Time to change the Co Pilot ATPL requirement!!!!!!!

[planedriver]

Copilot time only counting for .5 of every hour flown is a total crock of s*%t !!!!!!!!!

A 200hr instructor who can fly donuts on a sunny day in a 150 and log it as PIC time is one thing, but guys that are flying right seat in Waterbombers , Twin Otters, Kingairs and 4 engine Heavy Piston / Turbine machines need double the amount of time to get there ATPL's signed off. What the F$%K????

Can someone explain to me how 1500hrs in a 172 down south can be compareable to 3000hrs of learning how to land on eskers, bomb fires, land 12-70'000lbs planes on 3500ft on ice, and fly years round through bad Wx and sub zero temps and deal with actual emergencies.

It's time to change this moronic rule that some TC clerk wrote in.

[backon3]

Couldn't agree more!!! Sitting in the right seat of a 172 or like and never touching the controls should not count for more than in the right seat of a "working" airplane in the north. If TC requires that it be two crew to operate it should count 1 for 1. Not like right seat in a PC-12 or Caravan, but it should apply with ATR-42, DC-4, 215! Just cause' it is required in the AOC or for insurance doesn't mean you "need" to be there. ie, 2nd pilot on a half pilot machine. At least add a heavy category to the ATPL requirements.

[bizjet_mania]

I agree with you guys completely, but I think why its the way it is, is an instructor being the PIC assumes a responsibility that of a captain. an FO is not given as much responsibility as the Captain is. Noone is saying an instructor is doing more work than an FO of a turbprop but I think it all comes down to PIC and responsiblity. But I do agree that the way it is right now is kind of retarded.

[Cat Driver]

I agree 100%, if you are flying in a two pilot crew and in a commercial operation the first officer time should be counted by the number of hours flown not half the time.

Cat

[sky's the limit]

Ok, gotta wade in on this one.

I agree, co-pilot time should be changed. 3000hr co-jo's should NOT be given ATPL's. There are VERY few twin-otter co-pilots wandering around this country, learning the things you mentioned. Most are Calgary(or insert major city of your choice) bound career f/o's who know very liitle about flying other than repeating the same clearance every day and grabbing a hotel room for 7 hours. CMA, Caribou, Sunwest, Alta, Georgian, Perimeter etc etc.

The 172 intructor should NOT be given an ATPL either. This licence should be an indication of EXPERIENCE gained, not hours spent watching someone else fly, or make decisions.

Pilot-in-COMMAND time is very important, we seem to be loosing sight of this fact.

Spending 3000hrs in the right seat of a B1900 on the same routes does not give a pilot a well rounded set of skills or a broad experience range. The standard of our license is appalling, go get some instructing/right seat time, write two exams that have almost nothing to do with real flying, and BOOM you're leagally allowed to Capt a Heavy Turbine. I call Bull$hit. The whole system should be revised to train the ATPL pilot to a much higher standard than we currently do.

As for the Twin-Otter, Esker landing co-jo - go get yourself 500hrs in 185, Beaver, 206 or the like where you're on your own in the $shit, solving the problems of the day by yourself, THEN you're qualified to be a Capt. on a large a/c. It's called experience for a reason, seems to me nobody wants to work for it these days, and if they do, they aren't given the chance.

What I'm saying is lets improve the standard instead of watering it down further.

[Airtids]

Sky'sthelimit has it right. Neither a 1500hr Instructor NOR a 3000 hr F/O has scared the $hit outta themselves enough to be trusted to make the correct 'Command' decision in a two-crew environment. Maybe we should count all SPIFR time as double??!!

[PPP]

I feel and think that the ATPL requirements need to be changed totally. The PIC time that they are asking should be made PIC multi time. Also I think you need to be or have been with a company that is a 703,704,705. This will stop pilots mainly form getting them because they have not flown in a commercial operation. Thus Putting the meaning back into the ATPL.

[RB-211]

ATPL requirements should be based on multi crew time (say 500) on a multi crew aircraft. These are aircraft that require TWO pilots at all times including ferry flights, test flights and VFR operations. This does not include Otters, King Air's, Metro's or 1900's. DASH 8, 737, 320 and up etc would be the types. This ends the FO vs FI debate all together.

[LostinRotation]

Ok lets look at it this way....an instructor puts his ass on the line everytime he goes up with a student that still has no idea how to fly the A/C. You sit there and if you screw up, it's the captains ass if he doesn't bail you out. The instructor may not have his hands on the controls 100% of the time, but when he does, it's not flying straight and level. I'll trade places any day with the POOR POOR guy who sits right seat of a King Air logging multi turbine time, who reads clearances and flies straight and level for 4 hours. While I'm doing that he can teach my student with 10 hours how to land, who for some reason just can understand when landings go to shit because they can't co-ordinate rudder and aileron and land on a 50 foot wide runway...now start teaching on floats and see how you feel when a student has his head up his ass and dips a wing tip. If you think instructing is easy and you got it so hard, why not look at a job change...I'll gladly fill your position when you leave. I know a few people might look at this post with their head sideways, but it must be nice to sit on your high horse now that you have 2000 hrs and some good multi time. If you don't remember what it was like teaching or sitting on a dock for two years maybe you can lend a few of us a couple grand so we too can buy a PPC.

-=0=LIR=0=-

[Over the Horn]

I have to agree with "sky's the limit" on this one Co Jo time or instructor time just isn't the same as real world Pic time.

[LostinRotation]

Sky'sthelimit has it right. Neither a 1500hr Instructor NOR a 3000 hr F/O has scared the $hit outta themselves enough to be trusted to make the correct 'Command' decision in a two-crew environment.

The last time I checked Captain jobs on a 350 weren't being handed to any instructors I know, not saying they should either....

So I have to do something stupid and scare myself in order to make a good descision later ?!?
Chances are if you can make a stupid descision in a one crew environment you'll do it in a two crew.
" Command " descisions come from the PIC...which is the Captain, not the F/O, which is exactly why you only log 0.5 per hour.

-=0=LIR=0=-

[Rubberbiscuit]

I find that the industry polices itself, therefore there is no chance of a pilot getting PIC on a large aircraft simply by holding an ATPL. On the other hand it is certainly an asset to pick up some PIC experience somewhere along the road. To say you have to get that time I do not agree with. There are many countries arounf the planet with little or no general aviation where guys/girls go straigt into the right seat of a Dash 8, then move to the main carrier and their first Captain job is on a large jet. It works where it has to!

[Airtids]

LostinRotation- I understand where you're coming from, having a strong instructing background myself. I was lucky in that every FTU I worked at (with the exception of the college ) were also 702/703 operations, multi IFR, and single pilot to boot. The majority of the folks who say that a FI time is not worth as much as FO time have never been instructors, and this is where comments that piss instructors off like 'doing donuts in a 172' come from- sheer ignorance about what the job really entails. You've done a good job of painting a realistic picture of your point of view, and I'd be willing to throw in that if they changed jobs with you, they could even keep their salary and you'd be happy to do their job for a meager instructor salary! However, comments like 'Warming the seat, straight and level' are the same, only from your perspective. I'm sure that your intention was merely to show the ignorance of the comments. Right!?.

As stated above, I believe that FI and FO time should count the same towards ATPL, but neither should count as much as the time acquired by flying operationally (CAS) as PIC, regardless of the aircraft type. You are absolutely correct that FI are the Captain, and take ultimate responsibility, which is part of what the ATPL is about. The thing about scaring yourself was merely to highlight a level of inexperience. There is nothing like that feeling to force oneself to doing everything possible to never get into that same position again; ie. MAKE GOOD COMMAND DECISIONS. I'm not saying that is the only way to learn, just a very effective one, and unfortunately, a very common one when inexperienced pilots are forced to make all the decisions without ever having been exposed to all the possibilities. Additionally, you can scare the crap out of yourself without having done anything stupid. I don't know of anyone, instructors included, who consider themselves as experienced and would say they've never scared themselves in an airplane. Flight training is a VERY structured environment- approved cross country routes, designated local practice areas, familiar airports etc. There is less opportunity to see all the aviation pitfalls that await the Captain of a two-crew machine. The instructor doesn't get the chance to see the pitfalls, and the FO isn't the one responsible for doing the right thing when they do get a chance to see the pitfalls. They each have their shortcomings which preclude either of them from counting as 'the Full Deal' in my mind.

Have you heard the one about starting your aviation career with a full bag of luck and an empty bag of experience? The goal is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck. Good luck.

[LostinRotation]

However, comments like 'Warming the seat, straight and level' are the same, only from your perspective. I'm sure that your intention was merely to show the ignorance of the comments. Right!?.

Indeed

And yes, he could keep his salary....also you make a good number of points.

I think the first time I scared the beejebus out of myself was putting a glider into a spin " to lose some altitude " at 6000 ft

I had to open the canopy and lean forward to help get the nose down enough to recover after something like 10 rotations.... I didn't fly for 3 days straight after that.

-=0=LIR=0=-

[TTail]

Not sure about other Countries but in the US, 1500hrs is 1500hrs, ie right seat time in a multi-crew aircraft counts towards the ATP.

[punk]

I agree that some changes need to be made...as someone said we do police ourselves...but my biggest beef is why time as a Second Officer on a 3 crew a/c ie...B727 does not count at all....it's BS...all the S/O's out there are working their asses off...working the systems, running the checklist & making sure the two up front are doing their jobs...this is an eye opening experience for any pilot & it's a shame it's not recognized.

[Flaperons]

I'm a little confused by Sky's the Limit's post. Who, exactly, is hiring 1500-hr brand-new ATP-certificated pilots into left seat on heavy transports? Do you know something nobody else does? Just because the license legally enables you to fly left seat on a 777 doesn't mean you'll get the job, even on the right side.

Europe has much higher standards for the ATP. And yet, pilots go left seat much earlier than in Canada. How does this make you feel?

In fact, Canada seems to be the toughest place in the world to get that heavy time. So theoretically, the 3000-hr Twotter co-jo is MORE experienced than many of the right-seaters in heavy metal around the world.

Hmmm...

Sounds like another old-timer massaging himself again.

[jimmyjazz]

Airtids and skys the limit have it right, I know when you are in those positions it doesn't seem so but after you do a bunch of single pilot pic you start to change your mind. Especially after you train the new guy and you start thinking wow was I like this a when I had 500 hours or whatever but a few weeks or months on line in opperational situations and weather and they understand. Both should be half time but sideways in a 27 should count for something to.

[backon3]

Sorry...flying leg for leg in a 60 000lb airplane should not count for less than instructing, maybe the same, but definitely not less!

[split s]

I hear the rules are going to change, the only change I can remember hearing was you will have to have a ppc on a multi-turbine A/C before being issued the ATPL. Has anyone heard anything?

[flyinhigh]

I think that to get the ATP you should have to have 500 Multi-PIC and 100 actual IFR not sim.
When one has this time than they at this time should have enough real world expierence (i.e. flying into icing that is building so quick that you have one choice, or having to many passengers with all there gear, and you have to tell them what to take and who is going... sounds easy to say it but now try it and have the boss in your ear saying just do it as well and than make the correct decision.)

Thats just my 2 cents though

[Silver Lining]

Time to get rid of the bullshit ATPL. One week-end course, write the exams, monday and tuesday and voila!! They should incorporate the material in the commercial ground school (where it should be anyways) and be done with it with one or two exams. Everyone takes a different path and it should not matter if you have an ATPL! Those who have not instructed should keep their comments to what they know. I worked ten times harder instructing then I ever have flying turbines. You don't know stress until you've instructed! I think it may be time that we as a group tell the powers that be that the ATPL is nothing but a useless licence. (petition?) Anyone who thinks that having an ATPL licence makes them a better pilot is kidding themselves! For now, one hour of flying should mean one hour of flying!

[sky's the limit]

I realize we all read through each other's posts at Mach 2, but I was not saying I know of people jumpig from 172's into the left seat of anything big. What I was saying, that most of you seemed to pick-up on, is that "legally" they have that right.

I also made a comment about the exams... Wow do they need to be revisited!

Why don't we just count time as time, regardless of what it's doing, but insert minimum requirements for the ATPL. PIC, Multi, Multi PIC, Night, IFR/IMC, two crew etc etc. This license is meant to be used flying multi engined, multi crewed, large airplanes. Let's set a standard that reflects that.

And for the record, I don't care what they do in Europe or any other indivdual country, we have a unique environment here in Canada, with many unique opportunities available to our pilots, we need to set a unique (and high) standard that fits our environment.

[oldtimer]

This discussion can go on forever. What is required is a complete overhaul of the system that says an ATPL is 1500 hrs and a multi IFR.
What we need is a licence that more closely resembles what a pilot is doing. The ATPL should be held by an airline pilot and an instructors rating should be for a PROFESSIONAL flight instructor. We have to get away from this idea that instructing is a way to build hours so I can get my ATPL so I can get that coveted airline job. But we will remain as we are so long as we pay flight instructors the shit wages we pay them. A commercial pilot licence should be all that is required for a pilot who is being paid to fly an airplane. Wages should be determined by the type of flight experience a pilot has, not the type of licence held. As it is, even our Great White Father restricts how a pilot can serve unless he/she holds the coveted ATPL. Unfortunatly, we have to contend with the status quo and ICAO standards. Nothing will change until the laws are changed. And fat chance of that happening. I guess we are all just going to have to make the best out of it. My 2 cents worth. ps. I already hold an ATPL.

[flingwing206]

All of ya, quit yer belly-aching & get to work!