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

Gurundu the Rat · Post by **Gurundu the Rat** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:57 am

Seems the only ones that want a lower limit are the ones that don't have their A yet. If anything I agree that it should be harder to get so as to avoid peoples ability to buy jobs at companies like Jetsgo and lower the bar for the rest of us. Let's face it, most of those who buy jobs have less experience. JMO.

GTR

bizjet_mania · Post by **bizjet_mania** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:19 am

But they are working! If the high time guys would move on and quit sitting on the prop jobs so we can get in nobody would be buying PPCs.

LostinRotation · Post by **LostinRotation** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:24 am

Gurundu the Rat wrote:If anything I agree that it should be harder to get so as to avoid peoples ability to buy jobs at companies like Jetsgo and lower the bar for the rest of us. Let's face it, most of those who buy jobs have less experience. JMO.

GTR

Did you think about what you were writing before you wrote it ?

The reason people buy PPC's and job's is because it's easier than busting your ass instructing or working the ramps.
Making it harder for people will only further incourage people to buy their way into a job. Let's face it, IT'S HARD ENOUGH AS IT IS !

-=0=LIR=0=-

bizjet_mania · Post by **bizjet_mania** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:28 am

You do what you gotta do! Everyone says don't buy a PPC, but on every job post its a requirement to have a PPC. So how about we start a new poll, on whether or not this whole PPC system should go. Have it only for turbo prop and not light twin piston aircraft. Lets face it you don't need a PPC or thousands of hours to fly a Navajo or Aztec or 310. Guys in Europe do their Multi on Cheiftains. Yes their school turns out to be triple ours, but they finish and get on a 737 at easy Jet and are now making money, flying and paying off their debts. So I guess in a way buying a PPC also shows you want to move ahead and are willing to invest in your job. I don't think its a bad thing. And I really feel bad for anyone whose been promised flying jobs and are still sitting and wasting their young twenties on the ramp. Too many pilots, not enough jobs, most of those pilots shouldn't be pilots at all while the other half are high time not wanting to budge. So tell me what is the best way. Instruction won't help, I know guys been instructing 5 years and still noone wants to take them. Working on the ramp won't help, because they will always take a high time guy to sit in the right seat instead of a 200hr rampy. So please tell us what we are to do. Do nothing and wait for a phone call one day that we got a C206 job because the 1000hr requirement has gone done to 500 now? Noone paid for my training, noone has a say in what I do with my career. Im sorry if you feel as though its hurting the industry to buy a PPC, but so are 8500hr B1900 captains and so are the 4000hr Navajo Captains, or how about the companies wanting almost 2000hrs to sit right seat on a 'ho. Really now, have a look and tell me whose REALLY ruining it for everyone.

Hickory Stick · Post by **Hickory Stick** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:07 am

Holy Shite!
What a bunch of whiners some dudes are.
I instructed, went to northern Ontario flew right and left seat in turbines. Got my ATPL. I knew what the requirements were and did what I had to, to get my ATPL.

Everyone thinks a guy with 250hrs getting right seat 1900 or whatever is lucky. Till it comes to get his ATPL. I knew of a guy who did just that and guess what, he had no chance of going captain till he got his ATPL.

SO, you guys know what you have to do to get issued an ATPL, NOW GO DO IT and STOP whining on the forum. Many of us before you did what we had to so you can too!

NOW, get to work.

Cheers

Gurundu the Rat · Post by **Gurundu the Rat** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:10 am

It's simply supply and demand. The less airline pilots there are out there, the more airline pilots get paid. Therefore by making it easyer to get there will be more out there willing to work for less. There are already enough airline rated guys and gals out there. Thats why Flight attendants at certain companies make more money than a lot of the pilots.

GTR

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:59 am

It's simply supply and demand. The less airline pilots there are out there, the more airline pilots get paid. Therefore by making it easyer to get there will be more out there willing to work for less. There are already enough airline rated guys and gals out there. Thats why Flight attendants at certain companies make more money than a lot of the pilots.

So what you're saying is we should LIMIT people from getting a CPL.. Not an ATPL..

It's flooded because you have 200 flight schools across the country training 1000's of "pilots" a day...

So if you made it a set # of CPLs that are handed out each year, 100/yr, you'd drive the price of a pilot up.

Start at the bottom not at the top.

Rubberbiscuit · Post by **Rubberbiscuit** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:17 am

Maybe they should have kept the Senior Commercial License around?

"Airline Transport Pilot License" If you look at the name of the license it is really a joke what is required to get it in terms of experience and exam's.

Here is an idea! How about doing away with the fact that you need an ATPL for anything other than being a Captain on a transport category aircraft? Then make the exam's and requirements realistic. Make candidates write exams on large aircraft performance, etc.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:35 am

Seems to me the only people with a problem with co-joe credit are cinderella stories who went right seat turbine with 200 hours.

Now they want another gift when it comes time to get their ATPL's. Do they think they have horseshoes up their asses or something? Are they the "chosen ones"?

Get a thousand hours PIC - preferably as sole occupant - before you go right seat on a twin. It will make you a much better pilot, though I don't think that really matters much to anyone any more. It's just a job as a heavy equipment operator with a seniority number.

pinkus · Post by **pinkus** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:27 am

I think we are all missing the mark here.

We all have perceptions as to what time is better than what, based on our experience and the natural human tendancy to protect our pride and say that our way is the best way.

The answer is simple. The ATPL basically shows that you have reached 1500-3000 hours at some time in the past and that you can write an exam that requires you to answer tricky questions about generally inane subjects that Transport deems important.

The irony though, is that the ATPL is just a pat on the back about reaching a career marker. The ATPL's main purpose is to allow you to fly a 12500 aircraft and the process in place does not make you demonstrate your ability to captain a 12500 aircraft. This is the problem.

In the USA and Europe they must do a specific ride with the government to prove their ability. Is this the best answer? Maybe not, as your future relies on not only your ability, but the way that the Inspector interprets his manual and how he applies his power.

It is obvious that the current system does not precisely connect the ability to fly a 12500 aircraft with the pilots previous skill in alot of cases.

We do however live in an industry with alot of experienced pilots and this has allowed to employers and insurance adjustors make these final decisions about our skills. This defers Transports responsibility to the employer and insurance adjustors effectively making the ATPL system outdated and inaccurate of todays market. It just does not fit...

Now before you jump on me...I do have an ATPL. I am proud of it too. However, the market we live in makes its initial purpose and usefullness trivial.

So, you can get your ATPL and put on a big smile. It's purpose will not take effect for awhile, and your first sign of a higher success will be a PPC on a 12500 aircraft...the INDUSTRIES way of signing your license off.

Frank Castle · Post by **Frank Castle** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:19 pm

Can someone point out where in the CAR’s it refers to the co-pilot time being counted as half? All I find is:

(4) Experience
An applicant shall have met the training requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane that is not restricted to daylight flying and completed a minimum of 1500 hours total flight time of which a minimum of 900 hours shall have been completed in aeroplanes. The total flight time shall include a minimum of:
(amended 2000/09/01; previous version)

(a) 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes which shall include where applicable, a maximum of 100 hours pilot-in-command under supervision flight time completed in accordance with Section 421.11. The pilot-in-command and/or pilot-in-command under supervision flight time shall include a minimum of 100 hours cross-country flight time of which a minimum of 25 hours shall have been by night;

(b) 100 hours night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of which a minimum of 30 hours shall have been acquired in aeroplanes;

(c) 200 hours cross-country flight time as co-pilot in an aeroplane required to be operated with a co-pilot or, 100 additional hours cross-country flight time as pilot-in-command which may have been part of the 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time specified above; and

(d) 75 hours instrument flight time of which a maximum of 25 hours may have been acquired in approved instrument ground trainers and a maximum of 35 hours may have been acquired in helicopters. Instrument ground time shall not be applied toward the total 1500 hour flight time requirement.

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:44 pm

It only counts for half in terms of the PIC requirements (and then only up to a total of 100 out of the 250 required). It can be used one to one for the total time.

Since we're on the topic can anyone prove Transport is correct in reisssuing a commercial licence to you if you renew with a Group III Instrument rating. No other ICAO country does this...what a crock of shit!

Frank Castle · Post by **Frank Castle** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:47 pm

Can you tell me where that is located in the CARS?

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:30 pm

CAR 421.34

(4) Experience

An applicant shall have met the training requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane that is not restricted to daylight flying and completed a minimum of 1500 hours total flight time of which a minimum of 900 hours shall have been completed in aeroplanes. The total flight time shall include a minimum of:
(amended 2000/09/01

(a) 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes which shall include where applicable, a maximum of 100 hours pilot-in-command under supervision flight time completed in accordance with Section 421.11. The pilot-in-command and/or pilot-in-command under supervision flight time shall include a minimum of 100 hours cross-country flight time of which a minimum of 25 hours shall have been by night;

(b) 100 hours night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of which a minimum of 30 hours shall have been acquired in aeroplanes;

(c) 200 hours cross-country flight time as co-pilot in an aeroplane required to be operated with a co-pilot or, 100 additional hours cross-country flight time as pilot-in-command which may have been part of the 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time specified above; and

(d) 75 hours instrument flight time of which a maximum of 25 hours may have been acquired in approved instrument ground trainers and a maximum of 35 hours may have been acquired in helicopters. Instrument ground time shall not be applied toward the total 1500 hour flight time requirement.

CAR 421.11

(5) An applicant shall be credited flight time as follows:
(amended 1998/12/01; no previous version)

(a) not more than 50% of the pilot-in-command under supervision flight time for a total of up to 100 hours in the case of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Aeroplane and up to 150 hours in the case of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Helicopter may be credited toward pilot-in-command experience requirements; and

(b) Pilot-in-command under supervision flight time, provided such flight time is acquired within the 12 months preceding the date of application for the licence for which the flight time is to be credited.

Smitty · Post by **Smitty** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:48 am

1) I have my ATPL and I still think co-pilot time should count 1 for 1 towards the licence. Besides, the cinderella stories will still need the additional PIC time to actually hold the licence. Not gonna happen in the right seat of a 1900.

2) Instructing and northern flying each come with their own sets of challenges. Downplaying either is just a display of ignorance.

Maybe there needs to be a requirement to hold a type rating before someone is actually granted an ATPL.

Just me rambling.

fly safe

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:58 am

Gurundu the Rat wrote:Seems the only ones that want a lower limit are the ones that don't have their A yet.

Absolutely BRILLIANT observation young man. I can't believe you determined that. And here I thought it was all the guys that already had their ATP's whining about the requirements.

I'm glad that's cleared up, phew.

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:03 am

In my opinion, err excuse me, IMHO, this is quite logical to me:

(c) A commercial pilot may credit the following second-in-command flight time or flight engineer flight time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as pilot required by paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) Second-in-command time
(i) Required to have more than one pilot flight crew member by the airplane's flight manual, type certificate, or the regulations
(ii) Engaged in operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter for which a second in command is required; or
(2) Flight-Engineer Time, provided the time --
(i) is acquired in an airplane required to have a flight engineer by the airplane's flight manual or type certificate;
(ii) is acquired while engaged in operations under part 121 of this chapter for which a flight engineer is required;
(iii) Does not exceed more than 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
(1) Credits second-in-command or flight-engineer time under paragraph (c) of this section toward the 1,500 hours total flight time requirement of paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Does not have at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command time and none of his or her flight engineer time;

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:28 pm

421.10 Crediting of Flight Time Acquired by a Co-pilot

The holder of a pilot licence may be credited not more than 50% of co-pilot flight time towards the total flight time required for the issuance of a higher class of pilot licence.

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:05 am

Oops my bad. I stand corrected!

cedar tree · Post by **cedar tree** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:08 am

An ATP isn't the only requirement for right seat positions on water bombers. Maybe there should be a FLAT PIC requirement that proves you have had the opportunity to make some real decisions in the air.

rippey · Post by **rippey** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:26 am

I am in the situation of having the two exams about to expire in a couple of months because of the copilot time situation, and I had 1100 hours PIC before the copilot job. I currently fly a jet > 12,500, fly all my legs from the left seat, and have never done anything but a left seat PPC ride...so I am learning and gaining experience and not just flipping switches and working the radios. It seems retarded to me that TC regards this time as only half as valuable as the time I spent ripping around the countrside in singles with my head out the window snapping pictures. So in a few months time the exams expire and I get to study all over again and shell out a couple hundred more dollars.
I'm nowhere near ready for command anyways so having to wait longer doesn't bug me, I just can't believe how backwards Transport is sometimes. A good example being all the hoops operators have to jump through to get the ops spec for GPS approaches...because we all know that a circling NBD approach on a crappy night is way safer than one of those scary straight in GPS approaches.

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:09 pm

Amen to that man!

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:52 pm

Rippey:

If you had 1100 PIC before the co-pilot job, plus approximately 100 dual from your training, you only needed 300 hours to get your hours. So 600 right seat.

You won't do 600 hours in 2 years? I hope you're on a salary.

tailgunner · Post by **tailgunner** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:55 pm

RETARDS!!!

Read the AIP carefully!!! It does not say that Co-Pilot time counts as 50% value. It ONLY states that co-pilot time counts as 50% value when used against the specific requirements for ones ATPL. It does not say Total time. If you have all of your night, x- country etc... and have over 1500 hrs TT then you WILL be accepted. How do I know?...Firstly , read the AIP for yourself and look for the obvious. Secondly, Do not believe everything you here in the Ol' pilots lounge. Thirdly , I qualified for my ATPL with 1600 hrs TT , all of the requirements met , and 600 hrs of SIC time. I handed the guy at TC my book..He verified my numbers and 25 minutes later I had my double A's.

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:54 am

421.10 Crediting of Flight Time Acquired by a Co-pilot

The holder of a pilot licence may be credited not more than 50% of co-pilot flight time towards the total flight time required for the issuance of a higher class of pilot licence.

You've got a lot of nerve calling us retards.

Read the above carefully - I don't know when you got your ATPL, but this took affect in 1998, according to the CARs.

If you got it after than you slipped through by luck. The above is not a grey area - it's as straightforward as can be.

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

Rewrite the req that Co Pilot time counts as 1hr for 1hr for the ATPL reqs

ATP