A Part 61 conundrum for Australian ATPL applicants
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So from what I've read and tried to understand, for current Aussie pilots overseas is that if youre in a situation where:
You have a CASA CPL(A) with ATPL theory
S/O or F/O on a Boeing or Airbus
Australian Citizen
Enough hour to apply for your CASA ATPL
1. If you want to make the move back down under, you would have to apply for an Aussie ATPL if no command, at you own cost...fair enough. But would one be "competitive" without command time on the aircraft that you're type rated on?
or
2. Get your command and rack up enough hours to be "competitive", and from what I gather, still have to pay for a MCC course (if not approved by CASA) and flight test (done with another candidate) at your own expense.
So pretty much if you currently only have an CPL and move overseas (ie. Susi Air or Cathay), it's going to be financially hard to come back home as you would have to pay quite a bit for an ATPL, unless taken up by the local regionals/airliners as an F/O and wait until a command upgrade. Think this will be the biggest issue for Aussie CPL holders in Cathay as an S/O.
All these questions as just out of curiosity. Currently flying out bush and have been for a few years (cpl and just missed out due to night hours). Thinking of having a crack overseas for an adventure while I'm still young and no family/financial commitments here. All I'm trying to do is plan ahead for an "exit strategy" to come back home when I'm done. Think of having a crack at safari flying in Africa, still have a passion for "bush flying" despite the income.
You have a CASA CPL(A) with ATPL theory
S/O or F/O on a Boeing or Airbus
Australian Citizen
Enough hour to apply for your CASA ATPL
1. If you want to make the move back down under, you would have to apply for an Aussie ATPL if no command, at you own cost...fair enough. But would one be "competitive" without command time on the aircraft that you're type rated on?
or
2. Get your command and rack up enough hours to be "competitive", and from what I gather, still have to pay for a MCC course (if not approved by CASA) and flight test (done with another candidate) at your own expense.
So pretty much if you currently only have an CPL and move overseas (ie. Susi Air or Cathay), it's going to be financially hard to come back home as you would have to pay quite a bit for an ATPL, unless taken up by the local regionals/airliners as an F/O and wait until a command upgrade. Think this will be the biggest issue for Aussie CPL holders in Cathay as an S/O.
All these questions as just out of curiosity. Currently flying out bush and have been for a few years (cpl and just missed out due to night hours). Thinking of having a crack overseas for an adventure while I'm still young and no family/financial commitments here. All I'm trying to do is plan ahead for an "exit strategy" to come back home when I'm done. Think of having a crack at safari flying in Africa, still have a passion for "bush flying" despite the income.
Any truth in the rumour that the first two helicopter ATPL flight tests under Part 61 were done with successful results on Wednesday at Mangalore?
Great results, congratulations to the candatits, the flying school and CASA. Obviously the system works!
Great results, congratulations to the candatits, the flying school and CASA. Obviously the system works!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA sets up full-time taskforce to deal with new licensing regulations
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/s...-november-2015
Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will establish a dedicated team of full-time staff to address issues raised by the suite of new licensing regulations.
There will be 26 people assigned to the taskforce, whose job it will be to find solutions to issues identified with CASA’s Regulations Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142, CASA said in a statement on Tuesday.
CASA said the taskforce, which was expected to begin work immediately, would initially focus on reviewing transition arrangements and prioritising issues.
“The taskforce will ensure known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations,” CASA said.
“At the same time it will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth.”
In addition to the taskforce, CASA has also invited representatives from the nation’s key aviation industry groups – The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia and the Aerial Application Association of Australia – to join a new advisory panel.
The panel will also include representatives from the regular public transport and mustering sectors, flying schools, and the tertiary education sector.
CASA director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore said the taskforce and advisory panel would work “intensively” to address unintended consequences in the licensing suite.
“CASA has already addressed many concerns that have been identified in the new licensing regulations but I understand more needs to be done,” Skidmore said in a statement.
“This is a priority and that’s why I need a dedicated team of people within CASA working full-time on the issues.
“Just as importantly we need advice and guidance from the aviation community to prioritise actions and verify that successful solutions have been found.
“The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.
“I require real solutions to the issues with the licensing suite as quickly as they can be delivered.”
CASA said it had already addressed more than half of the 98 licensing issues that came up via feedback from industry and the aviation community.
The aviation safety watchdog has also announced a one-year extension of the transition period for Parts 141 and 142, which cover flying training. The transition now has to be completed by August 31 2018.
“The additional transition time will give CASA more time to arrange a smooth transition by providing additional guidance material and for identified issues to be resolved,” CASA said.
The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum recently expressed concern with the slow pace of change at CASA and the cost of compliance with new regulations.
And Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook has urged his colleagues to “take a stand against the unfair treatment of our industry by the regulator and stop the distraction caused by the mismanaged regulatory reform process”.
“We have been working hard to protect the industry’s existence but it seems CASA is not listening, heeding our suggestions or accepting our offers of assistance,” Crook wrote to AHIA members.
How about we all band together to get this ATP flight test requirement removed from the new regs ? Contact The CASA task force when they return for 2016
JT.
Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will establish a dedicated team of full-time staff to address issues raised by the suite of new licensing regulations.
There will be 26 people assigned to the taskforce, whose job it will be to find solutions to issues identified with CASA’s Regulations Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142, CASA said in a statement on Tuesday.
CASA said the taskforce, which was expected to begin work immediately, would initially focus on reviewing transition arrangements and prioritising issues.
“The taskforce will ensure known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations,” CASA said.
“At the same time it will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth.”
In addition to the taskforce, CASA has also invited representatives from the nation’s key aviation industry groups – The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, the Australian Helicopter Industry Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Australian Business Aviation Association, the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia and the Aerial Application Association of Australia – to join a new advisory panel.
The panel will also include representatives from the regular public transport and mustering sectors, flying schools, and the tertiary education sector.
CASA director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore said the taskforce and advisory panel would work “intensively” to address unintended consequences in the licensing suite.
“CASA has already addressed many concerns that have been identified in the new licensing regulations but I understand more needs to be done,” Skidmore said in a statement.
“This is a priority and that’s why I need a dedicated team of people within CASA working full-time on the issues.
“Just as importantly we need advice and guidance from the aviation community to prioritise actions and verify that successful solutions have been found.
“The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.
“I require real solutions to the issues with the licensing suite as quickly as they can be delivered.”
CASA said it had already addressed more than half of the 98 licensing issues that came up via feedback from industry and the aviation community.
The aviation safety watchdog has also announced a one-year extension of the transition period for Parts 141 and 142, which cover flying training. The transition now has to be completed by August 31 2018.
“The additional transition time will give CASA more time to arrange a smooth transition by providing additional guidance material and for identified issues to be resolved,” CASA said.
The Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum recently expressed concern with the slow pace of change at CASA and the cost of compliance with new regulations.
And Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook has urged his colleagues to “take a stand against the unfair treatment of our industry by the regulator and stop the distraction caused by the mismanaged regulatory reform process”.
“We have been working hard to protect the industry’s existence but it seems CASA is not listening, heeding our suggestions or accepting our offers of assistance,” Crook wrote to AHIA members.
How about we all band together to get this ATP flight test requirement removed from the new regs ? Contact The CASA task force when they return for 2016
JT.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At the same time it will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth."
This should be enough to get it removed. The flight test will be costing applicants thousands of dollars.
This should be enough to get it removed. The flight test will be costing applicants thousands of dollars.
The risk with removing the ATPL flight test is that we end up with a licence that some if not most ICAO states will refuse to convert. This would impact on those seeking employment overseas.
It is even conceivable that ICAO would not recgnise it as a licence. The days of printing tickets out of a vending machine just because some magic number of hours click over in the logbook are long gone.
The better solution would be to allow the test to be conducted in less complex aircraft. Maybe not an Islander, but certainly there are light twin turboprops that are suitable. If the test is allowed to be combined with an IPC it becomes affordable in that no pilot seeking or maintaining employment at ATPL level will not have to renew his/her instrument rating.
Another way to look at it would be to have the ATPL test in isolation similar to the USA but have the IR issue combined with it then the IR perpetually current subject only to recency in approaches and instrument time. The FAA allows this and, as others have pointed out, their safety statistics are better than ours.
It is even conceivable that ICAO would not recgnise it as a licence. The days of printing tickets out of a vending machine just because some magic number of hours click over in the logbook are long gone.
The better solution would be to allow the test to be conducted in less complex aircraft. Maybe not an Islander, but certainly there are light twin turboprops that are suitable. If the test is allowed to be combined with an IPC it becomes affordable in that no pilot seeking or maintaining employment at ATPL level will not have to renew his/her instrument rating.
Another way to look at it would be to have the ATPL test in isolation similar to the USA but have the IR issue combined with it then the IR perpetually current subject only to recency in approaches and instrument time. The FAA allows this and, as others have pointed out, their safety statistics are better than ours.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way to look at it would be to have the ATPL test in isolation similar to the USA but have the IR issue combined with it then the IR perpetually current subject only to recency in approaches and instrument time. The FAA allows this and, as others have pointed out, their safety statistics are better than ours.[/QUOTE]
FAA also allows you to do the ATP flight test in a Seneca, and as you say "their safety statistics are better than ours".
So why not the same for Australia?
Why should it be a light twin turbo prop?
FAA also allows you to do the ATP flight test in a Seneca, and as you say "their safety statistics are better than ours".
So why not the same for Australia?
Why should it be a light twin turbo prop?
Now that's something. Perpetual instrument ratings like the USA.
Hold on. That may make holding an IFR rating more common here like it is in the USA.
Yes. The resultant safety level in the USA appears to be as good or better but that's probably because US pilots are genetically more capable than Australian pilots. Or maybe it's because the weather is so much better there.
For the thick ones all of the above is tongue in cheek.
We should clearly harmonise with all overseas proven practices which save costs!
It was called the " Byron Directive" amongst other names . Totally ignored by the people responsible for its implementation .
Hold on. That may make holding an IFR rating more common here like it is in the USA.
Yes. The resultant safety level in the USA appears to be as good or better but that's probably because US pilots are genetically more capable than Australian pilots. Or maybe it's because the weather is so much better there.
For the thick ones all of the above is tongue in cheek.
We should clearly harmonise with all overseas proven practices which save costs!
It was called the " Byron Directive" amongst other names . Totally ignored by the people responsible for its implementation .
It was called the " Byron Directive" amongst other names . Totally ignored by the people responsible for its implementation
It's like directing people to "look before you leap" but ....at the same time, don't forget that "he who hesitates is lost". You are directed that "many hands make light work" but....at the same time, don't forget that "too many cooks spoil the broth".
You are directed to: "Go forth and reconcile the irreconcilable!"
A "taskforce" along with a "restructure"? If only someone had thought of that before. Oh...wait...
If this taskforce produces anything substantial, it will just be a different bugger's muddle. The regulator is not competent to run the regulatory reform program. And never will be.
Turn it off. Turn it all off. It's just a perpetual mess-making money-munching machine.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not talking about the FAA , EASA or any other regulator we are talking about the new CASA regs. I am not asking for anything other than having the flight test requirement removed from the regs not changed .
Again to keep it simple the task force will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth , the cost of the ATP flight test does all this , please if you agree call CASA ask for the task force and express your views, I feel we are all responsible for the future of Aussie aviation in some small way if you feel the same make a call. JT.
Again to keep it simple the task force will make sure unnecessary costs are not imposed by the regulations and that they are not an impediment to participation in aviation or potential future growth , the cost of the ATP flight test does all this , please if you agree call CASA ask for the task force and express your views, I feel we are all responsible for the future of Aussie aviation in some small way if you feel the same make a call. JT.
Last edited by JTMAX; 2nd Jan 2016 at 00:49.
By definition, all regulations are an impediment to participation in aviation. Otherwise they're pointless.
The taskforce also has responsibility for ensuring "known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations".
The taskforce is not competent to discharge that responsibility. The decision as to whether "known or likely safety risks" have been "effectively addressed" is a political decision, not a technical decision. That's because no activity is risk free, and wherever the standard is set there will be costs and benefits to individuals and the community as a whole. Being a hotshot pilot or a big-brained engineer does not render someone competent to decide where the balance should be struck between the risks and costs and benefits.
How do you or the taskforce decide that the removal of the flight test requirement will produce a benefit that outweighs the increased risk? How do you or the taskforce quantify the probabilities of the risks, and the comparative benefits and costs to individuals and the community as a whole, of requiring the test on the one hand and removing the test the other? Absent that data, the decision is little more than an *rse-pluck.
And that is one of the main reasons for Australia having the bugger's muddle that it has.
The taskforce also has responsibility for ensuring "known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations".
The taskforce is not competent to discharge that responsibility. The decision as to whether "known or likely safety risks" have been "effectively addressed" is a political decision, not a technical decision. That's because no activity is risk free, and wherever the standard is set there will be costs and benefits to individuals and the community as a whole. Being a hotshot pilot or a big-brained engineer does not render someone competent to decide where the balance should be struck between the risks and costs and benefits.
How do you or the taskforce decide that the removal of the flight test requirement will produce a benefit that outweighs the increased risk? How do you or the taskforce quantify the probabilities of the risks, and the comparative benefits and costs to individuals and the community as a whole, of requiring the test on the one hand and removing the test the other? Absent that data, the decision is little more than an *rse-pluck.
And that is one of the main reasons for Australia having the bugger's muddle that it has.
The ATPL is the almost the highest qualification a pilot can hold. The maritime equivalent is a Master Class One. Responsible authorities do not hand these out on a plate, for good reason.
By not having an ATPL test, or having a really dumbed down test, we would be descending to the level of places like Liberia, where a bag of cash and my sailing logbook would probably get me a ticket to command a super tanker - Liberian registered of course.
The trick with regulation is to strike a sensible balance that will meet ICAO standards - but not exceed them by an unnecessary margin - while recognising that most countries will have some variations to meet local requirements, whether political (industry pressure often to reduce requirements versus public expectation towards high requirements) or as a result of a unique climate or environment. Australia is not all that unique, but we are very politically-driven and of course WE are THE super nanny state.
So, an ATPL test in a Seneca, I would not buy that, but a baby King Air or Citation is just about complex enough despite not really being multi crew.
Should the test be multi crew? Absolutely. If you want to fly single pilot what the hell do you need an ATPL for anyway? Oh right, to get a fast track command on a big jet.
...ducks for cover......
By not having an ATPL test, or having a really dumbed down test, we would be descending to the level of places like Liberia, where a bag of cash and my sailing logbook would probably get me a ticket to command a super tanker - Liberian registered of course.
The trick with regulation is to strike a sensible balance that will meet ICAO standards - but not exceed them by an unnecessary margin - while recognising that most countries will have some variations to meet local requirements, whether political (industry pressure often to reduce requirements versus public expectation towards high requirements) or as a result of a unique climate or environment. Australia is not all that unique, but we are very politically-driven and of course WE are THE super nanny state.
So, an ATPL test in a Seneca, I would not buy that, but a baby King Air or Citation is just about complex enough despite not really being multi crew.
Should the test be multi crew? Absolutely. If you want to fly single pilot what the hell do you need an ATPL for anyway? Oh right, to get a fast track command on a big jet.
...ducks for cover......
Mach
But for those Liberian ships and masters and their equivalents from other countries, Australia would be in a deep economic depression. Extreme fuel shortages; almost nothing exported; and - disastrously - almost no flat-screen TVs or flat-pack furniture.
It's great that Australia considers it knows better and is safer than the rest of the world. Minor consequential problem is that Australian-flagged international trading ships and crews have been driven to the brink of extinction through lack of competitiveness, with the ironic outcome being that almost the entirety of the activity in the sector involves all those "less safe" ships and crews from places that aren't as "smart" as Australia.
Aviation in Australia is being driven the same way.
(Interestingly, in the USA, only American-built, -owned and -crewed ships are permitted to trade between US ports (including non-CONUS ports). That's because the USA recognises the importance of maintaining an indigenous merchant navy capability. That is, of course, a political decision, not a decision of the regulator in the USA. As Senator Heffernan and others have pointed out, the single biggest threat to Australia's security is its fuel supply lines. Those lines could be switched off/cut off at any time, and Australia would grind to a halt about 2 weeks later.)
Surely Australia's competitive advantage is that the population is generally healthy, generally well-educated and generally tech-savvy. In the aviation sector, Australia's competitive advantages also include the relatively benign weather and lack of tall rocks. Australia shouldn't need a regulatory regime that seems to be based on the assumption that the pilot and engineer population comprises generally stupid, unhealthy, risk-taking criminals operating in the heart of darkness, and who therefore need the straight-jacket of thousands of pages of regulations and tens of thousands of pages of manuals of standards to keep them from inflicting aviation anarchy on an unsuspecting populace.
But for those Liberian ships and masters and their equivalents from other countries, Australia would be in a deep economic depression. Extreme fuel shortages; almost nothing exported; and - disastrously - almost no flat-screen TVs or flat-pack furniture.
It's great that Australia considers it knows better and is safer than the rest of the world. Minor consequential problem is that Australian-flagged international trading ships and crews have been driven to the brink of extinction through lack of competitiveness, with the ironic outcome being that almost the entirety of the activity in the sector involves all those "less safe" ships and crews from places that aren't as "smart" as Australia.
Aviation in Australia is being driven the same way.
(Interestingly, in the USA, only American-built, -owned and -crewed ships are permitted to trade between US ports (including non-CONUS ports). That's because the USA recognises the importance of maintaining an indigenous merchant navy capability. That is, of course, a political decision, not a decision of the regulator in the USA. As Senator Heffernan and others have pointed out, the single biggest threat to Australia's security is its fuel supply lines. Those lines could be switched off/cut off at any time, and Australia would grind to a halt about 2 weeks later.)
Surely Australia's competitive advantage is that the population is generally healthy, generally well-educated and generally tech-savvy. In the aviation sector, Australia's competitive advantages also include the relatively benign weather and lack of tall rocks. Australia shouldn't need a regulatory regime that seems to be based on the assumption that the pilot and engineer population comprises generally stupid, unhealthy, risk-taking criminals operating in the heart of darkness, and who therefore need the straight-jacket of thousands of pages of regulations and tens of thousands of pages of manuals of standards to keep them from inflicting aviation anarchy on an unsuspecting populace.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will take thousands and thousands of dollars for a applicant to train and then complete a flight test in a complex turbine aircraft , there are already plenty of other checks and balances in the ATPL application process that allows for Saftey this new flight test requirement is in my opinion doing nothing more that than increasing the unnecessary costs imposed by the regulations and it directly impeads participation in aviation and future growth. --JT
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dude.
That's more like the direction we should be taking. If anyone has any more constructive input providing others here with useful information and reasons why this ATPL flight test needs to be removed please post them so we can each call CASA ask for the task force and express the our request to remove the ATPL flight test requirement. --JT
That's more like the direction we should be taking. If anyone has any more constructive input providing others here with useful information and reasons why this ATPL flight test needs to be removed please post them so we can each call CASA ask for the task force and express the our request to remove the ATPL flight test requirement. --JT
I'll reiterate again that I feel the pain of those going through this process, but don't fail to heed Mach's warnings re: other countries not recognising our ATPL - it is a VERY real possibility. Prior to this Part 61 stuff, we were one of the very few countries that DIDN'T conduct a flight check for ATPL/ATP and you shouldn't short-sightedly discount the value of having an internationally recognised ATPL, rather than a "Dunnunda" variety. Tread carefully here, my preference would be to accept the test, but argue that it can be done on something smaller (ie less complex, ie cheaper), as others are suggesting.
Dude, I think that you will find most if not all RPT operators by now have examiners on staff who can issue the ATPL during routine simulator checks. Plus a few independent examiners have recently been appointed. So the 95% who are going to use the ATPL at home really should not be up for any costs if it is done within their employer's system.
As for airlines requiring the full ATPL now to join, the same employers often ask for a type rating as well. Find the right training facility and you can get the ATPL on the same check as the type rating.
If the supply of ATPL holders dries up, airlines will soon enough go back to only requiring subjects passed.
So, the problem is really for those who need the licence to go overseas. Hence, we must have a licence that meets ICAO standards, regardless of any perception that some may have about our benign weather etc not really requiring the full Monty of a ...shock....horror...test.
As for those who slipped under the wire with no test and no airline experience but merely the magic 1500 hours and subjects, good luck to them. We can't retrospectively require them to now do a test, and if they are operating safely here, well and good. The checks and balances of annual instrument rating renewals have probably been enough to save them. However, if we had the USA style perpetual validity of an instrument rating as I suggest we can hardly expect our CASA to also waive any requirement for an ATPL test. ICAO would surely see this as too much dumbing down.
An overseas regulator tasked with assessing a licence conversion would - or should - be interested in knowing how the licence was obtained. If not happy they could require the whole ATPL to be done again. Plus, of course for any applicant seeking to fly their registry, a flight test - as UK, French, German, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, USA etc authorities have done for years.
As for airlines requiring the full ATPL now to join, the same employers often ask for a type rating as well. Find the right training facility and you can get the ATPL on the same check as the type rating.
If the supply of ATPL holders dries up, airlines will soon enough go back to only requiring subjects passed.
So, the problem is really for those who need the licence to go overseas. Hence, we must have a licence that meets ICAO standards, regardless of any perception that some may have about our benign weather etc not really requiring the full Monty of a ...shock....horror...test.
As for those who slipped under the wire with no test and no airline experience but merely the magic 1500 hours and subjects, good luck to them. We can't retrospectively require them to now do a test, and if they are operating safely here, well and good. The checks and balances of annual instrument rating renewals have probably been enough to save them. However, if we had the USA style perpetual validity of an instrument rating as I suggest we can hardly expect our CASA to also waive any requirement for an ATPL test. ICAO would surely see this as too much dumbing down.
An overseas regulator tasked with assessing a licence conversion would - or should - be interested in knowing how the licence was obtained. If not happy they could require the whole ATPL to be done again. Plus, of course for any applicant seeking to fly their registry, a flight test - as UK, French, German, Swiss, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, USA etc authorities have done for years.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not talking about flying in
the U.K , UAE , Japan , China USA etc.......We are talking about the basic right a Aussie pilot should have to a fare go ,equal to what it was prior to part 61 , to be able to progress their career and obtain a qualification , the part 61 changes that includes adding a flight test to the ATPL requirement in my opinion take away that right , the thousands of dollars needed to complete a flight test in a complex turbine aircraft (or Sim) are way too much for many average income pilots , this requirement in my opinion needs to be removed. --JTMAX
the U.K , UAE , Japan , China USA etc.......We are talking about the basic right a Aussie pilot should have to a fare go ,equal to what it was prior to part 61 , to be able to progress their career and obtain a qualification , the part 61 changes that includes adding a flight test to the ATPL requirement in my opinion take away that right , the thousands of dollars needed to complete a flight test in a complex turbine aircraft (or Sim) are way too much for many average income pilots , this requirement in my opinion needs to be removed. --JTMAX
Ok. But in the eyes of the international community, potentially your "Aussie" ATPL will not be a "real" ATPL. In my opinion only, that wouldn't cut the mustard for me.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other International regulators will either continue or not continue to recognize the Aussie ATPL that is not what we are actually talking about here, we are taking about the changes that part 61 has made that unfairly disadvantage Australian pilots that are trying to progress in Australia and obtain a ATPL. Pilots who move overseas for work do so at their own risk knowing what is needed to convert a ticket at that time. I myself have converted may a ticket and just sucked it up and got on with those overseas requirements , but that is absolutely totally a different situation here. We are only talking about Aussie guys and girls trying to advance their qualifications here in Australia for use in Australia, if CASA has implemented regs for people who would like to leave this great country and work overseas is not the subject line here it's the ATPL flight test change that was introduced with part 61 , I believe that its morally wrong to change the requirements in such a big way. --JT
So, maybe we should have a 'special' ATPL overprinted with words to the effect:
"The holder of this licence has not met internationally recognised standards and is therefore restricted to operations within the Australian FIR".
Talk about becoming a laughing stock.
"The holder of this licence has not met internationally recognised standards and is therefore restricted to operations within the Australian FIR".
Talk about becoming a laughing stock.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 3rd Jan 2016 at 17:40.