NVFR - Removing restrictions and adding endorsements with a CIR/ME
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVFR - Removing restrictions and adding endorsements with a CIR/ME
This might be handy for anyone finding it hard to keep their CIR/ME current and doing a bit of night flying..
Just got an email from a friend who visited the CASA office and got his logbook updated. if you hold an NVFR and a current CIR/ME, you may be eligible to have the SE restriction removed and/or navigational aids added to your NVFR (and hence still be able to use those aids flying a Multi or with the additional aids once your CIR/ME has lapsed)
For more information have a look at CAAP 5.13-2(0), specifically the following paragraphs...
Paragraph 5.7.1 To remove a single-engine aeroplane limitation from a NVFR Rating, a flight test must be conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane. However, where a person also holds a current aeroplane command or co-pilot instrument rating that was issued or renewed on the basis of a flight test conducted in a multiengine aeroplane or simulator, a flight test is not required for the removal of the limitation.
Paragraph 5.8.6 The holder of a NVFR rating who also holds a current command or co-pilot instrument rating endorsed with the VOR or NDB navigation aids may apply to add those aids, together with the DME navigation aid, to a NVFR rating without a flight test provided navigational competency using at least one other navigation aid has been demonstrated at night.
Paragraph 5.8.7 In addition, the holder of a current command or co-pilot instrument rating who has a log-book certification authorising the use of GNSS for en-route navigation under the IFR would also be entitled to the GPSN endorsement on a NVFR rating without a flight test if they had previously demonstrated navigational competency using another aid at night.
Same sort of the processes as the PIFR, but he mentioned there was a little bit more confusion. No charge either (what?!)
Looks like I'm going to have to head down on my day off.
Just got an email from a friend who visited the CASA office and got his logbook updated. if you hold an NVFR and a current CIR/ME, you may be eligible to have the SE restriction removed and/or navigational aids added to your NVFR (and hence still be able to use those aids flying a Multi or with the additional aids once your CIR/ME has lapsed)
For more information have a look at CAAP 5.13-2(0), specifically the following paragraphs...
Paragraph 5.7.1 To remove a single-engine aeroplane limitation from a NVFR Rating, a flight test must be conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane. However, where a person also holds a current aeroplane command or co-pilot instrument rating that was issued or renewed on the basis of a flight test conducted in a multiengine aeroplane or simulator, a flight test is not required for the removal of the limitation.
Paragraph 5.8.6 The holder of a NVFR rating who also holds a current command or co-pilot instrument rating endorsed with the VOR or NDB navigation aids may apply to add those aids, together with the DME navigation aid, to a NVFR rating without a flight test provided navigational competency using at least one other navigation aid has been demonstrated at night.
Paragraph 5.8.7 In addition, the holder of a current command or co-pilot instrument rating who has a log-book certification authorising the use of GNSS for en-route navigation under the IFR would also be entitled to the GPSN endorsement on a NVFR rating without a flight test if they had previously demonstrated navigational competency using another aid at night.
Same sort of the processes as the PIFR, but he mentioned there was a little bit more confusion. No charge either (what?!)
Looks like I'm going to have to head down on my day off.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one!
Hooley Dooley,
That looks easier than trying to interpret that funny CAO about NVFR on a MECIR (with the strange little recency requirements).
I'll be giving that a go this week and I'll post here if I get any grief.
FRQ CB
That looks easier than trying to interpret that funny CAO about NVFR on a MECIR (with the strange little recency requirements).
I'll be giving that a go this week and I'll post here if I get any grief.
FRQ CB
This might be handy for anyone finding it hard to keep their CIR/ME current and doing a bit of night flying..
Then you can do all the night flying you desire on an IFR flightplan.
I can't say that I have ever used or felt the need to use my NVFR rating since I got a MECIR.
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 30th Aug 2008 at 07:24.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That's what I did many years ago FTDK, it only cost $10 then...
I did it when you went to the CASA office, asked for it and they came in and walked back and it didn't cost a cent - logbook stamp and updated pages for the license - those were the days.
Refresh my mind - what are the related rules if you have a MECIR, and you want to fly at night, it all has to be on an IFR plan if you don't also have a NVFR ? Or if your MECIR isn't current you can still fly in your PIFR as long as you have night recency?
Refresh my mind - what are the related rules if you have a MECIR, and you want to fly at night, it all has to be on an IFR plan if you don't also have a NVFR ? Or if your MECIR isn't current you can still fly in your PIFR as long as you have night recency?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't say that I have ever used or felt the need to use my NVFR rating since I got a MECIR
Refresh my mind - what are the related rules if you have a MECIR, and you want to fly at night, it all has to be on an IFR plan if you don't also have a NVFR ? Or if your MECIR isn't current you can still fly in your PIFR as long as you have night recency?
If a MECIR is current then for CHTR one needs 10 hrs X-ctry NVFR (not NIFR)(including 3 Navs of 3 hours or 300 miles each) as PIC or ICUS (no Dual) PLUS recent exp of 4 T/O and LDG within 90 days and a night flight (VFR or IFR) (of at least 100 nm or 1 hr) in the last 6 Months or a flight check at night (not necessarily a NVFR check, mine was my initial MECIR issue, and the ATO actually landed the thing (for his own recency which I was totally happy with) but the tick was in the box
). (CAO 40.2.1 Para 13 - page 16)Gee that was an interesting chat with the CP convincing him that I could legally do the flight.
To summarise it's easier to be current for a NVFR flight on a NVFR Rating than the same flight on a MECIR.
FRQ CB
Last edited by FRQ Charlie Bravo; 30th Aug 2008 at 11:50. Reason: add hyperlink
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that to carry out a NVFR charter, you still had to hold a current MECIR.
Gunna go look at my regs and orders now. I have a current NVFR without limitations, with several aids, but was under the understanding that unless I had a CURRENT MECIR, I couldn't do a night charter.
Gunna go look at my regs and orders now. I have a current NVFR without limitations, with several aids, but was under the understanding that unless I had a CURRENT MECIR, I couldn't do a night charter.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Correct you can't do a night charter, but you can reposition the aircraft before or after a charter at night!
Can someone please explain what FTDK mean
The aeroplane I fly is the classic V-tail (Forktailed) Bonanza. This particular type has a history of being bought by persons with high disposable incomes, like Doctors (Doctor). However, some of these people don't take the time to get an appropriate level of training to go with this high performance aircraft. As a result, they have flown themselves into circumstances beyond their abilities, and as a result their lifecycles have ended (Killer).
"The V-tail configuration of the vertical stabilizer in the resulted in the plane being dubbed the "fork-tailed doctor killer" because of the propensity of wealthy doctors with large egos and low hours to stuff their beautiful A35's into hillsides."
Here's another take on it:
"Doctors are busy yet determined people. The kind of folk who don't really have time to get a PPL, but manage to squeeze one in because they're also generally good at time management. So substitue the usual caveat of low hours for lowest hours possible to be a pilot. Doctors are generally wealthier than the average, yet not stupidly wealthy and so when they buy their aircraft, tend to think in terms of price/performance and buy the fastest thing their budget will afford - because as we've already mentioned they are very busy and want to get where they are going. You're in your late forties. You've just proven to yourself that you can do anything by learning to fly. You promised your daughter you'd be home for her baseball game and your son you'd be home for his recital, your Bonanza is fuelled up and waiting to go. You've visited this patient three times before, so you know the route and haven't really bothered to do the annoying paperwork of planning all that fully this time. The weather is looking a little grey and close (if you notice it at all). Do you: (a) fly home or (b) dissapoint your family yet again by phoning your partner: "The weather is marginal darling, I'm going to stay overnight here." (In the town your partner knows a highschool sweetheart of yours is now living...) Yep. You choose (a). You fly home.
"In local news, respected doctor and philanthropist your name here was killed today when his/her light aircraft crashed into Mt. Hightop in heavy fog. Investigators say that the cause of the crash is not yet clear, but they have not ruled out pilot error.""
The V-tailed Bonanza's place as the killer of Doctors has now largely been taken by the Lancair but some suggest the Cirrus is a worthy successor!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 31st Aug 2008 at 03:55.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High performance??? Bwaaahahaha 
Oh, hang on........ we were talking doctors........ yeah, OK. I'll wear it now.
Oh, hang on........ we were talking doctors........ yeah, OK. I'll wear it now.
High performance??? Bwaaahahaha
OK Wiz, just curious, for each of the following decades would you care to list higher performance single engine 4/5/6 seat aircraft that were available off the factory floor to the cashed up professional?
The V-tailed Bonanza was introduced in 1947 and produced until 1982!
1950-1959:?
1960-1969:?
1970-1979:?
Dr
PS: High performance? Townsville - Broome (1400 nm) comfortably in a day (9.5 hrs flying) on <500 L of avgas, with stops for morning tea and lunch, will do me for "high performance"!
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 31st Aug 2008 at 03:52.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey when I had a US PPL issued on the basis of my AUS licence I had to get a high perf endo stamped into my logbook for a C182 as it's over 200 HP.
FRQ CB
FRQ CB
Last edited by FRQ Charlie Bravo; 31st Aug 2008 at 02:49. Reason: spelling as I type one handed whilst consoling an infant
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who the what?
I thought that to carry out a NVFR charter, you still had to hold a current MECIR. Gunna go look at my regs and orders now. I have a current NVFR without limitations, with several aids, but was under the understanding that unless I had a CURRENT MECIR, I couldn't do a night charter.
Correct you can't do a night charter, but you can reposition the aircraft before or after a charter at night!
What the? References please. I've not heard this one before. My understanding is that somebody in the wizard of auz's position (without an IR) could certainly carry paying charter pax NVFR in a twin. I've certainly seen it done many times.Is this perhaps from somebody's Ops Man and not a reg?
FRQ CB
Nope. It's a Reg./Order thing. It begins with what *privileges* each rating gives a pilot but is complicated by what *procedures* are availabe to be used in operations ie PVT, AWK & CHTR.
A NVFR rating is *only* available for the pilot to use on PVT & AWK operations.
NVFR procedures can be used for PVT, AWK & CHTR however, in the CHTR case, the pilot & aircraft must be capable of using IFR procedures. That means the pilot must be instrument rated and the aircraft must have the necessary equipment for IFR flight.
So, how does a pilot with an instrument rating allowing flight under IFR procedures use NVFR procedures?
A pilot who holds a current instrument rating *and* meets the specified experience requirements for NVFR flight is granted the privilege of using NVFR procedures. The catch is that the pilot must hold an instrument rating. Lose the instrument rating = lose all NVFR privileges (unless you hold some othe rating that allows some amount of NVFR procedures. Hmm....NVFR or Night Ag. ratings anyone?)
BTW, twenty years ago CASA/CAA/DoA/DCA/whatever-this-year used to automatically remove the SEAO restriction from a NVFR rating as part of the issue of a M/E CIR.
A NVFR rating is *only* available for the pilot to use on PVT & AWK operations.
NVFR procedures can be used for PVT, AWK & CHTR however, in the CHTR case, the pilot & aircraft must be capable of using IFR procedures. That means the pilot must be instrument rated and the aircraft must have the necessary equipment for IFR flight.
So, how does a pilot with an instrument rating allowing flight under IFR procedures use NVFR procedures?
A pilot who holds a current instrument rating *and* meets the specified experience requirements for NVFR flight is granted the privilege of using NVFR procedures. The catch is that the pilot must hold an instrument rating. Lose the instrument rating = lose all NVFR privileges (unless you hold some othe rating that allows some amount of NVFR procedures. Hmm....NVFR or Night Ag. ratings anyone?)
BTW, twenty years ago CASA/CAA/DoA/DCA/whatever-this-year used to automatically remove the SEAO restriction from a NVFR rating as part of the issue of a M/E CIR.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downunder
Age: 22
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regs vs Orders
According to regs, one could read that night multi- charter is possible - see CAR 174B (2) which states that:
"The pilot in command of a single engine aircraft must not fly the aircraft at night under the V.F.R. if the flight is not in one of the following operations: [and lists PVT, AWK, non-charter(hire or reward) pax, or CASA approved]"
(My emphasis at s/e aircraft).
The orders (CAO 40.2.2 Appendix 1, para 3) however state that:
"... a night VFR rating authorises the holder of the rating:
(a) in the case of an aeroplane grade of night VFR rating - to fly as pilot in command of aeroplanes having a take-off weight not exceeding 5700 kg on private or aerial flights within Australia by night under the VFR ...."
(My emphasis again)
So, the regs would appear to allow multi night VFR charter ops simply because they restrict the negative statement to single engine aircraft only; but the orders do not allow multi- night VFR charter ops, at least not for light twins.
What is the answer????
A CASA FOI recently disagreed with me when I said I didn't think one could fly charter in a twin under the night VFR - so it would seem he at least is of the opinion one can do multi-engine charter under the night VFR.
Anyone else got anything more definitive?
Capt
PS I really like the sound of that simple upgrade of ones night VFR - hope that one proves true.
"The pilot in command of a single engine aircraft must not fly the aircraft at night under the V.F.R. if the flight is not in one of the following operations: [and lists PVT, AWK, non-charter(hire or reward) pax, or CASA approved]"
(My emphasis at s/e aircraft).
The orders (CAO 40.2.2 Appendix 1, para 3) however state that:
"... a night VFR rating authorises the holder of the rating:
(a) in the case of an aeroplane grade of night VFR rating - to fly as pilot in command of aeroplanes having a take-off weight not exceeding 5700 kg on private or aerial flights within Australia by night under the VFR ...."
(My emphasis again)
So, the regs would appear to allow multi night VFR charter ops simply because they restrict the negative statement to single engine aircraft only; but the orders do not allow multi- night VFR charter ops, at least not for light twins.
What is the answer????
A CASA FOI recently disagreed with me when I said I didn't think one could fly charter in a twin under the night VFR - so it would seem he at least is of the opinion one can do multi-engine charter under the night VFR.
Anyone else got anything more definitive?
Capt
PS I really like the sound of that simple upgrade of ones night VFR - hope that one proves true.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride!
As I have posted before:
OK so here goes:
Has Parliament (Act or Regs) said an Instrument Rating is reqd? No:
The Act only mentions that CASA may make restrictions (CAA 20AB; notice how use of the word licence here is used in a rather broad manner)
The Regs stipulate:
Under CAR 5.18 CASA has been given the following authority:
CASA has not directly placed any such restriction on multi NVFR for pilots with no IR or if they have they have chosen a pretty lame way of doing it. At first glance it seems straight forward. CAO 40.2.2 para 8 reads:
Subsection 9 (not of an appendix) is only about recent experience but subsection 3 of Appendix I reads:
Does this mean that CASA has taken up the offer of CAR 5.18 and set out some "directions" (restrictions)? Well, what they have NOT done is to specify an outright offence. There is no mention anywhere that flying charter at night in a twin an offence or that it is an offence to do it without an Instrument Rating. Ok, so they've made a positive statement about something being allowed but they haven't specifically made it exclusive.
I am now leaning towards the belief that NVFR under CAO 40.2.2 may not be allowable but I'll be putting the matter to the local CASA office in the next few days.
However in the same vein:
Now if CAO 40.2.2 doesn't allow NVFR CHTR then what does? There is only one other place and it's requirements are much more onerous than simply having a current Instrument Rating. CAO 40.2.1 (Instrument Ratings) provides for multi NVFR CHTR for MECIR holders who have (here I paste from a recent post of mine:
To summarise:
If simply having the NVFR Rating allows for Multi NVFR CHTR then it's a very straight forward practice of being current under CAO 40.2.2 - Night Ratings (but by very convoluded interpretation of the Orders). If a Night Rating is not sufficient then neither is simply having a current Instrument Rating, one must also have met some fairly onerous aeronautical experience requirements and be "extra recent".
I will repost after talking to CASA.
FRQ CB
If neither Parliament nor CASA (acting on powers given by Parliament) say it's illegal then there is no offence. To be legal something doesn't have to be deemed licit, it simply cannot be prohibited...
...If you ever expect CASA to impose a restriction on you and they don't, do yourself a favour and DON'T ASK them why. Take the freedom and run!
...If you ever expect CASA to impose a restriction on you and they don't, do yourself a favour and DON'T ASK them why. Take the freedom and run!
Has Parliament (Act or Regs) said an Instrument Rating is reqd? No:
The Act only mentions that CASA may make restrictions (CAA 20AB; notice how use of the word licence here is used in a rather broad manner)
The Regs stipulate:
- that a "flight crew rating" is required for flying at Night under the VFR (CAR Part 5 5.01 (2)(d).
- If CASA wishes to set out a condition on a Rating it must do so in writing, in one's logbook or by CAO (CAR 5.16 and 5.18)
- a pilot may carry out an activity which requires a Rating if the pilot holds that Rating
- (As captsumday pointed out) in no uncertain terms a restriction on single-engine flights (those not PVT, AWK, non PAX CHTR etc) prohibiting NVFR CAR 174B (2) and then simply stops short of any further restrictions
Under CAR 5.18 CASA has been given the following authority:
5.18 Flight crew rating: authority and flight tests
CASA may give directions in Civil Aviation Orders setting out:
(a) the authority given by a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew
rating; and
(b) the limitations on that authority; and
(c) the flight tests that must be passed, or any other requirement that
must be satisfied, before that authority may be exercised.
CASA may give directions in Civil Aviation Orders setting out:
(a) the authority given by a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew
rating; and
(b) the limitations on that authority; and
(c) the flight tests that must be passed, or any other requirement that
must be satisfied, before that authority may be exercised.
8 AUTHORITY GIVEN BY RATING
8.1 For the purposes of regulation 5.18:
(a) the authority given by each grade of night V.F.R. rating, other than a balloon grade of night V.F.R. rating; and
(b) the limitations on that authority; and
(c) the flight tests that must be passed and other requirements that must be satisfied before that authority may be exercised;
are set out in subsection 9, and in subsection 3 of Appendix I.
8.1 For the purposes of regulation 5.18:
(a) the authority given by each grade of night V.F.R. rating, other than a balloon grade of night V.F.R. rating; and
(b) the limitations on that authority; and
(c) the flight tests that must be passed and other requirements that must be satisfied before that authority may be exercised;
are set out in subsection 9, and in subsection 3 of Appendix I.
3 AUTHORITY GIVEN BY RATING
3.1 Subject to subsections 5 and 6, a night V.F.R. rating authorises the holder of the rating:
(a) in the case of an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. rating — to fly as pilot in command of aeroplanes having a take-off weight not exceeding 5 700 kg on private or aerial work flights within Australia by night under the V.F.R.;
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e)...
using only those aids for which his or her rating is endorsed, and in accordance with conditions specified by CASA.
3.1 Subject to subsections 5 and 6, a night V.F.R. rating authorises the holder of the rating:
(a) in the case of an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. rating — to fly as pilot in command of aeroplanes having a take-off weight not exceeding 5 700 kg on private or aerial work flights within Australia by night under the V.F.R.;
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e)...
using only those aids for which his or her rating is endorsed, and in accordance with conditions specified by CASA.
I am now leaning towards the belief that NVFR under CAO 40.2.2 may not be allowable but I'll be putting the matter to the local CASA office in the next few days.
However in the same vein:
Now if CAO 40.2.2 doesn't allow NVFR CHTR then what does? There is only one other place and it's requirements are much more onerous than simply having a current Instrument Rating. CAO 40.2.1 (Instrument Ratings) provides for multi NVFR CHTR for MECIR holders who have (here I paste from a recent post of mine:
10 hrs X-ctry NVFR (not NIFR)(including 3 Navs of 3 hours or 300 miles each) as PIC or ICUS (no Dual) PLUS recent exp of 4 T/O and LDG within 90 days and a night flight (VFR or IFR) (of at least 100 nm or 1 hr) in the last 6 Months or a flight check at night. (CAO 40.2.1 Para 14)
If simply having the NVFR Rating allows for Multi NVFR CHTR then it's a very straight forward practice of being current under CAO 40.2.2 - Night Ratings (but by very convoluded interpretation of the Orders). If a Night Rating is not sufficient then neither is simply having a current Instrument Rating, one must also have met some fairly onerous aeronautical experience requirements and be "extra recent".
I will repost after talking to CASA.
FRQ CB
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well after reading my regs because of this thread, I have pretty much come to the same conclusion as FRQ Charlie Bravo. I believe I may seek an interpretation from my FOI...... just for ****sngiggles.
I do remember seeing a loooong time ago, something that was pretty firm on requirements to conduct NFVR flights in a twin. It went something along the lines of
A pilot may conduct a Charter in a multi engined aircraft under the NVFR, provided he meets the recencey requirements for the NVFR and holds a current MECIR.
Or something like that. Just buggered if I can find it.(was a looong time ago)
Just for clarification, my MENVFR (or unrestricted NVFR) is classified on my license as a grade of IR (with the aids listed). would this make any difference in the interpretations?
I do remember seeing a loooong time ago, something that was pretty firm on requirements to conduct NFVR flights in a twin. It went something along the lines of
A pilot may conduct a Charter in a multi engined aircraft under the NVFR, provided he meets the recencey requirements for the NVFR and holds a current MECIR.
Or something like that. Just buggered if I can find it.(was a looong time ago)
Just for clarification, my MENVFR (or unrestricted NVFR) is classified on my license as a grade of IR (with the aids listed). would this make any difference in the interpretations?