So has there been any update on the ATPL flight test issue? The test is obviously still required to gain an ATPL, regardless of how pointless and expensive this is, and limiting career prospects for those who otherwise have all the experience and subjects but don't operate for a company that is willing to put them through an ATPL flight test. Of those who have done the test, where did you do it, and what sort of rough prices would be expected?

I've heard of CASA Testing Officers being flown overseas in Business Class, to conduct flight tests in Sims. Can't be cheap.

It gives Australian airlines more control over the pilot group in the country. Makes it harder to leave and head OS to take another job.

SN

Getting an ATPL
 

So the Comminwealth requires that to get an ATPL you must complete a flight test? Yep, show you're good enough against published standards. Gosh!! That's a harsh burden.

And to fly in a multi crew aircraft you have to have been trained in the arts of multi crew cooperation. Again. Gosh!!

Some of you folks need to get out a bit more often. You're jumping at shadows that don't exist.

Sherm

Yes they are. From what I have heard, CASA have said they are likely to abolish the requirement altogether.

No it does not.

Typically flippant response from someone with no clue.

I note also that after I utterly destroyed your argument 2 pages ago (as shown here = http://www.pprune.org/9232901-post161.html), you've simply chosen to ignore it and repeat the now thoroughly debunked tripe above.

You need to get your facts right and cease speaking of that which you clearly have no idea. The test cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars. What did it achieve? Am I now safer than someone who hasn't done the test? Are those who haven't 'met the standards' to which you speak no longer safe? If not, then why are they allowed to fly? If yes, then why did I have to do the test? It doesn't stand to reason.

What is the evidence that this test will increase safety in this country, please point to it. I'm all ears.

Based on what?

I was unable to apply for a huge number of overseas jobs that I was otherwise qualified for because I didn't hold an ATPL.

I know plenty of people who do that in the sim or aircraft several times a year.

And operate multi-crew aircraft every day having been trained in multi crew cooperation.

And after all that they still need to pay out what I understand is in the tens of thousands of dollars, or be employed by an organization that will put them up for the flight test, in order to get an ATPL. It's a significant and unnecessary expense that does nothing for flight safety.

You cannot be "otherwise qualified" for an overseas job, you are either qualified or you are not. Let's suppose you are talking about one of the ME3. they want you to hold an ATPL not for the piece of paper but for the experience you have in two crew operation that the licence brings.

You also said "...head overseas to take another job". It does not stop a CPL holder heading overseas and finding a job that requires a CPL.

The only people who think experience does not matter are those without it.

That literally makes no sense.

The bit of paper doesn't give me experience mate, experience does. They list the aeronautical experience requirements on the job application. If ATPL = experience, then they wouldn't bother now would they?

Of the experience requirements, I met them. The end.

"they want you to hold an ATPL not for the piece of paper but for the experience you have in two crew operation that the licence brings."

So the 3 years I had of multi crew operation in a transport category aircraft doesn't count because I didn't have my ATPL handed to me out of a cereal packet like 99% of the people on here?

Its a nonsense argument.

How come you didn't bother to get it before the Part61 change like everyone else who got it out of a cereal packet?

Irrelevant.

So what you're really saying is that you're pissy because you were too lazy to knock over the ATPL subjects when you had the chance to get your license from a cereal box when you had the chance and now it's costing you

No, what I'm really saying is that even if everything you accuse of me of your in post were true, none of it has the slightest bit of relevance to the topic at hand. That's what 'irrelevant' means.

My argument is for the large number of people who now have to endure this expensive, arduous and ultimately pointless box ticking exercise. Your argument appears to be that because a few of us could have avoided the difficulties of this process, therefore the process itself is vindicated. Its a non sequitur.

Now do you actually have a point that is any way relevant to that argument? Or do you just want to continue with your ad hominem?

Guys,
There has always been a requirement for an ATPL test flight. If you can find a copy of the old CAO's its there in black and white, there was even an appendix to lay out what was required to be completed for the test flight.
The difference back then was common sense. The regulator recognised that the requirements for the issue of an instrument rating were of a higher standard than the ATPL, therefore if you held an instrument rating the flight test was waived.
In the US the ATPL test ride is really an instrument check ride, an instrument rating being required to hold an ATPL.
What I ponder is there a safety case for the convoluted system Australia has developed, along with the plethora of what can be very expensive recency requirements.
I dont disagree with the need for some sort of test, but if you have already demonstrated competence to fly to the required standard whats the point?
The multi crew stuff I believe is a furphy. Most of it is already covered in CRM, the rest should be covered in SOP's. The Multi crew requirement I believe is just a very expensive
waste of time better handled by individual airlines training departments, I don't believe there is a safety case that warrants it.

I got my CASA helicopter ATPL out of a cornflakes box under the old system. Though since I've moved to the US I've had to take a flight test for my helicopter FAA ATP, and now I also had to do the FAA ATP-CTP course (around 7k fortunately my airline pays for that) and take my ATP fixed wing flight test as part of my final type ride on the embraer 145.

I guess my point is that there's no reason that Australia shouldn't have a flight test like the rest of the world.

I don't agree with all the requirements that CASA have lumped into it, but the FAA process is now arguably equally as expensive now that you have to do a CTP course which requires 10 hours in a level D sim, just to be able to take the ATP multi engine fixed wing written.

So yes, I think CASA should change some things about the ATP flight tests, but I don't disagree with the fact that an Aussie wanting an ATP should be required to take a flight test like the rest of the world regardless of your background.

You had the opportunity to go the cornflakes box route, and chose not to, so I have no sympathy about you moaning about the current requirements.

Before you tell me to pipe down, I personally facilitated the first two CASA helicopter ATPL's under PT61 (I was in the aircraft) and helped make the cost cheaper to subsequent applicants by working with the AHIA and CASA with regard to aircraft types that can be used amongst a host of other items.

By the way, did you actually make any submissions under the NPRM time before PT61 was put into effect or are you now complaining after the fact?

And will this flight test make you any safer havic? The checks done for IF and BFR should catch any problems. The type rating skill test makes sure you can safely fly the aeroplane. And the command training course and testing checks you are fine to be a skipper. Having tests because others have tests is not an argument. If there can be a proved safety advantage of having this test I have yet to hear of one.

Where were you when the NPRM's came out for Part61? Did you lodge any objections or comments?

When the last DAS wrote to the industry for further comments to help rectify the **** sandwich did you take part then?

Yes/no?

So the system of regulatory development is to presumptively create **** sandwiches unless all the people who're going have to eat them take the time to object? That would explain a lot.

And in the case of Part 61, the weight of the informed submissions were to the effect that Part 61 was going to turn out precisely how it did turn out: A complete clusterf*ck.

The sytem of regulatory development and post-implementation review is completely broken. It's a perpetual mess-maker. It's pointless trying to interface logically and reasonably with a completely broken system.