* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Topsites *Weather * Media Kit
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:54 pm



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: PIC Under Supervision
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 355
Quick question, when doing the PIC under supervision, I have a form where I can list the flights and their times which I can then submit to Transport. Do I log this in my personal logbook under the PIC section, or still as co-pilot with a notation stating that those specific entries were used to top up the rest of my PIC requirements and are thus still counted as co-pilot when adding up my total time? I have posted the relevant TC standards below relating to this topic:

421.11 Airline Transport Licence Training (Pilot-in-command Under Supervision)
(amended 1998/12/01; previous version)

(6) When an application for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence is based in part on pilot-in-command under supervision flight time, the applicant shall:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) submit a personal log or other reliable record that contains a summary of the pilot-in-command under supervision flight time and the number of takeoffs and landings; and

(b) enter a notation on the application form showing the portion of pilot-in-command flight time that was done under supervision



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:27 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:29 am
Posts: 4
I logged the flights under co-pilot , put brackets around the times and noted on a blank spot on the top of the page that "() indicates PIC Under-Supervision flights"...They accepted that method and never even questioned it...hope that helps


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:16 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:53 am
Posts: 145
Location: Montreal CYUL
I am in the process of applying for the ATPL as well.

I was told to log it all COPILOT. Then I will substract 200 hours from my copilot column and add 100 to my PIC column noting that this was PIC Under Supervision time.

Hope it works



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:30 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 175
When I did it, I called TC and the lady had to do a quick research and came back to me saying that I HAD to log it as Co-pilot. Then, you submit your logbook with the sheet showing the hours as PIC-under-suppervision and they'll do the math.

Like someone said, you can put a note in the remarks so it'll make it easier for them...

had no problem, even if my hours were very close to the 1500 ... recount it 10 times though and make sure it works!!!



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:40 pm 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 355
Thanks for the help! I suspected it went under co-pilot, but just wanted to make sure from some people who've gone through the process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:48 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:33 pm
Posts: 1009
Location: YYC
I was told to put it in the PIC column with an asterix beside it. Then put a note at the bottom of the page stating it was PICUS. I'm not sure if that'll work or not, haven't applied yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:23 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:23 am
Posts: 889
DHC-1 Jockey wrote:
Quick question, when doing the PIC ....... Do I log this in my personal logbook under the PIC section, or still as co-pilot with a notation stating that those specific entries were used to top up the rest of my PIC requirements and are thus still counted as co-pilot when adding up my total time? I have posted the relevant TC standards below relating to this topic: ...


Whoa, this sounds way too complicated. I'd advise you to quit flying and become, say, a plumber.

Doing that, soon you'll have enough money to buy a farm. Once you have the farm, buy some cows.

Then you can buy a little airplane to count your cows-tell your wife that cows need to be counted every second day.

Don't buy more than twenty cows at a time though ( voice of experience ) -unless you are really good at circling around a point, it's really tough to count more than 19, 20, cows in one crack.

Best of luck.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:04 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
Am I the only one who shudders when they read thrreads like this?

It seems no matter how much lower TC seems to set the bar, there are those who will do exactly what is necessary to meet the minimums.

Perhaps then, instead of making certain your 100 hrs or whatever of PIC under supervision is properly documented, you give some thought to getting some PIC without supervision, and exceed the minimums.

I dont need a crystal ball to forsee the future accidents if we continue to issue licenses and give command to bigger equipment to less and less experienced people.

Now before anyone jumps on me, as I bellieve they will, 100 PIC under supervision, on type and usual routes is, in my opinion, a great idea and one that will ultimately prove a good thing....as long as the supervising Captain has an understanding of the objectives...I have seen some supervising captains who do not seem to understand their role in the process.

But having to use that to meet the ATPL minimums...as I started out...makes me shudder.


_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:42 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 355
trey kule wrote:
Am I the only one who shudders when they read thrreads like this?

It seems no matter how much lower TC seems to set the bar, there are those who will do exactly what is necessary to meet the minimums.

Perhaps then, instead of making certain your 100 hrs or whatever of PIC under supervision is properly documented, you give some thought to getting some PIC without supervision, and exceed the minimums.


Considering that I have over 2200 hours and half of that being X-Country (500+ night X-Country I might add in 703/704 ops) I am now at the point of wanting to get my A's done and only need the remainder of the night PIC X-Country under supervision. What would be more relevant time in your opinion.. bombing around in a 152 on my own or learning to do the job I currently do better from a well qualified line pilot? Think twice before posting about people who only want to do the "bare minimum" without knowing their background or history.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:53 am
Posts: 145
Location: Montreal CYUL
Trey Kule, I agree with you that some Captains don't use the 100PIC US how it is intended, however the PIC US is a useful tool for good guys who paid their dues (gaining thousands of hours doing some real flying) to move forward in their careers.

You think a guy with 5000 hours Copilot time hasnt earned his 4th bar ? Or is a danger in the air?

I recently went through that PIC US process (as useless as it may be) after YEARS of hard work and YEARS of learning from some of the best captains out there. Had I known I would of been an instructor, do some circuits for a thousand hours in clear blue sky ...

I know pilots with 1000 hours that Id rather fly with than some 5000 dummies who collect the cadors and close calls.
I know your kind, you just cringe at the fact that some guys just had it easier than you.

We are all just people trying to make a living here. Lots of good guys trying to move forward.
So Keep shuddering your Holyness MR Captain Kule.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
I thought I might ruffle a few feathers but let me clear about a coupe of things

1. I agree with PIC US...I think it is excellent in general. The only thought I had on it was that sometimes the Captains who are supervising really dont do a good job on it. from my experience..nuff said. A quick questioN I ask supervising captains is what they have as objectives and standards for their PIC under supervision, and how do they plan to achieve it...you would be suprised at some of the answers.

2. I know this is unpopular, but there simply is no substitute for command experience. It is not about anyone having it easier or harder. It is about a Captain with about 200 hours total PIC. And the ususal answer I get is that as co-joe they have thousands of hours of cross country time etc.etc. in the real world...It is not command time, and no matter what anyone thinks, the Captain has certain responsibilities that only come with experience. It is only the Captain that has to make the final decision and only the captain that takes responsability for it. As to just meeting minimums. The sense I get from the original post is that the PIC US is needed to make the minimums..

Anedotal references to instructor time, time in a light single etc. really beg the whole question.
One could just as easily ask how sitting on your butt in the right seat of a navajo
teaches you anything. People learn from whatever they fly, whenever they fly...or at least they should. But the left seat person is the ultimate decision maker (students excepted).


_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:15 pm 
Online
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 84
Location: Just over the horizon ... & headed the wrong way.
There is NO substitute for real Pic. Instructing, Jumper Dumping. 703 Air Taxi. The Least important thing about being 'Captn' is flying the Airplane. The ATPL requirements are absurdly low to start with. Finding a way to lower the bar even further sells the prospective ATPL candidate short. It is a disservice to the public as well.

But then, I'm just a Mean Old Man.


_________________
Flying is better than walking. Walking is better than running. Running is better than crawling. All of these however, are better than extraction by a Med-Evac, even if this is technically a form of flying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:45 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am
Posts: 792
trey kule wrote:
Am I the only one who shudders when they read thrreads like this?

It seems no matter how much lower TC seems to set the bar, there are those who will do exactly what is necessary to meet the minimums.

Perhaps then, instead of making certain your 100 hrs or whatever of PIC under supervision is properly documented, you give some thought to getting some PIC without supervision, and exceed the minimums.

I dont need a crystal ball to forsee the future accidents if we continue to issue licenses and give command to bigger equipment to less and less experienced people.

Now before anyone jumps on me, as I bellieve they will, 100 PIC under supervision, on type and usual routes is, in my opinion, a great idea and one that will ultimately prove a good thing....as long as the supervising Captain has an understanding of the objectives...I have seen some supervising captains who do not seem to understand their role in the process.

But having to use that to meet the ATPL minimums...as I started out...makes me shudder.


So how does an f/o who starts his flying career at a company that only operates 1900's (like CMA for example), get his necessary PIC time for the ATPL?

trey kule wrote:
As to just meeting minimums. The sense I get from the original post is that the PIC US is needed to make the minimums..


In some pilot's cases, it is!! A guy at CMA isn't entitled to earn his or her ATPL just because there isn't a machine at the company that the candidate can log PIC time on?



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:33 pm 
Online
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:37 pm
Posts: 84
Location: Just over the horizon ... & headed the wrong way.
Entitled ? Nope. Not at all. Not in any way. Sorry.

Don't get yourself on an airplane that you can never go capt'n of. It's poor carreer planning. No doubt many ppl would think that right seat on a 1900 is a real score for a first job, but it isn't . It Is better than not having a flying job however. Just understand that you will have to find a seat on a 'smaller' airplane to get that needed pic. The rules have been created to firstly protect the public. They are published. Nobody got misled.

The Commercial to ATPL progression is a form of graduated licencing. It is designed to limit the # of ppl you can hurt until your experiance grows. Hopefully nobody gets hurt .. Ever. But, ...


_________________
Flying is better than walking. Walking is better than running. Running is better than crawling. All of these however, are better than extraction by a Med-Evac, even if this is technically a form of flying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:18 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:33 pm
Posts: 1009
Location: YYC
What a load of crap! It seems to have worked for many that have gone through their careers this way!

Maybe the way of logging time should be changed. In the UK, if your the PF you log it as PIC2 the Capt is always logging it as PIC1. Thats why people can advance their careers quicker over there.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am
Posts: 792
Justjohn wrote:
Entitled ? Nope. Not at all. Not in any way. Sorry.

Don't get yourself on an airplane that you can never go capt'n of. It's poor carreer planning. No doubt many ppl would think that right seat on a 1900 is a real score for a first job, but it isn't . It Is better than not having a flying job however. Just understand that you will have to find a seat on a 'smaller' airplane to get that needed pic. The rules have been created to firstly protect the public. They are published. Nobody got misled.

The Commercial to ATPL progression is a form of graduated licencing. It is designed to limit the # of ppl you can hurt until your experiance grows. Hopefully nobody gets hurt .. Ever. But, ...


Sorry mate, gotta disagree with you here. If the PIC under supervision program is properly followed, it is a great way for an f/o to exercise command practice. I don't see how it's unacceptable. If the f/o demonstrates good, safe and efficient decision making, then I don't see how he can't be given command. If he's successful in the ride and the line indoc, then it means he's been deemed suitable to command his airplane. That is something you cannot decide, because it isn't up to you. It's up to the candidate to show he's ready, up to the ride examiner to determine a successful captain ride, and up to the company to recognize his suitability and promote him to that rank of captain. If he's successful in all of these avenues, then I don't see what the issue is.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:01 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
flying4dollars...I dont think to many people are disagreeing with you at all. The issue, however, is that the time under supervision is being used to meet the minimum requirements for a license upgrade. The sense I get is the majority of us feel that the ATPL minimums are already a bit lean to ensure a proper command position on a heavier machine, and that simply meeting the minimums is now being stretched a bit to include 100 hours command.....under supervision. As opposed to straight command time.

It seems, from some of the posts, that they feel their extensive FO time puts them in a better position to make command decisions then a pilot flying as PIC as an instructor , or in a 172.
Then they make the argument that the PIC US to meet some of the minimumsfor a license upgrade.

Lastly, I expect that in the future we will see some accidents attributed to poor command decisions from the inexperienced...significantly enough to have TC rethink the requirements...but as with many things the government does, foresight is not on the radar.
Incidently. I hope I am wrong about this, but the attitude of some of the posters makes me think I have it right.


_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am
Posts: 792
trey kule wrote:
Lastly, I expect that in the future we will see some accidents attributed to poor command decisions from the inexperienced...significantly enough to have TC rethink the requirements...but as with many things the government does, foresight is not on the radar.
Incidently. I hope I am wrong about this, but the attitude of some of the posters makes me think I have it right.



I see your point, and this may very well be the case, but I think someone who gains his pic time on a smaller airplane like a Navajo or King Air (where the ATPL is not necessary to act as PIC) is just as susceptible to making the same poor command decisions as he would on a larger aircraft like a 1900. After having flown both machines myself, I can say with some conviction that at times, life would have been easier commanding a 1900 than a Navajo. The real difference with making a poor decision, is the potential loss of life/aircraft damage factor being higher on the 1900, but essentially, the same mistake can be made no matter what the aircraft type. I hope I'm making sense here.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:05 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
I agree with you about the ease of the two aircraft, as I have flown both of them One of my concerns with the Navajo is that it is such a pussycat when everything is working as it should, but it can quickly turn into a tiger. As it usually one of the first step ups, it also takes some huge abuses from improper pilot technique. In any event that is not the real issue here and so I will not digress further.

The PIC US, was never, in my opinion intended to be a training platform for a license upgrade.
And my point is that is what some are suggesting it should be used as...and to meet just the minimums. The other thing about the whole PIC US is that many companies simply do not have any sort of plan for how that should progress and leave it up to the Captain supervising, so there is a great deal of variance in the quality of the time. Pilots also, in general, at most small operators, are not selected for potential as Captains, the thinking being that every one with a pilots license is Captain material..I am not sure that is a correct assumption.

I really only posted because fo the sense of entitlement some poster's seem to have, their belief that their "real" world experience as an FO is somehow more valuable than anyone else's PIC time etc. Those, again, in my opinion are not necessarily the attributes one wants to see in future Captain....but hey...some of them will work for peanuts and their is companies out there that will exploit that attitude.

I think the industry would be a great deal safer if the PIC requirements for the ATPL were a little more stringent, and a further restriction on the requirements for FO positions...something Contrail and similar auditors I think agree on (the FO requirements...not the ATPL)


_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:56 am
Posts: 792
Fair enough, I see your point a little better now and I more or less agree with you. Pilots being pilots, the sense of entitlement is always going to plague us though. I guess, all other things being equal, the suitability and effectiveness of the PIC under supervision program is dependent on the company and candidate. There are some people who go through the program and attain their A's, who may or may not deserve it. Then again, there are also pilots who gain PIC on smaller machines, obtain their A's, and go on to command larger planes requiring the license upgrade, when they may not be deserving of it either.

Point taken though.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:20 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:29 am
Posts: 189
Location: YZF
250 hours PIC to meet the minimum does seem pretty low considering the license. Why not make it 500 hours PIC or even more? Then the debate would be the "quality" of the PIC time and that would open a whole new ugly can of worms. Let's start with (and folks please don't get your panties twisted, this is not meant to be trolling), is the guy in the right seat of the 1900/Dash/Saab/ATR/Boeing with 3000 hours co-pilot less qualified to act as PIC on an Airline Transport category aircraft than the instructor with 1500 hours in the right seat of the 172? The minimum requirements for the ATPL would seem to suggest that is the case. I think PIC US may have been created to address such a scenario. Right or wrong? Who knows? Thoughts?

PS .. I plan to use PIC US to get the ATPL, I just happen to agree with folks who think it is kinda bogus. Looking back, maybe "lucking out" and getting a 705 cojo gig early wasn't necessarily a good thing but that's just how it worked out.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:00 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
Lets look at your question for a moment from both aspects. First of all, someone with no time on any of the types you mentioned, and with 1500 hours PIC as an instructor, is not very likely to get the left seat initially..at least not without training and.....100 hours PIC US. So the comparison begs the question.
Having said that, the question should not be an either/or. Because the above should not jump into the left seat, does not mean that someone with 100 hours or so of PIC should, when their total PIC then is about 200 hours be given command regardless of how many hours they have set in the left seat and how valuable they found the time..

A better question would be this.
Would a pilot with 1500 PIC as an instructor and 1000 hours of fo time on one of those types, be a better left seat canidate that someone with 100 hours PIC and 2000 hours of FO time.

Generally, I thnik the former would be better. But alas, as I posted before, the real world of small operators does not generally preselect for command qualitities which means it is more about the individual. Also, if companies went the former route, they might just have to pay a decent wage for FO's, and one of the primary reasons they are running FOs in some small scheds is because the aircraft dont have autopilots and an FO is cheaper than installing and maintaining one. The problem of course, is the FOs, being human want to do more than steer the aircraft.

One indicator I like to use is how an FO views their time with regard to upgrades. The answers in an interview are surprising. Some will detail their knowledge of the aircraft and admit they need training/practice/experience as a Captain. Others will go on about the welath of experience they have obtained as an FO and make the jump to conclude that will make them great command material.. The ones who put to much empahasis on the quality of their FO time are the ones to be concerned about.

Here is a thought. Years ago, when pilots were getting night ratings they did the instrument portion at night, and tried to log it as both instrument and night..Whcih they could do..BUT..TC would not allow them to use both for the rating..One or the other. All TC needs to do is put out a policy that PIC undersupervison will not be considered to be PIC (as it really is not, after all, a post solo student could be said to be logging PIC under supervision some of the time!), or that it can not be used for the upgrade of a license.. No big change required and I think you might just see it happen in the near future. After all, with an ATPL one we could see a Captain of a large aircraft in command with a totatl of 250 hours PIC...just a bit scary. Fortunately, the Canadian majors dont hire 250 hour pilots for the right seat (yet) so for the time being the risk will be restricted to the budjet cutting smaller operators and the FO's who will whore themselves out for less than minimum wages.....after all, as I have heard countless times...If they demanded more money there are 10 others behind them who will take the job....gotta love the reasoning.


_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:28 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm
Posts: 981
trey kule wrote:
The PIC US, was never, in my opinion intended to be a training platform for a license upgrade.
And my point is that is what some are suggesting it should be used as...and to meet just the minimums.


Actually, that is precisely what the program was created for. There is a difference between PIC U/S and Line-Indoc training, which is not to be used as credit towards min requirements. It is not a loop hole that people are using to exploit.

Here are the CARS. They spell it out that this program is used to allow an applicant to gain time towards the ATPL.

Quote:
421.11 Airline Transport Licence Training (Pilot-in-command Under Supervision)
(amended 1998/12/01; previous version)

(1) All air operators using large aeroplanes may institute programs of supervision to allow co-pilots to credit flight time as pilot-in-command time.


(4) The conditions for crediting an applicant's flight time are as follows:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) An applicant for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Aeroplane shall be given credit for up to 100 hours of pilot-in-command flight time under supervision, provided the applicant:

(i) holds a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane with a multi-engine rating and the aeroplane type rating in which the flight time is acquired;

(ii) has a Group I instrument rating; and

(iii) has accumulated a minimum of 150 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes.

When an application for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence is based in part on pilot-in-command under supervision flight time, the applicant shall:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) submit a personal log or other reliable record that contains a summary of the pilot-in-command under supervision flight time and the number of takeoffs and landings; and

(b) enter a notation on the application form showing the portion of pilot-in-command flight time that was done under supervision.


I am not arguing that this is right or wrong. Only that the program was specifically created to allow those without the PIC time to gain their ATPL.

I already have mine, and did not use the PIC US. Don't confuse line-indoc and PIC US. They have very separate goals, and separate methods.

BTD



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:37 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 3651
I stand corrected. I guess TC has felt that it is perfectly safe.

_________________
if you have an opinion about my flying, raise your hand.......
Now put it over your mouth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Posts: 4182
Location: West Coast
my 02 cents

I got my SCPL (now I am dating myself :wink: ) and then ATPL in the minimum hours when I was working as an Instructor and doing a little bit of 703 flying in a piston twin. To say I was an "airline pilot" was simply silly. Frankly I think the prerequisite should be 1500 hrs total time, 500 hrs of PIC and 500 hrs in a two crew certified aircraft, and no the 1900 should not count. Then the "airline" in "Airline Transport License" would actually mean something.



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 200hr Wonder, Bing [Bot], Nordo, PilotDAR, wowie_kazowie and 68 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.