Beech 1900 SIC
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still looking for a place
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Request submitted
I have it on good authority that two companies have put in letters requesting that CAA complies to the multi-crew ruling and that ATP pilots be used and NOT commercial pilots as captains on the 1900.
So much for the operators standing together.
Oh and by the way, Calculator, please let your "have it on good authority, bag of wind" that someone has been suspended, that what they told you is a klomp twak, and before they give you duff gen like that again to please make sure of their facts, because they only make idiots of others...
Just when I thought that I could suntan.......it rained.
Goffel..
So much for the operators standing together.
Oh and by the way, Calculator, please let your "have it on good authority, bag of wind" that someone has been suspended, that what they told you is a klomp twak, and before they give you duff gen like that again to please make sure of their facts, because they only make idiots of others...
Just when I thought that I could suntan.......it rained.
Goffel..
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: JOHANNESBERG
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspended
Sorry Goffel my mistake!
How wrong could I be?When the individual phoned me to advise that he had been suspended how would you like me to record this?
I think this might have just been a little warning to certain people in the CAA to act within the company structures and not (pick up telephone and cause havoc) Have been away in Africa for past week flying in Africa, will update you soon,BAG OF WIND OUT.
How wrong could I be?When the individual phoned me to advise that he had been suspended how would you like me to record this?
I think this might have just been a little warning to certain people in the CAA to act within the company structures and not (pick up telephone and cause havoc) Have been away in Africa for past week flying in Africa, will update you soon,BAG OF WIND OUT.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calculator, if you are good with small numbers you may be able to work out the intellectual level that you are pitching your responses at.
Take the high road, at least you may get a better view.
Take the high road, at least you may get a better view.
Last edited by WhinerLiner; 3rd Aug 2008 at 16:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lost
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess nobody knows the answer to the question. It feels like one of those situations that if you ignore it it does not exist. To me it is clear that the regs say anything over 5700 kg is part 121, and that requires an ATP. I dont get why the CAA is ignoring this and not made a permanent stand. I know all the operators use comm captains and such but that does not change the law.
Annoyed
Annoyed
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW - WHERE do the regs actually say that ? No point in being annoyed. Flying multipilot crew does not always imply, that the PIC has to hold an ATPL - that depends on the performance certification of the aircraft and it's requirements as stated in the POH. As for it's hybrid charakter, the 1900s (or Metro's etc) should be treated as such - depending on the situation under which Part that particular flight is operated, different rules/laws will apply. They are even different between the D and the C Models as has been mentioned.
What has also been mentioned, is that the cockpitlayout would also have to be re-modified as there are certain standards that need to be fulfilled. i.e. check Solenta's post on page 2.
What has also been mentioned, is that the cockpitlayout would also have to be re-modified as there are certain standards that need to be fulfilled. i.e. check Solenta's post on page 2.
Last edited by Propellerpilot; 10th Aug 2008 at 09:09.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the big blue books and then get annoyed.
Flyingwrench-the reason you are being ignored is because you have no idea what you are talking about. This has got ZERO to do with 121/135. The question relates to the priviledges of a CPL vs ATP. Those reg's (P61) make no reference to 5.7 tons or in fact any other weight restriction. The consideration is whether the aircraft is CERTIFIED for single pilot operation, not if the TYPE of operation requires 2 crew.
So here's a question for you then, by the same scratchy logic does a Caravan require an ATP driver? Most are operated under IFR, and in most cases require 2 crew? How about a King Air 200?
So here's a question for you then, by the same scratchy logic does a Caravan require an ATP driver? Most are operated under IFR, and in most cases require 2 crew? How about a King Air 200?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lost
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know I was being ignored. I admit I dont have a clue about SA regulations regarding this issue. I did my training in the US and 121 and 135 are completly different, does not base anything on weight that I know of. This is something that I am trying to learn more about. Everything that I have read has pointed out that 121 is 5700kg or more, at least that is what I thought it said. I dont have the big blue books to read, and it seams nobody else does - not even the CAA because I have not heard a definite answer. (bouncing head on brick wall smiley)
Last edited by FlyingWrench; 11th Aug 2008 at 10:20.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - your personal concern is rather your SIC question at the start. Due to the fact that even the SACAA and many other people are partially confused with it's own laws, this thread got slightly twisted.
If you actually read the blue books (you can get it on the internet) and the relevant POH's then you will get a better idea and the essence has already been reflected in this thread.
I have just gone through aquiring a 1900 type rating signed out with a copilot restriction on the forms (single pilot high performance aircraft, warbird form) - HOWEVER on my licence this restriction is not reflected - it says P1 without any restrictions.
To solve your problem, go write Matthew at the CAA an email - he will be able to answer your question on what your type rating is worth, in the end, apart from what everybody else has written here in the forum, they are the ones who will tell you what they want from you. From my experience, I guess he might offer you a skills test with one of his DE's in an aircraft.
If you actually read the blue books (you can get it on the internet) and the relevant POH's then you will get a better idea and the essence has already been reflected in this thread.
I have just gone through aquiring a 1900 type rating signed out with a copilot restriction on the forms (single pilot high performance aircraft, warbird form) - HOWEVER on my licence this restriction is not reflected - it says P1 without any restrictions.
To solve your problem, go write Matthew at the CAA an email - he will be able to answer your question on what your type rating is worth, in the end, apart from what everybody else has written here in the forum, they are the ones who will tell you what they want from you. From my experience, I guess he might offer you a skills test with one of his DE's in an aircraft.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would have to prove to him, that you have fulfilled the all the requirements (including an ATO syllabus), which are stated in the Part 61 type rating requirements (READ it !!! on CAA website) and what experience you already have (FAA etc). Then you do the skills test flying in the right hand seat with a DE. If he signs you out - then yes you will be issued with a 1P.
But as I have said before - the testing standards officers at the SACAA are the only ones that will give you an answer to your specific case - in fact it does not even matter, what anybody else says here in the forum - they do provide individual solutions in accordance with the part 61 Law in order to satisfy themselves. Worst case would be that they just won't accept it from the start.
But as I have said before - the testing standards officers at the SACAA are the only ones that will give you an answer to your specific case - in fact it does not even matter, what anybody else says here in the forum - they do provide individual solutions in accordance with the part 61 Law in order to satisfy themselves. Worst case would be that they just won't accept it from the start.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still looking for a place
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the Commissioner for the answer in writing.
I have to admit to being a bit amazed at this whole debate.
..
Firstly there was a meeting on the 15th with the CAA inspectors.....a concensus was agreed upon........the 1900D needed an ATP captain.
..
Adrian Lyions of testing standards then comes to Flight Op's and gives an instruction, (which in his own words in front of witnesses, came from the commissioner),to an inspector to notify certain operators, that the commissioner says, "to tell the operators to desist from operating the 1900D's with commercial pilots as captains with immediate effect".
Said inspector does as he is asked to.
Then there is a meeting with all (except the two that were thrown out of the meeting, because a certain testing standards inspector does not like them).
At the meeting, CAA argues amongst themselves to such an extent that Adrian Lyions is told to sit down and shut up by Blake Voster in front of all the amazed operators.
Then the operators are told that a mistake has been made and that the directive never came from the commissioner...........
Now, where my amazement comes in, has anyone actually spoken to the commissioner about the whole debacle.
No....not one operator has picked up the phone and asked the commissioner to give his view and to put it on paper.
Until that happens, the law is and always will be unclear.......just like the law that say that if you fly IFR, you have to have two crew...(not IMC...but IFR).
(and it makes no provision for an auto pilot instead of the second pilot)....so there you have another debate due to spelling mistakes in the law.
Part 121, says IMC.........Part 135, says IFR.
So the answer to the 1900D story......ask the commissioner to send you a letter with the answer.
Goffel....(in need of a real job).
..
Firstly there was a meeting on the 15th with the CAA inspectors.....a concensus was agreed upon........the 1900D needed an ATP captain.
..
Adrian Lyions of testing standards then comes to Flight Op's and gives an instruction, (which in his own words in front of witnesses, came from the commissioner),to an inspector to notify certain operators, that the commissioner says, "to tell the operators to desist from operating the 1900D's with commercial pilots as captains with immediate effect".
Said inspector does as he is asked to.
Then there is a meeting with all (except the two that were thrown out of the meeting, because a certain testing standards inspector does not like them).
At the meeting, CAA argues amongst themselves to such an extent that Adrian Lyions is told to sit down and shut up by Blake Voster in front of all the amazed operators.
Then the operators are told that a mistake has been made and that the directive never came from the commissioner...........
Now, where my amazement comes in, has anyone actually spoken to the commissioner about the whole debacle.
No....not one operator has picked up the phone and asked the commissioner to give his view and to put it on paper.
Until that happens, the law is and always will be unclear.......just like the law that say that if you fly IFR, you have to have two crew...(not IMC...but IFR).
(and it makes no provision for an auto pilot instead of the second pilot)....so there you have another debate due to spelling mistakes in the law.
Part 121, says IMC.........Part 135, says IFR.
So the answer to the 1900D story......ask the commissioner to send you a letter with the answer.
Goffel....(in need of a real job).
