Flight review for the night rating
 

I understand now in Australia, anyone who wants to fly at night has to do a night flight review every two years. This is not required under the FAA rules and was not required under previous Australian rules. I understand it came in under Part 61.

Can anyone advise what particular safety issue they were addressing on why we should be different to the United States? The costs are quite significant.

From what I can make out, most people are simply dropping their night rating.This leads to further destructionto the general aviation in Australia.

As I have said to everyone – get out now because the longer you stay, the more you will lose until everything is gone. There is not even the slightest light on the horizon at the present time.

If there was light on the horizon you wouldn't need the night rating right?

I know, coat, hat, door.

Night flight outside of a circuit area in most parts of Australia isn't the domain for pilots without Instrument Ratings, and frankly the 5 hours night dual and 2 hours IF doesn't cut it.... Some extra review of knowledge and practice in these skills may be worth while.

Car RAMROD, Yes. A Night VFR Flight Review will cover a 'day' review for that particular class rating (ie. SEA/MEA).

I've got a NVFR rating and all it means is doing the flight review at night instead of the day. It's not a big deal. From memory it costs the same but can be a hassle in daylight savings waiting until after 9pm to go flying.

I wouldn't fly do a flight in remote "black holes" at night but the NVFR rating is very useful and I've done a lot of flying at night. Often the air is smoother at night and the scenery can be spectacular. Doing the Melbourne City Orbit at night after fish and chips for dinner at Tooraddin is one of life's simple pleasures and never gets stale.

NVFR adds a lot of flexibility and is a very worthwhile way to get further training post-PPL. Recommended.

NVFR "flight review"
 

Your instructor is INCORRECT....From CASA's flight review page:

"Can I meet the flight review requirements for more than one rating in a single flight?

Yes, it makes sense to combine several rating flight reviews into one flight when possible.

You have completed a flight review for an aircraft class or pilot type rating or operational rating if you are assessed as competent in the units specified in the MOS for that rating. Therefore, a flight could cover the units of competency for more than one rating.

For example, in a single flight you can complete the flight review requirements for the following, provided the relevant competency standards are covered:

• single-engine aeroplane class rating
• night VFR rating - aeroplane
• private instrument flight rules (IFR) rating - aeroplane."

Since there is no such thing as a "DAY VFR rating" the ratings you need to renew are "Night VFR" and "single engine aeroplane class" these can be covered in a single night flight as long as the relevant competencies are met. None of the single engine aeroplane class flight review rating competencies require daylight.

@rattly_spats - I'll remember that one for next time.

Why does Moorabbin get two Bs while Tooradin only one D? https://www.pprune.org/images/icons/winksbuddie.gif

roundsounds, If someone wants to brush up their crosswind landing techniques with you, why can't you do this under 61.385 general competency? You can conduct 61.385 training outside of a 141/142 then conduct a flight review if they meet they then MOS competency requirements.

Car RAMROD, whilst CASA fights tooth and nail to make sure the Act is not changed to consider both cost and safety, I believe the industry is doomed. I can’t yet see a stop to the one-way ratchet of increasing costs.

You may not know but their budget has gone from $90 million to $180 million in 16 years. Presumably this means more and more people writing more and more expensive regulations.

You have to understand that it is sort of a religious mantra “Safety is the most important consideration – clearly after cost – especially when GA is concerned.” So even though I will keep working on trying to get the Act changed and some sensible decisions made, my advice is in the meantime is to suggest that people desist from any commercial involvement with aviation unless they want to get their fingers badly burnt.

You only have to walk around Bankstown airport to see the number of businesses closed – many of them where the owners have lost everything.

Yes, they are biennials, every two years, but it appears the night review alone would not suffice as the simulated engine failures etc can’t be conducted at night. Yes, CASA says a single flight review can cover single engine class, night VFR and PIFR, but this could be done day into night.

Off topic but oh dear! Another off the cuff set of numbers intended to instill fear and loathing.

From the relevant annual reports:
Expenditure: 2001-2002 $99M; 2016-2017 $173M (ABS inflation calculations indicate $99M = $134 M in 2017) hence actual increase 29% rather than the doubling implied.
Field staff (FOI, AWI etc): 2001-2002 358; 2016-2017 468.
Total staff: 2001-2002 727; 2016-2017 830

This sort of rubbish will do nothing to convince any politician or fred public that we have a sustainable case. Remember also that the public want personal immortality at the lowest possible price when involved in aviation and are not interested in economic viability of anyone but themselves.

Correct. Training for competency under 61.385 can be done outside of a Part141/2 school - because this training is not being done toward the issue of a licence, rating or endorsement on a rating: it is simply for competency.
Which really begs the question - isn't the AFR/BFR also being flown to demonstrate competency..... (not for the issue of licence,rating,endo on rating)?
Of course it is!
Therefore, 61.385 training does not fall within the scope of 61.1170
If you have tested the pilot for the MOS competencies, under 61.385, given remedial training, (under 61.385), then that pilot must be granted the BFR/AFR. What is the problem here? There's no need to be doing this under 141/2.

This is just my opinion as an Instructor and Flight Examiner teaching night flying in remote areas of this country.

Then our qualifications and jobs are identical, it is just that I see the night rating as a valid tool in any pilots box. I have never seen anyone get it in 5 hours dual and 2 hours IF though :O

Keeping the thread on topic though, my flight review has always been my instructor rating renewal (usually conducted by CASA) and this does not renew my night qualification. I need a separate NVFR review thanks to Part 61 and this costs me heaps. I need to travel, stay overnight and endure a junior instructor who wants to make a meal of me. They wont let me use my aeroplane either.

To those who think a night review counts covers a day review, this is actually up to the instructor. Form 61-9FR has boxes for both reviews and both must be completed for the review to count for both. Both reviews must also be entered onto the licence. Most instructors won't simulate an engine failure at night and simulated EFATO in the dark is a dubious proposition. Both should be done as part of the day flight review.

If you want both reviews in one flight from me it would be a requirement to start the review some time before last light.

I find it quite comical that I can keep my flight review (and night VFR) current without the need to fly at night or simulate any form of engine failures simply by completing a IPC during the day in a single.

I recently did my IPC in a single during daylight hours, consisting of about 0.7 flight time (one RNAV with circling approach), a couple other approaches and limited panel in the SIM and I am good to go IFR for 12 months and VFR for 24 months. No simulation of engine failure or flight at night necessary.

The most interesting fact is that I need not have even flown at night in over 10 years, but as long as my IPC is current I can blast off after dark solo. A few circuits solo on said flight and my NVFR is also current again!

Interesting times under Part 61.