CASR Part 61, Pilot licensing, Discussion Papers (DPs)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASR Part 61, Pilot licensing, Discussion Papers (DPs)
See here for a copy of CASR Part 61, Discussion Papers (DPs) comments extended to close 31 August 2002
I was just wondering if anyone has had a look at the discussion paper? If so, how will it effect if you as GFPT, RPPL, PPL, CPL or an ATPL pilot?
It looks like Endorsements will be replaced with Ratings, which need reviewing every 2 years. And not only that you need a rating for every different aircraft type you fly as well as each Design Feature (tail wheel, retractable undercarriage; constant speed propeller, piston engine; turbocharged or supercharged piston engine etc).
I am not too sure why we need to change from our present system? It has worked well so far, why change it? “If it ain’t broken why change it?”
I believe true Reform should contribute to the General Aviation industry in the way of safety firstly and being cost effective for pilots, training organisations and operators.
The present changes are a sure way to put people off flying and close down the industry.
I was just wondering if anyone has had a look at the discussion paper? If so, how will it effect if you as GFPT, RPPL, PPL, CPL or an ATPL pilot?
It looks like Endorsements will be replaced with Ratings, which need reviewing every 2 years. And not only that you need a rating for every different aircraft type you fly as well as each Design Feature (tail wheel, retractable undercarriage; constant speed propeller, piston engine; turbocharged or supercharged piston engine etc).
I am not too sure why we need to change from our present system? It has worked well so far, why change it? “If it ain’t broken why change it?”
I believe true Reform should contribute to the General Aviation industry in the way of safety firstly and being cost effective for pilots, training organisations and operators.
The present changes are a sure way to put people off flying and close down the industry.
Last edited by Outback Pilot; 3rd Jul 2002 at 07:02.
I have read the proposal, and have responded to it on the attached forms provided, plus a few additional comments.
Every pilot in Australia should do likewise.
Probably the sentence of greatest concern to me is on p21 of the proposal, wherein it states that no benefit cost analysis has been conducted - but we beleive............. This is a real worry, because it really says to industry that the real costs may be much higher.
cheers,
Every pilot in Australia should do likewise.
Probably the sentence of greatest concern to me is on p21 of the proposal, wherein it states that no benefit cost analysis has been conducted - but we beleive............. This is a real worry, because it really says to industry that the real costs may be much higher.
cheers,
I also have read it and believe there are a few good things within, and that after an initial adjustment period there should not be too many concerns since it applies to all and will make international accrediation much easier.
One of the important requirements will be for all flight and ground instructors to hold an instructor rating and undergo formal training in instructional techniques. A prerequisite will be National Certificate Level Four in Workplace Assessment and Training. This is standard government and policy in throught most other industries, and I believe it is about time it happened within the local aviation industry.
Regarding the renewal of a rating, we will need to complete a flight review, generally within the previous 24 months, and be deemed competent in the use of the rating. A flight review is not a flight test and the reviewer is encouraged to give instruction and advice to regain or improve competency. An Operator's proficiency check conducted by training and checking organisation satisfies this requirement. For the individual, it does not seem too different to a BFR. Again, not too much to winge about.
One of the important requirements will be for all flight and ground instructors to hold an instructor rating and undergo formal training in instructional techniques. A prerequisite will be National Certificate Level Four in Workplace Assessment and Training. This is standard government and policy in throught most other industries, and I believe it is about time it happened within the local aviation industry.
Regarding the renewal of a rating, we will need to complete a flight review, generally within the previous 24 months, and be deemed competent in the use of the rating. A flight review is not a flight test and the reviewer is encouraged to give instruction and advice to regain or improve competency. An Operator's proficiency check conducted by training and checking organisation satisfies this requirement. For the individual, it does not seem too different to a BFR. Again, not too much to winge about.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not look good for home study students. You have to go to a ground school for theory training, before being allowed to sit the CASA exams. 
Some of the other areas look okay, except the ratings check every 24 months. If you can fly 10 different aircraft with all different design aspects, like CSU, Retractable, piston engines, turbines, jet etc. You will be up for a lot of money.
When I hire aircraft from an organisation they do a recency check on my logbook for that particular aircraft that I am about to take out. So I do not know why we need a ratings check.
If JAR’s comes in here via CASR Part 61 we are in trouble.
Read the DP and respond accordingly.
Some of the other areas look okay, except the ratings check every 24 months. If you can fly 10 different aircraft with all different design aspects, like CSU, Retractable, piston engines, turbines, jet etc. You will be up for a lot of money.
When I hire aircraft from an organisation they do a recency check on my logbook for that particular aircraft that I am about to take out. So I do not know why we need a ratings check.
If JAR’s comes in here via CASR Part 61 we are in trouble.
Read the DP and respond accordingly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies. It will probably be ok, with a few changes here and there.
I am still concerned about home study, ratings etc. In regards to international accrediation being made easy, which only really concerns ATPL's. There would not be to many PPL's flying oversea's, maybe a few CPL's.
I am still concerned about home study, ratings etc. In regards to international accrediation being made easy, which only really concerns ATPL's. There would not be to many PPL's flying oversea's, maybe a few CPL's.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received an email from Mr Dick Reynoldson at CASA, he is the project manager for (DP) Part 61, regarding the concerns. This is his email address too if anyone has any concerns [email protected].
Here is a copy of Dick's response via email.
There will NOT be a rating for every aircraft type and design feature. The single engine land class rating will cover most single engine types and there will be one flight review only, applicable to the rating generally, NOT to each separate aircraft type. Design feature authorisations are not ratings and will not require flight reviews.
Overall there will be considerably less type ratings than now because many multi-engine aeroplanes which currently need separate type endorsements will be covered by the multi-engine aeroplane class rating, with one flight review applicable only to the rating, again NOT to each type.
A pilot who holds both single and multi-engine class ratings will have to do a review for each but will be able to cover many of the ompetencies for a single in the multi review or vice-versa. This would leave only the engine out emergency procedures as separate items and I hope you can see the benefits in reviewing these procedures in both single and twins.
Overall I believe the proposals should cost pilots less due to the considerable reduction in the number of separate type endorsements.
However, I think targetting the flight reviews to singles and twins is a safety plus. Also, you dont have to do the review if you are not currently using the rating. The rating doesn't expire, you just cant use it unless you have done the review within the previous 24 months. If you want to use it again, just complete the flight review.
I have asked Dick the question about home study and will let you know the answer.
Thanks
Andrew
Here is a copy of Dick's response via email.
There will NOT be a rating for every aircraft type and design feature. The single engine land class rating will cover most single engine types and there will be one flight review only, applicable to the rating generally, NOT to each separate aircraft type. Design feature authorisations are not ratings and will not require flight reviews.
Overall there will be considerably less type ratings than now because many multi-engine aeroplanes which currently need separate type endorsements will be covered by the multi-engine aeroplane class rating, with one flight review applicable only to the rating, again NOT to each type.
A pilot who holds both single and multi-engine class ratings will have to do a review for each but will be able to cover many of the ompetencies for a single in the multi review or vice-versa. This would leave only the engine out emergency procedures as separate items and I hope you can see the benefits in reviewing these procedures in both single and twins.
Overall I believe the proposals should cost pilots less due to the considerable reduction in the number of separate type endorsements.
However, I think targetting the flight reviews to singles and twins is a safety plus. Also, you dont have to do the review if you are not currently using the rating. The rating doesn't expire, you just cant use it unless you have done the review within the previous 24 months. If you want to use it again, just complete the flight review.
I have asked Dick the question about home study and will let you know the answer.
Thanks
Andrew
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response from Dick Reynoldson in regards to home study.
With regard to exams, the proposal is not ruling out home study. What it is trying to do is to ensure that people do a proper course of study and dont inadvertantly miss out on important safety related information. If you study at home you will have to satisfy a flight or ground instructor (either of whom can give the recommendation to sit the exam) that you have completed a full course of study according to the syllabus and have sufficient
I anticipate that providers of home study courses will also develop procedures for providing a recommendation.
Thanks
Andrew
Ps: It is still not a positive answer.
:o
With regard to exams, the proposal is not ruling out home study. What it is trying to do is to ensure that people do a proper course of study and dont inadvertantly miss out on important safety related information. If you study at home you will have to satisfy a flight or ground instructor (either of whom can give the recommendation to sit the exam) that you have completed a full course of study according to the syllabus and have sufficient
I anticipate that providers of home study courses will also develop procedures for providing a recommendation.
Thanks
Andrew
Ps: It is still not a positive answer.
:o
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had this emailed to me today by someone else regarding NPRM's. Some more light reading. 
If you read into the NPRM's regarding Small Aircraft Operations you will find that those who intend upgrading their PPL to CPL and maybe doing a bit of "charter" with about 150 hours will now be required to have 500 hours in command before they can work. That is if they can find a company willing to train them on "prop jets (because that's about the only light aircraft that will be flying after all of this). Can you imagine a new CPL being able to afford the $1200 an hour to get prop jet time? They might have to do what is happening at the moment. There are flying schools/charter operators out there, who charge their instructors/pilots about half of what they earn an hour, claiming that they are giving them hours/experience/ and exposure to the industry.
If you read into the NPRM's regarding Small Aircraft Operations you will find that those who intend upgrading their PPL to CPL and maybe doing a bit of "charter" with about 150 hours will now be required to have 500 hours in command before they can work. That is if they can find a company willing to train them on "prop jets (because that's about the only light aircraft that will be flying after all of this). Can you imagine a new CPL being able to afford the $1200 an hour to get prop jet time? They might have to do what is happening at the moment. There are flying schools/charter operators out there, who charge their instructors/pilots about half of what they earn an hour, claiming that they are giving them hours/experience/ and exposure to the industry.
