CASA rule overseas copilot time worth zilch for Australian MCC course
Thread Starter
CASA rule overseas copilot time worth zilch for Australian MCC course
Basically you need to have done a CASA approved MCC course before applying for an Australian ATPL under Part 61. If you already have extensive co-pilot time on (say) an A320 or B777 with an overseas airline and applying for an Australian ATPL (already have an Australian CPL, Australian CIR on jet transport type with all ATPL subjects) then CASA will not recognise that time as equivalent level of safety for an Australian MCC course. 
Purportedly that is because CASA have no direct oversight of overseas operators. Thus it is official that 40 hours of theory instruction (including coffee breaks
) at an approved Aussie flying school to gain an MCC certificate of competency is more valuable in MCC experience than 5000 hours as a first officer in a real transport jet. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Am I the only one?
Purportedly that is because CASA have no direct oversight of overseas operators. Thus it is official that 40 hours of theory instruction (including coffee breaks
) at an approved Aussie flying school to gain an MCC certificate of competency is more valuable in MCC experience than 5000 hours as a first officer in a real transport jet. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Am I the only one?
When I went to convert my Oz ATPL to a Singapore one it wasn't recognized either. I spent my annual leave learning about climatology and grid nav at considerable expense. I won't blame CASA for demanding the same.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about box ticking Centaurus. Nobody is safe except for CASA, nobody knows how to fly professionally except for CASA, and no action is safe unless CASA has ticked a strict liability box. Such is the Australian aviation culture. 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let's start with the assumption that MCC training is beneficial and important. Note, I'm not claiming that it actually *is* beneficial and important, just that whether it is or not is a completely separate question than the issue at hand.*
With me so far? OK presumably one learns things in an MCC course, good things, beneficial things, things which are important to learn. Why would one assume that one would learn those same things by flying a certain number of hours for some operator? What is the guarantee that the operator's procedures are good? Maybe they are bad, and a you've done for those 3000 hours is learn and practice doing things the wrong way?
*I'm sure that are people here who hold the opinion that an MCC course is a compete pointless waste of time, and I'm not disputing that. Perhaps it is. But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a certain number of hours of experience of unknown quality should be substituted for an MCC course. Obviously, if one believes it's a pointless waste of time, one believes that *no-one* should be required to take an MCC curse, but that train has already left the station, so that discussion is moot.
With me so far? OK presumably one learns things in an MCC course, good things, beneficial things, things which are important to learn. Why would one assume that one would learn those same things by flying a certain number of hours for some operator? What is the guarantee that the operator's procedures are good? Maybe they are bad, and a you've done for those 3000 hours is learn and practice doing things the wrong way?
*I'm sure that are people here who hold the opinion that an MCC course is a compete pointless waste of time, and I'm not disputing that. Perhaps it is. But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a certain number of hours of experience of unknown quality should be substituted for an MCC course. Obviously, if one believes it's a pointless waste of time, one believes that *no-one* should be required to take an MCC curse, but that train has already left the station, so that discussion is moot.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A squared,
I have to agree with you.
Is there a safety case for an MCC?
I don't see too many instances of "Death Plunges" because people didn't have MCC "Licenses".
Multi crew training was generally given by the operator as part of their SOP in my day.
If there is a safety case, has the benefit against the cost been looked at?
I suppose the "Benefit" could be those bright young things with their Psychology degrees can get a paid job with CAsA and repay their HEC's loans.
The downside is all those young pilots with their brand new CPL's facing another loan on top of their VET loan before they can take another step up the ladder.
I can see an exodus overseas for training if this keeps up.
I have to agree with you.
Is there a safety case for an MCC?
I don't see too many instances of "Death Plunges" because people didn't have MCC "Licenses".
Multi crew training was generally given by the operator as part of their SOP in my day.
If there is a safety case, has the benefit against the cost been looked at?
I suppose the "Benefit" could be those bright young things with their Psychology degrees can get a paid job with CAsA and repay their HEC's loans.
The downside is all those young pilots with their brand new CPL's facing another loan on top of their VET loan before they can take another step up the ladder.
I can see an exodus overseas for training if this keeps up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, how come CASA can adopt some totally irelevant colour-deficiency-test, as a De-Facto standard, simply because the UK CAA adopted it?
Duplicity and disjointed thinking there, methinks.......they'll adopt a stance if it suits their agenda, then bull5h1t with some facile transparent lying justification.
Duplicity and disjointed thinking there, methinks.......they'll adopt a stance if it suits their agenda, then bull5h1t with some facile transparent lying justification.
Thread Starter
Can you provide a link to what you've written. I'm looking on the CASA site but can't find anything.
Ha, they made me do an English Proficiency test to issue my Australian ATPL because my BRITISH ATPL just had 'English: Expert' printed on it. CASA required it to state 'level 4' or greater. Even when I showed them the ICAO document to say that 'Level 6' is 'expert' they still insisted. They are truely the immovable beast! Still what else was I going to do with that $129.
Last edited by Ollie Onion; 29th Oct 2014 at 14:50.
Nev, while not wishing to defend CASA, in Ollie's case the blame must lie with Pommy CAA for not stating clearly 'ICAO Level 6'
Tit for tat, says I. Years ago I tried to convert my Aussie ATPL to the British equivalent. They would have none of it. Had to do all their poxy exams including the Morse code all over again. To add insult to outrage they would only put those type ratings that I had done in Fiji on the licence. This was because back then Fiji was still under the British Air Registration Board exam system for issue of ratings and I had proof of having sat ARB exams on a couple of types. They wouldn't even accept a pissy little Aztec because I had only flown nearly a thousand hours on it in Australia.
$129 is nothing compared with what UK CAA charges for every minor item associated with licensing.
Notwithstanding membership of ICAO, if the rights to convert qualifications are not truly reciprocal, I see no reason for one country accepting another's licence.
Tit for tat, says I. Years ago I tried to convert my Aussie ATPL to the British equivalent. They would have none of it. Had to do all their poxy exams including the Morse code all over again. To add insult to outrage they would only put those type ratings that I had done in Fiji on the licence. This was because back then Fiji was still under the British Air Registration Board exam system for issue of ratings and I had proof of having sat ARB exams on a couple of types. They wouldn't even accept a pissy little Aztec because I had only flown nearly a thousand hours on it in Australia.
$129 is nothing compared with what UK CAA charges for every minor item associated with licensing.
Notwithstanding membership of ICAO, if the rights to convert qualifications are not truly reciprocal, I see no reason for one country accepting another's licence.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 30th Oct 2014 at 04:04.
Can someone explain to me the point of an MCC Course? It seems like double dipping on the part of CASA. You're required to do an MCC Course irrespective of if you're going to be doing Multi-Crew or not to gain your ATPL and then when you go to a company that does utilise Multi-Crew aren't they also required to give training in MCC techniques?
I've not been in Aus for a few years now and don't plan on being back any time soon so have kind of decided to just let all the hoorah around Part 61 get sorted before I try and delve too deeply into what it shall mean for me future wise but the ATPL side of things is a little concerning.
I've not been in Aus for a few years now and don't plan on being back any time soon so have kind of decided to just let all the hoorah around Part 61 get sorted before I try and delve too deeply into what it shall mean for me future wise but the ATPL side of things is a little concerning.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the same problem, I have almost 1900 hrs on 737 all from over seas carriers and CASA will not recognize the hours for me not to do the MCC course, and apparently there are no currently approved organisations that can conduct the MCC course in Australia on the 737.
What do they teach you on a MCC? I have four different expired ATPLs in the drawer somewhere, plus the one I use now, and over 30K multi crew but no MCC. What am I missing?
Thread Starter
See Pprune Australian GA forum via this link:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Frequently Asked Questions ? Flight crew training and licensing
Scroll down to see relevant CASA revised info on MCC course requirement for ATPL. Basically the MCC course requirement has been postponed until September 2015. In other words you can undergo the ATPL flight test without having done a CASA approved MCC course. At least that's my interpretation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Frequently Asked Questions ? Flight crew training and licensing
Scroll down to see relevant CASA revised info on MCC course requirement for ATPL. Basically the MCC course requirement has been postponed until September 2015. In other words you can undergo the ATPL flight test without having done a CASA approved MCC course. At least that's my interpretation
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Centaurus your correct. The catch 22 is finding someone with a multi crew aircraft on which you are endorsed to do the flight test, and then find someone with an examiners rating that covers ATPL flight tests.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we say to do the ATPL test in a multi crew aircraft. Does it have to be in an actual two crew machine as stated in the flight manual? Or could you do it in a non type rated turbine aircraft? Eg. King Air, Conquest, Twin Otter etc.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many,
my understanding is the test has to be done in a multi crew certified aircraft which the candidate is type rated on.
However the good news is there's a lot of requirements changing on a daily basis as Fort Fumble find bits and pieces of part 61 that are illogical, defy common sense, don't work or cant be made to work, or are obviously too onerous to apply.
Its a bit like the manufacturer who uses a warranty period as quality control, The regulations will mature.
They have deferred the requirement for a MCT course, hopefully there may be some changes to the aircraft type required.
We can only hope.
CAsA may also imagine that airlines will fund the ATPL, but I somehow doubt that contention.
Fifty grand to ATPL an Aussie pilot or four grand for a 457 visa, guess who wins?
When that starts happening I would expect some political pressure will be applied, I certainly hope so.
my understanding is the test has to be done in a multi crew certified aircraft which the candidate is type rated on.
However the good news is there's a lot of requirements changing on a daily basis as Fort Fumble find bits and pieces of part 61 that are illogical, defy common sense, don't work or cant be made to work, or are obviously too onerous to apply.
Its a bit like the manufacturer who uses a warranty period as quality control, The regulations will mature.
They have deferred the requirement for a MCT course, hopefully there may be some changes to the aircraft type required.
We can only hope.
CAsA may also imagine that airlines will fund the ATPL, but I somehow doubt that contention.
Fifty grand to ATPL an Aussie pilot or four grand for a 457 visa, guess who wins?
When that starts happening I would expect some political pressure will be applied, I certainly hope so.
