Co-pilot time for ATPL

[Chuck Ellsworth]

New 250 hour instructors are taught to regurgitate the contents of the flight instructor course that TC demands they follow.

The most important learning factors that is not in the flight instructor guide is " The factor of fear "

Fear is how the drones in TC's flight training department maintains control over flight instructors and FTU OC holders.

[trey kule]

I dont see whats wrong with counting co-joe time as 1 for 1.

I will get to this in a moment as someone wanted to know how instructor time in a 150 is more valuable than dash 8 FO time.
To balance that question, let me pose one. I have personally witnessed pilots logging hundreds of hours in the right seat of a PC 12....and the right seat had no instruments! No briefings, no challenge- response check lists. Flown totally single pilot. The experience gained was on a lower level than a cpl riding in the back, as some of them actually believed they were like a duck.
So, choose your questions fairly. This is not a debate so no need to pose a question where you get the answer you want to hear. Dash8 FO experience is valuable. But it, in itself, does not deal with the specific command decision making and responsibilities. In some smaller operations, and aircraft, FO is nothing more than a log book entry and an attitude enhancer

Which brings me back to the quote. The varying standards of different operators make assessing FO time very difficult . I have seen a twin otter operator whose FOs should get 1.1. I have also seen a citation operator where the FOs were poorly trained, and nothing more valuable than a sandbag in the right seat.

The default up until now has been to allow credits to the lowest denominator, while those that got good training andFO time were far above the mean. Now we are swinging to the other end of the pendulum.
Those that have done nothing more than warm a right seat will now be at the same level.

The ATPL or whatever it is called today by the career crowd allows command. I know it is a bit hard for some of you starting out to understand, but instructors actually have command time. As to their sitting and not touching the controls....I flew nearly 60 hours last month...hand flew for a total of about 18 minutes...the airlines are not offering experience. They are hiring it...at least for future command positions

If TC is going to change the 2.1 rule, which I suspect has nothing to do with ICAO, and everything to do with airline pressure to hire career co- pilots then they are going to have to monitor two crew operations in small operators much more closely, if they don't, Canada will be, in a few years experiencing the type of accidents that were becoming common in places like India.

It is a bit of a shame. I was very proud when I got my Atpl. It meant something. Now it seems it is little more than a race to make log book entries to speed up the career.

Btw. I do recognize the changes in aircraft technology, and the fact the major Canadian airlines have a good supply of experienced FOs to move to the left seat, so the new generation of FOs will be many many years warming the right seat and acting as captain assistants.,the problems will surface when it is upgrade time. It is a bit sad that TC spends so much time promoting itself, and will not see this error in judgement for what it is until they are forced to by accident rate increases in the majors, insurance companies, and public outcry. And people are going to get hurt and die before that happens.

[shimmydampner]

Very well said.

[Meatservo]

Pretty much sums the argument up. I can condense it a little further. Physically handling the plane is about the easiest thing in the cockpit. It's OK to let the copilot do that most of the time when it's his turn. Most copilots think they are doing as much work as the captain, but they don't realise that the captain is calling all the plays. Some planes do very standardised kind of work, and after a while the copilot might have seen the captain make about 90% of the decisions he is ever going to make. Other kinds of plane do something different almost every day, especially the ones that don't need real runways, and the captain is using his decision-making faculties pretty much continuously. Some guys are good at filling the copilot in on what they're thinking, and other guys just tell the copilot what to do. In both cases from the copilot's perspective the decision making process looks easy, becase the captain is much more experienced than he is, and he's never had to do it himself. I don't know how many copilots have told me, after an upgrade to captain, that they had no idea how much work it really was all along, especially now that they have their very own little 200-hour wonder to babysit as well as having to make all the critical decisions themselves now. If you're wondering "whaddya mean, critical decisions.. come on." then you might not be qualified for that ATPL just yet!

[Ki-ll]

Too bad TC, ALPA and the others don't think that way...

[AirMail]

Some good points, but again don't mix PIC and TT. Perhaps its PIC time that should be increased? Additionally sure the requirements for the atpl should be higher, 2500TT perhaps? As that's about the min time airlines hire anyways. And let me add, not just for airlines but for other operators that require atpl to be in the left seat (dc3 etc etc) and again 2500 would be a min time for any left seat that I know of. I'm all for increasing the requirements but again make it equal for all.

Despite the many opinions here, probably no one here has any influence in writing the regs so you can relax.

and that's a good thing

[cpt.sam]

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.

So, when a fresh CPL goes out into the sky to make his own decisions, with no one to "advise" or " intervene" should stupidity prevail, that's more valuable PIC time?
My guess is that you left flight school and went into instructing or bush flying, so you see that as the "best" route. I guess there is no one person that can make the decision. However, I feel right seat on 12500 airplanes that REQUIRE 2 pilots, should definitely be counted as 100%.

[cpt.sam]

Believe me, taking a 152/172/Cherokee, etc., from, say Toronto to MIA and back, requires a Hell of a lot more thought, skill and decision making than riding "shotgun" in a B1900D/King Air/Metro, etc......don"t buy it? Try it!

The majority of people flying 152/175/Cherokee are not flying YYZ MIA. A lot are sitting as instructors not even touching the controls, flying the same few flights 1000s of times> Depart, head to the practice area, fly back. With the exception of a few who actually get relevant experience in light piston singles, the majority just are not prepared for a 705 machine once they have their ATPL.

The good thing is that a job will not just fall on their lap because they have their paper signed off. However, the pilots sitting right seat on a 704 waiting for an upgrade will benefit from this, have the experience required, and will be ready and accept this change gladly.


Getting the paper is just as meaningless for both, but one group will benefit and have the checkbox ticked off for transport so they can move ahead with their career.

+1
well said

[cpt.sam]

The other thing I read here is JEALOUSLY! You're all GREEN with envy that the guy who became an instructor when you didn't has an ATPL, and you don't. BooHoo!

Not the case at all. I could have stayed at my last job for a few extra months and had my ATPL but chose to move forward to a 704 which should be seen as relevant experience for the licence. Does not really matter to me as it is a difference of a few months but I think the regulations are backwards and they are changing for the better. It will help out the people who shouldn't be held back for their career choices and I am all for that.

PS. I have my class 4 (now expired), had the option to use it and turned it down. I don't 100% agree with the instructor route but I do like the additional training and wanted to see it for myself.

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically when I said jealous......the industry as a whole is suffering from the "green monster". Personally, I feel an instructor should have at least 3500-5000 hours, multi IFR rated, make at least 60K a year, and have been in the industry for a period of time BEFORE being allowed to instruct others. Right now, we have people learning to fly, teaching others all they don't know. Seriously, how can a guy with 250 hours teach student pilots? What does this instructor actually know? As a higher time pilot, I've had conversations with 250 hour pilots.......SPACE, the the finale frontier.....they know NOTHING.....and are willing to share it all.

OK Doc,
So, should the 250 tt fresh pilot that learned from a 250 tt instructor be let loose on the world to over indulge his / her lack of experience flying mail or pax to far away communities? Then brag, like you, that they have made their own decisions?
Or would it make more sense to have a fresh, "SPACE HEAD" sitting right seat learning from a hero like you, or some other qualified ATPL holder with serious experience and wisdom to bestow upon the young "SPACE HEAD"?
Wouldn't you rather that an experienced pilot actually beat some sense into a FO?

[Cat Driver]

Wouldn't you rather that an experienced pilot actually beat some sense into a FO?

You teach by beating sense into them?

[Doc]

OK Doc,
So, should the 250 tt fresh pilot that learned from a 250 tt instructor be let loose on the world to over indulge his / her lack of experience flying mail or pax to far away communities? Then brag, like you, that they have made their own decisions?
Or would it make more sense to have a fresh, "SPACE HEAD" sitting right seat learning from a hero like you, or some other qualified ATPL holder with serious experience and wisdom to bestow upon the young "SPACE HEAD"?
Wouldn't you rather that an experienced pilot actually beat some sense into a FO?

Wow. Who urinated in your corn flakes this fine morning? Why the personal attack on me? I'm voicing an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[cpt.sam]

No no Doc
Not aiming at you in a targeted fashion, just aiming to question back to you.
I value you're opinion, that is why I read these forums, to see what everyone else is seeing in our industry.
What I do not see is any unity at all on this topic.
Guys that instructed or went into the bush think that's the ONLY way you can be a REAL captain. Guys that were fortunate enough to avoid instruction / bush jobs think that spending those years in an airliner (large or small) is the ONLY way.
I think a combo would be best, but one shouldn't be set back by the 2:1 rule, which is the topic here.
I do agree, more PIC is naturally better, but a one size fits all mold is BS.
Someone flying a small twin on a sked run is almost certain to get better experience than someone instructing or sky dive dropping.
As well, I believe the guy that's operating a 12500 plane in all weather conditions from the right seat is going to get valuable FO experience, which is going to translate into good decisions from the left seat.
No, I don't think beating FOs is good, figure of speech!
I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking ppl.

[back_course]

This topic was just about infow on the new possible rulings coming out. So sad to see fellow pilots like this, going through their entitlements and putting one another down.

Crew is a team guys.

Please kill this now mods

[Cat Driver]

Please kill this now mods

Great idea.

All we need now is for someone to make up a new word that will kill all discussion when it suits them.

Lets see........ pilotphobic.....yeh that has a real social engineering sound to it.

Real Canadian.

[Krimson]

This topic was just about infow on the new possible rulings coming out. So sad to see fellow pilots like this, going through their entitlements and putting one another down.

Crew is a team guys.

Please kill this now mods

No one is putting down anyone else. Everyone is voicing their opinion on the issue, which is exactly what is supposed to happen after a proposed ruling appears in Part I of the Gazette. Reading something online without someone's tone of voice may make something come across like a personal attack, but as I recall, everyone who has been accused of personal attacks has clarified that was not their intent.

Every thread on avcanada probably has someone who wants to close it, but there is still a lot of great information on this site after you ignore half of what is said. I don't think anyone should be able to request closing a discussion (unless it gets completely out of hand).

I am very curious with these new changes coming up and hope it is for the best.

[Etihad]

Well, from what I can tell........... I did not see that proposed change pass as of yet .........

[schnitzel2k3]

Someone mentioned that the change will be reviewed and either passed or rejected today (24th).

If it wasn't reviewed today, when will it be looked at again. I'm very curious about this change. Looks like there are a couple other changes in there as well besides filling the logbook for the ATPL.

Thanks.

[cdnpilot77]

Not that it would be reviewed today. The gazette II comes out every 2 weeks on Wednesday's. If the issue has been resolved by parliament and is passed, in the previous 2 weeks, it will be printed. If the issue has not been resolved or hasn't even been reviewed it obviously will not be printed in the Gazette II. All you can do is watch to see if it appears in the bi-weekly gazette II.

[schnitzel2k3]

Thanks cdn. Much appreciated.

[cpt.sam]

Where could one find this gazette to read?

[Chaxterium]

Quick google search will do the job!

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/index-eng.html

Cheers,
Chax

[rac007]

Just got a letter back from my MP who talked to Transport. Transport Canada has responded, “Regarding the regulation changes, we anticipate that they will be published in Part II of the Gazette in the fall.”

[Mister1]

...

[Gear Jerker]

If the ultimate goal is to ensure a certain standard of decision making ability and knowledge/skill amongst ATPL holders, perhaps there ought to be more 'clauses' in the 1500TT in terms of experience requirements in various types of operations (702/703/704) and/or aircraft category and class.

With the existing requirements, as well as the proposed new requirements, there are pretty clear pros and cons in terms of the experience gained from instructing vs FO, as mentioned by others. I know of a few ex instructors who move on to their first "real" job as a direct entry captain only to be fired after line indoc as there is clearly a lack of sound decision making ability, although all the knowledge/theory in the world is locked and loaded, and they had decent hands and feet.

I have also known some complete dolts who could really fly and make excellent decisions, while just scraping by the exams.

This next part is very much my own opinion, and I hope to be challenged/questioned on it.

I believe that the attitude an individual possesses is a good predictor of what sort of a standard of knowledge, skill, and decision making ability they will possess by the time they have ATPL level of experience. The problem now is that somebody with the wrong attitude can get through instructing for 1500hrs and write the AA's and get their ATPL, or somebody with the wrong attitude can spend 3000hrs as an FO (let alone with the rule change only 1500) not making decisions, get the bare minimum PIC time, write the AA's and get their ATPL, even though in both cases they may be an accident waiting to happen, because of their attitude towards flying.

A possible scenario for a "typical" ATPL holder of a high standard might be something like flying a 185 or a 206 on floats or wheels in the bush, then King Air/Navajo FO, gaining some 2 crew and IFR experience, then becoming a captain on a King Air or Navajo, then and only then getting an ATPL. Somebody who can succeed in both environments is likely to be somebody who has the type of attitude and thus skill/knowledge/pdm to stay safe.

For instructors, there could be a clause about minimum 2 crew IFR experience required for an ATPL.

It would be a challenge to define a new set of fair and realistic requirements in terms of experience in certain operations and/or aircraft category and class, however I think that simply eliminating the current rule of FO time counting as half does not contribute to public safety, and it does not contribute to achieving a higher standard amongst ATPL holders.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think that simply eliminating the current rule of FO time counting as half does not contribute to public safety

Thanks for sharing, but you're arriving a little
late to the party. Do you actually intend to
change the contents of Gazette II? Are you
aware that the rest of the world does it this
way?

I might point out that there are plenty of people
with driver's licences, too, that can't drive a
car worth squat.

Any licence or rating just gets you through the
door. It is no guarantee of a complete package -
that's why companies have an interview process
with a sim, etc.