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!!

Alas my much loved, once dark green book cover licence from the Department of Transport in 1957, is moth eaten, roach nibbled and been thru the wash a couple of times . The signatures of the Director General of Civil Aviation have long since faded away. My signature in the Student licence is almost gone, too...an historic sample relic of teenage scrawl. I even crossed out 'British nationality' and overwrote AUSTRALIAN, as born and bred.
In some distant past, Spin Recovery was crossed out by some bureaucrat because that's just not done anymore. A "safety" measure of course ! How many stall/spin fatalities since, I wonder
A data chipped plastic card with face pic and continuing "security clearance" that fits in a normal wallet SHOULD be the go. No problem for Drivers Licence issuers...but for CAsA ...???

You know there is something wrong with the regulations just by looking at the "definitions". For example I was confused by 61.150(2)(a)(i) as to why a flight examiner cannot issue an aircraft category rating on a license. So looked on p. 69 to see what is meant by rating and find:
"rating means a flight crew rating" ….So what has that just told us? Well nothing actually. So I look for 'category rating' in the definition and there is only 'category of aircraft: see regulation 61.015.' Since when does a definition point you to the body of the regulations? Why is a definition is in the body and not in the definition?

Ok, so lets go to 61.015 and we find a category is aeroplane, helicopter, powered-lift etc. Ok, seems simple enough. But wait there's more. 61.020 defines class, and that is single-engine aeroplane, multi-engine aeroplane, single engine helicopter etc. So now I am confused. Surely a class would be single-engine, multi-engine. Then you could have a license (say pilot), a category (say aeroplane) and a class (say multi). But what I find is a category (aeroplane, helicopter) and a class (single-aeroplane, multi-aeroplane, single helicopter...). Does that mean I can have a category (aeroplane) and a class (single-engine helicopter)? Perhaps there is some sense in the way they have done it, but it isn't explained anywhere, and it is complicated and confusing.

Umm, yes. I'm still stuck trying to understand the licensing/rating/class/endorsement structure.
For example is a pressurisation design feature endorsement attached to the class, category or the license itself? How do I find that in Part 61--I have been wading through Part 61 for 2 days now and still can't figure out the logic of how it all fits.

Tried the wine, music and Bex last night and woke up this morning realising that drinking and Bex is not a good strategy.
So here is a challenge for all you CASA licensing staff and examiners hiding out there. What is the meaning of 61.150(2)(a)(i)?
Does it mean that flight examiners can issue an operational rating (e.g. an Instrument Rating), but not an aeroplane license (e.g. a PPL Aeroplane)? Does it also mean that the only "People" who may grant a license (ie a PPL with Aeroplane category) are CASA (as mentioned in 61.150(1)? The reason I ask that is because that seems different to the way I remember it from the 20th century, where an approved testing officer in a flying school could issue PPLs (and CPLs for that matter).

I've been an ATO for over 20 years and never been authorised to issue a licence, only do the test. Licences are issued by CASA, always have been AFAIK.

Unfortunately my only experience with GA has been in Australia so I cannot relate much, at least not yet. Though I must confess that I was flabbergasted when I received my A4 licence in the mail a while ago. I was almost tempted to ask CASA when they'd send the real/final one as I thought this piece of paper was just temporary.

I think it's now an established fact that aviation has a much better safety track record than, eg. car traffic. Unfortunately, I really wonder if aviation lawmakers and government bodies have a firm grasp of the concept of causality when it comes to safety. I'm from Norway where everything is ultra transparent and audited. A situation such as Aussie GA where a grumpy community seems to have been a constant for decades is unheard of. I wish there were a stronger feedback loop that'd serve as leverage on CASA. For starters, there should be accountability and possibly real consequences for their slow and opaque processing of just about any administrative matter.

Thanks for the clarification on the distinction between "granting the license" and "conducting the test." Armed with that knowledge it seems that one has to put two disparate pieces together. Examiners cannot 'grant' the license, described on page 87 in 61.B; and examiners can conduct the test for a license, described on page 249, Part 61.U.1

That means if you try reading Part 61 from start to finish (as I am attempting to do) you won't know what is going on until you have read all 472 pages. Surely there is a way of structuring this document so that one can actually read it from start to finish. At present it is like a jumbled up jigsaw puzzle.

Does anyone out there know where in the CASR is there a statement of how much of an IFR proficiency check or a PIFR review can be done in a Synthetic Trainer and which levels are required?
Once upon a time it was pretty simple, we used to fly one approach in the air (usually an NDB) with a simulated engine failure if it was MEA, and one in an Cat B Synthetic trainer and we were done. But now I can't find a clear statement of if this is still sufficient.
Part 61.M (Instrument Rating) mentions "approved flight simulation training device" throughout for the proficiency check.
The definitions of Part 61 say "approved flight simulation training device: a flight simulation training device. is an approved flight simulation training device for purpose if: (a)a Part 141 operator's exposition states that the device may be used for the purpose; etc.
The definition for a flight simulation training device says: "flight simulation training device means: a) a qualified flight simulator; or b) qualified training device; c) a synthetic trainer approved under CAO 45..."

In essence then an approved flight simulation training device can be any level of synthetic trainer (it seems).

Whereas Part 61.N for the Private Instrument Rating the requirements for the flight review state "an approved flight simulator". Which clearly means you can only use a simulator, not the lower CAT B type class. But that seems to imply there is no place for a lower level of flight training device for a private instrument rating.

Sorry, but WTF?

I have been wading through Part 60 and the Part 60 MOS, and Part 61 and the Part 61 MOS, CAO 45 (nothing really there) and I am none the wiser. If anyone can shed some light on this mystery I would be most grateful.

I have not got it in front of me, but I recall checking the approval certificate hanging on the wall at the old Ansett King Air Level B simulator before doing a recent IR MEA.
It is approved for all IR MEA renewal elements except circling approach. There is nothing to stop a pilot exercising the privileges of an Instrument Rating without holding a current circling approach approval, though in General Aviation this may be somewhat restrictive.
This particular simulator is about as old and primitive as they get, though it does an excellent simulation of general and asymmetric handling. I believe most light twin pilots could benefit greatly from a few hours in this thing instead of kidding themselves that they can fly their Baron or Chieftain on one engine based on some local circuit work at unrepresentative light weight.
Level B does not give day take off and landing credits, but this particular certificate is silent on the night credits. From that one could deduce that it also covers a full Class endorsement except for the day take off and landing requirements.
I am told that there is a KIng Air Level D device on the Sunshine Coast, but have not seen it.

Does this help?

Hi Mach E Avelli, I understand that the operator's approval certificate will say what the sim can be used for. What I am looking for in the CASR or CAO etc is a statement that links the Level of Simulator or FTD with the credits. In the previous millennium there was such a statement. I am wondering where that statement has gone? And if it has been removed then on what basis does CASA make the approval?

Regarding the circling approach. That is an interesting one, because although the Instrument Rating requires flight test and proficiency check to include circling approaches if you want that privelage, the Private Instrument rating is completely silent about circling approaches. Does that mean that if you hold a PIFR you can use an approach down to the minimum and then circle around for a landing without having been tested or reviewed for such a manoeuvre?

Georgee, sorry I have no knowledge of the PIFR as I have always been too chicken to stumble around IFR in single engine aircraft, so never held such a rating.
My guess is it would depend on the approach minima that the PIFR allows - again, no understanding, but if the approach terminates at normal circuit height with better than 'special' VFR conditions, I would argue no specific extra training or testing would be required as the pilot's BFR covers the ability to fly a normal circuit. It is a little different when flying 'full' IFR to complete a circling approach, which in a cat B aircraft could be flown as low as 300ft above obstacles.
One for the flying school experts to answer.

Thanks Mach E Avelli, I'm not so concerned about SEA PIFR either. And if you hold a MEA IR it seems if that lapses (or if you fail the proficiency check) you could still exercise a MEA PIFR for another year if required, so it still might be handy to know about it. The reason I mentioned the PIFR is I was surprised that the part 61 seems to mandate a flight simulator for the private rating, yet seems to leave it open to using a lower level device for the commercial/air transport level rating. Sort of seems the wrong way around.

However, my original question was where in the Air Legislation do we find a statement regarding the link between the level of a Flight Simulation Training Device and the credits available for that Flight Simulation Training Device for testing, recency, proficiency checking and renewal? It's sort of important if you are looking to invest hard-earned resources in such a device.

I found the old FSD1 document and it seems that the credits for various levels of simulators and FTDs used to be in part 5 of the CARs and CAO 40.1.5. Of course the relevant parts of those documents have all been moved into the CASRs. So what happened to those paragraphs? Perhaps a phone-call to CASA tomorrow morning is needed?

georgeeipi

You may need a bit more time than the one-day suggested by zanthrus I think. But, when you do get it worked out can you please post the answers here to help all of us understand it too??

Applies also to applications for issue of a new licence to replace the old one - I am STILL waiting for my replacement ATPL - application lodged sometime earlier this year. That something so simple to do (issue a replacement licence) becomes such an inefficient and drawn-out process simply defies logical understanding I'm afraid, and really does epitomise the totally dysfunctional organisation that CASA has become. The mind boggles. :ugh:

This is my mileage (first personal experience) with CASA:
– 40 days to get my medical certificate (that flu that pinned me to my bed for 2 days a few years ago must have given them a lot of hesitation).
– 45 days to get my licence (actually, 52 days after the flight test).
– No reply yet to my complaint that the 40 days it took for my medical certificate to arrive have not be added to its expiry date.

Doesn't sound promising, does it?
I think I have actually gotten to the bottom of it. The clauses relating simulator and ftd levels to approved credits used to be in CAR 5 and CAO 45. It appears that in the transition to the new CASR those clauses were dropped and replaced with part 141 and 142 that now ask that the operator to propose how their simulators & ftds are to be used and that CASA will then approve or reject the proposal.
Given that is how the rules are now written I will just go with the flow and write the proposal as I see fit and see how we go.