Suggested sequences for typical ATPL flight test in simulator

[Judd]

Before Part 61, there wasn't an ATPL flight test - just paperwork 1500 hours of flying and a administrative fee to CASA and you had the licence and went job hunting overseas.

We all know that has changed for the worst, unfortunately. The Mos flight test is a nightmare and what with an MCC course it becomes a very expensive exercise.

Does anyone have experience of the equivalent test in USA under the FAA? What sequences were required and how many hours for the actual test? Furthermore,
would any Pprune contributor reading this post, care to suggest a fair, concise and realistic sequence of manoeuvres for an ATPL test in a typical jet or turbo-prop flight simulator to cover approx. two hours?

[pcx]

Here is the FAA practical test standard document.


https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/atp_pts.pdf


Maybe also, if you can get it, the detail of a Qantas/Virgin/Rex command endorsement checkride.

[Mach E Avelli]

As far as is possible, any test of this nature should flow in a logical sequence so that the candidate can apply realistic management which should include liaison with cabin crew and ATC. Base exercises are not a good way to evaluate this, as the candidate and examiner all too readily fall into simulator mode and take short cuts with some of the management aspects. Headsets should be worn. The point is, to do a proper evaluation of what is expected of an ATPL, the examiner has to prevent the candidate from making any assumptions simply because it is a simulator.
I would run it over a short route - such as Launceston to Melbourne or Canberra to Melbourne - and brief that it is a winter operation, icing conditions for the entire flight except when in level flight and clear conditions. The departure should be low visibility and the rejected takeoff could be dealt with right at the beginning, to get it out of the way. Although it would have been briefed as being possible at any time. The RTO need not be for something that would 'ground' the aircraft - as that introduces an unrealistic scenario for another immediate departure. Something like a false configuration warning would do, with emphasis on clear communication to cabin and ATC. By doing it first, if the candidate stuffs it up, he fails right there with no further expenditure of time or money.
After the low visibility takeoff, SID and climb to clear conditions, normal operation. Then do the steep turns and a stall in landing configuration with bank angle applied. Climb to cruise and do a high altitude stall.
Somewhere en route a TCAS event. Once all that is dealt with, the sim examiner could dial in enough of a tailwind to hurry things along, but reduce it to a sensible speed for descent.
Continue to destination via a STAR with engine fire or damage on descent with enough time to secure it - hold if necessary (candidate's decision). Raw data manually flown approach and miss to divert to somewhere nearby like Avalon for another approach using another navigation aid without radar vectors. Use of autopilot allowed for remainder, subject to aircraft type limitations.
Land, reset to night, with weather to preclude an immediate return but something more reasonable at a nearby alternate (e.g. Essendon). Failure at V1, back to Essendon with reasonable radar vectors to allow time to manage the failure to a logical conclusion and a third approach to a more limiting runway.
To give the candidate value for money, ask a couple of sensible questions from the form so that you can sign off his instrument rating for another 12 months at the same time.
Job done easily in two hours.

[Judd]

Certainly sounds like a very thorough flight test for the award of an ATPL. Makes you wonder, though, about the hundreds and hundreds of CPL holders who received their ATPL's in the past 40 years who obtained their ATPL pre-Part 61 by simply reaching the min required hours in their log book and sent their $35 to CASA and received their ATPL soon after.


The result ((a ATPL licence in hand) was the same before and after Part 61, apart from the astronomical difference in cost to the applicant. Will the Part 61 ATPL produce a better airline pilot from those who were fortunate enough to get their ATPL before Part 61 ripped apart their bank savings? I don't think so...

[roundsounds]

According to CASA's predictions an ATPL flight test should take 2:00 hours at a modest $800 / hour. As part of my day job I needed to develop an ATPL flight test scenario, based on the CASA Flight Examiner's Handbook (and MOS schedule 5). I cannot see a flight test taking less than 4:00 hours for the flight component (use of IPs not allowed), a couple of hours for the knowledge component and an hour for the paper-work.

See page 81:
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/flight_examiner_handbook.pdf

See page 7:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00218/6b3523f0-4a46-4cd9-a6b9-358947eec395

[Mach E Avelli]

That sounds like overkill. Although I do agree that a test is needed, if only to align with ICAO standards. The "cornflakes packet" ATPL has no place in aviation. The old system of handing it out after a few exams was a bit lax and I am surprised that foreign jurisdictions ever accepted an Aussie ATPL issued on such a basis.
An applicant for the ATPL will already have passed many theory exams , will have an Instrument Rating, and presumably will have acquired some practical experience in the preceding 1500 or so hours as a CPL., will be type rated on the aircraft being used for the test etc etc. Every stage of his/ her progress should have been documented by other testing officers who one would hope, have integrity. Oh , and now, the much needed MCC. So what more meaningful questions need be asked prior to a flight test other than " how would you manage such and such a situation."?
The main difference in the step up to an ATPL should be to assess whether the applicant can MANAGE a complex aircraft in a complex environment.
If an examiner can't determine that in 30 minutes of questions and two hours of flying, the examiner has learned nothing about assessment.

[Mach E Avelli]

Further to the above, a modern simulator costs more like $1500 an hour if you factor in the instructor, so where CASA got $800 would be nice to know. Maybe back in 1998 that was about right.
Even if CASA allowed the test to be conducted in a King Air or similar, there is no way you can hire those for $800 an hour either.

[roundsounds]

"If an examiner can't determine that in 30 minutes of questions and two hours of flying, the examiner has learned nothing about assessment."

I totally agree, however to gain a Part 142 OC the applicant needs to demonstrate compliance with CASRs, MOS and FE handbook. Additionally Flight Examiners will be subject to surveilance when conducting flight tests by CASA standards people to make sure they are assessing every unit of competency in MOS 5 and conducting the exercise IAW the FE handbook. An administrative nightmare with no safety related evidence to drive the change - it's all about aligning with someone's take on ICAO flight crew licencing standards. The FAA list the units of competency and leave it to the judgement of the FE as to how many he needs to observe to assess the candidate's performance.

[Mach E Avelli]

"..... leave it to the judgement of the FE......."
Quite. If the Regulator can't trust its Examiners, why appoint them in the first place?
On the subject of ATPL Examiners, a pre- requisite for this qualification should be an airline background.
The flying club mentality prevails in parts of CASA. Much of the instructor approval and renewal process seems to be skewed towards the old Grade One type stuff, with some CASA inspectors having no real world knowledge of how airlines operate.