ATP add on rating - lost like last year's Easter eggs...

[k9medic]

BLUF - Looking at adding an airplane multi engine ATP rating to my ATP Helicopter rating. It's been a long time since I have applied for a new rating and the regulations are just as confusing now.

Currently a ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII in airplanes and helicopters. SIC type rating in the Citation. Fly part 135 helicopter SPIFR and airplanes part 91.

Looking at the requirements for an add on ATP rating I am having a hard time deciphering if I need to have the 121/135/141/142 classroom training (61.156) since I already hold an ATP.

Can any current instructors or DPE's assist? If needed I can get the PIC Citation rating but would rather pick up my ATP airplane rating in my C310.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You are taking the written for ATP AMEL. You need the CTP course.

edit: and the oral will include the extra 5 TASKS for AMEL.

 

[Ryan F.]

Correct, you need ATP-CTP course completion in order to be eligible for the ATP-AMEL knowledge test.

 

[k9medic]

Thanks guys. I was afraid of that.
I found https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/atp/media/ATP_AME_Job_Aid_GA.pdf

No need for an ATP in the airplane as I can do what I do with just a type rating. I get the reasoning but hoped there would be a work-around so I didn't need to spend $4K to "learn" what I already know and am actively applying.

 

[IK04]

Man, I'm sure glad I got my ATP AMEL long before this CTP BS was created as an imaginary cure for a undefined problem...

I know the history of the "We have to do something!" background and it all government overreach, IMO.

After looking at several web sites for all the authorized ATP-CTP course providers, there is no mention of helicopter ATP. I guess they just assume you know the program is intended only for airline puppy farms and the Helicopter ATP is only an aid to making Captain a little sooner in the part 135 world.

I would have never bothered to get my airplane ATP if this requirement had existed back in the '80s.

/rant

 

[k9medic]

Yep. I kick myself for not having done the ATP FW when I had the chance to years ago. I have lost count the number of RTP program fliers I have been mailed over the years for the regionals. Zero interest in transitioning to a new airline occupation after 20 years in this one.

Here is what I do find funny - the insurance industry recognized my thousands of hours of multi engine PIC helicopter time as "multi engine turbine PIC aircraft" time when applying it towards insurance qualifications in the Citation and some other multi engine airplanes.

 

[Zeldman]

Man, I'm sure glad I got my ATP AMEL long before this CTP BS was created as an imaginary cure for a undefined problem...

I would have never bothered to get my airplane ATP if this requirement had existed back in the '80s.

/rant

Same here.

I never planned on getting the ATP as I started flying at 38 and never thought I would need one. Turns out I eventually did need one in Alaska and it was a good move for me.

 

[Brad Z]

I did my ATP written in July of 2014, and my multi engine airplane ATP check ride on July 19, 2016. I waited just about as long as I could without having to go down the ATP-CTP route.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

It’s the dumbest thing ever. I have a neighbor that is a captain on Embraer 145’s but no atp. He needs that stupid class to take the written. Part 125 doesn’t require an ATP … All this ctp crapola happened well after I had my rating. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around how dumb it is in practice.

 

[Tools]

“Here is what I do find funny - the insurance industry recognized my thousands of hours of multi engine PIC helicopter time as "multi engine turbine PIC aircraft" time when applying it towards insurance qualifications in the Citation and some other multi engine airplanes”

That’s because it IS an “aircraft”, it’s just not an “airplane”. It’s an important distinction as you decipher what you need for an add on... The word “at” comes into play as well. Think written to add private fixed wing to commercial helo, but not if you add commercial fixed wing to commercial helo.

Notice also for add ons still need complex stuff, not complex OR TAA... my guess an oversight?

 

[k9medic]

That’s because it IS an “aircraft”, it’s just not an “airplane”.

I realize that. It's just odd to me that I can have x amount of time in an multi engine turbine helicopter and that time will count as though I was Sky King sitting left seat in a Citation for those some amount of hours.

Combine that with the fact that I can already zoom around the flight levels 1000' away from other folks above FL290 with my "lowly" CMEL yet I would need 40 hours of training just to sit to take the ATP written test and it become even odder. If you throw in the scenario TarheelPilot mentioned then it's just stupid.

 

[Tools]

Oh, we are in TOTAL agreement. I got a CFI with military Comp, because I instructed in A4s... of course my buds who instructed in T2s could not, because it’s a twin. MEI with centerline thrust only... ya...

Like EITHER qualifies us to teach in a Cessna 150!!

 

[RussR]

I did my ATP written in July of 2014, and my multi engine airplane ATP check ride on July 19, 2016. I waited just about as long as I could without having to go down the ATP-CTP route.

Same idea for me, for the sole reason of avoiding the new CTP requirement. I took the test at about the same time. Didn't even have 1500 hours yet, but knew I would within the next two years. Actually only took about a year and I took the checkride in July 2015.

 

[RussR]

I realize that. It's just odd to me that I can have x amount of time in an multi engine turbine helicopter and that time will count as though I was Sky King sitting left seat in a Citation for those some amount of hours.

Combine that with the fact that I can already zoom around the flight levels 1000' away from other folks above FL290 with my "lowly" CMEL yet I would need 40 hours of training just to sit to take the ATP written test and it become even odder. If you throw in the scenario TarheelPilot mentioned then it's just stupid.

If you can fly a helicopter, you can sure as heck fly a Citation.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Same idea for me, for the sole reason of avoiding the new CTP requirement. I took the test at about the same time. Didn't even have 1500 hours yet, but knew I would within the next two years. Actually only took about a year and I took the checkride in July 2015.

And that's just it, the rule change didn't happen overnight. There was a lot of time between the proposal and the actual change. Trying to blame government for one's own inactions or ineptness is silly.

 

[k9medic]

And that's just it, the rule change didn't happen overnight. There was a lot of time between the proposal and the actual change. Trying to blame government for one's own inactions or ineptness is silly.

I’m not sure this would be considered blame… more like pointing out the absurdity of the requirement.

In my particular case, I have no need for an ATP but was trying to decipher the regulation changes and wanted to confirm what I believed to be was true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Z06_Mir]

The frustrating part is the CTP course is a waste of time if you've flown significant IFR or a turboprop or jet. I did it in December before I added a type rating in January. I was in class with 9 other people I think... 3 of us were corporate, the other 6 were airline. A big chunk of the class the various instructors (I had 5 over the 7 day course) the instructors would single out us corporate people and tell us we were wasting our lives going corporate and making a big mistake. Then one of them got vocal with me because I still fly little airplanes and he said I'm risking my certificates every time I get in a little plane and we should only be flying 121 because otherwise you might lose all your certs. It was a hard five days of that (ground) but I used the class time to study for the written.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m not sure this would be considered blame… more like pointing out the absurdity of the requirement.

I don’t know that the requirement in and of itself is absurd, so much as the fact that it’s a one-size-fits-all requirement.

 

[k9medic]

I don’t know that the requirement in and of itself is absurd, so much as the fact that it’s a one-size-fits-all requirement.

Articulated much better! Thank you. The requirement in and of itself is not absurd. The unilateral application of it is.