Hey all, I have a question regarding converting my military pilot license to a CPL. CARS 421.30.4.a.ii.B states that I require solo flight training post PPL to obtain the CPL. The trouble is in military training under the program I did I didn’t get any more than around 5 hours of solo, all the training was dual since it was aimed at multi crew aircraft.

I have lots of PIC time which I’m hoping could cover the night, cross country and training hours however it’s not technically solo since it’s in 2 pilot aircraft. I am wondering if someone knows if transport Canada will allow me to use this time against the solo requirements.

Thanks!

Scott12354 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:02 pm Hey all, I have a question regarding converting my military pilot license to a CPL. CARS 421.30.4.a.ii.B states that I require solo flight training post PPL to obtain the CPL. The trouble is in military training under the program I did I didn’t get any more than around 5 hours of solo, all the training was dual since it was aimed at multi crew aircraft.

I have lots of PIC time which I’m hoping could cover the night, cross country and training hours however it’s not technically solo since it’s in 2 pilot aircraft. I am wondering if someone knows if transport Canada will allow me to use this time against the solo requirements.

Thanks!

Hey,

When I did mine there was no issues, if you have enough time for an ATPL I would recommend skipping the CPL and going straight to the ATPL.

Solo time is defined as being the only flight crew member. By that definition, PIC time in a multi crew airplane shouldn't count. But who knows what they will accept in real life...

Don't waste your time getting the CPL. If you've got the time, get the ATPL (also no need to worry about "solo" time).

I got the PPL when I completed PFT and then never bothered with anything else after that. I recently did the application for the ATPL with no issue. You will have to submit a copy of your current ticket ride to show an unrestricted rating and you may have to show your Prof ride on a multi within the last 12 months. Other than that it's pretty straight forward. You won't be the first military pilot to go from nothing (or PPL) to ATPL. The two big exams will be familiar. The SAMRA (Met, Radio, planning) is pretty well what you know with the exception of approach bans. The SARON is TC air regs, stuff we never do, like which baby seats are acceptable for use and where does the responsible adult have to sit, etc, etc... It's worth taking something like the Aerocourse and then writing the exams within the week.

Thanks for the tips everyone!

You can get an ATPL without having obtained a CPL first? I thought it was a requirement. So basically you need minimum 750h, MEIFR and the ATPL test and that’s it?

You need to meet the experience requirements of the ATPL which include:

An applicant shall have met the training requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane that is not restricted to daylight flying and completed a minimum of 1500 hours total flight time of which a minimum of 900 hours shall have been completed in aeroplanes. The total flight time shall include a minimum of:

So you don’t need a CPL but you need to meet the training requirements.

1500h, my bad. Good to know. Thanks

For those that are interested, I called Transport Canada and the officer told me that for DND applicants they will credit applicable PIC time for the required solo time.

digits_ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:32 am Solo time is defined as being the only flight crew member. By that definition, PIC time in a multi crew airplane shouldn't count. But who knows what they will accept in real life...

The purpose of the solo time is two fold. 1.) Polish handling skills, and 2.) Build skills and confidence as a pilot in command. The military PIC time meets these requirements and I’ve never heard of TC getting indigestion over it (my suggestion is not to mention the issue to TC so as not to provoke an overzealous inspector into doing something stupid)

Why are you getting your civi licenses? The upcoming retention package is going to be all singing and all dancing; after all they’ve been working on it for three years. . (Massive sarcasm)

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:47 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:32 am Solo time is defined as being the only flight crew member. By that definition, PIC time in a multi crew airplane shouldn't count. But who knows what they will accept in real life...

The purpose of the solo time is two fold. 1.) Polish handling skills, and 2.) Build skills and confidence as a pilot in command. The military PIC time meets these requirements and I’ve never heard of TC getting indigestion over it (my suggestion is not to mention the issue to TC so as not to provoke an overzealous inspector into doing something stupid)

Military multicrew PIC time does not meet the definition of solo time. That doesn't mean I don't value it, or that it doesn't make sense that TC accepts it, but it does *not* meet the CARs definition. Doesn't matter what you learn or how well you fly.

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:58 am

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:47 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:32 am Solo time is defined as being the only flight crew member. By that definition, PIC time in a multi crew airplane shouldn't count. But who knows what they will accept in real life...

The purpose of the solo time is two fold. 1.) Polish handling skills, and 2.) Build skills and confidence as a pilot in command. The military PIC time meets these requirements and I’ve never heard of TC getting indigestion over it (my suggestion is not to mention the issue to TC so as not to provoke an overzealous inspector into doing something stupid)

Military multicrew PIC time does not meet the definition of solo time. That doesn't mean I don't value it, or that it doesn't make sense that TC accepts it, but it does *not* meet the CARs definition. Doesn't matter what you learn or how well you fly.

There is a difference between “definition” and “intent”. PIC time meets the intent.

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:58 am

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:47 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:32 am Solo time is defined as being the only flight crew member. By that definition, PIC time in a multi crew airplane shouldn't count. But who knows what they will accept in real life...

The purpose of the solo time is two fold. 1.) Polish handling skills, and 2.) Build skills and confidence as a pilot in command. The military PIC time meets these requirements and I’ve never heard of TC getting indigestion over it (my suggestion is not to mention the issue to TC so as not to provoke an overzealous inspector into doing something stupid)

Military multicrew PIC time does not meet the definition of solo time. That doesn't mean I don't value it, or that it doesn't make sense that TC accepts it, but it does *not* meet the CARs definition. Doesn't matter what you learn or how well you fly.

There is a difference between “definition” and “intent”. PIC time meets the intent.

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:27 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:58 am

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:47 am

The purpose of the solo time is two fold. 1.) Polish handling skills, and 2.) Build skills and confidence as a pilot in command. The military PIC time meets these requirements and I’ve never heard of TC getting indigestion over it (my suggestion is not to mention the issue to TC so as not to provoke an overzealous inspector into doing something stupid)

Military multicrew PIC time does not meet the definition of solo time. That doesn't mean I don't value it, or that it doesn't make sense that TC accepts it, but it does *not* meet the CARs definition. Doesn't matter what you learn or how well you fly.

There is a difference between “definition” and “intent”. PIC time meets the intent.

Then they should have put PIC time in the requirements - which they did, but they added extra solo time as well. PIC in a multicrew airplane, presumably with a bunch of engines, does not help you to hone your skills in forced landings, spins and stalls for example. One could argue that the extra added pressure of solo time would be psychologically different (you screw up, you die) whereas in a multicrew environment, even as a PIC, you still have your FO to -hopefully- save the day.

And yes, military training is most likely more in depth and different than civilian training, but this is about an application for a civilian license under civilian rules.

A lot of rules are stupid for a lot of people. That doesn't mean you can just ignore them because they look silly to you.

But, once again, if TC accepts the OP's hours, good for him.

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:49 am
Then they should have put PIC time in the requirements - which they did, but they added extra solo time as well. PIC in a multicrew airplane, presumably with a bunch of engines, does not help you to hone your skills in forced landings, spins and stalls for example. One could argue that the extra added pressure of solo time would be psychologically different (you screw up, you die) whereas in a multicrew environment, even as a PIC, you still have your FO to -hopefully- save the day.

And yes, military training is most likely more in depth and different than civilian training, but this is about an application for a civilian license under civilian rules.

A lot of rules are stupid for a lot of people. That doesn't mean you can just ignore them because they look silly to you.

But, once again, if TC accepts the OP's hours, good for him.

As one progresses upwards in the decision making hierarchy one is trained to consider both the letter and the intent of the law. There are often situations where applying the letter of the law would run counter to the intent of the law. In these situations, learned individuals are given the authority to set aside the letter of the law and to implement the intent instead. In my opinion the disjunction between PIC and solo is one of those occasions. You of course are free to see it differently, but it would appear that TC feels that PIC time meets the intent of the regulation, hence they issued the license.

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:49 am

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:27 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:58 am
Military multicrew PIC time does not meet the definition of solo time. That doesn't mean I don't value it, or that it doesn't make sense that TC accepts it, but it does *not* meet the CARs definition. Doesn't matter what you learn or how well you fly.

There is a difference between “definition” and “intent”. PIC time meets the intent.

Then they should have put PIC time in the requirements - which they did, but they added extra solo time as well. PIC in a multicrew airplane, presumably with a bunch of engines, does not help you to hone your skills in forced landings, spins and stalls for example. One could argue that the extra added pressure of solo time would be psychologically different (you screw up, you die) whereas in a multicrew environment, even as a PIC, you still have your FO to -hopefully- save the day.

And yes, military training is most likely more in depth and different than civilian training, but this is about an application for a civilian license under civilian rules.

A lot of rules are stupid for a lot of people. That doesn't mean you can just ignore them because they look silly to you.

But, once again, if TC accepts the OP's hours, good for him.

There is a difference between PIC on a C172 bombing around with your buddies and PIC on a 1,000,000 lb aircraft flown into hostile zones.

I wonder how many civilian pilots out there did there 300 nm cross country with a buddy, splitting the cost so you didn’t have to do two 300 mile trips to meet the requirement... I seem to remember that being a common practice once upon a time, although I see they have amended the CARs since that time. They weren’t solo by any definition, but it was considered acceptable at the time. I assume that the CARs amendment was to crack down on this practice.

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:49 am PIC in a multicrew airplane, presumably with a bunch of engines, does not help you to hone your skills in forced landings, spins and stalls for example. One could argue that the extra added pressure of solo time would be psychologically different (you screw up, you die) whereas in a multicrew environment, even as a PIC, you still have your FO to -hopefully- save the day.

By the time a student in the Military walks away from the Harvard II they will have done all kinds of these activities in addition to Aerobatics, Low level navigation at 500'AGL @ 240kts (with a map!!!), IFR and formation flying; recovery from unusual attitudes that would be classified as aerobatic maneouvers as well as PFLs from Flight levels (18K+). Not to mention going faster at the end of the runway than a 172's VNE... I would argue that the intensity and scope of this single course will exceed any solo time sitting at 1 Gz between two uncontrolled airports in the middle of nowhere. That's not to say civilian training isn't good... It just doesn't cover nearly as much as RCAF training, and it shouldn't. Different roles...

Have you ever tried to spin a King Air? This is the smallest multi engine airplane a military flyer will touch. After this your into a Herc, C-17, Aurora, Airbus. The airlines don't practice spins but they will do upset recovery training... This is right in the wheel house of a military pilot since that's where their flying career started.

I hope this helps address some of the ideas you put forward. And with respect to psychology, solo flights were a relief! You're always two failed flights away from the end of your career, you can't buy additional training...

Freeport_Flyer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:35 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:49 am PIC in a multicrew airplane, presumably with a bunch of engines, does not help you to hone your skills in forced landings, spins and stalls for example. One could argue that the extra added pressure of solo time would be psychologically different (you screw up, you die) whereas in a multicrew environment, even as a PIC, you still have your FO to -hopefully- save the day.

By the time a student in the Military walks away from the Harvard II they will have done all kinds of these activities in addition to Aerobatics, Low level navigation at 500'AGL @ 240kts (with a map!!!), IFR and formation flying; recovery from unusual attitudes that would be classified as aerobatic maneouvers as well as PFLs from Flight levels (18K+). Not to mention going faster at the end of the runway than a 172's VNE... I would argue that the intensity and scope of this single course will exceed any solo time sitting at 1 Gz between two uncontrolled airports in the middle of nowhere. That's not to say civilian training isn't good... It just doesn't cover nearly as much as RCAF training, and it shouldn't. Different roles...

That might be, but that argument holds for quite a few CPL students. People from other ICAO countries converting their license still need to meet the Canadian training requirements even if they have been employed for many years as a CPL pilot. Some PPL students can already fly all exercises to CPL standards, why do they have to spend money on more solo or dual time? People that have flown all across the continent, but don't meet the exact 300 NM nav requirements exist as well. Passing the checkride is not enough for the regulator, you also have to spend (sometimes waste) the necessary time to get the license.

Freeport_Flyer wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:35 am Have you ever tried to spin a King Air? This is the smallest multi engine airplane a military flyer will touch. After this your into a Herc, C-17, Aurora, Airbus. The airlines don't practice spins but they will do upset recovery training... This is right in the wheel house of a military pilot since that's where their flying career started.

That is exactly my point. They haven't spun it, yet civilian CPL standards assume you can exit a spin. You can argue over the importance of it, but then you could make the same point for civilian airline pilots. Or, the other way around, the military CPL guy could theoretically end up flying a cessna 206.


Once again, I find it only logical that experienced military pilots should be able to get a CPL or ATPL, but then change the CARs to reflect it. Random exceptions for things that are written black and white in the CARs, don't help anyone.

We spin the Harvard II before going on to the King Air.

There is a provision in the CARS to convert RCAF wings qualification directly to a commercial licence. I believe you only need to write a 60 question exam covering the differences in the CF flying orders and the civilian CARS to cover the knowledge aspect. The skill side (including any solo time) is covered by the wings qualification. The merits of solo time are easily met within the training an RCAF pilot receives, even if the quantity is slightly different from civilian training. TC accepts wings qual as meeting the requirement. Many military pilots go from zero to ATPL overnight with an INRAT, SAMRON and SARON.

I’m a civi pilot and I’ve never spun a multi engine airplane either. In fact I can’t remember the last time I have practiced a forced landing either.

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:51 am Why are you getting your civi licenses? The upcoming retention package is going to be all singing and all dancing; after all they’ve been working on it for three years. . (Massive sarcasm)

We have beards now.....are you expecting more?

B208 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:51 am Why are you getting your civi licenses? The upcoming retention package is going to be all singing and all dancing; after all they’ve been working on it for three years. . (Massive sarcasm)

https://youtu.be/8p8Ni1sXBLk