CASA exemptions- don't flow on to everybody.

[Frank Arouet]

There is something discriminatory about this. What about everybody else who know doing an ILS every 35 days costs Qantas money as it does them. It doesn't worry me because I am not a participant, but what about the smaller operators? What about private operators?

This is typical of CASA to ameliorate things for the big players.

Miscellaneous Instrument CASA EX67/09 - Exemption - recent experience
requirements (expires end of July 2011)
On 24 September 2009, instrument CASA
<http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casaex67.pdf
> EX67/09 (Exemption - recent experience requirements) was registered on
the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and came into effect on 25
September 2009. This instrument exempts the holder of a command instrument
rating from the requirement of paragraph 11.4 of Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1
in relation to having performed in flight, or in a synthetic trainer, either
an ILS or LLZ approach in I.M.C. within the preceding 35 days. The exemption
is subject to conditions which include the holder participating in the
cyclic training and proficiency program of Qantas Airways Limited.
This and other Miscellaneous Instruments can be viewed on the CASA website:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91055

[rmcdonal]

The exemption
is subject to conditions which include the holder participating in the
cyclic training and proficiency program of Qantas Airways Limited.
Im sure if the private flyers would put themselves up for a 4hr sim session 3-4 times a year then they to could pick up an Exemption.

[Going Boeing]

It sounds like the savings won't be a lot as there is still a requirement for Day Take-offs & Landings so when guys return from extended leave, they'll still have to go into the Sim for recency.

[mjbow2]

FAA recency requirements for private and commercial operations

within the preceding 6 calendar months

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation systems.


Note that they do not require onerous specific instrument approach recency.

Additional specific approach recency for RPT is covered in each airline's Part 121 approved recurrent training program.

We should do the same here for private flyers and remove our unnecessarily prescriptive recency requirements.

[Icarus2001]

We should do the same here for private flyers and remove our unnecessarily prescriptive recency requirements.
Give me a break. You mean the unnecessarily prescriptive recency requirement that says that you can not go near an aircraft for 23 months and three weeks then happily fly yourself anywhere that you like?
Yep, that is very restrictive, not.

[compressor stall]

I always thought it pretty stupid that you need to fly a Cat 1 ILS every 35 days, but an NDB every 90.

Sure the Cat 1 gets you to just over 200' from the ground, but it's in a straight line, you know immediately when you're off GS/LOC, no transposing needles, drift angles etc. Speeds and descent rates are stable with no turns...

NDBs however - Usually a reversal, not generally runway aligned, no uniform descent rates etc. Three times less dangerous than an ILS? Yeah, right.

ILS's are much easier and safer to fly if you're not current.

But back to the topic - QF have obviously demonstrated that their cyclical procedures are of equivalent or better safety than the mandated regs.

[mjbow2]

Icarus2001

Calm down son. Take a deep breath and read my post again. I am talking about instrument recency.

[LeadSled]

mjbow2,
Couldn't have put it better myself, and here we have the flexibility built into the PIFR, and there is no record of that causing trouble, compared to the "traditional" CIR (well, traditional for Australia, anyway).

A possible "gotcha" ---- the wording seems to suggest recency must be done IMC or in a SIM., that's going to be interesting for anybody that doesn't have ($$$$) access to an "approved" SIM.

How often have you done an instrument approach to minima, all the way in IMC --- I flew 900 h a year for a lot of years, and the answer was not too bleeding often.

Tootle pip!!

[AerocatS2A]

There is something discriminatory about this.
Not discriminatory at all, just recognises the value of cyclic training progams. If your company sets up a cyclic training program you won't have to do 35 day ILSs either.

[FL170]

I thought if an approach is flown in flight regardless if in IMC it still covers your recency requirements. Anyone?

[AerocatS2A]

I thought if an approach is flown in flight regardless if in IMC it still covers your recency requirements. Anyone?
That's correct, the CAO does not specify that an approach must be flown in IMC to count for recency purposes.

[FL170]

in relation to having performed in flight, or in a synthetic trainer, either
an ILS or LLZ approach in I.M.C. within the preceding 35 days.

So why is this relevant? Am I missing something?

[FlexibleResponse]

Is Australia unique in requiring recency in specific instrument approaches between each instrument renewal test?

In my (non-Australian) airline you qualified in your Instrument Flight Test renewal and were then qualified in all tested approaches until the next renewal.

Is there any other country apart from good old Oz that demands recency on each approach.

And just what the hell is wrong with doing an ILS onto a wet, snow, or icy runway with a 40kt crosswind if that is within the aircraft's limitations? Why is Oz different?

[Mach E Avelli]

For the same reason we don't do engine-out training at night - we have been spoiled by benign weather. What's snow, slush, a contaminated runway? Don't have 'em here. And CASA are pussies, so even if we wanted to do this stuff, they would not let us.

[AerocatS2A]

in relation to having performed in flight, or in a synthetic trainer, either
an ILS or LLZ approach in I.M.C. within the preceding 35 days.
So why is this relevant? Am I missing something?
Right. I missed that. I don't know, either the wording of the exemption is incorrect or they really expect us to be doing recency approaches in IMC which is unrealistic and not reflected by the wording of the CAO.

[pcx]

I do not think that CAO 40.2.1 has changed for quite a few years now in relation to recency.
Basically you need to have done a NDB, VOR, DME or GPS approach within the last 90 days to carry out one in IMC. You may do one in VMC at any time and this will renew your currency.
The same applies to ILS and LLZ approaches except they are 35 day recency approaches.
You also need your basic 3 hours instrument time in the last 90 days, however you choose to achieve it, and any requirements with respect to single pilot operations.
I suspect that the exemption has been badly written.