Part 61 questions
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just received my new Part 61 license and have noticed under the Flight Crew License and Category Ratings section, Flight Radiotelephone Operator License is no longer listed. Anyone know whether this is an error in printing by CLARC or whether it's intentional with the new license format?
I'll call them on Monday to find out, but if FROL has been intentionally omitted on the new format license, then how else are we meant to show that we have such a license? As I fly overseas on a validation of my CASA license, to have Flight Radiotelephone Operator License is an actual requirement for the licensing authority in the country that I operate in.
I'll call them on Monday to find out, but if FROL has been intentionally omitted on the new format license, then how else are we meant to show that we have such a license? As I fly overseas on a validation of my CASA license, to have Flight Radiotelephone Operator License is an actual requirement for the licensing authority in the country that I operate in.
Looks like it's gone.
61.435 When holders of pilot licences authorised to operate aircraft radio
(1) A person is authorised to transmit on a radio frequency of a kind
used for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation if the person:
(a) holds a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence, multi-crew pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; or
(b) holds a recreational pilot licence with a flight radio endorsement.
So you're authorised to transmit, but you're NOT actually licenced now.
I wonder how ICAO feels about that? And of course, CASA regs only apply in Australia.
And it looks like Students are not authorised, though that could come under some other reg.
See also CAR83. My brain hurts.
For your overseas flights, take the Part 61 page with this reg on it on all flights? Though THAT is still not a licence.
Part 61.......
61.435 When holders of pilot licences authorised to operate aircraft radio
(1) A person is authorised to transmit on a radio frequency of a kind
used for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation if the person:
(a) holds a private pilot licence, commercial pilot licence, multi-crew pilot licence or air transport pilot licence; or
(b) holds a recreational pilot licence with a flight radio endorsement.
So you're authorised to transmit, but you're NOT actually licenced now.
I wonder how ICAO feels about that? And of course, CASA regs only apply in Australia.
And it looks like Students are not authorised, though that could come under some other reg.
See also CAR83. My brain hurts.
For your overseas flights, take the Part 61 page with this reg on it on all flights? Though THAT is still not a licence.
Part 61.......
Last edited by thunderbird five; 24th Oct 2014 at 19:54.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't it a CAsA mantra that the reason they were inflicting this ClusterF.ck on the industry was to align us with the rest of the world?
Wasn't it only going to cost a small operator about $6000 a year extra?
So far identified around $100K a year for a small operator.
Unfortunately we cant put an extra levee on fuel to employ another 90 managers, so where they expect the money to come from I have no idea.
Wasn't it only going to cost a small operator about $6000 a year extra?
So far identified around $100K a year for a small operator.
Unfortunately we cant put an extra levee on fuel to employ another 90 managers, so where they expect the money to come from I have no idea.
See the
(b) holds a recreational pilot licence with a flight radio endorsement.
PPL and above don't get the flight radio endo (it seems) and they don't need it (it seems) due to the first bit - authorised to transmit.
I see now, CASR 61.120 authorises students to transmit on the radio, without having a pilot's licence or a Flight Radio Operators Licence.
I wonder if GFA, ASRA, etc and RA-Aus operators are authorised now under some new bunkem, or have they slipped through the net. Seems the only possibilities are via Part 61, 64 or 65. I'll go for a look.
Looks like the receiving of incoming radio broadcasts is free. (Free from prosecution/persecution under strict liability.) Yippee.
(b) holds a recreational pilot licence with a flight radio endorsement.
PPL and above don't get the flight radio endo (it seems) and they don't need it (it seems) due to the first bit - authorised to transmit.
I see now, CASR 61.120 authorises students to transmit on the radio, without having a pilot's licence or a Flight Radio Operators Licence.
I wonder if GFA, ASRA, etc and RA-Aus operators are authorised now under some new bunkem, or have they slipped through the net. Seems the only possibilities are via Part 61, 64 or 65. I'll go for a look.
Looks like the receiving of incoming radio broadcasts is free. (Free from prosecution/persecution under strict liability.) Yippee.
Last edited by thunderbird five; 25th Oct 2014 at 06:14.
I want to go fly a piston single as PIC. My last AFR earlier this year was in a twin. My last single engine related thing that would cover it was over 2 years ago. Does anyone know if I can go fly a single or do I need to do a SEA review first?
I'm planning to ring CASA if I can't be pointed to the appropriate reg.
Thanks.
I'm planning to ring CASA if I can't be pointed to the appropriate reg.
Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to go fly a piston single as PIC. My last AFR earlier this year was in a twin. My last single engine related thing that would cover it was over 2 years ago. Does anyone know if I can go fly a single or do I need to do a SEA review first?
(3) The holder is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence in
an aircraft, other than an aircraft mentioned in subregulation (5),
only if the holder also holds an appropriate aircraft class rating for
the aircraft.
(4) For subregulation (3), either of the following is an appropriate
aircraft class rating for an aeroplane in the single-engine aeroplane
class:
(a) the single-engine aeroplane class rating;
(b) the multi-engine aeroplane class rating.
an aircraft, other than an aircraft mentioned in subregulation (5),
only if the holder also holds an appropriate aircraft class rating for
the aircraft.
(4) For subregulation (3), either of the following is an appropriate
aircraft class rating for an aeroplane in the single-engine aeroplane
class:
(a) the single-engine aeroplane class rating;
(b) the multi-engine aeroplane class rating.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also bear in mind there are complex multi-engine aeroplanes covered by a Type Rating which under 61.061 meet the flight review requirements for the multi-engine aeroplane class rating. Eg. King Air 350, Beech 1900, Dornier 228, G-73 Mallard, Merlin/Metro variants.
So a Flight Review in any of the above type rated aircraft would keep your multi-engine aeroplane flight review current which automatically in turn would cover your single-engine aeroplane flight review requirement.
So a Flight Review in any of the above type rated aircraft would keep your multi-engine aeroplane flight review current which automatically in turn would cover your single-engine aeroplane flight review requirement.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please advise if there is grandfathering of previous log book endorsements, such as aerobatics (>3000ft) and formation etc?? I can't seem to find any reference??? Ta
Yes triadic, tick the boxes for those endorsements on form 61-9TX (instructions on the form) and include certified copies of your logbook endorsements.
Aerobatics below 3,000 ft - current approvals transition to a flash new endorsement although I have yet to hear what happened with my friend and his 300 ft approval - did he get 500 ft or unlimited?
Aerobatics below 3,000 ft - current approvals transition to a flash new endorsement although I have yet to hear what happened with my friend and his 300 ft approval - did he get 500 ft or unlimited?
Last edited by djpil; 14th Nov 2014 at 00:29. Reason: Add form # & low level aerobatics
Thanks manymak, however I read that differently to you.
I read 61.375 as 'if you did your PPL test in a twin you would get MEA and you would also be allowed to fly SEA as an extension.'
But I can't find anything that absolves you from having to complete a SEA review if you have a current MEA review as per 61.475.
I'm usually pretty good at this air law business but Part 61 has me stuffed.
I read 61.375 as 'if you did your PPL test in a twin you would get MEA and you would also be allowed to fly SEA as an extension.'
But I can't find anything that absolves you from having to complete a SEA review if you have a current MEA review as per 61.475.
I'm usually pretty good at this air law business but Part 61 has me stuffed.
FWIW I rang CASA and the response I was given (after some deliberation) was that I can continue to fly twins and singles under my CAR 5 licence but once I get a part 61 licence I won't be allowed to fly singles any more until I do a SEA flight review.
So gaining/renewing a qualification will allow me to do less.
BTW something to watch out for those who have been keeping everything current with an annual MECIR renewal: Next time you renew your IR in a twin you can't fly singles anymore until you do a review.
So gaining/renewing a qualification will allow me to do less.
BTW something to watch out for those who have been keeping everything current with an annual MECIR renewal: Next time you renew your IR in a twin you can't fly singles anymore until you do a review.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JustJoinedToSearch, have a look at the Part 61 Licence Instruction Guide.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...on%20guide.pdf
Go to appendix 1 Summary of flight review and proficiency checks. Look at note 1.
It says simply "MEA covers SEA".
Suggest you go back to CASA and point this out.
Cheers
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...on%20guide.pdf
Go to appendix 1 Summary of flight review and proficiency checks. Look at note 1.
It says simply "MEA covers SEA".
Suggest you go back to CASA and point this out.
Cheers
Last edited by Draggertail; 14th Nov 2014 at 10:43.
FWIW I rang CASA and the response I was given (after some deliberation) was that I can continue to fly twins and singles under my CAR 5 licence but once I get a part 61 licence I won't be allowed to fly singles any more until I do a SEA flight review.
So gaining/renewing a qualification will allow me to do less.
BTW something to watch out for those who have been keeping everything current with an annual MECIR renewal: Next time you renew your IR in a twin you can't fly singles anymore until you do a review
So gaining/renewing a qualification will allow me to do less.
BTW something to watch out for those who have been keeping everything current with an annual MECIR renewal: Next time you renew your IR in a twin you can't fly singles anymore until you do a review
That's the way I read it, and also one of the creators of this mess in Canberra agrees. But in the words of Demtel: "Wait, there's more".
Not only do you need separate IR renewals for a single and a twin (and one FOI says you can't do an SE or ME CIR in the same flight as a flight review), but it seems you need separate tests for CIR "glass" and "round dials".
The potential cost is horrendous, compared with pre. Part 61.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Beware of MOS provisions that do not fit regulations, there seem to be lots of conflicts.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and one FOI says you can't do an SE or ME CIR in the same flight as a flight
review
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW something to watch out for those who have been keeping everything current with an annual MECIR renewal: Next time you renew your IR in a twin you can't fly singles anymore until you do a review
JJTS,
That's the way I read it, and also one of the creators of this mess in Canberra agrees. But in the words of Demtel: "Wait, there's more".
Not only do you need separate IR renewals for a single and a twin (and one FOI says you can't do an SE or ME CIR in the same flight as a flight review), but it seems you need separate tests for CIR "glass" and "round dials".
The potential cost is horrendous, compared with pre. Part 61.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Beware of MOS provisions that do not fit regulations, there seem to be lots of conflicts.
JJTS,
That's the way I read it, and also one of the creators of this mess in Canberra agrees. But in the words of Demtel: "Wait, there's more".
Not only do you need separate IR renewals for a single and a twin (and one FOI says you can't do an SE or ME CIR in the same flight as a flight review), but it seems you need separate tests for CIR "glass" and "round dials".
The potential cost is horrendous, compared with pre. Part 61.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Beware of MOS provisions that do not fit regulations, there seem to be lots of conflicts.
As for whether a MEA Flight Review covers a SEA can any of the part 61 experts out there find a reference better to the one I provided. All of the flight crew licensing guides out there all agree on the fact that a MEA FR will cover you for SEA.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe there is confusion over MEA/SEA with MC/SP.
CASR 61.675 appears to say if you do you're IPC in a Multi-Crew aircraft. you then have to do it all over again in a Single Pilot aircraft.
But I could be wrong as 61.675 refers to "a flight test for an Instrument Rating in a single-pilot aircraft" not an Instrument Proficiency Check.
Have read the reg many times without really understanding it.
CASR 61.675 appears to say if you do you're IPC in a Multi-Crew aircraft. you then have to do it all over again in a Single Pilot aircraft.
But I could be wrong as 61.675 refers to "a flight test for an Instrument Rating in a single-pilot aircraft" not an Instrument Proficiency Check.
Have read the reg many times without really understanding it.
Folks,
A core of the problem seems to be that various guides, and other explanatory publications, including CASA internal training (and public statements by McCormick) plus parts of the MOS are based on the "policy" that was the intended outcome for Part 61.
However, to a significant degree, what has gone into place in the regulations no longer conforms to the "policy".
Sadly, the regulations rule.
Part 135 will be a partial fix, it will eliminate so much of the light end of GA that there will not be much left to have a problem.
Tootle pip!!
A core of the problem seems to be that various guides, and other explanatory publications, including CASA internal training (and public statements by McCormick) plus parts of the MOS are based on the "policy" that was the intended outcome for Part 61.
However, to a significant degree, what has gone into place in the regulations no longer conforms to the "policy".
Sadly, the regulations rule.
Part 135 will be a partial fix, it will eliminate so much of the light end of GA that there will not be much left to have a problem.
Tootle pip!!
