Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing [Archive]

pilotchute

16th Dec 2011, 01:36

Going a bit European are we? I don't see how these changes will save me money in the long run as stated in the consultation draft. Anything else they want to make mandatory for the ATPL? I cant see how having an MCC is required for the issue of an ATPL if I dont fly a multi crew aircraft.

XX-ANY

16th Dec 2011, 03:59

Some changes for IFR recency requirements such as a 90 day circling approach and at least one IFR flight within 6 months, still skimming over...

VH-FTS

16th Dec 2011, 04:26

"I cant see how having an MCC is required for the issue of an ATPL if I dont fly a multi crew aircraft"

I can't see how having an ATPL is required for you or anyone else in your situation.

DaisyDuck

16th Dec 2011, 05:29

..looks like Instructors will be able to log IF time while teaching students:ok:

Ando1Bar

16th Dec 2011, 07:41

From the CASA website:

All flying training conducted for issue of a flight crew licence, rating or other authorisation to be conducted by persons holding an instructor rating who are authorised to instruct in that particular activity:

All training and checking pilots to also hold an instructor rating.

However, I couldn't find the info in the draft. Does this mean all CAR217 checking and training organisations will require their staff to hold instructor ratings?

Likewise:

CASA to allocate examiners to organisations to conduct flight tests with the aim of providing independence of the testing process from the training process, particularly for professional flight crew qualifications

Ando1Bar

16th Dec 2011, 07:43

Ixixly

16th Dec 2011, 10:13

VH-FTS How about ooooo...Single Pilot RPT Operations? Requires an ATPL but isn't a Multi-Crew Environment, eg, Caravans, Conquests up north etc...

VH-FTS

16th Dec 2011, 10:26

Why the ATPL? Company recruitment minimums or insurance?

The ATPL theory isn't really relevant to a C208. But then again most of the content isn't really relevant to anything these days...

27/09

17th Dec 2011, 01:09

Perhaps the Aussie requirements are different, on this side of the ditch an ATPL allows you to be P in C of an aircraft where the flight manual requires two pilots.

If there is no requirement for two pilots in the flight manual then all that's required is a CPL.

For example situations like hire and reward IFR without an operative autopilot in something like a Cheiftain, require two pilots to operate the aircraft but can the done on a CPL since the aircraft flight manual doesn't require two pilots to operate the aircraft.

Who or what is driving the requirement for an ATPL on single pilot RPT ops? Seems to be an overkill to me.

PA39

17th Dec 2011, 04:29

How about FOI's not requiring an FIR to do an observed flight test with you!

DaisyDuck

17th Dec 2011, 23:57

Helicopter licences will now require same IF time as fixed wing. :D About time. Might stop some of these awful accidents that seem to keep happening in the rotary world.

DaisyDuck

18th Dec 2011, 01:14

Para 61.1065 quotes that PPL's can hold Instructor Ratings, with certain hour minimums :eek: . However Table 61.1105 Item 6 (Column 4) shows they can only do Type ratings and the Grade 3,2 and 1 requirements show the need for CPL. Am I reading that right?

MakeItHappenCaptain

18th Dec 2011, 03:36

..looks like Instructors will be able to log IF time while teaching students

If it's actual IMC, not just under the hood, I agree.

Oktas8

19th Dec 2011, 06:07

I've been reading about instrument ratings and recent experience requirements. But paragraphs 61.765 (4) and (7) seem to duplicate each other, except the first one talks about 3-month recency and the second, 6-month. Anyone else been able to interpret this more effectively?

aussie027

20th Dec 2011, 04:52

Any references to eliminating the requirement to have a flt test every yr to maintain your Command Inst rating and replace it with recency requirements prior to using it ( if you are not flying regularly) and if you do not do that then to have an Instrument proficiency flt with an instructor like they do in the US???

This competency flt is like an instrument flt review not a check ride with a pass /fail outcome.
The cost of maintaining a ME CIR constantly when not flying but looking for work is extremely expensive.
in the old days it was even worse with a renewal test evey 6 mo for those who remember back to the 80s.

Oktas8

20th Dec 2011, 10:18

aussie027 - you must be dreaming. This is the country that believes pilots aren't safe to fly an ILS unless they practice one every 35 days. Comparison with the FAA, the UK, other JAA states, even Canada or NZ, will just lead to frustration. Best stop now.

T28D

20th Dec 2011, 22:58

Flying the ILS is so dangerous it beggars normal risk criteria, for example When was the last ILS related incident in Aust that compromised passengers ??????

What is the danger in a precision approah properly flown within limits ?????

aussie027

21st Dec 2011, 02:16

Oktas8, yes I know you are probably right.

The reason I ask is that this was mentioned as a specific amendment within the past 3-4 yrs on a number of occasions when CASA published possible future changes to pilot training as they rewrite the CAOs etc as they are now doing.

From here-
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 61 - Flight crew licensing (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS061)

is this para--
All flight crew qualifications, once issued, to remain valid indefinitely subject to demonstration of ongoing competency, linked to the use of the qualification rather than its periodic renewal:

Biennial flight review requirement to be introduced for ratings with alternate means of demonstrating competence as per current review arrangements for licences.

After just reading the relevant IR section, 61.750 onward, it appears from my understanding that despite the above para that a flt test every 12mo is still required. :ugh::ugh:

DaisyDuck

29th Dec 2011, 03:18

"I've been reading about instrument ratings and recent experience requirements. But paragraphs 61.765 (4) and (7) seem to duplicate each other, except the first one talks about 3-month recency and the second, 6-month. Anyone else been able to interpret this more effectively? "

Possibly they are reffering to Instrument Approaches other than those mentioned in para 6, however I can't think of what they haven't covered in para 6. DME/GPS arrivals maybe :confused:

neville_nobody

29th Dec 2011, 06:26

Where are you guys accessing the Part 61 Docs?? All the CASA links to it are dead.

DaisyDuck

29th Dec 2011, 21:08

I have printed it out, however I just checked the CASA website and I got through to it ok. I went to 'Changing the Rules' and then 'CASR parts' and went to 61.

neville_nobody

29th Dec 2011, 22:15

Good news for 777 Drivers you now have a 787 endorsement!!!:ok:

Windshear_ahead

26th Jan 2012, 09:51

Does anyone know of a time frame for the part 61 changes ?

jas24zzk

26th Jan 2012, 10:04

Yep,
sometime after the next election
:D

DaisyDuck

21st Feb 2013, 05:37

Movement at the station...CASR's Part 61, 64, 141 & 142 finally signed off by the GG last week, so it is now law. 4th December it becomes effective.

VHMUM

23rd Feb 2013, 19:16

Looks like there will be a lot of chemicals put in the sky with people getting their 100 hours night flying!
:O

Arm out the window

23rd Feb 2013, 22:31

Helicopter licences will now require same IF time as fixed wing.

Hooray, this is one I've thought should have been happening for a long time, particularly as RW by its nature often leads you to be poking around in crappier Wx at low level than fixed wing in my experience.

Glasgow_Flyer

15th Feb 2014, 03:11

Folks - I've been playing about, but can't find my answer in any of the CASA stuff or exposure draft that I've looked at and wondering if anyone knows (I've asked CASA too to clarify, but not heard back yet).

What is the position with overseas licenses that have become invalid (i.e. I had a UK PPL which was valid until 2009). Would that allow me to convert to a CASA license (assuming demonstrating competence etc.) without a full flight test? Just planning whether to do the test or whether if I hold off I could possibly avoid the cost.

Clare Prop

15th Feb 2014, 03:21

I asked a question about this very subject by email in october. I finally got a reply last week but it didn't answer the question.

How is your licence expired? The UK licences used to be perpetual?

Oktas8

15th Feb 2014, 05:47

Glasgow-boy:

Alert: I've not seen the answer in the mess that is the Regulations, old, new, or still in gestation.

That said, I've done license conversions before for two other regulators and converted my own license to the CASA system. I have an invalid UK-issued license right now, actually.

For license conversion, a license is invalid, defunct, to-be-ignored, unless it is current and accompanied by an appropriate & current medical.

In this context, "current" means AFR or BFR not expired, at least one valid class rating, competency checks or renewals completed, and privileges able to be exercised legally right now in the home country.

Sorry for the wordiness. But I personally used to hear all the arguments as to why the rules didn't really apply to the chap in front of me. (Made some of them myself, once or twice. :E )

Never did manage to convince a regulatory bureaucrat though!

Up-into-the-air

15th Feb 2014, 06:34

Part 61:

Will this dissapear now McCormick is gone??

Does the Board have the power to continue??

If the Board thinks it has the power, where is the power in it's Charter??

Please tell me, as we appear to have a boat, without any rudder.

God speed skull!!

Glasgow_Flyer

15th Feb 2014, 08:50

Oktas - thanks. I think what you are saying is, although it is certainly not clear, it would make sense that the license your converting should be valid.

That does make sense, but it could be that the regs are trying to take all of that out of it and just recognise overseas equivalent license and displaying competency.

Perhaps what it comes down to is what would you need to do in the UK if you missed a 2 yrs review - my recollection is that requires another flight test. However, a 2.5 hr flight test, plus 2.5 hr pre test, plus test fee is a bit excessive when a grade 1 could suss competency out.

Clare - I think it is more that my UK license is no longer valid, rather than expired. It says something about it must be revalidated by some date, which it wasn't. It may end up being cheaper to get it validated again (even if it means a CAA test) and then convert - I dunno.

I've asked CASA, so will let you know what they say.

*Edit - Clare, I now notice you said you had also asked for a reply 5 mths ago - I won't hold my breath then! May give them a call during the week.

Oktas8

15th Feb 2014, 20:49

Having actually read the Information for overseas applicants document that you've undoubtably already read, I think I'll be eating my own words soon. :{ CASA talks about whether you hold or have held an overseas license. Which implies validity & currency is not important to them. Unusual, but it's their train-set I suppose.

So I'd be interested in the answer you get Glasgow-flyer.

Horatio Leafblower

15th Feb 2014, 21:36

Part 61:

Will this dissapear now McCormick is gone??

Does the Board have the power to continue??

If the Board thinks it has the power, where is the power in it's Charter??

McCormick is not gone - he's there till August, when his replacement will take over. His powers and authority would remain unchanged until that point.

There is no question of authority to implement Part 61- quite the opposite. Part 61 has the Vice-Regal approval - who would stop it now? :confused:

Mach E Avelli

15th Feb 2014, 22:45

Wherever you go in the world to convert a licence to another, the Authority should only convert that which is current, and usually only those type ratings for aircraft types or variants that exist on the new country's register. So it is surprising to see the wording 'have held' in the past tense in the current CASA rules.

So interpreting 'have held', you theoretically could have someone rock up with a lapsed 30 year old licence issued in some former colony expecting to get the equivalent licence with maybe a B 720 type rating conferring pressurized, turbine and multi engine privileges, pass a medical and then head straight into a job flying single pilot VFR in the bush with virtually no further testing.

As for repealing Part 61, not a chance. In any case, once the proposed rules are sorted, we surely will be better off with something the rest of the world will understand.
Maybe when the Skull goes a new broom will adopt the NZ model of Part 61 and the rest of the NZ stuff that makes so much easier reading. We can only hope.

kaz3g

16th Feb 2014, 00:10

All powers given to CASA under the CAA are given to the corporation. Section 9 of the Act spells out the basics but many other sections serve to add to these powers. The CEO gets his powers under delegation from the Board under section 95.

The Board is dealt with in Part VII and the Director in VIIA.

Kaz

Old Akro

16th Feb 2014, 01:12

McCormick is not gone - he's there till August, when his replacement will take over.

Yes, but I'd suggest in body only - not in spirit.

AND no committed CEO would leave before the implementation of the single major project of his era. Surely, either he's realised its a dud and wants to get out beforehand or someone above him has told him its a dud and he needs to get out of the way.

CASA discovered fatal flaws in the new part 61 licencing regulations which caused the delay. Has anyone seen any sign that these are being addressed? Until they are, I'd suggest that (Royal assent or not) they will remain in limbo.

Glasgow_Flyer

16th Feb 2014, 03:55

Theoretically, yes Mach - but I wouldn't reckon there would be too many grade 1s (or whatever the new equivalent is) willing to risk their credibility and license by signing a 30 year expired license off without really having demonstrated currency and capability.