How can a CPL holder fly P1 on a 1900?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how I think it should be looked at.
No CAA in the world is going to over rule any manufacturer simply because they do not have the same experience levels in design, research and knowledge.
So, the manufacturer, Beechcraft/Raytheon have said in black and white in the AFM, that the plane can be flown by a single pilot so long as if this is the case there are certain restrictions, ie. auto-pilot, ATPL (I think, although cant remember the exact text).
So, if it is a single pilot aircraft that goes against the rule of >12,500lbs requires an ATPL, but, we should remember that the FAR's are different.
In the USA, one does not need a type rating on anything <12,500lbs, ie, a King Air 200 does not require a specific type rating, merely a check out flight.
This leads to the question, who is the SAACAA or any CAA for that matter to over rule the manufacturers instructions for the aircraft.
Until the SAACAA make an official ruling and put it down on paper stating that the B1900 must be flown by a ATPL holder, then I see no reason why the a CPL may not fly it is the PIC.
No CAA in the world is going to over rule any manufacturer simply because they do not have the same experience levels in design, research and knowledge.
So, the manufacturer, Beechcraft/Raytheon have said in black and white in the AFM, that the plane can be flown by a single pilot so long as if this is the case there are certain restrictions, ie. auto-pilot, ATPL (I think, although cant remember the exact text).
So, if it is a single pilot aircraft that goes against the rule of >12,500lbs requires an ATPL, but, we should remember that the FAR's are different.
In the USA, one does not need a type rating on anything <12,500lbs, ie, a King Air 200 does not require a specific type rating, merely a check out flight.
This leads to the question, who is the SAACAA or any CAA for that matter to over rule the manufacturers instructions for the aircraft.
Until the SAACAA make an official ruling and put it down on paper stating that the B1900 must be flown by a ATPL holder, then I see no reason why the a CPL may not fly it is the PIC.
Está servira para distraerle.
This leads on to a rather interesting rumour.
The shortage of pilots worldwide has finally caught up with the forward planning projections of sales for the Airbus 380.
A spokesman for Airbus Industries is reported to have stated that the traditional first officer seat in the new super jumbo is to be replaced by an angulated computer keyboard and screen, accessible from the traditional left hand pilot seat. This will mean that Airbus Industry will be able to market the aircraft as a single crew aeroplane, a fact which will be recorded in the aircraft flight manual. It is understood that until various aviation authorities worldwide legislate against such operations, single crew Airbus 380s will be able to be flown anywhere in the world by a pilot with a commercial licence.
A spokesperson for the CAA at Gatwick, England, stated that it could take quite some time for aviation authorities to clarify the situation but that in the meantime, there was no reason why Airbus, having designated the A380 as single crew, could not operate it as such.
It is reported that flying clubs in France have been inundated by requests from private pilots eager to offer their services during the take off and landing stages of flight when apparently, flight conditions are at their most critical
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: East Africa
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for thought
If my memory serves... some American manufacturers certify greater than 12,500lbs aircraft for single pilot ops under SFAR 41C in order to accord flexibility to FAR Part 91 operators. The capt still requires a type rating, and can be a CPL holder, but single pilot ops are restricted to 9 pax.
IFR passenger carrying commercial ops (Part 135, 121 etc...) require the P1 to hold an ATP. I believe even a chartered Baron (BE55/58), carrying passengers IFR requires an ATP P1.
It would be interesting to hear what the North American boys have to say about this
IFR passenger carrying commercial ops (Part 135, 121 etc...) require the P1 to hold an ATP. I believe even a chartered Baron (BE55/58), carrying passengers IFR requires an ATP P1.
It would be interesting to hear what the North American boys have to say about this
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um, this is a question, and in no way is an attempt to add or detract from the discussion.
Are there any other types of aircraft with a MTOW above 5700kg certified for single pilot operations?
Are there any other types of aircraft with a MTOW above 5700kg certified for single pilot operations?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something? The regs state ATP required for command of aircraft above 5700kg, regardless of number of crew required. Single crew ops may be part of the 1900 certification but that in no way implies that the crewmember in question may be a CPL holder, or does it?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. Lets say I have a PPL with IF rating. Can I buy a Caravan and fly it on my licence? Or, if I buy a 1900 under the same conditions can I fly that too on my PPL?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: any given hotel
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know the Metro is used in Oz and NZ single crew on the mail runs/freighers, I do strand to be corrested here though. don't know what Licence they're required to hold?
You can fly anyaircraft on a PPL as long as you do not fly it for hire or reward. therefore if you buy your own 747 and only use it as your own private aircraft really there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Provided you meet all the necesary training stipputated in your insurance..
You can fly anyaircraft on a PPL as long as you do not fly it for hire or reward. therefore if you buy your own 747 and only use it as your own private aircraft really there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Provided you meet all the necesary training stipputated in your insurance..
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There needs to be a distinction in semantics here though, before this stops going round and round.
Can a com pilot command a 1900 - OF COURSE - ITS NOT A DIFFICULT MACHINE
Can CAA licence a comm pilot to command a 1900 - THIS IS THE QUESTION
If you were offered a position in the left hand seat of the 1900 with a comm - you would take it. Dont play the man because the CAA's house is in disorder. I was a 1900 driver with a com - why because the CAA said I could. If I ever felt that I was uncomfortable in the machine I would not have operated it, but unfortunately for the UBER drivers out there, its just a long 200 and nothing special...so much so that CAA is not even regarding it a two crew machine for logging of hours.
So where does this leave us?
WEll - some comm guys have a few thousand 'stolen' hours on 1900s (insert shock and horror smiley here) and CAA needs to get its legislation in order. Why beat this out any further?
CAA said comm guys could command it - not the pilots or operators but CAA, so fight with them. Leave the pilots out of it. If my CAA says I am allowed to fly a G4 tomorrow with a comm, trust me, when that job comes up (theoretically) I will jump on it. Our local CAA makes the rules. and I abide by them.
Bottom line is, from a skills point of view, the guys that have been commanding 1900s have been up to the task, regardless of the colour of their licence.
Can a com pilot command a 1900 - OF COURSE - ITS NOT A DIFFICULT MACHINE
Can CAA licence a comm pilot to command a 1900 - THIS IS THE QUESTION
If you were offered a position in the left hand seat of the 1900 with a comm - you would take it. Dont play the man because the CAA's house is in disorder. I was a 1900 driver with a com - why because the CAA said I could. If I ever felt that I was uncomfortable in the machine I would not have operated it, but unfortunately for the UBER drivers out there, its just a long 200 and nothing special...so much so that CAA is not even regarding it a two crew machine for logging of hours.
So where does this leave us?
WEll - some comm guys have a few thousand 'stolen' hours on 1900s (insert shock and horror smiley here) and CAA needs to get its legislation in order. Why beat this out any further?
CAA said comm guys could command it - not the pilots or operators but CAA, so fight with them. Leave the pilots out of it. If my CAA says I am allowed to fly a G4 tomorrow with a comm, trust me, when that job comes up (theoretically) I will jump on it. Our local CAA makes the rules. and I abide by them.
Bottom line is, from a skills point of view, the guys that have been commanding 1900s have been up to the task, regardless of the colour of their licence.
Está servira para distraerle.
What Ho! I.R. Pirate.
If one were to be really pedantic which, in the context of world wide CAAs and aviation law, is probably not a bad thing at all, one would have to say that, under certain circumstances, a commercial licence holder could act as Captain on a Beech 1900. However, a commercial licence holder could not, one hazards, act as Commander on a Beech 1900. There is a subtle difference between the two roles which has been neatly, shall one say, explored, by a certain international Nigerian operator of small sophisticated German jets.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Coast
You are correct in saying a CAA cannot overule the manufacturers minimum operating requirement for an aircraft. They can, however, place a higher restriction on that aircraft registered in their country (for example, while the 1900 is certified single crew in USA, it is certified for 2 crew in Canada).
From the basic licences issued in SA, a CPL limits a pilot to 5700kg or less while an ATP allows for aircraft with a MAUW over 5700kg.
The main problem with this whole thread is that the 1900 is simply a stretched BE20, and therefore becomes an easy aircraft to fly for anybody with some time on a BE20. Disregarding the fact that the handling characteristics and weight and balance are different, the systems are similar to that of the BE20 and the BE9F.
Perhaps the operators of the aircraft are justified in feeling that their King Air rated crew will have an easy transition to the 1900.
And perhaps the real problem is that the pilots with ATP's would rather be flying more challenging aircraft than the 1900, leaving 1900 operators with no option but to get the CPL's to fly the aircraft.
I.R.Pirate hit the nail on the head saying that if the CAA allows CPL's to fly the 1900, CPL's will fly the 1900.
I propose that, instead of us all sitting around trying to discuss this issue, we invite a CAA official to explain exactly what is going on. However, I think that would be easier said than done, because if they were capable of providing an adequate answer this thread would have been binned quite some time ago.
From the basic licences issued in SA, a CPL limits a pilot to 5700kg or less while an ATP allows for aircraft with a MAUW over 5700kg.
The main problem with this whole thread is that the 1900 is simply a stretched BE20, and therefore becomes an easy aircraft to fly for anybody with some time on a BE20. Disregarding the fact that the handling characteristics and weight and balance are different, the systems are similar to that of the BE20 and the BE9F.
Perhaps the operators of the aircraft are justified in feeling that their King Air rated crew will have an easy transition to the 1900.
And perhaps the real problem is that the pilots with ATP's would rather be flying more challenging aircraft than the 1900, leaving 1900 operators with no option but to get the CPL's to fly the aircraft.
I.R.Pirate hit the nail on the head saying that if the CAA allows CPL's to fly the 1900, CPL's will fly the 1900.
I propose that, instead of us all sitting around trying to discuss this issue, we invite a CAA official to explain exactly what is going on. However, I think that would be easier said than done, because if they were capable of providing an adequate answer this thread would have been binned quite some time ago.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Africa
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oerlikon,
Maybe you can enlighten me as to where in the ANR's you find the 5700kg restriction? The SA licensing requirements still fall under the 1976 ANR's and my copy of the digma under ANR 2.26 (Priviledges of a license) makes no mention of any weight restriction. The only place I find that is in the CAR's Part 121, and even there it states that that the minimum crew shall be as determined by the manufacturer, except for IFR flight the minimum shall be 2 crew. Again no mention of type of license. The priviledge of your license determines what you may fly as PIC. I suggest that you go and read ANR 2.26 and 2.28 again and then we can talk on the same level.
Maybe you can enlighten me as to where in the ANR's you find the 5700kg restriction? The SA licensing requirements still fall under the 1976 ANR's and my copy of the digma under ANR 2.26 (Priviledges of a license) makes no mention of any weight restriction. The only place I find that is in the CAR's Part 121, and even there it states that that the minimum crew shall be as determined by the manufacturer, except for IFR flight the minimum shall be 2 crew. Again no mention of type of license. The priviledge of your license determines what you may fly as PIC. I suggest that you go and read ANR 2.26 and 2.28 again and then we can talk on the same level.
Está servira para distraerle.
1976 would be about this pilot's level of antiquity. As posted earlier and from memory:
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.
If those licence priviliges still hold good, even though the SCPL may have fallen away, then the matter is fairly unequivocal?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Africa
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC,
The ANR's you refer to was the old commercial sections and has been replced with CAR's part 135 and 121, the difference being that 135 ops are for aircraft below 5700kg and 121 for above, when part 61 is finally promolgated in its entirety things may change with regard the 1900, but under current legislation you may legally fly the 1900 as PIC with a CPL only
At the recent Part 61 workshop held in Midrand it was patently obvious that the CAA recognizes the problem but are at odds as how to fix it. I suppose time will tell, for the interim the status quo remains.
The ANR's you refer to was the old commercial sections and has been replced with CAR's part 135 and 121, the difference being that 135 ops are for aircraft below 5700kg and 121 for above, when part 61 is finally promolgated in its entirety things may change with regard the 1900, but under current legislation you may legally fly the 1900 as PIC with a CPL only
At the recent Part 61 workshop held in Midrand it was patently obvious that the CAA recognizes the problem but are at odds as how to fix it. I suppose time will tell, for the interim the status quo remains.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
warloc,
Okay, so we are in agreement that part 135 operation restrictions are for aircraft under 5700kg and part 121 are for aircraft over 5700kg.
My question to you is this: Why are CPL's allowed to fly the 1900 on their licence and not required to have an ATP. (In other words, what is the exact reasoning behind it?)
Okay, so we are in agreement that part 135 operation restrictions are for aircraft under 5700kg and part 121 are for aircraft over 5700kg.
My question to you is this: Why are CPL's allowed to fly the 1900 on their licence and not required to have an ATP. (In other words, what is the exact reasoning behind it?)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware, Far 135 is for ait taxi, charter and non-scheduled flying and Far 121 is for scheduled operators and more strict.
A company can choose to fly their planes under either part, so long as it is mentioned on their AOC.
As someone pointed out earlier, under Part 121, the crew composition, no where does it state that the pic should have an ATPL, just that the requirements of the AFM must be met, and since it is not a Multi Pilot Plane, requiring 2 pilots to fly it, then the commander does not have to have an ATPL.
A company can choose to fly their planes under either part, so long as it is mentioned on their AOC.
As someone pointed out earlier, under Part 121, the crew composition, no where does it state that the pic should have an ATPL, just that the requirements of the AFM must be met, and since it is not a Multi Pilot Plane, requiring 2 pilots to fly it, then the commander does not have to have an ATPL.