Thorn bird - no, it's still multi-crew. I was thinking about SP aircraft >5700 when I wrote, but you clearly referred to the multi-pilot Citation series. Sorry about that.

Yes, your point about inc costs for no extra benefit for these aircraft is valid. If it's any consolation (probably not!) Australia is simply joining most of the rest of the world with these new regulations. Except for the LHS test requirement, which is inconsistent with a "competency based testing" philosophy.

You mean., for example in Flight Test Report Form 61-1512 for Instrument Proficiency Check (Instrument rating) at item 16 where it says "maintains effective look-out" In IMC? Under the hood? isn't that called cheating? :confused:

Big day for Choc frogs:.:D. that's another one of a potential hundred, three in a row is wins the Tim Tam.

I have diligently been through the ATO – PDP and do so regularly, just for a laugh. Before anyone can sit down and 'write' a manual, such as this a UK IRE or FAA "check Airman' course and formal approval should be issued to the writer; and, before the first offering of 'system' is published, it should be scrutinised by qualified 'peers'. For it is indeed, an important document.

When I was younger and naive, I was stuck with the task of 'sorting out' the company 'manual'. It wasn't too long before I discovered that my enthusiasm, lack of practical operational experience, technical knowledge and understanding of the 'law' as writ, had caused me to pen (all handwritten) everything I knew about 'operating' and I had pontificated on how the operation – IMNSHO – should be run: all cast in stone and set to be technically 'law'. It was then, IMNSO a wondrous missive, chuffed to bits I was. Then I applied my limited common sense and asked some grown ups (thanks Russ). All I really had to do was ensure that company operations complied with and could be demonstrated as 'compliant' with the 'law'; as writ, not as I fancied it to be. I still have a copy of that first manual; I keep it to remind me of a time when, to my shame, I too believed that there was a need for complex prescription, articulate elegance, lots of pro-forma, an indexing system from Hells own gate and a penis to match the assembly (EKG). Subsequent 'manuals' were much more in keeping with sensible, humble missives which did not leave a hang-mans noose at the end of each paragraph, but simply 'did the job'; properly - as requested and required..

Ask any 'Junior', or even senior line pilot to complete the same task and the result will, predictably, be the same. The difference is that my first fumbling attempt was not passed into law and used to 'define' some fanciful standard of one mans version of 'excellence'; it was consigned to the bin, where it belonged. This is where I believe we are up to – solution: Part 61 first, closely followed by ATO-PDP into the bin; lets call in some professionals and re-write the things, I reckon a fortnight aught to do it; allowing for tea breaks and such.

Toot toot..;).

Mach..., you're not correct. There is an FAA co-pilot type rating. I have one. It's phrased a little differently though with an 'SIC' appended to the rating eg mine: BE40/MU300 SIC. 'SIC'=Second in Command

My SIC rating was done from the co-pilot seat.

Unbelievable guys! Reading this thread it seems like armageddon is near. Well guess what, the sun still rises in the east and will set in the west.

I agree with morno, cross the ATPL bridge when you or your company require it. No one will be a hostage to their airline because of an ATPL flight test requirement, the seniority list will be enough of a reason to keep someone in a seat.

Manymak,

What you say is completely true, IF you work for an airline.

But will the airlines in Australia be prepared to stump up the dosh.

Unfortunately there are other requirements under part 61 that as far as I can see will make attaining an Australian ATPL a very expensive business.

Will the airlines pay, or seek less expensive alternatives?

As the europeans discovered, one size fit all regulations, work fine for one segment of the industry, but are disastrous for another.

GA in Europe ended up like the Duchess at the ball who had the misfortune to drop an apocalyptically loud fart just at that unfortunate instant when a break occurred in background noise.

Thus the note echoed up into the rafters, you could hear a pin drop.

Salvation was at hand however, the ever loyal Jeeves the butler was on hand to shift the embarrassment to.

The Dutchess spun to face him with a glare like thunder and cried

"Jeeves, stop that!!"

Jeeves doleful reply?

"Yes Madam...which way did it go?"

The Europeans have finally woken up to their folly and are busily writing new GA focused regs. At the end of the day it all comes down to money. By killing off GA all they managed to do was make flags of convenience even wealthier, and any industry they had left even poorer.

Will our leaders wake up to CAsA's folly? or are there other motives in killing off an industry?

As my old Dad used to say "Follow the money" if things don't seem logical "Follow the Money!!"

Today all the secondary airports are in the hands of developers. The land was once publicly owned.

Take Bankstown as an example. Quite a few acres of undeveloped real-estate 10Km from the centre of Sydney, What price?? Millions?? a billion?

The only impediment to developers nivarna??? a bunch of ass out of their pants aviation enthusiasts, and a pesky lease document.

With billions on offer would anyone be surprised that some 'derri doing' has, and is going on??

Whats next? What price the national parks North and south of Sydney? McBank could for sure cobble together a consortium to buy them. The same logic used to justify the sale of our secondaries should work just as well for national parks.

Ahh... the opportunities are endless. Just find a Mandarin with influence, and a polly in need of campaign funds and away we go.

Well yes they are. What about someone in their late 30's at the bottom of huge seniority list realising they will be late 50's before they have the opportunity for a command. They want to go overseas so at least they will see a command, where are they going with an Australian CPL? If you don't have a US or EU work Visa you are limited to Asia or the Middle East, all of which require ATPL.

The thing in Europe is that it doesn't take forever to get a command. The likes of RyanAir and easyjet don't have 20 years to a command

Neville has won here, exactly what I've been saying. Good luck getting a gif overseas now... Well you'll be able post Australian command.

If you want the ATPL so you can go overseas then just pay to go and do the test. This is how it works in most other countries, Australia was unique in the regard that it didn't have an ATPL flight test.

Yeah but Ollie, it dosnt cost fifty grand + for a flight test overseas.

Nor do I see how it's going to cost $50,000+ for a flight test here in Australia.

What's a sim per hour? About $2k?

Those that are concerned about the whole ATPL flight test thing, are you actually doing something about it? Nothing will change if all your efforts are just whinging on pprune about it.

morno

How many guys are going to be upgrading to an ATPL that aren't already employed on an aircraft over 5,700kg's that doesn't have a sim?

Good luck finding a job overseas that's going to employ you with just Chieftain and C402 hours..... But hang on, you have an ATPL...... yeah still doesn't mean much.

Let's revisit this in 2 years shall we, and see how many people really are put out by it.

morno

"Good luck finding a job overseas that's going to employ you with just Chieftain and C402 hours..... But hang on, you have an ATPL...... yeah still doesn't mean much."


Funny you should say that... There are a number of guys in this EXACT position right at this very moment all because they have ATPLs. And some have less than 402/pa31. No ATPL, no interview. These guys are laughing all the way to the right seat of a jet. For everyone that has been cut off, they are now years behind with nowhere to turn. Just gotta hold in there!

Jet_Pilot00

Would you mind telling me who these jet operators are please? Because of the shocking way Air Niugini are treating their pilots at the moment there are quite a few guys looking to get out. All these guys have at a minimum ATPL's, Dash 8 time and in excess of 5000 hours and are finding it very difficult finding a jet job as they don't have jet time. They are certainly not laughing to the right hand seat of a jet.

Thanks.

fpv,
You are correct, I did gain my ATPL the old way, I'm not going to deny that. I'm not sure why 'karma' is apparently going to bite me, :rolleyes:. But even if I didn't, I don't have a problem with the new way.

There are a few things I think CASA has gone overboard with regarding the new ATPL flight test requirements, but apart from that, answer these 2 questions for me:

1. Why should you not have to demonstrate the requirements for an ATPL by means of a flight test?
2. Anywhere else in the world, you have to do one, why all of a sudden is it now a huge issue for Australian's to have to do one?

morno

Did a lot of flying in NZ, which as we all know joined the modern world of aviation legislation in about 1997. :ok:

Was going to have to join an airline to get an ATPL, which was fine as I had no need of an ATPL in GA. :=

Moved to Oz (thanks, but no, I am an Australian citizen) and couldn't believe my luck that they would gift me an ATPL on the strength of all my Cessna experience. Only country in the world that required no multi-crew experience or test... :confused:

With that CV behind me - I too came through under the old system. Now I'm trapped in the archaic old boys' club of airline seniority, probably too old to move to the big boys despite my ATPL, yet not earning a particularly good income here. :{

It's all quite unfair really and I shall be starting a thread on PPRuNe shortly. :}

edit to add - like morno I recognise the excessively burdensome nature of some requirements. They really need to make it possible to self-fund a right-seat ATPL for the few who need it. That said, the ATPL system is designed for the needs of the 95%, for whom it works ok.

Morno, the requirement for an ATPL flight test has always been a requirement in Australia, it was waived for instrument rating holders because the standard was the same.

The standard of flying is the same, but the skills required are not.

An ATPL requires the ability to manage yourself, your crew and the aircraft in a complex technical environment. Phrased like that, the differences with an IR are obvious.

Perhaps we in Australia are only just now realising that the step from CPL/IR to ATPL should ideally have very little to do with stick & rudder skills. Ideally being the key word - I'm not sure the new requirements change much in practice, but they are perhaps an excessively bureaucratic step in the right direction.

I never remember reading that anywhere thornbird. If memory serves me right, to obtain an ATPL under the old system, you had to have at some point held a CIR. I don't remember it being written anywhere that if you didn't have a CIR you could just do a flight test.

As to whether the standard is the same, I disagree. I did many years of single pilot IFR from piston singles to multi-engine glass cockpit turbo-props. I've now moved to a mutli-crew jet, and while IFR flying is still IFR flying, it's the rest of the operation that bears absolutely no resemblence to IFR flying at all. It's the whole multi-crew management, transport category specifics, that you should be up with to gain an ATPL.

The view I seem to be seeing is that an ATPL is just a piece of paper that everyone should be entitled to without having to prove anything to get it. I don't get it. :ugh:

morno

The Virgin Aust F50 job advertised recently only requires you to have a CPL with ATPL subjects for those without an ATPL. So perhaps the airlines are changing the entry requirements now that new Part 61 rules for applying for an ATPL are in effect?