TC will not issue me an ATPL-H, because of aircraft type.

[Rescue901]

OK, did the written exams and meet all the ATPL-H skill requirements, but TC will not issue the license!
Anyone ever run into this before or have any input on the way ahead in this situation, so I can get the license issued.

Thanks,


Here are the emails form TC.



"Further to your ATPLH application received August 21, 2014 I have reviewed your application and logbooks and find you meet all the requirements to hold the Airline Transport Pilot License Helicopter License. There is, however, an issue with the helicopter type CH-149 in which you completed your skill test requirement under CARs 421.35(5). It is unfortunately, not a Transport Canada approved aircraft type and as such we cannot issue the license without a designated helicopter type.

I have included the e-mail thread below from our Standards division outlining the options available to you and I would encourage you to try to get a secondary skill test, in accordance with CARs 421.35(5) which states: “Within the 12 months preceding the date of application for the licence, an applicant shall demonstrate in flight and on the ground familiarity with and the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot, both normal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres appropriate to the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence – Helicopter. ” on a TC approved two-crew helicopter type: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 3-1394.htm

We have to be able to put a helicopter type rating on a Canadian Pilot licence. If the applicant is not current on a helicopter that is in our RDIMS Helicopter type Designator Table then there is nothing that we can do.

Here are some options that the applicant may try:


To obtain his Civilian ATPL-H
1. He may ask his commanding officer if someone will do a Skill test on a different helicopter . For example we have the following civilian helicopters and their equivalent military types:

Civilian Type Military Type
BH12 CH135
BH141 CH146
HV07 CH113

If the DND applicant can meet the skill requirement on one of the above helicopters then provided he has meets all the other ATPL-H requirements an ATPL-H shall be issued.



2. He may ask if he can put 10 hours on the BH06 or other helicopter that the military uses and that is in our Civilian Type Designator table. In this case the applicant could apply for then CPL-H. The applicant would still need to pass the Commercial Pilot Licence (Helicopter) Air Law, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures (HARPC). See CAR 421.31(8)(a)(ii). The advantage here to point 3 below is the applicant does not have to complete a CPL-H Skill Test.

Once he has his CPL-H, when he applies for a civilian job, he will be required to complete an IFR Pilot Proficiency Check in accordance with CAR421.35(5). Transport Canada will accept his completed IFR Pilot Proficiency Check and then could issue an ATPL-H with a Group 4 Instrument Rating. His written ATPL-H and IFR examinations are valid for 24 months.


3. Last but not least the applicant can do the following:
a) Pass the CPL written examination.
b) Use his DND training experience to meet the commercial CPL experience requirements
c) Pass a CPL-H flight test in a small civilian helicopter and obtain a CPL-H

4. Once he has his CPL-H, when he applies for a civilian job, his completed IFR Pilot Proficiency Check in accordance with CAR421.35(5) could be used to issue him an ATPL-H. His written ATPL-H examinations are valid for 24 months.

[Pop n Fresh]

Just get a type check on the cheapest heli you can find.

[timel]

I had a friend who had similar prob. Was flying a bell 430 for a private guy ifr all the way.
But TC did not want to issue an ATPL-H because it was not operated under SOPs.
Transport Canada at it's best.

I heard it is hell for chopper guys to get the ATPL. And rent a chopper of 4000$/hour is just ridiculous.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The ATPL is a civil license so I am do not think it is unreasonable for TC to ask that you fly a civil type in order to qualify. I have a L 188 type rating but if I joined the RCAF and was posted to a Aurora squadron I would get no credit for the time I have flown the same airframe. So what is good for the Goose ought to be good for the Gander.

In any case there is no requirement for you to hold a ATPL(H) while flying an RCAF aircraft and if you get out and get a job in a large civil helicopter your PPC ride will count towards the skill test requirement which will then result in TC granting you an ATPL(H), so I frankly do not see how you are being especially disadvantaged.

[SAR_YQQ]

I have a L 188 type rating but if I joined the RCAF and was posted to a Aurora squadron I would get no credit for the time I have flown the same airframe.

What credit would you expect? Flying a plane is the easy part of RCAF flying - it's the mission that requires experience. FWIW - the Electra - Aurora similarities end at the number of engines mounted on the wings.

[Heliian]

Take the military pension.

Just do what TC suggests. I'm sorry but it's the way it is. You're going to have to spend some money for the ticket. Get CPLH then ATPLH. At least with the cpl you can find gainful employment.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have a L 188 type rating but if I joined the RCAF and was posted to a Aurora squadron I would get no credit for the time I have flown the same airframe.

What credit would you expect? Flying a plane is the easy part of RCAF flying - it's the mission that requires experience. FWIW - the Electra - Aurora similarities end at the number of engines mounted on the wings.

The "mission" in the Aurora is largely done by the folks in the back which is why the AC is usually not the pilot, so not a terribly good reason why civil Electra time counts for absolutely nothing in the RCAF. However I get your point, it is a different kind of flying and so the Air Force wants you to start from scratch. However I would argue that there are significant aspects of civil flying that are not experienced in a Military flying career as well, and so automatic recognition of everything you did in the Military ought not to be a given.

I guess my problem is the tone of the original poster. The OH MY GOD, Transport Canada doesn't recognize the awesomeness of my experience ! They need to change the rules now ! ; vibe I got from the post grated.

[Meatservo]

I have a L 188 type rating but if I joined the RCAF and was posted to a Aurora squadron I would get no credit for the time I have flown the same airframe.

What credit would you expect? Flying a plane is the easy part of RCAF flying - it's the mission that requires experience. FWIW - the Electra - Aurora similarities end at the number of engines mounted on the wings.

One might say the same thing for many civilian jobs that use military types. Flying a plane is the easy part of any flying, and many civilians perform "missions" that require a great deal of experience, I dare say some that would be as difficult to acquire in the military as it is in industry work. Let's not make comments or ask leading questions that we know will start a silly argument. We all know military people deserve respect and have volunteered to put the interests of the nation before their personal right to safety and security. However we are all pilots here, and I dare say that an Aurora would be pretty familiar to anyone who flies an L188. Many L188s have been employed in work that is quite a bit different than the typical long paved and lit strip to another long paved and lit strip domestic humdrum. No-one has ever attacked a submarine in one of course...

On another note, does TC issue ATPLs to military aeroplane pilots who haven't flown an aeroplane that has a civilian type certificate? Even though I agree with Big Pistons Forever in principle, I feel like our helicopter friend here is sort of getting shafted by paperwork.

[Pop n Fresh]

Huh, looks like I soiled the bed there. I was kind of going for a variation of option 2. Because I read it thinking they would issue the ATPL-H if you had a checkout on a type in their data base. My bad.

Not reading the whole thing before answering the perceived question is hella fun though.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I have included the e-mail thread below from our Standards division outlining the options available to you and I would encourage you to try to get a secondary skill test, in accordance with CARs 421.35(5) which states: “Within the 12 months preceding the date of application for the licence, an applicant shall demonstrate in flight and on the ground familiarity with and the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot, both normal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres appropriate to the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence – Helicopter. ” on a TC approved two-crew helicopter type: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 3-1394.htm

We have to be able to put a helicopter type rating on a Canadian Pilot licence. If the applicant is not current on a helicopter that is in our RDIMS Helicopter type Designator Table then there is nothing that we can do.

Here are the CARs:

421.35 Helicopters - Requirement
(5) Skill
Within the 12 months preceding the date of application for the licence, an applicant shall demonstrate in flight and on the ground familiarity with and the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot, both normal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres appropriate to the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Helicopter.

It says nothing in the CARs about "on a TC approved two-crew helicopter type".

Then there is 421.35(7)

(7) Credits for DND Applicants
Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating completed on a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.

Which is your case.

It seems that Transport Canada is confusing two things here, the issue of the ATPL(H) and the issue of a type rating, which are two distinct issues, one a Licence, the other a rating.

It is correct that you cannot obtain a type rating for a type for which there is no Canadian type approval.

421.40 Blanket and Individual Type Ratings
(7) Aircraft Type
(c) aircraft not registered in the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register where a Canadian type approval, or a Canadian approved type certificate has been issued.

Transport Canada is probably in the habit of simultaneously issuing the ATLP(H) and a type rating for the Helicopter in which the test was made, since when those who pay for the Instrument Rated two crew helicopter that is required to satisfy the ATPL(H) requirement always do the test on the specific Helicopter type on which there are going to work, and thus apply for the ATPL(H) at the same time as they apply for that specipic type rating, but I do not think that you MUST necessarily have a type rating in order to have an ATPL(H). You should be able to have an ATLP(H) with no associated type rating.

It is true that this TC Canada Web Page has this to say:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... n-1803.htm

Helicopters
Each new type of helicopter requires its own type rating.

Note: For some helicopters the flight crew requirement may be one pilot for certain operations such as VFR flight and two pilots for other operations such as IFR flight. In this case the holder of Commercial Pilot Licence - Helicopter may only act as pilot-in-command while engaged in operations where the flight crew requirement is one pilot. If the flight crew requirement is two pilots then the pilot-in-command must have a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Helicopter. In all cases the licence must be endorsed with a type rating as indicated above.

But a Web page is not a Regulation. For that to be written there, there must be a CAR to support it or its not valid.

My two cents, anyway.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Gilles

You raise a good point but I think the issue is CAR 421.40

(2) Individual Type Ratings

An individual aircraft type rating is issued for aircraft not included in a blanket type rating. It is indicated by the appropriate aircraft type designator from Appendix A found at the end of this Subpart, endorsed on a permit or licence as follows:
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(a) Aeroplanes

(i) each aeroplane with a minimum flight crew requirement of at least two pilots;

(ii) each aeroplane with a minimum flight crew requirement of at least two pilots utilizing a cruise relief pilot;

(iii) each high performance aeroplane type to be endorsed on a pilot licence - aeroplane category;

(iv) each aeroplane type to be endorsed on a flight engineer licence;

(v) each aeroplane type to be endorsed on a second officer rating; and

(vi) each aeroplane type to be endorsed on a licence for which no blanket type rating is issued.
(amended 2005/06/01; previous version)

(b) Helicopters

Each type of helicopter;

It would appear that it would be impossible to issue a license without a type rating as, unlike airplanes there is no such a thing as a "blanket type" rating for helicopters.

[trampbike]

The "mission" in the Aurora is largely done by the folks in the back which is why the AC is usually not the pilot

The AC is still the pilot. He might not be the mission commander though.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

It would appear that it would be impossible to issue a license without a type rating as, unlike airplanes there is no such a thing as a "blanket type" rating for helicopters.

What I described above fulfills the all the skills requirements for obtaining the ATPL, the IFR and Multi crew. How about just having this pilot get type rated on a R-22 and call it a day ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

It would appear that it would be impossible to issue a license without a type rating as, unlike airplanes there is no such a thing as a "blanket type" rating for helicopters.

What I described above fulfills the all the skills requirements for obtaining the ATPL, the IFR and Multi crew. How about just having this pilot get type rated on a R-22 and call it a day ?

Because to meet the skill requirement for a ATPL(H) you have to do the skills test in a two crew helicopter.

There is no question that the rules have disadvantaged the OP, But TC is in the business of regulating civil aviation and so I do not see they have any obligation to facilitate getting a license, that is the ATPL(H) endorsed on the Cormoront helicopter, that by definition can never be used in civil aviation operations.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Because to meet the skill requirement for a ATPL(H) you have to do the skills test in a two crew helicopter.

Which he did:

DIVISION VIII - AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT LICENCE
421.35 Helicopters - Requirement
7) Credits for DND Applicants
Active and retired Canadian Forces personnel who hold a Canadian Forces Instrument Rating completed on a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot shall be deemed to have met the skill requirement.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

One more idea:

I thinkthat the CARs require that a test for obtaining an ATPL be done as PIC in a real aircraft in flight.

However, I know of at least one group of over 50 British pilots who in the fall of 2003, when they needed to come to Canada to work as seasonal contract pilots for Skyservice, were allowed to do their skills test for the Canadian ATPL in a Simulator instead of an aircraft. And they were all issued a Canadian ATPL.

So either those peoples' licences are not valid, or you can also do your skills test in a Multi-Crew Helicopter simulator, which will be much cheaper than doing the course and test on the real thing.

[B208]

Did you try listing it as an AW101 in your log book?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

The "mission" in the Aurora is largely done by the folks in the back which is why the AC is usually not the pilot

The AC is still the pilot. He might not be the mission commander though.

The Aircraft Commander is the pilot designated by the person authorizing the flight as having command of the aircraft and everyone on it (BGA-100). The mission commander has tactical control of the aircraft, but the aircraft commander has command of the aircraft....and command of the mission commander if push come to shove.

BPF; flying is flying and commanding is commanding. The ATPL recognizes your ability to do both. To deny someone the license due to a paper technicality is bureaucracy at its lowest.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Did you try listing it as an AW101 in your log book?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

.

This probably the OP's best bet. He/She should apply to TC to designate the Cormorant as a AW 101 variant and thus make the skill test time eligible. CAS staff may be able to help out on this.

[Rescue901]

Thanks for all the replies. For the record, I did not mean to come off as entitled. The issue is that the aircraft is not recognized on civi side and I was only looking for your advice and wondering if anyone else had ever run into this "technicality". I will be looking into why the aircraft is not recognized by TC. The aircraft doesn't do things that any other civil registered aircraft does. The way it used during a Military mission should not matter. We use it to fly VFR and IFR, plane and simple. So thanks again for all your input. Just in case you care, I have a current IFR ticket on it as PIC in flight and the equivalent of a PPC as PIC.

[PilotDAR]

FWIW, my $.02...

Ask TC to demonstrate the requirement that the type flown be civil TC'd. If they have not included this in a reg, it is not applicable to the application of a reg. Remember; the minister "shall" issue a license when the regulatory requirements are met. They don't get to interpret either way. What does the reg require? Is it there?

Good luck, and thanks for serving our nation with pride.....

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I have included the e-mail thread below from our Standards division outlining the options available to you and I would encourage you to try to get a secondary skill test, in accordance with CARs 421.35(5) which states: “Within the 12 months preceding the date of application for the licence, an applicant shall demonstrate in flight and on the ground familiarity with and the ability to perform, as pilot-in-command of a helicopter required to be operated with a co-pilot, both normal and emergency procedures and manoeuvres appropriate to the privileges of an Airline Transport Pilot Licence – Helicopter. ” on a TC approved two-crew helicopter type: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 3-1394.htm

That link does not work. Could you post it again please ?

[CID]

Did you try listing it as an AW101 in your log book?

That wouldn't help. The AW101 and all of it's production variants have not been type certified by Transport Canada Civil Aviation or any other civil authority but Japan's for some public use aircraft.

[Bede]

You can apply to TATC to appeal the Minister's decision to refuse to issue the license.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/24720/24720000200.pdf

[CropDuster]

Not all military aircraft have civilian certification, and therefore a type cannot be issued if such aircraft was used. It is important that for TC to see an aircraft that is certified for civilian operations if you wish to hold a civilian ATPL.

As many of you may know military pilots are just that, military pilots. Different flying, different rules, different equipment. Just need to prove your competencies to another agency for sake of liability on a civilian aircraft type. Just the same as if a civilian pilot wanted to walk into military operations with out training...

Makes any sense? No? Who gives a crap? Stop complaining and just get on with it? Are we good now? ok? go watch some "Sex in the City" feel even better now? Everyone done bitching? Can we hug now? Live happy ever after again? love you too