It is indeed very odd that there has been extremely little communication about what is going to happen on the changeover. I'm a working ATPL holder and I have not received a single communication from CASA letting me know what changes are taking place and how it will affect me. Not everybody lives in a capitol city and can attend their information sessions either (the only communication I have received: an email advising me of an information session to be held 9 hours drive away from where I live).

Absolute chaos!

The lack of definitive answers and conflicting information here shows just how poorly this is being implemented IMHO. For an organisation that has 'Safety' in its name it seems to be going about change in the exact opposite way to that which would engender safety positive outcomes...

Part61 Type/class IFR renewal
 

There is a heap of information on the CASA website regarding the new CASR Part 61 reg's and Part 142 etc. It would seem to me as professionals reading the new regs first hand is a better approach than relying on forums, ATOs or mates to understand the implications. They are a bit dry, but not difficult to understand and a lot of the what-ifs posed on this topic can quickly be resolved.

The part 61 regs are fairly straightforward at first glance, where it gets murky is all the ancillary stuff and of course the FOI of the day morphing something fairly straightforward into something unintelligible. We should keep in mind that its not the reg's we have to comply with, its the opinions of the FOI of the day.

Have to disagree with that.

Back in the good old days when we had meetings every 3 months at AF with CASA, AirServices, ATSB and BOM, any new legislation was subject to a lot of scrutiny by CFIs and CP based in SE Qld.

We could pick the legislation to pieces, suggest changes or get clarifications if needed. If the FOIs could not supply an answer, they would go further up the ladder and get an answer that would be presented at the next meeting.

The meetings often had the person who was the Project Leader to give a first hand account on the why and wherefores of the legislation.

We also had the chance to speak one-on-one to voice concerns specific to your operation of qualifications.

Reading a publication on the web and then getting advice or clarification from an individual FOI is a recipe for disaster. You will get as many variations in advice as the numbers of FOIs in CASA.

Forums where CASA just present a PP show with no opportunity for feedback and response are a waste of time.

At the CASA forum I went to, the CASA guys didn't know the answer to some of the problem areas. The ATO's (multiple) that I know that went to the 2 day CASA seminar don't understand it.

Part61 Type/class IFR renewal
 

601 - that system still exists, even more so now than "the good old days". The process of changing rules and providing feedback is much more accessible to everyone now, not just the big city folk. There's no chance of having input after the new regs are signed off in parliament. If you genuinely want to be involved with changing the regs get onto the CASA website and sign up for notification of changes. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_91070
I'm not a CASA fan but I believe the chance to get involved with influencing the changes has improved, particularly if you don't live near the big smoke. The Part 61 stuff ain't going away and there's plenty of information available on the CASA site (the regs, MOS and explanatory info). Here's a chance to know more about the regs than the FOIs.

Slightly off subject, and looking for correction if I am wrong:

1. My understanding is that if you hold a current ATO, it will automatically become a Flight Examiner Rating (FER) after 4th December.
However, you will not be able to exercise the privileges of that rating until you have attended one of the CASA PDP briefings.

2. The IR is permanently valid and is attached to the licence, but to be used, requires a proficiency check/test to have been signed off by an examiner within the time frame - this could be 12 months or a continuous cyclic program if agreed between CASA and the operator. It is up to the pilot to maintain his/her 90 day recency to use the IR.

3. A proficiency check in an aircraft above 5700kg allows the IR to be used on that type only. This is the main difference, because as the legislation currently stands, you can do a CIR in a light twin and use it to fly a heavy jet - provided that you are current on that jet in other respects such as recency in take-off and landings.

4. A proficiency check on a twin turbo prop (for example) of 5700 kg or less would be good for any twin turboprop in that weight range. Ditto a piston twin. There may still be exceptions - such as the MU2 - which require a specific check.

5. A qualification on, say, a twin turboprop of 5700 kg or less will entitle a pilot who is current and has been familiarised with the systems etc to fly ANY similar sized aircraft e.g. a King Air pilot could read the POH and jump into a C441. Again with the exception of something less benign like the MU2. Insurance requirements aside, no check on type required if current in other respects (BFR as the minimum?). Much like the way it is in the USA.

I am using the term 'proficiency check' because as yet I don't know what they are going to call it if the IR itself is permanently valid.

Someone -anyone - who has done the PDP already, please correct the above.

Mach E Avelli

1. Correct, ATO's become Flight Examiners (FER A or FER H or both depending on existing delegation)

2.mostly correct, IR is permanently valid, proficiency check on type valid 24 months, if you have multiple types, each type requires a current valid Prof check.
Class endorsement not same as Type. i.e ME A, SE A, ME H, SE H.

All single engine are class, possible Type for PC12 / TBM etc.

Most piston twins are class, similar to existing SE <5700 Kg

IR recency is 90 days per aid, ILS no longer 35 days, now 90.

Instrument approaches now IAP 2D (2 dimensional, ADF VOR etc)

or IAP 3D (3 Dimension, vertical component, e.g. ILS)

2D approaches now 2 types, azimuth indicator e.g. ADF needle or CDI, e.g. VOR. each has to be tested at initial issue and 90 recency maintained for both types.

3. A "Type" proficiency check is specifically for that type, a class proficiency covers the class.

4. Mostly correct.

I have attended both the general info seminar on new regs (Part 61, EFB's etc) and the PDP.

It's a brave new world out there, but at your next interaction with CLARC after 4th Dec 2013 you will get a new Part 61 licence with everything grandfathered across.

Your 24 month cycle starts then.

CAR 5.21 holders will be granted a FIR (Flight Instructor Rating) reflecting existing priviledges.

And Part 61 is already in the process of being amended and will continue to be until most anomalies are addressed.

Bad news for C208 operators, more than 9 pax ops require 2 crew.

Much appreciated.

Thanks for that Mainframe. My CASA MECIR has expired by more than 2 years (as I'm currently flying overseas on a foreign license). So does this mean, after December 4th, my MECIR will automatically become 'perpetual' and all I need to do to have a valid MECIR, is a proficiency check on each of the aids I have on the license?

How does the 'proficiency check' flight test differ from the old system 'MECIR renewal' ? Or is it exactly the same, but just a different term?

Been there, done that.
However, nothing beats a face to face discussion.

If this method is so good, why is there so much anguish in the aviation community with all these changes.

Because, 601, everyone is hearing rumours at the airport and reading the panic on PPRuNe and then spreading rumours at airports which are then amplified on PPRuNe.

If you sit down and read the regs, like Mainframe and Mach E have done, and think it through by applying your own expeience, you will find that it all makes sense (even if there is some bad news in it).

Congratulations to those who have done their homework, like good professional pilots, and are now spreading the good oil.

Regulation 61.090 says:Regulation 61.010 defines duration, of a flight, to mean:Does that mean the PIC logs flight time as PIC starting from the point she EZ tows the aeroplane out of the hangar in preparation for a flight? :confused:

For aeroplanes, it probably means time from 'pushback', rather than from 'taxi' .. an increase of about 2 to 3 minutes in the logbook for your flight time I guess.

If you shout out "Request pushback" prior to pushing it out of the hangar onto the tarmac, you can start logging hours from that point. If you do it blindfolded, you can log instrument time.

So the clock starts when the PIC pulls the aircraft out of the hangar in preparation for a flight, keeps going while she does the daily inspection in preparation for the flight, keeps going when she taxis over to fill up with fuel in preparation for the flight, keeps going while she whips into the hangar for a nervous wee in preparation for the flight, and only stops once the aircraft ‘comes to rest’ at the end of the flight for which she was preparing? :confused:

And another thing…

What’s the definition of “aircraft class rating”?

So my instrument rating expires the end of this month, as of the 4th of dec will it automatically be valid again until oct 2014 as I have completed a renewal within 24 months?

Being on active hold with an airline that requires a valid instrument rating, but not needing one for my current job I'm hoping to save paying for a renewal?

Funny how 4 years in GA I've had it paid for every time, then I finally get a potential airline job and have to pay myself.

And yes I've read all the briefing material, no I couldn't find the answer myself, no CASA couldn't answer the question with 100% certainty either.

Creamie, you shouldn't joke about logging of flight time! In India, that approximates how some do log their flight time. On another thread someone mentioned an Indian pilot who at the tender age of 25 had already logged 9000 hours. Technically it's possible - 1000 hours a year from age 16 could be legal. But no pilot I ever met had that much money or wanted to work that hard.

My take on the 'class' rating bit is that they are trying to define such niceties as whether it's a pressurized, retractable, twin turbo-prop (e.g. King Air) versus, say a single-engine, fixed gear, turbo prop (e.g. Caravan), but just how it is defined, dunno.

'Type' rating is specific to a type, but generally in future will only be applicable above 5700 kg. But I may be reading it wrong, so someone correct me if so.

It’s been a long time since it was only a joke. It became a sick joke years ago, and now it seems that a decade or so of work has resulted in continuing greyness.

When a pilot pulls the trusty 172 out of the hangar to go flying, the aircraft has, literally, begun moving in preparation for flight.

Are we now going to spend a few decades arguing that the new definition doesn’t mean what it says? :ugh::ugh:

Like you, I understand the concept of aircraft class ratings. I’m trying to work out what they are defined to mean in fact and, like you, I dunno!This Frankenstein must be put out of its misery.

The way to fix spurious logging of flight time - at least in GA - would be to introduce law to require the aircraft maintenance log time to be the same as any pilot time claimed, less maybe 10 minutes per sector allowable for ground running. Charge it out that way, too.

What a gravy train that would be for those who hire out aircraft! Much reduced wear and tear, maintenance done well before it's needed and amazingly low fuel burns. Hell, find me some students who want to play it that way and I will go into the light aircraft business myself.

Matching up maintenance release time against fuel invoices and charge-out times against pilot log book entries has to be one of the easiest things to audit. So let's have more of these audits (and less CASA stressing about whether the index in the Ops Manual is up to date) if it means we can nail the lying swine who Parker pen flight time. And those other lying swine who fiddle maintenance time in the other direction.