Can A BFR Be Done in an RAA Registered Aircraft?

[poteroo]

If the pilot to be reviewed holds current RPC and RPL/PPL, and the instructor holds both RAAus SI/CFI/PE plus CASA FIR 1 or2, and the RAAus aircraft is of a type which can be registered in GA - then my understanding is that the pilot can be signed off for both the RPC and the GA licence AFR/BFR after a single review flight. The 'review' must cover all of the items as listed in both RAAus and CASA advisories on flight reviews - except the optional navex. I must admit that I have not done one such review yet. It might ruffle sensibilities in CLARC, but considering the logic, and economic value, of such a dual review........ who knows?
happy days,

[thorn bird]

Reading all this stuff, the reg's, the CAAPS the MOS etc, and all the other aggravation that goes with it and one can
only come to one conclusion, there are far easier and fun things to do than deal with this stuff.
Trouble is that addiction to touching the face of god, guess NZ is not that far away where the freedom to fly has not been
subjugated to an all powerful bunch of incompetents.

[Okihara]

Originally Posted by thorn bird

Trouble is that addiction to touching the face of god, guess NZ is not that far away where the freedom to fly has not been
subjugated to an all powerful bunch of incompetents.

In what specific ways is NZ closer than Oz in spirit to being an aviation heaven?

[djpil]

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

I was talking to the senior instructors and apparently the BFR is a bit open to interpretation as CASA isn't entirely prescriptive with what you have to achieve.

But it is very prescriptive, read 61.400 again:

(1) For this Part, successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating.

Originally Posted by andrewr

I think the CAAP is pre part 61?

Yes, the CAAP is obsolete but I have been told to follow it. CASA's information sheet on flight reviews which came out just after Part 61 stated that there was an Advisory Circular on flight reviews but they ignored my requests to get a copy - that information sheet is no longer available and no mention on the website of an AC to replace the CAAP.

Originally Posted by andrewr

Maybe it depends on who you talk to at CASA, but locally it seems that schools have been told they need to perform and check off every non-optional element in the flight review MOS.

That's what 61.400 means in my opinion - demonstrate competence in each unit of competency for the rating! I was wondering when some people in CASA would get around to working out what the new regs meant, I look forward to that new Advisory Circular.

[VH DSJ]

Originally Posted by Tankengine

ATPL holders employed by major airlines are part of an approved cyclic training program (comprising simulators and airborne route checks) so do not do “BFRs”
IFR pilots do IR renewals so are also exempt.

Thanks for clarifying this. Apparently some of the people at CASA need to read up on this exemption. It quite clearly states in this CASA information document that we are exempted from AFRs if we participate in a checking and training system under Regulation 61.040. I find it hard to believe that there are people in CASA licensing that don't know their own regs!

[717tech]

VH-DSJ. Your link isn’t approved yet; but if it’s the one I think it is, it has an expiry date. I spent a lot of time about 18 months ago trying to work this all out. I contacted CLARC and they couldn’t provide an answer. They suggested I contact the technical team, which I did. 18 months later, no response. Completed by BFR in the mean time...

From what I could gather at the time, my participation in a cyclic sim on a narrow body DOES NOT count, nor provide me with an exemption towards the BFR requirement on say a C172. They’re different apparently. I went one further and wanted to know if the cycle also covers me for flying IFR in a C172/C182 etc. I couldn’t get a definitive answer on that..

“Simples!”

[Climb150]

In 2017 I had CASA email me to say a cyclic program at an airline only covers the type of aircraft you do the PC in. If you want to fly a King Air or Baron etc, multi IR renewal or currency is required. Fortunately this covers single IR recency.

A single flying VFR requires a BFR.

[Lead Balloon]

This link might work: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...files_redirect

I’ll let others lose the will to live while trying to track down the referenced exemptions to see if and when they expire/d and if they’ve been replaced.

[roundsounds]

Originally Posted by VH DSJ

Thanks for clarifying this. Apparently some of the people at CASA need to read up on this exemption. It quite clearly states in this CASA information document that we are exempted from AFRs if we participate in a checking and training system under Regulation 61.040. I find it hard to believe that there are people in CASA licensing that don't know their own regs!

the devil is in the detail. I too believed this until not long ago, you need to check the specific operators 61.040 recurrent training approval to ensure it covers AFR requirements. I was informed by a senior CASA officer that most RPT operators recurrent training approvals do not cover AFRs.

[Pastor of Muppets]

Here we go again.
simple question by the OP and countless replies quoting useless rule books.
How does anyone understand this dribble well enough to gain a licence in this country these days?

[roundsounds]

Originally Posted by Pastor of Muppets

Here we go again.
simple question by the OP and countless replies quoting useless rule books.
How does anyone understand this dribble well enough to gain a licence in this country these days?

That’s contributing to the death of GA in Australia.