Actual Cost Changes Complying with Part 61
Not really because that is how it has occurred in New Zealand for ever. We have always had a flight test for ATPL. It is held in-house by CAA approved Instructor pilots.
It has always been very difficult for someone not "requiring" an ATPL to do a flight test outside a Part 119 (121, 125) operator certificate.
Airlines have always had "ATPL subjects" not usually the ATPL itself in New Zealand for jobs.
It has always been very difficult for someone not "requiring" an ATPL to do a flight test outside a Part 119 (121, 125) operator certificate.
Airlines have always had "ATPL subjects" not usually the ATPL itself in New Zealand for jobs.
The cost of flight reviews for many pilots will skyrocket. For example an Airline pilot with licence renewed under a cyclic training programme used to be OK.
It seems with the new rules that if they do a bit of light twin flying, and single flying, and a spot of floatplaning then they need to do a review in the twin, plus single, plus float, plus NVFR as they are different classes!
In the USA they need only one!
It seems with the new rules that if they do a bit of light twin flying, and single flying, and a spot of floatplaning then they need to do a review in the twin, plus single, plus float, plus NVFR as they are different classes!
In the USA they need only one!
As for your defence of an ATPL flight test "not being an issue", trying telling that to those poor bastards who now face the prospect of not even getting their resumes glanced at, due to not meeting the requirements.
What requirements? Like the multiple ones on AFAP that require an ATPL for FO and equivalent positions.
What requirements? Like the multiple ones on AFAP that require an ATPL for FO and equivalent positions.
Not really because that is how it has occurred in New Zealand for ever. We have always had a flight test for ATPL. It is held in-house by CAA approved Instructor pilots.
Will CASA also relax the requirement for Long Haul FO's to have ATPLs now as well?
Cannot answer the JQ ATPL isssue question with VH tails but with the ZK jet operations it is a sim ride. Very simple and is only about 2 hours in the bouncing box and a 2 hour oral on flight planning with part 121 operation questions. The operator pays for the sim time and supplies one of its ATPL approved flight examiners. The pilot just pays for the licence issue fee.
NZ has no such animal as a "command rating", a type rating is a type rating it does not matter from which seat you do it.
One ZK turboprop operator would not do the flight test unless you were doing a command upgrade. This because pilots used to just do the ATPL and then leave!
Long haul ZK the first officer is required to have an ATPL as when the PinC is off the flight deck they are SinC and required to supervise the SO.
NZ has no such animal as a "command rating", a type rating is a type rating it does not matter from which seat you do it.
One ZK turboprop operator would not do the flight test unless you were doing a command upgrade. This because pilots used to just do the ATPL and then leave!
Long haul ZK the first officer is required to have an ATPL as when the PinC is off the flight deck they are SinC and required to supervise the SO.
FPVDUDE
So... These cadet types. All the arlines have them now. Are they going to stop training cadets?
...or are they going to upgrade them internally when the time comes?
Some of you guys are just dying to see the sky falling. calm the f*ck down and stop looking for extra drama.
...or are they going to upgrade them internally when the time comes?
Some of you guys are just dying to see the sky falling. calm the f*ck down and stop looking for extra drama.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked overseas for a combined total of 6 years, and knowing the license requirements outside of Australia, before 1st September, Australia was one of the few places in the world where you could be issued with an ATPL without having flown a large transport category aircraft. It's no wonder the 'A' in our ATPL stands for 'Air' and not 'Airline' like it does in other countries.
The new system will put us inline with what happens in most countries with respect to gaining the ATPL. Perhaps CASA should consider bringing back the SCPL or Senior Commercial Pilots License for those who have passed the ATPL subjects and already have the hourly requirements, but still flying GA category aircraft?
The new system will put us inline with what happens in most countries with respect to gaining the ATPL. Perhaps CASA should consider bringing back the SCPL or Senior Commercial Pilots License for those who have passed the ATPL subjects and already have the hourly requirements, but still flying GA category aircraft?
Student pilots no longer have to fork out and wait for a Student Pilot Licence. Also they don't need to get an ASIC until they are applying for the PPL.
I have also been told that - where we previously all did internal ICUS - under Part 61 we cannot do ICUS without a Part 42 (Multicrew and integrated flight training) AOC.
I still believe that it can be done, like everyone who wasn't CAR 217 etc did previously. It will reside with the Chief Pilot still as under the CAO 82 point something they have the C&T Responsibilities. If you look at the Part 61 reg, it doesn't say "Check and Training Organisation" which would equal a 217 or other cyclic organisation.
One more puzzling thing that has been brought to my attention is the fact that Synthetic Trainers approved under CAO 45.0 may not actually be, under the Part 61 regs, an "approved" device to use for instrument approach currency. Has anyone else come across this and been given or found an answer? I hope I'm actually current then because I use one of these trainers for approach recency requirements when they cannot be done in an aircraft!! This could be a massive impact on so many operators out there! Just about every flying school has one, not to mention some larger GA companies scattered around the country who use them for currency purposes.
The whole "which aircraft covers you for what" thing is as clear as mud. I can go fly the metro over 5700kg (which is a "single pilot type that requires a type rating") with a 2nd pilot on board because the client wants them to be there even though the rules don't need them there, but it supposedly will not cover me for single pilot IFR ops in say, the Baron or 310. So I have to make sure I do a flight that meets the criteria for currency in that type.
Previously, a renewal on a single pilot twin under 5700kg would cover me for the single pilot certified twins over 5700kg. Not any more! So here's another increased cost to us all. Instead of spending about 1000 bucks on a renewal, it's doubled or more.
Gaining Part 142 approval too. It's going to cost $30+ thousand dollars (not my estimate, someone else's).. Great. How are companies going to recoup this cost?
No matter how many times I try and read this new stuff, it doesn't get any clearer. Can they please be scrapped, and re-written over the next however many years in a way that we can all understand, please???
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
7 Posts
The NZ scene is a different kettle of fish regarding ATPL licences, so I wouldn't compare Australia to NZ on that basis. NZ has *one* big airline that hires once in a bluemoon so there has never been a demand for ATP holders, hence J* and JC based in NZ can't ask for it as they won't get it!
Compare the situation to Auz with so many jet airlines -and- turboprop operators there is a much bigger demand, and the system allowed for pilots to gain the qualification. Now they cannot without a struggle.
As for the ATP not being legally required for a FO position in Australia, let me remind you that 500Multi PIC isn't either, but everyone in Australia wants it regardless.
Unless you intend to slap every HR person silly, it will take until the market dries right up before those requirements will change, and thats if they do. They will probably start asking for more 457 visas instead!
Compare the situation to Auz with so many jet airlines -and- turboprop operators there is a much bigger demand, and the system allowed for pilots to gain the qualification. Now they cannot without a struggle.
As for the ATP not being legally required for a FO position in Australia, let me remind you that 500Multi PIC isn't either, but everyone in Australia wants it regardless.
Unless you intend to slap every HR person silly, it will take until the market dries right up before those requirements will change, and thats if they do. They will probably start asking for more 457 visas instead!
Good idea, Dick. I don't know what sort of relationship you have with the AHIA, but there is some bloody good discussion on the Aussie-specific rotary forum on this very subject, so if you're not already looking at that it'd probably be worthwhile having a gander.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, who writes this ****?
Silly me, here I was getting wound up over nothing. 360 pages of complex legislation succinctly formatted into a 21 page A5 booklet. About 15 pages of content if you don't count the cover pages or graphics.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...t61booklet.pdf
I particularly like Part 1, Introduction, which has allayed all my concerns, followed by Part 2, Benefits at a glance, which made me feel all warm and fuzzy. So, no noticeable changes and benefits too boot.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...t61booklet.pdf
I particularly like Part 1, Introduction, which has allayed all my concerns, followed by Part 2, Benefits at a glance, which made me feel all warm and fuzzy. So, no noticeable changes and benefits too boot.
.
Introduction
All flight crew will retain their current flying privileges throughout
and following the 1 September 2014 transition. For most people,
the only noticeable change is that they will be issued a licence in
a slightly different format.
Benefits at a glance
›› Reflects best international practices. Your new licence document will be
ICAO compliant.
›› Safety standards will be lifted.
›› Addresses important lessons learnt from past accidents.
›› Training requirements will be more clearly defined
.
Introduction
All flight crew will retain their current flying privileges throughout
and following the 1 September 2014 transition. For most people,
the only noticeable change is that they will be issued a licence in
a slightly different format.
Benefits at a glance
›› Reflects best international practices. Your new licence document will be
ICAO compliant.
›› Safety standards will be lifted.
›› Addresses important lessons learnt from past accidents.
›› Training requirements will be more clearly defined
.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Push back – why not?
The real acid test of part 61 will be reflected in the COM (exposition, if you will); after chief pilots and crew burning the midnight oil, tearing out hair, struggling to unscramble the 61 mess have 'rearranged' their manuals to accommodate this mares nest of a regulation. The 'trick' is to build compliance into the company system in a 'practical' manner. The benefits maximised, the dangers minimised. The thing keeping them awake will be 'subjective interpretation'. It is a serious flaw in this sloppy, complex regulation; you could drive a horse and cart through some of the holes. The irony is that the very people who espoused this confection will be the beneficiaries of industry efforts; firstly by using 'their' translation to generate multiple NCN and secondly, by claiming 'they' sorted out the wrinkles.
It is grossly unfair to dump a work in progress on industry, then malign industry as 'too fick' to understand it. It can only get worse as the extensions come on line, parts 121, 125, 135 and 142. Grown up rule sets make it clear that say for a part 135 operation certain things must be done and the prohibitions are clearly stated – easy stuff to deal with; the part 61 in concert with the 'operational standards'. Not so in Australia, the 'operational' rule sets will only serve to deepen the confusion, to chaos levels.
IMO, the only hope industry has now is to collectively and independently do what the Rev. Forsyth suggested, without government support or consultation with the clowns who drafted the regulation, have an industry consult. I don't believe it would be too hard to arrange a single point of contact to receive and collate the identified 'nonsense' areas of the regulation. Once the sticking points are identified, draft a report, clearly defining why 'industry' believes the regulation is 'bad-law' and how it may best be fixed. A unilateral declaration that 'we' unanimously reject part 61 and will not accept it until the errors are rectified may have more effect than numerous single complaints. The big issue is that industry allowed this rule set to happen. Consultation and industry say provided 'in hindsight', retrospectively may not be brilliant, but it's better than nothing at all. Much better than just meekly accepting this poor regulation and struggling to come to grips with the beast, now cast in stone as 'law'.
Perhaps Phil Hurst?, a University?, or Law society? etc or look-a-like competition winner (not AOPA) could host an industry single point of contact – email would work just fine. Grab a wordsmith or two and generate a report back to Truss; slide a copy to the Senate crew though (to be sure). It's probably cheaper, quicker and easier to kick the ball back to CASA than it is to continue trying to comprehend the incomprehensible and placing the AOC at risk. Part 61 as it stands is a devils playground for the unscrupulous, the ambitious and the vengeful; it is also a potential bottomless pit which will devour time, money and effort, for no return or improved standards.
I am certain that one or two 'experts' could be persuaded to donate some time and effort, in a worthy cause. Don't whine and grovel: fling the useless thing back at them or; learn to live with it. Two choices, no options.
Two bob's worth of just saying please...
It is grossly unfair to dump a work in progress on industry, then malign industry as 'too fick' to understand it. It can only get worse as the extensions come on line, parts 121, 125, 135 and 142. Grown up rule sets make it clear that say for a part 135 operation certain things must be done and the prohibitions are clearly stated – easy stuff to deal with; the part 61 in concert with the 'operational standards'. Not so in Australia, the 'operational' rule sets will only serve to deepen the confusion, to chaos levels.
IMO, the only hope industry has now is to collectively and independently do what the Rev. Forsyth suggested, without government support or consultation with the clowns who drafted the regulation, have an industry consult. I don't believe it would be too hard to arrange a single point of contact to receive and collate the identified 'nonsense' areas of the regulation. Once the sticking points are identified, draft a report, clearly defining why 'industry' believes the regulation is 'bad-law' and how it may best be fixed. A unilateral declaration that 'we' unanimously reject part 61 and will not accept it until the errors are rectified may have more effect than numerous single complaints. The big issue is that industry allowed this rule set to happen. Consultation and industry say provided 'in hindsight', retrospectively may not be brilliant, but it's better than nothing at all. Much better than just meekly accepting this poor regulation and struggling to come to grips with the beast, now cast in stone as 'law'.
Perhaps Phil Hurst?, a University?, or Law society? etc or look-a-like competition winner (not AOPA) could host an industry single point of contact – email would work just fine. Grab a wordsmith or two and generate a report back to Truss; slide a copy to the Senate crew though (to be sure). It's probably cheaper, quicker and easier to kick the ball back to CASA than it is to continue trying to comprehend the incomprehensible and placing the AOC at risk. Part 61 as it stands is a devils playground for the unscrupulous, the ambitious and the vengeful; it is also a potential bottomless pit which will devour time, money and effort, for no return or improved standards.
I am certain that one or two 'experts' could be persuaded to donate some time and effort, in a worthy cause. Don't whine and grovel: fling the useless thing back at them or; learn to live with it. Two choices, no options.
Two bob's worth of just saying please...
Last edited by Kharon; 27th Sep 2014 at 20:27. Reason: Spring mornings – Wow..
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lastly- remember that apart from the 100 or so pilots in GA who currently hold an ATPL
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
The following questions must be addressed:
Has CASA conducted either:
a) A cost benefit analysis,
or
b) A safety case.
On the new Part 61
As far as I can see it is regulation for the sake of regulation with no cost benefit and no safety benefits over what we had before (??) Not to mention the time required to work it all out...
The following questions must be addressed:
Has CASA conducted either:
a) A cost benefit analysis,
or
b) A safety case.
On the new Part 61
As far as I can see it is regulation for the sake of regulation with no cost benefit and no safety benefits over what we had before (??) Not to mention the time required to work it all out...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
mate of course there is a "Cost benefit".
At $160 bucks an hour, mega bucks for all the approvals that will require FOI "Expertise" to decide what the "Law" requires and what it doesn't, CAsA being the beneficiary.
Someone has to pay for the Montreal junkets.(Wonder who's paying for the skull's "retreat" over there?)
The big question, does it make things safer?
Other than driving more people out of the industry by making aviation more unaffordable, does part 61 make aviation in Australia safer??
I believe Part 61 will make aviation less safe and a whole lot more expensive.
CAsA is a completely corrupt organization, apparently the minister has no control over this Authority, so we just have to get used to being milked, corruption is now government CONDONED in Australia...if you have any doubts, read Ziggies post!!
CAsA make Eddie Obied look like a saint!!
mate of course there is a "Cost benefit".
At $160 bucks an hour, mega bucks for all the approvals that will require FOI "Expertise" to decide what the "Law" requires and what it doesn't, CAsA being the beneficiary.
Someone has to pay for the Montreal junkets.(Wonder who's paying for the skull's "retreat" over there?)
The big question, does it make things safer?
Other than driving more people out of the industry by making aviation more unaffordable, does part 61 make aviation in Australia safer??
I believe Part 61 will make aviation less safe and a whole lot more expensive.
CAsA is a completely corrupt organization, apparently the minister has no control over this Authority, so we just have to get used to being milked, corruption is now government CONDONED in Australia...if you have any doubts, read Ziggies post!!
CAsA make Eddie Obied look like a saint!!
Last edited by thorn bird; 1st Oct 2014 at 07:08. Reason: Ironing the brown paper bags
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone has to pay for the Montreal junkets.(Wonder who's paying for the skull's "retreat" over there?)
My use of cost benefit is to the industry, NOT, CASA.
I agree it will cost industry big time for no benefit or improvement in safety.
As I said, regulation for regulation sake
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me it isn't so!!!
The Skull at ICAO!!
Good god man, pass out the tin hats. INCOMING!!
A reign of terror is about to be released upon aviation world wide..
This could be worse than ISIL!
The Skull at ICAO!!
Good god man, pass out the tin hats. INCOMING!!
A reign of terror is about to be released upon aviation world wide..
This could be worse than ISIL!
Pollywaffle anyone??
Warning: Bucket definitely required...
From Steve MMSM today more spin & bulldust designed to placate one dopey miniscule:
Hmm...it's all good miniscule we've got it under control...
MTF...
From Steve MMSM today more spin & bulldust designed to placate one dopey miniscule:
Aviation authority rejects complaints about new pilot licensing rules
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is conducting a comprehensive information and education campaign to get people up to speed on controversial new pilot licensing rules.
Operators of smaller aviation concerns have complained about confusion over the new rules, describing them as hard to comprehend, not backed by education, and contradictory in places.
Industry sectors such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to get the September 1 introduction of the Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 changes delayed because they did not believe either side was adequately prepared.
But CASA, which had issued 570 Part 61 licences by Tuesday, rejected the claims.
“There is a wealth of information on the CASA website for pilots, flying instructors and flying training organisations,” a CASA spokesman said.
“We are progressively updating and refining this information based on feedback from the aviation community and the questions being asked.’’
The spokesman said there were currently 19 plain-English information sheets available covering topics ranging from student pilots through to flight reviews and proficiency checks, with three more about to be released.
These were short and easy to follow, covering the central elements of the new licensing suite.
A series of AvSafety seminars focusing on the new rules had been running since July, with 22 already conducted and 20 more planned.
The authority also did not believe the new regulations contained contradictions.
“However, we are always open to feedback and suggestions from people in the aviation community,’’ the spokesman said. “ If there are indeed issues relating to the new regulations that can be usefully addressed, we will do so. CASA encourages anyone with comments or suggestions about the new licensing suite to bring them to our attention.’’
The spokesman also disputed the claims that the new rules were costing more and said CASA was not charging people to make the transition. He said pilots who held a licence before September 1 were issued a new Part 61 licence at no cost when they notified CASA of a flight review or proficiency check, or they gained a rating or endorsement.
There had been lengthy and detailed consultations with the aviation community during the development of the new licensing suite over a number of years and there was an extended transition period of four years for pilots and three years for training organisations.
“The new regulations bring in significant improvements for the flying training sector such as the abolition of the student pilot licence, the inclusion of the recreational pilot licence and the wider use of the aircraft class rating system,’’ he said.
“It introduces greater flexibility, more options and a common structure for all pilot training. Under the previous regulatory arrangements there were many different and sometimes inconsistent arrangements covering training which are now streamlined and standardised.
“This makes the rules easier to understand and provides for better safety outcomes.”
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is conducting a comprehensive information and education campaign to get people up to speed on controversial new pilot licensing rules.
Operators of smaller aviation concerns have complained about confusion over the new rules, describing them as hard to comprehend, not backed by education, and contradictory in places.
Industry sectors such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to get the September 1 introduction of the Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 changes delayed because they did not believe either side was adequately prepared.
But CASA, which had issued 570 Part 61 licences by Tuesday, rejected the claims.
“There is a wealth of information on the CASA website for pilots, flying instructors and flying training organisations,” a CASA spokesman said.
“We are progressively updating and refining this information based on feedback from the aviation community and the questions being asked.’’
The spokesman said there were currently 19 plain-English information sheets available covering topics ranging from student pilots through to flight reviews and proficiency checks, with three more about to be released.
These were short and easy to follow, covering the central elements of the new licensing suite.
A series of AvSafety seminars focusing on the new rules had been running since July, with 22 already conducted and 20 more planned.
The authority also did not believe the new regulations contained contradictions.
“However, we are always open to feedback and suggestions from people in the aviation community,’’ the spokesman said. “ If there are indeed issues relating to the new regulations that can be usefully addressed, we will do so. CASA encourages anyone with comments or suggestions about the new licensing suite to bring them to our attention.’’
The spokesman also disputed the claims that the new rules were costing more and said CASA was not charging people to make the transition. He said pilots who held a licence before September 1 were issued a new Part 61 licence at no cost when they notified CASA of a flight review or proficiency check, or they gained a rating or endorsement.
There had been lengthy and detailed consultations with the aviation community during the development of the new licensing suite over a number of years and there was an extended transition period of four years for pilots and three years for training organisations.
“The new regulations bring in significant improvements for the flying training sector such as the abolition of the student pilot licence, the inclusion of the recreational pilot licence and the wider use of the aircraft class rating system,’’ he said.
“It introduces greater flexibility, more options and a common structure for all pilot training. Under the previous regulatory arrangements there were many different and sometimes inconsistent arrangements covering training which are now streamlined and standardised.
“This makes the rules easier to understand and provides for better safety outcomes.”
MTF...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm...it's all good miniscule we've got it under control..
And put in a submission to fire W2 – it's his pet project.
FFS...
.....
fpvdude,
Where is the confusion?
Where is the confusion?
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 6th Oct 2014 at 06:21. Reason: Deletion of incorrect information to avoid confusing people