Can A BFR Be Done in an RAA Registered Aircraft?

[Sunfish]

If my next BFR is done in a C172, I am up for around $800. Can it be done in a cheaper RAA registered LSA aircraft?

[Aussie Bob]

Nope, thank CASA for that. That said, others may argue but the VH rego box on the AFR form tells me otherwise

[triton140]

The reverse of course is true - your 172 BFR counts as your RAA BFR.

[IFEZ]

Just out of interest, is there a minimum flight time quoted anywhere for an AFR or is it just up to the instructors discretion..? Someone who hasn't done much flying in the last 12 months may need longer than someone else who is more current. Also, I've heard stories of some operators milking the system by not signing off until lots more dual training was done, yet some others seem happy to sign off on the bare minimum (whatever that is). Just a thought, because the $800 that Sunfish is quoting could easily blow out beyond $1,000 or could be as little as $400 depending on the above scenarios.

[KRviator]

Nope, thank CASA for that. That said, others may argue but the VH rego box on the AFR form tells me otherwiseThe way CASR 61.400 is worded suggests you could do it in an RAAus aircraft, if you can fly said RAAus bird on the authority of your Part 61 FCL. That being said, I agree the form says "Conducted in aircraft VH-_ _ _" and I wouldn't want to try to argue the point with CLARC. IT was bad enough trying to get it into their head "foreign", in the context of the question, meant overseas, not "a register other than ours"...:ugh:

Give it a try, I'll watch!:}

61.400 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—flight review

(1) For this Part, successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating.
(2) For subregulation

(1), the persons are as follows:

(a) CASA;
(b) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 for this regulation;
(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating.


(3) The flight review must be conducted in:

(a) an aircraft that can be flown under the rating; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight review.

[triton140]

Interesting, because an RAA aircraft arguably can't be flown under a Part 61 FCL because you also need an RPC. Effectively, you are flying it under your RPC, all your Part 61 licence is doing is giving you extra privileges such as CTA.

[aroa]

Currency...has nothing to do with it. A BFR must be done by the stated date..regardless.
Its become like the Banks, ethics and morals go out the window when money is involved.
Having just spent the last months flying many hours daily wx permitting, and 2 days crossing this wide brown land from SW to NE..the local aero club wished for a 5 hours, total including a 3.5 hr nav-ex. !!

I was always lead to believe that the BFR was to determine that you had the manipulative skills in all facets of flight to safely handle the a/c in question...it is not (supposed to be) a PPL flight Test.!
Needless to say I went elsewhere and it was all over in less than an hour.
Rattled thru the handling usuals, short fielders, stalls, forced landings, steep turns, time on the clocks and flapless..to arrive safely back at the start point.
Presumed then to be OK to be let loose with an a/c without killing myself, or others.
Que?

[Aussie Bob]

Just out of interest, is there a minimum flight time quoted anywhere for an AFR or is it just up to the instructors discretion..?
IFEZ, I can't find a minimum. CASA have clearly stated to me that it should be at least 1 hour. Sometimes I disagree, a current CPL employed in the industry often doesn't need a flight review at all. The average punter with me does 1 - .1.5 hours.
Give it a try, I'll watch!https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

No thanks! Dealing with a brick wall is not my idea of entertainment.

[ACMS]

:)Don’t mean to be a smarty pants but isn’t it called an AFR. Aircraft Flight Review.:O

[IFEZ]

<div style="text-align:left;"></div>

[Lead Balloon]

<div style="text-align:left;"></div>
I think that’s correct.

[IFEZ]

Sorry. Technology meltdown. Bit like my brain trying to navigate the Part 61 labyrinth :}:ugh:

[Okihara]

Also, I've heard stories of some operators milking the system by not signing off until lots more dual training was done, yet some others seem happy to sign off on the bare minimum (whatever that is).
This milking the cow mentality is unfortunately a sad reality.

CAAP 5.81-1(1), although only advisory and not binding, says quite explicitly:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1520x418/screen_shot_2018_09_06_at_08_05_17_c3af87d1c38ca6e78938e2465 0577008d527d186.png
[...] :
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1506x210/screen_shot_2018_09_06_at_08_11_25_f07987eae0a1f589596fc48c4 a7ec7f5f37ef7b1.png
[...] :
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1546x502/screen_shot_2018_09_06_at_09_28_53_1eeae6009458c9768ca566ba8 e1d3d307055cc87.png
[...] :
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1532x486/screen_shot_2018_09_06_at_09_14_48_8155f427387bcd153be77da50 2fd3a14c5245408.png

If you have the advantage of living in a larger city, then shop around for another school with cleaner ethics to do your BFR.

[MagnumPI]

I did my BFR recently. As it happened I wanted to do a navex anyway (as I hadn't done one in a while) so did w&b, fuel calcs, etc as part of the flight planning and knocked off the turns/stalls/etc on the way back. All fine, even though I stuffed a few things up.

I was talking to the senior instructors and apparently the BFR is a bit open to interpretation as CASA isn't entirely prescriptive with what you have to achieve. The club doesn't stitch people up with a five hour nav! However, we had one guy with a PPL who had 'failed' a BFR at a flying school on the other side of the city (he didn't disclose this to us) and then came to our club for the second attempt at the BFR. His general flying was apparently fine, but his navigation was so hopeless that unless he was in the circuit or training area he would be a serious risk to himself and possibly others.

So what to do? I'm not an instructor but I'm sure if I was I'd rather be thorough with a student that I don't know. All that aside, five hours seems ridiculous.

[Clare Prop]

The A is for Aeroplne as opposed to helicopters
Five hours seems a lot and it shouldn’t take that long to asses someone’s competency. Hoewever I’ve done AFRs for some including CPL sausages who are not competent for solo. As the CAAP says, it should be appropriate rather than one size fits all.

[andrewr]

I think the CAAP is pre part 61?

Part 61 has a MOS for flight reviews. Maybe it depends on who you talk to at CASA, but locally it seems that schools have been told they need to perform and check off every non-optional element in the flight review MOS. Pretty hard to do in an hour:

FR-SEAC SINGLE-ENGINE AEROPLANE CLASS RATING FLIGHT REVIEW

1 Unit description
This unit describes the standards required for a single-engine aeroplane class rating flight review.

2 Elements and performance criteria

2.1 FR-SEAC.1 – Conduct flight
(a) start and taxi aircraft ready for take-off;
(b) perform a normal take-off simulating minimum take-off distance available;
(c) perform departure from circuit area;
(d) perform general handling manoeuvres, including the following:
(i) initiate stall and recover at the incipient stage;
(ii) perform a full stall and recovery;
(iii) perform steep level and descending turns through at least 360°;
(iv) conduct low flying at 500 ft AGL and perform a reversal turn;
(e) perform circuit rejoin and at least 1 full circuit pattern;
(f) perform a missed approach;
(g) perform a flapless approach and landing;
(h) perform cross-wind take-off and landing if conditions permit;
(i) perform a normal landing simulating minimum landing distance available.

2.2 FR-SEAC.2 – Manage aircraft systems
(a) ensure sufficient fuel is loaded and fuel consumption is monitored and managed throughout the flight;
(b) manage the aircraft fuel system;
(c) manage all other aircraft systems.

2.3 FR-SEAC.3 – Navigation (optional)
(a) plan flight of at least 3 legs and submit flight plan in accordance with AIP;
(b) conduct a departure;
(c) navigate en route using visual and instrument navigation systems;
(d) perform diversion procedure;
(e) conduct arrival.

2.4 FR-SEAC.4 – Airspace
(a) comply with airspace procedures and requirements;
(b) operate aircraft radio and conform to standard radio procedures.

2.5 FR-SEAC.5 – Instrument flying
(a) perform basic flight manoeuvres using full instrument panel;
(b) recover from upset situations and unusual aircraft attitudes to straight and level flight;
(c) perform checks and monitor system for serviceability.

2.6 FR-SEAC.6 – Manage non-normal and emergency conditions
(a) manage a simulated engine failure in the take-off segment (optional);
(b) manage a simulated partial engine failure (optional);
(c) manage a simulated complete engine failure and execute a forced landing;
(d) manage aircraft system malfunctions other than engine failure.

2.7 FR-SEAC.7 – Non-technical skills
(a) recognise and manage threats and errors during pre-flight planning and in-flight;
(b) maintain effective lookout and situational awareness;
(c) assess situations and make appropriate decisions;
(d) set priorities and manage tasks;
(e) maintain effective communication with stakeholders;
(f) communicate effectively using aeronautical radio.

2.8 FR-SEAC.8 – Manage passengers and cargo
(a) conduct pre-flight and in-flight safety briefings to ensure passengers are familiar with safety procedures, emergency equipment, exits and operational requirements;
(b) manage cargo.

[Wizofoz]

I've been thinking about this lately- Gliders are administered by the GFA, yet are VH registered- could RAA aircraft have been a category of the VH registry?

[Aussie Bob]

Posts: 326
I think the CAAP is pre part 61?

Part 61 has a MOS for flight reviews. Maybe it depends on who you talk to at CASA, but locally it seems that schools have been told they need to perform and check off every non-optional element in the flight review MOS. Pretty hard to do in an hour:

The CAAP is pre Part 61 but reads about the same. The CAAP contains a checklist and place for the candidate to sign saying everything has been checked. For a competent pilot all this can easily be done in an hour except the navigation which is optional and stated as such.

[Okihara]

Out of curiosity, do ATPL holders have their BFR done on a simulator or while on duty on a regular scheduled flight?
Also: the CAAP says you can do your BFR on a simulator. Can you theoretically do your SE review on one?

[Tankengine]

Out of curiosity, do ATPL holders have their BFR done on a simulator or while on duty on a regular scheduled flight?
Also: the CAAP says you can do your BFR on a simulator. Can you theoretically do your SE review on one?
ATPL holders employed by major airlines are part of an approved cyclic training program (comprising simulators and airborne route checks) so do not do “BFRs”
IFR pilots do IR renewals so are also exempt.

[poteroo]

If the pilot to be reviewed holds current RPC and RPL/PPL, and the instructor holds both RAAus SI/CFI/PE plus CASA FIR 1 or2, and the RAAus aircraft is of a type which can be registered in GA - then my understanding is that the pilot can be signed off for both the RPC and the GA licence AFR/BFR after a single review flight. The 'review' must cover all of the items as listed in both RAAus and CASA advisories on flight reviews - except the optional navex. I must admit that I have not done one such review yet. It might ruffle sensibilities in CLARC, but considering the logic, and economic value, of such a dual review........ who knows?
happy days,

[thorn bird]

Reading all this stuff, the reg's, the CAAPS the MOS etc, and all the other aggravation that goes with it and one can
only come to one conclusion, there are far easier and fun things to do than deal with this stuff.
Trouble is that addiction to touching the face of god, guess NZ is not that far away where the freedom to fly has not been
subjugated to an all powerful bunch of incompetents.

[Okihara]

Trouble is that addiction to touching the face of god, guess NZ is not that far away where the freedom to fly has not been
subjugated to an all powerful bunch of incompetents.

In what specific ways is NZ closer than Oz in spirit to being an aviation heaven?

[djpil]

I was talking to the senior instructors and apparently the BFR is a bit open to interpretation as CASA isn't entirely prescriptive with what you have to achieve.But it is very prescriptive, read 61.400 again:
(1) For this Part, successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating.

I think the CAAP is pre part 61?Yes, the CAAP is obsolete but I have been told to follow it. CASA's information sheet on flight reviews which came out just after Part 61 stated that there was an Advisory Circular on flight reviews but they ignored my requests to get a copy - that information sheet is no longer available and no mention on the website of an AC to replace the CAAP.

Maybe it depends on who you talk to at CASA, but locally it seems that schools have been told they need to perform and check off every non-optional element in the flight review MOS.That's what 61.400 means in my opinion - demonstrate competence in each unit of competency for the rating! I was wondering when some people in CASA would get around to working out what the new regs meant, I look forward to that new Advisory Circular.

[VH DSJ]

ATPL holders employed by major airlines are part of an approved cyclic training program (comprising simulators and airborne route checks) so do not do “BFRs”
IFR pilots do IR renewals so are also exempt.

Thanks for clarifying this. Apparently some of the people at CASA need to read up on this exemption. It quite clearly states in this CASA information document that we are exempted from AFRs if we participate in a checking and training system under Regulation 61.040. I find it hard to believe that there are people in CASA licensing that don't know their own regs!

[717tech]

VH-DSJ. Your link isn’t approved yet; but if it’s the one I think it is, it has an expiry date. I spent a lot of time about 18 months ago trying to work this all out. I contacted CLARC and they couldn’t provide an answer. They suggested I contact the technical team, which I did. 18 months later, no response. Completed by BFR in the mean time...

From what I could gather at the time, my participation in a cyclic sim on a narrow body DOES NOT count, nor provide me with an exemption towards the BFR requirement on say a C172. They’re different apparently. I went one further and wanted to know if the cycle also covers me for flying IFR in a C172/C182 etc. I couldn’t get a definitive answer on that..

“Simples!”

[Climb150]

In 2017 I had CASA email me to say a cyclic program at an airline only covers the type of aircraft you do the PC in. If you want to fly a King Air or Baron etc, multi IR renewal or currency is required. Fortunately this covers single IR recency.

A single flying VFR requires a BFR.

[Lead Balloon]

This link might work: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/_assets/main/lib100191/rr61_aircraft_class_ratings_fs2.pdf?acsf_files_redirect

I’ll let others lose the will to live while trying to track down the referenced exemptions to see if and when they expire/d and if they’ve been replaced.

[roundsounds]

Thanks for clarifying this. Apparently some of the people at CASA need to read up on this exemption. It quite clearly states in this CASA information document that we are exempted from AFRs if we participate in a checking and training system under Regulation 61.040. I find it hard to believe that there are people in CASA licensing that don't know their own regs!
the devil is in the detail. I too believed this until not long ago, you need to check the specific operators 61.040 recurrent training approval to ensure it covers AFR requirements. I was informed by a senior CASA officer that most RPT operators recurrent training approvals do not cover AFRs.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Here we go again.
simple question by the OP and countless replies quoting useless rule books.
How does anyone understand this dribble well enough to gain a licence in this country these days?

[roundsounds]

Here we go again.
simple question by the OP and countless replies quoting useless rule books.
How does anyone understand this dribble well enough to gain a licence in this country these days?
That’s contributing to the death of GA in Australia.