Some interesting observations -
In simple terms -
1/ CASA Part 61 has taken 15 years to implement.
2/ CASA Part 61 is 511 pages long with an additional 175 pages to explain it. FAR Part 61 is only 118 pages and EASA FCL is only 193 and includes the Medical requirements.
Even if you combine FAR and EASA FCL in entirety you only get 311 pages. Whats with the other 200? The poor cousins to the East cover it in just 79 pages !!!!
3/ FAR Part 61 has no Type Ratings below 5.7 t MTOW. EASA does not have "Class Ratings" for helicopters.
4/ It would appear that the net result is that Part 61 was written and developed by F/Wing Flight Training Organisations who were heavily represented on the subcommittees and hence the lack of understanding of and poor representation of rotary requirements.
5/ Flight Training Organisations had a vested interest as the original Regs and Licences were lamentable outside Australia as they were not in line with ICAO.
6/ The above had commercial implications when attracting overseas "business". Non Integrated Flight Training no longer has the burden of an AOC.
7/ Where the helicopter community fits - according to the CASA Impact Statement each year approximately 6000 international students are trained in Australia and issued with a flight crew licence. Apparently only ~ 260 are rotary which I assume includes foreign and domestic............................
8/ CASA seems to be a bit optimistic and is geared up to cover "tilt rotors"(powered-lift aircraft). A case of "monkey see - monkey do" and cherry picking FARS? I seriously doubt we will see a Civil Tilt Rotor soon.
9/ It seems that in the beginning FARs were "cherry picked" and later in the process there was a move to align with EASA for some reason. Subsequently we have ended up with a "muddle" in between.
10/ Fifteen years is a long time to re-invent the wheel.