Run-ups during a flight

[Squawk7700]

… well not exactly, I couldn’t think of a better title.

So let’s just say you’re on an AFR flight (I chose AFR to make the scenario more black and white).

You took off from Essendon and you flew to Moorabbin and were cleared to the apron. With engine still running, you check your maps and route, clean up, get the information and taxi out with your clearance to the holding point which is on the way past the run-up bay.

Your instructor says go straight to the holding point for the runways and do some checks there which you assume include a run-up. As you approach the holding point, you do a control check and all is good. You then set up to do a quick run-up and the instructor tells you not to do it.

You say that you want to do a run-up and the instructor clearly tells you not to, giving the advice that nothing with the engine has changed during the flight, it hasn’t been shut down and it’s not necessary to do a run-up.

Do you:

- Take the instructors advice and not do it?
- Tell the instructor you’re doing it anyway and just do it?
- Something else?

Remember you are a licensed pilot with a current AFR.

Side note: On such a flight where you don’t shut down the engine, would you always do a mag check before departing again?

[Horatio Leafblower]

In Charter (I suspect this is where you are coming from) it is common practice to do the run-ups once, unless you suspect there's something amiss.
...but as a CASA FOI once pointed out to me, "I've never seen a piston engine POH that says only do the Run-ups once per day...."

[Clinton McKenzie]

Apologies for answering a question with some questions, but:

What do you expect to learn from a 'run up' check that you won't learn as soon as you apply (what you think is) full power or can't learn without a 'run up'?

To put this question another way:

When in the last - let's say two decades - has anyone discovered, during 'run ups', that a CSU unit on an 'average' GA aircraft is malfunctioning in a way that will pose a risk to safety, which malfunction wouldn't become evident as soon as full power is applied? I'm not aware of anyone. I know my CSU will fail 'full fine' and, in the unlikely event that the engine 'overspeeds', I can easily deal with that. Both are 'fail safe' problems.

When in the last - let's say two decades - has anyone discovered, during 'run ups', that there's a magneto or sparkplug malfunction that would not become evident from selecting each magneto, individually, at idle/taxi revs? Not me. (Don't tell anyone, but I usually do my magneto and sparkplug checks at cruise power in the cruise, just before TOD, but only after the engine 'numbers' were all normal during take off - that's why I 'made it' to the cruise. Cruise power at altitude is where developing ignition problems will first show up.)

Carby heat? Discuss.

Who's the pilot in command of your hypothetical flight?

[Squawk7700]

Who's the pilot in command of your hypothetical flight?

Time poor so answering the easiest question.

I am the pilot in command and fully licenced with current AFR and current on the aircraft.

The AFR is a learning exercise for the pilot, so when the instructor tells you to do or not to do something, do you simply disagree or stop and discuss it? I guess this is why CRM is important,
even at the low end of the GA spectrum.

[Clinton McKenzie]

In that case, as PIC, do whatever you consider necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

If the instructor on board is rushing you or pushing you to do something you do not reckon is in the interests of safety, do your 'PIC thang'. If you're being coerced into to doing something your judgement says you shouldn't be doing, and you do it, you've failed the 'PIC thang'.

(If you want to know what's causally connected with the safety of air navigation, in the case of 'run-ups', let me know upon what engine and propeller your life depends.)

[Cloudee]

Time poor so answering the easiest question.

I am the pilot in command and fully licenced with current AFR and current on the aircraft.

The AFR is a learning exercise for the pilot, so when the instructor tells you to do or not to do something, do you simply disagree or stop and discuss it? I guess this is why CRM is important,
even at the low end of the GA spectrum.

No, you are not the pilot in command when conducting a flight review, the instructor is.

[Mach E Avelli]

No, you are not the pilot in command when conducting a flight review, the instructor is.
I concur. So if the instructor is clearly waiving an expectation that you need to demonstrate a run up, either live with it, or if you are really concerned about your safety, cancel the flight.
Arguing the toss with another crewmember on any flight is bad CRM. Asserting your authority is only valid when you are the PIC or being formally checked (as opposed to 'reviewed') and even then sometimes requires flexibility.

[Squawk7700]

No, you are not the pilot in command when conducting a flight review, the instructor is.

If I’m not mistaken, an instructor can legally not have a valid AFR and still exercise their privileges to perform the requirements of the AFR, as long as the “student” is current.

I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That sentence makes no sense to me.

[mustafagander]

7700,
I think you'll find that it is unlawful to exercise the privilege of PIC unless you have passed an AFR in the last 24 months.
Instructor is PIC under the rules for AFR.

[Mach E Avelli]

If I’m not mistaken, an instructor can legally not have a valid AFR and still exercise their privileges to perform the requirements of the AFR, as long as the “student” is current.

I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.
The instructor may well not have an AFR, but to instruct would have a higher level CHECK to maintain instructor privileges completed within the past two years - which presumably covers an AFR.
PICUS is under supervision. So the supervisor would be the ultimate carrier of the can, should it all go pear shaped, n'est pas?

[Squawk7700]

7700,
I think you'll find that it is unlawful to exercise the privilege of PIC unless you have passed an AFR in the last 24 months.
Instructor is PIC under the rules for AFR.

I might have to have a further discussion with said PE.

It would blow my mind that someone with their level of experience would tell me these “facts” when they may be incorrect.

[Cloudee]

If I’m not mistaken, an instructor can legally not have a valid AFR and still exercise their privileges to perform the requirements of the AFR, as long as the “student” is current.

I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.
You are wrong. Whoever is telling this has no idea. So you did your flight review with an instructor without him or her having a flight review and they then signed it? 61.095 is about PICUS for commercial pilots conducting a flight review as part of a check and training program.

https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews. Para 12.1.1

[Clinton McKenzie]

And thus...

The perpetual nonsense continues.

[Squawk7700]

What if the pilot is undergoing the flight review before the expiry of the 24 month period from the previous flight review?

.

This is indeed the exact situation.

[Clinton McKenzie]

And....

Who was the PIC?

I'm not being critical if the answer is unclear.

That lack of clarity is, in and of itself, a safety risk.

[Squawk7700]

And....

Who was the PIC?

I'm not being critical if the answer is unclear.

That lack of clarity is, in and of itself, a safety risk.

It appears that the vote of public pprune opinion and google say that the PE was the PIC.

The PE threw me off with comments made that indicated the contrary, prior to the flight.

I’ll take it up with the PE.

The issue for private operators like myself is that these type of things only ever come up every 2 years and usually with different instructors.

My last instructor was so busy taking selfies and posting them on Instagram, that I got nothing out of it, so it’s like I haven’t had any instruction / updates for 4 years.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I'm still confused.

For what does "PE" stand (other than physical education)?

[Cloudee]

It appears that the vote of public pprune opinion and google say that the PE was the PIC.

The PE threw me off with comments made that indicated the contrary, prior to the flight.

I’ll take it up with the PE.

The issue for private operators like myself is that these type of things only ever come up every 2 years and usually with different instructors.

My last instructor was so busy taking selfies and posting them on Instagram, that I got nothing out of it, so it’s like I haven’t had any instruction / updates for 4 years.
That’s sad. Keep looking, when you find a good one, keep him (or her). You don’t need to wait for a flight review to go up with an instructor.

[Squawk7700]

I'm still confused.

For what does "PE" stand (other than physical education)?

Pilot Examiner, formerly ATO or is it FE these days? I can’t keep up :-)

[Clinton McKenzie]

Thanks.

And in case anyone’s interested in the real safety issues arising from the scenario - good luck.

[Clare Prop]

You don't have to be an Examiner to conduct a Flight Review. You do have to have a current Gr 1 or 2 instructor rating which means a test in the last 24 months.

Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.

[Bog Down]

You don't have to be an Examiner to conduct a Flight Review. You do have to have a current Gr 1 or 2 instructor rating which means a test in the last 24 months.

Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.

Completely irrelevant to the original post, however, you're no longer required to be a G2 or G1 instructor to conduct flight reviews, all you require is the correct training endorsement for the aircraft class.
To conduct SE flight reviews, you only need Single Engine Training Endorsement. No need to hold a G1, G2 or even a G3 as you can hold SEA TE and all other training endorsements with them.

[Bog Down]

If I’m not mistaken, an instructor can legally not have a valid AFR and still exercise their privileges to perform the requirements of the AFR, as long as the “student” is current.

I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.

Any pilot must have a valid Flight Review before performing the privileges of their licence.

But they would have an FPC every 2 years and potentially an IPC every year which generally ticks off all the requirements of the flight review for the applicable class of aeroplane.

[Bog Down]

You are wrong. Whoever is telling this has no idea. So you did your flight review with an instructor without him or her having a flight review and they then signed it? 61.095 is about PICUS for commercial pilots conducting a flight review as part of a check and training program.

https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews. Para 12.1.1

And....

Who was the PIC?

I'm not being critical if the answer is unclear.

That lack of clarity is, in and of itself, a safety risk.

If training was conducted in the Flight Review
Student - DUAL
Instructor - PIC
*Must have been conducted under a Part 141/142 organisation

If training was NOT conducted in the Flight Review
Student - ICUS
Instructor - PIC
*May be completed privately without the need for a Part 141/142

Cloudee you are also wrong, 61.095 is not only about CPL/ATPL holders within a C&T organisation. Have a look at 61.095(3).

[Peter Fanelli]

You can never have enough checks.
I'm a believer in post flight checks and inspections.
Way back I jumped in a Chieftain to warm it up for a long trip out of Adelaide only to find a dead magneto.
Had the previous pilot checked the mags prior to shutdown it might have avoided a 4 hour delay.
On another occasion getting into a 310 noticed more status dirt around the edges of the cowl than usual.
Sure enough one of the exhaust pipes had broken off just after the last cylinder causing brownish streaks on the paint
that would have been right in the face of the last pilot to fly it as he got out, if he bothered to pay attention.

[Clare Prop]

Completely irrelevant to the original post, however, you're no longer required to be a G2 or G1 instructor to conduct flight reviews, all you require is the correct training endorsement for the aircraft class.
To conduct SE flight reviews, you only need Single Engine Training Endorsement. No need to hold a G1, G2 or even a G3 as you can hold SEA TE and all other training endorsements with them.

OP referred to doing training during the review. In which case it is done under part 141/142 and the instructor is P1. If the other pilot was qualified as PE than that would be irrelvant for a flight review as it is not the same as a flight test where an examiner rating holder is required..

Also the issue was run ups, so I discussed run-ups. One of the things being reviewed is the decision making, so as long as the reviewee can demonstrate some critical thinking rather than displaying that they have only learned by copying their instructor (eg It's a hot day so I want to be sure the plugs haven't fouled and I would like to do this in the run up bay with the park brake on so as not to hold up/ blast with prop wash other people on holding points and taxiways, and be sure to give taxiing my full attention". rather than "My instructor told me I should always do this or that")
Fact is the person conducting the review is PIC if training is taking place so their decision is final. If the reviewee owns the aeroplane then they can demonstrate their knowledge by saying "I operate my aeroplane this way because..."

[First_Principal]

While it may be that regulations (if one is able to penetrate them - Clinton's point is important) will determine that one person is ultimately responsible, it would seem to me that good CRM should dictate that such thing would be discussed and a plan agreed upon between both parties.

IOW the reviewee should be able to briefly give their reasons for a run-up to the reviewer and have that reasonably considered. How this was responded to would determine to me whether I'd want to be reviewed by said person - I well remember being in the back seat of a machine on a review flight when the reviewer was such an arse that the reviewee shut the motor down and exited the 'plane - they hadn't even started taxiing. To avoid doubt, the reviewee, IMV, was doing the right thing, and did it respectfully - they were so angry at the reviewers attitude (understandably so) that it could have affected the flight.

FP.

[Mach E Avelli]

Run ups are a bit like checking the function of landing lights, though of course more important. Checks prove that systems are performing right now, but offer no guarantee that they will be working five minutes later.
However, if the POH or company SOP requires something to be done, you need a bloody good reason to disregard that instruction.
An example of NOT doing a run up would be on a gravel surface. The best one can do in those circumstances is a dead cut check of the magnetoes on the previous flight when downwind ( not both at once!) and again after start. Hopefully, you already found other engine functions satisfactory on the previous flight.
Doing half arsed run ups while taxiing is rarely a good idea,

[Squawk7700]

I figure that if I don’t do a quick mag check at the end of the flight taxiing in or just before shutdown, then if something was wrong, it may spoil my day the next time I decide to go flying and I discover it on the next start-up.

I am always weary as I once had a plug lead come loose in flight and if you didn’t do a mag check before the hot take-off, you’d be running with less redundancy and the associated risk over a heavily populated area on takeoff.

[KRviator]

7700,
I think you'll find that it is unlawful to exercise the privilege of PIC unless you have passed an AFR in the last 24 months.
Instructor is PIC under the rules for AFR.That'll be an interesting one for my next AFR in the RV. Bugger all chance the instructor would have sufficient knowledge of the EFIS, EI, VPX and so on to satisfy the 'General Competency' requirement of 'the roolz', and if they can't satisfy that, how can they be considered PIC?

[By George]

I have completed several flight reviews for owners in their aircraft including an EFIS RV6 that I was not familiar with. Before the flight I got hold of a POH and learnt everything I could about the aeroplane including all the Buck Rogers gizmos. I had to spend time sitting in it to find everything. Any instructor worth his salt would do the same. It's not as if these things are Boeings, it is not hard and does not take long. We then had an enjoyable flight learning off each other.

[Squawk7700]

My correspondence with CASA today said "The PIC will be the individual being reviewed." (Assuming that the "student" is operating under a current AFR)

[Clare Prop]

Re. CASA, just bear in mind that their current advisory publication (dated Nov 2022) is still actually referring to pre-Part 61 CARs and the old "Day VFR Syllabus".

I've brought this to their attention a few times but they still haven't updated it.

Meanwhile61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61

(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:

(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and

(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and

(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.

(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:

(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and

(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.

(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:

(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and

(b) the person is not receiving flight training.

[LapSap]

… well not exactly, I couldn’t think of a better title.

So let’s just say you’re on an AFR flight (I chose AFR to make the scenario more black and white).

You took off from Essendon and you flew to Moorabbin and were cleared to the apron. With engine still running, you check your maps and route, clean up, get the information and taxi out with your clearance to the holding point which is on the way past the run-up bay.

Your instructor says go straight to the holding point for the runways and do some checks there which you assume include a run-up. As you approach the holding point, you do a control check and all is good. You then set up to do a quick run-up and the instructor tells you not to do it.

You say that you want to do a run-up and the instructor clearly tells you not to, giving the advice that nothing with the engine has changed during the flight, it hasn’t been shut down and it’s not necessary to do a run-up.

Do you:

- Take the instructors advice and not do it?
- Tell the instructor you’re doing it anyway and just do it?
- Something else?

Remember you are a licensed pilot with a current AFR.

Side note: On such a flight where you don’t shut down the engine, would you always do a mag check before departing again?

I know its not the gist of your original question but just as a matter of interest, when I worked there in ATC over 30 years ago, the clearance limit for piston aircraft was actually the runup bay (entering and looping around to the stop line).
Unless you already reported ready prior to the runup bay and were cleared to the holding point, you were supposed to enter the bay regardless you needed a runup or not.
Is that still the case? I thought you were going to say the Instructor told you to go straight to the HP and you got a bollocking from the Tower controller...
Cheers

[Squawk7700]

No bollocking from the tower for us but shortly before the CP of VicPol in the Kingair got a lambasting from ATC about what you’re referring to!

[Cloudee]

My correspondence with CASA today said "The PIC will be the individual being reviewed." (Assuming that the "student" is operating under a current AFR)
Did they give you a regulatory reference for that? If so please let us know. If not please ask for one. CASA have a habit of getting these things wrong.

[Squawk7700]

Did they give you a regulatory reference for that? If so please let us know. If not please ask for one. CASA have a habit of getting these things wrong.

Of course not! Let me say though this person is so high up if they got it wrong I would lambast them publicly.

[Mach E Avelli]

Of course not! Let me say though this person is so high up if they got it wrong I would lambast them publicly.
Did this 'high up' person put it in writing? No?
The higher up some are, the more wrong they can be....

[Clinton McKenzie]

Does anyone perceive any regulatory difference between someone conducting a flight "review" and someone conducting some in-flight "training"?

[Cloudee]

Of course not! Let me say though this person is so high up if they got it wrong I would lambast them publicly.
Has this high up person read his own guidance material regarding flight reviews. Again, do not accept advice from CASA without a reference to regulations. It would be very helpful to all confused instructors here to have that reference, me included.

https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews.

12 Logging of flight time
12.1.1 The person conducting a flight review is pilot-in-command. In the majority of cases, a
private pilot will receive some flight instruction and should log the flight time as dual.
CAR 5.40 precludes private pilots from logging any flight time as pilot-in-command
under supervision (PICUS). However, a commercial or air transport pilot licence holder,
undergoing a proficiency check could log PICUS time as long as all the applicable
conditions in CAR 5.40 are satisfied.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Whilst the 'bottom line' opinions expressed in mere guidance about the now-defunct licensing regulations might have been correct, what is the regulatory basis for those opinions today?

[Checkboard]

Regulations aside, logically if you are conducting a flight review of someone, then you need to give them directions to achieve that mission. That means you need command authority over the flight.

[Bog Down]

Whilst the 'bottom line' opinions expressed in mere guidance about the now-defunct licensing regulations might have been correct, what is the regulatory basis for those opinions today?

CASA website has published guidance on this, as I stated above.

https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/ratings-reviews-and-endorsements/flight-reviews-and-proficiency-checks/flight-reviews#Whodoestheflightreview

Its literally there under "Logging Flight Time"

Id recommend when asking CASA or someone from CASA for an interpretation of the regs you ask for it in writing.

[Squawk7700]

If you do not receive training during the flight review, log the flight time as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' as per Part 61.095(3) of CASR.

If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.


Well there it is in black, white and teal on their website.

Does that mean you are the PIC during the flight?

[Bog Down]

Well there it is in black, white and teal on their website.

Does that mean you are the PIC during the flight?

No, If you are the person logging ICUS the Instructor is technically the PIC and their name should go in the PIC section etc.

[mustafagander]

Hey fellas,
The CAAP states clearly in para 13 that the person conducting the AFR is PIC and the pilot under review will log dual.

[Clinton McKenzie]

OK. So let's assume that CASA's guidance on filling out logbooks is authoritative of who's PIC. That's a (dangerously) invalid assumption, but let's ignore that for now. The guidance at the link Bog Down posted says:Logging flight time

If you do not receive training during the flight review, log the flight time as 'pilot-in-command under supervision' as per Part 61.095(3) of CASR.

If the flight review requires you to complete flight training, record the flight time as dual flight time.The quoted text assumes - correctly - that a flight review does not necessarily involve any training.

Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?

Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.

PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?

[Clare Prop]

Has this high up person read his own guidance material regarding flight reviews. Again, do not accept advice from CASA without a reference to regulations. It would be very helpful to all confused instructors here to have that reference, me included.

https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews.

12 Logging of flight time
12.1.1 The person conducting a flight review is pilot-in-command. In the majority of cases, a
private pilot will receive some flight instruction and should log the flight time as dual.
CAR 5.40 precludes private pilots from logging any flight time as pilot-in-command
under supervision (PICUS). However, a commercial or air transport pilot licence holder,
undergoing a proficiency check could log PICUS time as long as all the applicable
conditions in CAR 5.40 are satisfied.

Cloudee, that link goes to the publication that is ten years out of date. CAR 5.40 now only applies to balloons!

CAR 61.095 that I posted earlier applies to other aircraft.

[Bog Down]

OK. So let's assume that CASA's guidance on filling out logbooks is authoritative of who's PIC. That's a (dangerously) invalid assumption, but let's ignore that for now. The guidance at the link Bog Down posted says:The quoted text assumes - correctly - that a flight review does not necessarily involve any training.

Question: How does a private pilot who was not required to 'complete flight training' during the 'review' 'log' the review flight time?

Postulation: Merely being 'directed' as to what the reviewing person - FE, PE, ATO or whatever - wants the pilot to do, and what the reviewing person says s/he wants to see along the way, is not "training". Discuss.

PS: Just saw yours, mustafagander. Does the reviewee log ICUS or Dual? What does the guidance linked by Bog Down mean?


If the instructor only directs the pilot to do the required sequences (Stalls, Steep Turns, BIF, Circuits etc etc) the candidate can do them to the required standard first try without the need for the instructor to intervene. then Candidate may log the Flight Review as ICUS, however the Instrucor is still the PIC.

If the instructor directs the pilot to do the required sequences (Stalls, Steep Turns, BIF, Circuits etc etc) and the candidate has trouble completing the sequences within the required tolerances or even just needs some instruction and help to get to the required standard the candiare has to log the flight as Dual flight, again with the instructor as PIC.

[Mach E Avelli]

Indeed. What is SO hard to understand?. The instructor is PIC…yes even in that RV with the EFIS that the instructor may never have flown.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.

[Squawk7700]

CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.

The questions are more about who is in control, making the decisions, choosing the route and pulling back on the stick to avoid an incident.

It becomes mentally grey when the aircraft owner is being reviewed.

[Mach E Avelli]

The questions are more about who is in control, making the decisions, choosing the route and pulling back on the stick to avoid an incident.

It becomes mentally grey when the aircraft owner is being reviewed.
Why would it be “mentally grey”? To turn this around, what would the instructor log? ICUS? Dual? Supernumerary? There can only be one PIC .
Or does the instructor not have the power to pull back on the stick when the pilot under review gets it wrong enough to set up an incident.? Good luck finding an instructor prepared to accept those terms from any pilot under review - aircraft owner or not.

[Clinton McKenzie]

The safety issue is clarity as to who’s pilot in command on a particular flight. We know that two people sitting side by side, quietly comfortable that their opinions as to who’s in command are correct, based on the kinds of stuff published in this thread, is not safe.

The majority view is that the reviewer is the PIC during an AFR. Fullstop.

If anyone can provide an authoritative reference to show otherwise, have at it. Guidance doesn’t count. “My really senior mate in CASA said so” doesn’t count.

The logbook column that should be used to record the reviewee’s hours is trivia that I reckon will continue to fill PPRuNe pages ad infinitum nauseum. I’ve always logged my time as dual, because my understanding is that a private pilot has no basis on which to log ICUS (and I couldn’t give a toss if I could, anyway, for the reasons so eloquently stated by Mach).

The added complexity that others have touched upon is something I can understand. When I’m the subject of a review to be conducted in my aircraft, when I’m current to carry passengers because of recent take offs and landings and within the AFR period, I need to know that the reviewer knows at least as much as I do about my aircraft and committing safe aviation in it. I’ll be managing my engine on the basis of science rather than superstition, despite any ‘instructions’ from the PIC to the contrary. If the PIC doesn't like that, that's fine. The review will be terminated. I need the reviewer to make crystal clear, in words of one syllable, the circumstances in which the reviewer will consider it necessary to take over physical control of my aircraft, and how, while I’m being reviewed, before we kick the tyres and light the fires.

There’s a recent tragedy in the US involving an ‘internet influencer’ called ‘TNFlygirl’ who used to video all her flights, including training flights. In one of the videos not long before the fatal flight, there’s an instructor in the cockpit explaining how to use the autopilot fitted to TNFlygirl’s aircraft. The instructor evidently didn’t understand how it worked.

The instructor told TNFlygirl to press and hold down the ‘UP Trim’ button on the autopilot controller to get the aircraft trimmed to maintain a climb, but the aircraft wasn’t fitted with electric trim. TNFlyGirl literally held her finger on that button for 10/20/30+ seconds, as advised by the instructor, waiting in vein for the nose to trim up while the instructor is talking and pushing other buttons on comms and nav controllers. Meanwhile, TNFlygirl didn’t set climb power. In a number of videos she’s despairing at the fact that her speed is washing off after the nose comes up - presumably having used manual pitch trim - literally staring at the IAS wind down but not touching the throttle or mixture. My personal view is that TNFlygirl was the victim of incompetent instruction.

I recall an exercise during a review - now a few decades ago - in which the instructor said do X which I started doing but then stopped. The instructor said you’re not setting up the climb properly. I said: “We’re at the base of controlled airspace and we don’t have an airways clearance to enter!” It wasn’t a test by the instructor. The instructor had lost a bit of situational awareness. A friend of mine recently terminated an AFR because he wasn’t satisfied with the safety of what the PIC was doing. And that was his prerogative. Even instructors/FEs/ATOs etc are human and make mistakes.

That may be the 'grey', Mach. I reckon it's sensible (and lawful) for me to say to the reviewer/PIC that "the review is over, you're no longer the PIC, I am now the PIC", when I have concerns about the safety of the flight. Remember: I'm still 'inside' the previous AFR period and I'm 'legal' to carry PAX, so there's no legal reason why I can't be PIC. We're on board my aircraft.

[Mach E Avelli]

A good briefing will include typical weasel words such as “ On this flight I expect you to conduct it as if you are in command on a single pilot operation. That requires you to do everything; to aviate, navigate, communicate. However, I may request certain clearances directly from ATC if necessary for clarity of intent, and will ensure that you understand any instructions received as a result.
Any emergency that is not real will be preceded by the words “simulated…eg simulated engine failure”. If a real emergency should arise, I expect you to deal with it if you are able. If you are not, I will take control with the words “my control”. Etc.
The confusion that some PPL s may have is the expectation that, because they do all the usual PIC stuff, they think that they really are the PIC, rather than under supervision. Perhaps, particularly for those fortunate to own the aircraft, it’s an ego thing?

[Clinton McKenzie]

I think it's a bit more nuanced than 'ego', Mach. I think it's more about being very protective of one's own aircraft and usually being very competent in its safe and efficient operation because of the time spent flying it, exclusively. That doesn't rule out the owner having bad habits that haven't killed them yet, of course. But it does not follow that instructors/FEs/ATOs are infallible. I gave a couple of real world examples above.

Let's see if we can agree on one thing: It is open to me, during an AFR, to terminate the review and take over as PIC from that point. I'm inside the previous AFR period and I've done at least 3 take offs and landing within the previous 90 days. There's no reg that I'm aware of that says I'm not allowed to fly as PIC with PAX in those circumstances. Are you? Nor am I aware of any reg that says the instructor/FE/ATO 'outranks' me in some way, such as to 'order' me not to be PIC. Are you? We're civvies in a civvy aircraft.

If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over.

[Mach E Avelli]

Clint, I see your point, though can’t see a likely scenario where the instructor would be on the controls in the first place, unless the owner/pilot had already screwed up.
In the rare event where the instructor asks for something which the owner deems hazardous to his pride and joy, one would hope for a discussion first. If that failed, sure the owner would be within his rights to return for a landing. I can’t see any instructor interfering with that process, unless it is clear that the owner is out of his depth.
As an aside, I bought a nice little Sonex that was owner built. It had 10 hours on it. The owner had only flown drifters and the like and found the Sonex too much. He wouldn’t even come with me on a pre buy flight, but left me to do it solo, and until then I had never even seen a Sonex. My first landing in that was probably the best landing I ever did in it.
Some time later I needed a BFR. The RA instructor didn’t want to do it in my Sonex, instead insisting on using his Lightwing. Such an awful aeroplane! The instructor was more scared of it than I, and spent half the flight on the controls himself. I did not argue…his trainset, but indeed he was a poor instructor.

[43Inches]

I thought that during an AFR the PIC was determined by whether the pilot under observation was current or not. In days gone by the ATO on IFR renewals used to say I was in command if I was current and could log it as such, if he needed to take over it would revert to a dual experience, at which point I had failed the check. In any case the PIC needs to be determined before flight, that is definitely a rule, the instructor/check pilots needs to make it clear who is in command, and what is expected of the candidate. That is, are they expected to be in command, or act in command, or expect to be under instruction/training.

[KRviator]

Indeed. What is SO hard to understand?. The instructor is PIC…yes even in that RV with the EFIS that the instructor may never have flown.
Whether the pilot being reviewed logs it as ICUS or dual is something to be agreed between the pilot and the instructor to sign off. That should be made clear at de-briefing.
CASA or a future employer would probably only be interested if the candidate falsely entered the flight as PIC. It’s only 2 hours every 2 years FFS.UUhh nnooo I don't think that's the case... PICUS has to be approved by the Operator. Or more specifically, the "supervising pilot" has to be approved by the Operator. If the Operator approves a pilot whom they know is not competent to operate the aircraft, per that General Competency bit, they're likely at risk of a pineapple from our beloved regulator. And if the Instructor isn't competent in the aircraft, they're not authorised to exercise the privileges of their licence. Which may well be different from exercising the privileges of their rating given the verbose nature of our regulations, but I CBF trawling through what passes for our regulations to find out.

However, the definition of "Operator" in the definition of PICUS requires the Operator to have an AOC. So, in our example of going up with an Instructor (competent in the equipment or not), you cannot log PICUS on an AFR unless it's in an aeroplane that's on someone's AOC. So no AOC = no ICUS.

"operator" , in relation to an aeroplane, means a person who holds an AOC that authorises the use of the aeroplane in application operations.
"pilot in command under supervision" means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.

I can't even remember what I logged my last AFR as, nor do I really care. A couple of hours here and there mean diddly to me since I'm not cranking to prove my hours to QF or JQ.

[Checkboard]

Let's see if we can agree on one thing: It is open to me, during an AFR, to terminate the review and take over as PIC from that point
I would say you absolutely can't do that, or "PIC" has no meaning. I think you'll find the "flight" is defined from start to stop, and thus the PIC is for that flight. Once the PIC is designated for the flight, that's it until you land - regardless of if the owner is on board or not. It's irrevelant if the owner happens to have a licence.

[Mach E Avelli]

I would say you absolutely can't do that, or "PIC" has no meaning. I think you'll find the "flight" is defined from start to stop, and thus the PIC is for that flight. Once the PIC is designated for the flight, that's it until you land - regardless of if the owner is on board or not. It's irrevelant if the owner happens to have a licence.
If there is conflict the best the candidate can do is ask the PIC to terminate the flight. Unless there was a handling issue, most instructors would leave control to the candidate.
It would be a very courageous instructor who denied a request to terminate the session. Anyone who did would certainly deserve to be reported for misconduct and whatever else.

[Clinton McKenzie]

In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons.

If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.

If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.

[Mach E Avelli]

In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons.

If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.

If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.
A 'kind of' precedent exists in the airline world when a line check captain sits in the jump seat to check a new captain on upgrade, or two pilots on an annual route check. The person in the left seat is designated PIC and signs the release documents.
But if there is a problem warranting a 'fail' result the check captain relieves the candidate of command and swaps seats at the first safe opportunity.
I have done that once or twice. It's ugly, but if you don't do it at the point of failure you lay yourself open to dispute.
There's little merit in continuing the flight in training mode because the candidate will most likely be hurting too much to get anything useful out of it.
At least the AFR in bugsmasher land is not full jeopardy and not only allows training but encourages it. Some pilots could benefit from that by selecting their instructors for what they can offer other than a quick tick and flick sign off.

[43Inches]

Also Airline Check and Training is very different to what is done in GA/RAA etc. For starters airline trainers and checkers are not necessarily instructors, and the flights may be conducting 'line training' but they are not technically flight training. So if somebody fails to meet acceptable standard during a RPT flight with passengers on board it really can't be decided at that point whether the flight can become 'line training' without an assessment of what needs to be done first, ie do they need to go as far as simulator work, that is actual flight training, before they return to the line. It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall at the investigation if the checker chose to stay in the jump and conduct 'training' and then something happened where a passenger was injured or worse due to misshandling.

[soseg]

This thread is proof that in 2024, many years after the Part 61 changes etc, nobody still has any idea what the regs say.

I don’t either.

[EXDAC]

In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons..

Since you bring up USA I'll add some comments based on my experience flying there/here.

FAA distinguishes between "logging PIC" and "acting as PIC". One person may be "sole manipulator of the controls" and another acting as pilot in command. Both may log PIC. E.g. a pilot who is rated single engine land is receiving tail wheel instruction but does not have a tail wheel endorsement. That pilot may log PIC for all the time they are sole manipulator of the controls because they are rated single engine land. That pilot cannot act as PIC because that requires a tail wheel endorsement.

When I receive a flight review I log all the time as PIC and all the time as instruction received. When I give a flight review I log all the time as PIC and all the time as instruction given. If the instructor demonstrated something during the flight review the applicant would not be "sole manipulator of the controls" for that demonstration and could not log that part of the time as PIC.

I suspect that FAA may be the only juridiction that allows more than one person to log PIC for a flight.

I found 217 references to "pilot in command" in 14 CFR part 61 - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61
14 CFR 61.51 covers pilot log books with logging PIC covered in section e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61/subpart-A/section-61.51

[Clinton McKenzie]

Interesting stuff, EXDAC. Just goes to show that there can be different approaches in different countries and the sky doesn’t fall in. The concept that the manipulator of the controls thereby becomes PIC – at least for logging purposes – is novel.

In the scenario in which you are receiving a flight review eventually logged as PIC and instruction received time, whom do you consider to have ultimate ‘responsibility’ for the safety of the flight? You? Or the person from whom you’re receiving instruction?

I coincidentally get involved in marine pilot professional development, and there’s always a frank and free discussion about who’s ‘in charge’ of a ship when the ship is under pilotage. The law pretty clearly provides that the master of the ship remains ultimately responsible for the safety of the ship, and has ultimate authority, even while the ship is under pilotage. The pilot has what’s called the ‘conduct’ of the ship – manipulating the controls or ‘directing’ the manipulation of the controls by others. When I ask marine pilots: “Does the master have authority to intervene and direct the crew to ignore you?”, they (sometimes grudgingly) concede that the master does have that authority (and duty, in cases in which the master considers it necessary for the safety of the ship). I invite them to ‘hold that thought’, because the distinction is very important for their liability if things go pear shaped. If, for whatever reason, they are a ‘defacto master’ when things go pear shaped, their protections from civil liability as pilot fall away. I suggest to them that any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority at a point in time is 'bad'.

All of these concepts from maritime law are enshrined in aviation law (in many places). Just because someone happens to be manipulating the controls of an aircraft at a point in time does not turn that person into the PIC and, conversely, a person who doesn’t happen to be manipulating the controls at a point in time isn’t thereby precluded from being PIC at that point in time. Just as the master of a ship remains master while asleep, so does the PIC of an aircraft. And just as any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority over an aircraft at a point in time is 'bad'.

Anyway, I looked at my logbooks to see the spectrum of approaches to logging of ‘review’ time over the last 4 decades.

It seems that formal 2 yearly reviews didn’t come into the Australian rules until the early 90s. Before then I have lots of ’90 Day Checks’ in my logbook, with the instructor recorded as PIC and my time as ‘Dual’. I think back then it was the policy of the places from which I hired aircraft to require hirers to have been checked in the 90 days prior to hire.

My first recorded BFR is in 1991. My time is logged as Dual. But … the instructor wrote “ICUS” next to it, there being no ICUS column in that logbook.

My time for the BFR in 1993 is logged as PIC. Some of 43’s commentary above caused me to recollect that that was the approach back then. The flight was merely a ‘review’ rather than a ‘test’ – the clue is in name – of someone who could be (and in my specific case in 1993, was) ‘current’ to be PIC, with the instructor merely ‘reviewing’ and providing comments and guidance as to the pilot’s competence. After all, it was - and remains - open to a ‘current’ pilot to be PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft on the last day of the 2 year period anyway.

But, as is so often the case, CASA the complicator turned these ‘reviews’ into something they weren’t originally intended to be. (It is surreal spending some AFR time having a serious discussion about what stupid rules have been made in the previous two years.) I’ve logged all my BFR/AFR time post 1993 as Dual.

[EXDAC]

In the scenario in which you are receiving a flight review eventually logged as PIC and instruction received time, whom do you consider to have ultimate ‘responsibility’ for the safety of the flight? You? Or the person from whom you’re receiving instruction?

I alway considered myself responsible for the safety of the flight but have never had a confict between what the "reviewer" wanted me to do and what I considered safe. I would never let a reviewer put me in a situation I thought was unsafe.

I recently gave a flight review to a friend and we did a few landing that were close to his cross wind limit. I briefed that he should discontinue any time he felt unsafe with the conditions. He stuck with it, and with quite a bit of coaching, ended up handling the conditions reasonably well. I had lots of time right seat in his aircraft and was prepared to take control if needed. If he had said "enough" he would still have been given a satisfactory review sign off.

There are a few, but not many, times since solo that I have considered someone else responsible for the safety of the flight. Those include MEL training, SES training, and the few times I got some left seat time during part 91 flight test of large turbine aircraft.

[Clinton McKenzie]

What remains unclear is whether the understanding is mutual and what the rules on the subject mean. In theory, it is possible for rules to provide for 'joint' PsIC. But whether that's a good idea as a matter of practicality and safety is a different question.

[prickly]

Using the same logic what was the purpose of the control check in this case, after all it was all working fine just as the magnetos were before landing. Yeah, carby heat check is important in the right conditions although maybe not applicable in this aircraft type.

[werbil]

What the actual law states:

Pilot in Command for a flight review.

The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines who the pilot in command is:pilot in command, in relation to a flight of an aircraft, means the pilot designated by the operator of the aircraft as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.

This requires us to know who the operator is, which is also defined in the dictionary as:

operator, of an aircraft, means:

(a) if the operation of the aircraft is authorised by an AOC, a Part 141 certificate or an aerial work certificate—the holder of the AOC or certificate; or

(b) otherwise—the person, organisation or enterprise engaged in aircraft operations involving the aircraft.

Which requires us to know if it is Part 141 training

141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate

(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;

So from a legal perspective:
1. If a flight review involves training it has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator, therefore the Part 141 Operator has to designate who the pilot in command is.
2. If a flight review does not involve training, the owner of the aircraft can be the operator, and can designate who the pilot in command is.

Logging of flight time.

The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines pilot in command under supervision as:

pilot in command under supervision has the meaning given by regulation 61.010.

Which leads us to:

61.010 Definitions for Part 61

In this Part:

pilot in command under supervision means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.

For logging of flight time as ICUS we need to look at regulation 61.095

61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61

(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:

(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and

(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and

(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.

(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:

(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and

(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.

(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:

(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and

(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
So providing no training is given during the flight review, it can be logged as ICUS by any pilot that holds a pilot licence even if they don't hold a valid flight review.

And finally for a couple of my thoughts:

It is critical from a safety perspective that there is only one pilot in command at a time, and everyone understands who it is. If there can be a change of PIC during a flight, how and when that change will occur has to be very clearly defined by the operator so that there is no confusion as to who is in command at any time
I can't see many instructors being prepared to do a flight review for someone that they have not flown with recently unless they are the pilot in command. If you can find someone, great, otherwise I'd suggest you do your flight review in someone else's aircraft.

[EXDAC]

"If a flight review involves training it has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator,"

Nothing in the regulations you quoted says that.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I agree with EXDAC.

Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.

Para (a) of the definition of "operator" depends on whether the operation of the aircraft is or is not authorised by one of the mentioned certificates. It doesn't dictate that flying training can only be conducted by a Part 141 certificate holder. Is all that flying training being conducted in RAAus aircraft and gliders etc happening in aircraft whose operation is authorised by a Part 141 certificate?

More fuel for the 'ICUS' debate!

It would be interesting to know CASA's current view on these questions.

Completely concur with this:It is critical from a safety perspective that there is only one pilot in command at a time, and everyone understands who it is. If there can be a change of PIC during a flight, how and when that change will occur has to be very clearly defined by the operator so that there is no confusion as to who is in command at any time.

[mikewil]

I agree with EXDAC.

Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.
Completely concur with this:

I would love to hear the actual law on this because I have seen experienced flight examiners even ask the question during FIR Grade 2 upgrades "under what circumstances can you give training during a flight review", and the correct answer has been "under the umbrella of a Part 141 operator".

EDIT: I have found the answer, not from the official regulations but from a CASA plain english info sheet that states "A fight instructor delivering training during a fight review can only deliver that training if employed by an operator with a Part 141 or 142 certifcate that authorises the conduct of fight training for the rating under review."

Unfortunately it doesn't actually contain any references to the source in the regulations.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1136x1474/screenshot_2024_02_20_at_8_29_44_am_e6a52f5da5dc541f335b7ae5 ca7e7b07e7a96cf1.png

[werbil]

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the parts of 141.015 that clearly define training that is given as part of a flight review as being Part 141 training:

:
141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate

(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;

Which leads us to 141.050:

141.050 Part 141 flight training—requirement for Part 141 certificate or approval

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person conducts Part 141 flight training; and

(b) the person does not meet the requirement mentioned in subregulation (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the requirement is that the person must hold:

(a) a Part 141 certificate that authorises the person to conduct the training; or

(b) an approval under regulation 141.035 to conduct the training.

(3) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
So yes technically you can get CASA approval conduct training during a flight review outside a Part 141 operation, but you need a 141.035 approval to do so.
141.035 Approvals by CASA for Part 141

(1) If a provision of this Part refers to a person holding an approval under this regulation, the person may apply to CASA, in writing, for the approval.

(2) Subject to regulation 11.055, CASA must grant the approval.

(3) Subregulation 11.055(1B) applies to the granting of an approval under this regulation.
Whilst this seems fairly straightforward, the crunch is you need to obtain a 11.055 approval, and the requirements are quite stringent:
11.055 Grant of authorisation

(1) This regulation applies despite any other provision of these Regulations that provides for the grant or issue of an authorisation, but subject to section 30A and paragraphs 30DY(2)(b), 30DZ(2)(b) and 30EC(2)(b) of the Act.

Note 1: Under section 30A of the Act, the Court may make an order excluding a person from a particular aviation activity for a specified period (the exclusion period). Under subsection 30A(4), during the exclusion period any authorisation granted to the person for the activity is of no effect and a new authorisation to undertake the activity is not to be granted to the person.

Note 2: Under section 30DY of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 12 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period. Under paragraph 30DY(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.

Note 3: Under section 30DZ of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30DZ(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.

Note 4: Under section 30EC of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit cancellation notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has twice previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30EC(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class for 3 years from the date of the notice.

(1A) Subject to subregulations (1B) and (1C), if a person has applied for an authorisation in accordance with these Regulations, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:

(a) the person meets the criteria specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and

(b) any other requirements in relation to the person that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and

(c) any other requirements in relation to the thing in respect of which the application is made that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and

(d) these Regulations do not forbid CASA granting the authorisation in the particular case; and

(e) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation.

(1B) If another provision of these Regulations provides that this subregulation applies to the granting of the authorisation, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:

(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and

(b) granting the authorisation will preserve a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable.

(1C) If the authorisation is an experimental certificate, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:

(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and

(b) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.

(2) In paragraph (1A)(a), a reference to meeting the criteria for the grant of an authorisation includes (in the case of an applicant who is an individual):

(a) having any qualifications required by or under these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and

(b) having any experience required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and

(c) having successfully completed any training required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and

(d) if there is a requirement as to recency or currency of the applicant’s training or experience—meeting that requirement; and

(e) if a standard of medical fitness is required by or under these Regulations for that grant:

(i) having attained that standard; and

(ii) having been granted any medical certificate required; and

(f) if particular attributes of character are required by or under these Regulations for that grant—having those attributes; and

(g) if a standard of proficiency in an activity is required by or under these Regulations for that grant—meeting that standard of proficiency.

(3) If these Regulations limit in any way the number of authorisations of the relevant kind that may be granted, CASA may refuse to grant the authorisation if the limit will be exceeded if the authorisation is granted.

(4) For paragraphs (1A)(e) and (1B)(b), CASA may take into account:

(a) the applicant’s record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and

(b) the applicant’s demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and

(c) the applicant’s experience (if any) in aviation; and

(d) the applicant’s knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and

(e) the applicant’s history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and

(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and

(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:

(i) the Act or these Regulations; or

(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or

(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and

(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant’s financial standing and financial stability; and

(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.

(5) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a corporation, references to the applicant include each of the officers (other than employees) of the applicant.

(6) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a member of a partnership, references to the applicant include each of the other members of the partnership.

(7) CASA may grant the authorisation in respect of only some of the matters sought in the application.

I am aware of one independent instructor that I believe has a 141.035 approval. Prior to obtaining the approval he was a HOO, and he is an examinier that can conduct EPCs on other examiners.

[EXDAC]

"141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate"

This section is clearly defined as only applying to part 141. This section does not apply to any operation conducted outside part 141.

"141.050 Part 141 flight training—requirement for Part 141 certificate or approval"

Again this section applies to part 141 and not to operations that are not conducted under part 141.

There is really no point is citing regulations with conditional applicability when the conditions do not apply.

I don't see how aviation could exist in Australia if training could only be conducted at part 141 flight schools.

[43Inches]

So much law to answer who can do a simple AFR. Half the PPLs will probably just ignore doing one these days and fly anyway. In any case, while they legislate the hell out of pilots nobody is watching where the real safety issues are. The fact that Airservices and the BOM are providing the most safety critical services in Australia in Aviation and yet getting away with murder on notification of delays, weather and provision of basic services. The basic infrastructure is below third world, single runway ops into Melbourne, NDBs as fallback navaids when no new aircraft are fitted with ADFs, etc etc.... Not to mention Melbourne airport is now stonewalling the airport train, which they are paying nothing for, as they want it to be underground, and the taxpayers are funding an above ground rail, because its cheaper.

You just have to laugh at how pathetic Australian aviation has become.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

The last sentence says it all ................

Really, 'tis very very sad......... 'pathetic'.

No cheers nor hope here. Nope. None at all.

[Clinton McKenzie]

We’re losing sight of what the main issue of debate was: Who gets to designate the PIC? That led to the definition of PIC, which in turn led to the definition of “operator, of an aircraft”. That’s because the latter designates the former.

Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.

Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.

Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.

[Mach E Avelli]

We’re losing sight of what the main issue of debate was: Who gets to designate the PIC? That led to the definition of PIC, which in turn led to the definition of “operator, of an aircraft”. That’s because the latter designates the former.

Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.

Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.

Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.
According to ICAO, in your example Fred as owner is the operator and thus gets to assign the PIC.
So, next question is: has Australia filed a difference with ICAO?

[Clinton McKenzie]

And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…

Part 61 defines “flight review”:flight review means an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform:
(a) for the holder of a pilot licence or flight engineer licence—an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds; or

(b) for the holder of a glider pilot licence—an activity authorised by the licence. CASR 61.400 says: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.So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".

I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.

CASR 61.1230 says:61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator

(1) A pilot instructor commits an offence if:

(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and

(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and

(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).

Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.

A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.

However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.

[EXDAC]

In USA part 141 flight schools typically promote flight instructors from graduates of previous courses. That may result in an organization in which only the minimum experience required to pass a flight test is passed on to the next round of students. Fortunately, in USA, independent intructors who may have many thousands of hours of varied flight experience are allowed to give instruction and recommendations for flight tests, conduct flight reviews without or wthout training, and to provide any other flight instruction that those inexperienced instructors at a part 141 school can provide.

So far, no one has posted the Australian regulations/laws that define the instruction an instructor not tied to a part 141 school can provide.

Don't misunderstand me. Part 141 flight schools may be very good a taking students to the standard required to pass a check ride. Maybe that's all some students want on the path to their airline job.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I think what happened in Australia is that there was a rush to issue Part 141 certificates to people rather than implement an 'independent instructor' regime. Others in the training system may have a better recollection than me.

Whether that needed to happen? I don't know. It seems to me - even just from the regs I quoted above - that the regs expressly contemplate that some activities - including flight reviews - can be carried out independently of a Part 141 or Part 142 operator.

[Clare Prop]

I don't know about a rush...the implementation was spread out over quite a few years.

I recall there was quite a bit of push back against allowing roving independant instructors.

[Clinton McKenzie]

And let me guess: The push back was mostly from people/organisations who'd gone through the process of getting a flying training AOC prior to the Part 141/142 changes?

As I recall, there was a rush to set up a 'simplified' application process for individuals to get Part 141 certified, in response to push back from people who pointed out that the independent instructor arrangements in the USA hadn't resulted in the sky falling in.

[Clare Prop]

Well you can't blame people who have gone to the effort and expense to set up an AOC objecting to freelancers encroaching.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I don't blame them in any way.

But whether there's an evidence-based safety justification for preventing "freelancers" "encroaching" is another question. The answer to that question is provided by the objective data out of decades of experiencer in the USA.

[werbil]

And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…

Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".

I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.

CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).

Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.

A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.

However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.

Yes, your AFR is a flight review of your single engine class rating if it is conducted in a single engine aircraft.

A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor. Hence the need for 61.1230 so that CLARC or whatever it is called these days can update your licencing records as to whether you have a valid flight review.

The endorsements referred to include design feature endorsements (ie retractable undercarriage or floatplane) and activity endorsements (aerobatics). These endorsements can also be conducted by an independent instructor outside of a Part 141 operation. Again, 61.1230 is required to allow licencing records to be updated.

[Cloudee]

And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…

Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".

I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.

CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).

Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.

A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.

However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
When part 61 was first being promoted, the independent instructor flight reviews were highlighted as a feature of the legislation and 61.1230 shows that. Once it became law CASA back tracked and their interpretation was that if training was required, a 141/142 involvement was necessary.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Yes, your AFR is a flight review of your single engine class rating if it is conducted in a single engine aircraft.

A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor. Hence the need for 61.1230 so that CLARC or whatever it is called these days can update your licencing records as to whether you have a valid flight review.

The endorsements referred to include design feature endorsements (ie retractable undercarriage or floatplane) and activity endorsements (aerobatics). These endorsements can also be conducted by an independent instructor outside of a Part 141 operation. Again, 61.1230 is required to allow licencing records to be updated.So, it looks to me like you agree that not all flight reviews must necessarily be conducted 'inside' a Part 141 operation, and you also agree that the person under review could be the PIC during some reviews, depending on the circumstances?

[Clinton McKenzie]

When part 61 was first being promoted, the independent instructor flight reviews were highlighted as a feature of the legislation and 61.1230 shows that. Once it became law CASA back tracked and their interpretation was that if training was required, a 141/142 involvement was necessary.Just goes to show, once again, that years and millions can be spent producing more complexity and confusion, contrary to all the rhetoric.

61.1230 includes independent instructors conducting a "session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating". So CASR always (and still) envisage 'independent instructors' delivering some training outside of the Part 141/142 regime. That could be achieved under the current regs. CASA just decided it didn't want to do it.

[werbil]

So, it looks to me like you agree that not all flight reviews must necessarily be conducted 'inside' a Part 141 operation, and you also agree that the person under review could be the PIC during some reviews, depending on the circumstances?

Yes. The smart way to increase the odds of not needing training during a flight review is to do some general competency training on a separate flight before attempting the flight review.

Finding an instructor who is prepared to conduct the flight review whilst the candidate is the pilot in command is likely to be extremely challenging. One of the interesting consequences of this is I don't believe the instructor would legally be able to log the flight .time

[andrewr]

A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor.

The definition of flight training for the purposes of part 141 is probably important here. In general, what is considered flight training and required to be done under part 141? It is probably more specific than just "this feels like training."

If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Agree with most werbil's #92, but not sure about the 'logability' of the instructor's time because it's not a question that I've looked into. If the instructor is charging for their time, why would they care?

But let's circle back to the original question: Who's the "operator" of the aircraft when an 'activity' - let's use a neutral term for now - is being conducted in the candidate's own aircraft? The "operator" designates the PIC.

Who's "operator" when the activity is just Fred's "flight review" as narrowly defined?

Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?

Whatever the outcome of the various regulatory 'logic gates', surely it remains open to Fred, at any time, to terminate an activity being conducted in Fred's own aircraft, and at that point there can be little doubt that Fred becomes (or remains?) "operator" with power to designate himself PIC. That seemed to me to be Squawk's scenario.

PS: Good points in my view andrewr. I think that what's happened as a matter of practicality is that training AOC holding organisations brought pressure to bear which has resulted in 'almost everything' being interpreted as 'training' which 'must' only be conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 certificate. Thus the 'half-pregnant' concept of 'independent instructors' who have to hold a Part 141 certificate.

[43Inches]

The definition of flight training for the purposes of part 141 is probably important here. In general, what is considered flight training and required to be done under part 141? It is probably more specific than just "this feels like training."

If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?

I'm pretty sure that answer would be straight forward. If the instructor was to provide instruction/coaching during the flight on how to conduct a sequence that is required for the AFR, they would be conducting training. This is opposed to asking the candidate to demonstrate a sequence that is required. In practice, if you are asked to demonstrate a glide approach, and no input is given to its conduct then you are acting as PIC, with the instructor merely watching. If the instructor has to demonstrate/coach, take over, or have any input in order for a satisfactory outcome of the glide approach then it becomes training. Now the glide approach could be satisfactory but with some flaws, the instructor could debrief the glide approach with critique on how it could be improved post sequence, that would not be flight training as such.

Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?

This is a very important question, because there is some significant implications as far as who is responsible should the aircraft or property be damaged or persons injured. The insurer and any law enforcement would want to know who was legally in charge when the situation occurred. The instructor/part 141 'operator' should have a contract to specify who is in command and when, regardless of what aircraft is being used. They should also specify a minimum insurance amount to cover participants in the event of mishap. I'm not up to speed with what happens today, but in the past all insurance was tied to the aircraft and operators building insurance when clients were on site, and the 'hire' agreement was quite specific as to who was going to pay the sizable excess should something happen. It would be well established as to what the purpose of the flight was for, ie training, test, AFR, solo, private hire etc, and that determined who was responsible. As I said earlier the AFR instructor would make it clear to the candidate who would be in command, and the circumstance that the flight would become training and therefore dual, then by signing the hire agreement the candidate was accepting of the conditions imposed on the flight.

Now being the owner of the aircraft does not automatically make you PIC, you can assign yourself as PIC just by thinking so before you go flying. If an instructor is employed to provide an AFR or any other operation involving your aircraft then both of you should be clear on who is PIC and I would suggest some form of contract be available and signed for the benefit of both parties. Unless you have a a lot of spare cash just sitting around and you are happy to spend it on other peoples concerns that is.

PS when I referred to 'hire agreements' it was also used for instructor only for owner aircraft purposes.

Going back to the original post, if the instructor was PIC he would be within his rights to ask for pre-flight checks to be conducted as he wished, including run-ups, because he is legally responsible should something happen on take-off and the run ups would have uncovered such a fault. If the candidate was PIC, then the instructor can ask the run-ups be done, if not complied with satisfactorily then they can either accept it and continue, state they wish to terminate the check and make it training or ask to be returned to the school and terminate the check. What happens next could be touchy as then it would come down to being a failed AFR and the candidate would not then be able to exercise the privileges of their licence, or part there of that was not completed.

[Clinton McKenzie]

< snip > Going back to the original post, if the instructor was PIC he would be within his rights to ask for pre-flight checks to be conducted as he wished, including run-ups, because he is legally responsible should something happen on take-off and the run ups would have uncovered such a fault. If the candidate was PIC, then the instructor can ask the run-ups be done, if not complied with satisfactorily then they can either accept it and continue, state they wish to terminate the check and make it training or ask to be returned to the school and terminate the check. What happens next could be touchy as then it would come down to being a failed AFR and the candidate would not then be able to exercise the privileges of their licence, or part there of that was not completed.I think you'll find that the OP's scenario was the other way 'round: The instructor told the owner not to do run-ups the owner wanted to do.

[43Inches]

I think you'll find that the OP's scenario was the other way 'round: The instructor told the owner not to do run-ups the owner wanted to do.

Sorry my bad, but yeah it all applies in reverse, same idea. Although the Instructor is showing some naivety in a legal sense, that being if the owner is under training/check and wants to do extra checks, the instructor should not be interrupting that process. The owner could quite easily agree, go ahead and take-off thinking the instructor as 'in command' and 'knowing better' and something happens and the instructor is now solely responsible, regardless of who was flying. If I was the instructor I would have let him go through his usual process, as that is what an AFR is really all about. And if I thought the candidate was spending excessive time doing checks then it would be a 'chat about' item later on.

[andrewr]

I'm pretty sure that answer would be straight forward. If the instructor was to provide instruction/coaching during the flight on how to conduct a sequence that is required for the AFR, they would be conducting training.

You might be right, but without a definition of training it's basically just "the vibe". Where does CRM (watch your airspeed, you're a bit high/low etc) turn into instruction? What is the rationale?

the instructor could debrief the glide approach with critique on how it could be improved post sequence, that would not be flight training as such.

If you're first statement is correct, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. It seems pretty speculative. A post flight debrief and critique seems even more like training.

A scenario:
Someone buys into a RV-7 syndicate. They have all required qualifications, but they are required to fly with another member to checkout in the aircraft. During the flight they do a few PFLs, landings glide approaches etc. to get used to the aircraft. The other pilot points out a few times where they need to plan a bit further ahead to slow down and manage speed etc. and they keep practicing until the new pilot is up to scratch. What qualifications does the pilot performing the checkout need?

If the pilot performing the checkout is authorized to perform flight reviews, and all required sequences were performed adequately by the end of the flight, can they sign it off as a flight review afterwards? Or should they do another flight and repeat everything to count as a flight review?

[43Inches]

Anyone can provide post action critique of anything really, that's just your opinion on the situation. Bob in row 7 could offer that your landing was rough, and you should provide more beers to dull the passengers senses next time, he is not training you. Proper training should involve a post sequence debrief with critique, but that is not training in itself, it's how the entire sequence is handled that makes it training. If you were to pre-flight brief on how to conduct a sequence, then during the sequence provide instruction and coaching on how to improve, then that is training. The RV-7 scenario is training essentially, but because the pilot already holds all qualifications as needed for the flight, the training is not for the issue of a licence, rating or design feature, therefore somebody sitting next to you pointing out the finer points of what the club would like to see is fine. They would not be able to log any time, as they are not officially instructing as such, and the pilot flying will be PIC., it would just be considered solo practice of a scenario. The issue may only be if there is a restriction on passengers carried during emergency procedure practice/instruction. This is effectively what happens during line training in airlines, and why you can't practice any actual non normal operation in general, except in general the line trainer will be the PIC with the candidate logging co-pilot as the trainee. If the flight was ICUS/PICUS, then the Captain under training would do everything the PIC would normally do and the training Captain who is actually PIC would act as co-pilot and perform those duties. In general the ICUS candidate would handle all situations required of a Captain until such time the trainer thinks they are about to affect safety of flight and then ICUS would be cancelled and revert to the trainer acting as PIC.

If the pilot performing the checkout is authorized to perform flight reviews, and all required sequences were performed adequately by the end of the flight, can they sign it off as a flight review afterwards? Or should they do another flight and repeat everything to count as a flight review?

In general you have to specify what the intention of a flight is before leaving. The instructor would have to clearly state where training has concluded and where the assessment begins, and that should have been agreed on prior to the flight. AFAIK you can't launch an assessment on a candidate by stealth.

[Clinton McKenzie]

There is a definition of "flight training" in CASR. It's in the Dictionary. It points to CASR 61.010, which in turn points to CASR 61.195 which in turn points in part to CASR 61.210.

On that definition, it seems that no "training" - no matter how you want to define it - during a "flight review" is "flight training". To understand why, answer this question:

For what licence, rating or endorsement am I "training" during a "flight review"?

I already hold the required licence/s, rating/s and endorsement/s. I am not an applicant for a licence, rating or endorsement.

This is where the definition of "flight training" in the Dictionary and CASR 61.010 end up:61.195 Flight training requirements

(1) Subregulation (2) applies to flight training for:

(a) a flight crew licence; or

(b) a flight crew rating; or

(c) a flight crew endorsement, other than a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.

Note: For training, other than flight training, see regulation 61.210.

(2) For subregulation (1), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement is met only if:

(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement; and

(b) the training is conducted by:

(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement; or

(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training; and

(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder; and

(d) for flight training for the grant of an aircraft class rating or type rating—the training is conducted in accordance with regulation 61.205; and

(e) the applicant’s training provider has given the applicant a course completion certificate indicating that the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) have been met.

(3) Subregulation (4) applies to flight training for a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.

(4) For subregulation (3), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew endorsement to have completed flight training for the endorsement is met only if:

(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the endorsement; and

(b) the training is conducted by:

(i) an instructor; or

(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 to conduct the training; and

(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder.

(5) For paragraphs (2)(c) and (4)(c), the assessment must be conducted against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement.

...

61.210 Other approved courses of training or professional development

(1) A requirement in this Part for a student pilot or an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed an approved course of training or professional development is met only if:

(a) for a course that is approved under regulation 61.040—the student or applicant:

(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; and

(ii) has been assessed as competent by the person conducting the course against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; or

(b) for a course that is conducted by a Part 141 or 142 operator—the student or applicant:

(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the course’s syllabus; and

(ii) has been assessed by a person mentioned in subregulation (2) as competent against the standards mentioned in the course’s syllabus.

(2) For subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the persons are as follows:

(a) the head of operations of the Part 141 or 142 operator that conducted the training;

(b) an instructor who is authorised by the head of operations to conduct the assessment;

(c) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training.

[43Inches]

That's is just the requirements for formal 'Flight Training', which requires formal qualifications to conduct. That is anytime a candidate is seeking a licence, rating, endorsement or special design feature you have to apply those rules. You can conduct other training, such as recurrent training, general improvement or finesse, how to drop a flour bomb, and other things that don't fit into the 'Flight Training Requirements' sections, without the need to hold an instructor rating. And you won't be able to log most of it as training as it's not formal flight training as such. Again that's what happens during airline line training. Basically if you are conducting 'dual training' then you have to apply that section of the rules. Anything else is just 'training' in general.

I would consider training during an AFR as training for the validation of a licence, therefore related to the issue of a licence. The same as if you fall out of recency for IFR flight, you can undertake dual instruction in the areas required to regain currency for that rating, so it is training related to that rating.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I think the tenuous link is in the list of 'Part 141 flight training' in CASR 141.015(1): "(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review". It's an attempt to turn something that does not fall within the definition of "flight training" into "flight training".

Whether that works? Only a court can decide.

If it works, "Part 141 flight training" could include training someone to whistle Dixie in an aircraft, by just adding that training to the list in 141.015(1), even though training someone to whistle Dixie does not fall within the definition of "flight training".

[Cloudee]

I would consider training during an AFR as training for the validation of a licence, therefore related to the issue of a licence. The same as if you fall out of recency for IFR flight, you can undertake dual instruction in the areas required to regain currency for that rating, so it is training related to that rating.

If I had received this reply from CASA I would ask for a regulatory reference.

[43Inches]

61.195 Flight training requirements (1) Subregulation (2) applies to flight training for:

(a) a flight crew licence; or

(b) a flight crew rating; or

(c) a flight crew endorsement, other than a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.

Pretty sure the first line used to read "for the issue of" or "training towards the issue of". Now it reads as any training associated with those items, whether you hold the licence or not. So if you conduct training in sequences related to those items you are conducting formal flight training for those items.

[engine out]

I love all this going around in circles. At the end of the day someone has to sign a licence (or fill out online form) saying that person x still meets the the competencies of the licence as set out in the M.O.S. That’s person name will be attached to having judged those competencies for the next 24 months or AFR. One thing they should be doing is promoting safety. The OP was not doing anything unsafe so I would say “sure do run ups if you want”. If something goes wrong later ATSB will pull the records of the pilot and who did their last AFR and ask lots of questions. Because I am assessing their ability and will have to take over if unsafe “I am PIC” and will make that quite clear in the briefing (same as when I’m wearing my FE hat on a test).

[43Inches]

I think the tenuous link is in the list of 'Part 141 flight training' in CASR 141.015(1): "(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review". It's an attempt to turn something that does not fall within the definition of "flight training" into "flight training".

Whether that works? Only a court can decide.

If it works, "Part 141 flight training" could include training someone to whistle Dixie in an aircraft, by just adding that training to the list in 141.015(1), even though training someone to whistle Dixie does not fall within the definition of "flight training".

I think that 61.210 was mostly aimed at PICUS/ICUS programs that were created to meet the need for 500 hours multi engine PIC, especially in regards to airlines hiring low time pilots/cadets. There is now a legal statement that requires the airlines/operator to have a specific program outlined to allow it to happen. It does open up other things, akin to what universities/TAFE do these days and let the industry create it's own little development courses that are not necessarily required but may be nice to have, and then require them to have some sort of syllabus and assessment process.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Pretty sure the first line used to read "for the issue of" or "training towards the issue of". Now it reads as any training associated with those items, whether you hold the licence or not. So if you conduct training in sequences related to those items you are conducting formal flight training for those items.I think you need to read the whole of 61.195. I posted it at #100.

Note that subreg (1) merely specifies what subreg (2) applies to. Subreg (2) is about applicants for the stuff in (1), and what those applicants have to do to get it.(1) Subregulation (2) applies to flight training for:

(a) a flight crew licence; or

(b) a flight crew rating; or

(c) a flight crew endorsement, other than a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.

Note: For training, other than flight training, see regulation 61.210.

(2) For subregulation (1), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement is met only if:
...

[Stationair8]

Australia the land of making vintage GA aeroplanes complicated to operate!

No wonder GA hours are dropping!

[lucille]

Australia the land of making vintage GA aeroplanes complicated to operate!
!

Yup, they have left no wheel uninvented.

[Hoosten]

This conversation dulls the senses, this would test anybody on the 12 steps to sobriety.

On another note, has anybody now got an expired SE FR because CASA has yet again changed an interpretation of what renews FR's?

[PiperCameron]

If it works, "Part 141 flight training" could include training someone to whistle Dixie in an aircraft, by just adding that training to the list in 141.015(1), even though training someone to whistle Dixie does not fall within the definition of "flight training".

Doesn't "flight training" require the copious writing up of and signing of paperwork?

If so, perhaps that's the layman's distinction then??.. if there's no write-up on the specific action then it isn't "training" - it's one-on-one coaching in the care and handling of an aircraft by your very own rent-a-friend.

[Clinton McKenzie]

"flight training" in CASR is whatever CASR defines it to mean. The definition of "flight training" in CASR does not include training that is given as part of a "flight review".

My (perhaps quaint) view is that the term "Part 141 flight training" can only mean a subset of what CASR defines as "flight training", not go beyond it.

A "flight review" is defined to mean an assessment of competence. The concept of training as "part of" a flight review is a confusion of the concept.

[EXDAC]

A "flight review" is defined to mean an assessment of competence. The concept of training as "part of" a flight review is a confusion of the concept.

Let's say a pilot presents for a flight review but does not meet standard. In USA I have the option of giving that applicant whatever training is required in the hope they can demonstrate they meet standard later If they agree I will provide the instruction required and ask them to schedule a new flight review attempt. That first session is signed off as instruction given not as a failed flight review.

If the applicant meets standard at the next attempt I will sign them off for a satisfactory flight review (in FAA parlance this is an endorsement). The applicant and I have the option of repeating this process as many times as we wish. However, if the flight review attempt requires training, then clearly the applicant did not meet flight review standard.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That approach is entirely consistent with the regulatory structure in Australia. But what's happened is that a "flight review" has morphed into something it's not supposed to be, fuelled by this kind of nonsense published by CASA:The purpose of a flight review is to provide a pilot with the opportunity to receive training that refreshes their flying skills and operational knowledge.That’s not the purpose of flight reviews. I’m sure there are lots of people who want that to be the purpose of flight reviews, for a variety of reasons not confined to safety, but that’s not what the words in the definition say or mean.

The term “flight review” is defined in CASR to be:an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform:

(a) for the holder of a pilot licence or flight engineer licence—an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds; or

(b) for the holder of a glider pilot licence—an activity authorised by the licence.A flight review is an assessment of competence. I can’t see any words that say or mean: “The purpose of a flight review is to provide a pilot with the opportunity to receive training that refreshes their flying skills and operational knowledge.” A pilot can choose to take up that opportunity any time the pilot thinks it’s necessary or desirable. But the fact is: an assessment of competence is not flight training.

Whether a pilot wants to receive training in order to deal with any relevant unit of competency in which the pilot has been assessed by an instructor as “not competent”, and the circumstances in which that training, if any, will occur, are supposed to be – and technically still are – matters for the pilot and the instructor to decide.

The 'gap' I see in the definition of "flight training" is that it does not include training 'in the abstract' - i.e. training delivered to someone who is already the holder of the licence, rating/s and endorsement/s required to do whatever flying activities in which they're currently engaged.