Twin Otter Question --

[cessnafloatflyer]

Does one need an ATPL to be PIC on a Twin Otter if it's on floats and all VFR?

[AUGER9]

I don't believe one needs an atpl to fly a twin otter period.

[hew44]

I think you do need an ATPL, to be a captain that is. Atleast commercial and IATRA written to be an F/O. Its a 2 crew airplane

[stick_shaker]

twin otter is a single pilot aircraft, most operators choose to operate it 2 crew. you do not need an atpl to be PIC or FO, i have know many that were PIC's without the atpl or IATRA.

[young grasshopper]

Nope - don't need an ATPL at all...Wheels/Skis/Floats/VFR/IFR...doesn't matter. Less than 12,500 means no ATPL required.

[float ball]

Nope, as the above posts say the Twin Otter is 12,500 lbs or less and certified as a single pilot aircraft so no ATPL is required. Saying that however there are companies which require an ATPL to be PIC on a Twin Otter for insurance purposes.

[Cat Driver]

We operated them single pilot IFR on floats on sked airline runs.

All that was required was a commercial license with a multi engine float rating and an IFR rating.

[The Old Fogducker]

Being less than 12,500 lbs has absolutely zero to do with it.

It is certified as a single pilot aircraft by the manufacturer, and is not a type designated as being "High Performance."

Therefore the DHC-6 Twin Otter does not require a Type Rating, nor an ATPL to be Pilot In Command.....which would be the case if it were one of those previously mentioned situations.

The entire concept of "Twelve five" was blown away in October 1996 when the CARs were introduced and instantly did away with the term ..... and all the previous folklore about the "magic" of "twelve five" airplanes.

So do yourself a favour, and forget about the term "Twelve five" it has been obsolete for 13 years. Blow the words out of your brain.

Then again, I still occasionally run across pilots that refer to airways by colour ... IE "Red 12."

The Old Fogducker

[cessnafloatflyer]

Thanks folks --

[PanEuropean]

Keep in mind that the answer to the question very much depends on what state the aircraft is registered in.

In some states, if an aircraft is being operated as a two-crew aircraft, both of the pilots must have completed a multi-crew course (MCC) and there may be a requirement that the PIC have an ATPL. By example, I have two type ratings for a Twin Otter on my JAA (European) license - one for PIC single pilot and one for PIC multi-crew. For operational purposes, the rules may not pay any attention to the fact that the type certificate states that it is a single pilot aircraft

This has nothing to do with Twin Otters per se, the concept (and thus this response) applies to any aircraft that are being used in commercial air operations. There are a few other aircraft of similar vintage (Beech 99, Embraer Banderainte, etc.) that fall into the same gray zone when it comes to two-crew ops, license qualifications, type ratings, and so forth.

I am going to guess that "The Old Fogducker's" answer is probably accurate for Canada, however, the rules are not the same worldwide.

Michael

[iflyforpie]

The entire concept of "Twelve five" was blown away in October 1996 when the CARs were introduced and instantly did away with the term ..... and all the previous folklore about the "magic" of "twelve five" airplanes.

So do yourself a favour, and forget about the term "Twelve five" it has been obsolete for 13 years.

The Old Fogducker

Funny.

523.3 Aeroplane Categories

(a) The normal category is limited to aeroplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 5700 kg (12,566 lbs.) or less, and intended for non-aerobatic operation.

"Twelve-five" doesn't have anything to do with number of crew, but it is far from obsolete...

[The Old Fogducker]

I was answering in the same context as the question was posed ... at least as I perceived it.

That was .... whether a Canadian ATPL was required to fly as PIC on the Twin Otter.

I admit to having jumped to the conclusion this aircraft would be operated in Canadian Domestic Airspace, under an Air Operator's Certificate issued by Transport Canada.

Perhaps I failed to convey that complex thought process appropriately, as I am all too frequently hampered by being remarkably poor at interpersonal communications in both written and verbal form. Even my body language draws blank stares and causes slack jaws ... LOL.

Once our attempts at passing information reach the billy club or pick axe stage, I admit to rather enjoying the scrap.....sort of like a round of WWE Pro Wrestling.

The Old Fogducker

[just curious]

It may also be a function of one's Operating Certificate. Operating under 703, a commercial is fine. A 704 may require an ATPL. Ours does.

[PanEuropean]

I think 'Just Curious' has hit the nail on the head - it's an operating regulation, as opposed to a certification regulation or a licensing regulation.

For example, from strictly a certification point of view, a manufacturer could build a Twin Otter with needle, ball, airspeed, and a wet compass, and certify it (CAR 3 basis) for day VFR flight. But, no operator (other than a private individual who might want to use it to do circuits at the local airport) could ever use that Twin Otter for commercial operations. The requirements for two pilots, flight instruments on both sides, recorders, TAWS, ACAS, and so forth all come from the operating regulations, not the certification regulations.

Likewise, I think that a private individual could probably legally fly a Twin Otter in Canada single pilot with only a private or commercial licence - no IR, no copilot, etc., as long as they were doing it for their own pleasure on a sunny day. Once someone wants to operate the aircraft commercially, the operating regulations will impose more restrictive requirements than the personnel licencing regulations.

Michael

[young grasshopper]

I wrote:

...doesn't matter. Less than 12,500 means no ATPL required.

The Old Fogducker wrote:

So do yourself a favour, and forget about the term "Twelve five" it has been obsolete for 13 years. Blow the words out of your brain.

Sorry? Thanks for the info though!