Can NZ get any more retarded?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In The Dog House
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It amazes me how many times I have read posts regarding the lack of faith / respect for the NZCAA and how little is actually been done to make something happen.
Just like dealing with aviation employers.
If, in any other industry in this country, a person or group of people feel that they are being treated unfairly, they stand up and do something about it instead of just writing notes to each other about how unhappy they are.
Maybe, instead of constantly complaining to each other, we could band together with a union of some sort and try to tackle the CAA head on. Tell them what we like and don't like about the way the operate their business, about the unrealistic fees and regulations they impose on us etc.
Most of us are members of some form of union (those that aren't should be). Why not use them to our benefit instead of funding their holiday schemes.
VD
Just like dealing with aviation employers.
If, in any other industry in this country, a person or group of people feel that they are being treated unfairly, they stand up and do something about it instead of just writing notes to each other about how unhappy they are.
Maybe, instead of constantly complaining to each other, we could band together with a union of some sort and try to tackle the CAA head on. Tell them what we like and don't like about the way the operate their business, about the unrealistic fees and regulations they impose on us etc.
Most of us are members of some form of union (those that aren't should be). Why not use them to our benefit instead of funding their holiday schemes.
VD
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the union that represents NZ pilots is about as much use as the small soft pointy things on a bull.
Although you are obviously unaware of it, there are steps being taken to address the problem, but it will almost certainly end up in the courts. The CAA have a long track record of not listening, and then moving with autocratic swiftness. The reasons for that go all the way back to Swedavia, and the current litigation-driven rulemaking.
Some have said "It's their sandpit, if you don't like it..." etc. That is complete bollocks.
The CAA work for you an me, and they are accountable under the law for the decisions they make and the legislation they produce. In the case of legislation, that has to be approved by Parliament, so we can exert pressure there. In the case of decisions, these can be challenged in the courts.
NZ is as much my sandpit as theirs, I like it here and I have no intention of moving away again. They have a duty to be fair and reasonable in all they do, and it is our job to hold them accountable.
Now all we need is a bunch of pilots with spines. Now, that might be a problem...
Although you are obviously unaware of it, there are steps being taken to address the problem, but it will almost certainly end up in the courts. The CAA have a long track record of not listening, and then moving with autocratic swiftness. The reasons for that go all the way back to Swedavia, and the current litigation-driven rulemaking.
Some have said "It's their sandpit, if you don't like it..." etc. That is complete bollocks.
The CAA work for you an me, and they are accountable under the law for the decisions they make and the legislation they produce. In the case of legislation, that has to be approved by Parliament, so we can exert pressure there. In the case of decisions, these can be challenged in the courts.
NZ is as much my sandpit as theirs, I like it here and I have no intention of moving away again. They have a duty to be fair and reasonable in all they do, and it is our job to hold them accountable.
Now all we need is a bunch of pilots with spines. Now, that might be a problem...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a bizarre ATPL flight test charged at a rip off price
the likes of which no one else on planet earth does
The completion of the ATPL flight test makes not a lick of difference to the level of safety in the industry so it is utterly pointless
except that with CAA's blessing it allows employers to bribe, bully and coerce their pilots into doing things (legal and illegal) that they probably shouldn't be doing
Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.
Im not saying the system is perfect, cos its far far from it (nor am i an expert on the subject as im sure plenty of experts are shortly to point out), but instead of whinging, lets here your creative solution to the problems at hand, and ways where we could help put them in place.
stillalbatross
So you've only heard these stories, it hasn't actually happened to you. Are you sure they are correct.
I am unaware of any airlines (Part 121/5 operators) that don't pay for the ATPL when the time comes for a command upgrade, equally I am not aware of any Part 135 operators that reqire an ATPL. So I don't see what your issue is.
These employers know that if you don't do it "in house" then it gets f*cking expensive doing it via CAA in something like a Mojave. Too expensive for those of us earning squat in GA at the time. So they give you options because you're over a barrel, options like operate overweight, work your holidays, fly 120 hrs a month, fly IFR with no de icing. They know that you dearly want to leave but you can't without your ATPL flight test because you can't fly overseas with anything else. Frankly I am sick and tired of hearing these stories.
I am unaware of any airlines (Part 121/5 operators) that don't pay for the ATPL when the time comes for a command upgrade, equally I am not aware of any Part 135 operators that reqire an ATPL. So I don't see what your issue is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting replies.
Sqwark2000 there is a regional airline who negotiated for all their training and checking costs to be paid for by the mainline carrier they were contracted to. i.e. IT COST THEM NOT ONE CENT OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR YOU TO DO THE ATPL FLIGHT TEST. In fact, the mainline carrier in question had a policy in place promoting the idea that all flightcrew should get subjects and licence out of the way as soon as possible and in the case of their own flightcrew paid a salary increase accordingly.
Unfortunately those running the regional airline had a small problem with the idea that others could have a successful aviation career and had a policy whereby you were banned from obtaining it without their "approval" and if you went and completed it with CAA you were fired.
Why should an employer have control over my qualifications, if I was a lawyer, doctor, teacher or most anything else they wouldn't so why do they in aviation? Because the system and the people running it haven't changed since the 1950s.
Speeds High, there is such a multitude of Aircraft over 5700 KG that the licence can be used on from Waterbombers to Widebodies to SSTs. The licence is merely a place to attach the type ratings and associated training that have gone with it.
27/09, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm not about to mention names or call it anything other than stories on a public forum.
My issue here is that if you have 1500 hours and all your ATPL passes, you may have found it all very expensive so far and therefore may be unable to fund an ATPL flight test with CAA. In addition nor might your employer allow you to use their aircraft if you go "in house" because you're doing it to leave and the 3,4,or 5 years service you've given them means squat. The Flight test is the final 5% of the culmination of all that you might have achieved so far but without it everything else is worthless.
Simple solution is either
a) Adopt the JAA system (which would involve CAA going and looking at what someone else is doing)
b) Let CASA assist CAA over here and we'd have a more straightforward licence, lower costs and fewer accidents to boot.
Sqwark2000 there is a regional airline who negotiated for all their training and checking costs to be paid for by the mainline carrier they were contracted to. i.e. IT COST THEM NOT ONE CENT OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR YOU TO DO THE ATPL FLIGHT TEST. In fact, the mainline carrier in question had a policy in place promoting the idea that all flightcrew should get subjects and licence out of the way as soon as possible and in the case of their own flightcrew paid a salary increase accordingly.
Unfortunately those running the regional airline had a small problem with the idea that others could have a successful aviation career and had a policy whereby you were banned from obtaining it without their "approval" and if you went and completed it with CAA you were fired.
Why should an employer have control over my qualifications, if I was a lawyer, doctor, teacher or most anything else they wouldn't so why do they in aviation? Because the system and the people running it haven't changed since the 1950s.
Speeds High, there is such a multitude of Aircraft over 5700 KG that the licence can be used on from Waterbombers to Widebodies to SSTs. The licence is merely a place to attach the type ratings and associated training that have gone with it.
27/09, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I'm not about to mention names or call it anything other than stories on a public forum.
My issue here is that if you have 1500 hours and all your ATPL passes, you may have found it all very expensive so far and therefore may be unable to fund an ATPL flight test with CAA. In addition nor might your employer allow you to use their aircraft if you go "in house" because you're doing it to leave and the 3,4,or 5 years service you've given them means squat. The Flight test is the final 5% of the culmination of all that you might have achieved so far but without it everything else is worthless.
Simple solution is either
a) Adopt the JAA system (which would involve CAA going and looking at what someone else is doing)
b) Let CASA assist CAA over here and we'd have a more straightforward licence, lower costs and fewer accidents to boot.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll never happen. Too many dinosaurs in the CAA protecting their pensions and their patches. Way too much arrogance. And a pathological refusal to accept any other sytem, no matter how much sense it might make.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nor might your employer allow you to use their aircraft if you go "in house" because you're doing it to leave and the 3,4,or 5 years service you've given them means squat
I don't know what the problem is. Surely in is more ludicrous to 'give' someone an ATPL simply because they have the required hours (in any old aircraft) and exam passes, rather than require them to demonstrate proficiency in a Part 121 or 125 size aeroplane (or similar performer). It is simply no extra onus on the pilot. If you want to go overseas, fine - just don't expect the NZCAA to endorse your suitability as an Airline Trasport Pilot without adequate demostration - why should they?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple error that you are all making is that you are talking about what the airlines are doing right now regarding ATPL issue. This is irrelevant, you are entirely at their whim and that may all change tomorrow. As it has done in the past.
Right now, when the nz industry is in a state of relative good health of course you are all going to say "but my employers are all wonderful"
Have a look at the approach that employers have taken towards the ATPL issue over the past 20 years instead.
At risk of repeating myself I'll say that the issue of a pilots licence shouldn't be at the whim of your employer or based on your ability (at the poorest part of your career) to come up with a bucket of cash. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the start of you carrying punters for money starts with your CPL (and maybe multi/IR) surely this is more important as you are now legally able to operate commercially.
No-one is being given anything, it is just as ludicrous to think that a 4 hour ATPL test demonstrates proficiency. You are demonstrating Multi /IR in an air transport aircraft for your ATPL issue, anything more than that for the basic licence issue is garbage. As the Australians, the US and Europe found out when they spent millions putting together their licencing requirements and assessing what was required.
So Cloudcutter, if the ATPL issue on a part 121 or 135 aircraft is such a good indication of proficiency then why bother with 30 odd sectors line training?
I'll tell you why, because the licence issue is one thing and your ability to get type rated and operate that aircraft under your (CAA approved) operations with two (or three or four crew) on those particular routes or environment is another.
Right now, when the nz industry is in a state of relative good health of course you are all going to say "but my employers are all wonderful"
Have a look at the approach that employers have taken towards the ATPL issue over the past 20 years instead.
At risk of repeating myself I'll say that the issue of a pilots licence shouldn't be at the whim of your employer or based on your ability (at the poorest part of your career) to come up with a bucket of cash. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the start of you carrying punters for money starts with your CPL (and maybe multi/IR) surely this is more important as you are now legally able to operate commercially.
I don't know what the problem is. Surely in is more ludicrous to 'give' someone an ATPL simply because they have the required hours (in any old aircraft) and exam passes, rather than require them to demonstrate proficiency in a Part 121 or 125 size aeroplane (or similar performer). It is simply no extra onus on the pilot.
So Cloudcutter, if the ATPL issue on a part 121 or 135 aircraft is such a good indication of proficiency then why bother with 30 odd sectors line training?
I'll tell you why, because the licence issue is one thing and your ability to get type rated and operate that aircraft under your (CAA approved) operations with two (or three or four crew) on those particular routes or environment is another.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raho...I mean tutaewera......personally take offence to your post that the FAA rating is a give away....being a kiwi with a Kiwi ATPL,and a FAA ATP,and a few types to boot,...I busted my butt to get to where I am,....I have played the "game"with the CAA,and had to deal with many of their bloody cronies,and would love to be back in kiwi making my living,but it is people like you that make kiwis like me,glad we dont have buggers like you in the cockpit.....look up "raparere" in your maori dictionary ....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dog Box
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA will always be the same as MOR noted before it is full of people protecting their patch and pension, the fact that they were all wanna-be's and has-beens in the first place does not help matters either. The fact is untill there is a director who is prepared to stand up and sound off like hes got a pair then nothing will change, unless Rodney Hide has another go at them......
Untill then my friends you are like a cat scracthing a glass window.... making noise and going nowhere....
Untill then my friends you are like a cat scracthing a glass window.... making noise and going nowhere....
