SWH
Thanks for that, I see where you are coming from however there is still something troubling me.
The CASA wide definitions are included as follows on the CASA website:
Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Time Practice in an approved simulator or trainer may be recorded in the section provided at the rear of the log book. The instrument flight element of the simulator time may be transferred to the 'Ground' column of the Instrument Flight section of the flight record.
If a Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Practice section is not available in the log book, the details may be entered chronologically in the flight record, and the Instrument flight element transferred to a suitably titled column.
In older log books, the 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column of the Instrument section of the flight record may be used for 'Ground' entries.
and
Total Aeronautical Experience Total aeronautical experience is calculated by adding the totals of flight times recorded in each column but in such a way that that any flight time is not included more than once in the grand total hours.
Note also that only 50% of the time logged as a co-pilot may be included in the total.
given that
Flight Time means, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing. This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
In the case of a helicopter, whenever helicopter rotors are engaged for the purpose of a flight, the time will be included in the flight time.
On the basis of your suggestion that 'Aeronautical Experience' is not a constant CASA definition, How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??
Given that nowhere in the Order is there an alternative definition offerred, I would suggest that there is a problem with the drafting of the CAO in that the use of the terms 'aeronautical experience' has been used inappropriately should the CASA wide definition not have been intended and that there is a world of difference between this term and a possible alternative '240 hours of training' which I believe CAO 40.1.8 should have adopted within Appendix 3.
Can I suggest also that the wording of CAR regulation 5.214 is also a little ambiguous, and whilst offerring a little further clarity on the matter it does nothing more than require that a pilot's overall aeronautical experience must comprise (read 'include') '
at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training' for which the remainder of the regulation offers confirmation of the content of the 240 hours.
Also Appendix 3 of CAO 40.1.8 states that the 240 hours of aeronautical experience is a pre-requisite for sitting the flight test, whereas regulation 5.207 (2) g considers this to be the level of aeronautical experience to hold the licence. There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.
Sorry for the thread drift but I thought it was worth a look at as it is relevent to the possibility there is a problem within CASA given that if my suggestion is correct they may have issued 5 MPL licences illegally that are currently being held by pilots flying the line in China.
Kelpie