CASA cost recovery - instrument rating renewal paperwork

[Chilli Tarts]

Here is the scenario;

I completed an instrument rating renewal during the last week of last month (June) with my current employer. The usual paperwork was completed post renewal (i.e. CASA paper work and the sticker for my log book). Four weeks later I am patiently waiting for my licence to turn up in the mail with an amended instrument rating validity date. I called CASA today to question the delay in the process (currently having to lug my log book around with me when I fly as it has the only record of a current instrument rating). I was told by licensing within CASA that I would now have to pay a $25 fee to have the license sent out with the new date on it? What the? As of July 1st CASA's new fees kick into full steam ahead I was politely informed after some questions where asked from my end. Is CASA now waiting for us to call when we starting missing items in the mail to be then informed we need to pay?
Comments?
:ouch:

[chad sexington]

In a word-yes..........dealing with CLARC has to be one of the most frustrating experiences i've had.
Trying to give our third world cousins a run for their money in the bureaucracy stakes, either that or the whole place is "run" by one person.
Commiserations to any and everyone who gets caught up in this sorry mess...

[Muffinman]

Yep Chilli the idiots are in charge of the asyllum. IMHO you are not required to lug around your log book - it is not your license (CAR 139) and if you own a CASA type book read the general guidance notes point #5.

If you are ramped then show your PPL/CPL/ATPL + medical and let them chase your instrument rating / endorsement history through their own channels. By the way slip the inspector a cost recovery invoice for your time and money being recovered by you/operator.;)

PS

Imagine the tears if you lost your logbook - nearly everything else in a flight bag can be bought/replaced again.:ok:

[sprocket check]

I want to know if ASL and CASA are legal in doing this:

CASA charges a fee for every exam we sit.

ASL charges a fee for every exam too.

CASA pays ASL a tender for the provision of the exams to the value of:

Contract ID 1649157
Agency Department Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Portfolio Transport and Regional Services
Division Finance
Branch Finance
Contract Agency Reference CASA 06/046
Contract Date 1-Mar-2007
End Date 1-Mar-2012
Contract Value ($) 4,789,000.00
Office Post Code 2601
Description of Contract Supervision of Professional Examinations - Cyberexams
Procurement Method open tender
Confidentiality Reason(s) No
Consultancy No
ANZSCC Code 924
ANZSCC Description Adult education services n.e.c.
Supplier Name ASSESSMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
Supplier Postal Address GPO Box 286
Supplier Suburb CANBERRA
Supplier State ACT
Supplier Country Australia
Supier Postcode 2601
Supplier ABN 28097597709


Wow.

Maybe this is part of the cost recovery scam...

That's a million bucks a year to be doubly recovered from our pockets.

[morno]

Just rang up asking where my updated licence was for my CIR (renewed in June), and they said it's been updated, but they want $25 before they'll send me my new licence, :mad::mad::mad::mad:.

They're trying to tell me if I don't pay them $25, I'll have to carry my logbook around with me instead. LIKE HELL!!

Bring back common sense, please!

morno

[witwiw]

theres something in the latest FSA mag about Form 214- the aircraft endo etc..
it has an 'example'

"jenny has passed (blah blah) with manual prop, RG and PA34 endorsements. if jenny doesnt want a copy of her license showing the new endorsements (she knows having the entries in her logbook is sufficient), then she will not have to pay the new fee."

so, if you can go and get design feature and multi endorsements, and not have the license reprinted on 10 cents worth of paper and pre-paid envelopes for $25, and subsequently fly such aircraft with them not on the physical license you carry i ask the question-
can you do the same with an IR renewal????

if thats ok, then theres really no need to carry an up to date license (then whats the point of holding the physical license??), and where in the CARs does it then say we need to carry our logbooks around instead?

[lowy43]

Off the topic a bit, however...

On my licence I dont have LLZ, but I do have ILS. It was my understanding that ILS covered you for it. And to boot on my renewal the ATO circled LLZ. After a few phone calls CLARC have done nothing other than tell me to email, and when I ring back they tell me to email again.

Good times.

[morno]

Now in a much calmer state.....

I spoke to one of the Supervisors at the CLARC department, who was most helpful. She stated that I don't need to carry my logbook around, nor do I need an up to date copy of my licence with me. Her explanation was if I get ramped by an FOI, under CAR 5.56, 2b, I have 7 days to produce logbook evidence of whatever it is they are querying.

However, I'm still yet to find out if my employer is going to be satisfied by me not having a copy of my current licence, :hmm:.

morno

[Muffinman]

There is no requirement to carry a logbook. Your licence is not out of date (see item IX page 1). All the rest are classes, endorsements, ratings, etc etc. The duty authorised by the licence exists on the medical. Your logbook has all the required entries if need to be presented - and not required in the plane.

Please read my earlier post.

Most employers should have a copy of your latest logbook entries on file now that this new 'system' is with us.

[Dick Smith]

Chilli Tarts, perhaps the best idea is not to have the requirement for an instrument rating renewal – i.e. as per the USA. I suggest you look at the post here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=280106&page=8).

One of the advantages of these cost recovery charges is that pressure will put on CASA to harmonise with leading aviation countries as per the Minister’s policy.

My suggestion is that you ask CASA why an instrument rating renewal is required here, with all the extra costs, when it is not required in the United States, and the resultant level of safety – despite their terrible weather conditions – is about the same.