Independent instructing under Part 61
 

It would appear (with some convoluted reading) that Grade 2 and 1 instructors can now do a bit of work independent of a flying school/AOC Part 141 or 142 operator.

From what I can see:

Conduct flight reviews
Train and endorse navigation on a RPL
Train and endorse radio on a RPL
Train and endorse CTA on a RPL
Train and endorse design features

Which should give a little scope to unemployed instructors. Any things I have missed either in the legislation or the above list?

Sorry, Bob, but you missed plenty.

61.1180 relates to a proficiency check. Unless you hold your own CASR 141/142 approval, all of the activities mentioned require approval by a CASR 141/142 organisation.

You need to conduct and exam now for Flight Radio, Controlled Airspace, Controlled Aerodrome & Nav.

Again, 141/142 approval required.

Grade 3s can no longer conduct endorsement training or NVFR/Instrument training without a specific approval. They can now send students on second solo the day after they finish their initial instructor rating and S&P. (VERY dangerous in my opinion.):=
WARNING. If you are dumb enough to authorise this an your student dings him/herself on their second CCT solo and you and your CFI will be crucified.

I think you'll find instructors holding appropriate training endorsements can independently:

- train / certify design feature endorsements
- train / certify aerobatic and formation endorsements
- conduct flight reviews (day VFR)

Refer: 61.1170 and 61.1230.

Hmmm ... Not the first time you have told me that Captain! Guess I had better keep reading. The problem is every time I open this book my eyes glaze over and I get a terrible thirst.

Flight reviews.

AGAIN you must either operate under a CASR 141/142 organisation with their permission or have your own 141/142 approval.
Agreed it is a pain in the arse to locate in the new rules, but
DO NOT RELY ON PEOPLE GIVING YOU PPRUNE ADVICE. PHONE FLIGHT CREW LICENSING AND ASK IF YOU ARE NOT SURE.

Roundsounds,
Yes, a Grade 1/2 is qualified to conduct these activities, but read my earlier quote on 61.1165. It states that regs 61.1170 to 61.1180 apply and that means you need a proficiency check. 141/142 applies.

I generally find that I agree with roundsounds, and also on this subject.

This is relevant too:
61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities
conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator

And we all need proficiency checks - need not be an operator proficiency check. Instead of an instructor renewal test next year I get to do an instructor proficiency check.

Independent instructing under Part 61
 

A proficiency check in part 61 speak is equivalent to a renewal under part 5. eg: an instrument rating renewal has been replaced by an instrument proficiency check. A part 141/142 authorisation is required for training towards the issue of a licence or rating 61.1170 (3) hints at this.

MakeItHappenCaptain is on the money, grade 1,2,3 instructors are pretty much useless unless operating under a 141/142 approval......dont fall in to the trap..

where to now??
 

I just wonder where all these instructors or approved persons are going to come from?? I think they are going to dry up before too long and what is left will be charging far to much to achieve the outcomes desired....!

Does anyone know if on part 61 CASA has conducted either:
a) A cost benefit analysis,
or
b) A safety case.

As far as I can see it is regulation for the sake of regulation with no cost benefit and no safety benefits over what we had before (??) Not to mention the time required to work it all out...

Game on!

Strainer, it is this section of Part 61 that prompted me to make my original post;

Aka, if I do this:

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

I commit an offence if I do not record the training within 7 days. Elsewhere it then states that I must keep a record of the training for 7 years.

All the other things I mentioned are of course sessions of training for a flight crew endorsement, so therefore if I can do the flight review I can also do the rest of the stuff provided I have a proficiency check (which apparently is issued to me during my grade 1 renewal) but in any event I can get from a Part 61 training organisation (if they will give it to me).

I still agree with Make it Happen Captain that I am missing heaps but I will continue studying.

My beef is that this ****e is written by lawyers for lawyers but is supposed to be interpreted by pilots.

Furthermore:

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.
(3) The flight review must be conducted in:
(a) an aircraft that can be flown under the rating; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight review.

Isn't a grade 1 instructor the person mentioned in (C)?

Cheers, Bob.

Strainer and djpil both quote 61.1230, but why is it so hard to understand?

You have it wrong, Strainer.
You want to know where it references a flight review?

Go ahead. Wait until your candidate screws up (and I've had it happen on more than one occasion, on topics I specifically covered during the training:rolleyes:) and when CASA comes knocking at your door to see if you deserve to keep your instructor rating, let's see you worm your way out of that one.

It's not that hard. Really...:cool:

Strainer, I agree with you in relation to flight reviews.

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.

The title of 1230 is important, it says this section is about the record keeping obligations if operating independently of 141/2.

Because there is an "and" after (a) and (b) it follows the offence is committed only if (a) and (b) and (c) occur. So, an offence if committed if the instructor (a) conducts a flight review and (b) is not part of 141/2 and (c) does not make a record in 7 days.

It follows that if the instructor does make a record in 7 days no offence has occurred. It just a very clumsy way to word the offence and typical of Part 61.

What they could have said is; An instructor who conducts a flight review independently of a Part 141/2 organization must make a record within seven days. Failure to comply, 50 penalty points

You need to read 61.1230 carefully (and the clue is in the title), what it's saying is:

If you're doing a flight review or certain endorsement training independently AND it's not under a Part 141 or 142 holder you are comitting an offence if you don't make a record of the training within 7 days of completing the training. Over the page it says under (2) you must keep those records for 7 years.

If you're delivering the training under a Part 141/142 organisation it's their responsibility to make sure the records are created and retained for 7 years. (See 141.275 and 142.355)

Any endorsement training towards adding something to a rating (ie adding privileges to an instrument or instructor rating) must be delivered by a part 141/142 holder. This is addressed in 61.1230 (1)(a) - "other than endorsement on an operational rating".

as someone has said, "it's not that hard, really"

Draggertail's interpretation of the legalese is correct. :D

That may or may not be the same as what CASA thinks it means. :ugh:

MICH, I read 61.1230 a bit differently than you do. What it says to me is this.

'A pilot instructor commits an offence if the instructor conducts a flight review (conducted independently of a Part 141 or 142 operator) and a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.'

The flight review and flight training are specifically referred to separately in subpart (a) of part (1) in 61.1230. Subpart (b) refers only to flight training and as I'm only concerned with the flight review, in that context, subpart (b) can be discarded. So what you're left with is subpart (a) & (b) of Part (1) in 61.1230 as I've suggested above.

I don't really have an issue with what was intended via Part 61. It's basically going back to where we were 30 odd years ago with different names/titles. It just shouldn't be this hard. SNAFU!!!

I didn't actually quote it, just stated that it was relevant - roundsounds and others explain it much better than I would. It is just one part of the jigsaw puzzle and, as others suggest, it is worth reading the opening paras of Part 141 too.

Aussie Bob, I suggest that you read the CASA quides to proficiency checks (and note some previous posts here). No renewal for your instructor rating - instead do a proficiency check - by a flight examiner not (necessarily) a training organisation.

We haven't yet discussed PPL instructors who, operating independently, may do a subset of the stuff discussed (but not flight reviews, I hasten to add).

Am talking with head of FCL later today. Will add this topic to the list and get an official answer, but reserve further judgement at this time.

Agreed on the SNAFU part. I have to submit up to SEVEN forms just for some PPL tests at the moment and some rotary flight examiners are up for fifteen type proficiency checks to keep current on EACH TYPE for testing. Out of control. :rolleyes:

I've spoken to a couple of Grade 1 FI's today who have been conducting flight reviews independent from 141/142 schools. They were adament that the reviews could be done under part 61 as it now stands.
They've both submitted the appropriate paperwork to CASA regards the flight reviews and at this stage, have had nothing bounce back to them that suggests that anything was out of order.

Sadly GB they may not even have looked at it. Does anyone know anyone who has recieved a new license?

But back to the flight review, the form askes for the operator, so who did they put?