Co-pilot time for ATPL

[Doc]

OK Doc,
So, should the 250 tt fresh pilot that learned from a 250 tt instructor be let loose on the world to over indulge his / her lack of experience flying mail or pax to far away communities? Then brag, like you, that they have made their own decisions?
Or would it make more sense to have a fresh, "SPACE HEAD" sitting right seat learning from a hero like you, or some other qualified ATPL holder with serious experience and wisdom to bestow upon the young "SPACE HEAD"?
Wouldn't you rather that an experienced pilot actually beat some sense into a FO?

Wow. Who urinated in your corn flakes this fine morning? Why the personal attack on me? I'm voicing an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[cpt.sam]

No no Doc
Not aiming at you in a targeted fashion, just aiming to question back to you.
I value you're opinion, that is why I read these forums, to see what everyone else is seeing in our industry.
What I do not see is any unity at all on this topic.
Guys that instructed or went into the bush think that's the ONLY way you can be a REAL captain. Guys that were fortunate enough to avoid instruction / bush jobs think that spending those years in an airliner (large or small) is the ONLY way.
I think a combo would be best, but one shouldn't be set back by the 2:1 rule, which is the topic here.
I do agree, more PIC is naturally better, but a one size fits all mold is BS.
Someone flying a small twin on a sked run is almost certain to get better experience than someone instructing or sky dive dropping.
As well, I believe the guy that's operating a 12500 plane in all weather conditions from the right seat is going to get valuable FO experience, which is going to translate into good decisions from the left seat.
No, I don't think beating FOs is good, figure of speech!
I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking ppl.

[back_course]

This topic was just about infow on the new possible rulings coming out. So sad to see fellow pilots like this, going through their entitlements and putting one another down.

Crew is a team guys.

Please kill this now mods

[Cat Driver]

Please kill this now mods

Great idea.

All we need now is for someone to make up a new word that will kill all discussion when it suits them.

Lets see........ pilotphobic.....yeh that has a real social engineering sound to it.

Real Canadian.

[Krimson]

This topic was just about infow on the new possible rulings coming out. So sad to see fellow pilots like this, going through their entitlements and putting one another down.

Crew is a team guys.

Please kill this now mods

No one is putting down anyone else. Everyone is voicing their opinion on the issue, which is exactly what is supposed to happen after a proposed ruling appears in Part I of the Gazette. Reading something online without someone's tone of voice may make something come across like a personal attack, but as I recall, everyone who has been accused of personal attacks has clarified that was not their intent.

Every thread on avcanada probably has someone who wants to close it, but there is still a lot of great information on this site after you ignore half of what is said. I don't think anyone should be able to request closing a discussion (unless it gets completely out of hand).

I am very curious with these new changes coming up and hope it is for the best.

[Etihad]

Well, from what I can tell........... I did not see that proposed change pass as of yet .........

[schnitzel2k3]

Someone mentioned that the change will be reviewed and either passed or rejected today (24th).

If it wasn't reviewed today, when will it be looked at again. I'm very curious about this change. Looks like there are a couple other changes in there as well besides filling the logbook for the ATPL.

Thanks.

[cdnpilot77]

Not that it would be reviewed today. The gazette II comes out every 2 weeks on Wednesday's. If the issue has been resolved by parliament and is passed, in the previous 2 weeks, it will be printed. If the issue has not been resolved or hasn't even been reviewed it obviously will not be printed in the Gazette II. All you can do is watch to see if it appears in the bi-weekly gazette II.

[schnitzel2k3]

Thanks cdn. Much appreciated.

[cpt.sam]

Where could one find this gazette to read?

[Chaxterium]

Quick google search will do the job!

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/index-eng.html

Cheers,
Chax

[rac007]

Just got a letter back from my MP who talked to Transport. Transport Canada has responded, “Regarding the regulation changes, we anticipate that they will be published in Part II of the Gazette in the fall.”

[Mister1]

...

[Gear Jerker]

If the ultimate goal is to ensure a certain standard of decision making ability and knowledge/skill amongst ATPL holders, perhaps there ought to be more 'clauses' in the 1500TT in terms of experience requirements in various types of operations (702/703/704) and/or aircraft category and class.

With the existing requirements, as well as the proposed new requirements, there are pretty clear pros and cons in terms of the experience gained from instructing vs FO, as mentioned by others. I know of a few ex instructors who move on to their first "real" job as a direct entry captain only to be fired after line indoc as there is clearly a lack of sound decision making ability, although all the knowledge/theory in the world is locked and loaded, and they had decent hands and feet.

I have also known some complete dolts who could really fly and make excellent decisions, while just scraping by the exams.

This next part is very much my own opinion, and I hope to be challenged/questioned on it.

I believe that the attitude an individual possesses is a good predictor of what sort of a standard of knowledge, skill, and decision making ability they will possess by the time they have ATPL level of experience. The problem now is that somebody with the wrong attitude can get through instructing for 1500hrs and write the AA's and get their ATPL, or somebody with the wrong attitude can spend 3000hrs as an FO (let alone with the rule change only 1500) not making decisions, get the bare minimum PIC time, write the AA's and get their ATPL, even though in both cases they may be an accident waiting to happen, because of their attitude towards flying.

A possible scenario for a "typical" ATPL holder of a high standard might be something like flying a 185 or a 206 on floats or wheels in the bush, then King Air/Navajo FO, gaining some 2 crew and IFR experience, then becoming a captain on a King Air or Navajo, then and only then getting an ATPL. Somebody who can succeed in both environments is likely to be somebody who has the type of attitude and thus skill/knowledge/pdm to stay safe.

For instructors, there could be a clause about minimum 2 crew IFR experience required for an ATPL.

It would be a challenge to define a new set of fair and realistic requirements in terms of experience in certain operations and/or aircraft category and class, however I think that simply eliminating the current rule of FO time counting as half does not contribute to public safety, and it does not contribute to achieving a higher standard amongst ATPL holders.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think that simply eliminating the current rule of FO time counting as half does not contribute to public safety

Thanks for sharing, but you're arriving a little
late to the party. Do you actually intend to
change the contents of Gazette II? Are you
aware that the rest of the world does it this
way?

I might point out that there are plenty of people
with driver's licences, too, that can't drive a
car worth squat.

Any licence or rating just gets you through the
door. It is no guarantee of a complete package -
that's why companies have an interview process
with a sim, etc.

[Chaxterium]

I don't think he's trying to change the contents of the Gazette II. I think he's just trying to start a discussion on better and more realistic ATPL requirements.

In my opinion there should definitely be a multi-crew requirement to the ATPL. If I was tasked with creating the requirements for the ATPL I would go with something like this:

-2500 TT
-500 PIC
-500 Multi-Crew
-200 Night
-100 IFR
-Multi-Crew Type Rating

Those times seem reasonable to me.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Chax

[Colonel Sanders]

I think he's just trying to start a discussion on better and more realistic ATPL requirements

I'm struggling to figure out why. We could also have a
discussion about better and more realistic expectations
that women should have of men, but to what point? I
don't think we're going to change women any time soon,
either.

Thoughts?

Two words: ICAO compliance. Unless we're going to all
stop everyone flying outside of Canada, and stop all foreigners
from flying into Canada. Build a great big wall around the
Canadian border, to FL 600.

[notpaying]

For all those looking for the source of this thread, I went and got the html version of it. It also talks about other changes, such as the elimination of the 6 month medical if you're 40 and over, un,ess you are 40 and flying single pilot IFR. However, I doubt the 1:1 rule implementation, because it does not appear in the REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART IV) part of the Gazette I. Maybe someone can shed some light on this?

Here is the link
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/201 ... .html#REFb

[Canadian Skyhawk]

The 1 ATPL for 2 co-pilot hours appears in CARs 401.10 / 421.10.

401.10 states simply: "The Minister shall, in accordance with the personnel licensing standards, credit the flight time acquired by a co-pilot towards the issuance of a higher class of pilot licence."

421.10 states simply: "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."

The amendment proposed in the Gazette I clearly spells out that one of the intentions of this amendment is to grant 100% recognition for co-pilot hours towards the ATPL. It includes an amendment for 401.10, though the text specified is "401.10 reserved", which indicates that the specific replacement text has yet to be written. The intentions of the change are nevertheless very clear.

I expect this change to pass before the end of 2013.

[Mister1]

...

[Doc]

Had heard that they intend to change the 50% credit to 30% credit. Three hours of co-pilot time will be required to equal one of hour towards an ATPL. Can anybody confirm this? Weird.

[shimmydampner]

Could you imagine all the wailing and complaining and crying foul from all the low-time right-seat kiddies?! Ahh... makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.

[Doc]

Exactly what I was thinking as well. LOL!!! Imagine the line ups for instructor ratings!

[PointyEngine]

While they're at it, Transport may as well make instructing time (Passenger In Command) just as valuable as co-jo time. No point just killing one bird.

[Doc]

While they're at it, Transport may as well make instructing time (Passenger In Command) just as valuable as co-jo time. No point just killing one bird.

The sour grapes begin.