Part 61 gotcha for Chief Pilots/AOC holders and syndicates.
IF the new Pt 61 regs were to be greatly simplified, the general competency requirements listed above would some up most things as far as what is expected of a pilot to do before flying any type/class of airborne vehicle!!
Know your stuff and be competent and be safe!!
Know your stuff and be competent and be safe!!
Thread Starter
roundsounds,
I can't see anywhere in 61.385, 61.1185 or any of the CAO 82 regs that states that a Chief Pilot would need to hold a G2 instructor rating.
The info sheets aren't legislation, they are merely advice/guidance material. The info sheet could be incorrect!
Check your PM.
I can't see anywhere in 61.385, 61.1185 or any of the CAO 82 regs that states that a Chief Pilot would need to hold a G2 instructor rating.
The info sheets aren't legislation, they are merely advice/guidance material. The info sheet could be incorrect!
Check your PM.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who logs what, I thought ICUS was finished.
Only one can log PIC, what does the CP log... in say a 310, just duty?
So a new pilot has 8hrs twin total in class <5700kg, he needs 10 for IFR charter.
He used to go on a charter and get ICUS from CP, now if you do that who logs what. Does the Newbie log PIC and the CP nothing, surely not as newbie doesn't qualify for IFR charter as he only has 8hrs twin PIC, so the CP logs PIC what does the newbie log? how can he get his extra 2 hrs.
Maybe just fly empty for 2 hrs.....
Only one can log PIC, what does the CP log... in say a 310, just duty?
So a new pilot has 8hrs twin total in class <5700kg, he needs 10 for IFR charter.
He used to go on a charter and get ICUS from CP, now if you do that who logs what. Does the Newbie log PIC and the CP nothing, surely not as newbie doesn't qualify for IFR charter as he only has 8hrs twin PIC, so the CP logs PIC what does the newbie log? how can he get his extra 2 hrs.
Maybe just fly empty for 2 hrs.....
From the CASA briefing newsletter, October 2015:
Roundsounds, if your having difficulty with the regs, bombard them questions. Copy your FOI, the team leader, and many other names up the chain asking questions. It does work and eventually you may get a satisfactory answer.
CASA has received feedback from the aviation community seeking clarification about how the new flight crew licensing regulations affect pilot in command under supervision (PICUS) operations. The concern is about who can be the pilot in command of a PICUS operation under Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61. Operators who do not have a training and checking organisation under Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 217 may conduct PICUS operations. For these operations the pilot in command does not have to be an instructor or examiner. The reference in Part 61 to training and checking responsibilities does not mean there has to be a training and checking organisation in place. All chief pilots have training and checking responsibilities, even if the operator does not have a training and checking organisation under CAR 217. Operators regularly conduct PICUS operations by assigning a suitably qualified and competent pilot in the command seat as the pilot in command and another qualified company pilot in the other control seat, who acts as pilot in command under supervision. Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 61.095 does not preclude this activity. However, a chief pilot must be satisfied the pilot in command is competent operating from the other control seat and the operations manual needs to have adequate procedures in place for the operation to be conducted safely. Consideration has to be given to normal and emergency circumstances.
Roundsounds, if your having difficulty with the regs, bombard them questions. Copy your FOI, the team leader, and many other names up the chain asking questions. It does work and eventually you may get a satisfactory answer.
Thread Starter
That is incorrect too, fortunately. You are NOT training them. They have already been trained (by Part 141/142) and found competent as their license irrevocably proves. You are just helping them understand what they already know, and you are not teaching them anything they didn't know.
Last edited by roundsounds; 9th Feb 2016 at 19:38.
Thread Starter
The information sheets explain the intent. Although 61.385 doesn't say only an instructor can deliver training to get a pilot up to the MOS competency standard, CASR Part 61 (61.1165(e) Read it) only authorises a flight instructor rating holder to deliver the training to satisfy 61.385.
roundsounds:
Do you have a reference or a copy of the presentation please? It would help respond to a recent email that I (and others it seems) got from CASA about their inability to transition my privileges to Part 61 "In addition, this job requires some additional technical assessment, due to the complexities of CASR Part 61 and how they relate to your particular qualifications." Per their information sheet it is not complex at all "All flight crew will retain their current flying privileges throughout and following the 1 September 2014 transition." That seems consistent with the intent of the reg and, to me, seems the same as the literal reading but people in CASA seem to have a "safety" reason a pre-Part 61 privilege cannot be retained post-part 61.
... a lawyer made a presentation based on the reg's. The point was made that according to the Civil Aviation Act reg's are to be interpreted on their intent and not literal reading.
Thread Starter
roundsounds: Do you have a reference or a copy of the presentation please? It would help respond to a recent email that I (and others it seems) got from CASA about their inability to transition my privileges to Part 61 "In addition, this job requires some additional technical assessment, due to the complexities of CASR Part 61 and how they relate to your particular qualifications." Per their information sheet it is not complex at all "All flight crew will retain their current flying privileges throughout and following the 1 September 2014 transition." That seems consistent with the intent of the reg and, to me, seems the same as the literal reading but people in CASA seem to have a "safety" reason a pre-Part 61 privilege cannot be retained post-part 61.
This might help though:
"ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA
Interpretation best achieving Act's purpose or object
In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation."
The point was made that according to the Civil Aviation Act reg's are to be interpreted on their intent and not literal reading.
The information sheets explain the intent.
The information sheets explain the intent.
Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act? The "purpose" and "object" of the Civil Aviation Act and regs is, allegedly, safety. Which gets you precisely nowhere in working out the intent of the bugger's muddle, because one person's opinion about what is "safer" is another person's opinion about what is "less safe".
The "information sheets" are merely what the author earnestly hopes the law means. Nothing more.
Thread Starter
Whatever else the lawyer might have been trying to say, he wasn't saying that "information sheets" determine what the law means. The law determines what the law means.
Section 15AA of the Acts
The "information sheets" are merely what the author earnestly hopes the law means. Nothing more.
Section 15AA of the Acts
The "information sheets" are merely what the author earnestly hopes the law means. Nothing more.
Let's say a scenic flight operator employs a keen new CPL holder to do scenic flights using an aircraft type the CPL holder hasn't flown, although they hold the appropriate class rating and design feature endorsements. The CP trains the CPL holder up in the type and lets him lose on scenic flights. The CPL holder mishandles a problem and in the aircraft in the course of a scenic flight, bends the aircraft and the pax suffer permanent injuries. The CP doesn't hold an FIR, how would the courts view the CP training up the CPL holder? The pax wouldn't need to work too hard to prove the pilot wasn't competent to fly the aircraft, nor would the insurance company.
I have NFI, except to say that the last thing the court would look at to determine what the applicable legal requirements were is an "information sheet".
Thread Starter
The courts are required to follow the direction of the Act directing how Acts are to be interpreted. This says wherever there's more than one way of interpreting a regulation the intended meaning is to be applied. CASA have effectively written the regulation and provided further information on the intended meaning of the regulation and you suggest the courts wouldn't look at this information?
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roundsounds, the s15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act means that clauses are interpreted in light of s3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (plus any other declarations of purpose, such as ministerial second reading speeches, etc).
viz.,
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
(I am not a lawyer.)
viz.,
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
(I am not a lawyer.)
CASA have effectively written the regulation and provided further information on the intended meaning of the regulation and you suggest the courts wouldn't look at this information?
The courts will then get on with the job of interpreting the law in accordance with the laws for interpreting laws.
It's why some CAAPs contain this statement:
A CAAP is not intended to clarify the intent of a CAR, which must be clear from a reading of the regulation itself, nor may the CAAP contain mandatory requirements not contained in legislation.
What you appear to be suggesting is that if CASA changed its "information sheet" the requirements of Part 61 would change as a matter of law.
Let's think about that.
Let's assume an information sheet says:
Although 61.385 does not say only an instructor can deliver training to get a pilot up to the MOS competency standard, CASR Part 61 only authorises a flight instructor rating holder to deliver the training to satisfy 61.385.
61.385 does not say only an instructor can deliver training to get a pilot up to the MOS competency standard. Therefore, CASR Part 61 does not prohibit someone other than a flight instructor rating holder from delivering the training to satisfy 61.385.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 10th Feb 2016 at 00:48.
Thread Starter
If the courts "look at" the "further information" it will merely be to be observe that it contains someone's earnest hope as to what the law actually means. It would be no different than the courts "looking at" a lawyer's opinion as to what the law actually means.
The courts will then get on with the job of interpreting the law in accordance with the laws for interpreting laws.
It's why some CAAPs contain this statement:Atrociously worded - yes. But the gist is correct: The law means whatever the law means. This CAAP (or "information sheets" or whatever) contains the regulator's earnest hope as to what the law requires and permits.
What you appear to be suggesting is that if CASA changed its "information sheet" the requirements of Part 61 would change as a matter of law.
Let's think about that.
Let's assume an information sheet says:Someone in CASA wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that wasn't intended, and changes that information sheet to instead say
id that change in the information sheet change Part 61?
The courts will then get on with the job of interpreting the law in accordance with the laws for interpreting laws.
It's why some CAAPs contain this statement:Atrociously worded - yes. But the gist is correct: The law means whatever the law means. This CAAP (or "information sheets" or whatever) contains the regulator's earnest hope as to what the law requires and permits.
What you appear to be suggesting is that if CASA changed its "information sheet" the requirements of Part 61 would change as a matter of law.
Let's think about that.
Let's assume an information sheet says:Someone in CASA wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that wasn't intended, and changes that information sheet to instead say
id that change in the information sheet change Part 61?