No more Student Pilot Licences

[Lasiorhinus]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/061/download/part61-briefing-doc.pdf

From our esteemed Regulator today, this "minor update" to CASR 61,

CASA recognises the requirement for a student pilot to hold a licence to conduct a solo flight is
unnecessary. Consequently, CASA proposes to remove the Student Pilot Licence (SPL) from CASR
Part 61.

Student pilots: (61.A.3.1): The requirement for a student pilot to hold a licence has been
deleted; however, medical and English language standards have been retained. The
minimum age for student pilots has been lowered from 16 to 15 years. Instructors and Part
141/142 operators will also be required to ensure student pilots satisfy the specified
requirements prior to authorising them to conduct solo flights.

[Nomde plume]

If it looks too good to be true....


Glad to see the regulator eliminating some of the BS around flight training. Now what happens to the requirement to hold an ASIC?

[Old Akro]

It was covered in the CASA briefing on Wednesday. But there are many, many unanswered questions. Like What happens to the old security check requirement, how someone transfers between schools, what happens about the old taxi & radio licences, what happens about getting a medical without an ARN. How can a student go solo at (say) Moorabbin without an ASIC? How do the get an ASIC without an ARN? If they are going to be issued with ARN's then how is this different to a student licence?

The bigger questions come in with ATO's becoming flight examiners. Multi type rating being abolished. ATPL having the IFR rating incorporated into it (What happens to tourist charter ATPL's who don't regularly fly IFR? If the IFR rating becomes not current, does the ATPL as well?)

Part 141 schools will be able to use PPL licenced instructors for some specialist training (eg aerobatics). Does this mean the hire or reward restrictions are being lifted? Or are these guys expected to instruct for free? How does that impact on the school's AOC?

All of these are questions raised on Wednesday night that the CASA reps were unable to answer.

[Nomde plume]

Akro I think the ARN application process is a lot easier than the SPL application. A fax and a few phone calls can have in done in a day or two. As for the rest of your concerns I think CASA will take the 'suck it and see' approach to ironing the bugs out of the new regs. 12 months of amendments and exemptions later, we will basically have what the old system consisted of, exactly what they set out to change.

I wanna know what's happening to the flight examiner's insurance dilemma. I believe a lot of ATOs won't be testing come December if something isn't done about it!

[avconnection]

You can be issued a "temporary" or "preliminary" ARN which becomes your ARN when you are able to hold a licence. This was the process in the past for young students who were too young to hold an SPL but required an ARN for registration of a pass in theory.

[YPJT]

Now what happens to the requirement to hold an ASIC?
The regulations pertaining to ASICs are nothing to do with CASA. They are merely one of many issuing bodies that can process applications.
How do the get an ASIC without an ARN?
I wouldn't see this as an insurmountable problem. All that needs to be demonstrated for the issue of an ASIC is an operational need. Other documentation or verfication by the school could satisfy this requirement. For example in the case of a non-pilot applicant, a signed declaration or letter from an employer is usually sufficient.

[Nomde plume]

From the CASA FAQ on ASIC/AVID:

Q: Are pilots still allowed to fly without an ASIC?

Yes. Pilots only need to have submitted an application for an AVID or an ASIC to operate an aircraft. The application will be processed and appropriate background checks undertaken prior to the AVID or ASIC being issued to an eligible pilot.


Also,
If you want to use your CASA issued flight crew licence and you do not require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has RPT operations, you must apply for a background security check and you will be issued with an AVID provided your checks are successful. This does not apply if you are under 18.

Can't find anything in the new regs that changes this, my question is, if anyone knows, do you need ASIC/AVID to go solo now that you don't have a 'flight crew licence'?

[garrya100]

I asked the question at a CASA seminar if the holder of a PPL instructor endorsement could be paid for their work and the answer was affirmative. I haven't seen anything in the legislation to back that up though

[dubbleyew eight]

when I looked the Juliar requirement was that every pilot held an asic.

once.

there was no actual requirement to renew them unless you flew into a security controlled airfield.

[Nomde plume]

Garry I also heard this could be done outside a part 141/142 operator? Am I the only one that think that's a bit reckless? Given the scrutiny that flying schools get regarding supervision and operational approvals...

[LeadSled]

Does this mean the hire or reward restrictions are being lifted?

What Hire and Reward restrictions, with all due respect, this is a very misunderstood area in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

is training moving into the flying clubs environment like england?

[garrya100]

I didn't ask about not being connected to a 141/142 operator, but I guess it depends on what you're delivering. You can only deliver training on endorsements that you hold, and not deliver RPPL or PPL training.

It's not particularly difficult to delivery training and sign off on CSU/retract, but I do wonder about aerobatics etc.

I also wonder about who then is responsible for training records etc and will the endorser have to retain records for 7 years (as you need to as a RTO) and who then is fit to ensure competency if your not attached to a 141/142 operator.

I guess time will tell

[Clare Prop]

I'm at the PDP next month but recently asked a CASA guy what would happen to the people who hold a GFPT if there were to be no student licences (which aren't required in other countries I have instructed in, also no such thing as a GFPT anywhere else, just NFT and GFT), expecting to be told they would need to do a flight test depending on whether they wanted RPL or PPL.

The answer was that they would be "given a PPL". :confused:

So...no PPL theory, no PPL flight test etc..."Given a PPL".

Did this come up at any of the other PDPs? I just find it really hard to believe, especially as until pretty recently the GFPT flight test form didn't even comply with the Day VFR Syllabus. Personally I've always felt it was a waste of time as it gives no credits towards the PPL flight test (isn't even mentioned in the ATOM) and the whole idea of student pilots whizzing about with passengers was something I have always been uncomfortable with.

Would be interesting to know. I giess I'll find out sometime in the two days I have to close up shop and try to stay awake in a stuffy room.....

[Nomde plume]

Clare prop, are you an ATO? If so, What's happening with indemnity insurance?

[Aussie Bob]

Clare: This was extensivly discussed at the PDP I went to. A GFPT holder will not get a PPL, they will get the new RPL which is a recreational pilots license. 20 nm limit and 1500 kgs I think but can't remember the exact points. Perhaps only one pax as well.

[garrya100]

Pax depends on the medical you hold. Drivers licence medical = 1 pax, class 1 or 2 and you can fill all seats

The reasoning for 1500kg is that would limit you to a 4 seater anyhow.

[Clare Prop]

Thanks guys, I thought it would be an RPL but the guy I spoke to said PPL and I thought it sounded a bit odd.

Will they just get given one or will there be a requirement for some kind of recency or check seeing as some of them might not have flown for a while and used to just need a quick dual check which could be done by a Grade Three and it could have been years since they did the GFPT??

Yes I am an ATO and must confess I haven't looked too closely into the indemnity thing. I was going to see what came along at the PDP, perhaps someone who has been to one can answer that?

[Nomde plume]

I believe there will be some form of test as they will have certain privileges like signing maintenance releases, and there is no requirement for an instructors authorisation any more.

I really hope the indemnity issue gets resolved soon!

[Clare Prop]

Nomde, could you run through the indemnity issue briefly here? I seem to remember this came up a few years ago and was resolved?

[Nomde plume]

Well as an ATO, you're a delegate of CASA. Therefore you are indemnified against any errors or omissions you may make by CASA. For example: If you renew an instrument rating for a pilot who then goes and kills himself and six pax in IMC and investigation determines that, for whatever reason, the pilot did not meet proficiency standards. The families of the passenger sue CASA, not you, for giving said pilot an approval to fly in those conditions, as you were simply acting as a delegate.

Now as a 'flight examiner' you act on your own and are therefore liable for such errors and omissions. You would be required to take out your own professional indemnity insurance, like a lawyer or dentist.

I did ask the CASA bloke at a seminar about this a few months back, but got no definitive answer other than CASA were 'aware' of it.

[dubbleyew eight]

thank heavens they are fixing the maint release nonsense.
my son has unrestricted gliding and ultralight licences but as yet can't sign a maint release on a VH reg aircraft because of his GFPT. stupid arrangement.

[LeadSled]

I really hope the indemnity issue gets resolved soon!

Your wish has been granted, you are on your own, if you are a CASA delegate, but not a CASA employee, PI insurance is up to you.
Best of luck, for an ATO the quotes seem to vary from about $9000 per years to double that.
You will no longer be covered by CAAP Admin. 1, as was the case until now.
Tootle pip!!

[Aussie Bob]

Has CASA ever been sued for the actions of an ATO? There was some paranoia expressed at the PDP I attended over this, but in my case I am just thinking of taking my chances. I am certainly NOT paying any hefty premiums.

[Old Akro]

Has CASA ever been sued for the actions of an ATO?

I'm rusty on this, but its very difficult (and may effectively not be possible) to sue the government. While ATO's are acting as instruments of CASA they are effectively immune from prosecution. CASA must be sued, not the individual ATO. As Flight Examiners there will be no such protection and (assuming the Flight Examiner has assets he/she is fond of) they are on their own.

I operate in an unusual niche of consulting engineering. Its quite low risk, but there are not many guys doing this in Australia - probably a similar number of guys as there are ATO's. In my experience, if Insurers don't have an existing "pidgeon hole" to categorise your activity then you will have trouble getting anyone to quote - let alone secure insurance. When I was originally looking for insurance I ended up hearing a lot of dial tones. One of the problems that I see for insurance for ATO's is that there is no existing market. Today there is no need for anyone to hold such insurance. This changes overnight on Dec 3. Insurers will be issuing policies with no experience or history on which to base their risk assessments.

My personal professional indemnity is about $8k pa. I could see ATO's being twice this - at least for the first few years while an insurance record is established. This would put ATO's in a similar bracket with obstetricians.

My activity has a short "comet trail". A year or so after my work, the risk is virtually extinguished. An ATO's risk might go back many years - or decades. Take the current Hempel case. In the Flight Examiner environment you can see the courts going back to the person who issued his original commercial licence.

ATO's within part 142 schools are likely to be better off because the activity will be bundled in the totality of the schools operation. Independent ATO's are likely to be in trouble and in order to have insurance in place on December 4 my experience is that you would need to be submitting an application right now. Insurance companies are likely to take a number of weeks and come back with supplementary questions before issuing cover.

I might be wrong. I hope I am. But in my experience as soon as insurers hear the word aviation their attitude seems to change.

The government made a similar stuff up with doctors in hospitals somewhere about 1999 / 2000 (from memory). It resulted in a lot of doctors withdrawing services then and the government rushing through amended legislation. They seemed to have learned nothing in the intervening years.

[training wheels]

So with the ATO's (or whatever they'll be called now) having to seek their own professional indemnity insurance, we can now expect a huge increase in the cost of a flight test, MECIR renewal, BFR, etc. Thank you CASA! :mad:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The stupidity of this is that the CASA position is ideological, not a matter of cost.
As posted elsewhere, Bruce Byron admitted that adding industry delegates to CASA employee delegates did not raise the premiums.
CASA had the buying power.
Tootle pip!!

[Clare Prop]

How about if the examiner is doing the examining as the director of a Pty Ltd company and carries public liability insurance?

Sorry if the questions are naïve, I really haven't had a chance to study this in any depth yet.

[garrya100]

I don't think public liability would cover it, but would director's insurance? It's supposed to protect directors from such things and also the bad deeds of their fellow directors.

Some of the boards I sit on have directors insurance to protect the organization if one of the directors does something illegal or puts the organization in jepody

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The real answer is for all the ATOs to get together and approach the Minister, and let him know that aviation will grind to a halt unless this is reversed, making certain he understands it is NOT a cost issue, it is a semi-religious conviction withing a certain group in CASA ---- who want to see the industry squeezed to death.

To quote one of those involved: " There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military".

Tootle pip!!

[Aussie Bob]

Leadsled, while I appreciate your comments and mostly agree with your views, here I fail to see the issue.

1. How many deaths/injuries have come about involving freshly issued license holders where the ATO would be considered liable?
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?

With all due respect, a lot of paranoia seen at the recent PDP and on this forum is due to a mindset purposely created by insurance companies who wish to sell policy. They preach that life is not safe without insurance and promote "worst case scenario". You folk believe them.

I am one ATO who will not consider any indemnity insurance, happy to take my chances.

[Jack Ranga]

Hope you have no assets in your name Bob ;)

[garrya100]

I deliver training in occupations that could be seen as dangerous, and could result in the death of the worker and/or innocent bystanders if something went wrong. A bit like flying instruction of it goes wrong.

When the new rules about competency came into my industry this started much discussion about liability and when the responsibility of the trainer finished, particularly when there is no requirement for recurrent training, and when at what point a trainees competency expired.

The end result was that the rules now accept that the trainee is only competent at the time of their test. At any other time it is the responsibility of the trainee to retain their competency. If the aviation industry follows the same guidelines (the rules for the training industry is standardized ), the only time an instructor is assuring the candidate is competent is at the completion of their test. His liability lapses after this time.

Here's hoping flight training follows the same rules.

[T28D]

Even if Bob has no assets in his name the facts are that if there is a claim against him he will take the liability to his grave, in other words you cannot duck the award of costs and orders to compensate by attempting to hide assets.

The liability sits with you until you discharge it, a really dangerous situation.

Not smart as your Children and grandchildren would find out as your estate is taken by the court to satisfy the liability !!!!!!!!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Aussie Bob
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?

Suppose the pilot just keeps their PPL. Who seriously thinks the family is going to be happy just going after the Grade 2 who conducted the last flight review/proficiency check?
You going to have to maintain the insurance policy for seven years after your last test was conducted the way things are standing.

[Aussie Bob]

How many of you blokes buy Tattslotto tickets? I can see you are all into extremly long odds.

[Jack Ranga]

I don't buy tattslotto tickets & when I bet on a horse it's usually the favourite. I think I read somewhere that half the cost of a new Cessna was product liability insurance, i.e. 250k on a C182. To cover the family sueing Cessna when the family of an incompetent pilot crashes. This was a while back so may have changed a little.

I would be wanting definitive legal advice that I wasn't personally liable if it was proven I acted reasonably before I was operating under such a system. Maybe it's time the aviation industry grew some nuts and refused to operate until law reflects the true liability.................lol, sorry, grew some nuts ;) that was funny!

[Old Akro]

I can give you the names of some guys that wished the odds were as long as Aussie Bob hopes. Even if you are innocent it doesn't take long to burn through $100 k.

The risk of signing out PPL's might not be high, but the lawyers get a new persons to add into legal claims after December 4.

I've lost track of the Moorabbin / RVAC midair court case. But I could see the Flight examiners being joined in every one of those legal actions. Every time an ATSB raise questions about the pilot in a report it will be ammunition for a lawyer to look for the Flight Examiner who said the pilot was qualified to fly.

The odds might be long, but you are gambling with your house and the ability to continue to earn an income as a flight examiner. One Pelair or Hempel or Canley Vale or Moorabbin mid-air incident will be enough to wipe you out, even if you are innocent.

I'd be paying the PI insurance.

[Creampuff]

I would be wanting definitive legal advice that I wasn't personally liable if it was proven I acted reasonably before I was operating under such a system.Good thinking. :ok:

Because claims against instructors/ATOs so rarely happen, the kind of folklore that’s manifested in some of the confused and ill-informed nonsense in this thread can persist.

Delegates are independent of the delegator and, absent some statutory protection (commonly known as an ‘immunity from suit’ provisions) or agreement between the delegator and delegates, the delegates are ‘on their own’ so far as liability is concerned. (The situation has relatively recently been complicated by s 34AB(1)(c) of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act.)

Hence the wonderful piece of ambiguous nonsense that is CAAP ADMIN-1. The number of people who’ve carried on over the decades, believing that a fading piece of dog-eared napkin issued by an entity that no longer exists would provide guaranteed ‘cover’ for them if something went wrong, is laughable.

If you do stuff that could expose you to potential liability, do yourself a favour and get some advice from an expert about what to do about it. (You’ll know the experts: they have professional indemnity insurance.)

[Aussie Bob]

If you do stuff that could expose you to potential liability, do yourself a favour and get some advice from an expert about what to do about it. (You’ll know the experts: they have professional indemnity insurance.)

Yes Creamie, lets go to the very folk who profit from insurance for advice. naturally their advice is get insurance so their profit continues.

I dunno the answer but I did note in the recent PDP that at 53 years of age I was a youngster amongst my peers. There I met (again) the ATO who gave me my CPL plus the first FOI I ever dealt with, both with at least a decade more age than I. At this rate the industry is aging way way faster than new instructors are arriving. In a decade or less it will all be over.

So: Let's all shell out say 8K for insurance, pop $500.00 onto each and every test to pay for it and hasten the demise. Chuck in SIDS, declining student numbers, ever more onerous legislation blah blah blah and the party is over.

RPT and military, your right Leadie ...

[Creampuff]

Then don’t get the advice. Easy. :ok:

BTW: how often has the ATO who gave you your PPL been sued for negligence in the exercise of his/her ATO powers?

[Old Akro]

The whole point is that ATO's cannot be sued. So the answer to " How often has the ATO ......." is NEVER.

That all changes on Dec 4.

Aussie Bob makes a good point that a lot of the ATO's are very senior people in the industry. Some will decide its no longer worth the effort and not become a Flight Examiner. Some will pay the PI insurance and spread it across their entire activity and put up their rates 10-15% ( at a guess). Some will spread the PI over the ATO work. In which case the cost of licence tests, CIR renewals, endorsements, etc may well double.

The only thing we really know is that everything will get harder after Dec 4 and that CASA have known this for some time and have done nothing / don't care.

[Creampuff]

"ATOs cannot be sued."

I envy the blissful comfort of complete ignorance. :ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have spoken to my insurance brokers about the PI issue a number of times and their answer is "we don't know".

...that's professional indemnity, not personal liability or public liability. They are all different insurance products covering seperate legal issues.

My brokers say they don't know the size of the problem, the size of the ATO body, the likely premiums, they know nothing - and they are one of the larger aviation specialist brokers. They haven't had any other enquiries about it either.

I find some of the hysteria on this thread concerning, not least because we have aparrently experienced CFIs, instructors and ATOs who do not seem to have read the legislation. Add to that the CASA instructor's reported inability to answer ill-informed questions with anything approaching credibility or authority, and we have a massive issue with English language comprehension in this industry.

My solicitors and accountants have a disclaimer on the bottom of their letterhead to the effect that they participate in a liability limitation scheme approved by (insert professional body here). If General Aviation in this country was anything other than the fractured, egoitistical self-interested sewer that it is, I could imagine such a scheme might assist ATOs in this matter. :ugh:

Have a great weekend :*

[Jack Ranga]

Or the industry as a whole could grow some nuts & force the government into change. Like they have in other countries that have nuts. But by the looks of things some of you are willing to put your nuts on the line. They must be pretty big nuts.

[Derfred]

So what's the situation in the rest of the world? We don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel do we?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

What 'WE' NEED .....is a 'Unionised / 'Team' approach'....

Which is precisely what 'WE' Do NOT have.........pity...

Imagine IF the WHOLE of the industry 'got together' and 'reamed it' to the Gummint......the Gummint would HAVE to sit up and take notice....???

No cheers....:sad: