no different to obtaining one elsewhere. Practically all aviation authorities worldwide make provision for the issue of validations and no amount of spitting your dummy in the mud is going to change that.
And finally, lambasting and insulting the authority that issued your licence, on an open forum, with nothing but emotional bullsh!t, is indicative of a level of immaturity not quite conducive to flight deck operations. These shortcomings are normally detected in aviation psychometric testing. As for the chip on the shoulder; take a closer look in the mirror.
Next, since you feel so strongly against the people that taught you to fly, would you kindly please produce the documented evidence and studies showing that Instructors are more dangerous than 1000 hour co-pilots? Regardless of your personal prejudice there is no evidence that the one group is any more or less dangerous than the other.
Also, obtaining a RSA validation is no different to obtaining one elsewhere. Practically all aviation authorities worldwide make provision for the issue of validations and no amount of spitting your dummy in the mud is going to change that.
And finally, lambasting and insulting the authority that issued your licence, on an open forum, with nothing but emotional bullsh!t, is indicative of a level of immaturity not quite conducive to flight deck operations. These shortcomings are normally detected in aviation psychometric testing. As for the chip on the shoulder; take a closer look in the mirror.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame on you all!
The SACAA or Pretoria if you want, is-compared to a lot of other Afrika countries-not an as unorganized place as you state in your unprofessional comments on an open forum. They may have shortcomings or are still paying college fees but we have a Authority that is recognised more and more the world over. I also have 10 African ATPL valid issues- they cost in general U$200 plus a faxed copy of your SA medical, including the type request for issue and a further U$60 for DHL- 3 days man and you can fly co-jo in a B707 !!! That will give you 1200 hours your first year and you fly RVSM. Another 300 and you get captain rating.
Instructors have their jobs, it is a very important link in the chain, and it is allowed by law, let them get on with the hours required business- but I must agree to get into Part 121 straight away from a 172 wives s&l is not the right thing to do and no organization will allow that- at least not in South Africa! And believe me man the SACAA will come upon most of those who somehow slip through the ring- there are more ramp checks these days than pax tickets and that is 10 Brownie points to the SACAA- now you are on the right track,believe!!
To quibble over hours required shows a mind that wants the short way out- fly those hours man and enjoy it, it is fun!
The SACAA or Pretoria if you want, is-compared to a lot of other Afrika countries-not an as unorganized place as you state in your unprofessional comments on an open forum. They may have shortcomings or are still paying college fees but we have a Authority that is recognised more and more the world over. I also have 10 African ATPL valid issues- they cost in general U$200 plus a faxed copy of your SA medical, including the type request for issue and a further U$60 for DHL- 3 days man and you can fly co-jo in a B707 !!! That will give you 1200 hours your first year and you fly RVSM. Another 300 and you get captain rating.
Instructors have their jobs, it is a very important link in the chain, and it is allowed by law, let them get on with the hours required business- but I must agree to get into Part 121 straight away from a 172 wives s&l is not the right thing to do and no organization will allow that- at least not in South Africa! And believe me man the SACAA will come upon most of those who somehow slip through the ring- there are more ramp checks these days than pax tickets and that is 10 Brownie points to the SACAA- now you are on the right track,believe!!
To quibble over hours required shows a mind that wants the short way out- fly those hours man and enjoy it, it is fun!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DXB
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont think we should compare the caa to an african dca, they should be compared to a european or the faa. civil aviation is not the place to say "shame we were previously disadvantaged so its not our fault we arent doing a good job". and if youre going to citicise other african countries for giving away licences, dont forget the whole debacle with trevor abrahams and his mickey mouse licencing.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Laos,Kenya,Czech republic,IOM , Eire , France,CAR,Libya...etc..
Age: 50
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atp
just want to point out : an ATP doesn't give you a seat in the front of a 747 (I bloody wish) , it merely gives you the opportunity to apply for jobs where you will get trained and later , one day fly on that left seat .So , sorry , how you got your 1st 1500 hours won't decide on your future capacities as an aircraft commander .I was an instructor for 1000 hours and i do feel great in a twin turbine now ..thanks
(Russian Gynegology)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: heading south on Harley
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donīt quite get ZOLTANS thinking. Do he really think that 250 hrs PIC is too much to ask for ATPL?
There seem to be also certain misunderstanding about what is PIC time and what is not. Flight instructor in C150 is Pilot in Command and co-pilot in F27 is not, period. Believe me, 1500 hrs instructor generally has much more mature attitude than copilot with same amount of hours on Beech 1900 when it comes for decision making.
Maybe that is one of the reasons for such requirement for ATPL licence.
Nikolai
There seem to be also certain misunderstanding about what is PIC time and what is not. Flight instructor in C150 is Pilot in Command and co-pilot in F27 is not, period. Believe me, 1500 hrs instructor generally has much more mature attitude than copilot with same amount of hours on Beech 1900 when it comes for decision making.
Maybe that is one of the reasons for such requirement for ATPL licence.
Nikolai
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
126.9
As I said before its just my opinion , I thought thats what this forum was for, people expressing their opinions ?
If your opinion is that a supervisor with 1000 hrs has more competence than a F/O with 1000 hrs then I`m sorry to say that youre the one piss!ng into wind mate.
Its not about cutting corners, people before me did it and people after me will have to do it, I dont dwell an the fact I just thought it would make for some interresting discussion on this OPEN FORUM.
Hopefully one day I will all have as much experience as you to feel comfortable enough to critisise people and their opinions, doubtfull though, my ego`s just fine without doing it
Kopeloi
Maybe you should read my first post again, the discussion is about the 1500 TT not the 250 Command time. Easy on the vodka mate...
If your opinion is that a supervisor with 1000 hrs has more competence than a F/O with 1000 hrs then I`m sorry to say that youre the one piss!ng into wind mate.
Its not about cutting corners, people before me did it and people after me will have to do it, I dont dwell an the fact I just thought it would make for some interresting discussion on this OPEN FORUM.
Hopefully one day I will all have as much experience as you to feel comfortable enough to critisise people and their opinions, doubtfull though, my ego`s just fine without doing it
Kopeloi
Maybe you should read my first post again, the discussion is about the 1500 TT not the 250 Command time. Easy on the vodka mate...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 4th Planet
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
61.01.16 (5) also provide for logging of hour as co-pilot in a AC where a co-pilot is not required, but with a 25% credit toward higher rating.
So, flying co-pilot in a PCXII can be logged, but there are no provision for this in the SACAA logbook as it's a single!
Any advice where to log this right seat hours ?
So, flying co-pilot in a PCXII can be logged, but there are no provision for this in the SACAA logbook as it's a single!
Any advice where to log this right seat hours ?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just moving away from the heated and opinionated debate in here, and back to the original question:
126.9 you're spot on:
" The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.
That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!"
Exactly... how else is one supposed to make up the required hours??? What about co-pilots who are lucky enough to join an airline with 200 hours... this is the only way they can eventually meet the 1500 hour requirement. See below, 61.01.16 (Crediting of flight time) Part 4 is crystal clear.
The idea that only 750 co-pilot hours may be counted is rubbish.. because this implies that the remainder has to be either all Dual (extremely unlikely) OR all P1 (which negates the 250 hour P1 requirement in Paragraph 61.07.2 (2), see below).
Slightly off topic, I seem to remember hearing that SAFAIR even had a CAA exemption, allowing co-pilots to obtain a provisional (but unfrozen) ATPL... because they only flew 400-500 hours per year (ie 200-250 towards ATP) it would take longer than 5 years to reach 1500 total.
Cheers
JD
copied from Freighboss's post:
61.07.2 An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which
ie 1500 total
(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
250 P1, 150 may be P1 under supervision
(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;
(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and
(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.
This has to be read together with:
Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_
(3) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.
(4) A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence
... 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such...
126.9 you're spot on:
" The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.
That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!"
Exactly... how else is one supposed to make up the required hours??? What about co-pilots who are lucky enough to join an airline with 200 hours... this is the only way they can eventually meet the 1500 hour requirement. See below, 61.01.16 (Crediting of flight time) Part 4 is crystal clear.
The idea that only 750 co-pilot hours may be counted is rubbish.. because this implies that the remainder has to be either all Dual (extremely unlikely) OR all P1 (which negates the 250 hour P1 requirement in Paragraph 61.07.2 (2), see below).
Slightly off topic, I seem to remember hearing that SAFAIR even had a CAA exemption, allowing co-pilots to obtain a provisional (but unfrozen) ATPL... because they only flew 400-500 hours per year (ie 200-250 towards ATP) it would take longer than 5 years to reach 1500 total.
Cheers
JD
copied from Freighboss's post:
61.07.2 An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which
ie 1500 total
(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
250 P1, 150 may be P1 under supervision
(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;
(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and
(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.
This has to be read together with:
Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_
(3) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.
(4) A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence
... 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I sometimes wonder what aviation is coming to these days. The requirements for ALTP are no more or less onerous than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe it is a symptom of the instant pilot generation(3 week PPL from another thread).
In fact when I got my ALTP there was no requirement for co-pilots on a King Air and Caravans, so it is even easier now to attain those hours.
As to instructors...........as someone who is involved in management of a reasonable sized company, I would prefer to take an instructor any day over a non instructor. It does not go about flying abilities......any pilot with 1000 hours that think we want him for his experience had better go think again. I find that an instructor is someone who has gone the extra mile to attain his dream of flying. He tends to be more dedicated and far more knowledgable, and if fact more trainable.
I have often come across this argument about the value of instruction time versus charter time. In terms of experience I think one should have a balance, but all to often I find the non instructors trying to justify their existence by saying that instruction is not real flying. I think that if we were to take a poll, you would find that the people running down the instruction time are all non instructors. I have to wonder what they base their assumptions on........it cannot possibly be on any instructional experience.
As to the CAA.......I don't think anybody in any country like their CAA, but I find ours is better than most.
Ok.....now I won't get wound up again!
KTK
I sometimes wonder what aviation is coming to these days. The requirements for ALTP are no more or less onerous than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe it is a symptom of the instant pilot generation(3 week PPL from another thread).
In fact when I got my ALTP there was no requirement for co-pilots on a King Air and Caravans, so it is even easier now to attain those hours.
As to instructors...........as someone who is involved in management of a reasonable sized company, I would prefer to take an instructor any day over a non instructor. It does not go about flying abilities......any pilot with 1000 hours that think we want him for his experience had better go think again. I find that an instructor is someone who has gone the extra mile to attain his dream of flying. He tends to be more dedicated and far more knowledgable, and if fact more trainable.
I have often come across this argument about the value of instruction time versus charter time. In terms of experience I think one should have a balance, but all to often I find the non instructors trying to justify their existence by saying that instruction is not real flying. I think that if we were to take a poll, you would find that the people running down the instruction time are all non instructors. I have to wonder what they base their assumptions on........it cannot possibly be on any instructional experience.
As to the CAA.......I don't think anybody in any country like their CAA, but I find ours is better than most.
Ok.....now I won't get wound up again!
KTK
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North of 0
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kennytheking
Very well said. I used to work for a good company a while ago and the chief training captain also prefered hiring ex (but current) instructors. He's idea who was shared by management, was that instructors seemed to be much easier to train than guys who clocked up hours in another way. To the company they were also a greater asset than non-instructor rated guys. To him it was all about how much the guy had put in in the past to have the qualifications he now holds.
My reply is somewhat off the topic but nevertheless, it's a forum for opinions:
I believe a 1500hr instructor with an ATP would be as good an asset for a company to hire, than a guy with a thousand hours on a medium turboprop, (barring the fact that the latter would meet insurance requirements and the first guy not). Nowadays in fact, flying is much more a "management" skill in the cockpit when it comes to advanced flight decks and I think that the guy who put in the extra miles to get his instructors rating and kept upgrading it, would be better suited to acclamate quick to the transition and later on become a great asset for the company as an instructor.
Im not in anyway saying that ALL comm and ATP pilots should hold instructor ratings. I know a few very competent non-instructor rated pilots who are excellent in the flying they do. My opinion is just that an instructor who flew 1500hrs in a C172 and Dutches' should not be looked upon as incompetent to hold an ATP license. I can tell you that to sit in the right seat hour after hour and counting every bit towards the 1500hrs to finally get the green booklet, takes SERIOUS dedication. I find it almost laughable then when commercial guys who fly reasonably sized/powered aircraft in the right hand seat complain about the logic behind 1/2 of flight time counting towards PIC time. And the fact is, MANY of them fly for contract companies where they spend 2 months away from home a time earning more than an instructor would back in SA. The environment they fly in gives them the perfect opportunity to study for their instructor's rating while in the field and write the exams while they're at home. I can say that by doing it that way you'll get to the ATP requirement much quicker than staying put in the right seat to build that time...
Just my opinion.
Take it easy guys!
Very well said. I used to work for a good company a while ago and the chief training captain also prefered hiring ex (but current) instructors. He's idea who was shared by management, was that instructors seemed to be much easier to train than guys who clocked up hours in another way. To the company they were also a greater asset than non-instructor rated guys. To him it was all about how much the guy had put in in the past to have the qualifications he now holds.
My reply is somewhat off the topic but nevertheless, it's a forum for opinions:
I believe a 1500hr instructor with an ATP would be as good an asset for a company to hire, than a guy with a thousand hours on a medium turboprop, (barring the fact that the latter would meet insurance requirements and the first guy not). Nowadays in fact, flying is much more a "management" skill in the cockpit when it comes to advanced flight decks and I think that the guy who put in the extra miles to get his instructors rating and kept upgrading it, would be better suited to acclamate quick to the transition and later on become a great asset for the company as an instructor.
Im not in anyway saying that ALL comm and ATP pilots should hold instructor ratings. I know a few very competent non-instructor rated pilots who are excellent in the flying they do. My opinion is just that an instructor who flew 1500hrs in a C172 and Dutches' should not be looked upon as incompetent to hold an ATP license. I can tell you that to sit in the right seat hour after hour and counting every bit towards the 1500hrs to finally get the green booklet, takes SERIOUS dedication. I find it almost laughable then when commercial guys who fly reasonably sized/powered aircraft in the right hand seat complain about the logic behind 1/2 of flight time counting towards PIC time. And the fact is, MANY of them fly for contract companies where they spend 2 months away from home a time earning more than an instructor would back in SA. The environment they fly in gives them the perfect opportunity to study for their instructor's rating while in the field and write the exams while they're at home. I can say that by doing it that way you'll get to the ATP requirement much quicker than staying put in the right seat to build that time...
Just my opinion.
Take it easy guys!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's nice to see a few sensible people giving input. I too gave my opinion based on a hard-earned and long aviation career. At the end of the day it is so: those that are b!tching and moaning will learn to tow the line or fall by the wayside.
As one who holds Instructor and Examiner status, I too believe that instructors are individuals who tend to go that bit further. My aviation career began in the charter industry but that wasn't enough. In fact, it never has been enough. There is always something new... Roll on graduation!
As one who holds Instructor and Examiner status, I too believe that instructors are individuals who tend to go that bit further. My aviation career began in the charter industry but that wasn't enough. In fact, it never has been enough. There is always something new... Roll on graduation!