Part 61

General stuff that gets thrown about when Helicopter Pilots shoot the Breeze.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sep 2006

Part 61

Postby hand in pants » Mon Sep 11 2017, 22:18

Interesting to see that the whole part 61 bun fight has died off quite a lot.
Looks like they have gotten what they wanted. Force the garbage onto us and take little or no notice of what we say, knowing we will eventually just give up.

And we have.

I do note that there have been more extensions to deadlines because even after 3 or so years, they still haven't got it right, and never will in my opinion.
Part 61 has been the biggest step back in this industry EVER. Unworkable rules, confusing rules, misleading rules, dangerous rules. Rules so obviously written by people not involved in aviation in any way other than as an uniformed passenger. Rules written by lawyers, for lawyers. Rules written by academics whose closest association with aviation is reading their airline ticket, and probably getting that wrong too.
Rules supposedly written to improve "safety". That was the second biggest joke of the lot. The biggest joke by far was changes would be "at no cost to the industry". I still laugh about that one as I put my hand in my pocket once again.

We still have an authority that is run by someone with limited civil experience. Couldn't make it in the military so gets a job with his mates at caa, perpetuating the damage to the civil industry and accelerating the downhill slide.

Part 61 and 142,143 should NEVER have been implemented. NEVER. If they want to change the rules, write ones that will bloody work. Get someone who actually holds and uses a pilots licence to help. It's not that hard.

In 25 or so years I've heard that we are "coming into line with ICAO". We changed from the little book type licence (that actually fitted in your pocket and it had everything in it). Then we went to the credit card type licence. This one had nothing on it. Then we got 5 or 6 pages of crap that has lots of stuff on it most of which means nothing. And we had our photo on it. Now we have the same 5 or 6 pages, same useless crap on it but no photo.
All the new rules are to come into line with ICAO. Very handing if I want to fly over seas. BUT, I still can't do that, I'd need to re-sit all my exams and do a flight test before they let behind the wheel of anything overseas. We are still well out of sight of ICAO after 25 years of "coming into line with ICAO". Doesn't say much for those of us that are doing the "bring us into line with ICAO" does it.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
Niko
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 29
Joined: Jul 2014

Re: Part 61

Postby Niko » Tue Sep 12 2017, 01:44

hand in pants wrote:Interesting to see that the whole part 61 bun fight has died off quite a lot.
Looks like they have gotten what they wanted. Force the garbage onto us and take little or no notice of what we say, knowing we will eventually just give up.

And we have.

I do note that there have been more extensions to deadlines because even after 3 or so years, they still haven't got it right, and never will in my opinion.
Part 61 has been the biggest step back in this industry EVER. Unworkable rules, confusing rules, misleading rules, dangerous rules. Rules so obviously written by people not involved in aviation in any way other than as an uniformed passenger. Rules written by lawyers, for lawyers. Rules written by academics whose closest association with aviation is reading their airline ticket, and probably getting that wrong too.
Rules supposedly written to improve "safety". That was the second biggest joke of the lot. The biggest joke by far was changes would be "at no cost to the industry". I still laugh about that one as I put my hand in my pocket once again.

We still have an authority that is run by someone with limited civil experience. Couldn't make it in the military so gets a job with his mates at caa, perpetuating the damage to the civil industry and accelerating the downhill slide.

Part 61 and 142,143 should NEVER have been implemented. NEVER. If they want to change the rules, write ones that will bloody work. Get someone who actually holds and uses a pilots licence to help. It's not that hard.

In 25 or so years I've heard that we are "coming into line with ICAO". We changed from the little book type licence (that actually fitted in your pocket and it had everything in it). Then we went to the credit card type licence. This one had nothing on it. Then we got 5 or 6 pages of crap that has lots of stuff on it most of which means nothing. And we had our photo on it. Now we have the same 5 or 6 pages, same useless crap on it but no photo.
All the new rules are to come into line with ICAO. Very handing if I want to fly over seas. BUT, I still can't do that, I'd need to re-sit all my exams and do a flight test before they let behind the wheel of anything overseas. We are still well out of sight of ICAO after 25 years of "coming into line with ICAO". Doesn't say much for those of us that are doing the "bring us into line with ICAO" does it.


Hey HIP. Agreed on many points there - however I do have a question, which rules specifically do you refer to when you say "Unworkable rules, dangerous rules" - they are all misleading and confusing by design, so nothing has changed there...
stick_monkey
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: May 2011

Re: Part 61

Postby stick_monkey » Tue Sep 12 2017, 05:55

In 25 or so years I've heard that we are "coming into line with ICAO". We changed from the little book type licence (that actually fitted in your pocket and it had everything in it). Then we went to the credit card type licence. This one had nothing on it. Then we got 5 or 6 pages of crap that has lots of stuff on it most of which means nothing. And we had our photo on it. Now we have the same 5 or 6 pages, same useless crap on it but no photo.
All the new rules are to come into line with ICAO. Very handing if I want to fly over seas. BUT, I still can't do that, I'd need to re-sit all my exams and do a flight test before they let behind the wheel of anything overseas. We are still well out of sight of ICAO after 25 years of "coming into line with ICAO". Doesn't say much for those of us that are doing the "bring us into line with ICAO" does it.[/quote]

Disappointingly true HIP. It's still a ridiculous situation
User avatar
Capt Hollywood
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 799
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 61

Postby Capt Hollywood » Wed Sep 13 2017, 10:47

I had a CASA FOI tell me recently that he doesn't understand why they are persisting with all the changes to CAO48.1, he said that CASA wants to do away with CAOs all together and turn everything into Regulations!
Saucepan
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 99
Joined: Jan 2014

Re: Part 61

Postby Saucepan » Thu Sep 14 2017, 09:50

HIP, it may also seem evident with CASA's lack of direction and conviction that a certain level of apathy has descended on the front line of the helicopter industry. On this forum, 9 times as many people replied to what kind of headset to use rather than engage on the legalities and future of Part 61. CASA can lead a horse to water.....eventually....but... :roll:

Cheers SP.
Mike Becker
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 191
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: Part 61

Postby Mike Becker » Thu Sep 14 2017, 22:20

Not apathy. Exhaustion
When we get notices of proposed rule changes and do spend the time and effort to reply and make suggestions we have only ever had one actioned and that was the Low Flying Flight review pushed to 24 months instead of 12. Everything else is ignored or twisted. Don't know why they bother with consultation as it is only lip service and not real engagement.
Everything else they keep hiding by creating new consultation groups and thereby ignoring the previous input. New DOS new group!

Its not apathy its ground hog day and I guess we just decided not to play any more.
Ops normal
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 16
Joined: Mar 2016

Re: Part 61

Postby Ops normal » Thu Sep 14 2017, 23:49

Having Met with three FOI'S in recent time, we were encouraged to contact the Director about part61 issues. These guys had pushed as far as they could go without having a target on there back within CASA. This gives you an idea of the culture within. The place needs a massive spring clean from the top down, its a sheltered work shop for people making decisions about an industry they have little to no experience in delivered begrudgingly by front line people who have half a clue what's going on.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 61

Postby hand in pants » Fri Sep 15 2017, 03:26

Niko,
Mate, a classic example of unworkable rules, the fire fighting rating. Nobody had one after Sept 2014. There had been no such thing as all it required was a sling endorsement and low level rating. Then you did a check ride with your chief pilot and a bucket. Then most of us went out on a fire and were very careful with what and how we did things until experience kicked in. It's not rocket science. So the bright sparks make it a rating. All well and good, stupid, because we'd been doing okay till these clowns came along. So Just using me as an example, I've been doing fire fighting on and off for 15 plus years, no accidents, no incidents and no close shaves and hadn't caused any. At some stage prior to the fire season I'd go out and get my eye in with the bucket. I imagine it's the same for most of us. Now all of a sudden I need a fire fighting rating. Who could I go to? In short, nobody, because nobody could train me, test me, give me a syllabus to study and no information from caa. To me there must have been zero thought put into this, obviously written by an idiot or worse. Unworkable isn't a word I'd use in public as I'd have about 15 swear words added either side of unworkable.
Dangerous rules, as far as I'm concerned ANY law/rule that you can't understand is dangerous. From memory caa has a charter that states the rules are to be "clear" or words to that effect. For me, anything not clear and understandable is dangerous as it is open to speculation, my opinion on some of the crap that is in 61 will differ hugely to the bottom feeding lawyer that has me in court.

Hollywood, mate, all I can say is part 48.1 is a joke. It's obviously been written by people who don't work in or have even the slightest idea about aviation.

Saucepan, agree 100%.

Mike, yes, exhaustion is a way better term. Good thing you did with the low flying FR. It's just a shame that they added all the other normal things we do as helicopter pilots to the list of flight reviews we now need.

Why couldn't they leave it as currency. Don't fly low level for 2 years, do a check ride with your chief pilot, haven't done a sling load for 2 years, do a check ride with your chief pilot. For that matter, why does an instructor need to renew his rating every two years? if he have done any instructing in the last two years do a check ride with your CFI. Do they think we are that bad as pilots that we forget how to do things within two years. And please don't label it as a safety issue. Chief Pilots and Chief Flying Instructors should be able to check ride their pilots and decide if they are up to the job. The vast majority of Chief Pilots and Chief Flying Instructors are more experienced that any caa FOI (and I mean no disrespect to FOI's are they can only do what they can do and I'm sure they are spread pretty thin on the ground). Also, I don't know of too many companies that don't check fly their people on a regular basis. It's in their best interests to do so.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 61

Postby hand in pants » Fri Sep 15 2017, 03:32

2.1.2
CAA 9
CASA's functions are set out in section 9 of the Act. CASA may not perform any functions (or exercise any powers) that are not specified in the Civil Aviation Act.
1. CASA’s regulatory functions CASA has the primary function of conducting the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australian territory, and the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory (including the conduct of the operation of aircraft in New Zealand authorised by an Australian Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) with ANZA 3privileges) by:
developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards
 developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards
 administering Part IV of the Act (drug and alcohol management plans and testing)
 issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits
 conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety
 conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety-related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system
 conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

This is from the caa website.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
Bitch Slapper
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 2007

Re: Part 61

Postby Bitch Slapper » Fri Sep 15 2017, 04:52

In a NSW pre season fire briefing that i attended several years ago, a fixed wing company asked if he could do some sort of fire fighting endorsement and then be able to do firebombing work, because his pilots could not do fires right now because they did not have the min hours of fire time (they had many more hours of everything else needed), which they could not get any other way than by fighting fires.
Also a large Helicopter operator said he thought it would be a good idea to have one for the Helicopters as well, they meet with the big wigs of RFS and had meetings with CASA and at the end of the day the firefighting endorsement started to come to life. (so it was not started from a CASA point of view, industry went to CASA and asked for it) and to make things even worse the same fixed wing pilots cannot do fire bombing even with the endorsement because they still need the minimum hours of fire work, this endorsement does not wavier the hours needed, think its the same for Helicopters as well. so not everythings CASA fault. This may not be the same for fire work in VIC. ie: you dont need previous fire time in your log book to get work on the fires.

And HIP, you hit the nail on the head, when CASA see what you have put in your post
developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards

they will probably have to get that changed,

We are in a very sad state at the moment, and we are not looking like getting it fixed to anywhere near what is required ever!
FIGJAM
User avatar
Eric Hunt
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 748
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: Part 61

Postby Eric Hunt » Fri Sep 15 2017, 11:01

How about they add a bit:

"To develop a COST-EFFECTIVE way of getting aviation off its knees and back into business, and without the creation of forking ridiculous requirements to achieve and renew certificates for stuff we've already bluddy well been doing forever!!!"
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1820
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: Part 61

Postby CYHeli » Wed Sep 20 2017, 10:36

Hear, Hear. Well said HIP, Mike and others.

Dog's breakfast of an attempt to change the rules, let alone try to improve..... ha.
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.

Return to “On the Job”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests