Command Instrument Rating Confusion

[oldrotorhead]

Can any one out there who is really familiar with CAO 40.2.1 answer this curly one on behalf of a colleague of mine? Before you all fire back at us with what you think the CAO should say or what you think the training requirements should actually be, could you try and give us a response on what the order actually does say at the moment and what the legalities are...
The scenario is this:
The man has a current CIR on aeroplanes and meets all the requirements of CAO 40.2.1 paras 7 and 8.
(Please note the aeronautical experience requirements at 8.3 which use the terms [which are defined elsewhere] of ""instrument flight time" and "dual instrument flight instruction time". Note also that the requirements at subpara (b) of para 8 specify that 20 hours of the 40 hours of "instrument flight time" must be on the category of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
ie. aeroplane or helicopter)
Now lets go to para 10 and consider the same man who is now looking to get his CIR on a helicopter. (You can assume that the helicopter he proposes to acquire "instrument flight time" in is an IFR machine in which he is endorsed.)
According to para 10.4.3, to do the CIR test in the helicopter, he must meet the requirements of paras 7 and 8 of the order(which he does) and then 1 of the subparagraphs...let's look simply at (c) which fits him to a "T"!
Now that surely leads him right back to para 8, and specifically 8.3(b) again and the only thing he now needs is the 20 hours of "instrument flight time" in the helicopter.
Now, if he already has done the requirements of sub para (d) in respect of the "dual instrument flight instruction time" how can it be said that the 20 hours of "instrument flight time" in the category of aircraft, etc (helicopter in this case) is actually "flying training" and therefore has to be done at an instrument flying school, etc, etc?? Surely it is simply "aeronautical experience" just as for example, the 50 hours cross country requirement at sub para (a) is?[and the night requirements at sub para (e).]
Anyway, what is the opinion of the industry please? We believe the order is written how it is without ambiguity, to allow a person to do just exactly what this guy proposes...however, CASA now are saying different; "nah.....if you need the 20 hours "instrument flight time", it is "Training" and must be done at the flight school and not simply under the hood with an appropriate safety pilot........."
Well actually, quite a few CASA FOI are agreeing with the proposition I have just made, but the licencing gurus are taking the opposite view.
What say yous??

[OzExpat]

oldrotorhead... your stipulation :-
Before you all fire back at us with what you think the CAO should say or what you think the training requirements should actually be, could you try and give us a response on what the order actually does say at the moment and what the legalities are...
could make it a bit difficult for folks to respond. I think that the very best you can hope for are opinions. I'm a bit reluctant to do that, in view of your stipulation, but will have a go, to provide some food for thought.

IMHO the CAO is unambiguous in this instance and I further believe that if it was presented before a Court, your interpretation would be upheld.

Hvaing said that, I think that I can see where the alternate view comes from. I've never flown a helicopter VFR, let alone IFR, but I know quite a few who have. Many of these folks have also flown fixed wing IFR and have told me that flying rotary-wing IFR is a much greater challenge.

Therefore, I suspect that it might be prudent for your friend to complete at least some of that 20 hours under instruction, if for no other reason than to ensure that he'll be at the appropriate standard for the rating test.

Of course, all of this is merely an opinion and may yet prove to be incorrect. Perhaps the sort of person you need is an aviation lawyer? :eek: :uhoh:

[oldrotorhead]

Thanks for the reply Oz. I may go out on a limb here and get chopped off so let me say at the outset that am not current IFR on either FW or RW at present but have previously held CIRME on both for many years, plus had the benefit of the extensive military training and been an IRE.
I agree that flying a helicopter, especially certain types, on pure instruments, is generally more demanding than FW. However, I don't believe that the principles and techniques are significantly different and that is why I believe the CAO has been written the way it is......ie '"10 hr of dual instrument flight instruction" - a generic requirement. The additional 20 hr of instrument flight time in my view does not need to be dual instruction and is sufficient in most cases to get a person who has the "basics" to be proficient enough at instrument flying in the category of aircraft. That is not to say someone would not be more proficient if that 20 hr was dual instruction instead of just "under the hood" practice, however, that is not the argument here - it simply is, what this bludy order actually says!
Thanks.....I'm butting out of the argument now but hope some others have something to offer. I have posted the topic on the rotorheads forum as well, by the way if anyone is interested

[swh]

oldrotorhead,

If you take the example of a CIR(H) person trying to flight under simulated instrument flying conditions in a fixed wing aircraft, on the surface if you look at CAR 153 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR004640.htm) it would appear that it is possible, as long as CAR 226 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR005850.htm) is met.

However you must also take into account CAR 5.11 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR001780.htm) which in CAO 40.0.0 (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/4000.pdf) para 2.7 which says :

2.7 The holder of an aeroplane pilot licence must not practice instrument flying in an aeroplane while the aeroplane is flying under the V.F.R. unless:
(a) either:
(i) the holder also holds a command aeroplane instrument rating that is appropriate to the aeroplane; and
(ii) the aeroplane is equipped with the flight instruments required by CASA under subregulation 177 (1); and
(iii) the aeroplane is equipped with fully functioning dual controls; and
(iv) the other control seat is occupied by a person who holds a pilot licence, other than a student pilot licence, and a type or class endorsement for the aeroplane; and
(v) the person has sufficient vision from the aeroplane to enable him or her to safely fly the aeroplane in visual flying; or
(b) the holder is accompanied by an authorised flight instructor.

Note 1: It is an offence under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 for a person to fly an aeroplane under the I.F.R. unless he or she holds an instrument rating or a private I.F.R. rating, or is receiving training in flying under the I.F.R. from a person who is approved by CASA to give the training.
Note 2: The flight instruments required by CASA under subregulation 177 (1) are set out in CAO 20.18. So my thoughts is that you cannot do flight under simulated instrument flying conditions in an aeroplane without holding a command aeroplane instrument rating that is appropriate to the aeroplane (i.e. even if you hold a CIR(H)), or unless your with an instructor.

This also prevents people with a co-pilot instrument ratings from doing flight under simulated instrument flying conditions. An instructor can only instruct for the purpose of an instrument rating at an "instrument school", they can so some flight under simulated instrument flying conditions at a non instrument school for the purpose of the issue of a licence.

I would think CASA would look at the helicopter fixed wing scenario the same way, something in the back of my head is telling me this might actually be an ICAO requirement, i.e. 20 hrs of instrument training.

:ok:

[oldrotorhead]

Thanks for that, and we are for the record, aware of all these regs and CAO 40.0 para 2.7......CAO40.0 however, quite clearly refers to aeroplanes and not helicopters and there is no such order nor anything like it in respect of helicopters. We are not suggesting however that there should not be and if CASA feels so inclined, they can fix the anomaly (that the original thread has been all about) in a heart beat but they choose not to. Consequently, we have the stupid situation where many in CASA as well as those in the industry that are affected are now split as to what the sections of CAO 40.2.1 really mean..
Simply, does 20 hours of "instrument flight time" on the category of aircraft, etc, etc [para 8.3(b)] really mean an additional 20 hours of dual instruction?? Hang on a minute, what's the 10 hours of ""dual instrument flight instruction time" at sub para (d) for?
There is a clear difference between "instrument flight time" and "dual instrument flight instruction", surely?
No one suggests that the other aeronautical experience requirements of para 8.3 of CAO 40.2.1 (eg. the 50 hours of cross country flight time needs to be caaried out "dual" or at an "instrument flight school"...it is just simply that - "aeronautical experience" and surely, plain english says that sub para (c) is also just that too viz: "aeronautical experience" and not "dual".

[swh]

oldrotorhead,

8.3 (b) 40 hours instrument time, of which not less than 20 hours shall be instrument flight time on the category of aircraft for which the rating is sought;

i.e. the 20 hours must be on a helicopter for CIR(H)

8.3 (d) 10 hours dual instrument flight instruction time

Does not need to be on a helicopter, could be part of the 40 hrs in (b) if done on an aeroplane. Also the 50 hrs in (a) can be done in an aeroplane.

instrument flight time means flight time during which a person is flying an aircraft solely by reference to instruments and without external reference points from CAR 2 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/0/PR000060.htm)

CAO 40.3.0 (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao40/400300.pdf) 7.8 Instrument flight time may be logged by the pilot monitoring or providing input to the autopilot/auto stabilisation equipment when it is engaged or by the pilot manually manipulating the controls when the helicopter is flown solely by reference to instruments either under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

:ok:

[oldrotorhead]

so...swh; are you agreeing with us, then? Seems like you are?

[helmet fire]

oldrotorhead,
As I said in the rotorheads forum there is legalities, the intent and best practice to consider here. I note that you seem to consider only the black and white legalities and avoid those other points when presented here by Ozexpat and swh, and as previously presented to you on rotorheads.

There is certainly a wordsmith way to bend the arguement to your interpretation, but I can only point out intent. Do you think it was the intent of CASA to allow NO dual instrument training in helicopters in order to sit your rating?

I think the definition of IF practice at para 2.7 of CAO 40.0.0 quoted by swh is applicable to helicopters even though it does not specifically say "helicopters". The intent is clear to me, but that is subjective, and I understand if you dont glean the same intent.

Whilst I sympathise greatly with your interpretation plight, and I think that there is validity to your arguement, I cannot justify that sitting next to another pilot, watching an autopilot pole the aircraft around the skies for you, could meet in any sense of the phrase "best practice", and nor does it meet what I believe to be the "intent" of the regs.

Again I acknowledge that best practice is in the subjective eye of the beholder and so I defer to your judgement of that. But for my two bobs (and you have asked for opinions), you may be legally correct and yet be against the spirit of it all.

swh, a question: with the the authorised flight instructor for instruments, where does it require that instruction to be given by/under an instrument school? I am aware that it would be good practice too, but is there a stipulation somewhere that this must be done?

[oldrotorhead]

helmet fire; thanks to you and the others for your input...as I said, we are only looking for opinions as to the legalities here rather than what "best practice" etc might be.
It is simply not acceptable that a person should be disadvantaged by varying opinions from CASA and ATOs as to what this CAO means. As it happens, I don 't personally happen to agree that it is the "intent" of this order to require 20 hours of dual instruction on a helicopter in the circumstances we have been discussing here. I believe that the order is what it is and has been written to allow exactly what it purports to. That said, if we the industry think it should be different then we should lobby to have the order changed - (or the new applicable part of Part 61) but I don't recall any significant discussion in this regard at the time the NPRMs were about!
Also, it wouldn't take too many smarts to rewrite the order to reflect a requirement for 20 hours of dual on the category of aircraft or to rewrite or amend 40.0 to make it the same for helicopters as it does for aeroplanes in respect of instrument practice......
Enough now! discussion over methinks. Thanks to those who responded both here and on rotorheads.
Cheers all.

[swh]

Oldrotorhead,

I do and don’t agree, I will try and explain why.

CASA has notified ICAO that it does not meet the requirements of ICAO personnel licensing Annex 1 para 2.8.1.3.1.1, in that, Australia does not require 10 hours instrument flight (IF) instruction in helicopters for a CPL(H). Nor does it meet similar requirements for the CIR(H) or the ATPL(H). Australia does not require any IF or night experience for ATPL(H) issue.

However I do not see how you can make a jump saying that you can got sit the test by just doing flight under simulated instrument flying conditions (CAR 153), a person still needs training, CAR 153 time is not training, no training records need to be kept, the “safety pilot” does not need to be an instructor.

Unlike the CPL(A) the PPL (H), CPL(H), ATPL(H) does not require the pilot to have any instrument time, PPL (A), CPL(A), ATPL(A) require instrument flight time (see CAR 5.111 for CPL(A)).

Any instrument time accrued in a helicopter must therefore be made when gaining a rating, NVFR or CIR. A NVR or CIR helicopter instructor need training in teaching instrument flying in order to conduct that training.

CASA has a head of power in the CAR 5.59 prepare and publish syllabuses of training, it has done for the CIR in appendix 1 of CAO 40.2.1, which includes specific helicopter aspects.

CAR REG 210 prevents a person to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations, this is where you need an AOC for instrument training.

So when approving an AOC, a person must include their syllabus of training in order to gain that training approval under the AOC. You can search AOC’s on the CASA web site (http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/aoc/index.htm), suggest you have a look at an AOC from a helicopter instrument school, and you will see that a syllabus of training is part of the requirements.

So at the end of the day, its up to the CFI recommending the student for the test that they have training records to show that that student is competent, and also that the student has competed a syllabus of training for helicopters.

In my view you could gain instrument time in a helicopter using CAR 153, however I don’t see that time gained in that fashion can be viewed as training towards a rating.

:ok:

[oldrotorhead]

swh,
thanks for all that. as it happens, we are fairly au fait (?) with the regs and all we are now achieving is to further prove to ourselves how f..ed up the regs and this particular CAO actually are.
You can see how people get confused especially when bush lawyers like us start interpreting the regs.....your contention for example that CAR 210 "prevents a person from undertaking by use of an Australian aircraft etc" to my interpretation at least, is way off the mark. CAR 210 simply makes it illegal to advertise that you can do something that requires an AOC unless you have an AOC. This reg is one of the most widely abused regs of 'em all in my view - check out the "Yellow Pages" in the bush sometime and you will see what I mean!
Anyway, all we have been trying to say is that this CAO is cr@pp in respect of the training requirements and can and should be amended ASAP which could easily be done!
Cheers

[swh]

oldrotorhead,

An AOC is a permission granted by CASA under the Sec 27 of the Civil Aviation Act to conduct commercial activities prescribed in CAR 206. Consequently, operating these commercial activities without an AOC is illegal.

Training for a rating is considered a commercial activity, an AOC is required. Instrument flying for the purpose of meeting CAO 40.2.1 is training towards a rating, which is a commercial activity, which requires an AOC, regardless if money changes hand or not.

Conversion training, i.e. flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement is considered not to be a commercial activity, see CAR 206 (1) (a) (vi) and CAR 2 (7) (d) (vii).

Please also note CAR 2 recognised flight time means flight time that is:
(b) in the case of flight time in a helicopter — flown by the holder of:

(i) a helicopter pilot licence; or
(ii) a student pilot licence; or
(iii) an overseas pilot licence that authorises the holder to fly helicopters; or
(iv) a pilot qualification issued by the Defence Force of Australia, or of a Contracting State, that authorises the holder to fly helicopters;
as pilot in command or in dual flying;

Please take this into consideration for the purposes of CAR 153, given that CAR 5.123 (1) (a) requires that for a pilot to act as as pilot in command, or co-pilot the holder also holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that authorises him or her to carry out the activity in that capacity in the helicopter.

A bare PPL(H) or CPL(H) holder does not have a rating to fly in instrument flying conditions, no instrument flying is included in the PPL(H) or CPL(H) syllabus.

Looking at the responses you have given above, it seems you may not to all that open to opinions that are not similar to your own.

:ok:

[oldrotorhead]

OK......Thanks to all and especially swh whom I don't want to get into a slanging match with about the regs. I hasten to add that I am not a lawyer, but, without boasting (because it wasn't my fault!!) I do happen to know most of the Regs and Orders better than most people and particularly the parts of the Act and the Regs which deal with AOCs. (that's why I know about CAR 210 referred to above.....and the fact that operating without an AOC has zip to do with that Reg.)
The interesting thing is that CASA FOIs themselves are widely divided on the matters raised in the original thread and many agree with the proposition we have put. (you'd be surprised how many helicopter FOIs got their helicopter CIR by using the provisions of this order as we are arguing about at present!) Latest info today is that the question has gone to CASA OLC for resolution and if that doesn't go to proving what a f....ed up Order it is, or at least that aspect of it, I don't know what does.
Nuff said.......thanks again for the contributions.
Cheers