CASA and the Future of GA
Thread Starter
CASA and the Future of GA
Only a few years ago flight training schools at Caloundra, Caboolture Redcliffe and other GA fields were all busy with training new helicopter pilots. Now there all but disserted. Downturns in the economy have come and gone but this seems more to do with new rules imposed on training organisations making it impractical to conduct business. Also the new setup for private H pilots to do BFR's seems unworkable, cumbersome, expensive and most importantly un needed. I once had a CASA guy tell me that he would be happy if GA went away, he may just get his wish granted.
The HFR (aka BFR) isn't that much different now for a private H pilot - one flight every two years, R22 or R44 cover each other and anything else in the single engine helicopter class (e.g. B206, AS350 etc).
The original kerfuffle with R22 and 44 being separate types was going to be a shambles, but they acted on that so it's pretty straightforward again now.
Transition to Part 141 or 142 for schools won't be too onerous either I don't think - they just need to get organised for integrated theory training if they want to offer a 100 hour CPL course; if not, keep doing it pretty much the same with a new ops manual but run a 150 hour CPL. Basic instrument training is the other main difference, but a NVFR capable 44 would allow you to do that easily enough, which most schools would have access to at least.
The original kerfuffle with R22 and 44 being separate types was going to be a shambles, but they acted on that so it's pretty straightforward again now.
Transition to Part 141 or 142 for schools won't be too onerous either I don't think - they just need to get organised for integrated theory training if they want to offer a 100 hour CPL course; if not, keep doing it pretty much the same with a new ops manual but run a 150 hour CPL. Basic instrument training is the other main difference, but a NVFR capable 44 would allow you to do that easily enough, which most schools would have access to at least.
Thread Starter
Arm out the Window
Going to 150 hr for CPL doesn't sound much till you have to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it.
Doing the bi annual in a R44 isn't a drama if you have that type and now fly say a ec120 as I do, but there are a couple of issues. Over the next 10 years I will be checked out (PPL) 5 times , all in a 44 that I only fly for this purpose. Doesn't help me much in the 120. Do it in the 120 I hear you say, well who is going to do it? I can't find anyone left. How about the MD900; MD600, ec135 etc there just are not the instructors able to do them. I imagine there are enough in 44's, but wouldn't it actually achieve something to do it in your own aircraft.
Going to 150 hr for CPL doesn't sound much till you have to put your hand in your pocket to pay for it.
Doing the bi annual in a R44 isn't a drama if you have that type and now fly say a ec120 as I do, but there are a couple of issues. Over the next 10 years I will be checked out (PPL) 5 times , all in a 44 that I only fly for this purpose. Doesn't help me much in the 120. Do it in the 120 I hear you say, well who is going to do it? I can't find anyone left. How about the MD900; MD600, ec135 etc there just are not the instructors able to do them. I imagine there are enough in 44's, but wouldn't it actually achieve something to do it in your own aircraft.
Yes, it's pretty stupid that the R22 and 44 are somehow deemed to be trickier or more dangerous than the others in the class - still, if you want to do the check in the 120 it shouldn't be too hard to find a Grade 1 (or 2 now) working for someone with training on the AOC and endorsed on type who could do a review. I could put you in touch with one right now if you like.
The drawback would be if you wanted to fly the Robbies you'd also need to do an extra review in a 22, say, which doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to my mind.
The 150 hour course would be an extra say $13 grand in a 22 over and above the 125 hour CAR 5 course if the last 30 hours weren't done in 3 months, so yes, certainly a greater expense. A 100 hour course from a Part 142 school, on the other hand, should save a few bucks (obviously only any good if you have the spare time and resources to do it all in one go).
I honestly don't think the new rules make it much harder for a flying school operating Robinsons and doing RPL / PPL / CPL, cost wise or complexity wise.
If you're looking for someone to do anything a bit more complex, particularly in this transitional stage, then it's certainly a different story and CASA themselves are about as confused as the rest of us regarding many of the new requirements. Hopefully it will sort itself out somewhat over the next year or two, but in the meantime where I work we're getting along not too differently from before.
The drawback would be if you wanted to fly the Robbies you'd also need to do an extra review in a 22, say, which doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to my mind.
The 150 hour course would be an extra say $13 grand in a 22 over and above the 125 hour CAR 5 course if the last 30 hours weren't done in 3 months, so yes, certainly a greater expense. A 100 hour course from a Part 142 school, on the other hand, should save a few bucks (obviously only any good if you have the spare time and resources to do it all in one go).
I honestly don't think the new rules make it much harder for a flying school operating Robinsons and doing RPL / PPL / CPL, cost wise or complexity wise.
If you're looking for someone to do anything a bit more complex, particularly in this transitional stage, then it's certainly a different story and CASA themselves are about as confused as the rest of us regarding many of the new requirements. Hopefully it will sort itself out somewhat over the next year or two, but in the meantime where I work we're getting along not too differently from before.
How about the fact that only ONE ATPL licence has been issued for both fixed and rotary wing since September. It is also projected that it will take up to 18 months for this situation to change.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as350nut, might I suggest that you only do the FR in the 120? There are instructors around and their numbers will improve over time. If you are only flying the R44 for the purpose of the FR, you are wasting your time.
But I'm guessing you have that figured.
Regarding why the R22 & R44 are treated differently, it all centres around the collective engine correlation. There have been a number of instances where pilots have got themselves into an over pitching situation. When they lower the collective the engine RPM decays very quickly due to the correlator. Other, non governed engines, H269 for example, don't decay as quickly. PLUS, the pilots of these are used to rolling the throttle on when the RPM decays. Their instrument scan is better. But take someone who has only flown Robinsons and their RPM scan is not quite as good and they don't respond as quickly as needed.
I have a couple of exercises that I put pilots through in the R22/44 to demonstrate this. The problem is not as pronounced on turbine engines because of the way the fuel control is set up. Lowering the collective when overpitching will recover the engine RPM, no issue.
I also have a couple of ATSB reports to show the pilots during their FR to reinforce the overpitching issues with Robinsons.
But I'm guessing you have that figured.
Regarding why the R22 & R44 are treated differently, it all centres around the collective engine correlation. There have been a number of instances where pilots have got themselves into an over pitching situation. When they lower the collective the engine RPM decays very quickly due to the correlator. Other, non governed engines, H269 for example, don't decay as quickly. PLUS, the pilots of these are used to rolling the throttle on when the RPM decays. Their instrument scan is better. But take someone who has only flown Robinsons and their RPM scan is not quite as good and they don't respond as quickly as needed.
I have a couple of exercises that I put pilots through in the R22/44 to demonstrate this. The problem is not as pronounced on turbine engines because of the way the fuel control is set up. Lowering the collective when overpitching will recover the engine RPM, no issue.
I also have a couple of ATSB reports to show the pilots during their FR to reinforce the overpitching issues with Robinsons.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to allay some fears regarding the ATPL;
There is a transition period for a reason. Anyone who requires an ATPL for a job advertised today will require a certain amount of flying experience for that position. As part of the process of gaining that experience, most likely as an FO / Co-Pilot, they would probably already have an ATPL under the old rules.
Anyone who is applying for a new position as an FO / Co-pilot is normally required to have commenced their ATPL theory subjects and their IREX at the time of applying. They don’t yet need to hold an ATPL. So the new rules shouldn’t impact upon them, in the short term.
Many jobs are single pilot, but the contract requires the pilot to hold an ATPL, some police and EMS jobs for example. The need to hold an ATPL for single pilot jobs is beyond what the rules and the law requires. Now a contract can call for higher standards, but the customer needs to understand what limits this is going to impose on their potential recruiting base. I am ignoring the fact that the pre-requisites for these positions will normally require the sort of experience that is gained in the off-shore world of the heavy twins, so they are likely to hold an ATPL anyway.
Any predictions of the future (good or bad) of the off-shore market are welcome.
Now some quick references;
61.700 Requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—General
…
(3) The applicant must also have:
(c) passed the flight test mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the air transport pilot licence and the associated aircraft category rating; and
(d) met the aeronautical experience requirements of this Subpart; and
(e) completed an approved course of training in multi-crew cooperation.
…
(6) For paragraph (3)(c), the flight test for the air transport pilot licence with the helicopter category rating must be conducted in:
(a) a turbine-powered helicopter that is:
(i) certificated for night VFR operations; and
(ii) configured for flight, and operated, with a co-pilot; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight test.
61.710 Aeronautical experience requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—helicopter category
(1) An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with the helicopter category rating
…
(g) at least 50 hours of flight time at night as pilot of a helicopter; and
(h) at least 30 hours of instrument time; and
(i) at least 20 hours of instrument flight time in a helicopter.
The general understanding is that the test must be in a helicopter that requires two pilots, not simply a light twin (AS355 for example) with the duals in. The alternative is an approved SIM and most from CASA whom I have spoken to have indicated a preference for the SIM option. Less risk.
Only a Part 142 school can run a multi crew course (61.700 (3)(e)), but the even bigger concern is that the applicant for an ATPL must hold 30 hours of instrument time and 50 hours at night. My prediction is that in the future we will get used to completing the ATPL and IREX theory before joining an off-shore company as an FO. The big players (CHC, Bristow, Bond) will have to be approved locally as Part 142 organisations to run the above courses (IF & multi crew co-operation). And you know what? They are currently doing most of this and will do it very well into the future. They have the greatest depth of experience, Simulators, $$, etc to carry out the job well. Only then will a pilot be able to sit the ATPL flight test and be issued with an ATPL (H) licence.
Are the fears justified?
We have to change the way we see our career progression. There is no way anyone can afford to spend the money on a night rating and IF rating and the flight time required in a helicopter to ‘buy’ their own ATPL. The newer pilots and the customer all have to realise this.
Is it a bad thing? Some will instantly say yes, simply because it is change. What was the point of the change? I tend to agree with that, where’s the safety case!?
Unfortunately, without massive political influence, the system is not going to change. Not happy? Please write to your local MP. Are you in a Labor seat? Even better! They enjoy sticking it to the Coalition.
If it doesn’t change, welcome to a scared new world. One day we will get used to the new system and there will be more understanding and less fear.
My advice, keep studying! Pilots will still need to study their CPL, ATPL and IREX subjects. Get on line or purchase the new VPG for every day use.
Understand the new rules as best that you can because there are more coming. As discussed at Avalon, there are 12 helicopter related projects on the go right now at CASA, coming soon to a cockpit near you!
There is a transition period for a reason. Anyone who requires an ATPL for a job advertised today will require a certain amount of flying experience for that position. As part of the process of gaining that experience, most likely as an FO / Co-Pilot, they would probably already have an ATPL under the old rules.
Anyone who is applying for a new position as an FO / Co-pilot is normally required to have commenced their ATPL theory subjects and their IREX at the time of applying. They don’t yet need to hold an ATPL. So the new rules shouldn’t impact upon them, in the short term.
Many jobs are single pilot, but the contract requires the pilot to hold an ATPL, some police and EMS jobs for example. The need to hold an ATPL for single pilot jobs is beyond what the rules and the law requires. Now a contract can call for higher standards, but the customer needs to understand what limits this is going to impose on their potential recruiting base. I am ignoring the fact that the pre-requisites for these positions will normally require the sort of experience that is gained in the off-shore world of the heavy twins, so they are likely to hold an ATPL anyway.
Any predictions of the future (good or bad) of the off-shore market are welcome.
Now some quick references;
61.700 Requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—General
…
(3) The applicant must also have:
(c) passed the flight test mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the air transport pilot licence and the associated aircraft category rating; and
(d) met the aeronautical experience requirements of this Subpart; and
(e) completed an approved course of training in multi-crew cooperation.
…
(6) For paragraph (3)(c), the flight test for the air transport pilot licence with the helicopter category rating must be conducted in:
(a) a turbine-powered helicopter that is:
(i) certificated for night VFR operations; and
(ii) configured for flight, and operated, with a co-pilot; or
(b) an approved flight simulator for the flight test.
61.710 Aeronautical experience requirements for grant of air transport pilot licences—helicopter category
(1) An applicant for an air transport pilot licence with the helicopter category rating
…
(g) at least 50 hours of flight time at night as pilot of a helicopter; and
(h) at least 30 hours of instrument time; and
(i) at least 20 hours of instrument flight time in a helicopter.
The general understanding is that the test must be in a helicopter that requires two pilots, not simply a light twin (AS355 for example) with the duals in. The alternative is an approved SIM and most from CASA whom I have spoken to have indicated a preference for the SIM option. Less risk.
Only a Part 142 school can run a multi crew course (61.700 (3)(e)), but the even bigger concern is that the applicant for an ATPL must hold 30 hours of instrument time and 50 hours at night. My prediction is that in the future we will get used to completing the ATPL and IREX theory before joining an off-shore company as an FO. The big players (CHC, Bristow, Bond) will have to be approved locally as Part 142 organisations to run the above courses (IF & multi crew co-operation). And you know what? They are currently doing most of this and will do it very well into the future. They have the greatest depth of experience, Simulators, $$, etc to carry out the job well. Only then will a pilot be able to sit the ATPL flight test and be issued with an ATPL (H) licence.
Are the fears justified?
We have to change the way we see our career progression. There is no way anyone can afford to spend the money on a night rating and IF rating and the flight time required in a helicopter to ‘buy’ their own ATPL. The newer pilots and the customer all have to realise this.
Is it a bad thing? Some will instantly say yes, simply because it is change. What was the point of the change? I tend to agree with that, where’s the safety case!?
Unfortunately, without massive political influence, the system is not going to change. Not happy? Please write to your local MP. Are you in a Labor seat? Even better! They enjoy sticking it to the Coalition.
If it doesn’t change, welcome to a scared new world. One day we will get used to the new system and there will be more understanding and less fear.
My advice, keep studying! Pilots will still need to study their CPL, ATPL and IREX subjects. Get on line or purchase the new VPG for every day use.
Understand the new rules as best that you can because there are more coming. As discussed at Avalon, there are 12 helicopter related projects on the go right now at CASA, coming soon to a cockpit near you!
