RA FI -> CASA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA FI -> CASA
If a PPL (and meeting all other requirements) were to complete a RA-Aus Flight Instructor rating, is there a path forward toward CPL/FI rating that would benefit by having the RA-Aus FI rating? Or would a CPL/FI require completion as if it were starting at PPL?
It would be beneficial I recon and I don’t think you now require a CPL to hold a FIR, thought the CPL requirement was ditched as part of the Part 61 transition - I maybe wrong though.
You will certainly need to do the CASA PMI theory exam though if the RA FI doesn’t require a pass in it.
You will certainly need to do the CASA PMI theory exam though if the RA FI doesn’t require a pass in it.
At a recent CASA Flight Instructor S.... Workshop they said that RAA instructional hours do not count towards an upgrade from G3 to G2 etc.
A PPL instructor can only do flight activity and design feature endorsement training.
A PPL instructor can only do flight activity and design feature endorsement training.
they said that RAA instructional hours do not count towards an upgrade from G3 to G2 etc.
....please?
Horatio, Yes you need to hand back your Grade 1 Instructor rating even though Part 61 wasn't even thought about back then. All of your students are now not licenced because you falsely claimed hours on a now out of date rule set...…. Or you could just continue to be a Very Bad Boy1 
Now now AWB....
...I legitimately claimed those hours on a now-obsolete rule set.
I get myself in enough trouble without your assistance thanks!
you falsely claimed hours on a now out of date rule set...…
I get myself in enough trouble without your assistance thanks!
Horatio, Yes you need to hand back your Grade 1 Instructor rating even though Part 61 wasn't even thought about back then. All of your students are now not licenced because you falsely claimed hours on a now out of date rule set...…. Or you could just continue to be a Very Bad Boy1
Seems entirely reasonable to me, given that, some years back, a large bunch of us had to "give back" our aerobatic ratings and do it all again, even though some of us had been doing aeros, by that time,for 30 or more years.
Not too often you get to do an "initial" aeros with 1400+ HP in the front.
And CASA did decide, once, that every test/check ride (by whatever name) at the old RQAC for a year was invalid because CASA stuffed up the CFIs paperwork. Fortunately the aero club won that one in court.
Tootle pip!!
Seems entirely reasonable to me, given that, some years back, a large bunch of us had to "give back" our aerobatic ratings and do it all again, even though some of us had been doing aeros, by that time,for 30 or more years.
It is happening again for the "old" instructors who were teaching aeros & formation etc .... despite being granted a flash new Part 61 flight instructor training endorsement. CASA, at that recent Flight Instructor S.... Workshop, effectively said that they weren't worth the paper they were printed on as (per a rule which has buried in one of the many legislative instruments for a number of years) we are required to demonstrate our competency to a flight examiner type of person.
Actually, what I am quoting is nothing to do with anybody killing themselves or Part 61, but goes back to a "famous" "policy" document FOI 13.1, the "bible" at the time, which was "found to have no legal validity".
A bit like a lot of the Part 61/141/142 CASA internal "policies", many of which, in time, will suffer the same fate, because the law is what it is, not what some "policy" document decides it is, because the actual regulations are defective for any number of reasons. Indeed, at last count, those internal documents numbered how many pages ?? 2000 or so --- on top of the actual regulations and MOS.
Isn't it great to be an aviator in Australia, where we have the world's greatest "air safety regulator" ----- based on page count or word count of regulatory material ---- and we all know that the amount of air safety you get is directly proportional to the cubic volume of aviation regulations.
Tootle pip!!
