Beech 1900 SIC

[cavortingcheetah]

It's a grim and grey day under the ramparts and towers of Neuschwanstein.
But there is more than a grain of truth in the gems so painstakingly distributed to those who rant and moan at the thought of paying a few rands for a priceless acquisition. As one seems to remember, the last UK CAA fee, for the little green book only, you understand, was £160.

[Propellerpilot]

Don't wake sleeping dogs. Shure if your earning Pounds or Euros the SACAA license is dead cheap - if you earning Rands, it is actually quite pricy. Each to their own... I think the pricelist of the SACAA is more than adequate for us South Africans.

[cavortingcheetah]

Probably true on all counts.
Mind you, if you're a turbo prop Captain in the UK on £40,000 pa then £160 for the licence represents 0.4% of your annual gross salary. But then, in that particular example, the book has a ten year life span. As one says, let us just treat this as a point of academic idiocy shall we?

[CALCULATOR]

BE 19 Operators win this round

A very interesting meeting was held at the CAA today 22/7/08.
Only licensed BE19 operators were present (in fact one company that operates the BE19 but does not have a AOC was asked to leave the meeting and were escorted out!!)

To all those out there the operators argued and I think we won our case explaining to the CAA that the BE19 is a single crew certified aircraft and can be flown by 2 Comm pilots.

Let me say the biggest support we received today was in fact from numerous well versed CAA inspectors who support the operators and disagrees with there own colleagues interpretation. Let me tell you all, it was one hell of a meeting. It is great to know in my opinoin that there are numerous high calibre CAA inspectors out there who do understand the impact that this can and will cause the industry.

Certain phone call made to operators last week have been critisized and I have it on good authority that a CAA inspector has today been suspended over the said phone calls!

The CAA have advised the industry that they will comunicate with us all in writing soon , but until then we MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH 2 COMM PILOTS.
The industry is looking forward to working with the CAA and coming to suitable comprimise , however as stated today we all are well within cetain safety,and training standards. Round one to us.

[Shrike200]

A question has been bothering me - why is it so important to allow CPLs to command a 1900? Is there a giant shortage of ATP licensed guys out there? Costs to the companies? What is it?

A 1900 is a serious aircraft, carrying 19 people (yes, obvious stuff, I know). When we allow a CPL to command it, we legally allow a 200 hr pilot to command it. The obvious counter argument is that no company would allow somebody so inexperienced to do so - but that is what the law would allow. Is this the right thing to do? Maybe I'm just not seeing it logically, I'm not a 1900 operator. I'm just somebody who once flew them, so my opinion is simply my opinion, it carries no weight. I ask only to satisfy my own curiosity.

[cavortingcheetah]

There are those who might agree and might also possibly dare to think, in a manner of idle conjecture, that any CAA decision that could legally allow two such potentially inexperienced pilots, with 400 hours between them, to occupy both seats of a King Air 1900 cockpit at the same time reflects a legislative lack of airmanship and common sense which is to be deplored.
However, some one did comment to the effect that certain CAA inspectors understood what an effect the proposed changes and consequent tightening up of the ATPL/Commander requirements would have on the industry.
It would be disquieting to be able to infer from such comments that aviation safety in South Africa has been or is about to be compromised to the potential benefit of commercial interests. It is somewhat difficult to construe the matter in any other way.

[CALCULATOR]

Shrike I think you ask a good question.The answer is YES there is a huge shortage of ATP rated pilots and what we are finding the new ATPS are using the small charter companies as stop gaps until they are called up/accepted by the larger airlines.Most new ATPS are keen to move into the airline evironment and therefore we find we loose the guys quickly.What we are allready seeing is 1000 Comm pilots being accepted into the feeder airlines even with no ATP subjects.

Let me make our point clear,when one has a operating certificate your company and its ops manual must be approved by CAA. CAA again confirmed today that they will not allow a operator to fly the BE19 with 2 Comm pilots unless a approved minimum hours is called for in your ops manual. .IE all the BE 19 operators call for a min of 1500(pic) and additional pilot a min of 500hours, therfore there is a safe gard in place preventing 2 x 400 hour comms flying the aircraft and quite rightly too.It is also important to note that many of the operators are flying these aircraft with Comms as PIC who have many thousand hours as well.These are 3 mil Dollar machines and by no means toys.

[south coast]

Safety is not about to be compromised by allowing CPL pilot's to continue flying as a captain on a 1900.

The fact that there has not been huge numbers of accidents already with CPL captains proves that there are indeed internal company safeguards which stops 200 hour pilots from becoming captains.

If you want to argue that point of view, you could well say that a fresh ATPL pilot, with 1501 hours could legally jump into the left seat of a 747 and fly it as a captain, does it happen, NO!

So I dont think much of the arguement that legally you could have a 200 hour CPL as the commander.

In JAR, or now Euro-Ops (Eu-Ops) land, one can command the 1900 with just a CPL and I have faith in the European authorities.

The reason there are not many ATPL pilots interested to fly 1900 is because the plane is typically used on contracts in parts of the world one would not queue up to go on holiday to for fairly average pay.

Now ask the question as to why there are no ATPL pilots that interested in flying the 19000 again.

As already mentioned, the method of maintaining high standards is by making sure the CPL captain receives good training, good licence renewals and proficeincy checks, good line training, and by being well paid.

All these factors are down to the operator and there in can lie the problem.

[FlyingWrench]

So if I am getting this straight, to command a 1900 you now need to be a ATPL? I have read posts saying this is the decision from the CAA and then others contradicting it. Whats the final rule? Is there a grace period? What about the copilots, what does this mean to them?

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Quite so SC. The operators are already cutting corners trying to squeeze through loopholes and pressuring CAA to allow them to do so, so where else are they compromising?

[Arms Dealer]

Hey Goffel..You seem to be pretty in the loop regarding this Comm capt issue..Any news or latest developments.

[Goffel]

who was suspended

Dont ask me....ask Calculator.....he seems to know more than I do....According to him, (from his reliable bag of wind), a CAA inspector has been suspended for carrying out an instruction given by the Commissioner.

Me, I'm lying on the beach in Plett and having a good laugh.

Never in my life have I read and heard so much twaddle....1stly, how in goodness sakes name do you ask a 1900 owner to leave a public forum meeting...in front of others on top of it.....he has as much right to know what is going on as the rest of the operators.

Then to have CAA officials arguing amongst themselves, with one actually telling another to sit down and shut up....in front of all the operators....and then another blaming a certain inspector for phoning the operators and conveying the outcome of the CAA meeting on the 15th.

To point fingers at each other as to who is to blame and for what portion of the blame goes to who in front of all the operators....what a disgrace.

For the rest of the smiling crowd......for what it is worth....Adrian Lyions was given an instruction by the Commissioner to notify the operators "to desist from operating with comm pilots as captains with immediate effect", to which he then delegated to an inspector to do.....


But getting back to the original question...PM me your address and I will email you the FAA report on the 1900D, where the original desicion was made from.

Oh and by the way...yes, I fly the 1900D....and I only have a comm...so it effects me as well.

Oh, Calculator, ask your bag of wind to open me another beer and please do tell us all who was suspended and when.

Goffel...on the beach in Plett.

[Prop Job]

B190D AFM Limitation Section

Good Day All,

I refer you to the B190D AFM's Limitation section.

Minimum Flight Crew - p2-11
The minimum crew is one pilot. See the Kinds of Operations Equipment List in this section for required equipment.

KINDS OF OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT LIST
Single Pilot Operation Only - p2-30
1. Headset
2. Boom Mounted Microphone
3. Emergency, Abnormal, and Normal Procedures Check List.
4. Kit 114-5042 [All passenger seats in excess of nine (9) must be redered inoccupiable by "DO NOT OCCUPY" seat belt tube assembly.]

Please note that this only applies to the B190D.

Now, I have flown many a 1900 for quite a few operators, but I have NEVER seen a 1900 with kit 114-5042 installed. To my mind that makes a B190D a TWO CREW OPERATION.

It just seems to me that the operators will make a loophole in the law where and when they need one. At the same time they will ignore the hard facts about the aircraft as long as they can make a buck or two whilst doing it!

Just some food for thought,

Prop Job

[Foxyflyer]

atp

It amazes me how a guy suddenly becomes a genius on aquiring an ATP. And how some people have the arrogance to suggest that sombody who holds a cpl should'nt be allowed to command a 'serious' aircraft like the 1900. All aircraft are serious and a 1900 is just a bigger 200. Can anyone seriously suggest that a cpl with 3000 hrs and 1000 hrs in command on the 1900 is less qualified or able than a 1500 hr ATP with 1000 hrs on c210 and 200 hrs on 1900s. Thats ridiculous. Its horses for courses. No good operator is going to let somebody take command of a 1900 unless they have several hundred hours on type and have passed a rigorous command check ride. The CAA would do better to lay down some sensible minimums regarding hours on type and multi crew experience, rather than just saying that you need an ATP to fly what is essentially a single crew aircraft. I know plenty of ATPs that I wouldn't put in command of a wheelbarrow and plenty of cpls who I would trust my life to any day. I hold a JAR ATPL and an SA CPL. Does that mean I am competent to fly a european 1900 but too stupid to fly a south african one. There is way too much nonsense talked about on this subject and way too many brand new ATPs slagging off CPLs.
Grow up

[Shrike200]

I'm sorry, but in my opinion that was a terribly thought out post. Nobody is slagging off CPL's. It's not an ATP vs CPL pissing contest.

Obviously you don't suddenly become a genuis on acquiring an ATP. You do however, have a proven number of hours flight experience, of clearly defined types of flying, and have tested on a clearly defined complexity level of machine, apart from being tested on more theory. That doesn't make an ATP special, it merely points to a certified minimum experience level.

It should be self evident that comparing a 3000 hr CPL with a 3000 hr ATP is a pointless exercise - it's all about what the minimums allow an operator to do. As Calculator pointed out, the CAA wants company ops manuals to define minimum experience. You however, believe that "The CAA would do better to lay down some sensible minimums regarding hours on type and multi crew experience, rather than just saying that you need an ATP to fly what is essentially a single crew aircraft." So the CAA should now define experience levels for different aircraft, on a type by type basis? That's simply not practical at all. And, as has been pointed out, a 1900D (at the very least) is NOT a single pilot aircraft, unless the seats have been blocked off - when last did you see that happen on contract? Also, if a 1900 is, as you say, essentially a single crew aircraft, how would a co-pilot accumulate the required multi crew experience?

As you also say, "No good operator is going to let somebody take command of a 1900 unless they have several hundred hours on type and have passed a rigorous command check ride." - you don't legislate to keep the 'good' companies in check, you legislate to prevent the bad ones abusing the system. And, quite frankly, I've seen some less than 'rigorous' command check rides in my time, from more than one operator.

Comments blaming "brand new ATPs", accusing them of "slagging off CPLs", and then ranting on about 'growing up' are simply ridiculous, and drag down whatever valid points you may have had.

To close, I actually don't have a problem with experienced CPL's commanding 1900's at all - but minimum experience levels are important. And if you're going to make that the same, or more, than the minimums for ATP, then what's the point? 1500 hrs isn't a whole lot of time in reality.

[Goffel]

Life is great

This was never about the "slagging off of Cpl against ATP.....it was about the law....and not just SACAA law....international law..ex.FAA ; ICAO.

Why dont we let the comm guys flying MD82's/737's/DC9's go into the left seat if he has 2000 hours on type....he has the experience.

I'll tell you why.....because they only have a comm and not an ATP....and it is a law.

The next interesting debate is on how you log those hours whilst sitting in the right hand seat of a forum argument PROVEN single crew aeroplane.

No more multi crew time......same as having your mate fly with you in the B200 now...(or in the twotter).

But then again, most of the REPUTABLE B1900 operators allready use ATP captains.

I need another beer
Plett is great.

[WhinerLiner]

1900's have been flown by CPL's since they arrived in the country all those years ago. Are they now more difficult to fly? Are CPL's less competent now than before? Seems this may be rule making for the sake of it rather than an improvement of any kind.

Considering that 1900's have been flown by CPL's in SA for many tens of thousands of hours, one might think that there is a fair body of evidence to work from with regard to safety issues. Is anyone aware of any incidents in a 1900 that could be blamed on fact that a pilot only held a CPL? If not, is there a problem here that really needs to be fixed here?

The minimum number of crew in a Beech 1900D is one pilot. That makes it single pilot certified. Don't know how this can be seen as ambiguous.

[south coast]

I think the ambiguity starts because the plane weighs in excess of 12,500lbs or the 5700kgs which I believe then requires the commander to hold an ATPL, unless the manufacturer dictates that the plane has been certified as a single pilot plane.

If that is not correct, then I am confused.

[cavortingcheetah]

The law of licence privilege in South Africa used to be that a Commercial Pilot Licence holder could fly an aircraft for hire or reward up to, or up to and including, a weight of 5,700kgs?
After that there was a Senior Commercial Licence with a further maximum weight restriction and then, above that the ATPL with no weight restriction. It seems as though the CAA created a small problem for itself when that law was changed. The cynical might wonder if it were commercial pressures that led to a reduction in the qualifications required to fly aircraft over a certain weight? We seem now to have arrived at a stage where commercial operators can claim that their operations manuals have become the arbiters as to who has the time to fly what. But such manuals can be both highly flexible and open to a great degree of interpretation. Such interpretations, as we all know full well, usually may be said to favour commercialism.
If the decision as to whether a pilot has sufficient hours to fly a B1900 is left to the operator and his operations manual, then who audits those claimed flying hours to ensure that they have been genuinely flown and in the correct configuration? The system is really quite open to abuse, both by commercially minded operators and by pilots eager to augment their hours by either stretching the imagination or by actual inclusion in the log book of Parker time. Since at least two of the functions of a CAA might reasonably be supposed to be the prevention of abuse and the promulgation of safety; it surely seems reasonable that the Authority should exert its quite legal powers in these respects. In so doing, there seems no reason why the SA/CAA should necessarily follow the laws or procedures of a foreign Authority. It is furthermore, not an adequate argument to claim that, as one has been flying B1900s using CPL holders up to now, it is thus sufficient justification for continuing to do so. The rebuttal to such an argument is quite historically straightforward. Reference to the 1976 ANRs will show that at that time a Commercial Licence holder would not have been permitted to fly an aircraft of the weight of a B1900 for hire or reward. This is indeed one of the many reasons why the B200 was for so many years as popular as it was in South Africa, its weight falling within the remit of a CPL. Of course, that too was a single pilot operation in that one pilot, sitting in the left seat, could reach all switches and controls in the cockpit. That did not make the aircraft single crew, commercial operations. That decision lies with the national aviation authority, not with Beechcraft and its hometown certification procedures.
The simplest solution for the CAA is therefore, surely, to revert to the old licensing weight limitation qualifications and to obtain whatever opt out clause is necessary in terms of individual nation requirements in any JAR/OPS discussions in the future. There is little homogeneity between international CAAs and the likelihood of one professional licence covering all countries is completely remote. One more set of JAR/OPS differences is not going to make a great deal of difference.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Wasn't it 2700kg before requiring a SCPL to command aircraft up to 5700kg?