First ATPL awarded under Part 61
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mach,
The six countries in the Carribbean that use other ATPLs are not the issue I asked about.
OK: do the US, Britain or EASA countries require an ATPL flight test?
I am not saying our new system is right, just that it may or may not be similar to others. If other countries require tests then I cannot see much of an argument against tests here.
For those who need an ATPL to command an Australian jet it should be achieved with their command or endorsement checkout, generally in a simulator.
The six countries in the Carribbean that use other ATPLs are not the issue I asked about.
OK: do the US, Britain or EASA countries require an ATPL flight test?
I am not saying our new system is right, just that it may or may not be similar to others. If other countries require tests then I cannot see much of an argument against tests here.
For those who need an ATPL to command an Australian jet it should be achieved with their command or endorsement checkout, generally in a simulator.
Instead of all rolling over and accepting the situation that CASA have created, those affected need to come up with suitable alternatives and argue a case.
Not too many have argued against doing an ATPL test, and those that have are not really thinking of the big picture - as in Australia's need to have a licence accepted internationally. The old system of simply handing one over after a few piss easy theory exams was always going to attract the attention of ICAO eventually.
No, the argument is the sheer cost of first having to gain a type rating in a heavy ( as in above 5700 kg ) when there are some quite suitable smaller aircraft that could do the job e.g almost any light, pressurised turboprop is every bit as complex to operate as larger old generation stuff like the Dash 8.
Then the problem finding someone to administer the flight test. Is your typical Grade One the right person? Not unless they have an airline background. So, the right person would be someone who has worked within a CAR 217 organisation and who has been engaged by one of the newfangled Part 142 training and testing organisations. But wait, the Part 142 also needs to be approved to conduct the test. How many of those are there (I dunno).
So, other than CASA itself, who IS approved to do these tests? Only existing CAR 217 organisations, it seems. On this latter point, I stand to be corrected. Maybe someone has got it?
PS Neville, it costs nothing to argue a case. For the pilot only needing the licence and not a type rating, five hours or so in a C90 to prepare for an ATPL test plus a two hour check ride would be far less cost than an A320 rating in a simulator. Big difference between 7 or 8 grand and 35K.
No, the argument is the sheer cost of first having to gain a type rating in a heavy ( as in above 5700 kg ) when there are some quite suitable smaller aircraft that could do the job e.g almost any light, pressurised turboprop is every bit as complex to operate as larger old generation stuff like the Dash 8.
Then the problem finding someone to administer the flight test. Is your typical Grade One the right person? Not unless they have an airline background. So, the right person would be someone who has worked within a CAR 217 organisation and who has been engaged by one of the newfangled Part 142 training and testing organisations. But wait, the Part 142 also needs to be approved to conduct the test. How many of those are there (I dunno).
So, other than CASA itself, who IS approved to do these tests? Only existing CAR 217 organisations, it seems. On this latter point, I stand to be corrected. Maybe someone has got it?
PS Neville, it costs nothing to argue a case. For the pilot only needing the licence and not a type rating, five hours or so in a C90 to prepare for an ATPL test plus a two hour check ride would be far less cost than an A320 rating in a simulator. Big difference between 7 or 8 grand and 35K.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 19th May 2015 at 11:25.
First ATPL awarded under Part 61
Why not put forward a proposal to CASA an alternative means of gaining the ATPL, eg a progressive flight test system. Whether corporate or airline op's the candidate would firstly need a type rating to fly his new boss' aeroplane, that ticks some boxes. Then operate said aircraft for a period of time gaining experience and logging co-pilot and ICUS hours. At some point blogs will need to pass a competency check, a satisfactory performance could be considered the remainder of the ATPL flight test. The type rating proves blogs can fly the aeroplane, competency check focuses more on NTS, but still addresses a selection of technical skills. The good old days of doing your SCPL flight test in a Cessna 150 or simply being handed an ATPL after logging a number of hours are in the past, that ain't gonna change.
Last edited by roundsounds; 19th May 2015 at 12:52.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perpetually Commuting
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just CASA that needs to be changed. Airlines in Australia need to lower their minimum requirement to CPL + MECIR + ATPL theories like Kiwis do (Air NZ Links). Let ATPL flight test run concurrently with a type rating flight test just like in U.S.
As far as I can see, this is the only way to reduce burden on candidates. I just don't know why we are still stuck up in the past. Who is responsible for this madness?
As far as I can see, this is the only way to reduce burden on candidates. I just don't know why we are still stuck up in the past. Who is responsible for this madness?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SYD
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that a few airlines approached CASA suggesting that dispensation for a pilot in an approved cyclic program with a multi crew operation should be allowed to apply for the atpl like the good old days. That was about two months ago though, I've heard nothing since.
Allowing a cyclic within the airline system is an excellent alternative, for those already in the airline. But with the current recruitment policies of some airlines requiring an ATPL at entry, that is also a catch 22. If CASA do see the light and allow a cyclic regime, it may encourage the airlines to recruit pilots who have the theory passes and necessary hours but still only hold a CPL. With the way it stands now, soon they won't have a choice anyway, unless they only recruit the very wealthy who can pay for all this up front. That will severely limit the pilot gene pool (not saying rich people are defective, but a bit of cross breeding with the poor never did any harm).
But another path is still needed for those who seek corporate or expatriate adventures. Maybe we should look to how the Kiwis have accommodated that by allowing a flight test to be done in selected types of less than 5700 kg. There is another thread that indicates it is not all sweetness and light in NZ either. But at least they do offer an alternative.
But another path is still needed for those who seek corporate or expatriate adventures. Maybe we should look to how the Kiwis have accommodated that by allowing a flight test to be done in selected types of less than 5700 kg. There is another thread that indicates it is not all sweetness and light in NZ either. But at least they do offer an alternative.
Originally Posted by Tankengine
Hang on Mr Chimbu,
Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.
Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.
Are you saying it should be easier to get an AUSTRALIAN ATPL so people can get get jobs overseas?
They could always get the licence for the country in which they wish to work.
If the job is here in OZ then they can get an ATPL here if NEEDED.
Employers will eventually figure out what licences are NEEDED for their jobs.
This entire exercise has been one of extreme stupidity. I have a CPL with subjects. You glibly say that employers will 'eventually' figure out what licences are required. Thats nice, how many years do I have to wait, stuck where I am before people finally figure it out?
CASA couldn't have done a worse job if they were paid to. Sep 13 came around, they took an extra year. That time, and the time since 14 should have been used to delegate the authority to conduct the (bloody simple) test to existing CAR 217 F/E and ATO's so that it could be simply incorporated and conducted.
As it stands, my company can't do the bloody test, 1.5 years after the intended introduction of this vapid system and I have to pay casa the ridiculous sum of $720, PLUS flying them business class to the country where my sim is. Plus the sim, plus the support pilot.
And don't even get me started on the KDR requirements. I've been told to re learn 727 flight planning (in addition to literally everything else of course), just in case the testing officer feels like quizzing me on the single 2 mark question I got wrong way back in 2006 labelled 'calculate fuel for sector'. Oh and the syllabus reference doesn't even exist anymore.
Most countries won't let you apply for their license unless you're sponsored by a company that wishes to employ you
That's not really correct, and don't confuse job-protection immigration restrictions (Australia included) for license restrictions.
Most of the English speaking world, most of Africa and most of SE Asia have no such license restriction.Working in those countries is a different matter entirely.
I agree entirely that the whole ATPL right now is a clusterfxxx, an answer to a problem that does not exist.
NO bigger aircraft operator is going to give anybody a command on the basis they have "passer" an Australian ATPL flight test, to anybody with even the faintest inkling about aviation, the whole notion is ludicrous.
Tootle pip!!
My mistake then. I was looking at the opportunities recently in HK, and from what I understand they won't convert your license without sponsorship from a company wishing to employ you. Found a few other places that had the same policy. If thats not the case on a larger geographic scale then, good!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL370
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the argument is the sheer cost of first having to gain a type rating in a heavy ( as in above 5700 kg )
Part 61.700 Requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—general
(5) For paragraph (3)(c), the flight test for the air transport pilot licence with the aeroplane category rating must be conducted under the IFR in:
(a) a multi‑engine turbine‑powered aeroplane that is configured for flight, and operated, with a co‑pilot; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight test.
Even the ATPL test form only states "Flight test was conducted under the IFR using published Multi-Crew procedures - CASR 61.700(5)".
Similarly, I can't find anywhere that states a candidate must be previously endorsed/type rated before conducting the ATPL flight test, just that the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 MOS. I guess you can take the test and gain a type/design feature endorsements at the same time, provided all MOS elements are completed.
My understanding is one can simply take the majority of the test in a say a B200 sim, completing the rest (i.e. circling requirements) in the actual aircraft? (All conducted with a co-pilot).
I'm more than happy to be corrected, as I'm just trying to sort the fact from the fiction.
Cheers.
As with so much of CASA, we get conflicting interpretations. Reading the rule, it doesn't even say 'pressurised' so presumably a Caravan II or similar could be used for the test.
But then they may argue that sub 5700 kg aircraft are all 'single pilot' approved and not configured specifically to require a co pilot. They could expect a statement in the AFM that says minimum crew is a pilot and co pilot. At least that is how one CASA person put it at a meeting I attended.
Has anyone put this to the test and presented themselves in a light turboprop with a co pilot in the other seat?
But then they may argue that sub 5700 kg aircraft are all 'single pilot' approved and not configured specifically to require a co pilot. They could expect a statement in the AFM that says minimum crew is a pilot and co pilot. At least that is how one CASA person put it at a meeting I attended.
Has anyone put this to the test and presented themselves in a light turboprop with a co pilot in the other seat?
I reckon you could interpret (if you had an expensive enough lawyer to back you up):
(a) a multi‑engine turbine‑powered aeroplane that is configured for flight, and operated, with a co‑pilot; or
as just being a 441 or something that you and a co-pilot configure before departure and then operate together.
It doesn't say (for example) a multi-engine turbine-powered aeroplane that is required to be operated with a co-pilot.
(a) a multi‑engine turbine‑powered aeroplane that is configured for flight, and operated, with a co‑pilot; or
as just being a 441 or something that you and a co-pilot configure before departure and then operate together.
It doesn't say (for example) a multi-engine turbine-powered aeroplane that is required to be operated with a co-pilot.
Got some face to face time with the DAS last week and discussed the mult crew/co-pilot/small aeroplane issues with him, specifically in relation to resource sector contracts.
Why is it that a Metro or a B1900D - both certified single pilot - are considered a multi-crew aeroplane for ATPL reasons?
Why is it that a C208B is multi crew but a C441 or a B200 cannot be?
Can I only log co-pilot time in a Chieftain with 11 seats but not in one with 10 seats?
If the autopilot goes bung on the Chieftain and we throw a second pilot in the RHS, that pilot is no longer allowed to log co-pilot time... or is he?
....and we can have all CPLs flying a fleet of Chieftains but if the Autopilot goes bung and we suddenly have a 2-crew operation in a Chieftain, the PIC MUST hold an ATPL!
He pointed out that minimum crew is MINIMUM crew and properly done, 2-crew is better/safer than single crew. He could see all the contradictions and was taking it to Canberra to work on it.
...which is better than any answer I ever got from Albanese, Warren Truss or John McCormick, who only ever listened to you so they could argue back
Why is it that a Metro or a B1900D - both certified single pilot - are considered a multi-crew aeroplane for ATPL reasons?
Why is it that a C208B is multi crew but a C441 or a B200 cannot be?
Can I only log co-pilot time in a Chieftain with 11 seats but not in one with 10 seats?
If the autopilot goes bung on the Chieftain and we throw a second pilot in the RHS, that pilot is no longer allowed to log co-pilot time... or is he?
....and we can have all CPLs flying a fleet of Chieftains but if the Autopilot goes bung and we suddenly have a 2-crew operation in a Chieftain, the PIC MUST hold an ATPL!
He pointed out that minimum crew is MINIMUM crew and properly done, 2-crew is better/safer than single crew. He could see all the contradictions and was taking it to Canberra to work on it.
...which is better than any answer I ever got from Albanese, Warren Truss or John McCormick, who only ever listened to you so they could argue back
Thread Starter
Got some face to face time with the DAS last week and discussed the mult crew/co-pilot/small aeroplane issues with him
Currently the only MCC course CASA approved (so I am told) is at a flying school at Moorabbin which charges an outrageous sum of around $9000 for a week of lectures plus a few hours in a synthetic trainer. Keeping in mind most of the subjects are already covered in Human Factors for CPL.
The current situation is that Australian pilots flying 737's for overseas airlines including SE Asia and who already have at least 1000 hours as co-pilot 737 flying with captains of varying nationalities, have no choice but do the $9000 MCC course at Moorabbin before applying for their ATPL test.
CASA state they have no oversight of these overseas operators and therefore will not accept the 737 time for purposes of Australian MCC qualification.
Makes you wonder which is the most realistic experience for learning multi-crew cooperation. A week of MCC theory in a classroom at Moorabbin and up to six hours in a synthetic trainer doing LOFT and checklist reading.
Or, one thousand hours or more in a real 737 or Airbus in overseas airlines ducking around monsoon weather and seriously dangerous CB and listening to ATC with all its various accents and crewing with foreign captains with their own regional accents? Yet - buy yourself a type rating in Australia on something like a 737/A320 and CASA say that itself covers the MCC course
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CASA state they have no oversight of these overseas operators and therefore will not accept the 737 time for purposes of Australian MCC qualification".
It occurs to me that if CAsA are convinced these airlines are so "Shonky". That their "Standards" are so out of step with Australia's unique "world best practice" regulation, why the hell are they risking the lives of Australian's both in the air and on the ground by letting them fly into our airports and over our cities??? Isn't "SAFETY", above anything else, their "ONLY" consideration?
I thought they were the "Iron Shield" protecting Australians from lunatic aviators hell bent on wiping us out. They are destroying the industry in Australia why are they not locking these foreign lunatics out as well?
Where's Alan Jones when you need him!!
We are rapidly becoming a pimple on the Ass of the world, stuck at the bottom of the Pacific, completely out of step with the rest of the world, and its not just aviation, anything else that's "regulated" in this country is in the same boat.
It occurs to me that if CAsA are convinced these airlines are so "Shonky". That their "Standards" are so out of step with Australia's unique "world best practice" regulation, why the hell are they risking the lives of Australian's both in the air and on the ground by letting them fly into our airports and over our cities??? Isn't "SAFETY", above anything else, their "ONLY" consideration?
I thought they were the "Iron Shield" protecting Australians from lunatic aviators hell bent on wiping us out. They are destroying the industry in Australia why are they not locking these foreign lunatics out as well?
Where's Alan Jones when you need him!!
We are rapidly becoming a pimple on the Ass of the world, stuck at the bottom of the Pacific, completely out of step with the rest of the world, and its not just aviation, anything else that's "regulated" in this country is in the same boat.
We are rapidly becoming a pimple on the Ass of the world, stuck at the bottom of the Pacific, completely out of step with the rest of the world, and its not just aviation, anything else that's "regulated" in this country is in the same boat.
Never mind high wages, the enormous cost and innovation-crushing burden of over-regulation is killing this country's competitiveness. Not until you have owned a small business do you see the mind-blowing scale of beaureaucracy in this country.
Legislation in this country is passed not to enable business but to STOP THINGS HAPPENING. If economic opportunity is wasted, crushed or handed to our competitors appears inconsequential - just ask cattle exporters for an example.
Legislators wring their hands at the lack of air services to the bush, yet endorse whole-heartedly the legislation imposing ever-greater "safety" requirements upon the small and otherwise agile businesses that would have provided those services.
If I wanted to operate a couple of Chieftains or similar on RPT routes I would have to employ a Continuing Airworthiness Manager, a Quality Manager, a Maintenance Planner, Airworthiness Review Engineers and Maintenance Program Approval engineers. Every single one of them able to command $100k+.
... Oh god I could go on and on and on...
... but not a single **** was given.