PDA

View Full Version : Part 61 Aeronautical Experience


seneca208
18th May 2014, 13:22
To all those who have had a look at the new CASR Part 61 to bring themselves up to speed for the September changes, perhaps CASA has removed the requirement for only 50% of co-pilot time to be credited towards aeronautical experience?

See here- Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00218)

Subpart 61.075 and 61.085 make no mention to only 50% of copilot time being credited towards total aeronautical. Nothing is mentioned under the 'logbooks' section 61.345. Not even a mention in the section outlying aeronautical experience requirements for an ATPL issue, 61.705.

Thoughts anyone?

Oktas8
18th May 2014, 22:15
Yup, it seems to be gone. Aeronautical experience = flight time.

Mind you, all the FOs at my company who don't already hold an ATPL simply log ICUS on every flight when acting as PF. All legitimate, in accordance with the Book. But it renders the whole 50% thing a bit pointless anyway, even under the old (current) regs.

So perhaps CASA have simply made the rules match reality?

KoolKaptain
19th May 2014, 03:00
About time... With the current system doing ccts in a 152 or tomahawk at a class D aerodrome are twice as valuable as being a crew member in a high capacity rpt operation in regards to getting the aeronautical experience required for a command upgrade. And for all the old school dudes who chant "it's all about command decision making" how many "Command Decisions" really need to be made in the ysbk circuit (from somebody who's done both)??

Oktas8
20th May 2014, 23:20
In NZ, it's about $10k or $15k, including endorsement. It's a Cheyenne, I think (or used to be!)

Or you could do it for free, as part of a proficiency check with whichever operator requires you to exercise the privileges of an ATPL...

CYHeli
20th May 2014, 23:28
Don't forget that under 61.700 (3)(b) you have to have completed the multi-crew training course. This must be completed by a Part 142 school.:ok:

Has anyone seen a syllabus from one of the larger schools?

Hasselhof
21st May 2014, 01:25
Or you could do it for free, as part of a proficiency check with whichever operator requires you to exercise the privileges of an ATPL...

My problem with this is that in Australia it is an unknown quantity as to what airlines are going to accept as minimum requirements in order to get a job. What we do have in Australia is a known tendency for operators to shift costs towards job applicants. I don't know many people that can easily absorb an additional $10 - 15k on top of the 'pay for type rating' that most of our major airlines require.

And I have no faith in the HR departments of any of the Australian airlines

PPRuNeUser0161
21st May 2014, 03:33
I wouldn't worry too much about employers min's, More to the point is that the music has stopped so most likely scenario is that by the time you get an interview you'll have thousands of hours in GA anyway and part 61 will be long forgotten.

SN

morno
21st May 2014, 10:04
I think everyone is maybe not thinking about this well enough.

You do not need, an ATPL to be a First Officer in an RPT jet. Or the many other positions you can hold that doesn't involve being in command of the things.

You're going to need to do a flight test to get a Command anyway. If you're doing it as part of a CAR 217 organisation, fair chance that this Command upgrade is going to satisfy the requirements of a flight test to obtain an ATPL.

Or even if you're doing a Command endorsement, then the flight test for this is also likely to satisfy the requirements.

But, like anything CASA these days, they could also put in some stupid requirement that is going to make it harder than it should be.

morno

Rate1
24th May 2014, 05:16
Sounds good for FO's but first check the company ops manual on conditions for logging ICUS.

Sunstrand
19th Aug 2014, 12:52
So someone with who has quite a large split between aeronautical and total experience due to co pilot time, under part 61 they have full hours all of a sudden. Is that what is going to happen?

0tto
19th Aug 2014, 14:12
Interesting. Will the co-pilot hours logged in the current system be backdated to 1 to 1 hours in Part 61?

Car RAMROD
19th Aug 2014, 22:32
And the definition of night is going to be between evening civil twilight and morning civil twilight. That's different to last and first light.

So, aip and airservices will need to amend their last light information/calcuation thingos for us to use.


Also check the ICUS definition in the new rules. If you can figure it out, let everyone else know. There hasn't been a response from CASA yet as to how all us doing icus for newbie pilots to go conduct scenic and charter flights will work. And be careful, buried further down it states yet another offence for an operator if they conduct icus without being allowed to do it...

Oktas8
20th Aug 2014, 00:16
Will the co-pilot hours logged in the current system be backdated to 1 to 1 hours in Part 61?

As someone who has filled in innumerable forms for different governments & employers, each with different rules about logging flight time, here is my advice.

Complete the flight time form as if every hour in the logbook has been flown under the rule-set pertaining to that form.

Back-dating is an inappropriate word in the circumstances, but the basic answer is Yes. Under new Part 61, you cease to care about logging 50% of flight time - for any flight you've ever done.

And the definition of night is going to be between evening civil twilight and morning civil twilight. That's different to last and first light.

Based on the AIP, I thought that first/last light carry the same definition as MCT/ECT. ("For all intents and purposes" they are the same.)

Out of historical interest, does anyone know the precise definition of first light & last light?

john_tullamarine
20th Aug 2014, 01:26
Have always understood the reference to mean in relation to civil twilight.

For instance, from the following example on the CASA website (http://services.casa.gov.au/outnback/inc/pages/episode2/episode-2_The_lowdown_on_Last_Light.shtml)

"Night" is that period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. For all intents and purposes, first light should be construed as the beginning of civil twilight, and last light as the end of civil twilight. The terms "sunrise" and "sunset" have no relevance

LeadSled
20th Aug 2014, 02:01
Have always understood the reference to mean in relation to civil twilight.

Folks,
Quite so, this has been the definition of "night" for longer than I have been flying, and that is quite a while --- back to the middle of the last century. It is also the ICAO definition.
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
20th Aug 2014, 02:05
CAR 1988 2(12). :ok:

Oktas8
20th Aug 2014, 03:37
Thanks creampuff. :ok:

I erred by looking in CAR1988 Reg 2 under "night". "Night flight" is "flight during night". I was quite taken aback by this news.

The actual definition of night or night flight, is where creampuff said, many pages later.

Thanks again, CASA.

sillograph
20th Aug 2014, 04:52
The only interesting issue I see is say a two crew conquest or king air for contractual requirements. Both crew are endorsed but as per the CASA MCC flyer

The term multi-crew operation is defined in the Civil Aviation
What is a multi-crew operation?
The term multi-crew cooperation is defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations as an operation that requires at least two pilots in:
a multi-crew aircraft (the aircraft is certificated for operation by a crew of at least two pilots) or
an aircraft that is equipped – and required by the regulations – to be operated by a crew of at least two pilots.
An aircraft that is operated by two pilots but doesn’t comply with one of the definitions above is not a multi-crew operation.


"When is MCC training required?
MCC training is required whenever you are piloting an aircraft in a multi-crew operation. The purpose is to ensure both the pilot in command (PIC) and the co-pilot are capable of operating effectively.
MCC training is integral to obtaining a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) and an ATPL.
Holders of a private pilot licence (PPL) or commercial pilot licence (CPL) also need to complete MCC training to be authorised to conduct a multi-crew operation. This is to ensure they are competent performing their respective PIC or co-pilot duties whether they are pilot flying or monitoring.

So at least that clears up the old logging of so called co-pilot hours in below 5700 turboprops (which have no weight) unless the company runs the aircraft with an approved check and training system - approved part 142 MCC equivalent training course.

Mail-man
20th Aug 2014, 05:10
So pilots already holding an ATPL will not be required to do the MCC?

And Caravans operating RPT are now genuine multicrew operations....

aroa
20th Aug 2014, 06:39
Wasnt there an old definition that last light was deemed to be at 20 mins ? after the sun went below the horizon.

Is this the same thing as the end of civil twilight.?

Last light...can be vastly different depending on the wx conditions and the terrain, as y'all know

In the tropics dark comes on quickly but way down south in summer long lingering twilights...hours after the sun took a dive.

Does this give some useable civil twilight...after last light then.?

Octas poses thus...but I'm sure CAsA could argue in court, at great expense to the taxpayer, with a view to a prosecution, what constitutes "night"

That sunset and sunrise have no relevance, CAsA...well it does for LL if its as per line 1 above, becos the VFR driver is supposed to land 10 mins before LL

And ahh do like to see that warming star arise in the morning.:ok:

Oktas8
20th Aug 2014, 07:05
ECT & MCT are well defined, being when the geometric centre of the sun is 6* below the horizon.

Note that the "horizon" is the astronomical or theoretical horizon viewed from sea level in this definition. The visible horizon (what you actually see) is a little lower due to atmospheric refraction and the elevation of your eyeball.

I think CASA has done a reasonable job warning pilots that terrain and cloud may make the world a very dark place even during the period of civil twilight. Let the user beware.

Latitude also changes the duration of twilight a lot. There is a very nice graph of twilight duration vs. latitude, on wikipedia - twilight.

Car RAMROD
20th Aug 2014, 07:18
sillograph, that is one of the areas that so many operators are having trouble figuring out whether or not they are legal, or whether CASA are going to come knocking seeking an offence!

In the proposed new regs, there is a section called "Definition of flight time as co-pilot for part 61", which implies that only certified 2-crew aircraft can have a co pilot. The difficult thing to try and figure out what in the hell is going on, is the note underneath that says "a co pilot is a pilot on board an aircraft in a piloting capacity other than the pic or a pilot on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training. See the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary"

So, being diligent, I look up the definition of co pilot in part 1 of the dictionary.
"co pilot, in relation to an aircraft, means a pilot on board the aircraft in a pilot capacity other than:
a) the pilot in command or
b) a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight training".

That seems to indicate, to me and my little brain, that pilots of king airs and conquests can still log co pilot time if the client wants them there, without the need for MCC or part 142 or C&T approvals.
BUT, what an FOI will say on Sept 1st is anyones guess at this stage. A date change doesn't mean that all of a sudden this type of arrangement is unsafe!


It is a similar uncertainty with hiring a new, already endorsed pilot on one of the aforementioned fly machines, and conducting ICUS to teach them your SOPs and assess their standards before letting them loose with paying customers!

Mail-man, for the love of god do not quote me, but i was told atpl holders will not have to go through an MCC. However, when you do go fly an airliner (I presume you aren't at this stage) the likelihood is that the company will put you through one anyway.

Apologies if I have created some confusion over the last light thing. As whether or not it is day or night for my flying , it doesn't really bother me that much, and I have probably gotten a little arse about with my understanding of the technical definitions. Being diligent once again, I will embark on another journey for at the very least my own enlightenment.

Bring on September 1st I say, so that it may be once again postponed at the last minute!
But I will not hold my breath because for some strange reason, I am actually worried that this time they could be imposed to save face over the last time and then we all have to deal with the issues it causes.

Creampuff
20th Aug 2014, 08:14
I think the upshot is that if the rules allow an aircraft to have a single pilot, by definition there's no one on board in a pilot capacity other than PIC and therefore you can't clock up co-pilot time in that aircraft.

(Don't worry: Come 2003 the rules will be simple and clear. Oh, wait...)

blackburn
20th Aug 2014, 11:26
Oktas8 and Rate1:

A check of the current CAR's (1988) will show you that the requirements for ICUS include at CAR 5.40 (1)
(e) the operator of the aircraft permits the person to fly the
aircraft as pilot acting in command under supervision; and
(f) the pilot in command of the aircraft is appointed for the
purpose by the operator of the aircraft.

One assumes that all the Captains of your operator are approved for "the purpose". And there should also be clauses in their Ops Manual dealing with gaining the approval.
The GA companies that I am involved with have exactly that in their Ops Manuals including specific training requirements for the supervisory pilot. CASA involvement is not required in the training or approval process.

Blackburn

Oktas8
20th Aug 2014, 12:30
Yes blackburn, what you say is true.

However, as every captain is approved, and those FOs without ATPL log ICUS without the captain even knowing who they are it seems to me to be a slightly pointless exercise. I am pleased that Part 61 is removing what seems to me to be a bit of a charade (albeit a legally correct and approved charade).

Centaurus
20th Aug 2014, 12:48
Does anyone know if a pilot with an Australian CPL and ATPL subjects and a current command instrument rating on a Boeing 737 and who also has a Fiji ATPL, can be automatically granted an Australian ATPL on the basis he has an (ICAO) Fiji ATPL.

Mach E Avelli
21st Aug 2014, 02:39
As with all things CASA, it probably depends.....

If converting a licence for the first time, answer is yes, subject to the usual air law, medical and verification letter etc.

But a while ago CASA ruled against those who were either too indolent or mentally-challenged to pass 'their' exams and instead tried to shortcut the system via the licence-of-convenience route. Most pilots went for a USA ATP, which in times gone by could almost be purchased from a vending machine. Schools that guaranteed an ATP in a week for a fixed price with 'examiner on staff'. Harrumphh.... CASA cottoned on to this and (for a while at least) required the applicant to show proof that they had substantial operating experience using that licence.

So if your mate (and I can guess who it is) is currently flying Fiji registered aircraft on Part 121 operations, CASA should accept a conversion of the ATPL, assuming that he has the necessary hours. Though, having said that, if the ATPL was a validation of a licence from elsewhere (e.g. USA) possibly not.
It could hinge on whether he can get a letter of verification out of the Fiji CAA stating that the licence was an original issue. In some jurisdictions they do no favours for foreigners, in others a brown paper bag solves all problems of this nature and in others they play it straight enough.

smiling monkey
21st Aug 2014, 03:39
Does anyone know if a pilot with an Australian CPL and ATPL subjects and a current command instrument rating on a Boeing 737 and who also has a Fiji ATPL, can be automatically granted an Australian ATPL on the basis he has an (ICAO) Fiji ATPL.

If he has all his ATPL subjects done, and has all the other prerequisites, then what's stopping him from applying for the Australian ATPL outright rather than on the basis of a foreign ATPL? He still has about 10 days to get his paper work in to CASA before the new part 61 rule comes in to effect.

Mach E Avelli
21st Aug 2014, 06:31
Also, if he already has all the subjects and is currently flying a B737 he shouldn't have any problems setting up a flight test under the new Part 61 requirement. It would almost be a non event to simply have a CASA accredited Flight Examiner observe his next routine simulator check and sign it off.


The real rush to get an Aussie ATPL before the end of the month would surely only be for those guys who have all the prerequisites but currently no access or rating on a type above 5700 kg.

PilotWA123
23rd Aug 2014, 13:46
So basically we can only fly multi crew operation turbine plane in order to obtain APTPL license ... BE76 won't able to do the job then ...:yuk:

Mach E Avelli
23rd Aug 2014, 23:15
As most turbine aircraft certified for two pilot operations are supported by approved simulators, it is likely that is where most ATPL tests will be done as an 'add on' to the type rating. Part 61.700 (5) b is clear enough about this.

PilotWA123
24th Aug 2014, 01:43
But wondering whether we can do it in overseas simulator?

Centaurus
24th Aug 2014, 02:05
and has all the other prerequisites

A guy has 2000 hours of which some 1400 are co-pilot 737 of which 50% can only be logged for the purposes of applying for an ATPL even though all subjects passed in Australia. He needs a minimum of 1500 hours for ATPL issue. With 50% knocked off his 1400 737 hours means he cannot meet the 1500 hours. Bloody ridiculous state of affairs which presumably changes for the better on 1 September

PilotWA123
24th Aug 2014, 02:16
Yeah I think this is the only good news for this new change. Simulator in Aust is limited hope CASA allow us to conduct our prof check, IR And ATPL flt test in oversea..

glekichi
24th Aug 2014, 08:18
A guy has 2000 hours of which some 1400 are co-pilot 737 of which 50% can only be logged for the purposes of applying for an ATPL even though all subjects passed in Australia. He needs a minimum of 1500 hours for ATPL issue. With 50% knocked off his 1400 737 hours means he cannot meet the 1500 hours.

Whats the issue? Is he expecting a 737 command with 2000hrs total time?
The ATPL requirements will be met before the real command requirements are.
Same with the new flight test setup - there is no issue because there is simply no need to hold an ATPL before having a command on a type that requires it.

Unless of course the insurance premiums are going to go up on all the single pilot types because they won't be able to find ATPL holders to fly them, that would be an issue. :E

Centaurus
24th Aug 2014, 09:16
there is simply no need to hold an ATPL before having a command on a type that requires it.


It is nothing to do with being a captain. It is because there are airline operators (Virgin is just one) and regionals in Australia that require the ATPL before a candidate is even considered for interview.

So you can have 1500 hours in command of Cessna 150 as a flying instructor and providing you have a current instrument rating and a twin endorsement it will get you an interview. The 50% of co-pilot time is the problem especially as that rule is peculiar only to Australia

Oktas8
24th Aug 2014, 09:52
50% copilot time has been the norm in many countries for many years (incl NZ & UK), although it has been changing in recent years. Whatever one thinks of the merits of 50%, Australia's rule is by no means unique.

morno
24th Aug 2014, 16:17
It is nothing to do with being a captain. It is because there are airline operators (Virgin is just one) and regionals in Australia that require the ATPL before a candidate is even considered for interview.

Incorrect Centaurus. They require an ATPL 'OR' a CPL with ATPL credits. So there should not be any need to change their recruitment requirements.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - the new rules with regards to ATPL's is going to have very little effect. When you need it, you're going to get it. A flight test is already in place in an operators cyclic program (for example) for candidates who do Command upgrades.

I personally don't see the issue with having to do a test. You're required to do one for a CPL etc. Why not an ATPL?

morno

LeadSled
4th Sep 2014, 01:52
Folks,

Re. only 50% of Co-Pilot time counting towards total aeronautical experience, if this has changed in Part 61, I do hope Australia has notified ICAO if a difference with Annex 1.

Re. all the nonsense about what ICUS is in Australia, here we go again.

Read ICAO Annex 1 for what are the Convention requirements -and read it as an ICAO document, not what you "want" it to mean.

Tootle pip!!

Icarus2001
30th Apr 2021, 02:08
Changing log books....what a pain....Total Aeronautical was always less than Grand Total....now it is always more.

Until the next licence system change, due in about two years.