ATPL Subjects for CPL Jobs

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

Hey, everyone,

Haven't been able to find an answer to this particular question anywhere here or the internet, so I figured I'd ask.

What's the reason for lot of the entry- to mid-level jobs advertising for positions with "all ATPL subject passed"? Having just converted my license from overseas, I'm a bit concerned about the fact that, despite a decent amount of experience (1300TT), most jobs seem like I've still got to do the ATPL exams before I can even apply.

Is this a question of regulations (I have yet to come across anything in the CASR, CARs, CAOs, or anywhere else about it), HR malarkey, or something else?

Thanks in advance,
AVF

[drpixie]

Hi - two things come to mind ...

#1 They want people who can be promptly promoted to multi-crew command (required ATPL licence), without worrying about their "academic" abilities. This might apply to any airline type operators.

#2 It's an easy way to reduce the number of CVs. No one really wants to choose the "best" candidate - they just want a convenient number of adequate candidate!

If you're looking at airline work - time to get out the books! If it's single-pilot work, I'd say apply anyway, with a polite explanation.

[Office Update]

The reason is very simple:-
It's assures the management has staff available at all times, no squabbling from people taking time off to study for ATPL theory, no issues with seniority (pecking order), all staff on a level playing field.
Superior knowledge in subject matter, easier transition to multi crew ops.
Reduces the number of CV's floating around the industry.

[ThunderstormFactory]

What are these ‘entry level’ jobs you speak of? Any multi crew job in Australia is not entry level. Entry level is a 210 in the Northern Territory. It sucks, but that’s the way it is in CASA land.

[rudestuff]

I'm not too familiar with the rules down there, but under EASA you need ATPLs passed to get a multi crew type rating even though you only have a CPL. It might be something similar.

[Mumbai Merlin]

Thunderstorm,
You are wrong! "entry" level can be at 'any' level.. You apply for your first job, and that might be a C210 or a C172 doing joy flights. You would consider that to be entry level. A person applying for a co-pilot position on say a SAAB or Dash8 would consider that to be entry level. Likewise a pilot applying for a position at say a major airline flying Dash8's through to Boeing's or Airbus. A direct entry F/O or Captain on the Dash8 would consider that position "entry level" It is all relevant to the organisation and skill sets you possess.

Rudestuff, I really think your wrong. Surely your not going to tell me you need an ATPL to get a Multi Crew Type rating? If two PPL licence holders want to get checked out to fly a DC3 privately they sure can! The same would apply to any aircraft I would assume. You pay the money, get the qualification you go and fly your multi crew aeroplane privately, many many people do. Without an ATPL.

[rudestuff]

Rudestuff, I really think your wrong. Surely your not going to tell me you need an ATPL to get a Multi Crew Type rating? If two PPL licence holders want to get checked out to fly a DC3 privately they sure can! The same would apply to any aircraft I would assume. You pay the money, get the qualification you go and fly your multi crew aeroplane privately, many many people do. Without an ATPL.
You really think my what is wrong? A little grammar joke there. Like I said, I don't know how it works down there but in Europe you have to have your ATPL exams passed before you can get a multi crew type rating. In a lot of places you can fly a DC3 on a PPL - it was originally type certified as a single pilot aircraft.

[Centaurus]

It is probable the requirement to have the "Subjects" goes back in history when the "Subjects" were for the Senior Commercial Pilots Licence of the 1960's. In those days you could not hold an ATPL unless you were employed in an airline.

In Ansett Airways (for example) promotion to a command was based mainly on seniority and as it was an industrial requirement that you had to be in the pilots union to be an airline pilot, union seniority helped (IIRC)
Like now, the "Subjects" were a pain in the arse but to hold a command you needed to have them (like now) under your belt. There were a few first officers who held Second Class ATPL but who either couldn't pass the "Subjects" or didn't want the responsibilities associated with a command. Because of their seniority in the company (some had over 15 years seniority) their pay was very generous and they could bid to select what flights they wanted. Some didn't want to work that much (fly) and bid reserve.

Eventually their seniority number came up and with it came command training. But because they didn't have "the Subjects" they could not be given the required training. So with all those first officers hanging around on top dollar and protected by the seniority system and bidding not to fly unless it suited them (a hot blonde waiting in Sydney for them during an overnight) the airline finally took the hard line of get your "Subjects" passed in the next 12 months or lose your job.

It is possible current operators use the passing of the ATPL theory exams as proof you have met a certain level of professional knowledge regardless of hours flown.

[Office Update]

rudestuff, have a closer look and quote some numbers please. There is a possibility you may have crossed wires.
I personally know of three people whom fly a multi crew jet over 12,500 lbs (5,700kg) with PPL licences in the UK. The only requirement for the PPL holders is that they must pass the ATPL "flight test". Of course they are limited to Private operations.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

What are these ‘entry level’ jobs you speak of? Any multi crew job in Australia is not entry level. Entry level is a 210 in the Northern Territory. It sucks, but that’s the way it is in CASA land.
You know... 250-500h minimum jobs flying 210s, Pipers or other various piston twins that are older than most people that would fly them. Entry level.

I get the airlines advertising for ATPL subjects, but it's head scratching for operators that might only have one or two planes of the kind to require an ATPL in the left seat.

[monkey_see]

rudestuff, have a closer look and quote some numbers please. There is a possibility you may have crossed wires.
I personally know of three people whom fly a multi crew jet over 12,500 lbs (5,700kg) with PPL licences in the UK. The only requirement for the PPL holders is that they must pass the ATPL "flight test". Of course they are limited to Private operations.

FCL.720.A
...
(B)Multi-pilot aeroplanes Applicants for the issue of the first type rating course for a multi-pilot aeroplane shall be student pilots currently undergoing training on an MPL training course or comply with the following requirements:
...
(3) have passed the ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge examinations in accordance with this Annex (Part-FCL);

[rudestuff]

rudestuff, have a closer look and quote some numbers please. There is a possibility you may have crossed wires.
I personally know of three people whom fly a multi crew jet over 12,500 lbs (5,700kg) with PPL licences in the UK. The only requirement for the PPL holders is that they must pass the ATPL "flight test". Of course they are limited to Private operations.
This thread is nothing to do with EASA, so I'm not particularly keen to hijack it with irrelevant stuff as so often happens, however here are the rules copied directly from the CAA website:

Applicants for the first type rating course for a multi-pilot aeroplane must be a student pilot currently undergoing training on an MPL training course or comply with the following requirements:

have at least 70 hours of flight experience as PIC on aeroplanes;
hold a multi-engine IR(A);
have passed the ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge examinations in accordance with this Part;
and except when the type rating course is combined with an MCC course:
hold a certificate of satisfactory completion of an MCC course in aeroplanes; or
hold a certificate of satisfactory completion of MCC in helicopters and have more than 100 hours of flight experience as a pilot on multi-pilot helicopters; or
have at least 500 hours as a pilot on multi-pilot helicopters; or
have at least 500 hours as a pilot in multi-pilot operations on single- pilot multi-engine aeroplanes, in commercial air transport in accordance with the applicable air operations requirements.

Currently the only way for a PPL to fly a multi crew aircraft in the UK is for them to have an IR, MCC and passed the ATPL exams. I suspect your the friends have held those privileges since before the current system.

The relevance to this thread? I was suggesting that maybe there was now a similar rule down under.

[Office Update]

In Aussie you can fly what you like regardless of weight on a PPL, just undertake the flight training relevant to the aircraft type.
If you want an ATPL then do the appropriate course; if you want an abbreviated CPL or ATPL there are ways around the previous minimums by doing MCL and all the sim.
If you don't want an ATPL because you fly privately then just fly privately. An ATPL requires a MCL and a two crew check to be issued with an ATPL, that's all.
I can't fathom why a regulator would try and stop a PPL from flying a heavier than 12,500 lb aircraft

[Cloud Cutter]

I can't fathom why a regulator would try and stop a PPL from flying a heavier than 12,500 lb aircraft

I thought that must be sarcasm until I read your earlier posts, although the mass of the aircraft is largely immaterial to this debate, which is more about complexity. Most regulators require an ATPL to command a multi crew aircraft (i.e. an aircraft that is type certified to be operated by two or more pilots). If the reason is not obvious, it’s to do with safety (to those on the aircraft, but also those in proximity). There are plenty of biz jets and other large aircraft that are certified to be operated by one or two pilots, because they are designed to be safe to operate single pilot. The ATPL, and more recently MCC, are designed to ensure pilots of multi crew aircraft have a minimum level of competency in the technical and (more importantly) non-technical/CRM aspects of operating a complex, multi-pilot aeroplane.

[Centaurus]

The ATPL, and more recently MCC, are designed to ensure pilots of multi crew aircraft have a minimum level of competency in the technical and (more importantly) non-technical/CRM aspects of operating a complex, multi-pilot aeroplane.
I may have mis-interpreted your wording but I hope you were not serious when you imply that non-technical/CRM aspects are more important to the safe operation of a multi-crew aircraft than pilot handling skills?

It's no good being a nice bloke with all the right warm and fuzzy CRM buzz words if you lack the basic handling skills to safely land an aircraft in a 25 knot crosswind on a wet runway or fly a raw data manually flown ILS on instruments.

[Roj approved]

Hi - two things come to mind ...

#1 They want people who can be promptly promoted to multi-crew command (required ATPL licence), without worrying about their "academic" abilities. This might apply to any airline type operators.

#2 It's an easy way to reduce the number of CVs. No one really wants to choose the "best" candidate - they just want a convenient number of adequate candidate!

There is also

#3 The operator may be in a remote area, have a fixed fleet, ie: Piston Singles and Twins, with no intention of moving to Turbine/ Multicrew ops. So your life in that operation is finite. The last thing the Owner needs is someone that can’t progress, gets disillusioned, and becomes unproductive, needs time off to do courses etc.

I have seen this happen, we have all heard the advice, and no doubt passed it on,

“Get all your ATPL exams/IFR done before heading out bush”

[deja vu]

I only hope that the ATPL exams are of some practical good these days. I did the OZ exams in the late 1960's and the subject matter was completely irrelevant to operating any type of aircraft at that time, except perhaps for some of the meteorology topics. I can recall spending an hour calculating the track and distance from Sydney to Nadi by Meridianal parts, interesting but 20 years out of date. Flight planning was also out of the 1940s, mid zone weights etc. Later in the 1980s I did the UK ATPL subjects and they were even more irrelevant except if you had worked for BOAC in the 1930s.

So it was more an exercise in having the endurance to master these outdated procedures. A bit like learning Latin today. I must admit though I did hundreds of PNR and CP calculations later with my first airline job around the Pacific but these were well covered in CPL Nav in any case.

[machtuk]

Also having passes in the ATPL subs could mean to some employers that you are keen, dedicated to
progressing, it can also have a negative outcome to it. At the lower end of the food chain having these subs in hand means you plan to move on to bigger and better machines asap possibly leaving the bottom end employer employing once again looking, it's like a vicious circle.
I'm glad that's all behind me these days, doubt I could pass a single ATPL exam these days..lolol

[Nominal]

It’s certainly worthwhile getting them done early, taking time off to do ATPLs while working or between jobs isn’t always ideal. If you have the time get them done when you can.