Be1900 commands
 

The South African CAA has allowed some operators to fly Beech 1900's multicrew with captains who only hold a CPL and type rating. As the 1900 is greater than the 5,700kg weight limit how is this legally possible?
Do any other countries allow this?

Surley a private pilot can fly a B1900 privately, so long as it is not for hire or reward, you don't need an ALTP or com. Insurance may be higher.It is possibly along these lines these guys possibly get away with it, otherwise I have no clue!

Very likely because the aircraft is cleared for single pilot operations. I do believe the new system does away with the ALTP requirement for over 5700kg, however, if the flight manual states a minimum of a 2 pilot crew then the P1 requires an ALTP whatever the weight of the aircraft.

If the company requires a two pilot operation then the P1 can be CPL rated in any aircraft cleared for single pilot ops as per the Aircraft Flight Manual.

Have not flown the B1900 myself but have read reports of it being operated single pilot on freight ops.

Prospector

I believe Prospector is 100% correct. Raytheon certifies the B1900 for single-pilot operations and that's what creates the loophole. Even though the CARs requires 2 pilots for commercial transport ops excess of 5700kgs, it is the 1-pilot certification that means the P1 can be a regular CLP on such ops.

So, it's not just "some" operators in SA who can do this...it's ALL operators who can, albeit it that some may choose to have an ATP requirement as part of their own internal SOPs.

What about a PPL being in command of a jumbo - as long as he operates in Part 91 with the required ratings/endorsements there should be no problem. The facts change when you do any commercial ops or flight of any kind for reward, so freight flights are NOT excluded. Part 121 and 135 should be respected. Other aviation authoroties ie. Australia who operate plenty Metro 3/23/IVc type a/c (similar cert as the 1900) when operated for reward must still have and ATPL for the commander. I believe the CAA are currently turning a blind eye to those operators who utilise 2 x cpl's operating these a/c for some reason. Any comments from the CAA on this forum would be more informative.

I believe, from what I have been expained is this situation has been caused by the inability of the CAA to decide on wich system they want us to operate, because until such time as there is no meratrium on the complete use of the Parts and repealing of the ANR's the will be an even bigger grey are as normal. This allows for the loop hole and as well as provide for the fustration for frozen JAR atp holders that cannot unfreeze their ATP because the 1900 is certified as 1 pilot only.
Operaters will utilize the loophole until such times it is closed.
And yes I will be able to fly my 400 on a ppl if I can just afford to scrape togeter the down payment. Like a doctor with a Baron.

Baghdaddie
 

As far as other countries are concerned:

It is perfectly legal under the JAA system to be captain on a Single-Pilot Airplane (JAR 23, which the BE1900 is certified under) with a CPL, under commercial operations.

Not so under the FAA system which strictly applies the 5,700 kg MTOW rule, above which you must be ATP rated to achieve command, under commercial operations again. As Prospector is saying, you can fly single-pilot if less than 10 passenger seats are installed in the aircraft, but still I believe that you need to be ATP rated.

Dunno what the SACAA's position is on that.

Thanks you old dog....

Yep, one day maybe when I am big they will give me one of those GREEN books like what you have now.....!

Congrats by the way.

Treetopflyer..Are you sure, I mean 100 per cent positive. I do know under FAA one has to be type rated above 12,500 gross and I also know there is a max passenger restriction for age 60 Commercial and above. Without hitting the books which I guess Im going to have to, I dont know that ATP is required for Commercial Ops on the Beech for command. This may be true depending if flown part 121 vs. 135 but again I cant find my FARs, someone in Africa has them..........
I do recall a very rich young lady who once got her PPl in Sugar Daddies 707.......so goes the myth about what you can fly. Can you imagine learning to fly in that puppy.

For south coast
 

S C,
Thanx boet, please accept my apology for mutilating your mother toungue in the way that I did. Had a debate with THE CAPTAIN. Vasbyt. And its Bright Green!
Greetings to all the sand rats, and camel lovers
From a hot and wet spot.
PS Heard The Muntu from the Midlands jumped ship? Any truth in it?
Drop me a line on my e-mail so I can get yrs

The only operator that I am aware of at present that operates the 1900 with CPL rated captains is NAC. I have been told that this practice is to be stopped and the captains currently flying the aircraft on their com licences have been given a deadline to achieve their ATPLs.

The way that the situation was explained to me is that a loophole in the way that the law is written is exploited, although as far as I am concerned this is not in the spirit of the law. The 1900 is certified as a single crew aircraft, although since it operates under part 121 (>5700kg), 2 crew are required and the commander should hold an ATPL for passenger carrying operations.

As far as the number of seats is concerned: It is irrelevant how many seats are installed in the aircraft - what is relevant is how many seats the aircraft is certified for ie. you can't pull out seats until there are only 10 left and then claim that you don't need an ATPL to fly the aircraft. Besides, that would be a great way to go out of business fast!

Wheels up writes:"As far as the number of seats is concerned: It is irrelevant how many seats are installed in the aircraft - what is relevant is how many seats the aircraft is certified for ie. you can't pull out seats until there are only 10 left and then claim that you don't need an ATPL to fly the aircraft."

What I meant was that after age 60 (In the States) you cannot fly command( ATP or COMM) for aircraft over 19 seats (certified for, Im sure)

1900 commanders. my 2 cents worth.
 

One of the larger SA based 1900 operator's insurance co, refused to cover commercial 1900 ops with non ATP rated commanders.

Irrespective of the legal loopholes currently being flown through by various operators, I guess the acid test of this arrangement will be when the first insurance claim occurs on a commercial 1900 flight with a non atp captain.

B Sousa
 

Am I 100% sure? Well, my last FAR book is just about as lost as yours, so I must admit it is what I remember from it. As you say, taking a look up in the book is the only way to know for sure.

Wheels up: yeah, "number of seats certified for", not "number of seats installed in the aircraft", you're right. Too easy otherwise...:rolleyes:

whatever loop hole is being used i find it very difficult to believe a company such as nac is somehow breaking the law, or even cheating in some way...

they are only too aware of the reprocussions should something happen and they are not 100% legal.

the real question is...if you are the holder of a cpl and the command is offered to you, that means a doubling of your salary, would you turn it down on principle that you dont have an atpl an smile when they ask the next in line holder of a cpl and he or she takes it?

dog, i dont have your email address...

I can't see it being illegal. The CAA will not put it on your licence and a GR1 instructor will not sign you out as P1 on the aircraft if it is not 100% legal.

Gents, It is not a loophole making this possible, it is pretty clear in the regulations!
Priviliges of commercial pilot licence stipulate and I quote:
"(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any aeroplane CERTIFIED FOR SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS"

There should thus be no insurance issues, as it is 100% legal
as we all agree that the 1900 is certified as such.

I agree, the certification of single pilot ops is pushing it in a 1900, in some emergencies it could prove to be fatal! However, try and tell that to the people that certified it.

In conclusion, if I have a 1900, I would prefer a ATPL pilot to be in command!
:p

Another tea cup storm
 

My golly gee, I just love these storms in a teacup where even I can see over the edge. Whats the issue.
The law did not allow for it, now it does. Some of us had to wait a long time to drive it from the left, now we dont have to wait that long.
For some of us the 1900 is still an awsome medium weight aircraft, for some of us just another over powered, stretched 200.
Some of us are pulling G's, because we chose to join a company that chooses not to utilise the "loophole" ( I myself prefer liberty), and some of us were unlucky to choose the one that doesnt.
What it tells me (on the other hand Darren) is that there is a shortage of 1900 Captains with ATP's. Comanies will utilise the resorces available to them. If the industry was crawling with ATP qualified 1900 drivers they will get utilised if not the "loophole/liberty" rule will apply.
Here is what you do:
If you have an ATP(not fozen) get the rating, and some hours. If neccecary pay for the rating. The hours will follow.
If you have 1900 rating and hours, get an ATP, or leave the company that you with and join one that does utilize the "loophole/liberty". Unless ofcourse you can convince your company, to partake in the generous exploitation of the wealth of experiened 1900 drivers that they employ already, by moving them to port.
To find yourself trapped with a company that over pay you with out utilising the full extent of your abilities is a choice my friend.Your own.
If you like the money and not the seat, do something about it, ie. Get a Rating, or ATP, or a change of Company, or SOP's.
Flying is easy, the choices that we have to make might not be, but we have to make them and live with our choices.

If one digs a little deeper one finds that there are more operators than nac, using this liberty. Live with it.


.....and the walrus did his normal thing.......

Verreaux Eagle writes:"In conclusion, if I have a 1900, I would prefer a ATPL pilot to be in command!"

Interesting comment. OK ATP just got his license last week and also checked out in the 1900. Ink still fresh in the book.
Commerical Pilot has been flying all over Africa for years and can verbally rebuiild the aircraft for you due to his knowledge of the machine.
Im going with the Commercial Pilot..... We can all read about your trip into darkest Africa.
License or Rating DOES NOT always make the Pilot.
Also would you pay the ATP more or would you do as so many others, squeeze him when he asks for more than a Commercial Pilot. As some of the Beech series are certified single Pilot, some companies will opt for one ATP instead of filling both seats. That other seat is not or should not be used for PAX. It gets very busy sometimes.

Treetopflyer, stay in touch and I will bring a couple current FAR/AIMs over next year.

Guys,
I can t find anything in the FAR's mentionning an ATPL requiremet to be PIC on the 1900 or such A/C
Type rated yes.
Cheers
PS: I 'll search some more.

The 1900 was rated as a single crew A/C for cargo operations in the states, the cargo configured 1900 also has an increased MTOW , why not exploit that as well and stick another 3 seats in the A/C ?

Just because some cheap operator found a way to cut a corner it should not appeal to pilots to use this, most company SOP still require an ATPL to command the machine, and pilots in general will not gain anything from this, except the Comm piot in the left of course... What stops the CAA from saying guys with P2 ratings can only count a 1/4 of the time instead of 1/2 because the A/C, like the 200 is certified single crew ? How many guys will loose out then ?

As for some believing the 1900 is a "overpowered streched 200", fly it like a 200 and youll come 2nd mate.... It is a MEDIUM Turboprop and handles like one, respect the machine, one of the best A/C ever built.

NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of theyr green licence books. This will be the last batch aswell. Some other companys do however utilise guys with no subjects and little over 1500hrs, so wrong, so very very wrong...

Bit off topic but bear in mind that Lancasters and other heavy aircraft were flown, for the most part successfully, by pilots with very little experience. In NZ we had CPL's flying single pilot in DC3's on agricultural ops for many years, in fact there was one fellow who had approval to ferry them single pilot,when he was holding only a PPL. The ATPL was I believe originally to qualify skippers for international operations. Back in the days when one also had to hold a Flight Navigators licence to go offshore. There was a licence called Senior Commercial for domestic ops, that has now gone the way of the Dodo.

Prospector

I agree with togolosie, 1 of 2 things will happen,

Either CAA will revise their laws and make the ATPL a requirement again, which will leave the guys with training bonds for a P1 rating standing outside in the cold with a logbook full of command time which will always be disputed.

Or guys that have been flying the 1900 as cojo will get scrued out of logging 1/2 the time towards a higher license, just so some could benefit from something most frown upon anyway.

Rather do it the right way, takes a bit longer, but cut the cake now and pay dearly later in an airline interview where they look at you as one of the "loophole" pilots ??

Fly safe

BW

My, my here we go again...
The B1900 is a bus...
Its just a bus, it drives like one, it looks like one, it smells like one. It needs bus drivers to drive it.
The HIACE of the sky. How ever one cannot fit the same number of pax in one.
The HIACE rules,ok. the 1900 also doesnt have the roofrack space.
But before I get stoned,
I am kidding!!!!!!!!
I also drive one(if I have to) and I enjoy it.


.... and the walrus did it again.

Toglosie wrote:

"NAC does utilise comm PIC`s but they all have frozen ATPL`s and are at most 100 hrs short of their green licence books."

Wrong. I know NAC 1900 drivers that don't have their subjects (or are presently studying for them). Then again whether they have the subjects or not is irrelevant - they still don't have the ATPL.

Although I agree with the sentiment that I would rather fly with an experienced 1900 driver with a com than one with low hours on type and a freshly minted ATPL, who said the law ever needs to be rational! Its still the law.

As usual it is the insurance companies that will have the final say.

As for the 1900 being a Hiace - BS - with the Hiace everything keeps going right! You have insulted Hiace drivers everywhere - the shame; being compared to a 1900 driver - what next!

OK - let the stoning begin....

The 1900 may be a bus, but even bus drivers need a licensce to drive one ! (Except in SA of course)

Call it what you like but dont slag it until youve flown it !
-10 to +50 degrees celcuis no problem, 1200m runways full up no-problem. I love my stallion bakkie !

Fly safe

BW

PS

Contraxdog, bet it will smell nice with a load of guavas on board ! (The fruit)

rather you than me zoltan....max all up with 50 degress celcius outside......

i sometimes wonder what would actually happen if suddenly there was only one?

i know what the graphs say.....but engines that have been in the desert for a while are :mad: !

South Coast
 

All in the name of aviation my friend !!

True you always have to keep a single engine consideration in mind at all times, but I`m sure the company you contract for will frown a bit if you cant do the flight "because if whe do loose an engine we might be ducked even though the trusty POH tells us otherwise" !!

If Emerates can take a A340 or B747 out of Dubai, we can take our Stallion out of some remote strip in the desert !! Luckily we have awesome engineers who keep our machines like the day they rolled out of the factory... ( Just keep this quiet from mr Murphy !!)

Fly safe

BW

My two cents worth...
 

Having been an examiner (Form 64 designator) for type ratings on the B1900 in an East African state 7 years ago and having flown 6000 hours on the KingAir, a commercial pilot licence holder was still limited to 12 500lbs. Although the B1900 was certified as a single crew aircraft, this was not allowed on commercial operations, but rather in private category. Aid is not private and falls under a commercial operation which required two crew and the Captain had to hold an ALTP.

There are always limitations in aviation and always the first lmitation applied. In this case it was the weight for commercial operation which required an ALTP to be in Command.

Take for example the B300LW was restricted to 12500 for single pilot operation and PLACARDED at the entrance with this maximum weight Not allowed to be flown with higher weight. PERIOD. Therefore a commercial pilot could command it single crew.

The normal Be300 could take-off at over 14000 lbs and required two crew for this. (certified and PLACARDED) The Captain had to have an ALTP. (An extra emergency exit was added to the Be300LW/Be300)

I cannot see how any loophole exists if a commercial pilot is still limited to 12500lbs is now flying a 16600 lb aeroplane.

I am still open to learning on this one, but so far nothing has made sense and I am surprised that no-one has contributed from Pretoria.:confused:

When Impulse Airlines operated the B1900D (13 aircraft at one stage)in Australia they operated it single pilot for their night freight runs. The Australian CAA/CASA allowed it due to the fact the aircraft were fitted with Autopilot's. During the day the seats were put back in and was operated with 2 pilots.
To earn the single pilot rating the pilot required 6-12 months on type, in 2 crew ops. The single pilot crews had there own operating procedures. I believe all pilots had ATPL's, however I have heard that some other night freight operators, operating Metro 3's have approval for CPL holders to operate as PIC.
Impulse operated the 1900D on single pilot night operations for just under 10 years with no problems at all.
I believe all the ex-Impulse aircraft are now in SA with NAC.

verreauw eagle has quite neatly explained where the loophole arises:

Priviliges of commercial pilot licence stipulate and I quote:
"(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any aeroplane CERTIFIED FOR SINGLE-PILOT OPERATIONS"

This a quote from the ANRs which are still the relevant legislation as regards pilot licencing as part 61 is STILL not yet in force.

So, a commercial pilot can fly as pilot in command in the B190.

Now comes the interesting bit. The B190 is NOT certified to carry more than nine passengers UNLESS two crew operate. In fact, a quick scan of the POH and operating limitations will show that if the B190 is operated single crew then all seats in excess of nine MUST be rendered unoccupiable in the manner laid out. (It is NOT sufficient just to carry no more than nine passengers).

So, we have an aeroplane that can be legally operated single crew as it is certified for single crew operation, but not operated single crew with more than nine passengers.

Well, well. 'Operation' is not 'Certification' and legally a commercial pilot, in a South African registered aeroplane, can be pilot in command as it is certified single crew, regardless of the number of passengers, and regardless of the fact that the operation requires multicrew.

So, 19 passengers require multicrew.... under the aircraft operating limitations, but they can be flown by a commercial pilot, as the the pilot in command, based on legislation allowing him to be pilot in command of an aircraft CERTIFIED for single crew operation.

Ok, you say, but what about the spirit of the law and, hang on a minute, this sounds a bit dodgy and surely not right??

Legislation of any kind, and I spent years working on looking for loopholes in taxation legislation, is never watertight. There are often convincing arguments both ways on particular issues, and it is all down to interpretation in a manner that is most beneficial to a particular plaintiff. This is why there is a whole raft of legal cases and the principle of precedent. Whether anyone will be bothered to obtain a legal ruling on the matter and incur the associated costs I very seriously doubt. After all, it would only be seeking a tightening of the situation, and for whose benefit? The travelling public? Oh, please! It is the SACAAs interperetation that wins out, and there we have it!! :-)

very good gerund...

i am truely glad to see they let you out of prison.

i take it that is where you have been since making bogus licences on your computer and printer, aquiring ficticious hours on microsoft simulator games and deceiving the caa about medicals and crm courses.

Wotcha South Coast.... yes, prison was a grim place... but learnt a hell of a lot that could come in handy! Hope all is well with you, and glad that you are not taking off too hot!!!

The figure for the 1900 is actually ISA +37 which makes it +52 only at sea level....if Zoltan tries that at Joburg he might come unstuck!! :-) And only at normal take off power.... don't try reduced take off power at those temps unless you ditch most of the payload!!

Hope to see you soon!!

yeah thanks gerund for that....

one day i will get round to opening the manual.....

where are you these days....

had breakfast with the finn the other day...

any news from the dark side?

South Coast....

wish I could say 'open the manual' but maybe not such a bright idea!! Up in Jordan a good friend of mine got fired for for flying the B190 according to the manual.

And how did that happen we ask? The company asked the copilots to file anonymous reports on his flying, which was inside POH limitations..... and these guys, in many cases, went up with less than one hour on a C model to fly a D and less than 20 on a Seneca. And the other captains of the aircraft?? :-) Maybe we shouldn't talk about some of their hours, but less than an hour on a C to command a D springs to mind!! :-)

A bit off topic, but a lot of B190s are being flown way outside part 121 by South African operators.

Ever wondered why South African and Russian operators get the aid contracts??? Yes, cheap, cheap, cheap, and why??? :-) :-)

(PS Say hello to the Finn, and tell him to avoid his national dress and fires in the sauna ;-)

Several references to insurance companies in this thread. As usual, some fundamental errors. Firstly, insurance companies are not primary, secondary or even tertiary regulators. They do not make law, or police it, or enforce it. All they require is that it (the law) is obeyed: particularly those bits of it that affect safety. Either it is obeyed or it isn't. You cannot break the "spirit" or the "principle" of the law, nor can you be "slightly" illegal, any more than you can be "slightly" pregnant. If a law is capable of more than one interpretation, then you are entitled to adopt the interpretation that best suits you....until the law is changed, either by the law-makers themselves, or by a court ruling. All this nonsense about NAC is just that - nonsense. If anyone believes the law is wrong (whether from a safety point of view or just that it's unfair on ATPs everywhere), you should petition the SACAA to change it, but don't just criticise those who are, in fact, operating within it. And, before you ask, I don't work for NAC!

Sandiron - you couldn't have put it better! Spot on.

From the above posts, it is therefore possible that these pilots where signed out as P1 B1900, by a Comercial pilot intstructor who himself does not have an ALTP.

Certain countries reuqire two rated pilots at the controls such as the UK. Even though USA N-registered aircraft are in UK land, both pilots have to be type rated. FACT!

No pilot can fly in French airspace in command such an aircraft on his sixtieth birthday, regardless of registration. Even over fly!

My point is, what ever is good for ZS registered aeroplanes is not always acceptable for countries north of the Limpopo.

My understanding is that these B1900's are flown in Algeria, on petroleum contracts, mainly and some aid elsewhere. I wonder what would happen when they are ramp checked by these authorities or if they are aware of these circumstances?

What's this about prison?
Flying aircraft without an ATPL but with a type rating is one thing, but to be flying with a fake licence, medical and fraudulent qualifications is another.
I had hoped as pilots we would be more professional than to make light of people dragging our own qualifications into the gutter!

South Coast, you might have upset Baghdaddie, but we all know Gerund got his license by collecting tokens off the back of cornflake packets!
Gerund - muito grande bandito :ok: remember the toppled AH in Luanda?
JD