Part 61 Aeronautical Experience
 

To all those who have had a look at the new CASR Part 61 to bring themselves up to speed for the September changes, perhaps CASA has removed the requirement for only 50% of co-pilot time to be credited towards aeronautical experience?

See here- Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1)

Subpart 61.075 and 61.085 make no mention to only 50% of copilot time being credited towards total aeronautical. Nothing is mentioned under the 'logbooks' section 61.345. Not even a mention in the section outlying aeronautical experience requirements for an ATPL issue, 61.705.

Thoughts anyone?

Yup, it seems to be gone. Aeronautical experience = flight time.

Mind you, all the FOs at my company who don't already hold an ATPL simply log ICUS on every flight when acting as PF. All legitimate, in accordance with the Book. But it renders the whole 50% thing a bit pointless anyway, even under the old (current) regs.

So perhaps CASA have simply made the rules match reality?

About time... With the current system doing ccts in a 152 or tomahawk at a class D aerodrome are twice as valuable as being a crew member in a high capacity rpt operation in regards to getting the aeronautical experience required for a command upgrade. And for all the old school dudes who chant "it's all about command decision making" how many "Command Decisions" really need to be made in the ysbk circuit (from somebody who's done both)??

In NZ, it's about $10k or $15k, including endorsement. It's a Cheyenne, I think (or used to be!)

Or you could do it for free, as part of a proficiency check with whichever operator requires you to exercise the privileges of an ATPL...

Don't forget that under 61.700 (3)(b) you have to have completed the multi-crew training course. This must be completed by a Part 142 school.:ok:

Has anyone seen a syllabus from one of the larger schools?

My problem with this is that in Australia it is an unknown quantity as to what airlines are going to accept as minimum requirements in order to get a job. What we do have in Australia is a known tendency for operators to shift costs towards job applicants. I don't know many people that can easily absorb an additional $10 - 15k on top of the 'pay for type rating' that most of our major airlines require.

And I have no faith in the HR departments of any of the Australian airlines

I wouldn't worry too much about employers min's, More to the point is that the music has stopped so most likely scenario is that by the time you get an interview you'll have thousands of hours in GA anyway and part 61 will be long forgotten.

SN

I think everyone is maybe not thinking about this well enough.

You do not need, an ATPL to be a First Officer in an RPT jet. Or the many other positions you can hold that doesn't involve being in command of the things.

You're going to need to do a flight test to get a Command anyway. If you're doing it as part of a CAR 217 organisation, fair chance that this Command upgrade is going to satisfy the requirements of a flight test to obtain an ATPL.

Or even if you're doing a Command endorsement, then the flight test for this is also likely to satisfy the requirements.

But, like anything CASA these days, they could also put in some stupid requirement that is going to make it harder than it should be.

morno

FO's Logging ICUS
 

Sounds good for FO's but first check the company ops manual on conditions for logging ICUS.

So someone with who has quite a large split between aeronautical and total experience due to co pilot time, under part 61 they have full hours all of a sudden. Is that what is going to happen?

Interesting. Will the co-pilot hours logged in the current system be backdated to 1 to 1 hours in Part 61?

And the definition of night is going to be between evening civil twilight and morning civil twilight. That's different to last and first light.

So, aip and airservices will need to amend their last light information/calcuation thingos for us to use.


Also check the ICUS definition in the new rules. If you can figure it out, let everyone else know. There hasn't been a response from CASA yet as to how all us doing icus for newbie pilots to go conduct scenic and charter flights will work. And be careful, buried further down it states yet another offence for an operator if they conduct icus without being allowed to do it...

As someone who has filled in innumerable forms for different governments & employers, each with different rules about logging flight time, here is my advice.

Complete the flight time form as if every hour in the logbook has been flown under the rule-set pertaining to that form.

Back-dating is an inappropriate word in the circumstances, but the basic answer is Yes. Under new Part 61, you cease to care about logging 50% of flight time - for any flight you've ever done.

Based on the AIP, I thought that first/last light carry the same definition as MCT/ECT. ("For all intents and purposes" they are the same.)

Out of historical interest, does anyone know the precise definition of first light & last light?

Have always understood the reference to mean in relation to civil twilight.

For instance, from the following example on the CASA website

"Night" is that period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. For all intents and purposes, first light should be construed as the beginning of civil twilight, and last light as the end of civil twilight. The terms "sunrise" and "sunset" have no relevance

Folks,
Quite so, this has been the definition of "night" for longer than I have been flying, and that is quite a while --- back to the middle of the last century. It is also the ICAO definition.
Tootle pip!!

CAR 1988 2(12). :ok:

Thanks creampuff. :ok:

I erred by looking in CAR1988 Reg 2 under "night". "Night flight" is "flight during night". I was quite taken aback by this news.

The actual definition of night or night flight, is where creampuff said, many pages later.

Thanks again, CASA.

The only interesting issue I see is say a two crew conquest or king air for contractual requirements. Both crew are endorsed but as per the CASA MCC flyer

The term multi-crew operation is defined in the Civil Aviation
What is a multi-crew operation?
The term multi-crew cooperation is defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations as an operation that requires at least two pilots in:
a multi-crew aircraft (the aircraft is certificated for operation by a crew of at least two pilots) or
an aircraft that is equipped – and required by the regulations – to be operated by a crew of at least two pilots.
An aircraft that is operated by two pilots but doesn’t comply with one of the definitions above is not a multi-crew operation.


"When is MCC training required?
MCC training is required whenever you are piloting an aircraft in a multi-crew operation. The purpose is to ensure both the pilot in command (PIC) and the co-pilot are capable of operating effectively.
MCC training is integral to obtaining a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) and an ATPL.
Holders of a private pilot licence (PPL) or commercial pilot licence (CPL) also need to complete MCC training to be authorised to conduct a multi-crew operation. This is to ensure they are competent performing their respective PIC or co-pilot duties whether they are pilot flying or monitoring.

So at least that clears up the old logging of so called co-pilot hours in below 5700 turboprops (which have no weight) unless the company runs the aircraft with an approved check and training system - approved part 142 MCC equivalent training course.

So pilots already holding an ATPL will not be required to do the MCC?

And Caravans operating RPT are now genuine multicrew operations....

Last light....??
 

Wasnt there an old definition that last light was deemed to be at 20 mins ? after the sun went below the horizon.

Is this the same thing as the end of civil twilight.?

Last light...can be vastly different depending on the wx conditions and the terrain, as y'all know

In the tropics dark comes on quickly but way down south in summer long lingering twilights...hours after the sun took a dive.

Does this give some useable civil twilight...after last light then.?

Octas poses thus...but I'm sure CAsA could argue in court, at great expense to the taxpayer, with a view to a prosecution, what constitutes "night"

That sunset and sunrise have no relevance, CAsA...well it does for LL if its as per line 1 above, becos the VFR driver is supposed to land 10 mins before LL

And ahh do like to see that warming star arise in the morning.:ok: