CASR Part 61 Question and Answers

[CYHeli]

Good find.
I had previously suggested that CASA issue Part 61 licences to ATO/FTE's so that they knew what they were approved to test.
CASA don't want too many people having licences issued at one time so resisted. This was the trade off, but I hadn't seen it until now.

[froginasock]

NVFR Changes out for comment by 21 Nov 14

It seems like a common sense change (at least to me) .... they've made a change - but haven't gone overboard.

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... =PC_101876

Essentially:
Instrumentation - NO CHANGE
Visual surface cues illuminated by surface lights or celestial illumination (moon) - MUST BE ABLE TO DISCERN THE SURFACE VISUALLY.
Up to 30min flight over water/land where attitude not-maintained by reference to ground lighting - GONE - MUST BE CONSTANTLY ABLE TO DO SO

OR

You'll require AUTOPILOT or TWO QUALIFIED PILOTS (see below & link above)

"for flights under VFR at night which involve flights over land or water where the helicopter’s attitude cannot be maintained by the use of visual external surface cues as a result of lights on the ground or celestial illumination"

or (in addition) you will require

"an approved automatic pilot or auto stabilisation system, or
operated by a qualified 2 pilot crew, each with access to flight controls"

[haroldthehelicopter]

"for flights under VFR at night which involve flights over land or water where the helicopter’s attitude cannot be maintained by the use of visual external surface cues as a result of lights on the ground or celestial illumination"

Is this not Instrument Meteorological Conditions really/practically....... Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc etc......

HtH / Devils Advocate

[Heli]

Wot 'Arold says.

And there are stable helicopters in the same way that there are unstable fixed wing: this needs far, far more research than lumping all helicopters into a new restrictive edict and allowing FW to carry on regardless.

[froginasock]

"for flights under VFR at night which involve flights over land or water where the helicopter’s attitude cannot be maintained by the use of visual external surface cues as a result of lights on the ground or celestial illumination"

Is this not Instrument Meteorological Conditions really/practically....... Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc etc......

HtH / Devils Advocate

It's a black duck ..

[Frame9000]

Has anyone received their new Part61 licence? My application went in 12 Sept and I had to re-apply 15 Oct as they've misplaced the first one. It still only says 'Application Received' on the self service site. Does anyone have an idea of waiting times or am I just the lucky one?

[stick_monkey]

Hey Frame,

Mine took about 3 weeks. Looks like you've had some bad luck.

SM

[CYHeli]

As you can imagine, discussions have been continuing with CASA regarding various parts of the legislation. Most recently an email and number of phone calls regarding the instrument (255/14) reported by slswa above has resulted in positive news.
I can report a new rumour that the R22 and R44 may soon be removed from the Type list and be placed in the Single Engine Class Rating, requiring training and a flight review. There may be other requirements, for example instructors may be required to complete a flight review on them to teach them. Hopefully a FR on one will cover the other.

At this stage, it is rumour only. The wheels have been set in motion within CASA, but let's see what happens over the next 2-3 weeks.
Thank you to a certain ATO for the call he made yesterday.

[UAT]

Any news on the FTE application process? This is starting to cause us issues and a lot of additional expenses for simple stuff like sling and winch ratings.

[CYHeli]

Any news on the FTE application process? This is starting to cause us issues and a lot of additional expenses for simple stuff like sling and winch ratings.

They are still writing manuals. I would seriously not expect anything for 12-18 months! Hence why there are so many instruments and exemptions coming out.

[Kenny Powers]

Does anyone have a Part 61 Licence with your Flight Radio Telephone Operator licence listed on it?

Just wanted to double check as one of the Part 61 licence previews CASA released a while ago had it listed on there.

[froginasock]

FROL is now an 'assumed' part of the licence completion. i.e. you wouldn't hold a licence without one. Still needs to be tested (ab-initio) on the way through - but it's assumed knowledge at licence test.

"IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS
1: An aeronautical radio operator certificate (AROC) is NOT a replacement for a flight radio operator licence (FROL). The requirements for a FROL, previously issued under CAR 5, are embedded in the training for the licence. Therefore this application forms is not required as part of a licence application."

[Kenny Powers]

Thanks for the info mate.

[CYHeli]

A reminder regarding "endorsement" as they used to be called. Being trained to fly a new aircraft make/model.

Within the next two weeks or, CASA are going to release a new instrument that will remove the R22 and R44 from the Type Rating list and place them in the Class Rating. Good news! Finally a flight review in one, covers the other, post licence.

But a reminder for students / instructors that if a student is training on more than one make/model of aircraft and only completes the CPL flight test in one of those aircraft, the student is only permitted to fly that one make/model. They must do a flight review after their licence is issued to be able to fly the other makes/s/model that have completed their CPL training in.

Use this as an example, a student starts training in an H269 and finishes in a B47. They complete the flight test in the B47, but there is no paperwork to issue them the H269 "endorsement". They hold a licence with a single engine class rating, but no evidence of training and a flight review under 61.747 for the H269.

The only paperwork would be the 61-9FR form and that can only be completed once they have passed their flight test. In fact I would wait for their licence to physically arrive so that the instructor can make an entry on the licence that a FR has been conducted on the H269.

Once the R22 and R44 are moved into the single class rating, you can swap those makes/models with the H269 and B47 as used in the above example. See the problem. Someone learns to fly in one model, does their test in another and still can't fly the first one without a flight review! We are working on a fix.

[jandakotflyer]

I'm glad to hear that the R22 and R44 will soon be part of the single engine class. I think this is a positive move from CASA.

I currently hold a R22 and R44 endorsement. I am looking into getting my B206 endorsement (initial turbine). I have spoken with a few people who have advised me that although CASR Part 61 does not state any minimum hours for endorsement completion, CASA personnel have advised that the previous minimum hour requirements should stand as "they have been working for years". So based on this, and the R22/R44 becoming part of the single engine class, I would be required to undertake 5 hours of flight training than a flight review to achieve the B206 endorsement. Is this correct?

Thanks,

JF

[CYHeli]

Yes, but wait until the new instrument comes out over the next couple of weeks. Prior to the instrument coming out you would need a test for the SEH Class to be granted. (61.750)

The training and flight review is under (61.747)

[hand in pants]

CYHeli. I think I'm still getting confused here because people (me included) are still saying "endorsement in a whatever" when it is a rating. The meanings of some words, endorsement, rating have changed.
We all need to start using the correct terminology or I'm never going to understand this new s#!t.
Can we start a thread with some kind of "this is the old term, this is the new term" or a dictionary for the new wording?

[froginasock]

CYHeli. I think I'm still getting confused here because people (me included) are still saying "endorsement in a whatever" when it is a rating. The meanings of some words, endorsement, rating have changed.
We all need to start using the correct terminology or I'm never going to understand this new s#!t.
Can we start a thread with some kind of "this is the old term, this is the new term" or a dictionary for the new wording?

This may help ... last few pages especially (abbreviations)

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... 0guide.pdf

and further info here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... ngs_fs.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... ngs_fs.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... review.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... opters.pdf

[UAT]

Yes, but wait until the new instrument comes out over the next couple of weeks. Prior to the instrument coming out you would need a test for the SEH Class to be granted. (61.750)

The training and flight review is under (61.747)

Hi Cy,

It's my understanding that the R22 & R44 are part of the SEH class, however, they're type rated, thus if you're rated in a 22 or 44, you have a SEH Class rating, but with type rated helicopters in it. So, adding a 206, 350, 120 etc should only require the training and a FR. This is why you can do a FR on a 22 or 44 and it will cover you for other aircraft in your SEH class. Well, this is the way it was explained to me by CASA. I thought the instrument which is due to come out, was to remove the requirement for a flight test for the R22 & R44 type rating? They will still remain a type rated helicopter, thus requiring FR every 2 years.

[froginasock]

Yes, but wait until the new instrument comes out over the next couple of weeks. Prior to the instrument coming out you would need a test for the SEH Class to be granted. (61.750)

The training and flight review is under (61.747)

Hi Cy,

It's my understanding that the R22 & R44 are part of the SEH class, however, they're type rated, thus if you're rated in a 22 or 44, you have a SEH Class rating, but with type rated helicopters in it. So, adding a 206, 350, 120 etc should only require the training and a FR. This is why you can do a FR on a 22 or 44 and it will cover you for other aircraft in your SEH class. Well, this is the way it was explained to me by CASA. I thought the instrument which is due to come out, was to remove the requirement for a flight test for the R22 & R44 type rating? They will still remain a type rated helicopter, thus requiring FR every 2 years.

For CY .. if he's busy

R22 & R44 are initially TYPES (you don't have a CLASS rating yet)...

your first CLASS rated helicopter will require a test for the CLASS ...

after that each new CLASS will only require FR ...

Ongoing - then can you use a TYPE to cover a CLASS in a (bi-annual) flight review. You can never use a CLASS to cover a TYPE.