Beech 1900 CPL or ATP A/c?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK mainly
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beech 1900 CPL or ATP A/c?
I was reading this months issue of Air News and there was an article on isurance policies. Talking about operators and insurers. Example being if we can manage to convince Dave Jank, to taylor make an insurance policy to cover us on a particular plane even though the SACAA doesn't allow it is it still illegal. - who is at fault the owner or the insurer or both?
My reference is that of a Beech 1900, It said in the AirNews that this IS an ATP aircraft and you need one of these green books to be captain. So how is it that there are ceratin operators out there that operate these type of Aircraft with a CPL holder only? I am aware this aircraft is over 12500, and this is a classic example of where the operator is happy as it 'must' be legal because presumably the insurance company is happy - c'est vrai? The reason that an operator says 'we have a specail dispensation.' So is a beech 1900 an ATP or CPL and AirNews got it wrong???? just wondering....
My reference is that of a Beech 1900, It said in the AirNews that this IS an ATP aircraft and you need one of these green books to be captain. So how is it that there are ceratin operators out there that operate these type of Aircraft with a CPL holder only? I am aware this aircraft is over 12500, and this is a classic example of where the operator is happy as it 'must' be legal because presumably the insurance company is happy - c'est vrai? The reason that an operator says 'we have a specail dispensation.' So is a beech 1900 an ATP or CPL and AirNews got it wrong???? just wondering....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1900 is above 12500 and therefore in theory an ATP a/c. However the privilidges of a CPL in the Law books state that a CPL may fly as pilot in Command of any a/c on Air transport and Cargo operations as long as the A/C is single pilot certified. Which the 1900 is. Our CAA (SA) have accepted this.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Can I phone a friend?
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grizzly's interpretation is spot on in my view. Of course it really requires a court to make a definitive interpretation of the law. So we'll have to wait for an insurance claim, at which point I think it will be in the insurers' interests to make a strong case that the flight crew was illegally composed and therefore they need not pay.
The argument runs something like this:
Should the operator obtain a "waiver" or "special permission" from CAA then they would need to follow the procedure outlined in the ANR 76 since the restriction is imposed by this law and not the new CARs. There would be a record at the minister's office and if I recall correctly an entry in the Government Gazette. If CAA thought for some reason that they could issue a Part 11 exemption it must be similarly recorded and is subject to disclosure usually by publication in the AIC. All records are of course obtainable under the Access to Information Act.
If CAA, or the Minister, hasn't issued a legal exemption the Commissioner can be charged with failing to comply with Part 183.
Any agreement between insurer and operator that circumvents the law is contra bones mores - morally bad - and thus not contractually binding.
The argument runs something like this:
- FAA certifies the aircraft for single pilot ops provided it is operated in accordance with the approved flight manual.
- The approved flight manual contains a MEL specifying that for single pilot ops amoung other things the aircraft must be fitted with a kit that disables all but nine seats (a bunch of placards and flags I think).
- SA-CAA issues a certificate of airworthiness that recognises the original certification and limitations.
- Thus with more than 9 pax the 1900 is a two crew minimum aircraft.
Should the operator obtain a "waiver" or "special permission" from CAA then they would need to follow the procedure outlined in the ANR 76 since the restriction is imposed by this law and not the new CARs. There would be a record at the minister's office and if I recall correctly an entry in the Government Gazette. If CAA thought for some reason that they could issue a Part 11 exemption it must be similarly recorded and is subject to disclosure usually by publication in the AIC. All records are of course obtainable under the Access to Information Act.
If CAA, or the Minister, hasn't issued a legal exemption the Commissioner can be charged with failing to comply with Part 183.
Any agreement between insurer and operator that circumvents the law is contra bones mores - morally bad - and thus not contractually binding.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: #37 for Start
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal (or not?)
As per the above post which outlines all the conditions required for a CPL to fly this aircraft then, I am of the opinion that all operators do not comply.
Please show me a B1900 Operator that limits the aircraft to 9 pax as the "stipulated conditions". Haha, I don't think so and am willing to bet my "Unemployed ATP Salary" on it. Thus, in my opinion these guys must be bending the law in order to fly Illegally.
My question is why would they do this? Why not get an ATP to fly the thing as should be the case - maybe because once again an ATP can not be abused or manipulated as much as a CPL? I dunno, but know that there are as many unemployed ATP's around!
When I once asked the crew of a B1900 operating in this fashion, how they were getting away with this, the rersponse was typicall:
Because an ATP can fly the aircraft alone, we can fly it with 2 x CPL's.
I.e 2 x CPL's = 1 x ATP?
If this is so, then why not send 4 x Student Pilots to do a charter in a Baron? Hey, they could even pay for it because they are getting experience and/or training...
Also, we could start using SE CPL's to fly King Air's etc.
Give each guy 1 Engine to manage then - any takers?
Thought not!
So why is this allowed, or do us "others" just not understand the logic.
Anyway, hopefully when these guys eventually go for their Big Metal Interviews, maybe someone who is a bit more "informed" will start asking the RIGHT questions..
Please show me a B1900 Operator that limits the aircraft to 9 pax as the "stipulated conditions". Haha, I don't think so and am willing to bet my "Unemployed ATP Salary" on it. Thus, in my opinion these guys must be bending the law in order to fly Illegally.
My question is why would they do this? Why not get an ATP to fly the thing as should be the case - maybe because once again an ATP can not be abused or manipulated as much as a CPL? I dunno, but know that there are as many unemployed ATP's around!
When I once asked the crew of a B1900 operating in this fashion, how they were getting away with this, the rersponse was typicall:
Because an ATP can fly the aircraft alone, we can fly it with 2 x CPL's.
I.e 2 x CPL's = 1 x ATP?
If this is so, then why not send 4 x Student Pilots to do a charter in a Baron? Hey, they could even pay for it because they are getting experience and/or training...
Also, we could start using SE CPL's to fly King Air's etc.
Give each guy 1 Engine to manage then - any takers?
Thought not!
So why is this allowed, or do us "others" just not understand the logic.
Anyway, hopefully when these guys eventually go for their Big Metal Interviews, maybe someone who is a bit more "informed" will start asking the RIGHT questions..
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: S.A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew with a Comm Captain not so long ago and he told me that he had the 1900 on his license as instructor ?
Dont know how they get away with Comm guys poling in the left, but surely they went a bit far with this one ?
Dont know how they get away with Comm guys poling in the left, but surely they went a bit far with this one ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
erj 135...
Quote, '2 x CPL's = 1 x ATP?'
think you might be bit off with the above statement. ATP and CPL are different levels of academic/theoretical knowledge, however, i dont think there is any direct relationship on how good/safe/professional a pilot you are.
eg. ATPL holder with type rating on 1900, CPL holder with 1000 hours on type, who would you rather fly with?
but, i cannot see how operators would be openly breaking the law like some are implying, and if my memory serves me right, i believe nature link took the caa to court on this issue and won.
Quote, '2 x CPL's = 1 x ATP?'
think you might be bit off with the above statement. ATP and CPL are different levels of academic/theoretical knowledge, however, i dont think there is any direct relationship on how good/safe/professional a pilot you are.
eg. ATPL holder with type rating on 1900, CPL holder with 1000 hours on type, who would you rather fly with?
but, i cannot see how operators would be openly breaking the law like some are implying, and if my memory serves me right, i believe nature link took the caa to court on this issue and won.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Can I phone a friend?
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps everyone has not thought through Grizzly's legal interpretation:
I am a CPL holder. Can I fly as PIC or instructor on a 1900 under SA Law?
Yes you can, provided you comply with the limitations set out in the AFM.
I am a named pilot (PIC) on 1900 ZS-XYZ's insurance but I have a CPL. Has the insurance company broken the law?
No, they haven't since you may legally fly the aircraft as PIC if you comply with the limitations in the AFM.
Hey, there might be other, more esoteric, interpretations of the same law but the one outlined above is a likely candidate for adoption by a court as it is straightforward and logical.
I am a CPL holder. Can I fly as PIC or instructor on a 1900 under SA Law?
Yes you can, provided you comply with the limitations set out in the AFM.
I am a named pilot (PIC) on 1900 ZS-XYZ's insurance but I have a CPL. Has the insurance company broken the law?
No, they haven't since you may legally fly the aircraft as PIC if you comply with the limitations in the AFM.
Hey, there might be other, more esoteric, interpretations of the same law but the one outlined above is a likely candidate for adoption by a court as it is straightforward and logical.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ZA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of the position is as follows:
(a) The B1900 is certified for single-pilot ops by the manufacturer (Raytheon). Nothing to do with commercial flights or not.
(b) The FAA has an additional requirement, relating to the number of pax in commercial ops, as set out in the FAA-approved manual (which applies to FAA-registered aircraft or ops in the USA)
(c) However, the FAA's requirements have no impact, implication or applicability to South Africa (not yet, anyway!!)
(d) The SACAA requires 2-crew in any aircraft being operated commercially in excess of 12,500lbs MTOM. Naturally, both pilots must be commercially-licensed.
(e) Under normal circumstances, the PIC in such aircraft must hold an ALTP
(f) However, where the aircraft is manufacturer-approved for single-pilot ops (NOT approved by the FAA, but by the MANUFACTURER), the SACAA permits a CLP to act as the PIC in an aircraft requiring 2-pilots.
Which is why an SA-registered B1900 may be operated commercially with 2 pilots, both of whom are CLPs.
And I don't believe any Insurer would have a problem with that.
(a) The B1900 is certified for single-pilot ops by the manufacturer (Raytheon). Nothing to do with commercial flights or not.
(b) The FAA has an additional requirement, relating to the number of pax in commercial ops, as set out in the FAA-approved manual (which applies to FAA-registered aircraft or ops in the USA)
(c) However, the FAA's requirements have no impact, implication or applicability to South Africa (not yet, anyway!!)
(d) The SACAA requires 2-crew in any aircraft being operated commercially in excess of 12,500lbs MTOM. Naturally, both pilots must be commercially-licensed.
(e) Under normal circumstances, the PIC in such aircraft must hold an ALTP
(f) However, where the aircraft is manufacturer-approved for single-pilot ops (NOT approved by the FAA, but by the MANUFACTURER), the SACAA permits a CLP to act as the PIC in an aircraft requiring 2-pilots.
Which is why an SA-registered B1900 may be operated commercially with 2 pilots, both of whom are CLPs.
And I don't believe any Insurer would have a problem with that.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: All over Africa
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful, be very careful...
There are two issues here:
1. The privileges of a Comm-rated pilot, which I believe have been established, or have they:
Priveleges of a Comm pilot can be found in ANR 1976 (still valid without Part 61), 2.26. Par (b) states:
"to act as pilot-in-command in any aircraft operations other than the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remeneration or hire ;"
I can hear all the Comm B1900 PIC shout, "Yes, but par (c) states I am able "to act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport in any aircraft certificated for single-pilot operations;".
Guys, any laywer will tell you to look at the "intent of the law". When ANR76 was written, the B1900 has not yet flown and the intention was for Comm rated pilots to be able to fly as PIC on a/c weighing less than 12500lbs or fitted with 9 seats or less.
The fact that the law is taking so long to be updated has created a loophole used by the operators, but when an accident happens some day, some where in a country far far away, the laywers are going to have a field day.....
Lastly just a comment on Sandirons comment: "However, the FAA's requirements have no impact, implication or applicability to South Africa (not yet, anyway!!)"
Nothing can be further from the truth. In the case of the B1900, which has been certified by the FAA, the SACAA accepts that certification as is, and by implication also the AFM (which forms part of the certification process).
So unless somebody goes through a complete certification process with the SACAA for the B1900, and this includes developing a new AFM, the FAA AFM forms the basis of all limitations pertaining to way the a/c is operated - including the limitations placed for single-pilot ops by the FAA in the AFM.
And remember, you can only change the limitations to be MORE restrictive, not less restrictive.
Does this clear up the issue? In my opinion, there are some laywers sitting and waiting....
1. The privileges of a Comm-rated pilot, which I believe have been established, or have they:
Priveleges of a Comm pilot can be found in ANR 1976 (still valid without Part 61), 2.26. Par (b) states:
"to act as pilot-in-command in any aircraft operations other than the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remeneration or hire ;"
I can hear all the Comm B1900 PIC shout, "Yes, but par (c) states I am able "to act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport in any aircraft certificated for single-pilot operations;".
Guys, any laywer will tell you to look at the "intent of the law". When ANR76 was written, the B1900 has not yet flown and the intention was for Comm rated pilots to be able to fly as PIC on a/c weighing less than 12500lbs or fitted with 9 seats or less.
The fact that the law is taking so long to be updated has created a loophole used by the operators, but when an accident happens some day, some where in a country far far away, the laywers are going to have a field day.....
Lastly just a comment on Sandirons comment: "However, the FAA's requirements have no impact, implication or applicability to South Africa (not yet, anyway!!)"
Nothing can be further from the truth. In the case of the B1900, which has been certified by the FAA, the SACAA accepts that certification as is, and by implication also the AFM (which forms part of the certification process).
So unless somebody goes through a complete certification process with the SACAA for the B1900, and this includes developing a new AFM, the FAA AFM forms the basis of all limitations pertaining to way the a/c is operated - including the limitations placed for single-pilot ops by the FAA in the AFM.
And remember, you can only change the limitations to be MORE restrictive, not less restrictive.
Does this clear up the issue? In my opinion, there are some laywers sitting and waiting....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oppieplaas
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calling all amateur advocates...
Listen guys, when I wanted to know if my interpretation of the Tax law was correct this was what I was advised to do.
1.Contact the Legal department of SARS, as they are legal upholder of the relavent law.
2.Request from them a Interpretation, of the disputed paragraph.
3. Get it in writing.
4.Once you have that. use this interpretation as the correct interpretation of the said law.
Why not do the same, with this contested issue. It might clear up all the squeaks from the peanut gallery, or convince the powers that hires to change their tactics.
1. Contact the South African Minisitry of Transport, Legal representitive.
2. Ask for a written reply on the interpretation of this issue.
3. Use it as such until the law is changed or the meratorium is lifted.
And until such time as you have been allowed to practice as an Advocate to the High Court of South Africa and maybe have passed your bar exam, leave the expert opinions to the professionals. I know what I think of an amateur flying lawyer, trying to give me advise on flying.
The issue is not wether a CPL can fly the 1900. Its whether a CPL is allowed to sit in a seat your ATP ass wants. Or whether you think you deserve it more than him because you passed 7 outdated informationless theory subjects.
If you feel that strongly about it get the gen,and post it.
And yes I have a green cover.
NUFSED
1.Contact the Legal department of SARS, as they are legal upholder of the relavent law.
2.Request from them a Interpretation, of the disputed paragraph.
3. Get it in writing.
4.Once you have that. use this interpretation as the correct interpretation of the said law.
Why not do the same, with this contested issue. It might clear up all the squeaks from the peanut gallery, or convince the powers that hires to change their tactics.
1. Contact the South African Minisitry of Transport, Legal representitive.
2. Ask for a written reply on the interpretation of this issue.
3. Use it as such until the law is changed or the meratorium is lifted.
And until such time as you have been allowed to practice as an Advocate to the High Court of South Africa and maybe have passed your bar exam, leave the expert opinions to the professionals. I know what I think of an amateur flying lawyer, trying to give me advise on flying.
The issue is not wether a CPL can fly the 1900. Its whether a CPL is allowed to sit in a seat your ATP ass wants. Or whether you think you deserve it more than him because you passed 7 outdated informationless theory subjects.
If you feel that strongly about it get the gen,and post it.
And yes I have a green cover.
NUFSED
.....the time has come(passed?) the walrus said, to speak of many thing, of pirate ship and sealing wax, and cabbages ans kings.....
