How will the ATPL changes affect the industry?

[lostav8r]

I heard that to get your A's you'll now need to be left seat certified for a 2 crew airplane with 2 engines.

Doesn't that mean any captain on a kingair or pc12 is now SOL if they want to go to AC or any other airline that requires an ATPL?

Does that mean everyone flying cargo/charter/medevac is now forced to pay a 2nd bond for a captain upgrade, and employers can be more picky or hold it against applicants?

[oldnbold]

Great for aviation safety.

[StrayPilot]

They just renamed the current ATPL to "restricted" ATPL. I don't think it's gonna make any difference other than the fact that the minimum requirement for those operators that needed an ATPL would change to restricted ATPL.

[lostav8r]

Great for aviation safety.

Do the stats say we have a safety issue from low experience?

[digits_]

Eventually there will be no difference.

For now, full unrestricted ATPL holders might have a slight advantage because companies might not have the COM changes in place to fully deal with restricted ATPL holders, or might be slightly hesitant om hiring their first one.

Then again, a full ATPL will most likely mean more experience anyway, so those people would have had an advantage either way, especially if the economy tanks if the middle east war keeps on going.

[rudder]

Leave it to TC to mess up something that should otherwise be straightforward.

The existing problem is that experience requirements for ATPL were leftovers from the 1940’s/1950’s/1960’s. So a flight instructor who met the experience requirements and did a multi-IFR ride in a Beech Duchess could be issued an ATPL. No Part 703/704/705 experience required. What does that have to do with ‘Airline Transport’?

The ‘fix’ is to update to the 21st century and recognize or require an ‘airline transport’ component. So an aircraft type that requires two pilot operations. That will typically mean Part 703/704/705, corporate, or military experience. That is the good part.

But the licence is not an ‘Airline Transport Captain Licence’. It is ATPL. So the revised standard should include the multi-engine two crew PPC as PIC on either aircraft or level C or D simulator …… OR Part 705 level C or D simulator PPC (not necessarily a PIC PPC. For example - a type rating PPC). I believe a type rating PPC requires a level D simulator.

Canada remains a jurisdiction where the minimum licensing standard for SIC Part 705 operations is a commercial licence. In those cases, such pilot can only get to the ATPL requirements using PICUS and Part 705 PPC’s (you should not have to rent a C172 to accumulate ‘experience’ when you are flying as FO on a 737). The licensing rules should be based on that reality. Experience accumulated as a crew member in a Part 705 operation is far more relevant to the ‘Airline Transport’ definition than almost any other experience. The rules should reflect that.

[AutoParts]

Can anyone help me on the ATPL application? I’m looking ahead of where I am and in section 5 it says to state the date of your pic flight test with 12 months of the application but to fill the application in you need that and to get that you need to fill the application in? Or can I just not fill it in to get my restricted ATPL and go through the upgrade process off of there?

[Bede]

Getting an ATPL is too easy in North America. They should adopt the EASA ATPL exam methodology.

[lostav8r]

Leave it to TC to mess up something that should otherwise be straightforward.

The existing problem is that experience requirements for ATPL were leftovers from the 1940’s/1950’s/1960’s. So a flight instructor who met the experience requirements and did a multi-IFR ride in a Beech Duchess could be issued an ATPL. No Part 703/704/705 experience required. What does that have to do with ‘Airline Transport’?

The ‘fix’ is to update to the 21st century and recognize or require an ‘airline transport’ component. So an aircraft type that requires two pilot operations. That will typically mean Part 703/704/705, corporate, or military experience. That is the good part.

But the licence is not an ‘Airline Transport Captain Licence’. It is ATPL. So the revised standard should include the multi-engine two crew PPC as PIC on either aircraft or level C or D simulator …… OR Part 705 level C or D simulator PPC (not necessarily a PIC PPC. For example - a type rating PPC). I believe a type rating PPC requires a level D simulator.

Canada remains a jurisdiction where the minimum licensing standard for SIC Part 705 operations is a commercial licence. In those cases, such pilot can only get to the ATPL requirements using PICUS and Part 705 PPC’s (you should not have to rent a C172 to accumulate ‘experience’ when you are flying as FO on a 737). The licensing rules should be based on that reality. Experience accumulated as a crew member in a Part 705 operation is far more relevant to the ‘Airline Transport’ definition than almost any other experience. The rules should reflect that.

I fully agree! As a bugsmasher for life it seems idiotic people in a Jazz uniform need to share a plane with me to get night XC!

Getting an ATPL is too easy in North America. They should adopt the EASA ATPL exam methodology.

You have a training background so I respect what you think more than pretty much everyone else here. My question though is nobody I know in 705 land can do a steep turn or even pass a iatra. The Euro influencers I know even suggest to just a test bank for the 13 EASA exams.

Like besides limiting supply would it actually lead to more knowledgeable ATPL holders after they write the exam?

[ruffdeezy]

I heard that to get your A's you'll now need to be left seat certified for a 2 crew airplane with 2 engines.

Doesn't that mean any captain on a kingair or pc12 is now SOL if they want to go to AC or any other airline that requires an ATPL?

Does that mean everyone flying cargo/charter/medevac is now forced to pay a 2nd bond for a captain upgrade, and employers can be more picky or hold it against applicants?

it is 2 crew aircraft or certified 2 crew company operation so those captains are fine

there will be changes to rules on who can attempt a 2 crew PIC PPC

[ruffdeezy]

The ‘fix’ is to update to the 21st century and recognize or require an ‘airline transport’ component. So an aircraft type that requires two pilot operations. That will typically mean Part 703/704/705, corporate, or military experience. That is the good part.

But the licence is not an ‘Airline Transport Captain Licence’. It is ATPL. So the revised standard should include the multi-engine two crew PPC as PIC on either aircraft or level C or D simulator …… OR Part 705 level C or D simulator PPC (not necessarily a PIC PPC. For example - a type rating PPC). I believe a type rating PPC requires a level D simulator.

Canada remains a jurisdiction where the minimum licensing standard for SIC Part 705 operations is a commercial licence. In those cases, such pilot can only get to the ATPL requirements using PICUS and Part 705 PPC’s (you should not have to rent a C172 to accumulate ‘experience’ when you are flying as FO on a 737). The licensing rules should be based on that reality. Experience accumulated as a crew member in a Part 705 operation is far more relevant to the ‘Airline Transport’ definition than almost any other experience. The rules should reflect that.

the privilege of an ATPL is being the captain of a 2 crew aircraft so it essentially is a Captain licence. The PPC eligibility rules will be changed as well so anyone can do a PIC PPC i think.

the PICUS rules will likely change to allow people to use more time instead of renting

[canuck742]

Alright so it seems that the consensus here is that if you are looking to be hired as a First Officer at a company like Air Canada or Westjet, you should be good to go as a restricted ATPL holder? My background is Military primarily on the F18. I don't have any multi-crew time as its a single seat jet but I have plenty of hours in a high performance multi-turbojet.

I was worried that this new licensing requirement would essentially close the door to our type unless we were able to somehow accumulate multi-crew experience which just simply isn't possible for someone in my shoes without landing an airline job first.

It seems like it will ultimately be up to the airline where they draw the line for qualifications... Transat & porter for example don't require ATPL currently for FO applications as far as I know. I guess the restricted ATPL will become the minimum standard for big 705 carrier First Officer applicants... Plus, before upgrading to Captain at the airline you would have ticked the box to unlock the full ATPL.

[lostav8r]

The ‘fix’ is to update to the 21st century and recognize or require an ‘airline transport’ component. So an aircraft type that requires two pilot operations. That will typically mean Part 703/704/705, corporate, or military experience. That is the good part.

But the licence is not an ‘Airline Transport Captain Licence’. It is ATPL. So the revised standard should include the multi-engine two crew PPC as PIC on either aircraft or level C or D simulator …… OR Part 705 level C or D simulator PPC (not necessarily a PIC PPC. For example - a type rating PPC). I believe a type rating PPC requires a level D simulator.

Canada remains a jurisdiction where the minimum licensing standard for SIC Part 705 operations is a commercial licence. In those cases, such pilot can only get to the ATPL requirements using PICUS and Part 705 PPC’s (you should not have to rent a C172 to accumulate ‘experience’ when you are flying as FO on a 737). The licensing rules should be based on that reality. Experience accumulated as a crew member in a Part 705 operation is far more relevant to the ‘Airline Transport’ definition than almost any other experience. The rules should reflect that.

the privilege of an ATPL is being the captain of a 2 crew aircraft so it essentially is a Captain licence. The PPC eligibility rules will be changed as well so anyone can do a PIC PPC i think.

the PICUS rules will likely change to allow people to use more time instead of renting

Wasn't it basically impossible to get PICUS already?

[digits_]

Like besides limiting supply would it actually lead to more knowledgeable ATPL holders after they write the exam?

Yes. Definitely. Quite a bit of knowledge on general turbine principles that in North America even barely get touched on during typerating courses. More in depth airline level performance calculations. Way more airlaw (although that falls in the category of 'study and forget'). More accurate and strict communication procedure content. More in depth aerodynamical knowledge.

If all that knowledge is really required, that's a completely different question. But even if it functions as a way to limit supply, it might be a more objective parameter to differentiate between applicants.

[Doggtown88]

My question is will companies like Air Canada hire people with restricted ATPL’s?

[Me262]

This and the state bringing in immigrant pilots is not a coincidence. This with having the airlines lobbying. Constant supply of captains now with FOs having to upgrade before flowing/getting hired by AC/WJ. Say bye bye to any captain salary increases from regionals, no need to attract captains. Immigrants/FOs forced to upgrade fixed the issue of low pay.

[scdriver]

My question is will companies like Air Canada hire people with restricted ATPL’s?

It would make sense to, you would already have all your ducks in a row for the sticker except the ride, which you would need to do anyway so it wouldn’t change much in reality. I know some airlines are looking for an exemption to at least be able to do captain line indoc with those who are waiting for their new sticker after an upgrade.

[piedpiper]

None of this will matter for most people.

It's not so different in the USA with the restricted ATPL. I have a feeling TC was trying to make it more similar to ICAO and the FAA, but maybe overstepped a bit by saying PIC ride. Any 705 ride should be all that is needed, that's how it is in the USA. Get hired by a 705, you have all your requirements and once you do your first PPC your ATPL gets released from restricted to full ATPL.

Where it may be an issue is for people who want to get their A's from flight instructing having never stepped foot in a level D simulator. In which case we may end up seeing similar courses like they have in the USA with the ATP-CTP.

[Panama Jack]

Folks, it’s really very simple: the Canadian ATP did not conform to ICAO Annex 1.

The purpose of an ATP is to certify that a pilot is competent to act as PIC of a multi‑crew airplane. Yet Canada was issuing ATPs that conferred PIC privileges in multi‑crew operations without the applicant ever having demonstrated the skills required to exercise those privileges.

For reference, here is the relevant section from Annex 1:

2.6.1.3 Skill

2.6.1.3.1
The applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of an aircraft within the appropriate category required to be operated with a co-pilot, the following procedures and manoeuvres:

a) pre-flight procedures, including the preparation of the operational flight plan and filing of the air traffic services flight plan;

b) normal flight procedures and manoeuvres during all phases of flight;

c) abnormal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres related to failures and malfunctions of equipment, such as engine, systems and airframe;

d) procedures for crew incapacitation and crew coordination, including allocation of pilot tasks, crew cooperation and use of checklists; and

e) in the case of aeroplanes and powered-lifts, procedures and manoeuvres for instrument flight described in 2.7.4.1 a) to d), including simulated engine failure.

2.6.1.3.1.1
In the case of an aeroplane, the applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform the procedures and manoeuvres described in 2.6.1.3.1 as pilot-in-command of a multi-engined aeroplane.

[Me262]

Folks, it’s really very simple: the Canadian ATP did not conform to ICAO Annex 1.

The purpose of an ATP is to certify that a pilot is competent to act as PIC of a multi‑crew airplane. Yet Canada was issuing ATPs that conferred PIC privileges in multi‑crew operations without the applicant ever having demonstrated the skills required to exercise those privileges.

For reference, here is the relevant section from Annex 1:

2.6.1.3 Skill

2.6.1.3.1
The applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of an aircraft within the appropriate category required to be operated with a co-pilot, the following procedures and manoeuvres:

a) pre-flight procedures, including the preparation of the operational flight plan and filing of the air traffic services flight plan;

b) normal flight procedures and manoeuvres during all phases of flight;

c) abnormal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres related to failures and malfunctions of equipment, such as engine, systems and airframe;

d) procedures for crew incapacitation and crew coordination, including allocation of pilot tasks, crew cooperation and use of checklists; and

e) in the case of aeroplanes and powered-lifts, procedures and manoeuvres for instrument flight described in 2.7.4.1 a) to d), including simulated engine failure.

2.6.1.3.1.1
In the case of an aeroplane, the applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform the procedures and manoeuvres described in 2.6.1.3.1 as pilot-in-command of a multi-engined aeroplane.

FAA, EASA, does not require a PIC PPC. Just a regular, FO PPC in a Level D SIM. The change was intentional for the immigrant pilot project and airlines lobbying. Mission successful.

[rudder]

Folks, it’s really very simple: the Canadian ATP did not conform to ICAO Annex 1.

The purpose of an ATP is to certify that a pilot is competent to act as PIC of a multi‑crew airplane. Yet Canada was issuing ATPs that conferred PIC privileges in multi‑crew operations without the applicant ever having demonstrated the skills required to exercise those privileges.

For reference, here is the relevant section from Annex 1:

2.6.1.3 Skill

2.6.1.3.1
The applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of an aircraft within the appropriate category required to be operated with a co-pilot, the following procedures and manoeuvres:

a) pre-flight procedures, including the preparation of the operational flight plan and filing of the air traffic services flight plan;

b) normal flight procedures and manoeuvres during all phases of flight;

c) abnormal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres related to failures and malfunctions of equipment, such as engine, systems and airframe;

d) procedures for crew incapacitation and crew coordination, including allocation of pilot tasks, crew cooperation and use of checklists; and

e) in the case of aeroplanes and powered-lifts, procedures and manoeuvres for instrument flight described in 2.7.4.1 a) to d), including simulated engine failure.

2.6.1.3.1.1
In the case of an aeroplane, the applicant shall have demonstrated the ability to perform the procedures and manoeuvres described in 2.6.1.3.1 as pilot-in-command of a multi-engined aeroplane.

ICAO standards are non-binding and never have been (for example - ICAO Age 65 restriction which Canada ignores).

[Information_Papa]

I don't understand the problem with just going in a sim. How is it a problem?

You want to upgrade? Sim session. Successful. Fill out this form. Submit to tc. You now qualify for atpl.

If you can do PICUS. Why can't you do PICUS PPC? you do your PPL CPL MULTI IFR as pic. And the law states for the purposes of a test an instructor can make you pic.

So what is the problem? What am I missing?

[Red_Comet]

Have we received clarification that it is indeed a PIC PPC that is required? I've heard from TC reps that it is any PPC in a 2-crew aircraft for unrestricted ATPL.

[propfeather]

So if you're an FO with a (now restricted ATPL), an upgrade ride on a two crew machine will give you the unrestricted ATPL? I don't understand why this is a problem? Or how it relates to immigrant pilots?

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to have a restricted ATPL and still be hired for a 704 captain job, as you'll have to do a two-crew PIC PPC regardless. The PPC gives you your sticker, no?

[IJNShiroyuki]

The part where it require a PIC PPC it the most confusing part. To excercise the privilige of a ATPL on a multicrew aircraft, you need a PIC PPC on type. It's not like there is unqualified pilot acting as PIC on multicrew airplane without a PIC PPC. So this requirement is entirely useless beside act as a roadblock for any FO who currently holds a 704 or 705 type rating.