Yes, ersa, I did post that I have a CASA CPL A, an FAA CPL H with an H instructor rating.
I expect to do an Aeroplane Class one instructor renewal with multi engine and instrument training approval.
I wrote to CASA requesting an explanation of how they assess required trainng for conversions.
CASA as usual did not answer the question in an email but sent me a link, to one of their documents
that I have not seen before
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ing-manual.pdf
At Page 100 , it describes how they "assess each case". It effectively penalizes a foreign instructor rating.
Australia requires a minimum of 35 hours of Duel.
The FAA have no minimum hours but require having completed training in a long list of "areas of operation"
that includes 5 hours of instrument training.
CASA then as a "minimum" require the Australian minimum of 35 hours of flight training, and it appears ground training
that may well all be required in a Helicopter.
As usual, CASA is effectively engaged in "Denial" of the fact that other countries produce effective instructors
without stating a minimum amount of training.
I asked around and found one example of a UK helicopter instructor who had experience instructing in the UK who
CASA required to do 10 hours of Flight Training , despite the fact that the UK is 30 Hours of Flight Training.
That is CASA calculated the difference in flight instructor training of 5 hours and added, an additional 5 hours.
CASA apparently, "assumes" that a foreign instructor rating is not equal to an Australian instructor rating because it
has
(a) a lower amount of hours
(b) that foreign training is inferior to Australian training.
(c) a flawed assumption that hours of training equate to standard of proficiency
If you read for example the FAA airman certifiation standards it reads almost identical to the CASA flight test standards
CASA's silence on key statements is evidence of their failure to apply common sense
CASA have a real problem in failing to present relevant information compared to the FAA or Transport Canada
both of whom are effective communicators compared to CASA and don't refer to themselves as "Officers".
Example: An Aeroplane or Helicopter Instructor ratings both have a great deal in common.
CASA require the same written exam.
CASA require the same amount of almost identical ground training
CASA flight test standards are almost identical between Aeroplane and Helicopter.
To my knowledge there is NO CREDIT for having an Aeroplane Instructor Rating.
CASA require you to "prove" that you "meet the training requirements"
So if you hold a "foreign helicopter instructor rating" AND a CASA Aeroplane instructor rating
then we are asking CASA to make a "Judicious" "valid" judgement of "Additional training required"
Here is my take on, CASA rightly fall back on the legislation, each time, they change the legislation
to suit themselves, to unnecessarily increase the number of "ratings", training requirements that
defy logical reasoning and common sense.
The application for conversion of a foreign licence or rating assumes that your foreign training is
written and recorded in the same format as CASA.
Thats a flawed assumption.
If you look at log books of instructors from the USA, they look like gibberish, it appears
that the instructor may have done next to no applicable training.
On the far right of the log book entry, there is the name of the instructor, his or her signature, and their certificate number
and right before the flight test, an indication that it is the recomendation for the flight test.
Its that final signature that says that the person has completed "all the required training"
which is dam near identical to the CASA requirements.
CASA "assessors" or decision makers, obviously need the material to help them make
decisions.
Its obvous that the application alone and even exhibits are insufficient to sufficiently make out the case to CASA.
Its going to need an explanation that is a legal pleading that would be the basis of a legal appeal if necessary.
I'm thinking that an application for a foreign instructor conversion would be enhanced by
a sworn affidavit with exhibits..
Comments and suggestions greatefully appreciated.