Run-ups during a flight
And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…
Part 61 defines “flight review”:
CASR 61.400 says:
So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:
I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
Part 61 defines “flight review”:
flight review means an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform:
(a) for the holder of a pilot licence or flight engineer licence—an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds; or
(b) for the holder of a glider pilot licence—an activity authorised by the licence.
(b) for the holder of a glider pilot licence—an activity authorised by the licence.
61.400 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—flight review
(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.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are as follows:
(a) CASA;
(b) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 for this regulation;
(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating.
(2) For subregulation (1), the persons are as follows:
(a) CASA;
(b) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 for this regulation;
(c) a pilot instructor who is authorised to conduct a flight review for the rating.
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:
61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator
(1) A pilot instructor commits an offence if:
(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and
(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and
(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.
(1) A pilot instructor commits an offence if:
(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and
(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and
(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 20th Feb 2024 at 02:58.
In USA part 141 flight schools typically promote flight instructors from graduates of previous courses. That may result in an organization in which only the minimum experience required to pass a flight test is passed on to the next round of students. Fortunately, in USA, independent intructors who may have many thousands of hours of varied flight experience are allowed to give instruction and recommendations for flight tests, conduct flight reviews without or wthout training, and to provide any other flight instruction that those inexperienced instructors at a part 141 school can provide.
So far, no one has posted the Australian regulations/laws that define the instruction an instructor not tied to a part 141 school can provide.
Don't misunderstand me. Part 141 flight schools may be very good a taking students to the standard required to pass a check ride. Maybe that's all some students want on the path to their airline job.
So far, no one has posted the Australian regulations/laws that define the instruction an instructor not tied to a part 141 school can provide.
Don't misunderstand me. Part 141 flight schools may be very good a taking students to the standard required to pass a check ride. Maybe that's all some students want on the path to their airline job.
I think what happened in Australia is that there was a rush to issue Part 141 certificates to people rather than implement an 'independent instructor' regime. Others in the training system may have a better recollection than me.
Whether that needed to happen? I don't know. It seems to me - even just from the regs I quoted above - that the regs expressly contemplate that some activities - including flight reviews - can be carried out independently of a Part 141 or Part 142 operator.
Whether that needed to happen? I don't know. It seems to me - even just from the regs I quoted above - that the regs expressly contemplate that some activities - including flight reviews - can be carried out independently of a Part 141 or Part 142 operator.
I don't know about a rush...the implementation was spread out over quite a few years.
I recall there was quite a bit of push back against allowing roving independant instructors.
I recall there was quite a bit of push back against allowing roving independant instructors.
And let me guess: The push back was mostly from people/organisations who'd gone through the process of getting a flying training AOC prior to the Part 141/142 changes?
As I recall, there was a rush to set up a 'simplified' application process for individuals to get Part 141 certified, in response to push back from people who pointed out that the independent instructor arrangements in the USA hadn't resulted in the sky falling in.
As I recall, there was a rush to set up a 'simplified' application process for individuals to get Part 141 certified, in response to push back from people who pointed out that the independent instructor arrangements in the USA hadn't resulted in the sky falling in.
Well you can't blame people who have gone to the effort and expense to set up an AOC objecting to freelancers encroaching.
I don't blame them in any way.
But whether there's an evidence-based safety justification for preventing "freelancers" "encroaching" is another question. The answer to that question is provided by the objective data out of decades of experiencer in the USA.
But whether there's an evidence-based safety justification for preventing "freelancers" "encroaching" is another question. The answer to that question is provided by the objective data out of decades of experiencer in the USA.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…
Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor. Hence the need for 61.1230 so that CLARC or whatever it is called these days can update your licencing records as to whether you have a valid flight review.
The endorsements referred to include design feature endorsements (ie retractable undercarriage or floatplane) and activity endorsements (aerobatics). These endorsements can also be conducted by an independent instructor outside of a Part 141 operation. Again, 61.1230 is required to allow licencing records to be updated.
And on the other question whether flight reviews may be conducted only by a Part 141 certificate holder…
Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
Part 61 defines “flight review”:CASR 61.400 says:So far as I can tell, my AFR is a "flight review" of my SEA "rating".
I note that, in principle, anyone can be approved under reg 61.040 for the purposes of 61.400(2)(b). Further, Part 141 doesn’t rate a mention.
CASR 61.1230 says:I note that 61.1230 expressly contemplates activities - including "flight reviews" - conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator (provided the pilot instructor makes a record of the activities and is otherwise qualified).
Is the term “flight review” in that reg limited by “for a flight crew endorsement”? i.e the independent flight review can only be “for a flight crew endorsement”? If that’s what's intended, I reckon it’s poor drafting and inconsistent with the definition of “flight review”.
A “flight review” is “an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform … - for the holder of a pilot licence -… an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds”. There’s nothing about endorsements in the definition of “flight review”.
However, over the last 12 months or so CASA has produced some of the more bizarre interpretations of legislation I have encountered, so who knows how CASA interprets regs like 61.1230.
Yes, your AFR is a flight review of your single engine class rating if it is conducted in a single engine aircraft.
A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor. Hence the need for 61.1230 so that CLARC or whatever it is called these days can update your licencing records as to whether you have a valid flight review.
The endorsements referred to include design feature endorsements (ie retractable undercarriage or floatplane) and activity endorsements (aerobatics). These endorsements can also be conducted by an independent instructor outside of a Part 141 operation. Again, 61.1230 is required to allow licencing records to be updated.
A flight review is only 141 flight training if it involves flight training. If the candidate can successfully pass the flight review without requiring any training during the flight it can be conducted by an independent instructor. Hence the need for 61.1230 so that CLARC or whatever it is called these days can update your licencing records as to whether you have a valid flight review.
The endorsements referred to include design feature endorsements (ie retractable undercarriage or floatplane) and activity endorsements (aerobatics). These endorsements can also be conducted by an independent instructor outside of a Part 141 operation. Again, 61.1230 is required to allow licencing records to be updated.
When part 61 was first being promoted, the independent instructor flight reviews were highlighted as a feature of the legislation and 61.1230 shows that. Once it became law CASA back tracked and their interpretation was that if training was required, a 141/142 involvement was necessary.
61.1230 includes independent instructors conducting a "session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating". So CASR always (and still) envisage 'independent instructors' delivering some training outside of the Part 141/142 regime. That could be achieved under the current regs. CASA just decided it didn't want to do it.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 20th Feb 2024 at 20:11.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
So, it looks to me like you agree that not all flight reviews must necessarily be conducted 'inside' a Part 141 operation, and you also agree that the person under review could be the PIC during some reviews, depending on the circumstances?
Finding an instructor who is prepared to conduct the flight review whilst the candidate is the pilot in command is likely to be extremely challenging. One of the interesting consequences of this is I don't believe the instructor would legally be able to log the flight .time
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?
Agree with most werbil's #92, but not sure about the 'logability' of the instructor's time because it's not a question that I've looked into. If the instructor is charging for their time, why would they care?
But let's circle back to the original question: Who's the "operator" of the aircraft when an 'activity' - let's use a neutral term for now - is being conducted in the candidate's own aircraft? The "operator" designates the PIC.
Who's "operator" when the activity is just Fred's "flight review" as narrowly defined?
Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?
Whatever the outcome of the various regulatory 'logic gates', surely it remains open to Fred, at any time, to terminate an activity being conducted in Fred's own aircraft, and at that point there can be little doubt that Fred becomes (or remains?) "operator" with power to designate himself PIC. That seemed to me to be Squawk's scenario.
PS: Good points in my view andrewr. I think that what's happened as a matter of practicality is that training AOC holding organisations brought pressure to bear which has resulted in 'almost everything' being interpreted as 'training' which 'must' only be conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 certificate. Thus the 'half-pregnant' concept of 'independent instructors' who have to hold a Part 141 certificate.
But let's circle back to the original question: Who's the "operator" of the aircraft when an 'activity' - let's use a neutral term for now - is being conducted in the candidate's own aircraft? The "operator" designates the PIC.
Who's "operator" when the activity is just Fred's "flight review" as narrowly defined?
Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?
Whatever the outcome of the various regulatory 'logic gates', surely it remains open to Fred, at any time, to terminate an activity being conducted in Fred's own aircraft, and at that point there can be little doubt that Fred becomes (or remains?) "operator" with power to designate himself PIC. That seemed to me to be Squawk's scenario.
PS: Good points in my view andrewr. I think that what's happened as a matter of practicality is that training AOC holding organisations brought pressure to bear which has resulted in 'almost everything' being interpreted as 'training' which 'must' only be conducted under the auspices of a Part 141 or 142 certificate. Thus the 'half-pregnant' concept of 'independent instructors' who have to hold a Part 141 certificate.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 20th Feb 2024 at 20:58.
The following users liked this post:
The definition of flight training for the purposes of part 141 is probably important here. In general, what is considered flight training and required to be done under part 141? It is probably more specific than just "this feels like training."
If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?
If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?
Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?
Now being the owner of the aircraft does not automatically make you PIC, you can assign yourself as PIC just by thinking so before you go flying. If an instructor is employed to provide an AFR or any other operation involving your aircraft then both of you should be clear on who is PIC and I would suggest some form of contract be available and signed for the benefit of both parties. Unless you have a a lot of spare cash just sitting around and you are happy to spend it on other peoples concerns that is.
PS when I referred to 'hire agreements' it was also used for instructor only for owner aircraft purposes.
Going back to the original post, if the instructor was PIC he would be within his rights to ask for pre-flight checks to be conducted as he wished, including run-ups, because he is legally responsible should something happen on take-off and the run ups would have uncovered such a fault. If the candidate was PIC, then the instructor can ask the run-ups be done, if not complied with satisfactorily then they can either accept it and continue, state they wish to terminate the check and make it training or ask to be returned to the school and terminate the check. What happens next could be touchy as then it would come down to being a failed AFR and the candidate would not then be able to exercise the privileges of their licence, or part there of that was not completed.
Last edited by 43Inches; 21st Feb 2024 at 04:45.
< snip > Going back to the original post, if the instructor was PIC he would be within his rights to ask for pre-flight checks to be conducted as he wished, including run-ups, because he is legally responsible should something happen on take-off and the run ups would have uncovered such a fault. If the candidate was PIC, then the instructor can ask the run-ups be done, if not complied with satisfactorily then they can either accept it and continue, state they wish to terminate the check and make it training or ask to be returned to the school and terminate the check. What happens next could be touchy as then it would come down to being a failed AFR and the candidate would not then be able to exercise the privileges of their licence, or part there of that was not completed.
The following users liked this post:
Sorry my bad, but yeah it all applies in reverse, same idea. Although the Instructor is showing some naivety in a legal sense, that being if the owner is under training/check and wants to do extra checks, the instructor should not be interrupting that process. The owner could quite easily agree, go ahead and take-off thinking the instructor as 'in command' and 'knowing better' and something happens and the instructor is now solely responsible, regardless of who was flying. If I was the instructor I would have let him go through his usual process, as that is what an AFR is really all about. And if I thought the candidate was spending excessive time doing checks then it would be a 'chat about' item later on.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A scenario:
Someone buys into a RV-7 syndicate. They have all required qualifications, but they are required to fly with another member to checkout in the aircraft. During the flight they do a few PFLs, landings glide approaches etc. to get used to the aircraft. The other pilot points out a few times where they need to plan a bit further ahead to slow down and manage speed etc. and they keep practicing until the new pilot is up to scratch. What qualifications does the pilot performing the checkout need?
If the pilot performing the checkout is authorized to perform flight reviews, and all required sequences were performed adequately by the end of the flight, can they sign it off as a flight review afterwards? Or should they do another flight and repeat everything to count as a flight review?
Anyone can provide post action critique of anything really, that's just your opinion on the situation. Bob in row 7 could offer that your landing was rough, and you should provide more beers to dull the passengers senses next time, he is not training you. Proper training should involve a post sequence debrief with critique, but that is not training in itself, it's how the entire sequence is handled that makes it training. If you were to pre-flight brief on how to conduct a sequence, then during the sequence provide instruction and coaching on how to improve, then that is training. The RV-7 scenario is training essentially, but because the pilot already holds all qualifications as needed for the flight, the training is not for the issue of a licence, rating or design feature, therefore somebody sitting next to you pointing out the finer points of what the club would like to see is fine. They would not be able to log any time, as they are not officially instructing as such, and the pilot flying will be PIC., it would just be considered solo practice of a scenario. The issue may only be if there is a restriction on passengers carried during emergency procedure practice/instruction. This is effectively what happens during line training in airlines, and why you can't practice any actual non normal operation in general, except in general the line trainer will be the PIC with the candidate logging co-pilot as the trainee. If the flight was ICUS/PICUS, then the Captain under training would do everything the PIC would normally do and the training Captain who is actually PIC would act as co-pilot and perform those duties. In general the ICUS candidate would handle all situations required of a Captain until such time the trainer thinks they are about to affect safety of flight and then ICUS would be cancelled and revert to the trainer acting as PIC.
In general you have to specify what the intention of a flight is before leaving. The instructor would have to clearly state where training has concluded and where the assessment begins, and that should have been agreed on prior to the flight. AFAIK you can't launch an assessment on a candidate by stealth.
If the pilot performing the checkout is authorized to perform flight reviews, and all required sequences were performed adequately by the end of the flight, can they sign it off as a flight review afterwards? Or should they do another flight and repeat everything to count as a flight review?
Last edited by 43Inches; 21st Feb 2024 at 20:39.
There is a definition of "flight training" in CASR. It's in the Dictionary. It points to CASR 61.010, which in turn points to CASR 61.195 which in turn points in part to CASR 61.210.
On that definition, it seems that no "training" - no matter how you want to define it - during a "flight review" is "flight training". To understand why, answer this question:
For what licence, rating or endorsement am I "training" during a "flight review"?
I already hold the required licence/s, rating/s and endorsement/s. I am not an applicant for a licence, rating or endorsement.
This is where the definition of "flight training" in the Dictionary and CASR 61.010 end up:
On that definition, it seems that no "training" - no matter how you want to define it - during a "flight review" is "flight training". To understand why, answer this question:
For what licence, rating or endorsement am I "training" during a "flight review"?
I already hold the required licence/s, rating/s and endorsement/s. I am not an applicant for a licence, rating or endorsement.
This is where the definition of "flight training" in the Dictionary and CASR 61.010 end up:
61.195 Flight training requirements
(1) Subregulation (2) applies to flight training for:
(a) a flight crew licence; or
(b) a flight crew rating; or
(c) a flight crew endorsement, other than a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.
Note: For training, other than flight training, see regulation 61.210.
(2) For subregulation (1), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement is met only if:
(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement; and
(b) the training is conducted by:
(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement; or
(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training; and
(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder; and
(d) for flight training for the grant of an aircraft class rating or type rating—the training is conducted in accordance with regulation 61.205; and
(e) the applicant’s training provider has given the applicant a course completion certificate indicating that the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) have been met.
(3) Subregulation (4) applies to flight training for a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.
(4) For subregulation (3), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew endorsement to have completed flight training for the endorsement is met only if:
(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the endorsement; and
(b) the training is conducted by:
(i) an instructor; or
(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 to conduct the training; and
(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder.
(5) For paragraphs (2)(c) and (4)(c), the assessment must be conducted against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement.
...
61.210 Other approved courses of training or professional development
(1) A requirement in this Part for a student pilot or an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed an approved course of training or professional development is met only if:
(a) for a course that is approved under regulation 61.040—the student or applicant:
(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; and
(ii) has been assessed as competent by the person conducting the course against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; or
(b) for a course that is conducted by a Part 141 or 142 operator—the student or applicant:
(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the course’s syllabus; and
(ii) has been assessed by a person mentioned in subregulation (2) as competent against the standards mentioned in the course’s syllabus.
(2) For subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the persons are as follows:
(a) the head of operations of the Part 141 or 142 operator that conducted the training;
(b) an instructor who is authorised by the head of operations to conduct the assessment;
(c) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training.
(1) Subregulation (2) applies to flight training for:
(a) a flight crew licence; or
(b) a flight crew rating; or
(c) a flight crew endorsement, other than a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.
Note: For training, other than flight training, see regulation 61.210.
(2) For subregulation (1), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement is met only if:
(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement; and
(b) the training is conducted by:
(i) an instructor for a Part 141 or 142 operator that is authorised to conduct flight training for the licence, rating or endorsement; or
(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training; and
(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder; and
(d) for flight training for the grant of an aircraft class rating or type rating—the training is conducted in accordance with regulation 61.205; and
(e) the applicant’s training provider has given the applicant a course completion certificate indicating that the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) have been met.
(3) Subregulation (4) applies to flight training for a design feature endorsement or a flight activity endorsement.
(4) For subregulation (3), a requirement in this Part for an applicant for a flight crew endorsement to have completed flight training for the endorsement is met only if:
(a) the applicant has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the endorsement; and
(b) the training is conducted by:
(i) an instructor; or
(ii) the holder of an approval under regulation 61.040 to conduct the training; and
(c) the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor or approval holder.
(5) For paragraphs (2)(c) and (4)(c), the assessment must be conducted against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the licence, rating or endorsement.
...
61.210 Other approved courses of training or professional development
(1) A requirement in this Part for a student pilot or an applicant for a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement to have completed an approved course of training or professional development is met only if:
(a) for a course that is approved under regulation 61.040—the student or applicant:
(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; and
(ii) has been assessed as competent by the person conducting the course against the standards mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the course; or
(b) for a course that is conducted by a Part 141 or 142 operator—the student or applicant:
(i) has received training in all the units of competency mentioned in the course’s syllabus; and
(ii) has been assessed by a person mentioned in subregulation (2) as competent against the standards mentioned in the course’s syllabus.
(2) For subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the persons are as follows:
(a) the head of operations of the Part 141 or 142 operator that conducted the training;
(b) an instructor who is authorised by the head of operations to conduct the assessment;
(c) the holder of an approval under regulation 141.035 or 142.040 to conduct the training.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 22nd Feb 2024 at 01:39.