NZ licencing changes - not for the better

[solowflyer]

I might be a little behind the eight ball with this one but heard on the grape vine that the NZ licencing criteria will shortly be changing. Currently CPL subjects can be used instead of PPL subjects this is now about to change to PPL subjects for PPL issue CPL subjects for CPL etc.

Other changes afoot which will really fire some up will be a new validity of all subjects for all licences. ie PPL subjects will only last 2 years or untill the flight test and CPL subjects 3 years before flight test. But the biggest concern will be for all those who hold passes in ATPL subject but waiting to clock up the hours for the issue of the ATPL licence.

If this is the case then I can imagine there are going to be alot of ticked off people.:ouch:

Apparently these changes have been developing for a while within the industry brass. Can anyone in the know confirm, or correct???

[Cheeky Whitey]

F:mad:K i hate ASL!!!!! nothing but revenue gathering!!!!!

[Cloud Cutter]

I fail to see what this has to do with ASL, it's the NZCAA that make these rules - ASL are just contracted to provided the assessment.

I actualy think that this is a reasonable idea - and I am one of the people who could be affected by ATPL validity. On the plus side for those opposed, these sort of amendments require legislative changes that often take years to action. Is it included in the part 61 NPRM? I think that is due to come into force next year.

[1McLay]

Hey Soloflyer

"...PPL subjects will only last 2 years or untill the flight test and CPL subjects 3 years before flight test..."

Don't think thats quite correct. What the NPRM (yes it is included in the part 61 re-write) says or at least how I understand it is...

You receive a written examination credit when you pass ALL exams pertaining to a particular licence. The time limit imposed on obtaining this "written exam credit" is two years for PPL and 3 years for CPL and ATPL. i.e. This is the time frame you have to complete ALL exams for the particular licence.

Then...

[quote] The written exam credit is, in the case of the PPL, CPL and instrument rating, valid for three years and in the case of an ATPL valid for 5 years [unquote]

Take the PPL for example
This would mean 5 years after completing your first exam you would have to complete a flight test, but you must ensure you finish all exams within two years of having done the first exam.

For the CPL
3 years to complete all exams then another 3 years to do the flight test

For the ATPL
3 years to do the exams then 5 years to do the flight test.

there will also be an exception for people who already have completed exams before the rule change and are yet to complete
the flight test, these times are
PPL- 2 years from date of rule change
CPL- 3 years " "
ATPL- 5 years " "

And if you dont do the flight test within the above periods
your exam credit is invalid and you will have to do all exams again except for ATPL where a requalification exam will extend the credit another two years provided the requalification exam is completed before the expiry date of the initial credit.

This is good in some ways because it guards against intending new pilots doing exams then not doing any flight training for years then coming back to flying with the document to say they have an adequate knowledge in Law, navigation, weather and so forth when in reality, because of the time lapse they dont.

It also means you have to have done ALL the exams before completeing a flight test, which is not the case at the moment.


Happy Flying

1M:ok:

[Woodend1]

on another tack...the I.F. requirement is proposed to be reduced to 3 hours in 3 months including at least 3 approaches. That has got to be good for those who aren't employed in I.F. work but still wish to stay current.

[LateNightOps]

how many night hours are required for the NZ ATPL? Over here in Oz many mates agree it is the hardest thing to get.

Here you need:
75hours IF
100hours Night

LNO

[belowMDA]

Woodend1 reducing the IF currency requirements (if that is actually what they are intending) is not a good thing in my books. If you are not employed then I don't think any prospective employer will realistically expect you to be IF current. They should be prepared to assist you with this once you are on board. A renewal however is a different matter. It always pays to do this.

[splatgothebugs]

I agree with BelowMDA, if your only doing 3 hours IF to stay current you are just becoming a danger to yourself.

This is not alot time time to see the panel and stay on top of things, it could also lead to more incidents.

splat

[1McLay]

Its a bit of a trade off really

redeuce the IT requirement from 6 to 3 hours but also add the requirement to complete 3 prescribed instrument approaches.

I would've thought this was an improvement on safety. You are spending more of the currency requirement time shooting approaches - this is the safety critical element aint it?

anyway if you didnt like the idea you had till yesterday to put in your submission :p

Did everyone get theirs in!?!?!?

Take care

1M:ok:

[splatgothebugs]

This thread was the first time I have heard of any of this. Good to see CAA keeping everybody well informed:}

splat

[1McLay]

Hey Splat

Check out the CAA web site. The NPRM is 59 pages!! A lot of changes in other words.

One of the biggest changes thats beginiing to cause a stir is the new standards guides. An A5 booklet devoted to the PPL and another for CPL flight test with a competent or not competent style of assesment for each exercies. Each exercise clearly sets out what is required.

This is suposed to make all flight examiners equal in their assesment of the candidate.

Some interesting changes include for a BFR the examnier must use the same standards as for the flight test. ie BFR=Flight test

PPL only get one shot at a forced landing

ANY mistake at all in the weight & balance and loading problem will constitute a fail for both PPL/CPL (and instructor rating).

You can get theses guides from the CAA, and its probably not a bad idea so you can start enforcing the safety critical elements that are required by the standard.

John Parker (CAA) and his associate made visits to local aero clubs and held conferences in the major centres over the past few months providing an insight to the changes.

Rather interesting all the same. Weather its a good move or not will remain to be seen!

Regards

1M
:ok:

[Woodend1]

For your average ppl with an instrument rating reducing the hour requirement will be very helpful. Better to shoot 3 approaches (the more challenging part) than cruise around beacon bashing for 6 hours.

[splatgothebugs]

What I'm trying to say 1McLay is that unless you are in GA or actively go looking on the CAA website this would be the first anybody has heard of it.

CAA do not keep everybody as well informed as they think:} Perhaps they should let every licenced pilot in the country know by sending out a simple (we are changing things check out the website) letter.

splat:ok:

[1McLay]

Hey Splat


Perhaps they should let every licenced pilot in the country know by sending out a simple (we are changing things check out the website) letter.

They do mate...its called CAA News/Vector magazine, give them a call if you dont receive one, every client on their books should. And just out of interest, I had a browse through the old editions and found talk of the NPRM Part 61 in the August 2003 issue, not to mention a few other later issues too!

I guess it just depends on how much you want to get involved.

kind regards

1M:ok:

[Oktas8]

Lethalweapon - short answer is yes, as far as I know.

But remember that a BFR is not a flight test, and can be done over several flights if necessary. That's why you don't need an examiner to get it done.

Also, ASL examiners are the only ones doing initial issues in order to act as a "gatekeeper" in the professional pilot club. Once in the club, renewals should be much less hassle, and easier for a B-Cat to assess.

Last and not least, CPL holders will not need to do BFR's if they are using their licenses professionally - the annual Part 135 or instructor renewal check will meet the requirements. So BFR's will become something for recreational pilots, and pilots who are "between jobs"! :)

Cheers,
O8

[1McLay]

Thanks Oktas8! :D

As you were saying that BFRs can be done over several leasons...this also implies that they are considered an instructional flight (and should be logged as so by the FI i.e. as PIC). Where as a flight test is an assesment of the candidate who is the PiC and no instruction is given by the FE. So the FE shouldn't log a flight test as PiC because he/she isn't...but I think they are given the credit of it and are allowed to anyway??? But thats another story!

Regards

1M :ok:

[Oktas8]

Well, I wouldn't do flight tests if I didn't get to log them somehow now would I? :}

Also interesting, instructors will be credited with PIC time for CPL cross country flight tests under the new rule. Yes I know we always have logged it as PIC anyway, but now it's going to be legal! :} :}

O8

[Jack Sprat]

Not sure which flying trainers offer frozen ATPLs any more but why would they from this change onward. Does Massey still offer ATPL exams? There will be potential students who want to know whether this is money well spent.
Anyway if it takes an average of 7 years to get into a third level airline, who is going to do an axam where the credit only lasts 5 years or so?
Seems that there may be an opportunity for a full time ATPL course here because no-one is going to do it earlier than they have to and when they need to do it, they will need it quickly.
The Okker schools will get some business out of this. Great support for NZ flight training.
Sounds like a bit of an employment filter. Can't remember if there were airline reps on this committee but whats the evidence that knowledge is decaying? Those I know who have gone into airlines have been most conscientious in keeping up with relevant information because they have interviews etc to attend to show that they know their stuff. Is it irrelevant information which is decaying then?
The more I meander through this, the smellier it sounds. How did the committee know there was a problem? The NPRM just says there is one without any proof. Meander ends.