What can we do? CASA ATPL

[Dash8capt]

Both in my job and externally I mentor the occasional younger bloke and help them to achieve their career goals. The new part 61 rules has now made it extremely hard to achieve said goals, not to mention the usual story of the Casa Atpl examinations.
What options are actually out there resulting in an australian Atpl without completing CASAs new flight test and mcc regime?
Is a Trans Tasman conversion possible and what's involved from someone who's done it?
The states seems out of the picture now albeit still easier than australia but it has become quite a financial burden it would seem with the addition of the mcc course as well.
Regards dash!

[luckyluke]

Is a Trans Tasman conversion possible and what's involved from someone who's done it?

If you are referring to doing an ATPL in NZ then converting back to CASA Im not too sure exactly on the process,
refer: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (http://www.caa.govt.nz/pilots/For_Australian_pilots.htm))
and
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (http://www.caa.govt.nz/pilots/For_NZ_pilots.htm)
However just to get the ATPL in NZ can be quite tricky (but not impossible)
You will need:
-a current CPL, Instrument rating, English proficiency test and Medical.
-7 exam syllabus passes,
-then find an aircraft suitable to the director to do an ATPL flight test in which, to my best knowledge outside of the airlines is a Mojave based in Wanganui, and pay for a CAA examiner to accompany you on said test.

Total cost=
Licence conversions (feel free to add that up)
exams 7 x 237.00NZD
CAA test and issue fee 2,759.00NZD
Aircraft Costs (how longs a piece of string)

[ersa]

There are no shortcuts anymore.....if you go overseas you will still be up for a ATPL flight test ,which require Instrument ratings and MCC.(CASA does not recognise overseas MCC credits for co-pilots)

Don't forget the Night hours required......there was a massive rush prior to Sept 1st to get an ATPL.

The cost to get an ATPL in NZ, is on par with AUS....

All that has happened is overseas guys with quals and experience are coming in and converting with very little training and taking the jobs.....thank CA$A for this.

[morno]

Can someone explain to me why they need this ATPL?

I've said it time and time and time again, you'll get an ATPL when you need an ATPL. In most cases, that will be when you're undergoing a command upgrade on something that needs an ATPL.

There's some obsession that you need an ATPL as soon as you meet the requirements. Why?

morno

[Dash8capt]

Morno, the problem is highlighted above by ersa, there's now a distinct disadvantage to those who didn't get in prior to the cutoff.

[WillieTheWimp]

I'm with morno on this one.

The people who "got in before the cut off" were most likely in front of the people who didn't get in before the cut off.

[Centaurus]

There's some obsession that you need an ATPL as soon as you meet the requirements. Why?


It was explained in another Pprune exchange, Morno which you may have participated in too. It is NOT an obsession it is a fact of life under Part 61. And that is it seems Jetstar recruiting policy requires an applicant to actually have the bloody ATPL in their greasy hand before an interview is considered. I know a bloke that contacted Jetstar HR people a few days ago and was told that was the policy - like it or lump it.

It matters not how many hours you have flown in command overseas or in Australia, you won't get a look in without the full Australian ATPL and not just the subjects. Same if you are applying for many overseas jobs. I understand there are other operators in Australia that require a similar qualification; meaning no ATPL - no interview. The problem is the vast oversupply of commercial pilots in Australia so the operators can pick and choose and cull the CPL's. .

[404 Titan]

Centaurus

I’m in 100% agreement with morno with this as well. Just because J* and others currently want applicants with an ATPL only indicates that there are still applicants out there that meet this requirement. With time they will dry up and Australia will go back to something like what we had in the 80’s and before where many applicants for airline positions could only get an ATPL once they were employed with an airline. Don’t forget upgrading to an ATPL is only required when being upgraded to Command. If CPL holders have the subjects completed the rest can be done in house with an airlines C&T system. Having said that though I can see the likes of J* charging for sim time etc. to do it.

In my personal opinion this restores the ATPL to the proper pinnacle in our profession it once was from the rubber stamp, out of a Cornflakes packet licence it has become.

[Ollie Onion]

Yep, it was the way it was done in Europe, when you had the hours for your ATPL you just informed the TRE at your next cyclic and he added on the 3 or 4 items to your normal cyclic, signed the form at that was it. No doubt an airline like Jetstar will just say NO, as that is the initial answer to everything. Don't forget Jetstar has dozens of Cadets who don't yet have an ATPL so this will become an issue pretty soon.

[morno]

Centaurus,
As said above, obviously Jetstar is still able to get applicants who hold ATPL's. Surely when things settle down, they'll have to lower their requirements to accept CPL's with ATPL subjects.

Prior to the whole get the hours, fill out a form and here's an ATPL, you only got a Senior Commercial anyway and were issued with an ATPL when you got a Command at an airline. What's wrong with basically going back to that?

morno

[chimbu warrior]

Some good points made by regular contributors, however there are other positions (i.e. non-airline) that require an ATPL as well.

Given that some of these operators send pilots overseas to obtain a type-rating, and then convert that to an Aussie type-rating, how might these operators help their pilots obtain an ATPL? There are quite a few types for which there are no simulators in this part of the world, and CASA approve type ratings obtained overseas. Did anyone think about this before the rules changed?

[Centaurus]

and were issued with an ATPL when you got a Command at an airline. What's wrong with basically going back to that?


Not so. On joining the airline (Ansett, TAA, QF etc) as a newbe you got a second Class ATPL if you had the subjects (I think). Then back in the Sixties, if I recall correctly, there were many airline first officers who had problems passing the ATPL subjects (what's new about that?) So protected by their industrial agreements, they decided to stay as permanent F/O's and the more senior they were the less they had to work. Some even took second jobs on the side to make still more cash.

Then Ansett had enough and told the F/O's they had two years to pass the ATPL (Senior comm) subjects or face unemployment (sacked). Not being in the airline industry at the time, I don't know what happened although I heard a few got kicked out.

I read someone here said the old ATPL was a mickey mouse as all you needed was the 1500 hours and no specific flight test. Yet no one complains about logging their instrument flight time nowadays even though the automatic pilot is engaged most of the time and the pilot "monitors" while eating his lunch and catching up on his emails. Mickey Mouse claimed instrument flight time??

[Oktas8]

Jetstar have always had hiring policies inconsistent with logical expectations. Right now one needs "an ATPL, at least 1500 hours and all ATPL subjects." Someone at Jetstar doesn't know or care what an ATPL actually is...

However, in spite of that I'd like to know exactly who is being held back by the new rules.

Jetstar isn't doing much hiring right now, and their shortlist of applicants must be full of multi-crew glass-cockpit experienced pilots. According to their website, these people are preferred, and there are lots and lots of ATPL holders in this cohort.

I wonder really how many people are being held back by not having an ATPL yet? Not held back from applying - lots of people no doubt - but held back from actually getting a job. Very few right now I think.

[thorn bird]

Octas,

It may surprise you that there is other aviation occurring in Australia other than high capacity RPT.

Admittedly not much since the Skull was, as has been suggested by others, directed to wipe out all forms of aviation except RPT and the RAAF.

The reason of course is that Secondary airports are far too valuable as real estate to keep them as airports.
Might be illegal for developers to contribute to politicians in NSW & other states, but this doesn't apply federally, and we all know politicians natural affinity for money.

The dwindling GA end of aviation still needs a few ATPL licences, mainly in the top end which will likely survive the longest, until the wealthy owners wake up that it's far cheaper to operate their machines on a foreign register.

As with most things in the land of OZ, money rules.

Under the new part 61 the cost of obtaining that coveted piece of paper that says you are an ATPL holder places it beyond most aspiring pilots.

The piece of paper is meaningless anyway, if you ever gained one how much of the so called theory that you struggled to learn did you ever use in practice?

The flight test? Pretty much exactly the same standard as an instrument rating, so if you have that why bother with another test?

The ATPL is in reality a process, not a qualification.

It's been said that the airlines will adjust their recruitment standards as the number of ATPL dwindles. I think it far more likely that they will look at the cost of providing an ATPL under Australian reg's and decide a 457 visa is the way to go.

[ersa]

Thorn bird is spot on....

Casa publicised the new ATPL requirements at least 24 months ago.
I will repeat there are NO shortcuts now....its going to cost more money than the average GA can afford...

[Oktas8]

Thorn bird, as someone who has spent ten years in GA (overseas, but GA is still GA), I assure you I know all about non-RPT. I also know that GA pilots don't need an ATPL, unless their insurer asks for one for certain limited roles.

So who is being held back? Jetstar isn't hiring from GA!

[Ixixly]

What will happen to the Guys and Gals who are in or are wanting to go to PNG and require an ATPL for that? I have had a few friends that have previously gone the US Option and gotten their ATPL there to convert back but now all the loop holes are closed how do PNG operators plan on getting ATPL holders to fly their Twotters and such?

Anyone in that part of the world heard any rumblings in regards to this?

[Killer Loop]

Very good question Ixixly. Since CASA PNG changed their rules and stated that one needs a full overseas ATPL (rather than just the written exams and then doing a flight test in PNG) before converting to a PNG ATPL the only way I can see that you can do it is to go and get an FAA ATPL and convert that.

[c100driver]

NZ has had an ATPL flight test requirement for ever! Kiwi's have managed to get jobs all over the world with the process that has not changed in decades so it is not a real barrier.

The NZ ATPL flight test is done as a LOA on behalf of CAA in most airlines. It is not the airline flight test. It is more than just a few additions in cyclic.

The big issue that most are missing here is the time limit on the exams. If you are at the start of a slowdown in hiring it may take a while to get a position that allows you to sit the ATPL flight test. If your exams start to expire you will need to sit them a second time.

[neville_nobody]

As been said before it will make it difficult in the future for FOs flying jets to go overseas if that's what they want. If you wanted to go to the middle east, you will now have to go to Europe/USA/NZ and get your ATPL that way, then apply with an ICAO ATPL:ugh:

[thorn bird]

Wonderful news Octas,

So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL, fantastic, hope that applies to the odorous extra medical requirements as well.

[Ixixly]

For those saying that the Kiwis and such have always done it this way and never been a problem, I was under the impression that a lot of Kiwis have come to Aus, done their flying here, gotten and Aus ATPL and then just transferred it back to their NZ Licence via the TTRMA? So therefore, if my assertion is correct (And I stand to be corrected), wouldn't this then affect the Kiwis now as well as they were previously using the "Australian Loophole" in the same way many others have used the "FAA Loophole" and can no longer do so?

Did the Kiwis previously require a Flight Check when transferring their Aus ATPL?

[Tinstaafl]

Getting an FAA ATP is no longer the easy thing it once was. From 01 August this year the system changed: In order to sit the theory exam you must now do a 30 hour ground course + 10 hour sim (6 hours in a C or D level sim) course. All just to sit the exam. Only then may you do the flight test. So far there are just a handful of organisations that have gained approval for their ATP prep course and none of them are cheap.

[morno]

So with the new FAA requirements, plus the fact you need to do ATPL flight tests virtually everywhere else in the world, can someone tell me where's the problem with having those same requirements in Australia?

morno

[Killer Loop]

I have actually just received my NZ ATPL through the TTRMA and it was just a matter of filling out the paper work and sending it off.

[thorn bird]

No problem at all morno...if you work for an airline...

As I've said the whole ATPL licence is Not a qualification, its a process.

If you don't aspire to join an airline, under CAsA's reg's it going to cost you a small fortune to gain apiece of paper that is in reality meaningless.

If you already hold an instrument rating, which mosts guys do, your flying standard is already above that required for an ATPL.

Australia always had a flight test for the initial issue of an ATPL, CAO 40 appendix 111, I think provided what was required.

There was an era when sensible heads in DCA recognised that for those that held an instrument rating the flying standard was higher so they waved the ATPL test.

As for the theory side, technology moves faster than the syllabus can keep up. The way things are in Australia they would be better requiring a two year Law course rather than stuff that is already out of date by the time the exam is set.

Thats if they can find two people in CAsA who agree what the law is.

[morno]

thorn bird,
I do agree somewhat, that outside of the airline environment, it will be slightly more difficult. I guess I don't convey that thought because I'm focusing on one area.

However for most aircraft over 5,700kg's outside of the airlines, if I'm not mistaken, they will require training to be done in a simulator anyway. So I don't see how it's going to be much different than an airline environment in that sense. Perhaps the tricky part is that CASA requires a CASA authorised Check Airman (or whatever ATO is these days) to do the test, which is going to be difficult for an overseas based simulator? I'm not entirely up with that detail of it.

Who know's, maybe in time, through consultation with the industry (I'm trying to think positive, we know that probably won't happen), CASA will change some of the requirements so that they're more flexible.

morno

[Ixixly]

We can all argue till we're blue in the face about the changes this may or may not bring to certain segments of Aviation. The fact remains this WILL now add an extra layer of complication and definitely confusion to the system.

The real question I haven't seen anyone ask yet is Why this change was needed in the first place? Someone will undoubtedly say "To bring us into line with the rest of the world" But I just don't see that as a valid justification for changing it. Can anyone point out a study that concluded this should be done to improve safety? perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis?

If not then this just seems like another shift towards the "Airlines and Air Force Only" mentality.

[thorn bird]

Ixily,

nail on the head mate.

As far as I can see, all CAsA will achieve with this change put another nail into GA's coffin, and disadvantage Australian Pilots over foreign in the employment stakes.

Maybe others can, but I can see no safety benefit whatsoever, just massive increases in costs.

[The Green Goblin]

As far as I can see it makes you a hostage to your airline until you are senior enough to gain a command and get an ATPL flight test. By that stage you're a captain with seniority so it's a harder decision to leave.

This will stop all the pesky FOs leaving for sandier fields and guarantee a supply of indebted pilots if there ever is a shortage.

[De_flieger]

The Green Goblin has identified one of the biggest problems.
From a practical point of view, all the skills requirements of the Manual of Standards would be covered in a regular instrument rating/renewal/proficiency check on a multi-crew, turbine powered aircraft and this would ideally mean the form could be filled out, and an ATPL issued. However the applicant "must perform the functions of pilot in command" - Manual of Standards Instrument 2014, Vol 1, Section K Appendix K.1 Para 1.5. It also has to be from the left hand seat.

So for all the first officers at smaller operations hoping to gain an ATPL and move on to bigger and better things, this holds you a hostage to completing the check and upgrade process within your existing operation. If there arent upgrade opportunities, you cant or dont want a command in your current job, fail the upgrade or have upset the management and wont get an upgrade you are effectively trapped with that employer while the larger employers or overseas ones arent interested in you without the ATPL. I doubt that your current employer will just throw you into the left hand seat for a few sims to help make you more employable elsewhere. That'd be a fun conversation to have with the manager...

What has been achieved for those outside the airline system is a massive increase in the costs to gain a license. Inside the airline system, the licensing is now at the whim of a check and training department with no incentive to help you become more employable elsewhere.

[Oktas8]

The left seat requirement seems onerous and unnecessary.

This might take some concerted research to find out exactly what other nations do with ATPL tests. NZCAA I'm fairly sure, does not require LHS occupancy. What about EASA, FAA, TC, even China?

If no other ICAO conforming state requires LHS status for an ATPL candidate, one would have some ammunition to take to the new CASA director to have that requirement removed. After all, if no-one else does it, how can it be a "safety requirement"?

As to approaching airline management... I have approached different managers with different ideas over the years. Sometimes I was laughed out of the room. However I tended to have some success when I lined my pins up properly beforehand.

- Don't ask for stuff when the rules have just changed. No-one has understood the full impact yet, so you come across as premature or a bit panicky.
- Make sure the proposal is constructed to show how reasonable it is. The reaction you want is "well, yes of course, that's only fair".
- Make sure the costs to the company are minor and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- Make sure the benefits to the company are more significant than the costs and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- If the benefits to the company are negligible, make sure you have huge social pressure behind you (that is, the union). Even so, you'll probably lose the battle. Fight hard by being very professional, very courteous and being the person that management really want to keep.

All of this applies when appealing to DAS for a rule change too of course, but x10!

So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL,
Correct. Unless it's being used for RPT. Not many RPT AOC holders are using single pilot aircraft >5700kg. If you're one of the few affected, I do sympathise.

[Kharon]

Only got half a handle on this so far – correction would be welcomed. It seems there is one word omitted from the reg and it's MoS – "sustained". In effect the removal of that one word makes passing any form of flight test highly subjective.

As I understand it – say you were required to maintain 5000' and you drift up to 5100', then begin to correct that returning to 5000' within a few seconds; the deviation was identified, corrected and not "sustained" under the CAO was acceptable. Without the word "sustained" the black letter law may be applied – you just failed. It's not that the 'testing officer' will do that, but it's that the TO may adhere to that edict which concerns.

Another item of concern, and here again it's hard to get a firm grip, is the notion that it is a criminal offence to conduct a manoeuvre, say a stall and recovery, unless it's conducted strictly to the letter of third tier law (MoS) in the precise, prescribed sequence for control input during entry and recovery.

It's not a problem for ordinary folk doing routine training and checking – but should a CASA type come along to observe your check pilot conducting your check; and the Checkie does not follow the prescription, to the letter; then check approvals may be forfeit - if the CASA observer so decides.

For the record – I'll repeat that I have not, as yet been able to get a firm grip on 61 and all it entails; so happy to be corrected. But it seems to me there are many ways to fail a proficiency check, all dependent on 'who' the test pilot is and what flavour of mood prevails on the day. I don't like 'subjective' options in a highly prescriptive rule, where it can and may be used against you.

Any way; FWIW.. my AUD $00.20.

[Mach E Avelli]

Kharon, the Poms (bless their officious hearts) required all Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted. During the course all wannabe IREs had to learn that the test had to be conducted to a uniform standard. Tolerances were strict and until the candidate could fly them himself (in an old Dove when I did it, but later I think they went to simulators) he did not get to the stage where he was required to assess others. The interpretation of 'sustained' error involved a stop watch, from what I recall. Holding patterns had to be four minutes plus or minus 20 seconds, speed and altitude deviations could not exceed so many knots/feet for more than three seconds etc. Well do I remember first day of the flying, when I went outside five degrees on an NDB approach for more than the prescribed time. The test was terminated by the candidate IRE and I was informed that I could no longer exercise the privileges of my Instrument Rating. Talk about double jeopardy!

As for the current dilemma for those needing the ATPL test, again we could take a lesson from the Kiwis. While their Part 61 suggests that the flight should be completed in a complex aircraft or simulator of greater than 5700 kg, it does allow the Director latitude to approve other types. Hence, something reasonably complex such as a King Air C90 could be tricked up to do the job. And in NZ, is.

Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded.

[redsnail]

ATPL skills test in the UK is done RHS.

[Mach E Avelli]

Because there is no such thing as a co pilot type rating, the Yanks do all theirs LHS. At least they did last time I was over there on a Flight Safety conversion course. I was paired with an inexperienced F/O and he found it hard work jumping between seats and duties. For Captain candidates it is a good idea as he gets to know both jobs. So the advantages and disadvantages could be debated forever.
Some airlines in the USA may do it differently, for all I know.

[c100driver]

The ATPL candidate gets to nominate which seat the flight test is done from in the Air NZ simulator test (Eagle is different but they are different anyway). It is about demonstrating the leadership for command, the skills to operate the aircraft to the prescribed limits whilst making good command decisions. Not about which seat you happen to sit in.

[thorn bird]

Has CAsA changed the certification of the C550/560 to single pilot from multi crew?

[Kharon]

Oh, I hear you Mach and I am very familiar with 'other' systems; good and bad.

Mach.E. "[all] Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted."

Which is a long march away from the Weeks version of 'Professional Development' designed specifically to enforce basic aero club 101 ab-initio OWT, home made rules and the "how I do it" philosophy into the professional 'flight test arena'; not to mention the art of framing of open ended 'tricky' questions to trap the unwary. Now, we get big, important sounding words slotted into the wrong place (syntax), ludicrous 'statements' and flawed 'procedure' (have a look at 'stalls' in the MoS) being foisted on a yawning audience of those who simply want the CASA stamp, in the log book, bugger off to the pub, and forget the clap-trap dished out, a.s.a.p. until the next round. But I digress;

The wording of 61, in the hands of a testing officer, on a predetermined mission sets up the 'Chop ride' syndrome with ease. Then you have CASA FOI who will, quite happily lie (until the subpoena arrives) to suit the circumstances. Part 61 wording provides unlimited scope for just such events. Doesn't happen you all cry: Oh, but it does children, it does. Ask Bill, he'll tell you (MMTF).

If Skidmore does nothing else at all, except get a rope on this Part 61 prat-fall he will go down as legend. The more I look into it, I'm sad to say, the worse it becomes – in the wrong hands. Weeks is another who has just a little more to answer for than the seriously ducked up 'rules' for choppers.

Mach E "Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded."

Spot, again......:ok:

Sorry mum, I've ran out coins.

[chimbu warrior]

Perhaps this will come to a head when CASA next want to recruit FOI's and the crop of available ex-miltary jocks don't meet the requirements.............:8

[Oktas8]

Thorn bird - no, it's still multi-crew. I was thinking about SP aircraft >5700 when I wrote, but you clearly referred to the multi-pilot Citation series. Sorry about that.

Yes, your point about inc costs for no extra benefit for these aircraft is valid. If it's any consolation (probably not!) Australia is simply joining most of the rest of the world with these new regulations. Except for the LHS test requirement, which is inconsistent with a "competency based testing" philosophy.

[Centaurus]

ludicrous 'statements'

You mean., for example in Flight Test Report Form 61-1512 for Instrument Proficiency Check (Instrument rating) at item 16 where it says "maintains effective look-out" In IMC? Under the hood? isn't that called cheating? :confused:

[Kharon]

Centaurus - "You mean., for example in Flight Test Report Form 61-1512 for Instrument Proficiency Check (Instrument rating) at item 16 where it says "maintains effective look-out" In IMC? Under the hood? isn't that called cheating ?"

Big day for Choc frogs:.:D. that's another one of a potential hundred, three in a row is wins the Tim Tam.

I have diligently been through the ATO – PDP and do so regularly, just for a laugh. Before anyone can sit down and 'write' a manual, such as this a UK IRE or FAA "check Airman' course and formal approval should be issued to the writer; and, before the first offering of 'system' is published, it should be scrutinised by qualified 'peers'. For it is indeed, an important document.

When I was younger and naive, I was stuck with the task of 'sorting out' the company 'manual'. It wasn't too long before I discovered that my enthusiasm, lack of practical operational experience, technical knowledge and understanding of the 'law' as writ, had caused me to pen (all handwritten) everything I knew about 'operating' and I had pontificated on how the operation – IMNSHO – should be run: all cast in stone and set to be technically 'law'. It was then, IMNSO a wondrous missive, chuffed to bits I was. Then I applied my limited common sense and asked some grown ups (thanks Russ). All I really had to do was ensure that company operations complied with and could be demonstrated as 'compliant' with the 'law'; as writ, not as I fancied it to be. I still have a copy of that first manual; I keep it to remind me of a time when, to my shame, I too believed that there was a need for complex prescription, articulate elegance, lots of pro-forma, an indexing system from Hells own gate and a penis to match the assembly (EKG). Subsequent 'manuals' were much more in keeping with sensible, humble missives which did not leave a hang-mans noose at the end of each paragraph, but simply 'did the job'; properly - as requested and required..

Ask any 'Junior', or even senior line pilot to complete the same task and the result will, predictably, be the same. The difference is that my first fumbling attempt was not passed into law and used to 'define' some fanciful standard of one mans version of 'excellence'; it was consigned to the bin, where it belonged. This is where I believe we are up to – solution: Part 61 first, closely followed by ATO-PDP into the bin; lets call in some professionals and re-write the things, I reckon a fortnight aught to do it; allowing for tea breaks and such.

Toot toot..;).

[Tinstaafl]

Mach..., you're not correct. There is an FAA co-pilot type rating. I have one. It's phrased a little differently though with an 'SIC' appended to the rating eg mine: BE40/MU300 SIC. 'SIC'=Second in Command

My SIC rating was done from the co-pilot seat.

[manymak]

Unbelievable guys! Reading this thread it seems like armageddon is near. Well guess what, the sun still rises in the east and will set in the west.

I agree with morno, cross the ATPL bridge when you or your company require it. No one will be a hostage to their airline because of an ATPL flight test requirement, the seniority list will be enough of a reason to keep someone in a seat.

[thorn bird]

Manymak,

What you say is completely true, IF you work for an airline.

But will the airlines in Australia be prepared to stump up the dosh.

Unfortunately there are other requirements under part 61 that as far as I can see will make attaining an Australian ATPL a very expensive business.

Will the airlines pay, or seek less expensive alternatives?

As the europeans discovered, one size fit all regulations, work fine for one segment of the industry, but are disastrous for another.

GA in Europe ended up like the Duchess at the ball who had the misfortune to drop an apocalyptically loud fart just at that unfortunate instant when a break occurred in background noise.

Thus the note echoed up into the rafters, you could hear a pin drop.

Salvation was at hand however, the ever loyal Jeeves the butler was on hand to shift the embarrassment to.

The Dutchess spun to face him with a glare like thunder and cried

"Jeeves, stop that!!"

Jeeves doleful reply?

"Yes Madam...which way did it go?"

The Europeans have finally woken up to their folly and are busily writing new GA focused regs. At the end of the day it all comes down to money. By killing off GA all they managed to do was make flags of convenience even wealthier, and any industry they had left even poorer.

Will our leaders wake up to CAsA's folly? or are there other motives in killing off an industry?

As my old Dad used to say "Follow the money" if things don't seem logical "Follow the Money!!"

Today all the secondary airports are in the hands of developers. The land was once publicly owned.

Take Bankstown as an example. Quite a few acres of undeveloped real-estate 10Km from the centre of Sydney, What price?? Millions?? a billion?

The only impediment to developers nivarna??? a bunch of ass out of their pants aviation enthusiasts, and a pesky lease document.

With billions on offer would anyone be surprised that some 'derri doing' has, and is going on??

Whats next? What price the national parks North and south of Sydney? McBank could for sure cobble together a consortium to buy them. The same logic used to justify the sale of our secondaries should work just as well for national parks.

Ahh... the opportunities are endless. Just find a Mandarin with influence, and a polly in need of campaign funds and away we go.

[neville_nobody]

No one will be a hostage to their airline because of an ATPL flight test requirement, the seniority list will be enough of a reason to keep someone in a seat.

Well yes they are. What about someone in their late 30's at the bottom of huge seniority list realising they will be late 50's before they have the opportunity for a command. They want to go overseas so at least they will see a command, where are they going with an Australian CPL? If you don't have a US or EU work Visa you are limited to Asia or the Middle East, all of which require ATPL.

The thing in Europe is that it doesn't take forever to get a command. The likes of RyanAir and easyjet don't have 20 years to a command

[Dash8capt]

Neville has won here, exactly what I've been saying. Good luck getting a gif overseas now... Well you'll be able post Australian command.

[Ollie Onion]

If you want the ATPL so you can go overseas then just pay to go and do the test. This is how it works in most other countries, Australia was unique in the regard that it didn't have an ATPL flight test.

[thorn bird]

Yeah but Ollie, it dosnt cost fifty grand + for a flight test overseas.

[morno]

Nor do I see how it's going to cost $50,000+ for a flight test here in Australia.

What's a sim per hour? About $2k?

Those that are concerned about the whole ATPL flight test thing, are you actually doing something about it? Nothing will change if all your efforts are just whinging on pprune about it.

morno

[morno]

How many guys are going to be upgrading to an ATPL that aren't already employed on an aircraft over 5,700kg's that doesn't have a sim?

Good luck finding a job overseas that's going to employ you with just Chieftain and C402 hours..... But hang on, you have an ATPL...... yeah still doesn't mean much.

Let's revisit this in 2 years shall we, and see how many people really are put out by it.

morno

[jet_pilot00]

"Good luck finding a job overseas that's going to employ you with just Chieftain and C402 hours..... But hang on, you have an ATPL...... yeah still doesn't mean much."


Funny you should say that... There are a number of guys in this EXACT position right at this very moment all because they have ATPLs. And some have less than 402/pa31. No ATPL, no interview. These guys are laughing all the way to the right seat of a jet. For everyone that has been cut off, they are now years behind with nowhere to turn. Just gotta hold in there!

[Killer Loop]

Jet_Pilot00

Would you mind telling me who these jet operators are please? Because of the shocking way Air Niugini are treating their pilots at the moment there are quite a few guys looking to get out. All these guys have at a minimum ATPL's, Dash 8 time and in excess of 5000 hours and are finding it very difficult finding a jet job as they don't have jet time. They are certainly not laughing to the right hand seat of a jet.

Thanks.

[morno]

fpv,
You are correct, I did gain my ATPL the old way, I'm not going to deny that. I'm not sure why 'karma' is apparently going to bite me, :rolleyes:. But even if I didn't, I don't have a problem with the new way.

There are a few things I think CASA has gone overboard with regarding the new ATPL flight test requirements, but apart from that, answer these 2 questions for me:

1. Why should you not have to demonstrate the requirements for an ATPL by means of a flight test?
2. Anywhere else in the world, you have to do one, why all of a sudden is it now a huge issue for Australian's to have to do one?

morno

[Oktas8]

Did a lot of flying in NZ, which as we all know joined the modern world of aviation legislation in about 1997. :ok:

Was going to have to join an airline to get an ATPL, which was fine as I had no need of an ATPL in GA. :=

Moved to Oz (thanks, but no, I am an Australian citizen) and couldn't believe my luck that they would gift me an ATPL on the strength of all my Cessna experience. Only country in the world that required no multi-crew experience or test... :confused:

With that CV behind me - I too came through under the old system. Now I'm trapped in the archaic old boys' club of airline seniority, probably too old to move to the big boys despite my ATPL, yet not earning a particularly good income here. :{

It's all quite unfair really and I shall be starting a thread on PPRuNe shortly. :}

edit to add - like morno I recognise the excessively burdensome nature of some requirements. They really need to make it possible to self-fund a right-seat ATPL for the few who need it. That said, the ATPL system is designed for the needs of the 95%, for whom it works ok.

[thorn bird]

Morno, the requirement for an ATPL flight test has always been a requirement in Australia, it was waived for instrument rating holders because the standard was the same.

[Oktas8]

The standard of flying is the same, but the skills required are not.

An ATPL requires the ability to manage yourself, your crew and the aircraft in a complex technical environment. Phrased like that, the differences with an IR are obvious.

Perhaps we in Australia are only just now realising that the step from CPL/IR to ATPL should ideally have very little to do with stick & rudder skills. Ideally being the key word - I'm not sure the new requirements change much in practice, but they are perhaps an excessively bureaucratic step in the right direction.

[morno]

I never remember reading that anywhere thornbird. If memory serves me right, to obtain an ATPL under the old system, you had to have at some point held a CIR. I don't remember it being written anywhere that if you didn't have a CIR you could just do a flight test.

As to whether the standard is the same, I disagree. I did many years of single pilot IFR from piston singles to multi-engine glass cockpit turbo-props. I've now moved to a mutli-crew jet, and while IFR flying is still IFR flying, it's the rest of the operation that bears absolutely no resemblence to IFR flying at all. It's the whole multi-crew management, transport category specifics, that you should be up with to gain an ATPL.

The view I seem to be seeing is that an ATPL is just a piece of paper that everyone should be entitled to without having to prove anything to get it. I don't get it. :ugh:

morno

[training wheels]

The Virgin Aust F50 job advertised recently only requires you to have a CPL with ATPL subjects for those without an ATPL. So perhaps the airlines are changing the entry requirements now that new Part 61 rules for applying for an ATPL are in effect?

[thorn bird]

So Morno, you are and Octas are asserting anyone who obtained an ATPL prior to Sept 1st 2014 are basically incompetent?.

Re the flight test for ATPL if you can find a copy, CAO 40 appendix 3 detailed the requirements for an ATPL check ride.

Training Wheels,

Thats great but they better get them to left seat quick, the exam passes only have a two years lifespan.

[canterbury crusader]

The two years validity only apples to the individual exams - all exams must be completed within two years of each other.

Once you have passed them all you are awarded an ATPL exam credit. Currently this does not expire. You could hold it for 30 years without doing the flight test. CASA has said this may change but at the moment the exam credit (all seven exams passed within two years) lasts indefinitely.

So you may as well complete them if you think you may need an ATPL at some point in the future.

[neville_nobody]

Why should you not have to demonstrate the requirements for an ATPL by means of a flight test?

Given that you already hold an Instrument Rating and are probably operating professionally so as a result are probably getting 2+ checks a year I personally don't see the point. I think that the old experience requirements were probably a bit low and could be beefed up a bit, but if you hold type rating and a instrument rating what more is a ATPL check going to do?

Basically everything you do for the type rating and/or IR will be duplicated in the ATPL flight test. So what's the point other than clogging up the sims and creating jobs for CASA? (What's the bet noone will be able to book a sim so everything will be done at 0300!)

Unless they start making the ATPL test a test of your command ability in which case it will be a complete open ended nightmare.:ugh:

CAO 40 doesn't say much about the ATPL flight test either. If anyone has a reference could they post it.

[Trent 972]

The hardest flying you'll ever do is Single Pilot IFR.
ATPL flight test. What a load of bullish!t.
If you can only have an ATPL if you fly for an airline operation, the airline specific training path will have you 'full bottle' on the required standard, and if you have an ATPL before joining the airline you still have to do the training, which therefore makes any input by CAsA totally irrelevant.
CAsA, boldly going where no man has gone before. Totally Lost in Space.

[Oktas8]

So Morno, you are and Octas are asserting anyone who obtained an ATPL prior to Sept 1st 2014 are basically incompetent?

No. Calm down man and take a deep breath.

Anyone who got an ATPL previously, did so with unknown & untested multi-crew management skills. Maybe they were good, maybe they weren't. My multi-crew management skills were non-existent, although I did have good stick & rudder skills.

if you hold type rating and a instrument rating what more is a ATPL check going to do?

Hopefully, ask you demonstrate CPL/IR skills in a complex aircraft with multiple crew. This will require management & teamwork skills which are neither assessed nor required in the CPL/IR skills tests.

[manymak]

Well yes they are. What about someone in their late 30's at the bottom of huge seniority list realising they will be late 50's before they have the opportunity for a command. They want to go overseas so at least they will see a command, where are they going with an Australian CPL? If you don't have a US or EU work Visa you are limited to Asia or the Middle East, all of which require ATPL.

The thing in Europe is that it doesn't take forever to get a command. The likes of RyanAir and easyjet don't have 20 years to a command

Neville,

Like many others around here are saying. Australia was unique in the way we never had an ATPL flight test until September. If someone wanted to go overseas to progress their career, ATPL subjects will suffice. The hardest part of what you suggest will be a) right to live and work in respective country b) licence conversion to JAA/EASA.

A quick Google looking at recently advertised jobs in EU shows me this;

B737NG FO Ryanair
Have the right to work in EU. (Valid EU / EEA Passport with the unrestricted right to live and work in the EU)
Not over 65
Valid EASA Part FCL, JAR FCL or National Licence compliant with ICAO standards (Will require IAA validation, some national licences will not be accepted by the IAA).
Must hold a valid Class 1 medical.
Minimum 1200 hours total flying time
Minimum of 1000 hours on airplanes of more than 5700 kg (12500 pounds) maximum certificated take-off weight.
Minimum 800 hours on the B737-300 to 900 series
Applicant must have the B737 300-900 type rating listed on the Licence.
For JAA & EASA licence holders the application must be made within 36 months of the most recent B737 300-900 “Valid Until” date specified in Section XII “Certificate of Revalidation”.
English Language Proficiency Rating of 4, 5 or 6. (Written proficiency at Operator level).

B737NG FO's in Germany

EASA/JAR Frozen ATPL license with IR and ME rating
Class 1 medical certificate
MCC certificate
Minimum 21 year of age when applying
Good knowledge of English (ICAO ELP4) and German mandatory, Turkish desirable
Unlimited Passport, Legal work in Europe
Holding a Type Rating on Boeing 737-800/900 is an advantage but not a requirement

Neither of these jobs requiring the full ATPL.

[neville_nobody]

Those jobs are only available to those with a EU work visa which severely limits an Australian's options.

Most Australians end up going to the Middle East or Asia which is where you need an ATPL to even apply. Which is what I said above.

Will be interesting to see how EK and EY deal with this in the future but for now you need an ATPL.

[c100driver]

EY and EK also need time on specific types. If you have the type that they accept then you can do an ATPL. What's the problem?

I have never heard of a pilot getting a job at EK with just light GA time and an "Aussie" ATPL.

[neville_nobody]

If you went from GA>RHS Turboprop>RHS seat jet you would qualify for EK. But in the future those guys will have a CPL and therfore can't apply

BTW to get into EK or EY you just need jet time nothing specific. Heard of people getting in with anything from BAE 146/ F100 to A380 FO experience.

[Oktas8]

Neville has a valid potential problem there.

However, it remains to be seen what happens to the GA -> RHS TP -> RHS Jet pilot without an ATPL who wants to go overseas. That particular scenario under the new rules is at least three or four years away IMO.

By then, changes will have occurred to Australian hiring criteria and perhaps to mid-East hiring criteria too. Let's wait and see whether that particular problem arises.

[juzanuthapilot]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but has anyone actually done an ATPL flight test as of yet?

[Sunstrand]

So has this joke of a regulation been fixed yet or has no one obtained an ATPL since the regulation change in September? Seems quite poor to me for a regulator of any industry to change regulations without measures in place to enable the industry to continue operation efficiently.

[LeadSled]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but has anyone actually done an ATPL flight test as of yet?

Outside of airlines, I suspect the answer is no. On another thread I made comments about quotes ranging from AUD $55,000 to $80,000 plus for the flight test, depending on the interpretation of Part 61 and MOS.

Tootle pip!!

[Centaurus]

Anyone who got an ATPL previously, did so with unknown & untested multi-crew management skills

Multi crew management skills. What a laugh. Let's face it, we are talking about two pilots sitting next to each other in an aircraft cockpit. Surely, no professional "skills" are needed for that simple task - other than old fashioned good manners, a modicum of common sense and respect for each person's technical opinion.

Every airline still has it's occasional Captain Queeg in the left seat or its First Officer Sullen and Uncooperative in the right hand seat. All the MCC courses in the world including CRM and TEM or the latest fad terms, are never going to change a person's basic personality flaws - if they exist.

MCC courses have turned into yet another aviation cottage industry from which most pilots learn nothing that they didn't already know - and pay through the nose for the pleasure :sad:

[josephfeatherweight]

^^^^^^^^^^
What he said...