CASR Part 61 Question and Answers

[Arm out the window]

You can never use a CLASS to cover a TYPE.

Arrrgh - why not, in this case? (R22 and 44 are the only type rated machines in the common range of light-ish SE helicopters.) Why did they make it like this? I understand the overpitching / low rotor inertia idea, but they're no more complex or tricky than anything else - why pick on them?

[ChicoCheco]

Feeble attempt to copy over some FAA system bits, covered by SFAR 73 to Part 61 in USA, yet by the looks of it, CASA didn't get it right and now the advertised instrument (before they change 'brand new' system to something resembling old). Well, maybe Mr P Navathe should ground CASA for incurable & uncorrectable shortsightedness. Oopsy, then there'd be no reason to hold the chief aviation medical examiner post, would it?

In USA, any sub-5.7T(non-TR) heli flight review covers others, except R22 and R44, which cover other, what now seems the SEHC in Australia, but in FAA, light twin still gets away with checkout/company training/proficiency conversion. Not so in most of the rest of world.

Meanwhile, if they really wanted to copy more of the sfar stuff over, the FI would need 50hrs Robinson 22 and at least 25hrs R44 (crediting 25h+ from R22) to instruct on relevant type, besides other licensing bits.

Same as the external load, hoist, bucketing, incendiary ops. Or examiners/ATOs issue. So much lead in time/'planning' and even recommendations with down to earth practical common sense (CYheli) don't seem to make much difference till 'learning hard way' instruments start to fly.

I'd like to pass the air law exam (yes, should've been done year ago before this mess) in 2-3 months and not really sure what's there to be in it, other than 'old system' until further notice and month-to-month changing status quo. I don't envy AFT, Bob Tait's et al.

[SKIDBITA]

Does the chief pilot still conduct company base checks under part 61?

[CYHeli]

Skidbita, if the Ops Manual allows it, then yes, Ops Normal.
I'm holding off my answers for the other Type vs Class questions until we actually see the new instrument, but so far frog has supplied a perfect answer. Also the SFAR has been mentioned, which has been the cause of some of the confusion.

[Overspeed]

Ok. Here goes for a first post.

From my understanding, IFR currency - only 3 approaches required in 90 days for multi crew. That's all good. We now have 2D (lateral but no vertical guidance), and 3D (lateral and vertical guidance). CDI APP uses a CDI for lateral guidance and AZIMUTH APP uses azimuth bearings for lateral guidance (NDB). Now 2D = RNAV, VOR, LLZ, NDB, DME/GNSS. 3D = ILS. 2D CDI = RNAV, VOR and LLZ. AZIMUTH APP = NDB, DME/GNSS. OK, all good so far I think. If you do any 3 of those in any combionation you're good to go fly IMC approach as long as you only use the ones you are current in. The only thing I can't find out is if a 3d approach covers for the 2D CDI appraoches as did in the old regs (ILS covers for LLZ,etc). Mmmm....

Anyone please?

[Surprise]

Hello Everybody

Apologies if this has been covered but I couldn't find anything specific on it.

From what I understand,Part 61 requires (amongst other things) 1 hour of Solo Night Circuits before they can issue a Multi Engine Instrument Rating. I have sufficient Night but have not done solo circuits at night. (Night hours were logged overseas on a foreign license hence why no Night VFR or IR on my CASA License)

I have a current CASA CPL(H) with R44 on it, so my question is, in order to do the night solo circuits, will I need to do a NVFR Rating first, then go and do the circuits, or is there some way I can legally do the 1.0 of Night Solo Circuits under training without an NVFR Rating.

Thanks in advance

[Arm out the window]

Caution - reply off top of head, but:

You can be authorised by a suitably qualified instructor to fly solo night circuits as part of your training for a NVFR rating, so in your case you'd probably need to go fly with an instructor at night, demonstrate that you can do all the appropriate things (fly accurately on instruments, recover from unusual attitudes, safely fly a visual night circuit) AND have a good understanding of the rules, visual illusions etc) and be sent off to do your circuits as an unrated pilot under supervision.

[bob]

My understanding is that you must do 1 hour solo night circuits before you can do a Helicopter NVFR endorsement flight test.

Bob

[Surprise]

Thank you.

[ChicoCheco]

The IR requirements pretty much cover NVFR and more. Why would there be differences?

Surprise, if you have done any non-dual received night flying, ie instructing night flying, why not ask CASA (but expect to wait for official yes/no) if they'd recognise the PIC time. So long you meet the training requirements. The regs are aimed for ab-initio training without prior experience, hence all that solo circuits etc. Same in Europe for PPL NVFR pilots.

Ditto about 'intending' NVFR and then dropping out and finishing IFR/IR. Solo night sign off after some currency/instruction would do.
EDIT: Just looked at the regs again. It's right there. Still the solo night circuits. So guess no other PIC time 'would do'. Remembered it right.

Subpart 61.M—Instrument ratings (Newest CASR wording off commlaw.gov.au)
Division 61.M.2 Table - requirements
61.890
3
Single‑engine helicopter instrument endorsement
Pilot a single‑engine helicopter under the IFR or at night under the VFR
Single‑engine helicopter class rating or type rating for a type of single‑engine helicopter
At least 10 hours of dual instrument time in a helicopter or an approved flight simulation training device for the purpose
At least 5 hours of aeronautical experience at night as pilot of a helicopter or an approved flight simulation training device for the purpose, including at least 3 hours of dual flight and one hour of solo night circuits
4
Multi‑engine helicopter instrument endorsement
Pilot a helicopter under the IFR or at night under the VFR
Type rating for a type of multi‑engine helicopter
At least 10 hours of dual instrument time in a multi‑engine helicopter or an approved flight simulation training device for the purpose
At least 5 hours of aeronautical experience at night as pilot of a helicopter or an approved flight simulation training device for the purpose, including at least 3 hours of dual flight and one hour of solo night circuits

[LVDT]

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.

Just sayin.........

[Surprise]

Just another thing on the Class/type Stuff if anyone can help?

Just got my part 61 License through. On my Car 5 I had H269 and R44.

On my Part 61 it's now listed as

Class ratings
SEH (Single Engine Helicopter)

Type Ratings
R44
Etc (but no H269 anymore)

Question 1 - So how do I prove I can fly a H269, does SEH suffice?

Question 2 - I have two Multi Engine Helicopter types on my license under type ratings but still only says SEH under class ratings and nothing else. Should something say MEH (Multi Engine Helicopter) somewhere or is this how it's meant to be written

Thanks in advance

[purplecircle]

R22 and R44 are classed as type ratings, any multiengine ratings will also be listed as type ratings
any thing else AS350,etc will come under class rating..

Your logbook will show a endorsement under the old system or if your from overseas a sign off from an flight examiner

[hand in pants]

LVDT, point 10/ Fifteen years is a long time to re-invent the wheel.
They didn't re-invent it, they just made it a square.

I hope it doesn't take 15 years to fix this massive mistake.

[CYHeli]

Question 1 - So how do I prove I can fly a H269, does SEH suffice?

Very short answer, Yes. Also show them your log book with evidence of flying it.

Surprise, to add to what has been said, in future (who knows how long...) CASA says that a pilot will be able to download from the self service portal a list of all aircraft make/model that the pilot has received training on. (I'm trying not to use the word 'endorsed' because that has a new meaning now!)

When you want to fly a new make/model, eg B206, you complete the training and either a flight review or a test depending if it is a Type or Class. The Instructor or the examiner (as required) fills out a form to say that you have completed the review or test and the form will update your CASA records.

The instructor or examiner will also write on your Part 61 licence that you have conducted a flight review (or test), but again that will disappear once you get a re-print and you then have to download from the self service portal to prove previous type/make/model. Of course your logbook will show your experience, but there will not be any sticky strips etc entered into the log book in future.

All so wonderfully clear....

[Twistgrip]

Just for information sharing purposes,

My application was sent into CASA after completing an endorsement (Type rating) and filling in the new Part 61 paperwork for transfer of my qualifications on the 24/9/14 and was approved 15/12/14. So essentially a 3 month process.

I got the approval through my CASA Self service portal, I'm still however waiting for snail mail to arrive.

[Arm out the window]

Anyone know if the R22/44 rolled into SEH class thing has happened yet? I heard about a month or more ago that it would happen within a couple of weeks, so perhaps it has?!

[Surprise]

CYHeli and PurpleCircle

Thanks for the explanation. CASA sure is making this confusing

[Surprise]

Anyone know if the R22/44 rolled into SEH class thing has happened yet? I heard about a month or more ago that it would happen within a couple of weeks, so perhaps it has?!

I'm guessing it hasn't because my H269 is not on my new license (guess it's covered under SEH) whereas R44 is still listed as a type rating on the new license I have

[LVDT]

On another point - now that CASA has deemed that we have SE helicopters in a class, I am wondering what your insurance company has to say about it.

Insurance where helicopters are in a CLASS i.e FAA is a whole different nut than what you are familiar with now.