A Part 61 conundrum for Australian ATPL applicants

[Judd]

Before Part 61 came in on 1 September 2014, an applicant for the ATPL had to pass certain examinations, provide log book evidence of the minimum flying hours required and apply to CASA to gain their ATPL. No flight test needed, no MCC course needed.

Since Part 61 was thrown at us with all its inbuilt interpretations and other complications, one of the perhaps unintended consequences that has shown up is that it is now impossible for the average Australian pilot to apply for an ATPL flight test without having first completed a "CASA Approved" MCC course. But there are none available in Australia at present. :ugh:

CASA advise that even though an applicant for an ATPL may have well beyond the minimum hours requirement for an ATPL including significant Airbus or Boeing co-pilot time - and have passed all the ATPL "subjects" - a flight test cannot be attempted unless the candidate has completed an Australian airline CASA approved MCC course. At present there appears to be no CASA approved MCC courses in Australia. Operators who teach airline specific cadets have their MCC course approved by overseas regulatory authorities to where these cadets will finish up. From what I see designing a CASA approved MCC course is very time consuming and expensive and not exactly a money spinner.

But there is not a single operator in Australia approved to conduct a CASA approved MCC course for those Australian pilots in Australia or overseas that require an ATPL - unless they are employed within the Australian airline system. There is also no provision in the CASA Part 61 regulations that permit MCC equivalency based upon overseas co-pilot hours on the Airbus or Boeing types.

It is a Catch 22 situation for Australian pilots who may well have all the experience and more, to undertake an ATPL flight test (and that's another Part 61 saga on its own) but are unable to complete a CASA approved MCC course as a prerequisite because there ain't none in OZ!!

So what to do about it? These pilots cannot even get an interview with Jetstar because Jetstar require you have an ATPL in your hand before interview. That successfully screws so many Australian well experienced general aviation or those currently flying overseas who would like to come home and have a crack at getting into Jetstar for example. At least Virgin have the sense to only require a pass in the ATPL subjects before interview.

I may be missing something here, but it seems the only way Australian pilots forced into that predicament by this ruinous CASA attitude, can fix their problem is to head to USA and gain an FAA ATP and hope that CASA accept that as equivalent to the Australian ATPL.


But what a crock that is, when they have to go to USA with all that time wasted and great expense especially when many of these pilots have well beyond the minimum flying experience to hold an ATPL.

Can any readers suggest a way out of this conundrum for fellow Australian pilots who need the ATPL but are stymied every way they turn?

[thorn bird]

Judd,

it will at the end of the day come down to $$$.

Under part 61 you are required to have a type rating on the multi crew aircraft you do the check in. I have heard various costs for multi crew courses yet to be approved by CAsA but havnt, been because they dont have the resources to approve them, but upwards of $9000 for an approved course, if you dont have the type rating then an ATPL could cost upwards of $50,000 in Australia.

My suggestion is to go to NZ and do it, the US has upped their requirements, so its not as easy over there anymore, but one thing is for sure it will be cheaper than here.

Perhaps a shop around the ICAO recognised countries and see who is the cheapest is the way to go.

[roundsounds]

Judd - CASA have deferred the MCC requirement until 1/9/2015 (refer FAQ on CASA website)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Frequently Asked Questions ? Flight crew training and licensing (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102186)

When the MCC is introduced it should be incorporated in all Type Rating courses, given you'll need to do the flight test under multi crew conditions, in a multi crew aircraft, the type rating will achieve the MCC requirement.
I've searched and can not find the current Jetstar requirements on their website, maybe you'll find they too will accept ATPL subjects.

[Tinstaafl]

An FAA ATP is no longer a simple or cheap option. In August the FAA changed the requirements for an ATP, and now require approved ground school *and* simulator training before doing the theory exam.

[Username here]

So much for the "CPL with ATPL subjects" being the new job requirement post part 61... Just saw this on AFAP this morning for a 1900D job:

Essential Criteria:

Australian Air Transport Pilot Licence (frozen ATPL, with a Commercial Pilot Licence is not acceptable)

Doesn't look like employers are keen on "hooking you up" with a flight test....

[kingRB]

Doesn't look like employers are keen on "hooking you up" with a flight test....
:hmm:
They also then state not much further down

300 hours Command, Beech 1900 and current on type

Realistically, how could you have 300 hours command on one without one?

[Stikybeke]

For what it's worth IMOH, how did it ever get to this??

This whole debarcle has gone steadily downhill since the SCPL was abolished!!! Heaven help any young person without sufficient financial backing trying to get ahead these days, unless of course you join the ADF and even then on exit there are still all the BS conversion hurdles to jump!! What a S#@tfight!!

I just wonder how all this will translate into those university courses etc....

You have my sympathy and I wish you all the best good luck!!!

Stiky
:ugh:

[Bankrupt84]

It unfortunately limits junior pilots options. People I have known used the Australian ATPL that they obtained with only C172 time to launch a jet or turboprop career overseas back in 2008-09.

In today's market in Australia we have junior pilots spending 12 months up North & out west not finding work. That is because the market is stagnant, nobody is moving up the ranks.

So for those pilots with 1500-3000hrs that didn't get the required night hours in time, they will be most likely relegated to a career flying piston aircraft or caravans for little reward in remote places.

At least if the Australian ATPL was an option for them then they could move overseas and continue with the career progression.

[pineappledaz]

convert your licence to a NZ CPL under the TTMRA. Sit your ATPL flight test then reapply under the TTMRA to convert your NZ ATPL to the Aussie ATPL.

[Bankrupt84]

Well "username here" that's great that you use it for picking up chicks but some like to use it to progress the career they have chosen to pursue. Now if the Australian market is not moving, and the only way into the world market is with an ATPL this has come as bad news for us and future australian pilots.

Carriers outside of Australia do not care how many hours in a chieftain you have done, but if you had an ATPL that would help you to stand out in the crowd of foreign wannabe pilots.

If people have a different view point than mine then that's fine, but to post such a stupid comment really sums up the direction that the pilot community has gone.

[Trent 972]

Bankrupt84 is on the money.
How is this stupid rule different from saying a PPL holder shouldn't have a CPL until he has a paying job.
ATPL is the qualification you need to get the job to begin to learn the applicable job.
By all means restrict the experience requirements, but FFS let people get into the race.

[thorn bird]

"What's the big fuss. You will get an ATP when it is required (with a command upgrade)."

Anyone who imagines the airlines are going to pay for their ATP license upgrade are deluding themselves.

The airline industry is now almost completely Internationalized, its a global market out there, you compete across the board. That includes licensing, pay and conditions of employment.

It could be said that unique Australian conditions died in 1989.

In todays international market you are qualified or you are not, whether your a citizen or not matters naught.

Do you have the bits of paper, because that's all they are, meaningless bits of paper, that are required that say you are legally, (Note I didn't say competently) able to conduct the operation required by the employer?

The cost of providing an ATPL license under the new Horse **** regulations is way more expensive than the cost of a 457 visa, therefore the Visa rules.

CAsA are not required to consider what impact their horse **** regulations will have on employment, nor what the financial impact they will have on the industry.

They are only required to regulate for "Safety", and they are the ones that decide what safety means.

My advice to anyone contemplating a career in aviation is to get themselves as far away from the influence of the "Australian" system as they can get.

Aviation in Australia has arrived at the end of its use by date, we cannot compete anymore in a global market and our regulator is making it harder and harder for any of our wannabe's to move out of our "unique" system and join the real world.

[morno]

Anyone who imagines the airlines are going to pay for their ATP license upgrade are deluding themselves.

I can't say I'm familiar with the exact flight test requirements for the issue of an ATPL in Australia, however, you're going to be undergoing a fairly rigorous simulator program as part of any Command upgrade. Before you're let loose to begin line training, under most circumstances, you're going to do one final sim check. How different would this be to an ATPL flight test? That's what I keep saying. Realistically, you're already doing the test!

It will simply be a box ticking exercise for your company.

When I went to the US to do a type rating last year, the flight school asked me if I wanted to include an FAA ATPL into my type rating. There were only like 2-3 additional items required to be included in my final sim check and I could have had it issued. Unfortunately due to time constraints I was unable to get all the theory done as well, so didn't do it. But my point is, there's not much difference in the FAA's requirements vs CASA's requirements.

You do a PPL test, you do a CPL test, why the hell should you not do an ATPL flight test?!

Finally, even if you have an ATPL, without multi-crew jet time, you're still fairly useless on the world aviation stage. So don't think it's going to make much of a difference there.

morno

[WillieTheWimp]

The cost of providing an ATPL license under the new Horse **** regulations is way more expensive than the cost of a 457 visa, therefore the Visa rules.

Not sure what you mean by this but an ATPL is not required to be an FO, so unless Australia runs out of CPL holders, not likely to be any 457 visas issued to throw someone in the RHS. Direct left seat will remain a different story.

In the international market, an ATPL alone is insignificant. You will want some jet or a fist full of turboprop command.

Like it or lump it, it's the way it is. It will just make you all the more proud when you achieve your ATPL.

[i_fly_planes]

So if I was to hypothetically head over to the U.S. and do my faa atp via one of these approved one week course and do the practical test. When I come back to Oz to convert it will I still have to do the flight test?

[Steve Zissou]

And how do you suggest sitting the ATPL flight test in NZ? Not quite that easy unfortunately, realistically you'd need to be working for an airline to get it done.

[galdian]

Outside of all this but is in reasonable/unfair that CASA, as well as stating the changes should, without prejidice and without preference, state how the new requirements MIGHT be met, by all means stating approved courses/operators whether local or international??

Of course agencies/approvals may change over time....but for an organisation "on top of it's game" surely not a problem??

Of course if there was no way their changes COULD be achieved....well that could be a tad embarsseing....just make rules without assistance.:ugh:

Bureaucrats - amazing how they so quickly forget they are to SERVE the paying public.

Cheers!
galdian :ok:

[juzanuthapilot]

My interpretation is that PPL/CPL holders operating multicrew prior to Sept 2015 can continue to operator multicrew without an MCC. However, any ATPL candidate must complete an MCC prior to a flight test, including the forementioned pilots. There is no exemption for the MCC prior to the flight test, but an exemption to continue flying on your current aircraft without an MCC.

[thorn bird]

Dude,


why am I not surprised!!

[morno]

My guess is if they are asking for 'currently flying F100 aircraft', then they're probably wanting someone they can upgrade quickly. So is it not reasonable to ask for an ATPL?

I think you're reading too much into it fpvdude.

morno - still failing to see what's wrong with doing what the rest of the world does

[manymak]

fpvdude, morno is right. You're ready way too much into it. The Skippers F100 operation is effectively a start up so they will be recruiting for experience.

[RequestAsymmetrics]

I think it's fair enough to ask for the ATPL since it's a start-up op. There must still be plenty of ATPLs looking for gigs in Oz. But the 457 visa line really gets on my nerves :mad:

[morno]

Obviously you also have an ATPL Morno

Yes I do.

now at the whim of their employer, or stuck on GA with not many upward options
No overseas opportunities anymore, no majors, and now, competing with 457 Vias overseas pilots at regional airlines as an FO..

If you are obtaining a Command, I dare say your flight test will be included in the upgrade process. If you so choose to go overseas, then that should be at your cost, not your employers. We're not the only country in the world requiring a flight test for an ATPL (complexities of which seat it need's to be in aside).

This is the first ad that I have seen requiring an ATPL since the new rules, however has been pointed out, it's a new operation (apparently). Didn't Skywest also get some guys in from overseas to fly the ATR's when they first started?

Honestly mate, would you really be happy if you were in these kids position?

You're acting as though the sky is falling fpv. Good luck to companies who think they will get away with 457 Visa's for anything other than start up operations like this.

Would I be happpy? I may not be applying to Skipper's, but I'm sure there's still plenty of operators who aren't requiring an ATPL.

Maybe answer this question for me:
Why should ATPL's be given out in Corn Flakes boxes just because you reach 1,500hrs? Should CPL's be given out when you reach 150hrs?

morno

[739]

Further to the theme of this part 61 mess, I was recently made aware of a mate who got an airline gig overseas and has been asked to present her instrument rating with 6 months validity remaining on it. However she has already been issued with a Part 61 licence and as we all know there is no expiry date on her MEA IR.

So she rang up CASA and asked about it, answer: her instrument rating is valid as long as she is under the cyclic program of her company, once she leaves though, it becomes invalid. (bit of a joke really if she has to go and do a instrument proficiency check in a Duchess just to get a year's validity on her IR)

What a mess ...

[Centaurus]

This is the first ad that I have seen requiring an ATPL since the new rules,

Jet-Connect in NZ require an applicant to hold an ATPL before being considered for an interview. Several would-be hopefuls were refused interviews despite having over 1000 hours as first officer on the Boeing Classic/NG with Australian ATPL subjects.
To rub salt in the wounds these hopefuls are not permitted to undergo an ATPL flight (simulator) test because they don't have an Australian MCC course and there is no CASA MCC approved course in Australia for other than airline sponsorship like Cathay or Dragonair Hong Kong which are not CASA approved anyway.

[roundsounds]

Whoever is being told they cannot sit an ATPL flight test without having completed a MCC is being mislead. CASA have deferred the requirement until September 2015, the instrument stating such is on the CASA website.

[Nomde plume]

roundsounds
Whoever is being told they cannot sit an ATPL flight test without having completed a MCC is being mislead. CASA have deferred the requirement until September 2015, the instrument stating such is on the CASA website.


Mind posting a link to this 'instrument'?

Casa website shows Sep 2015 for PPL/CPL multi crew only. ATPL requires MCC from sep 2014 here:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Multi-crew cooperation training (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102129)

[das Uber Soldat]

Didn't want to make a new thread.

I wouldn't have a big drama with this if the upgrade process was rolled into the former CAR217 C&T department. You do your command training, and then as part of that process, are assessed for the ATPL flight test.

However currently, only CASA has authority to actually conduct the bloody flight test. My sim isn't even in Australia! The costs to the company to do this are large, and they will obviously make decisions to minimize that cost.

This effectively means no CPL FO is eligible for career progression outside the company they are in. Nobody is interested in someone with subjects only. So I either wait a million years for a command at my current company, or go hire a sim/casa fte/2nd pilot and fly them all to NZ on my own dime to get it done (christ knows how much that would cost).

CASA really needs to delegate the authority to conduct this flight test to selected members of the C&T department.

[tocum]

G'day people

I'd appreciate if you folks could shed some light on this issue.

Situation:
I am a Non Australian resident and obtained my first licence CPL/IR - CASA with fATPL

I then obtained a South African licence SA CPL/IR and actively working overseas in Multicrew environment(DH8D).

I now meet the hours requirement for a full CASA ATPL which will help me with my SA ATPL.
Is there a way to ask any exemption to the new CASA regulation and conduct the flying component of the CASA ATPL flight test on my next Dash 8 recurrency?

Also, I see to be eligible for an ATPL licence one need an AVID/ASIC security card, which can only be applied once one get in Australia.
How can a non resident obtain a licence without an AVID/ASIC?

Many thanks and I look forward to your replies.

TOC

[Oktas8]

Ask CASA. I suspect the answer will be No! - but it's always good to ask, and they are quite happy to talk about problems.

[FO Cokebottle]

tocum:

I am a Non Australian resident and obtained my first licence CPL/IR - CASA with fATPL

What is a fATPL?

If you are referring to "Frozen" when prefixing the ATPL with "f" then you are incorrect and/or misled.

There is no such qualification as a "Frozen Air Transport Pilot License" - this term has crept into the industry with Europe and the P2F cancer and when the fully integrated CPL/MEIR course was approved by CASA. It was trumpeted by the flying schools (including those in Europe) offering this course as the qualification you gained upon completion.

The qualification is: CPL/MEIR with ATPL subjects passed.

Is there a way to ask any exemption to the new CASA regulation and conduct the flying component of the CASA ATPL flight test on my next Dash 8 recurrency?


CASA has a CAAP that deals with checking and recurrency, conducted outside of Australia, for the purpose of maintaining Australian (CASA) License currency/qualifications . In short, it is an even more expensive option.

A far less onerous option would be to gain a FAA ATP Certificate. However, there has been a tightening up of the requirements for a direct issue of the ATP Certificate.

Best of luck on the Saffa ATP.

[filip85]

Im in the same boat, I have the hrs for ATPL and most of my hours are as a FO on a non australian registered B737. The only way for me to sit the ATPL flight test is to have completed a MCC course. And the only one who can do it in Oz is CAE oxford in Melbourne. And its a whopping $9,350 inclusive of GST.

[Centaurus]

And its a whopping $9,350 inclusive of GST.

An MCC course, of which the content has already largely been covered in the ATPL and CPL examinations, is nothing more than a regurgitation of these previous exams. How many expensive sim sessions does it take to learn read a checklist?? :ugh:

[Bankrupt84]

Is $9,000 including the ATPL flight test?

A friend just went to Canada to do his ATPL flight test in a Seneca, cost around $2000.
Perhaps a better option.

[filip85]

This price is just the mcc, 2 weeks and 20 hrs sim on a level b. just pointless especially for me as i fly the 737. On top of that you need to do the flight test for the ATPL and i dont know if there are any examiners capable of doing the sim check or just from casa which cost $700. And at the moment there is only one place at oxford, im waiting for other schools to be approved and i hear it will be almost half price.

[samurai]

Estimates 28 May '15 - CASA v Sterle Part61 Pt1
https://youtu.be/pXggRSLyY0g

Estimates 28 May '15 - CASA v Sterle Part61 Pt2
https://youtu.be/v_lLcuylV7s

How many untruths can you find from these two videos?

[vhxxxx]

MATS are an Australian MCC course provider.

[ersa]

What a bunch of turkeys, how the hell is the average pilot suppose to know if by looking at the youtube senate clips....CASA has no idea :ugh:

[kingRB]

some of the responses from 10 min onwards in the second vid would be laughable if I didn't know these twats were running the show.

[A330-343E]

Hi guys,

I would appreciate if there is any update regarding this matter as I am in the same boat as tocum.

Here's my situation:

1. frozen CASA ATPL
2. CASA CPL/ MECIR, converted into Hong Kong CPL
3. Valid Airbus A320/ A330 type rating as I'm now working in HK - enough hours and be eligible to unfreeze my ATPL.
4. Have completed MCC course with in UK
5. Not a permanent resident in Aus

Thanks.

[sheppey]

some of the responses from 10 min onwards in the second vid would be laughable if I didn't know these twats were running the show

To industry spectators, that interview shows why it is a complete waste of time having a senator who knows nothing about the industry, questioning professional bureaucrats determined to defend the current status quo. The senator was so polite as to be considered easy meat by the CASA group who must have been laughing up their sleeves when the grilling (?) was over.

[c100driver]

1. frozen CASA ATPL No such thing as a frozen ATPL
2. CASA CPL/ MECIR, converted into Hong Kong CPL
3. Valid Airbus A320/ A330 type rating as I'm now working in HK - enough hours and be eligible to unfreeze my ATPL.No such thing as a frozen ATPL you have to sit an ATPL flight test
4. Have completed MCC course with in UKGood if you want to do a flight test in the UK or pay for CASA to travel to the UK and approve the course
5. Not a permanent resident in Aus

[Duck Pilot]

The new system is based around recency and proficiency. If you are overseas and don't intend flying a VH tailed aircraft forget about it, however if you want to fly for an Australian operator then one must follow the process applicable to their situation.

In my case I have a few professional Australian licences and a type endorsement on a Part 121 aircraft, however since I am no longer flying commercially in effect I now really only have a PPL. Until such time that I go back and basically do another type rating and get current again in a large aircraft my ATPL remains dormant.

Currency and proficiency appear to be part of the motive behind the new regulations.

[Captain Sherm]

For EASA MCC courses CASA is developing an exemption to allow them to be accepted. Also for Australian ADF courses of a similar nature.


I understand that for experienced folks who don't come into the above categories CASA may approve abbreviated courses based on a Recognition of Prior Learning assessment capability in Part 142 training organisations.


Cheers


Sherm

[Piano Man]

This is where I don't understand the thinking of CASA...

Surely a little common sense would go a long way here. To be given a type rating on a multi crew aircraft, you have to demonstrate you can work in a multi crew environment under pressure and with a level head.

Surely it is better to be aircraft specific rather than just using a generic A320/737 which some people will never fly in the their careers. Having recently completed my first type rating, I cannot for the life of me understand why our powers above have implemented such a stupid rule.

What is the point of the MCC other than just revenue raising?

[Captain Sherm]

Maybe the point of MCC training, long a standard in Europe, is that a multi-crew type rating, BY ITSELF, is not enough to ensure that pilots understand the basics of manging a multi-crew cockpit in good times and bad? An awful lot of accidents in multi-crew aircraft seem to have with cockpits full of experienced crews.

"Is he still on the runway, that Pan American?...." No answer from the Captain. No Action by the First Officer. No further action by the F/E. 583 dead.

etc etc etc

Surely training to help in avoiding things like this is worthwhile? The Manual of Standards for MCC seems to this ancient aviator to have some good stuff in it.

And does MCC training raise any revenue for CASA? Wouldn't have thought so.

[M61A1]

Part 61 and the ATPL is fairly straight forward - The MCC is mandatory after September 1st 2015 for initial multi-crew type rating and initial issue of an Australian ATPL. To gain a type rating on a multi-crew airplane (above 5700KG) is by way of a Level D sim - and then conducting the ATPL Flight Test integrated with the type rating.

Contact MATS, They seem to have trained a number of crews recently.

[M61A1]

Your info is incorrect. There have been a number of MCC Courses completed for ICAO ATPL Holders converting to Australian ATPL under Part 61. If you are already type rated (CPL) and a FFS Level C or D is available then the ATPL Flight Test can be conducted as part of recurrency There have been further CASA Approved MCC courses for initial issue of Australian ATPL, subject to Type Rating and ATPL Flight Test. I agree the mandatory MCC requirements under part 61 are somewhat onerous - but MCC has been part of the UK and European (EASA) requirement for airline entry and Corporate operations for some years now. SHERM is correct in his statements regarding RPL. Total exemption is not the answer as one can buy an EASA MCC Certificate in the old East Bloc over the bar. Must be properly documented for recognition of prior learning (RPL) ADF not totally exempt either - short course including sim is the answer.

[das Uber Soldat]

$8,250 for a friggin MCC course, 700 bucks for the test, and I have the pleasure of having to fly casa to NZ where my sim is, and putting them up, not to mention the sim.

15 grand for a r$@$@! test that is 95% an IPC.

Angry isn't the right word.

[das Uber Soldat]

What do people make of this, taken from CASAs website in the MCC section.

Case 3
Peta holds a CPL(A) and is working with an airline as an ATR42 co-pilot. Having completed the airline’s initial, conversion and type rating training earlier, Peta has been operating on the line and is now preparing to upgrade to command.

Peta requires an ATPL(A) and is participating in the airline’s upgrade training, which includes MCC competencies. The MCC training is Part 61 training and is therefore conducted under Part 142 (for transition, the airline is taken to be a Part 142 organisation and the training is taken to be Part 142 training).

The flight examiner conducting the ATPL flight test will require evidence of the MCC-equivalent training (already done in the initial training and updated during the command training) to ensure Peta is eligible for the flight test.

My organization fits this description. Can I get away with it?

[das Uber Soldat]

Just received this. Finally some sense!

Licensing regulations update: alternative ways for pilots to meet multi-crew cooperation training requirements

A new exemption has now been published which provides alternative ways for some pilots to meet the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

From 1 September 2015, pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations for the first time must complete a course of training in multi-crew cooperation and have a multi-crew type rating. CASA has listened to the views of the aviation community and recognises that these requirements are not necessary for pilots who have already completed acceptable training elsewhere.

As a result, the new exemption will recognise the following as meeting the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.

- Completion of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) approved multi-crew cooperation training course.

- An EASA multi-crew type rating.

- An Australian Defence Force operational conversion for multi-crew aircraft.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 50 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, regular public transport operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 82.3 or 82.5.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 100 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, charter operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under CAO 82.1 and successful completion of two operator proficiency checks which included assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.

- Any other experience and qualifications CASA considers equivalent.

Find out about the application process, learn about what evidence needs to be provided and view the exemption on the CASA website.

[Lead Balloon]

Brilliant.

The system would be simpler and cheaper if:

- there was just 1 Civil Aviation Rule: Everything is unlawful!

and

- CASA handed out exemptions from that Rule, with pages of conditions giving effect to CASA's current bright ideas about safety.

It would be almost exactly the same as the way they regulate now, but without the expense and aggravation of the grotesque, bastardised bugger's muddle that is the regulatory reform program.

[das Uber Soldat]

By you people, you mean 1 person?

I'm quite happy with the finding and view it as a reasonable solution.

[lee_apromise]

- Any other experience and qualifications CASA considers equivalent.

Would foreign Part 121 ops experience and a FAA PIC type rating suffice? :confused:

[Judd]

Hands up all those who have been forced to attend one of these new CASA approved MCC course rip-offs run by flying schools and have been bored out of their mind with the banality of it all and learned nothing that they didn't already know. Especially Human Factors regurgitation already comprehensively covered during PPL, CPL and ATPL "subjects".

[Ixixly]

It doesn't need to make sense or pass any kind of cost benefit test Judd, it just needs to be "Worlds Best Practice"!

[gettin' there]

So if you hold a CPL and already fly multi crew, you can keep doing it legally because you are already doing it so you must be safe. BUT.............

If you want to gain an ATPL you have to spend a :mad:tonne of $$$ on going and doing a MCC to learn to safely do something you must already be doing safely in the first place because you are already doing it? :ugh:

[Mach E Avelli]

Read and digest post 56

[havick]

So if you hold a CPL and already fly multi crew, you can keep doing it legally because you are already doing it so you must be safe. BUT.............

If you want to gain an ATPL you have to spend a :mad:tonne of $$$ on going and doing a MCC to learn to safely do something you must already be doing safely in the first place because you are already doing it? :ugh:

Gettin there, just out of curiosity what kind of multi-crew were you flying on your CPL? Was is awk, chtr or RPT?

[gettin' there]

Read and digest post 56

I'm probably (and hopefully) missing something :O

The exemption states

6 Exemption – ATPL – other applicants
The holder of a multi-crew pilot licence with an aircraft category rating (the applicant) who applies for the grant of an ATPL is exempt from the requirement under paragraph 61.700 (3) (e) of CASR 1998 to complete an approved course of training in MCC.

(my bold)

and

8 Exemption – CPL – exercise of privileges in multi-crew operation
The holder of a CPL (the holder) is exempt from the requirement under subregulation 61.575 (1) of CASR 1998 that to exercise the privileges of the licence in a multi-crew operation, the holder must have completed an approved course of training in MCC.


Charter

[das Uber Soldat]

These 2 paragraphs are the relevant ones gettin there.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 50 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, regular public transport operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 82.3 or 82.5.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 100 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, charter operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under CAO 82.1 and successful completion of two operator proficiency checks which included assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.

If you're on a CPL like me operating a multi crew aircraft, one of those should cover you.

If it does, you don't have to do the MCC course.

Simples.

[Mach E Avelli]

The way I read it, if you have a type rating and 100 hours of multi crew charter under CAO 82.1 you are now exempt from the MCC.
This would only appear to lock you out if you do not have a type rating on something or your operation was to some lesser CAO requirement. It does not appear to say that you must have the 100 hours in that type.
So...say you did 100 hours multi crew ops in a King Air 200 ( no longer a type rating) what would stop you obtaining a King Air 350 type rating then making a claim for exemption? Or spend up big on something really useful like an A320.
Better than spending money on a canned touchy feely group hug MCC course.
But I was wrong once before......

[gettin' there]

Thanks:D

Now for that type rating:}

[Lead Balloon]

For the poster who jumped down my throat (in a now-deleted post) because of my comments about the new exemption which provides alternative ways for some pilots to meet the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations...

Who created the problem to which this exemption is the solution?

If you think CASA should be congratulated for putting a temporary patch over a botched job of CASA's own making, you must be in the building game.

[Lasiorhinus]

What about the crews flying aeromedical, in multi crew airwork operations? Years and years of flying jets around muti-crew, but suddenly that doesn't count?

Who cares if its RPT, Charter, or even fish-spotting? Multi crew is multi crew!

[Mach E Avelli]

Depends....Some so called multi crew is simply window dressing to meet client or insurance requirements. The pilot in the RHS in these operations reads checklists, entertains the pax with briefings, talks when allowed on the radio, cleans the cabin and if lucky flies empty sectors. Often the pilot in the LHS seat has no idea how true multi crew works. Aeromedical in a light jet may be OK, but fish spotting? Hmmm.....
But it would seem that CASA is willing to assess every application on its merits. If your organisation has properly documented training, checking and procedures with all the human factors and CRM stuff that they want, and hopefully a policy of sharing the flying, you should have no problems.
Although I am guilty as charged when it comes to CASA bashing, I have to say that the three CASA FOIs that I had dealings with setting up ATPL testing have been most reasonable and interestingly, they were all very much on the same page with policy interpretation.
Credit where it's due - CASA listened and acted on this one. The only people who may be pissed off now will be certain purveyors of MCC courses and anyone who paid big bucks for one of their courses when they did not need to.

[das Uber Soldat]

I can only only imagine how cranky those are who recently did the MCC testing for big bucks only to find this new exemption.

The whole thing is a farce. Have you seen the ground theory component of the flight test? Its almost the entire ATPL syllabus. Sure, ill just go ahead and memorize that.

[UnaMas]

Yes the whole thing is a joke, but if you need an ATPL, then you need to do it.

For those struggling, let me share how I did it quickly, I won't mention companies but am more than happy to reply to PM's if I haven't made it clear enough.

I was fortunate enough to have some 2crew time so I was exempt from the MCC requirement. I tried to do the flight test on a King Air, as is the minimum requirement, however due to the severe lack of 2crew documentation that I could find, the whole thing was a shambles.

This test is really difficult for an individual to do, as CASA want to see the company documents and ops manuals that you will be using.

In the end, I bit the bullet and went to the Sunshine Coast, and did a Citation Mustang type rating, completely 2crew. It was very very through and gave me excellent knowledge.

We combined the Type Rating with the IPC and the ATPL flight test and knocked it out of the park, bingo bango james fanco I now have an ATPL.

There is an enormous amount of work involved and yes, the study is broad, but not crazy.

Aside from it being a massive burden and hard, not to mention the 30k cost, it has given me good knowledge of jet flight, it was fun and in the end, it would have been more expensive not to do it.
I have a jet gig now, which wouldn't have happened without the ATPL, rightly or wrongly.

[das Uber Soldat]

30k, ouch.

How long was the ground component? I'm not excited by the prospect of having to relearn the entire ATPL syllabus.

[UnaMas]

The whole thing was 3 weeks start to finish, including a few days on CRM. 20hrs in the sim.
They really are professional and put a lot of work into it.

No need to study the whole lot, just have a good general understanding. More of a focus on the IPC stuff just like any renewal.

[DashTrash.]

I was around 10 night hours short of an ATPL. but was "assured" by casa part 61 team. that casa would recognise previous multi crew experience and wave the test (as well as MCC) in place of a standard check. September rolls along, Casa change their mind. now up for a 10k flight test.

Wheres the cost benefit analysis in this!

It would've costed me around 2k to whip a 152 in a circuit for 10 hours pre September, Or cost me nothing if I just forged my logbook like I know others who were close to the gap have done (despite the moral/ethical implication).

These guys are now working for Tiger/Virgin/Cobham/Emirates. All of whom you dont progress into an interview without holding the golden ticket.

Largest career regret in my life...

Rant over

[Lead Balloon]

If I had been given that "assurance" and I had acted or refrained from acting, to my detriment, in reliance upon its accuracy, I'd be making a claim for compensation.

There would be an argument that it's unreasonable to rely on the accuracy of anything CASA says, but someone young and naive might prove reasonable reliance.

[UnaMas]

Mate I forked out 100k to get my licence in the first place. In reality another 30k is worth it if it means that after 3000 hours of bashing around Oz in all of the normal piston and turboprop twins, that I can move onto something safer and bigger that pays several times the amount I was on, then yeah, I would say it is worth it. Ideal, no. Worth it, yes.

Don't get me wrong, it was a 6 month battle with CASA to get it done, and I hope that every soul within CASA stubs their toe daily, but they make the rules, and I play by them, so I had no choice.

Ask me in 6 months time if I would rather be sitting in Meekatharra waiting for some smelly pax or laying on a beach on a layover with my new best friend Shirley.

[thorn bird]

Just thinking how you manage two crew procedures in a Citation Mustang?
Its a single pilot certified aircraft and very simple to operate from what I've been told. Sounds a bit farcical to me.

[UnaMas]

Why make it harder for yourself than it needs to be?

[das Uber Soldat]

Not to defend uMas but some of us have little choice.

My company has 2 planes. I could be waiting 15 years for a command here. Its just not going to happen. The only way I'm going anywhere is if I do the test.

[UnaMas]

Out of interest, what has banding together against CASA done for us in the past...

Don't for a second think that I am happy about what had to be done, but it had to be done.

I have earned every single hour I have ever flown, and I am ready to move my career in a new direction, the direction that I was aiming for from day one.

So while some idiots like you prefer to flap your gums and moan about new laws, some other people just get it done, and get the job.
GA in Australia is slowly disintegrating, why on earth would I want to stay a day longer than I have to.

I came here to tell people that it can be done, that I did it, and now I can move on and enjoy my career. So frankly you can eat $hit.

[Lead Balloon]

That's the spirit. :ok:

All in the name of safety and professionalism, of course.

[Capt Fathom]

So frankly you can eat $hit

Must come with the $30k ATPL?

[josephfeatherweight]

At least one of my two lads is bound to be stupid enough to follow in Daddy's footsteps. I count my lucky stars I was able to get my ATPL "box ticked" before all this nonsense came about - sh!t I was whinging about the relevance of 727 flight planning! That's the least of your worries now! I feel for those of you out there even having to contemplate a 30K investment to get over the line - I see both sides of the argument (pay vs "you shouldn't have to and should fight the establishment") and I don't begrudge those who do what they can to achieve the result. It's a very cr@p situation.

UnaMas, may you meet many Shirleys and marry as few as possible.

Joe Lighty
"Nobody's ever died from pressing..."

[Flyin]

So from what I've read and tried to understand, for current Aussie pilots overseas is that if youre in a situation where:

You have a CASA CPL(A) with ATPL theory
S/O or F/O on a Boeing or Airbus
Australian Citizen
Enough hour to apply for your CASA ATPL

1. If you want to make the move back down under, you would have to apply for an Aussie ATPL if no command, at you own cost...fair enough. But would one be "competitive" without command time on the aircraft that you're type rated on?

or

2. Get your command and rack up enough hours to be "competitive", and from what I gather, still have to pay for a MCC course (if not approved by CASA) and flight test (done with another candidate) at your own expense.

So pretty much if you currently only have an CPL and move overseas (ie. Susi Air or Cathay), it's going to be financially hard to come back home as you would have to pay quite a bit for an ATPL, unless taken up by the local regionals/airliners as an F/O and wait until a command upgrade. Think this will be the biggest issue for Aussie CPL holders in Cathay as an S/O.

All these questions as just out of curiosity. Currently flying out bush and have been for a few years (cpl and just missed out due to night hours). Thinking of having a crack overseas for an adventure while I'm still young and no family/financial commitments here. All I'm trying to do is plan ahead for an "exit strategy" to come back home when I'm done. Think of having a crack at safari flying in Africa, still have a passion for "bush flying" despite the income.

[Duck Pilot]

Any truth in the rumour that the first two helicopter ATPL flight tests under Part 61 were done with successful results on Wednesday at Mangalore?

Great results, congratulations to the candatits, the flying school and CASA. Obviously the system works!

[JTMAX]

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/standard-page/casa-briefing-november-2015


Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will establish a dedicated team of full-time staff to address issues raised by the suite of new licensing regulations.

There will be 26 people assigned to the taskforce, whose job it will be to find solutions to issues identified with CASA’s Regulations Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142, CASA said in a statement on Tuesday.

CASA said the taskforce, which was expected to begin work immediately, would initially focus on reviewing transition arrangements and prioritising issues.

“The taskforce will ensure known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations,” CASA said.

“At the same time it will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth.”

In addition to the taskforce, CASA has also invited representatives from the nation’s key aviation industry groups – The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia and the Aerial Application Association of Australia – to join a new advisory panel.

The panel will also include representatives from the regular public transport and mustering sectors, flying schools, and the tertiary education sector.

CASA director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore said the taskforce and advisory panel would work “intensively” to address unintended consequences in the licensing suite.

“CASA has already addressed many concerns that have been identified in the new licensing regulations but I understand more needs to be done,” Skidmore said in a statement.

“This is a priority and that’s why I need a dedicated team of people within CASA working full-time on the issues.

“Just as importantly we need advice and guidance from the aviation community to prioritise actions and verify that successful solutions have been found.

“The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.

“I require real solutions to the issues with the licensing suite as quickly as they can be delivered.”

CASA said it had already addressed more than half of the 98 licensing issues that came up via feedback from industry and the aviation community.

The aviation safety watchdog has also announced a one-year extension of the transition period for Parts 141 and 142, which cover flying training. The transition now has to be completed by August 31 2018.

“The additional transition time will give CASA more time to arrange a smooth transition by providing additional guidance material and for identified issues to be resolved,” CASA said.

The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum recently expressed concern with the slow pace of change at CASA and the cost of compliance with new regulations.

And Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook has urged his colleagues to “take a stand against the unfair treatment of our industry by the regulator and stop the distraction caused by the mismanaged regulatory reform process”.

“We have been working hard to protect the industry’s existence but it seems CASA is not listening, heeding our suggestions or accepting our offers of assistance,” Crook wrote to AHIA members.


How about we all band together to get this ATP flight test requirement removed from the new regs ? Contact The CASA task force when they return for 2016

JT.

[JTMAX]

"At the same time it will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth."


This should be enough to get it removed. The flight test will be costing applicants thousands of dollars.

[Mach E Avelli]

The risk with removing the ATPL flight test is that we end up with a licence that some if not most ICAO states will refuse to convert. This would impact on those seeking employment overseas.
It is even conceivable that ICAO would not recgnise it as a licence. The days of printing tickets out of a vending machine just because some magic number of hours click over in the logbook are long gone.
The better solution would be to allow the test to be conducted in less complex aircraft. Maybe not an Islander, but certainly there are light twin turboprops that are suitable. If the test is allowed to be combined with an IPC it becomes affordable in that no pilot seeking or maintaining employment at ATPL level will not have to renew his/her instrument rating.

Another way to look at it would be to have the ATPL test in isolation similar to the USA but have the IR issue combined with it then the IR perpetually current subject only to recency in approaches and instrument time. The FAA allows this and, as others have pointed out, their safety statistics are better than ours.

[Bankrupt84]

Another way to look at it would be to have the ATPL test in isolation similar to the USA but have the IR issue combined with it then the IR perpetually current subject only to recency in approaches and instrument time. The FAA allows this and, as others have pointed out, their safety statistics are better than ours.[/QUOTE]


FAA also allows you to do the ATP flight test in a Seneca, and as you say "their safety statistics are better than ours".
So why not the same for Australia?
Why should it be a light twin turbo prop?

[Dick Smith]

Now that's something. Perpetual instrument ratings like the USA.

Hold on. That may make holding an IFR rating more common here like it is in the USA.

Yes. The resultant safety level in the USA appears to be as good or better but that's probably because US pilots are genetically more capable than Australian pilots. Or maybe it's because the weather is so much better there.

For the thick ones all of the above is tongue in cheek.

We should clearly harmonise with all overseas proven practices which save costs!

It was called the " Byron Directive" amongst other names . Totally ignored by the people responsible for its implementation .

[Lead Balloon]

It was called the " Byron Directive" amongst other names . Totally ignored by the people responsible for its implementationAll of these "directives" are effectively just a collection of vacuous and irreconcilable motherhood statements. Otherwise, why wouldn't all of those big brave DASs sack the people who "totally ignored" them?

It's like directing people to "look before you leap" but ....at the same time, don't forget that "he who hesitates is lost". You are directed that "many hands make light work" but....at the same time, don't forget that "too many cooks spoil the broth".

You are directed to: "Go forth and reconcile the irreconcilable!"

A "taskforce" along with a "restructure"? If only someone had thought of that before. Oh...wait...

If this taskforce produces anything substantial, it will just be a different bugger's muddle. The regulator is not competent to run the regulatory reform program. And never will be.

Turn it off. Turn it all off. It's just a perpetual mess-making money-munching machine. :ugh:

[JTMAX]

We are not talking about the FAA , EASA or any other regulator we are talking about the new CASA regs. I am not asking for anything other than having the flight test requirement removed from the regs not changed .
Again to keep it simple the task force will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth , the cost of the ATP flight test does all this , please if you agree call CASA ask for the task force and express your views, I feel we are all responsible for the future of Aussie aviation in some small way if you feel the same make a call. JT.

[Lead Balloon]

By definition, all regulations are an impediment to participation in aviation. Otherwise they're pointless.

The taskforce also has responsibility for ensuring "known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations".

The taskforce is not competent to discharge that responsibility. The decision as to whether "known or likely safety risks" have been "effectively addressed" is a political decision, not a technical decision. That's because no activity is risk free, and wherever the standard is set there will be costs and benefits to individuals and the community as a whole. Being a hotshot pilot or a big-brained engineer does not render someone competent to decide where the balance should be struck between the risks and costs and benefits.

How do you or the taskforce decide that the removal of the flight test requirement will produce a benefit that outweighs the increased risk? How do you or the taskforce quantify the probabilities of the risks, and the comparative benefits and costs to individuals and the community as a whole, of requiring the test on the one hand and removing the test the other? Absent that data, the decision is little more than an *rse-pluck.

And that is one of the main reasons for Australia having the bugger's muddle that it has.

[Mach E Avelli]

The ATPL is the almost the highest qualification a pilot can hold. The maritime equivalent is a Master Class One. Responsible authorities do not hand these out on a plate, for good reason.
By not having an ATPL test, or having a really dumbed down test, we would be descending to the level of places like Liberia, where a bag of cash and my sailing logbook would probably get me a ticket to command a super tanker - Liberian registered of course.
The trick with regulation is to strike a sensible balance that will meet ICAO standards - but not exceed them by an unnecessary margin - while recognising that most countries will have some variations to meet local requirements, whether political (industry pressure often to reduce requirements versus public expectation towards high requirements) or as a result of a unique climate or environment. Australia is not all that unique, but we are very politically-driven and of course WE are THE super nanny state.
So, an ATPL test in a Seneca, I would not buy that, but a baby King Air or Citation is just about complex enough despite not really being multi crew.
Should the test be multi crew? Absolutely. If you want to fly single pilot what the hell do you need an ATPL for anyway? Oh right, to get a fast track command on a big jet.
...ducks for cover......

[Lead Balloon]

Mach

But for those Liberian ships and masters and their equivalents from other countries, Australia would be in a deep economic depression. Extreme fuel shortages; almost nothing exported; and - disastrously - almost no flat-screen TVs or flat-pack furniture.

It's great that Australia considers it knows better and is safer than the rest of the world. Minor consequential problem is that Australian-flagged international trading ships and crews have been driven to the brink of extinction through lack of competitiveness, with the ironic outcome being that almost the entirety of the activity in the sector involves all those "less safe" ships and crews from places that aren't as "smart" as Australia.

Aviation in Australia is being driven the same way.

(Interestingly, in the USA, only American-built, -owned and -crewed ships are permitted to trade between US ports (including non-CONUS ports). That's because the USA recognises the importance of maintaining an indigenous merchant navy capability. That is, of course, a political decision, not a decision of the regulator in the USA. As Senator Heffernan and others have pointed out, the single biggest threat to Australia's security is its fuel supply lines. Those lines could be switched off/cut off at any time, and Australia would grind to a halt about 2 weeks later.)

Surely Australia's competitive advantage is that the population is generally healthy, generally well-educated and generally tech-savvy. In the aviation sector, Australia's competitive advantages also include the relatively benign weather and lack of tall rocks. Australia shouldn't need a regulatory regime that seems to be based on the assumption that the pilot and engineer population comprises generally stupid, unhealthy, risk-taking criminals operating in the heart of darkness, and who therefore need the straight-jacket of thousands of pages of regulations and tens of thousands of pages of manuals of standards to keep them from inflicting aviation anarchy on an unsuspecting populace.

[JTMAX]

It will take thousands and thousands of dollars for a applicant to train and then complete a flight test in a complex turbine aircraft , there are already plenty of other checks and balances in the ATPL application process that allows for Saftey this new flight test requirement is in my opinion doing nothing more that than increasing the unnecessary costs imposed by the regulations and it directly impeads participation in aviation and future growth. --JT

[JTMAX]

Thanks Dude.
That's more like the direction we should be taking. If anyone has any more constructive input providing others here with useful information and reasons why this ATPL flight test needs to be removed please post them so we can each call CASA ask for the task force and express the our request to remove the ATPL flight test requirement. --JT

[josephfeatherweight]

I'll reiterate again that I feel the pain of those going through this process, but don't fail to heed Mach's warnings re: other countries not recognising our ATPL - it is a VERY real possibility. Prior to this Part 61 stuff, we were one of the very few countries that DIDN'T conduct a flight check for ATPL/ATP and you shouldn't short-sightedly discount the value of having an internationally recognised ATPL, rather than a "Dunnunda" variety. Tread carefully here, my preference would be to accept the test, but argue that it can be done on something smaller (ie less complex, ie cheaper), as others are suggesting.

[Mach E Avelli]

Dude, I think that you will find most if not all RPT operators by now have examiners on staff who can issue the ATPL during routine simulator checks. Plus a few independent examiners have recently been appointed. So the 95% who are going to use the ATPL at home really should not be up for any costs if it is done within their employer's system.
As for airlines requiring the full ATPL now to join, the same employers often ask for a type rating as well. Find the right training facility and you can get the ATPL on the same check as the type rating.
If the supply of ATPL holders dries up, airlines will soon enough go back to only requiring subjects passed.
So, the problem is really for those who need the licence to go overseas. Hence, we must have a licence that meets ICAO standards, regardless of any perception that some may have about our benign weather etc not really requiring the full Monty of a ...shock....horror...test.
As for those who slipped under the wire with no test and no airline experience but merely the magic 1500 hours and subjects, good luck to them. We can't retrospectively require them to now do a test, and if they are operating safely here, well and good. The checks and balances of annual instrument rating renewals have probably been enough to save them. However, if we had the USA style perpetual validity of an instrument rating as I suggest we can hardly expect our CASA to also waive any requirement for an ATPL test. ICAO would surely see this as too much dumbing down.
An overseas regulator tasked with assessing a licence conversion would - or should - be interested in knowing how the licence was obtained. If not happy they could require the whole ATPL to be done again. Plus, of course for any applicant seeking to fly their registry, a flight test - as UK, French, German, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, USA etc authorities have done for years.

[JTMAX]

We are not talking about flying in
the U.K , UAE , Japan , China USA etc.......We are talking about the basic right a Aussie pilot should have to a fare go ,equal to what it was prior to part 61 , to be able to progress their career and obtain a qualification , the part 61 changes that includes adding a flight test to the ATPL requirement in my opinion take away that right , the thousands of dollars needed to complete a flight test in a complex turbine aircraft (or Sim) are way too much for many average income pilots , this requirement in my opinion needs to be removed. --JTMAX

[josephfeatherweight]

Ok. But in the eyes of the international community, potentially your "Aussie" ATPL will not be a "real" ATPL. In my opinion only, that wouldn't cut the mustard for me.

[JTMAX]

The other International regulators will either continue or not continue to recognize the Aussie ATPL that is not what we are actually talking about here, we are taking about the changes that part 61 has made that unfairly disadvantage Australian pilots that are trying to progress in Australia and obtain a ATPL. Pilots who move overseas for work do so at their own risk knowing what is needed to convert a ticket at that time. I myself have converted may a ticket and just sucked it up and got on with those overseas requirements , but that is absolutely totally a different situation here. We are only talking about Aussie guys and girls trying to advance their qualifications here in Australia for use in Australia, if CASA has implemented regs for people who would like to leave this great country and work overseas is not the subject line here it's the ATPL flight test change that was introduced with part 61 , I believe that its morally wrong to change the requirements in such a big way. --JT

[Mach E Avelli]

So, maybe we should have a 'special' ATPL overprinted with words to the effect:
"The holder of this licence has not met internationally recognised standards and is therefore restricted to operations within the Australian FIR".
Talk about becoming a laughing stock.

[JTMAX]

E-
CASA is not a laughing stock. I have flown I many countries around the world under many regulators and CASA is highly regarded as a regulator changing the ATPL flight test requirement is not going to change that , nothing in Part 61 changed that. No regulators started automatically accepting the CASA ATPL ( without their own country testing in some form) after part 61 was implemented and none will stop accepting CASA ATPL as if the flight test is removed.

[Lead Balloon]

Does the USA file any differences from the ICAO SARPS?

Is the USA a laughing stock amongst the aviation intelligentsia?

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if Richard Champion de Crespigny had to do an ATPL flight test? Is he CVD free?

One should always bear mind the ease with which the imperatives of politics - international and domestic - and supply and demand are dressed up as safety issues. Especially in aviation.

[Mach E Avelli]

We shouldn't be debating whether QANTAS or other airline pilots needed to do an ATPL test in the past, because we know that they were tested to within an inch of their lives on a regular basis.
The problem seems to be a gen Y sense of entitlement that because an easier situation existed once upon a time, it should continue forever, despite the fact that aviation by its very nature is in a constant state of change.
Instead of trying to remove the requirement for a flight test (which won't go away whatever arguments are put forward) by all means try to have the testing regime modified to be more affordable. eg trade-off for the perpetual IR.
And lobby by whatever means to have the airline recruiters come to their senses and accept that if the pool of suitable CPL holders is far greater than the pool of ATPL holders, they should review their entry requirements to get the cream of the crop - who are not necessarily the wealthiest.

[JTMAX]

Right of entitlement- I don't think so - I am not gen Y - just a normal bloke who thinks that a few thousand dollars for a ATPL flight test is not fair. Simple.

[Bankrupt84]

Mach E I do agree with what your saying about trying to change the requirements to a smaller aircraft for the flight test, as apposed to getting rid of the flight test all together. However, Canada, USA and South Africa all allow the test to be conducted on a small piston twin. So why not aim for that? The license will be recognised worldwide at a fraction of the cost of doing the test in a light twin turbine as you suggested.


Please don't resort to dismissing other peoples views because they must be "gen y" and entitled. Time to drop that old chestnut.

[das Uber Soldat]

Dude, I think that you will find most if not all RPT operators by now have examiners on staff who can issue the ATPL during routine simulator checks. Plus a few independent examiners have recently been appointed. So the 95% who are going to use the ATPL at home really should not be up for any costs if it is done within their employer's system.
As for airlines requiring the full ATPL now to join, the same employers often ask for a type rating as well. Find the right training facility and you can get the ATPL on the same check as the type rating.
If the supply of ATPL holders dries up, airlines will soon enough go back to only requiring subjects passed.
So, the problem is really for those who need the licence to go overseas. Hence, we must have a licence that meets ICAO standards, regardless of any perception that some may have about our benign weather etc not really requiring the full Monty of a ...shock....horror...test.
As for those who slipped under the wire with no test and no airline experience but merely the magic 1500 hours and subjects, good luck to them. We can't retrospectively require them to now do a test, and if they are operating safely here, well and good. The checks and balances of annual instrument rating renewals have probably been enough to save them. However, if we had the USA style perpetual validity of an instrument rating as I suggest we can hardly expect our CASA to also waive any requirement for an ATPL test. ICAO would surely see this as too much dumbing down.
An overseas regulator tasked with assessing a licence conversion would - or should - be interested in knowing how the licence was obtained. If not happy they could require the whole ATPL to be done again. Plus, of course for any applicant seeking to fly their registry, a flight test - as UK, French, German, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, USA etc authorities have done for years.
'Dude', I'm not aware of any airlines issuing an ATPL internally as of yet. Do VARA have the capability to issue ATPLs? I dont believe so. There are lots of RPT operators that have at least for now, decided to hell with this stupid flight test and simply upped their minimums from CPL with subjects to full ATPL.

The assumption was that with the introduction of this pointless test that employers would reduce minimums to CPL + Subjects. The opposite has occurred.

As for the 95% of us at home, the employer isn't paying for jack. At my company, commands come up like hens teeth. The company certainly isn't going to be paying for me to do the training and test for nothing. Yet now I can't get a job anywhere else because of the effect on minimums thats occurred as a result of these moron part 61 changes. I'm literally stuck where I am, until I can get it done (and pay for it myself) In other companies people are being passed over for other candidates who already have the license.

And get what done anyway? Have you actually looked at the MOS for this test? The bloody thing is 98% of an IPC. From memory I have to do some extra ground questions, and demonstrate taxiing. And that may cost me 5 figures. :ugh:

These morons had an entire year from Sept 2013 to 14 to get the industry ready, to award flight examiner status to existing FOIs and CAR 217 C&T crew so that tests could be conducted immediately, yet when I called to book a test, they literally had nobody who could do it. Only recently, months and months later was someone finally qualified to take it.

Did they know anything about what was required? Of course not. I had one clown tell me I had to entirely write up my KDR, including learning the entire 727 flight planning syllabus again because in one 2 mark question I got wrong in the FPL exam, the kdr reference (reference to a document that doesn't even exist anymore!) was 'calculate fuel burn for a sector'. Wonder what one does if the exams were sat before 2006(?) when there was no KDR at all? :ugh:

Lastly, I fail to understand the argument of other countries not taking our licence seriously. Its never had a flight test in the past, I've never seen anyone ever have a problem with the conversion. Why is it a problem now?

Regardless, in my view if you're in a 217 C&T organization then the test should simply be an extension of the IPC with some extra paperwork, administered by any suitable C&T staff within the company. The whole thing could be done with minimal cost.

[JTMAX]

Grandfathering is not the answer in my opinion. I have see many groups over the years accept grandfathering terms at the Detriment of younger people coming up through the ranks and it's just a way of slipping in conditions that people don't want as long as it doesn't effect them , aviation is a very selfish place. We need to have the ATPL flight test requirement removed. CASA already have may checks and balances in place for a candidate to prove their skill set time and time again before they are allowed to get near a large transport aircraft in Australia. -JT.

[Going Nowhere]

QLink have the ability to conduct ATPL flight tests internally.

[Mach E Avelli]

Australia has history of unrecognised licences. Back in the sixties it was impossible to obtain an ATPL unless you flew for one of the major airlines. So the rest of us who obtained the subjects AND passed a flight test conducted by a DCA Examiner of Airmen were issued with a SCPL .
I took mine to a British Colony where they would only issue an ATPL after I completed Air Law and the U.K. CAA Performance A exam. My DC3 endorsement with 1000 hours on type was not recognised until I passed the UK ARB type rating exam of some 100 technical questions. Useless crap like wheel base dimensions and supercharger gear ratios.
Several years later I went to Blighty and surprise, surprise, the only parts of their own colonial licence that they recognised were the Performance A and type ratings that had been acquired under the ARB. The actual ATPL was worthless because there was no evidence of having passed all their rather difficult written exams. Even the Aussie 10 words per minute Morse code was not accepted because here there was no lights test requirement, only sound.
However, once I got the coveted Pommy ATPL it was an internationally accepted, respected ticket that I was able to trade in several countries with minimal conversion pain.
I only relate this, not to complain about how hard it was even back then ( in fact much of the theory was a whole lot harder) but to highlight the advantages of having a 'proper' licence.
The FAA system, for all its good features, falls down by allowing an ATP to be done in a single pilot bugsmasher. I believe that is a major impediment to EASA countries accepting it and for the same reason it would be a mistake if CASA backed down below the requirement for a pressurised turbine type operated as multi crew.

[JTMAX]

"So yes, locked in is quite the correct term".-I agree, because of the cost , lets get the flight test requirement removed ,call CASA tomorrow I am . JT

[Mach E Avelli]

Dude, an airline with in-house examiners will not incur any cost upgrading its pilots to an ATPL if done during command training, so why would they engage a pilot who had an ATPL but fared poorly on the selection assssment against a CPL who did better?
The real problem is for those who want to go overseas, and for those I can only suggest that they suck it up and look at it as an investment in their future. Considering salaries on offer in places like China, the cost of the ATPL while not exactly chicken $h!t is only a few months' earnings.
Re having to do the test in the LHS ; at an examiner briefing conducted by CASA we were told that the candidate can do it in either seat, so we should put the LHS furphy to rest.
Perhaps pilot unions can bring pressure to bear on airlines to provide the opportunity for an ATPL upgrade after a certain length of service as a form of peformance assessment. In the airline system it would cost next to nothing as it is just another simulator ride that any competent First Officer with a few years service in the airline environment should be able to ace.

[JTMAX]

The ATPL is aCASA controlled and issued License its not something or is it meant to be something that is controlled and issued by an airline , it should be accessible and at a reasonable cost to the average career pilot .Having the airline training department decide who is next to upgraded to a ATPL has the potential to be discriminatory - JT.

[Mach E Avelli]

Airline training departments normally have no interest in being disciminatory. They may run a meritocracy rather than a straight seniority system, but that is something for a proper Pilot Union to sort out. If your Union is piss weak, too bad, get involved, do something about it.
As for cost, I dunno what a CPL with multi and instrument rating costs these days, but guess upward of $100k. A turbine endorsement done mostly in a sim, combined with ATPL probably runs another 18k versus the full Monty to include an A320 type rating for about double that. The decision to spend that money surely would be deferred until ATPL subjects have been completed, some MCC acquired and 1500 hours logged. During this time one could assume that the candidate has been gainfully employed, earning at least some money. I know, I know, marriage, mortgage, kids and all that, but these are of the individual's making and of no concern to the regulator.
To move to the next level beyond light piston twins, at some stage these days most pilots not on an airline Cadetship are probably going to pay for a type rating or at least a turbine endorsement anyway. Unfair that you should have to pay and not the employer, but that whole pay to fly debate belongs elsewhere, not in a forum about licensing.
Flying has always been an expensive career to break into, unless you wanted and were good enough for the military. I don't know the statistics, but would guess that only about 10% of those who embark on a CPL get to the left seat of a jet within 10 years and maybe overall only 20% actually obtain and get to use an ATPL in a flying career. The rest either drop out or make whatever career GA offers.
Relative to earnings it was always thus, as I well know having come from a dirt poor family. But those with what it takes will carry on with it, working other jobs meantime (try a season as a deckie on a crayboat - it paid most of what I needed at the time). There is no free lunch.
Trying to get CASA to drop the ATPL test will be as futile as farting in thunder. You won't be heard.

[JTMAX]

I humbly disagree, the MCC requirement has been provided a exemption . I believe that there is a pathway for removing the ATPL flight test in a complex turbine or SIM because of the high cost, we just need to express our concerns to CASA, they are reasonable guys all wage earners most are pilots , the more people who help out and call CASA the better it will be for everyone. JT.

[c100driver]

New Zealand has always had an ATPL flight test. The flight test had to be on an approved high performance or complex type. The DC3, Cessna 421 and Piper Mojave were the only piston approved machines at one stage but believe they are no longer. (could be wrong about the Mojave but they now have a King Air)

The NZCAA certifies a small number of Flight Examiners at each airline to conduct the Flight Test on the CAA's behalf. The Examiner certification is only valid for two years and is limited to the Airlines aircraft types but can do external candidates. The Examiner requires a CAA flight check to renew the approval.

I know that Air NZ jet fleet will roster a Flight Examiner and a second pilot to complete an ATPL flight test as soon as the candidate has the required experience and has at least one year on type. The candidate is rostered one training simulator detail and the flight test the following day. The cost of the test (simulator, examiner and crew member) is covered by the airline. The candidate is responsible for the application licence fees.

[Mach E Avelli]

Good system that Kiwi one, and it sounds like Air NZ can see merit in having their pilots hold the ATPL within a year or so of check to line.
Having recently been associated with a Kiwi operation, I was quite impressed with the practicality, flexibility and co operation of CAA and the way they appoint examiners and give them reasonable scope. Of course they are still Big Brother Government, so not all is sweetness and light, but overall, a good enough lot and a good licensing regime.
Pity some here won't accept something similar to the NZ requirement to do an ATPL test in something slightly larger than a kiddies toy.
They seem to think that 'we' in Aus are somehow 'special'.

[das Uber Soldat]

Dude, an airline with in-house examiners will not incur any cost upgrading its pilots to an ATPL if done during command training, so why would they engage a pilot who had an ATPL but fared poorly on the selection assssment against a CPL who did better?
The real problem is for those who want to go overseas, and for those I can only suggest that they suck it up and look at it as an investment in their future. Considering salaries on offer in places like China, the cost of the ATPL while not exactly chicken $h!t is only a few months' earnings.
Re having to do the test in the LHS ; at an examiner briefing conducted by CASA we were told that the candidate can do it in either seat, so we should put the LHS furphy to rest.
Perhaps pilot unions can bring pressure to bear on airlines to provide the opportunity for an ATPL upgrade after a certain length of service as a form of performance assessment. In the airline system it would cost next to nothing as it is just another simulator ride that any competent First Officer with a few years service in the airline environment should be able to ace.
'Dude', as has been stated, not everyone is in a position to wait until the command position comes up. So the costs are there, and are large.

As for doing the test from the RHS. Behold section K of the Manual of Standards regarding the conduct of the ATPL flight test.
"1.5 The applicant must perform the functions of pilot in command."

I'd be 'surprised' if that requirement could be met from the right seat performing the first officer duties.

[josephfeatherweight]

Just a minor point of order, Mach is only calling him "Dude" as that is his username - "fpvdude".
Also, I am often PIC from the right seat - the quote and reference you provide (and ask us in a holy manner to "behold") does not support a suggestion that it "must" be done from the left seat, but, as you allude, CASA may have a different (incorrect IMO) view.

[Mach E Avelli]

There is nothing on the test form to direct the examiner to requiring it to be done LHS.
The only possible bone of contention is how we sign off 'taxying' in an aircraft with the tiller only on the left. Two views - put the candidate in the LHS just for that sequence, or accept that gentle turns can still be accomplished using rudder alone, so leave the candidate in the RHS if that is his normal station, and merely assess that he does not run off the runway or taxiway.
If that means he hands over to LHS, or in the event of LHS incapacitation, parks it as best he can and calls for a tug, big tick for command decision making. If he reverts to hung-ho single pilot mentality and parks it inside the terminal building, automatic fail
It is the multi crew management component that sets this test apart from the basic IPC, even though as has been said, most of the form indicates the same or similar exercises. Another reason why the ATPL can be combined with an IPC. It does require two forms to be completed and job done (no extra examiner fee, either).

[JTMAX]

Call CASA today.

[das Uber Soldat]

Just a minor point of order, Mach is only calling him "Dude" as that is his username - "fpvdude".So noted
Also, I am often PIC from the right seat - the quote and reference you provide (and ask us in a holy manner to "behold") does not support a suggestion that it "must" be done from the left seat, but, as you allude, CASA may have a different (incorrect IMO) view.
'Behold' because it seems contradictory to what CASA told Mach, at least in appearance to me. My point is that CASA have been heavily inconsistent on this matter.

I've also spent many hours in the right seat acting as PIC, but I suspect the test role referenced in the MOS to be a little bit different. A simple example is calling for checklists. Is CASA going to sit there and accept my demonstration of command decision making and leadership as I sit there awaiting the captain to instruct me to begin checklist X, normal or worse still, non normal? Thats perfectly fine if I'm in the right seat training someone, but I think its a stretch that CASA would agree with that type of scenario for a test designed to test my capabilities as a new Captain.

The list goes on. If CASA are happy for me to do the thing from the right seat, thats great for me. Makes it miles easier. But it also annoys me even further, because now what are they even testing? Can I operate as a copilot in an aicraft that I've been flying in for years for the low low cost of 5 figures? If you say 'You're being tested on multi crew team management' then really you're testing me on my ability as a C&T captain. When else do you sit in the right seat as PIC? Something not really within the scope of the test I thought. Kinda skips a few steps in the career chain.

Or maybe I'm entirely wrong. I just know the thing irks me.

[JTMAX]

Did anyone call CASA today ?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just a "small" point, but operating from the LHS as PIC is "the convention", but whether it is a requirement of a regulation is another matter entirely.

Indeed, some time ago, a thread was devoted to this subject, and nobody, as I recall, came up with a regulatory requirement for the PIC to be in the LHS in a side by side configuration.

As an airline IRE/TRE or equivalent, the PIC being in the RHS is the norm.

As to the subject in general, in the G.O.Ds, my SCPL flight test doubled as a Class B Instructor annual, or vice versa, take your pick. All conducted in a single engine aeroplane, in compliance with the Air Navigation Act, the ANRs and the ANOs, Chief Examiner of NSW Region version thereof.

Was very teed off when I lost my three digit license number for the ARN.

Tootle pip!!

[das Uber Soldat]

You're probably not wrong leadsled. But as it relates to this test specifically, I think its going to cause issues for the reasons I listed.

The person sitting in the left seat has a certain role on my type, including calling for checklists and generally running the show. Those are our SOPs. They cannot be 'reversed'. CASA may say for the purposes of the the test I sit in the right but am "PIC".

Ok, but it seems a strange way for me to do the core element of the test, ie demonstrate the ability to run the show, show leadership etc whilst I conduct our SOPs which require me to be instructed on what checklist, normal or non normal I run. The only situation where I'm in the right really operating as PIC is when I was training people. But how does that correlate with the idea of the ATPL flight test, ie to test a candidates ability as a new captain?

Again, I'm all for doing it in the right, makes my life easier, but the whole thing looks a mess to me.

[Mach E Avelli]

Soldat is your SOP and training so prescriptive -indeed so anal - that if the Captain fails to call for a checklist, or attempts to initiate the wrong procedure, or fails to respond correctly to an abnormal situation, the First Officer will sit there like a stunned mullet and do nothing?
What do you do if the captain slumps over the controls below 80 knots on takeoff? Not reject because that is not 'normally' what you do? What would you do if it happens above 80 knots but before V1 and you had two miles of runway in hand? What would you do if the takeoff was accelerate stop limited? Does your organisation not discuss and occasionally introduce these scenarios in recurrent training?
Or are all your Captains so perfect, so healthy that such mistakes, omissions and events are inconceivable?
I think that you worry too much about how this ATPL test will be conducted should you only have exposure to your type in the RHS. The few guys who are running these ATPL tests are experienced, practical and reasonable, though of course I can't speak for the culture within your Company C&T organisation. How would we brief your LHS pilot on the day? Simply to be more passive than usual but to provide normal callouts - a suitable support pilot can role play without stuffing the candidate up or totally bastardising the SOP.

Assuming that the appropriate training would be available, ie changing from RHS to LHS and given adequate line training etc, I ask myself - is this person 's skill, management and decision making up to the standard where an operator COULD upgrade him/ her to command? If so, good; if not, go away, get some more experience and training and come back when you have it.

Having just got to 1500 hours and having passed some theory is not an entitlement to an ATPL, though having said that, a guy I had the pleasure of training recently would pass the test in a heartbeat. Even with no airline background he would put some 10,000 hour pilots to shame, but at this stage of his young life he does not yet have the hours for ATPL.

For those who object to my use of 'entitlement' again (and I do apologise to those of gen Y who do not suffer from the entitlement syndrome) please review the privileges of an ATPL.
A pilot with one of these could legally hold direct entry command on an A380 flying anywhere in the world, in the worst possible weather. Not very likely, but that is what the licence permits.
Certainly there are those who have gone off to the likes of Lion Air and parlayed F/O time and an ATPL to very quick jet commands.

[das Uber Soldat]

Soldat is your SOP and training so prescriptive -indeed so anal - that if the Captain fails to call for a checklist, or attempts to initiate the wrong procedure, or fails to respond correctly to an abnormal situation, the First Officer will sit there like a stunned mullet and do nothing?
What do you do if the captain slumps over the controls below 80 knots on takeoff? Not reject because that is not 'normally' what you do? What would you do if it happens above 80 knots but before V1 and you had two miles of runway in hand? What would you do if the takeoff was accelerate stop limited? Does your organisation not discuss and occasionally introduce these scenarios in recurrent training?
Or are all your Captains so perfect, so healthy that such mistakes, omissions and events are inconceivable?
Of course not. But so what?

The Captain fails to call for a checklist, I call for it.
Attempts the wrong procedure, I identify the correct one.
Fails to respond correctly to an abnormal situation, I put forward the correct one.
If the Captain becomes incapacitated I use our incap SOPs, whatever the situation.

How are any of these situations relevant to whats being discussed? If I failed to do any of the above, I'm not suitable to operate as a First Officer. It has nothing to do with being in command. Unless you're suggesting the ability to meet the required competencies for FO automatically qualifies me to be the captain too? If so I state again, what's the point of this test.

Anyway I've made my point, no reason to go on endlessly. If I'm wrong then so be it. If CASA can assess my ability as a captain by watching me not be the captain, power to them. Makes my life easier.

[Cloud Cutter]

Not sure about the legal technicalities in Aus, but to give yet another example from the more enlightened side of the ditch (which I'd bet will apply), it's acceptable to do a NZCAA ATPL flight test from the right hand seat of a qualifying sim/aircraft and this is routinely done by NZ airlines when issuing ATPLs to line FOs in advance of a command upgrade. A pilot can command an aircraft regardless of their seating position (they could even be in the jump seat), so I don't see why there is a debate?

As for the requirement to do a flight test - about bloody time - previous system was inappropriate. I'm sure NZCAA will be pleased the floodgates have been shut on TTMRA flight test dodgers.

[neville_nobody]

A pilot with one of these could legally hold direct entry command on an A380 flying anywhere in the world, in the worst possible weather. Not very likely, but that is what the licence permits.


However he would also have to pass the type rating test and also have been given a command by someone with an AOC. How many checks does one need to do before they are deemed competent?

You could also argue that someone could pass an ATPL on a Metro then hold a command on a A380 and fly anywhere in the world.

What relevance would a ATPL test on a Metro have to commanding a A380?

The reality is that passing an ATPL flight test really has no bearing on anything as you are going to also have to pass a type rating and a command check by a AOC holder.

So in the end other that make it harder to be pilot and generate more money for CASA what does it all prove?

[Mach E Avelli]

Well, let's reverse that argument. Teach people to fly, but have no test for PPL or CPL. After all the people who hire out aeroplanes to them, or employ them, are going to ensure that they are competent, right?
Let's adopt the same strategy for heavy truck drivers or bus drivers. If they can drive a car, they will be OK with a B double or taking your kids to school because the owners will ensure that it is so.
It is a fact of life - if you do not set a standard then test people to that standard the system will be abused.
So, for once it IS all about safety. I am no great lover of Big Brother, but CASA don't exactly make a profit out of this, so let's not wrongly accuse them of that motive.
It is just a shame that CASA did not save a lot of money by engaging NZ CAA as consultants on the whole Part 61 introduction.

[Lead Balloon]

So where is your data to show the level of risk that is mitigated by the formal final tests in the other examples you gave? How do you know it's not just self-perpetuating intuition?

Setting a standard and requiring it to be met does not inexorably entail a formal final test.

We all know people who've passed formal final tests but are nonetheless incompetent to fly/drive/sail/ride.

Let's reverse your argument. I reckon ATPL holders should be subject to another flight test before each and every flight in which the ATPL holder proposes to exercise the privileges of that licence. What is the safety objection to that requirement?

If you say the risk mitigated by that requirement is so vanishingly small as to not justify its cost and inconvenience, where is your data to prove that?

I note there are lots of people exercising the privileges of an ATPL who have never been the subject of a formal ATPL flight test. Why are they not considered 'unsafe'? Or is it that they are merely tolerated as being 'acceptably unsafe'? How 'unsafe' are they, compared with the pilots who have passed the formal ATPL test?

[das Uber Soldat]

Well, let's reverse that argument. Teach people to fly, but have no test for PPL or CPL. After all the people who hire out aeroplanes to them, or employ them, are going to ensure that they are competent, right?
Except no equivalent test exists for the PPL or CPL does it? The ATPL flight test however, does have an equivalent. The IPC. If you argue thats only the company ensuring competence and not the regulator, then you're arguing that a company should never be the arbiter of your competence and we should remove their ability to conduct the IPC/Renewals immediately.

Can your company ensure competence or not? Can't have it both ways.

Let's adopt the same strategy for heavy truck drivers or bus drivers. If they can drive a car, they will be OK with a B double or taking your kids to school because the owners will ensure that it is so.
Is the car or bus test more or less identical to the B double test? No. It tests entirely different things. IPC and the ATPL test are nearly identical.

It is a fact of life - if you do not set a standard then test people to that standard the system will be abused.
I agree. Which is why we do the ATP/sorry, IPC already. And the regulator has deemed 217 departments qualified to assess competency on their behalf. Now you argue they shouldn't?

So, for once it IS all about safety. I am no great lover of Big Brother, but CASA don't exactly make a profit out of this, so let's not wrongly accuse them of that motive.
It is just a shame that CASA did not save a lot of money by engaging NZ CAA as consultants on the whole Part 61 introduction.

They may have had good intentions, but there is a reason they've been forced into appointing a 20 something man task force to address the disaster than has been the part 61 implementation. There is a reason companies are increasing their minimum requirements, not decreasing them as was expected. I agree that consultation could have provided a vast improvement.

[neville_nobody]

Let's adopt the same strategy for heavy truck drivers or bus drivers. If they can drive a car, they will be OK with a B double or taking your kids to school because the owners will ensure that it is so.

Or how about Trucks adopt the aviation system and get tested on every different brand of truck? Imagine that!

Unlike most other industries testing in aviation is perpetual. Most other transport doesn't do it neither does medicine.

[JTMAX]

The ATPL air test is just a big fat waste of money , I really think that the test should be removed ,especially for someone that already has a large aircraft type rating.at a minimum you should be excempt from the test requirement if you hold a CASA Type rating on a >5700kg turbine aircraft-JT

[JTMAX]

Did anyone talk to CASA on this recently i.e. In the last days-JT

[wishiwasupthere]

As an experienced pilot in GA who's hoping in the not to distant future to take the next step in my career (but who doesn't have a spare $30k sitting around to do an ATPL flight test), I find it frustrating to see that most of the airlines in Australia now require applicants to hold an ATPL, even for an FO position. I've just spent 5 minutes looking through the various airline websites, and Jetstar, Cobham, Network, Jetconnect, even RFDS, all require applicants to hold an ATPL. Why do I need to hold an ATPL licence to be an FO, or to fly as PIC in a King Air or a PC12? Surely the fact I have passes in all of the subjects will suffice?

I'm a realist. CASA will not remove the requirement for a flight test to gain an ATPL, and in all honesty, I don't think they need to. The previous system where you could meet all of the flight experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 in the outback wasn't right and needed to be changed but I feel that it may have gone too far.

[Lead Balloon]

The previous system where you could meet all of the flight experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 in the outback wasn't right and needed to be changed.Any data to support that need? Or is it just intuition?

Are you able to nominate the ATPL holders who met the flight experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 and are now, consequently, unacceptably unsafe to hold an ATPL?

This is, after all, supposed to be an evidence-based and risk-based system, and we don't want unacceptably unsafe people holding ATPLs.

[wishiwasupthere]

You can twist my words how you like, but at no stage did I say that it was unsafe. In my opinion I don't believe that the previous system was perfect. I used a 210 as an example, but hell, if you wanted to, you could have flown all of the required hours in a 152, and as long as you had passed the exams, could now be issued an ATPL. How would the experience gained in flying a 152 apply to an operation where you are required to hold an ATPL? Like I said, in my opinion the old system wasn't perfect, however, the new system has gone too far the other way.

[Lead Balloon]

Any data to support your opinion?

If your opinion is correct, it follows that the holders of ATPLs gained as a consequence of this kind of experience are not acceptably safe. Otherwise, what's the point of the change?

[wishiwasupthere]

Nope, no data. Just my opinion and experience in a non aviation related industry where the thought of being issued a licence to operate a piece of machinery without demonstrating competence by way of an assessment would be laughed at.

Genuinely curious then, how many countries in the world don't require a flight test for the issue of an ATPL?

[Lead Balloon]

I have no idea. It would be interesting to find out, though, because I anticipate that the accident and incident rate of pilots from countries that have the test will not be statistically significantly different than pilots from countries that do.

If there are ATPL holders out there who:

- satisfied the experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 (or 152)
- did not have to do a flight test for the ATPL, and
- now exercise the privileges of the ATPL and meet all the recurrent requirements for doing so,

what would you conclude about the nexus between safety and the test/kind of experience?

It's a bit like asking: How many countries don't have the death penalty? The death penalty exists in some places as a consequence of intuition and politics, not any analysis of the extent, if any, to which the death penalty has a causal effect on crime rates.

Given that this is all supposed to be about safety, I'm trying to find out the data showing a causal connection between the ATPL test and safety or, to put that another way, data showing the existence and extent of the risk that is mitigated by the ATPL test.

[wishiwasupthere]

By your logic then, should we do away with the CPL test?

[Lead Balloon]

It depends on whether the CPL test is an efficient and effective mitigation of a substantial safety risk. That's kinda the key point - the requirements should be based on data, risk assessments, causal links and cost/benefit, not intuition.

But you're being a bit naughty. The discussion was about the ATPL flight test, or lack of it. Your analogy about operating a piece of machinery without a licence test was not a valid one. The holder of an ATPL has done lots of tests, including the CPL flight test. And after they gain their ATPL they continue to do lots of tests.

If you think that the operators of the machinery called aircraft let anyone with a licence loose on them, just because they happen to have a licence, I'd suggest you think again.

[wishiwasupthere]

Well regardless of your opinion that there is no safety case, it seems that 'world's best practice', is to conduct a flight test for applicants for an ATPL. The usual suspects on pprune seem to hold the FAA regs and Kiwi regs as some sort of Holy Grail of aviation regulations, and they both require an ATPL flight test. So when CASA make an attempt to bring the so called 'galapagos of aviation' in line with world's best practice, the same voices seem to chastise them again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[LeadSled]

- satisfied the experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 (or 152)
- did not have to do a flight test for the ATPL, and
- now exercise the privileges of the ATPL and meet all the recurrent requirements for doing so,

what would you conclude about the nexus between safety and the test/kind of experience?Folks,
I think I can speak from personal experience, as the "test" I did was on a single engine aircraft for a SCPL -- it was, in fact, a Group B Instructor renewal.

Given the way CAR 217 operations and training are conducted, doing the test as required by CASR 61 (or any stand alone ATPL test) is irrelevant, and just a bureaucratic box ticking exercise.

Speaking from the point of view of an almost 25,000H pilot, with about 15+ years as PIC (including T+C) on seriously heavy metal, on a variety of ATPL/ALTP/licenses.

Tootle pip!!

The usual suspects on PPRuNe seem to hold the FAA regs and Kiwi regs as some sort of Holy Grail of aviation regulations, and they both require an ATPL flight test.Wish,

Being a bit disingenuous, are you not.

If candidates could do the test here, as per the US ( in a light twin) or under the slightly more onerous NZ rules, this thread would not exist.

[Lead Balloon]

I didn't say there was no safety case, wishiwasupthere.

I said I wanted to see it. :ok:

[wishiwasupthere]

Being a bit disingenuous, are you not.

If candidates could do the test here, as per the US ( in a light twin) or under the slightly more onerous NZ rules, this thread would not exist.

Not at all. If I may, I said 'CASA will not remove the requirement for a flight test to gain an ATPL, and in all honesty, I don't think they need to'. I don't have an issue with having to undergo a test to be able to hold a higher licence level. I just think that the rules that CASA have introduced have gone too far the other way, and they are having a negative effect on pilots such as myself who would like to progress their career but may not have $30k lying around to meet the excessive testing requirement as they currently stand.

[JTMAX]

If enough people complain that this flight test is a impediment to there careers CASA will do something. -JT

[Mach E Avelli]

As the supply of suitable applicants dries up airlines will have no choice but to drop the requirement for the ATPL on day of joining and incorporate the test into their training programs.
Even though it is not the best way of attracting the best candidates, and certainly saves little or no money in training, some misguided airline HR departments may try to import pilots via the 457 visa route.
If they attempt this, disadvantaged local pilots as a collective group will need to smack them down with the widest possible lobbying, publicity and, if necessary, legal process. Or just wait it out until the error of their ways becomes self evident when they tally up the cost of bringing people in from overseas and inducting them to our strange ways, only to have half of them bugger off home when they realise the grass is not so green here after all.

Back to the ATPL debate; having had time in more than one CAR 217 organisation I do not accept this is a guarantee of quality training or checking.
In a former role, I was quite amazed at how bad some pilots from this system could be. Only a few, but enough to cast doubts on placing absolute trust in operators to uphold standards. Some of the training I received in these systems was excellent, some of token value only and some just plain bloody worthless.
The same goes for flight schools and independent ATOs authorised to renew instrument ratings. Two pilots that I had assessed as unsuitable as F/Os (in the days when we had co pilot ratings) went out and next day got command ratings in a Duchess or Seneca. If someone who is type rated and current on type can't meet co pilot standards in a relatively automated aircraft with the assistance of a reasonable Captain, how come they are OK single pilot IFR in a light twin? Did all it really take was an hour's dual to get them up to speed, then an hour to meet all the elements of the test? Hmmm.
This admittedly happened about 15 years ago and was well covered up at the time, but some readers here know what I am referring to. A highly experienced Captain who had years of service with a very respected airline, paired with a F/O (who was also within the 'umbrella' of the CAR 217 system) nearly replicated the Papa India disaster. Events leading up to the incident, and the incident itself were uncannily similar.

So, no - time under CAR 217 or a history of IR renewals in a bugsmasher twin does not automatically an ATPL make.

[JTMAX]

If a 457 visa pilot is needed because CASA have made such a expensive requirement for a ATPL that would really suck. On the 457 subject , personally I think they should all be cancelled. -JT

[neville_nobody]

If they attempt this, disadvantaged local pilots as a collective group will need to smack them down with the widest possible lobbying, publicity and, if necessary, legal process.

Both Rex and Skywest did this and there was lobbying to the government against their 457 Visas but to no avail. I think you will find the lobby of the airlines is greater than a few pilots or pilot unions.

[JTMAX]

What was the official reason REX and Skywest used for the 457 visas ?

[das Uber Soldat]

Back to the ATPL debate; having had time in more than one CAR 217 organisation I do not accept this is a guarantee of quality training or checking.
In a former role, I was quite amazed at how bad some pilots from this system could be. Only a few, but enough to cast doubts on placing absolute trust in operators to uphold standards. Some of the training I received in these systems was excellent, some of token value only and some just plain bloody worthless.
The same goes for flight schools and independent ATOs authorised to renew instrument ratings.
So your argument now is that CAR 217 organizations are not capable of ensuring compliance? Considering they're currently responsible for assessing competence right up to ATPL flight test standard (with an IPC), this is alarming news. Do you suggest we need to scrap these organizations immediately? What then?

You've seemingly to me gone to great lengths to entirely avoid the arguments that are being put to you by myself and others regarding the evidence and logic behind an ATPL flight test.

Neville wrote : "You could also argue that someone could pass an ATPL on a Metro then hold a command on a A380 and fly anywhere in the world.

What relevance would a ATPL test on a Metro have to commanding a A380?".

Its a valid question. How on earth does the test conducted in this environment possibly relate or have any bearing at all on the level of safety of an applicant? Think about what that person needs to go through to attain such a position in addition to the differences in the operation.

Lead wrote "So where is your data to show the level of risk that is mitigated by the formal final tests in the other examples you gave? How do you know it's not just self-perpetuating intuition? "

Where is your evidence? Or answers to his follow up questions? "I note there are lots of people exercising the privileges of an ATPL who have never been the subject of a formal ATPL flight test. Why are they not considered 'unsafe'? Or is it that they are merely tolerated as being 'acceptably unsafe'? How 'unsafe' are they, compared with the pilots who have passed the formal ATPL test?"

So, no - time under CAR 217 or a history of IR renewals in a bugsmasher twin does not automatically an ATPL make.
And yet CASA will give my company 217 dept approval to conduct ATPL flight tests by simply observing us conduct one, which as been clearly shown to be more or less identical to the IPC. How on earth do you derive a difference? PERHAPS if CASA had retained exclusive privilege to do the tests you'd have a point, but that isn't the case and was never meant to be the case.

Its an extra test, identical to ones we already undergo, conducted by the same people who do our existing testing. It is absolutely pointless and redundant.

[neville_nobody]

What was the official reason REX and Skywest used for the 457 visas ?

They pushed the Type Rating really hard. In that they considered anybody who had not flown the their type as not being experienced enough to fly for them. They effectively isolated everybody's experience to the aircraft you are currently flying. As a result a whole bunch of foreigners who had never flown in Australia and some of which had total times sub 1000 ended up taking Australian jobs because they had a rating despite there being more experienced pilots in Australia it's just they didn't have a particular rating. Have a browse through the ATSB database and maybe this website to see how well that experiment worked out.

Very same thing could happen again with the ATPL. People can't afford to get the license or want the airlines to pay, Airlines require the ATPL, they claim they can't get anyone so the government could open the doors to foreign pilots because Australians aren't qualified and foreigners bypass all CASA bureaucracy and expense. Effectively killing the industry in one easy step.

Das Uber's right. What is the point of an ATPL flight test when you get tested on everything anyway and you are at the behest of an AOC holding who is also tested by CASA?

[JTMAX]

Well let's not let that happen again. As a professional aviation community lets get together and pressure CASA to remove the test requirement, starting here on PPRUNe. JT.

[Captain Sherm]

Uber etc.

The individual examiner/ATO is responsible for conducting the test to the standard required by the Manual of Standards. You may not be aware of this as you won't have read the MOS but there is much more in the test than the IPC.

If you are an airline pilot you might be aware that there is much more to command than instrument proficiency. And if you are a pilot next time you're near a bunch of passengers tell them you dispute the Commonwealths right to require a test for the ATPL.

Just my thoughts.

Sherm

[Lead Balloon]

Hear! Hear! Sherm! :D

Now, what will we do about all those people who currently exercise the privileges of an ATPL without having done an ATPL flight test?

I reckon that each and every safety brief from cabin staff should include a declaration of whether the PIC has or has not passed an ATPL flight test, and offer pax the option to disembark if they don't like the answer.

Surely that's what should happen, in the interests of safety. Surely.

[Captain Sherm]

This is supposed to be a mature discussion..... So when laws came in to increase standards and tests for doctors, teachers, nurses etc you'd have opposed them because there would be some who hadn't been trained to the new standard?

Alas, it's way past your bedtime and level of comprehension.

[Lead Balloon]

Not at all, Sherm. I'd merely require that all those lower standard nurses and doctors to be identified so that we'd know who the 'unsafe' ones are.:ok:

[das Uber Soldat]

The individual examiner/ATO is responsible for conducting the test to the standard required by the Manual of Standards. You may not be aware of this as you won't have read the MOS but there is much more in the test than the IPC.

If you are an airline pilot you might be aware that there is much more to command than instrument proficiency. And if you are a pilot next time you're near a bunch of passengers tell them you dispute the Commonwealths right to require a test for the ATPL.
I've read the MOS inside and out.

There is very little difference. Don't take my word for it though! I've got some time so lets go on a journey of discovery together!

Appendix K.1 ATPL Aeroplane category rating flight test

1. Flight test requirements

1.1 An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating flight test must
demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by
performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in tables 2 and 5 in
Section 1 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
Interesting, what does Table 2 say? (table 5 refers to an Aerobatics rating?!)

Table 2: Aeroplane general flight tolerances – professional level
1. Applicability
1.1 The flight tolerances in this subsection apply to the following licences and ratings:
(a) commercial pilot licence;
(b) multi-crew pilot licence;
(c) air transport pilot licence;
(d) pilot instructor rating;
(e) instrument rating;
(f) private IFR rating;
(g) flight examiner rating;
(h) aerial application rating;
(i) low-level rating;
(j) aircraft type rating
IPC and ATPL flight tolerances, are exactly the same

What about demonstrated competencies?

The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3

hmm, those look like some differences!

C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures. Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment. I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems. I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems. Refer above.

2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member. Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.

This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.

This is supposed to be a mature discussion..... So when laws came in to increase standards and tests for doctors, teachers, nurses etc you'd have opposed them because there would be some who hadn't been trained to the new standard?
Amusingly flawed analogy. First faulty assertion is that this test represents an increase in standards for pilots. The above demonstrates otherwise.

Secondly, if one of these doctors who hadn't been subjected to these increased standards and testing wanted to operate on you, would you have allowed it? If no, then you argue that anyone not subject to the increased testing hasn't met the required competencies, isn't safe and shouldn't be operating/flying. This almost certainly includes you. Are you and 99.9% of Airline Captains not competent Sherm?

If yes, then whats the point of the test? Clearly you see no evidence sufficient to alter your opinion of the competency of the person involved. Which leads directly to lead balloons core point. Where is the evidence that the introduction of this test will have a material affect on the safety of those exercising the privileges of the ATPL?

Or is that past your 'level of comprehension'. :rolleyes:

[neville_nobody]

Pilots are already being tested every 3-6 months anyway so what does another expensive test prove? You can fly a single engine ILS? Which you will be doing again in another 3 months?

[JTMAX]

Here, here , the ATPL flight test is a just a detriment to aviation growth in Australia and it should be removed. -JT

[UnaMas]

I can tell you that the ATPL flight test is quite different to the IPC.

It contains an IPC, but has many other factors.

[das Uber Soldat]

I can tell you that the ATPL flight test is quite different to the IPC.

It contains an IPC, but has many other factors.
Thanks for reading the thread.

[JTMAX]

Mas, Uber has already taken the time to compare the two flight tests and you are mistaken -JT

[Ixixly]

Excellent post Uber, it's what most of us have known for a while, it's the reason that they removed the need for a Flight Test a long time ago in the first place because they realised back then that the Instrument Rating had 99% of the same items, the only thing not really included is the Multi-Crew Portion and that could simply be overcome by requiring a course be undertaken before conducting Multi-Crew Operations!

How is it that CASA can decide to put this requirement back in without going back to the reason it was taken out in the first place and realising that the reason is STILL valid?!

And worst of all, why are we as Pilots not doing more? Is it simply because we aren't in a position of any leverage to convince them to do otherwise? Is it because they appear to be made of teflon and the other Senate Inquiries involving them have come to almost nothing so we therefore can't be bothered any more?! Or are we simply all just a bunch of whingers not willing to actually stick our necks out. Or is it D. All of the above? :ugh:

[neville_nobody]

So what do you suggest? Even if you had massive union lobby etc, CASA will just play the safety card and it will go ahead.

Only until there is a colossal failure of the system and a lack of license pilots will this change. Or alternatively a massive embarrassment to CASA.

[JTMAX]

Do something for your fellow aviator , call CASA and tell them that the ATPL air test is too high a financial burden that will impeded pilots careers in Australian aviation. -JT.

[Lead Balloon]

Not the correct message, JT. The correct message is that:

(1) There is no safety case to show that the risk (if any) intended to be mitigated by the flight test for the ATPL is most effectively and efficiently mitigated by the test as proposed.

(2) The existence of persons exercising the privileges of an ATPL without having passed a flight test for the ATPL shows either that: (I) the test is not indicative of anything with a substantive safety consequence; or (II) lower standard candidates are nonetheless acceptably safe to continue exercising the privileges of the licence.

If it costs a $1million to become a competent brain surgeon, then stiff ****, that's how much it costs. The public isn't going to cop the argument that "I can't afford $1million to be what I've always wanted to be." The only argument that has any chance of gaining traction, in the face of the mystique of aviation that can be used to justify just about anything, is that the test makes no difference. (That's why I facetiously suggested that, in the interests of safety, the test should be carried prior to each and every flight on which someone proposes to exercise the privileges of an ATPL. :ugh:)

At a strategic level, I do laugh at all this "operate effectively as a crew member" stuff. A glorified way of expressing the "no dickheads" policy. Problem always is that you have to make sure that no dickheads are administering the tests or succumbing to pressure put on them by dickheads in management, otherwise you just end up with an "only dickheads like us" system.

[Centaurus]

Or are we simply all just a bunch of whingers not willing to actually stick our necks out. Or is it D. All of the above?


O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,
The courage to change what can be changed,
and the wisdom to know the one from the other

That applies anything to do with CASA:ok:

[Ixixly]

Very wise words Centaurus, admittedly I'm still lacking the Wisdom to always know which it is, I sincerely hope someday I get somewhere near the level of yourself and others like you, because when it comes to CASA and their Ilk, it certainly seems to require that uppermost level of Wisdom.

[Bankrupt84]

JTMax check your Pm's.

[UnaMas]

Well JTMAX, I have done the Part 61 ATPL Flight test, and I can tell you, it is very different to an IPC. So no, no mistakes here.

[neville_nobody]

Well JTMAX, I have done the Part 61 ATPL Flight test, and I can tell you, it is very different to an IPC. So no, no mistakes here.

Really? How so? There are only so many failures one can do. And given that airline C & T rotate through different failures each sim what more are you going to do on a flight test than a IPC?

[JTMAX]

UnaMas what were the differences when you did the flight test ? What type did you do it in ? Can you tell us how much it cost you ? JT.

[das Uber Soldat]

Well JTMAX, I have done the Part 61 ATPL Flight test, and I can tell you, it is very different to an IPC. So no, no mistakes here.
I'm dating Miranda Kerr. Look, I can just assert things too! Did it work?

I just checked, it didn't work.

I've gone through the differences, or lack of in detail, in this thread. The required competency differences are effectively 0.

Yet seemingly none of this has dissuaded you from continuing to engage in argument by assertion in the vain hope that suddenly, we'll all just believe you!

What evidence do you have to support what you're saying?

[das Uber Soldat]

UnaMas what were the differences when you did the flight test ? What type did you do it in ? Can you tell us how much it cost you ? JT.
None.

He did it in a Citation Mustang.

It cost him 30 grand.

[kingRB]

None.

He did it in a Citation Mustang.

It cost him 30 grand.

to be fair if i'd dropped $30k on my licence i'd be trying to rationalise it's validity as well

[JackFa]

Nobody should be paying 30k for a ATPL. This is making CASA and other naive pilots think that it's ok. Soon a industry trend will start making it a 'must have' license ab

[JTMAX]

Jack - Many of us agree that this ATPL flight test should be abolished , should anyone else agree PM me and as a group maybe we can lobby together to have it removed. - JT.

[JTMAX]

What about a online petition to start with ?

[De_flieger]

So has there been any update on the ATPL flight test issue? The test is obviously still required to gain an ATPL, regardless of how pointless and expensive this is, and limiting career prospects for those who otherwise have all the experience and subjects but don't operate for a company that is willing to put them through an ATPL flight test. Of those who have done the test, where did you do it, and what sort of rough prices would be expected?

[Runaway Gun]

I've heard of CASA Testing Officers being flown overseas in Business Class, to conduct flight tests in Sims. Can't be cheap.

[PPRuNeUser0161]

It gives Australian airlines more control over the pilot group in the country. Makes it harder to leave and head OS to take another job.

SN

[Captain Sherm]

So the Comminwealth requires that to get an ATPL you must complete a flight test? Yep, show you're good enough against published standards. Gosh!! That's a harsh burden.

And to fly in a multi crew aircraft you have to have been trained in the arts of multi crew cooperation. Again. Gosh!!

Some of you folks need to get out a bit more often. You're jumping at shadows that don't exist.

Sherm

[Brakerider]

Are they still waiving the KDR requirement for ATPL flight test applicants?

Yes they are. From what I have heard, CASA have said they are likely to abolish the requirement altogether.

[Icarus2001]

Makes it harder to leave and head OS to take another job.

No it does not.

[das Uber Soldat]

So the Comminwealth requires that to get an ATPL you must complete a flight test? Yep, show you're good enough against published standards. Gosh!! That's a harsh burden.

And to fly in a multi crew aircraft you have to have been trained in the arts of multi crew cooperation. Again. Gosh!!

Some of you folks need to get out a bit more often. You're jumping at shadows that don't exist.

Sherm
Typically flippant response from someone with no clue.

I note also that after I utterly destroyed your argument 2 pages ago (as shown here = http://www.pprune.org/9232901-post161.html), you've simply chosen to ignore it and repeat the now thoroughly debunked tripe above.

You need to get your facts right and cease speaking of that which you clearly have no idea. The test cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars. What did it achieve? Am I now safer than someone who hasn't done the test? Are those who haven't 'met the standards' to which you speak no longer safe? If not, then why are they allowed to fly? If yes, then why did I have to do the test? It doesn't stand to reason.

What is the evidence that this test will increase safety in this country, please point to it. I'm all ears.

[das Uber Soldat]

No it does not.
Based on what?

I was unable to apply for a huge number of overseas jobs that I was otherwise qualified for because I didn't hold an ATPL.

[De_flieger]

So the Comminwealth requires that to get an ATPL you must complete a flight test? Yep, show you're good enough against published standards. Gosh!! That's a harsh burden.
I know plenty of people who do that in the sim or aircraft several times a year.

And to fly in a multi crew aircraft you have to have been trained in the arts of multi crew cooperation. Again. Gosh!!
And operate multi-crew aircraft every day having been trained in multi crew cooperation.

And after all that they still need to pay out what I understand is in the tens of thousands of dollars, or be employed by an organization that will put them up for the flight test, in order to get an ATPL. It's a significant and unnecessary expense that does nothing for flight safety.

[Icarus2001]

You cannot be "otherwise qualified" for an overseas job, you are either qualified or you are not. Let's suppose you are talking about one of the ME3. they want you to hold an ATPL not for the piece of paper but for the experience you have in two crew operation that the licence brings.

You also said "...head overseas to take another job". It does not stop a CPL holder heading overseas and finding a job that requires a CPL.

The only people who think experience does not matter are those without it.

[das Uber Soldat]

That literally makes no sense.

The bit of paper doesn't give me experience mate, experience does. They list the aeronautical experience requirements on the job application. If ATPL = experience, then they wouldn't bother now would they?

Of the experience requirements, I met them. The end.

"they want you to hold an ATPL not for the piece of paper but for the experience you have in two crew operation that the licence brings."

So the 3 years I had of multi crew operation in a transport category aircraft doesn't count because I didn't have my ATPL handed to me out of a cereal packet like 99% of the people on here?

Its a nonsense argument.

[havick]

That literally makes no sense.

The bit of paper doesn't give me experience mate, experience does. They list the aeronautical experience requirements on the job application. If ATPL = experience, then they wouldn't bother now would they?

Of the experience requirements, I met them. The end.

"they want you to hold an ATPL not for the piece of paper but for the experience you have in two crew operation that the licence brings."

So the 3 years I had of multi crew operation in a transport category aircraft doesn't count because I didn't have my ATPL handed to me out of a cereal packet like 99% of the people on here?

Its a nonsense argument.

How come you didn't bother to get it before the Part61 change like everyone else who got it out of a cereal packet?

[das Uber Soldat]

Irrelevant.

[havick]

Irrelevant.

So what you're really saying is that you're pissy because you were too lazy to knock over the ATPL subjects when you had the chance to get your license from a cereal box when you had the chance and now it's costing you

[das Uber Soldat]

No, what I'm really saying is that even if everything you accuse of me of your in post were true, none of it has the slightest bit of relevance to the topic at hand. That's what 'irrelevant' means.

My argument is for the large number of people who now have to endure this expensive, arduous and ultimately pointless box ticking exercise. Your argument appears to be that because a few of us could have avoided the difficulties of this process, therefore the process itself is vindicated. Its a non sequitur.

Now do you actually have a point that is any way relevant to that argument? Or do you just want to continue with your ad hominem?

[thorn bird]

Guys,
There has always been a requirement for an ATPL test flight. If you can find a copy of the old CAO's its there in black and white, there was even an appendix to lay out what was required to be completed for the test flight.
The difference back then was common sense. The regulator recognised that the requirements for the issue of an instrument rating were of a higher standard than the ATPL, therefore if you held an instrument rating the flight test was waived.
In the US the ATPL test ride is really an instrument check ride, an instrument rating being required to hold an ATPL.
What I ponder is there a safety case for the convoluted system Australia has developed, along with the plethora of what can be very expensive recency requirements.
I dont disagree with the need for some sort of test, but if you have already demonstrated competence to fly to the required standard whats the point?
The multi crew stuff I believe is a furphy. Most of it is already covered in CRM, the rest should be covered in SOP's. The Multi crew requirement I believe is just a very expensive
waste of time better handled by individual airlines training departments, I don't believe there is a safety case that warrants it.

[havick]

No, what I'm really saying is that even if everything you accuse of me of your in post were true, none of it has the slightest bit of relevance to the topic at hand. That's what 'irrelevant' means.

My argument is for the large number of people who now have to endure this expensive, arduous and ultimately pointless box ticking exercise. Your argument appears to be that because a few of us could have avoided the difficulties of this process, therefore the process itself is vindicated. Its a non sequitur.

Now do you actually have a point that is any way relevant to that argument? Or do you just want to continue with your ad hominem?

I got my CASA helicopter ATPL out of a cornflakes box under the old system. Though since I've moved to the US I've had to take a flight test for my helicopter FAA ATP, and now I also had to do the FAA ATP-CTP course (around 7k fortunately my airline pays for that) and take my ATP fixed wing flight test as part of my final type ride on the embraer 145.

I guess my point is that there's no reason that Australia shouldn't have a flight test like the rest of the world.

I don't agree with all the requirements that CASA have lumped into it, but the FAA process is now arguably equally as expensive now that you have to do a CTP course which requires 10 hours in a level D sim, just to be able to take the ATP multi engine fixed wing written.

So yes, I think CASA should change some things about the ATP flight tests, but I don't disagree with the fact that an Aussie wanting an ATP should be required to take a flight test like the rest of the world regardless of your background.

You had the opportunity to go the cornflakes box route, and chose not to, so I have no sympathy about you moaning about the current requirements.

Before you tell me to pipe down, I personally facilitated the first two CASA helicopter ATPL's under PT61 (I was in the aircraft) and helped make the cost cheaper to subsequent applicants by working with the AHIA and CASA with regard to aircraft types that can be used amongst a host of other items.

By the way, did you actually make any submissions under the NPRM time before PT61 was put into effect or are you now complaining after the fact?

[donpizmeov]

And will this flight test make you any safer havic? The checks done for IF and BFR should catch any problems. The type rating skill test makes sure you can safely fly the aeroplane. And the command training course and testing checks you are fine to be a skipper. Having tests because others have tests is not an argument. If there can be a proved safety advantage of having this test I have yet to hear of one.

[havick]

And will this flight test make you any safer havic? The checks done for IF and BFR should catch any problems. The type rating skill test makes sure you can safely fly the aeroplane. And the command training course and testing checks you are fine to be a skipper. Having tests because others have tests is not an argument. If there can be a proved safety advantage of having this test I have yet to hear of one.

Where were you when the NPRM's came out for Part61? Did you lodge any objections or comments?

When the last DAS wrote to the industry for further comments to help rectify the **** sandwich did you take part then?

Yes/no?

[Lead Balloon]

So the system of regulatory development is to presumptively create **** sandwiches unless all the people who're going have to eat them take the time to object? That would explain a lot.

And in the case of Part 61, the weight of the informed submissions were to the effect that Part 61 was going to turn out precisely how it did turn out: A complete clusterf*ck.

The sytem of regulatory development and post-implementation review is completely broken. It's a perpetual mess-maker. It's pointless trying to interface logically and reasonably with a completely broken system.

[havick]

So the system of regulatory development is to presumptively create **** sandwiches unless all the people who're going have to eat them take the time to object? That would explain a lot.

And in the case of Part 61, the weight of the informed submissions were to the effect that Part 61 was going to turn out precisely how it did turn out: A complete clusterf*ck.

The sytem of regulatory development and post-implementation review is completely broken. It's a perpetual mess-maker. It's pointless trying to interface logically and reasonably with a completely broken system.

I don't agree with what is in part 61, I get frustrated though when the most vocal people against it never bothered to try to stop it in the first place.

[Lead Balloon]

But where in all the high-sounding policies for regulation generally and aviation safety in particular does it say: "Feel free to create whatever complexity, cost and frustration you like for those who don't have the time or energy to protest about it, even when there's no safety justification"?

Aren't all the high-sounding policies intended to avoid that in the first place, and isn't CASA being paid to implement those policies anyway?

These NPRM and other processes run by CASA remind me of the Brandolini theorem (the 'Bull**** Asymmetry' in the vernacular): It takes 10 times the amount of energy and resources to refute bull****/a bad regulatory idea than it does to produce it in the first place.

[donpizmeov]

But you still can't see any increase in safety can you havic? It's a waste of money.

[Captain Sherm]

So you're unhappy that CASA requires you to undergo a test by CASA or a CASA licenced Examiner (in many cases completed in a CAR 217 world as part of command upgrade) to get the ATPL required to operate in command of multi engine RPT ops (etc). Really?

Would you really like to explain that to the public? Really?

Have you read the MOS for the ATPL test? It is much more than an IPC. Much more. Again, would you like to explain to the public that you think you shouldn't have to be tested for your ability to command a multi-crew cockpit in normal and non-normal conditions?

You'll be at a BBQ or two in the days ahead. Tell your friends that the nasty Commonwealth wants you to do a test for an ATPL and see how much sympathy you get.

The history of the professions is the history of upgrade of qualifications. GPs used to do surgery. Not now. Primary teachers once only needed 2 years training. Not now. There were once no P plates. Not now. All that has changed. And more. Society demands higher standards now. And the Part 61 ATPL is a higher standard

[chimbu warrior]

My understanding that this change was driven by an ICAO SARP. Had Australia chosen to file a difference, it is possible that Australian ATPL's may not have been recognised overseas.

[pilotchute]

Sherm,

I was about 25 night hours short when the new rules came in. I wasn't going to pay for 25 night hours out of my own pocket I thought. Well maybe I should have as Tiger have told me they won't consider me without a full ATPL even though I have all the requirements. Two Biz jet operators have said the same.

Tiger said they don't want to bear the cost of added training for the MCC and ATPL flight test and do extra training if I mess it up.

Where is the fairness?

[Lead Balloon]

My understanding that this change was driven by an ICAO SARP. Had Australia chosen to file a difference, it is possible that Australian ATPL's may not have been recognised overseas.Of course: I should have recalled that Australia's decision to notify of around 100 pages of differences from the ICAO convention is based on politics, not safety.

[das Uber Soldat]

So you're unhappy that CASA requires you to undergo a test by CASA or a CASA licenced Examiner (in many cases completed in a CAR 217 world as part of command upgrade) to get the ATPL required to operate in command of multi engine RPT ops (etc). Really?

Would you really like to explain that to the public? Really?

Have you read the MOS for the ATPL test? It is much more than an IPC. Much more. Again, would you like to explain to the public that you think you shouldn't have to be tested for your ability to command a multi-crew cockpit in normal and non-normal conditions?

You'll be at a BBQ or two in the days ahead. Tell your friends that the nasty Commonwealth wants you to do a test for an ATPL and see how much sympathy you get.

The history of the professions is the history of upgrade of qualifications. GPs used to do surgery. Not now. Primary teachers once only needed 2 years training. Not now. There were once no P plates. Not now. All that has changed. And more. Society demands higher standards now. And the Part 61 ATPL is a higher standard]

Is this guy for real or just taking the piss? How many times have I shot your tripe down only for you to reappear with the same baseless and already disproved assertions?

Please, stop.

[das Uber Soldat]

I got my CASA helicopter ATPL out of a cornflakes box under the old system. Though since I've moved to the US I've had to take a flight test for my helicopter FAA ATP, and now I also had to do the FAA ATP-CTP course (around 7k fortunately my airline pays for that) and take my ATP fixed wing flight test as part of my final type ride on the embraer 145.
Cool story. Irrelevant

I guess my point is that there's no reason that Australia shouldn't have a flight test like the rest of the world.
Really? Can't think of a single reason? How about the enormous cost? The absolute absence of any evidence of an improvement to flight safety? The bungled implementation? The significant reduction in opportunities to otherwise suitably qualified pilots like pilotchute? I could go all day. I've asked you several times (as have others) to show evidence that safety is increased by the introduction of this test. Silence has been the consistent response. "Others have it" is not an argument.

I don't agree with all the requirements that CASA have lumped into it, but the FAA process is now arguably equally as expensive now that you have to do a CTP course which requires 10 hours in a level D sim, just to be able to take the ATP multi engine fixed wing written.
More cool stories

So yes, I think CASA should change some things about the ATP flight tests, but I don't disagree with the fact that an Aussie wanting an ATP should be required to take a flight test like the rest of the world regardless of your background.
You're welcome to your opinion. Still waiting for that evidence.

You had the opportunity to go the cornflakes box route, and chose not to, so I have no sympathy about you moaning about the current requirements.
As I stated, my situation is irrelevant. I went on to explain why, predictably you have ignored it. So, again for the people in the back. That may be true, its totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. That I could have avoided the difficulty of the process does not mean the process is vindicated in any way. They are not related. I don't know how to say it any more simply.

Before you tell me to pipe down, I personally facilitated the first two CASA helicopter ATPL's under PT61 (I was in the aircraft) and helped make the cost cheaper to subsequent applicants by working with the AHIA and CASA with regard to aircraft types that can be used amongst a host of other items.
All irrelevant.

By the way, did you actually make any submissions under the NPRM time before PT61 was put into effect or are you now complaining after the fact?
I have been in contact with CASA regarding these ATPL part 61 changes on many occasions and have been part of a group that have pushed and successfully lobbied to at least have the process approved. Dispensing with the KDR requirements and introducing a caveat for those with previous multi crew experience etc.

Regardless, again your inability to differentiate what is relevant to the argument and what isn't shines through. Even if I had said or done nothing before its introduction, it in no way has any bearing on the validity of my position or veracity of the facts I present. You're transparently trying to slide a stipulation into the argument that only those who contributed to the NPRM have standing to make comment on the present situation. Just as you have tried to do the same by implying that because I could have avoided this idiotic test, I'm in no position to criticise it (a wonderful logical disconnect).



In summary, no mate.

[Captain Sherm]

As a CAO 82.5 operator Tiger would already be conducting CRM/human factors for RPT training. This was recognised in the recent MCC exemption as being very similar to the MOS standard for MCC training. In their CAR 217 command upgrade programme they'd be doing a LOFT style test and an IPC. So the cost to them is minimal. And if you had to do retraining....really, they take that risk with every pilot they hire.

I believe CASA has been working with quite a number of operators to build the ATPL test into their command training programmes. I have a CASA mate in SYD who was involved in briefing the operators.

[das Uber Soldat]

And that helps pilotchute how exactly?

[Captain Sherm]

Soldat.

Met many of your type. Often only in accident records or at exit interviews after termination or failure to pass an interview or flight test.

Know it all. Don't look at facts. Whinge and carp.

Well mate, you are the very reason why MCC training and an MCC focused ATPL flight test is now required.

If you are a professional pilot which I doubt, do your bit for flight safety and stay away from aeroplanes.

[das Uber Soldat]

I've met yours too mate. When met with evidence, runs and obfuscates with silly comments such as that.

The irony of you accusing me of not looking at facts is delicious. You've been harping on about the MOS for how long, yet when I called you on your bluff and actually listed the relevant MOS sections in detail (as linked above), you simply ignored it (as you have everything you can't refute).

You want to talk about the issues, I say about time. I'm right here. You want continue to evade and ignore, then don't complain when I call you on it with some puerile ad hominem attack.

And you didn't answer my question. (imagine my surprise). How does that help pilotchute?

[Captain Sherm]

Proved my point again. Thanks mate. Good night.

[das Uber Soldat]

When met with evidence, runs

Called it. Never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to avoid admitting when they're wrong.

Love your work though Shermy. Declaring that I'm unsafe to operate after spending the entire thread arguing those who have passed the ATPL flight test are at a higher safety standard. That'd be me sunshine. So which is it? If you say I'm safe, then your words above are shown to be wrong. If I'm unsafe, yet I've passed an ATPL flight test, then it disproves your argument that the test provides a higher (or even minimum!) level of safety. Its not often my opponent wins the argument on my behalf. Thanks champ.

In other news, if the test needs to exist for international compliance reasons (which at least would be a reason), then it needs to be adapted. It can't be part of a command upgrade process. Many people work in smaller companies where the prospects of command are marginal at best. It needs to be administered by the internal checking department and ideally should be part of the IPC with a few extra boxes to tick. It took CASA at months before approvals for 217 organisations in any volume were given to administer the test. Thats a long time for someone waiting for a job. The barriers of cost and inconvenience need to be removed so opportunities aren't vastly reduced for those looking to move up the aviation chain.

Tiger, Cobham and a host of employers require an ATPL to even apply, yet are taking people with less relevant experience simply because they hold a bit of paper they got out of a cereal packet. If the test was so valuable and increased safety or skills as is implied in this thread, they would be prioritising people who had done the ATPL flight test over all other candidates. Yet this isn't happening.

Look at the picture as a whole. Have opportunities for pilots increased with this new scheme? Demonstrably not. Has cost increased for candidates? Yes, vastly. Has safety been improved by this new test? No evidence exists that it has.

[Tankengine]

When rules change someone gets screwed.
When Tiger, Cobham etc. eventually realise they have a recruitment problem they will change their requirements.

[das Uber Soldat]

When rules change someone gets screwed.
When Tiger, Cobham etc. eventually realise they have a recruitment problem they will change their requirements.
We can only hope. In the meantime, a lot of people have had careers set back by years for no tangible benefit to anyone.

[thorn bird]

"So you're unhappy that CASA requires you to undergo a test by CASA or a CASA licences Examiner"

Have you ever examined the background, experience and qualifications of many of CAsA's type experts who conduct flight tests??

[neville_nobody]

When Tiger, Cobham etc. eventually realise they have a recruitment problem they will change their requirements.

Or apply for 457 visas which they would be quite entitled to do as there will be a genuine skill shortage

[neville_nobody]

The history of the professions is the history of upgrade of qualifications. GPs used to do surgery. Not now. Primary teachers once only needed 2 years training. Not now. There were once no P plates. Not now. All that has changed. And more. Society demands higher standards now. And the Part 61 ATPL is a higher standard

As I have argued previously in this thread is the problem with your argument is that none of those professions have continual testing like aviation does. If there was no IR renewal or OPC your argument would be valid.
However in aviation before someone can actually exercise the priviledge of a ATPL they would have to passed numerous OPCs, line checks, endorsement, then the entire command upgrade program. Then after that they are tested regularly.

You'll be at a BBQ or two in the days ahead. Tell your friends that the nasty Commonwealth wants you to do a test for an ATPL and see how much sympathy you get.

Then tell them that regardless of the their pass in your beloved ATPL Flight test that they can still fail command training and be a career FO. To which then a reasonable person would ask, so what's the point of a ATPL flight test when the CAR 217 operator can deem you not suitable to exercise your license anyway?

Alternatively could also pass your ATPL flight test and then fail the endorsement!! What does that say about the ATPL flight test??

[havick]

In summary, no mate.

In summary, you are part of the problem that you complain about.

My main point is the Australian industry is totally ******. Point in case when the DAS (since left) sends out a letter to every licensed pilot asking for opinions one what is ****** with the new regs and everything else that CASA has touched, and he gets less than 100 responses in total. The industry can't/won't even help itself when given an olive branch.

Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for.

[pilotchute]

I doubt DAS wrote the letter. I would say it wasn't even his idea. He is the Director so his name goes on it though.

When an organisation like CASA sends out these letters it's not for our benefit. They know exactly what's wrong, they don't need us to tell them. This is called "stakeholder consultation" which loosely translates to "we have to be seen to be doing something even though we don't give a crap".

The Public Service/Govt never admit mistakes. They never reverse a decision no matter how apparent the screw up is.

[das Uber Soldat]

I don't even know why I post here sometimes.

You have no argument, no leg to stand on. You clearly didn't even bother reading my reply to you. I've addressed every ill thought out and vapid point you've attempted to make, shot down every irrelevant assertion and generally shown your argument to be petulant and small minded. In response all I've received is cherry picked nonsense.

"Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for."

Another silly and childish post that has defined your entire involvement in this thread. At no point have I claimed to be overqualified for anything. I did however, meet the experience requirements for a variety of jobs that were otherwise unavailable to me (at the time) due to this stupid licence requirement.

I have asked you over and over for the evidence that the introduction of this test will have an outcome on flight safety. I suspect I'll be waiting a fair while longer.

[Captain Sherm]

Read carefully.

Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.

This is much more than an IPC.

There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.

You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.

Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.

There was a long consultation process for Part 61.

The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.

[donpizmeov]

Sherm old boy. You may have missed the bit where it has been explained to get a command rating you need to prove you are a commander using all those CRM skills during the command skills test.
Luckily, most don't think they need to pay for the type rating like you did.
So we still agree that the ATPL test does nothing to enhance safety, and is a waste of money.

[das Uber Soldat]

Read carefully.

Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.

This is much more than an IPC.

There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.

You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.

Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.

There was a long consultation process for Part 61.

The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
Sherm you are in no position to lecture anyone to 'read carefully' when you have demonstrated time and time again that you have no interest in reading a thing anyone else has to say on the matter.

There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?

Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.


There is very little difference. Don't take my word for it though! I've got some time so lets go on a journey of discovery together!

Appendix K.1 ATPL Aeroplane category rating flight test

1. Flight test requirements

1.1 An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating flight test must
demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by
performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in tables 2 and 5 in
Section 1 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
Interesting, what does Table 2 say? (table 5 refers to an Aerobatics rating?!)

Table 2: Aeroplane general flight tolerances – professional level
1. Applicability
1.1 The flight tolerances in this subsection apply to the following licences and ratings:
(a) commercial pilot licence;
(b) multi-crew pilot licence;
(c) air transport pilot licence;
(d) pilot instructor rating;
(e) instrument rating;
(f) private IFR rating;
(g) flight examiner rating;
(h) aerial application rating;
(i) low-level rating;
(j) aircraft type rating
IPC and ATPL flight tolerances, are exactly the same

What about demonstrated competencies?

The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3

hmm, those look like some differences!

C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures. Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment. I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems. I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems. Refer above.

2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member. Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.

This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.


How many times Sherm, how many times have people here asked you or Havick to provide evidence that this test results in an increase in flight safety? Do you think we haven't noticed your total inability to provide it? You haven't even been able to provide a lick of evidence that the ATPL flight test is in any material way different to an IPC other than to close your eyes and shout it over and over.

I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.

I had to demonstrate taxiing.

You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.

Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;

Love your work though Shermy. Declaring that I'm unsafe to operate after spending the entire thread arguing those who have passed the ATPL flight test are at a higher safety standard. That'd be me sunshine. So which is it? If you say I'm safe, then your words above are shown to be wrong. If I'm unsafe, yet I've passed an ATPL flight test, then it disproves your argument that the test provides a higher (or even minimum!) level of safety.
So which is it mate?

[havick]

Sherm you are in no position to lecture anyone to 'read carefully' when you have demonstrated time and time again that you have no interest in reading a thing anyone else has to say on the matter.

There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?

Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.



How many times Sherm, how many times have people here asked you or Havick to provide evidence that this test results in an increase in flight safety? Do you think we haven't noticed your total inability to provide it? You haven't even been able to provide a lick of evidence that the ATPL flight test is in any material way different to an IPC other than to close your eyes and shout it over and over.

I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.

I had to demonstrate taxiing.

You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.

Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;


So which is it mate?

Das,

We are arguing different points. I'm taking aim at all the whiners but made no effort to help make change to PT61 when the opportunity presented itself. Then I'm taking a double shot at the whiners that had the opportunity to get their ATPL from cornflakes box but didn't .

I'm on the fence as to the need for the flight test itself. One thing I can say is that under the old system there was nothing stopping a pilot from flying a 2 crew aircraft having never undergone any training or assessment flying multi crew (think IFR helicopter without an autopilot fly charter). Under the old system 'someone' was sent off on a job that the helicopter required two pilots (IFR no aitopilot) and because it was charter the captain required an ATPL. 'Someone' had an ATPL (out of a cornflakes box) and a current CIR-ME(H) and could fly the job two crew as captain having never flown two pilot ops in their life. Was there an incident? No, but it just illustrates that there are possibilities of flying ops having never been trained or assessed in doing so.

At least on the helicopter side of the house occurrences above were the norm rather than the exception (unless a former military background or brought up through the offshore ranks).

PT61 does capture this in other areas now but the ATPL flight test is the catch all to close off the loopholes that used to allow this to occur.

[donpizmeov]

Doesn't MCC catch the multi crew thing?

[das Uber Soldat]

Das,

We are arguing different points. I'm taking aim at all the whiners but made no effort to help make change to PT61 when the opportunity presented itself. Then I'm taking a double shot at the whiners that had the opportunity to get their ATPL from cornflakes box but didn't .
All of which is totally irrelevant to the thread, as I have painfully had to explain to you numerous times. :rolleyes:

Further, you've picked me as the target for your puerile little attacks, despite the fact that I'm one of the people who have been in contact with CASA attempting to improve the process, including being successful in helping bring about change in 2 areas as stated (love repeating myself)

The question then has to be, what have you done that gives you the right to sit on such high moral ground that you feel entitled to attack others in a thread that has nothing to do with you, or the topic you've brought into it?

Or do you just like kicking people who've made mistakes? Must be nice to be perfect.

[havick]

All of which is totally irrelevant to the thread, as I have painfully had to explain to you numerous times. :rolleyes:

Further, you've picked me as the target for your puerile little attacks, despite the fact that I'm one of the people who have been in contact with CASA attempting to improve the process, including being successful in helping bring about change in 2 areas as stated (love repeating myself)

The question then has to be, what have you done that gives you the right to sit on such high moral ground that you feel entitled to attack others in a thread that has nothing to do with you, or the topic you've brought into it?

Or do you just like kicking people who've made mistakes? Must be nice to be perfect.

Chopped off the rest of my previous post about pilots under the old system flying multi crew ops having never been trained or assessed to?

[das Uber Soldat]

The irony of complaining that I omitted a response from part of your post, whilst entirely ignoring mine is delicious.

I've no issue with MCC training, never have (for those without experience). My issues are with the ATPL flight test. The end.

Now, I've answered you. Your turn.

[pilotchute]

It appears Das Uber has won. Let's wind it up now.

[kalinga]

Hi,
Does anyone know, any Flight school which conduct Helicopter ATPL Overseas License in Australia as per Part 141 and 142?