What can we do? CASA ATPL
 

Both in my job and externally I mentor the occasional younger bloke and help them to achieve their career goals. The new part 61 rules has now made it extremely hard to achieve said goals, not to mention the usual story of the Casa Atpl examinations.
What options are actually out there resulting in an australian Atpl without completing CASAs new flight test and mcc regime?
Is a Trans Tasman conversion possible and what's involved from someone who's done it?
The states seems out of the picture now albeit still easier than australia but it has become quite a financial burden it would seem with the addition of the mcc course as well.
Regards dash!

If you are referring to doing an ATPL in NZ then converting back to CASA Im not too sure exactly on the process,
refer: Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand)
and
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
However just to get the ATPL in NZ can be quite tricky (but not impossible)
You will need:
-a current CPL, Instrument rating, English proficiency test and Medical.
-7 exam syllabus passes,
-then find an aircraft suitable to the director to do an ATPL flight test in which, to my best knowledge outside of the airlines is a Mojave based in Wanganui, and pay for a CAA examiner to accompany you on said test.

Total cost=
Licence conversions (feel free to add that up)
exams 7 x 237.00NZD
CAA test and issue fee 2,759.00NZD
Aircraft Costs (how longs a piece of string)

There are no shortcuts anymore.....if you go overseas you will still be up for a ATPL flight test ,which require Instrument ratings and MCC.(CASA does not recognise overseas MCC credits for co-pilots)

Don't forget the Night hours required......there was a massive rush prior to Sept 1st to get an ATPL.

The cost to get an ATPL in NZ, is on par with AUS....

All that has happened is overseas guys with quals and experience are coming in and converting with very little training and taking the jobs.....thank CA$A for this.

Can someone explain to me why they need this ATPL?

I've said it time and time and time again, you'll get an ATPL when you need an ATPL. In most cases, that will be when you're undergoing a command upgrade on something that needs an ATPL.

There's some obsession that you need an ATPL as soon as you meet the requirements. Why?

morno

Morno, the problem is highlighted above by ersa, there's now a distinct disadvantage to those who didn't get in prior to the cutoff.

I'm with morno on this one.

The people who "got in before the cut off" were most likely in front of the people who didn't get in before the cut off.

It was explained in another Pprune exchange, Morno which you may have participated in too. It is NOT an obsession it is a fact of life under Part 61. And that is it seems Jetstar recruiting policy requires an applicant to actually have the bloody ATPL in their greasy hand before an interview is considered. I know a bloke that contacted Jetstar HR people a few days ago and was told that was the policy - like it or lump it.

It matters not how many hours you have flown in command overseas or in Australia, you won't get a look in without the full Australian ATPL and not just the subjects. Same if you are applying for many overseas jobs. I understand there are other operators in Australia that require a similar qualification; meaning no ATPL - no interview. The problem is the vast oversupply of commercial pilots in Australia so the operators can pick and choose and cull the CPL's. .

Centaurus

I’m in 100% agreement with morno with this as well. Just because J* and others currently want applicants with an ATPL only indicates that there are still applicants out there that meet this requirement. With time they will dry up and Australia will go back to something like what we had in the 80’s and before where many applicants for airline positions could only get an ATPL once they were employed with an airline. Don’t forget upgrading to an ATPL is only required when being upgraded to Command. If CPL holders have the subjects completed the rest can be done in house with an airlines C&T system. Having said that though I can see the likes of J* charging for sim time etc. to do it.

In my personal opinion this restores the ATPL to the proper pinnacle in our profession it once was from the rubber stamp, out of a Cornflakes packet licence it has become.

Yep, it was the way it was done in Europe, when you had the hours for your ATPL you just informed the TRE at your next cyclic and he added on the 3 or 4 items to your normal cyclic, signed the form at that was it. No doubt an airline like Jetstar will just say NO, as that is the initial answer to everything. Don't forget Jetstar has dozens of Cadets who don't yet have an ATPL so this will become an issue pretty soon.

Centaurus,
As said above, obviously Jetstar is still able to get applicants who hold ATPL's. Surely when things settle down, they'll have to lower their requirements to accept CPL's with ATPL subjects.

Prior to the whole get the hours, fill out a form and here's an ATPL, you only got a Senior Commercial anyway and were issued with an ATPL when you got a Command at an airline. What's wrong with basically going back to that?

morno

Some good points made by regular contributors, however there are other positions (i.e. non-airline) that require an ATPL as well.

Given that some of these operators send pilots overseas to obtain a type-rating, and then convert that to an Aussie type-rating, how might these operators help their pilots obtain an ATPL? There are quite a few types for which there are no simulators in this part of the world, and CASA approve type ratings obtained overseas. Did anyone think about this before the rules changed?

Not so. On joining the airline (Ansett, TAA, QF etc) as a newbe you got a second Class ATPL if you had the subjects (I think). Then back in the Sixties, if I recall correctly, there were many airline first officers who had problems passing the ATPL subjects (what's new about that?) So protected by their industrial agreements, they decided to stay as permanent F/O's and the more senior they were the less they had to work. Some even took second jobs on the side to make still more cash.

Then Ansett had enough and told the F/O's they had two years to pass the ATPL (Senior comm) subjects or face unemployment (sacked). Not being in the airline industry at the time, I don't know what happened although I heard a few got kicked out.

I read someone here said the old ATPL was a mickey mouse as all you needed was the 1500 hours and no specific flight test. Yet no one complains about logging their instrument flight time nowadays even though the automatic pilot is engaged most of the time and the pilot "monitors" while eating his lunch and catching up on his emails. Mickey Mouse claimed instrument flight time??

Jetstar have always had hiring policies inconsistent with logical expectations. Right now one needs "an ATPL, at least 1500 hours and all ATPL subjects." Someone at Jetstar doesn't know or care what an ATPL actually is...

However, in spite of that I'd like to know exactly who is being held back by the new rules.

Jetstar isn't doing much hiring right now, and their shortlist of applicants must be full of multi-crew glass-cockpit experienced pilots. According to their website, these people are preferred, and there are lots and lots of ATPL holders in this cohort.

I wonder really how many people are being held back by not having an ATPL yet? Not held back from applying - lots of people no doubt - but held back from actually getting a job. Very few right now I think.

Octas,

It may surprise you that there is other aviation occurring in Australia other than high capacity RPT.

Admittedly not much since the Skull was, as has been suggested by others, directed to wipe out all forms of aviation except RPT and the RAAF.

The reason of course is that Secondary airports are far too valuable as real estate to keep them as airports.
Might be illegal for developers to contribute to politicians in NSW & other states, but this doesn't apply federally, and we all know politicians natural affinity for money.

The dwindling GA end of aviation still needs a few ATPL licences, mainly in the top end which will likely survive the longest, until the wealthy owners wake up that it's far cheaper to operate their machines on a foreign register.

As with most things in the land of OZ, money rules.

Under the new part 61 the cost of obtaining that coveted piece of paper that says you are an ATPL holder places it beyond most aspiring pilots.

The piece of paper is meaningless anyway, if you ever gained one how much of the so called theory that you struggled to learn did you ever use in practice?

The flight test? Pretty much exactly the same standard as an instrument rating, so if you have that why bother with another test?

The ATPL is in reality a process, not a qualification.

It's been said that the airlines will adjust their recruitment standards as the number of ATPL dwindles. I think it far more likely that they will look at the cost of providing an ATPL under Australian reg's and decide a 457 visa is the way to go.

Thorn bird is spot on....

Casa publicised the new ATPL requirements at least 24 months ago.
I will repeat there are NO shortcuts now....its going to cost more money than the average GA can afford...

Thorn bird, as someone who has spent ten years in GA (overseas, but GA is still GA), I assure you I know all about non-RPT. I also know that GA pilots don't need an ATPL, unless their insurer asks for one for certain limited roles.

So who is being held back? Jetstar isn't hiring from GA!

What will happen to the Guys and Gals who are in or are wanting to go to PNG and require an ATPL for that? I have had a few friends that have previously gone the US Option and gotten their ATPL there to convert back but now all the loop holes are closed how do PNG operators plan on getting ATPL holders to fly their Twotters and such?

Anyone in that part of the world heard any rumblings in regards to this?

Very good question Ixixly. Since CASA PNG changed their rules and stated that one needs a full overseas ATPL (rather than just the written exams and then doing a flight test in PNG) before converting to a PNG ATPL the only way I can see that you can do it is to go and get an FAA ATPL and convert that.

NZ has had an ATPL flight test requirement for ever! Kiwi's have managed to get jobs all over the world with the process that has not changed in decades so it is not a real barrier.

The NZ ATPL flight test is done as a LOA on behalf of CAA in most airlines. It is not the airline flight test. It is more than just a few additions in cyclic.

The big issue that most are missing here is the time limit on the exams. If you are at the start of a slowdown in hiring it may take a while to get a position that allows you to sit the ATPL flight test. If your exams start to expire you will need to sit them a second time.

As been said before it will make it difficult in the future for FOs flying jets to go overseas if that's what they want. If you wanted to go to the middle east, you will now have to go to Europe/USA/NZ and get your ATPL that way, then apply with an ICAO ATPL:ugh:

Wonderful news Octas,

So those dwindling number of over 5700 Kg aircraft still on the Australian register, like the Citation 550, no longer require an ATPL, fantastic, hope that applies to the odorous extra medical requirements as well.

For those saying that the Kiwis and such have always done it this way and never been a problem, I was under the impression that a lot of Kiwis have come to Aus, done their flying here, gotten and Aus ATPL and then just transferred it back to their NZ Licence via the TTRMA? So therefore, if my assertion is correct (And I stand to be corrected), wouldn't this then affect the Kiwis now as well as they were previously using the "Australian Loophole" in the same way many others have used the "FAA Loophole" and can no longer do so?

Did the Kiwis previously require a Flight Check when transferring their Aus ATPL?

Getting an FAA ATP is no longer the easy thing it once was. From 01 August this year the system changed: In order to sit the theory exam you must now do a 30 hour ground course + 10 hour sim (6 hours in a C or D level sim) course. All just to sit the exam. Only then may you do the flight test. So far there are just a handful of organisations that have gained approval for their ATP prep course and none of them are cheap.

So with the new FAA requirements, plus the fact you need to do ATPL flight tests virtually everywhere else in the world, can someone tell me where's the problem with having those same requirements in Australia?

morno

I have actually just received my NZ ATPL through the TTRMA and it was just a matter of filling out the paper work and sending it off.

No problem at all morno...if you work for an airline...

As I've said the whole ATPL licence is Not a qualification, its a process.

If you don't aspire to join an airline, under CAsA's reg's it going to cost you a small fortune to gain apiece of paper that is in reality meaningless.

If you already hold an instrument rating, which mosts guys do, your flying standard is already above that required for an ATPL.

Australia always had a flight test for the initial issue of an ATPL, CAO 40 appendix 111, I think provided what was required.

There was an era when sensible heads in DCA recognised that for those that held an instrument rating the flying standard was higher so they waved the ATPL test.

As for the theory side, technology moves faster than the syllabus can keep up. The way things are in Australia they would be better requiring a two year Law course rather than stuff that is already out of date by the time the exam is set.

Thats if they can find two people in CAsA who agree what the law is.

thorn bird,
I do agree somewhat, that outside of the airline environment, it will be slightly more difficult. I guess I don't convey that thought because I'm focusing on one area.

However for most aircraft over 5,700kg's outside of the airlines, if I'm not mistaken, they will require training to be done in a simulator anyway. So I don't see how it's going to be much different than an airline environment in that sense. Perhaps the tricky part is that CASA requires a CASA authorised Check Airman (or whatever ATO is these days) to do the test, which is going to be difficult for an overseas based simulator? I'm not entirely up with that detail of it.

Who know's, maybe in time, through consultation with the industry (I'm trying to think positive, we know that probably won't happen), CASA will change some of the requirements so that they're more flexible.

morno

We can all argue till we're blue in the face about the changes this may or may not bring to certain segments of Aviation. The fact remains this WILL now add an extra layer of complication and definitely confusion to the system.

The real question I haven't seen anyone ask yet is Why this change was needed in the first place? Someone will undoubtedly say "To bring us into line with the rest of the world" But I just don't see that as a valid justification for changing it. Can anyone point out a study that concluded this should be done to improve safety? perhaps a Cost/Benefit analysis?

If not then this just seems like another shift towards the "Airlines and Air Force Only" mentality.

Ixily,

nail on the head mate.

As far as I can see, all CAsA will achieve with this change put another nail into GA's coffin, and disadvantage Australian Pilots over foreign in the employment stakes.

Maybe others can, but I can see no safety benefit whatsoever, just massive increases in costs.

As far as I can see it makes you a hostage to your airline until you are senior enough to gain a command and get an ATPL flight test. By that stage you're a captain with seniority so it's a harder decision to leave.

This will stop all the pesky FOs leaving for sandier fields and guarantee a supply of indebted pilots if there ever is a shortage.

The Green Goblin has identified one of the biggest problems.
From a practical point of view, all the skills requirements of the Manual of Standards would be covered in a regular instrument rating/renewal/proficiency check on a multi-crew, turbine powered aircraft and this would ideally mean the form could be filled out, and an ATPL issued. However the applicant "must perform the functions of pilot in command" - Manual of Standards Instrument 2014, Vol 1, Section K Appendix K.1 Para 1.5. It also has to be from the left hand seat.

So for all the first officers at smaller operations hoping to gain an ATPL and move on to bigger and better things, this holds you a hostage to completing the check and upgrade process within your existing operation. If there arent upgrade opportunities, you cant or dont want a command in your current job, fail the upgrade or have upset the management and wont get an upgrade you are effectively trapped with that employer while the larger employers or overseas ones arent interested in you without the ATPL. I doubt that your current employer will just throw you into the left hand seat for a few sims to help make you more employable elsewhere. That'd be a fun conversation to have with the manager...

What has been achieved for those outside the airline system is a massive increase in the costs to gain a license. Inside the airline system, the licensing is now at the whim of a check and training department with no incentive to help you become more employable elsewhere.

The left seat requirement seems onerous and unnecessary.

This might take some concerted research to find out exactly what other nations do with ATPL tests. NZCAA I'm fairly sure, does not require LHS occupancy. What about EASA, FAA, TC, even China?

If no other ICAO conforming state requires LHS status for an ATPL candidate, one would have some ammunition to take to the new CASA director to have that requirement removed. After all, if no-one else does it, how can it be a "safety requirement"?

As to approaching airline management... I have approached different managers with different ideas over the years. Sometimes I was laughed out of the room. However I tended to have some success when I lined my pins up properly beforehand.

- Don't ask for stuff when the rules have just changed. No-one has understood the full impact yet, so you come across as premature or a bit panicky.
- Make sure the proposal is constructed to show how reasonable it is. The reaction you want is "well, yes of course, that's only fair".
- Make sure the costs to the company are minor and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- Make sure the benefits to the company are more significant than the costs and clearly identified. Think like Alan Joyce.
- If the benefits to the company are negligible, make sure you have huge social pressure behind you (that is, the union). Even so, you'll probably lose the battle. Fight hard by being very professional, very courteous and being the person that management really want to keep.

All of this applies when appealing to DAS for a rule change too of course, but x10!

Correct. Unless it's being used for RPT. Not many RPT AOC holders are using single pilot aircraft >5700kg. If you're one of the few affected, I do sympathise.

61 - Flight testing.
 

Only got half a handle on this so far – correction would be welcomed. It seems there is one word omitted from the reg and it's MoS – "sustained". In effect the removal of that one word makes passing any form of flight test highly subjective.

As I understand it – say you were required to maintain 5000' and you drift up to 5100', then begin to correct that returning to 5000' within a few seconds; the deviation was identified, corrected and not "sustained" under the CAO was acceptable. Without the word "sustained" the black letter law may be applied – you just failed. It's not that the 'testing officer' will do that, but it's that the TO may adhere to that edict which concerns.

Another item of concern, and here again it's hard to get a firm grip, is the notion that it is a criminal offence to conduct a manoeuvre, say a stall and recovery, unless it's conducted strictly to the letter of third tier law (MoS) in the precise, prescribed sequence for control input during entry and recovery.

It's not a problem for ordinary folk doing routine training and checking – but should a CASA type come along to observe your check pilot conducting your check; and the Checkie does not follow the prescription, to the letter; then check approvals may be forfeit - if the CASA observer so decides.

For the record – I'll repeat that I have not, as yet been able to get a firm grip on 61 and all it entails; so happy to be corrected. But it seems to me there are many ways to fail a proficiency check, all dependent on 'who' the test pilot is and what flavour of mood prevails on the day. I don't like 'subjective' options in a highly prescriptive rule, where it can and may be used against you.

Any way; FWIW.. my AUD $00.20.

Kharon, the Poms (bless their officious hearts) required all Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted. During the course all wannabe IREs had to learn that the test had to be conducted to a uniform standard. Tolerances were strict and until the candidate could fly them himself (in an old Dove when I did it, but later I think they went to simulators) he did not get to the stage where he was required to assess others. The interpretation of 'sustained' error involved a stop watch, from what I recall. Holding patterns had to be four minutes plus or minus 20 seconds, speed and altitude deviations could not exceed so many knots/feet for more than three seconds etc. Well do I remember first day of the flying, when I went outside five degrees on an NDB approach for more than the prescribed time. The test was terminated by the candidate IRE and I was informed that I could no longer exercise the privileges of my Instrument Rating. Talk about double jeopardy!

As for the current dilemma for those needing the ATPL test, again we could take a lesson from the Kiwis. While their Part 61 suggests that the flight should be completed in a complex aircraft or simulator of greater than 5700 kg, it does allow the Director latitude to approve other types. Hence, something reasonably complex such as a King Air C90 could be tricked up to do the job. And in NZ, is.

Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded.

ATPL skills test in the UK is done RHS.

Because there is no such thing as a co pilot type rating, the Yanks do all theirs LHS. At least they did last time I was over there on a Flight Safety conversion course. I was paired with an inexperienced F/O and he found it hard work jumping between seats and duties. For Captain candidates it is a good idea as he gets to know both jobs. So the advantages and disadvantages could be debated forever.
Some airlines in the USA may do it differently, for all I know.

The ATPL candidate gets to nominate which seat the flight test is done from in the Air NZ simulator test (Eagle is different but they are different anyway). It is about demonstrating the leadership for command, the skills to operate the aircraft to the prescribed limits whilst making good command decisions. Not about which seat you happen to sit in.

Has CAsA changed the certification of the C550/560 to single pilot from multi crew?

Choc frog Mach.E.
 

Oh, I hear you Mach and I am very familiar with 'other' systems; good and bad.

Which is a long march away from the Weeks version of 'Professional Development' designed specifically to enforce basic aero club 101 ab-initio OWT, home made rules and the "how I do it" philosophy into the professional 'flight test arena'; not to mention the art of framing of open ended 'tricky' questions to trap the unwary. Now, we get big, important sounding words slotted into the wrong place (syntax), ludicrous 'statements' and flawed 'procedure' (have a look at 'stalls' in the MoS) being foisted on a yawning audience of those who simply want the CASA stamp, in the log book, bugger off to the pub, and forget the clap-trap dished out, a.s.a.p. until the next round. But I digress;

The wording of 61, in the hands of a testing officer, on a predetermined mission sets up the 'Chop ride' syndrome with ease. Then you have CASA FOI who will, quite happily lie (until the subpoena arrives) to suit the circumstances. Part 61 wording provides unlimited scope for just such events. Doesn't happen you all cry: Oh, but it does children, it does. Ask Bill, he'll tell you (MMTF).

If Skidmore does nothing else at all, except get a rope on this Part 61 prat-fall he will go down as legend. The more I look into it, I'm sad to say, the worse it becomes – in the wrong hands. Weeks is another who has just a little more to answer for than the seriously ducked up 'rules' for choppers.

Spot, again......:ok:

Sorry mum, I've ran out coins.

Perhaps this will come to a head when CASA next want to recruit FOI's and the crop of available ex-miltary jocks don't meet the requirements.............:8