|
CPL and class two medical
I have had two opinions regarding the new CASA medical concession to allow CPL for certain operations to hold a class two. It appears this is only available to existing CPL holder and you still need a class one to take the CPL flight test. Does anyone have anything that confirms or disproves this? |
Yes that’s correct, spoke with CASA regarding this a few weeks ago. The reasoning that I was given being that the flight test is a simulated passenger charter flight hence the requirement... |
Originally Posted by Munz
(Post 10208984)
Yes that’s correct, spoke with CASA regarding this a few weeks ago. The reasoning that I was given being that the flight test is a simulated passenger charter flight hence the requirement... |
CPL
That sucks |
Wonder if you need a class one, for a BFR of a cpl?
|
Well, much as I deftest rules, hasn’t a Class 1 been part of getting a CPL since Smithy was a boy? just saying .... |
A hundred years later, the data show that the aviation medical certification system is very effective at employing and remunerating medical certifiers and boosting the egos of the medically certified, but not much else. |
LB I call BS on that. |
Ya got me. All those self-certified glider pilots operating in controlled airspace over the decades have proved themselves to be ticking medical time-bombs. And no holder of a Class 1 medical certificate has ever died at the controls... |
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
(Post 10209125)
Well, much as I deftest rules, hasn’t a Class 1 been part of getting a CPL since Smithy was a boy? just saying .... |
Yep, SWH, I can also instruct on my Class 2. And I agree with LB, the system is/has been a sham with doctors who never see patients overruling the opinions of doctors who have seen and examined said patients. The new Class 2 allowances are a step in then right direction and I agree with the original poster, if you can operate commercially on a class 2, why the heck can't you do a CPL test on one?
|
Does anyone have a link to these new rules allowing to instruct on a Class 2 .
Thanks |
Originally Posted by gsrk1
(Post 10208884)
I have had two opinions regarding the new CASA medical concession to allow CPL for certain operations to hold a class two. It appears this is only available to existing CPL holder and you still need a class one to take the CPL flight test. Does anyone have anything that confirms or disproves this? (3) A flight examiner commits an offence if: (a) the examiner conducts a flight test for a pilot licence in an aircraft; and (b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that: (i) if the test is for a licence other than a recreational pilot licence--the applicant holds: (A) a current medical certificate of the class required for the exercise of the privileges of the licence; or (B) a medical exemption to exercise the privileges of the licence; or (ii) if the test is for a recreational pilot licence--the applicant holds: (A) a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate or recreational aviation medical practitioner's certificate; or (B) a medical exemption for the exercise of the privileges of the licence. |
Originally Posted by Ejector
(Post 10209672)
Does anyone have a link to these new rules allowing to instruct on a Class 2 .
Thanks |
Class 2 medical is all that is required for the CPL test.
|
Originally Posted by Ozgrade3
(Post 10209932)
Class 2 medical is all that is required for the CPL test.
|
You can not instructor a student for the issue of a pilots licence. You can instructor a student for an additional design feature or flight activity. ie, aerobatics instruction of a PPL or CPL holder.
|
Originally Posted by Stretch06
(Post 10209998)
You can not instructor a student for the issue of a pilots licence. You can instructor a student for an additional design feature or flight activity. ie, aerobatics instruction of a PPL or CPL holder.
exempted activity means a flight that: (a) is wholly within Australian territory; and (b) is in an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight less than 8 618 kg; and (c) does not carry a passenger The exemption also states: Definitions Note In this instrument certain terms and expressions have the same meaning as they have in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. These include: Australian territory, class, current, flight, maximum take-off weight, medical certificate, and passenger. Now the Civil Aviation Safety regulations contain the definition of a passenger as: passenger, in relation to an aircraft, means a person: (a) who: (i) intends to travel on a particular flight on the aircraft; or (ii) is on board the aircraft for a flight; or (iii) has disembarked from the aircraft following a flight; and (b) who is not a member of the crew of the aircraft for the flight. Now funnily enough "crew" isn't defined. Flight crew member and cabin crew member are: flight crew member means a crew member who is a pilot or flight engineer assigned to carry out duties essential to the operation of an aircraft during flight time. cabin crew member, in relation to an aircraft, means a crew member, other than a flight crew member, who performs, in the interests of the safety of the aircraft's passengers, duties assigned by the operator or the pilot in command of the aircraft. So the question at the end of all this is when is a student receiving training a passenger and when are they a crew member? Do they have to hold some other license as asserted by Stretch? Btu that still wouldn't meet the definition of a flight crew member and more than not having any licence at all. I dont know but for all the words CASA produce I am not sure they know either... |
Originally Posted by Ejector
(Post 10209672)
Does anyone have a link to these new rules allowing to instruct on a Class 2 .
Thanks ”Holders of a Commercial Pilot Licence can conduct commercial flights that do not carry passengers with a Class 2 medical certificate if the maximum take-off weight is less than 8618 kilograms. This includes flight training. Read the legislative instrument (CASA EX25/18) that permits this condition.“ read the execption https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...00167/Download it says class 2 are exempt from A person who holds a commercial pilot licence or an air transport pilot licence is exempt from compliance with sub regulation 61.065 (1) of CASR to the extent that the subregulation requires that the person also hold a class 1 medical certificate to be authorised under Part 61 of CASR to conduct an exempted activity. look up 61.065(1) of unauthorised activities--holders of flight crew licences (1) The holder of a flight crew licence commits an offence if: (a) the holder conducts an activity mentioned in this Part while: (i) piloting a registered aircraft; or (ii) acting as flight engineer of a registered aircraft; or (iii) acting as an instructor or examiner; and |
The long and the short of it is that the exemption only applies to existing CPL holders. To take the CPL flight test you need a class 1 after that a class two if you are not doing paid passenger operations (Advice by phone and email from CASA today) |
Originally Posted by gsrk1
(Post 10210091)
The long and the short of it is that the exemption only applies to existing CPL holders. To take the CPL flight test you need a class 1 after that a class two if you are not doing paid passenger operations (Advice by phone and email from CASA today) 61.1300 Obligations of flight examiners—flight tests: other offences (1) A flight examiner commits an offence if: (a) the examiner conducts a flight test for a pilot licence; and (b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that the applicant: (i) is at least the minimum age to hold the licence; and (ii) has passed the aeronautical knowledge examination for the licence; and (iii) has met the flight training requirements for the grant of the licence; and (iv) has met the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) A flight examiner commits an offence if: (a) the examiner conducts a flight test for any of the following licences: (i) a private pilot licence; (ii) a commercial pilot licence; (iii) a multi‑crew pilot licence; (iv) an air transport pilot licence; and (b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that the applicant has a current aviation English language proficiency assessment. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (3) A flight examiner commits an offence if: (a) the examiner conducts a flight test for a pilot licence in an aircraft; and (b) when the test begins, the examiner is not satisfied that: (i) if the test is for a licence other than a recreational pilot licence—the applicant holds: (A) a current medical certificate of the class required for the grant of the licence; or (B) a medical exemption to exercise the privileges of the licence; or |
a current medical certificate of the class required for the grant of the licence; or You could then argue that since it is a simulated charter flight, then you can use your class 2 medical to simulate a class 1 medical. |
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
(Post 10211608)
Thanks swh, so if I read this correctly, a Class 2 is fine to do a CPL test with because it is a class required for a CPL (one of two). Who is game to put it to the test? Or is there something else somewhere in another piece of legislation?x
Another gem, thanks SM! |
Originally Posted by gsrk1
(Post 10211625)
CASA says no Reminds me a bit of the choplogic of many years ago, you couldn't get a (now) Class 1 medical unless you could meet all the eyesight tests without correction. Safety, you know. But once you had a CPL or higher, then you could get glasses if needed to met the eyesight standard.?? At the time, DCA simply refused to even discuss the matter, them's were the standards, FIFO. Change of DG and CMO and all of a sudden it was safe to do an initial CPL flight test wearing glasses. Same obstinate lack of logic and commonsense here. With this mob, nothing much changes, without political blunt trauma. Tootle pip!! |
CASA says no |
My reading is that CASA is correct. The exemption applies to holders of a CPL, so I would not expect it to apply to someone taking the test who does not yet hold the license. And I suspect an exemption from legislation requiring you to have a medical is different from a medical exemption.
Typical CASA though - create rules that are hard to understand and have hidden traps that mean that they are giving away less than it first appears. |
And I suspect an exemption from legislation requiring you to have a medical is different from a medical exemption. A regulatory framework built on exemptions is a flimsy nothing. |
I think it helps to go back to the original intent of the exemption which was “to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “ it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020. |
Originally Posted by gsrk1
(Post 10212277)
I think it helps to go back to the original intent of the exemption which was “to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “ it is interesting to note that it will be repealed in 2020. Thanks |
Originally Posted by Bosi72
(Post 10948779)
Sorry for resurrecting old post, we are at end of 2020, any news on the Class2 CPL topic?
Thanks Apologies, can’t post links yet but the legislation is CASA EX46/20 |
“to encourage pilots with significant experience but unable to meet the requirements of the class one” eg: medically retired RTP and military pilots, to regain eligibility to instruct or work in low public risk aspects of aviation in an attempt to mitigate the drain caused by the so called “pilot shortage “ I asked CASA what the medical standards were for Class 2, and they said without blinking an eye 'the same as Class 1'! They talk the good talk about risk levels etc, but when you look at the legislation they refer to, and ask AVMED themselves, the answer does not support allowing pilots to get a Class 2 if they are 'unable to meet the requirements of a Class 1'! The only thing that seems to change is the length of time between medical examinations... Am I not seeing something here? Or is this just another example of CASA buffoonery getting in the way of their own intent? |
I took my CPL flying test on a class two medical, in 2005.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it. Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years. |
Originally Posted by Ken Worth
(Post 10954607)
I took my CPL flying test on a class two medical, in 2005.
I discussed this prior with the testing officer (who thought it was a bit weird at first). However, when I explained that I was not intending to fly commercially straight away, and then I would get a fresh class one when actively seeking flying work, he had no issue with it. Regs, may have changed obviously in the ensuing fifteen years. |
Originally Posted by havick
(Post 10955145)
I did the same thing in 2003
|
Originally Posted by oldrotorhead
(Post 10955729)
That was because in the good old days, the level of medical an individual was required to hold at the time of their licence flight test was the level of medical required for the licence he/she actually held at the time of the test - eg. the medical required for a holder of a student licence. There was none of this BS inferring '"simulated" charter flights etc. That really is the biggest unjustifiable reason I have heard CASA come up with in a long time. The person of course had to gain the appropriate class of medical required for the licence they were issued with prior to exercising the privileges of the licence which is fair enough. These days when licences are "perpetual" this same BS line of argument would have your licence cancelled or suspended immediately you no longer held the appropriate medical - go figure.....
|
Originally Posted by oldrotorhead
(Post 10955731)
Of course as a CFI it was always my advice that the holder of a Class II medical do ahead and get their Class I prior to going too far down the track towards their CPL just in case there were to be a nasty AVMED surprise in store for them, however, it was certainly not a legal requirement to do so.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.