has anyone heard whether canadian atp license holders will be required to take the ctp course before taking the written conversion test to get an faa atp me license after aug 1 2014? if not, that would be a great loop hole. convert your commerical usa license to canadian cpl and then take the samra and saron test and the flight check and get a canadian atp then take the faa conversion written test and you get two atps for about the price one and avoid spending 10 to 15 k for the ctp !:ok:

Approved ATP ground schools
 

can anyone suggest where to find a list of approved ground class school under the new FAA regulation which applies after Aug. 1 ? tnx

Hey folks,

I have a FAA commercial certificate SE/ME with no type rating and also hold a ICAO commercial license with B737 and A330 full type rating. I meet all requirement criteria for FAA ATP (including a written) and plans to take a practical sometime next year. I have two questions two ask:

1. Do I have any restriction on taking the practical after August 1st, 2014 when I already have done my written a month ago in June?

2. When I take the FAA ATP practical (in a light twin), can I ask the DE about adding "SIC only" type ratings on my new FAA ATP? Based on the assumption that I present them my 737 and 330 training records plus signatures from the training managers here? I have asked training managers here (both from Boeing and Airbus training) before and they have told me our type raiting courses are not FAA-approved.


Many Thanks, :ok:

If the types are not already on your FAA commercial (and you said they are not) you're out of luck there. Frankly, and with all respect, I wouldn't even ask such a thing of the examiner. "Here's my non-FAA approved training; can you add these types?" How's that sound to you? :D

No restriction on the checkride proper; bring everything the PTS says to bring, without exception. This includes an airworthy aircraft.

An FAA *and* an ICAO license? Since the FAA certificates are ICAO compliant and ICAO doesn't issue licenses, I am assuming you mean you have a license from another country that is also ICAO compliant.

In answer to your first question, so long as you take the practical test for the ATP within 24 months of passing the written, there are no other restrictions.

As to your other question about the type ratings: legally according to 14 CFR 61.41, your ICAO compliant training is acceptable and your instructor can give you the required training endorsement. However, I highly doubt your local DPE is going to be familiar with and comfortable with the process. Best bet would be to visit the FSDO to see about adding the SIC types on the basis of your foreign training.

Yeah, that part always cracks me up, when pilots say proudly that they have an *ICAO* license.

Well no, you don't because ICAO doesn't issue licenses. And as far as a country's license being ICAO compliant, well most of them are. I think my PNG ATPL is ICAO compliant.


Which countries' ATPL's are *not* ICAO compliant? The only non-ICAO compliant ATP which comes to mind is an FAA ATP certificate for which flight engineer experience is used to meet the minimum experience requirements , in which case it is issued with the notation printed on it that the “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” and you can get that notation removed once you acquire sufficient pilot time.

Other than things like that does anyone know of a country whose ATPL is *not* ICAO compliant?

Try and do the ATP of course if you can before the 1st. Otherwise I believe the only school that has an approved course at the moment is guess where....
drumroll as if you didnt see it coming but..

Embry Riddle.

Guess who probably co - wrote this legislation behind closed doors.

ER doesn't have the ATP CTP as a stand alone class. Somehow, in 4 years of study for a quarter million dollars, they've found a way to sign off 40 hours of instruction.

ATP has an agreement with Higher Power to use their sims for the ATP CTP.

Wasn't it E-R who pushed for the reduced aviation degree graduates to have reduced experience/restricted ATP for 121 FO's, not just ex-mil pilots?

It really is ridiculous, the whole system of peanut salaries in regionals, having to fork out for degree not needed so that one can get hired by 'mainline' and all the other crap. These new regs will definitely change the job/hiring/company training landscape in US, but all I heard from current Dash 8 FO friend that one regional/feeder airline may consider doing cadet scheme for ab-initios as way to 'keep' copilots. Not sure how it'd work with the ATP rule, though. Maybe just a rumour. It'd be silly to see it happen, spending cash to avoid paying semi-decent salaries and providing T&C's.

One pointless kneejerk reaction after another from legislators/FAA, just that the publicly known underlying root causes of many accidents, are not supressed by better training, commuting/staff-friendly rosters and rest.

Except Higher Power doesn't have their own sims anymore. They lease from American or Southwest or who ever.

faa atp with 737ng endorsement
 

i have a similar issue, i have ICAO cpl licence with 737ng endorsement and about 1700 hrs on type. And i just completed my check ride of FAA ATP on 737ng simulator . And when i asked the school that will i get ATP with 737ng endorsement with license (which i presumed i will ), they just refused it and told me that i will just get ATP with multiengine land on it ..no 737ng.
now i m so confused and they offered me another course (TYPE RATING )for around 9000usd for 737ng endorsement on my FAA ATP. i don't understand, when i have already 737ng endorsement in my ICAO cpl with 737ng and have so many hours on type, why not rating just transfer from my other license and why school offering me so expensive course again. Now is there any rule which will by pass this issue and get me endorsement on 737ng.
please help !!!!!!!

Flyflyboy,

If you took your checkride in a B737 Level C or D simulator, then you should get the type rating. The checkride really doesn't have anything to do with the course you took. First of all, I would ask the school, exactly why they will not issue the type rating. Then, I would call the airman certification branch in Oklahoma City and discuss it with them. They seem to have a better handle on the odd ball things that happen in pilot certification. From what you are saying it sounds like the school is sticking it to you for another course. There could be a reasonable explanation for this situation. Or the school, may be operating under a false impression. Get ALL the facts and talk with Oklahoma City.

http://www.pprune.org/north-america/...-examiner.html

Post five is pertinent. Did you take such a course?

There's no "transferring" of ratings in the United States, except - to some extent - with Transport Canada. You have to take the proper checkride. If you didn't, you won't get the rating. It looks like you were in some ATP program where they just use the sim for an ATP multi - so that's what you got. You have to go through a part 142 type rating program to get the rating. The training is just as important as the checkride from a certification basis. The checkride has everything with the course you took, under part 142.

Rotorhead, Under FAA regulations a pilot is not required to undergo an approved course for a type rating. Approved courses are for the pilot to meet certain requirements for a certificate or rating. The checkride comes after and is a separate event. While the examiner could be an employee of the school, they are acting as an agent for the FAA. They can only act within the guidelines of their authority. The only way that an examiner can give a checkride for any certificate or rating in a multiengine airplane or simulator is to be rated in the airplane or simulator as an examiner. So if the examiner can issue an ATP certificate in a B737 simulator, the examiner can also issue a B737 type rating. The Practical Test Standards for the ATP and for Type Ratings is the same Practical Test Standard. If the examiner did a proper and complete checkride, which I am going to assume the examiner did, the there should be any legal issue of issuing the B737 type.

Flyflyboy, first of all, it sounds like you did a FAA PPL and then did the FAA ATP. Is that correct? The FAA doesn't differentiate between B737 models. So you would only get a B737 type rating, no matter what simulator you did the checkride in. (Reference AC61-89E) Next, did you or the school fill out the 8710 application or the IACRA on line application? There is a space in the top section which is for designating what the checkride is for. There is a space for type rating. If this was left blank, that could be why no type was issued. Something sounds a little off on this. That is why I am telling you to invest in a telephone call to the FAA Airman Certification Branch with all the details and talk with them. Their telephone number is +1-405-954-3261. Their hours are 0800 to 1600 Central time. The earlier in the day the better usually.

While there are many good schools out there that do well by their students, there are some out there that really take advantage of the students. What the heck, they don't really understand american english and their now a half a world away and calling to Oklahoma City is a real pain for them. And the only way they get caught is if someone complains.

I live in the FAA world and deal with them on a daily basis and I am still surprised on some of the things that can or can not be done. Call Oklahoma City.

Simulator programs have to be approved. There may be some exception - I'm not an expert - but a full type rating won't be one of them. If he were taking the ride in the actual airplane you'd have a point. If he didn't do a type rating program in the sim, he can't get the type rating in the sim, even if he did the same "stuff" AFAIK. I expect some things were left out of the oral and the ride (and the ground school), but I'm not sure what.

Indeed, I hadn't any idea you could do a non-type rating ATP ride in a device that "requires" a type, but according to at least one sim company you can. They got the program approved.

I'd call the FSDO overseeing the sim. company before I'd call OKC; you can connect with the actual person who oversees the programs. They'll explain this. And please post the answer here. :)

I don't know that I agree with that statement, at least not as written. Firstly, 14 CFR Part 61.31(d)(2) states:


(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must:

....

(2) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the pilot certification level, aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received an endorsement for solo flight in that aircraft from an authorized instructor.

I read that to mean that in order to be eligible for the issuance of a type rating at least some sort of a training course must have been successfully completed.

Secondly, what exactly do you mean the checkride "comes later and is a separate event"? My most recent checkride came after I completed my employer's new-hire F/O initial training course, which made me eligible to take my A320 type ride, I couldn't take the checkride without completing the rest of the course, of which the ride was the second-to-last event (LOFT was last).

Rotorhead,

Just because the program is approved doesn't make it proper and correct. After checking Part 142 I came up with 142.54 ATP training programs. It does not state if the ATP is done in a Simulator that a type rating is or is not required, just that the instructor must be typed in the aircraft and current within the requirements of Part 142. After looking through the FSIMS aka Order 8900.10 which is the FAA Inspector Guidance, I found nothing that covers this situation. It appears that the new changes in the FAA ATP have a few cracks that programs are slipping though. While discussing it with the FSDO might work, it has been my experience that Principal Operations Inspectors tend to CTA (cover their a$$) when questioned about something they approved. And while talking OKC might help, this one looks like a case where the FAA Chief Counsel should be contacted. It would appear that the concept has not be fully thought out.

As for the PTS, there is no difference between the ATP checkride and the type rating checkride. All the same maneuvers are required. The only difference is that there is a difference between type ratings done is the airplane and those done in the simulator. And that is part of the issue here.

Amadis,

The training and the checking are two separate events in that the checking is conducted by an agent of the FAA. Be that agent an FAA inspector or a designee. Be that designee an independent operator, or a full time or part time employee of the school, when they are conducting a checkride they represent the FAA and by their code of conduct are suppose to represent the FAA in the best possible manner. The FAA has been cracking down on examiners that past applicants improperly. Plus they regularly conduct observation rides during examiner conducted checkrides.

Please keep in mind that Part 121 training is different that Part 61 training. The program you trained under had specific minimums that had to be met. Under Part 61 there are no minimum training times for an ATP or type rating.

Rick, frankly (and I say this without meanness) your post makes no sense. You're now mixing Part 61, Part 142, and consumer issues. This is 14CFR142.The fact is that simulator training programs - at least every one I've ever heard of - have to follow a set approved syllabus approved by FAA. My belief is that Flyflyboy got exactly what he paid for; he was just confused as to what it was. Whether he was mislead or he deluded himself I cannot say. If his training was simulator based then he needed approved syllabus based type rating training to take a type rating checkride, no matter what approvals the examiner had. I suspect he had something less than that, and cheaper. If he got the ATP, he followed some abbreviated Part 142 program that FAA says is legit - they granted him the ticket. Whether it's "proper" isn't their purview. They're not going to get involved in a tort claim, believe me.

Air carrier programs are approved also, but under their own company training manual approved by their POI. They've got to follow syllabi as well, with the sim. or without.

As for the "new" ATP rules, I had hopes that any air carrier type sim training would suffice as long as one had the hours. No such luck; somebody posted the reg for me and it has to be a specific approved program, just like anything else. Sucks for the youngsters.

On that you are correct, but, like everything else in life, the reality is not quite that simple. No minimum training times isn't quite the same as no training required. Each TRTO must submit a syllabus to the FAA for approval, after which they can train applicants in accordance with that syllabus. So, theoretically, a TRTO could have a 30-min 737NG type rating course, and that would be sufficient, if it passed FAA muster, which is unlikely.

I think Rotorhead is right, the organization in question must have a few courses availble, including some without a type rating, and our friend the OP was probably not real clear on what he signed up for.