Part61 Type/class IFR renewal

[sillograph]

What's the deal with the new 24month bracket in part 61?

If I say intend to fly 3 different types over the next 24months does it mean I need to do a renewal every 9 months?

Has anyone got the list of which aircraft fall into a class or type rating from Casa for part61?

What does his mean for the old ATO, heaps more checks for them too....

Just asking as I can't find a reference.

Tick tock

[Old Akro]

My impression is that the changes are largely semantic.

The CIR will become a perpetual rating (like PIFR) but will require annual currency. So you'll still be doing an annual flight (my recollection from the briefing discussed annual not biennial) with someone. After attending a 2.5 hour briefing it is completely unclear to me if this will be a Flight Examiner (ATO) or instructor. Mates who are ATO's and did the 2-day CASA briefing don't seem to be much clearer.

The Multi rating will cover all types up to a weight limit that CASA haven't yet decided upon (How much time do they need?). But the bet is on 5700 kg. However, it is about 99% likely that insurance companies will require type specific check flights. So in effect type ratings will remain. Also, there is a legal requirement for the pilot to be competent in the aircraft type. The easiest way to satisfy this will be an endorsement type check flight with an instructor once again Flight Examiner vs Instructor is unclear.

So, day to day I don't think there will be much effective change. Just the paperwork & bureaucracy.

"I was to learn in later life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation."
Petronius Arbiter (c AD60)

[Arm out the window]

This question came up at the Townsville briefing, and to the best of my recollection, you would need to do a type specific renewal on each in the two years, which would imply doing one every 8 months-ish to keep it manageable.

[Jabawocky]

What does his mean for the old ATO, heaps more checks for them too....

What it means is most of them and mostly good ones at that will retire. I know that is the plan and has been for 12 months for the guy who I do mine with. :{ He is a wealth of education, every time. I might just pay for him to "educate me" once a year. hahahhaha acceptable means of compliance maybe :}

AOTW.....I take it an RFDS King Air pilot who does his multi IR every year, but owns a Bonanza, will need to do a renewal in the Bo at least once every two years .......because instrument flying a B200 is just not enough :ugh:

Ohhhh and if you regularly fly a Piper Cherokee 6 and want to fly you mates Cirrus.....ohh no, get a type rating :rolleyes:

I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.

[sillograph]

After having another read I see that if you are employed by a company with an in house approved checking system you IR is only valid for the company aircraft you fly, unless you have done a renewal outside of company with say an independent ATO...

So do you even get a private ops approval for IFR flight if you want to take the family down the coast etc...

If Casa makes say a C441 and B200 or even PC12 a separate type then they are not covered by a class renewal and a check in each is required over 24m. This is fine but we then need access to ATOs with type endorsements on all, or use a separate ATO for one or anther etc.

[Old Akro]

My understanding (which I am becoming less clear about) is that twin type ratings disappear under xxxx kg (to be determined, probably 5700 kg). It will be just like a SE rating. C441 & PC12 are both under 5700kg.

The logic is that above this weight is pretty much only RPT type aircraft which will be covered by the operators systems.

The real scandal is that less than 2 months out, CASA cannot provide clear guidance on some pretty basic questions.

[Arm out the window]

I take it an RFDS King Air pilot who does his multi IR every year, but owns a Bonanza, will need to do a renewal in the Bo at least once every two years .......because instrument flying a B200 is just not enough


It seems that's about the size of it ... not the most sensible sounding concept in the world, really!

What about CASA nominate your 'most complex' type and you have to do the renewal on that at least every 2 years, and every other year on that or any other IFR type you're rated on?

Not that it worries me at the moment, the most complex instrument in my current selection of flying machines is probably the clock!

[sillograph]

Akro

5700 for the cut off on making aircraft having a type rating makes some sense, but I think I saw a line in there which said type ratings also will apply to certain single pilot aircraft as prescribed by Casa, that should cover small twin engine vlj etc and could also apply to some of the small twin turboprops.

Of we had a list it would help...

Oh yeah we still have the atpl issue of a ifr flight in a single pilot aircraft in the last 6 months. That may catch a few out if you are only flying multi crew aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

The bottom line here is this.

We have to be ICAO compliant....but we are not. So what do we end up with, a jolly mess that is not FAA/EASA/NZ CAA or any things else but a home brew. Hang on we had one of them already, and it was a lot smiler once upon a time.

Progress for ya!

What will happen is that many people outside of Airline ops are just simply going to vanish under the radar all together. Primary paints will vanish off the radar screens in all directions, even on days when you know it has to be an IFR flight.

Nobody will do IR's anymore, just a basic BFR and go feral flying and CASA will be powerless to stop it.

All they will have achieved is a reduction in safety, and to be honest they deserve what they get.

If there was only a small number of legal and compliant folk before, now there will be none. We will all be criminals.

The fact we are a month or so out from such a big change and all the "devil in the detail" stuff is only just emerging, and they have no idea themselves what it all means tells you a lot.

The changes to CTAF's and radio procedures etc over the last 10 years have been better publicised and the education materials better distributed on those matters. My PO box has been rather lacking in anything educational from CASA since the non towered aerodrome changes.

This has all the makings for a giant corkup if ever there was.

[Old Akro]

But.....I understand the new regs are not fully ICAO compliant either. I suspect we might be swapping one shandy for another.

[Arm out the window]

My PO box has been rather lacking in anything educational from CASA since the non towered aerodrome changes.


Aha! That's the problem then, you're supposed to look at that page on their website that looks a bit like one of those 'ideas diagrams' your old English teacher used to put up on the blackboard, I forget what they're called, with thought bubbles everywhere for each part connected up with multiple lines.

Makes it all abundantly clear!

[thorn bird]

At last check of my license I had 36 piston twin types, 5 twin turbine types, and ten jet types seven of which are under 5700Kg, anyone calculate how many checks a year I'm up for, and how many banks I'll have to rob to pay for it? Had a thought though, these checks should be tax deductible surely?
Now if one had a bit of cash laying about, might be a way to create a huge tax write off, and have a lot of fun doing it!!

[Horatio Leafblower]

I sat down at the pub today with a printout of the Part 61 Contents pages and my laptop, ordered a burger and a beer, and started poking about. I recommend the alcohol, it cushions the impact.

It took me 5 minutes to answer every question on this thread and it aint all that bad.

Thorn Bird, roundly speaking your single-pilot piston twins can all be covered in a MECIR renewal in that CLASS (ie: ME Fixed Wing).

Your multi-crew types should be covered by your CAR 217 checks.

If you have an ATPL but you work outside a CAR 217 org, your IFR renewals are under the same rules as now.

[Up-into-the-air]

Well:

...should be covered by your CAR 217 checks.

Should be ain't good enough

[Jabawocky]

Hey Akro
But.....I understand the new regs are not fully ICAO compliant either. I suspect we might be swapping one shandy for another.

Read again, that was my point ;)

Maybe I painted it poorly :ouch:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Yeah and I only met him once more than 10 years ago and I have no idea where he is or what his endorsements are or who he's working for and I'm not CASA.

...so what do you expect? :*

Just sit down and apply your intelligence to the rules. :ugh:

[Old Akro]

Jaba

Maybe my eyes are still crossed from the CASA presentation.

My PO box has been rather lacking in anything educational from CASA since the non towered aerodrome changes.

For me it started in 1974 when Frank Crean started cost recovery from the DCA. Its just been a merry-go-round of recycled policies since then. We're getting RPL's back. Wait for bound visual flight guides to come back too.

[Jack Ranga]

Horatio, that's all well and good and I'm sure people are taking something from what you say but if CASA can't explain the implications and repercussions?

What you want from your regulator is credibility, integrity & competence & the majority of people are seeing nothing from them

[Jabawocky]

JR

:D

That sums it up perfectly. :ok:

A lot of smart people in this game can't seem to read it once and say, yep that makes sense.

I am going to adopt the Creamie principal and that is keep doing what I am doing and be safe. Hopefully then I will be compliant with most rules.

[Jack Ranga]

That's it cuz!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ranga I can't say I disagree with you.

Doesn't really say much for CASA's recruitment policy, does it? :suspect:

[601]

It is not law until 4 December 2013 but I hear that you have to comply with it now as far as conversion training applies.

How can that be??

[Horatio Leafblower]

Same goes for ATPL applications - if you meet the requirements as they stand on December 2, and CASA has your application on December 3, bad luck because it won't be processed by December 4.

...which sounds like bull**** to me but that's what all my crew were told by CASA FCL.

[Volumex]

Same goes for ATPL applications - if you meet the requirements as they stand on December 2, and CASA has your application on December 3, bad luck because it won't be processed by December 4.

...which sounds like bull$hit to me but that's what all my crew were told by CASA FCL.

That's funny - we were told the opposite by the CASA guys at the talk last Wednesday night at Archerfield. They said as long as the application is with CASA before the 4th, then it will be processed via the existing rules.

Not surprising there are differences. We had 2 CASA fellas. One was reasonably switched on, but the other could be led round the garden path until he got dizzy and fell over.

[601]

That's funny - we were told the opposite by the CASA guys at the talk last Wednesday night at Archerfield. They said as long as the application is with CASA before the 4th, then it will be processed via the existing rules.

The same thing is happening with CAAP 215. AOC Holders and AOC Applicants who had manuals in the system before the new CAAP came into existence have until March 2016 to upgrade? to the new format.

It now appears that if you want to amend your present OM, you have to change to the new format.

We seem to have as many variations on a theme as we have employees in CASA.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I was told we didn't need to change to the new format :ugh:

Re-reading the CAAP it explicitly states that compliance with the exact format is not mandatory, but all the headings must be used even if only as "Reserved".

[sillograph]

Well if you change your current manual to the new format CAAP 215, you will then have to change it again when Part135/121 comes in anyway.

Although it may be a bit easier going from the 215 format to 135/121 than staight to 135/121.

Wait and see...

[LeadSled]

Jaba,
Had a wonderful example of the Creamie system quite recently, one chap still flying the "NOSE" rule --- hadn't yet caught with AMATS in 1992, and ICAO cruising levels and nobody had caught up with him.
Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

If he was cruising at the incorrect levels in airspace in which other people were cruising at the correct levels, he was a danger to himself and others. That’s not the ‘Creamie system’. := [T]he CAAP … states that compliance with the exact format is not mandatory, but all the headings must be used even if only as "Reserved".The decrepitude of aviation regulatory reform writ large. :yuk:

[Jabawocky]

Leadie

I get your point, but Creamie is correct, I did say....adopt the Creamie principal and that is keep doing what I am doing and be safe

They is digging a bigger hole. Even Leafie the Blower is now having second thoughts,and he is a pretty smart cookie.

See what I mean! What hope do I have :sad:

[Horatio Leafblower]

What am I having second thoughts about? :confused:

Not too sure about the Smart Cookie thing either :suspect:

[deadcut]

So whats the deal with renewing CIRs for those that are in their second year?

I am planning to renew in January.

[Old Akro]

I'd renew by DEC 4. There are many things we don't know. But I think we can be certain that there will be less ATO's (Flight Examiners) after Dec 4 and that renewals will cost more. I think its also likely that there will be a period of uncertainty will the many ambiguous parts of the new legislation are worked out.

[601]

There are many things we don't know.

We are not the only ones that know nothing

[717tech]

I was told by CASA FCL that so long as the application is processed by the 4th, you will have an ATPL. But if they have to send it back, and you don't get it back to them before the 4h... Bad luck.

[deadcut]

I'd renew by DEC 4. There are many things we don't know. But I think we can be certain that there will be less ATO's (Flight Examiners) after Dec 4 and that renewals will cost more. I think its also likely that there will be a period of uncertainty will the many ambiguous parts of the new legislation are worked out.

Ahhh god damn it. There is no way ill be able to get my leave changed now...
Even casa can't give me a straight answer and they are the legislators!

[BPA]

Jeff Boyd from Brindabella Airlines and the RAAA wrote in article recently regarding the cost to industry due to the introduction of the new maintenance regulations. He compared Australia's change (full rewrite) to New Zealand who basicly copied the FAA with a few minor changes. The industry costs in NZ were basically nothing and switched over to the new regulations overnight. Other smaller countries are now adopting the NZ regulations.

[Old Akro]

Jeff Boyd from Brindabella Airlines and the RAAA wrote in article recently regarding the cost to industry due to the introduction of the new maintenance regulations.

Its an outstanding article (actually I think it might be the transcript of a speech). Its worth reading.

[601]

Its an outstanding article

Any link available?

[Old Akro]

Try this

September | 2013 | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?m=201309)

[Captain Nomad]

It is indeed very odd that there has been extremely little communication about what is going to happen on the changeover. I'm a working ATPL holder and I have not received a single communication from CASA letting me know what changes are taking place and how it will affect me. Not everybody lives in a capitol city and can attend their information sessions either (the only communication I have received: an email advising me of an information session to be held 9 hours drive away from where I live).

Absolute chaos!

The lack of definitive answers and conflicting information here shows just how poorly this is being implemented IMHO. For an organisation that has 'Safety' in its name it seems to be going about change in the exact opposite way to that which would engender safety positive outcomes...

[roundsounds]

There is a heap of information on the CASA website regarding the new CASR Part 61 reg's and Part 142 etc. It would seem to me as professionals reading the new regs first hand is a better approach than relying on forums, ATOs or mates to understand the implications. They are a bit dry, but not difficult to understand and a lot of the what-ifs posed on this topic can quickly be resolved.

[thorn bird]

The part 61 regs are fairly straightforward at first glance, where it gets murky is all the ancillary stuff and of course the FOI of the day morphing something fairly straightforward into something unintelligible. We should keep in mind that its not the reg's we have to comply with, its the opinions of the FOI of the day.

[601]

It would seem to me as professionals reading the new regs first hand is a better approach than relying on forums,

Have to disagree with that.

Back in the good old days when we had meetings every 3 months at AF with CASA, AirServices, ATSB and BOM, any new legislation was subject to a lot of scrutiny by CFIs and CP based in SE Qld.

We could pick the legislation to pieces, suggest changes or get clarifications if needed. If the FOIs could not supply an answer, they would go further up the ladder and get an answer that would be presented at the next meeting.

The meetings often had the person who was the Project Leader to give a first hand account on the why and wherefores of the legislation.

We also had the chance to speak one-on-one to voice concerns specific to your operation of qualifications.

Reading a publication on the web and then getting advice or clarification from an individual FOI is a recipe for disaster. You will get as many variations in advice as the numbers of FOIs in CASA.

Forums where CASA just present a PP show with no opportunity for feedback and response are a waste of time.

[Old Akro]

At the CASA forum I went to, the CASA guys didn't know the answer to some of the problem areas. The ATO's (multiple) that I know that went to the 2 day CASA seminar don't understand it.

[roundsounds]

601 - that system still exists, even more so now than "the good old days". The process of changing rules and providing feedback is much more accessible to everyone now, not just the big city folk. There's no chance of having input after the new regs are signed off in parliament. If you genuinely want to be involved with changing the regs get onto the CASA website and sign up for notification of changes. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_91070
I'm not a CASA fan but I believe the chance to get involved with influencing the changes has improved, particularly if you don't live near the big smoke. The Part 61 stuff ain't going away and there's plenty of information available on the CASA site (the regs, MOS and explanatory info). Here's a chance to know more about the regs than the FOIs.

[Mach E Avelli]

Slightly off subject, and looking for correction if I am wrong:

1. My understanding is that if you hold a current ATO, it will automatically become a Flight Examiner Rating (FER) after 4th December.
However, you will not be able to exercise the privileges of that rating until you have attended one of the CASA PDP briefings.

2. The IR is permanently valid and is attached to the licence, but to be used, requires a proficiency check/test to have been signed off by an examiner within the time frame - this could be 12 months or a continuous cyclic program if agreed between CASA and the operator. It is up to the pilot to maintain his/her 90 day recency to use the IR.

3. A proficiency check in an aircraft above 5700kg allows the IR to be used on that type only. This is the main difference, because as the legislation currently stands, you can do a CIR in a light twin and use it to fly a heavy jet - provided that you are current on that jet in other respects such as recency in take-off and landings.

4. A proficiency check on a twin turbo prop (for example) of 5700 kg or less would be good for any twin turboprop in that weight range. Ditto a piston twin. There may still be exceptions - such as the MU2 - which require a specific check.

5. A qualification on, say, a twin turboprop of 5700 kg or less will entitle a pilot who is current and has been familiarised with the systems etc to fly ANY similar sized aircraft e.g. a King Air pilot could read the POH and jump into a C441. Again with the exception of something less benign like the MU2. Insurance requirements aside, no check on type required if current in other respects (BFR as the minimum?). Much like the way it is in the USA.

I am using the term 'proficiency check' because as yet I don't know what they are going to call it if the IR itself is permanently valid.

Someone -anyone - who has done the PDP already, please correct the above.

[Mainframe]

Mach E Avelli

1. Correct, ATO's become Flight Examiners (FER A or FER H or both depending on existing delegation)

2.mostly correct, IR is permanently valid, proficiency check on type valid 24 months, if you have multiple types, each type requires a current valid Prof check.
Class endorsement not same as Type. i.e ME A, SE A, ME H, SE H.

All single engine are class, possible Type for PC12 / TBM etc.

Most piston twins are class, similar to existing SE <5700 Kg

IR recency is 90 days per aid, ILS no longer 35 days, now 90.

Instrument approaches now IAP 2D (2 dimensional, ADF VOR etc)

or IAP 3D (3 Dimension, vertical component, e.g. ILS)

2D approaches now 2 types, azimuth indicator e.g. ADF needle or CDI, e.g. VOR. each has to be tested at initial issue and 90 recency maintained for both types.

3. A "Type" proficiency check is specifically for that type, a class proficiency covers the class.

4. Mostly correct.

I have attended both the general info seminar on new regs (Part 61, EFB's etc) and the PDP.

It's a brave new world out there, but at your next interaction with CLARC after 4th Dec 2013 you will get a new Part 61 licence with everything grandfathered across.

Your 24 month cycle starts then.

CAR 5.21 holders will be granted a FIR (Flight Instructor Rating) reflecting existing priviledges.

And Part 61 is already in the process of being amended and will continue to be until most anomalies are addressed.

Bad news for C208 operators, more than 9 pax ops require 2 crew.

[Mach E Avelli]

Much appreciated.

[training wheels]

It's a brave new world out there, but at your next interaction with CLARC after 4th Dec 2013 you will get a new Part 61 licence with everything grandfathered across.

Your 24 month cycle starts then.

Thanks for that Mainframe. My CASA MECIR has expired by more than 2 years (as I'm currently flying overseas on a foreign license). So does this mean, after December 4th, my MECIR will automatically become 'perpetual' and all I need to do to have a valid MECIR, is a proficiency check on each of the aids I have on the license?

How does the 'proficiency check' flight test differ from the old system 'MECIR renewal' ? Or is it exactly the same, but just a different term?

[601]

If you genuinely want to be involved with changing the regs get onto the CASA website and sign up for notification of changes.

Been there, done that.
However, nothing beats a face to face discussion.

If this method is so good, why is there so much anguish in the aviation community with all these changes.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Because, 601, everyone is hearing rumours at the airport and reading the panic on PPRuNe and then spreading rumours at airports which are then amplified on PPRuNe.

If you sit down and read the regs, like Mainframe and Mach E have done, and think it through by applying your own expeience, you will find that it all makes sense (even if there is some bad news in it).

Congratulations to those who have done their homework, like good professional pilots, and are now spreading the good oil.

[Creampuff]

Regulation 61.090 says:A person’s flight time as pilot in command of an aircraft is the duration of a flight for which the person is the pilot in command of the aircraft.

Regulation 61.010 defines duration, of a flight, to mean:(a) for a flight in an aeroplane or gyroplane—the time from the moment the aircraft begins moving, whether or not under its own power, in preparation for flight until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight; or …Does that mean the PIC logs flight time as PIC starting from the point she EZ tows the aeroplane out of the hangar in preparation for a flight? :confused:

[training wheels]

For aeroplanes, it probably means time from 'pushback', rather than from 'taxi' .. an increase of about 2 to 3 minutes in the logbook for your flight time I guess.

[Arm out the window]

If you shout out "Request pushback" prior to pushing it out of the hangar onto the tarmac, you can start logging hours from that point. If you do it blindfolded, you can log instrument time.

[Creampuff]

So the clock starts when the PIC pulls the aircraft out of the hangar in preparation for a flight, keeps going while she does the daily inspection in preparation for the flight, keeps going when she taxis over to fill up with fuel in preparation for the flight, keeps going while she whips into the hangar for a nervous wee in preparation for the flight, and only stops once the aircraft ‘comes to rest’ at the end of the flight for which she was preparing? :confused:

And another thing…

What’s the definition of “aircraft class rating”?

[Vincent Chase]

So my instrument rating expires the end of this month, as of the 4th of dec will it automatically be valid again until oct 2014 as I have completed a renewal within 24 months?

Being on active hold with an airline that requires a valid instrument rating, but not needing one for my current job I'm hoping to save paying for a renewal?

Funny how 4 years in GA I've had it paid for every time, then I finally get a potential airline job and have to pay myself.

And yes I've read all the briefing material, no I couldn't find the answer myself, no CASA couldn't answer the question with 100% certainty either.

[Mach E Avelli]

Creamie, you shouldn't joke about logging of flight time! In India, that approximates how some do log their flight time. On another thread someone mentioned an Indian pilot who at the tender age of 25 had already logged 9000 hours. Technically it's possible - 1000 hours a year from age 16 could be legal. But no pilot I ever met had that much money or wanted to work that hard.

My take on the 'class' rating bit is that they are trying to define such niceties as whether it's a pressurized, retractable, twin turbo-prop (e.g. King Air) versus, say a single-engine, fixed gear, turbo prop (e.g. Caravan), but just how it is defined, dunno.

'Type' rating is specific to a type, but generally in future will only be applicable above 5700 kg. But I may be reading it wrong, so someone correct me if so.

[Creampuff]

It’s been a long time since it was only a joke. It became a sick joke years ago, and now it seems that a decade or so of work has resulted in continuing greyness.

When a pilot pulls the trusty 172 out of the hangar to go flying, the aircraft has, literally, begun moving in preparation for flight.

Are we now going to spend a few decades arguing that the new definition doesn’t mean what it says? :ugh::ugh:

Like you, I understand the concept of aircraft class ratings. I’m trying to work out what they are defined to mean in fact and, like you, I dunno!And yes I've read all the briefing material, no I couldn't find the answer myself, no CASA couldn't answer the question with 100% certainty either.This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.

[Mach E Avelli]

The way to fix spurious logging of flight time - at least in GA - would be to introduce law to require the aircraft maintenance log time to be the same as any pilot time claimed, less maybe 10 minutes per sector allowable for ground running. Charge it out that way, too.

What a gravy train that would be for those who hire out aircraft! Much reduced wear and tear, maintenance done well before it's needed and amazingly low fuel burns. Hell, find me some students who want to play it that way and I will go into the light aircraft business myself.

Matching up maintenance release time against fuel invoices and charge-out times against pilot log book entries has to be one of the easiest things to audit. So let's have more of these audits (and less CASA stressing about whether the index in the Ops Manual is up to date) if it means we can nail the lying swine who Parker pen flight time. And those other lying swine who fiddle maintenance time in the other direction.

[Mach E Avelli]

Vincent Chase, an IR renewal is still only good for 12 months. Not to be confused with a BFR at 24 months. If done in an appropriate aircraft or simulator, an IR could count as a BFR, i.e. you would get a year's use of the IR and two year's use of the aircraft, or any other aircraft that the BFR entitled you to fly.
Airline cyclic programs are a different situation. These can be tailored so that the IR never needs renewing as a separate exercise.

[training wheels]

Instrument approaches now IAP 2D (2 dimensional, ADF VOR etc)

or IAP 3D (3 Dimension, vertical component, e.g. ILS)

I find this intriguing. So does this mean that the aids that you're endorsed on, will now no longer appear printed on your license? Mind you, I hold two other ICAO licenses from foreign countries and they too, don't make any references to the any aids on your license. The assumption is, if you hold an instrument rating, then you are qualified to fly all types of instrument approaches.

[farmer dan]

If for instance you have a MECIR with all the aids and it expired in September of this year. On the old system, if it has expired by less than a year, you can still do a renewal (ie do a NDB in the air and the rest in the sim). Is that still the case with part 61? I have been searching through the regs with no luck. Thanks in advance.

[ZAZ]

I agree
I am PPL and did 21 renewals from Class 3 to Class 1 then CIR SEA
about 6 years ago went PIFR and 20 months between renewals did same amount of prep work (about 6-10 hours) and got a tick on all the boxes.
I am now up for third review (as disstinct to a CIR renewal) and find if you get the right ATO it can be beneficial if you get the worng ATO it can be a PIA.
So YOU pick and choose who when and where..
If you can demonstrate IFR proficiency it will show in your flying.

I remember in 2005 after being overseas for 2 years doing 3 flight exams in 12 month period and came to conclussion it was unnecessary.
If you can fly on instruments and taught properly you will be OK

I dont agree with a dual test BFR/AFR and PIFR that is garbage so you make sure your ATO will write the appropriate wording in your log book
i.e. The CIR renewal also consitutes a PIFR review.
OR
The PIFR review constitutes also a BFR/AFR review.
and get him to sign it..
Or pay double whatever..

Also hope in the 2 year period that CIR recency is mandatory not suggested as it currently is in PIFR.
Suggested?
How weak is that?

2 cents

[manymak]

Does anyone know if a final version for this Type Rating list has been released?


http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/061/download/casr61-determ.pdf

[CYHeli]

Manymak, as far as most can tell it is still under review until the 25th Oct.
We are still waiting for parts of the MOS to be released.

Might be prior to Dec. we hope.:ugh:

[Captain Nomad]

Seems to be quite a few CP jobs up for grabs lately... I wonder why... :rolleyes: :suspect:

[Mach E Avelli]

Interesting that the proposed Type Rating list includes types that can no longer be registered here, or are long gone from our skies - such as B737-100/200, B-720, Convair 340. WTF? But they forgot to include the Viscount - bugger!

[ZAZ]

CASA said at seminar last night there will be reviews and renewals
renewal and proficiency checks???
You can fail the renwal but the proficiency check can involve suggestive corrections to your errors

I have CIR expired
Subject to renewal
PIFR due subject to Review.

I am confused about how the FPAs will be translated to the 2D and 3D nAvs and all the other little joys in the list


I like the bit about a PPL becoming an instructor

Watch this space ;lol

[training wheels]

Any further updates as to what's involved in an MECIR renewal under the new regulations? Has the MOS been released?

[ZAZ]

Say again all after pulling plane out and putting it away?
On that score I have 10,000 hours not 5000 LOL

[josephfeatherweight]

Apologies in advance for a lazy post...
Anyone seen anything regarding changes that may affect the ability of one to conduct a MECIR renewal in an overseas simulator?
Ta.

[PilotWA123]

A proficiency check in an aircraft above 5700kg allows the IR to be used on that type only. you can do a CIR in a light twin and use it to fly a heavy jet - provided that you are current on that jet in other respects such as recency in take-off and landings. Is it still stand with the new rules anyone know? This new regulation is driving me crazy lol

[Car RAMROD]

Sorry to say it, but no, under the new regs your renewal in a light twin (say, Baron) wont cover you for anything that requires a type rating (including the Metros over 5700kg, B350, B1900 etc).

So, cant do a renewal in a little baby Metro and fly a big Metro, nor can you do a renewal in a B200 and fly a B350.

Make sense? Not to me. Glad I wont be the one paying for all these extra requirements Part 61 will put on industry, I just feel sorry for those that have to shell out.

Didn't someone once say that what we can do now, we can do after the new rules come out?

[Mach E Avelli]

:\Re use of overseas simulators, it's all in Part 142.
The process to have an overseas training facility approved by CASA is easy.
Simply obtain a copy of the facility's exposition, current simulator approval and fidelity status, the syllabus for the course you propose to complete, fill in the application and wait for the CASA quote.
Their quote will be all-inclusive of FOI review time (currently $160 an hour), visa application fees, business class travel, per diems (at the ATO maximum approved rates) and five star accommodation. Plus, you may be the beneficiary of the CASA FOI's wisdom as he observes your training and check ride.

Or, unless you seek a rating on an exotic type not supported by a local simulator, you could stay closer to home. We do have simulators in Australia that cover types that you are most likely to need for a job.

[PilotWA123]

Thx Car for the info.
I'm currently 737 outside Australia. The company usually send us to Boeing Singapore for our prof check just for the sake for the recency. And I usually return to Australia for my IR renewal just to keep my license valid. What I'm thinking is if our license doesn't stated the expire date then we prob be able to continue? I don't know...