ATPL

[flynfiddle]

A little confused here about the breakdown (sliding rule for lack of a better term) for the 250 hrs PIC requirements:

The CARs says "a maximum of 100 hours pilot-in-command under supervision flight time completed in accordance with Section 421.11... yadda yadda yadda"

The AIM breaks it down with no mention of PIC under supervision but instead a subnote saying * may include 100 co-pilot.

My question .. is that 100 hrs co-pilot time an alternative to the PIC under supervision, or are they the same thing and it should be assumed that the AIM is referring to PIC under supervision program?

[E-Flyer]

Unfortunately some schools don't seem to rent out planes solo at night time.

Then I would quite frankly not call them flight "TRAINING" schools.

[BTD]

A little confused here about the breakdown (sliding rule for lack of a better term) for the 250 hrs PIC requirements:

The CARs says "a maximum of 100 hours pilot-in-command under supervision flight time completed in accordance with Section 421.11... yadda yadda yadda"

The AIM breaks it down with no mention of PIC under supervision but instead a subnote saying * may include 100 co-pilot.

My question .. is that 100 hrs co-pilot time an alternative to the PIC under supervision, or are they the same thing and it should be assumed that the AIM is referring to PIC under supervision program?

Here is the quote straight from the CARS

(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;

Co-pilot time does not count towards the 250 pic requirement unless it was done undersupervision with an approved program.

[just curious]

To make it easy for you...

You must apply to your chief pilot or ops manager to be enrolled in the Pilot in command under supervision program. If they approve you (and they may have specific criteria, like both ATPL exams written, recommendations from training captains, 2200 hours, 150 hours of PIC, etc...), you must follow a whole host of provisions as to when you may log this 200 hours of PIC. Small things such as: no passengers on board & only with a training captain.

As a general rule this enrollment generally takes place when the company feels you are ready to upgrade.

When you approach TC with your application in hand they very often ask for the form from the company that specified when you could enroll, and the names of who you flew with and log page numbers for verification.

It isn't simply a matter of picking 200 hours out of your first officer time and saying "so there!"

[sanjet]

Does dual count 1:1 flight time towards ATPL or 1:2 as f/o time? Im so tight on hours after being laid off that might just make the difference!

[Big Pistons Forever]

I heard a rumour that TC has revived the plan to require time (500hrs?) in a type certificated 2 crew required aircraft, before the issue of the ATPL. Anyone got any info on where this is ?

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Spokes]

I though that an IFR ride is the ATPL flight test.?

[Hedley]

Right - if a private pilot with 1500TT does a MIFR test,
then 6 months later gets his commercial, and 11 months
later writes the SARON & SAMRA, he gets his ATPL.

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is no requirement to hold a commercial license before applying for a ATPL. All you have to do is meet the experience requirements and pass the exams. I know of one fellow who did went straight from a PPL to ATPL. He never took any training towards a CPL and has never flown a revenue hour.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[just curious]

I heard a rumour that TC has revived the plan to require time (500hrs?) in a type certificated 2 crew required aircraft, before the issue of the ATPL.

I would suggest that your rumour source pull his/her head out of their...

They were likely the one who suggested the co-pilot time counting as 50% would be ending soon. Change happens very slowly. Usually at the hands of Lobby groups like ATAC. It's still going to be a long painful process for co-pilots who didn't instruct or tow gliders to get the 150 hours of PIC before co-piloting to acquire the 250 hours required.

The only real change with licensing to come along recently is the ever popular MCC Licence, and the development of Approved Training Organizations. Just in time for the recession, a pilot can be taught to fly as part of a crew of a more sophisticated aircraft, largely by sim training. The plus for what it's worth is that the training will be performed by truly experienced instructors. The two caveats are that you are extremely unlikely to be able to walk into a job in North America with one, and that pesky cost thing. Essentially, if you have to ask... you can't afford it.

JC

[collegejunkie]

Can you get the PIC time while ferrying a SAAB 340 if you put yourself as the captain in the logbook and the training captain a check captain? Also, do you need to have 150PIC before you begin the 100 HRS supervision?

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[just curious]

Can you get the PIC time while ferrying a SAAB 340 if you put yourself as the captain in the logbook and the training captain a check captain?

Since it is a large aircraft, I expect that you would have to have:

• the type endorsement
• a valid PPC
• in addition have completed all the left seat training in the company's ops manual.
• If the pilot not flying is a training captain with a current right seat check
• you are enrolled in the company PIC under supervision program
• the ferry is done meeting the company conditions (no pax generally, they may have more)

Also, do you need to have 150PIC before you begin the 100 HRS supervision?

No, you simply have to be enrolled. There is another gotcha in this. The 100 hour requirement that may be met in this program entails 200 hours of flying. Not 100. It is slimply co-pilot time during which you perform the duties of a captain under a captain's supervision. Ergo, the captain still has final authority on the flight and thus is the PIC, therefore you are still legally the FO. FO time counts 50%.

Frustrating, complicated, and painful. And if only your flying instructors back in the day had realized...
You could have instructed, towed gliders dumped jumpers or flown around friends and relatives for 50 hours or more.

But, I suspect, that was a few years in the past.

[just curious]

Okay, slimply is not a word. But it should be.

You would think that with firefox I could simply look at all the red-underlined words and dealt with them...

[Randleman]

The PIC under supervision is only for first officers to build PIC. Anyone else actually needs to be in charge of an airplane.

how do you mean by that?

*Edit* I just read your post above.

I thought you were referring to a FO renting a plane to build time? I'm hoping that's not what you meant lol.

[jpar84]

The big killer is the co-pilot 50% crediting. You need 1500 hours. OK. but co-pilot counts 50%. .

Ok so i'll go out on a limb and assume that the ATPL was designed for those who wish to become airline pilots (at least for the most part). This being the case, the above has to be the most backward logic I have ever heard.

Let's analyse it from the perspective of a flight instructor with 1 years experience, aprox 1000tt during a reasonable hiring wave. Safe to say this instructor might be ready to move onto a right seat job in a small twin for a small operator right? He or she would now be faced with the following decision: "Do I take the job that although it is still a far cry from a major airline, it puts me in a multi-crew environment on a larger aircraft (more valuable than flight instructing), or do I continue to instruct so the last 500 hours doesn't turn into 1000".

Shouldn't the criteria in evaluating each flight hour towards this license be how well it prepares you for a career as an airline pilot? If this is the case, TC is saying that hours spent doing "Circuits with Joe-10 hours in a 172 are more valuable than time spent as a first officer in a Kingair for a small airline!

In response to this post I would love to get one of two things cleared up; What were the guys at TC thinking when they made this policy, or if thats not possible maybe somebody can direct me to their buddha dealer so I can find out what they were smoking?!?

[just curious]

I edited this so that it read better, not to pick it apart, just so we're clear. AND, I don't particularly disagree with the sentiment. I am aware of no other ICAO member who credits first officer time as 50%.

Okay, that having been said, for the most part, the argument is that the instructor is making the decisions,and in command, whereas a new Kingair FO is making directed decisions, or being told what they are going to do. Even if the captain is making 'suggestions' they are being made with the authority of the aircraft operator. So, a Kingair FO, at least a portion of their time as FO is spent not making decisions that aren't being watched very closely and with a bit of concern, by a captain. In that light, I'd go along with TC's reasoning that some of that time is not as worthy as the balance of their time. The whole First Officer experience?- No. But to pick a point, 250 hours in a Navajo, 500 in a Beech 200... I wouldn't want to have to decide at what point they are making balanced, good unequivocal captain-like decisions. Which is why I believe we have the whole PIC under supervision thing, that we didn't have before.

Part B) of your theoretical instructor's reasoning: " ...or do I continue to instruct so the last 500 hours doesn't turn into 1000". is pretty optimistic, and symptomatic of most instructors; who understand that they have been making decisions and commanding an aircraft, but don't often comprehend that their experience doesn't often correlate to the experience required to function as captain of that particular operation. I don't know whether that next 500 hours instructing is going to get them to the airlines any faster with their newly minted ATPL, probably not. If that last 500 was on the school Seneca, it may. It would likely help them function as a more able First Officer if they were.

Sadly though. whether they stay in the circuit with Joe or go join Air Miscellaneous right seat on the Beech, they are likely to be frustrated during the transition from thinking as an instructor, to developing the awareness they need for the Beech operation. Whether it's worth one-for-one or two-for-one, it'll usually be a while. Even if you compare them with a straight from school 207.5 hour co-pilot going through to an ATPL, it is the toss of a coin as to which one is ready to upgrade sooner. I understand the perception that instructors arrive in the 703 world with attitude. Often it is true. For most 703 operators, I think that is probably a good thing.

Thinking back to when they were devising these rules, I have no idea where my Dad's old Air Regs and Air Nav Orders are so I can't see how far back it went, but it's a safe bet that this was post WWII, when the Instructors really were experienced, and the Bomber Command Co-pilots really were not. I can't really feature those guys smoking anything but Sweet Caps or cheap cigars. They were dead serious about the worth of an instructor in those days. After the war, there were career instructors. Quite a few. See Captains of the Clouds sometime. It'll give you the idea.

If you can find some of the TC old boys... Don McQuinn, Howard Carter or Marty Plumstead enjoying retirement in the Maritimes, ask them. They'd likely be able to tell you who dreamed it up.

Not me. I flew singles and floats and skis for a long time before I got a multi, so when I went in for my ATPL, I just had to show my Senior Commercial not long after a Multi IFR renewal, and 5 minutes (ok, 10) and I had it in my hot little hands. Didn't matter a bit to my boss. The chief pilot had one, and he was the only one in the company who needed it. And, as he took pains to point out, he wasn't planning on dying or retirement right away. He still hasn't done either.

I only know of a couple of ab initio instructors these days. Quite a few more training types at the FlightSafety/704/705 training captain level. And of course, most of my time is spent with 704 FO's. Comparing them is apples and oranges to me. I can't see a driver jumping well from command of a 152 directly to command of a Kingair 350. I can't see a new captain from a straight co-pilot background doing a great job as a training captain straight away. But I am sure somewhere someone is doing exactly that.
JC

[paydaymayday]

JC, you are saying that F/O time only counts as 50% to the total 1500 hour requirement. I don't think this is the case.

From the CARs:

(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: . . .(a) 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes . . .

I think the instance you are thinking of in which F/O time is counted as 50% is for the cross country time, as follows:

(c) 100 additional hours cross-country flight time as pilot-in-command or 200 hours as co-pilot or any combination thereof, with flight time calculated in accordance with section 421.10. Flight time as pilot-in-command may be part of the 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time specified in paragraph (a); and . . .

This seems to be the only instance where you can trade F/O time for PIC time in the requirements (section c). You cannot substitute F/O at all for the 250PIC (section a), and F/O time is at face value for the 1500 TT requirement.

[jpar84]

JC, you are saying that F/O time only counts as 50% to the total 1500 hour requirement. I don't think this is the case.

From the CARs:

(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: . . .(a) 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes . . .

I think the instance you are thinking of in which F/O time is counted as 50% is for the cross country time, as follows:

(c) 100 additional hours cross-country flight time as pilot-in-command or 200 hours as co-pilot or any combination thereof, with flight time calculated in accordance with section 421.10. Flight time as pilot-in-command may be part of the 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time specified in paragraph (a); and . . .

This seems to be the only instance where you can trade F/O time for PIC time in the requirements (section c). You cannot substitute F/O at all for the 250PIC (section a), and F/O time is at face value for the 1500 TT requirement.

Can anybody clarify this? Is the F/O time counted as .5 overall or at face for the 1500tt and .5 as substitiution for PIC reqs?

[BTD]

The 50% value of co-pilot time counts towards the 1500TT requirement. Eg. Pilot starts co-piloting with 200hrs. Before they get their ATPL they now need (1300x2) hrs to satisfy the TT requirement, 2600 additional hrs.

The 250 PIC requirement for the ATPL is just that. If you don't have 250 hrs Pilot in command you cannot get signed off except under one condition. You have 150 hrs PIC and your company has a program in place to give you the additional 100 hrs you require as PIC under supervision.

It is quite straight forward and has been discussed here many times.

I will find the reg and post it.

BTD

[BTD]

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.

[just curious]

BTD is correct.

[paydaymayday]

Ah-hah! Seems I didn't read the general section. Thanks boys.