A Part 61 conundrum for Australian ATPL applicants
 

Before Part 61 came in on 1 September 2014, an applicant for the ATPL had to pass certain examinations, provide log book evidence of the minimum flying hours required and apply to CASA to gain their ATPL. No flight test needed, no MCC course needed.

Since Part 61 was thrown at us with all its inbuilt interpretations and other complications, one of the perhaps unintended consequences that has shown up is that it is now impossible for the average Australian pilot to apply for an ATPL flight test without having first completed a "CASA Approved" MCC course. But there are none available in Australia at present. :ugh:

CASA advise that even though an applicant for an ATPL may have well beyond the minimum hours requirement for an ATPL including significant Airbus or Boeing co-pilot time - and have passed all the ATPL "subjects" - a flight test cannot be attempted unless the candidate has completed an Australian airline CASA approved MCC course. At present there appears to be no CASA approved MCC courses in Australia. Operators who teach airline specific cadets have their MCC course approved by overseas regulatory authorities to where these cadets will finish up. From what I see designing a CASA approved MCC course is very time consuming and expensive and not exactly a money spinner.

But there is not a single operator in Australia approved to conduct a CASA approved MCC course for those Australian pilots in Australia or overseas that require an ATPL - unless they are employed within the Australian airline system. There is also no provision in the CASA Part 61 regulations that permit MCC equivalency based upon overseas co-pilot hours on the Airbus or Boeing types.

It is a Catch 22 situation for Australian pilots who may well have all the experience and more, to undertake an ATPL flight test (and that's another Part 61 saga on its own) but are unable to complete a CASA approved MCC course as a prerequisite because there ain't none in OZ!!

So what to do about it? These pilots cannot even get an interview with Jetstar because Jetstar require you have an ATPL in your hand before interview. That successfully screws so many Australian well experienced general aviation or those currently flying overseas who would like to come home and have a crack at getting into Jetstar for example. At least Virgin have the sense to only require a pass in the ATPL subjects before interview.

I may be missing something here, but it seems the only way Australian pilots forced into that predicament by this ruinous CASA attitude, can fix their problem is to head to USA and gain an FAA ATP and hope that CASA accept that as equivalent to the Australian ATPL.


But what a crock that is, when they have to go to USA with all that time wasted and great expense especially when many of these pilots have well beyond the minimum flying experience to hold an ATPL.

Can any readers suggest a way out of this conundrum for fellow Australian pilots who need the ATPL but are stymied every way they turn?

Judd,

it will at the end of the day come down to $$$.

Under part 61 you are required to have a type rating on the multi crew aircraft you do the check in. I have heard various costs for multi crew courses yet to be approved by CAsA but havnt, been because they dont have the resources to approve them, but upwards of $9000 for an approved course, if you dont have the type rating then an ATPL could cost upwards of $50,000 in Australia.

My suggestion is to go to NZ and do it, the US has upped their requirements, so its not as easy over there anymore, but one thing is for sure it will be cheaper than here.

Perhaps a shop around the ICAO recognised countries and see who is the cheapest is the way to go.

Judd - CASA have deferred the MCC requirement until 1/9/2015 (refer FAQ on CASA website)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Frequently Asked Questions ? Flight crew training and licensing

When the MCC is introduced it should be incorporated in all Type Rating courses, given you'll need to do the flight test under multi crew conditions, in a multi crew aircraft, the type rating will achieve the MCC requirement.
I've searched and can not find the current Jetstar requirements on their website, maybe you'll find they too will accept ATPL subjects.

An FAA ATP is no longer a simple or cheap option. In August the FAA changed the requirements for an ATP, and now require approved ground school *and* simulator training before doing the theory exam.

So much for the "CPL with ATPL subjects" being the new job requirement post part 61... Just saw this on AFAP this morning for a 1900D job:

Doesn't look like employers are keen on "hooking you up" with a flight test....

:hmm:
They also then state not much further down



Realistically, how could you have 300 hours command on one without one?

For what it's worth IMOH, how did it ever get to this??

This whole debarcle has gone steadily downhill since the SCPL was abolished!!! Heaven help any young person without sufficient financial backing trying to get ahead these days, unless of course you join the ADF and even then on exit there are still all the BS conversion hurdles to jump!! What a S#@tfight!!

I just wonder how all this will translate into those university courses etc....

You have my sympathy and I wish you all the best good luck!!!

Stiky
:ugh:

It unfortunately limits junior pilots options. People I have known used the Australian ATPL that they obtained with only C172 time to launch a jet or turboprop career overseas back in 2008-09.

In today's market in Australia we have junior pilots spending 12 months up North & out west not finding work. That is because the market is stagnant, nobody is moving up the ranks.

So for those pilots with 1500-3000hrs that didn't get the required night hours in time, they will be most likely relegated to a career flying piston aircraft or caravans for little reward in remote places.

At least if the Australian ATPL was an option for them then they could move overseas and continue with the career progression.

convert your licence to a NZ CPL under the TTMRA. Sit your ATPL flight test then reapply under the TTMRA to convert your NZ ATPL to the Aussie ATPL.

Well "username here" that's great that you use it for picking up chicks but some like to use it to progress the career they have chosen to pursue. Now if the Australian market is not moving, and the only way into the world market is with an ATPL this has come as bad news for us and future australian pilots.

Carriers outside of Australia do not care how many hours in a chieftain you have done, but if you had an ATPL that would help you to stand out in the crowd of foreign wannabe pilots.

If people have a different view point than mine then that's fine, but to post such a stupid comment really sums up the direction that the pilot community has gone.

Bankrupt84 is on the money.
How is this stupid rule different from saying a PPL holder shouldn't have a CPL until he has a paying job.
ATPL is the qualification you need to get the job to begin to learn the applicable job.
By all means restrict the experience requirements, but FFS let people get into the race.

"What's the big fuss. You will get an ATP when it is required (with a command upgrade)."

Anyone who imagines the airlines are going to pay for their ATP license upgrade are deluding themselves.

The airline industry is now almost completely Internationalized, its a global market out there, you compete across the board. That includes licensing, pay and conditions of employment.

It could be said that unique Australian conditions died in 1989.

In todays international market you are qualified or you are not, whether your a citizen or not matters naught.

Do you have the bits of paper, because that's all they are, meaningless bits of paper, that are required that say you are legally, (Note I didn't say competently) able to conduct the operation required by the employer?

The cost of providing an ATPL license under the new Horse **** regulations is way more expensive than the cost of a 457 visa, therefore the Visa rules.

CAsA are not required to consider what impact their horse **** regulations will have on employment, nor what the financial impact they will have on the industry.

They are only required to regulate for "Safety", and they are the ones that decide what safety means.

My advice to anyone contemplating a career in aviation is to get themselves as far away from the influence of the "Australian" system as they can get.

Aviation in Australia has arrived at the end of its use by date, we cannot compete anymore in a global market and our regulator is making it harder and harder for any of our wannabe's to move out of our "unique" system and join the real world.

I can't say I'm familiar with the exact flight test requirements for the issue of an ATPL in Australia, however, you're going to be undergoing a fairly rigorous simulator program as part of any Command upgrade. Before you're let loose to begin line training, under most circumstances, you're going to do one final sim check. How different would this be to an ATPL flight test? That's what I keep saying. Realistically, you're already doing the test!

It will simply be a box ticking exercise for your company.

When I went to the US to do a type rating last year, the flight school asked me if I wanted to include an FAA ATPL into my type rating. There were only like 2-3 additional items required to be included in my final sim check and I could have had it issued. Unfortunately due to time constraints I was unable to get all the theory done as well, so didn't do it. But my point is, there's not much difference in the FAA's requirements vs CASA's requirements.

You do a PPL test, you do a CPL test, why the hell should you not do an ATPL flight test?!

Finally, even if you have an ATPL, without multi-crew jet time, you're still fairly useless on the world aviation stage. So don't think it's going to make much of a difference there.

morno

Not sure what you mean by this but an ATPL is not required to be an FO, so unless Australia runs out of CPL holders, not likely to be any 457 visas issued to throw someone in the RHS. Direct left seat will remain a different story.

In the international market, an ATPL alone is insignificant. You will want some jet or a fist full of turboprop command.

Like it or lump it, it's the way it is. It will just make you all the more proud when you achieve your ATPL.

So if I was to hypothetically head over to the U.S. and do my faa atp via one of these approved one week course and do the practical test. When I come back to Oz to convert it will I still have to do the flight test?

And how do you suggest sitting the ATPL flight test in NZ? Not quite that easy unfortunately, realistically you'd need to be working for an airline to get it done.

Outside of all this but is in reasonable/unfair that CASA, as well as stating the changes should, without prejidice and without preference, state how the new requirements MIGHT be met, by all means stating approved courses/operators whether local or international??

Of course agencies/approvals may change over time....but for an organisation "on top of it's game" surely not a problem??

Of course if there was no way their changes COULD be achieved....well that could be a tad embarsseing....just make rules without assistance.:ugh:

Bureaucrats - amazing how they so quickly forget they are to SERVE the paying public.

Cheers!
galdian :ok:

MCC
 

My interpretation is that PPL/CPL holders operating multicrew prior to Sept 2015 can continue to operator multicrew without an MCC. However, any ATPL candidate must complete an MCC prior to a flight test, including the forementioned pilots. There is no exemption for the MCC prior to the flight test, but an exemption to continue flying on your current aircraft without an MCC.

Dude,


why am I not surprised!!

My guess is if they are asking for 'currently flying F100 aircraft', then they're probably wanting someone they can upgrade quickly. So is it not reasonable to ask for an ATPL?

I think you're reading too much into it fpvdude.

morno - still failing to see what's wrong with doing what the rest of the world does