What can we do? CASA ATPL
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful news Octas,
So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL, fantastic, hope that applies to the odorous extra medical requirements as well.
So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL, fantastic, hope that applies to the odorous extra medical requirements as well.
For those saying that the Kiwis and such have always done it this way and never been a problem, I was under the impression that a lot of Kiwis have come to Aus, done their flying here, gotten and Aus ATPL and then just transferred it back to their NZ Licence via the TTRMA? So therefore, if my assertion is correct (And I stand to be corrected), wouldn't this then affect the Kiwis now as well as they were previously using the "Australian Loophole" in the same way many others have used the "FAA Loophole" and can no longer do so?
Did the Kiwis previously require a Flight Check when transferring their Aus ATPL?
Did the Kiwis previously require a Flight Check when transferring their Aus ATPL?
Getting an FAA ATP is no longer the easy thing it once was. From 01 August this year the system changed: In order to sit the theory exam you must now do a 30 hour ground course + 10 hour sim (6 hours in a C or D level sim) course. All just to sit the exam. Only then may you do the flight test. So far there are just a handful of organisations that have gained approval for their ATP prep course and none of them are cheap.
So with the new FAA requirements, plus the fact you need to do ATPL flight tests virtually everywhere else in the world, can someone tell me where's the problem with having those same requirements in Australia?
morno
morno
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem at all morno...if you work for an airline...
As I've said the whole ATPL licence is Not a qualification, its a process.
If you don't aspire to join an airline, under CAsA's reg's it going to cost you a small fortune to gain apiece of paper that is in reality meaningless.
If you already hold an instrument rating, which mosts guys do, your flying standard is already above that required for an ATPL.
Australia always had a flight test for the initial issue of an ATPL, CAO 40 appendix 111, I think provided what was required.
There was an era when sensible heads in DCA recognised that for those that held an instrument rating the flying standard was higher so they waved the ATPL test.
As for the theory side, technology moves faster than the syllabus can keep up. The way things are in Australia they would be better requiring a two year Law course rather than stuff that is already out of date by the time the exam is set.
Thats if they can find two people in CAsA who agree what the law is.
As I've said the whole ATPL licence is Not a qualification, its a process.
If you don't aspire to join an airline, under CAsA's reg's it going to cost you a small fortune to gain apiece of paper that is in reality meaningless.
If you already hold an instrument rating, which mosts guys do, your flying standard is already above that required for an ATPL.
Australia always had a flight test for the initial issue of an ATPL, CAO 40 appendix 111, I think provided what was required.
There was an era when sensible heads in DCA recognised that for those that held an instrument rating the flying standard was higher so they waved the ATPL test.
As for the theory side, technology moves faster than the syllabus can keep up. The way things are in Australia they would be better requiring a two year Law course rather than stuff that is already out of date by the time the exam is set.
Thats if they can find two people in CAsA who agree what the law is.
thorn bird,
I do agree somewhat, that outside of the airline environment, it will be slightly more difficult. I guess I don't convey that thought because I'm focusing on one area.
However for most aircraft over 5,700kg's outside of the airlines, if I'm not mistaken, they will require training to be done in a simulator anyway. So I don't see how it's going to be much different than an airline environment in that sense. Perhaps the tricky part is that CASA requires a CASA authorised Check Airman (or whatever ATO is these days) to do the test, which is going to be difficult for an overseas based simulator? I'm not entirely up with that detail of it.
Who know's, maybe in time, through consultation with the industry (I'm trying to think positive, we know that probably won't happen), CASA will change some of the requirements so that they're more flexible.
morno
I do agree somewhat, that outside of the airline environment, it will be slightly more difficult. I guess I don't convey that thought because I'm focusing on one area.
However for most aircraft over 5,700kg's outside of the airlines, if I'm not mistaken, they will require training to be done in a simulator anyway. So I don't see how it's going to be much different than an airline environment in that sense. Perhaps the tricky part is that CASA requires a CASA authorised Check Airman (or whatever ATO is these days) to do the test, which is going to be difficult for an overseas based simulator? I'm not entirely up with that detail of it.
Who know's, maybe in time, through consultation with the industry (I'm trying to think positive, we know that probably won't happen), CASA will change some of the requirements so that they're more flexible.
morno
We can all argue till we're blue in the face about the changes this may or may not bring to certain segments of Aviation. The fact remains this WILL now add an extra layer of complication and definitely confusion to the system.
The real question I haven't seen anyone ask yet is Why this change was needed in the first place? Someone will undoubtedly say "To bring us into line with the rest of the world" But I just don't see that as a valid justification for changing it. Can anyone point out a study that concluded this should be done to improve safety? perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis?
If not then this just seems like another shift towards the "Airlines and Air Force Only" mentality.
The real question I haven't seen anyone ask yet is Why this change was needed in the first place? Someone will undoubtedly say "To bring us into line with the rest of the world" But I just don't see that as a valid justification for changing it. Can anyone point out a study that concluded this should be done to improve safety? perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis?
If not then this just seems like another shift towards the "Airlines and Air Force Only" mentality.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ixily,
nail on the head mate.
As far as I can see, all CAsA will achieve with this change put another nail into GA's coffin, and disadvantage Australian Pilots over foreign in the employment stakes.
Maybe others can, but I can see no safety benefit whatsoever, just massive increases in costs.
nail on the head mate.
As far as I can see, all CAsA will achieve with this change put another nail into GA's coffin, and disadvantage Australian Pilots over foreign in the employment stakes.
Maybe others can, but I can see no safety benefit whatsoever, just massive increases in costs.
As far as I can see it makes you a hostage to your airline until you are senior enough to gain a command and get an ATPL flight test. By that stage you're a captain with seniority so it's a harder decision to leave.
This will stop all the pesky FOs leaving for sandier fields and guarantee a supply of indebted pilots if there ever is a shortage.
This will stop all the pesky FOs leaving for sandier fields and guarantee a supply of indebted pilots if there ever is a shortage.
The Green Goblin has identified one of the biggest problems.
From a practical point of view, all the skills requirements of the Manual of Standards would be covered in a regular instrument rating/renewal/proficiency check on a multi-crew, turbine powered aircraft and this would ideally mean the form could be filled out, and an ATPL issued. However the applicant "must perform the functions of pilot in command" - Manual of Standards Instrument 2014, Vol 1, Section K Appendix K.1 Para 1.5. It also has to be from the left hand seat.
So for all the first officers at smaller operations hoping to gain an ATPL and move on to bigger and better things, this holds you a hostage to completing the check and upgrade process within your existing operation. If there arent upgrade opportunities, you cant or dont want a command in your current job, fail the upgrade or have upset the management and wont get an upgrade you are effectively trapped with that employer while the larger employers or overseas ones arent interested in you without the ATPL. I doubt that your current employer will just throw you into the left hand seat for a few sims to help make you more employable elsewhere. That'd be a fun conversation to have with the manager...
What has been achieved for those outside the airline system is a massive increase in the costs to gain a license. Inside the airline system, the licensing is now at the whim of a check and training department with no incentive to help you become more employable elsewhere.
From a practical point of view, all the skills requirements of the Manual of Standards would be covered in a regular instrument rating/renewal/proficiency check on a multi-crew, turbine powered aircraft and this would ideally mean the form could be filled out, and an ATPL issued. However the applicant "must perform the functions of pilot in command" - Manual of Standards Instrument 2014, Vol 1, Section K Appendix K.1 Para 1.5. It also has to be from the left hand seat.
So for all the first officers at smaller operations hoping to gain an ATPL and move on to bigger and better things, this holds you a hostage to completing the check and upgrade process within your existing operation. If there arent upgrade opportunities, you cant or dont want a command in your current job, fail the upgrade or have upset the management and wont get an upgrade you are effectively trapped with that employer while the larger employers or overseas ones arent interested in you without the ATPL. I doubt that your current employer will just throw you into the left hand seat for a few sims to help make you more employable elsewhere. That'd be a fun conversation to have with the manager...
What has been achieved for those outside the airline system is a massive increase in the costs to gain a license. Inside the airline system, the licensing is now at the whim of a check and training department with no incentive to help you become more employable elsewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The left seat requirement seems onerous and unnecessary.
This might take some concerted research to find out exactly what other nations do with ATPL tests. NZCAA I'm fairly sure, does not require LHS occupancy. What about EASA, FAA, TC, even China?
If no other ICAO conforming state requires LHS status for an ATPL candidate, one would have some ammunition to take to the new CASA director to have that requirement removed. After all, if no-one else does it, how can it be a "safety requirement"?
As to approaching airline management... I have approached different managers with different ideas over the years. Sometimes I was laughed out of the room. However I tended to have some success when I lined my pins up properly beforehand.
- Don't ask for stuff when the rules have just changed. No-one has understood the full impact yet, so you come across as premature or a bit panicky.
- Make sure the proposal is constructed to show how reasonable it is. The reaction you want is "well, yes of course, that's only fair".
- Make sure the costs to the company are minor and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- Make sure the benefits to the company are more significant than the costs and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- If the benefits to the company are negligible, make sure you have huge social pressure behind you (that is, the union). Even so, you'll probably lose the battle. Fight hard by being very professional, very courteous and being the person that management really want to keep.
All of this applies when appealing to DAS for a rule change too of course, but x10!
Correct. Unless it's being used for RPT. Not many RPT AOC holders are using single pilot aircraft >5700kg. If you're one of the few affected, I do sympathise.
This might take some concerted research to find out exactly what other nations do with ATPL tests. NZCAA I'm fairly sure, does not require LHS occupancy. What about EASA, FAA, TC, even China?
If no other ICAO conforming state requires LHS status for an ATPL candidate, one would have some ammunition to take to the new CASA director to have that requirement removed. After all, if no-one else does it, how can it be a "safety requirement"?
As to approaching airline management... I have approached different managers with different ideas over the years. Sometimes I was laughed out of the room. However I tended to have some success when I lined my pins up properly beforehand.
- Don't ask for stuff when the rules have just changed. No-one has understood the full impact yet, so you come across as premature or a bit panicky.
- Make sure the proposal is constructed to show how reasonable it is. The reaction you want is "well, yes of course, that's only fair".
- Make sure the costs to the company are minor and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- Make sure the benefits to the company are more significant than the costs and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- If the benefits to the company are negligible, make sure you have huge social pressure behind you (that is, the union). Even so, you'll probably lose the battle. Fight hard by being very professional, very courteous and being the person that management really want to keep.
All of this applies when appealing to DAS for a rule change too of course, but x10!
So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL,
Last edited by Oktas8; 17th Dec 2014 at 08:41.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
61 - Flight testing.
Only got half a handle on this so far – correction would be welcomed. It seems there is one word omitted from the reg and it's MoS – "sustained". In effect the removal of that one word makes passing any form of flight test highly subjective.
As I understand it – say you were required to maintain 5000' and you drift up to 5100', then begin to correct that returning to 5000' within a few seconds; the deviation was identified, corrected and not "sustained" under the CAO was acceptable. Without the word "sustained" the black letter law may be applied – you just failed. It's not that the 'testing officer' will do that, but it's that the TO may adhere to that edict which concerns.
Another item of concern, and here again it's hard to get a firm grip, is the notion that it is a criminal offence to conduct a manoeuvre, say a stall and recovery, unless it's conducted strictly to the letter of third tier law (MoS) in the precise, prescribed sequence for control input during entry and recovery.
It's not a problem for ordinary folk doing routine training and checking – but should a CASA type come along to observe your check pilot conducting your check; and the Checkie does not follow the prescription, to the letter; then check approvals may be forfeit - if the CASA observer so decides.
For the record – I'll repeat that I have not, as yet been able to get a firm grip on 61 and all it entails; so happy to be corrected. But it seems to me there are many ways to fail a proficiency check, all dependent on 'who' the test pilot is and what flavour of mood prevails on the day. I don't like 'subjective' options in a highly prescriptive rule, where it can and may be used against you.
Any way; FWIW.. my AUD $00.20.
As I understand it – say you were required to maintain 5000' and you drift up to 5100', then begin to correct that returning to 5000' within a few seconds; the deviation was identified, corrected and not "sustained" under the CAO was acceptable. Without the word "sustained" the black letter law may be applied – you just failed. It's not that the 'testing officer' will do that, but it's that the TO may adhere to that edict which concerns.
Another item of concern, and here again it's hard to get a firm grip, is the notion that it is a criminal offence to conduct a manoeuvre, say a stall and recovery, unless it's conducted strictly to the letter of third tier law (MoS) in the precise, prescribed sequence for control input during entry and recovery.
It's not a problem for ordinary folk doing routine training and checking – but should a CASA type come along to observe your check pilot conducting your check; and the Checkie does not follow the prescription, to the letter; then check approvals may be forfeit - if the CASA observer so decides.
For the record – I'll repeat that I have not, as yet been able to get a firm grip on 61 and all it entails; so happy to be corrected. But it seems to me there are many ways to fail a proficiency check, all dependent on 'who' the test pilot is and what flavour of mood prevails on the day. I don't like 'subjective' options in a highly prescriptive rule, where it can and may be used against you.
Any way; FWIW.. my AUD $00.20.
Kharon, the Poms (bless their officious hearts) required all Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted. During the course all wannabe IREs had to learn that the test had to be conducted to a uniform standard. Tolerances were strict and until the candidate could fly them himself (in an old Dove when I did it, but later I think they went to simulators) he did not get to the stage where he was required to assess others. The interpretation of 'sustained' error involved a stop watch, from what I recall. Holding patterns had to be four minutes plus or minus 20 seconds, speed and altitude deviations could not exceed so many knots/feet for more than three seconds etc. Well do I remember first day of the flying, when I went outside five degrees on an NDB approach for more than the prescribed time. The test was terminated by the candidate IRE and I was informed that I could no longer exercise the privileges of my Instrument Rating. Talk about double jeopardy!
As for the current dilemma for those needing the ATPL test, again we could take a lesson from the Kiwis. While their Part 61 suggests that the flight should be completed in a complex aircraft or simulator of greater than 5700 kg, it does allow the Director latitude to approve other types. Hence, something reasonably complex such as a King Air C90 could be tricked up to do the job. And in NZ, is.
Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded.
As for the current dilemma for those needing the ATPL test, again we could take a lesson from the Kiwis. While their Part 61 suggests that the flight should be completed in a complex aircraft or simulator of greater than 5700 kg, it does allow the Director latitude to approve other types. Hence, something reasonably complex such as a King Air C90 could be tricked up to do the job. And in NZ, is.
Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 17th Dec 2014 at 20:22.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
ATPL skills test in the UK is done RHS.
Because there is no such thing as a co pilot type rating, the Yanks do all theirs LHS. At least they did last time I was over there on a Flight Safety conversion course. I was paired with an inexperienced F/O and he found it hard work jumping between seats and duties. For Captain candidates it is a good idea as he gets to know both jobs. So the advantages and disadvantages could be debated forever.
Some airlines in the USA may do it differently, for all I know.
Some airlines in the USA may do it differently, for all I know.
The ATPL candidate gets to nominate which seat the flight test is done from in the Air NZ simulator test (Eagle is different but they are different anyway). It is about demonstrating the leadership for command, the skills to operate the aircraft to the prescribed limits whilst making good command decisions. Not about which seat you happen to sit in.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choc frog Mach.E.
Oh, I hear you Mach and I am very familiar with 'other' systems; good and bad.
Which is a long march away from the Weeks version of 'Professional Development' designed specifically to enforce basic aero club 101 ab-initio OWT, home made rules and the "how I do it" philosophy into the professional 'flight test arena'; not to mention the art of framing of open ended 'tricky' questions to trap the unwary. Now, we get big, important sounding words slotted into the wrong place (syntax), ludicrous 'statements' and flawed 'procedure' (have a look at 'stalls' in the MoS) being foisted on a yawning audience of those who simply want the CASA stamp, in the log book, bugger off to the pub, and forget the clap-trap dished out, a.s.a.p. until the next round. But I digress;
The wording of 61, in the hands of a testing officer, on a predetermined mission sets up the 'Chop ride' syndrome with ease. Then you have CASA FOI who will, quite happily lie (until the subpoena arrives) to suit the circumstances. Part 61 wording provides unlimited scope for just such events. Doesn't happen you all cry: Oh, but it does children, it does. Ask Bill, he'll tell you (MMTF).
If Skidmore does nothing else at all, except get a rope on this Part 61 prat-fall he will go down as legend. The more I look into it, I'm sad to say, the worse it becomes – in the wrong hands. Weeks is another who has just a little more to answer for than the seriously ducked up 'rules' for choppers.
Spot, again......
Sorry mum, I've ran out coins.
Mach.E. "[all] Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted."
The wording of 61, in the hands of a testing officer, on a predetermined mission sets up the 'Chop ride' syndrome with ease. Then you have CASA FOI who will, quite happily lie (until the subpoena arrives) to suit the circumstances. Part 61 wording provides unlimited scope for just such events. Doesn't happen you all cry: Oh, but it does children, it does. Ask Bill, he'll tell you (MMTF).
If Skidmore does nothing else at all, except get a rope on this Part 61 prat-fall he will go down as legend. The more I look into it, I'm sad to say, the worse it becomes – in the wrong hands. Weeks is another who has just a little more to answer for than the seriously ducked up 'rules' for choppers.
Mach E "Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded."
Sorry mum, I've ran out coins.
