How can a CPL holder fly P1 on a 1900?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: FL330
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news about part 61 yet? Been told it will be end June. How on earth
are they going to manage that. Crews out on contracts and with the
shortage as it is? Any more info about this only coming into affect from
Jan08 and the rumour that it will actually make it legal for once and all to
fly the long 200 with my comm.
are they going to manage that. Crews out on contracts and with the
shortage as it is? Any more info about this only coming into affect from
Jan08 and the rumour that it will actually make it legal for once and all to
fly the long 200 with my comm.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and now in the same breath, how then does one fly a van with 12 pax.....
with two crew no?
we are not talking about only one pilot in the cockpit, as nobody flies the 1900 with only one up front
with two crew no?
we are not talking about only one pilot in the cockpit, as nobody flies the 1900 with only one up front
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where in the law does it say you must have a ATP to fly a a/c heavier that 5700KG with a ATP. Where in the law does it say you need to have a ATP if there is more than 9 seats operating under part 135 ? Can someone qoute it?
You can fly a 1900 single pilot. But to fly pax,post,cargo there must be 2 crew on the a/c. Both of them can have a Com. Thats how I understand it, i might be wrong...
You can fly a 1900 single pilot. But to fly pax,post,cargo there must be 2 crew on the a/c. Both of them can have a Com. Thats how I understand it, i might be wrong...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy days, you are right.
Most SA operators operate the 1900 under Part 121, which stipulates there must be 2 crew to fly the plane under IFR.
It says the crew must also be appropriately qualified, in accordance with the AFM and company ops manual.
No where does it say the captain must hold an ATPL.
It is true to say that in order to be in command of a plane which exceeds, 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, one must hold an ATPL.
However, it is assumed by most CAA that any aircraft in excess of the above mentioned weights will be designated by the manufacturer as a Multi Pilot Aircraft (MPA).
This is where the grey area arises, as the 1900 does exceed the 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, but the manufacturer does not call for 2 pilots.
I think the manufacturer gave operators the choice to fly it single pilot with reduced pax loads, Part 135, and then to also fly it as an airliner under Part 121 requiring 2 pilots and thus allowing 18/19 pax.
But, it does not call for the commander to hold an ATPL, I think that is down to company policy.
Thats how I understand it, and why I think the ambiguity comes about.
Most SA operators operate the 1900 under Part 121, which stipulates there must be 2 crew to fly the plane under IFR.
It says the crew must also be appropriately qualified, in accordance with the AFM and company ops manual.
No where does it say the captain must hold an ATPL.
It is true to say that in order to be in command of a plane which exceeds, 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, one must hold an ATPL.
However, it is assumed by most CAA that any aircraft in excess of the above mentioned weights will be designated by the manufacturer as a Multi Pilot Aircraft (MPA).
This is where the grey area arises, as the 1900 does exceed the 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, but the manufacturer does not call for 2 pilots.
I think the manufacturer gave operators the choice to fly it single pilot with reduced pax loads, Part 135, and then to also fly it as an airliner under Part 121 requiring 2 pilots and thus allowing 18/19 pax.
But, it does not call for the commander to hold an ATPL, I think that is down to company policy.
Thats how I understand it, and why I think the ambiguity comes about.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let me summarise the facts so far:
1. The 1900 weighs > 5700kgs
2. It is certified for single pilot ops with certain specific seat blocking equipment.
3. Part 121 (and old ANR's) require 2 pilots in a/c over 5700kgs in air transport cat ops IFR or night.
4. A holder of a CPL may act as PIC in any aircraft certified for single pilot ops in air transport cat ops. (Part 61 and old ANR's)
5. Any aircraft in air transport cat ops certified for multi-crew requires ATP rated PIC (Part 61 and old ANR's)
References:
1900D Airplane Flight Manual
ANR 2.26, 2.28, 10.18 (Pre-Part 61 implementation)
Part 61.05.9, 61.07.9, 121.01.1, 121.02.1
Now of particular interest is 121.02.1 which states:
The operator shall designate one pilot among the flight crew as pilot in command.....
Now. According to Part 61 (and the ANR's for the retentive arguing that 61 is not yet in effect), you are not allowed to be PIC of an aircraft that requires 2 pilots, unless you have an ATP.
Beechcraft says that the 1900 is ONLY certified for single pilot ops with 9 seats or less (and if more, the seats are to be blocked off by maintenance action).
Ergo, if your 1900 has more than 9 seats, you cannot legally be PIC with a comm.
1. The 1900 weighs > 5700kgs
2. It is certified for single pilot ops with certain specific seat blocking equipment.
3. Part 121 (and old ANR's) require 2 pilots in a/c over 5700kgs in air transport cat ops IFR or night.
4. A holder of a CPL may act as PIC in any aircraft certified for single pilot ops in air transport cat ops. (Part 61 and old ANR's)
5. Any aircraft in air transport cat ops certified for multi-crew requires ATP rated PIC (Part 61 and old ANR's)
References:
1900D Airplane Flight Manual
ANR 2.26, 2.28, 10.18 (Pre-Part 61 implementation)
Part 61.05.9, 61.07.9, 121.01.1, 121.02.1
Now of particular interest is 121.02.1 which states:
The operator shall designate one pilot among the flight crew as pilot in command.....
Now. According to Part 61 (and the ANR's for the retentive arguing that 61 is not yet in effect), you are not allowed to be PIC of an aircraft that requires 2 pilots, unless you have an ATP.
Beechcraft says that the 1900 is ONLY certified for single pilot ops with 9 seats or less (and if more, the seats are to be blocked off by maintenance action).
Ergo, if your 1900 has more than 9 seats, you cannot legally be PIC with a comm.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont really care to be honest, as I have already done my time on the 1900 and I flew it as a captain with only a cpl, however, I do now have an ATPL and am flying a plane which requires 2 pilots.
It is just an interesting debate.
As for it being illegal to fly it as a captain with only a cpl, I cannot believe that all these companies were breaking the law by doing so.
I recall from my time in Algeria, that 1st world mutli-national companies, BP, Total, Agip to name a few audited NAC/Air Express who allowed cpl captains and there was never a problem concerning it.
It is just an interesting debate.
As for it being illegal to fly it as a captain with only a cpl, I cannot believe that all these companies were breaking the law by doing so.
I recall from my time in Algeria, that 1st world mutli-national companies, BP, Total, Agip to name a few audited NAC/Air Express who allowed cpl captains and there was never a problem concerning it.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st world mutli-national companies, BP, Total, Agip...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nugpot
You have obviously never had anything to do with BP.
I recall from my days in the sand pit that they were the most proactive organisation when it came to Health & Safety at work, and adhering to regulations.
They have an aviation dept. and the company I now work for flies them around and we also manage a G5 for them.
They are very interested in meeting regulations to the point of being anal about it.
If there was an issue with a CPL pilot being in command of a plane that was contracted exclusively to BP, I can assure you that they would tell you very quickly.
You have obviously never had anything to do with BP.
I recall from my days in the sand pit that they were the most proactive organisation when it came to Health & Safety at work, and adhering to regulations.
They have an aviation dept. and the company I now work for flies them around and we also manage a G5 for them.
They are very interested in meeting regulations to the point of being anal about it.
If there was an issue with a CPL pilot being in command of a plane that was contracted exclusively to BP, I can assure you that they would tell you very quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not in the least nugpot, I was just wondering that if CAA has said its ok, and we took it as such, why the big ruckus?
When CAA says we cant, then so be it. But pilots take their guidance and law from the CAA, and if they allow it, I for one am not going to fight it because it is not a life changing experience >> semantics (whether it be from the CAA or the POH) but until somebody decides, no one is wrong in doing what CAA is happy with.
Or am i totally missing the boat here?
When CAA says we cant, then so be it. But pilots take their guidance and law from the CAA, and if they allow it, I for one am not going to fight it because it is not a life changing experience >> semantics (whether it be from the CAA or the POH) but until somebody decides, no one is wrong in doing what CAA is happy with.
Or am i totally missing the boat here?
