fATPL .v. CPL+IR

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry to ask a really daft question.


I've been told by a number of people that there are differences here in UK/JAR/EU-land between the privileges of a fATPL holder (i.e. CPL + ATPL theoretical passes + IR), and those of the holder of a CPL plus an instrument rating.

I can believe that some airlines may not wish to employ a first officer who can't eventually upgrade to a full ATPL, and hence multi-crew captaincy - that's fair enough. But in law, is there actually any difference in the right hand seat, or in single pilot ops?


I've looked hard through the UK-ANO, Eu-Ops, JAR-OPS-1 and LASORS, and can't find anything, suspecting that any differences are in company policies or uneducated rumour. But, I'd be happy to be put right if it's actually there in the regs somewhere?


No particular personal agenda here, just one of those arguments which never seems to quite go away.

Actually, whilst I'm here, one other daft question if anybody can help me: is it actually required that the F/O in a multi-crew aircraft holds a current IR? Clearly the Captain needs to, and an F/O with an IR is jolly sensible, but I don't *think* that the regs legally require it - or did I miss something in there?

Again, mostly academic, and my interest in the regs is probably unhealthy, but what the heck.

G

[nick14]

May be a case of MCC?

fATPL doesn't actually exist, its a shortened way of saying ATPL theory CPL ME/IR-SPA and MCC.

Someone without an MCC cannot undertake a TR in a multi pilot aircraft.

So I guess thats a difference?

Im guessing that in order to act as PIC of an aircraft under IFR you are required to hold the nesseccary licence ie a Valid IR for the type. Especially for carrying pax. IF the FO is going to fly PIC for a leg then his licence must be valid?

It will state something like that in the ops man surely?

Nick

[Genghis the Engineer]

Valid point about the MCC, and also about the fictional nature of the fATPL.

I'm not talking about any particular company, so can't readily point to a particular ops manual.

So, is there any difference in licence privileges between:

(1) CPL+IR+MCC+Multi
(2) CPL+IR+MCC+Multi+ATPL writtens

Where, for the sake of argument, neither has 500hrs multi and/or 1500hrs TT?

Surely, BTW, FO will not normally fly PiC for a leg, at most he'll be PF, whilst the Captain is PiC but PNF? With pax, in neither of the above cases can he actually be PiC since he doesn't have the full ATPL.

Cheers,

G

[nick14]

Well I believe the only difference there is the 1st one cannot upgrade when he does reach 1500/500 multi.

Well ok, in order to operate the aircraft (act as PIC and log it as such with the captain holding overall command) then I would imagine that your licence would have to be valid and current.

Nick

[RTN11]

The only difference is the goundschool.

You can just get a CPL-IR, and do the appropriate goundschool, but this will never be an ATPL.

In order to get an ATPL, you need to have done the ATPL theory exams, and have 500 multi crew hours.

As stated above, there is actually no such thing as a frozen ATPL. You will not find any reference to it in legislation. It's just a phrase made up to describe having a CPL-ME-IR with ATPL groundschool, rather than just a CPL-ME-IR.

[Shunter]

So, is there any difference in licence privileges between:

(1) CPL+IR+MCC+Multi
(2) CPL+IR+MCC+Multi+ATPL writtens

Where, for the sake of argument, neither has 500hrs multi and/or 1500hrs TT?

2 words... potential eligibility. One may, given the right experience, take the ATPL skills test. Until that point they are one and the same in terms of privileges.

[MIKECR]

Genghis,

I may be wrong but I was always under the impression that to operate a 'multi-crew' aircraft, one must have passed theoretical knowledge to the level of ATPL subjects rather than CPL subjects. I seem to remember reading that in several different sources, including Lasor's.

As for MCC, the only legal requirement is to hold a valid IR rating. Dosn't matter whether the licence is a PPL or CPL. When I did my MCC couple of years ago, I did it on my PPL(hadn't even started my CPL yet).

[Genghis the Engineer]

That's sort of my point Mike - there seems a lot of stuff doing the rounds which people think is the case, but not a lot of it seems to stand up when you start looking in the regs.

G

[Shunter]

The reason I posted as I did was that I am aware of a certain individual who having got his CPL a number of years ago let his exam credit lapse before completing his IR. He subsequently got a very good non-aviation job, had kids etc...

He later did the IR exams and completed his IR, then did an MCC and self-funded type-rating. He now works part time as a FO on biz-jets. If this isn't legal I'm sure he, the operator and everyone else would appreciate someone posting the relevant regs.

Whilst I have a huge shelf full of ATPL material, I did the CPL/IR exams. The sections of the material which weren't relevant for CPL/IR were clearly marked and they had nothing to do with multi-crew; global climatology, transatlantic nav etc..

[pilotincommand]

You need the ATPL passes to add a multi crew type rating to your licence, so no ATPL passes means you can only fly single crew.

[Shunter]

pilotincommand; could you please post the regulations in regard to that?

If it is indeed the case then the CAA (who added the rating without issue), TRTO (who taught the type rating course without issue), pilot and operator concerned are all mistaken.

LASORS, Section A, Appendix F, CPL (Paragraph 7) states that a CPL may act as co-pilot on any aeroplane for which he is rated; is does not state a requirement that it be single-crew.

Since everything in aviation is permitted unless it is expressly prohibited, I would be interested to see information to the contrary.

[helimutt]

In order to get an ATPL, you need to have done the ATPL theory exams, and have 500 multi crew hours.

Not necessarily. You could have CPL + have done the IR theory exams under previous legislation (at least with helicopters you could) and having passed the IR, would be able to upgrade to atpl once the other requirements had been met. Isn't it the same with fixed wing?

[pilotincommand]

The following is taken from the Multi-Pilot Type Rating section in LASORS:

Pre-requisite conditions for training
An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall
provide evidence that the following requirements have
been met:-
a. have completed at least 70 hours as pilot-incommand
of aeroplanes;
b. hold a current and valid multi-engine Instrument
Rating (Aeroplanes). This is only a requirement
for an initial MPA type rating and not subsequent
type ratings. A UK QSP(A) who has held a Green
Instrument Rating within the preceding 5 years
is deemed to hold a ‘current and valid’ Instrument
Rating.
c. hold a certificate of satisfactory completion of
a multi-crew co-operation (MCC) course (this
requirement is not applicable to those who have
attended a TRTO course which includes MCC).
For full details on the MCC Course and MCC credits
can be found at Section F10.
d. have a valid pass in the professional flight crew
examinations at ATPL level.

Section d. is the reason people do the ATPL exams if they want to fly airliners.

[paco]

For helicopters, a CPLH + IR = ATPL Theory (LASORS Sect G page 11)

for fixed wing, it doesn't, because the CPL is of a lower academic standard.

Phil

[selfin]

Minor point, but the quoted section from LASORS is not in force in the UK.
The UK CAA has only adopted up to Amendment 5 to JAR-FCL1 (currently at
Amdt. 7). Elsewhere in LASORS this fact is acknowledged, and it is further
stipulated in the ANO 2005 (as amended), Article 155 (see CAP393 Section 1
Part 14 Page 19). Having said all that, the difference between Amdts 5 and 7
at JAR-FCL 1.250 is small - the PiC(A) time is reduced to 70 hours.