Be1900 commands
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BGW
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be1900 commands
The South African CAA has allowed some operators to fly Beech 1900's multicrew with captains who only hold a CPL and type rating. As the 1900 is greater than the 5,700kg weight limit how is this legally possible?
Do any other countries allow this?
Do any other countries allow this?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surley a private pilot can fly a B1900 privately, so long as it is not for hire or reward, you don't need an ALTP or com. Insurance may be higher.It is possibly along these lines these guys possibly get away with it, otherwise I have no clue!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very likely because the aircraft is cleared for single pilot operations. I do believe the new system does away with the ALTP requirement for over 5700kg, however, if the flight manual states a minimum of a 2 pilot crew then the P1 requires an ALTP whatever the weight of the aircraft.
If the company requires a two pilot operation then the P1 can be CPL rated in any aircraft cleared for single pilot ops as per the Aircraft Flight Manual.
Have not flown the B1900 myself but have read reports of it being operated single pilot on freight ops.
Prospector
If the company requires a two pilot operation then the P1 can be CPL rated in any aircraft cleared for single pilot ops as per the Aircraft Flight Manual.
Have not flown the B1900 myself but have read reports of it being operated single pilot on freight ops.
Prospector
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Africa
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Prospector is 100% correct. Raytheon certifies the B1900 for single-pilot operations and that's what creates the loophole. Even though the CARs requires 2 pilots for commercial transport ops excess of 5700kgs, it is the 1-pilot certification that means the P1 can be a regular CLP on such ops.
So, it's not just "some" operators in SA who can do this...it's ALL operators who can, albeit it that some may choose to have an ATP requirement as part of their own internal SOPs.
So, it's not just "some" operators in SA who can do this...it's ALL operators who can, albeit it that some may choose to have an ATP requirement as part of their own internal SOPs.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kaya Lalapanzi
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a PPL being in command of a jumbo - as long as he operates in Part 91 with the required ratings/endorsements there should be no problem. The facts change when you do any commercial ops or flight of any kind for reward, so freight flights are NOT excluded. Part 121 and 135 should be respected. Other aviation authoroties ie. Australia who operate plenty Metro 3/23/IVc type a/c (similar cert as the 1900) when operated for reward must still have and ATPL for the commander. I believe the CAA are currently turning a blind eye to those operators who utilise 2 x cpl's operating these a/c for some reason. Any comments from the CAA on this forum would be more informative.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oppieplaas
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe, from what I have been expained is this situation has been caused by the inability of the CAA to decide on wich system they want us to operate, because until such time as there is no meratrium on the complete use of the Parts and repealing of the ANR's the will be an even bigger grey are as normal. This allows for the loop hole and as well as provide for the fustration for frozen JAR atp holders that cannot unfreeze their ATP because the 1900 is certified as 1 pilot only.
Operaters will utilize the loophole until such times it is closed.
And yes I will be able to fly my 400 on a ppl if I can just afford to scrape togeter the down payment. Like a doctor with a Baron.
Operaters will utilize the loophole until such times it is closed.
And yes I will be able to fly my 400 on a ppl if I can just afford to scrape togeter the down payment. Like a doctor with a Baron.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baghdaddie
As far as other countries are concerned:
It is perfectly legal under the JAA system to be captain on a Single-Pilot Airplane (JAR 23, which the BE1900 is certified under) with a CPL, under commercial operations.
Not so under the FAA system which strictly applies the 5,700 kg MTOW rule, above which you must be ATP rated to achieve command, under commercial operations again. As Prospector is saying, you can fly single-pilot if less than 10 passenger seats are installed in the aircraft, but still I believe that you need to be ATP rated.
Dunno what the SACAA's position is on that.
It is perfectly legal under the JAA system to be captain on a Single-Pilot Airplane (JAR 23, which the BE1900 is certified under) with a CPL, under commercial operations.
Not so under the FAA system which strictly applies the 5,700 kg MTOW rule, above which you must be ATP rated to achieve command, under commercial operations again. As Prospector is saying, you can fly single-pilot if less than 10 passenger seats are installed in the aircraft, but still I believe that you need to be ATP rated.
Dunno what the SACAA's position is on that.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treetopflyer..Are you sure, I mean 100 per cent positive. I do know under FAA one has to be type rated above 12,500 gross and I also know there is a max passenger restriction for age 60 Commercial and above. Without hitting the books which I guess Im going to have to, I dont know that ATP is required for Commercial Ops on the Beech for command. This may be true depending if flown part 121 vs. 135 but again I cant find my FARs, someone in Africa has them..........
I do recall a very rich young lady who once got her PPl in Sugar Daddies 707.......so goes the myth about what you can fly. Can you imagine learning to fly in that puppy.
I do recall a very rich young lady who once got her PPl in Sugar Daddies 707.......so goes the myth about what you can fly. Can you imagine learning to fly in that puppy.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oppieplaas
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For south coast
S C,
Thanx boet, please accept my apology for mutilating your mother toungue in the way that I did. Had a debate with THE CAPTAIN. Vasbyt. And its Bright Green!
Greetings to all the sand rats, and camel lovers
From a hot and wet spot.
PS Heard The Muntu from the Midlands jumped ship? Any truth in it?
Drop me a line on my e-mail so I can get yrs
Thanx boet, please accept my apology for mutilating your mother toungue in the way that I did. Had a debate with THE CAPTAIN. Vasbyt. And its Bright Green!
Greetings to all the sand rats, and camel lovers
From a hot and wet spot.
PS Heard The Muntu from the Midlands jumped ship? Any truth in it?
Drop me a line on my e-mail so I can get yrs
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only operator that I am aware of at present that operates the 1900 with CPL rated captains is NAC. I have been told that this practice is to be stopped and the captains currently flying the aircraft on their com licences have been given a deadline to achieve their ATPLs.
The way that the situation was explained to me is that a loophole in the way that the law is written is exploited, although as far as I am concerned this is not in the spirit of the law. The 1900 is certified as a single crew aircraft, although since it operates under part 121 (>5700kg), 2 crew are required and the commander should hold an ATPL for passenger carrying operations.
As far as the number of seats is concerned: It is irrelevant how many seats are installed in the aircraft - what is relevant is how many seats the aircraft is certified for ie. you can't pull out seats until there are only 10 left and then claim that you don't need an ATPL to fly the aircraft. Besides, that would be a great way to go out of business fast!
The way that the situation was explained to me is that a loophole in the way that the law is written is exploited, although as far as I am concerned this is not in the spirit of the law. The 1900 is certified as a single crew aircraft, although since it operates under part 121 (>5700kg), 2 crew are required and the commander should hold an ATPL for passenger carrying operations.
As far as the number of seats is concerned: It is irrelevant how many seats are installed in the aircraft - what is relevant is how many seats the aircraft is certified for ie. you can't pull out seats until there are only 10 left and then claim that you don't need an ATPL to fly the aircraft. Besides, that would be a great way to go out of business fast!
Last edited by wheels up; 3rd Sep 2004 at 14:51.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheels up writes:"As far as the number of seats is concerned: It is irrelevant how many seats are installed in the aircraft - what is relevant is how many seats the aircraft is certified for ie. you can't pull out seats until there are only 10 left and then claim that you don't need an ATPL to fly the aircraft."
What I meant was that after age 60 (In the States) you cannot fly command( ATP or COMM) for aircraft over 19 seats (certified for, Im sure)
What I meant was that after age 60 (In the States) you cannot fly command( ATP or COMM) for aircraft over 19 seats (certified for, Im sure)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The wrong side of town.
Posts: 193
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1900 commanders. my 2 cents worth.
One of the larger SA based 1900 operator's insurance co, refused to cover commercial 1900 ops with non ATP rated commanders.
Irrespective of the legal loopholes currently being flown through by various operators, I guess the acid test of this arrangement will be when the first insurance claim occurs on a commercial 1900 flight with a non atp captain.
Irrespective of the legal loopholes currently being flown through by various operators, I guess the acid test of this arrangement will be when the first insurance claim occurs on a commercial 1900 flight with a non atp captain.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Sousa
Am I 100% sure? Well, my last FAR book is just about as lost as yours, so I must admit it is what I remember from it. As you say, taking a look up in the book is the only way to know for sure.
Wheels up: yeah, "number of seats certified for", not "number of seats installed in the aircraft", you're right. Too easy otherwise...
Wheels up: yeah, "number of seats certified for", not "number of seats installed in the aircraft", you're right. Too easy otherwise...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatever loop hole is being used i find it very difficult to believe a company such as nac is somehow breaking the law, or even cheating in some way...
they are only too aware of the reprocussions should something happen and they are not 100% legal.
the real question is...if you are the holder of a cpl and the command is offered to you, that means a doubling of your salary, would you turn it down on principle that you dont have an atpl an smile when they ask the next in line holder of a cpl and he or she takes it?
dog, i dont have your email address...
they are only too aware of the reprocussions should something happen and they are not 100% legal.
the real question is...if you are the holder of a cpl and the command is offered to you, that means a doubling of your salary, would you turn it down on principle that you dont have an atpl an smile when they ask the next in line holder of a cpl and he or she takes it?
dog, i dont have your email address...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, It is not a loophole making this possible, it is pretty clear in the regulations!
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"
There should thus be no insurance issues, as it is 100% legal
as we all agree that the 1900 is certified as such.
I agree, the certification of single pilot ops is pushing it in a 1900, in some emergencies it could prove to be fatal! However, try and tell that to the people that certified it.
In conclusion, if I have a 1900, I would prefer a ATPL pilot to be in command!
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"
There should thus be no insurance issues, as it is 100% legal
as we all agree that the 1900 is certified as such.
I agree, the certification of single pilot ops is pushing it in a 1900, in some emergencies it could prove to be fatal! However, try and tell that to the people that certified it.
In conclusion, if I have a 1900, I would prefer a ATPL pilot to be in command!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oppieplaas
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another tea cup storm
My golly gee, I just love these storms in a teacup where even I can see over the edge. Whats the issue.
The law did not allow for it, now it does. Some of us had to wait a long time to drive it from the left, now we dont have to wait that long.
For some of us the 1900 is still an awsome medium weight aircraft, for some of us just another over powered, stretched 200.
Some of us are pulling G's, because we chose to join a company that chooses not to utilise the "loophole" ( I myself prefer liberty), and some of us were unlucky to choose the one that doesnt.
What it tells me (on the other hand Darren) is that there is a shortage of 1900 Captains with ATP's. Comanies will utilise the resorces available to them. If the industry was crawling with ATP qualified 1900 drivers they will get utilised if not the "loophole/liberty" rule will apply.
Here is what you do:
If you have an ATP(not fozen) get the rating, and some hours. If neccecary pay for the rating. The hours will follow.
If you have 1900 rating and hours, get an ATP, or leave the company that you with and join one that does utilize the "loophole/liberty". Unless ofcourse you can convince your company, to partake in the generous exploitation of the wealth of experiened 1900 drivers that they employ already, by moving them to port.
To find yourself trapped with a company that over pay you with out utilising the full extent of your abilities is a choice my friend.Your own.
If you like the money and not the seat, do something about it, ie. Get a Rating, or ATP, or a change of Company, or SOP's.
Flying is easy, the choices that we have to make might not be, but we have to make them and live with our choices.
If one digs a little deeper one finds that there are more operators than nac, using this liberty. Live with it.
.....and the walrus did his normal thing.......
The law did not allow for it, now it does. Some of us had to wait a long time to drive it from the left, now we dont have to wait that long.
For some of us the 1900 is still an awsome medium weight aircraft, for some of us just another over powered, stretched 200.
Some of us are pulling G's, because we chose to join a company that chooses not to utilise the "loophole" ( I myself prefer liberty), and some of us were unlucky to choose the one that doesnt.
What it tells me (on the other hand Darren) is that there is a shortage of 1900 Captains with ATP's. Comanies will utilise the resorces available to them. If the industry was crawling with ATP qualified 1900 drivers they will get utilised if not the "loophole/liberty" rule will apply.
Here is what you do:
If you have an ATP(not fozen) get the rating, and some hours. If neccecary pay for the rating. The hours will follow.
If you have 1900 rating and hours, get an ATP, or leave the company that you with and join one that does utilize the "loophole/liberty". Unless ofcourse you can convince your company, to partake in the generous exploitation of the wealth of experiened 1900 drivers that they employ already, by moving them to port.
To find yourself trapped with a company that over pay you with out utilising the full extent of your abilities is a choice my friend.Your own.
If you like the money and not the seat, do something about it, ie. Get a Rating, or ATP, or a change of Company, or SOP's.
Flying is easy, the choices that we have to make might not be, but we have to make them and live with our choices.
If one digs a little deeper one finds that there are more operators than nac, using this liberty. Live with it.
.....and the walrus did his normal thing.......
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verreaux Eagle writes:"In conclusion, if I have a 1900, I would prefer a ATPL pilot to be in command!"
Interesting comment. OK ATP just got his license last week and also checked out in the 1900. Ink still fresh in the book.
Commerical Pilot has been flying all over Africa for years and can verbally rebuiild the aircraft for you due to his knowledge of the machine.
Im going with the Commercial Pilot..... We can all read about your trip into darkest Africa.
License or Rating DOES NOT always make the Pilot.
Also would you pay the ATP more or would you do as so many others, squeeze him when he asks for more than a Commercial Pilot. As some of the Beech series are certified single Pilot, some companies will opt for one ATP instead of filling both seats. That other seat is not or should not be used for PAX. It gets very busy sometimes.
Treetopflyer, stay in touch and I will bring a couple current FAR/AIMs over next year.
Interesting comment. OK ATP just got his license last week and also checked out in the 1900. Ink still fresh in the book.
Commerical Pilot has been flying all over Africa for years and can verbally rebuiild the aircraft for you due to his knowledge of the machine.
Im going with the Commercial Pilot..... We can all read about your trip into darkest Africa.
License or Rating DOES NOT always make the Pilot.
Also would you pay the ATP more or would you do as so many others, squeeze him when he asks for more than a Commercial Pilot. As some of the Beech series are certified single Pilot, some companies will opt for one ATP instead of filling both seats. That other seat is not or should not be used for PAX. It gets very busy sometimes.
Treetopflyer, stay in touch and I will bring a couple current FAR/AIMs over next year.