Could the CEO of CASA give himself an AFR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the CEO of CASA give himself an AFR?
A couple of my mates and I were arguing over this. The CEO of CASA is a pilot and needs a BFR (AFR). As the CEO of CASA can he give himself a flight review?
Could he give himself an uppercut? Much more beneficial to everyone 
He wouldn't do it. He would scream at himself then give himself a 'Star Chamber' and fail himself 'for no particular reason'.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Struth! Why is this thread still going?
Simple answer, no he can't.
The general case question would be "Can someone who is authorised to conduct flight reviews (defined in the regs as 'an appropriate person') conduct their own flight review ?" I don't know of anything in the aviation act, regs, orders, aip, etc that would prohibit this, either explicitly or implicitly.
ATO's have to be examined (tested by CASA FOI)....they can't test themselves."gee I have failed because i gave an incorrect answer to a question"........HELLO !!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unhinged you might be onto something. Is there anything in the Regs that says I can't do my own AFR?
Just to make things interesting, the CEO of CASA owns a single seat Aircraft. If he does the majority of the last 10 hours in it, where does the Instructor sit? On his lap?
Remember keep it light-hearted.
Just to make things interesting, the CEO of CASA owns a single seat Aircraft. If he does the majority of the last 10 hours in it, where does the Instructor sit? On his lap?
Remember keep it light-hearted.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'cos it's fun and a bit light-hearted
I suppose it gets your mind off the real issues though.
I remember a past CASA Director of Aviation Safety taking over a C108 up north, doing his thing then persecuting the owners. Bloke needed a 9mm UZI up his arse. But please lets not go there it spoils the "fun".
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Frank, If you do a quick search on my posts in other threads you'll see that I have openly posted my reasoned opinions about the current Director and what he's doing. It is not a light-hearted situation in any sense - I have given it very serious consideration and set out my position plainly.
However, there's a lot of too-serious stuff on Pprune some days, and in this case, I think the original question has unexpectedly identified a real deficiency in the Australian aviation regulatory framework.
Let's keep this thread for what it is - An interesting question that started with the Director but has moved on since then.
However, there's a lot of too-serious stuff on Pprune some days, and in this case, I think the original question has unexpectedly identified a real deficiency in the Australian aviation regulatory framework.
Let's keep this thread for what it is - An interesting question that started with the Director but has moved on since then.
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
F.F.S. some of you guys need to lighten up. Yes it's jetblast but do we think that the rest of the non Dunnunda mob want to read propwash about our Canberra brass.
Nobody made you read this thread.
~FRQ CB
Nobody made you read this thread.
~FRQ CB
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: here
Age: 45
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got a reference for that ? Just because it's common sense, doesn't mean that it's correct.
The general case question would be "Can someone who is authorised to conduct flight reviews (defined in the regs as 'an appropriate person') conduct their own flight review ?" I don't know of anything in the aviation act, regs, orders, aip, etc that would prohibit this, either explicitly or implicitly.
The general case question would be "Can someone who is authorised to conduct flight reviews (defined in the regs as 'an appropriate person') conduct their own flight review ?" I don't know of anything in the aviation act, regs, orders, aip, etc that would prohibit this, either explicitly or implicitly.
Of course having a CASA inspector review the boss may mean a conflict of interest, afterall not many employees are going to fail their boss
5.108 Commercial (aeroplane) pilot: regular flight reviews required
(1)A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note A pilot who flies aeroplanes for an operator to whom regulation 217 applies will be required to undertake proficiency checks at more frequent intervals.
(2) 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; and
(ii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane — that is fitted with fully functioning dual controls; and
(iii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane or is not fitted with wheel brakes — that is fitted with dual control brakes; or
(b) an approved synthetic flight trainer appropriate to the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i).
Note For appropriate person see subregulation (8).
(3)If:
(a) a commercial (aeroplane) pilot undertakes an aeroplane flight review; and
(b) the requirements of subregulation (2) are not satisfied in relation to the review;
the pilot is taken not to have satisfactorily completed the review.
(4)If a commercial (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(4A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(5) A commercial (aeroplane) pilot who has, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight:
(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.
Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review.
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (5) (b), a commercial (aeroplane) pilot is not taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check unless the organisation that conducted the check has made an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to that effect.
(7)CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of paragraph (2) (b).
(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.
(1)A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Note A pilot who flies aeroplanes for an operator to whom regulation 217 applies will be required to undertake proficiency checks at more frequent intervals.
(2) 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; and
(ii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane — that is fitted with fully functioning dual controls; and
(iii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane or is not fitted with wheel brakes — that is fitted with dual control brakes; or
(b) an approved synthetic flight trainer appropriate to the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i).
Note For appropriate person see subregulation (8).
(3)If:
(a) a commercial (aeroplane) pilot undertakes an aeroplane flight review; and
(b) the requirements of subregulation (2) are not satisfied in relation to the review;
the pilot is taken not to have satisfactorily completed the review.
(4)If a commercial (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(4A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(5) A commercial (aeroplane) pilot who has, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight:
(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.
Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review.
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (5) (b), a commercial (aeroplane) pilot is not taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check unless the organisation that conducted the check has made an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to that effect.
(7)CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of paragraph (2) (b).
(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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't have any problem with any of that.
You certainly need an "appropriate person" to conduct a BFR/AFR/HFR. But, I am an appropriate person within the meaning of the Regs, so is there any prohibition on me (as a 'appropriate person') reviewing myself (as a licensed pilot) ?
Analogous situation not so long ago when I had to write a letter from myself (as the managing director), to myself (as an employee), with instructions that limited the use of a company vehicle. One person, two different hats. The action was required and endorsed by the Australian Tax Office.
I know what should happen, it's obvious. But obvious isn't always right, and I still think it's a fun question.
You certainly need an "appropriate person" to conduct a BFR/AFR/HFR. But, I am an appropriate person within the meaning of the Regs, so is there any prohibition on me (as a 'appropriate person') reviewing myself (as a licensed pilot) ?
Analogous situation not so long ago when I had to write a letter from myself (as the managing director), to myself (as an employee), with instructions that limited the use of a company vehicle. One person, two different hats. The action was required and endorsed by the Australian Tax Office.
I know what should happen, it's obvious. But obvious isn't always right, and I still think it's a fun question.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: gold coast
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grow some hair on your balls and harden the f@#k up. Its just a lil fun and i am someone that enjoys haveing a laugh on this site and i must say i got a laugh after reading this thread. keep it up boys
