Co-pilot time for ATPL

[cdnpilot77]

sooo...instead of arguing about whether or not the requirements are good, can we get back to the original question? How about some updates on this progress?

See my post above

[shimmydampner]

Old man, you have also missed my point. This is one step closer to correcting this issue. I'm all for stricter ATPL requirements, but this is a start in the right direction. 500 hours in two-crew <12.5 would be a good next step.
...
To sit there and insult every pilot underneath you while saying no one is acting professional because a proposed change to the CARs is pretty ridiculous. How about you act a bit more professional and not just claim the new "kids" are spending their parent's money on licences and are so worthless. You sound like one of those grumpy captains who has a problem with everyone below/younger than him; one of those who I thoroughly dislike flying with.

No, I get your point- it's very simple, albeit, a contradiction. After all, you did just state that this very obvious lowering of requirements "is a start in the right direction" towards stricter ATPL requirements that you supposedly fully support.

Look, my point is very simple, especially if for one second you block from your mind the only form of PIC time you seem to be familiar with: Jonny Numnuts burning circuits in his 152. Forget about him for a second, as there are many other forms of PIC that are actually highly relevant to 705. My point is simply that the main privilege of the ATPL is that it allows a person to act as PlC of a 705 machine. This includes some pretty heavy tin full of large crowds of people. Now, if acting as PlC is the main privilege, shouldn't it stand to reason that a meaningful amount of command time be required? After all, effective command decision making certainly takes much longer to develop than it takes to memorize SOP's and recite checklists to another human being (which, by the way, can occur at the 703 or 704 level.) The thing is, even as it stands now, there is no direct requirement for a meaningful amount of PIC time, and of course, as you're fond of pointing out, none whatsoever for any really relevant PIC time. There is only the requirement for a very insignificant amount of PIC time and a still pretty insignificant, but higher, number of total hours. This part is a joke. However, if you can't or won't get from one to the other in the left seat, you gotta put in some overtime, possibly resulting in at least some meaningful amount of total time. Still ridiculous that you can get to the end goal with essentially no PIC time, but at least it ensures that there is a bit of experience required. This part is probably the best part of the current setup. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Disposing of it because it's what our pals do IS A JOKE but I do suppose it's in keeping with the rest of the ATPL process that way.

[North Shore]

Seems to me a bit of much ado about nothing, really. You could get the A either way (circuits or right seat), but no-one's going to hire you to be a 704/5 PIC without their judging that you have sufficient relevant experience - which, in practice, amounts to another 3-4 years of industry experience. That should be enough to level out any experience-based inequalities.

[Aeroplane17]

I'd like to have the GoPro ready when the guy from the 777 goes for a few circuits in the J3 with a few knots across the field!!

This happened in St.Thomas a few years ago. A Cathay Captain lands with his mint Fleet Canuck, ground loops it into the field twice on the landing / taxi (plane was fine) walks into the terminal like NBD chats a little while then blasts off again getting about 2-300 agl, the "wind" wings him over poking into a field 180 degrees to where he took off beside the runway a piece of Canadian history totaled. Good job bud.

[Doc]

An ATPL SHOULD require a type endorsement on an aircraft that actually requires an ATPL. Otherwise, it's just the joke it's always been! And, as pointed out, you can get the much undervalued ATPL with 1500 PIC in a 152, and 10 hours (or less) in an Apache! It's a JOKE, kids. Always has been.
BTW, I do believe we are the only country that has this 50% co-pilot rule?
Not opening the debate J3 command time vs., Boeing 777 co-pilot time....use your frikken heads Ottawa. Really!

It's not correct to speak in absolutes. There are more types of aeroplanes in the world than those represented by C-152s and J3s, Pc-12s and 777s.

For example, I'm looking for a skipper to fly my medium-sized cargo plane. Say it's a Basler DC3-T or a DH Caribou or something. All my copilots have zero command time, so I'm looking at resumes. Two guys are on my short list, both ATPLs. One has several thousand hours of PIC on Twin Otters, the other has 800 hours of instructing but he DOES have a recent PPC on a Dornier 228, which requires an ATPL. No-brainer, eh, Doc? Let's hire the Dornier kid, because the Twin Otter guy doesn't deserve HIS ATPL.

Well, it is a no-brainer. You hire the Twin Otter driver, as long as his exams are written, his PPC/check ride on your Basler instantly qualifies him for an ATPL. Done. He has PT6 time. Bonus for you because the DO228 has Garrets. As for the DH4, same story. The Twin Otter guy has the kind of flying you do in a 'boo. But, you sound bitter. Since I feel that an ATPL should require a type check in an aircraft requiring one, our Twin Otter guy would now get an ATPL.

[Doc]

I'd like to have the GoPro ready when the guy from the 777 goes for a few circuits in the J3 with a few knots across the field!!

Well now Iced Kiwi, if that really is your name, how are YOU in a J3 with a bit of a wind? Shall I grab my camera?

[Krimson]

No, I get your point- it's very simple, albeit, a contradiction. After all, you did just state that this very obvious lowering of requirements "is a start in the right direction" towards stricter ATPL requirements that you supposedly fully support.

Look, my point is very simple, especially if for one second you block from your mind the only form of PIC time you seem to be familiar with: Jonny Numnuts burning circuits in his 152. Forget about him for a second, as there are many other forms of PIC that are actually highly relevant to 705. My point is simply that the main privilege of the ATPL is that it allows a person to act as PlC of a 705 machine. This includes some pretty heavy tin full of large crowds of people. Now, if acting as PlC is the main privilege, shouldn't it stand to reason that a meaningful amount of command time be required? After all, effective command decision making certainly takes much longer to develop than it takes to memorize SOP's and recite checklists to another human being (which, by the way, can occur at the 703 or 704 level.) The thing is, even as it stands now, there is no direct requirement for a meaningful amount of PIC time, and of course, as you're fond of pointing out, none whatsoever for any really relevant PIC time. There is only the requirement for a very insignificant amount of PIC time and a still pretty insignificant, but higher, number of total hours. This part is a joke. However, if you can't or won't get from one to the other in the left seat, you gotta put in some overtime, possibly resulting in at least some meaningful amount of total time. Still ridiculous that you can get to the end goal with essentially no PIC time, but at least it ensures that there is a bit of experience required. This part is probably the best part of the current setup. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Disposing of it because it's what our pals do IS A JOKE but I do suppose it's in keeping with the rest of the ATPL process that way.

Yes it may seem contradicting, but looking at an end goal of stricter requirements, this is one part of it that had to be addressed, co-pilot time to count 1:1. The co-pilot time is not the time which needs to be restricted. The next thing to do would to raise PIC time to 500/1000, add two-crew aircraft time requirement, and we would be getting somewhere.

I use the 152 as a reference because I know of many pilots out there with enough PIC time for their As who got it on similar aircraft, instructing, surverys, cargo, etc.

In the end though, just because you have your ATPL does not mean you will be getting hired anywhere right away. It will still take the time and experience to get in and progress through a company. The only people this change will be helping are those waiting on total time because their time is currently halved sitting right seat on a 704 machine. As they are already ready, have the time on type, experience, etc, I don't see where the issue is. To think that staying at my previous job for an extra 3 months would make me more qualified for my current one is a joke.

As you mentioned before, there are guys and gals who can now quickly obtain an ATPL, buy a type rating and undercut everyone else. That is a different can of worms all together, one I do not wish to discuss. But I can assure you not everyone has bottomless pits of money from their parents.

[AirMail]

As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

You're right, it doesn't seem to make alot of sense. I guess the aim of the ATPL is logging time where you are "responsible" for all the decisions made. Therefore, FO in a Dash wouldn't be responsible for making decisions should something unexpected happen, versus PIC in a 152 they would be.

Not to pick on ya, but this stood out as well as others on here are comparing apples to oranges. This is about TT not PIC time, there's a column for that.

There are many avenues inwhich we all can progress in our careers, some instruct, others bush, or medevac/charter and so on. Some get right into a right seat of a king air or such, they fly every other leg usually, have some decisions to make (under supervision if you will) of the captain. So how is it that given the same amount of time in the plane, and time at the controls constitute for 50%? Yes he/she isn't in the capt seat, but again that's PIC, different story, and there's a requirement for that amount of time too.

I think it's a good change, there are some co pilots I know at 704/705 that are sitting at over the 1500 TT hrs that are great pilots but hampered because of their career path. Others I've known or had the misfortune to fly with some how easily gotten theirs at 1500 when I swear they parker' penned it all.

In any event, everyone will get their ATPL if qualified, but why single out and penalize a certain group who chose a different time building path.

[Chaxterium]

In any event, everyone will get their ATPL if qualified, but why single out and penalize a certain group who chose a different time building path.

Not just that. But the group who's being penalized is the group who chose to fly as an AIRLINE FO. Would it not seem that the quickest path to an Airline Transport Pilot Licence should be to actually work as an Airline pilot? This is what I don't get. And you're point about there being a separate column for PIC time is absolutely correct as well. When I have this discussion this is always the argument I'm presented with. "FO's aren't making the decisions." Yes that's true. But that's exactly why there is a PIC requirement for the ATPL. I think the majority of pilots will agree that 250 hours is laughably low but that's a separate discussion. Once the 250 is met and an applicant is simply waiting for his or her total time to come up enough to get the ATPL, working as an airline pilot should not be a hindrance to a licence specifically for airline pilots.

[Colonel Sanders]

Soon to be ancient history, Chax, that you can
tell your grandkids about

Attack me if you want to, but I think an ATPL
(like a bare PPL, CPL or MIFR) is a licence to
learn.

No one sits in the left seat of a Boeing or Airbus
with 1500TT. Nor should they.

But by the time someone has 5000TT, they've
been around the block a few times and they're
as ready as they ever will be.

[Chaxterium]

Soon to be ancient history, Chax, that you can
tell your grandkids about

Attack me if you want to, but I think an ATPL
(like a bare PPL, CPL or MIFR) is a licence to
learn.

No one sits in the left seat of a Boeing or Airbus
with 1500TT. Nor should they.

But by the time someone has 5000TT, they've
been around the block a few times and they're
as ready as they ever will be.

Hey Col.,

Yeah I can agree with that. I only take issue with the FO rule because it seems asinine to me to punish airline pilots in that way. Hopefully it will be published in the Gazette II in the next week or so and we'll be done with it shortly thereafter. Fortunately it's no longer an issue for me personally as I finally received my ATPL a few months ago but I still feel for those in the position I was in for a long time.

Cheers,
Chax

[Doc]

And Doc, my first time in a Cub / taildragger was fairly entertaining, that's one of my biggest annual expenses keeping those photos under cover!!

Never flown a J3, but I used to be able to make a Citrabria dance my tune in a pretty good breeze. Love to get my paws on one again. Been too long!

[xsbank]

My only tail-dragger time was on a DC3, the one with the bladder brakes. That was entertaining too.

I had plenty of time for my ATPL but I had to rent block time on a 172 and fly Williams Lake - Quesnel - Prince George - Quesnel - Williams Lake every good-weather night for months to get enough night time. What a total waste of money, brought to you by the outfit that considered introducing a carbon tax!

I totally agree with The Colonel; just like a degree, its just a license to get you in the door so you can learn.

[Doc]

My only tail-dragger time was on a DC3, the one with the bladder brakes. That was entertaining too.

I had plenty of time for my ATPL but I had to rent block time on a 172 and fly Williams Lake - Quesnel - Prince George - Quesnel - Williams Lake every good-weather night for months to get enough night time. What a total waste of money, brought to you by the outfit that considered introducing a carbon tax!

I totally agree with The Colonel; just like a degree, its just a license to get you in the door so you can learn.

Should have done your DC3 time hauling auto parts at night!!

[shimmydampner]

.... to punish airline pilots in that way

....the group who's being penalized is the group who chose to fly as an AIRLINE FO.

....why single out and penalize a certain group who chose a different time building path.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's climb down off the cross there fellas. No one is being singled out, penalized, or punished in any way. It's not as though the requirements are a big secret. You should have been aware of them. If you didn't bother to pay heed to them, it's your own damn fault. It merely proves my point about some pilots' short-sightedness and overwhelming anxiousness to trip all over themselves in their rush to a 705 cockpit, knowingly to their own detriment.
The would-be ATPL martyrs deserve no sympathy.

[Ki-ll]

some pilots' short-sightedness and overwhelming anxiousness to trip all over themselves in their rush to a 705 cockpit

Great way to sum up the topic. It should be 4 for 1, not 2 for 1.

[AirMail]

.... to punish airline pilots in that way

....the group who's being penalized is the group who chose to fly as an AIRLINE FO.

....why single out and penalize a certain group who chose a different time building path.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's climb down off the cross there fellas. No one is being singled out, penalized, or punished in any way. It's not as though the requirements are a big secret. You should have been aware of them. If you didn't bother to pay heed to them, it's your own damn fault. It merely proves my point about some pilots' short-sightedness and overwhelming anxiousness to trip all over themselves in their rush to a 705 cockpit, knowingly to their own detriment.
The would-be ATPL martyrs deserve no sympathy.

On no cross here. But yes you are right but you also single out those who again choose a different path. Should it not be equal for all.... this is the age of equality no?

some pilots' short-sightedness and overwhelming anxiousness to trip all over themselves in their rush to a 705 cockpit

Great way to sum up the topic. It should be 4 for 1, not 2 for 1.

If you'd like. But while we're at it, lets also make it for ATPL requirements to have 2 crew xp and over 12,500. So no sympathy can be equally spread to those instructors and most bush guys....

I really don't see why some of you guys have your backs up against this! It makes it equal, makes it inline with ICAO, helps out a fellow pilots... opps just answered the question, as most of you wads don't like helping fellow pilots.... backstabbers

[cpt.sam]

As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

You're right, it doesn't seem to make alot of sense. I guess the aim of the ATPL is logging time where you are "responsible" for all the decisions made. Therefore, FO in a Dash wouldn't be responsible for making decisions should something unexpected happen, versus PIC in a 152 they would be.

So... Flying in all weather ops under the guidance of a more experienced pilot who can teach you better practices, is second class to buzzing around in a fair weather 152?
I know SIC isn't PIC. But a pilot with 1500 hrs in the right seat of a transport machine is 10 times the decision maker than the pilot that poked around in a 152. It goes without saying.
I think it should be flipped around. FOs on 12 500 + birds should require 1500 hrs on such birds. Whilst the 152 captains should require 3000 hrs.
Just my 2 cents!

[Ki-ll]

If you'd like. But while we're at it, lets also make it for ATPL requirements to have 2 crew xp and over 12,500. So no sympathy can be equally spread to those instructors and most bush guys....

Let's do it. I am all for increasing the standards and improving the quality of personnel. As it stands right now ATPL means nothing, just a hoop 2 to 3 years after your CPL. With reduced requirements it is even more of a joke.

I really don't see why some of you guys have your backs up against this! It makes it equal, makes it inline with ICAO, helps out a fellow pilots... opps just answered the question, as most of you wads don't like helping fellow pilots.... backstabbers

I will try to explain. This new rule decreases the value of an ATPL even more. It does make it equal, everyone will have a worthless piece of paper on their hands. We can see that this had already happened to a bachelor's degree, it means nothing these days since they give them out like candy. I fail to see how this helps my fellow pilots to become better. It does help them get a useless (because of this new rule) piece of paper faster.

[shimmydampner]

But while we're at it, lets also make it for ATPL requirements to have 2 crew xp and over 12,500

A requirement for two crew experience makes sense. Over 12500 not so much; after all, a 200 skipper should hopefully be able to command a 1900.

I really don't see why some of you guys have your backs up against this! It makes it equal, makes it inline with ICAO, helps out a fellow pilots... opps just answered the question, as most of you wads don't like helping fellow pilots.... backstabbers

Despite the many opinions here, probably no one here has any influence in writing the regs so you can relax. Also, the regs don't exist to help you out or make your career progress faster.

I know SIC isn't PIC. But a pilot with 1500 hrs in the right seat of a transport machine is 10 times the decision maker than the pilot that poked around in a 152. It goes without saying.
I think it should be flipped around. FOs on 12 500 + birds should require 1500 hrs on such birds. Whilst the 152 captains should require 3000 hrs.
Just my 2 cents!

Personally, I think decision making is developed more by the type of flying being done than the all up weight of the aircraft being flown. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the aircraft MTOW is largely irrelevant. Certainly, there are single engine Cessna pilots out there doing difficult work and making difficult decisions that many SOP-indoctrinated FO's couldn't even fathom.