The license is a barrier, something TC wants you to do that really has very little to do with your competence. Get it done the cheapest/fastest/most expedient way you can find and then get on with your career! Sheesh.
I have (technically) 4 ATPLs: TC and FAA are real, Bermuda and the Isle of Man are ersatz. All they do is let me cross off one small box on a very large piece (or more accurately, a pile) of paper. They are no different than an RVSM course or a CRM course - just a box to tick. Get over it and get on with it.
Hey, I guess that gives me the biggest dick? Yay!
Did I say "sheesh" already?
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
bush_rat wrote:
Thats the simplest question yet on this forum - YOU WAIT YOUR TURN . Alternatively you quit you job, find a new one at a company which has no collective agreement and hires direct entree Captains. Be happy you've made the Majors and enjoy your career.
Cheers
okay okay...
don't you read between the lines or do you just look at the tree hiding the forest ?
I'll elaborate for you since you don't seem to be able to think further than what you read : running after pic time can seem a bit vain if you just have to WAIT YOUR TURN to access a left seat once in a major. upgrade to captaincy should be based on experience and not on seniority, which in itself denies all the aforementionned in this thread about Pic time vs. experience.
clear enough ?
Maybe the original poster should have gotten a multi-crew pilot's licence instead of a CPL. Problem solved for those who don't want to instruct/fly floats/rent/get PIC-under supervision time.
bush_rat wrote:
Thats the simplest question yet on this forum - YOU WAIT YOUR TURN . Alternatively you quit you job, find a new one at a company which has no collective agreement and hires direct entree Captains. Be happy you've made the Majors and enjoy your career.
Cheers
okay okay...
don't you read between the lines or do you just look at the tree hiding the forest ?
I'll elaborate for you since you don't seem to be able to think further than what you read : running after pic time can seem a bit vain if you just have to WAIT YOUR TURN to access a left seat once in a major. upgrade to captaincy should be based on experience and not on seniority, which in itself denies all the aforementionned in this thread about Pic time vs. experience.
If you don't have the pic, you wont get hired by the airlines. At least in Canada. As XSbank said, get the license, move on!
Hate to be a follower... but I agree with people here - not much sympathy for the original post.
PIC time really isn't that hard to get. I'm only at 555 hours, 335 is PIC, of which 160 is mifr pic in a Navajo. And zero of that was instructor PIC time (never bothered with the instructor rating).
I'd argue that my flying single pilot IFR into everything from small uncontrolled airports to larger airports (YYZ, YUL) regularly gives me better experience than someone with 5x my hours but who's sat right seat almost their entire career. Ok - maybe that last was a bit of an ego trip but it is what it is.
PunkStarStudios wrote:
I'd argue that my flying single pilot IFR into everything from small uncontrolled airports to larger airports (YYZ, YUL) regularly gives me better experience than someone with 5x my hours but who's sat right seat almost their entire career. Ok - maybe that last was a bit of an ego trip but it is what it is.
One could argue that you don't have the CRM experience involved in operating a larger 705 category aircraft yet you do have the hours to get the min PIC required to get an ATPL. Again, as stated, we SHOULD increase the hours required but look at the type of hours flown and have different minimums for each category.
ei: You can have all the single pilot multi PIC time but you also should have some f/o time involved in a 705 category aircraft if looking to acquire an ATPL.
Hillarious Thread.. but to play the devils advocate:
As important as PIC is I believe all experience is valuable. So
Is flying as a "captain" on a 152 doing cross countrys between calgary and lethbridge at night in VMC with a student more valuable than:
Being a First on a 737, operating every second leg, learning how to deal with the crew, operations, weather from a very experienced Skipper. As anyone in the airlines know, most of the job (and especially the safety aspects) are the things listed above. Knowing how to reference the numbers to see that you can't land a 150 tonne aircraft on a 7000 ft rwy at .15 crfi... knowing its okay to operate into freezing rain because the leading edges can shed it.. knowing how to support your flight attendants when they have a serious situation in the back. Most Importantly, how to discuss all these issues with the guy flying beside you so you get the big picture.
These are all things that a 152 pilot/ instructor knows absolutely nothing about.. yet TC requirements have a single size fits all requirement that doesn't make sense. Just because all of you had to jump through government regulations to get their A's doesn't mean this dude has to. Why not make regs that make sense..?
The 152 gets valuable experience in other aspects that have been beaten over and over again on this rediculously long post so no sense in going over those again.. point is all experience is valuable and I'd rather see a captain that was new to being a captain but had 5000 hours of related experience than a dude with 5000 pic but no related experience.
Anyway I've wrote enough for several months so time for a beer..
one8tee wrote:
Being a First on a 737, operating every second leg, learning how to deal with the crew, operations, weather from a very experienced Skipper. As anyone in the airlines know, most of the job (and especially the safety aspects) are the things listed above. Knowing how to reference the numbers to see that you can't land a 150 tonne aircraft on a 7000 ft rwy at .15 crfi... knowing its okay to operate into freezing rain because the leading edges can shed it.. knowing how to support your flight attendants when they have a serious situation in the back. Most Importantly, how to discuss all these issues with the guy flying beside you so you get the big picture.
These are all things that a 152 pilot/ instructor knows absolutely nothing about.. yet TC requirements have a single size fits all requirement that doesn't make sense. Just because all of you had to jump through government regulations to get their A's doesn't mean this dude has to. Why not make regs that make sense..?
So... if I'm reading this right, you have to have been an F/O on a 737 to have enough experience to be an F/O on a 737?
My point was having extensive captain time is only one piece of the puzzle.. there are equally valuable but different experiences out there.
Some of the worst captains I have flown with over my career were instructors or had extensive single pilot experience before the airlines..having said that I have also flown with many guys who I really looked up to that did have extensive single pilot experience.
It really comes down to the person.
Maybe for a change instead of jumping all over this dude and telling him how he's an idiot and how hard his life is we should support him? I'm pretty sure 98% of us would agree that most of TC's rules are a bit rediculous and make no "real world" sense.
one8tee wrote:Being a First on a 737, operating every second leg, learning how to deal with the crew, operations, weather from a very experienced Skipper. As anyone in the airlines know, most of the job (and especially the safety aspects) are the things listed above. Knowing how to reference the numbers to see that you can't land a 150 tonne aircraft on a 7000 ft rwy at .15 crfi... knowing its okay to operate into freezing rain because the leading edges can shed it.. knowing how to support your flight attendants when they have a serious situation in the back. Most Importantly, how to discuss all these issues with the guy flying beside you so you get the big picture.
These are all things that a 152 pilot/ instructor knows absolutely nothing about.. yet TC requirements have a single size fits all requirement that doesn't make sense. Just because all of you had to jump through government regulations to get their A's doesn't mean this dude has to. Why not make regs that make sense..?
So apparently an instructor doesn't know that you can't land a 150 tonne aircraft on a 7000ft runway with a CRFI of .15? I can tell you that without having to look at any charts! .15 is a skating rink! Okay to operate in FZRA? Well, that depends on the aircraft, so, I don't see how 737 time is going to help that. If you try and fly through freezing rain in a 152, you're going to ice up. Heck, some anti/de-icing equipped aircraft wouldn't be able to handle freezing rain. It's called knowing what you and your aircraft can or cannot do. And would you say that a 727 captain who flys cargo is not qualified to have their A's because he or she has only flown cargo and doesn't know how to deal with flight attendants?
I do think that a pilot should be well rounded. Which includes PIC time. Perhaps they should increase the PIC time, and add multi-crew time to the AA requirements.
one8tee wrote:how about if you want to call it the airline transport license you need to be certified on a "airline transport" certified airplane?
and to answer your question.. no most instructors would have no practicle knowledge of the CRFI.. and I was clearly using the 737 as an example.
Umm, okay. I guess I don't fit into the "most instructors" category. I don't think that being rated on an airline transport aircraft should be a pre-requisite for an ATPL as you should hold that license before you can fly them (IMO). Just like you have to hold a CPL before you can fly for hire. I believe that more PIC time should be on the requirements, as should there be Multi-crew time required. Do I think that I should be able to hold an ATPL if all I have done is instruct? No. Do I think that someone who has only flown SPIFR only should be able hold an ATPL? No. Do I think that someone who has flown as FO only since getting a CPL should be able to hold an ATPL? No. I think that someone who is going for an ATPL should have some experience at calling the shots, as well as experience working in a multi-crew environment. One can't replace the other.
hairdo wrote:
So apparently an instructor doesn't know that you can't land a 150 tonne aircraft on a 7000ft runway with a CRFI of .15? I can tell you that without having to look at any charts! .15 is a skating rink! Okay to operate in FZRA? Well, that depends on the aircraft, so, I don't see how 737 time is going to help that. If you try and fly through freezing rain in a 152, you're going to ice up. Heck, some anti/de-icing equipped aircraft wouldn't be able to handle freezing rain. It's called knowing what you and your aircraft can or cannot do. And would you say that a 727 captain who flys cargo is not qualified to have their A's because he or she has only flown cargo and doesn't know how to deal with flight attendants?
I do think that a pilot should be well rounded. Which includes PIC time. Perhaps they should increase the PIC time, and add multi-crew time to the AA requirements.
Although you are on the right track. Flying for a 705 operation invloves a lot more than just looking at an RFI chart, hence the reason why I agree with some posts above regarding the hour requirements to be looked at.
To hold an ATPL you should have as a minimum the following:
Pass exams relavent to flying transport catagory aircraft anywhere in Canada
1500 hrs TT
500 hrs PIC
500 hrs as FO in a 705 aircraft
Pass a dedicated ATPL ride
How would being an effo help out at all being single pilot in a citation, or metro, or 1900?
Our Navajo requires an ATP certificate to fly because it may carry 10 pax (FAA part 135. I know we're talking about TC), being an FO in a 705 wouldn't apply. I'm splitting hairs with that one, but I think TC has it right somewhat as it is, other than to increase the PIC requirements.
---------- ADS -----------
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
That's one thing that always puzzled me about the ATPL was that you can get all of the relevant experience doing flight instruction. Two of my instructors were ATPLs and I was 'ohh aahhh, what jets or turboprops have you flown?' not knowing that you don't need any of these to do that.
I've almost qualified for my ATPL just banging around single engine planes VFR for the most part.
But I agree that my experience hasn't prepared me for flying a jet or even a turboprop.
I like BPF's suggestion of required times (I actually thought it was 500 PIC originally) but I would say 500 hours not necessarily in 705, but in SOP'd IFR, multi crew, multi engine environments.
There seems to be a bit of confusion about the experience gained in PIC. PIC time develops your decision making ability, helps you learn the limits of your capabilities and expand them.
It does not teach you fly any particular type of plane. It should hopefully let you understand that all planes fly differently.
To step up to any type of plane then is a check on type. And FO experience at that time can be a big aid.But it does not help in those characteristics noted in the first paragraph. I am a little puzzled by the argument some people seem to make by inferring that someone with a ATPL will hop directly in the left seat of a heavy.. Doesnt happen
In general, I am in agreement that the ATPL PIC requirements should be increased but little else changed, although there is a part of me that would like to see a PPC on a two crew aircraft as a requirement. It is already in some countries. And I mean one required by TC to be flown two crew, not one subject to a particualr operator's SOPs. I suspect some smart person is going to ask then how do you get an ATPL to fly the plane if you dont already have one. You take the training, Do the ride. And then apply for the license. When it arrives you are ready to go. Temporary license might solve the interim issue. That is you could apply for the ATPL and have it approved subject to a two crew mandated PPC ride.
The instructor issue will always be open to debate as there is such a broad range of instructor experience. Same with bush operations. I know bush pilots with thousands of hours that seldom go more than a 100 miles from their home base. The solution, of course , is to require sufficeint PIC time to insure that no matter which way you time was gained you had enough exposure to absorb the lessons needed.
In any event. 250 hrs is not really enough time to hone the decision making and command skills. Hopefully TC will eventually come to that conclusion and revise the PIC requirements upwards.
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Maybe the 250hrs is too little. And that 1000 hrs PIC should be a requirement.
Lets start everyone off flying Cessna's then King Air's etc...
5 years working towards that then you would have earned the right to carry 50 people down to minimums in a Dash.
Don't the 50 people in the back deserve qualified pilots?
In general, I am in agreement that the ATPL PIC requirements should be increased but little else changed, although there is a part of me that would like to see a PPC on a two crew aircraft as a requirement. It is already in some countries. And I mean one required by TC to be flown two crew, not one subject to a particualr operator's SOPs. I suspect some smart person is going to ask then how do you get an ATPL to fly the plane if you dont already have one. You take the training, Do the ride. And then apply for the license. When it arrives you are ready to go. Temporary license might solve the interim issue. That is you could apply for the ATPL and have it approved subject to a two crew mandated PPC ride.
that would be the proper frozen ATPL, and having succeeded written exams could be mandatory for the PPC ride to validate your ATPL.
then requirements for an ATPL could be exam written and succeed a PPC check on a heavier > 12500lbs aircraft, regardless of OC. {because of 604/704)
anyway don't know why I wrotte this as nothing will change
I will agree PIC is unvaluable. However "decision making' skills can be learned anywhere.. not just flying. Some people are just better at making decisions then others. PIC time past 500 hours of instruction IMO does very little. In fact pilots get used to the routine of circuits, practice area or cross country (that they've probably done before) and therefore can have a hard time relating to the real world of Airline ops. Just as an airline pilot would have a hard time going back to instructing right away.. you have to know how to play the game.
One idea may be 3 different Transport Pilot License: Bush/ Floats, Airline (including IFR charter), Instructing. Any each one would only be valid for that type of flying. Somewhat similar to how a chemical engineer can't just hop into Civil Engineering or a Lung Doctor can't show up and decide he'd like to be the Brain surgeon at a new hospital.
I find it funny that instructors think they should be allowed to easily get a ATPL but if asked if those with an ATPL should automatically get a class 4 Instructors Rating they look at you like you're crazy. Point is all experience is relative to what that experience was gained doing.
