Part61 - military endorsements?

[Shagpile]

So I heard today that military will be able to get equivalent civil endorsements.

Does this mean no more IREX, MECIR and (fingers crossed) ATPL ?


...or am I dreaming?

[dartman2]

Always have been able to, 707, L100, 748...

[Arm out the window]

I'd say you're dreaming, in that it seems the only items mentioned in the Part 61 instrument are those currently covered, ie issue of licences (including exam and flight test for ATPL), instrument and instructor ratings, with similar requirements to what currently exists.

However, the Part 61 information explanatory booklet appears to leave things a bit more open, saying "if you're an ADF member and want a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement, you must satisfy CASA that you hold a qualification at least equivalent to the one being applied for." It goes on to say you may need to pass English proficiency and 'the aeronautical exams required.'

I imagine when this all settles down, there will be guidance material showing what is and isn't available to ADF people based on experience. In the meantime, however, I think it may be an opportunity to have our own input in order to ensure appropriate stuff can be granted on production of evidence of experience - for example, given that I've done and instructed heaps of rotary and fixed wing formation, plus form aeros on planks, I'd have thought I could be simply issued endorsements for same on my CASA licences rather than the current thing of having to find a civil instructor to write me up for them.

Lots of similar experiential issues will no doubt arise for many military aircrew, and it's all a bit too vague at the moment. To do my small part, I've recently emailed CASA asking for clarification of these same sorts of issues, but I'd imagine I'm not high on the priority list for responses so am not holding my breath. However, I think it's fair to ask the question, and would encourage others in similar positions to punch some form of correspondence to them as well.

Seeing as the orders and interpretations of same are somewhat plastic at the moment, it'd be a good time make some input for what it's worth.

[aiv23]

There was a recent submission to CASA from within Defence for RPL concerning MECIR. I believe that some or all theory components of ATPL were also included in the submission, but I'm not entirely sure. There is some information regarding this on the DRN. Personally I find it incredible that military experience doesn't satisfy the criteria for issue of an MECIR on spec.

[Shagpile]

Excellent. I don't think I'll be booking in for IREX any time soon.

We need more EDO's to match up the competencies

[Arm out the window]

All that's required for the MECIR is to sit and pass the IREX and do a flight test in a civil type you're rated on.

Of course there are good arguments as to why you shouldn't have to do either of those things to be given a MECIR on some civil type you're rated on, but it shouldn't necessarily be a blanket thing.

Take your knucks, for example - full marks to them, of course (personalities and watch-shooting bar activities notwithstanding), but there really is a learning curve to be negotiated before you'd want to have them leaving LSALT in their bug smasher on an engine-out approach OCTA.

Like you say, Shagpile, a comprehensive list of competencies for every conceivable thing you could get recognition for would be good.

[601]

Does it work the other way?
Buqqer, they buried the F111s

[Shagpile]

I'm instructing on (civil registered) CT4's at the moment - if I'm flying a programmed military sortie I can exercise my IRT for all approaches as it's considered a state aircraft.

If I private hire the same aircraft for the weekend, I have to avoid cloud.

Seems kind of stupid really - this would be a fairly clean cut example of identical competencies.

[Arm out the window]

Yep, you'd have to expect they'd be able to make things a bit more user friendly in circumstances like that.

At the CASA travelling roadshows they've been inviting people to contact them about the rule changes, so it'd be a good idea if we all do just that and ask the questions - nothing will happen otherwise.

[aiv23]

but it shouldn't necessarily be a blanket thing

Agreed, not suggesting everyone from 2FTS is entitled to an MECIR, but I would argue any ADF multi-engine captain with the experience requirements should.

[rodney rude]

The issue for the MECIR for the military guys is about who gave you the test for the issue of the IR. An ATO must be tested and approved by CASA in order to be able to issue the rating. Because the RAAF QFI has not been approved by CASA, he cannot issue the civilian MECIR. Unless of course he is a reservist which was how I did my intitial civilian MECIR. I flew the aeroplane with the RAAF reservist from CASA in the jumpseat. He's approved to travel on the RAAF aircraft and he is approved by CASA with a 5.19, hence he is able to issue the MECIR.

Hey Arm Out The Window - you back flying choppers round the FNQ reefs and relaxing as a chilled out house hubby?

[josephfeatherweight]

RE: ATPL recognition - I think that's stretching it a tad... I learnt a bit from jumping through those hoops that I didn't necessarily get from my RAAF training and experience. Granted some (well, lots...) of it was irrelevant in this day and age, but I doubt anyone will ever get an auto ATPL pass just cause of their mil background.
As for the IRT - that should be cut and dry - got a military IRT, then that should be all you need to fly in the fluffy stuff - make it easy and simply use the same date as your mil IRT, and provided you meet ALL the civil currency and other requirements then you should be good to go.
I have no probs with the knucks flying a bug smasher on the weekend in the gloop - they wouldn't have a problem and they're not keen on killing themselves.

"Nobody's died from pressing..."

[Arm out the window]

I have no probs with the knucks flying a bug smasher on the weekend in the gloop - they wouldn't have a problem and they're not keen on killing themselves.

The problem would be unfamiliarity with the poor to non-existent single engine climb performance on a Duchess, say, and being suddenly thrown into the twilight zone that exists when you're not necessarily going down, but you can't go up fast enough to make a missed approach gradient, let alone a SID.

I'm not saying I've done heaps of that stuff, but a Caribou posting was enough to open my eyes to the 'joys' of bumbling around below LSALT with bugger-all climb performance.

As for the IRT - that should be cut and dry - got a military IRT, then that should be all you need to fly in the fluffy stuff - make it easy and simply use the same date as your mil IRT, and provided you meet ALL the civil currency and other requirements then you should be good to go.

You still need the IREX to ensure familiarity with the appropriate regs, eg differences between what is done under SI's / military AIS pubs as opposed to working under the AIP / CAO / CAR / CASR etc.

[Arm out the window]

Hey Arm Out The Window - you back flying choppers round the FNQ reefs and relaxing as a chilled out house hubby?

Hey mate, a bit of both, but about to have to pull my finger out and start full-time instruction on those crazy piston engined helicopters. My boss must have heard me dribbling on about how someone should open up a flying school in Mareeba, so he's gone and done it ... open for business next week.

How are you getting on?

[kalavo]

I'm instructing on (civil registered) CT4's at the moment - if I'm flying a programmed military sortie I can exercise my IRT for all approaches as it's considered a state aircraft.

If I private hire the same aircraft for the weekend, I have to avoid cloud.

Seems kind of stupid really - this would be a fairly clean cut example of identical competencies.

I fly an Australian registered turboprop IFR, but when it was the same aircraft on the American register I couldnt touch it without sitting their exams and converting a license. Sure in terms of skills required, zero difference, it's the same plane, but their rules and regulations are different, and there are a few gotchas going in either direction.

Exactly the same deal for the military guys here in Oz. Absolutely no doubt most of you have the skills to take a CT4 do IRT until the cows come home. But if you want to do the same in a civil regs, without exemptions, then there's an expectation you take the time to learn the civil regs and knock off the exam. Not too long, hard or expensive. It's not as if they're making you do 200hrs of training, should be no reason after knocking off the exam you can't do a quick checkride and get signed off.

The company I work for has seen more than a few ex-military guys break the rules and have to come in for tea and bikkies because they didn't take the time to learn the differences.

[josephfeatherweight]

Agree IREX is a must - didn't really make that clear in my above post...

[Roller Merlin]

The main issue here is that flying under civil regs is done under the Civil Aviation Act, while military ops are under the Defence Act. So its really about covering your butt with legal armour for when your flying draws some crabs. Even though this is practically stupid, it the reality of our current Australian law.

On the other hand, the pragmatic Kiwis have legal recognition of their Military/Civil instrument ratings and they are for all intents and purposes equal. They also utilise the same set of rules. We tried this back in the 90's....but Defence didn't care and the civil lawyers killed it off.

[Arm out the window]

They also utilise the same set of rules.

Do they have dispensations for things like formation in cloud etc for the military? I'm imagining rules for everyone and a kind of 'military operational requirements exemption' section?

PS G'day RM, hope you're going well.

[Shagpile]

Do they have dispensations for things like formation in cloud etc for the military

Yes, also duty times are squadron specific. Low flying limits different depending on aircraft type, alternate criteria and takeoff minimas. They are the big ones.

[VH-XXX]

Surely the letter from the head honcho of CASA that most of us would have received on Friday would clarify all of the part 61 issues?

If you haven't got yours yet, stay tuned, it's 2 pages of an attempted explanation.