Chaxterium wrote:If the ATPL is required to act as PIC in airline operations then why not make the requirement of that licence more relatable to the actual position it allows?

Absolutely, perhaps a meaningful amount of PlC time would be worthwhile to require of someone who wants to wear the big boy pants in a two crew 705 aircraft. The current 250, which can be whittled down to a paltry 150 thanks to the oxymoronic PIC US, is a joke.

l guess we can agree that the current setup isn't perfect. l just figure making it less restrictive isn't the best direction to go with it. But then, no one important cares what I think.

And no, l doubt any aircraft will drop from the sky as a result, but it certainly will not enhance safety at all.
Nor will it positively affect the often pathetic wages for skippers of entry level 705 machines.

shimmydampner wrote:Absolutely, perhaps a meaningful amount of PlC time would be worthwhile to require of someone who wants to wear the big boy pants in a two crew 705 aircraft. The current 250, which can be whittled down to a paltry 150 thanks to the oxymoronic PIC US, is a joke.

Agreed. I would definitely be in favour of raising the PIC requirement. I like the fact that our ATPL is among the hardest to acquire. If you're interested have a look at the FAA requirements. In the US the requirements are basically the same, minus the FO thing, but the biggest difference is how they count PIC. They make it much easier to count PIC time. I've heard that under certain circumstances five separate people can log PIC on the same flight.

Here's a memorandum issued by the FAA last year that outlines when their pilots can log PIC. It's interesting to read considering how black and white our regs are concerning PIC time. After reading it you can see how our requirements aren't so easy!

http://tinyurl.com/ax2e7uk

Cheers,
Chax

I also agree we should improve the quality of hours required over the number required. I would like to see an increase in PIC time, get rid of PICUS, and lower the night hours.

Maybe even something along the lines of only half PIC/dual time counting towards the total required when flying single pilot light piston. (i.e. student/instructing/survey work/etc...it doesn't have much to do with airline operations). Makes much more sense than halving the co-pilot time on a over 12,500 lbs, multi-turbine doing a scheduled service.

I like the fact that our ATPL is among the hardest to acquire

The Europeans with their 15 (?) written exams would beg to differ!!

Fair enough.

I was speaking more in terms of hour requirements though. But 15 exams is crazy! The FAA has one. And it's a joke!

Not sure I would call it a joke - it's certainly easier because
all the questions are public knowledge, and you can buy
amazing prep material for them - but I'm sure many
Europeans would be amazed that I did the FAA ATP
exam in 20 minutes and got 90%

If the questions were secret, like TC's, it would be much
harder. But if you have a (nearly) photographic memory,
it gets much easier.

Back in the mid 90's I wrote the FAA IFP (instrument
foreign pilot exam) for my FAA COMM-SMEL-IA. There
were a few tough questions on it, so I just memorized
them all.

PS What screwed me up on the FAA tests is that the
answers were re-ordered on the real test as compared
to the prep. That made it a bit tougher.

Colonel Sanders wrote:Not sure I would call it a joke - it's certainly easier because
all the questions are public knowledge, and you can buy
amazing prep material for them - but I'm sure many
Europeans would be amazed that I did the FAA ATP
exam in 20 minutes and got 90%

I actually just wrote the FAA ATP exam a couple months back and I used prep software from the school I was doing my training at. At first I was rather worried because the questions were decently challenging. So when I sat down to write the actual exams I was uneasy because I had only used the prep software for a few hours and from my experience with TC exams that's definitely not enough. I finished in about 20 minutes like you and scored just under 90%. The questions were word for word from the prep material. I was shocked. It couldn't have been easier. After using the prep software a student pilot would have been able to pass with flying colours.

The way the Europeans do it amazes me. The FAA has one exam. We have two (well three if you include the INRAT) but the JAA has 14. What do they cover that we don't?

Chaxterium wrote:The way the Europeans do it amazes me. The FAA has one exam. We have two (well three if you include the INRAT) but the JAA has 14. What do they cover that we don't?

They cover the same information, just in a lot more detail. We basically have 3 exams, IATRA, SARON, SAMRA. In each there are different components, Met, systems, etc. The JAA exams each have one topic and a lot more questions for each category. You get a time frame (I believe 18 months) to sit them all. You also have to pass all 14 in 6 sittings, so you're doing at least 2 in a go. If you get less than 75% on any exam you have to re-write, and get 3 extra attempts or you have to re-write them all.

I am looking to convert mine but am waiting for my Canadian ATPL, which is another reason why I am excited to hear about the co-pilot hours change.

Krimson wrote: flying single pilot light piston.... doesn't have much to do with airline operations

Spoken like someone who has never done it. I will never understand the notion that time in certain aircraft matters less based on the weight and type of engines it has.
I will respectfully disagree, Krimson. I believe that flying light piston 702 and 703 aircraft is a great way to master the craft of flying airplanes, and builds a strong foundation of skill and decision making that makes transitioning to the world of 2 crew and SOP's relatively simple. Sadly, I think many pilots are more concerned with getting to that part of their career as quickly as possible, and less concerned with mastering the universal underlying basics of their craft. Let's not forget that it's more difficult and takes much longer to get really good at flying an airplane in any conditions, than to get really good at following SOP's and challenge and response checklists with the person beside you.

shimmydampner wrote:

Krimson wrote: flying single pilot light piston.... doesn't have much to do with airline operations

Spoken like someone who has never done it. I will never understand the notion that time in certain aircraft matters less based on the weight and type of engines it has.
I will respectfully disagree, Krimson. I believe that flying light piston 702 and 703 aircraft is a great way to master the craft of flying airplanes, and builds a strong foundation of skill and decision making that makes transitioning to the world of 2 crew and SOP's relatively simple. Sadly, I think many pilots are more concerned with getting to that part of their career as quickly as possible, and less concerned with mastering the universal underlying basics of their craft. Let's not forget that it's more difficult and takes much longer to get really good at flying an airplane in any conditions, than to get really good at following SOP's and challenge and response checklists with the person beside you.

Actually, I've spent 2 years and over 90% of my hours are in a light single piston for a 702 op. Sure it was great for building time, mastering my aircraft, increasing my hands&feet skills, but when it comes to making the transition to 2 crew >12,5 multi aircraft, I could not disagree more. If I had not experienced 2-crew and SOPs in the past, I would have been very lost and the learning curve would have been very steep. It is a whole different kind of world flying, I cannot show up to my current job in flip flops, shorts and a t-shirt, with a piss-bottle in my flight bag. Flying a light single, there is not too much that can go wrong, the thing practically flies itself. I would keep a lookout for forced approach fields and do my job, that was about it. I was not dealing with IFR procedures, was not expected to hit my ETAs every day, and I had a feel of freedom. When talking about valuable hours for an airline transport license, these hours are not very valuable to the operations aspect. Sure I think everyone should do it as I have learned a lot and really learned how to fly an aircraft, but there is only so long you can do that for; if your goal is to fly for an airline. I truly believe the hours I am doing now as co-pilot are better experience for my airline transport license than my light single time, even though I loved doing it. If I stuck around for another year I could have the ATPL, but that would not make me anywhere closer to being qualified for a left seat position at a 704/5.

ctmorawetz wrote: Co-pilot vs Dual on the application form
Your times are divided into three categories on the application form: PIC, Co-pilot and PICUS (PIC under supervision). Anything that you were not PIC for, is to be listed under the Co-pilot category, whether it's dual time or co-pilot time. This only applies for your Instrument time. Your total day/night time does not require you to put in dual time, as long as you are over 1500 hours total time.

Dual time still counts as 1:1 though, right?

Yes; provided that it was logged in the pursuit of a higher licence. As an example your dual time from your PPL and CPL days is good, but dual time logged while getting checked out at the local flying club is not.

So what if that dual was in pursuit of my ATPL license?

...

Its been six weeks for me, still no atpl.. Applied at yul..

Anyone know how long it takes??

any news on the 1:1 rule?

Still waiting.

Anybody else having a problem with viewing the ATPL application form from Transport. I have the newest version of Adobe viewer and it still says I have to upgrade. I don't have any problems viewing the aviation booklet application. Just wondering if anybody's also having this problem.

I had the same issue but specifically with Chrome. Didn't bother to download an extension but safari worked fine along with explorer. TC also has these forms when you make an appointment.

Thanks Oxi, switching over to Explorer solved the issue.

Deleted

Thx ctm, I have another question regarding the atpl application that you may be able to answer, or anyone for that matter. The "75 Instrument hours" has caused a bit of confusion. I have gotten several different answers from several different people. I know my best bet would be to talk to TC, but as it is a Sunday and i thought I may as well see what avcanada has to say. Are these 75 hours "IMC" hours? Can an instructor log time teaching a student IFR or ex#24 when it is VMC out towards these 75 hours?

No, the instrument time is only flight in IMC on an IFR flight plan.

Chaxterium wrote:Yes; provided that it was logged in the pursuit of a higher licence. As an example your dual time from your PPL and CPL days is good, but dual time logged while getting checked out at the local flying club is not.

Ref please

If it's in your log book, it counts toward your total time doesn't it?

JP

Outlaw58 wrote:

Chaxterium wrote:Yes; provided that it was logged in the pursuit of a higher licence. As an example your dual time from your PPL and CPL days is good, but dual time logged while getting checked out at the local flying club is not.

Ref please

If it's in your log book, it counts toward your total time doesn't it?

JP

Yes it counts towards your total time.