ATPL and airline recruitment
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPL and airline recruitment
One of the big changes under Part 61 is the changes to what is required to be issued with an ATPL. It's been spoken about ad nauseum here about the practicality's of getting an ATPL at the moment when the required training isn't even in place in Australia and the exorbitant costs that would be placed on individuals to conduct the required training.
As a pilot in GA with a CPL and passes in all ATPL subjects and aspirations to move to an airline eventually, but without a spare $10000-$15000 lying around, I find it frustrating to see jobs advertised for which I've no doubt got the knowledge and experience to do, but am unable to obtain the licence required under the new system.
I believe that whilst the old system where it was possible to get an ATPL with all your hours in a 172 wasn't ideal, the new system has gone too far the other way.
A quick look around finds some variation between the airlines as to what qualifications they require for an FO. Some (i.e Cobham, RFDS, even Careflight today for a Learjet FO) require an ATPL, not just the subjects. I honestly don't believe CASA will change the requirements for the issue of an ATPL as that would require them to admit they made a mistake, but what are people's thoughts for future airline recruiting with regards to holding an ATPL? Will those airlines that do require an ATPL continue to do so until the pool of pilots not in airlines that hold an ATPL dry up?
As a pilot in GA with a CPL and passes in all ATPL subjects and aspirations to move to an airline eventually, but without a spare $10000-$15000 lying around, I find it frustrating to see jobs advertised for which I've no doubt got the knowledge and experience to do, but am unable to obtain the licence required under the new system.
I believe that whilst the old system where it was possible to get an ATPL with all your hours in a 172 wasn't ideal, the new system has gone too far the other way.
A quick look around finds some variation between the airlines as to what qualifications they require for an FO. Some (i.e Cobham, RFDS, even Careflight today for a Learjet FO) require an ATPL, not just the subjects. I honestly don't believe CASA will change the requirements for the issue of an ATPL as that would require them to admit they made a mistake, but what are people's thoughts for future airline recruiting with regards to holding an ATPL? Will those airlines that do require an ATPL continue to do so until the pool of pilots not in airlines that hold an ATPL dry up?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
That issues lies with the respective airlines' HR departments. They need to play catch up with the way Part 61 works. Also a conundrum occurs when one wishes to go from one airline to another with the requirement of a 'current' instrument rating. Technically it's now perpetual but only on the caveat of being part of an approved training system (the old CAR217 stuff). Essentially you resign your position from the check and training organisation AND your instrument rating has now become null and void too!
CAsA themselves have no idea what's going on either.
Fuel-Off
CAsA themselves have no idea what's going on either.
Fuel-Off
The whole system is idiotic, as I've said repeatedly. You are going to have to simply wait for the HR departments of your target employers to recognize the problem, and then adjust the minimums for entry. This could certainly be a while.
To their credit, Virgins latest round of recruitment has only asked for a CPL with subjects, with the exception being the 737 NZ bases, mostly due to the TTMRA not giving you credit for any exams passed in Australia.
To their credit, Virgins latest round of recruitment has only asked for a CPL with subjects, with the exception being the 737 NZ bases, mostly due to the TTMRA not giving you credit for any exams passed in Australia.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the airlines will eventually change their requirements, applicants with 4-5 years experience should already have an ATPL... Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe leaving that requirement in there is their way of filtering the super green guys from the system. Kind of along the lines of "If you have to complain that our recruitment doesn't accommodate CPL's with subjects, then maybe your just a little too green (or too much of a sense of self entitlement) for us at the moment...
If you have CPL + Theory passes you would be hired now as an FO.... just like a thousand CPL regional pilots were hired before Sept 1.
You only NEED an ATPL for command. When you do your type rating on the B1900 or 737 or ATR or some other multi-crew type you will be grandfathered MCC (or so CASA tells me, no i can't provide a reference today).
There are no "copilot endorsements" now so you do a TR in the LHS. You will do X hours in the RHS as copilot until you need an ATPL for command.
HR depts will always recruit the highest qualified most suitable people first but they're not so stupid that they won't change requirements as the available pool dries up.
Australian CAR217 orgs will get their **** together soon enough.
The foreign airlines however will not change, giving US candidates a strong lead over Aussies.
That's something that's gotta change.
You only NEED an ATPL for command. When you do your type rating on the B1900 or 737 or ATR or some other multi-crew type you will be grandfathered MCC (or so CASA tells me, no i can't provide a reference today).
There are no "copilot endorsements" now so you do a TR in the LHS. You will do X hours in the RHS as copilot until you need an ATPL for command.
HR depts will always recruit the highest qualified most suitable people first but they're not so stupid that they won't change requirements as the available pool dries up.
Australian CAR217 orgs will get their **** together soon enough.
The foreign airlines however will not change, giving US candidates a strong lead over Aussies.
That's something that's gotta change.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact is that the Commonwealth has mandated that to get an ATPL you need a flight test and multi-crew operation training. Hardly a galactic ask. Both can be achieved inside or outside a training and checking system.
CASA is working with the larger RPT operators to enable them to do ATPL tests in house. Good effort.
However if an employer wants to insist that an ATPL be gained pre-employment then the pilot applicants will have to come to terms with that. Same with other qualifications such as requirement for Year 12 subjects, current medical, twin time, turbine time, instrument rating, type rating, minimum hours. If the demand for pilots was high as it has been from time to time airlines would hire folks with a bare CPL or as fully funded cadets and give the all the training they need. The defence forces have done that for 100 years.
Very few pilots will get a job with larger airlines which requires them to have an ATPL from day one. In other words few direct entry commands. And in any case such applicants would probably have an ATPL anyway. So why should the Commonwealth have to lower standards so pilots can be hired some years before they'll need the ATPL for commands? By all means require pilots to be "ATPL ready" with their subjects etc.
Sherm
CASA is working with the larger RPT operators to enable them to do ATPL tests in house. Good effort.
However if an employer wants to insist that an ATPL be gained pre-employment then the pilot applicants will have to come to terms with that. Same with other qualifications such as requirement for Year 12 subjects, current medical, twin time, turbine time, instrument rating, type rating, minimum hours. If the demand for pilots was high as it has been from time to time airlines would hire folks with a bare CPL or as fully funded cadets and give the all the training they need. The defence forces have done that for 100 years.
Very few pilots will get a job with larger airlines which requires them to have an ATPL from day one. In other words few direct entry commands. And in any case such applicants would probably have an ATPL anyway. So why should the Commonwealth have to lower standards so pilots can be hired some years before they'll need the ATPL for commands? By all means require pilots to be "ATPL ready" with their subjects etc.
Sherm
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Shire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a pilot who is "ATPL ready", with all their subjects complete, supposed to do for those types that there isnt currently an approved testing officer for? For example the Saab 340 - it's my understanding that there simply isnt anyone qualified within Australia to conduct the flight test on a Saab 340, regardless of how many simulator instructors or checkers are around. That is CASA's doing. How many other types are out there that just dont have approved testing officers able to issue an ATPL, stranding those pilots? Get an endorsement on another aircraft type that is presently useless to them? Its only $10,000 to $30,000, sure, why not.
And if you have CPL + theory passes, you now dont meet the requirements for a lot of operators. From a legal point of view, yes, you only NEED the ATPL for a command. From a practical point of view for many jobs - no ATPL, no chance of even getting to an interview.
The whole issue of no longer having a current instrument rating is another mess that disadvantages a lot of people for no real gain. Is an old-style instrument rating renewed in a 737 simulator really worth less than an instrument rating renewed in a Seminole out of Maroochydore?
And if you have CPL + theory passes, you now dont meet the requirements for a lot of operators. From a legal point of view, yes, you only NEED the ATPL for a command. From a practical point of view for many jobs - no ATPL, no chance of even getting to an interview.
The whole issue of no longer having a current instrument rating is another mess that disadvantages a lot of people for no real gain. Is an old-style instrument rating renewed in a 737 simulator really worth less than an instrument rating renewed in a Seminole out of Maroochydore?
There are no "copilot endorsements" now so you do a TR in the LHS
Sydney Driver
One of the first non-conversion ATPLs issued under the new part 61 system was through a non-RPT general aviation operator on the Do328. There are perhaps no more than five aircraft in Australia, and the simulator is overseas. How many Saabs and simulators exist in Aus?
If they can do it, then surely an RPT operator can pull their finger out and do the same. Or perhaps it is a conspiracy to leave cadets in the right hand seat permanently.....
One of the first non-conversion ATPLs issued under the new part 61 system was through a non-RPT general aviation operator on the Do328. There are perhaps no more than five aircraft in Australia, and the simulator is overseas. How many Saabs and simulators exist in Aus?
If they can do it, then surely an RPT operator can pull their finger out and do the same. Or perhaps it is a conspiracy to leave cadets in the right hand seat permanently.....
The whole issue of no longer having a current instrument rating is another mess that disadvantages a lot of people for no real gain. Is an old-style instrument rating renewed in a 737 simulator really worth less than an instrument rating renewed in a Seminole out of Maroochydore?
No, they are very different so the competency v instrument renewal argument is valid.
You need to get over this issue, the ATPL issue process is now almost the same as the New Zealand rule (with the difference that the NZ CAA had the approvals sorted, but does not have the MCC requirement yet) since the part 91/119/121 was implemented last century.
The fact is that the Commonwealth has mandated that to get an ATPL you need a flight test and multi-crew operation training. Hardly a galactic ask
Of the people who can do the test, my sim is in NZ. I have to fly the CASA delegate there, business class return. Hire the sim, pay for an FO etc. The cost is stupid. Not to mention thats assuming I can get in the left seat and nail it first time. Probably not, so a practice (hah) is required, adding another 4 hours in the sim.
You say "well wait for the company to upgrade you to command". My company only has 2 planes, the wait for a command here could be a decade. They're certainly not going to spend money for nothing giving me pointless upgrade training and paying for a test they don't need to.
So i'm effectively stuck here, unless I want to change to another operator, start from the bottom again and try to get a command there. Thats assuming of course they hire people without an ATPL in the first place.
What SHOULD have happened was CASA using that extra year after the 2013 back down to give the ATPL approvals to CAR 217 operators so that they could do the test in house, being that its 95% the same as an IPC anyway. Then we could have hit the ground running and the costs to people like me would have been far, far reduced.
The rules are fine in the long term, once everything is in place. But now, its a goddam mess and its affecting the careers of quite a few people simply unable to move on.
