IFR & Part 61

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: East
Good to see with a couple of weeks to go, there are still lots of confused pilots out there...
I can't seem to find anything in 61.M text about what constitutes the proficiency checks. Is CAO 40.2 being replaced with 61 relevant material? I have the pleasure of my renewal being just after the switchover so I’m trying to work out what I’m supposed to be doing.
Under this new 2D and 3D approvals, If I stuff the NDB does it mean I fail and I can't just drop that approach?
I can't seem to find anything in 61.M text about what constitutes the proficiency checks. Is CAO 40.2 being replaced with 61 relevant material? I have the pleasure of my renewal being just after the switchover so I’m trying to work out what I’m supposed to be doing.
Under this new 2D and 3D approvals, If I stuff the NDB does it mean I fail and I can't just drop that approach?

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 578
Likes: 21
From: Vermont Hwy
NIK, do your renewal before the first!
I am lead to believe, unsubstantiated, that you must pass both 2D and 3D. If you don't have the ability to do 3D, there is a clause to not require it. Otherwise you must do each in the test, and a fail on one means a fail of the lot and a re test (but the re test only on the one you failed- it just means u cannot use the one you previously passed on in the mean time)
I am lead to believe, unsubstantiated, that you must pass both 2D and 3D. If you don't have the ability to do 3D, there is a clause to not require it. Otherwise you must do each in the test, and a fail on one means a fail of the lot and a re test (but the re test only on the one you failed- it just means u cannot use the one you previously passed on in the mean time)
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: Yosemite
And the best thing is that Part 61 is going to work like a treat for our Helo industry too. The regs are so clear and certainly not ambiguous and the best thing is that it won't cost us a single cent extra or require extra training for us to comply. Well done CASA well done, bravo bravo.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
From: On the equator
Appendix 1 Instrument proficiency check – aeroplane category
1. Proficiency check requirements
1.1 An applicant for an instrument proficiency check for the aeroplane category must demonstrate his or her competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by doing the following:
(a) conducting at least 3 instrument approach operations including at least one 2D operation and one approach using GNSS;
(b) performing instrument approach operations, within the flight tolerances specified in table 5 of Schedule 8 of this MOS;
(c) performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in table 2 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.
1. Proficiency check requirements
1.1 An applicant for an instrument proficiency check for the aeroplane category must demonstrate his or her competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by doing the following:
(a) conducting at least 3 instrument approach operations including at least one 2D operation and one approach using GNSS;
(b) performing instrument approach operations, within the flight tolerances specified in table 5 of Schedule 8 of this MOS;
(c) performing manoeuvres in an aeroplane, within the flight tolerances specified in table 2 of Schedule 8 of this MOS.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
From: On the equator
Is that written in the MOS? If so, which section?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Thorn bird-
Broadly, yes. The new rules are conceptually closer to other countries, than the old rules were.
Generally, every 90 days you have to do a certain amount of IF and some approaches. Every year you have demonstrate competence in either all or some approaches. The fine points vary between states.
Broadly, yes. The new rules are conceptually closer to other countries, than the old rules were.
Generally, every 90 days you have to do a certain amount of IF and some approaches. Every year you have demonstrate competence in either all or some approaches. The fine points vary between states.

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,960
Likes: 17
From: Australia
thornbird,
Trouble is, there seem to be some rather big disconnects between what the actual regulations say, and what whoever wrote the MOS thinks they say.
Indeed, one might say the MOS reflects what the regulations were meant to say, but maybe don't.
It is a pretty big job wading through the whole shooting match (1600+ pages), I takes m' hat of to those with the perseverance to at least give it a try.
At least one chap in the glasshouse in Canberra has a pragmatic approach --- if you come across something that doesn't work, we will give you an exemption.
Tootle pip!!
Trouble is, there seem to be some rather big disconnects between what the actual regulations say, and what whoever wrote the MOS thinks they say.
Indeed, one might say the MOS reflects what the regulations were meant to say, but maybe don't.
It is a pretty big job wading through the whole shooting match (1600+ pages), I takes m' hat of to those with the perseverance to at least give it a try.
At least one chap in the glasshouse in Canberra has a pragmatic approach --- if you come across something that doesn't work, we will give you an exemption.
Tootle pip!!
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 1
From: sydney
Leadie,
I've tried, believe me. Trouble is when you read a reg. you try to see what the intent is.
That gets very difficult when the regs. are littered statements like, "To a standard acceptable to CAsA" or "CAsA may accept".
Just who the hell is CAsA???...CAsA is the guy who ramps you or turns up in your office for an audit, does not matter a toss what you thought the regs. meant, nor what "CAsA" as an organization meant, his or her opinion on the day is what the regs. mean.
When you compare our Part 61 with NZ's or FAA's you really see the difference. With them you Know exactly what the intent is, its very clearly spelt out in plain language, there are very few grey areas, you know exactly what they mean and how to comply.
I have a terrible feeling that the new part 61, although I have to say on the surface there is a lot in them that could be good, leaves us even more exposed to the opinions of the FOI or AWI of the day, with the usual "All care, but we take no responsibility" approach.
I've tried, believe me. Trouble is when you read a reg. you try to see what the intent is.
That gets very difficult when the regs. are littered statements like, "To a standard acceptable to CAsA" or "CAsA may accept".
Just who the hell is CAsA???...CAsA is the guy who ramps you or turns up in your office for an audit, does not matter a toss what you thought the regs. meant, nor what "CAsA" as an organization meant, his or her opinion on the day is what the regs. mean.
When you compare our Part 61 with NZ's or FAA's you really see the difference. With them you Know exactly what the intent is, its very clearly spelt out in plain language, there are very few grey areas, you know exactly what they mean and how to comply.
I have a terrible feeling that the new part 61, although I have to say on the surface there is a lot in them that could be good, leaves us even more exposed to the opinions of the FOI or AWI of the day, with the usual "All care, but we take no responsibility" approach.

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 87
Likes: 4
From: Victoria
Deeming provisions
RNAV5 <> GPS ENR
RNAV 1 and 2 GPS TERM
RNP1 GPS TERM
RNP2 GPS ENR
RNP-APCH-LNAV = GPS NPA
TSO 129 require carry ALTN not GNSS based.
recency
CAO 40.2.1.11
90 days
CAO 40.2.1.11.3A to do an NDB or VOR in IMC
LOC 35 days
GDA 90 days for IMC arrival
SPIR 90 days One hour PIC IFR and 1 approach flown.
NGT
CAO40.2.1.14
CAO 40.2.2.5 PVT AWK
CAO 40.2.1.14 CHTR
Plus CAO82.1.4
PASSENGER
CAR 1988 5.8.2 and CAR 5.109
this is old references from CIR exams
RNAV 1 and 2 GPS TERM
RNP1 GPS TERM
RNP2 GPS ENR
RNP-APCH-LNAV = GPS NPA
TSO 129 require carry ALTN not GNSS based.
recency
CAO 40.2.1.11
90 days
CAO 40.2.1.11.3A to do an NDB or VOR in IMC
LOC 35 days
GDA 90 days for IMC arrival
SPIR 90 days One hour PIC IFR and 1 approach flown.
NGT
CAO40.2.1.14
CAO 40.2.2.5 PVT AWK
CAO 40.2.1.14 CHTR
Plus CAO82.1.4
PASSENGER
CAR 1988 5.8.2 and CAR 5.109
this is old references from CIR exams

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
From: On the equator
ILS (3D approach and an approach using CDI) is now every 90 days.
And all recency requirements can be done in a sim or FTD.
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...ment-ratings-0





