Multi-engine NVFR charter ops - yes? No?

[Virtually There]

This came up today and despite the consensus being "No", no-one could actually find a reference.

If you have a CPL with a multi-engine NVFR rating - but no MECIR - can you conduct NVFR passenger charter ops in a twin?

CAAP 5.13-2(0) states the privileges of a NVFR rating do "NOT authorise the holder to conduct charter (CHTR) operations (except marine pilot transfers in helicopters)" . . .

. . . except the above CAAP is now 10 years old and the reference to CAO 40.2.2 is no longer valid, as it has been updated in line with Part 61.

CAR 174B refers to NVFR charter ops in single-engined aircraft, but makes no reference to ratings (NVFR, IR or otherwise).

Part 61 simply states the holder of a multi-engine NVFR rating can "Pilot an aeroplane at night under the VFR".

Can anyone point to any regulation that would prevent a CPL pilot with a multi-engine NVFR rating conducting NVFR charter ops with PAX in a twin?

Because a bunch of us have spent the better part of a day trying to find it to no avail! :}

Thanks. :O

[The name is Porter]

Just try it and see how it goes :ok:

[duyen]

Epic reply!

[zanthrus]

No. You must hold a current IR. But as Porter says go for it!

[asdf84000]

I found CAO 40.2.2 tricky to find on the web. Here is the relevant extract from 2004.

CAO 40.2.2 Appendix 1
3 AUTHORITY GIVEN BY RATING
3.1 Subject to subsections 5 and 6, a night V.F.R. rating authorises the holder of the rating:
(a) in the case of an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. rating — to fly as pilot in command of aeroplanes having a take-off weight not exceeding 5 700 kg on private or aerial work flights within Australia by night under the V.F.R.;


If it's no longer published as a limiting conditioning anywhere else, it is not prohibited right? Perhaps you should refer it to the Part 61 Task Force before the someone is put at risk.

[Virtually There]

The above version has been superseded. Here is the latest version of 40.2.2 which now only covers balloon NVFR: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015C00077

My point is, I cannot find anywhere in the regs that prohibits NVFR charter flights in a multi with a multi NVFR rating. Single engine flights are excluded (and/or permitted by CASA) under CAR 174B.

I asked this question yesterday and almost everyone said "No", but then no-one could point to any regulation prohibiting it.

Can anyone else?

[zanthrus]

Why on earth do you want to fly over tiger country long distance in the black of night in a SE aircraft?

Better question why do you want to take a crowd with you when you cross the pearly gates following that same SE failure?

Regardless of the confused shemozzle that Part 61 is, think logically about the proposed flight.:confused:

[AerocatS2A]

Why on earth do you want to fly over tiger country long distance in the black of night in a SE aircraft?

Better question why do you want to take a crowd with you when you cross the pearly gates following that same SE failure?

Regardless of the confused shemozzle that Part 61 is, think logically about the proposed flight.:confused:

He's talking about night charter in a multi.

[outnabout]

It's not prohibited to fly ME VFR so that means yes, go for it.

Zanthrus, I say rhubarb to that.

The aircraft does not know if it's CAVOK, NVFR or IFR. Only the pilot does. If the aircraft is maintained to the appropriate level, the pilot is trained, current and CAPABLE at the required level, then go fly the bloody thing.

I refer to you to Jim Davis' excellent article published recently which pointed out (and I am paraphrasing here) that there is no situation, good or bad, that a poor pilot, or a pilot flying above his / her skills, cannot bugger up completely.

From memory, a quick review of recent (in the past 5 years) fatalities show pilots flying in situations (IFR, low level, NVFR) in which they are not trained, current, and CAPABLE. Remarkably few fatalities appear to be due to aircraft failure....

[Virtually There]

I will add that since Part 61, NVFR holders are now required to do a flight review every 24 months instead of holding the rating in perpetuity.

Perhaps that is the reason Part 61 now allows ME NVFR rated pilots to fly NVFR charter ops without an IR.

[601]

Just try it and see how it goes

We can watch the resulting court cases all the way to the High Court. The HC can then make a decision.

CASA probably forgot that we could conduct these type of flights under the old legislation when they "wrote" the CASRS.

Just like when we could not do solo circuits at night for our CPL after they changed the requirement for a rating for flight at night.

Maybe CASA has Alzheimer's disease.

[Virtually There]

Interesting conversation with CASA just now . . .

I won't have an official answer until later in the week, but at face value it appears the new regs are exactly as I've interpreted them: ie; multi-engine NVFR charter ops are now permissible with a multi-engine NVFR rating.

Whether it is a Part 61 oversight or by design is something that will be answered in time.

This could have huge ramifications for remote GA operators who don't have easy access to IR renewals each year but could employ multi-NVFR holders, who's ratings are valid for 24 months at a time.

Cheaper from a pilot's perspective, too.

[no_one]

I wonder if it is intended or by accident?... It wouldn't surprise me with the complicated nature of part 61 that even casa wasnt aware of the some of the consequences...

[drpixie]

Everyone who was interacting with CASA when Part 61 became active will have plenty of examples where the new regs were broken / erroneous / contradictory. The hardest thing, for a year or so, was getting an email answer from CASA - though some of the FOIs were helpful and sensible.

I can think of a several instances where the 'unofficial' position was something like "that's not right, it should obviously be xxx (everyone nods head sensibly) ... do that and we'll update the regs." (Still waiting for some of the updates.)

So, unfortunately, it seems that most of the improvements promised for the draft 61 have quietly disappeared - either in the "final" version or subsequent exemptions & updates. Most of that work (by CASA and us) has been for no gain.

[Virtually There]

Never did get that official response from CASA, but - having chatted to them again (unofficially, of course) - it seems there has been an oversight.

[swh]

The question relates to charter. It comes down to the operator, what are they approved to do in the AOC. Procedures are in the ops manual.

The pilot qualifications to do such a job are clearly set-out, however being charter. The operator needs to be approved first. And the operator will have published procedures.