Part 61 "traps for young players"
Thread Starter
Part 61 "traps for young players"
Thought this might be a good forum for schools and students to share their experiences of Part 61.
Here's a trap we fell for at our school. I have a student attempting his Cpl test on Monday. He holds a class 2 medical which would have been permitted under the previous legislation, but we have unfortunately had to postpone his test.
Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence.
The point being. If you have a Cpl test in the next 6 weeks and don't hold a class 1 medical, it might be something you want to get on to pretty quick.
Here's a trap we fell for at our school. I have a student attempting his Cpl test on Monday. He holds a class 2 medical which would have been permitted under the previous legislation, but we have unfortunately had to postpone his test.
Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence.
The point being. If you have a Cpl test in the next 6 weeks and don't hold a class 1 medical, it might be something you want to get on to pretty quick.
The school gets time to transition, but the licencing rules do not.
We will probably transition sooner rather than later, but to get a Part 61 licence on Monday you need to meet the Part 61 rules.
We will probably transition sooner rather than later, but to get a Part 61 licence on Monday you need to meet the Part 61 rules.
Anyone got anything on META requirements and whether the 50 hours PIC is now just 50 hours (dual icus or pic)?
Evilducky, although no one really knows what CASA is thinking, when new rules are drafted, they get run by a legal team. Their advice surely would be that, to issue any qualification, all requirements to exercise the qualification must be met on the day the relevant test is conducted. The new rule maybe could have spelled it out more clearly, but the way I read it, you must have a Class One before applying to take the flight test. The assumption being that the whole purpose of obtaining a commercial licence is to use it commercially.
Why would anyone want a CPL otherwise? Also, CASA claim that they are trying to fit in with what other ICAO countries do at the licensing stage, so that our licences will be internationally recognised. The new rule re the medical standard closes a loophole that has existed for years (and I know one case where it was exploited). That is you could in the past take the CPL test on a Class Two medical, head overseas and without fully disclosing your medical history, fudge a Class One and convert the Aussie licence.
Despite our licences and type ratings now being more ICAO-compliant, the Yanks and Europeans will probably still refuse to recognise them for a straight conversion, no matter that we may accept theirs....but that's protectionism for you.
At least once you have a CPL or ATPL, it never expires even if your medical lapses for a few years.
Unlike some jurisdictions, so I suppose we should be grateful for that!
Why would anyone want a CPL otherwise? Also, CASA claim that they are trying to fit in with what other ICAO countries do at the licensing stage, so that our licences will be internationally recognised. The new rule re the medical standard closes a loophole that has existed for years (and I know one case where it was exploited). That is you could in the past take the CPL test on a Class Two medical, head overseas and without fully disclosing your medical history, fudge a Class One and convert the Aussie licence.
Despite our licences and type ratings now being more ICAO-compliant, the Yanks and Europeans will probably still refuse to recognise them for a straight conversion, no matter that we may accept theirs....but that's protectionism for you.
At least once you have a CPL or ATPL, it never expires even if your medical lapses for a few years.
Unlike some jurisdictions, so I suppose we should be grateful for that!
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 31st Aug 2014 at 04:42.
"Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence."
Sorry but I don't have the ability to look up that reference at the moment and I am not familiar with the flying training aspect of the new rules, however by reading what you have written, I interpret that your student will be fine to do the test. He won't be "excercising the privileges of the license" so therefore will not need to hold a Class 1 for the test.
Having said that though, ask two different FOIs and you will get two different answers, and don't bother waiting for licensingregs to get back to you as amongst many others I have not heard back for several weeks for questions that you know, we want the answers to so that we can ensure we are doing the right thing and keeping legal and safe.. Just call up first thing tomorrow morning and ask how you are to conduct business legally, and record the conversation in some way and tell them that- especially if you are allowed to conduct business as you currently are.
Looking forward to tomorrow!
Sorry but I don't have the ability to look up that reference at the moment and I am not familiar with the flying training aspect of the new rules, however by reading what you have written, I interpret that your student will be fine to do the test. He won't be "excercising the privileges of the license" so therefore will not need to hold a Class 1 for the test.
Having said that though, ask two different FOIs and you will get two different answers, and don't bother waiting for licensingregs to get back to you as amongst many others I have not heard back for several weeks for questions that you know, we want the answers to so that we can ensure we are doing the right thing and keeping legal and safe.. Just call up first thing tomorrow morning and ask how you are to conduct business legally, and record the conversation in some way and tell them that- especially if you are allowed to conduct business as you currently are.
Looking forward to tomorrow!
Not agreeing with the rules make it happen just questioning them, and the answer is that not many seem to know. It's going to be a shmozzle for the foreseeable future.
The basic requirements for things are easy enough to find, but it seems that some of the other extra requirements for things either haven't been thought of, are still the same,or have been removed altogether???
The basic requirements for things are easy enough to find, but it seems that some of the other extra requirements for things either haven't been thought of, are still the same,or have been removed altogether???
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect its threat and error management. I was told CPL and ATPL HUF is basically the same, but I don't recall any on that subject in my CPL exam yet in ATPL after 09 I got hammered with them. Wasn't expecting it from my text book's 2 paragraphs on it, so I got to sit that one twice, both felt like a good half of the questions where TEM.
Was there a major change to the syllabus? Why is re-sitting AHUF so important?
Do they just make this stuff up as they go?
So if I got my full ATPL licence issued before the change over and my AHUF was sat before 2009 that's ok but as of next week it isn't?
Re inventing the wheel again.
So if I got my full ATPL licence issued before the change over and my AHUF was sat before 2009 that's ok but as of next week it isn't?
Re inventing the wheel again.
Yeah yeah, H-S.
Not aimed specifically at you, but like this bullsiht about RA holders being able to convert to RPL and fly up to 1500 kg without even having done a BAK, some tawt is going to try and shortcut commonsense.
Woe betide the Instructor (with Gr1/2 priviledges now) who signs off the future fatality on that one...
Not aimed specifically at you, but like this bullsiht about RA holders being able to convert to RPL and fly up to 1500 kg without even having done a BAK, some tawt is going to try and shortcut commonsense.
Woe betide the Instructor (with Gr1/2 priviledges now) who signs off the future fatality on that one...
but like this bullsiht about RA holders being able to convert to RPL and fly up to 1500 kg without even having done a BAK, some tawt is going to try and shortcut commonsense.
RAA pilots have already done a BAK exam. Do you think GA flying schools will shortcut common sense just to hand out an AFR on them? Do you honestly think 1500 kg is harder than 600?
One of the great things about part 61 and a boost to GA I think.
I'm sure some things will improve under the new system, but if your an instructor, or sitting a flight test over the next month or two, your up sh1t creek without a paddle... Why? Because CASA don't actually have the paddles yet, so f$ck knows how were supposed to get along with it?
The actual "transition" is not a transition at all.. Come tomorrow, and you wanna do a GFPT for example, you gotta go through the new hoops, even tho you've just got an understanding of the old ones..
The only good thing is I'm yet to find an ATO who's clear on it either..
The actual "transition" is not a transition at all.. Come tomorrow, and you wanna do a GFPT for example, you gotta go through the new hoops, even tho you've just got an understanding of the old ones..
The only good thing is I'm yet to find an ATO who's clear on it either..
Think of a medical as a 'roadworthy'. On the day the vehicle was checked, the tyres were all within limits. You have so many days to get the vehicle registered, after which the assumption is that just maybe, the tyres are now worn.
As far as CASA knows, a medical standard achieved two years ago is no indication of your current fitness.
Everyone sees themselves as a special case, but the rules need to cover the lowest common denominator.
As far as CASA knows, a medical standard achieved two years ago is no indication of your current fitness.
Everyone sees themselves as a special case, but the rules need to cover the lowest common denominator.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by glenb
Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence.
61.235(c)(i) actually says
the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the grant of the licence;
The phrasing "required for grant of the licence" in 61.235 seems to be quite deliberate. It's used again in 61.1300. And 61.235(c)(iii) uses the phrase "for the exercise of licence" when talking about medical exemptions; you would expect the regulation to use the same phrase in 61.235(c)(i) if the same requirements applies for medical certificates.
- S
RAA pilots have already done a BAK exam. Do you think GA flying schools will shortcut common sense just to hand out an AFR on them? Do you honestly think 1500 kg is harder than 600?
I certainly do believe there are people out there of dubious integrity who will be happy to hand out the conversion without any thought to letting someone go and wipe themselves out. There are certainly schools out there who do it properly, but when I get a student who takes six lessons on stalling to get past yelling "NO! NO! NO!" and either latching onto your arm for grim death or shoving the column forward to stop the aircraft even buffeting because his RA instructor thought it would be a good idea to show what a gun he was by spinning the Jab as an intro to stalling, then you can understand my skepicism.
I have seen (and reported) instructors handing out AFR's (illegally three years after they left the authorising school) and airspace endos (on a non-current instructor's say-so) and seeing a VCA the very next day.
You really think the system isn't going to get a few dodgys in there?
Seen plenty of people new to a 300bhp conti go skewing off the left side when they firewalled the throttle in a 200 series and went along for the ride. And they were already used to 172s.
300 vs. 100 bhp? Yeah, mate, it's different.
Righto, time for some constructive stuff!
RPL's can sign MR's
Flight up to 25nm from aerodrome is permitted on RPL, but must land at the aerodrome of departure.
Pre RPL, up to three hours consecutive solo, but dual check required within last 14 days of the solo flight.
RPL has a separate endorsement for flight radio use, flight in controlled airspace, flight at a controlled aerodrome or flight more than 25 nm from the aerodrome (RA carry-on). A qualified flight instructor can issue these endos during the (PPL) training to make the test less intensive.
ACROP no longer exists but can be coverted to Aeronautical Radio Operator's Certificate at no cost (from CASA).
RPL's can sign MR's
Flight up to 25nm from aerodrome is permitted on RPL, but must land at the aerodrome of departure.
Pre RPL, up to three hours consecutive solo, but dual check required within last 14 days of the solo flight.
RPL has a separate endorsement for flight radio use, flight in controlled airspace, flight at a controlled aerodrome or flight more than 25 nm from the aerodrome (RA carry-on). A qualified flight instructor can issue these endos during the (PPL) training to make the test less intensive.
ACROP no longer exists but can be coverted to Aeronautical Radio Operator's Certificate at no cost (from CASA).