Aeroplane Flight Review
Thread Starter
Aeroplane Flight Review
G'day all,
I've been looking through the CARs & CAOs to find the detailed nitty gritty in regards to the AFR but can't find answers to the following -
Where does it specify the 1.1hr requirement?
Must it be done in 1 single flight or can you do it in two parts on the same day (e.g. landing away for a coffee/toilet stop) Specifically - I have previously logged land away flights on separate entries, will the AFR count if the total time spans two entries or does it have to be a single entry?
Any ideas where to look? Searching the CASA website doesn't help either.
Thanks in advance,
QFF
**** Trust but verify ****
I've been looking through the CARs & CAOs to find the detailed nitty gritty in regards to the AFR but can't find answers to the following -
Where does it specify the 1.1hr requirement?
Must it be done in 1 single flight or can you do it in two parts on the same day (e.g. landing away for a coffee/toilet stop) Specifically - I have previously logged land away flights on separate entries, will the AFR count if the total time spans two entries or does it have to be a single entry?
Any ideas where to look? Searching the CASA website doesn't help either.
Thanks in advance,
QFF
**** Trust but verify ****
I am sure that someone in here will be able to give you the info you require and quote the appropriate regs etc, but ......
.... reading your post got me thinking that in 34 yrs I have only ever done a couple of Flight Reviews, although I guess they have only been around for the last 25 years or so.
It always seemed better value to me to spend the money on adding to my flying qualifications and experience by doing a new endorsement (ie retractable U/C, tailwheel, aerobatics, initial twin, new twin type etc) which as far as I am aware removes the need for a Flight Review. For the last 20 years the IR renewal has sufficed!
Dr
.... reading your post got me thinking that in 34 yrs I have only ever done a couple of Flight Reviews, although I guess they have only been around for the last 25 years or so.
It always seemed better value to me to spend the money on adding to my flying qualifications and experience by doing a new endorsement (ie retractable U/C, tailwheel, aerobatics, initial twin, new twin type etc) which as far as I am aware removes the need for a Flight Review. For the last 20 years the IR renewal has sufficed!
Dr
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What 1.1 hr requirement ?
There is minimal guidance from CASA on AFRs at the moment. The CAR references below set out what should be included and the type of aircraft required, and the CAO references set out who can conduct it.
There is apparently a CAAP in the works. The project link on the CASA web site is broken. It will no doubt cost several forests to print, and try to get us to do flight reviews more suited to a heavy jet than a light piston single or twin.
There is no other substantive information I know of from CASA at the moment.
FTDK has the best suggestion. If you can, do something that will extend your skills and flying, and substitute for the AFR.
References:
CAR 2
"aeroplane flight review means a test of the aeronautical skills and aeronautical knowledge relevant to aeroplane flight of the person undertaking the review."
CAR 5.81 (2) (PPL, in part...)
An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in: (a) an aeroplane: (i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review;
CAO 40.1.7 (Flight instructor rating, in part...)
9.2 A Grade 2 flight instructor may: (c) if the holder has logged at least 400 hours of instructional experience and has the written approval of the chief flying instructor — conduct an aeroplane flight review;
9.3 A Grade 1 flight instructor may: (c) conduct an aeroplane flight review.
There is minimal guidance from CASA on AFRs at the moment. The CAR references below set out what should be included and the type of aircraft required, and the CAO references set out who can conduct it.
There is apparently a CAAP in the works. The project link on the CASA web site is broken. It will no doubt cost several forests to print, and try to get us to do flight reviews more suited to a heavy jet than a light piston single or twin.
There is no other substantive information I know of from CASA at the moment.
FTDK has the best suggestion. If you can, do something that will extend your skills and flying, and substitute for the AFR.
References:
CAR 2
"aeroplane flight review means a test of the aeronautical skills and aeronautical knowledge relevant to aeroplane flight of the person undertaking the review."
CAR 5.81 (2) (PPL, in part...)
An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in: (a) an aeroplane: (i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review;
CAO 40.1.7 (Flight instructor rating, in part...)
9.2 A Grade 2 flight instructor may: (c) if the holder has logged at least 400 hours of instructional experience and has the written approval of the chief flying instructor — conduct an aeroplane flight review;
9.3 A Grade 1 flight instructor may: (c) conduct an aeroplane flight review.
Last edited by Unhinged; 23rd Sep 2007 at 10:47. Reason: for clarity ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAAP in the works
Found this Re the Proposed CAAP.
Project FS 07/07
Flight Crew Licensing - Flight Reviews
Purpose/Objectives
To publish a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) that provides guidance on conducting flight reviews to ensure pilots are safe to exercise the privileges of licences and Private IFR ratings.
Background
Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 5.81, 5.91, 5.99, 5.108, 5.124, 5.133, 5.143, 5.169 and 5.178 specify the requirements for flight reviews to be conducted by all holders of private, commercial or air transport licences in aeroplanes, helicopters, balloons or gyroplanes, every two years. Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 40.2.3 paragraph 8 and CAR 5.17A provide guidance and specify the requirements for a flight review of a Private IFR Rating (PIFR).
A flight review is a test of the aeronautical skills and aeronautical knowledge relevant to (aeroplane, helicopter, balloon or gyroplane) flight of the person undertaking the review.
There is very little guidance about the conduct of flight reviews. This has led to a great variation in the standard and time taken to conduct a review.
The primary reason for a flight review is to ensure that a pilot is safe to exercise the privileges of a licence or PIFR. The overarching principle behind a flight review is a co-operative endeavour to ensure the safety of the pilot being assessed, and to provide advice and guidance when required to meet the specified standards.
Experience has demonstrated that flight reviews can vary from 'a quick circuit' through to a flight of many hours involving all aspects of flight operations. Because little guidance is available it is unlikely that consistency can be achieved with flight reviews and a good safety outcome can be guaranteed.
This CAAP will be a valuable guidance tool for the expanded flight review process as proposed in Part 61 regulations.
Rules affected
CAAP 5.81-1(0)
Status
Project approved by Group General Manager, Personnel, Licensing, Education and Training Group on 18 July 2007.
Project registered on 19 July 2007.
Project management
Project Sponsor: Greg Hood
Project Leader: Phil Astley
Contact details
Email: Phil Astley
A Flight review is a "co-operatve learning experience" not a test.
Instructors and Schools should keep good records of any Review conducted as they may be hearing from the Coroner one day.
Project FS 07/07
Flight Crew Licensing - Flight Reviews
Purpose/Objectives
To publish a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) that provides guidance on conducting flight reviews to ensure pilots are safe to exercise the privileges of licences and Private IFR ratings.
Background
Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 5.81, 5.91, 5.99, 5.108, 5.124, 5.133, 5.143, 5.169 and 5.178 specify the requirements for flight reviews to be conducted by all holders of private, commercial or air transport licences in aeroplanes, helicopters, balloons or gyroplanes, every two years. Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 40.2.3 paragraph 8 and CAR 5.17A provide guidance and specify the requirements for a flight review of a Private IFR Rating (PIFR).
A flight review is a test of the aeronautical skills and aeronautical knowledge relevant to (aeroplane, helicopter, balloon or gyroplane) flight of the person undertaking the review.
There is very little guidance about the conduct of flight reviews. This has led to a great variation in the standard and time taken to conduct a review.
The primary reason for a flight review is to ensure that a pilot is safe to exercise the privileges of a licence or PIFR. The overarching principle behind a flight review is a co-operative endeavour to ensure the safety of the pilot being assessed, and to provide advice and guidance when required to meet the specified standards.
Experience has demonstrated that flight reviews can vary from 'a quick circuit' through to a flight of many hours involving all aspects of flight operations. Because little guidance is available it is unlikely that consistency can be achieved with flight reviews and a good safety outcome can be guaranteed.
This CAAP will be a valuable guidance tool for the expanded flight review process as proposed in Part 61 regulations.
Rules affected
CAAP 5.81-1(0)
Status
Project approved by Group General Manager, Personnel, Licensing, Education and Training Group on 18 July 2007.
Project registered on 19 July 2007.
Project management
Project Sponsor: Greg Hood
Project Leader: Phil Astley
Contact details
Email: Phil Astley
A Flight review is a "co-operatve learning experience" not a test.
Instructors and Schools should keep good records of any Review conducted as they may be hearing from the Coroner one day.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFF
Each organisation that conducts AFR's has slightly differing 'criteria" for how long and what should be assessed during the AFR.
After 14 years of conducting AFR's (BFR's), I can't ever remember a time where one was completed in less than 1.1, so if that is any consolation there you go.
As the above post shows, the primary goal of the AFR is to Assess that the "Pilot is safe to exercise the Privilages" of thier qualifications. This means that the AFR needs to be flexible with regard to the person bieng assessed.
I have seen the two opposite ends of the sacle on AFR (BFR's) over the years. Some organisations that want to check every possible combination and privalage,and then there are those that just do a quick basic look at the major areas and then make a judgment about the rest.
No judgement about which is the correct way, as each person is different and well some people just have a bad day.
As to the number of flights, that is irrelevant to me (and the current AOC holder who I conduct them for). As long as the required items are covered and the person doing the asessment is happy then thats when the AFR is completed. Two and even three flights is common.
Many people coming back to flying after a long break use the AFR as a completion standard check!. in other words they do some get back into the groove while working up to the AFR.
Main point is don't sweat it, the AFR can be a very handy tool.
Listen to the Doc, his point is very good about upgarading ratings etc. Or at least use the AFR as a method of improving your current skills.
Trust me, your AFR assessor will be very glad to help you do that.
richo
Each organisation that conducts AFR's has slightly differing 'criteria" for how long and what should be assessed during the AFR.
After 14 years of conducting AFR's (BFR's), I can't ever remember a time where one was completed in less than 1.1, so if that is any consolation there you go.
As the above post shows, the primary goal of the AFR is to Assess that the "Pilot is safe to exercise the Privilages" of thier qualifications. This means that the AFR needs to be flexible with regard to the person bieng assessed.
I have seen the two opposite ends of the sacle on AFR (BFR's) over the years. Some organisations that want to check every possible combination and privalage,and then there are those that just do a quick basic look at the major areas and then make a judgment about the rest.
No judgement about which is the correct way, as each person is different and well some people just have a bad day.
As to the number of flights, that is irrelevant to me (and the current AOC holder who I conduct them for). As long as the required items are covered and the person doing the asessment is happy then thats when the AFR is completed. Two and even three flights is common.
Many people coming back to flying after a long break use the AFR as a completion standard check!. in other words they do some get back into the groove while working up to the AFR.
Main point is don't sweat it, the AFR can be a very handy tool.
Listen to the Doc, his point is very good about upgarading ratings etc. Or at least use the AFR as a method of improving your current skills.
Trust me, your AFR assessor will be very glad to help you do that.
richo
Last edited by Richo; 23rd Sep 2007 at 13:51.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that only an Initial Rating or a Rating Renewal covered the requirements for an AFR, an Endorsement does not anymore.
I believe especially for a PPL holder an AFR shouldn't be a test of sorts but more a competency refresher. Give them a 1 on 1 Q and A on procedures, weather, the aircraft and airspace/regs changes. You will get a feel for where they are at. If they don't understand something it is a great time to ask. Better to ask now than bang into CTA without a clearance!
As for the flight I use a short Nav, that covers CTA, a Non-controlled Aerodrome, GAAP entry and exit, few touch and go's, prehaps a glide approach and on the way back .2 of IF with some steep turns and a PFL. Usually takes 1.3-1.6hrs
Gives you a pretty good idea where they are at, and can dust off skills they haven't used in years!
I believe especially for a PPL holder an AFR shouldn't be a test of sorts but more a competency refresher. Give them a 1 on 1 Q and A on procedures, weather, the aircraft and airspace/regs changes. You will get a feel for where they are at. If they don't understand something it is a great time to ask. Better to ask now than bang into CTA without a clearance!
As for the flight I use a short Nav, that covers CTA, a Non-controlled Aerodrome, GAAP entry and exit, few touch and go's, prehaps a glide approach and on the way back .2 of IF with some steep turns and a PFL. Usually takes 1.3-1.6hrs
Gives you a pretty good idea where they are at, and can dust off skills they haven't used in years!
Must it be done in 1 single flight or can you do it in two parts on the same day (e.g. landing away for a coffee/toilet stop)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that only an Initial Rating or a Rating Renewal covered the requirements for an AFR, an Endorsement does not anymore.
A Proficiency Check also counts, and, since it would be done as part of a Check & Training organisation, it can be conducted by a pilot who is not an instructor.
CAR 5.81 (in part ...)
(5) A private (aeroplane) pilot who, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, has:
(a) passed a flight test conducted for the purpose of:
(i) the issue of an aeroplane pilot licence; or
(ii) the issue, or renewal, of an aeroplane pilot rating; or
(b) satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check; or
(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;
is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.
CAR 2 (in part ...)
aeroplane proficiency check means a check:
(a) that tests the aeronautical skills and aeronautical knowledge relevant to aeroplane flight of the person undertaking the check; and
(b) that is required by: (i) subregulation 217 (2);
CAR 217 (in part ...)
(4) A pilot may conduct tests or checks for the purposes of an approved training and checking organisation without being the holder of a flight instructor rating.
Something I've been trying to clarify for a while, please bear with me and apologies for a bit of thread creep:
I hold a Grade 1 helicopter instructor rating but haven't been involved with civil flying schools due military background - been working in GA non-instructional for a number of years now and covering the flight reviews by initially obtaining and then renewing/upgrading the rating, initially with CASA and then a local ATO.
Have been approached now and then to conduct flight reviews, but the stumbling block is rules interpretation explained to me by the CASA testing officer when I did my Gr 2 initially. The argument goes like this (some helicopter things aren't as fully covered as fixed wing in the regs, so using the fixed wing stuff for clarity) -
Who can conduct a flight review?
"9.3 A Grade 1 flight instructor may: (c) conduct an aeroplane flight review."
From CAR1988 -
"An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person"
It goes on to say -
(8) In this regulation:
appropriate person means:
(a) an authorised flight instructor who holds a grade of flight
instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct
flight reviews in aeroplanes; or
(b) an approved testing officer; or
(c) a CASA flying operations inspector.
Then you look in the definitions part back at the start of CAR1988 -
"authorised flight instructor means a person who:
(a) in relation to an aircraft that is not an airship—holds a current
flight instructor rating that:
(i) is appropriate to the aircraft; and
(ii) authorises the holder to give the training concerned; and
(b) in relation to an airship—is an airship instructor; and
(c) either:
(i) is the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate that authorises
flying training; or
(ii) is employed to instruct by, or instructs under an
arrangement with, a person who is the holder of an Air
Operator’s Certificate that authorises flying training."
So because I don't work for or have an arrangement with anyone who has flying training on the AOC, this precludes me from conducting flight reviews. I've got a fairly extensive check & training background but seemingly can't run flight reviews for the company I work for, for example, because of this. I could try contacting flying training organisations and asking to work under an arrangement with them, but it seems a bit silly to go down this path seeing as they don't know me from a bar of soap.
Any suggestions?
I hold a Grade 1 helicopter instructor rating but haven't been involved with civil flying schools due military background - been working in GA non-instructional for a number of years now and covering the flight reviews by initially obtaining and then renewing/upgrading the rating, initially with CASA and then a local ATO.
Have been approached now and then to conduct flight reviews, but the stumbling block is rules interpretation explained to me by the CASA testing officer when I did my Gr 2 initially. The argument goes like this (some helicopter things aren't as fully covered as fixed wing in the regs, so using the fixed wing stuff for clarity) -
Who can conduct a flight review?
"9.3 A Grade 1 flight instructor may: (c) conduct an aeroplane flight review."
From CAR1988 -
"An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person"
It goes on to say -
(8) In this regulation:
appropriate person means:
(a) an authorised flight instructor who holds a grade of flight
instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct
flight reviews in aeroplanes; or
(b) an approved testing officer; or
(c) a CASA flying operations inspector.
Then you look in the definitions part back at the start of CAR1988 -
"authorised flight instructor means a person who:
(a) in relation to an aircraft that is not an airship—holds a current
flight instructor rating that:
(i) is appropriate to the aircraft; and
(ii) authorises the holder to give the training concerned; and
(b) in relation to an airship—is an airship instructor; and
(c) either:
(i) is the holder of an Air Operator’s Certificate that authorises
flying training; or
(ii) is employed to instruct by, or instructs under an
arrangement with, a person who is the holder of an Air
Operator’s Certificate that authorises flying training."
So because I don't work for or have an arrangement with anyone who has flying training on the AOC, this precludes me from conducting flight reviews. I've got a fairly extensive check & training background but seemingly can't run flight reviews for the company I work for, for example, because of this. I could try contacting flying training organisations and asking to work under an arrangement with them, but it seems a bit silly to go down this path seeing as they don't know me from a bar of soap.
Any suggestions?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight review CAAP
Draft Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) titled 5.18-1(0) - Flight Crew Licensing - Flight Reviews is now available on the CASA website for review and comment at www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/5_81_1.pdf
Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded directly to [email protected] by Wednesday 7 November 2007.
Comments on this draft CAAP are to be forwarded directly to [email protected] by Wednesday 7 November 2007.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAAP 5.81-1 (0): Flight Crew Licensing Reviews Subsection 7.1 'Substitutes for a flight review' mentions that a satifactorily completed proficiency check with an entry to that effect in the log book will suffice. Does anyone know if this means a recent flight check with an instructor (circuits or an endorsement on a new a/c that included steep turns, PFL, stall, circuits etc) is enough to meet these flight review requirments for PPL or CPL licensed pilot?
Cheers Aviator
Cheers Aviator
