Part 61 IPC or repeat Initial?

[Ramjet555]

Can someone point me to the right document that explains
that if your instrument rating has gone over 24 months
that you cannot do an IPC?

Can you use an overseas Instrument Rating Renewal or foreign (FAA)
IPC to renew an Australian Instrument Rating?

[Stretch06]

I dont believe there is one. Talking to an ATO/FE the other day, we concluded that once you have completed an initial IR, you will only ever need to conduct a PC. Even if it was 5years over the previous PC expiry date, all that is required is a PC to validate your rating.

Second part of the question - unsure

[Follytobewise]

Any significant differences between the new IPC and the old renewal in terms of complexity and/or duration of the test itself (possible for most of it still to be in sim)?

[NIK320]

Yes it's different.

I was told CAsA requires the theory stuff to be asked in practical scenario terms. No more reciting the AIP if your ATO was into that style of questioning.
Tolerances have the addition of centreline tracking and touch down zone, i think the others where the same.
For the approach part, you need to demonstrate a SID if you have one available, ILS, RNAV with a sector entry and some circling if you want that. The usual OEI sequences added in to spice it up.
I did all of mine inflight so not sure on the sim options.


Its all on the test form (1512) and in the MOS (Vol 4, sched 6 & 8).

[as fragged]

Yes to the FAA renewal, but it's complicated...

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_14_1.pdf

Made even worse by the CAR being repealed.... But guys are still using this process, with the new forms.

[Ramjet555]

Wow,
Thanks for the link. Its appears to be the relevant document.
Complicated is an understatement.

After reading it carefully, it strikes as a symptom of what can only be called "resistance to change".
Its that "resistance" that negates the value that could otherwise be obtained from the fundamental principles of
what an IPC means in the FAA system which is very different to the CASA application and all their conditions.

CAS place so many conditions that make it practically impossible unless its a large aircraft for which a simulator does not exist in Australia.

It is a "make work" project, to write a goobly gook document that effectively prevents an entire IPC being conducted overseas.

The practical reality is, its easier, to use an approved FTD in Australia for most of the approaches and then go do a single 3D approach in an Aircraft followed by a circling approach. That flight apparently can be in a Cessna 150 while the twin is on the FTD.

That is very different from the FAA or Canadian.
FAA is an IPC that can be in an economical simulator typically a Redbird.

Canada is more similar to Australia in that it is an IFR Renewal, no such thing yet in Canada as an IPC.

There is a large difference in philosophy of what an IPC is.
The FAA adopt a "recurrent training" attitude, to spend the time reviewing, and practicing while the Australian attitude is more of an examination on the ground and in the air.


There are significant and obvious problems with the Australian approach.
First it corrupts the entire concept of what an IPC is and basically its the OLD system disguised with a new name without any change in philosophy.,

In the Australian system, you can not have flown for 30 years and not have to sit the Instrument Written exam.
Also, you could once every two years, do an IPC, pass the Oral, do an IPC largely in a FTD.

That neatly avoids currency requirements etc.

The FAA have evolved a system that works very well, and its a symptom of CASA to refuse to change with the times.

The FAA use a great system of ongoing training. You can spend hours going through the online training and it CAN cover a lot more than just an Oral portion of a Part 61 Oral that can be learned by rote.

The FAA system on an IPC, uses it to explore a pilot's weaknesses and apply what the instructor thinks the pilot needs.

The Australian system fails to give the testing person that flexibility while
I'd assume that many would in fact apply a pragmatic approach while complying with the letter of part 61.

What CASA fail to comprehend is that overseas experience is valuable experience and while you can do renewals in Australia year after year,
if you do an IPC or a renewal in another country, it is probably going to cover areas that are not covered in Aus.




Right now, my car is cold soaked at -24, and had to use a hair dryer to unfreeze the cover to the gas tank, after a warm front went by with freezing rain that turned it into an ice block.

A newbi Australian pilot would have a high risk of driving into a snowbank in the simulator parking lot.

[as fragged]

RJ555,
Not trying to defend our 'mates' at CASA, but this entire CAAP is old info - that is well in need of updating (the CAR, CAO etc that it refers to have been rolled into Part 61).
Our new Part 61 is much more like the FAA system (at least a lot more than it used to be!!)
The problem for our 'mates' is that there are so many industry issues with the new CASA Part 61, I think updating this CAAP will be a low priority (mainly because it works in principle and also it affects a small population).
My take on the new CASA Part 61 is that a IPC can be conducted in an FAA sim, just not the initial instrument rating; which I think is fair enough (ie CASA retains control of initial issues, as the FAA/TC does) 'renewals' :* can be done by contracting states.
AF

[Ramjet555]

Thanks for the feedback.
Just had to take a look at what CAAP was, and also the OLD ANO's
and it appears that there is absolutely NO change what so ever to
"an Initial Issue".

An Australian IPC is strictly limited to a two year period. Once it goes over that, then suddenly a simulator cannot be used to revalidate or reinstate or renew the IFR rating.

Using the FAA number of 61 and calling it an IPC gives an illusion that it is something like what the FAA have but in reality, the bureaucracy and endless CASA language terms and terminology just keeps on proliferating making it more complicated with an ever increasing cost to the industry and pilots that I had completely forgotten about.

[as fragged]

May I suggest you spend some time in our 1000+ page Part 61 (10times as thick as the FAA one!).
The CAAP refers to the old CAO which said that an initial issue could not be completed in a foreign sim - and if the rating was 2 years old you needed an initial issue again.
With the new Part 61, this is not mentioned - so I suspect after an initial issue with a Part 61 licence you can complete an IPC when ever you need to.

[Ramjet555]

Thans aF,
I've downloaded and saved every thing of that 1,000 odd pages, that I can lay my hands on and read. Learning and relearning CASA expressions and acronyms is also challenging.
This "Underpinning Knowledge" expression appears to have been plagiarized from UK Educational documents.

How do you read that?
Does CASA Part 61 now by omission of the old reference to "initial issue" now by allude that an initial issue can be done in part on a sim or overseas on an FAA IPC or renewal of a Canadian?

On the phone, that is what I was told by one person and then quoted from the old ANO part 40 the next.

It appears that CASA can't get their heads around the fact that the world is a big place and pilots will go fly overseas and then come back.

I've watched as Canada has slowly grasped that reality. Now if you are overseas flying, you are exempted from re-writing the written with a valid foreign IFR. Turns out different regions here can give you different answers, some are not up to the speed as others with new changes.

The US is a dream by comparison to follow and understand.

Would you know where I can find the sample list of oral questions for an Initial Issue IFR and or IPC?

.

[as fragged]

Agreed with your thoughts regarding the FAA system and it's ease.

I might have to defer the detail of knowledge requirements to a current examiner...

Btw, all government institutions love w*nk words....

Try having a look in the elements of competency in the MoS:
Part 61 Manual of Standards Instrument 2014 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01102)

And on the forms themselves
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Forms (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/formdisplay.asp?session=666158640&pc=PC_91308&formtopic=fcl_ftr&formnoin=&public=YES&Show+forms=Show+forms)

Sounds like you are looking for an initial?

The tough bit is an initial rating must (or at least used to) be assessed by a Casa examiner, if it is a bigger type, it is mandated to be done in a sim. These rules are pretty consistent with my FAA experience. The problem in Oz is there ain't many sims Downunder, and even less CASA examiners aboard. Unless it's a 737ng or a320 type (the only sim types supported by publicly available suitable sims in Oz that I know of) you already have, it was pretty much impossible.

I don't know if CASA is accepting foreign 'initials' now, but checks are fine.

[Ramjet555]

Thanks aF,
I spent a lot of time reading all the material, and it appears
Part 61 does not even mention "initial issue".
It refers to a test, and an IPC.
The test apparently must be in an aircraft.

If an IPC is done overseas, they insist on an Australian Oral to go along with
it and the simulators on the surface are just the big jets.

Then it refers to simulators approved by other countries that indicates that if you give them a heads up by 10 days, for approval, then you "might" be able to do it overseas.

I'm missing the list of questions that can be asked on "an instrument flight test" which I believe means "an initial IFR flight test"
and the list of questions for an IPC.

A hell of a lot of study for a simple question.