Run-ups during a flight
I would say you absolutely can't do that, or "PIC" has no meaning. I think you'll find the "flight" is defined from start to stop, and thus the PIC is for that flight. Once the PIC is designated for the flight, that's it until you land - regardless of if the owner is on board or not. It's irrevelant if the owner happens to have a licence.
It would be a very courageous instructor who denied a request to terminate the session. Anyone who did would certainly deserve to be reported for misconduct and whatever else.
In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons.
If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.
If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.
In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons.
If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.
If I can be bothered, I'll dig up some Australian provisions and precedents for PICs changing during a flight.
If I think there's a substantial risk that the person in the right hand seat is going to bend my aircraft or me, I'll be taking over anyway. Fortunately the probabilities of that happening are extraordinarily remote.
But if there is a problem warranting a 'fail' result the check captain relieves the candidate of command and swaps seats at the first safe opportunity.
I have done that once or twice. It's ugly, but if you don't do it at the point of failure you lay yourself open to dispute.
There's little merit in continuing the flight in training mode because the candidate will most likely be hurting too much to get anything useful out of it.
At least the AFR in bugsmasher land is not full jeopardy and not only allows training but encourages it. Some pilots could benefit from that by selecting their instructors for what they can offer other than a quick tick and flick sign off.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 17th Feb 2024 at 03:39.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Also Airline Check and Training is very different to what is done in GA/RAA etc. For starters airline trainers and checkers are not necessarily instructors, and the flights may be conducting 'line training' but they are not technically flight training. So if somebody fails to meet acceptable standard during a RPT flight with passengers on board it really can't be decided at that point whether the flight can become 'line training' without an assessment of what needs to be done first, ie do they need to go as far as simulator work, that is actual flight training, before they return to the line. It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall at the investigation if the checker chose to stay in the jump and conduct 'training' and then something happened where a passenger was injured or worse due to misshandling.
This thread is proof that in 2024, many years after the Part 61 changes etc, nobody still has any idea what the regs say.
I don’t either.
I don’t either.
The following 5 users liked this post by soseg:
In the USA, FAR 1.1 defines PIC as the person who “has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating—if appropriate—for the conduct of the flight.” I bolded "or during" for obvious reasons..
FAA distinguishes between "logging PIC" and "acting as PIC". One person may be "sole manipulator of the controls" and another acting as pilot in command. Both may log PIC. E.g. a pilot who is rated single engine land is receiving tail wheel instruction but does not have a tail wheel endorsement. That pilot may log PIC for all the time they are sole manipulator of the controls because they are rated single engine land. That pilot cannot act as PIC because that requires a tail wheel endorsement.
When I receive a flight review I log all the time as PIC and all the time as instruction received. When I give a flight review I log all the time as PIC and all the time as instruction given. If the instructor demonstrated something during the flight review the applicant would not be "sole manipulator of the controls" for that demonstration and could not log that part of the time as PIC.
I suspect that FAA may be the only juridiction that allows more than one person to log PIC for a flight.
I found 217 references to "pilot in command" in 14 CFR part 61 - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...pter-D/part-61
14 CFR 61.51 covers pilot log books with logging PIC covered in section e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1.../section-61.51
Interesting stuff, EXDAC. Just goes to show that there can be different approaches in different countries and the sky doesn’t fall in. The concept that the manipulator of the controls thereby becomes PIC – at least for logging purposes – is novel.
In the scenario in which you are receiving a flight review eventually logged as PIC and instruction received time, whom do you consider to have ultimate ‘responsibility’ for the safety of the flight? You? Or the person from whom you’re receiving instruction?
I coincidentally get involved in marine pilot professional development, and there’s always a frank and free discussion about who’s ‘in charge’ of a ship when the ship is under pilotage. The law pretty clearly provides that the master of the ship remains ultimately responsible for the safety of the ship, and has ultimate authority, even while the ship is under pilotage. The pilot has what’s called the ‘conduct’ of the ship – manipulating the controls or ‘directing’ the manipulation of the controls by others. When I ask marine pilots: “Does the master have authority to intervene and direct the crew to ignore you?”, they (sometimes grudgingly) concede that the master does have that authority (and duty, in cases in which the master considers it necessary for the safety of the ship). I invite them to ‘hold that thought’, because the distinction is very important for their liability if things go pear shaped. If, for whatever reason, they are a ‘defacto master’ when things go pear shaped, their protections from civil liability as pilot fall away. I suggest to them that any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority at a point in time is 'bad'.
All of these concepts from maritime law are enshrined in aviation law (in many places). Just because someone happens to be manipulating the controls of an aircraft at a point in time does not turn that person into the PIC and, conversely, a person who doesn’t happen to be manipulating the controls at a point in time isn’t thereby precluded from being PIC at that point in time. Just as the master of a ship remains master while asleep, so does the PIC of an aircraft. And just as any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority over an aircraft at a point in time is 'bad'.
Anyway, I looked at my logbooks to see the spectrum of approaches to logging of ‘review’ time over the last 4 decades.
It seems that formal 2 yearly reviews didn’t come into the Australian rules until the early 90s. Before then I have lots of ’90 Day Checks’ in my logbook, with the instructor recorded as PIC and my time as ‘Dual’. I think back then it was the policy of the places from which I hired aircraft to require hirers to have been checked in the 90 days prior to hire.
My first recorded BFR is in 1991. My time is logged as Dual. But … the instructor wrote “ICUS” next to it, there being no ICUS column in that logbook.
My time for the BFR in 1993 is logged as PIC. Some of 43’s commentary above caused me to recollect that that was the approach back then. The flight was merely a ‘review’ rather than a ‘test’ – the clue is in name – of someone who could be (and in my specific case in 1993, was) ‘current’ to be PIC, with the instructor merely ‘reviewing’ and providing comments and guidance as to the pilot’s competence. After all, it was - and remains - open to a ‘current’ pilot to be PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft on the last day of the 2 year period anyway.
But, as is so often the case, CASA the complicator turned these ‘reviews’ into something they weren’t originally intended to be. (It is surreal spending some AFR time having a serious discussion about what stupid rules have been made in the previous two years.) I’ve logged all my BFR/AFR time post 1993 as Dual.
In the scenario in which you are receiving a flight review eventually logged as PIC and instruction received time, whom do you consider to have ultimate ‘responsibility’ for the safety of the flight? You? Or the person from whom you’re receiving instruction?
I coincidentally get involved in marine pilot professional development, and there’s always a frank and free discussion about who’s ‘in charge’ of a ship when the ship is under pilotage. The law pretty clearly provides that the master of the ship remains ultimately responsible for the safety of the ship, and has ultimate authority, even while the ship is under pilotage. The pilot has what’s called the ‘conduct’ of the ship – manipulating the controls or ‘directing’ the manipulation of the controls by others. When I ask marine pilots: “Does the master have authority to intervene and direct the crew to ignore you?”, they (sometimes grudgingly) concede that the master does have that authority (and duty, in cases in which the master considers it necessary for the safety of the ship). I invite them to ‘hold that thought’, because the distinction is very important for their liability if things go pear shaped. If, for whatever reason, they are a ‘defacto master’ when things go pear shaped, their protections from civil liability as pilot fall away. I suggest to them that any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority at a point in time is 'bad'.
All of these concepts from maritime law are enshrined in aviation law (in many places). Just because someone happens to be manipulating the controls of an aircraft at a point in time does not turn that person into the PIC and, conversely, a person who doesn’t happen to be manipulating the controls at a point in time isn’t thereby precluded from being PIC at that point in time. Just as the master of a ship remains master while asleep, so does the PIC of an aircraft. And just as any 'greyness' or 'confusion' about who has ultimate authority over an aircraft at a point in time is 'bad'.
Anyway, I looked at my logbooks to see the spectrum of approaches to logging of ‘review’ time over the last 4 decades.
It seems that formal 2 yearly reviews didn’t come into the Australian rules until the early 90s. Before then I have lots of ’90 Day Checks’ in my logbook, with the instructor recorded as PIC and my time as ‘Dual’. I think back then it was the policy of the places from which I hired aircraft to require hirers to have been checked in the 90 days prior to hire.
My first recorded BFR is in 1991. My time is logged as Dual. But … the instructor wrote “ICUS” next to it, there being no ICUS column in that logbook.
My time for the BFR in 1993 is logged as PIC. Some of 43’s commentary above caused me to recollect that that was the approach back then. The flight was merely a ‘review’ rather than a ‘test’ – the clue is in name – of someone who could be (and in my specific case in 1993, was) ‘current’ to be PIC, with the instructor merely ‘reviewing’ and providing comments and guidance as to the pilot’s competence. After all, it was - and remains - open to a ‘current’ pilot to be PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft on the last day of the 2 year period anyway.
But, as is so often the case, CASA the complicator turned these ‘reviews’ into something they weren’t originally intended to be. (It is surreal spending some AFR time having a serious discussion about what stupid rules have been made in the previous two years.) I’ve logged all my BFR/AFR time post 1993 as Dual.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 17th Feb 2024 at 22:10.
The following users liked this post:
I recently gave a flight review to a friend and we did a few landing that were close to his cross wind limit. I briefed that he should discontinue any time he felt unsafe with the conditions. He stuck with it, and with quite a bit of coaching, ended up handling the conditions reasonably well. I had lots of time right seat in his aircraft and was prepared to take control if needed. If he had said "enough" he would still have been given a satisfactory review sign off.
There are a few, but not many, times since solo that I have considered someone else responsible for the safety of the flight. Those include MEL training, SES training, and the few times I got some left seat time during part 91 flight test of large turbine aircraft.
The following users liked this post:
What remains unclear is whether the understanding is mutual and what the rules on the subject mean. In theory, it is possible for rules to provide for 'joint' PsIC. But whether that's a good idea as a matter of practicality and safety is a different question.
Using the same logic what was the purpose of the control check in this case, after all it was all working fine just as the magnetos were before landing. Yeah, carby heat check is important in the right conditions although maybe not applicable in this aircraft type.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
What the actual law states:
Pilot in Command for a flight review.
The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines who the pilot in command is:
This requires us to know who the operator is, which is also defined in the dictionary as:
Which requires us to know if it is Part 141 training
So from a legal perspective:
1. If a flight review involves training it has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator, therefore the Part 141 Operator has to designate who the pilot in command is.
2. If a flight review does not involve training, the owner of the aircraft can be the operator, and can designate who the pilot in command is.
Logging of flight time.
The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines pilot in command under supervision as:
Which leads us to:
For logging of flight time as ICUS we need to look at regulation 61.095
So providing no training is given during the flight review, it can be logged as ICUS by any pilot that holds a pilot licence even if they don't hold a valid flight review.
And finally for a couple of my thoughts:
Pilot in Command for a flight review.
The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines who the pilot in command is:
pilot in command, in relation to a flight of an aircraft, means the pilot designated by the operator of the aircraft as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight.
operator, of an aircraft, means:
(a) if the operation of the aircraft is authorised by an AOC, a Part 141 certificate or an aerial work certificate—the holder of the AOC or certificate; or
(b) otherwise—the person, organisation or enterprise engaged in aircraft operations involving the aircraft.
(a) if the operation of the aircraft is authorised by an AOC, a Part 141 certificate or an aerial work certificate—the holder of the AOC or certificate; or
(b) otherwise—the person, organisation or enterprise engaged in aircraft operations involving the aircraft.
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:
(f)training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
(1) Part 141 flight training is any of the following that is conducted in an aircraft or flight simulation training device:
(f)training, other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
1. If a flight review involves training it has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator, therefore the Part 141 Operator has to designate who the pilot in command is.
2. If a flight review does not involve training, the owner of the aircraft can be the operator, and can designate who the pilot in command is.
Logging of flight time.
The dictionary in volume 5 of the CASRs defines pilot in command under supervision as:
pilot in command under supervision has the meaning given by regulation 61.010.
61.010 Definitions for Part 61
In this Part:
pilot in command under supervision means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.
In this Part:
pilot in command under supervision means a pilot, other than a student pilot, who performs the duties and functions of the pilot in command of an aircraft under the supervision of a pilot who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to conduct the supervision.
61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
And finally for a couple of my thoughts:
- It is critical from a safety perspective that there is only one pilot in command at a time, and everyone understands who it is. If there can be a change of PIC during a flight, how and when that change will occur has to be very clearly defined by the operator so that there is no confusion as to who is in command at any time
- I can't see many instructors being prepared to do a flight review for someone that they have not flown with recently unless they are the pilot in command. If you can find someone, great, otherwise I'd suggest you do your flight review in someone else's aircraft.
Last edited by werbil; 19th Feb 2024 at 12:35. Reason: typos
I agree with EXDAC.
Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.
Para (a) of the definition of "operator" depends on whether the operation of the aircraft is or is not authorised by one of the mentioned certificates. It doesn't dictate that flying training can only be conducted by a Part 141 certificate holder. Is all that flying training being conducted in RAAus aircraft and gliders etc happening in aircraft whose operation is authorised by a Part 141 certificate?
More fuel for the 'ICUS' debate!
It would be interesting to know CASA's current view on these questions.
Completely concur with this:
Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.
Para (a) of the definition of "operator" depends on whether the operation of the aircraft is or is not authorised by one of the mentioned certificates. It doesn't dictate that flying training can only be conducted by a Part 141 certificate holder. Is all that flying training being conducted in RAAus aircraft and gliders etc happening in aircraft whose operation is authorised by a Part 141 certificate?
More fuel for the 'ICUS' debate!
It would be interesting to know CASA's current view on these questions.
Completely concur with this:
It is critical from a safety perspective that there is only one pilot in command at a time, and everyone understands who it is. If there can be a change of PIC during a flight, how and when that change will occur has to be very clearly defined by the operator so that there is no confusion as to who is in command at any time.
I agree with EXDAC.
Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.
Completely concur with this:
Your logic, werbil, is that, by definition, any flight training during a flight review has to be conducted by a Part 141 operator and, also by definition, the "operator" of any aircraft in which flight training during a flight review is occurring is that Part 141 operator. I don't think that's how the definition of "operator" works.
Completely concur with this:
EDIT: I have found the answer, not from the official regulations but from a CASA plain english info sheet that states "A fight instructor delivering training during a fight review can only deliver that training if employed by an operator with a Part 141 or 142 certifcate that authorises the conduct of fight training for the rating under review."
Unfortunately it doesn't actually contain any references to the source in the regulations.
Last edited by mikewil; 19th Feb 2024 at 21:04. Reason: answer found
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
I've taken the liberty of highlighting the parts of 141.015 that clearly define training that is given as part of a flight review as being Part 141 training:
Which leads us to 141.050:
So yes technically you can get CASA approval conduct training during a flight review outside a Part 141 operation, but you need a 141.035 approval to do so.
Whilst this seems fairly straightforward, the crunch is you need to obtain a 11.055 approval, and the requirements are quite stringent:
I am aware of one independent instructor that I believe has a 141.035 approval. Prior to obtaining the approval he was a HOO, and he is an examinier that can conduct EPCs on other examiners.
:
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:
(f) training,other than training conducted as a multi‑crew operation, that is given as part of a flight review;
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:
(f) training,
141.050 Part 141 flight training—requirement for Part 141 certificate or approval
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person conducts Part 141 flight training; and
(b) the person does not meet the requirement mentioned in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the requirement is that the person must hold:
(a) a Part 141 certificate that authorises the person to conduct the training; or
(b) an approval under regulation 141.035 to conduct the training.
(3) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person conducts Part 141 flight training; and
(b) the person does not meet the requirement mentioned in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) For paragraph (1)(b), the requirement is that the person must hold:
(a) a Part 141 certificate that authorises the person to conduct the training; or
(b) an approval under regulation 141.035 to conduct the training.
(3) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
141.035 Approvals by CASA for Part 141
(1) If a provision of this Part refers to a person holding an approval under this regulation, the person may apply to CASA, in writing, for the approval.
(2) Subject to regulation 11.055, CASA must grant the approval.
(3) Subregulation 11.055(1B) applies to the granting of an approval under this regulation.
(1) If a provision of this Part refers to a person holding an approval under this regulation, the person may apply to CASA, in writing, for the approval.
(2) Subject to regulation 11.055, CASA must grant the approval.
(3) Subregulation 11.055(1B) applies to the granting of an approval under this regulation.
11.055 Grant of authorisation
(1) This regulation applies despite any other provision of these Regulations that provides for the grant or issue of an authorisation, but subject to section 30A and paragraphs 30DY(2)(b), 30DZ(2)(b) and 30EC(2)(b) of the Act.
Note 1: Under section 30A of the Act, the Court may make an order excluding a person from a particular aviation activity for a specified period (the exclusion period). Under subsection 30A(4), during the exclusion period any authorisation granted to the person for the activity is of no effect and a new authorisation to undertake the activity is not to be granted to the person.
Note 2: Under section 30DY of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 12 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period. Under paragraph 30DY(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 3: Under section 30DZ of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30DZ(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 4: Under section 30EC of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit cancellation notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has twice previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30EC(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class for 3 years from the date of the notice.
(1A) Subject to subregulations (1B) and (1C), if a person has applied for an authorisation in accordance with these Regulations, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the person meets the criteria specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) any other requirements in relation to the person that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(c) any other requirements in relation to the thing in respect of which the application is made that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(d) these Regulations do not forbid CASA granting the authorisation in the particular case; and
(e) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation.
(1B) If another provision of these Regulations provides that this subregulation applies to the granting of the authorisation, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation will preserve a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable.
(1C) If the authorisation is an experimental certificate, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(2) In paragraph (1A)(a), a reference to meeting the criteria for the grant of an authorisation includes (in the case of an applicant who is an individual):
(a) having any qualifications required by or under these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) having any experience required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(c) having successfully completed any training required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(d) if there is a requirement as to recency or currency of the applicant’s training or experience—meeting that requirement; and
(e) if a standard of medical fitness is required by or under these Regulations for that grant:
(i) having attained that standard; and
(ii) having been granted any medical certificate required; and
(f) if particular attributes of character are required by or under these Regulations for that grant—having those attributes; and
(g) if a standard of proficiency in an activity is required by or under these Regulations for that grant—meeting that standard of proficiency.
(3) If these Regulations limit in any way the number of authorisations of the relevant kind that may be granted, CASA may refuse to grant the authorisation if the limit will be exceeded if the authorisation is granted.
(4) For paragraphs (1A)(e) and (1B)(b), CASA may take into account:
(a) the applicant’s record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(b) the applicant’s demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(c) the applicant’s experience (if any) in aviation; and
(d) the applicant’s knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and
(e) the applicant’s history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and
(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and
(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:
(i) the Act or these Regulations; or
(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or
(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and
(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant’s financial standing and financial stability; and
(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.
(5) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a corporation, references to the applicant include each of the officers (other than employees) of the applicant.
(6) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a member of a partnership, references to the applicant include each of the other members of the partnership.
(7) CASA may grant the authorisation in respect of only some of the matters sought in the application.
(1) This regulation applies despite any other provision of these Regulations that provides for the grant or issue of an authorisation, but subject to section 30A and paragraphs 30DY(2)(b), 30DZ(2)(b) and 30EC(2)(b) of the Act.
Note 1: Under section 30A of the Act, the Court may make an order excluding a person from a particular aviation activity for a specified period (the exclusion period). Under subsection 30A(4), during the exclusion period any authorisation granted to the person for the activity is of no effect and a new authorisation to undertake the activity is not to be granted to the person.
Note 2: Under section 30DY of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 12 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period. Under paragraph 30DY(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 3: Under section 30DZ of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit suspension notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30DZ(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class during the period of the suspension.
Note 4: Under section 30EC of the Act, CASA must give the holder of an authorisation a demerit cancellation notice if the holder has incurred at least 6 demerit points in relation to authorisations of the same class in a 3 year period and has twice previously been given a demerit suspension notice in relation to that class of authorisations. Under paragraph 30EC(2)(b), the holder is not entitled to be granted a new authorisation of that class for 3 years from the date of the notice.
(1A) Subject to subregulations (1B) and (1C), if a person has applied for an authorisation in accordance with these Regulations, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the person meets the criteria specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) any other requirements in relation to the person that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(c) any other requirements in relation to the thing in respect of which the application is made that are specified in these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation are met; and
(d) these Regulations do not forbid CASA granting the authorisation in the particular case; and
(e) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation.
(1B) If another provision of these Regulations provides that this subregulation applies to the granting of the authorisation, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation will preserve a level of aviation safety that is at least acceptable.
(1C) If the authorisation is an experimental certificate, CASA may grant the authorisation only if:
(a) the requirements of paragraphs (1A)(a) to (d) are satisfied; and
(b) granting the authorisation would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of other airspace users or persons on the ground or water.
(2) In paragraph (1A)(a), a reference to meeting the criteria for the grant of an authorisation includes (in the case of an applicant who is an individual):
(a) having any qualifications required by or under these Regulations for the grant of the authorisation; and
(b) having any experience required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(c) having successfully completed any training required by or under these Regulations for that grant; and
(d) if there is a requirement as to recency or currency of the applicant’s training or experience—meeting that requirement; and
(e) if a standard of medical fitness is required by or under these Regulations for that grant:
(i) having attained that standard; and
(ii) having been granted any medical certificate required; and
(f) if particular attributes of character are required by or under these Regulations for that grant—having those attributes; and
(g) if a standard of proficiency in an activity is required by or under these Regulations for that grant—meeting that standard of proficiency.
(3) If these Regulations limit in any way the number of authorisations of the relevant kind that may be granted, CASA may refuse to grant the authorisation if the limit will be exceeded if the authorisation is granted.
(4) For paragraphs (1A)(e) and (1B)(b), CASA may take into account:
(a) the applicant’s record of compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(b) the applicant’s demonstrated attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements (in Australia or elsewhere) relating to aviation safety and other transport safety; and
(c) the applicant’s experience (if any) in aviation; and
(d) the applicant’s knowledge of the regulatory requirements applicable to civil aviation in Australia; and
(e) the applicant’s history, if any, of serious behavioural problems; and
(f) any conviction (other than a spent conviction, within the meaning of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914) of the applicant (in Australia or elsewhere) for a transport safety offence; and
(g) any evidence held by CASA that the applicant has contravened:
(i) the Act or these Regulations; or
(ii) a law of another country relating to aviation safety; or
(iii) another law (of Australia or of another country) relating to transport safety; and
(h) in the case of an authorisation referred to in subregulation 11.040(2), the applicant’s financial standing and financial stability; and
(i) any other matter relating to the fitness of the applicant to hold the authorisation.
(5) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a corporation, references to the applicant include each of the officers (other than employees) of the applicant.
(6) For the application of paragraphs (4)(a) to (i) in relation to an applicant that is a member of a partnership, references to the applicant include each of the other members of the partnership.
(7) CASA may grant the authorisation in respect of only some of the matters sought in the application.
"141.015 Definitions of Part 141 flight training, authorised Part 141 flight training, Part 141 operator and Part 141 certificate"
This section is clearly defined as only applying to part 141. This section does not apply to any operation conducted outside part 141.
"141.050 Part 141 flight training—requirement for Part 141 certificate or approval"
Again this section applies to part 141 and not to operations that are not conducted under part 141.
There is really no point is citing regulations with conditional applicability when the conditions do not apply.
I don't see how aviation could exist in Australia if training could only be conducted at part 141 flight schools.
This section is clearly defined as only applying to part 141. This section does not apply to any operation conducted outside part 141.
"141.050 Part 141 flight training—requirement for Part 141 certificate or approval"
Again this section applies to part 141 and not to operations that are not conducted under part 141.
There is really no point is citing regulations with conditional applicability when the conditions do not apply.
I don't see how aviation could exist in Australia if training could only be conducted at part 141 flight schools.
Last edited by EXDAC; 19th Feb 2024 at 23:32.
So much law to answer who can do a simple AFR. Half the PPLs will probably just ignore doing one these days and fly anyway. In any case, while they legislate the hell out of pilots nobody is watching where the real safety issues are. The fact that Airservices and the BOM are providing the most safety critical services in Australia in Aviation and yet getting away with murder on notification of delays, weather and provision of basic services. The basic infrastructure is below third world, single runway ops into Melbourne, NDBs as fallback navaids when no new aircraft are fitted with ADFs, etc etc.... Not to mention Melbourne airport is now stonewalling the airport train, which they are paying nothing for, as they want it to be underground, and the taxpayers are funding an above ground rail, because its cheaper.
You just have to laugh at how pathetic Australian aviation has become.
You just have to laugh at how pathetic Australian aviation has become.
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
The last sentence says it all ................
Really, 'tis very very sad......... 'pathetic'.
No cheers nor hope here. Nope. None at all.
Really, 'tis very very sad......... 'pathetic'.
No cheers nor hope here. Nope. None at all.
We’re losing sight of what the main issue of debate was: Who gets to designate the PIC? That led to the definition of PIC, which in turn led to the definition of “operator, of an aircraft”. That’s because the latter designates the former.
Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.
Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.
Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.
Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.
Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.
Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.
We’re losing sight of what the main issue of debate was: Who gets to designate the PIC? That led to the definition of PIC, which in turn led to the definition of “operator, of an aircraft”. That’s because the latter designates the former.
Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.
Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.
Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.
Let’s assume that it’s rock solid true that flying training, or at least flying training conducted during a flight review, can only be conducted by the holder of a Part 141 certificate. I do not think it follows, from that assumption, that the holder of the Part 141 certificate thereby becomes the operator of the aircraft as defined. Para (a) of the definition of "operator of an aircraft" is about whether a certificate "authorises the operation" of the aircraft.
Take the example of an aircraft the registered owner and registered operator of which is pilot Fred. Fred flies over to aerodrome X where the holder of a Part 141 certificate “Part 141 R US Pty Ltd” are located, because Fred contacted them and they agreed to arrange for the conduct of Fred’s AFR. Instructor Joe conducts Fred’s AFR. Does that set of circumstances mean that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd became the operator of Fred’s aircraft for the purposes of that definition in CASR, during the AFR? If so, there’s waaaay more in the regs about the implications of being the operator of an aircraft, beyond mere designation of PIC, that Part 141 R US Pty Ltd needs to be worried about.
Set aside all of the distractions about whether an instructor or Part 141 organisation would “accept” a situation in which the owner could designate. If the Part 141 organisation becomes the operator of Fred's aircraft, merely as a consequence of conducting the Fred's AFR in Fred’s aircraft, Fred doesn’t get to choose who's PIC because - on this logic - Fred's not the operator and, therefore, Fred does not have the power of designation. But it also follows that the Part 141 organisation doesn't get to choose which of the operator obligations in the regs are complied with or not.
So, next question is: has Australia filed a difference with ICAO?