Australian ATPL flight test
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: victoria
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without arguing whether it’s fair to be required to jump through hoops if you have prior experience, should your employer pay for it, whether over priced, or will make you a better pilot, the only way to look at it is - will an ATPL get you a job ahead of someone with a CPL ? Or if you are already in an airline, will it accelerate time to command? If either applies, how long to recoup the investment? Say, six months, a year maybe?
Going overseas, with travel, time out of work, meals and accommodation, paying an examiner etc may not really save you money. Ditto going via NZ, doing full medical there, training to local procedures, flight test etc, then using the TTMRA may seem the soft option, but not really, because CASA still make you jump through a few hoops and IPC on a multi crew type to get started.
re doing it at Ansett. No need for MCC if you have prior time on multi crew ops, but you would have to be type rated on one of their suitable sims. That rules out the King Air and B 737 classic, as CASA no longer accept either, due no proper RNAV capability. For a pilot with no prior time on larger aircraft, combining the ATPL with a type rating on something useful is probably best way to go, as by the time you have done the type rating you should be at ATPL test standard (or you probably wouldn’t pass the type rating).
The OP already has Dash 8 time, so that should save quite a few bucks if the test is done in an approved simulator. Ansett has one. But unless doing it in-house with an established operator that you already work for, a few hours’ prior practice with your support pilot is essential to get some SOPs nailed for the check.
Going overseas, with travel, time out of work, meals and accommodation, paying an examiner etc may not really save you money. Ditto going via NZ, doing full medical there, training to local procedures, flight test etc, then using the TTMRA may seem the soft option, but not really, because CASA still make you jump through a few hoops and IPC on a multi crew type to get started.
re doing it at Ansett. No need for MCC if you have prior time on multi crew ops, but you would have to be type rated on one of their suitable sims. That rules out the King Air and B 737 classic, as CASA no longer accept either, due no proper RNAV capability. For a pilot with no prior time on larger aircraft, combining the ATPL with a type rating on something useful is probably best way to go, as by the time you have done the type rating you should be at ATPL test standard (or you probably wouldn’t pass the type rating).
The OP already has Dash 8 time, so that should save quite a few bucks if the test is done in an approved simulator. Ansett has one. But unless doing it in-house with an established operator that you already work for, a few hours’ prior practice with your support pilot is essential to get some SOPs nailed for the check.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: victoria
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're talking about a small investment to upskill yourself. Not $100k.
Think of it this way, if you’re doing this to gain a command (because that’s about the only reason you would), how quickly are you going to earn your investment back?
Prior multi crew experience or not, the moment that you think you can’t learn something, then you should hang up your wings.
Think of it this way, if you’re doing this to gain a command (because that’s about the only reason you would), how quickly are you going to earn your investment back?
Prior multi crew experience or not, the moment that you think you can’t learn something, then you should hang up your wings.
I don't know if this would be of any help, but it seems back in September CASA granted an exemption (CASA EX98/21) to allow the King Air sim (not sure which one) to be used for the ATPL (A) test. In my time we did a short training course to prepare candidates for the test. Whether this training was ever formally approved I know not, but it did meet the spirit of 61.700 3 (b) and was accepted inso far as no successful applicant was denied licence issue.
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: victoria
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if this would be of any help, but it seems back in September CASA granted an exemption (CASA EX98/21) to allow the King Air sim (not sure which one) to be used for the ATPL (A) test. In my time we did a short training course to prepare candidates for the test. Whether this training was ever formally approved I know not, but it did meet the spirit of 61.700 3 (b) and was accepted inso far as no successful applicant was denied licence issue.
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....
All that section 61.700 says is 'completed flight training' which is not quite the same as saying 'completed an approved course of flight training'. I think the MCC requirement is already covered if you can show prior multi-crew operational experience on a real multi crew aircraft type (not the King Air) and it should be argued that preparatory practice for the test is 'completing flight training'.
But I was wrong once before.....
The problem is its unclear, which is why was ignored for several years (or so I have been told). Now they don't ignore it and testing officers have to sign it of on the form that it has been completed.
Apparently they are working towards an exemption for this rule (command upgrade training at a company, ICUS, etc).
I'm working with casa at the moment and going to be putting forward the training for the command type rating I'm shortly doing, as well as the left seat ICUS time to try and get a special exemption from the legislation from casa higher ups. I just have to put together a "case" and if successful I hope it will help others in a similar situation.
When the new requirements for an ATPL flight test came courtesy Part 61, Ansett got approval to do it in their old B200 sim. Multi crew procedures were established and a short training course developed. If pilots had no prior multi crew time they had to first do a MCC. This was done by some external organisation. Getting an ATPL was nowhere near as cheap as CASA originally suggested it would be, but an effort at Ansett was made to keep costs down on the King Air by tailoring the training to fit the candidates’ experience.
Then a change of one word - from ‘or’ to ‘and’ in the IPC test - required proficiency to be demonstrated on the use of GPS-enabled navigation systems. The King Air could no longer be used, though now, if you look at the exemption, it seems that CASA have relented on this.
ATPL tests were also conducted on other types, but only for candidates with type ratings, or in some cases coincident with type rating courses.
ATPL tests have been conducted by independent examiners on various types on the basis (in the past) that if the candidate was already flying for an operator with its own checking & training organisation, the candidate was deemed sufficiently trained.in the exotic art of flying to airline standards. If a candidate presented from elsewhere (e.g. converting a foreign licence), to the best of my knowledge, no test was conducted before some prior assessment flying was done to determine suitability.
This new requirement for ‘training’ would appear to require a Part 141 or 142 to get into the act, but as I understand it, a suitably qualified examiiner can still conduct the test outwith any organisation.
Then a change of one word - from ‘or’ to ‘and’ in the IPC test - required proficiency to be demonstrated on the use of GPS-enabled navigation systems. The King Air could no longer be used, though now, if you look at the exemption, it seems that CASA have relented on this.
ATPL tests were also conducted on other types, but only for candidates with type ratings, or in some cases coincident with type rating courses.
ATPL tests have been conducted by independent examiners on various types on the basis (in the past) that if the candidate was already flying for an operator with its own checking & training organisation, the candidate was deemed sufficiently trained.in the exotic art of flying to airline standards. If a candidate presented from elsewhere (e.g. converting a foreign licence), to the best of my knowledge, no test was conducted before some prior assessment flying was done to determine suitability.
This new requirement for ‘training’ would appear to require a Part 141 or 142 to get into the act, but as I understand it, a suitably qualified examiiner can still conduct the test outwith any organisation.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Around Here
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way should an ATPL Examiner conduct a flight test on a candidate sight unseen. Strict liability puts too much risk onto the Examiner. There needs to be some evidence of "flight training" (WTF that means is not really clear). I would not complete a test unless the applicant had been through a part 141 or 142 training organisation with written evidence of training and proficiency before the flight test.
Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again
Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again
An examiner could test a candidate ‘sight unseen’ but with a caveat. That is, a formal recommendation from either an instructor, check pilot or chief pilot.
As for examiner liability, this needs to be fixed. An examiner can only test what he/she sees on the day. If the candidate is concealing a bi-polar condition or some other disorder, an examiner - not being a medical expert - would probably have no idea of this. And a candidate could be great this week but run into personal problems next week which could contribute to events beyond any examiner’s control. The only liability an examiner should carry is for incorrectly administering the test or similar falsification ( or taking cheap whiskey as bribe - a fine malt being the least one should accept).
As for keeping instructors or chief pilots honest, some form of monitoring first time pass versus failure rates could be in order. I believe the FAA does this as part of their system which basically allows instructors to hold approvals almost indefinitely- provided of course that their recommended candidates achieve the necessary first time pass rate. Properly administered, it could do away with multiple checks to retain various instructor privileges. But wait…that would save money for the industry and reduce CASA staff….can’t have that.
As for examiner liability, this needs to be fixed. An examiner can only test what he/she sees on the day. If the candidate is concealing a bi-polar condition or some other disorder, an examiner - not being a medical expert - would probably have no idea of this. And a candidate could be great this week but run into personal problems next week which could contribute to events beyond any examiner’s control. The only liability an examiner should carry is for incorrectly administering the test or similar falsification ( or taking cheap whiskey as bribe - a fine malt being the least one should accept).
As for keeping instructors or chief pilots honest, some form of monitoring first time pass versus failure rates could be in order. I believe the FAA does this as part of their system which basically allows instructors to hold approvals almost indefinitely- provided of course that their recommended candidates achieve the necessary first time pass rate. Properly administered, it could do away with multiple checks to retain various instructor privileges. But wait…that would save money for the industry and reduce CASA staff….can’t have that.
No way should an ATPL Examiner conduct a flight test on a candidate sight unseen. Strict liability puts too much risk onto the Examiner. There needs to be some evidence of "flight training" (WTF that means is not really clear). I would not complete a test unless the applicant had been through a part 141 or 142 training organisation with written evidence of training and proficiency before the flight test.
Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again
Onya CASA for really stuffing this up and making the industry pay through the roof yet again
