500hrs ME IFR

[Gravox]

Why do RPT operators above 5700kg require 500 hours ME IFR? Does 1000hrs co-pilot ME iFR cover this requirement? I can't seem to find anyone to clarify this.

I know of certain RPT operators that will take co-pilots without the 500 hr MEIFR command, does this mean that these co-pilots can't get a captaincy?

Only 50% of copilot time counts for total aeronautial experience, but 100% for Grand total flight time. Does this mean that 50% of co pilot time can be considered for command time, as in the situation mentioned above.


Cheers

[Bagot_Community_Locator]

You will find the answer in the CAO's :


"Aeroplanes exceeding 5700 kg
MTOW :

Air transport pilot (aeroplane)
licence

2000 hours total experience as a pilot, that includes:

Command (multi-engine aeroplane) instrument rating

500 hours as pilot-in-command (or acting as pilot-in-command
under supervision) on multi- engine aeroplanes under the
instrument flight rules;
and
50 hours as pilot-in-command (or acting as pilot-in-command
under supervision) on the aeroplane type;
and
100 hours experience as a pilot
on night operations."


I have not seen / heard it anywhere that 50 % of copilot time can be considered for command time.

I know a few very experienced FO's with over 1000 copilot time who will never get their RPT 2 crew command without the 500 multi command IFR.

[Ang737]

I have also heard from fellow pilots that some operators are asking for 500hrs ME flight planned IFR. Thats to say that the operators are expecting some candidates to know which IF hours in their logbook were actually flown with an IFR plan submitted...

Sounds absurd or is that the norm....

Ang ;)

[dragchute]

Ang737

...operators are expecting some candidates to know which IF hours in their logbook were actually flown with an IFR plan submitted...

I guess that isn’t too difficult a task for aspiring RPT pilots. Most Commercial pilots wouldn’t fly a multi-engine charter in VFR category therefore their entries would substantiate the 500 hour claim. There is a spare column in you log book that can be set aside for specialised flight time – just label it IFR OPS and keep tally.

RPT operators have a check and training system. Their captains on aircraft over 5,700 kg would be required to undertake at least 50 hours ICUS before final check to the line on the type. I’m sure if the prospective captain was any good the company would be happy to continue the ICUS for a few more hours to achieve any shortfall in the 500 hour minimum requirement.

[Sheep Guts]

Dragchute
Most Commercial pilots wouldn’t fly a multi-engine charter in VFR category

Well beg to differ Dragchute, agreed if the weather justifies, but now alot of operators are flying VFR to keep costs down. Because of the larger difference in Nav Charges for IFR ops compared to VFR ops. When the weather dictates alot of people now upgrade on route if required.

But who is going to research this anyway and if the Pilot logs it as IFR PLAN no one could challenge them anyway.


Regards
Sheep

[dragchute]

Sheep Guts

…alot of operators are flying VFR to keep costs down. Because of the larger difference in Nav Charges for IFR ops compared to VFR ops…..

I guess nothing in this world is free and the additional safety offered by IFR operations over VFR is evident when one looks at the crash of a Shrike (VFR supposedly) into a hill near Cairns in apparent IFR conditions! If the pilot had simply climbed to LSALT and operated IFR then the cost of lives not to mention the financial repercussions on the company could have been saved, and no doubt would be many times less than the cost of IFR plans for countless years to come.

It never ceases to amaze me that pilots/operators will put so much at risk for the saving of just a few dollars. But that’s GA for you!

[hoss]

dragchute,

your quote,"most Commercial Pilots wouldn't fly Multi-Engine Charter in VFR category".

try telling that one to the bulk of Charter Pilots in Oz, particularly the ones North of Capricorn.

personally,i'm estimating 2500hr+ ME VFR and that was before they started charging.

safe flying, hoss

ps. anyone know how QF cadets get around CAO 82.3 when the time comes to upgrade to Command.Or do QF control CASA on that one.

[Sheep Guts]

I wont get into a Quoting match, and in no way do I condone such actions a pressing on VFR despite conditions.

Your example of the Shrike in Cairns, I must admit have little info on and will check the ASTB website.

The decision when to uprade and not is up to the individuals interpretation and choice. Obviously the route planned and MEAs need utmost attention, and your plan must have outs especially with fuel.

But somedays its impossible even for IFR in the N.T. during the wet you cant have enough Holding fuel, or cant carry enough Alternate fuel in a G.A. So you sit and pplay the horses or whatever.

Anyway my complaint is the charges and a user pays system that doesnt satisfy the main users. Outback Aviation has allways and will continue to play secong rate to the Big Boys with their Big Iron in the Big Smoke.

Regarding the costs to G.A . Operators, one needs to see it from their perspective. Especially now with the privatisation of Airports and the total disregard by the Leasers to give any leeway or control on increase parking and movement costs. Money for nothing most of the time, some airports the privatisation hasnt improved the upkeep at all. That is you still have to remmind them to keep the Grass down etc.

Then theres the:

Registration: increased lat year

Insurance : incrrease nearly trifold after 9/11

Parts: allways increase never decrease even though the Aussie dollar is regaining slightly.

Landing Charges at Airports: Increase every year especially the Remote Communities which have all seemed to go to Avdata at the same time, to get their slice of the pie. Some of these Charges are horrendous NgKurr in the N.T. for eg. is around $25 a move.

Air Services: Document Charges have doubled just recently yet the quality of their products are still second rate to the Likes of Jepps etc.

And no doubt allot more which I havent covered.



The yanks dont have one yet (USER PAY SYSTEM) I dont think it will ever have, AOPA has too much pull in Washington.


Regards
sheep

[compressor stall]

Dragchute

I feel compelled to correct your comments, even it means that this thread digresses further than its initial purpose.

the crash of a Shrike (VFR supposedly) into a hill near Cairns in apparent IFR conditions!

Even the most cursory of glances of the report on the ATSB website reveals:

The aircraft was being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)... Shortly after takeoff the pilot requested an amended altitude of 4,000 ft. He indicated that he was able to continue flight with visual reference to the ground or water.

The Shrike was not VFR. The pilot indicated that he would be able to continue in VMC under the IFR. As such using this accident as an example of putting "much at risk for the saving of just a few dollars" is erroneous.

And for various reasons, the investigation was incomplete as one may infer from the penultimate paragraph. As such it is a poor example to elucidate the dangers of VFR CFIT.

CS

[Bagot_Community_Locator]

In regards to QF, I do not believe CAO 82.3 applies as CAO 82.3 is titled "...RPT in other than high capacity aircraft".

In the relevant sections of the CAO's for high capacity RPT (40.1.5, 82.5) I could not find any minimum pilot experience requirements, other than the minimums for an ATPL licence.

[hoss]

Thanks Bagot,

I thought there was a difference. Its been a while since I looked into it,but is there still a 500 hr PIC requirement to get an ATPL.

CAOless, hoss

[dragchute]

Sheep Guts,

… my complaint is the charges and a user pays system that doesnt satisfy the main users…

Before the user pay system operators still paid Air Navigation Charges. The balance was funded by the taxpayer. The United States (at least the 48 states of North America) has an area roughly equivalent to Australia but has 240 million more people than we do, who are paying sales tax, income tax, company tax and a host of other taxes. Not unusual to see small towns with 10,000 feet of bitumen and an ILS. In fact their communications and transport infrastructure make ours look like a banana republic.

The advent of ‘user pay’ in this country has seen some remarkable improvements in our aviation infrastructure. Thirty years ago I operated out of Cairns, Mount Isa and the Torres Straits. Very few NAV AIDS or Instrument Approach procedures. Just four sealed runways on Cape York and one in the Gulf country. Because the user now pays, he demands improvement and that is what he gets. Unfortunately the fewer the users, the higher the cost per user and the slower the progress in development. I guess you could say that users who opt for VFR retard the progress but those are the rules and I have no beef about it.

Compressor Stall

… The pilot indicated that he would be able to continue in VMC under the IFR…

I bow to your superior knowledge on flight category in the particular incident, BUT the incident still highlights the point I was attempting to make. If one downgrades ones category then one must accept a lower level of protection. Obviously ATC are not going to warn the pilot of a VFR or IFR aircraft operating ‘VMC’ of impending terrain. By comparison had the flight been IFR procedures ATC would have applied vectors to avoid the terrain. Whilst the term ‘VISUAL’ requires flight in sight of ground or water it also requires an in-flight visibility of 5000 metres. CFT in VMC must lead to the conclusion that the pilot was either in IMC or had a death wish.

I was asked shortly after that incident to recommend a good charter company in FNQ. The enquirer was a senior executive officer in government who was concerned about the number of charters his staff were undertaking and the risk factor. He felt there was a certain smell about the industry. My advice was to forget charter and opt for an RPT operator who could supply turbine aircraft, CAR 217, two crew, and SFAR 25 capable.

Until such time as the industry realises that any amount of utterance of the words ‘Safety Culture’ is downgraded by lower safety standards due to poor training and supervision, suspect maintenance, inadequate aircraft and bad management it will remain on the bottom rung competing with coach tours and rail services for the backpacker trade. Operating VFR in an IFR capable aircraft to save a few bucks just reinforces my argument. Meanwhile mining companies, governments and other big businesses that have the wherewithal will resort to RPT or set up their own flight departments. They call it ‘risk management’.

[Bagot_Community_Locator]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements

(1)
For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.

(2)
The 750 hours must include:

(a)
at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command; and

(b)
at least 200 hours of cross-country flight time; and

(c)
at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and

(d)
at least 100 hours of flight time at night.

(3)
For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross-country flight time must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in command under supervision.

(4)
The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or more of the following:

(a)
not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;

(b)
not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:

(i)
a powered aircraft; or
(ii)
a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c)
not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation 5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or (b).



By the way Hoss, I also have not got any CAO's here in PNG !!! however you can access it all online at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/index.htm

[Sheep Guts]

Ok Dragchute,

I concede you are right. User pays sytem is uterly fantastic and flawless and every operator in Australia is so satisfied they dont care about the quadruppling of various fees. Tell that to the 2 OPERATORS that closed at Canberra due increased Airport fees last year.

Thirty years ago, aviation in Australia was vastly different. A 1962 Aztec was only 10 years old not Forty as some operators still operate them today. Also a HQ Holden was a new car. :D ;)

The progress you are talking about wasnt soley due to Aviation Charges, it was mostly Taxes and rates and general demand for improved conditions from obviuosly the General Public, who also incidently want the best price. Because thats is it in the end, demand and price dictates the market. Hence the operator is alllways sandwiched. Its a world problem not confined to our borders.

I see your point of veiw, and I beleive you wont sway, so ther its lies. I kindly agree to disagree.:D

Take Care Regards

Sheep

[ITCZ]

Gravox,

All other posts have covered the legals.

Getting down to the heart of the matter, Qantas is the only Aussie operator that will recruit you to fly above 5700kg aircraft without requiring you to have 500hrs ME PIC.

There are other companies that operate jets under CAO 82.5, but they will want to see the 500 ME PIC to meet their own minimums or their customer's requirements.

It is an old rule, and could be argued to be out-of-date and out-of-touch in todays scene. Lots of pilots now find themselves crewing 2 pilot turbine aircraft from maybe the 1000 hr total time point in a much more disciplined environment, and as to why time spent in a type like a Pilatus PC-12 is excluded, well that seems a bit silly when that aircraft has just about everything in common with larger aircraft except the number of engines.

However, don't hold your breath waiting for CASA to rewrite that particular rule, nor to issue exemptions like '1500 copilot metro = 500 command". Go fly that beat up ol' 402B, son!

[compressor stall]

I think we are in heated agreement.

I am not in major disagreement, just that the choice of incident does not do your argument justice. And to further reinforce that the incident was OCTA - radar vectors would not have been applied.

I am not aware that Centre would advise a pilot that his/her selected level was below a route LSALT? Do Centre have a database for that, or is it the controllers' local knowledge (if that still exists post Flight Service).

My advice was to forget charter and opt for an RPT operator who could supply turbine aircraft, CAR 217, two crew, and SFAR 25 capable

I could not agree more, but try getting the beancounters onto that one when there are two or three pax for a 3 hours return trip in a C310. Also in many parts of the country in which governemnt employees fly, there are not those aircraft available. Why are they not available? Because people do not want to pay for it.

There are other solutions too - something done by big businesses, in particular the petroleum companies. Prospective aviation companies must meet certain criteria and subject themselves to the petroleum companies' own safety audit system. This is a far more appropriate solution to the problem, and then the company can stipulate what it wants. If it bans ANY VFR flight or IFR "visual" flying then that is its perogative.

IMHO, when flown properly and legally VFR flight or IFR "visual" is no more or less dangerous than full IFR flight. A pilot exhibiting poor airmanship and flying in sub VMC when VFR could exhibit similar traits and push minima after an approach. By the same logic we should not allow IFR approaches when carrying these VIPs.

CS

[dragchute]

Sheep Guts


… and every operator in Australia is so satisfied they dont care about the quadruppling of various fees. Tell that to the 2 OPERATORS that closed at Canberra due increased Airport fees last year….

Enroute charges and landing fees constitute less than six per cent of our direct operating costs (excluding crewing) per aircraft for full IFR operations. If one includes indirect aircraft operating costs then this expense equates to three per cent. To take it further, if one also includes the full expenses of the business then such sums are miniscule and of course recovered from the customer as are all other costs. Businesses fail for a host of reasons and it is often convenient to blame someone else particularly if that someone else happens to be the flavor of the month. Two operators move out, if the demand is there, two operators will replace them.

By the way, a new HQ sold for around $2,300. It would be interesting to compare the price of an Aztec back then with the new prices of each today. I wonder if the Aztec equivalent has increased dramatically with the Commodore. If not, why did the industry go stagnant with so many old twins in current use. Deregulation is not the answer…GA doesn’t normally compete on airline trunk routes.

Compressor Stall

… try getting the beancounters onto that one when there are two or three pax for a 3 hours return trip in a C310…

Don’t underestimate bean counters particularly if they are from big business or government. Such organizations don’t like to risk staff for a few dollars. The ensuing law suits, not to mention the loss of key personnel just isn’t worth it. Looking around Cairns last week I noted corporate and utility turbines operated by aero-medical, customs, police, emergency services and mining, not to mention the associated infrastructure. Looks like their bean counters have passed on the old C310.

Company audits are difficult to enforce. You ask for a two-crew turbine from a specific operator to find that your King Air is crewed by a full time member of the company and a non-endorsed co-pilot. At least the RPT crews have some order of CRM and training. There are other issues as well but it seems to me that GA just won’t take the standards seriously.

GRAVOX
Didn’t mean to hijack your thread but please accept that all the contributors had valid arguments.

[Sheep Guts]

What sort of equipment do you operate dragchute? Where do you operate? Whats the average age of your fleet? Do you allready own your equipment? Are you happy with you airport operation, and are you satisfied with the services given?


I wonder if the Aztec equivalent has increased dramatically with the Commodore. If not, why did the industry go stagnant with so many old twins in current use.

Well iT has: a New Commodore is around $36,000 AUD after you drive it out the door. A brand new Baron 58 is around $ 850,000 AUD before you get CASA to look over it and put on Registraion, Insurance,Parking Fees etcetcetc......

Also back 30 years ago the Aussie Dollar was controlled and strong compared to the Green Back which came in handy with parts, since 99.9% of them are manufactured in the U.S.

Alot Cheaper back then.

Documents and amendments were free, exams , and Licensing Admin charges were non existant. I remmeber getting my first VFG after putting in my Yellow Student Pilot request form. It was all gratis, our Taxes paid for it.

There lies the reason. Need I say more not.:)

Looking around Cairns last week I noted corporate and utility turbines operated by aero-medical, customs, police, emergency services and mining, not to mention the associated infrastructure. Looks like their bean counters have passed on the old C310.

Well those operators you mention here , have large Fat Government Budgets, and or Large Contracts. So the C310 is definitely not in the game, especially when you can afford to operate a King Air.

It appears form your posts you prefer the operation of Mulit-Crew Turbines , CRM and FAR 23 requirements. A Turbines safety record compared to a pistion needs no explaining. But in no way does it necessitate a Mind Set that turbines are bullet proof I have a little turbine time myself around 1700 hrs of PT6 time and in that short period , I have allready had a Compressor seize on an Airplane I was scheduled to operate the next day. It does happen . Dont get a mind set on that ,Turbines arent unbreakable.

There is still a market for the C310 and alike, if yoy go further north to Horn Island, or Across to Darwin and the Top End, you will notice this aswell. General Charter still has a market.

But I dont actually see where you argument is going if your comparing C310s and King Airs totally different Ops and Clients. Chalk and Cheese really? You seem to be comparing the high end of G.A. to the low end. There will allways be a low end in G.A. Dragchute.

Its like Rich people and Poor people, I laugh when I hear well off Persons are distressed by the plight of the poor people. If there were no poor people, there definitely would be no Rich ones either.

You also mention about Company Audits are hard to enforce. Well no need anymore, as many Contractee Companies are employing Private Safety Auditing Consultants to check bidding Companies before making any contractual agreements. Incidently alot of these Consultants are ex CASA employees. That is why these contracts involve 2 Crew Ops Multi-engine Turbines etc.

:rolleyes: ;)


Regards
Sheep

P.S. As I said before I agree to disagree.:D :D

[compressor stall]

Looking around Cairns last week I noted corporate and utility turbines operated by aero-medical, customs, police, emergency services and mining, not to mention the associated infrastructure.

You would have seen:

LZK - Caravan operated by Cape flattery mines. Private IFR Single Pilot.
CFL - C208 owned and operated by Pacific Relines. Private IFR Single Pilot.
PSK? - C208 Police Caravan. Not available for general charter. Single Pilot?
FD* - PC12. RFDS. Not available for general charter. Single Pilot.
FD* - B200. RFDS. Not available for general charter. Single Pilot.
ZZ* - Bn2, C412, DHC8. Coastwatch. Not available for general charter. All except DHC8 single pilot. 217 training organisation.


TF? - C208 Hinterland Available for charter
TF? - B200C Hinterland. Available for charter
CVN - C208 Hinterland Available for charter
CYC - C208 Cape York Available for charter, but usually doing the mail run.
SKU - Skytrans B200. Available for charter
UJG - GAM Ac690T. Available for charter.

(Never realised how many 208s were in Cairns!)

There are a lot of aircraft there, but far less than half are available for general charter. Of these operators not many companies have a 217 check and training system, and even fewer (none?) run two pilots as a matter of course.

I admit I know of many examples over most of the above companies when "two pilots required" does indeed lead to a non endorsed co-pilot sitting in the RHS. Of course the ability of the second pilot is not specified by the client leading to a matter of semanitcs and morals.

Cairns is a hub of Cape York Government/public service travel, and very very rarely are there any requests for turbine for such travel. If the participants end up in the turbine types it's as the numbers suit. Otherwise its 404, 402, 310, and AC50. Only yesterday was I in Cape York in one of the aforementioned piston engine types with government/public service employees.

No request was given for turbine, two pilot etc. If my company had quoted for using figures for two pilots turbine FAR 23 etc, then we would not have got the job, and we would very quickly have gone out of business.

The onus lies with the client to specify what level of service they have as a minimum. At the moment ex CNS it is usually multi IFR. Should the gov't turn around and say all employees must travel in turbine, pressurised, 2 pilot, 217 trained aircraft then that is what will be quoted. I guarantee you most operators and pilots would rather be operating fleets of B200s or equivalent instead of 30 year old pistons. But at the moment that is not viable because no-one wants to pay the price.

Company audits are not that difficult to enforce. Many companies have a requirement that both pilots must be endorsed and even to the point of having minimum expereince requirements. Don't do it, lose the job. Of course then the hourly charter rate would be slightly in excess of that quoted to joe average off the street.

CS

Gravox, my apoligies as well for hijacking the thread!