No more Student Pilot Licences

[Lasiorhinus]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...iefing-doc.pdf

From our esteemed Regulator today, this "minor update" to CASR 61,

CASA recognises the requirement for a student pilot to hold a licence to conduct a solo flight is
unnecessary. Consequently, CASA proposes to remove the Student Pilot Licence (SPL) from CASR
Part 61.

Student pilots: (61.A.3.1): The requirement for a student pilot to hold a licence has been
deleted; however, medical and English language standards have been retained. The
minimum age for student pilots has been lowered from 16 to 15 years. Instructors and Part
141/142 operators will also be required to ensure student pilots satisfy the specified
requirements prior to authorising them to conduct solo flights.

[Nomde plume]

If it looks too good to be true....


Glad to see the regulator eliminating some of the BS around flight training. Now what happens to the requirement to hold an ASIC?

[Old Akro]

It was covered in the CASA briefing on Wednesday. But there are many, many unanswered questions. Like What happens to the old security check requirement, how someone transfers between schools, what happens about the old taxi & radio licences, what happens about getting a medical without an ARN. How can a student go solo at (say) Moorabbin without an ASIC? How do the get an ASIC without an ARN? If they are going to be issued with ARN's then how is this different to a student licence?

The bigger questions come in with ATO's becoming flight examiners. Multi type rating being abolished. ATPL having the IFR rating incorporated into it (What happens to tourist charter ATPL's who don't regularly fly IFR? If the IFR rating becomes not current, does the ATPL as well?)

Part 141 schools will be able to use PPL licenced instructors for some specialist training (eg aerobatics). Does this mean the hire or reward restrictions are being lifted? Or are these guys expected to instruct for free? How does that impact on the school's AOC?

All of these are questions raised on Wednesday night that the CASA reps were unable to answer.

[Nomde plume]

Akro I think the ARN application process is a lot easier than the SPL application. A fax and a few phone calls can have in done in a day or two. As for the rest of your concerns I think CASA will take the 'suck it and see' approach to ironing the bugs out of the new regs. 12 months of amendments and exemptions later, we will basically have what the old system consisted of, exactly what they set out to change.

I wanna know what's happening to the flight examiner's insurance dilemma. I believe a lot of ATOs won't be testing come December if something isn't done about it!

[avconnection]

You can be issued a "temporary" or "preliminary" ARN which becomes your ARN when you are able to hold a licence. This was the process in the past for young students who were too young to hold an SPL but required an ARN for registration of a pass in theory.

[YPJT]

Now what happens to the requirement to hold an ASIC?

The regulations pertaining to ASICs are nothing to do with CASA. They are merely one of many issuing bodies that can process applications.

How do the get an ASIC without an ARN?

I wouldn't see this as an insurmountable problem. All that needs to be demonstrated for the issue of an ASIC is an operational need. Other documentation or verfication by the school could satisfy this requirement. For example in the case of a non-pilot applicant, a signed declaration or letter from an employer is usually sufficient.

[Nomde plume]

From the CASA FAQ on ASIC/AVID:

Q: Are pilots still allowed to fly without an ASIC?

Yes. Pilots only need to have submitted an application for an AVID or an ASIC to operate an aircraft. The application will be processed and appropriate background checks undertaken prior to the AVID or ASIC being issued to an eligible pilot.

Also,

If you want to use your CASA issued flight crew licence and you do not require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport that has RPT operations, you must apply for a background security check and you will be issued with an AVID provided your checks are successful. This does not apply if you are under 18.

Can't find anything in the new regs that changes this, my question is, if anyone knows, do you need ASIC/AVID to go solo now that you don't have a 'flight crew licence'?

[garrya100]

I asked the question at a CASA seminar if the holder of a PPL instructor endorsement could be paid for their work and the answer was affirmative. I haven't seen anything in the legislation to back that up though

[dubbleyew eight]

when I looked the Juliar requirement was that every pilot held an asic.

once.

there was no actual requirement to renew them unless you flew into a security controlled airfield.

[Nomde plume]

Garry I also heard this could be done outside a part 141/142 operator? Am I the only one that think that's a bit reckless? Given the scrutiny that flying schools get regarding supervision and operational approvals...

[LeadSled]

Does this mean the hire or reward restrictions are being lifted?

What Hire and Reward restrictions, with all due respect, this is a very misunderstood area in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

is training moving into the flying clubs environment like england?

[garrya100]

I didn't ask about not being connected to a 141/142 operator, but I guess it depends on what you're delivering. You can only deliver training on endorsements that you hold, and not deliver RPPL or PPL training.

It's not particularly difficult to delivery training and sign off on CSU/retract, but I do wonder about aerobatics etc.

I also wonder about who then is responsible for training records etc and will the endorser have to retain records for 7 years (as you need to as a RTO) and who then is fit to ensure competency if your not attached to a 141/142 operator.

I guess time will tell

[Clare Prop]

I'm at the PDP next month but recently asked a CASA guy what would happen to the people who hold a GFPT if there were to be no student licences (which aren't required in other countries I have instructed in, also no such thing as a GFPT anywhere else, just NFT and GFT), expecting to be told they would need to do a flight test depending on whether they wanted RPL or PPL.

The answer was that they would be "given a PPL".

So...no PPL theory, no PPL flight test etc..."Given a PPL".

Did this come up at any of the other PDPs? I just find it really hard to believe, especially as until pretty recently the GFPT flight test form didn't even comply with the Day VFR Syllabus. Personally I've always felt it was a waste of time as it gives no credits towards the PPL flight test (isn't even mentioned in the ATOM) and the whole idea of student pilots whizzing about with passengers was something I have always been uncomfortable with.

Would be interesting to know. I giess I'll find out sometime in the two days I have to close up shop and try to stay awake in a stuffy room.....

[Nomde plume]

Clare prop, are you an ATO? If so, What's happening with indemnity insurance?

[Aussie Bob]

Clare: This was extensivly discussed at the PDP I went to. A GFPT holder will not get a PPL, they will get the new RPL which is a recreational pilots license. 20 nm limit and 1500 kgs I think but can't remember the exact points. Perhaps only one pax as well.

[garrya100]

Pax depends on the medical you hold. Drivers licence medical = 1 pax, class 1 or 2 and you can fill all seats

The reasoning for 1500kg is that would limit you to a 4 seater anyhow.

[Clare Prop]

Thanks guys, I thought it would be an RPL but the guy I spoke to said PPL and I thought it sounded a bit odd.

Will they just get given one or will there be a requirement for some kind of recency or check seeing as some of them might not have flown for a while and used to just need a quick dual check which could be done by a Grade Three and it could have been years since they did the GFPT??

Yes I am an ATO and must confess I haven't looked too closely into the indemnity thing. I was going to see what came along at the PDP, perhaps someone who has been to one can answer that?

[Nomde plume]

I believe there will be some form of test as they will have certain privileges like signing maintenance releases, and there is no requirement for an instructors authorisation any more.

I really hope the indemnity issue gets resolved soon!

[Clare Prop]

Nomde, could you run through the indemnity issue briefly here? I seem to remember this came up a few years ago and was resolved?