Part 61 "traps for young players"
 

Thought this might be a good forum for schools and students to share their experiences of Part 61.

Here's a trap we fell for at our school. I have a student attempting his Cpl test on Monday. He holds a class 2 medical which would have been permitted under the previous legislation, but we have unfortunately had to postpone his test.

Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence.

The point being. If you have a Cpl test in the next 6 weeks and don't hold a class 1 medical, it might be something you want to get on to pretty quick.

If you're still operating under CAR 5, don't those rules still apply until the school opts to change to the new regs?

The school gets time to transition, but the licencing rules do not.

We will probably transition sooner rather than later, but to get a Part 61 licence on Monday you need to meet the Part 61 rules.

Check your PM's dood :ok:

Anyone got anything on META requirements and whether the 50 hours PIC is now just 50 hours (dual icus or pic) ?

Also. Will there still be a PMI exam for grade 1?

Oh yay! The experience level required can now hit rock bottom and start digging!:D

Evilducky, although no one really knows what CASA is thinking, when new rules are drafted, they get run by a legal team. Their advice surely would be that, to issue any qualification, all requirements to exercise the qualification must be met on the day the relevant test is conducted. The new rule maybe could have spelled it out more clearly, but the way I read it, you must have a Class One before applying to take the flight test. The assumption being that the whole purpose of obtaining a commercial licence is to use it commercially.
Why would anyone want a CPL otherwise? Also, CASA claim that they are trying to fit in with what other ICAO countries do at the licensing stage, so that our licences will be internationally recognised. The new rule re the medical standard closes a loophole that has existed for years (and I know one case where it was exploited). That is you could in the past take the CPL test on a Class Two medical, head overseas and without fully disclosing your medical history, fudge a Class One and convert the Aussie licence.
Despite our licences and type ratings now being more ICAO-compliant, the Yanks and Europeans will probably still refuse to recognise them for a straight conversion, no matter that we may accept theirs....but that's protectionism for you.
At least once you have a CPL or ATPL, it never expires even if your medical lapses for a few years.
Unlike some jurisdictions, so I suppose we should be grateful for that!

"Part 61.235 now states that the applicant holds a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence."

Sorry but I don't have the ability to look up that reference at the moment and I am not familiar with the flying training aspect of the new rules, however by reading what you have written, I interpret that your student will be fine to do the test. He won't be "excercising the privileges of the license" so therefore will not need to hold a Class 1 for the test.

Having said that though, ask two different FOIs and you will get two different answers, and don't bother waiting for licensingregs to get back to you as amongst many others I have not heard back for several weeks for questions that you know, we want the answers to so that we can ensure we are doing the right thing and keeping legal and safe.. Just call up first thing tomorrow morning and ask how you are to conduct business legally, and record the conversation in some way and tell them that- especially if you are allowed to conduct business as you currently are.

Looking forward to tomorrow!

Not agreeing with the rules make it happen just questioning them, and the answer is that not many seem to know. It's going to be a shmozzle for the foreseeable future.

The basic requirements for things are easy enough to find, but it seems that some of the other extra requirements for things either haven't been thought of, are still the same,or have been removed altogether???

:ugh:

To improve their own knowledge and skills?

I would suspect its threat and error management. I was told CPL and ATPL HUF is basically the same, but I don't recall any on that subject in my CPL exam yet in ATPL after 09 I got hammered with them. Wasn't expecting it from my text book's 2 paragraphs on it, so I got to sit that one twice, both felt like a good half of the questions where TEM.

I have a feeling that was when the TEM component was increased. That doesn't answer your second question though :E

Do they just make this stuff up as they go?

So if I got my full ATPL licence issued before the change over and my AHUF was sat before 2009 that's ok but as of next week it isn't?

Re inventing the wheel again.

Yeah yeah, H-S.
Not aimed specifically at you, but like this bullsiht about RA holders being able to convert to RPL and fly up to 1500 kg without even having done a BAK, some tawt is going to try and shortcut commonsense.
Woe betide the Instructor (with Gr1/2 priviledges now) who signs off the future fatality on that one...:rolleyes:

Captain, you may well see it as a downside, but many others see it as a positive. There will be a huge influx of RAA pilots wanting the new RPL, this should be good business for many flying schools.

RAA pilots have already done a BAK exam. Do you think GA flying schools will shortcut common sense just to hand out an AFR on them? Do you honestly think 1500 kg is harder than 600?

One of the great things about part 61 and a boost to GA I think.

I'm sure some things will improve under the new system, but if your an instructor, or sitting a flight test over the next month or two, your up sh1t creek without a paddle... Why? Because CASA don't actually have the paddles yet, so f$ck knows how were supposed to get along with it?

The actual "transition" is not a transition at all.. Come tomorrow, and you wanna do a GFPT for example, you gotta go through the new hoops, even tho you've just got an understanding of the old ones..

The only good thing is I'm yet to find an ATO who's clear on it either..

Think of a medical as a 'roadworthy'. On the day the vehicle was checked, the tyres were all within limits. You have so many days to get the vehicle registered, after which the assumption is that just maybe, the tyres are now worn.
As far as CASA knows, a medical standard achieved two years ago is no indication of your current fitness.
Everyone sees themselves as a special case, but the rules need to cover the lowest common denominator.

After reading the actual regulation, I am thoroughly confused.

61.235(c)(i) actually says However, looking through 61.245 (conduct of flight test), 61.580 (grant of CPL) and 61.415 (medical cert required for *exercising* CPL), I found no mention of the medical cert required for *grant* of a licence.

The phrasing "required for grant of the licence" in 61.235 seems to be quite deliberate. It's used again in 61.1300. And 61.235(c)(iii) uses the phrase "for the exercise of licence" when talking about medical exemptions; you would expect the regulation to use the same phrase in 61.235(c)(i) if the same requirements applies for medical certificates.

- S

Yes.

I certainly do believe there are people out there of dubious integrity who will be happy to hand out the conversion without any thought to letting someone go and wipe themselves out. There are certainly schools out there who do it properly, but when I get a student who takes six lessons on stalling to get past yelling "NO! NO! NO!" and either latching onto your arm for grim death or shoving the column forward to stop the aircraft even buffeting because his RA instructor thought it would be a good idea to show what a gun he was by spinning the Jab as an intro to stalling, then you can understand my skepicism.

I have seen (and reported) instructors handing out AFR's (illegally three years after they left the authorising school) and airspace endos (on a non-current instructor's say-so) and seeing a VCA the very next day.
You really think the system isn't going to get a few dodgys in there?

Seen plenty of people new to a 300bhp conti go skewing off the left side when they firewalled the throttle in a 200 series and went along for the ride. And they were already used to 172s.

300 vs. 100 bhp? Yeah, mate, it's different.

Righto, time for some constructive stuff!

RPL's can sign MR's

Flight up to 25nm from aerodrome is permitted on RPL, but must land at the aerodrome of departure.

Pre RPL, up to three hours consecutive solo, but dual check required within last 14 days of the solo flight.

RPL has a separate endorsement for flight radio use, flight in controlled airspace, flight at a controlled aerodrome or flight more than 25 nm from the aerodrome (RA carry-on). A qualified flight instructor can issue these endos during the (PPL) training to make the test less intensive.

ACROP no longer exists but can be coverted to Aeronautical Radio Operator's Certificate at no cost (from CASA).

:ok:

gee whiz that RPL stuff is all new. brilliant!





.....identical to the old restricted pilots licence of the 70's

Yeah, I know, but how many old hands are still in the teaching game to remember?:E

My concern is that many raa pilots are seeing this as a right-of-passage, tick-in-the-box type licence where it clearly wasn't meant to be.

There's a lot of talk saying "Can I do the test in my raa aircraft" etc etc........ no, you can't.

With so many people out there too "scared" to do the PPL theory exam, this looks like the same thing, but without the exam, so therefore it is very appealing on the surface of it.

CPL Test Form, page 4 of 5,7th item of the examiner declaration checklist. Interpretation complete =)

??? .

Doubt very much the flood of RAA to RPL if the limitations are the same as the old area restriction on your PPL.

No restriction Oz, if you already have RAA cross country. I read your points Captain but still lack your scepticism. The majority of GA instructors are more professional than you seem to think and here is one who will not hand out this AFR on a plate. Some RAA pilots will never make the grade.

Know the majority will do the right thing, but there are always the fringe couple who don't do the right thing. I believe most of the industry will act professionally, but as I've illustrated, some don't and I don't want to be sharing airspace with their product.

Still battling to understand how your situation is any different to your dodgy instructor doing a crap job on an ab initio PPL, m.i.h.c. I'm willing to bet that the more typical scenario will be an experienced and competant RA cert holder being made to jump through endless hoops "because GA training is vastly superior and none of you RA types can fly..." Bit of that on here already methinks.

Part 61 "traps for young players"
 

Quick question: you do a proficiency check
on your 380/747 etc, does that cover you WRT
1. your new generic multi class rating to fly a light twin on the weekend
2. your new single engine class rating

Not if you want to operate IFR. The IPC as it is now called, is type-specific for aircraft above 5700 kg. Also there is differentiation between multi crew IR and single pilot ratings.
But, (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) an IPC in anything negates the requirement for a BFR in VH aircraft, but not RA Aus aircraft.
Therefore, if you already have the 'generic' rating(s)/class and stick to VFR, you should be OK.

Spiney, you and I both know the only reason RA is so popular is it's cheaper. RA don't do instrument, airspace, night, aeros or commercial. It's purpose is limited activities at reduced cost. There are many good RA instructors out there, but you may find holding dual RAAus and CASA qualifications has something to do with that. Calling a spade a spade, the training is not always the same standard.

Don't worry, these days VH instructors who are just in the industry to build hours and fcuk off to the airlines ASAP are levelling the playing field.

If you can fly and learn the rules, I will happily sign off your flight review for the RPL transition, but my point was about a new backdoor to circumvent process and that there will likely be some exploitation. Quite a few of the enqiries I've seen looking to convert are expecting an automatic pass.:=

Where is the restriction that flights must start and end at the same airport listed?
My understanding was land aways are ok within the 25 miles of origin, but of course you can't leapfrog consecutive 25 milers to cheat the system.

So hypotheticals....

I take off from my home base and fly 20 miles East, land and a while later take off and fly 40 miles West, another landing and takeoff, then back to home... Never went outside the 25 mile limit from home base... Legal.

Scenario 2. I take off and fly that same strip 20 miles East, land and take off and continue on to the next strip 10 miles further East... I'm now 30 miles from home base and CASA slaps me about.

Scenario 3. I take of and fly my 20miles East and land. Two days later I take off and fly 23 miles east and land... Now I'm within the 25 miles from my point of origin, but 43 miles from home... My read would be legal, but what does CASA say? Just how long do I need between flights so that they don't consider home field the origin?

Could be some issues arise till the explanations are clear...

These hypotheticals are just that. To do the above you would need your own aircraft. I doubt it would be permitted in a rental.

Captain, organise a test for them. Point out their deficiencies then bill them! I agree some (the majority perhaps) will not be within a bulls roar of a CASA standard.

Get yourself a protractor and draw a circle 25 miles around your initial departure point. There is your 25 miles. No hypotheticals required. Done.

MIHC we're probably at different places on the same page. I did the whole thing back to front, PPL years ago, made a start on a CPL then realised that I'd be competing with kids 10 years younger than me and probably forever poor so gave it away. When the bug bit again I took myself off to the various GA schools wanting someone to get me current, never felt like such a nuisance in all my life, they had no interest in anyone who didn't see themselves flying an airliner in due course. Tripped over an RA school (some dual qualified but not all) and am not too proud to say that I learnt quite a lot while I got my eye back in and had a lot of fun in the process. At the time, I had no need for CTA nor more than 1 pax so it suited me just fine.

I've also seen the tone of enquiries on various sites, but a part of that is thanks to the approach CASA has been taking at the roadshows and I'm quite sure some people are going to come to earth with a bump (figuratively I hope) when they try and cope with a different aircraft, atc, more complex airfields etc, all at once. Not all though and for some the transition should be virtually seamless, eg same aircraft type and OCTA if that's all they need for the moment.

Bob and Captain, you've both clearly done a bit of thinking about the RPL and perhaps you might be able to shed some light on a discussion which ground to a halt in another thread. How or where does an RPL candidate training in the GA system (as opposed to someone converting from RA) complete a navigation theory module for the lifting of the area restriction? I'm probably missing it but I couldn't see any prescribed test in the Part 61 material, apart from the prescription for the practical cross-country component. For a candidate coming from the RA world, it's clearer in that they need to have passed the relevant RAA exam.

On the subject of training standards, it's true that the biggest problem is the variability of RA training. I'm a long-time GA pilot with an RAA certificate and, while there are some good RA/GA instructors training RA pilots, I see too many pilots who really shouldn't have a licence of any sort. With few exceptions, my recommendation to people wanting an RA licence is to go to one of the many schools doing both RA and GA training. It's not a foolproof prescription but, for the average punter, it at least ensures there's some sort of minimum standard in place.

As absolutely incredible as it may sound bob, some people infact DO own aircraft!:eek: ...the hypothetical situation may have some relevancy to someone who purchases their own aircraft to train in stages and wants to fly for a while between the issue of an RPL and later nav endorsement or full PPL.

7700... It's would appear it's not that simple. I have seen no mention of a landing away prohibition, and that means at some point the origin of the flight could change from the point where the aircraft is originally based. The situation could arise that the aircraft moves to a different home base 24.5 miles from previously. Are you suggesting then that it could only fly in one direction? :}

I can't police them and they are free to interpret the legislation as they see fit. There are folks who own aircraft and have no MR or medical either.

tecman, If they have an RAA with a navigation endorsement and navigational experience then to get a RPL validated, my AFR would include navigation to PPL standard without the Ipad.

If they want an RPL navigation endorsement (navigation training) because they only have a basic RAA certificate then I would like to see the PPL(A) exam completed.

The above is only a guess, I still haven't digested the legislation or written an amendment for the ops manual yet however I am aware of a couple of RAA pilots who have already applied for the RPL so I guess I had better get my act together.

Interested in what other CFI's are proposing as well.

#Q%#@!$@

this is why you should pay attention to casa emails.

Ive sat on my cpl for years because I could care less about ATPL. Now I have to fkn resit a stupid pointless childrens exam I sat 6 years ago.

the rage is strong with me.