CASR Part 61 Question and Answers

[Arm out the window]

Hooray, it seems the R22 and R44 are now part of the SEH class and should therefore not need a separate flight review.

CASA instrument 186/14 (the one that made them separate types) has been repealed as of 5/1/15, not that you'd know it from any publicised information from CASA as far as I'm aware. We found out in response to an email query to CASA; funnily enough I rang CLARC yesterday on the same topic and was told 'it hasn't happened yet and I can't give you any time frame.'

Anyway, I'm stuffed if I can find the actual new table of SEH types that contains these machines along with the 206, Squirrel etc but I'll try to link it when I do. All things being equal I believe we're now good to go with all those single engine machines in the class covering one another for the 24 month flight review requirement. Still low flying every year though, of course.

[crow]

Just wondering if the annual low level is likely to be repealed at all or is it here to stay. I would have thought that a system based currency would be more sensible ...

[CYHeli]

The old 186/14 instrument now ceased and repealed as of the 5th January.
Correct one is http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00013/Download

As per Schedule 14 of this instrument, all single class helicopters now cover each other and individual flight reviews are not required for the R22 & R44.
So regulation 61.745 of CASR 1998 covers all SE Class and one flight review is required to cover the class.

[Capt Hollywood]

I've given up trying to keep up with all the new Regs.

I think you could make a pile of cash CY by offering your services to companies that don't have in-house lawyers to decipher this stuff! Or better yet produce and sell a guide to the new Regs, much in the same way as the VFR guide simplified the VFR rules. Seriously, with regard to the link you posted above CY, I need an explanatory note to decipher the explanatory note!

Surely a statement such as the one below could be simplified so us mere mortals can understand it without having to read it 50 times. Read it once and tell me you understand it, I dare you! I have read it probably 20 times and think I have a basic understanding of what it's trying to say.

I pity the schools whose job it is to try and teach this stuff to students. (And the rest of us!)

Before flying an aircraft, a pilot must be competent in operating the particular aircraft. Consequently, even if the pilot is qualified to fly single-engine aeroplanes covered by the class rating, before flying a different type within the class rating, the pilot must make sure that he or she are competent to fly the new type, which may have different systems, performance and handling characteristics to the type of aircraft he or she flew when qualifying for the class rating.
Some aircraft, which are designated as type rated aircraft are, nevertheless, sufficiently similar in their characteristics to aircraft included in the class rating as to warrant recognition of ongoing competency checks (flight reviews) done in these type rated aircraft for the purposes of the class rating flight review.
Some aircraft have been included within a class although they are sufficiently complex or have performance characteristics that warrant initial type specific training and a flight review. However, once the pilot has completed that initial type specific training and the flight review, the competency of the pilot to fly the aircraft in the future can effectively be managed as a class rated aircraft.

[froginasock]

I see that again - NO EMAIL SENT - from casa despite being on mailing lists - NOTHING on Licencing & Regs link(s) on casa website - NO updated info sheets - NO updated links on to go to new instrument(s)

And they say to me all the time - USE THE WEBSITE !!?? Why do we need to troll com-law to find this out??

p.s. There are changes to low level and mustering training approvals (who got told??) No info emailed on low level & mustering approvals & tests instrument http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01802 .. this has been put on the casa site now (lic & regs) WHERE WAS THE MAILING LIST UPDATE???

Some good news to welcome to the new year - just poor comms flow

pissed .. frog

[Arm out the window]

Yes, they were certainly well aware that a lot of people were waiting on the R22 / 44 thing to be resolved, but there wasn't an email list announcement or anything useful to let us know, which would have been nice.

[hand in pants]

Doesn't this lack of information/communication from casa prove a large failure on casa's part.
I know ignorance is not a defence, but surely it will be a mitigating factor if someone misses a flight review or a currency requirement because they didn't know it was required.

[froginasock]

Doesn't this lack of information/communication from casa prove a large failure on casa's part.
I know ignorance is not a defence, but surely it will be a mitigating factor if someone misses a flight review or a currency requirement because they didn't know it was required.

.. or thinks that they can't fly 22's /44's if they did their FR in an AS350 and not R22/R44 .... or if someone pays $$$ for a flight review in an R22 and a R44 to keep both when they no longer need to ..

Timely & effective communication ??? ... I could go on ..

[UAT]

I see that again - NO EMAIL SENT - from casa despite being on mailing lists - NOTHING on Licencing & Regs link(s) on casa website - NO updated info sheets - NO updated links on to go to new instrument(s)

- Same same...

From the Explanatory Statement;

Instrument
For the purposes of the relevant provisions mentioned above, the instrument prescribes the aircraft, ratings, variants and other concessions. The instrument repeals and replaces CASA 186/14, being the current instrument of prescription dealing with aircraft, ratings and variants for Part 61 of CASR 1998. A new aircraft variant for the Grumman G-73 Mallard has been added, as well as a new definition for centre panel display system, which is referenced in the helicopter type rating list for the EC135 type. R22 and R44 helicopter type ratings have been removed from this instrument and are now covered under the single engine helicopter class rating in a separate instrument.

Is there another Instrument to follow?

[Arm out the window]

There's that many instruments they could start a symphony orchestra, but they'll need a conductor to get everyone on the same sheet of music.

[froginasock]

For CY .. I've been trawling again ... and found this little gem to add to the previous instrument .. Paragraph 8

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

[rotors99]

Good morning CY & fellow BS's - HELP

I just got my brand part 61 license. What a proverbial joke

OK so now on the part 61, type endorsements are now no longer shown on the new license?? Hmmmmm I got reply to this issue from CLARC (Victoria Gorjan | Part 61 Project Support Officer) She said: I now prove my 'type ratings' by showing the sticky strips & flying time in my logbook. WoW I have 5 logbooks spanning 25 years. My first logbook with B47, B206, H269 & R22 was lost in an office fire (reported)…….......so how do I now prove those endorsements? Are Pilot’s now required to carry each & every logbook they’ve owned over their entire careers to show a type ratings?

She has not replied to this question

The old method (part 5) worked; it clearly showed everything including (for security) my photo. Now we have no photo & no endorsements showing. So if my first logbook out of my five is gone…how do I prove my type ratings???

Also the short form acronyms, 'list of abbreviations’ 2 are missing from the list; ‘CLRSEH’ & "RPL’? I can second guess what these may mean, but it SHOULD be listed in the abbreviations.

What a KlusterFvk

[Evil Twin]

I've lost all hope of seeing my part 61 licence. I sent in my application and it shows as received on 10/11/2014. Further paperwork (for my IPC) was sent in last week. I imagine that all of this has now confused the feeble minds working in the department and now expect, at least, there to be a fur lined ocean going balls up on my new Part 61 licence and at worst they'll lose it altogether.

[Twistgrip]

G'day Evil Twin,

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It took mine three months from the time they received it. Don't get too excited.

[Evil Twin]

No worries Twisty

I have exceedingly low expectations of CASA's performance on implementing Part 61 in it's entirety. My new licence is merely another mud spot on the collective shirt

[CYHeli]

Rotors99, the CASA FOI's all carry ipads now with a link to their databases. If they ramp check you, they can check to see the actual aircraft make/models that you are endorsed on.
You will also be able to check the types yourself (eventually) on the self service portal.

I am told that CASA are extending the services on the portal to enable pilots to see, and print, their list of qualification, types, etc. This will be used for private hire by pilots of an aircraft, a job interview, etc.

For those that haven't used the self service portal yet, http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... c=PC_91499

[VRS]

Finally received my part 61 licence, submitted in October.
Now it's just a simple matter of deciphering the codes...

[bladewash269]

If CASA will be able to see all our qualifications immediately on their iPad, it begs the question: why do we need to carry a licence at all? The only thing I can think of is that some recency items might not be updated on the CASA system but will be entered on your licence.

[UAT]

And just to add fuel fire, the CASA Portal currently does not integrate into the new Part 61 database either. Below was my question and answer from CLARC this morning after checking the Portal last week...

Q: "When I log into the Portal, my license details are not up to date. In the 'Service Request’ area (as per below), it’s appears that my Instructor Renewal and Winch Endorsement have been processed, but neither of them appear in my Licenses section. Can you please arrange to have this rectified?"

A: "We have updated your licence with your requests, however portal is not compatible with our new database hence not showing they are updated. When you do the next FR or IPC please send the 61-9TX form so that we can issue your part 61 licence which will have all the updates."

[froginasock]

sorry .. just had to ...not to mention the cost!