ATPL requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPL requirements
I've been looking at this and I just want your opinions as to what you'd change, if anything.
Here's my 2 cents.
Do away with theoretical exams that are as relevant to flying airplanes as a degree in nuclear physics. I'd replace them with genuine need to know stuff esp. about air law and modern systems.
100 hours night flight: I'd certainly specify a certain number of night landings but as for enroute I'd except actual IMC in it's place.
There's my ideal changes to ATPL. What's yours?
Here's my 2 cents.
Do away with theoretical exams that are as relevant to flying airplanes as a degree in nuclear physics. I'd replace them with genuine need to know stuff esp. about air law and modern systems.
100 hours night flight: I'd certainly specify a certain number of night landings but as for enroute I'd except actual IMC in it's place.
There's my ideal changes to ATPL. What's yours?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well then why dont we just become FAA then? I think to keep those exams is critical as it separates the men from the boys. If people want to go airlines or operate as an airline, ie part 121, as a P1 then we need it. Hence ATPL-Airline Transport Pilot Lisence.
As far as the hrs go, as everyone knows, part 61 is "comming" into effect. Im not sure if its 75 or 100 hrs night.
As far as the hrs go, as everyone knows, part 61 is "comming" into effect. Im not sure if its 75 or 100 hrs night.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you're at it. Ban instructors with less than 1500 hours from giving anything but ab initio instruction.
A 250hr instructor giving "advanced" instruction is a bit rich...
A 250hr instructor giving "advanced" instruction is a bit rich...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed why not become the FAA since it's a proven system? Damn those Americans, what would they know about aviation anyway ... except for inventing and developing it of course.
I was proposing something a little less radical though and just making the exams more revelant to modern aviation. The night hours bug me. I understand the night landings and take offs but what more do you do en-route at night that you don't do in IMC? And damn me it's hard to find those hours
LOL: Good one nugpot!
I was proposing something a little less radical though and just making the exams more revelant to modern aviation. The night hours bug me. I understand the night landings and take offs but what more do you do en-route at night that you don't do in IMC? And damn me it's hard to find those hours
LOL: Good one nugpot!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a subtle difference flying in a dark cockpit, so I think that night nav experience is a requirement, but I agree that 100hrs might be a bit of overkill.
To get back to my hijack about "advanced" instruction: This was a bit tongue in the cheek, but there is a serious underlying problem here. With the shortage of entry level jobs and really experienced instructors, i think that the general level of instruction beyond ab initio is declining.
I am not instructor rated, so take this as a comment from the airine side. I had a discussion with one of my FO's about his experience. He had been giving "advanced" instruction to airline wannabees while waiting to get into an airline himself. The discussion was triggered by his general lack of knowledge of flying in controlled airspace, IF approach briefings and radio failure procedures. During the discussion it became clear that these were the aspects that he was teaching others - taking their hard-earned money.
AFAIK Grade 2 is a semi-automatic qualification on reaching a certain number of instruction hours. Every single hour after Comm & Instructors rating at about 250hrs could be in the circuit at Port Alfred. Are we really giving the student value for his money?
There have been a few guys failing initials at most of the airlines and I suspect this is due at least partly to quality of instruction/testing, combined with unsupervised contract operation for years on end.
Finally Gooneybird - I agree that the ATP sillabus is outdated, but it SHOULD be an extreme test of knowledge and determination. An ATP licence should be earned.
BTW, the ATP exams are in most cases easier than the SAAF initial groundschool of the past. I don't know about now though.
To get back to my hijack about "advanced" instruction: This was a bit tongue in the cheek, but there is a serious underlying problem here. With the shortage of entry level jobs and really experienced instructors, i think that the general level of instruction beyond ab initio is declining.
I am not instructor rated, so take this as a comment from the airine side. I had a discussion with one of my FO's about his experience. He had been giving "advanced" instruction to airline wannabees while waiting to get into an airline himself. The discussion was triggered by his general lack of knowledge of flying in controlled airspace, IF approach briefings and radio failure procedures. During the discussion it became clear that these were the aspects that he was teaching others - taking their hard-earned money.
AFAIK Grade 2 is a semi-automatic qualification on reaching a certain number of instruction hours. Every single hour after Comm & Instructors rating at about 250hrs could be in the circuit at Port Alfred. Are we really giving the student value for his money?
There have been a few guys failing initials at most of the airlines and I suspect this is due at least partly to quality of instruction/testing, combined with unsupervised contract operation for years on end.
Finally Gooneybird - I agree that the ATP sillabus is outdated, but it SHOULD be an extreme test of knowledge and determination. An ATP licence should be earned.
BTW, the ATP exams are in most cases easier than the SAAF initial groundschool of the past. I don't know about now though.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Nugpot that low-time instructors training the next generation is not ideal and that it would be desirable to have old hands with real world experience teaching the new recruits. This seems to generally be the situation in the chopper world, where a lot of pilots end their careers as instructors rather than start it with instruction.
Unfortunately I don't see an easy way out of this situation. For one thing instructor's pay is really c#$p, and not comparable to what pilots can earn elsewhere. But if instructors at flying schools were earning the same as their counterparts in the airlines, no student would be able to afford flight training!
As for DE's, the requirements need to be re-evaluated. It is possible for a 21-year old instructor with an ATP but very little real world experience to become a DE. A flight test with a DE should be a valuable learning experience for a pilot - it is no good doing a test with a youngster that has a lot of signing power but no value to add. I have met the requirements to become a DE for years, but choose not to do so until I am a little older and wiser...
Unfortunately I don't see an easy way out of this situation. For one thing instructor's pay is really c#$p, and not comparable to what pilots can earn elsewhere. But if instructors at flying schools were earning the same as their counterparts in the airlines, no student would be able to afford flight training!
As for DE's, the requirements need to be re-evaluated. It is possible for a 21-year old instructor with an ATP but very little real world experience to become a DE. A flight test with a DE should be a valuable learning experience for a pilot - it is no good doing a test with a youngster that has a lot of signing power but no value to add. I have met the requirements to become a DE for years, but choose not to do so until I am a little older and wiser...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry to butt in
Sorry to butt in, but:Both nugpot and JC07 are right. I took an IF instructor with on a milk run one day and offered him the radio work. He lost the plot after calling for start. I guess its easy to show someone how to beacon-bash within known parametes, but like every aspect of avaition, time earned knowledge is vital. As for pay for instructors, it is c*$p, because flight schools know they're desperate for hours, which is the easiest way of building time in avaition. It would be awesome to see a bunch of instructors getting together and forming a union to raise the pay, but the usual self centered attitude exists like in all aviation.
But, TJ, `seperating the men from the boys?' Are you saying an instructor with a1500 hr ATP is more man than a CPL who has thousands of hours of real flying experience?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south africa
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oracle
Too true, siutcaseman, the topic has well drifted off gooney's q. Why should there even be an ATP licence? Surely converting from one aircraft to the next is a normal progression (assuming your old man doesn't work for an aviation company and you're on the inside track), like a river flowing to the ocean your time aloft broadens, deepens, speeds up your knowledge of flying. But! There are certain aspects that do require more theoretical knowledge. A 747 needs much more flight/weight/balance planning than a light turbo prop.
However. I can't remember when last I swung a compass.
However. I can't remember when last I swung a compass.
