Part 61 - Airline cyclics and pvt flying

[Squawk7700]

I was alerted to this one recently.

Is it everyone's belief that I have this correct in that if you are an airline pilot and have completed your IR renewal, cyclic or line check (insert company SOP here), that you are then issued a new part 61 licence, however you have NOT been checked out on your private aircraft (or perhaps a hired 172) and therefore you are NOT licenced to fly "privately?"




For Airline Pilots that own/operate light single/twin engine fixed/rotary wing aircraft

a) the holder is successfully participating in an operator’s training and checking system for an operation in an aircraft of the type covered by the rating; - this actually specifies it will only give Flight Reviews for the type of the aircraft that it was done under the training and checking system (Cyclic Programme). other rules apply for the other class/types


61.800 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot type ratings—flight review
(1) The holder of a pilot type rating is authorised to exercise the privileges of the rating as the pilot in command of an aircraft only if the holder has a valid flight review for the rating.
(2) For subregulation (1), the holder has a valid flight review for the rating during the period beginning when the holder successfully completes a flight review for the rating in accordance with subregulation (3) and ending:
(a) at the end of the 24th month after the month in which the holder completes the review; or
(b) if:
(i) the holder already has a valid flight review for the rating (the previous flight review) when the holder successfully completes the flight review; and
(ii) the validity of the previous flight review is due to expire within 3 months after the holder successfully complete the flight review;
at the end of the 24th month after the validity of the previous flight review expires.
(3) For subregulation (2), the flight review must be conducted in:
(a) if the aircraft covered by the rating is a type of single engine helicopter prescribed by an instrument under regulation 61.063:
(i) a helicopter of the type covered by the rating; or
(ii) an approved flight simulator for that type of helicopter; or
(iii) a type of single engine helicopter prescribed by the instrument as equivalent to the type covered by the rating; or
(iv) an approved flight simulator for that type of helicopter; or
(b) in any other case:
(i) an aircraft of the type covered by the rating; or
(ii) an approved flight simulator for that type of aircraft.
(4) For subregulation (2), the holder is taken to have successfully completed a flight review for the rating if the holder:
(a) passes the flight test for the rating; or
(b) passes the flight test for an operational rating in an aircraft of the class covered by the type rating; or
(c) completes flight training for a design feature endorsement in an aircraft of the class covered by the type rating; or
(d) successfully completes:
(i) an operator proficiency check that covers operations in the type; or
(ii) a proficiency check mentioned in subregulation (5) in an aircraft of the type or an approved flight simulation training device for the purpose.
(5) For subparagraph (4)(d)(ii), the proficiency checks are as follows:
(5) For subparagraph (4)(d)(ii), the proficiency checks are as follows:
(a) an instrument proficiency check;
(b) a night vision imaging system proficiency check;
(c) an aerial application proficiency check;
(d) an instructor proficiency check;
(e) an examiner proficiency check.
(6) For subregulation (1), the holder is taken to have a valid flight review for the rating if:
(a) the holder is successfully participating in an operator’s training and checking system for an operation in an aircraft of the type covered by the rating; and
(b) the operator holds an approval under regulation 61.040 for the system for this subregulation and operations in aircraft of that type.
Note: For general rules in relation to flight reviews, see regulation 61.400.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Thanks for posting all that dribble. It's the laxative I needed.
What a bore this game has become.

[Popgun]

Is it everyone's belief that I have this correct in that if you are an airline pilot and have completed your IR renewal, cyclic or line check (insert company SOP here), that you are then issued a new part 61 licence, however you have NOT been checked out on your private aircraft (or perhaps a hired 172) and therefore you are NOT licenced to fly "privately?"

Yes, that is my belief.

That, my airline cyclic sims do not cover me for my private single-engine 2 year flight review requirement.

What about take-off and landing recency? Is that similarly not covered?

PG

[wishiwasupthere]

It's obviously CASA's response to all those pesky airline pilots who were crashing light aircraft in their off time. You know, for safety and all of that. :ugh:

[c100driver]

It has been that way in NZ part 61 since its inception however there are differences from the CASA rule.

In NZ, CPL holders subject to company "competency demonstration" are exempted in the rules from BFR for private flying VFR. However if your company has a cyclic training/competency program then your Instrument Rating is not valid outside of the company/type aircraft. If you want to use your IF rating privately then you will need a separate IF renewal.

The reason is that the cyclic program does not cover all the IF renewal requirements as it is aircraft specific.

[60 & below]

You are quite correct you will need to complete a separate PC for any rating you wish to use outside your company.
The only benefit of being in a cyclic program is that you will notice there will be no renewal date on your instrument rating. There will be a note on P17 under general remarks indicating you are in a cyclic program for the Aircraft Type you are current on. This means you will never need a reprint unless you are doing something outside your company or get a new type rating.

[Squawk7700]

So once your cyclic takes place, you need to book in for your AFR ASAP, otherwise you're unlicenced.

Certainly something to be aware of :ugh:

[Tankengine]

Excellent, I don't need to get a licence reprint each year.:rolleyes:

But:

If I wish to fly a single I need to do a BFR, ohh dear - it has just got dark, I need that BFR to be done at night, crap - I was going to borrow a mates Seneca, I need another BFR in a twin, at night? Pity I cannot fly that floatplane off to a good fishing spot as I need to do a BFR in a floatplane!:ugh:


Just how many Airline pilots have plummeted into the ground in lighties in the last whenever?:confused:

You wonder why people just give up!:hmm:

- or just ignore it all.:E

Yeah, I know they changed BFR to AFR, got to do something to make their jobs meaningful!

...

[maverick22]

Oh and don't forget that if you want fly your mate's tecnam that's ultralight regod, you'll need to do another BFR (although this has always been the case). :ugh:

[poteroo]

Actually, you can do both Reviews together provided the checking instructor is current in both GA and RAAus. happy days,

[Squawk7700]

Actually, you can do both Reviews together provided the checking instructor is current in both GA and RAAus. happy days,

Unless I am mistaken, not quite..... the GA AFR covers you for RA-Aus :ok: You are probably referring to doing a GA AFR in an RA-Aus aircraft, whereas we are discussing using a GA AFR for RA-Aus.


Oh and don't forget that if you want fly your mate's tecnam that's ultralight regod, you'll need to do another BFR (although this has always been the case).

Covered above.

[thorn bird]

simple guys,
get a FAA licence, buy an FAA certified aircraft and give the finger to CAsA.

[maverick22]

Actually, you can do both Reviews together provided the checking instructor is current in both GA and RAAus. happy days,

Well bugger me, that has changed. I must admit my RAAus licence lapsed about 7 years ago. That is a slight win :ok:

[Derfred]

simple guys,
get a FAA licence, buy an FAA certified aircraft and give the finger to CAsA.

Do you have to fly to the US to do renewals?

[ACMS]

So, I did my last SIM check in the A330 ( before the Part 61 rule change ) around July 2014.

Therefore I'm legal to fly a light Aircraft for 2 years after that date ( until July 2016 ) THEN I'll need to do a AFR in the PA28 and get a new Part 61 Licence before I can fly again.

That is correct isn't it?

[Squawk7700]

That sounds correct although are you doing an IR renewal before 2 years or are you all good?

[Oktas8]

So, I did my last SIM check in the A330 ( before the Part 61 rule change ) around July 2014. Therefore I'm legal to fly a light Aircraft for 2 years after that date

No, I don't think so. The old law has ceased to exist, and only Part 61 exists now. Flight reviews done under the old system are still valid for two years, as specified in Part 61. But you didn't do a flight review. Therefore Part 61, from the first day it was effective, required you to do an on-type review. I don't see anything in Part 61 that specifies grandfather rights for old privileges.



On another note... I couldn't understand all that CASA legalese. So I went through it, changing it into English grammar & punctuation. Here's how it would be written under an overseas Part 61:

61.800 Flight Reviews

(1) A pilot in command must have a valid flight review.

(2) The 24 month rule:
A flight review is valid from when it is completed, until the end of the 24th month after the month in which it was completed. If the review is completed within three months of expiry of the previous flight review, the expiry date becomes the end of the 24th month after the expiry of the previous review.

(3) Validity restricted to a specific type or class:
The flight review must be conducted in an aircraft of the same type as specified in paragraph (a) or (b). (For this regulation, an aircraft is deemed to be of equivalent type if it falls within the class of aircraft covered by the rating.)
(a) If the aircraft covered by the rating is a type of single engine helicopter prescribed by regulation 61.063, the review must be conducted in a helicopter of the type covered by the rating, or a type deemed by CASA to be equivalent. It is also acceptable to use an approved flight simulator, for a helicopter of the same or equivalent type.
(b) For any other type of aircraft, the review must be conducted in an aircraft of the type covered by the rating, or an approved flight simulator for that type of aircraft.

(4) Other training or tests satisfying this regulation:
For subregulation (2), the holder is taken to have completed a flight review for the rating if the holder passes the flight test for the rating, or passes the flight test for an operational rating in the aircraft type, or completes flight training for a design feature endorsement on the aircraft type, or completes an operator proficiency check covering operations on type.
The holder is also taken to have completed a flight review if any of the following proficiency checks have been successfully completed in an aircraft of the same type or an approved flight training device:
(a) an instrument proficiency check;
(b) a night vision imaging system proficiency check;
(c) an aerial application proficiency check;
(d) an instructor proficiency check;
(e) an examiner proficiency check.

(5) Cyclic training & checking:
A pilot in command is taken to have a valid flight review if the pilot is successfully participating in an operator’s training and checking system for an operation in an aircraft of the type covered by the rating. However, the training and checking system must be approved under regulation 61.040.

Note: For general rules in relation to flight reviews, see regulation 61.400.

[BPA]

What about this one, I did a check ride with an instructor in a Cessna 172 in January 2014. In November I did my IR through my companies cyclic program and now have a Part 61 licence. Can I still fly the C172?

[dartman2]

ACMS, I am in the same situation as you. I have been verbally advised that 24 months from your last pre-Part 61 sim ride is OK (then have to do an AFR).

I have emailed CLARC on this and other related issues (last OCT) and am still waiting for a reply.

[Squawk7700]

BPA, that's the point of the whole thread. Once you have your part 61 license for ATPL, your old one is destroyed. Therefore you won't be current on the 172.

[ACMS]

The last renewal I did in July 2014 was recognized by CASA as a AFR and was valid for 2 years from then surely? Otherwise you'd have a hell of a lot of Pilots suddenly requiring an AFR on Oct 1st to fly a lighty.......

If they recognized the check and training we did as covering an AFR then surely it would have been valid for 2 years????

[Aussie Bob]

Only got yourselves to blame...

And a bit of unity now would frighten them ....
Only got ourselves to blame.

[roundsounds]

Why not look at this from a different perspective, develop a business case to have your GA AFR replace the need to participate in an airline cyclic training programme? I'm sure you'd gain the full support of the bean counters!

[Capt Fathom]

As no one really knows what the rules are anymore, including the Regulatory Body, I guess we can just do what we please!

[ACMS]

roundsounds
Ok but we may have a little trouble replicating the systems and procedures used on the A330 in the PA28 for my AFR.:O

[roundsounds]

ACMS... Mere details, I'm sure the bean counters could help you create some spin to cover that aspect.

[Snakecharma]

Surely you could argue that the PA28 is fly by wire...there must be some wires or cables in there somewhere :}

Power levers almost the same, push them up as far as they will go and it will still fly slower than the airbus taxys (well almost)

Autoland might be a bit rough though

Pax comfort would definitely be compromised, not sure how we could get 276 punters in the back of the warrior.

[HarleyD]

So all I need to do is find a multi engine amphibious float equipped turbine aerobatic fire bombing Ag plane, then do a formation flight at night in IMC demonstration my instructional proficiency, I'm good to exercise the privileges etc...... Fit and proper person ..... Yadda yadda, eight inches from bottle to throttle, no panadiene for the pounding hangover due AOD policy, ....yadda yadda.....pee in this bottle.....FRMS....yadda yadda......... Safety management system..........CRM, BWA, DGA.......AOC, CP, HAAMC......blah blah fcuking blah

Yawn.

Lawnmower powered parasail anyone?

HD

[Pinky the pilot]

Oktas8; An excellent job of changing Legalese into understandable English!:ok:

You get my vote to rewrite the whole bloody lot!!:D

Probably do in a few months what CASA and their associated mob of mentally challenged illegegitimate offspring of (censored) have been allegedly trying to do for about the last 10 years, and at a fraction of the amount of money so far spent!

I believe Taily has an idea on the bill so far.

[manymak]

Pity I cannot fly that floatplane off to a good fishing spot as I need to do a BFR in a floatplane!

Design feature endorsements do not require a flight review (about the only thing that doesn't!)

61.385 does require you to comply with a general competency requirement for that particular aircraft type.

61.385 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—general competency requirement
(1) The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in an aircraft only if the holder is competent in operating the aircraft to the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the class or type to which the aircraft belongs, including in all of the following areas:
(a) operating the aircraft’s navigation and operating systems;
(b) conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency flight procedures for the aircraft;
(c) applying operating limitations;
(d) weight and balance requirements;
(e) applying aircraft performance data, including take‑off and landing performance data, for the aircraft.

[Tankengine]

Thanks Manymak!

I mistakenly thought floatplane was a different class (like with the FAA):}

Of course in the USA a FR flown in any of their classes covers the other ones, all the glider pilots I know over there are flying privately in singles, and some in multis on their FR in gliders.:8

[manymak]

No worries. :ok:

I have had confirmation from CASA on more than one occasion that the intent behind regulation 61.375 is that doing a Flight Review or Proficiency Check (Inst. Instructor etc. etc.) in a MEA will cover you for SEA.

For a while there many thought that a check ride in the multi would not cover you for a single-engine aeroplane. Obviously as it was in the previous CAR5 set of rules the reverse would not apply.

But to keep on topic with this thread the above does not apply for your average airline pilot. Conducting an IPC (or whatever your nomenclature your organisation utilises) in an aircraft requiring a type rating (a few exceptions..King Air 350, Metro, Dornier 228) as all transport category aircraft would. Will not cover you for a MEA flight review.

Unless company policy applies you are free to do a flight review as required to maintain currency on a MEA/SEA aircraft. If you wanted to fly under the IFR in those class of aircraft your airline cyclic/IPC will not cover you and an IPC in your 'lighty' will be required. A current IPC in a MEA/SEA will cover you for Night VFR as now with Part 61 this is a standing privilege as a holder of an Instrument Rating.

[Stretch06]

What about this one, I did a check ride with an instructor in a Cessna 172 in January 2014. In November I did my IR through my companies cyclic program and now have a Part 61 licence. Can I still fly the C172?

Yes you can up until your Flight Review for Single Engine Aircraft Class Rating expires on 31 Jan 2016

[Tankengine]

IF the check ride was regarded as a FR.:hmm:

[Squawk7700]

Yes you can up until your Flight Review for Single Engine Aircraft Class Rating expires on 31 Jan 2016

Based on what Stretch06?

What I haven't yet said is that this thread came about because the majority of my first post was taken directly from an email received from CASA saying the opposite of what you just have... I can provide a name by PM if anyone wants it.

[Grogmonster]

Many years ago my Senior Instructor used to tell me that the most scary pilots in GA were Doctors, Lawyers, and Airline pilots. He reckoned none of them could fly a lighty. Part 61 authors must have heard the same story as it relates to Airline Pilots. :)

Comment made with tounge in cheek!!!! Have a laugh guys.

Groggy

[Stretch06]

Squawk

I sent you a PM. However I should clarify, my response that you could fly the C172 VFR, to fly the C172 IFR would require a class rating proficiency check (or flight review if a PIFR)

[BPA]

Spoke to CASA today regarding my situation and I was told I can continue to fly privately without the need to do a flight review until June 2016.

They told me airline pilots operating under an airline cyclic program have 2 years from the date of their last OPC completed prior to the introduction of Part 61.

[ACMS]

Thanks BPA that is my understanding as well.

[chimbu warrior]

Many years ago my Senior Instructor used to tell me that the most scary pilots in GA were Doctors, Lawyers, and Airline pilots.

The old adage was that the tree most dangerous things in aviation are -

a doctor in a Bonanza
2 airline pilots in a 172
a flight attendant with a chipped tooth.........................

[ACMS]

Yep an Airline Pilot flying a light Aircraft after years away from them is a fun thing to watch!! Dangerous? Nope.

[Pontius]

I enquired of CASA whether a multi-engine flight review also counts as a revalidation of the single-engine class and got a nice, clear answer (it was also received promptly, which was nice).

From CASA: A MEA flight review covers you for SEA operations however only the MEA validity will actually be reflected on the licence.

I know I think we've already ascertained this on this thread but it was good to get an answer from the horse's mouth.

[Stretch06]

Pontius, did they give you an actual ref ie CASR 61.xxx, just curious because I am sure I read it at some point, but since haven't been able to find it again.

[manymak]

Pontius, did they give you an actual ref ie CASR 61.xxx, just curious because I am sure I read it at some point, but since haven't been able to find it again.

61.375 (3)&(4)

[boofhead]

I give flight reviews in the US. I thought the idea was good, and simple to achieve. I cannot believe the level of complexity you have managed to develop for such a simple procedure.
In Aus I would still be just a junior instructor who couldn't even send a pilot solo.

[Pontius]

Any aircraft for which you are rated may be used for the flight review. If you are rated for single-engine land and multiengine land, you may complete the flight review in either a single or a multiengine aircraft. Additionally, if you are rated for another aircraft category, such as glider, you may take the flight review in any aircraft in that category, and it satisfies the requirement for all categories.

I've flown throughout the US for a number of years and I enjoy the practical nature of the FARs, as well as the 'can do' and helpful attitude of the FAA towards GA (although Americans might feel differently......until they compare their system with others). However, I think I would have to draw the line at renewing a multi-engine class rating in a glider. The two types of aircraft are so different that I don't think that ruling makes much sense at all. Sure, multi renews single, multi or single I can go with for renewing a glider (at a push) but glider renewing a multi...no, that doesn't make much sense to me.

I suppose on a practical note, the multi/single/glider pilot who has carried out a flight review in a glider probably flies a twin or single regularly, so it's not a matter of them being unable to fly the aircraft and that's why we don't see them falling from the sky or trying to core into a thermal when a donk stops but a flight review is supposed to be an opportunity for you to demonstrate competence in the aircraft class and I don't really see how being an aero tow ace really shows competence in handling an engine failure in a twin.

All that having been said; good work if you can get it :ok:


Edited to add: all this was written before Boofhead reduced his post by about 95%.

[boofhead]

On reading back I saw that what I wrote was already covered.

[Jabawocky]

Chimbu W
The old adage was that the tree most dangerous things in aviation are -
a doctor in a Bonanza
2 airline pilots in a 172
a flight attendant with a chipped tooth.........................

What about two airline pilots in an IO550 powered C185 :eek::eek:


:E

I have seen that a bit……so far C185 intact :ok: