Flight review

Need a hand? Try the *Forum FAQ* link at the top. Failing that, post a question here.
UAT
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 23
Joined: Sep 2014

Re: Flight review

Postby UAT » Mon Jan 5 2015, 05:00

They can be done by a Grade 1 or 2 instructor.
They can be done outside of a school (61.1230), BUT the intent is that a review will include some training to bring someone up to the standard.


61.1230 Obligations of pilot instructors—records of activities conducted independently of Part 141 or 142 operator
(1) A pilot instructor commits an offence if:
(a) the instructor conducts a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, other than an endorsement on an operational rating; and
(b) the training is not conducted on behalf of a Part 141 or 142 operator; and
(c) a record of the training is not made within 7 days after the session.
(2) A pilot instructor commits an offence if the instructor does not retain a record made under subregulation (1) for at least 7 years after the day the record is made.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.

The way I have interpreted this - its an offence to conduct a flight review or a session of flight training for a flight crew endorsement, if you're not conducting it on behalf of a 141 or 142 operator, and if you don't make a record of the training within 7 days. Furthermore, it's also and offence if you don't retain the record for 7 years.

However, and this is where I get confused with the wording, does the 'and' mean you have to have done all 3 - (a), (b) and (c) for it to be an offence?

Also, if it's the latter, does this imply you could do flight training, training for type ratings etc independently?
Def's
endorsement means a flight crew endorsement,
flight crew endorsement means an endorsement granted under this Part on a flight crew licence.
light crew licence means:
(a) a pilot licence; or
(b) a flight engineer licence; or
(c) a glider pilot licence.

Cheers
User avatar
froginasock
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 201
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: Flight review

Postby froginasock » Tue Jan 6 2015, 07:22

will be proved wrong ...

But as I read the regs and from discussions (CASA reps) .. a instructor must be attached to a 141 or 142 school to conduct FR's ... for 'specialised' instructors who are not attached to schools - for 'endorsements on operational ratings' (i.e your mustering endorsement on your low level rating) .. then that can be done by an instructor who does not need to be a GR1,2 or 3 instructor (i.e a 'mustering instructor' - can be approved by CASA without becoming an ab-initio instructor) .. then 61.1230 makes sense.

Initial training (ab-initio) & flight crew endorsements, & Flight reviews therefore must be done with an instructor attached to a school -

Note - Check & training (142) organisations can reviews within their organisations.

.... now I'm just waiting to be shot down.

Frog
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby hand in pants » Tue Jan 6 2015, 09:01

It's because of the lack of clarity of the part 61 that I now refuse to do any type/class rating training.
It's the ambiguity of the wording that leaves me feeling that even though I'm attached to/affiliated with a school, I am open to being done over by casa for some small inconsequential paperwork problem. Plus the fact that everybody who has rang me for the training has a different story on what is required from different casa people.

I have decided to just walk away from all but the flying I do for my employer. I really think the industry is on a downhill slippery slope with these new rules, badly thought out, badly worded, badly introduced, little or no education on them and we are told to adjust. Not for me, thank you very much.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
froginasock
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 201
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: Flight review

Postby froginasock » Mon Jan 19 2015, 04:39

I've posted this in 'Part 61 Q&A' .. probably should be here though.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00014

8 Condition on a single-engine helicopter class rating
It is a condition on a single-engine helicopter class rating that the holder of that rating may conduct operations in a R22 or R44 helicopter only if:
(a) he or she has completed a flight review, in accordance with regulation 61.745 of CASR 1998; and
(b) the flight review was conducted in a R22 or R44 helicopter.

This means that an R22 flight review will cover the R44 and vice versa and SE Class helicopters (such as the AS350/B206/R66) ... BUT ... the twist is
.. the AS350, B206 or R66 won’t cover either the R22 or R44 in a flight review.

Frog

Edit: If you do your first Turbine Class Rating 'i.e an jet ranger endorsement' and it's conducted by a GR1 (so can be used as a flight review) .. this WON"T cover your R44/R22 ..
UAT
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 23
Joined: Sep 2014

Re: Flight review

Postby UAT » Tue Jan 20 2015, 04:02

froginasock wrote:Edit: If you do your first Turbine Class Rating 'i.e an jet ranger endorsement' and it's conducted by a GR1 (so can be used as a flight review) .. this WON"T cover your R44/R22 ..


Or a Grade 2 instructor as they can also now for Flight Reviews...
arrrj
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 327
Joined: Jul 2012

Re: Flight review

Postby arrrj » Sun Apr 26 2015, 08:00

Question please -

My mate who flies R66 (most of the time), has been told that he can't do his HFR in the 66 if he stills want to fly the 44. However, he has been advised that he can do his HFR in a 44 and will be OK for all of the SEH.

As they are all SEH is this correct ? (It does look like it).

Importantly, and in English (just for me !) why ?

Arrrj
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1813
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby CYHeli » Sun Apr 26 2015, 08:15

The R22 & R44 are subject to the SFAR 73 special training in the U.S. This has been incorporated into the Limitiations section of both types. That is because these two have special needs regarding the RRPM and engine RPM recovery in an over pitching situation. This is only for these two types of pistons and does not relate to turbines.
So a FR in either will cover all other SEH class, but a FR in the R66 will require a second FR in the R44.
That is the simplest I can give.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
Robinsondog
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 471
Joined: Feb 2003

Re: Flight review

Postby Robinsondog » Sun Apr 26 2015, 09:13

that' interesting CY.

What are the special needs re over pitching and where can we find it amongst the mass of paperwork new regs etc?
arrrj
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 327
Joined: Jul 2012

Re: Flight review

Postby arrrj » Sun Apr 26 2015, 09:15

Col,

Thanks mate, that's what I had been told, but it did not make sense to me...and it probably still doesn't. The story I got told is that the 44 (&22) is harder to fly than a 66, 206, 350 etc, so the "test" is harder in a 44 than a 66...which I think is rubbish (as I fly all of them). But what do I know ?

I'll tell my mate...he needs to find a 44 to do his test.

Arrrj
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1813
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby CYHeli » Sun Apr 26 2015, 21:53

Robbiedog, the opinion that the Piston Robbies is harder to fly is from the U.S. and not directly found in the new regs. Talking to the team who put the new regs together, they did make the rule about seperate flight reviews to reflect the SFAR73, included here.
There have been over pitching accidents prior to the introduction of the governor and the Robbies still have low rotor inertia and a very efficient throttle collective correlation. This correlation permits the engine RPM to decline very quickly when the collective is lowered.
A lot of pilots may have been taught how to fix this, but aren't always aware of the mechanics behind it, hence why this has caused so much discussion.
As part of the AHIA team we were arguing that the R22 and 44 are so close that one FR should cover both and eventually this was adopted.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1813
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby CYHeli » Sun Apr 26 2015, 23:13

All flight reviews and the operational / private need to fly types other than what was flown in the flight review are always subject to the General Competency Rule. The Flight Review only means that the bare legal minimums have been met.

From the link,
The general competency rule is a cornerstone of safe operations. Before commencing a flight, pilots must ask themselves ‘Am I capable of conducting the operation safely?’
This is the equivalent of the medical ‘fitness to fly’ question, but relates to the technical and operational aspects of flying. It means pilots need to be sure they are fit to fly in all respects.
The rule is contained in Regulation 61.385 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998. It applies to all flight crew licence holders, from recreational pilots through to professional air transport pilots.

In addition to meeting other regulatory requirements, the rule says pilots can only fly a particular class or type of aircraft, in a particular kind of operation, if they are competent to do so. This means meeting the standards set out in the Part 61 Manual of Standards.


In short, although a pilot might have completed a Flight Review in one make/model of aircraft, they may require revision in other makes/models of the same class before flying the second, third aircraft within the class. This will become even more important if our proposed recommendations of a light twin class come in. A Flight Review on an AS355 will legally cover an EC135 or A109, but common sense says to do some company revision before flying the other.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby hand in pants » Mon Apr 27 2015, 22:24

"A Flight Review on an AS355 will legally cover an EC135 or A109, but common sense says to do some company revision before flying the other."

There is a very definite lack of "common sense" in Part 61.

" Talking to the team who put the new regs together, they did make the rule about separate flight reviews to reflect the SFAR73"

What countries regulation system are we "coming into line with". Funny how no other country has adjusted their system to come into line with us.
I just find it so difficult to be positive about Part 61.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1813
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Flight review

Postby CYHeli » Tue Apr 28 2015, 00:43

I just find it so difficult to be positive about Part 61.


Mate, I fully agree with you, but it is not going to go away, so I am trying to help steer it in a reasonable direction. And where I can, to help others get their head around it.
I would've have enjoyed doing an A109 rating with you before you hung up your spurs, but I can't see it happening.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.

Return to “How do I...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest