Independent instructing under Part 61
Jack, the Cessna 208 is a special case and requires training under CASR 61.062 see CASA Instrument 186/14.
With regards to 61.1170, the only requirement to operate under a Part 141/142 authorisation holder is for training for a pilot licence or rating or an endorsement on a rating.
Pilot licence - RPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL
Rating - Instrument, Instructor, Ag, Type
Operational Rating Endorsement - 2D or 3D on an instrument rating, Grade 1 on an instructor rating etc.
(3) A flight instructor is authorised to conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating only if the instructor is engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement
It's also worth going back to the NPRM (page 23 to be specific which identifies the preferred option of 3).
http://casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/14...nprm0311fs.pdf
With regards to 61.1170, the only requirement to operate under a Part 141/142 authorisation holder is for training for a pilot licence or rating or an endorsement on a rating.
Pilot licence - RPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL
Rating - Instrument, Instructor, Ag, Type
Operational Rating Endorsement - 2D or 3D on an instrument rating, Grade 1 on an instructor rating etc.
(3) A flight instructor is authorised to conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating only if the instructor is engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement
It's also worth going back to the NPRM (page 23 to be specific which identifies the preferred option of 3).
http://casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/14...nprm0311fs.pdf
Orright,
To put this topic to rest, I have actually contacted FCL and several different FOIs and the answer is unambiguously and unanimously,
YOU MUST CONDUCT A FLIGHT REVIEW UNDER A CASR 141/142 APPROVAL.
There is a difference between being qualified to conduct a review and being authorised to conduct a review.
Warning: if a review is conducted illegally, any subsequent incident/accident investigation will conclude the pilot was flying without a valid review and that will open up a whole new world of hurt in the form of civil litigation and insurance refusals.
Ever had a solicitor trying to blanket email every flying school in the area hoping that a review had been conducted somewhere to get their deceased client's estate out of the crap?
Again, stop debating this stuff on pprune and ask CASA if you are not sure. It's your arse on the line if you're wrong!
To put this topic to rest, I have actually contacted FCL and several different FOIs and the answer is unambiguously and unanimously,
YOU MUST CONDUCT A FLIGHT REVIEW UNDER A CASR 141/142 APPROVAL.
There is a difference between being qualified to conduct a review and being authorised to conduct a review.
Warning: if a review is conducted illegally, any subsequent incident/accident investigation will conclude the pilot was flying without a valid review and that will open up a whole new world of hurt in the form of civil litigation and insurance refusals.
Ever had a solicitor trying to blanket email every flying school in the area hoping that a review had been conducted somewhere to get their deceased client's estate out of the crap?
Again, stop debating this stuff on pprune and ask CASA if you are not sure. It's your arse on the line if you're wrong!
Really? How can you be liable if you do a review under a 141/142 approval?
Flight examiners are baling out en masse due to CaSA's pending policy that they are no longer going to be covered by CASA's insurance, meaning they will have to provide their own insurance and maintain it for seven years after their last test is conducted. Expensive proposition. What cover do you have if you aren't under the school's umbrella and someone alleges you were in charge of the flight and therefore responsible for an incident/accident?
Flight examiners are baling out en masse due to CaSA's pending policy that they are no longer going to be covered by CASA's insurance, meaning they will have to provide their own insurance and maintain it for seven years after their last test is conducted. Expensive proposition. What cover do you have if you aren't under the school's umbrella and someone alleges you were in charge of the flight and therefore responsible for an incident/accident?
MIHC, I too have spoken to CASA (Aviation Safety Advisors - the people trained up for advising industry) and been given contradictory information to yours. I have also quoted several references supporting the case for being permitted to conduct AFRs independently. Have the CASA and FCL people you've spoken to been able to quote the references supporting their opinion?
For contact details of your local CASA Aviation Safety Advisor go to the CASA website, "Education" tab, then "Aviation safety advisors".
For contact details of your local CASA Aviation Safety Advisor go to the CASA website, "Education" tab, then "Aviation safety advisors".
My comment was more about the general principle of mistaking an FOIs opinion for an authoritative statement of the requirements of the law.
Naturally they put their statements in writing and don't mind being named so that we know upon whose statements we're relying to our detriment?
Naturally they put their statements in writing and don't mind being named so that we know upon whose statements we're relying to our detriment?
Independent instructing under Part 61
I'm waiting on a response to an email from my local FOI. The CASA Aviation Safety Advisor who provided me with confirmation of flight reviews not requiring 141/142 coverage was my local one listed on the CASA site.
Were the people you spoke to able to quote the CASR references supporting their opinions? I'm not sure if you've checked the various references I have quoted in my earlier posts, but I am yet to see any CASR reference stating a flight review must be completed by a 141 / 142 holder (lots of opinion, but no CASR quoted). Additionally the Part 141 NPRM clearly states it was CASA's intention that flight reviews could be performed independently of 141 holders. (bottom left cell of the table on page 23 of the Part 141 NPRM).
Were the people you spoke to able to quote the CASR references supporting their opinions? I'm not sure if you've checked the various references I have quoted in my earlier posts, but I am yet to see any CASR reference stating a flight review must be completed by a 141 / 142 holder (lots of opinion, but no CASR quoted). Additionally the Part 141 NPRM clearly states it was CASA's intention that flight reviews could be performed independently of 141 holders. (bottom left cell of the table on page 23 of the Part 141 NPRM).
Last edited by roundsounds; 10th Oct 2014 at 06:26.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Perth, Australia
Age: 42
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact there is all this debate and no one on either side of this argument has been able to put up any regulations to support the argument either way is ridiculous. Part 61 is obviously a huge success, onya CASA. 
I'm trying to get a c208 endorsement at the moment, the fact the c208 is in some mystical middle ground between automatically being part of the SE class rating and requiring a type rating is causing me a world of hassle.
No one seems to know if instructors can conduct the training independently as they did before 1/9 and instructors who are attached to a 141/142 school have no idea if the c208 needs to be listed on their AOC (seeing as it's now sort of part of the SE class rating). No one I've spoken to has gotten anything definitive out of CASA.
The only thing I know for certain now is that I'm kicking myself for not rushing through it before Sept 1st.
If anyone can help me with any of the above or knows somewhere I can get the endorsement sorted let me know. I can get access to an aircraft on the east or west coast.
I'm trying to get a c208 endorsement at the moment, the fact the c208 is in some mystical middle ground between automatically being part of the SE class rating and requiring a type rating is causing me a world of hassle.
No one seems to know if instructors can conduct the training independently as they did before 1/9 and instructors who are attached to a 141/142 school have no idea if the c208 needs to be listed on their AOC (seeing as it's now sort of part of the SE class rating). No one I've spoken to has gotten anything definitive out of CASA.
The only thing I know for certain now is that I'm kicking myself for not rushing through it before Sept 1st.
If anyone can help me with any of the above or knows somewhere I can get the endorsement sorted let me know. I can get access to an aircraft on the east or west coast.
Aeromatt, CASR 61.747 is very clear the training must be completed by a Part 141 or 142 holder and they will need CASA approval. You should also read CASA Instrument 186/14, CASR 61.062, 141.035 and 142.040.
If you go back to my previous posts I have listed numerous references supporting my opinion regarding what instructors can do independently of a Part 141/142 holder. Alternatively you could familiarise yourself with the current regs, they're all available on the CASA website.
If you go back to my previous posts I have listed numerous references supporting my opinion regarding what instructors can do independently of a Part 141/142 holder. Alternatively you could familiarise yourself with the current regs, they're all available on the CASA website.
MakeItHappenCaptain
I see the names of the FOIs you posted previously have now been removed. I assume they had some discomfiture in the suggestion that they might actually be responsible for the accuracy and consequences of the assertions you attributed to them?
The unequivocal assertion you attribed to the FOIs you previously named (and whose names I've recorded) is:
[Capitals, underling and bolding in the original.]
Could you go back to those FOIs and ask them a couple of short questions, after some short background?
CASR 61.1165 sets out the basic privileges of a 'flight instructor rating'. Among those are privileges:
All of that is expressed to be "Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.1170 to 61.1180." We'll return to that later.
At this point I'd just note the above list of privileges includes the conduct of "flight training" and the conduct of "flight reviews".
Based on:
- the structure of regulation 61.1165,
- the content of relevant defined terms in the CASRs, and
- reality,
"flight training" is a manifestly different thing to "flight reviews".
Regulation 61.1170 includes general limitations on the privileges of flight instructor ratings. The only link drawn in regulation 61.1170 to Part 141 and 142 operators is in subregulation (3), which says:
[My bolding]
Key point: There is no mention of flight reviews in 61.1170.
Nor can I find any other regulation that links the exercise of flight instructor rating flight review privileges to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
Short question for your FOI contacts:
Regulation 61.1170(3) limits the exercise of the flight training privileges of a flight instructor rating to instructors engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator. Where is the equivalent limitation for the exercise of flight review privileges of a flight instructor rating?
The answer needs to be a reference to a regulation, not an assertion of strong opinion about how someone thinks the system should work. One of the reasons for this chronic mess is that there are too many people with strong opinions that suffer the minor impediment of being contrary to the law.
I concede that many of the 'new', 'simplified' regulations are appallingly drafted and there may be a myriad of exemptions and amendments that make the published regulations misleading in isolation. But we need a reference - words that are law.
I see the names of the FOIs you posted previously have now been removed. I assume they had some discomfiture in the suggestion that they might actually be responsible for the accuracy and consequences of the assertions you attributed to them?
The unequivocal assertion you attribed to the FOIs you previously named (and whose names I've recorded) is:
YOU MUST CONDUCT A FLIGHT REVIEW UNDER A CASR 141/142 APPROVAL.
Could you go back to those FOIs and ask them a couple of short questions, after some short background?
CASR 61.1165 sets out the basic privileges of a 'flight instructor rating'. Among those are privileges:
...(a) to conduct flight training for:
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
...
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than ...; and
(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than ...
(c) to conduct training in multi‑crew cooperation; and
(d) to conduct differences training for variants of type ratings; and
(e) to conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385; and
(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
....
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
...
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than ...; and
(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than ...
(c) to conduct training in multi‑crew cooperation; and
(d) to conduct differences training for variants of type ratings; and
(e) to conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385; and
(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
....
At this point I'd just note the above list of privileges includes the conduct of "flight training" and the conduct of "flight reviews".
Based on:
- the structure of regulation 61.1165,
- the content of relevant defined terms in the CASRs, and
- reality,
"flight training" is a manifestly different thing to "flight reviews".
Regulation 61.1170 includes general limitations on the privileges of flight instructor ratings. The only link drawn in regulation 61.1170 to Part 141 and 142 operators is in subregulation (3), which says:
A flight instructor is authorised to conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating only if the instructor is engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement.
Key point: There is no mention of flight reviews in 61.1170.
Nor can I find any other regulation that links the exercise of flight instructor rating flight review privileges to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
Short question for your FOI contacts:
Regulation 61.1170(3) limits the exercise of the flight training privileges of a flight instructor rating to instructors engaged to conduct the flight training by a Part 141 or 142 operator. Where is the equivalent limitation for the exercise of flight review privileges of a flight instructor rating?
The answer needs to be a reference to a regulation, not an assertion of strong opinion about how someone thinks the system should work. One of the reasons for this chronic mess is that there are too many people with strong opinions that suffer the minor impediment of being contrary to the law.
I concede that many of the 'new', 'simplified' regulations are appallingly drafted and there may be a myriad of exemptions and amendments that make the published regulations misleading in isolation. But we need a reference - words that are law.
Last edited by Creampuff; 12th Oct 2014 at 00:59.
For completeness' sake, I note that the flight review requirements of a licence say that the flight review must be carried out by a person mentioned in CASR 61.400(2). One of those persons is "(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating."
As previously noted, under CASR 61.1165:
More questions for the FOIs:
If I get the holder of an instructor rating under CASR 61.1165 to do my flight review 'independently' of a Part 141 or 142 organisation:
- what rule does the instructor break? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation)
- why is my review not valid? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructtor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation ...)
As previously noted, under CASR 61.1165:
[A] flight instructor is authorised:
...
(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner ratings; and
(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; ...
...
(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner ratings; and
(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; ...
If I get the holder of an instructor rating under CASR 61.1165 to do my flight review 'independently' of a Part 141 or 142 organisation:
- what rule does the instructor break? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation)
- why is my review not valid? (This is merely another way of asking where is the limitation on the instructtor's flight review privilege that's linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation ...)
Hey, Creamie,
I'm reading Part 61.1165 saying that your privileges are listed in table 61.1235, which incorporates flight reviews and also mentions them at Paragraph (6).
Will get back on the other references.
I'm reading Part 61.1165 saying that your privileges are listed in table 61.1235, which incorporates flight reviews and also mentions them at Paragraph (6).
Will get back on the other references.
I’ve ‘mapped’ the authorities given by a flight instructor rating against the limitations linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. It seems clear to me that some training and review authorities on flight instructor ratings may be exercised independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. The existence of CASR 61.1230 confirms this intention.
61.1165 Privileges of flight instructor ratings
[A] flight instructor is authorised:
To exercise the authority to “conduct flight training for a pilot licence, a rating on a pilot licence or an endorsement on an operational rating”, the instructor conducting the flight training must be engaged to conduct the training by a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement: CASR 61.1170(3). There are further limitations in CASR 61.1175(1).
However, note that the limitation in CASR 61.1170(3) does not apply to flight training for an endorsement other than an endorsement on an operational rating. In other words, the holder of a flight instructor rating may conduct flight training for an endorsement, independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator, provided that the training is not for a “flight examiner endorsement” or an “endorsement on an operational rating”. (This is presumably why “a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating” is mentioned (along with flight reviews) in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of Part 141 and 142 operators. i.e. CASR 61.1230.)
Part 61 defines “endorsement” to mean “flight crew endorsement”, which is in turn defined to mean “an endorsement granted under [Part 61] on a flight crew licence”.
Part 61 defines “operational rating” to mean any of: “(a) an aerial application rating; (b) an examiner rating; (c) an instructor rating; (d) an instrument rating; (e) a low‑level rating; (f) a night VFR rating; (g) a night vision imaging system rating; (h) a private instrument rating.
So, the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct endorsement training for any endorsement in Part 61 independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, except for flight examiner endorsements and except for any endorsement on an “operational rating” as defined.
However, the instructor must:
- hold his or her own training endorsements in accordance with table 61.1235 (whether or not the instructor is engaged by a Part 141 or 142 organisation): CASR 61.1175(1), and
- record the training in accordance with 61.1230.
This authority is to grant the endorsements, not to conduct the training for someone to qualify for the endorsement. The exercise of this authority is therefore not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation (but the training aspects will be, to the extent covered by (a) above).
There are other limitations in CASR 61.1175(4) – a requirement to hold the applicable training endorsement - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (That said, it may be that CASA intends to make the grant of the training endorsement subject to the activities being conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an instructor to be granted an ‘independent’ training endorsement.)
The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142.
However, the regulations that mention “multi-crew cooperation training” as a criterion for the exercise of the privileges of a licence also say that the holder much complete an “approved” course of training in multi-crew cooperation. It may be that CASA plans to approve only the courses conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an ‘independent’ instructor to get this approval.
The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation (but it would be if the differences training is for an endorsement covered by the exceptions in (a) above). So far as I can tell, “differences” is not covered by those exceptions, but rather one criterion for the exercise of some licence privileges. There are other limitations in CASR 61.1175(2), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
However, the criterion for a e.g. a type rating that requires “differences training” can only be met if the training is conducted by: “(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct differences training for the variant; or (ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training”. See: CASR 61.200(b).
The exercise of this training authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
Note that the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385 applies to someone who already holds a pilot licence. It therefore seems to me that the holder of an instructor rating may, independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, train the holder of a pilot licence on e.g. “conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency procedures for the aircraft [for which the licence contains privileges].”
There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(3) – a requirement for a training endorsement that authorises the instructor to conduct flight training in the aircraft - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. Again, it may be that CASA plans to grant these training endorsements subject to a condition requiring the holder to carry out the authorised activities only under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, but that is not dictated by the legislation.
The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(6), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (CASR 61.1175(6) requires the instructor to hold specified training endorsements.)
It therefore seems to me that the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct flight reviews independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, if the instructor has the applicable training endorsement specified in CASR 61.1175(6). This is presumably why flight reviews are expressly mentioned in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator. (61.1230 is, nonetheless, appallingly drafted. The criterion in para (a) mentions the conduct of “a flight review” or “a session of flight training”. However, paras (b) and (c) only mention “training”. Why was a “flight review” mentioned in para (a)?)
The exercise of this authority is linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation, through the criteria in CASR 61.112.
The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
However, given that a ‘dual flight check’ means an in-flight assessment by a flight instructor of the competency of a student pilot to conduct a solo training flight, as a matter of practicality it’s unlikely that ‘independent’ instructors would do this check.
The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
However, note that the activity may be conducted while the person is “receiving flight training for [a] rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would, if it’s covered by (a) above, have to be conducted by an instructor engaged to conduct that flight training by a Part 141 or 142 organisation, or while the person is “taking a flight test for the rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would have to be conducted by a person with the authority to conduct the flight test.)
The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
However, a criterion for the operation of CASR 61.120 is that “the transmission is made while receiving training for a flight crew licence or flight radio endorsement”. Therefore, as a matter of practicality it is unlikely that this privilege would be exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
The exercise of this authority is not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
However, CASR 61.230 requires knowledge deficiency reports to be provided to the candidate’s “training provider”. Given the definition of “training provider”, it is unlikely this privilege will be practicably exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. There are also limitations in CASR 61.1175(7), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
Simple!
61.1165 Privileges of flight instructor ratings
[A] flight instructor is authorised:
(a) to conduct flight training for:
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(A) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and
(B) flight examiner ratings; and
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than flight examiner endorsements; and …
(i) pilot licences; and
(ii) ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(A) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and
(B) flight examiner ratings; and
(iii) endorsements on pilot licences, other than flight examiner endorsements; and …
However, note that the limitation in CASR 61.1170(3) does not apply to flight training for an endorsement other than an endorsement on an operational rating. In other words, the holder of a flight instructor rating may conduct flight training for an endorsement, independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator, provided that the training is not for a “flight examiner endorsement” or an “endorsement on an operational rating”. (This is presumably why “a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating” is mentioned (along with flight reviews) in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of Part 141 and 142 operators. i.e. CASR 61.1230.)
Part 61 defines “endorsement” to mean “flight crew endorsement”, which is in turn defined to mean “an endorsement granted under [Part 61] on a flight crew licence”.
Part 61 defines “operational rating” to mean any of: “(a) an aerial application rating; (b) an examiner rating; (c) an instructor rating; (d) an instrument rating; (e) a low‑level rating; (f) a night VFR rating; (g) a night vision imaging system rating; (h) a private instrument rating.
So, the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct endorsement training for any endorsement in Part 61 independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, except for flight examiner endorsements and except for any endorsement on an “operational rating” as defined.
However, the instructor must:
- hold his or her own training endorsements in accordance with table 61.1235 (whether or not the instructor is engaged by a Part 141 or 142 organisation): CASR 61.1175(1), and
- record the training in accordance with 61.1230.
(b) to grant endorsements to holders of pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner endorsements; and
(ii) training endorsements mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of table 61.1235; and
(iii) endorsements for which a flight test is required; and …
(i) flight examiner endorsements; and
(ii) training endorsements mentioned in Part 1 or 2 of table 61.1235; and
(iii) endorsements for which a flight test is required; and …
There are other limitations in CASR 61.1175(4) – a requirement to hold the applicable training endorsement - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (That said, it may be that CASA intends to make the grant of the training endorsement subject to the activities being conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an instructor to be granted an ‘independent’ training endorsement.)
(c) to conduct training in multi‑crew cooperation; and …
However, the regulations that mention “multi-crew cooperation training” as a criterion for the exercise of the privileges of a licence also say that the holder much complete an “approved” course of training in multi-crew cooperation. It may be that CASA plans to approve only the courses conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. But it appears theoretically possible for an ‘independent’ instructor to get this approval.
(d) to conduct differences training for variants of type ratings; and …
However, the criterion for a e.g. a type rating that requires “differences training” can only be met if the training is conducted by: “(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct differences training for the variant; or (ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training”. See: CASR 61.200(b).
(e) to conduct training to meet the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385; and …
Note that the general competency requirement in regulation 61.385 applies to someone who already holds a pilot licence. It therefore seems to me that the holder of an instructor rating may, independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, train the holder of a pilot licence on e.g. “conducting all normal, abnormal and emergency procedures for the aircraft [for which the licence contains privileges].”
There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(3) – a requirement for a training endorsement that authorises the instructor to conduct flight training in the aircraft - but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. Again, it may be that CASA plans to grant these training endorsements subject to a condition requiring the holder to carry out the authorised activities only under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, but that is not dictated by the legislation.
(f) to conduct flight reviews required by this Part for ratings on pilot licences, other than:
(i) flight examiner ratings; and
(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and …
(i) flight examiner ratings; and
(ii) cruise relief flight engineer type ratings; and …
There are limitations in CASR 61.1175(6), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation. (CASR 61.1175(6) requires the instructor to hold specified training endorsements.)
It therefore seems to me that the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to conduct flight reviews independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation, if the instructor has the applicable training endorsement specified in CASR 61.1175(6). This is presumably why flight reviews are expressly mentioned in the regulation dealing with activities conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator. (61.1230 is, nonetheless, appallingly drafted. The criterion in para (a) mentions the conduct of “a flight review” or “a session of flight training”. However, paras (b) and (c) only mention “training”. Why was a “flight review” mentioned in para (a)?)
(g) under Subdivision 61.A.3.1 (Student pilots), to approve a person to pilot an aircraft, including for a solo flight; and …
(h) to conduct dual flight checks for a student pilot; and …
However, given that a ‘dual flight check’ means an in-flight assessment by a flight instructor of the competency of a student pilot to conduct a solo training flight, as a matter of practicality it’s unlikely that ‘independent’ instructors would do this check.
(i) to approve a person mentioned in regulation 61.125 (Conducting flight activities without rating or endorsement) to pilot an aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training; and …
However, note that the activity may be conducted while the person is “receiving flight training for [a] rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would, if it’s covered by (a) above, have to be conducted by an instructor engaged to conduct that flight training by a Part 141 or 142 organisation, or while the person is “taking a flight test for the rating or endorsement” and, therefore, that activity would have to be conducted by a person with the authority to conduct the flight test.)
(j) to approve a person mentioned in regulation 61.120 to transmit on a radio frequency of a kind used for the purpose of ensuring the safety of air navigation; and …
However, a criterion for the operation of CASR 61.120 is that “the transmission is made while receiving training for a flight crew licence or flight radio endorsement”. Therefore, as a matter of practicality it is unlikely that this privilege would be exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
(k) to assess the standard of knowledge of an applicant for a pilot licence, or a rating on a pilot licence, in any items mentioned in the applicant’s knowledge deficiency report.
However, CASR 61.230 requires knowledge deficiency reports to be provided to the candidate’s “training provider”. Given the definition of “training provider”, it is unlikely this privilege will be practicably exercisable independently of a Part 141 or 142 organisation. There are also limitations in CASR 61.1175(7), but these are not linked to a Part 141 or 142 organisation.
Simple!
Creamie - extract from Part 141 NPRM:
"Provide for greater flexibility in the training arrangements for pilot endorsements and for the conduct of flight reviews.
Flexibility is provided by limiting the requirement for training certificates to training for licences and ratings."
This further supports our understanding regarding Part 141/142 requirements.
"Provide for greater flexibility in the training arrangements for pilot endorsements and for the conduct of flight reviews.
Flexibility is provided by limiting the requirement for training certificates to training for licences and ratings."
This further supports our understanding regarding Part 141/142 requirements.
141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate
(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(a) training for the grant under Part 61 of a private pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is not an integrated training course;
(b) training for the grant under Part 61 of a recreational pilot licence;
(c) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew rating other than a type rating;
(d) training for the grant under Part 61 of a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045;
(e) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew endorsement other than:
(i) a design feature endorsement; or
(ii) a flight activity endorsement;
(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
(g) differences training:
(i) that is required as mentioned in regulation 61.780 or 61.835 for a variant covered by a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045; and
(ii) that is not conducted by a training and checking organisation approved under regulation 217 of CAR.
(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(a) training for the grant under Part 61 of a private pilot licence or commercial pilot licence that is not an integrated training course;
(b) training for the grant under Part 61 of a recreational pilot licence;
(c) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew rating other than a type rating;
(d) training for the grant under Part 61 of a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045;
(e) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, for the grant under Part 61 of a flight crew endorsement other than:
(i) a design feature endorsement; or
(ii) a flight activity endorsement;
(f) training, other than training conducted as a multi-crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
(g) differences training:
(i) that is required as mentioned in regulation 61.780 or 61.835 for a variant covered by a type rating mentioned in a legislative instrument under regulation 142.045; and
(ii) that is not conducted by a training and checking organisation approved under regulation 217 of CAR.
This extract is from the F2014C01095 (latest version) document on the comlaw website. The original unamended doc came up first on google. There are several variants floating around on the web.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain, you post states that "training as part of a flight review" is done under 141/142.
As I read your post and all of the others, if a current pilot comes in for a flight review without the need for extra training it can be done independantly. If the pilot is not good enough and extra training is required then it's off to a part 141/142. This has been stated before in this thread.
As I read your post and all of the others, if a current pilot comes in for a flight review without the need for extra training it can be done independantly. If the pilot is not good enough and extra training is required then it's off to a part 141/142. This has been stated before in this thread.
You are correct, D.
If – repeat if – training in an aircraft or flight simulation device is given as part of a flight review, the training falls within the definition of “Part 141 flight training”.
But that’s not the same as saying that a flight review is, by definition, flight training under Part 141 or otherwise.
A flight review can be successfully (and lawfully) completed without the need for any flight training during the review.
Nor is it the same as saying that the definition of “Part 141 flight training” has the effect of prohibiting or authorising anything. The operative regulations contain the authorisations and limitations that do that, by reference to the definitions.
Even if we assume the effect of the regulations is that an ‘independent’ instructor cannot conduct flight training during a flight review, I don’t see what’s to stop an independent instructor from:
- conducting a flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f),
- deciding that the candidate does not meet the competency standard for e.g. PFLs,
- conducting training in PFLs during a separate, subsequent flight, under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(e), then
- conducting another flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f).
If the candidate’s licence has time to run before the flight review time limit runs out, and the instructor has the required training endorsement, what rule stops the above from happening?
If – repeat if – training in an aircraft or flight simulation device is given as part of a flight review, the training falls within the definition of “Part 141 flight training”.
But that’s not the same as saying that a flight review is, by definition, flight training under Part 141 or otherwise.
A flight review can be successfully (and lawfully) completed without the need for any flight training during the review.
Nor is it the same as saying that the definition of “Part 141 flight training” has the effect of prohibiting or authorising anything. The operative regulations contain the authorisations and limitations that do that, by reference to the definitions.
Even if we assume the effect of the regulations is that an ‘independent’ instructor cannot conduct flight training during a flight review, I don’t see what’s to stop an independent instructor from:
- conducting a flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f),
- deciding that the candidate does not meet the competency standard for e.g. PFLs,
- conducting training in PFLs during a separate, subsequent flight, under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(e), then
- conducting another flight review under the authority given by CASR 61.1165(f).
If the candidate’s licence has time to run before the flight review time limit runs out, and the instructor has the required training endorsement, what rule stops the above from happening?