Australian ATPL flight test

[mogga04]

I am looking to do an ATPL flight test but having trouble finding some one to do it.

I have seen see that flight options in Queensland have a course and fight test in the citation mustang sim, but it seem to be design around pilots have no multi crew experience and i would need to find someone else to do it with. I have about 500 hours co pilot of the dash100 I think an introduction to multi crew operations for several days is not needed.

Is there anyway to get around 61.700 (3)b or any part 142 operators with approval to do the training.

any insight from anyone that has had a similar situation would be muchly appreciated.

[tossbag]

You don't 'get around' any Australian legislation (unless you're a special case). In fact CASA will make up legislation associated with a clause you may be looking at or have their own special one person interpretation, depending on who you get of course.

As far as I'm aware the mob in Queensland are the only ones doing the ATPL flight test at this point in time??

[Goat Whisperer]

I know a guy. DM me.

[morno]

Does Ansett not offer it?

[Ollie Onion]

https://www.ansettaviationtraining.com/training , website says they do it.

[aussieflyboy]

https://www.ansettaviationtraining.com/training , website says they do it.

Is there a reason you want it? Get a job and make the airline pay for it for you,

[Angle of Attack]

Oh the days when you just had to present a forged logbook and fake night hours, to get an ATPL are long gone lol.

[werbil]

I had about 1,000 hours of multi crew co-pilot time when I did the Flight Options MCC and ATPL course. I found the time spent doing the MCC was exceptionally valuable as preparation for the ATPL flight test - for me the ATPL component was as intense if not more so than ATPL flight planning. Admittedly I'd never been in a sim, never flown a glass aircraft, had a few grey hairs, and had extremely little exposure to autopilots at that point. I was fortunate to have a good sim buddy - that certainly helped too.

[mogga04]

I have contacted them but they do not have a testing officer on the DCH 8 and they are unable to do the training as that legislation says.

[mogga04]

I had about 1,000 hours of multi crew co-pilot time when I did the Flight Options MCC and ATPL course. I found the time spent doing the MCC was exceptionally valuable as preparation for the ATPL flight test - for me the ATPL component was as intense if not more so than ATPL flight planning. Admittedly I'd never been in a sim, never flown a glass aircraft, had a few grey hairs, and had extremely little exposure to autopilots at that point. I was fortunate to have a good sim buddy - that certainly helped too.

I'm sure its a great course, but for the price of it, as well as 2 weeks off work, travel accommodation, plus needing a second crew member I dont believe its worth it.

[werbil]

I'm sure its a great course, but for the price of it, as well as 2 weeks off work, travel accommodation, plus needing a second crew member I dont believe its worth it.

My employer clearly thought it was well worth the expense for the two of us.

[Capt Fathom]

I dont believe its worth it.

Depends on what you are trying to achieve I guess.

[morno]

So what you’re saying is that you don’t want to learn anything and are merely after someone to just tick a box for you because you’re an expert?

[tossbag]

So what you’re saying is that you don’t want to learn anything and are merely after someone to just tick a box for you because you’re an expert?

Not having a crack at you, but what I believe he/she is saying is that by the time costs are factored in, it could end up a two week/20k exercise. Personally I don't think it's worth it either. As in most things aviation in Australia it's probably double or triple the cost of other jurisdictions and double or triply complicated for no justifiable reason.

[mogga04]

So what you’re saying is that you don’t want to learn anything and are merely after someone to just tick a box for you because you’re an expert?



Very insightful and mature way to look at it. No I'm am not saying that. What I am saying is that I think its over priced for my situation, as its a course designed for people that have not been around Multi crew operations. A lot companies can do this in house, unfortunately I can not.

Would you pay for a full 100k CPL course when you already have the necessary experience for the test? or are you an expert? is that what you are implying?

I do believe the training I have received over the years in have been adequate and I am reaching out for help as seem to be a bit of a monopoly in Australia, as it is well established and I feel I have no other option.

And also I think most would agreed that these are licenses to learn. you only get taught how to pass a test in training and you learn a lot more on the job.

[mogga04]

Not having a crack at you, but what I believe he/she is saying is that by the time costs are factored in, it could end up a two week/20k exercise. Personally I don't think it's worth it either. As in most things aviation in Australia it's probably double or triple the cost of other jurisdictions and double or triply complicated for no justifiable reason.


Thankyou. Its sad that I have been looking oversea to do an Australian ATPL test as its more affordable :S

[Mach E Avelli]

Without arguing whether it’s fair to be required to jump through hoops if you have prior experience, should your employer pay for it, whether over priced, or will make you a better pilot, the only way to look at it is - will an ATPL get you a job ahead of someone with a CPL ? Or if you are already in an airline, will it accelerate time to command? If either applies, how long to recoup the investment? Say, six months, a year maybe?
Going overseas, with travel, time out of work, meals and accommodation, paying an examiner etc may not really save you money. Ditto going via NZ, doing full medical there, training to local procedures, flight test etc, then using the TTMRA may seem the soft option, but not really, because CASA still make you jump through a few hoops and IPC on a multi crew type to get started.
re doing it at Ansett. No need for MCC if you have prior time on multi crew ops, but you would have to be type rated on one of their suitable sims. That rules out the King Air and B 737 classic, as CASA no longer accept either, due no proper RNAV capability. For a pilot with no prior time on larger aircraft, combining the ATPL with a type rating on something useful is probably best way to go, as by the time you have done the type rating you should be at ATPL test standard (or you probably wouldn’t pass the type rating).
The OP already has Dash 8 time, so that should save quite a few bucks if the test is done in an approved simulator. Ansett has one. But unless doing it in-house with an established operator that you already work for, a few hours’ prior practice with your support pilot is essential to get some SOPs nailed for the check.

[morno]

Very insightful and mature way to look at it. No I'm am not saying that. What I am saying is that I think its over priced for my situation, as its a course designed for people that have not been around Multi crew operations. A lot companies can do this in house, unfortunately I can not.

Would you pay for a full 100k CPL course when you already have the necessary experience for the test? or are you an expert? is that what you are implying?

I do believe the training I have received over the years in have been adequate and I am reaching out for help as seem to be a bit of a monopoly in Australia, as it is well established and I feel I have no other option.

And also I think most would agreed that these are licenses to learn. you only get taught how to pass a test in training and you learn a lot more on the job.

You're talking about a small investment to upskill yourself. Not $100k.

Think of it this way, if you’re doing this to gain a command (because that’s about the only reason you would), how quickly are you going to earn your investment back?

Prior multi crew experience or not, the moment that you think you can’t learn something, then you should hang up your wings.

[Climb150]

Don't worry, the new regulations won't cost Australians any extra money.

[tossbag]

Don't worry, the new regulations won't cost Australians any extra money.

Exactly! but just a minor detail right?

[mogga04]

Without arguing whether it’s fair to be required to jump through hoops if you have prior experience, should your employer pay for it, whether over priced, or will make you a better pilot, the only way to look at it is - will an ATPL get you a job ahead of someone with a CPL ? Or if you are already in an airline, will it accelerate time to command? If either applies, how long to recoup the investment? Say, six months, a year maybe?
Going overseas, with travel, time out of work, meals and accommodation, paying an examiner etc may not really save you money. Ditto going via NZ, doing full medical there, training to local procedures, flight test etc, then using the TTMRA may seem the soft option, but not really, because CASA still make you jump through a few hoops and IPC on a multi crew type to get started.
re doing it at Ansett. No need for MCC if you have prior time on multi crew ops, but you would have to be type rated on one of their suitable sims. That rules out the King Air and B 737 classic, as CASA no longer accept either, due no proper RNAV capability. For a pilot with no prior time on larger aircraft, combining the ATPL with a type rating on something useful is probably best way to go, as by the time you have done the type rating you should be at ATPL test standard (or you probably wouldn’t pass the type rating).
The OP already has Dash 8 time, so that should save quite a few bucks if the test is done in an approved simulator. Ansett has one. But unless doing it in-house with an established operator that you already work for, a few hours’ prior practice with your support pilot is essential to get some SOPs nailed for the check.

Which is the direction I want to go. I have spoken to a casa FOI in regards to this. The only issue is the one regulation that even he admitted used to be ignored but as of late it hasn't been and finding an operator able to do it has been difficult.

[mogga04]

You're talking about a small investment to upskill yourself. Not $100k.

Think of it this way, if you’re doing this to gain a command (because that’s about the only reason you would), how quickly are you going to earn your investment back?

Prior multi crew experience or not, the moment that you think you can’t learn something, then you should hang up your wings.

Honestly as mentioned, I think I wont learn 20k worth (with all expenses added up). It is an investment but I'm here trying to find ways to better invest.

[Mach E Avelli]

I don't know if this would be of any help, but it seems back in September CASA granted an exemption (CASA EX98/21) to allow the King Air sim (not sure which one) to be used for the ATPL (A) test. In my time we did a short training course to prepare candidates for the test. Whether this training was ever formally approved I know not, but it did meet the spirit of 61.700 3 (b) and was accepted inso far as no successful applicant was denied licence issue.
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....

[mogga04]

I don't know if this would be of any help, but it seems back in September CASA granted an exemption (CASA EX98/21) to allow the King Air sim (not sure which one) to be used for the ATPL (A) test. In my time we did a short training course to prepare candidates for the test. Whether this training was ever formally approved I know not, but it did meet the spirit of 61.700 3 (b) and was accepted inso far as no successful applicant was denied licence issue.
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....

Do you mind DM'ing me information on where you did this?

The problem is its unclear, which is why was ignored for several years (or so I have been told). Now they don't ignore it and testing officers have to sign it of on the form that it has been completed.

Apparently they are working towards an exemption for this rule (command upgrade training at a company, ICUS, etc).

I'm working with casa at the moment and going to be putting forward the training for the command type rating I'm shortly doing, as well as the left seat ICUS time to try and get a special exemption from the legislation from casa higher ups. I just have to put together a "case" and if successful I hope it will help others in a similar situation.

[Mach E Avelli]

When the new requirements for an ATPL flight test came courtesy Part 61, Ansett got approval to do it in their old B200 sim. Multi crew procedures were established and a short training course developed. If pilots had no prior multi crew time they had to first do a MCC. This was done by some external organisation. Getting an ATPL was nowhere near as cheap as CASA originally suggested it would be, but an effort at Ansett was made to keep costs down on the King Air by tailoring the training to fit the candidates’ experience.
Then a change of one word - from ‘or’ to ‘and’ in the IPC test - required proficiency to be demonstrated on the use of GPS-enabled navigation systems. The King Air could no longer be used, though now, if you look at the exemption, it seems that CASA have relented on this.
ATPL tests were also conducted on other types, but only for candidates with type ratings, or in some cases coincident with type rating courses.
ATPL tests have been conducted by independent examiners on various types on the basis (in the past) that if the candidate was already flying for an operator with its own checking & training organisation, the candidate was deemed sufficiently trained.in the exotic art of flying to airline standards. If a candidate presented from elsewhere (e.g. converting a foreign licence), to the best of my knowledge, no test was conducted before some prior assessment flying was done to determine suitability.
This new requirement for ‘training’ would appear to require a Part 141 or 142 to get into the act, but as I understand it, a suitably qualified examiiner can still conduct the test outwith any organisation.

[Forced Labor]

No way should an ATPL Examiner conduct a flight test on a candidate sight unseen. Strict liability puts too much risk onto the Examiner. There needs to be some evidence of "flight training" (WTF that means is not really clear). I would not complete a test unless the applicant had been through a part 141 or 142 training organisation with written evidence of training and proficiency before the flight test.

Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again :mad:

[Mach E Avelli]

An examiner could test a candidate ‘sight unseen’ but with a caveat. That is, a formal recommendation from either an instructor, check pilot or chief pilot.
As for examiner liability, this needs to be fixed. An examiner can only test what he/she sees on the day. If the candidate is concealing a bi-polar condition or some other disorder, an examiner - not being a medical expert - would probably have no idea of this. And a candidate could be great this week but run into personal problems next week which could contribute to events beyond any examiner’s control. The only liability an examiner should carry is for incorrectly administering the test or similar falsification ( or taking cheap whiskey as bribe - a fine malt being the least one should accept).
As for keeping instructors or chief pilots honest, some form of monitoring first time pass versus failure rates could be in order. I believe the FAA does this as part of their system which basically allows instructors to hold approvals almost indefinitely- provided of course that their recommended candidates achieve the necessary first time pass rate. Properly administered, it could do away with multiple checks to retain various instructor privileges. But wait…that would save money for the industry and reduce CASA staff….can’t have that.

[Duck Pilot]

No way should an ATPL Examiner conduct a flight test on a candidate sight unseen. Strict liability puts too much risk onto the Examiner. There needs to be some evidence of "flight training" (WTF that means is not really clear). I would not complete a test unless the applicant had been through a part 141 or 142 training organisation with written evidence of training and proficiency before the flight test.

Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again :mad:

Totally agree, I wouldn't make a decision to recommend the issue of an ATPL based on an Instructor/Check Pilot or Chief Pilot's recommendation for a candidate unless I had total trust in the person making the recommendation. Thanks to CASA putting all the responsibility on the Examiner........