IFR & Part 61

[VH-FTS]

I wasn't able to get to the one Part 61 roadshow in my neck of the woods, but I'm hoping someone who has been to one can answer the following. I've started reading through the upcoming CASR 61, but I'm not sure about:

- will the recency requirements mean the existing instrument rating CAO is removed come December 4?

- what is a 2D vs 3D approach? The definition doesn't make sense, is it talking about RNP?

- how do NDB approaches fit into the recency requirements - as an approach using azimuth guidance?

Thanks for the help - the double negatives and lack of a law degree mean I'm not 100% sure how the above affects pilots.

[601]

2D vs 3D approach
Ya need these
http://www.jbhifi.com.au/images/panasonic-full-hd-3d-glasses-sku-86525-large.gif

[airwolf117]

I think 2D is a Non-precision and 3D is for Precision approach.

[Oktas8]

I'm no lawyer either. But I understand it to mean:

2D means an approach that only provides advisory or step-down information for the vertical profile; e.g. VOR, NDB, basic RNAV.

3D means an approach that provides vertical guidance from the IAF to the DA; e.g. ILS or some of the advanced RNP approaches.

In my personal thinking, if the procedure has a MAPt / MDA, it's the former. If a DA, it's the latter.

Fundamentally I think it's carefully written to provide future-proofing for the system. But, this being Australia, there are many pilots who would love to take CASA to AAT to exploit the slightest loophole, and many at CASA who would... but I need not finish that sentence. So it's been written by lawyers, for lawyers. :hmm:

[Capt Claret]

RNAV (LNAV)/VNAV?

[OpsNormal]

Clarrie, I think you'll find that many aircraft are unable to use an autopilot coupled VNAV profile to fly an RNAV approach (if that is what you were referring to/asking?).

[VH-FTS]

Wow, only a few weeks from part 61 and there's plenty of confusion. Job well done CASA educating everyone. Your website material is useless too.

Thanks for the 2D and 3D answers guys, can anyone answer the other questions?

[mustafagander]

FTS, AFAIK 2D means azimuth guidance only, ie no vertical guidance, only altitude limits and 3D means the lot, vertical guidance along with the azimuth.

Hence and old fashioned NDB approach to Oodnagalarbie, with a listed start altitude and a listed minimum, is 2D but an ILS or Vnav/Rnav to Modernsberg is 3D.

[OpsNormal]

I am more than just aware of that thanks slam_chick. The FMS in my own work aircraft works out a great 3 degree VNAV all the way from top to bottom and also flies it beautifully all by itself. The point I was getting at (which seems well beyond the brainspace relm of your sarcastic and snide remark to which I am saddened to say has become more and more common around pprune in the last 10-12 years after the first 5-6 being quite enjoyable) is that there are plenty of multi crew turboprop RPT aircraft in this country that cannot fly a 3D approach solution without continual manual input into the autopilot - even for tracking.

Mustafagander, that is also what I take it to mean as I was suggesting to Clarrie.

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[Capt Claret]

And that's what Clarrie was suggesting in the first place. :ouch:

- what is a 2D vs 3D approach? The definition doesn't make sense, is it talking about RNP?

RNAV (LNAV)/VNAV?

[Turkeyslapper]

Forgive me if it is covered somewhere:





AFAIK 2D means azimuth guidance only, ie no vertical guidance, only altitude
limits and 3D means the lot, vertical guidance along with the azimuth.


Say, when I do my renewal I only do a RNAV and VOR approach for my non precision stuff....what about an NDB? Whats to stop me conducting an NDB approach if I simply have 2D on my renewal? Or does 2D cover everything...surely not?

Turkey

[SOPS]

As a person with an Australian ATPL, who has not flown an Australian registerd aircraft, for 30 years....but drops in a couple of times a month in a 777, is it ok if I do an ILS. things seem to be getting very complicated.

[world traveler]

Turkey,

I asked this very question at one of the Part 61 "info" nights. The reply from the ASA was that "you can get yourself current on that approach type and then perform it in IMC".

[Mach E Avelli]

The latest on Part 61 and a few other parts (like most?) is that the Campaign Against Sensible Aviation continues. All delayed until September 2014.

[training wheels]

Since the new part 61 rules are just a few weeks away now, has there been any clear information from CASA on what they mean by 2D and 3D approaches in terms of recency requirements? In particular, does recency on say, a VOR approach (2D) also mean you meet the recency requirements for an RNAV GNSS (2D) approach?

And will the new licenses actually have printed on it the aids that we're endorsed with eg (NDB, ILS, LLZ etc) or will it just have 3D and 2D? If not, then how else would prospective employers know what aids we're endorsed with (apart from looking at the sticky labels in the logbook I guess).

[Jack Ranga]

VH-FTS, if you know Steve at Bini's he's summarised the recency onto a piece of A4! If you don't know him I'll PM you when I get home. Pretty sure that ILS recency goes to 90 days! yay.

Well done CAsA, you've outdone yourselves on the education front :ok:

[Oktas8]

Training wheels:

They're good questions. Google "CASA part 61" revealed a number of results, including FAQs, a sample license, a Part 61 summary booklet and of course the text of the rule itself.

Here's what I learned.

There are no sticky labels. It all goes in your license (ratings & endorsements and proficiency checks.)

It appears that approvals for VOR, NDB etc cease to exist except for pIR holders. The full IR just has 2D & 3D approaches. So, I suppose that an NDB approach covers you for a VOR approach as well, at least for 90 day currency. (I certainly hope so. Reduced regulatory burden.)

How does one get trained & tested for all the different types of navaid? Presumably the traditional way, but I haven't checked. The MOS was in the list of Google results though...

[thorn bird]

Oh course guys, regardless of what we think the new rules mean, or judging by any of the road show guys thought they mean, what the rules actually mean will come down to what the FOI of the day thinks they mean.


For sure they will mean a massive cost to industry.

[auto throttle]

There's also 2 different types of recency for 2D approaches. One is a CDI 2D approach and the other is an azimuth 2D approach.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Here's some good news...

90 day currencies for all approach types and CIRs expired for more than 12 mths can then be done on one approach in the air and the rest in a synthetic trainer.:ok:

[NIK320]

Good to see with a couple of weeks to go, there are still lots of confused pilots out there...
I can't seem to find anything in 61.M text about what constitutes the proficiency checks. Is CAO 40.2 being replaced with 61 relevant material? I have the pleasure of my renewal being just after the switchover so I’m trying to work out what I’m supposed to be doing.
Under this new 2D and 3D approvals, If I stuff the NDB does it mean I fail and I can't just drop that approach?

[Car RAMROD]

NIK, do your renewal before the first!

I am lead to believe, unsubstantiated, that you must pass both 2D and 3D. If you don't have the ability to do 3D, there is a clause to not require it. Otherwise you must do each in the test, and a fail on one means a fail of the lot and a re test (but the re test only on the one you failed- it just means u cannot use the one you previously passed on in the mean time)

[Soteria]

And the best thing is that Part 61 is going to work like a treat for our Helo industry too. The regs are so clear and certainly not ambiguous and the best thing is that it won't cost us a single cent extra or require extra training for us to comply. Well done CASA well done, bravo bravo.

[megle2]

Casa email today says guidance has been put on their website

[training wheels]

Training wheels:

They're good questions. Google "CASA part 61" revealed a number of results, including FAQs, a sample license, a Part 61 summary booklet and of course the text of the rule itself.

Thanks for that. I've had a quick look at the MOS and in particular the MECIR renewal requirements under schedule 6, Proficiency Requirements.

Appendix 1 Instrument proficiency check – aeroplane category
1. Proficiency check requirements

1.1 An applicant for an instrument proficiency check for the aeroplane category must demonstrate his or her competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by doing the following:

(a) conducting at least 3 instrument approach operations including at least one 2D operation and one approach using GNSS;

(b) performing instrument approach operations, within the flight tolerances specified in table 5 of Schedule 8 of this MOS;

(c) performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in table 2 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.

So all that's required to renew your MECIR is to conduct three approaches, one of which needs to be an RNAV GNSS. The other two can be anything else I guess, but if you want to keep your 3D instrument approach current, then I guess that means you need to do an ILS. The last one can then either be a VOR, NDB, or whatever else. Which means, good riddance to NDB approaches. The only time I've done an NDB approach is for an MECIR renewal.

[training wheels]

Here's some good news...

90 day currencies for all approach types and CIRs expired for more than 12 mths can then be done on one approach in the air and the rest in a synthetic trainer.:ok:

MakeItHappenCaptain, that is indeed good news. I've heard about the 90 day currency for all approaches as well from an ATO, but I couldn't find it written anywhere.

Is that written in the MOS? If so, which section?

[thorn bird]

Gotta ask the question, do these aid currencies exist in other jurisdictions? If not, I thought part of the part 61 propaganda was we were aligning with other regulations.

[Mail-man]

Training wheels;

Just so I'm clear on this. I'll need to do an RNAV on my renewal even though the aircraft I operate are not equipped to do the approaches?

[Oktas8]

Thorn bird-

Broadly, yes. The new rules are conceptually closer to other countries, than the old rules were.

Generally, every 90 days you have to do a certain amount of IF and some approaches. Every year you have demonstrate competence in either all or some approaches. The fine points vary between states.

[LeadSled]

thornbird,
Trouble is, there seem to be some rather big disconnects between what the actual regulations say, and what whoever wrote the MOS thinks they say.
Indeed, one might say the MOS reflects what the regulations were meant to say, but maybe don't.
It is a pretty big job wading through the whole shooting match (1600+ pages), I takes m' hat of to those with the perseverance to at least give it a try.
At least one chap in the glasshouse in Canberra has a pragmatic approach --- if you come across something that doesn't work, we will give you an exemption.
Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Leadie,

I've tried, believe me. Trouble is when you read a reg. you try to see what the intent is.

That gets very difficult when the regs. are littered statements like, "To a standard acceptable to CAsA" or "CAsA may accept".

Just who the hell is CAsA???...CAsA is the guy who ramps you or turns up in your office for an audit, does not matter a toss what you thought the regs. meant, nor what "CAsA" as an organization meant, his or her opinion on the day is what the regs. mean.

When you compare our Part 61 with NZ's or FAA's you really see the difference. With them you Know exactly what the intent is, its very clearly spelt out in plain language, there are very few grey areas, you know exactly what they mean and how to comply.

I have a terrible feeling that the new part 61, although I have to say on the surface there is a lot in them that could be good, leaves us even more exposed to the opinions of the FOI or AWI of the day, with the usual "All care, but we take no responsibility" approach.

[ZAZ]

RNAV5 <> GPS ENR
RNAV 1 and 2 GPS TERM
RNP1 GPS TERM
RNP2 GPS ENR
RNP-APCH-LNAV = GPS NPA


TSO 129 require carry ALTN not GNSS based.


recency
CAO 40.2.1.11
90 days
CAO 40.2.1.11.3A to do an NDB or VOR in IMC
LOC 35 days
GDA 90 days for IMC arrival
SPIR 90 days One hour PIC IFR and 1 approach flown.


NGT
CAO40.2.1.14
CAO 40.2.2.5 PVT AWK
CAO 40.2.1.14 CHTR
Plus CAO82.1.4
PASSENGER
CAR 1988 5.8.2 and CAR 5.109


this is old references from CIR exams

[training wheels]

recency
CAO 40.2.1.11
90 days
CAO 40.2.1.11.3A to do an NDB or VOR in IMC
LOC 35 days
GDA 90 days for IMC arrival
SPIR 90 days One hour PIC IFR and 1 approach flown.


this is old references from CIR exams

The table on this page (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/instrument-ratings-0) lists the new part 61 recency requirements;

ILS (3D approach and an approach using CDI) is now every 90 days.

And all recency requirements can be done in a sim or FTD.

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/instrument-ratings-0