Beech 1900 SIC

[cavortingcheetah]

Could have been, although the figure of 7,400kgs sticks in the brain for the old SCPL.
We always had ATPLs in the LHS of the 200 in the old days.
The principle of the argument would stay the same, just be a darned sight more hard bottomed for the CPLs today.

[planecrazi]

I seem to remember the figure of 20 tons for senior comm. Those were the days, hey Swanepoel!!!!

Having flown 6000 hours on the KingAir on contract, I did complete the last 800 hours on the B1900 UC (long range tanks), and remember that we were not allowed to treat it, as single crew in East Africa. Strictly 2 crew only, regardless of the POH limitations/certification. (rules is rules!) When training was being undertaken, or when I was doing the type rating testing for the Kenyan DCA, we had to carry a qualified P2 in the back, so in the end were actually 3 crew.

Now as for logging of hours with 3 crew in a B1900, this leaves another question.

Mind you, I last flew this aircraft over 10 years ago before joing the airline world, so a lot has been forgotten and so I find this thread most interesting.
I still hold a P2 on the machine with a SA ATPL, but have never utilised the SA ALTP ever since obtaining it, and never completed a P1 check ride in SA, only in East Africa.

[cavortingcheetah]

Swanepoel! JJ!

Yes, one remembers him although not with any great degree of affection. The rumour was that he was the way he was because he had never been able to pass the ATPL examination subjects and objected to being looked down on by the rest of the DCA gang while they flew right hand seat to keep him legal in the King Airs?

I think that you're right about the twenty tons. Seem to remember that the HS748 fell within an ATPL while the F27 was just within an SCPL. Not that it made any difference because, obviously one had to have the ATPL. But that would corroborate your memory.

[planecrazi]

Wasn't Swanepoel the inspector who shut down a King Air engine with the condition lever, and then decided it wasn't a good idea, and so he put the condition lever back while the pilot was under the hood? He then looked out the window and said to the pilot, "you have an engine fire" and so the pilot simulated the drill to which Swanepoel answered, " you still have a blooody fire". No doubt it cost Struben Street (DCA) a little something.

[cavortingcheetah]

That's the one and such is the story which I believe to be quite true. There were several more such rumoured episodes in his career and, at the end of the day, I think some people really did draw the line and refuse to have him on their aircraft as a test officer. I seem to remember that he did something on a Rembrandt Falcon once which occasioned the curtailment of his life's supply of cigarettes and Dunhill lighters, if he smoked at all, and thus became banned from that fleet.

[WhinerLiner]

But meanwhile, back on the actual topic..................

[cavortingcheetah]

Still on topic with just a slight amplification of the subject in a discussion of Beechcraft aircraft weights, appropriate licensing, and the mishandling of PT6 engines by those who were employed by SA CAA.

[Shrike200]

Later developments on this thread are relevant, re. the HPA bits and more info on initial turbine conversions in general:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/african...ml#post4285359

Thanks to Prop Pilot for the gen.

[VortexGen300]

B1900 Single or 2 crew?

Hey why don't they just fit multiple Auto Pilots to the machine and leave the pilot at home - then they won't have to worry if the guy has a CPL or ATP or a Microlight license for that matter?

Anyhow why don't you just go out get the trusted aircraft in the hangar and fly your friends around while they pay when you only have a PPL with 5000 hours on type? Well it is the law that you can't - and those that do know what to expect when they are caught out?

Now for the same reason you don't go out fly in the roll of commander of a boeing at an airline with only a CPL - they would not allow you - because when they are caught out . . . . .

So now the law says . . .

B1900 is an aircraft with a MAUW of more than 5700 kg - it is an aircraft that can carry more than 9 passengers. Now because of all sorts of pressures and requests the CAA has allowed the "OLD LAW" to be bent and twisted by operators under specific applications. Such issues are always temporary in nature and was bound to be withdrawn at some stage. For some reason the CAA also allowed themselves to be bullied by operators into changing certain phrases and wording in the regulations to assist some in their efforts to make the extra buck (probably allowing for some flash cash to flow under the tables as well but I am only speculating).

It is understandable that operators now are in some form of predicament - the CAA has now reverted to the real intention of the regulations and closed the loopholes that was exploited by operators and themselves.

But why have the operators not closed the situation with the ATP issue - why did they not design a program where they would get a guy to enter as a First Officer with a CPL, train him to become a Captain and make sure he is an ATP by then. Well reality is that they were so into making their money that they never bothered to pay the pilot a decent salary - they messed around with him, expected him to fly with sub-standard equipment and you can add to this list - so when the first opportunity arise this guy will move on and they are in sh!t - they are back to square 1. Now lets send a MAYDAY to the CAA and gues what the CAA through a life vest / life raft to the operator - Yes sir you may now operate the aircraft with two CPL but it is not a free for all . . . . rules are rules and the guy in Command has to have 1500 hours min and his co-jo 500 or nothing? and for that sir - I really need a favour???? (the one hand washes the other . . . )

I would admit that it is by no means that difficult to fly especially a 1900 although it requires you to have the knowledge and ability.

So maybe just maybe the CAA should reconsider one thing - the wording of the priviledges of a license holder.

CPL when flying for reward commercially - PIC of all aircraft up to 5700 kg or on any single pilot certified aircraft as rated provided that on single pilot certified aircraft above 5700 kg (with no more than 19 passenger seats) he will have in excess of 1200 hours flying experience (of which 100 hours on type) and will be assited by a rated CPL co-pilot who has at least 500 hours flying experience.

And to satisfy the YANKS & FAA:
When more than 9 pax are carried in an aircraft their will always be 2 flight crew members.


ATP - PIC all as rated

Eish - still a compromise but how on earth are they going to sort this mess out?



VG300

[WhinerLiner]

VG300, you need to deal with that anger brother

[VortexGen300]

VG300, you need to deal with that anger brother

1. Who said I am a brother? - I might be a sister?

2. I am angry but because we are f'ed around and literally running against a wall? With the circus we are put in by "well meaning" operators who say - we have this sorted out with the CAA - just to discover they are bull sh!tting us

And it is turning out to be a hell of an embarrasment and now after resigning a job spend money on a type rating - promised a job on a 1900 now to discover I can't and I also have no way back from where I come?

Time to move on (read "back" and start again ???)!

VG300

[south coast]

Lost me brother, or was it sister?

Makes me think back to the woman played by Michael Palin in The Life of Brian... 'it is every man's right, and woman's, yes thank you sister, to be a free man, or woman-thank you sister.....'

[HansFlyer]

Latest on this issue?

Any updates on this circus where the clowns are running around to try and allow or prohibit a CPL fly an aircraft they say is or is not supposed to be flown by an ATP?

Hansflyer.

[flux]

Why not just go do the ATP?

[VortexGen300]

Why not just go do the ATP?

Well there seem to be a few stumbling blocks:

1. It takes time to study and do the exams.
2. To do the ATP test you also need to have done a MCC and fly 500 hours as co-pilot on an Multi-crew aircraft.
3. And yes you need to go hire a Multi engine Turbine aircraft to do the flight test.
4. At the dismal rates pilots are paid - hardly anyone can afford that expense.
5. And yes I forgot to mention now that the operators are stuffed - they are not making the money to pay the pilots -
so yes they are in bigger sh!t

A rough guess on the cost estimate for one with the hours that will need to test:

MCC on a 1900 simulator is approx ZAR23 000.
The cost of rental of a BE20 or similar for roughly 2 hours provided you have the aircraft on your license - ZAR15 000 if you are lucky.

Now if you don't have the rating it will probably cost you around ZAR40 000 to get the rating - probably worth it to do the combined 1900 be20 rating and MCC at one of the bigger training centres.

Worst of all this exclude the cost of the actual test?

Where were the days when you could literally fly the hours and do the test in a Baron or Seneca?

So it is actually just getting more difficult for the PDI's to get anywhere without someone with a lot of financial backing - and for the CDI's it is impossible without committing to a training bond and as a result get screwed by the operators?

VG300

[flux]

Vortex, sorry to hear about your predicament. I am not too clued up on the new 61, but I am sure you could do your test on a normal complex aircraft. It DOES take time to get the subjects, and many people have done it, and will continue to do it. Nothing wrong with doing a little work. Bonding has and will continue to be a fact of life in aviation. Nothing is for free. As for ATP's and B190's, the better operators have always operated that way. A loophole may make it legal, but not necessarily right. Glad CAA have closed it.

[50feet]

Well with regards to moaning about costs of atp flight testing . . . any company worth their salt should pay for it! Period! mine certainly does and they are all too happy to have you do it and upgrade. just my two cents

[Irene]

Sounds like due policy making process has been followed by the CAA

Many of the posts here try to make this issue an experience vs inexperience issue or an ATPL vs CPL war and, whilst I think all of those points are valid, this issue, I believe, is one of wording. The manufacturer says single pilot under certain conditions and the CPL PIC limitations include no multi-crew operation or anything >5700 kg (I know there are sub-paragraphs to those and more)

Loop hole or not, which words set the legal precident? If a deceased passenger's family lays a civil claim against the operator, PIC and SACAA who is going to be accountable? This answer should come from CAA legal department, not flight operations.

It boosts operator's profits to employ a lower qualified pilot (who has less chance of getting into an airline) rather than a more qualified and naturally expensive one. To me, the question is not about whether boosting a handful of people's profits is safe or not, it is really whether it is legal or not.

The SACAA should be held accountable for its poor leadership on this issue. But then that would beg the question as to whether SA has an accountable government and for that matter can you really call it a democracy when a bad government is not voted out... but I suppose that is for a different forum.

[VortexGen300]

but I am sure you could do your test on a normal complex aircraft.

Nope - The CAA has already made it easier as the original reg's said: "MULTI CREW CERTIFIED" and that excluded even the 1900's so they were under enormous pressure to change it to "any Multi Turbine". They will probably not change it down again.

In terms of the costs and company paying for it - I AGREE - but we are now getting to a circus where some of the clowns we have are starting to talk about self sponsored type ratings on aircraft - and that will surely sort the big money spinners from the normal oakes?

Back to the thread - Any news on the latest about this issue - was expecting to hear from the meeting between the operators and the CAA earlier this week?

VG300

[Propellerpilot]

There have been no final conclusions so far. A letter will be drafted, as soon as they have made up their minds.