A Part 61 conundrum for Australian ATPL applicants
In summary, you are part of the problem that you complain about.
My main point is the Australian industry is totally ******. Point in case when the DAS (since left) sends out a letter to every licensed pilot asking for opinions one what is ****** with the new regs and everything else that CASA has touched, and he gets less than 100 responses in total. The industry can't/won't even help itself when given an olive branch.
Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for.
My main point is the Australian industry is totally ******. Point in case when the DAS (since left) sends out a letter to every licensed pilot asking for opinions one what is ****** with the new regs and everything else that CASA has touched, and he gets less than 100 responses in total. The industry can't/won't even help itself when given an olive branch.
Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for.
I doubt DAS wrote the letter. I would say it wasn't even his idea. He is the Director so his name goes on it though.
When an organisation like CASA sends out these letters it's not for our benefit. They know exactly what's wrong, they don't need us to tell them. This is called "stakeholder consultation" which loosely translates to "we have to be seen to be doing something even though we don't give a crap".
The Public Service/Govt never admit mistakes. They never reverse a decision no matter how apparent the screw up is.
When an organisation like CASA sends out these letters it's not for our benefit. They know exactly what's wrong, they don't need us to tell them. This is called "stakeholder consultation" which loosely translates to "we have to be seen to be doing something even though we don't give a crap".
The Public Service/Govt never admit mistakes. They never reverse a decision no matter how apparent the screw up is.
I don't even know why I post here sometimes.
You have no argument, no leg to stand on. You clearly didn't even bother reading my reply to you. I've addressed every ill thought out and vapid point you've attempted to make, shot down every irrelevant assertion and generally shown your argument to be petulant and small minded. In response all I've received is cherry picked nonsense.
"Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for."
Another silly and childish post that has defined your entire involvement in this thread. At no point have I claimed to be overqualified for anything. I did however, meet the experience requirements for a variety of jobs that were otherwise unavailable to me (at the time) due to this stupid licence requirement.
I have asked you over and over for the evidence that the introduction of this test will have an outcome on flight safety. I suspect I'll be waiting a fair while longer.
You have no argument, no leg to stand on. You clearly didn't even bother reading my reply to you. I've addressed every ill thought out and vapid point you've attempted to make, shot down every irrelevant assertion and generally shown your argument to be petulant and small minded. In response all I've received is cherry picked nonsense.
"Just keep complaining away here on pprune and crying over the fact that you can't apply for these jobs that you're supposedly overqualified for but don't actually meet the requirements to stick your application in for."
Another silly and childish post that has defined your entire involvement in this thread. At no point have I claimed to be overqualified for anything. I did however, meet the experience requirements for a variety of jobs that were otherwise unavailable to me (at the time) due to this stupid licence requirement.
I have asked you over and over for the evidence that the introduction of this test will have an outcome on flight safety. I suspect I'll be waiting a fair while longer.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read carefully.
Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.
This is much more than an IPC.
There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.
You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.
Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.
There was a long consultation process for Part 61.
The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.
This is much more than an IPC.
There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.
You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.
Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.
There was a long consultation process for Part 61.
The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
Sherm old boy. You may have missed the bit where it has been explained to get a command rating you need to prove you are a commander using all those CRM skills during the command skills test.
Luckily, most don't think they need to pay for the type rating like you did.
So we still agree that the ATPL test does nothing to enhance safety, and is a waste of money.
Luckily, most don't think they need to pay for the type rating like you did.
So we still agree that the ATPL test does nothing to enhance safety, and is a waste of money.
Read carefully.
Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.
This is much more than an IPC.
There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.
You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.
Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.
There was a long consultation process for Part 61.
The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
Under Part 61 to get an ATPL you are required to demonstrate your ability to command a multi engine multi crew IFR turbine aircraft in both normal and non normal circumstances with special reference to using TEM/CRM principles in practice in unfolding scenarios with multiple options and decision points.
This is much more than an IPC.
There is no reason why the cannot be built into to normal command upgrade processes for a CAR 217 carrier and this is happening now.
You've always had to do some form of test to either get or use an ATPL. The Commonwealth has formalised and standardised this process. To get a Commonwealth issued ATPL a Commonwealth licenced Examiner must test you.
Operators wanting recruit pilots to have an ATPL will have problems getting applicants. Offshore operators may well want it.
There was a long consultation process for Part 61.
The above are facts and I'm sorry you can't get the job you want. I had to get an off shore ATPL and pay for a type rating to get the job I wanted. Then had a great career. You might consider upgrading your qualifications to become more attractive to employers.
There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?
Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.
Originally Posted by "Das Uber 'I just love repeating myself' Soldat
There is very little difference. Don't take my word for it though! I've got some time so lets go on a journey of discovery together!
Interesting, what does Table 2 say? (table 5 refers to an Aerobatics rating?!)
IPC and ATPL flight tolerances, are exactly the same
What about demonstrated competencies?
The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
hmm, those look like some differences!
C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures. Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment. I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems. I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems. Refer above.
2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member. Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.
This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.
Appendix K.1 ATPL Aeroplane category rating flight test
1. Flight test requirements
1.1 An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating flight test must
demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by
performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in tables 2 and 5 in
Section 1 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
1. Flight test requirements
1.1 An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating flight test must
demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by
performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in tables 2 and 5 in
Section 1 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
Table 2: Aeroplane general flight tolerances – professional level
1. Applicability
1.1 The flight tolerances in this subsection apply to the following licences and ratings:
(a) commercial pilot licence;
(b) multi-crew pilot licence;
(c) air transport pilot licence;
(d) pilot instructor rating;
(e) instrument rating;
(f) private IFR rating;
(g) flight examiner rating;
(h) aerial application rating;
(i) low-level rating;
(j) aircraft type rating
1. Applicability
1.1 The flight tolerances in this subsection apply to the following licences and ratings:
(a) commercial pilot licence;
(b) multi-crew pilot licence;
(c) air transport pilot licence;
(d) pilot instructor rating;
(e) instrument rating;
(f) private IFR rating;
(g) flight examiner rating;
(h) aerial application rating;
(i) low-level rating;
(j) aircraft type rating
What about demonstrated competencies?
The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
hmm, those look like some differences!
C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures. Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment. I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems. I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems. Refer above.
2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member. Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.
This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.
I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.
I had to demonstrate taxiing.
You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.
Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;
Love your work though Shermy. Declaring that I'm unsafe to operate after spending the entire thread arguing those who have passed the ATPL flight test are at a higher safety standard. That'd be me sunshine. So which is it? If you say I'm safe, then your words above are shown to be wrong. If I'm unsafe, yet I've passed an ATPL flight test, then it disproves your argument that the test provides a higher (or even minimum!) level of safety.
Sherm you are in no position to lecture anyone to 'read carefully' when you have demonstrated time and time again that you have no interest in reading a thing anyone else has to say on the matter.
There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?
Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.
How many times Sherm, how many times have people here asked you or Havick to provide evidence that this test results in an increase in flight safety? Do you think we haven't noticed your total inability to provide it? You haven't even been able to provide a lick of evidence that the ATPL flight test is in any material way different to an IPC other than to close your eyes and shout it over and over.
I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.
I had to demonstrate taxiing.
You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.
Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;
So which is it mate?
There is absolutely nothing new in your latest post, just another in a long line of assertions that your opinion is factual, providing not a shred to substantiate it. Do you honestly believe that if you say something enough times you can just make it true?
Because I just love repeating myself, here we go.
How many times Sherm, how many times have people here asked you or Havick to provide evidence that this test results in an increase in flight safety? Do you think we haven't noticed your total inability to provide it? You haven't even been able to provide a lick of evidence that the ATPL flight test is in any material way different to an IPC other than to close your eyes and shout it over and over.
I have done the ATPL flight test. I have done IPC's. I've seen first hand how the test is administered (mine was done by CASA too, not part of a 217 org). I did it in the right seat, and nothing about it varied in any way from an IPC except for one thing.
I had to demonstrate taxiing.
You lecture everyone on the differences yet I'd wager a fair sum you haven't actually done the test in Australia in its current form at all.
Lastly, though I know I'll never get an answer (because that would involve actually reading my post), I'm dying to hear your reply to my last post to you;
So which is it mate?
We are arguing different points. I'm taking aim at all the whiners but made no effort to help make change to PT61 when the opportunity presented itself. Then I'm taking a double shot at the whiners that had the opportunity to get their ATPL from cornflakes box but didn't .
I'm on the fence as to the need for the flight test itself. One thing I can say is that under the old system there was nothing stopping a pilot from flying a 2 crew aircraft having never undergone any training or assessment flying multi crew (think IFR helicopter without an autopilot fly charter). Under the old system 'someone' was sent off on a job that the helicopter required two pilots (IFR no aitopilot) and because it was charter the captain required an ATPL. 'Someone' had an ATPL (out of a cornflakes box) and a current CIR-ME(H) and could fly the job two crew as captain having never flown two pilot ops in their life. Was there an incident? No, but it just illustrates that there are possibilities of flying ops having never been trained or assessed in doing so.
At least on the helicopter side of the house occurrences above were the norm rather than the exception (unless a former military background or brought up through the offshore ranks).
PT61 does capture this in other areas now but the ATPL flight test is the catch all to close off the loopholes that used to allow this to occur.
Doesn't MCC catch the multi crew thing?
Das,
We are arguing different points. I'm taking aim at all the whiners but made no effort to help make change to PT61 when the opportunity presented itself. Then I'm taking a double shot at the whiners that had the opportunity to get their ATPL from cornflakes box but didn't .
We are arguing different points. I'm taking aim at all the whiners but made no effort to help make change to PT61 when the opportunity presented itself. Then I'm taking a double shot at the whiners that had the opportunity to get their ATPL from cornflakes box but didn't .
Further, you've picked me as the target for your puerile little attacks, despite the fact that I'm one of the people who have been in contact with CASA attempting to improve the process, including being successful in helping bring about change in 2 areas as stated (love repeating myself)
The question then has to be, what have you done that gives you the right to sit on such high moral ground that you feel entitled to attack others in a thread that has nothing to do with you, or the topic you've brought into it?
Or do you just like kicking people who've made mistakes? Must be nice to be perfect.
All of which is totally irrelevant to the thread, as I have painfully had to explain to you numerous times.
Further, you've picked me as the target for your puerile little attacks, despite the fact that I'm one of the people who have been in contact with CASA attempting to improve the process, including being successful in helping bring about change in 2 areas as stated (love repeating myself)
The question then has to be, what have you done that gives you the right to sit on such high moral ground that you feel entitled to attack others in a thread that has nothing to do with you, or the topic you've brought into it?
Or do you just like kicking people who've made mistakes? Must be nice to be perfect.
Further, you've picked me as the target for your puerile little attacks, despite the fact that I'm one of the people who have been in contact with CASA attempting to improve the process, including being successful in helping bring about change in 2 areas as stated (love repeating myself)
The question then has to be, what have you done that gives you the right to sit on such high moral ground that you feel entitled to attack others in a thread that has nothing to do with you, or the topic you've brought into it?
Or do you just like kicking people who've made mistakes? Must be nice to be perfect.
The irony of complaining that I omitted a response from part of your post, whilst entirely ignoring mine is delicious.
I've no issue with MCC training, never have (for those without experience). My issues are with the ATPL flight test. The end.
Now, I've answered you. Your turn.
I've no issue with MCC training, never have (for those without experience). My issues are with the ATPL flight test. The end.
Now, I've answered you. Your turn.
