Why all the hate for Part 61?
 

Disclaimer: I am not trying to provoke an endless debate on Part 61 but as I'm a relative newcomer to the field of aviation in Australia, I keep on reading that "Part 61 is a disaster" and that the "FAA got it right".

Can anyone explain in plain English why Part 61 drew so much criticism? My personal experience with air law has been limited to learning what was required for the CASA exams and felt confused at times about where to find a specific regulartion, ie. in CAR, CASR or CAAP. Then again, being a scientist and not a lawyer, the structure of just about any law might make me raise my eyebrows.

Still what is it that the Americans got right about it that the Aussies didn't? And why is it so hard to change if it leaves the community so unsatisfied?

Thanks for shedding some light on that obscure matter.

Everyone who managed anything through the transition into 61, will tell you it was disgusting.

Implementation was delayed several times because "the industry" (meaning CASA) wasn't ready. There was no final version until after it went live (yes, the "live" version was a draft). When it went live, the regulations were full of errors and typos - I was told several times regarding 61 "that bit is wrong, just keep doing what you did before". And the supposed reason for going 61 was to drop exemptions (so everyone would be the same - good) but the number of exemptions has increased.

So we went from 50 pages with some serious flaws in how things were evaluated, to 61 of being 250 pages of regs + 650 pages of MOS + some of the old regulations, and it still have obvious flaws and drafting errors ... the most of the flaws in how things were evaluated are still there!!

Does that explain things?

The FAA stuff has the advantage of being more stable, but plenty of people seriously suggested we use the NZ regs, which are clear, readable, and cover/permit almost exactly the same as where we're going to end up when all the new Oz licencing is done.

After it was delayed for the second time, asked a CASA FOI if it would be ready the second time around:

’it’s like a shell, looks ok on the outside but it’s hollow in the middle’....

They weren’t ready but forced it on the industry anyway.

Lead Balloon...

At least you got a replacement licence...I'm still stuck with the old one, despite applying for a new one ages ago.

And why did your old licence only have a 10-pages? My existing (old) licence is 12-pages (which was the replacement of my older 9-page ATPL in 1993), but admittedly pages 10, 11 and 12 are each marked No Entries on This Page, so I guess we're equal on that count. :}

Your initiative in introducing the plastic photo licence was a great idea Dick, at least the darned thing fitted in the wallet or pocket.
Considering the advances in technology today they make even more sense.
All a pilots details could be stored on the card and read if required by a card reader.
I heard a suggestion from someone years ago that the plastic license could also be a substitute for the much maligned
ASIC card. Considering the security issues that plague us these days, at many airports, instead of gate codes etc at our airports, access could be obtained airside by a swipe card reader. From a security point of view that would provide a record of who and when and where someone entered airside
potentially saving some money as well.

Regarding part 61, compare the pair, 90 0dd pages in US and NZ regs against thousands in ours.
Massive increases in costs born by the industry. Has it made it any safer?

Not safer, but it is upholding the government promise of "jobs and growth". It takes a caste of thousands to administer all this BS.

There are still unsafe, dangerous requirements in the MOS - refer the tailwheel endorsement.

Dick,
The short answer: A "new" Director who only knew the British license system, was convinced by "the lawyers" that the US like license was not "ICAO compliant" --- and the rest followed, and I (all of us) wound up with a licence (touch/feel/format/size) as per my original British licence of 1962. Right down to the bootlace to hold it all together.
The general CASA "iron ring" aborhence of anything "yankee" was just fuel on the fire.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Part 61, FAAwise I have to only do one biennial every two years to operate at Part 91 level, here I am still arguing with CASA whether it is four of five separate checks. For rotary wing, it is ludicrous. And anybody has to ask what is wrong with Part 61??

I still have mine. It was a valid licence until part 61. Now its just more plastic that we need to send to China to be recycled.

I got my pilots licence the year before my car licence. In the last 40-ish years, I think I have had 5 different flying licences. During that time, I have had basically 2 different car licences.

You've got to ask why we need such constant change and who benefits? Its not aviation safety

...'Why constant change and who benefits.....'
It occurs because its all part of the bureaucratic psyche and 'empire building'
When a 'newbie' comes in to any level...they have to put their stamp on it,/ alter the status quo so as to be seen in command.
With a surplus of drones to build up the little empires within the Big One, we can't just have folk sitting around doing nothing to do because there is a set of regs/rules, previously fixed and acknowleged by those that have to use them..ie the aviation industry..the must be continually amended, revamped modified and fiddled with until the cows come home, because this creates employment on lovely big salaries and keeps 'em all 'occupied' They make the changes. They benefit. CasA grows, GA slows.
The 'jobs and growth' is all in the bureaucracy while GA burns away to nothing ...all due to the control freaks that wish to modify your every move and produce ever more paper and rubbish.
CAsA denies all this of course.. see the Gibson's latest bit of BS spin doctoring.
"safety"... that's just the buzz word that has allowed all the gross and defective growth of a supremely bastard Soviet...a law unto itself.

Okihara,
Do you actually have any point of comparison, say experience of the equivalent in other countries.
A good proportion of the replies to your original post are people who do have such experience (I have licenses from UK,US,NZ and PNG) so we all know what an over the top destructive and costly nightmare Part 61/141/142 actually is, for absolutely no benefit, safety or otherwise, let alone risk based benefit/cost justified benefit.
Tootle pip!!

Part 61 is living proof that you can't polish a turd...

I shudder when I think of the next step.

I also don't understand why the Regs can't be written by the same bloke who writes the VFR / IFR guides - they have proven they've got the capability...

Or her offsider, Brian (?) White. Balls Head Road was a colourful place in those days, with Messers Grey, Green, Brown, Black and White, all presided over by A.W.Doubleday.
And, like the colonial rail gauges, the "colonial" format license was about two thirds the size of the UK Board (Bored) of Trade license ---- the creation of the UK CAA (Campaign Against Aviation) came years later, but maintained the original format, that was forced on us in the early 2000s.
Tootle pip!!