Be1900 commands
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Afrique du Sud
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1900 was rated as a single crew A/C for cargo operations in the states, the cargo configured 1900 also has an increased MTOW , why not exploit that as well and stick another 3 seats in the A/C ?
Just because some cheap operator found a way to cut a corner it should not appeal to pilots to use this, most company SOP still require an ATPL to command the machine, and pilots in general will not gain anything from this, except the Comm piot in the left of course... What stops the CAA from saying guys with P2 ratings can only count a 1/4 of the time instead of 1/2 because the A/C, like the 200 is certified single crew ? How many guys will loose out then ?
As for some believing the 1900 is a "overpowered streched 200", fly it like a 200 and youll come 2nd mate.... It is a MEDIUM Turboprop and handles like one, respect the machine, one of the best A/C ever built.
NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of theyr green licence books. This will be the last batch aswell. Some other companys do however utilise guys with no subjects and little over 1500hrs, so wrong, so very very wrong...
Just because some cheap operator found a way to cut a corner it should not appeal to pilots to use this, most company SOP still require an ATPL to command the machine, and pilots in general will not gain anything from this, except the Comm piot in the left of course... What stops the CAA from saying guys with P2 ratings can only count a 1/4 of the time instead of 1/2 because the A/C, like the 200 is certified single crew ? How many guys will loose out then ?
As for some believing the 1900 is a "overpowered streched 200", fly it like a 200 and youll come 2nd mate.... It is a MEDIUM Turboprop and handles like one, respect the machine, one of the best A/C ever built.
NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of theyr green licence books. This will be the last batch aswell. Some other companys do however utilise guys with no subjects and little over 1500hrs, so wrong, so very very wrong...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bit off topic but bear in mind that Lancasters and other heavy aircraft were flown, for the most part successfully, by pilots with very little experience. In NZ we had CPL's flying single pilot in DC3's on agricultural ops for many years, in fact there was one fellow who had approval to ferry them single pilot,when he was holding only a PPL. The ATPL was I believe originally to qualify skippers for international operations. Back in the days when one also had to hold a Flight Navigators licence to go offshore. There was a licence called Senior Commercial for domestic ops, that has now gone the way of the Dodo.
Prospector
Prospector
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with togolosie, 1 of 2 things will happen,
Either CAA will revise their laws and make the ATPL a requirement again, which will leave the guys with training bonds for a P1 rating standing outside in the cold with a logbook full of command time which will always be disputed.
Or guys that have been flying the 1900 as cojo will get scrued out of logging 1/2 the time towards a higher license, just so some could benefit from something most frown upon anyway.
Rather do it the right way, takes a bit longer, but cut the cake now and pay dearly later in an airline interview where they look at you as one of the "loophole" pilots ??
Fly safe
BW
Either CAA will revise their laws and make the ATPL a requirement again, which will leave the guys with training bonds for a P1 rating standing outside in the cold with a logbook full of command time which will always be disputed.
Or guys that have been flying the 1900 as cojo will get scrued out of logging 1/2 the time towards a higher license, just so some could benefit from something most frown upon anyway.
Rather do it the right way, takes a bit longer, but cut the cake now and pay dearly later in an airline interview where they look at you as one of the "loophole" pilots ??
Fly safe
BW
Last edited by Zoltan; 5th Sep 2004 at 16:30.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oppieplaas
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My, my here we go again...
The B1900 is a bus...
Its just a bus, it drives like one, it looks like one, it smells like one. It needs bus drivers to drive it.
The HIACE of the sky. How ever one cannot fit the same number of pax in one.
The HIACE rules,ok. the 1900 also doesnt have the roofrack space.
But before I get stoned,
I am kidding!!!!!!!!
I also drive one(if I have to) and I enjoy it.
.... and the walrus did it again.
The B1900 is a bus...
Its just a bus, it drives like one, it looks like one, it smells like one. It needs bus drivers to drive it.
The HIACE of the sky. How ever one cannot fit the same number of pax in one.
The HIACE rules,ok. the 1900 also doesnt have the roofrack space.
But before I get stoned,
I am kidding!!!!!!!!
I also drive one(if I have to) and I enjoy it.
.... and the walrus did it again.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toglosie wrote:
"NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of their green licence books."
Wrong. I know NAC 1900 drivers that don't have their subjects (or are presently studying for them). Then again whether they have the subjects or not is irrelevant - they still don't have the ATPL.
Although I agree with the sentiment that I would rather fly with an experienced 1900 driver with a com than one with low hours on type and a freshly minted ATPL, who said the law ever needs to be rational! Its still the law.
As usual it is the insurance companies that will have the final say.
As for the 1900 being a Hiace - BS - with the Hiace everything keeps going right! You have insulted Hiace drivers everywhere - the shame; being compared to a 1900 driver - what next!
OK - let the stoning begin....
"NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of their green licence books."
Wrong. I know NAC 1900 drivers that don't have their subjects (or are presently studying for them). Then again whether they have the subjects or not is irrelevant - they still don't have the ATPL.
Although I agree with the sentiment that I would rather fly with an experienced 1900 driver with a com than one with low hours on type and a freshly minted ATPL, who said the law ever needs to be rational! Its still the law.
As usual it is the insurance companies that will have the final say.
As for the 1900 being a Hiace - BS - with the Hiace everything keeps going right! You have insulted Hiace drivers everywhere - the shame; being compared to a 1900 driver - what next!
OK - let the stoning begin....
Last edited by wheels up; 5th Sep 2004 at 13:44.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1900 may be a bus, but even bus drivers need a licensce to drive one ! (Except in SA of course)
Call it what you like but dont slag it until youve flown it !
-10 to +50 degrees celcuis no problem, 1200m runways full up no-problem. I love my stallion bakkie !
Fly safe
BW
PS
Contraxdog, bet it will smell nice with a load of guavas on board ! (The fruit)
Call it what you like but dont slag it until youve flown it !
-10 to +50 degrees celcuis no problem, 1200m runways full up no-problem. I love my stallion bakkie !
Fly safe
BW
PS
Contraxdog, bet it will smell nice with a load of guavas on board ! (The fruit)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rather you than me zoltan....max all up with 50 degress celcius outside......
i sometimes wonder what would actually happen if suddenly there was only one?
i know what the graphs say.....but engines that have been in the desert for a while are
!
i sometimes wonder what would actually happen if suddenly there was only one?
i know what the graphs say.....but engines that have been in the desert for a while are
!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast
All in the name of aviation my friend !!
True you always have to keep a single engine consideration in mind at all times, but I`m sure the company you contract for will frown a bit if you cant do the flight "because if whe do loose an engine we might be ducked even though the trusty POH tells us otherwise" !!
If Emerates can take a A340 or B747 out of Dubai, we can take our Stallion out of some remote strip in the desert !! Luckily we have awesome engineers who keep our machines like the day they rolled out of the factory... ( Just keep this quiet from mr Murphy !!)
Fly safe
BW
True you always have to keep a single engine consideration in mind at all times, but I`m sure the company you contract for will frown a bit if you cant do the flight "because if whe do loose an engine we might be ducked even though the trusty POH tells us otherwise" !!
If Emerates can take a A340 or B747 out of Dubai, we can take our Stallion out of some remote strip in the desert !! Luckily we have awesome engineers who keep our machines like the day they rolled out of the factory... ( Just keep this quiet from mr Murphy !!)
Fly safe
BW
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two cents worth...
Having been an examiner (Form 64 designator) for type ratings on the B1900 in an East African state 7 years ago and having flown 6000 hours on the KingAir, a commercial pilot licence holder was still limited to 12 500lbs. Although the B1900 was certified as a single crew aircraft, this was not allowed on commercial operations, but rather in private category. Aid is not private and falls under a commercial operation which required two crew and the Captain had to hold an ALTP.
There are always limitations in aviation and always the first lmitation applied. In this case it was the weight for commercial operation which required an ALTP to be in Command.
Take for example the B300LW was restricted to 12500 for single pilot operation and PLACARDED at the entrance with this maximum weight Not allowed to be flown with higher weight. PERIOD. Therefore a commercial pilot could command it single crew.
The normal Be300 could take-off at over 14000 lbs and required two crew for this. (certified and PLACARDED) The Captain had to have an ALTP. (An extra emergency exit was added to the Be300LW/Be300)
I cannot see how any loophole exists if a commercial pilot is still limited to 12500lbs is now flying a 16600 lb aeroplane.
I am still open to learning on this one, but so far nothing has made sense and I am surprised that no-one has contributed from Pretoria.
There are always limitations in aviation and always the first lmitation applied. In this case it was the weight for commercial operation which required an ALTP to be in Command.
Take for example the B300LW was restricted to 12500 for single pilot operation and PLACARDED at the entrance with this maximum weight Not allowed to be flown with higher weight. PERIOD. Therefore a commercial pilot could command it single crew.
The normal Be300 could take-off at over 14000 lbs and required two crew for this. (certified and PLACARDED) The Captain had to have an ALTP. (An extra emergency exit was added to the Be300LW/Be300)
I cannot see how any loophole exists if a commercial pilot is still limited to 12500lbs is now flying a 16600 lb aeroplane.
I am still open to learning on this one, but so far nothing has made sense and I am surprised that no-one has contributed from Pretoria.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Impulse Airlines operated the B1900D (13 aircraft at one stage)in Australia they operated it single pilot for their night freight runs. The Australian CAA/CASA allowed it due to the fact the aircraft were fitted with Autopilot's. During the day the seats were put back in and was operated with 2 pilots.
To earn the single pilot rating the pilot required 6-12 months on type, in 2 crew ops. The single pilot crews had there own operating procedures. I believe all pilots had ATPL's, however I have heard that some other night freight operators, operating Metro 3's have approval for CPL holders to operate as PIC.
Impulse operated the 1900D on single pilot night operations for just under 10 years with no problems at all.
I believe all the ex-Impulse aircraft are now in SA with NAC.
To earn the single pilot rating the pilot required 6-12 months on type, in 2 crew ops. The single pilot crews had there own operating procedures. I believe all pilots had ATPL's, however I have heard that some other night freight operators, operating Metro 3's have approval for CPL holders to operate as PIC.
Impulse operated the 1900D on single pilot night operations for just under 10 years with no problems at all.
I believe all the ex-Impulse aircraft are now in SA with NAC.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
verreauw eagle has quite neatly explained where the loophole arises:
Priviliges of commercial pilot licence stipulate and I quote:
"(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any aeroplane CERTIFIED FOR SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS"
This a quote from the ANRs which are still the relevant legislation as regards pilot licencing as part 61 is STILL not yet in force.
So, a commercial pilot can fly as pilot in command in the B190.
Now comes the interesting bit. The B190 is NOT certified to carry more than nine passengers UNLESS two crew operate. In fact, a quick scan of the POH and operating limitations will show that if the B190 is operated single crew then all seats in excess of nine MUST be rendered unoccupiable in the manner laid out. (It is NOT sufficient just to carry no more than nine passengers).
So, we have an aeroplane that can be legally operated single crew as it is certified for single crew operation, but not operated single crew with more than nine passengers.
Well, well. 'Operation' is not 'Certification' and legally a commercial pilot, in a South African registered aeroplane, can be pilot in command as it is certified single crew, regardless of the number of passengers, and regardless of the fact that the operation requires multicrew.
So, 19 passengers require multicrew.... under the aircraft operating limitations, but they can be flown by a commercial pilot, as the the pilot in command, based on legislation allowing him to be pilot in command of an aircraft CERTIFIED for single crew operation.
Ok, you say, but what about the spirit of the law and, hang on a minute, this sounds a bit dodgy and surely not right??
Legislation of any kind, and I spent years working on looking for loopholes in taxation legislation, is never watertight. There are often convincing arguments both ways on particular issues, and it is all down to interpretation in a manner that is most beneficial to a particular plaintiff. This is why there is a whole raft of legal cases and the principle of precedent. Whether anyone will be bothered to obtain a legal ruling on the matter and incur the associated costs I very seriously doubt. After all, it would only be seeking a tightening of the situation, and for whose benefit? The travelling public? Oh, please! It is the SACAAs interperetation that wins out, and there we have it!! :-)
Priviliges of commercial pilot licence stipulate and I quote:
"(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any aeroplane CERTIFIED FOR SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS"
This a quote from the ANRs which are still the relevant legislation as regards pilot licencing as part 61 is STILL not yet in force.
So, a commercial pilot can fly as pilot in command in the B190.
Now comes the interesting bit. The B190 is NOT certified to carry more than nine passengers UNLESS two crew operate. In fact, a quick scan of the POH and operating limitations will show that if the B190 is operated single crew then all seats in excess of nine MUST be rendered unoccupiable in the manner laid out. (It is NOT sufficient just to carry no more than nine passengers).
So, we have an aeroplane that can be legally operated single crew as it is certified for single crew operation, but not operated single crew with more than nine passengers.
Well, well. 'Operation' is not 'Certification' and legally a commercial pilot, in a South African registered aeroplane, can be pilot in command as it is certified single crew, regardless of the number of passengers, and regardless of the fact that the operation requires multicrew.
So, 19 passengers require multicrew.... under the aircraft operating limitations, but they can be flown by a commercial pilot, as the the pilot in command, based on legislation allowing him to be pilot in command of an aircraft CERTIFIED for single crew operation.
Ok, you say, but what about the spirit of the law and, hang on a minute, this sounds a bit dodgy and surely not right??
Legislation of any kind, and I spent years working on looking for loopholes in taxation legislation, is never watertight. There are often convincing arguments both ways on particular issues, and it is all down to interpretation in a manner that is most beneficial to a particular plaintiff. This is why there is a whole raft of legal cases and the principle of precedent. Whether anyone will be bothered to obtain a legal ruling on the matter and incur the associated costs I very seriously doubt. After all, it would only be seeking a tightening of the situation, and for whose benefit? The travelling public? Oh, please! It is the SACAAs interperetation that wins out, and there we have it!! :-)
Last edited by Gerund; 7th Sep 2004 at 07:46.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very good gerund...
i am truely glad to see they let you out of prison.
i take it that is where you have been since making bogus licences on your computer and printer, aquiring ficticious hours on microsoft simulator games and deceiving the caa about medicals and crm courses.
i am truely glad to see they let you out of prison.
i take it that is where you have been since making bogus licences on your computer and printer, aquiring ficticious hours on microsoft simulator games and deceiving the caa about medicals and crm courses.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wotcha South Coast.... yes, prison was a grim place... but learnt a hell of a lot that could come in handy! Hope all is well with you, and glad that you are not taking off too hot!!!
The figure for the 1900 is actually ISA +37 which makes it +52 only at sea level....if Zoltan tries that at Joburg he might come unstuck!! :-) And only at normal take off power.... don't try reduced take off power at those temps unless you ditch most of the payload!!
Hope to see you soon!!
The figure for the 1900 is actually ISA +37 which makes it +52 only at sea level....if Zoltan tries that at Joburg he might come unstuck!! :-) And only at normal take off power.... don't try reduced take off power at those temps unless you ditch most of the payload!!
Hope to see you soon!!
Last edited by Gerund; 6th Sep 2004 at 22:42.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah thanks gerund for that....
one day i will get round to opening the manual.....
where are you these days....
had breakfast with the finn the other day...
any news from the dark side?
one day i will get round to opening the manual.....
where are you these days....
had breakfast with the finn the other day...
any news from the dark side?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A very Dark Place
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast....
wish I could say 'open the manual' but maybe not such a bright idea!! Up in Jordan a good friend of mine got fired for for flying the B190 according to the manual.
And how did that happen we ask? The company asked the copilots to file anonymous reports on his flying, which was inside POH limitations..... and these guys, in many cases, went up with less than one hour on a C model to fly a D and less than 20 on a Seneca. And the other captains of the aircraft?? :-) Maybe we shouldn't talk about some of their hours, but less than an hour on a C to command a D springs to mind!! :-)
A bit off topic, but a lot of B190s are being flown way outside part 121 by South African operators.
Ever wondered why South African and Russian operators get the aid contracts??? Yes, cheap, cheap, cheap, and why??? :-) :-)
(PS Say hello to the Finn, and tell him to avoid his national dress and fires in the sauna ;-)
wish I could say 'open the manual' but maybe not such a bright idea!! Up in Jordan a good friend of mine got fired for for flying the B190 according to the manual.
And how did that happen we ask? The company asked the copilots to file anonymous reports on his flying, which was inside POH limitations..... and these guys, in many cases, went up with less than one hour on a C model to fly a D and less than 20 on a Seneca. And the other captains of the aircraft?? :-) Maybe we shouldn't talk about some of their hours, but less than an hour on a C to command a D springs to mind!! :-)
A bit off topic, but a lot of B190s are being flown way outside part 121 by South African operators.
Ever wondered why South African and Russian operators get the aid contracts??? Yes, cheap, cheap, cheap, and why??? :-) :-)
(PS Say hello to the Finn, and tell him to avoid his national dress and fires in the sauna ;-)
Last edited by Gerund; 6th Sep 2004 at 22:15.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ZA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several references to insurance companies in this thread. As usual, some fundamental errors. Firstly, insurance companies are not primary, secondary or even tertiary regulators. They do not make law, or police it, or enforce it. All they require is that it (the law) is obeyed: particularly those bits of it that affect safety. Either it is obeyed or it isn't. You cannot break the "spirit" or the "principle" of the law, nor can you be "slightly" illegal, any more than you can be "slightly" pregnant. If a law is capable of more than one interpretation, then you are entitled to adopt the interpretation that best suits you....until the law is changed, either by the law-makers themselves, or by a court ruling. All this nonsense about NAC is just that - nonsense. If anyone believes the law is wrong (whether from a safety point of view or just that it's unfair on ATPs everywhere), you should petition the SACAA to change it, but don't just criticise those who are, in fact, operating within it. And, before you ask, I don't work for NAC!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the above posts, it is therefore possible that these pilots where signed out as P1 B1900, by a Comercial pilot intstructor who himself does not have an ALTP.
Certain countries reuqire two rated pilots at the controls such as the UK. Even though USA N-registered aircraft are in UK land, both pilots have to be type rated. FACT!
No pilot can fly in French airspace in command such an aircraft on his sixtieth birthday, regardless of registration. Even over fly!
My point is, what ever is good for ZS registered aeroplanes is not always acceptable for countries north of the Limpopo.
My understanding is that these B1900's are flown in Algeria, on petroleum contracts, mainly and some aid elsewhere. I wonder what would happen when they are ramp checked by these authorities or if they are aware of these circumstances?
Certain countries reuqire two rated pilots at the controls such as the UK. Even though USA N-registered aircraft are in UK land, both pilots have to be type rated. FACT!
No pilot can fly in French airspace in command such an aircraft on his sixtieth birthday, regardless of registration. Even over fly!
My point is, what ever is good for ZS registered aeroplanes is not always acceptable for countries north of the Limpopo.
My understanding is that these B1900's are flown in Algeria, on petroleum contracts, mainly and some aid elsewhere. I wonder what would happen when they are ramp checked by these authorities or if they are aware of these circumstances?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BGW
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's this about prison?
Flying aircraft without an ATPL but with a type rating is one thing, but to be flying with a fake licence, medical and fraudulent qualifications is another.
I had hoped as pilots we would be more professional than to make light of people dragging our own qualifications into the gutter!
Flying aircraft without an ATPL but with a type rating is one thing, but to be flying with a fake licence, medical and fraudulent qualifications is another.
I had hoped as pilots we would be more professional than to make light of people dragging our own qualifications into the gutter!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast, you might have upset Baghdaddie, but we all know Gerund got his license by collecting tokens off the back of cornflake packets!
Gerund - muito grande bandito
remember the toppled AH in Luanda?
JD
Gerund - muito grande bandito
remember the toppled AH in Luanda?JD