Co-pilot time for ATPL

[back_course]

True story?

TC are going to review the 50% rule for logging co-pilot time due to lack of ATPL holders?

Any infow?

[Chaxterium]

That's what I've been told by one of the TC higher ups in Ottawa. I was told that it was supposed to have already changed but for whatever reason there was no amendment. My guess then is that it will change with the next amendment which I believe is due soon.

I don't know if it's due to a lack of ATPL holders though. I was told it was to go back in line with ICAO.

Cheers,
Chax

[cdnpilot77]

It was in the Gazette I on February 23rd to be reviewed by parliament. It has not been posted in the Gazette II so not yet official, it could still fall apart. Next printing of the Gazette II is Wednesday April 24th. Stay tuned!

The reason given in the Gazette for the amendment was to properly align with all other ICAO nations and their rules for counting f/o time

[shimmydampner]

Oh goodie! Let's lower the required experience for the highest license so we can be like everyone else. Real step in the right direction.

[D_Thissen]

I dont see whats wrong with counting co-joe time as 1 for 1. You mean to tell me if I fly all 1500 hours in a 150 Ill be more qualified then someone who has 750 hours and 750 right seat in a PC-12?

[Cat Driver]

For experience toward the ATPL the guy with the PC12 first officer time would be my choice.

[shimmydampner]

I dont see whats wrong with counting co-joe time as 1 for 1. You mean to tell me if I fly all 1500 hours in a 150 Ill be more qualified then someone who has 750 hours and 750 right seat in a PC-12?

No. I mean to tell you the requirements were a joke to begin with and making it easier isn't going to benefit the industry. Everyone here wants to jump up and down and shout about us all being underpaid and under appreciated as "professionals" who need to start a college, but no one wants to put in the time and effort to gain the level of experience required to be able to DEMAND respect and decent money. Everyone REALLY just wants the shortest path of least resistance to be a big shot airline pilot because they feel entitled to it, presumably because they spent a lot of their parents' money to buy a license that just about anyone can get. Go ahead, tell an uninitiated person on the street that the requirements to be an airline pilot are now MUCH easier to acheive and see if they think that should warrant more money and respect as a group. This is only good news for short-sighted copilots and the types of 705 operators who will salivate at the thought of being able to nickel and dime less experienced crews who will do anything for the chance to wear the big boy pants in the front seat of a 705 machine.

[Krimson]

no one wants to put in the time and effort to gain the level of experience required to be able to DEMAND respect and decent money. Everyone REALLY just wants the shortest path of least resistance to be a big shot airline pilot because they feel entitled to it, presumably because they spent a lot of their parents' money to buy a license that just about anyone can get.

Because matching every other ICAO country on licence requirements says exactly that


As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

[back_course]

Thanks guys for the infow, much appreciated !

[cj555]

As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

You're right, it doesn't seem to make alot of sense. I guess the aim of the ATPL is logging time where you are "responsible" for all the decisions made. Therefore, FO in a Dash wouldn't be responsible for making decisions should something unexpected happen, versus PIC in a 152 they would be.

[BE20 Driver]

No. I mean to tell you the requirements were a joke to begin with and making it easier isn't going to benefit the industry. Everyone here wants to jump up and down and shout about us all being underpaid and under appreciated as "professionals" who need to start a college, but no one wants to put in the time and effort to gain the level of experience required to be able to DEMAND respect and decent money. Everyone REALLY just wants the shortest path of least resistance to be a big shot airline pilot because they feel entitled to it, presumably because they spent a lot of their parents' money to buy a license that just about anyone can get. Go ahead, tell an uninitiated person on the street that the requirements to be an airline pilot are now MUCH easier to acheive and see if they think that should warrant more money and respect as a group. This is only good news for short-sighted copilots and the types of 705 operators who will salivate at the thought of being able to nickel and dime less experienced crews who will do anything for the chance to wear the big boy pants in the front seat of a 705 machine.

10+
Couldn't agree more. I also strongly disagreed with 1500 hours of 152 circuits qualifying for an Airline Transportation Pilot Licence.

[Chaxterium]

10+
Couldn't agree more. I also strongly disagreed with 1500 hours of 152 circuits qualifying for an Airline Transportation Pilot Licence.

Exactly. I've never understood that. For first officers, even though he or she is not logging PIC he or she is intimately involved in making the decisions required as an Airline pilot. Don't get me wrong though. I'm not trying to say it's the same as PIC time. There is no substitute for PIC time. But I don't think anyone here thinks that 152 time is more applicable to an ATPL than FO time. One might say that it's because PIC time trumps FO time but I completely disagree when the PIC time is in a 152, and the FO time is on a Dash 8. Hypothetically speaking who's more ready to be a Dash 8 captain? Sammy Sixpack with 1500 hours flying circuits, or Timmy Twofour with 250 hours PIC and 1250 hours as an FO on the Dash 8?

Either way it's a moot point. As stupid as it is, the way the regs work you can go get your FAA ATP and then convert it to a TCCA ATPL and completely bypass the FO rule.

[Big Pistons Forever]

AFAIK the ICAO standard is indeed 1 for 1 when it comes to counting hours, but there is also a requirement to have 500 hrs flying an aircraft that has a type certificate requiring two pilots. Any country can file a differences notice with ICAO so there is no legal requirement to align our rules with ICAO. In this case for what ever reason, a decision was made to void the filed difference and go with the ICAO standard. I wonder why we did not just go all the way and put the two crew hour requirement in ?

If you want to make the "ATPL" better then it would seem to me that actually having some time flying an "airliner" (or its corporate jet equivalent) before you can hold an "airline" transport license would be a good idea.

[Chaxterium]

If you want to make the "ATPL" better then it would seem to me that actually having some time flying an "airliner" (or its corporate jet equivalent) before you can hold an "airline" transport license would be a good idea.

Couldn't agree more. That would make a lot more sense.

[Meatservo]

I earned the requirements for my ATPL the long way. I flew single-engine "bush" planes and then single-pilot IFR, and finally left seat on a small turboprop with co-pilots. Due to the way I accumulated time and the flying I was doing it took longer than many people are willing to wait due to the night time requirements. I probably had about 7 or 8 thousand hours before I bothered to write the tests, because I was enjoying what I was doing in the meantime. I think this experience is more in line with the "spirit" of the ATPL requirements.

I don't think 1500 hours in a 152 OR 750 hours in the right seat of a PC 12 necessarily qualifies one to be an "airline pilot", but I guess we need to take what we can get. There's the "spirit" of the law, and then there's the "letter" of the law, and sometimes they are, if not mutually exclusive, at least at odds with each other. If we all got our licenses the old-fashioned way, there wouldn't be many airline pilots around. Except maybe foreign ones.

I have finally come to the conclusion that suitability for command comes down to individual character as much as it does experience, probably more so. Many of the pilots I have the most respect for don't have a huge amount of time. Don't get me wrong, I think experience is very important, but character is equally important. It's just really hard to "test" for without something bad happening!

[Doc]

An ATPL SHOULD require a type endorsement on an aircraft that actually requires an ATPL. Otherwise, it's just the joke it's always been! And, as pointed out, you can get the much undervalued ATPL with 1500 PIC in a 152, and 10 hours (or less) in an Apache! It's a JOKE, kids. Always has been.
BTW, I do believe we are the only country that has this 50% co-pilot rule?
Not opening the debate J3 command time vs., Boeing 777 co-pilot time....use your frikken heads Ottawa. Really!

[frozen solid]

An ATPL SHOULD require a type endorsement on an aircraft that actually requires an ATPL. Otherwise, it's just the joke it's always been! And, as pointed out, you can get the much undervalued ATPL with 1500 PIC in a 152, and 10 hours (or less) in an Apache! It's a JOKE, kids. Always has been.
BTW, I do believe we are the only country that has this 50% co-pilot rule?
Not opening the debate J3 command time vs., Boeing 777 co-pilot time....use your frikken heads Ottawa. Really!

It's not correct to speak in absolutes. There are more types of aeroplanes in the world than those represented by C-152s and J3s, Pc-12s and 777s.

For example, I'm looking for a skipper to fly my medium-sized cargo plane. Say it's a Basler DC3-T or a DH Caribou or something. All my copilots have zero command time, so I'm looking at resumes. Two guys are on my short list, both ATPLs. One has several thousand hours of PIC on Twin Otters, the other has 800 hours of instructing but he DOES have a recent PPC on a Dornier 228, which requires an ATPL. No-brainer, eh, Doc? Let's hire the Dornier kid, because the Twin Otter guy doesn't deserve HIS ATPL.

[shimmydampner]

As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

Kid, I'd rather not waste my time trying to explain something to you since you're clearly missing the point by a country mile. Maybe when you get off your 152 circuits hang-up you'll realize that's not my angle.

[Krimson]

As it stands right now, 152 time buzzing around in the circuit is considered more valuable to the airline transport licence than sitting co-joe on a dash. Can you please explain how that makes sense?

Kid, I'd rather not waste my time trying to explain something to you since you're clearly missing the point by a country mile. Maybe when you get off your 152 circuits hang-up you'll realize that's not my angle.

Old man, you have also missed my point. This is one step closer to correcting this issue. I'm all for stricter ATPL requirements, but this is a start in the right direction. 500 hours in two-crew <12.5 would be a good next step.

Everyone here wants to jump up and down and shout about us all being underpaid and under appreciated as "professionals" who need to start a college, but no one wants to put in the time and effort to gain the level of experience required to be able to DEMAND respect and decent money. Everyone REALLY just wants the shortest path of least resistance to be a big shot airline pilot because they feel entitled to it, presumably because they spent a lot of their parents' money to buy a license that just about anyone can get. Go ahead, tell an uninitiated person on the street that the requirements to be an airline pilot are now MUCH easier to acheive and see if they think that should warrant more money and respect as a group. This is only good news for short-sighted copilots and the types of 705 operators who will salivate at the thought of being able to nickel and dime less experienced crews who will do anything for the chance to wear the big boy pants in the front seat of a 705 machine.

To sit there and insult every pilot underneath you while saying no one is acting professional because a proposed change to the CARs is pretty ridiculous. How about you act a bit more professional and not just claim the new "kids" are spending their parent's money on licences and are so worthless. You sound like one of those grumpy captains who has a problem with everyone below/younger than him; one of those who I thoroughly dislike flying with.

[Jack In The Box]

sooo...instead of arguing about whether or not the requirements are good, can we get back to the original question? How about some updates on this progress?

[cdnpilot77]

sooo...instead of arguing about whether or not the requirements are good, can we get back to the original question? How about some updates on this progress?

See my post above

[shimmydampner]

Old man, you have also missed my point. This is one step closer to correcting this issue. I'm all for stricter ATPL requirements, but this is a start in the right direction. 500 hours in two-crew <12.5 would be a good next step.
...
To sit there and insult every pilot underneath you while saying no one is acting professional because a proposed change to the CARs is pretty ridiculous. How about you act a bit more professional and not just claim the new "kids" are spending their parent's money on licences and are so worthless. You sound like one of those grumpy captains who has a problem with everyone below/younger than him; one of those who I thoroughly dislike flying with.

No, I get your point- it's very simple, albeit, a contradiction. After all, you did just state that this very obvious lowering of requirements "is a start in the right direction" towards stricter ATPL requirements that you supposedly fully support.

Look, my point is very simple, especially if for one second you block from your mind the only form of PIC time you seem to be familiar with: Jonny Numnuts burning circuits in his 152. Forget about him for a second, as there are many other forms of PIC that are actually highly relevant to 705. My point is simply that the main privilege of the ATPL is that it allows a person to act as PlC of a 705 machine. This includes some pretty heavy tin full of large crowds of people. Now, if acting as PlC is the main privilege, shouldn't it stand to reason that a meaningful amount of command time be required? After all, effective command decision making certainly takes much longer to develop than it takes to memorize SOP's and recite checklists to another human being (which, by the way, can occur at the 703 or 704 level.) The thing is, even as it stands now, there is no direct requirement for a meaningful amount of PIC time, and of course, as you're fond of pointing out, none whatsoever for any really relevant PIC time. There is only the requirement for a very insignificant amount of PIC time and a still pretty insignificant, but higher, number of total hours. This part is a joke. However, if you can't or won't get from one to the other in the left seat, you gotta put in some overtime, possibly resulting in at least some meaningful amount of total time. Still ridiculous that you can get to the end goal with essentially no PIC time, but at least it ensures that there is a bit of experience required. This part is probably the best part of the current setup. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Disposing of it because it's what our pals do IS A JOKE but I do suppose it's in keeping with the rest of the ATPL process that way.

[North Shore]

Seems to me a bit of much ado about nothing, really. You could get the A either way (circuits or right seat), but no-one's going to hire you to be a 704/5 PIC without their judging that you have sufficient relevant experience - which, in practice, amounts to another 3-4 years of industry experience. That should be enough to level out any experience-based inequalities.

[Aeroplane17]

I'd like to have the GoPro ready when the guy from the 777 goes for a few circuits in the J3 with a few knots across the field!!

This happened in St.Thomas a few years ago. A Cathay Captain lands with his mint Fleet Canuck, ground loops it into the field twice on the landing / taxi (plane was fine) walks into the terminal like NBD chats a little while then blasts off again getting about 2-300 agl, the "wind" wings him over poking into a field 180 degrees to where he took off beside the runway a piece of Canadian history totaled. Good job bud.

[Doc]

An ATPL SHOULD require a type endorsement on an aircraft that actually requires an ATPL. Otherwise, it's just the joke it's always been! And, as pointed out, you can get the much undervalued ATPL with 1500 PIC in a 152, and 10 hours (or less) in an Apache! It's a JOKE, kids. Always has been.
BTW, I do believe we are the only country that has this 50% co-pilot rule?
Not opening the debate J3 command time vs., Boeing 777 co-pilot time....use your frikken heads Ottawa. Really!

It's not correct to speak in absolutes. There are more types of aeroplanes in the world than those represented by C-152s and J3s, Pc-12s and 777s.

For example, I'm looking for a skipper to fly my medium-sized cargo plane. Say it's a Basler DC3-T or a DH Caribou or something. All my copilots have zero command time, so I'm looking at resumes. Two guys are on my short list, both ATPLs. One has several thousand hours of PIC on Twin Otters, the other has 800 hours of instructing but he DOES have a recent PPC on a Dornier 228, which requires an ATPL. No-brainer, eh, Doc? Let's hire the Dornier kid, because the Twin Otter guy doesn't deserve HIS ATPL.

Well, it is a no-brainer. You hire the Twin Otter driver, as long as his exams are written, his PPC/check ride on your Basler instantly qualifies him for an ATPL. Done. He has PT6 time. Bonus for you because the DO228 has Garrets. As for the DH4, same story. The Twin Otter guy has the kind of flying you do in a 'boo. But, you sound bitter. Since I feel that an ATPL should require a type check in an aircraft requiring one, our Twin Otter guy would now get an ATPL.