Changing of Co-Pilot time towards ATPL??

bater · Post by **bater** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:38 am

Heard through the grapevine today that TC is changing how they count Co-Pilot time towards the ATPL. I'm assuming it's in regards to A/C like PA-31's, Be-10/20's, Pc-12, etc. which aren't necessarily certified as 2-crew, but sometimes run 2-crew due to ops manuals/contracts. Does anyone know any details??

P.S. Let's not turn this into a pissing contest of whether it's right or wrong...

Smitty · Post by **Smitty** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:14 pm

Are you saying that it's going to be counted one for one or not at all unless it's a 2 crew aircraft?

beechy · Post by **beechy** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:43 pm

here's a silly question.......from my understanding of two crew op's it seems that duties are split between capt. and FO.....and you trade off on different legs. So if you are performing the same duties as the captain for every other leg, as he /she does, why on earth can't the logged FO time count 1 for 1......seems stupid no?

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:43 pm

beechy the orginator of this post requested we not get into this discussion for the 20th time

, however if you start a new thread or better yet revive an old one i will do my best to answer you.

snag · Post by **snag** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:03 pm

Without getting the 747 F/O vs. 152 instructor time debate started...One has to admit that more and more companies are running PC-12's, Navajo's and Caravans two crew. My take is that as long you are trained crew member (and not just a swamper), why not log the time, even at 1/2 value. I'm not holding my breath for any changes though.

RNAV · Post by **RNAV** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:05 pm

Yes you are correct.
ICAO has recently amended their standards to reflect that any aircraft that requires two crew will allow a co-pilot to log their time 1 to 1.
Since Canada is a member state, the CARS will be amended to reflect this change. TC anticipates that the CARS will be amended this summer.

Galaxy · Post by **Galaxy** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:10 pm

Could this be because of the so called "Shortage" of pilots??? If they count cojo time 1 for 1 that will make that many more atp rated pilots out there.

It keeps getting better everyday!

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:11 pm

beechy wrote:here's a silly question.......from my understanding of two crew op's it seems that duties are split between capt. and FO.....and you trade off on different legs. So if you are performing the same duties as the captain for every other leg, as he /she does, why on earth can't the logged FO time count 1 for 1......seems stupid no?

No.

STL

Swamp Donkey · Post by **Swamp Donkey** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:34 pm

bater wrote:Heard through the grapevine today that TC is changing how they count Co-Pilot time towards the ATPL. I'm assuming it's in regards to A/C like PA-31's, Be-10/20's, Pc-12, etc. which aren't necessarily certified as 2-crew, but sometimes run 2-crew due to ops manuals/contracts. Does anyone know any details??

P.S. Let's not turn this into a pissing contest of whether it's right or wrong...

My understanding is that when changed, time will be 1:1 on two crew A/C such as the BE-02, not A/C that are certified as single pilot.

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:17 pm

So it still counts as 50% time though right?

sdjfkosdjf · Post by **sdjfkosdjf** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:21 pm

Does anyone actually have any references to this... websites, circulars, or is this just rumour?

Can anyone else in the know offer any information, TCGuy?

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:52 pm

sdjfkosdjf wrote:Does anyone actually have any references to this... websites, circulars, or is this just rumour?

Can anyone else in the know offer any information, TCGuy?

I had heard ICAO had made a change in that direction, and that we would probably be making a similar change.

They haven't consulted with me (LOL!) on when/where/how it will be done. I certainly haven't seen any policy letters or NPA's (Notice of Proposed Ammendments) about it.

Sorry.

-Guy

RNAV · Post by **RNAV** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:21 pm

I recently wrote to TC about this. Received a response two weeks ago which is where I got this information.
Summer of 2007 is when they are planning on amending the CARS.

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:17 am

whats the proprosed change though

cyhu · Post by **cyhu** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:45 am

this is great news !!!

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:08 pm

If "the regulator" certifies an aircraft with a two-pilot requirement, I cannot possibly see why "the regulator" would contradict himself and not allow both pilots to log time, and have that time count straight up.

It gets stickier with single pilot-certified aircraft. I think most of us agree that logging co-pilot time in your buddy's Cherokee 140 is pretty silly - he is NOT a required crewmember.

However, when "the regulator" REQUIRES a second pilot (eg commercial ops) in a single-pilot aircraft, well then, the same argument as above applies - if "the regulator" insists that there be a second pilot in the airplane, it's pretty silly for "the regulator" to turn around and tell you that you can't log (and count) that time straight up.

IMHO.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:34 pm

Hedley wrote:

However, when "the regulator" REQUIRES a second pilot (eg commercial ops) in a single-pilot aircraft

The regulator, by definition, would not REQUIRE a second pilot in a single pilot aircraft except under limited conditions. For the most part the requirement itself comes from the operator who has included it in their OPS Specs. I agree this then effectively becomes a requirement.

This situation however, is one that has come about from abuse by pilots.
If, and I mean if, the company had a requirement, then did proper training including CRM. Captains followed SOPs which included alternate leg PF/PNF, there is little reason not to allow some credit for it, although maybe not 1:1 as the FO is not the PIC regardless if the ar PF or not. I have seen literally, dozens of examples in western canada where this is not the case.
Also, I personally have seen , so I am sure TC has also, pilots claiming FO under ridiculous situations. No training. No PPC or PCC.
Sometimes even just riding around with a buddy.
In all fairness to TC (and this galls me to be fair to them), they would have to do more than simply spot check the odd pilots logbook. Better to default to not allowing the time or , as I have said before, 2:1 only after a PPC/PCC where they are able to establish completion of a proper training program...and again. If companies pencil whip their training programs, this will pose a problem.

The bottom line is that the problem has generally arisen because companies just want a warm, cheap body, not a particularily qualified or experienced one, to fill the right seat, and fresh minted pilots think it is the first step on the ladder...until they find out the value of their right seat time.

Personally, I think some of these pilots should be suing the asses of these companies for falsley representing the future path of these pilots.

In the meantime, I for one would like to see TC eliminate FO time on any certified single pilot machine as counting towards a higher rating. Again it is not about the experience, it is a result of the abuses.

Now I shall sit back and watch the flames.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:40 pm

Really dumb question: if an aircraft is certified for single-pilot ops, why then isn't it flown with a single pilot?

PC-12 comes to mind. It's certified single-pilot, so why do you need a second pilot? Is there some problem with how airplanes are certified? Are they certified incorrectly?

If you want to re-visit the aircraft certification, and require the PC-12 to have two crewmembers, well, at least that's consistent.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:47 pm

Hedley wrote:PC-12 comes to mind. It's certified single-pilot, so why do you need a second pilot? Is there some problem with how airplanes are certified? Are they certified incorrectly?

IMO, they are certified correctly. The usual 2-crew operation of these aircraft deals with more operational issues than certification issues.

Most often the operator has 2 crew so that they are not limited by 8 hour duty day for IFR. Also, in the exec charter world, most of the larger companies and wealthier pax are insisting on two pilots.

As a side benefit, it gives someone right-seat operational/online experience before they become PIC in the operation.

HuD 91gt · Post by **HuD 91gt** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:15 pm

What about actualy minimum aircraft equipement requirements? Example... Single crew aircraft with a non-operational auto pilot. this would constitute two crew in IFR conditions? How does this play a role?

anywaiss · Post by **anywaiss** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:18 pm

Galaxy wrote:If they count cojo time 1 for 1 that will make that many more atp rated pilots out there.

amazing thought isn't it! airline rated pilots with actual commercial flying experience!!! i just hope they outnumber the flying school transport pilots "cessna golf alhpa uniform tango heavy downwind left one one for touch and go"

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:19 pm

HuD 91gt wrote:What about actualy minimum aircraft equipement requirements? Example... Single crew aircraft with a non-operational auto pilot. this would constitute two crew in IFR conditions? How does this play a role?

CARS Part VII wrote:703.66 No person shall operate an aircraft on a single-pilot operation in IMC unless the aircraft is equipped with

(a) an auto-pilot that is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and manoeuvre the aircraft about the lateral and longitudinal axes;

(b) a headset with a boom microphone or equivalent and a transmit button on the control column; and

(c) a chart holder that is placed in an easily readable position and a means of illumination for the chart holder.

Yet another argument in favour of two pilots.

trey kule · Post by **trey kule** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:19 pm

Hedley wrote:

Really dumb question: if an aircraft is certified for single-pilot ops, why then isn't it flown with a single pilot?

Not dumb at all. It is usually because the customer has it as a requirement, thoough, in at least one case of a sched company using PC 12s, it was, in the word of their CP,,Window dressing. I do see the benefit in having two qualified crew members vs. one....but the keyword here is qualified.

The problem I have with the whole thing is that the second crew members are, in many many cases simply not experienced or knowledgeable enough to make a really valuable contribution to the flight. As a result they become captains assistants, and that doesnt really amount to good experience. It also has the downside of wrong attitude adjustment and false confidence.

Now , Johney wrote:

As a side benefit, it gives someone right-seat operational/online experience before they become PIC in the operation

You see, Johney has made the problem clear. His premise is that our right seaters simply need some operational/online experience to jump into the left seat. It is a preception that the inexperienced, all to often have of the knowledge and skills to fly some airplanes...Heck, if its got wings, and someone shows me how to start it (or I can access a POH on Avcanada), I can fly it.

And befoe any of the newbies flame me, I think TC, insurers, and most reputable companies mgt hold the same opinion.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:25 pm

trey kule wrote:You see, Johney has made the problem clear. His premise is that our right seaters simply need some operational/online experience to jump into the left seat. It is a preception that the inexperienced, all to often have of the knowledge and skills to fly some airplanes...

Sorry if I gave that impression... I was merely highlighting the difference between a scenario in which someone can legally sit in the right seat for operational/online flights in order to learn the operation versus a situation where that is not possible.

Besides, who's to say the right seater doesn't have more experience than the left-seat? My point was simply that it allows the more experienced employee to share some knowledge (sometimes it is, in fact, the co-jo showing the "ropes" to the PIC).

Nobody should be made PIC of an aircraft if they are sufficiently skilled or experienced.

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:12 pm

The problem I have with the whole thing is that the second crew members are, in many many cases simply not experienced or knowledgeable enough to make a really valuable contribution to the flight. As a result they become captains assistants, and that doesnt really amount to good experience. It also has the downside of wrong attitude adjustment and false confidence.

It is unfortunate that their are a few captains that have the attitude that the person in the right seat is their to look pretty and work the radio... I think the false sence of security comes from the lack of input to the decision making process as well as an overall lack of experience... As well as all the normal "captain" duties it, a captain should be taking the time to teach/train his/her FO to take the captain seat some day...

Im fine with going to a 1=1 for time, but their should be a requirement for experience as PIC in a 703 operation as well as FO time in a 704/5 operation to actually hold the ATPL...

Changing of Co-Pilot time towards ATPL??

Changing of Co-Pilot time towards ATPL??

Re: Changing of Co-Pilot time towards ATPL??