ATPLH - relevant?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Antigua, West Indies
Age: 55
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me the difference between CPL+IR and ATPL is purely your level of flying experience -- not a measure of qualifications.
For clarity, when I said you convert CPL+IR to ATPL when you have
I meant experience exactly as you describe: experience on multi-crew type, PIC, x-country, night, instrument, and so on.
As I understand it, when you have a CPL+IR, but lack the requisite flying experience, THAT is when you are deemed to hold an fATPL.
For clarity, when I said you convert CPL+IR to ATPL when you have
enough PIC, multi-engine multi-crew time (etc etc)
As I understand it, when you have a CPL+IR, but lack the requisite flying experience, THAT is when you are deemed to hold an fATPL.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong, but I believe the term "frozen ATPL" arose when the CAA were NOT accepting CPL theory + IR theory as sufficient theoretical training for grant of an ATPL i.e. you had to do the specific ATPL theory exams, and by saying "frozen ATPL" indicated that you had completed them.
IMHO there is a subtle difference beyond flying experience. The skills test for grant of an ATPL requires "the applicant shall demonstrate the ability to perform as Pilot-in-Command of a helicopter type certificated for a minimum of two pilots
under IFR"...
An ATPL shows demonstrated competence operating within a multi-crew environment. A CPL shows demonstrated competence operating within a single-pilot environment.
Suffice to say, flying as PIC in a multi-crew environment does not mean you fly it like it was single-crew!
Seems to me the difference between CPL+IR and ATPL is purely your level of flying experience -- not a measure of qualifications
under IFR"...
An ATPL shows demonstrated competence operating within a multi-crew environment. A CPL shows demonstrated competence operating within a single-pilot environment.
Suffice to say, flying as PIC in a multi-crew environment does not mean you fly it like it was single-crew!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norway
Age: 44
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take up the original thread:
I've done both the JAR CPL-H, and recently the JAR IR-H theory, wich together qualifies as "frozen" ATPL.
I find a lot of the theory "irrelevant" for the purpose of practical use in the everyday for a pilot. Not everything, of course, but a lot of it.
My feeling was that a lot of the theory was "nice to know" and good to have as a "in-depth" understanding, but certainly not something one would rembember and use everyday.
And I feel a lot has been left out, which would be useful to get a more practical understanding of many of the subjects.
Met and FP & P are "practical" subjects who are mostly relevant, but when you read "Instrumentations", and they spend most of their time explaining how an instrument is buildt up, but almost nothing about actually USING them, I find that a bit strange.
It seems that part is left for the FTO's to teach you, and that is a fair idea, but then you need to be blessed with a good FTO. And that's not always the case (I know, my FTO for the CPL was crap...).
If they had printed the more practical theory also, it would be more standarised, I think. I'm thinking about actual use of instruments, IFR emergecies (instrument failures ect).
Airlaw is dull, and it's nothing to do with that. Just read!
Com is ok.
Radio Nav could be more practical.
Nav is a bit too fixed-wing oriented, but I guess we have to live with that.
AGK is based a lot on Boeing 737, and could be a bit more general, I think.
But a lot of it is ok.
One instructor told me that the US-approach was a lot more practical, and the JAR approach has become quite heavy on the theoretical side. He thougth a blend of those approaches maybe would be the best. I think he has a point, without having any US experience myself.
Just wondered how much of the syllabus from the ATPL you have actually found useful and relevant to the 'real' world? As far as I can see the syllabus generally certainly is'nt there for practical application.
I find a lot of the theory "irrelevant" for the purpose of practical use in the everyday for a pilot. Not everything, of course, but a lot of it.
My feeling was that a lot of the theory was "nice to know" and good to have as a "in-depth" understanding, but certainly not something one would rembember and use everyday.
And I feel a lot has been left out, which would be useful to get a more practical understanding of many of the subjects.
Met and FP & P are "practical" subjects who are mostly relevant, but when you read "Instrumentations", and they spend most of their time explaining how an instrument is buildt up, but almost nothing about actually USING them, I find that a bit strange.
It seems that part is left for the FTO's to teach you, and that is a fair idea, but then you need to be blessed with a good FTO. And that's not always the case (I know, my FTO for the CPL was crap...).
If they had printed the more practical theory also, it would be more standarised, I think. I'm thinking about actual use of instruments, IFR emergecies (instrument failures ect).
Airlaw is dull, and it's nothing to do with that. Just read!
Com is ok.
Radio Nav could be more practical.
Nav is a bit too fixed-wing oriented, but I guess we have to live with that.
AGK is based a lot on Boeing 737, and could be a bit more general, I think.
But a lot of it is ok.
One instructor told me that the US-approach was a lot more practical, and the JAR approach has become quite heavy on the theoretical side. He thougth a blend of those approaches maybe would be the best. I think he has a point, without having any US experience myself.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Galaxy
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL+IR is not Frozen ATPL
Sorry, but Frozen ATPL refers to following :
ATPL(H) theory
CPL(H) licence + IR rating (+ MCC...).
ATPL(H) becomes "full" when under above conditions you passe the practical skill ATPL(H) skill test : IFR flight in a multi crew environment as it was said before...
Hope it helps.
ATPL(H) theory
CPL(H) licence + IR rating (+ MCC...).
ATPL(H) becomes "full" when under above conditions you passe the practical skill ATPL(H) skill test : IFR flight in a multi crew environment as it was said before...
Hope it helps.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Personally, I ALWAYS fly great circle routes when I cross the Atlantic, using my VLF/Omega navigation, and I bear in mind the weather in Darwin in July when I take off. So, it is all 10o% relevant.
