NZ Part 61.37 Re-Issue. What the......?

[EBCAU]

Can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind this proposal?

"A pilot licence holder who has not met the BFR requirements for five years or more must pass the appropriate air law examination, in addition to meeting the applicable licence currency provisions, before exercising licence privileges."

Fair enough if you haven't been flying at all I guess. But what about those of us that hold CPLA & CPLH and pass BFR's, Route & Proficiency Checks, and all the rest of what it takes to remain current, in one or other of the two disciplines?
We fly in the same airspace under virtually the same regulations so why have to re-sit regulation exams? Does the position of the "propellor," vertical or horizontal, make a real difference to the interpretation of regulations?

I would have thought that if you hold a current BFR in either licence then passing another BFR would be adequate. If we want to resume flying another discipline I thought that the reason for the BFR was to demonstrate we are proficient in all the required knowledge and that it was the role of the examining instructor to assess that.

Is it because those in CAA, who come up with these ideas, have no faith in the BFR system they introduced? Or is it just another doubling up of requirements to hold the "Lifetime Licence" to ransom and generate more revenue gathering and justify their positions within the ivory towers? :confused:

I know it will affect only a few so who really cares? Perhaps there is a justifiable good reason that I can't see yet and that I'll feel better when it is explained to me. :yuk:

[piontyendforward]

From my reading of the changes is that if you are operating 135, 125 or 121 then competancy checks etc are all that is required if operating for your employer.

If you then want to fly a part 91 operation i.e. a private operation then you will have to comply with the BFR requirements.

In its extreme a B747 Captain will need to have a BFR before they blast off in their C172, which is a very good idea in my book.

However I see your point if you dont actually do a BFR for 5 years

[EBCAU]

Thanks PEF,
I know one party that operates a Part 135 operation rotary, occasionally flies a single seat homebuilt, and fixed wing ag machine (after ag proficiency check). No need for a BFR really because no passengers are involved.
I also know of some operating without BFR's who are only flying in ag but I do question their right to carry their loading crew.
I agree with you that the BFR is necessary if you wish to carry passengers, even privately, but I am questioning the reasoning behind the regulations exam for somebody who is already current within our airspace.

[AerocatS2A]

I'm not really clear on why you think someone who is current in the airspace wouldn't have a current BFR?

When I was flying in NZ (about five years ago), a proficiency check for a commercial operation was also a BFR and was signed off as such in the log book.

[piontyendforward]

When I was checking with CAA last year about BFR's one concern they had was the airline pilot legally having a BFR in a B747 covering them for flying a C172 in the weekend. I tend to agree with them over that one, as the B747 never flys VFR and seldom if ever flys in uncontrolled airspace, and private flying and airline flying are as different as you can get.
I have always done a private BFR as well as the airline stuff as training is always a good start to flying safely.:8

[EBCAU]

I'm not concerned about having to do a BFR before exercising full licence priveleges. I am wondering why those that hold more than one licence, and are not using one of them fully (in abeyance if you like), should be threatened with having to sit regs again.

I think if you are BFR current with one NZ licence as far as regs go, then you must be pretty much up to speed with the other as far as regs go. Then I believe it's the place of the BFR to ensure that you are fit to fly a different type and the rules that go with it.

I can believe that this rule change is to keep those that are not flying at all either doing a BFR to keep up to scratch, or else out they go. Fair enough, but shouldn't any BFR on a NZ licence be considered a knowledge of regulations?

The BFR system was introduced as part of the move to industry self regulation and I think that it should be left to those, ie., the instructors that actually assess the individual , to make sure that they are up to speed during the BFR. If the instructors are not doing that job properly then that is another issue. A blanket rule of resitting regs regardless of whatever else you might fly does not seem to make sense to me. I think having to re sit Helicopter Principles of Flight would make more sense if you are current flying an aeroplane and then wanted to fly a helicopter after an absence - perhaps I shouldn't suggest this though because that might be the next thing they bring in! :uhoh:

[6080ft]

EBCAU
I think you may have mis interpreted it - either that or I have completely mis interpreted what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong.

Usually a pilot completes a BFR to the isue standard of the highest licence they hold. Eg I am a cpl holder so my BFR is to cpl issue standard - this covers my PPL then as well. (so if my class one medical expires but I still have a class 2 and want to go for a hack i can).

Also whenever I renew my instructors rating - it is also signed off as meeting BFR requirments under part 61.

Now the bit about resitting the law exam - that has always been there - just worded as 'if a pilot has not exercised the priviledges of that licence for a period of 5 years or more' they re sit law exam. Looks to me like a change or wording but looks like same meaning. So if you do a BFR every 2 years and keep flying you won;t have a problem!

Heck I wcould be way of the beaten track here a completely mis read.... let me know if i'm on the right track!

rgds
6080ft

[AerocatS2A]

I'm not concerned about having to do a BFR before exercising full licence priveleges. I am wondering why those that hold more than one licence, and are not using one of them fully (in abeyance if you like), should be threatened with having to sit regs again.


I don't see where it says that in your quote. It says you must have done a BFR it doesn't say you must have done a BFR particular to the type of aircraft you're flying.

[nike]

What I think EBCAU is asking:

Joe Pilot has both CPL(A) & CPL(H).

Now for the last say, 6 years, Joe has only been flying his whirlly bird. Now Joe wants to go for a flight in a fixed wing.

Beyond completing the requirements for the BFR, why should he have to now complete the Law exam aswell?

Is he not current on law?

Maybe there is a provision for this situation?


Aerocat: point (g)?

Rule 61.39 Biennial flight review
(a) Rule 61.39 details the BFR requirements that apply to holders of lifetime licences.
(b) The BFR replaces recent experience or renewal flight test requirements. It does not,
however, replace the requirements for specified experience within the previous 90 days
before carrying passengers, or replace experience required for exercising the privileges
of any rating. It is required every 2 years, and it is required for all Part 61 licence
holders.
(c) The BFR is based on the United States FAA model as described in FAA AC 61-98A. It
is not a flight test, but is intended to ensure that all pilots are assessed periodically by a
flight instructor and receive whatever instruction is required to ensure their continued
proficiency.
(d) A BFR will continue, and may be recorded in the pilot’s logbook as flight instruction, until
the flight instructor is satisfied that they can sign the flight review off in the pilot’s
logbook as having been satisfactorily completed.
(e) The syllabus for the BFR is based on the flight test syllabus for the highest grade of
licence required to be kept current by that flight review. However the flight instructor
should also take account of the pilot’s practical flying requirements, and should agree
with the pilot as to where the flight review emphasis should be.
(f) This rule only requires a pilot to complete one BFR in order to keep their licence current.
However where a pilot is flying aircraft of very different types it is recommended that
they undergo additional flight reviews in those different aircraft.
(g) Where a pilot holds licences for more than one category of aircraft, a BFR is required
for each category on which the pilot wishes to remain current.
(h) A Regulation 76 check, or equivalent ongoing competency check under Part 119, is a
flight review that meets the BFR requirements. It is to be recorded in the pilot’s logbook.
(i) The BFR may be combined with any other training or testing, provided the requirements
of the BFR are fully met and recorded in the logbook.

[AerocatS2A]

I see it now, thanks

[6080ft]

I too now follow if point G above is what EBCAU is referring to.

Isn't the Law exam for CPLA and CPLH the same anyway?

[glekichi]

The same exam is sat for both, the only difference being one or two questions (VFR minima) where helicopter candidates answer a slightly different question. It is even compiled cleverly (go ASL!:} ) so that everybody can use the same marking sheet.

Slightly off topic, but Im just glad that they changed the implementation date of the changes re written exam credits. Was going to have to drive all over the country to get my written exams done on time for my multi-IF.

[EBCAU]

Sorry for dropping off line guys. I had to go flying :D
Thanks for explaining for me nike - you understood.

The latest is, I met a CAA rep last night quite by coincidence. Once I explained the anamoly, he could see where I was coming from. The phones have been ringing and I am expecting a call from CAA to define the requirement. It seems as though it will be resolved and the initial response I received from the office may have been incorrect.

If you took the reasoning that currency couldn't be cross credited between different licences, then in theory, even an ATPL or CPL holder, on a class two medical, could not have exercised the priveleges of a PPL without sitting Air Law again because they are different licences. I don't think that is what is trying to be achieved.

I'll keep you posted when I hear the final outcome.

[EBCAU]

After some research this issue, that was concerning some of us, has been addressed in the re-write.




The article in Vector magazine can only give part of the story for reasons of brevity and readability.

This was lifted from the website:




(i) If the holder of a pilot licence issued in accordance with this Part



has not met the requirements of rule 61.39 for a period of 5 years or
more, the privileges of that pilot licence may not be exercised again

unless,


─






(1) the holder of the pilot licence passes an approved air law



examination (except if the holder has a current pilot licence

for a different category of aircraft and meets the
requirements of rule 61.39(a) for that category); or
(2) in the case of an airline transport pilot licence, the holder of
the pilot licence completes the appropriate operational
competency checks required in Parts 119 and 121 or 125.








So now the issue has been explained and so the problem goes away.............:D