Independent instructing under Part 61

[Aussie Bob]

It would appear (with some convoluted reading) that Grade 2 and 1 instructors can now do a bit of work independent of a flying school/AOC Part 141 or 142 operator.

From what I can see:

Conduct flight reviews
Train and endorse navigation on a RPL
Train and endorse radio on a RPL
Train and endorse CTA on a RPL
Train and endorse design features

Which should give a little scope to unemployed instructors. Any things I have missed either in the legislation or the above list?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sorry, Bob, but you missed plenty.

61.1165 Privileges of flight instructor ratings
Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.1170 to 61.1180, a flight instructor is authorised;

61.1180 relates to a proficiency check. Unless you hold your own CASR 141/142 approval, all of the activities mentioned require approval by a CASR 141/142 organisation.

You need to conduct and exam now for Flight Radio, Controlled Airspace, Controlled Aerodrome & Nav.

61.215 Aeronautical knowledge examinations—general
(1) CASA may set aeronautical knowledge examinations for the grant of a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement in accordance with the aeronautical knowledge standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement.
(2) A Part 141 or 142 operator may set aeronautical knowledge examinations for the grant of:
(a) a recreational pilot licence; or
(b) a flight crew rating other than an instrument rating; or
(c) a flight crew endorsement.
(3) However, a Part 141 or 142 operator may set an aeronautical knowledge examination only if:
(a) the examination is set in accordance with the aeronautical knowledge standards mentioned in the Part61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement; and
(b) the operator holds an approval under regulation 61.040 for the examination.
(4) The examinations may be conducted at the times and places, and in accordance with arrangements, decided by the body setting the examination.

Again, 141/142 approval required.

Grade 3s can no longer conduct endorsement training or NVFR/Instrument training without a specific approval. They can now send students on second solo the day after they finish their initial instructor rating and S&P. (VERY dangerous in my opinion.):=
WARNING. If you are dumb enough to authorise this an your student dings him/herself on their second CCT solo and you and your CFI will be crucified.

[roundsounds]

I think you'll find instructors holding appropriate training endorsements can independently:

- train / certify design feature endorsements
- train / certify aerobatic and formation endorsements
- conduct flight reviews (day VFR)

Refer: 61.1170 and 61.1230.

[Aussie Bob]

Sorry, Bob, but you missed plentyHmmm ... Not the first time you have told me that Captain! Guess I had better keep reading. The problem is every time I open this book my eyes glaze over and I get a terrible thirst.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Flight reviews.

61.400 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—flight review
(1) For this Part, successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are as follows:
(a) CASA;
(b) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 for this regulation;
(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating.
(3) The flight review must be conducted in:
(a) an aircraft that can be flown under the rating; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight review.

AGAIN you must either operate under a CASR 141/142 organisation with their permission or have your own 141/142 approval.
Agreed it is a pain in the arse to locate in the new rules, but
DO NOT RELY ON PEOPLE GIVING YOU PPRUNE ADVICE. PHONE FLIGHT CREW LICENSING AND ASK IF YOU ARE NOT SURE.

Roundsounds,
Yes, a Grade 1/2 is qualified to conduct these activities, but read my earlier quote on 61.1165. It states that regs 61.1170 to 61.1180 apply and that means you need a proficiency check. 141/142 applies.

[djpil]

I generally find that I agree with roundsounds, and also on this subject.

This is relevant too:
61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities
conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator

And we all need proficiency checks - need not be an operator proficiency check. Instead of an instructor renewal test next year I get to do an instructor proficiency check.

[roundsounds]

A proficiency check in part 61 speak is equivalent to a renewal under part 5. eg: an instrument rating renewal has been replaced by an instrument proficiency check. A part 141/142 authorisation is required for training towards the issue of a licence or rating 61.1170 (3) hints at this.

[ersa]

MakeItHappenCaptain is on the money, grade 1,2,3 instructors are pretty much useless unless operating under a 141/142 approval......dont fall in to the trap..

[triadic]

I just wonder where all these instructors or approved persons are going to come from?? I think they are going to dry up before too long and what is left will be charging far to much to achieve the outcomes desired....!

Does anyone know if on part 61 CASA has conducted either:
a) A cost benefit analysis,
or
b) A safety case.

As far as I can see it is regulation for the sake of regulation with no cost benefit and no safety benefits over what we had before (??) Not to mention the time required to work it all out...

Game on!

[Aussie Bob]

Strainer, it is this section of Part 61 that prompted me to make my original post;

Aka, if I do this:

a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight
training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an
endorsement on an operational rating; and

(b)the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142
operator; and

I commit an offence if I do not record the training within 7 days. Elsewhere it then states that I must keep a record of the training for 7 years.

All the other things I mentioned are of course sessions of training for a flight crew endorsement, so therefore if I can do the flight review I can also do the rest of the stuff provided I have a proficiency check (which apparently is issued to me during my grade 1 renewal) but in any event I can get from a Part 61 training organisation (if they will give it to me).

I still agree with Make it Happen Captain that I am missing heaps but I will continue studying.

My beef is that this ****e is written by lawyers for lawyers but is supposed to be interpreted by pilots.

[Aussie Bob]

Furthermore:

61.400 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—flight review
(1) For this Part, successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are as follows:
(a) CASA;
(b) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 for this regulation;
(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating.
(3) The flight review must be conducted in:
(a) an aircraft that can be flown under the rating; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight review.

Isn't a grade 1 instructor the person mentioned in (C)?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Cheers, Bob.

Strainer and djpil both quote 61.1230, but why is it so hard to understand?

You have it wrong, Strainer.
You want to know where it references a flight review?


A pilot instructor commits an offence if:
(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and
(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and
(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Go ahead. Wait until your candidate screws up (and I've had it happen on more than one occasion, on topics I specifically covered during the training:rolleyes:) and when CASA comes knocking at your door to see if you deserve to keep your instructor rating, let's see you worm your way out of that one.

It's not that hard. Really...:cool:

[Draggertail]

Strainer, I agree with you in relation to flight reviews.

61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator


(1) A pilot instructor commits an offence if:

(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and

(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and

(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.

The title of 1230 is important, it says this section is about the record keeping obligations if operating independently of 141/2.

Because there is an "and" after (a) and (b) it follows the offence is committed only if (a) and (b) and (c) occur. So, an offence if committed if the instructor (a) conducts a flight review and (b) is not part of 141/2 and (c) does not make a record in 7 days.

It follows that if the instructor does make a record in 7 days no offence has occurred. It just a very clumsy way to word the offence and typical of Part 61.

What they could have said is; An instructor who conducts a flight review independently of a Part 141/2 organization must make a record within seven days. Failure to comply, 50 penalty points

[roundsounds]

You need to read 61.1230 carefully (and the clue is in the title), what it's saying is:

If you're doing a flight review or certain endorsement training independently AND it's not under a Part 141 or 142 holder you are comitting an offence if you don't make a record of the training within 7 days of completing the training. Over the page it says under (2) you must keep those records for 7 years.

If you're delivering the training under a Part 141/142 organisation it's their responsibility to make sure the records are created and retained for 7 years. (See 141.275 and 142.355)

Any endorsement training towards adding something to a rating (ie adding privileges to an instrument or instructor rating) must be delivered by a part 141/142 holder. This is addressed in 61.1230 (1)(a) - "other than endorsement on an operational rating".

as someone has said, "it's not that hard, really"

[Horatio Leafblower]

Draggertail's interpretation of the legalese is correct. :D

That may or may not be the same as what CASA thinks it means. :ugh:

[Strainer]

Strainer and djpil both quote 61.1230, but why is it so hard to understand?
You have it wrong, Strainer.
You want to know where it references a flight review?

MICH, I read 61.1230 a bit differently than you do. What it says to me is this.

'A pilot instructor commits an offence if the instructor conducts a flight review (conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator) and a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.'

The flight review and flight training are specifically referred to separately in subpart (a) of part (1) in 61.1230. Subpart (b) refers only to flight training and as I'm only concerned with the flight review, in that context, subpart (b) can be discarded. So what you're left with is subpart (a) & (b) of Part (1) in 61.1230 as I've suggested above.

I don't really have an issue with what was intended via Part 61. It's basically going back to where we were 30 odd years ago with different names/titles. It just shouldn't be this hard. SNAFU!!!

[djpil]

Strainer and djpil both quote 61.1230I didn't actually quote it, just stated that it was relevant - roundsounds and others explain it much better than I would. It is just one part of the jigsaw puzzle and, as others suggest, it is worth reading the opening paras of Part 141 too.

provided I have a proficiency check (which apparently is issued to me during my grade 1 renewal) but in any event I can get from a Part 61 training organisationAussie Bob, I suggest that you read the CASA quides to proficiency checks (and note some previous posts here). No renewal for your instructor rating - instead do a proficiency check - by a flight examiner not (necessarily) a training organisation.

We haven't yet discussed PPL instructors who, operating independently, may do a subset of the stuff discussed (but not flight reviews, I hasten to add).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Am talking with head of FCL later today. Will add this topic to the list and get an official answer, but reserve further judgement at this time.

Agreed on the SNAFU part. I have to submit up to SEVEN forms just for some PPL tests at the moment and some rotary flight examiners are up for fifteen type proficiency checks to keep current on EACH TYPE for testing. Out of control. :rolleyes:

[gassed budgie]

I've spoken to a couple of Grade 1 FI's today who have been conducting flight reviews independent from 141/142 schools. They were adament that the reviews could be done under part 61 as it now stands.
They've both submitted the appropriate paperwork to CASA regards the flight reviews and at this stage, have had nothing bounce back to them that suggests that anything was out of order.

[Aussie Bob]

Sadly GB they may not even have looked at it. Does anyone know anyone who has recieved a new license?

But back to the flight review, the form askes for the operator, so who did they put?

[ersa]

You Can not conduct flight reviews outside of a 141/142 organisation.

If any grade 1 has, the pilot will be operating illegally , assuming there old review has expired.

All indépendant (private) endorsements and reviews stopped on the 1st Sept.

Jack ....yes the 141/142 will have to have the rating on there AOC

[Draggertail]

Ersa, 61.1230 suggests you can. See post #16. Where does it say you cannot?

[roundsounds]

It's also worth reviewing 61.195, the Part 5 definition of Flight Training doesn't transfer to Part 61.

I'd be interested to learn where in Part 61 it states flight activity and design feature endorsements must be conducted by a Part 141/142 hiolder? (Particularly given the content of 61.195).

[BPA]

Why is everyone having trouble understanding Part 61? Part of the CASA statement today said this about the new rules;

"This makes the rules easier to understand and provides for better safety outcomes.”

I guess CASA must be reading a different Part 61 then the rest of Australia.

Perhaps someone needs to produce a "Part 61 for Dummies".

[Draggertail]

Jack, the flight review form has a space for Simulator ID number. Doesn't mean you have to do the review in the sim.

Could it be possible you leave the Part 141/2 part blank if you are doing it independently?

Wonderful stuff from CASA!

[Strainer]

Buried in the dim, dark, depths of CASA's website I found this. It's from one of their licensing information sheets, this one specifically addressing flight reviews.

Flight Reviews

Who can conduct a flight review?
A flight instructor with a grade 1 or 2 training endorsement can conduct an aircraft class or type rating flight review for an aircraft they are authorised to fly.

A flight instructor with a training endorsement for a rating can conduct a flight review for that rating.

Simulator instructors can also conduct flight reviews in flight simulation training devices approved for that purpose.



CASA can authorise a person to conduct a flight review. For example, there might be a special situation where there is no flight instructor with the right authorisations available and there is a specific operational need for the review to be undertaken.

A pilot conducting a flight review must be authorised to fly the type of aircraft being used for the flight review. If the review is for an operational rating, the pilot must also be authorised to conduct training for that rating.

....again no mention that the instructor conducting the flight review must be tied to a 141/142 operator.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Flight reviews (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101937)

[ersa]

Read this..........

As a free-lance instructor, there is very little that you can teach now without being employed by a Part 141/142 school. There is a loop hole (not sure if it was intentional or not) that means that currently you can conduct a flight review as an independent instructor for something that you can teach, but you must not conduct training during the flight review. So if the FR appears to be straight forward, then go for it. But as soon as the pilot is not making the grade, then you have to call it a fail and send them to a Part 141 school for revision/training and then a flight review.

NOTE there are very strict rules for paperwork keeping as an independent instructor. I believe that this loophole may be withdrawn at some stage and CASA have already changed the FR form so that they can see how many FR's are conducted by independents.

[Aussie Bob]

ersa, you are now saying your post at #26 is incorrect?

How about supplying references to the bits of Part 61 applicable to what you say?


As a free-lance instructor, there is very little that you can teach now without being employed by a Part 141/142 school.

So what can you teach? (with part 61 references please)

[ersa]

I've spoke to 3 different FOI , one told me you can not train anyone unless working for a 141/142 school

The other 2 said no training this includes HFR , yes you can go and check them out for a review , no training just checking , the minute they need training on a failed component , pass to a flight school.

[Draggertail]

Most FOIs know as much as we do in relation to Part 61. I would suggest asking for a Part 61 reference with any advice they give.

[Aussie Bob]

I recently spoke to an FOI and he is looking at the flight review bit but stated that the legislation was written by CASA pilots then handed to the lawyers who messed totally with it to make it legal speak.

His opinion was that while it may be legal to do a flight review currently, that was never the intent, hence the Part 61 operator box on the form.

All the other stuff I wrote in #1 is not permitted (as Captain and ersa and others pointed out). Ref 61.195

In answer to "what can an independent instructor do", it would appear very little except design feature endorsements. Form 61-3DF has no box for the Part 61 operator. Ref 61.195 again.

At least that's my interpretation so far .....

[Draggertail]

Agree with you Aussie Bob.

To add a little more, Part 61.745 states that your flight review is taken to have been successfully done if (amongst other things) you have completed training for a design feature endorsement. Which can be done independently.




Part 61.745

(3) For sub regulation (1A), the holder is taken to have successfully completed a flight review for the rating if the holder:

(c) completes flight training for a design feature endorsement in an aircraft of the class covered by the aircraft class rating;

[Aussie Bob]

So, we do a design feature endorsement and it is also a flight review, should form 61-3DF be accompanied by form 61-9FR? Or will form 61-3DF trigger a flight review update automatically on the CASA database? (Given they now want notification of flight reviews)

Its getting too hard for me, retirement from instruction is looking pretty good.

[djpil]

roundsounds had it right in post #3

[Draggertail]

Quote from Aussie Bob

"So, we do a design feature endorsement and it is also a flight review, should form 61-3DF be accompanied by form 61-9FR? Or will form 61-3DF trigger a flight review update automatically on the CASA database? (Given they now want notification of flight reviews)"

Common sense would say just the DF form especially as the wording in 61.745 says "taken to have successfully completed a flight review" if you have complete design feature endoresment.

RAAus do it this way. CASA?????

Yes, roundsounds was spot on.

[LeadSled]

Does anyone know if on part 61 CASA has conducted either:
a) A cost benefit analysis,
or
b) A safety case.

Folks,
Yes, I do, and the answers were: a) NO and b) NO.

This despite the fact that CASA, in its submission to the Forsyth inquiry, specifically states that CASA had implemented ALL the recommendations of the Hawke (Hawke as in Dr. A. Hawke, Chairman of CASA) Report had been implemented.

One of the Hawke Report recommendations was the comprehensive implementation of the Byron directive 01/2007, which required CASA to comply with the Office of Best Practice Regulation procedures.

So, as Chairman of CASA, what is the position of Dr. Hawke, whose organisation has advised a Ministerial inquiry that certain actions have been taken (the implementation of his own recommendations), when this is not true. Indeed, I cannot find 01/2007 on the CASA web site any longer, and I can see nothing the equivalent, and I know from personal knowledge that the above NO and NO answers are correct.

In fact, the policy position as stated by the former DAS/CEO was that all such OBPR procedures were incompatible with S.9A of the Act, so that any claimed safety benefit, however small, had to be implemented, regardless of the cost.

If the OBPR "mandatory guidelines" had been followed, the rotten mess that is Part 61 would be very different.

A word of warning, anything short of a letter of interpretation, signed by CASA Principal Legal Counsel, ie: opinions of CASA FOIs or other employees of CASA, are a waste of time, and even an interpretation of OLC may be overturned by the AAT or the Federal Court.

Such clear and unambiguous regulation, ain't life grand.

Tootle pip!!

[roundsounds]

Part 141.015 and 142.015 define the the types of flight training permitted by the respective authorisations. Gotta stop thinking the way things used to be done under Part 5.

[LeadSled]

Part 141.015 and 142.015 define the the types of flight training permitted by the respective authorisations. Gotta stop thinking the way things used to be done under Part 5.

Rounsounds,
True if you are operating under under Parts 141/142, but Part 61 is "stand alone", the only incontrovertible fact here is that the matter, ( and many more) is very unclear, with conflicting regulations, one of the things that resulted in the delayed implementation, but about which CASA did nothing.

What might have been the policy intent (reflected in some of the training material, and some of the MOS) and what is in the final regulations are two very different horses.

Tootle pip!!

[roundsounds]

Just had a chat with my local CASA Aviation Safety Advisor who confirms the following:

1/ Training towards the issue of a licence, rating or addition to a rating must be completed by a Part 141 / 142 authorisation holder. (Generally anything requiring the services of a Flight Examiner to test the applicant as competent)

2/ Training towards, and issuing of, flight activity or design feature endorsements does not require Part 141 / 142 coverage. Same story for flight reviews. There are requirements for the Flight Instructor to hold appropriate quals, to notify CASA of the issue of said endorsement or flight review and to maintain records.

If in doubt give your local CASA Aviation Safety Advisor a call.

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91317

[djpil]

Clause (3) of 61.1170 ..refers only to endorsements on an operational rating so does not apply to design feature or flight activity endorsements.

[roundsounds]

Jack, the Cessna 208 is a special case and requires training under CASR 61.062 see CASA Instrument 186/14.

With regards to 61.1170, the only requirement to operate under a Part 141/142 authorisation holder is for training for a pilot licence or rating or an endorsement on a rating.
Pilot licence - RPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL
Rating - Instrument, Instructor, Ag, Type
Operational Rating Endorsement - 2D or 3D on an instrument rating, Grade 1 on an instructor rating etc.

(3) A flight instructor is authorised to conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating only if the instructor is engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement

It's also worth going back to the NPRM (page 23 to be specific which identifies the preferred option of 3).
http://casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/141/download/nprm0311fs.pdf

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Orright,

To put this topic to rest, I have actually contacted FCL and several different FOIs and the answer is unambiguously and unanimously,

YOU MUST CONDUCT A FLIGHT REVIEW UNDER A CASR 141/142 APPROVAL.

There is a difference between being qualified to conduct a review and being authorised to conduct a review.

Warning: if a review is conducted illegally, any subsequent incident/accident investigation will conclude the pilot was flying without a valid review and that will open up a whole new world of hurt in the form of civil litigation and insurance refusals. :cool:
Ever had a solicitor trying to blanket email every flying school in the area hoping that a review had been conducted somewhere to get their deceased client's estate out of the crap?

Again, stop debating this stuff on pprune and ask CASA if you are not sure. It's your arse on the line if you're wrong!:ok:

[Creampuff]

... and your arse remains on the line if CASA's wrong.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Really? How can you be liable if you do a review under a 141/142 approval?:confused:

Flight examiners are baling out en masse due to CaSA's pending policy that they are no longer going to be covered by CASA's insurance, meaning they will have to provide their own insurance and maintain it for seven years after their last test is conducted. Expensive proposition. What cover do you have if you aren't under the school's umbrella and someone alleges you were in charge of the flight and therefore responsible for an incident/accident?

[roundsounds]

MIHC, I too have spoken to CASA (Aviation Safety Advisors - the people trained up for advising industry) and been given contradictory information to yours. I have also quoted several references supporting the case for being permitted to conduct AFRs independently. Have the CASA and FCL people you've spoken to been able to quote the references supporting their opinion?

For contact details of your local CASA Aviation Safety Advisor go to the CASA website, "Education" tab, then "Aviation safety advisors".

[Creampuff]

My comment was more about the general principle of mistaking an FOIs opinion for an authoritative statement of the requirements of the law.

Naturally they put their statements in writing and don't mind being named so that we know upon whose statements we're relying to our detriment?

[roundsounds]

I'm waiting on a response to an email from my local FOI. The CASA Aviation Safety Advisor who provided me with confirmation of flight reviews not requiring 141/142 coverage was my local one listed on the CASA site.

Were the people you spoke to able to quote the CASR references supporting their opinions? I'm not sure if you've checked the various references I have quoted in my earlier posts, but I am yet to see any CASR reference stating a flight review must be completed by a 141 / 142 holder (lots of opinion, but no CASR quoted). Additionally the Part 141 NPRM clearly states it was CASA's intention that flight reviews could be performed independently of 141 holders. (bottom left cell of the table on page 23 of the Part 141 NPRM).

[aeromatt]

The fact there is all this debate and no one on either side of this argument has been able to put up any regulations to support the argument either way is ridiculous. Part 61 is obviously a huge success, onya CASA. :D

I'm trying to get a c208 endorsement at the moment, the fact the c208 is in some mystical middle ground between automatically being part of the SE class rating and requiring a type rating is causing me a world of hassle.

No one seems to know if instructors can conduct the training independently as they did before 1/9 and instructors who are attached to a 141/142 school have no idea if the c208 needs to be listed on their AOC (seeing as it's now sort of part of the SE class rating). No one I've spoken to has gotten anything definitive out of CASA.

The only thing I know for certain now is that I'm kicking myself for not rushing through it before Sept 1st.

If anyone can help me with any of the above or knows somewhere I can get the endorsement sorted let me know. I can get access to an aircraft on the east or west coast.

[Draggertail]

Agree with roundsounds. It's no good quoting names, quote references as he has.

[roundsounds]

Aeromatt, CASR 61.747 is very clear the training must be completed by a Part 141 or 142 holder and they will need CASA approval. You should also read CASA Instrument 186/14, CASR 61.062, 141.035 and 142.040.

If you go back to my previous posts I have listed numerous references supporting my opinion regarding what instructors can do independently of a Part 141/142 holder. Alternatively you could familiarise yourself with the current regs, they're all available on the CASA website.

[Skydiveandy]

Jack, clear your inbox i am trying to send you a PM..

[Creampuff]

MakeItHappenCaptain

I see the names of the FOIs you posted previously have now been removed. I assume they had some discomfiture in the suggestion that they might actually be responsible for the accuracy and consequences of the assertions you attributed to them?

The unequivocal assertion you attribed to the FOIs you previously named (and whose names I've recorded) is:YOU MUST CONDUCT A FLIGHT REVIEW UNDER A CASR 141/142 APPROVAL.[Capitals, underling and bolding in the original.]

Could you go back to those FOIs and ask them a couple of short questions, after some short background?

CASR 61.1165 sets out the basic privileges of a 'flight instructor rating'. Among those are privileges: ...(a) to conduct flight training for:

(i) pilot licences; and

(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:

...

(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than ...; and

(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than ...

(c) to conduct training in multi‑crew cooperation; and

(d) to conduct differences training for variants of type ratings; and

(e) to conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385; and

(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:

....All of that is expressed to be "Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.1170 to 61.1180." We'll return to that later.

At this point I'd just note the above list of privileges includes the conduct of "flight training" and the conduct of "flight reviews".

Based on:

- the structure of regulation 61.1165,

- the content of relevant defined terms in the CASRs, and

- reality,

"flight training" is a manifestly different thing to "flight reviews".

Regulation 61.1170 includes general limitations on the privileges of flight instructor ratings. The only link drawn in regulation 61.1170 to Part 141 and 142 operators is in subregulation (3), which says:A flight instructor is authorised to conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating only if the instructor is engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement.[My bolding]

Key point: There is no mention of flight reviews in 61.1170.

Nor can I find any other regulation that links the exercise of flight instructor rating flight review privileges to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

Short question for your FOI contacts:

Regulation 61.1170(3) limits the exercise of the flight training privileges of a flight instructor rating to instructors engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator. Where is the equivalent limitation for the exercise of flight review privileges of a flight instructor rating?

The answer needs to be a reference to a regulation, not an assertion of strong opinion about how someone thinks the system should work. One of the reasons for this chronic mess is that there are too many people with strong opinions that suffer the minor impediment of being contrary to the law.

I concede that many of the 'new', 'simplified' regulations are appallingly drafted and there may be a myriad of exemptions and amendments that make the published regulations misleading in isolation. But we need a reference - words that are law.

[Creampuff]

For completeness' sake, I note that the flight review requirements of a licence say that the flight review must be carried out by a person mentioned in CASR 61.400(2). One of those persons is "(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating."

As previously noted, under CASR 61.1165:[A] flight instructor is authorised:

...

(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:

(i) flight examiner ratings; and

(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; ...More questions for the FOIs:

If I get the holder of an instructor rating under CASR 61.1165 to do my flight review 'independently' of a Part 141 or 142 organisation:

- what rule does the instructor break? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation)

- why is my review not valid? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructtor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation ...)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Hey, Creamie,

I'm reading Part 61.1165 saying that your privileges are listed in table 61.1235, which incorporates flight reviews and also mentions them at Paragraph (6).


Will get back on the other references.

[Creampuff]

I’ve ‘mapped’ the authorities given by a flight instructor rating against the limitations linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. It seems clear to me that some training and review authorities on flight instructor ratings may be exercised independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. The existence of CASR 61.1230 confirms this intention.

61.1165 Privileges of flight instructor ratings

[A] flight instructor is authorised:(a) to conduct flight training for:
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(A) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and
(B) flight examiner ratings; and
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than flight examiner endorsements; and …To exercise the authority to “conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating”, the instructor conducting the flight training must be engaged to conduct the training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement: CASR 61.1170(3). There are further limitations in CASR 61.1175(1).

However, note that the limitation in CASR 61.1170(3) does not apply to flight training for an endorsement other than an endorsement on an operational rating. In other words, the holder of a flight instructor rating may conduct flight training for an endorsement, independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator, provided that the training is not for a “flight examiner endorsement” or an “endorsement on an operational rating”. (This is presumably why “a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating” is mentioned (along with flight reviews) in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of Part 141 and 142 operators. i.e. CASR 61.1230.)

Part 61 defines “endorsement” to mean “flight crew endorsement”, which is in turn defined to mean “an endorsement granted under [Part 61] on a flight crew licence”.

Part 61 defines “operational rating” to mean any of: “(a) an aerial application rating; (b) an examiner rating; (c) an instructor rating; (d) an instrument rating; (e) a low‑level rating; (f) a night VFR rating; (g) a night vision imaging system rating; (h) a private instrument rating.

So, the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct endorsement training for any endorsement in Part 61 independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, except for flight examiner endorsements and except for any endorsement on an “operational rating” as defined.

However, the instructor must:

- hold his or her own training endorsements in accordance with table 61.1235 (whether or not the instructor is engaged by a Part 141 or 142 organisation): CASR 61.1175(1), and

- record the training in accordance with 61.1230.(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner endorsements; and
(ii) training endorsements mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of table 61.1235; and
(iii) endorsements for which a flight test is required; and …This authority is to grant the endorsements, not to conduct the training for someone to qualify for the endorsement. The exercise of this authority is therefore not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation (but the training aspects will be, to the extent covered by (a) above).

There are other limitations in CASR 61.1175(4) – a requirement to hold the applicable training endorsement - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (That said, it may be that CASA intends to make the grant of the training endorsement subject to the activities being conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an instructor to be granted an ‘independent’ training endorsement.)(c) to conduct training in multi‑crew cooperation; and … The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142.

However, the regulations that mention “multi-crew cooperation training” as a criterion for the exercise of the privileges of a licence also say that the holder much complete an “approved” course of training in multi-crew cooperation. It may be that CASA plans to approve only the courses conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an ‘independent’ instructor to get this approval.(d) to conduct differences training for variants of type ratings; and … The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation (but it would be if the differences training is for an endorsement covered by the exceptions in (a) above). So far as I can tell, “differences” is not covered by those exceptions, but rather one criterion for the exercise of some licence privileges. There are other limitations in CASR 61.1175(2), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

However, the criterion for a e.g. a type rating that requires “differences training” can only be met if the training is conducted by: “(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct differences training for the variant; or (ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training”. See: CASR 61.200(b). (e) to conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385; and … The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

Note that the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385 applies to someone who already holds a pilot licence. It therefore seems to me that the holder of an instructor rating may, independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, train the holder of a pilot licence on e.g. “conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency procedures for the aircraft [for which the licence contains privileges].”

There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(3) – a requirement for a training endorsement that authorises the instructor to conduct flight training in the aircraft - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. Again, it may be that CASA plans to grant these training endorsements subject to a condition requiring the holder to carry out the authorised activities only under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, but that is not dictated by the legislation.(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner ratings; and
(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and … The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(6), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (CASR 61.1175(6) requires the instructor to hold specified training endorsements.)

It therefore seems to me that the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct flight reviews independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, if the instructor has the applicable training endorsement specified in CASR 61.1175(6). This is presumably why flight reviews are expressly mentioned in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator. (61.1230 is, nonetheless, appallingly drafted. The criterion in para (a) mentions the conduct of “a flight review” or “a session of flight training”. However, paras (b) and (c) only mention “training”. Why was a “flight review” mentioned in para (a)?)(g) under Subdivision 61.A.3.1 (Student pilots), to approve a person to pilot an aircraft, including for a solo flight; and … The exercise of this authority is linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation, through the criteria in CASR 61.112.(h) to conduct dual flight checks for a student pilot; and …The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

However, given that a ‘dual flight check’ means an in-flight assessment by a flight instructor of the competency of a student pilot to conduct a solo training flight, as a matter of practicality it’s unlikely that ‘independent’ instructors would do this check.(i) to approve a person mentioned in regulation 61.125 (Conducting flight activities without rating or endorsement) to pilot an aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training; and … The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

However, note that the activity may be conducted while the person is “receiving flight training for [a] rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would, if it’s covered by (a) above, have to be conducted by an instructor engaged to conduct that flight training by a Part 141 or 142 organisation, or while the person is “taking a flight test for the rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would have to be conducted by a person with the authority to conduct the flight test.)(j) to approve a person mentioned in regulation 61.120 to transmit on a radio frequency of a kind used for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation; and … The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

However, a criterion for the operation of CASR 61.120 is that “the transmission is made while receiving training for a flight crew licence or flight radio endorsement”. Therefore, as a matter of practicality it is unlikely that this privilege would be exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation.(k) to assess the standard of knowledge of an applicant for a pilot licence, or a rating on a pilot licence, in any items mentioned in the applicant’s knowledge deficiency report. The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

However, CASR 61.230 requires knowledge deficiency reports to be provided to the candidate’s “training provider”. Given the definition of “training provider”, it is unlikely this privilege will be practicably exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. There are also limitations in CASR 61.1175(7), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.

Simple! :yuk:

[roundsounds]

Creamie - extract from Part 141 NPRM:

"Provide for greater flexibility in the training arrangements for pilot endorsements and for the conduct of flight reviews.
Flexibility is provided by limiting the requirement for training certificates to training for licences and ratings."

This further supports our understanding regarding Part 141/142 requirements.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate
(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(a) training for the grant under Part 61 of a private pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is not an integrated training course;
(b) training for the grant under Part 61 of a recreational pilot licence;
(c) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew rating other than a type rating;
(d) training for the grant under Part 61 of a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045;
(e) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew endorsement other than:
(i) a design feature endorsement; or
(ii) a flight activity endorsement;
(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
(g) differences training:
(i) that is required as mentioned in regulation 61.780 or 61.835 for a variant covered by a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045; and
(ii) that is not conducted by a training and checking organisation approved under regulation 217 of CAR.

This defines a flight review as a CASR 141/142 activity, hence the need to operate under an approval.

This extract is from the F2014C01095 (latest version) document on the comlaw website. The original unamended doc came up first on google. There are several variants floating around on the web.

[Creampuff]

This defines a flight review as a CASR 141/142 activity .., No it doesn't.

Either you or your FOI contacts can't read properly.

[Draggertail]

Captain, you post states that "training as part of a flight review" is done under 141/142.

As I read your post and all of the others, if a current pilot comes in for a flight review without the need for extra training it can be done independantly. If the pilot is not good enough and extra training is required then it's off to a part 141/142. This has been stated before in this thread.

[Creampuff]

You are correct, D.

If – repeat if – training in an aircraft or flight simulation device is given as part of a flight review, the training falls within the definition of “Part 141 flight training”.

But that’s not the same as saying that a flight review is, by definition, flight training under Part 141 or otherwise.

A flight review can be successfully (and lawfully) completed without the need for any flight training during the review.

Nor is it the same as saying that the definition of “Part 141 flight training” has the effect of prohibiting or authorising anything. The operative regulations contain the authorisations and limitations that do that, by reference to the definitions.

Even if we assume the effect of the regulations is that an ‘independent’ instructor cannot conduct flight training during a flight review, I don’t see what’s to stop an independent instructor from:

- conducting a flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f),

- deciding that the candidate does not meet the competency standard for e.g. PFLs,

- conducting training in PFLs during a separate, subsequent flight, under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(e), then

- conducting another flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f).

If the candidate’s licence has time to run before the flight review time limit runs out, and the instructor has the required training endorsement, what rule stops the above from happening?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And I think we will see the difference between a proficiency check and flight rewiew come into play here. You are not training when you conduct a proficiency check. You are assessing their ability.

It's all well and good to say they won't need any training, but how often do you find a PPL who is due for a review who does everything without needing a tune-up here or there.

Honestly, how many instructors who are assuming they don't need a 141/142 are going to say, "we need to stop the review because I now need an approval which I don't have"?

The school who has paid for the exposition and time to get their training approval are going to be pretty pissed off at an instructor who moonlights their work.
Not unrealistic to say, "I'll just fudge the record that you didn't need any training", and that is a problem.:=

I agree CASA need to clarify this, (which I hope they will), but it's going to be a lot simpler to just do it under a 141/142.

Again, how many independants are carrying their own liability insurance? A school covers you. Alone, you've got your arse hanging out in the breeze. Sure many old hands remember the dramas Alan D. went through in SE QLD a few years back and he was covered!

[Creampuff]

Whoa there, big fella.

We still haven’t established that the operative provisions which point to those words you highlighted in the definition of “Part 141 flight training” have the effect of prohibiting all instructors, other than instructors engaged by a Part 141 operator, from delivering training during a flight review.

That said, the authority to “conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385” (CASR 61.1165(e)) could be interpreted as giving an ‘independent’ instructor with the appropriate training endorsement the authority to conduct only ground training to meet the general competency requirements.

Perhaps there is an intended difference drawn in 61.1165 between “flight training” and “training” (and “flight reviews” and “dual flight checks” etc). Maybe the authority in CASR 61.1165(e) permits the ‘independent’ instructor to conduct ground training in aircraft systems/W&B/landing and take off performance/normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures. (In which case the ‘independent’ instructor would not have authority to conduct ‘flight training’ during a flight review, except for flight training for an endorsement (other than a flight examiner endorsement or for an endorsement on an operation rating) because ‘independent’ instructors are allowed to conduct that flight training under the authority granted by 61.1165(a).

The alternative (and plain English) interpretation is that “training” in 61.1165 is a general term covering all training including “flight training” and ground training, in which case the authority to “conduct training to meet the general competency requirement” covers ground and flight training and, therefore, independent instructors with the appropriate training endorsement may conduct that kind of training during a flight review….

[Strainer]

I thought I'd seen somewhere the wording to be entered on a licence after completing a flight review. But not now. Can someone point me in the right direction?

[Two_dogs]

Might be in here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102004) somewhere?

Part 61 Manual of Standards

The MOS is published in four volumes containing the following information and schedules.

Volume 1


Legislative instrument (front section) PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-legislative-instrument.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-legislative-instrument97.doc)
Schedule 1A – Directory of abbreviations PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-abbreviations.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-abbreviations97.doc)
Schedule 1 – Directory PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-schedule-1-directory.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol1-schedule-1-directory97.doc)


Volume 2


Schedule 2 – Flight crew licensing competency standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol2-schedule-2.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol2-schedule-2-97.doc)


Volume 3


Schedule 3 – Aeronautical knowledge standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol3-schedule-3-new.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol3-schedule-3-97-new.doc)


Volume 4


Schedule 4 – Aeronautical knowledge examination standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-4.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-4-97.doc)
Schedule 5 – Flight test standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-5.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-5-97.doc)
Schedule 6 – Proficiency check standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-6.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-6-97.doc)
Schedule 7 – Flight review standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-7.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-7-97.doc)
Schedule 8 – Assessment standards PDF (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-8.pdf) l Word (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100212/part-61-instrument-vol4-schedule-8-97.doc)

[djpil]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Flight crew licensing entry guide (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102094)

[Strainer]

Thanks guys. Not quite what I was looking for. I remember seeing something somewhere regards how it actually should be written up on a licence (it was a guide only), but for the life of me, I now just can't find it.
This sort of thing happens I suppose as you slide further into ones dotage!

[djpil]

I remember seeing something somewhere regards how it actually should be written up on a licence (it was a guide only), but for the life of me, I now just can't find it.The link I posted earlier is exactly that.

[BubbaMc]

Interesting thread.

Can anyone share their experiences of working as an independent instructor in the Part 61 era?

[kaz3g]

The title of 1230 is important, it says this section is about the record keeping obligations if operating independently of 141/2.

Be wary of relying on the title of a piece of legislation. It isn't part of the law and is not used in the interpretation of the law.

Kaz

[djpil]

Can anyone share their experiences of working as an independent instructor in the Part 61 era?
- doing pretty much the same as pre-Part 61 (part-time, casual)
- got liability insurance - definitely consider what may happen if things go wrong eg aircraft insurance excess
- gave myself a big pay rise
- no flight and duty time records nor any other pain of an organisation subject to a CASA Ops Manual
- got a syllabus, briefings notes & training records
- still associated with a supportive flying school - good to be able to conduct briefings in a warm room etc
- I have my own airplane - can't see it working otherwise
- the school has the aeroplane online so gets a little income from it
- one flying school will not cross-hire their aeroplane to me, just to another school

Seems it is now so difficult for instructors here to get training endorsements for spin and aerobatics that I won't need to worry about competition from new starters for quite some time.

[djpil]

As for low level aerobatic endorsements:
- may now be granted by an appropriate aerobatic instructor rather than the few CASA delegates prior to Part 61
- all are now permanent with no limitations apart from the minimum height AGL
- so these days I don't do as many but enjoying it more!

[BubbaMc]

Good to hear.

Out of interest, what type of aircraft do you own for teaching aerobatics?