Co-pilot time for ATPL

[sky's the limit]

Guys, I think you're being trolled.... Krimson can't possibly be serious.

There's PIC time, and there's sitting in an aircraft - they are very different. As for acquiring the lofty ATPL, it's just the highest "joke" among a string of "jokes" in terms of how we issue licenses and the requirements to attain them, sorry, just the way it is. Time is one thing, skills and a solid decision making ability based on experience are another.

stl

[kev994]

Q: How many hours do guys/girls have when they upgrade in a two crew aircraft in the CF?

I became CC130 SAR AC with 800 hours total, 600 on type. Mind you flying SAR for 600 hours is significantly different than flying from point A to point B, lots of hands and feet flying, low level drops, etc. I'm now qualified to instruct on CC130 and I still don't qualify for ATPL under the current rules.

[single_swine_herder]

It won't take long for you to qualify for a civie ATPL Kev .... after speaking with some of the guys from the 435 Squadron Herc operation in Winnipeg, pretty much everybody on-board an RCAF aircraft logs the aircraft flight time in the PIC column right from the-get-go when they are deployed .... Aircraft Commander (who may never have touched the controls at any time during the flight,) PF, PNF, any time an extra crew member is in the airplane even if they are the Squadron sprog who is having a nap while in flight on the way to Norway. If I recall, the only time an entry goes into the "Co-Pilot" column of an RCAF Pilot Log is when they are at the OTU (Operational Training Unit,) before getting their "ticket" from the ICP.

So, unlike things in the civilian world, you could have 4 or 5 individuals on an RCAF aircraft all claiming to have been Pilot In Command on the same flight.

I have the deepest of respect for the SAR - Air To Air Refuelling guys in that operational role, and if I could have been with you up front for about 15 years of my career, I would have leaped at it. Unfortunately the date on my Birth Certificate was the only thing wrong with my career planing. The SAR Techs are especially super-impressive individuals who form an exceptional team which every reader of AvCanada should know about.

http://youtu.be/EwX-hzrovTk

http://youtu.be/nfOyPRY6Lfg

[cpt.sam]

Don't "FYI" me, laddy-buck! I've made a career out of flying next to brand-new little twerps and I've seen "different levels of aptitude" aplenty. And a brand-new little twerp is exactly the kind of people we're discussing here... the guys who don't meet the time requirement for an ATPL, already stunningly low despite the fact that whole armies of co-pilots think it's too high!

One of your little "twerps" hopefully will be your captain some day. Your attitude towards your subordinates is exactly what we're trying to weed out of the industry.

+1 Doc
some people actually have the ego pilots are known for....a shame!
Sam

[cpt.sam]

We are people doing the same job as you

You're kidding, right? You really don't understand what PIC
is - because you've never logged any - yet you want your
right seat time to be counted equally?

Oh wow.

Col....
Dude, we're not all this naive!
I would like to suggest that this poster was probably under the influence, and angry. Clearly not thinking correctly! lol
however, I stand by my point that 300o hours in a 1900 is worth 10000 in a cessna.

[shimmydampner]

Perhaps if it's 10000 hours of doing 1900-type things ... you know, simple runway to runway stuff. Even then it still depends how you're defining "worth" and what your ultimate goal is. There's plenty of Cessna flying to be done that is significantly more challenging. To suggest that a certain amount of time is more valuable based solely on aircraft size or complexity is disingenuous. Many low timers seem to forget that the quality of time counts for more when it comes to developing skill. Perhaps it is because developing flying skill is often assigned significantly less "worth" than speedy career progression.

[Colonel Sanders]

re: right seat time being exactly the same as left seat time ...

Remember the Southwest 737 that landed hard and took
off the nosewheel recently? I just heard that the captain
was fired, and the FO had to take some more training.

See the difference?

[single_swine_herder]

He was likely fired because in this just society workplace, the Capt may have raised his voice to the F/O and although no tears actually fell, the young lad actually became misty-eyed. That was obviously sufficient punishment for the Millennial F/O and a few hundred hours of group therapy sessions should have the poor exploited lad back in the cockpit and ready to boink it onto the runway all on his own.

NEWS FLASH UPDATE ....... it has been learned that "the young lad" I commented on above was in fact "a young lass" and the Captain was also a female.

[Colonel Sanders]

[leftoftrack]

Both she's not he's.

Apparently the cockpit was unmanned. FO apparently called for a go around and the captain (known for taking control low level) stated "we don't do go arounds here".

Keep in mind that southwest has the strongest union that exists amongst the majors. (If you buy a southwest ticket you get a southwest pilot) and the union could not save her job.

[single_swine_herder]

Both she's not he's.

Apparently the cockpit was unmanned. FO apparently called for a go around and the captain (known for taking control low level) stated "we don't do go arounds here".

Keep in mind that southwest has the strongest union that exists amongst the majors. (If you buy a southwest ticket you get a southwest pilot) and the union could not save her job.

She must have seen the episode of "Ice Pilots" where Joe laid down the law about never doing a go-around because they are dangerous, and he'd better not see that sort of thing going on.

Even in "a unionized shop" there are some things just too stupid to expect to remain employed.

Interesting thing about union representation in these sort of proceedings .... a concept called "Duty Of Fair Representation." It amounts to the union being obligated to fight tooth and claw like crazy to defend a member's employment or reputation, or the union may be sued for not doing so. That means that a union rep has to go into a meeting and make the guy or gal seem like the model employee regardless of how stunned the act by a Bluto-Brained near moron with an axe to grind.

This concept is at the heart of many labour law cases where reasonable observers ask themselves .... "Are you kidding me?"

Here's a bit of info on the topic ...... http://www.lrb.bc.ca/guidelines/representation.htm

[frozen solid]

FO apparently called for a go around and the captain (known for taking control low level) stated "we don't do go arounds here".

... and the union could not save her job.

In the immortal words of Shaggy: "Zoiks!" Doesn't matter whether they were girls or boys, I'd fire her for saying that even if there hadn't been an accident. I feel sorry for the First Officer having to listen to that crap. Probably all around better for everyone, including her, that the plane WAS damaged, so the Captain's attitude could be exposed. The captain in turn probably learned that attitude from some other "Bluto-trained moron" when SHE was an F.O.

In cases like this I think maybe second-in-command time is valued at half simply because half the time co-pilots have to listen to stupid B.S. like "we don't do go-arounds here". I'm glad they didn't fire the F.O. She should get awarded double time in her logbook for that flight at least.

[Beefitarian]

Am I the only one that thinks this should be a techno song?

[Doc]

Both she's not he's.

Apparently the cockpit was unmanned. FO apparently called for a go around and the captain (known for taking control low level) stated "we don't do go arounds here".

Keep in mind that southwest has the strongest union that exists amongst the majors. (If you buy a southwest ticket you get a southwest pilot) and the union could not save her job.

Good for Southwest! Failure to go around, when a situation clearly calls for it, especially when it results in major damage to the airplane, should be a firing offence. Sounds like this "pilot" got her just reward.

[cpt.sam]

Any updates on the 50% rule?

[cdnpilot77]

Watch for the Gazette II every 2 weeks on wednesdays The next one comes out this Wednesday. You will get a lot of hearsay, but until it is written there (who knows when it will actually happen) it is status quo.

[aycarumba]

Anyone know when will this 1:1 thing will happen? I heard it last year around this time? Do they just draw the topics in each every meetings or do they have a list of stuff they have to complete before this legislation?

[shimmydampner]

It's probably just around the corner. Until then one must pratice strutting whilst pulling your wheelie bag.

[cdnpilot77]

Anyone know when will this 1:1 thing will happen? I heard it last year around this time? Do they just draw the topics in each every meetings or do they have a list of stuff they have to complete before this legislation?

Read my post just above yours, patience young grasshopper, you shall need lots of it, it is government after all. It was not in the gazette II today so, check again in another 2 weeks. It was originally printed in the Gazette i on February 23rd, 2013. IF it happens, it will likely be within the next 6months that it is implemented, but who knows. It takes effect 60 days after being printed in the Gazette II unless otherwise noted.

[rigpiggy]

Don't "FYI" me, laddy-buck! I've made a career out of flying next to brand-new little twerps and I've seen "different levels of aptitude" aplenty. And a brand-new little twerp is exactly the kind of people we're discussing here... the guys who don't meet the time requirement for an ATPL, already stunningly low despite the fact that whole armies of co-pilots think it's too high!

One of your little "twerps" hopefully will be your captain some day. Your attitude towards your subordinates is exactly what we're trying to weed out of the industry.

+1 Doc
some people actually have the ego pilots are known for....a shame!
Sam

Hello Pot, Kettle Calling

[davecessna]

I think I should be credited for my VATSIM hours.

[Ki-ll]

I think I should be credited for my VATSIM hours.

Those go 1 for 2.

[luc.arsenault]

Gentleman, be either happy CPL holders, or bitter ATPL holders. It's official

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/201 ... 15-eng.php

April 13 it comes into effect.

[Outlaw58]

Gentleman, be either happy CPL holders, or bitter ATPL holders. It's official

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/201 ... 15-eng.php

April 13 it comes into effect.

Or you can be neither.

I'm a CPL holder working on an ATPL and this changes squat for me.

Back to studying....

JP

[takamasa]

i heard only the co pilot time claimed after april 13 will count as 1:1

anything before april 13 still counts for half only.

any one can confirm with it?