61 - Flight testing.
Only got half a handle on this so far – correction would be welcomed. It seems there is one word omitted from the reg and it's MoS – "sustained". In effect the removal of that one word makes passing any form of flight test highly subjective.
As I understand it – say you were required to maintain 5000' and you drift up to 5100', then begin to correct that returning to 5000' within a few seconds; the deviation was identified, corrected and not "sustained" under the CAO was acceptable. Without the word "sustained" the black letter law may be applied – you just failed. It's not that the 'testing officer' will do that, but it's that the TO may adhere to that edict which concerns.
Another item of concern, and here again it's hard to get a firm grip, is the notion that it is a criminal offence to conduct a manoeuvre, say a stall and recovery, unless it's conducted strictly to the letter of third tier law (MoS) in the precise, prescribed sequence for control input during entry and recovery.
It's not a problem for ordinary folk doing routine training and checking – but should a CASA type come along to observe your check pilot conducting your check; and the Checkie does not follow the prescription, to the letter; then check approvals may be forfeit - if the CASA observer so decides.
For the record – I'll repeat that I have not, as yet been able to get a firm grip on 61 and all it entails; so happy to be corrected. But it seems to me there are many ways to fail a proficiency check, all dependent on 'who' the test pilot is and what flavour of mood prevails on the day. I don't like 'subjective' options in a highly prescriptive rule, where it can and may be used against you.
Any way; FWIW.. my AUD $00.20.