Flight Examiners CAAP Admin 1 Liability Coverage DOESN'T cover Proficiency Checks
 

Many Flight Examiner Rating holders may not be aware that no PROFICIENCY CHECKS are covered by CAAP Admin 1 indemnity scheme.
When the transition from ATOs was carried out in September 2018 CASA announced that the indemnity that existed for ATOs would continue for FERs.
For the purposes of flight crew licensing, the scheme extends to flight tests, except for the grant of a cruise relief flight engineer type rating. Otherwise, any Part 61 flight test for the grant of a pilot licence, ratings on pilot licences and endorsements on pilot licences. It extends to the granting of ratings other than flight examiner ratings and cruise relief flight engineer type ratings, and endorsements other than flight test endorsements.
No mention of Proficiency Checks.
Most examiners I have spoken to are totally unaware of this.
I note CASA's philosophy of committing to approachingregulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively while taking into account relevant considerations such as cost.

It also requires is to communicate meaningfully with stakeholders, build trust and respect and fairly balance the need for consistency with flexibility.

Comments?

My understanding is that a proficiency check IS a flight test, simply by another name to differentiate it from other types of flight test such as type rating, ATPL etc. Whereas a 'flight review' is not regarded as a test. But if the candidate for a flight review fails to demonstrate competence, then what? Training is allowed on a review (apparently), whereas not allowed on a test or check. Hence, training activity would require its own indemnity cover and would not be CASA's problem. Ditto with a proficiency check carried out within a company check & training system. Whether a direct employee or a contractor, the examiner would need to be indemnified by the company.
When CASA initially spruiked how FERs could operate independently and how this would be good for the industry, I investigated personal indemnity insurance and it was unaffordable.

Does anyone know anyone who's ever successfully enforced the indemnity in CAAP Admin 1?

VH JWX CAMDEN 2003

Do you know if that was that prof check?

This is interesting as CASA intended to get rid of the CAAP Admin 1 provisions when the FER was introduced to replace the ATO scheme. When it became apparent that this would result in lots of ATOs not transitioning to become Flight Examiners, the determination (by the Department, I believe) that CAAP Admin 1 provision would remain in force was publicised.
Previously all flight tests were flight tests! Now the terminology has changed and renewal flight tests are termed "Proficiency Checks". At least in spirit, this should not have changed the CAAP Admin 1 provisions of indemnity.
We know that CASA people read these forum postings. Rather than conjecture, would it be possible for CASA to confirm the current situation regarding Flight Examiner indemnity please?
Fly Safe
PJ88

I have had this confirmed by CASA

What did CASA confirm? That their indemnity does not extend to examiners conducting proficiency checks when operating independently? That a proficiency check is not regarded as a flight test?
Do you have this in writing?

That their indemnity does not extend to examiners conducting proficiency checks when operating independently? YES ANY PROFICIENCY CHECK
That a proficiency check is not regarded as a flight test? YES
Do you have this in writing? YES. PM YOUR EMAIL AND I’LL FORWARD TO YOU

Thanks BH, that clears it up then. A PC is not a flight test! Good oh; if an examiner needs to give a candidate some practice beforehand but on the same flight, it would seem that they could do so with a clear conscience. Taken to the extreme, what's to prevent the examiner from allowing the candidate a complete rehearsal of the whole 'check' prior to the check actually commencing? Or maybe setting his/her own limits on how many repeats the candidate is allowed? But officer, it was not a test....
Just don't call it training and don't be so silly as to document it!
However, without reading it until my eyes glaze over, I bet the MOS and/or FEH say otherwise.
And do get your liability insurance sorted out, because if CASA won't cover it, the odds are greater that they will come after you if something goes wrong.

Good evening all,

Just an update, CASA will shortly be amending CAAP Admin 1 to include indemnity on Proficiency Checks carried out by Flight Examiner Rating holders.

CAAP Admin 01 for a regulation 61.040 approval holder who is conducting examiner proficiency checks will still not be included unfortunately.

If this is the accident I am thinking of, the testing officer did something naughty - he pulled an engine failure on a piston twin at Camden - at night - which is prohibited in ERSA. The aircraft didn't maintain height, crashed and burned. The rescue helicopter arrived and the seriously-burned testing officer recognised the pilot, and admitted he had done the wrong thing. Very disturbing when you know the victim you are rescuing, and he died of his burns a bit later.

Why would you do that?

Has anyone been tempted to do this?

​​​​​​​There are some weird people out there.

He was actually a very experienced pilot on fixed and rotary, would have been in his 70s I think. Just a brain fart perhaps.

Plenty of ‘practising bleeding’ used to go on, and probably still does. Lots of folklore driven strong opinions remain, including in CASA.

Used to be common practice.
It wasn't prohibited. So it was lawful, and therefore regarded as a component of a thorough training regime.
Not everyone agreed.

Maui

FIFY: It wasn’t prohibited by the regulations. So it wasn’t unlawful under the regulations.

But the risks of the practise far outweigh the rewards, so it probably was and remains in breach of long-standing WHS and common law duties of care.

You're right Leady,

The risk of losing the aircraft practicing a V1 cut is about 3 times greater than the risk of a real one occurring. Look how many hull losses come to mind when you think about it. The idea of "realistic training" is simply B/S, way, way too risky. I was part of a crew that actually suffered a V1 engine failure at max gross weight and, yeah, it was bloody tight but the aircraft actually did what the performance calculations said it would and our simulator exercises were proven to be an accurate representation of what would happen. Lots of wear and tear on the undies though!!

I remember somewhere in the AIP docs about assymetrics being prohibited at night below 1500ft AGL. Can't remember where though, maybe it was under the old GAAP regulations. This is going back to the late 90s or so, so before the accident in YSBK. It was well known way before the accident that LOC accidents were way more likely when practicing abnormals at night, especially things like engine failures where the aircraft is suddenly moving around it's axis in a not normal way. There's also the matter of whether you can remain above the departure splays in something like a Seminole or Duchess, considering they will most likely level off for a while as you deal with the failure and then marginally climb afterwards.

Having conducted plenty of night asymmetric training in DC 3, C441, F 27 and B732, I don’t think it’s the fact that it is dark that poses the risk. The aeroplane doesn’t know it’s dark. In fact it’s usually cooler at night, and less turbulent, so aircraft perform better and trainees get a better opportunity to see the benefits of accurate speed control.
Night asymmetric training is not prohibited elsewhere. Seems to be a CASA thing.
The real problem is the category of aircraft involved (light twins) and the persistent delusions that some instructors have about their capabilities (their own, and the aircraft’s).
Of course, where available, good simulators should be used. Some of the generic ones out there lack realism and possibly do more harm than good in deluding pilots about light twin performance.