Part 61 Aeronautical Experience
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECT & MCT are well defined, being when the geometric centre of the sun is 6* below the horizon.
Note that the "horizon" is the astronomical or theoretical horizon viewed from sea level in this definition. The visible horizon (what you actually see) is a little lower due to atmospheric refraction and the elevation of your eyeball.
I think CASA has done a reasonable job warning pilots that terrain and cloud may make the world a very dark place even during the period of civil twilight. Let the user beware.
Latitude also changes the duration of twilight a lot. There is a very nice graph of twilight duration vs. latitude, on wikipedia - twilight.
Note that the "horizon" is the astronomical or theoretical horizon viewed from sea level in this definition. The visible horizon (what you actually see) is a little lower due to atmospheric refraction and the elevation of your eyeball.
I think CASA has done a reasonable job warning pilots that terrain and cloud may make the world a very dark place even during the period of civil twilight. Let the user beware.
Latitude also changes the duration of twilight a lot. There is a very nice graph of twilight duration vs. latitude, on wikipedia - twilight.
Last edited by Oktas8; 20th Aug 2014 at 07:33.
sillograph, that is one of the areas that so many operators are having trouble figuring out whether or not they are legal, or whether CASA are going to come knocking seeking an offence!
In the proposed new regs, there is a section called "Definition of flight time as co-pilot for part 61", which implies that only certified 2-crew aircraft can have a co pilot. The difficult thing to try and figure out what in the hell is going on, is the note underneath that says "a co pilot is a pilot on board an aircraft in a piloting capacity other than the pic or a pilot on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training. See the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary"
So, being diligent, I look up the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary.
"co pilot, in relation to an aircraft, means a pilot on board the aircraft in a pilot capacity other than:
a) the pilot in command or
b) a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training".
That seems to indicate, to me and my little brain, that pilots of king airs and conquests can still log co pilot time if the client wants them there, without the need for MCC or part 142 or C&T approvals.
BUT, what an FOI will say on Sept 1st is anyones guess at this stage. A date change doesn't mean that all of a sudden this type of arrangement is unsafe!
It is a similar uncertainty with hiring a new, already endorsed pilot on one of the aforementioned fly machines, and conducting ICUS to teach them your SOPs and assess their standards before letting them loose with paying customers!
Mail-man, for the love of god do not quote me, but i was told atpl holders will not have to go through an MCC. However, when you do go fly an airliner (I presume you aren't at this stage) the likelihood is that the company will put you through one anyway.
Apologies if I have created some confusion over the last light thing. As whether or not it is day or night for my flying , it doesn't really bother me that much, and I have probably gotten a little arse about with my understanding of the technical definitions. Being diligent once again, I will embark on another journey for at the very least my own enlightenment.
Bring on September 1st I say, so that it may be once again postponed at the last minute!
But I will not hold my breath because for some strange reason, I am actually worried that this time they could be imposed to save face over the last time and then we all have to deal with the issues it causes.
In the proposed new regs, there is a section called "Definition of flight time as co-pilot for part 61", which implies that only certified 2-crew aircraft can have a co pilot. The difficult thing to try and figure out what in the hell is going on, is the note underneath that says "a co pilot is a pilot on board an aircraft in a piloting capacity other than the pic or a pilot on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training. See the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary"
So, being diligent, I look up the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary.
"co pilot, in relation to an aircraft, means a pilot on board the aircraft in a pilot capacity other than:
a) the pilot in command or
b) a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training".
That seems to indicate, to me and my little brain, that pilots of king airs and conquests can still log co pilot time if the client wants them there, without the need for MCC or part 142 or C&T approvals.
BUT, what an FOI will say on Sept 1st is anyones guess at this stage. A date change doesn't mean that all of a sudden this type of arrangement is unsafe!
It is a similar uncertainty with hiring a new, already endorsed pilot on one of the aforementioned fly machines, and conducting ICUS to teach them your SOPs and assess their standards before letting them loose with paying customers!
Mail-man, for the love of god do not quote me, but i was told atpl holders will not have to go through an MCC. However, when you do go fly an airliner (I presume you aren't at this stage) the likelihood is that the company will put you through one anyway.
Apologies if I have created some confusion over the last light thing. As whether or not it is day or night for my flying , it doesn't really bother me that much, and I have probably gotten a little arse about with my understanding of the technical definitions. Being diligent once again, I will embark on another journey for at the very least my own enlightenment.
Bring on September 1st I say, so that it may be once again postponed at the last minute!
But I will not hold my breath because for some strange reason, I am actually worried that this time they could be imposed to save face over the last time and then we all have to deal with the issues it causes.
I think the upshot is that if the rules allow an aircraft to have a single pilot, by definition there's no one on board in a pilot capacity other than PIC and therefore you can't clock up co-pilot time in that aircraft.
(Don't worry: Come 2003 the rules will be simple and clear. Oh, wait...)
(Don't worry: Come 2003 the rules will be simple and clear. Oh, wait...)
Oktas8 and Rate1:
A check of the current CAR's (1988) will show you that the requirements for ICUS include at CAR 5.40 (1)
One assumes that all the Captains of your operator are approved for "the purpose". And there should also be clauses in their Ops Manual dealing with gaining the approval.
The GA companies that I am involved with have exactly that in their Ops Manuals including specific training requirements for the supervisory pilot. CASA involvement is not required in the training or approval process.
Blackburn
A check of the current CAR's (1988) will show you that the requirements for ICUS include at CAR 5.40 (1)
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the
aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the
purpose by the operator of the aircraft.
aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the
purpose by the operator of the aircraft.
The GA companies that I am involved with have exactly that in their Ops Manuals including specific training requirements for the supervisory pilot. CASA involvement is not required in the training or approval process.
Blackburn
Last edited by blackburn; 20th Aug 2014 at 11:29. Reason: Edited the quote
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes blackburn, what you say is true.
However, as every captain is approved, and those FOs without ATPL log ICUS without the captain even knowing who they are it seems to me to be a slightly pointless exercise. I am pleased that Part 61 is removing what seems to me to be a bit of a charade (albeit a legally correct and approved charade).
However, as every captain is approved, and those FOs without ATPL log ICUS without the captain even knowing who they are it seems to me to be a slightly pointless exercise. I am pleased that Part 61 is removing what seems to me to be a bit of a charade (albeit a legally correct and approved charade).
Fiji ATPL v Australian ATPL equivalence
Does anyone know if a pilot with an Australian CPL and ATPL subjects and a current command instrument rating on a Boeing 737 and who also has a Fiji ATPL, can be automatically granted an Australian ATPL on the basis he has an (ICAO) Fiji ATPL.
As with all things CASA, it probably depends.....
If converting a licence for the first time, answer is yes, subject to the usual air law, medical and verification letter etc.
But a while ago CASA ruled against those who were either too indolent or mentally-challenged to pass 'their' exams and instead tried to shortcut the system via the licence-of-convenience route. Most pilots went for a USA ATP, which in times gone by could almost be purchased from a vending machine. Schools that guaranteed an ATP in a week for a fixed price with 'examiner on staff'. Harrumphh.... CASA cottoned on to this and (for a while at least) required the applicant to show proof that they had substantial operating experience using that licence.
So if your mate (and I can guess who it is) is currently flying Fiji registered aircraft on Part 121 operations, CASA should accept a conversion of the ATPL, assuming that he has the necessary hours. Though, having said that, if the ATPL was a validation of a licence from elsewhere (e.g. USA) possibly not.
It could hinge on whether he can get a letter of verification out of the Fiji CAA stating that the licence was an original issue. In some jurisdictions they do no favours for foreigners, in others a brown paper bag solves all problems of this nature and in others they play it straight enough.
If converting a licence for the first time, answer is yes, subject to the usual air law, medical and verification letter etc.
But a while ago CASA ruled against those who were either too indolent or mentally-challenged to pass 'their' exams and instead tried to shortcut the system via the licence-of-convenience route. Most pilots went for a USA ATP, which in times gone by could almost be purchased from a vending machine. Schools that guaranteed an ATP in a week for a fixed price with 'examiner on staff'. Harrumphh.... CASA cottoned on to this and (for a while at least) required the applicant to show proof that they had substantial operating experience using that licence.
So if your mate (and I can guess who it is) is currently flying Fiji registered aircraft on Part 121 operations, CASA should accept a conversion of the ATPL, assuming that he has the necessary hours. Though, having said that, if the ATPL was a validation of a licence from elsewhere (e.g. USA) possibly not.
It could hinge on whether he can get a letter of verification out of the Fiji CAA stating that the licence was an original issue. In some jurisdictions they do no favours for foreigners, in others a brown paper bag solves all problems of this nature and in others they play it straight enough.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 21st Aug 2014 at 06:22.
Originally Posted by Centaurus
Does anyone know if a pilot with an Australian CPL and ATPL subjects and a current command instrument rating on a Boeing 737 and who also has a Fiji ATPL, can be automatically granted an Australian ATPL on the basis he has an (ICAO) Fiji ATPL.
Also, if he already has all the subjects and is currently flying a B737 he shouldn't have any problems setting up a flight test under the new Part 61 requirement. It would almost be a non event to simply have a CASA accredited Flight Examiner observe his next routine simulator check and sign it off.
The real rush to get an Aussie ATPL before the end of the month would surely only be for those guys who have all the prerequisites but currently no access or rating on a type above 5700 kg.
The real rush to get an Aussie ATPL before the end of the month would surely only be for those guys who have all the prerequisites but currently no access or rating on a type above 5700 kg.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPL flight test
So basically we can only fly multi crew operation turbine plane in order to obtain APTPL license ... BE76 won't able to do the job then ...
Last edited by PilotWA123; 23rd Aug 2014 at 14:24.
As most turbine aircraft certified for two pilot operations are supported by approved simulators, it is likely that is where most ATPL tests will be done as an 'add on' to the type rating. Part 61.700 (5) b is clear enough about this.
and has all the other prerequisites
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only gd news
Yeah I think this is the only good news for this new change. Simulator in Aust is limited hope CASA allow us to conduct our prof check, IR And ATPL flt test in oversea..
A guy has 2000 hours of which some 1400 are co-pilot 737 of which 50% can only be logged for the purposes of applying for an ATPL even though all subjects passed in Australia. He needs a minimum of 1500 hours for ATPL issue. With 50% knocked off his 1400 737 hours means he cannot meet the 1500 hours.
The ATPL requirements will be met before the real command requirements are.
Same with the new flight test setup - there is no issue because there is simply no need to hold an ATPL before having a command on a type that requires it.
Unless of course the insurance premiums are going to go up on all the single pilot types because they won't be able to find ATPL holders to fly them, that would be an issue.
there is simply no need to hold an ATPL before having a command on a type that requires it.
So you can have 1500 hours in command of Cessna 150 as a flying instructor and providing you have a current instrument rating and a twin endorsement it will get you an interview. The 50% of co-pilot time is the problem especially as that rule is peculiar only to Australia
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50% copilot time has been the norm in many countries for many years (incl NZ & UK), although it has been changing in recent years. Whatever one thinks of the merits of 50%, Australia's rule is by no means unique.
It is nothing to do with being a captain. It is because there are airline operators (Virgin is just one) and regionals in Australia that require the ATPL before a candidate is even considered for interview.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - the new rules with regards to ATPL's is going to have very little effect. When you need it, you're going to get it. A flight test is already in place in an operators cyclic program (for example) for candidates who do Command upgrades.
I personally don't see the issue with having to do a test. You're required to do one for a CPL etc. Why not an ATPL?
morno
Folks,
Re. only 50% of Co-Pilot time counting towards total aeronautical experience, if this has changed in Part 61, I do hope Australia has notified ICAO if a difference with Annex 1.
Re. all the nonsense about what ICUS is in Australia, here we go again.
Read ICAO Annex 1 for what are the Convention requirements -and read it as an ICAO document, not what you "want" it to mean.
Tootle pip!!
Re. only 50% of Co-Pilot time counting towards total aeronautical experience, if this has changed in Part 61, I do hope Australia has notified ICAO if a difference with Annex 1.
Re. all the nonsense about what ICUS is in Australia, here we go again.
Read ICAO Annex 1 for what are the Convention requirements -and read it as an ICAO document, not what you "want" it to mean.
Tootle pip!!
Changing log books....what a pain....Total Aeronautical was always less than Grand Total....now it is always more.
Until the next licence system change, due in about two years.
Until the next licence system change, due in about two years.
