CASA 97/16 - so do I still have to do a renewal in C208 and a multi?
 

When I clicked on the hyperlink in the CASA email that is what I was hoping to find, but was presented with legalese goop that didn't say anything about the separate IFR flight check for 'named types' (C208 for most pedestrian pilots like me)

or maybe it did, but I scrolled too fast. or too slow. Has someone got a longer attention span than me?

apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseam already. As you can tell I'm quite lazy

Read the note 3 right at the bottom, last 2 lines on the page.

Haha, I had the exact same thought when I was trying to read the gobbledygook, but I thought it might have been just me!

I'm but a simple pilot, not a bloody lawyer.

Yeah I saw that but there someone dreamed up certain types, the super-tricky-C208 being one of them, that required separate flight reviews. I do not know where this is written but know it to be true. As this document does not mention that specifically I am cautious...

great system, and the old one was so bad…… :-/

At least the changes now allow pilots (ie Airline pilots) that are operating under their company C & T system to fly VFR single engine aircraft again without the need to do a separate flight review. So if we keep the pressure up on CASA we should see further changes to Part 61.

The whole part 61 seems to be getting watered down so much with dispensations and changes that soon we're going to be back where we started from!!

Rediculous! What the hell was the point? so CASA could practice their crisis management plan?

"What the hell was the point?"
The point is classic CAsA command and control strategy.

How best to stifle dissent?

Produce convoluted, incomprehensible, unworkable regulations that leave interpretation wide open to the vagrancies of incompetent FOI's.

Where these regulations are impossible to comply with, issue a dispensation.

Dissent can then be controlled by the threat of the dispensation being removed.

Simple and effective.

Written by lawyers for lawyers - it is almost incomprehensible.

The money wasted.....

The whole CASA regulation suite is an embarrassingly poorly written, disorganised joke.

BPA, Have you had a confirmation regarding Note 3 and that airline check rides removing the need for an AFR to fly a light aircraft?

At least one FOI seems to think an AFR is still required...

Yes, this is what CLARC sent me.

if a pilot is participating is an approved training and checking system, then in accordance with section 4 of CASA instrument EX97/16 the pilot is exempt from requiring a further flight review on another aeroplane type or another aeroplane class. For example, a Qantas pilot wants to fly a single-engine class (Cessna 172) privately, as long as he is successfully participating in the Qantas training and checking system he does not need another flight review on the single-engine class.

It's also explained in the recently updated (1 July 16) fact sheet.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/124946/...token=6WP9SZ74

Thanks for that, I'll try again.

What if he wants to fly commercially? There a few airline pilots that have ex-military aircraft and do the odd adventure flight...

Didn't ask CLARC about commercial ops, suggest you contact them and see what they say. Note it does take a while for them to reply back.

Gobbledygook
 

It's all gobbledegook ... been reading for over an hour looking for an answer, but can't find make head nor tail of anything when it comes to CAsA law speak.

I'm due for an IFR Proficiency check and/or flight review ... I don't fly IFR very much so I was thinking of getting a rating on a C208, or a tailwheel endorsement .... will this new rating/design endorsement cover me for my flight review??? or not....

I have been told by someone way senior and w-a-y more knowledgeable than me:

Night rating, instrument rating, aerobatic rating, low level rating - all ratings need to be checked regularly (annually for instruments, every 2 years for any others - bad habits creep up on all of us.
Tail wheel, basic gas turbine (ie C208), csu endorsement - endorsed on a design feature of an aircraft. Yours for life. Only check is whatever is required by the owner / operator of the aircraft you're trying to borrow.

Makes sense to me - well as much sense as any of this does...

Aerobatics isn't a rating it's a flight activity endorsement and does not need a flight review to remain current.

I stand corrected. Is it the same for low level?

12000 fpm, the instrument proficiency check would also act as a flight review if you were going to do that. If you're dropping the IFR for the moment, a tailwheel design feature endorsement (for example) would also do the trick for a flight review as per the following extract from CASR 61.745: Gobbledegook is a pretty good description of the whole thing, unfortunately, but once you start trying to use it it becomes slightly clearer.

Outnabout, the situation with low level has changed since CAR 5 rules in that it's now an 'operational rating' along the lines of an instrument rating and needs a proficiency check, similar to what used to be a renewal. They love changing the names of things which just confuses me, but as I said it gets clearer once you have to apply it a few times. Low level rating flight reviews can be combined with your standard HFR or AFR as the case may be, every two years, but you have to include a low level segment which checks the appropriate competencies (much as I hate that word too).

Basically now you get a licence (e.g. CPL), a category rating (aeroplane, helicopter or perhaps powered lift if you fly a tiltrotor!), then you add further ratings and endorsements. To do anything at all you need a flight review every two years which is similar to the old rules, and then there's the extras.

So-called operational ratings are things like instructor, aerial application, instrument, low level etc which require regular proficiency checks, most two yearly, but not all, as you've already said.

Aircraft require either type (e.g. B737) or class (e.g. single engine helicopter or SEH) ratings, and flight reviews as appropriate.

Then you have design feature endorsements (e.g. fixed floats, constant speed prop, retracts etc - again, names have changed for some things to confuse the issue, and gas turbine has been added).

Finally we come to the flight activity endorsements - these don't need a flight test or review, just training - things like formation, aerobatics etc.

It really is a bit of a schemozzle and the more I look at it the less I think it achieves, but we have to work with it. CASA appear to be backpedalling on a lot of things by way of exemptions and ongoing changes, so after much time and energy expended it appears not a great deal has been achieved practically speaking. There are some improvements if you look hard, but they really didn't need to do it this way. Anyway, on we go.

Soooo, is the answer no?