How can a CPL holder fly P1 on a 1900?

[Turn&Slip]

Please could someone out there advise me, how Solenta get away with this?

Find it difficuilt to believe.

[Gooneybird]

Not sure I see the problem here. It's certified single crew. I forget the regs here but I don't remember ATPL having anything to do with it.

[hyenacackle]

Poor Solenta. Why not keep the thread as 1900 with comm. No
must add "Solenta"

Maybe some people want to discredit them and looking for little
scraps to keep it alive. :=

[desert fox69]

Yes it seems a trifle unfair to make this a Solenta issue because there are other reputable operators doing it too.

I am a little confused. In my SA CPL licence, it states on Page 5 (Ratings Included in Licence) : "TYPES : Single and multi-engine piston engine aeroplanes having a maximum certified mass of 5700kgs or less as endoresed in pilots logbook."

In my licence, beneath this text, there appears my own 2P BE190 rating.

Now, assuming obviously that I obtained a 1P upgrade, I believe the 5700 kg restriction would still apply. I have seen it in the licences of co-pilot colleagues who happend to get a 1P rating at the time of initial conversion.

I have yet to see a satisfactory legal explanation (or reference to the legislation) of the "alleged" exemption that allows a CPL to command a Beech 1900. How can this illusive loophole in the law override the plain english limitation in my licence (as I mentioned, assuming I were to get the 1P upgreade)? Why would the licence limitation be there if it was not applicable in the case of an aircraft like the 1900.

PS. Ex commercial lawyer with 9 years practice.. but must admit that I have not looked at the chapter and verse of the legislation in depth.

[Turn&Slip]

The law is the law and not something to abuse for personal gain for accelerated command which is artificial.Guys are flying night freight with comm. as p1 on the b190...this is breaking the law-simple...it remains an unsafe practice...but once again , welcome to the subtandard pilot mentality..when will we grow up and strive for a safer airspace instead of a better CV..

[sslut]

And when the new part 61 comes into effect very soon they will NOT be allowed to get away with it. Just like all the other companies that are currently getting away with it will also be in the :mad:. As has been said before check the difference between certificated and certified. Sorry Ignatius for stealing it but go find the post made by him on this very topic and watch this space!!! Time is ticking for you guys that are breaking the law.

[TermightJim]

Here we go again with this topic. People who are trying to credit a certain company, there is a reason this topic is so often discussed. Can a CPL captain anything above 5700 kgs ie King Air (sorry to state the obvious)? Something to do with FAR25? In certain configs it can be operated as such. For example no more than 9 seats and the rest shall have certified demarkation kits, if Im not mistaken. Im sure some dispensation has been given, but until this certificate is shown, the industry will continue to question these single pilot ops. Someone please put this dog to bed and come up with the goods. Cheers all!:ok:

[desert fox69]

Grizzly Bear..

Did the CAA give any indication at the seminar of when Part 61 will come into force?

6 months ago I was told 6 months...

[Gooneybird]

All due respects to Geoff Kingsburough Beechcraft designed it and had it certified already. Single crew. Now South Africa can go it's own way as it has before ie 2 crew C208 for heavens sake! but it doesn't change the POH.

[Kennytheking]

Hi guys,

Herewith my 2 cents worth.

One of the priveliges of a CPL is to act as Pilot-in-Command of any aircraft certified for single pilot operations.

I don't have access to the 1900 manual but by the sounds of it, the aircraft is certified for single pilot operations.

That means that a CPL may command it. There is nothing in the law that would prevent this situation......even under composition of flight crew in parts 91 &121 they state that 1 pilot must be designated as PIC but they do not refer to the PIC as having an ALTP.

The fact that your licence indicates P2 on the 1900 to my mind is not congruent with the law. How can you have a P2 rating on a single pilot aircraft. The caravan would be an example of this.

It does raise the question of how the co-pilots are logging their time though. Can't log time as P2 on a single pilot aeroplane?

I agree that there is a grey area here, but until the CAA fix the law, you cannot begrudge an operator making use of the loophole. As said before, target the problem, not the operator.

[bush van]

Right i fly 1900
You know what i say, Stop slagging solenta.
Its a single crew plane anyway, ( NO TILLER).we all fly it as "2 crew" but technically sapeking if you read the manuel its single crew. Yes its a bit heavy, GET OVER IT.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, Just jelous you cant fly one. ha

[Solid Rust Twotter]

No tiller, eh?

Guess that makes a DC3 a single crew aircraft in that case. Be fun to see someone handle an engine out while trying to get the gear and flaps up on their own in IMC.

[Gooneybird]

True SRT however the DC3 is a 2 crew a/c and the 1900 is not irrespective of tillers. It can actually be flown legally by 1 crew just not in a commercial operation.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Agreed. Just knocking the use of tillers as a criterion.;)

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Somewhat abridged perhaps.....

Part 135.

135.01.1

Small aeroplanes defined as those with MCM 5.700kgs or less.

135.03.6.

Applies restrictions to small (MCM 5.700kgs or less) commercial air transport operators which restrict commercial pilot licence holders as acting as pilot in command for single pilot operations unless certain conditions as to flight experience are met.

Therefore surely, if the Beech 1900 has an MCM of >5.700kgs, thus falling outside the CAA definition of a small aircraft, the law is unequivocal. It may not be flown by a commercial licence holder as pilot in command for passenger carrrying operations at any time.

Single crew for passenger carrying operations it may be but not for a lowly commercial licence holder.

Seems rather QED actually>:ugh:

Quite apart from the law, perhaps Solenta, whoever they might be, should have a word with their insurance company? It's somewhat like operating a Toyota taxi driven by a banned driver, but then again, the next time past the Randburg bus station....:O

[oerlikon]

Hi all

Have you not heard of those little tinted spectacles aircraft operators carry in their top pockets. Put them on and any law you don't like turns immediately to a nice shade of grey. However, judges and lawyers and insurance companies don't have them, their laws always appear in black and white. Just remember, YOUR career, YOUR source of income and YOUR life are whats at stake. :cool:

[TermightJim]

Grizzlybare, Im on your side...:ok:

[4HolerPoler]

Why am I not surprised? - This was posted on another forum three weeks ago:

The Beech 1900 is certified for single pilot operation, and as such can be commanded by a CPL, provided that the various CAA Regulations pertaining to commercial operations are complied with. I.e Operation in IFR conditions requires 2 crew members.

The level of licence required is determined by and contained in the relevant charter company's AOC manual, with which they will comply.

In short there is no technical reason why the BE1900 cannot be commanded by a CPL, it is the operator who determines the level of licence they require for their commercial operations.
_________________
Kind Regards
Mary Stephens
Senior Manager: Client Services
SACAA

Note to Ms. Stephens & Mr. Kingsburough - have a chat. And sort this out please - it's a little disconcerting when the regulatory authority can't present a uniform policy.

4HP

[Metro man]

I think Air Rhodesia had a single pilot + engineer rule for air tests on the DC3. Obviously a long time ago :sad:

[cforty7]

Hi guys

Single crew has nothing to do with weight. Read the law. Above 5700kg's you DO need an ATP to be in command. There is no such privilege as flying a single crew plane with a comm. There are plenty planes certified to fly single crew but heavier than 5700kgs or 12500lbs for that matter.

The Premier 1, the Sino Swearingen SJ30 etc. are all single crew planes but they are heavier than 5700kgs so they DO need an atp.

Likwise the Learjet 23 was certified 12 499lbs but could not get certification for single crew, BUT you can fly it P1 with a comm.

This is a black and white case with NO loopholes, just chancers.:ugh:

[beckers]

Everyone is operating CPL captains on B190's on the premise that it is certified for single crew for which I scoured the law and found nothing against it if it is puurely a single crew aircraft .

However

The 1900 A/B/C manuals state Minimum flight crew 1 pilot.

The 1900 D (UE series) manual states:
Minimum Flight Crew: 1 Pilot subject to limitations found page xxx
Amongst those limitations it lists; Boom mic, autopilot, 9 or less seats occupied and the unoccupied seat rendered inop with kit ####
(Don't have the manual with me now for exact pages and kit number)

This in my books makes the 1900 D a multi-crew aircraft and needs an ALTP.:confused:

[Whenwe]

I was there, did an air test on the DC3, two crew and never saw or heard of an engineer in the right hand seat.

Ahh... Air Rhodesia...... good days those were.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

The letter written by Mary Stephens is actually rather a worrying piece of communication.
It demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of civil aviation law and with its non sequiturs demonstrates an inability to interpret the same. It would seem perfectly obvious that Mrs Stephens has no experience of matters relating to aviation and neither has she legal training. Perhaps she should be sent down for retraining.

Unless one is in error, the MCM of a B1900 falls somewhere between 5.700 and 12.500kgs. Whatever became of the Senior Commercial Licence, died by the runway? Unless one is further mistaken, this single pilot operation certification needs clarification. It is (originally an FAA) clearance to operate, based on demonstration on the part of the manufacturer to the effect that a single pilot can safely reach and operate all controls, switches, levers and pulleys at any time. Single crew certification has nothing to do with the law and it is no business of the CAA to interpret, to the advantage of their clients,something which lies outside their domain.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to inform the writer to whom correspondence at the SACAA should be directed in order to find employment there where one's talents could best be employed in sorting out the morass into which South African CAA has woefully degenerated .:ooh:

[Zenj]

In TANZANIA, when the airline had the DHC-6 Twin Otters they were flown as one man crew but due to lot of pilot's by then it was decided to make it a 2 man crew and the only way to command was ATPL.

We flew as F/O's in those days as a 2 man crew a/c.

Of late there is an operator in Arusha ( Regional Air ) who flies same planes and commanders are CPL holders, still 2 man crew.

The issue here is that within the CAA its legal,but Airline can decide to have its own more stringent requirements.

The law allows this a/c to be flown by CPL holders, but I guess its 2 man crew for commercial operations.

[hyenacackle]

The electronic age. Such a beautiful thing. Can still remember when I had
to sit in the right seat listening to the regurgitating cheetahs of the world,
the wannabe quantum physicians, the 10 year law graduates and yeah
just your common mule holes. Whereas before had to cunningly unplug the
old dc's without being noticed, now only needs to use the good old mouse
and presto, a crap filter at the touch of a button. Keep up the good work

hehehehehehehehehehehe

[Gooneybird]

All interesting points but, I'm in agreement with 4HP and for the following reason:
You're really trying to tell me that the companies of the size we're talking about, their insurance companies, their lawyers and actuaries haven't been through this already?

I just checked the UK regs and can't find any references to weight at all:

[edit] CPL
The Commercial Pilot Licence allows the holder to act as the commander of an aircraft, for valuable consideration, in single pilot operations, and also the right to act as a co-pilot of a multi-crew aircraft for which they are qualified.


[edit] ATPL
In addition to the privileges of the CPL, the holder of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence may act as the commander of a multi-crew aircraft.

[Foxyflyer]

Current regs require only a type rating to fly in command on this aircraft

[rattex4U]

Desert fox69:

I am a little confused. In my SA CPL licence, it states on Page 5 (Ratings Included in Licence) : "TYPES : Single and multi-engine piston engine aeroplanes having a maximum certified mass of 5700kgs or less as endoresed in pilots logbook."


Mmmh, does a B190 have a piston engine? the same goes for a B747, where is the grey area now?

:E :E :E :E

[hyenacackle]

Ahh Mr Rattex. I'm glad you are also reading this. Their replies makes it
so obvious doesn't it. :ugh:

Cheers mate

[south coast]

As it has been said before in several posts already.

The AFM states that the plane is certified for single pilot ops.

Under Part 121, composition of flight crew is determined by the operator.

So, if your operator says a CPL is required, all laws met.

As for P2 ratings on such aircrafts, purely a South Africanism, no where else in the world has such ridiculous ratings.

Example, should the captain roll over dead with a heart attack, is the 1 hour 'mickey mouse' take offs and landings rating worth anything, does it leave him/her able to be in command of that plane and bring the pax home safely?

Both pilots should have P1 ratings and then one pilot is designated the captain, one the f/o, but both have been trained to the same standard.

[Gooneybird]

I think in my above post the UK CAA are refering to aircraft that are certified multi crew aircraft. Yes SC I agree with you that P2 ratings on B1900s and such aircraft are plain silly, but I hold such a rating ... :suspect:

[Goffel]

To those of you who are having a battle coming to terms with Solenta flying a B1900 with a Comm as a PIC.

Solenta got off their bums and sort out the info at CAA from the RIGHT people, and from there they made their own decision to let their Comm pilots fly as PIC as it is legal as far as the CAA legal department goes.

Now for those that have difficult in understanding this, there is a 2 page memo from Herman Wildenoer, Legal Advisor at the CAA, explaining as to why this is legal.(I could explain, but feel it is easier for you all to go and read up the law yourselves)

Should you require a copy of the memo, give me a call and I will gladly give those in doubt a copy, (Oh and there is no fee attached for this memo just in case you are reaching for your wallets).

And for those also wandering, the memo is for public ditribution.

So for those B1900 Comm captains, have no fear, carry on flying until the new law comes into place.

Goffel by the sea...(and the #$%#* mine dumps).:}

[oerlikon]

2 right in what you say, cavortingcheetah. The debate is held on 2 levels. The "clients" (reading a client as someone who pays for a service) and the CAA have their own little arrangement, and then there are a bunch of guys flying a strecthed 200 and thinking they've made the big league.

The way to resolve this is to take the CAA and the CPL's flying 1900's out to lunch and let everyone have a jolly good time, while the ATP's get on with flying heavy metal.

[redskyventures]

Yes the CAA contradicts themselves frequently, afterall, they are just people, my advice READ THE BOOK! check it out for yourselves.
Most ICAO states have a cutoff point for CPL/ATPL as 5700kg, RSA has the two pilot point as the cutoff. Only in 135/121 is the small and large aircraft specified however this does not relate to licenses required for pilots - only operators. Part 61 is at this time still under review.
Bear in mind more serious points for Citation drivers - thinking the weight was the criteria.

[Vw driver]

There is no problem with CAA if u want to operate a 1900 with a CPL as P1. It's got to do with what the client requires.

[I.R.PIRATE]

and now I need to ask :
Today you have Johnny Rotten who is a com pilot with 5000 hours on various things including 1000 hours in command of a B1900.
Johnny goes and does his ATP test this afternoon. He passes. So is Johnny now a better B1900 driver than yesterday??

Before he tested, is he more dangerous than an ATP with only a coversion to his name?

I can understand the argument for both sides, but you guys a prioritizing the wrong issues. There is no difference between an experieced comm pilot, and an atp pilot, other than a flight test. Semantics, mere semantics. The 1900 is nothing more than a long king air glorified by those who think they are now flying big machines. It is not kind of aircraft that demands pilots of massive skill levels. Average skills will do - as proved in ZS 1900s operated all over the world by relatively low time crews. ATP pilots should have their sights set on bigger things than the 1900.

[hyenacackle]

:D I agree :D

[sslut]

So there are now laws governing aviation in Seffrika... mmmm thats new to me:confused: Thought that some operators were the law - or is that just to themselves? Only asking mind you........

[Contains Nuts]

Ok so from all this see-sawing between yes, no and maybe, I find one questoin unanswered. When does the new Part 61 come into affect?

[Whenwe]

CARS are dated 1997. Its now 2007.

Next question.........:ugh:

[sony pilot]

what about the new Part 61 rules about to be implemented?

[south coast]

I am not fully aware what Part 61 means or what it is about...

Does it override Part 121 which is what the AOC says we operate to?

[Datwo]

Heard a contract company, just audited by caa has been told to stop their CPL captains comanding 1900's :=. Looks like they might have made up their minds about this subject. I'm affraid you guys may need to get your ATP's.:D

[Goffel]

The new laws are asking for both the Captain and the co-pilot to both be ATP rated, due to the A/C being a single crew operation.

The reason behind this, is that, as it being a single crew operation, each pilot that poles, becomes the Captain on their leg, thus now neccessitating for both to be ATP rated, as the Captain has to be ATP rated.

Now does that answer peoples questions.

Goffel by the jail...:ugh:

[Contains Nuts]

I called the CAA and found out that the Part 61 regs will be published on the 1st July this year and have effect from 1st Jan 08. From that date ATP will be required to drive the B1900 in command.

Doubt it? The contact at the CAA was Gloria.

Sorry to end the see-sawing,

CN

[Jlo]

CAA no longer gives a P2 rating on the B190 and don't accept any hours logged as P2 on it towards an ATP. The fault is on CAA side cause if you have a P1 rating (which they give you) it must surely mean that they want you to log P1 time on it :confused:

[Goffel]

JLO.

Excuse my ignorance here, or my misunderstanding of the English language.

How in cows country can the CAA be at fault, (yes yes), if they give you a P1rating and you go and log P2 time on a single crew aeroplane.

As you said, "surely it means that they want you to log P1 time"....Correct not so????????????.

It really amazes me that people are now questioning the new reg that wants pilots to do an Engleeeesh test.

Go to your Lexis Nexis Blue Books, (yes, net soos die blou bulle), and read what it says about single crew operation.....the same as when you fly a C210...YOU LOG THE TIME THAT YOU POLE AS PIC......same as the caravan time.

What your company wants, is between you and the company, not CAA fault...eisch.

Goffel...(still in jail)..:}

[Jlo]

Dear Goffel

You did misunderstand. Sorry, my eenglish are not so delicious always....;) But you should read more carefully. You're right, they should maybe include an English test in the licence.
They used to issue P2 ratings and some guys have had problems getting their ATP's as CAA suddenly did not want to recognise those hours. They had to though, because they themselves have issued the P2 rating (as shown in the licences of the guys involved). At no time did I say that I was logging P2 time with a P1 rating.

CAA now issues a P1 rating (which is what I have), even though the company requires me to fly as co-pilot (and yes, I am logging the legs I'm flying as P1 - you can't log P2 if you have not been issued a P2 rating)
BUT if you require an ATP to be P1 on the aircraft (which I don't have), then how could they have legally issued me with the rating in the first place?

CAA should not be issuing P1 ratings on the 1900 to Comm Pilots if it is not legal to have command on it without an ATP. END OF STORY. If it is in my license, it should mean I can fly it, right? They are going against their own laws. Don't you agree?

PS I'm a Sharks supporter, so don't mention the Blue Bulls.... it is a sensitive subject at the moment:ugh:

[Vw driver]

Part 61, well not sure when or/ and if it's actually comming, but don't stress, if it does come into play CAA will have to give the guys affect sufficient time to get the right licences and ratings.

But in E-mails I've read, they use the word romours alot.

[Beeech19]

Me smells $10 000 per month for ATP 1900 P1's:E

Go study men:ok:

[south coast]

JLo, I am afraid what you are doing is wrong.

You said you cannot log P2 if you dont have a P2 rating, rubbish, thats how the rest of the civilised world do things, eg. under JAR, we dont have P2 ratings, on a B737, A320...so as a FO you have a P1 rating, but log P2 as you are not he PIC-P1-Commander, call it what you will.

Just because you are flying the leg with a P1 rating does not allow you to log the time as PIC.

As you said you are the FO, so therefore you are not designated the commander of the plane and can only log P2.

If, the SACAA recognised PICUS ( PIC under supervision) you could log that.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
Quite right and there is also a serious wrinkle to logging time at the controls as P1 U/S.
The designation P1 U/S is not designed to allow first officers to log time spent flying, with the appropriate licence of course, as anything other than P2
The designation is really there to allow a captain under training to log the time spent flying with a training captain as P1 time of one sort or another.
In the UK, correct if incorrect please, it requires company approval by the CAA for a pilot to be able to log time spent at the controls as P1 U/S. It is not some designation that a pilot can, jolly old willy nilly, decide to award himself.
This, if correct, does nothing to clarify matters much but one does remember from all those years flying in ZA that there are many pilots whose logbooks would not and should not face up to serious international scrutiny.
The QED for this conjecture is perhaps born out by the arguements which have raged so far on these previous pages.:ugh:
In the old ANRs of South Africa, there was a quite clearly designated weight schedule for aircraft which, if memory serves, ran something like this in abbreviated form.
Pilot in command, passengers, commercial operations, licence type requirements:
Aircraft up to 5.700 kgs. Commercial Licence.
Aircraft up to 12.500kgs. Senior Commerical Licence.
Aircraft over 12.500 kgs. ATPL.
Pretty unequivocal then. Possibly someone could actually quote the relevant up to date ANR passage to clarify the situation now that the SCPL has fallen away?

As an addendum or PS, for those younger readers. One had to write the same exams for an SCPL as for an ATPL. The only difference between the two licences was, in fact, the colour of the stripe, blue one thinks for the SCPL, some flying hours of a certain type, day/night and so on and the weight restriction. Does memory serve correctly?:confused: ??

[Jlo]

South Coast

I do agree with you, it makes perfect sense, but SACAA does not accept any P2 time on the B1900. A friend of mine nearly had them take a red pen and draw a line through all those flights logged as P2. Lucky they had issued him with a P2 rating, so they couldn't do that. Since then, they don't issue P2 ratings and don't accept hours logged as P2. Not towards total time and not half of it towards ATP. They consider it a single-crew aircraft. So does that mean we should be logging absolutely nothing? :confused: or should i go find another job until i have an ATP :ugh: cause if i can't log anything, i can't get an ATP and i'll be stuck in this position:yuk:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
If the MCM of the B190 is >5.700 kgs, which it is, then it requires an ATPL holder as pilot in command. Therefore one of the two pilots (US Airline use regulation for the aircraft) must have an ATPL and he would log all the time spent in the airrcaft as PiC or P1.
The second pilot, were he to hold a CPL would then log all time spent handling the aircraft in the P1 column and all time spent fulfilling a role as non flying pilot in the P2 column.
The P1 time logged by a CPL holder would count toward the issue of a higher licence. The P2 time would not, therefore, a 50/50% split. Don't think that anyone bothers with Part 1 or Part 2 endorsements these days. All ratings are for Part 1. No one wants to have to bother with a second flight test to upgrade, as it were, from Part 2 to Part 1.
That seems logical enough so the only problem would seem to be that people have been winging around single crew airline operations in the B190 with a CPL when they should have had an ATPL and even then, there should have be a second, rated pilot, for commercial passenger operations. :confused:
The old Senior Com Licence, with its greater weight/MCM privilige, got around part of this problem but even in the Bandeirante, two crew, Commander with an ATPL, were required for commercial passenger flights.:)

[nugpot]

Sorry. I have nothing to do with this thread, but this caught my eye:
There is no difference between an experieced comm pilot, and an atp pilot, other than a flight test.

Well. There are also those pesky little exams that seem to take forever to successfully gather.....;)

[Irene]

I just got a B1900C P2 rating on my licence (CPL) in the last week. Another pilot, who has gone through this fight with the CAA, is getting his ATPL and the SACAA are recognising 50% of his P2 time towards his ATPL ON CONDTION THAT his employer (the operator) provide the CAA with a letter stating that all flying was in a multi-crew environment. This does not mean co-pilot sitting there like a sack of potatoes, this means a proper, procedural multi-crew cockpit with delegated responsibilities, etc...

Hope that helps, all this information was gathered in the last 7 days. I am sure all of the experiences of the others that have posted comments here on this thread are true, my opinion is that the CAA is completely inconsistent. This fact, however, can be used to the advantage of those sh:mad:ting off in kak areas of the world, trying to progress in their careers in a legitimate, industry accepted fashion.

This whole issue smacks of pedantic people trying to pull the ladder up with them to protect their jobs. A 1900 might not be a HS748 but it is unreasonable to class this aircraft, in terms of logging P2 time, in the same category as a Jabiru.:ugh:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Everyone knows that the HS748 is a derivative of the Andover, or vice versa, whichever you like really.
It was built by British Aerospace for tall, dark, handsome, lithsome Englishmen of great charm and intellect to fly. As one of those, well perhaps not quite exactly English, there was no difficulty to be encountered in stretching across the cockpit when the FO was down the back with the hostie. The only slight problem that could be encountered when operating solo without auto pilot was in a slow and measured opening of the dump valve.:ooh:

[Tailspin2001]

I've flow a DC3s with a ground engineer in the right hand seat in the past. Totally legal if it is empty and did not have any trouble with gear and flaps. Found it much harder to land and then try to taxy a Twin Otter single pilot in a howling cross wind in the Shetlands :bored:

[dynamite dean]

I have read these posts with interest, When the day comes when one of these things gets written off with fatalities ; with a CPL rated chap that insurance company will be looking with a fine tooth comb anything where it can wiggle out of paying, time will tell. I was always under the impression too that getting an ATP lifted my weight restriction otherwise what was all the hard slog for!?...now you tell me!:E

[Woof etc]

Can the SACAA not give a statement on their position to put this matter to rest once and for all. Why should it even be debated? The CAA needs to specify clearly what the requirements are.

Then again I suppose that would require them to agree amongst themselves which is well nigh impossible.

Oh well.

[south coast]

This is how I think it should be looked at.

No CAA in the world is going to over rule any manufacturer simply because they do not have the same experience levels in design, research and knowledge.

So, the manufacturer, Beechcraft/Raytheon have said in black and white in the AFM, that the plane can be flown by a single pilot so long as if this is the case there are certain restrictions, ie. auto-pilot, ATPL (I think, although cant remember the exact text).

So, if it is a single pilot aircraft that goes against the rule of >12,500lbs requires an ATPL, but, we should remember that the FAR's are different.

In the USA, one does not need a type rating on anything <12,500lbs, ie, a King Air 200 does not require a specific type rating, merely a check out flight.

This leads to the question, who is the SAACAA or any CAA for that matter to over rule the manufacturers instructions for the aircraft.

Until the SAACAA make an official ruling and put it down on paper stating that the B1900 must be flown by a ATPL holder, then I see no reason why the a CPL may not fly it is the PIC.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

This leads on to a rather interesting rumour.
The shortage of pilots worldwide has finally caught up with the forward planning projections of sales for the Airbus 380.
A spokesman for Airbus Industries is reported to have stated that the traditional first officer seat in the new super jumbo is to be replaced by an angulated computer keyboard and screen, accessible from the traditional left hand pilot seat. This will mean that Airbus Industry will be able to market the aircraft as a single crew aeroplane, a fact which will be recorded in the aircraft flight manual. It is understood that until various aviation authorities worldwide legislate against such operations, single crew Airbus 380s will be able to be flown anywhere in the world by a pilot with a commercial licence.
A spokesperson for the CAA at Gatwick, England, stated that it could take quite some time for aviation authorities to clarify the situation but that in the meantime, there was no reason why Airbus, having designated the A380 as single crew, could not operate it as such.
It is reported that flying clubs in France have been inundated by requests from private pilots eager to offer their services during the take off and landing stages of flight when apparently, flight conditions are at their most critical:p

[south coast]

Not sure if you are taking the p*ss out of my previous thread...?

[sidestick driver]

I suppose it also has a placard at the door stating that it's MTOW has been reduced to 12500 lbs for single pilot operation too.:D

[Renaissance]

If my memory serves... some American manufacturers certify greater than 12,500lbs aircraft for single pilot ops under SFAR 41C in order to accord flexibility to FAR Part 91 operators. The capt still requires a type rating, and can be a CPL holder, but single pilot ops are restricted to 9 pax.

IFR passenger carrying commercial ops (Part 135, 121 etc...) require the P1 to hold an ATP. I believe even a chartered Baron (BE55/58), carrying passengers IFR requires an ATP P1.

It would be interesting to hear what the North American boys have to say about this

[oerlikon]

Um, this is a question, and in no way is an attempt to add or detract from the discussion.

Are there any other types of aircraft with a MTOW above 5700kg certified for single pilot operations?

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Am I missing something? The regs state ATP required for command of aircraft above 5700kg, regardless of number of crew required. Single crew ops may be part of the 1900 certification but that in no way implies that the crewmember in question may be a CPL holder, or does it?:ugh:

[oerlikon]

Interesting. Lets say I have a PPL with IF rating. Can I buy a Caravan and fly it on my licence? Or, if I buy a 1900 under the same conditions can I fly that too on my PPL?

[Ingwe]

As far as I know the Metro is used in Oz and NZ single crew on the mail runs/freighers, I do strand to be corrested here though. don't know what Licence they're required to hold?

You can fly anyaircraft on a PPL as long as you do not fly it for hire or reward. therefore if you buy your own 747 and only use it as your own private aircraft really there's nothing stopping you from doing so. Provided you meet all the necesary training stipputated in your insurance..

[I.R.PIRATE]

There needs to be a distinction in semantics here though, before this stops going round and round.

Can a com pilot command a 1900 - OF COURSE - ITS NOT A DIFFICULT MACHINE

Can CAA licence a comm pilot to command a 1900 - THIS IS THE QUESTION



If you were offered a position in the left hand seat of the 1900 with a comm - you would take it. Dont play the man because the CAA's house is in disorder. I was a 1900 driver with a com - why because the CAA said I could. If I ever felt that I was uncomfortable in the machine I would not have operated it, but unfortunately for the UBER drivers out there, its just a long 200 and nothing special...so much so that CAA is not even regarding it a two crew machine for logging of hours.

So where does this leave us?

WEll - some comm guys have a few thousand 'stolen' hours on 1900s (insert shock and horror smiley here) and CAA needs to get its legislation in order. Why beat this out any further?

CAA said comm guys could command it - not the pilots or operators but CAA, so fight with them. Leave the pilots out of it. If my CAA says I am allowed to fly a G4 tomorrow with a comm, trust me, when that job comes up (theoretically) I will jump on it. Our local CAA makes the rules. and I abide by them.:E

Bottom line is, from a skills point of view, the guys that have been commanding 1900s have been up to the task, regardless of the colour of their licence.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

What Ho! I.R. Pirate.

If one were to be really pedantic which, in the context of world wide CAAs and aviation law, is probably not a bad thing at all, one would have to say that, under certain circumstances, a commercial licence holder could act as Captain on a Beech 1900. However, a commercial licence holder could not, one hazards, act as Commander on a Beech 1900. There is a subtle difference between the two roles which has been neatly, shall one say, explored, by a certain international Nigerian operator of small sophisticated German jets.:ooh:

[hyenacackle]

:ooh:

And there goes our "regurgitatingcheetah" again :{

[oerlikon]

You are correct in saying a CAA cannot overule the manufacturers minimum operating requirement for an aircraft. They can, however, place a higher restriction on that aircraft registered in their country (for example, while the 1900 is certified single crew in USA, it is certified for 2 crew in Canada).

From the basic licences issued in SA, a CPL limits a pilot to 5700kg or less while an ATP allows for aircraft with a MAUW over 5700kg.

The main problem with this whole thread is that the 1900 is simply a stretched BE20, and therefore becomes an easy aircraft to fly for anybody with some time on a BE20. Disregarding the fact that the handling characteristics and weight and balance are different, the systems are similar to that of the BE20 and the BE9F.

Perhaps the operators of the aircraft are justified in feeling that their King Air rated crew will have an easy transition to the 1900.

And perhaps the real problem is that the pilots with ATP's would rather be flying more challenging aircraft than the 1900, leaving 1900 operators with no option but to get the CPL's to fly the aircraft.

I.R.Pirate hit the nail on the head saying that if the CAA allows CPL's to fly the 1900, CPL's will fly the 1900.

I propose that, instead of us all sitting around trying to discuss this issue, we invite a CAA official to explain exactly what is going on. However, I think that would be easier said than done, because if they were capable of providing an adequate answer this thread would have been binned quite some time ago.

[warloc67]

Oerlikon,

Maybe you can enlighten me as to where in the ANR's you find the 5700kg restriction? The SA licensing requirements still fall under the 1976 ANR's and my copy of the digma under ANR 2.26 (Priviledges of a license) makes no mention of any weight restriction. The only place I find that is in the CAR's Part 121, and even there it states that that the minimum crew shall be as determined by the manufacturer, except for IFR flight the minimum shall be 2 crew. Again no mention of type of license. The priviledge of your license determines what you may fly as PIC. I suggest that you go and read ANR 2.26 and 2.28 again and then we can talk on the same level.:ugh:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

1976 would be about this pilot's level of antiquity. As posted earlier and from memory:

In the old ANRs of South Africa, there was a quite clearly designated weight schedule for aircraft which, if memory serves, ran something like this in abbreviated form.
Pilot in command, passengers, commercial operations, licence type requirements:
Aircraft up to 5.700 kgs. Commercial Licence.
Aircraft up to 12.500kgs. Senior Commerical Licence.
Aircraft over 12.500 kgs. ATPL.

If those licence priviliges still hold good, even though the SCPL may have fallen away, then the matter is fairly unequivocal?:ooh:

[warloc67]

CC,

The ANR's you refer to was the old commercial sections and has been replced with CAR's part 135 and 121, the difference being that 135 ops are for aircraft below 5700kg and 121 for above, when part 61 is finally promolgated in its entirety things may change with regard the 1900, but under current legislation you may legally fly the 1900 as PIC with a CPL only

At the recent Part 61 workshop held in Midrand it was patently obvious that the CAA recognizes the problem but are at odds as how to fix it. I suppose time will tell, for the interim the status quo remains.

[oerlikon]

warloc,

Okay, so we are in agreement that part 135 operation restrictions are for aircraft under 5700kg and part 121 are for aircraft over 5700kg.

My question to you is this: Why are CPL's allowed to fly the 1900 on their licence and not required to have an ATP. (In other words, what is the exact reasoning behind it?)

[south coast]

As far as I am aware, Far 135 is for ait taxi, charter and non-scheduled flying and Far 121 is for scheduled operators and more strict.

A company can choose to fly their planes under either part, so long as it is mentioned on their AOC.

As someone pointed out earlier, under Part 121, the crew composition, no where does it state that the pic should have an ATPL, just that the requirements of the AFM must be met, and since it is not a Multi Pilot Plane, requiring 2 pilots to fly it, then the commander does not have to have an ATPL.

[I.R.PIRATE]

aye >> spot on sire

[I.R.PIRATE]

well it means the opposite of Nay/Nyet/Nee/Nein/Nought/Ni.....

[4HolerPoler]

Please get this thread back on track or you too will find your post suddenly disappearing. ;)

4HP

[ALLSTATIONS]

Any news about part 61 yet? Been told it will be end June. How on earth
are they going to manage that. Crews out on contracts and with the
shortage as it is? Any more info about this only coming into affect from
Jan08 and the rumour that it will actually make it legal for once and all to
fly the long 200 with my comm.

[I.R.PIRATE]

and now in the same breath, how then does one fly a van with 12 pax.....

with two crew no?

we are not talking about only one pilot in the cockpit, as nobody flies the 1900 with only one up front

[Happydays]

Where in the law does it say you must have a ATP to fly a a/c heavier that 5700KG with a ATP. Where in the law does it say you need to have a ATP if there is more than 9 seats operating under part 135 ? Can someone qoute it?

You can fly a 1900 single pilot. But to fly pax,post,cargo there must be 2 crew on the a/c. Both of them can have a Com. Thats how I understand it, i might be wrong...

[south coast]

Happy days, you are right.

Most SA operators operate the 1900 under Part 121, which stipulates there must be 2 crew to fly the plane under IFR.

It says the crew must also be appropriately qualified, in accordance with the AFM and company ops manual.

No where does it say the captain must hold an ATPL.

It is true to say that in order to be in command of a plane which exceeds, 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, one must hold an ATPL.

However, it is assumed by most CAA that any aircraft in excess of the above mentioned weights will be designated by the manufacturer as a Multi Pilot Aircraft (MPA).

This is where the grey area arises, as the 1900 does exceed the 12,500lbs/5,700kgs, but the manufacturer does not call for 2 pilots.

I think the manufacturer gave operators the choice to fly it single pilot with reduced pax loads, Part 135, and then to also fly it as an airliner under Part 121 requiring 2 pilots and thus allowing 18/19 pax.

But, it does not call for the commander to hold an ATPL, I think that is down to company policy.

Thats how I understand it, and why I think the ambiguity comes about.

[I.R.PIRATE]

Ok, now for another question:

How has this influenced any of the lives of those that argue the fact?

[nugpot]

OK, let me summarise the facts so far:

1. The 1900 weighs > 5700kgs
2. It is certified for single pilot ops with certain specific seat blocking equipment.
3. Part 121 (and old ANR's) require 2 pilots in a/c over 5700kgs in air transport cat ops IFR or night.
4. A holder of a CPL may act as PIC in any aircraft certified for single pilot ops in air transport cat ops. (Part 61 and old ANR's)
5. Any aircraft in air transport cat ops certified for multi-crew requires ATP rated PIC (Part 61 and old ANR's)

References:

1900D Airplane Flight Manual
ANR 2.26, 2.28, 10.18 (Pre-Part 61 implementation)
Part 61.05.9, 61.07.9, 121.01.1, 121.02.1

Now of particular interest is 121.02.1 which states:
The operator shall designate one pilot among the flight crew as pilot in command.....

Now. According to Part 61 (and the ANR's for the retentive arguing that 61 is not yet in effect), you are not allowed to be PIC of an aircraft that requires 2 pilots, unless you have an ATP.

Beechcraft says that the 1900 is ONLY certified for single pilot ops with 9 seats or less (and if more, the seats are to be blocked off by maintenance action).

Ergo, if your 1900 has more than 9 seats, you cannot legally be PIC with a comm.

[nugpot]

How has this influenced any of the lives of those that argue the fact?

Very funny question. Does it have to be a life-changing experience for me to have an opinion?

[south coast]

I dont really care to be honest, as I have already done my time on the 1900 and I flew it as a captain with only a cpl, however, I do now have an ATPL and am flying a plane which requires 2 pilots.

It is just an interesting debate.

As for it being illegal to fly it as a captain with only a cpl, I cannot believe that all these companies were breaking the law by doing so.

I recall from my time in Algeria, that 1st world mutli-national companies, BP, Total, Agip to name a few audited NAC/Air Express who allowed cpl captains and there was never a problem concerning it.

[nugpot]

1st world mutli-national companies, BP, Total, Agip...

What makes you think oil companies know anything about aviation laws. They probably asked their pilot/service provider and as you can see here, pilots don't even agree.....

[Happydays]

In other word we all agree now that Solenta is legal when they use Com caiptains on 1900, because they fly chickens around instead of people.

[south coast]

nugpot

You have obviously never had anything to do with BP.

I recall from my days in the sand pit that they were the most proactive organisation when it came to Health & Safety at work, and adhering to regulations.

They have an aviation dept. and the company I now work for flies them around and we also manage a G5 for them.

They are very interested in meeting regulations to the point of being anal about it.

If there was an issue with a CPL pilot being in command of a plane that was contracted exclusively to BP, I can assure you that they would tell you very quickly.

[I.R.PIRATE]

not in the least nugpot, I was just wondering that if CAA has said its ok, and we took it as such, why the big ruckus?

When CAA says we cant, then so be it. But pilots take their guidance and law from the CAA, and if they allow it, I for one am not going to fight it because it is not a life changing experience >> semantics (whether it be from the CAA or the POH) but until somebody decides, no one is wrong in doing what CAA is happy with.

Or am i totally missing the boat here?