CPL and class two medical
61.1300 Obligations of flight examiners—flight tests: other offences
(1) A flight examiner commits an offence if:
(a) the examiner conducts a flight test for a pilot licence; and
(b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that the applicant:
(i) is at least the minimum age to hold the licence; and
(ii) has passed the aeronautical knowledge examination for the licence; and
(iii) has met the flight training requirements for the grant of the licence; and
(iv) has met the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A flight examiner commits an offence if:
(a) the examiner conducts a flight test for any of the following licences:
(i) a private pilot licence;
(ii) a commercial pilot licence;
(iii) a multi‑crew pilot licence;
(iv) an air transport pilot licence; and
(b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that the applicant has a current aviation English language proficiency assessment.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A flight examiner commits an offence if:
(a) the examiner conducts a flight test for a pilot licence in an aircraft; and
(b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that:
(i) if the test is for a licence other than a recreational pilot licence—the applicant holds:
(A) a current medical certificate of the class required for the grant of the licence; or
(B) a medical exemption to exercise the privileges of the licence; or
a current medical certificate of the class required for the grant of the licence; or
You could then argue that since it is a simulated charter flight, then you can use your class 2 medical to simulate a class 1 medical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA says no
Folks,
Reminds me a bit of the choplogic of many years ago, you couldn't get a (now) Class 1 medical unless you could meet all the eyesight tests without correction.
Safety, you know.
But once you had a CPL or higher, then you could get glasses if needed to met the eyesight standard.??
At the time, DCA simply refused to even discuss the matter, them's were the standards, FIFO.
Change of DG and CMO and all of a sudden it was safe to do an initial CPL flight test wearing glasses.
Same obstinate lack of logic and commonsense here.
With this mob, nothing much changes, without political blunt trauma.
Tootle pip!!
Reminds me a bit of the choplogic of many years ago, you couldn't get a (now) Class 1 medical unless you could meet all the eyesight tests without correction.
Safety, you know.
But once you had a CPL or higher, then you could get glasses if needed to met the eyesight standard.??
At the time, DCA simply refused to even discuss the matter, them's were the standards, FIFO.
Change of DG and CMO and all of a sudden it was safe to do an initial CPL flight test wearing glasses.
Same obstinate lack of logic and commonsense here.
With this mob, nothing much changes, without political blunt trauma.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reading is that CASA is correct. The exemption applies to holders of a CPL, so I would not expect it to apply to someone taking the test who does not yet hold the license. And I suspect an exemption from legislation requiring you to have a medical is different from a medical exemption.
Typical CASA though - create rules that are hard to understand and have hidden traps that mean that they are giving away less than it first appears.
Typical CASA though - create rules that are hard to understand and have hidden traps that mean that they are giving away less than it first appears.
And I suspect an exemption from legislation requiring you to have a medical is different from a medical exemption.
A regulatory framework built on exemptions is a flimsy nothing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it helps to go back to the original intent of the exemption which was “to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “
it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020.
it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020.
I think it helps to go back to the original intent of the exemption which was “to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “
it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020.
it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020.
Thanks
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, can’t post links yet but the legislation is
CASA EX46/20
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “
I asked CASA what the medical standards were for Class 2, and they said without blinking an eye 'the same as Class 1'! They talk the good talk about risk levels etc, but when you look at the legislation they refer to, and ask AVMED themselves, the answer does not support allowing pilots to get a Class 2 if they are 'unable to meet the requirements of a Class 1'!
The only thing that seems to change is the length of time between medical examinations...
Am I not seeing something here? Or is this just another example of CASA buffoonery getting in the way of their own intent?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Outside
Age: 51
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took my CPL flying test on a class two medical, in 2005.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it.
Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it.
Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years.
I took my CPL flying test on a class two medical, in 2005.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it.
Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it.
Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was because in the good old days, the level of medical an individual was required to hold at the time of their licence flight test was the level of medical required for the licence he/she actually held at the time of the test - eg. the medical required for a holder of a student licence. There was none of this BS inferring '"simulated" charter flights etc. That really is the biggest unjustifiable reason I have heard CASA come up with in a long time. The person of course had to gain the appropriate class of medical required for the licence they were issued with prior to exercising the privileges of the licence which is fair enough. These days when licences are "perpetual" this same BS line of argument would have your licence cancelled or suspended immediately you no longer held the appropriate medical - go figure.....
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was because in the good old days, the level of medical an individual was required to hold at the time of their licence flight test was the level of medical required for the licence he/she actually held at the time of the test - eg. the medical required for a holder of a student licence. There was none of this BS inferring '"simulated" charter flights etc. That really is the biggest unjustifiable reason I have heard CASA come up with in a long time. The person of course had to gain the appropriate class of medical required for the licence they were issued with prior to exercising the privileges of the licence which is fair enough. These days when licences are "perpetual" this same BS line of argument would have your licence cancelled or suspended immediately you no longer held the appropriate medical - go figure.....
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Queensland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course as a CFI it was always my advice that the holder of a Class II medical do ahead and get their Class I prior to going too far down the track towards their CPL just in case there were to be a nasty AVMED surprise in store for them, however, it was certainly not a legal requirement to do so.
