A Part 61 conundrum for Australian ATPL applicants
Excellent post Uber, it's what most of us have known for a while, it's the reason that they removed the need for a Flight Test a long time ago in the first place because they realised back then that the Instrument Rating had 99% of the same items, the only thing not really included is the Multi-Crew Portion and that could simply be overcome by requiring a course be undertaken before conducting Multi-Crew Operations!
How is it that CASA can decide to put this requirement back in without going back to the reason it was taken out in the first place and realising that the reason is STILL valid?!
And worst of all, why are we as Pilots not doing more? Is it simply because we aren't in a position of any leverage to convince them to do otherwise? Is it because they appear to be made of teflon and the other Senate Inquiries involving them have come to almost nothing so we therefore can't be bothered any more?! Or are we simply all just a bunch of whingers not willing to actually stick our necks out. Or is it D. All of the above?
How is it that CASA can decide to put this requirement back in without going back to the reason it was taken out in the first place and realising that the reason is STILL valid?!
And worst of all, why are we as Pilots not doing more? Is it simply because we aren't in a position of any leverage to convince them to do otherwise? Is it because they appear to be made of teflon and the other Senate Inquiries involving them have come to almost nothing so we therefore can't be bothered any more?! Or are we simply all just a bunch of whingers not willing to actually stick our necks out. Or is it D. All of the above?
So what do you suggest? Even if you had massive union lobby etc, CASA will just play the safety card and it will go ahead.
Only until there is a colossal failure of the system and a lack of license pilots will this change. Or alternatively a massive embarrassment to CASA.
Only until there is a colossal failure of the system and a lack of license pilots will this change. Or alternatively a massive embarrassment to CASA.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do something for your fellow aviator , call CASA and tell them that the ATPL air test is too high a financial burden that will impeded pilots careers in Australian aviation. -JT.
Not the correct message, JT. The correct message is that:
(1) There is no safety case to show that the risk (if any) intended to be mitigated by the flight test for the ATPL is most effectively and efficiently mitigated by the test as proposed.
(2) The existence of persons exercising the privileges of an ATPL without having passed a flight test for the ATPL shows either that: (I) the test is not indicative of anything with a substantive safety consequence; or (II) lower standard candidates are nonetheless acceptably safe to continue exercising the privileges of the licence.
If it costs a $1million to become a competent brain surgeon, then stiff ****, that's how much it costs. The public isn't going to cop the argument that "I can't afford $1million to be what I've always wanted to be." The only argument that has any chance of gaining traction, in the face of the mystique of aviation that can be used to justify just about anything, is that the test makes no difference. (That's why I facetiously suggested that, in the interests of safety, the test should be carried prior to each and every flight on which someone proposes to exercise the privileges of an ATPL.)
At a strategic level, I do laugh at all this "operate effectively as a crew member" stuff. A glorified way of expressing the "no dickheads" policy. Problem always is that you have to make sure that no dickheads are administering the tests or succumbing to pressure put on them by dickheads in management, otherwise you just end up with an "only dickheads like us" system.
(1) There is no safety case to show that the risk (if any) intended to be mitigated by the flight test for the ATPL is most effectively and efficiently mitigated by the test as proposed.
(2) The existence of persons exercising the privileges of an ATPL without having passed a flight test for the ATPL shows either that: (I) the test is not indicative of anything with a substantive safety consequence; or (II) lower standard candidates are nonetheless acceptably safe to continue exercising the privileges of the licence.
If it costs a $1million to become a competent brain surgeon, then stiff ****, that's how much it costs. The public isn't going to cop the argument that "I can't afford $1million to be what I've always wanted to be." The only argument that has any chance of gaining traction, in the face of the mystique of aviation that can be used to justify just about anything, is that the test makes no difference. (That's why I facetiously suggested that, in the interests of safety, the test should be carried prior to each and every flight on which someone proposes to exercise the privileges of an ATPL.
)At a strategic level, I do laugh at all this "operate effectively as a crew member" stuff. A glorified way of expressing the "no dickheads" policy. Problem always is that you have to make sure that no dickheads are administering the tests or succumbing to pressure put on them by dickheads in management, otherwise you just end up with an "only dickheads like us" system.
Or are we simply all just a bunch of whingers not willing to actually stick our necks out. Or is it D. All of the above?
O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,
The courage to change what can be changed,
and the wisdom to know the one from the other
The courage to change what can be changed,
and the wisdom to know the one from the other
Very wise words Centaurus, admittedly I'm still lacking the Wisdom to always know which it is, I sincerely hope someday I get somewhere near the level of yourself and others like you, because when it comes to CASA and their Ilk, it certainly seems to require that uppermost level of Wisdom.
Well JTMAX, I have done the Part 61 ATPL Flight test, and I can tell you, it is very different to an IPC. So no, no mistakes here.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UnaMas what were the differences when you did the flight test ? What type did you do it in ? Can you tell us how much it cost you ? JT.
Last edited by JTMAX; 11th Jan 2016 at 04:06.
Well JTMAX, I have done the Part 61 ATPL Flight test, and I can tell you, it is very different to an IPC. So no, no mistakes here.
I just checked, it didn't work.
I've gone through the differences, or lack of in detail, in this thread. The required competency differences are effectively 0.
Yet seemingly none of this has dissuaded you from continuing to engage in argument by assertion in the vain hope that suddenly, we'll all just believe you!
What evidence do you have to support what you're saying?
UnaMas what were the differences when you did the flight test ? What type did you do it in ? Can you tell us how much it cost you ? JT.
He did it in a Citation Mustang.
It cost him 30 grand.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody should be paying 30k for a ATPL. This is making CASA and other naive pilots think that it's ok. Soon a industry trend will start making it a 'must have' license ab
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aust
Age: 55
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack - Many of us agree that this ATPL flight test should be abolished , should anyone else agree PM me and as a group maybe we can lobby together to have it removed. - JT.