First ATPL awarded under Part 61 [Archive]

roundsounds

14th May 2015, 12:42

I recall a CASA FOI reported the first Australian Part 61 ATPL was issued following a flight test in a Kingair a couple of months ago.
The requirement for completing a MCC doesn't take effect until 1/9/15, in any case persons already holding a multi crew type rated aircraft endorsement are taken to meet this requirement and post 1/9/15 any serious training provider will incorporate the MCC in the type rating course.

Centaurus

14th May 2015, 12:50

Despite his/her experience, did CASA still require an MCC course?

No. The candidate supplied documentary evidence to CASA that he has successfully completed CRM/MCC courses with his previous employers who were recognised overseas airlines. CASA accepted these and waived the requirement to undergo an MCC course in Australia. Approvals are on a case to case basis. The test was relatively straight forward similar to the old command instrument rating (now called IPC) plus a couple of other non-normal sequences which any type rated pilot should easily handle.

Previously he was unable to get interviews within Australia, NZ and some operators overseas without having the ATPL in his hand; even though in the "old" days all you needed was the usual 1500 hours min time to apply for an ATPL and could apply for a job. My understanding was CASA charged a standard test fee of $700 which is in their website somewhere.

Anyone considering doing the test with only a simulator type rating and no actual flying time on type, would be wise to first undergo several practice sessions depending on aircraft type. IMHO

tweekey

15th May 2015, 04:20

Centaurus, any idea of total cost? Or was it paid for by an employer?

Centaurus

15th May 2015, 13:15

Centaurus, any idea of total cost? Or was it paid for by an employer?

Certainly not paid for by any employer. I don't know the total cost though.

zanzibar

15th May 2015, 14:05

" ...... the first ATPL under Part 61 ......"

Not exactly sure where you're coming from. I know a young lad with an ATPL Part 61 licence flying as an F/O for a regional airline and he's had it for around 4 months.

LeadSled

15th May 2015, 23:19

Folks,
None of this helps the GA pilot who has passed all the ATPL written, and is otherwise qualified.

It seem there is a HUGE problem getting any MCC course approved, because there is a HUGE gulf between two pilot operations, as understood by airlines and manufacturers, and multi-crew operations as understood by some in CASA , who appear to have little or no two (or more) crew experience.

Needless to say, so far the CASA "view" seems to be prevailing over a system based on common airline/OEM practices, notwithstanding CAR 138 requiring compliance with the AFM.

Once the poor sod who wants an ATPL overcomes the above, at whatever cost and inconvenience, there is the "little" matter of the flight test, whether it is in an aircraft or simulator, starting with availability, and then the cost.

None of this was a problem before Part 61, and the horrendously expensive "solution" of Part 61 is a solution to a problem that did not exist.

Fundamentally, as it now stands, an otherwise qualified pilot is going to spend some 50-60% or more of his or her whole flight training just on an ATPL exam, unless they are an airline cadet.

For those of you who think: The harder it is, the higher the "standards" must be, therefore the "safer it must be" must be ecstatically happy with this outcome, almost as happy as those coming into Australia on 457 viza.

There is no evidence that our previous system (or the FAA system) results in an air safety problem.

Those of you directly shafted by this provision, please write to Mr. Skidmore, with a copy direct to Mr. Geof. Boyd, the new Chair of the CASA Board, Mr. Skidmore has issued the invitation.

Tootle pip!!

left shoe

16th May 2015, 10:41

Has CAsA given approvals to any ATOs or FEs or do you have to go through a CAsA FOI to get an ATPL?

roundsounds

18th May 2015, 13:48

I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges. A type rating course will address the MCC aspects and the TR flight test will meet the ATPL test with very little additional effort. Employers need to sort out their stuff and align their recruitment policies with Part 61. Fair enough to require ATPL theory, but there is no point in insisting on the actual licence. I cannot imagine an employer taking on the holder of a fresh ATPL without muti-crew operational experience and putting them straight into the left seat of a multi crew type rated aeroplane.
It's time to let go of the old stuff and make this crap we're stuck with work.

Mach E Avelli

18th May 2015, 19:57

How about we demand that CASA fix the 'crap' instead? This is not to say we should return to the old stuff. The old system was flawed, but the new is a joke. We now have some of the worst aviation legislation on the planet. It must be fixed.
Recently I heard a CASA officer make the lame excuse that while 'they' drafted the rules in simple and plain language, it was all the fault of the legal people who wrote the final words.
The solution to that is surely to draft less rules for the legal people to mess with.

Jabawocky

18th May 2015, 21:55

<insert many topics>is a solution to a problem that did not exist.

Too true.

Mach E…..write to Mark Skidmore and Geoff Boyd. I have on a couple of occasions recently and had genuine interest in dealing with the issue. :ok:

The more they receive, sensible, polite and well prepared emails, not pages of insomnia curing rants, the more they will realise we are not a bunch of whiny whingers but indeed practical and sensible operators with genuine interest in solving the problems.

My take so far is that with GB in the Chair, and MS having determination, things may happen. Interestingly from inside the walls at CASA I have learned that JMAC actually did care, but was forever tied in knots by folk from too powerful departments. We can all guess who/where etc.and mostly be correct. So lets hope they can withstand that. And this is where my skepticism comes in.:(

NIK320

18th May 2015, 23:28

I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges.... I cannot imagine an employer taking on the holder of a fresh ATPL without muti-crew operational experience and putting them straight into the left seat of a multi crew type rated aeroplane. No, but they will take the one with the little bit of paper to avoid the mess CASA has created in gaining one with views of upgrading in the next year or two.
Airlines can't adjust overnight to a massive amount of red tape, even then CAsA need to take time to consider and approve the TC departments plans.

Mach E Avelli

19th May 2015, 01:02

Jaba, I have indeed already written quite a detailed letter to Mark Skidmore.
Its main thrust is the way loose cannons in his organisation interpret and act on rules which are confusing and sometimes contradictory.
I won't go into detail here because to do so could be prejudicial in what may yet develop into a legal argument.

chimbu warrior

19th May 2015, 06:49

I'm not sure why there's such focus on gaining an ATPL if you're not going to exercise the privileges. A type rating course will address the MCC aspects and the TR flight test will meet the ATPL test with very little additional effort.

Not every ATPL aspirant is employed (or about to be employed) by an Australian airline. In fact many are not airline bound at all.

Consider the operators of business jets, who get their type ratings done overseas. If you reckon CASA charge a bomb for an ATPL test, you will be left breathless at the cost of taking a CASA examiner overseas to conduct a flight test. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a bizjet operator will recruit a CPL holder for the right seat of any of their aircraft.

There are also plenty of Aussie and NZ pilots looking overseas for opportunities, particularly given the gloomy outlook for airline hiring here.

Tankengine

19th May 2015, 08:07

Hang on Mr Chimbu,

Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?:confused:
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.:hmm:
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.

Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.:bored:

Mach E Avelli

19th May 2015, 08:45

Tankengine, it's a catch 22.
If Aussie pilots don't go overseas, Luddites in this country will never learn anything about real world aviation. Because, sorry old mate, we are not the best - in fact far from it.
But to go to some overseas countries you have to rock up with an ICAO ATPL.
Other overseas countries do not even have a licensing examination system of their own, but rely on acceptable foreign licences. For a long time that was the case with PNG, and may still be the case. If a considerable number of Australian pilots had not cut their teeth in PNG and other demanding environments, our experience base would be the much poorer for it.

Tankengine

19th May 2015, 09:21

I did not say anywhere that we were the best, old mate.:confused::rolleyes:

If you are flying overseas of course you need an ICAO ATPL,
I am just saying that overseas jobs are not a reason for any changes to the Aussie ATPL.
How many other countries do not have a test for the ATPL?:confused:(I really don't know)

Aussie employers will need to live with the new reality, as will pilots.:ouch:

Part 61 introduction certainly has been crap!:ooh:

Mach E Avelli

19th May 2015, 10:07

Tank engine to partly answer your question, some simple detective work will reveal at least six countries in the Caribbean alone that have no pilot licensing examination system. They all have a validation process which relies on recognition of an ICAO compliant CPL or ATPL, plus a local Air Law exam.
I am sure that similar research would show the same situation in Africa and less developed parts of Asia.
As for more advanced countries, I doubt the average Aussie could pass an ATPL written in Japanese or Mandarin or Spanish. All these places sometimes need pilots. So, we should not tolerate a system that by its sheer cost, excludes Aussies from this market.
Instead of all rolling over and accepting the situation that CASA have created, those affected need to come up with suitable alternatives and argue a case.

Tankengine

19th May 2015, 10:23

Hi Mach,
The six countries in the Carribbean that use other ATPLs are not the issue I asked about.

OK: do the US, Britain or EASA countries require an ATPL flight test?:confused:

I am not saying our new system is right, just that it may or may not be similar to others. If other countries require tests then I cannot see much of an argument against tests here.:ouch:

For those who need an ATPL to command an Australian jet it should be achieved with their command or endorsement checkout, generally in a simulator.

neville_nobody

19th May 2015, 10:59

Instead of all rolling over and accepting the situation that CASA have created, those affected need to come up with suitable alternatives and argue a case.

And how much is that going to cost?

Mach E Avelli

19th May 2015, 11:03

Not too many have argued against doing an ATPL test, and those that have are not really thinking of the big picture - as in Australia's need to have a licence accepted internationally. The old system of simply handing one over after a few piss easy theory exams was always going to attract the attention of ICAO eventually.
No, the argument is the sheer cost of first having to gain a type rating in a heavy ( as in above 5700 kg ) when there are some quite suitable smaller aircraft that could do the job e.g almost any light, pressurised turboprop is every bit as complex to operate as larger old generation stuff like the Dash 8.
Then the problem finding someone to administer the flight test. Is your typical Grade One the right person? Not unless they have an airline background. So, the right person would be someone who has worked within a CAR 217 organisation and who has been engaged by one of the newfangled Part 142 training and testing organisations. But wait, the Part 142 also needs to be approved to conduct the test. How many of those are there (I dunno).
So, other than CASA itself, who IS approved to do these tests? Only existing CAR 217 organisations, it seems. On this latter point, I stand to be corrected. Maybe someone has got it?
PS Neville, it costs nothing to argue a case. For the pilot only needing the licence and not a type rating, five hours or so in a C90 to prepare for an ATPL test plus a two hour check ride would be far less cost than an A320 rating in a simulator. Big difference between 7 or 8 grand and 35K.

roundsounds

19th May 2015, 12:36

Why not put forward a proposal to CASA an alternative means of gaining the ATPL, eg a progressive flight test system. Whether corporate or airline op's the candidate would firstly need a type rating to fly his new boss' aeroplane, that ticks some boxes. Then operate said aircraft for a period of time gaining experience and logging co-pilot and ICUS hours. At some point blogs will need to pass a competency check, a satisfactory performance could be considered the remainder of the ATPL flight test. The type rating proves blogs can fly the aeroplane, competency check focuses more on NTS, but still addresses a selection of technical skills. The good old days of doing your SCPL flight test in a Cessna 150 or simply being handed an ATPL after logging a number of hours are in the past, that ain't gonna change.

lee_apromise

19th May 2015, 13:31

It's not just CASA that needs to be changed. Airlines in Australia need to lower their minimum requirement to CPL + MECIR + ATPL theories like Kiwis do (Air NZ Links). Let ATPL flight test run concurrently with a type rating flight test just like in U.S.

As far as I can see, this is the only way to reduce burden on candidates. I just don't know why we are still stuck up in the past. Who is responsible for this madness? :ugh:

MTBUR

20th May 2015, 00:45

I heard that a few airlines approached CASA suggesting that dispensation for a pilot in an approved cyclic program with a multi crew operation should be allowed to apply for the atpl like the good old days. That was about two months ago though, I've heard nothing since.

Mach E Avelli

20th May 2015, 02:27

Allowing a cyclic within the airline system is an excellent alternative, for those already in the airline. But with the current recruitment policies of some airlines requiring an ATPL at entry, that is also a catch 22. If CASA do see the light and allow a cyclic regime, it may encourage the airlines to recruit pilots who have the theory passes and necessary hours but still only hold a CPL. With the way it stands now, soon they won't have a choice anyway, unless they only recruit the very wealthy who can pay for all this up front. That will severely limit the pilot gene pool (not saying rich people are defective, but a bit of cross breeding with the poor never did any harm).

But another path is still needed for those who seek corporate or expatriate adventures. Maybe we should look to how the Kiwis have accommodated that by allowing a flight test to be done in selected types of less than 5700 kg. There is another thread that indicates it is not all sweetness and light in NZ either. But at least they do offer an alternative.

das Uber Soldat

22nd May 2015, 08:52

Hang on Mr Chimbu,

Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.

Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.
Most countries won't let you apply for their license unless you're sponsored by a company that wishes to employ you. Most companies that will you employ you overseas require an ATPL before they'll look at you. See the problem?

This entire exercise has been one of extreme stupidity. I have a CPL with subjects. You glibly say that employers will 'eventually' figure out what licences are required. Thats nice, how many years do I have to wait, stuck where I am before people finally figure it out?

CASA couldn't have done a worse job if they were paid to. Sep 13 came around, they took an extra year. That time, and the time since 14 should have been used to delegate the authority to conduct the (bloody simple) test to existing CAR 217 F/E and ATO's so that it could be simply incorporated and conducted.

As it stands, my company can't do the bloody test, 1.5 years after the intended introduction of this vapid system and I have to pay casa the ridiculous sum of $720, PLUS flying them business class to the country where my sim is. Plus the sim, plus the support pilot.

And don't even get me started on the KDR requirements. I've been told to re learn 727 flight planning (in addition to literally everything else of course), just in case the testing officer feels like quizzing me on the single 2 mark question I got wrong way back in 2006 labelled 'calculate fuel for sector'. Oh and the syllabus reference doesn't even exist anymore.

:*

LeadSled

22nd May 2015, 09:18

Most countries won't let you apply for their license unless you're sponsored by a company that wishes to employ you

DUS,
That's not really correct, and don't confuse job-protection immigration restrictions (Australia included) for license restrictions.

Most of the English speaking world, most of Africa and most of SE Asia have no such license restriction.Working in those countries is a different matter entirely.

I agree entirely that the whole ATPL right now is a clusterfxxx, an answer to a problem that does not exist.

NO bigger aircraft operator is going to give anybody a command on the basis they have "passer" an Australian ATPL flight test, to anybody with even the faintest inkling about aviation, the whole notion is ludicrous.

Tootle pip!!

das Uber Soldat

22nd May 2015, 09:43

My mistake then. I was looking at the opportunities recently in HK, and from what I understand they won't convert your license without sponsorship from a company wishing to employ you. Found a few other places that had the same policy. If thats not the case on a larger geographic scale then, good!

gretzky99

22nd May 2015, 09:50

the argument is the sheer cost of first having to gain a type rating in a heavy ( as in above 5700 kg )

I continue to see references to the requirement to have a type rating in an aircraft above 5700 kg, yet all I can find is:

Part 61.700 Requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—general

(5) For paragraph (3)(c), the flight test for the air transport pilot licence with the aeroplane category rating must be conducted under the IFR in:
(a) a multi‑engine turbine‑powered aeroplane that is configured for flight, and operated, with a co‑pilot; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight test.

Even the ATPL test form only states "Flight test was conducted under the IFR using published Multi-Crew procedures - CASR 61.700(5)".

Similarly, I can't find anywhere that states a candidate must be previously endorsed/type rated before conducting the ATPL flight test, just that the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 MOS. I guess you can take the test and gain a type/design feature endorsements at the same time, provided all MOS elements are completed.

My understanding is one can simply take the majority of the test in a say a B200 sim, completing the rest (i.e. circling requirements) in the actual aircraft? (All conducted with a co-pilot).

I'm more than happy to be corrected, as I'm just trying to sort the fact from the fiction.

Cheers.

Mach E Avelli

22nd May 2015, 23:00

As with so much of CASA, we get conflicting interpretations. Reading the rule, it doesn't even say 'pressurised' so presumably a Caravan II or similar could be used for the test.
But then they may argue that sub 5700 kg aircraft are all 'single pilot' approved and not configured specifically to require a co pilot. They could expect a statement in the AFM that says minimum crew is a pilot and co pilot. At least that is how one CASA person put it at a meeting I attended.
Has anyone put this to the test and presented themselves in a light turboprop with a co pilot in the other seat?

JustJoinedToSearch

23rd May 2015, 08:45

I reckon you could interpret (if you had an expensive enough lawyer to back you up):
(a) a multi‑engine turbine‑powered aeroplane that is configured for flight, and operated, with a co‑pilot; or
as just being a 441 or something that you and a co-pilot configure before departure and then operate together.

It doesn't say (for example) a multi-engine turbine-powered aeroplane that is required to be operated with a co-pilot.

thorn bird

23rd May 2015, 20:03

Two questions that spring out in this discussion.

Define "Published" Multi crew procedures?

Define "Co Pilot" ?

Horatio Leafblower

24th May 2015, 01:12

Got some face to face time with the DAS last week and discussed the mult crew/co-pilot/small aeroplane issues with him, specifically in relation to resource sector contracts.

Why is it that a Metro or a B1900D - both certified single pilot - are considered a multi-crew aeroplane for ATPL reasons?

Why is it that a C208B is multi crew but a C441 or a B200 cannot be?

Can I only log co-pilot time in a Chieftain with 11 seats but not in one with 10 seats?

If the autopilot goes bung on the Chieftain and we throw a second pilot in the RHS, that pilot is no longer allowed to log co-pilot time... or is he?

....and we can have all CPLs flying a fleet of Chieftains but if the Autopilot goes bung and we suddenly have a 2-crew operation in a Chieftain, the PIC MUST hold an ATPL! :ooh:

He pointed out that minimum crew is MINIMUM crew and properly done, 2-crew is better/safer than single crew. He could see all the contradictions and was taking it to Canberra to work on it.

...which is better than any answer I ever got from Albanese, Warren Truss or John McCormick, who only ever listened to you so they could argue back :ugh:

Centaurus

24th May 2015, 07:31

Got some face to face time with the DAS last week and discussed the mult crew/co-pilot/small aeroplane issues with him

Good post Horatio. Next time you talk to him ask him about the requirement to have completed a CASA approved MCC course before attempting an ATPL test on an A320 or 737.

Currently the only MCC course CASA approved (so I am told) is at a flying school at Moorabbin which charges an outrageous sum of around $9000 for a week of lectures plus a few hours in a synthetic trainer. Keeping in mind most of the subjects are already covered in Human Factors for CPL.

The current situation is that Australian pilots flying 737's for overseas airlines including SE Asia and who already have at least 1000 hours as co-pilot 737 flying with captains of varying nationalities, have no choice but do the $9000 MCC course at Moorabbin before applying for their ATPL test.

CASA state they have no oversight of these overseas operators and therefore will not accept the 737 time for purposes of Australian MCC qualification.

Makes you wonder which is the most realistic experience for learning multi-crew cooperation. A week of MCC theory in a classroom at Moorabbin and up to six hours in a synthetic trainer doing LOFT and checklist reading.

Or, one thousand hours or more in a real 737 or Airbus in overseas airlines ducking around monsoon weather and seriously dangerous CB and listening to ATC with all its various accents and crewing with foreign captains with their own regional accents? Yet - buy yourself a type rating in Australia on something like a 737/A320 and CASA say that itself covers the MCC course:rolleyes:

Username here

24th May 2015, 07:37

How is the helicopter world dealing with this? I'm assuming that westpac, careflight ect still need ATPLs....

thorn bird

24th May 2015, 08:20

"CASA state they have no oversight of these overseas operators and therefore will not accept the 737 time for purposes of Australian MCC qualification".

It occurs to me that if CAsA are convinced these airlines are so "Shonky". That their "Standards" are so out of step with Australia's unique "world best practice" regulation, why the hell are they risking the lives of Australian's both in the air and on the ground by letting them fly into our airports and over our cities??? Isn't "SAFETY", above anything else, their "ONLY" consideration?

I thought they were the "Iron Shield" protecting Australians from lunatic aviators hell bent on wiping us out. They are destroying the industry in Australia why are they not locking these foreign lunatics out as well?

Where's Alan Jones when you need him!!:}

We are rapidly becoming a pimple on the Ass of the world, stuck at the bottom of the Pacific, completely out of step with the rest of the world, and its not just aviation, anything else that's "regulated" in this country is in the same boat.

Horatio Leafblower

26th May 2015, 07:50

We are rapidly becoming a pimple on the Ass of the world, stuck at the bottom of the Pacific, completely out of step with the rest of the world, and its not just aviation, anything else that's "regulated" in this country is in the same boat.

Thorn Bird I don't always agree with your posts but MATE I have been saying this to anyone that will listen.

Never mind high wages, the enormous cost and innovation-crushing burden of over-regulation is killing this country's competitiveness. Not until you have owned a small business do you see the mind-blowing scale of beaureaucracy in this country.

Legislation in this country is passed not to enable business but to STOP THINGS HAPPENING. If economic opportunity is wasted, crushed or handed to our competitors appears inconsequential - just ask cattle exporters for an example.

Legislators wring their hands at the lack of air services to the bush, yet endorse whole-heartedly the legislation imposing ever-greater "safety" requirements upon the small and otherwise agile businesses that would have provided those services.

If I wanted to operate a couple of Chieftains or similar on RPT routes I would have to employ a Continuing Airworthiness Manager, a Quality Manager, a Maintenance Planner, Airworthiness Review Engineers and Maintenance Program Approval engineers. Every single one of them able to command $100k+.

... Oh god I could go on and on and on...

... but not a single **** was given.

:ugh:

pilotchute

26th May 2015, 07:58

Speaking of costs it appears CAE Oxford at YMMB is the first approved provider of MCC courses in Australia. All for the low price of $9990.

OMG

thorn bird

26th May 2015, 09:54

Horatio,
I remember back to the 70'ies, I think it was reg 207, just an extension to your AOC. We operated Navajo chieftains to various ports who had no airservices. We made money regardless of mainline airlines operating close by.

People wanted the convenience.

I don't believe any of our customers were under any illusion that the service we provided was as safe as the airline down the road. What we provided was as safe as we could make it, and a hell of a lot safer than them driving to their nearest RPT airport.

There are many airports all over NSW, and I imagine elsewhere in Australia crying out for an airservice, which is being denied them by basically bureaucratic Bull****!

Before you even stump up to buy an aircraft, the cost of "Compliance" defeats you, add in maintenance costs twice as much as comparable countries overseas, with no apparent safety benefit and it becomes patently obvious. General Aviation in Australia is doomed. Compliance costs alone are unsustainable. Add to that Australia's unique Maintenance requirements that make it twice as expensive to maintain the same aircraft here as elsewhere in more enlightened countries.
CAsA is dreaming if they think under the present Bullsh..t they are serving up as reform, there is any chance of having a viable industry here they are completely delusional.

Horatio Leafblower

26th May 2015, 10:41

I remember back to the 70'ies, I think it was reg 207, just an extension to your AOC.

Bill Clinton changed GA Manufacturing in 1994 (?) by signing a piece of legislation into law in the US, spurring Beech, Cessna Piper and Mooney back into life and creating a garden bed in which Eclipse, Cirrus, Adams, Vans and others flourished.

There are some "interesting" and "colourful" operators out there and I am curious about what "feeder" or "supplementary" airline regulation might look like.

Time for a seperate thread.