'Behold' because it seems contradictory to what CASA told Mach, at least in appearance to me. My point is that CASA have been heavily inconsistent on this matter.

I've also spent many hours in the right seat acting as PIC, but I suspect the test role referenced in the MOS to be a little bit different. A simple example is calling for checklists. Is CASA going to sit there and accept my demonstration of command decision making and leadership as I sit there awaiting the captain to instruct me to begin checklist X, normal or worse still, non normal? Thats perfectly fine if I'm in the right seat training someone, but I think its a stretch that CASA would agree with that type of scenario for a test designed to test my capabilities as a new Captain.

The list goes on. If CASA are happy for me to do the thing from the right seat, thats great for me. Makes it miles easier. But it also annoys me even further, because now what are they even testing? Can I operate as a copilot in an aicraft that I've been flying in for years for the low low cost of 5 figures? If you say 'You're being tested on multi crew team management' then really you're testing me on my ability as a C&T captain. When else do you sit in the right seat as PIC? Something not really within the scope of the test I thought. Kinda skips a few steps in the career chain.

Or maybe I'm entirely wrong. I just know the thing irks me.

Did anyone call CASA today ?

Folks,
Just a "small" point, but operating from the LHS as PIC is "the convention", but whether it is a requirement of a regulation is another matter entirely.

Indeed, some time ago, a thread was devoted to this subject, and nobody, as I recall, came up with a regulatory requirement for the PIC to be in the LHS in a side by side configuration.

As an airline IRE/TRE or equivalent, the PIC being in the RHS is the norm.

As to the subject in general, in the G.O.Ds, my SCPL flight test doubled as a Class B Instructor annual, or vice versa, take your pick. All conducted in a single engine aeroplane, in compliance with the Air Navigation Act, the ANRs and the ANOs, Chief Examiner of NSW Region version thereof.

Was very teed off when I lost my three digit license number for the ARN.

Tootle pip!!

You're probably not wrong leadsled. But as it relates to this test specifically, I think its going to cause issues for the reasons I listed.

The person sitting in the left seat has a certain role on my type, including calling for checklists and generally running the show. Those are our SOPs. They cannot be 'reversed'. CASA may say for the purposes of the the test I sit in the right but am "PIC".

Ok, but it seems a strange way for me to do the core element of the test, ie demonstrate the ability to run the show, show leadership etc whilst I conduct our SOPs which require me to be instructed on what checklist, normal or non normal I run. The only situation where I'm in the right really operating as PIC is when I was training people. But how does that correlate with the idea of the ATPL flight test, ie to test a candidates ability as a new captain?

Again, I'm all for doing it in the right, makes my life easier, but the whole thing looks a mess to me.

Soldat is your SOP and training so prescriptive -indeed so anal - that if the Captain fails to call for a checklist, or attempts to initiate the wrong procedure, or fails to respond correctly to an abnormal situation, the First Officer will sit there like a stunned mullet and do nothing?
What do you do if the captain slumps over the controls below 80 knots on takeoff? Not reject because that is not 'normally' what you do? What would you do if it happens above 80 knots but before V1 and you had two miles of runway in hand? What would you do if the takeoff was accelerate stop limited? Does your organisation not discuss and occasionally introduce these scenarios in recurrent training?
Or are all your Captains so perfect, so healthy that such mistakes, omissions and events are inconceivable?
I think that you worry too much about how this ATPL test will be conducted should you only have exposure to your type in the RHS. The few guys who are running these ATPL tests are experienced, practical and reasonable, though of course I can't speak for the culture within your Company C&T organisation. How would we brief your LHS pilot on the day? Simply to be more passive than usual but to provide normal callouts - a suitable support pilot can role play without stuffing the candidate up or totally bastardising the SOP.

Assuming that the appropriate training would be available, ie changing from RHS to LHS and given adequate line training etc, I ask myself - is this person 's skill, management and decision making up to the standard where an operator COULD upgrade him/ her to command? If so, good; if not, go away, get some more experience and training and come back when you have it.

Having just got to 1500 hours and having passed some theory is not an entitlement to an ATPL, though having said that, a guy I had the pleasure of training recently would pass the test in a heartbeat. Even with no airline background he would put some 10,000 hour pilots to shame, but at this stage of his young life he does not yet have the hours for ATPL.

For those who object to my use of 'entitlement' again (and I do apologise to those of gen Y who do not suffer from the entitlement syndrome) please review the privileges of an ATPL.
A pilot with one of these could legally hold direct entry command on an A380 flying anywhere in the world, in the worst possible weather. Not very likely, but that is what the licence permits.
Certainly there are those who have gone off to the likes of Lion Air and parlayed F/O time and an ATPL to very quick jet commands.

Of course not. But so what?

The Captain fails to call for a checklist, I call for it.
Attempts the wrong procedure, I identify the correct one.
Fails to respond correctly to an abnormal situation, I put forward the correct one.
If the Captain becomes incapacitated I use our incap SOPs, whatever the situation.

How are any of these situations relevant to whats being discussed? If I failed to do any of the above, I'm not suitable to operate as a First Officer. It has nothing to do with being in command. Unless you're suggesting the ability to meet the required competencies for FO automatically qualifies me to be the captain too? If so I state again, what's the point of this test.

Anyway I've made my point, no reason to go on endlessly. If I'm wrong then so be it. If CASA can assess my ability as a captain by watching me not be the captain, power to them. Makes my life easier.

RHS ATPL flight test
 

Not sure about the legal technicalities in Aus, but to give yet another example from the more enlightened side of the ditch (which I'd bet will apply), it's acceptable to do a NZCAA ATPL flight test from the right hand seat of a qualifying sim/aircraft and this is routinely done by NZ airlines when issuing ATPLs to line FOs in advance of a command upgrade. A pilot can command an aircraft regardless of their seating position (they could even be in the jump seat), so I don't see why there is a debate?

As for the requirement to do a flight test - about bloody time - previous system was inappropriate. I'm sure NZCAA will be pleased the floodgates have been shut on TTMRA flight test dodgers.

However he would also have to pass the type rating test and also have been given a command by someone with an AOC. How many checks does one need to do before they are deemed competent?

You could also argue that someone could pass an ATPL on a Metro then hold a command on a A380 and fly anywhere in the world.

What relevance would a ATPL test on a Metro have to commanding a A380?

The reality is that passing an ATPL flight test really has no bearing on anything as you are going to also have to pass a type rating and a command check by a AOC holder.

So in the end other that make it harder to be pilot and generate more money for CASA what does it all prove?

Well, let's reverse that argument. Teach people to fly, but have no test for PPL or CPL. After all the people who hire out aeroplanes to them, or employ them, are going to ensure that they are competent, right?
Let's adopt the same strategy for heavy truck drivers or bus drivers. If they can drive a car, they will be OK with a B double or taking your kids to school because the owners will ensure that it is so.
It is a fact of life - if you do not set a standard then test people to that standard the system will be abused.
So, for once it IS all about safety. I am no great lover of Big Brother, but CASA don't exactly make a profit out of this, so let's not wrongly accuse them of that motive.
It is just a shame that CASA did not save a lot of money by engaging NZ CAA as consultants on the whole Part 61 introduction.

So where is your data to show the level of risk that is mitigated by the formal final tests in the other examples you gave? How do you know it's not just self-perpetuating intuition?

Setting a standard and requiring it to be met does not inexorably entail a formal final test.

We all know people who've passed formal final tests but are nonetheless incompetent to fly/drive/sail/ride.

Let's reverse your argument. I reckon ATPL holders should be subject to another flight test before each and every flight in which the ATPL holder proposes to exercise the privileges of that licence. What is the safety objection to that requirement?

If you say the risk mitigated by that requirement is so vanishingly small as to not justify its cost and inconvenience, where is your data to prove that?

I note there are lots of people exercising the privileges of an ATPL who have never been the subject of a formal ATPL flight test. Why are they not considered 'unsafe'? Or is it that they are merely tolerated as being 'acceptably unsafe'? How 'unsafe' are they, compared with the pilots who have passed the formal ATPL test?

They may have had good intentions, but there is a reason they've been forced into appointing a 20 something man task force to address the disaster than has been the part 61 implementation. There is a reason companies are increasing their minimum requirements, not decreasing them as was expected. I agree that consultation could have provided a vast improvement.

Or how about Trucks adopt the aviation system and get tested on every different brand of truck? Imagine that!

Unlike most other industries testing in aviation is perpetual. Most other transport doesn't do it neither does medicine.

The ATPL air test is just a big fat waste of money , I really think that the test should be removed ,especially for someone that already has a large aircraft type rating.at a minimum you should be excempt from the test requirement if you hold a CASA Type rating on a >5700kg turbine aircraft-JT

Did anyone talk to CASA on this recently i.e. In the last days-JT

As an experienced pilot in GA who's hoping in the not to distant future to take the next step in my career (but who doesn't have a spare $30k sitting around to do an ATPL flight test), I find it frustrating to see that most of the airlines in Australia now require applicants to hold an ATPL, even for an FO position. I've just spent 5 minutes looking through the various airline websites, and Jetstar, Cobham, Network, Jetconnect, even RFDS, all require applicants to hold an ATPL. Why do I need to hold an ATPL licence to be an FO, or to fly as PIC in a King Air or a PC12? Surely the fact I have passes in all of the subjects will suffice?

I'm a realist. CASA will not remove the requirement for a flight test to gain an ATPL, and in all honesty, I don't think they need to. The previous system where you could meet all of the flight experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 in the outback wasn't right and needed to be changed but I feel that it may have gone too far.

Any data to support that need? Or is it just intuition?

Are you able to nominate the ATPL holders who met the flight experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 and are now, consequently, unacceptably unsafe to hold an ATPL?

This is, after all, supposed to be an evidence-based and risk-based system, and we don't want unacceptably unsafe people holding ATPLs.

You can twist my words how you like, but at no stage did I say that it was unsafe. In my opinion I don't believe that the previous system was perfect. I used a 210 as an example, but hell, if you wanted to, you could have flown all of the required hours in a 152, and as long as you had passed the exams, could now be issued an ATPL. How would the experience gained in flying a 152 apply to an operation where you are required to hold an ATPL? Like I said, in my opinion the old system wasn't perfect, however, the new system has gone too far the other way.

Any data to support your opinion?

If your opinion is correct, it follows that the holders of ATPLs gained as a consequence of this kind of experience are not acceptably safe. Otherwise, what's the point of the change?

Nope, no data. Just my opinion and experience in a non aviation related industry where the thought of being issued a licence to operate a piece of machinery without demonstrating competence by way of an assessment would be laughed at.

Genuinely curious then, how many countries in the world don't require a flight test for the issue of an ATPL?

I have no idea. It would be interesting to find out, though, because I anticipate that the accident and incident rate of pilots from countries that have the test will not be statistically significantly different than pilots from countries that do.

If there are ATPL holders out there who:

- satisfied the experience requirements by tooling around in a 210 (or 152)
- did not have to do a flight test for the ATPL, and
- now exercise the privileges of the ATPL and meet all the recurrent requirements for doing so,

what would you conclude about the nexus between safety and the test/kind of experience?

It's a bit like asking: How many countries don't have the death penalty? The death penalty exists in some places as a consequence of intuition and politics, not any analysis of the extent, if any, to which the death penalty has a causal effect on crime rates.

Given that this is all supposed to be about safety, I'm trying to find out the data showing a causal connection between the ATPL test and safety or, to put that another way, data showing the existence and extent of the risk that is mitigated by the ATPL test.

By your logic then, should we do away with the CPL test?

It depends on whether the CPL test is an efficient and effective mitigation of a substantial safety risk. That's kinda the key point - the requirements should be based on data, risk assessments, causal links and cost/benefit, not intuition.

But you're being a bit naughty. The discussion was about the ATPL flight test, or lack of it. Your analogy about operating a piece of machinery without a licence test was not a valid one. The holder of an ATPL has done lots of tests, including the CPL flight test. And after they gain their ATPL they continue to do lots of tests.

If you think that the operators of the machinery called aircraft let anyone with a licence loose on them, just because they happen to have a licence, I'd suggest you think again.

Well regardless of your opinion that there is no safety case, it seems that 'world's best practice', is to conduct a flight test for applicants for an ATPL. The usual suspects on pprune seem to hold the FAA regs and Kiwi regs as some sort of Holy Grail of aviation regulations, and they both require an ATPL flight test. So when CASA make an attempt to bring the so called 'galapagos of aviation' in line with world's best practice, the same voices seem to chastise them again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Folks,
I think I can speak from personal experience, as the "test" I did was on a single engine aircraft for a SCPL -- it was, in fact, a Group B Instructor renewal.

Given the way CAR 217 operations and training are conducted, doing the test as required by CASR 61 (or any stand alone ATPL test) is irrelevant, and just a bureaucratic box ticking exercise.

Speaking from the point of view of an almost 25,000H pilot, with about 15+ years as PIC (including T+C) on seriously heavy metal, on a variety of ATPL/ALTP/licenses.

Tootle pip!!

Wish,

Being a bit disingenuous, are you not.

If candidates could do the test here, as per the US ( in a light twin) or under the slightly more onerous NZ rules, this thread would not exist.

I didn't say there was no safety case, wishiwasupthere.

I said I wanted to see it. :ok:

Not at all. If I may, I said 'CASA will not remove the requirement for a flight test to gain an ATPL, and in all honesty, I don't think they need to'. I don't have an issue with having to undergo a test to be able to hold a higher licence level. I just think that the rules that CASA have introduced have gone too far the other way, and they are having a negative effect on pilots such as myself who would like to progress their career but may not have $30k lying around to meet the excessive testing requirement as they currently stand.

If enough people complain that this flight test is a impediment to there careers CASA will do something. -JT

As the supply of suitable applicants dries up airlines will have no choice but to drop the requirement for the ATPL on day of joining and incorporate the test into their training programs.
Even though it is not the best way of attracting the best candidates, and certainly saves little or no money in training, some misguided airline HR departments may try to import pilots via the 457 visa route.
If they attempt this, disadvantaged local pilots as a collective group will need to smack them down with the widest possible lobbying, publicity and, if necessary, legal process. Or just wait it out until the error of their ways becomes self evident when they tally up the cost of bringing people in from overseas and inducting them to our strange ways, only to have half of them bugger off home when they realise the grass is not so green here after all.

Back to the ATPL debate; having had time in more than one CAR 217 organisation I do not accept this is a guarantee of quality training or checking.
In a former role, I was quite amazed at how bad some pilots from this system could be. Only a few, but enough to cast doubts on placing absolute trust in operators to uphold standards. Some of the training I received in these systems was excellent, some of token value only and some just plain bloody worthless.
The same goes for flight schools and independent ATOs authorised to renew instrument ratings. Two pilots that I had assessed as unsuitable as F/Os (in the days when we had co pilot ratings) went out and next day got command ratings in a Duchess or Seneca. If someone who is type rated and current on type can't meet co pilot standards in a relatively automated aircraft with the assistance of a reasonable Captain, how come they are OK single pilot IFR in a light twin? Did all it really take was an hour's dual to get them up to speed, then an hour to meet all the elements of the test? Hmmm.
This admittedly happened about 15 years ago and was well covered up at the time, but some readers here know what I am referring to. A highly experienced Captain who had years of service with a very respected airline, paired with a F/O (who was also within the 'umbrella' of the CAR 217 system) nearly replicated the Papa India disaster. Events leading up to the incident, and the incident itself were uncannily similar.

So, no - time under CAR 217 or a history of IR renewals in a bugsmasher twin does not automatically an ATPL make.

If a 457 visa pilot is needed because CASA have made such a expensive requirement for a ATPL that would really suck. On the 457 subject , personally I think they should all be cancelled. -JT

Both Rex and Skywest did this and there was lobbying to the government against their 457 Visas but to no avail. I think you will find the lobby of the airlines is greater than a few pilots or pilot unions.

What was the official reason REX and Skywest used for the 457 visas ?

So your argument now is that CAR 217 organizations are not capable of ensuring compliance? Considering they're currently responsible for assessing competence right up to ATPL flight test standard (with an IPC), this is alarming news. Do you suggest we need to scrap these organizations immediately? What then?

You've seemingly to me gone to great lengths to entirely avoid the arguments that are being put to you by myself and others regarding the evidence and logic behind an ATPL flight test.

Neville wrote : "You could also argue that someone could pass an ATPL on a Metro then hold a command on a A380 and fly anywhere in the world.

What relevance would a ATPL test on a Metro have to commanding a A380?".

Its a valid question. How on earth does the test conducted in this environment possibly relate or have any bearing at all on the level of safety of an applicant? Think about what that person needs to go through to attain such a position in addition to the differences in the operation.

Lead wrote "So where is your data to show the level of risk that is mitigated by the formal final tests in the other examples you gave? How do you know it's not just self-perpetuating intuition? "

Where is your evidence? Or answers to his follow up questions? "I note there are lots of people exercising the privileges of an ATPL who have never been the subject of a formal ATPL flight test. Why are they not considered 'unsafe'? Or is it that they are merely tolerated as being 'acceptably unsafe'? How 'unsafe' are they, compared with the pilots who have passed the formal ATPL test?"

And yet CASA will give my company 217 dept approval to conduct ATPL flight tests by simply observing us conduct one, which as been clearly shown to be more or less identical to the IPC. How on earth do you derive a difference? PERHAPS if CASA had retained exclusive privilege to do the tests you'd have a point, but that isn't the case and was never meant to be the case.

Its an extra test, identical to ones we already undergo, conducted by the same people who do our existing testing. It is absolutely pointless and redundant.

They pushed the Type Rating really hard. In that they considered anybody who had not flown the their type as not being experienced enough to fly for them. They effectively isolated everybody's experience to the aircraft you are currently flying. As a result a whole bunch of foreigners who had never flown in Australia and some of which had total times sub 1000 ended up taking Australian jobs because they had a rating despite there being more experienced pilots in Australia it's just they didn't have a particular rating. Have a browse through the ATSB database and maybe this website to see how well that experiment worked out.

Very same thing could happen again with the ATPL. People can't afford to get the license or want the airlines to pay, Airlines require the ATPL, they claim they can't get anyone so the government could open the doors to foreign pilots because Australians aren't qualified and foreigners bypass all CASA bureaucracy and expense. Effectively killing the industry in one easy step.

Das Uber's right. What is the point of an ATPL flight test when you get tested on everything anyway and you are at the behest of an AOC holding who is also tested by CASA?

Well let's not let that happen again. As a professional aviation community lets get together and pressure CASA to remove the test requirement, starting here on PPRUNe. JT.

Reply
 

Uber etc.

The individual examiner/ATO is responsible for conducting the test to the standard required by the Manual of Standards. You may not be aware of this as you won't have read the MOS but there is much more in the test than the IPC.

If you are an airline pilot you might be aware that there is much more to command than instrument proficiency. And if you are a pilot next time you're near a bunch of passengers tell them you dispute the Commonwealths right to require a test for the ATPL.

Just my thoughts.

Sherm

Hear! Hear! Sherm! :D

Now, what will we do about all those people who currently exercise the privileges of an ATPL without having done an ATPL flight test?

I reckon that each and every safety brief from cabin staff should include a declaration of whether the PIC has or has not passed an ATPL flight test, and offer pax the option to disembark if they don't like the answer.

Surely that's what should happen, in the interests of safety. Surely.

This is supposed to be a mature discussion..... So when laws came in to increase standards and tests for doctors, teachers, nurses etc you'd have opposed them because there would be some who hadn't been trained to the new standard?

Alas, it's way past your bedtime and level of comprehension.

Not at all, Sherm. I'd merely require that all those lower standard nurses and doctors to be identified so that we'd know who the 'unsafe' ones are.:ok:

I've read the MOS inside and out.

There is very little difference. Don't take my word for it though! I've got some time so lets go on a journey of discovery together!

Interesting, what does Table 2 say? (table 5 refers to an Aerobatics rating?!)

IPC and ATPL flight tolerances, are exactly the same

What about demonstrated competencies?

The ATPL requires C2, C3, C5, NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, RNE, MCO, CIR, IAP2, IAP3
The IPC requires NTS1, NTS2, IFF, IFL, CIR, IAP2, IAP3

hmm, those look like some differences!

C2.1 – Pre-flight actions and procedures. Can I read the MEL? A NOTAM? Its possible I've been assessed on this so far.
C3.1 – Operate radio equipment. I wont even answer this one.
2.1 RNE.1 – Operate and monitor radio navigation aids and systems. I'd be impressed if you could pass an IPC yet fail this guy.
2.2 RNE.2 – Navigate the aircraft using navigation aids and systems. Refer above.

2.1 MCO.1 – Operate effectively as a crew member. Possibly the only actual point of difference. Yet everything in MCO I'd argue is required regardless despite its omission from the IPC for a successful attempt. Certainly in an OPC this material is looked at and assessed. There is nothing new here, no 'new standard' beyond what has been required in the past.

This 'much more' you refer to as being in the ATPL test vs an IPC (let alone an OPC) is starting to look 'much more' like SFA.

Amusingly flawed analogy. First faulty assertion is that this test represents an increase in standards for pilots. The above demonstrates otherwise.

Secondly, if one of these doctors who hadn't been subjected to these increased standards and testing wanted to operate on you, would you have allowed it? If no, then you argue that anyone not subject to the increased testing hasn't met the required competencies, isn't safe and shouldn't be operating/flying. This almost certainly includes you. Are you and 99.9% of Airline Captains not competent Sherm?

If yes, then whats the point of the test? Clearly you see no evidence sufficient to alter your opinion of the competency of the person involved. Which leads directly to lead balloons core point. Where is the evidence that the introduction of this test will have a material affect on the safety of those exercising the privileges of the ATPL?

Or is that past your 'level of comprehension'. :rolleyes:

Pilots are already being tested every 3-6 months anyway so what does another expensive test prove? You can fly a single engine ILS? Which you will be doing again in another 3 months?