To industry spectators, that interview shows why it is a complete waste of time having a senator who knows nothing about the industry, questioning professional bureaucrats determined to defend the current status quo. The senator was so polite as to be considered easy meat by the CASA group who must have been laughing up their sleeves when the grilling (?) was over.

1. frozen CASA ATPL No such thing as a frozen ATPL
2. CASA CPL/ MECIR, converted into Hong Kong CPL
3. Valid Airbus A320/ A330 type rating as I'm now working in HK - enough hours and be eligible to unfreeze my ATPL.No such thing as a frozen ATPL you have to sit an ATPL flight test
4. Have completed MCC course with in UKGood if you want to do a flight test in the UK or pay for CASA to travel to the UK and approve the course
5. Not a permanent resident in Aus

The new system is based around recency and proficiency. If you are overseas and don't intend flying a VH tailed aircraft forget about it, however if you want to fly for an Australian operator then one must follow the process applicable to their situation.

In my case I have a few professional Australian licences and a type endorsement on a Part 121 aircraft, however since I am no longer flying commercially in effect I now really only have a PPL. Until such time that I go back and basically do another type rating and get current again in a large aircraft my ATPL remains dormant.

Currency and proficiency appear to be part of the motive behind the new regulations.

For EASA MCC courses CASA is developing an exemption to allow them to be accepted. Also for Australian ADF courses of a similar nature.


I understand that for experienced folks who don't come into the above categories CASA may approve abbreviated courses based on a Recognition of Prior Learning assessment capability in Part 142 training organisations.


Cheers


Sherm

This is where I don't understand the thinking of CASA...

Surely a little common sense would go a long way here. To be given a type rating on a multi crew aircraft, you have to demonstrate you can work in a multi crew environment under pressure and with a level head.

Surely it is better to be aircraft specific rather than just using a generic A320/737 which some people will never fly in the their careers. Having recently completed my first type rating, I cannot for the life of me understand why our powers above have implemented such a stupid rule.

What is the point of the MCC other than just revenue raising?

Maybe the point of MCC training, long a standard in Europe, is that a multi-crew type rating, BY ITSELF, is not enough to ensure that pilots understand the basics of manging a multi-crew cockpit in good times and bad? An awful lot of accidents in multi-crew aircraft seem to have with cockpits full of experienced crews.

"Is he still on the runway, that Pan American?...." No answer from the Captain. No Action by the First Officer. No further action by the F/E. 583 dead.

etc etc etc

Surely training to help in avoiding things like this is worthwhile? The Manual of Standards for MCC seems to this ancient aviator to have some good stuff in it.

And does MCC training raise any revenue for CASA? Wouldn't have thought so.

Part 61 and the ATPL is fairly straight forward - The MCC is mandatory after September 1st 2015 for initial multi-crew type rating and initial issue of an Australian ATPL. To gain a type rating on a multi-crew airplane (above 5700KG) is by way of a Level D sim - and then conducting the ATPL Flight Test integrated with the type rating.

Contact MATS, They seem to have trained a number of crews recently.

Your info is incorrect. There have been a number of MCC Courses completed for ICAO ATPL Holders converting to Australian ATPL under Part 61. If you are already type rated (CPL) and a FFS Level C or D is available then the ATPL Flight Test can be conducted as part of recurrency There have been further CASA Approved MCC courses for initial issue of Australian ATPL, subject to Type Rating and ATPL Flight Test. I agree the mandatory MCC requirements under part 61 are somewhat onerous - but MCC has been part of the UK and European (EASA) requirement for airline entry and Corporate operations for some years now. SHERM is correct in his statements regarding RPL. Total exemption is not the answer as one can buy an EASA MCC Certificate in the old East Bloc over the bar. Must be properly documented for recognition of prior learning (RPL) ADF not totally exempt either - short course including sim is the answer.

$8,250 for a friggin MCC course, 700 bucks for the test, and I have the pleasure of having to fly casa to NZ where my sim is, and putting them up, not to mention the sim.

15 grand for a r$@$@! test that is 95% an IPC.

Angry isn't the right word.

What do people make of this, taken from CASAs website in the MCC section.

Case 3
Peta holds a CPL(A) and is working with an airline as an ATR42 co-pilot. Having completed the airline’s initial, conversion and type rating training earlier, Peta has been operating on the line and is now preparing to upgrade to command.

Peta requires an ATPL(A) and is participating in the airline’s upgrade training, which includes MCC competencies. The MCC training is Part 61 training and is therefore conducted under Part 142 (for transition, the airline is taken to be a Part 142 organisation and the training is taken to be Part 142 training).

The flight examiner conducting the ATPL flight test will require evidence of the MCC-equivalent training (already done in the initial training and updated during the command training) to ensure Peta is eligible for the flight test.

My organization fits this description. Can I get away with it?

Just received this. Finally some sense!

Licensing regulations update: alternative ways for pilots to meet multi-crew cooperation training requirements

A new exemption has now been published which provides alternative ways for some pilots to meet the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

From 1 September 2015, pilots who want to conduct multi-crew operations for the first time must complete a course of training in multi-crew cooperation and have a multi-crew type rating. CASA has listened to the views of the aviation community and recognises that these requirements are not necessary for pilots who have already completed acceptable training elsewhere.

As a result, the new exemption will recognise the following as meeting the multi-crew cooperation training requirements contained in Part 61.

- Completion of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) approved multi-crew cooperation training course.

- An EASA multi-crew type rating.

- An Australian Defence Force operational conversion for multi-crew aircraft.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 50 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, regular public transport operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) 82.3 or 82.5.

- Holding a type rating and, within the last three years, having at least 100 hours experience as a pilot in multi-crew, charter operations conducted by an Australian air operator’s certificate holder under CAO 82.1 and successful completion of two operator proficiency checks which included assessment of human factors and non-technical skills.

- Any other experience and qualifications CASA considers equivalent.

Find out about the application process, learn about what evidence needs to be provided and view the exemption on the CASA website.

Brilliant.

The system would be simpler and cheaper if:

- there was just 1 Civil Aviation Rule: Everything is unlawful!

and

- CASA handed out exemptions from that Rule, with pages of conditions giving effect to CASA's current bright ideas about safety.

It would be almost exactly the same as the way they regulate now, but without the expense and aggravation of the grotesque, bastardised bugger's muddle that is the regulatory reform program.

By you people, you mean 1 person?

I'm quite happy with the finding and view it as a reasonable solution.

Would foreign Part 121 ops experience and a FAA PIC type rating suffice? :confused:

Hands up all those who have been forced to attend one of these new CASA approved MCC course rip-offs run by flying schools and have been bored out of their mind with the banality of it all and learned nothing that they didn't already know. Especially Human Factors regurgitation already comprehensively covered during PPL, CPL and ATPL "subjects".

It doesn't need to make sense or pass any kind of cost benefit test Judd, it just needs to be "Worlds Best Practice"!

So if you hold a CPL and already fly multi crew, you can keep doing it legally because you are already doing it so you must be safe. BUT.............

If you want to gain an ATPL you have to spend a :mad:tonne of $$$ on going and doing a MCC to learn to safely do something you must already be doing safely in the first place because you are already doing it? :ugh:

Read and digest post 56

Gettin there, just out of curiosity what kind of multi-crew were you flying on your CPL? Was is awk, chtr or RPT?

I'm probably (and hopefully) missing something :O

The exemption states

(my bold)

and


Charter