ATPL Requirements - CAA what a joke

[Zoltan]

The SACAA requirements for a ATPL is (as I`m sure you all know ) :

1500 hrs total
250 hrs command
100 hrs night
75 hrs IF

Now whe all know that co-pilot time on a medium category A/C only counts half towards a higher licence, 1/2 hr command for every 1 hr flown as P2 , fare enough. So surely this should apply to the 200 hr command requirement ? Why else put it in ? ( Maybe its just me , but that sounds quite logical )

When confronting CAA with this its just the normal " co-pilot hrs count 1/2 towards the 1500 TT " what a crock of .....

They give pilots with 1500 hrs instruction, not even touching the controls and spending a good portion of that in the circuit, and wait for this, IN THE RIGHT HAND SEAT, a ATPL license without blinking twice ?? ( Nothing against the instructors out there, after all without you guys none of us would be here, its just a matter of principal, my opinion)

I should think hands on experience in actual conditions should count for the total 1500. Fair enough to sacrifice a 150 hrs from your TT to make up the command time, after all you did pick up good command skills if you had the priveladge to fly with an experienced Captain.

All bitter words I know, but this is bugging lots of guys out there. Well just have to wait for that magical 3000 hr mark I gues....

Fly safe

Bubblewrap

[George Tower]

Can you just clarify something.....

So assuming you're a co-jo on a multi crew a/c as a CPL holder.....the hours you log still count only half towards the 1500 total?

[Cue Ball]

G.T

I had this very problem myself with co-jo hours with a CPL on multi crew aircraft. I did go speak to an inspector at the CAA and basically it boils down to this: your co- jo hours go into your log book as those that you have flown ie the full amount, however when it comes time to calculate your hours for the issue of a higher license, an ATPL obviously, then your co- jo hours will count half of what is in your logbook. So lets say you have 1500 hours total with 200 of those being co pilot then you will in fact have 1400 hours in the eyes of the CAA and will thus have to fly 100 more pic or 200 more as co pilot to be eligible for the higher license.

Hope I have explained it ok.

Cheers C.B

[AfricanSkies]

I spoke with a CAA inspector not too long back and he pulled out the Airlaw book and had it highlighted, and this is what he said:

many people believe that half your P2 hours count towards the ATP. Not so. The book says it in a strange way but it is taken to mean that half of the hours toward the higher licence may be P2 time, ie. 1500/2=750 so a maximum of 750 hours may be P2 time. The rest may be Sim (to a limit, forget what it is, poss 130hrs), Dual, IF and of course P1. This is to protect against people who have never had much command time getting an ATP.

Which makes sense.

:ok:

[swh]

What they have said to you conforms with ICAO requirments.

I have no problem with an instructor getting 100% credit for the flight time they spend in the RHS, they are the PIC, they are the ones responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.

Similar is the long haul skipper of say a 744, when they go off to his crew bunk, they are still logging PIC time, they are not even physically in the cockpit or in physical control of the aircraft, but if something were to go wrong they are still the person in charge.

This is pretty well much the ICAO requirements .....


(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.

(2) The 750 hours must include:

(a) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and

(b) at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and

(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and

(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in command under supervision.

(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or more of the following:

(a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;

(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:

(i) a powered aircraft; or
(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation 5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or (b).

(1) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (2), the same flight time may be counted towards as many of paragraphs 5.172 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) as describe the flight time.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (a), the flight time as pilot in command may include up to 150 hours as pilot acting in command under supervision.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (2) (c), not more than 30 hours of instrument ground time may be substituted for an equal amount of the 75 hours of instrument flight time.

(4) For the purposes of subregulation 5.172 (4), not more than 100 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer may be substituted for an equal amount of the flight time required under subregulation 5.172 (4).

(5) The 100 hours mentioned in subregulation (4) must not include more than 25 hours in a synthetic flight trainer that is not a flight simulator.

(6) CAA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of subregulation (4).

(7) In calculating the hours of flight time for the purposes of paragraph 5.172 (4) (c):

(a) each 3 hours of flight engineer time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time; and

(b) each 4 hours of flight navigator time in regular public transport operations is counted as 1 hour of flight time.

(8) Each period of flight time flown by a person as a pilot, but not flown:

(a) as pilot in command; or

(b) as pilot acting in command under supervision; or

(c) in dual flying;

must be halved in calculating the person's flight time for the purposes of regulation 5.172.

[freightboss]

The Regulations (Part 61) state the following wrt ATPL requirements:

61.07.2___An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which_–
(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;
(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;
(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and
(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.

This has to be read together with:

Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_
(3)__A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.
(4)__A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence.

What (4) actually means is that of your total requirement of 1500 hrs for ATPL, only 750 hrs may be co-pilot hours. Thus, even though you might have 4000 co-pilot hours on an a/c required to be flown with a co-pilot (remember 4000/2=2000), only 750 of the 2000 will be considered towards the next higthest license.

Therefore, if you have a total of 4500 hours (4000 P2), the other 750 hours (of the min requirement) must be P1 and/or as per breakdown in 61.07.2. This is where most of the SAA cadets fall out of the bus, because they come back with a frozen ATPL, go into the RHS of a J41/DHC8/ERJ/CRJ, clock the P2 hours, but do not get any additional P1 hours to satisfy the minimum requirement.


If it is still confusing - join the club....

[Zoltan]

I know a few guys who CAA issued an ATPL with only co-pilot time to count towards their license. Double standards are the problem, they cant decide what they want, what they do have though is the ability to issue every Tom Dick and Harry from another country with a validation so us locals have to go to the ass end of the world to do what we love.

I dont know about you guys but I would feel alot more comfortable with a guy that has 1500 hrs co-pilot time with actual experience in the left seat than an instructor with 1500 hrs circuit time in the left when things start getting hairy....

While I was doing my Comm license one of the airschools ATPL instructors went on a x-country to Joburg where they cut infront a King Air on final at Lanseria and after that landed on the wrong runway at Rand... Experience counts boys......

Fly safe

Bubblewrap

[126.9]

Confucious he say: Man who p!ss into wind, get feet wet!

The crediting of FO hours towards a higher licence issue has always been there. Long before you started flying mate, and even when obtaining an ATPL (ALTP in those days) required much more experience.

The issue is quite simple: the instructor IS the PIC and the FO IS NOT! Your point regarding left and right seat misses me completely since competence is not seat related. What is a fact is that a CPL FO is authorised to operate under the supervision of his ATPL captain and therefor is given 50% credit. The instructor is the PIC supervising his student and therefor gets 100%. We all went through it. My advice to you is that you stop whining and do the same.

Your logic concerning when things start getting hairy.... has no foundation nor basis of fact. Your claim that Experience counts boys is true. I however sincerely doubt that you have reached the point where that experience has been reached.

Freightboss

You've clearly misread point 4.

As one who had to use this law (many years ago) to have my ALTP issued, I know. The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.

That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!

[126.9]

Actually, I do have an FAA ATP. And a South African ATPL and a Dutch ATPL and a Hong Kong ATPL. Firstly, I have not found the SA CAA to be anything like you describe them. Not at anytime in the over 20 years that I've dealt with them. To the contrary is more like it!

Next, since you feel so strongly against the people that taught you to fly, would you kindly please produce the documented evidence and studies showing that Instructors are more dangerous than 1000 hour co-pilots? Regardless of your personal prejudice there is no evidence that the one group is any more or less dangerous than the other.

Also, obtaining a RSA validation is no different to obtaining one elsewhere. Practically all aviation authorities worldwide make provision for the issue of validations and no amount of spitting your dummy in the mud is going to change that.

And finally, lambasting and insulting the authority that issued your licence, on an open forum, with nothing but emotional bullsh!t, is indicative of a level of immaturity not quite conducive to flight deck operations. These shortcomings are normally detected in aviation psychometric testing. As for the chip on the shoulder; take a closer look in the mirror.

[learjet1955]

Shame on you all!

The SACAA or Pretoria if you want, is-compared to a lot of other Afrika countries-not an as unorganized place as you state in your unprofessional comments on an open forum. They may have shortcomings or are still paying college fees but we have a Authority that is recognised more and more the world over. I also have 10 African ATPL valid issues- they cost in general U$200 plus a faxed copy of your SA medical, including the type request for issue and a further U$60 for DHL- 3 days man and you can fly co-jo in a B707 !!! That will give you 1200 hours your first year and you fly RVSM. Another 300 and you get captain rating.

Instructors have their jobs, it is a very important link in the chain, and it is allowed by law, let them get on with the hours required business- but I must agree to get into Part 121 straight away from a 172 wives s&l is not the right thing to do and no organization will allow that- at least not in South Africa! And believe me man the SACAA will come upon most of those who somehow slip through the ring- there are more ramp checks these days than pax tickets and that is 10 Brownie points to the SACAA- now you are on the right track,believe!!

To quibble over hours required shows a mind that wants the short way out- fly those hours man and enjoy it, it is fun!

[Deserted Rat]

i dont think we should compare the caa to an african dca, they should be compared to a european or the faa. civil aviation is not the place to say "shame we were previously disadvantaged so its not our fault we arent doing a good job". and if youre going to citicise other african countries for giving away licences, dont forget the whole debacle with trevor abrahams and his mickey mouse licencing.

[perceval]

just want to point out : an ATP doesn't give you a seat in the front of a 747 (I bloody wish) , it merely gives you the opportunity to apply for jobs where you will get trained and later , one day fly on that left seat .So , sorry , how you got your 1st 1500 hours won't decide on your future capacities as an aircraft commander .I was an instructor for 1000 hours and i do feel great in a twin turbine now ..thanks

[Kopeloi]

Don´t quite get ZOLTANS thinking. Do he really think that 250 hrs PIC is too much to ask for ATPL?
There seem to be also certain misunderstanding about what is PIC time and what is not. Flight instructor in C150 is Pilot in Command and co-pilot in F27 is not, period. Believe me, 1500 hrs instructor generally has much more mature attitude than copilot with same amount of hours on Beech 1900 when it comes for decision making.
Maybe that is one of the reasons for such requirement for ATPL licence.
Nikolai:cool:

[Zoltan]

As I said before its just my opinion , I thought thats what this forum was for, people expressing their opinions ?

If your opinion is that a supervisor with 1000 hrs has more competence than a F/O with 1000 hrs then I`m sorry to say that youre the one piss!ng into wind mate.

Its not about cutting corners, people before me did it and people after me will have to do it, I dont dwell an the fact I just thought it would make for some interresting discussion on this OPEN FORUM.

Hopefully one day I will all have as much experience as you to feel comfortable enough to critisise people and their opinions, doubtfull though, my ego`s just fine without doing it:ok:

Kopeloi

Maybe you should read my first post again, the discussion is about the 1500 TT not the 250 Command time. Easy on the vodka mate...

[FlyOff]

61.01.16 (5) also provide for logging of hour as co-pilot in a AC where a co-pilot is not required, but with a 25% credit toward higher rating.

So, flying co-pilot in a PCXII can be logged, but there are no provision for this in the SACAA logbook as it's a single!

Any advice where to log this right seat hours ?

[Airforce1]

FlyOff, check the forum recently-someone was asking about logging that F/O time on a King Air,should answer your questions.

[Jelly Doughnut]

Just moving away from the heated and opinionated debate in here, and back to the original question:

126.9 you're spot on:

" The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.

That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!"

Exactly... how else is one supposed to make up the required hours??? What about co-pilots who are lucky enough to join an airline with 200 hours... this is the only way they can eventually meet the 1500 hour requirement. See below, 61.01.16 (Crediting of flight time) Part 4 is crystal clear.

The idea that only 750 co-pilot hours may be counted is rubbish.. because this implies that the remainder has to be either all Dual (extremely unlikely) OR all P1 (which negates the 250 hour P1 requirement in Paragraph 61.07.2 (2), see below).

Slightly off topic, I seem to remember hearing that SAFAIR even had a CAA exemption, allowing co-pilots to obtain a provisional (but unfrozen) ATPL... because they only flew 400-500 hours per year (ie 200-250 towards ATP) it would take longer than 5 years to reach 1500 total.

Cheers :ok:
JD


copied from Freighboss's post:

61.07.2 An applicant for the issuing of a airline transport pilot licence (aeroplane) shall have completed not less than 1 500 hours of flight time, of which

ie 1500 total

(a) 250 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or not less than 100 hours as pilot-in-command and 150 hours as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;

250 P1, 150 may be P1 under supervision

(b) 200 hours shall be cross-country flight time, of which not less than 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command;

(c) 75 hours shall be instrument time, of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time;

(d) 100 hours shall be night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot; and

(e) not more than 100 hours may be acquired in a simulator.

This has to be read together with:

Crediting of flight time 61.01.16_

(3) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot shall be entitled to be credited with the total flight time during which he or she acted as pilot-in-command.

(4) A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence

... 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such...

[Kennytheking]

Guys,

I sometimes wonder what aviation is coming to these days. The requirements for ALTP are no more or less onerous than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe it is a symptom of the instant pilot generation(3 week PPL from another thread).

In fact when I got my ALTP there was no requirement for co-pilots on a King Air and Caravans, so it is even easier now to attain those hours.

As to instructors...........as someone who is involved in management of a reasonable sized company, I would prefer to take an instructor any day over a non instructor. It does not go about flying abilities......any pilot with 1000 hours that think we want him for his experience had better go think again. I find that an instructor is someone who has gone the extra mile to attain his dream of flying. He tends to be more dedicated and far more knowledgable, and if fact more trainable.

I have often come across this argument about the value of instruction time versus charter time. In terms of experience I think one should have a balance, but all to often I find the non instructors trying to justify their existence by saying that instruction is not real flying. I think that if we were to take a poll, you would find that the people running down the instruction time are all non instructors. I have to wonder what they base their assumptions on........it cannot possibly be on any instructional experience.

As to the CAA.......I don't think anybody in any country like their CAA, but I find ours is better than most.

Ok.....now I won't get wound up again!

KTK

[SubsonicMortal]

Kennytheking

Very well said. I used to work for a good company a while ago and the chief training captain also prefered hiring ex (but current) instructors. He's idea who was shared by management, was that instructors seemed to be much easier to train than guys who clocked up hours in another way. To the company they were also a greater asset than non-instructor rated guys. To him it was all about how much the guy had put in in the past to have the qualifications he now holds.

My reply is somewhat off the topic but nevertheless, it's a forum for opinions:

I believe a 1500hr instructor with an ATP would be as good an asset for a company to hire, than a guy with a thousand hours on a medium turboprop, (barring the fact that the latter would meet insurance requirements and the first guy not). Nowadays in fact, flying is much more a "management" skill in the cockpit when it comes to advanced flight decks and I think that the guy who put in the extra miles to get his instructors rating and kept upgrading it, would be better suited to acclamate quick to the transition and later on become a great asset for the company as an instructor.

Im not in anyway saying that ALL comm and ATP pilots should hold instructor ratings. I know a few very competent non-instructor rated pilots who are excellent in the flying they do. My opinion is just that an instructor who flew 1500hrs in a C172 and Dutches' should not be looked upon as incompetent to hold an ATP license. I can tell you that to sit in the right seat hour after hour and counting every bit towards the 1500hrs to finally get the green booklet, takes SERIOUS dedication. I find it almost laughable then when commercial guys who fly reasonably sized/powered aircraft in the right hand seat complain about the logic behind 1/2 of flight time counting towards PIC time. And the fact is, MANY of them fly for contract companies where they spend 2 months away from home a time earning more than an instructor would back in SA. The environment they fly in gives them the perfect opportunity to study for their instructor's rating while in the field and write the exams while they're at home. I can say that by doing it that way you'll get to the ATP requirement much quicker than staying put in the right seat to build that time...

Just my opinion.

Take it easy guys! :ok:

[126.9]

It's nice to see a few sensible people giving input. I too gave my opinion based on a hard-earned and long aviation career. At the end of the day it is so: those that are b!tching and moaning will learn to tow the line or fall by the wayside.

As one who holds Instructor and Examiner status, I too believe that instructors are individuals who tend to go that bit further. My aviation career began in the charter industry but that wasn't enough. In fact, it never has been enough. There is always something new... Roll on graduation!

[freightboss]

126.9

I quote:

"You've clearly misread point 4.

As one who had to use this law (many years ago) to have my ALTP issued, I know. The key is: entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such.

That clearly say that an FO will be credited with 50% of his total FO time!"

Yes, you are right all FO hours count, and even though the CARs do not specifically state this, you have to refer back to Annex 1 of the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation.

Annex 1 Par 2.1.9.2 states: "The holder of a pilot license, when acting as co-pilot of an aircraft required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with no more than 50 per cent of the co-pilot flight time towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot license."

Now as the SACAA has not filed a difference on this par, it has to be adhered to. My humble interpretation (and being a boertjie, I can be mistaken) does not count here, but what counts, is the interpretation of the CAA.

This means that even if you have 4000 P2 hours, your co-pilot hours may only count towards 50% (750 hours) of the total flight time (1500 hours) required for the higher grade of pilot license (ATPL). The rest, well hire a C172....

As I said, my boere english may leave me in the lurch every now and then, but feel free to phone the FOI's (try Mr Claassen) at the CAA and confirm their interpretation.

[126.9]

Sorry mate. Dunno Mr Claasen. What I do know is what is written in tha ANR's as well as in my logbook from all those years ago. I needed 804 hours and was credited with those due to 1608 hours af an F-27 FO! :}

[B Sousa]

Rule for those who dont want to ruffle Feathers. "Fly what you have too, Log what you Need."

[planecrazi]

I must say that with more than 11300 hours now, I agree with 126.9. I had more than enough hours to get ant ALTP + ATP and a few others without needing to go thru fine line of scrapping together a few hours. I never had an instructors rating, maybe I regret that or I would’ve had a few more hours by this age of 36. Bottom line is, work hard, enjoy the flying keep it safe and play by the rules. Rules do change from country to country, but the world is your oyster and let me tell you, the world is big. This thread is really a wannabee thread and after attaining those ATPL/ALTP's there are even bigger problems, keeping them all current if need be. Simulators in an airline every six months at a very strict standard. It seems that the easiest thing in flying was to the hard study for those ATPL/ALTP/ATP's (not certain ATP’s in my opinion), the rest of the time, you are studying for the next 6 month check and it never ends. You are always studying and always trying hard to keep the standard, and believe me, those standards, change, move and are reluctant to wait for you.
I would like to say, if you have the time to persevere in attaining an ALTP, you are on good footing of what is the start of what is to come. And it keeps coming!
So what if it a few hours needed here and there, soon, the hours keep pouring in, you don't know what to do with them, log books start to slip by a week or two and a few of the non essential ALTP's fall by the way side (as in my case- I still keep the SA and one or two others and the rest, so what!)
We were all flying those charter days from Lanseria to the swamps, power stations, middle-of-no-where-fontain).
Deciding here on pprune, what is law and what is not, is not helping anyone, so put it in writing to your nearest friendly SACAA office and ask what is more required and do the time and qualification and welcome to the real world.
I enjoy my present position flying an Airbus A340, it took a long time, patience with not much understanding at times, but I am almost there (so I would like to hope!!! who knows....). Believe me, this thread and its answers are the smallest of your problems in our enjoyable world of flying.
Hang in there, you"ll get there- with that ATPL!
:ok:

[AfricanSkies]

(4)__A commercial pilot, when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time during which he or she acted as such, towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence.

(with thanks to freightboss)


126.9 with respect I'd like to just point out what I noticed about this, it could be read with the sentence broken up in another manner like this

when acting as co-pilot in an aircraft normally required to be operated with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time ( during which he or she acted as such,) towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence.

which then puts the emphasis on 'credited with not more than 50 per cent of the total flight time required for a higher grade pilots licence'...ie. 750 hrs

It's not very well worded at all, very ambiguous. Why bother mentioning 'for a higher grade pilots licence'? Why not just 'for an ATPL'? In their defence, I believe their thinking here was to keep the text full of variables instead of having to re-write everything every time theres a change to the law. For example, they go to great effort to say, in an as long-winded manner, as possible

'towards the total flight time required for a higher grade pilot licence'

instead of

'towards the 1500hrs required for an ATPL'

so that if ever the hours requirements change, or the licence is renamed, they don't have to change the verbiage, just the definitions.

But it certainly makes it difficult to interpret.

[SubsonicMortal]

PlaneCrazi

I enjoyed your post - Couldn't be closer to the truth. I flew for a Lanseria based operator not too long ago and my two years with them felt like the hardest time of my life so far. There were MANY days where I felt troubled and almost depressed about not being able to move on. The company was fantastisc in the sense that they helped those who wanted to attain higher ratings. Out of the pool of pilots, a handful took the opportunity to do an initial instructor rating, some did Gr II upgrades or Multi-engine instructor's ratings. But during a very quiet time with the company, less than a handful took the opportunity to study and complete the ATP exams. Now, within a period of 6 months the ATP rated guys were able to move on. The hard work and studies surely paid off and now, after having gone through my first "real" type rating which included more than a dozen simulator sessions, I clearly see what you mean. The studies do not end the day when you receive your ATP exam final-results printout at the CAA.

If the aim of "scraping together" every bit of an hour you can dig out somewhere to obtain the ATP, just to have it, I'd say "Relax and enjoy!". Don't become so obsessed with it that you lose sight of the fact that you are flying NOW not to build hours but because you love it. Because soon enough you'll land that "magical job" and you'll wonder why you never took the time to look at the sun setting over a 12 000ft high horizon. Hours ARE important, don't get me wrong, but do not sacrifice the quality of those hours for quantity.

For those who fly as a co-jo on a multi-engine aircraft for a company who have other aircraft they are rated on, why not try to fly a little on those too to log PIC time? Im sure there are company's out there who'll allow that?

Take it easy!

:ok:

[126.9]

Nicely said mates! :ok:

As for the rest of it here, this is turning into another PPRuNe Meg-P!ssing-Contest! I personally couldn't give a continental cr@p how many hours you need, or which way you'd like to twist the wording of the reg's to suit your own requirement. The bottom line is that you will have to jump through the very same hoops that the rest of us did in getting licensed.

Personally, I reckon they should make the ATPL requirement 10,000 hours for pilots without an instructor's rating and also just give them away to instructors...! :ok:

[Zoltan]

Now we all know where we stand. Thank you for everyones opinions on this topic.

Pro`s and cons, fly as an instructor for 1500 hrs get your ATP, fly as a F/O and get 3000 for your ATP, but meet friends for life, see the world and gain a heap of experience ( even though some dissagree with the last ). I personally am happy to be the 2nd and wouldnt swop it for anything in the world !

I tend to disagree though with the opinion that instructors put in the extra mile and charter and contract pilot dont. Im sure everyone would love stay in his/her own country with family and friends, but unfortuanately for some the financial commitments dont allow it. I`m sure a comm license didnt cost R 250 000,00 10 - 20 years ago ! We cant all be cadets.....

Fly safe

[AfricanSkies]

126.9 my dear chap, lots of us have jumped the hoops and lots shall still. Thought we were having a decent chat about the requirements because they were highlighted as being unclear..
The CAA believe one thing and most of us believe another. Discussion about this is good.

My opinion on 1500 hr instructors, for what its worth, is that when after one minute monitoring a C172 around the circuit at FAGC, the next minute (after the rating) the instructor finds himself operating a 30-ton jet in and out of dirt strips in Chad or into some strange new african airport at night surrounded by CBs & welding & +TSRA, his eyes tend to grow a bit big. And mine would too.

I think that contract flying, especially with jets, in Africa, and in other areas where SA companies are operating, like Afghanistan and Iraq, make a very much more capable and well-rounded pilot out of you than does just flying the line CPT-PE-DBN every day, in a nice familiar safe radar environment.
Operating on contract teaches you all sorts of things you would never learn just flying the line back home, you really get to grips with the capabilities of the aircraft and become familiar with performance under various conditions. You will probably experience a lot more things go wrong because you operate older aircraft in dodgier areas, and from these things you learn a lot.

Beetling about an aerodrome back home in a 172 is even worse from building a well-rounded pilot point of view.

But I suppose if you are looking for line pilots to fly JNB-CPT-JNB every day he's the one because he'll have got used to being bored:E

:ok:

[Hot Shots]

I agree with Zoltan and some other guys. Instructors might be the PIC of the aircraft, but where do they learn how to handle things like going into bad dirt strips, flying in bad wheather, trying to understand the ATC in Africa (or any non-English speaking places). Even if you have to deal with all the other stuff in contract flying, only experience in the field counts. So the co-pilots learn all that and more wehile working, but the instructor can not. They haven't been there.

And this whole thing about instructors going the extra mile and the other not. PLEASE!!!!!!! What about all the people that work in all the war zones, African countries, etc. Do you really think that that is not going the exra mile? Then you have think again. Being away from home for months at a time, trying to build that valuble experience in usually less than ideal conditions is, I think, in most people's point of view going the extra mile. Yes, they have done extra studies, but they sit in a nice cosy environment where you have people doing all the thinking for you. Teaching S&L flying won't help you in the world out there. It is different.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

When I left the forces I did my ATPL exams after a "Crammer". I was excused the GFTs by the CAA as I had 1,500 hrs of miltary helicopter flying gained all over the world. Fair enough I thought.
On the course I met quite a few people who had as many (and some more) hours than me, just about all of which had been gained in their flying club circuit or on local navexs while acting as as instructors with the sole aim of building hours. Most of them were hoping to become airline pilots in the fullness of time and all of them were intelligent and motivated.
So who had the most relevant experience ? I had no idea about Air Law etc, but I could fly under sometimes difficult conditions which needed common sense, initiative and flexibility. They knew the intricacies of civil flying but lacked the "hands on" experience.
I think the number of hours are only relevant where they are needed to qualify for a licence type, i.e. CPL or ATPL. It's how you get them that matters. After all, once you are "on the job" nobody asks how many hours you have, you are judged by your performance.

[Bravo190]

Agree with ASkies..i for one would kill for a nice job back home closer to the loved one's etc. My friends whom i did my PPL with back in the days are still at home yes, with the loved one's and they instructors on piston singles.....i opted to get a turbine rating instead of the R20 000 for instructors and also got my ATP exams out of the way.

Now, im Captain on a medium weight twin turbine....they still my friends but there's a pretty noticeable difference in our experience when we have a chat around the braai when i do get to go home!!!(same TT but diff a/c) All my respect, the industry needs us all but lets be realistic here...

My advice to the guys complaining about the requirements...NOT, pack your bag, say good-bye to mommy and the missis and go do your time like we all, next time you watch the BOKS beat the Kiwis at Epark have a beer on the boys!

Good luck:ok:

[contraxdog]

Its with amazement, that I read another irrelevant bile spitting contest! I never thought of my fying career as a race, but more as a journey that I chose to undertake. I wouldnt have missed any part of it even if I had to do it over. It was what made my choice worth it.
I think what we have here is a severe case of performance angst.
I have been coming arcross it more regularly the last couple of years.
I dont have half the hours as the 11300hr 36 year old wizzkid or havent been around as long as some as some of the silver haired icons, but here is maybe another way of looking at it.
An aviation career is always a journey of choices. You start as a student pilot and choose to continue to complete your PPL. Then you choose to do the CPL after assessing what is needed, like Night rating, IF ratings, etc. Complete it and then by now you should choose which of the branches of professional avaiation you want to be part of. Instructing, contracting, crop protection, the tourist indusrtry, corporate, airline, freight, or any of the numerous others. None of them outrank any of the others. Thats right not even the airline branch(althought I believe there are some that think it does).They all have their own special peculiarities that requires a special specific professional skill.
Thus you choose your field of interest, and work to obtain the experience and skill, to make you a true professional pilot. As you enjoy flying, this part is the part we should all look forward to, and enjoy. The only reason we might not is because we like to have the butter on both sides, and we choose with our wallets instead of our harts.
After a couple of years we obtain the level of experience and skill that allow us to assess, again our level of experience and skill. When tested and found not to light we get issued with the privilage to continue the journey faster and bigger, but always the reason of our journey not escaping us.
All the while we keep a record of our journey, and, because the journeymen that regulate our passion, needs a measuring stick to evaluate our skill and experience, require us to record the record of our journey in the same manner, in order to make sure the the journey is as safe for us as for our fellow travelers.
Remember its not a race!
Its a journey in search of self exelence.
A Pilots Flying Logbook should reflect the journey you made.
The measuring stick has been determined, use it for its purpose not for the purpose you think it should be used for. For that you can use your indexfinger on your left hand.
Safe journey brothers......

PS, Gunns sorry we missed you the other day. Will let you know when we back again. Will mail you our number here."..the time has come the walrus said, to speak of many things, of pirate ships, and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings..."