View Single Post
Old 23rd Oct 2013, 13:55
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Angry Phelan article read it and weep!!

Horatio you must have been talking to the same ATO as Paul Phelan...
There’s also been serious unrest in the flight training camp about the current regulatory reform event: the activation from December 4 of CASR Part 61 covering personnel licensing, which certainly does appear to mean “different things to different people.”

Here’s the lament of an experienced (18,500 hours) instructor and flying training school operator that typifies industry concerns:

I have been told the following and think that if I understand correctly I will probably have the following costs. Given that I hold the following approvals:
  • Approved testing officer
  • Testing approval for instructor rating (or Grades)..
  • Instructor training.
  • Instrument rating testing
  • Night VFR rating testing.
  • Training of instructors for instrument rating training approval.
  • Training of instructors for twin endorsement training approvals.
  • Multi engine class rating.
  • Multi engine type rating.
  • Single engine class rating.
I am led to believe that all these items are going to have to be proficiency checks separately.

Costs involvedTwo day personal development program (PDP) – time preparing, attending and missed revenue
Multiengine training renewal – aircraft cost
Time lost for the above.
Instructor rating, full day lost plus aircraft costs.
Examiner rating renewal – full day plus lost revenue
“Train the instructor” module (who knows how much?
Night VFR rating check – (who tests the ATO? – Who knows how much?
Single engine class rating check (who tests the ATO?)
Time lost with an examiner.
Instrument rating approval check
Time lost with an examiner.
Instrument approval training endorsement check.
Time lost with an examiner.
Single engine class type rating flight review (who tests the ATO?)
Type rating proficiency check.



Amortised over two years – annual cost


“Is this added safety, or is this bureaucracy gone mad? I actually hold these operational ratings, class ratings and type ratings, and I use them regularly.

“I test for night VFR. Do I have to be reviewed for NVFR expertise when I’m conducting tests and handing out these ratings on a regular basis?

“I fly single engined aircraft and check my instructors to line, I conduct instructor rating training in single engine aircraft, I pass instructors out into the industry in single engine aircraft. Do I really have to do a separate check for single engine class type?”

In her widely-circulated letter to CASA director John McCormick, this instructor has plenty more to say and plenty more questions to ask, and she’s far from being the only person who’s confused and frustrated at the unwillingness or inability of field officers to provide interpretations of these rules.

One question that is repeatedly raised, is where on earth CASA thinks it’s going to find flying operations inspectors or flight test examiners whose experience and recency is comparable with the people they will be testing?”

Another is the flood of amendments, which outstrips even Part 145, and the fact that the Part 61 MOS (where all the hooks and barbs will eventually be found to be buried) is still unpublished at a time when CASA is preparing for its Christmas break:

“CASA told us in Canberra last week that there were now 300 amendments to Part 61, so much of this might well be out of date. But the question is, “would 300 amendments have been made if a mass email had not gone out?”

“And how can one do anything about “consultation” when the MOS hasn’t yet been exposed to it?”

Nor can this flying school operator be accused of identifying problems without proposing solutions. She and numerous other flying school operators, both fixed and flutter wing, are highly critical of CASA’s apparent lack of attention to product quality sampling:

“Safety will not be enhanced by all these new regulations for a very simple reason; nobody in CASA is sampling the present apples in the system who are being let out into the industry en masse. By sampling, I mean going flying with the new PPL or CPL or new instructor or new instrument rated pilot within one month of receiving their licence or rating.

“The very idea of sampling the barrel is totally foreign to the CASA hierarchy which appears to me to be into compliance, more rules and more compliance and more obligations which just because they are written into the legislation means that all will be well!”
Regulatory reform not much closer – comment

Hmm...don't think I will comment might just into my beer instead!
Sarcs is offline