Can NZ get any more retarded?

[stillalbatross]

You have a bizarre ATPL flight test charged at a rip off price, the likes of which no one else on planet earth does. The completion of the ATPL flight test makes not a lick of difference to the level of safety in the industry so it is utterly pointless, except that with CAA's blessing it allows employers to bribe, bully and coerce their pilots into doing things (legal and illegal) that they probably shouldn't be doing. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.

I have heard experience gained on aircraft not on NZ register is deemed worthless (i.e. 4000tt and 3000hrs B757, 1500 command) and you're 500 hours short. Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.

Where will it all end?

When they start only issuing the NZ ATPL to you because someone else has died or retired and handed theirs back?

[4SPOOLED]

the testing officers are prob to busy tending to the "needs" of their flocks of sheep:D

j/k

Best of luck with it anyway m8

[Whisky Hatch]

Why pay for it? do it with your employer

[troppo]

Yes,
NZ can get more retarded.
It's called a third term for the labour government!

[flyby_kiwi]

How much does it cost and whose aircraft are you using? Everyone I have heard of has used the company a/c and the employer met the bill.

As far as experience on non-NZ registered a/c, its the first ive heard and sounds like a crock (unless there is more to your scenario). Infact I can think of examples which are contray to the rumour.

Here is the eligibilty requirements for the ATPL - nothing is mentioned to the effect that experience must be on the NZ register.

1 April 2002 CAA of NZ 32
61.253 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for an airline transport pilot licence a person shall—
(1) be at least 21 years of age; and
Civil Aviation Rules Part 61 CAA Consolidation
(2) hold a current commercial or senior commercial pilot licence for
that aircraft category; and
(3) hold a current instrument rating; and
(4) have at least the following general flight time experience as a
pilot, for the category of airline transport pilot licence applied
for, comprising specific flight experience that is acceptable to
the Director for the aircraft category:
(i) for aeroplanes – 1500 hours:
(ii) for helicopters – 1000 hours; and
(5) have passed approved written examinations, or approved
equivalents, relevant to the operation of air transport aircraft, in
the following subject areas:
(i) Air law:
(ii) Flight navigation general:
(iii) Flight planning:
(iv) Meteorology:
(v) Instruments and navigation aids:
(vi) Human factors:
(vii) Advanced aerodynamics, performance, and systems
knowledge (Aeroplane) or (Helicopter) as appropriate;
and
(6) demonstrate to a flight examiner general knowledge of and
ability to perform competently, those normal and emergency
flight manoeuvres applicable to the category of aircraft in which
the applicant is being flight tested; and ability to comply with air
traffic services practices and procedures.

Infact the Advisory Circular states....

(e) A current ATPL issued by a foreign contracting State to the Convention will normally be
accepted as meeting the requirements in Rule 61.253(4) for flight time experience, and
Rule 61.253(5) for all written examination passes except for air law, provided the applicant
produces evidence of having completed at least 500 hours as pilot-in-command or 1000
hours as co-pilot on multi-crew operations in multi-engine aircraft on commercial IFR
operations following the issue of the flight crew licence that has been presented for
recognition. Such experience is to have been gained in countries under the jurisdiction of
the foreign authority that issued the ATPL.


Troppo - Too True :ok:[

[NZDP]

It's called a third term for the labour government!

Thats about right. I'll die if that happens. Well, not really...

[Borneo Wild Man]

There is a CAA certifyed B767/757 sim in asia with a CAA certified TRE/IRE who can do NZ ATPL Flt tests but its going to cost you $$$$$.
You can always do a B767 differences cse and do your Atpl with a few of the airNZ testing officers.
And I know at least a dozen NZ licence holders with a B757 endorsement on the licence.

[Tutaewera]

Holding 6 ICAO ATPL licences including the Kiwi one IMHO the NZ one is good. The theory requires a reasonable std and the flight test being in an ATPL sized aeroplane, not some little toy twin which holds no relevance to the job of a commander on an aircraft >5700kg, to me is fair. For that reason some countries used to accept only Kiwi / UK ATPL's. E.g. Brunei until recently, when NZ started swapping OZ ATPL's into Kiwi ones.

Having flown in many countries and still been offered jobs in NZ I can't believe there is anything to the idea that NZ doesn't accept foreign experience. Sounds more like an operator's excuses for telling someone they are not wanted!

If anyone wants to label a licencing system retarded then perhaps the UK / JAA would be more approriate. You must resit all theory exams (13 or 14 of them now?) and won't recognise foreign ATPL licences. Whether thats "jobs for the boys" or revenue gathering, who knows? Pure protecionist bull***t IMHO.

If one must find a reasonable std between the FAA giveaway and the JAA overkill I'd say the NZ one is pretty good.

:\

[MOR]

It is good apart from the ridiculous requirement for an ATPL flight test. It proves nothing, and is far better accomplished as part of an aircraft type rating. What is the point in flying a high-performance multi to ATPL level, if you are not operating two-crew? What does it prove that the multi endorsement on an instrument rating, plus a CPL, doesn't?

When you say "some" countries, you are basically talking about third-world countries without an effective licencing system of their own. No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value.

The NZ system is far more protectionist than the JAA system is. The Aussies will recognise any valid ICAO ATPL, current or not. It is a relatively simple matter to obtain an Oz ATPL and then convert it under TTMRA. Despite this, the NZ CAA will not recognise an ICAO ATPL that isn't completely current. They therefore force you to jump through the hoops, for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I also hear that the NZ CAA have tried to refuse a few of these conversions, which is of course illegal under the provisions of TTMRA. But as with many issues, the CAA are very good at ignoring such niceties and force you to sue them if you want justice. Have a look at the number of cases they have lost in recent years. That is where your money goes from all those fees - defending pointless legal actions.

I too hold licences from several different authorities, and they were all easier to obtain than the NZ one.

[LocoDriver]

If you guys are worried about another labour government, then think again!

The Nats sold off all the local airfields(like Ardmore) GA is paying so much rent to these outfits, they cant afford new aircraft.

Nats sold off AirNZ, but Labour had to bail it out!
(just like Railways and Bank of New Zealand)
If it hadn't been for Labour, AirNz would have probably gone belly-up, that would have completed the tories wish to flog off everything that wasn't bolted down, so all the foreign investors could pick over what was left.

Dont also forget that the Nats also destroyed the apprenticeship schemes by the late 1990's, saying that 'industry training' is the answer!(just look at the leaky home sydrome!)
Labour are busy getting apprenticeships up and running again.....

If we got that motley lot of incompetents(Nats) back, aviation in nz may as well roll over and die.

Dont get railroaded into that!







:E :E :E

[27/09]

stillalbatross

except that with CAA's blessing it allows employers to bribe, bully and coerce their pilots into doing things (legal and illegal) that they probably shouldn't be doing. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
Not quite sure what your point is here??????????



I have heard experience gained on aircraft not on NZ register is deemed worthless (i.e. 4000tt and 3000hrs B757, 1500 command) and you're 500 hours short. Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.
Sounds a bit like hearsay to me. You may want to check your facts. Nearly all ATPL's are issued as part of a command upgrade check flight which is done in house. The number of ATPL issues that would be done with a CAA examiner would be very few so I find it hard to accept that there would be a one year waiting list.

I don't wish to comment one way or the other as to wether or not the New Zealand system is good or bad, BUT, if you want to play in that sandpit you have to play by their rules.



Locodriver

Nats sold off AirNZ, but Labour had to bail it out!(just like Railways and Bank of New Zealand)
If my memory serves me correctly it was Roger Douglas and Richard "save the railways" Prebble and co that started the big New Zealand sell off. Correct me if I am wrong but weren't they a Labour Government.



If it hadn't been for Labour, AirNz would have probably gone belly-up,
The current Labour government were part of the reason that Air NZ nearly went belly up.

National governments haven't been much better but to suggest that a National government is going to be worse than Labour is gilding the lily somewhat.

[Borneo Wild Man]

Loco,

Please remind me....
Who sold off(Well OK tried to as there are no buyers)the RNZAF strike wing?

Yeah baby,lets go out hug some trees!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tutaewera]

Oh dear, not a happy little vegemite then?

Re the flight test requirement: With a few CAA granted exceptions (ie C421) the test must be in an A/C >5700kg. Aircraft >5700 kg's in NZ require 2 pilot / multi-crew and did so when many other countries let such A/C fly single pilot (eg OZ & USA cargo Metros). So it should be multi crew...

As for the licence itself: An ATPL qualifys one to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it realistic to assume that (eg) a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?

One can of course dump the stds onus on the PIC rating with airlines or outside trainers (a'la FAA). But perhaps CAANZ wants the licence to reflect the priviledges? Not something you just line up for when you tick over 1,500 hours and do your next IRR.

The NZ licence (As others rightly point out, usually combined with the std in house command upgrade process) at least shows you can handle the job that the licence allows.

MOR - "No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value."

Ahem - Please tell CASA that in your opinion OZ is a 3rd world country. (They accept the NZ ATPL as a straight swap). Or CAA Singapore who take it with a basic law & medical, pre JAR the Irish CAA, etc.

As someone insighful fellow said - its their sandpit, gotta play by their rules! The Kiwi sandpit converts any decent licence with law / medical and a flight test. Try that on with the JAA.

Nothing is perfect and I must agree that IMHO CAANZ does have some weird type ratings rules (ie Accepts Airbus ratings from Toulouse but no other Airbus factory schools - (identical course / facilities) OR Flight Safety Intl type courses at some locales but not others. Seems to me like nothing more than an excuse for paid junkets for CAA inspectors.

I too have been frustrated by conversions processes but thats an expats life. It is easier now than it was - the old NZ ATPL law exam (pre present multi-guess variety) was a nightmare but now its no big deal.

I see options have been suggested re B757 / 767 sim checks etc and they sound promising. And I have heard of private students using Air NZ for ATPL checks in the past.

Ultimately thats life - if NZ "ain't your bag", then there are other options...

:{

[MOR]

Talk about missing the point...

Re the flight test requirement: With a few CAA granted exceptions (ie C421) the test must be in an A/C >5700kg. Aircraft >5700 kg's in NZ require 2 pilot / multi-crew and did so when many other countries let such A/C fly single pilot (eg OZ & USA cargo Metros).

The fact that there are exceptions (421, Cheyenne, Chieftain... all single pilot aircraft) means that anyone not already in an airline is going to be doing the check as a single pilot, in an aircraft that does not require an ATPL to fly in any case. What does this prove, exactly?

An ATPL qualifys you to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it reasonable to assume that a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and a an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?

Yes, because in real life such a pilot is not going to be in command of anything over 5700kg. He or she will be serving an apprenticeship as a First Officer, which the rest of the world sees as being appropriate training for an ATPL. Of course you can't do an ATPL flight test in a Duchess... but if you could, it just reinforces the pointlessness of it all.


The NZ licence (As others rightly point out, usually combined with the std in house command upgrade process) at least shows you can handle the job that the licence allows.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. It shows that you can handle a 421 or similar, in a single-pilot environment. Please explain how that demonstrates that you can handle the left seat of a 747 (which is what the licence actually allows).

Please tell CASA that in your opinion OZ is a 3rd world country. (They accept the NZ ATPL as a straight swap).

Oh no they don't, you still need to sit law.

The Kiwi sandpit converts any decent licence with law / medical and a flight test. Try that on with the JAA.

Well as the flight test alone can cost many thousands of dollars, it is probably cheaper to do the exams under JAA, than the flight test in NZ.

That seems to me like nothing more than an excuse for paid junkets for CAA inspectors.

And that is exactly the point. Many of the CAA rules have no basis in any kind of fact. Just like the insistence on the Toulouse school for Airbus ratings, the requirement to do an ATPL flight test has no logical basis in any recognised set of standards. What it does demonstrate, is the standard NZ mindset that nobody else in the world knows as much about aviation as the NZ CAA. There is absolutely no logical reason to refuse to accept JAA or FAA qualifications. Saying that "we won't because they won't" is just childish.

At least the JAA and the FAA are actively seeking a common set of standards...

[DeltaT]

Having spent sometime overseas and had my eyes opened to the bigger world of aviation, I agree with the sentiments about NZ/NZ CAA.
My question is, why is it that NZCAA have such a wholier than thou attitude with the way rules are? Are they so isolated in their little world?!

I do hope those guys do some reading of this forum!

[LocoDriver]

Re the great sell off, Roger Douglas and Labour did set up the Railways for sale, but forming a sucessful trading govt owned corporation first.(just like the old National airways corp)
however, they did not end up selling it.- Probably part of Lange's U Turn!.
National on the the other hand, flogged it off in the mid 1990's.
The rest is history.

I remain unconvinced that a National govt would have bailed AirNZ out, they stated, "let the market forces rule'(read- overseas airlines picking up the routes)

With the good ATPL debate, CAA rules need a good going over, let the industry advise CAA, not vice versa!

:E

[mattyj]

Ahh Loco..this post is mostly about the pointlessness of the ATP syllabus but..I'll bite..Don't you remember Cullen telling us on budget night that there was no real money unaccounted for in the surplus and certainly none available for tax cuts..and this last week he has found 1.9 billion for "election year spending"...that was what Maharey admitted on TV...Labour has lost me for their dishonesty I'm sorry..

..still I saw the billboard man with a trailer full of red signs at blockhouse bay shops yesterday..did he plant one in your front yard;) ;) ;)

[El Oso]

Not sure what all the hubub's about.

"MOR" are you sure about your last post? I got an NZ ATPL converted to an Australian ATPL in 2000 with no exams, under an agreement called the TTMRA. Has that procedure changed recently?

I am no longer in NZ but I simply accepted the deal and got on with it. Everyone I met along the way was very friendly and competent too. I did a class 1 medical, law exam at ASL in Wellington and then a test on a SA227 in AKL. All over in 10 days.

Mr Tutaewera (what does that mean by the way?) I agree with your opinion of the JAA conversion (or should they say complete re-issue).

:ok:

[stillalbatross]

Ok, one reply at at time, 27/09.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
except that with CAA's blessing it allows employers to bribe, bully and coerce their pilots into doing things (legal and illegal) that they probably shouldn't be doing. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not quite sure what your point is here??????????

My point is pretty simple, if you work for an employer who is happy to grant you a NZ ATPL knowing that you can find work overseas and the possibly better employment prospects that go with it then fine. Unfortunately NZ aviation isn't entirely full of these people and I would has it a guess you haven't worked for those from the other side of the fence.

These employers know that if you don't do it "in house" then it gets f*cking expensive doing it via CAA in something like a Mojave. Too expensive for those of us earning squat in GA at the time. So they give you options because you're over a barrel, options like operate overweight, work your holidays, fly 120 hrs a month, fly IFR with no de icing. They know that you dearly want to leave but you can't without your ATPL flight test because you can't fly overseas with anything else. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing these stories.

They know that CAA hasn't updated it's regs since 1952 when a CPL was all you needed to fly anywhere else. They know that no other Tertiary qualification in New Zealand or possibly the world has the same backwards approach to it's final completion.

Tutaewera

As for the licence itself: An ATPL qualifys one to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it realistic to assume that (eg) a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?

Unfortunately, as MOR has mentioned the ATPL license and actual issue have very little to do with a type rating on an A/C over 5700 kg or your suitability for the role. That's the domain of the type rating and associated company training that goes with whatever you've stuck on it afterwards. The ATPL just says that you've passed a bunch of exams and can operate a multicrew multi engine aircraft in a IFR environment. Nothing more and nothing less.

As for accepting foriegn experience I was referring to the CAA all pitching in and buying a "Janes World Aircraft Directory" and having a look at all the wonderful aircraft before deciding that neither a TriStar or an MD-11 could possibly be multicrew over 5700kgs because we're NZ CAA and all the big aircraft over 5700 kg that we need to know about are already on our register.

Before anyone starts slagging off the FAA licence I'd suggest you check the accident stats, use pax seat per mile, sectors or whatever. You'll find lil' old NZ CAA licence holders have a worse safety record so any concept that we've got a tougher licencing program so we're safer is horsesh*t.

Borneo Wild Man

You will find that you can't use company testing officers if you're not employed by the company, you can only use CAA testing officers. There are no doubt plenty in Air NZ who can issue ATPLs to Air NZ employees but that's about it.

As someone said, if it's not you bag then go elsewhere. Fair enough. But that's a pretty selfish approach (hey-I'm-alright-Jack) and not one I'd usually expect from a New Zealander. This ATPL system has cost people their careers, their families, it is only the way it is because CAA chooses it to be so. If they went the way of the JAA system the accident record in NZ would improve overnight.

[Sqwark2000]

Stillalbatross,

So they give you options because you're over a barrel, options like operate overweight, work your holidays, fly 120 hrs a month, fly IFR with no de icing. They know that you dearly want to leave but you can't without your ATPL flight test because you can't fly overseas with anything else. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing these stories.

If you agree to fly overweight, more flight hours than the legal limit etc then it's nothing to do with an employer not paying for your ATPL flight test so you can swan off overseas etc. It's more to do with to your professionalism or lack of it!!!

it's not the employers job to get you your ATPL, it's your own. They are in business to make money not spend it on irrelevant licences for their employees. Most if not all GA jobs are Part 135 companies that don't require it's PiC to hold an ATPL so why do you think the boss would gladly spend money on your ATPL upgrade.

if you work for an employer who is happy to grant you a NZ ATPL knowing that you can find work overseas and the possibly better employment prospects that go with it then fine. Unfortunately NZ aviation isn't entirely full of these people and I would has it a guess you haven't worked for those from the other side of the fence.

Nearly all airlines in NZ will pay for ATPL upgrades when it is required. The only company I know is Origin who actually bond command upgrades in some shape or form so most airlines know full well that a new ATPL holder can the next day resign to go offshore or to a competitor airline. I know of 1 instance where a pilot passed their ATPL/Command check and the next day resigned to go to larger turbo prop company as a Co. The Company who covered the cost for training etc got all of 1 months work from the new captain before they pissed off.

Now I have worked for a GA company that was all about the bottom line and not about it's staff and whilst I wanted things to happen with the company paying for upgrades etc, there wasn't a business case for it at the time and hence things didn't progress as fast as I wanted it to. That is life in aviation....especially GA where the bottom line is the main focus, not promoting your employees career paths.

I suggest you take off your wrap around sunnies and open you eyes up to the realities of aviation business especially the GA scene.


S2K

[ViagraDependent]

It amazes me how many times I have read posts regarding the lack of faith / respect for the NZCAA and how little is actually been done to make something happen.
Just like dealing with aviation employers.

If, in any other industry in this country, a person or group of people feel that they are being treated unfairly, they stand up and do something about it instead of just writing notes to each other about how unhappy they are.

Maybe, instead of constantly complaining to each other, we could band together with a union of some sort and try to tackle the CAA head on. Tell them what we like and don't like about the way the operate their business, about the unrealistic fees and regulations they impose on us etc.

Most of us are members of some form of union (those that aren't should be). Why not use them to our benefit instead of funding their holiday schemes.

VD:sad:

[MOR]

Well the union that represents NZ pilots is about as much use as the small soft pointy things on a bull.

Although you are obviously unaware of it, there are steps being taken to address the problem, but it will almost certainly end up in the courts. The CAA have a long track record of not listening, and then moving with autocratic swiftness. The reasons for that go all the way back to Swedavia, and the current litigation-driven rulemaking.

Some have said "It's their sandpit, if you don't like it..." etc. That is complete bollocks.

The CAA work for you an me, and they are accountable under the law for the decisions they make and the legislation they produce. In the case of legislation, that has to be approved by Parliament, so we can exert pressure there. In the case of decisions, these can be challenged in the courts.

NZ is as much my sandpit as theirs, I like it here and I have no intention of moving away again. They have a duty to be fair and reasonable in all they do, and it is our job to hold them accountable.

Now all we need is a bunch of pilots with spines. Now, that might be a problem... :rolleyes:

[Speeds high]

You have a bizarre ATPL flight test charged at a rip off price

True, like all ASL or CAA flight tests, they are expensive, however please elaberate on "bizarre" as too which bit of the test is bizzarre, i think the auzzies doing an ATPL on a light aircraft is bizzarre, but then again im just a small minded kiwi.

the likes of which no one else on planet earth does

So are you saying that when you reach a certain experiance level it should be handed to you??? (im not saying this is right or wrong just asking the question)

The completion of the ATPL flight test makes not a lick of difference to the level of safety in the industry so it is utterly pointless

Ok true as long as they continue to be done in house

except that with CAA's blessing it allows employers to bribe, bully and coerce their pilots into doing things (legal and illegal) that they probably shouldn't be doing

Um but these sad employers would bully there sadder employes with something else; like there job for instance, the problem here is not the over expensive flight test that most employers pay for anyways.

Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.

I think i would check your info here, there is more than one place that could slot you in for a test sooner than a year.

Im not saying the system is perfect, cos its far far from it (nor am i an expert on the subject as im sure plenty of experts are shortly to point out), but instead of whinging, lets here your creative solution to the problems at hand, and ways where we could help put them in place.

[27/09]

stillalbatross

These employers know that if you don't do it "in house" then it gets f*cking expensive doing it via CAA in something like a Mojave. Too expensive for those of us earning squat in GA at the time. So they give you options because you're over a barrel, options like operate overweight, work your holidays, fly 120 hrs a month, fly IFR with no de icing. They know that you dearly want to leave but you can't without your ATPL flight test because you can't fly overseas with anything else. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing these stories.

So you've only heard these stories, it hasn't actually happened to you. Are you sure they are correct.

I am unaware of any airlines (Part 121/5 operators) that don't pay for the ATPL when the time comes for a command upgrade, equally I am not aware of any Part 135 operators that reqire an ATPL. So I don't see what your issue is.

[stillalbatross]

Some interesting replies.
Sqwark2000 there is a regional airline who negotiated for all their training and checking costs to be paid for by the mainline carrier they were contracted to. i.e. IT COST THEM NOT ONE CENT OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR YOU TO DO THE ATPL FLIGHT TEST. In fact, the mainline carrier in question had a policy in place promoting the idea that all flightcrew should get subjects and licence out of the way as soon as possible and in the case of their own flightcrew paid a salary increase accordingly.

Unfortunately those running the regional airline had a small problem with the idea that others could have a successful aviation career and had a policy whereby you were banned from obtaining it without their "approval" and if you went and completed it with CAA you were fired.

Why should an employer have control over my qualifications, if I was a lawyer, doctor, teacher or most anything else they wouldn't so why do they in aviation? Because the system and the people running it haven't changed since the 1950s.

Speeds High, there is such a multitude of Aircraft over 5700 KG that the licence can be used on from Waterbombers to Widebodies to SSTs. The licence is merely a place to attach the type ratings and associated training that have gone with it.

27/09, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm not about to mention names or call it anything other than stories on a public forum.

My issue here is that if you have 1500 hours and all your ATPL passes, you may have found it all very expensive so far and therefore may be unable to fund an ATPL flight test with CAA. In addition nor might your employer allow you to use their aircraft if you go "in house" because you're doing it to leave and the 3,4,or 5 years service you've given them means squat. The Flight test is the final 5% of the culmination of all that you might have achieved so far but without it everything else is worthless.

Simple solution is either

a) Adopt the JAA system (which would involve CAA going and looking at what someone else is doing)

b) Let CASA assist CAA over here and we'd have a more straightforward licence, lower costs and fewer accidents to boot.

[MOR]

It'll never happen. Too many dinosaurs in the CAA protecting their pensions and their patches. Way too much arrogance. And a pathological refusal to accept any other sytem, no matter how much sense it might make.

[Cloud Cutter]

nor might your employer allow you to use their aircraft if you go "in house" because you're doing it to leave and the 3,4,or 5 years service you've given them means squat

You'd be pretty unlucky to wait that long. Air Nelson will let you do it on one of you regular sim checks as a F/O so maybe about 1 year? A command with Ealge at the moment only takes 12-18 months. Not sure about Mt Cook but would expect a similar system to Air Nelson. It is in the airlines interest to have more qualified crew.

I don't know what the problem is. Surely in is more ludicrous to 'give' someone an ATPL simply because they have the required hours (in any old aircraft) and exam passes, rather than require them to demonstrate proficiency in a Part 121 or 125 size aeroplane (or similar performer). It is simply no extra onus on the pilot. If you want to go overseas, fine - just don't expect the NZCAA to endorse your suitability as an Airline Trasport Pilot without adequate demostration - why should they?

[stillalbatross]

The simple error that you are all making is that you are talking about what the airlines are doing right now regarding ATPL issue. This is irrelevant, you are entirely at their whim and that may all change tomorrow. As it has done in the past.

Right now, when the nz industry is in a state of relative good health of course you are all going to say "but my employers are all wonderful"

Have a look at the approach that employers have taken towards the ATPL issue over the past 20 years instead.

At risk of repeating myself I'll say that the issue of a pilots licence shouldn't be at the whim of your employer or based on your ability (at the poorest part of your career) to come up with a bucket of cash. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the start of you carrying punters for money starts with your CPL (and maybe multi/IR) surely this is more important as you are now legally able to operate commercially.

I don't know what the problem is. Surely in is more ludicrous to 'give' someone an ATPL simply because they have the required hours (in any old aircraft) and exam passes, rather than require them to demonstrate proficiency in a Part 121 or 125 size aeroplane (or similar performer). It is simply no extra onus on the pilot.

No-one is being given anything, it is just as ludicrous to think that a 4 hour ATPL test demonstrates proficiency. You are demonstrating Multi /IR in an air transport aircraft for your ATPL issue, anything more than that for the basic licence issue is garbage. As the Australians, the US and Europe found out when they spent millions putting together their licencing requirements and assessing what was required.

So Cloudcutter, if the ATPL issue on a part 121 or 135 aircraft is such a good indication of proficiency then why bother with 30 odd sectors line training?

I'll tell you why, because the licence issue is one thing and your ability to get type rated and operate that aircraft under your (CAA approved) operations with two (or three or four crew) on those particular routes or environment is another.

[pakeha-boy]

raho...I mean tutaewera......personally take offence to your post that the FAA rating is a give away....being a kiwi with a Kiwi ATPL,and a FAA ATP,and a few types to boot,...I busted my butt to get to where I am,....I have played the "game"with the CAA,and had to deal with many of their bloody cronies,and would love to be back in kiwi making my living,but it is people like you that make kiwis like me,glad we dont have buggers like you in the cockpit.....look up "raparere" in your maori dictionary ....

[Split Flap]

CAA will always be the same as MOR noted before it is full of people protecting their patch and pension, the fact that they were all wanna-be's and has-beens in the first place does not help matters either. The fact is untill there is a director who is prepared to stand up and sound off like hes got a pair then nothing will change, unless Rodney Hide has another go at them......
Untill then my friends you are like a cat scracthing a glass window.... making noise and going nowhere....