Significant changes to the 150 hr integrated course
 

The cut and paste below is from the draft Part 61 on the CASA website. I am hoping that i am looking at a copy that has since changed.

61.135 Completion of integrated training course
(1) An applicant for a private pilot licence or commercial pilot
licence is not taken to have completed an integrated training
course unless the applicant receives all of the training that
constitutes the course within:
(a) for a private pilot licence — 3 months; or
(b) for a commercial pilot licence — 15 months; or

i raised my very strong concerns about this at a recent CFI conference.

This is absolutely ludicrous. This will eliminate all those potential pilots that dont have access to the required funding to complete their training on a fulltime basis. It will become the domain of the well-heeled only. How will the University trainees achieve this.

A CPL Flight test is a CPL Flight test. The standard is the standard regardless of whether you took 15 months or 3 years. I can see absolutely no contribution to flight safety.

It will put a lot of pressure on Flying Schools to meet the three month deadline to keep a candidate under the 150 hour course. A real challenge for students commencing training in Victoria or Tasmania during the Winter Months. I suggest corners may be cut to meet deadlines. Absolutely no contribution to flight safety at all.

I am sure that someone will be able to direct me to a more up to date document that has been altered. Then we can put it down to a ridiculous concept that CASA realised would reduce safety, and make Flight Training the domain of the cashed- up, prior to rewriting.

Nothing against the fortunate few. but one of the strengths of our Industry is that a determined individual can still conduct his training over a period of a few years and become an Airline Pilot regardless of his financial situation. Those days will be gone.I would never have been in a financial situation to enter the industry had these rules been in place.

Admittedly there is a process to apply to CASA for consideration but i suggest resources would be better directed to serious safety issues rather than another department processing yet another CASA form.

Perhaps the view is that if we keep requiring forms, we use more paper, less trees, more open areas for forced landings. More safety. Brilliant!!!

Theres a good side to it. It may force flying schools to stop screwing students around with poor aircraft/instructor availability. It may also force schools that only take their students flying in CAVOK weather to get the job done.

Totally agree with glenb on this.

CASA changing something that isnt broken for no apparent reason!

Does that have implications for a cadet who has a few fails in CPL exams and goes 16 months to complete will be booted off?

"It may also force schools that only take their students flying in CAVOK weather to get the job done."

Thats a two sided coin id imagine since marginal weather that is considered "dont go flying weather" now becomes "go flying weather" with these new REGs in place.. thus actually reducing safety margins somewhat rather than increasing them!!

Fair call Baron, however...
When students go out into their first job they will be expected to fly to VFR limits. Flying schools never go anywhere near this kind of weather and I think thats an unfortunate thing, students end up leaving kindergarten unprepared for the real world of flying.

While this may sound as going slightly off topic I do think the end result of these rules changes will be a good thing. Students will come closer to VFR limits.

A safety based argument is a bit weak. There are schools and instructors who will push weather and there are those that won't.
The 150 hours required by doing the integrated course is a reduction of the original requirement for a CPL, so what is unreasonable about requiring continuity at an average rate of 10 hours per month?
My only concern with this new requirement would be if a student pilot got to the 14 month stage and within a few hours of completion then either became sick for a month or the weather went really bad in the last month.
There needs to be a process to allow extensions for special cases. Maybe there is?

I suggest that you save your breath until you see the final regulation. There were many issues with the last draft - I can't remember how many pages were in AOPA's paper. I just addressed issues wrt aerobatics and my notes came to 8 pages.

Maybe it's not such a bad change.
The original concept of the 'integrated' CPL was to provide a pathway for a concentrated full-time course.
i.e. A full-time CPL candidate that is totally immersed in their study and practical lessons.
A part-time student that takes 2-3 years (or more) can take the 200 hour pathway but in the meantime could gain additional skills such as NVFR rating or IFR rating.
They will need these ratings in their career anyway so why not include that flying in their part-time pursuit of a CPL.
I also see the 15 month timeline as a way of 'encouraging' the odd dodgy foreign student that takes 3-5+ years to complete their CPL to finish their course quickly. (this also includes the odd dodgy flying school that allows their foreign students to drag out their studies - as previously posted).

Maybe GST has something to do with it?
 

I did one of the 12 month wonder courses but the problem was it took 16 months not 12. I put this down to what glenb said. Shocking weather in Vicroria in the winter and a lack of instructors (and indifference) at my school.

Getting to the point though. I do believe that if you are enrolled in a 150 hour course and you don't look like you are close to completing your CPL in 15 months you should be changed to the 200 hour syllabus. The 150 hour course is tax exempt because you are considered to be a "full time student". Taking 2-3 years to do a 150 hour CPL course doesn't make you a "full time student", hence you shouldn't be entitled to the tax break.

You are. In the latest draft, 61.135 has nothing to do with the definition of an integrated course. As far as I can tell, there is no definition anymore. Integrated training is Part 142 training, so each operator will specify how the training is 'integrated' in their exposition.

Yes, it's on the CASA website, has been for a long time - funnily enough by clicking on the banner on the home page that says 'Licensing Regulations' with the Part 61 etc logo. There's even a version with changes crossed out and additions highlighted. Try here.

Garbage. Some do, some don't.

Interesting times ahead, as we don't do a PPL test in our 150 hr course. The regs don't seem to give guidance as to when the timer starts. Does 2 weeks of English before starting "flight training" count. What about if a student has trouble passing ICAO 4 English. That bit can be a problem occasionally. A run of bad weather can seriously delay students, it can go over 15 months to pass the CPL if you get a bad 2 or 3 months of weather and an ICAO 4 fail, and that is for students who are in class 5 days a week.

The reg doesn't seem very well thought out.

I'm guessing that's why it isn't there anymore.

The whole Part 61 is VERY well thought out - to provide the CASA Air Law people and FOIs with enough subject matter to have poor bloody pilots, instructors and examiners on the back foot forever.
CASA have managed to get the draft Part 61 down to a mere 358 pages. To achieve basically what the Kiwis did a long time ago with just 79 pages.

A triumph of analysis, almost worthy of CASA.

The page count on the Part 61 I just looked at is 196...

A quick glance at NZ Part 61 reveals plenty of examples of "...experience acceptable to the director", "flight test acceptable to the director" and the like. I'd rather not have to satisfy our 'director' about anything and just do what it says in the book.

Mine still comes up with 358 pages. Could be the page size on iPad Mini. Dunno, cos I am a bit challenged by this new device, but when I go to the NZ CAA site I get more or less the same ICAO compliant licensing requirements condensed to 79 pages in the same format. Even if the CASA version is 'only' 196 pages, what is it about flying in Australia that requires more than double the words of legislation?
As for "acceptable to the Director" I concur that if one gave the Skull such powers it would be a very moveable feast depending on his mood on the day.
But the flexibility allowed by the NZ regulation can work to one's advantage when seeking recognition of prior experience.

Sounds worse than it is, scavenger. Most countries in the aviation world publish the way that you can satisfy the Director in any particular case. In NZ / FAA etc, it's an AC, Advisory Circular. In Euro-land, it's an AMC, Acceptable Means of Compliance. Basically it involves a document controlled by the CAA rather than the Minister or parliament.

Still sounds scary? It's just a way of reducing volumes of hundreds of pages of legal-speak, strict liability, mumbo-jumbo, to 79 pages of Rules and plus a plain English, accessible-to-pilots, document.

It also means that, in rare cases, if someone comes up with a better way of achieving safe outcomes, it can be approved without rewriting the Rules.

Just doing a 'copy & paste' of U.S FARs with minor modifications could easily solve the problem.

But we are smarter than yanks aren't we? :D

To list a few nonsense CASA land has IMHO:

1) NVFR rating

why bother to have separate NVFR? Just make it a part of PPL training.

2) MECIR, SECIR and their renewals

Seriously? What's up with this renewal? Why can't we just let 6 instrument approaches and 6 hours of IFR flying every 6 months be one of requirements for automatic renewal?

3) Retractable Gear and CSU

I don't remember seeing 'retractable gear' training program in U.S. As for CSU, it is covered in multi-engine rating training.

4) Lower fees
US FAA Inspectors don't charge a cent for your checkride. Designated Pilot Examiners do (around $400) but they buy you a lunch if you pass. Oh yeah, FAA doesn't charge you anything for license issuance.

God Bless America. :ok:

Lord have mercy on CASA. :ugh:

God bless the FAA. Everything else about US aviation is pretty average.

Lee-apromise,

Some clarification is in order, I think.

1) NVFR has to be a separate rating, or every PPL student will be forced to train & pay for a qualification that many don't want. This is highly undesirable.

2) Instrument ratings are renewed (or revalidated) annually in ICAO compliant states. If the USA wishes to be slightly unique, good luck to them! Although CASA has made the recency requirements relatively onerous, I must admit.

3) Retractable gear and CSU are endorsements so that the SEP class of aircraft can remain as a class, not specific type ratings. If necessary, you will get them built into your first MEP type training. Again, this is common with many ICAO compliant states and seems to be a good way of dealing with the problem of type training.

4) The USA does not operate a user-pays system. We do. On the whole, I prefer our system, although that's a political viewpoint obviously.