Perpetual Ratings

[helmet fire]

At a recent helicopter industry meeting in regards to the perception of escallating night accidents there was wide agreement that the current NVFR rating requirements had significant shortfalls. One of those identified was that it was a "perpetual" rating. It was felt that this allowed NVFR to evolve into a relatively uncontrolled and unstandardised practice that could be tied back to the accident rate.

The Part 133 review contains a major change to ratings by moving them into perpetuity. That includes the command instrument rating. One rating test is all you will need for life, just as long as you stay current.

Is this just another "it works fine in America" or is there actually some safety outcome that is being achieved?

Is it simply a matter of having to align to ICAO?
What are the positives for the perpetuity of ratings such as CIR and NVFR?

[brown_eyes]

So when is this supposed to come into effect? The Instrument Rating flying schools won't be too happy.

[dragchute]

One of those identified was that it was a "perpetual" rating. It was felt that this allowed NVFR to evolve into a relatively uncontrolled and unstandardised practice that could be tied back to the accident rate.
The Part 133 review contains a major change to ratings by moving them into perpetuity. That includes the command instrument rating....What are the positives for the perpetuity of ratings such as CIR and NVFR?

I guess that CASA have a considerable workload in the processing of instrument ratings and licensing in general. Given the downsizing of their operational staff this must also be having an impact on the availability of FOI’s to engage in the testing processes, after all ATO’s are normally required to complete their own check rides with an FOI.

There appears to be a definite shift in the proportion of operational staff to administrative staff with the latter on the rise, as well as the operational workload of their FOI’s … flying diminishing, pen-pushing increasing.

Thirty years ago a Class 4 (NVFR) rating was renewed at six-monthly intervals. As I recall there was no test required, just send the licence and application to DCA/DOT and they would enter the renewal accordingly. A Class 1 (or a 1st Class) IR was also renewed six monthly but required a flight test.

The onus is obviously being passed back to the operator to maintain standards. I think that a perpetual rating would be accompanied by a requirement for the operator to conduct regular checks (base and route) to address proficiency. Those operators without CAR 217 approval would farm their work out to the flying schools, so I would suggest that little change would eventuate. In fact it could see a rise in the upper-end training organisations similar to Flight Safety International and SimuFlite given the ever rising number of turbo-props and fan-jets filtering into the country.

[helmet fire]

The perpetuity is supposed to come into effect with the release of the new Part 133....how long is that string?

I am not sure that the checks will be required: same as the NVFR rating now: as long as you meet all the currency requirements and recency requirements you are good to keep going ad infinitum. But maybe I am mistaken here.
If I am right, I am not sure that there would be any rise in simulator training or flying school work - as the only checking required would be when recency lapses.

Although the original intent expressed to me was/is to move toward the US System, I hope that the reasons drag uses are not correct: ie not enough operational staff for ATO certification. That would be a poor reason to change the system.

Having said that, I recognise that there IS a critical shortage of FOI in helicopters (I dont know fixed wing). There is only 1 helicopter FOI in the Sydney Basin, and he has been unable to certify an ATO for the last several years due to workload. This has left the Sydney and NSW regions with one ATO for Instrument Ratings, and several organisations have to fly in out of staters for their tests as a result. Lets hope the single ATO doesn't twist his ankle or everyone will be struggling!