E-
CASA is not a laughing stock. I have flown I many countries around the world under many regulators and CASA is highly regarded as a regulator changing the ATPL flight test requirement is not going to change that , nothing in Part 61 changed that. No regulators started automatically accepting the CASA ATPL ( without their own country testing in some form) after part 61 was implemented and none will stop accepting CASA ATPL as if the flight test is removed.

Does the USA file any differences from the ICAO SARPS?

Is the USA a laughing stock amongst the aviation intelligentsia?

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if Richard Champion de Crespigny had to do an ATPL flight test? Is he CVD free?

One should always bear mind the ease with which the imperatives of politics - international and domestic - and supply and demand are dressed up as safety issues. Especially in aviation.

We shouldn't be debating whether QANTAS or other airline pilots needed to do an ATPL test in the past, because we know that they were tested to within an inch of their lives on a regular basis.
The problem seems to be a gen Y sense of entitlement that because an easier situation existed once upon a time, it should continue forever, despite the fact that aviation by its very nature is in a constant state of change.
Instead of trying to remove the requirement for a flight test (which won't go away whatever arguments are put forward) by all means try to have the testing regime modified to be more affordable. eg trade-off for the perpetual IR.
And lobby by whatever means to have the airline recruiters come to their senses and accept that if the pool of suitable CPL holders is far greater than the pool of ATPL holders, they should review their entry requirements to get the cream of the crop - who are not necessarily the wealthiest.

Right of entitlement- I don't think so - I am not gen Y - just a normal bloke who thinks that a few thousand dollars for a ATPL flight test is not fair. Simple.

Mach E I do agree with what your saying about trying to change the requirements to a smaller aircraft for the flight test, as apposed to getting rid of the flight test all together. However, Canada, USA and South Africa all allow the test to be conducted on a small piston twin. So why not aim for that? The license will be recognised worldwide at a fraction of the cost of doing the test in a light twin turbine as you suggested.


Please don't resort to dismissing other peoples views because they must be "gen y" and entitled. Time to drop that old chestnut.

'Dude', I'm not aware of any airlines issuing an ATPL internally as of yet. Do VARA have the capability to issue ATPLs? I dont believe so. There are lots of RPT operators that have at least for now, decided to hell with this stupid flight test and simply upped their minimums from CPL with subjects to full ATPL.

The assumption was that with the introduction of this pointless test that employers would reduce minimums to CPL + Subjects. The opposite has occurred.

As for the 95% of us at home, the employer isn't paying for jack. At my company, commands come up like hens teeth. The company certainly isn't going to be paying for me to do the training and test for nothing. Yet now I can't get a job anywhere else because of the effect on minimums thats occurred as a result of these moron part 61 changes. I'm literally stuck where I am, until I can get it done (and pay for it myself) In other companies people are being passed over for other candidates who already have the license.

And get what done anyway? Have you actually looked at the MOS for this test? The bloody thing is 98% of an IPC. From memory I have to do some extra ground questions, and demonstrate taxiing. And that may cost me 5 figures. :ugh:

These morons had an entire year from Sept 2013 to 14 to get the industry ready, to award flight examiner status to existing FOIs and CAR 217 C&T crew so that tests could be conducted immediately, yet when I called to book a test, they literally had nobody who could do it. Only recently, months and months later was someone finally qualified to take it.

Did they know anything about what was required? Of course not. I had one clown tell me I had to entirely write up my KDR, including learning the entire 727 flight planning syllabus again because in one 2 mark question I got wrong in the FPL exam, the kdr reference (reference to a document that doesn't even exist anymore!) was 'calculate fuel burn for a sector'. Wonder what one does if the exams were sat before 2006(?) when there was no KDR at all? :ugh:

Lastly, I fail to understand the argument of other countries not taking our licence seriously. Its never had a flight test in the past, I've never seen anyone ever have a problem with the conversion. Why is it a problem now?

Regardless, in my view if you're in a 217 C&T organization then the test should simply be an extension of the IPC with some extra paperwork, administered by any suitable C&T staff within the company. The whole thing could be done with minimal cost.

Grandfathering is not the answer in my opinion. I have see many groups over the years accept grandfathering terms at the Detriment of younger people coming up through the ranks and it's just a way of slipping in conditions that people don't want as long as it doesn't effect them , aviation is a very selfish place. We need to have the ATPL flight test requirement removed. CASA already have may checks and balances in place for a candidate to prove their skill set time and time again before they are allowed to get near a large transport aircraft in Australia. -JT.

QLink have the ability to conduct ATPL flight tests internally.

Australia has history of unrecognised licences. Back in the sixties it was impossible to obtain an ATPL unless you flew for one of the major airlines. So the rest of us who obtained the subjects AND passed a flight test conducted by a DCA Examiner of Airmen were issued with a SCPL .
I took mine to a British Colony where they would only issue an ATPL after I completed Air Law and the U.K. CAA Performance A exam. My DC3 endorsement with 1000 hours on type was not recognised until I passed the UK ARB type rating exam of some 100 technical questions. Useless crap like wheel base dimensions and supercharger gear ratios.
Several years later I went to Blighty and surprise, surprise, the only parts of their own colonial licence that they recognised were the Performance A and type ratings that had been acquired under the ARB. The actual ATPL was worthless because there was no evidence of having passed all their rather difficult written exams. Even the Aussie 10 words per minute Morse code was not accepted because here there was no lights test requirement, only sound.
However, once I got the coveted Pommy ATPL it was an internationally accepted, respected ticket that I was able to trade in several countries with minimal conversion pain.
I only relate this, not to complain about how hard it was even back then ( in fact much of the theory was a whole lot harder) but to highlight the advantages of having a 'proper' licence.
The FAA system, for all its good features, falls down by allowing an ATP to be done in a single pilot bugsmasher. I believe that is a major impediment to EASA countries accepting it and for the same reason it would be a mistake if CASA backed down below the requirement for a pressurised turbine type operated as multi crew.

"So yes, locked in is quite the correct term".-I agree, because of the cost , lets get the flight test requirement removed ,call CASA tomorrow I am . JT

Dude, an airline with in-house examiners will not incur any cost upgrading its pilots to an ATPL if done during command training, so why would they engage a pilot who had an ATPL but fared poorly on the selection assssment against a CPL who did better?
The real problem is for those who want to go overseas, and for those I can only suggest that they suck it up and look at it as an investment in their future. Considering salaries on offer in places like China, the cost of the ATPL while not exactly chicken $h!t is only a few months' earnings.
Re having to do the test in the LHS ; at an examiner briefing conducted by CASA we were told that the candidate can do it in either seat, so we should put the LHS furphy to rest.
Perhaps pilot unions can bring pressure to bear on airlines to provide the opportunity for an ATPL upgrade after a certain length of service as a form of peformance assessment. In the airline system it would cost next to nothing as it is just another simulator ride that any competent First Officer with a few years service in the airline environment should be able to ace.

The ATPL is aCASA controlled and issued License its not something or is it meant to be something that is controlled and issued by an airline , it should be accessible and at a reasonable cost to the average career pilot .Having the airline training department decide who is next to upgraded to a ATPL has the potential to be discriminatory - JT.

Airline training departments normally have no interest in being disciminatory. They may run a meritocracy rather than a straight seniority system, but that is something for a proper Pilot Union to sort out. If your Union is piss weak, too bad, get involved, do something about it.
As for cost, I dunno what a CPL with multi and instrument rating costs these days, but guess upward of $100k. A turbine endorsement done mostly in a sim, combined with ATPL probably runs another 18k versus the full Monty to include an A320 type rating for about double that. The decision to spend that money surely would be deferred until ATPL subjects have been completed, some MCC acquired and 1500 hours logged. During this time one could assume that the candidate has been gainfully employed, earning at least some money. I know, I know, marriage, mortgage, kids and all that, but these are of the individual's making and of no concern to the regulator.
To move to the next level beyond light piston twins, at some stage these days most pilots not on an airline Cadetship are probably going to pay for a type rating or at least a turbine endorsement anyway. Unfair that you should have to pay and not the employer, but that whole pay to fly debate belongs elsewhere, not in a forum about licensing.
Flying has always been an expensive career to break into, unless you wanted and were good enough for the military. I don't know the statistics, but would guess that only about 10% of those who embark on a CPL get to the left seat of a jet within 10 years and maybe overall only 20% actually obtain and get to use an ATPL in a flying career. The rest either drop out or make whatever career GA offers.
Relative to earnings it was always thus, as I well know having come from a dirt poor family. But those with what it takes will carry on with it, working other jobs meantime (try a season as a deckie on a crayboat - it paid most of what I needed at the time). There is no free lunch.
Trying to get CASA to drop the ATPL test will be as futile as farting in thunder. You won't be heard.

I humbly disagree, the MCC requirement has been provided a exemption . I believe that there is a pathway for removing the ATPL flight test in a complex turbine or SIM because of the high cost, we just need to express our concerns to CASA, they are reasonable guys all wage earners most are pilots , the more people who help out and call CASA the better it will be for everyone. JT.

New Zealand has always had an ATPL flight test. The flight test had to be on an approved high performance or complex type. The DC3, Cessna 421 and Piper Mojave were the only piston approved machines at one stage but believe they are no longer. (could be wrong about the Mojave but they now have a King Air)

The NZCAA certifies a small number of Flight Examiners at each airline to conduct the Flight Test on the CAA's behalf. The Examiner certification is only valid for two years and is limited to the Airlines aircraft types but can do external candidates. The Examiner requires a CAA flight check to renew the approval.

I know that Air NZ jet fleet will roster a Flight Examiner and a second pilot to complete an ATPL flight test as soon as the candidate has the required experience and has at least one year on type. The candidate is rostered one training simulator detail and the flight test the following day. The cost of the test (simulator, examiner and crew member) is covered by the airline. The candidate is responsible for the application licence fees.

Good system that Kiwi one, and it sounds like Air NZ can see merit in having their pilots hold the ATPL within a year or so of check to line.
Having recently been associated with a Kiwi operation, I was quite impressed with the practicality, flexibility and co operation of CAA and the way they appoint examiners and give them reasonable scope. Of course they are still Big Brother Government, so not all is sweetness and light, but overall, a good enough lot and a good licensing regime.
Pity some here won't accept something similar to the NZ requirement to do an ATPL test in something slightly larger than a kiddies toy.
They seem to think that 'we' in Aus are somehow 'special'.

'Dude', as has been stated, not everyone is in a position to wait until the command position comes up. So the costs are there, and are large.

As for doing the test from the RHS. Behold section K of the Manual of Standards regarding the conduct of the ATPL flight test.
"1.5 The applicant must perform the functions of pilot in command."

I'd be 'surprised' if that requirement could be met from the right seat performing the first officer duties.

Just a minor point of order, Mach is only calling him "Dude" as that is his username - "fpvdude".
Also, I am often PIC from the right seat - the quote and reference you provide (and ask us in a holy manner to "behold") does not support a suggestion that it "must" be done from the left seat, but, as you allude, CASA may have a different (incorrect IMO) view.

There is nothing on the test form to direct the examiner to requiring it to be done LHS.
The only possible bone of contention is how we sign off 'taxying' in an aircraft with the tiller only on the left. Two views - put the candidate in the LHS just for that sequence, or accept that gentle turns can still be accomplished using rudder alone, so leave the candidate in the RHS if that is his normal station, and merely assess that he does not run off the runway or taxiway.
If that means he hands over to LHS, or in the event of LHS incapacitation, parks it as best he can and calls for a tug, big tick for command decision making. If he reverts to hung-ho single pilot mentality and parks it inside the terminal building, automatic fail
It is the multi crew management component that sets this test apart from the basic IPC, even though as has been said, most of the form indicates the same or similar exercises. Another reason why the ATPL can be combined with an IPC. It does require two forms to be completed and job done (no extra examiner fee, either).

Call CASA today.