Can NZ get any more retarded?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can NZ get any more retarded?
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. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
I have heard experience gained on aircraft not on NZ register is deemed worthless (i.e. 4000tt and 3000hrs B757, 1500 command) and you're 500 hours short. Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.
Where will it all end?
When they start only issuing the NZ ATPL to you because someone else has died or retired and handed theirs back?
I have heard experience gained on aircraft not on NZ register is deemed worthless (i.e. 4000tt and 3000hrs B757, 1500 command) and you're 500 hours short. Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.
Where will it all end?
When they start only issuing the NZ ATPL to you because someone else has died or retired and handed theirs back?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much does it cost and whose aircraft are you using? Everyone I have heard of has used the company a/c and the employer met the bill.
As far as experience on non-NZ registered a/c, its the first ive heard and sounds like a crock (unless there is more to your scenario). Infact I can think of examples which are contray to the rumour.
Here is the eligibilty requirements for the ATPL - nothing is mentioned to the effect that experience must be on the NZ register.
1 April 2002 CAA of NZ 32
61.253 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for an airline transport pilot licence a person shall—
(1) be at least 21 years of age; and
Civil Aviation Rules Part 61 CAA Consolidation
(2) hold a current commercial or senior commercial pilot licence for
that aircraft category; and
(3) hold a current instrument rating; and
(4) have at least the following general flight time experience as a
pilot, for the category of airline transport pilot licence applied
for, comprising specific flight experience that is acceptable to
the Director for the aircraft category:
(i) for aeroplanes – 1500 hours:
(ii) for helicopters – 1000 hours; and
(5) have passed approved written examinations, or approved
equivalents, relevant to the operation of air transport aircraft, in
the following subject areas:
(i) Air law:
(ii) Flight navigation general:
(iii) Flight planning:
(iv) Meteorology:
(v) Instruments and navigation aids:
(vi) Human factors:
(vii) Advanced aerodynamics, performance, and systems
knowledge (Aeroplane) or (Helicopter) as appropriate;
and
(6) demonstrate to a flight examiner general knowledge of and
ability to perform competently, those normal and emergency
flight manoeuvres applicable to the category of aircraft in which
the applicant is being flight tested; and ability to comply with air
traffic services practices and procedures.
Infact the Advisory Circular states....
(e) A current ATPL issued by a foreign contracting State to the Convention will normally be
accepted as meeting the requirements in Rule 61.253(4) for flight time experience, and
Rule 61.253(5) for all written examination passes except for air law, provided the applicant
produces evidence of having completed at least 500 hours as pilot-in-command or 1000
hours as co-pilot on multi-crew operations in multi-engine aircraft on commercial IFR
operations following the issue of the flight crew licence that has been presented for
recognition. Such experience is to have been gained in countries under the jurisdiction of
the foreign authority that issued the ATPL.
Troppo - Too True
[
As far as experience on non-NZ registered a/c, its the first ive heard and sounds like a crock (unless there is more to your scenario). Infact I can think of examples which are contray to the rumour.
Here is the eligibilty requirements for the ATPL - nothing is mentioned to the effect that experience must be on the NZ register.
1 April 2002 CAA of NZ 32
61.253 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for an airline transport pilot licence a person shall—
(1) be at least 21 years of age; and
Civil Aviation Rules Part 61 CAA Consolidation
(2) hold a current commercial or senior commercial pilot licence for
that aircraft category; and
(3) hold a current instrument rating; and
(4) have at least the following general flight time experience as a
pilot, for the category of airline transport pilot licence applied
for, comprising specific flight experience that is acceptable to
the Director for the aircraft category:
(i) for aeroplanes – 1500 hours:
(ii) for helicopters – 1000 hours; and
(5) have passed approved written examinations, or approved
equivalents, relevant to the operation of air transport aircraft, in
the following subject areas:
(i) Air law:
(ii) Flight navigation general:
(iii) Flight planning:
(iv) Meteorology:
(v) Instruments and navigation aids:
(vi) Human factors:
(vii) Advanced aerodynamics, performance, and systems
knowledge (Aeroplane) or (Helicopter) as appropriate;
and
(6) demonstrate to a flight examiner general knowledge of and
ability to perform competently, those normal and emergency
flight manoeuvres applicable to the category of aircraft in which
the applicant is being flight tested; and ability to comply with air
traffic services practices and procedures.
Infact the Advisory Circular states....
(e) A current ATPL issued by a foreign contracting State to the Convention will normally be
accepted as meeting the requirements in Rule 61.253(4) for flight time experience, and
Rule 61.253(5) for all written examination passes except for air law, provided the applicant
produces evidence of having completed at least 500 hours as pilot-in-command or 1000
hours as co-pilot on multi-crew operations in multi-engine aircraft on commercial IFR
operations following the issue of the flight crew licence that has been presented for
recognition. Such experience is to have been gained in countries under the jurisdiction of
the foreign authority that issued the ATPL.
Troppo - Too True
[
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rainforest
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a CAA certifyed B767/757 sim in asia with a CAA certified TRE/IRE who can do NZ ATPL Flt tests but its going to cost you $$$$$.
You can always do a B767 differences cse and do your Atpl with a few of the airNZ testing officers.
And I know at least a dozen NZ licence holders with a B757 endorsement on the licence.
You can always do a B767 differences cse and do your Atpl with a few of the airNZ testing officers.
And I know at least a dozen NZ licence holders with a B757 endorsement on the licence.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth!
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding 6 ICAO ATPL licences including the Kiwi one IMHO the NZ one is good. The theory requires a reasonable std and the flight test being in an ATPL sized aeroplane, not some little toy twin which holds no relevance to the job of a commander on an aircraft >5700kg, to me is fair. For that reason some countries used to accept only Kiwi / UK ATPL's. E.g. Brunei until recently, when NZ started swapping OZ ATPL's into Kiwi ones.
Having flown in many countries and still been offered jobs in NZ I can't believe there is anything to the idea that NZ doesn't accept foreign experience. Sounds more like an operator's excuses for telling someone they are not wanted!
If anyone wants to label a licencing system retarded then perhaps the UK / JAA would be more approriate. You must resit all theory exams (13 or 14 of them now?) and won't recognise foreign ATPL licences. Whether thats "jobs for the boys" or revenue gathering, who knows? Pure protecionist bull***t IMHO.
If one must find a reasonable std between the FAA giveaway and the JAA overkill I'd say the NZ one is pretty good.
Having flown in many countries and still been offered jobs in NZ I can't believe there is anything to the idea that NZ doesn't accept foreign experience. Sounds more like an operator's excuses for telling someone they are not wanted!
If anyone wants to label a licencing system retarded then perhaps the UK / JAA would be more approriate. You must resit all theory exams (13 or 14 of them now?) and won't recognise foreign ATPL licences. Whether thats "jobs for the boys" or revenue gathering, who knows? Pure protecionist bull***t IMHO.
If one must find a reasonable std between the FAA giveaway and the JAA overkill I'd say the NZ one is pretty good.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is good apart from the ridiculous requirement for an ATPL flight test. It proves nothing, and is far better accomplished as part of an aircraft type rating. What is the point in flying a high-performance multi to ATPL level, if you are not operating two-crew? What does it prove that the multi endorsement on an instrument rating, plus a CPL, doesn't?
When you say "some" countries, you are basically talking about third-world countries without an effective licencing system of their own. No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value.
The NZ system is far more protectionist than the JAA system is. The Aussies will recognise any valid ICAO ATPL, current or not. It is a relatively simple matter to obtain an Oz ATPL and then convert it under TTMRA. Despite this, the NZ CAA will not recognise an ICAO ATPL that isn't completely current. They therefore force you to jump through the hoops, for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
I also hear that the NZ CAA have tried to refuse a few of these conversions, which is of course illegal under the provisions of TTMRA. But as with many issues, the CAA are very good at ignoring such niceties and force you to sue them if you want justice. Have a look at the number of cases they have lost in recent years. That is where your money goes from all those fees - defending pointless legal actions.
I too hold licences from several different authorities, and they were all easier to obtain than the NZ one.
When you say "some" countries, you are basically talking about third-world countries without an effective licencing system of their own. No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value.
The NZ system is far more protectionist than the JAA system is. The Aussies will recognise any valid ICAO ATPL, current or not. It is a relatively simple matter to obtain an Oz ATPL and then convert it under TTMRA. Despite this, the NZ CAA will not recognise an ICAO ATPL that isn't completely current. They therefore force you to jump through the hoops, for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
I also hear that the NZ CAA have tried to refuse a few of these conversions, which is of course illegal under the provisions of TTMRA. But as with many issues, the CAA are very good at ignoring such niceties and force you to sue them if you want justice. Have a look at the number of cases they have lost in recent years. That is where your money goes from all those fees - defending pointless legal actions.
I too hold licences from several different authorities, and they were all easier to obtain than the NZ one.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ENZED
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you guys are worried about another labour government, then think again!
The Nats sold off all the local airfields(like Ardmore) GA is paying so much rent to these outfits, they cant afford new aircraft.
Nats sold off AirNZ, but Labour had to bail it out!
(just like Railways and Bank of New Zealand)
If it hadn't been for Labour, AirNz would have probably gone belly-up, that would have completed the tories wish to flog off everything that wasn't bolted down, so all the foreign investors could pick over what was left.
Dont also forget that the Nats also destroyed the apprenticeship schemes by the late 1990's, saying that 'industry training' is the answer!(just look at the leaky home sydrome!)
Labour are busy getting apprenticeships up and running again.....
If we got that motley lot of incompetents(Nats) back, aviation in nz may as well roll over and die.
Dont get railroaded into that!
The Nats sold off all the local airfields(like Ardmore) GA is paying so much rent to these outfits, they cant afford new aircraft.
Nats sold off AirNZ, but Labour had to bail it out!
(just like Railways and Bank of New Zealand)
If it hadn't been for Labour, AirNz would have probably gone belly-up, that would have completed the tories wish to flog off everything that wasn't bolted down, so all the foreign investors could pick over what was left.
Dont also forget that the Nats also destroyed the apprenticeship schemes by the late 1990's, saying that 'industry training' is the answer!(just look at the leaky home sydrome!)
Labour are busy getting apprenticeships up and running again.....
If we got that motley lot of incompetents(Nats) back, aviation in nz may as well roll over and die.
Dont get railroaded into that!
stillalbatross
Not quite sure what your point is here??????????
Sounds a bit like hearsay to me. You may want to check your facts. Nearly all ATPL's are issued as part of a command upgrade check flight which is done in house. The number of ATPL issues that would be done with a CAA examiner would be very few so I find it hard to accept that there would be a one year waiting list.
I don't wish to comment one way or the other as to wether or not the New Zealand system is good or bad, BUT, if you want to play in that sandpit you have to play by their rules.
Locodriver
If my memory serves me correctly it was Roger Douglas and Richard "save the railways" Prebble and co that started the big New Zealand sell off. Correct me if I am wrong but weren't they a Labour Government.
The current Labour government were part of the reason that Air NZ nearly went belly up.
National governments haven't been much better but to suggest that a National government is going to be worse than Labour is gilding the lily somewhat.
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. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
I have heard experience gained on aircraft not on NZ register is deemed worthless (i.e. 4000tt and 3000hrs B757, 1500 command) and you're 500 hours short. Now I understand there is a 1 year waiting list for those poor souls who have to do it with a CAA examiner.
I don't wish to comment one way or the other as to wether or not the New Zealand system is good or bad, BUT, if you want to play in that sandpit you have to play by their rules.
Locodriver
Nats sold off AirNZ, but Labour had to bail it out!(just like Railways and Bank of New Zealand)
If it hadn't been for Labour, AirNz would have probably gone belly-up,
National governments haven't been much better but to suggest that a National government is going to be worse than Labour is gilding the lily somewhat.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth!
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, not a happy little vegemite then?
Re the flight test requirement: With a few CAA granted exceptions (ie C421) the test must be in an A/C >5700kg. Aircraft >5700 kg's in NZ require 2 pilot / multi-crew and did so when many other countries let such A/C fly single pilot (eg OZ & USA cargo Metros). So it should be multi crew...
As for the licence itself: An ATPL qualifys one to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it realistic to assume that (eg) a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?
One can of course dump the stds onus on the PIC rating with airlines or outside trainers (a'la FAA). But perhaps CAANZ wants the licence to reflect the priviledges? Not something you just line up for when you tick over 1,500 hours and do your next IRR.
The NZ licence (As others rightly point out, usually combined with the std in house command upgrade process) at least shows you can handle the job that the licence allows.
MOR - "No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value."
Ahem - Please tell CASA that in your opinion OZ is a 3rd world country. (They accept the NZ ATPL as a straight swap). Or CAA Singapore who take it with a basic law & medical, pre JAR the Irish CAA, etc.
As someone insighful fellow said - its their sandpit, gotta play by their rules! The Kiwi sandpit converts any decent licence with law / medical and a flight test. Try that on with the JAA.
Nothing is perfect and I must agree that IMHO CAANZ does have some weird type ratings rules (ie Accepts Airbus ratings from Toulouse but no other Airbus factory schools - (identical course / facilities) OR Flight Safety Intl type courses at some locales but not others. Seems to me like nothing more than an excuse for paid junkets for CAA inspectors.
I too have been frustrated by conversions processes but thats an expats life. It is easier now than it was - the old NZ ATPL law exam (pre present multi-guess variety) was a nightmare but now its no big deal.
I see options have been suggested re B757 / 767 sim checks etc and they sound promising. And I have heard of private students using Air NZ for ATPL checks in the past.
Ultimately thats life - if NZ "ain't your bag", then there are other options...
Re the flight test requirement: With a few CAA granted exceptions (ie C421) the test must be in an A/C >5700kg. Aircraft >5700 kg's in NZ require 2 pilot / multi-crew and did so when many other countries let such A/C fly single pilot (eg OZ & USA cargo Metros). So it should be multi crew...
As for the licence itself: An ATPL qualifys one to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it realistic to assume that (eg) a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?
One can of course dump the stds onus on the PIC rating with airlines or outside trainers (a'la FAA). But perhaps CAANZ wants the licence to reflect the priviledges? Not something you just line up for when you tick over 1,500 hours and do your next IRR.
The NZ licence (As others rightly point out, usually combined with the std in house command upgrade process) at least shows you can handle the job that the licence allows.
MOR - "No first-world nation has ever accepted an NZ ATPL at face value."
Ahem - Please tell CASA that in your opinion OZ is a 3rd world country. (They accept the NZ ATPL as a straight swap). Or CAA Singapore who take it with a basic law & medical, pre JAR the Irish CAA, etc.
As someone insighful fellow said - its their sandpit, gotta play by their rules! The Kiwi sandpit converts any decent licence with law / medical and a flight test. Try that on with the JAA.
Nothing is perfect and I must agree that IMHO CAANZ does have some weird type ratings rules (ie Accepts Airbus ratings from Toulouse but no other Airbus factory schools - (identical course / facilities) OR Flight Safety Intl type courses at some locales but not others. Seems to me like nothing more than an excuse for paid junkets for CAA inspectors.
I too have been frustrated by conversions processes but thats an expats life. It is easier now than it was - the old NZ ATPL law exam (pre present multi-guess variety) was a nightmare but now its no big deal.
I see options have been suggested re B757 / 767 sim checks etc and they sound promising. And I have heard of private students using Air NZ for ATPL checks in the past.
Ultimately thats life - if NZ "ain't your bag", then there are other options...
Last edited by Tutaewera; 30th Jul 2005 at 08:02.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about missing the point...
The fact that there are exceptions (421, Cheyenne, Chieftain... all single pilot aircraft) means that anyone not already in an airline is going to be doing the check as a single pilot, in an aircraft that does not require an ATPL to fly in any case. What does this prove, exactly?
Yes, because in real life such a pilot is not going to be in command of anything over 5700kg. He or she will be serving an apprenticeship as a First Officer, which the rest of the world sees as being appropriate training for an ATPL. Of course you can't do an ATPL flight test in a Duchess... but if you could, it just reinforces the pointlessness of it all.
It doesn't do anything of the sort. It shows that you can handle a 421 or similar, in a single-pilot environment. Please explain how that demonstrates that you can handle the left seat of a 747 (which is what the licence actually allows).
Oh no they don't, you still need to sit law.
Well as the flight test alone can cost many thousands of dollars, it is probably cheaper to do the exams under JAA, than the flight test in NZ.
And that is exactly the point. Many of the CAA rules have no basis in any kind of fact. Just like the insistence on the Toulouse school for Airbus ratings, the requirement to do an ATPL flight test has no logical basis in any recognised set of standards. What it does demonstrate, is the standard NZ mindset that nobody else in the world knows as much about aviation as the NZ CAA. There is absolutely no logical reason to refuse to accept JAA or FAA qualifications. Saying that "we won't because they won't" is just childish.
At least the JAA and the FAA are actively seeking a common set of standards...
Re the flight test requirement: With a few CAA granted exceptions (ie C421) the test must be in an A/C >5700kg. Aircraft >5700 kg's in NZ require 2 pilot / multi-crew and did so when many other countries let such A/C fly single pilot (eg OZ & USA cargo Metros).
An ATPL qualifys you to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it reasonable to assume that a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and a an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?
The NZ licence (As others rightly point out, usually combined with the std in house command upgrade process) at least shows you can handle the job that the licence allows.
Please tell CASA that in your opinion OZ is a 3rd world country. (They accept the NZ ATPL as a straight swap).
The Kiwi sandpit converts any decent licence with law / medical and a flight test. Try that on with the JAA.
That seems to me like nothing more than an excuse for paid junkets for CAA inspectors.
At least the JAA and the FAA are actively seeking a common set of standards...
Last edited by MOR; 30th Jul 2005 at 12:39.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
Having spent sometime overseas and had my eyes opened to the bigger world of aviation, I agree with the sentiments about NZ/NZ CAA.
My question is, why is it that NZCAA have such a wholier than thou attitude with the way rules are? Are they so isolated in their little world?!
I do hope those guys do some reading of this forum!
My question is, why is it that NZCAA have such a wholier than thou attitude with the way rules are? Are they so isolated in their little world?!
I do hope those guys do some reading of this forum!
Last edited by DeltaT; 26th Aug 2005 at 06:45.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ENZED
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the great sell off, Roger Douglas and Labour did set up the Railways for sale, but forming a sucessful trading govt owned corporation first.(just like the old National airways corp)
however, they did not end up selling it.- Probably part of Lange's U Turn!.
National on the the other hand, flogged it off in the mid 1990's.
The rest is history.
I remain unconvinced that a National govt would have bailed AirNZ out, they stated, "let the market forces rule'(read- overseas airlines picking up the routes)
With the good ATPL debate, CAA rules need a good going over, let the industry advise CAA, not vice versa!
however, they did not end up selling it.- Probably part of Lange's U Turn!.
National on the the other hand, flogged it off in the mid 1990's.
The rest is history.
I remain unconvinced that a National govt would have bailed AirNZ out, they stated, "let the market forces rule'(read- overseas airlines picking up the routes)
With the good ATPL debate, CAA rules need a good going over, let the industry advise CAA, not vice versa!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh Loco..this post is mostly about the pointlessness of the ATP syllabus but..I'll bite..Don't you remember Cullen telling us on budget night that there was no real money unaccounted for in the surplus and certainly none available for tax cuts..and this last week he has found 1.9 billion for "election year spending"...that was what Maharey admitted on TV...Labour has lost me for their dishonesty I'm sorry..
..still I saw the billboard man with a trailer full of red signs at blockhouse bay shops yesterday..did he plant one in your front yard
..still I saw the billboard man with a trailer full of red signs at blockhouse bay shops yesterday..did he plant one in your front yard
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what all the hubub's about.
"MOR" are you sure about your last post? I got an NZ ATPL converted to an Australian ATPL in 2000 with no exams, under an agreement called the TTMRA. Has that procedure changed recently?
I am no longer in NZ but I simply accepted the deal and got on with it. Everyone I met along the way was very friendly and competent too. I did a class 1 medical, law exam at ASL in Wellington and then a test on a SA227 in AKL. All over in 10 days.
Mr Tutaewera (what does that mean by the way?) I agree with your opinion of the JAA conversion (or should they say complete re-issue).
"MOR" are you sure about your last post? I got an NZ ATPL converted to an Australian ATPL in 2000 with no exams, under an agreement called the TTMRA. Has that procedure changed recently?
I am no longer in NZ but I simply accepted the deal and got on with it. Everyone I met along the way was very friendly and competent too. I did a class 1 medical, law exam at ASL in Wellington and then a test on a SA227 in AKL. All over in 10 days.
Mr Tutaewera (what does that mean by the way?) I agree with your opinion of the JAA conversion (or should they say complete re-issue).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, one reply at at time, 27/09.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite sure what your point is here??????????
My point is pretty simple, if you work for an employer who is happy to grant you a NZ ATPL knowing that you can find work overseas and the possibly better employment prospects that go with it then fine. Unfortunately NZ aviation isn't entirely full of these people and I would has it a guess you haven't worked for those from the other side of the fence.
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.
They know that CAA hasn't updated it's regs since 1952 when a CPL was all you needed to fly anywhere else. They know that no other Tertiary qualification in New Zealand or possibly the world has the same backwards approach to it's final completion.
Tutaewera
Unfortunately, as MOR has mentioned the ATPL license and actual issue have very little to do with a type rating on an A/C over 5700 kg or your suitability for the role. That's the domain of the type rating and associated company training that goes with whatever you've stuck on it afterwards. The ATPL just says that you've passed a bunch of exams and can operate a multicrew multi engine aircraft in a IFR environment. Nothing more and nothing less.
As for accepting foriegn experience I was referring to the CAA all pitching in and buying a "Janes World Aircraft Directory" and having a look at all the wonderful aircraft before deciding that neither a TriStar or an MD-11 could possibly be multicrew over 5700kgs because we're NZ CAA and all the big aircraft over 5700 kg that we need to know about are already on our register.
Before anyone starts slagging off the FAA licence I'd suggest you check the accident stats, use pax seat per mile, sectors or whatever. You'll find lil' old NZ CAA licence holders have a worse safety record so any concept that we've got a tougher licencing program so we're safer is horsesh*t.
Borneo Wild Man
You will find that you can't use company testing officers if you're not employed by the company, you can only use CAA testing officers. There are no doubt plenty in Air NZ who can issue ATPLs to Air NZ employees but that's about it.
As someone said, if it's not you bag then go elsewhere. Fair enough. But that's a pretty selfish approach (hey-I'm-alright-Jack) and not one I'd usually expect from a New Zealander. This ATPL system has cost people their careers, their families, it is only the way it is because CAA chooses it to be so. If they went the way of the JAA system the accident record in NZ would improve overnight.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. A wonderful leverage tool, you might say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite sure what your point is here??????????
My point is pretty simple, if you work for an employer who is happy to grant you a NZ ATPL knowing that you can find work overseas and the possibly better employment prospects that go with it then fine. Unfortunately NZ aviation isn't entirely full of these people and I would has it a guess you haven't worked for those from the other side of the fence.
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.
They know that CAA hasn't updated it's regs since 1952 when a CPL was all you needed to fly anywhere else. They know that no other Tertiary qualification in New Zealand or possibly the world has the same backwards approach to it's final completion.
Tutaewera
As for the licence itself: An ATPL qualifys one to be PIC of A/C >5700 kg. Is it realistic to assume that (eg) a young GA pilot with 1,500 hours in a C152 and an ATPL test (ie IRR) in a Duchess is suitable for such a role?
As for accepting foriegn experience I was referring to the CAA all pitching in and buying a "Janes World Aircraft Directory" and having a look at all the wonderful aircraft before deciding that neither a TriStar or an MD-11 could possibly be multicrew over 5700kgs because we're NZ CAA and all the big aircraft over 5700 kg that we need to know about are already on our register.
Before anyone starts slagging off the FAA licence I'd suggest you check the accident stats, use pax seat per mile, sectors or whatever. You'll find lil' old NZ CAA licence holders have a worse safety record so any concept that we've got a tougher licencing program so we're safer is horsesh*t.
Borneo Wild Man
You will find that you can't use company testing officers if you're not employed by the company, you can only use CAA testing officers. There are no doubt plenty in Air NZ who can issue ATPLs to Air NZ employees but that's about it.
As someone said, if it's not you bag then go elsewhere. Fair enough. But that's a pretty selfish approach (hey-I'm-alright-Jack) and not one I'd usually expect from a New Zealander. This ATPL system has cost people their careers, their families, it is only the way it is because CAA chooses it to be so. If they went the way of the JAA system the accident record in NZ would improve overnight.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stillalbatross,
If you agree to fly overweight, more flight hours than the legal limit etc then it's nothing to do with an employer not paying for your ATPL flight test so you can swan off overseas etc. It's more to do with to your professionalism or lack of it!!!
it's not the employers job to get you your ATPL, it's your own. They are in business to make money not spend it on irrelevant licences for their employees. Most if not all GA jobs are Part 135 companies that don't require it's PiC to hold an ATPL so why do you think the boss would gladly spend money on your ATPL upgrade.
Nearly all airlines in NZ will pay for ATPL upgrades when it is required. The only company I know is Origin who actually bond command upgrades in some shape or form so most airlines know full well that a new ATPL holder can the next day resign to go offshore or to a competitor airline. I know of 1 instance where a pilot passed their ATPL/Command check and the next day resigned to go to larger turbo prop company as a Co. The Company who covered the cost for training etc got all of 1 months work from the new captain before they pissed off.
Now I have worked for a GA company that was all about the bottom line and not about it's staff and whilst I wanted things to happen with the company paying for upgrades etc, there wasn't a business case for it at the time and hence things didn't progress as fast as I wanted it to. That is life in aviation....especially GA where the bottom line is the main focus, not promoting your employees career paths.
I suggest you take off your wrap around sunnies and open you eyes up to the realities of aviation business especially the GA scene.
S2K
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.
it's not the employers job to get you your ATPL, it's your own. They are in business to make money not spend it on irrelevant licences for their employees. Most if not all GA jobs are Part 135 companies that don't require it's PiC to hold an ATPL so why do you think the boss would gladly spend money on your ATPL upgrade.
if you work for an employer who is happy to grant you a NZ ATPL knowing that you can find work overseas and the possibly better employment prospects that go with it then fine. Unfortunately NZ aviation isn't entirely full of these people and I would has it a guess you haven't worked for those from the other side of the fence.
Now I have worked for a GA company that was all about the bottom line and not about it's staff and whilst I wanted things to happen with the company paying for upgrades etc, there wasn't a business case for it at the time and hence things didn't progress as fast as I wanted it to. That is life in aviation....especially GA where the bottom line is the main focus, not promoting your employees career paths.
I suggest you take off your wrap around sunnies and open you eyes up to the realities of aviation business especially the GA scene.
S2K