How can a CPL holder fly P1 on a 1900?

[sony pilot]

what about the new Part 61 rules about to be implemented?

[south coast]

I am not fully aware what Part 61 means or what it is about...

Does it override Part 121 which is what the AOC says we operate to?

[Datwo]

Heard a contract company, just audited by caa has been told to stop their CPL captains comanding 1900's . Looks like they might have made up their minds about this subject. I'm affraid you guys may need to get your ATP's.

[Goffel]

The new laws are asking for both the Captain and the co-pilot to both be ATP rated, due to the A/C being a single crew operation.

The reason behind this, is that, as it being a single crew operation, each pilot that poles, becomes the Captain on their leg, thus now neccessitating for both to be ATP rated, as the Captain has to be ATP rated.

Now does that answer peoples questions.

Goffel by the jail...

[Contains Nuts]

I called the CAA and found out that the Part 61 regs will be published on the 1st July this year and have effect from 1st Jan 08. From that date ATP will be required to drive the B1900 in command.

Doubt it? The contact at the CAA was Gloria.

Sorry to end the see-sawing,

CN

[Jlo]

CAA no longer gives a P2 rating on the B190 and don't accept any hours logged as P2 on it towards an ATP. The fault is on CAA side cause if you have a P1 rating (which they give you) it must surely mean that they want you to log P1 time on it

[Goffel]

JLO.

Excuse my ignorance here, or my misunderstanding of the English language.

How in cows country can the CAA be at fault, (yes yes), if they give you a P1rating and you go and log P2 time on a single crew aeroplane.

As you said, "surely it means that they want you to log P1 time"....Correct not so????????????.

It really amazes me that people are now questioning the new reg that wants pilots to do an Engleeeesh test.

Go to your Lexis Nexis Blue Books, (yes, net soos die blou bulle), and read what it says about single crew operation.....the same as when you fly a C210...YOU LOG THE TIME THAT YOU POLE AS PIC......same as the caravan time.

What your company wants, is between you and the company, not CAA fault...eisch.

Goffel...(still in jail)..

[Jlo]

Dear Goffel

You did misunderstand. Sorry, my eenglish are not so delicious always.... But you should read more carefully. You're right, they should maybe include an English test in the licence.
They used to issue P2 ratings and some guys have had problems getting their ATP's as CAA suddenly did not want to recognise those hours. They had to though, because they themselves have issued the P2 rating (as shown in the licences of the guys involved). At no time did I say that I was logging P2 time with a P1 rating.

CAA now issues a P1 rating (which is what I have), even though the company requires me to fly as co-pilot (and yes, I am logging the legs I'm flying as P1 - you can't log P2 if you have not been issued a P2 rating)
BUT if you require an ATP to be P1 on the aircraft (which I don't have), then how could they have legally issued me with the rating in the first place?

CAA should not be issuing P1 ratings on the 1900 to Comm Pilots if it is not legal to have command on it without an ATP. END OF STORY. If it is in my license, it should mean I can fly it, right? They are going against their own laws. Don't you agree?

PS I'm a Sharks supporter, so don't mention the Blue Bulls.... it is a sensitive subject at the moment

[Vw driver]

Part 61, well not sure when or/ and if it's actually comming, but don't stress, if it does come into play CAA will have to give the guys affect sufficient time to get the right licences and ratings.

But in E-mails I've read, they use the word romours alot.

[Beeech19]

Me smells $10 000 per month for ATP 1900 P1's

Go study men

[south coast]

JLo, I am afraid what you are doing is wrong.

You said you cannot log P2 if you dont have a P2 rating, rubbish, thats how the rest of the civilised world do things, eg. under JAR, we dont have P2 ratings, on a B737, A320...so as a FO you have a P1 rating, but log P2 as you are not he PIC-P1-Commander, call it what you will.

Just because you are flying the leg with a P1 rating does not allow you to log the time as PIC.

As you said you are the FO, so therefore you are not designated the commander of the plane and can only log P2.

If, the SACAA recognised PICUS ( PIC under supervision) you could log that.

[cavortingcheetah]

Quite right and there is also a serious wrinkle to logging time at the controls as P1 U/S.
The designation P1 U/S is not designed to allow first officers to log time spent flying, with the appropriate licence of course, as anything other than P2
The designation is really there to allow a captain under training to log the time spent flying with a training captain as P1 time of one sort or another.
In the UK, correct if incorrect please, it requires company approval by the CAA for a pilot to be able to log time spent at the controls as P1 U/S. It is not some designation that a pilot can, jolly old willy nilly, decide to award himself.
This, if correct, does nothing to clarify matters much but one does remember from all those years flying in ZA that there are many pilots whose logbooks would not and should not face up to serious international scrutiny.
The QED for this conjecture is perhaps born out by the arguements which have raged so far on these previous pages.
In the old ANRs of South Africa, there was a quite clearly designated weight schedule for aircraft which, if memory serves, ran something like this in abbreviated form.
Pilot in command, passengers, commercial operations, licence type requirements:
Aircraft up to 5.700 kgs. Commercial Licence.
Aircraft up to 12.500kgs. Senior Commerical Licence.
Aircraft over 12.500 kgs. ATPL.
Pretty unequivocal then. Possibly someone could actually quote the relevant up to date ANR passage to clarify the situation now that the SCPL has fallen away?

As an addendum or PS, for those younger readers. One had to write the same exams for an SCPL as for an ATPL. The only difference between the two licences was, in fact, the colour of the stripe, blue one thinks for the SCPL, some flying hours of a certain type, day/night and so on and the weight restriction. Does memory serve correctly? ??

[Jlo]

South Coast

I do agree with you, it makes perfect sense, but SACAA does not accept any P2 time on the B1900. A friend of mine nearly had them take a red pen and draw a line through all those flights logged as P2. Lucky they had issued him with a P2 rating, so they couldn't do that. Since then, they don't issue P2 ratings and don't accept hours logged as P2. Not towards total time and not half of it towards ATP. They consider it a single-crew aircraft. So does that mean we should be logging absolutely nothing? or should i go find another job until i have an ATP cause if i can't log anything, i can't get an ATP and i'll be stuck in this position

[cavortingcheetah]

If the MCM of the B190 is >5.700 kgs, which it is, then it requires an ATPL holder as pilot in command. Therefore one of the two pilots (US Airline use regulation for the aircraft) must have an ATPL and he would log all the time spent in the airrcaft as PiC or P1.
The second pilot, were he to hold a CPL would then log all time spent handling the aircraft in the P1 column and all time spent fulfilling a role as non flying pilot in the P2 column.
The P1 time logged by a CPL holder would count toward the issue of a higher licence. The P2 time would not, therefore, a 50/50% split. Don't think that anyone bothers with Part 1 or Part 2 endorsements these days. All ratings are for Part 1. No one wants to have to bother with a second flight test to upgrade, as it were, from Part 2 to Part 1.
That seems logical enough so the only problem would seem to be that people have been winging around single crew airline operations in the B190 with a CPL when they should have had an ATPL and even then, there should have be a second, rated pilot, for commercial passenger operations.
The old Senior Com Licence, with its greater weight/MCM privilige, got around part of this problem but even in the Bandeirante, two crew, Commander with an ATPL, were required for commercial passenger flights.

[nugpot]

Sorry. I have nothing to do with this thread, but this caught my eye:

There is no difference between an experieced comm pilot, and an atp pilot, other than a flight test.

Well. There are also those pesky little exams that seem to take forever to successfully gather.....

[Irene]

I just got a B1900C P2 rating on my licence (CPL) in the last week. Another pilot, who has gone through this fight with the CAA, is getting his ATPL and the SACAA are recognising 50% of his P2 time towards his ATPL ON CONDTION THAT his employer (the operator) provide the CAA with a letter stating that all flying was in a multi-crew environment. This does not mean co-pilot sitting there like a sack of potatoes, this means a proper, procedural multi-crew cockpit with delegated responsibilities, etc...

Hope that helps, all this information was gathered in the last 7 days. I am sure all of the experiences of the others that have posted comments here on this thread are true, my opinion is that the CAA is completely inconsistent. This fact, however, can be used to the advantage of those shting off in kak areas of the world, trying to progress in their careers in a legitimate, industry accepted fashion.

This whole issue smacks of pedantic people trying to pull the ladder up with them to protect their jobs. A 1900 might not be a HS748 but it is unreasonable to class this aircraft, in terms of logging P2 time, in the same category as a Jabiru.

[cavortingcheetah]

Everyone knows that the HS748 is a derivative of the Andover, or vice versa, whichever you like really.
It was built by British Aerospace for tall, dark, handsome, lithsome Englishmen of great charm and intellect to fly. As one of those, well perhaps not quite exactly English, there was no difficulty to be encountered in stretching across the cockpit when the FO was down the back with the hostie. The only slight problem that could be encountered when operating solo without auto pilot was in a slow and measured opening of the dump valve.

[Tailspin2001]

I've flow a DC3s with a ground engineer in the right hand seat in the past. Totally legal if it is empty and did not have any trouble with gear and flaps. Found it much harder to land and then try to taxy a Twin Otter single pilot in a howling cross wind in the Shetlands

[dynamite dean]

none

I have read these posts with interest, When the day comes when one of these things gets written off with fatalities ; with a CPL rated chap that insurance company will be looking with a fine tooth comb anything where it can wiggle out of paying, time will tell. I was always under the impression too that getting an ATP lifted my weight restriction otherwise what was all the hard slog for!?...now you tell me!

[Woof etc]

Can the SACAA not give a statement on their position to put this matter to rest once and for all. Why should it even be debated? The CAA needs to specify clearly what the requirements are.

Then again I suppose that would require them to agree amongst themselves which is well nigh impossible.

Oh well.