ATPL Farce

[station60]

I just have a rant here that's been bugging me for awhile. I gotta say, the whole ATPL process is a bit ridiculous here in Canada, and here's why. Explain to me, how, a pilot who has never worked in a 705 operation or flown an airplane over 12,500 lbs should be entitled to earn an ATPL licence, when, in comparison a pilot currently flying (me) for an airline, for over 2 years, been all over the world in a large jet as a crew member and has done over 1000 hrs of Heavy Turboprop flying as F/O can't get one.... it really chokes me up.

Example: C150 instructor fly's for 500 hrs in the left downwind for Runway 32, and then does 1000 hrs of instructing in the practice area.... and he's capable of holding an ATPL, making sure to pull his carb heat on before landing or whatever it is you do....

A pilot (lets say me) goes into an airline out school at 600 hrs and gets type rated as S/O on a B727. He does 1000 hrs of time in the side-saddle working all over North American, Europe, Arctic, High-Arctic and Central America. From there he goes and gets Typed on two seperate Heavy (47,000 lb) turboprops as F/O. Fly's them for a year and a half. Get's offered left seat but can't take it due to no ATPL. At this point in time he's worked for an Airline as a pilot for over 2 and a half years, flown over 1700 hrs just for the airline, knows a substantial amount about airline operations, is a company training pilot, a company instructor (flight and ground), maintains two differnt type ratings side by side.............. BUT-- Can't hold an ATPL.

Does this make any sense to anyone? To me it's totally ridiculous. I'm not putting down instructors, some of my best friends are instructors, but shouldn't there perhaps be some requirment to get an ATPL you have to have worked for an Airline or flown a heavy airplane? Or maybe some relief on the requirements to get an ATPL? Why should Co-pilot time count as half towards the total time requirment when you're in a two-crew environment? Every second leg is mine!???!!

Anyways, any input into this would be great.

Me.

[Lurch]

You forgot the option of "No"

[oldtimer]

Who says life has to be fair. Life is a bitch and then you die.
But, I have to agree, the process needs a rethink.

[just curious]

I understand that Tc is considering changing the crediting of flight time. As you are no doubt aware, currently FO time is counted as only 50% towards the time requirement for an ATPL. As I understand it, it is going to be changed, likely in September.

Under the proposed change, of the 50% accreditation, a further 50% of this may no longer be creditable depending on your captain's testimony. All time spent garbling radio calls, improperly completing paperwork, faking comprehension of the SOPs, and hustling flight attendants during your leg may no longer be eligible.

In a related change, instructor time at the private pilot level may now count at 125% of the PIC requirement for the ATPL since clearly they are the only ones thinking up there.

Hope this helps.

JC

[Lurch]

In a related change, instructor time at the private pilot level may now count at 125% of the PIC requirement for the ATPL since clearly they are the only ones thinking up there.

Hope this helps.

JC

Thanks JC that was good

[duey49]

Alright,
As a flight instructor for two years (1.5 of which at the college level), one year in the bush, a few months flying 704 ops and now flying at a 705 airline, I will say that the day I held my ATPL (with no so called operational time), was the day I knew the most about the rules and the least about practical operations. So, taking into consideration of how TC operates, it doesn't surprise me that they'd credit a C152 circuit jockey over a heavy turboprop cojo.
Rediculous - yes. Come on now TC, get with the times here....and btw, your exams are a joke.

[Check Pilot]

An ATPL is not a be all and end all. The real reason that the ATPL is what it is, is that it deals with command time. Instructors get command time. It's not the plane that you fly but the decision making process that counts.

As an SO or FO you are Not responsible for the operation of the aircraft. That's the Captains job. He is the one that gets slapped when things might start to go wrong.

If you want to be a Captain, it might be best to think about flying job that will give you that opportunity instead of going on about how unfair the whole system seems from the right seat now. Flying a ship whether it's a small plane like a C-150 or a Citation or a CRJ or an Airbus takes similar amounts of decision making. Exams and command time and the "apprenticeship" process will get you through it. Please take the time and value it towards your life's journey to Captaincy.

[5x5]

So Station60, did they change the rules since you started your journey? If so you have a legitimate beef. If not, quit complaining and get on with life. It's not someone else's problem. You are the one who decided to take the jobs you did and the rules were (or should have been) clear when you did. If they weren't clear it was you who didn't take the time to make sure they were.

Strap on a pair and accept the responsibility for the decisions you make.

[Lurch]

So Station60, did they change the rules since you started your journey? If so you have a legitimate beef. If not, quit complaining and get on with life. It's not someone else's problem. You are the one who decided to take the jobs you did and the rules were (or should have been) clear when you did. If they weren't clear it was you who didn't take the time to make sure they were.

Strap on a pair and accept the responsibility for the decisions you make.

Come now he has the perfect qualifications to be a pilot. He whines, complains and puts on the poor me argument perfectly.

Too bad you can't buy a ATPL like you can a PPC

[wallypilot]

[quote="Lurch]Come now he has the perfect qualifications to be a pilot. He whines, complains and puts on the poor me argument perfectly. [/quote]

Maybe so, but there is a point to be made here. It is clear to me that it's the development of the decision making experience that is key here, not necessarily just the 1500 hours. But at the same time, to say that time spent instructing gives you the same decision making experience as operational command time is just ludicrous. Knowledge of the rules and regs is only a part of what makes a good experienced captain. In Europe an ATR pilot needs 500 hours of Multi crew time on a 2-crew certified airplane, in addition to the other requirements.

However, adopting this concept in Canada would have major repercussions for the employment structure in our industry. Folks would be jumping ship out of those northern jobs at a much higher rate to get the "2 crew" time on something bigger. Or maybe pilots would get channeled at a much earlier time out of flight school into the airline route or bush/special air ops route.

Who knows? But it's clear that some changes should be made for some specific situations. Wasn't TC talking about requiring a type rating on a 2 crew airplane as part of the ATPL requirements?

[V1]

I would really like to know when TC is going to change these ATPL f/o rules, and if they really are going to change them!
I am stuck in a similar situation, and as the years go by it is starting to feel more and more ridiculous.

[ei ei owe]

When the requirements do change, is there any mention of the PIC time needed? It still seems like alot of guys will get stuck due to no PIC other than what they got during the commercial/private.

[Lommer]

Ok, open question to everyone here: what would be the ATPL requirements be if you could decide them?


Personally, I see any changes that make flight instructing less attractive for time building (and therefore more attractive to those who actually want to instruct) as a good thing.

[pika]

The system to get the ATPL may have a few short falls but the Canadian/ICAO ATPL is highly respected worldwide. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[Cat Driver]

The system to get the ATPL may have a few short falls but the Canadian/ICAO ATPL is highly respected worldwide.

Could you post some examples of this?

In all the countries that I have flown in ( over 40 ) I don't recall ever having my license commented on such as " We see you hold a Canadian ALPL and we really respect that. "

Now I have had several countries issue me authority to fly in their countries and in airplanes registered in their countries, however they were granted on my qualifications over and above the basic license with no comment on the Canadian part.

Now if you hold a British ATPL you might be able to say it is recognized world wide as acceptable.

[pika]

This may require some deductive reasoning so I'll make it as simple as I can.
As fas as airlines go Canada has one of the lowest accident rates in the world. Airlines employee ATPL holders. See the connection? Or are you going to tell me TC is responsible for the safety record now?

[Cat Driver]

Airlines employee ATPL holders. See the connection? Or are you going to tell me TC is responsible for the safety record now?

Pika, I have no idea what you are driving at with that statement, suffice to say it would appear that you find my opinions on aviation at odds with yours and that is O.K as these discussions should be about different ideas.

However I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post, but like I said that is O.K with me as you are just another made up name and I compartmentalize it based on its value.

[pika]

Pika, I have no idea what you are driving at with that statement, suffice to say it would appear that you find my opinions on aviation at odds with yours and that is O.K as these discussions should be about different ideas.

However I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post, but like I said that is O.K with me as you are just another made up name and I compartmentalize it based on its value.

More wind up games? How many times have you been told your Canadian ATPL is not valuable in your travels?

[Cat Driver]

How many times have you been told your Canadian ATPL is not valuable in your travels?

pika, I do not recall ever having anyone comment on my Canadian license as to its value.....when flying Canadian registered aircraft it is the document that outlines what I can fly, nothing more nothing less.

Why are we having such a infantile discussion, a pilots license is a document that allows you to fly the aircraft that is covered on your license period and whoever issued it is really not something that I get all emotional about.

But if you feel that the fact it is a Canadian license somehow sets you above the common herd I'm happy for you.

Remember if you are right about how valuable that document is I'm at least equal to you just by having it.

[shitdisturber]

So Station60, did they change the rules since you started your journey? If so you have a legitimate beef. If not, quit complaining and get on with life. It's not someone else's problem. You are the one who decided to take the jobs you did and the rules were (or should have been) clear when you did. If they weren't clear it was you who didn't take the time to make sure they were.

Strap on a pair and accept the responsibility for the decisions you make.

Come now he has the perfect qualifications to be a pilot. He whines, complains and puts on the poor me argument perfectly.

Too bad you can't buy a ATPL like you can a PPC

What's the difference between station60 and the jets he flies?

The jets stop whining when you pull up to the gate.

['effin hippie]

I don't think the ATPL is too far off the mark, given what it permits the holder to do in Canada: be captain on an aircraft requiring 2 crew.

I have never instructed but I find my respect for former instructors growing all the time. Generally I find that their decision making is better, their understanding of the regs is better and their situational awareness is better.
On the downside, some of them have a little too much attitude, and don't seem to care at all about keeping to schedule or about the best interests of the company.

I did cut my teeth on Navajos, and after 1000 hours PIC there, I can tell you that one of the scariest things I had to do was night landings with green cojo's. And that wasn't even a training environment - I could take the aircraft away anytime I felt the tickle. Imagine an environment where the guy in the left seat is likely to kill you EVERY DAY. You just might develop a pretty decent ability to percieve and manage risk.

There is no substitute for PIC. If the company likes this guy so much they wanna upgrade him, I'm sure they'd rehire him after he took a 6 month leave of absence to drive a 'Ho or a 206 or whatever. He'd be a hell of a lot better off for it and these days operators would trip over each other to offer him such a job.
From my own experience in the right seat, I can say that when the warm fuzzy of having someone's greater experience to protect you gets taken away, it's pretty sobering, and not every co-pilot works out so well on the other side. An ATPL is a licence to fly the biggest a/c and be responsible for all those pax they carry - I don't think that person should be allowed to have that as their first experience of command.

That said, I think the ATPL should have a requirement for experience in a 2 -Crew SOP environment. Say 500 hrs, because instructing alone, or for that matter 3000 hrs in a Beaver, won't teach you what an ATPL holder is qualified to do.

ef

edit: Lommer - I think all the current req,s, plus the 500 in an a/c that requires and has developed SOP's for, 2-crew. I also think the TT and PIC req's are bare minimums. This counting cojo time at 50% is kinda stupid tho, why not just raise the TT required.

[Lommer]

'EH, that actually makes a lot of sense; I could see how an ATPL that required 1500 hrs TT (FO time counted 1:1), of which 500 hrs must be PIC and 500 hrs must be 2-crew would actually make sense. In a large part it would eliminate the complaints from career FOs because right from the beginning there would be an expectation that a pilot have PIC time.

[Airtids]

and he's capable of holding an ATPL, making sure to pull his carb heat on before landing or whatever it is you do....

and you're so much more qualified because you punch a few buttons and do what you're told, or whatever it is you do...

Guys like you make me laugh getting all fired up about something you really don't have a clue about. There are so many other things in the world to get your knickers in a knot over...

Excellent responses to this thread, however, folks. Keep up the good work. Count me as another who thinks the requirements should change, but for the right reasons.

[YYZ_Instructor]

Cat is right. I hold the Canadian and JAR-FCL/UK yet in all the countries I have tried to fly the Canadian is never used to issue the countries license, its always the JAR that they photocopy.
I am not saying that the Canadian license is worthless, as it allows me to fly in Canada on all the types listed, but on an equal playing field the UK one allows way more tolerance in countries outside Europe and Canada.

Yet again they are both licenses to do the same job. If you ever see pilots abroad talk about licenses you will always notice the guy with the JAR-FCL because its like an encyclopedia...

Good luck with it.....

[Cat Driver]

YYZ-Instructor:

These guys that are getting all defensive about the value of the Canadian license are forgetting that the license is only as good as the holder of said license.

As an example of what one learns dring the process of getting a Canadian ATPL I have been trying to remember what I had to do to get mine and I can only recall two things that stayed in my memory, the first thing was we had to answer the written exams by hand writing the answers as there was no multiple choice exams.

The second thing I remember was the airplane used for the weight and balance was a Super Connie and I ony remember that because the Super Connie is my all time favourite airliner.