Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing
Has anyone had a look at Part 61 draft now that it has finally left the Attorney Generals Dept? I am ploughing through it. Some big changes in there for licensing.
MCC requirement.
Going a bit European are we? I don't see how these changes will save me money in the long run as stated in the consultation draft. Anything else they want to make mandatory for the ATPL? I cant see how having an MCC is required for the issue of an ATPL if I dont fly a multi crew aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I cant see how having an MCC is required for the issue of an ATPL if I dont fly a multi crew aircraft"
I can't see how having an ATPL is required for you or anyone else in your situation.
I can't see how having an ATPL is required for you or anyone else in your situation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CASA website:
However, I couldn't find the info in the draft. Does this mean all CAR217 checking and training organisations will require their staff to hold instructor ratings?
Likewise:
CASA to allocate examiners to organisations to conduct flight tests with the aim of providing independence of the testing process from the training process, particularly for professional flight crew qualifications
All flying training conducted for issue of a flight crew licence, rating or other authorisation to be conducted by persons holding an instructor rating who are authorised to instruct in that particular activity:
- All training and checking pilots to also hold an instructor rating.
Likewise:
CASA to allocate examiners to organisations to conduct flight tests with the aim of providing independence of the testing process from the training process, particularly for professional flight crew qualifications
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CASA website:
However, I couldn't find the info in the draft. Does this mean all CAR217 checking and training organisations will require their staff to hold instructor ratings?
Likewise:
CASA to allocate examiners to organisations to conduct flight tests with the aim of providing independence of the testing process from the training process, particularly for professional flight crew qualifications
Is this aimed at the 217 operators or flying schools? Love to see CASA try to provide examiners for all of the 217 operators out there.
All flying training conducted for issue of a flight crew licence, rating or other authorisation to be conducted by persons holding an instructor rating who are authorised to instruct in that particular activity:
- All training and checking pilots to also hold an instructor rating.
Likewise:
CASA to allocate examiners to organisations to conduct flight tests with the aim of providing independence of the testing process from the training process, particularly for professional flight crew qualifications
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the ATPL? Company recruitment minimums or insurance?
The ATPL theory isn't really relevant to a C208. But then again most of the content isn't really relevant to anything these days...
The ATPL theory isn't really relevant to a C208. But then again most of the content isn't really relevant to anything these days...
Perhaps the Aussie requirements are different, on this side of the ditch an ATPL allows you to be P in C of an aircraft where the flight manual requires two pilots.
If there is no requirement for two pilots in the flight manual then all that's required is a CPL.
For example situations like hire and reward IFR without an operative autopilot in something like a Cheiftain, require two pilots to operate the aircraft but can the done on a CPL since the aircraft flight manual doesn't require two pilots to operate the aircraft.
Who or what is driving the requirement for an ATPL on single pilot RPT ops? Seems to be an overkill to me.
If there is no requirement for two pilots in the flight manual then all that's required is a CPL.
For example situations like hire and reward IFR without an operative autopilot in something like a Cheiftain, require two pilots to operate the aircraft but can the done on a CPL since the aircraft flight manual doesn't require two pilots to operate the aircraft.
Who or what is driving the requirement for an ATPL on single pilot RPT ops? Seems to be an overkill to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter licences will now require same IF time as fixed wing. 
About time. Might stop some of these awful accidents that seem to keep happening in the rotary world.
About time. Might stop some of these awful accidents that seem to keep happening in the rotary world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Para 61.1065 quotes that PPL's can hold Instructor Ratings, with certain hour minimums 
. However Table 61.1105 Item 6 (Column 4) shows they can only do Type ratings and the Grade 3,2 and 1 requirements show the need for CPL. Am I reading that right?
. However Table 61.1105 Item 6 (Column 4) shows they can only do Type ratings and the Grade 3,2 and 1 requirements show the need for CPL. Am I reading that right?
..looks like Instructors will be able to log IF time while teaching students
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading about instrument ratings and recent experience requirements. But paragraphs 61.765 (4) and (7) seem to duplicate each other, except the first one talks about 3-month recency and the second, 6-month. Anyone else been able to interpret this more effectively?
Any references to eliminating the requirement to have a flt test every yr to maintain your Command Inst rating and replace it with recency requirements prior to using it ( if you are not flying regularly) and if you do not do that then to have an Instrument proficiency flt with an instructor like they do in the US???
This competency flt is like an instrument flt review not a check ride with a pass /fail outcome.
The cost of maintaining a ME CIR constantly when not flying but looking for work is extremely expensive.
in the old days it was even worse with a renewal test evey 6 mo for those who remember back to the 80s.
This competency flt is like an instrument flt review not a check ride with a pass /fail outcome.
The cost of maintaining a ME CIR constantly when not flying but looking for work is extremely expensive.
in the old days it was even worse with a renewal test evey 6 mo for those who remember back to the 80s.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aussie027 - you must be dreaming. This is the country that believes pilots aren't safe to fly an ILS unless they practice one every 35 days. Comparison with the FAA, the UK, other JAA states, even Canada or NZ, will just lead to frustration. Best stop now.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying the ILS is so dangerous it beggars normal risk criteria, for example When was the last ILS related incident in Aust that compromised passengers ??????
What is the danger in a precision approah properly flown within limits ?????
What is the danger in a precision approah properly flown within limits ?????
Oktas8, yes I know you are probably right.
The reason I ask is that this was mentioned as a specific amendment within the past 3-4 yrs on a number of occasions when CASA published possible future changes to pilot training as they rewrite the CAOs etc as they are now doing.
From here-
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensing
is this para--
All flight crew qualifications, once issued, to remain valid indefinitely subject to demonstration of ongoing competency, linked to the use of the qualification rather than its periodic renewal:
The reason I ask is that this was mentioned as a specific amendment within the past 3-4 yrs on a number of occasions when CASA published possible future changes to pilot training as they rewrite the CAOs etc as they are now doing.
From here-
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensing
is this para--
All flight crew qualifications, once issued, to remain valid indefinitely subject to demonstration of ongoing competency, linked to the use of the qualification rather than its periodic renewal:
- Biennial flight review requirement to be introduced for ratings with alternate means of demonstrating competence as per current review arrangements for licences.
Last edited by aussie027; 21st Dec 2011 at 03:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oktas8
"I've been reading about instrument ratings and recent experience requirements. But paragraphs 61.765 (4) and (7) seem to duplicate each other, except the first one talks about 3-month recency and the second, 6-month. Anyone else been able to interpret this more effectively? "
Possibly they are reffering to Instrument Approaches other than those mentioned in para 6, however I can't think of what they haven't covered in para 6. DME/GPS arrivals maybe
Possibly they are reffering to Instrument Approaches other than those mentioned in para 6, however I can't think of what they haven't covered in para 6. DME/GPS arrivals maybe